Posted on 08/18/2021 8:46:36 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
* The company's vaccine has been at a disadvantage due to a perceived lower efficacy rate.
* Its effectiveness against the delta variant could lead to an increase in demand.
Johnson & Johnson's (NYSE:JNJ) COVID-19 vaccine has had some challenges this year. From production issues to some disquieting reports of blood clots possibly being linked to the vaccine, it hasn't been the success the company was likely hoping it would be at this stage. Vaccines from Pfizer (NYSE:PFE) and Moderna (NASDAQ:MRNA) have generated far more revenue for those companies and appear to be the vaccines of choice for many people.
However, the delta variant may change that, as both Moderna and Pfizer are suggesting booster shots are necessary. And the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently authorized a third dose for people with weakened immune systems. Meanwhile, a new study has found the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to be highly effective against the delta variant, so booster shots may not be necessary for individuals who receive that vaccine. While a lack of boosters won't translate to more revenue from the vaccine, it's a development that could ultimately lead to Johnson & Johnson's vaccine rising in popularity and grabbing more market share.
Moderna's vaccine sales could reach $20 billion by the end of this year. And that's still well behind Pfizer, which estimates its vaccine sales will hit $33.5 billion this year as it leads the way, producing up to 3 billion doses in 2021. Moderna doesn't anticipate it will be able to produce that many doses annually until next year. In 2021, its production could reach 1 billion doses.
Johnson & Johnson only expects to produce up to 600 million doses of its single-shot vaccine this year, down from its earlier target of 1 billion. Its struggles stem in large part from difficulties at a plant in Baltimore run by Emergent BioSolutions, where concerns relating to cross-contamination led to a shutdown of its factory in March. The FDA only recently gave the plant the green light to reopen.
It also didn't help that some people felt, correctly or not, that J&J's vaccine wasn't as effective as the other ones granted Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA.
But the problem is that Johnson & Johnson's vaccine data were never a fair comparison: It only completed enrolling participants in the first phase of its vaccine trial a month later, in December 2020. By then, coronavirus had evolved and new variants of concern were emerging in the U.K., Brazil, and South Africa. In Moderna's and Pfizer's earlier trials, those variants would not have played as much of a role (if at all) in their overall efficacy rates as they did in Johnson & Johnson's trials; when looking at just the U.S., J&J's vaccine efficacy rose to 72% in preventing moderate and severe disease.
From the start, J&J's vaccine was disadvantaged because of the numbers, which inevitably led to comparisons. But there's a new study that could be much more promising for Johnson & Johnson and lead to greater demand for its shot.
By comparison, studies on two doses of the Pfizer vaccine suggest efficacy rates could range between 42% and 96% against delta. Moderna has also had varying efficacy rates but it looks to be a bit higher, at around 76%. But what's common to both is that people need two doses of the vaccine, as a single dose offers weaker protection. And that's where the advantage could sway significantly in Johnson & Johnson's favor as its single-shot vaccine would be significantly easier to administer.
If production-related issues are sorted out and concerns ease about its efficacy, Johnson & Johnson could make up some serious ground in the COVID-19 vaccine market. It has a long way to go in overtaking Pfizer and Moderna in market share, but the healthcare giant is a major player in the industry with significant resources. It could ramp up production to meet a surge in demand. And that's why investors shouldn't count out the role that vaccine sales may play in its future.
But there is danger in investing based on a specific COVID-19 variant. Things have been changing rapidly, and a new variant could emerge that renders all of the currently available vaccines nearly useless. And so while Johnson & Johnson's vaccine does look like it should rebound in the future, and even though it has an outside chance of overtaking both Moderna and Pfizer, those factors aren't enough to make it a sure thing; there's just too much uncertainty. The stock isn't all that safe over the long term either; Johnson & Johnson's legal troubles in other areas of its business are enough of a reason for me to stay away from the stock.
However, if you are comfortable with the risk and uncertainty and want exposure to the COVID-19 vaccine market, investing in Johnson & Johnson is still a better option than buying shares of a soaring stock like Moderna, which is trading more than $100 higher than price targets set by even some of the most bullish of analysts. And given that it is a bit of an underdog in this race, Johnson & Johnson's ability to produce some better-than-anticipated vaccine sales could lead to significant analyst upgrades, which, in turn, may lead to some great returns for shareholders who buy the stock today.
The J&J Delivers spike proteins to the body, which are damaging. That’s what will cut its profits.
RE: The J&J Delivers spike proteins to the body, which are damaging.
And the mRNA vaccines don’t?
Is there an absolute certainty of cause and effect when it comes to these deaths?
Both the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines have regulatory warnings about vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopeni (VITT) now, and data have shown that women under 60 years old appear to be at a higher risk. Symptoms include intracranial pressure, shortness of breath, lethargy, back pain, abdominal pain, spot bleeding under the skin, and leg or arm weakness, as well as positive test results for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Onset occurs a median of 8 or 10 days after receiving the Johnson & Johnson or AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, respectively.
CVST, one of the worst manifestations of VITT, happens when clots form in the brain and major dural sinuses. While the average 30-day mortality is 6%, about 10% of patients have permanent neurological issues 1 year later.
Studies look at clotting, myocarditis tied to COVID-19 vaccines | CIDRAP (umn.edu)
Ms. Adams, Victoria, and several others asked the VERIFY team, “Did Johnson & Johnson use cells, derived decades ago from an abortion, to create the vaccine?”
We have three sources for this:
Johnson & Johnson has never made a vaccine, but since entering the pharmaceutical market in 1959, the company has made a lot of headlines — and been fined billions — for bad behavior.
By Richard Gale and Gary Null Ph.D.
I got the J&J mid-March. So far no problems but I”m worried about the spike protein clogging up my capillaries.
Fear of getting sued if their vaccine harms someone?
I got the J&J mid-March. So far no problems but I”m worried about the spike protein clogging up my capillaries.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*pausing to pray that you escape all vaccine harm*
If you are concerned, you may want to investigate N.A.C. and anti-oxidents (vitamin C in twice the amount of N.a.C.) which seem to do some good. :)
The warning about VITT has been known for months, yet, they allowed these vaccines to be given.
Out of 14 million doses of J&J administered in the USA so far, how many cases of VITT have been reported?
More about N.A.C. should you decide to try it. :D
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3986528/posts?page=68#68
Wish I had bought MRNA stock though. Unbelievable chart.
This is the more invasive of the vaccines as it injects DNA into the cells to produce mRNA to then produce the spike proteins.
It is not a dichotomy where all of them are really caused by the jab or none of them are. There are always going to be cases where somebody happens to die from an unknown cause and something that did not really cause the death is blamed.
In typical years we have about half the country getting flu shots and about 150 total VAERs deaths reported. This year are on track to have about 100 times that.
Assuming half the population roughly is vaccinated by flu shots in a typical year we have about 166.5 million Americans vaccinated. With an average life span in US of about 78, we should thus expect about 5924 people that took a vaccine to die on any given day by pure coincidence not necessarily having anything to do with the vaccine. Now being that I *think* that just about all the deaths reported are during the first two days, let us say 120 of those reported in this case, then of the first two day reports we have about 120 out of 11,880 deaths reported as vaccine related in a typical year. So about 1% of the deaths blamed on the flu shot out of deaths in the two days following when a flu shot was gotten.
Now it is not unreasonable to suspect that the flu shots might not have caused any of these deaths. Its not hard to believe that 1% of deaths are cases where the real cause is not apparent and people go looking for other answers. I don't know if this is the case, maybe there are even more than 150 flu shot deaths in a typical year, but the point is as an upper bound for falsely blaming a vaccine in the previous 30 years of VAERs data we have 1% false blame the vaccine rating.
Of course for THIS year we have about 100 times more deaths reported. If we assumed for the heck of it that not a single one of these deaths was really due to the vaccines we would have to credit anti-vaxxer hysteria has convinced grieving families to falsely blame the vaccines for about 100% of the expected deaths in the two days following vaccination (which is still where the lions share of reported deaths fall).
Now a roughed over part of this quick analysis is that we may have older more feeble people taking the vaccine who were more likely to die anyway. But even so, we are dealing with half the population about being jabbed so we can't have just old people there. As an upper bound for the effect then, lets cut the 100% in half down to 50%.
Thus bending over backwards as much as possible on the side of the vaccines being just as safe as the flu shots, we are still left with a false blame rate of going from 1% to 50% of deaths in first two days...which is not very plausible even if VAERs is better know now and all.
Bottom line: It seems most of these reported deaths really are due to the jabs, and it seems these jabs are far more dangerous than flu shots in the short term.
As far as long term data, there is no data other than biologists who say its ok and some predicting disaster.
Dang!
Stay the hell away from pfizer! Wow that’s nuts
They can afford to improve the vaccine and make it safer. And I think there needs to be dialogue between Oxford-Astrazeneca (British/Swede) Sputnik (Russian) scientists who employ the same adenovirus technology. Russia’s Gamaleya Institute claims they use a fancy filtration system they can share knowledge about...
Actually starting yesterday I’m on the natural anti-covid protocol.
Ivermectin, C, D, Zinc, Quecertin. I will stay on it indefinitely.
Nice to hear that C might help.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.