4 ms·
No, the guy is actually correct. The vaccines have emergency use authorizations, not approvals. No credible health expert thinks there's anything wrong with t
by Symmetry 5y ago
No, the guy is actually correct. The vaccines have emergency use authorizations, not approvals. No credible health expert thinks there's anything wrong with the effectiveness or safety of the vaccines but it's still true that the FDA isn't willing to formally say that the vaccines are safe and effective which is causing a lot of problems even besides causing people to think there's something wrong with the vaccines, see
https://www.slowboring.com/p/vaccine-fda-approve https://www.slowboring.com/p/vaccine-fda-approve
I've found the FDA's lackadaisical attitude towards vaccine approval pretty puzzling during the whole pandemic. Why couldn't they start analyzing the drug company's testing data even before trials completed? Why couldn't they find people to work full time on reviewing the drug approval applications once they were formally in? Moderna, Pfizer, etc were willing to spend extra money and modify procedures to speed up their data collection process so why wasn't the FDA willing to do the same to go over the data they collected more quickly?
- loeg 5y agoThey are approved in the real, English language sense of the word. They are actively monitored for safety. If the FDA did not believe they were safe and effective, they would be withdrawn from the market immediately.
- ryandrake 5y agoThe facts are not misinformation--it's the insinuation that because they are "experimental" or that they are not "approved," they are risky. That is the misinformation. Same with the "99% survival rate" misinformation meme. Even if the fact were true, the insinuation is that a "99%" survival rate means the virus is no big deal, which is false.