Donald Trump: 'I got the Pfizer' vaccine, leaves door open to getting booster shot

Donald Trump: 'I got the Pfizer' vaccine, leaves door open to getting booster shot

Donald J. Trump joined Yahoo Finance for a wide-ranging conversation covering topics such as the U.S. economy, COVID-19 vaccines, cryptocurrencies, and his thinking on a third run for the presidency in 2024. The full interview will be released on Monday.

Former President Donald Trump has revealed which COVID-19 vaccine he received before leaving the White House.

"Well, I got the Pfizer and I would have been very happy with any of them," Trump told Yahoo Finance Live in a wide-ranging interview.

... Donald Trump: 'I got the Pfizer' vaccine, leaves door open to getting booster shot (yahoo.com)​

Even Donald Trump knows better than to believe the anti-vaxxer misinformation.

 

I don't understand the anti-vaccine movement. On one hand, they say the vaccine is not safe and does not have enough data. Then on the other hand they tout the Regernon antibody cocktail which has less data and is just as new as the COVID-19 vaccine and is made in a lab.

 

Monoclonal antibodies were first licensed for clinical use by the FDA around 30 years ago. No mRNA vaccine gained full licensing until a few weeks ago. The first adenovirus vector vaccine was licensed in 2019.

The Regeneron product (monoclonal antibodies) has gone through the same clinical trials as the Covid vaccines. They have been in use under emergency use authorization longer than the vaccines. Does having the actual facts help you understand?

 

Trump has been anti-vax his whole life. I don't believe he got vaccinated. He's too much of an attention wh@re to not have put that on blast.



https://www.psypost.org/2021/06/stu...ccination-influencer-on-twitter-in-2020-61032


Plus, he told George S. the virus would go away without the vaccines.

How hilarious is it that Orange Jesus calls it "Herd Mentality" <MJ's not looking at anybody here of course! >

 

It's been under emergency use 2 weeks longer than the Pfizer vaccine, so that qualifies as just as new. From what I have seen, the regeneron cocktail has enrolled about 16,000 patients in clinical trials while the Pfizer vaccine has enrolled 50,000 participants.

RNA vaccine research have been around since the 1980's and has been used to treat cancer in studies with great success. The biggest problem has not been safety, but developing a suitable delivery system considering mRNA is bulky and heavily charged which prevents it from penetrating the fatty layer of our cells.

FDA approval is specific to the drug and not the class as the entire class may not be safe. For instance, certain benzos are safe for use in treating anxiety, but after age 65 other benzos are considered safer despite being in the same class.

 

So we agree EUA was given to Regeneron before Phizer after a shorter trial period. Good. And yes, the trials had different enrollments. So are you saying the FDA etc. gave the Regeneron product EUA erroneously?

Did you know the Regeneron product has also passed phase 3 trials for use as a passive vaccine, showing ability to prevent infection superior to that of the licensed and EUA vaccines in use in the US? The trial has been concluded for months with excellent safety data and application made for EUA months ago with no word on approval. This product could be used as a much more effective vaccine for immunocompromised individuals, providing better protection for longer than the current vaccines.

You are correct safety hasn’t been as big a factor for the mRNA platforms as it has the adenovirus vector platforms. But the actual problems we had to overcome were the instability of mRNA (in storage and the body) and finding a way to “mask” it from identification for destruction by the immune system (toll-like receptors). We were unable to initiate a reliable complete immune response. New caps, modified nucleotide bonds, and lipid nanopartical technology solved these problems just in time for Covid. EUA’s solved the problem of licensing that likely would have taken years of trials snd public education before acceptance without a pandemic.

Of course. That’s why trials of the adenovirus vector vaccines were halted when there were concerns about clotting issues etc. Because previous vectors have a history of such activity.

There are a plethora of reasons people prefer a passive vacccine or antibodies as treatment over a vaccine. People opposed to genetically modified food production probably shy away from mRNA and vector vaccines. Some fat person with diabetes and liver disease would look at the data and wish they could get Regeneron as a passive vaccination than a current vaccination in use. Some people just don’t like vaccines like some people have a problem with monoclonal antibodies.

 

EUA was given approximately around the same time. 2 weeks later is around the same time period. Do you agree then the regeneron mAb is just as new as the Pfizer vaccine? Where do I imply the FDA erroneously approved Regeneron for EUA use?

I am aware of the promising clinical trials which show around 80% effectiveness which is pretty darn good. Not sure where you are getting the idea I am downplaying the role of mAb. My issue is not with the drug, but with the perception that Pfizer isn't as safe as mAb even though they were both approved for EUA within weeks of each other. Sure, mAb have been used for decades with great success, but should we ignore the obvious success that has been seen with RNA based therapies?

Sure. But my point was concerning the safety of Pfizer vs. Regeneron. Can you honestly tell me that the data says Pfizer is not a safe vaccine? Personal preference for mAb vs. mRNA based vaccines is different than discussing the safety of it right? You seem to think I am downplaying the effectiveness of mAb when I haven't indicated anything close to that.

 

Two weeks (actually closer to three) between EUA’s isn’t a big deal. But 30 years of licensed technology vs. zero years of licensed technology certainly is. Maybe not to everyone, but it matters to many. That is my point. You asked “why”, I’m presenting the facts of why some are hesitant to jump on board a new vaccine platform.

Who’s ignoring success of anything? I’m just pointing out why some are reluctant to trust a new tech that to laymen sounds like genetic modification that has been impugned and demonized in food crops for decades. As I point out often there are consequences to misinformation. You go around demonizing anything genetically modified for decades and you should expect people to be wary of an mRNA or viral vector vaccine that has never been used/licensed before (viral vector first licensed 2019). To be clear, obviously mRNA and viral vectors don’t alter DNA, but most don’t understand why.

I certainly don’t ignore success of mRNA tech. I’m still about the ONLY person on PF pointing out these vaccines do prevent infection via neutralizing antibodies in most recipients even with delta. That’s a big deal, especially since it looks like they are inducing production of IgA antibodies, possibly in the mucosa. I told people months ago of the consequences of denying the ability of these vaccines to prevent infection. Now people believe they don’t when they in fact do in most cases. This misinformation has had consequences in poor acceptance rates.

I’m very excited about mRNA vaccine technology. It will soon revolutionize disease prevention in my business as well as in human health. But none of this has anything to do with why some people prefer an old technology to a new one. Or why they prefer something not associated in the public sphere with genetic manipulation. Or why they have lost trust in anything the CDC, NIH, etc. say because they have been consistent purveyors of mis/disinformation during the whole pandemic. Untruthfulness by authority is the seed of conspiracy theory and we see the evidence of that with the vaccine vs. monoclonal antibody situation as well.

I have never questioned short term safety of mRNA vaccines. Understanding how they work, I don’t expect any more negative consequences than we see from any other subunit vaccine. I do have concerns about long term boostering etc. of subunit type (especially mRNA) vaccines just based on the fact we are still very ignorant of the role of antibodies and cellular immunity to whole pathogens vs. subunits. I’m quite sure we are underestimating the regulatory and resistance to mutations/re-assortment role of immunity to multiple antigenic sites of pathogens.

I believe the reasons for preferring antibodies over mRNA vaccine go much deeper than just perceived safety. At this point it probably has a lot to do with the authoritarianism of vaccine advocates. When “authorities” who are notorious sources of disinformation try to force vaccination, of course people are going to prefer an effective product not being mandated over the mandated product. It doesn’t matter at that point that both passed accepted phase three trials. It’s a trust issue.

To expound a little, authoritarians during Covid have tended to be as ignorant or more ignorant of what they wish to mandate than those they wish to control. That’s not only dangerous, it doesn’t go unnoticed and is a big reason masks, vaccines, etc. are resisted.

If I’ve misunderstood you on downplaying antibodies you have my apologies. I’m glad you see promise there. I’ve been advocating for their use for months and get mostly severe negative reactions to them (and a lot of misinformation posted back to me). I’m glad you understand them and are not opposed to their use.

 

it's good that Trump is finally admitting he took the vaccine and which one

it's sad that he took so long and tried to hide it from the public early on

do his supporters listen to him anymore, time will tell