8 ms·

I have this same thought when people say their didn't have any problems even after they got all the vaccine shots as a child, so it is completely safe... How d

I have this same thought when people say their didn't have any problems even after they got all the vaccine shots as a child, so it is completely safe... How did you compare you with your version who never had shots? Or how did any vaccination trials do it?

roywiggins 9y ago
You compare populations. Did a group who got the vaccine have more problems than an otherwise identical group that didn't? This requires careful study design and statistical analysis, of course.
- babyrainbow 9y ago
  > who got the vaccine have more problems than an otherwise identical group that didn't? But we were not talking about problems. The person I was replying said this > but it can't be a complete picture vs their never-smoked potential. So I am talking about the potential (meaning various capabilities IQ, Social behaviour, Emotional stability (withing the bound of normalcy) etc. I mean, things that are not usually recognized as problems..). How can you compare the potential of a version of you who never had vaccines with a version of you who had a given set of vaccines. This is particularly relevant with vaccines because you don't have a version of you before having vaccines, since these are usually administrated at a very young age..
  - Benjamin_Dobell 9y ago
    Vaccines undergo extremely comprehensive studies before being widely approved for use, there's really not a lot to wonder about. For example, I think everyone knows about the 2015-2016 Zika virus out-break and what experts believe to be a link to devastating child birth defects. This has clearly become a high priority vaccine candidate... and, we believe we already have one. It's just that, despite the devastating effects, medical professionals/scientists aren't going to go willy-nilly releasing it to the public without a comprehensive study (ideally multiple of them), for example, the following study which is expected to complete in 2019. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/phase-2-zika-vaccine-trial-begins-us-central-south-america https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/phase-2-zika-v...
    - babyrainbow 9y ago
      Didn't really answer my specific question...
      - jwong_ 9y ago
        Someone else already answered it in a previous parent reply. > You compare populations. Did a group who got the vaccine have more problems than an otherwise identical group that didn't? This requires careful study design and statistical analysis, of course.
        babyrainbow 9y ago
        Please take a look at my reply to this ^ comment. I think you might have missed it...
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - Benjamin_Dobell 9y ago
    > How can you compare the potential of a version of you who never had vaccines with a version of you who had a given set of vaccines These are called identical twin studies, they're inherently limited in capacity and are not an appropriate means of studying vaccines. Vaccines are inherently something widely distributed to the public. Vaccines do have adverse effects on some people, all publicly released vaccines have publicly available figures on the likelihood of adverse effects in a percentage of the population. If the percentage is too high or the types of effects are too severe then the vaccine is not released to the public - this is common sense. For example I was seemingly affected by a Whooping Cough (Pertussis) vaccine I was administered as a baby. After receiving part of the vaccine (it was administered in doses at the time) I became quite ill and doctors advised against administering the rest of the vaccine. So for many years I was not vaccinated against Whooping Cough but received the rest of my vaccinations without issue - again, should be common sense. I'm a perfectly healthy adult now and have actually since received a newer/different a Whooping Cough vaccine (I don't believe they still administer the old one), as well as several other vaccinations. I'm perfectly content with the fact a vaccine may have almost killed me, it's certainly better than the alternative of Whooping Cough running rampant killing more than the 50,000 people it already kills each year.
    - babyrainbow 9y ago
      Ha! Look. This is absolutely not the issue we are discussing. If you go back and read my question calmly, you might recognize it...
  - WaxProlix 9y ago
    This is the same argument I make to my friends who wear pants - how can you compare the potential of a version of you who never had pants with a version of you who had a given set of pants? This is particularly relevant with pants because you don't have a version of you before having pants, since these are usually applied at a very young age...
    - babyrainbow 9y ago
      Exactly! You can't. You get the idea. But with pants, I guess you never had to wonder "Is wearing pants safe".
      - WaxProlix 9y ago
        But wearing pants ISN'T safe - it ruins testosterone levels and has been shown in test after test to increase risk of cancer, decrease sperm count, lower muscle mass, increase telomerease production, and inhibit ATP creation, to name a few.
  - Jarwain 9y ago
    You can't. Does it matter? Does the possibility of minor changes to an individuals physiology matter when the current alternative is death for quite a few people? Even if minor changes in our physiology happen all the time?
    - babyrainbow 9y ago
      > Does the possibility of minor changes to an individuals physiology matter when the current alternative is death for quite a few people? Again. That was not the question. But I see you have answered the actual question also, agreeing with my point. So we're cool..
  - roywiggins 9y ago
    You're discounting the risk from -not- getting vaccinated. We know Zika can severely damage babies' potential. Whooping cough, rubella, measles? They all have the possibility to damage people long-term (if they don't kill you, which is admittedly not that common anymore, but can happen). And, since humanity has been living with those diseases for a long time, we have a pretty good sense of exactly how bad they are. We know the risks. So, does vaccination make more healthy people, at a population level, than not vaccinating? That's the question that matters, because every action (or inaction) has risks. The evidence is abundant that yes, vaccination has helped us reach closer to our potential. Diseases like polio might even be entirely eliminated, in which case we're trading a few adverse reactions today for a nigh infinite number of saved lives in the future (if future generations don't have to even be vaccinated, it's pure benefit with no cost) There is admittedly a weird philosophical issue, whereby a vaccine does juggle around probabilities: you're trading 1000 people getting sick with measles (say) for 10 people getting sick from the vaccine. But they're (probably) different people. Were the people who got sick harmed? Sure, but if they hadn't gotten the vaccine, they might have been harmed by the disease. It's impossible to to know for certain. But it's what happens at the population level that counts.
- mowenz 9y ago
  You're correcr, but it's worth mentioning that studies != experiments. I'm not an anti-vaccer for the record. The studies vs experiments problem is larger in social sciences than medicine.
  - mowenz 9y ago
    Perhaps someone would explain why they downvoted?
  - roywiggins 9y ago
    They do run vaccine experiments with controls, not just observational studies.
    - mowenz 9y ago
      The above comment did refer to population studies. Most drugs are studied using clinical trials, which contain control groups. Not perfect experiment, but close to it. There are plenty of examples studies and trials published in scientific journals with erroneous conclusions. With a purwly scientific experiment that would be impossible (at least for the experimental outcome to disagree with nature).
NLips 9y ago
Come on people! BabyRainbow is not claiming vaccinations don't work. Their point is almost exactly the opposite - we know vaccinations work without requiring a 'twin Earth' that the grandparent posited. Exactly the same applies to whether e.g. cannabis is linked to cognitive decline.
- mercer 9y ago
  I think you might be too charitable in your interpretation of that comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14417337 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14417337
  - babyrainbow 9y ago
    He he. It is really funny how people are reacting when they come across things with huge emotional investment and even remotely questioning of their beliefs... I ask . "Is it logical to reach the conclusion x based on y" and people are responding as if I have said "x is not true"! and they are saying things like "whether X is true or false does not matter because Z!" HI larious!
- mdekkers 9y ago
  HN is no different from any other internet hangout where people can earn and lose imaginary internet points. The only online forums I have seen work well as an open forum of discussion that don't fall victim to some form of groupthink are those that don't allow downvotes.
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  They're making a stupid pedantic point and deserve every single downvote for turning this conversation into white noise.
  - babyrainbow 9y ago
    What stupid pedantic point? Go back to my first comment and read carefully. Tell me what I am saying, and tell what is stupid about it..
TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
I suspect you're being downvoted because you'll always be able to claim 'No no, I meant more subtle effects that are harder to measure.' To answer your question: How can I compare my vaccinated self to my unvaccinated self? The answer is: I can't, because my unvaccinated self is probably dead as it would have had to have lived in a world where childhood mortality was much higher than it is now, due to various factors but especially communicable diseases.
- ferentchak 9y ago
  I also like to think that since we have no evidence of any of these effects they might be beneficial too. Perhaps being exposed to a vaccine makes you jump higher and better at Asteroids. Since there is no way to tell it these magical unknown effects could be good instead of bad.

roywiggins 9y ago

You compare populations. Did a group who got the vaccine have more problems than an otherwise identical group that didn't? This requires careful study design and statistical analysis, of course.

babyrainbow 9y ago
> who got the vaccine have more problems than an otherwise identical group that didn't? But we were not talking about problems. The person I was replying said this > but it can't be a complete picture vs their never-smoked potential. So I am talking about the potential (meaning various capabilities IQ, Social behaviour, Emotional stability (withing the bound of normalcy) etc. I mean, things that are not usually recognized as problems..). How can you compare the potential of a version of you who never had vaccines with a version of you who had a given set of vaccines. This is particularly relevant with vaccines because you don't have a version of you before having vaccines, since these are usually administrated at a very young age..
- Benjamin_Dobell 9y ago
  Vaccines undergo extremely comprehensive studies before being widely approved for use, there's really not a lot to wonder about. For example, I think everyone knows about the 2015-2016 Zika virus out-break and what experts believe to be a link to devastating child birth defects. This has clearly become a high priority vaccine candidate... and, we believe we already have one. It's just that, despite the devastating effects, medical professionals/scientists aren't going to go willy-nilly releasing it to the public without a comprehensive study (ideally multiple of them), for example, the following study which is expected to complete in 2019. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/phase-2-zika-vaccine-trial-begins-us-central-south-america https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/phase-2-zika-v...
  - babyrainbow 9y ago
    Didn't really answer my specific question...
    - jwong_ 9y ago
      Someone else already answered it in a previous parent reply. > You compare populations. Did a group who got the vaccine have more problems than an otherwise identical group that didn't? This requires careful study design and statistical analysis, of course.
      - babyrainbow 9y ago
        Please take a look at my reply to this ^ comment. I think you might have missed it...
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- Benjamin_Dobell 9y ago
  > How can you compare the potential of a version of you who never had vaccines with a version of you who had a given set of vaccines These are called identical twin studies, they're inherently limited in capacity and are not an appropriate means of studying vaccines. Vaccines are inherently something widely distributed to the public. Vaccines do have adverse effects on some people, all publicly released vaccines have publicly available figures on the likelihood of adverse effects in a percentage of the population. If the percentage is too high or the types of effects are too severe then the vaccine is not released to the public - this is common sense. For example I was seemingly affected by a Whooping Cough (Pertussis) vaccine I was administered as a baby. After receiving part of the vaccine (it was administered in doses at the time) I became quite ill and doctors advised against administering the rest of the vaccine. So for many years I was not vaccinated against Whooping Cough but received the rest of my vaccinations without issue - again, should be common sense. I'm a perfectly healthy adult now and have actually since received a newer/different a Whooping Cough vaccine (I don't believe they still administer the old one), as well as several other vaccinations. I'm perfectly content with the fact a vaccine may have almost killed me, it's certainly better than the alternative of Whooping Cough running rampant killing more than the 50,000 people it already kills each year.
  - babyrainbow 9y ago
    Ha! Look. This is absolutely not the issue we are discussing. If you go back and read my question calmly, you might recognize it...
- WaxProlix 9y ago
  This is the same argument I make to my friends who wear pants - how can you compare the potential of a version of you who never had pants with a version of you who had a given set of pants? This is particularly relevant with pants because you don't have a version of you before having pants, since these are usually applied at a very young age...
  - babyrainbow 9y ago
    Exactly! You can't. You get the idea. But with pants, I guess you never had to wonder "Is wearing pants safe".
    - WaxProlix 9y ago
      But wearing pants ISN'T safe - it ruins testosterone levels and has been shown in test after test to increase risk of cancer, decrease sperm count, lower muscle mass, increase telomerease production, and inhibit ATP creation, to name a few.
- Jarwain 9y ago
  You can't. Does it matter? Does the possibility of minor changes to an individuals physiology matter when the current alternative is death for quite a few people? Even if minor changes in our physiology happen all the time?
  - babyrainbow 9y ago
    > Does the possibility of minor changes to an individuals physiology matter when the current alternative is death for quite a few people? Again. That was not the question. But I see you have answered the actual question also, agreeing with my point. So we're cool..
- roywiggins 9y ago
  You're discounting the risk from -not- getting vaccinated. We know Zika can severely damage babies' potential. Whooping cough, rubella, measles? They all have the possibility to damage people long-term (if they don't kill you, which is admittedly not that common anymore, but can happen). And, since humanity has been living with those diseases for a long time, we have a pretty good sense of exactly how bad they are. We know the risks. So, does vaccination make more healthy people, at a population level, than not vaccinating? That's the question that matters, because every action (or inaction) has risks. The evidence is abundant that yes, vaccination has helped us reach closer to our potential. Diseases like polio might even be entirely eliminated, in which case we're trading a few adverse reactions today for a nigh infinite number of saved lives in the future (if future generations don't have to even be vaccinated, it's pure benefit with no cost) There is admittedly a weird philosophical issue, whereby a vaccine does juggle around probabilities: you're trading 1000 people getting sick with measles (say) for 10 people getting sick from the vaccine. But they're (probably) different people. Were the people who got sick harmed? Sure, but if they hadn't gotten the vaccine, they might have been harmed by the disease. It's impossible to to know for certain. But it's what happens at the population level that counts.
mowenz 9y ago
You're correcr, but it's worth mentioning that studies != experiments. I'm not an anti-vaccer for the record. The studies vs experiments problem is larger in social sciences than medicine.
- mowenz 9y ago
  Perhaps someone would explain why they downvoted?
- roywiggins 9y ago
  They do run vaccine experiments with controls, not just observational studies.
  - mowenz 9y ago
    The above comment did refer to population studies. Most drugs are studied using clinical trials, which contain control groups. Not perfect experiment, but close to it. There are plenty of examples studies and trials published in scientific journals with erroneous conclusions. With a purwly scientific experiment that would be impossible (at least for the experimental outcome to disagree with nature).

NLips 9y ago

Come on people! BabyRainbow is not claiming vaccinations don't work. Their point is almost exactly the opposite - we know vaccinations work without requiring a 'twin Earth' that the grandparent posited. Exactly the same applies to whether e.g. cannabis is linked to cognitive decline.

mercer 9y ago
I think you might be too charitable in your interpretation of that comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14417337 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14417337
- babyrainbow 9y ago
  He he. It is really funny how people are reacting when they come across things with huge emotional investment and even remotely questioning of their beliefs... I ask . "Is it logical to reach the conclusion x based on y" and people are responding as if I have said "x is not true"! and they are saying things like "whether X is true or false does not matter because Z!" HI larious!
mdekkers 9y ago
HN is no different from any other internet hangout where people can earn and lose imaginary internet points. The only online forums I have seen work well as an open forum of discussion that don't fall victim to some form of groupthink are those that don't allow downvotes.
Dylan16807 9y ago
They're making a stupid pedantic point and deserve every single downvote for turning this conversation into white noise.
- babyrainbow 9y ago
  What stupid pedantic point? Go back to my first comment and read carefully. Tell me what I am saying, and tell what is stupid about it..

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago

I suspect you're being downvoted because you'll always be able to claim 'No no, I meant more subtle effects that are harder to measure.' To answer your question: How can I compare my vaccinated self to my unvaccinated self? The answer is: I can't, because my unvaccinated self is probably dead as it would have had to have lived in a world where childhood mortality was much higher than it is now, due to various factors but especially communicable diseases.

ferentchak 9y ago
I also like to think that since we have no evidence of any of these effects they might be beneficial too. Perhaps being exposed to a vaccine makes you jump higher and better at Asteroids. Since there is no way to tell it these magical unknown effects could be good instead of bad.