16 minutes ago, Imp81318 said:

my question is what was the basis of the prior ‘standard’ vaccination schedule? I am not anti-vac by any stretch of the imagination, but I also recognize that often times medical policy and standards are created before the scientific data to back them up is available.

AI Overview

The standard vaccination schedule was based on

a comprehensive review of scientific evidence and developed by expert medical and public health organizations. It prioritized administering vaccines at the earliest possible age to protect infants and children when they are most vulnerable to serious infectious diseases. 

7 minutes ago, barho said:

AI Overview

The standard vaccination schedule was based on

a comprehensive review of scientific evidence and developed by expert medical and public health organizations. It prioritized administering vaccines at the earliest possible age to protect infants and children when they are most vulnerable to serious infectious diseases. 

Separating MMR from MMRV

According to the Aug. 7 version of the CDC’s immunization schedule, children should get vaccinated against MMR as well as varicella at 12–18 months old and again at 4–6 years old. The CDC has historically recommended that the MMR and varicella vaccinations be given separately, unless parents express a preference for the combination MMRV vaccine.

The CDC’s prior recommendation stems from concerns about an increased risk of febrile seizures, or convulsions caused by fevers. The newly recommended changes mean that the CDC will likely no longer recommend the MMRV combination vaccine for children under 4 years old at all, parents’ desires aside.

The first dose of the combination MMRV vaccine presents a twofold increase in the risk of febrile seizures compared with the separately administered MMR and varicella vaccines. There is no additional risk of febrile seizures in the second dose. John Su, a scientist at the CDC and National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, presented data during the meeting showing that 85% of children receiving vaccinations in the US get separate MMR and varicella vaccines, while only 15% receive the MMRV vaccine.

https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/vaccines/CDC-advisers-endorse-changes-MMR/103/web/2025/09

And I want to clarify here- RFK Jr is absolutely an unqualified nutjob that should be nowhere near a position of authority over anything medical in any way shape, manner, or form. I just don’t think this decision to change the CDC recommendations is a "the sky is falling” moment.

32 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Is there video of him saying what is the reason for the price hikes then?

9 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Is there video of him saying what is the reason for the price hikes then?

Definitely bidens fault.

13 minutes ago, Imp81318 said:

Separating MMR from MMRV

According to the Aug. 7 version of the CDC’s immunization schedule, children should get vaccinated against MMR as well as varicella at 12–18 months old and again at 4–6 years old. The CDC has historically recommended that the MMR and varicella vaccinations be given separately, unless parents express a preference for the combination MMRV vaccine.

The CDC’s prior recommendation stems from concerns about an increased risk of febrile seizures, or convulsions caused by fevers. The newly recommended changes mean that the CDC will likely no longer recommend the MMRV combination vaccine for children under 4 years old at all, parents’ desires aside.

The first dose of the combination MMRV vaccine presents a twofold increase in the risk of febrile seizures compared with the separately administered MMR and varicella vaccines. There is no additional risk of febrile seizures in the second dose. John Su, a scientist at the CDC and National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, presented data during the meeting showing that 85% of children receiving vaccinations in the US get separate MMR and varicella vaccines, while only 15% receive the MMRV vaccine.

https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/vaccines/CDC-advisers-endorse-changes-MMR/103/web/2025/09

And I want to clarify here- RFK Jr is absolutely an unqualified nutjob that should be nowhere near a position of authority over anything medical in any way shape, manner, or form. I just don’t think this decision to change the CDC recommendations is a "the sky is falling” moment.

I read the entire story. It is clear as day that RFKs vaccine denier clan is purposefully screwing with how data is presented. If you can't see what is going on here, I don't know what to tell you.

5 hours ago, Mike030270 said:

In so glad I’m done having kids. I worry about my future grandkids though.

41 minutes ago, Imp81318 said:

For example, the amount of energy that is permissible for ultrasound machines to emit into your body was based on the highest energy output of the machines in use when the standards were established since that level of energy was not known to have any negative effects at that time. However, at the time the technology was just emerging and companies were producing machines using higher and higher energy outputs to get more clear images which prompted the standard to be developed. That’s one example I’m aware from when I looked into it and talked with a software engineer that worked on the code and algorithms used to calibrate and certify ultrasound machines when my wife was pregnant.

Are you implying that there was no testing data available for certain ultrasound machines prior to their adoption and use. I find that hard to believe given the review criteria and approval process set by the FDA.

13 minutes ago, barho said:

I read the entire story. It is clear as day that RFKs vaccine denier clan is purposefully screwing with how data is presented. If you can't see what is going on here, I don't know what to tell you.

Yep, this is the ground work being laid. Look no further into who he named to the committee to understand where they plan on going with this in the next few years. There's a reason why states are creating health alliances and it's not because of the MMRV combo.

44 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Is there video of him saying what is the reason for the price hikes then?

It's called capitalism

21 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

It's called capitalism

It's called Tim Cook saying the right things to keep the authoritarian in chief from targeting Apple.

there is nothing new there. there is literally zero evidence that Elmi is her brother.

5 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

It was Mr. Orange with a flamethrower and the Epstein files.

The agreement could benefit some of Trump’s top allies, including Larry Ellison, the billionaire co-founder of Oracle, a tech giant that will own a stake in the U.S. spin-off and provide it cloud-computing and technical services, according to details of the deal shared by two people familiar with the arrangement, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the negotiations. Oracle did not immediately respond to request for comment.

One of the people said the algorithm’s use in the U.S. would be supervised by the spin-off’s leadership and meet all security requirements. Oracle currently hosts Americans’ TikTok data on its servers in Texas and reviews the code for potential security flaws.

But the law explicitly forbids a spun-off TikTok from maintaining any "operational relationship” with ByteDance related to the algorithm or data security, a point some observers suspect could subject the deal to legal challenges. Trump allies have argued that the law grants the president authority to declare a divestiture has taken place if he determines the app is no longer subject to Chinese control.

Crony capitalism blended with populism, a perfect combo to slowly pick the pockets of their retarded supporters without them realizing it.

Right on.

6 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

It was Lady Grape n hat, In the hall with a candle stick for the win.

I can't wait to see what Xi says about the call that ends up embarrassing our feckless chief.

4 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

So is he saying corporate greed is the reason and not the tariffs? I admire his honesty

4 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Are you implying that there was no testing data available for certain ultrasound machines prior to their adoption and use. I find that hard to believe given the review criteria and approval process set by the FDA.

I’m saying that the review and approval standards and metrics for use of new and relatively experimental technologies was significantly different and less stringent in the 1940’s and 50’s when ultrasound machines began to be used for medical applications and they based the limits on the data that they had available at the time which, since it was new use of the technology had to be based on very limited data. You can believe it or not, but I was given the information by someone that was working in the industry at the time that I trust.

This is from AI response to a Google search of how ultrasound energy limits were established:

The current system evolved through several key periods in the late 20th century:

• Pre-1976 baseline: In 1976, the FDA established baseline limits based on the acoustic output of ultrasound machines that had been on the market prior to the Medical Device Amendments Act. No adverse effects had been reported from these "pre-amendment" devices, providing a conservative starting point for regulation.

The next update to the limits wasn’t made until 1992. So there were no governing limits from the 50’s until 1976, and then for the next 16 years the limits were based on the maximum energy output of the machines available when the standards were set.

27 minutes ago, Imp81318 said:

I’m saying that the review and approval standards and metrics for use of new and relatively experimental technologies was significantly different and less stringent in the 1940’s and 50’s when ultrasound machines began to be used for medical applications and they based the limits on the data that they had available at the time which, since it was new use of the technology had to be based on very limited data. You can believe it or not, but I was given the information by someone that was working in the industry at the time that I trust.

This is from AI response to a Google search of how ultrasound energy limits were established:

The current system evolved through several key periods in the late 20th century:

• Pre-1976 baseline: In 1976, the FDA established baseline limits based on the acoustic output of ultrasound machines that had been on the market prior to the Medical Device Amendments Act. No adverse effects had been reported from these "pre-amendment" devices, providing a conservative starting point for regulation.

The next update to the limits wasn’t made until 1992. So there were no governing limits from the 50’s until 1976, and then for the next 16 years the limits were based on the maximum energy output of the machines available when the standards were set.

Nothing in your AI summary indicates the standards were set without the use of testing data.

Disney is in the find out part of this story. It’s only just begun.