4 ms·

Yet one of the issues presented from the anti-vax argument is that there are safety issues with vaccines. The companies producing them are protected by law fro

by 13years 12y ago

Yet one of the issues presented from the anti-vax argument is that there are safety issues with vaccines. The companies producing them are protected by law from the consumer if there are any damages. In a free market, the manufactures would have to improve the product to the degree that the consumers are convinced it is safe, and if injury is proven in court they would be held liable. Therefore there would be a profit incentive to fix the very issue at the center of the anti-vax argument.

mikeash 12y ago
Right now, we have vaccines that are perfectly safe, but some people think they are unsafe. In a completely free market, economic forces would create a profit incentive to fix the perception of safety, while weakening the incentive to provide actual safety, so we'd have vaccines that are less safe but everybody thinks are safe. This is not an improvement.
- 13years 12y ago
  And why do people think they are unsafe if they are safe? Where is the disconnect? If I have immunity from all crimes, would you trust me to never commit a crime? Certainly you can see the argument that is proposed is one of trust. Maybe they are safe as claimed, and if so it is then asked why then is immunity necessary for the producers? Perception of safety without safety is fraud, in a free market the government does enforce laws against fraud. How is it that a non free market has more incentive for safety? Who is accountable today? As I stated, currently law protects the producers against injury claims, so what is the mechanism and incentive for enforcement?
  - mikeash 12y ago
    I assume your questions about why produces are immune from injury claims are rhetorical. If they're real, I can try to actually answer them. The mechanism and incentive for enforcement is with the FDA. If a vaccine is genuinely unsafe then the FDA is supposed to (and as far as I know, actually will) take appropriate action, up to and including fining the company and banning the product if it's warranted.
    - 13years 12y ago
      The U.S. National Vaccine Injury Act is the mechanism in place which protects producers from a litigation. So yes, this would be the role of the FDA. However, the effectiveness and willingness of the FDA to take such action, not just against vaccines but any drug product, is a subject of much controversy. Just search Vioxx and FDA. That case doesn't present a reassuring view that safety issues are handled in the way you would expect. Also, the FDA doesn't conduct its own independent testing. They require companies to do the testing and submit the results. It is certainly not the best designed system.
      - mikeash 12y ago
        I agree that the system is not the best. But it's hard to argue with the results when it comes to vaccines. You can reasonably argue that the system doesn't do enough to ensure vaccine safety, and you can reasonably argue that the system doesn't give a sufficient public perception of safety, but you can't argue that the vaccines actually available are unsafe. And I dispute the notion that adding more free market to the mix would fix the problems without also un-fixing the most important part.
  - mcguire 12y ago
    Nothing is every perfectly safe. The difference between a perception of safety and a perception of unsafety is usually anecdotes. > Maybe they are safe as claimed, and if so it is then asked why then is immunity necessary for the producers? To prevent lawsuits from the .0001% of "[s]evere allergic reaction[s]"[1] from convincing the manufacturers that a low-profit-margin product is not worth the effort to produce. P.S. When you write, "...in a free market the government does enforce laws against fraud", you need to be careful. "Fraud" is a very fuzzy concept. [1] http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/patient-ed/conversations/downloads/vacsafe-mmr-color-office.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/patient-ed/conversations/dow...

by 13years 12y ago

mikeash 12y ago

Right now, we have vaccines that are perfectly safe, but some people think they are unsafe. In a completely free market, economic forces would create a profit incentive to fix the perception of safety, while weakening the incentive to provide actual safety, so we'd have vaccines that are less safe but everybody thinks are safe. This is not an improvement.

13years 12y ago
And why do people think they are unsafe if they are safe? Where is the disconnect? If I have immunity from all crimes, would you trust me to never commit a crime? Certainly you can see the argument that is proposed is one of trust. Maybe they are safe as claimed, and if so it is then asked why then is immunity necessary for the producers? Perception of safety without safety is fraud, in a free market the government does enforce laws against fraud. How is it that a non free market has more incentive for safety? Who is accountable today? As I stated, currently law protects the producers against injury claims, so what is the mechanism and incentive for enforcement?
- mikeash 12y ago
  I assume your questions about why produces are immune from injury claims are rhetorical. If they're real, I can try to actually answer them. The mechanism and incentive for enforcement is with the FDA. If a vaccine is genuinely unsafe then the FDA is supposed to (and as far as I know, actually will) take appropriate action, up to and including fining the company and banning the product if it's warranted.
  - 13years 12y ago
    The U.S. National Vaccine Injury Act is the mechanism in place which protects producers from a litigation. So yes, this would be the role of the FDA. However, the effectiveness and willingness of the FDA to take such action, not just against vaccines but any drug product, is a subject of much controversy. Just search Vioxx and FDA. That case doesn't present a reassuring view that safety issues are handled in the way you would expect. Also, the FDA doesn't conduct its own independent testing. They require companies to do the testing and submit the results. It is certainly not the best designed system.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      I agree that the system is not the best. But it's hard to argue with the results when it comes to vaccines. You can reasonably argue that the system doesn't do enough to ensure vaccine safety, and you can reasonably argue that the system doesn't give a sufficient public perception of safety, but you can't argue that the vaccines actually available are unsafe. And I dispute the notion that adding more free market to the mix would fix the problems without also un-fixing the most important part.
- mcguire 12y ago
  Nothing is every perfectly safe. The difference between a perception of safety and a perception of unsafety is usually anecdotes. > Maybe they are safe as claimed, and if so it is then asked why then is immunity necessary for the producers? To prevent lawsuits from the .0001% of "[s]evere allergic reaction[s]"[1] from convincing the manufacturers that a low-profit-margin product is not worth the effort to produce. P.S. When you write, "...in a free market the government does enforce laws against fraud", you need to be careful. "Fraud" is a very fuzzy concept. [1] http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/patient-ed/conversations/downloads/vacsafe-mmr-color-office.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/patient-ed/conversations/dow...