[TechBro8615]

> Most, but not all, of the people on the committee believed that it was worth the risk with incomplete information

This is hardly surprising considering two of the people most likely to disagree resigned from the FDA after the last booster approval, due to their disagreement with the process. [0]

The people who resigned were FDA Office of Vaccines Research and Review Director Marion Gruber, Ph.D. and Deputy Director Phillip Krause, M.D.

After resigning, they also published a critique in the Lancet of the policy of boosters for everyone. [1]

[0] https://www.ft.com/content/af8da7d4-43ea-41d6-90ee-f959b3675...

[1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

[peter422]

First of all you are arguing a decision from a year ago, when there was a lot more ambiguity about the rick and rewards of the booster.

Also those scientists were essentially proved wrong - the booster almost certainly was better for everyone a year ago.

Further boosters is still a bit more complicated but we are doing the best we can.

[TechBro8615]

What? I’m not arguing a decision a year ago. I’m arguing it’s unsurprising there was no disagreement the second time they asked everyone if they want to approve the boosters, since the people who said “no” the first time are the same people who resigned in protest when nobody listened to them.

[peter422]

It’s 2 people on a 20+ person committee. It isn’t like the whole committee quit.

[TechBro8615]

No, just the director and her deputy.