Behind the Curtain of the New CDC Panel on Vaccines
After retiring the entire prior membership of the CDC‘s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and appointing first eight, then seven (one could not resolve conflict of interest concerns) new ACIP members, a wave of coordinated media attacks on both Secretary Kennedy and those he appointed hit the internet, newsstands and corporate cable news broadcasts
This time, the approved narrative was that none of the newly appointed members were qualified or had any vaccine-related experience.
Whether congratulations or condolences were due, I was one of those whom Secretary Kennedy appointed and passed the conflict of interest review.
But what I actually am is a highly experienced academic and commercial vaccine developer, and all of my fellow appointees have deep, highly relevant experience and expertise.
To the surprise of precisely no-one who has been paying attention to details or to how fake news media likes to spin up fear to advance the interests of their corporate sponsors.
The decisions made during the first meeting of the reconstituted ACIP were quite conservative (in the classical sense) and most definitely based on objective analysis of available data tempered with a focus on patients (and their children) rather than physician and corporate interests.
However, after the meeting there was a lot of criticism of the decisions made. Criticism from all sides. It seems that no-one got exactly what they wanted, and they were mad as hell about it. The sense of entitlement ran strong in these ones.
I suggested that Epoch Times should be allowed to interview myself and Dr. Retsef Levi to discuss what just had happened during the meeting, and examine the logic, discussion and internal ACIP member dissent revolving around those decisions so that others can see for themselves how this new team approached these issues.
Fortunately, the HHS Press Office agreed to this proposal, the resulting interview has now been released, and a copy is provided below in native Substack format so that you can view for free.
Hopefully this will demonstrate to all concerned that, in fact, the “new” ACIP committee is not a rubber stamp organization, that the members take their assigned tasks very seriously, and that they have the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to do the job and do it well.
Yes, the interview gets a bit technical in places. We tried to avoid diving too deep into “The Science”. Please keep in mind that there are two general audiences being targeted here. First and most importantly, the citizens of the United States.
Secondly, the nattering nabobs of the self-annointed vaccine ‘expert’ caste. The deeper science discussions are targeting the latter, and demonstrate that these will continue to embarrass themselves if they persist with the false narrative that the new ACIP is inexperienced and incompetent.
I hope that, at a minimum, each of you learn something from the interview.
See more here malone.news
Header image: Zhen Wang / The Epoch Times
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
solarsmurph
| #
Did you know the CDC owns patents on diseases, including Ebola. This makes them accountable for the deaths and consequences of these diseases. The CDC should be disbanded – period.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
I watched the full interview and, honestly, came away quite disappointed. Much of the discussion around decision-making relies on consensus, which—by definition—is not a scientific approach but a social or political process (https://www.malone.news/p/behind-the-curtain-of-the-new-cdc?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=583200&post_id=167658935&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1on4vw&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email).
At the same time, there’s a repeated emphasis on the importance of analyzing and reanalyzing data, particularly from sources such as the CDC. The critical issue, however, is that the reliability of this data is questionable. Much of it is based on PCR testing, which, by many scientific standards, is not a valid diagnostic tool for identifying viruses. As a result, any conclusions drawn from such data are also likely to be flawed or misleading.
This problem seems to stem from a gap in scientific understanding. Unfortunately, both experts appear to lack training in the relevant areas of foundational science. Without that, it’s difficult for them to recognize the core issues, let alone offer meaningful solutions.
It would be far more productive if they consulted with experts in the underlying science. Such consultation could help clarify the limitations of PCR testing and challenge assumptions about viruses, potentially freeing public discourse from fear-based narratives and redirecting efforts away from unnecessary treatments, including vaccines.
https://bioanalyticx.com/my-training-and-expertise-people-ask/
Reply
Aaron
| #
same swamp, only the names change
where is the mandate to end the vax??
cmon trump maha
Reply