7 ms·

Anti-vax? You have no clue what my beliefs are on this, I'm not anti-vaccine. I remember just last year the Biden administration forced through the booster shot

Anti-vax? You have no clue what my beliefs are on this, I'm not anti-vaccine. I remember just last year the Biden administration forced through the booster shots (after a propaganda campaign predicated one & done, that then extended into mandates, which Biden, Pelosi & others said were never on the table or illegal, later to be proven unconstitutional by the supreme court). Senior officials at the FDA resigned over the insufficient evidence of efficacy. Not only was it unclear that they should be approved for seniors, they just opened it up to everyone. It's only gotten worse now. It's not even remotely clear to me that the average healthy person (not on the standard American diet, chronically ill with the typical stuff like diabetes & obesity) needs upwards of 4 vaccines, and counting, for a virus that's much more attenuated & practically everyone has some form of immunity at this point. Also: to answer your question, from what I can tell the studies haven't shown efficacy. They only show that antibodies rose, which we know isn't absolute proof of efficacy with regards to infection or disease.

peter422 4y ago
I never said the trials showed efficacy, though there are multiple high quality trials which do show serious benefits of 3rd/4th shots in various age groups. I just say they ran human trials, which your comment implied they didn’t. Also: - no good evidence the virus is attenuated (lower hospitalizations/mortality likely driven by increased population immunity) - a lot of FDA/CDC officials agreed with the decision too, and I think on the whole were proved right to offer to the booster to older populations before all the studies were completed. - nobody is forcing you to get the 3rd/4th shots, why do you want to prevent other people from getting them if they want them? You are sooo sure they are bad?
- taolegal 4y ago
  Sure let people get them voluntarily. My point is that all this irrational exuberance is very clearly precipitously eroding trust in public health authority & science generally.
  - peter422 4y ago
    You incorrectly said 3 posts ago that the new boosters were only tested in mouse models. You are actively attempting to erode trust in public health and then lamenting that people are losing trust in public health. Give me a break.
    - taolegal 4y ago
      If you're going to unveil a new vaccine it should be proven to be effective. Anything else at this point (when practically everyone has developed an immune response through infection or previous vaccination) is unethical. The mouse models were challenge studies, i.e. how do vaccinated mice respond to exposure to the omicron variant? That's what matters. Versus what you are demagoguing. Conflating with "tested", that since the new booster was given to humans and no abnormal AEs were observed & antibody levels rose, that automatically means it must be effective. This is precisely the scenario that degrades public trust in institutions when this fast-and-loose science is being rolled-out live on large populations.
      - peter422 4y ago
        Don’t take it then, nobody is forcing you. However this exact issue you are talking about was debated at the public FDA hearing on whether or not to approve the updated boosters. Most, but not all, of the people on the committee believed that it was worth the risk with incomplete information. It isn’t ethical or possible to run the studies you want given the existing prevalence in the virus, so you do the best you can. It isn’t fast-and-loose to make decisions with imperfect data when all you have is imperfect data. Also there were even more interesting and nuanced arguments against the updated booster but evidently you didn’t read the FDA meeting notes and see the arguments from the couple people who voted against it. Oh well.
        TechBro8615 4y ago
        > Most, but not all, of the people on the committee believed that it was worth the risk with incomplete information This is hardly surprising considering two of the people most likely to disagree resigned from the FDA after the last booster approval, due to their disagreement with the process. [0] The people who resigned were FDA Office of Vaccines Research and Review Director Marion Gruber, Ph.D. and Deputy Director Phillip Krause, M.D. After resigning, they also published a critique in the Lancet of the policy of boosters for everyone. [1] [0] https://www.ft.com/content/af8da7d4-43ea-41d6-90ee-f959b3675cc5 https://www.ft.com/content/af8da7d4-43ea-41d6-90ee-f959b3675... [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02046-8/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
scarface74 4y ago
How is the booster even a political talking point? Even Trump has been advocating the booster. The facts on the ground changed around July 2021 with the advent of the variants.
PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
> It's not even remotely clear to me ... and the reasons why it should be clear to you are what, precisely? Do you have some particular expertise in public health? Or are just another person who believes that applying their own intelligence and internet sleuthing skills are sufficient to allow them to question the decisions made by people who make this sort of thing their life's work?
- spookthesunset 4y ago
  Science requires participation to work. If these “experts” cannot explain their data and people can’t reproduce their results… something is badly wrong.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    Neither "experts" nor anybody else have any obligation to convince every skeptic of their position, even if it is preferable for them to explain the data they get from reproducable studies.
- peteradio 4y ago
  I'm sure the Army would love to have the draft and would make it their life's work to get every American to be all they can be. Every American has to sleuth their way through the rat race or you will be taken for a sucker.

peter422 4y ago

I never said the trials showed efficacy, though there are multiple high quality trials which do show serious benefits of 3rd/4th shots in various age groups. I just say they ran human trials, which your comment implied they didn’t. Also: - no good evidence the virus is attenuated (lower hospitalizations/mortality likely driven by increased population immunity) - a lot of FDA/CDC officials agreed with the decision too, and I think on the whole were proved right to offer to the booster to older populations before all the studies were completed. - nobody is forcing you to get the 3rd/4th shots, why do you want to prevent other people from getting them if they want them? You are sooo sure they are bad?

taolegal 4y ago
Sure let people get them voluntarily. My point is that all this irrational exuberance is very clearly precipitously eroding trust in public health authority & science generally.
- peter422 4y ago
  You incorrectly said 3 posts ago that the new boosters were only tested in mouse models. You are actively attempting to erode trust in public health and then lamenting that people are losing trust in public health. Give me a break.
  - taolegal 4y ago
    If you're going to unveil a new vaccine it should be proven to be effective. Anything else at this point (when practically everyone has developed an immune response through infection or previous vaccination) is unethical. The mouse models were challenge studies, i.e. how do vaccinated mice respond to exposure to the omicron variant? That's what matters. Versus what you are demagoguing. Conflating with "tested", that since the new booster was given to humans and no abnormal AEs were observed & antibody levels rose, that automatically means it must be effective. This is precisely the scenario that degrades public trust in institutions when this fast-and-loose science is being rolled-out live on large populations.
    - peter422 4y ago
      Don’t take it then, nobody is forcing you. However this exact issue you are talking about was debated at the public FDA hearing on whether or not to approve the updated boosters. Most, but not all, of the people on the committee believed that it was worth the risk with incomplete information. It isn’t ethical or possible to run the studies you want given the existing prevalence in the virus, so you do the best you can. It isn’t fast-and-loose to make decisions with imperfect data when all you have is imperfect data. Also there were even more interesting and nuanced arguments against the updated booster but evidently you didn’t read the FDA meeting notes and see the arguments from the couple people who voted against it. Oh well.
      - TechBro8615 4y ago
        > Most, but not all, of the people on the committee believed that it was worth the risk with incomplete information This is hardly surprising considering two of the people most likely to disagree resigned from the FDA after the last booster approval, due to their disagreement with the process. [0] The people who resigned were FDA Office of Vaccines Research and Review Director Marion Gruber, Ph.D. and Deputy Director Phillip Krause, M.D. After resigning, they also published a critique in the Lancet of the policy of boosters for everyone. [1] [0] https://www.ft.com/content/af8da7d4-43ea-41d6-90ee-f959b3675cc5 https://www.ft.com/content/af8da7d4-43ea-41d6-90ee-f959b3675... [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02046-8/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

scarface74 4y ago

How is the booster even a political talking point? Even Trump has been advocating the booster. The facts on the ground changed around July 2021 with the advent of the variants.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

> It's not even remotely clear to me ... and the reasons why it should be clear to you are what, precisely? Do you have some particular expertise in public health? Or are just another person who believes that applying their own intelligence and internet sleuthing skills are sufficient to allow them to question the decisions made by people who make this sort of thing their life's work?

spookthesunset 4y ago
Science requires participation to work. If these “experts” cannot explain their data and people can’t reproduce their results… something is badly wrong.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  Neither "experts" nor anybody else have any obligation to convince every skeptic of their position, even if it is preferable for them to explain the data they get from reproducable studies.
peteradio 4y ago
I'm sure the Army would love to have the draft and would make it their life's work to get every American to be all they can be. Every American has to sleuth their way through the rat race or you will be taken for a sucker.