2021-09-01
Edited 2021-09-28
In the public understanding, the BioNTech vaccine is the one for which Pfizer has an Emergency Use Authorisation.
In the legal understanding, is that actually the case? It appear that it may not be.
In the real world is it physically the case? This may not be clear-cut either!
Technocracy News digs up the drains beneath this FDA "approval" and explains their understanding of what is going on here, and why.
I have to say it's one of the most complete analyses that I have seen. It's necessarily fairly complex but that comes with the territory.
Peter Doshi also had some questions to ask in the BMJ.
Although the FDA decision has generate much confusion, it may not have generated enough, and many may be unaware that the legal implications are not the same and legally the current Pfizer product with the EUA does not carry the same legal terms and conditions as the BioNTech Comirnaty product (which is not yet available).
Besides all that, the trials which underpin these products are incomplete and in many respects inadequate to demonstrate safety in the areas of usage now anticipated:
"the idea that the FDA is even considering approving the shot for children as young as 12 — and are running trials on babies — is completely incomprehensible"
Given that various bodies are keen to mandate "the vaccine" for employees and schoolchildren, this is highly recommended reading.
