Hacker News Reader

Comment by Ixiaus | Hacker News Reader

That is a false claim. The medicines for treating COVID-19 were tested and tested quite thoroughly:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus...

https://www.umms.org/coronavirus/covid-vaccine/facts/testing

Your comment amounts to dangerous misinformation. If you really believe what you've written, please provide high quality primary sources that show medicines were administered that were untested. Anything else is you spreading misinformation.

View on HN

The vaccines have not been approved to this day. They are being used (and mandated) under an emergency authorization, because the testing has not been completed.

The UMMS article is full of half truths. It's a sales document, not a summary of the science (which is still highly ambiguous).

That is a false claim.

> On January 31, 2022, the FDA announced the second approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.

https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coro...

> On August 23, 2021, FDA announced the first approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.

https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coro...

Nope. Authorized for emergency use only. Using the word "approved" is an error:

Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is a monovalent COVID-19 vaccine that is authorized for emergency use to prevent COVID-19 as:

    The first two doses of the three-dose primary series for children 6 months through 4 years of age. 

    A two-dose primary series for individuals 5 years of age and older. 

    A third primary series dose for individuals 5 years of age and older who have been determined to have certain kinds of immunocompromise.

Source?

Try reading the whole page.

> Comirnaty is a monovalent COVID-19 vaccine that is approved for use as a two-dose primary series for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 12 years of age and older.

OK, they are approved for the first two primary jabs. Comirnaty, and the bivalent version, are not yet approved for any booster jabs. Those are still under EUA.

And booster jabs are about all that has been happening for years. Same for Moderna.

Read the whole page, carefully. Both are fully approved. I do not understand how you can conclude that the word "approved" is an error when both vaccines were upgraded from EUA to fully approved, in the words of the FDA themselves.

Because the boosters are EUA. Most of us, including me, got the two primaries a couple of years ago.

BTW, this conversation thread is flagged and dead, so no one sees it. And, I'm not going to vouch for the root, because it really is off-topic.

Yours is the false claim.

My source is FDA:

Vaccine was approved on August 23, 2021, but was used since December 11, 2020.

In other words most people in US received first dose until it was fully tested.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-appr...

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".

You 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.

You'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

Additionally, your FDA source says nothing about untested medicines being administered. You've shown your original point was either poorly communicated or misinformed or nefarious. I'll be generous in my interpretation of your intentions and assume you're merely misinformed and communicating without clarity which leads me to say: if you're going to make an extraordinary claim you must provide extra ordinary evidence or you're spreading misinformation that could cause harm downstream.

If you're not sure, then just don't say anything or perhaps frame it as a question.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com