The Activist Reports #2: My Letter to the ACIP, Voicing My Opinion Against Putting the COVID-19 Vaccines on the Childhood Schedule
The CDC had a submission form open to the public. Many voiced their disapproval. Here's what I wrote.
Anyone who knows me knows that I’ve done my research into the mRNA covid-19 so-called “vaccines,” and I have a lot of skepticism toward their claimed benefits.
Secondly, my goal with The Activist Reports is to create a public record of the actions I’m taking to address some of the large issues I see unfolding.
Close to 2 weeks ago, I heard some news about the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP):
There was a public commenting process, so I took action and voiced my opinion.
The commenting form had a field where you could quickly post a comment (up to 5000 characters).
There was also an option to attach files. It was this option that I used to submit a 6-page letter I had written. (I’ve reproduced it below, but if you’d like to see it on Google Drive, where I had originally typed it, you can do so by clicking here.)
= = =Begin Letter = = =
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Docket No. CDC-2022-0111
D.K. Fynn
Montreal, QC, CANADA
Thursday, October 20th, 2022
Dear Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP),
My name is D.K. Fynn. I’m a writer and researcher.
I recently heard about this meeting, and wanted to address one particular topic: the potential addition of Pfizer-BioNTech’s and Moderna’s mRNA covid-19 vaccines to the childhood vaccination schedule.
Like many people worldwide, I have a number of concerns about these vaccines.
My purpose in writing this letter is to state (and support) my position that the mRNA covid-19 vaccines should not be added to the childhood vaccination schedule…at least, not until all potential safety concerns are addressed and long-term safety has been established.
In this letter, I intend to support my position by discussing 5 areas of concern:
Area of Concern #1: The statistically near-zero risk of death that covid poses to children ages 0 to 17
Area of Concern #2: The preference for naturally-acquired immunity
Area of Concern #3: The limited benefit of the covid-19 vaccines
Area of Concern #4: Boosting
Area of Concern #5: The Law of Unintended Consequences
Area of Concern #1: The Statistically Near-Zero Risk of Death That COVID-19 Poses to Children Ages 0 to 17
According to the CDC’s Provisional COVID-19 Deaths by Sex and Age[1], from January 1st, 2020, to October 15th, 2022, in the United States, there have been 1,060,506 deaths attributed to covid-19.
1,314 of these deaths are in the 0 to 17-year-old category.
As of October 19th, 2022, according to 2022 numbers from census.gov[2], <0 to 17-year-olds make up 22% of the US population (numbering at ~74,280,423).
If my calculations are correct, 1,314 deaths out of a total of 1,060,506 deaths are 0.124%.
This means that the 0-17 demographic is underrepresented when it comes to covid deaths (22% of the population accounting for 0.124% of deaths).
This is why I hold the position that, when it comes to covid-19, the 0-17 demographic is at a near-zero risk of death.
Area of Concern #2: The Preference for Naturally-Acquired Immunity
From my research into this topic, it seems that naturally-acquired immunity is preferable to “vaccinal immunity.”
I put “vaccinal immunity” in quotation marks because last year, the CDC redefined the definition of a vaccine[3]. The word “immunity” was removed from the definition, and in its place was the phrase “immune response.”
What was also removed was the phrase, “protecting the person from that disease.”
So, almost by omission, vaccines don’t necessarily have to protect people from disease.
On the other hand, natural immunity is long-lasting, and some may say it offers long-term protection, whereas “vaccinal immunity” is relatively shorter (which is one reason why people need boosters).
For more information on this topic, I ask that you see the compilation of 150+ studies that establish the validity of natural immunity: 150 Plus Research Studies Affirm Naturally Acquired Immunity to Covid-19: Documented, Linked, and Quoted [4].
Area of Concern #3: The Limited Benefit of the COVID-19 Vaccines
The World Health Organization says that “To be approved, vaccines are required to have a high efficacy rate of 50% or above[5].”
However, Moderna’s vaccine efficacy[6] for 6-month-olds to 5-year-olds is a barely-adequate 50.6% (for 6- to 23-month-olds) and an inadequate 36.8% (for 2- to 5-year-olds).
Area of Concern #4: Boosting
We’re all aware of boosting recommendations.
However, the prospect of boosting raises this concern: we don’t know the long-term impact of repeated boosting.
On January 11th, 2022, an article appeared on Bloomberg.com, titled Frequent Boosters Spur Warning on Immune Response[7]. This article says that “European Union regulators warned that frequent Covid-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune response and may not be feasible.”
Area of Concern #5: The Law of Unintended Consequences
The Law of Unintended Consequences is the idea that an action or policy may have consequences that are unintended and/or unforeseeable.
With that in mind, I think that 2 possible unintended consequences of the mRNA vaccines have been:
The debate about myocarditis and the roles that infection and/or covid-19 vaccination may play.
The growing suspicion that the anti-covid-19 mRNA vaccines may have a negative impact on female reproductivity.
Around August 8th of this year, a pre-print (which has now been peer-reviewed) was published, titled Cardiovascular Effects of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Adolescents[8].
While this study wasn’t large (301 patients aged 13 to 18 years), it did look for something most other studies don’t look for: subclinical myocarditis.
Some of the findings were alarming:
“Cardiovascular effects were found in 29.24% of patients, ranging from tachycardia, palpitation, and myopericarditis.”
The study also said that “an abnormal ECG finding was noted in 54 patients (17.94%).”
It can be argued that both covid-19 infection and mRNA vaccination come with risks of myocarditis.
So, each of these (infection and vaccination) is a myocarditis risk factor (no matter how small).
One thing that I haven’t yet heard anyone mention is that, with vaccination, you’re adding a second risk factor.
What I mean is that if the vaccines don’t absolutely protect you from infection, then not only does infection come with a risk, but also, vaccination itself comes with its own added risk.
(Some may say that the anti-covid-19 vaccines reduce the risk of myocarditis, but that’s debatable. The research I’ve done has led me to the position that vaccination comes with its own risk.)
Anyway, in addition to myocarditis, there are some experts, such as Dr. Naomi Wolf and OB-GYN Dr. James Thorp, who feel that the mRNA vaccines could be having a negative impact on female reproductivity[9].
Conclusion
As I finish this letter, I want to state that I feel that the known benefit offered by the covid-19 mRNA vaccines (especially for our 6-month to 5-year-olds) is very limited and likely to wane over time. Additionally, the risks (both known and unknown) may actually outweigh the benefit.
That’s why I say “No” to the idea of adding Pfizer-BioNTech’s and Moderna’s mRNA covid-19 vaccines to the childhood vaccination schedule.
This is certainly a topic that we all feel strongly about, and while I can carry this conversation further, I think I’ll end it here.
Thank you for your time.
D.K. Fynn
[1] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Provisional COVID-19 Deaths by Sex and Age. https://data.cdc.gov/widgets/9bhg-hcku
[2] United States Census Bureau. International Database. https://www.census.gov/data-tools/demo/idb/#/pop?COUNTRY_YEAR=2022&COUNTRY_YR_ANIM=2022&FIPS_SINGLE=US&menu=popViz&POP_YEARS=2022&popPages=BYAGE&FIPS=US
[3] Loe, Megan. Yes, the CDC Changed Its Definition of Vaccine to Be ‘More Transparent’. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/yes-the-cdc-changed-its-definition-of-vaccine-to-be-more-transparent/ar-AATtAJ2
[4] Alexander, Paul Elias. 150 Plus Research Studies Affirm Naturally Acquired Immunity to Covid-19: Documented, Linked, and Quoted. https://brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-affirm-naturally-acquired-immunity-to-covid-19-documented-linked-and-quoted/
[5] World Health Organization. Vaccine Efficacy, Effectiveness and Protection. https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/vaccine-efficacy-effectiveness-and-protection
[6] U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee June 14-15, 2022 Meeting Presentation. https://www.fda.gov/media/159157/download
[7] Anghel, Irina. Frequent Boosters Spur Warning on Immune Response. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-11/repeat-booster-shots-risk-overloading-immune-system-ema-says
[8] Mansanguan et al. Cardiovascular Effects of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Adolescents. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202208.0151/v1
[9] DailyClout. OB/GYN Warns of Possible Links Between mRNA Injections, Miscarriages and Malformations. https://dailyclout.io/obgyn-warns-mrna-injections-and-miscarriages-malformations-may-be-linked/
= = = End Letter = = =
Around 11:43 PM on the 20th of October 2022 (minutes before the comment period ended), I successfully submitted the letter.
So far, it seems that the ACIP did go ahead with their original inentions of placing the mRNA covid-19 “vaccines” on the childhood schedule1.
While it may seem that I’ve “lost,” I feel that it’s important that I voiced my opinion on this. I could’ve written a lot more, but I wanted to prvent writing a long, long letter. (At 6 pages, my letter was long enough.)
Anyway, this is a war we’re fighting, and I’m going to do what I can to bring truth.
Malone, Robert. ACIP Votes to Add COVID-19 Injections to the Childhood Schedule. https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/acip-votes-to-add-covid-19-injections-to-the-childhood-schedule_4813062.html
You are A Voice! Keep exposing the EVIL, for You Are The Light and Love of Salvation through Jesus Christ!