VRBPAC: May 22, 2025
Email: thepeoplesstrategist@gmail.com
Organizing for a Better Tomorrow
Variant selection
Sticking with JN.1 is suitable considering the current variant soup being all JN.1 with the exception of NB.1.8 which is a 2x XBB recombinant combined with a JN.1 sub.
Both internal and independent testing showed that Novavax’s JN.1 vaccine still elicited a strong response against all JN.1 subvariants but also XBB subs as well.
With each shot increasing the breadth of your active antibodies, similar to when we used 3x prototype Novavax against Omicron, we can expect the additional shots to increase antibody range to all current and forthcoming variants.
Choosing a closer variant seems like a good choice, until you consider that our current variants have all had advanced immune evasion to each other over the parent variant meaning that if we choose LP.8.1 then once you include the time to manufacture the vaccines… those vaccines will be up against a new variant that specifically has immune evasion to the vaccines we just released.
We are posing a strange limitation where all data is gathered on the basis of the limitations of mRNA while ignoring that Novavax isn’t limited in the same way.
We have to stop trying to fit COVID into a box based on the limits of mRNA and treat COVID as it actually is, a year-round problem that puts us all at risk.
With each square representing a single antigenic unit.�The limited antigenic shift does not warrant updated vaccines.
Novavax can do things that mRNA cannot.
We don’t need an update because we are trying to fit COVID into a box built for a seasonal influenza while COVID is year-round.
COVID is a year-round problem and does not need the benefit of cold weather to infect people which creates our “seasonal” method for choosing influenza variants.
Covid spikes happen based on infection-based immunity quickly waning on a community level, waves can happen in any season. We need to be more agile in meeting the reality of dealing with COVID based on how it circulates in communities.
It’s undeniable that the new leadership wants to leave their mark on vaccines in general, and shaking up how we handle choosing COVID variant’s is a way to do that. Moving vaccine updates to release before school starts in the fall would be the best way to do that.
Changing the variant selection schedule
There are two contentious items to consider when choosing variant updates.
This year’s variants create an opportunity to create a schedule that will both meet the demands of the people trying to shake things up but also the people who understand the risk and desire extra protection.
If our current vaccines give us variant coverage then we can release them before the school year starts. And in a perfect world, we would be recommending a new priming series of Novavax to create better protection that is tuned to stop infection in a majority of cases, again meeting the demands of both groups.
A recommendation is not a mandate, but if superior protection is available, it should be made available.
The effectiveness of this multi-shot effect is not a theory…
We’ve tested it in the real world with positive results.
As far as this year, folks should fit into two groups.
Allowing manufacturers to stay with JN.1 or KP.2 while having an earlier variant selection process would mean we could pick our next variant sooner and choose the more definitive next variant.
It’s unclear which variant will become dominant next and we can’t force these saltation events to conveniently fit into our scheduling. We need to adjust our scheduling for choosing variants to align more closely with the start of school than the winter season as we do for influenza.
Those who have will have already gotten multiple shots benefit from the increase in antigenic range and those who have not should get a new priming series and see the same benefit.
Benefits of Novavax
Beyond shrinking antigenic range
Protection that doesn’t wane.
Protection that builds between shots.
These combined data points make a strong argument for everyone getting a new priming series.
It’s important to differentiate between the two products now because there are demands on the table that one of them meets and the other one doesn’t.
mRNA vs Novavax
Novavax was always practically tested against infection in general, while mRNA has been limited to protection from hospitalization and death only.
While the 100% protection from mRNA never manifested in a real-world situation, Novavax’s benefits have manifested as actually stopping infection.
BLA approval, Vaccine equity, & Access for kids under 12
While I hope that ACIP can rectify any limitations posed by the BLA approval exclusions, they do make the point for pediatric expansion because people are born with underlying conditions and they deserve as much opportunity to live as everyone else. Those that need extra protections do not make us weaker, we become stronger by adding the extra steps that achieve their safety.
Protecting them makes us better.
There have been claims of certain folks supporting eugenic-like strategies, and the single best way to prove that isn’t the case would be to ensure vaccine protection targeted at children with underlying conditions, though every child should have that level of protection.
It is immoral and unethical to deny Americans access. Especially after America paid for it.
Pediatric Expansion
In 2022, Biden’s FDA forced Novavax to agree to not apply for pediatric use until their BLA was done.
And the new FDA is a lot like the old FDA when it comes to this issue.
I hear a lot of talk about the new FDA leadership primed to behave like anti-vaxxers and not allow our kids to have proper protection…
But from where I’m sitting as a parent, anti-vaxxers have been in charge of the FDA this entire time as they have done everything to prevent our children from having the best available protection.
You’re wrong to say we don’t need to vaccinate our children but right to say that vaccines that can’t stop transmission should not be mandated. I agree that mRNA does not meet the requirement for mandates, and while I do not support mandates, Novavax does meet the demands of a higher level of protection that might necessitate mandates.
Vaccine recommendations
Altering the recommendations just puts undue hardship on people already struggling to protect themselves. No one is forcing anyone to get these vaccines but they should be available to those that want them.�
The greatest critics of vaccines in general just approved Novavax.
This is the most important thing to focus on when we think about safety or efficacy.
Not only have the fiercest critics of vaccines approved it but a previous advisor to ACIP, one could argue among those who care the most about vaccines, also recommends it.
Let’s talk about recommendations.
Summary
No matter how hard we try, we cannot make COVID fit into the box created by the limitations of mRNA. It will never be sufficient, no matter how much anyone tries to sell it and we see that in the year-to-year data over and over again.
We need to prioritize the use of a vaccine that meets the demands of the virus, and it wasn’t so long ago this committee was pitched the “once-a-year” plan, while we looked at data showing that mRNA wasn’t up to the challenge.
This year proves that we should be prioritizing the use of the more protective product that meets the demands of both the sceptics and those who want protection with a “once-a-year” strategy actually being functional, but only after a new priming series.
More importantly, it stands to cut transmission.
Conclusion
Novavax is the better COVID vaccine and it should be prioritized.
There is a limitation of the BLA where Novavax is not allowed to claim it has the better vaccine unless it has conclusive evidence.��And not only do they have conclusive evidence, it is in all of our best interests that a new priming series not only be allowed, but recommended.
Manufacturers should be allowed to stay with JN.1 and we should shift our variant selection schedule to treat COVID as a year-round virus instead of a seasonal one.