TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @HHSGov
@HHSGov - HHS.gov
.@SenRandPaul questions Susan Monarez on the efficacy of childhood COVID vaccines — and he brings the receipts: https://t.co/wi5iFqnwyV
Video Transcript AI Summary
"Doctor Menares and Speaker 1 debate the science behind vaccines. 'The COVID vaccine can reduce viral load... When you have reduced viral load, you will have reduced transmission,' yet 'it doesn't prevent transmission. You can still transmit the virus if you've had the vaccine,' with Omicron-era reductions 'around 16%.' On hospitalization for 18-year-olds: 'It can,' but 'the statistics are inconclusive' and 'there is no statistical evidence that it does reduce the death rate.' They point out that 'no proof of reduction in hospitalization or in death' guided by 'make antibodies' rather than outcomes: 'it's based on whether you make antibodies or not'—'I can inject you with a foreign protein every week and measure antibodies.' They flag myocarditis risk: 'between six and eight and ten thousand,' 'much greater than the risk of hospitalization or death.' They question the medical basis for newborn hepatitis B vaccination and six-month COVID vaccine: 'What is the medical reason... if the mom is hep B negative?' 'The burden is upon you... prove to us.' 'Untrue.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Doctor Menares, I agree with you completely that we need to restore trust in public health. But in order to do so, we have to have a discussion about the actual science, and we can't have a discussion of this, you know, but all vaccines are good, all vaccines are bad. This is about specific vaccines. It's about specific age groups. It's about specific policies.
Does the COVID vaccine prevent transmission?
Speaker 1: The COVID vaccine can reduce viral load in individuals who are
Speaker 0: Does it prevent transmission?
Speaker 1: When you have reduced viral load, you will have reduced transmission.
Speaker 0: But in other words, it doesn't prevent transmission. You can still transmit the virus if you've had the vaccine. In fact, there's been reduced ability to interfere with transmission over time. And what we've found is the most recent one since Omicron is down around 16% reduction if there is a reduction. Does the COVID vaccine reduce hospitalization for children 18?
Speaker 1: It can.
Speaker 0: It doesn't. The statistics are inconclusive, and the reason you can't prove that it does is there's so few people 18 that go to the hospital. The the numbers are extraordinarily small. There's seventy six million kids 18 in our country, a hundred and eighty three died, and a few thousand went to the hospital in 2020 and 2021. And since then, the numbers have dropped precipitously, and the idea and the issue needs to be discussed.
But the COVID vaccine is not reducing hospitalization. It's not statistically significant. Does the COVID vaccine reduce the rate of death for children 18?
Speaker 1: It can.
Speaker 0: Once again, it can. That's a ridiculous answer. No. It doesn't. And there is no statistical evidence that it does reduce the death rate.
These are statistics. We've looked at it. When they approved it, they had this discussion at the vaccine committee that we've been talking about. During the discussion, they acknowledged that there was no proof of reduction in hospitalization or in death. So what they did is they said, what can we use to try to make people take this vaccine?
They came up with this. They said that if we give you a COVID vaccine, you make antibodies. So really the a whole recommendation for having a COVID vaccine from six months up is not based on hospitalization data, not based on deaths. It's based on whether you make antibodies or not. And what people fail to see from this is I can inject you with a foreign protein every week and measure antibodies.
You'll make antibodies every time. It just means immunology work has nothing to do with whether you should get a vaccine every week. So when we're discussing the science here, we have to discuss what is the science in favor of giving a vaccine to a six month old, and what are the benefits from that? And there is no benefit of hospitalization or death. And then what would the risks of the vaccine be?
We have large population studies of the risks of the vaccine in younger people. And it turns out that you don't see this as much if you look at the general population. But once you start isolating in by age group, which you have to do in COVID because there's such a disparity among age group, you find that there is a risk of myocarditis, a significant event. It's somewhere between six and eight and ten thousand, but that's much greater than the risk of hospitalization or death, which are not even measurable because they're so small. So you resisted firing people who have this idea that the COVID vaccine should be at six months.
That's what this is about. You didn't resist firing the beautiful the beautiful scientists that are career people and unobjective and unbiased. You wouldn't fire the people who are saying that we have to vaccinate our kids at six months of age. That's who you refuse to fire.
Speaker 1: So, that assertion, is not, commensurate with the experience that I had with the individuals who are identified to be fired.
Speaker 0: Did any of the people you refused to fire any of the people you refused Did of refused to fire believe that we should change the vaccine schedule and no longer force six month old kids to take it? Every one of them was adamant we should keep it at six months. Everybody's alarmed. We're gonna change the childhood routine. Well, we should.
There is no medical reason. What is the medical reason to give a hepatitis b vaccine to a newborn whose mom has no hepatitis?
Speaker 1: So none of the discussion points that you just brought up were ever
Speaker 0: That's changing the childhood schedule. Change Regular order, regular order. You have your time Bernie, I got mine. Look, this is the debate over changing the childhood schedule. The hepatitis b vaccine on the schedule is given to newborns.
What is the medical scientific reason and proof for giving a newborn a hepatitis b vaccine if the mom is hep b negative?
Speaker 1: I wanna go back to the assertion association.
Speaker 0: What is the medical reason for giving a hepatitis b vaccine to a newborn? See, everybody's like blithely going along, we can't change the childhood. You're somehow terrible if you wanna change the childhood. We should be discussing what is the childhood vaccine schedule, and you should be the burden should be on you. You wanna make all the kids take this?
The burden is upon you and the people you wouldn't fire to prove to us that we need to give our six month old a COVID vaccine and that we need to give our one day old a hepatitis b vaccine. That's what the debate ought to be about, not whether all vaccines are good or whether we live in a house in one land.
Speaker 1: I actually agree with you, And I was open to the science. I just would not pre commit to approving all the ACIP recommendations without the science.
Speaker 0: Untrue.
reSee.it AI Summary
I participated in the Chemicals of Concern Policy Summit in Charlotte, NC, where we tackled two key factors contributing to the childhood chronic disease epidemic: the absorption of toxic materials and food production methods. This discussion aligns with the President’s Make America Healthy Again Commission. I appreciate the collaboration of consumer brands, petrochemical companies, manufacturers, health organizations, environmental NGOs, scientists, and political representatives as we explored America's future as a technology leader in the post-plastic era.
@HHSGov - HHS.gov
.@SecKennedy joined experts at the Chemicals of Concern Policy Summit in Charlotte, NC to address two potential contributors of the childhood chronic disease epidemic — absorption of toxic material and food production techniques — as noted in the President’s Make America Healthy Again Commission. Thanks to the consumer brands, petrochemical companies, manufacturers, health organizations, environmental NGOs, scientists, and political representatives who convened to discuss America’s future as the technology leader in the post-plastic era.
