CHD CEO Mary Holland Explains Why FDA-Approved "Vaccines" Are Never Going to Be Available in the US

Enjoyed this video? Join my Locals community for exclusive content at!
1 year ago

MyPillow Code: JDR

The term "bait-n-switch" is often used by people to explain a con. the vast majority of the time, the term is misused as a true bait-n-switch requires a promise that was always intended to be a lie and a reality that is the opposite. In the case of the military's Covid vaccine mandates and the government's handling of FDA-approved Covid vaccines in general, this is all one gigantic bait-n-switch.

Children's Health Defense CEO and General Counsel Mary Holland joined me on the latest episode of The Midnight Sentinel to explain why all of this is happening. How she explained it made me come to one conclusion: The FDA-approved Covid jabs will NEVER be available in the United States. Why? Because if they ever come to light, companies like Pfizer and Moderna will be sued into oblivion.

"When we brought a lawsuit against the FDA, precisely for that arguing that this was a bait and switch, this is a fraud," she said. "You can't authorize, you can't approve this vaccine and then have it be unavailable and then try to say, 'oh, they're medically interchangeable, but they're legally distinct.' That's a fraud. You don't have that available."

I asked her to explain the meaning and importance of "medically interchangeable but legally distinct." In her full explanation, it becomes clear why the mandates are allowed to go on despite clear evidence and unambiguous case law demonstrating the mandates are against the law, the Constitution, and the Nuremburg Code.

Here's her reply:

"So, there's a very clear case law that came out of the military's research of the anthrax vaccine. And the military was telling soldiers back in around 2000 around the time of previous military endeavors, you have to take an emergency use authorization, anthrax vaccine, and there were many, many adverse events.

"And so soldiers took that to court and they won a decision. And the decision was very clear from the federal district court in Washington, DC. The military may not under any circumstances, mandate an emergency use authorization, medicine, vaccine, drug, whatever. And the case by Judge Sullivan actually said, these people signed up in the military, they're putting their lives on the line for their country. They didn't sign up to be guinea pigs.

"It's very clear. The military can't do that. So what did Lloyd Austin do? The Secretary of Defense, He basically said, 'oh, we're not mandating the EUA, we're mandating Comirnaty.' Right? The licensed version of Pfizer. But we're going to let... we can't make that available to everybody — this was like their sort of the language in the letter from Pfizer, and then from the FDA — we can't make that available to everybody. And we have this excess supply of the EUA and really they're the same. So they're medically interchangeable, but legally distinct.

"Now, what does that legal distinction mean? Let me just explain the legal distinction because it's pretty important. So under an EUA vaccine, your only option is to go to the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, which is under Health and Human Services and the federal bureaucracy. And you have no compensation for your lawyer.

"It's all on the papers, the only kind of appeal is within HHS. And the only way that you can escape that bureaucratic administrative obviously biased process is if you can allege that there was intentional misconduct and you have to prove by clear and convincing evidence and only then allegedly you even need to have Department of Defense or HHS on your side and an enforcement action to go to any kind of court.

"I mean, it's absurd. Basically there's no remedy. However, if you were to get a licensed vaccine before it has been put on the childhood schedule, right. And we can talk about that separately. If you get a licensed vaccine right now from Comirnaty or from Pfizer or from Moderna as an adult, it's not got indemnification under this 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

"You could sue the manufacturer and we know that Pfizer in particular has gone to extraordinary lengths around the world to ensure indemnification for these products. In fact, with Argentina, we know they told Argentina, you have to put up your military bases as collateral. These are dangerous products and they don't really want people to understand how dangerous they are.

"But when they say they're legally distinct, what they're actually acknowledging there is you can't sue right now. The company is untouchable. And if they were to make these licensed products available on the market right now, they would really be up against it and they're not going to do that.

"And obviously the FDA is colluding with them in this. And that's why we believed we had a legitimate case against the FDA. And we had declarations from many military members who told the court, 'we're going to get this licensed product and they're not offering us the licensed product. And what they're offering us is an EUA product and that's against the law.'"

It's imperative that we continue to take as many legal shots at ending medical tyranny as possible. While individual cases are getting struck down, we need to flood the zone with lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit.

Loading 13 comments...