*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread. Fresh epidemic fears as child pneumonia cases surge in Europe after China outbreak. NOW in USA (2 Viewers)

[Max Power]

The FDA is making its recommendation on the data available. The current data isn't showing a benefit to continued boosters in the healthy population. I don't think you need a booster, but to each their own. Yes the immunity wanes. One of these recent boosters was only showing 8 weeks of elevated antibodies following vaccination. After that you're still protected against severe disease, but I don't believe it to be any more so than from prior vaccinations or infection.

I am not 100% sure that is the case. But I haven't seen what data they are presenting (have they presented any? IDK maybe they have), and I'm also not inclined to believe them because they have fired the experts that knew anything about vaccines (this is verifiable, not my opinion) and replace them with known vaccine skeptics and people like Prasad and Makary. They regularly contradict themselves and each other in statements they put out. So I don't have high confidence in them on getting this right or basing their decisions on the right evidence for that matter.

Prasad address how the decision making process worked for the latest round of boosters for children in THIS video. He comes across reasonable to me and I don't believe he is a vaccine skeptic. He wants more clinical evidence of the benefit the vaccines provide and has asked the applicants to conduct those studies. He cites the problem with the observational data used is basically the "healthy vaccinee bias" where the cohort still getting boosters is fundamentally more health conscious than those who don't which skew the end result to make boosters appear more effective than they are in regards to serious health outcomes.

If we're being fair the CDC/FDA have had plenty of contradictory statements since the start of covid. We chalk it up to poor messaging though. At the end of the day if Prasad is not a guy you're willing to trust, I guess it's good news he left his position at the FDA... Although I just read he was rehired in some other role.

The reason I am not interested in what he has to say in that video is because, as I said, they dismissed an entire board of people who spent decades of their lives researching and developing vaccines. These are not political appointees or "big pharma" shills, they are scientists who made it their life's work to be experts on this subject. And yet none of them was even in the room for the latest round of vaccine recommendation discussions ( Covid or flu). This same FDA administration literally put a study out recently that had made up citations (thanks, A.I. helper!), so no I don't consider that to be in the same ballpark as what we all know to be the early pandemic's mixed messaging. I haven't paid much attention to Prasad since the pandemic when it was clear he was just hunting for YT views, but he sure sounds convincing in front of a mic, I'll give him that much. WIthout seeing direct citations of what he's saying though, I personally take it with a grain huge tub of salt. And no, unfortunately he was reinstated to the same position at the FDA (Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research), but may or may not be resuming his other previous duties/positions before he mysteriously split a couple of weeks ago. Again, gives me tons of confidence.

Wasn't that RFKjr who dismissed the board? He cited conflicts of interest (financial ties to vaccine makers), and the fact they never recommended against any vaccine.

Yes it was, and yes he replaced ALL SEVENTEEN of them with people who are doctors with zero vaccine experience at best, and grifters or known vaccine skeptics at worst who ALSO have conflicts of interest (but guess THOSE were ok!), but who happen to lack the decades of expertise and knowledge of vaccines, which in my layman's opinion is somewhat critical when we are evaluating data and policy recommendations relating to vaccines. This cannot be brushed off as getting rid of "big pharma" shills. These people didn't work for big pharma. If you have legitimate citations showing otherwise of these alleged conflicts of interest, please do share though, maybe there are some I missed but everything I have read about that says that was questionable also (NPR link, there are other sources discussing this if you don't like or believe NPR for whatever reason).

Just what I linked above

OK, now read my link above and see what you think.

Btw 2 of the names mentioned, Robert Malone and Peter McCullough, are both known vaccine skeptics. Malone gained clout bc of his early work in RNA tech, and despite the team of people working with him, calls himself the inventor of mRNA technology. McCullough was at one point on the verge of having his board certification revoked. Not sure if there's an update on that, but you can read up on why that occurred and it won't give you confidence in what kind of person he is. He may be a great cardiologist, but zero vaccine experience (yet a whole lot of vaccine opinion!) Both have long been "dissenters" like Prasad and Makary. But again, regardless of my personal individual opinion of any of these characters, these are the kind of people that replaced the committee of vaccine experts many of whom served for decades through multiple administrations (and party affiliations mind you), seemingly just bc they *checks notes* felt like it. Because none of their reasoning for doing so holds up to even the least bit of scrutiny. I have my own opinions as to why, but that would prob delve into politics so going to avoid that line of discussion.

Yeah, I think we are getting off the topic of covid. I get that you have a lot of doubt the current administration will do (or does) the right thing. I'll bow out of this one as I don't see the recent changes in recommendations to be a point worth adamantly defending.

I could've left off the 2 names, but IMO, they are quite relevant to this topic seeing as they are now major advisors to not just the Covid vaccine recommendations but all vaccines, and they have highly questionable histories in regards to this topic. Did you read the other link above regarding the conflicts of interest, which you brought up? Or are we just ignoring that now? Not trying to egg you on or be stubborn, but I am curious what your thoughts are after reading that, which is essentially a direct rebuttal to the link you posted. And to be clear, it's definitely a valid point of concern, except the concern here seems to be misplaced (not saying by you necessarily, but in general) when you do much digging on it.

JFK said there was a conflict of interest. NPR says they don't. There’s always two sides to every story. So it wouldn't shock me if the truth is somewhere in between. If you don't trust anything RFK says, then there isn't much to continue on about.

We're only talking RFK now because you brought up the firings in a rebuttle to Prasad who had nothing to do with that.

I don't care if RFK wants to install his own team. I think McCullough and Malone have unique points of view. He wanted to swap bureaucrates for outside the box thinkers and its his show to do that.

 

[the moops]

He wanted to swap bureaucrates for outside the box thinkers and its his show to do that.

He wanted inside of his box thinkers more likely

 

[Sparky Polastri]

We don't need "thinkers". We need researchers that follow the data/evidence as the science is performed. Stick to the facts. The rest allows for dis/misinformation which then leads to unnecessary death.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

JFK said there was a conflict of interest. NPR says they don't. There’s always two sides to every story. So it wouldn't shock me if the truth is somewhere in between. If you don't trust anything RFK says, then there isn't much to continue on about.

We're only talking RFK now because you brought up the firings in a rebuttle to Prasad who had nothing to do with that.

I don't care if RFK wants to install his own team. I think McCullough and Malone have unique points of view. He wanted to swap bureaucrates for outside the box thinkers and its his show to do that.

Unique points of view and outside the box thinking is great... if you are running a product R&D team. This is public health we are talking about here. Cumulative lack of vaccine experience for the ENTIRE BOARD is not outside the box thinking. If you insist on calling it that then ask yourself... why would he fire the entire board anyway? Even your own source mentions nothing of conflict of interests for all of them (as far as I can find, there was ONE "potential" conflict of interest and even that one was debatable at best). So why do you suppose he would fire literally decades of subject matter expertise? I have my own theory on it, but I'll leave you to think outside the box on that one. And also, there most certainly NOT 2 sides to every story. Sometimes there are just facts vs. opinions. Made up statements vs. verifiable information.

If you think Prasad had nothing to do with the vaccine board firings, I've got some ocean front property in Arizona I'd like to sell you. But fair point, you're right that I don't trust anything RFK says in regarding to health policy. But we disagree if you think that's not something that should be discussed further. It matters. Can you give me just one reason that I should? Because I bet I can give you a dozen why I shouldn't. He's unqualified for the position (see: his confirmation hearing Q&A). And that is problematic because he's now installed equally unqualified and uninformed people to make very important decisions that will affect ALL OF US.

 

[RCon]

And also, there most certainly NOT 2 sides to every story. Sometimes there are just facts vs. opinions. Made up statements vs. verifiable information.

This, especially.

We as a society have to stop pretending that all opinions and views should be given equal deference. It's simply not the case. Some opinions need to be called out as blatantly false, outrageous, or otherwise harmful. For example, there are not two valid sides to the Flat Earth "debate". One side is simply wrong; the end, no further discussion needed. Ditto for the vaccines cause autism "debate". There is literally zero evidence to support such a claim, and anyone making such a claim is either lying or brainwashed; the end, no further discussion needed.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

And also, there most certainly NOT 2 sides to every story. Sometimes there are just facts vs. opinions. Made up statements vs. verifiable information.

This, especially.

We as a society have to stop pretending that all opinions and views should be given equal deference. It's simply not the case. Some opinions need to be called out as blatantly false, outrageous, or otherwise harmful. For example, there are not two valid sides to the Flat Earth "debate". One side is simply wrong; the end, no further discussion needed. Ditto for the vaccines cause autism "debate". There is literally zero evidence to support such a claim, and anyone making such a claim is either lying or brainwashed; the end, no further discussion needed.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Funnymemes/comments/1726t71/yes/

 

[rockaction]

And also, there most certainly NOT 2 sides to every story. Sometimes there are just facts vs. opinions. Made up statements vs. verifiable information.

This, especially.

We as a society have to stop pretending that all opinions and views should be given equal deference. It's simply not the case. Some opinions need to be called out as blatantly false, outrageous, or otherwise harmful. For example, there are not two valid sides to the Flat Earth "debate". One side is simply wrong; the end, no further discussion needed. Ditto for the vaccines cause autism "debate". There is literally zero evidence to support such a claim, and anyone making such a claim is either lying or brainwashed; the end, no further discussion needed.

I'm definitely reconsidering my post and this is not what they want here so I've removed it. Mea culpa, and I know better. I know where to find y'all if I want to debate, but I agree with you guys that are frustrated and angry anyway. And this isn't the place for my rejoinder (and there are definite things I agree with in the bolded and maybe we can agree on some other things also). Peace.

 

[Joe Bryant]

That's probably good for this one after the deleted posts.

We're not going to make this the new Political Forum.