[Ixiaus]

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that emergency use approval was only given after rigorous parallel vaccine trials were conducted.

It is true that is a weaker standard than "FDA Approved" but it is still a high standard and certainly not "no testing".

[vl]

You can’t have cake and eat it too: there is standard for testing and approval and it was violated in this case.

Notice I’m not saying it’s good or bad, it’s just what the facts are.

[Ixiaus]

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.

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/what-does-eua-mean