FDA Vaccine Advisers 'Disappointed' and 'Angry' That Early Data About New Covid-19 Booster Shot Wasn't Presented For Review Last Year (cnn.com) 168
The pharmaceutical company Moderna didn't present a set of infection data on the company's new Covid-19 booster during meetings last year when [FDA] advisers discussed whether the shot should be authorized and made available to the public
That data suggested the possibility that the updated booster might not be any more effective at preventing Covid-19 infections than the original shots. The data was early and had many limitations, but several advisers told CNN that they were concerned about a lack of transparency.
Specifically, Moderna hid data on actual infection rates among patients who were administered the original booster and those who got the bivalent vaccine. The data showed that the original booster resulted in slightly fewer infections than the bivalent version - though CNN points out that "the primary purpose of the study was not to study infection rates but to do immunogenicity analyses, taking blood from participants and examining their antibody responses to the vaccine."
CNN reports that Moderna "shared the infection data with the FDA and posted the study manuscript before the agency's panel meeting in June," but with an FDA spokesperson complaining that they received the preprint less than a day prior to the advisory committee meeting, and "therefore not provided in an adequate timeframe for it to be included in the agency's meeting materials..."
1.9% of the study participants who received the original booster became infected. Among those who got the updated bivalent vaccine -- the one that scientists hoped would work better -- a higher percentage, 3.2%, became infected.
Both versions of the shot were found to be safe. This infection data was far from complete. The number of study subjects who became infected was very small, and both the patients and the researchers were aware of who was getting the original shot and who was getting the new booster.... [S]ix FDA and CDC advisers interviewed by CNN said that this infection data wouldn't have changed how they voted, because the data had such limitations, but it still should have been presented to them.
Research released by the New England Journal of Medicine found that "boosting with new bivalent mRNA vaccines targeting both the BA.4-BA.5 variant and the D614G strain did not elicit a discernibly superior virus-neutralizing peak antibody response as compared with boosting with the original monovalent vaccines. Limitations of our study include the small sample size and follow-up period of our groups. We also note that the between-group comparisons were not controlled for factors such as age, vaccine type, and health status, which may have had an effect on antibody responses. These findings may be indicative of immunologic imprinting, although follow-up studies are needed to determine whether antibody responses will deviate over time, including after the administration of a second bivalent booster."
Pretty sure that's not just fraud, it's conspiracy (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure we have laws for conspiracy and malicious deception on that scale. Can we just hang the board of directors?
Re: (Score:3)
That should have been carried out when they announced massive price hikes.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... I sort of agree with you, but it's still a rather shallow FP branch.
I think it's just par for the course when you create a bad motivational system. Healthcare should be about making people healthy, not about the money, Lebowski. [Where is Lebowski when you need him? His page on Slashdot is empty of entries.]
So imagine you are a giant pharmaceutical company trying to decide what kind of vaccine research you want to do. One branch could lead to one-and-done vaccines, while the other direction promises
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Pretty sure that's not just fraud, it's conspi (Score:2)
Normal? No. But it isn't a new phenomenon and it hasn't increased in frequency since COVID-19 vaccination started. It's just getting lots of press now because click-bait and conspiracy bullshit sells. Unless you're an epidemiologist or know someone this happened to, why would you ever pay attention to me in the past? It's just being shoved under your nose now and it's new to you, but it isn't new to the medical establishment.
Re: (Score:2)
Just... read your own words back to yourself, maybe a little slower than you typed them. Are you serious with this absolute horse shit? Do you honestly think someone can be asymptomatic, and yet in the process of suffering organ damage? If so, you should definitely reevaluate your sources of news, and whether that news is being funded by the very pharmaceutical company this story is calling out.
Re:Pretty sure that's not just fraud, it's conspir (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
No it should be the drug companies responsibility to give all relevant information, and if its not there is something wrong with the system. It is inefficient, and probably impossible for the FDA ask every possible question. There should be a statement that the submission should be true and complete to the best of the companies knowledge. If nobody here is being criminally charged on fraud or an equivalent crime on what probably made them billions, it shows how corrupt the system is.
Re: (Score:2)
They are correct to be (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The vaccines are safe and effective.
CDC Investigating ‘Safety Concern’ Linked to Pfizer Covid Vaccine [nationalreview.com]
Re:They are correct to be (Score:4, Insightful)
1. The vaccine relevant data was not made public, and that is a BIG problem. We were then lied to in the abstract with "IF you get the vaccine, you dont have to worry about COVID". Those were lies, and lies when they told them. The data was known to the pharmaceutical companies.
2. The mandates and the restrictions for people who decided not to vax was completely out of bounds for our free society. We have domain over our own bodies, and the coercive bullshit should be repudiated by all, and those who advocated it should be viewed as NAZIs with the same disdain and rejection. There is no room for fascism in the US.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to agree. Since people live in groups there will always be "border friction" between personal freedom and greater good, and it does not make sense to take an extreme position saying that all such decisions must always land on the side of personal freedom. Sometimes, it really does make sense to require a sacrifice of personal freedom for the greater good. Like, for example, disallowing use of recreational drugs that are known to make people behave violently.
But this is not one of those times. Tho
Re: They are correct to be (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Ozzy Ozbourne has been using heroin for years without violent issues
This bat [faroutmagazine.co.uk] might disagree.
Re: (Score:1)
I wouldn't do it. And I don't recommend it. But people should be free to make their own choices.
Re: They are correct to be (Score:2, Funny)
Re:They are correct to be (Score:4, Insightful)
We were then lied to in the abstract with "IF you get the vaccine, you dont have to worry about COVID"
This is still generally true, where "being worried about COVID" = "being intubated in the ICU".
The mandates and the restrictions for people who decided not to vax was completely out of bounds for our free society. We have domain over our own bodies
Does that apply to all drugs and not just vaccines? I'd wager employers fire more people for using drugs rather than not using them, but both are questions of domain over our bodies.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not from the US so I don't know. But I know that the labels Nazi and Fascism where thrown around here where I live as well rather easily. Like having to put on an FFP2 mask when shopping for 5 minutes being equated with knowing how Anne Frank felt, while in the next breath telling me something about the Great Replacement.
And while I fully supported their right to protest, some times I think such people should be actually put into a concentration camp for a week, wh
Re:They are correct to be (Score:5, Insightful)
Data-hiding is egregious. It doesn't just "make people distrust the vaccines more," it makes the conspiracy-theorists right. Even if the vaccine is still safe and effective (but maybe a little bit less effective than hoped), this evidence proves that we were lied-to by omission, which is exactly the kind of thing the anti-vaxxers accuse the industry of doing. Maybe the anti-vaxxers are still not right about everything they claim, but they are now provably right about this claim.
The distrust caused by revelations like this is significant, and will lead many people to make bad decisions that harm themselves and others. We simply cannot abide behavior like this from the pharmaceutical companies that we rely on to fight disease.
An apology is simply not good enough, we need punishment for the people who engaged in data-hiding.
Re:They are correct to be (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. And it must be the people, as well as the companies, that are punished. And the people must include top management of the companies. Otherwise you've got misaligned incentives.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not sure why this behavior is so shocking; prior to 2020 we knew the pharma companies were highly duplicitous. We knew because they were found to be so in a court of law multiple times.
Nothing's changed really, particularly when you waive 100s of billions of dollars in front of them.
Re: (Score:2)
> The vaccines are safe and effective
Vaccines prevent the contraction and spread of disease.
The laws that shield vaccine manufacturers don't apply to therapeutics. Some administrative lawmaking semantics to pretend to change a scientific definition won't protect them from fraud claims and damages because the statutes have their own definitions sections.
Pfizer is already the most criminally-fined entity in the history of humanity and before this is over the company will be destroyed and the executives tr
Re: (Score:2)
I think you need to recheck your facts, and I'm certain you need to recheck your definitions. A quick search showed that Pfizer has indeed had to pay a huge fine....for overcharging Britain's NHS on drugs. And any reasonable person would count their vaccine against COVID as a vaccine.
Also, blood thinners come with their own problems. One doesn't want to use them without supervision. Even aspirin can cause problems, and aspirin was/is available to anyone who wanted it.
The thing you're worried about is a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"A room full of vaccinated individuals is going to fair much better than a room full of unvaccinated folks if someone walks in with covid, that's for damn sure."
That is not for sure at all.
https://twitter.com/nycHealthy... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Source I could find: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/from-our-experts/what-you-need-to-know-about-xbb-1-5-o
Re: They are correct to be (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, from the article: "First, the numbers were very small: The study analyzed only hundreds of patients, and only 16 became infected.". That means random events make big differences in the results. Also: "the participants and the researchers knew who was receiving which shot". If the participants hear they got an updated vaccine, they might be more likely to have risky behavior. Third, the test protocol wasn't designed for real life efficacy to begin with (which pretty much led to these two problems).
Still
Re:They are correct to be (Score:4, Insightful)
I must have missed the news article with Justin Trudeau and his wife got blood clots from the AstraZeneca vaccine. Do you have a link?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Rare means... what's the cut off? Anyone know? Does the term have a legal definition in this context? Is it less than, say, 10% of the time? 5%? 1%? Lower? One in a million, perhaps? (I have the feeling it couldn't be much LESS than that, because there aren't enough people in a clinical trial, I wouldn't imagine, to have it happen to at least one person so they know it CAN happen, and have the number be one in a billion, for example.)
So, from what I can find, researchers studying this found that rates of these events (already rare) slightly more than doubled over the normal background following vaccination with the Astra Zeneca vaccine. However, that number might be driven up by increased scrutiny due to the study. They might just have been detecting cases that would normally pass under the radar. Basically though, it looks like the probability of this happening due to the vaccine is about the same as the normal risk of this happening r
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I followed most of that. The simple fact of the matter appears to be that the Astra Zeneca vaccine is far, far safer than the virus. Also, I'm not sure why you think people are going to "start dropping dead". The rare side effects of the vaccine appear to only occur within about a month of getting the shot. This isn't some sort of sleeper that will suddenly kill people years or decades later.
Re: (Score:2)
The only lawsuit I'm aware of was a shareholder suit, which failed. I imagine any private, individual lawsuits about this have already been handled as private settlements with the families of any victims. Even if those are quite large settlements they are probably like the rare adverse results and just present statistical noise. So, there probably won't be any discovery process or sinister revelations. Which makes sense. Pharmaceutical companies can be pretty scummy, but that's generally at the level of the
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, the media do like spicy story. The classic: "If it bleeds, it leads.". That's relatively easy to spot or filter though. To me, the more worrying problem is the ignorance of most reporters on many stories they report. It's easier to see when you have have some expertise on the subject matter, but a lot of reporting, especially on scientific subjects, is done by communications majors who really have no idea what they're talking about. The end result is often a Ted Stevens style "series of tubes" discour
Re: (Score:2)
"Rare means... what's the cut off? Anyone know?"
For adverse drug events, "rare" usually means fewer than 1 in 1000 (0.1%) -- in some context, such as a clinical trial, or one person in a thousand in the general population.
"An adverse reaction[1] is considered rare [imedpub.com] when it has an incidence rate of less than 0.001[2]."
Very common, common, uncommon, rare, very rare [medsafe.govt.nz]
Determining whether a particular event was (probably) caused by a drug is itself a non-trivial operation; one method is the Naranjo algorithm [wikipedia.org].
Re:They are correct to be (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm confused. What does that have to do with my question? The article in question is about treatment for Covid and does not suggest in any way that Justin Trudeau is taking blood thinners.
Re: (Score:3)
But the context was my reply to a comment linking a quote from Justin Trudeau about the safety of the vaccine and providing some information about the mechanism by which the blood clotting happens when it does. My response was to ask for evidence that Trudeau and his wife got blood clots. That was a little sarcastic, but the simple point is that information about how one health complication that can occur with a vaccine, doesn't really indicate that the vaccine is unsafe. The best it can do is indicate that
Re: (Score:2)
Given the extremely low incidence of these symptoms with the Astra Zeneca vaccine, I'm having a hard time understanding how taking it was a bad decision under the circumstances. With the benefit of hindsight, one of the other vaccines would have been very minutely lower risk, sure, but any risk is still statistical noise.
Re: (Score:2)
> With the benefit of hindsight
It turned out exactly as the numbers suggested... 99.97% survival rate. Far better for anyone under 50 years old
23:40 Gates said that in early February 2020, he was in a meeting and experts at his foundation said that there had been too much travel without a diagnosis for COVID to be contained. He said, “then, at that point, we didn’t really understand that the fatality rate, you know, we didn’t understand that it’s a fairly low fatality rate. And
Re: (Score:2)
It turned out exactly as the numbers suggested... 99.97% survival rate. Far better for anyone under 50 years old
Literally 0.34% of all people in the US have died from Covid. That's only a fraction compared to the people who have been maimed by it. You have to be pretty dumb to just dismiss that.
Why would I care what Gates has to say about it.
People like you just disgust me.
Re: (Score:3)
#1 Heart Disease
#2 Cancer
About 1% of people died in 2020. Of that 10% died of COVID. 90% of people died from something else.
It isn't even the most important thing of the small fraction of people that died of all causes.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, and #3 Covid. What kind of moron things that it's a good idea to ignore something that kills people on the same order as heart disease or cancer? If there were a vaccine for heart disease, or for cancer, we would absolutely do everything we could to get people to take it. Look at HPV. That causes cancer, and there's a vaccine for it. Every young person should get the HPV vaccine, even though that reduces the overall death rate less than taking a COVID vaccine does. You seem to have no clue what your n
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of moron things that it's a good idea to ignore something that kills people on the same order as heart disease or cancer?
Joe Rogan.
Re: (Score:2)
> something that kills people on the same order as heart disease or cancer?
2020 ...
Heart disease 690,882
Cancer 598,932
COVID-19 345,323
345,323/1,289,814... it's a quarter of heart disease and cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
For starters, the pandemic didn't really pick up in the US until around April of 2020, so you're not even looking at a full year. I'm not sure if that's dishonesty on your part through cherry picking or if you really just don't understand. A more intellectually honest comparison would be 2021, where 415K people died in the US from Covid, along with 693K people from heart disease and 604K from cancer. Also, combining cancer and heart disease together to make Covid seem smaller is foolish. The simple fact of
Re: (Score:2)
The numbers for Covid deaths where always overcounted.
No difference has been made in the last 3 years for died FROM covid vs died WITH covid.
Do you have historical reference for how many people in 2018 died WITH an influenza like illeness?
I would bet my shirt, its on par if not higher than Covid deaths if we had systematically tested everyone for all respiratory ilnesses every few weeks and at each admission to the hospital or clinic.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
And most of those 345,323 only died while testing positive for Covid and not from covid.
Every single death from heart disease and cancer is directly attributable to those diseases.
Re: (Score:2)
The numbers for Covid deaths where always overcounted.
Undercounted. In the real world, as opposed to the right-wing bizarro world, they're actually undercounted. They go down as death from respiratory distress or organ failure, etc.
No difference has been made in the last 3 years for died FROM covid vs died WITH covid.
The important detail that's eluding you is that organizations like the CDC track excess deaths. The excess death numbers during the pandemic supports the numbers of deaths attributed to Covid. If anything, there are more excess deaths during the Pandemic than reported Covid deaths. So, not only is Covid killing a large number of peo
Re:They are correct to be (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh, what do you know. Covid causes blood clot [osu.edu]s in the brain, lungs, heart, and legs. Even better, it appears depending on your clotting factor, you are at serious risk of injury or death [harvard.edu] from blood clots caused by covid.
In fact, people who contract covid are 33 times more at risk [medicalnewstoday.com] of developing blood clots in their lungs than those who don't get infected.
re: COVID causes blood clots (Score:2)
Your argument here doesn't seem to be nearly as persuasive as you seem to think it is?
Sure, we know COVID can cause blood clots (especially in places like the lungs). The argument is, the vaccine (thanks to its design of being really close to the composition of the actual COVID virus) can ALSO cause this same clotting!
Re: COVID causes blood clots (Score:5, Informative)
Your argument here doesn't seem to be nearly as persuasive as you seem to think it is?
Sure, we know COVID can cause blood clots (especially in places like the lungs). The argument is, the vaccine (thanks to its design of being really close to the composition of the actual COVID virus) can ALSO cause this same clotting!
The difference is the vaccine only causes clotting in select cases. For covid, EVERYONE who contracts it is susceptible to clotting and when they get it, it's severe enough to kill you.
For those receiving a vaccine, there are potentially 4 cases per million [novanthealth.org] of someone getting a blood clot. In another study, you are 8-10 times more likely get a blood clot in your brain [umn.edu] after contractring covid than you are from the vaccine, and 100 times more likely than the general population.
The death rate among COVID-19 patients was 20% for those who had CVT and 18.8% for portal vein (liver) thrombosis (PVT), which was assessed in the same populations.
The incidence of PVT was 436.4 per 1 million people with COVID-19, 98.4 per 1 million among flu patients, and 44.9 per 1 million after vaccination with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine. Twenty-two cases of PVT were diagnosed among vaccinees, 11 after the Pfizer vaccine, 2 after the Moderna vaccine, and 9 after a vaccine of an undetermined brand (either Pfizer or Moderna).
But keep up the excuses.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
The difference is the vaccine only causes clotting in select cases. For covid, EVERYONE who contracts it is susceptible to clotting and when they get it, it's severe enough to kill you.
Select vs susceptible? Everyone can get clots from COVID and the VACCINE. The difference in numbers come from not everyone will contract COVID. In fact most havent. But the vaccine pushers wanted EVERYONE to get the vaccine, so even if it was more rare, it would have been towards a larger population, and many of those, in fact most would never have had COVID to begin with. So "First, do no harm" would be violated on an individual basis. This is why we have long term tria
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone can get clots from COVID and the VACCINE.
No, not everyone can get clots from the vaccine.
Re: (Score:2)
This is getting ridiculous!
No... not everyone WILL get clots from the vaccine. AND, not everyone WILL get clots from a case of COVID.
In fact, we know plenty of people contracted COVID and had no issues with blood clots.
My original statement stands: Either of them is capable of causing blood clotting issues.
Re: (Score:2)
My original statement stands: Either of them is capable of causing blood clotting issues.
Your original statement is false, and you need to learn to use a search engine. Pfizer and Moderna vaccines don't cause blood clots. Learn how to research.
Re: (Score:2)
Select vs susceptible? Everyone can get clots from COVID and the VACCINE. The difference in numbers come from not everyone will contract COVID. In fact most havent. But the vaccine pushers wanted EVERYONE to get the vaccine, so even if it was more rare, it would have been towards a larger population, and many of those, in fact most would never have had COVID to begin with. So "First, do no harm" would be violated on an individual basis. This is why we have long term trials.
The problem is that many, many people HAVE contracted COVID-19. Not strictly "most", but certainly a large minority.
We have measured data of ~100 million detected infections (mostly from rapid antigen tests) in the US, to date. Measurements of antibodies present in blood donations suggest that the true rate of infection is at least twice that ( source [unsw.edu.au]); some cases are asymptomatic, though there's no particular reason to believe that absence of respiratory symptoms means a reduced rate of blood clotting. Stil
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, it *CAN*. So you need to compare relative frequencies.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And relative populations. Covid infected about 1/5 of the population, last I looked at case count over testing positive rate. The vaccine was pushed to everyone.
According to a Harvard study [harvard.edu], "About half of American adults surveyed say they have been infected with COVID-19 at some point, with 35% saying they have tested positive for COVID-19 before." The prevalence of home testing with positive results going unreported to public health agencies means that "official" case counts are only useful from the standpoint of seeing what percentage of tests yield positive results.
The vaccine was pushed to everyone.
They may have been pushed AT everyone, but uptake was not exactly unanimous. [usafacts.org] While almost 80% hav
Re: (Score:1)
When this vaccine was created, was the spike thought to leave the injection site?
Did they find out it left the site after this study? https://academic.oup.com/cid/a... [oup.com]
What happens to spikes that aren't destroyed or removed by the body?
Have any studies looked at what happens if one of these spikes goes into a cell?
Re: (Score:2)
The argument is, the vaccine (thanks to its design of being really close to the composition of the actual COVID virus) can ALSO cause this same clotting!
The argument is false. The clotting caused by vaccines uses a different pathway than the clotting from COVID. The pathway triggered by the vaccine is much, much, much more rare than the pathway caused by COVID.
Furthermore, only two vaccines (J&J and AstraZeneca) cause rare clotting. If you are worried, get Pfizer or Moderna, problem solved.
Re: (Score:3)
"Scientists think they've discovered why the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine can cause rare blood clots" -- December 3, 2021
Emphasis on "rare". Also, COVID can cause the same blood clots.
Re: (Score:2)
No vaccine, in the history of mankind, was 100% safe. Vaccination is a matter of statistics. How likely is a side effect of a vaccine? How likely is getting the infection? How likely is a serious course of the infection?
There's a very simple reason I do not get a malaria shot. There's a near-zero chance to contract it around here. But if a disease has a ~80% chance to have lasting effects [nih.gov] and a chance to die that is at about 1% [worldometers.info] (give or take, depending on how good your medical system works), and the infecti
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you lived as a hermit, I'd agree. It is much more complicated, though. If you were the only person on the street, I'd absolutely agree that you should have the right to drink as much alcohol as you deem appropriate before starting to operate your vehicle, but since you can kill other people other than just yourself, there's a pretty good reason to disallow that.
And I can at least sue the asshole who runs me over drunk.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So be it, if the zealots dont want to take a vaccine that meets your threshold, that is their (dumb) right. You have no right to coerce someone to do something, unless you think you should in which case, congrats, that is the definition of authoritarian fascism.
How do you feel about public school systems requiring vaccination for common childhood diseases?
Fixing some popcorn (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Hold on, have to run to the store for bleach and syringes.
Re: (Score:1)
And erect plexiglass barriers, stand 6' away, wear three cloth masks outdoors, and wash your hands and packages 15 times a day.
There, now you are ready!
Re: (Score:2)
And erect plexiglass barriers, stand 6' away, wear three cloth masks outdoors, and wash your hands and packages 15 times a day.
There, now you are ready!
You mean everything the medical experts said you should do (except for the plexiglass) and which was shown by the facts to reduce infection rates? That's crazy!
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I needed surgery for an infected tooth I told the surgeon that he didn’t need to wear a mask.
Re: (Score:1)
The surgeon wears a mask to prevent arterial blood spray from you squirting into his mouth and nose, and to prevent him from drooling, "singing moistly", and casting boogers into your open wound. Goggles or a visor prevent arterial spray from hitting his eyeballs. They also prevent tears from falling into your open wound -- even though tears are sterile.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Last time I needed surgery for an infected tooth I told the surgeon that he didnâ(TM)t need to wear a mask."
That wouldn't be wise. Masks are primarily to prevent the spread of bacteria in droplets, not airborne viruses (for which they offer poor results). Surgical fields are mostly at risk of bacterial contamination. Airborne viruses are primarily respiratory-contracted.
Respirators are used when needing good protection from airborne viral transfer.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget to piss in it, too.
dishonesty knows no bounds (Score:1, Interesting)
So these fuckheads were making money hand over fist and they STILL had to lie about the performance of the bivalent version.
How are we every going to prevent sociopaths from running these companies ?
Re: (Score:3)
There is no way to prevent sociopaths from running these companies. Sociopaths have too much of an advantage over their competitors when climbing the corporate ladder, and too much motivation to get these positions.
The only thing we can do is keep holding them accountable, and keep punishing them for behavior like this. It is not easy to do, since they have the money and power to externalize blame and dodge punishment. But doing nothing just lets them get away with it and encourages more behavior like th
Re: (Score:2)
But just punishing the companies doesn't work. You ALSO (perhaps mainly) need to punish the executives in charge.
Re: (Score:3)
It is not easy to do, since they have the money and power to externalize blame and dodge punishment.
That is why I have come to believe the legal system should be free. That is everyone gets a lawyer paid for and no one should be able to pay for their own. The legal system has become a function of wealth and not one of justice.
If we want a fair society that needs to change.
Re: (Score:2)
How are we every going to prevent sociopaths from running these companies ?
Well, one thing you DON'T do is grant them indemnity.
Fines (Score:5, Insightful)
They should have the living fuck fined out of them and possible jail time.
Re:Fines (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing is going to happen to them. Only a few months ago just talking about this fraud would have gotten you kicked off of social media and shunned as a conspiracy theorist.
And here we are. Those who greased the correct politicians were rewarded. The rest of us were lied to.
Fuck these people. There isn't even an attempt to hide the blatant corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
Browse at -1 and load all comments. The moderation isn't helpful in finding good dialog.
Sometimes you have to sort through a haystack to find a needle.
Einstein once said regarding the letter signed by many stating he was wrong, “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough."
What if there was only one
Wait we're just figuring this out? (Score:2)
Follow the money. Has anyone noticed there is a lot of commercials now encouraging boosters are paid for by Moderna and Pfizer? It's been huge profits. I wonder how far down the rabbit hole anyone will go on this. I'm assuming not too far. Might be interesting who in the governments/doctors/etc, who had influence on encouraging boosters have heavy investment in the companies. I'm thinking this will be a quick dog and pony show and it will end with some low level marketer person who "forgot" to submit
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, they may have clear motives, but the vaccines aren't permanent. They lose effectiveness from about 6 months after the shot. And the virus keeps mutating.
OTOH, having had the vaccine will probably keep you from having a severe case of COVID. Not just for 6 months, but for considerably longer. We don't know how long. Unfortunately, this doesn't mean you won't develop long COVID. My sister still can't remember the day of the week, though she says she thinks she's getting better. (That said, she h
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, they may have clear motives, but the vaccines aren't permanent. They lose effectiveness from about 6 months after the shot.
They will keep you out of the hospital. In terms of serious illness, the vaccines have turned out to be highly durable.
See this study: [jamanetwork.com]
"COVID-19 vaccines were highly and durably effective against severe disease as measured by hospitalizations and deaths, but did not protect against milder infections beyond a few months"
Repay the money (Score:4, Insightful)
If they received money for this they should be made to repay it, plus interest.
We keep hearing how private indusry is so much better than government, we're still waiting.
Bivalent (Score:2)
>"those who got the bivalent "vaccine." The reason is obvious: The data showed "
Of all the people I personally know who got COVID-19 in the last month, 3 had taken the bivalent vaccine and 2 did not. Anecdotal, yes, but interesting nonetheless.
It is also interesting that there is no option for getting the new vaccine component (omicron-specific) WITHOUT ALSO getting the almost three year old vaccine along with it, designed for Alpha, which has been gone for years. Personally, I think it is reckless to
Re: (Score:2)
It's been studied.
https://jamanetwork.com/journa... [jamanetwork.com]
"COVID-19 vaccines were highly and durably effective against severe disease as measured by hospitalizations and deaths, but did not protect against milder infections beyond a few months, even with booster vaccinations"
Grist for the mill (Score:2)
I'm sure the anti-vaxxers will be all over this. So tiresome.
I have long ago given up on having any reasoned discussion about vaccines anywhere online.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the anti-vaxxers will be all over this. So tiresome.
I have long ago given up on having any reasoned discussion about vaccines anywhere online.
Fortunately, they keep [imgur.com] dying [imgur.com] so we won't have to hear from them ever again.
Re: (Score:2)
My go-to site for this type of highly repetitive demonstration of consequence is here. [sorryantivaxxer.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The fascinating thing is that companies who are deceptive, corrupt and thieving are somehow able to come up with a vaccine that is effective, and also a rather impressive technical marvel.
I am so Angry but... (Score:4)
This makes me angry... But as a honest American, I will hold my my opinion on why I should be angry until the trustworthy contaminators give me the direction on how I should be angry about this.
If I am a right leaning individual, I hate all government regulations so the obviously moral and smart company (otherwise they wouldn't be so large now) wouldn't do anything to harm us, and they left it out for our best interest. So I should be angry about this being an issue, it is just the Left trying to put more regulations on honest companies.
Or perhaps because I told that the company is rig of the government to poison the people, so I see this a further proof of said companies moral failings.
If I am a left leaning individual. All companies are Evil, and really need to be micromanaged by the Government to make sure they don't do anything against our interests. So I should be angry that they tried lied to us.
Or because the Vaccine is still safe and effective even with that data, it doesn't matter that much, because we want everyone to get the vaccine anyways, so we should be angry at those trying to dig up any dirt to help stop the virus.
We can't be angry at the company for misleading us, and not really go into a big fuss about it, because the information is mostly for a different group of people to help make the decision if it is safe, then what we are really qualified to judge.
However some fast talking contaminator will pop onto TV, one who I see who has an opinion about every other topic, to let me know how to approach the issue, Because I don't want the other guys to have the upper hand.
Re: (Score:2)
This makes me angry... But as a honest American, I will hold my my opinion on why I should be angry until the trustworthy contaminators give me the direction on how I should be angry about this.
That's actually kinda rational.
All we have right now is a report from one commentator (CNN) and a correspondence to a medical journal that most of us aren't really qualified to digest.
Assuming the pure facts are correct there's still a lot of questions that most of us don't have the information or the experience to answer.
The best play is to find trustworthy analysts and read them with a critical eye.
Re: (Score:1)
If I am a right leaning individual, I hate all government regulations so the obviously moral and smart company (otherwise they wouldn't be so large now) wouldn't do anything to harm us, and they left it out for our best interest.
I don't know anyone who trusts corporations or companies, but I do know plenty of people that know that no matter how bad a company is, the government is worse. This has been objectively proven true countless times in history.
The whole stance of the "vaccine hesitant" has been based on a lack of trust; in both corporations AND the government...and viola, here's why.
Boosters Boosters Boosters! (Score:4, Interesting)
I got vaccinated, I lived through the second dose's symptoms which was worse than the first shot. My body knows how to fight the virus thanks to the vaccine - but damn if I am going to get another shot after that. BTW I don't get flu shots yearly either. If you want to great, but I'm done.
If I get sick and die then that is the way it is meant to be. I am living my life and not worrying about this crap anymore. The choice should be yours.
Re: (Score:2)
That quip about being weak is all great because you have never had a broken bone, any illness, surgery, and you take no medications. Good on you. Wait till you grow up.
Prosecutorial Immunity Lost (Score:2)
Moderna hid data
At that point, you're committing fraud if it can be proven that you knowingly withheld information about the efficacy of your product. Congress may have granted immunity for the use of the vaccines/boosters but that doesn't protect you from illegal activity.