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

©2025 Poal.co

1.2K

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

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.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Water as opposed to saline.

But the molecular structures exactly the same.

It's a CYA

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

If they are in fact different then the EUA one has undergone (some) clinical trials while the approved one hasn't. Without clinical trials how do they know the difference is not significant? The version that has NOT undergone clinical trials has been approved. Wtf is going on.