Replies

I agree that in the short-run, the studies and available data show a relative reduction in hospitalization and, in some cases, fatality for those who've gotten shots. Again, I qualify these studies' results because the data collection etc isn't of clinical-strength (there are a lot of people suddenly dying suddenly...is it due to shots? Maybe...maybe not...if we had a legit clinical study with some duration maybe we wouldn't have these food fights).

For the sake of discussion, lets assume the shots really DO keep people out of the ER and morgue vs the control group. However, if the VE has decayed below the designated threshold (50%), I would STILL consider yanking the EUAs.

The reason is principle. The whole basis of approval was PREVENTION. Indeed, I would go further and suggest that the shots themselves were DEVELOPED to PREVENT. If they don't prevent, then a) they're not performing to spec, and b) that basis of approval is gone. It doesn't matter if they do other wonderful things. Those wonderful things are happy accidents...they may even be hopeful occurrences. But that doesn't change the fact that the drugs are failing in their prime directive.

Am I being pedantic? You bet. Because drug approvals are one place where I want the rules to be followed. More broadly, these approvals have driven government and employer mandates that have caused massive employment dislocations, Constitutional issues about executive power AND "who's body is this?" and a fraying of the fabric of society.

So if these things don't work according to specifications, they should absolutely be yanked.