Covid-19 Cepiva

Second, the FDA pointed out that the licensed Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine and the existing, EUA Pfizer vaccine are “legally distinct,” but proclaims that their differences do not “impact safety or effectiveness.”

Klikni za razširitev

Given this background, the FDA’s acknowledgement in its approval letter that there are insufficient stocks of the licensed Comirnaty, but an abundant supply of the EUA Pfizer BioNTech jab, exposes the “approval” as a cynical scheme to encourage businesses and schools to impose illegal jab mandates.

Klikni za razširitev

Uporabnik mr_ je napisal:

Čaki, čaki, prej nekaj razlagaš, trdiš, sedaj pa da mora biti neka fora.

Klikni za razširitev

Uporabnik Zebdi je napisal:

Prvič cepljen marca, na nalepki piše Comirnaty. Sestra cepljena januarja, takisto Comirnaty. Kje vi vidite drugo cepivo, mi ni jasno...

Klikni za razširitev

In addition, web/smartphone tools to provide self-assessment of risk, and home-based self testing. No coercion. Freedom of choice. No mandates. Treat people with respect and dignity, not like livestock. And drop the authoritarianism, censorship, fearmongering. SO 20th century.

Klikni za razširitev

Finally, the "war profiteering" needs to stop. Now. A global public health crisis should not be used to enrich people at the expense of governments and patients.

Klikni za razširitev

Uporabnik D_K je napisal:

Da ta nikoli ni razvil mRNA cepiva.

Klikni za razširitev

RNA Vaccine Inventor — RW Malone MD, LLC

www.rwmalonemd.com

FDA Pfizer authorization (Comirnaty): Key points to consider and discuss.
These points are an aggregate of many minds, including Dr. Robert Malone.
23 Aug 2021

General talking points
• Why mandates if herd immunity isn't possible?
• What happens 8 months after boosters?
• What's the plan for the next variant?
• Why we're messing with vaccine injury liability if the vaccines are safe and effective?

Klikni za razširitev

There are now TWO LEGALLY distinct (Pfizer vs. BionTech), but otherwise identical products,
based on two FDA letters, as well as a press release. The analysis of these FDA products
below is preliminary and subject to change.


• DOES NOT GIVE FULL APPROVAL
• Extends EUA to allow supply of current Pfizer under EUA because limited supply of
BioNTech version.
• “The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or
effectiveness. (page 2, Pfizer letter)
o here FDA quietly admits that the licensed Pfizer vaccine and the authorized
Pfizer vaccine are identical with regard to safety/efficacy, but they are "legally
distinct." That's code for one has manufacturer liability, while the other doesn't.
It is also code for "we don't want to impose a mandate on the EUA product cause
it is illegal, but we can probably get away with a mandate on the licensed
product."
o page 12 AA (Conditions with Respect to Use of Licensed Product). This tells you
that yes, we licensed the vaccine, but...there is a lot of the old vaccine out there,
actually "a significant amount" and this amount will be considered an EUA and
will continue to be used.
o Now, why would they do that? Why specify that identical versions of the
product will be legally different? Because they need the license to impose the
mandates. But they need the EUA to evade liability.
o Along with the license comes liability for the manufacturer. (While all EUA
products were given a liability shield.)
o Unfortunately, our federal governments would prefer us to be without
recourse if we are injured, rather than have Pfizer defend its product in court.
So, the feds want us to THINK the vaccine we are receiving is licensed, which will
make people submit because they think it can now be mandated, but instead we
are almost certain to receive the EUA vials instead, to save Pfizer's behind. Yes, a

stingy CICP injury program exists, but it has not paid out for a single COVID
vaccine injury yet.
• Warning about myocarditis and pericarditis

Klikni za razširitev

Uporabnik D_K je napisal:

Ne da se mi... obstaja XYZ člankov ki debunkajo vse njegove trditve, tako kot tiste ki jih ne.
Za mene je on prispeval k mRNA toliko kot je Craig Wright Satoshi Nakamoto.

False: Dr. Robert Malone invented mRNA vaccines.

www.logically.ai

UPDATE: Malone reached out to Logically, stating that he did not invent the mRNA vaccines, but instead the "vaccine technology platform." He also presented us with copies of nine patents – none of which showed that he invented the mRNA vaccines. The judgment for the claim has not changed.

Klikni za razširitev

RNA Vaccine Inventor — RW Malone MD, LLC

www.rwmalonemd.com