Merriam-Webster and even the CDC may have changed 'their' definition of 'vaccine' on their website to fool the public, but, the definition for 'vaccine' has not changed for the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) encoded as 42 U.S. Code § 300aa–22. Again, this has not changed and would require an Act of Congress to change it.
What this means is the FDA has a problem with approving the Pfizer 'gene therapy' injectoid. Approving it may expose Pfizer to lawsuits because it is NOT a vaccine.
This is why I think that the FDA announcement is more theater than anything else designed to usurp the news cycle to over-shadow the AZ audit delivery. We'll have to wait and see...........
I have given a bit of thought to this. I can see a scenario where J&J is off the hook,..."No FDA approval and no liability", but where both Pfizer and Moderna are left holding the bag...as well as CDC, NIH and WHO. Per 42 U.S. Code § 300aa–22, they are fully exposed if they get FDA approval. Not a legal type but I suspect they have some extensive protection as long as they are under "emergency authorization".
Not so fast with letting J&J off the hook. Their vaxx doesn't use mRNA, but a direct method for changing the DNA to produce Spike Proteins. It is still gene therapy.
I wasn't suggesting they be let off...just that this FDA, if it happens doesn't take them out. Bottom line is this. If it is determined these are not legally vaccines, and their use is permitted..."FDA approval" beyond "emergency authorization" than the manufacturers have ZERO lability protection. A suit against any/all would be multi-trillions world wide. Bankruptcy, not just for manufacturers but WHO/CDC/NIH and could flow to major investors who profited billions. It would break the bank.
Merriam-Webster and even the CDC may have changed 'their' definition of 'vaccine' on their website to fool the public, but, the definition for 'vaccine' has not changed for the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) encoded as 42 U.S. Code § 300aa–22. Again, this has not changed and would require an Act of Congress to change it.
What this means is the FDA has a problem with approving the Pfizer 'gene therapy' injectoid. Approving it may expose Pfizer to lawsuits because it is NOT a vaccine.
This is why I think that the FDA announcement is more theater than anything else designed to usurp the news cycle to over-shadow the AZ audit delivery. We'll have to wait and see...........
I have given a bit of thought to this. I can see a scenario where J&J is off the hook,..."No FDA approval and no liability", but where both Pfizer and Moderna are left holding the bag...as well as CDC, NIH and WHO. Per 42 U.S. Code § 300aa–22, they are fully exposed if they get FDA approval. Not a legal type but I suspect they have some extensive protection as long as they are under "emergency authorization".
Not so fast with letting J&J off the hook. Their vaxx doesn't use mRNA, but a direct method for changing the DNA to produce Spike Proteins. It is still gene therapy.
I wasn't suggesting they be let off...just that this FDA, if it happens doesn't take them out. Bottom line is this. If it is determined these are not legally vaccines, and their use is permitted..."FDA approval" beyond "emergency authorization" than the manufacturers have ZERO lability protection. A suit against any/all would be multi-trillions world wide. Bankruptcy, not just for manufacturers but WHO/CDC/NIH and could flow to major investors who profited billions. It would break the bank.