There is decades of solid scientific evidence for the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. You are a misinformed consumer of conspiracy theories. Do better!
Good work, Jess, you're attracting a collection of ridiculous anti-vax commenters on par with those found on Paul Offit's Beyond the Noise. A sign that your words are valid and valuable if we are ever to turn the tide on self-serving ignorance and hypocrisy within current leadership at HHS.
Keep fighting! I feel so helpless and don’t know where to turn; I have a 6 week old grandchild (and 3 year old) and thankfully their mom is a pediatric nurse who once ran the vaccine program at a pediatrics office so I know she will find vaccines for her children. But my heart breaks for the ones so mislead by this and celebrating it even (like I see on social media). I think “they are celebrating children dying from preventable diseases?” They need to watch videos of babies trying to breathe with whooping cough; of children in ICU with all manner of sickness-before they gloat.
What can the “average “ lay person do? (Yes I’ve already written my congressman).
The comments here are disappointing. Apparently people really don't want to hear the truth and scientific facts of the situation, when it's easier to cling to the empty promises of politicians who only care about their bottom lines.
All the evidence says there is little to no science supporting vaccines. It’s a religion and money grifting operation. The jig is up and it will only get worse.
Little to no science? Tell you what, Tom. Let's take turns posting studies and see who runs out first. No preprints. Gotta be legitimate medial journals. No authors who've had medical licenses suspended in any country. Other than that, have at it. You go first.
That’s a great idea. You can post all the fraudulent studies starting with Ansel Keyes lipid heart disease hypothesis from the 1960s still being followed today by mainstream medicine. Or maybe the brain chemistry imbalance for depression that’s totally debunked. Or maybe the phony science on statins that haven’t statistically significantly reduced the incidence of heart disease, strokes or increased lifespan. How about the OxyContin debacle. Where do you want to start? Virtually all the mainstream medical journals are bought and paid for by Pharma. Totally corrupt.
I don't think that this description is apt "haphazard demolition of the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule." These changes are neither haphazard nor a demolition of the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule.
I agree there are problems with how the change was done. I think they should have followed ACIP procedure allowing public comment before finalizing such a change. That trampling on how we allow public input to policy decisions is a serious problem with this entire administration.
However, I don't see this change as having catastrophic consequences for our children's health. Everyone is still allowed to get all vaccines they want. I agree with you that this will likely lead to lower vaccination rates, but I'm not sure what effect it will have on the overall health of our children. The situation needs monitoring. I expect the ACIP committee will provide a vote supporting this change at the next meeting. What I want to see from them is whether or not they will revisit this choice in a year with an analysis of both how the vaccination rates changed and any changes, for better or for worse, in the overall health of our children.
BTW, I think you are making a mistake if you think that the Danish system is being emulated because it is admired and thought to be perfect. It is being emulated because it provides an evidential basis for the idea that fewer vaccines lead to better health. Not that it is perfect, but that it has been tried and it has not resulted in noticeable harm to their children's overall health. What it will do to the health of our nation's children will need to be evaluated after implementation.
Here's a rather different take on the change and why it was done. You made some good points in your post, but I think he makes some good points too.
The problem is the confusion that arises from from the changes. There was an excellent substack post around the confusion regarding vaccination with parents that are not really vaccine hesitant and may not understand the difference in credible sources and the information. https://communityimmunity.substack.com/p/are-these-still-recommended-or-not
As for Denmark, the differences are night and day. One thing is UHC and the other is a small homogeneous population.
Confusion is an issue whenever changes are made. I agree that the differences between Denmark and the U.S. are major and we cannot assume that changing our vaccine schedule will lead to similar changes in the overall health of our children.
However, I don't see any reason to assume that the change to the vaccine schedule will have a negative impact on the health of our children even though I agree it will likely lead to some reduction in vaccine rates for the vaccines no longer recommended.
BTW, I am not hostile to vaccines. I vaccinated my children when they were young and I get vaccines for myself as well. I am, however, hostile to poor statistical analysis, which sadly is apparent in many vaccine research papers. I am a retired professional statistician with a Ph.D.
You "like" far too many batshit crazy comments, Beth, and "subscribe" to more than a bit of grifter bullshit. "A Midwestern Doctor?" You vaccinated your kids? 40 years ago, right? When we only had five "real vaccines," and all was good.
Statistician? Econometrics or ecological modeling or computational stats maybe. Or a few TIAs.
When the actors and advisors are clueless and confused, the messaging inconsistent and sometimes contradictory, and confusion (and outrage and adulation) are intended ..... When Bobby evades, obfuscates and lies - "confusion happens."
-a mislabeled study leading to something about neuropathy (not influenza vaccines as it says...)
-a "broken link" (not an h1n1 study)
-a study that says that influenza vaccines work
-comments section of nothing but anti-vaccine rhetoric
Gotta say, that's all a bit suspect, bc it is basically just the author's opinion. There is no data, evidence or science behind what he's saying. It's rhetoric. Oh and his webpage? Yikes. Big oof. Going to have to clear my cache.
to clarify, you don't think the reduction in vaccination rates will have an overall effect on our children's health? My question is, why not? And why wouldn't it?
Then how about if vaccine manufacturers just quit making vaccines due to low demand? No effect collectively on children's health still?
Yes, the link was to an opinion piece. Just as this is an opinion piece. I like to read about different points of view.
No, I don't think that the expected reduction in the vaccination rates for influenza (flu), COVID-19, RSV, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and meningococcal disease are likely to have a significant impact on overall health of our children.
I think that vaccine manufacturers are unlikely to quit making vaccines due to low demand. It doesn't seem to be a problem for other countries that don't mandate those vaccines. But if that happens, then we can have a discussion about how to best resolve that situation.
All opinions are not equal tho, that's the point BethC. Yes of course anyone can have an opinion. But when we are talking about evidence-based medicine, and one with an opinion has NO (or scant) EVIDENCE, then that opinion cannot be held to the same standard as those providing evidence.
And if you don't think declined vaccination rates are going to cause bigger problems in our population of children, you're not paying attention to the right things. It's already happening. Why do you think (your opinion) we started vaccinating for those things in the first place?
No, all opinions are not equal. I agree that opinions based on evidence are more likely accurate than those based on speculation. OTOH, it's also possible for different people to have different opinions based on the same evidence. In a year or two, we'll have some evidence regarding the effect of removing those 6 vaccines from the schedule. Then I will reconsider my opinion on the impact and we can evaluate whether your speculation was correct.
We've ALREADY seen evidence of a downtrend in vaccination uptake. Check out the rate of measles cases for a prime example. That's not an opinion or speculation.
Yes, the measles vaccination rate has been dropping for years. But measles is still on the recommended schedule. It's not one of the diseases that was taken off, so any changes in measles vaccination rate or incidence rate would not be effected by the change in recommendations. It's not part of what we discussed in this thread. I was very specific about that.
Here here! Another example I use a lot is the AAP statement on circumcision which changed years ago from personal choice to potential benefits. They needed to do that to get insurance to cover it. These issues are utterly intertwined and when you pull official recommendations it is a cascade effect where you "can" have them but how in the world are you going to get them. Vaccines are safe, effective and save lives. Period. They cause...adults.
So Dan, which part of this article was inaccurate? Please, enlighten us all with your brilliant take that I am certain is well reasoned and not solely based on the fact that you disagree with anything that contradicts the current government.
oh PLEASE, Dan, do enlighten us with SPECIFICALLY what is biased about this article. PLEASE. Bc otherwise, I have to assume this is just an empty troll. I won't call you a bot bc of your misspellings, but come on, Dan. At least click each and every link in this article and read them. Absorb the knowledge. Let it marinate. Then come back with your list of alleged biases. Please?
America belongs to the people, not the politicians and their hacks. We need to take our country back!
Thank-you for all you are doing to bring actual science to the table against this madness.
There is decades of solid scientific evidence for the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. You are a misinformed consumer of conspiracy theories. Do better!
I've been using Fool's Gold Standard for a while myself.
Good work, Jess, you're attracting a collection of ridiculous anti-vax commenters on par with those found on Paul Offit's Beyond the Noise. A sign that your words are valid and valuable if we are ever to turn the tide on self-serving ignorance and hypocrisy within current leadership at HHS.
Keep fighting! I feel so helpless and don’t know where to turn; I have a 6 week old grandchild (and 3 year old) and thankfully their mom is a pediatric nurse who once ran the vaccine program at a pediatrics office so I know she will find vaccines for her children. But my heart breaks for the ones so mislead by this and celebrating it even (like I see on social media). I think “they are celebrating children dying from preventable diseases?” They need to watch videos of babies trying to breathe with whooping cough; of children in ICU with all manner of sickness-before they gloat.
What can the “average “ lay person do? (Yes I’ve already written my congressman).
The comments here are disappointing. Apparently people really don't want to hear the truth and scientific facts of the situation, when it's easier to cling to the empty promises of politicians who only care about their bottom lines.
All the evidence says there is little to no science supporting vaccines. It’s a religion and money grifting operation. The jig is up and it will only get worse.
Little to no science? Tell you what, Tom. Let's take turns posting studies and see who runs out first. No preprints. Gotta be legitimate medial journals. No authors who've had medical licenses suspended in any country. Other than that, have at it. You go first.
That’s a great idea. You can post all the fraudulent studies starting with Ansel Keyes lipid heart disease hypothesis from the 1960s still being followed today by mainstream medicine. Or maybe the brain chemistry imbalance for depression that’s totally debunked. Or maybe the phony science on statins that haven’t statistically significantly reduced the incidence of heart disease, strokes or increased lifespan. How about the OxyContin debacle. Where do you want to start? Virtually all the mainstream medical journals are bought and paid for by Pharma. Totally corrupt.
LOLOL that's what I thought, Tom. You got nothing.
I’d say I gave you a good list to start. Amazing how one can gaslight himself. 😊
zero links detected
You lost and you will lose big time going forward. The fraud gig is imploding. It’s going to be a great year. All the best.
I don't think that this description is apt "haphazard demolition of the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule." These changes are neither haphazard nor a demolition of the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule.
I agree there are problems with how the change was done. I think they should have followed ACIP procedure allowing public comment before finalizing such a change. That trampling on how we allow public input to policy decisions is a serious problem with this entire administration.
However, I don't see this change as having catastrophic consequences for our children's health. Everyone is still allowed to get all vaccines they want. I agree with you that this will likely lead to lower vaccination rates, but I'm not sure what effect it will have on the overall health of our children. The situation needs monitoring. I expect the ACIP committee will provide a vote supporting this change at the next meeting. What I want to see from them is whether or not they will revisit this choice in a year with an analysis of both how the vaccination rates changed and any changes, for better or for worse, in the overall health of our children.
BTW, I think you are making a mistake if you think that the Danish system is being emulated because it is admired and thought to be perfect. It is being emulated because it provides an evidential basis for the idea that fewer vaccines lead to better health. Not that it is perfect, but that it has been tried and it has not resulted in noticeable harm to their children's overall health. What it will do to the health of our nation's children will need to be evaluated after implementation.
Here's a rather different take on the change and why it was done. You made some good points in your post, but I think he makes some good points too.
https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/the-schedule-is-the-signal-why-the
The problem is the confusion that arises from from the changes. There was an excellent substack post around the confusion regarding vaccination with parents that are not really vaccine hesitant and may not understand the difference in credible sources and the information. https://communityimmunity.substack.com/p/are-these-still-recommended-or-not
As for Denmark, the differences are night and day. One thing is UHC and the other is a small homogeneous population.
BethC is a vaccine-hostile, Bobby-glazer, but pretends otherwise.
Thanks for confirming, there were hints.
Confusion is an issue whenever changes are made. I agree that the differences between Denmark and the U.S. are major and we cannot assume that changing our vaccine schedule will lead to similar changes in the overall health of our children.
However, I don't see any reason to assume that the change to the vaccine schedule will have a negative impact on the health of our children even though I agree it will likely lead to some reduction in vaccine rates for the vaccines no longer recommended.
BTW, I am not hostile to vaccines. I vaccinated my children when they were young and I get vaccines for myself as well. I am, however, hostile to poor statistical analysis, which sadly is apparent in many vaccine research papers. I am a retired professional statistician with a Ph.D.
You "like" far too many batshit crazy comments, Beth, and "subscribe" to more than a bit of grifter bullshit. "A Midwestern Doctor?" You vaccinated your kids? 40 years ago, right? When we only had five "real vaccines," and all was good.
Statistician? Econometrics or ecological modeling or computational stats maybe. Or a few TIAs.
When the actors and advisors are clueless and confused, the messaging inconsistent and sometimes contradictory, and confusion (and outrage and adulation) are intended ..... When Bobby evades, obfuscates and lies - "confusion happens."
Your profile shows you embrace LOTS of unhinged nonsense about vaccines. Congrats on retirement, though.
https://substack.com/@bethc160610/likes
the link you provided contains:
-an association study
-an opinion piece
-a mislabeled study leading to something about neuropathy (not influenza vaccines as it says...)
-a "broken link" (not an h1n1 study)
-a study that says that influenza vaccines work
-comments section of nothing but anti-vaccine rhetoric
Gotta say, that's all a bit suspect, bc it is basically just the author's opinion. There is no data, evidence or science behind what he's saying. It's rhetoric. Oh and his webpage? Yikes. Big oof. Going to have to clear my cache.
to clarify, you don't think the reduction in vaccination rates will have an overall effect on our children's health? My question is, why not? And why wouldn't it?
Then how about if vaccine manufacturers just quit making vaccines due to low demand? No effect collectively on children's health still?
Yes, the link was to an opinion piece. Just as this is an opinion piece. I like to read about different points of view.
No, I don't think that the expected reduction in the vaccination rates for influenza (flu), COVID-19, RSV, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and meningococcal disease are likely to have a significant impact on overall health of our children.
I think that vaccine manufacturers are unlikely to quit making vaccines due to low demand. It doesn't seem to be a problem for other countries that don't mandate those vaccines. But if that happens, then we can have a discussion about how to best resolve that situation.
All opinions are not equal tho, that's the point BethC. Yes of course anyone can have an opinion. But when we are talking about evidence-based medicine, and one with an opinion has NO (or scant) EVIDENCE, then that opinion cannot be held to the same standard as those providing evidence.
And if you don't think declined vaccination rates are going to cause bigger problems in our population of children, you're not paying attention to the right things. It's already happening. Why do you think (your opinion) we started vaccinating for those things in the first place?
No, all opinions are not equal. I agree that opinions based on evidence are more likely accurate than those based on speculation. OTOH, it's also possible for different people to have different opinions based on the same evidence. In a year or two, we'll have some evidence regarding the effect of removing those 6 vaccines from the schedule. Then I will reconsider my opinion on the impact and we can evaluate whether your speculation was correct.
We've ALREADY seen evidence of a downtrend in vaccination uptake. Check out the rate of measles cases for a prime example. That's not an opinion or speculation.
Yes, the measles vaccination rate has been dropping for years. But measles is still on the recommended schedule. It's not one of the diseases that was taken off, so any changes in measles vaccination rate or incidence rate would not be effected by the change in recommendations. It's not part of what we discussed in this thread. I was very specific about that.
Thanks jess for ur contribution to the society
Here here! Another example I use a lot is the AAP statement on circumcision which changed years ago from personal choice to potential benefits. They needed to do that to get insurance to cover it. These issues are utterly intertwined and when you pull official recommendations it is a cascade effect where you "can" have them but how in the world are you going to get them. Vaccines are safe, effective and save lives. Period. They cause...adults.
Your comment is as wretched as your soul.
So Dan, which part of this article was inaccurate? Please, enlighten us all with your brilliant take that I am certain is well reasoned and not solely based on the fact that you disagree with anything that contradicts the current government.
oh PLEASE, Dan, do enlighten us with SPECIFICALLY what is biased about this article. PLEASE. Bc otherwise, I have to assume this is just an empty troll. I won't call you a bot bc of your misspellings, but come on, Dan. At least click each and every link in this article and read them. Absorb the knowledge. Let it marinate. Then come back with your list of alleged biases. Please?