Topic: Comirnaty

A caller named Jefferson analyzes the name "Comirnaty," claiming it contains "miRNA" (microRNA) which acts as a "gene silencer." He links this to the "Knockout Mouse Project" and claims that the Omicron variant is an anagram for "Oncomir," a type of microRNA associated with cancer. The segment details his arrests in Melbourne during the pandemic and his struggle to share this information.

The broadcast concludes with a discussion on the aggressive deplatforming of figures like Nick Fuentes and the legal confusion surrounding FDA approval. Stu Peters asserts that there is no FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine currently available in the U.S., as the approved "Comirnaty" version is not being distributed. He encourages listeners to resist mandates and praises Governor Ron DeSantis for holding corporations liable for forced injections.

The FDA is accused of a "bait and switch" regarding the approval of the Pfizer vaccine, where the approved "Comirnaty" version is not yet available, while the version being administered remains under Emergency Use Authorization. This legal distinction allows manufacturers and healthcare providers to maintain immunity from liability for vaccine injuries. Doctors are reportedly refusing to administer the shots in their own offices to avoid personal liability, directing patients to large retail pharmacies instead.

Dr. Jane Ruby, drawing on 20 years of pharmaceutical experience, analyzes the Pfizer "Comirnaty" package insert and clinical trial protocols. She argues that the trials are ongoing until 2023 and that the FDA approval process was a "sham" that bypassed traditional safety stages. Ruby highlights the lack of data for pregnant women and the absence of drug-drug interaction studies in the current vaccine rollout.

The FDA's reported "full approval" of the Pfizer vaccine is characterized as a clever legal trick involving a bait-and-switch between legally distinct products. While the BioNTech "Comirnaty" vaccine received a conditional approval, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine widely used in the US only received an extension of its Emergency Use Authorization. The segment also notes that BioNTech has a joint agreement with Shanghai-based Fosun Pharma, raising questions about manufacturing locations.

The FDA is accused of regulatory malfeasance for granting conditional approval to BioNTech's Comirnaty while extending the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the existing Pfizer shot. Dr. Peter McCullough notes that the approval was based on legacy data and did not account for the Delta variant. This legal distinction has allegedly been used to facilitate vaccine mandates across the U.S. military and private sector.

Dr. Ruby and Stu Peters discuss the alleged sabotage of the Trump administration by Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx. They claim that the FDA's approval of "Comirnaty" is a "phony psyop" and that the package inserts for the drug lack the standard data required for a legitimate regulatory process.

A discussion regarding the FDA's approval of the Pfizer vaccine cites Greg Hunter's USAWatchdog and Dr. Robert Malone to claim the approval is a legal "hoax." The caller argues that the FDA merely extended the Emergency Use Authorization for existing stocks while approving a product called Comirnaty that is not yet widely available. This distinction is framed as a way to maintain the "no liability" clause for vaccine manufacturers.

Dr. Jane Ruby joins Stu Peters to clarify the confusion surrounding the FDA's approval of the Pfizer vaccine. She explains that while "Comirnaty" received approval, it is being used interchangeably with the existing BioNTech formulation under Emergency Use Authorization. Ruby points out that the "package insert" for Comirnaty is missing critical risk disclosures required for legally approved drugs.

Attorney Robert Barnes explains the legal "smoke and mirrors" behind the FDA's recent approval of the Pfizer vaccine. He argues that the approved version (Comirnaty) is not actually available, allowing Pfizer to maintain liability immunity under Emergency Use Authorization. Barnes contends that the FDA is playing a labeling game to protect pharmaceutical profits while avoiding the revocation of other experimental vaccines.