[Sooner or later]

Originally Posted by javadog

What I can’t seem to get through some of the thick heads that reside here is the fact that what I post is generally posted because it has links within it to other things. I could post all of those links individually, but I’d rather show where they came from, to give credit to whoever surfed through the Internet and found them. Most of you never get past the article, if you read it at all, and I would bet that almost none of you click on the links in there, even though I tell you to do so.

I seldom hear criticism of the data or article within the link, it never gets past bull**** like “oh my god that site is so right wing” or so offensive to a liberal in some way.

Furthermore, I’m not endorsing everything I post here, I simply am posting things that I find worth reading, for whatever reason. I read probably 500 things a day on the Internet, if not more, and I realize that not everybody will see everything that’s out there. It’s virtually impossible. Read what I post, I don’t read what I post, I don’t care. I do from time to time offer my opinion on something and it’s generally pretty easy to tell what I think about some thing because I come right out and say it.

If you think the CDC has ever had their **** together, you’ve got rocks in your head. They hide data, they manipulate data, they change their mind every ****ing week about something or other, and the biggest crime they commit is that they were supposed to be watchguards for the entire country to prevent us from having problems like we have now and they are never ahead of the curve on that one. I’ve come to figure out that none of the government is worth what we pay them, they seldom protect us from anything and off and they don’t even clean up the mess. I could say the same thing about the FBI, the CIA and any number of other governmental entities, look back through history and you’ll find them damn near worthless. And it’s not a question of who’s leading the administration, they were ****ed up under Trump and they are ****ed up to this very day.

As for your other question, when we first started learning about the Delta variant, we were told that it’s much more contagious but less likely to be serious. That was the chatter in the news, months and months ago. Fauci and the CDC and the other idiots may have changed their tune, I can tell you right now that I’m not gonna pay much attention to it because their primary purpose is fear mongering. They have no credibility with me, you can believe them at your peril.

This Covid pandemic is about far more than just the goddamn bug, it’s a political weapon being used against all of us, some of you guys need to wake the **** up.

People don't want to shift through a load of crap in an attempt to find a small nugget of fools gold.

I stepped into one of the dung heaps you posted. Basically, I discredited each point.

Originally Posted by javadog

OK boys, read this article (and especially the embedded links) and get up to speed on your trustworthy government and their buddies in the pharmaceutical industry:

https://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2021/08/vax-authorization-short-and-long.html?m=1

This kind of thing is what concerns some of us and I can guarantee you that not one in 1000 people that have gotten vaccinated understand what’s presented in the article. They don’t even know to go look for it.

My response.

Originally Posted by Sooner or later

They are misleading you again, and you fall for it. As usual, a trash article from meaning in history.

"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 typical￾ly 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 impos￾ing 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 vaccina￾tion requirements, even when the only vaccines available are those au￾thorized under EUAs.
DAWN JOHNSEN
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel

Your response to the above.

Originally Posted by javadog

I have to disagree with some of what you have posted there, I don’t know if I have the energy tonight to type a lengthy reply like yours.