3 ms·

>No, the EMA was perfectly happy with giving it to people over 65, it was the local health authorities who wanted to "have their say" and nitpicked it. Why are

>No, the EMA was perfectly happy with giving it to people over 65, it was the local health authorities who wanted to "have their say" and nitpicked it. Why are you framing the event of AZ doing a bad job at their trails and submitted literally bad data, and tried to mix it up with different data, as being the authorities "having their say"? It wasn't just one local health authority, it was even health authorities that has no influence from EMA, like Switzerland. At best your critic would be... they are rigorous and extremely demanding about these subjects? Maybe, just maybe, a large pharmaceutical that got hundreds of millions in funding simply shouldn't fuck up trials?

raverbashing 6y ago
I'm not arguing that the AZ trials weren't messy, but the EMA also based their decision on antibody titers of the older cohorts (and on initial UK real use data if I'm not mistaken). > they are rigorous and extremely demanding about these subjects? While the older cohort is the one that suffers the most Covid causalities? MHRA thought it was a "risk" worth taking no? (because in the end it wasn't risky - maybe a slight smaller efficiency but that's it) > Maybe, just maybe Oh there's no maybe there, their trials were a mess, hence why the FDA asked for another trial.