3 ms·
You are arguing against scientific data using anecdotal and unproven evidence. Even if your near-baseless statement of risk is accurate, it is clear that a non
by stevejohnson 16y ago
You are arguing against scientific data using anecdotal and unproven evidence.
Even if your near-baseless statement of risk is accurate, it is clear that a non-vaccinated world is much riskier for children than a vaccinated one.
- CWuestefeld 16y agoYou are arguing against scientific data using anecdotal and unproven evidence. In one case, yes, but the danger of malpractice is certainly well known. In my other case (iatrogenic polio), it's a very well documented effect. Virtually all polio in the USA since the 'late 60s (give or take) has been the result of this. But in both cases, the risk is vanishingly small. My point was that a statement like "stop whining: it's perfectly safe" is not correct. In the end, such hyperbole only gives the tinfoil hat crowd a toehold. And again, using the polio example, an understanding of the tiny risk of iatrogenic polio can help those at particular risk due to immune problems to avoid what is a non-trivial danger for them.
- trunnell 16y agoI'm sorry to hear about your friend's son. And you're right, the risk of an ill effect is non-zero. That doesn't mean it's not safe, though. If our definition of safe means absolutely zero risk, then almost nothing is safe. Relative to most medical procedures, vaccines are incredibly safe. I'm going to continue telling everyone I know that they should vaccinate their children because that position is supported by the best available science, and because the alternative is definitely not safe.
- CWuestefeld 16y agoNow that, I agree with.