I'm interested in your assessment after the publication and updates are firm. Now that I know more about the ACIP function I realize how important the membership choices are, as well as the person appointed to be the spokesperson for HHS. I still haven't heard how Andrew Nixon is being presented (disciplined?) after this last go-around.
I completely trust RFK Jr and you Dr. Malone, and wish you had not resigned from the ACIP. I understand that it was a substantial use of your time, and that you were not getting paid for your incredible intelligence particularly in regards to vaccines. I hope you stay involved even if it is just communicating your thoughts to RFK.
Certainly the changes with inclusion of a possible reduction of symptoms and the opportunity to recommend study to better inform analyses are significant. The further study when needed is, to me. particularly valuable.
My understanding is that ACIP focuses on the childrens schedule and what vaccines warrant coverage so as to facilitate free shots. I'm not aware some vaccines would offer meaningful reduction in symptoms in new borns, infants and toddlers. The monochromal antibodies do, but they aren't vaccines?
I do think the subtleties that ACIP was getting into: recommendations re obtaining informed consent, changes as to when vaccines would better be scheduled and perhaps other details I'm missing are important options. Do these provisions permit them? Then there's the larger elephant. Do these provisions encourage recommendations of a discussion, a disclosure of real effectiveness and real risks with a medical source before a decision on giving the vaccine?
I'm glad there is some progress that is being shared with you or at least you have been able to access. Imo, you are the most able analyst who sees issues/points others fail to recognize. i hope you can continue (as you see fit) to meaningfully share your insights.
Why are we as a Nation so fixated on injecting kids…innocent babies with substances which for most have limited real defined value…real positive benefit vs risk of harm. We have Peds groups who massively increased vacs thru all age groups yet kids have NOT gotten healthier….they are fixated in expanding unhealthy activity. For this group not to have recognized something was amiss with vacs and even considered a detailed review is most curious. Invited and uninvited illegals were/are excluded from these vacs requirements and yet our Nation’s kids were required under covid mandated to be injected, seems a comparative benefit study of excluded third world kids here in the USA would be warranted.
I'm interested in your assessment after the publication and updates are firm. Now that I know more about the ACIP function I realize how important the membership choices are, as well as the person appointed to be the spokesperson for HHS. I still haven't heard how Andrew Nixon is being presented (disciplined?) after this last go-around.
Thank you for this update on the ACIP committee practice changes.
I completely trust RFK Jr and you Dr. Malone, and wish you had not resigned from the ACIP. I understand that it was a substantial use of your time, and that you were not getting paid for your incredible intelligence particularly in regards to vaccines. I hope you stay involved even if it is just communicating your thoughts to RFK.
Thank you for sharing this documentwith us
Certainly the changes with inclusion of a possible reduction of symptoms and the opportunity to recommend study to better inform analyses are significant. The further study when needed is, to me. particularly valuable.
My understanding is that ACIP focuses on the childrens schedule and what vaccines warrant coverage so as to facilitate free shots. I'm not aware some vaccines would offer meaningful reduction in symptoms in new borns, infants and toddlers. The monochromal antibodies do, but they aren't vaccines?
I do think the subtleties that ACIP was getting into: recommendations re obtaining informed consent, changes as to when vaccines would better be scheduled and perhaps other details I'm missing are important options. Do these provisions permit them? Then there's the larger elephant. Do these provisions encourage recommendations of a discussion, a disclosure of real effectiveness and real risks with a medical source before a decision on giving the vaccine?
I'm glad there is some progress that is being shared with you or at least you have been able to access. Imo, you are the most able analyst who sees issues/points others fail to recognize. i hope you can continue (as you see fit) to meaningfully share your insights.
You are appreciated!
THANK YOU FOR SHARING.
I don't see how this improves anything. With this very limited change, would you have continued serving on this Advisory Board?
Why are we as a Nation so fixated on injecting kids…innocent babies with substances which for most have limited real defined value…real positive benefit vs risk of harm. We have Peds groups who massively increased vacs thru all age groups yet kids have NOT gotten healthier….they are fixated in expanding unhealthy activity. For this group not to have recognized something was amiss with vacs and even considered a detailed review is most curious. Invited and uninvited illegals were/are excluded from these vacs requirements and yet our Nation’s kids were required under covid mandated to be injected, seems a comparative benefit study of excluded third world kids here in the USA would be warranted.