The ACIP meeting Sept 18-19

If you want a vaccine, you can have a vaccine. And if the USG paid for it before, it will still be paid for. But we don't recommend its use.

My subheading gives you the meeting results in a nutshell. Secretary Kennedy promised not to take vaccines away if someone wants them. And since “access” in US CDC parlance also implies “free,” the COVID vaccines will remain covered by federal benefit programs, which are an indication that private insurance is also likely to continue to cover them.

Under Obamacare, in 2009, all vaccines had to be paid for 100% by insurance (no copay) under the rubric that President Obama was providing us “preventive medicine”—and supporting health care, not just sick care. Another peculiar use of language to push the vaccine agenda.

The problem with this is that Americans love free stuff. If they had to pay $10 for a COVID shot a lot fewer would bare their arms for these poisonous jabs.

I admit that I do not know the legal or financial difference between CDC recommending a vaccine versus recommending that doctors and patients discuss together whether it should be given, termed “shared decisionmaking.” What happens differently in the exam room? Does the nurse stop coming at you with the shot before the doc even sees you?

Do the ACIP members know?

Requiring a prescription for a vaccine (which at least makes a healthcare provider responsible for determining it is in your best interest) should have had a unanimous YES vote, but the sole pharmacist on the panel challenged this. They say Martin Kuldorff broke a tie vote, but there were 12 members there I think, so did he change his vote? I left for the airport at that point. NPR says that pushback included the claim that requiring a prescription would interfere with “access”—that slippery word, and of course everyone needs access to this poison whose label cannot be relied upon for accuracy. Why do we give the public access to poison but no access to accurate information about it?

After Dr. Pebsworth noted that the briefers had not been entirely accurate with the panel regarding the birth dose of Hep. B vaccine, the Hepatitis B votes were postponed.

CDC’s questions for the panel were confusing. Who was responsible for that?

The highlights of the meeting were sudden bursts of clarity and detailed information on the problems with COVID vaccines, coming from 2 outside academic briefers and from Dr. Levi. However, these presentations simply brought forth a chorus of industry hacks mouthing different versions of “safe and effective” and failing to grapple with any of the details that had just been provided.

All in all, it seemed like another meeting in which the members were trying to make everyone happy, but probably pleased no one. It is a learning curve; the rules are arcane, and it should get better.