Rick

Here's an interesting video from a virtual meeting I was monitoring all day today RE: the FDA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFph7-6t34M&t=15644s

I think I got it to the point of the interesting stuff. Otherwise it was 8+ hours of blah blah blah

I liked Dr Rose's presentation. She's succinct and in point (taken from same virtual meeting today I had to sit thru)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsVEbPgrhxA

Rick

You should read this as well. Two of the 18 authors were the ones who recently resigned from the FDA prior to this booster hearing and "vote".

Philip Krause MD and Marion F. Gruber PhD

It speaks to the reason boosting for the sake of it in the gen pop is a really bad idea.

It's published in the Lancet. Should it get deleted, I have it archived. Posted the link to Lancet here:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...046-8/fulltext

Your timeline and your jumping the gun is not my problem. If you're going to post here, get it straight and get the full story.

All the other stuff aside, he posted “FDA just shot down boosters. Vote was 16-2”.

that is not Fake news. That is exactly what happened…the Biden admin announced a plan for boosters for everyone to start next week, and the FDA shot that down. Of course it is not nuanced and not the whole story, but certainly not fake news.

For our purposes, yes it is.

1. The "FDA" did no such thing, they haven't even made a determination yet but when they eventually do it will in fact have regulatory force (unlike the advisory panel's suggestions).

2. Recommending boosters for some demographics but not others is not "shooting down boosters".

Discussion over.

You are correct, should have said FDA advisory panel.

I guess it pays to be a mod?

I was typing on my phone. Your editor is aweful on that respect. Probably my silly android too
Anyway 2 votes happened that day.

We were provided transcripts of the 8 hours and 5 minutes of testimony later that day at my Congressman's office.

It went down pretty much like I said. If you have transcripts then maybe you can tell me where I missed that....I'm not seeing it.


When I posted, they had not had the vote for 65+ and at risk. that happened about 2 hours after my 16-2 vote post against ages 16-65.

Of course it's the FDA ADVISORY panel. The FDA administration has been following their guidelines so far. We don't see that changing, but it could.

Here's a pony so you don't get too ****ed at me🦄🦄🦄

There's a WSJ article on boosters in Israel, explaining their decision (paywall).

Also discusses their rapid response to all thing covid, and in part credits the fact that most of their folks have served or been involved in military/wartime crises so they're good at adapt, improvise, and overcome.

"Those involved in the decision-making process in Israel credit a culture of debate and a willingness to improvise, instilled in part by long careers in the military common among senior health professionals, and tested during national security crises."

For whatever reason(s), Israel is an extremely high trust society, with a huge amount of social capital upon which to draw.

Also also off-the-charts nationalistic.

It's uniqueness in those areas make it a poor comparison state for Western nations.