The Missing Link: Legally Distinct

As many of you have seen, Jordan Schachtel has been doing an outstanding job of exposing issues surrounding the military vaccine mandate. So after reading his recent post, that has amazing and talented references (heh) I wanted to expound on a topic he brings up. Here is the link if you haven’t read over it. I suggest you take the time, its worth the read. What I want to focus on is the concept of “legally distinct,” and the ongoing deception with the Department of Defense. 

The phrase legally distinct was first seen in 3 places after the Augut 23, 2021 approval of Comirnaty; the original Letter of Authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech EUA vaccine after Comirnaty was given its licensing approval, then again in the Vaccine Fact Sheet and on the FDA Q&A Page for Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty. 

The screenshot above is from the Q&A page for Comirnaty that our beloved Terry Adirim uses as the footnote reference in her September 14, 2021 Covid 19 vaccination memo. Terry Adirim clearly instructs that healthcare providers “should” and “will” use the EUA product and the licensed product interchangeably to satisfy the vaccine mandate. This memo is at odds with the reference since it states that they “can” be used interchangeably. She has effectively mandated the use of Emergency Use products by her inability to read and comprehend, or more likely its purposefully deceptive. 

Here is her memo as a refresher and all the ways that it is incorrect. (sorry you can’t click the links here because I lazily screenshot stuff).

And additionally since it is very evident… the evidence, that the August 23, 2021 approved product was never produced according to the licensing agreement, ergo there was never a licensed product available to any service members, especially by the final Active Duty deadline of December 15, 2021. Meaning the only thing the EUA product was interchangeable with was other EUA products. Thus completely defying Secretary Austin’s memo. 

So now that we have set the stage and gotten a bit of history lets move on to more recent guidance put out by the Defense Health Agency in a June 16, 2022 memorandum about the DoD vaccination program. There are some updates to the language and there are added references that are intriguing if you have been following the legal issues around the mandate. 

Signed Dhaipm 20004 Reissuance Covid19 Vaccination Program

628KB ∙ PDF File

Read now

Here is a copy of the June 16, 2022 updated memo. 

So you may be asking, Janine we know, what’s your point? LET’S GET INTO IT!

On September 29, 2021 there was a Congressional Report released that was written by 2 legislative attorney’s and one health policy analyst. Pretty good credentials in my opinion, and a very good understanding of the law and the intent of the FDA. You can find the REPORT here. You can also find it as a reference (q) in the June 16, 2022 memo. Isn’t that just groovy? 

Now what I like most about this report is this

Seems like this would be an important message to convey to the military members receiving these vaccines. But nah, they just want to cherry pick this report, and this is how they used it. 

So reference (o through q) is all about how the products are interchangeable, but nothing about legally distinct. Reference Q is the congressional report that thoroughly explains legally distinct so why not explain it? Why has this incredibly important part of the “guidance” been ignored and removed? Is it because, as the last government lawyer idiotically said right in front of me, “the law is irrelevant”?

Midway into that paragraph it states, “Reference (o) providers will use the PBS-buffer Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and the PBS-buffer Pfizer-BioNTech/COMIRNATY® COVID-19 vaccine interchangeably for the purpose of vaccinating Service members to meet DoD COVID-19 vaccination requirements.” Reference O? That one seems important since its mentioned twice. So what is it?

Ah snap its Terry! And as Terry did in her memo, they are telling providers they WILL use the EUA product to satisfy the “requirement.” Weird they didn’t say mandate? Anywho, a call back to Jordan Schachtel’s piece. Terry is flipping and flopping like a beached whale with no rescue in site. She is trying her best each time she is challenged to wash her hands of her order, but as of June 16, it has come full circle to bite her. 

And she’s right, Secretary Austin did mandate the vaccines, but what she fails to recognize here is that she created the policy the DoD has hung its hat on to violate the rights of service members. She has taken to her social media to call people like me trolls and antivaxxers (I tip my hat to be a troll, thank you) and has blatantly lied saying that Comirnaty was available to SMs. 

Like here

Or here

I like this one the most. Right label? Huh….

I dunno man. She should stay off twitter. 

The bottom line is, they know.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
1 Comment
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
1 year ago

Bait-and-Switch. To make matters worse, the RFK Jr. Children’s Health Defense suit against the FDA for the bait-and-switch came up with two problems.
1) Pfizer claims that because the Government (i.e. the FDA) knew that Cominarty was unavailable, this was sanctioned and therefore not illegal. Even though we’re probably a year since BLA approval, and BLA Cominarty is still unavailable.
2) The Courts refuse anybody standing to sue the FDA. Nobody wants to hold the FDA accountable for mucking everything up by issuing the BLA approval, and the EUA extension on the same day. And repeating that a 2nd time with Moderna/Spikevax. On top of this, the rules governing granting an EUA are when there is no other treatment available, but we can’t sue them on that.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
Share to...