MD, FACP, FCCP. Chief Medical Officer Emeritus of MemorialCare in southern CA. Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine, Critical Care Medicine, Lipidology.
@EricTopol Pushing out the bivalent booster with zero clinical data on top of all of the prior CDC missteps guaranteed the poor uptake. "Trust us..." just won't work.
@EricTopol Love your Ground Truths feed. But what direct data about the bivalent booster supports your statement that boosting will lower hospitalizations? Per MMWR, rVE vs. symptomatic infection for those previously vaxxed varied from 14 to 61%, (age, time since last vax). No hosp data yet
@EricTopol, Finally, a nasal vaccine candidate that appears to come close to what you've been calling for for well over a year.
https://t.co/rlahRHRmQY
@EricTopol No human data and no VRBPAC input. So how could Rachelle Walensky say in the CDC media statement that the vaccine had "comprehensive scientific evaluation and robust scientific discussion"?
@MinervaKincai19 @crazymcmama@EricTopol The problem is that the 2 month suggested interval appears to be based on zero human data, like the bivalent booster itself.
@ethanjweiss Thanks for your honesty in posting this, Ethan. It should have been obvious from the beginning that herd immunity from a coronavirus was never going to happen. Omicron proved that. And now they're approving a booster with zero human testing results. This isn't going to go well.
@cmw7320@lisasusanberger@LisaLivesLoves@EricTopol And one has to wonder why tye FDA felt it appropriate to push through approval with the Vaacine Advisory Committee's independent review. Is it any wonder their credibility is in the tank?
@lisasusanberger@cmw7320@LisaLivesLoves@EricTopol This was a BA.1 and wild-type bivalent vaccine, not BA.5 and wild type. BA.5 disn't exist in the Spring. There is indeed no human data on the vaccine that the FDA pushed through. You might check your facts before posting.
@EricTopol@NEJM This is data for BA.1, not BA.4/5. Even in this study, NNT for 2nd booster to prevent one death from BA.1 = 1,413.
For 60-69 years of, NNT=4,678
For 70-79, NNT=1,926
For 80-100, NNT=302.
@ethanjweiss@ethanjweiss Yes, but have you tried getting an insurance company to approve a prescription for it? "It's not a covered benefit" seems to be a common answer, appeals notwithstanding.
@MaritKolby I think I can read this much faster than my usual (reasonable good) reading speed, because it forces me to see the whole word rather than individual letters, making it easier to scan. It IS fascinating!
@Drlipid@DrLipid, I have learned tremendously from you, and my patients are better off because of your willingness to share your knowledge freely. I'm happy to pay it forward.