The FDA withdrew the EUA for BOOSTER shots only on Wednesday for those over 12 Pfizer and 18 Moderna but allowed the shots to be used for primary series only. In fact, this is sort of a tacit acknowledgement that there is no licensed product out there. In fact, at the ACIP meeting we were told that appts have been cancelled for booster…
The FDA withdrew the EUA for BOOSTER shots only on Wednesday for those over 12 Pfizer and 18 Moderna but allowed the shots to be used for primary series only. In fact, this is sort of a tacit acknowledgement that there is no licensed product out there. In fact, at the ACIP meeting we were told that appts have been cancelled for boosters of the old type, and people will need to make new appts for the new bivalent boosters.
Hi Meryl, appreciate everything you do.Could you please cover SM102 lipid which is in the bivalent booster.It is listed as in ingredient but on the manufacturer's website it states "for research use only" Clearly this is an issue with giving informed consent? This alone should stop it in the tracks if there is public awareness???
To my knowledge, the FDA no longer has to approve individual ingredients for vaccines but only the final product or mixture. In this case, they have authorized and approved vaccines containing SM102.
In my humble opinion, the better issue is the lack of informed consent because recipients have not been told the true risks and benefits that are well-known at this point. They have also not been told the alternative products, nor the medical consequences of refusing
Thank you, interesting to note that someone had noticed that Cayman chemical updated there website on SM101 and removed the information on it being a possible carcinogenic although there was no clear case as to what had changed in the product.
The FDA withdrew the EUA for BOOSTER shots only on Wednesday for those over 12 Pfizer and 18 Moderna but allowed the shots to be used for primary series only. In fact, this is sort of a tacit acknowledgement that there is no licensed product out there. In fact, at the ACIP meeting we were told that appts have been cancelled for boosters of the old type, and people will need to make new appts for the new bivalent boosters.
Appreciate your diligence, Bernadette
Hi Meryl, appreciate everything you do.Could you please cover SM102 lipid which is in the bivalent booster.It is listed as in ingredient but on the manufacturer's website it states "for research use only" Clearly this is an issue with giving informed consent? This alone should stop it in the tracks if there is public awareness???
To my knowledge, the FDA no longer has to approve individual ingredients for vaccines but only the final product or mixture. In this case, they have authorized and approved vaccines containing SM102.
In my humble opinion, the better issue is the lack of informed consent because recipients have not been told the true risks and benefits that are well-known at this point. They have also not been told the alternative products, nor the medical consequences of refusing
Thank you, interesting to note that someone had noticed that Cayman chemical updated there website on SM101 and removed the information on it being a possible carcinogenic although there was no clear case as to what had changed in the product.