Republican Governors Assure Constituents That CDC Vote Will Not Affect Their Children
Trudeau Announces “Nationwide Freeze” On Citizens Buying, Selling, Transferring Handguns In Canada
October 21, 2022
93% Of Recent High School Grads Report Exposure To “At Least One” Principle Of Critical Race And Gender Theories
October 21, 2022In a historic and unprecedented move yesterday, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted unanimously to officially recommend the COVID-19 vaccine be added to the childhood annual vaccine schedule, despite there being no publicly available data to back up the recommendation. The move has been highly criticized, and many in the medical community fear that it will increase vaccine hesitancy overall and further damage public trust in the medical and scientific community.
A number of Republican governors are assuring their constituents that the CDC’s reckless overreach will not affect their children. It’s important to remember is that this vote by the CDC’s ACIP is in no way legislative, and individual states retain the power to dictate childhood vaccine requirements. Officially, the CDC has no enforcing power over childhood vaccine requirements, but their official recommendation certainly carries significant weight. We saw it most during COVID when the CDC’s policy recommendations on things like masks and school closures, while in no way locally legislative or enforceable, were generally accepted without second thought by state officials who DID have the power to enforce them. So while the CDC wasn’t the one officially making the rules, they still kind of were, because their recommendations were as good as law.
The Governors from Iowa, Alabama, Tennessee, Virginia, Florida, and Oklahoma want to assure their constituents that parents in their states have the right to decide whether or not to administer the COVID-19 vaccine to their children and that they will not be forced to do so, regardless of the CDC recommendation.
Similarly, Republican gubernatorial candidates have made statements regarding their intentions, including Pennsylvania’s Doug Mastriano, and Arizona’s Kari Lake.
2 Comments
Very many health care professionals have refused the jab for a number of reasons. First, it was not released until there was a total immunity from civil suit for damages granted. Secondly, it is based upon a new and untested technology. Thirdly, there was no time taken to test and define possible long term negative effects. There was no way to give long term effects information for a patient to grant informed consent. Lastly, the fatality rate was quite small and largely involved those who already had problems with weakened immune systems. The books were cooked to label many dead as caused by covid when that was not true. It is also interesting to note that at first it was stated that the vaccine that is not a vaccine prevented infection. When that turned out to be untrue it changed to it prevented the spread. When that turned out to be false it changed to it made it milder. Since it was already mild for most people that made no sense. Many had the virus and only knew because they tested positive and had no symptoms at all. As for the tests, I had a friend who tested negative, positive, negative over a four-day period.
Hey Natalie, I know it is an important point, but I have to whine a little bit: this is the third post I’ve read in the last few days where you have copied the paragraph about the CDC vote not being legislative, pretty much verbatim. It was a well written paragraph, but reading it the third time makes it feel just a little bit stale…