THIS WEEK: CDC CONCEDES 13 ESSENTIAL ACKNOWLEDGED REALITIES ON mRNA VACCINES

Internal Briefing Reveals Shifting Consensus on Safety, Efficacy, and Policy Integrity. I t Left Out Some MAJOR Concerns, However.

In a quietly delivered but deeply revealing presentation on April 15, 2025, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) presented new COVID-19 vaccine policy considerations to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Dr. Lakshmi Panagiotakopoulos, representing the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, outlined the agency's evolving stance on mRNA vaccine safety, effectiveness, and future dosing schedules —and hinting at ACIP’s somewhat improved approach to review of all vaccines.

What followed was an unprecedented series of verbal and visual concessions that mark a subtle but unmistakable shift in vaccine policy—and perhaps in ACIP's future operating logic.

1. Acknowledged Risk of Myocarditis in Young Males

In a sharp departure from past public messaging, the CDC now plainly admits:

"Post marketing data... demonstrate increased risks of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly within the first week following vaccination."

The agency explicitly stated that these risks are highest in adolescent and young adult males:

"For COMIRNATY (BioNTech/Pfizer), the observed risk is highest in males 12 through 17 years of age."
"For SPIKEVAX (Moderna), the observed risk is highest in males 18 through 24 years of age."

This admission matters beyond COVID-19. It raises a red flag for ACIP's risk-benefit framework for other novel platforms. Should similar adverse signal thresholds apply across mRNA, vector, or protein-subunit platforms? The answer now appears less rhetorical than it once was.

2. CDC Warns Against Further Doses After Myocarditis

Perhaps even more striking is CDC guidance that suggests:

"Development of myocarditis or pericarditis within 3 weeks after a dose... is a precaution to a subsequent dose... and subsequent doses should generally be avoided."

This is the first strong acknowledgment that a specific adverse event may contraindicate further use of a vaccine. It subtly challenges ACIP's legacy practice of recommending boosters without nuanced contraindication criteria for previously injured individuals.

3. Lingering Symptoms in Half of Myocarditis Cases

A follow-up surveillance study reveals that among vaccine-associated myocarditis patients ages 12 to 29:

"50%... self-report at least 1 lingering symptom at 3 months."

Despite public framing of myocarditis as "mild," these data affirms the potential for long-term sequelae. This undercuts the agency's prior framing and opens a broader question: Should ACIP begin formally evaluating chronic injury outcomes in its benefit-risk matrices?

4. Public Trust Is Eroding

Among parents who have not vaccinated their children against COVID-19:

"45% are less confident now [in vaccine safety] than when the vaccines first came out." "43% are concerned about safety... 31% about effectiveness."

This data suggests that future ACIP recommendations may face broad skepticism, especially if they involve novel platforms. Trust has become a quantifiable, trackable meaure—and is now a variable HHS must strategically manage.

5. COVID-19 No Longer a Top Cause of Pediatric Death

CDC's slides show that:

"COVID-19 was the 12th leading cause of death in children in 2023."

This decline from 8th in 2021-22 has significant policy implications. Continuing to recommend universal pediatric COVID-19 vaccination, despite diminished risk, could strain the credibility of other ACIP pediatric schedules.

6. Long COVID Persists—Even Among the Vaccinated

The CDC concedes:

"Among adults ≥18 years, 3.6% reported Long COVID symptoms... 8.4% reported ever having Long COVID."

Even with multiple exposures (natural and vaccine-induced), immunity does not prevent post-acute sequelae. This suggests that vaccination alone cannot resolve COVID-related chronic burden, reshaping how ACIP may need to justify annual respiratory vaccine strategies.

7. Vaccine Effectiveness Is Limited and Static

Effectiveness against hospitalization in seniors hovered between:

"VISION: 45% (36–53%)" "IVY: 46% (26–60%)"

This plateau calls into question the additive value of annual boosters. The broader implication is that ACIP may need to rethink how it models "diminishing returns" for iterative immunization schedules.

Even these estimates, however, are likely biased due to the Lyons-Weiler/Fenton/O’Neil effect - aka counting window biased, if they are based on counts delayed until weeks after the last dose.

8. Natural Immunity Is Widespread and Durable

CDC seroprevalence studies showed that:

"Seroprevalence [among children] exceeded 90% by end of 2022."

Yet prior infection remains unacknowledged in scheduling policy. The institutional reluctance to incorporate natural immunity reflects a policy inertia that may not be sustainable moving forward.

CDC did not disaggregate seroprevalence by vaccine status, preventing any meaningful public or scientific discussion about the comparative durability and breadth of natural versus vaccine-induced immunity.

9. So-Called “MIS-C” Has Virtually Disappeared

Once a pillar of pediatric vaccine justification, post-COVID infection Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) has nearly vanished:

"Cases declined from 3,287 (pre-Delta) to just 79 in 2024."

Without MIS-C, the urgency of pediatric boosting becomes harder to defend, signaling a potential precedent where declining threat leads to dose de-escalation.

MIS-C was always a weird diagnosis anyway; it came from two case series studies within which some of the patients never had any evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

10. CDC's Policy Is Internationally Isolated

"Children (routine): Not recommended [UK, Australia, WHO, Canada]"

The U.S. is alone in recommending annual COVID-19 vaccines for all healthy children. This discrepancy may place future ACIP positions under comparative scrutiny both domestically and globally.

11. Vast Majority of Americans Are Labeled 'High-Risk'

"74% of U.S. adults ≥18 years have at least one high-risk condition."

Risk here references increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19. This fact effectively nullifies the distinction between "universal" and "risk-based" recommendations. The conceptual boundary ACIP has used for decades is, for COVID-19, statistically meaningless.

12. Universal Vaccination Model Is Cracking Internally

Polling within the ACIP Work Group shows:

"76% supported a non-universal recommendation."

Even among insiders, the logic of universal vaccination for COVID-19 has broken down. This moment reflects a broader reckoning: ACIP may need to pivot toward risk-stratified models not only for COVID-19, but for future seasonal respiratory viruses.

13. Incidental COVID-19 Hospitalizations Are Still Counted

"Note that rates are not... limited to admissions where the respiratory infection is the likely primary reason for admission."

This important admission—that hospitalization data may include incidental positives—calls into question the very metrics used to justify ongoing vaccine policy.

What the ACIP Presentation Left Out

These 13 statements represent a major inflection point in ACIP operations.

The Future of ACIP: A Fork in the Road

Taken together, the 13 acknowledged realities signal that ACIP may be transitioning from a paradigm of universal immunization toward a more targeted, conditional framework rooted in dynamic risk assessment, natural immunity, and clearer benefit-harm profiles.

If these lessons hold, we may be witnessing the start of a new era: one in which ACIP must not only recommend vaccines but also earn back public trust, incorporate dissent, and modernize the evidentiary standards for long-term safety and real-world efficacy.

What the ACIP Presentation Left Out

These 13 statements represent a major inflection point in ACIP operations. However, just as revealing as what the CDC disclosed on April 15, 2025, is what it chose to omit. Despite the presentation’s surprising admissions—on myocarditis risk, diminishing vaccine effectiveness, and declining public trust—the briefing stops short of acknowledging a number of scientifically established, policy-relevant facts that bear directly on vaccine safety, ethics, and public health strategy.

Most notably, the ACIP presentation omits all discussion of molecular mimicry and pathogenic priming—mechanisms first forecasted and later supported by both bioinformatics and laboratory studies. Research from Lyons-Weiler and Vojdani, among others, has demonstrated extensive amino acid sequence homology between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and a broad swath of human proteins, including those in cardiac, neurological, and immune tissues. These findings provide a biologically plausible mechanism for autoimmune sequelae post-vaccination—particularly in genetically susceptible individuals. Yet the ACIP slides offer no mention of molecular mimicry, no commentary on pathogenic priming, and no reference to the growing literature on autoimmune complications following exposure to spike protein, whether from infection or injection.

Also absent is any mention of reverse transcription or concerns about genomic persistence. The landmark study by Aldén et al. (2022) showed that mRNA from the Pfizer vaccine can undergo reverse transcription into DNA within human liver cell lines. While the clinical significance of this remains debated, its existence is undeniable. Given the CDC’s repeated reassurances that mRNA cannot integrate into host genomes, the silence in the ACIP presentation is conspicuous. The same can be said for findings that spike protein remains in circulation weeks to months after injection—an observation supported by multiple studies and associated with persistent inflammation. If these factors contribute to lingering adverse events or immune dysregulation, they would certainly belong to any honest long-term safety discussion. Yet they are nowhere in the briefing.

The presentation does not acknowledge the well-documented flaws in the original clinical trials used to authorize the vaccines. There is no reference to the Lyons-Weiler/Fenton effect—a distortion caused by inconsistent case-count windows and differential surveillance between vaccine and placebo groups. Despite its clear implications for inflated efficacy estimates, this statistical artifact remains unaddressed in the ACIP's retrospective. The agency continues to cite effectiveness percentages derived from real-world studies, but with no transparency about the models, inclusion criteria, or confidence intervals that would contextualize those figures.

Equally missing is any recognition of comparative health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Several studies, despite being marginalized or ignored in mainstream discourse, have shown that unvaccinated children often have lower rates of chronic illness, including allergies, asthma, ADHD, and even autism spectrum disorders. These studies—conducted by reputable scientists and published in peer-reviewed journals—should at least provoke further investigation. Yet in the ACIP presentation, the unvaccinated population remains statistically invisible, mentioned only as a deficiency in coverage rather than a reference point for outcome comparison.

The CDC also failed to mention the possibility of viral interference and type replacement, an area of virological ecology that is well understood and regularly cited in other vaccine domains, particularly influenza. Suppressing one dominant viral strain can create an ecological niche for another. Given the unprecedented scale of mRNA vaccination and its interference with mucosal immunity, the absence of any discussion about epidemiological displacement or immune imprinting is a significant omission. The same is true for the growing body of evidence suggesting negative vaccine efficacy—where the vaccinated become more susceptible to infection with time or after multiple doses. This phenomenon, long observed in dengue and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), now has corollaries in SARS-CoV-2, but received no acknowledgement from the ACIP Work Group.

Even more troubling is the complete absence of discussion regarding conflicts of interest and institutional bias. There is no mention of internal NIH emails showing that Dr. Anthony Fauci and senior advisors coordinated with researchers to downplay lab-origin hypotheses. No mention of FOIA-released documents showing that Dr. David Morens used private emails to evade transparency laws, or that the NIH ghostwrote scientific papers dismissing valid concerns about vaccine safety and virus origin. ACIP’s silence on these matters of credibility suggests a continued detachment from the larger accountability reckoning that much of the scientific community is now demanding.

Natural immunity is undervalued. The CDC presentation avoids acknowledging how widespread infection-induced immunity is among the unvaccinated, which could substantially influence risk-benefit profiles for repeated vaccination.

• Policy bias is exposed. By not disaggregating seroprevalence by vaccine status, the CDC prevents any meaningful public or scientific discussion about the comparative durability and breadth of natural versus vaccine-induced immunity.

• Data exist—but were excluded. The CDC has access to population-level seroprevalence datasets from NHANES and other surveillance platforms that can distinguish vaccination status. The choice not to show it is not one of absence, but of omission.

Omitted: Residual DNA Contamination and Genomic Risk

One of the most consequential and biologically disruptive omissions from the ACIP’s April 15, 2025 presentation is its complete silence on the issue of residual plasmid DNA contamination in mRNA COVID-19 vaccine vials. Despite widespread scientific discussion, multiple independent confirmations, and serious mechanistic implications, the CDC did not mention DNA contamination in any slide—not in the safety, manufacturing, or future policy sections.

In 2023 and 2024, independent genomic analysis—most prominently by Kevin McKernan and collaborating labs—revealed the presence of double-stranded DNA fragments in mRNA vaccine vials using nanopore sequencing and qPCR techniques. These fragments were not incidental: they included plasmid backbone sequences, portions of SV40 promoter/enhancer elements, and regulatory sequences typically used in gene therapy constructs. The presence of such elements raises legitimate concern because SV40 sequences are known to facilitate integration into the host genome, particularly in cells that are actively dividing.

Regulatory agencies including the FDA and WHO have long held that residual DNA in biologic products must remain below 10 nanograms per dose, and preferably consist of fragments under 200 base pairs, to reduce the risk of insertional mutagenesis. However, several independent analyses reported contamination levels as high as 186 nanograms per dose in Pfizer vials—nearly 19 times the permitted threshold. These findings have not been refuted with published counter-data from the manufacturers or regulators, and in some cases, have been corroborated by laboratories in multiple countries.

This is not merely a manufacturing oversight. If plasmid DNA is encapsulated within lipid nanoparticles—alongside mRNA and spike protein sequences—it can enter human cells, especially if co-delivered with elements containing nuclear localization signals. Once inside the nucleus, the theoretical risk of genomic integration becomes non-trivial, particularly in stem-like or rapidly dividing tissues. This mechanism is foundational to gene therapy but has never been considered acceptable in conventional prophylactic vaccination. Its silent migration into vaccine manufacturing raises not only biological and regulatory concerns, but profound ethical ones.

More troubling is the fact that these findings did not emerge through FDA lot testing or manufacturer transparency—but rather through independent investigations. The agencies tasked with enforcing biologics standards either failed to detect or failed to disclose the presence of contaminating DNA, casting doubt on the robustness of the regulatory process itself. The ACIP’s failure to acknowledge this issue—despite its profound implications for both safety and trust—suggests a broader institutional reluctance to engage with evidence that challenges foundational assumptions about the safety of mRNA technology.

The ACIP’s silence is particularly indefensible given the broader context of post-marketing safety concerns, including documented cases of reverse transcription of mRNA into DNA (as demonstrated by Aldén et al., 2022), persistent spike protein in tissues, and immunological phenomena like autoimmune activation. When these concerns converge—residual plasmid DNA, nuclear entry mechanisms, and the inflammatory nature of spike—the risk profile is altered dramatically.

By omitting this from its most comprehensive 2025 vaccine safety presentation, the CDC not only shields the public from biologically plausible risks, but fails to prepare regulators and clinicians for the next wave of consequences—should even a fraction of this mechanism prove clinically consequential. The omission of DNA contamination from ACIP deliberations is not merely a gap; it is a dereliction of scientific duty.

If ACIP intends to retain credibility in shaping long-term public health policy, it must reckon not only with what is politically safe to say, but with what the evidence—however uncomfortable—demands it confront. DNA contamination in mRNA vaccines is not an isolated flaw. It is a biological and ethical threshold, one that will determine the future viability of the mRNA platform itself and the institutional legitimacy of those who promote it.

The Silence on Blood Clots and Postmortem Findings

While the CDC’s April 15, 2025 ACIP presentation made notable admissions regarding myocarditis and waning vaccine efficacy, it conspicuously omitted any discussion of blood clots, thrombotic events, or postmortem findings related to coagulation abnormalities. This absence is particularly stark in light of growing scientific and pathological evidence implicating both SARS-CoV-2 infection and mRNA vaccination in the dysregulation of clotting pathways.

No Mention of Vaccine-Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia (VITT)

VITT, first identified in recipients of adenoviral vector vaccines like AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, involves both thrombosis (clotting) and thrombocytopenia (low platelet count), and is associated with potentially fatal cerebral or abdominal blood clots. While most public attention on VITT focused on vector-based vaccines, multiple reports and case series have since described thrombotic events post-mRNA vaccination as well—including strokes, heart attacks, pulmonary embolism, and microvascular clotting. Nevertheless, the ACIP presentation offered no mention of VITT or any thrombotic outcomes in any age group or population. This is striking given the CDC’s own past surveillance for such outcomes via the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD).

Complete Silence on ‘White Fibrous Clots’ Found During Autopsies

Perhaps even more unsettling is the absence of any reference to the widely reported phenomenon of long, rubbery white clots discovered in corpses during embalming and autopsy procedures beginning in 2021. Embalmers and funeral directors—most notably Richard Hirschman and others in professional forums—have documented unusual, resilient fibrous clots that do not behave like traditional postmortem coagula. These reports, initially anecdotal, have gained traction as physicians and pathologists—including Dr. Ryan Cole and independent coroner networks—have corroborated their findings and expressed concern about the structural composition and volume of these clots.

No attempt was made by the CDC in this presentation to address or refute these findings, or even to acknowledge them as part of any surveillance process. In a briefing that spans 71 slides and discusses death rates by age group, vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization, and parental confidence in vaccination, there is no reference to autopsy data of any kind.

No Autopsy Data—At All

The presentation includes detailed epidemiological data: hospitalization rates, seroprevalence charts, causes of death across age groups. But it does not include a single slide referencing autopsy pathology, histology, tissue distribution of spike protein, or vascular damage. This is remarkable considering that countries such as Germany, Norway, and Japan have conducted and published autopsy-based research showing clear pathological changes—including spike protein persistence in tissues and vascular inflammation—in individuals who died after COVID-19 vaccination.

Autopsy is the gold standard in medicine for determining cause of death. That ACIP’s policy-shaping presentation excludes all postmortem evidence related to COVID-19 vaccination suggests an intentional avoidance of what could be the most definitive data of all.

Clotting and Long COVID or Long Vax Overlap Ignored

A growing body of research has shown that persistent microclots—fibrinolysis-resistant amyloid-like fibrin aggregates—are found in the blood of patients suffering from both Long COVID and post-vaccination syndromes. Researchers such as Resia Pretorius and her team in South Africa have published peer-reviewed findings demonstrating that these microclots block capillaries, impair oxygen exchange, and resist normal breakdown by the body’s fibrinolytic system. These abnormal clots have been proposed as a unifying mechanism underlying a wide range of long-term symptoms: brain fog, fatigue, cardiovascular irregularities, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). Their presence in vaccinated individuals raises difficult but necessary questions about the clotting profile of repeated exposure to the spike protein—whether through infection or injection.

Yet none of these findings appear in the ACIP briefing. There is no exploration of spike-related vascular damage, nor any acknowledgment of the literature describing microclots in either Long COVID or what patients and clinicians increasingly refer to as “Long Vax.”

Omitted: IgG4 Class Switching and Immune Tolerance

Among the most scientifically consequential omissions from the ACIP’s April 15, 2025 presentation is its failure to acknowledge the phenomenon of IgG4 class switching—an immune response abnormality observed following repeated administration of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. While the briefing covered myocarditis, Long COVID, and vaccine coverage rates, it made no mention of a mounting body of peer-reviewed immunological research, nor the regulatory disclosures from other nations, regarding the shift from protective antibody types (IgG1, IgG3, and IgA) to the tolerogenic IgG4 subclass.

This class-switching phenomenon has been observed in both laboratory and clinical settings. It was detailed in a 2023 publication by Uversky et al. in Vaccines (Basel), which concluded that repeated exposure to the spike protein via vaccination may trigger a shift toward IgG4 dominance—a subclass of antibodies typically associated with immune tolerance, allergen desensitization, and regulatory dampening of immune responses​. In this context, a switch to IgG4 could blunt cytotoxic immune activity, reducing the body’s ability to clear SARS-CoV-2 upon reinfection.

Such a shift would help explain the paradox observed in real-world data: high post-vaccine antibody titers that do not correspond with sterilizing immunity, or worse, are associated with increased susceptibility to infection with each successive dose. Unlike IgG1 and IgG3—which drive inflammation, phagocytosis, and viral clearance—IgG4 does not fix complement and functions instead to tolerate antigen exposure. In effect, repeated boosting may be instructing the immune system to ignore the spike protein, undermining the rationale for repeated vaccination and, potentially, for the entire mRNA platform as it is currently deployed.

This immunologic shift is not a fringe theory. Health Canada itself, in internal communications released through Access to Information requests, acknowledged both the occurrence of this phenomenon and its international recognition by other regulatory bodies​. Yet the ACIP presentation to U.S. health authorities did not contain a single mention of IgG subclass modulation, nor any indication that this factor was considered in deliberations over future dosing schedules, age stratification, or risk-benefit thresholds.

The omission is not merely technical. If repeated vaccination leads to a dominant IgG4 response, this could have serious implications for cancer surveillance, autoimmunity, and the long-term effectiveness of mRNA-based immunization platforms. IgG4 dominance has been associated in other contexts with immune escape in tumors, failure to contain chronic viral infections, and promotion of tissue-specific autoimmune conditions. These concerns, though flagged in the scientific literature, remain unexplored in ACIP’s official analysis.

By omitting any discussion of IgG4 class switching, the CDC has left an immunologic blind spot in its public health modeling. As with spike persistence, residual DNA contamination, and molecular mimicry, this phenomenon requires urgent mechanistic and clinical investigation. If the mRNA platform is conditioning the immune system toward tolerance of a pathogenic viral protein, that is not just a failure of vaccine design—it is a signal that something foundational has gone wrong in immunological logic.

Mechanistic Overlap—But No Mention

The spike protein’s ability to bind to ACE2 receptors and interfere with endothelial function is well established. These actions promote a pro-inflammatory, pro-thrombotic environment in the vasculature. Whether introduced via infection or mRNA translation, the spike protein can compromise vascular integrity, activate platelets, and initiate clotting cascades—especially in individuals with preexisting cardiovascular or metabolic vulnerabilities.

Despite this mechanistic clarity, the ACIP made no effort to address the possibility that repeated spike exposure—especially through annual or semiannual boosters—could elevate clotting risk or exacerbate endothelial dysfunction over time. The omission of such discussion signals a continued failure to incorporate mechanistic toxicology into policy modeling.

A Missed Opportunity for Transparency

By excluding any discussion of clotting abnormalities, especially those visible in autopsy findings or emerging in Long Vax case series, the ACIP presentation fails to confront one of the most pressing questions in post-COVID medical science: what is causing the persistent vascular injury in a subset of affected individuals, and what role might vaccination play?

The CDC has access to postmortem data through its own collaborations with coroners and the National Center for Health Statistics. That it did not include even a cursory slide on thrombotic phenomena or mention of unusual clots strongly suggests a decision to curate the scope of “acceptable risk.” In doing so, the agency undercuts its own stated commitment to evidence-based policy and reinforces public suspicion that only select adverse events are acknowledged when convenient.

Until clotting abnormalities are brought into open, transparent analysis—alongside myocarditis, anaphylaxis, and neurological events—ACIP’s vaccine recommendations will remain incomplete, structurally biased, and ethically compromised.

Finally, the ACIP presentation avoids the ethical elephant in the room: the implications of coercion, mandates, and misinformation propagated under the guise of consensus. There is no reflection on how policies driven by institutional overconfidence may have undermined the very vaccine confidence the CDC now laments. There is no reconciliation with the pain, loss of livelihood, or medical trauma experienced by individuals forced to comply with vaccination under duress, only to suffer adverse outcomes that are still dismissed or ignored.

In short, while the ACIP Work Group deserves credit for moving toward risk-based recommendations and acknowledging real harms, the presentation remains a partial and selective record. It fails to engage with the full scope of available science, the ethical fallout of prior policy decisions, and the deeper institutional dysfunctions that have shaped the public health response to COVID-19. For ACIP to evolve genuinely, its deliberations must extend beyond metrics and trendlines to confront the structure of trust, power, and accountability in vaccine policymaking.

That reckoning has yet to begin.