ADVERTISEMENT

Close friend pleading with me to not vaccinate our baby

Has it ever occurred to some of you guys that the truth may not be on either extreme? It's quite possible that many vaccines are highly effective and valuable tools for our individual and communal health while others may not be as safe an effective? Nawww....let's paint with a broad brush and polarize to either extreme. That's good science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ericram
Further update, I am not aware of any healthcare entity that would give 18 vaccines in 1 day. Beyond that I can only find 7 different vaccines that they would be willing to give on a 1st dose. Most vaccines are multiple vaccines spread out over time.

Here is a vaccine schedule. There is no way in hell this is a factual story. I cannot find any of the older kids or dad on social media. Supposedly occurred in 2016, then court cases in 2019 and just now in 2024 posting this. This story seems beyond made up. This all blew up in October.

Yet you probably believed every snippet of fear porn re: covid, didn’t you? Chinese citizens dropping dead in the streets, semi trailers stacked floor to ceiling with dead bodies behind NYC hospitals, etc. 🤣
 
Yet you probably believed every snippet of fear porn re: covid, didn’t you? Chinese citizens dropping dead in the streets, semi trailers stacked floor to ceiling with dead bodies behind NYC hospitals, etc. 🤣
So we can just create shit and act like its factually supporting your side? I have never done that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
Has it ever occurred to some of you guys that the truth may not be on either extreme? It's quite possible that many vaccines are highly effective and valuable tools for our individual and communal health while others may not be as safe an effective? Nawww....let's paint with a broad brush and polarize to either extreme. That's good science.
All vaccines are utilitary good, only tend to have problems if contra indicated, however they do not cause autism. There have been massive studies to prove that as shown earlier, with no studies showing it does cause autism other than anecdotal reports, like the one just posted saying a 5 year old was given 18 vaccines and got autism.
 
All vaccines are utilitary good, only tend to have problems if contra indicated, however they do not cause autism. There have been massive studies to prove that as shown earlier, with no studies showing it does cause autism other than anecdotal reports, like the one just posted saying a 5 year old was given 18 vaccines and got autism.
You’re wrong on two things.

Adverse events (problems) are not limited to those contraindicated. Every drug has an adverse event profile of some kind. Pharma companies are required to document these. Nothing is free of risk or side effects.

One cannot prove a negative, like “studies have proven there is no connection”. You can state that “studies have not proven there is a connection.” Subtle but important difference.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MichaelKeller99
You’re wrong on two things.

Adverse events (problems) are not limited to those contraindicated. Every drug has an adverse event profile of some kind. Pharma companies are required to document these. Nothing is free of risk or side effects.

One cannot prove a negative, like “studies have proven there is no connection”. You can state that “studies have not proven there is a connection.” Subtle but important difference.
In almost all cases, an adverse reaction is caused by something that would have made the vaccine containdicated in the first place. It doesn't negate the adverse affects to 0, but in general, vaccines are incredibly safe, and having a severe outlier reaction is likely a smaller probability than getting struck by lighting.

How about this, studies have repeatedly shown that Vaccines are safe, including the largest study ever completed, that showed there was no correlation between getting vaccines and autism. There are only 2-3 studies that I am aware of that created some concerns over the safety of vaccines, but both had major issues, and it appears that the correlation was related to factors other than vaccines. Bonzo, please continue to argue in circles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
So is it factual or not, seems to appear you agree with me.
So is it factual? Or do you think this guy made up the story so he could sell essential oils online?

I’d believe this story before I’ll believe anything from the FDA/Big Pharma cartel.

 
In almost all cases, an adverse reaction is caused by something that would have made the vaccine containdicated in the first place. It doesn't negate the adverse affects to 0, but in general, vaccines are incredibly safe, and having a severe outlier reaction is likely a smaller probability than getting struck by lighting.

How about this, studies have repeatedly shown that Vaccines are safe, including the largest study ever completed, that showed there was no correlation between getting vaccines and autism. There are only 2-3 studies that I am aware of that created some concerns over the safety of vaccines, but both had major issues, and it appears that the correlation was related to factors other than vaccines. Bonzo, please continue to argue in circles.
It's not circular. I'm referring to basic logical constructs. You can't prove a negative. You can only prove or fail to prove a positive. It's the reason our system of justice is based on the presumption of innocence. "Prove you didn't kill that guy" is nearly impossible to do. The burden of proof is on the accuser to provide evidence that it did happen. With hypothetical vaccine claims, the burden of proof is on those who claim it's there. Until they produce the data that can show it, it's unproven. That doesn't mean it's "disproven". There's always more to learn.

On point one, I'll repeat what I know from years in pharma. All drugs have undesirable side effects...be they minor or serious. Even the most common OTC stuff we all take. What do you think those rambling disclaimers are for at the end of every commercial. It's not simply "don't take it if you're allergic to it". Drugs act differently on different people. Not everything can be predicted.

but in general, vaccines are incredibly safe, and having a severe outlier reaction is likely a smaller probability than getting struck by lighting.

Might wanna check your numbers on that.
 
It's not circular. I'm referring to basic logical constructs. You can't prove a negative. You can only prove or fail to prove a positive. It's the reason our system of justice is based on the presumption of innocence. "Prove you didn't kill that guy" is nearly impossible to do. The burden of proof is on the accuser to provide evidence that it did happen. With hypothetical vaccine claims, the burden of proof is on those who claim it's there. Until they produce the data that can show it, it's unproven. That doesn't mean it's "disproven". There's always more to learn.

On point one, I'll repeat what I know from years in pharma. All drugs have undesirable side effects...be they minor or serious. Even the most common OTC stuff we all take. What do you think those rambling disclaimers are for at the end of every commercial. It's not simply "don't take it if you're allergic to it". Drugs act differently on different people. Not everything can be predicted.

but in general, vaccines are incredibly safe, and having a severe outlier reaction is likely a smaller probability than getting struck by lighting.

Might wanna check your numbers on that.
Having a wife who is a pharmacist I’ll stand by it. How many kids die from vaccines where it wasn’t contraindicated?, I’ll wait for your answer. Then check and see how many kids died by lightning (fyi lightning is higher).

While you chew on that here are the benefits of vaccines.

 
Last edited:
It's not circular. I'm referring to basic logical constructs. You can't prove a negative. You can only prove or fail to prove a positive. It's the reason our system of justice is based on the presumption of innocence. "Prove you didn't kill that guy" is nearly impossible to do. The burden of proof is on the accuser to provide evidence that it did happen. With hypothetical vaccine claims, the burden of proof is on those who claim it's there. Until they produce the data that can show it, it's unproven. That doesn't mean it's "disproven". There's always more to learn.

On point one, I'll repeat what I know from years in pharma. All drugs have undesirable side effects...be they minor or serious. Even the most common OTC stuff we all take. What do you think those rambling disclaimers are for at the end of every commercial. It's not simply "don't take it if you're allergic to it". Drugs act differently on different people. Not everything can be predicted.

but in general, vaccines are incredibly safe, and having a severe outlier reaction is likely a smaller probability than getting struck by lighting.

Might wanna check your numbers on that.
Also why do I have to proof vaccines are safe? Don’t you have to show they aren’t first? You are the accuser in this case. I have shown the research they are safe . This is literally the definition of circular logic, double negative aside .
 
Last edited:
Also why do I have to proof vaccines are safe? Don’t you have to show they aren’t first? You are the accuser in this case. I have shown the research they are safe . Again you are having circular logic double negative aside .
Uhhh, because they’re being injected into infants.

And no disrespect, but wtf is ‘having circular logic double negative aside’?
 
Has it ever occurred to some of you guys that the truth may not be on either extreme? It's quite possible that many vaccines are highly effective and valuable tools for our individual and communal health while others may not be as safe an effective? Nawww....let's paint with a broad brush and polarize to either extreme. That's good science.

Vaccines work, brah. They're miraculous.

Science proves they work.

 
Also why do I have to proof vaccines are safe? Don’t you have to show they aren’t first? You are the accuser in this case. I have shown the research they are safe . This is literally the definition of circular logic, double negative aside .
FFS man, go back and read it again...a few times. You really missed the point. I'm essentially supporting your position.
 
You are a Moron. He went after a single sentence for a grammatical error. Yet 9 posts later, no scientific data showing vaccines are unsafe.
You people not only want that crap injected into newborns, you want to FORCE parents into having their infants injected via coercion.

It’s up to you and your ilk to prove they’re safe, and you can’t do it.

Piss off.
 
You people not only want that crap injected into newborns, you want to FORCE parents into having their infants injected via coercion.

It’s up to you and your ilk to prove they’re safe, and you can’t do it.

Piss off.
Wow . . . It has been proven safe. You can't just magically say its not with no proof. My kids are better debaters than you, dang. They actually present plausible facts. Here you just throw crap against the wall and run in circles.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrianNole777
Wow . . . It has been proven safe. You can't just magically say its not with no proof. My kids are better debaters than you, dang. They actually present plausible facts. Here you just throw crap against the wall and run in circles.
"Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events.

Since even the FDA admits only about 1% of vaccine injuries are ever reported, your claim that they have been ‘proven safe’ are asinine considering how much has been paid out: Since 1988, over 27,975 petitions have been filed with the VICP. Over that 30-year time period, 24,262 petitions have been adjudicated, with 11,399 of those determined to be compensable, while 12,863 were dismissed. Total compensation paid over the life of the program is approximately $5.3 billion.

 
"Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events.

Since even the FDA admits only about 1% of vaccine injuries are ever reported, your claim that they have been ‘proven safe’ are asinine considering how much has been paid out: Since 1988, over 27,975 petitions have been filed with the VICP. Over that 30-year time period, 24,262 petitions have been adjudicated, with 11,399 of those determined to be compensable, while 12,863 were dismissed. Total compensation paid over the life of the program is approximately $5.3 billion.

If you read in most cases, they payout even if they find that the vaccine was not the cause.

"Approximately 60 percent of all compensation awarded by the VICP comes as result of anegotiated settlement between the parties in which HHS has not concluded, based upon reviewof the evidence, that the alleged vaccine(s) caused the alleged injury."
 
Sad story, but not really sure what went wrong. Paul Offit said even little babies have the ‘theoretical capacity’ to handle 10,000 vaccines at one time so what could possibly go wrong with ‘just’ 18 of them?

Ihben said his ex-wife decided “this wasn’t the life she wanted.” So they were attempting to develop a parenting plan in family court — when Tennessee judge Todd Burnett “pulled up the vaccine issue” after discovering the couple’s children were unvaccinated — and forced the parents to vaccinate their children.

Ihben’s two oldest children — daughter Hannah and son Joseph — were spared significant adverse events following their vaccination.

But his youngest son, Isaac, wasn’t so fortunate. After receiving 18 vaccines in one day, Isaac developed severe regressive autism. Today, he requires around-the-clock care.



"The Gold Report"

No actual case studies in any published journal, just more BS from people that push disinformation at you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bunsen82
You serious clark? How would he know what caused the vaccines, he hadn't been around the kids for over 6 months. Also at 5 years old - seems made up. I can find 1 article on this that 3 others basically copied from. Wouldn't be surprised if this is a made up article.

It's totally made up.

Actual cases like this (if they exist) end up as Case Reports in medical journals.
You can find thousands of "one-offs", that are rarely ever actual correlation or causations; but enough of them can warrant studies to track the possible rare cases/events.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bunsen82
Perhaps, I mis-spoke…I had influenza as a kid…one side effect was vomiting…hence I called it the “stomach flu”. Sorry to confuse you. 🤔

Generally, not an actual "influenza" virus.
Another virus that is colloquially called "stomach flu".
 
And remember, only around 1% of these injuries get reported. 🫣

A British Medical Journal report found that VAERS is “overwhelmed,” raising concerns that the program could be broken.

The BMJ reports that some doctors and a state medical examiner who have submitted reports to VAERS either haven’t received a prompt follow-up from a clinical reviewer or are being ignored entirely.

According to the BMJ’s investigation, the CDC doesn’t have the staff to handle the incoming reports of vaccine side effects.

Before the pandemic, VAERS received nearly 60,000 adverse event reports annually. However, since the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine, the system has faced an unprecedented surge, with 1.7 million reports.

U.S. childhood vaccination exemptions have just reached their highest level ever.
 
You’re wrong on two things.

Adverse events (problems) are not limited to those contraindicated. Every drug has an adverse event profile of some kind. Pharma companies are required to document these.

And they do.
And the risk-to-benefit ratio for vaccines and drugs has to warrant them being used. Or they are pulled off the market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrianNole777
"Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events.

That is because the vast majority of 'adverse events' are so minor, they do not warrant tracking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrianNole777
And they do.
And the risk-to-benefit ratio for vaccines and drugs has to warrant them being used. Or they are pulled off the market after they kill thousands of victims, like Vioxx did. Or they are left ON the market after killing tens of thousands of victims, like acetaminophen has.
.
 
Because idiots like yourself flood it with nonsense like "It Turned Me Into The Hulk"
VAERS is flooded with false reports? That’s a federal offense, dipshit.

Maybe they should go after people who do that, starting with the rabid pro-vaxxer who filed the infamous ‘Hulk’ claim. His name is James Laidler, btw, and he belongs in prison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scruddy
Has it ever occurred to some of you guys that the truth may not be on either extreme? It's quite possible that many vaccines are highly effective and valuable tools for our individual and communal health while others may not be as safe an effective? Nawww....let's paint with a broad brush and polarize to either extreme. That's good science.
Now say the same thing about antibiotics. Nothing is universally “good” and everything is subject to a cost/benefit analysis. The point is that the benefits from vaccines far, FAR, FAR outweigh the costs. All of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrianNole777
Because the definitions of it have changed, markedly
And in spite of the fact the new diagnostic criteria have become more, not less, excluding - the numbers continue to grow.

Why did the DSM-5 adopt the idea of a continuous spectrum?
Throughout the 1990s, researchers hoped to identify genes that contribute to autism. After the Human Genome Project was completed in 2003, many studies tried to zero in on a list of ‘autism genes.’ They found hundreds, but could not link any exclusively to autism. It became clear that finding genetic underpinnings and corresponding treatments for the five conditions specified in the DSM-IV wouldn’t be possible. Experts decided it would be best to characterize autism as an all-inclusive diagnosis, ranging from mild to severe.

At the same time, there was growing concern about a lack of consistency in how clinicians in different states and clinics arrived at a diagnosis of autism, Asperger syndrome or PDD-NOS. A spike in autism prevalence in the 2000s suggested that clinicians were sometimes swayed by parents lobbying for a particular diagnosis or influenced by the services available within their state.

To address both concerns, the DSM-5 introduced the term ‘autism spectrum disorder.’ This diagnosis is characterized by two groups of features: “persistent impairment in reciprocal social communication and social interaction” and “restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior,” both present in early childhood. Each group includes specific behaviors, a certain number of which clinicians have to identify. The manual eliminated Asperger syndrome, PDD-NOS and classic autism, but debuted a diagnosis of social communication disorder to include children with only language and social impairments. Childhood disintegrative disorder and Rett syndrome were removed from the autism category.

Why did the DSM-5 spawn so much concern and controversy?
Even before the manual was released in 2013, many people with autism and their caregivers worried about its effect on their lives. Many were concerned that after their diagnosis disappeared from the book, they would lose services or insurance coverage. Those who identified themselves as having Asperger syndrome said the diagnosis gave them a sense of belonging and an explanation for their challenges; they feared that removing the diagnosis was synonymous to losing their identity. And experts disagreed on whether the DSM-5’s more stringent diagnostic criteria would block services for those with milder traits or adequately curb surging prevalence rates.

Five years later, it’s clear the DSM-5 did not cut services for people already diagnosed with an autism spectrum condition. A growing body of evidence, however, shows that its criteria do exclude more people with milder traits, girls and older individuals than the DSM-IV did.

(thetransmitter.org)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scruddy
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT