[ExI] vaccines again

[John Klos]

Hi,

> OK, here ya go:
>
> https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2022/12/05/jme-2022-108449
>
> https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/early/2022/12/05/jme-2022-108449.full.pdf

Thank you!

Let's look at this study. Does it appear to have bias or a specific 
agenda? I can't help but think that it does.

Good researchers go very far out of their way to be clear when they 
summarize information from other sources, yet we see the opposite of that 
here. Starting with the "Controversy among experts" section, the authors 
write:

Just 2months later, in September 2021, a US FDA advisory committee 
overwhelm- ingly voted 16-2 against boosting healthy young adults.

Did they? This is cited as from reference 16:

Food and Drug Administration. Emergency use Authorization (EUA) for an 
unapproved product, 2021. Available: 
https://www.fda.gov/media/152432/download page 5 [Accessed 28 Mar 2022].

Let's look for information about this vote:

On September 17, 2021, a VRBPAC meeting was held to discuss if the data 
Pfizer submitted were sufficient to support licensure of a booster dose of 
COMIRNATY administered approximately 6 months after the primary series in 
individuals 16 years of age and older. VRBPAC members voted 16-2 against 
approval of the booster dose in this general population, citing concerns 
about insufficient data to support a favorable benefit/risk determination 
in this general population. Considering the committee's feedback, the FDA 
then asked the committee members to vote on whether the available data 
would support an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of a booster dose for 
use in individuals 65 years and older and individuals at high risk of 
severe COVID-19, and VRBPAC members voted 18-0 in favor of this EUA. 
VRBPAC members also expressed support for inclusion of individuals at 
increased risk of occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the EUA.

Is "a US FDA advisory committee overwhelmingly voted 16-2 against boosting 
healthy young adults" without the part about "citing concerns about 
insufficient data" misleading? For the F***book and Twitter world, of 
course not. But for a scientific study? It's completely and utterly 
unacceptable and clearly an attempt to deceive.

This is just one of several flaws I've already seen from just a cursory 
reading.

> The mainstream press (as far as I know (no longer a regular customer there))
> didn't mention this study much, but Twitter did.

Why would they? This study has an agenda.

John