![]() |
Why... won't... this.... dead.... horse... get .... up!!!?
|
Quote:
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/qa-comirnaty-covid-19-vaccine-mrna#:~:text=The%20FDA%2Dapproved%20Pfizer%2DBioNT ech,any%20safety%20or%20effectiveness%20concerns. https://www.fda.gov/media/144414/download |
Quote:
Almost like they are lying about it. They would never do that |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Well, I’m sorry, there’s been a bit of a problem. (Upcoming link warning - judged to be safe for liberals’ consumption) https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/25/cdc-pandemic-limited-data-breakthroughs-506823 Some people might be persuaded to think that they don’t want good data. We could provide it, if that’s what they really wanted; I could implement a suitable process in any hospital in the country in under an hour. |
Quote:
We all know who the "frustrated dope" is |
|
red state is one of the top scientific journals for virology
|
Just wow! I can't believe how some of you want everyone to submit to a vaccine jab using a mandate while fully trusting the three letter agencies, Biden administration, MSM, tech social media giants among others as if they are speaking the TRUTH. Good grief.
|
Quote:
|
Damn you dead horse.... get up!
|
Quote:
"First, the FDA acknowledges that while Pfizer has “insufficient stocks” of the newly licensed Comirnaty vaccine available, there is “a significant amount” of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine — produced under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) — still available for use. The FDA decrees that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine under the EUA should remain unlicensed but can be used “interchangeably” (page 2, footnote 8) with the newly licensed Comirnaty product. Second, the FDA pointed out that the licensed Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine and the existing, EUA Pfizer vaccine are “legally distinct,” but proclaims that their differences do not “impact safety or effectiveness.” The "Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine" and "Comirnaty" are exactly the same. Yes, they are "legally distinct ". Legally, "Comirnaty" can now be advertised and marketed for use in age groups 16 and over, full authorization. "Pfizer BioNTech Covid vaccine " is still under EUA for 12 to 15 age group and cannot legally be advertised or marketed. At the date of full approval there are no viles and fact sheet inserte available of "Comirnaty" for distribution so, being the exact formulation, they can be interchanged. Also, from the link they supplied in regards to length of EUA. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3 (f)Duration of authorization (1)In general Except as provided in paragraph (2), an authorization under this section shall be effective until the earlier of the termination of the declaration under subsection (b) or a revocation under subsection (g). And here we go again with the lawsuit limitations. Of course, they fail to mention that any vaccine, EUA or fully approved, has the same liability immunity. "EUA-approved COVID vaccines have an extraordinary liability shield under the 2005 Public Readiness and Preparedness Act. Vaccine manufacturers, distributors, providers and government planners are immune from liability. The only way an injured party can sue is if he or she can prove willful misconduct, and if the U.S. government has also brought an enforcement action against the party for willful misconduct. No such lawsuit has ever succeeded." From the same source that the article used, Cornell, on vaccine liability immunity. Full apporval and EUA have same protection. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22 (b)Unavoidable adverse side effects; warnings (1)No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings. (2)For purposes of paragraph (1), a vaccine shall be presumed to be accompanied by proper directions and warnings if the vaccine manufacturer shows that it complied in all material respects with all requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.] and section 262 of this title (including regulations issued under such provisions) applicable to the vaccine and related to vaccine-related injury or death for which the civil action was brought unless the plaintiff shows— (A)that the manufacturer engaged in the conduct set forth in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 300aa–23(d)(2) of this title, or (B)by clear and convincing evidence that the manufacturer failed to exercise due care notwithstanding its compliance with such Act and section (and regulations issued under such provisions). As far as legality of business requiring vaccines. Much more in the PDF. https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1415446/download July 6, 2021 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT In recent months, many public and private entities have announced that they will require individuals to be vaccinated against COVID-19—for instance, in order to attend school or events in person, or to return to work or be hired into a new job. We will refer to such policies as “vaccination requirements,” though we note that these policies typically are conditions on employment, education, receipt of services, and the like rather than more direct legal requirements.2 In light of these developments, you have asked whether the “option to accept or refuse” condition in section 564 prohibits entities from imposing such vaccination requirements while the only available vaccines for COVID-19 remain subject to EUAs. We conclude, consistent with FDA’s interpretation, that it does not. This language in section 564 specifies only that certain information be provided to potential vaccine recipients and does not prohibit entities from imposing vaccination requirements. For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that section 564 of the FDCA does not prohibit public or private entities from imposing vaccination requirements, even when the only vaccines available are those authorized under EUAs. DAWN JOHNSEN Acting Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel |
Quote:
IIRC We were told that preliminary testing showed 90% efficacy against hospitalization and/or death. |
Quote:
|
As another example of why I don’t trust the CDC, or that idiot woman that runs it, read this:
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/08/25/yikes-cdc-seems-to-have-covered-up-data-showing-masking-kids-in-schools-is-pointless-n432707 |
There’s a couple things in this that I found interesting, as well:
https://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2021/08/follow-hope.html?m=1 I had heard about the HIV thing before, the other was new to me. |
cv19 deaths per state ranking through 8-25-21
Florida comes in at #21 with 1.97 deaths per 10,000 people Top three are: 1. N.J. 2. N.Y. 3. MS |
Quote:
What’s the chances of getting an ICU bed in Florida should someone need one? |
|
Quote:
Can you quote anything that isn’t slanted to the right, extreme right? https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/pandemics-wrongest-man/618475/ |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website