Oh, yes, absolutely. I just meant it as an extension of your response to him.
Can you expand on the argument you’re making here? I don’t understand, is the implication that the field of biology and medicine recommends we continue to put things in our body that react poorly to our biochemistry?
Conflicts of interest between vaccine regulators and the vaccine industy:
citizen.org/article/outrage … th-part-i/
hbr.org/2017/04/how-pharma-comp … -expensive
childrenshealthdefense.org/advo … ort-study/
sciencemag.org/news/2018/07 … rk-ethical
pogo.org/investigation/2016 … -attached/
childrenshealthdefense.org/news … h-part-ii/
childrenshealthdefense.org/news … -part-iii/
sciencemag.org/news/2018/07 … successful
childrenshealthdefense.org/news … h-part-iv/
raps.org/news-and-articles/ … -continues
sciencemag.org/news/2018/07 … rk-ethical
researchgate.net/publicatio … mon_at_FDA
childrenshealthdefense.org/advo … -research/
childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-c … m-2000.pdf
Sure. But where is your evidence?
WHy of course i will take the experimental vacinne rushed out to the public due to political expediency…if the ruling authorities decide for me that i should do something, it must be for my own best interest and nothing could possible go wrong, It’s not like the government, pharmaceutical corporations and the carefully engineered media control system have ever steered the people wrong or ended up endangering the public in any way before. It’s for our own good, why should i not trust them with my life.
One man’s opinion:
nytimes.com/2020/12/30/opin … e=Homepage
[b]My hospital, along with hundreds of others across the country, recently began to administer the first Covid-19 vaccines. My social media feed is filled with pictures of friends and colleagues, sleeves rolled up, writing about how much this vaccination means to them. In an otherwise dark year, it’s a moment of hope.
And yet, not everyone is celebrating the historic vaccine rollout. I stopped following my uncle Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — a noted anti-vaccination activist — on social media in 2019, when he was posting misinformation about the dangers of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine in the midst of an outbreak.
When I take a look at his Facebook page now, I find a post about the Covid-19 vaccine that says, “We clearly have a systematic problem when government health regulators have utterly abdicated their responsibility to safeguard public health and refer safety concerns about shoddily tested, zero-liability vaccines to pharmaceutical companies.”
His concern — that the Covid vaccine is potentially unsafe, and hasn’t been properly tested — is widespread, and dangerously wrong. According to a report published by the Kaiser Family Foundation on Dec. 15, roughly a quarter of Americans say they “probably or definitely would not get a COVID-19 vaccine even if it were available for free and deemed safe by scientists.”
If this number holds, then Dr. Anthony Fauci’s estimate that at least 75 percent of Americans must be vaccinated for the country to achieve herd immunity, and effectively end person-to-person spread of the disease, could be unachievable.
I’m seeing the trend with my own patients. Two weeks ago, I convinced a 66-year-old woman to get her influenza vaccine for the first time in her life. But she said there is still no way she will take the Covid vaccine.
In May 2019, my sister Maeve Kennedy Townsend McKean; my mother, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend; and my uncle Joseph P. Kennedy II, wrote in Politico about their concerns regarding my uncle Bobby’s spread of distrust in vaccines.
At that time, there was a resurgence of measles, a highly infectious disease which the United States had declared eliminated in 2000. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the outbreak was largely “driven by misinformation about measles and the MMR vaccine, which has led to undervaccination in vulnerable communities.”
What’s more, a 2019 study found that the over half of Facebook advertisements spreading misinformation about vaccines were funded by two anti-vaccine groups, including the World Mercury Project, which was founded by my uncle Bobby. The organization has since changed its name to Children’s Health Defense, and Bobby is chairman. For its part, Facebook is no longer allowing anti-vaccination ads on its platform.
I recognize, with some trepidation, that people may wonder why I feel I need to speak out publicly about vaccines and against my uncle. The truth is, his name and platform mean that his views carry weight. After three hours, his Facebook post accusing government regulators of abdicating their responsibility to protect the public had 4,700 reactions, 2,300 shares and 641 comments.
As a doctor, and as a member of the Kennedy family, I feel I must use whatever small platform I have to state a few things unequivocally. I love my uncle Bobby. I admire him for many reasons, chief among them his decades-long fight for a cleaner environment. But when it comes to vaccines, he is wrong.
Though his Facebook post linked to a dubious source — a website aligned with the Children’s Health Defense organization that publishes conspiratorially tinged stories on “Big Pharma” and “Big Food” — the basic premise was correct: two U.S. health care workers did suffer allergic reactions, one anaphylactic, the other more mild, to the Covid vaccine.
The story’s headline ended with the question: “How many more are at risk?” An anaphylactic reaction to a vaccine is a serious matter, no question. But it does not necessarily signal that the wider public is at risk. The Pfizer vaccine was administered to more than 20,000 participants in clinical trials; 15,000 participants received the Moderna vaccine. Both trials concluded that the vaccines were safe.
As Dr. Fauci said in a CNBC interview on Dec. 16, responding to concerns about adverse vaccine reactions: “Once you decide to dispense the vaccine widely you’re talking about millions and tens of millions and ultimately hundreds of millions of doses. So, you may see reactions that you didn’t see in the clinical trials.”
As of today, more than 2.1 million people in the United States have been vaccinated and only 11 have reported a serious allergic reaction. In comparison, a recent study showed 11 percent of all Americans have a food allergy and one quarter of them have been given an epinephrine prescription.
This is normal, and no cause for alarm. Serious side effects of the Covid vaccine have been extraordinarily rare, but health care providers are aware of them, and are responding appropriately by monitoring vaccine recipients, especially those who have a history of allergies.
It’s hard to express how momentous it felt to receive the Covid vaccine. I think back to the patients whom I cared for during the height of the pandemic in New York City last spring, when my hospital system had among the highest number of intubated patients of any health care center in the country.
There were times when I called my patients’ family members, and told them that their loved ones couldn’t talk because they needed an emergent breathing tube. I reached out over FaceTime to some of the same families when it was time to say goodbye to their loved ones.
We are now bracing ourselves as in New York our Covid-19 case numbers tick up once again. The pandemic is far from over. And yet, this vaccine is our best opportunity to save lives. There is no time to waste. Being a doctor does not make me a vaccine expert, but I know whom to trust: immunologists like Dr. Fauci and Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, who have spent their whole lives studying vaccine development.
When the vaccine is offered to you, I urge you to take it. Do it for yourself, for your family and for your friends. Do it for your country.[/b]
Edit: I’d just like to add: I read the official accounts of the vaccines. I read the debunking of the critics. IOW I read the arguments presented in the media justifying why one should ignore people worried about the vaccines or anti-vax. I read those. I am not sure what my fellow critics of vaccines do here, but, hey, doesn’t it seem likely that we are aware of the MSM position. Like here Iamb presents, presumably as a counter to my post with links, as he says one man’s opinion - though I think Kerry is a woman, hope I didn’t muck that up. The article has nothing in the way of evidence, or the opinion piece has nothing in the way of evidence. Does he and the other’s in the it’s irrational to be concerned about these new vaccines camp really think we don’t know there are many people, many of them experts, who think the vaccines are fine, or a rational risk or whatever.
Do the people in that camp spend any time looking at what the stronger critics are saying? By stronger I mean experts or people referring to expert sources.
I don’t get the impression the dood guy does, nor PK. Iamb seems to read the posts here that are critical, which is something. He knew what many of those links linked to, enough to pull out an opinion about Kennedy. That’s more than PK does or Mr. Reasonable. And sure, there are probably anti-vaccers who are not reading much or not looking at what the defenders say in response to critics.
But for someone who actually looks into a range of sources, checks the debunkers to see if they actually respond to the criticism and concerns and who does not form a hard and fast position but still thinks he has good reason to be very skeptical, it seems like the responses here from the defense team are shallow. They are not interested in actually reading the opposition and considering it. I wonder if any of them know about what is in the vaccine: or things like it is made in part from aborted fetus tissue that was turned, intentionally cancerous. That it contains nano-tech. That it contains chemicals that have not been used much and which have a great deal of evidence can lead to auto-immune reactions. There’s much more in those vaccines also. And the parts that most
concern Kennedy, and me, are the new ones.
Anyway here’s my reaction to that opinion piece and at the end I deal with her accusation that her uncles research is just based on fringe nutberger stuff.
The problem with her position is the what she references is that when her uncle presented evidence of potential problems with the vaccine’, based on research, the regulators did not say, OK, we will look into this to see if the research has merit. They said, contact the vaccine maker. That is why her uncle said they were abdicating responsibility. The neice doesn’t focus on that issue. If research presented to a regulator is weak, say, or not relevant, the regulator can say that. They can justify not taking action or investigating further. Or perhaps they find the research valid or strong or worth looking more into. To tell someone to contact the vaccine maker with the concerns shows a confusion about the role of regulator and a naivte (that seems to mild a word) about how corporations about to make billions of dollars are going to respond to someone without power expressing a concern.
Part of the reason his uncle is effective is because he documents his opinions well and it is easy to demonstrate that the regulators are biased, irresponsible and in a revolving door relationship with industy. Some people just believe whatever. That goes for pretty much any side of an issue. Kennedy’s team does manage to find a lot of evidence that there are problems with vaccines and the research that goes into supporting them.
If the niece wants people to trust vaccines, he can complain about his uncle, or he could encourage the vaccine industry (which has done heinous things which cannot be said of his uncle) and the regulators to responsibly deal with public concerns.
I am sure the car industry found Ralph Nader’s work really annoying and their PR teams worked on smearing him. But in the long run they had to deal with what information he produced, at least to some degree.
Of course shareholders and management teams will have long ago made their profits, perhaps having moved on to other industries long ago.
Not all my links went to Kennedy’s site. Kennedy’s site refers over and over to research having nothing to do with his team or website. The bulk of his neice’s complaint is about the possible effects of his uncle questioning the safety of the vaccines. That’s ends up being an implied fallacy: appeal to consequences. The consequences are a valid issue, but here they get mingled with the epistemological issue, and that’s where the fallacy comes in.
I don’t know if these vaccines are dangerous or if there is a conspiracy regarding them or even lack of care on the part of the manufactureres. Two of them have bad histories, including fudging research and hiding data, but that doesn’t mean they are doing it now. I am sure staff has changed. The same people may not be there. The corporate culture might be better. But that history, plus the lack of a real independent and responsible oversight, and the fact that for some reason they decided to all go with a new technology when they had little time AND have expressed great confidence in the old technology that has been tested including long term, all concern me a lot. Now I am sure they would say they think this new tech is more effective. But then, based on what? It is way to early to tell. Further they are taking a large risk.
The neices’s opinion weighs less than a feather.
Now let’s get to the specific allegation that his sources are conspiracy fringe ones. In fact one the sources in research that Kennedy passed on the the FDA was
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4051498/
which comes from The National Center for Biotechnology Information advances science and health by providing access to biomedical and genomic information.
and it in turn is based on research from appropriate professionals in various medical fields.
Another bit of research he presented was this one…
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27804292/
Which is in pub med, obviously not some fringe conspiracy website and it recommends that use of this set of chemicals in a vaccine should only be done after users are screened. Users are not being screened for certain antibodies.
He writes a letter to the FDA citing research by professionals published in respected sources that raise issues of concern.
They tell him to contact the vaccine manufacturer with his concerns.
He writes an article saying the regulator is abdicating its responsibility.
That seems like a fairly reasonable assessment.
His niece, a young doctor in a profession that paints anti-vaxxers as necessarily kooks and worse, blames her uncle for the problem.
The problem, it seems to me, is that the regulator her tax dollar pay to make sure vaccines are safe decided not to act like a regulator.
Perhaps her uncle is an imperfect or even often incorrect critic of vaccines, but I see nothing here that should give the private citizen responsibility for the regulator’s failure to do its job.
But it is cool having a family member chastize Kennedy. That’s real research. I can see why kids see it as having more value than Kennedy’s work. The social media approach. I sure there’s a shorthand version on Twitter, could have saved the Times some paper.
Well, yes… and not only medicines, but foods and so many other products.
but you see no correlation, so we can leave things there.
I just don’t think the answers lead to the conclusion you think it does.
I don’t know many doctors that recommend their patients continue taking things their body reacts poorly to. I wouldn’t continue eating something generally accepted as a “superfood” if my body was allergic to it. But I cannot imagine the consensus of the professional health and biology community to be, “YOU TAKE IT WHETHER YOU’RE ALLERGIC OR NOT GODDMANIT!.”
I think what you’re actually touching on is the point of how journalism has hijacked scientific studies to come up with click-bait headlines. How studies have found the food pyramid to be created by various lobbies to ensure we eat their products into early graves. I get all of those things, but I consider them separate from the actual pursuit of finding out how to lead a “healthier” life by whatever the most general applicable standards might be (with the obvious antithesis being death).
I readily admit there are still disinformation campaigns about health perpetuated by unsavory profiteers (but hey hey, that’s capitalism for ya, right?), but there is also a lot more literature alerting us to the dangerous of corporate money in scientific journalism, if one is not too lazy to look. And I’d be weary to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to the science of human health and well-being.
Thanks for the reply…
I see you consistently conflating capitalism with opportunism. Those are different things.
- Capitalism is merely an issue of the right to own something - capital.
- Opportunism is seeking to take every advantage - taking advantage.
When those who are allowed to own things are not stopped from taking advantage there is an issue of abuse. Capitalism isn’t the abuse - opportunism is the abuse you object to (as do we all - except for the Nietzscheans and immoral socialists).
Sry, fixed.
3.4 million vaccinations in the UK so far…
ZERO negative reactions.
There have been bad reactions… why do you care though?
Take your vax, and get back to your life.
Those with certain allergies have been advised against having it,
so there’s probably less reactions occurring now, sure.
Evidence please!
3.8 million now. How many negative reactions??
Let’s see your evidence.
The first few days into the vaccinations, and headlines were made… how can you have missed that?
Also… reactions can take either hours, days, weeks, or longer, to manifest., depending on genealogy etc.
You are the one who made the claim. Look for the evidence yourself. It is not the obligation of everyone else to show you things you don’t want to look for just to prove you wrong every time you make an ignorant or stupid claim, mate.
How could They have missed the headlines though? 
“Selective blindness” - “I don’t see the evidence (because I refuse to open my eyes until I like what I hear)”
_
Sheer madness.
Sculptor reminds me of Mowk… 