The Ugly Truth Autism Families Are Enduring
As Autism Ages - Join Our Giving Tuesday Matching Gift Program

The Emergency Use Authorization for Covid-19 vaccines: Ignorance is Bliss

image from upload.wikimedia.orgBy Meryl Nass MD

If you are an FDA official charged with approving a Covid-19 vaccine, ignorance is bliss.  FDA is being asked to approve vaccines that will be injected into many millions of people, all using new methods of vaccination that have never before been approved for human use.  That puts them at great risk of making the wrong decision.

However, the lawyers who wrote the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) legislation understood the FDA bureaucracy and its risk aversion. They probably also worked for, or consulted with, the pandemic vaccine industry.

And so they came up with a standard that practically mandates the most minimal collection of information from clinical trials of vaccines for which emergency use authorization will be sought.  Instead of requiring specific information, the standard simply says that in order to receive an EUA, a product's known and potential benefits should outweigh its known and potential risks. So, the more its sponsor knows about adverse effects, the more trouble the vaccine is likely to have getting approved.  Accordingly, it is better for the adverse effects to be as unknown as possible.

This standard also explains what might be considered oddities in trial design:  for example, why the vaccine sponsors/developers did not collect data on whether the vaccines prevented transmission of disease. Nor were vaccine sponsors required to show statistically significant data on whether hospitalizations (severe illness) and deaths were prevented.

Basically, the FDA was given the statutory green light to approve anything it wanted to approve, with minimal actual data.  That is how Operation Warp Speed could even be conceived.

Most important, from the standpoint of FDA, it gave the agency cover.  FDA is not being asked to act as a regulator. All it needs to be able to say is that the potential for benefit exceeds the potential risks, and as long as little is actually known about the vaccines, they can say their approval was based on the best evidence available at the time. This is of course another reason for speed:  the vaccines need to be approved before meaningful safety and efficacy data accrue that could hurt them.

FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn and CBER director Peter Marks have tiptoed around and obfuscated this.

"Look at the process that we're following," Dr. Peter Marks said. "We're going to have a very open process."

But the FDA only said it would publicly disclose reviews of the scientific data used to authorize drugs and vaccines after being criticized for hiding information. The Government Accountability Office noted that the FDA had not been sufficiently transparent in disclosing the data used to grant or revoke authorizations involving coronavirus treatments.

Dr. Hahn told USA Today "The standard that’s used for an EUA is that it must be effective..." But that is not the actual standard, which is that a vaccine's known and potential benefits should outweigh its known and potential risks.  In other words, FDA is only required to guess at its safety and effectiveness. Hahn also told USAT that the standards for EUA approval "are very similar" to the standards for issuing a license, which is far from true. 

Here is what the FDA advised Covid vaccine developers on applying for an Emergency Use Authorization:

"Based on this declaration and determination, FDA may issue an EUA after FDA has determined that the following statutory requirements are met (section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3)) (Ref. 3): 

  • Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, including data from adequate and well- controlled trials, if available, it is reasonable to believe that the product may be effective to prevent, diagnose, or treat such serious or life-threatening disease or condition that can be caused by SARS-CoV-2.
  • The known and potential benefits of the product, when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat the identified serious or life-threatening disease or condition, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product.
  • There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition."

The glue that holds this sham of a regulatory process together is the extraordinarily broad liability protection afforded to everyone with any responsibility for the medical products used under an EUA.  You don't learn about this in the EUA declarations. Instead, you must read the Prep Act and its amendments. The following "Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act for Medical Countermeasures Against COVID–19," was published in the August 24, 2020 Federal Register. Everyone who has anything do with Covid vaccines has had all liability waived (with the sliver of an exception for willful misconduct).

And recently pharmacists and pharmacy interns had their liability waived for administering any recommended childhood vaccine to any child over age 3!  The justification is that since Covid-19 has reduced routine childhood vaccinations, any pharmacy employee can now administer any of those vaccinations, while facing no potential liability, via a Covid PREP Act declaration.

Prep Act Quotes:

The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to issue a Declaration to provide liability immunity to certain individuals and entities (Covered Persons) against any claim of loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the manufacture, distribution, administration, or use of medical countermeasures (Covered Countermeasures), except for claims involving ‘‘willful misconduct’’ as defined in the PREP Act.  https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-24/pdf/2020-18542.pdf

  1. Covered Persons 42 U.S.C. 247d–6d(i)(2), (3), (4), (6), (8)(A) and (B) Covered Persons who are afforded liability immunity under this Declaration are ‘‘manufacturers,’’ ‘‘distributors,’’ ‘‘program planners,’’ [read this as "government officials who approved the vaccines"--Nass] ‘‘qualified persons,’’ and their officials, agents, and employees, as those terms are defined in the PREP Act, and the United States. In addition, I have determined that the following additional persons are qualified persons: (a) Any person authorized in accordance with the public health and medical emergency response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction, as described in Section VII below, to prescribe, administer, deliver, distribute or dispense the Covered Countermeasures, and their officials, agents, employees, contractors and volunteers, following a Declaration of an emergency; (b) any person authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense the Covered Countermeasures or who is otherwise authorized to perform an activity under an Emergency Use Authorization in accordance with Section 564 of the FD&C Act; (c) any person authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense Covered Countermeasures in accordance with Section 564A of the FD&C Act; and (d) a State-licensed pharmacist who orders and administers, and pharmacy interns who administer (if the pharmacy intern acts under the supervision of such pharmacist and the pharmacy intern is licensed or registered by his or her State board of pharmacy), vaccines that the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends to persons ages three through 18 according to ACIP’s standard immunization schedule.

Available from Anthrax Blogspot

Comments

greyone

MomsAcrossAmerica did a writeup of the December 1, 2020 CDC's ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON IMMUNIZATION PRACTICES (ACIP) meeting .
https://www.momsacrossamerica.com/cdc_decides_who_gets_the_covid_vaccine_first

Kay Fabe

Businesses and government agencies that mandate customers and employees receive the vaccine are not exempt from liability. Mandating an experimental treatment whose safety has not been fully validated is going to leave them wide open. Perhaps this is why first responders and military are not first in line for vaccination

Emmaphiladelphia

Wow!

"There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, OR TREATING the disease or condition.""

This is the statement I had been looking for. I knew I had read it. THERE ARE AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES: Hydroxychloraquin and monoclonal antibodies (antibody serum treatment).
I posted earlier an FDA declaration that hydroxychloraquine has been approved for the treatment of Covid 19 and I also just posted an article where researchers found that this treatment reduced hospitalization s by 85%! Of course, Fauci immediately poopooed the finding for no scientific reason. He wants to make his billions off of the vaccine.

This means that the FDA has FALSELY ISSUED an EUA for Sars Cov2 vaccines. THEY LOST THE RACE. We already have ADEQUATE, APPROVED, AVAILABLE treatments and we DON'T NEED THE VACCINE. THIS NEEDS TO BE LEGALLY CHALLENGED.

My mom's elder care home has already sent out notices regarding the shipment of the Covid 19 vaccine. They also sent a form to sign with boxes to check whether you want the vaccine or decline the vaccine. You can guess which box I checked! Also, their only information (for informed consent) was a link to the CDC and a link to a WALL STREET JOURNAL article! Needless to say, I sent the director many links from articles/documents provided through AOA.

Gary Ogden

Thanks John and Laura. Rebel we must. Fight we must, in all those places Churchill said we should. The theft of this election is part of this massive totalitarian regime they're attempting to shove down our throats. A technocracy like the People's Republic of China. We must not let them succeed.

John Stone

This is comment I have just left on vaccinesceptics.org website:

“ It is important to understand here that the [British] government is trying to have its cake and eat it. The government’s legal position on vaccination is dependent on informed consent ie apart from the legal obligation to gain fully informed consent for all medical interventions they need the decision to lie primarily with the citizen to protect themselves against liability. There are two problems (1) that in reality it is unlikely that they will fulfil the obligation which is absolute to inform people of the limitations and risks of the products and (2) they are stepping up various unpleasant and coercive pressures on the citizen to accept them. This not informed consent in any meaningful sense.

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3933/rapid-responses

Also, we are about to see these products rolled out without full publication of the data. Like so much else of what government does at the moment it is profoundly illegal. It is not a question of anti-vax or pro-vax, it is to do with the government’s fraudulent narrative and to do with systematically stripping us of all our rights.”

Laura Hayes

Related, and also worth the read:

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/12/01/anti-vaccine-propaganda-censorship.aspx

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)