Fraudci-lent ‘Science’

 

justice and COVID-19The 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
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 65 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Percival (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    People who keep saying they’re not going to believe the government because the government lied to them ought to be concerned when one of their own claims Fauci was a co-author on a paper he did not co-author. Should I write off the whole anti-Fauci movement because of that?

    No. You should embrace the anti-Fauci movement, because the man is an international menace who must be stopped by any means necessary, and all his works destroyed.

    So I should be like Katie Couric and suppress or tailor the information to support my side and defeat my enemies?

    You know, at this point, whatever it takes.

    Even assassination? I don’t think you mean that. And getting rid of Fauci wouldn’t fix the problem, anyway, though it doesn’t hurt to draw attention to the public face of the problem.

    Looks like puppy torture is going to bring him down. “Whatever it takes” apparently includes puppy torture.

    This is so Austin Powers.

    Andrew Cuomo ordered people with diagnosed Covid-19 back into nursing homes that didn’t have the facilities to keep the patients isolated and the other residents safe. This may have led to as many as 15,000 additional deaths. That was a bad look, so he lied about the numbers.

    No problem. Nothing to see here, folks.

    But a few of his employees/associates accused him of inappropriate behavior, and he is gone in a couple of months.

    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.

    • #61
  2. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    WillowSpring (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    Our doctor, however, who is no pushover by any means, strongly encouraged us to get the booster.

    Do you really think your doctor will give you his own opinion? I am not being argumentative, but our old country doctor – that I would have trusted – retired several years ago and our new doctors are part of a much greater conglomerate. I think my doctor will recommend what her higher ups will say, and they will recommend what CDC says. And I don’t trust them.

    I read today that the vote on the J&J 2nd dosage was approved 19-0 by the CDC based on data from J&J which used a 6 month test of 17 subjects with no control group.

    I think we are pretty much on our own, but there is a lot of contradictory data.

    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 suckers patients.

    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. 

    • #62
  3. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    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.

    ####

    • #63
  4. DonG (CAGW is a hoax) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a hoax)
    @DonG

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):
    But prison’s too good. As the architect of the COVID-19 virus, he should be brought before an international tribunal for his role in the deaths of millions worldwide. He should be tried, found guilty, drawn and quartered, his head placed on a pike on the Washington Mall where passersby can throw rotten fruit at it.

    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). 

    • #64
  5. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    In my own county, those who voted to censure Rep. Peter Meijer for his impeachment vote also appreciate that he is able to work with the regulatory/funding agencies when the county needs help. Would Meijer be able to “go to work for his constituents” in this way if he made himself odious to the regulatory/funding agencies? It’s a question I want to ask Meijer in person if there is ever an opportunity.

    Is there any evidence that he works for the people? Or is he working for himself?

    That’s not really the issue.

    It is for me. I’ve come to loathe politicians. They promise everything to get elected, and then ignore those promises once safely in office.

    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.

    • #65
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.