The great vaccine debate: Unmasking America's aggressive COVID-19 booster policy

By bellecarter // 2025-05-27

Mastodon

Parler

Gab

Copy

Dr. Vinay Prasad and Dr. Martin A. Makary argue that the U.S.'s aggressive policy of recommending annual COVID-19 boosters for virtually everyone lacks robust scientific evidence and may be driven more by political expediency than medical necessity.
The authors highlight the absence of conclusive evidence that repeat COVID-19 vaccinations provide a net benefit, especially for low-risk individuals, and point out that this approach is not mirrored by other high-income nations.
The rapid development and deployment of vaccines through Emergency Use Authorization raise concerns about long-term safety data. This, combined with the historical ineffectiveness of flu vaccines, undermines public trust and questions the "safe and effective" narrative.
Roman Bystrianyk emphasizes that improvements in public health infrastructure, such as clean water, nutrition and living conditions, have been the true drivers in reducing infectious diseases, not just vaccines.
Prasad and Makary advocate for a reevaluation of the booster policy, urging a more cautious, evidence-based approach tailored to individual risk factors. They emphasize the need to consider the broader implications on public health and trust in vaccination.

In a recent paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Vinay Prasad and Dr. Martin A. Makary challenge the U.S.'s aggressive approach to annual Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) boosters. Prasad, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and FDA Commissioner Makary argue that the policy, which recommends boosters for virtually everyone, is not supported by robust scientific evidence and may be driven more by political expediency than medical necessity. Prasad and Makary highlight the lack of conclusive evidence that repeat dosing of COVID-19 vaccines provides a net benefit, particularly for low-risk individuals who have already received multiple doses or have had multiple infections. They point out that the policy is unmatched by other high-income nations, which have taken a more cautious approach. The authors acknowledge the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines as a significant achievement but question the wisdom of bypassing standard safety protocols through the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). They argue that the lack of long-term safety data and the dismissal of critical questions about risk undermine the credibility of the current booster strategy. In his analysis, another author, Roman Bystrianyk, argues that the true conquerors of infectious diseases were not vaccines but rather improvements in public health infrastructure. He cites the work of honest physicians who have noted for decades that clean water, adequate nutrition and humane living conditions have been the real drivers of public health improvements. Bystrianyk points to the decline in mortality rates of diseases like measles and whooping cough before the introduction of vaccines. He argues that societal transformation, not medical intervention, was the key factor in reducing the burden of infectious diseases. (Related: FDA reconsiders COVID-19 booster approvals, with Makary emphasizing the need for "good data.")

The data on flu vaccines

The critique of COVID-19 boosters is further supported by the track record of flu vaccines. A 2023 paper by Morens, Taubenberger and Fauci admits that after six decades, flu vaccines have failed to control respiratory viruses effectively. The authors highlight the minimal improvement in vaccine prevention of infection and the inadequacy of current vaccines for licensure for most other vaccine-preventable diseases. This data raises questions about the assumption that COVID-19 boosters will follow a different path and achieve better results. The historical failure of flu vaccines to control respiratory viruses suggests that the current booster strategy may be overly optimistic.

The impact on public trust

The aggressive booster policy has had a chilling effect on public trust in vaccination. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), uptake of the annual COVID-19 booster has been poor, with less than 25 percent of Americans receiving boosters each year. Even health care workers remain hesitant, with less than one-third participating in the 2023-2024 fall booster program. This decline in booster uptake may have a ripple effect, affecting public trust in other vaccination programs. The authors argue that the collapse of trust reflects a growing awareness of institutional failures and a questioning of the "safe and effective" mantra that has dominated public discourse for decades. The fundamental question at the heart of the debate is whether the current booster strategy is medically necessary. Prasad and Makary argue that the lack of conclusive evidence of benefit, combined with the potential for harm, calls for a more cautious and evidence-based approach. They advocate for a reevaluation of the policy, urging policymakers to consider the broader implications of the booster strategy on public health and trust in vaccination. The authors suggest that a more nuanced approach, tailored to individual risk factors and informed by robust scientific evidence, would be more effective in managing the ongoing pandemic. The debate over the U.S.'s aggressive COVID-19 booster policy highlights the tension between scientific evidence and political expediency. While the rapid development of vaccines was a significant achievement, the lack of long-term safety data and the historical failure of flu vaccines to control respiratory viruses raise important questions about the current strategy. Watch the video below that talks about Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. calling for the expanded testing of COVID-19 vaccines. This video is from The HighWire with Del Bigtree channel on Brighteon.com.

CITIZENS NEWS

The data on flu vaccines

The impact on public trust

More related stories:

Sources include: