"We have no data"
and other true stories
A number of excellent clips are making their way around the internet this week regarding the ACIP and the bioethics of informed consent.
Some of you might enjoy watching the two shorts below, featuring me:
“Whoopi Goldberg, we are violently in agreement”
“Whoopi Goldberg on the other hand, is recently quoted as saying, ‘I’m not gonna let Secretary Kennedy tell me what vaccines to take.
Amen… I’m totally with Whoopi Goldberg.
The government should not be telling us what we can put into our body.
Public health in the United States has become perverted by basically utilitarian logic… the idea that the state has the right to enforce the greatest good for the greatest number by insisting that you receive various injectable products… even though you don’t have full informed consent.And that is wrong.
“What MAHA is trying to do is not to deny people access to vaccines, but rather absolutely rigorously insist that people have the right to self-determination.”That people have the right to enter into a physician-patient relationship that is focused on that patient and their best needs. Allowing that patient to make informed decisions about whether or not to accept a medical product or a medical procedure.
So, Whoopi - WE ARE VIOLENTLY IN AGREEMENT!
But Secretary Kennedy is not telling you what to take; you have got that one wrong.
We both agree that the government, the state, has no right to tell its citizens what medical procedures they must take, and that is at the core of this…”
This particular clip is from the December 10 MAHA Action Zoom meeting, which are streamed for public viewing once a week. The whole meeting is linked below:
“These are things that are not acceptable.”
“The public has been impacted by practices that occurred during COVID. This includes compulsion, coercion, and enticement. I was trained in bioethics that these are things that are not acceptable. That the absence of compulsion, coercion, and enticement is the essence of informed consent.”
Below is a video representing the Gold-Standard Science™ that the ACIP would then vote on (from 2018).
Literally, this is how unanimous decisions for new vaccines were often made - with data missing on critical issues.
“We have no data (ACIP, 2028)”
Science is not a noun; it is a verb.
Science isn’t a collection of stagnant facts. Done right, it is a messy process that constantly changes and evolves.
Scientific rigor must include scientific debate; it is not a drive to consensus. It must be an active, ever-changing model - and scientists must remain open to new concepts, ideas, and data.
I embrace the fact that no decision is without criticism and that there will never be one correct answer.
But I do know that if a government is going to make recommendations on health policy that will affect the entire population, they better dam well be conservative recommendations.
You can’t make this stuff up.
In other ACIP news, Dr. Kirk Milhoan, MD, PhD, FAAP, FACC was fired from his job for accepting the position of Chair of the ACIP, after his hospital was hit with a coordinated attack of complaints.
Dr. Kim Milhoan, his wife writes on her substack:
My husband Kirk Milhoan, MD, PhD, FAAP, FACC, and I are at the World Congress of Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery in Hong Kong this week, a meeting that occurs once every four years (where he, incidentally, presented information regarding our 25 years of experience with international pediatric cardiac medical missions). While here, we found out he was being dismissed from his current practice of pediatric cardiology solely because of his service as Chair of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). He disclosed to his employer when he accepted the appointment to this committee, and then again when he accepted the role of chairman. He is a respected and valued contributor to his department. He has no patient or family complaints against him, and numerous accolades. Staff enjoy working with him. Those who broke the news to him apologized profusely, commending his integrity. Why did they fire him? Because of the overwhelming number of calls to their organization demanding his firing for his role on ACIP. The court of public opinion is dictating to a medical organization who can be on their staff, and they are bowing to it. It is a staggering turn of events…My husband has been fired because of public outrage that he would choose to participate in scientific medical debate (in service to his country, I’d add) and make recommendations based on the best available evidence, even if that required a modification of previous practice, in support of principles of medical ethics. This is what we do as physicians every day of our lives. But for some powerful segment of the population, there appears to be consensus that some topics or conclusions are off-limits and they can pressure to harm careers and livelihoods of those with the courage and integrity to investigate whether the science is truly settled. The irony is they are trying to destroy the career of someone who was on their side, but willing to re-examine the evidence. I’m so very sorry and disappointed that his employer was not willing to come to his defense but folded to public pressure. Such outcomes are a loss for all of us.
Milhoan was dismissed "because of public outrage"??? I doubt this. More like because of private outrage from the pharmaceutical industry and its allies, who wrote themselves or hired people to write complaints to create the illusion of opposition. If a poll were taken of Americans, I doubt any would have objections to Milhoan except on partisan grounds.
...but Anthony Fauci is the science! ;)