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.
Larry Elder is not a Q insider
Larry Elder is not signalling you by saying, "Stay Tuned"
He's saying that this isn't the end, 'stay tuned' is a very common phrase, particularly for a radio show host.
This isn't even a coincidence. This is just matching a common phrase and phalating your convermation bias. Was CNN signalling you when they said to 'stay tunerd' before they went to a commercial break?? Sheesh.
TY I needed this
You rent a house, register with it, then move, maybe even out of state. Lather rinse repeat and three ballots for three people show up. This is why voter roll purges are important, and why democrats fight so hard against them.
You won't fill them out and mail them, but dems will.
The idea of continuous exposure. I don't know, maybe. Or at those dilute levels that aspect of the immune system would never get a chance. That's too far ourside my wheelhouse.
That doesn't explain how you supposedly know the date one year in advance Biden would make a speech regarding vaccine mandates.
Nor why that's the more likely explanation other than that the message is generic enough to apply to pretty much everything Biden says always.
I do antiviral drug discovery for a living. But drug discovery is largely tangential to all this.
As for your thinking, there's two things to note: The first is that the immunity that you're looking for is antibody production. But the second thing to note is that the primary way your body fights infection is without antibodies. Unfortunately antibodies require a ton of trial and error for the immune system so you're unlikely to develop any with only minor infection, particularly if it's quickly resolved.
Vaccines work by flooding the body with a shit ton of noninfectious analogs for the immune system to trial itself against, and absent that you won't confer immunity. Vaccines are hard to produce, impossible in many cases even. An HIV vaccine for example, has been a holy grail for decades.
Miracles may exist, but if you live your lives as though they do, you're going to be consistantly let down
It's a virus. They may lump flu and other corona viruses into the stats, but an actual gain of function corona viruses was oopsie released from the wuhan labs. Is the response bullshit? Are the numbers a hoax? Sure, but not the virus.
What, you think that rather than just run with an actual virus they made literally EVERYTHING up?
"I am not a medical professional"
"I saw one study and ordered a bunch of it"
"I caught covid, used Lysine, and recovered"
That's when I tuned out after following the link to a YT video interview. Please don't suggest moving away from medicine we know works, based on this one guy's annecdote.
Stop.
Stop with this ridiculous anti germ theory nonsense. Influenza is a virus. It's is not something sick cells produce, it's something that creates sick cells. Here are some easy af convincing evidence:
-
You can not produce influenza from healthy cells by making them sick
-
You CAN make a healthy cell sick by introducing influenza
-
None of our cells contain the genetic code that influenza packages inside it and uses for infection. That genetic code can only come from an outside source. Not from 'toxic food' but from a viral infection
-
When I introduce a tiny amount of influenza into a cell culture, in 48 hours my media is filled with orders of magnitude more viral particles, all themselves infectious. I can take that infectious media, transfer it to healthy cell cultures, and they themselves repeat the same infection process
Taking poor care of your body makes you more susceptible to infection and disease, but it is the infection that kills you. Influenza cripples epithileal lining of your lungs, allowing bacteria access to areas they can grow and overwhelm, dramatically reducing lung capacity until you effectively drown.
Fucking stop. Flu is not a hoax. Covid isn't a hoax. Just their numbers and their fear mongering, and the tyranny they use this BS as excuse for.
Likely, most of the remaining 40% are only 'partially' vaccinated, not 'unvaccinated'.
I'll pick up and move halfway across the country where my niche skillset will net me nothing, and I'll day labor on someone's farm before I concede to a medical mandate in order to feed myself.
Constitution: "Government can only do what we explictly describe herein"
Retard: "If it doesn't say we can't do it, then we can do it"
I hate that commie. Literally has no idea what rights are, or how the constitution even exists, let alone how it works.
It's a purge of anyone who does not blindly trust and obey the government
This isn't even a coincidence. This is a generic message that could apply to anything Biden has said or done since taking office.
No. They have not written the script a year in advance to the day. And if they did, they wouldn't have made the message a year prior to Biden's speech generic enough to apply to literally everything he's said or done since taking office.
Not the first time you all went from reality to delusion? Yes, I've noticed that.
The individual who wrote this is neither a time traveler or in control of the opposition's decision's and time tables a year in advance. "It was always the plan to lose the election and not challenge it, that way the vaccine WE pushed would be pushed in tyrannical ways!"
Dude, no.
Just the absurd belief that they write messages year(s) in advance knowing what will happen.
It's one thing for these messages to having meaning at the time they are written
And it's not a stretch to match timestamps of prominent tweets with previous q drops
But the idea that they knew what the other side was going to do a year in adavace?? No. That's absurd. Take a step back and re-evaluate whether you're being objective or just trying to treat this like a religion.
If you're the puppet master and you allow what's happening to happen, you're evil.
They aren't "writing the script" a year in advance.
"Hey did you send that message out? In one year President Biden will be giving that evil vaccine mandate speech so it's kinda important. What? Well of course we're going to allow ourselves to lose the election, and the whole point of rushing through this vaccine and trying to take credit for it even after they seize power is because we already know if will be ineffective and unsafe and so they can over step with a mandate"
Plenty of Q shit is legit without having to believe in absurdity.
I want that fleet fired on and sunk so bad
You're suggesting they knew the exact date this would happen one year in advance?
That's a perfect example of a cop walking the line of non enforcement without taking a side.
I'm just going to repeat the policy as stated but imply enforcement is outside my expressed scope
I have written a more in depth analysis of the article, and I don't believe your characterization is valid. The two aknowledge the risks but prempt it by stating the positives far outweigh the risks.
Most of the pro-vaccine positions in the article exist so that their anti booster position can not be claimed to stem from being anti covid vax. That's very common when you're about to publish something heretical.
What this is really about is their first red pill - there's no evidence that boosts make any goddamn sense, but for political reasons the FDA is pushing it on them to agree with it. Why is that they wonder? Look it all these reasonings we will now give as to why this doesn't make sense!
But they are shaking their fists at the night. Facts and data don't matter, never did, and their next step should be to wonder if the 'positive' data they approved in the past was all fraudulent bullshit,a nd all that changed is that the powers that be are too impatient now to wait for the plausible deniability studies to enact the next stage.