3 Covid Shots Generate Good Response In Under-5s: Pfizer-BioNTech
Pfizer Covid vaccine: The announcement comes as the FDA is planning meetings in the coming weeks to weigh authorizing Covid vaccines.
Washington: The Pfizer-BioNTech Covid vaccine is safe and effective for children aged six months to under five years when given in three doses, the companies said in a statement Monday.
The announcement comes as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is planning meetings in the coming weeks to weigh authorizing Covid vaccines among the youngest children, the only age group who are not yet eligible in most countries, a source of concern to many parents.
Pfizer-BioNTech evaluated three doses, given at three micrograms, in a clinical trial and found the vaccine evoked a strong immune response. Side effects were similar in the vaccine and placebo groups.
Vaccine efficacy was 80.3 percent, according to a preliminary estimate.
“We are pleased that our formulation for the youngest children, which we carefully selected to be one-tenth of the dose strength for adults, was well tolerated and produced a strong immune response,” said Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla in a statement.
“We look forward to soon completing our submissions to regulators globally with the hope of making this vaccine available to younger children as quickly as possible, subject to regulatory authorization,” he added.
The FDA has tentatively scheduled three dates in June where experts will meet and likely decide whether to authorize the Pfizer Covid vaccine for under-fives and the Moderna vaccine for under-sixes, which is given as two shots of 25 micrograms.
The agency was originally set to evaluate the Pfizer vaccine given as two doses in February, but data showed it did not provoke a strong enough immune response in children aged two to four. The FDA then asked to see data for a third shot.
Otofacial Syndrome Left Chicago’s Joseph Williams Without Jaw, He Refused To Give Up
Joseph Williams underwent a number of surgeries in Chicago, as doctors tried to construct a jaw but he said his body rejected it.
A man who was born without jaw and bullied his entire life has said that love saved his life after surviving decades of feeling “worthless”. Forty-one-year-old Joseph Williams from Chicago was quoted as saying by news.co.au that others struggling with challenges like him also deserve more out of life.
“Dating was also hard for me because I had such low self-esteem and felt worthless, but when I started believing in myself and realised I deserved more, I ended up finding my wife,” he told the publication.
Mr Williams was born with a rare congenital disorder called otofacial syndrome. It is caused by a mutated gene and left him unable to speak or eat with his mouth.
Due to the condition, Mr Williams uses sign language and consumes food through a tube.
“I can’t eat, speak or even breathe properly,” he said. “I have a tube in my stomach, which I can place blended food into, but this means that I have never tasted food.”
But these issues did not stop Mr Williams from living his life.
“I understand that I am different and that some people will think I am ugly and not accept me, but I am still a person who has a heart, feelings and a brain,” said the 41-year-old, who works as a welder. “I should be treated with respect, just as anyone else should be,” he added.
According to a report in the New York Post, when he was growing up, Mr Williams was constantly told about things he couldn’t do. “But I didn’t want my condition to hold me back and I didn’t want to be limited.”
Mr Williams underwent a number of surgeries in Chicago, as doctors tried to construct a jaw but he said his body rejected it.
-How An Energy Expert Triggered Vladimir Putin With One Word
US Shale Oil Gas: Daniel Yergin, the vice chairman of S&P Global, discussed the incident on the latest episode of the “What Goes Up” podcast.
Daniel Yergin was at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in 2013 when he got a daunting request: Could he pose the first question from the audience to Vladimir Putin?
“I started to ask a question, I mentioned the word ‘shale,'” he recalls, referring to a once-unconventional source of oil and natural gas that by then was flowing freely in the U.S. due to advances in production techniques. “And he started shouting at me, saying shale’s barbaric.”
Yergin, the vice chairman of S&P Global, discussed the incident on the latest episode of the “What Goes Up” podcast, along with other insights from his book “The New Map: Energy, Climate, and the Clash of Nations.” US shale oil and gas have had a much bigger impact on geopolitics than people recognize, Yergin says. It has posed a threat to Putin in multiple ways, especially as US natural gas would compete with Russia’s in Europe.
Below are lightly edited and condensed highlights of the conversation.
Q: How did the US become a big oil and gas producer?
A: It was a revolution. We had eight presidents in a row, starting with Richard Nixon right up through Barack Obama, saying ‘We want to become energy independent.’ And it seemed a joke, it was never going to happen. But there was this technology called shale, which really involves hydraulic fracturing, as it’s called, combined with horizontal drilling. And there was one really obsessed individual — it’s so interesting, the role of obsessed individuals in economic change — named George P. Mitchell, who was convinced if you just worked somehow, even though the textbooks said it was impossible, you could make it work. And for 20 years, 25 years people scoffed, but then it did work. And even his own company, people were telling him not to spend money on it. But if he hadn’t spent that money, I’m not sure that we would’ve been where we were.
And then in the early 2000s, you started to see wildcatters — independents, as they’re called — small companies starting to adapt that technology. And then people said, ‘Oh, US natural gas supply, instead of going down is going up. And then they said, well, if it works for gas, maybe it works for oil too — in about 2008, 2009. So this all really happened in that period from about 2008, that’s when it all really began, the shale revolution. And it just took the US from an entirely different position. And if you had told people in 2002 that the US was going to be the world’s largest oil producer, larger than Russia, larger than Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest producer of natural gas, and this year, the world’s largest exporter of LNG, they would’ve said you’re living in a fantasy world.
Q: It occurred to me as I was reading your book that the US going from being renowned as the biggest consumer of energy in the world to now a major producer almost escalates the geopolitical tensions. Does it make America’s influence different in this environment?
A: That’s absolutely right. I deal with a lot of things from Ukraine to climate in the book, but I start with shale because shale’s really had a much bigger impact on geopolitics that people recognize. The story I tell in the book is when I was in St. Petersburg at a conference where Putin was speaking — 3,000 people there — I was told to ask the first question. I started to ask a question, I mentioned the word ‘shale.’ And he started shouting at me saying shale’s barbaric. He knew that US shale was a threat to him in two ways. One, because it meant that US natural gas would compete with his natural gas in Europe, and that’s what we’re seeing today. And secondly, this would really augment America’s position in the world and give it a kind of flexibility it didn’t have when it was importing 60% of its oil.