U.S. to accept mixed COVID-19 vaccine doses for international travellers, CDC says  

People with “any combination” of two doses of a vaccine approved by either the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or the World Health Organization “are considered fully vaccinated,” the agency said in a statement.

“While CDC has not recommended mixing types of vaccine in a primary series, we recognize that this is increasingly common in other countries so should be accepted for the interpretation of vaccine records.”

The news also confirms what the White House acknowledged earlier Friday would be a likely development: that the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, approved by the WHO but not the FDA, would be deemed acceptable.

https://globalnews.ca/news/8270376/us-cdc-covid-mixed-vaccine-international/

19 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The news also confirms what the White House acknowledged earlier Friday would be a likely development: that the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, approved by the WHO but not the FDA, would be deemed acceptable.

That, for me personally, is great news!

I wonder what the FDA has against AZ (other than 'not invented here') ...

2 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

I wonder what the FDA has against AZ (other than 'not invented here') ...

AZ did not apply for Emergency Use Authorisation.  It'll likely get full approval when the time comes.

Note that Johnson Johnson apparently has delayed or withdrawn their request for full authorization and still only have emergency authorization?  seems odd

46 minutes ago, gk10012001 said:

Note that Johnson Johnson apparently has delayed or withdrawn their request for full authorization and still only have emergency authorization?  seems odd

I've forgotten the details but I read something on that just in the last few days. My recollection (a bit vague) is that it isn't performing up to scratch ... so they've withdrawn it & they're now concentrating on their 'next generation' vax. (Something along those lines.)

1 hour ago, gk10012001 said:

Note that Johnson Johnson apparently has delayed or withdrawn their request for full authorization and still only have emergency authorization?  seems odd

Not odd at all.  EUA comes with liability waiver.  The main driver for full approval (without benefit of long term study) was to allow the gub'ment to mandate the vaccines.  Now that Pfizer has done that, the gub'ment can mandate the vaccines, and J&J gets all the benefits and none of the liability.  Creamy dream for J&J...

 

5 hours ago, impulse said:

Not odd at all.  EUA comes with liability waiver.  The main driver for full approval (without benefit of long term study) was to allow the gub'ment to mandate the vaccines.  Now that Pfizer has done that, the gub'ment can mandate the vaccines, and J&J gets all the benefits and none of the liability.  Creamy dream for J&J...

 

Another falsehood promoted by an anti-vaxxer. You would think by now that after pushing falsehood after falsehood from dubious sources anti vaxxers would wise up to the fact that they are being played.

The false claim that the fully-approved Pfizer vaccine lacks liability protection

The PREP Act designation means that claims related to coronavirus vaccines are covered by the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), not the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which was set up to handle vaccine lawsuits.

In other words, a person cannot sue a manufacturer for an injury caused by a vaccine or other product listed as a countermeasure, but they can seek compensation from CICP filing a claim. The intent of the law is to urge manufacturers to quickly gear up to combat a possible pandemic without fear of lawsuits.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/08/30/false-claim-that-fully-approved-pfizer-vaccine-lacks-liability-protection/

F.D.A. to Allow ‘Mix and Match’ Approach for Covid Booster Shots

 The Food and Drug Administration is planning to allow Americans to receive a different Covid-19 vaccine as a booster than the one they initially received, a move that could reduce the appeal of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and provide flexibility to doctors and other vaccinators.

The government would not recommend one shot over another, and it might note that using the same vaccine as a booster when possible is preferable, people familiar with the agency’s planning said. But vaccine providers could use their discretion to offer a different brand, a freedom that state health officials have been requesting for weeks.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/18/us/politics/fda-mix-and-match-boosters.html

12 hours ago, impulse said:

Not odd at all.  EUA comes with liability waiver.  The main driver for full approval (without benefit of long term study) was to allow the gub'ment to mandate the vaccines.  Now that Pfizer has done that, the gub'ment can mandate the vaccines, and J&J gets all the benefits and none of the liability.  Creamy dream for J&J...

 

actually as to the lilability waiver, there is a recently passed US law that absolves all of those vaccine manufacturers against any liability

6 minutes ago, gk10012001 said:

actually as to the lilability waiver, there is a recently passed US law that absolves all of those vaccine manufacturers against any liability

I don't know whether or not there has been any recent legislation, but the PREP Act was signed into law in 2005.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Readiness_and_Emergency_Preparedness_Act

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

I don't know whether or not there has been any recent legislation, but the PREP Act was signed into law in 2005.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Readiness_and_Emergency_Preparedness_Act

It absolves them of liability IF they have acted in good faith and they haven't fibbed during the approval process.  It's not an absolute shield like the EUA.

 

Watch some of the covert videos of Pfizer scientists and exec...  Good faith apparently isn't in their vocabulary.

 

Edit:  But that's neither here, nor there.  The statement I was responding to is "It's odd that J&J hasn't pushed for full approval".  That costs money, and (given the lack of long term testing) exposes the company to liability.  For the gub'ment to mandate the vaccines, they only needed one of the manufacturers to get full approval.  Pfizer did that.  J&J and Moderna can ride those coat tails, while doing a proper job of getting full approval after they see long term results.  Saving them a ton of money and not exposing the companies to the huge liability if things go terrible wrong in the long term.

 

 

Edited October 19, 20214 yr by impulse

40 minutes ago, impulse said:

It absolves them of liability IF they have acted in good faith and they haven't fibbed during the approval process.  It's not an absolute shield like the EUA.

 

Watch some of the covert videos of Pfizer scientists and exec...  Good faith apparently isn't in their vocabulary.

 

Edit:  But that's neither here, nor there.  The statement I was responding to is "It's odd that J&J hasn't pushed for full approval".  That costs money, and (given the lack of long term testing) exposes the company to liability.  For the gub'ment to mandate the vaccines, they only needed one of the manufacturers to get full approval.  Pfizer did that.  J&J and Moderna can ride those coat tails, while doing a proper job of getting full approval after they see long term results.  Saving them a ton of money and not exposing the companies to the huge liability if things go terrible wrong in the long term.

 

 

You mean those videos from James O'Keefe and Project Veritas How many times have they been caught out deceptively editing videos? Wasn't there some nonsesne about some drunk doctor claiming that they weren't reporting adverse events to the VAERS?

 

As for your theory about Janssen, it doesn't make much sense. The Janssen vaccine isn't an mRNA vaccine.So what would they learn from Pfizer and Moderna's experience?

Also, it's been recommended that the Janssen vaccine be required to be administered in 2 inoculations. So they probably would have to amend their applications anyway. 

Finally, it hasn't been all that successful in the marketplace. And competitors will soon be up and running.. Maybe they just don't want to throw good money after bad.

 

1 hour ago, impulse said:

It absolves them of liability IF they have acted in good faith and they haven't fibbed during the approval process.  It's not an absolute shield like the EUA.

 

Watch some of the covert videos of Pfizer scientists and exec...  Good faith apparently isn't in their vocabulary.

 

Edit:  But that's neither here, nor there.  The statement I was responding to is "It's odd that J&J hasn't pushed for full approval".  That costs money, and (given the lack of long term testing) exposes the company to liability.  For the gub'ment to mandate the vaccines, they only needed one of the manufacturers to get full approval.  Pfizer did that.  J&J and Moderna can ride those coat tails, while doing a proper job of getting full approval after they see long term results.  Saving them a ton of money and not exposing the companies to the huge liability if things go terrible wrong in the long term.

 

 

Covert videos? Still stuck with the ridiculous conspiracy theories?  Wow. You really should take a step back and analyze your thoughts.