There will be no more Covid vaccines for me. No more public health for me. Trust in much of healthcare is gone. And that’s saying something from someone who has benefitted greatly over the last 50+ years.
Vinay, I know you seldom/never read comments. But there is a fairly large contingent of folks who agree with most of what you publish that keep wondering "what should we do?" For that matter, what should you (with a much larger bully pulpit) do beyond what you are doing? Your comments are insightful and have consistently trended upward in terms of pithiness and relevance. How do we get them more exposure? Why doesn't EVERYONE get to understand the fraud being perpetrated?
If you sense frustration, that is because most of us have lots. And I'm sure you do, too. All thoughts welcome.
I had to start with myself; I have no clue as to where to go from there. Fortunately or unfortunately, some “healthcare facilities” who are clearly corrupt are closing in my state due to gross negligence. But the more savvy businesses are carrying on, biz as usual. So I can only start with me at the moment. Sorry for the lengthy comment!
I'd just like to offer an opinion that there is not strong evidence that the vaccines benefited anyone, although it is possible that they did. Recall that there was no survival benefit in the original trials of the mRNA vaccines. Many non-experimental studies were conducted to claim there were benefits; these studies often excluded people with very recent vaccination (i.e. before they completed a two-shot series of the mRNA vaccines) so thus they excluded people who had vaccine-induced adverse events and also early breakthrough cases. It's just very disappointing--I have no confidence in any assertions of any "official" bodies or experts on this topic. However I do appreciate you promotion of ongoing discussion of the vaccines' effects.
It's time for all Americans (liberals, conservatives, and independents) to acknowlege that the Democratic Party of 2023 has become the party of censorship -- and not just limited to health issues. It's fine to say they have the best policies in other areas. But, on censorship, can't we just be honest with each other?
This guy Jha's performance as a public figure in the pandemic has been *at least* as disappointing for me as hearing from my dentist that I must undergo a root canal tomorrow morning. Dr. Jha at first irked me mostly because of his oleaginous presentation of self and his unctuous way of speaking to the press from the lofty White House perch, but then the Content that he was spewing with such conviction about COVID clearly became a front-and-center issue. I would not think that we need to hear from Jha any longer about any subject.
“ I would not receive additional doses, until RCTs show benefit for someone of my age and health.”
Precisely. I’m a young(ish, under 40) healthy man who’s already had Covid (totally asymptomatic infection but I know because my blood test is chock full of antibodies!)… and the government is forcing me to get a Covid shot, for zero coherent reason. But since I’m not a citizen, in order to get citizenship, you have to get a bivalent Covid booster (even if you already had 45 monovalent boosters in the past couple years, doesn’t matter, still need that bivalent one) or else…
So there you go. Made it til fall 2023 without Pfizer engineered spike protein in my veins, so that’s something I guess. Hope I don’t stroke out before your next great post…
Only God knows what is true and what is not (assuming He even cares).
It is unbelievable that some humans have the arrogance to claim that they have the right to censor somebody else's speech because they somehow know what is true and what is false. They don't.
It does not even matter whether Dr. Jha's opinion is based on some data and my opinion is not. The government has no business censoring my views. Let the readers decide who they want to trust.
They are not censoring, because they think they know the truth. They are censoring to try to maintain their power. How can the government advance its vaccine narrative when there are all these people pointing out the problems with the vaccines?
In a recent interview, FDA commissioner Robert Califf admitted to helping Pfizer promote its antiviral drug ‘Paxlovid.’
“I felt that I had an obligation as a public health official, to point out that the evidence was strong,” said Califf during the medical ground round discussion at UCSF.
Califf acknowledged that it wasn’t accepted practice for the FDA to promote products the agency regulated, but said the world was undergoing extenuating circumstances.
“I don't think any FDA commissioner alive has been through a pandemic like this. I think this is a very unusual situation,” said Califf.
“In normal times, the FDA should not be a cheerleader, the FDA is a referee calling balls and strikes…. but in this case, we were in the middle of a pandemic, people were dying at very high rates,” he said.
Califf explained that Pfizer was not able to advertise Paxlovid because, under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act, drug companies cannot advertise their products unless they are fully approved.
At the time, Paxlovid only had emergency use authorisation (EUA).
“Remember with an EUA the company can't advertise,” Califf explained. “The purchasing is not done by sales reps selling in hospitals and practices, it's bulk purchasing by the government.”
Consequently, Califf took to social media to promote Paxlovid based on his observation that “almost everyone who was dying or getting severely ill was not up to date on vaccination and had not been given the opportunity to take an antiviral.”
I am no fan of pharma commercials either; it turns ignorants into experts. I feel badly for anyone who sees a patient and the patient starts with, “Well I saw on TV...”
“I don't think any FDA commissioner alive has been through a pandemic like this. I think this is a very unusual situation,” said Califf. This is exactly why the “experts” are not experts at all.
Excellent points. I am 75 years old and have had vaccine and boosters but will be looking more carefully at any data generated in the future with respect to safety and demonstrable efficacy of the new boosters. So far, EG.5 looks pretty benign unless one is immunocompromised. Dr. Jha should be publicly criticized by the ID and public health communities but he won't be.
Steve Kirsch's latest piece shows that even for an age stratified analysis, the massive increase in deaths in nursing homes after the vaccine rollout should lead one to be very skeptical of benefits even to the healthy elderly.
Vinay writes "of course covid vaccines should have been promoted in the elderly, non-immune..."
But Vinay can cite no RCTs which support this position. If there are any RCTs which have been conducted in the elderly, non-immune, Vinay should cite to them. I do not believe any exist.
Vinay gets most of the way there in being skeptical about the Covid jabs for lack of RCTs but can't get all the way there. He is inconsistent in arguing for RCTs as a necessary condition for a vaccine to be promoted but inconsistently stating they should have been promoted for elderly, non-immune when in fact there are no RCTs to support such promotion.
I thought that the MOST you can say in favor of recent boosters is that they produce a temporary increase in certain antibodies--and not even a panoply of antibodies, as will be produced by those who have recovered/natural immunity. This increase in antibodies fades after just a few weeks.
If I am correct, why would anyone at all be urged to get boosted? Maybe if you were about to travel and figured that a month or two of increased immunity would be worth your while?? Or am I not correct as far as what the studies are showing about booster efficacy?
In my opinion, the scientific evidence does not support the use of COVID-19 vaccines for any age group, including the elderly, but I agree with you that you have the right to publicly express your opinion disagreeing with my own and most scientists, without fear of repercussions. Good for you for saying what you think, even when it is going against the wind!
Ha! Paid 7$ to join the board after being sent a few of his posts.
Interesting how unlike most of his followers Dr Prasad apparently, at one time saw some value in primary vaccination. That he gave some support to Paxlovid. Because nothing in his current arguments would lend anyone support for trusting much less receiving any treatment, preventative or therapeutic unless I guess(?) if you were living in a nursing home or were Immuno compromised. I would think this suggestion he is a Bernie Sanders socialist would come as quiet a shock to many of his subscribers. How does his total take down of our public health system jive with Bernies Medicare for all?
His direct hits here are squarely against democrats and Biden.
If I have overstepped in assuming he full on anti vax I apologize Dr Prasad. But your certainly telling everyone here, many of which state clearly that they either never vaccinated or will never again fuel for what will guild them away from any trust. And based on your "not proven" "study flawed" "no evidence" theme. Then going on to conspiracy, censorship, willfull miss information accusations. If I am not fully accurate in my assumption of your beliefs I would stand by the harm I believe you maybe inadvertently have and continue to cause.
Take a minute to read how overstated and inciting many of the conclusions Dr Prasad supports are. And so did he indeed lead to people finding solace in their decisions based on this expert. And indeed the tragedy of believers refusing treatment that might have saved them or carrying the virus unmasked to others remains on him.
I will spend some time reviewing Bernie’s positions.
The reality is germ theory isn’t controversial. Nearly every study of vaccination shows huge benefit over risk, currently of long COViD and I think by fall hospitalization’s.
I am new here but there is no nuance to the current blogs and no time spent refuting the misinformation posted here.
There will be no more Covid vaccines for me. No more public health for me. Trust in much of healthcare is gone. And that’s saying something from someone who has benefitted greatly over the last 50+ years.
Vinay, I know you seldom/never read comments. But there is a fairly large contingent of folks who agree with most of what you publish that keep wondering "what should we do?" For that matter, what should you (with a much larger bully pulpit) do beyond what you are doing? Your comments are insightful and have consistently trended upward in terms of pithiness and relevance. How do we get them more exposure? Why doesn't EVERYONE get to understand the fraud being perpetrated?
If you sense frustration, that is because most of us have lots. And I'm sure you do, too. All thoughts welcome.
I had to start with myself; I have no clue as to where to go from there. Fortunately or unfortunately, some “healthcare facilities” who are clearly corrupt are closing in my state due to gross negligence. But the more savvy businesses are carrying on, biz as usual. So I can only start with me at the moment. Sorry for the lengthy comment!
“My purpose in running for president is to challenge the corrupt merger of state and corporate power.” - RFK, Jr.
I'd just like to offer an opinion that there is not strong evidence that the vaccines benefited anyone, although it is possible that they did. Recall that there was no survival benefit in the original trials of the mRNA vaccines. Many non-experimental studies were conducted to claim there were benefits; these studies often excluded people with very recent vaccination (i.e. before they completed a two-shot series of the mRNA vaccines) so thus they excluded people who had vaccine-induced adverse events and also early breakthrough cases. It's just very disappointing--I have no confidence in any assertions of any "official" bodies or experts on this topic. However I do appreciate you promotion of ongoing discussion of the vaccines' effects.
It's time for all Americans (liberals, conservatives, and independents) to acknowlege that the Democratic Party of 2023 has become the party of censorship -- and not just limited to health issues. It's fine to say they have the best policies in other areas. But, on censorship, can't we just be honest with each other?
This guy Jha's performance as a public figure in the pandemic has been *at least* as disappointing for me as hearing from my dentist that I must undergo a root canal tomorrow morning. Dr. Jha at first irked me mostly because of his oleaginous presentation of self and his unctuous way of speaking to the press from the lofty White House perch, but then the Content that he was spewing with such conviction about COVID clearly became a front-and-center issue. I would not think that we need to hear from Jha any longer about any subject.
“ I would not receive additional doses, until RCTs show benefit for someone of my age and health.”
Precisely. I’m a young(ish, under 40) healthy man who’s already had Covid (totally asymptomatic infection but I know because my blood test is chock full of antibodies!)… and the government is forcing me to get a Covid shot, for zero coherent reason. But since I’m not a citizen, in order to get citizenship, you have to get a bivalent Covid booster (even if you already had 45 monovalent boosters in the past couple years, doesn’t matter, still need that bivalent one) or else…
So there you go. Made it til fall 2023 without Pfizer engineered spike protein in my veins, so that’s something I guess. Hope I don’t stroke out before your next great post…
Only God knows what is true and what is not (assuming He even cares).
It is unbelievable that some humans have the arrogance to claim that they have the right to censor somebody else's speech because they somehow know what is true and what is false. They don't.
It does not even matter whether Dr. Jha's opinion is based on some data and my opinion is not. The government has no business censoring my views. Let the readers decide who they want to trust.
That is why we have the first amendment.
They are not censoring, because they think they know the truth. They are censoring to try to maintain their power. How can the government advance its vaccine narrative when there are all these people pointing out the problems with the vaccines?
Of course, they are censoring to maintain their power. But that is not what they say.
Sometimes you have to respond to such people in their own language--such as their disingenuous language of truth and falsehood.
Jha’s 15 minutes of credibility are over.
Public health and CDC as well.
Indeed. Glad I don’t have any social media beyond this - Twitter sounds like a nightmare!
Here is another one.
FDA chief admits to “cheerleading” Pfizer’s antiviral drug Paxlovid
https://maryannedemasi.substack.com/p/fda-chief-admits-to-cheerleading?
In a recent interview, FDA commissioner Robert Califf admitted to helping Pfizer promote its antiviral drug ‘Paxlovid.’
“I felt that I had an obligation as a public health official, to point out that the evidence was strong,” said Califf during the medical ground round discussion at UCSF.
Califf acknowledged that it wasn’t accepted practice for the FDA to promote products the agency regulated, but said the world was undergoing extenuating circumstances.
“I don't think any FDA commissioner alive has been through a pandemic like this. I think this is a very unusual situation,” said Califf.
“In normal times, the FDA should not be a cheerleader, the FDA is a referee calling balls and strikes…. but in this case, we were in the middle of a pandemic, people were dying at very high rates,” he said.
Califf explained that Pfizer was not able to advertise Paxlovid because, under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act, drug companies cannot advertise their products unless they are fully approved.
At the time, Paxlovid only had emergency use authorisation (EUA).
“Remember with an EUA the company can't advertise,” Califf explained. “The purchasing is not done by sales reps selling in hospitals and practices, it's bulk purchasing by the government.”
Consequently, Califf took to social media to promote Paxlovid based on his observation that “almost everyone who was dying or getting severely ill was not up to date on vaccination and had not been given the opportunity to take an antiviral.”
Califf has proven beyond a shadow of any doubt why there is a rational basis for these rules and laws and why such decisions are not his to make.
The arrogance of Califf and Fauci (and Collins and Birx) has cost society dearly.
I am no fan of pharma commercials either; it turns ignorants into experts. I feel badly for anyone who sees a patient and the patient starts with, “Well I saw on TV...”
“I don't think any FDA commissioner alive has been through a pandemic like this. I think this is a very unusual situation,” said Califf. This is exactly why the “experts” are not experts at all.
Excellent points. I am 75 years old and have had vaccine and boosters but will be looking more carefully at any data generated in the future with respect to safety and demonstrable efficacy of the new boosters. So far, EG.5 looks pretty benign unless one is immunocompromised. Dr. Jha should be publicly criticized by the ID and public health communities but he won't be.
Steve Kirsch's latest piece shows that even for an age stratified analysis, the massive increase in deaths in nursing homes after the vaccine rollout should lead one to be very skeptical of benefits even to the healthy elderly.
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/apple-valley-village-health-care?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Vinay writes "of course covid vaccines should have been promoted in the elderly, non-immune..."
But Vinay can cite no RCTs which support this position. If there are any RCTs which have been conducted in the elderly, non-immune, Vinay should cite to them. I do not believe any exist.
Vinay gets most of the way there in being skeptical about the Covid jabs for lack of RCTs but can't get all the way there. He is inconsistent in arguing for RCTs as a necessary condition for a vaccine to be promoted but inconsistently stating they should have been promoted for elderly, non-immune when in fact there are no RCTs to support such promotion.
I thought that the MOST you can say in favor of recent boosters is that they produce a temporary increase in certain antibodies--and not even a panoply of antibodies, as will be produced by those who have recovered/natural immunity. This increase in antibodies fades after just a few weeks.
If I am correct, why would anyone at all be urged to get boosted? Maybe if you were about to travel and figured that a month or two of increased immunity would be worth your while?? Or am I not correct as far as what the studies are showing about booster efficacy?
In my opinion, the scientific evidence does not support the use of COVID-19 vaccines for any age group, including the elderly, but I agree with you that you have the right to publicly express your opinion disagreeing with my own and most scientists, without fear of repercussions. Good for you for saying what you think, even when it is going against the wind!
Ha! Paid 7$ to join the board after being sent a few of his posts.
Interesting how unlike most of his followers Dr Prasad apparently, at one time saw some value in primary vaccination. That he gave some support to Paxlovid. Because nothing in his current arguments would lend anyone support for trusting much less receiving any treatment, preventative or therapeutic unless I guess(?) if you were living in a nursing home or were Immuno compromised. I would think this suggestion he is a Bernie Sanders socialist would come as quiet a shock to many of his subscribers. How does his total take down of our public health system jive with Bernies Medicare for all?
His direct hits here are squarely against democrats and Biden.
If I have overstepped in assuming he full on anti vax I apologize Dr Prasad. But your certainly telling everyone here, many of which state clearly that they either never vaccinated or will never again fuel for what will guild them away from any trust. And based on your "not proven" "study flawed" "no evidence" theme. Then going on to conspiracy, censorship, willfull miss information accusations. If I am not fully accurate in my assumption of your beliefs I would stand by the harm I believe you maybe inadvertently have and continue to cause.
Take a minute to read how overstated and inciting many of the conclusions Dr Prasad supports are. And so did he indeed lead to people finding solace in their decisions based on this expert. And indeed the tragedy of believers refusing treatment that might have saved them or carrying the virus unmasked to others remains on him.
I will spend some time reviewing Bernie’s positions.
The reality is germ theory isn’t controversial. Nearly every study of vaccination shows huge benefit over risk, currently of long COViD and I think by fall hospitalization’s.
I am new here but there is no nuance to the current blogs and no time spent refuting the misinformation posted here.