USA’s vaccine recommendation panel sacked
They never said “no”
The US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr has sacked the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices or ACIP, in its entirety. They are the equivalent of the UK’s Joint Committee on Immunisations and Vaccinations or JCVI.
The current panel had been responsible for waving through vaccines with derisory safety and efficacy data. They have never rejected a vaccine on safety grounds. The last time a vaccine recommendation was withdrawn was 1999 when Rotashield caused bowel damage in children (intussusception).
They have recommended covid vaccinations to the entire population of USA including babies and pregnant women with votes that have been unanimous almost every time. Since 2023 there has been one dissenting voter and there were four when they voted to recommend Janssen for all US adults after learning of the clotting risks.
There is no point having a public body that always says yes. It is a waste of money. All it does is create the illusion of safety.
The intention is to create a system where vaccines are tested against saline placebos in larger trials and where only scientists who have no vested interests are paid public money to make recommendations. We wish our American cousins the best of luck with selecting those scientists.
The UK JCVI has enabled the UK childhood schedule of vaccines to be as short of evidence of safety and efficiency as the USA model. This is because vaccines on the UK childhood schedule have never been trialled using an inert placebo. Although this has been common knowledge amongst Vaccine cognoscenti for some time ( and is in print) it has never been publicised in the public domain. Anyone reading the Montgomery judgement of the UK Supreme Court, or the articles in the BMJ and defence societies will realise that the above absence of adequate safety testing should have been told to parents before their consent to their child's immunisation was given or assumed. That obligation has been neglected for a decade. And the JCVI, and our profession, say nothing ?
These 'global agendas', whether for health or climate are predicated on the steady supply of 'yes' men and women, ably supported by the 'yes' cohorts in the general population. These officials might have been given the heave ho, but the CDC etc could well be repopulated by more of the same supine 'yes' people. However, at least a signal has been sent so maybe more 'no' individuals will be selected. It won't happen in the UK in the near or distant future. It will be up to the 'noes' among the public and organisations like HART to flag up what the 'yes' lot are intent on doing in the name of 'health'.