So are you really sure that you're really going to get an FDA-approved jab next time you roll up your sleeves?
Read this (I have no idea what these websites are, I'm just sharing these articles) and see if you still think that:
FDA Does Bait and Switch with Moderna's COVID Vaccine, Fully Approved "Spikevax"
This sounds to me like the same thing that happened with the Pfizer jab.
Question: If the emergency-use Moderna vaccine and the "approved" "Spikevax" are truly one and the same, why are they listed as separate things, and why wasn't the emergency one approved but a different one was?
And if they are the same, why (see the FDA authorization letter here) does the emergency-use authorization remain in place for the current Moderna "vaccine" being used? [From what I read, emergency-use measures are only used when there is no truly approved alternative? So why are all these emergency-use vaccines still in use, if there are supposedly "approved" alternatives out there?]
And why, if Spikevax is supposedly the same as the current emergency-use "vaccine" and is supposedly fully approved and so is not "emergency use" anymore, does the FDA also say (in that letter) that the use of Spikevax is authorized "under this EUA [emergency use authorization]"? If the use of Spikevax is being authorized under the emergency-use order, wouldn't that mean it's still emergency-use only?
And why, way down in point BB, does it say that since a huge amount of the emergency-use "vaccine" was produced, then "this authorization remains in place for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for this population"? Isn't this just basically admitting that you we won't have access to the "approved" Spikevax until we use up the supply of the emergency-use one? Why, if those two "vaccines" are supposedly the exact same thing, didn't all these emergency-use ones instantly become "approved"? Why do we have to use up a supply of one kind before getting the other kind if they are supposedly the same thing? (Or is it just a labelling thing? But if so, then why are emergency-use authorizations still in place?]
Why does section I.C. admit that there is "no adequate, approved, or available alternative to the emergency use of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine to prevent COVID-19"? Isn't this just admitting that all vaccines in use right now are really still experimental, unapproved?
And notice that Spikevax is authorized to complete the primary vaccination regimen or to be used as a booster if you first got the emergency-use Moderna "vaccine," and vice versa (the emergency-use one is authorized to complete the regime or be a booster if you got Spikevax first). Either way, does this mean you must get at least one emergency-use one? If so, why?
And in the footnotes for #11, why does it say "Additionally, there are no COVID-19 vaccines that are approved to provide: a third primary series dose to certain immunocompromised populations described in this EUA; a homologous booster dose to the authorized population described in this EUA; or a heterologous booster dose following completion of primary vaccination with another authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccine."
But then when it talks about the authorized uses for Spikevax, it claims:
"This authorization also covers the use of the licensed SPIKEVAX (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) product when used to provide: (1) a third primary series dose...to individuals 18 years of age or older who have undergone solid organ transplantation or who are diagnosed with conditions that are considered to have an equivalent level of immunocompromise; (2) a single homologous booster dose...after completion of the primary series to individuals 18 years of age or older; and (3) a single booster dose as a heterologous booster dose...following completion of primary vaccination with another authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccine in individuals 18 years of age and older..."
Doesn't this sound like they're talking out of both sides of their mouths, saying first that there is no vaccine approved for those uses but then saying that Spikevax is authorized for those uses?
So then the big question is: Is "approved" different than "authorized"? And does this difference matter? What was Spikevax "approved" for? Emergency-use? Or is it really, truly, fully approved but won't matter because it's unavailable? Does "authorized" just mean that they will allow it to be used even if it's not really, truly, fully approved? And is the media trying to get people to believe something that's not true?
Just wondering.
Because something isn't adding up here.
But the way the newspapers report it, you're going to think that when you go in and get the Moderna or Pfizer jab that you're really getting an FDA-approved one...
but are you really!?!
Or is that just what they want you to think?
Also see:
There are NO approved vaccines in the United States
I guess in the end all we can do is make the decision we think is best, based on our research, and then pray to God.
Dear God, Send Jesus back again to get us because we're done here. Amen
