Didn’t even know they existed
US military explosives emerge in US communities after disappearing, being stolen by troops: report
In one instance, a Marine Corps demolition specialist reportedly stole 13 pounds of C4 plastic explosives from Camp Lejeune training ranges
Hundreds, and possibly thousands, of armor-piercing grenades, hundreds of pounds of plastic explosives, land mines and rockets have reportedly been stolen from or lost by the U.S. armed forces over the past decade.
The findings are part of an Associated Press investigation into the military's reported failure to secure weapons.
In one instance, the wire service reports, a Marine Corps demolition specialist stole 13 pounds (6 kilograms) of C4 plastic explosives from the training ranges of Camp Lejeune, claiming he was worried about a possible civil war following a presidential election. At least some of the stolen material was recovered in 2018.
In addition, troops have falsified records to cover up some thefts and in other cases didn’t report explosives as missing, according to investigative files reviewed by the wire service.
The consequences could be deadly.
In August, an artillery shell exploded at a Mississippi recycling yard, killing a worker.
Two days later, an intact shell was found at the facility.
Investigating authorities suspect the shells came from Camp Shelby, an Army National Guard base about 40 miles away. However, Mississippi National Guard spokeswoman Lt. Col. Deidre Smith told the wire service she knows of no evidence the shell originated there.
Military officials said thieves in the ranks are a small minority of service members and that compared to stockpiles the overall amounts of lost or stolen explosives are minuscule, also according to the Associated Press.
https://justthenews.com/accountability/us-military-explosives-emerge-communities-after-disappearing-being-stolen-troop
[BuzzFeed] going down with the rest of fake news entities
Congratulations 🇺🇸
____
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/judge-allen-winsor-pfizer-eua-comirnaty-vaccines-interchangeable
Federal Judge Rejects DOD Claim That Pfizer EUA and Comirnaty Vaccines Are ‘Interchangeable’
A federal district court judge rejected a claim by the U.S. Department of Defense that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine being administered under Emergency Use Authorization is interchangeable with Pfizer’s fully licensed Comirnaty vaccine.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.
A federal district court judge has rejected a claim by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine being administered under Emergency Use Authorization is interchangeable with Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine, which in August was fully licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
In an order issued Nov. 12 in Doe et al. v. Austin, U.S. Federal District Judge Allen Winsor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida denied a preliminary injunction requested by 16 service members against the U.S. Military’s COVID vaccine mandate. A hearing is scheduled for Sept. 14, 2022.
However, the judge’s acknowledgment that “the DOD cannot mandate vaccines that only have an EUA” is significant for two reasons.
One reason pertains to the difference in ingredients and manufacturing process between Pfizer’s EUA vaccine and the approved Comirnaty vaccine, and the other pertains to the legal difference between a fully licensed vaccine and an EUA vaccine.
The latter reason would apply not just to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, but also to the vaccines produced by Moderna and Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), both of which are authorized only as EUA products.
Under law, everyone has ‘right to refuse’ EUA product
When the FDA approved Pfizer’s Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine in August, approval was accompanied by a series of confusing documents and equally confusing public statements.
One such confounding statement reads as follows:
“The licensed vaccine has the same formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.”
The FDA provided no explanation as to how the licensed Comirnaty vaccine and the Pfizer-BioNTech EUA vaccine could “be used interchangeably” despite having “certain differences” that make them “legally distinct.”
There are key differences between fully licensed vaccines and those authorized under EUA. EUA products are considered experimental under U.S. law. This means they cannot be mandated, and everyone has the right to refuse such vaccines without consequences.
Τhe Nuremberg Code, as well as federal law, provide that no human being can be forced to participate in a medical experiment. Under 21 U.S. Code Sec.360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), “authorization for medical products for use in emergencies,” it is unlawful to deny someone a job or an education because they refuse to be an experimental subject.
This is also made clear in the FDA fact sheet provided to patients receiving any Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. It states:
“Under the EUA, it is your choice to receive or not receive the vaccine. Should you decide not to receive it, it will not change your standard medical care.”
However, U.S. law does allow employers and schools to require students and workers to take licensed vaccines.
EUA products can’t be used once fully licensed product becomes available
Another key difference between fully licensed and EUA vaccines is that, under the 2005 Public Readiness and Preparedness Act (PREP Act), EUA vaccines are accompanied by a far-reaching liability shield that protects all parties involved with the product from lawsuits.
(Continued)
Makes some great points