Vaccines, Vaccinations Discussions

[Jimmy Higgins]

Moreover, these clinical observations are made by both parents and teachers in different parts of the forms. So it is not limited by bias from a parent or merely home behavior.

I'm sure more testing would either confirm or deny that this is what the child had. The question still arises: Are these drugs the only way to go? I read that coloring in food can cause hyperactivity. Wouldn't cleaning up the child's diet be the first thing to do before anything more drastic? After all, ADHD drugs are powerful.

Some ADHD drugs can be strong, some aren't and are metabolized rather quickly.

The best way to go is to see a QUALIFIED person called psychiatrist and let them make a judgment, rather than listen to anyone online because they heard something.

I can't wait for autism to be even in higher rates in 20 years, despite the lower rates of vaccination. I can't wait for the obfuscation then!

 

[peacegirl]

Moreover, these clinical observations are made by both parents and teachers in different parts of the forms. So it is not limited by bias from a parent or merely home behavior.

I'm sure more testing would either confirm or deny that this is what the child had. The question still arises: Are these drugs the only way to go? I read that coloring in food can cause hyperactivity. Wouldn't cleaning up the child's diet be the first thing to do before anything more drastic? After all, ADHD drugs are powerful.

Some ADHD drugs can be strong, some aren't and are metabolized rather quickly.

The best way to go is to see a QUALIFIED person called psychiatrist and let them make a judgment, rather than listen to anyone online because they heard something.

I can't wait for autism to be even in higher rates in 20 years, despite the lower rates of vaccination. I can't wait for the obfuscation then!

I don't trust psychiatry because all they do is prescribe drugs with no talk therapy, and usually after a 30-minute consult. The whole profession has changed, and some people have been hurt rather than helped.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Moreover, these clinical observations are made by both parents and teachers in different parts of the forms. So it is not limited by bias from a parent or merely home behavior.

I'm sure more testing would either confirm or deny that this is what the child had. The question still arises: Are these drugs the only way to go? I read that coloring in food can cause hyperactivity. Wouldn't cleaning up the child's diet be the first thing to do before anything more drastic? After all, ADHD drugs are powerful.

Some ADHD drugs can be strong, some aren't and are metabolized rather quickly.

The best way to go is to see a QUALIFIED person called psychiatrist and let them make a judgment, rather than listen to anyone online because they heard something.

I can't wait for autism to be even in higher rates in 20 years, despite the lower rates of vaccination. I can't wait for the obfuscation then!

I don't trust psychiatry because all they do is prescribe drugs with no talk therapy, and usually after a 30-minute consult. The whole profession has changed, and some people have been hurt rather than helped.

Yeah, trust YouTube and people who have ideas.

 

[peacegirl]

Moreover, these clinical observations are made by both parents and teachers in different parts of the forms. So it is not limited by bias from a parent or merely home behavior.

I'm sure more testing would either confirm or deny that this is what the child had. The question still arises: Are these drugs the only way to go? I read that coloring in food can cause hyperactivity. Wouldn't cleaning up the child's diet be the first thing to do before anything more drastic? After all, ADHD drugs are powerful.

Some ADHD drugs can be strong, some aren't and are metabolized rather quickly.

The best way to go is to see a QUALIFIED person called psychiatrist and let them make a judgment, rather than listen to anyone online because they heard something.

I can't wait for autism to be even in higher rates in 20 years, despite the lower rates of vaccination. I can't wait for the obfuscation then!

I don't trust psychiatry because all they do is prescribe drugs with no talk therapy, and usually after a 30-minute consult. The whole profession has changed, and some people have been hurt rather than helped.

Yeah, trust YouTube and people who have ideas.

I don't trust that anyone or any group could have all the answers. That's why I try to use my own intuition after listening to all sides, which has never failed me when making big decisions.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't trust psychiatry because all they do is prescribe drugs with no talk therapy, and usually after a 30-minute consult.

What is your statistical evidence for your assertions that _all_they_do_is X and usually_after_Y? i.e. P(X) = 100% and P(Y) > 50%.

You are using hyperbole after taking Jimmy out of context. He was suggesting professional help for an ADHD diagnosis, which is a rigorous process. In modern practice, a psychiatrist often works as part of a clinical team (Psychiatrist + Psychologist/LCSW or Clinician + APRN) where medication and therapy are coordinated between specialists who discuss the patient’s progress together.

In the case of a child with potential ADHD, a pediatrician or clinician performs an assessment that typically requires standardized feedback from both parents and teachers. Your distrust of teachers is a non-starter here because the diagnostic criteria require the behavior to be present in multiple settings. If a child is fidgety in school but not at home, they won't meet the clinical threshold for an ADHD diagnosis. It isn't just a 30-minute "gut feeling"; it's a cross-referenced evaluation of the child's entire environment.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Some ADHD drugs can be strong, some aren't and are metabolized rather quickly.

The best way to go is to see a QUALIFIED person called psychiatrist and let them make a judgment, rather than listen to anyone online because they heard something.

I can't wait for autism to be even in higher rates in 20 years, despite the lower rates of vaccination. I can't wait for the obfuscation then!

I don't trust psychiatry because all they do is prescribe drugs with no talk therapy, and usually after a 30-minute consult. The whole profession has changed, and some people have been hurt rather than helped.

Yeah, trust YouTube and people who have ideas.

I don't trust that anyone or any group could have all the answers. That's why I try to use my own intuition after listening to all sides, which has never failed me when making big decisions.

Yeah... while I like to think I know everything, I'm not deluded enough to think my intuition should override the expertise of people who "know what the fuck they are talking about". They could be wrong, but their wrong answer is likely better founded than my baseless intuition guess.

Of course, one has questions, they are literally paying the doctor for their time. And they can ask the questions. And if one doesn't trust their doctor, really should find another one.

 

[peacegirl]

Some ADHD drugs can be strong, some aren't and are metabolized rather quickly.

The best way to go is to see a QUALIFIED person called psychiatrist and let them make a judgment, rather than listen to anyone online because they heard something.

I can't wait for autism to be even in higher rates in 20 years, despite the lower rates of vaccination. I can't wait for the obfuscation then!

I don't trust psychiatry because all they do is prescribe drugs with no talk therapy, and usually after a 30-minute consult. The whole profession has changed, and some people have been hurt rather than helped.

Yeah, trust YouTube and people who have ideas.

I don't trust that anyone or any group could have all the answers. That's why I try to use my own intuition after listening to all sides, which has never failed me when making big decisions.

Yeah... while I like to think I know everything, I'm not deluded enough to think my intuition should override the expertise of people who "know what the fuck they are talking about". They could be wrong, but their wrong answer is likely better founded than my baseless intuition guess.

Of course, one has questions, they are literally paying the doctor for their time. And they can ask the questions. And if one doesn't trust their doctor, really should find another one.

It's not as black and white as you think. After listening to the doctor and to all the other literature out there, I cannot say with total confidence that there is definitive proof that the vaccine schedule is safe for everyone. It's not a one-size-fits-all. I just read from a study that there is a greater risk of diabetes in children over 2 months but not those younger than 2 months. Is this just an association, or is there some validity to it? There are a lot of unknowns.

Public should be told that vaccines may have long term adverse effects - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, I see no reason for caution.

We can see the reality: vaccines made the death rate plunge, this shows up in life expectancy. As before, all-cause mortality is the king of data, life expectancy is a form of measuring all cause mortality. Where is the supposed health problem that nobody can describe and which doesn't kill people??

Is there an elephant (an unknown vaccine problem) here in Nevada? There does not appear to be but I can't rule out a truck passing through or the like.

Is there an elephant (an unknown vaccine problem that goes contrary to mortality data) here in my living room? There wasn't 5 minutes ago and I have no door that would reasonably pass an elephant.

Everything you said makes sense. If it's true that no elephant can pass through your door in Nevada, I would assume it wouldn't pass through any door in any state in a first-world country. The only caveat I see is that the latest vaccine schedule --- which adds a lot more combination risks) has not been tested in terms of the mortality incidence rate. Am I overreaching?

Huh? Plenty of doors around here that could fit an elephant. Just not normal house doors. You can get some very big equipment into the theaters on the Strip.

I was saying I can find no place in the state that makes any mention of having an elephant. No reason to believe there's one, but no way to exclude one (same as a possible low-probability vaccine issue.) But I can unquestionably determine there's no elephant in my house (a vaccine issue that makes them a net risk to health.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No one has yet explained this: If the absorbed dose from shots is way below the absorbed dose from food, and children with kidney problems are not told to avoid those foods, why would there be any concern for children with kidney problems getting vaccinated with aluminum-containing vaccines? Are we comparing apples to apples, or is there actually more aluminum absorbed due to the number of aluminum-containing shots given at one time?

Nobody has explained why we should not consider whether dementia is the result of exposure to Cthulhu.

You are taking all the claims of harm as truth without considering whether they are true or not.

-----------------------------------------------------

US FDA Child Health Concerns, June 2003 "Term infants with normal renal function may also be at risk because of their rapidly growing and immature brain and skeleton, and an immature bloodbrain barrier. Until they are 1 to 2 years old, infants have lower glomerular filtration rates than adults, which affects their kidney function. The agency is concerned that young children and children with immature renal function are at a higher risk resulting from any exposure to aluminum.” Cited in the Federal Register

https://www.cdc.gov/acip/downloads/slides-2025-12-04-05/01-Griffin-aluminum-adjuvants-508.pdf

Note the date on that pile of shit: December 4, 2025. That's the charlatans that Brain Worm appointed to the ACIP.

I thought the paper was from 2003.

What paper, have you cited the title of the paper, have you provided a direct link to the paper, have you read the paper to understand its context? Is there some reason that the slides do not contain the title, a direct link, or give the context to you? Are they trying to mislead you and others?

Hint: The fact that no title is provided, no link, no volume number, and not a specific date, just a month and year should be troubling because they are creating a barrier to find the quote in context. While it is entirely possible that the paper does not exist since we have no direct link to it only this presentation and then many other websites and people have repeated the same quote from this presentation, it probably does exist but could it be about something other than injection into muscles? Aluminum (as an adjuvant) is designed to stay at the injection site in the muscle and be released slowly into the bloodstream.

Since you will not know how to find the original, I have found it for you:

Thank you. It was sufficiently damning without that that I didn't try. I see my guess was right that it was AI hallucination.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So why doesn't this give the new CDC panel assurances that aluminum is safe in the amounts given?

Because the new panel isn't looking at science and has no desire to find the truth. This is entirely about rubber-stamping their faith.

Compare the actual material vs the claim made in that powerpoint. That degree of stupidity means AI hallucination. And nobody checked--they didn't care about the truth. You're so blinded by your faith that you don't see how much of a smoking gun this is.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here is the first paragraph of your link:

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention panel dominated by vaccine skeptics is signaling it will review the use of aluminum salts used in many vaccines during the coming year, despite strongly held beliefs by medical experts that the additives are safe and necessary.

The specific people recruited by RFK Jr are not experts in the field but came with anti-vaccine biases. That's exactly why RFK Jr hired them in the first place. It's like if RFK Jr appointed moon landing skeptics and deniers to a panel to investigate the moon landing. Then they make slides taking NASA comments out of context. Then you show the NASA quote and someone explains to you why it is out of context. Then you ask, "oh yeah, well, why did the NASA panel not have assurances we are capable of landing on the moon?" It's right in front of your face. The science was explained to you. Now you are appealing to authority, but it's an authority appointed to do exactly what it's doing.

Conspiracy theorists are conspiracy theorists, same thought processes everywhere.

Your moon landing one is a good example. One of the piece of "evidence" that it's a hoax is a rock "labeled" C. What's a C? Part of a circle. Is it more likely they made such a blatant screwup, or is it just a piece of curly hair on the film??

Or, look way back on here. One of the Truthers. I was showing that the dominant force in the fall of the towers was gravity, that it would swamp anything else. Back of the envelope I was getting a kiloton for the impact energy, compared it to a suitcase nuke simply to give scale. And one of them jumps on it as an admission the towers were brought down with a nuke.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Some ADHD drugs can be strong, some aren't and are metabolized rather quickly.

The best way to go is to see a QUALIFIED person called psychiatrist and let them make a judgment, rather than listen to anyone online because they heard something.

I can't wait for autism to be even in higher rates in 20 years, despite the lower rates of vaccination. I can't wait for the obfuscation then!

I don't trust psychiatry because all they do is prescribe drugs with no talk therapy, and usually after a 30-minute consult. The whole profession has changed, and some people have been hurt rather than helped.

Yeah, trust YouTube and people who have ideas.

I don't trust that anyone or any group could have all the answers. That's why I try to use my own intuition after listening to all sides, which has never failed me when making big decisions.

Yeah... while I like to think I know everything, I'm not deluded enough to think my intuition should override the expertise of people who "know what the fuck they are talking about". They could be wrong, but their wrong answer is likely better founded than my baseless intuition guess.

Of course, one has questions, they are literally paying the doctor for their time. And they can ask the questions. And if one doesn't trust their doctor, really should find another one.

It's not as black and white as you think.

It is extremely well established. Harmful effects from vaccines are known to be an issue in a very tiny number of cases. The benefits are known to be extremely positive over the broad population, so much so, it can benefit those who aren't even vaccinated when the vax rates are high enough.

Also, Autism diagnoses are increasing while vaccination rates are decreasing. I know you'll have an obfuscation to manage that inconvenient truth, but the reality is, autism diagnoses are trending the opposite direction than vaccinations. Correlations don't work that way.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I’m curious if anyone would watch the MAHA movie coming out?

Watch The Official Maha™ Movie

For Those Tired Of Dismissing Doctors, Big Pharma, And Greedy Insurance Giants... This Is The Health Documentary With Real Solutions... That The Establishment Doesn'T Want You To See. Watch The Official Maha™ Movie Now

secure.mahamovie.com

"...that the establishment doesn't want you to see..."

No further evaluation needed, it's garbage.

Given the struggles I've had with getting nutrition information from doctors I thought he actually had some value in stressing it. Even that has proven wrong, though--his ideas on "nutrition" is to chuck out anyone who actually knows it and substitute woo.

 

[Playball40]

So fluoride does NOT effect IQ. Is MAHA and dipshits going to reverse course?

Fluoride in U.S. drinking water does not reduce IQ, a new study finds

Claims that fluoride in drinking water causes cognitive delays in kids are driving U.S. policy. A new study finds no evidence to back them.

www.sciencenews.org

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Here is the first paragraph of your link:

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention panel dominated by vaccine skeptics is signaling it will review the use of aluminum salts used in many vaccines during the coming year, despite strongly held beliefs by medical experts that the additives are safe and necessary.

The specific people recruited by RFK Jr are not experts in the field but came with anti-vaccine biases. That's exactly why RFK Jr hired them in the first place. It's like if RFK Jr appointed moon landing skeptics and deniers to a panel to investigate the moon landing. Then they make slides taking NASA comments out of context. Then you show the NASA quote and someone explains to you why it is out of context. Then you ask, "oh yeah, well, why did the NASA panel not have assurances we are capable of landing on the moon?" It's right in front of your face. The science was explained to you. Now you are appealing to authority, but it's an authority appointed to do exactly what it's doing.

Conspiracy theorists are conspiracy theorists, same thought processes everywhere.

Your moon landing one is a good example. One of the piece of "evidence" that it's a hoax is a rock "labeled" C. What's a C? Part of a circle. Is it more likely they made such a blatant screwup, or is it just a piece of curly hair on the film??

Or, look way back on here. One of the Truthers. I was showing that the dominant force in the fall of the towers was gravity, that it would swamp anything else. Back of the envelope I was getting a kiloton for the impact energy, compared it to a suitcase nuke simply to give scale. And one of them jumps on it as an admission the towers were brought down with a nuke.

Wow.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I’m curious if anyone would watch the MAHA movie coming out?

Watch The Official Maha™ Movie

For Those Tired Of Dismissing Doctors, Big Pharma, And Greedy Insurance Giants... This Is The Health Documentary With Real Solutions... That The Establishment Doesn'T Want You To See. Watch The Official Maha™ Movie Now

secure.mahamovie.com

Your ignorance is breathtaking.

Why? Understanding both sides will give me greater clarity!

Except every time you're shown anything you disagree with you fail to actually incorporate it into your world view. You're looking for confirmation of your beliefs, not the truth.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The thing about fact-checking is that it is transparent and reproducible, like mathematics and science. That means YOU can do it. YOU should do it but instead you keep changing the subject and blindly post links you haven't examined skeptically and critically. If you _DO_ come across someone who claims to have fact checked something, then you corroborate what they say by looking at primary sources of information. If you have no one fact checking that you can examine, then DO IT YOURSELF. That is why fact checking is a process not a person.

Or look at the study about aluminum. I saw enough to dismiss it as irrelevant, but someone else actually ran it down and showed it really was concerned with kids eating stuff, not injections. That's fact checking. Anyone can look at the link and see that's what it actually says.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Some ADHD drugs can be strong, some aren't and are metabolized rather quickly.

The best way to go is to see a QUALIFIED person called psychiatrist and let them make a judgment, rather than listen to anyone online because they heard something.

I can't wait for autism to be even in higher rates in 20 years, despite the lower rates of vaccination. I can't wait for the obfuscation then!

I don't trust psychiatry because all they do is prescribe drugs with no talk therapy, and usually after a 30-minute consult. The whole profession has changed, and some people have been hurt rather than helped.

Yeah, trust YouTube and people who have ideas.

I don't trust that anyone or any group could have all the answers. That's why I try to use my own intuition after listening to all sides, which has never failed me when making big decisions.

Yeah... while I like to think I know everything, I'm not deluded enough to think my intuition should override the expertise of people who "know what the fuck they are talking about". They could be wrong, but their wrong answer is likely better founded than my baseless intuition guess.

Of course, one has questions, they are literally paying the doctor for their time. And they can ask the questions. And if one doesn't trust their doctor, really should find another one.

It's not as black and white as you think. After listening to the doctor and to all the other literature out there, I cannot say with total confidence that there is definitive proof that the vaccine schedule is safe for everyone. It's not a one-size-fits-all. I just read from a study that there is a greater risk of diabetes in children over 2 months but not those younger than 2 months. Is this just an association, or is there some validity to it? There are a lot of unknowns.

Public should be told that vaccines may have long term adverse effects - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Who told you about this study? What page did you find it on? Please provide a link?

Btw, this is a letter. A couple of people did some statistics and wrote this letter which was published. The letter was then debated and has been debunked. It has been debunked by looking at how the statistics were done, that they were not statistically significant differences, and that follow ups after 10 years showed no such thing. Plus studies were done later showing no causal relation.

So now I wonder why would someone give you a link to a letter whose claims have been debunked thoroughly?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The thing about fact-checking is that it is transparent and reproducible, like mathematics and science. That means YOU can do it. YOU should do it but instead you keep changing the subject and blindly post links you haven't examined skeptically and critically. If you _DO_ come across someone who claims to have fact checked something, then you corroborate what they say by looking at primary sources of information. If you have no one fact checking that you can examine, then DO IT YOURSELF. That is why fact checking is a process not a person.

Let's look at an example. In post #1793 I referred to an analysis by NOTUS of the MAHA report in which it cited 7 studies that do not exist. NOTUS then discussed with the authors of the presentation and the presenters claimed that it was just a formatting problem, but then removed the 7 fake studies from their MAHA report.

Why are you so certain they were fake? Maybe they realized the studies were too small to have statistical significance.

No. References are to a journal/date/paper name. You can go look in the journal, that date, see what's there. You don't find the article, either somebody blundered badly (and why would you trust them to have gotten other stuff right in that case?), somebody is lying to you, or an AI is hallucinating.

Thanks! It seems the Wayback Machine can be very helpful in fact-checking the original sources. So you don’t believe there is any relationship between direct-to-consumer advertising and the rise in ADHD, do you? It sounds feasible if they were selling an ADHD drug. Suddenly more children would have been labeled with having ADHD, but were actually presenting normal behaviors now considered abnormal.

Again, you are trying to reduce it to certainty. The supposed proof doesn't exist--that doesn't disprove it but it's a very strong indication there is no good proof.

And in some cases it's trivially obvious there is a relationship. Viagra. That's one of the few cases where I support direct to consumer advertising. You have a live-with-it condition that people might have changed doctors since they found there were no good solutions. The new doctor might not know, consumer advertising will bring in patients that legitimately would benefit. While I think direct to consumer drug ads are in general a bad thing I would make exceptions for this type of situation.

But has DTC advertising increased ADHD diagnoses?? I sure don't recall ever seeing an ad for anything controlled, let alone ADHD stuff. Brain Worm has in effect called for death camps for people on psychiatric drugs, do you expect anything reasonable from him on such matters? (He calls them "work" camps--force them to work and figure out their problems. Except many wouldn't be able to work, especially if dealing with rebounds from cold turkeying psych drugs.)

 

[peacegirl]

I’m curious if anyone would watch the MAHA movie coming out?

Watch The Official Maha™ Movie

For Those Tired Of Dismissing Doctors, Big Pharma, And Greedy Insurance Giants... This Is The Health Documentary With Real Solutions... That The Establishment Doesn'T Want You To See. Watch The Official Maha™ Movie Now

secure.mahamovie.com

"...that the establishment doesn't want you to see..."

No further evaluation needed, it's garbage.

Given the struggles I've had with getting nutrition information from doctors I thought he actually had some value in stressing it. Even that has proven wrong, though--his ideas on "nutrition" is to chuck out anyone who actually knows it and substitute woo.

Who is "he"? Is it one person? I didn't get to watch it, and now this episode is not for free anymore. This one is episode 5. You can watch it, but I'm not sure for how long.

Video

mahamovie.com