Good question. Either way we now have Pfizer, so there is something formally approved. How to justify J&J and Moderna? The EUA was based on "no approved treatment or vaccine". Do they sue the FDA for approval? If they continue are they fully exposed to liability? We shall see.
Sorry, this isn't true. Page 2: "On August 23, 2021, FDA approved the biologics license application (BLA) submitted by BioNTech Manufacturing GmbHfor COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) for active immunization to prevent COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 in individuals 16 years of age and older." The rest of the letter goes on to say how the EUA has been extended for the others. Not sure what purpose there is for the other jabs to continue under EUA if one has been approved. It looks like there's some verbiage in there to say that the already manufactured Pfizer jabs cannot be administered as if they were approved.
Footnote 8 on the same page: "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. Theproducts are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness." Man I'd love to be wrong about this.
Couldn't the corrupt FDA still block the use of HCQ and Ivermectin in continuing support of the these clot shot BS vaccines?
Good question. Either way we now have Pfizer, so there is something formally approved. How to justify J&J and Moderna? The EUA was based on "no approved treatment or vaccine". Do they sue the FDA for approval? If they continue are they fully exposed to liability? We shall see.
Read the approval pdf, nowhere in there does it really state approval. It reads like a continuation of the EUA
Sorry, this isn't true. Page 2: "On August 23, 2021, FDA approved the biologics license application (BLA) submitted by BioNTech Manufacturing GmbHfor COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) for active immunization to prevent COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 in individuals 16 years of age and older." The rest of the letter goes on to say how the EUA has been extended for the others. Not sure what purpose there is for the other jabs to continue under EUA if one has been approved. It looks like there's some verbiage in there to say that the already manufactured Pfizer jabs cannot be administered as if they were approved.
Footnote 8 on the same page: "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. Theproducts are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness." Man I'd love to be wrong about this.
Will do. I haven't yet and will look at other approvals for comparison as well. They are masters at word games.
Where is this pdf? Didn't click the link.
There are two, and they're different: one for BioNTech and one for Pfizer.
Note that under 16 is still EUA.
Pfizer: https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download
BioNTech: https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download
Further down in the comments, sorry, I should have posted it when I said read it.
https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download