'Paul Offit admits there are no benefits of the new booster shots -
Dr. Paul Offit, MD is the Director of the Vaccine Education Center and practices medicine in the Infectious Disease department at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and he also sits on the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC).
The background
Several months ago, VRBPAC voted to approve a COVID vaccine novel booster formula that combined the mRNA instructions that targeted BA.4 & BA.5 - the two Omicron strains which circulated last spring and early summer.

There were no human clinical trials conducted on this booster. It was not tested on people. It was tested on just 8 mice. There is no long term data on what happened to the mice after injection. All the mice were challenged with Omicron and every mouse was infected showing that the vaccine had zero protection against getting the virus. The mice were sacrificed shortly thereafter because we don’t want to know the long term effects. Don’t ask, don’t tell.

You will not find a bigger proponent of vaccines in general and the COVID vaccines specifically, in American medicine, than Dr. Paul Offit. He voted YES to give the COVID vaccines to all children, even babies as young as 6-months.
Yet when VRBPAC recently voted on the novel COVID booster, Dr. Offit voted no, because (in his own words) “HELL NO was not a choice!”

How? Why? What happened?

First, there was no trial to show that there are any clinical benefits at all. And any clinical benefits must be weighed against the risks.

Secondly, according to Offit, once you have your initial injection, you’re already protected against severe disease so there is no additional benefit to a booster. In this MedPage Today interview, Offit explains:

The question is, does it matter? Because still it looks like you're protected against severe illness, so does it really matter to get that third dose? I would argue 'no.'
Thirdly, the FDA doesn’t really want the outside committee members to actually review the scientific data. They just want them to vote yes so it looks like outside experts reviewed the data. The FDA provides hundreds of pages of material just days before the meeting giving the members an inadequate amount of time to review the data before voting on it. It’s just another example of sham science: the panel is simply there to rubber stamp what the White House and FDA want to do; they are not there to protect the public.
Why is the government advocating for three or more doses when there is no evidence of a benefit?
The reason for three or more doses is because the press and the public health officials want you to get it. The science doesn’t support it. But science doesn’t matter. This is about compliance with orders, not protecting your health (or the health of others since even Pfizer admits that the vaccine doesn’t protect against transmission).' - Steve Kirsch
[stevekirsch.substack.com]