|
|
The very notion of whether COVID-19 booster shots are actually called for is now rife with conflicting messages from the Biden administration and from medical experts advising the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The New York Times reports, on 28 October, that scientists on the two committees advising those agencies were recently interviewed on their votes which ultimately approved the booster shots.
The Way the Question is Asked Influences the Answer
Many panelists’ comments were damning of the process, taking issue, for example, with the nature of the questions, which required Yes or No answers without any provision for nuance. Some said they felt compelled to vote for approval of the shots because of the way the agencies had framed the questions.
“They Got What They Wanted”
One member of the FDA’s advisory committee commented that “…In our hearts, I think people don’t quite agree with this notion of a booster dose,” but that the drug companies “got what they wanted” and “the administration got what they wanted.”
Low Quality Data
Other experts remarked that their votes had been informed by limited data on the safety and efficacy of the booster shots; the data in favor of the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson shots were characterized as “of very low quality.” But some voted to approve those boosters out of a sense of “fairness,” because they had already voted to approve the shots from Pfizer.
“Lip Service to Science and the Evidence”
Some panelists remarked that the die had been cast when Pres. Biden promised (in August) booster shots for all adults, putting advisers in “a very difficult situation to do much of anything other than what everybody has already announced that we’ve done” and making approval “inevitable.” One remarked that some administration officials pay mere “lip service to science and the evidence.”
Despite having approved the administration’s booster shot program, several advisers believe that data shows that most Americans (excepting those over age 65) are protected against severe illness and have no need of booster shots. Approval of booster shots for those aged 18 to 49 with other risk factors only “squeaked by,” and there was no approval for those facing occupational risks, although that category was included only because CDC director Rochelle Walensky overrode her advisers; see “SELLING BOOSTER SHOTS, CDC’S WALENSKY SAYS ‘FU’ TO AGENCY ADVISERS” (28 Sep 2021).
Dr. Celine Gounder, an infectious disease specialist and a former advisor to the Biden administration, noted that this is “a confusing mess” which is “going to create more problems.” But she also remarked that “the perception is that the horse is out of the barn, and there’s not really much you can do at this point.” Dr. Gounder was previously quoted in Trends Journal as saying, “Feeling sick like a dog and laid up in bed, but not in the hospital, is not a good enough reason” for a booster shot; see “CDC’S 3 NEW VAX EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES = BIG LIE” (24 Aug 2021).
TREND FORECAST: As Trends Journal has noted before, there will continue to be solid scientific grounds for questioning whether the profit motive—along with whatever political agendas are also driving the push for “Vaccines for All, Forever!”—outweighs genuine concern for the public’s well-being; see “COVID BOOSTERS ARE THE FUTURE?” (10 Aug 2021).
Furthermore, the Times article clearly exemplifies how, regardless of facts, those in control are in complete control and those who refuse to follow orders or do what they are told are dismissed, ignored or beaten down… it has been, and continues to be, “the way of the world.”