There is no FDA approved vaccine.
FDA approval means biological approval.
If there was biological approval for the Pfizer vaccine, then the other versions would be pulled from the market and the EUA's revoked.
That hasn't happened.
I'm not sure where you get your information, but you're wrong:
"Reuters reported on Aug. 23 that the FDA had granted full approval to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for use in people aged 16 and older. It would be marketed under the name Comirnaty (here).
The FDA state that Comirnaty has the same formulation as the EUA-approved (Emergency Use Authorization) Pfizer vaccine and is interchangeable (here).
“With full FDA approval, the company can officially give the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine a brand name, and that name is Comirnaty. So, people getting the vaccine can feel confident that it is both safe and effective”, Smith wrote.
The FDA told Reuters via email that one point of continuity is that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine will still be covered by the EUA for children aged 12 to 15 years old and for third doses to immunocompromised individuals aged 12 and older."
The confusion about the EUA still existing has to do with the last paragraph above.
As usual, you're wrong.
Emphasis on the words, AS USUAL.
So the guy on the right is saying that the law (Federal) states that if FDA approval is given to one vaccine then all of the EUA's for other vaccines are automatically revoked. I'm having a hard time finding that "law". Can you please point us to said law and not to just some tax attorney saying there is a law?
Since you never seem to provide any real sources, I'll help you out. I'm guessing the guy on the right is referring to this from the FDA:
d. No Alternatives
For FDA to issue an EUA, there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition.
A potential alternative product may be considered “unavailable” if there are insufficient supplies of the approved alternative to fully meet the emergency need. A potential alternative product may be considered "inadequate" if, for example, there are contraindicating data for special circumstances or populations (e.g., children, immunocompromised individuals, or individuals with a drug allergy), if a dosage form of an approved product is inappropriate for use in a special population (e.g., a tablet for individuals who cannot swallow pills), or if the agent is or may be resistant to approved and available alternative products.https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/emergency-use-authorization-medical-products-and-related-authorities#medproductsKey phrasing here, "there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative..." As we've seen Modern, Pfizer, & J&J all received EUA's. Why? Well, for one, each may not have been adequate on their own, they weren't approved, obvi, and availability is always an issue. Se they all got EUA's.
Now fast-forward to Pfizer's getting FDA approval for 16 an up. One, they still get to keep the EUA for between 12-16. For two, again, return to the phrase, "there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative". Moderna and J&J still get to keep their EUA's even though Pfizer is approved because:
- May not be
adequate, ex., Moderna has had some issues regarding myocarditis with mostly teens (Pfizer too I think, but maybe not as pronounced as Moderna). J&J doesn't seem to have this issue.
- May not be
available, ex., I could only get Pfizer at the time as Moderna and J&J were not available in my area. It's the other way around for a lot of folks.
So, unless your Tax Attorney is pointing to some other "law" I can't find, he is either woefully mis-informed or is deliberately mis-informing.