The EAU is what the pharmaceutical industry is hiding behind. There is no officially approved COVID vaxxxines that are available. The redefining of what a vaccine is in comparison to gene therapy is another matter.
Comirnaty is the only FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine made by Pfizer for BioNTech. It is not available for use in the USA. These mandates are driven by the bait and switch of the FDA that we "now have an approved vaccine". We do not have an approved vaccine in America.
According to the FDA letter, it looks like that Pfizer BioNtech labeled shot is still under EUA (liability shield), while their re-branded Comirnaty, which likely won't be produced until 2023, is the one that was "approved" by the FDA (no liability shield). So, I'd imagine some genius under mandate, or lawyers, will request the Comirnaty (approved version) from their employer, then when its not available to be given, they will file a wrongful termination lawsuit. Of course, the argument on the other side will be the claim that both are the same chemical compounds. Which, even if true (it appears so), then why the two distinct legal entities? (other than to shield Pfizer from liability) Hint: FDA Switcheroo.
The EAU is what the pharmaceutical industry is hiding behind. There is no officially approved COVID vaxxxines that are available. The redefining of what a vaccine is in comparison to gene therapy is another matter.
Comirnaty is the only FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine made by Pfizer for BioNTech. It is not available for use in the USA. These mandates are driven by the bait and switch of the FDA that we "now have an approved vaccine". We do not have an approved vaccine in America.
According to the FDA letter, it looks like that Pfizer BioNtech labeled shot is still under EUA (liability shield), while their re-branded Comirnaty, which likely won't be produced until 2023, is the one that was "approved" by the FDA (no liability shield). So, I'd imagine some genius under mandate, or lawyers, will request the Comirnaty (approved version) from their employer, then when its not available to be given, they will file a wrongful termination lawsuit. Of course, the argument on the other side will be the claim that both are the same chemical compounds. Which, even if true (it appears so), then why the two distinct legal entities? (other than to shield Pfizer from liability) Hint: FDA Switcheroo.