- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: So where is the OSHA mandate?
Posted on 10/5/21 at 4:44 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 10/5/21 at 4:44 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
They gave their product a name ? What legal advantage do you guys think Pfizer is obtaining by this “shadiness”? That’s what I don’t see here.
You guys are implying some level of malevolence and/or opportunism by Pfizer, but I don’t even understand what that would be. I mean, if yalls point is that the *actually* approved vaccine is not generally available, then you’re correct. But it’s just a technicality, and a temporary one at that.
I think you mean legality. Which will yes be solved when they make Comirnaty available to the public. They haven't, so the mandate isn't legal yet.
1
Posted on 10/5/21 at 4:48 pm to Mac Power
quote:
I think you mean legality. Which will yes be solved when they make Comirnaty available to the public. They haven't, so the mandate isn't legal yet.
Read the last couple pages. That isn’t why the hypothetical mandate would be unconstitutional.
It may be why certain employer’s mandates would be unenforceable in court (if worded for only a fully approved vaccine), but we’ve already been through that. Comirnaty will be available and/or Moderna/JNJ will be approved before any litigation on those grounds gets beyond the filing/TRO stage.
Though you still aren’t answering the ultimate question. What’s in this for Pfizer if they are indeed playing fast and loose/being shady? They’ve already been paid for every vaccine they are making.
This post was edited on 10/5/21 at 4:52 pm
Posted on 10/5/21 at 4:53 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
However, contrary to every statement you have made in this thread, Pfizer has liability protection for both the Pfizer-BioNtech branded vaccine and the Comirnaty-branded vaccine, and people in the United States have recourse through government structured compensation programs for both vaccines. (the CICP and the NVICP, respectively).
The labeling of the vaccination has no bearing on liability for Pfizer whatsoever.
Your own post says the eua vax gets cicp compensation, and cominarty gets nvicp.
That's a difference, is it not?
So the labeling DOES have bearing on liability. Eua gets one comp program, comirnaty gets another.
This post was edited on 10/5/21 at 4:55 pm
Posted on 10/5/21 at 5:12 pm to Strannix
Many companies are going forward with it. Mostly government contractors because the government is amending current contacts, which is shite.
Posted on 10/5/21 at 5:27 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
They gave their product a name What legal advantage do you guys think Pfizer is obtaining by this “shadiness”? That’s what I don’t see here.
You guys are implying some level of malevolence and/or legal opportunism by Pfizer, but I don’t even understand what that would be?
It is simple. The facility that produces comirnaty or whatever is capable of proving batch consistency and ingredient quality. The ones produced under another label are from facilities that cannot provide proof of required consistency and quality. They cannot be approved without it.
So if you take the Pfizer labeled one, you have no clue what is in it or the quality because it was not required to be proven. Hence the emergency authorization.
Why are they being slow to provide these quality requirements? Maybe you should ask Pfizer why they don't want you to know what it is you are injecting.
Posted on 10/5/21 at 5:28 pm to smh4wg
quote:
So the labeling DOES have bearing on liability. Eua gets one comp program, comirnaty gets another.
It has no bearing on Pfizer’s liability, which is what we were discussing. Yes, there are two separate government compensation programs, but Pfizer is not liable in either instance.
This post was edited on 10/5/21 at 5:32 pm
Posted on 10/5/21 at 5:30 pm to notsince98
quote:
The facility that produces comirnaty or whatever is capable of proving batch consistency and ingredient quality. The ones produced under another label are from facilities that cannot provide proof of required consistency and quality. They cannot be approved without it.
So if you take the Pfizer labeled one, you have no clue what is in it or the quality because it was not required to be proven. Hence the emergency authorization.
That is just not true. The vaccines are made by the same entities at the same facilities.
quote:
Why are they being slow to provide these quality requirements? Maybe you should ask Pfizer why they don't want you to know what it is you are injecting.
Pfizer didn’t need to apply for two authorizations. Again, you should really read the whole thread.
Posted on 10/5/21 at 5:31 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
t has no bearing on Pfizer’s liability, which is what we were discussing.
Pfizer has no liability in any of this under any circumstances.
Posted on 10/5/21 at 5:33 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
That is just not true. The vaccines are made by the same entities at the same facilities.
False.
Posted on 10/5/21 at 5:34 pm to notsince98
quote:
Pfizer has no liability in any of this under any circumstances.
I’m aware, and have said so at least 5 times in this thread. It’s very clear you have not read it, considering we’ve already discussed most of what you are saying.
This post was edited on 10/5/21 at 5:36 pm
Posted on 10/5/21 at 5:37 pm to Indefatigable
You know how to use Google.
And just an fyi, fda doesn't approve facilities. They approve product production lines. Two different lines in the same building require separate inspections and approvals. Products having different labels will come off slightly different production lines typically. It may only be the labeler that is different but that is enough to be treated different by the FDA.
And just an fyi, fda doesn't approve facilities. They approve product production lines. Two different lines in the same building require separate inspections and approvals. Products having different labels will come off slightly different production lines typically. It may only be the labeler that is different but that is enough to be treated different by the FDA.
Posted on 10/5/21 at 5:40 pm to notsince98
quote:
You know how to use Google.
It’s your claim. You prove it. Pfizer and Biontech say they are made in the same places. You disprove it.
quote:
And just an fyi, fda doesn't approve facilities.
No one anywhere in the thread said otherwise.
quote:
They approve product production lines. Two different lines in the same building require separate inspections and approvals. Products having different labels will come off slightly different production lines typically. It may only be the labeler that is different but that is enough to be treated different by the FDA.
No one anywhere in the thread disputes anything in that statement. It’s also not on point. Once again, you have not read the thread.
Either back up what you claim regarding the content and quality verification with a credible source or have a great day. I value what the FDA says over your sourceless conjecture.
This post was edited on 10/5/21 at 5:43 pm
Posted on 10/5/21 at 6:42 pm to Pookers
quote:
I would hope even if passed it would be ruled unconstitutional via the 10th amendment or something.
I seriously don't think anyone gives a frick about the Constitution any more.
I should have been preparing to expatriate to Romania for the last few years, but now I'm fricked, so I guess I'll ride this shite to hell.
Posted on 10/6/21 at 1:14 pm to BROffshoreTigerFan
Yes - Ptech, maint, eng, lab(we train) blue collar starts around 40/hr
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News