3 ms·

I won't call you a fascist. We're nitpicking here. An allergic reaction is obviously not a good reaction to a vaccine, not a desired outcome. Whether an allergy

by fecak 13y ago

I won't call you a fascist. We're nitpicking here. An allergic reaction is obviously not a good reaction to a vaccine, not a desired outcome. Whether an allergy is a result of a compromised immune system (the immune system isn't compromised, but the allergic person is worse off for it) an over active immune system isn't relevant to the argument. I'd also read the CDC quote again. My interpretation was a bit different, as they specified in the second sentence. Edit - I'm not sure how far you got in my last post, but if we're going to pick about allergies not being a compromised immune system, SCID is the reason for contraindication for RV.

mikeash 13y ago
I don't see how it could possibly be "nitpicking" to discuss this stuff in detail. The conversation started out with the question of why some vaccines are not given to certain people, and why that does not mean that these vaccines are dangerous to other people. We then diverted to the question of dangers in infants, but understanding exactly what the dangers are and why certain vaccines have certain dangers is hardly "nitpicking". And to be honest, no, I did not read the end of your post. I stopped at the moment I got to that completely ludicrous statement that an allergic reaction qualifies as an immune system compromise. This is not some obscure detail, this is an extremely basic fact about how the immune system works.
- fecak 13y ago
  I wrote a longer reply that you may not have read yet (just posted a few minutes ago). I thought the spirit of the question was more to an irregular immune system and not just specifically a weakened one. Allergies are not indicative of a weakened immune system - whether or not 'compromised' is a term worth using for a system that is irregular is probably not a debate worth having, but the individual clearly is compromised. Agreed that it's not nitpicking to know why vaccines cause a potential danger - overactive or underactive immune systems obviously react (or don't) in different ways, but I understood the nature of the question to be much less specific (are vaccines contraindicated in the sick, instead of are vaccines contraindicated in this specific group of sick people). What you point out is not an obscure detail, but if the spirit of the conversation were how I had interpreted it, the detail wouldn't be relevant. I focused more on the vaccine being recommended to sick people and not people sick with x.

by fecak 13y ago

mikeash 13y ago

I don't see how it could possibly be "nitpicking" to discuss this stuff in detail. The conversation started out with the question of why some vaccines are not given to certain people, and why that does not mean that these vaccines are dangerous to other people. We then diverted to the question of dangers in infants, but understanding exactly what the dangers are and why certain vaccines have certain dangers is hardly "nitpicking". And to be honest, no, I did not read the end of your post. I stopped at the moment I got to that completely ludicrous statement that an allergic reaction qualifies as an immune system compromise. This is not some obscure detail, this is an extremely basic fact about how the immune system works.

fecak 13y ago
I wrote a longer reply that you may not have read yet (just posted a few minutes ago). I thought the spirit of the question was more to an irregular immune system and not just specifically a weakened one. Allergies are not indicative of a weakened immune system - whether or not 'compromised' is a term worth using for a system that is irregular is probably not a debate worth having, but the individual clearly is compromised. Agreed that it's not nitpicking to know why vaccines cause a potential danger - overactive or underactive immune systems obviously react (or don't) in different ways, but I understood the nature of the question to be much less specific (are vaccines contraindicated in the sick, instead of are vaccines contraindicated in this specific group of sick people). What you point out is not an obscure detail, but if the spirit of the conversation were how I had interpreted it, the detail wouldn't be relevant. I focused more on the vaccine being recommended to sick people and not people sick with x.