I recently posted the most current topic summary on COVID vaccination from UPTODATE and explained why it is such a cucial tool used throughout acdemic medicine. UPTODATE is the ultimate source of high quality evidence - based information. They filter out the junk so you only get the best evidence. UPTODATE is updated as soon as new information becomes avaialable. Here is the latest “practice changing update” regarding COVID vaccination. Please note the Grade 1B recommendation. If you don’t understand “critical appraisal” is and what a Grade 1B means, you really can’t evaluate medical literature and should defer to those who have have the training.
INFECTIOUS DISEASES (September 2022, Modified December 2022)
Booster doses with the bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines
●For individuals who have received a primary COVID-19 vaccine series, we recommend a booster dose with a bivalent mRNA vaccine when eligible (Grade 1B). For individuals ≥5 years old who have received a primary COVID-19 vaccine series as well as booster doses with a monovalent vaccine, we suggest a booster dose with a bivalent mRNA vaccine (Grade 2C).
Booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines are a strategy to improve effectiveness in the setting of waning immunity and immune evasion from circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants. The US Food and Drug Administration authorized two bivalent mRNA booster vaccines that target the spike proteins of both the original SARS-CoV-2 strain and the Omicron B.4/B.5 variants (figure 1 and figure 2) [3,4]. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) now recommends that all individuals ≥5 years old who have completed a primary COVID-19 vaccine series (including those who already received booster doses with monovalent vaccines) receive a single booster dose with one of the bivalent vaccines at least two months after the last vaccine dose; bivalent booster recommendations for children younger than five years old depend on the primary series vaccine received (table 1) [5]. Our approach is consistent with CDC recommendations. Although clinical data evaluating bivalent vaccines are limited, their use is supported by indirect evidence from trials and observational studies in which monovalent booster doses improved vaccine efficacy against infection and severe disease and by studies that indicate at least comparable immunogenicity with bivalent versus monovalent formulations. (See "COVID-19: Vaccines", section on 'Role of booster vaccinations'.)
This is THE standard of care. Anything else is a deviation.
This is how real doctors make deciscions. We don’t rely on Twitter or Cable News. Good doctors rely on UPTODATE. It is simply the best evidence we have on any given day.
I guess I should introduce myself. My IRL name is Jerry Russell, and I am not an MD. I'm a retired electronic engineer and cognitive neuroscientist, currently living on a hobby farm outside of Eugene with three cows and some chickens.
And I never knew until today, what an UpToDate Grade 1B recommendation is.
But I click on links and read stuff as well as anybody, and I can see that their website says:
Evidence grade B means "Moderate-quality evidence: Evidence from randomized trials with important limitations, or very strong evidence of some other form." Of course in this case we happen to know that the evidence comes from pharma-sponsored RCT's with "important limitations", specifically in this case: fraud, in addition to amazingly poor design, and halted far too quickly.
The remarks also say: "Clinicians should follow a strong recommendation unless a clear and compelling rationale for an alternative approach is present."
If the patient adamantly refuses to take the jab, and insists on an alternative approach, is that compelling enough? If the MD knows that the trials are fraudulent, and prefers to use safe and effective antivirals, is that compelling enough?
Right, the FDA is completely compromised and everybody knows it; they're basically the marketing arm of the pharmaceutical industry and there's a revolving door between industry and themselves. And not to be outdone, the admittedly incompetent CDC is the other "authority" you claim for "standard of care." I'm now convinced this is a parody account. I'm still laughing; keep it up, this is great.