FDA meeting on boosters. Points of interest.

[248900_1469958220]

If I am allowed to share a video by the FDA..I mean, if that is deemed to be relevant  news....it would be appreciated. 

 

I will draw your attention to 2 points in this presentation:

 

4 hours nine minutes and fifty seconds: an EXTREMELY telling graph and explanations.

 

Four hours and twenty minutes: Some quotes can be taken from this guy that should be in newspapers...but they are not.

 

In the interest of free and open debate I ask that this post be allowed to stay. This is a meeting by the FDA. It does not get more legit than this. 

 

 

[Jeffr2]

You really fall for this bs don't you?

 

Give us the source as to how you found out about this. Guaranteed you didn't watch the whole thing.

 

The references were for nymag.com. NOT the FDA.

 

Totally misleading. But expected.

[Scott]

I think it is rather disingenuous to post an 8 hour video and expect people to respond to it. 

 

There are plenty of news sources which give a more digestible analysis of the decision by the FDA.   Here are three reasons from one source:

 

First, there was not enough evidence to support widespread use of boosters with much of the data coming from the elderly population, which was approved for boosters.  

 

Second,  the vaccines already distributed to the public have been effective in reaching public health benchmarks. “The primary job was to prevent hospitalization and deaths, and we’re still seeing that at north of 90% for most of the vaccine.

Finally, is the choice to place greater emphasis on vaccinating the unvaccinated populations, rather than improving the immunity of those who are already vaccinated.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/3-reasons-why-fda-rejected-booster-shots-195236606.html

[Someone Else]

"4 hours nine minutes and fifty seconds: an EXTREMELY telling graph and explanations."

 

First off, why not just say 4:09:50 like a normal human being?

 

This portion of the ADCOM is from the Open Public Hearing portion of the proceedings where any unvetted person from the general public can give a brief presentation.  I found very little info online about "Dr." Jessica Rose, no affiliation stated mentioned in her intro slide (which is quite unusual), she states she's a viral immunologist but I wasn't able to verify her credentials.  

 

The first "telling graph" is an irresponsible and one-sided presentation of raw VAERS data of the like that has been debunked numerous times.  

 

She goes on to a cursory and one-sided discussion of Israel data during which she insinuates covid vaccines aren't working and "driving the emergence of new variants" without any acknowledgement of the confounding demographic and timing factors which have been analyzed and discussed here and elsewhere ad nauseam.  

 

So all I see here are the same tired conspiracies peddled by someone with no peer-reviewed literature or credentials that I can find.

 

Thus, claiming "it doesn't get any more legit than this" seems a specious appeal to authority.

  

Edited September 22, 2021 by Someone Else