San Francisco Hospital Illegally Gives COVID Vaccine Booster Shots

I didn't see this posted, but sorry if this is a duplicate, as it's from August 5.

Let's just start with the opening paragraph from the article:

ABC7 News

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- It's not authorized or recommended by the CDC, but on Thursday Zuckerberg San Francisco General started giving supplemental Pfizer or Moderna shots to people who received the single-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

This came three days after ABC7 broke the news that the hospital, along with San Francisco's Department of Public Health, would offer a mRNA shot to those who got the single-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The hospital's chief of emergency medicine later defended the decision, after the White House, CDC, and FDA all responded to the news by saying boosters and extra doses are not part of the emergency use authorization (EUA).

Okay, so we have a case where a hospital was supplying doses of an experimental, emergency-use authorized medical treatment to people who were willing to take it. They ran out of doses after they had given out 1,000 injections in one day.

As is noted in the story, there is ZERO authorization to give doses of a COVID vaccine outside of the approved doses under the emergency-use authorization. Since federal law governs such EAUs, can this hospital possibly be brought up on federal charges? Possibly medical malpractice? They didn't even counsel the recipients that the additional injection is not authorized nor recommended by the CDC.

Kate Larsen: "Did anyone at the hospital counsel you that this extra shot is not part of the emergency use authorization and not officially recommended?"

Juan Carlos Guerrero: "No, nobody said that. They simply asked why we were there and which one we wanted, Pfizer or Moderna."

This should be very concerning, because we often hear statements that appeal to authority and claim that since person A or B said something, or because entity C or D did something, that it must be okay because they are professionals.

Well, here is an instance that you should pay attention to, because not only is there at least one medical facility providing unauthorized injections of this shot, they're not even counseling people about it when they do it, both of which are at odds with federal law. They also seem to be discriminating against who can get the shots:

"They said they had already given a thousand shots this morning and that they were prioritizing SF General patients and I'm a UCSF patient, so wasn't able to get the shot," explained San Francisco resident, Magali Arons.

But, nah, it's all on the up and up, I'm sure, because it's a hospital, and they're doctors, and they have attorneys who must have said that this was okay.

-------------------------------------------------

As a side note, is it any surprise that it's the hospital named after Mark Zuckerberg that took it upon themselves to illegally administer additional doses of an EUA vaccine? Hmmm...

"The benefits outweigh the risks JT"

It's damned hard to sue a hospital...especially a Zuckerberg hospital....they have plenty of 'Lawyers, Guns & Money'.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Did not the WHO told that manufactures shots should not be mixed?

WHO says people should not be mixing COVID-19 vaccines on their own“It’s a little bit of a dangerous trend here,” said the World Health Organization’s (WHO) chief scientist Soumya Swaminathan in an online briefing talking about mixing COVID-19 Reuters reported.

“It will be a chaotic situation in countries if citizens start deciding when and who will be taking a second, a third and a fourth dose,”

www.breakingbelizenews.com...

Either big pharma is paying this counties to do this or they are getting ahead of the FDA and CDC to start the booster shots, after all they were ready to be used this month and they have a shelve life.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Any licensed medical personnel who participated should likely have their licensure reviewed/probated. If, as an RN, you are told to proceed with a medical act that is, in your good judgement, going to harm a patient or in violation of the law, you are to refuse to participate and call the state authorities.

There is no excuse for dumping a whole syringe of fentanyl into someone...your license gives you insight that should inform you better.

Wow wo is running america health care systme now, Moderna and Pfizer

Get the darn boosters they are now ready to be given and not need for approval of any kind, while they are under government immunity from killing you after you get it.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I agree, and I hate to use this as a scapegoat, but this is California--the California Department of Health isn't going to do a damn thing about it, except maybe to quietly tell them not to do this yet.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Apparently their lawyers aren't smart enough to tell the hospital administration that this is an illegal thing to do.

I though the boosters were only for those with the elderly and those that their immune system did not respond to the first two shots due to compromised system, no for healthy people that already got the first two shots.

This is unethical and dangerous, I wonder how they will hide if something bad happen.

I guess big greedy pharma mobsters needs a control group within those that received the shots already but they want them to be in the healthy side.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I've seen reports like this from other places too.

They "accidently" gave the vax to a bunch of school kids in Canada. Then berated people for asking about it.

CBC

Also, mixing them is supposed to be bad.

So bad that they won't let people from countries that mix them (Canada), travel to places that don't.

What a #show.

a reply to: IAMTAT

they have plenty of 'Lawyers, Guns & Money'.

i see what you did,

Said anyone involved with making money from the, ahem, jabs……

originally posted by: HawkEyi
"The benefits outweigh the risks JT"

a reply to: SlapMonkey

That's #in' unreal. You don't just give vaccines out like candy whatever kind they are. What in the hell is going on with people's critical thinking skills?

a reply to: marg6043

It's just absurd that this is occurring at all. So many levels of negligence and incompetence ​going on here it's astounding.

originally posted by: marg6043
I though the boosters were only for those with the elderly and those that their immune system did not respond to the first two shots due to compromised system, no for healthy people that already got the first two shots.

I'm sure "they" really have no idea if someone "responded" to the vaccine or not.

Measuring an immune response would require antibody testing. For some reason, actually validating someone has any kind of C19 antibody (attained naturally or through exposure to the vaccine) seems to be irrelevant when it comes to preventing the spread of COVID.

It would be fantastic if they were actually antibody testing people. Would be one of the only things that will have made sense during this entire response.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

As a side note, is it any surprise that it's the hospital named after Mark Zuckerberg that took it upon themselves to illegally administer additional doses of an EUA vaccine? Hmmm...

Do whatever you want, and if it's an issue, say you are sorry much later in the game. Supreme court ruling? They didn't really think it through, we can ignore that one. When the president of the US does this, it kind of sets the stage for anyone else to circumvent existing laws, as they wish.

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: SlapMonkey

That's #in' unreal. You don't just give vaccines out like candy whatever kind they are. What in the hell is going on with people's critical thinking skills?

What, you don't just blindly trust them because they're professional doctors making these decisions?

You're not a patriot...and you're probably racist now, too.

a reply to: network dude

It's better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
They all know a "Booster Shot Rebellion" is forthcoming, due to officials scaring people over how the vaccines "wear off" over several months, and mandating boosters in order to "beat this virus once and for all".

They are evil and greedy. They think most Americans are gullible sheep.

I'm not sure how it works in a case like this where the medication is EUA, but off-label prescribing is perfectly legal in the US. In fact, there are estimates that suggest as many as 1 in 5 medications are prescribed off-label.

At the end of the day doctors are given pretty broad leeway in how they operate. They're the experts in the field and they're the ones dealing with the patients one-on-one. If they believe a certain course of treatment/prevention is best for the patient they have the authority to follow that course without repercussion unless the patient has a severe negative reaction.

In this case, I feel the doctors will be allowed to continue but they do open themselves up to malpractice suits if anything goes wrong.

a reply to: marg6043

The credibility of the WHO is less than zero with me.