5 ms·

Sorry, do you think the UK regulator approved Pfizer based on... a press release?

by dbbk 6y ago

tome 6y ago
I suspect that gr2zr4 doesn't think that, rather that the press release (about the approval) has been released and the scientific papers haven't.
jansan 6y ago
They certainly did not approve it on a study about long term effects of the vaccine.
marricks 6y ago
The full data was just released like last week? There hasn’t been time to fully review it which may be the point. The US set a meeting date of 12/10 to decide on EUA so scientists had time to review the data.
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  AFAIK both the FDA and the MHRA have been getting data regularly from the various vaccine developers. They didn't have to wait for a final dump of data just to see any of it.
- scld 6y ago
  The US meeting date is based on an arbitrary scheduling rule saying meetings like this must take place 15 days after request, or something to that effect. The FDA itself closely inspects data throughout the phase 3 trials so this review should just consist of looking at the details to see if something was missed, (ideally) not some brand new information come to light.
  - marricks 6y ago
    Wow, thanks for the info. I didn't know it was arbitrary scheduling. Seems like given the circumstances you'd hope they would just setup a meeting tomorrow.
josu 6y ago
Given that they could halt the rollout of the vaccine at any point, it makes sense to approve ASAP to get all bureaucratic burdens out of the way, and concurrently analyze the situation. Not saying that this is the case though. For example, the EU is going to review the Pfizer vaccine on December 29, and they have requested further information.
djsumdog 6y ago
Yes, it's likely. Regulators are not as independent from the industry as you think. They've been getting closer and closer over the decades. It's call corruption and it's growing.
- eat_veggies 6y ago
  This FUD is dangerous
  - figaroniguzo 6y ago
    How is it FUD?
  - djsumdog 6y ago
    Having a reasonable fear of corruption within the regulation process is not dangerous. How is it dangerous to address real concerns that a number of people at the CDC/WHO are deeply connected to Gavi/Gates and industrial interests?

Sorry, do you think the UK regulator approved Pfizer based on... a press release?

by dbbk 6y ago

Sorry, do you think the UK regulator approved Pfizer based on... a press release?

tome 6y ago

I suspect that gr2zr4 doesn't think that, rather that the press release (about the approval) has been released and the scientific papers haven't.

jansan 6y ago

They certainly did not approve it on a study about long term effects of the vaccine.

marricks 6y ago

The full data was just released like last week? There hasn’t been time to fully review it which may be the point. The US set a meeting date of 12/10 to decide on EUA so scientists had time to review the data.

rootusrootus 6y ago
AFAIK both the FDA and the MHRA have been getting data regularly from the various vaccine developers. They didn't have to wait for a final dump of data just to see any of it.
scld 6y ago
The US meeting date is based on an arbitrary scheduling rule saying meetings like this must take place 15 days after request, or something to that effect. The FDA itself closely inspects data throughout the phase 3 trials so this review should just consist of looking at the details to see if something was missed, (ideally) not some brand new information come to light.
- marricks 6y ago
  Wow, thanks for the info. I didn't know it was arbitrary scheduling. Seems like given the circumstances you'd hope they would just setup a meeting tomorrow.

josu 6y ago

Given that they could halt the rollout of the vaccine at any point, it makes sense to approve ASAP to get all bureaucratic burdens out of the way, and concurrently analyze the situation. Not saying that this is the case though. For example, the EU is going to review the Pfizer vaccine on December 29, and they have requested further information.

djsumdog 6y ago

Yes, it's likely. Regulators are not as independent from the industry as you think. They've been getting closer and closer over the decades. It's call corruption and it's growing.

eat_veggies 6y ago
This FUD is dangerous
- figaroniguzo 6y ago
  How is it FUD?
- djsumdog 6y ago
  Having a reasonable fear of corruption within the regulation process is not dangerous. How is it dangerous to address real concerns that a number of people at the CDC/WHO are deeply connected to Gavi/Gates and industrial interests?