2 ms·
You're conveniently ignoring the fact that emergency use approval was only given after rigorous parallel vaccine trials were conducted. It is true that is a we
by Ixiaus 4y ago
You're conveniently ignoring the fact that emergency use approval was only given after rigorous parallel vaccine trials were conducted.
It is true that is a weaker standard than "FDA Approved" but it is still a high standard and certainly not "no testing".
- vl 4y agoYou can’t have cake and eat it too: there is standard for testing and approval and it was violated in this case. Notice I’m not saying it’s good or bad, it’s just what the facts are.
- Ixiaus 4y agoYou've moved the goal post (again) but I'll address yet another false claim. Nothing was "violated". The vaccines were rigorously tested. > An EUA can only be granted when no adequate, approved, available alternatives exist, and when the known and potential benefits outweigh the potential risks. > It is the job of the FDA to ensure medical products meet rigorous safety and efficacy standards, a process that can take years for what’s called “full approval.” Though that timeline is condensed when an EUA is granted, the FDA still upholds its strict standards. https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/what-does-eua-mean https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/what-does-eua-mean