5 ms·

You can/have to put the kids that don't have vaccines under a special surveillance and work around the issue. Should society subsidize those costs? Perhaps.

by gwgarry 13y ago

krapp 13y ago
For their entire lives, though? The potential damage of a viral pandemic is well documented and well known while the damage from vaccination seems, to say the least, controversial. I'm aware of one study linking vaccinations to autism having been debunked as a hoax, for instance[1]. [1]http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/29/vaccine-autism-connection-debunked-again/ http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/29/vaccine-autism-conn...
- pyre 13y ago
  | damage from vaccination seems, to say the | least, controversial Vaccines aren't 100% side-effect free. Combine the fact that the government shields manufacturers from liability for vaccines, and the fact that no one cares to collect statistics on side-effects from the vaccines, it's clear that no one wants to really evaluate the risks objectively. Presumably the side-effects are out-weighed by the benefits, but is there data to back this up? Not really.
  - hga 13y ago
    Our government does this shielding because otherwise our legal system is so crazy no company would be selling vaccines in the US. the fact that no one cares to collect statistics on side-effects from the vaccines Doesn't the existence of a fund to cover those with really bad side effects suggest that we actually do have those statistics? They're certainly collected during FDA mandated testing, which is particularly extensive for vaccines because the tradeoffs are so stark, you're giving them to an generically healthy population, it's not a "take an antibiotic or die" kind of thing.
    - pyre 13y ago
      | FDA mandated testing, which is particularly | extensive for vaccines Is that really the case for the flu vaccines that they have to make 'on the fly' specific to each flu season and the new strains out there? What about the other vaccines mentioned here, where children get 3 or 4 vaccines at once by convention? How do you know which ones are causing adverse reactions?
      - hga 13y ago
        Yes, because the vaccines are the same year to year except for the precise seed strains used (and those are developed by specialists who provide some degree of regularity), which provide the precise sequences of amino acids that make up the two relevant viral proteins. Otherwise they're as identical as possible, the least reasonable amount of chicken "stuff" left in, the preservatives used, etc. And I'm pretty sure there is some testing done before new batches are tried out on the whole population. As for "how do you know which ones are causing adverse reactions", why do we care? I would assume if they're bad enough the child isn't given any more, so which causes what is irrelevant (remember, we know this is going to happen, these vaccines are licensed with that understanding). If less severe, I'm sure there are protocols to address this so the child can get further vaccinations with reasonable safety (e.g. you can test with a very small amount to see if one causes a reactions ... and, hmmm, that should do for the severe reactions as well).
  - krapp 13y ago
    I would expect that data regarding the rates of mortality from viruses over, say, the last century would be readily available somewhere. So i'll suggest the null hypothesis -- assuming that vaccines do at least as much, if not more, harm than good (of which we're unaware because of politics and whatnot) then there should be evidence of lethality due to vaccinations on a scale approaching that of viral pandemics. The evidence of the good should be indisputible - how many people still get polio? The onus is on the other side to demonstrate harm.
hga 13y ago
You and others are ignoring those who's vaccinations don't "take", they silently don't result in a sufficient immune system response for whatever reasons. Herd immunity is the only thing protecting them since don't know ahead of time who they are (those who you know aren't protected can e.g. get a gamma globulin shot if exposure is suspected).

You can/have to put the kids that don't have vaccines under a special surveillance and work around the issue. Should society subsidize those costs? Perhaps.

by gwgarry 13y ago

You can/have to put the kids that don't have vaccines under a special surveillance and work around the issue. Should society subsidize those costs? Perhaps.

krapp 13y ago

For their entire lives, though? The potential damage of a viral pandemic is well documented and well known while the damage from vaccination seems, to say the least, controversial. I'm aware of one study linking vaccinations to autism having been debunked as a hoax, for instance[1]. [1]http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/29/vaccine-autism-connection-debunked-again/ http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/29/vaccine-autism-conn...

pyre 13y ago
| damage from vaccination seems, to say the | least, controversial Vaccines aren't 100% side-effect free. Combine the fact that the government shields manufacturers from liability for vaccines, and the fact that no one cares to collect statistics on side-effects from the vaccines, it's clear that no one wants to really evaluate the risks objectively. Presumably the side-effects are out-weighed by the benefits, but is there data to back this up? Not really.
- hga 13y ago
  Our government does this shielding because otherwise our legal system is so crazy no company would be selling vaccines in the US. the fact that no one cares to collect statistics on side-effects from the vaccines Doesn't the existence of a fund to cover those with really bad side effects suggest that we actually do have those statistics? They're certainly collected during FDA mandated testing, which is particularly extensive for vaccines because the tradeoffs are so stark, you're giving them to an generically healthy population, it's not a "take an antibiotic or die" kind of thing.
  - pyre 13y ago
    | FDA mandated testing, which is particularly | extensive for vaccines Is that really the case for the flu vaccines that they have to make 'on the fly' specific to each flu season and the new strains out there? What about the other vaccines mentioned here, where children get 3 or 4 vaccines at once by convention? How do you know which ones are causing adverse reactions?
    - hga 13y ago
      Yes, because the vaccines are the same year to year except for the precise seed strains used (and those are developed by specialists who provide some degree of regularity), which provide the precise sequences of amino acids that make up the two relevant viral proteins. Otherwise they're as identical as possible, the least reasonable amount of chicken "stuff" left in, the preservatives used, etc. And I'm pretty sure there is some testing done before new batches are tried out on the whole population. As for "how do you know which ones are causing adverse reactions", why do we care? I would assume if they're bad enough the child isn't given any more, so which causes what is irrelevant (remember, we know this is going to happen, these vaccines are licensed with that understanding). If less severe, I'm sure there are protocols to address this so the child can get further vaccinations with reasonable safety (e.g. you can test with a very small amount to see if one causes a reactions ... and, hmmm, that should do for the severe reactions as well).
- krapp 13y ago
  I would expect that data regarding the rates of mortality from viruses over, say, the last century would be readily available somewhere. So i'll suggest the null hypothesis -- assuming that vaccines do at least as much, if not more, harm than good (of which we're unaware because of politics and whatnot) then there should be evidence of lethality due to vaccinations on a scale approaching that of viral pandemics. The evidence of the good should be indisputible - how many people still get polio? The onus is on the other side to demonstrate harm.

hga 13y ago

You and others are ignoring those who's vaccinations don't "take", they silently don't result in a sufficient immune system response for whatever reasons. Herd immunity is the only thing protecting them since don't know ahead of time who they are (those who you know aren't protected can e.g. get a gamma globulin shot if exposure is suspected).