RogerKnights | 17 points
U.S. preparing for 1-year COVID-19 booster shots; Pfizer chief sees need—Reuters April 16The United States is preparing for the possibility that a booster shot will be needed between nine to 12 months after people are initially vaccinated against COVID-19, a White House official said on Thursday.
While the duration of immunity after vaccination is being studied, booster vaccines could be needed, David Kessler, chief science officer for President Joe Biden's COVID-19 response task force told a congressional committee meeting.
"The current thinking is those who are more vulnerable will have to go first," he said.
Meanwhile, Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) Chief Executive Albert Bourla said people will 'likely' need a third booster dose of COVID-19 vaccines within 12 months and could need annual shots, CNBC reported based on his comments from April 1, which were made public on Thursday. (https://cnb.cx/2Q4MXS1 )
Initial data has shown that vaccines from Moderna Inc (MRNA.O) and partners Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) and BioNTech SE retain most of their effectiveness for at least six months, though for how much longer has not been determined.
Even if that protection lasts far longer than six months, experts have said that rapidly spreading variants of the coronavirus and others that may emerge could lead to the need for regular booster shots similar to annual flu shots.
This means that vaccination is not as superior to ivermectin as has been generally thought (as permanent). Indeed, since post-infection treatment with ivermectin allows the body to develop natural immunity, as Dr.. Stone in Zimbabwe advocates, it may actually be superior.
[-] Alternative_Debate_9 | 7 points
So...the 'vaccine' reduces transmission for three months, maybe-if you don't get it anyhow as 'breakthrough,' has mild to violent or deadly side effects and does nothing to aleve or shorten the virus? Ivermectin is 85%-100% effective at reducing transmission, cuts the virus short in a few days if infected and prevents long haul and/or treats long haul.
And I want an experimental shot for what reason? Glad I waited, won't be getting it.
It's still early but there are some concerns that for certain variants vaccinated 'may' have a weaker immune response than non-vaccinated. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a physicia/epdimiology/viroligist that would say that a natural immune reponse would not be as effective as a vaccine.
That said I still support the idea vaccinating 60+ and vulnerable demographics. The theme of pushing it on children and a young healthy population when simple treatments that would provide near-certainty of mild-illness feels wrong.
[-] sicklypersonforever | 5 points
agreed. When people ask me why I'm not getting it, I'm just dumfounded. I am a 31 year old healthy woman and I already had COVID last year. It lasted two weeks and I wasn't affected badly. Why should I clog up the vaccine line when other people are more at risk than me? Makes no sense at all!
+1. Studies also show that there's a minimum 6 months of protection from antibodies for those who had COVID. Vaccines are just now showing that, but then boosters are already lined up and Pfizer submitting for full FDA approval. If I was a betting man, I'd say the immunity you have would provide better coverage against variants than a vaccine.
[-] sicklypersonforever | 1 points
thank you for saying that
[-] Grand-Pay8061 | 1 points
Absolutely unnecessary given the evidence in the Journal of molecular and genetic Medicine.
Article: "Determining the Effectiveness of Chlorine Dioxide in the Treatment of covid 19"
https://www.hilarispublisher.com/molecular-genetic-medicine.html
These people are snake oil salesmen.
[-] AnimalFactsBot | 1 points
Snakes have a unique anatomy which allows them to swallow and digest large prey.
[-] Grand-Pay8061 | 1 points
Cute
[-] dhmt | 10 points | Apr 16 2021 13:41:36
As was their plan from the beginning. They didn't do all this gaslighting for a single marketing event - this is a repeat market for years and years.
permalink