The following is an excerpt from an opinion piece in Newsweek, written by Dr. Marty Makary, professor, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.
People don't trust the CDC. Here's one example illustrating why.
Two weeks ago, with no outcomes data on Covid-19 booster shots for 5-to-11-year-olds, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) vigorously recommended the booster for all 24 million American children in that age group. The CDC cited a small Pfizer study of 140 children that showed boosters elevated their antibody levels—an outcome known to be transitory.
When that study concluded, a Pfizer spokesperson said it did not determine the efficacy of the booster in the 5-to-11-year-olds. But that didn't matter to the CDC. Seemingly hoping for a different answer, the agency put the matter before its own kangaroo court of curated experts, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
I listened to the meeting, and couldn't believe what I heard. At times, the committee members sounded like a group of marketing executives. Dr. Beth Bell of the University of Washington said "what we really need to do is to be as consistent and clear and simple as possible," pointing out that the committee needed "a consistent recommendation which is simple."
The committee also debated how hard to push the booster recommendation, discussing whether the CDC should say that 5-to-11-year-olds "may" get a booster versus "should" get it.
Exhibiting classic medical paternalism, committee member Dr. Oliver Brooks of the Watts Healthcare Corporation said "I think may is confusing and may sow doubt," adding "if we say should more people will get boosted versus may, then we may have more data that helps us really define where we're going." Dr. Brooks was essentially suggesting that boosting in this age group would be a clinical trial conducted without informed consent.
That doesn't sound like following the science to me.
The committee promptly approved the booster for young children by an 11-1 vote, with one obstetrician abstaining because he missed some of the discussion.
The one dissenting vote came from Dr. Keipp Talbot of Vanderbilt University, who courageously said vaccines, while extremely effective, "are not without their potential side effects." She questioned the sustainability of vaccinating the population every six months.
Many experts agree with her, but they don't have a platform to speak.
In fact, nearly 40 percent of rural parents say their pediatricians do not recommend the primary vaccine series for children. Those pediatricians were not represented on the committee.
The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) vaccine advisory committee, comprised of the nation's top vaccine experts, have made similar public statements as Dr. Talbot.
But the committee was not involved in approving boosters for children.
The FDA actually bypassed it days prior—the third time over the last year that the FDA made sweeping and controversial authorizations without convening its vaccine experts.
Most remarkably, it didn't seem to matter to the CDC that 75.2 percent of children under age 11 already have natural immunity, according to a CDC study that concluded in February.
Natural immunity is certainly much more prevalent today, given the ubiquity of the Omicron variant since February.
CDC data from New York and California demonstrated that natural immunity was 2.8 times more effective in preventing hospitalization and 3.3 to 4.7 times more effective in preventing Covid infection compared to vaccination during the Delta wave.
Yet natural immunity has consistently and inexplicably been dismissed by the medical establishment.
If the CDC is curious as to why people aren't listening to its recommendations, it should consider how it bypassed experts to put the matter before a Kangaroo court of like-minded loyalists. (Continued...)
Read full article here.
The Lemonade Mermaid Store
Unique gifts for Land or Sea Mermaids, Mer-pets and Little Mermaids!
Left: Our signature Blue Fins Earrings