Vaccines, Vaccinations Discussions

[Loren Pechtel]

From the other birds in your flock. It's not that great a leap to lump people who see a threat from vaccines with people who think sexuality and gender identity are a personal choice. After all, "the science isn't settled".

What do you mean by "birds of my flock?" I am not part of a flock. What someone identifies with in terms of sexuality and gender is not the government's business. By the same token, what someone does in terms of getting their child vaccinated is not the government's business. Ironically, Democrats are progressive on sexuality and gender identity when it comes to personal choice (which is not really a choice) but are behind the eight ball when it comes to vaccines and personal choice. Conversely, Republicans are progressive when it comes to vaccine freedom and personal choice, but are behind the eight ball when it comes to sexual and gender identity and personal choice (which, once again, is not really a choice).

You have talked of "God's immunity" which certainly suggests you are part of that flock. Anyway, I wasn't suggesting anything about your beliefs, just listing some other things where parents try to exercise improper control over their children.

 

[peacegirl]

I didn't come here to change minds, yours or anyone else's. The intentional infliction of pain for one's own satisfaction is sadistic, no matter how it's rationalized.
Although you appear to think you are "fighting the good fight", you advocate pain and suffering for the undefended and there is nothing good about it.

As I said, if someone is given enough good reasons to vaccinate, they will vaccinate without force. There is still a lot of unknowns when it comes to the number of vaccines, the combination, the adjuvants, and the schedule that is now up to 30 vaccines through childhood. To not even question that many because you feel the science is settled is negligent, in my opinion.

RFK Jr. said US children receive up to 92 vaccine doses. How many shots do kids really get?

HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr. suggested children receive up to 90 vaccine doses. Doctors say that number is closer to 30 doses before age 18.

abcnews.go.com

The problem here is you are assuming rational actors--something that is almost certainly false.

Why shouldn't I assume rational actors? There is nothing that tells me they aren't being rational.

Because rational actors would not be having this problem.

Rational actors think rationally, and I don't see anybody thinking irrationally just because they have concerns over the present vaccine schedule expected of all children. One size does not fit all.

And your link actually shows the problem. He's counting every strain in a vaccine, not merely every disease in a vaccine. The intent is to deceive you. Like with his demand for placebo-controlled trials--sounds good until you realize that in most cases that's completely unacceptable. In the real world we test against the current standard of care.

Maybe he was counting strains, rather than diseases, but even so, an inordinate number of vaccines keep going up. You don't have any concerns at

It's absolutely nothing compared to what nature throws at you. You're concerned with the water from a faucet while standing next to Niagara.

Nature can be pretty nasty, that's true, but the number of vaccines and boosters being pumped into kids is alarming. Side effects are bound to occur, which could end up being lifelong.

The control group against a placebo would seem to me to be the most reliable test, as it would rule out inherent bias.

Most effective, yes. Appropriate if your name is Mengele. Not appropriate otherwise.

The problem is that the standard of care used in testing can give us misleading results due to the design of the test itself.

I do not see how this is relevant to what I said.

Medical tests are conducted the same way every time: proposed treatment vs standard of care. If possible you don't let the participants know which they are getting. If possible you do not let the people evaluating the patients know which is which. Ideally the evaluators are separate and can watch how it's going in case it's too extreme, or like we saw with Covid that they spoke up when the probability that it worked got high enough. Nothing confusing about this.

Standard of care would mean that you are comparing the vaccinated with the vaccinated. You don't see there could be a problem with the accuracy of the results?

• When a safe, effective vaccine already exists against a disease, giving children in the placebo group no protection against that disease is unethical. Unvaccinated children can contract dangerous illnesses. Parents of children in the placebo group would not know they didn’t get the vaccine, and that their child is unprotected.

Fact Checked: Childhood Vaccines Are Carefully Studied—Including with Placebos—to Ensure They’re Safe and Effective

Every vaccine recommended for children has undergone extensive research—including clinical trials that often use placebos or comparison groups—to ensure it is safe and effective. Once approved, vaccines continue to be monitored for safety.

www.aap.org

I don't think they are that worried about the unvaccinated. It appears they are begging the question by assuming the truth of the conclusion. From what I read, AAP is part of the conspiracy and can't be trusted. Maybe comparing two vaccinated groups with one added variable could help determine if there is a relative risk.

Understanding Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) and Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) in Vaccine Trials- PANDA

In broad terms, the ARR compares how much the overall probability of an outcome reduced or increased. The RRR just compares the benefit, no matter how small, of one event versus another.

pandata.org

There wasn't a controversy because nobody was capitalizing on making trouble.

In reality you received far more stuff than kids do now--inactivated vaccines have a vast number of antigens, recombinant and mRNA have very few. That "72" is counting every strain in a vaccine, the correct comparison would be to all the different things in an inactivated vaccine.

You're probably right, but it would never convince anti-vaxxers that, because there were more antigens in inactivated vaccines that people got years ago, and that kids today are getting much less, would do anything to change their minds. Maybe it would convince some that it's safe, but not all. Irrational? I dunno. The only thing that bothers me is not being given informed consent. On the vaccine inserts, it explains that there are risks, but who reads the inserts or is told to read them before agreeing?

You are receiving informed consent. It's just the consent doesn't repeat the lies of the anti-vaxxers.

They used to say that the person had informed consent for a medical procedure without really knowing if the person understood the risks. Now they are required to go over the inserts or disclosures with the patient and have it signed to make positively sure the patient knows what to expect so there are no surprises.

The problem is the "facts" you are sharing are quite deceptive.

I don't mean to be. I do understand why parents are hesitant, in spite of all the facts being shown that vaccines are safe and effective. I think there is something that makes giving so many shots to children disturbing to these parents. It goes against the grain of what they believe God's immunity would provide, along with the principles of healthy living and a sanitary environment. I know this will not satisfy those here who believe that these shots save lives, but to those who don't hold that same belief, when the rubber meets the road, and they say they will get their children vaccinated, something in their hearts and minds stops them.

You don't mean to because you don't recognize that you have been mislead.

And I note "God's immunity"--the belief that the world is created so there's always a good answer. So much evil comes from this basic mistake.

Just read the label: Got is omnipotent. God is omnibenevolent. Evil exists. Can't have all three

I guess it all depends on how you define God.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While the usual dose of chloroquine used in treatment is 10 mg/kg, toxicity begins to occur at 20 mg/kg, and death may occur at 30 mg/kg. In children as little as a single tablet can be fatal.

I guess Trump believed hydroxychloroquine had a safer profile and could possibly do some good. He was willing to encourage the use of anything that had the slightest chance of helping without causing harm.

Better safety profile than chloroquine, but that's not saying much. They're both very dangerous, basically last resort options (except in some cases they are both the beginning and the end of the list.) There never was any reason to think they were of any use against Covid. The Felon wanted to let Covid burn because he saw it as a blue state problem.

How do you know what he was thinking? That is quite a conspiracy theory.

There have been leaks. The more reasonable people have spoken up about his wrongs.

Both of the woo drugs against Covid were anti-parasite drugs. Fight exotic diseases not normally in the US. Never mind they are totally different diseases, parasite drugs have no reason to work against viruses.

I agree. He also thought bleach would help. I couldn't believe my ears.

Yet you seem willing to trust him about hydrochloroquine, why???

What we are seeing is the aping of dementia. He wants to take credit for everything good, but he has so little understanding that he spouts nonsense.

You question the possibility of tiny risks, yet trust that they were right in promoting extremely dangerous drugs?? As I said, I've encountered chloroquine before--proper medical use, I knew you really didn't want to take any more than you were supposed to. Bunch of idiots using it off label--I have no problem believing 17,000 dead.

I never said anyone was right about using dangerous drugs. You keep talking about the possibility of tiny risks. Did you listen to the video I posted on the Covid vaccine causing 70% of the long COVID-19 diagnoses?

Didn't see it so it was probably one of those videos.

And it's preposterous, most long Covid cases were not vaccinated. And long Covid was worse back before the vaccines even came out. (The more severe a case of Covid the more likely you are to have lasting effects. And the Delta? (or Omicron??) mutation both made Covid spread much better and made it less lethal. And figure out that 70% is due to the vaccine when we still don't have any real understanding of what's happening? Preposterous. Also, long Covid long predates Covid, let alone Covid vaccines. Covid is basically SARS 2.0. Closely genetically related, very similar effect on the body. But SARS didn't spread as readily and patients were not infectious before symptoms. China engaged in some foot-dragging (every such incident causes foot-dragging, no matter where it happens) but the world basically reacted correctly and it was stopped before it blew up. And it caused lasting disability in many of the victims. (And the Covid vaccine is actually the SARS vaccine--it was developed but stopped at the point of human trials as with no SARS they could not ethically do them.)

 

[Millrat]

How does a healthy 8 month old die in his sleep without considering that the vaccine he was given has something to do with it? Denial denial denial! Oh, I forgot, even though he died right after the jab, there is no proof there was a causal relationship! Nope, the 8 or 12 jabs he was given has nothing to do with his death! Tell that to his grieving parents! Oh I forgot, they did it for the greater good and should be applauded!

I think Sam Harris said during COVID:

"If a million people went to the doctor and all the doctor did was snap their fingers, some number of those patients would experience a significant medical condition the following day".

That is true. It's important to weed out false associations that are easy to fall for, especially during a pandemic.

You say that as if you hadn't just failed to do so,,, almost 5 year since.

 

[peacegirl]

All you have to back your agenda up is fomented fear.

Yeah, but...

Did you see the picture?

There's a picture of a baby allegedly with Sweet's Syndrome, that allegedly manifested after a flu shot. The post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy is left for the viewer to fill in for themselves, once the picture has punched them in the emotions and left them unable to think.

This is the kind of argument that obviously overturns decades of careful research into vaccine safety.

Did you see the picture? What kind of unfeeling monster are you not to complety abandon rational thought after seeing the picture???

If this had anything to do with the vaccine, who wouldn't feel emotion, and why is this a bad thing? It's protective, actually. What if the vaccine did, in fact, cause the syndrome? The picture doesn't throw all rationality out the window, but it does serve an important purpose: that not all vaccines are good for all children. One size does not fit all. If that influences someone to pause before giving their child the jab, so be it. You are the kind of person who would turn your back on a mother who has watched her child regress cognitively after getting a vaccine and pleading with you to listen, but you ignore her cries by insisting that it could not have been the vaccine because the study said there is no causal link, even though there have been many parents who have reported this same scenario. Now that's cold-hearted.

The picture throws all rationality out the window because there is no evidence between the problem and the suppose cause.

Yes, emotions can't be helped when seeing such a horrific picture, but that doesn't mean all rationality is thrown out the window. Not at all. It also cannot be ruled out that the vaccine caused this reaction, considering that it was very close to the time the vaccine was given.

We do not turn our backs on her, we tell her that she's seeing a correlation where none exists.

How do you know that for sure? You're making the same mistake as someone who sees vaccines as the cause of everything under the sun.

The human mind is very, very good at this--erring on the side of false positive identifications of threats is an evolutionary advantage. Jumping at a thousand moving shadows is better than not jumping when it's an actual predator. It's hard to avoid even when you know what's happening--I've been startled by many a bush when out in the wilderness at night by moonlight. No, it's not a mountain lion--flat terrain (no way would I hike by moonlight if there were dropoffs), no way to corner a cat, thus there's no way a cat would be that close to me. And if somehow one broke the rules (everything out there will by default classify adult humans as large predators unless demonstrated otherwise, nothing that wouldn't hunt a large predator will hunt us) I wouldn't see it until it was on me.

(You have stuff around you that would consider humans to be on the menu. I do not suggest you hike by moonlight!)

I get what you're saying. We see things that might not be there, and when a potentially dangerous situation is upon us, we fall back on the default position which is to see connections that aren't there. But this doesn't really apply to this example because this reaction was most likely the result of the vaccine. Until there is proof that it wasn't the vaccine, parents should know what could happen in rare cases. This is not fearmongering. It's showing the good, the bad, and the ugly, not just the good.

 

[peacegirl]

This video is informative, even though it's about our pets.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My faith says the only use for women are as baby factories.

My faith says I don't have to pay taxes.

My faith says to kill another faith on sight.

My faith says vaccines are from Satan.

You know we're not talking about faith. But by rejecting faith, we don't want to make the mistake of confirming product safety when we know a segment of the population (however small) will get injured or even die. This goes back to families having the right to make an informed choice based on the risk/benefit profile that they find tolerable.

Except you aren't making an informed consent. Listening to only one side isn't informed.

 

[peacegirl]

Once he owns up to his horrendous abuse of medical ethics in doing invasive procedures on children for research purposes then I will consider what he says. Until then he can go have carnal relations with a can of bug repellent.

You are assuming that he abused medical ethics. How do you know he used the children for research other than making observations that he was approved to do?

Simple enough: what's the medical diagnosis that the colonoscopies were to investigate? He's never answered.

I believe they had inflammation and were very symptomatic, but don't quote me on it. I found a video of Wakefield discussing what happened to him and what he is doing to vindicate himself.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Once he owns up to his horrendous abuse of medical ethics in doing invasive procedures on children for research purposes then I will consider what he says. Until then he can go have carnal relations with a can of bug repellent.

You are assuming that he abused medical ethics. How do you know he used the children for research other than making observations that he was approved to do?

Simple enough: what's the medical diagnosis that the colonoscopies were to investigate? He's never answered.

I believe they had inflammation and were very symptomatic, but don't quote me on it. I found a video of Wakefield discussing what happened to him and what he is doing to vindicate himself.

Why did OJ Simpson just come to mind?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

All you have to back your agenda up is fomented fear.

Yeah, but...

Did you see the picture?

There's a picture of a baby allegedly with Sweet's Syndrome, that allegedly manifested after a flu shot. The post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy is left for the viewer to fill in for themselves, once the picture has punched them in the emotions and left them unable to think.

This is the kind of argument that obviously overturns decades of careful research into vaccine safety.

Did you see the picture? What kind of unfeeling monster are you not to complety abandon rational thought after seeing the picture???

If this had anything to do with the vaccine, who wouldn't feel emotion, and why is this a bad thing? It's protective, actually. What if the vaccine did, in fact, cause the syndrome? The picture doesn't throw all rationality out the window, but it does serve an important purpose: that not all vaccines are good for all children. One size does not fit all. If that influences someone to pause before giving their child the jab, so be it. You are the kind of person who would turn your back on a mother who has watched her child regress cognitively after getting a vaccine and pleading with you to listen, but you ignore her cries by insisting that it could not have been the vaccine because the study said there is no causal link, even though there have been many parents who have reported this same scenario. Now that's cold-hearted.

The picture throws all rationality out the window because there is no evidence between the problem and the suppose cause.

Yes, emotions can't be helped when seeing such a horrific picture, but that doesn't mean all rationality is thrown out the window.

What rationality? Every one of your posts has been founded on arguments from emotion and what if's. There has been no analytical or "rational" argument presented by you. And now the Youtube video diarrhea has started,

 

[peacegirl]

That'd be your issue. Anecdotal evidence isn't good evidence because it is presumptively evidence of a cause, not actually established evidence of cause. Otherwise, it wouldn't be called anecdotal.

I understand that it's easy to mistake a cause for an association, but when something comes immediately after something else, and it resorts in something not expected, and it happens to many people, there is a cause for concern regardless of the studies that have been done.

Fundamental error: "results in".

The vast majority of people who died did so within 24 hours of consuming dihydrogen monoxide.

Water and dying would be an association, not the cause of death, although people have died of water intoxication, so it couldn't be ruled out entirely.

Of course it's just an association. As are the bogeymen you keep screaming about.

It's a crime that so much was taken down on Facebook and YouTube that it is showing only one side. I believe there is a lot of political pressure involved. People have had videos where you could see a healthy baby, and after getting a vaccine, how they began to regress. Yes, it is an association, but a compelling one, especially when this happened to more than a few children. To diss a mother and tell her it can't be the vaccine is cold as cold can be in my opinion. It's outright disrespect for a mother (and father) who saw the change with their own eyes.

DPT | Home

NVIC Co-founder & President Barbara Loe Fisher with her oldest son who suffered a reaction to the DPT Vaccine. He suffered a convulsion, collapse and brain inflammation within hours of his fourth DPT shot in 1980 when he was two and a half years old. He was left with multiple learning...

www.vaccineawarenessweek.org

You know how many people have died in the US since the Covid vaccine was distributed? About 15 million people. OMG! Covid vaccine caused 15 million people to die!

You know that's not what I'm saying, Jimmy. People died of COVID in large numbers, and they had to do something quickly. We know vaccines saved lives during this pandemic. That said, it does not remove the adverse events that people experienced from the vaccine. I am not saying the vaccine wasn't necessary due to the spread of COVID across the world, so please don't accuse me of what I didn't say.

Of course it doesn't--it's just there were few adverse events. And the vaccines probably saved millions (worldwide.)

They probably did, but that does not take away from the fact that some were hurt by the vaccine itself or the ventilators that ended up killing them. No one's to blame, though; it was a very distressing time, and there were no precedents to know how to handle what was happening.

I'm not interested in videos of talking heads.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00320-6/fulltext

19 million saved in one year. Yet you want to kill those 19 million to save a few.

And why in the world are you bringing up ventilators? Yeah, positive pressure ventilators are dangerous beasts--doctors don't use them unless needed. Due to Covid, not due to the vaccine. Vaccine deaths are either an attenuated version that overcame a weakened immune system or triggering auto immunity--and note that any infection can trigger auto immunity, the less fighting your body has to do the better. Auto immunity is more likely from an actual infection than from a vaccine.

And we had a pretty good picture of what was happening. Lots of medical questions on exactly how to handle it but the overall picture was obvious if you paid attention to history. There is a lot of pretending to be surprised to cover up the fact that they didn't want to accept reality. The only important thing not known going into it was supposed distinction between "airborne" and "droplet" vectors. That was a mistake from the days of tuberculosis--there is no "droplet" category, it's just the big size of the tuberculosis bug greatly limits how far it can spread by air before falling out. Covid appeared to mimic this but it was due to the original version having a high dose required for infection. Otherwise, it's simply the deniers claiming immaculate conception to explain the pregnant pooch.

Last I saw we were at three deaths from measles in 2025 alone. I can find anaphylaxis (without a number specified--and note that anaphylaxis almost never kills when seen promptly) and 4 deaths in immunocompromised children. Over decades of reporting. Absent from what I was reading was why they were vaccinated in the first place as it's an attenuated vaccine. The measles deaths are right where they would be expected to be: about 1 in 1,000 cases. Apply that to the nation and you would be looking at 4,000/yr.

Two children
In 2025, there were three confirmed deaths from measles in the United States, including two children. This marks a significant public health crisis, as measles was previously declared eliminated in 2000.
AAP+1

Didn't realize one of them wasn't a child. Doesn't change anything, though. Still running around 1 death per 1,000 cases. Bing will certainly show you the US population so you can make a reasonable estimate of how many will die if we don't vaccinate.

How did they come to that number? What about the side effects of the vaccine? Are you saying there are none because these are anecdotal reports that don't count in VAERS? This discussion could go on and on with no one changing their minds. As I said, all I care about is that people are given the benefits as well as the risks, so they can make an informed decision that is right for them.

We have the number of reported measles cases. We have the number reported to have died of measles. Basic math, it's in the 1 in 1,000 ballpark. Why should we question either number? Modern societies can hide death tolls, they can't hide that there were deaths. Even with state level censorship it doesn't happen--look at the Chinese press. Do they fudge death tolls? Almost certainly. Do they deny deaths happened? It doesn't appear to be. What gets reported is what doesn't cause a conflict with what any average citizen saw. Amazing how many days the temperature is just below the point that would trigger heat protection requirements for outside workers--obviously, lying, but not in a way you can be sure about any given case.

It would seem to me that measles deaths would be very different depending on what country you're talking about. It can't just be a ballpark figure for the whole world. Of course, we don't want to see any child die of a preventable disease, not even one.

 

[peacegirl]

Once he owns up to his horrendous abuse of medical ethics in doing invasive procedures on children for research purposes then I will consider what he says. Until then he can go have carnal relations with a can of bug repellent.

You are assuming that he abused medical ethics. How do you know he used the children for research other than making observations that he was approved to do?

Simple enough: what's the medical diagnosis that the colonoscopies were to investigate? He's never answered.

I believe they had inflammation and were very symptomatic, but don't quote me on it. I found a video of Wakefield discussing what happened to him and what he is doing to vindicate himself.

Why did OJ Simpson just come to mind?

Right. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit. O.J. Simpson's lawyer was slick, but it takes guts for a man who has nothing left to lose to give his side of the story. It's only fair.

 

[pood]

Whoosh!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Once he owns up to his horrendous abuse of medical ethics in doing invasive procedures on children for research purposes then I will consider what he says. Until then he can go have carnal relations with a can of bug repellent.

You are assuming that he abused medical ethics. How do you know he used the children for research other than making observations that he was approved to do?

Simple enough: what's the medical diagnosis that the colonoscopies were to investigate? He's never answered.

I believe they had inflammation and were very symptomatic, but don't quote me on it. I found a video of Wakefield discussing what happened to him and what he is doing to vindicate himself.

Why did OJ Simpson just come to mind?

Right. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit. O.J. Simpson's lawyer was slick, but it takes guts for a man who has nothing left to lose to give his side of the story. It's only fair..

He had that when defended himself between 2007 and 2010 with the GMC.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A lot of people don't trust or fully understand probabilities and keep buying lottery tickets because surely, eventually, they'll win. After all, somebody won the last lottery!

My two cents...

Yeah, somebody might turn out to be ace and gain nothing from the HPV vaccine.

 

[peacegirl]

It's a fair question, and it hasn't been answered to my satisfaction.

What would it take to satisfy you? You don't have the basics of the knowledge you would need to understand the answer; You need highshool chemistry, biology, and mathematics to a high standard, followed by a three or four year degree in epidemiology and/or virology.

You can't get that amount of education from YouTube (or from IIDB, for that matter). You need to engage in serious study, and I suspect you need to start at the primary school science and mathematics level, which means you are looking at perhaps a decade of learning (which you should have taken advantage of when you were a child, and it was freely offered to you).

Your problem is that you want simple answers, but reality isn't simple. If your education hadn't been so desperately lacking, you would know that.

Nothing is that simple bilby, even your educated belief that the benefits of all these vaccines outweight any risks. Intuitively, people feel that there is something wrong that requires a Hep B shot immedIately after the baby takes his first breath. This alone makes people question the irrationality of this, and I'm glad the government is finally catching up.

We do it because it's been demonstrated to save lives. If the mother has hep B (and the very ones most likely to have it are the ones least likely to be tested/follow up) she can pass it to her baby setting it up for lifetime problems. If the healthcare system was good enough this wouldn't be needed--the doctors would already know. But that's not what happens here.

So all infants get the brunt of a failing healthcare system? I am sure a clinic could easily check the mother's Hep B status through one blood test. A simple solution could be that the infants whose mothers did not get tested would get the Hep B shot, and the infants whose mothers were tested and were negative would not need the shot. Easy peasy.

Yeah, they could--but they wouldn't have the results fast enough.

That's not true. How long does it take to get tested and get the results in a hospital setting? Minutes, if that. Or the woman could get tested at her last obstetric appointment if she didn't want her baby to get the shot.

And it's a good idea to have the vaccine anyway. I got mine back before it was recommended for everybody--her boss was fine with it if some of those needled ended up in the arms of employee's family members rather than just employees. Since at the time we were spending weeks/year in China (lots of B around) I jumped at the chance.

That was a personal choice that everyone should have. I'm glad you're okay.






Hepatitis B is primarily transmitted through contact with infected blood, semen, or other body fluids.

Modes​

1. Sexual Contact: Hepatitis B can be spread through unprotected sexual intercourse with an infected person. The virus can enter the body through blood, saliva, semen, or vaginal fluids.
   https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=2f08...i9oZXBhdGl0aXMtYi9hYm91dC9pbmRleC5odG1s&ntb=1
2. Sharing Needles: The virus is highly contagious and can be transmitted through sharing needles or syringes contaminated with infected blood, commonly seen in intravenous drug use.
   https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=6484...vaGVhbHRoL2hvdy1kb2VzLWhlcC1iLXNwcmVhZA&ntb=1
3. Mother to Child: Pregnant individuals infected with Hepatitis B can pass the virus to their newborns during childbirth. Vaccination of the newborn can prevent infection in most cases.
   https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=2f08...i9oZXBhdGl0aXMtYi9hYm91dC9pbmRleC5odG1s&ntb=1
4. Accidental Exposure: Healthcare workers and others who come into contact with human blood are at risk of accidental needlesticks, which can transmit the virus.
   https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=6484...vaGVhbHRoL2hvdy1kb2VzLWhlcC1iLXNwcmVhZA&ntb=1
5. Household Contact: Living in the same household as someone with chronic Hepatitis B can increase the risk of transmission, especially through sharing personal items like razors or toothbrushes that may have come into contact with infected blood.
   https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=6484...vaGVhbHRoL2hvdy1kb2VzLWhlcC1iLXNwcmVhZA&ntb=1

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl is like talking to someone throwing out a fast endless stream of words while vigorously waving hands and arms.

One has only to look at the history of disease and vaccines to see vaccines have had a major effect on reducing disease.

...but won't someone think about the children?!

Vaccinators need to think about the children. When will enough be enough? When the children are forced to get 100 jabs?

Healthcare Professionals: Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule by Age (Compliant)

Compliant version of the Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule by Age

www.cdc.gov

What will be enough for you, when they are all dead?

I don't think that's a fair statement. Without placebo-controlled studies performed, how can these studies be trusted?

https://icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/no-placebo-101823.pdf

It's a fair statement.

But your site is decidedly not fair.

1) We do not do long term studies on things that are not used long term. It's a completely unreasonable standard. Nobody's later discovered a long term effect from a vaccine.

Oh really? That's not true. There have been many cases of long-term residual effects from vaccines. Look at how many people were hurt from the Covid vaccine. They have now created a coalition to help these people.

Home - React19

Science-based support for people suffering from long-term COVID-19 vaccine effects.

react19.org

2) We test against the standard of care, not against a placebo. To demand otherwise is Tuskegee level evil.

And some more deaths you are asking for:

Flu-like illness activity now at highest rate on record, new CDC data shows

Flu activity is continuing to climb across the U.S. as hospitalizations rise, updated data from the CDC shows.

abcnews.go.com

Accuracy is the name of the game. Hopefully, the testing isn't biased in favor of the vaccine they are testing. I don't trust the AAP from what I read.

Last season, 289 children died from flu and nearly all were unvaccinated.

That's not chance. That's a few hundred more dead kids sacrificed on the altar of denial.

The flu shot has probably mutated, but they say the flu vaccine could still help prevent hospitalizations and death. If that's the case, and 289 children who died from influenza didn't have to, then the vaccine would obviously be warranted, especially if there are no complications from the shot itself. Additionally, if only the unvaccinated have died (assuming the stats are correct, which would be ample enough evidence that the flu vaccine helps to prevent death), then the vaccinated would have nothing to worry about. I'm sure the parents of those children who died would be devastated and rethink their position on vaccines in general.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) Copyright. You are going way beyond what fair use permits, especially as there is no use here as you are not addressing their words at all. Their website does not permit such copying.

I didn't post that much. I would consider it fair use because I am using it to share their website. I'm not using it commercially. I think they would approve because it's free advertising for their website.

You considering it fair use doesn't make it so.

2) They are acting as if exemptions are a good thing--without proving that there's any reason. Especially as it's total garbage.

They are a good thing if you value freedom. Parents should not have to come up with reasons to satisfy the state as to why they should be exempt: religious, medical, conscientious, or anything else.

Nor should parents have to come up with reasons not to take their child to the doctor when they are sick or injured.

Conscience? Where is the ethical conflict? The only one I have ever heard presented is because of the use of fetal stem cells in testing. But you shouldn't get to pick and choose, if you're going to reject something because of fetal stem cell testing then you need to reject all drugs that used fetal stem cell testing--which is basically 100% of all modern drugs. You'll have to go back to the old stuff if you want to avoid tThhis.

I wasn't referring to the ingredients. You left out parts of my response. If you told a friend all the reasons their child should get a vaccine, and they listened to you, but their child ended up getting a rare reaction and became seriously ill, it would be difficult for your conscience not to feel guilt over your bad advice.

That's not an ethical conflict.

Religious belief? Again, I don't believe you should be allowed to pick and choose. Reject all or reject none. No religion addresses vaccination in any fashion. You (assuming you are Christian) don't get to choose which of the 10 commandments to follow.

Religious exemption means exemption from all vaccines, I believe. I'm not Christian.

Religious Exemptions to Vaccines: A Legal and Historical Examination

Courts and lawmakers have long debated where personal faith ends and public health begins.

religiouslibertytv.substack.com

The point is that there is no religion that has any objection to vaccines. There is IIRC one that has an objection to medical treatment in general, and some could reject vaccines produced from pigs--but I'm not aware of any that are at this point. We have, unfortunately, failed to enforce the intent of such measures which were to keep from prohibiting things that religions expected but which the law prohibited. Things like some Native American tribes used peyote in religious rituals, but it was banned along with other hallucinogenic recreational drugs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But who is to say that my concerns are without any merit

I will!

Peacegirl, your concerns are without any merit.

You made me laugh.

They do far more harm than good, and are based on ignorance, unreason, lies, and propaganda.

You should shut the fuck up about them, before your recklessness kills somebody's baby. We can only hope that it hasn't already done so.

When somebody uses negative language, it tells me they have nothing better to use to support their argument. I am not reckless. I took great care in analyzing what was good for my kids when they were young, although now they have children of their own. They make their own decisions. I already told you I don't proselytize, so what the hell are you worried about other than losing the debate?

Your trust in sources which you have clearly been shown are lying does not imply proper care. You can take great care to ensure your children's clothes are lined up by the spectrum while at the same time not taking care of ensuring they have clothes that fit.

 

[peacegirl]

It's not a good comparison because we cannot control whether someone rams their car into us, but we can control whether we ram 36 injections into a child.

So, risk only matters if you have some control over it. Doesn't matter if the kid in the next desk rams measles into your kid and kills them.

Getting measles from someone who sits next to you is not the same thing as ramming an attenuated virus into you through an injection, however well-intentioned. Again, I am not suggesting that the vaccine hasn't saved lives or should not be used in an effort to save more lives throughout the world, if this eradication does not come at a price for some due to the shot turning out to be worse than the disease it is trying to prevent.

Intentions almost never count, what counts is results.

Suppose your child starved because you refused to feed them that evil food. Would a jury exonerate you?

Why is this any different? Inaction leading to predictable, deadly results.

There is no comparison. What you're saying is that not vaccinating is like not feeding. That's ridiculous. Inaction by not vaccinating does not mean a child will die, whereas a child will die if not fed.

https://academic.oup.com/inthealth/article/12/5/375/5868932

I also read this: Measles is a common infection seen in many developing countries, especially in Asia and Africa. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that 110,000 measles related deaths occurred globally in 2017 and most deaths involved children under the age of 5.<a href="https://www.nvic.org/disease-vaccine/measles/history-in-america#citation85">⁸⁵</a>&nbsp;Complications occur more frequently in young children who are malnourished and insufficient in vitamin A. Children with immunosuppressive diseases, such as HIV, are also more likely to suffer from complications.<a href="https://www.nvic.org/disease-vaccine/measles/history-in-america#citation86">⁸⁶</a>

History of Measles - National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)

Learn about the history of Measles in America and other countries.

www.nvic.org

So? You're showing the effect of sanitation etc on disease mortality. We have never denied that so you are proving nothing.

It's not just about sanitation, but it certainly helps the spread of disease. It's difficult to compare third-world to first-world countries, in that there is more disease overall due to malnutrition, poor sanitation, and filthy drinking water.