What a difference three years makes
-
Let’s play this game.
As far as what I have seen, the primary proposals Kennedy seems to be laying out with regards to vaccines are:
-
removing the legal protections given to vaccine manufacturers from liability claims.
-
A rigorous 3rd party independent study on the current crop of vaccinations to reevaluate efficacy, risk, and need.
So let’s say that they conduct the survey, and for the sake of having a discussion on a rainy and cold day, let’s say the study comes back and DOES show a link between vaccines and Autism… What then? Let’s say the numbers are 30 out of 1,000. Do you shut down the vaccines over that? What if the numbers are higher? Lower? What are the thresholds for what is an acceptable trade off?
The Brad
-
-
There are dozens of studies with n in the hundreds of thousands and meta studies with n in the millions.
Adding one to their number won’t hurt anything per se. It’s these guys continuing to sow doubt in the minds of tens of millions of Americans. Damage is already starting to be done. We can thank Trump for that for giving this clown oxygen.
The mere idea of the government saying ‘we need more studies to see if these are safe’ would, and already has, sown doubt.
-
I think that the FDA in the US is the strongest in the world, and there is the longest time before approval of something entering the market.
-
@jon-nyc said in What a difference three years makes:
Not when each and every one of us know someone murdered by the Covid vaccine.
I know someone who had it and the booster at minimum four times (if I recall correctly) and each and every time, it induced at least a one hour nap in the living room lazy boy recliner within 45 minutes of the shot.
-
I think that the FDA in the US is the strongest in the world, and there is the longest time before approval of something entering the market.
@taiwan_girl said in What a difference three years makes:
I think that the FDA in the US is the strongest in the world, and there is the longest time before approval of something entering the market.
Ive seen more flexibility in the EMA (Europe's equivalent). Pretty much all gene editing therapies do first-in-human tests in Europe and/or Australia. Same with RNA editing, though they might do Canada too. Then they come to the US after they have some safety data.
-
We have a drug in clinical trials that has approval for an achievable clinical trial end point in EMA but not yet with FDA.
While I know they ultimately need to get FDA approval to be financially successful, I asked them if there was a conceivable path where they got the easier EMA approval then applied for FDA approval based on ‘real world evidence’ (RWE) from a couple of years of usage in Europe. They took a look but in the end they told me the numbers didn’t work.
-
Let’s play this game.
As far as what I have seen, the primary proposals Kennedy seems to be laying out with regards to vaccines are:
-
removing the legal protections given to vaccine manufacturers from liability claims.
-
A rigorous 3rd party independent study on the current crop of vaccinations to reevaluate efficacy, risk, and need.
So let’s say that they conduct the survey, and for the sake of having a discussion on a rainy and cold day, let’s say the study comes back and DOES show a link between vaccines and Autism… What then? Let’s say the numbers are 30 out of 1,000. Do you shut down the vaccines over that? What if the numbers are higher? Lower? What are the thresholds for what is an acceptable trade off?
@LuFins-Dad said in What a difference three years makes:
Let’s play this game.
As far as what I have seen, the primary proposals Kennedy seems to be laying out with regards to vaccines are:
-
removing the legal protections given to vaccine manufacturers from liability claims.
-
A rigorous 3rd party independent study on the current crop of vaccinations to reevaluate efficacy, risk, and need.
So let’s say that they conduct the survey, and for the sake of having a discussion on a rainy and cold day, let’s say the study comes back and DOES show a link between vaccines and Autism… What then? Let’s say the numbers are 30 out of 1,000. Do you shut down the vaccines over that? What if the numbers are higher? Lower? What are the thresholds for what is an acceptable trade off?
I'm guessing single digits.
-
-
@LuFins-Dad said in What a difference three years makes:
Let’s play this game.
As far as what I have seen, the primary proposals Kennedy seems to be laying out with regards to vaccines are:
-
removing the legal protections given to vaccine manufacturers from liability claims.
-
A rigorous 3rd party independent study on the current crop of vaccinations to reevaluate efficacy, risk, and need.
So let’s say that they conduct the survey, and for the sake of having a discussion on a rainy and cold day, let’s say the study comes back and DOES show a link between vaccines and Autism… What then? Let’s say the numbers are 30 out of 1,000. Do you shut down the vaccines over that? What if the numbers are higher? Lower? What are the thresholds for what is an acceptable trade off?
I'm guessing single digits.
@Jolly said in What a difference three years makes:
@LuFins-Dad said in What a difference three years makes:
Let’s play this game.
As far as what I have seen, the primary proposals Kennedy seems to be laying out with regards to vaccines are:
-
removing the legal protections given to vaccine manufacturers from liability claims.
-
A rigorous 3rd party independent study on the current crop of vaccinations to reevaluate efficacy, risk, and need.
So let’s say that they conduct the survey, and for the sake of having a discussion on a rainy and cold day, let’s say the study comes back and DOES show a link between vaccines and Autism… What then? Let’s say the numbers are 30 out of 1,000. Do you shut down the vaccines over that? What if the numbers are higher? Lower? What are the thresholds for what is an acceptable trade off?
I'm guessing single digits.
RFK isn't basing his claims on science. It's a religion to him. We all know this.
What good will yet another study do? The autism claims have been gone over so many times. Enough already.
-
-
The problem that everybody is ignoring is that after COVID, a lot of reasonable and rational people walked away with a significant loss of trust in the current public health systems. A lot of people saw “thumbs on the scales” on a significant number of studies and tests and now wonder if that hasn’t been the case for a long time. And if public health was exaggerating and or outright lying on something’s, what else have they been fudging on? All the studies over the past 20 years are tainted now thanks to what we saw during COVID (as well as the ridiculous claims accepted by physicians over gender transitioning in children. For years we’ve been told that chemically castrating children to delay puberty is a good thing by “science” and decent physicians shrugged and went along with the experts… Studies are studies, after alll).
I personally believe the vaccines are fine. There are too many normal people running around the world, and too many other probable causes for various problems. But is it possible that a nontrivial number of infants are being damaged by some of these vaccines.? Let’s say the number isn’t single digit like @Jolly supposed. Let’s say it’s 30 out of 1000. From a public health perspective against something like Measles, that’s a win as the alternative is so much worse, right? But for a mother that’s reading the warning labels in the literature, she may figure those odds are a little too high when compared to the relatively low risk of her child contracting measles when everybody else is vaccinated. So she decides not to. If enough parents make that choice on an individual basis, then we introduce real risk. Maybe it’s best to round this 4.5 down instead of up. Hey, it’s 3 out 1000, much better!
-
The problem that everybody is ignoring is that after COVID, a lot of reasonable and rational people walked away with a significant loss of trust in the current public health systems. A lot of people saw “thumbs on the scales” on a significant number of studies and tests and now wonder if that hasn’t been the case for a long time. And if public health was exaggerating and or outright lying on something’s, what else have they been fudging on? All the studies over the past 20 years are tainted now thanks to what we saw during COVID (as well as the ridiculous claims accepted by physicians over gender transitioning in children. For years we’ve been told that chemically castrating children to delay puberty is a good thing by “science” and decent physicians shrugged and went along with the experts… Studies are studies, after alll).
I personally believe the vaccines are fine. There are too many normal people running around the world, and too many other probable causes for various problems. But is it possible that a nontrivial number of infants are being damaged by some of these vaccines.? Let’s say the number isn’t single digit like @Jolly supposed. Let’s say it’s 30 out of 1000. From a public health perspective against something like Measles, that’s a win as the alternative is so much worse, right? But for a mother that’s reading the warning labels in the literature, she may figure those odds are a little too high when compared to the relatively low risk of her child contracting measles when everybody else is vaccinated. So she decides not to. If enough parents make that choice on an individual basis, then we introduce real risk. Maybe it’s best to round this 4.5 down instead of up. Hey, it’s 3 out 1000, much better!
@LuFins-Dad said in What a difference three years makes:
A lot of people saw “thumbs on the scales” on a significant number of studies
I don’t think that was a problem at all related to studies. Rather losing trust through the ‘regulatory bank shot’ of saying masks didn’t work to keep the public from buying them, then doing a 180 once supplies were up and mandating their use. Or insisting everyone avoid crowds unless a sacralized racial group was involved in which case the virus would understand. Or labeling lab-leak as racist to make the subject taboo. Etc.
But not studies.
-
Sure, there are some concerns, some may even be valid. But putting RFK Jnr. in charge of HHS is like asking Alex Jones to form a task force to address media bias.
