emergency use authorization – Pandemic Timeline https://pandemictimeline.com Chronological Sequence of Events Tue, 15 Oct 2024 05:01:13 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7 https://pandemictimeline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Covid-150x150.ico emergency use authorization – Pandemic Timeline https://pandemictimeline.com 32 32 FDA issues Emergency Use Authorization for Labcorp COVID-19 RT-PCR Test https://pandemictimeline.com/2020/03/fda-issues-emergency-use-authorization-for-labcorp-covid-19-rt-pcr-test/ Mon, 16 Mar 2020 00:00:22 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=2090 Rx Only No descriptive printed matter, advertising and promotional materials, relating to the use of your product may represent or suggest that this test is safe or effective for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. The emergency use of this product is only authorized for the duration of the declaration that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of…

]]>

Rx Only

No descriptive printed matter, advertising and promotional materials, relating to the use of your product may represent or suggest that this test is safe or effective for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

The emergency use of this product is only authorized for the duration of the declaration that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of in vitro diagnostics for detection and/or diagnosis of COVID-19 under Section 564(b)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb3(b)(1), unless the declaration is terminated or authorization is revoked sooner.

This EUA will be effective until the declaration that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of the emergency use of in vitro diagnostics for detection and/or diagnosis of COVID-19 is terminated under Section 564(b)(2) of the Act or the EUA is revoked under Section 564(g) of the Act.

Source:

]]>
FDA Issues Emergency Use Authorization for Remdesivir https://pandemictimeline.com/2020/05/fda-issues-emergency-use-authorization-for-remdesivir/ Fri, 01 May 2020 00:01:18 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=1580 It’s not COVID-19 that’s killing Americans.  It is Remdesivir poisoning causing acute kidney failure, pulmonary edema, flooding their lungs with water and they’re drowning them to death, which is why they’re requiring, supposedly, to vent these people.  And that’s what’s killing these people, is Remdesivir poisoning, not COVID-19.  Now, how do I know this?  Amazingly,…

]]>

It’s not COVID-19 that’s killing Americans.  It is Remdesivir poisoning causing acute kidney failure, pulmonary edema, flooding their lungs with water and they’re drowning them to death, which is why they’re requiring, supposedly, to vent these people.  And that’s what’s killing these people, is Remdesivir poisoning, not COVID-19.  Now, how do I know this?  Amazingly, 2.2 million people in 2020 died worldwide from COVID-19.  America and all of its population, including immigrants, illegals — it doesn’t matter — citizens. The total is 4.5% of the entire world’s population is in America, yet, in the entire world where COVID went wild across the globe, there were 550,000 dead Americans.  That’s almost a quarter of entire world’s deaths.  Do you want to know why people in America had the highest death rates from COVID-19, supposedly?  It’s because in May 2020, in the same memo, Anthony Fauci asked our federal government, in May 2020, to buy up the entire stock from Gilead Sciences, of all of their Remdesivir and only treat Americans with it until the end of 2020.  And then he said, at the end of 2020, you can share it with other countries.  We were the only country treating people in ICUs with Remdesivir.  It was already proven to cause acute kidney failure in a combined 31% of all people in that cohort study.  The 23% experienced serious adverse events of multiple organ failure and acute kidney failure.  Another 8% had to be taken off the drug for the same things, but it was just worse, by day 5.  That’s 31% total.  So 550,000 people, a quarter of all the deaths of COVID-19 was achieved by using Remdesivir, a proven deadly treatment.  If I asked you, where did 99% of everybody who died from COVID-19 in America, where did they die?  In ICUs.  What were they doing in ICUs?  They were only [giving] Remdesivir.  That’s the only thing they were allowed to use.  You were actually firing doctors in hospitals using hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, budesonide, whatever else they were using.  So this is how they achieved their agenda.

— Dr. Bryan Ardis

The study performed before the COVID-19 pandemic cited by Dr. Ardis shows that Remdesivir is dangerous.  And yet, Anthony Fauci said that Remdesivir was “safe and effective” when the EUA was issued.  In October 2020, the FDA approved Remdesivir.  From the time Remdesivir was given its EUA until its approval, 400,000 people died.  The other two studies had been completed by then.

Dr. Ardis has been receiving letters from patients who have left the ICU against medical advice, thanks to information about Remdesivir shared by Dr. Ardis.

Given that Anthony Fauci uses the words “safe and effective” to describe Remdesivir, can he be trusted when he uses those words to describe anything else?  Given that the FDA approved this obviously dangerous drug, can we trust any of their other recent drug approvals?  How is “safe and effective” defined by the FDA?

Sources:

Related:

  • Video Expert
    September 19, 2021. David Whited and Stacy Whited with Bryan Ardis. What Is More Dangerous? (COVID-19 or the COVID-19 Hospital Protocols?). Thrivetime Show: Business School without the BS. Runtime: 1:42:57.
    https://rumble.com/vmp4pz-what-is-more-dangerous-covid-19-or-the-covid-19-hospital-protocols.html.
    Video, Expert.
  • Expert
    Bryan Ardis. “The Dr. Ardis Show :: A Voice for Truth in the Modern Day.” The Dr. Ardis Show.
    https://www.thedrardisshow.com/.
    Expert.
  • Research Journal
    December 12, 2019. Sabue Mulangu, Lori E. Dodd, Richard T. Davey, Olivier Tshiani Mbaya, Michael Proschan, Daniel Mukadi, Mariano Lusakibanza Manzo, Didier Nzolo, Antoine Tshomba Oloma, Augustin Ibanda, Rosine Ali, Sinaré Coulibaly, Adam C. Levine, Rebecca Grais, Janet Diaz, H. Clifford Lane, Jean-Jacques Muyembe-Tamfum, PALM Writing Group; Billy Sivahera, Modet Camara, Richard Kojan, Robert Walker, Bonnie Dighero-Kemp, Huyen Cao, Philippe Mukumbayi, Placide Mbala-Kingebeni, Steve Ahuka, Sarah Albert, Tyler Bonnett, Ian Crozier, Michael Duvenhage, Calvin Proffitt, Marc Teitelbaum, Thomas Moench, Jamila Aboulhab, Kevin Barrett, Kelly Cahill, Katherine Cone, Risa Eckes, Lisa Hensley, Betsey Herpin, Elizabeth Higgs, Julie Ledgerwood, Jerome Pierson, Mary Smolskis, Ydrissa Sow, John Tierney, Sumathi Sivapalasingam, Wendy Holman, Nikki Gettinger, David Vallée, Jacqueline Nordwall, and PALM Consortium Study Team. “A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Ebola Virus Disease Therapeutics.The New England Journal of Medicine 381 (24): 2293–2303.
    https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1910993.
    Research Journal.
    ZMapp and Remdesivir were eliminated from the study following an interim analysis during the trial for mortality reasons.  Remdesivir was the most dangerous drug in that trial.  This trial did not include a control.  This trial was funded by NIAID.
  • Research Journal
    June 11, 2020. Jonathan Grein, Norio Ohmagari, Daniel Shin, George Diaz, Erika Asperges, Antonella Castagna, Torsten Feldt, Gary Green, Margaret L. Green, François-Xavier Lescure, Emanuele Nicastri, Rentaro Oda, Kikuo Yo, Eugenia Quiros-Roldan, Alex Studemeister, John Redinski, Seema Ahmed, Jorge Bernett, Daniel Chelliah, Danny Chen, Shingo Chihara, Stuart H. Cohen, Jennifer Cunningham, Antonella D’Arminio Monforte, Saad Ismail, Hideaki Kato, Giuseppe Lapadula, Erwan L’Her, Toshitaka Maeno, Sumit Majumder, Marco Massari, Marta Mora-Rillo, Yoshikazu Mutoh, Duc Nguyen, Ewa Verweij, Alexander Zoufaly, Anu O. Osinusi, Adam DeZure, Yang Zhao, Lijie Zhong, Anand Chokkalingam, Emon Elboudwarej, Laura Telep, Leighann Timbs, Ilana Henne, Scott Sellers, Huyen Cao, Susanna K. Tan, Lucinda Winterbourne, Polly Desai, Robertino Mera, Anuj Gaggar, Robert P. Myers, Diana M. Brainard, Richard Childs, Timothy Flanigan. “Compassionate Use of Remdesivir for Patients with Severe Covid-19.The New England Journal of Medicine 382 (24): 2327–36.
    https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2007016.
    Research Journal.
    31% of patients had serious adverse events.  (23% + 8%)  The most common serious adverse events — multiple-organ-dysfunction syndrome, septic shock, acute kidney injury, and hypotension — were reported in patients who were receiving invasive ventilation at baseline.
  • Research Journal
    September 2020. Marie Dubert, Benoit Visseaux, Valentina Isernia, Lila Bouadma, Laurène Deconinck, Juliette Patrier, Paul-Henri Wicky, Diane Le Pluart, Laura Kramer, Christophe Rioux, Quentin Le Hingrat, Nadhira Houhou-Fidouh, Yazdan Yazdanpanah, Jade Ghosn, Francois-Xavier Lescure. “Case Report Study of the First Five COVID-19 Patients Treated with Remdesivir in France.International Journal of Infectious Diseases: IJID: Official Publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases 98 (September): 290–93.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.06.093.
    Research Journal.
    Four of the trial patients had to be removed from the trial early: two because they were heading toward liver failure, and two because they had such severe kidney failure they they required transplants.  Two of the trial patients ultimately died.  France decided that Remdesivir was too dangerous to use in their country.
  • Research Journal
    April 2021. Alexandre O. Gérard, Audrey Laurain, Audrey Fresse, Nadège Parassol, Marine Muzzone, Fanny Rocher, Vincent L. M. Esnault, and Milou-Daniel Drici. “Remdesivir and Acute Renal Failure: A Potential Safety Signal From Disproportionality Analysis of the WHO Safety Database.Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 109 (4): 1021–24.
    https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.2145.
    Research Journal.

 

]]>
FDA Revokes Emergency Use Authorization for Chloroquine and Hydroxy­chloroquine https://pandemictimeline.com/2020/06/fda-revokes-emergency-use-authorization-for-chloroquine-and-hydroxychloroquine/ Mon, 15 Jun 2020 16:49:39 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=1516 Stephen Hahn is Commissioner of the Food & Drug Administration when this happens. An exception is made for treating hospital patients. The rationale for this action is based on the Surgisphere studies that were retracted on June 2, 2020.  The retraction took place prior to the date of the revocation of EUA for HCQ.  This…

]]>
Stephen Hahn is Commissioner of the Food & Drug Administration when this happens.

An exception is made for treating hospital patients.

The rationale for this action is based on the Surgisphere studies that were retracted on June 2, 2020.  The retraction took place prior to the date of the revocation of EUA for HCQ.  This appears to be an instance of “Wrap Up” Smear.

There never should have been a need for an Emergency Use Authorization for Hydroxychloroquine.  HCQ was approved by the FDA in 1955.  Preventing or treating COVID-19 are not labeled uses, but that should not prevent practitioners from prescribing it.  The off-label use policy allows practitioners to prescribe as they deem appropriate.

Had an Emergency Use Authorization ever been issued for Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine for the FDA to revoke?

Has an EUA ever before been issued for an approved drug?

Sources:

See also, on this site:

]]>
Emergency use authorization is issued for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. https://pandemictimeline.com/2020/12/emergency-use-authorization-is-issued-for-the-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine/ Fri, 11 Dec 2020 00:00:57 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=375 The study presented in the Emergency Use Authorization based its efficacy assessment on the results of PCR tests, which we now know are unreliable and prone to errors.  Page 41 includes additional data about people who actually got sick after the inoculation.  Significantly more people got sick in the test group after vaccination than in…

]]>

The study presented in the Emergency Use Authorization based its efficacy assessment on the results of PCR tests, which we now know are unreliable and prone to errors.  Page 41 includes additional data about people who actually got sick after the inoculation.  Significantly more people got sick in the test group after vaccination than in the control group.  This information was charted by Karen Kingston and is presented toward the end of this post.

Under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), when the Secretary of HHS declares that an emergency use authorization is appropriate, FDA may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by CBRN threat agents when certain criteria are met, including there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives. — FDA statement on EAUs

In other words, if there is a viable option, an EAU should not be granted.

From page 4 of the Letter of Authorization, August 12, 2021

Effective treatment protocols using approved drugs existed prior to the first issuance of an EUA for vaccines. Doctors testified of this in the Senate.

Safety and efficacy testing is still ongoing for this product.  Details are in the Review Memorandum found in the FDA’s main page for this product.  Therefore, no advertising for this product may legally use the terms “safe and effective”.

Pfizer is required to report to VAERS any adverse reaction, whether or not is is attributed to the vaccine.

From page 8 of the Letter of Authorization, August 12, 2021

Was this reporting to VAERS done as required?

Statement about available therapies

The EUA acknowledges in the clip above that other therapies are available, but they have not been FDA approved specifically for the treatment of COVID-19.  In saying this, they are admitting that they are relying on a technicality to qualify the vaccine for the EUA.  An EUA should only be issued if there are no other options.  Other options existed, but they had not been specifically approved for COVID-19 and thus were disregarded.

How long would it have taken for the other options to have been relabeled as treatment for COVID-19?  Was it possible in the timeframe available up until this point?  Should these other options have been disregarded in this way, given the clinical results being reported by those using these other options?  Was there intent by the FDA to disregard?  What was the motivation?

Charted by Karen Kingston: This is the efficacy that is being claimed.

Note that the follow-up period in the chart above is only 7 days.  Karen Kingston found additional data in the report beyond 7 days, and the following chart shows those results.  Also note that they were using PCR tests to determine who had been infected without regard for whether the person had symptoms.

How many cycles were used in evaluating the PCR tests?  Were the same number of cycles used for both groups?

Charted by Karen Kingston: These are the results when all data is charted.

Text on page 41 from which chart of unconfirmed illness was derived

The above chart shows how many got sick as evidenced by symptoms.  More unvaccinated people in the study may have tested positive on a PCR test, but this data shows that more vaccinated people actually had symptoms of being sick.  And isn’t that really what matters?

I’m going to go out on a limb here. I am not a medical expert.

If more unvaccinated test subjects tested positive on a PCR test, but more vaccinated test subjects had symptoms, might this be early evidence of the ADE dangers of the vaccines predicted by industry experts?

Sources:

See also, on this site:

]]>
Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine receives Emergency Use Authorization from FDA https://pandemictimeline.com/2020/12/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-receives-emergency-use-authorization-from-fda/ Fri, 18 Dec 2020 00:00:33 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=380 Under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), when the Secretary of HHS declares that an emergency use authorization is appropriate, FDA may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or…

]]>

Under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), when the Secretary of HHS declares that an emergency use authorization is appropriate, FDA may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by CBRN threat agents when certain criteria are met, including there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.

FDA statement on EAUs

In other words, if there is a viable option, an EAU should not be granted.

Safety and efficacy testing is still ongoing for this product.  Details are in the Review Memorandum found in the FDA’s main page for this product.  Therefore, no advertising for this product may legally use the terms “safe and effective”.

Sources:

See also, on this site:

]]>
Emergency use authorization is issued for the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine. https://pandemictimeline.com/2021/02/emergency-use-authorization-is-issued-for-the-janssen-covid-19-vaccine/ Sat, 27 Feb 2021 00:00:38 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=397 Under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), when the Secretary of HHS declares that an emergency use authorization is appropriate, FDA may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or…

]]>

Under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), when the Secretary of HHS declares that an emergency use authorization is appropriate, FDA may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by CBRN threat agents when certain criteria are met, including there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives. — FDA statement on EAUs

In other words, if there is a viable option, an EAU should not be granted.

Safety and efficacy testing is still ongoing for this product.  Details are in the Review Memorandum found in the FDA’s main page for this product.  Therefore, no advertising for this product may legally use the terms “safe and effective”.

Sources:

See also, on this site:

]]>
CDC issues lab alert regarding RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 https://pandemictimeline.com/2021/07/cdc-issues-lab-alert-regarding-rt-pcr-test-for-sars-cov-2/ Wed, 21 Jul 2021 00:00:52 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=2080 The CDC will end the Emergency Use Authorization for the RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 on December 31, 2021.  This alert was issued to give labs time to find other tests to use. CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses. Such assays…

]]>

The CDC will end the Emergency Use Authorization for the RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 on December 31, 2021.  This alert was issued to give labs time to find other tests to use.

CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses. Such assays can facilitate continued testing for both influenza and SARS-CoV-2 and can save both time and resources as we head into influenza season.

The RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 is designed to detect only that one virus. The CDC is recommending that labs use tests that can detect and differentiate the various viruses that are expected to be active next flu season.

There are viral messages going around saying that this CDC lab alert admits that the RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 also tests positive for the common cold. I do not see that in this message. If false positives for SARS-CoV-2 due to detecting the common cold instead was the real problem, it would make more sense to issue a recall as was done for the Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test.  The Innova recall was immediate when it was issued.  The end of the EUA for the RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 is still four months away.  Apparently, the CDC believes that the RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 is good enough to use until then.

Revoking an EUA implies that the test is still in testing itself. I am not sure that we can deduce from the CDC statement that the RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 failed its test. It simply may be that a better option was found. We may need to look to the FDA to learn more about this since it will be the FDA which will grant final approval to the RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2.

I am of the opinion that there is not yet enough information to support the viral message, which is why I suggest caution in considering and sharing it. If the viral message later proves to be true or false as CDC internal emails and memos are revealed, I will modify or remove this caution accordingly.

Declaring the end of the EUA to be December 31 seems controversial to me.  At this current time, the official narrative includes the generation of variants, and we have had another surge in statistics.  I choose that word carefully because we know that various means have been implemented to make the statistics say what those “in charge” want them to say, whether or not that message is the truth.

Proverbs 20:10 (CEV)

Two things the Lord hates
are dishonest scales
and dishonest measures.

What happens on December 31?

What will have been accomplished by then?

Source:

Related:

See also, on this site:

]]>
Karen Kingston shows how the EUA liability protection has been broken https://pandemictimeline.com/2022/01/karen-kingston-shows-how-the-eua-liability-protection-has-been-broken/ Wed, 26 Jan 2022 00:00:44 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=9074 Karen Kingston shows us details in the jab contracts.  These jabs were commissioned by military interests before COVID-19 broke out, from what I can see of what Karen Kingston is showing us in this video.  The dates on this video are proof that the whole thing was planned. Source: See also, on this site: Fraud…

]]>
Karen Kingston shows us details in the jab contracts.  These jabs were commissioned by military interests before COVID-19 broke out, from what I can see of what Karen Kingston is showing us in this video.  The dates on this video are proof that the whole thing was planned.

Source:

See also, on this site:

]]>