By John Q. Hosedrinker 
According to an email, the FDA may not renew Pfizer’s pediatric Covid vaccine authorization for the upcoming respiratory season, potentially removing the only vaccine for children under five. This decision would necessitate Moderna to increase its supply, although its vaccine is currently only approved for children with specific health conditions. The CDC is actively engaged in discussions with Moderna, focusing on addressing possible supply gaps and ensuring availability. This development occurs amid already low vaccination rates for children and ongoing concerns about the long-term effects of Covid.
Read the original article here
Pfizer’s Covid vaccine for young children may not be renewed by the FDA. The current situation presents a complex set of circumstances, sparking discussions about vaccine availability, political influence, scientific advancements, and public health priorities.
The immediate concern revolves around the availability of the vaccine. Reports suggest that the Pfizer vaccine for young children may not be readily accessible, with some pharmacies in the US experiencing delays in delivery or simply not stocking it. This shortage is leading to questions, particularly among parents, about the options for vaccinating their young children. There are indications that pediatricians may not want to keep freezers for vaccines and drugstores may not want the liability. Many are worried that the young will be disease vectors for others. This raises important questions about the balance between public health recommendations and practical access.
The article also highlights the controversy surrounding mRNA technology, particularly concerning individuals like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who have made statements questioning the safety and efficacy of these vaccines. While the vast majority of the medical community supports the safety and benefits of mRNA vaccines, dissenting voices like Kennedy’s have raised concerns about mRNA vaccines. These perspectives, often based on unscientific claims and disinformation, appear to be influencing political decisions.
The political landscape is also under scrutiny. There is a direct discussion of financial support from Pfizer to political campaigns, with a notable split between Republicans and Democrats. While the company states that these contributions do not necessarily reflect endorsements of specific positions, the fact that the Pfizer PAC and Pfizer Inc. have financially supported candidates from both sides of the political spectrum is brought to light.
One of the more significant points centers on the broader implications of the situation. mRNA technology itself is a remarkable innovation. The article stresses that mRNA technology is important because it is used to develop and deliver vaccines faster than more traditional approaches, making us more responsive during pandemics. The article suggests that because of such technology, Pfizer may be losing money. Beyond Covid, mRNA is seen as a potentially transformative tool for treating other infectious diseases and some cancers. The reduction in lab grown viruses means less risk of lab leaks, according to many in the article.
The role of the FDA in vaccine approval also comes into play. The current situation could potentially see the FDA choosing not to renew approval for the Pfizer vaccine for young children, with the alternative of only recommending it for children with existing health conditions. If the FDA does not renew approval for the Pfizer vaccine for young children, it is believed to be due to data, not the anti-vax conspiracies. The WHO does not recommend Covid boosters for children and adolescents and only recommends first dose of Covid vaccines for children if they have health conditions putting them at higher risk. This approach is in line with guidance from the rest of the world.
The final concern is related to the politicization of science. The article criticizes how skepticism, and even outright rejection, of vaccines has spread, and how this influences public health and scientific innovation. There is a sentiment that decisions regarding vaccine availability for children may be driven by political agendas. There is also a feeling that people in power do not care about children. This can potentially undermine basic trust in medicine and the scientific community. The outcome of this, as portrayed by the article, may jeopardize a future generation’s access to life-saving treatments and can undo decades of scientific progress.