This headline has garnered so much attention on social media that I was asked to participate in an interview last night to discuss the topic. First, I had to clarify that I cannot be interviewed about ACIP issues without prior clearance from HHS Communications. Once that was understood, at 6:00 PM (dinner time!) I dialed in via Zoom, and we talked on the record. No, I do not know if or when the interview will be aired. Before the interview, as usual, I did the necessary diligence to avoid embarrassing myself due to ignorance, keeping in mind the first rule of social media.
It is often better to stay quiet and have people wonder if you are ignorant than to tweet and remove all doubt.
Let’s dive into the details. I think that this particular situation provides a great example of how bias, combined with insufficient background and subject matter experience, can lead to unjustified clickbait headlines. This is a chronic problem on both sides of the mRNA “vaccine” safety debate, one which makes it so, so much harder to get to the bottom of all of this.
I will try to explain so that most can understand, but it may get a little technical. The nuances of clinical research study design and implementation are complicated. Please try to stick it out, if for no other reason than it does lead back to some statements from CDC’s Captain Dr. Sarah Meyer (CDC/NCEZID) during her recent presentation titled “COVID-19 safety update” regarding long-term outcomes from COVID-19 mRNA product myocarditis. Consider that an embedded easter egg.
Hellbound and Down 