This is, in fact, the opposite of a stable regulatory environment.
this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2026
139 points (98.6% liked)
politics
29241 readers
1729 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Oh thank you for doing what you're supposed to do.
They can still reject the application. This just means they will go through the motions of looking at it first.
Don't be so sure that the results will be aligned with that line of thinking.
If they accept another vaccine that works similarly to the covid one, they are too close to admitting that the covid vaccine was safe and effective like it was. It's a political conspiracy theory with no basis in reality, but it's what they fervently believe as fact.
Even prior to this administration the FDA wasn't always doing the right thing. Some approvals never should happen. There was a alzheimer's drug that comes to mind back around 2019-2020 that many, many doctors believed was a sham yet it got an approval. I googled it, and the drug I was thinking of was Aducanumab. Biogen pulled it themselves in 2024. It's not the only example, but it's a good one.
Anywho, now that the FDA is aligned with beliefs and faith based healthcare, the chances that they do the right thing is exceedingly low. Can't argue with faith.
Most of the staff at the FDA are guys looking to leave the FDA and move in to the private sector. They'll hand waive it through without much review.
Even if they weren't, they're so under staffed that they won't have time to do much research anyway.
See: Vioxx
So, Moderna paid the bribe. K.
I think it’s the opposite. Last i saw they threatened to pull all R&D for the US, which would have been a major financial hit here, so the Government is caving due to financial pressure… aka one of the few things that still elicits a reaction around here.
Well corruption is a safe assumption with this admin, I’m not really knowledgeable on Moderna business dealings these days but could definitely see it playing out this way instead. Thanks for the insight.
We live in the most corrupt admin in American history. Expect it to be a combination of the two.
That or this is just performative so they can deny it anyway.
Under a typical administration - say a Biden or a Kamala administration, this would have been a scandal of epic proportions and people would have been fucking fired over it.
Under this three ring circus, it's just one of many, many issues and this kind of fuckery is expected of Republicans, because, well, they are Republicans; it's not like they have any agency here or anything. They just do things. Terrible things. Usually the awful things they do are the fault of the Democrats, though. Because Murc's Law and reactionary centrism.
They probably only reversed course because this went public and people didn't react very well to it. But this is no way to run an agency.
Let me guess, those "further discussion" involved certain well-fed envelopes?
Brain worms.
This administration's FDA!? I could give a shit what partisan, political conclusion they come to...
I mean, you probably should give a shit, if you're at all interested in being able to get this vaccine. Moderna can't bring it to market without the FDA's approval.