Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine contains a nucleoside-modified messenger RNA
(modRNA) encoding the viral spike (S) glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 formulated in lipid
particles. COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) is the same formulation as the Pfizer-
BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and can be used interchangeably with the Pfizer-BioNTech
COVID-19 Vaccine to provide the COVID-19 vaccination series. (8)
And in footnotes:
(8) 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. The
products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.
They even say in the footnotes they are legally distinct.
but it is approved.. You need to read the documents better.. this is the problem with people spouting off fake BS and making us look bad.. They are calling it a different name.. the 12-16 year old version is still emergency use only..
"the Pfizer vaccine is still under EUA and still has liability shield… the mainstream media has lied to you… The product that IS licensed is the BioNTech product (the Comirnaty shot, by Pfizer), which is substantially similar but not necessarily identical, and it is not yet available, they have not yet started manufacturing it or labeling it.”
And why all the confusing language? Is it giving someone a way out if challenged in court? The FDA is purposely obfuscating. This is not an accident. They are trying to thread a needle between safe and maybe not so safe so they can claim some alternative meaning.. They're trying to give themselves wiggle room. The FDA is "owned" by Pfizer and other big pharma companies. They are trying to serve 2 masters, the corporations on one hand and the people on the other and are caught in the middle.
You assume they are the same drug. You have no way of knowing. One has EUA and the other hasn't been manufactured yet. One is not liable for death or injury, the other not manufactured yet and they are liable. So, which will they use? The EUA and claim it's fully approved to get people to take it. Meanwhile the approved one hasn't been made. Sounds like a game of 3 card monte to me. Here's the way it works. Somebody who has been hesitant thinks it's fully approved and gets the jab. They die. Family cannot sue. Why? Pfizer claims immunity because of EUA. The full authorization is needed to convince corporations and the military to use it. Any death or injury that they should be liable for will get pitched because they'll claim it was from the earlier stockpile that had EUA. Heads they win, tails you lose.
You are right. I read that entire article. The Pfizer shot has had its EUA extended. The other shot, BioNtech Comirnaty, is the one that is licensed but is not being manufactured. The article explains all of this very clearly to anyone who wishes to read it.
In fact I read the documents when this all started and those documents were quite clear that this is NOT the Pfizer shot that is approved but the one by the name Comirnaty which is not the covid-19 "vaccine".
Trumploaf either cannot read or is intentionally spreading mis-information.
Vaccine manufacturers can't be sued for side effects of vaccines, period.
It doesn't matter if the vaccine is FDA approved or EUA.
Look up the PREP Act. It was passed in 2005, I think.
Also, because I know it's going to be brought up due to the debate over calling the Covid-19 jabs "vaccines"- the technical jargon used in the PREP act includes "medical countermeasures", so the covid jabs are covered under that.
Just a note; my knowledge of the PREP Act doesn't mean I agree with it, so please don't shoot the messenger, 'kay?
Sure it's relevant. CMAnon was theorizing that the vaccine manufacturers would use the EUA status as a means to avoid lawsuits for side effects from the jabs.
I was pointing out that that couldn't be an issue because vaccine manufacturers can not be sued for side effects of their vaccines, no matter if the vaccine is FDA approved or has an EUA.
I wasn't claiming that the vaccines were FDA approved. I was simply pointing out that one of the scenarios described in the conversation was wrong due to the PREP Act.
They are not the same thing. They even admit in the FDA submission to making changes but, without any official review, the FDA claims they are inconsequential... We have heard "inconsequential" bit literally THOUSANDS of times only to see them proven wrong... to the detriment of normal people..
Under legal proceedings do you believe that if you took the one not labeled cormirnaty (regardless of the contents being similar) would you be protected?
I don’t believe they are safe either. I believe this all comes down to legal protection for the corrupt companies while also giving the appearance of an FDA approval so people can mandate it and shit.
Which means they are NOT the same. Legally distinct means although they may be extremely similar, they are in fact not exactly the same so the law recognizes them as two separate things.
Think of identical twins. They look the same and share DNA. But legally they are two different people.
Have you watched the Dr. Malone video? Or maybe you have read the article with a senator's 10 questions for the FDA about the approval?
Asking for a friend.
From what I understand, if it was already produced under the EUA, it is still EUA protected, meaning no FDA approved drug will be available until the EUA supply is gone.
Knowing this, I called a large chain pharmacy for there response to questioning the FDA approved injection availability. THEY LIED!! I called them out in it, but how to we help the blind public see the truth? This disgusts me.
I tried explaining this to my boss to fight the mandate. I even printed out the FDA paperwork with the “legally distinct” info. She is either too stupid to get it or is getting some kind of kickback or bonus for her coercive rhetoric. Ignoring the constitution is never a good move.
The “approved” Pfizer COVID vaccine is not approved! They will be using the Emergency Authorized drug only until the supply is gone. Meaning, you have no protections getting the EUA drug because it is experimental. Informed consent is fraudulent if they tell you anything less. I’m so disgusted with this.
When the whole world is using Ivermectin with astounding success, the US will still be promoting the gene jab
Wow.. just looking at the text https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download
This is a huge wtf?
And in footnotes:
They even say in the footnotes they are legally distinct.
but it is approved.. You need to read the documents better.. this is the problem with people spouting off fake BS and making us look bad.. They are calling it a different name.. the 12-16 year old version is still emergency use only..
No, you need to read it. Dr. Malone is correct:
"the Pfizer vaccine is still under EUA and still has liability shield… the mainstream media has lied to you… The product that IS licensed is the BioNTech product (the Comirnaty shot, by Pfizer), which is substantially similar but not necessarily identical, and it is not yet available, they have not yet started manufacturing it or labeling it.”
And why all the confusing language? Is it giving someone a way out if challenged in court? The FDA is purposely obfuscating. This is not an accident. They are trying to thread a needle between safe and maybe not so safe so they can claim some alternative meaning.. They're trying to give themselves wiggle room. The FDA is "owned" by Pfizer and other big pharma companies. They are trying to serve 2 masters, the corporations on one hand and the people on the other and are caught in the middle.
you still are not understanding that they are the same drug huh?
You assume they are the same drug. You have no way of knowing. One has EUA and the other hasn't been manufactured yet. One is not liable for death or injury, the other not manufactured yet and they are liable. So, which will they use? The EUA and claim it's fully approved to get people to take it. Meanwhile the approved one hasn't been made. Sounds like a game of 3 card monte to me. Here's the way it works. Somebody who has been hesitant thinks it's fully approved and gets the jab. They die. Family cannot sue. Why? Pfizer claims immunity because of EUA. The full authorization is needed to convince corporations and the military to use it. Any death or injury that they should be liable for will get pitched because they'll claim it was from the earlier stockpile that had EUA. Heads they win, tails you lose.
You are right. I read that entire article. The Pfizer shot has had its EUA extended. The other shot, BioNtech Comirnaty, is the one that is licensed but is not being manufactured. The article explains all of this very clearly to anyone who wishes to read it.
In fact I read the documents when this all started and those documents were quite clear that this is NOT the Pfizer shot that is approved but the one by the name Comirnaty which is not the covid-19 "vaccine".
Trumploaf either cannot read or is intentionally spreading mis-information.
Vaccine manufacturers can't be sued for side effects of vaccines, period.
It doesn't matter if the vaccine is FDA approved or EUA.
Look up the PREP Act. It was passed in 2005, I think.
Also, because I know it's going to be brought up due to the debate over calling the Covid-19 jabs "vaccines"- the technical jargon used in the PREP act includes "medical countermeasures", so the covid jabs are covered under that.
Just a note; my knowledge of the PREP Act doesn't mean I agree with it, so please don't shoot the messenger, 'kay?
Sure it's relevant. CMAnon was theorizing that the vaccine manufacturers would use the EUA status as a means to avoid lawsuits for side effects from the jabs.
I was pointing out that that couldn't be an issue because vaccine manufacturers can not be sued for side effects of their vaccines, no matter if the vaccine is FDA approved or has an EUA.
I wasn't claiming that the vaccines were FDA approved. I was simply pointing out that one of the scenarios described in the conversation was wrong due to the PREP Act.
They are not the same thing. They even admit in the FDA submission to making changes but, without any official review, the FDA claims they are inconsequential... We have heard "inconsequential" bit literally THOUSANDS of times only to see them proven wrong... to the detriment of normal people..
Under legal proceedings do you believe that if you took the one not labeled cormirnaty (regardless of the contents being similar) would you be protected?
I dont believe either are safe. the FDA is just as corrupt as the drug companies.
I don’t believe they are safe either. I believe this all comes down to legal protection for the corrupt companies while also giving the appearance of an FDA approval so people can mandate it and shit.
Yes, with 100% certainty and proven countless times in court you would have an open and shut case if you were harmed by COMINARTY.
But that’s not what’s they are giving people currently correct?
Either way I’ll never take either lol.
Which means they are NOT the same. Legally distinct means although they may be extremely similar, they are in fact not exactly the same so the law recognizes them as two separate things.
Think of identical twins. They look the same and share DNA. But legally they are two different people.
You need to re-read. It is NOT FDA CLEARED.
Comirnaty is the new name of it. going forward.
No. Comonarity is not even made yet. Phiser is still eau and you can't sue.
Eau
you can jump up and down all you want.. it is approved..
You think the corrupt FDA didnt approve it? LMAO.. I dunno why it matters, theres no one that was going to take it just cause it got approved.
Have you watched the Dr. Malone video? Or maybe you have read the article with a senator's 10 questions for the FDA about the approval? Asking for a friend.
From what I understand, if it was already produced under the EUA, it is still EUA protected, meaning no FDA approved drug will be available until the EUA supply is gone.
you are right.. those bottles are still EUA, the new bottles will be called Comirnaty and is the approved version.
Both contain the SAME ingredidents. X22 covered this extensively on his show.
you clearly got raged and didnt read all that i said.
Were the ones in the wild produced at the specific location the FDA approved?
none the less.. I still wouldnt take that shit.
Cominarty is approved.
Knowing this, I called a large chain pharmacy for there response to questioning the FDA approved injection availability. THEY LIED!! I called them out in it, but how to we help the blind public see the truth? This disgusts me.
We don't. Get woke get the poke. X Sheep from goats, wheat from chaff oys all part of the real plan.
I tried explaining this to my boss to fight the mandate. I even printed out the FDA paperwork with the “legally distinct” info. She is either too stupid to get it or is getting some kind of kickback or bonus for her coercive rhetoric. Ignoring the constitution is never a good move.
What isn't approved?
The “approved” Pfizer COVID vaccine is not approved! They will be using the Emergency Authorized drug only until the supply is gone. Meaning, you have no protections getting the EUA drug because it is experimental. Informed consent is fraudulent if they tell you anything less. I’m so disgusted with this.
That's what I said.
Not sure what you think you are saying....
Everyone in here knows Cominarty is approved. You sound like you think it isn't.
Just misunderstood. I know it’s approved but unavailable.
And all those companies is forcing it to let people work because they are ignorant and think it's approved. Oh boy the liability is piling up.