noiseman wrote: “Longer answer: I think this is all about protecting Pfizer from liability for the negative effects of the shot. The FDA appears to be conspiring with Pfizer, aided by a moronic and compliant media, to pull a gigantic con. They’re tricking everyone into going along with mandates by leading them to believe that the “non-experimental” FDA-approved version is available and is what everyone is receiving, while keeping secret the fact that they’re all actually receiving the experimental, liability-exempt version.”
You’re being scammed. This claim is being advanced by two of the biggest proponents of misinformation about the vaccines, Malone and Kennedy jr. Read this:
(Quotations from the linked article)
“Malone, a physician who bills himself as having played a key role in creation of mRNA vaccines, is a prominent skeptic of the coronavirus vaccines that have been crafted using the technology. Shortly after the Food and Drug Administration fully authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, he appeared on a program hosted by Stephen K. Bannon, a one-time adviser to former president Donald Trump, and claimed that the full authorization was a bait-and-switch game played by the FDA.”
“One again the mainstream media has lied to you,” he said. “Sorry to say that. I know it’s a shock to this viewership.”
“In essence, his argument was that the approved vaccine would no longer have liability protections so Pfizer would simply keep distributing in the United States the product that had been authorized for emergency use.”
“A similar claim was made by Robert F. Kennedy, a leading anti-vaccine campaigner.”
Even Malone admits this claim is false: “These claims are false, based on a misunderstanding of the law, as Malone acknowledged after we contacted him.”
“Indeed, contrary to the claims of Malone and others, the Comirnaty vaccine has the same liability protection as the vaccine approved under the EUA. That’s because of a law known as the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act).”
IOW, what you thought is incorrect.
Thanks for the link and quote. Learning that Cormirnaty’s manufacturer is also protected from legal liability convinces me that my waiting for its deployment before accepting an injecting, post clinical trial, is now a moot point.
Without product liability for any sort of product, I steer clear from such a product. In this, I am sure we disagree.
You might want to re-read the article.
It states:
“ At present, Pfizer does not plan to produce any product with these new NDCs (National Drug Code) and labels over the next few months while EUA authorized product is still available and being made available for U.S. distribution. As such, the CDC, AMA (American Medical Association), and drug compendia may not publish these new codes until Pfizer has determined when the product will be produced with the BLA labels.””
Read the first sentence.
The talking point has been that they are using up the existing EUA version. I even had a conversation with a co-worker where he asked if I expected them to throw out the the EUA stuff. But according to the quote I pasted, they AREN’T EVEN MAKING Comirnaty yet. That doesn’t square with the claim that they are simply using up existing stock. They should have immediately began producing Comirnaty, even if they shipped out the EUA version until they exhausted supplies.
Everyone needs to pay closer attention to what is being said, and contemplate their words before defending them, and poo-pooing people who are more observant. Vax-shills are everywhere.