Republican death cult now killing babies in Mississippi (pertussis)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Mississippi has recorded 115 pertussis cases from Jan. 1, 2025, to Sept. 29, 2025, after identifying just 49 cases in all of 2024, the Mississippi State Department of Health reported. Mississippi State Health Officer Dr. Dan Edney (pictured) said on Sept. 28, 2025, that an infant has died of pertussis, the state’s first whooping cough death since 2012."

https://www.mississippifreepress.org/mississippi-baby-dies-of-whooping-cough-the-states-first-pertussis-death-in-13-years/

Pro-Life Party killing babies.

There is a vaccine but people who do not care whether their children live or die listen to fools like RFK, Jr.

Tetanus, pertussis, diptheria.

But do I have this right -- MAHA prefers their children to get "natural immunity" by catching each of them in turn, instead of getting a well-tested vaccine? God help us.

No treatment for tetanus, people. Literal death sentence. By the time you know your child contracted it, it's time to buy a child-sized coffin and just wait.

If someone exposed a child to diphtheria they should be arrested for child abuse and putting your child at risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAGA lunatics need to get out of medicine and healthcare and start listening to the people who actually study medicine.

They’re all experts because “they did their own research”.

This is such a lazy canard. A central tenet of our healthcare system is that patients should be given informed consent before a treatment. That usually means a conversation with a doctor. People like you consider that unremarkable yet guffaw at the notion that a motivated layman could ever research their way to a better understanding of a medical question.

I believe wholeheartedly in the importance and value of informed consent. However, I've yet to have a layman be able to explain to me their exclusion criteria for the research studies they assessed.

I'm sure it could happen. The fact that it has not in some 30 years of practice does somewhat shake my faith in the quality of "doing your own research."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAGA lunatics need to get out of medicine and healthcare and start listening to the people who actually study medicine.

They’re all experts because “they did their own research”.

This is such a lazy canard. A central tenet of our healthcare system is that patients should be given informed consent before a treatment. That usually means a conversation with a doctor. People like you consider that unremarkable yet guffaw at the notion that a motivated layman could ever research their way to a better understanding of a medical question.

I believe wholeheartedly in the importance and value of informed consent. However, I've yet to have a layman be able to explain to me their exclusion criteria for the research studies they assessed.

I'm sure it could happen. The fact that it has not in some 30 years of practice does somewhat shake my faith in the quality of "doing your own research."

Thanks for responding. I assume you’re a pediatrician and are referring to a scenario where a parent cites a study to you saying a vaccine is associated with a scary thing?

If that’s right, I guess I’m curious what you think about the following somewhat different scenario: a parent does research and concludes that the safety data is less robust than she assumed and, on that basis, declines a vaccine. In other words, the parent doesn’t purport to make an affirmative scientific proposition (“this study shows X is true”) but, instead, makes a negative proposition (“your study doesn’t resolve my concerns about Y”). I agree with you that the former will often beyond the skill set of most laymen, but the latter is not—it doesn’t take an MD to look up the duration of a study listed on a product label or to find out what its control group is.

Thanks for engaging btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAGA lunatics need to get out of medicine and healthcare and start listening to the people who actually study medicine.

They’re all experts because “they did their own research”.

This is such a lazy canard. A central tenet of our healthcare system is that patients should be given informed consent before a treatment. That usually means a conversation with a doctor. People like you consider that unremarkable yet guffaw at the notion that a motivated layman could ever research their way to a better understanding of a medical question.

I believe wholeheartedly in the importance and value of informed consent. However, I've yet to have a layman be able to explain to me their exclusion criteria for the research studies they assessed.

I'm sure it could happen. The fact that it has not in some 30 years of practice does somewhat shake my faith in the quality of "doing your own research."

Thanks for responding. I assume you’re a pediatrician and are referring to a scenario where a parent cites a study to you saying a vaccine is associated with a scary thing?

If that’s right, I guess I’m curious what you think about the following somewhat different scenario: a parent does research and concludes that the safety data is less robust than she assumed and, on that basis, declines a vaccine. In other words, the parent doesn’t purport to make an affirmative scientific proposition (“this study shows X is true”) but, instead, makes a negative proposition (“your study doesn’t resolve my concerns about Y”). I agree with you that the former will often beyond the skill set of most laymen, but the latter is not—it doesn’t take an MD to look up the duration of a study listed on a product label or to find out what its control group is.

Thanks for engaging btw.

Of course.

There are always two key questions when assessing research, often forgotten: how was your question phrased, and what is the comparison group.

and concludes that the safety data is less robust than she assumed

The hidden comparison group here is other decisions you make based on safety data. So what counts as "robust" for you?

[Anonymous]

PS: "less robust than she assumed" is meaningless, unless what "she assumed" is meaningful in the context of what is safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
PS: "less robust than she assumed" is meaningless, unless what "she assumed" is meaningful in the context of what is safe.

Well, it’s common to hear that the autism-vaccination relationship has been studied into the ground. I think many parents would assume that means there are double-blind placebo-controlled longitudinal studies. Suppose a parent whose child develops autism goes to consult those studies, is surprised to learn that they don’t exist, and concludes that she won’t vaccinate her next child unless such studies are performed. You can argue that that parent is wrong, perhaps because she’s demanding a too costly or even unethical study design, but I don’t really see any defect in erudition accounting for the parent’s perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
PS: "less robust than she assumed" is meaningless, unless what "she assumed" is meaningful in the context of what is safe.

Well, it’s common to hear that the autism-vaccination relationship has been studied into the ground. I think many parents would assume that means there are double-blind placebo-controlled longitudinal studies. Suppose a parent whose child develops autism goes to consult those studies, is surprised to learn that they don’t exist, and concludes that she won’t vaccinate her next child unless such studies are performed. You can argue that that parent is wrong, perhaps because she’s demanding a too costly or even unethical study design, but I don’t really see any defect in erudition accounting for the parent’s perspective.

Erudition is the quality of having or showing great knowledge or learning. How would this woman thinking that the appropriate way to study the autism-vaccination relationship is a series of double-blind placebo-controlled longitudinal studies show great knowledge or learning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
PS: "less robust than she assumed" is meaningless, unless what "she assumed" is meaningful in the context of what is safe.

Well, it’s common to hear that the autism-vaccination relationship has been studied into the ground. I think many parents would assume that means there are double-blind placebo-controlled longitudinal studies. Suppose a parent whose child develops autism goes to consult those studies, is surprised to learn that they don’t exist, and concludes that she won’t vaccinate her next child unless such studies are performed. You can argue that that parent is wrong, perhaps because she’s demanding a too costly or even unethical study design, but I don’t really see any defect in erudition accounting for the parent’s perspective.

Erudition is the quality of having or showing great knowledge or learning. How would this woman thinking that the appropriate way to study the autism-vaccination relationship is a series of double-blind placebo-controlled longitudinal studies show great knowledge or learning?

I’m not saying the mom is erudite. I’m saying that the mom is making a value judgment and that it’s condescending to suggest her position is rooted in a lack of erudition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
PS: "less robust than she assumed" is meaningless, unless what "she assumed" is meaningful in the context of what is safe.

Well, it’s common to hear that the autism-vaccination relationship has been studied into the ground. I think many parents would assume that means there are double-blind placebo-controlled longitudinal studies. Suppose a parent whose child develops autism goes to consult those studies, is surprised to learn that they don’t exist, and concludes that she won’t vaccinate her next child unless such studies are performed. You can argue that that parent is wrong, perhaps because she’s demanding a too costly or even unethical study design, but I don’t really see any defect in erudition accounting for the parent’s perspective.

Erudition is the quality of having or showing great knowledge or learning. How would this woman thinking that the appropriate way to study the autism-vaccination relationship is a series of double-blind placebo-controlled longitudinal studies show great knowledge or learning?

I’m not saying the mom is erudite. I’m saying that the mom is making a value judgment and that it’s condescending to suggest her position is rooted in a lack of erudition.

She's making a value judgment that the most appropriate studies to assess that question were not done, but it doesn't matter that she was wrong in knowing what was and was not the best type of study in this context?

That certainly seems like an error in learning or knowledge. Not that she is a bad person, but she doesn't know what she doesn't know.

None of that means the woman should be mocked, or have her authority over making decisions for her child's care undermined, or be treated with disrespect, or any of that. But an error in knowledge is an error in knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
PS: "less robust than she assumed" is meaningless, unless what "she assumed" is meaningful in the context of what is safe.

Well, it’s common to hear that the autism-vaccination relationship has been studied into the ground. I think many parents would assume that means there are double-blind placebo-controlled longitudinal studies. Suppose a parent whose child develops autism goes to consult those studies, is surprised to learn that they don’t exist, and concludes that she won’t vaccinate her next child unless such studies are performed. You can argue that that parent is wrong, perhaps because she’s demanding a too costly or even unethical study design, but I don’t really see any defect in erudition accounting for the parent’s perspective.

Erudition is the quality of having or showing great knowledge or learning. How would this woman thinking that the appropriate way to study the autism-vaccination relationship is a series of double-blind placebo-controlled longitudinal studies show great knowledge or learning?

I’m not saying the mom is erudite. I’m saying that the mom is making a value judgment and that it’s condescending to suggest her position is rooted in a lack of erudition.

She's making a value judgment that the most appropriate studies to assess that question were not done, but it doesn't matter that she was wrong in knowing what was and was not the best type of study in this context?

That certainly seems like an error in learning or knowledge. Not that she is a bad person, but she doesn't know what she doesn't know.

None of that means the woman should be mocked, or have her authority over making decisions for her child's care undermined, or be treated with disrespect, or any of that. But an error in knowledge is an error in knowledge.

Oh, you’re disputing the premise that a multi-year study where some kids are given real vaccines and others are given an inert placebo would be probative of a relationship or lack thereof between vaccination and autism? If so, can you unpack this for me? I totally get the argument that such a study could be unethical or maybe even impracticable, but I don’t know that I thought anyone seriously disputed that it would provide at least some incremental evidence of the relationship/non-relationship between vaccination and autism (or, again, the lack thereof).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Mississippi has recorded 115 pertussis cases from Jan. 1, 2025, to Sept. 29, 2025, after identifying just 49 cases in all of 2024, the Mississippi State Department of Health reported. Mississippi State Health Officer Dr. Dan Edney (pictured) said on Sept. 28, 2025, that an infant has died of pertussis, the state’s first whooping cough death since 2012."

https://www.mississippifreepress.org/mississippi-baby-dies-of-whooping-cough-the-states-first-pertussis-death-in-13-years/

Pro-Life Party killing babies.

There is a vaccine but people who do not care whether their children live or die listen to fools like RFK, Jr.

Tetanus, pertussis, diptheria.

But do I have this right -- MAHA prefers their children to get "natural immunity" by catching each of them in turn, instead of getting a well-tested vaccine? God help us.

No treatment for tetanus, people. Literal death sentence. By the time you know your child contracted it, it's time to buy a child-sized coffin and just wait.

If someone exposed a child to diphtheria they should be arrested for child abuse and putting your child at risk.

I'm waiting for MAHA advocated pertussis parties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAGA lunatics need to get out of medicine and healthcare and start listening to the people who actually study medicine.

They’re all experts because “they did their own research”.

This is such a lazy canard. A central tenet of our healthcare system is that patients should be given informed consent before a treatment. That usually means a conversation with a doctor. People like you consider that unremarkable yet guffaw at the notion that a motivated layman could ever research their way to a better understanding of a medical question.

The problem is so many of your supposed “motivated laymen” are people who barely graduated HS and believe to celebs like Jennie McCarthy or influencers who have a great elderberry syrup recipe over actual medical literature.

I am a first gen college grad who grew up in a red state, so I know these people first hand.

[Anonymous]

It's a relief to see the left express concern about babies in the south.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAGA lunatics need to get out of medicine and healthcare and start listening to the people who actually study medicine.

They’re all experts because “they did their own research”.

This is such a lazy canard. A central tenet of our healthcare system is that patients should be given informed consent before a treatment. That usually means a conversation with a doctor. People like you consider that unremarkable yet guffaw at the notion that a motivated layman could ever research their way to a better understanding of a medical question.

The problem is so many of your supposed “motivated laymen” are people who barely graduated HS and believe to celebs like Jennie McCarthy or influencers who have a great elderberry syrup recipe over actual medical literature.

I am a first gen college grad who grew up in a red state, so I know these people first hand.

Careful not to generalize just to prove your point. Do you know how many medicinal plants, roots, and technologies that white corporations have stolen and commodified from indigenous people that they otherwise considered barbaric?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
PS: "less robust than she assumed" is meaningless, unless what "she assumed" is meaningful in the context of what is safe.

Well, it’s common to hear that the autism-vaccination relationship has been studied into the ground. I think many parents would assume that means there are double-blind placebo-controlled longitudinal studies. Suppose a parent whose child develops autism goes to consult those studies, is surprised to learn that they don’t exist, and concludes that she won’t vaccinate her next child unless such studies are performed. You can argue that that parent is wrong, perhaps because she’s demanding a too costly or even unethical study design, but I don’t really see any defect in erudition accounting for the parent’s perspective.

Erudition is the quality of having or showing great knowledge or learning. How would this woman thinking that the appropriate way to study the autism-vaccination relationship is a series of double-blind placebo-controlled longitudinal studies show great knowledge or learning?

I’m not saying the mom is erudite. I’m saying that the mom is making a value judgment and that it’s condescending to suggest her position is rooted in a lack of erudition.

She's making a value judgment that the most appropriate studies to assess that question were not done, but it doesn't matter that she was wrong in knowing what was and was not the best type of study in this context?

That certainly seems like an error in learning or knowledge. Not that she is a bad person, but she doesn't know what she doesn't know.

None of that means the woman should be mocked, or have her authority over making decisions for her child's care undermined, or be treated with disrespect, or any of that. But an error in knowledge is an error in knowledge.

Oh, you’re disputing the premise that a multi-year study where some kids are given real vaccines and others are given an inert placebo would be probative of a relationship or lack thereof between vaccination and autism? If so, can you unpack this for me? I totally get the argument that such a study could be unethical or maybe even impracticable, but I don’t know that I thought anyone seriously disputed that it would provide at least some incremental evidence of the relationship/non-relationship between vaccination and autism (or, again, the lack thereof).

I don't think that the words "erudition" and "probative" mean what you think they mean, and it is fine not to use 10 dollar words when typical language would work better. It's better to make a good argument than to just throw a thesaurus into the mix.

Again, not knowing what the appropriate study is for the context is a part of the problem. It's not just that the study would be unethical, but that it wouldn't necessarily be the right study for the question at hand, in context. This goes back to what "robust" means to this woman, and whether there is a different standard of "robust" she uses for X when she does not apply that to Y, Z, A, B, and C.

I can imagine at least few things more appealing than discussing study design in an argumentative tone with someone who likes to salt-and-pepper the discussion with unnecessarily complicated language, but so it goes. I guess this is where we are.