Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chalkie" data-source="post: 2321546" data-attributes="member: 3610">No, it is not an unproven assumption.  It is a hypothesis reasonably drawn from a body of scientific literature which has demonstrated that heterologous prime boosting is the most effective vaccination approach.  An unproven - and unreasonable - assumption would be assuming that a homologous mRNA regimen is the most effective vaccination approach when the evidence to date suggests that is not the case.  By all means get a mRNA third shot if that's what you want, but the evidence to date clearly suggests that a heterologous regimen is the more effective combination.And do you have the real world data and studies that has been published in relation to the most efficacious and effective combinations for third doses?  Clinical trials for homologous third doses do not count as heterologous combination studies or data, so don't bother with any of those. They are not studies on heterologous prime boosting, and do not inform that.[Oh, and by the way, if you're going to quote for the purposes of trying to make some sort of point, please have the courtesy to quote my whole statement and address it in its entirety.  For completeness (and to emphasise what you left out, what I said was "It can't be "proved" unless there's specific studies and for that matter even real world studies very often do not constitute "proof" in either a scientific or legal sense. But based on my knowledge of matters scientific and legal, I am quite comfortable that there's a reasonable basis for such a hypothesis, based on the extensive heterologous prime boosting studies that have been conducted to date."]</blockquote>

Verification