Vaccine experts question whether people need the new COVID-19 booster shots

BY PAUL JUNOR

There has been a push by international governments to encourage their citizens to get the COVID-19 booster shots. The US government to administer the new booster to 48.2 million Americans spent approximately $5 billion.

In fact, it was revealed that several vaccine advisors to the federal government were “disappointed,” and “ angry” with Moderna, one of the major producers of the COVID-19 vaccine. “It didn’t present a set of infection data on the company’s new COVID-19 booster during meetings last year when the advisers discussed whether the shot should be authorized and made available to the public.”

Dr.Paul Offit (a member of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee), who is one of a group of outside advisers that is responsible for helping the FDA came to conclusive decisions, is not pleased about the lack of transparency. He

States, “Decisions that are made for the public have to be based on all available information – not just some information, but all information.”

It was in June and September 2022 that there was a meeting of this FDA advisory group in which panellists were present to release information to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A review of videos and transcripts of those meetings made by Moderna, CDC, and FDA officials indicates that they were in favour of the new vaccine compared to the older ones that were in circulation.

Immunogenicity data relies on blood work from participants to find out how well the vaccine produces antibodies are crucial to the decision-making process. COVID-19. Data with respect to the immunogenicity data of who caught COVID-19 and who did not, were not disclosed to the experts. The data revealed that only 1.9% of the participants who were injected with the original booster became infected while 3.2% of those who received the updated bivalent vaccine became infected This seems to indicate the shots were safe.

On the other hand, the infection data is not representative because of the number of study subjects and the small proportion that became infected. The researchers knew who was receiving the original booster and who was receiving the new one. Despite these limitations, the data was shown in a preprint study and posted online in June and September in an FDA document, and subsequently in a leading medical journal. This did not please advisors to the FDA and CDC who should have access to this information.

Dr. Eric Rubin states, “It’s not a group of children. We understand how to interpret these results.” The six FDA and CDC advisers stated that they would still vote the same way, but wished that they were aware of the imperfections of the data.

Dr. Arnold Monto states, “There should always be full transparency. This data should not be dismissed. They are early, but they indicate that we need to look at them and see what their value is.”

Dr. Pabol Sanchez notes further that, “If the data was looked at as part of the study, it should have been presented to the advisers prior to their decision.”

The advisors mentioned three reasons why they should have had the infection data. Firstly, the potential implication of their decision. Secondly, regulatory agencies worldwide depend on the information from the meeting to recommend vaccines to their citizens. Thirdly, transparency is paramount at all times.

On Wednesday, January 11^th, 2023, the New England Journal of Medicine reported that Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine expert, believes that there needs to be evaluation of booster recommendations. Data was revealed showing that the newest booster, which targets the Omnicron B. A 4/5 strain and original virus variants in a bivalent formulation, is not any better that the original vaccine when used as a booster.

Dr.Offit states, “The experience of the past year has taught us that chasing the Omnicron with a bivalent vaccine is a losing game.” He references data from two expert virologists- Dr.David Ho and Dr.Dan Barouch who revealed that the antibodies produced from the new booster and older ones were almost the same. “There were no significant differences,” Dr.Offit states. “The bivalent booster was sold as better, and better at preventing mild disease and transmission when there was no evidence for that.”