I was not at all "anti-vax" before Covid, but the fiasco with those vaccines certainly makes me skeptical, especially in light of the ridiculous vax schedule for kids now. Do children really need that many shots? I certainly didn't get anywhere near that many, and although my own now grown kids (well into the 20s) got more than I did, I'd say it was only about half of what's on the current schedule.
I'm with Sage Hana on the use of the term "anti-vax". Asking prudent questions isn't "anti-vax" or anti- anything. People should question whether the risks of vaccines are matched by the rewards. It's fairly easy to say measles, mumps, rubella, and polio vaccines are beneficial. It's a little more difficult to get behind varicella and HPV vaccines. And the product safety of all vaccines should always be questioned--that's called due diligence.
Yep, giving varicella vax to kids as a matter of course is dubious at best. Test for immunity when they hit their late teens. At that point, if they haven't got natural immunity, it almost certainly makes sense to give it to 'em; you don't want Chicken Pox as an adult. Whether the HPV vax makes sense depends on lifestyle. For promiscuous people, it probably does, but for those who aren't, it probably doesn't. The CDC also recommends annual flu shots for kids now. Really?
As long as the "anti-vax" smear is potent, gov't. will use it to push dangerous drugs into the veins of hapless citizens, for reasons of incompetence, graft, or just to kill people. All they have to do is call it a "vaccine".
And then if they feel like it, just go back and change the definition to whatever they feel like.
And this is also related to the "self spreading" vaccine study which removes all consent, informed or otherwise.
Complacency is always a greater danger--and therefore a greater sin--than compliance.
We must never stop pushing back against the hateful ad hominem of "anti-vaxx" as well as the Faucist scientific bastardy behind it. Individual critical thinking is always the bane of authoritarians everywhere, pharmaceutical and otherwise.
There may be a sliding scale of danger in no particular order: fanaticism, complacency, compliance, and just sheer willful ignorance. In the COVID era, these varying degrees all coalesced in a hurry.
Which is how you get venomous hatred (not a Brian Ardis reference!) directed towards the control group who just did their research.
The complacent take a rocket ride to fanatical because they just can't bear to admit that they got played. That they were lied to, and they bought the lie.
This is what Dr. Byram Bridle was discussing with Kirsch. People think the unjabbed are going to kill them. It's crazy and it all rests on not being "anti-vax" in their mind. All the old definitions that it conjures up.
I was not at all "anti-vax" before Covid, but the fiasco with those vaccines certainly makes me skeptical, especially in light of the ridiculous vax schedule for kids now. Do children really need that many shots? I certainly didn't get anywhere near that many, and although my own now grown kids (well into the 20s) got more than I did, I'd say it was only about half of what's on the current schedule.
I'm with Sage Hana on the use of the term "anti-vax". Asking prudent questions isn't "anti-vax" or anti- anything. People should question whether the risks of vaccines are matched by the rewards. It's fairly easy to say measles, mumps, rubella, and polio vaccines are beneficial. It's a little more difficult to get behind varicella and HPV vaccines. And the product safety of all vaccines should always be questioned--that's called due diligence.
Yep, giving varicella vax to kids as a matter of course is dubious at best. Test for immunity when they hit their late teens. At that point, if they haven't got natural immunity, it almost certainly makes sense to give it to 'em; you don't want Chicken Pox as an adult. Whether the HPV vax makes sense depends on lifestyle. For promiscuous people, it probably does, but for those who aren't, it probably doesn't. The CDC also recommends annual flu shots for kids now. Really?
As long as the "anti-vax" smear is potent, gov't. will use it to push dangerous drugs into the veins of hapless citizens, for reasons of incompetence, graft, or just to kill people. All they have to do is call it a "vaccine".
And then if they feel like it, just go back and change the definition to whatever they feel like.
And this is also related to the "self spreading" vaccine study which removes all consent, informed or otherwise.
Complacency is always a greater danger--and therefore a greater sin--than compliance.
We must never stop pushing back against the hateful ad hominem of "anti-vaxx" as well as the Faucist scientific bastardy behind it. Individual critical thinking is always the bane of authoritarians everywhere, pharmaceutical and otherwise.
There may be a sliding scale of danger in no particular order: fanaticism, complacency, compliance, and just sheer willful ignorance. In the COVID era, these varying degrees all coalesced in a hurry.
Which is how you get venomous hatred (not a Brian Ardis reference!) directed towards the control group who just did their research.
The complacent take a rocket ride to fanatical because they just can't bear to admit that they got played. That they were lied to, and they bought the lie.
This is what Dr. Byram Bridle was discussing with Kirsch. People think the unjabbed are going to kill them. It's crazy and it all rests on not being "anti-vax" in their mind. All the old definitions that it conjures up.
It's a pattern recognition error of sorts.
I like that sliding scale idea. Summarizes the situation nicely.