Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID?

I'll consider vaccinating my kids once someone gives me a logical reason why healthy children actually need it. Until then—let them get their shots twice a day if they feel like it.

Think of this more as a poll about vaccinating kids rather than a debate.
If you want to push theories, go to the other thread. thx

Cheers

There’s just no way I’m vaccinating my son, and his mom feels the exact same way about it.
He’s actually totally up to date on all his other shots according to the standard schedule, though.

I just don't think I can deal with any kind of pressure here, you know? I have to draw a line in the sand for my kid.

Those poll results were pretty interesting to look at, I guess.

Does anyone happen to have a link to some sort of survey about childhood vaccinations from one of those news sites or something?

-skyfall- said:Do kids usually enjoy getting vaccinated?

Sent from my PRA-LX1 using Tapatalk

In the States, kids between 12 and 15 often head to places like CVS or Walgreens to get their COVID shots; they even have dedicated rooms set up just for vaccinations. For them, it’s almost just part of the routine, since they're already used to getting jabs for chickenpox or the annual flu shot. I guess those older kids aren't really scared of the process itself because they're so used to it. But, I have noticed... maybe it's just me, but they seem genuinely anxious about the COVID vaccine specifically. It's not nothing to them. Most of these kids are perfectly healthy, too. Back when my friends and I were getting vaccinated during the school year, I don't recall anyone being particularly terrified. My mom actually worked in vaccine development, so for me, it wasn't some big, scary novelty or anything. Little kids, obviously, they're scared. I remember being terrified to even stand up after getting stitches on my leg while on vacation at the beach. But then again, I was just a preschooler back then.

Aleta Ogord said:Are you actually speaking from your own massive clinical trial experience here?
I honestly don't think so. I’m worried you’re just recycling the same tired slogans and talking points that circulate on Facebook and YouTube every single day, reaching some unsuspecting soul who just heard about "drug research" for the first time and is now wandering around confused like Fata at Disneyland.

Everything I'm saying comes from the information available to us. And since we are discussing kids, I’m going to stick to my guns.
There is a specific amount of time required to monitor side effects, right? You can't just shorten that window, can you?
Side effects don't always show up immediately. That’s why vaccines undergo testing for at least five years. It’s only after all that data is collected that they can be declared relatively safe for humans—not "100% safe," despite what the media claims.
Am I making things up? Did I use a "cliché" or something?

Unlike Fata, it looks like you're dealing with a severe case of dementia. Let me refresh your memory regarding the last two pandemic panics, which weren't even that long ago—about ten years back.

The first was bird flu, when DOJ specialists were trekking through rural towns telling farmers to cull their chickens and poultry. Based on what, exactly?
The second was swine flu, which turned out to be one of the biggest scandals in modern medical history, confirmed by countless investigations. Do you need me to dig up links to prestigious medical journals, immunologists, or even the Council of Europe?
Back then, people were being jabbed in a rush, too. Then, more than two years later, there was an explosion of autoimmune issues like ALS. Remember that social media challenge where celebrities dumped ice water on themselves to raise awareness for ALS? That was the connection.

Fear-mongering is the common thread in all three of these pandemic scares. Even worse? The total loss of trust in Big Pharma.

Google is your friend, too. No need to lecture me.🙂

Mr. Beam said:So that means...

The zoonotic SARS-CoV was modified through gain-of-function research.

Yeah, if that's the case, then absolutely.
Studies claim vaccines protect kids 100% from infection. I just don't think it's right to leave our kids vulnerable to some modified virus cooked up in a lab during a GoF experiment.

It would be nice if our morning, evening, and local news outlets actually bothered to report the facts regarding the push for childhood vaccinations:

1. The need for this vaccine in children is being driven by the manufacturer, not your country's Department of Health based on independent studies
2. The manufacturer submits its application to a regulatory agency that relies on clinical trial data conducted by the manufacturer itself (specifically in the USA, rather than the EU)
3. The manufacturer's clinical trial measures vaccine efficacy like this:
"The study showed that the immune response to Comirnaty in this group was comparable to the immune response in the 16 to 25 age group (measured by SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels). Vaccine efficacy was calculated in approximately 2,000 children aged 12 to 15 who had no prior symptomatic COVID-19 infection. Half of the subjects received the vaccine, while the other half received a placebo. None of the 1,005 people who received the vaccine developed symptomatic COVID-19, compared to 16 out of 978 subjects who received the placebo. This means the vaccine demonstrated 100% efficacy in preventing COVID-19 disease in the trial (though the actual rate could be between 75% and 100%)."

First, they claim efficacy was measured via antibody levels. Then, they select a sample of kids who haven't shown symptoms before (shouldn't they have measured antibodies before the shot too?), only to ultimately determine efficacy based on whether symptoms appeared—not through PCR testing—and those symptoms are basically just a common cold in kids...

Morgan Peterson, please... any thoughts on point 3?

vividjackal89 said:My car goes through more technical inspections than these COVID-19 vaccines ever did.

Even some cheap plastic toys from overseas that cost pennies to make undergo stricter testing.

Side note: actual drugs take 5 to 10 years to test.

None of this is even remotely accurate.

Vaccination is just a tool to reach a specific goal—it isn't the end goal itself. So, what is our actual objective here? What exactly are we trying to achieve by vaccinating children? If you look at this from an engineering perspective, what is the specific problem we are actually attempting to solve?

rustywalker82 said:Yeah, if that's the case, then absolutely.
Studies claim vaccines protect kids 100% from infection. I just don't think it's right to leave our kids vulnerable to some modified virus cooked up in a lab during a GoF experiment.

Small correction. According to the Pfizer website, it hasn't been established that they prevent infection—just that they didn't show symptoms.

Rachel Barrett8 said:Everything I'm saying comes from the information available to us. And since we are discussing kids, I’m going to stick to my guns.
There is a specific amount of time required to monitor side effects, right? You can't just shorten that window, can you?
Side effects don't always show up immediately. That’s why vaccines undergo testing for at least five years. It’s only after all that data is collected that they can be declared relatively safe for humans—not "100% safe," despite what the media claims.
Am I making things up? Did I use a "cliché" or something?

Unlike Fata, it looks like you're dealing with a severe case of dementia. Let me refresh your memory regarding the last two pandemic panics, which weren't even that long ago—about ten years back.

The first was bird flu, when DOJ specialists were trekking through rural towns telling farmers to cull their chickens and poultry. Based on what, exactly?
The second was swine flu, which turned out to be one of the biggest scandals in modern medical history, confirmed by countless investigations. Do you need me to dig up links to prestigious medical journals, immunologists, or even the Council of Europe?
Back then, people were being jabbed in a rush, too. Then, more than two years later, there was an explosion of autoimmune issues like ALS. Remember that social media challenge where celebrities dumped ice water on themselves to raise awareness for ALS? That was the connection.

Fear-mongering is the common thread in all three of these pandemic scares. Even worse? The total loss of trust in Big Pharma.

Google is your friend, too. No need to lecture me.🙂

Great post!

Keith Wilson said:Small correction. According to the Pfizer website, it hasn't been established that they prevent infection—just that they didn't show symptoms.

But really, what even is the definition of an infection?

Keith Wilson said:Small correction. According to the Pfizer website, it hasn't been established that they prevent infection—just that they didn't show symptoms.

So basically, it’s the same thing as not having it at all, right? 🙂 Except for the fact that without the jab, kids actually build up natural immunity, which can be incredibly long-lasting.

In other words, you're suggesting the goal is to strip our kids of what their own bodies were designed to do—build natural immunity (not just for this one bug, but for the whole virus family). We're essentially lowering their odds when they eventually run into a virus that's actually dangerous for them.

Is that really what you're getting at? Have we honestly become so arrogant that we think some vaccine rushed out in six months can just replace the way a child's natural immune system develops?

Keith Wilson said:Small correction. According to the Pfizer website, it hasn't been established that they prevent infection—just that they didn't show symptoms.

Look, I really don't want kids catching the actual infection OR dealing with symptoms from some virus born out of a gof.
Until we can look back five or ten years down the road and see what the long-term fallout looks like, let those viruses spread through their gof experiments. Honestly, stay far away from my kids.

Rachel Barrett8 said:Everything I'm saying comes from the information available to us. And since we are discussing kids, I’m going to stick to my guns.
There is a specific amount of time required to monitor side effects, right? You can't just shorten that window, can you?
Side effects don't always show up immediately. That’s why vaccines undergo testing for at least five years. It’s only after all that data is collected that they can be declared relatively safe for humans—not "100% safe," despite what the media claims.
Am I making things up? Did I use a "cliché" or something?

Unlike Fata, it looks like you're dealing with a severe case of dementia. Let me refresh your memory regarding the last two pandemic panics, which weren't even that long ago—about ten years back.

The first was bird flu, when DOJ specialists were trekking through rural towns telling farmers to cull their chickens and poultry. Based on what, exactly?
The second was swine flu, which turned out to be one of the biggest scandals in modern medical history, confirmed by countless investigations. Do you need me to dig up links to prestigious medical journals, immunologists, or even the Council of Europe?
Back then, people were being jabbed in a rush, too. Then, more than two years later, there was an explosion of autoimmune issues like ALS. Remember that social media challenge where celebrities dumped ice water on themselves to raise awareness for ALS? That was the connection.

Fear-mongering is the common thread in all three of these pandemic scares. Even worse? The total loss of trust in Big Pharma.

Google is your friend, too. No need to lecture me.🙂

Exactly. That's the famous Phase IV—it's always doneafter a drug or vaccine gets the green light.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phases...nical_research

Phase IV - Post marketing surveillance in public - Monitor long-term effects

So, what's the deal—do you have this same problem with every single medication and vaccine, or are you still being selective just with these ones?

Andrew Booth29 said:Vaccination is just a tool to reach a specific goal—it isn't the end goal itself. So, what is our actual objective here? What exactly are we trying to achieve by vaccinating children? If you look at this from an engineering perspective, what is the specific problem we are actually attempting to solve?

Is the goal just to dump all this extra vaccine before anyone realizes we might not even need it? Trying to avoid a massive repeat of that swine flu fiasco?🤔

Megan Green72 said:Exactly. That's the famous Phase IV—it's always doneafter a drug or vaccine gets the green light.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phases...nical_research

Phase IV - Post marketing surveillance in public - Monitor long-term effects

So, what's the deal—do you have this same problem with every single medication and vaccine, or are you still being selective just with these ones?

Honestly. 🤦🤦

And apparently, before Phase IV even starts, they make sure to check if the weather is nice during the experiment too.

Since you decided to pull Wikipedia as your primary source—using that exact same link, by the way—let's look at what it actually says:

"Because of their size and comparatively long duration, Phase III trials are the most expensive, time-consuming and difficult trials to design and run, especially in therapies for chronic medical conditions. Phase III trials of chronic conditions or diseases often have a short follow-up period for evaluation, relative to the period of time the intervention might be used in practice.[10] This is sometimes called the "pre-marketing phase" because it actually measures consumer response to the drug."

"While not required in all cases, it is typically expected that there be at least two successful Phase III trials, demonstrating a drug's safety and efficacy, in order to obtain approval from the appropriate" regulatory agencies such as FDA (US), or the EMA (European Union)."

"The safety surveillance is designed to detect any rare or long-term adverse effects over a much larger patient population and longer time period than was possible during the Phase I-III clinical trials."

Anyway. 🤦🤦
Yeah, Phase IV is really just about monitoring side effects. 🤦

mr. beam said:Before anyone jumps to such a massive conclusion, shouldn't we actually consider whether there is any genuine need for it at all? A whole mountain of studies has pointed out that children are essentially a negligible factor in this entire saga, which means there really isn't a case to be made here. It’s actually quite refreshing to see that the vast majority of people responding to this poll are leaning toward no; honestly, that seems to be the only response that aligns with reality and the actual facts.

The mere fact that not a single independent study has been conducted—nor does it look like one ever will be—is telling, since everything seems to revolve entirely around the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. Everything gets wrapped up politically and legally in a matter of fifteen days, often behind closed doors, for a disease where survival rates, according to the Ioannidis study published on the WHO website, are nearly 99%. For any rational person, wouldn't that be enough to end the debate once and for all?

Any rational person, that is!

According to this link:
Pfizer:
- off-label or unapproved promotion of medical products - $3,000,000,000 in fines,
- False Claims Act and related - $784,600,000 in fines,
- kickbacks and bribery - (*) $331,485,170 in fines,
and so on...

Božinović on the final solution.

The vaccine is the answer. But for that answer to actually work, everyone needs to be vaccinated across every single soul on this planet

So now you're all sitting there wondering if every child will actually get their turn.

Andrew Booth29 said:But really, what even is the definition of an infection?

A positive PCR test after 35, 40, 50, or however many cycles it takes to get there.