We did our homework. We’ve checked with our lawyers. There is no shot available in the USA that was produced and manufactured as FDA approved “Comirnaty.”
This is a brief overview. We have on record all 50 states admitting they don’t have Pfizer’s Comirnaty OR the Moderna equivalent.
They bluffed and intimidated hundreds of millions of people into taking an experimental drug.
Because it was not produced or manufactured under the Comirnaty label, Pfizer continues to assume zero liability for its EUA injection—meaning anyone injured from it cannot hold Pfizer liable.
Meanwhile, had they distributed an approved shot, Pfizer itself would be held liable, because they do not yet have the protection of the US government’s National Vaccine Program. This has been covered up by health agencies, and has been purported by the nations media. We are here to expose it.
Copied on 2022-04-04 from:
TheComirnatyProject – YouTube
- a small admission tucked away on page 23 of the latest Public Health England vaccine surveillance report. Ac cording to “recent observations from UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data, … N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination.”
- Our Corona vaccines elicit antibodies against the spike protein alone, while natural infection provokes antibodies against other virus proteins as well, including the nucleocapsid or N protein. The broad spectrum of natural immune response is why recovered individuals enjoy much greater and longer-lasting protection, than people who have been merely vaccinated.
- The vaccinators have always insisted that there’s nothing to see here. You can get the spike-specific protection of vaccination, they say, and pick up broader-based protection from low-risk natural infection later on. The problem, though, is that the vaccines appear to influence subs equent immune response, focusing antibodies on legacy spike and making it much easier for SARS-2 to escape immune resistance. Potentially for good, and in billions of people.
- The PHE reports have been tracking antibodies against the N protein in blood donors for a while now, as a means of assessing the prevalence of natural infection in the population. Here’s what that looks like:
- Notice how flat the prevalence of anti-N antibodies remains over time, despite pervasive SARS-2 infections across the UK.
- For comparison, anti-S antibodies in these same donors – which are elicited both by vaccines and by infection – have plateaued at 96%.
- If our vaccines were pre-programming the immune response to focus only on the spike protein, this is what that would look like. Thus the report authors are compelled to admit that prior vaccination inhibits anti-N antibodies.
- In return for only limited protection against severe outcomes, the vaccines appear to encourage the spread of SARS-2, in multiple different ways. In continuing to insist on mass vaccination, our public health bureaucrats are doing the bidding of the virus. There is no other way to look at it.
This message was sent to you by Robertcoss via Diigo
- The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today posted updated and expanded technical assistance related to the COVID-19 pandemic, addressing questions about religious objections to employer COVID-19 vaccine requirements and how they interact with federal equal employment opportunity (EEO) laws.
- The expanded technical assistance provides new information about how Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies when an applicant or employee requests an exception from an employer’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement that conflicts with their sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, or observances.
The key updates to the technical assistance are summarized below:
- Employees and applicants must inform their employers if they seek an exception to an employer’s COVID-19 vaccine requirement due to a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance.
- Title VII requires employers to consider requests for religious accommodations but does not protect social, political, or economic views, or personal preferences of employees who seek exceptions to a COVID-19 vaccination requirement.
- Employers that demonstrate “undue hardship” are not required to accommodate an employee’s request for a religious accommodation.
- The EEOC is providing this information to the public as many employers are requiring employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condition of their employment.
- This technical assistance answers COVID-19 questions only from the perspective of the EEO laws. Other federal, state, and local laws come into play regarding the COVID-19 pandemic for employers, employees, and applicants. As new developments occur, the EEOC will consider any impact they may have on EEOC’s COVID-19 technical assistance and will provide additional updates and assistance to the public as needed.
This message was sent to you by Robertcoss via Diigo
- October 15, 2021
- Hang on. Help is on the way. There is a hope, a bank-shot, and an opportunity for a bit of elbow grease from some of you.
If all goes according to hope, next week a federal class action lawsuit will be filed against the boss of a federal organization (not the DOD). The plaintiffs will be employees of that federal organization. They will be seeking Temporary Restraining Orders and permanent injunctive relief.
- Imagine a beehive in the center of which is nestled and guarded a queen bee (Tore).
- Over the last few months, , Tore has been conjuring and plotting with that group, and in the last three weeks it gushed forth:
- 20 federal lawsuits challenging school mask mandates in 20 federal districts;
- 48 state Supreme Courts lawsuits challenging vaccine mandates within the state.
- These are serious lawsuits drafted by volunteer lawyers contributing time to a virtual law firm shielded within the hive. The canonical suit was drawn up collaboratively by lawyers volunteering from several big firms. Cells holding industrial engineers and physicians and scientists injected the most current scientific research into the cases. The cloning has been done by lawyers/paralegals within the relevant geographic chapters doing the research on varying state constitutional and legislative language necessary to localize the canonical suit. Shielded within the hive and with no more effort than a maestro makes whisking xir’s baton, Tore has built (or more precisely, around Tore has organized) a mass-movement with an open-source sophistication at which I marvel.
- Here is how it is going to work:
This message was sent to you by Robertcoss via Diigo
|FROM THE DESK OF ANA GARNER|
|NMSUP co-counsel John Diener and volunteer attorney Vanessa De Niro filed a lawsuit against LANL under the Truth and Justice Firm. The suit was filed in Los Alamos in State District Court, Los Alamos district. Thursday October 14th; Judge Lidyard, First Judicial District Court of New Mexico, heard arguments from the plaintiffs council (DeNiro and Diener) seeking injunctive relief preventing LANL from terminating unvaxxed employees in which Vanessa and Jon gave a brilliant and compelling presentation of the true facts – no stone was left unturned.The audio recording of the hearing has been ordered and will be posted on the HOME PAGE of NMSTANDSUP.ORG by the end of this month. I encourage every Lab employee and really, everyone, to listen. It is interesting and telling of the State of affairs of New Mexico. You’ll hear just how well Jon and Vanessa represented these good people, and will learn a lot.The judge ruled in favor of LANL stating there was NO HARDSHIP to the plaintiffs for the immediate and indefinite loss of income and pending loss of security clearance required for employment in this field. The conclusion was that these highly specialized technicians could simply find other jobs. This ruling is not the end of the matter. The attorneys are considering other options. I’ll keep you posted.(Prior to this lawsuit NMSUP counsel, with the invaluable help of legal volunteers, drafted and distributed Cease and Desist letters to both Los Alamos and Sandia National Labs to assist individuals in pushing back against the vax mandates.)In another vax case, (not under the NMSUP banner) Ana Garner is representing a divorced dad who opposes the other parent, the mother, over injecting their teenage sons. In this case, the Judge erroneously entered an order mandating the vax for the teens without a hearing or evidence being presented. All of the ‘vaccines’ for COVID are allowed only under Emergency Use Authorization, which by definition makes the product investigational and experimental. The law states that where a medical product is “unapproved” no one may be mandated to take it.The only COVID 19 vaccine that received FDA approval (which is different from being granted Emergency Use Authorization) is the Comiraty by Pfizer, which is not available in the United States at this time. Furthermore, because vaccine centers, CDC, FDA and the vaccine manufacturers ask the recipient to grant indemnification on the consent form before injection, all injuries incurred by children and adults are at their own cost. In this case, Peter A. McCullough M.D. who specializes in Cardiology and Internal Medicine prepared a detailed affidavit (Dr. McCullough’s affidavit is posted here) on the risks to children under 18. He describes the mechanism of the gene therapy mRNA vaccines. The mRNA codes the DNA of the subject to produce a dangerous toxin, Spike 1 Protein. The body mounts a defense against this Spike 1 Protein which causes inflammation among many organs, especially hearts and especially for young men. Known side effects from the shots are myocarditis and pericarditis.Dr. McCullough concludes that in the case of divorced parents disputing over vaccinating their teenagers, “I do not believe receiving the COVID 19 vaccine is in the best interest of minor children, as the risks outweigh the potential benefits. Nor would vaccinating children offer any benefit to their mother or prevent her from getting COVID 19. She is actually at greater risk of getting ill from a variant from the shedding that occurs following vaccination.”After reading this affidavit from Dr. McCullough, will the mother persist with this case?? As of the posting of this UPDATE there has been no response otherwise. Now armed with Dr. McCullough’s esteemed and irrefutable testimony we await a hearing date.|
Copied on 2021-10-21 from:
NM STANDS UP – UPDATE! – OCTOBER 21