ThumbsUp

They are the same thing in terms of what’s in the vial, but they are different legally. Just one example of that legal difference is who you would seek recourse through in the event of a complication—CICP for EUA vs. VICP for FDA approved and to what extent they provide compensation.

Abouttime2fish

all false. One is under emergency use authorization, the other is not. Pfizer can be held accountable for the side affects of one, not the other. Legally two completely separate shots.

EhV8R

The doctor who initially made that claim on Stephen Bannon's show later acknowledged that was false regarding the liability differences.

'Malone quickly conceded his statement on the Bannon show was wrong. “When one is doing rapid analysis on the fly, one does not always get everything right,” he told The 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.” He said the statements we received from Pfizer and HHS “are consistent with my current understanding.” '

In early 2020, after the coronavirus emerged, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar invoked the PREP Act to “provide liability immunity for activities related to medical countermeasures against covid-19.” So that covers all vaccines that might be produced to combat the coronavirus, whether fully authorized or not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ty-protection/

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you're just repeating information that you assumed was good, but please do some basic research on this stuff if you're going to broadcast it as fact.

We might be able to get past all of this COVID stuff faster if we all just do some due diligence about what we say, and how we proceed going forward. The better informed we each are, the better off we are as a whole.

Sent from my SM-A526U1 using Tapatalk

ThumbsUp

I’m not sure what Robert Malone said as I generally avoid anything he says. What I said is straight from the FDA press release. The EUA labeled vaccine is a countermeasure and would go through CICP. Comirnaty is FDA approved and would go through VICP. Both are chemically the same and I would have no problems taking them personally interchangebaly with boosters, etc., but there is a legal difference.

The article that you sent from WaPo says exactly what I said.

ClncClarence

Whats the functional difference between the two? They’re identical. To argue that they’re not the same thing is intellectually dishonest at best. This talking point is stale and is just another BS excuse for those who said ‘I won’t take the shot until it’s FDA approved’ but who actually had no intention of changing their stance to begin with.

dustrpilot

I claim no expertise in medicine or vaccines but in agriculture, there are “labeled chemicals” for listed crops, and usually the exact same chemical can be found in generic form, but unless it’s labeled for application or has an exemption for the crop it’s being applied to it’s not legal and if caught the state plant board can and will condemn the crop.
I’m thinking the feds look at medicine the same way.

ClncClarence

Yeah and I think we can both agree that makes zero sense. In the case of generic drugs, the manufacturers are different. In the case of Comirnaty, it’s the exact same formulation made by the exact same manufacturer, just with a different piece of paper slapped on the vial.

I’ll ask again - what’s the functional difference?

beetlehog

They are ABSOLUTELY not the same thing. One has certain protections and one doesn't.

beetlehog

If a person takes any of these EUA vaccines, who is liable for any injury or adverse reaction from said vaccine? It is an honest question. Please enlighten me?

beetlehog

One other questions. For the folks who have been mandated by their company to take the vaccine, is there any denial of liability paperwork that you are required to sign before you get the shots? Honest question.