Pfizer’s request to roll out COVID-19 vaccines for Americans as young as 5 years old cleared a key regulatory hurdle Tuesday, after a panel of the Food and Drug Administration’s outside vaccine advisers voted by a majority to back Pfizer’s request.
OK, this passed the panel, 17 for, 0 against and 1 abstention. One of the panel members (in a video bouncing around Twitter) can clearly be heard saying:
We’re never going to learn about how safe a vaccine is, unless we start giving it. That’s just the way it goes.”Techno Fog
I’ll ignore (for the time being) that (allegedly) the discussions acknowledged they have no idea about the long-term risks for kids – because I can’t confirm it with a video. We’ll see what emerges in due course.
Were there any misgivings about this nearly unanimous decision? Why Yes, there was.
Interpretation: In the current outbreak from 16 June 2021, people aged under 40 are over-represented among the cases, relative to their proportion in the NSW population. Under-representation among older groups may be due to vaccination programs targeted towards elderly and aged care residents.
Yeah, well I guess that is the one ‘interpretation’ that supports the narrative.
The other interpretation, and the far more likely one, is that people under 50 represent a greater proportion of the ‘essential’ workers who were (and are) out and about being exposed to the virus, keeping our society operating. I’d add to that, that they are far more likely to have children living with them to whom to spread the virus (see the 0-9 & 10-19 figures).
I’ll be kind and just suggest that NSW Health could do with expanding their thinking and offer a number of the more likely interpretations.
I put these graphs together from information gleaned from:
I’m by no means saying they are 100% accurate, because there is some extraordinarily sloppy work contained within these documents, and it can be easily misunderstood. Combined with their constantly changing of age groups, datasets, assumptions and just plain old data disappearance, it makes it difficult to be exact (without looking inside the tent…which we’ll never be allowed to do).
On the Open Thread, Makka says: October 16, 2021 at 9:27 am
“The fact is most people threw their lot in with the Man long ago. Credit cards, mortgages, the o/seas holidays, keeping up with the Joneses. Debt up to the eyeballs. To service it there can be no interruption whatsoever to income. Then there is the family ties spread across the wide brown land. That’s life as we know it and for it to continue the turds governing us know the vast majority will comply just to get on with it. The bud has blossomed and died long ago.”
In maybe 2014, I woke one morning with a premonition. Well, a hunch … or maybe a clue.
Why are so many Australian’s so keen to be part of a medical trial? A question for the ages, right?
The answer is simple: they probably don’t know they are.
Let’s start with the mother of all lies from our very own Health Department.
What utter bullshit!
A ‘Full Assessment’ (as most people would understand it) would result in a ‘Full Approval’ – not a shortcut Provisional Approval.
As for, “This is the same process as any vaccine approved in this country”, I’m left speechless that they think they can get away with such lies. This is almost ‘Actionable’.
Let’s go to our noble Health Minister:
There’s that ‘Full and Thorough’ bullshit again.
Hint Greg: you are either lying or being lied to. Either way, get a grip of it and start telling the truth to those who pay you. Start understanding the risk involved before allowing mandated vaccinations to continue.
And as for our fearless Press:
Dear God, “Full Approval”! Another outright lie. The weasel words around Emergency Approvals is just the gravy on top. I guess you can’t inform your readers that our Provisional Approval is the equivalent of their Emergency Approval if you’ve just told them that the vaccines have Full Approval.
Wonder no more why a good portion of the populace are calling the hesitant “Anti-Vaxxers”, “Anti-Science” and other assorted goodies. They have no idea what’s going on, by design. Those who they should be able to trust, are just outright lying to them.
I was speaking to a Health Professional the other day (one who is very preoccupied with reading medical papers), and it evolved into a friendly discussion about the vaccines and the mandate. It’s rare that such discussions remain civil nowadays, but he clearly didn’t support mandating medical procedures, so it was fruitful and light-hearted. What did surprise me from the discussion was that he was initially under the impression that at least one of the vaccines was Fully Approved by the TGA.
In case you’re unaware, all of them are still but ‘Provisionally Approved’. If a medical professional is this ill-informed, is the government REALLY providing sufficient information to the general public? If the public were to know, would they appreciate what it means?
A judge in New Zealand recently ruled that Provisional and Fully Approved Therapeutics were equally valid when it came to vaccine mandates.
This brings us to the essential question of why the Provisional Approval pathway was introduced into the Therapeutic Goods Act in the first place. I think it is important to look at the understanding and intent of the lawmakers who ushered it into the statute books. Here is one of the speeches (by Senator POLLEY) accompanying the amendment:
There are some brutal truths in this speech which does no favour for the situation we find ourselves in or the way in which the provision is being wielded.
The potential risks must, however, be weighed against the potential benefits. In many situations it is the patients themselves who must weigh up these risks and benefits, hopefully with the guidance of health professionals.Senator Helen POLLEY
Unfortunately, the privilege of weighing up these risks and benefits has been removed from our purview. Health professionals no longer provide merely guidance.
Recognising that these medicines are based on early clinical data, it’s important that doctors, health professionals and, most importantly, patients fully understand and appreciate the risks involved.Senator Helen POLLEY
Most people don’t (because the government would prefer it that way), but even if they do, does it matter when a mandate is in force?
With access to a medicine being given without the level of clinical data that would normally be provided, it is foreseeable that new information will show some of these medicines to be less effective than first thought, and there may be greater or new risks that weren’t known at the time.Senator Helen POLLEY
Sounds like a great scenario in which to force the treatment on people, doesn’t it?
There will be strict conditions under which a medicine will be available through the provisional approval pathway. It will be for patients with unmet clinical needs for serious health conditions.Senator Helen POLLEY
Strict conditions alright…YOU MUST HAVE IT! Do healthy people have “unmet clinical needs for serious health conditions”?
Let’s even forget, for a minute, that the standard criteria for the Provisional Pathway were bastardised and further abridged to cater specifically for the passage of these vaccines. If anyone seriously believes that this pathway was intended for, or is in any way an appropriate method to
introduce mandate revolutionary, unproven vaccines, please, I beg you, send me a pound of whatever it is that you’re smoking or snorting. Frankly, I could do with the relief! Ignorance is bliss, even if it’s chemically induced.
No, this is an incredible abuse of legislative power.
Just as Health Order’s were really only envisaged to isolate small, infected pockets of our communities, for the good of public health, the ‘Provisional Approval’ pathway was clearly only intended to provide hope for dying and doomed ‘patients’ for whom no amount of risk was unacceptable. Both instruments have been abused beyond what could have been imagined…outside of the evilest of minds.
We must not forget the cavalier attitude that politicians of all persuasions have adopted towards our health, our choices, our freedoms.
Cut and pasted from yesterdays CHO Direction:
Ok, we kinda knew this was coming.
Many hoped that such overreach wouldn’t survive court proceedings. After all, self-interest might kick in and see commonsense bubble to the surface, surely? SURELY?
“Aha! We’ll thwart that self-interest angle”, says Dan and Brett.
Clearly, Covid has become aware and can now differentiate between Legal Eagles, Commonwealth Wonks and the average Bricklayer!
“The question was posed much more narrowly. It was not why were we jailed?
Nor why did those who remained free tolerate this lawlessness?
Everyone knows that they didn’t realize what was going on, that they simply believed (the party) that if whole peoples are banished in the space of twenty-four hours, those peoples must be guilty. The question is a different one: Why did we in the camps, where we did realize what was going on, suffer hunger, bend our backs, put up with it all, instead of fighting back? The others, who had never marched under escort, who had the free use of their arms and legs, could be forgiven for not fighting – they couldn’t, after all, sacrifice their families, their positions, their wages, their authors’ fees. They’re making up for it now by publishing critical reflections in which they reproach us for clinging to our rations instead of fighting, when we had nothing to lose.
But I have all along been leading up to my answer to this question. The reason why we put up with it all in the camps is that there was no public opinion outside.
What conceivable ways has the prisoner of resisting the regime to which he is subjected? Obviously, they are:
- Hunger Strike
So, then, it is obvious to anybody, as the Great Deceased liked to say (and if it isn’t, we’ll ram it into him), that if the first two have some force (and if the jailers fear them), it is only because of public opinion! Without that behind us we can protest and fast as much as we like, and they will laugh in our faces!
It is a very dramatic way of obtaining your demands – standing before the prison authorities and tearing open your shirt, as Dzerzhinsky did. But only where public opinion exists. Without it-you’ll be gagged with the tatters, and pay for a government issue shirt into the bargain!”
– Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, ‘The Gulag Archipelago’, Vol 3, p93
What is consensus?