Quote:
Originally Posted by loochy
so, that IS taking a stance, isn't it?
|
It's semantics, but I think "taking a stance" means making a formal recommendation, and they're basically saying "Eh, there's no harm in it, but we don't see a strong need either."
In case it's not clear, this is the same thing they did with Pfizer. The committee will then take their synopsis and decide whether to recommend people get it. And chances are, it'll be the same deal as with Pfizer.
I just keep waiting for the J&J recommendation to come through. I have to imagine it'll be a different story given its relatively low effectiveness.