The US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), freshly revamped under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. with a mandate for transparency, convened on September 19, 2025, to reassess COVID-19 vaccine recommendations. What could have been a watershed moment for accountability instead delivered a tepid sidestep. In a unanimous 12-0 vote, the panel shifted from universal endorsements to "individual decision-making" for ages 6 months to 64, and "shared clinical decision-making" for those 65 and older. No blanket warnings on risks. No halt to over-the-counter access after a 6-6 tie (broken against prescriptions). And crucially, no acknowledgment of mounting evidence, from VAERS reports to peer-reviewed studies, pointing to non-zero harms like myocarditis, potential genetic contamination, and immune dysregulation.

This isn't bold reform; it's bureaucratic inertia dressed as nuance. Even if one dismisses the most alarmist claims (e.g., "turbo cancers" as unproven hyperbole), the precautionary principle, a cornerstone of public health ethics, demands more than vague "consult your doctor" platitudes. With documented risks, chronic underreporting, and absent long-term data, uncritical acceptance isn't science; it's recklessness. It's time to pause, warn, and reassess, prioritising "do no harm" over industry-protected access.

Let's start with the basics: No vaccine is risk-free, but COVID shots carry signals that warrant scrutiny. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), co-managed by the CDC and FDA, logs passive reports from healthcare providers, patients, and manufacturers. As of August 29, 2025, the latest public dataset, VAERS tallies over 1.6 million adverse events linked to COVID vaccines, including more than 38,000 deaths. These aren't proven causations, VAERS is an early-warning tool, not a definitive ledger, but they flag patterns impossible to ignore.

Underreporting amplifies the concern. A landmark Harvard Pilgrim Health Care study, commissioned by HHS, revealed that fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries make it into VAERS due to barriers like time, awareness, and clinician hesitation. Extrapolate that: The true toll could exceed 38 million adverse events and 3.8 million deaths globally. Peer-reviewed analyses of VAERS data from 2020-2022, using zero-truncated Poisson regression, confirm disproportionate signals for cardiac and neurological issues post-vaccination.

Specific harms? The literature is damning:

Myocarditis and Pericarditis: Multiple meta-analyses link mRNA vaccines to elevated risks, especially in young males post-second dose (up to 3x baseline within 14 days). A 2023 review in Biomedicines pegged incidence at 1-10 per 100,000 doses, far from "rare" in absolute terms for a mass rollout.

Plasmid DNA Contamination and Genome Integration: Residual DNA fragments from manufacturing, sometimes exceeding regulatory limits, have sparked debate. A 2024 study in Autoimmunity Reviews quantified SV40 promoter sequences in Pfizer lots, raising theoretical risks of insertional mutagenesis (DNA integrating into human genomes). While regulators like the Australian TGA dismiss cancer links as "misinformation," Florida's DOH halted mRNA shots in 2024 citing "billions of DNA fragments per dose." Peer-reviewed quantification in Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics (2025) calls for better testing, noting potential oncogenic effects unstudied in long-term trials.

Fertility, Immune Suppression, and "Turbo Cancers": Systematic reviews find no causal fertility hit, yet, but menstrual irregularities persist in surveys (e.g., 2023 Human Reproduction Update). Immune suppression? A 2022 Frontiers in Immunology piece documented IgG4 class-switching post-mRNA, potentially blunting responses to other pathogens. "Turbo cancers," aggressive post-vax malignancies remain anecdotal, but EU Parliament queries in 2025 highlight unexplained rises warranting probes.

These aren't fringe theories; they're from journals like PMC and MDPI. Even Big Pharma concede non-zero risks, Pfizer's own 2025 analysis admits myocarditis spikes.

Enter the precautionary principle: When scientific uncertainty looms and harms are plausible, act to prevent damage rather than wait for proof. It's not anti-science, it's pro-safety. In vaccine policy, it guided pauses like AstraZeneca's 2021 blood-clot halt despite low incidence (1/100k). A 2022 European Journal of Internal Medicine piece argued it was sidelined in COVID rollouts, prioritising speed over scrutiny, eroding trust when mandates followed.

For COVID shots, the principle screams for action: No long-term trials on cancer or autoimmunity. Underreporting masks scale. Yet ACIP's "individual choice" framing offloads burden onto patients, ignoring inequities in access to informed docs. As ethicist William Schaffner noted post-meeting, the chaos masked a failure to "draw a line."

Uncritical cheerleading? That's what got us here, Warp Speed's rush, now echoed in Trump's praise despite ACIP's damning exchanges (e.g., grilling Pfizer on edited biodistribution data). Precaution demands warnings, not euphemisms.

ACIP's pivot creates a mirage of caution while preserving Big Pharma profits, shots stay insured, pharmacy-available, no Rx barrier. This isn't empowerment; it's evasion. The precautionary principle isn't optional, it's the ethical floor. What to do? Pause distribution for high-risk groups. Mandate contamination testing. Fund independent long-term studies.

If risks are "lowest" for healthy folks, as ACIP claims, why not say so explicitly? Why no equity safeguards for VFC kids? Blind acceptance betrayed public trust once; repeating it invites backlash. And this will be well deserved.

https://jonfleetwood.substack.com/p/acip-refuses-to-warn-against-covid