Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are two key things I don't understand about this whole booster thing.
1. The suggestion that we want to have the most antibodies as possible all the time. Having a disease of too many antibodies myself I know they are bad for you. The drug companies keep saying "antibodies wane" - yes they wane. They are supposed to. They come back out if you have subsequent infections. Having too many antibodies in your blood all the time causes blood viscosity. Also there are these things called light chains that are "waste products" of antibodies... too much in your system can cause kidney issues.
2. Why they seem so dead set on exploring the breakthrough cases as a consequence of "antibodies waning". There is no Rhyme or reason to the breakthrough cases... so couldn't it just as likely be linked to poor technique in administering the vaccine (not using a long enough needle on overweight people) and therefore the original shot gave no protection? Or some other theory.
Likely a globalist decision. The globalists are complaining that people in “rich” countries are using too many vaccines.
I watched it live stream. No. The reasoning was, and they seemed generally in consensus, that there was a lack of evidence that the benefits would outweigh the potential risks, unless the person was at high risk. They were particularly concerned about younger adults. In other words, they were following the science.
The end result is likely to be a 3rd booster if you want it, but not required or advised except in select populations.
You know, following the science. I do hope this indicates they are willing to consider putting brakes on the children’s version.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
From what I understand, the vaccine wanes in terms of preventing infection, but certainly not to the point as if you had no vaccine at all. (Seems Moderna is "holding" fairly well at the 6-month point, but Pfizer drops to 74% or something.)
But it remains very effective in preventing hospitalizations and death, and really....isn't that what matters? I'm not going to cower in fear on the chance that I might get a mild, flu-like sickness that will have me down for a week.
And don't start about the break-through cases where vaxxed people did end up hospitalized, or worse. There are always exceptions, and life isn't without some risks. But you have to consider statistics. Otherwise, we'd never get in a car and drive on the highway.
It seems Biden just picks arbitrary date out the air for no good reason. He did it with Afghanistan (August 31st, come hell or high water), and now he did it with the booster (September 21, because).
Maybe he thinks that makes he come across as commanding and in control.
.. so couldn't it just as likely be linked to poor technique in administering the vaccine (not using a long enough needle on overweight people) and therefore the original shot gave no protection? Or some other theory.
My theory is they should not have changed the mRNA vaccine storage from the original supercold to regular fridge up to a month. They changed it to facilitate distribution. But there was a reason for supercold storage in the first place. The biggest problem of the mRNA has always been its instability.
And what about transport in the summer heat? I have bought too many containers of previously melted ice cream. There is always human error.
From what I understand, the vaccine wanes in terms of preventing infection, but certainly not to the point as if you had no vaccine at all. (Seems Moderna is "holding" fairly well at the 6-month point, but Pfizer drops to 74% or something.)
But it remains very effective in preventing hospitalizations and death, and really....isn't that what matters? I'm not going to cower in fear on the chance that I might get a mild, flu-like sickness that will have me down for a week.
And don't start about the break-through cases where vaxxed people did end up hospitalized, or worse. There are always exceptions, and life isn't without some risks. But you have to consider statistics. Otherwise, we'd never get in a car and drive on the highway.
You and others who make this argument should prove you really believe it or I'm not buying it.
I want you and other scientists who subscribe this view to do the following.
Get your data and papers together for presentation.
Sit down at a conference table, 3-4 feet apart, without masks, indoors. Make your case while doing so. You must act like it is 2019.
We will have to wait to see how "influential" this panel is when the FDA decides to make its decision.
Bingo!
FDA does NOT have to listen to their recommendation. This is not a binding statement or advisory body that has any influence over FDA.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
