3 ms·

I'd say the parent comment's use of quotes should obviate the fact that they're referring to FUD, not _factual_, _accurate_, or _logical_ data.

RobertRoberts 8y ago
There is real data that supports questioning vaccine safety. But even saying "vaccines _may_ not be safe" is considered "anti-vaxxer". What is the real FUD here?
- Johnny555 8y ago
  Saying vaccines may not be safe doesn't make one an anti-vaxxer, your doctor will tell you that (and indeed, for some individuals they'll recommend against vaccination at all) -- but saying that vaccines in general are worse than the alternative (the return of serious diseases that have been nearly eradicated) does. No medical procedure is 100% safe - even if they injected you with sterile saline, that's not 100% safe. The risk of adverse effects from the measles vaccine is around one in a million doses. In comparison, you've got around a 1 in 8000 chance of dying in a car accident this year. There's a misconception that public health policy is about keeping you (or your child) healthy -- it's not, it's about promoting health across the entire population. Even if there's a tiny risk of an adverse reaction to a vaccine to your child, it's outweighed by the global reduction in serious illness. It's a part of living in society -- you should not get to make medical decisions that are proven to cause serious problems for others just to eliminate a minuscule risk to yourself.
  - cam_l 8y ago
    >you should not get to make medical decisions that are proven to cause serious problems for others just to eliminate a minuscule risk to yourself. I wonder why this position does not inform people's view on other things in life, like driving or gun ownership or tourism or taxation or consumerism or.. In truth, i like this approach far more (and have personally find it more effective in neutralising antivax points of view) than the rabid shouting of the vocal minority of provaxxers. It shows you acknowledge them and their concerns as people who (right or wrong) actually deeply care, but position their actions in direct relation to the consequences.

RobertRoberts 8y ago

There is real data that supports questioning vaccine safety. But even saying "vaccines _may_ not be safe" is considered "anti-vaxxer". What is the real FUD here?

Johnny555 8y ago
Saying vaccines may not be safe doesn't make one an anti-vaxxer, your doctor will tell you that (and indeed, for some individuals they'll recommend against vaccination at all) -- but saying that vaccines in general are worse than the alternative (the return of serious diseases that have been nearly eradicated) does. No medical procedure is 100% safe - even if they injected you with sterile saline, that's not 100% safe. The risk of adverse effects from the measles vaccine is around one in a million doses. In comparison, you've got around a 1 in 8000 chance of dying in a car accident this year. There's a misconception that public health policy is about keeping you (or your child) healthy -- it's not, it's about promoting health across the entire population. Even if there's a tiny risk of an adverse reaction to a vaccine to your child, it's outweighed by the global reduction in serious illness. It's a part of living in society -- you should not get to make medical decisions that are proven to cause serious problems for others just to eliminate a minuscule risk to yourself.
- cam_l 8y ago
  >you should not get to make medical decisions that are proven to cause serious problems for others just to eliminate a minuscule risk to yourself. I wonder why this position does not inform people's view on other things in life, like driving or gun ownership or tourism or taxation or consumerism or.. In truth, i like this approach far more (and have personally find it more effective in neutralising antivax points of view) than the rabid shouting of the vocal minority of provaxxers. It shows you acknowledge them and their concerns as people who (right or wrong) actually deeply care, but position their actions in direct relation to the consequences.