Topic: Eua

Justin Leslie shared internal recordings of Pfizer scientists admitting that the mRNA technology was being developed for flu vaccines as early as 2018. The recordings suggest that the COVID-19 emergency was used as a psychological operation to bypass traditional 10-year safety trials. One scientist is heard describing the vaccine rollout as a "money game" where even the CEO lacked 100% confidence in the product.

The manufacturing of COVID-19 vaccines is linked to defense contractors like Resilience, with Dr. Peter McCullough noting that products under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) are not subject to standard FDA inspections. This lack of oversight is blamed for significant impurities and varying lethality between vaccine lots. Data from Australia is cited, showing that nearly 100% of COVID-19 hospitalizations occur among the vaccinated.

A discussion on maternal health reveals that stillbirth rates allegedly did not rise during the 2020 COVID-19 outbreak but increased after the vaccine rollout. The segment explains that Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) products provide pharmaceutical companies with total legal indemnity. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics is cited to show a sharp rise in disability claims starting in May 2021.

Referencing investigative work by Sasha Latypova, Dr. McCullough claims that COVID-19 vaccines are produced by military contractors rather than traditional pharmaceutical companies. He discusses the concept of "hot lots," where certain batches of vaccines are associated with higher rates of injury and death. He also criticizes the bivalent boosters for lacking human clinical trial data before being released to the public.

Mickey Willis discusses his film "The Truth About Ivermectin," arguing that the drug was suppressed to maintain the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for COVID vaccines. The guests claim that admitting Ivermectin worked would have legally revoked the EUA. They note that the CDC recently updated its guidance to include Ivermectin only after the pandemic narrative began to collapse.

Robert Barnes explains the legal distinction between FDA-approved vaccines and those distributed under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). He notes that the EUA versions provide drug companies with complete immunity from lawsuits, leaving injured individuals with no legal remedy. Barnes cites data from insurance companies showing a 40% increase in excess mortality among certain demographics following the vaccine rollout, which he describes as a public health disaster.

The discussion focuses on hospital protocols, specifically the use of Remdesivir and ventilators, which Dr. Marble claims are designed to maximize mortality. He cites data from OpenVAERS showing over 30,000 reported deaths and millions of adverse events. Jones and Marble argue that the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) provides legal cover for pharmaceutical companies to distribute dangerous products without liability.

The rapid adoption of experimental vaccines that failed animal testing is attributed to a form of mass Stockholm Syndrome induced by isolation and fear. Dr. Lee Merritt points out that these products do not meet the legal definition of a vaccine because they do not stop transmission. The situation is described as a "globalist IQ test" where even intelligent individuals have been manipulated into accepting unknown technologies under Emergency Use Authorization.

Pharmaceutical companies currently enjoy total legal immunity because COVID-19 vaccines are distributed under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) rather than full biological licensing. California Governor Gavin Newsom's push to mandate vaccines for schoolchildren is characterized as an effort to secure permanent liability protection by placing the shots on the childhood immunization schedule.

An analysis of Pfizer's Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) data reveals that the "95% efficacy" is a relative measure, while the absolute risk reduction is only 0.88%. Dr. Fleming asserts that when statistically analyzed, there is no significant difference in COVID-19 cases or deaths between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups in the original study.

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.

Section 564 of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act specifies that individuals must have the "option to accept or refuse" an EUA product. The DOJ opinion attempts to parse this by suggesting only the manufacturer must provide the option, while employers can still impose mandates. Dr. Kaufman argues this interpretation ignores the hierarchy of law, including international treaties and the U.S. Constitution.

Dr. Farella explains that under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), the government can bypass standard safety laws that would normally pull a product after 25 deaths. She compares the COVID-19 pandemic to the 2017 flu epidemic, stating the medical response to COVID was unprecedented and "off-key." She argues that the U.S. reached herd immunity before mass vaccination began.

Attorney Robert Barnes argues that mandating COVID-19 vaccines violates the Nuremberg Code of 1947, which prohibits state experimentation on humans without informed consent. He explains that because these vaccines are under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), they cannot legally be mandated by employers or schools. Barnes intends to challenge the "trilogy of infamy" in US case law, including the Jacobson decision, which has historically allowed for forced medical procedures.