> Ah so they're nitpicks when I call out your misrepresentations, but somehow they're still material to your overall point? They're nitpicks. Let's say I grant

> Ah so they're nitpicks when I call out your misrepresentations, but somehow they're still material to your overall point? They're nitpicks. Let's say I grant you that Mpox and Dengue are not really on the recommended AAP schedule, since they have asterisks. What about the other 7 differences? What about the Covid vaccine? BCG? Hep A? Flu? > Who are you even talking to? You've invented a strawman to respond to. It's the topic at the root of the thread. Presented these two options as better alternatives to the CDC. > In fact, the CDC doesn't even have an updated vaccine schedule. If you go to their current site, guess which vaccines are included? OK. So you're saying that nothing has actually changed? So what is the problem with the CDC? What's your applicable criticism of "MAHA"? Again, I refer you to the top of the thread: > The physicians in my life - including my spouse - have essentially all abandoned the CDC and FDA as a source of decision-making on vaccines and pharmaceuticals, except for what is required by law. Other sources of guidance, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics' immunization schedule[0] and the WHO recommendations[1] are gaining prominence instead. > If you are an opponent of vaccines or a supporter of "MAHA", who is happy with what the CDC/FDA is doing, you might want to consider that the way they're doing it has utterly failed to convince the vast majority of people who are responsible for actually executing their guidance, and therefore will have limited impact.