5 ms·

> You can't get EUA for the vaccines if there's a working treatment. Per the FDA: ""Under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), w

> You can't get EUA for the vaccines if there's a working treatment. Per the FDA: ""Under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), when the Secretary of HHS declares that an emergency use authorization is appropriate, FDA may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by CBRN threat agents when certain criteria are met, including there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives."" And that falls apart under some scrutiny... it says "adequate, approved, and available alternatives." "adequate" being efficacious which is debatable without testing. "approved" which that drug is absolutely not approved for covid use. "available" being enough supply which is debatable if it turns out to be effective and widely used. I see no reason why the EUA for the vaccines would be threatened by this drug also being used in an EUA fashion. if they are going for actual approval for that drug it would take as long as the vaccine to get. > When you look at the amount of money these companies stand to make from producing billions of vaccinations, you should not be surprised. I think that when you look at everything through the conspiratorial lens... all you see are conspiracies.

adrianmonk 5y ago
Also, I simply wouldn't assume the FDA considers a treatment (this drug) an alternative to something that prevents the disease (vaccines). They both are used for the same disease but in different ways. They are only alternatives in a very broad sense.
- weaksauce 5y ago
  yeah agreed. literally the only people I've seen push this kind of nonsense are antivaxxers and conspiracy theorists. I don't understand why they need it to be true so badly; doesn't pass any of the sniff tests under even a little scrutiny. Even if it fit all those criteria for being an alternative it's not like it's some kind of thing that couldn't be amended if they really needed/wanted to. saddens me how reactionary everyone is. Edit: also I forgot to make the point in my replay above... it's not like having three vaccines under is preventing another vaccine from getting EUA so even under this logic framework it is nonsense. are they hinging it on the fact that it's an approved drug for some other disease?
  - ds206 5y ago
    "literally the only people I've seen push this kind of nonsense are antivaxxers and conspiracy theorists." Literally? Everyone? LOL this is why there are so many normal people in this thread saying "at least let's have a discussion!" Your sentiment is the reason (imo) that these discussions are so hard to have, no offense.
    - weaksauce 5y ago
      yes in fact literally everyone that pushes the "they are stopping the <insert treatment option> because big pharma wants to make all the money on vaccines" is an antivaxxer or a conspiracy theorist that I have seen in the wild... including my brother so this is a topic I am not taking lightly. nowhere did I say that this treatment couldn't be effective and no where did I say that they shouldn't look into it as an alternative because I think all tools should be on the table. I am simply saying the part about the EUA thing being pushed by antivaxxers and other conspiracy theorists.

adrianmonk 5y ago

Also, I simply wouldn't assume the FDA considers a treatment (this drug) an alternative to something that prevents the disease (vaccines). They both are used for the same disease but in different ways. They are only alternatives in a very broad sense.

weaksauce 5y ago
yeah agreed. literally the only people I've seen push this kind of nonsense are antivaxxers and conspiracy theorists. I don't understand why they need it to be true so badly; doesn't pass any of the sniff tests under even a little scrutiny. Even if it fit all those criteria for being an alternative it's not like it's some kind of thing that couldn't be amended if they really needed/wanted to. saddens me how reactionary everyone is. Edit: also I forgot to make the point in my replay above... it's not like having three vaccines under is preventing another vaccine from getting EUA so even under this logic framework it is nonsense. are they hinging it on the fact that it's an approved drug for some other disease?
- ds206 5y ago
  "literally the only people I've seen push this kind of nonsense are antivaxxers and conspiracy theorists." Literally? Everyone? LOL this is why there are so many normal people in this thread saying "at least let's have a discussion!" Your sentiment is the reason (imo) that these discussions are so hard to have, no offense.
  - weaksauce 5y ago
    yes in fact literally everyone that pushes the "they are stopping the <insert treatment option> because big pharma wants to make all the money on vaccines" is an antivaxxer or a conspiracy theorist that I have seen in the wild... including my brother so this is a topic I am not taking lightly. nowhere did I say that this treatment couldn't be effective and no where did I say that they shouldn't look into it as an alternative because I think all tools should be on the table. I am simply saying the part about the EUA thing being pushed by antivaxxers and other conspiracy theorists.