RFK Adjusts Hepatitis B Vaccine Recommendations; Democrats Lose Their Minds

[Belk]

I

I'll go with VAERS over 'Google AI'

Yes, many conspiracy theorists do.

 

[probinson]

VAERS, as most people nowadays know, is best used only to track trends as anyone can report anything including turning into a werewolf, so mostly it's charlatans and fools who try to cite that as proof of anything.

Why even have VAERS if the reaction is always to just discard it completely? You say it's to "track trends", but clearly you don't believe that since you say it can't be used as "proof of anything".

VAERS exists so that public health agencies can say we have a system for tracking vaccine injuries while summarily dismissing everything it contains.

 

[7thKeeper]

Science denialism. We have literally 3 decades of VAERS data showing deaths and other harm from Hep B vaccine

And also at least one case of someone turning into The Hulk!

 

[probinson]

Yes, many conspiracy theorists do.

Why would citing the system that the government set up to ostensibly track adverse events from vaccination be equated to conspiracy? Again I have to ask, what is the point of VAERS if anyone who cites it is instantly tarred as a conspiracy theorist?

 

[durangodawood]

Whats the point of un-verified data in an environment where we know people are prone to misattribute? Especially when theyve been saturated with lies and misinfo.

 

[probinson]

Whats the point of un-verified data in an environment where we know people are prone to misattribute? Especially when theyve been saturated with lies and misinfo.

Yes. Why even have the system? You clearly believe it's not even a little bit reliable, so why not just get rid of it completely?

 

[DaisyDay]

Science denialism.

Not even close.

We have literally 3 decades of VAERS data showing deaths and other harm from Hep B vaccine

I don't think you have a clear understanding of what VAERS is for, how it works and how it can be manipulated by bad actors.

 

[Say it aint so]

RFK Conservation Lawyer Adjusts Hepatitis B Vaccine Recommendations; Democrats Doctors Lose Their Minds​

 

[DaisyDay]

Yes. Why even have the system? You clearly believe it's not even a little bit reliable, so why not just get rid of it completely?

It is useful for tracking trends, as an early alert system for possible problems. For instance, if a significant number of unexpected adverse events followed a particular medicine or procedure, then that should be investigated. What did you think it is for?

 

[durangodawood]

Yes. Why even have the system? You clearly believe it's not even a little bit reliable, so why not just get rid of it completely?

Its not an issue Ive looked into deeply. But, generally, unverified data in this environment is literally worse than nothing. Stick to what data can be verified.

 

[DaisyDay]

And when will this be occurring in those 2 months? Are you shoving bloody objects into your infants mouths or something?

As mentioned previously, the virus can be passed through any break in the skin such as scratched, scrapes, cuts or open wounds either from a person or from a surface that has the virus on it.

AI tells you precisely what it thinks you want to see and hear, sweetheart. That's literally its job

As I mentioned before, I included a link to the actual, underlying source so you could educate yourself without much effort, should you ever choose to.

Please knock off the inappropriate terms of address.

 

[durangodawood]

It is useful for tracking trends, as an early alert system for possible problems. For instance, if a significant number of unexpected adverse events followed a particular medicine or procedure, then that should be investigated. What did you think it is for?

That makes sense, as an alert subject to verification.

But people making judgements on unverified reports in this environment is witch hunt quality thinking.

 

[Belk]

Why would citing the system that the government set up to ostensibly track adverse events from vaccination be equated to conspiracy? Again I have to ask, what is the point of VAERS if anyone who cites it is instantly tarred as a conspiracy theorist?

Why on earth would anyone bother to explain it to you yet again?

 

[Belk]

[Staff edit of a quote]

I am not your sweetie.

That is not how AI works. It might be inaccurate but it does not "hallucinate" things. It is simply an advanced data correlater subject to GIGO.

VAERS, on the other hand, is a self reporting database. To get meaningful data out requires much more then a simple search of the DB.

What VAERS Is (And Isn’t) | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

Anyone can report a post-vaccination health issue to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System—which anti-vaccination activists often misuse to sow misinformation and distrust.

publichealth.jhu.edu

The CDC and FDA jointly established the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, or VAERS, in 1990 as a way for people to report post-vaccination health issues. These could include allergic reactions, intestinal conditions, blood clots, or other problems that may or may not be related to a vaccine. While VAERS cannot determine whether an adverse event was caused by a vaccination, patterns in reporting may suggest a need for further evaluation to assess potential safety concerns.

Since the emergence of COVID-19 vaccines, however, the database has garnered more dubious notoriety. Anti-vaccination fringe groups have attempted to spin false stories using VAERS data, adding to misinformation about the safety of COVID-19 vaccinations.

 

[Belk]

Just straight up making stuff up, huh?

Hallucination (artificial intelligence) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oops:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/27/business/chat-gpt-avianca-mata-lawyers/index.html

I stand corrected. That still does not change the issue with VAERS.

 

[DaisyDay]

The only bad actor I see here is you, denying the various cases of harm caused by this vaccine

No, you haven't; I have left it to others to point out the relative safety and effectiveness of this vaccine as compared to an infection from the virus itself.

[staff edit of a quote]

Again, please be appropriate.

AI tells you precisely what you want to hear.

No, neither it nor you have any understanding, apparently, about what I want to hear.

It literally hallucinates stuff into existence.

This is true; it also lies. Which is why I included the underlying source which, again apparently, you have not bothered to read. For your and any interested reader's edification, here's another link which discusses how the virus may be transmitted:

Hepatitis B: The Disease & Vaccines

All infants and young children are recommended to receive the hepatitis B vaccine to help prevent the severe liver disease that can develop if infected with hepatitis B virus.

www.chop.edu

​

People most often get hepatitis B from contact with blood. Blood from a person infected with hepatitis B virus is heavily contaminated with the virus. The virus is present at such high levels that it can be spread by contact with quantities of blood too small to see. The virus can also survive on surfaces longer than most viruses — up to seven days. As a result, even casual contact with the blood of someone who is infected can cause infection. Casual contact can include sharing of washcloths, toothbrushes, or razors...​

​

...The spread of hepatitis B virus has been difficult to control in the U.S. because the disease can be transmitted by casual contact and because so many chronically infected people don’t know they are infected. It’s estimated that about three-quarters of a million to 2 million people in the U.S. are chronically infected with hepatitis B virus. The original strategy aimed at controlling hepatitis B in the U.S. started in the early 1980s. The goal at that time was to vaccinate only those at highest risk (for example, healthcare workers, patients on dialysis, and intravenous drug users). But because the disease can be transmitted to those who are not in high-risk groups, this vaccine strategy didn't work. The incidence of hepatitis B virus disease in the U.S. remained unchanged 10 years after the strategy was first used! So, the vaccine strategy was changed. Starting in 1991, all infants and young children were recommended to receive the hepatitis B vaccine. As a result, the incidence of hepatitis B virus infections in the U.S. started to decline. Indeed, this strategy has virtually eliminated the disease in children less than 19 years of age. If we stick with it, we have a chance to finally eliminate this devastating disease within one or two generations.[oh well]​

​

...Large quantities of hepatitis B virus are present in the blood of people with hepatitis B. In fact, as many as one billion infectious viruses can be found in a milliliter of blood from an infected individual. A milliliter is about one-fifth of a teaspoon. Therefore, amounts of blood too small to be seen can contain enough viral particles to cause infection. In addition, many people don't know that they are infected. For these reasons, it is very hard to avoid the chance of getting infected with hepatitis B virus.​

And again, all of this is moot as vaxxes are already given to those who are born to mothers with Hep B. None of this has changed.

No, not moot because the virus can be spread from people and things other than the mother to the baby (see above). Instead of addressing the actual argument you persist in repeating the same moot point.

You're doing nothing but fearmongering and inventing false things

This is patently false as the previously provided links attest.

 

[probinson]

It is useful for tracking trends, as an early alert system for possible problems. For instance, if a significant number of unexpected adverse events followed a particular medicine or procedure, then that should be investigated. What did you think it is for?

How in the world could you possibly "track trends" from data that you believe is "saturated with lies and misinfo" and can't be used for "proof of anything"?

 

[probinson]

Its not an issue Ive looked into deeply. But, generally, unverified data in this environment is literally worse than nothing. Stick to what data can be verified.

OK. So do you think they should just abolish VAERS?

 

[probinson]

You may have read that Hep B vaccination has prevented 90,000 deaths and 1,000,000 hospitalizations. However, both of those claims seem to be made up from whole cloth by people who stand to gain financially by making you believe them. Here's a great article on the topic:

The piece is mainly a Q&A between Professor Anna Lok and the author Sam Page.​

​

Professor Lok states she does not want any changes as the vaccines are safe and effective. No data or analysis is provided.​

​

The BBC should check its facts

Where are the US data?

trusttheevidence.substack.com

​

Feel free to see if you can figure out where the data came from that claims Hep B vaccination has prevented 90,000 deaths. Links are provided the article so you can search for yourself. What I found was a tangled web of people making sensational claims with no data to support them and a heckuvalot of financial conflicts of interest.

 

[probinson]

Why on earth would anyone bother to explain it to you yet again?

No one has explained anything. Recapping, people have said that the data in VAERS is not "proof of anything", is "riddled with lies and misinfo", and is "worse than nothing".

The explanation that I got was that this data is useful for "tracking trends", which is utter nonsense if you believe the data is that bad to start with.

If I hand you a data source and I tell you that it's riddled with bad data and is worse than nothing, and oh by the way, I'd like you to identify what trends you see in the data, you'd rightfully look at me like I was crazy. You can't identity "trends" or ANYTHING ELSE for that matter if you truly believe your data is that dirty.