ETA: From a friend in the medical industry
Current clot shot is NOT FDA APPROVED. The approval is for one that it not on the market yet. Read the following from a friends sister who works for big Pharma:
An important distinction here.
If this reading is right, only vaccine released from today can be considered approved & it must have it’s approved name on the vial.
Appallingly, apparently it’s possible to mandate it. And the manufacturer has product liability.
All distributed stock is still covered by EUA, cannot be mandated & we carry the can.
It may be a long time before bulk licensed product is out there. Tell them to sling their hook meanwhile.
Mike
For the US: Read the FDA approval letter please. This is how they scam you, by making it nearly impenetrable. Below, I identify the two most relevant passages. The rest of the letter is repetitive blather to keep your head spinning.
https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download
page 2 last line, footnote: here FDA quietly admits that the licened Pfizer vaccine and the authorized Pfizer vaccine are identical w.r.t. safety and efficacy, but they are "legally distinct." That's code for one has manufacturer liability, while the other doesn't. It is also code for "we don't want to impose a mandate on the EUA product 'cause it is illegal, but we can probably get away with a mandate on the licensed product."
page 12 AA. This tells you that yes, we licensed the vaccine, but...there is a lot of the old vaccine out there, actually "a significant amount" and this amount will be considered an EUA vaccine and will continue to be used. Maybe for a very long time.
Now, why would they do that? Why specify that identical versions of the product will be legally different? Because they need the license to impose the mandates. But they need the EUA to evade liability.
Along with the license comes liability for the manufacturer. (But all EUA products were given a liability shield.)
Unfortunately, our federal overlords would prefer us to be without recourse if we are injured, rather than have Pfizer risk defending its product in court.
So, my inference is that the feds want the public to THINK the vaccine they are receiving is licensed, which will make people submit because they believe it can now be mandated, but instead the public is almost certain to receive the EUA vials instead, to save Pfizer's behind.
You will be able to tell the difference when you see the vaccine vial. The letter explains that the COMIRNATY-labelled vials will be the licensed ones, and the others (under EUA) will say something like Pfizer BioNTech Covid-19 Vaccine without the brand name COMIRNATY.
Yes, a stingy CICP injury program exists, which I have previously written about, but it has not paid out for a single Covid vaccine injury, last time I checked.
How did I figure this out? Because I have read other FDA approval letters, and this one had significant weasel wording. And I have seen other FDA tricks. So it just took me awhile to identify what was being hidden. I could be wrong. But then we would need another explanation for the language in the approval letter. I'm happy to entertain other interpretations. --Meryl Nass, MD
P.S. Pfizer made $33 billion so far this year on its mRNA vaccine.
who is saying "vaccines are bull****" here?
