USA: A U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) service member alleges the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is administering COVID-19 vaccines from vials of Pfizer’s Comirnaty-labeled vaccines that are not produced at U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved manufacturing facility.
Lt. Chad R. Coppin, in a July 30 declaration submitted with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) under penalty of perjury, detailed his personal investigation into the availability and origin of Comirnaty-labeled COVID-19 vaccine vials at U.S. military facilities.
Coppin also relayed his concerns in an interview with The Defender, as did Holly Freincle, the wife of a U.S. military service member stationed at Fort Detrick, Maryland, who corroborated Coppin’s claims that Comirnaty-labeled vaccine vials are appearing at military service facilities.
Freincle told The Defender Comirnaty-labeled vaccines are being administered at Fort Detrick and that her husband’s retirement is currently in jeopardy if he does not accept vaccination with this “FDA-approved” vaccine.
Until now, the DOD has claimed the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, administered under an FDA-issued Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), is “interchangeable” with the fully licensed Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine — which until recently, was said to be unavailable at military facilities.
The controversy surrounding Pfizer’s EUA vaccine versus the FDA-approved Comirnaty vaccine has figured prominently in several lawsuits involving the Biden administration’s vaccine mandates for military service members.
That’s partly because FDA regulations prohibit the mandatory administration of EUA products, despite the DOD’s claim that Pfizer’s EUA vaccine can be mandated because it’s “interchangeable” with Comirnaty.
In November 2021, a federal judge determined, as part of a broader order involving a military vaccine mandate lawsuit, that the Pfizer-BioNTech and Pfizer Comirnaty vaccines are not “interchangeable.”
Comirnaty-labeled vials at military facilities not produced at FDA-licensed facility
In his July 30 declaration, Coppin, who has served with the USCG since March 2002, reported that after a long period of unavailability, the “Comirnaty” vaccine began to appear at U.S. military facilities in June.
This included the Juneau, Alaska, USCG medical clinic where Coppin is stationed and where “a shipment of 60 Comirnaty vials packaged in six boxes of ten vials” was delivered on June 10.
According to Coppin, “prior to this date, only emergency use authorization shots have been available” at the Juneau facility and other military installations.
Coppin said the sudden availability of Comirnaty-labeled vaccine vials raised suspicions.
“I found [the delivery of Comirnaty-labeled vials] interesting as they arrived unannounced to any service members and to date, FDA approved Comirnaty labeled vials had never been seen in the USA,” he wrote in his declaration.
This, along with a sense of duty, led Coppin to investigate the matter further and eventually come out as a whistleblower.
Coppin stated:
“As a commissioned officer in the United States Coast Guard, it is my responsibility to uphold the Coast Guard’s core values of Honor, Respect, and Devotion to Duty.
“It is for this reason that I present … information that brings into question the ability of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to continue to push the lawful order of making service members partake in the injection of the ‘Comirnaty labeled’ COVID-19 shots that recently appeared at select military installations across the country.”
Medical staff at the Juneau facility told Coppin the Comirnaty-labeled vials were shipped there from the U.S. Army installation at Fort Detrick, Maryland.
In a subsequent phone call to the Maryland facility, Coppin alleged a U.S. Army civilian contractor told him the Comirnaty “grey cap” vials were “sent to Ft. Detrick from the Kalamazoo, MI Pfizer plant.”
Upon inquiring for information about where the Comirnaty-labeled vials were manufactured, he was told that he “would have to call Pfizer at Kalamazoo, MI for any additional information.”
In a July 7 phone call with a Pfizer customer service representative, Coppin said he was informed the Comirnaty-labeled vaccines with lot number FW 1331 that were shipped to the Juneau facility were “manufactured in France” on Jan. 28, 2022, and had an expiration date of Dec. 31, 2022.
However, he was provided “no other specific information regarding what Pfizer location, city or address in France” the vaccine was produced in.
The phone call between Coppin and Pfizer’s customer service representative was recorded and made publicly available as part of a podcast hosted by Dr. Samuel Sigoloff, a doctor who granted medical exemptions to the military’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate and who subsequently was ordered not to discuss COVID-19 or see patients.
According to Coppin, “The significance of the France manufacturing location is that it is not an authorized manufacturing location as per the FDA’s Comirnaty BLA Supplement Approval letter dated December 16, 2021,” which granted approval for the vaccine to be “manufactured at the Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Puurs, Belgium … facility.”
This is significant, Coppin said, because “we are being told that our military medical clinics at select locations across the country have the FDA approved Comirnaty” and that “Pfizer has stated on this recorded phone call that Lot number FW 1331 was manufactured in France which makes this not an FDA approved version for distribution in the United States of America according to the approved manufacturing locations declared in its BLA license.”
“Commanding Officers are using this shipment of Comirnaty from Ft. Detrick to try and convince and coerce the remaining unvaccinated service members into compliance with their order to receive a fully FDA approved Covid-19 vaccine,” Coppin alleged.
Refusal to receive ‘Comirnaty’ vaccine jeopardizing husband’s military retirement
Freincle corroborated Coppin’s claims that Comirnaty-labeled vaccine vials are appearing at military service facilities and that unvaccinated service members are being pressured to get vaccinated with it.
She said her husband’s retirement, after 19 years of service, is now in jeopardy unless he receives the “Comirnaty” vaccine.
Freincle told The Defender:
“My husband … just had his administrative separation board after 19 years.
“They recommended separation, but said they would hold it for 60 days if he wanted to get the labeled Comirnaty vaccine before that point.”
According to Freincle, military officials also provided her husband “a list of duty stations that would have the ‘Comirnaty’ labeled vials.”
“To our knowledge, they are actually administering [Comirnaty-labeled vials] under the impression of receiving the FDA-licensed product,” Freincle said, adding that previously, “the EUA Pfizer-BioNTech doses were being used.”
According to Freincle, “All EUA doses are still being administered along with the new ‘Comirnaty-labeled’ doses,” despite previous DOD claims — alleged in lawsuits against the agency — that the “interchangeable” Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine would continue to be administered until doses of the Comirnaty vaccine become available.
Freincle confirmed the military’s claims of “interchangeability” between the Pfizer-BioNTech and Pfizer Comirnaty vaccines, telling The Defender:
“Service members who were given the EUA Pfizer BioNTech [vaccine] were told that they were receiving a dose with the same formulation as the FDA-approved shot and that they were being used interchangeably.
“The records we have seen all say Pfizer-BioNTech.”
Does the military have something to hide?
Neither the USCG nor Pfizer have refuted Coppin’s claims, he said.
“To date, Coast Guard medical clinics nor Pfizer [have] produced any documentation attesting to the manufacturing location of the Comirnaty labeled vials currently being offered to service members,” he wrote in his declaration.
In a subsequent communication with The Defender, Coppin added, “This France information punches a hole in that fabricated argument being pitched to us by our commanding officers and medical staff.”
Coppin alleged the DOD, federal government and Pfizer appear to be concealing evidence that would, “beyond any doubt,” confirm his allegations.
He told The Defender:
“In order to be absolutely sure, we need an insider at Pfizer to produce a printout showing the manufacturing location truly is France of this Comirnaty Lot FW1331, to back up my recorded phone call.
“I spoke to HHS [the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] and one of the lead doctors responsible for the rollout of EUA and BLA COVID shots to America got ordered to not talk to me. I can’t get my ‘where was Lot 1331 manufactured’ question answered in writing, by either HHS, Pfizer, DOD, FDA or USCG.”
Freincle expressed concerns over where the actions of the military and federal government may lead.
“So many, like my husband, have been lied to and coerced since last year. My husband’s retirement is now hanging in the balance after 19 years of dedicated service.
“I myself have multiple autoimmune diseases and rely on my monthly biologic medication. We also know there is a possibility of shedding with the vaccine, and I worry about that as an immunocompromised individual.”
Coppin concluded his declaration by stating his “hope that this information will generate an investigation to confirm the manufacturing locations of Comirnaty Lot FW1331 and other Lot numbers being shipped to US military installations.”
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.,
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Discussion about this post