> A Conditional Marketing Authorization is not an Emergency Use Authorization. The European Medicines Agency even explain this.
Please provide a citation for this claim. My reading of the EMA page for Conditional Marketing Authorization states: "Its use is also intended for a public health emergency (e.g. a pandemic). _For these medicines, less comprehensive pharmaceutical and non-clinical data may also be accepted_".
The fact that less comprehensive farmaceutical data is accepted for CMA leads me to believe they are experimental.
See the section "What are the main differences between the EU's Conditional Marketing Authorisation and the Emergency Use Authorisation issued by some other countries?", onwards.
It explains amongst other things that a Conditional Marketing Authorisation (CMA) is a real, controlled and robust, authorisation of the vaccine; this is unlike the Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA), which is really an authorisation of the use of an unauthorised vaccine.
A CMA requires data on safety and efficacy, showing the benefits outweigh the risks. An EUA has no such requirement.
Please provide a citation for this claim. My reading of the EMA page for Conditional Marketing Authorization states: "Its use is also intended for a public health emergency (e.g. a pandemic). _For these medicines, less comprehensive pharmaceutical and non-clinical data may also be accepted_".
The fact that less comprehensive farmaceutical data is accepted for CMA leads me to believe they are experimental.