Navy Reserve COVID Vaccinations by October

[taxi1]

That's not the message being transmitted by Dr. Fauci, President Biden, et. al. The message being transmitted is that the vaccine is 100% safe, and anyone who questions this is a batshit crazy anti-vax conspiracy theorist.

Do you not see how this is counter-productive?

So I just googled Fauci and vaccine safety, and the first hit was this video where he acknowledges side effects but notes they are rare (77 per million is rare) and the benefits outweigh the risk.

 

[Spekkio]

So I just googled Fauci and vaccine safety, and the first hit was this video where he acknowledges side effects but notes they are rare (77 per million is rare) and the benefits outweigh the risk.

Okay, great...you found a video in the bowels of the internet. Is that the company line? Was that before or after he gave everyone permission to go trick or treating?

 

[taxi1]

Is that the company line?

It's published by our government, so I would say 'yes'.

 

[Spekkio]

I disagree. Here's what the CDC is telling people about it:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/201...3:cdc covid vaccine:sem.ga:p:RG??gen:pTN:FY21

No mentions of heart complications. Weird.

 

[Python]

I disagree. Here's what the CDC is telling people about it:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/201...3:cdc covid vaccine:sem.ga:p:RG??gen:pTN:FY21

No mentions of heart complications. Weird.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/myocarditis.html

 

[AllAmerican75]

Citation needed. Not only did I not get that sense from reading the approval, quite the opposite in fact, but how would it make sense to have any kind of chemical difference between BnT and Comirnaty? "Hey, you know that drug you've spent the past year and a half developing, testing, and distributing under EUA to millions of people? Just keep distributing it under EUA. Also this different drug is approved."

Feel free to read the FDA's approval letter and data review report. They make sure to note it in both documents. They are available for free on the FDA's website.

I'm sorry, is there actually an argument that now that the Pfizer shot has a formal name that there's some sort of difference because the sticker on the bottle is different?

Legally speaking, yes. At least as far as enforceable mandates are concerned. Otherwise the DoD will find themselves fielding cases like Ponder v. Stone and all three John Doe v. Rumsfeld cases.

 

[AllAmerican75]

I can make my question even simpler: If it’s as simple as changing a label to meet FDA approval, why haven’t they?

As far as I can tell, two possibilities exist: it’s not that simple, or it’s to Pfizer/USG’s advantage somehow to not update the labeling. Either way, I’m curious why more people haven’t been talking about this, and I’m willing to be educated if pointed in the right direction.


One postulation I’ve discussed with friends is that the label change is being slow-rolled so demand is spread evenly among the 3 vaccines. If Comirnaty is available under approved label, what reason would most people have to use the other two under EUA? However, that brings us to the subject of mandates, and enforceability. It would seem the government is trying to have their cake and eat it too. I’m fairly sure there is a legal difference in enforcing a mandate on a pharma product authorized under EUA, versus one that is used under an approved label. But it’s being discussed as if it’s the latter when- legally, it seems to be the former. That smacks of an abuse of power, and if it isn’t, that needs to be made objectively clear.

You never know, the clarification might even convince a few people to get vaccinated. What I find objectionable is the arrogance of the mandate, and the seemingly intentional divisiveness with which it’s been instituted. “Take this, and don’t you dare ask questions.” I say this as someone who got willingly vaccinated against COVID-19 last spring, so if that completely undermines my credibility on this subject, so be it.

The cynical take is that the minute someone receives the approved "Comirnaty" vaccine, Pfizer/Biontech are now criminally and civilly liable for any adverse reactions, serious injury, or death related to that vaccine. That's why they continue to produce and hand out the EUA vaccine and why the FDA made the distinction they did in the manner that they have.

Are f**cking stickers and labels really the basis for some people's legal arguments?

Yes. The anthrax vaccine bruhaha in the early 2000s was entirely an issue with paperwork and ended costing DoD money in wrongful termination suits. It seems history is repeating itself.

I doubt, though certainly can't say for sure, that doses made after the FDA approval would still be labeled as EUA or BNT-whatever the old name was. The thing is, Pfizer has made hundreds of millions of these doses in the past year, prior to FDA approval. Is it really worth re-labelling all the remaining old doses, which are exactly the same as the new doses, considering almost nobody cares about the naming distinction? Is a requirement to do so listed in the approval paperwork from the FDA?

By law they couldn't if they had not been determined to be "chemically and legally distinct." That is why the FDA did that. Also, the EUA vaccine remains under EUA so that we do not waste those shots and can use them instead of throwing them out. The FDA made sure to note that as well. Oddly though, the FDA also said the EUA vaccine and "Comirnaty" were essentially interchangeable. Go figure.

 

[HAL Pilot]

I'm sorry, is there actually an argument that now that the Pfizer shot has a formal name that there's some sort of difference because the sticker on the bottle is different?

I know of someone (from the other site) who has filed a JAG complaint over this issue. He has referenced Navy medical instructions about EUA versus approved medications/vaccines and contends it is illegal to require anyone to take a EUA vaccine. He says since the vaccine used by the Navy is all manufactured and labeled under the EUA they Navy can not order it's members to take it. The lower JAGs after reading his referenced Navy instructions have all said he's right but this is too hot for them to handle as the order came from CNO (VCNO) level and it pass it up the line to the next higher JAG. Last he's heard it's a the CNO level JAG office but they are ignoring it and not answering his inquiries about it. The next lower JAG just tells them it was passed up and out of their hands.

Must be nice to be the highest level and be able to bury thigs that might piss off the bosses....

 

[AllAmerican75]

I know of someone (from the other site) who has filed a JAG complaint over this issue. He has referenced Navy medical instructions about EUA versus approved medications/vaccines and contends it is illegal to require anyone to take a EUA vaccine. He says since the vaccine used by the Navy is all manufactured and labeled under the EUA they Navy can not order it's members to take it. The lower JAGs after reading his referenced Navy instructions have all said he's right but this is too hot for them to handle as the order came from CNO (VCNO) level and it pass it up the line to the next higher JAG. Last he's heard it's a the CNO level JAG office but they are ignoring it and not answering his inquiries about it. The next lower JAG just tells them it was passed up and out of their hands.

Must be nice to be the highest level and be able to bury thigs that might piss off the bosses....

It's funny that no one wants to deal with the ramifications if the DoD did, in fact, violate 10 U.S. Code § 1107a. There are going to be a LOT of wrongful termination suits depending upon how the military kicks those "evil, no good, anti-vaxxer, science denying" service members out.

 

[Brett327]

No. It’s because I stick up for my employees and my sailors. I don’t write them off or “admire them” from afar while ignoring my duty to carry their viewpoints up the chain, or stick up for them when they can’t stick up for themselves because they’ve been canceled, written off, or shamed away by people like you. It’s also because bullshit overreach like this - if not nipped in the bud early - can actually make my life and all our lives worse in the long run. The holier-than-thou or who-cares-fuckem attitudes I’ve seen around here are disgusting. If you can’t tolerate someone else having a different opinion or viewpoint than you, maybe rethink the first amendment.

This entire post is unhinged. First amendment? WTF?

 

[Tycho_Brohe]

Feel free to read the FDA's approval letter and data review report. They make sure to note it in both documents. They are available for free on the FDA's website.

I read it months ago. I read it again just now. No mention of any kind of chemical difference between BNT and Comirnaty. They're interchangeable because they're the same substance.

By law they couldn't if they had not been determined to be "chemically and legally distinct."

Now you're putting it in quotes, as if it's actually written somewhere. I'd love to see that source.

That is why the FDA did that. Also, the EUA vaccine remains under EUA so that we do not waste those shots and can use them instead of throwing them out. The FDA made sure to note that as well. Oddly though, the FDA also said the EUA vaccine and "Comirnaty" were essentially interchangeable. Go figure.

It remains under EUA for the criteria for which it has not received approval. It is approved for people 16 years and older. It is authorized for people from 12-15 years old. It's interchangeable because it's the same drug. And yes, it would be stupid to throw out hundreds of millions of doses because some people want it to say Comirnaty on the box.

 

[Pags]

The cynical take is that the minute someone receives the approved "Comirnaty" vaccine, Pfizer/Biontech are now criminally and civilly liable for any adverse reactions, serious injury, or death related to that vaccine. That's why they continue to produce and hand out the EUA vaccine and why the FDA made the distinction they did in the manner that they have.



Yes. The anthrax vaccine bruhaha in the early 2000s was entirely an issue with paperwork and ended costing DoD money in wrongful termination suits. It seems history is repeating itself.



By law they couldn't if they had not been determined to be "chemically and legally distinct." That is why the FDA did that. Also, the EUA vaccine remains under EUA so that we do not waste those shots and can use them instead of throwing them out. The FDA made sure to note that as well. Oddly though, the FDA also said the EUA vaccine and "Comirnaty" were essentially interchangeable. Go figure.

And yet in a few minutes of googling I can find that both labels are still covered by as approved countermeasures under the PREP Act and thus both are shielded from litigation. It's like people found the answer they wanted to hear and then stopped looking ?

 

[Pags]

I know of someone (from the other site) who has filed a JAG complaint over this issue. He has referenced Navy medical instructions about EUA versus approved medications/vaccines and contends it is illegal to require anyone to take a EUA vaccine. He says since the vaccine used by the Navy is all manufactured and labeled under the EUA they Navy can not order it's members to take it. The lower JAGs after reading his referenced Navy instructions have all said he's right but this is too hot for them to handle as the order came from CNO (VCNO) level and it pass it up the line to the next higher JAG. Last he's heard it's a the CNO level JAG office but they are ignoring it and not answering his inquiries about it. The next lower JAG just tells them it was passed up and out of their hands.

Must be nice to be the highest level and be able to bury thigs that might piss off the bosses....

But he'll happily take the approved one I'm sure ?

 

[FrankTheTank]

So I just googled Fauci and vaccine safety, and the first hit was this video where he acknowledges side effects but notes they are rare (77 per million is rare) and the benefits outweigh the risk.

Fauci is a known and proven liar! I don’t know about you but once somebody lies to me, I believe nothing they say! It’s not that complicated. He has ZERO credibility.

 

[Hair Warrior]

This entire post is unhinged. First amendment? WTF?

That’s rich.

Re-read Pags post. He’s basically advocating I shut up, stay silent, and let my people get fired quietly. It’s part of a broader push I’m seeing to silence and sideline people who don’t think the way you want them to think. That’s anti-free speech. My views are in alignment with a federal appellate court ruling. A unanimous ruling, btw. Maybe the world isn’t the way you want it to be.

This is a thread about reservists with civilian careers to manage and keep up. Can you enlighten us on your private sector experience?