ferball
desperately terminally-contrarian
- Jul 24, 2015
- 52,731
- 112,664
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
So during the vaccine rollout the initial two doses were rushed. Instead of a six month period between doses that period was shortened to six weeks in some cases. Then there were calls for a booster after six months. There's another dose marketed to the entire population straight up.Mate, I'm surprised by this. You know how vaccinations work. The reason that boosters exist for this and many other illnesses is that they can't pump you full of a one-off dose that would protect you for years because that dose would do more harm than good in the short term.
It was real science applied to a developing and serious situation. Sure, there were missteps and incorrect decisions made along the way due to the high learning curve (given the virus was a novel one, i.e. not previously present in our immune systems), but it certainly wasn't pseudoscience.
Three doses over a year or two and a an infection would have been reasonable. Unlike other covid vaccines the vaccines efficacy was measured, well marketed using anti body titres after six months instead of memory cell titres (which was how AZ measured their vaccines efficiacy.) The decrease in ab titres after six months is a natural process and part of the functioning of a healthy immune system that is not wasting resources on unnecessary abs when low concentrations of abs and memory cells are what makes a secondary response happen.
We were constantly told this decrease in ab led to a decrease in immunity even tho this is the process that is sposed to happen and doesn't decrease immunity at all if memory cells are present as a result of the vaccination program.
(I'm talking about Pfizer here, not all of the vaccines that were developed or vaccination itself generally.)
Their vaccine was developed as a two dose vaccine and they said up until april 2021 that would be enough to stimulate an appropriate immune response. AFter this their claims of the necessity of a third dose started and led to the resignations of the heads of vaccine approval in the FDA in the US because they felt such a response was unnecessary (in the general population) after Bourla went to the white house to lobby for ongoing boosters.
All the while cookers carrying on distracted people from that but to me its incredible that the people who ran the FDA vaccination approval process were the ones who resigned over this. Its seems the regulator was compromised on the basis of of an unscientific marketing program.
We all know that the US has one of the least effective medical systems in the world in terms of looking after its population properly and that big pharma companies have got away with constant breaches or have captured the regulatory system to the point its ineffective in many cases but this was the worst example. Even worse than the regulatory failure that led to the opioid epidemic in some ways I reckon.
Meanwhile we still don't know the contents of the pfizer contract with Australia, apart from the fact the company was indemnified against damages caused by its product. In fact a little transparency might even have changed my attitude.
This isn't the thread for it but that's one of several issues I have with that company and its product rollout during the pandemic.
I have other problems with the whole thing, like the reports AZ charged the EU half the price per dose that it charged South Africa. But that's for another thread and maybe a day when I've got the time and motivation to get all those issues together in one post.







