‘Kid-Sized Doses’

at

Um.

Couldn’t happen here.

Meanwhile…

Oh.

Meanwhile…

Sponsored Link

50 thoughts on “‘Kid-Sized Doses’

    1. Johnny

      KING: Some of the panel members said that schools should not make the vaccine mandatory for young kids, that it should be optional. Where do you fall on that?

      FAUCI: You know, I am always very much in favor of having parents make a decision and to do things voluntarily. There is a history of mandating vaccines to allow children to go in school. I know my children who went to school here in the district had to be vaccinated with measles, mumps, rubella and others. You’d like to have a voluntary decision about that. But let’s just wait and see where it goes. We certainly want to get as many children vaccinated within this age group as we possibly can because as you heard and reported, that this is not, you know, a benign situation.

      https://www.npr.org/2021/10/27/1049546323/dr-fauci-answers-questions-about-children-and-covid-19-vaccines

  1. Mr.T

    “The vaccine doesnt stop transmission, but that means its working – the vaccine works to protect from serious illness and death”
    Children are at no risk of serious illness and death
    “Yeah well we have to vaccinate the kids to stop transmission!”

    ..

    1. SOQ

      Despite the fact that children are at more risk of vaccine injury than CoVid-19, some parents will still line their children up for it.

      1. Janet, dreams of an alternate universe

        well it would be over my dead body until they are 18 and can make their own decisions ( baring any serious lung disease problems / asthma/ underlying conditions)

        1. Oro

          Don’t you think the extremism of your statement introduces a potentially threatening situation for a child? If a parent is unreasonable / irrational / anti-science then the child could be at risk based on the disposition of the parent? I’m not suggesting you necessarily are, but to take medical determination out of the hands of experts and to place it in parents hands results in situations like children not getting HPV vaccines on time, unwanted teenage pregnancy, children born into certain religions not being able to access blood transfusions etc. Obviously the parent has to have a degree of involvement but at what point does that become harmful rather than helpful.

          1. benblack

            Isn’t that the irrational/authoritarian/deceptive/evil thinking behind Tusla and its worldwide equivalents?

            Ireland was late to that party, but, we’re making up for that.

            Maurice McCabe, anyone?

            Oro, I’m going to get personal now, so be in no doubt what I’m about to say is directed at you personally.

            You are evil.

            As evidenced by your comments on this site.

          2. SOQ

            For context- Oro is not Irish and not living in Ireland- check the comment time frames.

            Prob US NYC- where most of the creative people are now planning to move to Florida.

          3. Oro

            Le sigh. I am Irish, not currently residing in Ireland. I’m not sure what implications that has on my having an opinion here. Weird since you’re a UK national to be making such pronouncements but here we are.

          4. benblack

            A coward on top of it all.

            This is a public forum and your right to reply has not been denied, Oro.

          5. Micko

            Right so…

            Janet is now an extremist who may be “potentially” harming her child.

            FFS! I think we’ve reached peak clown world this week.

            Stop the planet, I wanna get off

          6. Oro

            No no that’s not what I meant at all. The ‘over my dead body’ was what I took to be extreme. I’m not suggesting anyone specific is harming their child, only that the position of parent as a decider in child medical decisions introduces a level irrationality to proceedings based on the reality of human error, especially where strong emotional connections are concerned.

            I know you’re just intentionally misreading it but that’s not what I was saying in the slightest. You’re as dramatic.

          7. benblack

            More evil obfuscation from Oro.

            As evidenced by not replying to my comments demanding a direct response.

            I called you evil.

            Any response?

          8. Oro

            No I don’t, and I won’t. But I do have nephews / nieces. And I don’t also think that childless adults are so disconnected from the human condition that they can’t understand the concept of parent / child relationships either, if that’s what you’re getting at. I’m not trying to discount the parents obvious significant role in their child’s medical treatment either at all, it’s just there’s a fairly obvious illogical hole in the zone depending on what type of parent a child would have. I mean there are the realities that have been observed of some children being denied the HPV vaccine by parental decision, which can have some pretty terrible implications for the child down the line. Every child should have equal access to the appropriate medical care, yet what if a parent (even a well meaning one) is able to deny that care? Where does that leave the child.

          9. Chris

            “the position of parent as a decider in child medical decisions introduces a level irrationality to proceedings based on the reality of human error, especially where strong emotional connections are concerned.”

            Translation :

            ‘Leave all decisions as to the care of your children to us. For we have no emotional connection to your children – just an ideology, to shape & treat them as we see fit.’

          10. Micko

            Ok.

            Well, don’t take this the wrong way Oro, because I was exactly the same as you when I didn’t have kids.(I know this is a cliche)

            I had nieces and nephews and all that and I (still) loved them very much.

            But there is a definite difference for the love and sense of preservation you have for your own kid.

            Hence my comment about he irrationality of it. Again I know it’s a cliche, but I can tell you now that any parent on this site would gladly walk into traffic to save their child.

            So, when it comes to something that you think (rightly or wrongly) might even have a teeny tiny chance of harming your child, there is no way you’d go ahead with it.

            This is what fuels Janet’s initial comment (I believe). It may not be rational, but from the rare occasions I’ve seen my own wife go “full mama bear”… and I can tell you, when that happens – I just get the fupp out of her way and run for cover. ;-)

          11. Oro

            Sure point acknowledged re not having children being a separate thing, and no offense taken at all.

            But what you said about not going ahead with something if you ‘rightly or wrongly’ thought there was a chance of harm was the premise of my point (which I think I explained really poorly). Wherein a well meaning (but non expert (unless they’re a doc)) parent can inadvertently put their child in danger medically because of 1) being in a position of making these decisions while 2) not being the expert in the room. And yes I agree that is what Janet’s initial point was and that’s what I was drawing attention to, that this leaves a child open to risk (even tho the intent is protection).

            There’s a whole world of information out there about decision making and how a person influenced by emotional connection is sometimes not the best or appropriate person to be involved in such decision making, I think it can be applied in this way. I use the HPV vaccine as evidence of this.

          12. benblack

            In fairness, Micko, this has nothing to do with Oro’s kids, or, lack of kids.

            This person is evil.

            Simples.

            QED.

          13. benblack

            “Sure point acknowledged re not having children being a separate thing, and no offense taken at all.

            But what you said about not going ahead with something if you ‘rightly or wrongly’ thought there was a chance of harm was the premise of my point (which I think I explained really poorly). Wherein a well meaning (but non expert (unless they’re a doc)) parent can inadvertently put their child in danger medically because of 1) being in a position of making these decisions while 2) not being the expert in the room. And yes I agree that is what Janet’s initial point was and that’s what I was drawing attention to, that this leaves a child open to risk (even tho the intent is protection).

            There’s a whole world of information out there about decision making and how a person influenced by emotional connection is sometimes not the best or appropriate person to be involved in such decision making, I think it can be applied in this way. I use the HPV vaccine as evidence of this.”

            What a load of horse-manure!

            And, what’s going on giving Oro’s posts a time prevalence over mine – surely, not context?

            Am I not part of this conversation, or, has someone decided that I am not part of this conversation?

            Serious question – should be fun for someone.

          14. Man On Fire

            Loving your commentary as always ben and Micko.

            Janet, always the sober voice of reason.

            I doff my cap to you all, please keep it up.

          15. Micko

            “and no offense taken at all.”

            Ok cool. Because that “you don’t have kids” argument is not a nice one and I didn’t want to slap that on you. So cool.

            I get where you’re coming from on the ‘what’s best for the child’ argument. And of course, if a child is in actual danger (at present) then something should be done by the state or whomever.

            But you’re trying to put a rational and scientific viewpoint on something that has no rationality to it. The way people love their kids is fupping mental.

            We’re not just rational scientific beings, we are emotional ones too.

            Trying to view the world just through science and rationality is not a good idea for us. It’s not solely how we operate.

            We need that emotional irrational crazy erratic side too. I actually think it’s something we’re losing as a society.

            We’re definitely losing respect for it anyway… we push it way down nowadays.

            Anyway, I’m probably not explaining myself very well here, but there’s more to this situation then just cold hard facts and data and what science says is best for the child as determined by a medical practitioner who has no emotional connection to the child.

          16. Oro

            It’s as much a hope for equality in access to treatment as it is what’s best for the child. I’ve always hated the concept of private education / religious implications on a child’s life in that I think every child should have an identical set of factors that effect their future lives. I don’t think a child should have an advantage or disadvantage based on their parents, and this to me is a clear cut area where that can happen. Obviously it’s nigh impossible to legislate or make rules for and you really do have to place your hope and trust in parents, but that seems so unscientific to me lol.

            Yeah I suppose it does have more to do with ‘present danger’ but there are some treatments such as the HPV vaccine which are not related to present danger, yet can and do have lifelong implications for children, . I wish there was more clarity on certain items maybe being beyond the reach of parental determination. I see in the UK a 12yr old can consent yet in Ireland it’s still 16, which for some is too late.

            I worry about the connections being made these days between political beliefs and medical decisions, I think it’s so pervasive and will obstruct people thinking rationally about what is best for their children.

            Re your treatise on science v emotion, I’ve always been on the colder end of the scale myself and am biased in that direction but of course both are important. Anyway nice chatting about something non c***d related.

          17. benblack

            This whole conversation smacks of evil complimenting evil.

            And, no, I do not include myself in that.

            Your responses in this particular conversation, Micko, has been a revelation.

      1. Steph Pinker

        Well, ian-oG, one of the few hats I used to wear is in archaeology and I’m telling you now that it doesn’t take ‘ages’ to reduce a Pzifer balloon – a few seconds normally does the trick irrespective of the age of the wearer.

        P.S. Specsavers also do hearing aids :)

        1. benblack

          Any news, Steph?

          I remember how you were outed on this site for an email you sent to the contact page – which, of course, you presumed was private – but was published for all to see.

          My question is twofold; how did that affect you and why do you still post on this site?

          Ever question or take to task this site’s GDPR obligations – even now, there are no GDPR disclaimers on entry – or, did you just leave it as an embarrassing event best forgotten?

          No balloons, just kite-flying.

          1. Steph Pinker

            Hiya handsome, here’s the link to which you’re referring:

            :https://www.broadsheet.ie/2017/03/14/thats-you-that-is/

            In answer to your question, I only post on BS because I fancy you and I’m always waiting for your attention; notwithstanding the above flattery, it didn’t affect me in the slightest, in fact, I think it had more than 300 comments – I’m sorry I wasn’t on word commission at the time, if so, I could’ve afforded a rare steak in an expensive restaurant at the time!

            Filakia, agapi mou μαύροςben x

          2. Steph Pinker

            Ben, What do you mean by ‘whatever’, and ‘stay, stay’?
            Every single word typed on any internet forum is published material – why do you now think that GDPR is an issue?

            I’ve never posted a comment on BS which I will not stand by and provide context if required.

          3. Steph Pinker

            Well, μαύροςben?

            Choose your words wisely – not to mention your battles.

            It’s supposed to be very windy today, mind yourself.

  2. Micko

    The FDA receives 45% of its funding from “user fees” that it charges industries (like pharma companies) that provide their products for approval.

    That 45% equates to 2.7 billion.

    Source:FDA Website https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-basics/fact-sheet-fda-glance

    Do ya think that might lead to a conflict of intere…

    Whoo… phew… close one…

    I almost asked a question there – and that would enrage the JAQ police. :p

    1. Nigel

      Charging the industry to pay the costs of independent regulation seems like a good idea to me. Better than our own approach of industry self-regulation, which leads to such delightful outcomes as the whole mica busness. If anything, the US taxpayer is footing a bit too much of that bill, though I suppose the argument would be that the public benefit from the regulation.

      1. Micko

        I’d disagree. I’d be happy to pay my taxes to go towards a system that isn’t reliant on the manufacturer they are supposed to be regulating. To much opportunity for dodgyness.

        The FDA used to be entirely funded by the Taxpayer and was a public service. They even didn’t approve Thalidomide back in the day as they felt there wasn’t enough data – and they were right.

        George Bush Sr changed that model in the 90’s to speed up medicines getting approved.

        And the European Medicines Agency?

        86% of their funding comes from user fees.

        Source: EMA Website https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/about-us/how-we-work/governance-documents/funding

  3. bobhope

    yes, the pharmaceutical industry are made pay for their regulation in the same way all other regulated industries pay a fee. In the same way, you might pay your taxes to the revenue commissioners so they can pay for government. There are independent government entities that are not influenced by the companies they are inspecting. Anyone who has ever sat through an FDA, EMA or HBRA inspection knows this to be true. but hen again, we all paid shills with no ethics or moral compass, they actually paid me to come onto this obtuse website to write this

  4. bob hope

    yes, the pharmaceutical industry are made pay for their regulation in the same way all other regulated industries pay a fee. In the same way, you might pay your taxes to the revenue commissioners so they can pay for government. There are independent government entities that are not influenced by the companies they are inspecting. Anyone who has ever sat through an FDA, EMA or HBRA inspection knows this to be true. but hen again, we all paid shills with no ethics or moral compass, they actually paid me to come onto this obtuse website to write this

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link
Broadsheet.ie