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