The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory committee will vote June 28 on something called the “Future Framework,” a scheme that would allow Pfizer and Moderna to “reformulate” COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in perpetuity, without conducting clinical trials on the new vaccines.
Pfizer and Moderna’s Dilemma
Pfizer and Moderna have a problem — their COVID-19 shots do NOT work. Everyone knows this. The shots do not stop infection, transmission, hospitalization, or death.Pfizer and Moderna are making $50 billion a year on these shots and they want that to continue. So they need to reformulate the shots. Maybe target a new variant, maybe change some of the ingredients — who knows, these shots don’t work so it’s not clear what it will take to get them to work.
Doubling Down on a Failed Strategy
Viruses vary by region. At any given time, the influenza strain circulating in England is different than it is in South Africa which is different than in southeast Asia. However, pharmaceutical companies prefer to create one-size-fits-all vaccines in order to decrease manufacturing costs and thereby increase profits.Then they engage in an elaborate theatrical performance called the “flu strain selection process” where they select four influenza strains that will go into the one-size-fits-all flu vaccine used throughout the world that year.
This carefully choreographed process is a complete and total failure. This is not a surprise — using a one-vaccine-fits-all approach to prevent a rapidly evolving virus that varies by region is never going to work.
Over the last thirty years, the federal government has paid out more compensation for adverse events in connection with the flu shot than any other vaccine — so we know that the shot comes with a high rate of harm. Given that the flu shot does not stop the flu, the harms thus outweigh the benefits.
The FDA Knew That COVID-19 Shots Would Fail but They Proceeded Anyway
There are a quadrillion x quadrillion viruses in the world (literally more viruses on earth than stars in the known universe). Only a couple hundred of those seem to have the potential to impact human health.But some viruses make better candidates for a vaccine than others. Viruses that have been around a long time, that are very stable and evolve slowly are the best candidates for a vaccine.
Viruses that evolve rapidly are bad candidates for a vaccine. There is no vaccine for the common cold or HIV because these viruses evolve too quickly.
The SARS-CoV-2 virus is a bad candidate for a vaccine which is why all previous attempts to develop a vaccine against coronaviruses have failed (they never made it out of animal trials because all of the animals died during challenge trials or were injured by the vaccine).
He explained that SARS-CoV-2 evolves twice to ten times as fast as the flu virus and these mutations “substantially” reduce vaccine effectiveness. Following the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines, the evolution of the virus has accelerated.
Dr. Bedford’s presentation rattled some of the smarter members of the VRBPAC because his data scream — “SARS-CoV-2 is a bad candidate for a vaccine!” But FDA officials just mumbled some platitudes and then continued with the meeting.
The “Future Framework” = No More Clinical Trials for COVID-19 Shots Ever Again
The purpose of the “Future Framework” is to rig the COVID-19 vaccine regulatory process in perpetuity in favor of the pharmaceutical industry.If this “Future Framework” is approved all future COVID-19 shots, regardless of the formulation, will automatically be deemed “safe and effective” without additional clinical trials because they are considered “biologically similar” to existing shots.
This is literally the worst idea in the history of public health.
They also unanimously agreed that there are no “correlates of protection” that one can use to predict what antibody levels would be sufficient to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Monovalent COVID-19 Shots Failed, so Maybe Throwing Two, Three, or Four Variants Into a Single Shot Will Make It Better?
When it comes to the flu shot, the FDA tries to hedge its bets by putting four strains of the virus into a single shot (so-called “quadrivalent” vaccines). As I explained above, this strategy does not work. But these people are not very clever so that’s exactly what they are planning to do with future COVID-19 shots.Moderna is already signaling that they intend to manufacture a COVID-19 shot with the Alpha variant and then, to make it “new and improved (TM)”, they will add genetically modified mRNA targeting the Beta variant.
There are reasons to believe that this approach will make future COVID-19 shots even less effective and more dangerous than the current failed COVID-19 shots.
Think about it. The more mRNA you put into a shot, the higher the adverse event rate (as the genetically modified mRNA hijacks the cell and starts cranking out spike proteins). So if Pfizer and Moderna put more mRNA into these shots (in order to cover multiple variants) adverse event rates will skyrocket.
But if Pfizer and Moderna put less mRNA per variant into a shot (to keep the total amount of mRNA at 100 mcg for Moderna and 30 mcg for Pfizer) then the effectiveness against any one particular variant will be reduced.
The Future Framework is 100% guaranteed to fail.
Summary
The FDA’s VRBPAC will meet on June 28 to vote on a “Future Framework” for evaluating so-called “next-generation” COVID-19 shots. The “Future Framework” is a plan to rig the COVID-19 vaccine regulatory process in perpetuity.The “Future Framework” would take the “flu strain selection process” that fails every year and apply it to future (reformulated) COVID-19 shots. Federal bureaucrats, many of whom have financial conflicts of interests, would choose which SARS-CoV-2 variants to include in a yearly (or twice yearly) COVID-19 shot.
In the process, all future COVID-19 shots will be deemed automatically “safe and effective” without further clinical trials because they are considered “biologically similar” to existing COVID-19 shots.
Call to Action
We have very little time and an enormous challenge in knocking this proposal down before the VRBPAC meets on June 28. So I am asking you to contact your elected officials to tell them to reject this dangerous proposal.Below are talking points that you can paste into an email, a script that you can use on the phone and a tool for looking up your elected officials.
Talking Points (to paste into an email, letter, or fax)
Subject line: NO “flu framework” for future COVID-19 shots
The FDA and CDC are developing a “Future Framework” to authorize future COVID-19 shots without requiring additional clinical trials. This would be a public health disaster.Phone script
Hi, my name is ____________. I live at __________________[address]. I’m calling because the FDA is proposing a “Future Framework” to authorize future COVID-19 shots without requiring additional clinical trials. This would be a public health disaster.Who to contact:
President Joseph R. Biden The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, D.C. 20500 (202) 456-1111 (comment line is open 11 a.m.-3 p.m. EST Tues.-Thurs.) https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ https://twitter.com/POTUSThe message for State elected officials is slightly different:
Hi, my name is ____________. I live at __________________[address]. I’m calling because the FDA is proposing a “Future Framework” to authorize future COVID-19 shots without requiring additional clinical trials. This would be a public health disaster.If the FDA proceeds with this “Future Framework” I am asking you to nullify the actions of the FDA and reject any COVID-19 shots that have not gone through proper clinical trials.
Extra credit:
Here are the email addresses for all of the public health political appointees, FDA staff and VRBPAC members who have a say in connection with the “Future Framework”:Let’s contact them as well (proposed subject line and email text below).
Subject line: The “Future Framework” is the WORST idea in the history of public health. Please vote “No.”- Large (50,000+ person) double-blind randomized controlled trials with inert saline placebos conducted by an independent third party;
- Safety and efficacy studies for two years before any application; the treatment and control groups must be followed for 20 years to monitor adverse events and all-cause mortality (no more wiping out the control group after 6 months to hide bad outcomes);
- Greater than 90% efficacy with less than 1% Grade 3 Adverse Events; and
- Proper monitoring for carcinogenesis, mutagenesis and impairment of fertility.