All corrections
Substack August 27, 2026 at 08:47 PM

moreisdifferent.blog/p/a-laundry-list-of-possible-fda-reforms

3 corrections found

1
Claim
they do not use rolling reviews.
Correction

This is incorrect: the FDA does use rolling review in some expedited programs. FDA’s own materials describe rolling review as an available feature of Fast Track and related pathways.

Full reasoning

FDA explicitly says it uses rolling review in certain expedited review pathways.

On FDA’s Fast Track Designation Request Performance page, the agency states that "Fast track adds to existing programs ... the possibility of a 'rolling review' for an application." That directly contradicts the blanket claim that FDA does not use rolling reviews at all.

FDA also explains on its Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, Accelerated Approval, Priority Review page that Fast Track is one of the agency’s formal approaches for expediting review of drugs for serious conditions. In other FDA guidance for these programs, rolling review is part of that expedited framework.

So while the FDA may not have used the exact same review setup as every foreign regulator in every COVID vaccine case, the categorical statement that it "do[es] not use rolling reviews" is false.

2 sources
2
Claim
delay Pfizer’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from early November to December 11th
Correction

This timeline is wrong. Pfizer said on November 9, 2020 that the FDA-required safety milestone would not be reached until the third week of November, and Pfizer did not submit its EUA request until November 20.

Full reasoning

The article claims FDA delayed Pfizer’s EUA from early November to December 11, 2020. But the public record shows an early-November EUA was not actually available.

  • In Pfizer’s November 9, 2020 press release, the company said its EUA submission was planned only after the required safety milestone was reached, and that this milestone was expected in the third week of November.
  • FDA’s vaccine EUA explanation likewise said an EUA submission was expected to include a median follow-up of at least 2 months after completion of the full vaccination regimen.
  • Pfizer then announced on November 20, 2020 that it was submitting its EUA request that day.
  • FDA issued the EUA on December 11, 2020.

Because Pfizer itself said the FDA-required safety milestone would not be reached until the third week of November, and because the EUA request was not submitted until November 20, there was no EUA that the FDA could have granted in early November. That makes the claimed delay window inaccurate.

4 sources
3
Claim
the decisions that pushed Pfizer's EUA from early November to late December
Correction

This Pfizer timeline is inaccurate. Pfizer said on November 9 that the FDA-required safety milestone would not be reached until the third week of November, and the company did not submit its EUA request until November 20; the EUA was then issued on December 11, not in late December.

Full reasoning

This sentence misstates the Pfizer vaccine EUA timeline.

Pfizer said publicly on November 9, 2020 that it planned to seek EUA only after the required safety milestone was reached, and that the milestone was expected in the third week of November. Pfizer then announced on November 20, 2020 that it was submitting its EUA request that day. FDA issued the EUA on December 11, 2020.

So the EUA was not something the FDA had available to grant in early November, because Pfizer had not yet met the relevant safety milestone or submitted the request. And the authorization date was December 11, which is not late December.

3 sources
Model: OPENAI_GPT_5 Prompt: v1.16.0