In a rebuke of the Pentagon, a Navy administrative separation board unanimously voted to retain a naval officer who refused to comply with the military’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate requiring all military members receive an experimental vaccine.
A board composed of three Navy officers on May 20, 2022, found Lt. Bill Moseley did not commit misconduct by refusing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine and unanimously voted to retain him.
A service member who has been in the military for more than six years is entitled to appeal to the board for due process. The board’s recommendation on whether to retain or separate a member of the service is binding.
Mosley has been an officer for 22 years and could have chosen to retire or request a religious exemption when he was ordered to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Instead, he decided to take his case to an administrative separation board after learning “the Navy and the other services intended to implement a blanket denial policy.”
Lt. Moseley was represented by attorney R. Davis Younts who successfully argued the order that military members receive an experimental COVID vaccine was not lawful because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had not made an approved version of the vaccine available to military members.
Despite claiming Pfizer’s COMIRNATY and Modern’s SPIKEVAX COVID vaccines are “fully approved,” these vaccines are actually not available in the U.S. Not a single military member or U.S. citizen has actually received a fully approved COVID-19 vaccine.
According to a press release, when Moseley learned the Navy and other branches intended to implement a blanket denial policy, he consulted legal and medical experts and believed he had an obligation to take a stand on behalf of thousands of enlisted sailors against what he alleges is an unlawful order.
“Although this is only one case of thousands and we have many more clients facing prosecution by the military, we are encouraged that the truth was revealed in this Board, and we hope this ground-breaking case sends a strong message to the Department of Defense,” Younts said in a statement.
On August 23, 2021, the FDA approved Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine named COMIRNATY for people aged 16 years and older. At the time, vaccine hesitancy was persistent and acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock said granting full approval to the vaccine might “instill additional confidence” in people to get vaccinated.
But it backfired, fuelling speculation over why there was no COMIRNATY-labelled vaccine available. Now, nine months have passed and Americans are still being given the experimental Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine under Emergency Use Authorization. Despite what the FDA claims, Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines contain different buffers and are not the same.
On Jan. 31, the FDA granted full approval of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine SPIKEVAX, except the vaccine it approved currently does not exist. The FDA claimed SPIKEVAX is “interchangeable” but “legally distinct,” from the “Moderna COVID-19” vaccine in an effort to shield the biotech giant from liability for potential harms caused by its product.
Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine that is currently being administered in the U.S. is still under Emergency Use Authorization.
This appears to be willful fraud on the part of our government in order to shield big pharma from liability. The government knew full well that the injections being given after the approvals were still EUA injections, which under the PREP Act the manufacturers are free from liability. The approved injections are not free from liability unless and until they get put on the childhood vaccination schedule, something pharma is actively seeking to get done, even though children are at virtually no risk from the virus and are at significant risk from the injections. The statement that this is only one case dismisses the huge news that an official Navy board has agreed that the DoD “vaccine” mandate is an unlawful order. This should immediately put a halt to further injection mandates in the military until, if they choose to do so, the government contests this ruling. As it was a DoD order, the ruling applies to all services. Until the approved injections are made available, which will not happen until the manufacturers get liability protection, the mandate remains an unlawful order and all service members who suffered damages for their refusal to comply have a legal case to sue for damages. Also, all who were forced to comply and subsequently suffered adverse reactions from the injection have a legal case. This decision is not getting the media attention it deserves.