*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread. Fresh epidemic fears as child pneumonia cases surge in Europe after China outbreak. NOW in USA (3 Viewers)

[Terminalxylem]

I think my initial question was asked with incomplete information. I haven't been paying much attention to this particular topic recently, but was surprised to still see EUA classification. This however isn't the case for all age groups and just for age 12 and under? Fully FDA approved for ages 13 and older?

Fully FDA approved (without EUA) SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (per ChatGPT):

Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech)

Approved for 16+ yrs; EUA remains for other age groups

Spikevax (Moderna)

Approved for 18+ yrs; also for at-risk 6–11-yr-olds

Nuvaxovid (Novavax)

Approved for 65+ or 12–64-yr-olds with high-risk conditions

Thanks. I'm not sure this is a question you can answer, but does the FDA approval now cover people that got vaccinated while under EUA, or from approval onward only? Specifically does VICP apply to them, or still still CICP? Probably outside your wheelhouse, but something I'm curious about.

No idea.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Is there a reason my asking what the rationale is behind not renewing the emergency auth got deleted?

Genuine question. Why still emergency authorization? Is that for new use mRNA vaccines or still the covid variety?

Edit. If this is touchy here, or political a DM is OK.

Because the government is dragging its feet. That's not new or unique to this situation. The govt has successfully convinced a lot of people that extended timeliness is analogous with being "safe"

Who are the people they're convincing a EUA is analogous with safe?

Not what I said. If you go through the threads here, you will often see comments like "this is happening to fast" and the like. The initial formulas for this vaccine was formulated within the first two weeks of the crisis. The dose took another two weeks. That's fairly standard with most vaccines for viruses like this. Most of the rest of the time is political beuracracy. Again, not unique to this vaccine. Two things are unique to this vaccine. The first was the success rate of stopping the initial virus strands. That is an unheard of number for viruses like this. The second is the ingredient list being the first of its kind and the most natural of any vaccine ever reducing further the risk to us. Didn't have to worry about aluminum or mercury or formaldehyde and the like.

Yes, you're right, i see you didn't say that. I read it wrong, I'm still wondering who thinks extending the EUA is analogous with safe though. Because it happened quickly people think keeping emergency use is somehow better? Or you're saying the government in general has convinced people of this and not unique to covid vaccines? Just trying to understand what you meant as i may have missed the point you were making.

Sorry, no I am saying that this thing has been ready for full fledged approval for a really long time, BUT if it would have been approved when ready, people would have lost it more than they already have because they are accustom to it taking a long time to be approved. They now associate that timeline with safety when in reality, the time has very little to do with safety. Sorry for not speaking clearly yesterday. Was doing a bunch of other things.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

Is there a reason my asking what the rationale is behind not renewing the emergency auth got deleted?

Genuine question. Why still emergency authorization? Is that for new use mRNA vaccines or still the covid variety?

Edit. If this is touchy here, or political a DM is OK.

Because the government is dragging its feet. That's not new or unique to this situation. The govt has successfully convinced a lot of people that extended timeliness is analogous with being "safe"

Who are the people they're convincing a EUA is analogous with safe?

Not what I said. If you go through the threads here, you will often see comments like "this is happening to fast" and the like. The initial formulas for this vaccine was formulated within the first two weeks of the crisis. The dose took another two weeks. That's fairly standard with most vaccines for viruses like this. Most of the rest of the time is political beuracracy. Again, not unique to this vaccine. Two things are unique to this vaccine. The first was the success rate of stopping the initial virus strands. That is an unheard of number for viruses like this. The second is the ingredient list being the first of its kind and the most natural of any vaccine ever reducing further the risk to us. Didn't have to worry about aluminum or mercury or formaldehyde and the like.

Yes, you're right, i see you didn't say that. I read it wrong, I'm still wondering who thinks extending the EUA is analogous with safe though. Because it happened quickly people think keeping emergency use is somehow better? Or you're saying the government in general has convinced people of this and not unique to covid vaccines? Just trying to understand what you meant as i may have missed the point you were making.

Sorry, no I am saying that this thing has been ready for full fledged approval for a really long time, BUT if it would have been approved when ready, people would have lost it more than they already have because they are accustom to it taking a long time to be approved. They now associate that timeline with safety when in reality, the time has very little to do with safety. Sorry for not speaking clearly yesterday. Was doing a bunch of other things.

Ok, i understand. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[RCon]

I think its just the FDA process. IIRC they are supposed to review 3 years of safety data for full FDA approval. Since each year brings a different covid threat, they alter the formula to protect against the current strain and restart the 3 year process.

By this rationale, wouldn't that mean that flu vaccines are never FDA approved? And yet, they are, best I can tell.

 

[Max Power]

. We're still debating what the "risk" of the vaccine is.

Not sure who “we” are, but I don’t think there’s any serious debate about the vaccine’s safety in the scientific community.

That doesn’t mean monitoring for long term AEs won’t continue. But we’ve long passed the reasonable threshold to declare them safe.

In your opinion, are they safe? If not, for whom, and what additional data would you like to establish safety?

We (the collective of users, providers, regulators, manufacturers) also have to acknowledge there is no long term risk data. The current risk data is still pretty sporadic and it appears the FDA/CDC haven't done a great job compiling and reacting to the safety data. Dr. Vinay Prasad referenced that fact during his announcement on updating covid vaccine safety labels to include the Risk of Myocarditis. Safety signals were there, FDA chose not to react. A lot of the risk is masked in data because it was all lumped together. Once the data is stratified by demographics, real risks appear. The overall risk to the 0-18 year old group might be low, but once broken down by age, gender, race, number of vaccines, we get a better understanding.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

End of the day it isn't just risk alone. It's that the benefit needs to outweigh the risk. Prasad talks about that again in the below video where he cites after reviewing the data there is no certainty the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risk for healthy children (It does for children with risk factors). The highlights are basically that pediatric risk of hospitalization or death from covid are extremely low and continue to fall each year. The applicant (Moderna in this case) has never shown a reduction in severe Covid -19 hospitalization, ICU stays or death in a randomized trial of children. The data Moderna uses to show benefits has limitations.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

For the record, I don't think the vaccines are "Unsafe", but the risk isn't zero. There may also be diminishing returns for each iteration of the shot. We don't even know if there is a immunity ceiling for these. Asking healthy kids to get yearly shots on top of potentially catching covid and getting a natural immunity booster doesn't make a lot of sense. Most of the rest of the world seems to agree there.

 

[Max Power]

I think its just the FDA process. IIRC they are supposed to review 3 years of safety data for full FDA approval. Since each year brings a different covid threat, they alter the formula to protect against the current strain and restart the 3 year process.

By this rationale, wouldn't that mean that flu vaccines are never FDA approved? And yet, they are, best I can tell.

Yeah, I don't know. I'm apparently wrong though.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I think its just the FDA process. IIRC they are supposed to review 3 years of safety data for full FDA approval. Since each year brings a different covid threat, they alter the formula to protect against the current strain and restart the 3 year process.

By this rationale, wouldn't that mean that flu vaccines are never FDA approved? And yet, they are, best I can tell.

To be clear, especially when it comes to "reauthorization", its pretty much up to CDC. So, if they wanted to say "hey, you made this minor change, but we're going to make you go reauth" that's their prerogative. They don't do that sort of thing today UNLESS there is a significant change to production, dose needs etc. They've all agreed (til now) that changing out the protein isn't a huge deal. That might change. I wouldn't be surprised if it did. Of course that severely weakens our ability to combat these types of viruses.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

. We're still debating what the "risk" of the vaccine is.

Not sure who “we” are, but I don’t think there’s any serious debate about the vaccine’s safety in the scientific community.

That doesn’t mean monitoring for long term AEs won’t continue. But we’ve long passed the reasonable threshold to declare them safe.

In your opinion, are they safe? If not, for whom, and what additional data would you like to establish safety?

We (the collective of users, providers, regulators, manufacturers) also have to acknowledge there is no long term risk data. The current risk data is still pretty sporadic and it appears the FDA/CDC haven't done a great job compiling and reacting to the safety data. Dr. Vinay Prasad referenced that fact during his announcement on updating covid vaccine safety labels to include the Risk of Myocarditis. Safety signals were there, FDA chose not to react. A lot of the risk is masked in data because it was all lumped together. Once the data is stratified by demographics, real risks appear. The overall risk to the 0-18 year old group might be low, but once broken down by age, gender, race, number of vaccines, we get a better understanding.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

End of the day it isn't just risk alone. It's that the benefit needs to outweigh the risk. Prasad talks about that again in the below video where he cites after reviewing the data there is no certainty the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risk for healthy children (It does for children with risk factors). The highlights are basically that pediatric risk of hospitalization or death from covid are extremely low and continue to fall each year. The applicant (Moderna in this case) has never shown a reduction in severe Covid -19 hospitalization, ICU stays or death in a randomized trial of children. The data Moderna uses to show benefits has limitations.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

For the record, I don't think the vaccines are "Unsafe", but the risk isn't zero. There may also be diminishing returns for each iteration of the shot. We don't even know if there is a immunity ceiling for these. Asking healthy kids to get yearly shots on top of potentially catching covid and getting a natural immunity booster doesn't make a lot of sense. Most of the rest of the world seems to agree there.

The FDA did its job when the myocarditis stuff happened. They took the J&J vaccine, which was the primary culprit of said event, off the market. Additionally, the risk of myocarditis (for any age, including healthy children) is greater across the board from Covid infection. (And if you really look into it, the same is true for many infections, not just Covid.)

Prasad has been a "dissenter" since the pandemic. He is known for citing studies of questionable quality or just straight up misrepresenting findings. It's kind of what propelled him to infamy on YouTube in the last 5 years. Makari is right up there with him, as for as false or misleading claims he has made. And these 2 guys are now in positions of power over our health policy. What a time to be alive!

And regarding your last paragraph, the risk of doing just about anything is non-zero when you really get down to it. And a whole lot of our pediatric medical organizations (like all of them) disagree with your statement, regardless of what the "rest of the world" thinks. A good portion of the rest of the world is getting their information from guys like Prasad on Youtube and TikTok.

 

[Terminalxylem]

. We're still debating what the "risk" of the vaccine is.

Not sure who “we” are, but I don’t think there’s any serious debate about the vaccine’s safety in the scientific community.

That doesn’t mean monitoring for long term AEs won’t continue. But we’ve long passed the reasonable threshold to declare them safe.

In your opinion, are they safe? If not, for whom, and what additional data would you like to establish safety?

We (the collective of users, providers, regulators, manufacturers) also have to acknowledge there is no long term risk data. The current risk data is still pretty sporadic and it appears the FDA/CDC haven't done a great job compiling and reacting to the safety data. Dr. Vinay Prasad referenced that fact during his announcement on updating covid vaccine safety labels to include the Risk of Myocarditis. Safety signals were there, FDA chose not to react. A lot of the risk is masked in data because it was all lumped together. Once the data is stratified by demographics, real risks appear. The overall risk to the 0-18 year old group might be low, but once broken down by age, gender, race, number of vaccines, we get a better understanding.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

End of the day it isn't just risk alone. It's that the benefit needs to outweigh the risk. Prasad talks about that again in the below video where he cites after reviewing the data there is no certainty the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risk for healthy children (It does for children with risk factors). The highlights are basically that pediatric risk of hospitalization or death from covid are extremely low and continue to fall each year. The applicant (Moderna in this case) has never shown a reduction in severe Covid -19 hospitalization, ICU stays or death in a randomized trial of children. The data Moderna uses to show benefits has limitations.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

For the record, I don't think the vaccines are "Unsafe", but the risk isn't zero. There may also be diminishing returns for each iteration of the shot. We don't even know if there is a immunity ceiling for these. Asking healthy kids to get yearly shots on top of potentially catching covid and getting a natural immunity booster doesn't make a lot of sense. Most of the rest of the world seems to agree there.

The FDA did its job when the myocarditis stuff happened. They took the J&J vaccine, which was the primary culprit of said event, off the market. Additionally, the risk of myocarditis (for any age, including healthy children) is greater across the board from Covid infection. (And if you really look into it, the same is true for many infections, not just Covid.)

Prasad has been a "dissenter" since the pandemic. He is known for citing studies of questionable quality or just straight up misrepresenting findings. It's kind of what propelled him to infamy on YouTube in the last 5 years. Makari is right up there with him, as for as false or misleading claims he has made. And these 2 guys are now in positions of power over our health policy. What a time to be alive!

And regarding your last paragraph, the risk of doing just about anything is non-zero when you really get down to it. And a whole lot of our pediatric medical organizations (like all of them) disagree with your statement, regardless of what the "rest of the world" thinks. A good portion of the rest of the world is getting their information from guys like Prasad on Youtube and TikTok.

Thanks for posting what I was thinking, much more diplomatically.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

What is the line for "long term risk data"?

 

[Max Power]

. We're still debating what the "risk" of the vaccine is.

Not sure who “we” are, but I don’t think there’s any serious debate about the vaccine’s safety in the scientific community.

That doesn’t mean monitoring for long term AEs won’t continue. But we’ve long passed the reasonable threshold to declare them safe.

In your opinion, are they safe? If not, for whom, and what additional data would you like to establish safety?

We (the collective of users, providers, regulators, manufacturers) also have to acknowledge there is no long term risk data. The current risk data is still pretty sporadic and it appears the FDA/CDC haven't done a great job compiling and reacting to the safety data. Dr. Vinay Prasad referenced that fact during his announcement on updating covid vaccine safety labels to include the Risk of Myocarditis. Safety signals were there, FDA chose not to react. A lot of the risk is masked in data because it was all lumped together. Once the data is stratified by demographics, real risks appear. The overall risk to the 0-18 year old group might be low, but once broken down by age, gender, race, number of vaccines, we get a better understanding.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

End of the day it isn't just risk alone. It's that the benefit needs to outweigh the risk. Prasad talks about that again in the below video where he cites after reviewing the data there is no certainty the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risk for healthy children (It does for children with risk factors). The highlights are basically that pediatric risk of hospitalization or death from covid are extremely low and continue to fall each year. The applicant (Moderna in this case) has never shown a reduction in severe Covid -19 hospitalization, ICU stays or death in a randomized trial of children. The data Moderna uses to show benefits has limitations.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

For the record, I don't think the vaccines are "Unsafe", but the risk isn't zero. There may also be diminishing returns for each iteration of the shot. We don't even know if there is a immunity ceiling for these. Asking healthy kids to get yearly shots on top of potentially catching covid and getting a natural immunity booster doesn't make a lot of sense. Most of the rest of the world seems to agree there.

The FDA did its job when the myocarditis stuff happened. They took the J&J vaccine, which was the primary culprit of said event, off the market. Additionally, the risk of myocarditis (for any age, including healthy children) is greater across the board from Covid infection. (And if you really look into it, the same is true for many infections, not just Covid.)

Prasad has been a "dissenter" since the pandemic. He is known for citing studies of questionable quality or just straight up misrepresenting findings. It's kind of what propelled him to infamy on YouTube in the last 5 years. Makari is right up there with him, as for as false or misleading claims he has made. And these 2 guys are now in positions of power over our health policy. What a time to be alive!

And regarding your last paragraph, the risk of doing just about anything is non-zero when you really get down to it. And a whole lot of our pediatric medical organizations (like all of them) disagree with your statement, regardless of what the "rest of the world" thinks. A good portion of the rest of the world is getting their information from guys like Prasad on Youtube and TikTok.

J&J was taken off the market for blood clotting, not myocarditis. Prasad was referencing Israeli data from 2021 that showed a myocarditis link and two associated deaths. That data was relayed to the FDA and CDC who confirmed the safety signals in vaers. They planned to release a "health note" on the myocarditis link, but ultimately chose against it. I believe it was to avoid promoting vaccine hesitancy.

And the bad part is that the vaccine doesn't prevent someone from catching covid, so they are still exposed to that same myocarditis risk from covid itself.

I'll disagree with your last paragraph as well. Counties are doing their own independent research and have their own medical institutions. No peer nation advises healthy children to undergo covid-19 vaccination while the US remains the outlier promoting covid vaccines yearly. The US is in bed with big pharma, so from that aspect it makes sense.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

. We're still debating what the "risk" of the vaccine is.

Not sure who “we” are, but I don’t think there’s any serious debate about the vaccine’s safety in the scientific community.

That doesn’t mean monitoring for long term AEs won’t continue. But we’ve long passed the reasonable threshold to declare them safe.

In your opinion, are they safe? If not, for whom, and what additional data would you like to establish safety?

We (the collective of users, providers, regulators, manufacturers) also have to acknowledge there is no long term risk data. The current risk data is still pretty sporadic and it appears the FDA/CDC haven't done a great job compiling and reacting to the safety data. Dr. Vinay Prasad referenced that fact during his announcement on updating covid vaccine safety labels to include the Risk of Myocarditis. Safety signals were there, FDA chose not to react. A lot of the risk is masked in data because it was all lumped together. Once the data is stratified by demographics, real risks appear. The overall risk to the 0-18 year old group might be low, but once broken down by age, gender, race, number of vaccines, we get a better understanding.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

End of the day it isn't just risk alone. It's that the benefit needs to outweigh the risk. Prasad talks about that again in the below video where he cites after reviewing the data there is no certainty the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risk for healthy children (It does for children with risk factors). The highlights are basically that pediatric risk of hospitalization or death from covid are extremely low and continue to fall each year. The applicant (Moderna in this case) has never shown a reduction in severe Covid -19 hospitalization, ICU stays or death in a randomized trial of children. The data Moderna uses to show benefits has limitations.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

For the record, I don't think the vaccines are "Unsafe", but the risk isn't zero. There may also be diminishing returns for each iteration of the shot. We don't even know if there is a immunity ceiling for these. Asking healthy kids to get yearly shots on top of potentially catching covid and getting a natural immunity booster doesn't make a lot of sense. Most of the rest of the world seems to agree there.

The FDA did its job when the myocarditis stuff happened. They took the J&J vaccine, which was the primary culprit of said event, off the market. Additionally, the risk of myocarditis (for any age, including healthy children) is greater across the board from Covid infection. (And if you really look into it, the same is true for many infections, not just Covid.)

Prasad has been a "dissenter" since the pandemic. He is known for citing studies of questionable quality or just straight up misrepresenting findings. It's kind of what propelled him to infamy on YouTube in the last 5 years. Makari is right up there with him, as for as false or misleading claims he has made. And these 2 guys are now in positions of power over our health policy. What a time to be alive!

And regarding your last paragraph, the risk of doing just about anything is non-zero when you really get down to it. And a whole lot of our pediatric medical organizations (like all of them) disagree with your statement, regardless of what the "rest of the world" thinks. A good portion of the rest of the world is getting their information from guys like Prasad on Youtube and TikTok.

J&J was taken off the market for blood clotting, not myocarditis. Prasad was referencing Israeli data from 2021 that showed a myocarditis link and two associated deaths. That data was relayed to the FDA and CDC who confirmed the safety signals in vaers. They planned to release a "health note" on the myocarditis link, but ultimately chose against it. I believe it was to avoid promoting vaccine hesitancy.

And the bad part is that the vaccine doesn't prevent someone from catching covid, so they are still exposed to that same myocarditis risk from covid itself.

I'll disagree with your last paragraph as well. Counties are doing their own independent research and have their own medical institutions. No peer nation advises healthy children to undergo covid-19 vaccination while the US remains the outlier promoting covid vaccines yearly. The US is in bed with big pharma, so from that aspect it makes sense.

Ah you are correct re:clotting &JJ, had my wires crossed lol, thanks. But myocarditis has been way overblown as well, and the rest of what I said about it is accurate (infection vs vaccine induced), I'd encourage you to research that if you have doubts. As for the rest... you can disagree if you like, that's your right, but the data says what the data says. You "believe" it was because of the possibility of promoting vaccine hesitancy? Ok. lol I can't really argue with your beliefs. But it couldn't be literally any other reason, you don't think? VAERS is a whole other can of worms, which we can dive into if you like. VAERS does the job it is intended to do, provide preliminary safety signals which lead to further investigation. It's not a reliable source for an end-game conclusion tho, nor was it intended to be. There are other safety signal systems in place to provide additional data to that end.

Ah the "sterilizing vaccine" point. I realize that was a talking point early on (version 1) of C19, but that science changed quickly as more data came out. I realize the leadership dropped the ball on that messaging (which I am sure they regret in hindsight, bc it leads to this debate every time it comes up), and we are in agreement if you agree with that statement. Even still, the current vaccines still provide at least some protection against infection. I would disagree with your statement that "it leads to the same myocarditis risk" as infection. I'm not sure there's data that shows that. Do you have any links to back that statement up?

And this is just my personal opinion, I still think it's in everyone's best interest to not get infected with Covid, or at the very least, reduce the number of infections to as low as possible, but that's just me. "Big pharma" is just a baseless talking point, right up there with "follow the money." Doctors make little to no money from giving or recommending vaccines. That is a fact. Term will back me up on this I am sure, but the data is out there. Most doctors will laugh at you if you ask how much they make off of giving or even recommending vaccines. They do it because that is what the data shows to lead to the best health outcomes. Period. Additionally, medical organizations and peer review don't rely on the "big pharma" narrative. Not that peer review is bulletproof by any means, but it's pretty damn solid. I can't speak to other countries, bc I don't live in those, but I am very well versed in our (USA) policy and data standards here as I have done a lot of work in this space in the last 4 years (disclaimer: I am not a medical professional). You also can't make an apples-to-apples comparison after about the middle of 2021 of country vs country because very few countries took the same approaches on, well, nearly everything, from vaccine reccs, masking, social distancing, boosters, etc. etc.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Myocarditis severity is reduced with every exposure to the foreign proteins as the body becomes more and more efficient in identifying and neutralizing those proteins. Of course, this is a statement made under the 80/20 rule.

I wrote, and got published, a paper on this while in grad school. It's probably THE most oversensationalized and misunderstood subtopic of covid.

 

[Max Power]

. We're still debating what the "risk" of the vaccine is.

Not sure who “we” are, but I don’t think there’s any serious debate about the vaccine’s safety in the scientific community.

That doesn’t mean monitoring for long term AEs won’t continue. But we’ve long passed the reasonable threshold to declare them safe.

In your opinion, are they safe? If not, for whom, and what additional data would you like to establish safety?

We (the collective of users, providers, regulators, manufacturers) also have to acknowledge there is no long term risk data. The current risk data is still pretty sporadic and it appears the FDA/CDC haven't done a great job compiling and reacting to the safety data. Dr. Vinay Prasad referenced that fact during his announcement on updating covid vaccine safety labels to include the Risk of Myocarditis. Safety signals were there, FDA chose not to react. A lot of the risk is masked in data because it was all lumped together. Once the data is stratified by demographics, real risks appear. The overall risk to the 0-18 year old group might be low, but once broken down by age, gender, race, number of vaccines, we get a better understanding.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

End of the day it isn't just risk alone. It's that the benefit needs to outweigh the risk. Prasad talks about that again in the below video where he cites after reviewing the data there is no certainty the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risk for healthy children (It does for children with risk factors). The highlights are basically that pediatric risk of hospitalization or death from covid are extremely low and continue to fall each year. The applicant (Moderna in this case) has never shown a reduction in severe Covid -19 hospitalization, ICU stays or death in a randomized trial of children. The data Moderna uses to show benefits has limitations.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

For the record, I don't think the vaccines are "Unsafe", but the risk isn't zero. There may also be diminishing returns for each iteration of the shot. We don't even know if there is a immunity ceiling for these. Asking healthy kids to get yearly shots on top of potentially catching covid and getting a natural immunity booster doesn't make a lot of sense. Most of the rest of the world seems to agree there.

The FDA did its job when the myocarditis stuff happened. They took the J&J vaccine, which was the primary culprit of said event, off the market. Additionally, the risk of myocarditis (for any age, including healthy children) is greater across the board from Covid infection. (And if you really look into it, the same is true for many infections, not just Covid.)

Prasad has been a "dissenter" since the pandemic. He is known for citing studies of questionable quality or just straight up misrepresenting findings. It's kind of what propelled him to infamy on YouTube in the last 5 years. Makari is right up there with him, as for as false or misleading claims he has made. And these 2 guys are now in positions of power over our health policy. What a time to be alive!

And regarding your last paragraph, the risk of doing just about anything is non-zero when you really get down to it. And a whole lot of our pediatric medical organizations (like all of them) disagree with your statement, regardless of what the "rest of the world" thinks. A good portion of the rest of the world is getting their information from guys like Prasad on Youtube and TikTok.

J&J was taken off the market for blood clotting, not myocarditis. Prasad was referencing Israeli data from 2021 that showed a myocarditis link and two associated deaths. That data was relayed to the FDA and CDC who confirmed the safety signals in vaers. They planned to release a "health note" on the myocarditis link, but ultimately chose against it. I believe it was to avoid promoting vaccine hesitancy.

And the bad part is that the vaccine doesn't prevent someone from catching covid, so they are still exposed to that same myocarditis risk from covid itself.

I'll disagree with your last paragraph as well. Counties are doing their own independent research and have their own medical institutions. No peer nation advises healthy children to undergo covid-19 vaccination while the US remains the outlier promoting covid vaccines yearly. The US is in bed with big pharma, so from that aspect it makes sense.

Ah you are correct re:clotting &JJ, had my wires crossed lol, thanks. But myocarditis has been way overblown as well, and the rest of what I said about it is accurate (infection vs vaccine induced), I'd encourage you to research that if you have doubts. As for the rest... you can disagree if you like, that's your right, but the data says what the data says. You "believe" it was because of the possibility of promoting vaccine hesitancy? Ok. lol I can't really argue with your beliefs. But it couldn't be literally any other reason, you don't think? VAERS is a whole other can of worms, which we can dive into if you like. VAERS does the job it is intended to do, provide preliminary safety signals which lead to further investigation. It's not a reliable source for an end-game conclusion tho, nor was it intended to be. There are other safety signal systems in place to provide additional data to that end.

Ah the "sterilizing vaccine" point. I realize that was a talking point early on (version 1) of C19, but that science changed quickly as more data came out. I realize the leadership dropped the ball on that messaging (which I am sure they regret in hindsight, bc it leads to this debate every time it comes up), and we are in agreement if you agree with that statement. Even still, the current vaccines still provide at least some protection against infection. I would disagree with your statement that "it leads to the same myocarditis risk" as infection. I'm not sure there's data that shows that. Do you have any links to back that statement up?

And this is just my personal opinion, I still think it's in everyone's best interest to not get infected with Covid, or at the very least, reduce the number of infections to as low as possible, but that's just me. "Big pharma" is just a baseless talking point, right up there with "follow the money." Doctors make little to no money from giving or recommending vaccines. That is a fact. Term will back me up on this I am sure, but the data is out there. Most doctors will laugh at you if you ask how much they make off of giving or even recommending vaccines. They do it because that is what the data shows to lead to the best health outcomes. Period. Additionally, medical organizations and peer review don't rely on the "big pharma" narrative. Not that peer review is bulletproof by any means, but it's pretty damn solid. I can't speak to other countries, bc I don't live in those, but I am very well versed in our (USA) policy and data standards here as I have done a lot of work in this space in the last 4 years (disclaimer: I am not a medical professional). You also can't make an apples-to-apples comparison after about the middle of 2021 of country vs country because very few countries took the same approaches on, well, nearly everything, from vaccine reccs, masking, social distancing, boosters, etc. etc.

I don't think the myocarditis risk is overblown for healthy teenage boys. After stratifying the data they are by far the most at risk demographic. They are at minimal risk for severe covid outcomes as well. The FDA agrees as they don't recommend it for them any longer.

From Prasad's presser the myocarditis risk was downplayed in 2021 due to the Biden administration's order. I don't know why the administration chose not to share relevant data with the people, but thats the route they took and the most logical solution to me is the vaccine hesitancy angle.

Im not sure what protection the current vaccines provide anymore. Neither does the FDA. There is no good data to show benefit for the healthy population. Especially those who have taken multiple doses or had a recent infection.

The double myocarditis risk from vaccine and covid infection was referenced by Prasad in his myocarditis warning label address video I posted early. Towards the end.

I agree that times are changing and 2025 is a different atmosphere than 2020-2022. The current covid vaccine uptake in children was less than 7%. 93+% of parents don't view the current covid risk as serious enough to stay updated. The Federal building I work at doesn't even send covid positive people home anymore. Its not the risk it was in 2020.

Do you believe everyone needs an updated booster yearly? I personally don't. But I also don't care if people want to get them either.

Do you also think other countries are getting it wrong? Our policy basically matches the rest of the world now.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

What is the line for "long term risk data"?

How long do we wait to accumulate data?

 

[Terminalxylem]

What is the line for "long term risk data"?

How long do we wait to accumulate data?

I won’t speak for Max, but I’ve asked other posters this question multiple times, wrt vaccines and weight loss drugs, and it’s always met with

If I didn’t know any better, I might conclude the entire “long term safety” argument is being made in bad faith.

 

[fatness]

And the bad part is that the vaccine doesn't prevent someone from catching covid, so they are still exposed to that same myocarditis risk from covid itself

Like you, I'm not a scientists or a medical professional. And that sentence seems to be saying 3 things I don't think have been demonstrated to be true over time:
1 - that catching COVID is no more dangerous than not catching COVID
2 - that the risk of catching COVID is the same for those vaccinated and unvaccinated
3 - that the risk of getting myocarditis from COVID is equal to the risk of getting myocarditis from the COVID vaccine

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

If the covid vaccine goes sideways for you myocarditis is probably the least of your worries. Rare? Sure, but real and if those worse outcomes happen you're on your own. No doctor will try and help even if you get lucky and find one that believes bad outcomes are possible. No amount of favorable data will change that and unfavorable data does exist even if the medical community doesn't want to talk about it. You either believe that statement or you don't. From this point forward zero minds will be changed, so i get arguing is fun but that's all it is.

Mis and disinformation cuts both ways. Perhaps those with deep knowledge of vaccines saw they were represented in a way that was logical and worked as advertised. A large part of the country however was oversold on the effectiveness. Bad outcomes were hidden or downplayed, the experimental nature of them weren't made clear and there's plenty more examples not that they would matter, but to act as though the loss of trust from people is irrational? Cmon. The medical community continues to double down on safety/effectiveness while glossing over concerns with smug indifference. They're tired sure, but so is a large part of the population looking for honesty and not just the favorable data used to push the narrative they want to push. We wonder why vaccine compliance across the board is dropping, maybe the medical community should look in the mirror and ask what their role in that is.

Unpopular take no doubt about it. Is it completely irrational? Not in my world and apparently quite a few others. Have concerns or a bad outcome and you're immediately labeled antivaccine, troll, bot, bad actor, irrational, stupid, to make you shut up about it.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

What is the line for "long term risk data"?

How long do we wait to accumulate data?

I won’t speak for Max, but I’ve asked other posters this question multiple times, wrt vaccines and weight loss drugs, and it’s always met with

If I didn’t know any better, I might conclude the entire “long term safety” argument is being made in bad faith.

Same. Nothing kills these conversations like objective metrics. I have asked this question probably 2 dozen times in the last 5 years. I will also typically ask for a list of vaccines that are effective at "preventing you from getting...." virus X that are similar in nature to COVID. Show me an example of a vaccine that accomplishes this standard against viruses with similar characteristics. That too goes unanswered.

 

[Terminalxylem]

If the covid vaccine goes sideways for you myocarditis is probably the least of your worries. Rare? Sure, but real and if those worse outcomes happen you're on your own. No doctor will try and help even if you get lucky and find one that believes bad outcomes are possible. No amount of favorable data will change that and unfavorable data does exist even if the medical community doesn't want to talk about it. You either believe that statement or you don't. From this point forward zero minds will be changed, so i get arguing is fun but that's all it is.

Mis and disinformation cuts both ways. Perhaps those with deep knowledge of vaccines saw they were represented in a way that was logical and worked as advertised. A large part of the country however was oversold on the effectiveness. Bad outcomes were hidden or downplayed, the experimental nature of them weren't made clear and there's plenty more examples not that they would matter, but to act as though the loss of trust from people is irrational? Cmon. The medical community continues to double down on safety/effectiveness while glossing over concerns with smug indifference. They're tired sure, but so is a large part of the population looking for honesty and not just the favorable data used to push the narrative they want to push. We wonder why vaccine compliance across the board is dropping, maybe the medical community should look in the mirror and ask what their role in that is.

Unpopular take no doubt about it. Is it completely irrational? Not in my world and apparently quite a few others. Have concerns or a bad outcome and you're immediately labeled antivaccine, troll, bot, bad actor, irrational, stupid, to make you shut up about it.

Doctors will certainly help with adverse reactions, including those due to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. No doctor will blow off myocarditis, or any other discrete, objective diagnosis.

But establishing causality is extremely problematic, and a huge spectrum of vague symptoms have been attributed to vaccines. Moreover, diseases like myocarditis occur independently, including due to Covid-19, and other (mostly viral) infections.

Despite these limitations, we have have concrete evidence the medical community is paying attention - Astra Zeneca removed their covid vaccine, after all. Vaccines for rotavirus and Lyme disease met a similar fate, being withdrawn from the market after initial approval. And this ignores all the vaccines which were scrapped due to safety concerns before release/FDA approval.

On the other hand, there’s a group of people who demand responses to unanswerable questions, and 100% vaccine safety, without a clear time frame to make that (impossible) declaration. “Research” has clearly made up their minds, and at some point, they shouldn’t be taken seriously. The effort is better spent on those who are willing to be helped.

 

[culdeus]

What is the line for "long term risk data"?

How long do we wait to accumulate data?

I won’t speak for Max, but I’ve asked other posters this question multiple times, wrt vaccines and weight loss drugs, and it’s always met with

If I didn’t know any better, I might conclude the entire “long term safety” argument is being made in bad faith.

Same. Nothing kills these conversations like objective metrics. I have asked this question probably 2 dozen times in the last 5 years. I will also typically ask for a list of vaccines that are effective at "preventing you from getting...." virus X that are similar in nature to COVID. Show me an example of a vaccine that accomplishes this standard against viruses with similar characteristics. That too goes unanswered.

Not sure why that was the bar. The vaccine did best at keeping people from dying of COVID. Which seems important. It was never that severe a disease, until it was for certain people. Final number seems about 2.5x - 7x less likely to die.

Now that we all seem to have some immunity, if it doesn't prevent you from getting it there seems a lot less reason to get it. If mortality spikes, that changes things. Maybe.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

If the covid vaccine goes sideways for you myocarditis is probably the least of your worries. Rare? Sure, but real and if those worse outcomes happen you're on your own. No doctor will try and help even if you get lucky and find one that believes bad outcomes are possible. No amount of favorable data will change that and unfavorable data does exist even if the medical community doesn't want to talk about it. You either believe that statement or you don't. From this point forward zero minds will be changed, so i get arguing is fun but that's all it is.

Mis and disinformation cuts both ways. Perhaps those with deep knowledge of vaccines saw they were represented in a way that was logical and worked as advertised. A large part of the country however was oversold on the effectiveness. Bad outcomes were hidden or downplayed, the experimental nature of them weren't made clear and there's plenty more examples not that they would matter, but to act as though the loss of trust from people is irrational? Cmon. The medical community continues to double down on safety/effectiveness while glossing over concerns with smug indifference. They're tired sure, but so is a large part of the population looking for honesty and not just the favorable data used to push the narrative they want to push. We wonder why vaccine compliance across the board is dropping, maybe the medical community should look in the mirror and ask what their role in that is.

Unpopular take no doubt about it. Is it completely irrational? Not in my world and apparently quite a few others. Have concerns or a bad outcome and you're immediately labeled antivaccine, troll, bot, bad actor, irrational, stupid, to make you shut up about it.

Doctors will certainly help with adverse reactions, including those due to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. No doctor will blow off myocarditis, or any other discrete, objective diagnosis.

But establishing causality is extremely problematic, and a huge spectrum of vague symptoms have been attributed to vaccines. Moreover, diseases like myocarditis occur independently, including due to Covid-19, and other (mostly viral) infections.

Despite these limitations, we have have concrete evidence the medical community is paying attention - Astra Zeneca removed their covid vaccine, after all. Vaccines for rotavirus and Lyme disease met a similar fate, being withdrawn from the market after initial approval. And this ignores all the vaccines which were scrapped due to safety concerns before release/FDA approval.

On the other hand, there’s a group of people who demand responses to unanswerable questions, and 100% vaccine safety, without a clear time frame to make that (impossible) declaration. “Research” has clearly made up their minds, and at some point, they shouldn’t be taken seriously. The effort is better spent on those who are willing to be helped.

I'll add to this that I can completely empathize with TLL's take here if he doesn't have the benefit of seeing what is going on globally in studying the virus. The US has made political decisions that make a lot of what he says true. Fortunately, the rest of the world is pressing on. It's already acknowledged that we likely lose billions in productivity globally, every year because of long covid. Its also true that the world is spending billions on research as a result. Its also true that long covid is an outcome from having had covid.

 

[Max Power]

What is the line for "long term risk data"?

How long do we wait to accumulate data?

I won’t speak for Max, but I’ve asked other posters this question multiple times, wrt vaccines and weight loss drugs, and it’s always met with

If I didn’t know any better, I might conclude the entire “long term safety” argument is being made in bad faith.

I believe the BLA approval for Comirnaty required a 3 year continued safety monitoring study as condition of approval. That's why I referenced 3 years earlier.

Long term safety is less of an issue now that it isn't being mandated. When it was mandated, that was a perfectly reasonable argument. Currently any risk is on the consumer.

The FDA has pulled products that have been approved for years before. Zantac is a recent example of a top selling pharmaceutical that was pulled due to links to elevated cancer risks.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

If the covid vaccine goes sideways for you myocarditis is probably the least of your worries. Rare? Sure, but real and if those worse outcomes happen you're on your own. No doctor will try and help even if you get lucky and find one that believes bad outcomes are possible. No amount of favorable data will change that and unfavorable data does exist even if the medical community doesn't want to talk about it. You either believe that statement or you don't. From this point forward zero minds will be changed, so i get arguing is fun but that's all it is.

Mis and disinformation cuts both ways. Perhaps those with deep knowledge of vaccines saw they were represented in a way that was logical and worked as advertised. A large part of the country however was oversold on the effectiveness. Bad outcomes were hidden or downplayed, the experimental nature of them weren't made clear and there's plenty more examples not that they would matter, but to act as though the loss of trust from people is irrational? Cmon. The medical community continues to double down on safety/effectiveness while glossing over concerns with smug indifference. They're tired sure, but so is a large part of the population looking for honesty and not just the favorable data used to push the narrative they want to push. We wonder why vaccine compliance across the board is dropping, maybe the medical community should look in the mirror and ask what their role in that is.

Unpopular take no doubt about it. Is it completely irrational? Not in my world and apparently quite a few others. Have concerns or a bad outcome and you're immediately labeled antivaccine, troll, bot, bad actor, irrational, stupid, to make you shut up about it.

Doctors will certainly help with adverse reactions, including those due to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. No doctor will blow off myocarditis, or any other discrete, objective diagnosis.

But establishing causality is extremely problematic, and a huge spectrum of vague symptoms have been attributed to vaccines. Moreover, diseases like myocarditis occur independently, including due to Covid-19, and other (mostly viral) infections.

Despite these limitations, we have have concrete evidence the medical community is paying attention - Astra Zeneca removed their covid vaccine, after all. Vaccines for rotavirus and Lyme disease met a similar fate, being withdrawn from the market after initial approval. And this ignores all the vaccines which were scrapped due to safety concerns before release/FDA approval.

On the other hand, there’s a group of people who demand responses to unanswerable questions, and 100% vaccine safety, without a clear time frame to make that (impossible) declaration. “Research” has clearly made up their minds, and at some point, they shouldn’t be taken seriously. The effort is better spent on those who are willing to be helped.

My comment on myocarditis can be cleared up. Yes, they won't deny that when presented with the evidence it occurred, it can be a challenge to get the evidence from a provider, but they will treat if proven. That's a relatively easy one to diagnose comparatively. Other illness, the more ME/CFS, EBV/viral reactivation, abnormal clotting type and you are on your own. I want people to know that. It can be rare certainly, but know it's part of the risk profile. There is very limited assistance and it will be on you to find it.

There's plenty of reasons for people to be skeptical and it isn't on them being stupid or falling for a grift. The shoddy data people like to point out isn't always as unreasonable as it can be made out to be, just like the miracle isn't always what it's made out to be. Ofcourse there truly are bad actors on both sides of the arguments.

It's a circular argument that will go round and round. The lines are drawn, but those that are skeptical are within reason for being so.

Eta. I replied here, but gonna bow out of this one and hope i can stick to that. It's to personal a topic and to divisive for me to wade into. I can appreciate everyone's input and leave it alone.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

What is the line for "long term risk data"?

How long do we wait to accumulate data?

I won’t speak for Max, but I’ve asked other posters this question multiple times, wrt vaccines and weight loss drugs, and it’s always met with

If I didn’t know any better, I might conclude the entire “long term safety” argument is being made in bad faith.

Same. Nothing kills these conversations like objective metrics. I have asked this question probably 2 dozen times in the last 5 years. I will also typically ask for a list of vaccines that are effective at "preventing you from getting...." virus X that are similar in nature to COVID. Show me an example of a vaccine that accomplishes this standard against viruses with similar characteristics. That too goes unanswered.

Not sure why that was the bar. The vaccine did best at keeping people from dying of COVID. Which seems important. It was never that severe a disease, until it was for certain people. Final number seems about 2.5x - 7x less likely to die.

Now that we all seem to have some immunity, if it doesn't prevent you from getting it there seems a lot less reason to get it. If mortality spikes, that changes things. Maybe.

A combo of politics and "do your own research" people deeming it so. When the initial results of the first vaccine iteration came out against the first two strands at 90%+ that was an absolutely unheard of number. Never had a vaccine for these types of viruses been that successful. Assumptions were made that somehow this number should stay 90%+ as the virus went through all its modifications. That's just not how it works.

To your last sentence, I am a person who got the first two shots and the first booster. I haven't had another. It's still a dangerous virus and can kill people (same can be said for flu) but our immunity is pushing this closer to flu which is a good thing in terms of management. The comment was made above that this country is now in line more with what other countries are recommending. This is true. What is missed in that is the backend implications of access. It's a very different thing to say "hey, we don't think x group needs to get these boosters, but they are still available if you choose otherwise" than to say "hey, we do not recommend this group needs to get this booster and as a result, it's going to get significantly more expensive for those that still want to get the boosters". The guideline is just scratching the surface. The real implications lie in how treatment and availability will be impacted for those who want to go against the recommendations. This is the other side of the "mandate" coin that people were up in arms over.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

If the covid vaccine goes sideways for you myocarditis is probably the least of your worries. Rare? Sure, but real and if those worse outcomes happen you're on your own. No doctor will try and help even if you get lucky and find one that believes bad outcomes are possible. No amount of favorable data will change that and unfavorable data does exist even if the medical community doesn't want to talk about it. You either believe that statement or you don't. From this point forward zero minds will be changed, so i get arguing is fun but that's all it is.

Mis and disinformation cuts both ways. Perhaps those with deep knowledge of vaccines saw they were represented in a way that was logical and worked as advertised. A large part of the country however was oversold on the effectiveness. Bad outcomes were hidden or downplayed, the experimental nature of them weren't made clear and there's plenty more examples not that they would matter, but to act as though the loss of trust from people is irrational? Cmon. The medical community continues to double down on safety/effectiveness while glossing over concerns with smug indifference. They're tired sure, but so is a large part of the population looking for honesty and not just the favorable data used to push the narrative they want to push. We wonder why vaccine compliance across the board is dropping, maybe the medical community should look in the mirror and ask what their role in that is.

Unpopular take no doubt about it. Is it completely irrational? Not in my world and apparently quite a few others. Have concerns or a bad outcome and you're immediately labeled antivaccine, troll, bot, bad actor, irrational, stupid, to make you shut up about it.

Doctors will certainly help with adverse reactions, including those due to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. No doctor will blow off myocarditis, or any other discrete, objective diagnosis.

But establishing causality is extremely problematic, and a huge spectrum of vague symptoms have been attributed to vaccines. Moreover, diseases like myocarditis occur independently, including due to Covid-19, and other (mostly viral) infections.

Despite these limitations, we have have concrete evidence the medical community is paying attention - Astra Zeneca removed their covid vaccine, after all. Vaccines for rotavirus and Lyme disease met a similar fate, being withdrawn from the market after initial approval. And this ignores all the vaccines which were scrapped due to safety concerns before release/FDA approval.

On the other hand, there’s a group of people who demand responses to unanswerable questions, and 100% vaccine safety, without a clear time frame to make that (impossible) declaration. “Research” has clearly made up their minds, and at some point, they shouldn’t be taken seriously. The effort is better spent on those who are willing to be helped.

I'll add to this that I can completely empathize with TLL's take here if he doesn't have the benefit of seeing what is going on globally in studying the virus. The US has made political decisions that make a lot of what he says true. Fortunately, the rest of the world is pressing on. It's already acknowledged that we likely lose billions in productivity globally, every year because of long covid. Its also true that the world is spending billions on research as a result. Its also true that long covid is an outcome from having had covid.

I learned very early on to seek information from other countries that didn't have the political fighting over medical care. What happened and is happening here is disgusting.

Eta. My medical knowledge is limited in a clinical sense, but i was forced to get on board real quick with both covid and it's long term complications. It's on the individual to either sink or swim. Forget the vaccine, if covid itself goes sideways you will also be on your own.

 

[gianmarco]

It's kind of incredible to me that there are people that argue the effectiveness of the vaccine overall.

I'm not talking about today, when almost everyone has been exposed/developed some immunity either due to infection or the vaccine.

But to state the vaccine fell short?

The vaccine saved MILLIONS of lives over the course of a year. We went from thousands dying every day to a fraction of that after it was introduced.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

If the covid vaccine goes sideways for you myocarditis is probably the least of your worries. Rare? Sure, but real and if those worse outcomes happen you're on your own. No doctor will try and help even if you get lucky and find one that believes bad outcomes are possible. No amount of favorable data will change that and unfavorable data does exist even if the medical community doesn't want to talk about it. You either believe that statement or you don't. From this point forward zero minds will be changed, so i get arguing is fun but that's all it is.

Mis and disinformation cuts both ways. Perhaps those with deep knowledge of vaccines saw they were represented in a way that was logical and worked as advertised. A large part of the country however was oversold on the effectiveness. Bad outcomes were hidden or downplayed, the experimental nature of them weren't made clear and there's plenty more examples not that they would matter, but to act as though the loss of trust from people is irrational? Cmon. The medical community continues to double down on safety/effectiveness while glossing over concerns with smug indifference. They're tired sure, but so is a large part of the population looking for honesty and not just the favorable data used to push the narrative they want to push. We wonder why vaccine compliance across the board is dropping, maybe the medical community should look in the mirror and ask what their role in that is.

Unpopular take no doubt about it. Is it completely irrational? Not in my world and apparently quite a few others. Have concerns or a bad outcome and you're immediately labeled antivaccine, troll, bot, bad actor, irrational, stupid, to make you shut up about it.

Doctors will certainly help with adverse reactions, including those due to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. No doctor will blow off myocarditis, or any other discrete, objective diagnosis.

But establishing causality is extremely problematic, and a huge spectrum of vague symptoms have been attributed to vaccines. Moreover, diseases like myocarditis occur independently, including due to Covid-19, and other (mostly viral) infections.

Despite these limitations, we have have concrete evidence the medical community is paying attention - Astra Zeneca removed their covid vaccine, after all. Vaccines for rotavirus and Lyme disease met a similar fate, being withdrawn from the market after initial approval. And this ignores all the vaccines which were scrapped due to safety concerns before release/FDA approval.

On the other hand, there’s a group of people who demand responses to unanswerable questions, and 100% vaccine safety, without a clear time frame to make that (impossible) declaration. “Research” has clearly made up their minds, and at some point, they shouldn’t be taken seriously. The effort is better spent on those who are willing to be helped.

I'll add to this that I can completely empathize with TLL's take here if he doesn't have the benefit of seeing what is going on globally in studying the virus. The US has made political decisions that make a lot of what he says true. Fortunately, the rest of the world is pressing on. It's already acknowledged that we likely lose billions in productivity globally, every year because of long covid. Its also true that the world is spending billions on research as a result. Its also true that long covid is an outcome from having had covid.

I learned very early on to seek information from other countries that didn't have the political fighting over medical care. What happened and is happening here is disgusting.

Eta. My medical knowledge is limited in a clinical sense, but i was forced to get on board real quick with both covid and it's long term complications. It's on the individual to either sink or swim. Forget the vaccine, if covid itself goes sideways you will also be on your own.

Until relatively recently, who/what you paid attention to was either wise or unwise. If you stayed away from the politicians and political appointees and paid attention to the studies and scientists, you were fine. This is changing quickly with the massive cuts to research and general MAHA movement. Now the scientists and studies are becoming less and less and the US is falling behind the rest of the world.

I tend to agree that healthcare in this country is pretty gross. I disagree completely with the "output over outcome" approach and the "for profit" goals that drive the approach.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

It's kind of incredible to me that there are people that argue the effectiveness of the vaccine overall.

I'm not talking about today, when almost everyone has been exposed/developed some immunity either due to infection or the vaccine.

But to state the vaccine fell short?

The vaccine saved MILLIONS of lives over the course of a year. We went from thousands dying every day to a fraction of that after it was introduced.

This is true, no arguing from me here, but people should consider how much spike protein they want to continue to introduce into their body from the vaccine (and covid infection) if the disease no longer presents the same issues to healthy individuals. That's an area we may be falling short on data so far.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

If the covid vaccine goes sideways for you myocarditis is probably the least of your worries. Rare? Sure, but real and if those worse outcomes happen you're on your own. No doctor will try and help even if you get lucky and find one that believes bad outcomes are possible. No amount of favorable data will change that and unfavorable data does exist even if the medical community doesn't want to talk about it. You either believe that statement or you don't. From this point forward zero minds will be changed, so i get arguing is fun but that's all it is.

Mis and disinformation cuts both ways. Perhaps those with deep knowledge of vaccines saw they were represented in a way that was logical and worked as advertised. A large part of the country however was oversold on the effectiveness. Bad outcomes were hidden or downplayed, the experimental nature of them weren't made clear and there's plenty more examples not that they would matter, but to act as though the loss of trust from people is irrational? Cmon. The medical community continues to double down on safety/effectiveness while glossing over concerns with smug indifference. They're tired sure, but so is a large part of the population looking for honesty and not just the favorable data used to push the narrative they want to push. We wonder why vaccine compliance across the board is dropping, maybe the medical community should look in the mirror and ask what their role in that is.

Unpopular take no doubt about it. Is it completely irrational? Not in my world and apparently quite a few others. Have concerns or a bad outcome and you're immediately labeled antivaccine, troll, bot, bad actor, irrational, stupid, to make you shut up about it.

Doctors will certainly help with adverse reactions, including those due to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. No doctor will blow off myocarditis, or any other discrete, objective diagnosis.

But establishing causality is extremely problematic, and a huge spectrum of vague symptoms have been attributed to vaccines. Moreover, diseases like myocarditis occur independently, including due to Covid-19, and other (mostly viral) infections.

Despite these limitations, we have have concrete evidence the medical community is paying attention - Astra Zeneca removed their covid vaccine, after all. Vaccines for rotavirus and Lyme disease met a similar fate, being withdrawn from the market after initial approval. And this ignores all the vaccines which were scrapped due to safety concerns before release/FDA approval.

On the other hand, there’s a group of people who demand responses to unanswerable questions, and 100% vaccine safety, without a clear time frame to make that (impossible) declaration. “Research” has clearly made up their minds, and at some point, they shouldn’t be taken seriously. The effort is better spent on those who are willing to be helped.

I'll add to this that I can completely empathize with TLL's take here if he doesn't have the benefit of seeing what is going on globally in studying the virus. The US has made political decisions that make a lot of what he says true. Fortunately, the rest of the world is pressing on. It's already acknowledged that we likely lose billions in productivity globally, every year because of long covid. Its also true that the world is spending billions on research as a result. Its also true that long covid is an outcome from having had covid.

I learned very early on to seek information from other countries that didn't have the political fighting over medical care. What happened and is happening here is disgusting.

Eta. My medical knowledge is limited in a clinical sense, but i was forced to get on board real quick with both covid and it's long term complications. It's on the individual to either sink or swim. Forget the vaccine, if covid itself goes sideways you will also be on your own.

Until relatively recently, who/what you paid attention to was either wise or unwise. If you stayed away from the politicians and political appointees and paid attention to the studies and scientists, you were fine. This is changing quickly with the massive cuts to research and general MAHA movement. Now the scientists and studies are becoming less and less and the US is falling behind the rest of the world.

I tend to agree that healthcare in this country is pretty gross. I disagree completely with the "output over outcome" approach and the "for profit" goals that drive the approach.

I'm not terribly political in nature and find it distasteful mostly. MAHA isn't my cup of tea and I'll leave it at that. I like to believe i follow the science which is why i felt the need to look elsewhere for better or worse. That's not to say I wasn't following along here too.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

If the covid vaccine goes sideways for you myocarditis is probably the least of your worries. Rare? Sure, but real and if those worse outcomes happen you're on your own. No doctor will try and help even if you get lucky and find one that believes bad outcomes are possible. No amount of favorable data will change that and unfavorable data does exist even if the medical community doesn't want to talk about it. You either believe that statement or you don't. From this point forward zero minds will be changed, so i get arguing is fun but that's all it is.

Mis and disinformation cuts both ways. Perhaps those with deep knowledge of vaccines saw they were represented in a way that was logical and worked as advertised. A large part of the country however was oversold on the effectiveness. Bad outcomes were hidden or downplayed, the experimental nature of them weren't made clear and there's plenty more examples not that they would matter, but to act as though the loss of trust from people is irrational? Cmon. The medical community continues to double down on safety/effectiveness while glossing over concerns with smug indifference. They're tired sure, but so is a large part of the population looking for honesty and not just the favorable data used to push the narrative they want to push. We wonder why vaccine compliance across the board is dropping, maybe the medical community should look in the mirror and ask what their role in that is.

Unpopular take no doubt about it. Is it completely irrational? Not in my world and apparently quite a few others. Have concerns or a bad outcome and you're immediately labeled antivaccine, troll, bot, bad actor, irrational, stupid, to make you shut up about it.

Doctors will certainly help with adverse reactions, including those due to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. No doctor will blow off myocarditis, or any other discrete, objective diagnosis.

But establishing causality is extremely problematic, and a huge spectrum of vague symptoms have been attributed to vaccines. Moreover, diseases like myocarditis occur independently, including due to Covid-19, and other (mostly viral) infections.

Despite these limitations, we have have concrete evidence the medical community is paying attention - Astra Zeneca removed their covid vaccine, after all. Vaccines for rotavirus and Lyme disease met a similar fate, being withdrawn from the market after initial approval. And this ignores all the vaccines which were scrapped due to safety concerns before release/FDA approval.

On the other hand, there’s a group of people who demand responses to unanswerable questions, and 100% vaccine safety, without a clear time frame to make that (impossible) declaration. “Research” has clearly made up their minds, and at some point, they shouldn’t be taken seriously. The effort is better spent on those who are willing to be helped.

I'll add to this that I can completely empathize with TLL's take here if he doesn't have the benefit of seeing what is going on globally in studying the virus. The US has made political decisions that make a lot of what he says true. Fortunately, the rest of the world is pressing on. It's already acknowledged that we likely lose billions in productivity globally, every year because of long covid. Its also true that the world is spending billions on research as a result. Its also true that long covid is an outcome from having had covid.

I learned very early on to seek information from other countries that didn't have the political fighting over medical care. What happened and is happening here is disgusting.

Eta. My medical knowledge is limited in a clinical sense, but i was forced to get on board real quick with both covid and it's long term complications. It's on the individual to either sink or swim. Forget the vaccine, if covid itself goes sideways you will also be on your own.

Until relatively recently, who/what you paid attention to was either wise or unwise. If you stayed away from the politicians and political appointees and paid attention to the studies and scientists, you were fine. This is changing quickly with the massive cuts to research and general MAHA movement. Now the scientists and studies are becoming less and less and the US is falling behind the rest of the world.

I tend to agree that healthcare in this country is pretty gross. I disagree completely with the "output over outcome" approach and the "for profit" goals that drive the approach.

I'm not terribly political in nature and find it distasteful mostly. MAHA isn't my cup of tea and I'll leave it at that. I like to believe i follow the science which is why i felt the need to look elsewhere for better or worse. That's not to say I wasn't following along here too.

This country was late to the party on long covid in comparison to the rest of the world. We had some collaborations, but labs didn't start their research in earnest until well after the rest of the world was already blazing the path. Now that research is having roadblocks being thrown in their paths.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

If the covid vaccine goes sideways for you myocarditis is probably the least of your worries. Rare? Sure, but real and if those worse outcomes happen you're on your own. No doctor will try and help even if you get lucky and find one that believes bad outcomes are possible. No amount of favorable data will change that and unfavorable data does exist even if the medical community doesn't want to talk about it. You either believe that statement or you don't. From this point forward zero minds will be changed, so i get arguing is fun but that's all it is.

Mis and disinformation cuts both ways. Perhaps those with deep knowledge of vaccines saw they were represented in a way that was logical and worked as advertised. A large part of the country however was oversold on the effectiveness. Bad outcomes were hidden or downplayed, the experimental nature of them weren't made clear and there's plenty more examples not that they would matter, but to act as though the loss of trust from people is irrational? Cmon. The medical community continues to double down on safety/effectiveness while glossing over concerns with smug indifference. They're tired sure, but so is a large part of the population looking for honesty and not just the favorable data used to push the narrative they want to push. We wonder why vaccine compliance across the board is dropping, maybe the medical community should look in the mirror and ask what their role in that is.

Unpopular take no doubt about it. Is it completely irrational? Not in my world and apparently quite a few others. Have concerns or a bad outcome and you're immediately labeled antivaccine, troll, bot, bad actor, irrational, stupid, to make you shut up about it.

Doctors will certainly help with adverse reactions, including those due to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. No doctor will blow off myocarditis, or any other discrete, objective diagnosis.

But establishing causality is extremely problematic, and a huge spectrum of vague symptoms have been attributed to vaccines. Moreover, diseases like myocarditis occur independently, including due to Covid-19, and other (mostly viral) infections.

Despite these limitations, we have have concrete evidence the medical community is paying attention - Astra Zeneca removed their covid vaccine, after all. Vaccines for rotavirus and Lyme disease met a similar fate, being withdrawn from the market after initial approval. And this ignores all the vaccines which were scrapped due to safety concerns before release/FDA approval.

On the other hand, there’s a group of people who demand responses to unanswerable questions, and 100% vaccine safety, without a clear time frame to make that (impossible) declaration. “Research” has clearly made up their minds, and at some point, they shouldn’t be taken seriously. The effort is better spent on those who are willing to be helped.

I'll add to this that I can completely empathize with TLL's take here if he doesn't have the benefit of seeing what is going on globally in studying the virus. The US has made political decisions that make a lot of what he says true. Fortunately, the rest of the world is pressing on. It's already acknowledged that we likely lose billions in productivity globally, every year because of long covid. Its also true that the world is spending billions on research as a result. Its also true that long covid is an outcome from having had covid.

I learned very early on to seek information from other countries that didn't have the political fighting over medical care. What happened and is happening here is disgusting.

Eta. My medical knowledge is limited in a clinical sense, but i was forced to get on board real quick with both covid and it's long term complications. It's on the individual to either sink or swim. Forget the vaccine, if covid itself goes sideways you will also be on your own.

Until relatively recently, who/what you paid attention to was either wise or unwise. If you stayed away from the politicians and political appointees and paid attention to the studies and scientists, you were fine. This is changing quickly with the massive cuts to research and general MAHA movement. Now the scientists and studies are becoming less and less and the US is falling behind the rest of the world.

I tend to agree that healthcare in this country is pretty gross. I disagree completely with the "output over outcome" approach and the "for profit" goals that drive the approach.

I'm not terribly political in nature and find it distasteful mostly. MAHA isn't my cup of tea and I'll leave it at that. I like to believe i follow the science which is why i felt the need to look elsewhere for better or worse. That's not to say I wasn't following along here too.

This country was late to the party on long covid in comparison to the rest of the world. We had some collaborations, but labs didn't start their research in earnest until well after the rest of the world was already blazing the path. Now that research is having roadblocks being thrown in their paths.

Agree. It's an important part of the covid story that seems to have lost any stream it may have had.

Continuing research there from both vaccine and natural infection would help us all. My experience with it is a sample size of one, but it gives me perspective and knowledge into what that looked like to diagnose, manage, and ultimately treat that very few have. I'll just leave it at that as i know I'm pissing into the wind trying to beat the drum.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

I don't think the myocarditis risk is overblown for healthy teenage boys. After stratifying the data they are by far the most at risk demographic. They are at minimal risk for severe covid outcomes as well. The FDA agrees as they don't recommend it for them any longer.

From Prasad's presser the myocarditis risk was downplayed in 2021 due to the Biden administration's order. I don't know why the administration chose not to share relevant data with the people, but thats the route they took and the most logical solution to me is the vaccine hesitancy angle.

Im not sure what protection the current vaccines provide anymore. Neither does the FDA. There is no good data to show benefit for the healthy population. Especially those who have taken multiple doses or had a recent infection.

The double myocarditis risk from vaccine and covid infection was referenced by Prasad in his myocarditis warning label address video I posted early. Towards the end.

I agree that times are changing and 2025 is a different atmosphere than 2020-2022. The current covid vaccine uptake in children was less than 7%. 93+% of parents don't view the current covid risk as serious enough to stay updated. The Federal building I work at doesn't even send covid positive people home anymore. Its not the risk it was in 2020.

Do you believe everyone needs an updated booster yearly? I personally don't. But I also don't care if people want to get them either.

Do you also think other countries are getting it wrong? Our policy basically matches the rest of the world now.

Myocarditis risk is 100% overblown for teenage boys, because a) it is usually minor (large majority of cases, of course there are always rare exceptions) and b) short lived. And as mentioned multiple times above, the risk is greater from infection bc not just the risk of the event itself, but you're also getting infected to get it in the first place, which is a whole other series of risks you are introducing... which goes back to the point of the vaccines > avoiding, or reducing severity of, infection.

I think people do need a yearly booster, IMO. We know vaccine induced and infection induced immunity both wane over time. I will absolutely be getting a yearly booster as long as they are available (which they may not be any more, I don't have high hopes at this point) because my intention is to get this #### as few times as possible (I've not had it yet that I know of). The FDA in it's current gutted state is not who I'm relying on for recommendations on, well, much of anything. But they will determine the availability of these vaccines and others, unfortunately. And depending on their recommendations, who knows if insurance companies will even cover vaccines any more. Maybe we'll get lucky and no more bad mutations from here on out, but regardless, there are people still today getting terribly sick from Covid infections and still getting long Covid symptoms. And that is with vaccines in the rotation still. I guess we'll find out what happens if those are taken away.

Wait Prasad said the risk of myocarditis is double from vaccines?? That cannot be true. I'd need to see the citations on that to believe it, because all the studies I have seen on this say the exact opposite. (back to my earlier point about Prasad cherry picking data) .

And lastly, I don't really look at other countries because why would I at this point? Most of them have much better healthcare systems than we do, sadly. And majority are in better health than us (U.S., in general terms) to start with. And as I said earlier, there aren't really any apples-to-apples country vs country comparisons anymore with the differences in just about every metric, vaccine coverage, etc.

 

[Max Power]

I don't think the myocarditis risk is overblown for healthy teenage boys. After stratifying the data they are by far the most at risk demographic. They are at minimal risk for severe covid outcomes as well. The FDA agrees as they don't recommend it for them any longer.

From Prasad's presser the myocarditis risk was downplayed in 2021 due to the Biden administration's order. I don't know why the administration chose not to share relevant data with the people, but thats the route they took and the most logical solution to me is the vaccine hesitancy angle.

Im not sure what protection the current vaccines provide anymore. Neither does the FDA. There is no good data to show benefit for the healthy population. Especially those who have taken multiple doses or had a recent infection.

The double myocarditis risk from vaccine and covid infection was referenced by Prasad in his myocarditis warning label address video I posted early. Towards the end.

I agree that times are changing and 2025 is a different atmosphere than 2020-2022. The current covid vaccine uptake in children was less than 7%. 93+% of parents don't view the current covid risk as serious enough to stay updated. The Federal building I work at doesn't even send covid positive people home anymore. Its not the risk it was in 2020.

Do you believe everyone needs an updated booster yearly? I personally don't. But I also don't care if people want to get them either.

Do you also think other countries are getting it wrong? Our policy basically matches the rest of the world now.

Myocarditis risk is 100% overblown for teenage boys, because a) it is usually minor (large majority of cases, of course there are always rare exceptions) and b) short lived. And as mentioned multiple times above, the risk is greater from infection bc not just the risk of the event itself, but you're also getting infected to get it in the first place, which is a whole other series of risks you are introducing... which goes back to the point of the vaccines > avoiding, or reducing severity of, infection.

I think people do need a yearly booster, IMO. We know vaccine induced and infection induced immunity both wane over time. I will absolutely be getting a yearly booster as long as they are available (which they may not be any more, I don't have high hopes at this point) because my intention is to get this #### as few times as possible (I've not had it yet that I know of). The FDA in it's current gutted state is not who I'm relying on for recommendations on, well, much of anything. But they will determine the availability of these vaccines and others, unfortunately. And depending on their recommendations, who knows if insurance companies will even cover vaccines any more. Maybe we'll get lucky and no more bad mutations from here on out, but regardless, there are people still today getting terribly sick from Covid infections and still getting long Covid symptoms. And that is with vaccines in the rotation still. I guess we'll find out what happens if those are taken away.

Wait Prasad said the risk of myocarditis is double from vaccines?? That cannot be true. I'd need to see the citations on that to believe it, because all the studies I have seen on this say the exact opposite. (back to my earlier point about Prasad cherry picking data) .

And lastly, I don't really look at other countries because why would I at this point? Most of them have much better healthcare systems than we do, sadly. And majority are in better health than us (U.S., in general terms) to start with. And as I said earlier, there aren't really any apples-to-apples country vs country comparisons anymore with the differences in just about every metric, vaccine coverage, etc.

I appreciate your perspective on it. Prasad wasn't saying the myocarditis risk was double from the vaccine... he was saying that there is a myocarditis risk from the vaccine AND also from the virus. Getting vaccinated doesn't eliminate the risk of getting myocarditis from covid as well. Sorry if I explained that poorly.

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.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Myocarditis is a potential risk in every single situation foreign proteins/antigens are introduced to the body. Its a common response especially in young males. All this was true prior to COVID.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

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.

 

[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.

ETA: It appears he is going back into the same role.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

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.

 

[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.

 

[uwillbsoon]

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.

There was little evidence of conflicts on the current boards. They have disclosure and ethics requirements.

ACIP has recommended against vaccines.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

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).

 

[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.

There was little evidence of conflicts on the current boards. They have disclosure and ethics requirements.

ACIP has recommended against vaccines.

Just going off the claims I read.

'Rubber stamp' vaccine advisory board fired by RFK Jr. for conflicts of interest has revealing past

CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices once recommended vaccine after official admitted it had no data on simultaneous inoculation, but "our general approach" is to give vaccines at "same time in different limbs."

justthenews.com

 

[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

 

[Sparky Polastri]

oh boy

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Doug B]

Just going off the claims I read.

It can't come from Just The News.

Just The News – Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no

mediabiasfactcheck.com

EDIT: Sorry -- missed that you were bowing out.

 

[Max Power]

Just going off the claims I read.

It can't come from Just The News.

Just The News – Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no

mediabiasfactcheck.com

EDIT: Sorry -- missed that you were bowing out.

Oh I know the game around here.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Wondering why RFK appointed Malone if he has a genuine concern for "conflicts of interest"? I said above (might even still be on this page), observe the actions to understand what they are really thinking/believe. The words coming out of these people aren't worth very much.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

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.