Great plan. You’ve taken to account people who want it no matter what and they can get it. And the anti-VAX don’t need to think about it anymore. They can get mad about something else. Brilliant strategy.
The new policy is a welcome change. However, uncertainties remain that prompt hesitation on endorsing the boosters. Does the FDA believe that the covid boosters are safe? Many challenges to vaccine safety have been raised. Is the FDA planning on responding to these challenges? How are citizens supposed to know whether these challenges have merit? Also is there data regarding protective efficacy and side effects in people over 65 and in immunocompromised patients or other at risk groups for whom boosters are recommended? The fact that the vaccines induce antibodies in these groups does not provide insight into either of these questions. Without data it is not possible to know whether any protective effects will be cancelled out by side effects.
I confess I'm not impressed (and disappointed) with Prasad's (and Makary's) rationale for limiting vaccines to age 65+ individuals and discussing additional eligibility without any documentation of its effectiveness for these people. This is someone who abides by clinically relevant science and scientific studies to support clinical practice. Is this the way he will lead the FDA when addressing vaccine (and biological agent) approval for the US, which had been done by a non-political, scientific body? Where is the support for vaccination of caregivers to those people at highest risk (elderly, immune-compromised, chronically or acutely ill, doctors and nurses)? Indeed, moving forward to evaluate evidence, you leave at-risk people unprotected, and will likely provide rationale for anti-vaxxers, citing your premise (without evidence) that it is only appropriate for "some". They will avoid MMR (and other vaccines that have made a difference in incidence and transmission) like the plague!
I am encouraged by the FDA Direct podcast as one avenue for transparency from FDA. I feel like my “friends and colleagues” that I trusted during the pandemic are now in leadership roles that will improve government policies (Dr Makary and Dr Prasad—I followed them on YouTube early on—I was immediately skeptical of the “vaccine”)
Great plan. You’ve taken to account people who want it no matter what and they can get it. And the anti-VAX don’t need to think about it anymore. They can get mad about something else. Brilliant strategy.
The new policy is a welcome change. However, uncertainties remain that prompt hesitation on endorsing the boosters. Does the FDA believe that the covid boosters are safe? Many challenges to vaccine safety have been raised. Is the FDA planning on responding to these challenges? How are citizens supposed to know whether these challenges have merit? Also is there data regarding protective efficacy and side effects in people over 65 and in immunocompromised patients or other at risk groups for whom boosters are recommended? The fact that the vaccines induce antibodies in these groups does not provide insight into either of these questions. Without data it is not possible to know whether any protective effects will be cancelled out by side effects.
I think this is a great start to collecting actual data on the vaccine. And Vinay did not drop a single F-bomb!
I confess I'm not impressed (and disappointed) with Prasad's (and Makary's) rationale for limiting vaccines to age 65+ individuals and discussing additional eligibility without any documentation of its effectiveness for these people. This is someone who abides by clinically relevant science and scientific studies to support clinical practice. Is this the way he will lead the FDA when addressing vaccine (and biological agent) approval for the US, which had been done by a non-political, scientific body? Where is the support for vaccination of caregivers to those people at highest risk (elderly, immune-compromised, chronically or acutely ill, doctors and nurses)? Indeed, moving forward to evaluate evidence, you leave at-risk people unprotected, and will likely provide rationale for anti-vaxxers, citing your premise (without evidence) that it is only appropriate for "some". They will avoid MMR (and other vaccines that have made a difference in incidence and transmission) like the plague!
I’m grateful to see some common sense in all of this chaff that our gov throws out in exchange for money.
I am encouraged by the FDA Direct podcast as one avenue for transparency from FDA. I feel like my “friends and colleagues” that I trusted during the pandemic are now in leadership roles that will improve government policies (Dr Makary and Dr Prasad—I followed them on YouTube early on—I was immediately skeptical of the “vaccine”)