Child vaccination decision

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Backthatvaxup said:

Every statement you make is false

 

Where are those vaccine examples that got approved within months? Oh you skipped right over that one. Wonder why. 

full phase 1, 2, and 3 trials were done. there were 2 significant differences. Usually they are done entirely in succession. . Phase 1, then phase 2, then phase 3. So that would pose an additional risk to the participants. But they were volunteers. No one twisted their arms. This time the testing phases overlapped.

2nd, usually each phase beings with small groups particularly phases 2 and 3. The reason for that is simple: saving money.  If the vaccines turns out to be less effective or harmful,  the pharmaceutical company has lost less money.  This time, the trials were subsidized so money wasn't an object.  That way, a sufficient number of people were recruited to properly conduct the trials.

An emergency authorization was given because it was an emergency.

As the huge amount of data accumulated shows, it was the correct choice.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Backthatvaxup said:

If your answers are true why wouldn’t pharma remove liability shields? There’s no problem… and then many more people would vax. So… what’s the problem?

Vaccine liablitity shields existed before covid.  So that goes for vaccines that took years to make it to the market. And the reason was simple. It wasn't worth it to pharmaceutical companies to run the risk of losing expensive lawsuits to justify the expense of creating vaccines.

[Jeffr2]

2 hours ago, Backthatvaxup said:

Why don’t you start listing off the examples of worldwide used vaccines that took less than years then? Oh, yeah, bc there aren’t any

You are aware they are new technology (20 years old or so).  Kinda like comparing horse and buggy to the automobile.  This is the future of vaccines.  And shows how quickly they can now be done.

 

Not to mention, the US put pressure on the FDA to approve them fast.  Cutting a lot of the BS paperwork down and allowing phases to overlap.  Never happened before.

[Jeffr2]

1 hour ago, Backthatvaxup said:

It’s almost too hilarious, scanning through the forum, HUGE developments lately…

 

six or so countries lifting ALL Covid restrictions

 

statements that were previously “misinformation” now being uttered by the cdc

 

natural immunity has been shown to be as effective vaccine at times

 

Yet no discussion of any of it in the forum, that I saw anyway. None. Hmmm. Makes wonder, doesn’t it? Makes you wonder about those oxymoronics. 

No discussion of natural immunity because all references to it were from dodgy websites.  None of us here are wondering why it's not on this forum. 

 

Natural immunity has been proven to not be an alternative to the vaccines.

[Backthatvaxup]

“Safe and effective” / pharma needs liability shields in place

 

Can something be any more oxymoronic? 

Edited February 8, 2022 by Backthatvaxup

[placeholder]

26 minutes ago, Backthatvaxup said:

“Safe and effective” / pharma needs liability shields in place

 

Can something be any more oxymoronic? 

Qhat don't you understand about the fact that this liablity shield was in place before Covid? What don't you understand about the fact that without this shield, pharmaceutical companies had largely abandoned vaccine research? What don't you understand that litigation about the effects of a vaccine isn't decided by virologists and epidemiologists but judges or juries?

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, Backthatvaxup said:

This is the most pro vax leaning space I can even think of to be honest. Notice I’m not saying anything about the mechanism for why it is pro vax… could be expats love vaccines. Idk… but it is the most pro vax place I have witnessed up to this point. Should make the op wonder, should I be listening to these one sided, bandwagon chumps? 

Perhaps only in comparison to the other places you frequent.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, Backthatvaxup said:

“Safe and effective” / pharma needs liability shields in place

 

Can something be any more oxymoronic? 

Classic non sequitur.

 

That a pharmaceutical company/companies negotiate a liability shield is not evidence that their product is not safe.

 

There are a number of reasons why they might obtain/be granted a liability shield, these have been explained to you.

 

No right minded CEO would voluntarily take on a liability if there were means to avoid it. By avoiding a liability the companies do not have to allocate funds to cover the liability and can therefore return higher profits to their shareholders, to whom they answer.

 

Where is your evidence of the vaccines not being safe?

 

 

 

 

Edited February 8, 2022 by Chomper Higgot

[mommysboy]

4 hours ago, Backthatvaxup said:

This is the most pro vax leaning space I can even think of to be honest. Notice I’m not saying anything about the mechanism for why it is pro vax… could be expats love vaccines. Idk… but it is the most pro vax place I have witnessed up to this point. Should make the op wonder, should I be listening to these one sided, bandwagon chumps? 

It's not so much pro vax so much as pro truth, fact, logic, rationality.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Classic non sequitur.

 

That a pharmaceutical company/companies negotiate a liability shield is not evidence that their product is not safe.

 

There are a number of reasons why they might obtain/be granted a liability shield, these have been explained to you.

 

No right minded CEO would voluntarily take on a liability if there were means to avoid it. By avoiding a liability the companies do not have to allocate funds to cover the liability and can therefore return higher profits to their shareholders, to whom they answer.

 

Where is your evidence of the vaccines not being safe?

As I pointed out earlier (maybe in another thread) pharmaceutical companies have been shielded from liability in the US for a long time now. What happened was that these companies decided that the risk of expensive litigation made it unwise to pursue vaccine creation. So they pretty much stopped. To address that problem, the US enacted a law to shield Pharma. Whether it's just or not, the fact is it predated the development of the covid vaccines. So making it about Covid is ahistorical nonsense.

[thaitom]

13 hours ago, mommysboy said:

It's not so much pro vax so much as pro truth, fact, logic, rationality.

This is exactly what I am wanting to read about.  All I am searching for, so I can make an informed choice, because it all just comes down to our personal choice , Geez, I just want to make the right choice for my daughter. Being a parent is not an easy job.

[ozimoron]

On 2/7/2022 at 2:41 PM, mommysboy said:

But you are in effect giving advice Jeff, albeit in a circuitous way.  If you've got something to say just say it maybe.

I read it as he's quoting articles about research. I don't see giving advice other than to seek qualified advice.

[mommysboy]

37 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I read it as he's quoting articles about research. I don't see giving advice other than to seek qualified advice.

Actually, I wouldn't want to single out Jeff, as I do it, you probably do it, and in fact nearly everyone does.

 

it's just in the nature of things that we select the articles that mostly reflect our own views (confirmation bias), and thus by replicating them we, by proxy, do in fact express our own opinions.  A metaphor might be the ventriliquist's doll.  

 

This notwithstanding, Jeff is probably right imo on this issue.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

20 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Actually, I wouldn't want to single out Jeff, as I do it, you probably do it, and in fact nearly everyone does.

 

it's just in the nature of things that we select the articles that mostly reflect our own views (confirmation bias), and thus by replicating them we, by proxy, do in fact express our own opinions.  A metaphor might be the ventriliquist's doll.  

 

This notwithstanding, Jeff is probably right imo on this issue.

 

 

In the age of social media and internet search engines it has become a deal more complicated than that.

 

Algorithms monitor what information people respond to, ‘like’, ‘share’ or even how long they spend with an item ‘on screen’.

 

The algorithms then feed more of the same.

 

This is not simply a single social media platform issue, online searches are examined and used to feed articles and advertisements to the users social media.

 

The (confirmation bias) is being fed by algorithms.

 

As we frequently observe here in this forum, misinformation from obscure sources winds up being posted by numerous members, that isn’t caused by these individuals independently stumbling on the same obscure sources, their confirmation bias is being fed.

[buick]

On 2/6/2022 at 5:27 AM, DavisH said:

For the most part, the current vaccines do not stop infection with omicron. This idea about protecting them has largely gone out the window now. Grandma and grandpa should have already been vaccinated anyway. If they cannot vaccinate, they need to isolate. Everyone is going to be exposed to omicron, it's just a matter of time. I have a coup,e of sister-in-laws who don't want to vaccinate. It's their choice. But their time will come. 

agreed.  the vulnerable (like grandma and grandpa) need to take measures to protect themselves.  maybe wearing the N95 masks even if they are triple vaxxed (same goes for other vulnerable groups).  the narrative that 100% vax will spare everyone from the virus is an old and tired narrative.  it will never happen.  kind of like me, a short person, trying to dunk a basketball.  ain't going to happen.

 

if the death rate for the children in the 5-11 group was the same for the general population, i doubt the vaccines would have been made.  and it might be more prudent to do what the UK has suggested, give the vaccine to children in this group that have underlying conditions.  maybe the UK has updated their guidance but that is the lastest that i saw.  i'm from the US and i think the officials there are a bit 'vax crazy'.  i'm double vaxxed with pfizer plus a moderna at age 55 with no underlying conditions (although age is a bit high).  so i'm vaxxed but i do believe there are people who don't need the vax and it should be a personal choice.

Edited February 13, 2022 by buick

[catturd]

Pfizer announced before Christmas that in a clinical trial of children aged 2 to 4 years old, two doses of vaccine failed to generate antibody levels on par with those seen in people aged 16 to 25 after two shots.

 

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-postpones-advisory-committee-meeting-discuss-request-authorization

 

Best advise is assess ones risk of covid disease and/or wait for vaccine efficacy and safety results from the current ongoing pfizer clinical trials ending 2026.

 

 

 

[mommysboy]

19 hours ago, buick said:

agreed.  the vulnerable (like grandma and grandpa) need to take measures to protect themselves.  maybe wearing the N95 masks even if they are triple vaxxed (same goes for other vulnerable groups).  the narrative that 100% vax will spare everyone from the virus is an old and tired narrative.  it will never happen.  kind of like me, a short person, trying to dunk a basketball.  ain't going to happen.

 

if the death rate for the children in the 5-11 group was the same for the general population, i doubt the vaccines would have been made.  and it might be more prudent to do what the UK has suggested, give the vaccine to children in this group that have underlying conditions.  maybe the UK has updated their guidance but that is the lastest that i saw.  i'm from the US and i think the officials there are a bit 'vax crazy'.  i'm double vaxxed with pfizer plus a moderna at age 55 with no underlying conditions (although age is a bit high).  so i'm vaxxed but i do believe there are people who don't need the vax and it should be a personal choice.

The UK health authority is vacillating over the decision, but is due to make an announcement today (postponed from Friday). They have stressed a decision is made according to the benefit of the individual only, and Omicron is thought to have recently infected up to half the children in this age group anyway with very small consequences. It is regarded as very low risk for 5-11 year olds.  There may be a different set of factors in the USA.  

[Saanim]

On 2/8/2022 at 9:09 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

That a pharmaceutical company/companies negotiate a liability shield is not evidence that their product is not safe.

 

There are a number of reasons why they might obtain/be granted a liability shield, these have been explained to you.

 

No right minded CEO would voluntarily take on a liability if there were means to avoid it. By avoiding a liability the companies do not have to allocate funds to cover the liability and can therefore return higher profits to their shareholders, to whom they answer.

 

Where is your evidence of the vaccines not being safe?

An interesting collection of statements that perhaps the company/ies would not really like to see.

 

When adding also the fact that the company/ies do not want to disclose the vaccines documents (for how many years)?

 

Then somebody can ask where is the evidence of the vaccines being safe?    

[Scott]

12 hours ago, Saanim said:

An interesting collection of statements that perhaps the company/ies would not really like to see.

 

When adding also the fact that the company/ies do not want to disclose the vaccines documents (for how many years)?

 

Then somebody can ask where is the evidence of the vaccines being safe?    

It is not the companies who do not want to release the information, it is the CDC who were resistant.  It is being released, but will take time.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

UK is now offering COVID vaccination for 5-11 year olds:

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o411

[brewsterbudgen]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

UK is now offering COVID vaccination for 5-11 year olds:

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o411

About time!

[Saanim]

9 hours ago, Scott said:

It is not the companies who do not want to release the information, it is the CDC who were resistant.  It is being released, but will take time.

 

As per other info it is FDA who resists.

We'll all be dead before FDA releases full COVID vaccine record, plaintiffs say

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/well-all-be-dead-before-fda-releases-full-covid-vaccine-record-plaintiffs-say-2021-12-13/

 

Anyway, is it important for the population who is the one who does resist? Usually, we hear and read that everything is fully transparent.

However, about these documents release is not much reported (by the MSM). is it?

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

12 minutes ago, Saanim said:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/well-all-be-dead-before-fda-releases-full-covid-vaccine-record-plaintiffs-say-2021-12-13/

 

Anyway, is it important for the population who is the one who does resist? Usually, we hear and read that everything is fully transparent.

However, about these documents release is not much reported (by the MSM). is it?

 

 

Not reported much in MSM? You've just given a link to the main Reuters report which through its news agency distribution network reaches over 2,000 publishers and 600 broadcasters each day...lol.

 

Just put this in Google and see how many results you get "We'll all be dead before FDA releases full COVID vaccine record, plaintiffs say" about 487,000 results

[Saanim]

3 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Not reported much in MSM? You've just given a link to the main Reuters report which through its news agency distribution network reaches over 2,000 publishers and 600 broadcasters each day...lol.

 

Just put this in Google and see how many results you get "We'll all be dead before FDA releases full COVID vaccine record, plaintiffs say" about 487,000 results

Actually, I did not question the results of that particular Reuters article, just a general information about the problem of the "vaccine documents release". 

 

You have got a chance to count those results. 

 

BTW, some time ago I mentioned that here with the allegedly 75 years of the slow releasing (with a link to a source), however, my post was deleted.    

[Bkk Brian]

7 minutes ago, Saanim said:

Actually, I did not question the results of that particular Reuters article, just a general information about the problem of the "vaccine documents release". 

 

You have got a chance to count those results. 

 

BTW, some time ago I mentioned that here with the allegedly 75 years of the slow releasing (with a link to a source), however, my post was deleted.    

No need to count Google is your friend, its gone up now anyway

 

[Saanim]

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

No need to count Google is your friend, its gone up now anyway

 

 

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

No need to count Google is your friend, its gone up now anyway

 

Do you understand the meaning what you quoted? 

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, Saanim said:

 

Do you understand the meaning what you quoted? 

Yes thanks,