Tucker Carlson is blowing the lid off a story that Becker News has been covering with great interest: The CDC’s upcoming vote of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to determine the guidelines for the annual childhood vaccination schedule.
“So, here’s an amazing story that’s been effectively buried this week,” Tucker began. “The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is expected to add the COVID-19 vax to the list of required childhood vaccines. If this happens, your children will not be able to attend school without taking the COVID shot.”
“Now, the problem is there is no medical basis for this decision whatsoever,” he added. “Even the CEO of Moderna has just admitted that most people do not need the booster. And in fact, in this country, it’s like 4% of adults have gotten the booster. ‘Cause they know now, we’re quoting, ‘it’s going to be similar to the flu.’ He said, So what is this exactly? Dr. Marty Makary, a man we trust, he’s a professor at John’s Hopkins University. He joins us tonight to assess. Dr., thanks so much for coming on. Is it an overstatement to say there’s really no medical justification for this?”
“Well, there’s certainly no clinical data,” Dr. Makary said. “They’ve got data from eight mice on the Omicron vaccine in young people. And the child vaccine story is essentially a story of bypassing clinical data, which is why many of us are asking why even have an FDA? Why do we even do clinical trials? Right now we’ve got pharma saying, ‘Hey, we did a study. We’re gonna give you the top line of the press release. We’re gonna call the White House.’ And the White House then calls the FDA and the CDC and tells them to get in line. They bought 170 million doses of this new Omicron vaccine.”
“There has never been a vaccine added to the child immunization schedule without solid clinical evidence that it reduces disease significantly in the community. The Covid vaccine in children will be the first, it will be added with no clinical data,” Dr. Makary continued. “And many of us that are saying, ‘Hey, let’s see the data.’ We’re basically told, Stop asking questions.”
“Dr. Jah, who’s the Chief Covid advisor at the White House, has said ‘he has seen the data, but it’s not public information’,” he added. “What are they hiding? Why can’t we see this information? Instead, we’re basically seeing this intense paternalism to really just do what we say and stop asking questions.”
“And the CDCs committee that’s voting, I mean that is essentially a kangaroo court,” he went on. ” You have to be an official card-carrying vaccine fanatic to be on that committee. If you’re not, then basically they’re not going to accept people who think that some vaccines are important and others lack the evidence to support broad distribution.”
“Remember, one in 5,000 vaccine doses results in a severe adverse event, according to data from overseas from Germany, because we don’t fund that research in the U.S.,” he said. “And in Israel, they took 283 people who got myocarditis from the vaccine. One of them died, two were in the ICU. So, if thousands of people are going to get myocarditis from this indiscriminate vaccination in young, healthy people, we’re going to see some unintended harm. And my concern is that some schools may blindly accept this. So, if the CDC decides to go ahead and put this on the routine vaccine schedule, it’ll be up to states. And that’s where I think parents have a right to say, Let’s see some clinical data before we force this as a requirement for school.”
The CDC is playing with fire. The political blowback to ramming this through its sham committee will be beyond the radical left’s reckoning. If they think angry parents at school board meetings are an issue, wait until they see what happens in statewide elections. It will lead to blowouts in governor’s races, where Republicans already have the national majority. Voters are not going to put up with this, the truth is not going away, and Americans will not be silenced.
"*" indicates required fields
OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion.