Pfizer's "Comirnaty" injection was approved (sort of) back in the fall, however it is not legally interchangeable with the Pfizer injections that people have been receiving under emergency use authorization (EUA).
This distinction has created a lot of confusion over whether or not the jabs can legally be pushed on the masses. It turns out that they cannot, though this is being done anyway using sleight of hand.
On August 23, the FDA did supposedly grant full approval for Comirnaty, which the Biden regime used as leverage to coerce millions into taking the shots. However, Comirnaty has not yet made its way into the United States and there appears to be no plans to make it available here anytime soon.
"As a reasonable explanation, early on, Pfizer and its government allies claimed that Comirnaty was not yet available because the EUA shots were still lining the shelves, and the FDA-approved version would soon be made available to all," reported Great Game India about the situation.
"It has been over 4 months now, since full approval, but Comirnaty is still not being distributed."
It is important to emphasize that the FDA recognizes Comirnaty as a "legally distinct" product with "certain differences" compared to the EUA product from Pfizer-BioNTech.
At the same time, the FDA, which has financial ties to Pfizer, claims that the safety and effectiveness of both the EUA and the approved shots is the same.
"'Fact checkers' leverage the latter point of safety and efficacy to claim that people are still getting access to ingredients akin to the fully approved product," Great Game India added.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has also confirmed that Comirnaty is "not orderable at this time," and that "Pfizer does not plan to produce any product with these NDCs (National Drug Codes) and labels over the next few months while EUA authorized product is still available and being made available for U.S. distribution."
Why, you might be asking, is Pfizer refusing to make the fully authorized version available? The answer appears to be that Pfizer does not want to open itself up to legal liability issues.
While an EUA does fully protect a drug-maker while granting zero legal recourse to the patient, a law passed during the Reagan Administration requires that a drug first secure full approval for the children's version of the jab before more robust legal immunity from lawsuits for injuries and deaths can be granted.
"The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), which was passed into law in 1986, provides a legal liability shield to drug manufacturers if they receive full authorization for all ages," reports explain.
"Now is this the reason why Pfizer is seeking approval for children so that it can protect itself from lawsuits?"
Since pharmaceutical companies are involved, this is almost guaranteed to be the case – because everyone knows that the drug industry only cares about one thing: profits. But is there another reason why not only Pfizer but also Moderna and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) are "working relentlessly to authorize their products for children, who face near-zero risk from COVID-19, but continue to showcase alarming side effects from the vaccine?"
The answer appears to be that these company crave an extensive, additional layer of protection from lawsuits that can only be obtained if Comirnaty becomes available for all ages.
The latest news about Fauci Flu injections can be found at ChemicalViolence.com.
Sources for this article include: