Digression: This is the same Atlantic that published the piece asking for amnesty for covid abuse and the abusers.
Amnesty acknowledges criminality/wrong going and is not appropriate for these supremely egregious wrongs and the despicable wrong doers. Accountability is the only appropriate response.
So let’s get to the admission of ignorance from the Atlantic. Or, if you prefer the admission of the reality that solid scientific fact were always lacking. But there was spin and plenty of false claims.
Even the claim of letting data “slip away’ is absurd. What data existed would and should still exist. In fact one would think there would be more better quality data. But there isn’t.
Paul Sax (Infectious Disease Specialist at Harvard) admits he didn’t have “iron-clad data” to back up his thinking either way. The bivalent vaccines had been authorized only on the basis of how many antibodies they produced, a useful but imperfect gauge of their positive effects—and so, even now, no one knows for sure how much real-world benefit they provide for the majority of Americans
Studies have shown that, going by antibody levels, recovering from COVID is already a good booster. (Yes it is, including, without the jab)
The new shots are designed to target the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants of Omicron, but these now account for fewer than one-seventh of infections in this country, according to the CDC. The FDA believes that the boosters are still “likely to help,” but studies hint that the shots are already out of date.
The shots being out of date were an inevitability- Given the mutation capabilities of the virus.
But the simple fact that he, like other experts, has been expected to make such decisions on the basis of conflicting laboratory data is pushing doctors back into the disquieting realm of scientific uncertainty. It suggests that we’ve reached a turning point in our pandemic expertise, where some of the astounding progress made since 2020 has started to decay.
Pandemic expertise? I don’t think so. Progress since 2020 starting to decay? The claimed progress never existed. It was a pharma/pharmedia spin. And you’ll read more spin directly below
The world’s scientists used their grit and genius to develop new ideas with unprecedented speed; collectively, the COVID vaccines and treatments they produced saved tens of millions of lives.
Ya know ‘the speed of science’ whatever the hell that means?! Saved tens of millions of lives? Impossible to prove. Simply nonsensical claims.
“Society spent billions of dollars to answer a single, urgent question: How do you combat a novel respiratory virus? Now, all of a sudden, we find ourselves a little baffled by the follow-up: How do you handle a respiratory virus that is familiar?”
Is that what the billions of dollars spent was all about? Combating a virus? I don’t think so.
At least 12 different vaccines
have since been clearedfor human use. They didn’t just arrive in record time; they were
also of extraordinary quality.
Rigorous clinical trialsdemonstrated that immunization could reduce the risk of symptomatic disease by up to 95 percent.
Did you notice the word “cleared” was used rather than approved?? That’s obfuscation. Lying by omission. The vaccines were never approved they were merely authorized for use in the largest human experiment ever conducted. The use of the EUA tells us there were NO rigorous clinical trials or the jabs would have actually been approved not authorized. This was all politics and profiteering.
“reduce the risk of symptomatic disease by
up to95 percent”
Oh, really. Up to 95? From 0 to 95%
And what about the claims the jab was going to end the pandemic. That was one big, BIG Pharmalie!
As admitted below
“Two years later, though, those claims no longer hold. We’re now facing down millions of infections—with no clear sense of our tweaked vaccines’ effectiveness for most of the people who take them”
Claims? I thought this was all ‘science’ And fact. Follow the science. The speed of science. And an admission that the vaccines are ineffective as evidenced by the millions and millions of infections ongoing to this day.
“But the same development also makes it harder to figure out whether vaccines are still doing what they’re meant to do”
An admission of the big lie. The vaccines never worked as advertised. Why push them and push them so hard!
“Recall the headline finding from the original mRNA-vaccine trials, that the shots’ ability to prevent symptomatic illness was an incredible 95 percent.”
Spin, not science.
“This would already leave us in an awkward and uncertain spot, even if the newest doses of the vaccine hadn’t been updated in the absence of rigorous, large-scale clinical trials. Instead we have preliminary data from the CDC suggesting that the bivalent boosters offer modest protection against symptomatic illness. Many questions remain. The study doesn’t measure the shots’ effects on staving off severe disease, and the results weren’t broken down by prior infection status. The data were also collected from mid-September to mid-November, when BA.4 and BA.5 were still predominant and antibody levels were at their peak, so we don’t know how well the shots are going to hold up through the winter.”
“Other treatments like molnupiravir and remdesivir were also shown to help keep patients from becoming severely ill through studies spanning many different countries. But in 2022, those findings are no longer so definitive.”
If the claims made about mulnupiravir and remdesivir had every been accurate… oh but wait they weren’t.
“ Yet among the subset of participants in the Pfizer trial who were found to have natural COVID antibodies (perhaps implying that they’d been infected unawares), the drug seemed to prevent fewer bad outcomes.”
Or was is simply the natural covid antibodies?
“the incremental benefit of repeated boosters or treatment on top of this is less certain”
Obviously the benefit does not exist as claimed and to be frank it never did!
“Treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health and the Infectious Diseases Society of America are no help, either. NIH merely notes that “the efficacy of these treatments in patients who have been vaccinated is unclear,”
“Pharmaceutical companies don’t have much incentive to sort this out, given that their treatments are widely available and reaping record profits. “I don’t think they want more data because more data might show the drugs don’t work,” David Boulware, an infectious-disease physician at the University of Minnesota, told me. I asked Pfizer and Moderna whether the companies had plans to run new, large-scale clinical studies of their COVID shots and drugs in vaccinated and previously infected individuals, but neither responded to my inquiry.”
In the same way the pharmaceutical companies had the incentive to push their unproven jabs for profit they now have no incentive to “follow the science” because it would be an admission of failure and their profits would fall.
For most healthy people, however, the stakes of having access to this knowledge are diminishing.
Many recent COVID deaths occurred not because of COVID pneumonia itself, but because the virus worsened preexisting lung, heart, kidney, or liver conditions. This puts SARS-CoV-2’s behavior more in line with other routine respiratory infections.
Sars-CoV-2 was always in line with routine respiratory infections- that’s just a fact