216 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.