I know 2 teens with permanent heart damage from Pfizer and I live in a relatively small city. I know the ER and critical care ICU doctors and they both said they’ve seen only COVID vaccine injured kids, not COVID injured.
I would be very concerned with the care those individuals were providing. That is not what the data shows, and those comments appear to be conspiracy driven.
do you think covid vaccines don't cause myocarditis? it's on the CDC webpage. do you think that's a minor side effect? half of europe has banned the vaccines for young people in recognition of this problem.
We know the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis is increased by the 2nd dose of mRNA vaccines when given at the intervals originally proposed. That said, a longer interval, which likely would have also improved the overall immune response has been demonstrated to have such incidence down toward the non-vaccine baseline. However, the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis is much more prevalent in COVID infection. Further, myocarditis associated with the vaccines tends to resolve much more quickly and with many fewer complications than those same maladies caused by active infection. This is a relative risk problem. And the result falls in favor of vaccination.
To repeat: I personally believe our dosing schedule should have been longer than 3 or 4 weeks, both to see a more robust immune response, AND later to reduce the incidence of myocarditis.
the incidence of myocarditis from covid infection is not the same across all age groups, genders, or pre-existing health condition. for instance, i think we all know by now that this is not true for healthy young men. they are at a much higher risk of myocarditis from the mrna vaccines than they are from infection.
with regard to dosing schedule i recommend starting with zero doses and following up with zero boosters. but to each their own.
The incidence of vaccine-associated myocarditis is, indeed, higher in males 14-25 years but remains lower than the incidence of myocarditis associated with actual symptomatic infection. If memory serves, the risk is between 4-8x higher in that age group than for the background rate. Still, myocarditis associated with vaccines is rarely serious and usually resolves within 7 days without sequalae. The reports of aftereffects I've seen haven't been in reputable medical literature, nor have I heard any reputable anecdotal reports from clinical friends and associates.
At this juncture, you are able to follow your preferred approach but with each subsequent infection will raise your likelihood of severe illness as well as long-COVID. I tend to be research and conservative (classical rather than political definition) in terms of medicine. That means I recommend primary vaccination and boost, as the circumstances indicate. Vaccines certainly reduced mortality in the United States, although had we not been subject to disinformation and claims public health was trammeling peoples' rights, we would have done better, assuming we'd gotten a faster uptake and achieved, within 3 months, a 95% vaccination rate, even for a single dose. I will state again, I believe the interval between primary doses was not optimal but the intent when it was discussed and approved was to create the highest IgG response as fast as possible. That was deemed the most critical approach at the time.
Youre right. not banned. they just paused it. they dont recommend it.
The use of Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine has been paused in Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland for use in young people.
Denmark, Norway, Austria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Luxembourg have halted some or all of their AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccinations over fears of blood clots.
Primary vaccination for general population no longer recommended by the French health authority. 'Almost all of the population not at risk of severe disease has already come into contact with the virus at least once.
anecdotes are more like observations than evidence. observations are used to formualte hypotheses. and often data are collected through repeated observations. so i would not dismiss anecdotal experience entirely from the scientific method.
the doctor who discovered hand washing saved lives learned that through his experience, he didn't read it in a journal or run a trial.
as for debate, anyone who cares enough about a topic is entitled to debate it. there can be rules to a debate to make it productive. people should be encouraged to ask questions and use their brain in all circumstances.
Between birth and 18 months, will the metal in vaccines, which causes inflammation, be too much? Especially for smaller children? I’ve worked with kids my whole life. Now there are so many “brain damaged.” It’s the expectation, the norm.
We have to figure out why so many children are in such terrible shape. Maybe it’s the chemicals like round up? Maybe it’s a shot with too much metal build up over those first few months of vaccines. Are there autopsies on SIDS victims? What causes SADS? Never saw it before 3021. What changed?
What chemical in moderna covid 19 shot made my moms legs swell up so much and turn fire red? She couldn’t bend her knees. What chemical in the same shot caused her joints to be in so much pain she couldn’t sleep for a year? Or would you say “there’s no way to prove the vaccine did this” and dismiss harms like the FDA? I remember a meeting where the spokesman said that a trial participant was paralyzed 5 hours after the shot so the doctors ruled this reaction unrelated. So many egregious statements. And you wonder why any of us worry about what is in an injection?
What happens to babies with metal injections when they are so young they cannot tell us?
It’s as if you didn’t read the article. You have missed the whole point. The dose is the poison. Please go back and read the article and then your reply. While doing so, think critically.
it is not just the dose but the exposure pathway as well. comparing aluminum ingested in food with that injected into the bloodstream is silly. do we know what dose is safe for injecting into a baby? please point me to the studies.
the entire reason for using aluminum in vaccines is to act as an adjuvant and stimulate an immune response. the adjuvant is intentionally causing inflammation. it might still be safe, but how do you know it's not causing inflammation in the brain that is then diagnosed as autism?
Aluminum is the predominant adjuvant used in human vaccines, although not all vaccines. The aluminum content of vaccines is limited by the Code of Federal Regulations to 1.25 mg per dose.30 The regulations also stipulate that data are required to reveal that the amount of aluminum is safe and necessary to produce the intended effect. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that the amount of aluminum exposure from following the recommended vaccine schedule is low and that the aluminum is not readily absorbed by the body.31 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cited a study in which researchers calculated the aluminum exposure from vaccines during infancy and found the total to be far below the minimal risk levels established by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.32 The aluminum-containing adjuvants are reported to have minimal adverse effects but are effective at improving the antibody response.33 There are reports of a chronic local granulomatous inflammation known as macrophagic myofasciitis in a small number of patients after receiving intramuscular vaccines containing aluminum.33,34 This condition allegedly results from a chronic inflammatory response to the residual adjuvant aluminum at the vaccination site that leads to a constellation of neurologic symptoms, including myalgia, arthralgia, chronic fatigue, weakness, and cognitive issues.34 The number of patients reported to have the neurologic symptoms is low compared with the number of vaccinated individuals. The World Health Organization Global Advisory Committee of Vaccine Safety has not found that the data support an association between aluminum adjuvants and chronic neurologic diseases.35 The aluminum content of vaccines has been blamed for autism spectrum disorders, but a large meta-analysis of cohort studies evaluating vaccination and the risk of autism revealed that in pooled data of 1 256 407 children, the odds ratio of developing autism after vaccination was 0.99, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.92 to 1.06.36
The aluminum adjuvants in the human papillomavirus vaccine have also been suggested as causing primary ovary insufficiency. However, the relationship suggested is based on a total of 6 case reports, most occurring years after vaccination, with only 1 patient having ovarian failure within several months of vaccination.37 These cases reports come after more than 170 million doses of the human papillomavirus vaccine have been administered. The aluminum adjuvants in vaccines are also accused of potentially triggering an autoimmune process. The autoimmune syndrome induced by adjuvants was proposed in 2011.38 The proposed criteria for this syndrome are extremely vague and general. Two of the major criteria are exposure to an external stimulus (infection, vaccine, silicone, or adjuvant) before symptoms occur and appearance of a long list of general somatic complaints. A review of the available literature for the purported autoimmune syndrome induced by adjuvants revealed that the human cases were so dissimilar in proposed triggers and clinical conditions that there was no evidence for a relationship between adjuvants and autoimmune conditions.39
A couple of notes, Aluminum salts have been used since the 1930's, so we have a fair bit of history. As for "acquired autism", there is a hypothesis for autoimmune Encephalitis that need more study. Also: Arking notes that, given the known genetic contributors to autism, inflammation is unlikely to be its root cause. Rather, he says, "This is a downstream consequence of upstream gene mutation."
i appreciate this thoughtful response and the citations. a couple notes:
"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cited a study in which researchers calculated the aluminum exposure from vaccines during infancy and found the total to be far below the minimal risk levels established by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.32 " The CDC backs up the statement "Previous scientific research has shown the amount of aluminum exposure in people who follow the recommended vaccine schedule is low and is not readily absorbed by the body" with ONE study: (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/adjuvants.html#alum). The study (Mitkus, 2011 - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22001122/) "found that the body burden of aluminum from vaccines and diet throughout an infant's first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum modeled using the regulatory MRL". However, according to this 2018 review (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29307441/) , the MRL is not appropriate and is based on oral exposure. Their abstract is below:
"We reviewed the three toxicokinetic reference studies commonly used to suggest that aluminum (Al)-based adjuvants are innocuous. A single experimental study was carried out using isotopic 26Al (Flarend et al., Vaccine, 1997). This study used aluminum salts resembling those used in vaccines but ignored adjuvant uptake by cells that was not fully documented at the time. It was conducted over a short period of time (28days) and used only two rabbits per adjuvant. At the endpoint, Al elimination in the urine accounted for 6% for Al hydroxide and 22% for Al phosphate, both results being incompatible with rapid elimination of vaccine-derived Al in urine. Two theoretical studies have evaluated the potential risk of vaccine Al in infants, by reference to an oral "minimal risk level" (MRL) extrapolated from animal studies. Keith et al. (Vaccine, 2002) used a high MRL (2mg/kg/d), an erroneous model of 100% immediate absorption of vaccine Al, and did not consider renal and blood-brain barrier immaturity. Mitkus et al. (Vaccine, 2011) only considered solubilized Al, with erroneous calculations of absorption duration. Systemic Al particle diffusion and neuro-inflammatory potential were omitted. The MRL they used was both inappropriate (oral Al vs. injected adjuvant) and still too high (1mg/kg/d) regarding recent animal studies. Both paucity and serious weaknesses of reference studies strongly suggest that novel experimental studies of Al adjuvants toxicokinetics should be performed on the long-term, including both neonatal and adult exposures, to ensure their safety and restore population confidence in Al-containing vaccines."
I have not yet had time to read through these studies and have not checked the origin of MRL calculation yet but so far I'm not impressed by the plethora of research into the safety of aluminum. Perhaps the CDC needs to update their website.
it's basically the point of the adjuvant is to create an immune response. stimulating your immune system is good in moderation. im not a doctor or any kind of expert on this and im sure my understanding is lacking in nuance. but my point was that adjuvants stimulate your immune system and for some people, that might not be helpful.
The term “adjuvant effect” refers to the co-administration of an antigen with a microbial specific factor to enhance an antigen-specific immune response in vivo. The microbial components of adjuvants activate APCs to produce pro-inflammatory cytokines (“non-specific” signal 2) and to up-regulate molecules essential for antigen presentation. These molecules include major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II (antigen-specific signal 1) and B7-1/2. These innate immune events allow a more effective presentation to the adaptive immune system, resulting in an augmented activation and clonal expansion of T cells [23].
In accordance to this effect, if self-antigens are used, an autoimmune response can be elicited [24]. It has been shown that auto-reactive T-cells that surpass tolerance mechanisms can be triggered by exogenous adjuvants to become auto-aggressive [25].
"Adjuvants help the body to produce an immune response strong enough to protect the person from the disease he or she is being vaccinated against. Adjuvanted vaccines can cause more local reactions (such as redness, swelling, and pain at the injection site) and more systemic reactions (such as fever, chills and body aches) than non-adjuvanted vaccines."
CDC is careful here not to use the word "inflammation" probably assuming you won't use your brain. According to Yale medicine, inflammation is "a defensive response governed primarily by the immune system, which dispatches white blood cells to the affected sites, resulting in redness and swelling or symptoms such as fever."
My wife can be bedridden from one peanut. I can eat a whole jar. Not only is the dose the poison but it is individual dose. What Is a specific child's dose? no one has asked.
Stop an think for a moment...yes, your wife has a peanut allergy but that anecdote cannot reasonably lead to your over generalized conclusion. Please reread this substack and come to terms with how RFK Jar’s commentaries omit EVIDENCE based context that allows him to make unfounded, evidence based claims that at an emotional level scare folks who haven’t taken the time to investigate whether his claims are valid.
Maybe you should use your 5th grade reading skills and notice how RFK jr has been making money from anti-vacc lies since 2005....it really isn't hard to find a lot of them...
Even some packaged foods marketed as healthy contain large amounts of additives like artificial food coloring, gums, MSG, nitrates and nitrites, added sugars (real or artificial) and even BHA and BHT.
Enjoy your twinkies
Twinkies are made using Bleached Flour, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Artificial Flavor, 2 Artificial Colors, 2 Chemical Preservatives and Sodium Stearoyl Lactylate. Soybean Oil, Cottonseed Oil, Polysorbate 60 and Cellulose Gum are also on the long ingredient list.
SADS (Sudden Adult Death Syndrome now known as Sudden Arrhythmia Death Syndrome) has been around for decades. The first case was reported in an article in 1918, when a young person died in their sleep.
It was originally known as Sudden Adult Death Syndrome as the equivalent of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, however it was found that it wasn’t restricted to adults but included children and adolescents, so Adult was replaced by Arrhythmia. This is diagnosed post mortem whenever there’s no obvious cardiac pathology. The arrhythmia being caused by problems with the different channels used in ion transfer, typically the sodium and calcium ion channels.
Not all of these conditions are detectable on ECG and the first time that anything is wrong is noticed is when the person collapses in cardiac arrest.
The first such syndrome identified is Brugada, which can appear on an ECG.
www.c-r-y.org.uk is the website of a charity that discusses this, they’ve also got a channel on YouTube.
Reminds me of the “joke:” Laboratories cause cancer in mice. That said, I do wonder how many people who might have allergies or who might be taking medications with which a compound may have a poor interaction, know that they are supposed to be on the lookout for it in a vaccine. (Also, ingestion does not equal injection). Are there protocols for ensuring that vaccine administrators clear all potentially harmful reactions for all ingredients with the subject? Can we be sure they are followed? Can a subject really be expected to know all counter-reactions to allergies or medications? Could it potentially be wise to antecede the administration of vaccines with allergy tests? Sincere questions.
Why do you insist on using the false equivalency of ingested toxicity as your proof that the injected ingredients of a vaccine are none toxic?
“The Science is settled vaccines are safe and effective”.
Use the Pre clinical trial data.
Before testing a drug in people, researchers must find out whether it has the potential to cause serious harm, also called toxicity.
Usually, preclinical studies are not very large. However, these studies must provide detailed information on dosing and toxicity levels. After preclinical testing, researchers review their findings and decide whether the drug should be tested in people.
According to the package inserts of the 113 FDA approved vaccines Under the pre clinical data.
Zero have been evaluated for their carcinogenic potential.
Zero have been evaluated for their mutagenic potential.
Zero have been evaluated for the potential to impair male fertility.
42 did evaluate female fertility.
If there is no baseline for safety, all the arguments for or against a product are anecdotal.
Surely the clinical trials are of sufficient size and length to determine safety.
The hepatitis B vaccine is given on day one of life.
According to its package insert. 147 healthy infants were monitored for 5 days after each dose. With no placebo or vaccine control group.
Now I understand why you use false equivalencies and observational studies, that is the best Science you have.
It appears anti-vaxxers are the least of your problems. And most likely would not exist if the basic science had been done.
1. "According to its package insert. 147 healthy infants were monitored for 5 days after each dose. "
No it doesn't, please try re-reading.
2. One more time, the toxicologists the created and use the carcinogenicity tests etc have spend decades explaining exactly what biologics like vaccines should not be tested.
Thanks for reminding us how dishonest the anti-vaccs are.
2. One more time, the toxicologists the created and use the carcinogenicity tests etc have spend decades explaining exactly what biologics like vaccines should not be tested.
In three clinical studies, 434 doses of (tradename) HB, 5 mcg, were administered to 147 healthy infants and children (up to 10 years of age) who were monitored for 5 days after each dose. Injection site reactions and systemic adverse reactions were reported following 0.2% and 10.4% of the injections, respectively. The most frequently reported systemic adverse reactions (>1% injections), in decreasing order of frequency, were irritability, fever (101°F oral equivalent), diarrhea, fatigue/weakness, diminished appetite, and rhinitis.
"In three clinical studies, 434 doses of RECOMBIVAX HB, 5 mcg, were administered to 147 healthy infants and children (up to 10 years of age) who were monitored for 5 days after each dose. "
Do you not understand that the insert is a summary of ~0.00001% of the data?
If you read the actual studies, you will find that parents were asked to record adverse events for 5 days, but that all adverse events were captured during the entire time it took to run the trials.
He misrepresented the trial protocol (a standard antivax propaganda trope for the infant Hep B study).
For the first 5 days, adverse events are recorded passively through a daily checklist. However, further interval adverse events are actively recorded through interviews at all the follow up time frames (extending out to 6 months after the last vaccination).
this is the clinical trail summary used for licensure and was provided by the FDA via FOIA request.
Explain how I am misrepresenting what the package insert states and what the clinical trial summary states.
It is irrelevant if the adverse events were recorded after 5 day’s post each vaccination since it is clearly not referenced on the manufacturers package insert or the clinical trial summary.
A few Beyond the Noise articles ago in "My Conversation with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.", I was told by someone named Toby that vaccines were loaded with harmful stuff. I ask for something specific and "aluminum" was fired back at me. I told Toby that I was more worried about the aluminum content in foods. I named a couple examples. The conversation then ended when I was showered with insults. Wouldn't it be ironic if it were discovered that a lack of aluminum in one's diet creates a psychological need to verbally abuse.
according to this paper, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11259180/: "The healthy human body has effective barriers (skin, lungs, gastrointestinal tract) to reduce the systemic absorption of aluminum ingested from water, foods, drugs, and air. The small amount of aluminum (<1%) that is systemically absorbed is excreted principally in the urine and, to a lesser extent, in the feces. No reports of dietary aluminum toxicity to healthy individuals exist in the literature. Aluminum can be neurotoxic, when injected directly into the brains of animals and when accidentally introduced into human brains (by dialysis or shrapnel). A study from Canada reports cognitive and other neurological deficits among groups of workers occupationally exposed to dust containing high levels of aluminum."
we do consume a lot of aluminum in food but it is generally bound to minerals that our bodies can process. how much aluminum is it safe to inject into a small baby vs a large adult? does it pass thru the blood brain barrier? i looked in the literature for this information and was unable to find it (but maybe that is my fault). i have not seen these questions addressed by pro-vaccine experts like Offit and Hotez - they seem to rely on our safe consumption of aluminum as evidence that it is safe in vaccines. i dont know either way but i would like medical doctors to take the question seriously.
Looking at that site, all it does is claim that the amount used in vaccines is perfectly safe. Where is the empirical data that confirms that to be true?
That response indicate that you don't know where that information is to be found. If you did, you would have a provided a single link, not a list of sites where it might possibly be found.
Well, you're one step better than Toby in that you did not riddle me with insults. Though there are risks in vaccination, I assume that vaccination is safer than the disease. All data brings me to that conclusion. To me, that ends part #1 of the discussion. Part #2 is my asking, is work being done to make vaccines even safer?
As for the rise in autism, I would like to know why the focus seems to be exclusively on vaccines. It seems to me that there is a myriad of possibilities, such as mothers having children later in life, cellphone towers, various food additives, air or water pollutant, etc. Perhaps the biggest reason for the rise might be that there is more diligence to diagnose autism. Anyway, there is an effort to scare people away from what for 70 years has been a blessing to humanity.
I agree that we should look at the impact of those things you listed. There is evidence that pesticides, herbicides, PFAS, and other environmental chemicals are affecting our gut biome and our endocrine systems.
The focus on vaccines has arisen from the experience of thousands of parents who took normal children to their routine vaccine appointments and left with vaccine-injured children. Their stories are anecdotal, yes, but most people rely on their experience in the world to understand reality. When people, and especially doctors, condescendingly dismiss those experiences (because "science") it does not help anyone to answer the question of what happened to the child. I never thought of questioning the safety of vaccines until I experienced unpleasant side effects from a tetanus shot. It was eye-opening to review the list of side effects nobody talks about.
Vaccines certainly offer a positive benefit to global health in preventing disease. However, people should be allowed (perhaps encouraged!) to consider the risks of health interventions and make an informed decision about their personal health. This is not happening in the US.
About a year ago I had the latest version of the shingles vaccination. It is two doses a few weeks apart. Both doses did me in for a day. It was like I had the flu, both times. I walk out to the mailbox about 6 hours after the first dose and the mailbox went from a walk of about 100 feet down the driveway under normal conditions, to a post-vaccination distance of about 5 miles in extreme heat and humidity, or so it seemed. I thought to myself that I hope I was going to get a severe case of shingles and this vaccination saved me from that because that vaccination was a rough ride. I had about six hours of similar though less severe symptoms after both the flu and the covid jabs.
Personally, I have no trouble with right-minded adults decided to forgo a vaccination for something that is not contagious, or if the vaccination does not reduce contagion. A pandemic, with over-crowded medical facilities, would also be a factor.
For a few thousand years mankind has conceived laws that are to protect citizens from potentially hazardous activities of others. In some cases, there have been requirements put upon citizens for the sake of other citizens.
"The focus on vaccines has arisen from the experience of thousands of parents who took normal children to their routine vaccine appointments and left with vaccine-injured children."
How exactly do they know they were injured by the vaccine?
If someone took fentanyl and dropped dead, how could you prove it was the fentanyl and not a coincidence that they had a heart attack on their own?
If you bring a normal healthy child to a vaccine appointment and then you bring them home and they dont feel good and start banging their head against the wall and become developmentally impaired suddenly what would you attribute that to? What if you heard the same story from other parents? You don't need to know what ingredient is causing the reaction to know that you're being gaslit. Do you believe that autistic children start banging their head against walls around age 3 so it's a coincidence?
"If you bring a normal healthy child to a vaccine appointment and then you bring them home and they dont feel good and start banging their head against the wall and become developmentally impaired suddenly what would you attribute that to? "
Here is a crazy idea....why not learn some basic logic on determining cause and effect?
Then you could look at the data showing that vaccinated kids have same risk for autism as unvaccinated.
Then you could follow the decades of using home movies that prove that the autism started before the vaccine appointment and how the anti-vaccs keep trying to deceive parents about this simple fact.
Clearly you have no idea about ASD nor fentanyl. Just an FYI, the rate for ASD is the same for both vaccinated and vaccinated. With over 90% childhood vaccination but the rate for autism is 2.7%.
One thing that was not mentioned here, that's ID. This was in my weekly MMWR update. Notes from the Field: Autism Spectrum Disorder Among Children with Laboratory Evidence of Prenatal Zika Virus Exposure — Puerto Rico, 2023
To begin with, Autism, or autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is evolving and clinicians are getting better at seeing this. This is true for any syndrome or disease. If you do not think of it, you do not look for it. Here are good piece.
You are correct about possible causes but the fixation on vaccine (preservatives) has long been debunked. There are research ongoing about this and many possible causes are being examined. As for the Thimerosal, as a preservative, is no longer contained in any childhood vaccine, with the exception of the influenza vaccine.
Autism was first recognised in the early part of the 20th century and was called childhood schizophrenia. There were no diagnostic criteria until the late 70’s or early 80’s. These criteria have been modified more recently. Certainly when I was at school in the 60’s and 70’s in the U.K. there was no such thing as autism or Asperger’s or ADHD, anyone showing signs of these conditions was considered a disruptive child.
The criteria have become wider, hence the apparent increase in autism and ADHD diagnoses.
Yes and used since 1930's, so we have a bit of experience with it. I never said it was a preservative. Flu vaccines (all) are the only ones I am aware of that still uses Thimerosal unless someone can correct me.
One would think that debating RFK Jr would set the record straight but RFK Jr typically doesn’t enter a debate in good faith. He enters a debate with his mind made up and is unwilling to listen to thee factual evidence presented. Instead he uses a debate platform to espouse his OPINIONS rather than come to terms with the factual evidence. Consequently it would be foolhardy to “debate” him because (as a former debate coach) he doesn’t abide by the ground rules of standard debate protocols. If anyone wants to see a real debate watch the Munk Debates (you can find a numbers of these recorded on YouTube) and see how standard, formal debates are conducted versus what social media erroneously calls a debate..
The point of a debate wouldn't be to change RFK Jr.'s mind, but to make his followers think a bit. At least some of them might be capable of that. At least it should be possible to refer people to a "debate" where RFK's claims are evaluated. Peter Hotez could just say: "I have nothing to add to Dr. Dan Wilson's Debunk The Funk take-down of RFK Jr's vaccine and AIDS claims. Play his videos on the Joe Rogan show." That would be a response to the debate challenge, without the spectacle of an in-person back-and-forth that would probably be all emotion . . .
I agree Dan Wilson’s podcast is confronting the issue head on but notice he hasn’t “debated” RFK because he knows it couldn’t be an honest debate and it would just give RFK more oxygen to broadcast his spurious conclusions.
Yes, but he hasn't ducked a confrontation either. He's completely demolished his stream-of-consciousness loathing of Fauci and all his absurd AIDS and vaccine claims.
Yes, I understand that one would think it to be a reasonable approach but RFK Jr. historically wants to engage in a slug fest rather than debating the merits of the evidence. So that intrinsically sets up the person who wants to debate the merits of the EVIDENCE (e.g. a scientist) to appear to be defensive thus coloring the views of the audience. RFK is hyper aware that if he can get the debater to appear to be defensive in the minds of those who are truly uninformed about the evidence he will elicit an emotional response from the listeners/viewers and they will follow his line of argumentation because our internal biases (versus our rationality) frame how we respond to information, disinformation and/or misinformation.
But one looks even MORE defensive by refusing to engage at all . . . RFK Jr. is an idiot on a range of issues and this needs to be made clear to as wide an audience as possible. Dr. Dan Wilson is doing the right thing . . . ..More scientists are going to have to do what he's doing or else the demagogues and charlatans will keep winning by default . . .
Science is decided in debates between scientists, not debates between scientists and science-illiterate lawyers who have been lying about vaccines for 18 years.
"The point of a debate wouldn't be to change RFK Jr.'s mind, but to make his followers think a bit. "
I really like that idea.
The problem is that it is very clear that many of his followers are unable or unwilling to think/read/count at the middle-school level even when the facts are put right in front of their eyes.
Right. But this is true in general, not just of RFK Jr.'s followers. The impulse to rationalize rather than reason may be a fatal flaw in the human species. Even scientists are prone to it, especially when they speak of matters beyond their areas of specialized expertise.
I agree that scientists are prone to the same biases that all other people are.
The difference is that science has methods and processes to minimize their impact and correct any such errors when they do occur. I am NOT claiming perfection--just that this is less of a problem in science.
In contrast, RFK jr has been making money since 2005 repeating some of the same lies over and over.
I agree. It's nice to see the intellectual humility that characterizes real scientific work, with researchers carefully choosing their words so as not to overstate what is known, hedging their assertions with qualifications, etc. etc. Exactly the opposite of what we see with anti-vaxxers, whose sweeping assertions are almost always wrong, meaningless, or grotesquely exaggerated. It's almost impossible for systemic fraud to take root in the natural sciences. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the social sciences.
Since RFK jr has been so clear that vaccine are genocidal, why exactly is RFK jr never willing to stand up in Court and make the same claims? Under oath....where perjury would apply...
What is a more effective way to correct pathological lies than in a debate where in real time you can correct pathological lies? I'm being genuine with this question.
Apparently, you have no idea why a science-illiterate lawyer with an 18 year history of lying would want to debate a scientist about science and why it would be bonkers for the scientist to do so. You might start by looking up "Gish Gallop" and remember the adage adjusted to the social media age: it takes seconds to tell a lie and hours to days to correct that lie.
The problem is, most of the vaccine controversy is not some abstract subject like "should man visit Mars?" or "are sunsets prettier than rainbows?". The vaccine controversy can be examined with scientific studies and data. It is more akin to "do car seatbelts save lives?" I would debate RFK under these two conditions... #1, there is a debate monitor who can be summoned at any time to pause the debate and research the validity of a claim, and #2, scientific consensus is recognized as the gold standard.
1. The downside to this approach is that both sides need to trust the 3rd party. It is better to have a debater screen share and call out BS on the spot.
2. Experiments are the gold standard. Consensus is a proxy of the literature.
"Experiments are the gold standard. Consensus is a proxy of the literature."
Honestly, you are clueless. For a start, what about clinical trials? You clearly have no idea what a vitally important role consensus serves in science. Scientists from around the world, who have the required expertise in the relevant field of science, assess and evaluate all the evidence and come to a conclusion about all the evidence. That conclusion is always provisional, meaning that new evidence can overturn it or, more commonly, modify it. That is what is meant by a scientific consensus.
I simply point out that RFK jr uses censors to stop facts from being posted at his site.
And RFK jr has been very clear about how terrible vaccines are. If he really believed his BS, he would be in Court stopping the vaccines from being used.
But he knows he is selling lies, that is why he will never make his claims under oath, where perjury applies.
this is rich, given the source. pot calling the kettle black? we get your point which you've made recently: the dose makes the poison.
how about writing a blog about the stealth edit you made to an earlier post changing 'all vaccines undergo placebo controlled trials' to 'most'? I think the same attorney, Aaron Siri, called you out on that. is that what this latest is - he got under your skin? (edited a typo: it to is - see how easy that was?)
how about Tom Jefferson (epidemiologist), is he a credible source to discuss placebos?
Here is a recent article by Tom Jefferson & a co-author Maryanne Demasi PhD (rheumatology) about not all placebos being placebos.
Thomas Jefferson is a fringe scientist, an outlier. Every scientific discipline has them. Maryanne Demasi is a science journalist who was ejected from "Catalyst" for her biased reporting in favouring the views of fringe scientists. It's not surprising the two of them found each other.
"Not to be a Debbie Downer…but anyone worried about a post-BarbieBoxOffice Covid bump? Or post-Oppie? We’ll probably never know since no one seems to be keeping track of such things anymore. Keep up with your boosters and find a pink N-95 or KN-95 if you can"
better get that booster shot - so says peter!
you aren't doing your own research and deciding on your own if you need that booster dose, are you?
FACTS! LOL. do you dress yourself in the morning or does someone help you? forget that, the important question is: are you up to date on your covid 19 vaccinations?
BillyJoe shared his opinion that Jefferson is a 'fringe scientist'.
where did he get such a brilliant ad hominem...oh yea former head of NIH Francis Collins who called epidemiologists from Stanford, Oxford & Harvard 'fringe'. you covid cult members sure know how to stick to the orthodoxy - LOL!
Jefferson is so fringe he only has been a lead author and editor for Cochrane Collaboration's acute respiratory infections group since 1999 (initially joining Cochrane Collaboration in '94).
in 2014 he was appointed as an honorary research fellow at the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Oxford University = FRINGE
Steve Kirsch offered Paul Offit $50,000 to take the entire childhood vaccine schedule of 73 shots in one sitting. Dr. Offit refuses to do it despite claiming the peds vaccines are so safe a child could have 100,000 doses and be fine.
I don’t think it’s 73 separate injections but multiple vaccines in each dose administered. Also they are not 73 different vaccines but are multiple doses of the same vaccine mixtures. We administer 3 of the 6 in 1 vaccine at 8 weeks, 12 weeks and 16 weeks of age. Is that 1 vaccine, 3 vaccines, 6 vaccines or is it 18 vaccines?
Good questions. The point is Offit won’t take the full childhood schedule for $50,000. He know kirsch will pay him. So he’s clearly scared to get injured.
If a child in the USA has a large number of vaccines over their childhood and when that child has become an adult they decide to join the military then they will have multiple vaccinations, including smallpox which can cause myocarditis. If they are then deployed to certain other countries then they are likely to be vaccinated against typhoid, yellow fever and others.
Every child when it is born is suddenly exposed to a myriad of pathogens after spending 9 months in a sterile environment. The birth canal is hardly the most sterile environment, particularly at the open end.
A newborn is very vulnerable to respiratory infections, pertussis for example can be fatal, which is why pregnant women are vaccinated against pertussis in the third trimester.
Dr. Offit DIDN'T say that...and even when Kirsch's error is clearly explained right on his own substack...Kirsch still just can't get the basic English meaning of Dr. Offit's words correct.
Of course, if we deleted everything that Kirsch claims that isn't functionally or scientifically literate....he wouldn't have much left at all....
Note that you are still refusing to look at the data.....probabily because anyone that can count will see that the assertion that they are useless is a lie.
Usually lawyers dabbling in science is like family medicine doctors dabbling in neurosurgery. We are good at what we do, and it’s not neurosurgery. I wish the whole legal system in this country could have a thorough scientific overhaul, leaving behind all the adversarial process, manipulative tricks, and imperative to win for your clients regardless of guilt. Like science, I wish it were all about discovering and reinforcing Truth.
A harvard study in 2009 followed patients after their vaccines to track adverse events and determined that fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. So while some portion of adverse events reported (to VAERS and v-safe, or the yellow card system in UK) are likely not actually a result of the vaccine (or could be nocebo effect), there are likely many more cases that were related but not reported at all.
Just a uncommon name that denotes the hydroxyl group of water molecules. Hydroxide is alkali name for water, HydroxicAcid, when reacting as a acid. Water is pretty interesting in of itself. Of course, this cloud be is just sarcasm on your part as well.
This material is dangerous in all states, not just the liquid form.
All sarcasm aside, I agree water is interesting because of its own physical and chemical properties, but also in its interactions with other compounds.
I also heard dihydrogen monoxide is linked with 100% of cases of drowning. We must ban this dangerous chemical!
That dihydrogen monoxide is apparently found in large quantities with sodium chloride. Horrors!
Is this a sardonic response to this substack or are you being serious?
It's called sarcasm.
That’s sarcasm monoxide...almost as deadly as diethyl hyperbole.
[face palm]
This essay is absolutely true, every word, and carefully omits the name of the lying lawyer: RFK, Jr.
The Quantity of compounds ingested/inhaled/topically applied has a profound impact on the outcome
I know 2 teens with permanent heart damage from Pfizer and I live in a relatively small city. I know the ER and critical care ICU doctors and they both said they’ve seen only COVID vaccine injured kids, not COVID injured.
I would be very concerned with the care those individuals were providing. That is not what the data shows, and those comments appear to be conspiracy driven.
do you think covid vaccines don't cause myocarditis? it's on the CDC webpage. do you think that's a minor side effect? half of europe has banned the vaccines for young people in recognition of this problem.
it sounds to me like she has honest doctors.
We know the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis is increased by the 2nd dose of mRNA vaccines when given at the intervals originally proposed. That said, a longer interval, which likely would have also improved the overall immune response has been demonstrated to have such incidence down toward the non-vaccine baseline. However, the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis is much more prevalent in COVID infection. Further, myocarditis associated with the vaccines tends to resolve much more quickly and with many fewer complications than those same maladies caused by active infection. This is a relative risk problem. And the result falls in favor of vaccination.
To repeat: I personally believe our dosing schedule should have been longer than 3 or 4 weeks, both to see a more robust immune response, AND later to reduce the incidence of myocarditis.
the incidence of myocarditis from covid infection is not the same across all age groups, genders, or pre-existing health condition. for instance, i think we all know by now that this is not true for healthy young men. they are at a much higher risk of myocarditis from the mrna vaccines than they are from infection.
with regard to dosing schedule i recommend starting with zero doses and following up with zero boosters. but to each their own.
The incidence of vaccine-associated myocarditis is, indeed, higher in males 14-25 years but remains lower than the incidence of myocarditis associated with actual symptomatic infection. If memory serves, the risk is between 4-8x higher in that age group than for the background rate. Still, myocarditis associated with vaccines is rarely serious and usually resolves within 7 days without sequalae. The reports of aftereffects I've seen haven't been in reputable medical literature, nor have I heard any reputable anecdotal reports from clinical friends and associates.
At this juncture, you are able to follow your preferred approach but with each subsequent infection will raise your likelihood of severe illness as well as long-COVID. I tend to be research and conservative (classical rather than political definition) in terms of medicine. That means I recommend primary vaccination and boost, as the circumstances indicate. Vaccines certainly reduced mortality in the United States, although had we not been subject to disinformation and claims public health was trammeling peoples' rights, we would have done better, assuming we'd gotten a faster uptake and achieved, within 3 months, a 95% vaccination rate, even for a single dose. I will state again, I believe the interval between primary doses was not optimal but the intent when it was discussed and approved was to create the highest IgG response as fast as possible. That was deemed the most critical approach at the time.
They probably do cause myocarditis.
As always it is risks vs benefits. How many and how severe are side effects from the vaccination vs what would happen if we didn't vaccinate?
if we didnt vaccinate big pharma companies would lose a lot of money
That is true.
Good news: the massive data from health insurance companies/systems and from life insurance companies do show the vaccines are safe and effective.
let me rephrase: many countries in europe have banned mrna vaccines. i didnt calculate how many.
I will take that to be a yes, zero countries banned the mRNA vaccines and that were just making things up.
Banned?
I think it is zero...isn't it?
Youre right. not banned. they just paused it. they dont recommend it.
The use of Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine has been paused in Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland for use in young people.
Denmark, Norway, Austria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Luxembourg have halted some or all of their AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccinations over fears of blood clots.
Primary vaccination for general population no longer recommended by the French health authority. 'Almost all of the population not at risk of severe disease has already come into contact with the virus at least once.
Thanks for the correction.
Unlikely. In any case, it is just a personal anecdote that is contradicted by the facts.
I'm insulting ignorant buffoons who babble on about what they know nothing about.
Yeah, so get that education that you sorely need, and you won't come across as a babbling buffoon.
FYI:
- Personal anecdotes are not evidence.
- The plural of anecdotes is not data.
- RCTs regularly contradict personal anecdotes.
- Scientists debating scientists is not how you settle scientific disputes.
- Pandemics affect communities and require community responses.
- Vaccinations protect the community not just the individual.
- Your decision not to vaccinate can result in harm to others.
- The most likely people to be affected by your bad decisions about vaccines are you own family, friends, and workmates.
The third one should be:
- Scientists debating lawyers is NOT how you settle scientific disputes.
- Scientists debating scientists is how you settle scientific disputes.
anecdotes are more like observations than evidence. observations are used to formualte hypotheses. and often data are collected through repeated observations. so i would not dismiss anecdotal experience entirely from the scientific method.
the doctor who discovered hand washing saved lives learned that through his experience, he didn't read it in a journal or run a trial.
as for debate, anyone who cares enough about a topic is entitled to debate it. there can be rules to a debate to make it productive. people should be encouraged to ask questions and use their brain in all circumstances.
"I know 2 teens with permanent heart damage from Pfizer and I live in a relatively small city. "
How exactly do you know that?
Thanks,
So that would be a big old NO...you don't actually know of such teens....
This is a lie. You are lying.
Between birth and 18 months, will the metal in vaccines, which causes inflammation, be too much? Especially for smaller children? I’ve worked with kids my whole life. Now there are so many “brain damaged.” It’s the expectation, the norm.
We have to figure out why so many children are in such terrible shape. Maybe it’s the chemicals like round up? Maybe it’s a shot with too much metal build up over those first few months of vaccines. Are there autopsies on SIDS victims? What causes SADS? Never saw it before 3021. What changed?
What chemical in moderna covid 19 shot made my moms legs swell up so much and turn fire red? She couldn’t bend her knees. What chemical in the same shot caused her joints to be in so much pain she couldn’t sleep for a year? Or would you say “there’s no way to prove the vaccine did this” and dismiss harms like the FDA? I remember a meeting where the spokesman said that a trial participant was paralyzed 5 hours after the shot so the doctors ruled this reaction unrelated. So many egregious statements. And you wonder why any of us worry about what is in an injection?
What happens to babies with metal injections when they are so young they cannot tell us?
It’s as if you didn’t read the article. You have missed the whole point. The dose is the poison. Please go back and read the article and then your reply. While doing so, think critically.
it is not just the dose but the exposure pathway as well. comparing aluminum ingested in food with that injected into the bloodstream is silly. do we know what dose is safe for injecting into a baby? please point me to the studies.
the entire reason for using aluminum in vaccines is to act as an adjuvant and stimulate an immune response. the adjuvant is intentionally causing inflammation. it might still be safe, but how do you know it's not causing inflammation in the brain that is then diagnosed as autism?
Vaccine Adjuvants
Aluminum is the predominant adjuvant used in human vaccines, although not all vaccines. The aluminum content of vaccines is limited by the Code of Federal Regulations to 1.25 mg per dose.30 The regulations also stipulate that data are required to reveal that the amount of aluminum is safe and necessary to produce the intended effect. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that the amount of aluminum exposure from following the recommended vaccine schedule is low and that the aluminum is not readily absorbed by the body.31 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cited a study in which researchers calculated the aluminum exposure from vaccines during infancy and found the total to be far below the minimal risk levels established by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.32 The aluminum-containing adjuvants are reported to have minimal adverse effects but are effective at improving the antibody response.33 There are reports of a chronic local granulomatous inflammation known as macrophagic myofasciitis in a small number of patients after receiving intramuscular vaccines containing aluminum.33,34 This condition allegedly results from a chronic inflammatory response to the residual adjuvant aluminum at the vaccination site that leads to a constellation of neurologic symptoms, including myalgia, arthralgia, chronic fatigue, weakness, and cognitive issues.34 The number of patients reported to have the neurologic symptoms is low compared with the number of vaccinated individuals. The World Health Organization Global Advisory Committee of Vaccine Safety has not found that the data support an association between aluminum adjuvants and chronic neurologic diseases.35 The aluminum content of vaccines has been blamed for autism spectrum disorders, but a large meta-analysis of cohort studies evaluating vaccination and the risk of autism revealed that in pooled data of 1 256 407 children, the odds ratio of developing autism after vaccination was 0.99, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.92 to 1.06.36
The aluminum adjuvants in the human papillomavirus vaccine have also been suggested as causing primary ovary insufficiency. However, the relationship suggested is based on a total of 6 case reports, most occurring years after vaccination, with only 1 patient having ovarian failure within several months of vaccination.37 These cases reports come after more than 170 million doses of the human papillomavirus vaccine have been administered. The aluminum adjuvants in vaccines are also accused of potentially triggering an autoimmune process. The autoimmune syndrome induced by adjuvants was proposed in 2011.38 The proposed criteria for this syndrome are extremely vague and general. Two of the major criteria are exposure to an external stimulus (infection, vaccine, silicone, or adjuvant) before symptoms occur and appearance of a long list of general somatic complaints. A review of the available literature for the purported autoimmune syndrome induced by adjuvants revealed that the human cases were so dissimilar in proposed triggers and clinical conditions that there was no evidence for a relationship between adjuvants and autoimmune conditions.39
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/144/6/e20193148/37901/Aluminum-Effects-in-Infants-and-Children?autologincheck=redirected
A couple of notes, Aluminum salts have been used since the 1930's, so we have a fair bit of history. As for "acquired autism", there is a hypothesis for autoimmune Encephalitis that need more study. Also: Arking notes that, given the known genetic contributors to autism, inflammation is unlikely to be its root cause. Rather, he says, "This is a downstream consequence of upstream gene mutation."
https://hub.jhu.edu/2014/12/15/autism-brain-inflammation/
i appreciate this thoughtful response and the citations. a couple notes:
"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cited a study in which researchers calculated the aluminum exposure from vaccines during infancy and found the total to be far below the minimal risk levels established by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.32 " The CDC backs up the statement "Previous scientific research has shown the amount of aluminum exposure in people who follow the recommended vaccine schedule is low and is not readily absorbed by the body" with ONE study: (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/adjuvants.html#alum). The study (Mitkus, 2011 - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22001122/) "found that the body burden of aluminum from vaccines and diet throughout an infant's first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum modeled using the regulatory MRL". However, according to this 2018 review (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29307441/) , the MRL is not appropriate and is based on oral exposure. Their abstract is below:
"We reviewed the three toxicokinetic reference studies commonly used to suggest that aluminum (Al)-based adjuvants are innocuous. A single experimental study was carried out using isotopic 26Al (Flarend et al., Vaccine, 1997). This study used aluminum salts resembling those used in vaccines but ignored adjuvant uptake by cells that was not fully documented at the time. It was conducted over a short period of time (28days) and used only two rabbits per adjuvant. At the endpoint, Al elimination in the urine accounted for 6% for Al hydroxide and 22% for Al phosphate, both results being incompatible with rapid elimination of vaccine-derived Al in urine. Two theoretical studies have evaluated the potential risk of vaccine Al in infants, by reference to an oral "minimal risk level" (MRL) extrapolated from animal studies. Keith et al. (Vaccine, 2002) used a high MRL (2mg/kg/d), an erroneous model of 100% immediate absorption of vaccine Al, and did not consider renal and blood-brain barrier immaturity. Mitkus et al. (Vaccine, 2011) only considered solubilized Al, with erroneous calculations of absorption duration. Systemic Al particle diffusion and neuro-inflammatory potential were omitted. The MRL they used was both inappropriate (oral Al vs. injected adjuvant) and still too high (1mg/kg/d) regarding recent animal studies. Both paucity and serious weaknesses of reference studies strongly suggest that novel experimental studies of Al adjuvants toxicokinetics should be performed on the long-term, including both neonatal and adult exposures, to ensure their safety and restore population confidence in Al-containing vaccines."
I have not yet had time to read through these studies and have not checked the origin of MRL calculation yet but so far I'm not impressed by the plethora of research into the safety of aluminum. Perhaps the CDC needs to update their website.
The MRL is used accounting for the bioavailability of injected aluminum.
"the adjuvant is intentionally causing inflammation. "
That is simply factually incorrect.
it's basically the point of the adjuvant is to create an immune response. stimulating your immune system is good in moderation. im not a doctor or any kind of expert on this and im sure my understanding is lacking in nuance. but my point was that adjuvants stimulate your immune system and for some people, that might not be helpful.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043661815001711?via%3Dihub
The term “adjuvant effect” refers to the co-administration of an antigen with a microbial specific factor to enhance an antigen-specific immune response in vivo. The microbial components of adjuvants activate APCs to produce pro-inflammatory cytokines (“non-specific” signal 2) and to up-regulate molecules essential for antigen presentation. These molecules include major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II (antigen-specific signal 1) and B7-1/2. These innate immune events allow a more effective presentation to the adaptive immune system, resulting in an augmented activation and clonal expansion of T cells [23].
In accordance to this effect, if self-antigens are used, an autoimmune response can be elicited [24]. It has been shown that auto-reactive T-cells that surpass tolerance mechanisms can be triggered by exogenous adjuvants to become auto-aggressive [25].
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/adjuvants.html
"Adjuvants help the body to produce an immune response strong enough to protect the person from the disease he or she is being vaccinated against. Adjuvanted vaccines can cause more local reactions (such as redness, swelling, and pain at the injection site) and more systemic reactions (such as fever, chills and body aches) than non-adjuvanted vaccines."
CDC is careful here not to use the word "inflammation" probably assuming you won't use your brain. According to Yale medicine, inflammation is "a defensive response governed primarily by the immune system, which dispatches white blood cells to the affected sites, resulting in redness and swelling or symptoms such as fever."
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2013.00114/full
Pro-inflammatory does NOT mean inflammation is initiated.
And inflammation is definitely not intentionally caused.
The irony is infinite!
My wife can be bedridden from one peanut. I can eat a whole jar. Not only is the dose the poison but it is individual dose. What Is a specific child's dose? no one has asked.
Stop an think for a moment...yes, your wife has a peanut allergy but that anecdote cannot reasonably lead to your over generalized conclusion. Please reread this substack and come to terms with how RFK Jar’s commentaries omit EVIDENCE based context that allows him to make unfounded, evidence based claims that at an emotional level scare folks who haven’t taken the time to investigate whether his claims are valid.
Maybe you should use your 5th grade reading skills and notice how RFK jr has been making money from anti-vacc lies since 2005....it really isn't hard to find a lot of them...
See how it works?
You literally have to close your eyes and refuse to look and see how stupid RFK jr's anti-vacc lies are.
Even some packaged foods marketed as healthy contain large amounts of additives like artificial food coloring, gums, MSG, nitrates and nitrites, added sugars (real or artificial) and even BHA and BHT.
Enjoy your twinkies
Twinkies are made using Bleached Flour, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Artificial Flavor, 2 Artificial Colors, 2 Chemical Preservatives and Sodium Stearoyl Lactylate. Soybean Oil, Cottonseed Oil, Polysorbate 60 and Cellulose Gum are also on the long ingredient list.
Looks like you resort to ad hominem acts as RFK does when he’s in attack mode versus exchanging evidence.
Does S D stand for Subhuman Deadbeat?
Here is a crazy idea....why don't you try learning some basic logic and science?
Of course, with a tiny bit of effort you will learn that what Mercola and Kirsch claim are almost never true.
SADS (Sudden Adult Death Syndrome now known as Sudden Arrhythmia Death Syndrome) has been around for decades. The first case was reported in an article in 1918, when a young person died in their sleep.
It was originally known as Sudden Adult Death Syndrome as the equivalent of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, however it was found that it wasn’t restricted to adults but included children and adolescents, so Adult was replaced by Arrhythmia. This is diagnosed post mortem whenever there’s no obvious cardiac pathology. The arrhythmia being caused by problems with the different channels used in ion transfer, typically the sodium and calcium ion channels.
Not all of these conditions are detectable on ECG and the first time that anything is wrong is noticed is when the person collapses in cardiac arrest.
The first such syndrome identified is Brugada, which can appear on an ECG.
www.c-r-y.org.uk is the website of a charity that discusses this, they’ve also got a channel on YouTube.
So...are you uninterested in the basic facts?
Reminds me of the “joke:” Laboratories cause cancer in mice. That said, I do wonder how many people who might have allergies or who might be taking medications with which a compound may have a poor interaction, know that they are supposed to be on the lookout for it in a vaccine. (Also, ingestion does not equal injection). Are there protocols for ensuring that vaccine administrators clear all potentially harmful reactions for all ingredients with the subject? Can we be sure they are followed? Can a subject really be expected to know all counter-reactions to allergies or medications? Could it potentially be wise to antecede the administration of vaccines with allergy tests? Sincere questions.
Dr. Paul Offit
Why do you insist on using the false equivalency of ingested toxicity as your proof that the injected ingredients of a vaccine are none toxic?
“The Science is settled vaccines are safe and effective”.
Use the Pre clinical trial data.
Before testing a drug in people, researchers must find out whether it has the potential to cause serious harm, also called toxicity.
Usually, preclinical studies are not very large. However, these studies must provide detailed information on dosing and toxicity levels. After preclinical testing, researchers review their findings and decide whether the drug should be tested in people.
According to the package inserts of the 113 FDA approved vaccines Under the pre clinical data.
Zero have been evaluated for their carcinogenic potential.
Zero have been evaluated for their mutagenic potential.
Zero have been evaluated for the potential to impair male fertility.
42 did evaluate female fertility.
If there is no baseline for safety, all the arguments for or against a product are anecdotal.
Surely the clinical trials are of sufficient size and length to determine safety.
The hepatitis B vaccine is given on day one of life.
According to its package insert. 147 healthy infants were monitored for 5 days after each dose. With no placebo or vaccine control group.
Now I understand why you use false equivalencies and observational studies, that is the best Science you have.
It appears anti-vaxxers are the least of your problems. And most likely would not exist if the basic science had been done.
1. "According to its package insert. 147 healthy infants were monitored for 5 days after each dose. "
No it doesn't, please try re-reading.
2. One more time, the toxicologists the created and use the carcinogenicity tests etc have spend decades explaining exactly what biologics like vaccines should not be tested.
Thanks for reminding us how dishonest the anti-vaccs are.
2. One more time, the toxicologists the created and use the carcinogenicity tests etc have spend decades explaining exactly what biologics like vaccines should not be tested.
Pleas explain as this is nonsensical.
"Pleas explain as this is nonsensical."
1. Big hint you are wrong--every single country agrees that those tests shouldn't be done on biologics like vaccines.
2. What is absurd is that you think that arguing from your ignorance makes any sense.
Here are the guidelines on the types of testing that should be done. Carcinogenicity is section 4.8. Oh look, doesn't apply to vaccines.
https://www.fda.gov/media/72028/download
If you want to better understand why this is the correct approach, you will need to work through many decades of data.
In three clinical studies, 434 doses of (tradename) HB, 5 mcg, were administered to 147 healthy infants and children (up to 10 years of age) who were monitored for 5 days after each dose. Injection site reactions and systemic adverse reactions were reported following 0.2% and 10.4% of the injections, respectively. The most frequently reported systemic adverse reactions (>1% injections), in decreasing order of frequency, were irritability, fever (101°F oral equivalent), diarrhea, fatigue/weakness, diminished appetite, and rhinitis.
"In three clinical studies, 434 doses of RECOMBIVAX HB, 5 mcg, were administered to 147 healthy infants and children (up to 10 years of age) who were monitored for 5 days after each dose. "
Do you not understand that the insert is a summary of ~0.00001% of the data?
If you read the actual studies, you will find that parents were asked to record adverse events for 5 days, but that all adverse events were captured during the entire time it took to run the trials.
He misrepresented the trial protocol (a standard antivax propaganda trope for the infant Hep B study).
For the first 5 days, adverse events are recorded passively through a daily checklist. However, further interval adverse events are actively recorded through interviews at all the follow up time frames (extending out to 6 months after the last vaccination).
Agreed.
I can understand how folks get confused by the insert.
I can't understand folks that don't care to get the facts correct.
https://www.scribd.com/book/475035584
this is the clinical trail summary used for licensure and was provided by the FDA via FOIA request.
Explain how I am misrepresenting what the package insert states and what the clinical trial summary states.
It is irrelevant if the adverse events were recorded after 5 day’s post each vaccination since it is clearly not referenced on the manufacturers package insert or the clinical trial summary.
This will be my last response to all threads.
So in summary and assuming you are the same person who responded in the other threads.
Vaccines are not required to establish a safety profile prior to clinical trials?
And In those clinical trials anything can be considered a Placebo as long as it is immunologically inert to the target antigen?
Including, an experimental vaccine as a control group and that is also considered ethical.
And the purpose of a vaccine trial is to determine efficacy of the vaccine not the safety.
So the only thing you have not explained is how safety has been determined.
Thank you for your attempt to educate.
I am clearly to dumb to understand as you do.
It is not dumb, it is just the psychology of denial.
If you read the Hep B studies, you would see that the anti-vaccs lie about kids only being monitored for 5 days.
You just had to read the words to see the anti-vaccs lies...and once you start, you find that the anti-vaccs stupidly lie about ~everything.
So you just choose not to look.
Could you do a live debate with this lawyer. Better to see rebuttal on both sides.
Does S D stand for Serial Disinformer?
A few Beyond the Noise articles ago in "My Conversation with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.", I was told by someone named Toby that vaccines were loaded with harmful stuff. I ask for something specific and "aluminum" was fired back at me. I told Toby that I was more worried about the aluminum content in foods. I named a couple examples. The conversation then ended when I was showered with insults. Wouldn't it be ironic if it were discovered that a lack of aluminum in one's diet creates a psychological need to verbally abuse.
according to this paper, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11259180/: "The healthy human body has effective barriers (skin, lungs, gastrointestinal tract) to reduce the systemic absorption of aluminum ingested from water, foods, drugs, and air. The small amount of aluminum (<1%) that is systemically absorbed is excreted principally in the urine and, to a lesser extent, in the feces. No reports of dietary aluminum toxicity to healthy individuals exist in the literature. Aluminum can be neurotoxic, when injected directly into the brains of animals and when accidentally introduced into human brains (by dialysis or shrapnel). A study from Canada reports cognitive and other neurological deficits among groups of workers occupationally exposed to dust containing high levels of aluminum."
we do consume a lot of aluminum in food but it is generally bound to minerals that our bodies can process. how much aluminum is it safe to inject into a small baby vs a large adult? does it pass thru the blood brain barrier? i looked in the literature for this information and was unable to find it (but maybe that is my fault). i have not seen these questions addressed by pro-vaccine experts like Offit and Hotez - they seem to rely on our safe consumption of aluminum as evidence that it is safe in vaccines. i dont know either way but i would like medical doctors to take the question seriously.
The question was asked and answered.
https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/video/aluminum-vaccines-safe
Looking at that site, all it does is claim that the amount used in vaccines is perfectly safe. Where is the empirical data that confirms that to be true?
Try pubmed, FDA.gov, health insurance companies, tox labs.....
That response indicate that you don't know where that information is to be found. If you did, you would have a provided a single link, not a list of sites where it might possibly be found.
"That response indicate that you don't know where that information is to be found."
Nope, it just means I know it is impossible to put many decades of data into a text box.
BTW: helps if you know what the word safe means.....
Well, you're one step better than Toby in that you did not riddle me with insults. Though there are risks in vaccination, I assume that vaccination is safer than the disease. All data brings me to that conclusion. To me, that ends part #1 of the discussion. Part #2 is my asking, is work being done to make vaccines even safer?
As for the rise in autism, I would like to know why the focus seems to be exclusively on vaccines. It seems to me that there is a myriad of possibilities, such as mothers having children later in life, cellphone towers, various food additives, air or water pollutant, etc. Perhaps the biggest reason for the rise might be that there is more diligence to diagnose autism. Anyway, there is an effort to scare people away from what for 70 years has been a blessing to humanity.
I agree that we should look at the impact of those things you listed. There is evidence that pesticides, herbicides, PFAS, and other environmental chemicals are affecting our gut biome and our endocrine systems.
The focus on vaccines has arisen from the experience of thousands of parents who took normal children to their routine vaccine appointments and left with vaccine-injured children. Their stories are anecdotal, yes, but most people rely on their experience in the world to understand reality. When people, and especially doctors, condescendingly dismiss those experiences (because "science") it does not help anyone to answer the question of what happened to the child. I never thought of questioning the safety of vaccines until I experienced unpleasant side effects from a tetanus shot. It was eye-opening to review the list of side effects nobody talks about.
Vaccines certainly offer a positive benefit to global health in preventing disease. However, people should be allowed (perhaps encouraged!) to consider the risks of health interventions and make an informed decision about their personal health. This is not happening in the US.
About a year ago I had the latest version of the shingles vaccination. It is two doses a few weeks apart. Both doses did me in for a day. It was like I had the flu, both times. I walk out to the mailbox about 6 hours after the first dose and the mailbox went from a walk of about 100 feet down the driveway under normal conditions, to a post-vaccination distance of about 5 miles in extreme heat and humidity, or so it seemed. I thought to myself that I hope I was going to get a severe case of shingles and this vaccination saved me from that because that vaccination was a rough ride. I had about six hours of similar though less severe symptoms after both the flu and the covid jabs.
Personally, I have no trouble with right-minded adults decided to forgo a vaccination for something that is not contagious, or if the vaccination does not reduce contagion. A pandemic, with over-crowded medical facilities, would also be a factor.
For a few thousand years mankind has conceived laws that are to protect citizens from potentially hazardous activities of others. In some cases, there have been requirements put upon citizens for the sake of other citizens.
"The focus on vaccines has arisen from the experience of thousands of parents who took normal children to their routine vaccine appointments and left with vaccine-injured children."
How exactly do they know they were injured by the vaccine?
If someone took fentanyl and dropped dead, how could you prove it was the fentanyl and not a coincidence that they had a heart attack on their own?
If you bring a normal healthy child to a vaccine appointment and then you bring them home and they dont feel good and start banging their head against the wall and become developmentally impaired suddenly what would you attribute that to? What if you heard the same story from other parents? You don't need to know what ingredient is causing the reaction to know that you're being gaslit. Do you believe that autistic children start banging their head against walls around age 3 so it's a coincidence?
"If you bring a normal healthy child to a vaccine appointment and then you bring them home and they dont feel good and start banging their head against the wall and become developmentally impaired suddenly what would you attribute that to? "
Here is a crazy idea....why not learn some basic logic on determining cause and effect?
Then you could look at the data showing that vaccinated kids have same risk for autism as unvaccinated.
Then you could follow the decades of using home movies that prove that the autism started before the vaccine appointment and how the anti-vaccs keep trying to deceive parents about this simple fact.
Clearly you have no idea about ASD nor fentanyl. Just an FYI, the rate for ASD is the same for both vaccinated and vaccinated. With over 90% childhood vaccination but the rate for autism is 2.7%.
One thing that was not mentioned here, that's ID. This was in my weekly MMWR update. Notes from the Field: Autism Spectrum Disorder Among Children with Laboratory Evidence of Prenatal Zika Virus Exposure — Puerto Rico, 2023
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7229a5.htm?s_cid=mm7229a5_e&ACSTrackingID=USCDC_921-DM109256&ACSTrackingLabel=This%20Week%20in%20MMWR%3A%20Vol.%2072%2C%20July%2021%2C%202023&deliveryName=USCDC_921-DM109256
Interesting question on the "rise" of autism.
To begin with, Autism, or autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is evolving and clinicians are getting better at seeing this. This is true for any syndrome or disease. If you do not think of it, you do not look for it. Here are good piece.
https://www.statnews.com/2023/03/23/autism-epidemic-cdc-numbers/
You are correct about possible causes but the fixation on vaccine (preservatives) has long been debunked. There are research ongoing about this and many possible causes are being examined. As for the Thimerosal, as a preservative, is no longer contained in any childhood vaccine, with the exception of the influenza vaccine.
https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-ingredients/thimerosal
Autism was first recognised in the early part of the 20th century and was called childhood schizophrenia. There were no diagnostic criteria until the late 70’s or early 80’s. These criteria have been modified more recently. Certainly when I was at school in the 60’s and 70’s in the U.K. there was no such thing as autism or Asperger’s or ADHD, anyone showing signs of these conditions was considered a disruptive child.
The criteria have become wider, hence the apparent increase in autism and ADHD diagnoses.
aluminum is still included as an adjuvant in most vaccines to stimulate an immune response to the antigen (disease cells). it is not a preservative.
Yes and used since 1930's, so we have a bit of experience with it. I never said it was a preservative. Flu vaccines (all) are the only ones I am aware of that still uses Thimerosal unless someone can correct me.
There is a flu vaccine available that doesn’t use thimerosal I believe from what has been said elsewhere.
Screen share studies and debate RFK.
One would think that debating RFK Jr would set the record straight but RFK Jr typically doesn’t enter a debate in good faith. He enters a debate with his mind made up and is unwilling to listen to thee factual evidence presented. Instead he uses a debate platform to espouse his OPINIONS rather than come to terms with the factual evidence. Consequently it would be foolhardy to “debate” him because (as a former debate coach) he doesn’t abide by the ground rules of standard debate protocols. If anyone wants to see a real debate watch the Munk Debates (you can find a numbers of these recorded on YouTube) and see how standard, formal debates are conducted versus what social media erroneously calls a debate..
The point of a debate wouldn't be to change RFK Jr.'s mind, but to make his followers think a bit. At least some of them might be capable of that. At least it should be possible to refer people to a "debate" where RFK's claims are evaluated. Peter Hotez could just say: "I have nothing to add to Dr. Dan Wilson's Debunk The Funk take-down of RFK Jr's vaccine and AIDS claims. Play his videos on the Joe Rogan show." That would be a response to the debate challenge, without the spectacle of an in-person back-and-forth that would probably be all emotion . . .
I agree Dan Wilson’s podcast is confronting the issue head on but notice he hasn’t “debated” RFK because he knows it couldn’t be an honest debate and it would just give RFK more oxygen to broadcast his spurious conclusions.
Yes, but he hasn't ducked a confrontation either. He's completely demolished his stream-of-consciousness loathing of Fauci and all his absurd AIDS and vaccine claims.
Yes, I understand that one would think it to be a reasonable approach but RFK Jr. historically wants to engage in a slug fest rather than debating the merits of the evidence. So that intrinsically sets up the person who wants to debate the merits of the EVIDENCE (e.g. a scientist) to appear to be defensive thus coloring the views of the audience. RFK is hyper aware that if he can get the debater to appear to be defensive in the minds of those who are truly uninformed about the evidence he will elicit an emotional response from the listeners/viewers and they will follow his line of argumentation because our internal biases (versus our rationality) frame how we respond to information, disinformation and/or misinformation.
But one looks even MORE defensive by refusing to engage at all . . . RFK Jr. is an idiot on a range of issues and this needs to be made clear to as wide an audience as possible. Dr. Dan Wilson is doing the right thing . . . ..More scientists are going to have to do what he's doing or else the demagogues and charlatans will keep winning by default . . .
It is easier to argue for true beliefs. If Paul isn’t good at rhetoric — let’s find someone who is and they will win, right?
Science is decided in debates between scientists, not debates between scientists and science-illiterate lawyers who have been lying about vaccines for 18 years.
Science is decided by experiments, not debates
"The point of a debate wouldn't be to change RFK Jr.'s mind, but to make his followers think a bit. "
I really like that idea.
The problem is that it is very clear that many of his followers are unable or unwilling to think/read/count at the middle-school level even when the facts are put right in front of their eyes.
Right. But this is true in general, not just of RFK Jr.'s followers. The impulse to rationalize rather than reason may be a fatal flaw in the human species. Even scientists are prone to it, especially when they speak of matters beyond their areas of specialized expertise.
I agree that scientists are prone to the same biases that all other people are.
The difference is that science has methods and processes to minimize their impact and correct any such errors when they do occur. I am NOT claiming perfection--just that this is less of a problem in science.
In contrast, RFK jr has been making money since 2005 repeating some of the same lies over and over.
I agree. It's nice to see the intellectual humility that characterizes real scientific work, with researchers carefully choosing their words so as not to overstate what is known, hedging their assertions with qualifications, etc. etc. Exactly the opposite of what we see with anti-vaxxers, whose sweeping assertions are almost always wrong, meaningless, or grotesquely exaggerated. It's almost impossible for systemic fraud to take root in the natural sciences. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the social sciences.
Since RFK jr has been so clear that vaccine are genocidal, why exactly is RFK jr never willing to stand up in Court and make the same claims? Under oath....where perjury would apply...
You don't debate a pathological liar, you correct the pathological lies
What is a more effective way to correct pathological lies than in a debate where in real time you can correct pathological lies? I'm being genuine with this question.
Apparently, you have no idea why a science-illiterate lawyer with an 18 year history of lying would want to debate a scientist about science and why it would be bonkers for the scientist to do so. You might start by looking up "Gish Gallop" and remember the adage adjusted to the social media age: it takes seconds to tell a lie and hours to days to correct that lie.
Why are you being really rude? I’m just trying to chat and I’m very open to being convinced. I’ll look up “Gish Gallop”
Because misinformation kills.
Agreed, but being rude causes people to double down via cognitive dissonance. It doesn't help your case.
The problem is, most of the vaccine controversy is not some abstract subject like "should man visit Mars?" or "are sunsets prettier than rainbows?". The vaccine controversy can be examined with scientific studies and data. It is more akin to "do car seatbelts save lives?" I would debate RFK under these two conditions... #1, there is a debate monitor who can be summoned at any time to pause the debate and research the validity of a claim, and #2, scientific consensus is recognized as the gold standard.
1. The downside to this approach is that both sides need to trust the 3rd party. It is better to have a debater screen share and call out BS on the spot.
2. Experiments are the gold standard. Consensus is a proxy of the literature.
"Experiments are the gold standard. Consensus is a proxy of the literature."
Honestly, you are clueless. For a start, what about clinical trials? You clearly have no idea what a vitally important role consensus serves in science. Scientists from around the world, who have the required expertise in the relevant field of science, assess and evaluate all the evidence and come to a conclusion about all the evidence. That conclusion is always provisional, meaning that new evidence can overturn it or, more commonly, modify it. That is what is meant by a scientific consensus.
That conclusion is always provisional, meaning that new evidence can overturn it or, more commonly, modify it.
Yes, consensus is a proxy of the literature
"Scientific consensus is the opposite of science: it's scientism."
Argument by assertion from ignorance just isn't compelling.
I note that you still haven't offered any actual evidence, facts, data, or logic to support your argument by assertion.
The scientific consensus is what results from debates...between scientists. You should be all for that, right?
I simply point out that RFK jr uses censors to stop facts from being posted at his site.
And RFK jr has been very clear about how terrible vaccines are. If he really believed his BS, he would be in Court stopping the vaccines from being used.
But he knows he is selling lies, that is why he will never make his claims under oath, where perjury applies.
Nonsense.
this is rich, given the source. pot calling the kettle black? we get your point which you've made recently: the dose makes the poison.
how about writing a blog about the stealth edit you made to an earlier post changing 'all vaccines undergo placebo controlled trials' to 'most'? I think the same attorney, Aaron Siri, called you out on that. is that what this latest is - he got under your skin? (edited a typo: it to is - see how easy that was?)
how about Tom Jefferson (epidemiologist), is he a credible source to discuss placebos?
Here is a recent article by Tom Jefferson & a co-author Maryanne Demasi PhD (rheumatology) about not all placebos being placebos.
https://maryannedemasi.substack.com/p/whats-in-the-placebo?utm_source=cross-post&publication_id=1044435&post_id=134990721&isFreemail=true&utm_campaign=1029183&utm_medium=email
Thomas Jefferson is a fringe scientist, an outlier. Every scientific discipline has them. Maryanne Demasi is a science journalist who was ejected from "Catalyst" for her biased reporting in favouring the views of fringe scientists. It's not surprising the two of them found each other.
are you up to date on all of your covid-19 vaccinations? How many shots have you taken?
Typical antivaxxer reading from the prescribed playbook of the anti-vaccine industry.
LOL - look at your thought leaders (in this case peter hotez): July 23rd 2023
https://twitter.com/PeterHotez/status/1683163140219977728
"Not to be a Debbie Downer…but anyone worried about a post-BarbieBoxOffice Covid bump? Or post-Oppie? We’ll probably never know since no one seems to be keeping track of such things anymore. Keep up with your boosters and find a pink N-95 or KN-95 if you can"
better get that booster shot - so says peter!
you aren't doing your own research and deciding on your own if you need that booster dose, are you?
Why is it that when provided facts you change the topic?
Why do you continue to support folks like Siri who somehow just can't use a dictionary???
LOL!
please, define fact. then enlighten me, what facts did billy state? I see his opinion/conjecture but no statement of facts.
are you up to date on your covid-19 shots, Albus? depending on your age, it could mean 4-7 shots by now.
You aren't an antivaxer are you?
He provided background on Demasi and Jefferson--you don't like the facts, so you changed the topic.
Anti-vacc rhetoric 101
FACTS! LOL. do you dress yourself in the morning or does someone help you? forget that, the important question is: are you up to date on your covid 19 vaccinations?
BillyJoe shared his opinion that Jefferson is a 'fringe scientist'.
where did he get such a brilliant ad hominem...oh yea former head of NIH Francis Collins who called epidemiologists from Stanford, Oxford & Harvard 'fringe'. you covid cult members sure know how to stick to the orthodoxy - LOL!
Jefferson is so fringe he only has been a lead author and editor for Cochrane Collaboration's acute respiratory infections group since 1999 (initially joining Cochrane Collaboration in '94).
in 2014 he was appointed as an honorary research fellow at the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Oxford University = FRINGE
Still puppeting the prescribed script of the anti-vaccine industry. Too funny.
you are on the side of the censors.
here is a short history lesson: the censors are NEVER the good guys:
https://www.racket.news/p/twitter-files-extra-the-democrats?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1042&post_id=135333312&isFreemail=false&utm_medium=email
are you up to date on your covid 19 vaccines?
they are safe & effective. have you had your 4+ doses?
you wouldnt question the CDC and biden admin would you?
you arent an antivaxer are you?
Steve Kirsch offered Paul Offit $50,000 to take the entire childhood vaccine schedule of 73 shots in one sitting. Dr. Offit refuses to do it despite claiming the peds vaccines are so safe a child could have 100,000 doses and be fine.
I don’t think it’s 73 separate injections but multiple vaccines in each dose administered. Also they are not 73 different vaccines but are multiple doses of the same vaccine mixtures. We administer 3 of the 6 in 1 vaccine at 8 weeks, 12 weeks and 16 weeks of age. Is that 1 vaccine, 3 vaccines, 6 vaccines or is it 18 vaccines?
Good questions. The point is Offit won’t take the full childhood schedule for $50,000. He know kirsch will pay him. So he’s clearly scared to get injured.
What would it prove?
If a child in the USA has a large number of vaccines over their childhood and when that child has become an adult they decide to join the military then they will have multiple vaccinations, including smallpox which can cause myocarditis. If they are then deployed to certain other countries then they are likely to be vaccinated against typhoid, yellow fever and others.
Every child when it is born is suddenly exposed to a myriad of pathogens after spending 9 months in a sterile environment. The birth canal is hardly the most sterile environment, particularly at the open end.
A newborn is very vulnerable to respiratory infections, pertussis for example can be fatal, which is why pregnant women are vaccinated against pertussis in the third trimester.
Silence.
Are you embarrassed by the BS Steve is selling?
Isn't it amazing?
Dr. Offit DIDN'T say that...and even when Kirsch's error is clearly explained right on his own substack...Kirsch still just can't get the basic English meaning of Dr. Offit's words correct.
Of course, if we deleted everything that Kirsch claims that isn't functionally or scientifically literate....he wouldn't have much left at all....
to best protect you, your loved ones and your community elmos says to stay up to date on your covid 19 vaccinations
People with integrity look at the data...then there are the anti-vacc liars.
why have only 25% of the USA pop gone for the bivalent booster or newer monovalent booster? is 75% of the country anti-vaxers?
https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/dashboard/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-dashboard/#:~:text=Overall%2C%20over%20half%20of%20adults,and%20college%20graduates%20(65%25).
headline: "A Quarter Of Adults Have Received A Bivalent COVID-19 Booster Dose..."
CDC says: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/easy-to-read/vaccine-booster-shot.html
"
The updated COVID-19 vaccine is for everyone ages 6 months and older.
Ask your doctor if your child can get the updated COVID-19 vaccine.
People who are pregnant can get the updated COVID-19 vaccine.
People who have allergies can get the updated COVID-19 vaccine.
People with health problems should get the updated COVID-19 vaccine.
People who have had COVID-19 should get the updated COVID-19 vaccine.
You can get the updated COVID-19 vaccine 3 months after having COVID-19.
Get the updated COVID-19 vaccine at least 2 months after your last COVID-19 shot.
"
are you 2 months past your last covid shot, if so, do your part and go get another 1!
"why have only 25% of the USA pop gone for the bivalent booster or newer monovalent booster? "
Apparently it is news to you that American's often make poor decisions.
The better question is why are you still avoiding the data?
except the data that americans are rejecting the useless jabs?
are you 2 months past your last jab? if so, CDC says time for another 1. you wouldnt defy the science would you?
Note that you are still refusing to look at the data.....probabily because anyone that can count will see that the assertion that they are useless is a lie.
:)
ok i will bite. got a link?
And this is one thing that has made countering the disinformation purveyors so difficult. Thanks for the article.
Usually lawyers dabbling in science is like family medicine doctors dabbling in neurosurgery. We are good at what we do, and it’s not neurosurgery. I wish the whole legal system in this country could have a thorough scientific overhaul, leaving behind all the adversarial process, manipulative tricks, and imperative to win for your clients regardless of guilt. Like science, I wish it were all about discovering and reinforcing Truth.
The truth is really simple.
The vaccines cause autism is gross scientific fraud. That is why you can't do anything more than argue by assertion.
How many adverse events being reported are the nocebo effect?
A harvard study in 2009 followed patients after their vaccines to track adverse events and determined that fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. So while some portion of adverse events reported (to VAERS and v-safe, or the yellow card system in UK) are likely not actually a result of the vaccine (or could be nocebo effect), there are likely many more cases that were related but not reported at all.
Please read the study.
Thanks,
Did you find an issue with the study that you would like to share?
https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf
I will take that as a no, you don't actually care what the study found.
And you need more time to read your own link?
Still reading? Or just don't care what the facts are?
Thanks,
"A harvard study..."
For starters it isn't a Harvard study, it wasn't completed, and it didn't determine that few than 1% of adverse events are reported.
It isn’t dihydrogen monoxide that needs banning but it’s more dangerous cousin hydrogen hydroxide, the hydroxide makes it very corrosive.
Just a uncommon name that denotes the hydroxyl group of water molecules. Hydroxide is alkali name for water, HydroxicAcid, when reacting as a acid. Water is pretty interesting in of itself. Of course, this cloud be is just sarcasm on your part as well.
This material is dangerous in all states, not just the liquid form.
All sarcasm aside, I agree water is interesting because of its own physical and chemical properties, but also in its interactions with other compounds.