"The FDA provided no explanation as to how the licensed Comirnaty vaccine and the Pfizer-BioNTech EUA vaccine could “
be used interchangeably” despite having “certain differences” that make them “legally distinct.”
"A federal district court judge has rejected a claim by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine being administered under Emergency Use Authorization is interchangeable with Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine, which in August was fully licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)."
These are quotes from your blog that selectively misinterpret the brief.
As I said here...
I'll pull it for you when I'm not on mobile. It's too hard to screenshot or reference here.
It's an extended walking through the complaints against the military and why they're not justified if the vaccine mandate meets the criteria for FDA approval.
And it they explain that there are FDA approved files labeled with EUA labeling. Labeling is not the item that makes the scientific or legal difference.
It is creation FDA approved facility and the judge states that it cannot be made retroactive before the date of FDA approval.
The judge states that the military has not shown the defendants that the vials they are getting are linked to those facilities And as such, the defendants can refuse at that time. However, this can be immediately overwritten by the military simply using a vial, even an EUA labeled viral, That meets the definitions above as FDA approved drug.
That's the punch line for the relevant topic.
If you want to talk about the portion of the brief that talks about differences, the judge again highlights what doesn't meet FDA approved by legal definition....
Vials made before the FDA approval. Even if made a FDA approved sites do not qualify.
Vials made at sites that are not part of the FDA approval sites.
Specifically, the judge references that the FDA scientifically considers all of these products identical. However, some are created a manufacturing plants that use nonactive compounds that are different from other plants. And while he accepts the FDA's position that these are clinically equivalent, he makes a legal distinction due to the FDA documents outlining specific sites at which the product is manufactured.
You really don't have to take my word for it or even that blogspam that you are quoting. You could just click the link on the blog, going straight to the order and read it yourself. I'm not reading it wrong. But you're not reading it.
@Filthy , and thousands disagree with & are going to court for.
www.yahoo.com
