THUNDER BAY – Health Canada’s full approval of some COVID-19 vaccines means the shots could be marketed under new names, prompting worries about confusion – and some lighthearted jabs about monikers like Comirnaty, the new brand name for the Pfizer vaccine. Thunder Bay’s medical officer of health, Dr. Janet DeMille, admits the name change could confuse the public. However, she said the biggest takeaway is that full approval should give people even more confidence in the efficacy and safety of vaccines.

“These vaccines have now fully been approved for use – every i has been dotted and every t has been crossed,” she said.

The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were previously authorized under interim orders issued in December of 2020, which were set to expire on Thursday.

In a pair of statements, the companies said longer-term data from clinical trials had helped win full authorization from Health Canada.

The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine can now be marketed as Comirnaty, and Moderna’s vaccine can be marketed as SpikeVax.

The AstraZeneca vaccine remains under review, and is still authorized under an interim order. However, Health Canada announced it would be authorized to use the brand name Vaxzevria.

On social media, Health Canada emphasized there was no change to the vaccines themselves, only the name.

DeMille joined other health experts in speculating that the public may simply continue to use the names people have become familiar with.

“I think it may be one of those things where we’ll always informally use the old names, because they’re so ingrained,” she said.

However, the new terms will be used on official documents.

The brand names were approved by the FDA in the U.S. in the summer, while the vaccines have used their brand names in the European Union since the spring. – tbneewswatch.com

article website here

This is of course not exactly true.  New names….legally distinct ‘vaccines’.   The ‘vaccines’ authorized under EUA are legally distinct from the ‘vaccines’ that have received full FDA approval.  Legally, they are different. Different in what way?  Nobody knows.  If they are exactly the same, the same ingredients and the same manufacturing process, then the two are the same. Not distinct. But somehow they are?

If they are legally distinct, then I don’t see how a company can say the old and new ‘vaccines’ are exactly the same because LEGALLY they are not.  I think that DISTINCTION is important.

Hopefully, we will find out what the distinctions are….soon.

In the meantime:

Two Things Mainstream Media Didn’t Tell You About FDA’s Approval of Pfizer Vaccine