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.”
"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?