[Ixiaus]

It is your understanding failing you.

What you've said here is both true and moving the goal post from your first claim while also ignoring the other fact: they were approved for emergency use which means they still were subjected to rigorous testing and trials.

They did not have least testing, they underwent parallel trial testing.

[no-s]

> They did not have least testing, they underwent parallel trial testing.

yes, let us quibble: not tested to the degree required for regular FDA approval as safe and effective, hence “Emergency Use Authorization”. I think maybe piling on the OP is unwarranted here.

IIRC in the UK the vaccines were touted by fact checkers as having “stopped hospitalisation and death from covid”, even though this was clearly not true from ONS data (yet more controversy abounds[1], predictably government statistics are intrinsically flawed because official agendas take precedence over reality[2]).

[1] https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com

[2] "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.” - R.P. Feynman, 1986, Report of the PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, vol 2, appendix F.

[vl]

He is just one of those people who will spread false information and try to bend standards and definitions even when sourced cited is the government they are covering for. His party can do no wrong. Useless to argue with.

Perhaps government troll.

[Ixiaus]

It is not unwarranted. They are spreading misinformation.

To assert vaccines were not tested, when they very much were, and then to move the goal post when I challenged him (and challenged the moved goal posts) is not quibbling. It is correcting.