Agree with this approach. End the rubber stamping of new COVID boosters and require proper trials for approval. End all EUAs, as there is no emergency. I do think that the CDC should act quickly to remove the Covid shots from the childhood vax schedule. That will help to restore some public confidence.
Vioxx was pulled off market for safety reasons and so should this shot. At least Vioxx required a prescription from me, whereas my patients may simply go directly to the pharmacist and get these harmful medical interventions, and they do. This bypasses the patient-physician relationship and the rights patients have to informed consent. Like every other prescription therapeutic, the requirement of a physician prescription should be immediately implemented. Additionally there should be an immediate change back to the previous CDC definition of vaccine so that these shots (as well as the RSV shots) are no longer classified as vaccines. These products would then lose the draconian protections that US law bestows on vaccines (this law should also be rolled back to reasonable protection).
We all know there will never be randomized control trials in any age group because of the safety signals they already know exist.
Here is a puzzler. I think most people are decent human beings and are inclined to do the right thing. In addition, I agree with Vinay (and most people here) that if randomized trials were done, that for most groups there would be no efficacy and the risk/reward profile would be horrible. Vinay and others here, assert that the drug companies know this and so don't want to do the trials.
For me, the puzzler is, if most people are inclined to be honest/do the right thing, what percentage of the pharma employees actually know that the vaccines won't pass various simple RCTs and yet still do everything they can to sell the vaccines ? .1%? 1%? 10%? 100%?
I don't understand why the pharma employees are putting their heart and soul into pushing the COVID boosters. Pushing a useless vaccine, and possibly one that has a negative expected value, is not the same as selling a crappy car or a crappy phone. So how do they live with themselves?
It is way worse than that. Of course, there is an element of not wanting to see yourself as the villain in your own story, But, in a nutshell, scientists working in academic institutions receiving funding and in cooperation with government agencies created a bioweapon that infected 96% of the Earth’s population within 2 1/2 years. The bio weapon is estimated to have murdered 100 million people. At the same time Moderna and BionTec were working on the backbone of the vaccine/antidote. Operation warp speed, a military operation, ramped up manufacturing by partnering with Pfizer, Moderna, and a few others. Distribution of the vaccine was then delivered through the big healthcare institutions, who offered and mandated the injection to all of their employees, including the 20 year-old clerks working from home, before they offered a single shot to the 90-year-old nursing home resident. This violated the 4th pillar of medical ethics, especially if you consider that they knew that it didn’t prevent infection or transmission. FOIA requests revealed Michelle Wollensky of the CDC asking Frances Collins of the NIH what he made of the vaccine breakthroughs five months after the commencement of the Pfizer study (started in August 2020) in January 2021. This was well before most young healthy people had received the injection to “protect their grandmother,”. Meanwhile the mouthpieces, Anthony Fauci, Deborah Birx (who even wrote a book bragging about it), and Peter Hotez were touting a known lie that the injection was 95% effective when it was actually 0%. All of these people took the Hippocratic Oath. They all denied the value of natural immunity. They vilified and suppressed the Great Barrington Declaration. The US and UK governments censored and suppressed brave scientific skeptics, proven at the Supreme Court, but who concluded that the plaintiffs did not have standing.
To remove these injections from the market after making them widely available without a prescription for four years would be to open these players up to litigation at the very least, but Nuremberg type tribunals at the worst.
No, they (FDA or Pharma) won’t take them off the market out of pure self interest. The two ethical FDA employees on the advisory panel are long gone. The remaining advisors are compromised.
Trust in us has been badly damaged, but this is a minor effect compared to the horrors that got us here.
Several problems with Vinay’s recommended approach:
1. Adverse events and deaths attributed to the mRNA drugs exceed that reported for all prior vaccines or other drugs that resulted in FDA withdrawal. Why have these drugs received a regulatory cutout and not been withdrawn based upon adverse events and safety signals?
2. What is the DOSE of the active Pfizer or Moderna drug? If you say 30 mcg or 100 mcg (Pfizer or Moderna, respectively) you would be wrong because that is the supposed dose of the PRODRUG injected into the shoulder. The active drug is the faux spike protein produced by cells throughout the body under the direction of the mRNA prodrug and is not quantitated - it could be anything or nothing at all. What other prescribed drug or vaccine has no established dose of the active drug?
3. Biodistribution and duration of action have also been misrepresented.
4. MRNA drugs are called GENE THERAPY PRODUCTS by the FDA if designated as a cancer therapy and are subject to rigorous safety and efficacy standards. But if an mRNA drug is designated a “vaccine”, the testing requirements are much more lax and the drug company benefits from liability protection.
5. The mRNA gene therapy platform is being extended to replace conventional vaccine production. This is not just about Covid. How will Vinay’s approach handle the mandated measles “vaccine” for your child to attend school if produced using the mRNA platform?
6. Calling these genetic drug “vaccines” attaches an unearned and undeserved innocence connotation to their novel and experimental origin and has inspired a naive confidence in their acceptance.
Regarding #1 above, do you have access to adverse event data regarding attribution? Typically this is not made public. The assessment of relatedness is typically assessed by the sponsor and a determination is made as to whether the event is related to the drug/vaccine. You may know this, so apologies if you do.
It MUST be removed from the childhood schedule and it MUST be removed from availability for those under 65. Else misguided people will give myocarditis and blood clots to their children and to themselves. And no EUA. There's no emergency.
Hey Dr. Prasad, I certainly agree that we should end all EUAs but I’d like to point out that maybe we shouldn’t solely rely on patients to make decisions. I’m a cardiology NP is Mississippi and it’s quite sad the things my patients do. Most of them rely on their doctors, pharmacists and news medias outlets to inform them. With the push toward productivity models from quality models many patients are left uneducated. Just like my plumber doesn’t expect me to do research, we shouldn’t expect our patients to be so well informed. I had a patient last month get the flu, pneumonia, and COVID-19 vaccines all in one day. She was admitted to the hospital with takotsubo cardiomyopathy within 48 hours. She is skinny, not a diabetic, not a smoker, and has been previously infected with COVID-19; I would have argued against the COVID-19 vaccine for sure and potentially the pneumonia vaccine but her chain store pharmacist recommended all 3 as he is likely productivity driven. So, in my opinion, there’s an argument to be made to remove things from the market that don’t have strong research supporting their efficacy.
Imagine this: in Canada we didn't even have an EUA! We went from "non-existence" to "safe & effective".
EUA is at least somewhat transparent.
Straight to "safe & effective" is pure lies. Canada's government is the worst (ok with NZ and Australia), and I don't even think our Conservatives would have done better, cuz in Canada, Conservatives are Loyalist Monarchist Authoritarian sheeple.
I welcome a trial for the 80+ age group. I’m not so sure it’s really beneficial for them to get endless Covid boosters. I’m seeing vaccines given regularly in the SNF setting and pts still get Covid. Even in the rare elderly I see who are unvaccinated or who only got the initial series in 2021 (there are many of those), Covid is mild.
However I’ve had two seemingly healthy octogenarians die suddenly two days after vaccine within the past 6 months. We need some data this vaccine continues to be beneficial for this population in 2025.
I had an octogenarian die 19 days after the bivalent booster (took this because of Peter Hotez’ persuasive paid campaign) of a massive heart attack with wide open coronary arteries on the cath table. I have little doubt that this was fatal myocarditis. The troponin levels were through the roof. My patients had a previous mild covid infection, so I had recommended against the shot. I feel guilty for not pushing harder for her to forgo the “booster” (a term we should really only be using with actual vaccines). Scientific discovery, discourse, and recommendation really does rely on clear and concise language. Let’s clean it up!
I’m with you on the need for data. Please note that your observations are anecdotes, not proof of harm. Also, vaccines are not intended to prevent anyone from getting Covid, so your point about people still getting the virus does not suggest lack of benefit.
My spouse is an airline pilot who worked for a full year during covid shutdowns with no vax. He didn't get covid, nor did we, his family. He got the vax in April 2021 in order to remain employed by his company. We had a kid in college; not a good time to lose one's job. Within 2 months post vax, he got covid. He was pissed, to say the least. His covid case was essentially a cold, and he was fine, but it is utterly ridiculous that this supposed vaccine would fail to protect the recipient from the ailment 2 months after the injection.
Don’t you understand by now that the vaccine is not intended to prevent people from catching the virus?The benefit is to prevent hospitalization and death, which was only proven for the initial vaccine, but not for subsequent vaccines or boosters.
I think you need to look back at the original Pfizer trial publication. The endpoint was not severe disease or death; indeed these events were too rare in both arms of the study to reach statistical significance for a test of difference [1]. The abstract clearly lists the primary endpoint as laboratory-confirmed infection, i.e. a positive test:
"The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety."
Meanwhile there were government officials like Deborah Birx and the president himself, as well as cable news pundits like Rachel Maddow, assuring us all that the virus would stop with us if we would just take the shot. In light of this history, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for most people to expect an all-but-sterilizing vaccine.
Notes:
[1] if I recall correctly, there was 1 more COVID-related death in the placebo arm than the treatment arm. Meanwhile there were several extra cardiovascular deaths in the treatment arm. If the researchers had concluded mortality benefit for COVID, they would also have had to conclude cardiovascular mortality risk associated with the treatment. But neither number was larger enough, in a study of ~40,000 to reach these conclusions by the methods of the paper.
The initial trial had the end points you mention. They showed that the vaccine could prevent people from testing positive in the short run. The purpose of a vaccine is to provide reduced risks in the long term, not for just a few weeks. The trial clearly references the early observation of decreased hospitalization and severity in those who tested positive, not a powered metric. The long term cellular immunity is what accounts for morbidity protection from subsequent exposure to new strains, while not conferring less positivity, as the first vaccine was only protective for the original strain.
I listened to that interview with Calley Means and it was very disturbing to say the least. I thought he handled it well but also got the feeling that he was being abused by the people grilling him over and over again. It was hard to listen to. My thought was: he is reinforcing RFK, Jr,’s message that we need more research on these jabs and others. They also tried to question his background and affiliation with Big Pharma. He never denied his background, As far as I know!
As for as the shots, I don’t think anyone at any age should get them. They are toxic! There are better ways for the over 80 population to get and stay healthy I think. They don’t stop transmission and most already have had Covid so what’s the point! Work on their immune systems with healthy food and all the other things we know build immunity.
I listened to that interview and it was indeed quite painful to listen to. That Jack Kruse guy just ended up sounding like a paranoid troubled individual, verging on schizoid.
Here on the Central Coast of CA they're giving financial incentives to the undocumented to give their babies all the jabs on the schedule. To say there is informed consent is to express blindness to the realities of many people.
If don't pull, then at least don't push the snake oil. Only benefit is placebo
effect, and that is only because it works in synergy with nocebo effect of terrorizing
population--you might say an "antidote." Snake Oil should be pulled until bio-warriors have actually proven to fucking work, and don't fuck you-up! You do not put the cart before the horse. Idiocy abounds
I agree with all of this, except that it’s really quite over the top to think that Harris “paid the price” because her campaign mandated Covid boosters. It was a stupid mandate, but most Americans----Democrats, Republicans, or adherents of third parties----don’t give a flying you-know-what about Covid anymore. Since they don’t care, they don’t stay informed about the science, and they’re STILL confused about what Covid vaccines can and can’t do. Most Dems listened to St. Anthony Fauci, and believed every one of his utterances, unfortunately, because they weren’t passing attention, and didn’t know any better.
VP’s point is that it was mandated for campaign workers who probably didn’t disagree or question it. These were the same people who directed the campaign. Not meeting with Rogan was an unforgivable blunder, like many others. Harris would have probably lost , but her advisors took away any small chance she may have had.
I see your point, but I still think it’s very far-fetched to connect up vaccine mandate compliance with ability to make good political choices. You’re probably right that campaign workers didn’t disagree with or question the requirement. I don’t think it necessarily follows that they therefore had no ability to think independently. I agree that it would have been better for Harris to have had a conversation with Rogan.
Vinay - you claim to be a man of science but then you state that it is “50-50” as to whether or not covid vaxxes might be beneficial for the elderly elderly. How did you come up with this?
50/50 is another way of saying it may or may not effective, and that it hasn’t been proven either way. It is not unscientific, it’s asking for an answer. Maybe it works, now let’s prove it.
“Vaccine” pushed, early 2021…breakthrough, so booster recommended, then mandated, 09/2021, Omicron (decreased virulence) 11/2021. Overlay the variables. Apply.
While I agree with vinay in principle, I suspect such a trial might be difficult to carry out in practice as the only people who would be willing to volunteer for such a trial would be ones who wanted the boosters. So already your trial population would be biased, even though that bias would be the same in both the booster and control arms.
Agree with this approach. End the rubber stamping of new COVID boosters and require proper trials for approval. End all EUAs, as there is no emergency. I do think that the CDC should act quickly to remove the Covid shots from the childhood vax schedule. That will help to restore some public confidence.
Amen on that. I’m afraid any restoration of confidence in this home will have to be from the grandkids IF they decide to allow it.
Vioxx was pulled off market for safety reasons and so should this shot. At least Vioxx required a prescription from me, whereas my patients may simply go directly to the pharmacist and get these harmful medical interventions, and they do. This bypasses the patient-physician relationship and the rights patients have to informed consent. Like every other prescription therapeutic, the requirement of a physician prescription should be immediately implemented. Additionally there should be an immediate change back to the previous CDC definition of vaccine so that these shots (as well as the RSV shots) are no longer classified as vaccines. These products would then lose the draconian protections that US law bestows on vaccines (this law should also be rolled back to reasonable protection).
We all know there will never be randomized control trials in any age group because of the safety signals they already know exist.
Here is a puzzler. I think most people are decent human beings and are inclined to do the right thing. In addition, I agree with Vinay (and most people here) that if randomized trials were done, that for most groups there would be no efficacy and the risk/reward profile would be horrible. Vinay and others here, assert that the drug companies know this and so don't want to do the trials.
For me, the puzzler is, if most people are inclined to be honest/do the right thing, what percentage of the pharma employees actually know that the vaccines won't pass various simple RCTs and yet still do everything they can to sell the vaccines ? .1%? 1%? 10%? 100%?
I don't understand why the pharma employees are putting their heart and soul into pushing the COVID boosters. Pushing a useless vaccine, and possibly one that has a negative expected value, is not the same as selling a crappy car or a crappy phone. So how do they live with themselves?
It is way worse than that. Of course, there is an element of not wanting to see yourself as the villain in your own story, But, in a nutshell, scientists working in academic institutions receiving funding and in cooperation with government agencies created a bioweapon that infected 96% of the Earth’s population within 2 1/2 years. The bio weapon is estimated to have murdered 100 million people. At the same time Moderna and BionTec were working on the backbone of the vaccine/antidote. Operation warp speed, a military operation, ramped up manufacturing by partnering with Pfizer, Moderna, and a few others. Distribution of the vaccine was then delivered through the big healthcare institutions, who offered and mandated the injection to all of their employees, including the 20 year-old clerks working from home, before they offered a single shot to the 90-year-old nursing home resident. This violated the 4th pillar of medical ethics, especially if you consider that they knew that it didn’t prevent infection or transmission. FOIA requests revealed Michelle Wollensky of the CDC asking Frances Collins of the NIH what he made of the vaccine breakthroughs five months after the commencement of the Pfizer study (started in August 2020) in January 2021. This was well before most young healthy people had received the injection to “protect their grandmother,”. Meanwhile the mouthpieces, Anthony Fauci, Deborah Birx (who even wrote a book bragging about it), and Peter Hotez were touting a known lie that the injection was 95% effective when it was actually 0%. All of these people took the Hippocratic Oath. They all denied the value of natural immunity. They vilified and suppressed the Great Barrington Declaration. The US and UK governments censored and suppressed brave scientific skeptics, proven at the Supreme Court, but who concluded that the plaintiffs did not have standing.
To remove these injections from the market after making them widely available without a prescription for four years would be to open these players up to litigation at the very least, but Nuremberg type tribunals at the worst.
No, they (FDA or Pharma) won’t take them off the market out of pure self interest. The two ethical FDA employees on the advisory panel are long gone. The remaining advisors are compromised.
Trust in us has been badly damaged, but this is a minor effect compared to the horrors that got us here.
I’m concerned for the same reasons. Vinay has great ideas but I lack the confidence in the companies to do proper studies. I don’t trust them.
Several problems with Vinay’s recommended approach:
1. Adverse events and deaths attributed to the mRNA drugs exceed that reported for all prior vaccines or other drugs that resulted in FDA withdrawal. Why have these drugs received a regulatory cutout and not been withdrawn based upon adverse events and safety signals?
2. What is the DOSE of the active Pfizer or Moderna drug? If you say 30 mcg or 100 mcg (Pfizer or Moderna, respectively) you would be wrong because that is the supposed dose of the PRODRUG injected into the shoulder. The active drug is the faux spike protein produced by cells throughout the body under the direction of the mRNA prodrug and is not quantitated - it could be anything or nothing at all. What other prescribed drug or vaccine has no established dose of the active drug?
3. Biodistribution and duration of action have also been misrepresented.
4. MRNA drugs are called GENE THERAPY PRODUCTS by the FDA if designated as a cancer therapy and are subject to rigorous safety and efficacy standards. But if an mRNA drug is designated a “vaccine”, the testing requirements are much more lax and the drug company benefits from liability protection.
5. The mRNA gene therapy platform is being extended to replace conventional vaccine production. This is not just about Covid. How will Vinay’s approach handle the mandated measles “vaccine” for your child to attend school if produced using the mRNA platform?
6. Calling these genetic drug “vaccines” attaches an unearned and undeserved innocence connotation to their novel and experimental origin and has inspired a naive confidence in their acceptance.
Regarding #1 above, do you have access to adverse event data regarding attribution? Typically this is not made public. The assessment of relatedness is typically assessed by the sponsor and a determination is made as to whether the event is related to the drug/vaccine. You may know this, so apologies if you do.
It MUST be removed from the childhood schedule and it MUST be removed from availability for those under 65. Else misguided people will give myocarditis and blood clots to their children and to themselves. And no EUA. There's no emergency.
And no more liability immunity for ANY vax.
At a very minimum remove all recommendations other than for geriatrics
Hey Dr. Prasad, I certainly agree that we should end all EUAs but I’d like to point out that maybe we shouldn’t solely rely on patients to make decisions. I’m a cardiology NP is Mississippi and it’s quite sad the things my patients do. Most of them rely on their doctors, pharmacists and news medias outlets to inform them. With the push toward productivity models from quality models many patients are left uneducated. Just like my plumber doesn’t expect me to do research, we shouldn’t expect our patients to be so well informed. I had a patient last month get the flu, pneumonia, and COVID-19 vaccines all in one day. She was admitted to the hospital with takotsubo cardiomyopathy within 48 hours. She is skinny, not a diabetic, not a smoker, and has been previously infected with COVID-19; I would have argued against the COVID-19 vaccine for sure and potentially the pneumonia vaccine but her chain store pharmacist recommended all 3 as he is likely productivity driven. So, in my opinion, there’s an argument to be made to remove things from the market that don’t have strong research supporting their efficacy.
Imagine this: in Canada we didn't even have an EUA! We went from "non-existence" to "safe & effective".
EUA is at least somewhat transparent.
Straight to "safe & effective" is pure lies. Canada's government is the worst (ok with NZ and Australia), and I don't even think our Conservatives would have done better, cuz in Canada, Conservatives are Loyalist Monarchist Authoritarian sheeple.
I welcome a trial for the 80+ age group. I’m not so sure it’s really beneficial for them to get endless Covid boosters. I’m seeing vaccines given regularly in the SNF setting and pts still get Covid. Even in the rare elderly I see who are unvaccinated or who only got the initial series in 2021 (there are many of those), Covid is mild.
However I’ve had two seemingly healthy octogenarians die suddenly two days after vaccine within the past 6 months. We need some data this vaccine continues to be beneficial for this population in 2025.
I had an octogenarian die 19 days after the bivalent booster (took this because of Peter Hotez’ persuasive paid campaign) of a massive heart attack with wide open coronary arteries on the cath table. I have little doubt that this was fatal myocarditis. The troponin levels were through the roof. My patients had a previous mild covid infection, so I had recommended against the shot. I feel guilty for not pushing harder for her to forgo the “booster” (a term we should really only be using with actual vaccines). Scientific discovery, discourse, and recommendation really does rely on clear and concise language. Let’s clean it up!
I’m with you on the need for data. Please note that your observations are anecdotes, not proof of harm. Also, vaccines are not intended to prevent anyone from getting Covid, so your point about people still getting the virus does not suggest lack of benefit.
https://www.drvinayprasad.com/p/covid-shots-dont-need-to-be-pulled/comment/84044881
As usual, Dr. Prasad is reasonable. Properly test the mRNA vaccines, and, if safe and effective, then offer them to those that want them.
Not good enough. Children and young men are getting these shots due to mandates and the vax schedule. Needs to be pulled for under 65.
My spouse is an airline pilot who worked for a full year during covid shutdowns with no vax. He didn't get covid, nor did we, his family. He got the vax in April 2021 in order to remain employed by his company. We had a kid in college; not a good time to lose one's job. Within 2 months post vax, he got covid. He was pissed, to say the least. His covid case was essentially a cold, and he was fine, but it is utterly ridiculous that this supposed vaccine would fail to protect the recipient from the ailment 2 months after the injection.
Don’t you understand by now that the vaccine is not intended to prevent people from catching the virus?The benefit is to prevent hospitalization and death, which was only proven for the initial vaccine, but not for subsequent vaccines or boosters.
I think you need to look back at the original Pfizer trial publication. The endpoint was not severe disease or death; indeed these events were too rare in both arms of the study to reach statistical significance for a test of difference [1]. The abstract clearly lists the primary endpoint as laboratory-confirmed infection, i.e. a positive test:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
"The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety."
Meanwhile there were government officials like Deborah Birx and the president himself, as well as cable news pundits like Rachel Maddow, assuring us all that the virus would stop with us if we would just take the shot. In light of this history, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for most people to expect an all-but-sterilizing vaccine.
Notes:
[1] if I recall correctly, there was 1 more COVID-related death in the placebo arm than the treatment arm. Meanwhile there were several extra cardiovascular deaths in the treatment arm. If the researchers had concluded mortality benefit for COVID, they would also have had to conclude cardiovascular mortality risk associated with the treatment. But neither number was larger enough, in a study of ~40,000 to reach these conclusions by the methods of the paper.
The initial trial had the end points you mention. They showed that the vaccine could prevent people from testing positive in the short run. The purpose of a vaccine is to provide reduced risks in the long term, not for just a few weeks. The trial clearly references the early observation of decreased hospitalization and severity in those who tested positive, not a powered metric. The long term cellular immunity is what accounts for morbidity protection from subsequent exposure to new strains, while not conferring less positivity, as the first vaccine was only protective for the original strain.
Different strains? -- btw Why do "you" expect it to be better than the flu vaccine? AND is it possible W/O the vaccine intubationed in the hospital?
I listened to that interview with Calley Means and it was very disturbing to say the least. I thought he handled it well but also got the feeling that he was being abused by the people grilling him over and over again. It was hard to listen to. My thought was: he is reinforcing RFK, Jr,’s message that we need more research on these jabs and others. They also tried to question his background and affiliation with Big Pharma. He never denied his background, As far as I know!
As for as the shots, I don’t think anyone at any age should get them. They are toxic! There are better ways for the over 80 population to get and stay healthy I think. They don’t stop transmission and most already have had Covid so what’s the point! Work on their immune systems with healthy food and all the other things we know build immunity.
I listened to that interview and it was indeed quite painful to listen to. That Jack Kruse guy just ended up sounding like a paranoid troubled individual, verging on schizoid.
Here on the Central Coast of CA they're giving financial incentives to the undocumented to give their babies all the jabs on the schedule. To say there is informed consent is to express blindness to the realities of many people.
If don't pull, then at least don't push the snake oil. Only benefit is placebo
effect, and that is only because it works in synergy with nocebo effect of terrorizing
population--you might say an "antidote." Snake Oil should be pulled until bio-warriors have actually proven to fucking work, and don't fuck you-up! You do not put the cart before the horse. Idiocy abounds
I agree with all of this, except that it’s really quite over the top to think that Harris “paid the price” because her campaign mandated Covid boosters. It was a stupid mandate, but most Americans----Democrats, Republicans, or adherents of third parties----don’t give a flying you-know-what about Covid anymore. Since they don’t care, they don’t stay informed about the science, and they’re STILL confused about what Covid vaccines can and can’t do. Most Dems listened to St. Anthony Fauci, and believed every one of his utterances, unfortunately, because they weren’t passing attention, and didn’t know any better.
Anytime the clinician is deemed a saint by the media I smell a rat. Or money for them.
VP’s point is that it was mandated for campaign workers who probably didn’t disagree or question it. These were the same people who directed the campaign. Not meeting with Rogan was an unforgivable blunder, like many others. Harris would have probably lost , but her advisors took away any small chance she may have had.
I see your point, but I still think it’s very far-fetched to connect up vaccine mandate compliance with ability to make good political choices. You’re probably right that campaign workers didn’t disagree with or question the requirement. I don’t think it necessarily follows that they therefore had no ability to think independently. I agree that it would have been better for Harris to have had a conversation with Rogan.
Vinay - you claim to be a man of science but then you state that it is “50-50” as to whether or not covid vaxxes might be beneficial for the elderly elderly. How did you come up with this?
50/50 is another way of saying it may or may not effective, and that it hasn’t been proven either way. It is not unscientific, it’s asking for an answer. Maybe it works, now let’s prove it.
I'm guessing because COVID deaths started to wane dramatically post vaccine and the people who were dying from covid were the elderly.
“Vaccine” pushed, early 2021…breakthrough, so booster recommended, then mandated, 09/2021, Omicron (decreased virulence) 11/2021. Overlay the variables. Apply.
Well, as long as the FDA is in bed w big pharma, I don't see any push for studies. Perhaps RFK will make some headway here.
In which universe will the FDA demand these studies?
While I agree with vinay in principle, I suspect such a trial might be difficult to carry out in practice as the only people who would be willing to volunteer for such a trial would be ones who wanted the boosters. So already your trial population would be biased, even though that bias would be the same in both the booster and control arms.