> If that were true then the FDA would have actually approved them rather than issuing an emergency use authorization.

No? Like, no, this is not a sound argument, and is fallacious to the point where I'm not even going to attempt to argument against it.

> How do you known it isn’t less safe? There are no studies comparing the safety of the methods. Only arguments to that effect.

How do you know the non-fast track process is safer? There are no studies comparing the safety of the methods. Only arguments to that effect.

Considering both processes are established by the same public health organization, and that I'm not a health specialist myself to be able to prove otherwise, I see no reason to trust one but not the other.

> How do you know the non-fast track process is safer?

We can’t be 100% sure it is.

> There are no studies comparing the safety of the methods. Only arguments to that effect.

Clever try. This is also true, but a fallacy nonetheless.

We have a long history of the safety of the non-fast track process and no history for the fast track process. We therefore have high confidence in then safety of the non-fast track process and low confidence in the fast track process.

> Considering both processes are established by the same public health organization, and that I'm not a health specialist myself to be able to prove otherwise, I see no reason to trust one but not the other.

Ok, so you have just declared that you don’t trust yourself to analyze this for yourself and are going to trust the authorities. That’s fine but it renders your analysis moot.

It also invalidates your argument so far since the authorities you trust have not given approval of the new vaccines only emergency use authorization. The authorities you trust agree with me that we can yet trust the vaccines the way we do those that have undergone full testing.