The vaccine

[cabmandone]

Why... won't... this.... dead.... horse... get .... up!!!?

[Steve Carlton]

Originally Posted by javadog

Click on the links yourself, ya lazy turd…

Or don’t, I don’t care. Stick your head in the sand like so many around here and make sure you hear nothing that upsets your preconceived notions.

Since you asked so nicely, I looked at the link. It looks to me like there's no there there. Is the crux of that that the vaccine under the EUA (Emergency Use Act) is different from the approved "Comirnaty" vaccine? I'm not seeing the difference, other than some conspiracy theory. Please enlighten me.

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

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by flipper35

I can tell you first hand this chart is not correct near where I live.

One hospital, according to staff, had over 80% of hospitalizations were vaccinated but the news reported them as having 90% unvaccinated.

Similar situation here

Almost like they are lying about it. They would never do that

[javadog]

Originally Posted by Steve Carlton

Since you asked so nicely, I looked at the link. It looks to me like there's no there there. Is the crux of that that the vaccine under the EUA (Emergency Use Act) is different from the approved "Comirnaty" vaccine? I'm not seeing the difference, other than some conspiracy theory. Please enlighten me.

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

The FBI agent, the guy you derided for no good reason whatsoever, spells it out in his article. Read it, I’m not going to retype it for you.

[javadog]

Originally Posted by Tobra

Similar situation here

Almost like they are lying about it. They would never do that

Data? You want data? Numbers?

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.

[thor66]

Originally Posted by sugarwood

Stop spreading lies, you lying piece of shiit.
Gullible fcking moron

his therapist must be on vacation

We all know who the "frustrated dope" is

[javadog]

Here’s one data point:

https://redstate.com/scotthounsell/2021/08/25/52-of-southern-nevada-covid-19-deaths-were-fully-vaccinated-thats-what-this-data-says-n432117

[thor66]

red state is one of the top scientific journals for virology

[DontBaSheeple]

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.

[javadog]

Originally Posted by thor66

red state is one of the top scientific journals for virology

You can’t even capitalize and punctuate a sentence properly, so they’re ahead of you.

[cabmandone]

Damn you dead horse.... get up!

[Sooner or later]

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.

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

[island911]

Originally Posted by javadog

Here’s one data point:

https://redstate.com/scotthounsell/2021/08/25/52-of-southern-nevada-covid-19-deaths-were-fully-vaccinated-thats-what-this-data-says-n432117

Wow! Yikes! If those numbers are true, that efficacy is much worse that I expected.

IIRC We were told that preliminary testing showed 90% efficacy against hospitalization and/or death.

[javadog]

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

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.

[javadog]

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

[javadog]

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.

[Baz]

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

[upsscott]

Originally Posted by Baz

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

What’s the chances of getting an ICU bed in Florida should someone need one?

[javadog]

For Mr. Carlton:

[upsscott]

Originally Posted by javadog

For Mr. Carlton:

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/