[oldtimes]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

"You will see that there are a few who get absolutely rabid when defending the jab and it's follow up jabs since the original one didn't work as planned. I once owned a Maserati. My wife told me before I bought it, that it was a foolish choice. I bought it, believing the salesman that maintenance was not extreme and it would fulfill all my driving fantasies. Of course, it was a nightmare. Even so, with each visit, and bill from the repair shop, I dug my heels in deeper, stating how great the auto was and how I would buy one again. To admit that it was a mistake at this point would prove I made a poor decision. "

Great points.

I too have noticed the defensiveness on the part of some when their views on the efficacy of the vaccine/subsequent boosters are questioned. On an individual level it is somewhat amusing but when it becomes the case with government entities it is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Case in point. Minnesota was one of the most front-and-center states in The-Sky-Is-Falling movement. Led by University of Minnesota epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, the doleful prediction was that one hundred thousand Minnesotans were in line to die of COVID in the space of eight months (the numbers and timelines may vary but that is the gist of it). Didn't happen, of course, but Governor Walz, a somewhat credulous type, bought into it hook, line and sinker. The state began hosting weekly (Saturday mornings as I recall) media sessions where he and Minnesota Dept. of Health Director Jan Malcolm, in dirgelike tones, recounted the previous week's progress of the bug across Minnesota. The tone of those sessions gradually changed as the numbers began to reveal that what was happening was nothing like the doleful predictions, but Walz, sticking to the original script, went out on a limb and purchased, for several million dollars, a huge old warehouse that was going to be used as a temporary morgue for all the COVID victims that he was sure were going to be swept up off the street that winter. Didn't happen, of course, and there were quite a few waggish suggestions made as to how the State could use that building. As far as I know, it still sits there, empty.

The problem was, even when the numbers began to tell a tale that was diametrically opposite of what the official doomsayers predicted, the state agencies refused to change course, many adapting the narrative to support continued draconian measures that the situation obviously did not call for. In my judgment it was a case of "in for a penny, in for a pound". A lot of well-known academic and department-head types had gone out so far on The-Sky-Is-Falling limb, that any change in course or action would have meant totally reversing their original take(s), and by so doing would have made them look extremely stupid.

Not admitting to obvious mistakes is the height of irresponsibility, in my opinion.

I believe it was extensively over exaggerated as is everything the media reports on. I'm not saying it wasn't a major issue but the media hyped it well beyond the reality. Many people died but most people survived.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by oldtimes

I believe it was extensively over exaggerated as is everything the media reports on. I'm not saying it wasn't a major issue but the media hyped it well beyond the reality. Many people died but most people survived.

One of the problems is how people viewed and media reported outcomes. There is the binary view, dead/ not dead. and there is the severity view, hospitalized or dead view, and there is the range of outcomes, from had it not tested not severe to fever, in bed, positive test but no hospitalization, to hospitalized but not ICU, to ICU to dead. .. ie a finer range of outcomes though some harder to report than others, because of lack of reporting outside of controllable systems, such as hospitals and physician practices. So if the controllable accurate reporting is sourced from the location of the most severe, what information bias does it show?

There are confounding issues though: Media advertising model for revenue competition, resulting in fear mongering for clicks, which is the worst, to disinformation groups from abroad, to data and statistics under uncertainty, because what the hospital data showed, is how the state public health systems instructed health systems to report, along with government payments for counts to support where health insurance systems would not. . .

So with something new, there is a lot of incomplete and customer perceived annoying survey questions, which after getting through an overwhelmed and stressed system. . . the patients didn't want to complete, but is a very, important part of evaluation and efficacy of the system. . . Likewise, many medical health record systems had to be modified for not containing enough data collection fields for electronically collecting NEW pandemic information.. .

So with something basically as new and complex as our current health system with recent technology, insurance payment processes, and systems not optimized with enough slack for a pandemic, both human, technology and health systems got overwhelmed, and that all combined to create the fog of viral war of information.

So throw all those variables, which are NOT highly controllable,as well as social influences of medically unqualified reporting making statements for clicks, or otherwise, and the result is what we have today. . . information and data chaos. . .

So, that's why the accurate science outcomes and knowledge will come years later, after research and controlled studies/analysis and genetics will show a much more accurate picture of the virus impacts and outcomes. . .

So although I have access through Coach K's research hospital system's information through her, this Sportsguy is focusing on trying to take reasonable steps to prevent getting sick, as its never fun to be sick, and trying to improve my health to better deal with any future adverse outcomes, whether from COVID 19 or any variant or other new virus, and not worry about sensationalized media, nor catnip media tidbits for the fear attracting human survival bias for clicks. . .

ie, reported that several people got covid while attending the golden globes. . . news worthy? not any more, because the report doesn't specify severity, therefore is just sensationalizing for clicks or views.

good luck weeding yourself off the media catnip for your prehistoric survivalist brain. . .

sportsguy

[Love2Swim]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

And the endless debate continues...

I forget where in this thread it was mentioned but someone observed that they don't trust ANY news source. I tend to agree. In this vastly overpoliticized and underinformed culture of ours, there is one truth that always seems to stand out. And that is that sensationalism sells. When that sensationalism involves news, which we so naively seem to believe is a dispassionate recital of the facts, it is doubly dangerous. News services are businesses like any other. They're out there to make money. And if sensationalism draws readership and generates hits, you can bet the farm that they'll use as much of that as they can. I tend to gravitate to sources without a dog in the fight, but those are becoming harder and harder to find.

This is what my own experience tells me. My wife and I decided from the getgo (on a cruise ship actually, which was one of the last to make it into port before the door slammed shut) that we were going to live our lives without fear, and as normally as possible. We rarely wore masks, and hung out with people with the same mindset. Handshakes and hugs were the norm, not those ridiculous fist-bumps. Oh--we both had COVID--late fall 2020. My wife had a VERY mild case. For me--well, not a picnic but to be honest I've had far worse cases of the flu. Felt kinda puny for about four days but after that my major gripe was that it interfered with my golf.

As for others in our life...our yard guy died after being hospitalized for COVID. He had had the shot. Died of cardiac arrest; I talked to him a couple of days before and he was looking forward to getting out of the hospital. What are the odds that his death certificate listed "COVID" as cause of death? Others? My wife's daughter, her husband and four kids all had the vaccination. A few months later all of them came down with COVID--my step-granddaughter's case also involved a pneumonia diagnosis. My sister had the shot, and then had COVID--twice. The last time, this past December, damn near killed her. My oldest granddaughter also had COVID--twice--AFTER having the shot.

My conclusions?

1. I know more people who have had COVID AFTER the vaccine than who have gotten it without having the vaccine. Some multiple times. Doesn't seem to help much if at all.

2. The biggest threat is not COVID, but the FEAR of COVID. For my wife and myself, as well as a whole lot of others who decided to LIVE our lives rather than curl up in a fetal position under some bed, that is the case.

3. People who take the government at their word are fools.

I thought the vaccines and boosters were to prevent serious illness and lower the rate of deaths. If so, sounds like the shots did their job.

[oldtimes]

Originally Posted by Love2Swim

I thought the vaccines and boosters were to prevent serious illness and lower the rate of deaths. If so, sounds like the shots did their job.

Yet some of the people who responded got Covid before being vaccinated or refused it and still had a mild case.

[Love2Swim]

Originally Posted by oldtimes

Yet some of the people who responded got Covid before being vaccinated or refused it and still had a mild case.

Uh, yeah , so? Everyone who smokes doesn't get lung cancer. Does that mean it's okay to smoke? Not very good logic. Everyone who gets Covid certainly isn't going to end up in the hospital or die, but your chances are radically increased for the unvaccinated.I read that a million people died of Covid in 2020 before the vaccines were available, and that number is obviously much smaller now that we have been vaccinated. I read that in 2022, since the majority of Americans had been vaccinated, the number of Covid Deaths for the unvaccinated were about 8 times higher than that of the unvaccinated. No vaccine is 100% effective, but vaccination, and boosters for the elderly who may not mount a good immune response to the primary series, reduces the risk.

And one thing people neglect to mention are the effects of having long Covid. I have a relative who lost his sense of smell, and ended up losing 20 pounds because he can't taste food anymore.

[oldtimes]

Originally Posted by Love2Swim

Uh, yeah , so? Everyone who smokes doesn't get lung cancer. Does that mean it's okay to smoke? Not very good logic. Everyone who gets Covid certainly isn't going to end up in the hospital or die, but your chances are radically increased for the unvaccinated.I read that a million people died of Covid in 2020 before the vaccines were available, and that number is obviously much smaller now that we have been vaccinated. I read that in 2022, since the majority of Americans had been vaccinated, the number of Covid Deaths for the unvaccinated were about 8 times higher than that of the unvaccinated. No vaccine is 100% effective, but vaccination, and boosters for the elderly who may not mount a good immune response to the primary series, reduces the risk.

And one thing people neglect to mention are the effects of having long Covid. I have a relative who lost his sense of smell, and ended up losing 20 pounds because he can't taste food anymore.

Maybe Covid was just running its course. People who were vaccinated have also gotten long Covid. I’m not saying the vaccines don’t work I’m just saying there are a lot of variables and we may never know for sure. I don’t however have a lot of confidence in the boosters.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

In a pandemic, the only people, to whom one should listen, are epidemiologists.

The two sides of the bivalent booster debate, broken down and explained.

The two sides of the bivalent booster debate, broken down and explained.
summary of Team Topol and Team Offit views.


Comments by @NEJM authors Dr. David Ho, Dr. Dan Barouch,
quotes by @celinegounder

[oldtimes]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

One of the problems is how people viewed and media reported outcomes. There is the binary view, dead/ not dead. and there is the severity view, hospitalized or dead view, and there is the range of outcomes, from had it not tested not severe to fever, in bed, positive test but no hospitalization, to hospitalized but not ICU, to ICU to dead. .. ie a finer range of outcomes though some harder to report than others, because of lack of reporting outside of controllable systems, such as hospitals and physician practices. So if the controllable accurate reporting is sourced from the location of the most severe, what information bias does it show?

There are confounding issues though: Media advertising model for revenue competition, resulting in fear mongering for clicks, which is the worst, to disinformation groups from abroad, to data and statistics under uncertainty, because what the hospital data showed, is how the state public health systems instructed health systems to report, along with government payments for counts to support where health insurance systems would not. . .

So with something new, there is a lot of incomplete and customer perceived annoying survey questions, which after getting through an overwhelmed and stressed system. . . the patients didn't want to complete, but is a very, important part of evaluation and efficacy of the system. . . Likewise, many medical health record systems had to be modified for not containing enough data collection fields for electronically collecting NEW pandemic information.. .

So with something basically as new and complex as our current health system with recent technology, insurance payment processes, and systems not optimized with enough slack for a pandemic, both human, technology and health systems got overwhelmed, and that all combined to create the fog of viral war of information.

So throw all those variables, which are NOT highly controllable,as well as social influences of medically unqualified reporting making statements for clicks, or otherwise, and the result is what we have today. . . information and data chaos. . .

So, that's why the accurate science outcomes and knowledge will come years later, after research and controlled studies/analysis and genetics will show a much more accurate picture of the virus impacts and outcomes. . .

So although I have access through Coach K's research hospital system's information through her, this Sportsguy is focusing on trying to take reasonable steps to prevent getting sick, as its never fun to be sick, and trying to improve my health to better deal with any future adverse outcomes, whether from COVID 19 or any variant or other new virus, and not worry about sensationalized media, nor catnip media tidbits for the fear attracting human survival bias for clicks. . .

ie, reported that several people got covid while attending the golden globes. . . news worthy? not any more, because the report doesn't specify severity, therefore is just sensationalizing for clicks or views.

good luck weeding yourself off the media catnip for your prehistoric survivalist brain. . .

sportsguy

I think this accurately sums up what I am trying to get across. I am not saying the vaccines don't work but I am saying that about 80% of the media has fed us is rubbish and social media about 100% is rubbish. No one reports the news anymore they are just creating clickbait for profit. There are so many variables that it will be years before the actual science catches up since right now even the experts don't agree.

[oldtimes]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

In a pandemic, the only people, to whom one should listen, are epidemiologists.

The two sides of the bivalent booster debate, broken down and explained.

The two sides of the bivalent booster debate, broken down and explained.
summary of Team Topol and Team Offit views.


Comments by @NEJM authors Dr. David Ho, Dr. Dan Barouch,
quotes by @celinegounder

Sorry Sportsguy I couldn't read this without a subscription

[Altavia]

Originally Posted by oldtimes

I think this accurately sums up what I am trying to get across. I am not saying the vaccines don't work but I am saying that about 80% of the media has fed us is rubbish and social media about 100% is rubbish. No one reports the news anymore they are just creating clickbait for profit. There are so many variables that it will be years before the actual science catches up since right now even the experts don't agree.

Sad situation indeed.

At the end of the day, the hybrid vaccinated/natural immunity here seems to have evolved the risk into something no worse than the flu.

China is demonstrating what happens when you have neither.

[Altavia]

Originally Posted by oldtimes

Sorry Sportsguy I couldn't read this without a subscription

Staying up-to-date on boosters matters for high-risk people. But it's not clear that the new Omicron-containing bivalent formulation changed the game as was hoped.

Is the bivalent Covid-19 vaccine booster better than the monovalent booster it replaced? We still don’t know. If it improves things, the available evidence says that it’s not the game changer many had hoped it might be. Still, for at-risk people in particular, a recent dose of a Covid-19 booster decreases rates of infection, and with it, lowers hospitalization rates, at least for a time.

How might we determine if the bivalent booster is better than the monovalent one? There are two ways:

Clinical data.
Laboratory data.
In yesterday’s Inside Medicine, we discussed new clinical data out of Israel (and some from the US) which show that staying up-to-date on Covid-19 vaccines remains important for high-risk older individuals who want to avoid hospitalization. We also know that the new boosters decrease the short-term odds of getting infected for everyone.

But these studies did not pit bivalent against monovalent boosters. They just looked at whether the bivalent booster recipients fared better than people who had not been boosted in a while.

It’s likely that a head-to-head clinical study comparing bivalent to monovalent booster effectiveness will never happen. However, one piece of clinical data we can expect to get in the coming months, is whether the protection offered by the new bivalent version of the boosters lasts longer than that offered by the previous one. That would be great news, and I await the answers.

Other than that, we’re basically left with laboratory data as the lens through which we can judge the new bivalent booster. This week, two relevant studies were published in The New England Journal of Medicine. Both tested whether patients who were boosted with bivalent formulations had better immune responses than those who received monovalent ones. In both studies, there was no appreciable difference between the formulations.

Both the bivalent and monovalent boosters increased antibody responses nicely. In one of the studies, antibody levels spiked to 1,500% of pre-booster levels (among monovalent recipients) and 1,700% of pre-booster levels (bivalent recipients). That difference is not meaningful. Scientists had been looking for orders of magnitude of difference between the two formulations. That said, the 1,500%-1,700% difference in both from pre-booster levels is meaningful, and it explains why the Israeli clinical data from yesterday look good, at least temporarily. (Yes, we expect the effect to wane.) It’s clear that staying up-to-date on vaccines is important for high-risk people and others who want to limit their short-term risk of infection. It’s just that the new-and-improved bivalent vaccine is not changing the game that much.

T cell responses, which are indicative of longer-term protection against severe disease, were not augmented significantly by either the monovalent or the bivalent boosters, one of the studies showed. The monovalent vaccine increased T cell responses by 180%-210% (again, not much; we wanted at least 1000%). Meanwhile, the bivalent vaccine increased T cell responses by just 140%-190%. One might think this means the bivalent did worse. But in reality, the differences are so small at this level, that it makes these results interchangeable. Again, we’re looking for order-of-magnitude differences (1000% if not 10,000% increases, not “merely” 2-fold increases).

Over the last couple of days, an intellectual brawl has erupted over whether all the available data indicate that the bivalent booster outperforms the monovalent.

You’ve got two sides: Team Offit and Team Topol.

Dr. Paul Offit argues that the bivalent booster is a bust. He points out that Covid-19 vaccines are great for decreasing severe, critical, and fatal cases, but only prevent infections for a short period. He feels that boosters have been overplayed since the start, although he is supportive of boosters for older and high-risk people. He’s also worried that bivalent booster’s relatively low value-add may be because the population is already somewhat overboosted—that is, the immune systems of patients who received 3, 4, or even 5 doses of the Wuhan variant (original) vaccine prior to receiving a bivalent vaccine are more-or-less ignoring the new parts of the bivalent vaccine, because they’ve been “trained” to look for the old parts they keep seeing. This phenomenon is called “imprinting.” Data from my collaboration with epidemiologists in Qatar suggests that this indeed is happening. (We’ll discuss this in the future, but what this means is that some people, ironically, may need more boosting, while some would actually do better with less.)

Dr. Eric Topol argues that the bivalent is better. The crux of Dr. Topol’s argument is that there are a handful of other studies that show the bivalent booster does elicit higher antibody responses, and that the two New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) studies are outliers. Because both research teams used a kind of viral assay called a pseudovirus, he believes the NEJM data are inferior to other studies that used live virus.

I asked the lead authors of the two NEJM studies about this point. Both Dr. David Ho (Columbia University) and Dr. Daniel Barouch (Harvard University) disagreed with Dr. Topol.

“We also do live virus studies. The results generally parallel pseudovirus results,” Dr. Ho told Inside Medicine via email. He also strongly implied that scientists with domain expertise in this area tend to agree that the differences between these assays are not meaningful.

“We have also numerous times shown comparability between the pseudovirus and live virus assay,” Dr. Barouch said to Inside Medicine, also via email.

Dr. Barouch also mentioned that in the past, Moderna had generated some flashy data using pseudovirus. (He was more-or-less implying that it was cherry-picking to make a complaint or distinction about the assays now.)

But why did those other studies Dr. Topol mentioned have slightly better results, if the difference was not the assay being used?

Dr. Barouch has thoughts. He believes it comes down to major differences in how far the study participants were from their prior dose when they were most recently boosted.

“The major issue, in my view, is skewed populations. The Moderna and Pfizer studies that showed 4-6 fold increased [antibody] titers of their bivalent boosters compared with their monovalent boosters are based on skewed populations that are not equivalent. The companies looked at their monovalent boosters in individuals in February, 2022 who received their last vaccine 4-6 months previously, but looked at their bivalent boosters in individuals in August, 2022 who received their last vaccine 9-11 months previously. The differences in the calendar dates and the times from prior vaccination skew their data (substantially) in favor of the bivalent booster. This is particularly true since the BA5 surge occurred in summer 2022, and so many people in the bivalent booster group were seeing BA5 for the second time (due to prior BA5 infection), whereas no one in the monovalent group had seen BA5 previously (as that was before the BA5 surge). Negative [antibody tests indicative of prior infection] does not exclude all infections and cannot be used to claim these two populations are equivalent.” —Dr. Dan Barouch.

Dr. Céline Gounder, an infectious diseases specialist, also pointed out that in the studies where the bivalent booster elicited higher antibody levels, those increases were modest, rather than the 10-100 fold differences scientists believe would be meaningful.

[Two Bills]

Why are people still banging the same old drum after 3+years?
No one is going to change their opinions now.
You are for vaccination or against them.
At least some ( a very few mind you ) learn something from roundabout threads!

[oldtimes]

Originally Posted by Two Bills

Why are people still banging the same old drum after 3+years?
No one is going to change their opinions now.
You are for vaccination or against them.
At least some ( a very few mind you ) learn something from roundabout threads!

I am not for or against. I believe no one really knows for sure either way. Even the medical experts don’t agree so everyone should just do what makes them feel comfortable and stop thinking they have all the answers.

[oldtimes]

Originally Posted by Altavia

Staying up-to-date on boosters matters for high-risk people. But it's not clear that the new Omicron-containing bivalent formulation changed the game as was hoped.

Is the bivalent Covid-19 vaccine booster better than the monovalent booster it replaced? We still don’t know. If it improves things, the available evidence says that it’s not the game changer many had hoped it might be. Still, for at-risk people in particular, a recent dose of a Covid-19 booster decreases rates of infection, and with it, lowers hospitalization rates, at least for a time.

How might we determine if the bivalent booster is better than the monovalent one? There are two ways:

Clinical data.
Laboratory data.
In yesterday’s Inside Medicine, we discussed new clinical data out of Israel (and some from the US) which show that staying up-to-date on Covid-19 vaccines remains important for high-risk older individuals who want to avoid hospitalization. We also know that the new boosters decrease the short-term odds of getting infected for everyone.

But these studies did not pit bivalent against monovalent boosters. They just looked at whether the bivalent booster recipients fared better than people who had not been boosted in a while.

It’s likely that a head-to-head clinical study comparing bivalent to monovalent booster effectiveness will never happen. However, one piece of clinical data we can expect to get in the coming months, is whether the protection offered by the new bivalent version of the boosters lasts longer than that offered by the previous one. That would be great news, and I await the answers.

Other than that, we’re basically left with laboratory data as the lens through which we can judge the new bivalent booster. This week, two relevant studies were published in The New England Journal of Medicine. Both tested whether patients who were boosted with bivalent formulations had better immune responses than those who received monovalent ones. In both studies, there was no appreciable difference between the formulations.

Both the bivalent and monovalent boosters increased antibody responses nicely. In one of the studies, antibody levels spiked to 1,500% of pre-booster levels (among monovalent recipients) and 1,700% of pre-booster levels (bivalent recipients). That difference is not meaningful. Scientists had been looking for orders of magnitude of difference between the two formulations. That said, the 1,500%-1,700% difference in both from pre-booster levels is meaningful, and it explains why the Israeli clinical data from yesterday look good, at least temporarily. (Yes, we expect the effect to wane.) It’s clear that staying up-to-date on vaccines is important for high-risk people and others who want to limit their short-term risk of infection. It’s just that the new-and-improved bivalent vaccine is not changing the game that much.

T cell responses, which are indicative of longer-term protection against severe disease, were not augmented significantly by either the monovalent or the bivalent boosters, one of the studies showed. The monovalent vaccine increased T cell responses by 180%-210% (again, not much; we wanted at least 1000%). Meanwhile, the bivalent vaccine increased T cell responses by just 140%-190%. One might think this means the bivalent did worse. But in reality, the differences are so small at this level, that it makes these results interchangeable. Again, we’re looking for order-of-magnitude differences (1000% if not 10,000% increases, not “merely” 2-fold increases).

Over the last couple of days, an intellectual brawl has erupted over whether all the available data indicate that the bivalent booster outperforms the monovalent.

You’ve got two sides: Team Offit and Team Topol.

Dr. Paul Offit argues that the bivalent booster is a bust. He points out that Covid-19 vaccines are great for decreasing severe, critical, and fatal cases, but only prevent infections for a short period. He feels that boosters have been overplayed since the start, although he is supportive of boosters for older and high-risk people. He’s also worried that bivalent booster’s relatively low value-add may be because the population is already somewhat overboosted—that is, the immune systems of patients who received 3, 4, or even 5 doses of the Wuhan variant (original) vaccine prior to receiving a bivalent vaccine are more-or-less ignoring the new parts of the bivalent vaccine, because they’ve been “trained” to look for the old parts they keep seeing. This phenomenon is called “imprinting.” Data from my collaboration with epidemiologists in Qatar suggests that this indeed is happening. (We’ll discuss this in the future, but what this means is that some people, ironically, may need more boosting, while some would actually do better with less.)

Dr. Eric Topol argues that the bivalent is better. The crux of Dr. Topol’s argument is that there are a handful of other studies that show the bivalent booster does elicit higher antibody responses, and that the two New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) studies are outliers. Because both research teams used a kind of viral assay called a pseudovirus, he believes the NEJM data are inferior to other studies that used live virus.

I asked the lead authors of the two NEJM studies about this point. Both Dr. David Ho (Columbia University) and Dr. Daniel Barouch (Harvard University) disagreed with Dr. Topol.

“We also do live virus studies. The results generally parallel pseudovirus results,” Dr. Ho told Inside Medicine via email. He also strongly implied that scientists with domain expertise in this area tend to agree that the differences between these assays are not meaningful.

“We have also numerous times shown comparability between the pseudovirus and live virus assay,” Dr. Barouch said to Inside Medicine, also via email.

Dr. Barouch also mentioned that in the past, Moderna had generated some flashy data using pseudovirus. (He was more-or-less implying that it was cherry-picking to make a complaint or distinction about the assays now.)

But why did those other studies Dr. Topol mentioned have slightly better results, if the difference was not the assay being used?

Dr. Barouch has thoughts. He believes it comes down to major differences in how far the study participants were from their prior dose when they were most recently boosted.

“The major issue, in my view, is skewed populations. The Moderna and Pfizer studies that showed 4-6 fold increased [antibody] titers of their bivalent boosters compared with their monovalent boosters are based on skewed populations that are not equivalent. The companies looked at their monovalent boosters in individuals in February, 2022 who received their last vaccine 4-6 months previously, but looked at their bivalent boosters in individuals in August, 2022 who received their last vaccine 9-11 months previously. The differences in the calendar dates and the times from prior vaccination skew their data (substantially) in favor of the bivalent booster. This is particularly true since the BA5 surge occurred in summer 2022, and so many people in the bivalent booster group were seeing BA5 for the second time (due to prior BA5 infection), whereas no one in the monovalent group had seen BA5 previously (as that was before the BA5 surge). Negative [antibody tests indicative of prior infection] does not exclude all infections and cannot be used to claim these two populations are equivalent.” —Dr. Dan Barouch.

Dr. Céline Gounder, an infectious diseases specialist, also pointed out that in the studies where the bivalent booster elicited higher antibody levels, those increases were modest, rather than the 10-100 fold differences scientists believe would be meaningful.

Thank you, interesting article.

[Boston-Sean]

Well, this is concerning.

The FAA has very quietly tacitly admitted that the EKGs of pilots are no longer normal. We should be concerned. Very concerned.

"After the vaccine rolled out, the FAA secretly widened the EKG parameter range for pilots so they wouldn't be grounded. It looks like the vax gave at least 50M Americans heart damage."