3 ms·

Probably sounds like a silly question, but what exactly _are_ the scientifically understood risks of vaccinating? And is it a bad idea to continue finding resea

Probably sounds like a silly question, but what exactly _are_ the scientifically understood risks of vaccinating? And is it a bad idea to continue finding research into whether vaccines do carry risks that are less understood? It seems like questions like these are under self censorship in the scientific community these days, perhaps in fear that allowing their validity might encourage parents not to vaccinate their kids. But shutting them out of scientific discourse only drives them underground.

FreeFull 7y ago
Oral polio vaccine can rarely recombine can sometimes recombine into a virulent form, which can infect people that haven't been vaccinated (This does not happen with the injectable form of the vaccine). Also, extremely rarely, someone's immune system can react rather badly to a vaccine. It's also possible to be allergic to one of the ingredients in the vaccine.
- darkerside 7y ago
  Thank you for engaging instead of downvoting. It's like people don't want to admit there could be issues with any vaccine, which is of course untrue. It doesn't mean they aren't the right call _on balance_, but pretending there are literally no risks is going to alienate people. It's reminiscent of the war on drugs (albeit in reverse), where marijuana was demonized, but the truth was obviously so different. Those are scientifically understood and accepted risks. With the limitations of with epidemiological studies, and difficulty associated with replicating vaccine studies in any other way, it's hard to justify the level of certainty I see in the scientific community.
darkerside 7y ago
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Downvotes for asking a valid and objective question. I'm not antivax, but if I were, I imagine I'd be furious that the scientific community has decided this issue is "closed" to further debate. The unwillingness to question fundamental assumptions and replicate results is totally unscientific. Bunch of hypocrites, really. And that's from someone who vaccinates his kids.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

FreeFull 7y ago

Oral polio vaccine can rarely recombine can sometimes recombine into a virulent form, which can infect people that haven't been vaccinated (This does not happen with the injectable form of the vaccine). Also, extremely rarely, someone's immune system can react rather badly to a vaccine. It's also possible to be allergic to one of the ingredients in the vaccine.

darkerside 7y ago
Thank you for engaging instead of downvoting. It's like people don't want to admit there could be issues with any vaccine, which is of course untrue. It doesn't mean they aren't the right call _on balance_, but pretending there are literally no risks is going to alienate people. It's reminiscent of the war on drugs (albeit in reverse), where marijuana was demonized, but the truth was obviously so different. Those are scientifically understood and accepted risks. With the limitations of with epidemiological studies, and difficulty associated with replicating vaccine studies in any other way, it's hard to justify the level of certainty I see in the scientific community.

darkerside 7y ago

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Downvotes for asking a valid and objective question. I'm not antivax, but if I were, I imagine I'd be furious that the scientific community has decided this issue is "closed" to further debate. The unwillingness to question fundamental assumptions and replicate results is totally unscientific. Bunch of hypocrites, really. And that's from someone who vaccinates his kids.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]