Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Fraudci-lent ‘Science’
The Hill story promoting Fraudci’s latest line caught my eye. Consider the following, and the related story on the FDA advisory panel’s entirely unscientific conduct. Scientific study, we don’t need no stinkin’ studies! This is Fraudci-lent “science.”
ABC’s Martha Raddatz asked Fauci on “This Week” if the millions of Americans who received the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID-19 vaccine should be concerned after a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee voted unanimously to recommend adults receive a booster shot of the vaccine.
“No, not at all, Martha. I think that they should feel good about it because what the advisers to the FDA felt is that, given the data that they saw, very likely this should have been a two-dose vaccine to begin with,” Fauci said.
[ . . . ]
Last week, an FDA advisory committee met to vote on whether to recommend Americans receive a booster shot of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The FDA, which had to rely on data provided by the vaccine maker given that trial data had not been provided to the agency in time, decided to vote on recommending it despite the sample size of 17 people.
Wait, what? A “sample” size of 17 people is the basis of a so-called scientific recommendation from the Food and Drug Administration. That is fraud, it is science fantasy, not evidence-based medicine. Here are the details of the FDA’s Johnson & Johnson shot shenanigans:
The agency’s vaccine advisory committee voted unanimously, 19-0, to recommend authorization of a second dose as early as two months after the primary shot for anyone ages 18 and older.
Johnson & Johnson representatives told the panel that a second dose given either two months or six months after the first shot increased antibody levels, but a single dose of the vaccine continued to offer protection.
The recommendation, which is not binding, will now be taken up by the FDA, which could make a decision within days.
Committee members expressed concern with the quality of data presented by the company, because there were ultimately only 17 people included in an analysis, who were followed for six months.
The FDA said it relied heavily on studies conducted by Johnson & Johnson and could not independently confirm many of the findings because data from the trials were not submitted in time.
Archana Chatterjee, an infectious disease expert at Rosalind Franklin University, asked FDA officials why there was even a meeting if the agency hadn’t been able to conduct its own studies.
Peter Marks, the head of the agency’s vaccine division, said it could have taken months to review all the data, and the agency is trying to act as quickly as possible.
Whatever you think of vaccinations in general, and COVID-19 vaccinations more narrowly, and the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine in particular, these two stories and the actions of the FDA must be disquieting.
Published in Healthcare
I’m trying to put these in a job security matrix. Nastiness on the vertical, and proximity to power on the horizonal.
In New York, killing newborns is good. Killing helpless old people is okay. Diddling young staffers is fireable.
In DC killing newborns is good. Abandoning Americans in a war zone is good. Killing children by drone strike is encouraged. And diddling staffers is okay. Wearing black face is hush-hush.
In Bethesda, killing 600,000 Americans by lab-created virus is good. Killing 50,000 Americans by vaccine is okay. But killing puppies is fireable.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Hidden by the COVID shuffle/charade that has hidden so much corruption since March 2020, was the Summer 2020 scandal of Novartis being required to pay a 670 million plus penalty for its massive programs of monetary incentives for doctors eager to prescribe unnecessary drugs to their
suckerspatients.Prescribe enough statins, blood thinners, skin treatment drugs to your patients, and you too might receive gift cards worth 500 bucks, free cruises for yourself and family. If you use up enough prescription pads, you might also be getting an honorarium for being chosen to be at a conference in some exotic local, where a 20 minute speech could net you a check for $v3,000. (Plus all travel expenses and hotel expenses fully paid, of course.)
I remember how my first GP here in Calif in the 1980’s would take down his big book listing technical info on all prescription meds after prescribing any medication. He would carefully read out the reason I was getting that drug, followed by an explanation of any side effects that could result. That style of doctoring has been discouraged these days.
Citation for comment # 62: Novartis penalty scandal, Jul 2020, is here —
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/07/02/2056607/0/en/Novartis-Agrees-to-Pay-678-Million-to-Settle-Allegations-of-Illegal-Kickbacks-Involving-Several-of-the-Company-s-Cardiovascular-Drugs.html
Novartis Agrees to Pay $678 Million to Settle Allegations of Illegal Kickbacks Involving Several of the Company’s Cardiovascular Drugs
Attorney Eric L. Young Represents Whistleblower Oswald Bilotta in One of the Largest Ever Recoveries in a Health Care Fraud Case Brought Under the Qui Tam Provisions of the False Claims Act
July 01, 2020 20:27 ET | Source: McEldrew Young Law
PHILADELPHIA, July 01, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Attorney Eric. L. Young announced today that Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (“Novartis”) has agreed to settle alleged violations of the False Claims Act based on a qui tam complaint filed by whistleblower Oswald Bilotta, who is represented by McEldrew Young Purtell, Attorneys-at-Law (“McEldrew Young”), and Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP (“SFMS”).
“Today’s announcement puts the pharmaceutical industry on further notice that offering or paying unlawful remuneration to health care providers will have costly consequences,” said Eric Young, managing partner of McEldrew Young’s whistleblower practice. “The days are over for drug manufacturers who routinely provide incentives to doctors as a means of increasing the number of prescriptions written. There is no legitimate reason why drug manufacturers should take doctors to five-star restaurants, major sporting events or extravagant fishing excursions,” Mr. Young added.
####
What? No head in a box of sand fleas while being physically restrained? I am sure other people would prefer that he be heavily dosed with AZT. And others would not mind seeing him put on a ventilator (without sedation).
I’m not sure which is worse, a politician who keeps promises or a politician who breaks them. Maybe it depends on the promises.
But the problem is not the politicians.The problem is we the people who elect them and expect them to keep bad promises.