8 ms·

Wow. That's a leap to me to take away their children. I'm just curious, why, when the CDC states that there is a possibility for long term reactions to vaccines

Wow. That's a leap to me to take away their children. I'm just curious, why, when the CDC states that there is a possibility for long term reactions to vaccines, and we know from practice to be skeptical of science's fallibility, is it such a stretch to consider some folks don't want to take the leap of trust.

cloverich 8y ago
There's a much greater possibility of long term reactions to the diseases vaccines prevent. It's not such a stretch to consider refusing to vaccinate your children as on par with refusing to use seat buckles.
- burgerzzz 8y ago
  Do you have some statistics on this analogy? I'm curious how many children have died in recent years from not getting a vaccination. I'm honestly not taking one side or the other, but it's clear that you can't have an honest debate on this subject without being called an "anti-vaxxer" and "anti-science" and the like.
  - cloverich 8y ago
    The general point of the analogy is that the risk of vaccination is sufficiently low that eschewing it should be equated with reckless child endangerment. > how many children have died in recent years from not getting a vaccination There's actually not a straight forward answer to that question, because its an (unintentionally) loaded question. Lets focus it specifically on Measles. The natural death rate from measles is not high. Couple that with herd immunity that most non-vaccinated children benefit from, and high quality medical treatments available in (e.g.) the US, and you'd expect it to be low. Definitely higher than the death rate from vaccines, but low. But that's excluding both morbidity, and side-effects of Measles. There's this false belief that getting viruses (like Measles) and surviving them make you stronger. The opposite is more common -- Measles in particular opens you up to re-infection from things you already had because it partially wipes out your immune system. Some viruses are not as bad, others are even worse (e.g. might tilt your immune system towards cancer). After all, viruses are hijacking your body's cellular replication machinery and if they happen to muck with some other stuff in the process, what do they care? Do you think that is a fair answer to your question? As for honest debates, you'll find a great deal fatigue on the vaccine side, because frankly vaccines have decades of studies, evidence, and readily available information supporting their use. Of all the medical interventions available, they are the cheapest, safest, and most effective measures available, and perhaps the greatest breakthrough medicine will ever have.
    - burgerzzz 8y ago
      Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I honestly don't know the least on this subject, but I'll do more research. I certainly don't doubt the value of vaccines, I'm somewhat familiar with the impact of polio, and likewise the impact of the vaccine. I think the inner cynic in me is troubled by the total heap on attitude of everyone towards the subject, so much so that now I think any discussion of it is blocked on Facebook and other socials. It seems like I missed the public debate on this and other topics because I didn't have social accounts, I don't know. If you or anyone else has any suggestions for any non-politicized books on the matter, I would be happy to report back on my thoughts afterwords.
sundaeofshock 8y ago
I’m calling out some serious disease-enthusiast bullshit here. The CDC does not state what you claim. From their website: “We learn about a vaccine’s safety during clinical trials before it is licensed, and monitor it continually as millions of doses are administered after it is licensed. We also know there is not a plausible biologic reason to believe vaccines would cause any serious long-term effects. Based on more than 50 years of experience with vaccines, we can say that the likelihood that a vaccine will cause unanticipated long-term problems is extremely low.“ https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/tools/parents-guide/parents-guide-part4.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/tools/parents-guide/par...
- burgerzzz 8y ago
  "Disease-enthusiast"? Please help me understand what you are meaning by this. And how does this refute my statement that the CDC states there ARE possibilities of long term complications, and they DO happen.
  - sundaeofshock 8y ago
    I mean that people who are against the usage of vaccines must be very enthusiastic about speeding disease.
  - sundaeofshock 8y ago
    How does this refute your statement? Dude, you made a false claim about what the CDC says, I put up the actual CDC statement. Burden of proof is on you now. Provide me a citation to a CDC source that proves your claim.
thechao 8y ago
This is the entire premise of the anti-vaxxer movement, in case you’re not familiar. The argument is completely bogus: vaccines are orders-of-magnitude safer than the diseases they prevent.
- burgerzzz 8y ago
  I know the hysteria is overwhelming, and this subject is clearly political, but I don't think questioning something that should be completely acceptable to scrutinize is "bogus". Medical science has been wrong before, and there have been unseen long term effects because of it. The history of science is the proving wrong of past theories and advancement of new theories. Is this really not open to thoughtful discussion?

cloverich 8y ago

There's a much greater possibility of long term reactions to the diseases vaccines prevent. It's not such a stretch to consider refusing to vaccinate your children as on par with refusing to use seat buckles.

burgerzzz 8y ago
Do you have some statistics on this analogy? I'm curious how many children have died in recent years from not getting a vaccination. I'm honestly not taking one side or the other, but it's clear that you can't have an honest debate on this subject without being called an "anti-vaxxer" and "anti-science" and the like.
- cloverich 8y ago
  The general point of the analogy is that the risk of vaccination is sufficiently low that eschewing it should be equated with reckless child endangerment. > how many children have died in recent years from not getting a vaccination There's actually not a straight forward answer to that question, because its an (unintentionally) loaded question. Lets focus it specifically on Measles. The natural death rate from measles is not high. Couple that with herd immunity that most non-vaccinated children benefit from, and high quality medical treatments available in (e.g.) the US, and you'd expect it to be low. Definitely higher than the death rate from vaccines, but low. But that's excluding both morbidity, and side-effects of Measles. There's this false belief that getting viruses (like Measles) and surviving them make you stronger. The opposite is more common -- Measles in particular opens you up to re-infection from things you already had because it partially wipes out your immune system. Some viruses are not as bad, others are even worse (e.g. might tilt your immune system towards cancer). After all, viruses are hijacking your body's cellular replication machinery and if they happen to muck with some other stuff in the process, what do they care? Do you think that is a fair answer to your question? As for honest debates, you'll find a great deal fatigue on the vaccine side, because frankly vaccines have decades of studies, evidence, and readily available information supporting their use. Of all the medical interventions available, they are the cheapest, safest, and most effective measures available, and perhaps the greatest breakthrough medicine will ever have.
  - burgerzzz 8y ago
    Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I honestly don't know the least on this subject, but I'll do more research. I certainly don't doubt the value of vaccines, I'm somewhat familiar with the impact of polio, and likewise the impact of the vaccine. I think the inner cynic in me is troubled by the total heap on attitude of everyone towards the subject, so much so that now I think any discussion of it is blocked on Facebook and other socials. It seems like I missed the public debate on this and other topics because I didn't have social accounts, I don't know. If you or anyone else has any suggestions for any non-politicized books on the matter, I would be happy to report back on my thoughts afterwords.

sundaeofshock 8y ago

I’m calling out some serious disease-enthusiast bullshit here. The CDC does not state what you claim. From their website: “We learn about a vaccine’s safety during clinical trials before it is licensed, and monitor it continually as millions of doses are administered after it is licensed. We also know there is not a plausible biologic reason to believe vaccines would cause any serious long-term effects. Based on more than 50 years of experience with vaccines, we can say that the likelihood that a vaccine will cause unanticipated long-term problems is extremely low.“ https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/tools/parents-guide/parents-guide-part4.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/tools/parents-guide/par...

burgerzzz 8y ago
"Disease-enthusiast"? Please help me understand what you are meaning by this. And how does this refute my statement that the CDC states there ARE possibilities of long term complications, and they DO happen.
- sundaeofshock 8y ago
  I mean that people who are against the usage of vaccines must be very enthusiastic about speeding disease.
- sundaeofshock 8y ago
  How does this refute your statement? Dude, you made a false claim about what the CDC says, I put up the actual CDC statement. Burden of proof is on you now. Provide me a citation to a CDC source that proves your claim.

thechao 8y ago

This is the entire premise of the anti-vaxxer movement, in case you’re not familiar. The argument is completely bogus: vaccines are orders-of-magnitude safer than the diseases they prevent.

burgerzzz 8y ago
I know the hysteria is overwhelming, and this subject is clearly political, but I don't think questioning something that should be completely acceptable to scrutinize is "bogus". Medical science has been wrong before, and there have been unseen long term effects because of it. The history of science is the proving wrong of past theories and advancement of new theories. Is this really not open to thoughtful discussion?