Medical Organizations Protest Removal Of IR Members From ACIP

Last week, Children’s Health Defense reported, citing Bloomberg, “The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Medical Association (AMA) and six other major medical associations will no longer participate in advising the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on vaccine policy.”

The associations said they were informed via email last week that their vaccine experts were being disinvited from the workgroups that report to the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) decides which vaccines should be recommended to the public, who should take them and how often. Its recommendations help determine which vaccines will be covered by the CDC’s Vaccines for Children Program and insurers, and will be mandated by states for daycare and school attendance.

The medical association members will no longer be invited to participate in the working groups that review data and form policy recommendations. However, they will be able to participate in the open public meetings, like the rest of the public.

They are being eliminated because they are “special interest groups and therefore are expected to have a ‘bias’ based on their constituency and/or population that they represent,” according to one U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) email reported by The Associated Press.

Not only are these medical associations special interest groups, but the associations are also “trade organizations” whose bias is to protect the economic interests of physicians. Granted, the American Medical Association (AMA) created the informed consent process highlighted in my book “Informed Consent: An Unalienable Right”; however, physicians never, and I mean never, provide informed consent when it comes to products called vaccines. Nurses don’t either. How can they when their training only includes the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommended childhood immunization schedule and recommended adult immunization schedule with very few actually reading the package insert? Any physician or nurse who has a problem with this statement can reach me through Sons of Liberty Media and we can chat.

Being that training is lacking, how can any of these individuals serving on the ACIP committee be considered “vaccine experts”? Even new members appointed to the ACIP committee face the same issue – medical training has only included “teaching” the CDC recommended childhood immunization schedule and recommended adult immunization schedule. Moreover, training for new “vaccines” on the market usually are done by pharmaceutical company representatives or from an organization where the physician obtains the product. If anyone researches the package inserts on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website, serious adverse events are always found under the “post-marketing experience”, meaning reported AFTER the product was released for marketing to the public, aka “approved” by the FDA.

According to Children’s Health Defense, Department of Health and Human Services spokesman Andrew Nixon said this in an email.

“Under the old ACIP, outside pressure to align with vaccine orthodoxy limited asking the hard questions. The old ACIP members were plagued by conflicts of interest, influence, and bias. We are fulfilling our promise to the American people to never again allow those conflicts to taint vaccine recommendations.

“Experts will continue to be included based on relevant experience and expertise, not because of what organization they are with.”

What constitutes “relevant experience and expertise” to be considered an “expert”? Why are physicians and scientists the only ones included?

It is no secret that ACIP committee members were plagued by “conflicts of interest, influence, and bias”. But, isn’t current ACIP committee member Dr. Robert Malone also biased? After all, he worked with the World Health Organization at one point in time in his “career”.

In addition to the AAP and AMA, six other medical trade organizations signed the drafted statement – the American Academy of Family Physicians, American College of Physicians, American Geriatrics Society, American Osteopathic Association, Infectious Diseases Society of America and the National Medical Association. The organizations claimed the decision to dismiss the ACIP members was “irresponsible, dangerous to our nation’s health, and will further undermine public and clinician trust in vaccines.” The statement also indicated, “We are deeply disappointed and alarmed that our organizations are being characterized as ‘biased’ and therefore barred from reviewing scientific data and informing the development of vaccine recommendations that have long helped ensure our nation’s vaccine program is safe, effective, and free from bias.”

Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up. If the organizations exist to protect the economic interests of physicians in that organization, how can one take offense at being called “biased”? The “scientific data” these ACIP members review comes from the pharmaceutical companies and the FDA, not independent individuals or entities. Bias is already built into the data as the pharmaceutical companies are not going to “shoot themselves in the foot” by providing data that would indicate their products are harmful. In fact, the clinical trials are built around not discovering harm with vaccine products. Reading the clinical trial experience from the package inserts on immunizations licensed in the united States at the FDA website reveals that. Notice the statement commented on the safety, effectiveness, and lack of bias in the “nation’s vaccine program”, not vaccine products.

Unsurprisingly, the American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP), last month, called for an end to religious and philosophical exemptions to vaccines. The AAP contends that universal immunization “is necessary to keep children and employees safe”. They relent there is a necessity for “legitimate” medical exemptions; however, nonmedical exemptions were “problematic”.

Evidently, the AAP has an issue with God-given unalienable rights recognized, protected, and guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of the Constitution for the united States of America, including the Ninth Amendment which include informed consent and the right to refuse for ANY reason. Are they also veterinarians, who hold the attitude that they can do anything they want to your furry family member and you should just “keep quiet” about it? How does the AAP handle those who are members of the Jehovah’s Witness, who have very staunch beliefs about “mixing blood” and blood transfusions? In my experience as a nurse, family/patient advocate, and consumer of medical services, medical professionals were observed strictly honoring the “beliefs” of Jehovah’s Witness members while negating others’ religious beliefs. Hypocrisy abounds in the medical profession, just saying. It is evident in the informed consent process – uphold informed consent in all areas except “vaccines”. When it comes to the vaccine products, informed consent is not to be allowed, period.

Not once do any of the medical trade organizations mention the immunity from liability afforded pharmaceutical companies for their vaccine products and CONvid-19 modified mRNA gene therapy bioweapon shots nor do these medical trade organizations cite their immunity from liability granted to them for administering pharmaceutical products related to CONvid-19 by the PREP Act. This also denies the right to due process for individuals. So much for their supposed “ethics”.

These organizations also allow members to “hide” behind the fictional “implied consent”. Nowhere in any law book purchased during my nursing education nor in any nursing textbook purchased at the time of nursing education was there any mention of “implied consent” related to patient care. The only time “implied consent” was mentioned, and was also called “silent contract”, was in relation to employment of a health professional and the hiring entity.

These entities also love mandates, but only for vaccine products, citing it’s for “public health and safety”. Why not support mandates for heart medication, medication for multiple sclerosis, diagnostic tests like colonoscopies, chemotherapy, diabetes medication, statin drugs, etc.? Oh, that would violate their ethics where informed consent and choice are concerned. They like having their cake and eating it too.

Again, who is eroding and undermining public trust?

None of these six organizations can claim impartiality when receiving funding from pharmaceutical companies.

The AMA is also funded in part by corporate sponsorships. In the past, it came under fire for taking more than $600,000 from pharmaceutical companies to finance a $1 million campaign to promote ethical guidelines discouraging doctors from accepting expensive gifts from drug companies, The Lancet reported.

AMA funding also comes from the AMA Foundation, which is funded by “Roundtable members” from the pharmaceutical industry. Its largest donor is PhRMA, the primary lobbying organization for the industry — which spent a record $12.88 million lobbying for the industry in the first quarter of 2025.

Other AMA sponsors include Agmen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Genentech, GSK, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and others.

The National Medical Association takes funding from Eli Lilly, Gilead, Regeneron, Pfizer, Merck, Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Vertex, AstraZeneca and others.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America partners with Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Gilead, GSK, Merck, Moderna, Pfizer, Sanofi and others.

A similar list of Big Pharma companies funds the American Academy of Family Physicians, which also partners with Amazon Pharmacy.

Pharma giants, including Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, are on the long list of the American College of Physicians’ corporate sponsors, along with Big Food giants Tyson Foods and PepsiCo.

The American Geriatrics Society’s financial disclosure statement shows that it has various corporate sponsors, including Merck and Pfizer.

The American Osteopathic Association also has several corporate sponsors, including Pfizer, Astellas, Merck and Sanofi.

In case you didn’t know, Sanofi emerged from IG Farben, which produced the poison gas Zyklon B. Genentech produces Tamiflu. Regeneron produces Dupixent and produced REGEN-COV, a monoclonal antibody post-exposure prophylactic for CONvid-19 under FDA emergency use authorization, which has now been revoked..

It appears these organizations have plenty of reasons to hold “bias”.

Here’s the takeaway. These medical organizations care not about informed consent, including the right to refuse, when it comes to vaccine products. And, because of their entanglements and sponsorship with and by the pharmaceutical industry, the public has very good reasons to distrust the organizations and their members. They certainly hold bias and refuse to let it go at the expense of the public. The dismissal of previous ACIP members is certainly not a danger to public health and certainly will not further undermine trust in vaccines by the public or clinicians. That has been done and is continually being done by the pharmaceutical industry and these organizations themselves by their own actions.

What are dangers to the individual health of members of the public are biases, immunity from liability, refusal to uphold the right to informed consent which includes the right to refuse, hypocrisy, lack of ethics, lack of compassion, dishonesty with the public, and limited knowledge regarding vaccine products. The organizations should do everyone a favor and quit complaining about the shoes they made for themselves to wear that are now getting too tight.

Conduct this particular research yourself. Take the package insert for Hepatitis B Vaccine (Recombivax HB) to your physician and ask him to read Section 6 on clinical trial experience, particularly focusing on the clinical trial for children. After he does, if he does, ask these four questions:

Was the trial robust enough? In other words, were there enough trial participants to represent the child population.

Was an inert placebo used? Was any other injection indicated as a placebo used?

Was the follow-up period long enough to determine any adverse events, particularly those listed in Section 6.2 post-marketing experience?

In Section 7.1 (ask him to read it), the clinical trial for children included concomitant (at the same time) administration of several recommended childhood immunizations. Why is this acceptable?

You will get one of these responses – “I really don’t have time for this” (he doesn’t read it); “I can’t speak to clinical trials” (he reads a little of it); “This has been proven safe and effective” (after reading a bit or not at all); “My practice doesn’t involve children”; “I’ll have to get back with you on this”; “Why are you concerned about this?” (my favorite); or, “I don’t have much knowledge in this area” (rare response). You might also get, “I follow the CDC recommendations for immunizations”.

He may ask where you retrieved this information. Point him to the FDA website. The response you get will tell you all you need to know about your physician.

Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media

The post Medical Organizations Protest Removal Of IR Members From ACIP appeared first on The Washington Standard.