I appreciate this substack allowing discussions and debate.
I think the authors of any opinion piece or review, in full transparency, should also disclose if they receive funding from companies directly or indirectly through institutions they do research for in their positions or have any ties to the products they are giving their opinions about just like is required of any research article. This is a known issue in our current medical system that has contributed to the great loss of trust in our system. I am
more inclined to consider the authors view if I can see they are willing to be fully transparent in this regard.
I don't see it as re-litigating the past 6 years. I want my pound of flesh. I want people to go to jail for lying. For coercion. For selling out their soul for a grant from Fauci.
A carefully reasoned and convincing disagreement based on data presented calmly, without inflammatory language and with respect. This is what constructive discussion should be. Well done.
I hope that commenters who disagree are able to present their arguments in a similar fashion, and express themselves without anger, resentment or dismissiveness. So far, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Alas.
Young doctor indoctrinated to WANT the Covid modRNA vaccine. The tired “safe and effective” trope. How much will he pressure parents? And how about IgG class shift?
Good counterpoint, well written. Unfortunately, both writers are misled. No observational study of any design can ever properly answer a question on treatment effects. It is folly to think so, and a mistake that has led to deep and pervasive misunderstanding and fruitless arguments on both sides. The confounders are far too powerful, and the studies are worthless. Policy makers must recognize this and support randomized trials embedded within vaccine rollouts so we can learn from each season and choice. And SM should help trumpet the point.
If parents were told that this platform had never been used in the human body for a vaccine, and we do not know how long it lasts in the body and what the long-term side effects may be how many parents would agree to it? What were the studies on long term fertility of these drugs?
Thank you so much much for your analysis. This was very helpful and thoughtfully stated , however I can’t help but wonder if your area of specialty might have tipped the balance in favor of the vaccine as you undoubtedly care for for children at high risk of infection and complications. In the primary care world where I practice, I am struggling to be sure MMR is accepted with an outbreak looming just across the border in South Carolina. This is the challenge of caring for most children: time to converse with parents and explain risk benefit.
"Parents want to protect their children, even from small risks." The paternalism of the government compounded by the paternalism of the medical establishment combined with the natural paternalism of parents! We can't protect children from all the small risks without incurring a lot of unintended harm. What we need are reasonable, medically informed assessments of the tradeoffs. I don't think this made the case.
Erudite presentation of the topic. Thanx. The NNT of 34 certainly falls within general acceptable range of reasonable therapy but as always an informed decision by parents requires neutral presentation of this factoid along with its negative correlate that 33/34 kids will get no benefits.
NNT is a helpful number for epidemiologists and policy makers to compare the relative usefulness of interventions. But for parents and patients? Not so much. At the extremes, i.e. NNT=2 or NNT=1000, NNT is easy to grasp. But what is a parent supposed to do with an NNT of 34? Estimate how many asymptomatic infected children their toddler will play with at preschool?
Better to present the known risks and potential benefits and, if known, place these in the setting of current prevalence.
“Well done observational trial” is an oxymoron. Just doing an RCT of vaccination in children in the post covid era would resolve this issue
I appreciate this substack allowing discussions and debate.
I think the authors of any opinion piece or review, in full transparency, should also disclose if they receive funding from companies directly or indirectly through institutions they do research for in their positions or have any ties to the products they are giving their opinions about just like is required of any research article. This is a known issue in our current medical system that has contributed to the great loss of trust in our system. I am
more inclined to consider the authors view if I can see they are willing to be fully transparent in this regard.
I don't see it as re-litigating the past 6 years. I want my pound of flesh. I want people to go to jail for lying. For coercion. For selling out their soul for a grant from Fauci.
A carefully reasoned and convincing disagreement based on data presented calmly, without inflammatory language and with respect. This is what constructive discussion should be. Well done.
I hope that commenters who disagree are able to present their arguments in a similar fashion, and express themselves without anger, resentment or dismissiveness. So far, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Alas.
Young doctor indoctrinated to WANT the Covid modRNA vaccine. The tired “safe and effective” trope. How much will he pressure parents? And how about IgG class shift?
Good counterpoint, well written. Unfortunately, both writers are misled. No observational study of any design can ever properly answer a question on treatment effects. It is folly to think so, and a mistake that has led to deep and pervasive misunderstanding and fruitless arguments on both sides. The confounders are far too powerful, and the studies are worthless. Policy makers must recognize this and support randomized trials embedded within vaccine rollouts so we can learn from each season and choice. And SM should help trumpet the point.
Comparing the Covid "vaccine" to a seatbelt or bike helmet is ridiculous. Parents were NOT given informed consent on these products. For example, people were told the product stayed in local in the muscle and left the body around 72 hours, now we know that the virus is noted at 700 plus days. https://news.yale.edu/2025/02/19/immune-markers-post-vaccination-syndrome-indicate-future-research-directions
If parents were told that this platform had never been used in the human body for a vaccine, and we do not know how long it lasts in the body and what the long-term side effects may be how many parents would agree to it? What were the studies on long term fertility of these drugs?
Thank you so much much for your analysis. This was very helpful and thoughtfully stated , however I can’t help but wonder if your area of specialty might have tipped the balance in favor of the vaccine as you undoubtedly care for for children at high risk of infection and complications. In the primary care world where I practice, I am struggling to be sure MMR is accepted with an outbreak looming just across the border in South Carolina. This is the challenge of caring for most children: time to converse with parents and explain risk benefit.
"Parents want to protect their children, even from small risks." The paternalism of the government compounded by the paternalism of the medical establishment combined with the natural paternalism of parents! We can't protect children from all the small risks without incurring a lot of unintended harm. What we need are reasonable, medically informed assessments of the tradeoffs. I don't think this made the case.
Well said.
Thanks. Appreciate your reasonable, medically informed assessments!
The difference in side-effect profile between very young patients and adolescent patients was new to me -- and thus useful/helpful to consider.
Erudite presentation of the topic. Thanx. The NNT of 34 certainly falls within general acceptable range of reasonable therapy but as always an informed decision by parents requires neutral presentation of this factoid along with its negative correlate that 33/34 kids will get no benefits.
NNT is a helpful number for epidemiologists and policy makers to compare the relative usefulness of interventions. But for parents and patients? Not so much. At the extremes, i.e. NNT=2 or NNT=1000, NNT is easy to grasp. But what is a parent supposed to do with an NNT of 34? Estimate how many asymptomatic infected children their toddler will play with at preschool?
Better to present the known risks and potential benefits and, if known, place these in the setting of current prevalence.