health

U.S. medical experts call for Omicron-specific COVID boosters

26 Comments

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

© 2022 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

26 Comments

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

Well, as long as the vaccines remain non-sterilizing, and large numbers of people continue to encounter the virus before their bodies have fully developed a robust immune response (ie shortly after receiving their jab), we can expect still more variants to emerge and the pandemic to drag on. Hopefully, we won't see ADE as a result.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

The only people who should be considered for these boosters are high-risk people. For the rest, they're not necessary and their immune system can take care of it, with the great unspeakables as treatments if things get a little more serious.

As for one of the makers of these vaccines, Pfizer, they've been caught paying for some raunchy entertainment for a Colombian presidential candidate. Now why would they do that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQdik4bUZ6Q

1 ( +9 / -8 )

Do you think putting pictures of needles everywhere encouraged people to go get it stuck in their arm?

Because it has the exact OPPOSITE effect.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The committee, convened by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), voted 19 in favor and two against the measure after a day spent reviewing available data, including projections about future waves and early results from vaccine makers.

Select data provided by the manufacturers?

Will we ever see all their raw data? Will it be kept hidden for 75 years, or will another court order be need?

Many were shocked when they finally got to see (thanks to a court order) the initial Pfizer test results.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

"What we're doing today is working in a very challenging area, because none of us has a crystal ball," he said.

Here we go again.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Well, as long as the vaccines remain non-sterilizing, and large numbers of people continue to encounter the virus before their bodies have fully developed a robust immune response (ie shortly after receiving their jab), we can expect still more variants to emerge and the pandemic to drag on. 

Not necessarily, even a small advantage means a lower risk of variants appearing, less than 100% immunity is still better than 0. And widespread vaccination also has the advantage of reducing the degree of transmission, so if everybody is vaccinated even those that still have not reached peak immunity are at a lower risk of becoming infected.

The only people who should be considered for these boosters are high-risk people.

If a booster demonstrates lowering the risk for anybody then they should be recommended. By definition the booster would surpass the naive immunity and protect the people against the worst complications of the infection.

Can you even show data that demonstrates there is no benefit gained by any population from these yet theoretical boosters? if you can't that means your comment has no basis.

Select data provided by the manufacturers?

Between other sources of information that all indicated a benefit. It is not like the manufacturers are contradicting the rest of the information available, the FDA makes a determination according to all the evidence available,

Many were shocked when they finally got to see (thanks to a court order) the initial Pfizer test results.

Antivaxxers only, the rest of the people had the common sense of realizing data from literally billions of vaccinated people is already available that proves vaccines are safe and effective, so data from a few thousand more people would have no importance in comparison.

Here we go again.

People used to dogmatic, monolithic, unchangeable beliefs regularly are surprised to find out science do not pretend to know things for eternity but instead changes conclusions when new evidence is found. There should be nothing strange in recognizing new information in the future has the possibility of changing what is known today. This has been the position of all scientific authorities from the very beginning, recognizing for example that variants were always a possibility and that they could change importantly the efficacy of the immunity developed against previous strains.

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

A few days ago Dr. Robert Malone gave a very interesting talk to the Texas Senate Committee on Health & Human Services. He also talked about the above omicron-directed "vaccines".

https://www.redvoicemedia.com/video/2022/06/dr-robert-malone-texas-senate-committee-on-health-human-services-video/

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Neither Moderna nor Pfizer have yet produced such vaccines at scale, but representatives from the companies said they could move to production within three months.

So why aren't they doing it already?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

They haven't done it because it is so much better to have tax payers cash committed up front than having to produce, market and hope to get sales for a new product with dubious demand.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

The time this vaccine will be on the market, the virus will have changed into a new variant, which will make the vaccine worthless.

I do not even talk about the antibody disorder enhancement that will keep increasing as we vaccinate more

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The time this vaccine will be on the market, the virus will have changed into a new variant, which will make the vaccine worthless.

I do not even talk about the antibody disorder enhancement that will keep increasing as we vaccinate more

And you knew this how?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

ianToday  06:02 pm JST

Neither Moderna nor Pfizer have yet produced such vaccines at scale, but representatives from the companies said they could move to production within three months.

So why aren't they doing it already?

Even for them, it takes time to fudge the data and hide their dodgy actual results.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Nineteen of twenty one experts say a new targeted vaccine is necessary while most of the JT armchair experts as disagreeing. I think I will stick with those who have many years active experience in the field over all these posers with zero experience in medicine.

I will line up for my Jab when it becomes available. I have been getting all recommended vaccinations since birth, I see no reason to stop now.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Even for them, it takes time to fudge the data and hide their dodgy actual results.

Well they can't hide it now because you already know right?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

 few days ago Dr. Robert Malone gave a very interesting talk to the Texas Senate Committee on Health & Human Services. He also talked about the above omicron-directed "vaccines".

Someone that has been found spreading false information while well knowing is false is the opposite of what you should be listening to.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/03/technology/robert-malone-covid.html

A huge indicator he is not a valid scientific reference is that he has been unable to provide any valid scientific data to support his theories, which has made him just upload videos instead of doing what actual scientists do and publish scientific papers.

So why aren't they doing it already?

Being companies they may not see economic sense, if their products are good enough and they are not expecting to recover the investment necessary to adapt them to new variants then why do it? this is the reason why governments (that are more interested in the vaccine being available) take care of the development in many cases. A country can get a huge economic benefit even losing money with a new vaccine.

Even for them, it takes time to fudge the data and hide their dodgy actual results.

Any evidence of any fudged or hidden data on any covid vaccines? or is this just another conspiracy that has no proof but you would like to believe?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Being companies they may not see economic sense, if their products are good enough and they are not expecting to recover the investment necessary to adapt them to new variants then why do it?

Always a possibility but you actually believe the reason is they could be expecting not to recover the investments necessary? How? Why?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

This is a product that they can't supply fast enough

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Being companies they may not see economic sense, if their products are good enough and they are not expecting to recover the investment necessary to adapt them to new variants then why do it? this is the reason why governments (that are more interested in the vaccine being available) take care of the development in many cases. A country can get a huge economic benefit even losing money with a new vaccine.

Would you be a proponent of nationalizing or internationalizing (WHO?) Big Pharma? Given the statement it would appear that they are essentially tax payer funded organizations.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Always a possibility but you actually believe the reason is they could be expecting not to recover the investments necessary? How? Why?

The original vaccines were developed in a year thanks to heavy support from the government and the expectation of selling any successfully produced vaccines. Unless the different governments are promising to buy the new version of the vaccines (not seeing it reported anywhere) the companies may not be considering advantageous to develop them.

Would you be a proponent of nationalizing or internationalizing (WHO?) Big Pharma? 

There is no need to nationalize companies, more like a national (or international) production system for vaccines that could supplement what is produced by private companies. This is not a new idea and has been brought up every few years (when some kind of vaccines become difficult to find), but since it is complicated to run governments are not very keen on making the jump.

A very old article about it

https://www.technologyreview.com/2002/05/01/275581/should-the-government-make-vaccines/

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

This scheme calls for the U.S. government to establish a National Vaccine Authority to oversee research, development and distribution of vaccines that are too risky or too unprofitable for industry to make. A central component would be a government-owned, contractor-operated vaccine-manufacturing plant.

Looks similar to the arms model for the US, support all the downside with taxpayers backed money for the option of buying market priced products.

Certainly not a new model.

Thanks for the link.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Even for them, it takes time to fudge the data and hide their dodgy actual results.

Well they can't hide it now because you already know right?

That is exactly what they tried to do when the "vaccines" first came out, and we that now thanks to data that the FDA wanted to release in 75 years but were forced to release via a court order.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The original vaccines were developed in a year thanks to heavy support from the government and the expectation of selling any successfully produced vaccines. Unless the different governments are promising to buy the new version of the vaccines (not seeing it reported anywhere) the companies may not be considering advantageous to develop them.

Thats basically the same statement as the one I asked a reason for.

Why would they have doubts about selling a product which is specifically designed for the current variants when the old formula product is still selling like hotcakes? It should be more in demand

0 ( +1 / -1 )

That is exactly what they tried to do when the "vaccines" first came out, and we that now thanks to data that the FDA wanted to release in 75 years but were forced to release via a court order.

No idea what you were talking about , I'll try to look it up, but how would it impede production of an updated vaccine?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Thanks for the responses everyone btw.

I've not been here some time and when I'm not here I practically hear nothing about covid so no idea about what's currently happening

0 ( +1 / -1 )

That is exactly what they tried to do when the "vaccines" first came out, and we that now thanks to data that the FDA wanted to release in 75 years but were forced to release via a court order.

No idea what you were talking about , I'll try to look it up, but how would it impede production of an updated vaccine?

Oh, it won't impede production and their getting a EUA. But we might again see their data a year or two down the road (via a court order) showing that their effectiveness and safety are not as advertised. Remember that saying "fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... you can't get fooled again."

A while back, Dr. John Campbell covered this quite well...

0 ( +2 / -2 )

That is exactly what they tried to do when the "vaccines" first came out, and we that now thanks to data that the FDA wanted to release in 75 years but were forced to release via a court order.

Oh, it won't impede production and their getting a EUA. But we might again see their data a year or two down the road (via a court order) showing that their effectiveness and safety are not as advertised. 

Information on a few thousand people? what do you suppose this information would change when information on literally millions of people is already available that prove the vaccines are safe and effective?

The FDA is perfectly fine with the court order, because it gives it reason to ask for resources to release the information which is the obvious reason why it could not do it on time. A couple of people redacting tens of thousands of pages while other hundreds of documents were pending are obviously not going to be able to do it quickly.

Why would they have doubts about selling a product which is specifically designed for the current variants when the old formula product is still selling like hotcakes? It should be more in demand

You give the answer in the question. You have something selling that is already developed and that eventually is going to stop being popular, you can either keep selling it until that happens or spend a huge lot of money to sell a new better thing that still is going to stop being required anyway, if your profit is going to be about the same spending less to get it seems the better option. Unless the companies are sure the new vaccines are going to sell better (for example that it will be a necessary booster for most of the population already vaccinated) it would be just extra spending for the same profit.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites