The whole thing is a sham.
Posted on 08/26/2021 4:23:26 PM PDT by Enlightened1
Attorney Robert Barnes says the FDA approval is not what the public thinks. This is because once the FDA approves a vaccine it has to by law revoke all the Emergency Use Authorizations (aka EUAs) of all the other vaccines. They did not reverse and revoke Pfizer's EUA, Moderna's EUA and Johnson & Johnson EUA.
Under Federal Law EUAs cannot be issued if there is already an FDA approved drug on the market. The way Big Pharma got around that with Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, etc.. is to say they are only looking at other "vaccines". Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine are not considered vaccines. That the game they have been playing.
Plus under EUA there is no liability. Pfizer actually does not want FDA approval because then they are liable. What they approved is not even on the market.
See more below.
https://banned.video/watch?id=612801e527d8fc6ed4dc2e07
It might be a scam but this is nonsense.
You are missing a very important part of 360bbb–3. It's the piece of the puzzle that makes it all fit together. I know that you liked to play lawyer and pretend to be what you aren't so I'll give you a chance to find it.
As for the EUA, it is absolutely irrelevant. Pfizer/BioNTech has immunity whether the products are distributed pursuant to full approval or under a EUA. Your appeal to German law notwithstanding.
The whole thing is a sham.
You completely misunderstand.
I am not taking the vaccine. I don’t wear a mask. Mandates are evil.
I want people to fight the mandates. That means they need to understand what happened and not play pretend with social media trash.
The first person who tries the “but it wasn’t really approved” line on their woke corporate employer is going to get laughed right out of the HR office and then when they try to file a lawsuit based on the fantasy, they are going to get laughed out of court.
We need to be passing laws like Montana’s HB702.
We need to give people the information to file religious and medical
Exemptions.
But playing in the Qtard land doesn’t help that.
https://usarmybasic.com/about-the-army/army-shots
https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/smallpox/
You obviously failed math.
Look at that graph.
Now tell me on medical grounds why they’re trying to push the jabs on pregnant women, nursing mothers, and high school students.
Physical law trumps social, human law.
You cannot repeal the law of gravity by referendum or by emergency declaration.
Same video at 32:05 white house press secretary calls this operation the “Plandemic”
and surf down to
"Considerations for vaccination of people with certain underlying medical conditions"
They are still pushing the jabs on people with existing myocarditis!
People with Giuamme-Barre syndrome. People who HAVE Bell's palsy.
People with Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) (you just have to get jabbed with something besides Janssen's version, or wait 90 days after your symptoms have cleared).
They are literally going down the list of side effects from the jabs and saying "If you have these side effects, up yours and get the jab anyway."
Your post makes absolutely no sense.
I am not in favor anyone pushing this jab on anybody.
Vaccine mandates are evil. Can you process what I said?
Mandates should be opposed. Anyone who is pushing the vaccine on others is evil.
We need to stand up and fight in a manner that gets results. That’s what happened in Montana. In one swoop, the vaccine Karens are disarmed.
Howling at the moon and screaming about the CDC doesn’t change anything.
That graph perfectly illustrates why the government should mandate that everyone get triple jabbed with an experimental gene therapy that has zero long term safety studies. /s
You are only proving my long held contention that lawyers are a species of slime mold.
I was quoting the CDC guidance itself on what they consider (”Because SCIENCE™!”) to be disqualifying medical conditions to the jab. There are virtually none: even cancer, bone marrow transplant, and autoimmune diseases are listed as reasons to get BOOSTER shots.
So go ahead and try your method. HR will laugh in your face and smear you as a “science denier.”
The only lawful way to do it for now is to organize about 40% of the staff to walk out and quit.
It doesn’t matter what the CDC says.
The ADA controls. Medical accommodation is much broader than what the CDC guidelines say and there is a mountain of case law backing that up.
Then there are religious exemptions under Title VII.
However, all of that is irrelevant if we pass Statutes like HB702.
“ Section 1. Discrimination based on vaccination status or possession of immunity passport prohibited — definitions.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for:
(a) a person or a governmental entity to refuse, withhold from, or deny to a person any local or state services, goods, facilities, advantages, privileges, licensing, educational opportunities, health care access, or employment opportunities based on the person’s vaccination status or whether the person has an immunity
passport;
(b) an employer to refuse employment to a person, to bar a person from employment, or to discriminate against a person in compensation or in a term, condition, or privilege of employment based on the person’s vaccination status or whether the person has an immunity passport; or
(c) a public accommodation to exclude, limit, segregate, refuse to serve, or otherwise discriminate against a person based on the person’s vaccination status or whether the person has an immunity passport.”
Mark my words, the companies have lawyers on retainer who will drag the cases out beyond the ability of individual employees to continue to fight; then attempt to cite those cases as binding precedent.
You are missing an important part of 360bbb-3.
You can’t cut out a line from a statute and ignore the operative language.
See if you can find it.
Like this?
Regardless, if HB702 is the law everywhere, it doesn’t matter.
It trumps anything the companies might want to do.
https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download
Page 11, section Y:
Y. All descriptive printed matter, advertising, and promotional material relating to the
use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine clearly and conspicuously shall state
that:
This product has not been approved or licensed by FDA, but has been
authorized for emergency use by FDA, under an EUA to prevent Coronavirus
Disease 2019 (COVID-19) for use in individuals 12 years of age and older; and
The emergency use of this product is only authorized for the duration of the
declaration that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency
use of the medical product under Section 564(b)(1) of the FD&C Act unless the
declaration is terminated or authorization revoked sooner.
Also this:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/mainstream-media-fda-approval-pfizer-vaccine/
Please post the URL (again?).
I’d appreciate you saving me (us) a lot of time by providing the relevant language.
Okay; this answers a question I had in another Pfizer vaxx thread. Thanks.
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.