16 minutes ago, MidMoFo said:

Problem isn't the unvaccinated idiots. It's the collateral damage. Measles is the biggest risk here. That hits kids, particularly young kids, way more often than adults and they represent most of the deaths as well.

So you've got a state that is getting rid of their herd immunity, that simultaneously has massive tourist traffic from out of the country where measles is more common, and a huge number of children's parks where people/kids are packed in close proximity.

This is going to be bad. Very bad. And the kids will pay most of the price.

On 9/4/2025 at 11:05 AM, DEagle7 said:

We already have a middle ground sheet for brains. Babies in the US don't get the yellow fever vaccine. Or typhoid. Or cholera. Or Japanese encephalitis. Or rabies. The middle ground was figured out by massive committees of experts and almost a century of research and now dopes with zero expertise want to add their 2 cents. No. Hard Fing no. Public health is firmly in the purview of the government. Don't like it? Homeschool or private school your kid. Don't put everyone else at risk just cause you're an idiot.

This is just another case of...

18 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

One is funded and controlled by pharmaceutical companies the other makes great points most reasonable people would agree with. You aren’t. Shocking. Babies who don't need the hep shot after tests shouldn't get it. Period. The schedule that has become aggressive in the last 20 years should be looked at.

Another interesting thing about Trumpism, is that you have no problem bowing to whatever corporate interests Trump tells you to except big pharma. You're ok with oil companies taking corporate welfare and polluting our air and water. You're ok with Space X and Bezoz taking joy rides on the tax payer dime. Totally fine with health insurance ripping us off. Big tech invading every aspect of our personal lives. But for some reason big pharma is just a bridge too far.

18 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Oh ok, so tens of thousands of immunologists and epidemiologists across the entire planet are funded and controlled by big pharma but Jillian Michaels, a single person with no relevant credentials, is the unbiased uncompromisable voice of reason on the subject. Makes perfect sense, velcro.

She was on a reality tv show. That's basically their religion at this point.

18 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

Most rational people, which you aren't, will look at that and say yeah babies may not need the hep shot if tests show they don't need it. There are doctors who post similar stuff and you would disagree with them as well. There is middle ground. You just won't be near it.

They absolutely need measles, mumps and rubella. This isn't even a question. What Florida is doing is beyond retarded.

37 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Problem isn't the unvaccinated idiots. It's the collateral damage. Measles is the biggest risk here. That hits kids, particularly young kids, way more often than adults and they represent most of the deaths as well.

So you've got a state that is getting rid of their herd immunity, that simultaneously has massive tourist traffic from out of the country where measles is more common, and a huge number of children's parks where people/kids are packed in close proximity.

This is going to be bad. Very bad. And the kids will pay most of the price.

It is a bad deal. I feel sorry for their kids, for this and many other reasons. It will also have a negative impact on people who still get vaccinated and communities as a whole.

I don’t know if you have noticed, but kids raised by stupid parents have a pretty good chance of remaining stupid as well. Let’s get rid of the warning labels next.

There are only so many natural resources available on the planet. What better time than now?

51 minutes ago, Gannan said:

They absolutely need measles, mumps and rubella. This isn't even a question. What Florida is doing is beyond retarded.

We agree I do think that is stupid. Utah does something similar. Which is why I said there is middle ground. Kids in the 70s and 80s who didn't get something close to 70 shots by the time they are 18 with an aggressive schedule did just fine. Babies weren't given a hep vax even if tests showed they didn't need it.

56 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Another interesting thing about Trumpism, is that you have no problem bowing to whatever corporate interests Trump tells you to except big pharma. You're ok with oil companies taking corporate welfare and polluting our air and water. You're ok with Space X and Bezoz taking joy rides on the tax payer dime. Totally fine with health insurance ripping us off. Big tech invading every aspect of our personal lives. But for some reason big pharma is just a bridge too far.

I actually have a big problem with that. They fooled us into thinking we needed to go to war in Iraq to benefit their interests. We agree on big tech. In my state they are telling us we need to conserve water while they hand out building permits left and right because the GOP in this state is horrible and all have interests in construction. They are also welcoming data centers that will consume massive amounts of water we already don't have. I've told you before I hate the GOP in my state and will spend hours talking about the crooked crap they do. So I'm not good with it. I've also ****ed about Trump firing the park staff and was pissed off when they talked about selling federal land near Bears Ear. When I do complain about the GOP/Trump you all ignore it.

47 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

We agree I do think that is stupid. Utah does something similar. Which is why I said there is middle ground. Kids in the 70s and 80s who didn't get something close to 70 shots by the time they are 18 with an aggressive schedule did just fine. Babies weren't given a hep vax even if tests showed they didn't need it.

"Substantial declines in the incidence of acute hepatitis B have occurred among highly vaccinated populations, such as young children and health-care workers. During 1986--2000, the rate of acute hepatitis B among children aged 1--9 years declined >80% (Figure). During 1983--1995, the rate of HBV infection in health-care workers declined 95% and is now lower than the rate for the general U.S. population (8).

Since hepatitis B vaccination began in 1982, the prevalence of chronic HBV infection has been reduced substantially among populations whose infection rates previously were high. For example, in 1994, the prevalence of chronic HBV infection among Alaska Natives aged <10 years (i.e., children born after routine vaccination began) was zero, compared with 16% among Alaska Natives aged 11--30 years (9)."

The introduction of neonatal Hep B vaccination was a massive public health success story.

1 hour ago, Diehardfan said:

Kids in the 70s and 80s who didn't get something close to 70 shots by the time they are 18 with an aggressive schedule did just fine.

Those who didn't get exposed to HBV were fine. Those who did, and developed acute hepatitis, probably disagreed.

1 hour ago, Diehardfan said:

Babies weren't given a hep vax even if tests showed they didn't need it.

What does this even mean? What specific tests and what thresholds were used to determine whether or not they "need" the Hepatitis B Vaccine?

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

What does this even mean? What specific tests and what thresholds were used to determine whether or not they "need" the Hepatitis B Vaccine?

If anyone else asked that question you'd go off on them being the r word or stupid for not knowing something basic. I'll simply say maternal tests. If the mother tests negative and there are no other household risks, the immediate threat to the infant is minimal. If nothing else waiting until a child is older could suffice vs exposing babies to unnecessary side effects.

Just now, Diehardfan said:

If anyone else asked that question you'd go off on them being the r word or stupid for not knowing something basic. I'll simply say maternal tests. If the mother tests negative and there are no other household risks, the immediate threat to the infant is minimal. If nothing else waiting until a child is older could suffice vs exposing babies to unnecessary side effects.

Yeah and that still leaves out the possibility of exposure after birth. And spare me the "unnecessary" side effects crap until they're older because RFK Jr is pushing to kill it as a practice entirely, not just until some later undefined age.

3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Yeah and that still leaves out the possibility of exposure after birth. And spare me the "unnecessary" side effects crap until they're older because RFK Jr is pushing to kill it as a practice entirely, not just until some later undefined age.

Which is very minimal. We'll disagree on the other part but agree kids should be getting shots. It's not anti science to say some vax are necessary and a blessing while the aggressive schedule that has changed in the last 25 years along with the amount of shots might not be necessary and driven by the pharmaceutical industry.

Just now, Diehardfan said:

Which is very minimal. We'll disagree on the other part but agree kids should be getting shots. It's not anti science to say some vax are necessary and a blessing while the aggressive schedule that has changed in the last 25 years along with the amount of shots might not be necessary and driven by the pharmaceutical industry.

Not minimal enough to justify the risk of acute hepatitis if exposed. There's a reason why antigen tests for the mother are used not to determine whether to administer vaccines to the infants, but whether the mother herself should be put on antivirals in addition to the vaccine, not in place of it. I mean, how else can you explain the precipitous drop in the chart above? Magic? Thoughts and prayers? And yes, it is absolutely anti-science when those who are making these claims are literally not credentialed scientists (immunologists, epidemiologists, etc).

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

Not minimal enough to justify the risk of acute hepatitis if exposed. There's a reason why antigen tests for the mother are used not to determine whether to administer vaccines to the infants, but whether the mother herself should be put on antivirals in addition to the vaccine, not in place of it. I mean, how else can you explain the precipitous drop in the chart above? Magic? Thoughts and prayers? And yes, it is absolutely anti-science when those who are making these claims are literally not credentialed scientists (immunologists, epidemiologists, etc).

It's rare.

As far as credentialed scientists you mean like the ones who told us masks are effective? They don't walk on water and are beholden to the pharmaceutical industry.

Congrats you threw up a chart. I have no idea the source or how the numbers were tabulated or counter arguments for it without doing research into it which I'm not doing. Bottom line is Kennedy may be nuts, but not all of his points are. Something isn't right and if that means delaying some I'm good with it. If it means removing some like that hep shot I'm good with it. I'm also good with regulating that kids must get certain ones like G mentioned above. I'm going back to the blog to talk about the game.

It's not the risk of acute hepatitis that's the major concern. It is a concern and not a minor thing. But the biggest issue is when young kids get Hep B it's MUCH more likely to turn into chronic hepatitis, which is a debilitating life long disease. Again certain populations faced rates above 10% in their kids before vaccines.

Hep B can also live on surfaces for weeks and most transmission from mother to child is from parents unaware of the infection. Maternal Hep B testing is typically done earlier in pregnancy so to use it solely as a marker would miss any recent/latent infections. Again since we started vaccinating kids the rate of new infections has dropped by 80%.

What side effects from the Hep B vaccine are we taking about here? It's one of the safest most well tolerated vaccines around. Or is this more "we don't know what we're putting in our kids bodies" fear mongering crap?

11 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

It's rare.

As far as credentialed scientists you mean like the ones who told us masks are effective? They don't walk on water and are beholden to the pharmaceutical industry.

Yep. All of them, globally. Across multiple fields and disciplines. You nailed it. If you keep saying this ad nausem it definitely doesn't make you sound retarded at all.

11 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Congrats you threw up a chart. I have no idea the source or how the numbers were tabulated or counter arguments for it without doing research into it which I'm not doing. Bottom line is Kennedy may be nuts, but not all of his points are. Something isn't right and if that means delaying some I'm good with it. If it means removing some like that hep shot I'm good with it. I'm also good with regulating that kids must get certain ones like G mentioned above. I'm going back to the blog to talk about the game.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/rr/rr6701a1.htm#

You're not doing it because you're dumb and lack the requisite education. There's a reason why you fall for every fake meme on twitter and it's the same one that makes you keep saying "All the scientists are beholden to big pharma!"

6 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Yep. All of them, globally. Across multiple fields and disciplines. You nailed it. If you keep saying this ad nausem it definitely doesn't make you sound retarded at all.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/rr/rr6701a1.htm#

You're not doing it because you're dumb and lack the requisite education. There's a reason why you fall for every fake meme on twitter and it's the same one that makes you keep saying "All the scientists are beholden to big pharma!"

I'd be disappointed if we didn't disagree on something.

12 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

I'd be disappointed if we didn't disagree on something.

Good talk, velcro

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Good talk, velcro

:) If they make Velcro or slip on hiking shoes that will heel lock I'd buy them.

2 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

If anyone else asked that question you'd go off on them being the r word or stupid for not knowing something basic. I'll simply say maternal tests. If the mother tests negative and there are no other household risks, the immediate threat to the infant is minimal. If nothing else waiting until a child is older could suffice vs exposing babies to unnecessary side effects.

What side effects are you worried about specifically?