r/DebateVaccines

I want everyone's opinion.. how much testing should be done on a vaccine until its at the point you would at least consider trusting it?

Separate question..

hypothetical disease that kills 1/1000 people it infects and severely permanently injures 1/100 that survive.

What rate of serious side effects are you comfortable with the treatment/vaccine having if it was 100% effective?

I just want generalized opinions just to see where everyone is at with this...

It amazes me how stupid people in oc are about viruses. People got shamed for not getting an experimental vax and even after years later drs are coming out saying the vax was destructive it killed more people than the virus. General pop still believes the propaganda. If you truly think the United States government and scum bag dr.fauci did an emergency release of the mRNA vax because they cared about your health you are straight delusional…. How many people live with there heads deep in the sand?? The proof is EVERYWHERE.. yes covid killed about 1 million people but there is 330m in us and the mortality rate was 1%.. that is not worth getting heart issues and blood clots over a vaccine. Also Pfizer profits?? All the money?? I mean really.. I’m amazed how many people are THAT ignorant to PROOF from whistle blowers on how much that shot was bullshit yet still defend it.. sorry to burst your bubble but if you got it the propaganda worked.. better to just admit you got conned and work on having a stronger mental fortitude in the future instead of defending people that could care less if you died.

why can’t I let go of the fear that the mmr I gave my then unvaccinated 5 year old can cause sspe. it’s been 17 months since he got mmr and for 17 months I have been obsessing, googling, feeling a panic in my chest, and regret and despise the day I got him the mmr. because I just felt like a knee jerk reaction and got it. but I knew I would feel this way I hate thia. what do you all think about the claims from anti vaccine side that sspe can also be caused by mmr? I can’t go one with this fear and regret anymore

We are up for the MMR next week for my 1yo baby and I dont want to jab him. She is always scared of the possibility of getting a virus bc of not having it. Overall, my baby has been super healthy and happy. Managed to spread the vax on the 2 and 4 monts to 3 and 6. wont do the 3 vax but i want to completly stop the next ones.

Any help?

Thanks

Former Senior NIAID Official, second in command under Anthony Fauci, Dr. David Morens Pleads Guilty to Charges Connected to Concealing Federal Records During COVID-19 Pandemic!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The core admittance: after NIH terminated the grant "Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence" over allegations that COVID-19 emerged from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Morens & two unnamed co-conspirators agreed in writing to route their correspondence through his personal GMAIL rather than his NIH account to AVOID the oversight granted to citizens thru FOIA.

Hopefully they will continue and bust all the other people/companies...

Thanks all for reading and please be a respectable human being, no name calling, attacking another Reddit user or trolling allowed.

Why would important info concerning C19 be suppressed to the public? How is this acceptable to the public? (anti or provaxx folks) Hopefully the guy will rot in prison..

https://preview.redd.it/vuf1uask8fkh1.png?width=1600&format=png&auto=webp&s=5c56461964a56a9bc9d247e467649d3ac8a921a1

Get in Anti-Vaxxers, we’re curing cancer!

I asked AI about what the "health experts" and medical community did wrong in terms of the pandemic as it relates to vaccines, and this was the reply:

The global public health community committed several significant errors in its handling of the COVID-19 vaccines. These mistakes ultimately fractured public trust, delayed the recognition of real injuries, and created an environment of intense suspicion.

When independent medical historians, ethicists, and congressional oversight committees review the pandemic era, they generally categorize the health community's failures into four main areas:

1. Overpromising on Efficacy and Halting Transmission

• The Absolute Certainty Trap: Early in the 2021 rollout, top officials publicly stated that vaccinated individuals would not catch or transmit the virus.
• Shifting Goalposts Without Direct Admissions: When mutations like the Delta and Omicron variants emerged and breakthrough infections skyrocketed, officials quietly shifted the messaging to "vaccines prevent severe illness and death." They did this without transparently admitting that their original, absolute claims about stopping transmission were wrong.
• The Policy Backfire: By continuing to push universal vaccine mandates based on the premise of protecting others, public health policies lost their scientific justification once it became clear that vaccinated individuals could still spread the virus.

2. Silencing Legitimate Debate (The "Chilling Effect")

• Weaponizing the Term "Misinformation": Medical boards and government agencies applied a blanket "misinformation" label to almost any data that challenged the official narrative. They failed to separate dangerous conspiracy theories from routine, cautious scientific dissent.
• Threatening Doctor Livelihoods: Regulatory bodies threatened to revoke the medical licenses of front-line physicians who publicly questioned vaccine safety or pointed out unusual patient symptoms.
• Blinding Safety Tracking Systems: This culture of fear terrified everyday doctors, leading to severe underreporting in passive surveillance systems like VAERS. Doctors chose to stay silent or attribute unusual adverse reactions to "stress" or "long-COVID" rather than risk their careers by logging a vaccine injury.

3. Downplaying and Delaying Adverse Event Disclosures

• Slow-Walking the Myocarditis Signal: When data regarding vaccine-associated myocarditis (heart inflammation) in young males began appearing in early 2021, U.S. health agencies downplayed the risk for months out of fear that it would drive vaccine hesitancy. It was European nations (like Sweden and Denmark) that acted first by pausing specific shots for young demographics.
• Ignoring Natural Immunity: Public health agencies aggressively dismissed the protective value of natural immunity from a prior COVID-19 infection. They forced mandated shots on individuals who already possessed robust, scientifically verifiable antibodies, overriding standard immunological principles.
• Dismissing Subjective Long-Term Injuries: Patients suffering from complex, hard-to-diagnose post-vaccine complications (such as severe neurological tingling, chronic fatigue, or POTS) were widely ignored or gaslit by the medical establishment. This forced injured individuals to form online support groups to find basic clinical validation.

4. Poor Risk-Benefit Nuance and Mandatory Policies

• The "One-Size-Fits-All" Flaw: Health agencies treated a healthy 18-year-old athlete as having the exact same risk profile as an 85-year-old nursing home resident. They failed to clearly communicate that while the vaccine's benefit vastly outweighed the risk for the elderly, the math was much closer and more nuanced for young, healthy demographics.
• Coercive Mandates: Implementing strict "get vaccinated or lose your job" policies stripped away the fundamental medical principle of informed consent. This heavy-handed, bureaucratic coercion deeply alienated millions of people and permanently damaged public trust in routine, life-saving childhood vaccination programs.

Private vs. Public Dissonance: As revealed in later congressional text releases, officials privately debated serious theoretical risks—such as the impact of high second-dose fevers on early pregnancy—while publicly projecting absolute, flawless certainty. This gap between private caution and public public-relations campaigns severely damaged institutional credibility.

Thoughts?

How are there still people calling this a "conspiracy theory?"

From ChatGPT:

You're right. I introduced a claim you did not make—namely, that aluminum-containing vaccines have been shown to cause autism—and then argued against it. That wasn't responsive to your request.

A more precise response to your actual claim is:

Yes, your skepticism about the categorical claim is valid.

If the claim you're rejecting is:

“Aluminum exposure from vaccines has been ruled out as a possible cause or contributor to autism, regardless of dose, timing, mechanism of injury, or individual susceptibility,”

then the studies you are describing do not justify that sweeping conclusion.

Andersson et al. primarily test whether greater cumulative aluminum exposure is associated with greater autism risk. Finding no association in that model provides evidence against that particular causal model. It does not automatically test—and therefore cannot by itself rule out—models in which:

• one particular dose is consequential while additional doses add little or nothing;
• the effect depends on the timing of exposure;
• only a susceptible subgroup is affected;
• aluminum interacts with another biological condition;
• a triggering event occurs after a particular exposure and persists independently of subsequent exposure.

Those are scientifically different hypotheses because they make different predictions.

So the logical point you raised is sound:

A null result for cumulative exposure cannot be converted into proof that every possible aluminum-exposure mechanism has been excluded.

That doesn't require asserting that any of those alternative mechanisms actually occur. It is simply a matter of what the study design can and cannot establish.

Therefore, if someone presents Andersson et al. as having “ruled out aluminum as a cause of autism under any circumstances”, your rejection of that interpretation is justified. The study provides evidence against a cumulative-exposure association, not a universal demonstration that aluminum exposure could never contribute to autism through any other mechanism.

That is the narrower point you were making, and I should have addressed it directly.

*** What an interesting discussion!

Unjected isn’t the only dating platform for the unvaccinated. There’s the similarly named Unjabbed, and the unfortunately named Pureblood.Dating. The frenzy of the pandemic is over—vaccine requirements have relaxed, and few people are asking one another whether they’ve been vaccinated before hanging out or hooking up. So why are these unvaccinated singles so stuck on the question? 

According to public health historian and Auburn University professor Zachary W. Schulz, PhD, a distrust in vaccines began long before COVID-19 upended our lives. “Americans as a society have long debated the balance between individual liberty and collective responsibility in public health,” Shultz says.

“COVID didn’t invent vaccine hesitancy,” Shultz says. “It really magnified the fault lines that were developing for decades.”

That, combined with the social isolation of the pandemic (which can breed conspiratorial thinking) and a government that promoted anti-science rhetoric around the illness, created the perfect storm.

Research shows that shared values in questioning authority can help foster belonging and social security—something that might become especially important for a person like Armstrong, whose vaccine skepticism cost him most of his previous community. 

“If someone has repeatedly experienced criticism, ridicule, or rejection because of their beliefs, joining a dating platform where those beliefs are normalized provides immediate acceptance,” says psychologist Lauren Mahoney, PsyD. “Most people are drawn toward communities where they feel seen rather than communities where they expect to defend themselves.”

Read more: https://www.playboy.com/read/sex/anti-vaxxers-made-their-own-dating-app

Trump administration efforts to link autism with vaccines intensify.

A little over a year ago, I found out I was pregnant. I hadn’t thought much about vaccines before that and was generally pro-vax because propaganda and the actual info/contrary opinions being buried and silenced. But with the COVID vaccine injuries (ty Jimmy Dore) I had started being a little wary and decided to do my own research.

I read a couple books and started verifying the information myself. Not just looking at “anti-vax biased” studies, but the very studies that vaccine manufacturers referenced to support their claims. It was genuinely painstaking but it was good to not take any one persons word for it. While I was doing that I came to Reddit to see if I could find any uncensored opinions. There were a few vaccine subs that were heavily biased and basically useless for actual discussions. This one was way more pro vax than it is now, but it was something.

Now the discussions are open. One anti-vax post doesn’t just get downvoted to oblivion and drowned in comments saying, “trust the science” and “ask your doctor” (which are not arguments in a DEBATE). There is actual discourse here.

I am grateful not only for the people who share their stories and science/other info, but for the people who come here to debate for vaccines. Ideas need to stand up to scrutiny and I am anti-vax because of what I know, but I’m always open to being corrected and learning something new. I appreciate that I get the chance to defend my ideas and look into the claims made against them. It is vindicating!! I seem to always get the last word in back-and-forths because I present something that can’t be argued, it seems.

Anywho thanks to all of you for your different perspectives and for pushing me to be informed. I’m not here to debate (this time), just to send my fellow humans some love.

Informed consent ftw!

"Lead author Mostert argued that governments and media implemented fear and propaganda tactics to reduce “tolerance for reason and dissenting voices” during the pandemic and claimed the investigation into her paper violated academic freedom and constituted censorship."

"Lead author Mostert resigned in 2024 after the Princess Máxima Center announced it would be investigating the paper, she said at a hearing on June 3 before the U.S. Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee subcommittee on investigations on “Plausible Mechanisms of COVID-19 Injections Causing Cancer and Attacks on Scientific Publications and Research.” In her testimony, which was largely focused on the BMJ Public Health paper, she said the authors “did not claim certainty regarding the causes of excess mortality. Rather, we asked attention [sic] for three major events that were non-existent before the pandemic: COVID-infection, containment measures, and COVID-vaccines.”"