I keep seeing articles (example: https://www.sott.net/article/457561-Major-law-firm-confirms-FDA-deceived-America-with-its-confusing-approval-of-Pfizer-vax-highlights-religious-belief-rights) about how the FDA's sly language was a bait and switch... they did not give approval for the Pfizer original vaccine, but did give approval to a newly branded vaccine called Comirnaty which a) does not exist in the US so it cannot be given in the US, and b) is the "same thing" as the original shot so go ahead and get the original shot because by logic it is also approved (so the logic is... what do you call it when you create something to justify something else and you put it out there and say 'see, here's the proof'? --snaps fingers--Oh yeah, liberal logic).
Is THAT what happened? OR, are both the original Pfizer shot and its twin Comirnaty both under EUA? I have the original PDF of the letter to Pfizer (https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download), and here are two important quotes:
"On August 23, 2021, having concluded that revising this EUA is appropriate to protect the public health or safety under section 564(g)(2) of the Act, FDA is reissuing the August 12, 2021 letter of authorization in its entirety with revisions incorporated to clarify that the EUA will remain in place for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the previously-authorized indication and uses, and to authorize use of COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) under this EUA for certain uses that are not included in the approved BLA". (page 2)
And...
"Y. All descriptive printed matter, advertising, and promotional material relating to the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine clearly and conspicuously shall state that:
• This product has not been approved or licensed by FDA, but has been authorized for emergency use by FDA, under an EUA to prevent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) for use in individuals 12 years of age and older; and • The emergency use of this product is only authorized for the duration of the declaration that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of the medical product under Section 564(b)(1) of the FD&C Act unless the declaration is terminated or authorization revoked sooner." (pages 11-12)
The first quote states about the Comirnaty brand, "under this EUA".
So is the bait and switch argument a weak response?
FDA approved Comirnaty will not be available until 2024.
They are still shielded from liability on the "currently available" vaccine. EUA
Go to a vaccine sight and ask for Comirnaty. Tell them you want the actual approved vaccine. Tell them you want proof that you are getting Comirnaty.
GOOD LUCK
Thanks, but I have no plans to ever get this shot in any form.
And when they say they don’t have it you can tell the ones mandating it you wanted to get the approved one but they don’t have it anywhere.
From what I understand, they approved the shot under the name Comirnaty. It is the same formula as the EUA shot. I could be wrong, but that's how I read the report.
I agree that it is not clear at all.
Apparently, Comirnaty is the name they use in Europe (BioNTech is German). I saw it myself on someones vaccination passport/certificate.
Perhaps the FDA is approving the European brand, and the EMA is approving the American brand? Same chemical, different names?
Many people have fallen for the mislead and have gone to get the shot without realizing all the shots available now are the original unapproved ones.
Sadly, you are right.
Where does it say that Cominarity won’t be approved until 2024? What page?
After reading the entire letter at length, my conclusion is that neither of these "vaccines" are approved beyond the EUA. I'm no lawyer but that's how I read it. It is intentionally ambiguous for sure.
Thank you! I don't know if we are right, but at least I know I am not going crazy!