I ran across a video interview of a lawyer who explains a legal issue with the vaxx, which people can use against "mandates."

The interesting thing is, he is saying the exact same thing I did several months ago, but he added information about a law that I was unaware of. This makes it a much stronger argument.

The TLDR version is this:

• Pfizer stated that its vaxx trial showed that it was "95% effective" at preventing Covid
• That statement was a lie
• The true difference in the vaxx group and the placebo group was actually less than 1%, which means the "effectiveness" is actually less than 1%
• What they did was to manipulate the statistics, by taking a ratio of a ratio, rather than to simply compare the two groups
• This is the difference between "relative risk" (the 95% number) and "absolute risk" (the less than 1% real number)
• This lawyer points out that there is a law that says that when a drug maker uses a relative risk number in adverstising, it must also use the absolute risk number, which Pfizer has never done
• When a drug make fails to include the absolute risk number, they are engaged in a violation of law, called "misbranding"
• When a drug is misbranded, it is REQUIRED that the drug be REMOVED FROM THE MARKET Therefore, there is no Pfizer drug (even the EUA one) that can be available on the market, because it has been misbranded
• This is likely also the case with the others, although he does not discuss the others

[*NOTE: Even the 1% difference (absolute risk) is a lie because they used fraudulent numbers to get that, as well. They actually had more people report being sick who took the drug than those who got the placebo. There are numerous reasons why the Pfizer study had nothing at all to do with science, but this issue is the best one to use for the mandate]

So, one could ask an employer if the Pfizer drug is "acceptable" as one of the vaxx they can take. The employer is likely to say yes. Once they do that, then the response is that the Pfizer drug was misbranded due to failing to show that the absolute risk was actually less than 1%, and therefore is required to be removed from the market. The point of stating this to an employer is to put on the table the fact that this is all based on fraud and misrepresentation, which is what you want when you are fighting a legal battle.

Interview of attorney:

https://odysee.com/@sgtreport:7/Mitch-copy:f

My posts related to this issue:

https://greatawakening.win/p/12jJPv3MkS/

https://greatawakening.win/p/12jcvZXRBO/more-info-on-the-actual-pfizer-v/c/

https://greatawakening.win/p/13zN6IyQbO/

https://greatawakening.win/p/13zN6FYgwS/