this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2026
537 points (98.7% liked)
tumblr
5539 readers
207 users here now
Welcome to /c/tumblr, a place for all your tumblr screenshots and news.
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Must be tumblr related. This one is kind of a given.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
-
No unnecessary negativity. Just because you don't like a thing doesn't mean that you need to spend the entire comment section complaining about said thing. Just downvote and move on.
Sister Communities:
-
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't see the point of the study tbh. ~~But neither the outrage~~. Mostly because not every country vaccinates at the same time after birth so there's no need to test it specifically. Just compare infants from different countries.
You don't even have to go that far. Denmark vaccinates right after birth (if I can understand Der gives tre doser på hhv. dag 0, efter 1 måned og efter 6 måneder. correctly) while Germany vaccinates after 2 months: Die ersten beiden Impfungen im Alter von 2 und 4 Monaten, die dritte Impfung im Alter von 11 Monaten. Literally just take a sample from both of these countries.
I was apparently vaccinated after 2 months, 3 months, 4 months and 1 year according to my vaccine certificate.
Edit: Small update, can see the issue with doing this in Guinea-Bisset
I guess we can all see why you aren't a scientist.
Guinea-Bisset has one of the highest rates of Hep B infections in the world. Nearly 1 in 5 people there have chronic Hep B, and 90% of babies exposed at birth develop a chronic infection.
In America, 1 in 1,200 have Hep B. Not 1 in 5. DRASTICALLY more people have Hep B in Guinea-Bisset, greatly increasing the chance of infant exposure.
That's why there is outrage. This should be basic common sense.
If the rate is so low in the US, why would it be unethical to do it there? You could also take samples from babies whose parents are getting or refusing the vaccine anyways. Sure, those decisions on their own will introduce more variables, but they could do a "outcomes of being raised by pro/anti vaccine/medicine parents" study.
If the goal was the truth, at least. It would be hard to do that study without any bias either way, with how political the whole thing is.