quote:

The issue isn’t whether or not an employer can set conditions of employment for employees.

It should be. I'm a big believer in rights. Rights of the business owners, and rights of individuals.

Outside of some very specific workplace environments, since when has any business demanded proof of your vaccine history? And to what extent is that any of their business?

You work in a healthcare field? I get it. Restaurant worker required to have a hep shot? I get it. A machinist required? I don't get it.

The reason we're discussing this is your lawyer's opinion quote (and note that it is JUST a private lawyer's opinion), that an employer couldn't mandate an employee get a vaccine that's authorized under an EUA. But that is NOT the case any more. Whatever details you want to quibble about, the FDA granted full approval to a vaccine. So lets say an employee gets fired for not getting vaccinated. That employee gets a lawyer and sues the employer. First, you're lawyer's opinion has to pass muster. Let's say it does. Then the employer trots out the FDA approval of the vaccine. The employees lawyer will have to do some very fancy tapdancing to keep the case from getting shut down immediately, on the basis that the EUA issue is now moot.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

As per the FDA, Cominarty (stupid name) and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine are the same thing.
But if we're talking about workers over 18, no more EUA. This is fully approved.

Bullshit. They may (or may not-they don't even have to disclose the EUA ingredients and they can change) have the same ingredients, but they are legally distinct.
If they were selling something that was FDA approved they would lose liability immunity granted under the EUA.

Games Regulators & Lawyers Play as Pfizer FDA Authorization Not Fully That

https://trialsitenews.com/game...tion-not-fully-that/

What vaccine being administered here in the US has FDA approval? Which one?

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
The reason we're discussing this is your lawyer's opinion quote (and note that it is JUST a private lawyer's opinion), that an employer couldn't mandate an employee get a vaccine that's authorized under an EUA. But that is NOT the case any more. Whatever details you want to quibble about, the FDA granted full approval to a vaccine.

chellim1's entire argument is a red herring anyway.

quote:

couldn't mandate an employee get a vaccine that's authorized under an EUA. But that is NOT the case any more.

I'm not so sure that isn't the exact case. Our local school district hosted a vaccination clinic at which you had to sign a liability release.

It specifically mentioned that the Pfizer shot being administered was being done under an EUA, and that you were acknowledging as much by signing.

At some point, someone will sue, and we'll find out experimentally. But the anti-mandate side hasn't been doing well in court.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

couldn't mandate an employee get a vaccine that's authorized under an EUA. But that is NOT the case any more.

I'm not so sure that isn't the exact case. Our local school district hosted a vaccination clinic at which you had to sign a liability release.

It specifically mentioned that the Pfizer shot being administered was being done under an EUA, and that you were acknowledging as much by signing.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Full FDA press release

That Press Release from August 23, 2021 is not as clear as the FDA Reissue Emergency Use Authorization from October 29, 2021.

So let’s look at the most current FDA Letter which provides a better description of the differences between Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‐19 Vaccine and Pfizer’s COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA).

FDA, October 29, 2021 Reissue of EUA

Page 3
COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) Uses tromethamine (Tris) buffer instead of phosphate buffered saline (PBS) used in the originally authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.

Page 12
The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine vial label and carton labels are clearly marked for “Emergency Use Authorization.”

Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‐19 Vaccine is authorized for emergency use with the following product-specific information required to be made available to vaccination providers and recipients, respectively (referred to as “authorized labeling”):

Page 17
Y.
All descriptive printed matter, advertising, and promotional material relating to the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‐19 Vaccine clearly and conspicuously shall state that:

• This product has not been approved or licensed by FDA, but has been authorized
for emergency use by FDA, under an EUA to prevent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) for use either in individuals 12 years of age and older, or in individuals 5 through 11 years of age, as appropriate; and

• The emergency use of this product is only authorized for the duration of the declaration that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of the medical product under Section 564(b)(1) of the FD&C Act unless the declaration is terminated or authorization revoked sooner.

Page 18
AA. COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) is licensed for individuals 16 years of age and older. There remains, however, a significant amount of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine that was manufactured and labeled in accordance with this emergency use authorization. The authorization remains in place with respect to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for this population.
—
How I see it, and a News Link.

Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‐19 Vaccine = Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)
Pfizer has protection from liabilities.

COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) = FDA Approved, but currently unavailable.
Pfizer has liability

Approved Version Of Pfizer's COVID-19 Vaccine Still Not Available In US
Link

Officials in 19 states confirmed this week they have not received the approved version, known as Cominarty. So did pharmacies in New York, California, and Missouri.

A Pfizer spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email that there are no doses of Cominarty in the United States as of Oct. 12.

The lack of availability means vaccine mandates based on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval are unlawful, lawyers representing clients challenging the requirements say.

“Under the emergency use authorization, everyone has an option to accept or refuse the product. And that means every person, military and civilian. So this is critical. All of the mandates, from the military to the civilian population, are violating federal law,” Mathew Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal group, told The Epoch Times.

The situation would be different if Cominarty was available, he said.

Contact with state and federal officials and pharmacies revealed widespread confusion regarding the differences between the approved Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and the version that received emergency use authorization (EUA) in December 2020 and continues to be administered under EUA now.

^^ Thank you.

^^^^
I knew you were correct, but was glad to see it so clearly spelled out in the most recent FDA letter.

quote:

A Pfizer spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email that there are no doses of Cominarty in the United States as of Oct. 12.

The lack of availability means vaccine mandates based on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval are unlawful, lawyers representing clients challenging the requirements say.

“Under the emergency use authorization, everyone has an option to accept or refuse the product. And that means every person, military and civilian. So this is critical. All of the mandates, from the military to the civilian population, are violating federal law,” Mathew Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal group, told The Epoch Times.

The situation would be different if Cominarty was available, he said.

This has been the piece I've wondered about as to the legality of essentially mandating a product not specifically authorized by the FDA. This administration has no issue bending or ignoring the law when the law stands in their way. The eviction/foreclosure moratorium comes to mind.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
Geissele say it ain't so ....

[FLASH_VIDEO]<iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iYeSH0wwXIA" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>[/FLASH_VIDEO]

So, after that pretend backpedaling, Hornady has doubled down behind the scene. What a slimy asshole.
And, Bill Geissele is trying to be clever by having the employee meeting in the parking lot with no official memo.

Ammo and triggers options are plentiful, if not overwhelming in selection. (not current volume, but manufacturer choices)

Together we stand - divided we fall.

Well, crap. Hornady is the only supplier for some of the calibers I own, even in normal times. Particularly those collaborations with Ruger, like 338 to 416 Ruger, or occasionally 416 Rigby and 458 Lott. If I need the brass and only Hornady is making it at the time, oh well. I'm not going to mothball any firearms over this. It's very disappointing, though.

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
Yes this is real.

I am with a company over 100 employees.

Looks like Religious Exemption is not going to be approved. I provided additional documentation based on my religious beliefs and now waiting for a response.

I don’t anticipate that my company will recognize my religious beliefs, which are solid and yes true and sincere.

Expect to be unemployed by end of month.

Problem with this (from a legal POV, not your personal beliefs) is this: have you ever taken a flu vaccine? They're using this as a "gotcha", even though these covid "vaccines" are nothing like a flu vaccine. The argument though, is that if you've taken one then you have no real religious argument to not accept the other. And this is working in the courts.

^^^^^
Gotcha!
I am not opposed to vaccinations nor any other medical interventions.
Seems that’s what companies assumed religious exemptions would be based on.

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
So let’s look at the most current FDA Letter which provides a better description of the differences between Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‐19 Vaccine and Pfizer’s COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA).

FDA, October 29, 2021 Reissue of EUA

Page 3
COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) Uses tromethamine (Tris) buffer instead of phosphate buffered saline (PBS) used in the originally authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.

Well isn’t that interesting.
Look what is in the news today.

This makes sense now.
A bit of liability protection is always welcome for any company.

Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‐19 Vaccine = Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)
Pfizer has protection from liabilities.

COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) = FDA Approved, but currently unavailable. (Except for kids, we apparently learned today.)
Pfizer has liability

Pfizer adds ingredient to Vaccine for kids… Used to stabilize heart attacks…
Link

To provide a vaccine with an improved stability profile, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for use in children 5-11 years of age uses tromethamine (Tris) buffer instead of the phosphatebuffered saline (PBS) as used in the previous formulation and excludes sodium chloride and potassium chloride.

Tromethamine is a blood acid reducer which is used to stabilize patients with heart attacks.




More Info to read through.
Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting October 26, 2021
Link

Larger issues aside, I am simply pissed that I bought 300 rounds of Hornady 9mm ammo, just in time to find out I did business with someone I wouldn't trust with dirty dishes.

I don't think I'm alone in this. There are other suppliers, though I get it, for some calibers there is no alternative source.

this is the secon time i have heard that hornaday is looking for who released the memo.

Yep. Screwin' the pooch

quote:

Originally posted by akcopnfbks:

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
Yes this is real.

I am with a company over 100 employees.

Looks like Religious Exemption is not going to be approved. I provided additional documentation based on my religious beliefs and now waiting for a response.

I don’t anticipate that my company will recognize my religious beliefs, which are solid and yes true and sincere.

Expect to be unemployed by end of month.

Problem with this (from a legal POV, not your personal beliefs) is this: have you ever taken a flu vaccine? They're using this as a "gotcha", even though these covid "vaccines" are nothing like a flu vaccine. The argument though, is that if you've taken one then you have no real religious argument to not accept the other. And this is working in the courts.

How would they know if you have ever been vaccinated against the flu?

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:ng
Yep. Screwin' the pooch

A disgusting and visceral reaction from Hornady. They are literally attacking their employees. They are fortunate that they are located in Grande Isle NE, which seems to be a few hours from nowhere and probably not a hotbed for manufacturing.