Skip to main content

FDA rejects widespread Pfizer vaccine Booster Shots

Image
By

 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fda-rejects-pfizer-booster-vaccine_n_6144f00ce4b02cb84634f15a


FDA Advisory Panel Rejects Widespread Pfizer Vaccine Booster Shots
The panel did, however, endorse the extra shots for those who are 65 or older or at high risk of severe disease.

Could the labs still do a booster mandate just to be safe?

Comments

Anonymous said…
The labs have become a risk averse establishment. The question posed is would the labs mandate the use of the booster in spite of the FDA NOT recommending the usage for those under the age of 65, which one would presume would encompass just about the entire population. The lawyers would have to huddle up in the back room. If anything bad happened to someone taking the booster at the lab's insistence they would not have the backing of the FDA thus they might be RISKING a lawsuit. That's a tough decision, but that is why the folks in the suits get the big bucks.

For the record, I am over 65 and have health issues which forced my hand at getting the vaccine. I also encountered some bad side effects after the 2nd dose and will not entertain getting a booster.
9/17/2021 10:37 PM
Anonymous said…

I hope the FDA made their decision on science not political pressure. This whole thing is getting crazy. They need to listen to the science no doubting. There is no such thing as doubt in science.
9/17/2021 11:41 PM
Anonymous said…
The FDA has not made any decision. This was a recommendation of their advisory panel, which is not binding.
9/18/2021 5:43 PM
Anonymous said…
The FDA and CDC caved to WHO, which is demanding distribution of US-produced vaccines to the rest of the world, rather than booster shots to protect US citizens.
9/18/2021 6:01 PM
Anonymous said…
The FDA and CDC caved to WHO, which is demanding distribution of US-produced vaccines to the rest of the world, rather than booster shots to protect US citizens.

9/18/2021 6:01 PM

I did not think about it that way before. If that is the decision they should just say so. There is some rational to this in terms of saving the most lives.
9/18/2021 8:34 PM
Anonymous said…
The FDA has not made any decision. This was a recommendation of their advisory panel, which is not binding.

9/18/2021 5:43 PM

Yes, and this was completely understood by everyone. The FDA still makes a decision on their recommendation. Beyond increasing intellectual entropy do you actaully have actually have a point.

9/18/2021 8:39 PM
Anonymous said…
There is no such thing as doubt in science.

9/17/2021 11:41 PM

Obviously you are not a scientist. Doubt is why experiments are reproduced and papers are peer reviewed.
9/19/2021 6:14 PM
Anonymous said…
Yes, and this was completely understood by everyone.

9/18/2021 8:39 PM

If you read the comments here, obviously not by "everyone." Try to contain your narcissism and snark

9/19/2021 6:16 PM
Anonymous said…

Obviously you are not a scientist. Doubt is why experiments are reproduced and papers are peer reviewed.

9/19/2021 6:14 PM

When people say "listen to the science" they do not mean science as they way scientists understand it with experiments, modifications in hypothesis, updates, debate, and so on. What many mean is submit to "authority".
9/21/2021 8:20 AM
Anonymous said…
9/19/2021 6:14 PM

When people say "listen to the science" they do not mean science as they way scientists understand it with experiments, modifications in hypothesis, updates, debate, and so on. What many mean is submit to "authority".
----------------------------

THIS.
10/03/2021 9:11 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more