Help me understand the differences though. The FDA website makes it sound like a simple rebrand.
The FDA website makes it sound like a simple rebrand.
That is intentional.
By stating that Comirnaty and the EUA shots are "the same thing" they can allow Pfizer to continue to sell the millions of vials of product that have been produced. I've seen multiple claims arguing for and against the legality of using one versus the other. * Comirnaty is a legally different entity * Comirnaty **is not **a legally different entity * Comirnaty is susceptible to liability lawsuits should any harmful side effects occur * Comirnaty is not susceptible to liability lawsuits should any harmful side effects occur
The one thing that is clear is that the product is not available for use in the US, so the point is moot. The FDA has allowed Pfizer to pull a bait-and-switch and heads should roll for it.
So the idea is the goop in the shot is the same, but the liability is different, so you can only get the old batch stuff and then Pfizer has its zero liability trump card? Sorry if I seem dense.
So the idea is the goop in the shot is the same, but the liability is different, so you can only get the old batch stuff and then Pfizer has its zero liability trump card?
You got it. Pfizer maintains zero liability.
(post is archived)