Vaccines, Vaccinations Discussions

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes it has. Trump and the Republicans have always wanted to destroy social programs. Under Trump, research is being destroyed and replaced with quackery. He just wants the cash money for his authoritarianism and Big Ballroom.

I think his Big Ballroom is quite extravagant considering the state of our union, but it is money out of his pocket, right? It just looks flamboyant when so many people are suffering economically.

You really think it's not the taxpayers paying for it?!?!

Vaccines are still available for those who want them. Nothing is being taken away. My only concern is having real choice, not appearances.

He has replaced the panel of experts and called them woke. So it hasn't happened yet. The panel will change whether or not it is required for certain insurance to cover certain things. Meanwhile, the rich fat cats make bigger cash money and the sick and poor won't be able to afford prescriptions/needed things of "choice" out of their own pockets.

I don't get the feeling that this is about fat cats trying to exploit anyone. I think RFK Jr. is trying to do the right thing for his constituents.

You not getting a feeling proves nothing.

He is trying to do the "right" thing for the woo industry. He's trying to destroy anything that actually works.

We've already seen the CDC "temporarily" pause testing for many diseases. It's been a while, no news. No reason to think there's anything temporary about it.

Admittedly, some of it isn't going to matter. CDC rabies tests rarely save anyone. But rarely is not never. (A positive rabies test does nothing for the patient, but there are situations where it's a red alert to see if others could have been infected.)

This tracks with how major insurance companies have previously responded to recent vaccine policy changes under Trump. Multiple insurance companies and industry associations told PolitiFact these insurers will continue to cover the same vaccines they covered before.

How court ruling on vaccine policy affects insurance

Even as the Trump administration has changed vaccine recommendations, major insurance companies have largely continued to cover vaccines the U.S. government previously recommended. A recent court ruling hasn’t altered that.

www.politifact.com

The bigger policy changes haven't happened yet. Didn't you read the article that panel change is __coming__?

Yes, I know.

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2026-04-13/new-rules-may-allow-broader-picks-for-cdc-vaccine-panel

"Broader" as in total quacks.

Specialists in recovery from vaccine injury--except no such domain exists. 100% woo. So this permits the appointment of quacks.

 

[peacegirl]

But what about the unvaccinated children who are doing just fine?

Sick children aren't fine.

I'm talking about the unvaccinated who are robust with no chronic illnesses that some vaccinated individuals have. Maybe there is no causal connection, but I would want to see the long-term studies, which is the responsible thing to do.

Real world the infection rate for measles is approximately 100%.

Your robust with no chronic illness kid is nothing like safe. Probably not 1 in 1,000 deadly, but still quite deadly and remember that most things which might kill also might maim. The ones who didn't quite die probably aren't ever going to be the same again. Any problem, not just measles.

Chicken Pox and Measles used to be a disease typically all children would get. So you are easily encouraging children to get sick.

Yes, they got these illnesses, and got over them. They got lifetime protection. They even had chicken pox parties. I'm not sure if they have them anymore.

They get the illnesses and most get over them. Not all. They had chicken pox parties because it's less deadly if you have it earlier in life.

Know what else they used to do long ago: variolization. It came before vaccines. Deliberate transdermal infection with smallpox. Fatality rate was ~1%. But it was still better than the alternative.

Most Russian Roulette players survive.

Why should you be concerned if most children are vaccinated? Are you upset that the unvaccinated are getting the benefits of the vaccinated? What is it? The unvaccinated can't hurt your vaccinated child, so why can't you let it go?

Oh cool, the argument has switched allegedly from science (*insert baseless Youtube video*) to an attack on me being overbearing. Adorable!

Huh? I am just asking a legitimate question as to why the pro-vaxxers are so concerned about the anti-vaxxers when the majority of children get vaccinated, although that may be changing. I've asked this question before, but no one has answered.

I can see the need for you to make the emotional ploy because you have no science to back your repugnant stance that sick children are "doing just fine".

Why are you twisting my words? That's not what I said, nor is it what I meant, and you know it.

He's not twisting your words, you are avoiding confronting the horrible reality of your position.

I want to understand the side effects. Let's stick to the COVID vaccine because it's more recent. Many complaints of serious side effects that are completely ignored. What do you have to say about it?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

His point could have been that voting for Donald Trump is logically inconsistent with espousing world peace.

He knows it's not logically inconsistent when all politics will be coming to an end in the new world. We will have transcended this period of history. He's just trying to get people to look at me with disgust. That's his goal.

Yeah, they'll end all politics--when there's nobody left there will be no politics.

Most simply want to take as much as they can, the future doesn't matter. And some are actively end timers--they seek the final showdown which ends the world, the good (which they think they are) go to heaven and everyone else goes to hell.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Vaccines are still available for those who want them.

Vaccines are a community level protection.

How would you feel about optional DUI guidelines - you drive at less than 0.08 BAC if you want, but don't impose on other people's freedom of choice.

While we are at it, we can have speed limits that are applicable "for those that want them".

This kind of libertarian horseshit doesn't stand a moment of rational thought. Though it seems that you take the position that you can opt out of rationality too.

There is a difference between a person being hurt by a drunk driver and getting hurt by someone who didn't get their vaccine. There is no harm to the driver in not drinking and driving, but there could be harm to the person who gets a certain vaccine if he is one of the unfortunates. Again, I am not telling people to avoid vaccination, but it is not as clear-cut as you think, bilby.

DR. TINA PEERS: SPIKE PROTEIN, LONG COVID, AND THE SEARCH FOR RELIEF - The HighWire

Dr. Tina Peers, functional medicine physician, explains her clinical concern that the body may struggle to clear COVID-19 spike protein on its own. Whether from infection or injection, spike protein binds to ACE2 receptors found throughout the body, in the brain, heart, arteries, lungs, and...

thehighwire.com

You know what really causes the spike protein? Covid.

This is a case where the vaccine has a slight echo of the risk of the disease itself. Recently I ran into some data (didn't attempt to track down the studies involved) on the incidence of Covid. Estimate from 12 to 18 months between infections.

And the CDC is refusing to look at a recent study from the VA showing the vaccine provides about a 50% reduction in infection and a much higher rate of protection against serious infection.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I want to understand the side effects. Let's stick to the COVID vaccine because it's more recent. Many complaints of serious side effects that are completely ignored. What do you have to say about it?

"Many complaints of serious side effects that are completely ignored"? I'd question every part of that "claim".

• many complaints at all
  • not even remotely providing a number
• many serious side effects
  • no number
  • no description of the "serious" "side effects"
• completely ignored
  • the complaints aren't ignored
  • the serious effects weren't ignored because doctors were involved

Your statement is bullshit. Your statement is uncited. Your statement is worse than vague. Your statement is riddled with emotional language to make people question things without actually providing any data to justify any of your language or agenda.

Tens of millions received the vaccine, hundreds of millions of doses. Billions globally. The benefits were seen in the disparate outcome of the magnitude plus reduction in deaths/hospitalizations compared to not getting a vaccine.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The unvaccinated can't hurt your vaccinated child,

That is incorrect.

And you have no excuse for not knowing that it is incorrect.

How can an unvaccinated child hurt your child who has been fully vaccinated and therefore protected? Wouldn't that indicate the vaccines weren't doing their job?

Try reading. We've explained it many times.

1) Vaccines generally have a minimum age below which they do not provide much protection. Anyone below that point is vulnerable, the only way to protect them is herd immunity.

2) No vaccine is 100% effective.

3) There are a few people with medical issues that preclude some vaccines.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. The stats from the time soon before the vaccine was introduced was 1 in 1,000. Nobody's presented anything else. In the far past it was 1 in 10,000--which only makes sense if 9 of the 10 victims would have died from something else before there were any vaccines. Doesn't mean they didn't die, though--pre-vaccine mortality to preventable diseases was well above 1 in 1,000. There is absolutely no reason to think we wouldn't go back to that state without the vaccines.

Isn't it possible that we have evolved to fight certain diseases due to stronger immune systems and better health in general, that, at an earlier time, would not have been enough to ward off these diseases off? Just a thought. This is AI generated but it gives us a clue why people died in 1348 in London. I don’t think vaccines would have saved them in conditions like this.

And what is the relevance supposed to be?

Just because there were bigger threats back then doesn't mean disease is not a threat.

And note you're being led down the eugenics route--"stronger immune systems". They're trying to cull the "weak". (I don't think you actually support eugenics--you just don't realize where they are leading you.)

Um, no, stronger immune systems are not always superior. The problem is that immune systems are nowhere near perfect at target discrimination. By a simple measure of "strong" my immune system is good. I can count the total number of times I can remember having any symptoms of infection on my fingers. Remove the dupes and one hand is enough. But it's messed me up badly and I presume somewhere in the not too distant future I'll have to take immune suppressors.

When inactivated or subcomponent (which includes mRNA) vaccines kill it's because the immune system targeting went wrong. Friendly fire. It's always possible with any infection, the bigger the fight the more likely it is to happen. The only defense is to minimize the number of infections. Successfully fighting an infection does not make your immune system stronger, the only "improvement" is culling those who couldn't fight well enough.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I agree, but it is still difficult for some to allow so many ingredients or combination of ingredients being pumped into their children over the course of 18 years. To these individuals, it feels counter-intuitive, which isn’t proof of anything other than trusting their God-given (i.e., their common sense) intuition.

One scraped knee pumps more harmful material into a child than all recombinant and mRNA vaccines combined.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Isn't it possible that we have evolved to fight certain diseases due to stronger immune systems and better health in general, that, at an earlier time, would not have been enough to ward these diseases off? Just a thought.

That's barely a thought; I feel you are being too generous to yourself when describing it as such.

The answer is no; The reasons are, like everything in biology, complex; But as a first pass explanation, bacteria and viruses have FAR shorter generations than humans, so the evolutionary advantage lies with the pathogens. As we can see with COVID, there have been hundreds of variants identified over the course of just seven years, and each variant requires many generations of viruses before it can arise and be selected for (ie, to evolve) - how many generations of your family can you manage to raise (and either survive or succumb to Covid) in seven years?

Could it be that these variants will not get a foothold as COVID did in 2020? Do you believe in 7 years, they will be selected and be even more aggressive than the pandemic of 2020? I agree that if there was another pandemic of this type, the world would be better prepared because they would know what they’re dealing with.

They get a foothold. We see variant after variant sweeping the world. If the count were accurate it would be at #6 or #7 on the top causes of death in the US--and note that #1 through #5 are actually groups, not individual causes. As a single cause it's vying for the #1 spot against Alzheimer's.

And Covid has the really nasty property that most spread is before symptoms show. This means there's no evolutionary pressure towards milder disease. We have gotten lucky in that the mutation that made it spread so much better was a matter of settling higher in the respiratory tract--which had the side effect of about halving the lethality. But note that while this reduced direct kills from lung damage it did nothing about the secondary kills from whatever it does to the body. We know it messes with clotting (lots of the unreported Covid deaths are Covid-caused clots that got into someplace lethal) and we are still rearranging the deck chairs about long Covid. Until someone finds the underlying cause I expect this to continue.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Note from the above-linked article that some bacteria have a generation time of just t5 minutes (!)

Guess what that means.

What does it mean? That everyone will get sick from that generation of bacteria if exposed? Are we all doomed? It’s true that antibiotics have saved so many, but if used incorrectly they stop working. Could too many vaccines produce unpredictable side-effects when overused? I’m just asking so don’t pounce on me, which is your MO. .

We have a generation time of ~30 years.

They get 8,000 generations for every human generation.

You're betting on the human in a race between a runner and a fighter plane.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For peacegirl from the CDC, before RFK Jr. gets busy taking it down and rewriting it with his moronic fantasies.

It makes logical sense to receive protection from a full blown disease, but when will enough be enough? How many more vaccines will be added to the vaccine schedule in the coming years? If other vaccines are not dropped due to reduced risk, I cannot imagine our kids getting more jabs than they already are. They are becoming pin cushions and it brings up serious concerns.

The more jabs we get the fewer diseases will kill us.

I'd much prefer to fight a mock battle than a real one.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do you believe in 7 years, they will be selected and be even more aggressive than the pandemic of 2020?

No. Pathogens tend to be selected for sub-lethality; A vector who dies stops spreading his germs.

You really should stop JAQing off, and learn at least some basic facts about disease, before holding forth with your thinly veiled and utterly absurd opinions.

Covid mostly spreads before it shows symptoms, thus has little pressure to evolve for lower lethality.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I will not SHUT UP!

Of course you won’t. You have a compulsion to spread misinformation that will lead to the deaths of both children and adults. Does that give you a sense of power?

Huh? You are stretching it now. You keep using the blame game as if I’m the cause of horrible deaths by not doing what the government wants. This has not been close to proving. It’s a fear tactic. If I’m wrong I’ll change my mind but don’t bank on it! Bilby is full of himself. I can’t stomach his pride over nothing but hot air and a threatening warning!

They're the ones using fear tactics to destroy what works so you'll turn to their woo.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Blood clots surge

I'm not going to watch as I see politicians and thus the logical conclusion is that it's garbage.

But what causes clots? Covid.

The plague rats keep blaming the vaccine for what the disease does.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Blood clots surge

What if this is misinformation and you are spreading it? Do you think that would be proper for you to spread misinformation?

This was a live Senate hearing, allowing for both sides of the aisle to speak their minds. This has nothing to do with my spreading anything.

Scientific information in a live Senate hearing? It's false. Assume the opposite and you'll almost never be wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To state it simply, peacegirl.

Your post implies that vaccines cause blood clots.

The research shows that COVID causes blood clots. Vaccines help to PREVENT COVID.

So the opposite is true, but you haven't acknowledged Don2's post.

They discussed this. This hearing was eye-opening. All they were asking was for the studies that proved the COVID-19 vaccines were safe, which the other side couldn't provide.

This article supports the COVID vaccine to be used because the risks outweigh the benefits, but clearly states that blood clots can be caused by the vaccine in some people.

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/13/8/833

It's the same problem at always: You are demanding absolute perfection from vaccines rather than comparing them to the alternative.

 

[peacegirl]

This parody isn’t related to vaccines but it made me laugh about the arbitrariness of medicine in general.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is the earth really mostly round, or could it be flat? I don’t know myself, I would just like to explore both sides of the controversy. Teach the controversy!

Some of the best, brightest people say it is flat.

Many people, some of the best and brightest, say that evolution is false and the earth is 6,000 years old.

I dunno myself. I am JAQing off.

Earth is 6,000 "years" old--God lives on a distant planet around Sagittarius A*.

 

[peacegirl]

Isn't it possible that we have evolved to fight certain diseases due to stronger immune systems and better health in general, that, at an earlier time, would not have been enough to ward these diseases off? Just a thought.

That's barely a thought; I feel you are being too generous to yourself when describing it as such.

The answer is no; The reasons are, like everything in biology, complex; But as a first pass explanation, bacteria and viruses have FAR shorter generations than humans, so the evolutionary advantage lies with the pathogens. As we can see with COVID, there have been hundreds of variants identified over the course of just seven years, and each variant requires many generations of viruses before it can arise and be selected for (ie, to evolve) - how many generations of your family can you manage to raise (and either survive or succumb to Covid) in seven years?

Could it be that these variants will not get a foothold as COVID did in 2020? Do you believe in 7 years, they will be selected and be even more aggressive than the pandemic of 2020? I agree that if there was another pandemic of this type, the world would be better prepared because they would know what they’re dealing with.

They get a foothold. We see variant after variant sweeping the world. If the count were accurate it would be at #6 or #7 on the top causes of death in the US--and note that #1 through #5 are actually groups, not individual causes. As a single cause it's vying for the #1 spot against Alzheimer's.

And Covid has the really nasty property that most spread is before symptoms show. This means there's no evolutionary pressure towards milder disease. We have gotten lucky in that the mutation that made it spread so much better was a matter of settling higher in the respiratory tract--which had the side effect of about halving the lethality. But note that while this reduced direct kills from lung damage it did nothing about the secondary kills from whatever it does to the body. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseases_and_epidemics_of_the_19th_centuryWe know it messes with clotting (lots of the unreported Covid deaths are Covid-caused clots that got into someplace lethal) and we are still rearranging the deck chairs about long Covid. Until someone finds the underlying cause I expect this to continue.

Let's start from the beginning.

Diseases and epidemics of the 19th century - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2026/04/22/covid-vaccine-report-blocked-cdc-mmwr/

CDC won't publish report showing covid shots cut likelihood of hospital visits​

CDC won't publish report showing covid shots cut likelihood of hospital visits

The report, which had cleared the agency's scientific-review process, had been delayed. It now won't be published at all, people familiar with the decision told The Post.

A report showing the efficacy of the covid-19 vaccine that was previously delayed by the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been blocked from being published in the agency's flagship scientific journal, according to three people familiar with the decision who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. The report showed that the vaccine reduced emergency department visits and hospitalizations among healthy adults by about half this past winter.