Funny: They use ineffectiveness against Omicron as their rationale, yet the data I had last month showed that a majority of hospitalizations were due to Delta.
Hmmmm...
I perused the FDA website and cannot find ANY clinical data or efficacy testing to back-up this "ineffectiveness" claim. However, in the EUA memo for REGEN-COV® the Efficacy was about 70%. For the shots, the FDA's minimum threshold was 50% Efficacy. So let's just assume, for now, REGEN-COV® fell below 50%, and that is grounds for removing the EUA.
Let's visit the shots, and see how THEY do in PREVENTING (prevention was the basis of granting the EUA...not lessened symptoms, or keeping you out of the hospital or ground) Omicron: The 2-dose VE against omicron infection was 30.4% (5.0%-49.0%) at 14-90 days and declined quickly to 15.2% (0.0%-30.7%) at 91-180 days and 0.0% after 180 days.
Now, riddle me this, Batman: how is it that the shots haven't had their EUA revoked despite proven and published "ineffectiveness" against Omicron, but REGEN-COV®'s undocumented "ineffectiveness" gets it yanked?
The riddle is answered by Grampa Dave - none of this is about health.
Not to mention their not pulling the approval for the vaccines because of their continually declining efficacy percentages. They falsely tout ‘boosters’ as being effective against these variants but they are nothing but full strength vax shots. Nothing different about them.
Would that they only be as ‘diligent’ in monitoring efficacy of the vaccines as they are in running rough shod over other non-vax treatments. AFAIC, organizations like the FDA, NIH, NIAID or CDC shouldn’t be the last authorities precisely because they are complicit in actions I believe are patently criminal.