Eleven months ago, we didn’t have a vaccine approved for people in the highest risk population. Today we are starting to inject our most vulnerable population. Children who can’t speak up for themselves. Children who don’t have a great risk from COVID. Children who have been shown to recover quickly after often asymptomatic cases. Children, 42 percent of whom already have robust natural immunity.
Listening to the CDC’s ACIP meeting, it seems as if they didn’t listen to the concerns of the FDA. The members of the FDA’s VRBPAC last week discussed how they thought the vaccine should be available, but not necessarily all children would need it. But they felt that decision was left to the CDC ACIP meeting. Yesterday, ACIP glossed over that concern and raced ahead with an all or nothing vote. Well, we see how that went. It seems as though there was a lot of abdicating the responsibility of watching over the children in favor of pushing the vote through “to make it available for all.” Pushing would also be a logical assessment since several sessions were cut short on the question period due to timing. How were the voting members of the committee supposed to make an informed decision if they couldn’t ask questions?
Looking for Science to Follow
Interestingly, the CDC ACIP said that testing for natural antibodies wouldn’t be an option because there are no FDA approved tests. Yet, we are relying on the faulty, recalled, inaccurate, and not FDA approved PCR tests to tell us whether the child has COVID or not? That doesn’t seem to be following logic, much less science.
What about the fact these youngsters only had 2 months-2 weeks of follow-ups post vaccination? Or the idea that while there are several studies that show the spike protein travels to other areas of the body in as few as 15 minutes, the shot can be given at the same time as another childhood vaccine as long as the injection site is separated by one inch. One inch. Somehow for something that is able to flow through the body so fast, I don’t see how one inch is supposed to be considered a safety measure. And again, there were no tests to even attempt the one-inch separation. That means the first child to receive this in their pediatrician’s office or the local pharmacy will unknowingly be the trial participants.
Speaking of that traveling spike protein…why again are we using a formulation for a strain that is no longer around? Now that doesn’t seem to be following science either. What about the ever-changing variants? We’re going to be looking at a flu-shot situation here where every year it’s a new formulation. Unfortunately, this year they’re starting out with last year’s formulation.
Let’s look at what should be one of the first questions we should be asking. Does it stop transmission? According to the CDC, no. Who are we protecting? During the public comments time, one of the speakers nailed it. We shouldn’t be using children “as a shield” with a failed vaccine. This is unethical and despicable.
You want to know what else is despicable?
- They’re not talking about this new formulation with the questionable ingredients.
- They’re not considering children with any underlying conditions while the trials were only conducted on healthy kids.
- The science used was theoretical, not actual.
- The statement fed to us is the side effects for kids are “similar to those of adults and teens.” And yet the 837,593 reports to VAERS through October 22, 2021 didn’t seem to raise any red flags.
- When asked about what the message is for concerned parents regarding myo/pericarditis, the suggestion was to “amplify the appropriate message.” Meaning, talk about the “benefits” of the vaccine.
No Time for the Hard Questions and Comments
There was only 30 minutes for so many concerned citizens, doctors, and experts to speak through the public comment session. Yet, there was a solid 40 minutes of soft-ball questions and cheerleading immediately before the vote. The vote for a vaccine in which only 34% of parents were sure they were going to get for their child.
During that 40-minute session, one member was quick to make sure listeners knew their vote wasn’t linked to mandates. Although we’ve seen that story before. Especially with governors already promising mandates for school children. Oddly, there was also the mention of the trial for children as young as six months. The facilitator was quick to change the subject from that comment.
Today, in the November 3rd ACIP meeting, the childhood vaccination schedule was discussed and what an update for 2022 should look like. I guess we’ll get to see that information coming out soon as well. Any guesses on which vaccine will likely be added to that schedule and avoid all legal consequences?
Parents, inform yourselves. Study. How serious of a risk is COVID for your children? What are their risk factors? I know that with no vaccine insert under EUA, that may be tricky. Maybe that should be a consideration. You have a choice. You need to stand up and be the voice for your children.