Vaccines, Vaccinations Discussions

[peacegirl]

Could this be true?

‘Deeply Troubling’: Higher Mortality Rates Detected in Vaccinated 3-Month-Olds Compared With Unvaccinated Infants

Infants vaccinated in their second month of life were more likely to die in their third month than unvaccinated infants, according to an analysis of data obtained from the Louisiana Department of Health. Children’s Health Defense scientists Brian Hooker, Ph.D., and Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., who...

childrenshealthdefense.org

 

[pood]

Could this be true?

‘Deeply Troubling’: Higher Mortality Rates Detected in Vaccinated 3-Month-Olds Compared With Unvaccinated Infants

Infants vaccinated in their second month of life were more likely to die in their third month than unvaccinated infants, according to an analysis of data obtained from the Louisiana Department of Health. Children’s Health Defense scientists Brian Hooker, Ph.D., and Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., who...

childrenshealthdefense.org

No, it is not true. Sorry.

 

[peacegirl]

Could this be true?

‘Deeply Troubling’: Higher Mortality Rates Detected in Vaccinated 3-Month-Olds Compared With Unvaccinated Infants

Infants vaccinated in their second month of life were more likely to die in their third month than unvaccinated infants, according to an analysis of data obtained from the Louisiana Department of Health. Children’s Health Defense scientists Brian Hooker, Ph.D., and Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., who...

childrenshealthdefense.org

No, it is not true. Sorry.

How do you know? Did you check whether there was any fraud in the investigation?

 

[bilby]

Could this be true?

‘Deeply Troubling’: Higher Mortality Rates Detected in Vaccinated 3-Month-Olds Compared With Unvaccinated Infants

Infants vaccinated in their second month of life were more likely to die in their third month than unvaccinated infants, according to an analysis of data obtained from the Louisiana Department of Health. Children’s Health Defense scientists Brian Hooker, Ph.D., and Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., who...

childrenshealthdefense.org

Given its source, a well known anti-vaccination propaganda website, I will go with "It could be true, in the same way that it could be true that I am actually a talking dog, but actual evidence of it would be needed for any sane person to give it the slightest credence".

 

[peacegirl]

Could this be true?

‘Deeply Troubling’: Higher Mortality Rates Detected in Vaccinated 3-Month-Olds Compared With Unvaccinated Infants

Infants vaccinated in their second month of life were more likely to die in their third month than unvaccinated infants, according to an analysis of data obtained from the Louisiana Department of Health. Children’s Health Defense scientists Brian Hooker, Ph.D., and Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., who...

childrenshealthdefense.org

Given its source, a well known anti-vaccination propaganda website, I will go with "It could be true, in the same way that it could be true that I am actually a talking dog, but actual evidence of it would be needed for any sane person to give it the slightest credence".

I would have no problem checking the design of the study, but bear in mind that just because these people are concerned about the vaccine schedule does not make this study flawed. They actually have to be more careful about the kind of information they put out, or they would be criticized even more. To even suggest that what they published could be as true as it would be true if you were a talking dog shows me that you will have a very hard time accepting that your take on vaccines might have serious issues. What if babies that are vaccinated die more than the unvaccinated babies? Who would be evil then?

 

[bilby]

What if babies that are vaccinated die more than the unvaccinated babies?

They don't.

What if rocks fell upwards?? What then???

 

[peacegirl]

What if babies that are vaccinated die more than the unvaccinated babies?

They don't.

What if rocks fell upwards?? What then???

Not an answer.

 

[bilby]

What if babies that are vaccinated die more than the unvaccinated babies?

They don't.

What if rocks fell upwards?? What then???

Not an answer.

It was a better answer than the question deserved.

 

[bilby]

I would have no problem checking the design of the study, but bear in mind that just because these people are concerned about the vaccine schedule does not make this study flawed.

No, what makes that study flawed is that the authors are lying liars who lie, and are in this case lying once again.

Nobody other than their cult of vaccination haters takes them seriously. The lead author is a committed supporter and close friend of Andrew Wakefield, who is known to have invented the entire link between vaccination and autism from whole cloth, in a cynical effort to make millions of pounds.

These folks are scumbags and their gullible dupes, and have nothing but misrepresentations and outright lies to support their absurd claims.

The "paper" they are pushing (which no reputable journal will publish) is a simple case of p-hacking, a well known trick to make results appear significant when they are not.

That, and not some grand conspiracy to silence The Truth^TM, is the reason they have to publish their "results" themselves - no honest person wants to help them in their campaign to spread dangerous lies that kill children.

 

[steve_bank]

So Peacegirl, you have experience with design of experiments, or DOE for short?

Means, variances, standard deviations, confidence intervals? Chi Square tests?

 

[peacegirl]

I would have no problem checking the design of the study, but bear in mind that just because these people are concerned about the vaccine schedule does not make this study flawed.

No, what makes that study flawed is that the authors are lying liars who lie, and are in this case lying once again.

You have a hatred for anti-vaxxers. Saying they are lying doesn’t mean they are.

Nobody other than their cult of vaccination haters takes them seriously. The lead author is a committed supporter and close friend of Andrew Wakefield, who is known to have invented the entire link between vaccination and autism from whole cloth, in a cynical effort to make millions of pounds.

Who is “nobody?” You can’t blame everything on Andrew Wakefield. and call it a day.

These folks are scumbags and their gullible dupes, and have nothing but misrepresentations and outright lies to support their absurd claims.

Name calling is your MO, which weakens your argument.

The "paper" they are pushing (which no reputable journal will publish) is a simple case of p-hacking, a well known trick to make results appear significant when they are not.

You say they are tricking the public to make their paper appear significant, so point where they are doing this, otherwise you’re attacks against the people who have concerns about the vaccine schedule is without merit.

That, and not some grand conspiracy to silence The Truth^TM, is the reason they have to publish their "results" themselves - no honest person wants to help them in their campaign to spread dangerous lies that kill children.

The reason they have to publish themselves is because they are being silenced by media, not necessarily because their concerns are not valid. As long as you don’t respect me, I will never respect you. You refuse to listen because you are convinced you are right. This is not a discussion I want to engage in. Why should I?

 

[peacegirl]

The Amish win big vaccine decision at US Supreme Court; NY state officials should be behind bars​

Kudos to the Gateway Pundit for reporting this story¹:

“The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday reversed a lower-court decision that had sided with New York State’s sweeping school vaccine mandates, and ordered the case back to the appeals court for a full reconsideration.”
“At the center of the case is a shocking and deeply disturbing campaign by New York officials to bankrupt Amish schools, intimidate parents, and shut down religious education entirely, all because the Amish refuse to inject their children with state-mandated vaccines that violate their longstanding religious beliefs.”
“Despite admitting that the Amish families were sincere in their religious beliefs, the New York Department of Health slapped three one-room Amish schools with devastating penalties…”
“The department declared that each unvaccinated child attending school constituted a separate violation worth up to $2,000 per day.”
“The Amish schools, which receive no government funding, operate on private land, and are central to the community’s religious life, face closure because the families have no means of paying these six-figure state-imposed financial attacks.”
“In its Monday order, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for reconsideration ‘in light of Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. 522 (2025),’ a landmark ruling handed down earlier this year strengthening protections for religious objectors against state public-health mandates…”
The Amish are winning big…so far.
What’s really going on here?
The NY State Dept. of Health and the whole state government is saying to the Amish:...

​

Subscribe to Jon Rappoport to unlock the rest.​

​

 

[bilby]

You have a hatred for anti-vaxxers. Saying they are lying doesn’t mean they are.

Indeed. Some are sincere but gullible.

Why you expect me not to hate people who want something that will lead to the needless deaths of children is a mystery to me.

 

[bilby]

You can’t blame everything on Andrew Wakefield.

Sure I can - it's his fucking fault. And he did it for money. He is utter scum and should be in jail.

 

[bilby]

The "paper" they are pushing (which no reputable journal will publish) is a simple case of p-hacking, a well known trick to make results appear significant when they are not.

You say they are tricking the public to make their paper appear significant, so point where they are doing this,

I did. If you don't know what p-hacking is, then that just reinforces my point that you are incapable of making an informed decision.

otherwise you’re attacks against the people who have concerns about the vaccine schedule is without merit.

Nothing that actually saves childrens' lives from the clamouring of fools and charlatans, who wish to set humanity back to medieval squalour, is without merit.

(also, you mean "your"; Unless you are saying that I am attacks).

 

[bilby]

That, and not some grand conspiracy to silence The TruthTM, is the reason they have to publish their "results" themselves - no honest person wants to help them in their campaign to spread dangerous lies that kill children.

The reason they have to publish themselves is because they are being silenced by media,

No, it isn't (though as you can see, I anticipated that that would be your objection).

not necessarily because their concerns are not valid.

Their "concerns" are NOT valid. Their "concerns" are pure fiction, and are highly dangerous - these "concerns" have already led to many deaths and much needless suffering.

As long as you don’t respect me, I will never respect you.

I don't respect you at all, and have no desire for the respect of anyone so despicable as to thoughtlessly and ignorantly call for putting children in danger.

You had, and still have, the opportunity to educate yourself, but instead you have chosen to give your life over to dangerous nonsense. You disgust me. You are not worthy of respect, only of contempt.

Wilful ignorance of your kind is survivable only because of the modern world that was built to defend us all, and which you seek, in your abject ignorance, to undermine.

You refuse to listen because you are convinced you are right.

I am right. I spent many years studying how reality works - physics, chemistry, biology, logic, mathematics, epistemology, biochemistry, molecular biology, history...

Learning these things is not easy, nor is it quick; But it is open to everyone. There is no gatekeeper; There are no obstacles other than lack of intellect and lack of effort.

There is no conspiracy aginst any idea; Just a simple requirement that before any new idea is accepted as part of the global body of human knowledge, it must withstand any and all efforts to show that it is wrong - and if it can't, it doesn't get in no matter how much anyone likes it.

I am convinced that I am right, because a lifetime of careful study of how reality works and fits together supports my position, and utterly and completely demolishes yours.

You are convinced that you are right, because you feel like your opinions should count, and that your ideas should get as much respect as anyone else's. And because you read a book. And because you trust a small group of people who agree with you.

The strength of science is that nobody trusts anybody. Everyone is constantly trying to show that all the ideas are wrong. And their failure is what makes something plausible.

This is not a discussion I want to engage in.

Then fucking stop.

Why should I?

I don't know. Charity requires me to assume that you don't actually want to kill children, or even to enrich a bunch of charlatans. Though your constant effort to sell your daft book of bullshit suggests a plausible motive, if I am less charitable.

 

[peacegirl]

You have a hatred for anti-vaxxers. Saying they are lying doesn’t mean they are.

Indeed. Some are sincere but gullible.

Why you expect me not to hate people who want something that will lead to the needless deaths of children is a mystery to me.

You keep saying that as if your insistence that people accept the very heavy vaccine schedule (at least in the U.S.) is the only way to keep children from dying. You don't know that.

​

​ ​

​ One of the most revealing moments from the CDC’s annual Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting didn’t come from an argument—it came from a comparison. Other countries vaccinate less. They mandate less. And guess what? Their children are healthier. Take Denmark. Fewer childhood vaccines. No mandates. No culture war. Better overall health outcomes. They administer hepatitis B vaccines only when there is a real risk. And despite dramatically lower usage, the rate of harm from childhood hepatitis B in Denmark is essentially no different from those in the United States. That fact alone shatters a long-standing narrative. And it strikes terror in the hearts of those who oppose us. It proves something the establishment hates to admit: More force does not equal better health. That’s why this moment is so dangerous to the old guard. For the first time in decades, leaders are openly discussing comparative studies. For the first time, “Why do we do it this way?” is being asked in official rooms. ​

​

You can’t blame everything on Andrew Wakefield.

Sure I can - it's his fucking fault. And he did it for money. He is utter scum and should be in jail.

You can't prove that money was his motive, just like you're accusing me of. Your accusations fit neatly into your narrative, that's all.

 

[steve_bank]

These derails are diverting attention away form the most serious and impactful discussion on the revolutionary new thoughts on free will and determinism.

It is no less than the future and survival of the human race.

Started a vaccination thread on Natural Science 'Vaccines, Vaccinations Discussions'

Suggest Peacegirl take it there, there will probably be a wider response.

 

[peacegirl]

The "paper" they are pushing (which no reputable journal will publish) is a simple case of p-hacking, a well known trick to make results appear significant when they are not.

You say they are tricking the public to make their paper appear significant, so point where they are doing this,

I did. If you don't know what p-hacking is, then that just reinforces my point that you are incapable of making an informed decision.

It comes down to who is doing the p-hacking, and it may not be who you think it is.

P-Hacking: A Threat to Research Integrity

Explore the nuances of p-hacking and its far-reaching implications for the credibility of biomedical research, highlighting the need for rigorous statistical practices and ethical awareness

www.numberanalytics.com

Bilby: otherwise you’re attacks against the people who have concerns about the vaccine schedule is without merit.

Peacegirl: Says bilby who is a toxicologist, immunologist, and virologist all wrapped in one.
Bilby: Nothing that actually saves childrens' lives from the clamouring of fools and charlatans, who wish to set humanity back to medieval squalour, is without merit.

(also, you mean "your"; Unless you are saying that I am attacks).

Stating your dislike doesn't prove that these people are fools. That would mean scientists, politicians, authors, actors and actresses, moms and dads, who are beginning to question the necessity of all these vaccines --- and more importantly, if it really makes our children healthier --- are all charlatans.

 

[steve_bank]

Starting a thread to draw a philosophy derail to science on vaccinations.

The words I have been hearing in the news is 'vaccine hesitancy'. Maybe it is a softer alternative to 'vaccine deniers'.

Vaccine hesitancy: An overview - PMC

Despite being recognized as one of the most successful public health measures, vaccination is perceived as unsafe and unnecessary by a growing number of individuals. Lack of confidence in vaccines is now considered a threat to the success of ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Despite being recognized as one of the most successful public health measures, vaccination is perceived as unsafe and unnecessary by a growing number of individuals. Lack of confidence in vaccines is now considered a threat to the success of vaccination programs. Vaccine hesitancy is believed to be responsible for decreasing vaccine coverage and an increasing risk of vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks and epidemics. This review provides an overview of the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy. First, we will characterize vaccine hesitancy and suggest the possible causes of the apparent increase in vaccine hesitancy in the developed world. Then we will look at determinants of individual decision-making about vaccination.

Keywords: decision-making, psychosocial factors, review, socio-cultural factors, vaccination, vaccine-hesitancy
Introduction

Vaccination is considered to be one of the greatest achievements of public health. Vaccination programs have contributed to the decline in mortality and morbidity of various infectious diseases, and are credited with the elimination of poliomyelitis in the Americas and the worldwide eradication of smallpox.1 To be successful in reducing the prevalence and incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases (VPD), vaccination programs rely on a high uptake level. In addition to direct protection for vaccinated individuals, high vaccination coverage rates induce indirect protection for the overall community, or herd immunity, by slowing transmission of VPD, thereby decreasing the risk of infection among those who remain susceptible in the community.2

The high rate of childhood vaccination coverage in most developed countries indicates that vaccination remains a widely accepted public health measure.3 However, these national estimates may hide clusters of under-vaccinated individuals.4 Indeed, recent outbreaks of VPD, including measles,5,6 poliomyelitis,7 and pertussis8 in several parts of the developed world have been linked mainly to under-vaccinated or non-vaccinated communities.9 In addition, results of many studies have shown that even vaccinated individuals can have important doubts and concerns regarding vaccination.10-13 For instance, in a recent pan-Canadian survey, half of the parents were concerned that new vaccines are not as safe as older vaccines and one-third felt that children today receive too many vaccines, even if nine out of ten of these parents indicated their child’s vaccination was up to date.14 Indeed, many experts consider that vaccination programs are threatened by growing concerns among the population regarding the safety and usefulness of vaccines.15-18 It is estimated that less than 5–10% of individuals have strong anti-vaccination convictions.19 However, a more significant proportion could be categorized as being hesitant regarding vaccination.20 In this review, we will define vaccine hesitancy and look at the potential causes and determinants of the apparent increase in vaccine hesitancy in the developed world.15,16,19 Then, we will look at determinants of individual decision-making regarding vaccination and try to synthesize the wealth of data already published on factors influencing vaccine acceptance.

The RFKjr rhetoric is probablyy having an effect on a part of the population.