Unvaxxed child in Texas just died of the measles

[Anonymous]

“You'll have to forgive me, but I'm highly dubious of clinical trials, especially in this day and age. Its pretty well known that you design your trials to get the results you want.

I'm especially dubious of relying on clinical trial data for a product that has been in the field for decades. Shouldn't there be real world data to use? You see this with the flu shot too. Why is there no real world data on these things?”

Have you ever had the flu? Do you get the shots?

[Anonymous]

Natural selection at work.

Carry on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If MAGAs want to take themselves to the Stone Age should the rest of us really be concerned?

Yes, yes, we should. Herd immunity is critical for the very young, the very old, and the immuno-compromised. Your future 10-month old grandchild is at risk because of their choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why any parent would knowingly put their DC through this horror.

Because it make them feel special to believe they know the “real” truth about vaccines. That feeling is worth more to them than their children’s health.

And lord knows they need to feel special. To a person, they are all longtime riders of the struggle bus. School was hard, jobs are hard, being a SAHM is hard. Everything is hard. They can’t think critically, and everything overwhelms them. They join MLMs to try to take some control and run their families into debt.

And along comes an influencer who convinces these functionally r-worded individuals who are so hopelessly adrift in their own lives that no, they really ARE smart, and they really ARE special, it’s the SYSTEM that is confusing them and lying them. That birthing a child gave them all they needed to know, supplemented by what the influencer is selling them, of course, and they can take CONTROL.

Those doctors? The fact they don’t want to debate your “reasonable” questions about the inserts is just proof they are in the pocket of Big Pharma and can’t be trusted. You can only trust other crunchy moms.

Does any of this sound familiar? It should. It uses the same tactics as the MLMs and cults they are demonstrably helpless against. These parents - mostly moms - are addicted to the feelings of power and control the anti vax influencers are selling. They can’t get that hit anywhere else because - see above - they don’t have the smarts.

I mean, to be fair, the medical industry (20% of our National GDP) is filled with scammy and dishonest criminals that could care less about your personal wellbeing. That doesn’t mean that science should be discarded but you can’t exactly expect average people to trust predatory capitalists. People can instinctively tell that they are getting screwed even if they are not perfectly accurate in describing the specific mechanics of the scam.

You mean like Dr. Oz?
And all the MAGA/MAHA influencers currently having their day?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is insane how anti vaxxers have no understanding of risk and tradeoffs. Guess what’s higher likelihood of negative effects from the vaccine? The negative effects of the actual disease!

Of course they don’t, they’ve been riding on herd immunity. To them the calculus is vaccinate your child, and risk the minute chance of a side effect, or do nothing, and face no risk at all because the diseases are so remote.

Well guess what? Mother Nature isn’t here to play. Herd immunity has dropped, and the diseases are back. They’re going to learn the hard way that a 1 in 50 chance of hospitalization accompanied by a 1 in 1000 chance of death is a lot more serious than a 1 in 100,000 chance of a severe vaccine side effect. Unfortunately, their kids are going to be doing the suffering.

We don't actually know how likely a vaccine is to inflict harm, the closest we can get is to use VAERS data, which vaccine enthusiasts dismissed during COVID. Frankly the industry is just not interested in tracking things once you leave the doctors office.

Ah, so you don't know how a vaccine moves through the levels is clinical trials for testing.

Well, if you don't know, then you don't know.

You'll have to forgive me, but I'm highly dubious of clinical trials, especially in this day and age. Its pretty well known that you design your trials to get the results you want.

I'm especially dubious of relying on clinical trial data for a product that has been in the field for decades. Shouldn't there be real world data to use? You see this with the flu shot too. Why is there no real world data on these things?

But there IS real world data on this. The fact that you don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist; it just means that you don't understand what is happening.

For example: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/74/wr/mm7440a1.htm?s_cid=OS_mm7440a1_w

This is the CDC's motivation and mortality report on pediatric COVID vaccination in the 2024-2025 respiratory illness season. This particular article focused on the fact that vaccination decreased ED and urgent care visits by about 50%, but the data set is tracking safety as well.

[Anonymous]

*CDC's morbidity and mortality

[Anonymous]

RFK and Trump make zero sense.

On one hand they claim everything is rigged, everything is captured by industry and that you can't trust science.

Meanwhile all the Trump administration does is do the bidding of the pharmaceutical industry and is pushing for huge deregulation that will make it 100x easier for the pharmaceutical industry to sell crappy drugs, unsafe drugs, or drugs that dont even work yet cost tax payers billions of dollars. For example, Trump's FDA is now saying you only need one clinical trial to get drugs approved instead of 2. Rfk is the one who is captured by industry, ironically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is insane how anti vaxxers have no understanding of risk and tradeoffs. Guess what’s higher likelihood of negative effects from the vaccine? The negative effects of the actual disease!

Of course they don’t, they’ve been riding on herd immunity. To them the calculus is vaccinate your child, and risk the minute chance of a side effect, or do nothing, and face no risk at all because the diseases are so remote.

Well guess what? Mother Nature isn’t here to play. Herd immunity has dropped, and the diseases are back. They’re going to learn the hard way that a 1 in 50 chance of hospitalization accompanied by a 1 in 1000 chance of death is a lot more serious than a 1 in 100,000 chance of a severe vaccine side effect. Unfortunately, their kids are going to be doing the suffering.

We don't actually know how likely a vaccine is to inflict harm, the closest we can get is to use VAERS data, which vaccine enthusiasts dismissed during COVID. Frankly the industry is just not interested in tracking things once you leave the doctors office.

Ah, so you don't know how a vaccine moves through the levels is clinical trials for testing.

Well, if you don't know, then you don't know.

You'll have to forgive me, but I'm highly dubious of clinical trials, especially in this day and age. Its pretty well known that you design your trials to get the results you want.

I'm especially dubious of relying on clinical trial data for a product that has been in the field for decades. Shouldn't there be real world data to use? You see this with the flu shot too. Why is there no real world data on these things?

Okay, but if you are the same PP, that's not what you said. And if standard level I-III clinical trials are not enough, then nothing is enough.

Just to be clear where you are coming from.

You do clinical trials before a drug is released to the public. Clinical trials are funded by the companies that want to sell that drug. A drug has to have severe flaws to not pass clinical trials. Quite a few drugs end up getting recalled after things missed in the clinical trials are revealed with widespread usage.

That's why you need actual real world surveillance data. Something we don't really do for vaccines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is insane how anti vaxxers have no understanding of risk and tradeoffs. Guess what’s higher likelihood of negative effects from the vaccine? The negative effects of the actual disease!

Of course they don’t, they’ve been riding on herd immunity. To them the calculus is vaccinate your child, and risk the minute chance of a side effect, or do nothing, and face no risk at all because the diseases are so remote.

Well guess what? Mother Nature isn’t here to play. Herd immunity has dropped, and the diseases are back. They’re going to learn the hard way that a 1 in 50 chance of hospitalization accompanied by a 1 in 1000 chance of death is a lot more serious than a 1 in 100,000 chance of a severe vaccine side effect. Unfortunately, their kids are going to be doing the suffering.

We don't actually know how likely a vaccine is to inflict harm, the closest we can get is to use VAERS data, which vaccine enthusiasts dismissed during COVID. Frankly the industry is just not interested in tracking things once you leave the doctors office.

Ah, so you don't know how a vaccine moves through the levels is clinical trials for testing.

Well, if you don't know, then you don't know.

You'll have to forgive me, but I'm highly dubious of clinical trials, especially in this day and age. Its pretty well known that you design your trials to get the results you want.

I'm especially dubious of relying on clinical trial data for a product that has been in the field for decades. Shouldn't there be real world data to use? You see this with the flu shot too. Why is there no real world data on these things?

Okay, but if you are the same PP, that's not what you said. And if standard level I-III clinical trials are not enough, then nothing is enough.

Just to be clear where you are coming from.

You do clinical trials before a drug is released to the public. Clinical trials are funded by the companies that want to sell that drug. A drug has to have severe flaws to not pass clinical trials. Quite a few drugs end up getting recalled after things missed in the clinical trials are revealed with widespread usage.

That's why you need actual real world surveillance data. Something we don't really do for vaccines.

Except that we do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is insane how anti vaxxers have no understanding of risk and tradeoffs. Guess what’s higher likelihood of negative effects from the vaccine? The negative effects of the actual disease!

Of course they don’t, they’ve been riding on herd immunity. To them the calculus is vaccinate your child, and risk the minute chance of a side effect, or do nothing, and face no risk at all because the diseases are so remote.

Well guess what? Mother Nature isn’t here to play. Herd immunity has dropped, and the diseases are back. They’re going to learn the hard way that a 1 in 50 chance of hospitalization accompanied by a 1 in 1000 chance of death is a lot more serious than a 1 in 100,000 chance of a severe vaccine side effect. Unfortunately, their kids are going to be doing the suffering.

We don't actually know how likely a vaccine is to inflict harm, the closest we can get is to use VAERS data, which vaccine enthusiasts dismissed during COVID. Frankly the industry is just not interested in tracking things once you leave the doctors office.

Ah, so you don't know how a vaccine moves through the levels is clinical trials for testing.

Well, if you don't know, then you don't know.

You'll have to forgive me, but I'm highly dubious of clinical trials, especially in this day and age. Its pretty well known that you design your trials to get the results you want.

I'm especially dubious of relying on clinical trial data for a product that has been in the field for decades. Shouldn't there be real world data to use? You see this with the flu shot too. Why is there no real world data on these things?

Okay, but if you are the same PP, that's not what you said. And if standard level I-III clinical trials are not enough, then nothing is enough.

Just to be clear where you are coming from.

You do clinical trials before a drug is released to the public. Clinical trials are funded by the companies that want to sell that drug. A drug has to have severe flaws to not pass clinical trials. Quite a few drugs end up getting recalled after things missed in the clinical trials are revealed with widespread usage.

That's why you need actual real world surveillance data. Something we don't really do for vaccines.

A simple google search would disprove your last line.

[Anonymous]

I didn't used to get the flu shot. The few times I did I felt unwell afterward.

Then I got Influenza B.

Now I get the dang shot every year. Because having the flu is terrible!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is insane how anti vaxxers have no understanding of risk and tradeoffs. Guess what’s higher likelihood of negative effects from the vaccine? The negative effects of the actual disease!

Of course they don’t, they’ve been riding on herd immunity. To them the calculus is vaccinate your child, and risk the minute chance of a side effect, or do nothing, and face no risk at all because the diseases are so remote.

Well guess what? Mother Nature isn’t here to play. Herd immunity has dropped, and the diseases are back. They’re going to learn the hard way that a 1 in 50 chance of hospitalization accompanied by a 1 in 1000 chance of death is a lot more serious than a 1 in 100,000 chance of a severe vaccine side effect. Unfortunately, their kids are going to be doing the suffering.

We don't actually know how likely a vaccine is to inflict harm, the closest we can get is to use VAERS data, which vaccine enthusiasts dismissed during COVID. Frankly the industry is just not interested in tracking things once you leave the doctors office.

Ah, so you don't know how a vaccine moves through the levels is clinical trials for testing.

Well, if you don't know, then you don't know.

You'll have to forgive me, but I'm highly dubious of clinical trials, especially in this day and age. Its pretty well known that you design your trials to get the results you want.

I'm especially dubious of relying on clinical trial data for a product that has been in the field for decades. Shouldn't there be real world data to use? You see this with the flu shot too. Why is there no real world data on these things?

Okay, but if you are the same PP, that's not what you said. And if standard level I-III clinical trials are not enough, then nothing is enough.

Just to be clear where you are coming from.

You do clinical trials before a drug is released to the public. Clinical trials are funded by the companies that want to sell that drug. A drug has to have severe flaws to not pass clinical trials. Quite a few drugs end up getting recalled after things missed in the clinical trials are revealed with widespread usage.

That's why you need actual real world surveillance data. Something we don't really do for vaccines.

A simple google search would disprove your last line.

People keep saying this, but never actually link the data. You try to pass off other things instead, and hope to bamboozle the easily cowed who might otherwise begin to wonder why the rhetoric for vaccines far outstrips the data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is insane how anti vaxxers have no understanding of risk and tradeoffs. Guess what’s higher likelihood of negative effects from the vaccine? The negative effects of the actual disease!

Of course they don’t, they’ve been riding on herd immunity. To them the calculus is vaccinate your child, and risk the minute chance of a side effect, or do nothing, and face no risk at all because the diseases are so remote.

Well guess what? Mother Nature isn’t here to play. Herd immunity has dropped, and the diseases are back. They’re going to learn the hard way that a 1 in 50 chance of hospitalization accompanied by a 1 in 1000 chance of death is a lot more serious than a 1 in 100,000 chance of a severe vaccine side effect. Unfortunately, their kids are going to be doing the suffering.

We don't actually know how likely a vaccine is to inflict harm, the closest we can get is to use VAERS data, which vaccine enthusiasts dismissed during COVID. Frankly the industry is just not interested in tracking things once you leave the doctors office.

Ah, so you don't know how a vaccine moves through the levels is clinical trials for testing.

Well, if you don't know, then you don't know.

You'll have to forgive me, but I'm highly dubious of clinical trials, especially in this day and age. Its pretty well known that you design your trials to get the results you want.

I'm especially dubious of relying on clinical trial data for a product that has been in the field for decades. Shouldn't there be real world data to use? You see this with the flu shot too. Why is there no real world data on these things?

Okay, but if you are the same PP, that's not what you said. And if standard level I-III clinical trials are not enough, then nothing is enough.

Just to be clear where you are coming from.

You do clinical trials before a drug is released to the public. Clinical trials are funded by the companies that want to sell that drug. A drug has to have severe flaws to not pass clinical trials. Quite a few drugs end up getting recalled after things missed in the clinical trials are revealed with widespread usage.

That's why you need actual real world surveillance data. Something we don't really do for vaccines.

A simple google search would disprove your last line.

People keep saying this, but never actually link the data. You try to pass off other things instead, and hope to bamboozle the easily cowed who might otherwise begin to wonder why the rhetoric for vaccines far outstrips the data.

Someone in this thread literally gave you a link to data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is insane how anti vaxxers have no understanding of risk and tradeoffs. Guess what’s higher likelihood of negative effects from the vaccine? The negative effects of the actual disease!

Of course they don’t, they’ve been riding on herd immunity. To them the calculus is vaccinate your child, and risk the minute chance of a side effect, or do nothing, and face no risk at all because the diseases are so remote.

Well guess what? Mother Nature isn’t here to play. Herd immunity has dropped, and the diseases are back. They’re going to learn the hard way that a 1 in 50 chance of hospitalization accompanied by a 1 in 1000 chance of death is a lot more serious than a 1 in 100,000 chance of a severe vaccine side effect. Unfortunately, their kids are going to be doing the suffering.

We don't actually know how likely a vaccine is to inflict harm, the closest we can get is to use VAERS data, which vaccine enthusiasts dismissed during COVID. Frankly the industry is just not interested in tracking things once you leave the doctors office.

Ah, so you don't know how a vaccine moves through the levels is clinical trials for testing.

Well, if you don't know, then you don't know.

You'll have to forgive me, but I'm highly dubious of clinical trials, especially in this day and age. Its pretty well known that you design your trials to get the results you want.

I'm especially dubious of relying on clinical trial data for a product that has been in the field for decades. Shouldn't there be real world data to use? You see this with the flu shot too. Why is there no real world data on these things?

Okay, but if you are the same PP, that's not what you said. And if standard level I-III clinical trials are not enough, then nothing is enough.

Just to be clear where you are coming from.

You do clinical trials before a drug is released to the public. Clinical trials are funded by the companies that want to sell that drug. A drug has to have severe flaws to not pass clinical trials. Quite a few drugs end up getting recalled after things missed in the clinical trials are revealed with widespread usage.

That's why you need actual real world surveillance data. Something we don't really do for vaccines.

A simple google search would disprove your last line.

People keep saying this, but never actually link the data. You try to pass off other things instead, and hope to bamboozle the easily cowed who might otherwise begin to wonder why the rhetoric for vaccines far outstrips the data.

Someone in this thread literally gave you a link to data.

If someone linked a data set on MMR vaccines, I missed it. Can you relink?

[Anonymous]

This is going to be a very difficult winter for any adults or kids who don't get vaccines and who refuse to mask.