Vaccines, Vaccinations Discussions

[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 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.

Which is what they have done. Note the population distribution of vaccination, note the distribution of whether patients are vaccinated. Of course the woo purveyors will just blame the vaccine for what Covid does to you.

 

[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.

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.

And it's totally preposterous that 2 + 2 = 4.

And, yes, you should accept any jab unless you're allergic to it, or it's attenuated and you're immune compromised. The reality is by the time they end up on the recommended vaccine list the numbers are extremely in favor of doing it. Anything that wasn't would be recommended for high risk groups, not everyone. (For example, mpox.)

 

[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?

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.

To actually figure out what's valid is a job for experts, none of us are remotely qualified. There are three things you can do, however:

1) Look at what other experts are saying. When garbage is produced it's likely to be called out--specific flaws will be pointed out.

2) Look at the scenario they are claiming. For example, that atrocious myocarditis study the infection risk was considered over three months. Like it was somehow going to magically go away??? (And they had a decimal point error, but that's much harder to spot.)

3) If a bunch of studies saying X have been debunked then your initial assumption should be that any other study saying X is likewise garbage. The purveyors of garbage try to flood the market.

 

[peacegirl]

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?!?!

Meet all 37 White House ballroom donors funding the $300 million build, including Silicon Valley tech giants, crypto bros and the Lutnicks | Fortune

The list, reviewed by Fortune, did not mention specific dollar amounts offered by each contributor.

fortune.com

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.

I don't believe that he is looking to support woo. I see him as someone who is trying to make our country healthy, and part of that concern is the safety and efficacy of vaccines. He's not an ogre as he's being portrayed. You may not agree with him, but to accuse him of having underhanded motives is going too far.

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.)

I thought there was medical help available after a person got rabies. Wow!

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.

Instead of "broader", how about "without bias"? Obviously, there is bias on both sides.

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

I'm not sure what "specialists in recovery" means. Would the vaccine-injured become the specialists on his appointed panel?

 

[peacegirl]

You may find this guy interesting.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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?!?!

Meet all 37 White House ballroom donors funding the $300 million build, including Silicon Valley tech giants, crypto bros and the Lutnicks | Fortune

The list, reviewed by Fortune, did not mention specific dollar amounts offered by each contributor.

fortune.com

(1) Trump has said before someone else will pay for something but lied.
(2) Trump said they wouldn't tear anything down but did. Lied again.
(3) Trump said it would be $200M. He lied or was wrong. Later he said $400M. You should expect that to go up again.
(4) Trump says he is paying for some of it. Where will he get the money? From us. He is suing us for $10B.
(5) One-time construction isn't the only cost: consider sustainability, i.e. maintenance, security, staff, utilities, extra dinners and dances with Kim Jong Un and Putin just because it's there, in perpetuity.

 

[scombrid]

Now the dumb dumbs are going to stop vaccinating the military against the flu. That in spite of many years of study demonstrating that the flu vaccine is very effective at reducing costs and improving readiness by keeping entire units from getting sick at the same time. To quote Dark Helmet, I’m surrounded by assholes.

 

[ZiprHead]

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?!?!

Meet all 37 White House ballroom donors funding the $300 million build, including Silicon Valley tech giants, crypto bros and the Lutnicks | Fortune

The list, reviewed by Fortune, did not mention specific dollar amounts offered by each contributor.

fortune.com

(1) Trump has said before someone else will pay for something but lied.
(2) Trump said they wouldn't tear anything down but did. Lied again.
(3) Trump said it would be $200M. He lied or was wrong. Later he said $400M. You should expect that to go up again.
(4) Trump says he is paying for some of it. Where will he get the money? From us. He is suing us for $10B.
(5) One-time construction isn't the only cost: consider sustainability, i.e. maintenance, security, staff, utilities, extra dinners and dances with Kim Jong Un and Putin just because it's there, in perpetuity.

I don't think he really cares whether it is built or not. It's all just another grift, a means to collect bribes from "donors" who have business before the government.

 

[peacegirl]

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?!?!

Meet all 37 White House ballroom donors funding the $300 million build, including Silicon Valley tech giants, crypto bros and the Lutnicks | Fortune

The list, reviewed by Fortune, did not mention specific dollar amounts offered by each contributor.

fortune.com

(1) Trump has said before someone else will pay for something but lied.
(2) Trump said they wouldn't tear anything down but did. Lied again.
(3) Trump said it would be $200M. He lied or was wrong. Later he said $400M. You should expect that to go up again.
(4) Trump says he is paying for some of it. Where will he get the money? From us. He is suing us for $10B.
(5) One-time construction isn't the only cost: consider sustainability, i.e. maintenance, security, staff, utilities, extra dinners and dances with Kim Jong Un and Putin just because it's there, in perpetuity.

I don't understand his motives, but that's beside the point. To expect the public to pay for his entertainment in tax dollars is crazy.