1. THERE ARE 2 DIFFERENT PFIZER VACCINES

The FDA admits in the footnote on page 1 of the Pfizer vaccine Fact Sheet updated September 23,  FDA approval letter for COMIRNATY®, the FDA alleges COMIRNATY® and BioNTech "share the same formulation" yet concede that "the products are legally distinct with certain differences."

2. COMIRNATY® IS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE U.S.

While COMIRNATY® may be FDA-approved, such approval is irrelevant when the vaccine itself is not even available. Take a look at footnote 12 on page 6 of the FDA's Sept. 22 letter to Pfizer:

3. 20% OF COMIRNATY® INGREDIENTS UNKNOWN

The FDA-approved COMIRNATY vaccine contains 10 ingredients, the BioNTech vaccine (the only Pfizer vaccine available), contains 11 ingredients.

4. BioNTech IS NOT FDA-APPROVED

While COMIRNATY® may be FDA-approved, BioNTech is not FDA-approved. Take a look at this excerpt from page 1 of the the Pfizer vaccine Fact Sheet:

5. NON-FDA APPROVED VACCINES ARE NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER SECDEF AUSTIN'S ORDER

THEY ARE CENSORING US

Big Tech has censored our fundraising efforts to fight for our military, federal employers, and federal contractors. We cannot win this fight alone & litigation is expensive. If you can donate $25, $50, $100, $500 or more please help us preserve this nation & our rights!

6. NATURAL IMMUNITY IS OVER 99% EFFECTIVE

Despite ~200,000,000+ infections nationwide, there is not a single documented case of a person contracting COVID-19 a second time a transmitting it to another person. 

If even 1% of secondary infections were transmissible, we would have observed roughly 2 million second & third cases with many requiring hospitalizations and coming to clinical attention. No such large volume of reinfection cases has come to clinical attention in any region of the world.

7. CLAIMS: DUE PROCESS & EQUAL PROTECTION

Any governmental infringement on a fundamental right, such as privacy or bodily integrity, is subject to "strict scrutiny." Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997). This means the government bears the burden of proof to show that the regulation (in this case, SecDef Order & Biden's Executive Orders) are "narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest." The government cannot mean this standard.

The Vaccine Mandates do not serve the compelling governmental interest of preserving public health because vaccination has been, and continues to be, a direct and proximate cause of death, permanent injury, life-threatening injury, and other losses of life or damages thereto.

The Vaccine Mandates, to the extent they do not cause death or injury, do not serve the compelling governmental interest of preserving public health because persons have contracted, and continue to contract, COVID-19 despite vaccination.

To the extent the Vaccine Mandates do satisfy the interest of preserving the public health, the Vaccine Mandates are not narrowly tailored because the Vaccine Mandates are not “the least restrictive means necessary.”

Defendants contend that preserving “public health” is satisfied through the vaccination of persons against COVID-19.

“Vaccination” is defined as “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.” Vaccination is not “least restrictive means necessary.”  “Necessary” means “absolutely needed.”

The Vaccine Mandates are not “necessary” because “the act of introducing a vaccine” is not “absolutely needed” to “produce protection” from a specific disease. Antibodies acquired through prior infection provide protection against COVID-19.

Natural acquisition can replace “the act of introducing a vaccine” because the objective Defendants contend “introducing a vaccine into the body” effectuates is the “produc[tion] of protection” against COVID-19.

8. EUA STATUTE:  21 U.S.C. § 360bbb–3 et seq.

Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA") § 564(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), "potential vaccine recipients be informed of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.” Id. at 6–7. The DOJ’s conclusion is also corroborated by both, the FDA and Pfizer. Specifically, Pfizer’s EUA Letter, Pfizer’s Fact Sheet, and the FDA’s Fact Sheet, all state “that recipients ‘have a choice to receive or not receive’ the vaccine.”

In July, Acting Attorney General Dawn Johnsen ("DOJ") concluded that “FDCA § 564(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) [requires] . . . potential vaccine recipients be “informed” of . . . “the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.” Id. at 6–7. The DOJ’s conclusion is also corroborated by both, the FDA and Pfizer. Specifically, Pfizer’s EUA Letter, Pfizer’s Fact Sheet, and the FDA’s Fact Sheet, all state “that recipients ‘have a choice to receive or not receive’ the vaccine.”

9. DARK HISTORY: THE JACOBSON CASE

In 1905, the Supreme Court held in Jacobson v. Massachusetts that vaccine mandates were constitutional – but, this was before the right to privacy was established. Secondly, Jacobson has a dark past.

22 years later, the Supreme Court relied upon Jacobson in the case Buck v Bell. In doing so, SCOTUS held that a Virginia state law mandating the forced sterilization of the mentally disabled was constitutional.

10. YES, YOU ARE INCLUDED

This action challenges the constitutionality of SecDef Austin's Order and Biden's Executive Orders. That means if the Orders are enjoined (i.e., an injunction is issued) the Orders will not be enforceable against anyone serving as an active duty service member or working as a federal employee or contractor. 

WE NEED YOUR HELP