Comirnaty and Pfizer EUA injections are NOT interchangeable, according to federal judge

by: Sara Middleton, staff writer | December 7, 2021

(NaturalHealth365)  When people say that the Pfizer COVID shot is no longer considered experimental and has been “fully approved” for use in all people older than 12 years old, one could argue that they are spreading misinformation.

This is because the Pfizer mRNA jabs currently being administered are formulaically the same yet “legally distinct” from Comirnaty – an obscured technicality that has huge implications for current jab mandates, according to some experts.

Read between the lines: FDA and Pfizer misleading public about “approved” COVID shot Comirnaty

Right now, when people go to CVS or another local pharmacy to receive the Pfizer COVID shot, they likely are not getting Comirnaty®, which is the licensed version of Pfizer’s mRNA jab that received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in August.  Instead, people will likely receive the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 shot, which is still only available under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

The fully licensed Comirnaty and the original Pfizer jab made available under EUA contain the same ingredients and formula. What’s in the vials, in other words, is allegedly the same.  However, the legal protections outside the vials (including liability clauses) are drastically different. It’s a confusing technicality that Pfizer and FDA have been hiding behind – and has allowed agencies around the country to force people to get a shot even though it is still considered experimental (investigational).

Here’s the thing:

As summarized by Children’s Health Defense in an article posted on its website on November 30, 2021, “There are key differences between fully licensed vaccines and those authorized under EUA.  EUA products are considered experimental under U.S. law.  This means [drugs available under EUA] cannot be mandated, and everyone has the right to refuse such vaccines without consequences.”

Do NOT ignore the health dangers linked to toxic indoor air.  These chemicals – the ‘off-gassing’ of paints, mattresses, carpets and other home/office building materials – increase your risk of nasal congestion, fatigue, poor sleep, skin issues plus many other health issues.

Get the BEST indoor air purification system – at the LOWEST price, exclusively for NaturalHealth365 readers.  I, personally use this system in my home AND office.  Click HERE to order now – before the sale ends.

Despite this, entities like the state of California, the U.S. military, and private employers throughout the nation have been enthusiastically enforcing mandates on children and adults.

Federal judge pushes back – Pfizer’s licensed vax and EUA vax CANNOT be considered interchangeable

On November 12, U.S. Federal District Judge Allen Winsor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida rejected a claim by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) that the EUA version of the Pfizer shot is interchangeable with the fully licensed Comirnaty.

In his order, issued in Doe et al. v. Austin, in which he ultimately denied a preliminary injunction from 16 service members against the U.S. Military’s jab mandate, Judge Winsor acknowledged that “the DOD cannot mandate vaccines that only have an EUA.”

The judge also pointed out that “defense counsel could not even say whether vaccines labeled ‘Comirnaty’ exist at all,” adding to the theory that there are no FDA-approved COVID shots currently being administered.

Apparently, the DOD admitted they have been forcing servicemen and women to get shots that are only available under EUA, but that this was acceptable, in their view, because the EUA-labeled vials are chemically identical to Comirnaty vials (“if there are any such vials,” Judge Winsor said).

The FDA’s argument was “unconvincing,” however, according to Judge Winsor, who added that “FDA licensure does not retroactively apply to vials shipped before BLA approval.”

Despite Judge Winsor’s statements, the Children’s Health Defense points out that “no court has yet issued a final, definitive ruling that an institution may not mandate a COVID EUA product.”  Only time will tell how the tide turns on this important issue.

Sources for this article include:

Would the US government let Jesus cure COVID?

by Jon Rappoport
In the 1990s, I watched a federal trial in a Los Angeles courtroom. The defendant was charged with selling medical drugs without a license.
The defendant was prepared to argue that a) the substance he was selling was naturally produced in the body and b) it was effective.
The prosecution moved to exclude such testimony, on the grounds that it was irrelevant.
The judge agreed. Therefore, the trial was nasty, brutish, and short. The defendant was found guilty and sentenced to prison for several years.
This is how the federal bureaucracy operates. “Do you have a government-issued license to heal? No? You’re a criminal.”
I believe that if Jesus of Nazareth were walking the Earth today, in the United States, he would be arrested on the same grounds.
This would be particularly so if he were curing COVID.
(Of course, as I’ve been proving for more than a year, the virus, SARS-CoV-2, doesn’t exist. Therefore, COVID doesn’t exist. For the most part, flu-like illness, and other traditional lung conditions, have been repackaged and relabeled “COVID.” So Jesus would be curing those lung illnesses.)
Imagine this extreme case: in a stadium packed with 50,000 ill people who have been diagnosed with COVID, Jesus waves his hand and cures all of them in a few seconds.
Now he is threatening the profits of many companies, to say nothing of the power of the government, which backs the vaccine-drug monopoly to the hilt.
So Jesus is arrested. He is put on trial. He opts to defend himself without an attorney. He tells the court that curing COVID is no crime.
The prosecuting attorney objects. “Your Honor,” he says, “whether or not this man has cured COVID is beside the point. He has no license to practice medicine. That is why we are here today. We are simply establishing that a) he was practicing medicine and b) he has no government-issued license. That is the scope of this proceeding.”
The judge agrees. The verdict is decided. Guilty.
Of course, on another front, the major media, who depend for their existence on pharmaceutical advertising, take the ball and run with it. The networks and major newspapers seek out “experts,” who emphatically state that what a man calling himself Jesus of Nazareth “performed” in the stadium was mere hypnotism. It was all a placebo effect. Whatever sudden “remissions” may have occurred are just temporary. Tragically, COVID will return.
Not only that, these 50,000 people have effectively been sidetracked and diverted from seeking “real care from real doctors.” With vaccines, with antiviral drugs, they would have stood a chance of surviving and living long normal lives.
Other media pundits send up this flag: “Many of those present in the stadium were bitter clingers to their religion. They refuse to accept science. They are living in the past. They favor superstition over real medical care. In fact, they are threatening the whole basis of modern medicine, since other confused and deluded Americans may now turn away from doctors and seek snake-oil salesmen and preachers for healing.”
From the highest perches of political power in this country, the word quietly goes out to the media: don’t follow up on those people who were in the stadium; don’t try to track them; don’t compile statistics on their survival rates; don’t investigate whether they were cured; move on to other stories (distractions); let this whole madness die down.
But among the citizenry, an awareness spreads: the government is controlling healing through its issuance of licenses. That’s how the government is essentially protecting one form of “healing” and enabling it to become an all-encompassing cartel.
What would be the alternative or the adjunct to licenses?
Contracts are agreements entered into by consenting adults, who assume responsibility for the outcomes. In the case of healing, a contract would specify that people have a right to be wrong.
Let’s say two consenting adults, Jim and Frank, agree to allow Frank to treat Jim for his arthritis with water from a well on Frank’s land.
The two men acknowledge that no liability will be attached to the outcome. In other words, whether Jim get better or gets worse, no one is going file a suit. No one is going to go to the government for redress of wrongs.
The well water may be wonderful or it may be completely useless. Both men understand and acknowledge that. But they exercise a right to try the treatment, because they are free.
Immediately people say, “This is ridiculous. Water can’t cure arthritis. Frank is cheating Jim. Jim is a victim. He needs to see a doctor. He needs to go on arthritis drugs.”
No, Jim doesn’t have to do anything. He is free.
To put it another way, Jim has the right to be right or wrong. It’s his decision, which is beyond the scope of any authority.
If government tries to remove that right from all of us, it is essentially saying it knows what is correct, it knows what is true, it knows what we need and require, and it’s going to give it to us even if it has to shove it down our throats. Does that sound like freedom to you?
If a man calling himself Jesus of Nazareth lived in the United States today, and if he went around curing COVID, he would be arrested. He wouldn’t be charged with blasphemy or treason. He would be charged with something much simpler and more mundane: practicing medicine without a license.
And he would be convicted and sentenced.
Because the government, in its throne of corruption, wants to protect its proprietary and illegitimate and criminal interests.
“If we kill you with the COVID vaccine, it’s within our right, because we ARE practicing medicine with a license.”