Interview with Pfizer CEO

[AnxiousNoMore]

Around the 30 minute mark he was asked if people can transmit after being vaccinated. His answer, "I think this is something that needs to be examined." Around the 29 mark the other person interviewed said, "There is a chance that a year from now maybe 3 years we will discover that people need a booster."

[Emily_MHManager]

This is what we know currently, which of course, is subject to change, as everything with covid is:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/vaccine-benefits/facts.html

"FACT: Getting vaccinated can help prevent getting sick with COVID-19

While many people with COVID-19 have only a mild illness, others may get a severe illness or they may even die. There is no way to know how COVID-19 will affect you, even if you are not at increased risk of severe complications. If you get sick, you also may spread the disease to friends, family, and others around you while you are sick. COVID-19 vaccination helps protect you by creating an antibody response without having to experience sickness."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/08/health/covid-vaccine-mask.html

"The new Covid-19 vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna seem to be remarkably good at preventing serious illness. But it’s unclear how well they will curb the spread of the coronavirus.

That’s because the Pfizer and Moderna trials tracked only how many vaccinated people became sick with Covid-19. That leaves open the possibility that some vaccinated people get infected without developing symptoms, and could then silently transmit the virus — especially if they come in close contact with others or stop wearing masks.

If vaccinated people are silent spreaders of the virus, they may keep it circulating in their communities, putting unvaccinated people at risk."

As always, you are welcome to have discussions on this site, but you must keep it civil.

This thread is now closed.

[AnxiousNoMore]

Those are logical fallacies unrelated to the Pfizer CEO's statement that ,  "I think this is something that needs to be examined." . Numerous unrelated details about who lives in Turkey etc as well for filler I guess.
Reality is Pfizer put $2B into this project so the CEO is not just a social media guy who makes up things while you think BioNTech runs secret trials and hides findings from the Pfizer CEO.
I'm really not interested in your sorry claims, because it is difficult enough to keep you on a logical track (focused on the thread) without listening to new issues that you have fabricated.

[AnxiousNoMore]

" It appears Pfizer didn't focus on this aspect, but the people to really talk to would be the people who created the Pfizer vaccine, which wasn't Pfizer but the German company they partnered with.  Pfizer mainly supplied money."  
No, the Pfizer CEO is not some social media guy who pumps out anything he feels like. When he said "I think this is something that needs to be examined." that means no one knows yet and no one will know until a trial is run that actually proves it prevents disease.
Pfizer put $2B into this project, did all the regulatory, and got the trial data, so the CEO knows as much as anyone can know.

[Paxiled]

Not sure what your point is.  Pfizer did not make the vaccine.  This is just true.  The Pfizer CEO has been talking on business channels and in business magazines a ton because he's in it for the rise in stock price, not for his health.  That's how he gets paid.  You've seen a lot less of the folks who are actually making vaccines, and again, Pfizer didn't do anything to make this vaccine but supply money because the German company can't distribute the vaccine, that avenue is controlled by the oligopoly of large pharmaceutical companies that make it very difficult for small companies to get their products into distribution.  The two scientists who started BioNTech are Turkish scientists who live in Germany and were working on the mRNA technology along with the folks who started Moderna for many years at universities funded mostly by the US gov't.  They made the vaccine.  They partnered with Pfizer whereas Moderna partnered directly with the US gov't.  Both needed large partners with money and the ability to distribute the drug.  So when I said the folks to talk to are the scientists at BioNTech, it's because they did all the work.  They might know a lot more than the CEO of Pfizer, whose job is to sell Pfizer stock.  I didn't make the world, Anxious, if I had it would look a lot different.  You have to ask, why is it AstraZeneca and Moderna do have some evidence the vaccine prevents transmission and Pfizer claims not to?  I was positing a theory, that maybe Pfizer didn't focus on that aspect.  Maybe BioNTech did.  I don't know.  Fauci worked very closely with Moderna and has said there is evidence it prevents transmission but we don't know yet for sure.  Not sure what it is I said that's a problem for you, and I'm sorry if it is a problem for you.  Peace, everyone.  

[Paxiled]

Heard on the news that Moderna has some data showing it does prevent transmission, but some data doesn't equal they know.  Also heard that AstraZeneca's vaccine has some data showing it also prevents transmission, but again, just some data.  It appears Pfizer didn't focus on this aspect, but the people to really talk to would be the people who created the Pfizer vaccine, which wasn't Pfizer but the German company they partnered with.  Pfizer mainly supplied money.  The know-how for both vaccines appears to have come from the US Gov't, DARPA and NIH, and as usually happens, scientists working on projects with the US gov't with taxpayer funding then leave and form their own companies and make tons of money if a product pans out and make tons of money if it doesn't, as they get to keep all that wonderful venture capital money and federal funding.  This is why I keep saying, nationalize the darned thing and order whoever has the capability to manufacture it quickly and get it into our arms assuming it does work as well as reported.  Won't happen, though, and so we all wait.  As for the booster, that might need some explaining, as my understanding is all the vaccines currently in production and development will have to be gotten every year or at best every other year -- we don't know yet how long the immunity lasts just as we don't know how long any immunity if there is any from having had the disease lasts.  Just have to take it as it comes.  

[mkh9]

I saw a great video on TV. Not sure if the rules allow me to say where. But the scientist from La Jolla Immunology research, California. said that His research showed that we do produce short term immunity via antibodies, as well as long term immunity through T Cells. He thinks either through having had the disease (shorter term) or having the vaccine (longer term). But not enough time has passed yet to know how long.  I would say 6 months to a year. But we don't know if its longer or not. We do have the FDA as a government agency to oversee the pharmaceutical companies. But yes it would be great to have a public health nationalized vaccine program. The CDC is our governmental program for advice. However, the way they did it this time did get funded by the U.S. and other governments, depending on the country, but the private industry used that money to make the vaccines. So really it was a lot faster than any government agency would be willing to do. So maybe competition in the market is good. Also, one thing to note is that he said that usually it takes longer because they get proof that it works (at least in the lab) so they can get funding. So the reason it was faster is because they got funded not knowing if it would work. So, the time isn't really faster to study people in clinical trials , they just cut the red tape this time and got funded later with risk of the vaccine not working. The usual 2 months was completed. That being said, they had already used the mRNA technology is trying to make a vaccine for the H1N1 flu. So they figured it would work since they already tried it in animals etc.
mkh9

[mkh9]

If I am allowed to state the company, by MedHelps rules, I will gladly, state the video source.
mkh9

[Paxiled]

I think you can state the TV program, if that's what it is.  I was found in violation of rules for referring people generally to Google something, but they do appear to allow specific links to specific websites such as Mayo Clinic so I can't see how that would differ from a helpful video seen on TV.  Of course, I don't work for MedHelp but it does sound like useful stuff.  I have to say, though, because of a ton of physical therapy I have to do and my inability to watch TV when I'm doing it but I can listen, I do listen to a lot of news programming, and I also listen to a lot of public radio where I hear the BBC and Canadian radio, and what I've heard is the T cell theory is not at all known to be true and is also a bit of a conspiracy theory.  It's a fave, for example, of the complete quack who until recently was Trump's main medical advisor on covid.  It might be true but there as far as I've heard no proof of it.  But there is a lot of theory behind it, and is cited as a possible reason Africans aren't getting covid as bad as other parts of the world as they are exposed to a very wide array of tropical diseases.  Doesn't explain South America, though, so there you go.  As for the part of nationalizing, I don't mean this as a general rule.  In this specific instance of both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, the initial research on RNA was begun by the federal gov't.  It wasn't started by Moderna or the German company that developed the Pfizer vaccine because they didn't exist yet.  Moderna was created by DARPA, the military organization that also gave us the initial internet.  The German company was, I believe, founded by scientists who also worked on RNA with the US gov't.  I also believe the initial reason was to deal with HIV, but in all these years not one product that worked was ever produced and yet these companies still existed to invent the covid vaccine.  How was that?   Because they were created by gov't money and gov't research.  Then, after a time, they broke off, went public, got venture capital funding as well, and kept losing money every year for years until now.  That makes this particular situation very different from other situations.  It wouldn't apply to any other vaccine, because all the others use older technology that wasn't originally a gov't program, or at least wasn't recently a gov't program.  So I'm not arguing for a public nationalized vaccine program, maybe that's a good idea but I think nationalized medicine in general is a good idea and also a problematic idea.  It's great for most medicine, but not for the highest end medicine, so I can't really say about vaccines.  I can only say for certain that the two vaccines that are now approved based on RNA are basically US gov't programs and that makes a good case in a time of great need for nationalization, as with nationalization we can order everyone with a lab to produce it and get what we need much faster.  Now, this is also a bit problematic because the Johnson and Johnson vaccine if it works will be better for the world than the two we have now, as it uses older technology and therefore would be much less expensive to produce, ship, and get to every place in the world, and that company can produce a ton of medicine.  It would therefore be much faster to get in arms.  Peace.

[Paxiled]

Meant to add, the Johnson and Johnson vaccine is also a one shot vaccine, another time saver.

[Emily_MHManager]

mkh9 - you can definitely link to a source, or mention it. We allow informational/educational/scientific sources to be named/linked.

[AnxiousNoMore]

Dateline interview. https://www.nbc.com/dateline/video/race-for-a-vaccine/4273000