health

Moderna says updated COVID shot boosts Omicron protection

27 Comments
By LAURAN NEERGAARD

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

27 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

The results were announced in a press release and haven’t undergone scientific review.

So this whole "study" is about as credible as a tv commercial or a random internet poster.

However, antibodies naturally wane so it’s not clear how long the protection against infection will last.

This waning thing should have been explained on the first day these vaccines were announced as the saviours of mankind.

Very unfortunate that waning was only admitted to after everyone had taken their shots.

7 ( +15 / -8 )

So this whole "study" is about as credible as a tv commercial or a random internet poster.

No, it's as credible as the numbers this company puts out on their products. Unless you have some specific information to show that Moderna fudges their numbers, I think it's safe to assume you're a anti-vaxxer to whom Moderna could never do anything to prove their credibility, and your lack of ability to accept anything as credible shows your opinion to be extremist, and therefore useless.

That is, unless you have something credible to show that Moderna fudges their numbers. Do you?

-14 ( +5 / -19 )

So this whole "study" is about as credible as a tv commercial or a random internet poster.

No, not really because a company is putting their name behind the report, this means that if anything is found lacking on the methods or conclusions it is not as consequence free as you would like to misrepresent.

This waning thing should have been explained on the first day these vaccines were announced as the saviours of mankind.

It was, pretending this is something new (the same as the possibility of variants) is just transparent disinformation.

Very unfortunate that waning was only admitted to after everyone had taken their shots.

What is unfortunate is that people still try to make up this problem when it was clearly discussed as a real possibility even before the vaccines were tried in volunteers.

-11 ( +6 / -17 )

At best , the covid vaccine makers, especially Moderna and Pfizer, have cooked their own goose here by promising the world and delivering very little. At worst, they've been deliberately deceptive about how safe and effective their mRNA vaccines have been. Nobody can make claims that they are safe in the long term, because they haven't been around for long enough.

But all these "mysterious incidents" surrounding heart attacks and strokes among young, healthy people up to their early 50s who would otherwise be extremely unlikely to suffer these problems arena;t suspicious at all. No. Apparently there's even a new piece of newspeak emerging for it: Sudden Adult Death Syndrome. Look away. Nothing to see here.

The only people who should be getting these vaccines are the elderly and those at high risk of serious illness or death due to comorbidities. Pressuring anyone else is simply a crime.

7 ( +14 / -7 )

At best , the covid vaccine makers, especially Moderna and Pfizer, have cooked their own goose here by promising the world and delivering very little.

No.

At worst, they've been deliberately deceptive about how safe and effective their mRNA vaccines have been.

No.

Nobody can make claims that they are safe in the long term, because they haven't been around for long enough.

No.

-15 ( +4 / -19 )

At least they are admitting that their current vaccines are next to useless against the Omicron variants!

I mean they are profit reliant companies that with the waning of Covid from societal consciousness are obvioulsy concerned a major revenue stream has been removed....

1 ( +11 / -10 )

BroncoToday  07:25 am JST

So this whole "study" is about as credible as a tv commercial or a random internet poster.

It looks like it.

And for those here who didn't read the full article:

The results were announced in a press release and haven’t undergone scientific review.

StrangerlandToday  07:31 am JST

No, it's as credible as the numbers this company puts out on their products.

See above in bold.

No, not really because a company is putting their name behind the report, this means that if anything is found lacking on the methods or conclusions it is not as consequence free as you would like to misrepresent.

See above in bold.

Also, a company putting their name behind a report in this case has no legal effect, and the "consequences that you mention without validating are imaginary..

-2 ( +10 / -12 )

At best , the covid vaccine makers, especially Moderna and Pfizer, have cooked their own goose here by promising the world and delivering very little. At

According to the best experts of the world the opposite is true, vaccines have been hugely effective in preventing the most dangerous consequences of covid and are considered an example of success, personal bias is not an argument that can contradict this.

At worst, they've been deliberately deceptive about how safe and effective their mRNA vaccines have been

By controlling the data that demonstrate their safety and efficacy on literally billions of people around the world in every country? that is not realistically possible, there is no conspiracy that can achieve that, once again this is just your personal bias.

But all these "mysterious incidents" surrounding heart attacks and strokes among young, healthy people up to their early 50s who would otherwise be extremely unlikely to suffer these problems 

Data is necessary to prove this baseless allegations, the people in charge of vigilance of public health do not report such thing in higher incidence for vaccinated people (but do so for people that got covid).

The only people who should be getting these vaccines are the elderly and those at high risk of serious illness or death due to comorbidities. Pressuring anyone else is simply a crime.

Repeating debunked disinformation is what is more validly considered a crime, the vaccines are recommended even for young healthy people because being vaccinated reduces the risk to their health, experts from all institutions of science and medicine around the world coincide on this because the data proves it so, once again everybody being in some kind of conspiracy to lie and put themselves, their family and friends at risk is not believable.

-7 ( +6 / -13 )

It looks like it.

Not really, because it is still something a company is putting their name into, which means it has consequences much more serious than the examples provided.

Not undergoing scientific review yet does nothing to negate this perfectly valid argument.

Also, a company putting their name behind a report in this case has no legal effect

And who said a legal effect is the only thing that a company risk by promoting something with false results that are going to be examined eventually long before their product is approved for use on the public? not being able to imagine that a pharmaceutical company can lose things much more important than a legal battle is a very poor argument to say it would have no importance to release something that can easily be disproved if false.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

Also, a company putting their name behind a report in this case has no legal effect

Did you forget we were talking about credibility? I'm not sure why you brought legality into a discussion on credibility...

-8 ( +7 / -15 )

The "experts"!

Yes, you disagreeing with them because of your personal bias against scientific knowledge do not equal they being wrong, those experts obviously include the WHO which is the global authority in public health but also the CDC that explicitly recommends vaccination and is an authority you have recognized as valid.

No such data exists

According to whom? you? what about the endless reports experts of every country has published? do you expect anybody to believe you they don't exist?

Yeah, who did say a legal effect is the only thing? 

That is your only argument, so if you recognize it is not the only negative effect from releasing a false report you yourself prove your criticism is invalid, because that is the only point your raised. Good that you can recognize now it is not a strong argument.

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

Many interesting opinions of the "experts" on experimental studies.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

At least they are admitting that their current vaccines are next to useless against the Omicron variants!

No such thing, false dichotomies are terribly obvious fallacies, any rational person can easily understand that something can work and still be upgraded by things that work even better. Current vaccines reduce the risk of the general population and specially vulnerable people, new vaccines will hopefully do it better.

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

There is no shortage of "experts" obviously.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

They have to keep milking that cash cow!

6 ( +10 / -4 )

Yes, you disagreeing with them because of your personal bias against scientific knowledge do not equal they being wrong, those experts obviously include the WHO which is the global authority in public health but also the CDC that explicitly recommends vaccination and is an authority you have recognized as valid.

Show a verifiable source where it is agreed WHO is a global authority. Otherwise, it is just a non-medical professional "opinion."

canigetawhatwhatToday  10:40 am JST

They have to keep milking that cash cow!

More vaccines, more boosters!

6 ( +11 / -5 )

Show a verifiable source where it is agreed WHO is a global authority.

Only an idiot would want that. The fact that they are funded by governments to manage the world health is enough for anyone not at the bottom dredges of intelligence.

-12 ( +4 / -16 )

Show a verifiable source where it is agreed WHO is a global authority. Otherwise, it is just a non-medical professional "opinion."

It is good that you can accept ignoring something so important, this can help understanding why so many of the opinions you write are based on wrong premises, complete lack of even the most basic background. When you ask for sources trivially easy to obtain you are accepting you made an argument without making this very basic step.

For example from the CDC which you have already accepted as an authority.

https://www.cdc.gov/globalhealth/what/default.htm

*CDC works with an array of partners, including the WHO. WHO convenes its 194 member nations, including the U.S., to direct and coordinate global health strategies, tactics and priorities.*

The European Medicines Agency

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/partners-networks/international-activities/multilateral-coalitions-initiatives/world-health-organization-who

And of course mutiple primary scientific sources

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3052798/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0039606018304793

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2634181

The World Health Organization (WHO) is widely regarded as the preeminent international authority on health and scientific matters. Its information mandate is a powerful one, for it enables the WHO to construct issues as legitimate ones for concern that should be addressed in particular ways.

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

It is good that you can accept ignoring something so important, this can help understanding why so many of the opinions you write are based on wrong premises, complete lack of even the most basic background. When you ask for sources trivially easy to obtain you are accepting you made an argument without making this very basic step.

Your quote proves my point. Thank you.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Your quote proves my point. Thank you.

The sources clearly disprove it, and taking pride in not knowing basic background information do not prove your point.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Moderna's preliminary study results show people given the combination shot experienced an eight-fold increase in virus-fighting antibodies capable of targeting the Omicron mutant, the company announced.

Which will be like with the current "vaccines", which produce IgG antibodies, and not the desired IgA antibodies which would act at the virus' point of entry in the nasopharynx lining.

The study was performed in 437 people, and safety was similar to today’s boosters

i.e., not good.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

So this whole "study" is about as credible as a tv commercial or a random internet poster.

No need to sell yourself short. Internet posters can be credible, occasionally.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

The sources clearly disprove it, and taking pride in not knowing basic background information do not prove your point.

Repeating the same mistake doesn't make it become true.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

Which will be like with the current "vaccines", which produce IgG antibodies, and not the desired IgA antibodies which would act at the virus' point of entry in the nasopharynx lining.

There is no evidence that igA is protective against covid, specially because it acts only in one single point of the infection process, not continously like the IgG, there is a reason why no topical vaccine has ever demonstrated to be more effective than the injectable for any infecitous respiratory disease.

Repeating the same mistake doesn't make it become true.

Which is why failing to address the references do not "prove" anything except that you can't refute them.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

Which will be like with the current "vaccines", which produce IgG antibodies, and not the desired IgA antibodies which would act at the virus' point of entry in the nasopharynx lining.

There is no evidence that igA is protective against covid, specially because it acts only in one single point of the infection process, not continously like the IgG, there is a reason why no topical vaccine has ever demonstrated to be more effective than the injectable for any infecitous respiratory disease.

Natural infection produces IgA that actually help prevent infection at the point of entry. But they also produce IgG antibodies. Furthermore, they produce antibodies against several viral proteins, which together with other components of the immune system, offer far superior and longer lasting immunity than any of these "vaccines".

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Natural infection produces IgA that actually help prevent infection at the point of entry. But they also produce IgG antibodies. Furthermore, they produce antibodies against several viral proteins, which together with other components of the immune system, offer far superior and longer lasting immunity than any of these "vaccines".

No it does not, because in order to provide protection the full risks of the infection are also present which are several orders of magnitude higher than any of the approved vaccines.

Vaccination is superior because it produces protective immunity with only a tiny fraction of the risks, which is the whole point of the vaccination. Saying that taking all those risks is a "superior" way to avoid them makes no sense.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

Show a verifiable source where it is agreed WHO is a global authority.

The fact that they are funded by governments to manage the world health is enough for anyone not at the bottom dredges of intelligence.

-12 ( +3 / -15 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites