Re: Agree wholeheartedly!
Response To:
Agree wholeheartedly! ()

Then you will love this:

This is the meeting that resulted in a 16-2 finding against boosters that was then reversed by a political appointee.

Some interesting points, in the parts I have watched so far, it will take time to get through all 8 hrs. One point that was made on efficacy is that to the degree that the number of people with natural immunity are constantly rising, it proves difficult to actually ascribe an efficacy number because a lot of the observed effects may in fact be due to natural immunity. So they have very sketchy information on risk, but it is at least harm arising from vaccination, but the benefit side of the ledger is murky. It has always been a little mysterious as to why our numbers on infections are so low, but this could be part of the story. If they admit high infections numbers they can't come up with persuasive data on efficacy. The 10% infection number in the US, and the 4% infection number in Canada were obviously low, and obviously they weren't looking, but I thought it was partly pragmatic since it is costly to get the info, large scale, and at one point one could say that one did not know what the benefits of infection were (assume the costs are sunk, obviously not always negligible). But in the end all roads lead back to "vaccine" promotion.

One of the panel members observed that they have zero data to base a decision on 16 year olds (I gather the plan is for 16 and up getting boosted?), possibly this is because they can't actually do trials on people below the age of consent, not elaborated.

One person said that the number of hospital cases for children is rapidly rising, (which is what one would expect if one has a leaky shot, and no therapeutics strategy, the virus is going to exploit weakness). So he supported a boosters plan.

(that is two against and one pro comment. I didn't cherry pick, I just was told the last 3 hours were the most interesting, and jumped in, eventually I will get to the rest).

(Oh I should add that "against" arguments are not the kind you hear in public for the most part. There your hear it is a miracle product, while other people say it is a poison. The truth is more interesting it is many shades of "I don't know". "I don't know" is pretty scary, as we have certain age groups 100 percent vaccinated where I am currently living, talk about pushing the chips forward and saying "I am all in")

It is interesting to see just 18 people who don't agree working on policy. Then they get over-ruled, not sure what else the process could be, but it is fragile at best. (Reminds me of my working days in policy development.) The CDC was also against the pro-boost end policy. It does go to show that there are still people who have integrity in these organizations, not because they are for or against something, but you can see the caution generally. This is what one hears from insiders. This is the distillation of the science- that is then ignored.

© 1998 - 2017 by Ellis Walentine. All rights reserved.
No parts of this web site may be reproduced in any form or by
any means without the written permission of the publisher.