Two Congressmen Threaten to Subpoena CDC for Vaccine Efficacy Data
Now the experts are asserting that repeat covid vaccinations could offer protection against other coronaviruses. Also, another variant is making the news!
The Republicans in Congress have gotten some interesting answers to their questions about COVID-19. One National Institute of Health (NIH) official finally admitted that gain-of-function research was being conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, suspected of being ground zero for the COVID pandemic. The statements came as part of testimony given to the House Select Subcommittee on the coronavirus pandemic.
The firm’s president indicated the intelligence community was aware of the coronavirus experiments at the institute years before the pandemic.
Now, two Congressmen want answers related to the actual efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines.
Reps. Jim Jordan and Thomas Massie threatened Thursday to subpoena the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for records related to COVID-19 vaccine efficacy among those already infected with the virus.
Jordan (R-Ohio), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Massie (R-Ky.), the chairman of its subcommittee on the administrative state, made the threat in a letter to CDC Director Dr. Mandy Cohen — which was exclusively obtained by The Post — as part of their investigation into the effectiveness of federally mandated COVID jabs.
If the CDC does not turn over information by May 30, both GOP chairs vowed they would “resort to compulsory process in order to obtain it.”
“On December 6, 2023, Chairman Massie wrote to request documents and information related to a CDC study released on October 29, 2021[,] that supposedly supported the CDC’s inaccurate claims about vaccine efficacy,” Jordan and Massie told Cohen.
“The CDC has continued to promote some of this information, even after being notified that its messaging was inaccurate, and remains steadfast in its insistence that these inaccurate representations are correct,” they said.
Americans are skeptical about how well the vaccinations are working against a virus that vaccinated people still catch and transmit.
The appeal of the covid vaccines grows more selective with time. pic.twitter.com/vJLDRCnWgK
— Leslie Eastman ☥ (@Mutnodjmet) May 22, 2024
The percent of the adult population reporting receipt of the updated 2023-24 COVID-19 vaccine is 14.4%.
There is a push to promote regular boosters to protect people from other coronaviruses.
Powerful COVID vaccines could be setting people’s immune systems up to successfully fight off not just future COVID variants, but other types of coronaviruses as well, a new study shows.
People repeatedly vaccinated for COVID — the initial shots, followed by boosters and updated vaccines — generate antibodies capable of neutralizing not just COVID variants, but even some distantly related coronaviruses, researchers reported May 17 in the journal Nature.
It appears that periodic re-vaccination for COVID might cause people to gradually build up a stock of antibodies that protect them from a variety of coronaviruses, researchers concluded.
There is a regular push to scare people about the variant du jour. Apparently, the new variant may be more evasive from any already established covid immunity response.
We know the FLiRT variants have two mutations on their spike proteins (the spike-shaped protrusions on the surface of the virus) that weren’t seen on JN.1 (the previously dominant strain in the U.S.). Some experts say these mutations could make it easier for the virus to evade people’s immunity—from the vaccine or a previous bout of COVID.
But, the fact that the FLiRT variants are otherwise genetically similar to JN.1 should be reassuring, Dr. Roberts says. “While JN.1 occurred during the winter months, when people gather indoors and the virus is more likely to spread, its symptoms were milder than those caused by variants in the early years of the pandemic,” he says.
There is no news yet about whether a COVID illness will be more severe with the FLiRT variants or how symptoms might change.
I sure hope the Congressmen get the answers they seek. The responses should be very illuminating.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Can the House, with a supportive Senate and President, change the definition of vaccine? With the current definition, the manufacturers and distribution of an ineffective shot are not liable for damages because they can claim vaccine status. My belief is the Covid shot is not a vaccine which is why the definition changed during the pandemic
Without question, yes. There are AMPLE existing federal statutes that deal directly with ‘vaccines,’ so it would be well within the prerogative of Congress to define the term just like it often defines terms dealing with every other statute it passes.
The definition went from vaccines giving immunity to giving protection. That’s it. The main function of a vaccine is to protect the recipient from said disease which the covid vaccine does with respect to the early variants
Well they had to do that to make the garbage shots fit. They don’t give you immunity which is what a vaccine was always supposed to do.
No lol, the definition was changed becuase the cdc felt that using the word immune rather than protection would indicate 100% efficacy. It was a nuanced clarification. That’s it. As for vaccine itself, it was effective that’s justa statement of fact. You can get into discussion about % of efficacy and which variants but that’s really it.
Heh, you’re probably stupid enough to believe that bullshit.
It was so effective that getting vaccinated didn’t stop you from getting the disease. That’s called an epic fail anywhere you don’t have corrupt government lying pieces of shit keeping score.
@ironclaw
You think meta analysis are a question of belief?
Again with the moronic transmission thing. It’s a secondary issue. You seem unable to defend your position in relation to efficacy. Feelings aren’t an argument.
Let’s accept that premise for a moment but then the underlying basis for a Jab mandate, protection of others/stopping or slowing the spread of Covid, is eliminated and is left with at best an incredibly diminished if not zero ‘compelling interest’ argument to advance in support of mandates.
IOW if the Jab isn’t a traditional vaccine (stops transmission to others AND offers high degree of immunity) the public health argument is eroded. I could care less if someone wanted to voluntarily receive the Jab or for that matter continue to do so. Their choice. However all of us should be opposed to mandatory Jab that doesn’t confer immunity or preclude transmission, especially when folks didn’t get enough info to make a truly informed decision about risk/reward.
I think you have a basic misunderstanding of how any of this works.
1. Your comment just doesn’t logically follow. Mandates, social distancing etc are measures that are only redundant once complete vaccination takes place which clearly never happened. The herd immunity argument rests on exceptionally high percentage bekg vaccinated in some cases 95% plus
2. Vaccinations primary purpose is reducing the effects of the original disease. Transmission is a secondary issue. It has never been the case that this is a criteria on an individual basis. A diseases overall footprint reduction is a nice to have by product of having a population that now has a string immune response to said disease. It’s much harder for a disease to spread if people can fight it of more quickly. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a transmission risk though so that’s still a factor to be considered.
No, a vaccine’s primary purpose is to remove a disease from the equation by teaching the immune system how to fight it off and therefore granting immunity. You really need to stop guzzling the koolaid from the lying corrupt government shithead scumbags.
@ironclaw
Immunity means the body can respond and fight of a disease it doesn’t mean in this context immunity as in invulnerability to a disease. Hence the clarification.
So you aren’t really saying anything relevant to support your claims here. Again feelings aren’t an argument
Bruh,
Where the Govt asserts a public health argument based upon a compelling govt interest for mandate of a vaccine then that vaccine must:
1. Confer immunity to the vaccinated
2. Prevent transmission from the vaccinated
If the crap doesn’t do those then the problem for the govt is ALL the prior precedent is relent upon those those two factors, remove them and the govt is now seeking to implement UNPRECEDENTED action/policy. That’s why they lied so hard, changed definitions and so on b/c their product was BS and didn’t deliver but they wanted a mandate anyway.
Individual immunity not herd immunity is what was promised by the US public health community. Repeatedly. In addition they promised no transmission if one was vaxed. Another bogus claim but hey they were lying for the ‘greater good’ so….. Nope no mercy for lying about Covid Jab efficacy then OR now. Everyone who then or now carries water for the Covid lies is untrustworthy.
If we start with the polio VACCINE, and come forward from there, how many vaccines have 1. Given 100% immunity therefore setting the standard of what a vaccine is expected to do, and 2. How many vaccines have fallen well short of 100% immunity so as to benefit like the Covid shot, from the redefined term? When the Covid shot came nowhere near meeting the definition of vaccine because it failed immunity, it failed protecting the spread from a recipient of the shot to others within the community, and because the coronavirus mutates so quickly, continuous modifications were needed to keep up with nature’s cycle.
Thank goodness that the politicians stepped up to Shepard the formulations of the billion dollar products into general public use and to use the full force of the federal government to stop any educated doctor, researcher or clinician from speaking Ill of this breathtaking success of modern medicine.
Why threaten? Do it!
Why? B/C to get the subpoena enforced the committee needs to show they exhausted other options to gain compliance. IOW proceeding in a measured, step by step process, while sometimes frustrating and seemingly counterintuitive, it will get actual results faster.
Exactly. Hammer them. Politeness doesn’t work in the Federal system any more.
Here is a better question. Why is this not public information?
Because then they couldn’t have scared people into taking the shots.
It is public. There are numerous studies on this including this contemporaneous meta analysis for example https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8266992/
More government lies. There’s no reason to ever believe anything the government tells you again.
Especially when Bart cites it.
Thanks for the cite. Here’s the nut from the abstract:
“The meta-analysis revealed significant protective effect against RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 ≥ 14 days after the first dose, with vaccine effectiveness of 53% (95% confidence interval 32–68%), and ≥ 7 days after the second dose, with vaccine effectiveness of 95% (95% confidence interval: 96–97%).”
Now this can be questioned. Meta-analyses can be iffy, especially when they are warped to pull data from sources that didn’t ask the same questions in the same way, but here the question in all cases was probably, “What is the probability of getting COVID after being vaccinated once? Twice?” so the results could be combined.
This is the same process used by Real Clear Politics to get their averages. The results from n surveys are added up as if they were one big survey — the number of people asked are summed, the number who said “Trump” ditto, the number who said “Biden” the same, the number that said “Go away” summed, and number of “Trump” answers divided by the number asked is Trump’s percentage.
Why do this? The more people who are polled, the smaller the confidence interval — the range of results that would occur 95% of the time if the poll were done over and over again. Not with the same people, though — that’s a sure way to make the “Go away” answers approach 100%.
The vaccine meta-analysis can be attacked on several grounds. First, the effectiveness of two shots being 95% means the confidence interval should be bracketed around 95%, not 96.5%. That’s probably a typo.
Second, the selection of the papers that were used and the quality of those papers should be examined. Was the selection fair and were the selected papers of high quality and compatible with the analysis?
Third, was the meta-analysis properly carried out?
All these should be examined — but this is true of every scientific paper, and should be done by experts — in this case, by vaccine experts, epidemiologists, virologists and statisticians. Not by me, and not by reflexive vaccine fanatics — on either side.
Then the simple answer is make one request. If they don’t immediately comply then subpoena.None of this allowing them to play for time, screw that.
hillary sent over her hard drive smashn thuggs
Jordan and Massie, after the epic failure of the impeachment clown show have a brand new clown show specially for there base. Good times
In the coming months and years I suspect govt grant $ gonna dry up as is funding for forever wars, data censorship and wokiesta projects in general.
Why threaten, just do it.
Sorry irishgladiator63 , you beat me to it. It is not a question. DO IT!