Opinion RFK calls for retraction of Danish vaccine study

[Voodoo_Child906]

My main issue with this is that infants and babies immune systems are still developing at this point and we know theyre less equipped to deal with some of the inflamation responses, and the possibility, since there is longer retention for it to spread and accumulate on different tissues and areas of the body, is also troubling to me.

That's understandable and fair, and I'm sure that a lot of health professionals share this concern. All I can say is that in study after study there has been no increased risk of neurodevelopmental, autoimmune, or allergic disorders from aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines.

 

[AWilder]

My main issue with this is that infants and babies immune systems are still developing at this point and we know theyre less equipped to deal with some of the inflamation responses, and the possibility, since there is longer retention for it to spread and accumulate on different tissues and areas of the body, is also troubling to me.

well we've gotta stop feeding them then. no more food for babies.

 

[Andy Capp]

My main issue with this is that infants and babies immune systems are still developing at this point and we know theyre less equipped to deal with some of the inflamation responses, and the possibility, since there is longer retention for it to spread and accumulate on different tissues and areas of the body, is also troubling to me.

I repeat,
"Given the quantities of aluminum we are exposed to on a daily basis, the quantity of aluminum in vaccines is miniscule. Aluminum-containing vaccines have been used for decades and have been given to more than 1 billion people without problem. In spring 2000, the National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO) reviewed aluminum exposure through vaccines and determined that no changes to vaccine recommendations were needed based on aluminum content. The Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety, part of the World Health Organization (WHO), has also reviewed studies and found no evidence of health risks that would require changes to vaccine policy."

 

[44nutman]

They obviously did NOT contract it LAST YEAR you muppet.


RFK is NOT a scientist, he's barely a functional adult, so if you are in alignment with him, chances are high that you are, in fact, a numbnut.

Actually RFK Jr is a roided up, brain worm addled Nepo Baby.

 

[PhitePhan]

That's understandable and fair, and I'm sure that a lot of health professionals share this concern. All I can say is that in study after study there has been no increased risk of neurodevelopmental, autoimmune, or allergic disorders from aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines.

I think the problem is that “study after study” have shown to be of low/very low quality (per multiple systematic reviews, including the one I linked that you ignored earlier in this thread).

Sure, you can reference countless studies, and you and others will do it again and again while ignoring the actual quality of said studies or the fact that this cumulative research DOES NOT in any meaningful way support that vaccines are safe.

 

[Damien Karras]

There is a clear methodology issue with this study.

This study does not include a truly unvaccinated control group, which limits its ability to completely rule out possible harms from aluminum additives. There is evidence to suggest aluminum builds up in the body and cross into the brain, creating big concerns about repeated exposure during early childhood. We need to be skeptical here.

RFK bless

Let scientists Duke it out, not wormbrain

 

[scoopj]

I thought everyone who took the jab is supposed to be dead by now.

The only drawback to the vaccine so far is the chip implanted by Bill Gates. Every time I walk by a 5g cell phone tower I get an erection.

@Ripskater

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I think the problem is that “study after study” have shown to be of low/very low quality (per multiple systematic reviews, including the one I linked that you ignored earlier in this thread).

Sure, you can reference countless studies, and you and others will do it again and again while ignoring the actual quality of said studies or the fact that this cumulative research DOES NOT in any meaningful way support that vaccines are safe.

Why don't you just be honest, you have your mind already made up on vaccines, and it's never going to be changed. Also no, vaccines, medicine or any medical procedure will never be completely safe, there will always be risk. The goal of medicine is to reduce the risk to the lowest possible level as it can never be eliminated completely.

Medicine always involves balancing the benefit vs risk with the best available evidence at the time.

 

[italiamusica]

It's insane how fucking stupid people have become about vaccines.

"VACCINES ARE POISON," yet you were all vaccinated as babies and just don't remember, legit retardation

Guess what? With fucking ANYTHING IN LIFE comes problems, not everyone is going to have a good reaction to vaccines, but that doesn't mean they're bad. People need to shut the fuck up and stop with the, "I WENT TO JOESREALFACTS.COM AND HE SAID VACCINES ARE BAD SO THEY BAD."

 

[AWilder]

@Rob Battisti

he must be so mad that his AI isn't telling him what he wants.

 

[Bagatur]

Study retraction is a thing and has happened plenty of times before. It's not like the manuscript is classified. He can send his concerns to the publisher instead of posting it on twitter. But he is too stupid to even form a coherent though.

 

[deviake]

RFK is a joke and a massive piece of fuck ridden shit. No one should take him seriously.

 

[PhitePhan]

Why don't you just be honest, you have your mind already made up on vaccines, and it's never going to be changed.

What happened to following the science?

Show me high quality research that can actually tell us if vaccination is safe, and I’ll have to consider it… instead, you are insisting that I accept that vaccination is safe without the research actually showing that.

Also no, vaccines, medicine or any medical procedure will never be completely safe, there will always be risk. The goal of medicine is to reduce the risk to the lowest possible level as it can never be eliminated completely.

The fact that we have low/very low quality research tells me that we aren’t reducing the risk to the lowest level possible. What do YOU glean from the low/very low quality research on this subject?

Medicine always involves balancing the benefit vs risk with the best available evidence at the time.

Yes. The best available evidence is that most vaccine preventable diseases carry a very small risk to the vast majority of people… this we know for certain.

What we don’t know, are the risks involved with vaccination, because we have low quality research into this topic… sure, we have A LOT of low quality research, but it’s still low quality.

You can’t even argue that we have GOOD science, so you deflect to emotional appeal of, “You’ll never change your mind” to paint me as unreasonable when all I’m actually doing is following the science.

You expect me to ignore that fact that this science is low quality and accept study outcomes without critical review. Why should I do that?

 

[ShadowRun]

It took a brain worm guy to get this done a "non expert" in the position to get this done.

How come all the qualified people before him didn't get this done ?

 

[milliniar]

It took a brain worm guy to get this done a "non expert" in the position to get this done.

How come all the qualified people before him didn't get this done ?

Catching up to Europe, surpassing Canada though we only had a few dyes banned that are still used in the US.

 

[ShadowRun]

Catching up to Europe, surpassing Canada though we only had a few dyes banned that are still used in the US.

I know its crazy in USA we got so much unnecessary BS in foods that is making USA one of the most unhealthiest, where a place like Europe are way advance in banning those toxins. Yet we pry ourselves on being so scientifically sophisticated. FDA is a joke, a corrupt lobbying machine pretty much . You can buy pre work outs that are made in the same containers as steroids , but peptides yea make those illegal. The government as a whole sucks at this, weed (I don't use it) is so bad for you but here is a burger with addicting food chimerical artificially made with unnatural ingredients, and other things that preserve the shelf life of the food, so you can eat the poison for cheap. Then we will run ads on tv for pills to get you to buy it for your health problems.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

What happened to following the science?

Show me high quality research that can actually tell us if vaccination is safe, and I’ll have to consider it… instead, you are insisting that I accept that vaccination is safe without the research actually showing that.

You still don't understand what safe means in this context

The fact that we have low/very low quality research tells me that we aren’t reducing the risk to the lowest level possible. What do YOU glean from the low/very low quality research on this subject?

You only consider the study low quality because you don't understand their methodology

Yes. The best available evidence is that most vaccine preventable diseases carry a very small risk to the vast majority of people… this we know for certain.

What we don’t know, are the risks involved with vaccination, because we have low quality research into this topic… sure, we have A LOT of low quality research, but it’s still low quality.

You can’t even argue that we have GOOD science, so you deflect to emotional appeal of, “You’ll never change your mind” to paint me as unreasonable when all I’m actually doing is following the science.

You expect me to ignore that fact that this science is low quality and accept study outcomes without critical review. Why should I do that?

We do have records of the harm infectious diseases have done to people before vaccination. We have seen the dramatic and measurable decline in infection rates, injuries from disease complications, and mortality across a wide range of vaccine-preventable illnesses. And yes, you are extremely unreasonable because you don't understand the context of the meaning of safety, and what the study in the OP was trying to do.

 

[The Servant]

Pretty much anything that comes out of RFK’s mouth is “a deceitful propaganda stunt.”
The guy is an absolute bottom-of-the barrel scumbag of a person.

Nothing says scumbag more than double checking to make sure big pharma with all its money and regulatory capture is being honest with children's health.

What a piece of crap! Imagine not blindly trusting big pharma!!!

 

[BFoe]

Nothing says scumbag more than double checking to make sure big pharma with all its money and regulatory capture is being honest with children's health.

What a piece of crap! Imagine not blindly trusting big pharma!!!

The issue isn’t not trusting Big Pharma, the issue is that RFK is wrong about most things he says about vaccines, and keeps up with the same antivaxx bullshit even in the face of actual evidence. The garbage he spews hurts people, as it did in Samoa with measles outbreaks. The guy is an utter POS.

 

[PhitePhan]

You still don't understand what safe means in this context

Oh sure, sure…

You only consider the study low quality because you don't understand their methodology

You understand that it is professional scientists conducting systematic reviews who repeatedly find vaccine safety research to be low/very low quality, right?

And yes, you are extremely unreasonable because you don't understand the context of the meaning of safety, and what the study in the OP was trying to do.

The context of the meaning of safety?

As a parent, the context of the meaning of safety is, what is my child’s risk from the disease versus the vaccine? If you want to give my healthy child a vaccine to protect against an almost non-existent threat, you’d better have something better than low/very low quality evidence that it’s safe.

I recognize that this is a privileged position, and that I have the benefit of healthy children and easy access to care… vaccination might make sense for others without such privilege, and I’d imagine risk skews in favor of vaccination in other areas/circumstances.

The fact that your are casting aspersions and resorting to name calling and deflection is very telling, and suggests that you probably understand your argument has no merit.