you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]StillLessons 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree that the FDA did not do what they said they did when we go and read the actual letters they sent to Pfizer.

That said, I think you're off base to say their approval "makes clear" anything at all. The way they have done this is 100% intended to make the actual decisions they made as clear as mud. The level of confusion included in these letters is the classic legal technique to obscure their real aim behind so much verbiage that it is virtually impossible to discern. And that was precisely the point.

What they intended will become clear as the protocols develop over the coming weeks. The obvious conclusion is the simplest - the letters are written with two purposes: first, create the official label giving politicians and corporate managers (the same people in two different suits) legitimization for mandates. Second, to maintain the legal immunity from paying out any damages which is inherent within the EUA.

I'm quite sure the basic effect of these letters is so Pfizer can have their cake and eat it too. But rather than making this clear, the letters are very carefully crafted to do precisely the opposite, obscure their genuine intent to the greatest extent possible. The lawyers who drew up these letters were paid very handsomely indeed for precisely this work, I'm sure.