287 Comments
Comment removed
Expand full comment

I think there are actually a number of contributing factors.

E.g.

1. technology makes misinformation and lies easier to disseminate.

2. technology makes it easy to form echo chambers of misinformation.

3. a significant percentage of adults are remarkably scientifically illiterate and innumerate

4. amazingly, some folks would rather double-down on stupid then be willing to read the words and risk knowing they had been played for a fool....

Expand full comment
RemovedSep 12, 2023·edited Sep 12, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment

The strongest argument for vaccine mandates has always been the same. Unvaccinated individuals are a public health risk. When and if there comes a time when every vaccine offers 100% effectiveness to everyone that takes them then the world will hardly care if someone of consenting age takes a vaccine or not until then vaccine mandates will remain necessary. The same as vaccine mandates have been needed for over 200 years now.

Expand full comment

Not to cherry pick, but your region also allowed for lobotomies, and for the eugenics. so how does your argument protect against those outcomes?

Expand full comment

Tell me how lobotomies and eugenics are infectious or related to infections…

What you just did is called a whataboutism. It has no bearing on the argument and is nothing more than a deflection of the topic.

Expand full comment

Sure does, as Buck v Massachusetts opened the door for all of that, and it was related to a vaccine mandate, so again asking you, how do you reconcile your vaccine mandate for the common good, and not it becoming we should lobotomize people for the sake of publics good and the risk they could hurt others in their mental illness delusions?

Expand full comment

Whataboutisms I will not go into.

Vaccines have proven to be safe and effective having saved hundreds of millions of lives. Everything you have stated trying to deflect attention from the facts about vaccines have no evidence to show their safety or effectiveness for use in public health. You trying to bring up things from 50+ years ago that have basically been outlawed/outlawed d/t no medical or public health benefits just show your lack of a firm basis for your arguments against vaccine mandates.

Expand full comment

Its not though. It literally happened in life. People were lobotomized due to the logic you used. Your doing the Whataboutisms.

I'd agree if I said well lets say X vacine is only 50% effective, or only lasts x, but this happened in history, and was repeated the last few years with some people calling for exclusion of those nonvacinated people from normal society.

Your move.

Expand full comment
Sep 12, 2023·edited Sep 12, 2023

Be careful what you wish for, one day a mandate may come your way that you don't agree with. Read Michael's arguments again carefully, until you comprehend the implications of your irrational reasoning. In addition, the body's natural state is quite capable of dealing with "diseases". There's no ethical reason to be injected up to your eyeballs with toxic medications against your will just so you can participate in society. If you're afraid of getting sick, then remove yourself from society until you overcome your irrational fear.

Expand full comment

We have had vaccine mandates for over 200 years now. I read Michael’s arguments they are nonsense. Vaccines aren’t toxic. By your standards we would have millions of children and other vulnerable people dying every year, because you somehow don’t think vaccines aren’t important. Your lack of understanding and education doesn’t make vaccines toxic nor does it diminish the need for public health laws such as vaccine mandates. To participate in society means to have laws that everyone has to follow otherwise there is no society just a bunch of people fighting for survival all the time.

Expand full comment
Sep 13, 2023·edited Sep 13, 2023

We have had vaccine mandates in some locations for some periods of time in the past, yes. The approach more than 100 years ago was very different. We currently have vaccine mandates for students in public schools. With this approach, we are basically saying it's more important for a child to be vaccinated than to be allowed access to public schools. Covid mandates were attempted in the US to make employment contingent on vaccination, but that's mostly been ruled inappropriate in our courts.

Mandates are not a scientific issue. They are based on moral judgement. Different people can hold different ideas about the better course for society. Our society is currently sussing out how dangerous the unvaccinated should be considered with regard to participation in society. It's something that bears further discussion.

Expand full comment

You're either a Bot, a hired agitator/noise-maker or you're suffering from an intellectual short-coming of some sort.

Expand full comment

SHe's a paid troll. Pretty obvious.

Expand full comment

If you had an honest argument to make you would do so.....but you don't, so mindless personal attacks are all you have.

Expand full comment

Translation: no you don't know what the word toxic means and no you are not going to learn.

Expand full comment

My wish is for people to have factual information.

For example, there is nothing toxic in vaccines.

Expand full comment

Vaccines preventing the spread of a disease is the exception. The vaccinated are often super spreaders because vaccines often result in asymptomatic carriers when you’d be better to know you’re sick and be in bed. The whooping cough vaccine is a great example of this where the only group in the experiments that were truly protected and not spreading the disease were those that had had natural infection and coughed their guts out for a month but then were protected. Imagine if all these vaccines are doing the exact opposite of true herd immunity. Obviously herd immunity hasn’t been accomplished with the population vaccinated for covid, if it was we wouldn’t be having the forever proliferation of new variants. Imagine if a variation of the virus comes along that all those riddled with immune imprinting from too many boosters can’t tolerate the new variant.

It’s a real shame they collapsed the phase 3 clinical trials 2 months in and haven’t kept up the outcomes reporting by number of shots. It flipped on them from Mar-Jun of 2022 (the vaccinated were over represented with negative outcomes on a per 1000 basis), after that the spectacle of the pandemic of the unvaccinated reporting disappeared.

We’re getting screwed.

Expand full comment

"The vaccinated are often super spreaders because vaccines often result in asymptomatic carriers when you’d be better to know you’re sick and be in bed"

Please provide the data for that assertion.

Thank you.

Expand full comment

Look at the research on polio. Also, check out Dr. Abbe’s study in Guinea Bissau that showed kids vaccinated with the polio vaccine and DPT had a 5x greater mortality than those without the jab. Those given only the DPT vaccine were 10x more likely to die. CDC VAERS shows 17,000 deaths from the covid shot. Read Ed Dowd’s book Cause Unknown and see the evidence that all cause mortality rose in the the countries most vaccinated (for covid) at an unprecedented rate- 40% in the US. Pfizer’s own director stated they never tested to see if their jab stopped transmission. Now we know it does not. The CDC recently stated that jab makes one MORE susceptible to covid. UK’s own recently published data shows those dying of covid are the jabbed (94% since the beginning of April 2022) I could go on but I think I’ve made my point. Keep your head in the sand and you won’t see… same as Ph*k around and find out. Not much difference when we are taking about dying from a medical intervention.

Expand full comment

One example:

"CDC VAERS shows 17,000 deaths from the covid shot."

That is clearly not true:

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html

So...do you want to "take your head out of the sand" and see that all you have posted are standard anti-vacc lies?????

Expand full comment

Absolutely not. It is true. Next up: read Edward Dowd’s book Cause Unknown. He has all the QR codes to verify everything he referenced- including the all cause mortality for working age people going up to 40% when the shot was introduced. Also over 1.5 M adverse events reported in VAERS BTW. UK data shows those dying of covid are the vaccinated- by 94%. Have fun!

Expand full comment

You will absolutely LOVE this -

https://t.me/ReinerFuellmichEnglish/1006

Expand full comment

I will that that to mean NO, you don't have any actual data for your assertion...it was just made up!

Expand full comment

Oh dear.

First sentence:

" Vaccine mandates imply that all humans are born in a defective, inherently harmful state that must be biotechnologically augmented to allow our unrestricted participation in society, which amounts to discrimination on the basis of healthy, innate characteristics of the human race."

Other than getting the basic biology, legal, and ethical arguments wrong...well, you have everything wrong.

Big hint: every major ethical society disagrees with you.

Expand full comment

I don’t understand how any religion would advocate against vaccines. I can appreciate that certain products are against certain religious beliefs.

Expand full comment
Sep 11, 2023·edited Sep 12, 2023

That’s why there are very few religions that are actually against vaccines.

Expand full comment

Well there are 3 arguments, deepening on what vaccines your talking about.

1. Some vaccines utilized aborted cells in their development, so if you believe abortion=murder, then you could reasonably assume that you wouldn't want to condone and benefit from murder.

2. Older vaccines and technologies often utilize known ways of disabling the virus and had legit historical benefits that were known, while newer vaccines aren't as clear on how they work, and how they are protecting you. the bible talks about your own agency and how you need to take reasonability for you, so you could argue that someone may have issues with the newer techniques, but maybe not the old ones.

3. the bible talks about the sanctity of your body, and how you need to treat it and care for it. If you have qualms about the side effects of vaccines, then it would be within the religious belief that you need to control everything that goes into your body.

I don't believe that the USA determines religious belief to only organized religions, so I read the first part as a statement of not understanding where the argument can even come from.

You can disagree with any of those, but at least take a minute to think through the other side and understand it, as you'd be surprised on how nuanced it can be, and old views color todays move forward, when there are significant changes in both understanding effects of invaders in the body, and how the body actually works in response to it, vs just the observation that it can help.

Hope this helps, have a great day!

Expand full comment

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16406019/

Good answer, also there are possible benefits to natural infection that we are missing out on with immunization. As an example this study identified measles infection resulted in a 60% lower rate of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma later on.

Perhaps we are messing with nature too much. Certainly along with ever increasing immunizations we have witnessed an ever higher percentage of the population with chronic disease issues. And another reality that makes natural infection less worrisome, is that many of the childhood diseases that in 1900 were just about a death sentence had fallen to very low mortality rates prior to the introduction of the vaccines anyway, likely a factor as pointed out by the CDC of better health as a result of clean water, sanitation, refrigeration, etc.

These sorts of potential problems and benefits of natural infection verse immunization need to be discussed in a public forum with both sides of the issue present. The refusal of public health to engage with skeptics is causing a growing portion of society to not trust Pharma or the regulators.

Expand full comment

We know that measles and many other vaccine preventable infections can often lead to long term problems such as increased infection risks, increased risk of tumors, Hodgkin lymphoma etc. Society has become complacent because people don’t often see the problems associated with vaccine preventable infections anymore.

https://biomedgrid.com/fulltext/volume12/measles-virus-is-associated-with-hodgkin-lymphoma-and-additional-tumors-a-never-ending-story.001712.php

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/measles/measles-does-long-term-damage-immune-system-studies-show

https://www.cdc.gov/measles/symptoms/complications.html#:~:text=Long%2Dterm%20complications,infection%20acquired%20earlier%20in%20life.

Expand full comment
Sep 12, 2023·edited Sep 12, 2023

1. The majority of major religions have ruled that vaccinations are okay even if they have used aborted fetal cell lines in the development.

2. The “newer” vaccines are well known in how they work and have been studied for over 30+ years. Which also has nothing to do with religion.

3. People using religious exemptions for vaccines are rarely d/t deeply held religious beliefs especially with covid vaccines and has more to do with political beliefs and fear mongering in the media.

Expand full comment

Imagine the stupidity of trying to jab everyone multiple times, including children and pregnant women, with an experimental jab concocted in record time by an industry with a long track record of extreme corruption, for an illness that is not serious for the vast, vast majority of people, when the jab doesn’t stop spread and wasn’t even tested for stopping spread, and in the history of respiratory diseases (SARS1, MERS, swine flu, bird flu, influenza, common cold) there has never before been a successful jab. Once you recognise this stupidity, you’ve got to wonder how truly beneficial many other medications actually are. Bear in mind, the (vast?) majority of medical research (and social science research) is wrong by incompetence, p-hacking or outright fraud.

Expand full comment

I always love the record/short time argument. The mRNA vaccines have been in development for over 30 years.

The COVID vaccines are not experimental by definition once released to the public. Emergency release does not mean experimental.

COVID has killed millions. It is by most 10x more deadly than the flu. Whatever your definition of not serious is highly skewed.

Flu vaccines save millions of lives. Your belief that it doesn’t does not change that.

The COVID vaccine was first tested to reduce mortality and morbidity. It was subsequently shown to reduce spread.

Everyone of statements about COVID was disproven years ago.

Expand full comment

Remember to keep getting your boosters (every 2 months coz they’re sooo effective)... but you won’t, coz deep down in your swollen and irregularly beating heart, you know you’ve been taken for a schmuck. The “millions of lives saved” is based on a gigo model, not clinical evidence. Yes, mRNA tech has been around for decades, but couldn’t find valid use until an “emergency” arrived to “justify” it (the ADV tech of Astra Zeneca & J&J has actually been used for decades). Millions of flu-jabbed catch the flu or die from the flu each year coz it’s soo effective (but go on, chant the mantra: “it would have been much worse”). It seems you agree big pharma is corrupt and medical research is usually dubious... so maybe some hope for you. I hope you’re wearing your mask while reading this (gotta stay safe). Happy boostering!

Expand full comment

I see you didn’t refute any of the clinical reports on unvaccinated versus vaccinated mortality and morbidity rates I posted. That completely blows your theories out of the water.

I’ll tell you what if vaccines are so ineffective then don’t get vaccinated and purposely infect yourself with every vaccine preventable infection there is. I’ll wait to hear those results….

Expand full comment

Would you agree that resorting to a strawman is admission of defeat? (Do you need to look that up?) The empirical evidence of the outright failure of the covid jabs is explicit - so much so that even zealots like you refuse further boosters (right???). I suspect you are open-minded enough to have some secret regret about what you did to yourself because you had faith in sociopaths like Fauci and Bourla. Good luck making better decisions in the future.

Expand full comment

"The empirical evidence of the outright failure of the covid jabs is explicit - so much so that even zealots like you refuse further boosters (right???)"

Many folks here have made that same assertion.

So far exactly ZERO have been able to provide any such evidence.

Will you be the first?

Expand full comment

flu vaccines saved millions? are you sure of that?

The Effect of Influenza Vaccination for the Elderly on Hospitalization and Mortality

An Observational Study With a Regression Discontinuity Design

link: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/abs/10.7326/m19-3075

from the results section:

"The data included 170 million episodes of care and 7.6 million deaths. Turning 65 was associated with a statistically and clinically significant increase in rate of seasonal influenza vaccination. However, no evidence indicated that vaccination reduced hospitalizations or mortality among elderly persons. "

Expand full comment

and there is also:

Vaccines to prevent influenza in healthy adults - published Dec 2016

https://www.cochrane.org/CD001269/ARI_vaccines-prevent-influenza-healthy-adults

"We focused on reporting of results from 25 studies that looked at inactivated vaccines. Injected influenza vaccines probably have a small protective effect against influenza and ILI (moderate-certainty evidence), as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza case, and 29 would need to be vaccinated to avoid one case of ILI. Vaccination may have little or no appreciable effect on hospitalisations (low-certainty evidence) or number of working days lost."

but you are certain flu shots saved millions? care to share your evidence?

Expand full comment

You’re points are ones more and more people agree with. Have you seen one of the more recent discoveries that with the synthetic proteins in the mRNA shots the drug makers specifically said they would not test for how long it would take for the spike to clear out and decided to go with the assumption that the time frame would be the same as natural proteins. When asked by the panel approving the shot they could not provide an answer and they would get back to them but did offer probably a couple of days to a week. Without testing you should conclude they had no idea how long it would take. Studies post the roll out have established that the spike is hanging around in some cases over 6 month. Just in time to get another booster. And there are papers confirm elevated IgG4 levels which has been shown potential to be associated with IgG4-RD (mass organ disease).

The truth is there is so much pharma and the regulators had no data on what to expect especially long term as obviously there wasn’t time to do long term studies. But now we’re plagued with the problem that the new boosters are being approved based on the original clinical trials that were rushed and not completed properly. And with the cdc/ fda promoting this idea the new shots aren’t a booster but a new shot, if that’s the case how can they lean on the old trials for anything.

The regulators are so clearly compromised. There are so many examples of corruption in Pharma (OxyContin is a great one) why do so many people put so much faith in them and also are willing to stake their reputation at risk standing behind the products that you can’t be sure of - there is no way someone can make a claim about the drug’s long term safety. We’re going to experience it’s outcomes in the real world at this point. With excess mortality being reported in the highly vaccines parts of the world, if you had to bet where are you putting your money?

Expand full comment

Yes, a terrible precedent has been set.

The failure of all prior attempts at vaccines for respiratory diseases meant it was a fantasy to expect the covid jabs to be effective, and a gamble to expect them to be safe. The long run impacts are still playing out, but those that technically have the responsibility to track and report problems are incentivised to cover them up.

Expand full comment

"The failure of all prior attempts at vaccines for respiratory diseases...."

Oh dear....you mean other than the measles vaccines and the pneumonia vaccines and the influenza vaccines....and......

Expand full comment

"Have you seen one of the more recent discoveries that with the synthetic protein.... Studies post the roll out have established that the spike is hanging around in some cases over 6 month. "

The studies and "discoveries" that you don't post....it is exactly like you know those claims are lies....

Expand full comment

You confuse religion with organized religion. The constitution protects personal religious beliefs. Thank God for that.

Expand full comment

I just wish we actually knew if vaccines caused autism, developmental delays, and immune compromise. I looked back at my daughter’s childhood vaccinations, and the years of multiple vaccinations she had trouble with her lymph nodes and strep like infections. No medical intervention is without harm. I just wish we knew the harms of vaccination instead of hiding them and pretending they don’t exist.

Expand full comment

We do know these things. Vaccinations do not cause autism. Nobody pretends their harms don’t exist. However, nobody should allege pretend harms are real, or that conditions not caused by vaccines are somehow caused by them.

Expand full comment

The studies to know this is true have not been completed, so no, you don’t know that is true. Kathleen Edwards on the stand confirmed this.

Expand full comment

So you’re saying the govt did not take over liability for injury compensation for vaccines on the childhood schedule? Or Is it for when it can be demonstrated pharma have committed blatant fraud?

Obviously making a claim is a David and Goliath scenario. If you’re going to say that Pharma face the same system of liability for their products as other manufactures you’re being dishonest with ourself. What’s your deal, do you work in the industry in some form, or have you administered a careers worth of these shots to kids and are having a tough time coming to terms with the fact that all these vaccines may have caused kids a lot more harm than we realized?

Love the often quoted 1 or 2 in a million risk factor. Have you ever followed that through? It’s the number of injury claims awarded divided by all of the shots ever administered. First, people most often are not aware of the system to make a claim (have never been told personally when getting shots, if you have a negative reaction here’s the information you’ll need to make a claim - is the system purposely never discussed?). Next, the second someone adds the word vaccine in front of injury they go from getting sympathy for their condition to being attacked, and if you make it through all that and actual file a claim you’re making a claim against the body that will rule on your case. For covid what are we up to in the USA, 4 awards for injuries caused from the covid shots? It’s a hopeless system.

Expand full comment

"So you’re saying the govt did not take over liability for injury compensation for vaccines on the childhood schedule"

They DID not.

I am saying to you that the anti-vaccs are a fraud and they lied to you.

And I am pointing out that this has been proved to you already.

Expand full comment

I am saying at this point you know the anti-vaccs are a fraud and lied to you....but you just don't want to admit they played you for a fool!

Expand full comment

Do you have any factual information to share or are you content to blather on with conjecture in an area where you are quite clearly uninformed?

Expand full comment

You should allow yourself to read Turtles all the way down, check as many of the references as you please - the reference material is at least 10x the size of the book.

Keep an open mind, there is a lot that can be improved in the ethical conduct in which the Pharma business runs. Denying that the Pharma business isn’t corrupt is basically the same as saying gravity doesn’t exist. Even funding regulators and politicians to the degree they do, they still having been able to avoid charges where it is proven they have acted fraudulently, it’s the most criminally charged industry on the planet. That’s different than the system that compensates people that are accepted as vaccine injured or killed from the childhood schedule, the government’s vaccine court awards and pays those claims.

If you just can’t accept the pharma business is riddled with problems, you’re either a part of it or very susceptible to being taking advantage of.

Get a copy of the book and let yourself read it.

Expand full comment

Correction: pharma has NOT been able to avoid criminal charges even with the amount they fund politicians and the regulators.

Expand full comment
Sep 11, 2023·edited Sep 11, 2023

We do know that vaccines do not cause asd or autoimmune diseases. Vaccines are the most tested pharmaceutical products there are and the only one that requires constant post marketing survelliance/phase 4 studies.

Expand full comment

We do? How do we know that? Do we know exactly what causes the autoimmune issues or autism? I think that's a no. So if we don't know why something happens, we can't say yes or no to something. Observational studies work to give you an idea of where to go look, but we really need to get back to real science where we utilize observations to then go do the real science to determine what is happening.

And on the phase 4 things, Genuine question, are they allowed to drop out participants like we saw with the covid trails? I used to think you like you, that hey science was this, they discovered all these cool things, and so if science is driving it, it must be true... then I got involved with a few side projects, saw how science was funded and funding ran results, then saw the abuse from the covid trials, and I can't actually agree with a study that loses more than 10% of its participants, and then says that its safe and effective without acknowledging 10% of the population might be dead/disabled/un reachable.

Just some things for you to think about.

Expand full comment
Sep 11, 2023·edited Sep 11, 2023

We know it doesn’t through cohort studies comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated, if the rates are the same then it’s not vaccines causing the issues.

Funding on phase 4 trials is rarely done by pharmaceutical companies for vaccines and so funding usually comes through government grants that different countries give to do the studies all over the world. There is a thing in science called hierarchy of evidence and at a certain point with enough studies of robust design done all over the world by different teams of scientists it becomes all but impossible to fake those results as you are suggesting. The vaccine trials for asd and many autoimmune disorders have met those standards long ago.

Just some things for you to think about..

Expand full comment

What cohort studies are you referring to? Honestly the only ones I’ve seen is ones that compare outcomes by age and don’t control for location or other health impacts. I have seen some total population ones, but when you get into them they are so lopsided on population numbers that it’s hard to see if they are robust. I’m talking pure healthy vs healthy, not this we do a population view and lump in the sick and dying into the control group.

Second on phase 4 being funded by the government, that’s exactly what I was talking about. The funding isn’t coming in from a blank slate. How many dollars did nih doctors get from patents on treatments related to resmividir ? I was in an ag based thing and it’s amazing how often each grants recipients found positive outcomes for the systems they were paid to examine. Also how they ignored future issues with their system, as it worked in the grant period but after wouldn’t. Not saying your wrong, just my experience with how science works if your feeding the scientist families.

Last part I disagree with completely, as in healthcare settings we have had a long history of accepting science that is gospel, and turning out to be completely wrong. If you can’t say why biochemically something works, and doesn’t, and what side effects it can have and why, then I honestly don’t trust it. I’ll skip the easy morning sickness treatment as proof.

Expand full comment

I am certain at this point no research would ever sway you to change your mind. You have a skewed perspective on how things work with little understanding of actual research.

Expand full comment

Yea your first one is what I was talking about, it’s a meta study, and only chose 10 out of 159 analyzed. If your not going to do the science in the field, atleast utilize the totality of data that is available. Second, did I mention only autistic outcomes, as that paper only covers that and only ~17% of the research available. There is nothing there about how they were able to exclude unhealthy individuals from the no vaccinated group. Third, it doesn’t answer my question of if your disproving something not causing an issue, why can’t they explain it biochemically? Still doesn’t answer the auto immune issue and honestly I just grabbed those two but there’s a few others we’d want followed for real science.

Your 2nd link is cdc, and sorry but after their mask science change, I don’t trust them. Use the Time Machine and check out osha standards before 2019 and then what the cdc said. The science didn’t change, the money behind it did.

The third is true, nice job! But honestly isn’t we’re I get my hesitation and has been a known issue

Btw I’m generally for vaccines, so if you think I’m some rabid anti vaccine person, your wrong. I am saying that the newer vaccines have serious questions that haven’t been examined, and need to be. Especially after listening to an fda scientist say that we won’t know if the vaccine is safe or effective unless we give it to 12-18 years old. Yes go listen to the approval meetings. I may not have a phd, but you can listen to public things and understand bullshit when you hear it. Thank you for sending links and engaging, sorry that I had read 2 out of 3, and the middle one was from a suspect source.

Have a wonderful day!

I’d also note I think other prescription drug and environmental factors cause more of the asd issue, but like I said earlier we are finding out all sorts of new things about how things actually work, and we shouldn’t just say, hey it’s science because we’ve been doing it this way without issue for x years.

Expand full comment

Shannon E, you are so right in your postings. But don't give this guy the dignity of this attention. He is a conspiracy minded, idiot and a troll. Please, ignore him.

Expand full comment

Scientists in vaccine phase 4 studies aren’t paid to find anything except to report the data that is found. These vaccine studies are replicated the world over. Conspiracies like yours would require millions of people to be paid off and millions of people to “hide” some giant conspiracy. It could never happen.

Thalamoside was never approved in the USA for morning sickness, because fda scientist(s) didn’t think it had a proven safety record. I have no idea why every vaccine opponent never knows that.

Expand full comment

You’re right. Nothing will change his mind. . And he won’t read what you’ve provided.

Expand full comment

Did it ever occur to you that if you asked actual scientists, they would explain how the anti-vaccs are lying to you?

Or if you asked health insurance/life insurance companies or national health care systems, that they would explain how vaccinated kids are so much healthier?

Expand full comment

Did it occur to you that if you refuse to make any good faith effort at trying to determine the facts, that some folks might question your integrity?

Expand full comment

from the pfizer files... a death in pfizers covid clinical trial was labeled unvaccinated - yet was dosed with moderna after the unblinding = ELIMINATED the CONTROL GROUP making long term safety within the clinical protocol IMPOSSIBLE!

Pfizer said it'd be unethical to keep a mid-aged healthy participates from the covid jabs because covid was sooo risky (IFR under 1%) and the jab being 95% effective against symptomatic disease.

what a bunch of BS

we now know from CDC's own data - they saw breakthrough infections from the beginning and pre-omicron in summer '21 63% of the elderly hospitalized for covid had been 2x jabbed w/ mrna from either pfizer or moderna...by summer '21 80% of over 65 yr olds in the USA were 2x jabbed

Expand full comment

source - Humetrix Cloud Services was contracted by the US military

to analyze covid vaccine data...

https://www.ntd.com/fda-cdc-hid-data-on-spike-in-covid-cases-among-the-vaccinated-documents_939831.html?src_src=newsletter&src_cmp=2023-09-04

"In the week ending on July 31, 2021, 63 percent of the COVID-19 hospitalizations in seniors were among the fully vaccinated, according to the documents."

Expand full comment

"In the week ending on July 31, 2021, 63 percent of the COVID-19 hospitalizations in seniors were among the fully vaccinated, according to the documents."

Isn't it amazing?

This is literally 5th grade math and yet no matter how many times over how many decades this anti-vacc lie is explained, the anti-vaccs still find some folks so clueless that they fall for it.....

Expand full comment

If you had a 1% of death or serious injury every time you drove would you still continue to drive? A 1% mortality rate would equal approximately 3.5 million people in the USA alone.

If every car is red does that mean red cars are more prone to accidents? That is essentially the analogy of what you are saying about vaccination rates and hospitalizations.

Your argument is an old argument that shows a lack of understanding of vaccines and statistics. The argument is used by every anti-Covid vaccine person there is. The majority of elderly are vaccinated at this point. We still can compare them to ones that are unvaccinated and we know that being vaccinated still reduces mortality and morbidity rates.

https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/421-010-CasesInNotFullyVaccinated.pdf

Expand full comment

what?

your analogy does not work. yes there is risk every time you drive. unless, magically - sometimes when you get behind the wheel you somehow become invincible... there is ALWAYS RISK.

furthermore - do you have an adaptive immune system which reduces your risk of error (personally or of other drivers) after each spin behind the wheel? no, you dont. but does recovery from prior infection reduce one's risk to severe outcomes from the same disease in the future- why yes, it does.

comparing a human's adaptive immune system to driving a car is ludicrous.

the facts are clear: pfizer & moderna's 95% effective against symptomatic disease was a BS, non-reproducible result.

Ever hear of John Ioanniddis? give a read of his work...which is one of the most cited research papers, ever:

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

real world evidence shows us that the most vulnerable were not protected against symptomatic infection, severe disease nor death after being dosed with the covid gene therapies - evidenced by the Humetrix data + the fact that more patients in the dose group died than the placebo group within the pfizer trial.

even offit let alone the rest of the world arent taking any boosters. what about you? care to share your rationale behind your decisions?

Expand full comment

“Summary

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field.”

That is why hierarchy of evidence exists. Hence, systematic reviews and meta-analyses would be near impossible to be false.

What you are wanting to show is anything you don’t want to believe in d/t your cognitive biases is false.

The analogy on cars is a simplified way to show that 1% risk is a large risk, especially when you are talking about mortality rates. Another an analogy that is used would you have sex with someone that had an STD without protection? You have an adaptive immune system so why not? It’s your perspective that’s skewed not the statistic. 1% mortality would be more deaths from every other cause in the USA in a more than years time.

It has been shown over and over again in every country that unvaccinated have higher morbid and mortality rates. Your belief doesn’t change any of those robust systematic reviews.

Expand full comment

Yes the facts are clear.

E.g. from life insurance companies. All it takes is basic counting skills to see the anti-vaccs lies and how safe and effective the vaccines are.

Expand full comment

I agree there is lots and lots of BS.

"Pfizer said it'd be unethical to keep a mid-aged healthy participates from the covid jabs because covid was sooo risky"

No surprise you didn't provide any reference to any of your assertions!

Expand full comment

"So if we don't know why something happens, we can't say yes or no to something."

Sigh...that is still not true.....

Expand full comment

Yes, yes its true. otherwise this happens...

https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1701985570426122636

Expand full comment

You changed the subject, but OK.

If you read the CDC document, Berenson is just obviously and grossly lying.

So, will you read the document?

Expand full comment

I did read the CDC document, and actually came to the same conclusion that Berenson did. The CDC didn't include the failure rate, only the positives. Exactly what I was talking about, not knowing exactly how something works, and the side effects from that action. If we don't understand that, we can't understand the negative side effects.

And it isn't changing subjects... I guess it appears retirement has slowed your brain, so all you can do it not read and understand a comment, and instead just bring up new topics or just dismiss stuff without facts or figures. Just like you said, Berenson is lying, but how do you know that? Hes been more right than the CDC on covid vaccine data.

Expand full comment

Haven’t you watched Kathleen Edwards on the stand acknowledge that the type of study that would be required to rule out such things have never been done? Vaccine by vaccine are reviewed and she said no the studies have not been done. She started by saying they were but then conceded they had not. Then her defence was that studies have never been done that show that they do cause the problems, which was on point because the question was simply to establish that the studies have not been done.

To the point, they have lost credibility and it’s from their own doing.

Expand full comment

Read the post about lawyers posing questions to get the answers they want.

Expand full comment

The same can be said about the way clinical trials are conducted. Throw out participants that give the wrong results, etc. never would have thought it was possible but lawyers are catching up or maybe even moving ahead of doctors in the court of public opinion of who is more respected and trustworthy. Not saying it’s right or wrong just saying it’s a consequence of being captured by pharma.

Expand full comment

"The same can be said about the way clinical trials are conducted. "

Except it is not true. There are strong, independent safeguards.

Apparently none of the places you have been getting your information from told you the truth.

Expand full comment

I note that you are ignoring the basic facts about how clinical trials are conducted.

Are you worried that if you look, you will see the anti-vaccs lied to you?

Expand full comment

What every anti vaccine proponent wants or thinks they want are these large double blinded RCTs (millions in both groups) vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies even though we can do the same thing with cohort studies and have for decades. Every time a new vaccine study comes out antivaxxers move the goal post. When thiomersal was suspected of causing asd multiple studies were done showing it was safe, but d/t public concern it was removed from childhood vaccines over 20 years ago. That obviously did not change asd rates. Then antivaxxers went after adjuncts most notably aluminum. There have probably been hundreds if not thousands of studies showing that with or without aluminum the rate asd or X are no different. When none of those things worked out antivaxxers moved on to finally saying they want these giant double blinded RCTs even though cohort studies show the exact same thing.

It’s a simple fact that it has nothing to do with studies or lack of studies antivaxxers are never going to believe vaccines are safe based on any study. This is a cognitive bias that something other than a study will have to change.

Expand full comment

You are correct in the fact that observational studies will not satisfy the obvious gaps in vaccine safety.

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.

Another example of failed safety is using an experimental meningococcal vaccine as the control group for the Prevnar vaccine.

It is impossible to prove a vaccine does or does not cause an adverse based on observational studies.

Doing the science is all that is needed.

Expand full comment

Adverse event

Expand full comment

I will simply point out that multiple people here have already posted many different links on the proper use of controls.

You have made it clear that you have zero interest in the facts, but rather just want to post mindless BS about vaccines.

Big hint: every single country on the planet rejects your BS because they care enough to at least look...

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Yes you clearly don't care that the anti-vaccs are liars and frauds that kill children.

Your position on controls literally and grossly fails middle-school and is such abject idiocy you refuse to even read the provided links.

The only gaps so far have been in your morality and intellect.

Expand full comment

You are absolutely correct in the fact that I do not care at all that “Scientists have spent decades explaining why Carcinogenic, Mutagenic and the potential to impair fertility tests are not required to be done” especially since we are talking about injecting these vaccines into day one BABIES.

And I also do not give a (expletive) that Scientists have deemed using experimental vaccines as a control group is Ethical.

Every child receiving a vaccine on this planet deserves better, they deserve nothing short of the absolute best, most thoroughly tested vaccine with every known test available.

If that is asking too much and makes an Anti-Vaxxer then so be it.

Thank you for taking the obvious safety short fallings of vaccine concerns and labeling them as “mindless BS about vaccines” it is abundantly clear that you do not care about any concerns one might have about injecting these into babies.

The continuous mantra that the science is settled and vaccines are safe and effective when it is clearly not an accurate portrayal, is destroying the trust in science with potentially very severe consequences.

I’m not sure if you have noticed but people do not respect or trust people like you anymore, there have been too many lies, half truths, and assumptions.

That lack of trust and respect in the Scientific Community is going to be a problem for everyone.

Trust needs to be rebuilt which means you need to get off your high horse and find solutions to the growing number of vaccine safety concerns instead of labeling them as “mindless BS about vaccines”

I am not the first and will definitely not be last person who finds these Obvious gaps in science and safety.

We have to do better.

Expand full comment

I don't who Edwards is--do you have an example?

And I will guess that you have not researched what are the proper studies to do and then checked to see if they are done.

Expand full comment

Does that mean no, you won't use your basic reading skills and see the facts.

Expand full comment

Vaccines cause autism: they're no debate about that.

Expand full comment

You have to be willfully and ~infinitely stupid to believe that anti-vacc lie.

That is why you refuse to offer any evidence at all.....

Expand full comment

https://thehighwire.com/ark-videos/new-book-tackles-vax-vs-unvax/

There is a growing body of work comparing total health outcomes of the vaccinated verses the unvaccinated. Results show that the unvaccinated are much healthier. The CDC’s VSD database has the total health profile of 10 million Americans with 10’s of thousands full unvaxxd individuals. A comparative study should be done but to this point they will not allow it. Based on what we observed with the pandemic of the unvaccinated spectacle during covid I feel that if the vaccinated were overwhelming more healthy it would be on the news every night. For some reason they don’t want these comparative studies done?

Expand full comment

There are many vaccinated and unvaccinated cohort studies. Those studies have shown vaccinated children and adults tend to be healthier than their unvaccinated counterparts.

Yes, I’m aware of the notorious survey study that was retracted and the other equally bad methods of another study that tried to skew results showing opposite results in order to further publicize themselves and vaccine conspiracies.

Expand full comment

Thank you for your reply.

The point is the comparisons are gaining acceptance and public health mostly using a tactic of attacking the people bringing the message rather than sitting down in an open forum to work through the issues is furthering the problem.

No one is against safe vaccines, but there has been a lot of information that isn’t great about the vaccine program that has purposely been kept from the public. It’s at the point of they have to meet, a good proxy to see what the public’s trust is towards the vaccine program is this fall, see how many go for this latest covid shot that the govt says everyone over 6 months needs. I was in the pro vaxx camp before, I’m at a position now that I don’t trust them and until the industry faces their skeptics I will help share information that hopefully will encourage them to meet.

Things like studies that show natural infection from childhood disease improves health outcomes later in life should be getting lots of research funding rather than trying to be buried. One study shows that catching measles reduced NHL and HL later in life by 60%. And measles, whooping cough, etc when you look at CDC data shows the mortality rate had declined significantly before vaccines as a result they point out because of improvements in clean water, sanitation etc. so the childhood diseases for normal kinds isn’t a death sentence it was in 1900. Some disease like scarlet fever had the same decline over time as measles even without a vaccine.

There is a lot going on with immunity that has yet to be discovered and unfortunately we have not been exposed to a healthy debate on vaccines. People are starting to see this, I guess that is the sliver lining of covid, it woke a lot of people up. Even with Pharma’s unparalleled advantage to influence (how much more money do they have than the vaccine skeptics to drive the narrative?) they are beginning to lose the battle. This is why I say they can no longer dismiss out of hand, they have lost the trust of too many for that strategy to be effective. People need to allow themselves to pull back the curtain, allow themselves to have a curious mind. If the case for vaccines is so compelling Pharma is missing out not having those public forum sessions, people are smart it will be clear what is correct.

Anyway that’s from the mindset of someone that used to accept everything, they are the experts (I was pro vaxx) to I don’t trust them, they have lied about so many major items that are not even disputed now over this covid era. If they lied like this during covid, they didn’t suddenly turn that way, the industry it turns out when you dig into it has been corrupt for a very long time.

I’m just one of many that they have pushed away, it’s time for a different approach.

Expand full comment

1. There has always been open forums, public meetings etc on vaccines. The problem is people want to bring a bunch of conspiracies, myths and lies out while wanting to discuss them like they are legitimately the same as scientific evidence.

2. What you are likely talking about is minutiae of data from Pfizer. That information has no impact on the vaccine(s) safety. Every opponent of COVID vaccines is trying to pour over those documents looking for a “gotcha” moment that doesn’t exist. These vaccines having given to billions at this point and similar to every vaccine that is widely available to everyone is extremely safe.

3. Studies have proven over and over again that being infected doesn’t make one healthier. Measles increases risks of Hodgkin lymphoma, tumors, sspe (100% fatal), makes children more prone to infections for several years etc. The varicella vaccine decreases shingles risk by approximately 80% overall. The people that say that measles etc was on the decline prior to vaccines use cherry picked dates to show that. Measles like many vaccine preventable illnesses run in cycles where large groups would become infected/immune and then the cycle would repeat several years later with a new group of children.

4. “Healthy” debate does not include anecdotal evidence, conspiracies, and fraudulent disinformation/disproven studies. That is truly what every opponent to vaccines want they don’t want a discussion of science they want to discuss conspiracies and disinformation.

5. COVID vaccination ran into politics. It is so bad we actually see one political spectrum of the population more likely to die from COVID d/t disinformation.

6. Changing recommendations is not lying. The old well they said not to wear a mask and now they said to wear one is not a reason to try and say vaccines aren’t safe. The vaccines are overwhelming safe. Becoming infected is not better than being vaccinated.

Enough people/children will become ill again from vaccine preventable illnesses and the monologue will change again from disinformation on vaccines to actually listening to experts again about what the scientific evidence shows on vaccines.

Expand full comment

I appreciate your position, I used to be like you. But you’re missing my point more and more people don’t trust the regulators and pharma any longer, they have to take a new approach. Right or wrong that’s just a fact.

Think of the optics, pharma was getting out of the vaccine space in the early 80’s because of their own calculated liability (they knew the products better than anyone) when there was about a dozen shots to get to 18. The govt agrees to take on all the liability and suddenly they have so much enthusiasm the vaccine schedule multiplied many times. Over that period of time chronic health problems multiplied along with it. That kind of decline in overall health in 35 years, that has to be accepted as a failure by public health. There could be lots of factors contributing to the problem but the one thing we are doing (tricking the immune system into antibody responses) isn’t allowed to be on the table as one of the potential contributors to the explosion in autoimmune health problems in the population. I think the truth is the guys in the labs think they are smarter than nature but in reality they are a couple steps behind all the time. We are creating problems messing with what we don’t understand.

Expand full comment

"The govt agrees to take on all the liability...."

The gov't took on zero liability.

I suppose you are just repeating what you have read, but you need to understand that is a flat out lie and the anti-vaccs just keep repeating it no matter how many times over how many decades their error is corrected.

I think they lie because:

1) They don't want you to ask: why aren't suing the vaccine makers? The truth being the anti-vaccs lie a lot and know they would go to prison for perjury.

2) they don't want you to read the Court rulings from their lawsuits...where the anti-vaccs are revealed as morons and sometimes frauds.

https://mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2009/112a08.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.388654/gov.uscourts.nyed.388654.74.0.pdf

Expand full comment

I note that you are silent on the fact that Americans can and do sue vaccine makers.

And that you are silent on the facts documented by the Courts--that the anti-vaccs are frauds.

But you did later post a claim that the government took on all liability for vaccines

You must know what you are asserting can not be true.

Expand full comment

I agree there sure is a lot of misinformation.

For example: " One study shows that catching measles reduced NHL and HL later in life by 60%."

You didn't post the study, but I think I know what you are referring to.

You need to understand that statistical studies are based on probabilities and that ~5% of the time an incorrect result will be generated....and there are so many 1000s of studies published each month.

And then non-randomized studies are full of biases and often just wrong.

We know that NHL/HL are NOT reduced by measles infections because the result couldn't be reproduced.

Expand full comment

So no, you don't care that the anti-vaccs lie and prey upon folks that can't understand percentages....

Expand full comment

Regulators, journals, schools, they receive too much money from pharma and have too many people in them that are invested with a conflict of interest to be trusted. Retractions are getting to the point that it’s obvious that it is simply censorship from pharma

Expand full comment

Find one major vaccine conspiracy theorist that you follow that doesn’t make the bulk of their money off of selling their conspiracies…

What you are talking about doesn’t exist. How much money do you think pharmaceutical companies make that they could effectively pay off and keep millions of people quiet per year?

These type of conspiracies show a lack of understanding research at a very fundamental level.

Expand full comment

You do realize that the pharma / medical business is significantly bigger than even military spending. Vaccines skeptics don’t have 1/1000 of one percent of the money pharma has to push their agenda. It is really a David and Goliath situation. The thing about the truth is it eventually find its way to the top, whether that turns out to be Pharma’s or the skeptic’s time will tell.

We are obviously at the stage that we won’t agree with each other, that’s fine. Maybe we can agree that overall health of the population is worse and declining?

Expand full comment

You do realize that the health insurance business is massively larger/has more money that pharma.

But they keep supporting vaccines because vaccinated are healthier and save them money.

Expand full comment

Why are you ignoring the data and the logic?

Expand full comment

how about $18 billion for moderna in '21 & 19bn in '22

pfizer $56bn in '22 for the shot (37bn) & paxlovid (19bn)

find 1 major vaccine conspiracy theorist coming anywhere close to those sums.

how much did pfizer & moderna have to spend on advertising = 0 governments of the world did it for them

what is their liability if these products cause injury = 0

+ they dont even need to disclose side effects / risk of adverse events due to EUA

pfizer's comirnity is literally the best selling drug in the history of the world

Expand full comment

"what is their liability if these products cause injury = 0"

What is the probability of an anti-vacc lying? 100%

Expand full comment

You don't have to trust them.

You have health insurance and life insurance companies and national healthcare systems.

How many billions of data points do you need to believe that vaccines are safe and effective?

Expand full comment

I note that you are ignoring the rally obvious thing to do:

To ask what is the experience of health insurance and life insurance companies and national healthcare systems?

Expand full comment

There is no “growing body of work,” only what antivaxx crackpots look for, and are not qualified to analyze. It takes quite a bit of education to gain the skills be able to effectively analyze scientific research. He clearly lacks these skills.

Expand full comment

This is really quite difficult.....but are you willing to look with an open mind?

1. BS Hooker is not a scientist, he is a well know anti-vaccer.

2. Hooker tried to publish an obviously fraudulent study, trying to show that vaccination caused autism.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183946/

3. Hooker tried to get money by a fabricated vaccine injury in his own child. The Court did not take kindly to being fed obvious BS:

https://ia802208.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.cofc.2340/gov.uscourts.cofc.2340.118.0.pdf

4. Other posters here have already brought up the Let the Science Speak book.

Now it is your turn: please pick one example from the book that you think is compelling and let's read the reference(s).

Fair warning: the history so far is that I will post the reference and it will turn out that the book just grossly lied about the most basic facts.

To be fair, some parts of the book are not lies--just really, really stupid.

5. VSD is a very good information source. Here is how to access it:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vsd/accessing-data.html

Just so you can't miss it:

"Requests to access the public use datasets can be sent to publicdataset@cdc.gov"

Fact is that the anti-vaccs keep lying about it being difficult to access the VSD data when it is really easy--I suppose because the data shows that vaccines are safe and effective.

To be clear, the comparative studies are done....the anti-vaccs just keep trying to hide that fact.

6. I don't know what you have "observed" in the pandemic, but life insurance companies have been really, really clear--unvaccinated are at much higher risk of dying/disabled.

So....are you willing to look with an open mind?

Expand full comment

I used to be pro vaxx, so yes I kept an open mind.

Expand full comment

That may have been true, but since you have ignored the facts provided, it no longer seems true.

Since you refuse to offer one example from the book, you are really acknowledging that you are pretty sure that if you do so, I will show you how the book lied to you.

Expand full comment

People that won't even read a link, can't really claim to have an open mind....that would exactly be a closed mind.

Expand full comment

You’re bias blinds you, we are bombarded with the pharma perspective non stop by their paid / owned media. Listening to their slight of hand methods such as ignoring absolute risk only speaking in relative term like 95% effective, most often being the case that 95% better than almost zero is still almost zero. Promoting its effectiveness against symptomatic sickness, ignoring that the vaccinated are packing disease unknowingly and are asymptomatic. Spinning up nonsense that natural immunity is not a thing.

There are just so many lies pharma has been able to funnel feed society there is zero chance that one would have escaped being fully exposed to their side of the equation.

Expand full comment

1. "You’re bias blinds you, we are bombarded with the pharma perspective non stop by their paid / owned media. "

I have provided you a long list of examples where all you had to do was to use your basic reading skills to see that the anti-vaccs lied to you.

You just refused to read the words.

2. " Listening to their slight of hand methods such as ignoring absolute risk only speaking in relative term like 95% effective, most often being the case that 95% better than almost zero is still almost zero."

You gave no examples!

You have every developed country and every vaccine to choose from. It is just counting to see the absurdity of your comment.

3 "Promoting its effectiveness against symptomatic sickness, ignoring that the vaccinated are packing disease unknowingly and are asymptomatic."

You gave no examples!

You have every developed country and every vaccine to choose from. It is just counting to see the absurdity of your comment.

4. "Spinning up nonsense that natural immunity is not a thing."

You didn't give any example of any relevant organization claiming that natural immunity is not a thing. Whoever told you that, lied to you.

Yes, there sure is a lot of lying by the anti-vaccs.

Good news: anyone that can read and count....and bothers to look, will see it is the anti-vaccs that lie.

Expand full comment

If you don’t recognize the manipulation of referencing risk from a disease and benefits from a drug in RRR while at the same time speaking of harms from a drug in ARR as a slight of hand you’re either so blinded by the faith or worse you’re knowingly and purposely spreading misinformation. Even the FDA’s own protocols on the reporting of risks and benefits cautions communicating using RRR because it can be misleading, especially when not referenced along with ARR.

Another great slight of hand was selling the benefits of the covid shots entirely on the notion of 95% effective. But conveniently passed over that was for symptomatic protections, if they included asymptomatic they never would have reached the 50% bar the FDA had set. Also imagine if I the spirit of informed consent they would have said while the shot is better in the category of symptomatic protection it was worse in all causes injuries and deaths during the trial.

If you don’t remember that endless media cover of natural infection doesn’t protect you, same problem.

What are you going to do next, forward the natural origins paper as proof covid came from the wet market?

Expand full comment

1. Once again you offer personal attacks.

But you didn't offer one single real-world example for any vaccine or any developed country!

Big hint Dag: every country on earth rejects your "argument" because it fails basic counting!

2. Your "slight of hand" argument is nonsense. All you had to do was to read the definition of "vaccine" to see it is BS.

Hard to believe, but some folks here just won't read the definition--from 1988 law--and see how the anti-vaccs have lied to them!

"Vaccine The term “vaccine” means any substance designed to be administered to a human being for the prevention of 1 or more diseases."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=26-USC-222761909-1963936815&term_occur=999&term_src=#:~:text=(2)%20Vaccine%20The%20term%20%E2%80%9C,of%201%20or%20more%20diseases.

3. I do remember media carefully explaining how the anti-vaccs were lying about natural immunity...preying upon folks that somehow just couldn't count correctly.

But....the assertion that natural infection doesn't protect is just a flat out lie....that is why YOU can't provide a single example!

It is just psychology. By now you know that the anti-vaccs lied to you....you just aren't willing to admit it yet!

Expand full comment

Really Dag...are you ashamed that you weren't smart enough to look up the definition and see how the anti-vaccs lied to you????

Expand full comment

We do know.

What I don't know is why you keep ignoring the facts.

Expand full comment

The truth is the number of people that trust pharma and the regulators is shrinking. Statements discrediting skeptics carry less weight than they did 10 years ago, and now actually cause less trusts than protect vaccines.

The optics on issues like pharma exiting vaccines in the 80’s due to their calculated liability when there was about a dozen shots on the schedule. Then the govt agrees to take over the liability (1986) and pharma’s enthusiasm grows along with the number of shots on the schedule. That was a bad decision, and it wasn’t public health that drive it, the military did. At a minimum the liability should be placed back on the manufacturer. And funding of the regulators by industry should stop. The makers of the drugs should not be in charge of the trials for their own drugs. There are many conditions to encourage corruption.

Less People believe pharma / regulators all the time. Just look at the approval of the most recent covid shot, down to 6 month olds. The CDC’s own information show for the young for every million doses the number of covid deaths will be reduced somewhere between zero and one. Yet at the same time the CDC own information shows negative outcomes for myocarditis in this group are worse - and they don’t even know what longer term health issues will be, but they know kids are not at risk from covid. The regulators have been bought.

You and I will not agree and that’s fine, I’m sure we’d we’d be just fine drinking a beer together and that’s probably more important.

Expand full comment

"The truth is the number of people that trust pharma and the regulators is shrinking."

I think that is true, but because anti-vacc lie a lot.

For example, pharma has 100% liability for vaccines but the anti-vaccs just keep lying about this simple fact.

For example, it is really easy to access the VSD data....all it takes is an email! But the anti-vaccs just keep lying about how difficult it is to get this data.

What the comments here keep showing is that some folks just don't want to admit they were lied to.

Expand full comment

Pharma when they were responsible for liability of the childhood schedule prior to the 1986 Act they were going to get out of the vaccine space. The sweet heart deal they lobbied the govt for encouraged them to not only stay in but to expand the schedule by many times. I think you should encourage pharma to challenge RFK, ICAN, etc in court to get to the bottom of it. Unless you’re at the top of the pharma racket pulling in the real money, you’re just one of the ones getting used. I wouldn’t normally be so rude but you have said some pretty derogatory things towards me so it’s reasonable.

Expand full comment

As already proven, Pharms is still 100% liable for the childhood vaccine schedule.

Every topic it is the same thing with you....

You just refuse to read the words and see that RFK jr/ICAN/other anti-vaccs stupidly lie about ~everything.

The anti-vacc fraud is still clearly exposed in the court ruling I posted below...that you just keep ignoring.

Expand full comment

Why are you silent on the fact that the anti-vacc lies keep getting pointed out to you?

Why aren't you reading the lawsuit rulings were the anti-vacc fraud is so well exposed by the Courts?

https://mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2009/112a08.pdf

Expand full comment

There is information available about the difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. It is just suppressed. Here are 2 of many articles and studies.

https://vigilantnews.com/post/this-is-what-happens-when-you-dont-jab-kids-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-data and https://thehighwire.com/ark-videos/the-sobering-truth-about-aborted-babies-and-vaccines/

Expand full comment

It defies logic that a religious group would be opposed to life-saving vaccinations. Taken to the extreme those advocates would avoid antibiotics for infections, statins for CVD, insulin for type 1 diabetes. However, the latter examples impact only that individual, while vaccination impacts the community, protecting others from transmission of the communicable disease.

Expand full comment

"The lawyer who headed the Mississippi effort will now introduce litigation to allow religious exemptions in West Virginia, New York, Maine, California, and Connecticut." I live in Connecticut and this lawyer is wasting his time if he thinks he will get the same result he did in Mississippi. Thanks for the update Dr. Offit.

Expand full comment

Let's see if the comments are mobbed again like Offit's last post. 😅

Expand full comment

Yeah, here come the flying monkeys.

Expand full comment

Genuine medical exemptions? …Fine, no problem.

These supposedly “religious” exemptions? …throw them out. They are a cop out plea by those who want an ideological/philosophical exemption but who can’t get it. Anyway, all the major religions support vaccination.

If a child gets some specious religious exemption because their fake religion supposedly forbids it, then I’d say “OK”, but unless you demonstrate clear and regular commitment to worship within that religion (eg proof of attendance at meetings/whatever) after a 24 month deadline, then you will be fined $10,000.

Expand full comment

4 years ago, I would have agreed with this piece.

But now we have all seen that hysteria can infect government, the scientific community, and otherwise rational people.

Some vaccines are good (smallpox is a low-hanging fruit), some vaccines are bad (RotaShield), and some vaccines we think are good may later turn out to have caused problems (e.g., debate on the varicella vaccine causing the rise in shingles).

Had there been a Rotavirus panic in 1998 which gripped the media, fearful mothers, and compelled the government to "act", we might have seen the flawed RotaShield vaccine mandated and derision at anyone trying to search for the safety signal that slow, careful scientists wound up finding in the absense of panic.

In 2021 we had California trying to mandate the Covid vaccine in children while other countries around the world were pulling back the shots for anyone under 30. Who was right?

We shouldn't need to compel anyone to do anything. We should make our arguments, express humility, and hope people make the logical choice. If someone can't be reasoned with, firm up your arguments, but you will never convince 100% of people of anything, and that too is OK.

You express concern that people now have the right to use the shield of "religious exemption" - yet look around at the voices of otherwise intelligent people, still caught up in this hysteria, disappointed that a man "they greatly respect" is not wanting the entire population to get the next booster.

(hint, that man is you)

If these types of people were in charge, they would want shot #6 , #7, and every single shot thereafter, mandated across the globe, for all age groups. Do you agree with them? Might it be a good to have protections from fanatics like this? Because I want protection from *their* religion.

https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/state-of-affairs-parent-edition/comment/39700265

Expand full comment

Thank you for mentioning RotaShield, I hadn’t heard of it before.

From wikipedia: “However post-licensure studies conducted in the United States by Trudy Murphy and her colleagues at the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Kramarz et al., found that Infants who received the vaccine were 30 times more likely to develop a severe form of bowel obstruction, called intussusception, during 3 to 7 days after the first dose than unvaccinated infants.[27][28] The excess risk was estimated between one case in 5,000 to 10,000 vaccinees. Based on these data, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) withdraw recommendation to use the vaccine,[29] and the manufacturer of the vaccine withdrew it from the market in 1999.”

Expand full comment

you do know that the founder of wikipedia calls if corrupted & biased - dont you?

if not here he is being interviewed by a nobel prize winner for journalism: https://rumble.com/v33wemb-wikipedia-co-founder-condemns-it-most-biased-encyclopedia-in-history-system.html

Expand full comment

I specifically chose that vaccine as an example because Dr. Offit is co-inventor of the improved and currently used Rotavirus Vaccine in the US.

Rotashield took over 20 years of careful development, and still, the safety issue was initially missed - and you can't blame them - a 1 in 10,000 complication is very difficult to detect in clinical trials, but because we weren't fanatical about rotavirus, we were able to dispassionately review the data, find an issue, and determine negative acceptable risk and pulled it.

If more interested, this article is interesting:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3460207/

Expand full comment

Actually what happened in both cases is that risk/benefit assessments were performed.

Assessment clearly supports continued use of the covid vaccines.

Expand full comment

Almost all other countries stopped recommending it for people under 65.

Expand full comment

Are you sure it is most?

Could you please provide a list of such countries?

Thanks,

Expand full comment
Sep 18, 2023·edited Sep 18, 2023

Most countries are now only recommending for > 65, working in healthcare, or have specific comorbidities.  

The US, Canada are outliers recommending for 6 months+, Austria is lowest age recommending in the EU (12+), then NZ at 30+, and Portugal at 50+.

The rest (Israel, South Korea, Germany, Norway, UK, Spain, Australia, etc) recommending 65+, occasionally 60+

Put together what I could find withs sources here - several countries still can't find recommendations (notably Italy, Japan, Czechia, Finland)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oJusZ0yAve1cCCSS5MGjp1XYjNc7qJffqJsz7ARlnLg/edit?usp=sharing

EDIT - Will add that the last booster in the EU appears to have been largely ignored - only 2.1% of the population got it (only 4.2% above aged 80). That was a steep decline from 2nd booster at 17.7%.

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COVID-19-vaccination-strategies-march-2023.pdf

Expand full comment

Does that mean, no almost all other countries did NOT stop recommending it for people under 65?

Expand full comment

The rotavirus kills thousands of children per year. It was even worse prior to the vaccine. Dr. Offit helped invent a newer rotavirus vaccine that was significantly safer than the older version that you had mentioned. Dr. Offit was actually one of the people that advocated for a new rotavirus vaccine d/t safety issues with the old vaccine. He was actually accused of being an antivaxxer for that advocation.

Expand full comment

We don’t vaccinate against rotavirus in the UK. Why? Because it doesn’t cause “thousands” of deaths a year.

Stop spreading misinformation and fly back to your monkey cave.

Expand full comment

"Stop spreading misinformation and fly back to your monkey cave."

Rich...since you clearly misread her/his first sentence!

Expand full comment

So you don't care that the anti-vaccs lie and prey upon folks too clueless to read the names of the vaccines on the UK schedule.....

Expand full comment

The issue with Rotashield was picked up fairly quickly post licensing and replaced with similar alternative Rota vaccines.

The primary issue picked up with the different Covid vaccines were the thrombotic thrombocytopenia issue and mild myocarditis with mRNA vaccines. The latter is extremely rarely of clinical importance and death is vanishingly rare, making serious fatal side effects from the mRNA vaccines far less common than death from rotashield intussusception.

Calm down.

Expand full comment

Rotashield was in development for over 10 years before licensing, so it was not "picked up fairly quickly" as the safety signal evaded clinical trials.

It took 8-10 years to replace with RotaTek (Offit's vaccine) and Rotarix (your comment almost makes it sound like we simply swapped out Rotashield with something else the next year).

The primary issue of myocarditis you mentioned is why much of the world rolled back the vaccine in young people, the cost-benefit no longer existed. It's why the rest of the world is only offering further boosters to elderly and specific immunocompromised groups - which is the position Dr. Offit has also taken.

A secondary issue, potentially more important, is that the vaccine may have induced "antigenic sin" - making the vaccinated more prone to being infected with variants of Covid. The evidence for this is compelling, though it's still seems career suicide to take this seriously and doesn't seem to be studied in relation to how much it appears what happened.

The evidence which I find compelling includes:

1) Ralph Baric openly discusses that in his research for SARS vaccines he can't solve the problem of why his vaccinated mice are only protected from original strain, but more susceptible to his lab created variants compared to his unvaccinated mice - this was the central problem he never solved prior to us rolling out Covid vaccines.

2) "Original Antigenic Sin" proposed for similar problems with flu https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5853211/

3) Covid cases skyrocketed across the globe *after* the vaccine campaign. Even in countries which saw no change in testing, Behavorial, or masking policies, covid exploded anyway.

4) All-cause mortality increased in most vaccinated countries following the vaccine campaign.

5) Cleveland Clinic studies found cases correlated to # of vaccines among their staff in two separate studies.

Seems worth considering. I'm always calm, thanks.

Expand full comment
Sep 11, 2023·edited Sep 11, 2023

I said the issues with Rotasheld were picked up quickly AFTER licensing, and they were. To pick up these very rare issues in the Phase 2/3 studies would require millions of subjects (which is why they are not detected before).

Antigenic sin seems not to be a particular issue. Stop fearmongering about it.

In countries which monitoring of cases and vaccine doses, there is a clear inverse correlation with vaccines and death rates.

Cases boomed in 2021 because of Delta and then Omicron waves. Blaming these on vaccines is disingenuous at best, deliberately dishonest at worst.

All cause mortality *declined* with vaccination.

Expand full comment

All cause mortality increased in most countries, stayed flat in a few, and only decreased in a handful (US, UK, but also saw similar decrease in unvaccinated countries like Bulgaria).

This contradicts your claim, so would you be open to reconsidering your stances provided evidence to the contrary?

Expand full comment

Excess deaths estimated from all cause mortality needs to be carefully analysed so it’s important to have.accurate and consistent data reported over at least a decade to establish the baseline.

I’m happy to look at other countries data, but the above proviso applies. There are many factors involved in excess deaths; you need to get accurate data on all the causes of death to know how much Covid and other causes contribute.

As a generalisation, excess deaths rise during waves of Covid, both due to the infection and also deaths from deferred medical care. There is a good correlation with these, the correlation of excess deaths to vaccination is poor, and even clearly a negative one in most countries.

I am sure you could cherrypick countries that Buck the trend but in all of those there may be other factors, of which lack of accurate data is foremost.

Expand full comment

The calculations can be pretty straightforward. Eurostat has used a simple 4 year average to set baseline [1], but other models (moving average, linear forecast, etc) will produce similar results.

It's apparent you aren't familiar with the data (as you have stated things which are demonstrably false) and immediately claim that I am going to "cherry pick" which suggests your mind is made up before you have the information. That is unscientific. Perhaps grant me charity, that my insights were formed *because* of the data I've meticulously collected the last 3 years, not the other way around.

Here is preview of the data, and as you can see, I don't need to do any cherry picking. You can see for yourself what I said is true. You can pull in additional countries which don't participate in the Max Planck Institute of Mortality Statistics such as Japan, you get the same result.

https://imgur.com/a/Zj75Yyu

South Korea is particularly interesting as it was cited as the model of "doing it right" for 2020 and 2021, but the media has failed to cover why deaths doubled spring of 2022 causing it to have the second highest increase in mortality, only behind the US.

You can replicate this data by going to mortality.org > Data > STMF > "STMF output file (xlsx or pooled csv): weekly death counts."

I have also uploaded an older copy to google sheets (so has less 2023 data than latest revision), the raw data can be easily turned to pivot table which I have summarized as well here [2]

It is collected from each participating countries CDC equivalent (many I have double checked, and the Max Planck Institute is responsive when I have had questions on possible miscalculations)

You could also go further back (some countries have 200+ years of data which I find astonishing) by going to Data > Zipped Files > Death Counts. It's a bit tedious as you have to import individual text files for each country, but gives deeper data set.

Now I have to ask:

Since your claim has been contradicted, are you open to reconsidering your stance now that I have provided evidence?

_______________________

[1] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Excess_mortality_-_statistics#Excess_mortality_in_the_EU_between_January_2020_and_June_2023

[2] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wXnEwk4jNuPaQA_dROqHQ_-koEKBzDBNsTKIIS3rwwc/edit?usp=sharing

Expand full comment

You’re getting close to home talking about rotavirus vaccines on dr offits substack. The clinical trials for the versions that replaced the Rotashield version had obvious problems, but I’m sure you are aware of them and just being polite

Expand full comment

" The clinical trials for the versions that replaced the Rotashield version had obvious problems,"

Why didn't you list any?

Expand full comment

Start with the placebo, it was the shot with only the virus portion removed, so basically both side of the trial got the same shot, except the placebo side had the only part of the shot that could potentially be a benefit to them removed.

Expand full comment

Sigh....

After more than a century, how to correctly use placebos is well understood and the placebo used were 100% correct.

There are lots of references on how to use placebos correctly and multiple people here have posted many such references here.

So far, ZERO of the vaccine critics have been willing to read the words and learn how the criticisms of placebos in vaccine trials are completely wrong.

Are you willing to be the first to learn?

Expand full comment

So no, you won't use your middle-school skills and see that the anti-vaccs lie about placebos.....

Expand full comment

They’re vaccine mandates because vaccination status affect everyone. It’s a simple public health issue. That people fail to understand this shows that vaccines have done there job.

If there had only been say some physician that advocated and helped invent a new vaccine to help with the rotavirus that kills thousands of children every year that didn’t cause the severe intestinal issues…

Public fear not actual science is why some countries stopped advocating covid vaccines in children. To date I think most countries in Europe advocate covid vaccines depending on if the rates of covid increase/decrease/season in overall population and the risk factors from covid by age.

Overall, the varicella vaccine decreases the risk of shingles by approximately 80%. There is little risk of increased shingles from the varicella vaccine.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/two-for-one-chickenpox-vaccine-lowers-shingles-risk-in-children/#:~:text=The%20authors%20found%20that%20one,children%20vanished%20by%20age%20two.

Expand full comment

Here we just had a perfect example of why I have shifted my opinion on government mandated vaccination.

The Covid vaccine was claimed to do something it did not (grant you 95% immunity and build herd immunity), people lost their jobs for being skeptical of the fastest to market drug in history, and it turned out the claims were false.

That science could be so easily captured by hysteria was disappointing to me, especially when already learned this lesson in 1976 (and that hysteria went both ways).

You say:

"Public fear not actual science is why some countries stopped advocating covid vaccines in children."

Can you back this by evidence? Suddenly Denmark is no longer trusted for science? The first 2 years of the pandemic these very same countries kept being championed - but now that they aren't doing what the US is doing suddenly they are pariahs?

You say:

"To date I think most countries in Europe advocate covid vaccines depending on if the rates of covid increase/decrease/season in overall population and the risk factors from covid by age."

Most EU countries are only going to recommend the next booster for elderly and specific immunocompromised conditions (which is what Dr Offit has also been saying for at least 1-2 years). The FDA in the US approved for all, likely CDC will recommend for all, but we know that less than 5%-10% will participate, I argue due to the complete lost of trust in our PH institutions which is a tragedy.

You say:

"Overall, the varicella vaccine decreases the risk of shingles by approximately 80%. There is little risk of increased shingles from the varicella vaccine."

I suspect you didn't read the source study, as this was not demonstrated in their results and not how the study was designed. You got duped by positive press.

The actual study is here, note the conflict of interest which may explain why they didn't scrutinize the actual data better (I'm grasping at straws here to explain how they could misinterpret the study design and data)

https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/144/1/e20182917/76826/Incidence-of-Herpes-Zoster-Among-Children-2003

And for reference, the UK [1] and much of Europe [2] has not participated in the varicella vaccination campaign because of the concern it trades a small problem (natural chickenpox in children) for a larger problem (shingles in young adults).

I am not claiming to know who is right in this debate, I am merely saying there is a debate, and it is a good example of when our good intentions *may* lead to worse outcomes.

Anyway, the largest problem in this study, is that it is not comparing vaccinated vs naturally infected rates of HZ which how it is framed to te press such as SciAm. It only compares vaccinated vs unvaccinated rates of HZ. Quote: "We were unable to assess the unvaccinated group’s underlying risk for HZ because we did not collect serological or medical record evidence of previous VZV infection."

Of course the vaccinated cohort has lower incidence of HZ than the unvaccinated cohort.

What was surprising was the number of breakthrough infections in the vaccinated cohort.

5,339 out of 3,186,732 vaccinated (.168%) compared to 9,044 out of 3,185,335 in unvaccinated. (.284%)

Framing the relative rate of 74% over the absolute difference of .1% in the press releases is also misleading.

This study, showing that varicella vaccination had a breakthrough rate of .168% compared to .28% of a population who may-or-may-not have ever had chickenpox in the first place shows an outcome not reflected in the press coverage or findings section.

To put this into perspective, this study shows vaccinated children under 18 had a shingles incidence rate of 1.7 per 1,000, putting it completely in line with the age adjusted rates of older cohorts tracked by the CDC. [3]

[1] https://patient.info/news-and-features/should-your-child-have-the-chickenpox-vaccine

[2] https://vaccine-schedule.ecdc.europa.eu/Scheduler/ByDisease?SelectedDiseaseId=11&SelectedCountryIdByDisease=-1

[3] https://www.cdc.gov/shingles/surveillance.html

Expand full comment

Huh?

"The Covid vaccine was claimed to do something it did not (grant you 95% immunity and build herd immunity), "

The data did show ~95% effectiveness...and who exactly ever said they would build herd immunity?

Expand full comment

instead of using this space to demonize those who abstain from experimental medical interventions - why not use it as a space to articulate your nuanced rationale for why you didnt take the bivalent covid shot and wont take the updated covid vaccine?

you have many devout readers here, doctor. the dissenters are also curious to this reasoning.

dr offit was quoted in the following artile:

https://www.science.org/content/article/should-i-get-covid-19-booster

"Offit, who is 72, already had COVID-19 once and is in good health, did not receive the bivalent booster himself and doesn’t plan to get the new one. “I think I have hybrid immunity and clearly hybrid immunity is best.” He says it comes down to the data. “If [CDC is] going to make that broad recommendation, show me why that is,” he says. “Take healthy 12- to 17-year-olds who have already gotten three doses of vaccine or two doses and natural infection. Are they getting hospitalized?”

He notes that the mRNA vaccines made by the Pfizer/BioNTech collaboration and Moderna also have a risk of causing a heart condition called myocarditis. It is rare and often quickly resolves itself, but, he says, “this is a real side effect.” There are also even rarer vaccine side effects that scientists are still trying to understand."

additional commentary for the curious:

https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/paul-offit-72-is-not-getting-a-booster?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=231792&post_id=136888600&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=5ah2c&utm_medium=email

perhaps you can also address the glaring omission in your opening comments about not all vaccines being 100% effective...in addition all interventions have tradeoffs.

might this be your reasoning for your vote against the recently approved RSV vaccine which caused a significant increase in pre-term births among vaccinated mothers in the dose group of pfizer's clinical trial?

https://www.bmj.com/content/381/bmj.p1021

Expand full comment

By "demonize" you mean point out that they are not experimental and that YOUR link clearly states that there was NOT a significant increase in pre-term births?

"....was not statistically significant,...."

Expand full comment
Sep 11, 2023·edited Sep 11, 2023

The closest religion in America that would be vaccine hesitant is Christian Science. My grandmother was a devout Christian Scientist and had her entire family vaccinated.

"For more than a century, our denomination has counseled respect for public health authorities and conscientious obedience to the laws of the land, including those requiring vaccination."

https://www.christianscience.com/press-room/a-christian-science-perspective-on-vaccination-and-public-health

Expand full comment

Is there any available data on the 9 million immunocompromised individuals acquiring vaccine preventable disease’s?

Is herd immunity through vaccination the only countermeasure available for these people?

Expand full comment

A very tragic development; from my point of view, the backlash seems to be a mirror reflection of the un-nuanced approach regarding covid vaccines...

Expand full comment

Excellent piece! I enjoy the sanity you bring to health topics. Always appreciate not being alone on rational issues!

Expand full comment

Another sad hijacking of religion for other ideological agendas. When we think of all the transgressions that have occurred in the name of religion, it’s really shocking. Not to mention another manifestation of institutionalized child abuse. I feel bad for those who will be hurt by this ruling, some will die, and for the good, sensible religious people in whose name these bills are being passed.

Expand full comment

I personally think that we are going to have to see a large resurgence of vaccine preventable infections and deaths before the majority of these antivaxxers change their minds. It’s unfortunate that most of the current anti vaccine stance comes from a political party.

Expand full comment

Vaccines are a hammer. A tool. There are other tools. Maybe optimal cardiometabolic health would better protect most people from disease. (not infection.) Of those who died in this article, how many were truly healthy? I'm 61 and less than 1% of my peers are healthy. Maybe that is the problem. The vaccine hammer works, but I need a rowing machine.

Expand full comment

Even healthy people die from COVID. Having in overall better health as a baseline helps but in no way ensures you will survive or not become seriously ill.

Expand full comment

There are lots of basic logic primers on-line. You might want to study a bit before posting again.

Expand full comment