D
Deleted member 1
Guest
People claiming "if it doesn't have the brand name on it means you're not getting the FDA approved one" sound like some sovereign citizen shit.
General COVID Darwin Awards
- Thread starter Wintermute
- Start date
People claiming "if it doesn't have the brand name on it means you're not getting the FDA approved one" sound like some sovereign citizen shit.
No, I didn't. I said bumping the covid vaccine delays other products they have in cue.
M
member 1013
Guest
I’ve been enjoying it
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Soooo is this not true you old rascal?
in the eyes of the FDA, they are different legal entities, and you'll receive one or the other. AFAIK, it's still not available in the US under that license.
I made the comment earlier that it's not the same vaccine until a judge rules it (and Pfizer exhausts their appeals
)
they are identical chemicals (AFAIK) but different legal entities under the regulatory body.
draw your own conclusions.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Sounds like all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.
Doesn't sound like a leg to stand on claiming that you can't receive the FDA approved one right now because the vials don't say the brand.
i get how it sounds, but we're in a thread where folks are grave-dancing people who were lied to and victimized (IMAO)
calling people morons (who's deaths are amusing) for not taking a vaccine that the FDA rubber-stamped shows a real lack of self-awareness and your own vulnerability.
@Splinty do you think this vaccine has passed the same scientific rigor as every vaccine before it? Not saying it needed to, given the circumstance, but is that your level of confidence in the FDA?
now you're a federal regulatory judge with ties to the FDA and Pfizer?
because that's who's going to make that determination...not you or me.
unless someone can explain why they're not different legal entities, and I'm open to that, just not my experience or understanding.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
No. They say it's FDA approved. You're the one talking about how that's not true.
There's zero statement in any of the approval that you can't box it under the generic name The brand means a certain required dosage and concentration. There is a statement of what the brand means.
Not using the brand, aka using the generic name, has never been prohibited in any other drug.
So It's really not up to me to figure out where y'all developed a new precedent now.
You made drugs and had them approved through the FDA process?
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Because the brand means a dosing and concentration.
The drug is emergency use for one age range. A shorthand for a specific person concentration aka a brand name is approved for a different range.
Specifically this is appropriate since there's melting evidence that we ought to be using perhaps less vaccine dosing in the younger crowd. That is the crowd that remains under emergency use.
no. obviously, but thanks for taking the time to ask a rhetorical question.
still fishing for answers?
M
member 1013
Guest
Full Credit, Dhali Lars
so show me the examples of this being done like this. explain why this isn't just a rubber-stamp.
M
member 1013
Guest
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
It doesn't matter if it's a rubber stamp or not. You're changing the conversation. The question is whether the Pfizer vials sitting on the shelf contain an FDA approved vaccine. And by everything posted it very much appears it does.
This matters since the next argument goes "If it's not the FDA approved one then you can't make me take it!"
That doesn't appear to be the case either.
So then I guess invoking your knowledge of how easy it is to change certifications isn't really relevant.
You're a bright guy, so I was really hoping you'd been some but all that your putting out is speculative conspiracy theorist nonsense. It's very disappointing to see.
You think you've got all the best self awarenesses?
M
member 1013
Guest
that's certainly one way to look at it, but there are two caveats to "FDA approved vaccine" - the first is that they are different legal entities (whether or not that matters is TBD), and the second is that people were looking for the science to be accomplished, not the stamp to appear.
making the stamp appear didn't change anyone's mind about the vaccine, it probably just solidified their rational mistrust of the FDA.
it's not directly relevant, but the government's process for making and enforcing regulatory standards is something of which I have knowledge. I wasn't asserting authority, I was explaining the origin of my skepticism.