Support Village Voice News With a Donation of Your Choice.
Above all, his gaunt facies evidenced the exasperating undertaking was with an emotional toll, for the stressors, his students, were of adult years but toddler cognition. But despite these stressors endured, teaching until cranium was of cracking cephalagy, recompense was a depressing class of collective clueless.
Nevertheless, of an altruistic predisposition, forsaking wasn’t, thus 200% was the effort, but dismally reward was 100% failure. Consequently, with hair follicles transitioning grey, examination paper and answers were furnished, hoping against hope, that of two braincells they would’ve effortlessly cut and paste, earning a class of 100%. But astonishingly, despite being answers spoon-fed, they remained clueless, painfully registering a class of fatuous failures. But this the aforestated, is narrative of a once distant dream, now an eerily living nightmare.
For being unshifted in the Covid-19 class, rigorous were the vaccine booster drills, nonetheless at presented examination, only abysmal failures were reaped. But of resolute resolve to remedy the irremediable, vaccine boosters were retaught, synergistic with explanatory underpinnings, but inevitably examinations characterised all, feeble-minded dotards. Now at the end of the proverbial tether, vaccine boosters and underpinning evidence were retaught, mutualistic with booster vaccines. In effect, they were with the examination paper and answers, in which a simple cut and paste would’ve suffice. But that the boneheaded PPP found insurmountable, with the Covid Cretins rightly adjudge forever failures. As a consequence, I listened and heard, that the marking scheme begets failures, thus transparent public remarking will be undertaken.
Evidence Based Medicine
In fact, multitudinous burdensome limitations, meant anecdotal medicine was of a natural death. But such was foreseeable, for being word of mouth, where Dr. X opines that medicine Y works, hence Dr. Z prescribes it, even though unclothed of scientific underpinnings.
Now medicine has transitioned to the realm of evidence base, where pharmaceuticals are clinically trial tested to comparatively established effectiveness and superiority. And therein is the folly in PPP unscientific booster excercise vis-a-vis, assumptions cannot be, that a Covid-19 vaccine proven to be an effective primary vaccine, will automatically be an effective booster. In fact, booster credentials, mandates booster testing.
The evidence
For the rationale of booster doses is to improve waning immunity. Thus of initial step, is ascertaining a need existing for booster, articulated hereinafter. In a review of data on nursing home residents, reported to a national database in the United States, inferred vaccine effectiveness against Covid-19 declined 75%-53% from March- July 2021
Similarly, a study of state-wide data in New York, including 10 million vaccinated adults, found vaccine effectiveness against Covid-19 declined from 92 to 75% from May to July 2021; however, effectiveness against hospitalisation remained stable at 90 to 95%.
Another study of 3000 hospitalized patients estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalisation as 86% 2-14 weeks after vaccination and 84% 13- 24 weeks after vaccination. Now having established a booster need, next step is ascertaining the effective booster vaccines, outlined thereunder
In an unpublished trial that was presented to the Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practice (ACIP) by the manufacturer, 10,000 recipients who were fully vaccinated with Pfizer at least six months previously, were randomly assigned to receive a booster Pfizer dose or placebo. Efficacy of the booster dose against symptomatic COVID-19 from one week through two months after the dose, was 95% with only two severe cases, both in the placebo group.
Similarly, in an observational study from Israel of over one million individuals aged 60 years or older, who had received two doses of Pfizer at least five months previously. Receipt of a booster dose was associated with an 11-times lower rate of infection compared with those who didn’t receive a booster and a 20-times lower rate of severe illness.
In another study from Israel, receipt of a booster Pfizer dose was associated with vaccine effectiveness of 92, 93, and 81 percent for severe COVID-19, hospitalization, and death, respectively, compared with two doses. Further, efficacy data from trials evaluating two doses of J&J also support use of a booster for this vaccine. Data on antibody response with booster doses of Pfizer with J&J are consistent with the clinical outcomes reported in aforementioned studies.
America CDC
So guided by the aforestated evidence, several countries initiated booster vaccinations, for individuals who’ve been fully vaccinated
In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized and the CDC recommends a booster dose for all adults 18 years or older, regardless of the vaccine received.
Specifically, the ACIP recommends the following:
• Adults 50 years or older should receive a booster dose.
• Adults 18 years or older in long-term care settings should receive a booster dose.
• All other adults may receive a booster dose after weighing the individual risks and benefits.
• For individuals who received primary vaccination with Johnson & Johnson, the CDC recommends a booster dose at least two months after the initial dose.
Political boosters
But despite multitudinous Mark’s Take columns on boosters, with mountainous underpinning international evidence, the PPP Covid Cretins can’t get it right. Thus, once again I’m task with deconstructing another of their brainless twaddle.
Indeed, the fantastical first was eligibles with Pfizer or Moderna must be boosted with Pfizer or Moderna. Certainly evidence based.
Eligibles with J&J must be boosted with Sinopharm. Absolute unscientific hogwash, for which PPP should provide the evidence underpinning such a recommendation. NONE EXIST.
Eligibles with Sinopharm must be boosted with Sinopharm. Not evidence based. Absolute balderdash. Sinopharm wasn’t clinically trial tested as a booster.
Eligibles with AstraZeneca must be boosted with AstraZeneca or Pfizer. Partially evidence based, since Pfizer is a booster. Eligibles with Sputnik-V must be boosted with J&J. Unscientific rubbish. Why? Two doses of J&J is of efficacy of 74%, hence precluding it boosting itself, so how the hell can it boost Sputnik-V of unknown efficacy? Further, it’s not a booster vaccine. But here’s the rationale. Indeed, PPP oligarchs vaccinated with Sputnik-V can’t travel, mandating urgent remedy in the shortest time. Thus PPP selected political booster with J&J, since the one dose would’ve them compliant for international travel.
Verdict
For we know, waning immunity is the underpinning for booster, providing the vulnerable a chance if Covid-19 afflicted. But such is only possible if booster decisions are guided by science and not politics.
In fact, the primary endpoint of vaccination is to prevent infections, reduce hospitalisations and deaths. Foreign travel was never such a primary end point, as PPP political booster sets out to achieve. And we recall, PPP championed Sputnik-V, despite no scientific underpinning. As a result, it’s most staggering that their super-vaccine is of no role in their political booster. Therefore obvious it’s, their political booster excercise is to whitewash Sputnik-V, without acknowledgment of their fraud or an apology for harm caused.
In fact, the political booster excercise may achieve the objectives of whitewashing Sputnik-V and facilitating foreign travel, but the vulnerable will continue to die for want of a credible booster. Thus we demand to know, is it worth it PPP? Was the unapproved vaccination experimentation worth the 975+ deaths?
