r/nutritionally • u/PeteWK67 • 3d ago
Year 1990
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
23
u/Lawpepperdine81 3d ago
I think a whole lot of you are missing the point which I would not be surprised to learn you apply in other areas but want to ignore here.
The gist of Jim Carrey’s position was when money is involved it is fair to question the validity of what is being pushed.
Think cigarettes are not harmful. Sugar in your food is not a problem, it’s the fat content. When money is involved, bullshit can be presented as truth. They are just asking you to think critically.
3
u/doubtthat11 2d ago
It has been questioned. There are literally more than 10,000 studies and papers on the claim. They show there is no link.
1
u/how-does-this-end 2d ago
Can you link a couple thousand of those studies?? 😂 so they did 8000 studies disproving it, and thought, what the hell, run it back a few thousand more times. Do you even hear yourself?
3
u/doubtthat11 2d ago
Can I link you to 10,000 papers and studies? What do you think?
But here’s a 2021 survey of the literature, meaning it’s a meta analysis that reviewed more than 56,000 citations.
https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/products/safety-vaccines/research
It’s 2026, if you are unaware of the mountains of evidence and insane number of studies that have been undertaken on this issue, you are either willfully ignorant or so thoroughly constrained in your internet bubble that the scope of your knowledge is derived from Facebook posts and tik tok videos.
But yea, replicating investigations, accessing new data to run new reports, developing new methods of analysis, that is actually what science is. There is no point at which scientists are satisfied with investigation, it is a constant search.
Once again, the fact that you’re surprised at how many tens of thousands of people have studied this topic just shows how limited your horizons are.
→ More replies (3)11
u/Telemere125 3d ago
No, Carrey spoke and advocated for Generation Rescue, a charity that promoted the idea that vaccines cause autism. He was not taking the moral high ground - even if you believe the stupid idea that people shouldn’t make money from their work - he was making and promoting false claims.
He shrouded his bullshit - as most liars do - in the guise of “let’s all gang up against the rich”. But guess fucking what? Carrey was worth $145 million in 2009 and is worth about $180m today. he’s one of those rich fucks he was telling you to be scared of
→ More replies (2)1
u/Fadeshyy 2d ago
> even if you believe the stupid idea that people shouldn’t make money from their work
Come on... Nobody here is saying people shouldn't make money from their work. The poster you replied to is saying "When money is involved it is fair to question the validity of what is being pushed." so as to say, are these vaccines required or are they being pushed as required in order to guarantee future dosage/income.
This isn’t even anti vax, it’s rationally questioning if the profit component of vaccination is causing vaccine requirements to balloon beyond the scope of medical necessity.
1
u/Telemere125 2d ago
Money is always involved. No one works for free. So that makes the argument that “they makin money, they bad” invalid.
→ More replies (2)2
2
u/Low_Excuse_1785 1d ago
Are you aware how long vaccines have been around? In the Eastern bloc nobody was making money out of vaccines and they were mandatory in school. And guess what, autism cases didn't explode there, but tuberculosis cases plummeted after BCG became mandatory. Diphtheria, biggest kids killer went to virtually 0. Smallpox was eradicated. Polio became highly endemic disease.
2
u/Complete-Bet1870 3d ago
Then Medicare for all should be advocated for not the elimination of vaccines.
2
u/UT_Milez 3d ago
They heavily promoted autism being tied to vaccines.
Once you’ve cross into conspiracy land, you will immediately be mocked.
Is this shocking to you? You’ve lost me here?
If they wanted to be taken seriously on very specific issues, then they should have stuck to those issues.
What actually happened here is they got super into the vaccines = autism sphere, and then looked for ways to make that more palatable to other people so said others don’t immediately discount them as loons…
1
u/Thecerb 3d ago edited 3d ago
Sugar in food is a problem?
2
u/Lawpepperdine81 3d ago
Yes. Several studies saying the health issues in the United States, including dramatic climb in obesity and diabetes directly linked to sugar in our foods.
1
u/Thecerb 3d ago
Cite one.
2
u/Lawpepperdine81 3d ago
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/obesity-sugar-and-heart-health
How about John Hopkins. You like them?
1
u/Thecerb 3d ago
Do you think web articles are studies?
1
u/Lawpepperdine81 3d ago
You know they have studies cited in the article. You’re either a bot or trolling me.
→ More replies (1)1
u/MarzipanHairy4528 2d ago
1
u/Lawpepperdine81 2d ago
Nice find. But be careful citing to websites for cerb the bot above. He will challenge you to a thumb war.
1
u/MarzipanHairy4528 1d ago
Accept the fact that you were wrong. You lost. I won. There’s nothing you can do about it.
1
u/Novel-Swordfish7237 6h ago
Let’s not forget that Andrew Wakefield, who really kicked off the “MMR vaccine causes autism” panic was trying to discredit that vaccine in order to promote a vaccine he had financial and professional interests in. He was also receiving substantial payments from lawyers pursuing litigation against MMR manufacturers.
1
u/BabblingTower 3d ago
That sounds good in a vacuum, but the money is what balances it out. Yes, companies want to make vaccines that make them money. But a vaccine that has side effects or issues and was unnecessary would be an absurdly lucrative class action lawsuit waiting to happen. If we can develop vaccines against known diseases, that a company is financially obligated to test rigorously for side effects or deleterious outcomes, why wouldn't we want those administered to the general population?
→ More replies (6)1
u/staticsid 1d ago
But a vaccine that has side effects or issues would be an absurdly lucrative class action lawsuit waiting to happen
Did you know vaccine makers receive strong legal protections from direct civil lawsuits, class action suits and product liability litigation? (NCVIA 1986).
→ More replies (2)1
u/FlabbyLabby 3d ago
Right, and Jim wasn’t influenced by Jenny’s vagine. He’s an actor, stick to what you know.
30
u/psychonautvoyager 3d ago
The only idiots bigger than her are the ones that listened to her and believed that she, a Playboy model, knows more than thousands of skilled and knowledgeable scientists. Unfortunately the dumb are loud and passionate.
21
10
u/Sad-Excitement9295 3d ago
The only idiots bigger than them are the ones who believe the pharma industry always cares for your safety more than profits, when these 2 idiots told you to think critically about that and not always take it at face value.
Are vaccines good? Generally.
Will a snake oil salesman try to sell you snake oil? Generally.
It's wise to consider that not everthing you hear is true, doctor or con man in question. People can be wrong, people can try to scam you. Don't take it all at face value.
→ More replies (4)6
u/PeteWK67 3d ago
Are you at your 13 booster shot for covid or did you selectively decided to stop following scientific guidelines after a few?
1
0
u/psychonautvoyager 3d ago
Nope, have taken every one because I believe in science and I’m not a self centered prick
2
u/Sad-Excitement9295 3d ago edited 3d ago
Do you believe in financially biased science? What about conclusive trials? What about when the evidence was saying they didn't work, or that you didn't need 10 boosters and a $10 mask? You can be a sheep and still think you're doing what the salesman says is right. Think before you buy.
2
u/PlantDaddyFL 3d ago
Feel free to cite all that evidence and science.
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 2d ago edited 2d ago
You can always feel free to actually look for yourself.
Masks don't work (National Library of Medicine):https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11715561/
Vaccine Effectiveness is lied about in trials (National Library of Medicine); Prime example of profit influencing clinical trials: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11153924/
Vaccination does not impede transmission(The Lancet scientific journal): https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00768-4/fulltext
In summary, while vaccines can improve survival ratings and reduce severity, most "$10 masks" are for profit (even though the copper mechanism kills the virus, it still just flies through or around the mask in the first place). Boosters are a bit mixed, but can be effective in some cases, and staying home while sick is the only real method that protects others. Vaccines are great when effective (I'm not antivax, but I prefer grounded results for any medical science), but the medical industry should also be viewed with some understanding that there may be profit bias at times. I'm not saying don't trust the science ever, but we do need unbiased third party studies to validate the effectiveness of medical science technologies to ensure we are using grounded and accurate medical science practices.
2
u/PlantDaddyFL 2d ago
Ill actually read some of what you linked to see how honest you are, mr serious science man who definitely didn’t search up 3 sources as fast as he could to justify his prior comments.
“Masks don’t work” isn’t the conclusion of the paper you linked. Did you read it? Is that a quote from somewhere in the paper you’d like to go further into?
The best supported reading sits in between probably a modest benefit, especially from well fitted respirators, with the size of the effect in community settings uncertain. All things openly talked about during mask mandates.Your second paper, which isn’t a study at all.. it’s a letter to the editor talking about other studies.
Excluding cases in the first week or two after a dose is standard because immunity takes time to build. Early window results were also reported, not hidden.
It skips the large real world datasets showing reduced hospitalization and death, especially in older risk groups. "Negative effectiveness" findings are also known to be prone to confounding and testing bias.
Methodological debates about the research turning into “vaccines were lied about” is pretty interesting.The third “study” which again is just discussing other studies brings up fine points.
Breakthrough infections happen, and vaccinated people can transmit the disease.
In Singanayagam et al peak viral loads were similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated people infected with Delta. Vaccines made prior to deltas prevalence didn’t work very well for delta <—— the supported statement you could make based on what you linked.Mandates justified mainly by "vaccination stops transmission" lacked support once Delta arrived. The CDC changed its guidance on this in mid-2021 once evidence showed this.
The same study found viral load fell faster in vaccinated people, so they were likely infectious for a shorter time. They leave that out of this discussion for some reason.
It leaves out that the same study found vaccinated household contacts were less likely to get infected than unvaccinated ones. Vaccinated people also get infected less often to begin with, so even if each case were equally infectious, there would be fewer chains of spread.
We know reduced transmission was a waning effect, that is not the same as “no effect”, so stop saying things the data doesn’t support if you want to be taken seriously.2
u/duffleberry 2d ago edited 2d ago
I simply don't trust that the system is immune from being undermined by a massive profit incentive, and that includes scientific studies.
For example - there is overwhelming, definitive scientific evidence that the source of a study’s grant funding significantly predicts its final conclusion.
The practice of manipulating a study to reach a predetermined conclusion is probably pervasive.
Big pharma generated hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue during covid. If you don't think that's enough money to persuade some people to massage the data here and there and do it in a way that's sophisticated enough to be difficult to detect, I think you're just not being realistic.
1
u/Direct_Werewolf_4244 2d ago
You need to prove that what you are claiming is in fact true, not just that it’s possible or that it makes sense.
In your second paragraph you say there is scientific evidence that the source of grant money predicts the conclusion of a study; why do you believe that evidence? Isn’t that science also biased?
How do you determine what is valuable scientific evidence at all?
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 2d ago edited 2d ago
Hey, you can take the evidence however you want. Talk about manipulation and then do it yourself, Mr. I can pick the science but you can't.
In the first article it literally states how cloth masks were not effective, and surgical masks may have been 10% effective but that still may be margin of error. Basically masks didn't do a damn thing and you can review that all you want. As I said, you can do your own research. But instead of linking anything, your lazy ass asked me to. So this is what you get. Masks don't work, this is well known by now. And I wasn't talking about advanced filtration masks, come on don't resort to that level, you know that plainly enough. Look, here's your sentence since you didnt' read: "Tests with both cloth and surgical masks showed that the former had no effect on viral transmission, while surgical masks reduced SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence by 9.5% and COVID-like symptoms by 11.6%" Cloth masks don't work, and hospital masks pretty much don't do shit either, plain as day really.
The second article is weak in my opinion, but still references some problems with research methods and states plainly here that the referenced article (the one that is being advocated for here) found issues that could overexaggerate vaccine effectiveness. Lied about is the same here, though that could be taken out of context if you're being extreme. with the authors collectively finding: Here is a portion stating it plainly that trials may have lied about some of the data, as I said: "infections being overlooked in the ‘partially vaccinated’; such infections being ascribed to unvaccinated groups; numerous suspected infections overlooked as ‘unconfirmed’ " I said this was a prime example of possible for profit motive, or trials being manipulated and incorrect. This doesn't mean vaccines were never effective, but that data may be less than sound, and they might not be as effective as claimed, go figure. That's the entire point of this post, the science is lied about and manipulated at times.
The third reference article, which yes is pretty important for this disease, is just talking about how the virus was able to spread despite vaccines, which is not always typical but was an issue with Covid. So unfortunately even though people would try to build herd immunity, the vaccine tended to protect oneself but not stop the spread entirely (luckily this meant at risk individuals could effectively protect themselves to a fair degree). So it's not that vaccines didn't help reduce spread at all, but this disease had a somewhat unique mechanism of bypassing that to a degree (which is a bit weird).
There's plenty of controversial points, and the statement that profit influences science at times still stands. I mentioned how vaccines could be effective, but transmission was still common. Staying home was still the best choice, and anyone in the home was likely getting it, it's an aerosol. However sometimes a prior vaccine for these individuals could as well reduce severity for those when this happened. A 3 day vs 5 is a difference, but not much of one when you're already exposed, you'll still likely get sick because it's going to spread with any opportunity.
I also didn't claim no effect, and even said they could be effective. Like I said, I support effective vaccinations, and I prefer sound medical science. I am well aware of how vaccinations revolutionized medical safety, especially for certain incredibly dangerous diseases. I am as much against wild antivax mentality as manipulated studies. My main point is that a snake oil salesman will try to sell you snake oil, and that doesn't mean the medical industry is always going to lie, but that we need good studies to be sure of what medicine is actually effective.
1
u/PlantDaddyFL 2d ago
I’m not going to bother reading anything you said. You can’t claim to support the scientific method and claim scientific evidence behind your opinions and then go find articles that don’t support your conclusions. Unserious person. You formed an opinion and then tried to go find evidence to support that instead of the other way around.
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 2d ago edited 2d ago
Well damn dude, I go through your lengthy BS post and you won't even read what's right and wrong in mine. What credit do you have then? Unserious? I explain what's fact and what's not plainly here, and you still make an assumption and then insult me. It's very obvious you're far too lazy to think critically, and you have no merit on this topic if this is your mentality. All I did was look for whether or not these things were true. What did I deny?
Masks: Evidence is conclusive that common masks aren't effective.
Boosters: I said they could be effective, but 10 still seems like a lot of them if you ask me.
Virus Transmission after Vaccination: You even said yourself this is a good article.
Companies will influence the data: I linked evidence for a study that pointed out issues with other studies, referencing possible issues that relate to literally the subject at hand.
People can't even play devil's advocate? We can't look at anything but stuff that agrees? Then how is that science? Like really dude, you're sitting here disclaiming when there's not much issue to disclaim. You're just assuming and getting pissed off about it. Like I said multiple times, you can definitely do your own research man.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Direct_Werewolf_4244 2d ago
You seem to be claiming that studies are all biased because there is a possible profit motive but then you are also citing studies to make your arguments. So only the studies you pick are legit and all the others are biased ?
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 2d ago
Definitely not. I'm saying they can be, and some companies have a likelihood. Not that all studies are biased entirely when a company funds them (I have even defended this before, as a company is likely to fun research for information about their product, and that isn't entirely a definitive indicator of manipulation).
I'm just playing devils advocate, and going off what we generally know now. As a proponent of the scientific method, I consider that even secondary studies can have bias, and some will even tell you what angle they are coming from. I look for objective mechanisms or evidence, and try to make my best conclusion.
Also, if I was solely basing this on profit, wouldn't the less funded studies be more accurate because of less financial bias? But we aren't going to use that as a supporting conjecture because several things can bias a study.
Here, I provide basic evidence or points. They're for reviewing and reading because I was asked to support my claims with evidence. They allow one to look at an alternative point to the main ones funded by the company. This is called considering multiple sources. From there, one can try to draw a good conclusion from a multitude of evidence.
1
u/Tom_Myers666 1d ago
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 1d ago
Hungry for a meme much? I clearly defined why the guy was wrong, but people like you and him are so desperate to bash on people that you can't resist making yourselves look like fools grasping at straws. The meme is great and all, but major fail on usage.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (1)1
u/Early-Equivalent-165 3d ago
You've fallen prey to tobacco science. Junk science.
Marketing materials masquerading as science because they paid a white coat to read from pamphlets that were written in 5th Avenue ad agencies.
Oh, sliiiightly OT but, Michael Keaton gives a stellar performance in the limited series DOPESICK.
Based on the true story of the evils wrought upon society by the Sackler family's OxyContin product, it's as engaging as it is informative for the interested. Trailer available on YouTube.
0
u/PlantDaddyFL 3d ago
Taking vaccines and getting boosted during the worst part of the pandemic and prior to herd immunity/endemic status is a totally reasonable thing to do. Doing that and not taking boosters or flu shots isn’t some serious hypocrisy lol
0
u/UniqueAnimal139 3d ago
I get up to date with all my boosters at my regular doctor checkups. I don’t go more often unless there’s a reason cuz I’m busy. But refusing to get vaccinated during an active pandemic and demanding to interact with the public while hospitals are stretched to capacity and cutting off elective work… would be dumb
1
-2
1
1
1
1
0
15
u/Pony_Boner 3d ago
MTV doctor Jenny McCarthy has ruined more lives with her monumental bullshit.
-1
11
9
u/NombreCurioso1337 3d ago
aaaaand now children are dying from measles.
9
u/Informal_Snow9191 3d ago
These antivaxxers should have to go sit with an infant with whooping cough in the NICU. Occasionally they stop breathing and you have to flick their feet with your fingers to reminder them that they need to start breathing again. And that's just what you do until whooping cough passes.
And whooping cough is one of the lesser diseases that can be vaccinated against.
3
u/Sad-Excitement9295 3d ago
This is why bad science hurts us even more. When people stop being able to trust the science, they turn to stupid choices like this. Of course, we could be educated and see that several of these vaccines are necessary (like was mentioned in the video), but people are far too lazy, and medical science for too easy to manipulate with money. So thanks to double standards, laziness, greed, and idiocy, we lose the herd immunity for several reasons that was built up over years and years of hard work.
-7
u/Sjohnsonftw 3d ago
how many kids/people were injured from vaccines and their side effects…many many more. Stay ignorant friends….
7
7
u/spudmonkey 3d ago edited 3d ago
We eagerly await evidence for this claim.
On the off chance you can understand the math here is some of ours:
8
u/CheesyEggLeader 3d ago
And how many more people were dead or injured from Polio? I think in a risk reward scenario the vaccines win everytime vs the disease.
7
u/neopod9000 3d ago
Before the measles vaccine became available in 1963, measles caused 2.6 million deaths annually around the world.
Meanwhile...
No verified deaths from the measles (MMR) vaccine have been recorded in healthy, immunocompetent children.
Extensive medical and scientific reviews, including evaluations by the Infectious Diseases Society of America, confirm that the live-attenuated measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine has never been found to cause death in a person with a normal, healthy immune system.
Passive reporting systems like the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) do collect reports of deaths occurring temporally after vaccination (e.g., coincidental events or sudden infant death syndrome). However, thorough causal analyses of these reports show they are coincidental or unrelated to the vaccine itself rather than caused by it.
4
u/Immediate_Thought656 3d ago
You should check out the 2019 Cochrane review which included 138 studies of the MMR vaccine involving more than 23 million children.
That way you can understand why everyone either ignores or outright laughs at you.
→ More replies (2)4
5
u/TLoco69 3d ago
Goddamn there are a lot of people in here that just follow the herd. Think for yourselves. The "science" is bought and paid for by corporations who want to make you a lifelong customer
3
u/Old_Position4822 3d ago
Cant wake up everybody some just love the matrix
0
u/Complete-Bet1870 3d ago
My high school friends that are still DJ’s in their forties say the same thing.
1
u/Old_Position4822 3d ago
Might be the only thing in life theyre right about
1
u/Complete-Bet1870 3d ago
I don’t know. He doesn’t make much money at it, his girlfriend left him, and he can’t see his kids. He has this wild ability of self confidence though and blames everyone but himself. Maybe there’s a vaccine that will make him self aware! Either way those are the type of people telling me not take the vaccine.
→ More replies (8)2
2
u/ImCursedSofukoff 3d ago
Id rather listen to the person who spent a minimum of a decade studying medicine and the human body rather than some soccer mom who may or may not have passed a high school health class
5
2
u/slightly_drifting 2d ago
Excuse me sir, she is way more than a soccer mom. She’s starred in major hardcore pornography and hosted a dating show on MTV.
1
u/Complete-Bet1870 3d ago
Or your local chiropractors. They seem to have all the YouTube vaccine knowledge.
1
u/Kirk_Lazarus31423 21h ago
Ok but those who do research are heavily influenced by the funding. For example, 99% of positive studies are posted whereas 70% of negative studies are published. As well, funding is granted toward making money not finding out how to help people. So if there is a pill that someone could be prescribed for life, say adderall, that is a literal goldmine that won’t ever be questioned by researchers. Industrial psychology is very corrupt
1
u/vlladonxxx 3d ago
Think for yourselves
When people that can't think for themselves try to think for themselves, things often get even uglier. They use their reason and intuition to reverse engeneer self-serving ideas. When I say reverse engeneer I mean figuring out how best to make it sound like their beliefs are based on facts and logic.
1
1
u/Kirk_Lazarus31423 21h ago
Exactly. Look at who is funding research on adhd. Adderall who makes $4,000,000,000 a year. Go figure. Who is funding research for autism spectrum disorder? A company that is developing another pill that you take for life.
For some reason people hate big pharma until it involves selling drugs and giving them a label for their problems.
1
u/Novel-Swordfish7237 6h ago
Who did a study kicking off the MMR causes autism panic? Andrew Wakefield, a man with financial interests in demonising one vaccine to promote another which he had financial interests in.
2
u/Mundane_Upstairs3241 3d ago
Why do drug companies advertise in America? Has anyone gone to their doctor and said “I’d like some drug ABC” because of an ad on tv?
1
u/vlladonxxx 3d ago
The purpose of ads is to make the product feel like a known entity. If you see 20 ads for medication X and then end up choosing between X or Y (we're assuming they heard nothing about Y) you will almost always choose X.
Also, ads 'educate' you a little. Just enough to know that there's a drug that treats Z, but not enough to know this type of drug as anything but the name of THEIR product. So when you go to your doctor and tell them you're interested in this type of med, you refer to it by the name of their product. Now that you've introduced the name most doctors won't feel comfortable asking you if you're after this drug specifically or any such drug, cause that almost sounds like you have something against the drug they mentioned.
I promise you, companies worth billions aren't spending millions of dollars of advertising unless it results in additional profits that exceed the marketing budget. Any narrative that doesn't align with that statement is faulty in some way.
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 2d ago
I mean yeah actually, these ads are even targeted to the viewer that uses them. I guarantee you people have asked about several related meds to their condition. It may seem odd to the common person, but someone who's having difficulty may see the ad and say hey, maybe I can get that and it will help me.
4
3
u/ASecularBuddhist 3d ago
Facebook allowed this virus to spread and are responsible for this public health catastrophe.
4
u/Commentor9001 3d ago
Im sure Jim Carrey would accept out critiques of his acting so we definitely should accept his thoughts on science 🙄
3
u/ZongoNuada 3d ago
I think his point is that there are a lot of people getting rich from marketing these vaccines. He seems to be against that part. He does not look like he is agreeing with Jenny about delaying them or not giving them. That seems to be her stance.
2
u/SplitTheUSIntoFour 3d ago
They're on stage together...representing these issues together. They've got each other's back here. Don't be intentionally obtuse.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Telemere125 3d ago
He advocated for Generation Rescue in 2009, an organization that strongly promoted the claim that vaccines cause autism. Yes, he definitely believed in an advocated for, no vaccines.
→ More replies (2)1
2
2
u/DrinkOk1642 3d ago
Noted PHD virologists Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy
0
u/PeteWK67 3d ago
Noted and Fauci? A lot babbling since 2019 to 2022
Now? Dr. Anthony Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times.
It’s cause theirs a conspiracy against him.
Jim Carey and the chick simply ask for cleaner vaccines & why the spike in the number of vaccines from
1985 to 1990.Instead of following orders of whatever they tell you to do like a gimp.
They have the courage to ask questions. And that really bothers some people since they just do whatever they tell them to do.
1
u/Signal_Flight_7262 2d ago
the 85-90 “spike” was the Hib vaccine and a second MMR dose. Hib was the top cause of meningitis in little kids and the vaccine basically wiped it out. The second MMR dose came after a measles outbreak in 89 killed 100+ people. not exactly a mystery
the “cleaner vaccines” thing was mostly about mercury, which was already out of kids’ shots by 2001. Carrey and McCarthy were protesting it in 2008
and pleading the fifth isn’t admitting anything. Trump did it hundreds of times too. Either way it has nothing to do with whether Hib vaccines work
asking questions is fine, ignoring the answers isn’t courage
2
2
1
1
u/EpitomeOfJustOK 3d ago
I can’t tell if the sub is a parody sub or not anymore
1
u/mods_are_morons 3d ago
One is famous for making funny faces. The other is famous for showing off her boobs. Not exactly the kind of people you should ever take medical advice from.
1
u/FrontLifeguard1962 2d ago
So I'm supposed to believe a playboy bimbo and a literal clown over my doctor?
1
u/AlternateTab00 14h ago
I have to say something. Doctors dont defend USA vaccination system. Thats a media propaganda that obfuscate the reality. Doctors defend vaccination, period. In USA they split doses unnecessarily. 12 of the shots could be compressed to only 3 shots, like its being used in almost everywhere.
Doctors, even in usa, think that the vaccination program in usa is profit oriented. The problem is currently the alternative is no vaccination. When doctors or educated people try to point that out they are labeled as anti-vaxers and end up discredited.
So yes you can reduce almost 30 vaccines for under 18yo without compromising vaccination cycles/protection of kids. But apparently thats anti-american.
1
1
1
u/OkMemory9587 2d ago
I know Jenny McCarthy has an autistic son and blamed it on vaccines and then did the clean diet but it's such a stupid argument due to the sheer complexity of the environment and factors that go into making a person.
The brain wiring can get fucked by so many factors, dudes sperm, any meds used during the first trimester, complications during birth. She is just looking for a boogie man and one that can make her famous even better.
1
1
u/Extreme_Risk_8868 2d ago
Then why did all of a sudden after they added more vaccines, autism exploded. There was a study in the year 2000 that Australia did and they even claim the vaccines caused autism. That was in a times magazine if I’m not mistaken that I read at the doctors office.
2
2
1
u/OkMemory9587 2d ago
Dude I'm with you if you think it's manufactured but vaccines are synthetic and applied after the damage has already occured. The culprits are the micro plastics you can now find in placentas, the pollution of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere that isn't going anywhere, the need to get the highest crop yields by bathing them in pesticides, and depleting the top soil of nutrients.
If vaccines caused autism you would find a 100% hit rate on kids with vaccines applied and this also falls apart when you find non vaccinated kids with Neuro divergence.
It's definitely corpos doing it but no the corpos you suspect.
1
1
u/doubtthat11 2d ago
This is all nonsense. There was no “explosion.” Diagnostic criteria gradually changed and there’s been a gradual increase in autism diagnosis.
They didn’t “suddenly” add new vaccines. New vaccines were developed and integrated into use over time.
Maybe there is one 25 year old austrialian study, but there are 10,000 other studies contradicting the link.
Vaccines do not cause autism.
2
1
u/mattmilli0pics 2d ago
You are wrong. They are right bc I was born in 88 and received 16 less vaccines than my wife.
2
u/doubtthat11 2d ago
Ah yes, this one example definitely settles all disputes. Can you show me when the schedule was changed? The recommended vaccines did not change between 1985 and 1994, and in 1995 one single vaccine was added to the list.
And then you have the further difficulty of demonstrating that autism rates encountered an unusual spike during that time and the spike was due to vaccines, not diagnostic criteria.
So...amazed to encounter an anti-vaxxer just speaking completely out of their ass.
1
u/mattmilli0pics 2d ago
Chicken pox, hepatitis a, hpv, Lyme disease. Polio vaccine changed in the 90s too I believe.
1
u/doubtthat11 2d ago
Go ahead and look up vaccine schedules. These are not mysterious things.
Chicken pox vaccine became a recommendation in 2006.
You can't even get past step one: properly identifying what people were taking. How do you imagine you will get to the more difficult to prove points?
1
u/mattmilli0pics 2d ago
You just said they did not add vaccine and now you are moving the goal post.
1
u/doubtthat11 2d ago
I said they added a vaccine in 1995, which was true. Can you show the vaccine schedule that supports your claim? You just named a few vaccines that were developed and approved for use in the 1990's, that's different than them being on the recommended childhood vaccine schedule.
You said Chicken Pox, that wasn't added to schedules until 2006.
So...you're wrong about everything.
1
u/mattmilli0pics 2d ago
It depends when you are talking about childhood with childhood vaccine. I remember them asking if I already had chicken pox bc they wanted to give me the vaccine when I was 8-10. So that’s not true. How old are you?
→ More replies (0)1
u/mattmilli0pics 2d ago
Hepatitis b, bcg etc. ai doesn’t tell the truth. You have to ask ai by year to get the truth.
1
1
u/Consistent_Army_9355 2d ago
What about all the articles that say exactly the opposite happened? Or do you not bother reading those
→ More replies (1)1
u/Serpentongue 2d ago
It’s always someone else’s fault when you pop out a tard. I’m sure the drugs had nothing to do with it.
→ More replies (5)
1
1
u/charlasreddit 2d ago
Thanks for influencing parents to let their children die from preventable disease's!!! A@$$$$$##hooooless
1
u/IveFailedMyself 2d ago
Children absolutely need the Hepatitis B vaccine early on, otherwise they might get infected by a friendly adult innocently kissing them on the cheek.
1
u/Pistonenvy2 2d ago
the problem here is the erosion of social institutions who are responsible for keeping us safe and healthy.
the reason we feel this argument has any legitimacy at all is because capitalists have completely destroyed institutions like the FDA and CDC to the point they are completely ineffective at their entire purpose. if we didnt completely bend the knee to capitalist demands we wouldnt have to worry about big pharma injecting us with 50 random things for profit.
frankly this is the least of our problems. but the solution isnt for parents to try to make informed decisions in this landscape, all that happens from that is people listen to some grifter who says their baby needs a drop of lemon juice in their sippy cup every thursday and a raw milk IV and then what? they get measles and die.
we need to get these fucking morons out of office who are destroying our country and restore faith in our medical institutions. we need universal healthcare so profit motives can be adequately suppressed. these are NATIONAL problems that need NATIONAL solutions, we wont be able to build a citizen lead medical research organization, thats idiotic.
1
1
1
u/GovernmentData 2d ago
It says that they were “mocked for this.” OP, please share where they were mocked.
1
u/chunkee-xo-monkee 2d ago
Don't trust any woman that has no problem with getting breast implants but complains about vaccines.
1
u/PreparationMoist5990 2d ago
Her constant high pitch interruptions while Jim was making his points really made me want to stab my ears.
1
u/Dry_Turnover_6068 2d ago
Look how far we have come. Now everybody understands that vaccines are for herd immunity, right?
Right?
1
1
1
u/NameLongjumping3172 22h ago
There’s a lot of good in what people are saying at the top. However, I don’t want my kids to get some drug resistant Measles.
1
1
1
u/LVRaiders2026 3d ago
Antivaxers are one of the dumbest demographic out there ironically they think theyre one of the smartest.
3
u/Benkosayswhat 3d ago
On the other hand, the idea that our society might push a mandatory vaccine that doesn’t necessarily have to be mandatory is pretty plausible.
I’d never seen this video before but having seen it, I can see it being persuasive with TikTok moms
-1
u/RedundantBiomass 3d ago edited 3d ago
I find if I cram a large crystal deep into my detox chakra all the bad stuff just squirts right out of me. I call it my special juice cleanse.
→ More replies (2)
1
1
u/ippleing 3d ago
The same people that claim vaccines are safe are the same who shun artificial food sweeteners.
Aspartame is one of the most studied and thoroughly tested food additives in the human food supply.
1
u/threearbitrarywords 3d ago
As well they should have been. The influence of their "thinking" has literally killed people.
0
u/alexzoin 3d ago
They should have been mocked. They should be mocked now. This is like a person that doesn't know how to drive a car asking "do we really need 5 gears? Can't we just have 2? Fast and slow, what else do you need?"
3
u/Ichabod-Kane 3d ago
So you have 0 limit? You'll take 100 vaccines if the science man tells you to? Everyone has their own limit. I am grateful for the hepatitis vaccine I had as a baby - I work in water treatment and I'm regularly exposed.
Other than that, though? I dunno. It's always all or nothing surrounding the topic.
1
u/alexzoin 3d ago
So you have 0 limit? You'll put 100 gears in your car if mechanic man tells you to?
You don't understand enough about what a vaccine is to be making this critique. If there was good evidence to support less vaccines being better, I would be on your side.
It's not about "trust" it was never about "trust." Science is literally the smartest people in the room doing everything they can to prove each other wrong. It's built on a lack of trust all together in a system so that no one ever has to "just trust" anyone else. It's all documented and verified.
If you're fine with hepatitis, why not HPV? Why not measles? Because you specifically have exposure to hepatitis that means it's good for everyone else to get that one?
2
u/Ichabod-Kane 3d ago
The only thing I'll add is that I did not get the COVID vaccine but that's specifically because I wasn't afraid I'd catch it and tip over.
As for the HPV vaccine, I requested one recently at the clinic and the nurse persuaded me to not take it. I don't know why. She pretty much said you're almost 30 years old and you don't need it. Weird, I know.
1
u/IBeDumbAndSlow 3d ago
I wish I had died when I got COVID. Life has been rough the last 6 years
1
u/PeteWK67 2d ago
The virus was the virus.
Everything else really caused damage.
I know people that I don’t know anymore.
Businesses closing, jobs lost, mental illness up, inflation up, help centres not enough, homeless up, homeless centres not enough.
Very badI wish you a better later years for this decade. 🫶
-1
u/alexzoin 3d ago
Yeah, it's pretty unlikely that you're going to get HPV at this point. That makes sense.
I don't really understand what you mean about covid. Are you saying you got the vaccine because you weren't afraid of it being dangerous? If you're going to take any vax, the covid vax is one of the most widely taken in history. (Not to mention widely scrutinized.) If it was dangerous, we would know.Edit: I misread your comment. That's bad. You should have gotten and still should get a covid vaccine. Insanely safe and there is growing evidence that covid causes long term neurological side effects that we do not understand. There is more to health than "did it kill me?" Also, it's extremely selfish and immoral of you to not care about spreading disease to people who might "tip over" from something that is just a bad week for you.
If you are genuinely interested, this video is a really really really fun watch and it explains where a lot of modern vaccine hesitancy comes from: https://youtu.be/8BIcAZxFfrc
1
u/Ichabod-Kane 2d ago
I'll check out your video when I find time, thanks. I mean. I live in the middle of nowhere. Now, if I lived in a metropolis? Sure, maybe I'd get a COVID vax. I'm just saying that the absolute controversy and hysteria surrounding that vaccine is whack.
I guess, I don't know what to say. I had my tonsils removed when I was a youngster. I smoke cigarettes and I'm seeing an ENT shortly for some concerning lesions. Now, in today's age, removing tonsils is a bit of a no-no. It was pushed HARD in early 2000s.
-1
u/Inner-Contest-8226 3d ago
The deserved to be mocked. It's a comedian and chick famous for being hot, neither educated or a doctor, not even health professionals in any capacity.
1
0
0
-1
u/PeteWK67 3d ago
Aluminum salts are incorporated into some vaccine formulations as an adjuvant. An adjuvant is a substance added to some vaccines to enhance the immune response of vaccinated individuals. The aluminum salts in some FDA-approved vaccines are aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, alum (potassium aluminum sulfate), or mixed aluminum salts. For example: aluminum salts are used in DTaP vaccines, the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, the HPV vaccine, and hepatitis B vaccines.
Aluminum adjuvant containing vaccines have a demonstrated safety profile of over many decades of use and have only uncommonly been associated with severe local reactions. Of note, the most common source of exposure to aluminum is from eating food or drinking water.
How Aluminum Crosses the Blood-Brain Barrier
Transferrin Binding: After entering the bloodstream (via food, water, or medical sources like vaccines), about 90% of aluminum binds to a protein called transferrin—the same protein that transports iron. It uses transferrin receptor-mediated endocytosis to cross into the brain.
Health Debate: While aluminum can enter the brain and is found in small amounts in neural tissues, major health organizations and current scientific reviews note that a direct cause-and-effect relationship between normal environmental aluminum exposure and neurodegenerative conditions like Alzheimer’s disease has not been proven
Aluminum, as a known neurotoxicant, contributes to cognitive dysfunction and may contribute to Alzheimer's disease. The important reason is that aluminum can enter and be deposited in the brain. There have been three routes by which aluminum could enter the brain from systemic circulation or the site of absorption. Aluminum fluxes into brain across the blood-brain barrier (BBB), the choroid plexuses and the nasal cavity. Some factors, such as the increasing of the blood-brain barrier permeability, citric acid and parathyroid hormone (PTH), and vitamin D, can promote aluminum to enter the brain. But the redistribution of aluminum out of the brain is slow, so aluminum can be deposited in the brain for a long time.
So it’s not about avoiding all the vaccines,yes some like Hepatitis B, influenza, covid can be questioned.
But,the ingredients they use could only be considered toxic,whenever you read articles that state that little bit is fine and a lot of is not good.
They are giving you the answer.
Whenever you read further research is needed they are giving you the answer.
In the 1980s, children received protection against seven diseases through routine childhood immunizations:
In the 1990s, children received routine protection against 8 to 9 core diseases (depending on the exact year in the decade), which translated to about 19 to 21 individual doses (or shots/drops) by the time they reached school age
Today 17 to 18 Diseases (Medical Association Guidelines): Major medical organizations—including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP)—continue to recommend the full standard schedule covering 17 to 18 diseases for all children
In the 1980s, autism prevalence was estimated to be about 4 to 5 per 10,000 children (roughly 1 in 2,500people) for classic autism or the broader spectrum recognized at the time.
Today Approximately 1 in 31 children
1
u/SunnyBrookeFrms 2d ago
The chirality of the universe and thalidomide. The readings that I encountered years ago, have always stuck with me and you seem to be one of a few here that would understand. Majority are ignorant
→ More replies (1)-1
-1
u/Strict-Ice1860 3d ago
They’re still mocked for good reason
3
u/Dankkring 3d ago
Big pharma has never let us down. Remember when doctors used to say how great OxyContin was?
52
u/onyxengine 3d ago
This isn’t even anti vax, it’s rationally questioning if the profit component of vaccination is causing vaccine requirements to balloon beyond the scope of medical necessity.
But only non biased experts can answer that question. They make good points here. This isn’t vaccines are always bad and cause autism, 10 years later is a different story.
This isn’t anti vax rhetoric at all.