"If you show me those studies"... As if those studies haven't been available for years already as he's been spewing anti-vax BS. It's clear he's not capable of understanding a research paper in the first place.
I mean, if you are candidate for the direction of the main disease control institute of the richest country in the world, a few years after a pandemic that sparked massive discussions over vaccines in the public opinion... You should know everything about vaccines pretty fucking well, to even be remotely fit for the postion. At least you should know damn well the results of the long-term safety studies done in over 40 years proving that vaccinations are the safest drugs we have and the massive positive impact they have on public healthcare.
If you need to "be shown those studies" it either means you can't read, or you can't google or you didn't do your homework before. Stuff I would expect from Bachelor's students, let alone the damn CDC president.
Jesus Pete, I have a layman's understanding of vaccines and I feel like I'm more qualified than this chucklefck. He's willfully illiterate and willfully ignorant. You could slap all the studies right before him and he'd still hem and haw.
and more qualified to be president. 8 years ago i thought i would be terrible as president of the united states. today i could be great, by comparison. even just playing videogames all day and not governing at all would be a step up
"Politician" is the one profession in this world where you don't actually have to have any qualifications to get the job. Like, literally, you don't have to know anything about anything. You don't have to know how to drive a car to become secretary of transportation, you don't have to know how interest works to be a minister of finance, you don't have to ever even have so much as read the first sentence of the constitution to be appointed as the attorney general. And that goes for every country. It's just crazy that the people who are in charge of shaping the entire fucking world we live in don't have to know jack shit, meanwhile average people are expected to have 10+ years of working experience in a specific field at age 20 to even be considered for a fucking job interview.
Funny story: I came across a study recently showing that getting covid while pregnant increases the chances of the baby being born with a neurodevelopmental disorder (autism or ADHD). Vaccines can protect against getting covid. So vaccines actually prevent autism.
Yeah, I've seen no-vaxxers twisting similar studies (possibly the same?) to say that the spike protein "contained in the vaccine" causes that, therefore vaccinating the mother causes autism in the child.
There is really no limit to what they can purposefully misunderstand.
I got vaccinated in early 2021. Got pregnant shortly afterwards, and got Covid during a spike in 2021, when I was like 20 weeks pregnant. It was horrible, but I never had to be hospitalized. My son was later diagnosed autistic as a toddler. It wasn’t the vaccine, it may have been Covid related, but almost certainly it was genetics. Why that’s not being mentioned more, I do not know. Bobby needs to STFU.
That would make sense i actually have Autism and ADHD and when I got covid it made my ADHD symptoms significantly worse practically overnight like idk what kind of brain damage I got or what but I was basically incapacitated for a year and a half between that and hacking up a lung constantly, and I got covid again which made it slightly worse again it’s absolutely fucked.
The vaccine is limited on preventing you from contracting covid. Its main purpose is to reduce the severity of the illness so people stop dying from it. Either way my 5 year old is smarter than these people.
Let remember that they want to discredit the years of science and play the victim being suppressed to then turn around and sell their snake oil medicine.
Let's not go as far as saying vaccinations are the safest drugs out of all the drugs known to man. They are safe, but I wouldn't say they are as safe as paracetamol for example.
That depends on the definition you give of "safety". If you look at the overall side effect ratios for instance, vaccines cause mild "side effects" in way more patients than paracetamol, i.e. up to 1 in 10 patients (depending on the vaccine) experiences redness, swelling or pain at the injection site and fever, all symptoms of inflammation. The point is that an inflammation is exactly what the vaccine is supposed to cause, in order to get a proper B and T response and a lasting immune memory. It is defined as a side effect for regulation and therapeutic purposes, but it is not biologically speaking, it's literally just the sign that it's working as intended. So maybe unpleasant and all, but not necessarily harmful or unexpected.
For paracetamol, it depends on the doses (as with anything else, ofc). If you take into account the 500mg pill that thousands (maybe millions? pretty hard to find statistics on this) of people take once because they are experiencing headaches or similar then yes, there is an extremely low rate of side effects (although we should consider that only people who know not to be allergic to paracetamol will do so in most of the cases, driving a large part of the statistics). If you consider extended use at therapeutic doses (4g/day per 1-2 weeks), then the side effects increase dramatically, up to 25-40% chance of markers increasing for (mild) liver damage (https://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3705.long ).
It's not a competition and it would be pretty hard to actually define "the safest drug" we have. My comment was a bit hyperbolic there, but I feel like we are leaving in completely out-of-the-boundaries times.
Well yeah, if you overdose. But they are considered safe enough for the average person to consume at their own discretion. Vaccines are not, but it is more nuanced than that of course.
My point is that if you take the recommended dosage, the side effects are way less severe than vaccines. Vaccines also have a certain dosage of all the substances that they contain. But it is hard to overdose on that when the vaccine already contains everything in the right amount and it is administered by a doctor.
If this doesn't convince you or satisfy you, can you elaborate on why vaccines are significantly safer? And by what standards do you consider something safe? Additionally, paracetamol was just an example, there are probably safer drugs out there, it was just the first one that popped up in my head.
Fever, vomiting, headache, tiredness, swelling, soreness, fainting,... And these have from what I'm reading an occurrence in the order of 1-40% (except the fainting).
From what I'm reading on paracetamol, the most common ones are 1-34%, with most 1-10% (like headache or a rash).
I would say they are pretty similar. Like I said it was just an example. But the link you sent is about overdoses, as I mentioned before, for me it is not about that. If you need a medical professional to administer it, like with vaccines, then overdoses generally won't happen.
Fever, swelling and soreness are only technically "adverse effects" of vaccines - they are part of the inflammatory immune response that the vaccine is designed to elicit. They are positive signs that your body is, in fact, mounting an immune response in reaction to the vaccine, as intended.
Studies show exactly that vaccines, as any other drug, have different side effect on different people. That's why they report statistics (i.e. only some percentage of people get some side effects).
The accompanying statement, sorry to say that, but it's just a stupid comparison. "Do vaccines cause autism, yes or no?" asks if the person thinks there is a direct causation. it IS a yes or no question. The only possible and scientifically accurate answer is "No", end of story. There is no credible evidence to support that, not even for a small amount of patients.
"Is medicine harmful, yes or no" it's a flawed question as it's built upon the duality of medicine, which in most of the cases causes some levels of side effects ("harm") while providing an increased relief from greater harm. To answer that you need to define "harmful" very accurately. The fact that you even compare the two questions is worrying.
It's the bullshitters way. In this way they give the impression that "there is a debate" or that "some facts/answers are not clear". It's a way to mudding the waters, insulting the intelligence of your followers/electors because you know they're not gonna go look it up by themselves.
There are new studies and meta-reviews every year reaffirming that vaccines are broadly safe and do not cause autism. There are no reputable reviewed studies showing the opposite. RFK will not present his, so we don’t have to present ours to the aspiring Sec of HHS.
Nah, later in the hearing he cited some semi recent study that sort of suggested that maybe we can’t 100% prove that they don’t cause autism. That’s enough for conspiracy theorists to latch onto and say “See! We have studies too!”
You always put the burden of proof on them, because when they present actual evidence you just gaslight it and question it further. Its easy to destroy something, difficult to create.
The thing is that despite being available for years, they don't want to see it because it goes against their beliefs, and for these people they have tied their beliefs to their egos, so when the beliefs are destroyed, their egos get destroyed. That's why they choose to ignore this. That's why it is necessary that he reads the research paper right in front of this hearing committee. And then if RFK Jr says that this research is wrong, then all Senator Sanders has to do is ask him to prove that it is wrong right there on the spot in exactly the same way, you know like beat them in their own game, and tell him that if he can prove it then he can get the job or else get the hell out. For once he would have to work this out.
You realise he’s not Anti vax right ? He’s saying that big pharma should be doing. More testing before injecting people . I mean if they were all safe as they say why would they need blanket immunity from prosecution .
Should have hit him with, “Oh, so you have not read the studies? On many occasions made public, you made proclamations of a causal link between vaccines and autism. Do you normally make claims without having done research?”
He's got the standard BS deflections prepared for every finding of the major papers on this topic - which are just complex sounding enough to hoodwink low information voters into thinking he must have the right of it. After all, it sounds smart, and it "makes sense" to them.
Good thing we're abolishing the Dept of Education!
Basically every year there's a new study too whether it's in the US or another country. The 2019 Denmark study should've been the be-all, end-all study. I'm tired of the scientific community wasting precious money on this absolutely pointless debate with complete morons.
Do you have links for those studies? Cause I’d love to read them. I’d also like to know they aren’t fake studies and paid off scientists to make something look good when it’s really not.
The studies go on and on. Nearly every year there is another one published debunking the autism claim. All peer reviewed. For your information, if you do not know. The initial research study that made the claim ACTUALLY WAS FAKE. Andrew Wakefield lost his medical license over it, the paper was retracted after publishing. Results were unable to be reproduced. Wakefield failed to make conflict of interest disclosures. He was developing and marketing his own "version" of these vaccines and wanted some market share.
Even worse (and I think Bernie Sanders pointed this out too), the fact that he beats around the bush and says ‘if you show me those studies…’ when he himself should be closer to an expert on them than Bernie, considering his government position, and therefore be even more familiar with the studies, is baffling.
I just find it so funny these people are like “vaccines cause autism”. Huh. Well, Bobby, you and your kids are vaccinated. Are you all autistic? What about the president and his children, Bobby? How many of them are autistic? Do you know a single autistic person (let’s leave Elon out of this one for argument sake), Bobby?
It’s…it’s almost like you don’t need a study to see that sometimes some people are diagnosed with autism regardless of vaccination status. You can’t correlation/causation this one. It would be everyone or no one.
I used to wonder why it's always the vaccines they try to implicate, and never actual correlations found in research. It seems to always boil down to how they can profit off of it in some way. Harder to crusade against "air pollution causes autism" when you can't just stop "air polluting" your kids.
What studies? The ones comparing vaccine to vaccine? The ones comparing vaccines to adjuvant? Only two vaccines were even looked at for autism, each one by themselves. No studies were done looking at ALL THE VACCINES together. No studies have been done to account for the total load. 27 vaccines before the age of 2? Hep B vaccine on the first day of life? No unvaccinated children compared to cdc scheduled vaccinated children. These are just a few studies I personally would like to see.
Are you claiming his intent there was to be presented with a pile of studies, literally the strongest evidences we have in the history of medicine about safety of a drug/therapy, and go over them one by one to find how many authors on the spectrum are there?
I hope that was sarcastic, or that you understand yourself how ridicolous that sentence is if you think about it for more than half a second.
2.6k
u/FargeenBastiges Jan 31 '25
"If you show me those studies"... As if those studies haven't been available for years already as he's been spewing anti-vax BS. It's clear he's not capable of understanding a research paper in the first place.