Is the covid vax legal under emergency use?

[quazimodo]

Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine may have been suppressed so there would be no alternatives to usher the emergency use of the vax…but there is an approved alternative in remdesivir . So, does the vax violate the law and make it illegal to implement ?

 

[JohnHafterson]

Pretty grey as to if employers schools can mandate on EUA. Will differ by states as well This is a good write up on legal issues etc:

Key Questions About COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates | KFF

This issue brief explains the legal basis for vaccine mandates by the federal government, states, and private employers; highlights considerations for mandates while the COVID-19 vaccine is under an EUA; and discusses mandate exemptions based on disability or religious objection.

www.kff.org

 

[Jam]

The point (first made by John Cullen I believe) is that the EUA for the vaccines breaks US code which states that EUAs may only be granted in the total absence of approved treatments. Remdesvir is officially approved by the FDA to treat COVID-19.

Remdesivir is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized adult and pediatric patients (aged ≥12 years and weighing ≥40 kg). It is also available through an FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized pediatric patients weighing 3.5 kg to <40 kg or aged <12 years and weighing ≥3.5 kg. Remdesivir should be administered in a hospital or a health care setting that can provide a similar level of care to an inpatient hospital.

 

[tankasnowgod]

The point (first made by John Cullen I believe) is that the EUA for the vaccines breaks US code which states that EUAs may only be granted in the total absence of approved treatments. Remdesvir is officially approved by the FDA to treat COVID-19.

I have heard this as well. You would also have to add that the explosion of VAERS reports would signal that something is wrong. At the very least, there should have been a "pause" in these vaccination campaigns, until a full investigation of the drugs and reports was complete. Instead, they expanded the EUA to allow 12-15 year olds. Complete inversion logic.

There's also the issue that the trials didn't fulfill the criteria for EUA themselves. Peter Doshi, editor at the BMJ, pointed out two potential issues with the Pfizer trial data that could have signaled an effectiveness lower than 50%, which is another key requirement. Of course, his very legitimate concerns were ignored by the FDA and other regulating bodies-

Peter Doshi: Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—we need more details and the raw data - The BMJ

On 5 February 2021 we published a clarification to this piece. It is available here. Five weeks ago, when I raised questions about the results of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s covid-19 [...]More...

blogs.bmj.com

At this point, they are going against their own code and their own systems data. To anyone who thought the US government's actions might be due more to incompetence than corruption, there can be no doubt any more. Corruption is absolutely the driving force.

 

[Peatness]

It seem that the lancet study that precipitated the hydroxychlorquine safety concern was retracted. Why is this not well known?

RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis - The Lancet