Posted on 08/26/2021 11:48:23 AM PDT by NoLibZone
There is no *available* FDA approved licensed vaccine. Here's what is happening. If FDA approved & licensed COVID19 vaccine, it would have to revoke the EUA vaccines & subject the vaccine maker to more liability risk. So it only approved a future vaccine that isn't "available".
3:01 PM · Aug 25, 2021
https://gab.com/Portland-jet
Approval just in time for the next booster contract.
****
The media is complicit in all these vaccine deaths as well as those that shame people into getting jabbed.
I heard on Fox last night, it was approved by FDA and off EUA status for 16 y/o and older. EUA and liability still on for 15 y/o and younger. Go figure.
Not this shit again.
The FDA says it’s FDA approved.
It doesn’t matter how some right wing news blogs say. It doesn’t matter what Dr Malone says. The FDA is the FDA and they are not.
I am utterly amazed at how many Freepers trust the Biden administration.
I get it.
you trust the Biden administration
You literally can’t trust a single thing these liars say.
https://gab.com/Portland-jet
How dare You read through the fuzzy ambiguous language and determine that everything isn’t really on the up and up, Shame on You
We are witnessing a bunch of incompetent tyrants mandating ineffective measures because they fear being seen as doing nothing.
They have been paid off to prevent the use of cheap, effective, widely available therapeutics, so they could get rich of some marginal, expensive medicine that is being passed off as a vaccine, when in fact it has nothing in common with the definition of a vaccine.
I make these charges without assigning any evil intent regarding the negative medical effects the so called “vaccines”.
Simple solution to this dilemma.
Never believe anything from the government, its agencies, or the media. Now go create a nice day.
This is semantics.
The FDA approval letter states:
MANUFACTURING LOCATIONSUnder this license, you are approved to manufacture COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA drug substance at [redacted].
The final formulated product will be manufactured, filled, labeled and packaged at Pfizer [redacted].
The diluent, 0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection, USP, will be manufactured at [redacted].
Any vaccine manufactured prior to this letter isn't covered by this letter, so all existing stocks are still under the EUA.
Only new Lots manufactured after this letter date and at the specified (but redacted) factories will be approved.
So of course there isn't any "approved" vaccine available yet.
It seems that the FDA approved a product called COMIRNATY, which Pfizer says is not yet available.
The Biden administration is using this FDA approval to mandate vaccinations to the military, and is encouraging businesses to do the same for their employees.
Since the only available vaccine is not COMIRNATY, but the one only approved for emergency use only, isn't the mandate unenforceable?
Isn't it truly a bait and switch to use the authorization of one vaccine to mandate the use of another one?
-PJ
I think one thing is clear...the FDA has purposely made this as unclear as possible. The question is why?
thanks for the post. i’m still studying this, haven’t made a decision on what this “approval” is. i’ve read enough to conclude that there is an adulteration of the normal timelines and processes, though. there’s apparently a bunch of conditions too. but there is definitely something “rotten” in the FDA concerning this new style “vaccine.”
another apparent thing in the “approval” letter was the vote for approval. that vote wasn’t unanimous. it was apparently 17 votes for out of 22 for license approval (think there was one abstention). that’s a big tell, imo. even their kangaroo court committee didn’t vote unanimously.
also over the last few months. there has been a lot of concern about whether this is a vaccine or something else. i now see why the folks who didn’t want to call it a vaccine were so adamant about it. i wasn’t concerned about this as the drug was ultimately producing antibodies like a vaccine.
but now i see their point, this is probably not legally vaccine but some kind of gene therapy which can function as a vaccine. if it’s a gene therapy, then their immunity from law suits takes a big hit. even if they call it a vaccine.
the laws about vaccines do not give blanket immunity for pfizer or a vaccine either. i’ve found sites for law firms out there that apparently make their living suing for vaccine injuries (like their pneumonia vaccine given to children for which there are many injuries according to the law firms i’ve perused online).
there may be compensation pools out there set up by the gov’t/big pharma for vaccine injuries. if so, then logically, law suits could be filed to drain these pools since we have millions of covid19 vaccine injuries reported now, thus getting to pfizer and their ilk.
anyway that’s what i’ve seen so far, i don’t know much about the law and vaccines, but i’m starting to learn.
Correct.
The FDA did in fact approve a Covid vaccine.
The FDA approved a vaccine that is not currently available.
And they approved one that is currently available the EU A’s for Moderna and Johnson and all the rest would have to be pulled
Had they approved one that is currently available They would have to pull the EU A’s for all the other vaccines
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.