So the big story was the FDA “approval” of a COVID vaccine that will, allegedly, provide cover for corporations and other private or public entities to mandate COVID vaccination for their employees, members, clientele, etc.
Apparently polls showed that a certain percentage of the “vaccine hesitant” may be persuaded to take the “jab,” if the FDA gave full approval to a particular vaccine. Mainstream news articles and talking points used by those who want to force everyone in the country to take a “jab” all mis-characterize what has happened at the FDA.
One might say the stories and talking points are deliberately misleading. Why would all of the usual suspects wish to mislead most of the people?
While it would help to be a lawyer, it’s not hard to discern, through careful reading, the sleight of hand that’s being used by the Biden administration and all its complicit minions.
The emergency use authorization (EUA) under which all current COVID “vaccines” were manufactured, purchased by our government, and placed as “shots in arms” indemnified the manufacturers from liability.
That’s a fact that many people do not know.
If you’re harmed by the current COVID vaccines, you can’t sue for damages. You have no recourse. The companies are held harmless, thanks to the U.S. government.
You can try to get compensation from the federal government, but good luck with that.
If a person is permanently disabled, for example, there can be no lawsuit that will award damages to help pay for care for the rest of that person’s life.
Tough. Just liquidate all your assets and go on Medicaid so you can “enjoy” the type of long-term care you’ll get from that program.
How many “vaccine hesitant” who accept the “jab”–now that the “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” (to be marketed as “Comirnaty”)–will realize that the manufacturer still (most likely) is not liable for adverse effects?
Try hard to find the answer to this question: Will BioNTech and Pfizer now accept liability? I can’t find even one mainstream media story that mentions indemnification or liability.
This much is true: The FDA appears to have licensed and “approved” Comirnaty.
Read carefully, these two letters seem to say that the emergency authorization of the “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” is extended until such time as the state of emergency is rescinded.
In other words, all the conditions previously in effect for the use of this vaccine, remain in effect, including indemnification. Pfizer received that letter.
BioNTech received the other letter, which “approves” and licenses Comirnaty, which isn’t even being produced yet but which is, according to the FDA, exactly the same product as the previously used “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.”
The letters also seem to aver that all the vaccine already produced by Pfizer will continue to be used under the conditions of the emergency authorization and that, if necessary, Comirnaty can, when necessary, be used under the emergency authorization to treat those classes of people previously eligible for the “vaccine.”
Bait and switch? Seems like it to me.
Seems as if they want people to infer that because BioNTech has received a license and approval to market “Comirnaty” that means that “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” is now also “approved,” even though the letters, taken together, seem to really state that the vaccine called Comirnaty is approved while the other (exactly the same formulation) is not but remains to be distributed under the conditions of the emergency authorization, which includes the waiver of liability for the manufacturer(s). In addition, Comirnaty can be produced and then subbed in under the terms of the EUA, as needed. At least that’s how I read it. I could be reading wrong. Let me know what you think.
It seems to me that now, if a person gets a “Pfizer” shot, they’re going to get the one that’s not technically “approved” but which still falls under the EUA.
What say you?
While researching links for this post, I ran across a story that does address the issue of liability. (I could have saved myself a lot of reading had I found this article first!)
From the story:
So, the little trick that they’ve done here is they have issued two separate letters for two separate vaccines. The Pfizer vaccine which is what is currently available is still under emergency use authorization and it still has the liability shield. Once again the mainstream media has lied to you. I’m sorry to say that, I know it’s a shock to this viewership, but the product that’s licensed is the BioNTech product, which is substantially similar but not necessarily identical. It’s called Comirnaty, I think that’s how it’s pronounced, and it’s not yet available. They haven’t started manufacturing it or labeling it and that’s the one that the liability waiver will no longer apply to.
However, the way I read the letters, if Comirnaty is substituted in under the EUA, then the liability waiver is applicable.
You’d have to consult lawyers to know for sure, and even then there’d most likely be disagreement among them. See also this link.
So what’s a potential jab-receiver to do? When they hand you the papers that are supposed to elicit your “informed consent,” what are the odds they’re going to tell you that if you’re harmed by the “jab” you may have no recourse?
Who’s looking out for We the People? Why do our so-called representatives remain (or pretend to remain) so ignorant? Why are they AWOL? Why do they allow the mainstream media, the Biden administration, and “Big Pharma” to continue to gaslight us this way?
Why can’t the Biden administration, progressives, and the mainstream media give us straight talk? Why do they have to constantly produce propaganda to “nudge” us into doing what they want us to do instead of providing us with the data we need to do what we believe is right for us?
(We know the answer: They don’t believe in individual freedom or democracy. They want only control, tyranny (with themselves at the top), and globalism.)
However you feel about the vaccines, do your own research. Make an informed decision. Don’t be fooled (again).