CDC meets tomorrow on Covid-19 vaccine safety and booster shots (Webcast link)

The Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) vaccine advisers plan to meet tomorrow to discuss reports of a dangerous autoimmune paralysis disorder, Guillain-Barre syndrome, after the Johnson and Johnson Covid-19 vaccine.

Also on the agenda: the potential need for Covid-19 vaccine booster shots. (UPDATE: Mention of booster shots has been removed from the final agenda.)

Webcast link here.

As the current vaccines are said to be wearing off and are proving less effective against Covid variants, vaccine makers have been pressing for a third “booster” dose. So far federal health officials have said a third dose isn’t warranted.

Scientists say those who fight off Covid-19 naturally with no symptoms, or those who recover from Covid-19 illness, so far are proven to have longer-lasting, broader immunity than those who are vaccinated.

The FDA issued a warning on July 12 about the risk of Guillain-Barre syndrome in association with the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. Previous FDA material from September 2020 indicated that government safety advisers would be on the lookout for the autoimmune paralysis disorder in conjunction with Covid-19 vaccines.

Read the meeting agenda here

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

9 thoughts on “CDC meets tomorrow on Covid-19 vaccine safety and booster shots (Webcast link)”

  1. The CDC has serious credibility issues. In March of 2020 they changed a sound, reviewed and accepted 17 year policy on how deaths are reported. Look up this paper from
    ‘COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective’
    The ramifications of these well laid out, researched and sourced allegations CANNOT be overstated. If anyone needed more reason to investigate this is it.
    From the front page of the paper:
    According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on August 23, 2020,
    “For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions
    or causes in addition to COVID-19 , on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or
    causes per death.”[1] For a nation tormented by restrictive public health policies mandated for
    healthy individuals and small businesses, this is the most important statistical revelation of
    this crisis. This revelation significantly impacts the published fatalities count due to COVID-19.
    More importantly, it exposes major problems with the process by which the CDC was able
    to generate inaccurate data during a crisis. The CDC has advocated for social isolation,
    social distancing, and personal protective equipment use as primary mitigation strategies in
    response to the COVID-19 crisis, while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the promise
    of inexpensive pharmaceutical and natural treatments. These mitigation strategies were
    promoted largely in response to projection model fatality forecasts that have proven to be
    substantially inaccurate. Further investigation into the legality of the methods used to create
    these strategies raised additional concerns and questions. Why would the CDC decide
    against using a system of data collection & reporting they authored, and which has been
    in use nationwide for 17 years without incident, in favor of an untested & unproven system
    exclusively for COVID-19 without discussion and peer-review? Did the CDC’s decision to
    abandon a known and proven effective system also breach several federal laws that ensure
    data accuracy and integrity? Did the CDC knowingly alter rules for reporting cause of death in
    the presence of comorbidity exclusively for COVID-19? If so, why?

    1. I absolutely agree with you! I also read that study and was shocked that no one in the media gave it any attention or credit save Epoch Times. This whole debacle with Covid-19 could have ended months ago with the amount of suppressed studies and treatment already available.. The CDC and the FDA needs to be seriously investigated. We have known treatments for Covid-19 but yet the FDA issued these profit hungry pharmaceutical companies an EUA.. The fact that the CDC owns patents to Covid-19-virus is a huge red flag and quite concerning. It seems to me that these agencies hold there allegiance to a shadowy government that no one is talking about.. I encourage others to study the ongoing work of Reiner Fuellmich.

  2. Can anyone verify the source or who said the following from above? “Scientists say those who fight off Covid-19 naturally with no symptoms, or those who recover from Covid-19 illness, so far are proven to have longer-lasting, broader immunity than those who are vaccinated.”

    I personally believe this could very well be true but have not heard this anywhere else. Usually référence sources are posted on this site. Can anyone clarify? Thank you.

    1. Sharyl Attkisson

      Numerous sources and studies. Here are two cites:

      In the study of more than 52,000 employees of Cleveland Clinic: “Not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study.”

      NIH: (Eight months into the pandemic): The immune systems of more than 95% of people who recovered from COVID-19 had durable memories of the virus up to eight months after infection.

      1. Thank you Sharyl, you are doing an AMAZING job.
        Now that we are what, 16 months into this, there is a LOT more data on previously infected and the immunity gained. Show me the data! Splash it all over the evening news and give everyone the information they need to make a truly informed decision. I feel there is a strong likely hood that the politicalization of this has killed more than the virus.

  3. Urgent Action Item Tonight and Tomorrow – can still submit comments tomorrow!


    The big action item today and tomorrow (deadline tomorrow) is to submit comments to the CDC/FDA Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the rise in numbers of cases of post-vaccination Guillane Barre syndrome. The ACIP is having an unscheduled meeting tomorrow to discuss this and although the meeting is focussed on Guillane Barre syndrome, any comments regarding the injections and adverse impacts likely would be helpful.


    This meeting itself is from 11 am to 4 pm tomorrow, and anyone can watch the live broadcast (see link below). It will be recorded, with the recording released about 2 weeks after the meeting. The agenda is below and please click on the following link to watch the livestream meeting tomorrow:


    Importance of Public Comment:


    You can submit comments annoymously or with your name, and say whatever you want, and attach whatever link or video or document you want, but it is CRITICAL that we make OUR VOICES HARD THROUGH THIS FORMAL PROCESS through the FEDERAL REGISTER which is the official government record of actions, decisions etc. 

    Every comment gets logged into the official federal docket and at every comment is supposed to be provided to the ACIP for review. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let us not miss this opportunity to have our perspectives be part of the dialogue. 

    If you would like to learn more about the federal government public comment process, please explore the Public Comment Project at:

    This initiative is focussed on the powerful public tool that is the Public Comment Process:

    – the agencies that use it; 

    – how it works;

    – the collection of statutes that govern the actions of federal agencies;

    – how regulatory processes are conducted; 

    – the federal register notices relevabt to your areas of interest/concern;

    – sign up to receive updates.

    Guidelines/Suggestions for Comment for this ACIP meeting :

    It may be best to focus on medical freedom/health impacts type comments, and if you attach something, try to attach the original source as unfortunately many of thr most useful.sources are considered biased or misinformation. For instance if a Mercola article refers to a British study, try to include the original British study as the supporting attachment. You can even just paraphrase an article that resonated with you. 

    The comments don’t need to be long or super polished or scientific, they just need to be clear and somewhat focussed, ideally w specific asks like…it is imperative that the FDA follow the established procedures for evaluating full term clinical trials for short, medium and long term impacts prior to any consideration of FDA approval of current Covid-19 EUA countermeasures such as Covid injections.

    The link to submit a comment is here:

    Hide quoted text

    Browse Earlier Public Comments:

    If you want to peruse the comments from the previous recent ACIP meetings regarding the EUA for myocarditis, you can view them by clicling on “Browse Comments” with the following links:

    Thank you!

    Let’s get our voices heard by ACIP and in the Federal Register!

    1. Thank you T Rex, I used the link provided and added the pdf C19dataCollectionFL-HistPerspective from the website:

      Thank you Sharyl for all you do and the sacrifices you have and continue to make.
      I’m PROUD to be standing with you! $$

  4. One has to wonder with todays information system why don’t we have more and better data about Covid and vaccines.
    Current effectiveness (percentage of breakthrough cases)
    Breakthrough case by vaccine, by age
    Listings of possible side effects again broken down by vaccine and age, health condition of patient
    Maybe people would be more willing to accept the vaccines if they had solid info to evaluate.
    By not suppling this information it seems like the government is hiding information.

Scroll to Top