4 ms·

>Okay, vaccines can harm people. Yeah, so can lightning, bathtubs, and aspirin. The risk from vaccines is miniscule, and "vaccine victim" is an appropriate way

by scythe 13y ago

>Okay, vaccines can harm people. Yeah, so can lightning, bathtubs, and aspirin. The risk from vaccines is miniscule, and "vaccine victim" is an appropriate way to castigate people who don't understand statistics. Your kid is at more risk of SIDS than vaccine complications. Or, y'know, a bicycle accident. Pretty much everything is more dangerous than vaccines, from McDonald's to driving to drinking -- even smoking marijuana, for that matter, looking at you Bill Maher. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_disease#Vaccination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_disease#Vaccination >So? Vaccine manufacturers are immune from lawsuit. From the article: >Subsequently, hundreds of vaccine recipients reported they had developed autoimmune side effects. Supported by some patient advocacy groups, a number of class-action lawsuits were filed against GlaxoSmithKline In effect, your claim appears to be without basis. The thing is, a certain proportion of people will develop autoimmune issues randomly at any time. If they've been vaccinated recently, there's a chance they'll blame it on the vaccine, but that does not mean the vaccine caused their autoimmune disorder. That is why science is performed by using randomized controlled trials to study the side-effects of treatments, and these scare tactics are absurd and damaging to society. The actual incidence of problems caused by vaccines is much lower than the incidence of problems incorrectly ascribed to vaccines. From a later post of yours: >They can just use the CDC data or the NVIC data. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Citation_needed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Citation_needed Vaccines are by and large rigorously tested before entering the marketplace. Here's an example of the tests done on the Lyme disease vaccine: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X0000520X http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X00... >A clinical trial of over 10,000 adults showed [...] Only mild or moderate, transient vaccine-associated adverse events have been reported after immunization. Is ten thousand people not enough for you? How many would convince you? A hundred thousand? A million? Are you willing to pay for this, or do you think science falls out of the sky? >I like your links to photos of Polio victims. Thankfully, people back then weren't afraid to notice that the first generation of Polio vaccines actually gave Polio to some who took them. Instead of denying the possibility that their vaccine was imperfect, or telling everyone "our vaccine is good enough!, sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet", they improved/perfected the vaccine. Good for them. Shame on their successors. Consider the previous statement about failing to comprehend statistics. Consider also that your statement is blatantly false: the oral polio vaccine developed in the 1950s remains in use today, and has successfully contributed to the eradication of polio in most of the world. Unless of course you mean the disastrous 1936 "vaccine" that didn't actually prevent anything and was basically the virus itself, but I'm sure you're not intent on being so... misleading. The injected polio vaccine, itself still on its first generation, never carried such risks, but it's hard to get people to agree to an injection -- maybe because of vaccine scaremongry? Anywho, statistics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#Iatrogenic_.28vaccine-induced.29_polio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#Iatrogenic_.28vac... >The rate of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) varies by region but is generally about 1 case per 750,000 vaccine recipients. That means that VAPP is one of the only things that is actually less likely to happen to you than a terrorist attack. The existence of VAPP at all is due to the use of a live attenuated virus vaccine for poliomyelitis, which itself is due to the fact that polio is just a real bastard to culture and the vaccine was developed a long time ago. Vaccine reactivation is fun to worry about because it's scary, but in all conceivable circumstances presents far less risk than the disease itself. >There is no excuse for this. If we have to suffer the perversion of market forces seen in our vaccine industry, there should be no excuses for companies who don't want to produce an existing product merely because it isn't profitable enough. I dunno, the existence of people who are willing to spread pseudo-"cautionary tales" based on misrepresented data who can make marketing the vaccine a largely fruitless endeavor seems like it very well might be enough to discourage even a benevolent nonprofit organization. I'm glad we don't have such people around here. Also: it's a "perversion of market forces" when a product that doesn't sell is withdrawn from the market? >It's a fact, get over it, now let's see an honest discussion with more facts and less name-calling. Fact #n+1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy#Impact_on_society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy#Impact_...

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>Yeah, so can lightning, bathtubs, and aspirin. The risk from vaccines is miniscule. Unlike lightning, risk of harm from vaccines is preventable. One commenter mentioned the Polio vaccine earlier. The OPV does cause a small number of people to develop polio. The matter was paid attention to, OPV use was curtailed in favor of the other vaccine, the problem was solved. The reformulated vaccine retained its effectiveness without further incidences of Polio infection. If it happened today, I would expect people like you tell those first Polio vaccine victims to "Piss off!", "It's good enough!", "You're a fake!", "You have a 'genetic predisposition'" or other hand-waviness, "Adverse effects are rare.", "You probably already had Polio.", etc. >even smoking marijuana, for that matter, To paraphrase you [Citation_needed] >Pretty much everything is more dangerous than vaccines, Most people take various levels of precaution against those risks, yet many will just let anyone in a lab coat jab them without hesitation. Fine for them, fine for you, but don't expect me to fall in line without more information. >Your kid is at more risk of SIDS than vaccine complications. Which is why my kids have been vaccinated (with a subset of the vaccines recommended by the schedule). I just don't jump up out of my chair every time some drug company comes out with a new product to sell. Do you rail against people from countries who follow different vaccine schedules from the one in your country? http://vaccine-schedule.ecdc.europa.eu/Pages/Scheduler.aspx http://vaccine-schedule.ecdc.europa.eu/Pages/Scheduler.aspx What do you think of the Japanese, who are relative "vaccine deniers"[2] yet somehow miraculously have the longest life expectancy anywhere on the planet?[3] > a number of class-action lawsuits were filed against GlaxoSmithKline >In effect, your claim appears to be without basis. Vaccine court doesn't protect companies when they knowingly or maliciously harm people, my mistake. >absurd and damaging to society. What is absurd and damaging to society is the persistent obfuscation and non-disclosure of clinical trial data, and the failure to conduct proper non-rigged trials. The safety of drugs and medicine is important and it must be credible. There is widespread doubt (among people who pay attention) about the system that is supposed to ensure peoples' safety. Instead of addressing reasonable peoples' reasonable concerns, people such as yourself resort to rudeness, specious character attacks, and other fallacious tactics. >The actual incidence of problems caused by vaccines is much lower than the incidence of problems incorrectly ascribed to vaccines. Fact is, you don't know if that is true or not. You don't have any proof of it. You merely want it to be true that anyone who claims injury by a vaccine is a fraud, and a litigious cheat. [Citation needed, indeed.] >re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Citation_needed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Citation_needed http://lmgtfy.com/?q=CDC+Vaccine+Adverse+Event http://lmgtfy.com/?q=CDC+Vaccine+Adverse+Event http://lmgtfy.com/?q=NVIC http://lmgtfy.com/?q=NVIC note not a gov't org Give Google a try, you'll get the hang of it. see also: The Cochrane Collaboration http://www.cochrane.org/ http://www.cochrane.org/ > Vaccines are by and large rigorously tested before entering the marketplace. If that were really true for the LYMErix vaccine, the trials would have revealed the large fraction of people[1] who were predisposed to adverse reaction. There are serious problems with drugs qualification testing in the US and EU. Why don't you go read Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre. here is a preview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKmxL8VYy0M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKmxL8VYy0M >Is ten thousand people not enough for you? .... The statistics have to be credible. http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728 http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/039... And: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004879.pub4/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004879... specifically: " The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. " >Consider the previous statement about failing to comprehend statistics. If you believe, based on your statistical prowess that the current system of drug/vaccine certification trials will effectively prevent bad drugs/vaccines from reaching the marketplace, then it is you who has an inadequate grasp of statistics. >Consider also that your statement is blatantly false: Or consider that my recollection of the details was mistaken slightly. OPV use was curtailed after VAPP was discovered. >That means that VAPP is one of the only things that is actually less likely to happen to you than a terrorist attack. As long as you aren't a starving waif in some developing country (or a starving waif from the US). From the Wiki: In immunodeficient children, the risk of VAPP is almost 7,000 times higher >I dunno, the existence of people who are willing to spread pseudo-"cautionary tales" based on misrepresented data who can make marketing the vaccine a largely fruitless endeavor seems like it very well might be enough to discourage even a benevolent nonprofit organization. I'm glad we don't have such people around here. After reading that again, I kind of regret that I wasted any time at all responding to you. If you're the sort of person who thinks a pharmaceutical company makes a favorable comparison to a "benevolent nonprofit organization" then it seems unlikely that you and I will find common ground. You're rude, you're flamebaiting, you've mis-characterized my comments, and your snide innuendo is an offensive character attack. [1] About one-third of the general population is HLA-DR4+ and risks contracting the arthritic condition when exposed to the vaccine, according to the complaint. The HLA-DR4+ trait is easily detected by a routine blood test; however, SmithKline never recommended that doctors screen for the trait before administering the vaccine, the lawsuit alleges. source: http://www2.lymenet.org/domino/news.nsf/UID/SBHVaccineSuitPR/ http://www2.lymenet.org/domino/news.nsf/UID/SBHVaccineSuitPR... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood_immunizations#Worldwide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood_immunizations#Worldw... [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy#List_by_the_World_Health_Organization_.282011.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe...

by scythe 13y ago

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

>Yeah, so can lightning, bathtubs, and aspirin. The risk from vaccines is miniscule. Unlike lightning, risk of harm from vaccines is preventable. One commenter mentioned the Polio vaccine earlier. The OPV does cause a small number of people to develop polio. The matter was paid attention to, OPV use was curtailed in favor of the other vaccine, the problem was solved. The reformulated vaccine retained its effectiveness without further incidences of Polio infection. If it happened today, I would expect people like you tell those first Polio vaccine victims to "Piss off!", "It's good enough!", "You're a fake!", "You have a 'genetic predisposition'" or other hand-waviness, "Adverse effects are rare.", "You probably already had Polio.", etc. >even smoking marijuana, for that matter, To paraphrase you [Citation_needed] >Pretty much everything is more dangerous than vaccines, Most people take various levels of precaution against those risks, yet many will just let anyone in a lab coat jab them without hesitation. Fine for them, fine for you, but don't expect me to fall in line without more information. >Your kid is at more risk of SIDS than vaccine complications. Which is why my kids have been vaccinated (with a subset of the vaccines recommended by the schedule). I just don't jump up out of my chair every time some drug company comes out with a new product to sell. Do you rail against people from countries who follow different vaccine schedules from the one in your country? http://vaccine-schedule.ecdc.europa.eu/Pages/Scheduler.aspx http://vaccine-schedule.ecdc.europa.eu/Pages/Scheduler.aspx What do you think of the Japanese, who are relative "vaccine deniers"[2] yet somehow miraculously have the longest life expectancy anywhere on the planet?[3] > a number of class-action lawsuits were filed against GlaxoSmithKline >In effect, your claim appears to be without basis. Vaccine court doesn't protect companies when they knowingly or maliciously harm people, my mistake. >absurd and damaging to society. What is absurd and damaging to society is the persistent obfuscation and non-disclosure of clinical trial data, and the failure to conduct proper non-rigged trials. The safety of drugs and medicine is important and it must be credible. There is widespread doubt (among people who pay attention) about the system that is supposed to ensure peoples' safety. Instead of addressing reasonable peoples' reasonable concerns, people such as yourself resort to rudeness, specious character attacks, and other fallacious tactics. >The actual incidence of problems caused by vaccines is much lower than the incidence of problems incorrectly ascribed to vaccines. Fact is, you don't know if that is true or not. You don't have any proof of it. You merely want it to be true that anyone who claims injury by a vaccine is a fraud, and a litigious cheat. [Citation needed, indeed.] >re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Citation_needed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Citation_needed http://lmgtfy.com/?q=CDC+Vaccine+Adverse+Event http://lmgtfy.com/?q=CDC+Vaccine+Adverse+Event http://lmgtfy.com/?q=NVIC http://lmgtfy.com/?q=NVIC note not a gov't org Give Google a try, you'll get the hang of it. see also: The Cochrane Collaboration http://www.cochrane.org/ http://www.cochrane.org/ > Vaccines are by and large rigorously tested before entering the marketplace. If that were really true for the LYMErix vaccine, the trials would have revealed the large fraction of people[1] who were predisposed to adverse reaction. There are serious problems with drugs qualification testing in the US and EU. Why don't you go read Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre. here is a preview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKmxL8VYy0M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKmxL8VYy0M >Is ten thousand people not enough for you? .... The statistics have to be credible. http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728 http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/039... And: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004879.pub4/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004879... specifically: " The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. " >Consider the previous statement about failing to comprehend statistics. If you believe, based on your statistical prowess that the current system of drug/vaccine certification trials will effectively prevent bad drugs/vaccines from reaching the marketplace, then it is you who has an inadequate grasp of statistics. >Consider also that your statement is blatantly false: Or consider that my recollection of the details was mistaken slightly. OPV use was curtailed after VAPP was discovered. >That means that VAPP is one of the only things that is actually less likely to happen to you than a terrorist attack. As long as you aren't a starving waif in some developing country (or a starving waif from the US). From the Wiki: In immunodeficient children, the risk of VAPP is almost 7,000 times higher >I dunno, the existence of people who are willing to spread pseudo-"cautionary tales" based on misrepresented data who can make marketing the vaccine a largely fruitless endeavor seems like it very well might be enough to discourage even a benevolent nonprofit organization. I'm glad we don't have such people around here. After reading that again, I kind of regret that I wasted any time at all responding to you. If you're the sort of person who thinks a pharmaceutical company makes a favorable comparison to a "benevolent nonprofit organization" then it seems unlikely that you and I will find common ground. You're rude, you're flamebaiting, you've mis-characterized my comments, and your snide innuendo is an offensive character attack. [1] About one-third of the general population is HLA-DR4+ and risks contracting the arthritic condition when exposed to the vaccine, according to the complaint. The HLA-DR4+ trait is easily detected by a routine blood test; however, SmithKline never recommended that doctors screen for the trait before administering the vaccine, the lawsuit alleges. source: http://www2.lymenet.org/domino/news.nsf/UID/SBHVaccineSuitPR/ http://www2.lymenet.org/domino/news.nsf/UID/SBHVaccineSuitPR... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood_immunizations#Worldwide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood_immunizations#Worldw... [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy#List_by_the_World_Health_Organization_.282011.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe...