Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Ok I am not as familiar with, nor obsessed by, the term grifters as you are. Having just googled it I have discovered it does suggest an element of fraud, so I take that back.

I have always interpreted grifting to be a term referring to the idea of people pushing a narrative because their income depends on them doing so.

I think the authors of this study found it profitable to come to these conclusions, but I stand corrected on the grifting - that is not grifting as the conclusions are not demonstrably fraudulent.

Well I am not accusing them of knowing for sure it wasn't true. Just that the assumptions were hugely optimistic, and favourable to the conclusions that the every man, woman and child should get vaccinated.

But if it makes you happy, fine. They knew it wasn't true. Thus the paper is fraudulent and they're just your standard grifters, publishing for profit.

Getting back to the point I was making pre deflection - Pfizer are skipping clinical trial data in seeking emergency use authorisation for a booster with a new formula. Instead they are relying on "pre clinical data"

CNN has some more info:

So if the available evidence is zero clinical trials that is what the FDA will be approving on. I wonder will astrofool think this is extremely comprehensive evidence.

Of course, if the available evidence is not clinical trials as previously required, what is the currently available evidence?

So the only data available relating to the new formula - the BA.4/5 component - is "nonclinical data obtained in mice"!!!

If this is approved and rolled out with much fanfare as a new variant specific up to date booster, how many of those people who eagerly roll up their sleeves to receive it, because they trust the experts, will actually realise that the only evidence the experts have on which to form an expert opinion is "nonclinical data obtained in mice".

Not very many would be my guess.

I know they have data from previous vaccines. Which are different. Thats why I said:

That’s a different formula, not the specific one they requested EUA for yesterday.

I agree it’s pretty unbelievable, no argument from me on that point.

They are submitting the application with the old clinical data, from a different formula.

they don’t have any clinical data yet on this latest formula because they have not yet started clinical trials.

Adding a new component into a formula means that the formula is different before and after the new component is added.

This is a pretty basic concept to grasp.

So it is not a foregone conclusion that injecting that into people will have the same results as the previous injection you gave them.

it may be better, it may be worse, it may be no different. But that’s what clinical trials are for. To find this stuff out before injecting into millions of people telling them it’s proven to be safe and effective*

*on mice

This updated formulation will combine the original vaccine with one that targets Omicron sublineages BA.4 and BA.5

The BA.4/5 component is the new component - whatever wizardy they have developed to specifically target the BA.4/5 variant is sufficiently new that they do not have any clinical data for this specific formulation.

This was in the links I posted earlier. The fact you have to ask four times to grasp that this is a new formulation is not down to me.