Kennedy announces 8 new ACIP members ahead of the next meeting on June 25th.
Their first job MUST be to immediately recommend withdrawal of all mRNA poisons or there is no hope they will restore trust in health authorities.
Today, Sec Robert F Kennedy Jr announced 8 new members of the ACIP committee that recommends vaccines to use or not use. This comes after he fired all 17 previous members. I’m not sure if there are more to come, but there is a lot to celebrate in the names below. He could have done better, but he could have done a whole lot worse.
Here is his announcement post:
I dispute his assertion that his role is to restore trust in vaccines because how and why would you want to restore trust in a medical procedure that has never saved one person but has indeed, killed and injured hundreds of millions of the 240+ years it’s been used? But I suppose this was something he had to say.
One of the comments on Sec Kennedy’s post asked Grok the following information. I found this very interesting. I can’t credit the OP because their details are not available and I asked Grok to let me know who it was but they couldn’t? Never came across this before but apologies to whoever asked this intelligent question - I appreciate you!
I asked Chat GPT the same question and got a much less detailed response - below:
Acip Appointee Vaccine Stances35.7KB ∙ PDF fileDownloadDownload
I would love to know your thoughts on these people. Certainly Martin Kuldorff as one of the original signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration is a great choice. And Robert Malone, though I don’t trust him (just being honest) has called for the withdrawal of mRNA poisons for years now. Retsef Levi is another great decision for this Committee and Vicki Pebsworth, though Grok didn’t seem to be aware of this fact, has worked with the National Vaccine Information Center in the US (NVIC.org) so I think she might be good too though I know nothing about her.
I so want to trust that Kennedy is doing the right thing for the right reason. And I know he couldn’t put all 8 people on the committee from our side, but at least we will have a say now. Hopefully there will soon be an odd number of people on there so we aren’t hamstrung by tie votes all the time.
Here is a short list of people - just off the top of my head - who I think should be appointed next:
Those 9 would take the committee up to their full complement of 17 members.
Who have I left out? Who do you think should be added? I would love to hear your thoughts.
Informed Choice is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
