Here is an article at childrenshealthdefense.org detailing a letter Senator Ron Johnson sent to the acting director of the FDA that everyone should want to know the answers to. From the article, the questions are:
1. Why didn’t the FDA grant full licensure for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine that is in use and available in the U.S.?
2. How are the Comirnaty and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines “legally distinct” and what are the “certain differences”?
3. There is no doubt that the FDA’s action will lead to more vaccine mandates and increased pressure on those currently choosing not to get vaccinated. Your letter to Pfizer suggests that “there is not sufficient approved vaccine available for distribution.” Is there sufficient supply in the U.S. of the Comirnaty vaccine to ensure that those being vaccinated under mandates will be receiving the FDA-approved version? Or is it more likely (or certain) that they will be vaccinated using the vaccine administered under the reissued EUA?
4. If there is insufficient supply of Comirnaty vaccines for those succumbing to the coercion of mandates, isn’t the FDA de facto endorsing vaccine mandates utilizing EUA vaccines?
5. Will individuals who receive either vaccine be afforded the same legal protections if they are injured by the vaccine? If not, why not?
Thank you Senator. Personally, 2setsofrules thinks that if you take the “political science” for the approval and put it on one side a scale and put the “science” for the approval on the other side, the political science would out weigh the science that went into the FDAs decision making process.