Posted on 12/17/2021 9:10:33 AM PST by CheshireTheCat
Following Wednesday’s story in which The Ohio Star reported that Pfizer is currently still shipping it’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) COVID-19 vaccine, the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) won’t say which version of the vaccine it is distributing.
ODH is responsible for acquiring and distributing at least some of the state’s supply of COVID-19 vaccines, though Alicia Shoults of the ODH’s Office of Public Affairs told The Star by phone Thursday afternoon that some healthcare providers procure the vaccine directly from the federal government.
The Star asked Shoults which version of the Pfizer vaccine ODH was procuring – Comirnaty or the non-FDA approved EUA vaccine.
Several hours later, she responded curtly by email.
“We decline to comment,” she said.
Wednesday, The Star also confirmed that OhioHealth, a large healthcare system that has 12 hospitals under its umbrella, is not distributing Pfizer’s FDA-approved brand name COVID-19 vaccine, called Comirnaty. It is still distributing the EUA version of the vaccine.
Pfizer initially confirmed Monday that it is shipping the EUA vaccine....
(Excerpt) Read more at theohiostar.com ...
For your consideration.
That’s curious.
It shouldn’t matter if they’re the same formulation, right?
Keeps one from researching
Legally distinct. The EUA version is immune from prosecution. The other isn’t available.
The two vaccines are chemically, molecularly, and biologically identical. (Pfizer and the FDA (which sets the rules) has said so.)
The label and marketing is different. There is a legal difference that may affect liability and indemnification.
This is a non-story, or at least, the author gives no indication why it matters.
He probably doesn’t want Google to remove The Ohio Star or for it to lose whatever presence it has on social media.
Its the liability. For the EAU version Pfizer is immune from being sued for deaths and injuries. Also Rueters reported recently that it had found evidence that the reason illegals aren’t getting jabbed is because they might be able to sue even for even for EAU. Ironically the tone of the Reuters story was that this was being mean to the poor illegals...while my attitude is they are lucky.
Exactly.
That why they don’t want to release the labeling (or, any) info.
They can be sued for the Comirnaty fake vz because it is not under the EUA,
vz=vax
“Informed consent” takes another beating.
Continuing proof, as if it were needed, that CoupFlu has NEVER been about public health.
And that informed consent is IMPOSSIBLE.
If it’s a day that ends in “Y”, your government is lying to you!
It’s the difference between informed consent, and uninformed coercion, especially for military members who are required to take an experimental “vaccine” under duress. It’s ILLEGAL, and the military is telling them it’s not illegal, that it’s Comirnaty when it’s not — and I read a judge slapped the Pentagon down over it.
The Nuremberg code is not “optional” for any government or private entity.
“The label and marketing is different. There is a legal difference that may affect liability and indemnification.
This is a non-story, or at least, the author gives no indication why it matters.”
I’ve heard that before but it doesn’t make sense. Maybe there’s a bit more to the story.
“None of your business what injection we want to force you to accept...” or “We would like the public to keep accepting an injection you THINK includes liability but for which no one is liable”
It matters because only ONE version of the jab is fully approved. According to EUA regulations, there should be NO emergency use drugs available once there is an approved version. I don’t know why J&J’s and Moderna’s are still available either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.