CVS says “The bivalent vaccine provides added protection against COVID-19 and the Omicron variant”:
Let’s ignore the fact that the customer depicted got COVID a month later. My question is how CVS is allowed to make the claim regarding “added protection” for this emergency use authorized injection. Ordinarily, a company cannot make claims for a medicine without a fair amount of data. But it is way too soon to know if these new shots will reduce hospitalization and/or deaths compared the rate among those who got their 4th or 5th shot with the 2020 version. The tests that have been done look at antibodies in the blood and the effect on someone who is exposed to SARS-CoV-2 is unknown. Shouldn’t CVS be limited to saying “We hope that it will work better…”?
“New Covid Boosters Aren’t Better Than Old Ones, Study Finds” (Bloomberg, October 25):
Bivalent booster shots from Moderna Inc. and Pfizer Inc. failed to raise levels of protective proteins called neutralizing antibodies against the dominant omicron strains any more than four doses of the original Covid vaccine, according to an early independent study on a small group of people.
Researchers at Columbia University and the University of Michigan compared levels of neutralizing antibodies in blood samples from 21 people who got a fourth shot of the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech SE bivalent boosters against antibody levels in 19 people who got four shots of the original vaccines.
The results don’t mean that getting a bivalent shot has no benefit, and it will need to be confirmed in much larger studies.
The results also contrast sharply with an Oct. 13 press release from Pfizer and BioNTech touting “positive early data” from a clinical trial suggesting that its bivalent vaccine “is anticipated to provide better protection.” The statement was based on data collected from subjects in the first seven days after immunization, and the company has not yet released details.
I like the highlight text! Our assumption should always be that whatever is new and shiny in pharma will benefit us! (See also Bad Pharma.)
Screen shot in case the above tweet is memory-holed:
Who here wants to brag about getting his/her/zir/their bivalent booster?
We are not safe till when every living being get his/her/zir/their 19th COVID-19 shots.
If they can’t be sued, they can say whatever.
Sam: Pfizer and Moderna are protected from having to compensate people harmed by their products, but is CVS also protected? And does that protection extend to false advertising? Surely they’re not allowed to say “Get stuck with the bivalent vaccine and you’ll lose 20 lbs. and feel 25 years younger”?
Well, she’s poor. If I’m not mistaken, in the picture she’s wearing a Cartier Santos watch, sporting what looks to be at least a 2 carat diamond ring on a gold or yellow gold band, a huge gold chain link bracelet, and a diamond-encrusted ring of some kind on the middle finger of her right hand. I don’t know if the earrings are gold or white gold, but its obvious that the rest of her outfit is extremely well made, expensive, and comfortable. That’s a beautiful high thread-count luxury overcoat and a gossamer of a blouse.
https://www.authenticwatches.com/santos-de-cartier-medium-watch-w4sa0005.html
So at the upper end, perhaps she’s sporting $100,000 in jewelry and clothing to get her bivalent COVID-19 booster shot at a CVS. SLUMMING AMONG THE PROLES! Big thumbs up! Kisses and hugs!
For those who have forgotten, Kamala Harris also enjoys Cartier wristwatches and has been photographed many times wearing them. So who borrowed from whom? It’s a small world after all!
https://superwatchman.com/vice-president-kamala-harris-cartier-ballon-bleu/
Just one other thing: How did Rochelle get such nice, deep, even tan? She looks like she’s been on a Coppertone Beach in Costa Rica! Maybe she should get together with Orange Man!
You already posted this a couple of days ago. Obsess much? Whatever feeds your think-you-know-it-all smugness.
Mike: I already posted this CVS ad? Where? Do you have a URL to share?
Phil: A day before in a post ‘Why isn’t there an “I got my monkeypox vaccine” Facebook frame?’
https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2022/10/25/why-isnt-there-an-i-got-my-monkeypox-vaccine-facebook-frame/
you have photo (another one) of Rochelle Valensky receiving her shot. And also mocking her for getting Covid one month later. Clear sign of obsessive insanity. And the fact that your are enjoying being right (instead of doing penance for mocking priests of Science (big S)) is a clear sign of smugness.
Obsessive update: Walensky has a rebound after “vaccine”/boosters/bivalent-boosters/Paxlovid:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-31/cdc-director-walensky-has-covid-rebound-after-paxlovid-treatment
The solution? A second “treatment” with Paxlovid!
“Pfizer Chief Executive Officer Albert Bourla told Bloomberg News in May that doctors could prescribe a second course of treatment to rebounding patients, although US regulators said later that there’s no evidence yet that repeat treatment will help.”
I heard the 7th shot does the trick!
China is pioneering an inhalable “vaccine”:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/china-launches-a-covid-19-vaccine-inhaled-through-the-mouth/2022/10/26/569cea50-5501-11ed-ac8b-08bbfab1c5a5_story.html
This technology has the advantage that it could be administered against the will of the subjects, e.g. in a classroom of 5-year olds.
(China recently also demonstrated how to achieve “zero” COVID-19: Put 10,000 delegates in a huge hall for the National Congress and have them wear loose-fitting surgical masks, while the politburo on stage is maskless.)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-25/new-boosters-from-moderna-and-pfizer-aren-t-better-than-old-ones-study-shows
We know it (the bivalent booster concoction) is better because the eight mice it was tested on (who all still got Omicron) died in a more sanctified state of grace after being martyred for science.
By induction if dose n was safe and effective then dose n+1 is still safe and even more effective, the most yet. Because science.
If you disagree you are an anti-vaxxer and an apostate.
Q: “Why are advertisers allowed to claim that the latest COVID-19 shots are more effective?”
Maybe some of them are from Salem, MA and are practicing witches in addition to being advertisers! Tonight I listened to “NPR Now” on satellite and the guy who does their usual “Marketplace” commentary had a segment with a journalist who covers the witchcraft industry in Salem, MA. She reports that the Town of Salem relies on witchcraft and witchery for about 30% of its annual business revenue and October is their hottest month, by far.
She reported having a personal connection to Salem witches because one of her distant relatives was accused of witchcraft back in the late 1600s and executed. Now she wants a full reconciliation – with who knows what that means in addition to middle schoolers lobbying the Commonwealth to posthumously pardon the ~20 women who were unjustly accused.
I wondered while I was listening: As a young female journalist, does she also support STEM efforts to increase the number of women majoring in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics? That point wasn’t addressed, and at the risk of jumping to an unwarranted conclusion, I’ll bet my boots that she does. But how would she reconcile her support for STEM with her vigorous support for Witchcraft (which she described as “body positive” and “sex positive.”)
For example, if you take “3.020 Thermodynamics of Materials” at MIT, are there questions on the exams about how a female student who is also a witch might use her spells to understand heat transfer between dissimilar metals and alloys? Is there some kind of spell they can cast?
http://catalog.mit.edu/subjects/3/
I dunno. It’s all very confusing.
Nowadays there can always be a study concocted, by the vaccine manufacturers themselves, with enough exclusions and tortured data to show whatever result you want. CVS, CDC will then point to that study to “prove” benefit… I like Jane’s answer though, it’s more in line with how “believers” (there’s a market for these boosters, after all) really think.