Pfizer and others, until now, have been protected by the EUA, not vaccine liability law because it was "emergency use". It is no longer emergency use. The med community can now acknowledge HCQ/Ivermectin and provide treatment. They couldn't before as the EUA was based on "no available treatment". That could be a good thing. Pfizer is now in a spot. They can end their vax participation, or...continue and be forced to prove it's legally a vax at all and that they have met the requirements to get liability protections. Interesting move by the FDA. White hats???...we shall see
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.
Pfizer and others, until now, have been protected by the EUA, not vaccine liability law because it was "emergency use". It is no longer emergency use. The med community can now acknowledge HCQ/Ivermectin and provide treatment. They couldn't before as the EUA was based on "no available treatment". That could be a good thing. Pfizer is now in a spot. They can end their vax participation, or...continue and be forced to prove it's legally a vax at all and that they have met the requirements to get liability protections. Interesting move by the FDA. White hats???...we shall see
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.