Exclusive series: The deceptions behind the injections (Part 2)

Exclusive series: The deceptions behind the injections (Part 2)

Exclusive series: The deceptions behind the injections (Part 2)

Did the federal government violate the rights of Americans – civilian and military alike – by mandating they take COVID-19 experimental "vaccines"? A researcher says by its own actions almost 50 years ago, Congress declared that an individual may not be administered an experimental drug under "sanctions," "coercion," or "undue influence."

Part 2: Intentional confusion on 'interchangeability'

In Part 1 of this series, Brian Ward – founder of the website CovidPenalty.com – contends that American civilians (under The Belmont Report and 45 CFR 46) and military personnel (who are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice as well) have the right to refuse experimental products or products that have not been approved by the FDA.

But he doesn't stop there: Ward also alleges the Pentagon, the Food and Drug Administration, and other federal agency heads have deceived America about the interchangeability of the vaccines available.

The first COVID-19 vaccine to be approved by the FDA (on August 23, 2021) was Pfizer's Comirnaty. Less than six months later (on January 31, 2022), the FDA approved Moderna's Spikevax, but remanded Moderna to an unapproved investigational new drug (IND) application. Spikevax, Ward notes, has no known distribution date.

"From the very beginning," says Ward, "[agency heads] inferred that BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine could be legally mandated because Comirnaty shared the same formula and was an approved drug. The way they wrote their directives gave the impression of legality; but in fact, it was nothing more than a medical statement designed to confuse the American people."

Ward states that according to Pfizer, "interchangeability means an individual may be offered either Comirnaty and/or BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines to prevent the same disease."

But the researcher argues it's being misapplied. "Making a medical statement that both substances fulfill the same purpose," he states, "is a far cry from informing a health care worker they can use BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in place of Comirnaty without obtaining the informed consent of the individual."

He adds: "Such actions are highly illegal and include criminal violations."

Distinctions were ignored

Ward acknowledges that the FDA told America that Pfizer's two drugs, Comirnaty and BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, had certain legal distinctions. "But governors and CEOs refused to investigate what those distinctions were," Ward tells AFN. Consequently, he says, "they are about to pay a significant price for their failures to fulfill the fiduciary responsibilities of their office."

According to Ward, the legal distinctions are the drug's classifications.

In a February 2022 interview with The Epoch Times, Marine Corps Master Sergeant Chuck Fourly (a pseudonym) shared his plight against the vaccine mandate.

On Tuesday, AFN obtained the senior enlisted officer's memo to his commanding officer which provides evidence that vials labeled FDA-approved "Comirnaty" in fact contain BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.

The contents of those vials, according to the lot number and expiration dates, fall under the designation of "emergency use authorization."

For that reason, Fourly stated he is physically unable to lawfully execute the order to be vaccinated at this time. 

"An experimental substance must abide a set of laws passed by Congress irrespective of another approved drug sharing the same formula," he explains. "The DoD nor anyone within the Department of Justice can produce a statute affording any authority the right to treat BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine as if it is Comirnaty for reasons of legal mandates." (See sidebar)

He continues: "Ask any judge in America if a plaintiff who was administered the BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine could use the statutes associated with Comirnaty interchangeably since they share the same formula – and that judge would laugh you out their courtroom because the drug label is the only mechanism by which we know which set of regulations will govern its administration."

'Volunteers' cannot be forced

Ward also suggests that authorities are "culpable" because they required citizens and employees to comply before the availability of full licensure drugs; and mandated those people participate in medical experimentation "under duress."

According to Ward, the mandates violated the U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Treaty (ratified by Congress in 1992), federal law, and the laws of all U.S. states because those states have codified 45 CFR 46 into their statutes and/or regulations. Specifically, Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states no person shall be "subjected to medical or scientific experimentation" without their free consent.

The term "subjected" means to compel under the force of law by one's government. But Ward contends that is exactly what has been taking place as thousands of service members have been separated from the U.S. military for refusing to volunteer for a COVID-19 experimental product.

"It has to stop," Ward laments.

Part 1 of this three-part series

Part 3 of this three-part series

DOD COVID-19 Regulations per CovidPenalty.com

Editor's note: In Part 3 of this series, Brian Ward explains why he is convinced the Department of Defense is illegally penalizing service members for not taking the COVID-19 inoculation.