CDC/ACIP Hopes You Won’t Notice Their Dirty Tricks
Demystifying their Surprise January 5 Meeting to Support Boosters for 12 - 15 year olds
Is the CDC afraid that we are on to them? They are changing procedures to prevent public scrutiny. Don’t fall for it! See 6 dirty tricks below and some warped logic.
On Wednesday, January 5, CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, ACIP, held a meeting to vote on:
Should individuals 12 - 15 years of age receive a Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine booster at least 5 months after completion of the primary series, based on the balance of benefits and risks?
The vote ended up being on whether 12 -15 year old children “MAY” or “SHOULD” receive boosters.
Here is the announcement.
Here is info on the meeting and slide https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/slides-2022-01-05.html
Needless to say, there was zero mention about actual immunity, metabolic health, prophylaxis, nutrition, vitamin D levels, zinc, or early treatments, etc.
The CDC attempts to generate a hermetically sealed parallel universe that induces passive helplessness and dependency on them. Their portrayal of a random, terrifying, mutating virus frightens people into submission and bypasses critical thinking functions. Their simplistic narrative wildly exaggerates the dangers of Covid while minimizing and denying the documented and under-reported dangers of the Covid shots (quaxines, clot shots, frankenshots).
How was this CDC meeting different from all previous meetings?
1. Only 2 hours notice instead of the required 2-week notice.
The reason given was because that this was a public health emergency. However, during the meeting, many profusely thanked committee members for spending “hundreds of hours” day and night preparing during their Christmas vacations. So it seems they were planning this and could have given more than a few hours-notice.
That way people did not know in time, could not clear their schedules or provide a valuable service like live-blogging all day, which Dr. Meryl Nass did on November 2 through the Children’s Health Defense website.
(From the announcement)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 41 CFR 102- 3.150(b), less than 15 calendar days’ notice is being given for this meeting due to the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and rapidly evolving COVID-19 vaccine development and regulatory processes. The Secretary of Health and Human Services has determined that COVID-19 is a Public Health Emergency.
The January spike in cases of extremely mild, potentially pandemic-ending Omicron was presented as a cause for alarm – presenting something positive as alarming.
2. Only 4 public comments, all for approval of boosters for 12 - 15 year-olds
Previous FDA and CDC meetings permitted comments from experts (including Susbstackers Steve Kirsch, Jessica Rose – see list below) challenging their data and giving scientific reasons to vote against it.
3. Period for written public comments, announced until January 12, was stopped on January 7. (The Oct 26 FDA VRBPAC meeting had over 140,000 comments, 99% urging to vote NO)
(From the announcement)
DATES: The meeting will be held on January 5, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST (dates and times subject to change; see the ACIP website for updates http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/index.html). The public may submit written comments from [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], through January 12, 2022.
I received this email from Barry Russell at 3:22, “I’m sure you’ve heard by now: the comment period ends TODAY - not on the 12th.” I didn’t.
4. Committee members did not show their faces during introductions and presentations – (this started at the November 2 meeting). This picture of building was shown during all introductions. Why not show their faces like before?
Image shown during introductions, before Nov 2 showed their faces
5. They rushed to approval, bypassing FDA’s scientific advisors
6. I cannot find a recording of this meeting for the public. There may be one, like the FDA meeting on Oct. 26 or the November 2 CDC/ACIP meeting. Can you find one? Are they suppressing this one? I don’t know.
Q - How this meeting was the same as all other meetings?
A - The final vote was a done deal. Just another charade, going through the motions.
CDC’s Decisions – add up $$$$$, seduction, power, toxic abuse, foundations for coercion/mandates.
1. Expanded the booster shot to children 12 - 15 years of age
2. Allowed a third primary series dose for certain immunocompromised children 5 -11 years of age
3. Shortened the time interval for receiving booster shots from 6 months to 5 months after 2nd Pfizer shot
4. Changed messaging language from “fully vaccinated” which used to mean 2 shots, then boosted, to newlanguage “up to date” (which can be continually used for all future boosters)
Pre-Rigging the Vote
There are so many creative ways to rig the vote. A subtle trick people might not notice is framing the choice.
In the November 2, 2021 vote on 5 – 11-year-olds, there was a forced binary choice – vote for all children or none. Panelists with doubts about safety, who feared depriving one obese child of the unproven shots felt compelled to vote “Yes” to approve for millions of children. Several justified their votes that way. Warped logic.
This vote was not “Yes” or “No” but “May” or “Should” approve of boosters for 12 – 15. It’s good they were given a choice.
There was a bizarre dialogue weighing in on whether to vote for “May” or “Should.” No kidding. Acting like it was a rational discussion. Your tax dollars at work!
Below are some points deciphered from my very poorly typed notes with few names. There may be a few slight errors, but this will give you a general idea of some reasoning used to vote for “Should” vs “May” to make sure of boosters for 12 – 15 year-olds.
Warped Logic, Rationalizations, Fudging, Wishful Thinking, Making Stuff Up, Talking Points, Numbers Games (like “unvaccinated” within 13 days of shots, 96% efficacy)
Some were torn, struggling between “May” and “Should” (I did not make these up)
* “Should” makes it simpler and stronger than “May"
* “Should” is easier to understand
* “Should” advantages simplicity, clarity, consistency of ACIP guidance (Dr Duchin)
* The immune system responds well to boosters, so support “should”
* Should could lead to mandates to fully vax to age 5.
* Omicron surge is less severe, waning antibody responses, endorse forceful “Should”
More Reasons to Support “Should” Boost
* Alarmism over high infection rates from Omicron, without mentioning mildness and benefits of natural immunity
* Use of new high infection rates to justify “emergency”
* The undeniable incidents of myocarditis after the 2nd Pfizer shot do not happen after the booster shot (based on a tiny sample – and why aren’t they stopping the 2nd Pfizer shot as in some countries?)
* Some kids with myocarditis were discharged. 8 recovered 4 were “still recovering” (no kidding, is that a scientific determination?) Most are not serious.
* Dr. Paley dared ask Dr. Su whether there were any deaths (info not volunteered). He said one patient died afterwards but according to a postmortem it was not clear whether myocarditis played a role in his “demise” or whether it was from the vaccine.
* The risk of myocarditis is not only from “vaccines” but worse from Covid - a devastating amount of the disease (This is a frequent talking point - worse from Covid)
* Since boosters were approved for 16-17-year-olds, those kids can be forced but the younger ones, 12 -15 can’t. They voted to “make sure the 12- 15 are harmonized with the 16 – 17 year-olds, to move population together to “harmonize guidance”
* mild moderate in children, transmission to adults is devastating, impact on child who brought illness into home, caused death of parent or grandparent would be crushing, they will have to live with guilt (even though global data shows that children do not transmit to adults or each other)
* It should have been a 3-dose series to begin with. (Who knew?)
* Covid is the #10 cause of death in children (fact check Q from DP, Is it?)
* Kids in hospitals are “unvaccinated” (may be within 14 days of shot and may be in for other reasons)
* 2 women on the committee said they will get their own children “vaccinated”
* Assumed benefit for immunocompromised children and those in transplant centers assuming (with no data)
* FDA’s review said the benefit outweighs the risk for the immunocompromised (data???)
* “Unvaccinated” have 11 times higher rates of hospitalization (again – this may be within 13 days of shots – fact checking appreciated in comments)
* 95% children with MIS-C, Multi System Inflammatory Syndrome in Children, are “unvaccinated” (fact check please in comments)
* After 3rd dose, will they be eligible 5 months later?
* For 12 –17 the shots have 92% efficacy
* Israel showed efficacy in all age groups
* Although impact unknown, the booster dose is likely to provide additional protection (wishful thinking)
* Parents are reluctant, their attitudes will change from social networks
* We know this is the best tool to prevent disease, hospitalization, and death
* 16 – 17 year-olds have hospitals so full of covid, all ages unvaccinated so parents are asking for a booster dose
* boosters are such an important adjunct to tool of vaccines, we can’t put all burden on vaccines.
* we know antibody titers allow us to “whack-a-mole” for a moment or two so we should vote should at least vote to “Whack-a-mole”
* need to double efforts to reach the unvaccinated
* what should we expect of the vaccines? Are we putting too much on the vaccines to prevent colds. They should prevent hospitalizations and deaths
* reduce “vaccine hesitancy”
* Amanda Cohn: parent of 3 kids understanding so much the burden stress challenge in this age depression and anxiety, challenges sent home … college immeasurable impacts of booster dose may not eliminate transmission, it may reduce the immeasurable impact on well-being of these kids, helpful in clinical trenches
* excellent meeting, important discussion in real time affecting how we are thinking, going to vote SHOULD, risk benefit analysis, risks are known we don’t know if boost will help w next variant
* school attendance, transmission to other children adults we know reduces deaths
* primary goal to reduce severe disease
* Dr Paling SHOULD, highlight children are not OK, hospitals are full children, overwhelming children’s hospitals, top 10 cause of death among children
* children who lost parents, quarantined causing undue stress hardship missing school, a tool we need to use help them through the pandemic
* booster will not be a hammer, not big impact, not solve problem of crowded hospitals
* not just about the shot, about the entire picture of kids’ mental health, social, emotional academic, address long term impact covid infection in children not scratch the surface
* implementation booster best for families with children who want to be vaccinated, SHOLUD will help
* Changing messaging from “fully vaccinated” imposing 2 doses, to “up to date” means boosters get community to shift thinking to be up to date
* the decision is not as informed by amount of data any of us would like
* Dr Long, re whack a mole, “Lets’ whack this one down!!”
(Does she know what “whack-a-mole” means? – your tax dollars at work!!)
At the November 2 ACIP meeting
* Dr. Meryl Nass live blogged all day for Children’s Health Defense, decoding info for the public. Here is her blog https://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2021/11/during-acips-public-hearing-yesterday.html
* These people made compelling live public comments to vote against approval.
· Steve Hirsh, Executive Director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund told the panel there were too many unanswered questions for the FDA to approve the vaccine for 5-11 year-olds.
· Dr. Jessica Rose, a viral immunologist, shared thoughts against the emergency use authorization of the vaccine for children because "COVID-19 is exceedingly treatable."
· Dr. Josh Guetzkow, Ph.D., at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said extending the emergency use authorization for children's vaccine "would do more harm than good."
· Dr. Beatrice Setnick, a clinical pharamacologist and consultant to various biotech companies told the panel, "please do not assume the vaccine is safe for children until more data is evaluated."
· Amy Alvo, the mother of a 17-year-old, shared what the adverse reaction her daughter experienced after vaccination.