Too bad they yanked BARDA funding for investigatin
Post# of 72447
(Total Views: 514)
Posted On: 08/23/2020 8:14:08 PM
Too bad they yanked BARDA funding for investigating treatments, because they wanted to fund all these vaccines that have dubious prospects, isn't it?
According to a recent poll, only 43% of American adults say that they would take a hastily-developed vaccine that has been rushed through the approval process like all of these prospective vaccines. Doctors are coming out and saying what we've learned from past vaccine disasters -- it is NOT SAFE to give a lot of people a vaccine that hasn't had a track record of at least a year, to make sure that there are not going to be longer-term adverse effects. They've been walking back the efficacy rate that would be needed for FDA approval -- now they are saying that if a vaccine is 50% effective that would be just fine.
Speaking just for myself -- I am sure not willing to risk long-term side effects from a vaccine that has been rushed through development, ESPECIALLY if it is Moderna's or AZN/Oxford's untested mRNA technology, which has never yet resulted in an approved vaccine -- just to have a coin-flip chance of being protected from the virus.
The focus should have been on fast-tracking any possible TREATMENTS to save lives right now, instead of taking the funding away from those programs, and throwing stumbling blocks in front of the companies that are trying to test their drugs. Since other people have mentioned CYDY's drug Leronlimab -- their drug does seem to be effective for people who have moderate and worse cases -- why has it taken the FDA months to look at their application, and why are they telling them that they are "too busy" to have an actual meeting with them? They're making them have a "meeting" by EXCHANGING EMAILS. Does this sound like a government that cares about treating people who are sick right now?
According to a recent poll, only 43% of American adults say that they would take a hastily-developed vaccine that has been rushed through the approval process like all of these prospective vaccines. Doctors are coming out and saying what we've learned from past vaccine disasters -- it is NOT SAFE to give a lot of people a vaccine that hasn't had a track record of at least a year, to make sure that there are not going to be longer-term adverse effects. They've been walking back the efficacy rate that would be needed for FDA approval -- now they are saying that if a vaccine is 50% effective that would be just fine.
Speaking just for myself -- I am sure not willing to risk long-term side effects from a vaccine that has been rushed through development, ESPECIALLY if it is Moderna's or AZN/Oxford's untested mRNA technology, which has never yet resulted in an approved vaccine -- just to have a coin-flip chance of being protected from the virus.
The focus should have been on fast-tracking any possible TREATMENTS to save lives right now, instead of taking the funding away from those programs, and throwing stumbling blocks in front of the companies that are trying to test their drugs. Since other people have mentioned CYDY's drug Leronlimab -- their drug does seem to be effective for people who have moderate and worse cases -- why has it taken the FDA months to look at their application, and why are they telling them that they are "too busy" to have an actual meeting with them? They're making them have a "meeting" by EXCHANGING EMAILS. Does this sound like a government that cares about treating people who are sick right now?
(8)
(0)