Sep 6, 2021Liked by Tessa Lena

Hi Tessa, thank you for your update on this.

In my opinion, there's no way the drug maker's lawyers -- in this case Pfizer's lawyers, would ever let their liability-free status temporarily slip when it specifically comes to a "vaccine" product of theirs.

Never the less, I do commend all those investigating how the drug maker's lawyers pull/pulled this off -- as investigations like these can and do pay dividends.

If the drug maker's liability-free status did temporarily slip, then suing them directly for an injury/death and winning would garner a larger money-payout than if going through NVICP or CICP. (note: and where NVICP pays out more than CICP). Ultimately, potentially causing the drug maker to decide to stop making the product -- because the incoming lawsuits are too many and too costly.

(Though it would be interesting to know if there are any injury lawyers currently making court filings stating "covid-19 vaccines" are not "vaccines" and that the drug makers and the FDA and the CDC are abusing the laws in regards to "vaccines" -- when it comes to the so-called "COVID-19 vaccine" product, that's a topic for a separate discussion)


Regarding the ACIP vote on Aug 30, 2021,... Helen Branswell -- reporter for StatNews -- confirms [paraphrasing]:

On Aug 30, 2021, ACIP voted 'yes' (unanimously, 14 - 0, with 1 abstention) on the following ACIP Recommendation:

"The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine [*] is recommended for people 16 years of age and older under FDA's Biologics License Application (BLA) approval [**]"

[*] They do not add the marketing name of the vaccine -- 'Comirnaty'. But, that should not be an issue.

[**] "BLA": the official name of the full-license

For the above, see:




For the above, also, see:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/agenda-archive/agenda-2021-08-30-508.pdf (3:00 [pm ET] Discussion, VOTE, Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for individuals ≥16 years of age [under BLA])



Does that mean that -- for children 16 and 17, AND for adults -- that injury claims now move from the CICP tribunal to the NVICP tribunal -- if one takes the Pfizer vax? (tribunal = United States Court of Federal Claims)

Well, there is this statement from HHS's HRSA -- regarding "[NVICP] [1986 Act] Covered Vaccines":

"For a vaccine to be covered [by National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ([N]VICP)], the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) must recommend the category of vaccine for routine administration to children or pregnant women, and it must be subject to an excise tax by federal law."

see: https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/covered-vaccines/index.html

But, there is NO update (yet) on this "[NVICP] Covered Vaccines" page regarding the Aug 30, 2021 ACIP vote, nor seemingly any announcements (yet) in the Federal Register (https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/health-and-human-services-department) regarding the Aug 30, 2021 ACIP vote.

So, maybe there's no rush on HHS's side to make updates to their "[NVICP] Covered Vaccines" page AND their "Vaccine Injury Table" since the Comirnaty-labeled vials are (allegedly) not on the market yet.

So, after Aug 23, 2021, mostly likely, in my opinion, those 16 and over who take a EUA-labeled vaccine -- on/after Aug 23, 2021 -- will still be shunted over to CICP for injury claims. But, whether they're shunted over to CICP or NVICP, the drug make is not exposed to injury claims.


Another scenario to potentially consider:

On some date after Aug 23, 2021, there are two 19 year olds (adults). One takes an EUA-labeled Moderna and the other takes a BLA-labeled (comirnaty) Pfizer. Both get severely injured.

The family of the "EUA-labeled Moderna" adult is going to be furious to learn that they're shunted of to CICP instead of NVICP -- like the latter adult is/would/should be.


In this current tyrannical political climate we find ourselves in, the best that those injured can hope for is that the so-called "covid-19 vaccine" becomes part of NVICP as quickly as possible (as the payouts are bigger than in CICP and they're awarded more frequently than in CICP).

Expand full comment

Good summation of the issue. My facetious take on Comirnaty https://zero-sum.org/a-comirnaty-by-any-other-name-would-smell-as-suspicious/

Expand full comment

Great job.

Dr. Meryl Nass's point should be well taken - "...which goes into a fund administered by DHHS to pay for injuries, if one is lucky enough to convince the special masters (judges) in the program that a vaccine caused your injury." The amount of money that actually gets paid out to families of loved ones killed by jabs and those who are damaged by jabs is abysmal. Take away the legal protections for jabs and all of this will go away.

Expand full comment
Sep 7, 2021Liked by Tessa Lena

Thanks for handling a complex subject nicely. I hadn't heard a thing about the under 18 sleight of hand game.

Expand full comment
Sep 6, 2021Liked by Tessa Lena

Yes I was trying to explain this to a group today, but you've laid it out so nice and clear I think I'll just forward them your article!!

Expand full comment