The CDC’s Advisory Committee voted yesterday, October 20^th, 2022, endorsing the addition of Covid-19 vaccines to the CDC’s Vaccination Schedule. The endorsement affects childhood and adult vaccination schedules, and the vote was unanimous in support of endorsement. The panel was quick to point out that the endorsement is not a mandate and the addition of COVID-19 vaccines to the schedule will not prevent anyone from attending school, etc. The deflection begins early . . .

Here is a link to one of many news stories on the endorsement. The article covers the facts and quickly transitions into vaccine cheerleading and rationalization. Some of the content is quite revealing. For example, there’s this quote from Dr. Matthew Daley, one of the panelists and a senior investigator for the Institute for Health Research at Kaiser Permanente:

“But we acknowledge that there’s concern on the part of the parents. … [W]e just need to continue to do better at communicating why we think the benefits strongly outweigh the risks.” – (emphasis added)

“Why we think . . .” That’s a poor substitute for a standard when the health and safety of an entire population are at stake. Until very recently, the standard has been ‘The data shows conclusively that a substantial net benefit exists’.

That statement is an admission that a benefit-positive case cannot be made with objective data, so speculation and opinion, appeals to authority and ‘marketing’ will be the tools of choice. Again, there is no credible and objective data-driven case to be made.

Sour grapes on my part? Am I just tilting at windmills? I don’t think so. A paper was published in JAMA Network two days before the Advisory Committee announced its endorsement, and it affirmed what some of us already knew and many, many others suspected – safety data associated with the COVID-19 vaccines, in general, and the Pfizer mRNA vaccine specifically, are lacking or not available. This research focused on children 5 years of age and younger as this segment of the population represents the largest gap in vaccine safety data.

Here is the very first sentence in the paper’s Abstract:

“SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are authorized for use in most age groups. The safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is unknown in children younger than 5 years.”

Here’s the penultimate sentence in the paper’s Introduction:

“No safety data currently are available for BNT162b2 in children younger than 5 years. This study retrospectively evaluates the safety of the BNT162b2 vaccine used off-label in children younger than 5 years compared with the safety of non–SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the same sample.”

Here is a link to the paper published in JAMA Network: Comparative Safety of the BNT162b2 Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccine vs Other Approved Vaccines in Children Younger Than 5 Years | Infectious Diseases | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network

A review is in order. One of the CDC Advisory Committee’s panelists, a medical doctor, runs right past the objective imperative and talks about what ‘they’ think is, or should be, a net benefit. Two days before, JAMA publishes research that comes right out and says that safety-related data does not exist for children 5 years old and younger. Four-year-old children are vaccinated by the thousands every year to satisfy preschool requirements or in anticipation of starting Kindergarten, yet the CDC Advisory Panel votes unanimously to add COVID-19 vaccines to the vaccination schedule.  As a parent, I view this as an extraordinary dereliction of duty committed by the CDC.  What’s worse is the dereliction is openly communicated by the parties involved and the central element of the dereliction is independently affirmed two days prior.  Said differently, the panelists knew that safety data on children were either not available (5 years old and younger) or far from mature (ages 6 to 18), yet they voted to go ahead anyway.

What are the practical effects?  If you live in a state where the vaccination requirements are a cut-and-paste of the CDC’s vaccination schedule, and your state allows for exemptions, there is uncertainty and paperwork in your future if you don’t want to roll the dice with the health and safety of your children. Let’s be absolutely clear on this point. No one knows what the long-term safety implications are for children of any age because that data is non-existent or not sufficiently mature. You will need to claim exemptions for religious, philosophical and/or medical reasons, depending on the specific laws of your state.  If you live in a state that does not recognize exemptions other than medical, your choices are extremely limited – get your children vaccinated, decide to homeschool, litigate (and homeschool) or move to another state with the proper statutory environment. There’s one more option, though the associated efforts will take time to bear fruit. Call your state representative and your state senator and pitch a proper fit. Demand that legislation be introduced that will recognize the full spectrum of exemptions and presumptions granted to the claimant. Get started now if you are concerned for your children.

We are working on a menu-driven process to support exemption claims because I think it will prove very useful.