3 ms·
You're right that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But presumably you don't think that vaccines don't prevent serious diseases? If there were sig
by frereubu 8y ago
You're right that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But presumably you don't think that vaccines don't prevent serious diseases? If there were significant negative side effects of vaccines - of an order which negates the benefits of those vaccinations - I would argue that we'd know that by now.
- anjc 8y ago> If there were significant negative side effects of vaccines - of an order which negates the benefits of those vaccinations - I would argue that we'd know that by now. New vaccines are created and may have side effects. E.g. H1N1 vaccine causing narcolepsy in Europe recently: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcolepsy-flu.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcoleps... Using the phrase "the science is settled" is silly, given that the creation and manufacturing of new vaccines isn't settled.