Rfk drops ball

[stevil]

Source?

RFK Jr himself

 

[probinson]

RFK Jr himself

Can you tell me at what timestamp in that video RFK Jr stated that he didn't believe any vaccines are safe and effective?

 

[stevil]

Can you tell me at what timestamp in that video RFK Jr stated that he didn't believe any vaccines are safe and effective?

If you just press play, it goes straight to it. My url includes the timestamp. it is at 28 seconds

 

[probinson]

Never mind. I assume you're referring to this.

Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said that although Kennedy now denies he is anti-vaccine, Kennedy said on a 2023 podcast that “no vaccine is safe and effective.”​

This was brought up at Kennedy's confirmation hearing. Here's how he responded.

Kennedy responded by asserting that Wyden’s claim has “been repeatedly debunked.”​

​

Kennedy continued, “That statement that I made on the ‘Lex Fridman Podcast’ was a fragment of the statement. He asked me — and anybody who actually goes and looks at that podcast will see this — he asked me, ‘Are there vaccines that are safe and effective?’ And I said to him, ‘Some of the live virus vaccines are,’ and I said, ‘There are no vaccines that are safe and effective,’ and I was gonna continue, ‘For every person; every medicine has people who are sensitive to them, including vaccines.’ He interrupted me at that point.”​

​

Kennedy added: “I’ve corrected it many times, including on national TV.”​

I think RFK Jr is spinning here. I think that what he is saying now is what he wished he would have said then. Claiming that he was interrupted and unable to complete his thought is untrue. However, given that his first statement was, "I think some of the live virus vaccines are probably averting more problems than they’re causing", I think it's hard to claim that he thinks NO vaccines are safe and effective.

I've read a lot of what RFK Jr has said about vaccines, and I never came away with the thought that he was opposed to all vaccines. Instead, I believe that RFK Jr is in favor of more rigorous testing and safety monitoring, and I absolutely agree with him on both of those points.

Here is an article that illustrates how big pharma has captured our healthcare system, including our regulators.

Our healthcare system isn’t about health—it’s about business.​

​

And in this business, harm isn’t an accident. It’s built into the system.​

​

Trapped in the Spider Web: How Big Pharma Captured Our Healthcare System

GUEST POST written by Kim Witczak

blog.maryannedemasi.com

​

​

No matter how one feels about RFK Jr, regulatory reform is badly needed.

 

[probinson]

If you just press play, it goes straight to it. My url includes the timestamp. it is at 28 seconds

Thank you.

 

[probinson]

Let's take a look at the recently approved Pfizer vaccine for RSV (Abrysvo) that is now recommended for pregnant mothers. It received an accelerated approval from drug regulators, but it ignored a very real signal of pre-term births at a higher rate in the vaccinated group.

Pfizer’s Phase 3 MATISSE trial enrolled over 7,000 pregnant women at 24–36 weeks gestation, across 18 countries - half received Abrysvo; the other half received a placebo.​

​

...​

​

After six months, the vaccine demonstrated a 69% relative risk reduction in severe RSV cases requiring oxygen or hospitalisation.​

​

In absolute terms, this translated to a modest 1.2% absolute risk reduction, meaning that 83 women would need to be vaccinated to prevent a single case of severe RSV.​

​

But the most alarming finding was the increase in pre-term births.​

​

Vaccinated women experienced a 21% increase in the relative risk of preterm birth compared to those who received a placebo.​

​

In absolute terms, this equated to a 1% absolute increase (5.7% in the vaccine group versus 4.7% in the placebo group). Despite this, the FDA’s advisory committee dismissed the difference as a “non-significant” signal.​

​

A crucial limitation was that the trial was not adequately powered to detect uncommon but serious adverse events.​

​

So the tradeoff for reducing the risk of a severe case of RSV indoor infant by 69% is offset by a 21% increase in risk of pre-term birth. But the regulators seem wholly unconcerned with that finding. What's worse, this isn't the first vaccine that has shown this signal.

Pfizer was not the only pharmaceutical company developing an RSV vaccine for pregnant women.​

​

The trial of GSK’s structurally similar RSV vaccine was prematurely terminated in 2022 due to safety concerns.​

​

Pre-term births increased by 37%, and the rate of neonatal deaths doubled in women who were vaccinated compared to the placebo group.​

​

An independent safety panel suspended the trial. Meanwhile, Pfizer proceeded with its trial, without informing MATISSE trial participants of these risks, raising ethical questions about informed consent.​

​

RSV vaccine in pregnancy - is it a risk worth taking?

By Maryanne Demasi, PhD and Peter Selley, MB (retired)

blog.maryannedemasi.com

​

​

So here we have another vaccine that is "structurally similar" to Pfizer's where the trial had to be halted because not only were pre-term births increased by 37%, but neonatal deaths DOUBLED in the vaccinated group.

Now you would think with all of this trial data available, some caution would be warranted. Maybe some additional, longer term studies to understand the benefits and the risks inherent in RSV vaccination during pregnancy. At the very least, pregnant women should be made aware of these risks before deciding whether they want the vaccine. You know, informed consent. But instead, we have a broad recommendation that EVERY pregnant woman should get Abrysvo with nary a mention of the increased odds of pre-term births.

CDC recommends a respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine for pregnant women to protect their babies from severe RSV disease. Pregnant women should get a single dose of the maternal RSV vaccine (Pfizer’s Abrysvo) during weeks 32 through 36 of pregnancy.​

Hmm. No nuance in that recommendation at all. All pregnant women should get the vaccine, they say. Well, maybe later they'll inform the women that there were increased pre-term births.

Data from clinical trials show that the estimated benefits of the recommended maternal RSV vaccine outweigh any potential risks.​

​

In the phase 3 clinical trial, maternal RSV vaccine reduced the risk of the baby being hospitalized for RSV by 68% and risk of having a healthcare visit for RSV by 57% within 3 months after birth. In the same trial, the RSV vaccine reduced the risk of the baby being hospitalized for RSV by 57% and risk of having a healthcare visit for RSV by 51% within 6 months after birth.​

​

The maternal RSV vaccine reduced the risk of severe infant outcomes caused by RSV, including having low oxygen in the blood or the need for mechanical ventilation or admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), by 82% within 3 months and by 69% within 6 months after birth.​

​

RSV Vaccine Guidance for Pregnant Women

Clinical guidance for the use of the RSV maternal vaccine (Pfizer's Abrysvo)

www.cdc.gov

​

​

There's no mention of pre-term births in the CDC's recommendation at all. In fact there is NOTHING on that page about what adverse events could result. It's all sunshine and roses and benefits. But anyone who knows anything about medical interventions knows that there are ALWAYS benefits AND risks. And while the CDC tacitly acknowledges that there are risks when they say "the risks outweigh the benefits", they seem wholly unconcerned with the women and children who will be unfortunate enough to have one of those risks materialize for them.

Oh, but they do add this statement.

Adverse events after maternal RSV vaccination should be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), even if it is not clear that the vaccine caused the adverse event. Information on how to submit a report to VAERS is available at Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) or by telephone at 1-800-822-7967. Anyone can submit a report to VAERS — healthcare professionals, vaccine manufacturers, and the general public.​

Yes, you should report any adverse events to VAERS so that they can be dutifully ignored. And if they ever do follow up on it, they'll tell you that it wasn't the vaccine's fault and deny you any compensation for simply following their recommendations. This creates the illusion that they care about safety monitoring. But you can read horror stories from people who were vaccine-injured and received absolutely no support from the government. They are left with the injuries AND the bills as the government gaslights them into telling it couldn't possibly be the vaccine, which everyone knows is 100% good all the time.

One is not "anti-vax" for raising concerns about vaccine safety. Vaccine zealotry has become something of a religion. If you dare suggest that any harm might result from the sacred cow of vaccines, you are tarred as an anti-vaxxer worthy of ridicule and shame. This stifles any scientific discourse around this important topic.

 

[stevil]

No matter how one feels about RFK Jr, regulatory reform is badly needed.

RFK Jr should not be allowed anywhere near the health department.

 

[Hans Blaster]

RFK Jr himself

That was quick. Maybe 5 seconds to get the the answer: YES he is.

 

[7thKeeper]

Holding it against your head and carrying it in your pocket may be different from spewing it into the air

It's not. Really, do people actually think that this hasn't been researched for decades now?


The amount of power your cell phone radiates next to your ear is so little and at such wavelengths that the amount gets absorbed by the water on the top most layers of your skin and with such little power it won't even warm you up. It simply isn't able to penetrate deep enough into your body or with enough power to do anything to you. You're getting more into yourself by walking outside in the sun.

 

[Servus]

It's not. Really, do people actually think that this hasn't been researched for decades now?


The amount of power your cell phone radiates next to your ear is so little and at such wavelengths that the amount gets absorbed by the water on the top most layers of your skin and with such little power it won't even warm you up. It simply isn't able to penetrate deep enough into your body or with enough power to do anything to you. You're getting more into yourself by walking outside in the sun.

What about holding a cell phone to your ear, while out in bright sunlight while standing near a leaky nuclear reactor?

 

[7thKeeper]

What about holding a cell phone to your ear, while out in bright sunlight while standing near a leaky nuclear reactor?

I think at that point I'd blame the cell phone. You had to have been too absorbed in it to not notice you walked near a leaky nuclear reactor.

 

[Maori Aussie]

It's not. Really, do people actually think that this hasn't been researched for decades now?


The amount of power your cell phone radiates next to your ear is so little and at such wavelengths that the amount gets absorbed by the water on the top most layers of your skin and with such little power it won't even warm you up. It simply isn't able to penetrate deep enough into your body or with enough power to do anything to you. You're getting more into yourself by walking outside in the sun.

or eating a banana?

 

[Maori Aussie]

RFK Jr should not be allowed anywhere near the health department.

The US is currently ranked 55th for life expectancy behind Panama 54, Costa Rica 45, Puerto Rico 36, Guadalope 31, Martinique 21 and French Polynesia 4. I think the US is being lapped at this point...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

What about holding a cell phone to your ear, while out in bright sunlight while standing near a leaky nuclear reactor?

User error.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

RFK Jr should not be allowed anywhere near the health department.

So, what you're saying is the attitudes and positions on every other healthcare issue in the US takes a backseat to whether or not someone has the conventional position on certain vaccines?


I'd suggest that a person who's obese should not be allowed to run a health department.

RFK gets bashed for not setting a good example for public health.


Yet, people remain somewhat silent with regards to some of the various health ministers around the world who are obese.

UK

Belgium

I guess it's alright as long as they put a "#Vaccinated" facebook border up and recommend 4 booster jabs for 20 year olds.

 

[probinson]

So, what you're saying is the attitudes and positions on every other healthcare issue in the US takes a backseat to whether or not someone has the conventional position on certain vaccines?

It would seem that some people have equated "public health" with "unconditionally recommends every vaccine ever created".

 

[stevil]

So, what you're saying is the attitudes and positions on every other healthcare issue in the US takes a backseat to whether or not someone has the conventional position on certain vaccines?


I'd suggest that a person who's obese should not be allowed to run a health department.

RFK gets bashed for not setting a good example for public health.


Yet, people remain somewhat silent with regards to some of the various health ministers around the world who are obese.

UK
View attachment 362646

Belgium
View attachment 362647


I guess it's alright as long as they put a "#Vaccinated" facebook border up and recommend 4 booster jabs for 20 year olds.

I'm sorry but this post is utter nonsense. Seems like arguing just for the sake of arguing. You are saying an overweight person as head of HHS is more dangerous than an anti vaxxer. Utter nonsense.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm sorry but this post is utter nonsense. Seems like arguing just for the sake of arguing. You are saying an overweight person as head of HHS is more dangerous than an anti vaxxer. Utter nonsense.

Hey, if other people can have their own shallow, myopic, single-metric redline issues with regards to health (and ignore every other part), then why can't I?

After all, if a person lets themselves get that obese...how can I trust them to care about the health of myself and others if they don't even care about their own?


If a person is of the mindset of "I'll eat until I balloon up and then just rely on pharmaceutical products to mitigate and offset the effects", their personal philosophies on such matters can bleed over into their policy decisions, correct? (that is the concern about RFK Jr, right? That his personal positions will bleed over into his policy decision?)

I don't see why that rationale should be applied to one counterproductive health stance, but not to others.

 

[durangodawood]

.....(that is the concern about RFK Jr, right? That his personal positions will bleed over into his policy decision?).....

His personal position here isnt just about his own personal behavior. Its about what he thinks is real and what isnt. We should presume that a person's sense of reality guides their policy positions.

 

[Larniavc]

So, what you're saying is the attitudes and positions on every other healthcare issue in the US takes a backseat to whether or not someone has the conventional position on certain vaccines?


I'd suggest that a person who's obese should not be allowed to run a health department.

RFK gets bashed for not setting a good example for public health.


Yet, people remain somewhat silent with regards to some of the various health ministers around the world who are obese.

UK
View attachment 362646

Belgium
View attachment 362647


I guess it's alright as long as they put a "#Vaccinated" facebook border up and recommend 4 booster jabs for 20 year olds.

I guess this might highlight a possible divide between the US and the UK. One seems to place greater store in the appearance of the speaker as opposed to what they actually say.