They approved a vax that I’m pretty sure nobody in the United States can get. So misleading. Media is culpable for pushing the lie that the Pfizer vax (implying bnt162b2) is approved so begin the mandates. I believe you can buy time demanding the fda approved jab. Anyone says they’re the same - clarify that you need the jab witb optimized codons! Who would want a jab that’s unnaproved witb suboptimal codons! (I’m laughing as I write this).
I am not seeing any indication that there is anything "misleading" here.
If you have further evidence that approving the BioNTech is not the same as approving the Pfizer, when they both co-developed this exact vaccine (with the exact same serial number), please let me know.
As for the CORMIRNATY having "optimized codons" thats just jargon. All of the vaccines have "optimized codons". That just means that they changed some of the nucleosides to increase half-life of the mRNA in the cytosol (allowing for longer "effectiveness") and/or changed some of the nucleosides for other reasons. The way RNA to Amino acid coding works, with many redundancies in the code, allows for many potential modifications in RNA for whatever reason, while producing the same exact protein.
The information presented suggests that both Pfizer and CORMIRNATY have the exact same "optimized codons", suggesting this is only evidence of their sameness, not evidence of something different.
As for what it says on page 14:
The repeat dose toxicity evaluations were conducted on COMIRNATY and a similar
vaccine termed BNT162b2 (V8). COMIRNATY and BNT162b2 (V8) have identical amino
acid sequences of the encoded antigens but COMIRNATY includes the presence of
optimized codons to improve antigen expression.
I can't rectify that. Maybe whoever wrote it misunderstood, or maybe there is something more to be found, but by the serial number they appear to be the exact same.
Wording is everything. Contracts and other legal instruments use precise language for a reason.
I am aware of this, and suggested that whatever the difference is, its NOT in the mRNA nor any of the ingredients of the nanoparticle. I presented evidence to that effect.
"similar" used here is not oversight, it's deliberate. If it were identical, it would say it.
Did you look at the evidence I presented? The molecules are identical. The serial number of the mRNA is identical. You can't have a unique identifier apply to multiple molecules.
All of the ingredients share the same unique designations with their Pfizer counterparts. They are exactly the same molecules across the board.
The only ingredient that has a chance of being different within the unique identifier system is the bottom one on the top of page 8 which is a redacted excipient (rated as an inert molecule).
Amino acid sequences can still have different protein expression depending on differing external signals even if identical.
I don't know what you are trying to say here.
The mRNA molecule is identical. Identical mRNA molecules produce identical proteins every time (within the statistical limits of the protein machinery aka ribosomes, ER, golgi, etc.).
I don’t doubt the two drugs are interchangeable, even the documents say so, however the two are LEGALLY distinct, and only comirnity was approved. The better question would be, why wasn’t the Pfizer-Biontech Covid-19 Vaccine also approved? I don’t think we’re looking at much of a technical argument here, other than clarifying they are different (the codons man😄), and the docs clarify they are different but have similar safety attributes. This IS a legal slight of hand convincing employers and employees they are dealing with an approved vax, when they aren’t, or at least until there’s a supply of comirnaty.
They approved a vax that I’m pretty sure nobody in the United States can get. So misleading. Media is culpable for pushing the lie that the Pfizer vax (implying bnt162b2) is approved so begin the mandates. I believe you can buy time demanding the fda approved jab. Anyone says they’re the same - clarify that you need the jab witb optimized codons! Who would want a jab that’s unnaproved witb suboptimal codons! (I’m laughing as I write this).
I'm having a difficult time rectifying this statement. I believe they are the exact same vaccine.
According to the FDA release above, the COMIRNATY vaccine has the exact same ingredients, including the exact same mRNA strand (bnt162b2).
On page 7 (bottom) it lists the ingredients. Every ingredient is the same as the Pfizer vaccine, including the first one (mRNA).
Looking up UNII: 5085ZFP6SJ it says:
Looking up TOZINAMERAN it says:
They are the exact same molecule.
I am not seeing any indication that there is anything "misleading" here.
If you have further evidence that approving the BioNTech is not the same as approving the Pfizer, when they both co-developed this exact vaccine (with the exact same serial number), please let me know.
As for the CORMIRNATY having "optimized codons" thats just jargon. All of the vaccines have "optimized codons". That just means that they changed some of the nucleosides to increase half-life of the mRNA in the cytosol (allowing for longer "effectiveness") and/or changed some of the nucleosides for other reasons. The way RNA to Amino acid coding works, with many redundancies in the code, allows for many potential modifications in RNA for whatever reason, while producing the same exact protein.
The information presented suggests that both Pfizer and CORMIRNATY have the exact same "optimized codons", suggesting this is only evidence of their sameness, not evidence of something different.
As for what it says on page 14:
I can't rectify that. Maybe whoever wrote it misunderstood, or maybe there is something more to be found, but by the serial number they appear to be the exact same.
Wording is everything. Contracts and other legal instruments use precise language for a reason.
"conducted on COMIRNATY and a similar vaccine termed BNT162b2"
"similar" used here is not oversight, it's deliberate. If it were identical, it would say it.
Amino acid sequences can still have different protein expression depending on differing external signals even if identical.
I am aware of this, and suggested that whatever the difference is, its NOT in the mRNA nor any of the ingredients of the nanoparticle. I presented evidence to that effect.
Did you look at the evidence I presented? The molecules are identical. The serial number of the mRNA is identical. You can't have a unique identifier apply to multiple molecules.
All of the ingredients share the same unique designations with their Pfizer counterparts. They are exactly the same molecules across the board.
The only ingredient that has a chance of being different within the unique identifier system is the bottom one on the top of page 8 which is a redacted excipient (rated as an inert molecule).
I don't know what you are trying to say here.
The mRNA molecule is identical. Identical mRNA molecules produce identical proteins every time (within the statistical limits of the protein machinery aka ribosomes, ER, golgi, etc.).
I don’t doubt the two drugs are interchangeable, even the documents say so, however the two are LEGALLY distinct, and only comirnity was approved. The better question would be, why wasn’t the Pfizer-Biontech Covid-19 Vaccine also approved? I don’t think we’re looking at much of a technical argument here, other than clarifying they are different (the codons man😄), and the docs clarify they are different but have similar safety attributes. This IS a legal slight of hand convincing employers and employees they are dealing with an approved vax, when they aren’t, or at least until there’s a supply of comirnaty.