Trying to avoid the noose. Too late!

Massively too inconvenient for the MSM to mention.

From their Lancet article

there could be risks if boosters are widely introduced too soon, or too frequently, especially with vaccines that can have immune-mediated side-effects (such as myocarditis, which is more common after the second dose of some mRNA vaccines,3 or Guillain-Barre syndrome, which has been associated with adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccines4)

But there is plenty of word circus in there, about how the vaccine is not effective against mild infection, but great against serious infection, but also that its hard to interpret observational data.

The authors are twisting their own conscience to tell themselves that what they have done so far is great, but they dont want to kill more people with boosters. Or the threshold of murder at 2 doses is acceptable for them, but not what happens at booster.

[career] suicide week? 🤷‍♀️

So I've looked into this and according to the NYT and Yahoo News, yes, Phil Krause (Deputy Director for Vaccines Research and Review) and Marion Gruber (Director for Vaccines Research and Review) abruptly resigned from their positions at the end of last month.

Phil Krause is also the lead author on this article published in Lancet along with his boss (with a publish date of two days ago) which I'll devote the rest of this comment to the discussion of

First and foremost, Phil isn't anti covid vax, and spends most of his time in the article extoling the virues of the current vaccination program to earn the requisite credibility necessary when you're about to say something heretical. However at face value the only criticism is a staunch position against additional boosters.

I could pick some positive out of context reasonings, such as his expression of concern over serious side effects, but he pre-empts that by stating that "the positives of vaccination far outweigh the risks". His primary argument is that limited doses would be better served in vaccinating those who remain unvaccinated, rather than persuing unsupported supposition that boosters will provide much if any additional benefit except perhaps in select cases. But if you read deeply, this is a man confused that no one is listening to what the data says when it goes against what they want.

What I feel is most important is the one line that everyone here needs to know was uttered:

Careful and public scrutiny of the evolving data will be needed to assure that decisions about boosting are informed by reliable science more than by politics.

I mean, that's the eye into the workings and the reasonings for their resignation more than anything else in the article. The FDA is making decisions entirely based on politics rather than data, these two drew their line, and resigned over it.

Basically they just received their first red pill suppository. That haven't quite woken up to ask,"wait, was it political from the beginning?", which will then lead to, "wait, all that data I reviewed, how much of it was fraudulently compiled?", which will lead to "did I recommend things that only made sense because I assumed the data was valid? Was this all horse shit from the beginning??"

They may not be quite there yet, but the fact that they aknowledge this, is telling:

Estimates may be confounded both by patient characteristics at the start of vaccine roll-out and by time-varying factors that are missed by electronic health records. *For example, those classified as unvaccinated might include some who were in fact vaccinated, some who are already protected because of previous infection, or some whose vaccination was deferred because of COVID-19 symptoms.

Sound familiar? We aren't the only ones tht saw that and went, "wait, that's bullshit, you can't categorize like that"

Basically, their frustrations, and argument, revolve around a lack of evidence suggesting the vaccine loses efficacy against severe disease, which is all that matters, and so there is absolutely no data supporting a push for booster ... yet their superiors are pushing hard for that.

To date, none of these studies has provided credible evidence of substantially declining protection against severe disease, even when there appear to be declines over time in vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease.

Doesn't yet get that the vaccine, and the boosters, has nothing to do with covid, and everything to do with control. He closes by conceding that hey, if we're doing boosters we should first be developing and tailoring new versions for variant the variants, like with the flu, not just doing another round.

He must have been really confused why these seemigly logical arguments didn't get him anywhere, but it's because he still thinks any of this has anything to do with facts and data.

And I'd love to pick apart those covid vaccine efficacy figures included (they are missing the control! Where's the 'unvaccinated' efficacy by which to compare the vaccinated results against?) but I won't. Because that's not the take away here.

TLDR: Top vaccine regulatory research decison makers resigned because the FDA decided that politics, not data, should guide their approval process.

Thanks Vidura!👈🏻

Great article!

Here is the link to the Brownstone Institute post referenced in the thread reader link. Worth the read for frens here!

The Meaning of the FDA Resignations, https://brownstone.org/articles/the-meaning-of-the-fda-resignations/

Check this shit out ! https://www.statnews.com/2021/09/15/fda-scientists-strike-skeptical-tone-on-need-for-covid-19-vaccine-booster-at-this-time-fueling-debate/ it's all by design to get kids vaccinations !!

Nothing to see here

--ABCNNBCBS

WHOA!!! 2 DHS, now 2 FDA?!! I’m thinkin reduced sentences; the crime’s BEEN DONE!!

After the Lancet bat article, not sure we should ever trust the Lancet

In the lancet article it says we need to weigh the cost benefit of doing boosters right now. They said in addition it might undermine the public’s confidence in the vaxx too (ya think?). They also said that it’s the unvaccinated are still the major drivers of transmission and are themselves at the highest risk of serious disease.. Honestly it’s hard to read their bs although it deserves a though review and analysis as they spin the truth constantly about what the vax can do.

Guys, you should read the stuff you post before you clap.

he is saying the current vaccines are good enough.

also this

the unvaccinated are still the major drivers of transmission and are themselves at the highest risk of serious disease

also his main worry seems to be that he wants vaccines to go to poor countries that haven't gotten any.

This is peak globohomo. Spread this letter if you wish to justify more repression against unvaccinated.

Off Topic but Dr. Pim Van Lommel did a near death experience study in the Netherlands that has been smeared but he found 12 common elements across all cultures throughout history.

He had several hospitals take EKGs and other methods to verify death and followed up with the patients at different points.

Those that had NDEs usually died sooner long term but were at peace with their fate.

Just something worth checking out.

I read his whole book and saw all of the smearing done afterwards.

Nothing is prestigious anymore, the lancet is also compromised, glad they published that though.

This movie is riveting!

The boosters are coming soon & all of those that sneer at others giving up their careers for not being jabbed will face a booster shot or lose their careers 😂 & round & round it goes.

Next Friday, Sept 24, is the deadline for pfizer to provide detailed data about the vax, correct?

It might be wishful thinking for me to think that they'll be open about disclosing negative info, as opposed to fabricating information or saying it's inconclusive. But I still wonder if those resignations and that letter are related to the the 24th.

This is not what the headline is suggesting.

They are advising against boosters for 3 main reasons:

1 - There are still unvaccinated people

2 - The risk/benefit math might weigh poorly with repeated boosters

3 - The signals of wavering immunity may not mean that much anyway.

You have to read the article all the way through.

If boosters (whether expressing original or variant antigens) are ultimately to be used, there will be a need to identify specific circumstances in which the direct and indirect benefits of doing so are, on balance, clearly beneficial.

And from the conclusion

The vaccines that are currently available are safe, effective, and save lives. The limited supply of these vaccines will save the most lives if made available to people who are at appreciable risk of serious disease and have not yet received any vaccine. Even if some gain can ultimately be obtained from boosting, it will not outweigh the benefits of providing initial protection to the unvaccinated.

From The Lancet article:

The vaccines that are currently available are safe, effective, and save lives. The limited supply of these vaccines will save the most lives if made available to people who are at appreciable risk of serious disease and have not yet received any vaccine. Even if some gain can ultimately be obtained from boosting, it will not outweigh the benefits of providing initial protection to the unvaccinated. If vaccines are deployed where they would do the most good, they could hasten the end of the pandemic by inhibiting further evolution of variants. Indeed, WHO has called for a moratorium on boosting until the benefits of primary vaccination have been made available to more people around the world.18 This is a compelling issue, particularly as the currently available evidence does not show the need for widespread use of booster vaccination in populations that have received an effective primary vaccination regimen.

All I'm getting from this is that they want to stick to focusing on getting everyone initially vaxxed before they push boosters. Not really a smoking gun IMO. Talk of boosters is probably turning off more people from getting initially vaxxed in the first place.

I don't think this is as big as you're making it. Not sure I'd have this stickied. Simply put: they're just arguing that boosters for the vaccinated RATHER than initial shots for the unvaccinated, is not preferable. They're basically just still arguing that everybody on earth needs to be vaccinated. So they're kind of shifting blame back from the "undervaccinated" to the "unvaccinated."

They still wanna stick their thing in us.