• Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it.

Elections RFK getting roasted at presentation hearing

Great — so are people anti-vax for delaying?
What's their reason for delaying?

Is it that, after consultation with their doctor, they made an informed decision to delay it for some defined period, and later had it administered? Then, no.

Is it that they "did their own research" and decided against it on their own irrespective of their doctor's opinion? Then it's symptomatic of the type of person who could be labelled anti-vaccine, and I'd definitely label them as dumb, but there's not enough information to make that claim so maybe but maybe not.

It's needs to be more nuanced than 'these people did x so they believe y'.

Would you like to show me posts by people doing that here?
 
He may be, but at least he is challening the food companies and the additives that other nations have banned for years. We have huge rates of cancer here, and he is challenging the system that greases politicians to get things through. I don't care he is quirky and is not always right. Still better than the mentally ill freakshow Biden had. This scumbag directed Nursing Homes to take in Covid patients, which resulted in many deaths. All the while he moved his own Mother out of a nursing home.
Oh I agree. The shittiest parts of the Trump admin are wayyyyyy less shitty than the Biden admin.
 
What's their reason for delaying?

Is it that, after consultation with their doctor, they made an informed decision to delay it for some defined period, and later had it administered? Then, no.

Is it that they "did their own research" and decided against it on their own irrespective of their doctor's opinion? Then it's symptomatic of the type of person who could be labelled anti-vaccine, and I'd definitely label them as dumb, but there's not enough information to make that claim so maybe but maybe not.

It's needs to be more nuanced than 'these people did x so they believe y'.

Would you like to show me posts by people doing that here?
Because the absolute risk of contracting Hep-B at that moment is lower than the absolute risk of an adverse reaction to Hep-B vaccination.

Why can’t you just say, yeah I can see why people would want to wait if the mother isn’t a carrier?
 
It’s also sad that discourse has devolved to the point where researching information so that you can increase your knowledge for informed consent is being used as an insult.

It’s no wonder that the term “sheep” is used as a response to those who take this approach.
 
Because the absolute risk of contracting Hep-B at that moment is lower than the absolute risk of an adverse reaction to Hep-B vaccination.

Why can’t you just say, yeah I can see why people would want to wait if the mother isn’t a carrier?
I can't see why they would ignore medical advice. If you posted empirical evidence of your claim in the first sentence already, sorry for the bother, but please post it again.

Aside from that, whether I can see why people would yada yada or not, your contention was people here were accusing you of being anti-vaccine for taking this stance, wasn't it? So, may I see an example or two?
 
It’s also sad that discourse has devolved to the point where researching information so that you can increase your knowledge for informed consent is being used as an insult.

It’s no wonder that the term “sheep” is used as a response to those who take this approach.
Is that what you think I said in my earlier post? You're being disingenuous here.

Whether it's deliberate or not, remains to be seen. Let's have another go and find out.

I clearly distinguished between people who watch some content on social media and make up their minds based upon that, and people who make informed decisions in consultation with medical professionals rather than internet snake oil salesmen.

To wit,
Is it that, after consultation with their doctor, they made an informed decision to delay it for some defined period, and later had it administered?
Is it that they "did their own research" and decided against it on their, own irrespective of their doctor's opinion?
I see absolutely nothing wrong with "researching information so that you can increase your knowledge for informed consent" nor did I so much as imply there was anything wrong with it. The issue is not the activity; it's the sources and the ability of the lay person to evaluate them that is the issue. Do they know the difference between a double-blind placebo controlled clinical trial and a self-published paper on substack, for example? Maybe yes, maybe no, but in either case, the prudent thing to do is consult with your doctor about these sources of information to ensure you are not being misled.

Now, do you still want to call me a sheep for my "approach"?
 
Last edited:
I can't see why they would ignore medical advice. If you posted empirical evidence of your claim in the first sentence already, sorry for the bother, but please post it again.

Aside from that, whether I can see why people would yada yada or not, your contention was people here were accusing you of being anti-vaccine for taking this stance, wasn't it? So, may I see an example or two?
Let’s just get on the same page first.

The reason for Hep-B in the first 24 hours post delivery was to protect the child against contracting Hep-B due to exposure to it through the mother. In some instances, the mothers knew they were positive for Hep-B and the vaccine at that time makes sense. For an infinitesimally small amount of mothers, they were unaware they were carriers — so the recommendation came in that all babies receive the vaccine during the first 24 hours.

Can we agree on this?
 
Is that what you think I said in my earlier post? You're being disingenuous here.

Whether it's deliberate or not, remains to be seen. Let's have another go and find out.

I clearly distinguished between people who watch some content on social media and make up their minds based upon that, and people who make informed decisions in consultation with medical professionals rather than internet snake oil salesmen.

To wit,


I see absolutely nothing wrong with "researching information so that you can increase your knowledge for informed consent" nor did I so much as imply there was anything wrong with it. The issue is not the activity; it's the sources and the ability of the lay person to evaluate them that is the issue. Do they know the difference between a double-blind placebo controlled clinical trial and a self-published paper on substack, for example? Maybe yes, maybe no, but in either case, the prudent thing to do is consult with your doctor about these sources of information to ensure you are not being misled.

Now, do you still want to call me a sheep for my "approach"?
I didn’t call you a sheep. I also don’t believe that it’s impossible to become informed without consultation with a medical professional.

Do you believe that individuals can review materials; from the CDC for instance, and become more informed on their medical decisions?

I’m not advocating for people to believe Facebook posts.
 
I didn’t call you a sheep. I also don’t believe that it’s impossible to become informed without consultation with a medical professional.

Do you believe that individuals can review materials; from the CDC for instance, and become more informed on their medical decisions?

I’m not advocating for people to believe Facebook posts.
You said,
It’s also sad that discourse has devolved to the point where researching information so that you can increase your knowledge for informed consent is being used as an insult.

It’s no wonder that the term “sheep” is used as a response to those who take this approach.
It was the next post after your reply to me. If you weren't referring to me, to whom were you referring? And you mischaracterized my "approach". I didn't assert that it's impossible to become informed without consultation. This is another disingenuous reply to a misstatement of my comments.

I said it's too easy to be misinformed if you don't have the medical expertise to evaluate the information and should discuss it with someone who does.

Re: "Do you believe...." I answered this question in my earlier post and it's almost shocking that you suggest otherwise, but not really, given the discussion up to now.

Let’s just get on the same page first.

The reason for Hep-B in the first 24 hours post delivery was to protect the child against contracting Hep-B due to exposure to it through the mother. In some instances, the mothers knew they were positive for Hep-B and the vaccine at that time makes sense. For an infinitesimally small amount of mothers, they were unaware they were carriers — so the recommendation came in that all babies receive the vaccine during the first 24 hours.

Can we agree on this?
My agreement or disagreement on this is irrelevant to the discussion. Take it as a given if you want, I don't care.

I asked if you can show me double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials--more than one preferably--that show the risk of serious side effects from the vaccine is at least as great or greater than the likelihood of a Hep. B infection.

Have you? Nope. In the absence of a medical reason to delay there are only bad reasons. If people can be infected with Hep. B and not know it why take a chance as long as the chance of serious side effects is even lower?

That leaf sure didn't stay turned for long. Why are you unable to discuss my points honestly?
 
You said,

It was the next post after your reply to me. If you weren't referring to me, to whom were you referring? And you mischaracterized my "approach". I didn't assert that it's impossible to become informed without consultation. This is another disingenuous reply to a misstatement of my comments.

I said it's too easy to be misinformed if you don't have the medical expertise to evaluate the information and should discuss it with someone who does.

Re: "Do you believe...." I answered this question in my earlier post and it's almost shocking that you suggest otherwise, but not really, given the discussion up to now.


My agreement or disagreement on this is irrelevant to the discussion. Take it as a given if you want, I don't care.

I asked if you can show me double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials--more than one preferably--that show the risk of serious side effects from the vaccine is at least as great or greater than the likelihood of a Hep. B infection.

Have you? Nope. In the absence of a medical reason to delay there are only bad reasons. If people can be infected with Hep. B and not know it why take a chance as long as the chance of serious side effects is even lower?

That leaf sure didn't stay turned for long. Why are you unable to discuss my points honestly?
Am I being negative?

I find it unfortunate you can’t even get to the most basic level of agreement on why the vaccine is introduced at that time and for what reasons.
 
In the absence of a medical reason to delay there are only bad reasons. If people can be infected with Hep. B and not know it why take a chance as long as the chance of serious side effects is even lower?
This isn’t accurate though. That is my position.

The absolute risk for hep-b infection for a baby born to a mother who is not infected is lower than the absolute risk of adverse reactions to the hep-b vaccine.

The absolute risk of hep-b infection for a 1 day old baby of a non-infected mother is zero. The absolute risk of an adverse reaction is > zero.

You can use logic here.
 
It's funny watching people call others anti vaxxers when they themselves aren't even fully boosted.

RFK Jr is absolutely the right man for the role. Lets get some real science going and figure out if these vaccines do have a hand in causing cancer.
 
Am I being negative?

I find it unfortunate you can’t even get to the most basic level of agreement on why the vaccine is introduced at that time and for what reasons.
You're being dishonest. I demonstrated this already more than once.

Assuming you're not trolling by being deliberately obtuse, I find it unfortunate that your reasoning and/or reading comprehension is this poor.

We don't need to come to agreement on "why the vaccine is introduced..." because it's irrelevant. Pretend I agree. So what? I have no kids and haven't studied the situation so I have no idea whether to agree with you other than by taking your word for it. Pick any reason you instead--still irrelevant. What evidence is there that it places children at unnecessary risk? Can you answer that?

This isn’t accurate though. That is my position.

The absolute risk for hep-b infection for a baby born to a mother who is not infected is lower than the absolute risk of adverse reactions to the hep-b vaccine.

The absolute risk of hep-b infection for a 1 day old baby of a non-infected mother is zero. The absolute risk of an adverse reaction is > zero.

You can use logic here.
What I said is accurate though.

I already demonstrated why this reasoning is bad. You don't know in advance whether the mother has it or not. You don't indicate the overall likelihood of such an infection or how serious it is for the baby. You don't indicate the likelihood of other contra-indications. There are a lot of factors.

I'm tired of this, Rob. I can't tell if it's deliberate, but there is no point in continuing.
 
You're being dishonest. I demonstrated this already more than once.

Assuming you're not trolling by being deliberately obtuse, I find it unfortunate that your reasoning and/or reading comprehension is this poor.

We don't need to come to agreement on "why the vaccine is introduced..." because it's irrelevant. Pretend I agree. So what? I have no kids and haven't studied the situation so I have no idea whether to agree with you other than by taking your word for it. Pick any reason you instead--still irrelevant. What evidence is there that it places children at unnecessary risk? Can you answer that?


What I said is accurate though.

I already demonstrated why this reasoning is bad. You don't know in advance whether the mother has it or not. You don't indicate the overall likelihood of such an infection or how serious it is for the baby. You don't indicate the likelihood of other contra-indications. There are a lot of factors.

I'm tired of this, Rob. I can't tell if it's deliberate, but there is no point in continuing.
It’s a shame you can’t have an honest logical conversation.

To say you can’t know in advance if the mother is infected with Hep-B or not is an absurd claim.

Hep-B is transmitted primarily through sex or drug use. Babies can only get it if their mother is infected. If it is known that the mother is not infected, there is no risk to the baby to delay the vaccination. There is risk IN the vaccination.

For instance, just with anaphylaxis, here is some info from the CDC.

Severe Allergic Reactions (Anaphylaxis): The CDC indicates that severe allergic reactions, such as anaphylaxis, are rare. Specifically, the risk is estimated to be about 1 in 600,000 doses, according to various sources including the Journal of Hepatology.

Now, that’s still uncommon, but it’s greater than zero.

If someone doesn’t want that on day 1 for their child, because there is a zero percent chance risk of hep-b to their child, are they an anti-vaxxer?
 
if you haven't been getting a booster every 6 months from the start you are unvaxxed according to the science you trust so much.
 
If someone doesn’t want that on day 1 for their child, because there is a zero percent chance risk of hep-b to their child, are they an anti-vaxxer?
I already answered this question too. Stop wasting my time.
 
RFK Jr is absolutely the right man for the role. Lets get some real science going

“ “COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people” -RFK

“the people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese,” -RFK

“WiFi “radiation” causes cancer, “cellphone tumors” and opens your blood brain barrier to toxins” -RFK
 
Back
Top