3 ms·

I find it hard to get as outraged about this as everybody else does. Part of this stems from the fact that I think the history of forcible medical interventions

I find it hard to get as outraged about this as everybody else does. Part of this stems from the fact that I think the history of forcible medical interventions has been over-aggressive as often as it has been under-aggressive. For example, there was a time when doctors deemed it prudent not give babies breast milk, to take the baby away from the mother for observation after being born, prescribe DES to try to prevent miscarriage. I imagine vaccination is not one of these cases, but there's a lot we don't really understand at all about the immune system (e.g. why autoimmune conditions like allergies are growing so fast), or the human body in general.

colemickens 8y ago
"there's a lot we don't really understand at all about the immune system" This, exactly this, is how the anti-vax movement exists! It is amazing how lay people will just dismiss the research and conclusions of an entire field of science with a handwave and an argument-less quip. Maybe you'd be more upset if you had a child that got sick in an area where vaccination rates were low. Or if you had a child that had actual, real, medical reasons why they couldn't receive the immunization and need to rely on herd immunity for their literal survival.
- alexandercrohde 8y ago
  I'm not dismissing anything. I didn't say the science is or isn't true, I didn't say I would or wouldn't vaccinate. What I'm pointing out is that the side that says it knows, historically, has been wrong a lot more than we recognize. >> Maybe you'd be more upset if you had a child that got sick in an area where vaccination rates were low. Or if you had a child that had actual, real, medical reasons why they couldn't receive the immunization and need to rely on herd immunity for their literal survival. Of course I'd be upset in those circumstances, I'm not sure what your point is. Is it that we all need to get angry on the internet to save little kids? Because I'll tell you right now that's the least effective way to try to bring anybody to your side.
  - albertgoeswoof 8y ago
    No. Historically, particularly in recent times, medicine has been more right than wrong when giving out advice. Generally speaking if you ask for medical advice from a qualified person it will be good advice. You’re cherry picking specific scenarios where a recommendation was given that was later proven incorrect. There is no evidence to suggest vaccines are going to be one of those scenarios. What we do know is that not vaccinating will lead to unnecessary deaths and serious illnesses.
    - alexandercrohde 8y ago
      >> Historically, particularly in recent times, medicine has been more right than wrong when giving out advice. Source?
      - albertgoeswoof 8y ago
        You’re seriously asking for a citation of whether medical advice is effective?
        alexandercrohde 8y ago
        Oh, I thought you were purporting to be an advocate of science. Should we not use the scientific method to measure what percentage of the time medical diagnoses are wrong, medicines are withdrawn after being prescribed, and health outcomes of those born at home versus born at the hospital?
arcticfox 8y ago
As a vaccinated person who just suffered from mumps thanks to a loss of herd immunity, it's hard to not get upset reading that type of logic. There's an incredibly clear correlation between vaccines and reduction of suffering, and your actions don't affect yourself alone.
- alexandercrohde 8y ago
  Wait, are you saying you're such a person? You weren't able to get the MMR vaccine?
  - albertgoeswoof 8y ago
    They got the vaccine but it wasn’t 100% effective for them. Because enough idiots didn’t vaccinate their children the virus was still able to spread (no herd immunity) and infected them.
- electriclove 8y ago
  You were vaccinated for mumps, yet you still contracted it? Sorry to hear that. Are you pretty much immune to it now?
- esaym 8y ago
  Funny. Your "vaccine" didn't seem to work. Maybe you should be mad at the company that got paid $100 for it instead of taking it out on society. And just think, if you had gotten it in early childhood, the side effects are very mild.
electriclove 8y ago
Sad to see how quick the downvotes came. It really wasn't that long ago that medical advice was to use formula instead of breast milk and sleep babies on their stomachs. Many/most of the pediatricians/nurses who parents interact with have no idea about the details of the vaccines. They are just blindly following protocol because they are told to. They have a million other things to do and concern themselves about.
- esaym 8y ago
  And most don't have kids either...
- everdev 8y ago
  The down votes on this thread are insane. Science is not perfect especially medical advice. Even though I think vaccines are safe and hugely beneficial I find the ideas that the safety of vaccines are "beyond debatable" to be the most rediculous of the arguments on both sides. We should debate and question everything. There have been other medicines that had been considered safe and then were found to have long term side effects. And of course countless others that were considered safe and never produced side effects. Just because it's considered safe now doesn't mean we fully understand every aspect of the human body and chemistry and diseases well enough to say that vaccines will never be harmful. The absolutist language actually makes people more skeptical. If we stick to un-arguable truths like: " In X studies, only 0.01% of people had side effects and each of them had pre existing conditions" sounds way better than "It's undebatably safe and you're an idiot/danger to society if you think otherwise". People will make good choices if you respect them and stick to the facts.

colemickens 8y ago

"there's a lot we don't really understand at all about the immune system" This, exactly this, is how the anti-vax movement exists! It is amazing how lay people will just dismiss the research and conclusions of an entire field of science with a handwave and an argument-less quip. Maybe you'd be more upset if you had a child that got sick in an area where vaccination rates were low. Or if you had a child that had actual, real, medical reasons why they couldn't receive the immunization and need to rely on herd immunity for their literal survival.

alexandercrohde 8y ago
I'm not dismissing anything. I didn't say the science is or isn't true, I didn't say I would or wouldn't vaccinate. What I'm pointing out is that the side that says it knows, historically, has been wrong a lot more than we recognize. >> Maybe you'd be more upset if you had a child that got sick in an area where vaccination rates were low. Or if you had a child that had actual, real, medical reasons why they couldn't receive the immunization and need to rely on herd immunity for their literal survival. Of course I'd be upset in those circumstances, I'm not sure what your point is. Is it that we all need to get angry on the internet to save little kids? Because I'll tell you right now that's the least effective way to try to bring anybody to your side.
- albertgoeswoof 8y ago
  No. Historically, particularly in recent times, medicine has been more right than wrong when giving out advice. Generally speaking if you ask for medical advice from a qualified person it will be good advice. You’re cherry picking specific scenarios where a recommendation was given that was later proven incorrect. There is no evidence to suggest vaccines are going to be one of those scenarios. What we do know is that not vaccinating will lead to unnecessary deaths and serious illnesses.
  - alexandercrohde 8y ago
    >> Historically, particularly in recent times, medicine has been more right than wrong when giving out advice. Source?
    - albertgoeswoof 8y ago
      You’re seriously asking for a citation of whether medical advice is effective?
      - alexandercrohde 8y ago
        Oh, I thought you were purporting to be an advocate of science. Should we not use the scientific method to measure what percentage of the time medical diagnoses are wrong, medicines are withdrawn after being prescribed, and health outcomes of those born at home versus born at the hospital?

arcticfox 8y ago

As a vaccinated person who just suffered from mumps thanks to a loss of herd immunity, it's hard to not get upset reading that type of logic. There's an incredibly clear correlation between vaccines and reduction of suffering, and your actions don't affect yourself alone.

alexandercrohde 8y ago
Wait, are you saying you're such a person? You weren't able to get the MMR vaccine?
- albertgoeswoof 8y ago
  They got the vaccine but it wasn’t 100% effective for them. Because enough idiots didn’t vaccinate their children the virus was still able to spread (no herd immunity) and infected them.
electriclove 8y ago
You were vaccinated for mumps, yet you still contracted it? Sorry to hear that. Are you pretty much immune to it now?
esaym 8y ago
Funny. Your "vaccine" didn't seem to work. Maybe you should be mad at the company that got paid $100 for it instead of taking it out on society. And just think, if you had gotten it in early childhood, the side effects are very mild.

electriclove 8y ago

Sad to see how quick the downvotes came. It really wasn't that long ago that medical advice was to use formula instead of breast milk and sleep babies on their stomachs. Many/most of the pediatricians/nurses who parents interact with have no idea about the details of the vaccines. They are just blindly following protocol because they are told to. They have a million other things to do and concern themselves about.

esaym 8y ago
And most don't have kids either...
everdev 8y ago
The down votes on this thread are insane. Science is not perfect especially medical advice. Even though I think vaccines are safe and hugely beneficial I find the ideas that the safety of vaccines are "beyond debatable" to be the most rediculous of the arguments on both sides. We should debate and question everything. There have been other medicines that had been considered safe and then were found to have long term side effects. And of course countless others that were considered safe and never produced side effects. Just because it's considered safe now doesn't mean we fully understand every aspect of the human body and chemistry and diseases well enough to say that vaccines will never be harmful. The absolutist language actually makes people more skeptical. If we stick to un-arguable truths like: " In X studies, only 0.01% of people had side effects and each of them had pre existing conditions" sounds way better than "It's undebatably safe and you're an idiot/danger to society if you think otherwise". People will make good choices if you respect them and stick to the facts.