Robert Barnes: FDA Approval of COVID-19 Vaccine Is A Scam

Banned Video ^ | 08/26/21

[Enlightened1]

Attorney Robert Barnes says the FDA approval is not what the public thinks. This is because once the FDA approves a vaccine it has to by law revoke all the Emergency Use Authorizations (aka EUAs) of all the other vaccines. They did not reverse and revoke Pfizer's EUA, Moderna's EUA and Johnson & Johnson EUA.

Under Federal Law EUAs cannot be issued if there is already an FDA approved drug on the market. The way Big Pharma got around that with Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, etc.. is to say they are only looking at other "vaccines". Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine are not considered vaccines. That the game they have been playing.

Plus under EUA there is no liability. Pfizer actually does not want FDA approval because then they are liable. What they approved is not even on the market.

See more below.

https://banned.video/watch?id=612801e527d8fc6ed4dc2e07

[EEGator]

Approved in 6 months.
What is the average time for approval?
How was a long term study done?
How many vaccines, ever, have used mRNA gene therapy?

[Bell Bouy II]

Will follow needs legs

[TexasGurl24]

Barnes knows better than this. Nothing in federal law requires EUAs to be revoked in this situation. Absolutely nothing. He can’t cite a case or statute that requires it either.

And the EUA is irrelevant to liability. The vaccine makers are immune regardless. They have liability protection under the PREP act and under 300-aa22.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/08/04/2021-16681/eighth-amendment-to-declaration-under-the-public-readiness-and-emergency-preparedness-act-for

[dforest]

Are you positive that foreign vaccine makers get the same immunity?

[Enlightened1]

What was approved is not available on the market, and will not be coming out.

What is on the market is not approved, and under EUA.

[Pollard]

Yeah and the election was a farce. So what? Fedgov and it’s agents and agencies are criminal and/or illegitimate. So what?

Wactha gonna do?

I suggest he take it to the Supreme Court LOL

[for-q-clinton]

uh you need to read the document it’s quite clear that there are legal differences between the FDA approved version and the EUA versions.

https://www.fda.gov/media/144414/download

“The licensed vaccine has the same formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can
be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness
concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or
effectiveness.”

[D Rider]

Doesn’t that place the Secdef in violation of the Nuremberg codes by ordering all the military to be vaccinated?

[Enlightened1]

If you watch the full video he covers why.

Moreover, if you were correct, then Barnes law firm said they would be withdrawing their lawsuits.

[Enlightened1]

I believe that is the case, but lawyers will have to sort it out.

[tbpiper]

The time since they formally requested was closer to 90 days I think. The "gold standard" for vaccine approval is from 10 to 12 years. It goes a lot faster when you trade real, rigorous science for a rubber stamp. The "approval" was basically just putting lipstick on a pig.

[EEGator]

I disagree with that. They said the two vaccines may be used interchangeably, which means it is approved as well.

[TexasGurl24]

Please, explain in detail, with citations to case law and statutory authority, what it is that you think you know.

No cutting and pasting from blogs or Qtards. You need to cite specific statutes, CFR and case law.

(Hint: I already know the answer here, but let’s see if you can get it.)

[TexasGurl24]

LOL! Like Lin Wood?

[TexasGurl24]

Yes. You are correct. I’ll explain later as to why that is, but I want to see if folks that just regurgitate with social media posts, can actually cite to the legal authority that they think supports their position.

[Enlightened1]

Robert Barnes is a very successful lawyer.

Although I am sure you know the laws better than he does...(sarcasm off)

[TexasGurl24]

Yep. Barnes is primarily a tax lawyer and now a political commentator.

He also likes to grandstand.

You know absolutely nothing about my background.

So your appeal to authority, fails.

[Dr. Franklin]

Barnes knows better than this. Nothing in federal law requires EUAs to be revoked in this situation. Absolutely nothing. He can’t cite a case or statute that requires it either.

The language in the statute is as follows:
" that there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or condition"
So the approved Comirnaty mRNA treatment must be both approved and available before the EUA must be revoked, and ti won't be available any time soon.

And the EUA is irrelevant to liability. The vaccine makers are immune regardless. They have liability protection under the PREP act and under 300-aa22.

The EUA is not irrelevant to liability. If these products were chemically and biologically identical, why the differing legal categories for each? The PREP act can be reversed, and since forced vaccinations likely violate human rights laws, Big Pharma could very easily be subject to litigation in foreign courts. BioNTech, the licensee for Comirnaty, is a German company and is subject to the jurisdiction of the German courts. Foreign courts may not care what the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services decreed about experimental "vaccines".

[grey_whiskers]

Oh look, another troll.

Dance, monkey.