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?