On 7/27/2021 at 9:40 PM, EricTh said:

Peer review doesn't mean anything if most of the peers are from the same group. To be meaningful , it has to be international from a lot of countries and not just the western countries supporting Pfizer.

This has been long the problem with Climate Science.  For too long peer reviews have been untaken by those in the same group.  People pushing 'science' according to confirmation bias.  They need to protect their future grants.

I have no chops to say one way or the other whether the mix and match vaccine approach works.  The main reason I chose to vaccinate was to enable travel. What troubles me is that some countries (the USA for example) don’t accept the mix and match vaccine regimen for travel/entry.  It also does not help that WHO (cursed be their name) is also unsupportive of mix and match.  It would be useful if the health authorities globally could all be in the same page.  Mix and match: it’s safe or it’s not, it’s effective or it’s not.  Why the controversy when everyone is looking at the same set of data/facts?

On 7/27/2021 at 8:18 PM, Scrotobike said:

Has it gone through the process of approval such a peer review?

It no longer matters.  If enough media outlets and ministers says it should be used, studies aren't needed.  Dr. Manop's word is good enough and the protocol should start immediately.  Benefits outweigh risks so just an expert's "ok" is good enough.  If people get sick, they had something wrong with them.  Nothing to do with these lifesaving vaccines.  All vaccines are safe and effective. Anyone who says different is an antivaxxer and should be thrown into prison until they are re-educated.