FDA and CDC advisors accuse Moderna of withholding trial data that suggested its Covid bivalent booster was LESS effective than older shot — to secure $5bn Government order

Via The Daily Mail

  • Members of the Covid-19 advisory board claim crucial data was withheld
  • Omitted study showed that new booster was LESS effective than original jab 
  • Though data was limited, advisors say it should have been shown to them 
  • US taxpayers have forked out $5billion for new booster, with very low uptake
  • Vaccine advisory board say they’re ‘disappointed’ and ‘angry’ at omission 

Moderna and the Food and Drug Association (FDA) have been accused of concealing data during the approval process for the pharma giant’s bivalent Covid booster.

Vaccine advisors who signed off on the updated shot late last year claim they were not shown trial data that indicated the booster was actually less effective at preventing Covid than the older vaccine it was meant to replace.

While the early trial results had substantial limitations, ‘disappointed’ and ‘angry advisors say its omission from panel discussions shows a remarkable lack of transparency.

US taxpayers ended up shelling out nearly $5billion on the new booster, which was intended to enhance immunity against new variants.

FDA and CDC advisors speaking out against the data omission included Dr. Paul Offit...
Dr, Eric Rubin, editor in chief of The New England Journal of Medicine...
And Dr. Pablo Sanchez, of Ohio State University College of Medicine

FDA and CDC advisors speaking out against the data omission include Dr. Paul Offit, Dr. Eric Rubin and Dr. Pablo Sanchez

The infection data not shared with advisors, although from a limited sample size, indicated that the the new bivalent booster was actually LESS effective than the original vaccine at preventing new strains of Covid-19. 3.2 percent of study participants given the new vax went on to catch the virus, compared to just 1.9 percent of those given the old shot

 

The infection data not shared with advisors, although from a limited sample size, indicated that the the new bivalent booster was actually LESS effective than the original vaccine at preventing new strains of Covid-19. 3.2 percent of study participants given the new vax went on to catch the virus, compared to just 1.9 percent of those given the old shot

For new vaccines to be approved, both the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) must convene their advisory boards and make presentations to a panel of advisors. This panel of objective reviewers then votes on whether or not to recommend its approval.

It is these independent advisors – including infectious disease experts and vaccinologists from Stanford, the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard – who are now raising concerns about the partial information shown to them during approval discussions for the bivalent booster.

At both an FDA meeting in June and a CDC advisory panel in September, experts were shown reams of information suggesting that the new bivalent vaccine was more effective than its predecessor.

These results were based on lab tests in which blood taken from bivalent vaxxed people were exposed to omicron and then compared to samples from people vaxxed with the older shot, in order to gauge how well each elicited Covid-fighting antibodies.

Other data from the same study was not presented to the panels, however, which looked at actual infections – who caught Covid-19 and who did not.

The withheld data indicated that 3.2 percent of study participants who got the updated bivalent vaccine became infected – compared to just 1.9 percent of those who received the original booster.

Dr. Stephen Hoge, the president of Moderna, did not discuss findings that indicated the new bivalent booster was less effective than the original shot during his presentation to the panel in June

 

Dr. Stephen Hoge, the president of Moderna, did not discuss findings that indicated the new bivalent booster was less effective than the original shot during his presentation to the panel in June

Six out of 35 advisors to the CDC and FDA say that limitations to the data would not have changed how they voted.

These limitations included the small number of study subjects and a lack of double-blind procedure, which ensures neither doctor nor participant know which vaccine is being given to whom.

But, the advisors argue it should have been shown to them regardless.

Dr. Eric Rubin, a specialist in immunology and infectious diseases and a member of the FDA vaccine advisory committee, told CNN: ‘[We’re] not a group of children. We understand how to interpret these results.’

During last year’s booster shot meetings, executives from vaccine producer Moderna also made similar presentations.

Moderna and FDA spokespeople seem to be in disagreement over who exactly is responsible for the data’s omission during these crucial discussions.

In an email to CNN, Moderna spokesman Christopher Ridley said the company shared the infection data with the FDA before the agency’s panel’s June meeting, after being asked for an update on the ongoing study.

The study was posted publicly online as a preprint on June 25, three days before the panel met.

FDA spokesman Michael Felberbaum, however, claims that the FDA received the pre-print less than a day before the advisory committee meeting – which he says rendered it too late to be reviewed and included in the agency’s meeting materials.

Regardless of when exactly the study was sent to or received by the FDA, certain contents from it were shown to its panel of advisors by the President of Moderna himself, Dr. Stephen Hoge.

According to videos and transcripts seen by CNN, Dr. Hoge referred solely to the data that demonstrated the bivalent booster’s supposed superiority at eliciting antibodies during his presentation to the committee at the end of June.

However, data from the same study pointing to the booster’s poor performance at preventing Covid infection relative to its predecessor was conveniently left unmentioned.

Dr. Jacqueline Miller, a senior vice president at Moderna, is accused of showing similarly cherry-picked material during her presentation to CDC advisors in September.

Even when asked explicitly about cases of Covid in those who received the original vaccine versus the booster by a member of the panel, Dr. Miller gave an allegedly incomplete answer.

Citing disease incidence rates both among those with and without evidence of prior infection – which showed the bivalent booster in a much more positive light – Dr. Miller failed to mention that of the hundreds of study participants who had not previously had Covid, the original vaccination was markedly more effective at preventing infection.

The US government agreed to purchase the bivalent booster from Pfizer and Moderna shortly after the panel voted to approve it - resulting in a $3.2billion contract for Pfizer and $1.74billion for Moderna

 

The US government agreed to purchase the bivalent booster from Pfizer and Moderna shortly after the panel voted to approve it – resulting in a $3.2billion contract for Pfizer and $1.74billion for Moderna

A former FDA scientist told CNN that there was no excuse for excluding the study from meeting material, regardless of how short the time frame was.

Dr. Philip Krause, who once helped run the agency’s vaccine division, said that the failure to present such important data during either meeting ‘raises questions about the ability of the process to provide a full and transparent review of the data’.

Dr. Krause’s main concern was over regaining a recent loss of public trust in the FDA.

The critical thing, he implied, was that Americans’ faith in the FDA’s ability to objectively review data and make informed decisions was not compromised.

Flip-flopping policy on mask wearing, as well as whistleblower allegations of both the CDC and FDA altering Covid guidance under political pressure, have both contributed to public trust in governmental health agencies slowly dwindling during the pandemic.

The bivalent booster, which became available to all Americans over 12 at the end of August, has had a remarkably low take-up compared with the first two doses of the vaccine.

According to CDC data, only 15.4 percent of the US population has received the bivalent booster – compared to the almost 70 percent who got the original set of jabs.

Even among the most at-risk age group – 65 and over – a mere 38 percent have since chosen to get the new shot.

Vaccine hesitancy, especially surrounding the mRNA Covid jab, remains rampant in the US.

These vax-sceptics are concerned with a lack of transparency around the vaccine development and approval process – fears that will presumably only be further fueled by these recent allegations made by FDA advisors themselves.

Six months on from the FDA advisor meeting, Moderna is yet to release data from another randomized Phase 3 trial of 3,000 participants, that compares infections in participants who received the new booster to those who got the old shot.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Click to visit the TBP Store for Great TBP Merchandise
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
23 Comments
hardscrabble farmer
hardscrabble farmer
January 15, 2023 8:05 am

Do any of those faces inspire trust? I get an immediate cringe response from each of them, visceral revulsion. Their smiles are very unnatural- number two looks like he’s planning on stealing your wallet the minute you turn around and number three gives off very strong pedo vibes.

Why are we never discussing the plethora of strange looking people in every key position in government, academia and business? Their odd looks play a huge role in their development as human beings, you can’t argue that fact away. Sure, maybe they aren’t all bad, but every single time we find someone who has done something wrong, irresponsible, careless, reckless, or downright evil, they always look like this.

flash
flash
  hardscrabble farmer
January 15, 2023 9:28 am

All raised by domineering women, no doubt.

ken31
ken31
  hardscrabble farmer
January 15, 2023 10:21 am

They look like heeb phenotypes to me.

Steve Z.
Steve Z.
January 15, 2023 9:07 am

Like a bunch of kids with chocolate smeared over their faces and fingers when mom walks in….not me, I didn’t eat any chocolate.
There will be a lot of people trying to put distance between themselves and their prior actions of stupidity and malfeasance.

flash
flash
January 15, 2023 9:27 am

Soft feminine faggots are more apt to lie, cheat, steal and murder than men of mettle, due to insecurity and exaggerated sense of self worth…i.e. gamma bitch boys.

anonomus prime
anonomus prime
January 15, 2023 11:31 am

So when do the trials start? When do the trap doors begin to fall?? When does the public begin to understand this was and is mass genocide!

Walter
Walter
  anonomus prime
January 15, 2023 1:37 pm

Short answer, never. They’ll get clean away with it all. It’s normal for your healthy, athletic fifteen year old daughter to die in her sleep. People commonly drop dead in all kinds of venues, it is natural. Human reproduction is very difficult, few women are able to conceive, due to men’s inadequacies. Population has been in steep decline since statistics have been kept. It is all normal.

World War Zeke
World War Zeke
  anonomus prime
January 15, 2023 2:13 pm

Fauci retired, we missed our chance. Maybe next plandemic we’ll put down our phones and pick up torches for the hike up to Castle Frankenstein.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  World War Zeke
January 15, 2023 5:01 pm

a riot iss un ugly ting

Euddolen ap Afallach
Euddolen ap Afallach
January 15, 2023 11:42 am

Sorta like having wolves investigate coyotes regarding pet deaths….?

C.A.L.
C.A.L.
January 15, 2023 11:54 am

I get the feeling (just a feeling, tho) that this is the beginning of the Covid Criminals starting to turn on each other to save their own asses.

“Like rats in a slumfire”
– Hunter S Thompson

World War Zeke
World War Zeke
  C.A.L.
January 15, 2023 2:22 pm

This just the blow-off act. A mere awkward moment to perplex us serfs before they take dual-citizen jobs with WHO/UN for diplomatic immunity or NGO/foundations as puppeteers.

Up voted for Dr. Gonzo. Can you imagine the conversations he and George Carlin might be having watching this endless Parade of Fail?

Walter
Walter
January 15, 2023 1:29 pm

This is a technicality when seen in the context of the whole COVID experience. Kind of like citing Gary Ridgeway for a lane change violation as he’s driving up to the Green River with dead hooker number 47 in the back of the car.

MrLiberty
MrLiberty
January 15, 2023 2:27 pm

So these are less effective than the previous ones? So even more people are dying? Or wait…does that make them more effective? I guess it depends on your definition of “effective.”

Anonymous
Anonymous
  MrLiberty
January 15, 2023 5:12 pm

If you look at Ed Dowd’s twitter (or anyone else posting evidence of “vaccine” harm or death) there’s always imbeciles in the replies, including MDs, saying the excess deaths are due to Covid. It makes me want to get a twitter account just so I can say:
“Fine, have it your way. It’s due to Covid. ‘Vaccines’ came out, there was massive uptake, then there were mandates and even greater uptake, and Covid deaths WENT UP! So the ‘vaccines’ are not merely ineffective, they actually increase deaths from Covid.”

I know the point would be lost on them, though. As many here have pointed out, nothing …. NOTHING … will get through. They’ve wrapped up their entire conception of themselves in the the narrative and, subconsciously, if the narrative fails, then they themselves cease to exist.

Euddolen ap Afallach
Euddolen ap Afallach
  Anonymous
January 16, 2023 10:11 am

” Fine, have it your way. It’s due to Covid. ‘Vaccines’ came out, there was massive uptake, then there were mandates and even greater uptake, and Covid deaths WENT UP! So the ‘vaccines’ are not merely ineffective, they actually increase deaths from Covid.” ”

Great logic follow thru Ano.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Euddolen ap Afallach
January 16, 2023 6:11 pm

The other thing they now sometimes blame it on is the effects of lockdowns (depression, suicide, alcoholism, obesity, and foregoing medical care for things other than Covid). These were things that the same people called ‘conspiracy theories’ when we pointed them out in regard to Covid death counts in 2021 and early 2022.

It isn’t so much great logic on my part, but the literal inversion of logic by the Covidians. Even the high IQ and highly educated among them are incapable of it. They willingly shut down the part of their brain that does actual thinking … just switched it off like turning off a light.

AKJOHN
AKJOHN
January 15, 2023 2:59 pm

What these three advisors don’t get is that it was more effective at it’s intended purpose, killing people. Research over and over has shown each booster increases you risk of serious illness and death.

Unbelievable
Unbelievable
January 15, 2023 4:40 pm

But fret not. The Washington Post says all vaccine misinformation is a false alarm. And, in order to get the the following update immediately propagated into billions of “smart” phones around the world, of course, there is no pay wall required for this one:

Extensive review affirms safety of covid booster after signal of possible risk

But a deep dive into several large databases failed to confirm the preliminary information, leading federal health officials to conclude the risk is extremely low – and probably nonexistent, those officials said Friday.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, whose system detected the early signal, and the Food and Drug Administration, which also assesses vaccine safety, have decided there is no need to change the recommendation that everyone 6 months and older should stay up to date with their coronavirus vaccinations, including those 5 and older who are eligible for the updated booster, according to officials speaking on the condition of anonymity under ground rules set by the agencies.

Anonymous
Anonymous
January 15, 2023 5:00 pm
Euddolen ap Afallach
Euddolen ap Afallach
January 15, 2023 5:55 pm

/sarctire

“The Government Regional Office Of Serious Stuff lead investigators, Jonathan Dough and Richey Rich, (both who until last week worked as a legal advisors for the pharming community) commented on how seriously serious they will conduct this serious investigation…………………..just as soon as congress passes serious funding for the seriously serious investigation.”

Trumpeter
Trumpeter
January 15, 2023 10:42 pm

These people bought into the bi-valent booster with data from 8 rats.

In court when sued for fraud about the phase 3 trials, Phizer said that they had not committed fraud to convince the government to buy the vaxx because the govt was going to buy it whether it worked or not.

claude
claude
January 17, 2023 2:19 pm

Once Prison terms start, including for the advisors, they will all be a lot more careful with the lives of our children next time.