🚨Bombshell email:

From: ROBERT J. PRESTON II, SES, USAF
Director, Civil Law and Litigation
The Judge Advocate General's Corps

Possible conspiring between DoD/FDA/P*izer to push the DoD mandate.

"General,

The wording of the FDA update removed the "legal distinction" language, but continues to reference the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid 19 Vaccine as being approved under a EUA. This remains a potential source of confusion and creates risk that objectors to the vaccine will seek to litigate the matter by claiming that versions of the vaccine carrying the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid 19 label
cannot be mandated because they are merely authorized under the EUA and not FDA approved.

In discussions with the assistant deputy General counsel (OSD personnel and health policy), he acknowledged this remaining risk is the now-updated FDA guidance. However, based on those discussions we do not anticipate further clarification at least from OSD so I think we are in a position of having to move out with the guidance as is. As the vaccines are different in name only, there is not a legitimate safety or health issue with respect to the labels so it is perfectly appropriate to forge ahead. I merely bring the matter to your attention so that we are all on the same page as to the fact that ****FDA's updated language may not have mitigated the risk as much as we would like.****

As to working towards a consistent message to the field, I would recommend an update along the following lines:

Questions have arisen about the use of the Pfizer-Biotech COVID vaccine stocks which have been produced under two labels: COMIRNATY and COVID-19 Vaccine. As paragraph 4 of the SECDEF's 24 August 2021 memo states vaccines will be administered "in accordance with FDA-approved labeling and guidance,' we are required to rely on the FDA's latest guidance with the respect to the vaccines.

FDA's most recent guidance states that the FDA-approved COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) and the FDA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) have the same formulation and can be used interchangeably to provide the COVID-19 vaccination series (fda.gov/media/144414/d…). Therefore, it is DoD's position that Pfizer-Biotech doses labeled ""COMIRNATY" or "COVID-19 Vaccine" can be used interchangeably and can be
administered on a mandatory basis IAW DoD and AF guidance/policy." (end of email)

**************break**************
Here are some issues with what Robert said in his email.

1. Acknowledgment of Legal Risk, But Intent to Proceed Anyway:
The author acknowledges that the FDA’s updated guidance still leaves legal ambiguity regarding whether the labeled vaccines (COMIRNATY vs. Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine under EUA) are truly interchangeable under the law. They admit this ambiguity could fuel litigation from those objecting to vaccine mandates. Despite this, the recommendation is to “move out with the guidance as is” a signal that leadership is willing to proceed with mandates regardless of unresolved legal concerns.

2. Downplaying Labeling Differences Despite Legal Implications:
The writer asserts that the two vaccines are “different in name only” and thus interchangeable. However, in law and regulatory policy, labeling is not trivial, it carries implications for approval status and liability. Ignoring this could suggest a deliberate choice to blur legal distinctions to avoid accountability.

Continued in second post below⬇️ 3. Crafting a Unified Message That Sidesteps the Issue:
The recommendation to push a “consistent message” implies a coordinated communication effort, not to clarify truth, but to control narrative. Rather than advocating for transparency or further clarification from the FDA, the message is designed to present an appearance of clarity and authority even though internal conversations admit uncertainty.

4. Implicitly Prioritizing Policy Goals Over Legal and Ethical Clarity:
Ultimately, the language suggests that maintaining the vaccine mandate and institutional cohesion takes precedence over resolving valid legal and ethical concerns. The phrase “it is perfectly appropriate to forge ahead” may reflect an institutional mindset of ends justifying means.

Conclusion:
The comment could be viewed as evidence that DoD leadership knowingly pushed forward with mandates despite legal ambiguity, intentionally relied on confusing regulatory language, and crafted a message to obscure this reality, prioritizing compliance and institutional objectives over individual rights and legal clarity.

🧵1 Legal concerns came up late August, early September of 2021. Subsequently, in response, Navy Surgeon General Bruce Gillingham sent an "interchangeability" memorandum. Two weeks prior to @TerryAdirimMD's. She knows who advised her. (current DoD OGC Mark Kogan more on him⬇️)

https://twitter.com/samosaur/status/1920197382890778946

🧵2 OGC, JAGs, and White House Counsel had a legal duty, and they completely failed to uphold it. They ignored clear legal violations that were obvious even to regular servicemembers. Their inaction wasn’t just negligence. It was a betrayal of the very laws they swore to uphold.

🚨⚠️ Cc: @DataRepublican
"Consortium of Northeast Florida Businesses"

William Stafford Jones, the FLORIDA GOP Rules Committee Chairman, has been funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrats. But at whose advice? And does this violate the RPOF oath? This isn’t a one-time event, it’s a pattern designed to steamroll grassroots Republicans.

Go ahead, challenge me on this. And no, this isn’t a "blinder committee."

Florida GOP Chairman @evanpower knows exactly what's going on. He hides behind Trump’s name to cover up his RINO tendencies. If you want to understand the situation, follow the money. There are saboteurs within, and they need to be rooted out. It’s time to Drain the Swamp.

This isn’t new information, it’s well-known within establishment circles. So why is this still happening? Why aren't the so-called "influencers" on X calling them out? Are they getting paid to stay quiet?

And let’s not forget about Florida GOP Rule 31, created to keep Trump off the ballot, then quietly removed after being exposed on social media.

As a bonus, Evan even called ME a "RINO" (or should I say "RIÑO"). 😂

Pay attention to the silence from certain people in this matter. They’re in on it.

Screenshots in the comments.
@elonmusk @DOGE

🧵 There's more coming soon. I withheld data to be revealed for the appropriate time.
➖PART 2➖
🚨BOMBSHELL: @DeptofDefense acknowledges 151% spike in myocarditis
43% pulmonary embolisms
34% ovarian dysfunction, cancers and more. theepochtimes.com/us-military-co… 🧵2. It's important to note that the DoD confirmed DMED is running properly and is accurate for what will be revealed at a later date.

⬇️PART 1 from March for reference ⬇️

https://twitter.com/ted_macie/status/1640135233088499717?t=cQ7vrful7t6Z8lk2IqLlVA&s=19

🧵LONG POST. After the whistleblowers @DrSigoloff @DocPeteChambers @LTCTheresaLong @MCBashaw exposed extremely concerning 💉 injuries, or, according to @DeptofDefense officials "a programming error... due to a server migration...showing only 10% of the encounters" for 2016-2020. 2) In other words, 2021 # remained and the prior 5 years were brought to 100% from 10%. If this is accurate, the military population appears to be unhealthy compared to the civilian population. Either way, a multi million $ taxpayer unissant.us/afhsb-awarded/