Tuesday, August 31, 2021

ACIP vote yesterday after deceitful CDC briefings removes liability from Comirnaty, opening the door to mandates

In a nutshell:  Yesterday CDC asked its advisory committee to "recommend" the Comirnaty vaccine for 16 and 17 year olds. And it agreed, unanimously. Or pusillanimously.

The vote may seem silly or superfluous, because it had already been recommended for this age group as an EUA.

But this vote was anything but superfluous. This seemingly minor recommendation, which did not get headlines, moves the licensed Comirnaty vaccine from a place where the manufacturer is legally liable for injuries, to a berth within the Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, for which there is no manufacturer liability.  Instead a $0.75 excise tax is charged per dose, which goes into a fund administered by DHHS to pay for injuries, if one is lucky enough to convince the special masters (judges) in the program that a vaccine caused your injury. Once a vaccine is recommended for children, its liability is waived no matter who receives it.

But the important part is that once this process is complete (which I expect to be only a very few weeks), Pfizer can roll out stocks of the licensed vaccine while still having its liability waived.  That means that the loophole I told you about last week is being backfilled by the USG, with the help of the supine and spineless ACIP committee members, and will soon disappear.

I say spineless with true conviction, because the briefings they received yesterday were a load of fraud and hogwash.  Yet no one challenged the data nor the conclusions. It is hard to believe that the lot of them are really that stupid that they believed what they heard.  It is also hard to believe that none of them had a conflict of interest, which they all asserted along with their vote.

Furthermore, no one ever actually said why the vote was held:  which was for liability purposes, nor that the vote would lead to mandates, which could not be implemented under the EUA.

So, it is disappointing.

Children's Health Defense went to court today in Tennessee to challenge the FDA on issuing both a license and EUA for the same product.  AFLDS also went to court today in Colorado challenging the mandate.  More on these cases later.


Anonymous said...

Red Cross Vaccine Alert — You Gotta Hear This!

Anonymous said...

1.) Two Senior FDA Officials Stepping Down Over Reported Disagreements With White House Over Booster Shots!

2.) Ohio Judge Orders Hospital To Treat Ventilated COVID-19 Patient With Ivermectin. 'Hopefully Not To Late?'

Anonymous said...

So Terrible!! Disgusted!! What else do we have to put up with?

Anonymous said...

The employer mandates are a problem, but I just watched a family member, inspired by this FDA action, emotionally manipulate my covid-recovered wife and attempt to get her to take the shots.

-Zero proof of long-term side effects!
-Reduces re-infections and symptoms!
-Why would doctors want to harm you?
-They spent huge amounts of money making it safe!

I hear your concerns, but I love you, and all I'm doing is scheduling your appointment. We can talk more later.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Nass, it is my understanding that workers are generally entitled to privacy regarding their medical conditions and treatments. For example, this fact sheet from the EEOC spells out the rights for persons with HIV/AIDS infections:


The first section spells out pretty clearly:

1. Am I Allowed to Keep My Condition Private?

In most situations, you can keep your condition private. Generally, employers cannot ask you whether you are HIV-positive, or whether you have any other medical condition, before making a job offer. An employer is allowed to ask medical questions in four situations:

When it is engaging in affirmative action for people with disabilities, in which case you may choose whether to respond.
When you ask for a reasonable accommodation (see Question 3).
After it has made you a job offer, but before employment begins, as long as everyone entering the same job category is asked the same questions.
On the job, when there is objective evidence that you may be unable to do your job or that you may pose a safety risk because of your condition. Your employer cannot rely on myths or stereotypes about your condition to conclude that you are unable to do your job or pose a safety risk.

Under what legal principle/precendent would these rules not pertain to coronavirus as well? Is it legal that employees are being compelled to report their personal medical treatments in regard to their injection status, one way or another, or else lose their job?

Thank you for your help!

Anonymous said...

EGCG, a green tea polyphenol, inhibits human coronavirus replication in vitro.
Finally, we found that EGCG treatment decreased the levels of coronavirus RNA and protein in infected cell media. These results indicate that EGCG inhibits coronavirus replication.

If correct a preventative pill with EGCG in it, or drink a cup of Green Tea with EGCG in it a day, add some zinc? Plus Fauci's own agency have you heard him mention it?

Anonymous said...

Harvard Epidemiologist Says The Case For COVID Vaccine Passports Was Just Demolished!

Anonymous said...

Back on February 25 of 2019, Dr. Nass wrote an article titled "Childhood Vaccines that are Unjustifiably Mandated" (Perhaps it is a good time to republish that article)

I found it here:

In summary, vaccines are not mandated to improve public health, they are mandated to increase vaccine sales! This is just one tool of many that Big Pharma / Big Vaccine is using to accomplish their objective of increasing their revenues.

Anonymous said...

'‘Poison death shot’: Dr Zelenko testifies before Israeli Rabbinical court'

Anonymous said...

SHOCKING! Japan Reports More Metal Shavings in Moderna’s Covid Jab!