RFK Jr. says it may be "better" if fewer children receive the flu vaccine

essentialsaltes said:

I doubt that.

Click to expand...

Delvianna said:

Vaccines force a strain to evolve. [Link] as an example. I remember reading a case study years ago about it.

Click to expand...

Ophiolite said:

That is almost a strawman argument. Here is my understanding. True, we might expect from evolutionary theory that “leaky” vaccines that prevent disease symptoms, but do not stop replication or transmission might, in principle, be a problem. Normally, a highly virulent variety is penalised by the rapid death of its target, thereby limiting transmission, but "leaky vaccines could minimise this effect. As your linked article notes, that mechanism has been demonstrated convincingly in poultry (Marek’s disease). However, almost all licensed human vaccines, substantially reduce infection, disease and/or onward transmission. Consequently, most epidemiologists regard the risk as real in theory, but low in practice and something to monitor rather than a reason to avoid vaccination.

Click to expand...

Delvianna said:

I'm getting really tired with people using debate terms. I'm not in college, nor am I in a debate league. I'm also not trying to sit here and give citations. As I said, I gave an example. That's it.. because I said, I remember reading a case study years ago. I gave my opinion purely for a conversational stance, not a thesis.

Click to expand...

Ophiolite said:

Well, since I don't think I have interacted with you before I had no way of knowing that you had an aversion to conducting discussions in a formal, structured way. I'll keep it in mind.

Yes, you gave an example. You appeared to give that example in support of your assertion that "Vaccines are causing super virus's. So in my opinion, it would better if we stopped giving yearly vaccines altogether. More vaccines is just going to make it worse."

That opinion is ill-founded. I have provided a counter argument based upon more than "an example I remember reading about a few years ago." Feel free to refute it, or ask for justification for my position.

However, by arguing against vaccination programs you are recommending an action that will kill people. I'm getting tired of people who, for the sake of a "conversation" put people's lives at risk. Your casual remark is the equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. That the consequences are less obvious and more subtle is no excuse.

Click to expand...

Delvianna said:

Right, I'm putting peoples lives at risk for sharing an opinion which I have zero sway over in a real sense since I'm not in government or apart of the CDC. Vaccines also have been proven to increase the risk for getting it again. So your assertion they prevent infection is incorrect. link is a case study when dealing with humans and the flu.
"but over the course of the study the cumulative incidence of influenza increased more rapidly among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated."

Vaccine market is a hell of a money maker.

Click to expand...

User Epidemiologist writes:
This is a phenomenally bad study, which contains stark evidence of its bias in the Figure purportedly supporting its conclusions. To summarize:
1. They compare two groups of employees who received a trivalent, inactivated influenza vaccine. Those who received the vaccine (82%) and those who sought an exemption (18%).
2. As hospital employees, they are aware of the extent to which their work puts them at risk of exposure but the investigators make no effort to determine differences between these groups beyond very crude categorizations.
3. They find that, after 100 days, they see higher influenza rates in the vaccinated.
3. They provide no plausible explanation as to how the inactivated vaccine puts one at increased risk of influenza 100 days after vaccination.
4. That means the ONLY plausible explanation for a significantly higher risk in the vaccinated is a significantly higher exposure risk in the vaccinated. Ergo, the sample is biased.
5. It is notable that the infection rate among the vaccinated was only 2.5% in a high risk setting for infection.
6. In sum, the best explanation for their results is that the vaccine was very effective and their sample was biased.

Click to expand...

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

That study is heavily flawed as one commenter says:

Click to expand...

Delvianna said:

As are others which indicate the opposite due to who is backing them. This is just one of those arguments without an ending because I can show studies that people can argue about, and you can show studies that I can say are suspect due to their financials. I'm not really interested in debating the legitimacy of each study though. I'm not trying to sound rude, I'm just pointing out its a waste of time for both of us. It just comes down to personal beliefs in the medical field.

Click to expand...

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Yeah, but personal beliefs don't really factor in when vaccinations actually DO work and have been shown repeatedly to work despite what the authors of the study and people like Richard F Kennedy say.

Refusing to accept sound science despite it being shown upfront and centre that vaccines and vaccinations work is just ignoring reality.

If you don't want to be drawn into a debate on this matter, don't try and pretend that you can argue that the other side is wrong.

Click to expand...

Delvianna said:

And thats your personal belief as I've seen enough studies to say there's issue with them. This just isn't going to go anywhere. I'm not going to debate it. My personal belief is you're wrong and so are others. I don't have to defend that like I'm sitting in court just because you don't like my evidence and I won't like yours. I'm free to state what I think. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

You're free to state what you think, and I'm not arguing that.

But let me ask a question to you. You don't have to answer it, but do think on it: there is one disease that no person in the modern Western world can get anymore; smallpox, which was eradicate and eliminated through the creation and use of vaccines and vaccinations. If they didn't work, why is smallpox no longer an issue in the modern day and declared eradicated in 1980?

Click to expand...

Delvianna said:

I'm not against all vaccines, I'm against the modern ones. The ones back in the day seem to be more solid than the ones around now. It seems to me like it was started out in good faith that just devolved into a money making racket. Same with the history of the US government. Started out in good faith to give people freedom of religion and speech and has now devolved into corruption so deep, we'd need a civil war to fix it. I believe the modern medical science mostly (not all) is corrupt.

Click to expand...

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

And that is not a claim that you can back up with a solid basis.

Click to expand...

Delvianna said:

I don't want to. I'm not going to try and find every single thing I've seen over the last 15 years to "prove" it. It's a waste of energy when the outcome is just going to end with you still having your opinion and me still having mine and I'm cutting all that unnecessary debate out of the equation and just saying, it ends here. And for what anyway? Me changing my mind or you changing yours isn't going to do anything in the grand scheme of things. So, we end it now on agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Then why even comment in the first place? You should have known something like this was going happen.

Click to expand...

Delvianna said:

Conversational purposes? Does every conversation have to devolve into a professional debate match filled with citations and "proof" that meats your criteria? Goodness gracious... I saw a topic and said, hey I'll voice my opinion and we can talk over the topic and about the topic in a normal human being level. But apparently, I was wrong. People just can't have normal conversations anymore...

Click to expand...