4 ms·

Do you deny that there are risks to being vaccinated?

nostrademons 16y ago
Do you deny that there are risks to not being vaccinated, and that the risks of not being vaccinated are many times greater than the risks of being vaccinated?
pyre 16y ago
I thought that the main topic here was about whether or not vaccines cause autism. It seems petty to try and point to other risks/side-effects of vaccines when the main point of the discussion has been disproven. i.e.: Person 1: Vaccines cause autism! Person 2: No they don't! Here's proof! Person 1: Well...it's still not 100% safe, so *there*! I win! The risks of being vaccinated are less than the risks of not being vaccinated. I have acquaintances who refuse to vaccinate their kids and you really can't argue much with them (though thankfully, they are not the type to be preachy about it). If someone wants to look it up, there is apparently some book about the problems with vaccines, but (from my experience) the logic goes something like: * Vaccines aren't 100% effective. There are people that receive vaccines that still get the illness. * Vaccines can give you the illness you are trying to prevent. * There are various other side-effects associated with vaccines. * [I added this one, though I've never heard anyone use it, and I still vaccinate my daughter] The companies that make the vaccines are immune to prosecution, so they don't have an incentive to produce a quality product. * [the really crazies like this one too] The 'man' is putting things in vaccines to make poison us and/or make the 'lower classes' sterile as part of some sort of population-control method (See chem-trails and various other 'theories').
- patrickgzill 16y ago
  I appreciate your reasoned response, though I was not trying to take a side on vaccines and ASD; just addressing the idea that vaccination is a personal risk you take with yourself or your children, and you weigh the risks and are responsible for (not taking | taking) them. Riding a motorcycle is demonstrably more risky than driving a car, yet I don't see people suggesting we shun bikers. I have many older relatives in their 70s and 80s, some are taking e.g. flu vaccines and some do not; and as children, some received the standard vaccinations and some had chickenpox, measles, mumps, etc. At this point, being familiar with their medical histories, (though not a doctor), I am not sure that I see a pattern of better health between the 2 groups. Frankly choice of diet and amount of regular exercise seem to be a far better predictor of who is in the best shape. Example: my mother and her closest sister are 11 months in age apart, 81 and 80. One exercises with walking and swimming 3x a week, watches food portions and needs only a mild sleeping pill for medication - still drives and has an active social life; the other has had 2 heart attacks, is overweight by 50+ lbs (and yoyo dieted while younger) and has been on 2-3 heart meds for over 15 years.
  - gte910h 16y ago
    >vaccination is a personal risk you take with yourself or your children, and you weigh the risks and are responsible for (not taking | taking) them Vaccination is a risk you take with yourself or your children and everyone you and they come in contact with. This is why you should be shunned. You're playing with the lives of those who should be shunning you. We're not talking about the flu vaccine. We're talking about measles, mumps, rubella, Diphtheria, Tetanus, Hepatitis, Varicella, Meningitis, Rotavirus and various other VERY FATAL ILLNESSES. If there are enough flu vaccines for everyone in a year, you should get them, but we're talking about the main, childhood vaccines which protect against the horrible diseases of earth's past. You not only should be shunned, you should have to walk around with a sign alerting people to your presence as a willing infection vector to make you well labeled enough the rational among us can avoid you.
  - pyre 16y ago
    The problem is that if a certain percentage of the population doesn't take the vaccine then the risks associated with not taking the vaccine greatly increase. For example, (as an unvaccinated person) your chances of catching the flu while living in a city where 90% of the population is vaccinated is much lower than if only 40% of the population were vaccinated. Also you have to consider the risks to others. Even with the vaccine there is still a chance of getting the disease, though one would need to come in contact with the disease to get it. So someone that chose to be unvaccinated is at a higher risk of catching the disease, and therefore transmitting it to someone that was vaccinated (though I'll admit that the actually numbers in this scenario are probably pretty low).
  - igrekel 16y ago
    We don't shun bikers but we make them pay higher insurance premiums. They mainly endanger themselves anyway. If I take a very selfish viewpoint and I can choose between a collision with a biker vs a car driver I'll pick the one with the less mass.
- evgen 16y ago
  > The companies that make the vaccines are immune to prosecution, so they don't have an incentive to produce a quality product. Actually, it works sort of like this: the companies that make vaccines are immune from prosecution in normal courts, all jurisdiction for these cases goes to a special court (the Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims) that weighs scientific evidence, the facts of the case, and the relevant law to determine the outcome. The general idea is that there is a higher bar to cross regarding evidence and there is no jury for an ambulance chaser to sway. The court deals with specific instances of harm from vaccines and not general classes of claimants (e.g. no "class actions" in this court.)

Do you deny that there are risks to not being vaccinated, and that the risks of not being vaccinated are many times greater than the risks of being vaccinated?

pyre 16y ago

I thought that the main topic here was about whether or not vaccines cause autism. It seems petty to try and point to other risks/side-effects of vaccines when the main point of the discussion has been disproven. i.e.: Person 1: Vaccines cause autism! Person 2: No they don't! Here's proof! Person 1: Well...it's still not 100% safe, so *there*! I win! The risks of being vaccinated are less than the risks of not being vaccinated. I have acquaintances who refuse to vaccinate their kids and you really can't argue much with them (though thankfully, they are not the type to be preachy about it). If someone wants to look it up, there is apparently some book about the problems with vaccines, but (from my experience) the logic goes something like: * Vaccines aren't 100% effective. There are people that receive vaccines that still get the illness. * Vaccines can give you the illness you are trying to prevent. * There are various other side-effects associated with vaccines. * [I added this one, though I've never heard anyone use it, and I still vaccinate my daughter] The companies that make the vaccines are immune to prosecution, so they don't have an incentive to produce a quality product. * [the really crazies like this one too] The 'man' is putting things in vaccines to make poison us and/or make the 'lower classes' sterile as part of some sort of population-control method (See chem-trails and various other 'theories').

patrickgzill 16y ago
I appreciate your reasoned response, though I was not trying to take a side on vaccines and ASD; just addressing the idea that vaccination is a personal risk you take with yourself or your children, and you weigh the risks and are responsible for (not taking | taking) them. Riding a motorcycle is demonstrably more risky than driving a car, yet I don't see people suggesting we shun bikers. I have many older relatives in their 70s and 80s, some are taking e.g. flu vaccines and some do not; and as children, some received the standard vaccinations and some had chickenpox, measles, mumps, etc. At this point, being familiar with their medical histories, (though not a doctor), I am not sure that I see a pattern of better health between the 2 groups. Frankly choice of diet and amount of regular exercise seem to be a far better predictor of who is in the best shape. Example: my mother and her closest sister are 11 months in age apart, 81 and 80. One exercises with walking and swimming 3x a week, watches food portions and needs only a mild sleeping pill for medication - still drives and has an active social life; the other has had 2 heart attacks, is overweight by 50+ lbs (and yoyo dieted while younger) and has been on 2-3 heart meds for over 15 years.
- gte910h 16y ago
  >vaccination is a personal risk you take with yourself or your children, and you weigh the risks and are responsible for (not taking | taking) them Vaccination is a risk you take with yourself or your children and everyone you and they come in contact with. This is why you should be shunned. You're playing with the lives of those who should be shunning you. We're not talking about the flu vaccine. We're talking about measles, mumps, rubella, Diphtheria, Tetanus, Hepatitis, Varicella, Meningitis, Rotavirus and various other VERY FATAL ILLNESSES. If there are enough flu vaccines for everyone in a year, you should get them, but we're talking about the main, childhood vaccines which protect against the horrible diseases of earth's past. You not only should be shunned, you should have to walk around with a sign alerting people to your presence as a willing infection vector to make you well labeled enough the rational among us can avoid you.
- pyre 16y ago
  The problem is that if a certain percentage of the population doesn't take the vaccine then the risks associated with not taking the vaccine greatly increase. For example, (as an unvaccinated person) your chances of catching the flu while living in a city where 90% of the population is vaccinated is much lower than if only 40% of the population were vaccinated. Also you have to consider the risks to others. Even with the vaccine there is still a chance of getting the disease, though one would need to come in contact with the disease to get it. So someone that chose to be unvaccinated is at a higher risk of catching the disease, and therefore transmitting it to someone that was vaccinated (though I'll admit that the actually numbers in this scenario are probably pretty low).
- igrekel 16y ago
  We don't shun bikers but we make them pay higher insurance premiums. They mainly endanger themselves anyway. If I take a very selfish viewpoint and I can choose between a collision with a biker vs a car driver I'll pick the one with the less mass.
evgen 16y ago
> The companies that make the vaccines are immune to prosecution, so they don't have an incentive to produce a quality product. Actually, it works sort of like this: the companies that make vaccines are immune from prosecution in normal courts, all jurisdiction for these cases goes to a special court (the Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims) that weighs scientific evidence, the facts of the case, and the relevant law to determine the outcome. The general idea is that there is a higher bar to cross regarding evidence and there is no jury for an ambulance chaser to sway. The court deals with specific instances of harm from vaccines and not general classes of claimants (e.g. no "class actions" in this court.)