Posted on 12/29/2021 8:49:14 AM PST by DoodleBob
CLAIM: COVID-19 vaccines don’t provide protection against the new omicron variant of the coronavirus.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: Missing context. While it’s true that people who are vaccinated can still get infected with omicron, early research has shown that the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing severe disease, hospitalization and death stemming from the new variant.
THE FACTS: A video clip circulating on social media shows Dr. Robert Malone, a frequent critic of the COVID-19 vaccines who has researched mRNA vaccine technology, stating that the shots don’t protect people from omicron. The comments were made during a Dec. 17 interview with Laura Ingraham, a Fox News host, on her show the “The Ingraham Angle.”
“Omicron blows right through the vaccines and through the triple jabbed,” Malone said. “Omicron is very, very infectious and the data are already in that both the double and triple vaccination is not protecting you from omicron.”
...
But the claim is misleading, infectious disease experts say. Preliminary research has shown that while mRNA vaccines are less effective at preventing infection from the omicron variant, the shots are still very effective at preventing severe illness and death.
“It’s misleading. It implies that there is no benefit to boosting in the face of omicron and that is not true,” Chris Beyrer, a professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told The Associated Press. “And it also implies that there is no benefit in the face of omicron to being vaccinated and that’s also not true.”
Beyrer said the evidence is “very clear” that vaccines, along with vaccine boosters, are “effective against omicron in preventing serious disease, hospitalization and death.”
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
On August 23, 2021, the FDA approved the first COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty, for the prevention of COVID-19 disease in individuals 16 years of age and older.(emphasis added)
Per the Comernity Insert,
--------------------------- INDICATIONS AND USAGE----------------------------
COMIRNATY is a vaccine indicated for active immunization to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in individuals 16 years of age and older. (1)(emphasis added>
Per the Summary Basis for Regulatory Action, under "Indication"
Active immunization to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in individuals 16 years of age and older. (Emphasis added)
Clearly, the vaccine is for PREVENTION. Nothing else. All of the clinical trials (limited as they were) and statistical confidence intervals were focused on Vaccine Efficacay with regard to PREVENTION...not hospitalization, not ER visits, not death, and not symptoms.
In fact, if the shots were granted EUA on the basis of PREVENTION, and they can't prevent anymore, shouldn't the EUA be revoked?
Great line. “Fake check.”
Dr. Peter McCullough said just the other night on the Coast To Coast overnight radio show that the “vaccines” and boosters are identical and are still designed for the first iteration of the dreaded XiPox. They’re of very limited use against Delta and of no use at all against Omicron.
didnt pfizer or moderna say they were working on a vaccine for the omicron variant?
The vax drama will increase a lot today as the COVID tote board will reach record numbers of “new cases” or in fact positive tests.
You: COMIRNATY is a vaccine indicated for active immunization to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2...
------
I'm not agreeing that this happens, but you both say they prevent the severe. You just lost your own argument.
That is exactly the point for authorizing the EUA in the first point.
Furthermore, NIH/FDA/CDC are only now looking into alternative medication procedures of known and FDA already approved medications for "off label usage".
Field physicians are already finding "off label" usage, such as Ivermectin, but don't yet have clinical trials proving their efficacy.
'That horse has already left the barn' !
Actually it’s HIGHLY speculative that the “vaccines are effective at preventing severe disease”, as the Omicron variant itself has proven to be significantly less virulent regardless of a persons vaccination status.
Beyrer said the evidence is “very clear” that vaccines, along with vaccine boosters, are “effective against omicron in preventing serious disease, hospitalization and death.”......
If it’s very clear, then why was there little serious disease, hospitalization and death in South Africa where only 20% are vaccinated?
Is it because Omicron is less virulent than the other strains? That’s what the real evidence shows.
Beyrer is a quack and a liar. Today medical credentials are nothing more than a license to lie.
The “severe” in the Comirnaty quote is part of an acronym (SARS). That makes the difference.
Your interpretation is that they were meant to prevent severe SARS, and that’s not what they claimed in the FDA application. Pfizer claimed their jabs would prevent SARS, period. And they’ve failed spectacularly in that claim.
And they met those endpoints. Since then we've learned that the protection from infection wanes but protection from severe disease remains pretty high.
In fact, if the shots were granted EUA on the basis of PREVENTION, and they can't prevent anymore, shouldn't the EUA be revoked?
Why would you revoke a EUA for a drug that's proven to be safe and very effective in preventing severe disease?
Besides, the efficacy in new trials would probably remain high because the vaccines are effective for a period of time.
DoodleBob wrote: “Clearly, the vaccine is for PREVENTION.”
Name three vaccines that are 100% effective at PREVENTION.
Speculative?
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) is the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019), the respiratory illness responsible for the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The virus previously had a provisional name, 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), and has also been called human coronavirus 2019 (HCoV-19 or hCoV-19).
In addition, in other places in the approval documents etc., the word "severe" as a qualifier is absent.
I'll even go further - if people are older, immunocompromised, have comorbidities, and want to get the shots because there SEEMS to be a correlation between getting the shot and staying out of the hospital and morgue, I'd never criticize them. Healthcare is a personal choice.
AND, with the ability to detect Omicron still in the early days, how can ANYONE state what was stated in this article with the ASSURANCE they convey? I'd be OK if they said "we THINK boosters will help prevent Omicron" or "we THINK shots will keep you above room temperature and at home." But instead we get Chris Beyrer, a professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told The Associated Press. “And it also implies that there is no benefit in the face of omicron to being vaccinated and that’s also not true.”
I can’t off hand. Why do you ask?
You don’t get a mild case of polio from a polio vac, or a mild case of lockjaw from a tetanus vac..you don’t get sick!
After four weeks...
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.