Is the Pfizer shot approved or not? Here's the perspective of an attorney litigating this exact question...
As we've covered previously the FDA Approved Comirnaty Vaccine is not the same as the widely available Pfizer EUA vaccine which most people have access to in the United States.
Essentially the distinction between these two products may only be a legal distinction but it's still a very important point to consider and this recently filed lawsuit from Children's Health Defense lays it out quite clearly. Basically what it says is that FDA is playing a bait and switch game by allowing an "approval" for the Comirnaty product while at the same time extending the EUA on the existing Pfizer BioNtech product which according to the EUA rules should not even be legal.
Why is it not legal?
When there is a FDA Biologic License it nullifies all associated EUA products. At this point there is supposedly an approval that may not be finalized but now has a lawsuit filed against the FDA over it. They are accused of playing a "bait and switch" game of approving a product that has very little or no supply and tricking the public into thinking they are getting a fully licensed and approved product when in reality they aren't.
The Comirnaty product is apparently available in Australia and some other countries but not yet in the US.
The distinction between Comirnaty and Pfizer BioNtech EUA product is at least primarily a legal distinction but this begs the question if the products are identical then why not just relabel them and distribute them under the new Biologics license?
The reason for this is that an FDA license requires a whole new set of rules for manufacturing quality control and distribution which the current EUA products have not been held to. Oh yeah and they also happen to have tons of the EUA product all over the US which they don't want to waste. Of course the fact that it requires hazardous waste teams to dispose of when a truck overturned on the highway filled with the EUA Pfizer product doesn't seem to raise any eyebrows, just business as usual for Pharma.
The other (even bigger) factor is that the FDA licensed product may lose the liability shield that the EUA products have. The game the FDA may be playing with Pfizer is to allow the current EUA extension (with the liability shield) until the point where the Comirnaty product can be added to the Childhood Vaccine Schedule at which point the liability shield should be back in place!
All this back and forth over liability regarding a very "safe and effective" product, right?
This "safe and effective" product surely can't have any gap in liability protection because the reality of how much damage it has done is widely known regardless of whether the media will cover it.
I am not an attorney but Robert Barnes is and he is counsel on this Children's Health Defense lawsuit against the FDA over the deceptive Comirnaty product.
Most of this update was the result of me staying informed from Robert Barnes' work who is an attorney on the front lines of many of these cases and a tireless soldier of justice. You can join his group at https://vivabarneslaw.locals.com and here is the clip from the livestream last night which covers this important topic:
Please share this post with your friends if you found it helpful and informative and help get the word out. Also share your take on this in the comments below.
Photo By Вакцинація від COVID-19
