Biden’s Decision on Boosters Baffles Scientists

Joe can't wait for science

The Biden administration’s decision to start authorizing third doses of Covid-19 vaccine in September is being met with bafflement, concern, and even anger from a number of immunologists, vaccinologists, and people steeped in the normal way such decisions are made.

Many flat-out challenged the need for booster doses at this time. Others questioned the morality of administering third shots to Americans when most people on the planet haven’t received one. And some worried that a decision had been made before the Food and Drug Administration had ruled on the need for a booster or a key vaccine advisory committee had evaluated the data — typically the way vaccine policy is set.

The government’s top public health officials on Wednesday pointed to data showing that the mRNA vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna are no longer protecting as well against mild and moderate Covid-19 infections as evidence that “could” signal a decline in protection against serious disease.

But “could is not a very strong word … especially to make a policy decision on,” Norman Baylor, president and CEO of Biologics Consulting and a former head of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines, told STAT.

Anna Durbin, a vaccines researcher at Johns Hopkins University, said the vaccines continue to be highly effective in preventing hospitalizations, severe infections, and deaths among most vaccinees.

That they may not work as well over time in preventing mild illnesses among those vaccinated isn’t necessarily a sign the vaccines are failing, said Durbin, who insisted that people are going to need to accept that fact. “We cannot keep [boosting] and say: ‘We’re going to prevent colds in everybody,’ ” she said.

The decision to boost so early in the country’s use of the vaccines isn’t science-based, in Durbin’s view. “I think there’s this tidal wave building that’s based on anxiety. And I don’t think it’s based on scientific evidence that a booster is needed.”

To many experts, including Baylor, the sequencing of the decisions being made is also out of whack. While U.S. health officials said booster shots could start being offered the week of Sept. 20, the Food and Drug Administration has not even ruled yet on Pfizer’s application for approval of a third shot; it was filed only Monday. [Originally ran on August 18th.] Moderna hasn’t yet asked the agency to authorize a third shot at all.

At present, the extra dose policy only applies to the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines; people who received the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine continue to wait for guidance about whether they need another dose.

Meanwhile the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practiceswhich reviews data on vaccines and makes recommendations on their use to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — is set to meet next week to look at the data for a third dose. Before Wednesday’s announcement, there was no suggestion a vote might be taken next Tuesday; the group may need additional sessions to address the question.

Surgeon General Vivek Murthy insisted the booster dose program would only go ahead if sanctioned by the FDA and the ACIP, as the CDC advisory committee is known. But the fact that there is a fixed date for the start of the booster program led some to wonder if the outcome had already been decided.

“How did you pick the week of September 20?” asked Baylor. “Since this meeting hasn’t occurred and you don’t know what they’re going to say this is an independent body — suppose they say: ‘We don’t think so.’ Then what are you going to do with that?”

Grace Lee, professor of pediatrics at Stanford University School of Medicine and ACIP chair, insisted the group will conduct the review the way it always does — in sessions that are open to the public.

“When we can review that data, when we can review it with the public, when we can deliberate on the decisions, we’ll provide our best scientific advice and opinions,” she told STAT. “We will give our best possible advice based on what we see.”

Jesse Goodman, a former chief scientist at the FDA who is now a professor of medicine at Georgetown University, was concerned about the administration’s decision to announce the plan before that process has played out. Goodman believes booster shots will eventually be needed, and that it is prudent to plan for that eventuality. But “I’m not sure we had enough [data] to pull the trigger right now,” he said.

“In the heat of the moment and when we’re all dealing with a real public health emergency, it becomes almost doubly important that we continually reassess and have the normal processes in place. And I do worry that we not put the cart before the horse,” said Goodman.

“I would have preferred that this had been vetted a little bit more,” said Paul Offit, a vaccine expert from Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who is on an expert committee that advises the FDA on vaccines. “This just seems to be a declaration without the kind of vetting you would like to have seen.”

Like Goodman, Offit thinks boosters may eventually be needed. But he’s not convinced they are needed now. Almost all the evidence to date suggests protection against severe disease is still holding and may well last several years, he said.

“So the notion that we are trying to get ahead of it by boosting after eight months I think is premature,” he said, also arguing that using more doses in the U.S. will inevitably slow vaccination in low-income countries.

Scott Hensley, a vaccines researcher at the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Institute for Immunology, shared those concerns.

“Anyone who thinks that vaccinating Americans with a third dose is not going to come at the expense of getting the vaccine to other places in the world — if that’s what you think, you’re just kidding yourself,” he said.

Hensley suggested the vaccines still appear to be doing what they were designed to do, even if some vaccinated people are having mild infections.

“A year and a half ago if someone told you you could have a vaccine that’s 90%, 95% effective at keeping you out of the hospital and keeping you alive, you would have jumped at that,” he said.

Source: STAT News

  1. yuri says

    senile science
    “amerikans believe any described as scientific without question”. Geoffrey Gorer

  2. Raptar Driver says

    What baffles me is how the scientists animate Biden?

  3. Mark says

    The primary objection here seems to be that booster shots will mean some people in poorer countries don’t get jabbed at all. The aim remains unchanged; to get everyone in the world vaccinated. Kind of makes you wonder, since many of the medical elite hold that the global population is unsustainable at current levels, and we need less people, not more.

    I can’t help thinking that if the majority of the world’s population had autoimmune disorders and their resistance to routine diseases became dependent on jabs to counter their illnesses, it would be relatively easy to decide who would live and who would not.

  4. ken says

    “Hensley suggested the vaccines still appear to be doing what they were designed to do, even if some vaccinated people are having mild infections.”

    Mild infections! My God,,, 35-40,000 known vaxecuted and he talks mild infections!

    I am at a loss for words….

    1. osa says

      Hensley suggested the vaccines still appear to be doing what they were designed to do – 35-40,000 known vaxecuted.

  5. Michal says

    Joe the pedophile shitspit doesn’t know who he is, where is he or what’s he doing. Everything coming from his masters wright here;

  6. rm p says

    Scientists are baffled by evil? Wow….maybe they need to read from Sacred Scriptures too – at least once in a while!

  7. abinico warez says

    Booster shots boost only pharma profits.

    1. Raptar Driver says

      And the death rates.
      That means more death.

    2. yuri says

      also the entire medical mafia in USA where universal health care not permitted

  8. Bob says

    There are numerous lies in this article. Too bad some of them are by medical ‘experts”. Sadly, global politics has tainted objective science. It’s not good at all.

    The effectiveness of these drugs was never proven. If cases and statistics for drug trials are determined by pcr, they are invalid since the pcr test is invalid.

    We know, if infected, you have a 99.7% chance of full recovery, without a vaccine. So basically we’re talking about the need to protect the .3%. Even though the overall covid infection rate of the human population is way less than 2%, they want to protect the .3% by injecting all of us. Bad science doesn’t even come close to describing this.

    It is evil and deadly. It has to be a covert operation because all official actions and policies are outrageously dangerous.

  9. Thomas Turk says

    Not forgetting what Canadian Dr Charles Hoffe stated.. . The spike protein in the ‘injection’ sticks to and embeds in the capillary endothelium, walls. Part of the spike protrudes ínto the vessel slowing blood flow, and indicating injury, both of which lead to IRREVERSIBLE and incurable blood clots. These clots are too small to show up on a scan. Their signs are headache, nausea, breathlessness and dizziness. The 62% who will get this from the ‘injection’, will have blood pressure rise from lung blockages. SADLY.. from this, the heart will fail in 3 years! Search.. ”Dr. Charles Hoffe. COVID-19. Get the latest information from the DDC about COVID-19′

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.