Vaccines, Vaccinations Discussions

[peacegirl]

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.

I doubt that unless a person gets a streptococcus infection. That can become life-threatening.

 

[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

So? Covid causes more blood clots than the JJ vaccine. So the benefits outweigh risks. I actually already told you this: blood clots are far more correlated to covid than the vaccines.

I get that. I will continue to listen to both sides, as it's not just about blood clots. It's about whether Covid vaccines actually saved as many lives as was claimed, and whether the fallout of adverse events that many people experienced was worth the risk.

It is trivially easy to see the benefit. The dead continue to skew very heavily towards unvaccinated.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

How can they figure that out? Wouldn't they have to compare the people who got vaccinated (including the number of jabs) to the people who didn't, and then see if the unvaccinated ended up in the hospital more often than the vaccinated? Even then, how are the variables controlled for other contributing cofactors? It seems like a flimsy study, which is why they wouldn't publish it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's always going to be about something else. That's the way conspiracy theories work. They'll claim it's part of alien technology. You debunk it. Then they claim abortions are in the vaccines. You debunk that. Then, they claim nanobots are in the vaccines. You debunk that. Then they claim they cause 74% of blood clot deaths. Then you debunk that. They have an agenda which is why they will always be making up stuff. It won't stop. To just ignore the pattern is not being open-minded to both sides. It's being afraid of letting go of faith in their cult.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.

I agree that anyone concerned about vaccines may give false testimony about things that don't exist, but that doesn't mean there aren't concerns that DO exist. You cannot disagree with all just because you disagree with one.

It's not about just one being false. Rather, it's about the torrent of things proven false. When they trot out 100 pieces of shit why do you think the 101st isn't also shit?

 

[peacegirl]

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.

I am trying to figure it all out. Am I supposed to accept every single jab on the market, or risk dying? I mean, come on, Loren, this doesn't seem right for anyone who has a healthy immune system that can attack invaders.

 

[peacegirl]

It's always going to be about something else. That's the way conspiracy theories work. They'll claim it's part of alien technology. You debunk it. Then they claim abortions are in the vaccines. You debunk that. Then, they claim nanobots are in the vaccines. You debunk that. Then they claim they cause 74% of blood clot deaths. Then you debunk that. They have an agenda which is why they will always be making up stuff. It won't stop. To just ignore the pattern is not being open-minded to both sides. It's being afraid of letting go of faith in their cult.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.

I agree that anyone concerned about vaccines may give false testimony about things that don't exist, but that doesn't mean there aren't concerns that DO exist. You cannot disagree with all just because you disagree with one.

It's not about just one being false. Rather, it's about the torrent of things proven false. When they trot out 100 pieces of shit why do you think the 101st isn't also shit?

I haven't really studied all the shit that you say they put out, so I can't respond to this. If I were put in a position where I needed a vaccine, I would have to do much more research to see which studies are valid and which ones aren't. This topic is making my head spin.

 

[peacegirl]

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.)

People will not get vaccinated unless it serves them and their families, especially if they believe there is a risk to them. That's just human nature. It has nothing to do with eugenics or purposely hurting the weak. After all, self-preservation is the first law of nature.

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.

An overactive immune system isn't good either. I agree.

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.

It seems to me that the choice to get vaccinated, especially during a pandemic or epidemic, would be an easy call, but since the COVID pandemic, it has been a cause for concern due to adverse events (friendly fire) that have hurt many people. How many? I'm not sure. I agree that there is no perfect answer. Only the one that provides the better chance of survival without long-lasting complications.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

If that's true, then I would probably opt to get the vaccine, especially if the complaints were just associations. But sometimes associations end up being causal long before a study can be done to prove it. At that Senate meeting, they were saying that they were not provided with the studies to prove the COVID-19 vaccine was safe. They discussed other vaccines as well, but I didn't watch the whole thing. It got rather testy. People looked like they were ready to punch each other. RFK Jr. handled himself well, in my opinion, after being ridiculed so harshly by some on the panel, not all.

 

[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.

How can they figure that out? Wouldn't they have to compare the people who got vaccinated (including the number of jabs) to the people who didn't, and then see if the unvaccinated ended up in the hospital more often than the vaccinated?

Yes and that's easy.

Even then, how are the variables controlled for other contributing cofactors?

You do a multi-variate analysis. Or you look at hypothetical alternatives and eliminate them. What alternative variables are you imagining that would halve ER visits?

It seems like a flimsy study,

Why?

which is why they wouldn't publish it.

How does their reason align to yours? Evidence for your claim?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You can have a high degree of confidence that these concerns based completely on ignorance will most likely turn out to be bullshit, because of how many of the concerns are bullshit.

If these concerns based on ignorance turn out to be bullshit, then that will change the tide back to people getting every vaccine recommended without a drop of hesitation.

You seem to think that people are completely rational actors able to discern the truth.

That is unquestionably far, far from reality.

The Republicans have made a whole industry out of manufacturing an illusion far from reality.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

Why would they do this? To be malicious? For money? For what? Don't you think they have the same desire to serve their constituency as those on the other side of the political aisle?

 

[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.

If that's true, then I would probably opt to get the vaccine, especially if the complaints were just associations. But sometimes associations end up being causal long before a study can be done to prove it.

It is better than a conspiracy theory, because you get to say even if there is no evidence from the studies, metadata studies, and professional observation, the associations could just end up being casual in the end.

You are effectively saying that because we can't prove that you can't prove it, you win. The best part being you don't even have to demonstrate a damn thing as you just assert that maybe *blah blah vaccines cause mumps*, but because I can't prove that you can't prove it...

 

[peacegirl]

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.

How can they figure that out? Wouldn't they have to compare the people who got vaccinated (including the number of jabs) to the people who didn't, and then see if the unvaccinated ended up in the hospital more often than the vaccinated?

Yes and that's easy.

Even then, how are the variables controlled for other contributing cofactors?

You do a multi-variate analysis. Or you look at hypothetical alternatives and eliminate them. What alternative variables are you imagining that would halve ER visits?

If they were looking at one variable, such as COVID-19 vaccine, the number of visits to the previous winter could be compared, and a conclusion drawn that the vaccine helped, unless people who were sick decided to stay home and let Covid run its course at home. Then the stats would be misleading as to the true reason for fewer hospital stays. I'm just playing the devil's advocate, as usual.

It seems like a flimsy study,

Why?

The study may be well-designed, but the interpretation may not tell the whole story.

which is why they wouldn't publish it.

How does their reason align to yours? Evidence for your claim?

I'm not making a claim. I'm just wondering whether their studies proved that the benefit of the vaccine was a grand slam.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

If that's true, then I would probably opt to get the vaccine, especially if the complaints were just associations. But sometimes associations end up being causal long before a study can be done to prove it.

It is better than a conspiracy theory, because you get to say even if there is no evidence from the studies, metadata studies, and professional observation, the associations could just end up being casual in the end.

You are effectively saying that because we can't prove that you can't prove it, you win.

This is not about winning. It's about getting answers to important questions that will have an effect on our very lives. This isn't a dress rehearsal.

The best part being you don't even have to demonstrate a damn thing as you just assert that maybe *blah blah vaccines cause mumps*, but because I can't prove that you can't prove it...

Well isn't proof of something what we're looking for? I understand that there is no perfect answer in any of this, just what provides our best shot to survive in one piece. That's what we all want.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

How dare you beat me to posting this?!?!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The best part being you don't even have to demonstrate a damn thing as you just assert that maybe *blah blah vaccines cause mumps*, but because I can't prove that you can't prove it...

Well isn't proof of something what we're looking for? I understand that there is no perfect answer in any of this, just what provides our best shot to survive in one piece. That's what we all want.

You aren't looking for proof or evidence, you are concocting doubt from thin air, because the data doesn't support your agenda.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

Gobbels.

Claiming them a million times doesn't make them appear.

We have already seen that the count of "serious" side effects includes the perfectly normal flu-like effects of your body engaging in it's mock battle with the vaccine.

 

[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.

How can they figure that out? Wouldn't they have to compare the people who got vaccinated (including the number of jabs) to the people who didn't, and then see if the unvaccinated ended up in the hospital more often than the vaccinated?

Yes and that's easy.

Even then, how are the variables controlled for other contributing cofactors?

You do a multi-variate analysis. Or you look at hypothetical alternatives and eliminate them. What alternative variables are you imagining that would halve ER visits?

If they were looking at one variable, such as COVID-19 vaccine, the number of visits to the previous winter could be compared, and a conclusion drawn that the vaccine helped, unless people who were sick decided to stay home and let Covid run its course at home. Then the stats would be misleading as to the true reason for fewer hospital stays. I'm just playing the devil's advocate, as usual.

It seems like a flimsy study,

Why?

The study may be well-designed, but the interpretation may not tell the whole story.

which is why they wouldn't publish it.

How does their reason align to yours? Evidence for your claim?

I'm not making a claim. I'm just wondering whether their studies proved that the benefit of the vaccine was a grand slam.

They have a clear anti-vaccine bias and are not telling us.

 

[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.

Why would they do this? To be malicious? For money? For what? Don't you think they have the same desire to serve their constituency as those on the other side of the political aisle?

The more health problems the more you can sell woo.

And there's the eugenics possibility. He sure waddles and quacks.

And what you are missing is their constituency is the elite, not the normal person. People are to be manipulated, not to be helped.

 

[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.

I doubt that unless a person gets a streptococcus infection. That can become life-threatening.

I said "more harmful material". I didn't say the result was serious. Usually your body successfully fights it off.

Your body is in an eternal low-grade war with the environment, you usually do not notice this except when it fails. For a complete failure, look at what happens with death. Nothing comes along and infects dead bodies indoors, it's what's already there that does the damage.