3 ms·

> people in a normal year is not worried about the flu for children. People in a normal year vaccinate children against the flu. > When are you going to admit

> people in a normal year is not worried about the flu for children. People in a normal year vaccinate children against the flu. > When are you going to admit pediatric flu deaths in a normal year is around 190 and not 1? When are you going to understand that I never disputed that, and none of my arguments are affected by that? My point was that Covid is so bad for children that even with severe mitigations in place (so severe that only one child died of flu), it outkilled the flu in a normal year without those mitigations. > Yes, you can lock a kid inside to avoid the flu and car accidents. That's a silly idea. We could vaccinate kids instead, and that's what is going on. > Your proposed policy of vaccinating kids severely increase young kids risk for severe conditions such as heart issues including stroke and long term risks are unknown. Viruses, including the one that causes Covid, are an even greater risk of heart disease, including a more severe form called MIS-C that has resulted in amputations. https://newsroom.heart.org/news/viruses-are-the-most-common-cause-of-myocarditis-in-children-experts-offer-guidance https://newsroom.heart.org/news/viruses-are-the-most-common-... https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/covid-19-child-rare-condition/ https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/covid-19-child-ra... > long term risks are unknown They are well-known because any long term effects will be observed at most days after the vaccination or infection. There is no mechanism by which a change can take place in the body that does nothing until years later. What has been observed is that the effects observed within a week show that long term effects will be far worse for the disease than the vaccine. > How do you know the reward outweigh the risk of vaccinating kids that are at low risk for covid? Just as you were wrong about the PCR test article, you were wrong about the FDA advisory panel, which concluded unanimously that vaccinating kids is better than letting them contract Covid.

asabjorn 5y ago
> They are well-known because any long term effects will be observed at most days after the vaccination or infection. There is no mechanism by which a change can take place in the body that does nothing until years later. Quote from the scientist in [1] showing you are wrong on long term effects: "One of the worst medical disasters was diethylstilbestrol (DES) which was commonly prescribed as an anti-miscarriage medication in the 1940s. It was recalled 30 years later after it was connected to a rare tumor that appeared in the next generation of daughters of women who had taken it. " Reproductive damage would also only show up once the kids grow up and try to have kids. Cancers other than the one in the quote also take a while to develop. The scientists that wrote [1] are concerned about long term adverse effects as well as the short term we know: Larry Kwak, MD, PhD was named to the TIME100 for his work in cancer vaccines and is a former advisor to FDA; Steven Rosen, MD is Dir of a US NCI-designated Comp Cancer Center - he dev monoclonal Ab & drugs for cancer; Idit Shachar, PhD served as a dept chair > What has been observed is that the effects observed within a week show that long term effects will be far worse for the disease than the vaccine. The pre-print article below [2] is backed up by solid data that observes for young men, the risk of myocarditis is greater with the mRNA vaccines than from natural infection. > When are you going to understand that I never disputed that, and none of my arguments are affected by that? My point was that Covid is so bad for children that even with severe mitigations in place (so severe that only one child died of flu), it outkilled the flu in a normal year without those mitigations. You said "Covid still hundreds of times more lethal for children than the flu", so that means you claim we should expect 20k+ deaths without mitigations. Again, we had 400 pediatric deaths amongst the unvaccinated 73 million US kids over 1.5 years. According to this [3] nature article by end of 2020 1/3 of all Americans had covid. Where do you get your excess mitigated pediatric deaths from? > That's a silly idea. We could vaccinate kids instead, and that's what is going on. For Polio this makes sense as the reward is higher than risk, but low pediatric covid risk coupled with so much risk and uncertainty around the mRNA gene therapy vaccines makes the reward not worth it. Plus, it seems like the vaccines are ineffective against new variants such as omicron and wears off pretty fast. Boosters have not worked for variants so far, which is especially clear in highly boosted Israel and Singapore. Some hope further boosters will solve the vaccine effectivenes, but "European Union regulators warned that frequent Covid-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune response and may not be feasible" [4]. So again, risk vs reward is off and part of the damage would only show up long-term (and being immuno compromised is no fun). [1] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/oct/28/applying-brakes-on-warp-speed-covid-19-vaccination/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/oct/28/applying-br... [2] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v... [3] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03914-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03914-4 [4] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-11/repeat-booster-shots-risk-overloading-immune-system-ema-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-11/repeat-bo...
asabjorn 5y ago
> you were wrong about the FDA advisory panel The FDA panel approved the childhood vaxx after skipping the FDA Science Advisory panel. Again, you are not spotting that the FDA circumvent the standard convening of the expert advisory board when the FDA advisory board approved it, see my original link [3] and the non-paywalled [4]. This is after the science advisory panel denied approval in September. This is corrupt and unscientific. > Just as you were wrong about the PCR test article, You are incorrect judging by the source. Quote from the original CDC policy source I remembered [1] instead of the secondary link I clearly didn't read well enough: "After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel ... CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses." Basically after December 31, 2021, the CDC will withdraw the emergency use authorization of the PCR test for COVID-19 testing. If I read this correctly the CDC said the old tests are no longer authorized because the do not differentiate well between the flu and COVID virus. It doesn't matter much to my argument since 400 pediatric deaths over 1.5 years is already very low, and as I said I am fine with just counting the all as covid deaths. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert... [2] https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/01/05/cdc-dodges-questions-on-why-the-fda-went-around-regular-procedure-to-boost-kids-n2601446 https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/01/05/cdc-do... [3] https://www.wsj.com/articles/dangerous-push-to-give-boosters-to-teens-vacccine-covid-19-omicron-vaxx-requirement-mandate-11640107759 https://www.wsj.com/articles/dangerous-push-to-give-boosters... [4] https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/01/05/cdc-dodges-questions-on-why-the-fda-went-around-regular-procedure-to-boost-kids-n2601446 https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/01/05/cdc-do...
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  Now you're confusing yourself even further. There is only one advisory panel that meets before approving a medication. You're confusing approval of the booster for teenagers, which skipped that panel, with approval of the vaccine for kids, which did not. > If I read this correctly the CDC said You did not read this correctly, and the original link you posted explained why. > It doesn't matter much to my argument since 400 pediatric deaths over 1.5 years is already very low, This would be low if it happened without mitigations (or the first half year of that being before the disease had spread to most of America). It happened when mitigations severe enough to reduce flu deaths a hundredfold were in place. Do you not understand that?

asabjorn 5y ago

> They are well-known because any long term effects will be observed at most days after the vaccination or infection. There is no mechanism by which a change can take place in the body that does nothing until years later. Quote from the scientist in [1] showing you are wrong on long term effects: "One of the worst medical disasters was diethylstilbestrol (DES) which was commonly prescribed as an anti-miscarriage medication in the 1940s. It was recalled 30 years later after it was connected to a rare tumor that appeared in the next generation of daughters of women who had taken it. " Reproductive damage would also only show up once the kids grow up and try to have kids. Cancers other than the one in the quote also take a while to develop. The scientists that wrote [1] are concerned about long term adverse effects as well as the short term we know: Larry Kwak, MD, PhD was named to the TIME100 for his work in cancer vaccines and is a former advisor to FDA; Steven Rosen, MD is Dir of a US NCI-designated Comp Cancer Center - he dev monoclonal Ab & drugs for cancer; Idit Shachar, PhD served as a dept chair > What has been observed is that the effects observed within a week show that long term effects will be far worse for the disease than the vaccine. The pre-print article below [2] is backed up by solid data that observes for young men, the risk of myocarditis is greater with the mRNA vaccines than from natural infection. > When are you going to understand that I never disputed that, and none of my arguments are affected by that? My point was that Covid is so bad for children that even with severe mitigations in place (so severe that only one child died of flu), it outkilled the flu in a normal year without those mitigations. You said "Covid still hundreds of times more lethal for children than the flu", so that means you claim we should expect 20k+ deaths without mitigations. Again, we had 400 pediatric deaths amongst the unvaccinated 73 million US kids over 1.5 years. According to this [3] nature article by end of 2020 1/3 of all Americans had covid. Where do you get your excess mitigated pediatric deaths from? > That's a silly idea. We could vaccinate kids instead, and that's what is going on. For Polio this makes sense as the reward is higher than risk, but low pediatric covid risk coupled with so much risk and uncertainty around the mRNA gene therapy vaccines makes the reward not worth it. Plus, it seems like the vaccines are ineffective against new variants such as omicron and wears off pretty fast. Boosters have not worked for variants so far, which is especially clear in highly boosted Israel and Singapore. Some hope further boosters will solve the vaccine effectivenes, but "European Union regulators warned that frequent Covid-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune response and may not be feasible" [4]. So again, risk vs reward is off and part of the damage would only show up long-term (and being immuno compromised is no fun). [1] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/oct/28/applying-brakes-on-warp-speed-covid-19-vaccination/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/oct/28/applying-br... [2] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v... [3] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03914-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03914-4 [4] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-11/repeat-booster-shots-risk-overloading-immune-system-ema-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-11/repeat-bo...

asabjorn 5y ago

> you were wrong about the FDA advisory panel The FDA panel approved the childhood vaxx after skipping the FDA Science Advisory panel. Again, you are not spotting that the FDA circumvent the standard convening of the expert advisory board when the FDA advisory board approved it, see my original link [3] and the non-paywalled [4]. This is after the science advisory panel denied approval in September. This is corrupt and unscientific. > Just as you were wrong about the PCR test article, You are incorrect judging by the source. Quote from the original CDC policy source I remembered [1] instead of the secondary link I clearly didn't read well enough: "After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel ... CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses." Basically after December 31, 2021, the CDC will withdraw the emergency use authorization of the PCR test for COVID-19 testing. If I read this correctly the CDC said the old tests are no longer authorized because the do not differentiate well between the flu and COVID virus. It doesn't matter much to my argument since 400 pediatric deaths over 1.5 years is already very low, and as I said I am fine with just counting the all as covid deaths. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert... [2] https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/01/05/cdc-dodges-questions-on-why-the-fda-went-around-regular-procedure-to-boost-kids-n2601446 https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/01/05/cdc-do... [3] https://www.wsj.com/articles/dangerous-push-to-give-boosters-to-teens-vacccine-covid-19-omicron-vaxx-requirement-mandate-11640107759 https://www.wsj.com/articles/dangerous-push-to-give-boosters... [4] https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/01/05/cdc-dodges-questions-on-why-the-fda-went-around-regular-procedure-to-boost-kids-n2601446 https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/01/05/cdc-do...

lern_too_spel 5y ago
Now you're confusing yourself even further. There is only one advisory panel that meets before approving a medication. You're confusing approval of the booster for teenagers, which skipped that panel, with approval of the vaccine for kids, which did not. > If I read this correctly the CDC said You did not read this correctly, and the original link you posted explained why. > It doesn't matter much to my argument since 400 pediatric deaths over 1.5 years is already very low, This would be low if it happened without mitigations (or the first half year of that being before the disease had spread to most of America). It happened when mitigations severe enough to reduce flu deaths a hundredfold were in place. Do you not understand that?