The Comirnaty Challenge

DeSanto

Super Member
What is Comirnaty:

It’s the same exact mRNA vaccine Pfizer has been producing through the emergency use authorization, but now it's being marketed under the new name. Comirnaty is administered in two doses, three weeks apart, just like Pfizer doses have been all along. The vaccine name is pronounced koe-mir'-na-tee.Aug 24, 2021
1631743135339.png

The meaning behind the name 'Comirnaty' Comirnaty is an agglomeration of the words “Covid-19 immunity” and “mRNA,” the latter indicating the technology that makes the vaccine work. As a whole, the word is intended to evoke “community,” a Brand Institute executive said.Aug 24, 2021
1631743236882.png

So now...

Does anyone know the REAL reason Pfizer decided to “market” the “vaccine” under a new name?

Any takers?
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
What is Comirnaty:

It’s the same exact mRNA vaccine Pfizer has been producing through the emergency use authorization, but now it's being marketed under the new name. Comirnaty is administered in two doses, three weeks apart, just like Pfizer doses have been all along. The vaccine name is pronounced koe-mir'-na-tee.Aug 24, 2021
View attachment 1863

The meaning behind the name 'Comirnaty' Comirnaty is an agglomeration of the words “Covid-19 immunity” and “mRNA,” the latter indicating the technology that makes the vaccine work. As a whole, the word is intended to evoke “community,” a Brand Institute executive said.Aug 24, 2021
View attachment 1864

So now...

Can someone guess the REAL reason Pfizer decided to rebrand the “vaccine” and give it a new name?

Anyone?
clot shot marketing product managers.

Every drug company has a separate official product manager for each patented product. They will have a huge advertising budget.

Has Pfizer ever been found guilty in a court of law for scientific fraud? Yes
Has Pfizer ever been found guilty of bribing doctors? Yes

Has pfizer ever been found guilty by a jury of racketeering fraud? Yes.

Bottom line it is not a vaccine.
 

DeSanto

Super Member
clot shot marketing product managers.

Every drug company has a separate official product manager for each patented product. They will have a huge advertising budget.

Has Pfizer ever been found guilty in a court of law for scientific fraud? Yes
Has Pfizer ever been found guilty of bribing doctors? Yes

Has pfizer ever been found guilty by a jury of racketeering fraud? Yes.

Bottom line it is not a vaccine.
Thank you for playing, @Authentic Nouveau

I understand Pfizer is corrupt.

But the reeeeason (ie. The purpose) behind the whole marketing scheme to re-brand/re-name the exact same so called “vaccine”.... remains elusive.

Would you like to try again?
 
Last edited:

shnarkle

Well-known member
What is Comirnaty:

It’s the same exact mRNA vaccine Pfizer has been producing through the emergency use authorization, but now it's being marketed under the new name. Comirnaty is administered in two doses, three weeks apart, just like Pfizer doses have been all along. The vaccine name is pronounced koe-mir'-na-tee.Aug 24, 2021
View attachment 1863

The meaning behind the name 'Comirnaty' Comirnaty is an agglomeration of the words “Covid-19 immunity” and “mRNA,” the latter indicating the technology that makes the vaccine work. As a whole, the word is intended to evoke “community,” a Brand Institute executive said.Aug 24, 2021
View attachment 1864

So now...

Does anyone know the REAL reason Pfizer decided to “market” the “vaccine” under a new name?

Any takers?
While it might be the same "vaccine", there is a legal distinction, i.e. Comirnaty does not carry the same immunity from prosecution that Pfizer has under EUA. They've been somewhat vocal about letting everyone know that it's essentially the same vaccine, but not so vocal about the fact that the new brand name has yet to show up on the shelf.

The thinking is that people who are being forced to get the shot will just assume they can no longer claim that they don't have to take an experimental vaccine when they can still make that claim. In other words, they can ask to see if what they're being given is the Comirnaty which is what has been approved rather than the stuff that is still being used under EUA.
 

DeSanto

Super Member
While it might be the same "vaccine", there is a legal distinction, i.e. Comirnaty does not carry the same immunity from prosecution that Pfizer has under EUA.
What is the distinction?

They've been somewhat vocal about letting everyone know that it's essentially the same vaccine, but not so vocal about the fact that the new brand name has yet to show up on the shelf.
The thinking is that people who are being forced to get the shot will just assume they can no longer claim that they don't have to take an experimental vaccine when they can still make that claim.
In other words, they can ask to see if what they're being given is the Comirnaty which is what has been approved rather than the stuff that is still being used under EUA.
I don’t get that. Why not just approve it under its original name?
 
Last edited:

HouOz

Well-known member
clot shot marketing product managers.

Every drug company has a separate official product manager for each patented product. They will have a huge advertising budget.

Has Pfizer ever been found guilty in a court of law for scientific fraud? Yes
Has Pfizer ever been found guilty of bribing doctors? Yes

Has pfizer ever been found guilty by a jury of racketeering fraud? Yes.

Bottom line it is not a vaccine.
You continually downplay the efficacy of an FDA approved vaccine - I wonder what qualifies you to do so?
I am a conservative, and I can tell you there is huge peace of mind knowing I am fully vaccinated.
I am also happy to report that I have had no side effects or "clotting".
Please stop this idiotic scare mongering - it's morons like you who do more harm than good.
 

DeSanto

Super Member
You continually downplay the efficacy of an FDA approved vaccine - I wonder what qualifies you to do so?
I am a conservative, and I can tell you there is huge peace of mind knowing I am fully vaccinated.
I am also happy to report that I have had no side effects or clotting.
Please stop this idiotic scare mongering - it's morons like you who do more harm than good.
Are you here to take the challenge or are you stalking someone?
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
But why not? It’s the same thing!
It is not legally the same thing. They make a point of this in the press release.
What is the legal distinction?
It is NOT being released under EUA. BIG LEGAL DIFFERENCE!!!
This makes no sense.
Why do they need to make a distinction?
What is the difference?
It's a legal distinction. Once it is no longer being released under EUA, it doesn't have the same legal protections from prosecution. They still have a LOT of the EUA stuff to get rid of, and people will get the jab under the impression that they can sue if they suffer serious adverse reactions. They can't if they get the EAU doses rather than the stuff that hasn't even been produced yet.

It's just a ploy to get rid of the stuff they already produced.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
What's your source?
The FDA, and CDC both came out claiming "95% efficacy", but what they didn't articulate was that they were referring to "relative efficacy" rather than absolute efficacy" BIg Difference!!! Relative efficacy is always and only used for research purposes. Yet they released the relative numbers giving the impression that it was 95% effective. It's not. Here's the proof:
.
The document, posted on the FDA website, is titled, “Vaccines and Related Biological Products; Advisory Committee Meeting; FDA Briefing Document Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.”


It is dated December 10, 2020. The date tells us that all the information in the document is taken from the Pfizer clinical trial, based on which the FDA authorized the vaccine for public use.

A key quote is buried on page 42: “Among 3410 total cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group.”

The comparative numbers reveal that the vaccine was not effective at preventing COVID-19. It was certainly not 50% more effective than a placebo shot which is the standard for FDA Emergency Use Authorization.

One needs to understand the theory of the vaccine clinical trial.

The researchers assumed the SARS-CoV-2 virus was spreading everywhere in the world, and during the clinical trial, it would descend on some volunteers.

The billion-dollar question was: how many people receiving the vaccine would become infected, vs. how many people in the placebo group?

If it turned out that FAR FEWER people getting the vaccine became infected with SARS-CoV-2, the vaccine would be hailed as a success. It protected people against the virus.

But as you can see from the numbers above, that wasn’t the case at all.

So now we come to the vital weasel-phrase in the FDA document: “suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 [cases].”

“Well, you see, we can’t say these were ACTUAL COVID-19 cases. Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. They’re in limbo. We want to keep them in limbo. Otherwise, our clinical trial is dead in the water, and we’ll never get approval for the vaccine.”

What does “suspected cases” mean? It can only mean these people all displayed symptoms consistent with the definition of COVID-19, but they’re unconfirmed cases because…their PCR tests were negative, not positive.

However, if their tests were negative, why would they be called “suspected cases” instead of “NOT CASES”?

By FDA/CDC rules, a case of COVID-19 means: a person has tested positive, period.

That’s the way cases are counted.

These thousand-plus volunteers in the Pfizer clinical trial were either COVID-19 cases or they weren’t. Which is it?

The official response to that question is obvious: the FDA decided to throw the data from all those “suspected cases” in the garbage and ignore them. Poof. Gone.

Because if the FDA had paid serious attention to the “suspected cases,” they never would have authorized the vaccine for public use. They would have stopped the clinical trial and undertaken a very deep and extensive investigation.

Which they didn’t. The FDA document also states: “Suspected COVID-19 cases that occurred within 7 days after any vaccination were 409 in the vaccine group vs. 287 in the placebo group.”

Right after vaccination, 409 people who received the shots became “suspected COVID cases.” This alone should have been enough to stop the clinical trial altogether. But it wasn’t.

In fact, the FDA document tries to excuse those 409 cases with a slippery comment: “It is possible that the imbalance in suspected COVID-19 cases occurring in the 7 days post vaccination represents vaccine reactogenicity with symptoms that overlap with those of COVID-19.”

Translation: You see, a number of clinical symptoms of COVID-19 and adverse effects from the vaccine are the same. Therefore, we have no idea whether the vaccinated people developed COVID or were just reacting to the vaccine. So we’re going to ignore this whole mess and pretend it’s of no importance.

It’s called cooking the data. It’s a way of writing off and ignoring COVID symptoms in the vaccine group. Saying “we don’t know” is nothing more than a con and a hustle.


Re:3000 subjects needed to test vaccines page 15. https://www.fda.gov/media/139638/download
 

DeSanto

Super Member
It is not legally the same thing. They make a point of this in the press release.

It is NOT being released under EUA. BIG LEGAL DIFFERENCE!!!

It's a legal distinction. Once it is no longer being released under EUA, it doesn't have the same legal protections from prosecution. They still have a LOT of the EUA stuff to get rid of, and people will get the jab under the impression that they can sue if they suffer serious adverse reactions. They can't if they get the EAU doses rather than the stuff that hasn't even been produced yet.

It's just a ploy to get rid of the stuff they already produced.
Let me help you out a little, the distinction lies in the fact that there is a new experiment approved under eua, targeted at a new cohort. They had to re-brand the same “vaccine” under a new name to do it.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Let me help you out a little, the distinction lies in the fact that there is a new experiment approved under eua, targeted at a new cohort.
Cohort? What new experiment? There's a number of new vaccines in the pipeline, but that doesn't necessitate rebranding. The Comirnaty isn't being released under EUA. It's approved for anyone over 17 (or maybe it's 12. I can't remember).
They had to re-brand the same “vaccine” under a new name to do it.
That's not what I see them doing. Please document where you're getting this theory from.
 

DeSanto

Super Member
Yes, cohort: a group of individuals having a statistical factor (such as age or class membership) in common in a demographic study
What new experiment? There's a number of new vaccines in the pipeline, but that doesn't necessitate rebranding. The Comirnaty isn't being released under EUA. It's approved for anyone over 17
Right but, the same “vaccine” under the old name, is still under the eua, right? Why?
That's not what I see them doing. Please document where you're getting this theory from.
That’s part of the challenge. To research the issue. Find answers.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Yes, cohort: a group of individuals having a statistical factor (such as age or class membership) in common in a demographic study
Except you haven't researched the issue or found answers to post yet.
Right but, the same “vaccine” under the old name, is still under the eua, right?
The EUA vaccine yes, but not what is under the new brand.
I just explained why. The EUA vaccines are immune from prosecution. They have quite a bit of that stuff that still hasn't been used up yet. It has a shelf life. They're having trouble getting rid of it.
That’s part of the challenge. To research the issue. Find answers.
 
Top