"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?
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.
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?
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?