[Dr. Franklin]

Barnes knows better than this. Nothing in federal law requires EUAs to be revoked in this situation. Absolutely nothing. He can’t cite a case or statute that requires it either.

The language in the statute is as follows:
" that there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or condition"
So the approved Comirnaty mRNA treatment must be both approved and available before the EUA must be revoked, and ti won't be available any time soon.

And the EUA is irrelevant to liability. The vaccine makers are immune regardless. They have liability protection under the PREP act and under 300-aa22.

The EUA is not irrelevant to liability. If these products were chemically and biologically identical, why the differing legal categories for each? The PREP act can be reversed, and since forced vaccinations likely violate human rights laws, Big Pharma could very easily be subject to litigation in foreign courts. BioNTech, the licensee for Comirnaty, is a German company and is subject to the jurisdiction of the German courts. Foreign courts may not care what the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services decreed about experimental "vaccines".

[TexasGurl24]

The language in the statute is as follows: " that there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or condition" So the approved Comirnaty mRNA treatment must be both approved and available before the EUA must be revoked, and ti won't be available any time soon.

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.