3 ms·

> Only if you're dishonest about their recommendations! I literally just went to the PDF guide the OP linked to, which presents it as a recommended vaccination

by timr 1y ago

> Only if you're dishonest about their recommendations! I literally just went to the PDF guide the OP linked to, which presents it as a recommended vaccination (for a non-endemic disease in the USA): https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP-Immunization-Schedule.... But fine, you've touched on 1 out of the 9 differences. You still won't find it in the WHO guide, which is odd, considering that the WHO is recommending vaccines for a number of countries around the world where the disease actually is endemic.

magicalist 1y ago
> I literally just went to the PDF guide the OP linked to, which presents it as a recommended vaccination (for a non-endemic disease in the USA): https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP-Immunization-Schedule.... They have a 1-6 steps right on the first page. Step 1: "Determine recommended vaccine by age (Table 1)" OK, turn to Table 1. Dengue: > Seropositive in areas with endemic dengue (See Notes) Mpox: 18+ "for certain high-risk groups or populations" You can also turn to page 7 for the same notes for Dengue, and page 11 for what constitutes risk factors that would lead you to consider administering the mpox vaccine.
- timr 1y ago
  You can nit-pick if you want, but there are major differences between the two schedules, they're different for a reason, and my point is that there's actual scientific disagreement around many of these vaccines. In the case of Mpox, it's because the disease isn't a risk for most children (especially not in the USA). In the case of Dengue, it's because you can actually kill someone by giving the vaccine before they get Dengue. It's not a great vaccine. Rejecting one schedule because you read that it was "anti-science" is as non-sensical as accepting the AAP without knowing that it's actually very different than the WHO recommendations.
  - magicalist 1y ago
    > You can nit-pick if you want, but there are major differences between the two schedules, they're different for a reason, and my point is that there's actual scientific disagreement around many of these vaccines. Ah so they're nitpicks when I call out your misrepresentations, but somehow they're still material to your overall point? Your mpox and dengue points are nonsense, as already stated, but I wanted to get to this: > Rejecting one schedule because you read that it was "anti-science" is as non-sensical as accepting the AAP without knowing that it's actually very different than the WHO recommendations. Who are you even talking to? You've invented a strawman to respond to. In fact, the CDC doesn't even have an updated vaccine schedule. If you go to their current site, guess which vaccines are included? https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/imz-schedules/child-adolescent-age.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/imz-schedules/child-adolesc... So take it up with MAHA.
    - timr 1y ago
      > Ah so they're nitpicks when I call out your misrepresentations, but somehow they're still material to your overall point? They're nitpicks. Let's say I grant you that Mpox and Dengue are not really on the recommended AAP schedule, since they have asterisks. What about the other 7 differences? What about the Covid vaccine? BCG? Hep A? Flu? > Who are you even talking to? You've invented a strawman to respond to. It's the topic at the root of the thread. Presented these two options as better alternatives to the CDC. > In fact, the CDC doesn't even have an updated vaccine schedule. If you go to their current site, guess which vaccines are included? OK. So you're saying that nothing has actually changed? So what is the problem with the CDC? What's your applicable criticism of "MAHA"? Again, I refer you to the top of the thread: > The physicians in my life - including my spouse - have essentially all abandoned the CDC and FDA as a source of decision-making on vaccines and pharmaceuticals, except for what is required by law. Other sources of guidance, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics' immunization schedule[0] and the WHO recommendations[1] are gaining prominence instead. > If you are an opponent of vaccines or a supporter of "MAHA", who is happy with what the CDC/FDA is doing, you might want to consider that the way they're doing it has utterly failed to convince the vast majority of people who are responsible for actually executing their guidance, and therefore will have limited impact.

by timr 1y ago

magicalist 1y ago

> I literally just went to the PDF guide the OP linked to, which presents it as a recommended vaccination (for a non-endemic disease in the USA): https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP-Immunization-Schedule.... They have a 1-6 steps right on the first page. Step 1: "Determine recommended vaccine by age (Table 1)" OK, turn to Table 1. Dengue: > Seropositive in areas with endemic dengue (See Notes) Mpox: 18+ "for certain high-risk groups or populations" You can also turn to page 7 for the same notes for Dengue, and page 11 for what constitutes risk factors that would lead you to consider administering the mpox vaccine.

timr 1y ago
You can nit-pick if you want, but there are major differences between the two schedules, they're different for a reason, and my point is that there's actual scientific disagreement around many of these vaccines. In the case of Mpox, it's because the disease isn't a risk for most children (especially not in the USA). In the case of Dengue, it's because you can actually kill someone by giving the vaccine before they get Dengue. It's not a great vaccine. Rejecting one schedule because you read that it was "anti-science" is as non-sensical as accepting the AAP without knowing that it's actually very different than the WHO recommendations.
- magicalist 1y ago
  > You can nit-pick if you want, but there are major differences between the two schedules, they're different for a reason, and my point is that there's actual scientific disagreement around many of these vaccines. Ah so they're nitpicks when I call out your misrepresentations, but somehow they're still material to your overall point? Your mpox and dengue points are nonsense, as already stated, but I wanted to get to this: > Rejecting one schedule because you read that it was "anti-science" is as non-sensical as accepting the AAP without knowing that it's actually very different than the WHO recommendations. Who are you even talking to? You've invented a strawman to respond to. In fact, the CDC doesn't even have an updated vaccine schedule. If you go to their current site, guess which vaccines are included? https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/imz-schedules/child-adolescent-age.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/imz-schedules/child-adolesc... So take it up with MAHA.
  - timr 1y ago
    > Ah so they're nitpicks when I call out your misrepresentations, but somehow they're still material to your overall point? They're nitpicks. Let's say I grant you that Mpox and Dengue are not really on the recommended AAP schedule, since they have asterisks. What about the other 7 differences? What about the Covid vaccine? BCG? Hep A? Flu? > Who are you even talking to? You've invented a strawman to respond to. It's the topic at the root of the thread. Presented these two options as better alternatives to the CDC. > In fact, the CDC doesn't even have an updated vaccine schedule. If you go to their current site, guess which vaccines are included? OK. So you're saying that nothing has actually changed? So what is the problem with the CDC? What's your applicable criticism of "MAHA"? Again, I refer you to the top of the thread: > The physicians in my life - including my spouse - have essentially all abandoned the CDC and FDA as a source of decision-making on vaccines and pharmaceuticals, except for what is required by law. Other sources of guidance, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics' immunization schedule[0] and the WHO recommendations[1] are gaining prominence instead. > If you are an opponent of vaccines or a supporter of "MAHA", who is happy with what the CDC/FDA is doing, you might want to consider that the way they're doing it has utterly failed to convince the vast majority of people who are responsible for actually executing their guidance, and therefore will have limited impact.