The dishonest booster campaign

A 2024 fall COVID booster is being pushed without data. Some doctors are particularly shameless.

Years ago, a famous scientist told me “I am going to have a problem when they recommend 23 boosters over 22 boosters without a randomized study”

I laughed. No one would ever do that, I thought.

Yet, that day steadily approaches.

This week, the FDA authorized a new fall COVID booster. This was done without any studies measuring the impact on severe disease or hospitalization or death. Worse, the viral target was chosen by Peter Marks, against advice, and is already out of date.

First, let me highlight the most honest, decent scientist on the topic. My UCSF colleague

Next. Here is data on the target’s frequency

It's simply bad medicine to recommend a medical product to people, many of whom have just had COVID, without evidence that benefits exceed harms and worse without ongoing studies to answer open questions. It's especially bad if the target is out of date. I consider such recommendations to verge on malpractice, even if sanctioned by captured ‘authorities’.

Now consider some of the most shameful tweets promoting this product. First, the CDC director

Cohen has the temerity to recommend that little children get this shot— which is inconsistent with most European nations. Moreover, even though she has the clout to demand or even run a randomized study, she does not. Mandy Cohen has joined Rochelle Walensky as two of the worst CDC directors since the agencies inception. Vaccine mistrust is in part due to people like her.

Next, let's examine the FDA’s tweet.

Here is a link to the full tweet that falsely claims the booster reduces severe disease. The FDA has no data for that claim. I encourage all readers of this post to community note this claim and cite this post. The FDA should not be allowed to engage in false statements.

https://x.com/US_FDA/status/1826675459721179467?t=GMecDEWgnJX74YwncyIc1g&s=19

Now look at how doctors extrapolate. This is Ashish Jha former Biden COVID Czar.

Jha has the audacity to invent the best time to get a booster. A data free recommendation on timing for a data free vaccine. Dr Akkad, an ID doctor agrees this is damaging to public trust. I think it is inconsistent with being a scientist, who would want better studies.

But it gets even worse.

This is Dr Vin Gupta, the MS/NBC correspondent.

He recommends this out of date booster for a woman who just had an actual infection. This claim is problematic, both because her future risk is low…

And worse, adverse events appear higher when doses are given after infection.

I am concerned Vin Gupta is spreading dangerous medical advice with the false legitimacy of being a TV pundit. Per his biography he works at the University of Washington. I tried to find him on open payments and asked him to confirm this was his account.

How is it possible for a doctor to make recommendations for an unproven vax, appear on NBC and not disclose payments from Pfizer?

Across the board, I believe the physicians recommending this shot are dishonorable. None of them are advocating for randomized studies. Many of them are promoting Pfizer's interests. Some may even be paid by the company. A few weeks ago, I discussed a new paper showing trust in medicine is on the decline. It isn't low enough. These doctors mean you don't distrust doctors enough.

We live in concerning times where drug companies push unproven products, the FDA rubber stamps them, and sell outs promote them. It's sad times for evidence based medicine when the sellouts get promoted.