Mr. Brain Worm(RFK)/Public Health Megathread
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| The evidence is pretty clear on red meat too. It should be eaten in moderation and chicken/fish are healthier. Red meat consumption increases your risk of cancer. |
Anonymous
But we banned red dye in unhealthy sugary foods! 
|
Anonymous
OK Big Rapeseed |
Anonymous
That is all ya got? |
Anonymous
You ever wonder why vaccines need special legal protection no other form of healthcare gets? We still make antibiotics and replace knees without special legal immunity. |
Anonymous
Vaccines are not the same here as it is matter of public health whereas your individual treatment of a tooth abscess, etc is generally not, nor your decision to ger a knee replacement. The law works differently for vaccines and has historically. You are welcome to google it yourself so you can stop wondering, but we know you don't actually care about the legal rationale. Furthermore, should you have a communicable disease of public concern such as TB, proven to be contagious (eg smear positive sputum sample), you can be forcibly quarantined if you refuse, depending on the state. |
Anonymous
Idiotic take. No one gives antibiotics to hundreds of millions of people as preventative care. Vaccines need special protection because when you give vaccines to 300 million people, there will be adverse effects in a very, verrrrry small fraction of people, for example Guillain Barre syndrome. We cannot allow people to go bankrupt who'd make vaccines that protect 99% of the population because a dozen people happened to have extremely rare side effects. The overall good vastly outweighs risk. Also, without special protection, it will make vaccine development intractable, because no one wants to eat the risk of dealing with massive lawsuits due to some extremely rare event. Spoken like an anti-vax whack job. |
Anonymous
It’s because vaccines are not very profitable to make. For most vaccines, you only need to get it once or a handful of times then you don’t need it again. In the US, it would only take a small number of uncapped legal settlements or class action lawsuits to completely zero out profits from vaccine sales. Companies won’t be willing to produce vaccines or research new vaccines if they cannot make money off of them. |
Anonymous
Citation? |
Anonymous
Maybe I'm a weirdo, but I don't think vaccine makers should get a free pass to skip on QC and harm kids. If vaccine makers were actually held liable for their defects, they might actually have an incentive to make a safer product. Or maybe it would mean don't give it to everyone. |
Anonymous
They don't skip quality control. |
Anonymous
|
Oh god. Now he's blaming his voice problem (spasmodic dysphonia) on the flu vaccine. This absolute knob. For the current respiratory illness season, about 45% of Americans have gotten a flu vaccine. That's over 150 million people this season alone. How many people do you know with spasmodic dysphonia, sounding like RFKJ? What a grifter dimwit he is. https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/data/vaccination-trends.html https://www.medpagetoday.com/washington-watch/washington-watch/119516 |
Anonymous
They don’t get a free pass. They are required to contribute to a vaccine compensation fund for each vaccine dose sold. People that experience harm from the vaccines are eligible for compensation up to 250k. Your logic here is very flawed, most vaccines rely on herd immunity to be effective and discouraging people from getting them despite very low risks of severe side effects will cause more people to become permanently disabled or die. Risks from measles vaccine are 1/5,000 chance of having febrile seizure, 1/40,000 risk of ITP (bleeding issue), odds of a severe allergic reaction are even lower than this. In comparison, measles has a hospitalization rate around 20%, 10% get ear infections, 1/330 people that get it, 1/1000 get permanent brain damage from encephalitis. It also wipes out your immune memory and causes elevated mortality for a few years after the infection. |
Anonymous
There's a reason for that, and it's the 1976 swine flu. Early on, there was serious concern this could be a dangerous epidemic--they were worried about a repeat of the 1918 pandemic. A soldier at Fort Dix who had symptoms collapsed and died after a 5 mile hike. Samples were taken from soldiers at Fort Dix. Most were of type A flu but a few were similar to the 1918 virus. The decision to launch a mass immunization program was fraught--because maybe this would turn out to be nothing and they would be criticized for the program, or maybe it would be a repeat of 1918 and they would be criticized for not protecting the public. The pharma companies also worried about being sued for any problems claimed to be related to the vaccine, which led Congress to indemnify the companies Then what happened was that a woman was diagnosed with Guillain-Barre who had recently had the vaccine (IIRC on later review her symptoms and history didn't even MATCH Guillain-Barre). This led to doctors watching for the syndrome and finding it--not always diagnosing correctly and no way to confirm any connection between the vaccine and the condition. This led to the courts having to figure out an unprecedented process for sorting through claims. IT also led to the VERS registry and was probably the beginning of segments of the public taking issue with vaccines generally. Flu, by a NYT reporter, tells the whole story from the 1918 flu through the 1976 swine flu up to recent times including avian flu. I highly recommend the book. |
Anonymous
Thanks for this! The Flu vaccine doesn't even work, and they want to cover it under the same umbrella as vaccines that maybe work a little bit. You would have thought they would have cut the flu vaccine loose by now, but if anything they've become more militant on vaccination. |