CDC ACIP Cites False & Inaccurate Data to Support Kid's Vax

A Slide By Slide Rebuttal to the CDC ACIP Meeting

Oct 20, 2022

∙ Paid

(chart pulled from CDC Covid-Net)

First, the CDC starts off by showing the population adjusted hospitalization rates for ages 6m - 4 yrs, 5-11yrs, and 12-17yrs. It shows recent rates of ~5/100k for 6m-4 yrs, and about 1/100k for ages 5 and up. Take note of the Omicron wave in the winter when rates peaked at ~16/100k for 6m - 4 yrs, ~2.8 /100k for 5-11yr, and 6.4/100k for 12-17yrs.

What do we compare this chart to? Are these hospitalization rates unprecedented?

Take a look at the same hospitalization rates for the last significant Flu Season (2019-2020) for comparison. A typical flu season sees ~9 hosps/100k for age 0-4, 2.6/ 100k for 5-11, and ~2/100k for 12-17yr olds.

Keep in mind the Omicron wave of winter 21/22 was during a period where a significant portion of older children had already received the vax. And now we know why- the waning of protection against infection. Keep in mind with all of these rates that we know that even before Omicron, a almost half of these pediatric “hospitalizations” aren’t clinically relevant at all, they are merely incidental positive tests from hospitalized children with other reason for admission. This should be taken into account when looking at these rates, which could be divided by half to get a more accurate rate.

Slide 4- Booster Recommendations

Here they cite their previous recommendations for boosters based on their previous ACIP, and admit that waning vaccine effectiveness was seen immediately after the first kids got vaccinated. What do they think will happen this time?

They are basing this recommendation on antibody titers, which is not a clinical endpoint, and not even considered a correlated of protection, which they even admit to - “there is no established correlate of protection.”

Keep in mind, the FDA issued guidance that antibody testing was insufficient to determine protection against SARS-COV2. We know this is completely false, but somehow, they want to simultaneously maintain that they prove protection in the vaccine context, but prove nothing in the natural infection context.

“Reactogenicity after booster dose” - the way this is worded makes it seem like this is a good thing- the second dose carries the highest risk for myocarditis in all cohorts, and in this study, the booster dose actually carries a higher risk in some age/sex cohorts.

Myocarditis rates in ages 5-11 do seem to be lower than adolescents, though recent studies have raised awareness of potential sub-clinical myocarditis that should be considered.