No, the onus is on YOU, onus boy. You always neglect the onus when you spew your bio-lab inspired lies during your vax pimping denial tantrums.
WHERE'S THE ONUS?!?!?!?!
Posted on 06/27/2022 9:20:40 PM PDT by SecAmndmt
(...)
FDA-approved COVID shots exist only on paper, Pfizer and CDC openly admit that “approved” version of the shot will “not be manufactured or made available”
(...)
(Excerpt) Read more at naturalhealth365.com ...
The day the FDA “approval” letter was released, I posted that it wasn't the vaccine that was being used and the approved vaccine didn't exist. I was told I had a reading comprehension problem.
heavy metal wrote: “you’re interrupting, lying to, and pushing drugs on the people who are insisting upon accuracy about the vaccines...”
Pointing out the misinformation and falsehoods peddled by the anti-vaxxers isn’t pushing drugs on anyone.
The day the FDA “approval” letter was released, I posted that it wasn’t the vaccine that was being used and the approved vaccine didn’t exist. I was told I had a reading comprehension problem.
Typical leftist tactic, right there.
And, we see who is pu$hing these horrid $hots....for the leftist agencies and BigPharma.
Coincidence?
I think not. ;-)
Worldtraveler once upon a time wrote: “Supposedly. But the CDC and FDA say they are “legally distinct.” So....”
“Finally, addressing the “legally distinct” aspect directly, a Pfizer representative told factcheck.org that the “reference relates to differences in manufacturing — for example, the licensed product may be made at different sites or use materials from different approved suppliers.””
https://lynnwoodtimes.com/2021/10/19/fda-approved-pfizer-comirnaty-vaccine-clarifications/
you’re a liar...
liars don’t have any right to instruct anyone on what’s truth and what isn’t...
bagster wrote: “Demonstrate that they are, father of lies.”
You’re the one claiming these are deferent so the onus is on you to make the proof.
Yep. I figured it was a DUmmie stirring the pot.
No, the onus is on YOU, onus boy. You always neglect the onus when you spew your bio-lab inspired lies during your vax pimping denial tantrums.
WHERE'S THE ONUS?!?!?!?!
I have to admit, if I had been given that ultimatum, I would have lied to her about receiving the shot. Brainwashed souls should not direct our health decisions. I pray you remain healthy.
Worldtraveler once upon a time wrote: “Thanks for what was already well known. “Legally distinct” means one cannot sue for damages, which explains why Cormirnaty is not being made available in the US. It is a decision made based on avoiding litigation, which you of course know is the reason why “legally” is the adjective chosen.”
That is simply incorrect.
Quotation begins.
Legally distinct vaccines and liability
It has widely been speculated that the rebranding of Pfizer’s vaccine post-approval was a legal maneuver to shield Pfizer from liability charges. Said speculation stems from a footnote in the same FDA letter to Pfizer that reads, “the [Comirnaty and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines] are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.”
At the heart of the claim that Pfizer’s name change was a legal maneuver is a federal law that protects vaccine manufacturers in the event of a public health emergency — like a pandemic. The law is called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP), and when invoked by the Department of Health and Human Services — which it was in early 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic — “The declaration provides immunity from liability (except for willful misconduct)” for a variety of claims listed on phe.gov.
According to Congressional Research Service, “covered persons are generally immune from legal liability (i.e., they cannot be sued for money damages in court) for losses relating to the administration or use of covered countermeasures against COVID-19,” with the sole exception to the PREP Act being death due to willful misconduct.
The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is the agency that oversees compensation programs where individuals can file claims alleging injury or death from vaccination. The COVID-19 vaccines fall under the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).
As HRSA spokesman David Bowman explained to Newsweek, “FDA authorized and approved COVID-19 vaccines, including Comirnaty, are covered countermeasures” under the CICP.
Elaborating further, Bowman said that there “are no liability or compensation differences between a countermeasure approved under an EUA or one that has received full FDA approval.” The theory, then, that Pfizer’s branding was a ploy to evade liability may not hold water as authorized and approved vaccines are both currently covered by the CICP.
Quotation Ends.
https://lynnwoodtimes.com/2021/10/19/fda-approved-pfizer-comirnaty-vaccine-clarifications/
The claims that there exist a difference in liability stems from an interview given by Robert Malone on Bannon’s War Room.
Robert Malone now admits that he was incorrect and admits there is no difference in liability.
“Malone did not respond to our request for comment, but acknowledged in an Aug. 30 tweet that he was “wrong” about the purported differences in liability. Malone told the Washington Post‘s Fact Checker: “On this particular legal liability issue I did not hunt down the details myself, and relied on comments from a third party lawyer which were not fully correct.”
bagster wrote: “No, the onus is on YOU, onus boy. You always neglect the onus when you spew your bio-lab inspired lies during your vax pimping denial tantrums.”
Did you know that Robert Malone, unlike myself, worked for a bio-lab?
"Federal Judge rejects Pfizer's interchangeability and questions the existence of Comirnaty" -- December 7, 2021.
https://lynnwoodtimes.com/2021/12/07/federaljudge-rejects-interchangeability-comirnaty/
As to your relying on the fact check, that article notes: "The transition of a vaccine from CICP (an administrative process) to VICP (a legal process) does raise some questions and concerns — including whether those who file under CICP (which has a one-year statute of limitations) will be able to pursue a claim under VICPkey differences, including that the latter comes with the right to an attorney and to appeal."
One year statue of limitations? Versus no liability? The EUAs provide no liability legal claims. Additionally the injuries noted in your fact-check authorities are dwarfed by the VAERS report numbers. And one notes that no legal liability claims are being pursued by those harmed to date that I can find. Ergo, no legal liability. By design.
Now that two-dosed, doubly-boosted Fauci announced his being tested positive for Covid, the claims having been made for these "warp speed" mRNA injections to be "effective" wane, as does both the virus in its variants and the "protection" which they supposedly offer. Except apparently to Fauci, and some millions of others.
Rather than continue exchanges in this vein, perhaps you'd care to cite sources for what "legally distinct" means in the case of the Pfizer-BioNTech still-experimental drug?
Worldtraveler once upon a time wrote: “Rather than continue exchanges in this vein, perhaps you’d care to cite sources for what “legally distinct” means in the case of the Pfizer-BioNTech still-experimental drug?”
You’ve been provided that information previously in this thread.
And, a fully approved vaccine cannot be considered ‘experimental’.
The ONUS™®©?
"Come on up, white boy, I show where the ONUS."
Not legally they’re not. That also is right there in the FDA “approval”. Just as I posted to you before. And there it is, right on the CDC website. Why re-label, if identical?
SecAmndmt wrote: “Not legally they’re not. That also is right there in the FDA “approval”. Just as I posted to you before. And there it is, right on the CDC website. Why re-label, if identical?”
This is getting tiresome. The answer to your questions has been provided multiple times. You’re just trying to create a justification for not taking the vaccine. Fine, don’t take it. If you’re employer is insisting, then that’s between you and your employer.
Vaccine typical get a new name upon approval.
“What changes with an FDA approval?”
“As part of the FDA approval process, products get a brand name for use in the U.S. (instead of being called the name of the company that developed it). That’s why the Pfizer vaccine is now known as Comirnaty (pronounced Koe-mir’-na-tee). The actual vaccine is the same.”
https://medium.com/wadepthealth/what-does-it-mean-when-a-vaccine-gets-fda-approval-ce0610673954
And this,
Quotation begins.
But the FDA said that “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.”
Pfizer’s representative told us the “legally distinct” reference relates to differences in manufacturing — for example, the licensed product may be made at different sites or use materials from different approved suppliers.
Quotation ends.
Sorry, friend. You’re just not that clever, as proven “previously in this thread.” Apparently your arguments haven’t swayed others in this thread, so “most pick the expert who says the things they agree with.”
Worldtraveler once upon a time Noob since Nov 17, 2021 |
|
Worldtraveler once upon a time wrote: “Sorry, friend. You’re just not that clever, as proven “previously in this thread.” Apparently your arguments haven’t swayed others in this thread, so “most pick the expert who says the things they agree with.””
It’s very difficult to convince members of a conspiracy cult that they’re being scammed. And, yes, there is an anti-vaxxer conspiracy cult here at FR. BTW, what’s your membership number?
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.