Who's in charge of medicine - FDA leaders resign over White House overruling them on booster shots

Sound familiar? I’m sure I heard of a UK vaccine advisory body being pressganged by politicians and the media on some vaccine or other for some age group for which there was no evidence of benefit, or something.

In a major blow to vaccine efforts, senior FDA leaders stepping down

“The departures also come as the administration has recently jumped ahead of the FDA’s reviews of booster shots, announcing that they might be available by the week of Sept. 20.”

“A former senior FDA leader told Endpoints that they’re departing because they’re frustrated that CDC and their ACIP committee are involved in decisions that they think should be up to the FDA. The former FDAer also said he’s heard they’re upset with CBER director Peter Marks for not insisting that those decisions should be kept inside FDA. What finally did it for them was the White House getting ahead of FDA on booster shots.”

Data do not support widespread Covid vaccine boosters right now, outgoing FDA leaders write in the Lancet

Isn’t it odd how medical policy can be openly manipulated while thought leaders run with the version that is preferred poltically? This morning I heard a BBC radio presenter hosting a discussion asking should we vaccinate children say the benefits far outweigh the risks.

Almost everyone has now heard the ‘argument’ about the “marginal medical benefit” (JVC1) and the wider benefits (school etc) - that the government, who are pushing for the jabs, will then allow them to receive.

But this wasn’t what the JVC1 was saying shortly before.

7/8/21 JCVI ‘largely opposed’ to Covid vaccination for children under 16
“Scientists say younger people might be better off catching virus
Children may be better off catching Covid than having a vaccination
Professor Robert Dingwall said it may be safer due to small risk of side effects

“The JCVI has moved to “refresh” the membership of its Covid subcommittee in recent weeks, with one prominent critic of Covid jabs for children, Prof Robert Dingwall, leaving the body

Soon after the JVC1 committee was ‘refreshed’, it improved it’s offer by croaking out a strangled “there is marginal benefit”, and invited the politicians to find non-medical reasons for jabbing children - and take over the responsibility themselves.

After suitable ‘refreshment’, no doubt the FDA will shortly agree about boosters.

2 Likes

hi @Evvy_dense , I think they rejigged that committee a couple of times, I agree with you totally- the fix is on.

One further point, the argument that kids will suffer in other ways if they have to break education due to covid so let’s get them jabbed - it just doesn’t stand up to the least bit of scrutiny:

  1. Covid isn’t keeping kids from schools - it’s the stupid lock-step medical-political mafia rules that are doing that, all without scientific evidence to justify them.
    If you know these rules put kids in greater danger then remove the rules - bring back the old rules, if your sick you stay away until you’re well again. The failing of a test that is known to be UNable to determine whether you’re infectious means absolutely nothing without actual symptoms of infection!
    Once these stupid rules are gone then you are back to the “no real benefit from jabs” position of the JCVI for all kids.

  2. If you keep these stupid unscientific rules in place if most kids don’t take the jab then you are deliberately and knowingly increasing the non-covid risks for kids, which is deliberate malfeasance.

Covid is not the problem, the medical/ political mafia is!

cheers

PS the latest paper not yet peer reviewed doesn’t help the mafia

Boys more at risk from Pfizer jab side-effect than Covid, suggests study | Coronavirus | The Guardian?

1 Like

Hi CJ, I agree with you. The supposedly expert field of health has provided possibilities for controlling the population that could only be dreamt of by old-fashioned tyrants. We see the controls being pushed on and off but it’s worrying that people accept the idea of the leash so readily.

Good article thanks - I was a bit surprised to see that in the Guardian. I was tempted to send them a pound, but I feel they owe me so much already for scores of misleading ‘high impact journalism’ articles.
Cheers

2 Likes

Hi @Evvy_dense , did you notice the Graun admitted they had changed the article after hearing from the MHRA! This is what the NYT is famous for - checking with the spooks before printing anything “alternative”!

cheers

1 Like

No I missed that. This sould be the original article from 2 days earlier, courtesy of the trust old webarchive:

Wonder what the MHRA changes were. Do you want to play, or shall I?

2 Likes

Oh look, a non-gender-specific person! :slight_smile:

1 Like

Pleased to see the Wellington boots removed in the right-hand ‘Decolonized’ version.

It’s a shame, though hardly surprising, that the stats are not quoted/substantiated.

If I were fact checking the graun I’d be protesting about the phrase “side effects” only being prefixed with “rare” some of the time.

And surely “six times as likely” ought to be “one sixth as rare” when the topic is vaccine adverse effects?

Must try harder.

Hi folks, it’s interesting that the UK med/poli crims regard one jab as a solution to both covid and vaccine side effects whereas Israel now regards people with even 2 jabs as being unjabbed if the last jab was a few months ago. At the same time no-one is even attempting to provide a solution for the “known unknowns” - the medium and long term side effects which have been mentioned by many vaxx opponents - ADE for example.

cheers

Rare’s an improvement on very or extremely rare, which apparently both mean vaccine-related :slightly_smiling_face:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=myocarditis+extremely+rare&t=hx&va=g&ia=web

Link to the full study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v1.full.pdf
Criticisms and discussion underneath. Many biscuits required.

1 Like

I love (i.e. hate) the way the BBC uses the adjective rare in this context. One visualises some poor geezer clutching his chest and gasping “Aargh! My blood is clotting! This is so rare!”

1 Like

With VAERS, the discreditedvself-reporting scheme being the source of data for one side of the scale, the Graun might yet want to backpedal on the balance of risks.

On the other side of the scale, a weakness in the methodology is coming up with some kind of weighted average for covid-related cardiac complications (to balance against the jab-related cardiac complications) given variability/ seasonality in levels of cases. This is conceded in the paper.

Please imagine scare quotes around any of the terms I’ve used. Really what the paper is trying to do is to take two sets of utterly unreliable metrics, and make meaningful comparisons between them. To their very minimal credit the MHRA decided, or did they, that the margins were too fuzzy.

Yeah it does look woolly but the size of the effect may give it a bit of leeway to offset a generous error margin.

Here’s Robert Malone getting a similar outcome, with the aid of an actuary - but with CDC data. The calculations concern hospitalisations and deaths from the vaccines, but the context in which the data were obtained seems to be myocarditis.

Alarming myocarditis figures have been springing up all over the place after the vaccines. It’s seriousness has been downplayed from the start, but it has had to be ackowledged that it’s one way the vaccines can definitely damage and kill people.

1 Like

Just one day after this revelation, which in a sane world would automatically scupper the idea of giving the vaccine to younger and younger people, Malone dropped a personal bombshell:

18/7/20 Inventor of mRNA vaccines, Dr Robert Malone, told to hire security due to risk of being assassinated

Less than an hour later Malone tweeted:

“So I guess I have to say this. I am not suicidal. I am at peace with myself and the world.”

The analysis of the CDC data should have gone viral - I only saw this piece yesterday.

1 Like