Nostr Web Client

Help needed!

I become a first-time father in a few weeks and trying to find my way through the vaccine maze.

I realised I can't run the standard algorithm of "trust the medical science" but that leaves me with the problem to separate good from bad myself.

And specifically which vaccines to take, and which to avoid?

Any recommendations on good sources or doctors that dare to think for themselves in public?

#asknostr

U-P-G-R-A-Y-E-D-D 3mo ago

The problem you're going to find is that there's a ton of pro-vaccine propaganda (mostly fear inducing, appeal to authority, and "debunking" sceptics) and then a lot of unqualified, ideological "truthers" (and pissed-off mothers) ranting about anecdotal evidence. In recent years there's been more outspoken, qualified and credible anti-vaccine professionals, since the taboo has been lifted after the covid vaccine debacle.

That leaves reviewing the availble studies. I've done that and concluded that the likelihood of contracting the diseases in a modern industrialized society is extremely low compared to the risk of vaccine injury.

The clinical trial studies usually show just a slight reduction in probability of disease. In my opinion, these studies also have a high likelyhood of being biased. All of the claimed efficacy is questionable, IMO.

https://odysee.com/@English_Subtitles:b/Chief_Nerd_-_Attorney_Aaron_Siri_Shares_the_Results_of_a_Bombshell_Vaxxed_vs._Un...-1965519431611654144.English:1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7KPRhexyUY

https://rumble.com/v3g623d-brian-hooker-and-steve-kirsch-what-science-says-about-vaccinated-and-unvacc.html

Unfortunately, the science isn't robust on either side of the argument.

There's no logical argument for getting them early, and there's good evidence that delaying them is less risky, so you can take your time doing your due diligence. The claimed protection "wears off" over time, so something like a Hep B vaccine makes a lot more sense for a teenager vs. a newborn.

It's a fucked up situation for parents, because going against doctors' recommendations is usually a bad idea. It's important to keep in mind that the doctors are heavily pressured (both professionally and financially) to have their patients "fully vaccinated." Nearly all of the practicing doctors and nurses believe what they're saying, because the alternative is for them to accept that they're harming children for bonus checks and social acceptance.

Not to mention, it's not easy to convince the mother with facts and logic when the doctors and media are telling her you're a crazy "anti-vaxxer" and listening to you will put her baby in danger.

Unfortunately, I learned about all of this the hard way.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

JBN 3mo ago

Worse yet, many credible skeptics still qualify their own opinions to avoid being labeled, 'I'm not an anti-vaxxer' like 'I'm not a conspiracy theorist'. Well, I'm an anti vaxxer and a conspiracy theorist. Its an IQ test. Malthusian population control sociopaths make money off of people who they view as deserving of whatever recently introduced products they are willing to inject into their babies. No? Well if that's not true, they would be able to easily convince us with clear evidence from impartial studies. The burden is not on me. Its on the interventionist advocate. They can't justify their shortsighted theory, they use appeals to authority and fear tactics and victim blaming instead. They are pharmaceutical salesmen, useful idiots at best. Eat healthy food, exercise, care for babies. like humans have always done. home birth or dont have babies. IMO adult epidurals are understandableadult and probably preferable. imo

Sasker 3mo ago

Well, yea that whole system of dynamics is what brought me here..

I have had 0 good experience with sick care so I have no naive ideas about what it is..

I lived in Europe and saw so many clever people go with the herd. Almost looks like, the more time they spent in university, the more unwise people get.

Instead of IQ it seems to be a test of autonomous vs. herd thinking. A test of disagreeableness. What do you think?

JBN 3mo ago

Yes, I went with the phrase for effect, which is a poor choice of words, and I agree it's inaccurate. There's nothing that makes a pharmaceutical intervention advocate more angry than if a person questions their unassailable right to intervene. Too rarely will there be calm reasoning or attempt to explain, and when there is, it will be accompanied with a weariness built from many such conversations.

The alternative is that they are wrong, and the medical system selects for personalities that don't apologize. The ones I resent are accustomed to a labcoat earned throne, and wear "You shouldn't question me" everywhere. And yet a better translation is: 'You shouldn't defend your child, use logic, seek evidence for life changing decisions, or respect the scientific method." I have far more respect for the local street drug dealer, who would help me understand what he's selling.

IQ is not a full measure of the truly desirable aptitudes anyway, it leans too much toward a measurement of workforce skills for foolish systems. The point I should have made, about the pharmaceutical program engineers, is that those who are capable of knowingly selling poisons for profit do so with the rationalization that anyone dumb enough to take their poisons deserve it. It is hard for good people to believe that bad people are as bad as they are, or that a society-wide system could be so insidious and self-driving.

I am thinking that 'test of disagreeableness' is not a good description. Certainly that dimension of personality can help one make the right choice, or disagree with the doctor in a social setting, but I happen to score very low on disagreeableness. Moreso in prose on the internet though :D

You hit on something central to the issue with autonomous vs herd thinking, and I would agree that university can foster bad thinking. There are graduates who see through the bullshit, but they seem to be more rare. Part of the problem is that it is kids at the top of their classes to start, and then the ones that finish are the ones that survive in a) a social system b) a system that rewards compliance. Then the result is that they have a set of knowledge they have to believe is worth the debt and time they paid for it. To invalidate their own institution is to invalidate all that, and their parents who sent them there, and the professors who taught them, to say nothing of the mascot they root for. For those who never attended, it is not so far uphill.

Sasker 3mo ago

Thanks so much for taking the time to respond!

I was coming to the conclusion that there won't be a black and white conclusion..

Hep B looks like the easiest - how would a child contract this in any reasonable circumstance?

Luckily my wife is pretty based so no need to convince her. While not being able to trust, I feel the need to verify what I can.

I'll watch the videos today.

Questions I'm looking at:

- What is the disease to protect agains

- What are the chances of catching it

- What are the available vaccines

- How much protection do they give (initial + wear off)

- What are the safety studies (all seem short and shotty so far)

- How are they produced

Any other good ideas to add?