RFK. Jr Threatens Pediatricians Over Vaccine Recommendations and Liability

[probinson]

Look how anxious people are to dismiss this study without even reading it.

 

[probinson]

25 in 30,000,000...given that causation hasn't even been proven I think a reasonable person would see that as a "low risk" activity. Odds of being struck by lightening WITHIN THE CALENDAR YEAR are about 1 in 1.2mil...

I guess we're just making up numbers now...

Do you know what the odds are of a child dying from a COVID infection? I'll give you a hint; CDC's own data showed that children were more likely to be killed in a bicycle accident than from COVID.

 

[probinson]

This is a compilation of VAERS reports.

What is the purpose of VAERS reports? Increasingly, I believe it exists simply to say that we have a system in place to monitor adverse events while simultaneously dismissing every single one of them.

And they have verified the children are dead.

Have you read the study? Can you provide the link?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Have you read the study? Can you provide the link?

I read the blog you posted and reported some of what it said.

You're the one who claimed "study shows 25 children died as a result of the COVID vaccine."

Can you show us this?

 

[rambot]

I guess we're just making up numbers now...

I will totally admit I'm being third rate with my numbers.
Let's try:
56.7 million 0-18yr olds in the US
COVID Vaccine for that range is: 32.4% (as of 2022)
Vaccination of Children in the United States against COVID-19: An Ounce of Prevention - PMC
So that's just under 18million who've been vaccinated.

Do you know what the odds are of a child dying from a COVID infection? I'll give you a hint; CDC's own data showed that children were more likely to be killed in a bicycle accident than from COVID.

Still lower than dying from the vaccine.
25 "after the vaccine" (so not even FROM the vaccine).
or
just over 1,800 from 2020-2023
https://data.cdc.gov/widgets/nr4s-juj3?mobile_redirect=true

 

[probinson]

I read the blog you posted and reported some of what it said.

No, you said it was just a compilation of VAERS reports. But what the link actually said was:

The reported deaths originated in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the government’s database for suspected vaccine harms. Unlike the raw entries often left unexamined, FDA officials say they’ve investigated the cases.​

They contacted families, reviewed autopsy results and gathered medical records. It appears that, for the first time since the vaccine rollout, U.S. regulators have attempted a systematic, case-by-case review of paediatric deaths.​

So you either misunderstood, or misrepresented, that these are not just VAERS reports. These are VAERS reports that were investigated.

You're the one who claimed "study shows 25 children died as a result of the COVID vaccine."

As I said, I haven't read the study, mostly because I don't think it's been published yet. I was simply providing a counter-framing to the reporting that framed this as an "ardent anti-vaccine" study.

 

[rambot]

Look how anxious people are to dismiss this study without even reading it.

1) IT's been made pretty clear that CDC and FDA is not necessarily a reliable scientific organization anymore as they are working backward from their bias.
2) Causality has never even been close to being linked....and ultimately, everything comes down to causality. Otherwise it's a moot point that anyone died through that mechanism.
3) The fact that so few kids DID die, suggests that almost all kids' natural state CAN handle it. I would expect to hear that perhaps there was an "X factor" that endangered certain kids.
It's hard to say "the mRNA vaccine is dangerous" when 99.9986 of children didn't die from it.

There's no way to be a rational person and say that.

 

[probinson]

Still lower than dying from the vaccine.
25 "after the vaccine" (so not even FROM the vaccine).
or
just over 1,800 from 2020-2023
https://data.cdc.gov/widgets/nr4s-juj3?mobile_redirect=true

It's interesting that you recognize the difference between dying "after the vaccine" and "FROM the vaccine", but you don't seem to think the same issue exists with people dying "FROM COVID" vs. "WITH COVID".

 

[essentialsaltes]

No, you said it was just a compilation of VAERS reports.

I did not.

This is a compilation of VAERS reports. And they have verified the children are dead.

 

[probinson]

1) IT's been made pretty clear that CDC and FDA is not necessarily a reliable scientific organization anymore as they are working backward from their bias.

You don't think this same issue exists with the bias from regulatory agencies that have been almost completely captured by industry?

2) Causality has never even been close to being linked....and ultimately, everything comes down to causality. Otherwise it's a moot point that anyone died through that mechanism.

Given that neither of us have read the report, I'll reserve my thoughts concerning causality until I've examined the evidence.

3) The fact that so few kids DID die, suggests that almost all kids' natural state CAN handle it. I would expect to hear that perhaps there was an "X factor" that endangered certain kids.
It's hard to say "the mRNA vaccine is dangerous" when 99.9986 of children didn't die from it.

You could say the exact same thing about COVID.

There's no way to be a rational person and say that.

Rationality hasn't been a part of the discussion about COVID since early 2020.

 

[rambot]

It's interesting that you recognize the difference between dying "after the vaccine" and "FROM the vaccine", but you don't seem to think the same issue exists with people dying "FROM COVID" vs. "WITH COVID".

I would not say those two scenarios are comparable though I could be wrong.
It could very well be that those 25 kids DID have something that compromised their system to that vaccine at that moment. And if this report is done properly, I'm sure it would delineate that information with great specificity.

In the same way that someone who has COVID and gets into a bad car accident and their airways are impacted COVID, I would say that COVID would be responsible



But again, calling the vaccine inherently dangerous with those numbers is simply NOT a reasonable thing to do.

 

[rambot]

You don't think this same issue exists with the bias from regulatory agencies that have been almost completely captured by industry?

No i do not. As close to agreeing with you on this point from me would be that it's "nakedly transparent whereas before there was a veneer of lack of bias".

Pre Trump:
1) The government did the testing and the industry paid for it. There's a seperation there; and the government at that time had no bias or PRAGMATIC interest in results of research.

Trump
2) The government tells us exactly what they are hoping to prove. They are doing the testing and they are paying for it.

Given that neither of us have read the report, I'll reserve my thoughts concerning causality until I've examined the evidence.

And yet for 3 years you've been inferring it.

You could say the exact same thing about COVID.

Yes. Exception that almonst 100x more children died from COVID than AFTER the vaccine.

 

[probinson]

I did not.

You said, "This is a compilation of VAERS reports. And they have verified the children are dead." But you don't know that. The article I posted said, "They contacted families, reviewed autopsy results and gathered medical records." That's just a teensy bit more than "they have verified the children are dead".

 

[probinson]

I would not say those two scenarios are comparable though I could be wrong.
It could very well be that those 25 kids DID have something that compromised their system to that vaccine at that moment. And if this report is done properly, I'm sure it would delineate that information with great specificity.

Agreed.

In the same way that someone who has COVID and gets into a bad car accident and their airways are impacted COVID, I would say that COVID would be responsible

We already know that there were countless people who were admitted to the hospital for some other reason, and then while they were there, they tested positive for COVID. These people were not hospitalized because of COVID, but hospitals were incentivized to classify them as a COVID patient.

But again, calling the vaccine inherently dangerous with those numbers is simply NOT a reasonable thing to do.

COVID vaccines are ostensibly a preventive measure for children who are at an infinitesimal risk from COVID. If it can be shown that 25 kids died after COVID vaccinations that is significant. And in the interest of informed consent, parents deserve to know ALL of the risks they are introducing their children to.

 

[probinson]

No i do not.

That's certainly your prerogative. I've seen enough over the last few years to know that the regulatory agencies tasked with protecting us are severely compromised. They serve the pharmaceutical companies best interests, not ours.

Pre Trump:
1) The government did the testing and the industry paid for it. There's a seperation there; and the government at that time had no bias or PRAGMATIC interest in results of research.

Trump
2) The government tells us exactly what they are hoping to prove. They are doing the testing and they are paying for it.

Don't forget, Pre-Trump: the government did the testing and the industry paid for their desired outcome.

And yet for 3 years you've been inferring it.

must ... resist ... urge ... to .. educate ... the ... proper ... usage ... of ... infer vs. imply.

Yes. Exception that almonst 100x more children died from COVID than AFTER the vaccine.

You've failed to acknowledge that there is a marked difference of dying WITH COVID than FROM COVID, and yet here you are saying children died FROM COVID.

Also, even if your numbers were accurate, we're talking about an almost non-existent absolute risk reduction.