• January 11, 2022, the Health and Human Services Committee of the Maine legislature held a public hearing on LD867 “An Act to Prohibit Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccinations for 5 Years to Allow for Safety Testing and Investigations Into Reproductive Harm”

• Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist with a special interest in vaccine-induced illnesses and expertise in anthrax and bioterrorism, testified in favor of the bill

• All currently available COVID shots in the U.S. are experimental. None is licensed. Comirnaty, which has received full license, is not available in the U.S., and won’t be made available as long as doses of the Emergency Use Authorized Pfizer shot, BNT162b2, remain

• Since the COVID shots are experimental, U.S. law requires potential recipients to have the right to refuse. Experimental drugs also cannot be mandated, and potential recipients must give written informed consent. Informed consent cannot be given when reports of side effects are censored and not disclosed

• Some foundational safety studies are just now starting and won’t be completed until 2027

From [MERCOLA] January 11, 2022, the Health and Human Services Committee of the Maine legislature held a public hearing on LD8671 “An Act to Prohibit Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccinations for 5 Years to Allow for Safety Testing and Investigations Into Reproductive Harm.”

The American Cancer Society is vehemently opposed to this rational bill.2 In some twisted, incomprehensible logic, the ACS claims that banning mandatory COVID jabs would “place the health of cancer patients at greater risk.” How, one might ask, could that happen, considering the jabbed are just as likely to contract and spread the virus?

Getting the shot in no way, shape or form protects anyone around you. So, what could it be? One can only wonder if the ACS’ opposition has anything to do with their “long-standing partnership”3 with vaccine maker Pfizer, which in 2020 alone helped the ACS hand out $3.7 million in grants4 — but which also happens to produce one of the COVID mRNA injections?

If vaccine mandates are upheld, ACS’ partner, Pfizer, has lots to gain. But if mandates are banned, they could have plenty to lose. Among those who testified in favor of the bill was Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist with a special interest in vaccine-induced illnesses and expertise in anthrax and bioterrorism.

In her testimony, Nass presented several key reasons for why we need to prevent COVID jab mandates until there’s adequate safety data. Nass’ testimony is posted on her blog, anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com.5 Here, I’ll provide a summary review of her key points.

The COVID Shots Are Experimental

Yes, the COVID shots are still experimental. No, there are no Food and Drug Administration-approved COVID shots AVAILABLE or IN USE in the United States, and experimental drugs cannot claim to be safe and effective. FDA Code of Federal Regulations Title 21, Subchapter D Part 312:[3]6 defines a medical experiment as “any use of a drug except for the use of a marketed drug in the course of medical practice,” and vaccines are a subset of drugs, per the FDA.

“While FDA licensed Comirnaty ... only Emergency Use Authorized (experimental) vaccines are being used,” Nass notes.

What’s more, that term, “safe and effective,” is an FDA term that can only be applied to licensed drugs and vaccines. Since none of the COVID shots given is actually licensed, they are, by definition, experimental or investigational. Besides, trials have not yet concluded for any of the vaccine makers. They’re still ongoing.

“No matter what claims have been made regarding these vaccines, they are not ‘safe and effective,’” Nass says. “Medicines and vaccines are EITHER licensed products or experimental products. There is no gray area between them in U.S. law.

Whether or not research is explicitly conducted, the use of experimental products (including those issued under an Emergency Use Authorization) falls under the Nuremberg Code and under U.S. law regulating experimental drugs. As former FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn himself noted, ‘EUA products are still considered investigational.’”

Informed Consent and Option to Refuse Are Required by Law

So, the EUA COVID shots are, by definition, experimental, and when a person is offered an experimental product, U.S. law requires that they provide written informed consent.

Now, the informed consent requirement was loosened under the PREP Act that created the EUAs, but the law still requires that participants be informed “of the significant known and potential benefits and risks,” and “the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown.” Moreover, they must have the option to accept or refuse the treatment.

To this day, participants in this global experiment have NOT been told of the potential risks. They receive no adequate disclosure form before they’re given the shot, and Big Tech in collusion with government has censored any and all discussion and disclosure of adverse effects.

Even those who are reporting their personal experiences are censored and/or deplatformed. For a taste of what those injured by the COVID jabs have had to endure, see Del Bigtree’s interview with three such victims.7

How Liability Is Being Skirted

Nass then goes on to explain why — seeing how the FDA has approved the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID shot called Comirnaty — this product is not actually being used in the U.S.

In short, it comes down to liability. The two products are not interchangeable (as confirmed in federal court8) because they are not identical in terms of liability under U.S. law. (The liability issue differs from country to country, which is likely why Comirnaty is available in Europe but not the U.S. Everything discussed here applies only to the U.S.)

Indeed, a federal district court judge in November 2021 rejected the U.S. Department of Defense’s claim that Pfizer’s EUA shot, BNT162b2, is interchangeable with the licensed Comirnaty.9 Why would Pfizer give up blanket immunity by withdrawing the remaining EUA lots and replacing them with a product they can be sued for by people who are injured?

The Pfizer-BioNTech EUA product, BNT162b2,10 has very limited financial liability for injuries and deaths, thanks to it being under EUA. This liability shield extends to the manufacturer, distributors, administrators, program planners and just about everyone else involved in the making, distribution and administering of this product.

Comirnaty, on the other hand, as a fully licensed product, does not enjoy this broad liability shield. It is subject to ordinary liability claims. Strangely enough, the FDA extended the EUA for BNT162b2 on the very same day it granted full license to Comirnaty, and Pfizer has no plan to make Comirnaty available in the United States as long as BNT162b2 doses are still available.11

Why didn’t the FDA pull the EUA for BNT162b2 once it licensed Comirnaty? They’re supposed to be identical products, so why the two wildly diverging and contradictory lines of approval?

“FDA appears to have been acceding to the White House demand that the vaccine be licensed, in order for it to be mandated for large sectors of the U.S. population. Under an EUA, which specifies that potential recipients have the right to refuse, mandates cannot be imposed.” ~ Dr. Meryl Nass

By law, an EUA can only be granted when there are no other drugs available, so once a COVID shot was licensed, all EUA “vaccines” should actually have been pulled. As stated by the Children’s Health Defense in its lawsuit against the FDA and acting commissioner Janet Woodcock:12

“The black letter law is clear. There can be no biologic license approved to a medical product for diagnosing, preventing or treating COVID-19 if there is also still an Emergency Use Authorization for the same medical product serving the same purpose.”

I recently discussed this issue with Alix Mayer from Children’s Health Defense. If you are interested in more details please review the video below.