I understand fully what you're saying wrt airplanes. And usually there's a specific, if minute, technical or paperwork difference between the experimental and regular aircraft. But if there actually isn't a difference then your company needs to articulate that to the FAA and not let your customers deal with using an experimental aircraft in the real world.The intent of my argument about labeling was to point out an issue with regulation and enforcement. A fancy can of Bud Light still has the same required labeling that any alcoholic beverage requires to be legally sold, and is still labeled as “Bud Light” somewhere.
Think of it this way. I have an experimental airplane that I want to sell to customers, and eventually certify. After selling a bunch, I finally get it certified. I continue churning out airplanes that have “experimental” labeling on them and none of the required certification labeling. It’s the same airplane, so who cares, right? My customers need to fly, and I need to make money.
Turns out, the FAA cares a lot, and shuts me down. Just like they’d punish a pilot for flying a perfectly fine airplane without the required documentation on board. With me so far?
So, again, why is it OK to mandate a vaccine when that vaccine is not available under approved FDA labeling? This at least need to be addressed publicly. I’m looking for honesty and transparency here, and I’m not seeing any.
But, as I said, I get the argument. For the specific case of the Pfizer dose my understanding is that the only difference is the sticker and what the FDA approval paperwork says. Now, I haven't seen the formal FDA paperwork so perhaps it draws the line between the two different stickers or the fact that what's in each bottle is the same. Or it says that the old bottles are chemically equivalent and are an approved substitute.
So unless there's something I'm missing then it seems like frantic sea lawyering that could be solved by new stickers or by paperwork that says "these are the same (if it doesn't already exist)."