Hi Keith, yours is an interesting comment. Over the years every time I remarked that so and so is advising the private sector and should not be really touching the topic in a public capacity, I get the stereotype answer: ah but we only work with the best. This is part of one of the private sector’s strategy to control both market and offer. There are a number of people whom I know who would fit the bill of competence, experience and independence. And in any case even if they were ignorant of the subject matter they could learn and apply honestly and transparency to public service. A very good start would be to ask: "where’s the evidence for your statement/policy/". Anther pointer is “I don’t know”. How many times have you heard overnight experts on TV or people with massive share options state "I don’t know". The dunnos but "am willing to find out" are the people we need, not the servants, secret squirrels or main narrative hacks we have been exposing. What does everyone think?
I think you two geezers should be given gongs at least twice as big as La Hallett. And comfy seats in the House of Lords. That might double the intelligence of His Majesty's Parliament at a stroke.
We've had unprecedented wind in Wales, almost as bad as the last number of Atlantic depressions! Probably another unprecedented one coming our way on Sunday. Must be something to do with the weather.
The trilogy is wonderful. As well as detailing the cost and the and the "independence" of the two bodies It details and explains the fundamentals/limitations/known unknowns of aspects of vaccinology and immunology, and on a level that even most MP.'s could understand.
Clearly neither the UKHSA nor the MHRA are doing their job properly - or maybe they are...
One slightly off topic matter. It was interesting to note that H5N1 contains "Squalane" as the adjuvant. (maybe mmRNA ones don't need them because they have long life toxicity..)
Adjuvants, "their action mechanisms are not yet clear" -
Squalene has been around a while, John. The thing about adjuvants is that enablers (formerly known as regulators) cannot seem to make their minds as to whether adjuvants on their own should be tested against placebo. Some say NO, no need: they are inert without the antigens. Others say YES and do nothing. The other point is that most of the formulations are proprietary so you need Mr Bond to find out exactly what’s in them, their PK etc etc.
Ah. Thank you. I have read a few books now on vaccines and trials and placebo and adjuvants. And I’m flabbergasted that adjuvants aren’t tested against saline (at the very least). So it is basically one of those obvious safety measures that legislators - or regulators - do not or will not demand? As in: ‘Nothing to see there!”
Experts who are able and willing to to advise on the effectivness of vaccines for respiratory viruses and are not tied to the UKHSA, any branch of government, pharma or TTA. Humm; my guess is its a short list.
So - I’m uncertain why the threat from avian flu/H5/H5N1 is deemed to require ‘pandemic’ responses & equivalent matched spending.
I’m not sure anyone at UKHSA can talk knowledgeably about infectiousness & transmission.
But I am certain - that to me - the amount of money (unconfirmed but a pretty good estimate) that has been spent on purchasing billions of doses just in case seems outrageous.
Where is the scrutiny? Where is the justification & where is the accountability & where the transparency?
Off topic but my local young GP assured me that the make-up of the UK winter ‘flu’ vax was designed based on the previous Australian/southern hemisphere winter ‘flu’ season & therefore the UK is able to make an educated guess on what the ‘flu’ might look like here & tweak the components as the virus mutates. However we still get people with ‘flu’. Hard to know if it would be better or worse with or without the flu jab so kindly offered by our saintly NHS.
And yet UKHSA has gone ahead & purchased this particular mix of the antidote to H5 or H5N1 (shelf life 2 years from manufacture -a requirement for a min of 18 months on delivery) not knowing if it will be needed or if it would help if the ‘threat’ of Avian flu became real.
' .....Unkindly, we could call it a vaccine against yesterday’s virus.
There is nothing manufacturers and regulators can do about that; it’s called microbiology.
However, the dubious significance of antibodies as correlates of protection has been known for decades, and nothing has been done to narrow the precision of the forecast effectiveness.
In addition, the public has not been told this fundamental fact, which explains why influenza vaccine coverage bears little relationship to field protection. The “safe and effective” mantra still rules supreme. '
There is no doubt in my mind that this is deliberate mis-selling and needs to be publicly called out. Can't see MSM or Hallett doing it, so it must be MPs. Vaccines are the latest cash-cow for pharma and will not only bleed us dry, but for little if any benefit.
Perhaps we need a campaign on enhancing your natural immunity because you need to give an alternative to vaccines for joe public - can't think who would fund.
Honest statisticians are probably thicker on the ground. At the very least, there should be an obligation in public discourse (Hallett Inquiry take note) to report absolute efficacy if you're going to report relative.
Hi Keith, yours is an interesting comment. Over the years every time I remarked that so and so is advising the private sector and should not be really touching the topic in a public capacity, I get the stereotype answer: ah but we only work with the best. This is part of one of the private sector’s strategy to control both market and offer. There are a number of people whom I know who would fit the bill of competence, experience and independence. And in any case even if they were ignorant of the subject matter they could learn and apply honestly and transparency to public service. A very good start would be to ask: "where’s the evidence for your statement/policy/". Anther pointer is “I don’t know”. How many times have you heard overnight experts on TV or people with massive share options state "I don’t know". The dunnos but "am willing to find out" are the people we need, not the servants, secret squirrels or main narrative hacks we have been exposing. What does everyone think?
Best, Tom
Let’s hope for UKHSA’s sake the next pandemic is not of the H7Nx variety…..
(I don’t know how to type sarcasm…).
(Sarc)
My thoughts on the trilogy:
I think you two geezers should be given gongs at least twice as big as La Hallett. And comfy seats in the House of Lords. That might double the intelligence of His Majesty's Parliament at a stroke.
Please do not hold breath whilst waiting.
Hi Martin I have been holding my breath since I read your comment. I am going blue. What do I do?
Read again. Take an extra deep one.
Only just back online due to Power Cut blamed (as always) on "Unprecedented™ " breezyness.
Hope I'm not too late....
We've had unprecedented wind in Wales, almost as bad as the last number of Atlantic depressions! Probably another unprecedented one coming our way on Sunday. Must be something to do with the weather.
The trilogy is wonderful. As well as detailing the cost and the and the "independence" of the two bodies It details and explains the fundamentals/limitations/known unknowns of aspects of vaccinology and immunology, and on a level that even most MP.'s could understand.
Clearly neither the UKHSA nor the MHRA are doing their job properly - or maybe they are...
One slightly off topic matter. It was interesting to note that H5N1 contains "Squalane" as the adjuvant. (maybe mmRNA ones don't need them because they have long life toxicity..)
Adjuvants, "their action mechanisms are not yet clear" -
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-023-01557-7
Many different adjuvants are used in vaccines, aluminium salts, formaldehyde, peanut oil (peanut allergy anyone) etc.
Squalane, from shark oil is a newish one. Maybe a rise in shark allergies awaits.
Squalene has been around a while, John. The thing about adjuvants is that enablers (formerly known as regulators) cannot seem to make their minds as to whether adjuvants on their own should be tested against placebo. Some say NO, no need: they are inert without the antigens. Others say YES and do nothing. The other point is that most of the formulations are proprietary so you need Mr Bond to find out exactly what’s in them, their PK etc etc.
Best wishes, Tom.
Ah. Thank you. I have read a few books now on vaccines and trials and placebo and adjuvants. And I’m flabbergasted that adjuvants aren’t tested against saline (at the very least). So it is basically one of those obvious safety measures that legislators - or regulators - do not or will not demand? As in: ‘Nothing to see there!”
Experts who are able and willing to to advise on the effectivness of vaccines for respiratory viruses and are not tied to the UKHSA, any branch of government, pharma or TTA. Humm; my guess is its a short list.
So - I’m uncertain why the threat from avian flu/H5/H5N1 is deemed to require ‘pandemic’ responses & equivalent matched spending.
I’m not sure anyone at UKHSA can talk knowledgeably about infectiousness & transmission.
But I am certain - that to me - the amount of money (unconfirmed but a pretty good estimate) that has been spent on purchasing billions of doses just in case seems outrageous.
Where is the scrutiny? Where is the justification & where is the accountability & where the transparency?
Off topic but my local young GP assured me that the make-up of the UK winter ‘flu’ vax was designed based on the previous Australian/southern hemisphere winter ‘flu’ season & therefore the UK is able to make an educated guess on what the ‘flu’ might look like here & tweak the components as the virus mutates. However we still get people with ‘flu’. Hard to know if it would be better or worse with or without the flu jab so kindly offered by our saintly NHS.
And yet UKHSA has gone ahead & purchased this particular mix of the antidote to H5 or H5N1 (shelf life 2 years from manufacture -a requirement for a min of 18 months on delivery) not knowing if it will be needed or if it would help if the ‘threat’ of Avian flu became real.
I’m very confused.
' .....Unkindly, we could call it a vaccine against yesterday’s virus.
There is nothing manufacturers and regulators can do about that; it’s called microbiology.
However, the dubious significance of antibodies as correlates of protection has been known for decades, and nothing has been done to narrow the precision of the forecast effectiveness.
In addition, the public has not been told this fundamental fact, which explains why influenza vaccine coverage bears little relationship to field protection. The “safe and effective” mantra still rules supreme. '
There is no doubt in my mind that this is deliberate mis-selling and needs to be publicly called out. Can't see MSM or Hallett doing it, so it must be MPs. Vaccines are the latest cash-cow for pharma and will not only bleed us dry, but for little if any benefit.
Perhaps we need a campaign on enhancing your natural immunity because you need to give an alternative to vaccines for joe public - can't think who would fund.
It would make a snake oil salesman blush.
Honest statisticians are probably thicker on the ground. At the very least, there should be an obligation in public discourse (Hallett Inquiry take note) to report absolute efficacy if you're going to report relative.