4 ms·

"The science is clear: Vaccines are safe and efficacious." Nothing is 100% safe. So when they say something like this, it's pretty scary. I don't think it's

"The science is clear: Vaccines are safe and efficacious." Nothing is 100% safe. So when they say something like this, it's pretty scary. I don't think it's causing autism, but some people do have ill effects due to vaccines.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
eli 11y ago
Some people surely think they suffer ill effects. You get a shot and the next day catch a cold, so you blame the shot. But that's not science.
- ermintrude 11y ago
  That's exactly how some vaccines work. See: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/faq.asp http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/faq.asp "Most people experience normal, usually mild reactions that include a sore arm, fever, and body aches."
  - tedunangst 11y ago
    Except nobody gets the smallpox vaccine.
  - outworlder 11y ago
    Yeah, and if you are complaining about the mild immune response caused be an attenuated (or even dead) virus, imagine how worse you would feel when infected by the active pathogen.
    - paulhauggis 11y ago
      This isn't the point. The point is that the ruling said it's "completely safe". Since it's not "completely safe", does this mean I could sue them?
      - tedunangst 11y ago
        What ruling? Where does it say "completely safe"? It's hard to take you seriously when you're not even correctly identifying the document in question. If anyone is confused, it's you.
cwp 11y ago
Ah, excellent. Taking a more nuanced view than the simple binary "safe" or "not safe". Let's continue down that path. Since nothing is 100% safe, we ought to choose the most safe option. And since we're talking about government policy here, it's not about what's safest for your kids, but what's safest for everyone. So what's safer, vaccines, or measles? I think rlpb had it right elsewhere in thread - this is about a tragedy of the commons. Anti-vaxxers don't want to ban vaccines, they want to be the only ones not taking them.
- paulhauggis 11y ago
  "So what's safer, vaccines, or measles?" This isn't the point. The point is that from this ruling, a person would assume that it's completely safe with no chance of any ill effects. I've even seen a few posts saying that any ill effects are "old wives tales". Here is a good list: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm From the CDC, which is a good source. Some of these could cause serious problems. "Anti-vaxxers don't want to ban vaccines, they want to be the only ones not taking them." Who said anything about anti-vaxxers? If people in this world are foolish enough to believe that the things Dr. OZ talks about on his show will cure something (I watched the show many times and he has never actually said this), this ruling is pretty dangerous.
  - __z 11y ago
    >that from this ruling...this ruling is pretty dangerous. A piece of legislation that hasn't even passed yet is not the same thing as a court ruling.
    - paulhauggis 11y ago
      "California Senate overwhelmingly passes SB 277..." I guess you missed this part?
      - __z 11y ago
        >I guess you missed this part? No. It is a bill that passed in the Senate. It still has to pass in the Assembly to become law. Not a court ruling and not yet a law.
__z 11y ago
Safe is a relative term in medicine. It is unquestionable that for the vast majority of people when vaccinated as directed getting vaccines is much much safer than not getting vaccines. Furthermore, getting vaccines protects society as a whole.
- paulhauggis 11y ago
  I never said it wasn't safer. However, the vaxxer movement, like the pro-drug movement, likes to believe that there are no bad side effects at all, which is dangerous and a form of propaganda. It almost makes me wonder if the drug companies are behind many of these laws.
  - __z 11y ago
    Completely and totally untrue. Safe is a relative term in medicine and always has been. I am also unaware of a "vaxxor movement."

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

eli 11y ago

Some people surely think they suffer ill effects. You get a shot and the next day catch a cold, so you blame the shot. But that's not science.

ermintrude 11y ago
That's exactly how some vaccines work. See: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/faq.asp http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/faq.asp "Most people experience normal, usually mild reactions that include a sore arm, fever, and body aches."
- tedunangst 11y ago
  Except nobody gets the smallpox vaccine.
- outworlder 11y ago
  Yeah, and if you are complaining about the mild immune response caused be an attenuated (or even dead) virus, imagine how worse you would feel when infected by the active pathogen.
  - paulhauggis 11y ago
    This isn't the point. The point is that the ruling said it's "completely safe". Since it's not "completely safe", does this mean I could sue them?
    - tedunangst 11y ago
      What ruling? Where does it say "completely safe"? It's hard to take you seriously when you're not even correctly identifying the document in question. If anyone is confused, it's you.

cwp 11y ago

Ah, excellent. Taking a more nuanced view than the simple binary "safe" or "not safe". Let's continue down that path. Since nothing is 100% safe, we ought to choose the most safe option. And since we're talking about government policy here, it's not about what's safest for your kids, but what's safest for everyone. So what's safer, vaccines, or measles? I think rlpb had it right elsewhere in thread - this is about a tragedy of the commons. Anti-vaxxers don't want to ban vaccines, they want to be the only ones not taking them.

paulhauggis 11y ago
"So what's safer, vaccines, or measles?" This isn't the point. The point is that from this ruling, a person would assume that it's completely safe with no chance of any ill effects. I've even seen a few posts saying that any ill effects are "old wives tales". Here is a good list: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm From the CDC, which is a good source. Some of these could cause serious problems. "Anti-vaxxers don't want to ban vaccines, they want to be the only ones not taking them." Who said anything about anti-vaxxers? If people in this world are foolish enough to believe that the things Dr. OZ talks about on his show will cure something (I watched the show many times and he has never actually said this), this ruling is pretty dangerous.
- __z 11y ago
  >that from this ruling...this ruling is pretty dangerous. A piece of legislation that hasn't even passed yet is not the same thing as a court ruling.
  - paulhauggis 11y ago
    "California Senate overwhelmingly passes SB 277..." I guess you missed this part?
    - __z 11y ago
      >I guess you missed this part? No. It is a bill that passed in the Senate. It still has to pass in the Assembly to become law. Not a court ruling and not yet a law.

__z 11y ago

Safe is a relative term in medicine. It is unquestionable that for the vast majority of people when vaccinated as directed getting vaccines is much much safer than not getting vaccines. Furthermore, getting vaccines protects society as a whole.

paulhauggis 11y ago
I never said it wasn't safer. However, the vaxxer movement, like the pro-drug movement, likes to believe that there are no bad side effects at all, which is dangerous and a form of propaganda. It almost makes me wonder if the drug companies are behind many of these laws.
- __z 11y ago
  Completely and totally untrue. Safe is a relative term in medicine and always has been. I am also unaware of a "vaxxor movement."