Seems to me the pragmatic solution to the frustration you expressed in the OP is to come up with an adjective that instills more confidence than "experimental" but stops short of "approved" and push that in the lexicon. Same could be said for "unproven".

A one-word replacement is not coming immediately to mind so I don't have any suggestions.

I get that but we're arguing colloquialism people have picked up from poor communication with professionals, TV, movies. EUA is:

Quote:

---

Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.

---

If its not "approved" isn't it basically still in the testing ("experimental") phase. These vaccine are clearly not approved by FDA and if people dont want to participate in using products not approved by the FDA they should be able to do so. Otherwise the requirement for labeling and disclosures about non-FDA approved products and procedures has lost its meaning and purpose.

I come from a finance world and there's a big thing were the regulators don't "approve" of your business application, model or product because that would be like certifying the quality. A stamp of approval if you will. Our regulators don't make evaluative judgements. They only acknowledge that the business, technology or product has met minimum standards and diligence needs. But the FDA is supposed to provide rigorous, qualitative, and evaluative decisions and deem products approved for use.

Totally off topic but EUA is good enough for covid why wouldnt the FDA use this EUA for every other potential life saving product, procedure and technology? Should future mRNA vaccines get EUA treatment as well?

I agree - the media, FDA, and medical community does a TERRIBLE job of communicating scientific data. They tend to either say "just trust us" or focus way too much on outliers.

As far as EUA is concerned, can you think of any other disease in your lifetime that's had the impact that Covid-19 has?

The reason why EUA isn't used more often is because it's not necessary - basically, most other diseases that might benefit from it aren't affecting (ie, hospitalizing or killing) enough people.

However, if you go to the FDA website, you can see what other drugs/treatments/vaccines have been given EUA. The list includes a variety of diagnostics for Zika and Ebola, antivirals for H1N1, and an Anthrax vaccine and treatment.

The FDA also issued EAU for the use of Remdesivir for treatment of Covid-19.

EUA was never meant to be used as a fast tract for just any drug, treatment, or vaccine. It was put in place after 9/11 as a direct response to the fear of a bio-terror attack. In the time since then, it became obvious it would be useful for a pandemic, but we haven't had one of this magnitude. The closest we came was the H1N1 outbreak (during which the EAU was invoked). MERS, Ebola, and Zika just never became major issues in the US.

Also, in order for EAU to be invoked, some very specific criteria have to be met. Invoking EUA is not a decision the FSA makes on its own - it also involves the secretaries of HHS, Homeland Security, and/or DoD.

I will say though, the cognitive dissonance between people screaming for (or against) certain EUA (or non-FDA approved) Covid-19 treatments like Remdesivir and Hydroxychloroquine but arguing strongly against (or for) the vaccine is just mind-boggling.

The woman I know who insisted the Covid vaccine kills more people than car accidents held this position. She's adamantly against the mRNA vaccines, but she went on a rant about how the CDC/FDA/medical community spoke out against hydroxychloroquine as a treatment simply because they didn't like Trump.

I hate what this has turned into (not this thread - this whole situation).

Quote:

---

I will say though, the cognitive dissonance between people screaming for (or against) certain EUA (or non-FDA approved) Covid-19 treatments like Remdesivir and Hydroxychloroquine but arguing strongly against (or for) the vaccine is just mind-boggling.

---

I think that some people see Remdesivir and Hydroxychloroquine as 'old school' remedies. If the traditional stuff works, why do we need the new stuff? Maybe more holistic if you will. And we all must admit that this mRNA technology may be one of the greatest medical advances of this century and this major shift is probably unnerving for some. But at much of the concern comes across a bit like a medical ludddism wrapped in traditionalism. Technologies like pills and shots are great but sometimes a ginger ale, a blanket, Vics vapor rub and/or your mom's hugs works pretty great too.

This pandemic has been littered with cognitive dissonance in our response especially as it relates to technology. Traditional schools closed, virtual school opened up for many but there's a backlash with the new technologies of learning and schooling even though the original version (in person classrooms) provided at best mixed results. Same thing with WFH and finding a new work/life balance. Not as tech related but society's need for greater general health but we shut down outdoor activities.

So, those may be "old school remedies", but not for Covid-19. Using an existing drug or treatment for something other than it's intended purpose should still be vetted (and arguably approved). However, there are a lot of drugs that are prescribed for off-label uses.

In the context of Covid, I think EUA and even some off-label uses are warranted.

Like I said before, I'm not here to convince anyone to get the vaccine or not. I completely understand why some people would opt to wait or not get it all. The issues I have are with the fear-mongering and flat-out spreading of lies and mis-information about very fundamental scientific/biological processes.

Also, to equate vaccines, which have saved and/or extended the lives of billions of people over the last 100 or so years with ginger ale and a hug from your mom is just flat-out ridiculous.

If you want to take your chances with Covid-19, polio, the flu, measles, or whatever other illness/virus, that's fine. But please don't even suggest that "home remedies" are acceptable substitutions for vaccines. I mean, heck, traditional chemotherapy treatments kill healthy cells and wreck havoc on the body. Why not just "pray" the cancer away?

Quote:

---

Technologies like pills and shots are great but sometimes a ginger ale, a blanket, Vics vapor rub and/or your mom's hugs works pretty great too.

---

Phrasing it as an either/or is not all that helpful.

If you restate this to . . ."immune responses are great and I would rather get them primed in advance instead of needing to lay in bed for 72 hours with fever as my body figures out how to deal with the foreign pathogen", the issue is probably more clear.

Quote:

---

Also, to equate vaccines, which have saved and/or extended the lives of billions of people over the last 100 or so years with ginger ale and a hug from your mom is just flat-out ridiculous.

If you want to take your chances with Covid-19, polio, the flu, measles, or whatever other illness/virus, that's fine. But please don't even suggest that "home remedies" are acceptable substitutions for vaccines. I mean, heck, traditional chemotherapy treatments kill healthy cells and wreck havoc on the body. Why not just "pray" the cancer away?

---

I didnt mean to come across like I was ****ting on vaccines. Calm down. Only suggesting that in a world of technology, fast moving medical advancements and public which is looking for single pill for all your (probably self-induced) healthcare problems, sometimes the same remedies they used a hundred years works just as well. The human body hasnt changed that much. Placebo effects exists. Positive thoughts, prayer and a hug from a loved one can be amazing medicine for some. Not for vaccines just more traditional medicine.

"I'm posting this because I am sick and tired of hearing that this is an "unproven" or "experimental" vaccine, when the basic biological functions elicited by both vaccines are the same."

All the CV vaccines are in the experimental stage. They have not attained FDA approval. They are currently administered under an Emergency Use Authorization.