, it is important to continue to inform ourselves about what actual data is showing. This is particularly true as enough time has passed to have meaningful statistical information. It is important to be aware that the right can occasionally be as bat shit crazy as the left.
I think we afford far too much attention to what we "hear" and far too little to actual verified, peer-reviewed data. To date, there is no such verified information with respect to increased child mortality caused by any of the mRNA vaccines.Did you hear the number of kids killed by the vaccine released recently?
For most, the argument was never that it might not be good for those most at risk to take the vaccine, same as the founder of mRNA stated, it was that it was rushed and mandated for all and all the repercussions from that any side effects be damned. Follow the money.
I was referencing the recent comments by the head of the FDA. Doesn’t matter, I already felt mandating a too little tested new technology to a group that was not at risk violated the first do no harm credo. My main point was primarily the asinine mandate, especially for kids.I think we afford far too much attention to what we "hear" and far too little to actual verified, peer-reviewed data. To date, there is no such verified information with respect to increased child mortality caused by any of the mRNA vaccines.
If I may offer a Grok AI summation of the allegation, "the belief that mRNA vaccines cause child mortality appears to stem from a combination of misinformation, misinterpretation of data, and advocacy by anti-vaccine groups, dating back to the early rollout of these vaccines in 2021. It has been amplified over time through social media, blogs, and public figures, often relying on correlation rather than established causation."
The most recent aha "evidence," to which I assume you are referring, is a leaked internal memo from FDA vaccine division director Vinay Prasad claiming an agency review linked at least 10 child deaths to COVID vaccines, possibly from myocarditis or other issues. This has fueled renewed speculation, with some interpreting it as official admission of harm. However, the memo provided no detailed evidence, data, or methodologies, and experts have criticized it as unsubstantiated, potentially based on unverified VAERS entries rather than causal proof.
Whether the information is true, false, or exaggerated, neither you nor I have any idea. What we do know is that it is being sensationalized on one side of the internet and dismissed on the other. I would suggest waiting until actual supporting evidence is available before jumping to any conclusions.
The sad thing about this sort of group think, which is a characteristic of every conspiracy theory, is that any evidence that the original assumption was false or exaggerated is taken as "proof" that the truth is being covered up by powerful forces - political or economic.
I am in no way defending the steps taken by this and most western governments - particularly once it became obvious that the death rate from covid was far lower than anticipated by the initial modelling and largely confined to at risk groups. What I am concerned about is that the reactions to those mandates have been equally exaggerated by the new anti-vax movement. Like most things, the truth is something else again. Unfortunately, once people choose a side, they are unwilling to entertain any alternative information - however compelling. I find the French study very compelling, but I am rather skeptical that our current Secretary of Health and Human Services is likely to review it.I was referencing the recent comments by the head of the FDA. Doesn’t matter, I already felt mandating a too little tested new technology to a group that was not at risk violated the first do no harm credo. My main point was primarily the asinine mandate, especially for kids.
So you appear to disagree with that? Mandating it for children was a-ok?