Chossidmom's thread about childhood vaccines

amother

↑ DarkCyan ↓

Tue, Jun 27 2023, 7:44 pm

amother Lightyellow wrote:

You know what they say about assuming.

Do you not think she has an agenda?

Do your own research. Read JAMA or find a witch doctor. Whatever you want is fine, but do your own research.

You're also assuming. You've written her off and concluded that she is imagining and making up data.

amother

↑ DarkCyan

Tue, Jun 27 2023, 7:47 pm

Trademark wrote:

Also very concerning is how posters here can be extremely anti-vax and anti trusting doctors.

Just because they went one extreme you don't have to go the other.

So where are you? Do you have faith in health organizations such as the WHO and CDC? Would you say that you trust them?

amother

Lightblue

Tue, Jun 27 2023, 7:51 pm

I don't think all doctors give vaccines blindly. We have refused the hpv vaccine for my daughter the last 2 years. He offers it because he has to but we have no intention of ever getting it. There is no proof that vaccines are harmful. Some people react differently. Its the same with all medications. One of my kids can't use stimulant medicine for adhd because of negative side effects and the other thrives on it. We all react differently. No one said vaccines are 100% effective. Nothing is. That said, I do think the covid vaccine is useless for the average person. But covid is still a new virus.

amother

↑ Buttercup ↓

Tue, Jun 27 2023, 8:34 pm

amother Mustard wrote:

How do you know what or who is influencing my critical thinking and judgment?

Because I studied and spent time reading everything antivax before antivax became a real thing in the frum community. I corresponded with Larry Palevskys office before anyone knew of him. I spoke to some of the top antivax drs personally.
If you are getting information off old blogs or recent documentaries or from people who need attention, then you are getting information third or fifth hand. Del Bigtree or Kennedy- nice people but don't make me laugh. That is not serious research. Gary Krasner tried to help but extremism always loses.

An honest assessment would include data they aren't feeding you. I challenge you to dig it up.

amother

↑ Mustard ↓

Tue, Jun 27 2023, 8:40 pm

amother Buttercup wrote:

I don't get my info from any of these people. Haven't watched any of the documentaries, don't listen to the highline, don't follow any of these people, don't read any blogs. I can dig up lots of data for you straight from pubmed.

amother

↑ Buttercup ↓

Tue, Jun 27 2023, 8:48 pm

amother Mustard wrote:

I'm sure you can. Data is tricky that way.

amother

↑ Mustard ↓

Tue, Jun 27 2023, 8:48 pm

amother Charcoal wrote:

Do people who are against vaccines also avoid Wi-Fi and smartphones? I’m sure those can’t be that great for us either but I’ve never heard this discussed.

I know many people in the holistic sphere that are careful to avoid EMF's as much as possible. Of course it's discussed.
But not all harmful things are equal.

amother

↑ Valerian ↓

Tue, Jun 27 2023, 9:03 pm

amother Ultramarine wrote:

Because My son nearly died from flu. He stopped breathing from congestion (the 1 year I was too lazy to get the shot )

And why do u think these internet ppl are smarter than doctors

I get all the shots and have no allergy, eczema , add ....

We have an immediate family member who passed away from the flu shot. Went into respiratory distress and died.

amother

↑ Valerian

Wed, Jun 28 2023, 4:10 am

amother Charcoal wrote:

Do people who are against vaccines also avoid Wi-Fi and smartphones? I’m sure those can’t be that great for us either but I’ve never heard this discussed.

I don’t vax, and do have a smartphone and WiFi. I don’t inject those into developing babies bloodstreams, tho.

amother

↑ NeonBlue ↓

Wed, Jun 28 2023, 4:19 am

amother Chocolate wrote:

https://twitter.com/forrestmaready/status/1005127713848463361?s=20
a very interesting twitter thread read.
It’s definitely a theory but it eerily coincides with all the polio outbreaks.

We will never know what’s true or not because there are no valid studies for the risks vs benefit. it’s really scary.

Can you summarize?
I can't access
Thanks

ora_43 ↓

Wed, Jun 28 2023, 4:40 am

amother Mustard wrote:

I actually meant that vaccine safety studies funded by the pharmaceutical company that put out the vaccine can't be considered actual science.

Who do you think should be funding research on products, then? Because you should know, it's basically always the companies. The person who wants to sell a product is responsible for proving it's safe, because why would a neutral party invest $100,000 so that a corporation can make money?

It's true for the car you drive, the food you eat, the house you live in...

But just because something is funded by an interested party doesn't make it unscientific. A study is scientific if it's (1) replicable (2) disprovable (meaning, there is a set of results for which we would have to say the hypothesis is wrong).

↑ ora_43 ↓

Wed, Jun 28 2023, 4:44 am

amother Candycane wrote:

Anybody with a brain and eyes can read a book. She's quoting straight data. There's no reason to NOT believe her.

This is dangerously bad logic.

For one thing, no, she's not quoting "straight data", she's interpreting studies. That's like three layers removed from straight data, with one of those layers being an influencer with every possible reason to exaggerate and mislead.

But more importantly, if you want to know if something is true you don't just need "data." You need to define the question, decide what results would prove your ideas wrong, and then look at all of the relevant data.

In a world of 7+ billion people you can find literally a million data points to prove just about anything. Data alone is meaningless.

↑ ora_43 ↓

Wed, Jun 28 2023, 4:47 am

amother Watermelon wrote:

Yeah? Like they will say about Covid?

Whereas all of the smart, free thinkers who do their own googling know that it was a complete coincidence that new, less virulent strains of Covid started circulating weeks after the widespread use of a vaccine that worked against the first, more virulent strain.

Last edited by ora_43 on Wed, Jun 28 2023, 6:07 am; edited 1 time in total

↑ ora_43 ↓

Wed, Jun 28 2023, 4:51 am

I should stop, but one last thing has to be said:

bUt WhY no plACeBo???

Tell me you know nothing about medical research without telling me you know nothing about medical research...

People, medical experiments have to pass what are known as ethics committees. Go to any ethics committee in the world and say, "Hey, I think I have a treatment that will help against a deadly disease. My idea is to treat half of the patients and let the others die, what do you say?"

You will NEVER be allowed to do that. NEVER. Maybe for something that's meant to treat an irritating but not dangerous symptom, but never for something potentially fatal.

You can have a "control group" that's undergone a different form of treatment, or a comparison group made up of people who didn't have access to treatment for whatever reason (which FTR vaccines have in abundance). But not an untreated control group.

That's true of all kinds of treatments, not just vaccines.

amother

↑ Strawberry ↓

Wed, Jun 28 2023, 6:12 am

ora_43 wrote:

Whereas all of the smart, free thinkers who do their own research* know that it was a complete coincidence that new, less virulent strains of Covid started circulating weeks after the widespread use of a vaccine that worked against the first, more virulent strain.

* (aka google other people's research)

After a large amount of people got Covid vaccine in Feb - April 2021, there was an initial decrease in Covid. Then in Summer 2021 the Delta variant came, which was as bad as the original, but vaccine resistant.

Eventually in Fall 2021, in many countries people just got sick and tired of lockdowns and not living their lives, and they started rebelling against the lockdowns, or the lockdowns were loosened even though the Covid was as bad as ever. THAT led to the virus being able to mutate into more catchable, but less dangerous strains (Omicron on), which is what finally got us out of the crisis. Not the shot. Definitely not the lockdowns or the masks. But allowing the spread of the virus which allowed it to naturally mutate into a less dangerous virus.

The masks did nothing except harm QOL and harm childrens education. The lockdowns SLOWED the ending of the crisis. Had there been no lockdown measures on the low risk, the virus would have mutated into less dangerous variants more quickly, and the crisis would have ended with much less casualties.