Dr. Malone - I didn't have to read/listen to the interview, because I have absolutely no concerns that you are, and will be doing the right thing WRT real science. Nope, not mad (and shame on those MAHA who are; we can't imagine the battles you are facing). Bless you all!
Ditto all the way!!! Altho I enjoy your videos and will at some point try to listen and continue to learn. My thanks to you and the other hard working, dedicated and highly skilled ACIP members.!! 👍👍👍👍
I heartily concur. We are finally seeing a marriage of integrity and true science. May God richly bless and guide each and every member, many of whom were the ones who woke this practitioner up!
It seems the big concern with the main stream media reminds me of the saying “don’t upset the apple cart”. Most all of these MSM’s networks are solely dependent on Big Pharma money. There were so many conflicts of interest and pressures in the past to keep money flowing to not only members of the ACIP but the whole of the agency and the media. The system is fraught with corruption. You Dr. Malone in a way have gone from the frying pan into the fire as far as the media is concerned. Stay tough and please do what you have to do for your well being and your health!!
Today, my Bible in a Year passage Proverbs 29:25 “The fear of man (ie. created by men) lays a snare, but he who trusts in the Lord is safe.” For all of human history, fear has been used to manipulate us. The solution is trust in God who reveals the truth to those who do! Reason above emotion! God bless this ACIP with wisdom and courage!
I don’t give 2 flips about how much big money is involved in pharmaceuticals. The important thing is safety and effectiveness. The vaccines we have now haven’t been properly tested or the results have been hidden or thrown out. And they are not so effective as to over ride the horrible side effects many people suffer. Forget the money!!! Do what is right! Make sure every vaccine is tested and either thrown out if it’s dangerous or change what is bad in it and make it Safe! Be open and honest with all of humanity about the findings.
Nobody wants to touch on the subject of the items that are in these injections...I went along with my son's doctor in the 1950s...trusting him. My son nearly died from shots. I didn't learn what substances were in all childhood vaccines, until about 2010. when I read Vaccination is NOT Immunization by Dr. Tim O'Shea. He listed all of the ingredients...and none of them belonged in the human body. My sickly child got me into health/nutrition research in 1961...and over the years the information i came across in regard to vaccines...was not good. i have many books written by very credible doctors and researchers who would not advise their use. In studying the human body I became very aware how the Immune System works...and injecting any kind of manmade matter into the bloodstream would not enhance immunity...it would contribute to breaking the organs down. The bloodstream carries NUTRIENTS from food to the organs and cells. This provides nourishment to the organs and cells in the body. This is what contributes to great natural immunity from nutrients in unprocessed decent food. Any foreign protein or matter should not be in the bloodstream it would overwhelm the lymphatic system and break it down. The use of vaccines is for the financial benefit of Big Pharma and all connected to their promotion.
They also voted on the use of a monoclonal antibody drug for RSV. Dr. Malone said 80% of RSV deaths from RSV are in healthy newborns, because of the tiny size of the terminal bronchioles, which swell from RSV infection, ultimately affecting oxygen exchange in the alveolar sacs, so the child suffocates. So, that sad state of affairs could sway in favour of pushing the drug on all newborns. However, Retsef Levi's points were more persuasive to me as to why pushing RSV monoclonals on all kids should be avoided. He noted clinical trials were not powered to detect safety signals unless they were huge. Nuance was lacking in trials. The risk of death from RSV is rare in Western culture. 97% of deaths occur in the developing world. Giving RSV to all babies in order to decrease hospitalization is an unrefined utilitarian measure, because not all hospital experiences are equal. Some kids go to hospital for monitoring, and some need to go to intensive care. The vendor (Merck and Sanofi I think, not sure) stopped reporting poor results after a trial. Retsef also highlighted that in five clinical trials, there was a lower mortality rate in the placebo group. The adverse events on the CNS and GI system were in those that received the drug. The presentation given to ACIP did not include this vital information which is needed to give an informed vote on the issue. B.S. right! The presentation was one of safe and effective, which is not true. Also, the risk of a breast-fed baby dying from RSV is extremely low. The risk is not the same for preemie babies. These nuanced risks were not articulated, including the short- and long-term risk from the drug. Considering the fact that newborns may now be receiving monoclonal antibodies without nuanced information on long term effects on their health, means we are putting those children in danger, because of the lack high quality studies and transparency. It is a disgrace to give a green light until that information is known. Also, if these people want to save the lives of babies, why are they not pushing just as hard for breast feeding?
Thank you Dr. Malone. I will view it later, but I have no qualms about the decisions, because I have followed you for years now and know that your reputation is above reproach.
Lately, I have been inundated with so many things in the news, that I’ve had to back off a bit.
I do enjoy the wins we are experiencing but my mind cannot take the daily incoming barrage from the left—so in part, I am praying for Trump and everyone in his cabinet and their agencies—to include Dr. Malone.
This is the most competent Cabinet I have ever seen! May God bless them with wisdom and the tenacity to do what is right to maintain our Republic.
Dear Dr. Malone. Your statement about "sovereignty" rings true! My body is my temple. I am the gate keeper. The physician is the gate keeper of his patients and his diagnostic skills have to be respected and not over ruled. CVS was at my Senior center promoting injections. They did not offer any Informed Consent information about the mRNA Pfizer injection. That needs to be fixed now. Without informed consent my sovereignty is being violated. PS: Your framed documents of your process patents are impressive.
Bottom line: Children were given to parents by God, and have a God-given responsibility to protect them physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. It is an awesome responsibility that should not be taken lightly.
If there’s 72 vaccines on the childhood schedule, they should be able to opt out of any one of them, and not forced or coerced into vaccinating them in order to keep them in public schools. This is suppose to be America—live like it!
I saw a child who suffered the effects from the polio vaccine in the early 90’s—sad—the mother would not allow me to help him onto the school bus. Doing so would weaken him over time, and I understood that, but my heart went out to him and his parents. Just like doctors “practice” medicine, vaccines are being practiced on our children. Choose wisely.
I don't know the other two, but I have followed Dr Malone since the COVID-19 debacle. I am far more confident that vaccine issues will be addressed and followed up on now.
Thanks for being open on the process to keep the public informed of how NIH and ACIP function. First, what is ignored is the cumulative effect of the myriad of trace toxins that are ingested or injected into the human body. GRAS needs to be reined in and the number of chemicals in trace amounts of insecticides and weed killer chemicals and etc entering the human body need to be dramatically reduced. When you add up the number of preservatives, and non-self molecules in the myriad of vaccines given our infants/children has to have negative impact on the immune system, creating auto immune issues and more. I was hoping to understand what the new flu vaccine will be. Moderna's RNA or what? Does the flu exist at the equator? I know sunshine dominates. There is a relationship between low Vitamin D blood value and the ability to naturally ward off a flu virus. We need a objective study funded by the NIH to confirm. Also, do you know that overdosing on acetaminophen causes flu like symptoms and if the ER physicians doesn't recognize the root cause he will prescribe Tylenol with more adverse effects?
This was a wonderful interview from which we learn some nuanced details behind the decision making process' of Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Retsef Levi. The members of ACIP carry the burden of determining which FDA approved "immunizations" are added to the Childhood/Adult schedule or not. It is a stretch to call these "immunizations" because in fact none of the products on the Childhood Schedule deliver lifetime immunity and should be referred to as vaccinations. The most recent ACIP session was centered around a Monoclonal Antibody product for RSV, which is not a vaccination at all. We must remember that there are hundreds of drugs to treat a multitude of problems that get approved by the FDA each year, but should every child be forced to be injected in the hopes of preventing some illness in a few? How many of these healthy children are suffering unnecessary side effects, in the process; because once the injection is on the schedule "all" children will be required to receive the products, unless the child lives in a state that allows Philosophical/Religious exemptions and the child's parents are aware of the exemptions. Doctors will continue to force their patients to follow the CDC schedule, however they hopefully will not be financially incentivized by Insurance companies any longer. I believe that it will be very difficult for Dr. Malone to ever say no to adding new products to the childhood schedule for a number of reasons. First, he feels an obligation to insure that the drug will be paid for by the government and provided affordably to underserved populations, which is a noble cause. Second, he has spent a lifetime developing new products spending years working a product through the process and believes with all his heart that these products have been throughly vetted. Even in this interview it sounds like he believed every word that came out of the Pharma Salesperson's mouth. He trusts that any issues were thoroughly investigated. Pharma has a Corporate obligation to investors to get products approved and in the arms of as many people as possible. Pharma is notorious for lying and manipulating data to show the new product in the best possible light and they have all paid exorbitant fines when the truth comes to light after the product injures and kills enough patients post approval. If a product is approved by ACIP and ends up on the Childhood Schedule there will be no price for Pharma to pay when the product injures children because they will have no liability. Have we learned nothing from watching the shenanigans of Big Pharma surrounding the making of the Covid-19 injections? In MHO the Childhood Schedule has more than enough injections already being forced into the arms of babies. When ACIP says "no" the vaccine will continue to be available for use, if it is worthwhile. Doctors can still recommend it to parents of infants they truly believe will benefit from it. In fact more discretion will be used when prescribing it, because the doctor will have to use some critical thinking and not just hide behind the CDC's blanket of liability protection. Until every vaccine on the Childhood schedule has gone through placebo controlled safety trials, and been determined to cause NO HARM, we should not add any new vaccines.
We are so past the point of knowing what happens if no jabs given to neonates. We have relied on mom's passive immunity for a very long time without the human species going extinct via infection in newborns. The idea of pumping anything that might impede normal immune development smacks more to me of profit over good medical practice
Women historically breast fed for long periods of time. Also, infant mortality was high, but nutrition was not the same as today. We do need monoclonal antibodies. However, there are dangers to taking them. And, there is a very low danger of infant mortality in a western country from RSV if the child is breast fed, therefore M.Ab's should not be given as a matter of course. Not enough known about long term adverse effects.
I question a couple of statements you made about Dr. Malone, Jeannette. If you have been following him for the past five years, you wouldn't say that he believes the Pharma Salesperson words. And I do believe that he knows these products have not been thoroughly vetted! Believes with all his heart?
How about "inhalable" vaccines? Seriously? Just spray it out of an airplane? Or a Drone? Horrific and it is coming regardless. Freedoms are only in thoughts now........ugly future.
This was an excellent presentation and compliment to my hearing/viewing it on Saturday.
It surfaced a couple concerns.
The ways ACIP would focus it's advice as relates to the practice of medicine - currently in flux. Will the practice of medicine reflect our traditional doctor patient relationships with flexibility, adaptations and advocacy. Or will our public health reflect AI, command 'best of practices,' command care sans advocates.
The other issues relates to RSV.
Is the issue better more comprehensively addressed?
Your recent issue covered findings of mother's adverse reactions to RSV vaxing.
Do their adverse reactions impact the fetus? Beyond harms would the vax still offer protection to the fetus?
On to the immediate impact on this latest ACIP advice.
Where the mother was vaccinated and the newborn thereby has gained protection - does this reduce the need for prophylaxis?
As I understand it the monoclonal antibodies are a prophylactic treatment as opposed to a vaccine.
I'm still inclined to their use for healthy babies where the mothers were not uneventfully successfully vaccinated. Then there is the question of whether healthy babies have been established to be at a worrisome level of risk.
I am l assuming the preparations under consideration do not threaten serious adversities.
Thanks again for your participation in the ACIP and sharing accesses for us.
My husband and I watched the whole interview and even waited while it was moved due to tech issues. Usually my husband doesn't have the tolerance for lengthy dialogues which shows me how much more he understands about these topics! There was a point about healthy babies still being able to exhibit RSV with no previous indicators. Very important to note. I believe that was a factor for Dr. Malone's vote of yes. This interview was very important to the ones complaining about the choices of votes. If I can understand most of the material covered, certainly those with a medical and scientific background can appreciate the nuances!
Yes, 80% of babies that do get RSV are healthy. However, 97% of babies that die from RSV live in third world countries, mortality rate here is very low, and breast-feeding decreases risk. There are risks from giving healthy babies monoclonal antibodies. The risk: benefit ratio in the western world regarding dying from RSV versus being harmed from Monoclonal antibodies was not articulated, it needs to be, but I already know the answer.
Gooooo Drs Malone and Levi!!! ET’s audience tends to be a majority of viewers of sound mind and body. SO glad you had the opportunity to explain the truth via ATL. Bravo!!! Keep up the truth- telling!
I think important to committee members going forward is to demonstrate a deep understanding for patient audiences and healthcare provider audience. Show a knowledge of people's concerns (the pharma and critical audience concerns will be separate of course) and be able to reflect on these in layman terms so that patients and providers can see the ACIP members are thinking about their "customers" and those that benefit from the quality of decisions. In this way the complexity of the committee's decisions can be known and appreciated.
ie. "Many people in our population have been taught and it has been reinforced that the flu virus is dangerous and it is inevitable that you will get it. No attention has been given to how the human body can be conditioned and our immune systems can be strengthened so that we are much less susceptible to a continuously changing virus. Fewer vaccines means less revenue for the vaccine maker so it is in the best interest of those who make vaccines to scare citizens and make them seek out vaccines. Public health officials see that if people fear vaccines then those who might benefit from them may decline and suffer needlessly. Healthcare providers don't wish to debate vaccine efficacy because more and more they see they may lose that debate and the system of incentives will cease to reward them. People tell me they wish to know the risk of vaccines and how they can weigh this against their situation if they chose prevention."
Thanks for the behind the scenes view of how the ACIP works. I have every confidence that you are all doing your very best to determine which vaccines to recommend or deny. I was happy to hear of your and Dr Levi’s take on the RSV vaccine. I think the difference of opinion is healthy and something you are promoting so that true science can be done. I’m grateful you accepted the challenge of being on the committee. Your and Dr Levi’s input is invaluable. Thank you to all the distinguished ACIP committee members for serving.
Dr. Malone - I didn't have to read/listen to the interview, because I have absolutely no concerns that you are, and will be doing the right thing WRT real science. Nope, not mad (and shame on those MAHA who are; we can't imagine the battles you are facing). Bless you all!
Ditto all the way!!! Altho I enjoy your videos and will at some point try to listen and continue to learn. My thanks to you and the other hard working, dedicated and highly skilled ACIP members.!! 👍👍👍👍
I heartily concur. We are finally seeing a marriage of integrity and true science. May God richly bless and guide each and every member, many of whom were the ones who woke this practitioner up!
It seems the big concern with the main stream media reminds me of the saying “don’t upset the apple cart”. Most all of these MSM’s networks are solely dependent on Big Pharma money. There were so many conflicts of interest and pressures in the past to keep money flowing to not only members of the ACIP but the whole of the agency and the media. The system is fraught with corruption. You Dr. Malone in a way have gone from the frying pan into the fire as far as the media is concerned. Stay tough and please do what you have to do for your well being and your health!!
Today, my Bible in a Year passage Proverbs 29:25 “The fear of man (ie. created by men) lays a snare, but he who trusts in the Lord is safe.” For all of human history, fear has been used to manipulate us. The solution is trust in God who reveals the truth to those who do! Reason above emotion! God bless this ACIP with wisdom and courage!
💯🎯
Nice. Thank you.
I don’t give 2 flips about how much big money is involved in pharmaceuticals. The important thing is safety and effectiveness. The vaccines we have now haven’t been properly tested or the results have been hidden or thrown out. And they are not so effective as to over ride the horrible side effects many people suffer. Forget the money!!! Do what is right! Make sure every vaccine is tested and either thrown out if it’s dangerous or change what is bad in it and make it Safe! Be open and honest with all of humanity about the findings.
Nobody wants to touch on the subject of the items that are in these injections...I went along with my son's doctor in the 1950s...trusting him. My son nearly died from shots. I didn't learn what substances were in all childhood vaccines, until about 2010. when I read Vaccination is NOT Immunization by Dr. Tim O'Shea. He listed all of the ingredients...and none of them belonged in the human body. My sickly child got me into health/nutrition research in 1961...and over the years the information i came across in regard to vaccines...was not good. i have many books written by very credible doctors and researchers who would not advise their use. In studying the human body I became very aware how the Immune System works...and injecting any kind of manmade matter into the bloodstream would not enhance immunity...it would contribute to breaking the organs down. The bloodstream carries NUTRIENTS from food to the organs and cells. This provides nourishment to the organs and cells in the body. This is what contributes to great natural immunity from nutrients in unprocessed decent food. Any foreign protein or matter should not be in the bloodstream it would overwhelm the lymphatic system and break it down. The use of vaccines is for the financial benefit of Big Pharma and all connected to their promotion.
They also voted on the use of a monoclonal antibody drug for RSV. Dr. Malone said 80% of RSV deaths from RSV are in healthy newborns, because of the tiny size of the terminal bronchioles, which swell from RSV infection, ultimately affecting oxygen exchange in the alveolar sacs, so the child suffocates. So, that sad state of affairs could sway in favour of pushing the drug on all newborns. However, Retsef Levi's points were more persuasive to me as to why pushing RSV monoclonals on all kids should be avoided. He noted clinical trials were not powered to detect safety signals unless they were huge. Nuance was lacking in trials. The risk of death from RSV is rare in Western culture. 97% of deaths occur in the developing world. Giving RSV to all babies in order to decrease hospitalization is an unrefined utilitarian measure, because not all hospital experiences are equal. Some kids go to hospital for monitoring, and some need to go to intensive care. The vendor (Merck and Sanofi I think, not sure) stopped reporting poor results after a trial. Retsef also highlighted that in five clinical trials, there was a lower mortality rate in the placebo group. The adverse events on the CNS and GI system were in those that received the drug. The presentation given to ACIP did not include this vital information which is needed to give an informed vote on the issue. B.S. right! The presentation was one of safe and effective, which is not true. Also, the risk of a breast-fed baby dying from RSV is extremely low. The risk is not the same for preemie babies. These nuanced risks were not articulated, including the short- and long-term risk from the drug. Considering the fact that newborns may now be receiving monoclonal antibodies without nuanced information on long term effects on their health, means we are putting those children in danger, because of the lack high quality studies and transparency. It is a disgrace to give a green light until that information is known. Also, if these people want to save the lives of babies, why are they not pushing just as hard for breast feeding?
Thank you Dr. Malone. I will view it later, but I have no qualms about the decisions, because I have followed you for years now and know that your reputation is above reproach.
Lately, I have been inundated with so many things in the news, that I’ve had to back off a bit.
I do enjoy the wins we are experiencing but my mind cannot take the daily incoming barrage from the left—so in part, I am praying for Trump and everyone in his cabinet and their agencies—to include Dr. Malone.
This is the most competent Cabinet I have ever seen! May God bless them with wisdom and the tenacity to do what is right to maintain our Republic.
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
I can relate and ditto!
Dear Dr. Malone. Your statement about "sovereignty" rings true! My body is my temple. I am the gate keeper. The physician is the gate keeper of his patients and his diagnostic skills have to be respected and not over ruled. CVS was at my Senior center promoting injections. They did not offer any Informed Consent information about the mRNA Pfizer injection. That needs to be fixed now. Without informed consent my sovereignty is being violated. PS: Your framed documents of your process patents are impressive.
Bottom line: Children were given to parents by God, and have a God-given responsibility to protect them physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. It is an awesome responsibility that should not be taken lightly.
If there’s 72 vaccines on the childhood schedule, they should be able to opt out of any one of them, and not forced or coerced into vaccinating them in order to keep them in public schools. This is suppose to be America—live like it!
I saw a child who suffered the effects from the polio vaccine in the early 90’s—sad—the mother would not allow me to help him onto the school bus. Doing so would weaken him over time, and I understood that, but my heart went out to him and his parents. Just like doctors “practice” medicine, vaccines are being practiced on our children. Choose wisely.
I don't know the other two, but I have followed Dr Malone since the COVID-19 debacle. I am far more confident that vaccine issues will be addressed and followed up on now.
Thanks for being open on the process to keep the public informed of how NIH and ACIP function. First, what is ignored is the cumulative effect of the myriad of trace toxins that are ingested or injected into the human body. GRAS needs to be reined in and the number of chemicals in trace amounts of insecticides and weed killer chemicals and etc entering the human body need to be dramatically reduced. When you add up the number of preservatives, and non-self molecules in the myriad of vaccines given our infants/children has to have negative impact on the immune system, creating auto immune issues and more. I was hoping to understand what the new flu vaccine will be. Moderna's RNA or what? Does the flu exist at the equator? I know sunshine dominates. There is a relationship between low Vitamin D blood value and the ability to naturally ward off a flu virus. We need a objective study funded by the NIH to confirm. Also, do you know that overdosing on acetaminophen causes flu like symptoms and if the ER physicians doesn't recognize the root cause he will prescribe Tylenol with more adverse effects?
This was a wonderful interview from which we learn some nuanced details behind the decision making process' of Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Retsef Levi. The members of ACIP carry the burden of determining which FDA approved "immunizations" are added to the Childhood/Adult schedule or not. It is a stretch to call these "immunizations" because in fact none of the products on the Childhood Schedule deliver lifetime immunity and should be referred to as vaccinations. The most recent ACIP session was centered around a Monoclonal Antibody product for RSV, which is not a vaccination at all. We must remember that there are hundreds of drugs to treat a multitude of problems that get approved by the FDA each year, but should every child be forced to be injected in the hopes of preventing some illness in a few? How many of these healthy children are suffering unnecessary side effects, in the process; because once the injection is on the schedule "all" children will be required to receive the products, unless the child lives in a state that allows Philosophical/Religious exemptions and the child's parents are aware of the exemptions. Doctors will continue to force their patients to follow the CDC schedule, however they hopefully will not be financially incentivized by Insurance companies any longer. I believe that it will be very difficult for Dr. Malone to ever say no to adding new products to the childhood schedule for a number of reasons. First, he feels an obligation to insure that the drug will be paid for by the government and provided affordably to underserved populations, which is a noble cause. Second, he has spent a lifetime developing new products spending years working a product through the process and believes with all his heart that these products have been throughly vetted. Even in this interview it sounds like he believed every word that came out of the Pharma Salesperson's mouth. He trusts that any issues were thoroughly investigated. Pharma has a Corporate obligation to investors to get products approved and in the arms of as many people as possible. Pharma is notorious for lying and manipulating data to show the new product in the best possible light and they have all paid exorbitant fines when the truth comes to light after the product injures and kills enough patients post approval. If a product is approved by ACIP and ends up on the Childhood Schedule there will be no price for Pharma to pay when the product injures children because they will have no liability. Have we learned nothing from watching the shenanigans of Big Pharma surrounding the making of the Covid-19 injections? In MHO the Childhood Schedule has more than enough injections already being forced into the arms of babies. When ACIP says "no" the vaccine will continue to be available for use, if it is worthwhile. Doctors can still recommend it to parents of infants they truly believe will benefit from it. In fact more discretion will be used when prescribing it, because the doctor will have to use some critical thinking and not just hide behind the CDC's blanket of liability protection. Until every vaccine on the Childhood schedule has gone through placebo controlled safety trials, and been determined to cause NO HARM, we should not add any new vaccines.
We are so past the point of knowing what happens if no jabs given to neonates. We have relied on mom's passive immunity for a very long time without the human species going extinct via infection in newborns. The idea of pumping anything that might impede normal immune development smacks more to me of profit over good medical practice
Women historically breast fed for long periods of time. Also, infant mortality was high, but nutrition was not the same as today. We do need monoclonal antibodies. However, there are dangers to taking them. And, there is a very low danger of infant mortality in a western country from RSV if the child is breast fed, therefore M.Ab's should not be given as a matter of course. Not enough known about long term adverse effects.
I question a couple of statements you made about Dr. Malone, Jeannette. If you have been following him for the past five years, you wouldn't say that he believes the Pharma Salesperson words. And I do believe that he knows these products have not been thoroughly vetted! Believes with all his heart?
How about "inhalable" vaccines? Seriously? Just spray it out of an airplane? Or a Drone? Horrific and it is coming regardless. Freedoms are only in thoughts now........ugly future.
This was an excellent presentation and compliment to my hearing/viewing it on Saturday.
It surfaced a couple concerns.
The ways ACIP would focus it's advice as relates to the practice of medicine - currently in flux. Will the practice of medicine reflect our traditional doctor patient relationships with flexibility, adaptations and advocacy. Or will our public health reflect AI, command 'best of practices,' command care sans advocates.
The other issues relates to RSV.
Is the issue better more comprehensively addressed?
Your recent issue covered findings of mother's adverse reactions to RSV vaxing.
Do their adverse reactions impact the fetus? Beyond harms would the vax still offer protection to the fetus?
On to the immediate impact on this latest ACIP advice.
Where the mother was vaccinated and the newborn thereby has gained protection - does this reduce the need for prophylaxis?
As I understand it the monoclonal antibodies are a prophylactic treatment as opposed to a vaccine.
I'm still inclined to their use for healthy babies where the mothers were not uneventfully successfully vaccinated. Then there is the question of whether healthy babies have been established to be at a worrisome level of risk.
I am l assuming the preparations under consideration do not threaten serious adversities.
Thanks again for your participation in the ACIP and sharing accesses for us.
My husband and I watched the whole interview and even waited while it was moved due to tech issues. Usually my husband doesn't have the tolerance for lengthy dialogues which shows me how much more he understands about these topics! There was a point about healthy babies still being able to exhibit RSV with no previous indicators. Very important to note. I believe that was a factor for Dr. Malone's vote of yes. This interview was very important to the ones complaining about the choices of votes. If I can understand most of the material covered, certainly those with a medical and scientific background can appreciate the nuances!
Yes, 80% of babies that do get RSV are healthy. However, 97% of babies that die from RSV live in third world countries, mortality rate here is very low, and breast-feeding decreases risk. There are risks from giving healthy babies monoclonal antibodies. The risk: benefit ratio in the western world regarding dying from RSV versus being harmed from Monoclonal antibodies was not articulated, it needs to be, but I already know the answer.
Gooooo Drs Malone and Levi!!! ET’s audience tends to be a majority of viewers of sound mind and body. SO glad you had the opportunity to explain the truth via ATL. Bravo!!! Keep up the truth- telling!
I think important to committee members going forward is to demonstrate a deep understanding for patient audiences and healthcare provider audience. Show a knowledge of people's concerns (the pharma and critical audience concerns will be separate of course) and be able to reflect on these in layman terms so that patients and providers can see the ACIP members are thinking about their "customers" and those that benefit from the quality of decisions. In this way the complexity of the committee's decisions can be known and appreciated.
ie. "Many people in our population have been taught and it has been reinforced that the flu virus is dangerous and it is inevitable that you will get it. No attention has been given to how the human body can be conditioned and our immune systems can be strengthened so that we are much less susceptible to a continuously changing virus. Fewer vaccines means less revenue for the vaccine maker so it is in the best interest of those who make vaccines to scare citizens and make them seek out vaccines. Public health officials see that if people fear vaccines then those who might benefit from them may decline and suffer needlessly. Healthcare providers don't wish to debate vaccine efficacy because more and more they see they may lose that debate and the system of incentives will cease to reward them. People tell me they wish to know the risk of vaccines and how they can weigh this against their situation if they chose prevention."
Thanks for the behind the scenes view of how the ACIP works. I have every confidence that you are all doing your very best to determine which vaccines to recommend or deny. I was happy to hear of your and Dr Levi’s take on the RSV vaccine. I think the difference of opinion is healthy and something you are promoting so that true science can be done. I’m grateful you accepted the challenge of being on the committee. Your and Dr Levi’s input is invaluable. Thank you to all the distinguished ACIP committee members for serving.