Posted on 11/15/2021 1:01:50 PM PST by SoConPubbie
Germany and France have decided that because of the excess risk of myocarditis the Moderna vaccination should not be given to people less than 30 years old. News reports suggest that myocarditis is 5 times more common with Moderna than Pfizer at these ages. Given that Pfizer is available, tolerating the excess harms of Moderna for people in this age group is obviously unsound policy. Accordingly, Germany and France have made the right decision.
There are immediate policy implications for the United States, if we have the courage to heed them.
First, the USA has to grapple with the question: Are we truly committed to maximizing the benefit and minimizing the harms of vaccination? Throughout this pandemic, I struggled to understand US decision making. When we learned that J&J vaccination was linked to thrombosis (VITT) preferentially in women <40, and given that alternative vaccines were available, I argued we should suspend vaccination in that age group for that product, but this was notably not pursued by regulators. We should not make the same error here.
For that reasons, the USA must immediately follow suit with Germany and France. It is unjustified to continue administering Moderna for people < 30 when the excess risk is known, and a safer alternative exists. Drug safety expert and Professor of Medicine Walid Gellad concurs:
There is a very simple way to improve vaccine safety and still reap all the benefits.
Moderna now acknowledges its higher rate of myocarditis. The US, like multiple other countries now, should favor Pfizer over Moderna for males under 30.https://t.co/uXneLDWXGZ
— Walid Gellad, MD MPH (@walidgellad) November 11, 2021
This decision shows that it is possible to learn additional safety information after product launch that can better tailor the use of vaccines to maximize benefit and minimize harm. Now reconcile this fact with the language used by many professionals when products are debuted, which are unequivocal and fail to acknowledge uncertainty. I would strongly suggest we temper our comments about vaccines among kids 5 to 11 until further data comes forward.
The decision has immediate implications for ongoing vaccination efforts. We should be randomizing people, who have elected to undergo vaccination, to variations in dose and timing of dose 2 for the Pfizer vaccine. This should happen for anyone under the age of 40, and particularly for kids aged 5 to 11.
Ongoing studies should attempt to see if toxicity can be mitigated with reduced dose or prolonged interval between doses. It makes little sense to scale up a suboptimal dosing regimen, and post-market RCTs are possible here. With kids 5 to 11, there remains massive uncertainty as to the harms (there may be harms, but there might also not be— we simply don’t know).
Testing variations in dose and schedule is logical. Already 1 million children (5 to 11) have gotten dose 1. A trial can be run among willing participants and randomize some people to get dose 2 on schedule (21 days), some on day 60, some on day 180, and some can forgo dose 2 entirely, and within months we will know which strategy is best.
Ironically, not conducting a trial like this is a real experiment. It means we will continue a massive vaccination campaign with little idea if our dosing and timing is optimized for benefit/ harm balance.
We need to see troponin levels and cardiac MR performed on 10,000 random recipients of vaccination at all ages to document if subclinical myocarditis exists. We urgently need long term follow up on patients with myocarditis to see if a fraction (even a tiny one) develops long term sequelae.
Europe has made fewer unforced errors than the USA. They did not mask 2 year olds without data; They were (and still are) more reluctant to vaccinate younger individuals, and they take myocarditis seriously. We have a lot to learn from them on how to balance drug efficacy with safety.
Ping!
The CEOs of Moderna and Pfizer will NOT be trifled with!
“Are we truly committed to maximizing the benefit and minimizing the harms of vaccination? Throughout this pandemic, I struggled to understand US decision making.”
The author is asking the correct question—but is in denial about the answer to the question.
The answer is “no”.
US “experts” and political “leaders” have a goal of the maximizing the harm caused by the vaccinations.
This is because they want to “save the planet” by impeding the immune system of millions of Americans.
You cannot bend the curve of world population growth by curing people of disease.
You can only do so by making them sicker so they die sooner.
They don't want to know the results of an experiment like that. It could be problematic.
And this is why EVERY Public Employee and EVERYONE in thier family, especially Children should be Immediately Required to get the JAB or be FIRED, On the Spot!!
It shouldn’t be given to anyone because it is a dangerous poison.
This isn’t Logan’s Run.
It isn’t OK to poison people who are over 30.
I was watching some videos by a specialist in the field. He says he is for more exploration into benefits of mnra research, but points out many dangers in getting the current "vaccines", which he points out are medical procedures and not true vaccines.
Among the dangers, are side effects which may take several years to pop up, among them the very high possibility of spike proteins invading cells thereby damaging DNA, and also destroying the body's ability to fight off future attacks on cells. If that is the case, then it is truly a dangerous poison. Millions may die from it.
Dammit! I was jus............... Oh, no I wasn’t. Carry on.
Kind of like a lottery, eh
The effect of all of the poisons labeled COVID vaccines is to flood the bodies of the people injected with a version of the Baric-Daszak-Fauci spike protein.
The Baric-Daszak-Fauci spike protein, by itself, is deadly.
It is, amongst other things, like a skeleton key that can invade every part of the body. Every cell. Every system.
It will cause severe damage in millions of people.
For some, the effects will become apparent quickly.
For others, the effects will build over time.
The names refer to:
1. Ralph Steven Baric, Professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who laid the groundwork for the Wuhan gain-of-function experiment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_S._Baric
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4797993/
2. Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance, who mapped out the proposal and partnered with the Wuhan Institute of Virology to have the experiment conducted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Daszak
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10062775/US-Chinese-scientists-planning-create-brand-new-coronavirus-leaked-proposals-show.html
3. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is part of the National Institutes of Health. This modern-day-Mengele needs no introduction. As everyone knows, he funded the experiment:
https://nypost.com/2021/05/28/fauci-once-argued-viral-experiments-worth-the-risk-of-pandemic/
Paging NYG gov, Kathy #VaxtoSchool Hochul.
Why not just take it off the market completely? It just tells me over and over they want people dead.
Yup, it is solidifying for anyone with a working brain and not on the take.
That's probably because Moderna is just Pfizer with 3 times as much mRNA.
Protein antigens have been around for decades. This is the first widespread use of mRNA to create them inside the body. The upcoming Novavax is just the proteins. I don't think the spike protein is particularly different from other proteins but I am not a proteinologist.
Please read some of the links on my profile page about the gain-of-function experiment.
Given the preclinical efficacy of Ebola monoclonal antibody therapies, such as ZMApp10, we next sought to determine the efficacy of SARS-CoV monoclonal antibodies against infection with SHC014-MA15. Four broadly neutralizing human monoclonal antibodies targeting SARS-CoV spike protein had been previously reported and are probable reagents for immunotherapy
The Chinese were then funded to make it happen. They skipped over the immunotherapy and went right to the pandemic. Could have been an accidental release as they were working towards the immunotherapy. But as time goes on, I believe an accident to be less and less likely.
Calling any five year-old a "willing participant" is absurd.
Bookmark.
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.