Thanks again, Toby, for your leadership in this call to action! I drafted a new letter, and I'm just wondering if you or anyone sees anything incorrect or problematic in it. I don't have a ton of background in tobacco, but I keep thinking about it and the seeming parallels. Recently it also occurred to me that the whole tobacco thing mig…
Thanks again, Toby, for your leadership in this call to action! I drafted a new letter, and I'm just wondering if you or anyone sees anything incorrect or problematic in it. I don't have a ton of background in tobacco, but I keep thinking about it and the seeming parallels. Recently it also occurred to me that the whole tobacco thing might actually be fairly close to home for some of these folks? I don't know, just a thought. In case anyone has a minute to glance at this one before I start sending it off . . . thanks!
Dear ______,
I am writing to share my grave concern about Pfizer’s plans to submit another EUA application for a COVID-19 vaccine for children 6 months-4 years old, despite the lack of medical necessity and the egregious level of risk that we have already suffered from this shot for the other age groups. I sincerely request you to deeply consider the following before you cast your vote (of conscience):
1. Consider how desperate Pfizer is to get their COVID-19 shot onto the children’s vaccine schedule. They are undoubtedly motivated to do and say anything to try to get that accomplished because it’s their ticket to liability protection for this product. As you know, they can’t get it onto the schedule if they don’t first get this most vulnerable age group approved. Please do not pretend that this this context is irrelevant.
2. Kindly also bring to mind everything we now know about Tobacco industry ‘science.’ When the financial and reputational stakes are as high as they currently are, what would prevent a pharmaceutical company from acting precisely the same as a tobacco company? At this point in history, the term “Tobacco science” has practically become a household euphemism for ‘fraudulent-science-used-to-manipulate-the-population-at-the-expense-of -public-health’.
We are counting on you to pierce through the charade and insist on an honest, robust, scientific risk/benefit analysis for our nation’s most innocent and vulnerable population. We can’t undo the injustice done to the other age groups that were approved for this shot without sufficient evidence of safety or efficacy, but it’s in your hands now to help prevent an even greater tragedy. One honest, clear-headed voice can activate others!
The tobacco analogy is great because the current FDA Commissioner, Robert Califf, cares a lot about regulating tobacco products (he often tweets about it). So this analogy will land with him and others.
I really appreciate the feedback, Toby. I also added in some of the excellent references you prepared for us before sending it off. Your effort to line up these calls to action is so appreciated!
Thanks again, Toby, for your leadership in this call to action! I drafted a new letter, and I'm just wondering if you or anyone sees anything incorrect or problematic in it. I don't have a ton of background in tobacco, but I keep thinking about it and the seeming parallels. Recently it also occurred to me that the whole tobacco thing might actually be fairly close to home for some of these folks? I don't know, just a thought. In case anyone has a minute to glance at this one before I start sending it off . . . thanks!
Dear ______,
I am writing to share my grave concern about Pfizer’s plans to submit another EUA application for a COVID-19 vaccine for children 6 months-4 years old, despite the lack of medical necessity and the egregious level of risk that we have already suffered from this shot for the other age groups. I sincerely request you to deeply consider the following before you cast your vote (of conscience):
1. Consider how desperate Pfizer is to get their COVID-19 shot onto the children’s vaccine schedule. They are undoubtedly motivated to do and say anything to try to get that accomplished because it’s their ticket to liability protection for this product. As you know, they can’t get it onto the schedule if they don’t first get this most vulnerable age group approved. Please do not pretend that this this context is irrelevant.
2. Kindly also bring to mind everything we now know about Tobacco industry ‘science.’ When the financial and reputational stakes are as high as they currently are, what would prevent a pharmaceutical company from acting precisely the same as a tobacco company? At this point in history, the term “Tobacco science” has practically become a household euphemism for ‘fraudulent-science-used-to-manipulate-the-population-at-the-expense-of -public-health’.
We are counting on you to pierce through the charade and insist on an honest, robust, scientific risk/benefit analysis for our nation’s most innocent and vulnerable population. We can’t undo the injustice done to the other age groups that were approved for this shot without sufficient evidence of safety or efficacy, but it’s in your hands now to help prevent an even greater tragedy. One honest, clear-headed voice can activate others!
Thank you in advance for doing the right thing.
Sincerely,
The tobacco analogy is great because the current FDA Commissioner, Robert Califf, cares a lot about regulating tobacco products (he often tweets about it). So this analogy will land with him and others.
I really appreciate the feedback, Toby. I also added in some of the excellent references you prepared for us before sending it off. Your effort to line up these calls to action is so appreciated!