Covid Vax Injuries Reach One Million

[Reynolds]

I agree with the purpose of the data system.

My complaint is some anti-vaxers are treating the system as if it actually identifies side-effects connected to vaccines, which it does not. The system is a tool used and managed by the CDC and FDA.

If there is a trend in side-effects post-vaccine then I agree it needs to be studied. But as the system itself does not determine causes of side-effects it is wrong to pretend otherwise....yet how many times have we seen VAERS data presented as "proof"?

I have never treated it as proof. I have treated it as reports of injury. It's data. In our modern world, data says whatever the person interpreting it wants it to say.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

You are talking legal issues regarding a name, not the actual vaccine (which is not in question....it us the same vaccine).

If pointing out you ate mot using the actual meaning of "generic" is "quibbling" then do us arguing what the vacvine is called (from a medical standpoint). The only reason it is even an issue is some want to stop vaccines.

When the name usage came up the judge even acknowledged that medically it's same vaccine.

So we are only talking politics.

That entirely ignores the reality of the issue described, which is roughly analogous to warranty and is very much about the actual vaccine.

If two products are claimed to be identical but one carries an extensive warranty (expressed or implied) while the other is void of all legal liability, then the two products are in fact not identical. They may be identical in performance, but they are not identical in who bears the consequences when they cause problems.

The point here is whether the trademarked name brand carries the same legal immunity as the generally named version does. This is most important in cases of serious negative effects from the vaccine, which may not be known for some time.

 

[JonC]

That entirely ignores the reality of the issue described, which is roughly analogous to warranty and is very much about the actual vaccine.

If two products are claimed to be identical but one carries an extensive warranty (expressed or implied) while the other is void of all legal liability, then the two products are in fact not identical. They may be identical in performance, but they are not identical in who bears the consequences when they cause problems.

The point here is whether the trademarked name brand carries the same legal immunity as the generally named version does. This is most important in cases of serious negative effects from the vaccine, which may not be known for some time.

There is no warranty regardless of what it is called. As the judge noted, we are only talking about a name - the vaccine is the same.

Ironically those complaining are not the ones being vaccinated. It's a bully move...all politics and nothing of real substance. And it could easily be squashed by revising the approval.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

There is no warranty regardless of what it is called. As the judge noted, we are only talking about a name - the vaccine is the same.

Ironically those complaining are not the ones being vaccinated. It's a bully move...all politics and nothing of real substance. And it could easily be squashed by revising the approval.

Who said there is a warranty? No one. And there's nothing even remotely like it. That's the point.

It is a bully move to force anyone to take a shot (or else...) with an unproven, extensive track record, especially when there is no legal recourse for failure. Those profiting should bear the responsibility for negative outcomes.

And if it is so easy to correct but isn't being corrected, or wasn't done right to begin with, then we have other problems besides politics. Corporate and collective greed are rampant here.

That they are endorsing this for children, who are nigh immune already, is beyond the pale.

 

[JonC]

Who said there is a warranty? No one.

That entirely ignores the reality of the issue described, which is roughly analogous to warranty and is very much about the actual vaccine.

If two products are claimed to be identical but one carries an extensive warranty (expressed or implied) while the other is void of all legal liability, then the two products are in fact not identical. They may be identical in performance, but they are not identical in who bears the consequences when they cause problems.

Medically the vaccines are identical. Medications do not carry warranties (real or implied).

The FDA approved the vaccine with the "established name" of "Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine" authorized to be marked under the "trade name" of "Comirnaty" based on the ingredients of the vaccine.

Only an idiot would believe these are different vaccines (the judge even pointed out they are medically the same vaccine).

The question is whether the trade name and the established name is interchangeable (if Advil is prescribed can you take ibuprofen?).

In FL a judge says they are identical, but the name matters. But with pharmacies it often doesn't (800 mg acetaminophen is often substuted for 800 mg Tylenol).

The name thing is an attempt to prevent distribution of a vaccine by people who are not taking the vaccine anyway.

 

[Aaron]

Who said there is a warranty? No one. And there's nothing even remotely like it. That's the point.

It is a bully move to force anyone to take a shot (or else...) with an unproven, extensive track record, especially when there is no legal recourse for failure. Those profiting should bear the responsibility for negative outcomes.

And if it is so easy to correct but isn't being corrected, or wasn't done right to begin with, then we have other problems besides politics. Corporate and collective greed are rampant here.

That they are endorsing this for children, who are nigh immune already, is beyond the pale.

Jon will persist in obfuscation despite the sound reasoning of men of truth. The label matters. One carries emergency authorization and a shield to liability for harm. The other carries an approval and no shield.

The paper matters, not the contents of the vial.

 

[JonC]

Jon will persist in obfuscation despite the sound reasoning of men of truth. The label matters.

Trade names may matter to you, but they don't to me.

I'm prescribed Neuraptine, but have absolutely no problem taking Gabapentin. I also am prescribed Tylenol 800 mg tablets, but I take acetaminophen.

You are welcome to pay for a trade name for the exact same medication, the exact same ingredients, AND the exact same established name if you prefer.

We installed Trane and American Standard units. The units came in without labels and we put them on the unit as ordered (they were the exact same units). In other words, people who preferred Trane paid more for a label. We called them foolish, but gave them what they wanted because there was no telling them they were the same.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Trade names may matter to you, but they don't to me.

I'm prescribed Neuraptine, but have absolutely no problem taking Gabapentin. I also am prescribed Tylenol 800 mg tablets, but I take acetaminophen.

You are welcome to pay for a trade name for the exact same medication, the exact same ingredients, AND the exact same established name if you prefer.

We installed Trane and American Standard units. The units came in without labels and we put them on the unit as ordered (they were the exact same units). In other words, people who preferred Trane paid more for a label. We called them foolish, but gave them what they wanted because there was no telling them they were the same.

Aaron’s post stated it succinctly and clearly and your example offers some potential.

Suppose the Trane name/label carried with it a ten-year warranty covering parts and labor and immediate on-site service 24/7, while the American Standard name/label meant no warranty whatsoever. The two are only the same until the warranty is needed.

If the unit completely breaks down within that ten-year period and would cost as much to fix as to replace, then paying for the Trane name would make great sense.

However, in the case of medicine and the human body, such replacement may mean the person is permanently incapacitated, may even be dead.

People aren’t mere mechanical equipment (except perhaps in the military). That’s why warranty is only roughly analogous here. Liability and responsibility are the issue.

 

[JonC]

Aaron’s post stated it succinctly and clearly and your example offers some potential.

Suppose the Trane name/label carried with it a ten-year warranty covering parts and labor and immediate on-site service 24/7, while the American Standard name/label meant no warranty whatsoever. The two are only the same until the warranty is needed.

If the unit completely breaks down within that ten-year period and would cost as much to fix as to replace, then paying for the Trane name would make great sense.

However, in the case of medicine and the human body, such replacement may mean the person is permanently incapacitated, may even be dead.

People aren’t mere mechanical equipment (except perhaps in the military). That’s why warranty is only roughly analogous here. Liability and responsibility are the issue.

Let's look at the actual approval.

"Under this license, you are authorized to manufacture the product, COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA, which is indicated for active immunization to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)....
You may label your product with the proprietary name, COMIRNATY, and market it in 2.0 mL glass vials, in packages of 25 and 195 vials."

In your opinion what is approved, only the vaccine marketed under the trade name Comirnaty or the actual vaccine which may be marketed under the trade name?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Let's look at the actual approval.

"Under this license, you are authorized to manufacture the product, COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA, which is indicated for active immunization to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)....
You may label your product with the proprietary name, COMIRNATY, and market it in 2.0 mL glass vials, in packages of 25 and 195 vials."

In your opinion what is approved, only the vaccine marketed under the trade name Comirnaty or the actual vaccine which may be marketed under the trade name?

In your opinion, are they distributing their vaccine under the emergency rules or are they abandoning that liability shield in favor of the approval?

In your opinion, does the Comirnaty name enjoy the same liability shield as the generally named vaccine distributed under the emergency rules?

 

[JonC]

In your opinion, are they distributing their vaccine under the emergency rules or are they abandoning that liability shield in favor of the approval?

In your opinion, does the Comirnaty name enjoy the same liability shield as the generally named vaccine distributed under the emergency rules?

The vaccine approved in the approval I quoted is fully approved by the FDA.

In my opinion people take risks with any medicine and should not be able to sue the pharmaceutical companies except for neglect.

Reading the approval I posted, do you believe that the FDA only approved the vaccines marketed as Comirnaty?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The vaccine approved in the approval I quoted is fully approved by the FDA.

In my opinion people take risks with any medicine and should not be able to sue the pharmaceutical companies except for neglect.

Reading the approval I posted, do you believe that the FDA only approved the vaccines marketed as Comirnaty?

There’s a huge difference between taking a risk and being forced to take a risk. Some seem to be advocating the latter course with something akin to a “mark of the beast” mentality.

So far, I have not seen actual evidence that any of the manufacturers are confident enough of their vaccines to accept the liability for adverse consequences. They are operating behind a liability shield, rather than under the liability that goes with an FDA approval.

 

[percho]

1 minute and 4 seconds

Croatian MEP Tells French President Macron That He Is Murdering His Citizens With Mandatory Vaccines (bitchute.com)