The evidence is not there.In their regard the data isn't enough for them to conclude. It's not lacking of evidence (i guess you didn't read it). I wouldn't go against their conclusions. Would you?Would you think you could be better credentialed to oppose them on any decisions? What sort of dribble is that. The vote was on giving the booster to young people 16-2 against. The reason for that result is pretty clear. “We have no data on the safety for this population at all," Chatterjee said. The credentials are there in the make up of these advisory committees, but conflicts of interest can enter into it. For instance why did two vote to give it to youngsters with no evidence at all. Makes you wonder. Lets wait to see what the FDA does.
