4 ms·

It does not help the debate when people say "Yeah vaccines are great, but there are risks". As opposed to mocking and deriding the notion that they have risks?

It does not help the debate when people say "Yeah vaccines are great, but there are risks". As opposed to mocking and deriding the notion that they have risks? Does that have merit? Because that is the predominate message in any discussion about vaccinations of any sort: There are only upside, no downside, and anyone who has hesitation is just a misinformed creationist. I pointed out that HPV vaccine because it is exactly where we are headed -- there was shockingly little actual testing, zero long term testing, but it was blanketed across an entire generation. This seems profoundly risky, but since we're in the "question it and you're a nutter" world, one dare not voice such a concern: It might upset people's sense of smug superiority. You're getting downvoted because you're pointing out that vaccines have risks No, I'm getting downvoted because HN has become yet another site where people feel very comfortable in this simplified, black and white notions of the world. This is seen in thread after thread, anything complex collapsing down into simple right and wrong, up or down. It is a tragedy, really, but was bound to happen.

jbob2000 12y ago
>There are only upside, no downside, and anyone who has hesitation is just a misinformed creationist. I don't disagree that there are no downsides, only that they should not be the bulk of the discussion. When you discuss the risks alongside the benefits, you elevate the risks to the same level as the benefits. If a vaccine has a 0.1% chance of side effects, but we spend 50% of the time talking about it, doesn't it make the risk seem a lot worse? The article you linked mentioned 60 people in Canada experienced side effects with the HPV vaccine. Whoop-di-fuckin-do. 60 people out of 35,000,000. But yet here we are, with an entire feature article on this vaccine and its side effects, completely neglecting the serious benefits it has provided to Canadian society. Vaccines are something that need to be black and white. For common people who aren't doctors, there should be no middle ground. Leave the skepticism to the researchers and doctors developing the vaccines.
- engendered 12y ago
  Whoop-di-fuckin-do Yeah, I imagine it was for the people affected. Further, saying 60 out of 35,000,000 is utter ignorance (not unexpected): Not only are there not 35,000,000 teenaged girls in Canada, and the actual side-effects unknown (people have been conditioned to be embarrassed by the notion that it could possibly be vaccine related), the "serious benefit" is that it might marginally reduce the rates of treatable cervical cancer....maybe. Serious benefits indeed. Vaccines are something that need to be black and white This is profoundly ignorant.
- Practicality 12y ago
  I don't understand why the risk of death and suffering from the vaccine is not allowed to be talked about. Why are we only allowed to talk about death and suffering from the diseases? Why can't we have a balanced discussion? I am not saying that the risk from disease isn't greater, it is, but the vaccine still has risks.
  - nzp 12y ago
    > Why can't we have a balanced discussion? What you're proposing is not a balanced discussion.

jbob2000 12y ago

>There are only upside, no downside, and anyone who has hesitation is just a misinformed creationist. I don't disagree that there are no downsides, only that they should not be the bulk of the discussion. When you discuss the risks alongside the benefits, you elevate the risks to the same level as the benefits. If a vaccine has a 0.1% chance of side effects, but we spend 50% of the time talking about it, doesn't it make the risk seem a lot worse? The article you linked mentioned 60 people in Canada experienced side effects with the HPV vaccine. Whoop-di-fuckin-do. 60 people out of 35,000,000. But yet here we are, with an entire feature article on this vaccine and its side effects, completely neglecting the serious benefits it has provided to Canadian society. Vaccines are something that need to be black and white. For common people who aren't doctors, there should be no middle ground. Leave the skepticism to the researchers and doctors developing the vaccines.

engendered 12y ago
Whoop-di-fuckin-do Yeah, I imagine it was for the people affected. Further, saying 60 out of 35,000,000 is utter ignorance (not unexpected): Not only are there not 35,000,000 teenaged girls in Canada, and the actual side-effects unknown (people have been conditioned to be embarrassed by the notion that it could possibly be vaccine related), the "serious benefit" is that it might marginally reduce the rates of treatable cervical cancer....maybe. Serious benefits indeed. Vaccines are something that need to be black and white This is profoundly ignorant.
Practicality 12y ago
I don't understand why the risk of death and suffering from the vaccine is not allowed to be talked about. Why are we only allowed to talk about death and suffering from the diseases? Why can't we have a balanced discussion? I am not saying that the risk from disease isn't greater, it is, but the vaccine still has risks.
- nzp 12y ago
  > Why can't we have a balanced discussion? What you're proposing is not a balanced discussion.