#Pro-Vaccines

[originalleftist]

Hamas Are Evil. The World Will Be A Better Place When It Does Not Exist.

And it is important to remember, now and always, that Hamas does not equal All Gazans, or All Palestinians. Nor does it reflect the views of all Gazans or Palestinians- especially since about half the population of Gaza wasn't even alive the last time they had an election. Indeed, no people on Earth has suffered more cruelly because of Hamas than have the people of Gaza.

I support Israel's right to exist and defend itself. I understand the NECESSITY of Israel's continued existence for the security of the Jewish people and the stability of the world. I condemn Anti-semitism in any form that I see it, and when I do not see it, I hope to be better educated and more aware in the future. I do so, as a non-Jewish, non-Israeli Leftist, as a consequence of a belief in the value of peoples' lives, in opposition to bigotry and collective guilt/punishment, and in the rightness of defending basic rights even of enemies, and of challenging hypocrisy and dishonesty and ignorance even when it's on "your side".

So when I see posts portraying all Palestinians, Gazans, Arabs, or Muslims as enemies/terrorists/Nazis, or calling for their deaths, I will report it and block. Just as I do when I see such posts targeting Israel or Jews.

This especially goes for anyone who argues that Polio vaccines should be withheld from Gazans, or used as a bargaining chip. POLIO IS CONTAGIOUS. And it does not care about where a border is or which side you're on. It just infects, and spreads, and maims, and kills, because that is what it is evolved to do.

The world is well on its way to finally eradicating it like smallpox, and it would be a previous injury to all of humanity to backslide on that, even a little bit.

There is little enough that the Netanyahu government has ever done that I agree with. But credit where credit is due, deciding to at least pause the fighting to vaccinate people for polio is one. An act of both pragmatic reason and moral clarity in a situation which is horribly bereft of either.

[yannaryartside]

Claire and her patients

And why I think she may harm Carmen

It’s incredible how many stories told by Claire about her interactions with injured people are disturbing in close up. I honestly need someone to put a name to it (like clinical one) because so far, it's just disturbing.

In S3, I thought the show was doing a number that made me see her process the pain after the breakup and work helping others through it. I cared about that; I did. It is difficult not to root for someone in pain. But then it got bizarre the more medical scenes we had. Mainly the one where she committed malpractice

The lacking

When she was telling the story about the girl with a million cuts, you know, a kid she almost killed because of a medical error (one that was actually totally preventable) there are so many things wrong with it. Some audience members have stated that scene was to show that “Claire is not perfect,” but that shit didn’t have that effect on me at all. It was a relief to see other people felt this way, some in this fandom even said it was so unnatural it made them laugh. And I am curious about why that is.

From the beginning, the lack of guilt surrounding the incident has been glaring for me. It's not like we see her break down crying or be afraid of what Carmy is going to think of her as a doctor. She committed malpractice, mistake or not. Doctors go out of business for things that they cannot prevent. They are not ashamed of their work; they are ashamed of the result. That harmed somebody.

I watched a lot of medical-related shit (as I assume most people do). The character Joan Watson in Elementary stopped working as a doctor thoroughly after losing one (1) patient over something she could not predict or prevent. A medical board gave her permission to work, but it was still not enough. She was so afraid of hurting someone else and was so ashamed that she was manipulated by the son of his deceased patient to give him money. In “The West Wing,” Abbey Bartlett was a doctor before being the First Lady, and she had an incident in an operation that resulted in the death of her patient (an infection that got complicated). She defended her work, she is possitive she didn’t make a mistake and we are inclined to believe that because we have seen her character admit to her faults before.

There was no shame in Claire. You can process your emotions however you want, but it would make more sense even if you were defensive. Why did she tell that story…as she was also the victim? Maybe the fact that the story relates to malpractice makes it difficult to say it without sounding bad, but there were better ways to make her empathetic than suspicious.

“I was slammed,” as she could ever justify a mistake as stupid as the one she made. I know understaffing hospitals is a serious issue, and overworked doctors can make stupid mistakes, but she didn’t say things like “I should have seen it” or “I have nightmares about it.” And she told it in a way that seemed like she was expecting Carmy to understand it wasn’t her fault. Even if it wasn’t, doctors would carry guilt about malpractice and the harm they were accomplices of, even if literally no divine intervention could have made a difference. By not allowing Claire this very normal emotion, you are setting her apart to the audience members who are paying attention.

The warning

And then, somehow, the story is more about how young and beautiful her patient was��I am sorry, but that almost felt… fetishizing? It reminded me of those poems people made online about having a story of self-harming: “She was so beautiful in her scars.” Maybe that’s me stretching it.

She also keeps telling the stories of what caused the injuries in the first place, and not ironically, is always people doing something risky/stupid in the first place. She is never seen taking care of a bullet wound or a severe illness suddenly worsening. It’s always people putting their lives at risk.

And that’s an element that terrifies me, thinking of who Carmy is and his gif above. He has self-harming hallucinations, sometimes in the middle of dangerous situations, and his mental condition prevents him from reacting accordingly. He is absent as if he was hight/drunk, but it is his mental illness. It may even be tied to a suicidal underline.

And then you hear this story about a girl that got almost killed by Claire’s negligence; in that moment, she needed help getting better because she had an accident. She was not able to prevent her injury. She was also drunk when it happened, so she had no equipment to react accordingly. She is the equivalent of Carmen.

I need help thinking it is supposed to be a coincidence. These writers are not stupid, even if you could justify how Claire is written as saying, “Carmy is supposed to be in love with the simple” (which is such a lame excuse. People can be simple and interesting).

Wouldn’t it be cruel in hindsight to make Carmy’s true love the one person who also has a story of harming people in similar conditions of danger that he had?

I would like to quote something I read about the scene that introduces us to Claire, the story of “why” she wanted to be a doctor. In most medical-related media, these events tend to be very traumatic to the character, “I lost my mother to cancer and wanted to prevent other people from feeling that pain” “I had to watch my friend dying because she was bleeding and I couldn’t do nothing” is always about preventing someone’s harm, because of empathy. Then you have Claire’s story, quoting This fucking excellent post by

@habaritess

“The graphic injury made her want to understand it. Let that sink in. The other kids were disturbed by the injury and, no doubt, also by the cries of the injured girl. Claire wasn’t. She was mentally disconnected from the scene because her empathy wasn't activated.”(...) She looks at people as a thing to analyze, and she does so in order to get what she wants from them"

I firmly believe this. Shout out to this post by @gingergofastboatsmojito talking about Claire being a benign narcissist. She has created a narrative about herself, and that's why she seems too eager to help people who cannot fend for themselves, people who are sad, lost, and hurt, because she feels her value in it. Heartbreak doesn't make it look cute. That's just another magic trick.

And the worst part, she may be a good doctor 80% of the time, but if you have this incident, there is the possibility that it has happened more than once. Like wtf, she said she was good at “taking care of sad drunk people,” but the moment she had a drunk patient, she actually was unable to provide good care for her. She actively made the situation worse. Her mistake could have been fatal. And she related the whole thing, mentioning how beautiful she was before her accident and how it was so amusing she laughed after because she couldn’t feel the pain. She told that shit like it was amusing. Idk, I have never heard a doctor talking like that.

And now we have a whole season of Carmy thinking Claire is the solution for his happiness, the missing piece, and whatnot. This is unnerving. He will run for her at full speed, call her in a time of need/crisis, and then what? Would Claire's interest/lack of empathy would be finally revealed? Will she steer Carmy in an ever worse direction?

[fixing-bad-posts]

[Image description: A photograph of a man shown from the nose down, wearing a graphic t-shirt. The shirt has been edited blackout-poetry style to read, "Vaccinated conservative eater." The text is next to three stripes in pink, purple, and blue—the colours of the bisexual pride flag.]

---

this man eats conservatives; and he's bisexual!

[bananaede]

I still haven't figured out his hair but here's yoooji with unclekuna

[carnivalcarriondiscarded]

i may hate needles but i love vaccines more yeehaw

[sky-walkerem]

im getting the Covid booster in an hour pls hype me up for this im ~nervous~

[vizthedatum]

The new 2024-2025 COVID-19 vaccine (USA) is out. It might not be free after this month for uninsured adults (?), and it may not account for further trending variants, BUT YOU SHOULD STILL GET IT.

Hi, y'all! I published a new Substack article because:

The updated COVID-19 vaccine for the 2024-2025 season is now available as of August 22, 2024.

And I have thoughts!

An excerpt from this article:

"The CDC advises that all adults receive this vaccine. The CDC recommends that everyone over six months of age receive this updated vaccine, regardless of previous vaccination status, unless they have contracted COVID-19 in the last three months.

This new vaccine will _allegedly_ remain covered under the no-cost vaccination program, the Bridge Access Program, until the end of next week. (I say “allegedly” because I don’t know.)

But you should call your pharmacy and check!

(I personally booked a COVID-19 vaccine appointment at my local CVS for August 28, 2024. I called the pharmacist earlier today to see if it would be covered under my insurance (UPMC Health Plan provided by my employer, University of Pittsburgh) or the Bridge Access Program). They told me the shipment has yet to arrive at their location, but they think it will be before my appointment and will be covered by either one. However, they can only definitively tell me once they get the shipment.)"

[girlblocker]

combination of hangover and covid vaccine side effects has me wishing theyd administer peptobismol intravenously

[larkthorne]

wow a post vaccine baby is no joke! Haha I'm in danger dot gif.....

[joelletwo]

oh my god ishida-san in my house................ [saying i think "want to see the ocean with me?" and "understand? you and me are friends" <- i dont know what that ones from offhand]

matoba dead on the floor bc i couldnt get his to work and i need my roomie to do surgery on him

[cookinguptales]

I know that I've mentioned several times how I had to go through a period of relearning once I got out of the religious environment in which I'd been raised, and like... A lot of the things I had to research and learn about all over again were fairly obvious, like climate change. My parents and teachers told me that man-made climate change wasn't real, so I believed them. Once I got to college, I realized that I'd been misled, and I had to relearn the whole topic.

But not all of these things were obvious! I went through this period where I didn't even know what part of my education I should be questioning. Like... what do I even research?? Do I actually understand weather? What about history?

One of the reasons I bring up history is because one of the things my parents told me wasn't real was radiocarbon dating. And I don't just mean "well, these are estimations, can't be used for precise dates, and might be somewhat off due to atmospheric conditions." I got the whole "well, this is unprovable* and goes against the history the Bible gives us so you shouldn't trust carbon dating at all."

(*I was taught that anything that wasn't like... observable in real-time was not provable.)

Let's just say... a lot of my childhood was adults around me hedging their bets like "I'm not saying this is fake, I'm just saying it can't be proven and they're asking us to take this hypothesis as fact! I'm just saying you should question things! And not believe those liberal scientists!"

(carbon dating, evolution, the big bang/quantum physics, whether humans and dinosaurs coexisted, climate change, how hiv works, etc.)

And uhhh I went into archaeology (among other things) when I first started college, so you can imagine how this impeded my studies. lmao

idk, I guess I'm not going anywhere in particular with this. I was just listening to a podcast that's currently talking about the paleolithic period and I still had a gut instinctual reaction of "well, you don't know these things are that old" that I had to squash like a fucking bug.

I definitely understand exactly how the "it's good to be curious and read sources critically" to "question everyone, especially experts" to "those liberal scientists are trying to trick you" to "fake news!!" pipeline comes about. ;;

[fixing-bad-posts]

[Image description: A facebook comment, edited blackout-poetry style to read, "get vaccinated simple as that". The commenter's last name has been redacted, leaving only his first name: Brian.]

---

brian says get vaccinated!

Submitted by @orangesideirrational

[aj-lenoire]

holy fucking shit i am losing my mind over the hbomberguy vaccine video

(yes i know it came out almost 2 years ago i only just got into his stuff alright)

like i knew andrew wakefield's original study was bullshit; when i did a module on autism in undergrad, one of the first things my professor said was that this study was bullshit—it was only done on 12 kids, he owned the patent for the seperate vaccines, it was later retracted for being total bullshit and wakefield wankfield lost his medical license; HE IS NO LONGER A DOCTOR

we were not told:

the study didn’t even FIND anything!! even after wankfield tweaked data, lied about what parents said, his conclusions were that he hadn’t found any actual evidence BUT he really thought there might be a link between the MMR vaccine and autism

(that, for those of you not in the know, is not how academia works, you need evidence)

some of the children in the study weren’t even autistic

of those 12 children, only about half of the parents were reported as saying they thought the MMR vaccine caused their kid’s autism (BASED OFF NOTHING BUT SPECULATION, I MIGHT ADD) and at least one of the fathers has said that wankfield straight-up lied about him saying that

wankfield was hired by a lawyer to ‘‘‘find’’’ evidence of autism so that lawyer could launch a class action lawsuit on behalf of like, 12 parents who thought their kids’ autism was caused by their MMR vaccinations

in the same journal edition the original paper was published, there was another paper by other doctors saying that wankfield’s assertions seemed deeply fishy

the parents were not able to give informed consent to their kids’ medical examinations because wankfield didn't list the risks of the procedures on the ‘consent’ forms

let me say that again

the parents were not able to give informed consent to their kids’ medical examinations because wankfield didn't list the risks of the procedures on the ‘consent’ forms

honestly, if you haven’t already, you should probably just watch HBomberGuy’s video. he cites all of his sources and there is so much more insane stuff i’m not even getting into here

but like, i get parents being scared of medical stuff they don’t fully understand, i get wanting nothing but the best for your kid because they’re your kid and you want to protect them, that is a noble and reasonable thing to want to do!!

however. the SLIGHTEST glimpse at this ‘‘‘study’’’ and it becomes painfully, dangerously clear that there is no and indeed never has been any link between vaccines and autism. by refusing to vaccinate your children, you are actually putting them at more risk and in more danger.

if there’s one thing people need to understand about vaccines, it’s that they weren’t created on a whim. measles, tetanus, polio, mumps, rubella, used to KILL hundreds if not thousands of people a year:

the vaccination rate in france for measles fell below 90% around 2008 and it caused an outbreak in the population that killed at least 10 people

the effects of long-COVID are only just becoming apparent, and even young and healthy people are getting seriously harmed by infection

herd immunity is about 95% vaccination in the population, and it is so, so crucially important that everyone who can get vaccinated does get vaccinated, because people with weakened immune systems (like very young or old people, or people undergoing chemotherapy) will be relying on herd immunity to stay safe. so it isn’t just your kid you’re putting at more risk, but other people’s kids, too

and, also, one final lil’ note:

EVEN IF VACCINES DID CAUSE AUTISM (and they don’t) IT IS MUCH BETTER FOR YOUR CHILD TO BE AUTISTIC THAN TO BE KILLED BY A COMPLETELY PREVENTABLE DISEASE

other informative links in addition to HBomberGuy's video below the cut:

[keelanrosa]

terfs when a study shows literally anything positive about trans people/transitioning: 'hm i think this requires some fact-checking. Were those researchers REALLY unbiased? Because if they were biased this doesn't count and if they weren't knowingly biased they probably were unconsciously biased, woke media affects so much these days. Have there been any other studies on this? Because if there haven't been this could be an outlier and if there have been and they all agree that's a bit odd, why aren't there any outliers, and if there have been and any disagree we really won't know the truth until we very thoroughly analyze them all, will we? Were there enough subjects for a good sample size? Did every single subject involved stay involved through the whole study because if they didn't we should be sure nothing shady was going on resulting in people dropping out. Are we 110% sure all the subjects were fully honest and at no point were embarrassed or afraid to admit they didn't love transitioning to the people in charge of their transition? Are we 110% sure none of the subjects were manipulated into thinking they were happy with their transition? In fact we should double-check what they think with their parents, because if the subjects and their parents disagree it's probably because they've been manipulated but their cis parents have not and are very unbiased. How many autistic subjects were there because if there weren't enough then this doesn't really study the overlap between autistic and trans and if there were too many then we just don't know enough about what causes that overlap to be sure this study really explains being trans and isn't just about being autistic. How many AFAB subjects were there because if there weren't enough this is just another example of prioritizing AMAB people and ignoring the different struggles of girls and women and if there were too many how do we know sexism didn't affect the results. Was the study double-blinded? We all know double-blinded is the most reliable so if this one wasn't that's a point against it even if the thesis literally physically could not be double-blinded. Look i'm not being transphobic, i want what's best for trans people! Really! But as a person who is not trans and therefore objective in a way they cannot possibly be, i just think we should only take into account Good Science here. You want to be following science and not being manipulated or experimented upon by something unscientific, right?'

terfs when they see a study of 45 subjects so old it predates modern criteria for gender dysphoria and basically uses 'idk her parents think she's too butch', run by a guy who practiced conversion therapy, 'confirmed' by a guy who treated the significant portion of subjects who didn't follow up as all desisting, definitely in the category of 'physically cannot double-blind this', completely contradicted by multiple other studies done on actual transgender subjects, but can be kinda cited as evidence against transitioning if you ignore everything else about it: 'oOOH SEE THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKIN BOUT. SCIENCE. Just good ol' unbiased thorough analysis. I see absolutely no reason to dig any deeper on this and if you think it's wrong you're the one being unscientific. It's really a shame you've been so thoroughly brainwashed by the trans agenda and can't even accept science when you see it. Maybe now that someone has finally uncovered this long-lost study from 1985, we can make some actual progress on the whole trans problem.'

[you-need-not-apply]

People can choose.

People can choose not to get vaxed. I will not judge them if it’s for legitimate medical reasons, but I will judge others as they are endangering others and themselves

People can choose to be vegan. I will not judge them if they don’t force their beliefs onto others, but I will when they make their pets vegan and scream at passers by to be vegan

People can choose to not have an abortion. I will not judge them as it’s their right to choose, but I will if they use their situation as a way to say “pro-life” and to force their beliefs on others

People can choose to be religious. I will not judge them as they have a right to faith and belief’s, but I will if they force others to believe the same as them and if they don’t then they hate them

People can choose. But that doesn’t mean I will judge them.

People can choose. But that doesn’t mean I won’t judge them.

[fettiowi]