Last month, Pfizer’s universal booster shot was rejected by a government advisory panel, which cited the increased risk of heart issues in young males. It was a stunning defeat for the Biden administration, which was pushing for universal boosters, but it gave many of us hope that the people making the decisions were actually looking at the real data and not just responding to pressure from the administration.
So on Thursday, when a FDA panel unanimously approved Moderna’s COVID booster to people ages 65 and older, we had reason to believe the panel had tremendous faith in the booster. A unanimous vote sure sounds like a glowing endorsement, doesn’t it? Well… it really wasn’t.
After the vote, Dr. Patrick Moore of the University of Pittsburgh, one of the members of the committee, said that the data Moderna submitted for review “was not well explained” and that he voted yes based on a “gut feeling.”
“The data itself is not strong, but it is certainly going in a direction that is supportive of this vote,” Moore said.
Oh, well that really makes me feel confident.
Joe Biden thinks he’s going to impose vaccine mandates while Dr. Fauci recently changed the definition of “fully vaccinated” to include boosters, and we’re now expected to trust the recommendations of a panel that votes to approve a booster despite poor data? Are we really supposed to trust experts on their gut feelings?
Thanks, but no thanks.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member