Trump to nominate RFK Jr. as Health and Human Services secretary

[HARK!]

How are you quantifying "safe"? The risk of any medical intervention (ranging from brain surgery all the way down to taking a tylenol) is never going to be 0%.

How do we qualify it; if no scientific studies have been done on what the risks are?

Second, the largest longitudinal study ever done on childhood vaccines (the Denmark study)

Tracked over 500,000 children until they were 12 years old. (82% were vaccinated, 18% were not)

Well that is a flawed study in that as soon as a child has been exposed to more than one vaccine, any adverse effects from any of those vaccines, can't be attributed to any one vaccine. That's not very scientific.

Can you show me their scientific studies for these vaccines?:

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Well that is a flawed study in that as soon as a child has been exposed to more than one vaccine, any adverse effects from any of those vaccines, can't be attributed to any one vaccine. That's not very scientific.

Can you show me their scientific studies for these vaccines?:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134

Some (in fact, most) of the vaccines you listed weren't regularly in use yet when Denmark started their study on the MMR vaccine. So an interaction between the MMR and Prevnar13 back in the early 90's wouldn't have been a factor.


But, one thing a time, the original claims were that the MMR vaccine, itself, caused increased rates of Autism (Wakefield started that).

An attempt to retro-fit other newer vaccines into the equation with "well yeah, but what happens when the vaccines interact with these other vaccines" is grasping at straws.


Not to mention, is a dubious proposition in the first place. Is the type of parent that's going to reject the MMR vaccine the type of parent that's going to embrace the other ones? Very unlikely.

I doubt there's any anti-MMR parent out there saying "Yeah, I'm against the MMR vaccine because it causes autism, but sure, go ahead and do those other 5"

With the covid vaccine being the rare exception (for understandable reasons)... based on every observation I've seen, "pro vs. anti vaccine" is an all or nothing game.

 

[HARK!]

Some (in fact, most) of the vaccines you listed weren't regularly in use yet when Denmark started their study on the MMR vaccine. So an interaction between the MMR and Prevnar13 back in the early 90's wouldn't have been a factor.

It's a factor now. Show me the study that proves that Prevnar13 doesn't cause autism.

An attempt to retro-fit other newer vaccines into the equation with "well yeah, but what happens when the vaccines interact with these other vaccines" is grasping at straws.

That's a strawman argument. Before I take a vaccine; I want to know what the risks are. I want to know who to sue when the product doesn't live up to the manufacturers claims. If I took multiple vaccines at same time; the manufacturer will try to blame his poisonous product on someone else's poisonous product.

What's worse is that our government has made it so that you can't even sue these corporations for selling you their snake oil.

 

[HARK!]

To be fair here...

And as you've seen in this thread, I'm rooting for RFK to get confirmed as I've noted. (as I think the pros outweigh the cons and I do like a lot of his ideas on nutrition and health)

Yeah, that's real nice. You come off as being objective; but I can see from the posts that follow this one that you are not objective.

An objective approach would be to watch the video that I presented, and to weigh the evidence.

Obviously you didn't do that; or I wouldn't have to spoon feed it to you.

Nice try.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's a factor now. Show me the study that proves that Prevnar13 doesn't cause autism.

Prove to me that pizza doesn't cause autism, until you can, that means that my assertion that pizza causes autism is valid.

You see why that doesn't work, right?

That's a strawman argument. Before I take a vaccine; I want to know what the risks are. I want to know who to sue when the product doesn't live up to the manufacturers claims. If I took multiple vaccines at same time; the manufacturer will try to blame his poisonous product on someone else's poisonous product.

What's worse is that our government has made it so that you can't even sue these corporations for selling you their snake oil.

It's not a strawman, it's what they're doing. If the original claim (that was started by Wakefield, and then adopted by people like RFK...and for the record, again, I like RFK, I think he's wrong about the MMR vaccine, but I like him. I think obesity is a bigger concern for our nation than measles or rubella) was that the MMR vaccine was responsible for an uptick in Autism, then the burden of proof is on the affirmative position.

You need to be able to demonstrate that the MMR vaccine increases that risk. Introducing new variables post-hoc that people haven't had time to study yet is a dishonest way to approach it.

For instance, if I made the claim "eating chicken is the reason for prostate cancer", and someone conducts a large-scale longitudinal study, and concludes, with or without chicken the in the diet, the prostate cancer rate is pretty much identical.

I can't come back and then say "well, you never studied it in a way that differentiated whether or not the chicken had paprika and bbq sauce on it, therefore, you can't tell me chicken is safe!"


But, all of the technical "debate-rule" jargon aside, for people who are staunchly anti-vaccine, there's literally no study, data point, etc... that can ever convince them otherwise on that particular topic. They've already got their conclusion, and then just introduce a variety of "what about" rationales into the equation.

Even if I could present them with study results that answer all of their hypotheticals, covered all their newly introduced variables, etc... they would just resort to "the study was rigged". As someone who grew up in an anti-vaccine household, I have more than just a little bit of experience debating anti-vaxxers.

 

[HARK!]

You can't prove a negative.

Prove to me that pizza doesn't cause autism, until you can, that means that my assertion that pizza causes autism is valid.

You see why that doesn't work, right?

That's not how product safety works. LOL!

It's the manufacturer's responsibility to prove that his product is safe, before it goes to market.

...but maybe you're on to something. I think that you should contact the DOGE and tell them to ban the requirement for FDA approval, immediately; that it defies the laws of logic. With all of the money that taxpayers save; maybe we can afford medical treatment for some of the adverse effects of the corporate snake oil.

It's not a strawman, it's what they're doing. If the original claim (that was started by Wakefield, and then adopted by people like RFK...and for the record, again, I like RFK, I think he's wrong about the MMR vaccine, but I like him. I think obesity is a bigger concern for our nation than measles or rubella) was that the MMR vaccine was responsible for an uptick in Autism, then the burden of proof is on the affirmative position.

You need to be able to demonstrate that the MMR vaccine increases that risk. Introducing new variables post-hoc that people haven't had time to study yet is a dishonest way to approach it.

For instance, if I made the claim "eating chicken is the reason for prostate cancer", and someone conducts a large-scale longitudinal study, and concludes, with or without chicken the in the diet, the prostate cancer rate is pretty much identical.

I can't come back and then say "well, you never studied it in a way that differentiated whether or not the chicken had paprika and bbq sauce on it, therefore, you can't tell me chicken is safe!"

Why do you persist with this red herring? I thought that we were trying to be logical.

I asked you for the scientific studies on these vaccines:

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That's not how product safety works. LOL!

It the manufacturers responsibility to prove that his product is safe, before it goes to market.

...but maybe you're on to something. I think that you should contact the DOGE and tell them to ban the requirement for FDA approval, immediately; that it defies the laws of logic. With all of the money that taxpayers save; maybe we can afford medical treatment for some of the adverse effects of the corporate snake oil.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that anyone should have to take anything...

I'm not in favor of compulsory vaccination...or any other medical treatment for that matter.

I don't really care if someone else gets vaccinated or not.


My original point was that no medical intervention is going to have a risk of 0. If someone's going to use that as a reason why they should avoid an intervention where the pros clearly outweigh the cons by 10 fold, so be it, that's on them. However, if large scale longitudinal studies are done that show that the thing they're worried about is basically a non-issue, and they want to introduce new variables post-hoc to keep their skepticism alive, then that means there was no convincing them anyway regardless of the results... so be it, to each their own.

If someone wants to suffer through a migraine (instead of getting rid of it in 20 mins) because nobody can prove to them (in a way that satisfies all of their moving goal posts) that Excedrin is safe, and/or there's 0.03 percent chance they could have an allergic reaction to it. Go get 'em tiger.

 

[HARK!]

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that anyone should have to take anything...

I'm not in favor of compulsory vaccination...or any other medical treatment for that matter.

I don't really care if someone else gets vaccinated or not.


My original point was that no medical intervention is going to have a risk of 0. If someone's going to use that as a reason why they should avoid an intervention where the pros clearly outweigh the cons by 10 fold, so be it, that's on them. However, if large scale longitudinal studies are done that show that the thing they're worried about is basically a non-issue, and they want to introduce new variables post-hoc to keep their skepticism alive, then that means there was no convincing them anyway regardless of the results... so be it, to each their own.

That is not what this is about.

This is about;

1.) Proper studies being done; so that people can make informed decisions.
2.) Liabilities for drug manufacturers who sell dangerous products, without informing their customers of the risks.

 

[HARK!]

If someone wants to suffer through a migraine (instead of getting rid of it in 20 mins) because nobody can prove to them (in a way that satisfies all of their moving goal posts) that Excedrin is safe, and/or there's 0.03 percent chance they could have an allergic reaction to it. Go get 'em tiger.

If you were informed, having watched the video that I presented; your wouldn't be confused regarding the goal.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam isn't a good look.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That is not what this is about.

This is about;

1.) Proper studies being done; so that people can make informed decisions.
2.) Liabilities for drug manufacturers who sell dangerous products, without informing their customers of the risks.

So to make sure I understand what you're looking for...


So, basically what you're asking for, is the same kind of longitudinal study to be done on each of those aforementioned vaccines like what was done for the MMR vaccine?

For the Dtap vaccine, they actually have been tracking and doing ongoing safety monitoring on that for well over a decade.

Safety Surveillance of Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Acellular Pertussis (DTaP) Vaccines - PMC

To assess the safety of currently licensed diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccines in the US using data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a spontaneous reporting surveillance system. We searched ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

They've done similar (albeit, smaller) studies for IPV

Immunogenicity and safety of an adjuvanted inactivated polio vaccine, IPV-Al, following vaccination in children at 2, 4, 6 and at 15–18 months - PMC

Availability of affordable inactivated polio vaccines (IPV) is of major importance to meet the increasing global supply needs. The results presented here demonstrate non-inferiority of a reduced-dose, aluminium hydroxide-adjuvanted IPV (IPV-Al) to ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

But, perhaps it would be more productive if you list out what you'd be looking for in a study.

I don't want to get in a circular repetitive pattern where someone provides a link to a study, and it's just quickly dismissed as "that study is flawed" or "that study is inadequate"


What would you see as the procedures, controls, etc... and which metrics would they have to meet in order for you to be satisfied with the results?

It's a hypothetical "perfect world" study, and you get to design it. How would you design the study?


Ultimately, I would say a meta-analysis of 19 different large-scale peer reviewed studies (looking into MMR, DTAP, Varicella, Polio, and Pcv13) that found no difference in the autism rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated people (spanning decades) would be pretty solid.

Does Vaccination Increase the Risk of Autism Spectrum Disorder?

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a developmental disorder that can cause significant social, communicative, and behavioral difficulties. With autism rates rising dramatically in recent years, researchers and concerned parents have theorized the causes of autism, and the subject has received...

www.cureus.com

But, if the way those studies were done are not to your liking, here's your opportunity to toss out some ideas for how you would do it.

 

[KCfromNC]

This isn't conspiracy theory. This is conspiracy fact.

Not according to people who study this stuff for a living : https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2275444

 

[KCfromNC]

I’m pro vaccine and am vaccinated.

He was only stating his opinion is all.

And I was stating my conclusion as well. For some reason, I was the only one of the two asked about my medical credentials. Like I said, seems a bit of a selective objection to the posts in this thread.

 

[KCfromNC]

If you were informed, having watched the video that I presented; your wouldn't be confused regarding the goal.

Perhaps some find actual peer reviewed studies of vaccine safety more informative than social media advertisements for coffee? Just a thought.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The Surgeon General nominee has her own line of dietary supplements for "strengthening your immune system".

*These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

The things you find when you let the press do your vetting.

She accidentally killed her father when she was 13.

 

[RileyG]

And I was stating my conclusion as well. For some reason, I was the only one of the two asked about my medical credentials. Like I said, seems a bit of a selective objection to the posts in this thread.

It’s just his opinion. Opinions do not equal conspiracy theories. Some people thought the CoVid19 vaccine was rushed and chose not to get it.

That’s all

 

[essentialsaltes]

No one can legitimately make the claim that vaccines are safe, nor that they don't cause autism.

Sure we can.

I didn't drink the FDA's corporate kool-aid.

There are many known environmental, genetic, and biological causes of autism.

True, but vaccines are not among them.

Overwhelming scientific evidence shows no causal association between the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism. ... In 2007, the Center for Disease Control stated there was no support for a link between thimerosal and autism, citing evidence from several studies, as well as a continued increase in autism cases following the removal of thimerosal from childhood vaccines.

 

[KCfromNC]

It’s just his opinion. Opinions do not equal conspiracy theories.

Not always. But they certainly can. For example, using social media videos to try and convince others that established medical fact is wrong and that video should be the only source of truth seems to be a pretty strong hint.

 

[RileyG]

Not always. But they certainly can. For example, using social media videos to try and convince others that established medical fact is wrong and that video should be the only source of truth seems to be a pretty strong hint.

People can believe differently from what the MSM tells them, you know?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

People can believe differently from what the MSM tells them, you know?

Medical journals and peer-reviewed studies are "mainstream media" now?

 

[probinson]

People can believe differently from what the MSM tells them, you know?

No, some people really can not.