34
posted ago by merf ago by merf +34 / -0

On Friday, Moderna got full FDA approval for limited use of their product (65+ or adults with one diagnosed condition that makes them vulnerable to COVID).

https://www.fda.gov/media/186545/download?attachment

Firstly, the assumption the FDA has back-doored here is highly potent: COVID is not harmful to the average person and has no need of a "vaccine".

Secondly, this is going to give FDA a comparable product. Yeah, they approved both, but if a statistically significant difference emerges in the adverse event reporting, they'll have an easier time pulling the bad-performing one since the vax heads will have their "safe" fallback product.

Now look at Pfizer's approval and supplemental approvals:

https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download

https://www.fda.gov/media/181186/download?attachment

You'll see in that first BLA approval (first link) that Pfizer is required to perform additional studies due to the risk of their product. The studies have various interim reports but I notice the first one they cite ( “A Non-Interventional Post-Approval Safety Study of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine in the United States") "completes" on June 30th of this year.

So here we have setup the perfect foundation for a "scientifically sound" removal of the mRNA products, that preserves a bit of the ego of the scientific/medical communities while giving FDA goons procedural cover.

"Yeah we gave it emergency approval because it was a 'pandemic' but now that 'the science' has concluded, it's clear the risks outweigh the benefits, and we still have Novavax for those most at risk."

etc. etc. You get the idea. This fits in with Bobby's mantra of being data-driven and I think those that practice scientism will buy into it.