FDA Advisor And Vaccine Expert Says There's 'No Evidence' New Boosters Are Better

It's been a tough few days for the new bivalent boosters from Pfizer and Moderna.

News broke recently that during the authorization process, Moderna hid data on efficacy against infection from the advisory committees.

That data revealed that the new boosters may not be any better at preventing infection or transmission than the previous series.


Then a well respected vaccine expert who's part of the FDA vaccine advisory committee wrote an article for a medical journal decrying the need for boosters for most of the population.

Part of the rationale behind the new booster was that it would be better at producing antibodies targeted to currently circulating Omicron variants and sub variants.

Except that newly conducted research from leading virologists found that it wasn't actually any more effective than the previous vaccines.


That's why Dr. Paul Offit wrote that the push to roll out the new boosters was an exercise in futility.

“The experience of the past year has taught us that chasing these Omicron variants with a bivalent vaccine is a losing game,” he said.

Except, of course, Dr. Fauci and other influential experts spent months relentlessly promoting the new doses and encouraging the public to get one.

As just one example, the White House COVID response coordinator once said that he believed God gave us two arms so we could receive the new booster and flu shot at the same time.

Boosters Aren't Able to Prevent Illness

Offit pointed out that trying to pin down variants with new boosters is pointless, and may not even be achievable.

Boosting everyone, he says, is "trying to prevent, in otherwise healthy people, mild illness for a few months."

Of course, once new variants come along to replace the previous ones, those doses will have to be updated again. All to try to stop the possibility of someone getting sick for a few days.

"That doesn't make sense," Offit said.

Virtually none of our COVID "response" made sense, from the start of the pandemic. Masks didn't work, lockdowns didn't work, capacity restrictions, business shutdowns and school closures didn't work. None of it worked. Yet experts and politicians kept promoting those policies anyway, despite the horrifying ancillary costs.

Dr. Fauci claimed that the bivalent booster was the most important thing anyone could do to protect their family's health.

Except he made those claims without any evidence to support them.

“ was sold as better, and better at preventing mild disease and transmission,” Offit said, “when there was no evidence for that.”

It's stunning to learn that Fauci, who repeatedly said he represents "science" and "truth," and that people go to medical school because of him, was once again making unjustified assertions.

The fact he pushed so hard for them should have been a dead giveaway they weren't likely to be impactful.

Offit pointed out that it's unlikely that the majority of people need a bivalent booster, given high population immunity.

But the CDC, in their infinite wisdom, recommended the boosters for everyone over six months of age. Based on zero evidence whatsoever.

He called on them to fix their recommendations, but how can they? That would mean admitting and learning from mistakes.

That's not what The Science™ does. Instead, they focus on hopelessly flailing after unachievable, pointless goals while disparaging anyone who disagrees.

So get ready for next year's boosters to be equally ineffective and equally promoted by those unwilling to accept reality.

Written by
Ian Miller is a former award watching high school actor, author, and long suffering Dodgers fan. He spends most of his time golfing, traveling, reading about World War I history, and trying to get the remote back from his dog. Follow him on Twitter @ianmSC