I get the impression that the follow-on scrutinising bodies, such as MHRA in the UK and the EMA in Europe, made the rather lazy but totally understandable judgement that as the FDA in the US had granted Emergency Use Authorisation - with all the caveats, disclaimers and suspension of controls and liability this implies - the heavy lifting had been done so they didn’t have to look too hard at the data, but could just hang onto the FDA’s coat tails.
Unfortunately it’s become clear that the FDA didn’t look that hard at the data either, and according to its Director Rochelle Welensky the CDC in turn got its confidence in the mRNA vaccines from the Pfizer press release via CNN. Add in political pressure and bad modelling from academic institutions it’s no wonder authorities are doubling down on the dogma and no one dare raise their hand and accept that things may not have been handled that well.
I appreciate I have been a bit sweeping in my generalisations but this seems to be the gist.
There's more written about this in my early posts about my attempts to get more information from the MHRA about ingredients while researching of they were safe to take or not plus there is a post about the EMA, the CHMP and the MHRA you may find interesting and read the one about why no biodistribution studies have been done.
Basically everyone hung off the EMA's coat tails - read the PARs then look at the various country's assessments and spot the copy and paste buts, even the UN's WHO did this with their documents about the jabs.
I get the impression that the follow-on scrutinising bodies, such as MHRA in the UK and the EMA in Europe, made the rather lazy but totally understandable judgement that as the FDA in the US had granted Emergency Use Authorisation - with all the caveats, disclaimers and suspension of controls and liability this implies - the heavy lifting had been done so they didn’t have to look too hard at the data, but could just hang onto the FDA’s coat tails.
Unfortunately it’s become clear that the FDA didn’t look that hard at the data either, and according to its Director Rochelle Welensky the CDC in turn got its confidence in the mRNA vaccines from the Pfizer press release via CNN. Add in political pressure and bad modelling from academic institutions it’s no wonder authorities are doubling down on the dogma and no one dare raise their hand and accept that things may not have been handled that well.
I appreciate I have been a bit sweeping in my generalisations but this seems to be the gist.
All regulators - UK, US, Australia etc - used the same documents to issue the EUAs, or that is what they admit to anyway.
These documents were the European Medicines Agency (EMA) Public Assessment Reports (PARs):
Here are the 4 initial jab EMA PARs:
https://awkwardgit.substack.com/p/the-4-official-ema-public-assessment
There's more written about this in my early posts about my attempts to get more information from the MHRA about ingredients while researching of they were safe to take or not plus there is a post about the EMA, the CHMP and the MHRA you may find interesting and read the one about why no biodistribution studies have been done.
Basically everyone hung off the EMA's coat tails - read the PARs then look at the various country's assessments and spot the copy and paste buts, even the UN's WHO did this with their documents about the jabs.