Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

855

I understand this is convoluted. But if you go through it, it makes sense.

My company issued a mandate that everyone get jabbed. Since they're following the federal "mandate", it has to be for the legally FDA APPROVED jab - NOT just an EUA jab.

Since the LEGALLY APPROVED jab (Comirnaty) is not available, why couldn't I just turn back to my company and ask them where to get a FDA APPROVED jab? When they have no answer to that, I sit quietly and let them figure it out.

I'm pretty sure neither the federal gov't nor a private company can make you get jabbed with something not fully approved by the FDA.

Would this work?

I understand this is convoluted. But if you go through it, it makes sense. My company issued a mandate that everyone get jabbed. Since they're following the federal "mandate", it has to be for the legally FDA APPROVED jab - NOT just an EUA jab. Since the LEGALLY APPROVED jab (Comirnaty) is not available, why couldn't I just turn back to my company and ask them where to get a FDA APPROVED jab? When they have no answer to that, I sit quietly and let them figure it out. I'm pretty sure neither the federal gov't nor a private company can make you get jabbed with something not fully approved by the FDA. Would this work?

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (47).
[–] • 3 pts

The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty (koe-mir’-na-tee)

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine

They'll just say it's the same thing and just a brand name change.

[–] • 3 pts

But research shows 1) It’s not chemically the same, and 2) the legal definition of the approved jab is bound by the brand name. If employers push on this and force employees to get a EUA jab they could be sued.

[–] • 1 pt

Don't forget that the quality (and therefore safety) of the currently available vaccines are not even close to the "approved".

[–] • 0 pt

To what research are you referring showing that the EUA Pfizer gene therapy is not chemically the same as the approved-but-not-available Comirnaty gene therapy?

[–] • 1 pt

It is in the FDA regulatory documents, FDA wrote this. The two products are legally distinct and have different ingredients but the differences are said to not be significant.

[–] • 0 pt

They can say that all they want, legally it's not true though. FDA granted approval to Comirnaty, not the EUA Pfizer-BioNTech "vaccine", and the ingredients are different.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

It's a corporate attempt at a CYA.

Because they know it's not a vaccine wasn't approved and there are going to be on going health consequences because of it.

It's their attempt at distancing itself from the bed it shat in. In hopes the community at large has a ten second memory and forgets that it was never approved by the FDA.

[–] • 0 pt

But it is not the same. Maybe chemically, if the production process is untainted. But not legally. The EUA vaccines come without any liability for the manufacturers. If people suffer from Comirnaty side effects, they are entitled to compensation. That's why it isn't sold in the US.

[–] • 0 pt

Chemically they aren't the same either, they have significant differences in ingredients.