Label states “For use under Emergency Use Authorization,” but it does not say “approved.”
“You may wonder ‘What gives?’,” says Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser. “Yes, that’s exactly what I’m asking, too.”
When will these “COVID-Vaccines” become APPROVED ?
Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser
The mainstream media (radio, TV, newspapers) are full of reports of the successes of COVID-19 “vaccines” in reducing the number of new “cases” here and in many other jurisdictions.
However, to this date none of those “mRNA-type vaccines” (like from Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, Novavax) and, perhaps, other manufacturers/providers) have received an unequivocal “stamp of approval” by any government entity (e.g., the U.S. Centers for Disease Control [CDC] and U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA]), or by Canada, or by Europe’s EMA (European Medicines Agency).
The pictures nearby will show that. Read the label carefully (shown in the enlargement):
Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine vial label stating “For use under Emergency Use Authorization”- Source WikipediaA Case in Point
On May 5, 2021, in the CTV News, Canada’s Chief Medical Officer, Dr. T. Tam, spoke of “authorized” vaccines — in contrast to other medicines (for other kinds of ailments) that are described as having been “approved” by the authorities for specific other kinds of ailments.
There is, certainly in many places, a misunderstanding between the (U.S.) legal terms for medicines/vaccines that are “Authorized” and those that are “Approved.” This differentiation is akin to the (U.S.) legal terms of “Agreement” and “Treaty.”
In both examples, the first is non-binding (or not subject to legal proceedings) but the latter is.
Regrettably, few journalists and politicians (especially outside the U.S.) seem to understand the differences. In common language parlance they appear to have identical meanings but not in “legalese” as common and binding language on this continent.
Another example of the fierce competition in the field of COVID-19 vaccine developments, barely mentioned in western societies’ media, are products developed elsewhere. For example, the Sputnik vaccines developed in Russia on the basis of an approximately 70-year old proven (non-mRNA-type) vaccine technology, similar to the AstraZeneca product, barely ever gets mentioned.
Then there are at least three similar anti-COVID products currently available in China (with others still under development) and in other countries. Some countries have ordered millions of doses from their manufacturers. The Wall Street Journal website at https://www.wsj.com/articles/tracking-covid-19-vaccine-distribution-11611355360 provides some good graphics for international product comparisons.
The question is what’s the better/best long-lasting protection with the least amount of negative effects that is also able to defend against the rapidly evolving mutations (so-called variants) and potential future varieties?
Already, the CEO of the Pfizer group has stated that a third jab may be necessary and annual “vaxxings” thereafter. Of course, that is very reminiscent of past decades’ annual flu-shot recommendations here.
You may Wonder
You may wonder “What gives?” Yes, that’s exactly what I’m asking, too.
Questions ought to be answered forthwith by the official health agencies’ representatives and not just with platitudes but with measurable “endpoints,” numbers, dates, and in formats that provide comparable data to other vaccine-like products and diseases (like the common seasonal flu). Answers are urgently required.
This is not a game of one-upmanship between the pharma giants but rather answers to question of long-term safety (especially also for young children and pregnant women) are of worldwide importance. For example, Norway’s National Institute of Public Health recently recommended stopping further use of one of the currently used injections there.
Long-term Safety Concerns
The long-term safety, efficacy and lack of “side-effects” (including deaths) of the anti-COVID-19 injections are much more important than benevolent ideas of setting-aside legal provisions for the protection of intellectual property and patent protections for the development and/or manufacture of such materials.
Even Pfizer’s own documents warn of a variety of known side effects and that non-vaxxed folks should stay away from those that have been injected with the company’s product. Clearly, there are global implications to such considerations.
Short of accepting, without question, any and all globalist ideas, claimed to be for “protection,” clear answers to those questions about long-term safety are urgently needed! Approval must rest on standard testing methods, procedures, and statistical analyses that should equally apply to all materials offered.
Nothing else will do!
Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser is a professional scientist with a Ph.D. in chemistry from the Technical University, Munich, Germany. He has worked as a research scientist and project chief at Environment Canada‘s Canada Centre for Inland Waters for over 30 years and is currently Director of Research at TerraBase Inc. He is author of nearly 300 publications in scientific journals, government and agency reports, books, computer programs, trade magazines, and newspaper articles.
Dr. Kaiser has been president of the International Association for Great Lakes Research, a peer reviewer of numerous scientific papers for several journals, Editor-in-Chief of the Water Quality Research Journal of Canada for nearly a decade, and an adjunct professor. He has contributed to a variety of scientific projects and reports and has made many presentations at national and international conferences.
Dr. Kaiser is author of CONVENIENT MYTHS, the green revolution – perceptions, politics, and facts
Dr. Kaiser can be reached at: mail@convenientmyths