r/DebateVaccines

At the morgue, the babies were brought in with their diapers and blankets and with their hospital ID bracelets still wrapped around their tiny ankles. The pathologists’ findings were like those you would typically see in ailing adults, not newborns — the kind of bleeding seen during strokes or brain tissue loss similar to what happens when radiation is administered to treat cancer.

Their autopsies, which took place over the last several years, all came to the same conclusion: The deaths were caused, in whole or in part, by a rare but potentially fatal condition known as vitamin K deficiency bleeding.

In almost every case, the babies’ deaths could have been prevented with a long-standard vitamin K shot. But across the country, families — first in smatterings, now in droves — are declining the single, inexpensive injection given at birth to newborns to help their blood clot.

Hey! I have a question over a concern I heard. It’s really weird tbh.

So, I’m friends with a lot of kids from my school’s seventh graders, for context: I go to art class with like 7 of them, so in turn I’m a big sister to lots of the kids there.

This week, they got their HPV shots. Of course I asked this kid, Mia, why she didn’t get hers, since, they asked me before things like : “did it hurt??” Or “was it worth it?” And I of course told them all to get it if they had a say. And this kid told me she didn’t get it. I asked her if her mum or dad prevented her, and she said (not exactly) this:

“Well, we read online that it’s somehow bad for athletes, and can have bed side effects. And you know I go to world championships, and things like that—“

And I’m really confused on that!

So, have you guys heard of opinions like this before?

For context, we can exclude Rabies and Tetanus.
Also for context. Certain vaccines or a recovery from a natural infection can induce herd immunity, while others don't. Let's be fair!

If they develop a "vaccine" for Hanta Virus, how many of you will allow yourself to be injected with it?

I will be declining the Tdap (whooping cough) vaccine along with any others that may come up and I’m wondering how to say this politely at my next appointment? At my last appointment my OB doctor was away so it was someone filling in for her, and she said that I can get the vaccines at my next appointment. I just kinda went along with it and said ok on my way out because I know I won’t be seeing this doctor again anyways and my regular OB will be back. Has anyone else declined these vaccines? And how to deal with maybe any pressure to get them from the doctor? Not sure how she will react even though I know at the end of the day it’s my decision.
Thanks <3 I’m currently 27 weeks

Sad that parents won’t listen to medical experts but will believe a YouTube video as solid evidence. Why take a chance with your newborn?

&#x200B;

We don't really need to rely on heuristics, when we are able to evaluate the facts to begin with,

BUT:

If you believe the establishment:

The entire motive story just doesn’t add up. Andrew Wakefield had a thriving life before all this: a

well-paid (perhaps well into 6 figures salary), respected specialty practice, a beautiful home and

wife, a solid reputation, charity work that produced lots of funding for Chron's disease (that made it

in Newspapers), world class professional recognition, and stability. What, then, was there to gain?

Or more importantly, what did he lose? The answer is painfully clear: he lost almost everything. His

career, his reputation, his life in Britain, all for some elaborate fraud that, while imaginable in the

abstract, was totally incoherent and extraordinarily high-risk. We have to believe that he

deliberately set out to orchestrate a fraud where he planned to convince regulatory bodies like the

MHRA to approve a product based on a falsified disease pathology, despite the fact that such

agencies are claimed by the mainstream rhetoric, to be so incredibly effective at regulation. We

would also have to believe he could somehow persuade pharmaceutical companies and public

health officials (who specifically, adamantly recommended against single dose/alternative measles

vaccination or MMR alternatives) & MRHA to support a fraud that directly threatened their

established policy, profits and reputation, and that threatened peoples trust in vaccines (which was

essentially a sacred cow to them) and in medicine/public health more broadly.

Whether or not the litigants won the legal case against GSK, Wakefield would have been able to

make the same money, Wakefield wouldn't want this case to end quickly (or win) either, if anything

Wakefield would make more money by dragging out the case so he got more hourly payments

(any legal victories would only benefit the parents anyway, not Wakefield himself). His involvement

was highly publicized in Newspapers; he openly discussed litigation involvement, and research aims in newspapers and on television and in applications for approval for research to the Royal Free

Ethics Committee... So how on earth this can reconcile with the idea that he was hiding something,

is perplexing to imagine.

The scenario becomes even more completely impossible when you consider that Wakefield would

supposedly be simultaneously trying advance lawsuits that antagonized and threatened

pharmaceutical companies, and also, work with those pharmaceutical companies to get his

products manufactured? In reality, the companies would have no reason to support a scheme that

was designed to create fear and public distrust around major pharma products through a major

lawsuit, if anything, they would be infuriated and work actively to block him. The idea that he

would orchestrate a plan where he both threatened and expected collaboration from the very

institutions he was undermining is inherently contradictory. It would require an implausible

alignment of incentives, perfect foresight, and trust from actors who had every reason to oppose

him, conditions that simply cannot exist in the real world.

Perhaps most damning of all, if the fraud was all about profiting from public fear, well... in 1999–

2002, public concern was significant, vaccine uptake dropped, media attention was immense, and,

the perfect conditions arose for him to put this business grift into action. Yet, facing such perfect

opportunity to act, he never pursued a trial, never developed any drugs, and never even tried to do

anything that would advance that supposed motive. In other words, even under the “best possible

conditions” for a fraudulent scheme to succeed, he did nothing to even attempt to capitalize on it!?

And this is supposed to be the most elaborate fraud in medical history? Come ON!! It's patently

absurd! He left his perfect life for, this? You have got to be kidding me!

And, if you thought it couldn't be LESS coherent, well, it can.

Facing a declining vaccine uptake (due to media coverage of Wakefield's work), measles deaths,

and many parents that were asking for safer alternatives to the MMR vaccine who refused MMR

but still wanted to protect their children, the UK government/medical officials actively pushed a

policy against the use of monovalent/single dose vaccines, and specifically made those alternatives

even more difficult to access, even though they existed elsewhere and were technically available

(but hard to get and expensive).

And their main excuse? “We don’t want a drop in vaccine uptake. It takes longer for children to

complete the schedule if they require three separate visits, which they may also fail to attend.

Therefore, we cannot recommend single-dose vaccines for parents who won’t use MMR.”

In other words, they were saying: “Parents who refuse MMR but want an alternative? Fine… don’t

get vaccinated. We’re not offering any choice, because we can’t risk people not getting vaccinated.”

Against their own interests (to maintain vaccine rates), they set policy up that made it difficult for

parents who wanted single/alternative vaccines. Is that evidence of an effort to prevent a control

group? Perhaps it does. We'll never know.

Does it further strengthen the impossibility of Wakefield's elaborate fraud? Indeed it does. That's

because by actively restricting and making access to single-dose alternatives difficult, the

authorities effectively prevented Wakefield from easily profiting from hesitant parents by selling

single vaccines or MMR alternatives, because parents would face significant barriers and pushback

when trying to pursue alternatives, if they would even find out alternatives existed. Their own

policies created the conditions that made any “fraud-for-profit” scheme structurally unworkable

and therefore implausible, because Wakefield was actively aware of this (he received hard pushback

from officials after he promoted the single dose vaccine on TV). =-

When viewed in the totality of the case, the alternative explanation, is a far more coherent

explanation that aligns far closer with the actual evidence. It accounts for incentives, rational

behaviour, and the observed outcomes.

Brian Deer and his book sales, headlines, awards, and payments to do pharma conferences and his

professional reputation? The media, the government, and the medical industrial complex? They all

benefited materially or reputationally, controlling the narrative and consolidating power, protecting

their reputations and their institutions and their vaccine programs. The real “proof of incentives”

lies in who actually gained and who actually lost.

The vilification of Wakefield has arguably become the medical industry’s single most powerful tool

for shutting down debate and “poisoning the well.” Today, any questioning of vaccines at ALL or

broader medical issues AT all, is often met with an immediate, reflexive dismissal which sounds

something like: “Oh, that’s just because of that fraudulent study by Wakefield, it’s all debunked,

discredited quackery!” This reaction demonstrates how effectively the narrative has been leveraged

to protect reputations, institutions, and the dominant consensus, turning Wakefield’s personal ruin

into a broader instrument of control over dissent and skepticism.

If you try to test whether or not, what happened in reality, is coherent with a particular motive or a

framework, and it's basically able to explain everything that did in fact happen after you plug it into

the scenario, it's quite likely that it's fairly close to the truth. Though you can never read minds, and

know true intentions.

It wasn't the vaccine it was just genetic.

The parents explicitly started off dismissing the idea vaccines caused autism. Taking it as an act of deflection by doctors.

Hi all! I have been reading a few posts on social media linking vaccines with autism. I know this is a very controversial subject. I just wonder if any of you who their children experience regression truly believe that vaccines contributed to it. Thank you!

I’ve explored the vaccination topic by way of this and other fora for nearly five years.

Though some folks who post here try to change my mind about where I stand on vaccinations, I haven’t seen any reason to do so.

I do think there is a lot more to be learned about vaccinations, legislation, and many other aspects of the topics associated with the subject.

One aspect I’d like to see discussed more is whether or not people should be compelled to be vaccinated. Especially in terms of rights of the individual.