> A vaccine skeptic may brush off a proponent by saying, “It’s approved for emergency use only; it’s not FDA-approved. I don’t think we should require it.” The skeptic is beginning with a fact that’s easily established and shareable. But when pressed, they might reveal that their line of thinking is elsewhere: “There are no long-term studies, and I’m worried about possible long-term effects.” Because the two objections aren’t exactly logically connected, the proponent concludes it is irrationalism all the way down. Read that again: > Because the two objections aren’t exactly logically connected the FDA isn't perfect, and isn't always on our side, but I'm pretty sure that there is a correlation between the drawn-out FDA approval process and treatments with fewer long-term side effects.