Soory for the lack of response — as I said I had things to do, and am just getting back to the conversation
1. You agree then, that there are FDA approved vaccinations for CoVID-19. I believe that the “legally different” vaccines you have reported have been fleshed out in the past as a technical statement that does not represent a difference (that the injection had to be changed to the trade name, the generic name of exactly same ingredients was still EUA)
2. You proffer a legal definition using mind altering drugs. Please let me know where anyone was tricked into being vaccinated using anesthetics or mind altering drugs — come on, this is a real red herring
3. Media reports, gaslighting and the rest are buzz words that are meant to incite emotion — not facts. These patients in this article were given a medication without their knowledge, and without their consent. They were given it by stealth. So you bring up the one off kid who got a vaccination that should not have. That is wrong, but it is not deceitful. It is a mistake. However, I think whomever administered that injection should be sanctioned for piss poor practice.
4. You are parsing words, in my original statement, I said assuming this is correct — I am aware this is a complaint and dealt with that off the top. However, if discovery shows they did not consent, then will you condemn what happened — or take the path of others that it helped so the result is ok, despite the lack of choice,
5. So you agree that Ivermectin is not approved. You use a lot of language to mitigate that you know damn well that this is experimental use, and trying to justify it. As I have said numerous other places, I have no problem with off label use — I have a real problem with off label use without the patient being aware of it. As this is “experimental” it goes right to the point that on one hand those opposed to vaccines scream its experimental and are attempting to have the choice of vaccination removed (often with dubious references to daily expose, bitchute and widely discredited conspiracy theories) but are completely OK with true experimental use of a drug without the patients being aware that they are being administered the drug without approved use.
I do agree that there are multiple things in phase III trial, however they are not the modalities you are representing.
I do not agree. FDA emergency use authorization is in place, and the Comirnaty is, by the FDA's own admission, "legally different." If it were not, there would be no need for the continuance of a finding of emergency to justify the EUA.
Out of the box, you mis-characterized my statement by replacing it with your own.
-- "2. You proffer a legal definition using mind altering drugs."
It is a legal parallel, and you wiggle behind "red herring" as your retort. Enough on this thread and in the comments on other FR threads suggest they were not properly able to give "informed consent." Certainly children do not give informed consent. Other Freeper replies to this thread alone belie your assertions.
As example, sitetest wrote you: "When I was in the hospital the last two times, I was given a variety of drugs with no prior consent."
-- "3. So you bring up the one off kid who got a vaccination that should not have. That is wrong, but it is not deceitful."
The one off kid? Only one? Where have you been?
-- "4. However, if discovery shows they did not consent, then will you condemn what happened — or take the path of others that it helped so the result is ok, despite the lack of choice...."
Will I condemn after the suit including discovery is finished? Sure, and without question. Parse your words, have I? If so, we''re playing in the same arena. You parse mine.
-- "5. As this is 'experimental' it goes right to the point that on one hand those opposed to vaccines scream its experimental and are attempting to have the choice of vaccination removed (often with dubious references to daily expose, bitchute and widely discredited conspiracy theories) but are completely OK with true experimental use of a drug without the patients being aware that they are being administered the drug without approved use."
Your debate game is dull. I am ex-Army and many times vaccinated, ergo not among those "those opposed to vaccines [ who ] scream..."
Only above is this exchange you write about "words that are meant to incite emotion." And then you employ them.
-- "I do agree that there are multiple things in phase III trial, however they are not the modalities you are representing."
Multiple things? Modalities?
I asked plainly of you the following ONE question, "Do you agree that the phase three, clinical trials continue and that as trials they are experimental?” I assume you answer plainly, yes.
Then -- and if your "yes" holds -- as the experiment continues with a EUA to support a legal shield for those pharmaceutical manufacturers "experimenting," full FDA approval for the mRNA injections -- not for one but all the manufacturers -- is not been made, and the EUA withdrawn.
The experimental trials and EUA-defined immunity from legal liability continue. That is NOT full FDA approval.