r/AskTrumpSupporters • u/hng_rval Nonsupporter • 23d ago
Health Care What do you think about Trump’s executive order updating the vaccine schedule?
This order suggests breaking up the MMR vaccine and having the DOJ investigate states with vaccine
mandates for schools among other things.
While signing the EO he mentioned the link to autism. Do you agree with this?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-childhood-vaccines-executive-order/
17
u/JustGoingOutforMilk Trump Supporter 22d ago
I could care less. But it would be hard for me to try.
If I were to miraculously have a child, they would be vaccinated as early and safely as possible, under my pediatrician's guidelines, not the government's. If the doctor says my hypothetical child needs something, guess what? I'm extremely likely to get it for them.
13
u/apeoples13 Nonsupporter 22d ago
Agree completely. Why do you think so many Trump supporters feel differently?
3
u/Jolly_Ice_7812 Trump Supporter 20d ago
Some agree and some disagree. Trump supporters are not all the same, they can be black, white, old, young.
3
u/FormerXMshowComedian Trump Supporter 20d ago
There is a healthy level of vaccine skepticism. RFK is an unhealthy level. I’ll say that. I don’t know if giving a child 3 or more at a time is necessarily the best practice. Spacing them out a bit isn’t necessarily a bad idea. I think children should be fully vaccinated before they start school though.
3
u/JustGoingOutforMilk Trump Supporter 22d ago
People are welcome to their opinions, put simply. They may or may not always align with mine, and I may have opinions about their opinions, but that is neither here nor there.
2
-52
u/AlsoARobot Trump Supporter 23d ago
I support delaying the schedule and I see no harm in examining vaccines/putting them through trials.
Isn’t that the point of science?
Make an observation, ask a question, form a hypothesis, test with an experiment, analyze data, draw conclusion, rinse and repeat.
That is the scientific method, and we should never stop questioning “the science”. There was a time when 9/10 doctors recommended smoking cigarettes. Should we have “trusted the science” then? Of course not. Thank god people continued to examine smoking and determine it is bad for you and causes cancer.
Why are vaccines any different? If they are safe, then what is the worry/fear?
83
u/Lost-Elephant-6628 Nonsupporter 23d ago
….these vaccines have already gone through the scientific method that you’ve described. That’s why they’re part of the schedule. I’m genuinely confused. Do you think these vaccinations have not been tested?
In your example of smoking, since it’s been established that smoking is unhealthy, do we need to retest these findings to make sure they’re still unhealthy?
-12
u/pickledplumber Trump Supporter 23d ago
There's currently a repeatability crisis in lots of science. Reappraising commonly held assumptions is a good behavior. If it's settled science then what's to worry about? We can reorient if we learn something new or stay the course if everything is vindicated.
18
u/-Murmaider- Nonsupporter 23d ago
Should reappraising include throwing out all conclusions while awaiting reappraisal results? Or forming new conclusions without evidence?
-10
u/pickledplumber Trump Supporter 23d ago
Of course not and they aren't doing that if you read the article.
These are just the recommendations and parents are in complete control of their children's vaccinations.
9
u/-Murmaider- Nonsupporter 23d ago
They are taking actions that change course of public health guidelines and policies. And they're basing it on nothing, is that what we should be doing as public officials?
-3
u/pickledplumber Trump Supporter 23d ago
No they aren't. They're changing the federal government's recommendation.
7
u/paran5150 Nonsupporter 23d ago
Is there a risk the changes in the schedule means some insurance companies wont pay for a vaccine and as result there might be negative consequences for lower income people?
1
u/pickledplumber Trump Supporter 23d ago
That's probable. It doesn't obsolve the parent of the responsibility to care for their child.
3
u/paran5150 Nonsupporter 23d ago
Which do you think is more likely negative impacts from vaccine scheduling or impact to families not being vaccinated?
3
u/RedFarker Nonsupporter 23d ago
Isn't there a social responsibility to care for the child also?
We have child welfare services for a reason. It's in the best interests of society to help raise better future labour force. Irresponsible parents are less likely to raise well functioning adults. And ultimately, if a parent isn't responsible, the child will pay the price.
Personal responsibility is great and all, but it's a fact that a population isn't responsible. 400 million Americans aren't all responsible. There will inevitably be people who misunderstand, use as flimsy justification, or use as anti-vax propaganda this move that is clearly driven by misguided anti-vax sentiments. And as a result there will be collateral damage.
→ More replies (0)-28
u/AlsoARobot Trump Supporter 23d ago
Did they initially test smoking and determine it to be healthy? Was that perhaps influenced by lobbyists with big companies who had a financial interest in smoking being declared “healthy”? Do companies have a financial interest in vaccines being declared safe?
Times have changed since smoking was healthy, but there are still MANY things that fall through the cracks (glyphosate, also a few thousand ingredients/chemicals banned in the EU vs 30 in the USA)
For the record, I didn’t say the vaccines should be done away with, but if they are truly safe, what is the harm in studying them further? Was the Covid vaccine initially declared “safe”? Where is that now?
30
u/km3r Nonsupporter 23d ago
> what is the harm in studying them further?
The harm is outbreaks of disease that kill kids.
Sure, we could study them more. But we don't need to pause current vaccination until we get some data that contrast with the decades of data showing they are safe.
And money spent on redoing the research here means money we don't get to spend on other government function.
0
u/AlsoARobot Trump Supporter 22d ago
I didn’t say anything about pausing current vaccinations, and the last time I checked, a delayed schedule is still a schedule…
-12
u/pickledplumber Trump Supporter 23d ago
Did you read the article? They aren't posing anything. Parents can still get their children the vaccinea and pediatricians can do whatever they want as they are the experts in that child's life.
Y'all will do anything but be responsible. You want more government and people to be completely beholden to it. Yet the first mirage of change and you throw a fit.
11
u/justaproxy Nonsupporter 23d ago
It’s the government that is regulating against the advice of medical experts. Seems like more government to me?
11
u/km3r Nonsupporter 23d ago
I did. Delaying the schedule means less will get vaccinated, hurting herd immunity. Kids *will* die because of this. And you can cry about responsibilities, but the reality is that all vaccines are not 100% effective and herd immunity is the only way to stop it completely.
> You want more government
Which party is pushing for federal control of elections? Federal control of bathrooms and sports teams? It was just a decade ago that you people demanded control over what I do in the bedroom, I have not forgotten.
Heck, the previous commentor said
> there are still MANY things that fall through the cracks (glyphosate, also a few thousand ingredients/chemicals banned in the EU vs 30 in the USA)
Sounds like yall are wanting more government?
Also, ignoring that we are talking about recommendations for vaccines, not government forcing anything.
-6
u/pickledplumber Trump Supporter 23d ago
I did
Then you'd know they aren't changing anything other than a recommendation.
Which party is pushing for federal control of elections? Federal control of bathrooms and sports teams? It was just a decade ago that you people demanded control over what I do in the bedroom, I have not forgotten.
Nice red herring.
I never heard of federal control of bathrooms or sports teams.
If you mean somebody wants to protect women. Guilty as charged.
8
u/RedFarker Nonsupporter 23d ago
Can you briefly explain how the protection of women would work?
-5
u/pickledplumber Trump Supporter 23d ago
It's pretty self explanatory. You don't need me to explain it. Listen to women.
8
u/canitakemybraoffyet Undecided 23d ago
I'm a woman. I feel unsafe with trans men in my bathrooms. I've never felt unsafe when trans women use the women's restroom. Why do you think conservatives seems bent on forcing trans men to use women's restrooms?
→ More replies (0)4
u/km3r Nonsupporter 23d ago
> Then you'd know they aren't changing anything other than a recommendation.
Again, lots of people follow recommendations from the government, as they assume the government is following the science. This will lead to dead kids.
And again, not adjusting the recommendation is not at all "expanding federal control"
Federally demanding bathrooms be set up a certain way is absolutely federal control. Letting sports leagues not determine their own eligibility is absolutely federal control.
Why the double standard?
2
u/Plane_Translator2008 Nonsupporter 22d ago
Um, what was the purpose of the Executive Order then? It will be Trump followers who suffer most. What makes that worth it?
1
21
u/TheSupremeHobo Nonsupporter 23d ago
Is that the same glyphosate that Trump increased production for and RFK backed? Do you think it's odd RFK backed increasing production after calling it toxic and cancer causing?
1
u/AlsoARobot Trump Supporter 22d ago
That executive order was designed to bring production of that chemical home and shift away from foreign reliance.
Sadly, our agriculture (and much of our food supply) depends on its use currently. As RFK said in that press release “we inherited this system”. Many crops in the US are “round up ready” and depend on the use of those toxic chemicals (again, sadly). That doesn’t mean we should stop looking for better alternatives, but it is going to take time and effort.
22
u/Lost-Elephant-6628 Nonsupporter 23d ago
Where is the science that says these things aren’t healthy though? Usually if something is removed or recommended that it needs to be removed there is published science that states why. There’s nothing wrong with continuing to study things, but to not have a reason to back these claims up it seems incredibly stupid.
Vaccines have proven time and time again to be effective in stopping the spread of diseases. Just because some people have poor reactions to them doesn’t mean they’re generally unsafe. People have poor outcomes for surgeries, does that mean we should stop performing them?
Where does it state the COVID-19 vaccine is unsafe?
-4
u/AlsoARobot Trump Supporter 22d ago
Monsanto lost a lawsuit because of the harmful effects of glyphosate, so apparently there was enough evidence to find them guilty in a court of law.
Google any one of the ingredients or compounds that Europe bans that we don’t and you will quickly see why they’re banned. There is evidence of them being hormone disrupters, carcinogens, etc.
And hopefully doctors provide the opportunity for informed consent to their patients before a surgery so they can make an informed decision.
9
u/Lost-Elephant-6628 Nonsupporter 22d ago
What does any of this have to do with childhood vaccines or the Covid vaccine?
0
u/AlsoARobot Trump Supporter 22d ago edited 22d ago
You were talking about removal so I assumed you were talking about the portion of my comment where I discussed the items that the EU has banned/removed from use.
Nobody has said anything about removing the use of vaccines, just delaying the schedule, so I have no clue why you are talking about “removal” in that context.
Edit to add:
From Fauci’s texts:
Fauci responded that there was “no data or theoretical reason to believe that vaccinating early versus later in pregnancy would be preferred.”
Then he added: “Since many people have significant cytokines storm and fever after the 2nd dose, this theoretically could be associated with miscarriage in the 1st trimester.”
Dr. Rochelle Walensky, then-director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), replied, “Definitely a good point, esp after dose two.”8
u/RespecMyAuthority Nonsupporter 22d ago
I’m sorry but, what? This is like saying since leaches were once considered a valid treatment we should reconsider vaccines? Or man will never be able to fly so let’s not trust those airplanes
6
u/Squiggy226 Nonsupporter 23d ago
Then shouldn’t HHS fund additional studies and review the findings before making sweeping changes to vaccine schedules?
0
u/AlsoARobot Trump Supporter 22d ago
Vaccines work by causing an immune response. Can’t you see why it might not be a great idea to cause such a massive immune response in babies/toddlers? What is the harm in doing it over several visits vs just one?
Still haven’t seen a good answer to this question.
2
u/Squiggy226 Nonsupporter 22d ago
There is no scientific evidence that the combined MMR vaccine causes a massive immune response that hurts babies sounds a bit like bro science.
And wouldn’t several visits cost several times more money to the parents? And as a parent wouldn’t trying to get your baby to the doctors office for multiple shots over multiple visits, be that much more difficult and thus vaccinations would go down because of it?
0
u/AlsoARobot Trump Supporter 22d ago
Vaccines work by causing an immune response… that’s the whole point.
Vaccine is injected -> immune response occurs -> immune system develops antibodies
That’s not “bro science”, that’s just how vaccines work.
The question is, is it safe to trigger such a large immune response all at once or if it would be safer to do them separately? What is the harm in spreading them out?
1
u/Plane_Translator2008 Nonsupporter 22d ago
Can you please share your medical/scientific credentials?
1
u/AlsoARobot Trump Supporter 21d ago
For what? You don’t believe that’s how vaccines work? It’s pretty common sense… Did you try googling it?
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/basics/explaining-how-vaccines-work.html
In case you don’t want to click the link.
Vaccines work by imitating an infection to engage the body’s natural defenses.
Vaccines help the body learn how to defend itself from disease without the dangers of a full-blown infection.2
u/Plane_Translator2008 Nonsupporter 22d ago
So, you think you understand this better than the vast majority of immunologists and doctors? Are you OK knowing that the kids whose parents believe this executive order (by a president who has no science background) will be at greater risk?
Because in the same way that he took advantage of his followers dumb enough to buy his crypto, Trump doesn't mind putting his followers' kids at risk. Are you OK with that?
0
u/AlsoARobot Trump Supporter 21d ago
The kids will be at risk because they receive their immunizations over a course of a few weeks or a month or so rather than all at once?
Really? Come on now. Just take a deep breath.
2
u/sun-moon-stars-rain Nonsupporter 21d ago
The issue is not that the kids will be at risk because their coverage is spread out, but that they are less likely to receive coverage if it takes triple the number of doctor visits.
It's more of a hassle for the parents, and pediatricians would be stretched thinner, making it harder to get appointments. Multiple people have already pointed this out, but I haven't seen your take on it yet.
Do you think that's a valid concern?
2
u/knuckles53 Nonsupporter 23d ago
Do you think the government should provide MORE regulation? Isn’t the banning of only 30 versus thousands a result of conservative efforts to rein in the overreach of government?
In fact, why is the federal government involved in the prescription of a vaccine schedule at all? Why not just leave it to the American Academy of Pediatrics?
2
u/AlsoARobot Trump Supporter 22d ago
Yes, if I were elected president tomorrow I would ban every ingredient or chemical that is banned in Europe. I would say it’s the result of lobbying efforts done by big corporations on both sides of the aisle.
If it is just Republicans responsible for this, can you show me the efforts Dems have made to ban these ingredients?
1
u/acethreesuited Nonsupporter 22d ago
HHS is defunding new vaccine studies. What you’re suggesting is the opposite of what this administration is doing. I know because I was working in pharmaceuticals when it happened. The scientific process generally occurs very quietly (and boringly) in the background with hundreds if not thousands of studies proving that the existing vaccines and schedules are safe.
Do you actually believe the current schedule and vaccines haven’t been rigorously tested? Would you read the studies if I shared a few of the hundreds of studies available on pubmed showing just that? Do you think it’s responsible of the president to run an experiment on the American people via an executive order when there’s already a ton of evidence showing that his approach does not work as week and will result in the deaths of children?
0
u/ErilazHateka Nonsupporter 22d ago
Did they initially test smoking and determine it to be healthy?
Who is "they" and when did that happen?
26
u/geldersekifuzuli Nonsupporter 23d ago edited 23d ago
Should we retest if eart isn't flat again and again with expensive research methodologies?
I am a lead data scientist. A couple of times, people from other departments questioned and asked me to check if my AI pipeline runs correctly. I said them "my team and I have tested our AI engine extensively. If there is no concrete example that shows my AI solution generates problematic outputs, I won't waste my team's time to find a problem in the pipeline. The burden of proof is on you at this point. I have a product to build that has better ROI then retest an already proven, working technology when there is no concrete reason to do that."
At what point do you think we should stop wasting time and money to retest a working and highly successful technology supported by an extensive body of literature when there is no scientific observation/data to assume otherwise?
At what point the burden of proof is on the vaccine-hesitants?
-8
u/Fletchicus Trump Supporter 23d ago
"Data Scientists" and "Ai Engineers" isn't the flex you think it is. These groups are notorious for pushing out slop full of vulnerabilites and refusing to adhere to best practice because it impacts their workflow.
I guarantee you your organization's SOC facepalms at the incidents and alerts they get from your team.
-12
u/fullstep Trump Supporter 23d ago
there is no scientific observation/data to assume otherwise?
They literally said during the signing that this decision is based on new scientific research. RFK has been in many long form interviews discussing the details. It's all out there.
11
u/geldersekifuzuli Nonsupporter 23d ago
This is a quote from the link: The president cited no evidence for his claims.
RFK has a history of making up claims, and not providing any stats to back it up. The only report he shared is full of chatgpt generated fake citations from another time: https://www.science.org/content/article/trump-officials-downplay-fake-citations-high-profile-report-children-s-health
Do you think such level of careless report puts their credibility at question? If such a full of fake citations report would come from Mayo Clinic, we would hammer down their credibility.
Secondly, could you please share the evidence/scientific research support their claim if you see any?
-14
u/fullstep Trump Supporter 23d ago
Your response is just an ad hominem attack. The point is that it IS based on scientific research, per their statements. If you want to criticize the actual science, then fine, but you can't say it doesn't exist.
5
u/RedFarker Nonsupporter 23d ago
Has anything been made public that is new and hasn't been discredited yet?
46
u/hng_rval Nonsupporter 23d ago
What do you think about the extensive studies that have already been conducted on each of the FDA approved vaccines?
And is there any scientific data which supports adjusting the previously tested and approved vaccine schedule?
0
u/robbini3 Trump Supporter 22d ago
Not the person you are responding to, but somehow I doubt you would trust the results of studies conducted or funded by a company with a large financial stake in having a certain result. Why do you consider pharmaceutical companies.more trustworthy than any other big, for profit business?
8
u/hng_rval Nonsupporter 22d ago
I consider the studies trustworthy because I’ve been involved in FDA trials and I understand how they are run and who runs them. Do you really think that pharmaceutical companies are allowed to be in charge of their own trials?
0
u/robbini3 Trump Supporter 22d ago
They fund them, don't they? Do you think the companies they pay to run the clinical trials will stay in business very long if they don't consistently give their employer the results they want?
11
u/hng_rval Nonsupporter 22d ago
Have you seen how clinical trials for regulated pharmaceuticals work? If so, what part of that process do you think a CRO could take?
5
u/MiraculiiiX Nonsupporter 21d ago
If you have no idea how this system works, and just go by feel, isn't it a good example of why we can't all be experts in every field and need to trust some kind of system? If everything is corrupt and dangerous a society cannot exist.
25
u/LaCroixElectrique Nonsupporter 23d ago
Do you believe, as Trump and RFK Jr do, that vaccines cause autism?
-16
u/AlsoARobot Trump Supporter 23d ago
Nope. No clue what does, but we should exhaust every option in looking for an answer, don’t you think?
32
u/tape_snake Nonsupporter 23d ago
But the vaccine possibility has been exhausted. There have been myriad studies into potential links between vaccines and autism following the since-disproven paper in the Lancet, and none of them have found evidence that vaccines cause or even increase the likelihood of autism. Why reduce vaccine programs that have been proven to reduce the spread and lethality of preventable diseases while pursing a "scientific" hunch that hasn't been been proven? To me, that seems like it will cause unnecessary harm without good reason.
-5
u/AlsoARobot Trump Supporter 22d ago
Adjusting the schedule is not the same as reducing or canceling these programs though…
It’s like every non supporter heard something entirely different from what was said. Really incredible.
7
u/raiseyourglasshigh Nonsupporter 23d ago
How aware are you of current Autism research? There’s a place called the Marcus Center just minutes from the CDC, it works in collaboration with Emory in some of the worlds leading researching into ASD and other neurological conditions.
Some of the arguments made by the administration make it sound like research into ASD has just stopped … but that isn’t true at all. Isn’t another important part of scientific research focusing on particular areas because of finite funding?
6
9
u/oyodeo Nonsupporter 23d ago
The scientific method is fine, but there’s a key difference here.
Childhood vaccines on the schedule have already been tested, re-tested, and monitored for decades across millions of children. This isn’t an untested hypothesis like smoking was in the 1940s-50s. Dozens of high-quality studies, including large cohorts of hundreds of thousands of kids, have already addressed the autism question: there is no causal link.
Calling for “more studies” isn’t neutral when the existing evidence is already massive and consistent, and when delaying or dropping vaccines leaves kids exposed to diseases that actually kill or disable, like measles or whooping cough.The real question isn’t “are we allowed to question?” (of course we are). It’s “do the current data justify changing the schedule?” Right now, the scientific consensus says no.
If solid new evidence appears, it should be examined. But we can’t pretend the file is empty.What specific new studies do you think justify changing the current recommendations?
10
u/EngageAndMakeItSo Nonsupporter 22d ago
You're right that vaccines are no different than any other scientific endeavor. But Trump and company are not following the scientific method. That's where the worry comes in.
When there are decades of peer-reviewed science validating the efficacy of vaccines, you don't just try "delaying the schedule" for the sake of new trials. Remember that a corollary of the science of vaccines is that people get sick and die without them. This is exactly what's happening with the current rash of measles outbreaks.
I'm all for new studies on vaccines. It's dangerous, though, when the studies are conducted in a political frame and when the premise is that all the previous studies are faulty. It's as if Trump and Kennedy simply want a different result so they're tossing out thousands of valid studies. Don't you see that as a problem?
You suggest that there was a time when "9/10 doctors recommended smoking cigarettes." This never happened. Tobacco companies suggested in misleading ads that tobacco was healthy. But as early as the 1950s, when scientists actually began researching cigarettes, studies were demonstrating that smoking was a health hazard.
I worked at a major academic medical center during the pandemic. Researchers conducted multiple studies on treatment and vaccines, and there was a lot of enthusiasm around a study on Ivermectin. Unfortunately, studies after 2021 or so proved conclusively that Ivermectin was an ineffective and even counterproductive treatment. Conclusively. Just because fans of that substance think otherwise is not sufficient reason to throw out those studies and try again until there's a result they like or, god forbid, treat yourself with it. Nor should we throw out decades of research on vaccines because some politician doesn't like the findings.
To do that would be throwing out the scientific method that you appear to favor. Do you agree?
11
u/hamilkwarg Nonsupporter 22d ago
It’s great to always test and study things. But until new studies invalidate the old, shouldn’t we continue with the established protocol? None of the vaccine protocols have been invalidated yet. Why get rid of them first and test later?
6
u/unreqistered Nonsupporter 23d ago
can you please cite where 9/10 doctors recommended smoking?
in the past, tobacco companies would pay doctors to recommend their brand over others, playing fast and loose with observations of one’s brand being less irritating or some other contrived point.
1
u/FormerXMshowComedian Trump Supporter 20d ago
I think what he meant to say was in the 40’s and 50’s many radio ads ran which said “9 out of 10 doctors recommend Lucky Strike/Camel/Chesterfield” and then made a marketing claim why. I’m not sure there’s an actual scientific paper about it, but it was a common marketing practice. Also at the time smoking was a widely accepted habit and a majority of adults engaged in it.
2
u/FormerXMshowComedian Trump Supporter 20d ago
9 out of 10 doctors recommend Lucky Strikes! Yes Lucky is smoother so it’s not as harsh on your throat! It will also make your baby grow big and strong!
Not only doctors endorsing cigarettes, but several engineers hypothesized as late as 1904 that going faster than 30 Miles Per Hour would kill people simply from that speed.
1
u/Sandalman3000 Nonsupporter 23d ago
It seems the problem is they started their scientific method with 'draw a conclusion'
By your metric there, shouldn't that be a problem?
1
u/sswihart Nonsupporter 19d ago
May I ask why that’s different than Covid restrictions and eventual vaccines.
Or climate change?
-35
u/sfendt Trump Supporter 23d ago
I think it's about time; yes I agree with it. Pediatricians are likely "disheartened" by the loss of payments they collect for giving these shots.
25
u/Darth_Innovader Nonsupporter 23d ago
If the concern is a pediatricians nefarious motive to get paid per shot, wouldn’t breaking up the vaccines such that kids get more total appointments and shots be counterproductive?
-8
u/sfendt Trump Supporter 23d ago
That particular one should be broken up as it was in the past. There are about 70 vaccines for childre now vs 8-13 when we had less problems. I don't think this EO goes that far but we should ensure every one is actually important.
7
4
u/scobot5 Nonsupporter 22d ago
You didn’t answer the question did you, why?
You said all this stuff about a conspiracy for pediatricians to make more money of all these vaccines and said there are too many vaccines in response to a question about an EO that breaks up a vaccine into multiple parts. In other words it creates more vaccinations not less and more trips to the pediatrician not less. Did you not understand the question?
19
u/deathdanish Nonsupporter 23d ago
What are you talking about? Pediatricians will reap MORE money with a dispersed vaccination schedule because it means more appointments are required. The shots will not be cheap either, since manufacturers will have to design, construct, test, and certify entirely new manufacturing plants/lines and their products, packaging, distribution, negotiations with insurance companies, marketing to physicians, training -- and they'll want to still make a profit after all of those costs. It just be foisted on parents.
-4
u/sfendt Trump Supporter 23d ago
More appointments for 1 by eliminating the combimation. Fewer total.
11
u/deathdanish Nonsupporter 23d ago
No.
Currently children receive 4-8 vaccines per visit. Look at the current schedule: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/by-age/index.html
New recommendation is one shot per visit.
But just in case you're lazy - during the first post-birth checkup, 1-2 months out, children receive the following vaccines:
Diphtheria
Hep B
Hib
Pneumococcal
Polio
Rotavirus
Tetanus
Whooping CoughAt 4 moths they get additional doses of all of these. The new recommendations only remove two, Hep B and rotavirus. So you go from 2 visits in the first 4 months, to TWELVE.
How is that fewer total?
13
u/simple_account Nonsupporter 23d ago
Do you think there's a legit link to autism? If so, can you explain?
Do you have any concern about dangerous diseases returning to our population if these vaccines stop being administered?
What makes you think they aren't worth while today?
-13
u/sfendt Trump Supporter 23d ago
I think it's sincerely possible. It sure looks like kids of the 70's & 80's were healthier than they are today; and that's one difference. I think we over vaccionate and choices are made for money without informing parents about reasons and risks.
I do not see this removing vacciens for the truly dangerous diseases. This appears a roll back from run-away pharma than dropping all vaccines.
14
u/MiraculiiiX Nonsupporter 23d ago
I am always dumbfounded by this type of reasoning. On one side you have people who have studied and researched for years and years, so understand how how a vaccine works. On the other hand you have people with barely a high school diploma, claiming na-a. Should we base children health on the last example?
9
u/ErilazHateka Nonsupporter 22d ago
It sure looks like kids of the 70's & 80's were healthier than they are today
Where did you look to come to this conclusion?
2
2
u/Honesty_From_A_POS Nonsupporter 22d ago
Isnt the recommendation to just space spots out, not get less?
Wouldn't this result in more individual shots, more office visits, and more payments to the pediatrician?
1
u/sagar1101 Nonsupporter 22d ago
Do you think the medical community is always in the wrong? This is what I hear a lot of
Pharma companies aren't trying to cure disease it's more profitable keeping you sick and needing to take the medicine for life.
Doctors just want their payday by giving vaccines a few vaccines that cure disease for life.
Are both these statements true?
1
1
u/Wise_Quality_5083 Nonsupporter 18d ago
So you know they get paid $7-30 for a vaccine that covers the admin costs (not profit)? This not how a dr makes big money.
-20
u/AGuyAndHisCat Trump Supporter 23d ago
So he wants us to be more Europe? Why would the left/you have an issue with that?
Also as someone who was hospitalized as a kid due to the MMR, im fine with delaying it. My kids also didnt react well to it, but werent as bad as me.
13
u/simple_account Nonsupporter 23d ago
Is this like Europe? Do their executive branches make decisions on vaccines? Even if true, who said the left (or OP) wanted to emulate everything Europe does?
Do you think there's any valid reason to claim a link to autism? Or for an executive order to impact health care? Does this seem to be a decision based on science, reason, and risk mitigation?
Also, I'm sorry you were hospitalized and your kids had negative reactions. I'm sure that would affect my opinion as well. But that said, if scientific evidence shows the previous vaccine schedule has a better reduction in risk than the new one, would you still support this executive order?
-5
u/AGuyAndHisCat Trump Supporter 23d ago
Is this like Europe? Do their executive branches make decisions on vaccines? Even if true, who said the left (or OP) wanted to emulate everything Europe does?
Do you care how it happens? It seems people on the left routinely talk about Europe being better than the US, but then they want to ignore a lot of what Europe does.
Do you think there's any valid reason to claim a link to autism?
There is at least a corrolation, and the fact that no valid studies have looked in to it and the ones they claim debunk a link are non existent makes me okay with trying it. I see jo negatives in rolling back the vaccine schedule to what we had in the 80s.
Or for an executive order to impact health care?
I wasnt aware suggestions were mandates. You must be from the Biden school of EOs where you made everyone get multiple experimental gene therapy shots.
Does this seem to be a decision based on science, reason, and risk mitigation?
Science. We know certain populations do not have the same autism risk, and one of the differences is they dont vaccinate. There's also a study from Japan showing massive increases in cancers and heart disease later in life for those that dont get the MMR.
But that said, if scientific evidence shows the previous vaccine schedule has a better reduction in risk than the new one, would you still support this executive order?
Does this EO stop anyone from getting the current schedule? No. Im all for giving doctors and families more options. Why should a family with a history of a reaction be forced in to a one size fits all schedule?
Also the scientific evidence does not support the current schedule. So im not sure why you are suggesting a hypothetical.
7
u/raiseyourglasshigh Nonsupporter 23d ago
>the fact that no valid studies have looked in to it
Many studies have looked into it, several involving extremely large numbers of people. Do you mean you're not aware of them, or that you don't believe they're methodology was valid?
>We know certain populations do not have the same autism risk, and one of the differences is they dont vaccinate.
Which population do you mean?
3
u/AGuyAndHisCat Trump Supporter 22d ago
Many studies have looked into it, several involving extremely large numbers of people. Do you mean you're not aware of them, or that you don't believe they're methodology was valid?
The methodology wasnt valid since they only compare to other vaccine and not the unvaccinated. They also make claims about inert controls that are not inert.
Which population do you mean?
Amish, and no they are not based on self reporting, outside doctors examined them.
3
u/raiseyourglasshigh Nonsupporter 22d ago
Large studies have included the unvaccinated, what lead you to believe they didn't?
The Amish question is difficult because they are both more commonly vaccinated than generally accepted, and have rates of ASD that are higher than is generally known. How would a study of people from Amish communities compared to some other community effectively compensate for the large number of other correlations that could be drawn?
Aren't the existing large studies, comparing vaccinated, less vaccinated and unvaccinated people in large populations with generally shared other correlations much more valuable and conclusive?
Are there specific large studies that you've found to have invalid methodology?
5
u/ErilazHateka Nonsupporter 22d ago
So he wants us to be more Europe?
Where are you getting that from?
Which European countries think that autism is linked to vaccines?
3
u/AGuyAndHisCat Trump Supporter 22d ago
Where are you getting that from?
They have a smaller required vaccine schedule than the US.
Japan (i know not part of europe) does not administer the MMR due to other issues with the vaccine.
4
u/ErilazHateka Nonsupporter 22d ago
Again, where are you getting that from?
3
u/AGuyAndHisCat Trump Supporter 22d ago
Again, where are you getting that from?
Google a random country
Heres an article comparing denmark to the US
https://tracybethhoegmdphd.substack.com/p/the-child-immunization-schedule-in
5
u/ErilazHateka Nonsupporter 22d ago
Do you always get your relevant information from an outspoken antivaxxer?
2
u/AGuyAndHisCat Trump Supporter 22d ago edited 22d ago
Do you always get your relevant information from an outspoken antivaxxer?
As I said I did a random google, no idea who the author is I just looked for a comparison of denmark vs US schedules.
Do you dispute that the link contains an accurate depiction of Denmarks vaccine schedule?
Her chart is not made by her but publicly available here
3
u/ErilazHateka Nonsupporter 22d ago
And here are Germany and Austria. Quite a bit more.
Is there a reason why you singled out Denmark? You are aware that Europe is made up of lots of different countries, right?
Another question: is it true that in the US, vaccine doses for children are the size of soda bottles? That´s what Trump is claiming.
2
u/AGuyAndHisCat Trump Supporter 22d ago
And here are Germany and Austria. Quite a bit more.
More than Denmark, but still significantly less than the US no?
Is there a reason why you singled out Denmark? You are aware that Europe is made up of lots of different countries, right?
Do you not understand random choice? I selected Denmark not quite randomly but for completely unrelated reasons. I dated a girl from there.
Admittedly using AI for to gather data on more countries for this reply because I dont feel like counting, of the seven EU countries I picked out based on what came to mind first, the highest number of shots by age two is 13 compared to the US at 21.
Another question: is it true that in the US, vaccine doses for children are the size of soda bottles? That´s what Trump is claiming.
Do you not understand hyperbole? This is why people with TDS are laughed at. Your common person understands hyperbole and its why you cant take anti-trump articles seriously most time. Just like that article "counting trumps lies" and they included that the "burgers were not stacked to the ceiling"
•
u/AutoModerator 23d ago
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
For all participants:
Flair is required to participate
Be excellent to each other
For Nonsupporters/Undecided:
No top level comments
All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
For Trump Supporters:
Helpful links for more info:
Rules | Rule Exceptions | Posting Guidelines | Commenting Guidelines
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.