Search Results: asking some one out

"This person was a lawyer for RFK's campaign, and is not RFK's personal lawyer. Otherwise, this petition is unrelated to RFK. The headline is completely misleading because it makes it seem like this petition was on behalf of RFK. But the petition was on behalf of some other client of this law firm, unrelated to RFK.
This is about one particular polio vaccine (not all of them), which the FDA is alleged to have violated their own review and approval procedures for. The petition is asking for the FDA to withdraw its approval and conduct a scientifically valid trial that adheres to their own guidelines. In this case, it appears that the FDA's safety study only examined a 3 day period following injection. The FDA's own guidelines say that the review period should be much longer, especially for children where the FDA has said the review period needs to be multiple years since developmental disorders can take time to be diagnosed.
It also seems like the product is misleadingly labeled and marketed as a vaccine since it does not (according to the CDC) prevent some forms of infection and transmission, which makes it not a vaccine since it doesn't grant immunity (unless you use very recent claims that the definition is different).
The petition was from 2022, not recently. The lawyer has said on record that this petition was on behalf of a client. It's unrelated to RFK or Trump, both of whom are on the record saying they don't want to reduce access to vaccines.
This petition has nothing to do with autism and doesn't mention it.
The petition itself does nothing. It gives the FDA a chance to respond. If they did a proper study that adheres to guidelines from medical research, their own procedures, and guidance from the NIH and CDC, it should be easy to respond."