[TexasGurl24]

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.

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.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/08/04/2021-16681/eighth-amendment-to-declaration-under-the-public-readiness-and-emergency-preparedness-act-for

[dforest]

Are you positive that foreign vaccine makers get the same immunity?

[for-q-clinton]

uh you need to read the document it’s quite clear that there are legal differences between the FDA approved version and the EUA versions.

https://www.fda.gov/media/144414/download

“The licensed vaccine has the same formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can
be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness
concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or
effectiveness.”

[Enlightened1]

If you watch the full video he covers why.

Moreover, if you were correct, then Barnes law firm said they would be withdrawing their lawsuits.

[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".

[Svartalfiar]

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.

Criteria for Issuance of Authorization. Read it for any of the shots at the link below, and one of the criteria for the EUA to be authorized is that "C. There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the emergency use of [Moderna] COVID-19 Vaccine to prevent COVID-19.^5". If Pfizer is now officially approved, and it's obviously pretty widespread everywhere, then there is no legal justification for the FDA to issue these letters, and therefore they should be revoked.

Unless, of course, they admit that Pfizer isn't adequate, or doesn't actually prevent COVID-19. But that would destroy their shot mandate narrative!

https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/covid-19-vaccines

[Boomer]

Okay; this answers a question I had in another Pfizer vaxx thread. Thanks.

[Marcell]

https://www.congress.gov/108/plaws/publ276/PLAW-108publ276.pdf