Twitter punishes account for linking to report about legal status of vaccinations

Months ago, WND reported that Dr. Robert Malone, a well-known expert on mRNA treatments, confirmed that the Pfizer shots fully authorized by the Food and Drug Administration for use against COVID-19 is not the same Pfizer shot that Americans have been getting under an emergency use status.

He confirmed the two similar – but separate – products.

"The little trick that they've done here is that they've issued two letters, separate letters for two separate vaccines. The Pfizer vaccine which is what is currently available, is still under emergency use authorization, and it still has the liability shield," he explained. "The product that's licensed is the BioNTech product which is substantially similar but not necessarily identical. It's called Comirnaty … and it's not yet available. They haven't started manufacturing it or labeling it and that's the one that the liability waiver will no longer apply."

Now Just the News is reporting that the social-media corporation Twitter has punished the account of its founder, John Solomon, for sharing an article "about the legal distinctions between Pfizer's fully approved and emergency use authorization (EUA) COVID-19 vaccines, which could affect the legality of vaccine mandates."

TRENDING: A hat crime

Twitter claimed, to users who click a link to an article, that it "may be unsafe," even though Just the News had an immunologist review the article and determine "he saw nothing wrong with it factually."

The article in question explained that Pfizer's shots against COVID-19 were approved by the FDA, "yet the pharmaceutical giant is still providing distributors across the country with an earlier version of the vaccine that predates FDA's full approval."

The report said, "The EUA-authorized vaccine is being distributed and administered widely in Ohio, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, among other states. But while the product hasn't received FDA approval, Pfizer says it's made using the same processes as Comirnaty and no different in terms of safety and effectiveness."

"It is outrageous and unfair that a story that is completely accurate and points out an important legal distinction between the two versions of vaccines gets blocked and my account suspended," Solomon said in a Just the News report.

"The distinction was important enough for a federal judge to note. The story and my post weren't unsafe," he said. "The only threat is to the safety of the 1st Amendment afflicted by Twitter's wrongheaded decision."

"I can see how Twitter might object to the title, but the article itself seems ok as far as I understand it," explained Steve Templeton, an immunologist at Indiana University. "Seems like a legal issue if the two [vaccines] are only different in how they were labeled or when they were packaged."

Solomon reports he was told by Twitter his account was "temporarily limited." And the company claimed the posting violated company policy on "spreading misleading and potentially harmful information" on COVID.

Others who commented to Just the News were distressed by the move, with Jay Bhattacharya, a professor at Stanford School of Medicine, confirming, "There is nothing in the story that is not well reported or misleading."

He said Twitter's actions to suppress COVID information "has contributed greatly to the collapse in trust in public health." And Harvard epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff said "it's scary" to live in such censorship.

Even the FDA has admitted the Pfizer products are separate. "A government vaccine information "fact sheet" on the issue specifically lists the shots as two separate objects.

"You are being offered either COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) or the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to prevent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-Co-V-2," the sheet insists.

It separately identifies "COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA)" as the FDA-approved drug made by Pfizer for BioNTech and then the separate "Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine that is under emergency use authorization.

The difference is significant, because despite what Joe Biden has ordered, federal law does not allow mandatory shots for people unless those vaccinations have been given full approval by the FDA, not just emergency authorization.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@wndnewscenter.org.

https://www.wnd.com/2021/12/truth-pfizer-covid-shots-getting-fiercely-suppressed/