are vaccines safe?

[Randall]

You said exactly what I was thinking.

If we use those comparisons I also personally believe we should have the right to choose to drive rather than take an airplane, take the stairs rather than the elevator ( which actually might be healthier most of the time ), decide when to wear seatbelts, and whether or not to have a vaccination. I don't like what I see as a sort of creeping police state that over enforces how the elitists think the masses should behave, and I don't buy that every case of legislation is justifiable by saying "It's good for them".

There are almost always exceptions. There are cases where seatbelts do more harm than good, cases where it would have ben better for air passengers to have taken another form of transport, cases where taking the stairs does your health more benefit than the elevator. Virtually all instances of vaccination cause some level of side effects with the chance of more severe complications. If every time you put your seatbelt on it gave you a rash and made you feel like you had a mild case of the flu for a week, would you wear it?

 

[marduk]

Hey don't blame me. Are Vaccines Safe? is the question posed by the title of the thread. I didn't pick it. I'm just answering that question as honestly as I can given the evidence I've experienced or run across while searching for it online, and actually, if you read this post ( here ) you'll have noticed that I say something pretty much along the same lines. For your convenience:

"So the real question it seems isn't whether or not vaccines are safe. They're not. There's always some sort of side effect and some sort of risk. The question is whether or not in the absence of any immediate health problems, individuals and parents should have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to tolerate the side effects and the risk of more damaging complications by taking medication for an illness they don't have, and may never be exposed to, but that has been shown to be statistically beneficial for the community at large in the past."​

If a medical definition of 'safe' means 'absolutely free from risk' then simply taking a breath isn't safe and should be avoided.

Luckily that's not a pragmatic definition that provides utility, or is in use by most in the medical field. Because by that definition, we'd all be dead trying to be safe.

C'mon man. Are seatbelts safe? I could break a nail buckling. I could be locked into a burning car. There have been people who have been thrown from cars in accidents who were unharmed by fluke.

And yet, wearing a seatbelt is probably five or six 9's safer than not. So rational society deems them 'safe.'

Same with vaccines. The aggregate risk of not vaccinating for fatal or debilitating disease is very high, and the aggregate risk of vaccinating is very low.

There is no platonic ideal of 'safe' in this universe.

 

[marduk]

If we use those comparisons I also personally believe we should have the right to choose to drive rather than take an airplane, take the stairs rather than the elevator ( which actually might be healthier most of the time ), decide when to wear seatbelts, and whether or not to have a vaccination. I don't like what I see as a sort of creeping police state that over enforces how the elitists think the masses should behave, and I don't buy that every case of legislation is justifiable by saying "It's good for them".

There are almost always exceptions. There are cases where seatbelts do more harm than good, cases where it would have ben better for air passengers to have taken another form of transport, cases where taking the stairs does your health more benefit than the elevator. Virtually all instances of vaccination cause some level of side effects with the chance of more severe complications. If every time you put your seatbelt on it gave you a rash and made you feel like you had a mild case of the flu for a week, would you wear it?

Once you making an irrational decision fundamentally increases my family's risk, your decision making authority regarding that should be removed.

Be as irrational as you want but take the risk yourself. Don't put your irrationality onto others.

This is a logical an extension of socialized health care. Of which you enjoy.

 

[Randall]

... There is no platonic ideal of 'safe' in this universe.

Right. So the question becomes whether or not the individual should have the right to determine whether or not they want to take that risk. I think there is a certain line where the state should intervene, but with vaccines, unless there is an actual epidemic going on, I think the choice should be up to the individual.

 

[Randall]

Once you making an irrational decision fundamentally increases my family's risk, your decision making authority regarding that should be removed.

Be as irrational as you want but take the risk yourself. Don't put your irrationality onto others.

This is a logical an extension of socialized health care. Of which you enjoy.

I don't think there is anything irrational about respecting individual rights and freedoms, especially the choice of whether or not to have ourselves or our children injected with toxins because it might be beneficial. You have the right to put your family at risk by insisting they get vaccines. Me as a healthy person who lives in Calgary and doesn't travel and chooses not to get a vaccine does nothing to increase the risk to your family.

 

[marduk]

Right. So the question becomes whether or not the individual should have the right to determine whether or not they want to take that risk. I think there is a certain line where the state should intervene, but with vaccines, unless there is an actual epidemic going on, I think the choice should be up to the individual.

I know you already know the answers to that.

One is herd immunity, of which you enjoy the perceived liberty of choice on the backs of those that have been vaccinated.

The second is that kids are now dying of diseases thought to be killed off because of people who want the right to make irrational decisions.

I am not speaking of things like the flu vaccine - don't care if you get that or not. Go make up your mind if you want it.

MMR should not be a choice if you want to live in general society. Neither should HPV. The rumoured HIV vaccine being worked on, if it is reliable and *rationally* safe, should also be included.

Perhaps certain choices should entail moving off to one of the many islands up north with other unvaccinated folks, who also should give up free socialized health care.

 

[marduk]

I don't think there is anything irrational about respecting individual rights and freedoms, especially the choice of whether or not to have ourselves or our children injected with toxins because it might be beneficial.

If there is a .00001% chance of harm and a 99.999% chance of benefit, it is irrational.

Especially if the 'harm' is 'might get sick for a while' and the benefit is 'won't die or be debilitated, or kill or debilitate others.'

You might as well say "I have a right to make the decision if I'm too drunk to drive, others are trying to take my rights away from doing so."

 

[Randall]

If there is a .00001% chance of harm and a 99.999% chance of benefit, it is irrational.

Especially if the 'harm' is 'might get sick for a while' and the benefit is 'won't die or be debilitated.'

Right. Me as a healthy person who lives in Calgary and doesn't travel and chooses not to get a vaccine does nothing to increase the risk to your family. On the MMR, I did refer to the actual data sheet that lists the risks and pointed to how serious those can be. It's a balance. Where there are no cases of the diseases in an area for which a vaccination program is implemented, then the chances of anyone getting that disease in that area are less likely than someone coming down with mild to serious side effects from the vaccine. But the problem with mandatory participation is that it takes a shotgun approach that affects people it doesn't really "rationally" apply to.

 

[marduk]

Right. Me as a healthy person who lives in Calgary and doesn't travel and chooses not to get a vaccine does nothing to increase the risk to your family. On the MMR, I did refer to the actual data sheet that lists the risks and pointed to how serious those can be. It's a balance. Where there are no cases of the diseases in an area for which a vaccination program is implemented, then the chances of anyone getting that disease are less likely than someone coming down with mild to serious side effects from the vaccine. But the problem with mandatory participation is that it takes a shotgun approach that affects people it doesn't really "rationally" apply to.

You know I love you man, but you're saying stuff that just isn't true.

You could be healthy. You could not travel. But you could very well walk down 17th ave and bump into a dozen people who aren't healthy, have travelled, and could be carrying all kinds of obnoxious stuff.

And, being healthy, you could get infected and be fighting it off without knowing it. And you could be walking through Chinook Centre right past my wife pushing a baby carriage.

Disease vectors are what they are. Herd immunity works as long as most are immunized (you can never get to 100% of a population who travels or can't be immunized like infants) and society values *rationality* over *freedom to be irrational.*

It is *not* an individual balance. It's society's risk to take, not yours.

Just like drunk driving, which is why you're not allowed to make that decision either.

Now, I for one would be absolutely fine with you relocating to one of the unpopulated Baffin islands and giving up your Alberta health care card if you felt strongly about it.

 

[Randall]

You know I love you man, but you're saying stuff that just isn't true.

You could be healthy. You could not travel. But you could very well walk down 17th ave and bump into a dozen people who aren't healthy, have travelled, and could be carrying all kinds of obnoxious stuff.

And, being healthy, you could get infected and be fighting it off without knowing it. And you could be walking through Chinook Centre right past my wife pushing a baby carriage.

Getting immunized does nothing to keep you from getting infected and becoming a carrier. They like to avoid pointing that out. What it does is prevent those who aren't infected a better chance at fighting off the disease if they become infected. So in your example, the real problem is vaccinated people who go around feeling relatively healthy spreading it to the rest of us, and they usually import it in from someplace while on some trip or another. So don't download that onto me who's been staying here and keeping healthy.

Disease vectors are what they are. Herd immunity works as long as most are immunized (you can never get to 100% of a population who travels or can't be immunized like infants) and society values *rationality* over *freedom to be irrational.*

It is *not* an individual balance. It's society's risk to take, not yours.

Just like drunk driving, which is why you're not allowed to make that decision either.

Now, I for one would be absolutely fine with you relocating to one of the unpopulated Baffin islands and giving up your Alberta health care card if you felt strongly about it.

The drunk driving analogy is not an accurate one. Impaired driving involves putting toxins into your system. That's more analogous to taking vaccinations than not taking them. Check this article out:

Tetanus boosters can make you faint - Snappy Living

and from the CDC:

"Fainting can be common among adolescents after vaccination.

Reports from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) shows that fainting after vaccinations is common in adolescents. One study of VAERS reports found that 62% of syncope reports were among adolescents 11 to 18 years old. However, because syncope may not always be reported, VAERS data cannot be used to determine how often fainting happens after vaccination."​

It's not just limited to adolescents either: Fainting (Syncope) Concerns | Vaccine Safety | CDC

You are of course free to express your view and lobby for forced vaccinations, just like I'm free to express my distaste for governments forcing things down our throats for our own good when I'm personally doing just fine.

 

[marduk]

Getting immunized does nothing to keep you from getting infected and becoming a carrier. They like to avoid pointing that out. What it does is prevent those who aren't infected a better chance at fighting off the disease if they become infected. So in your example, the real problem is vaccinated people who go around feeling relatively healthy spreading it to the rest of us, and they usually import it in from someplace while on some trip or another. So don't download that onto me who's been staying here and keeping healthy.

You can be a carrier while being immunized, but it's a vastly lower probability because you won't become infected to begin with.

This is akin to me saying I can handle 10 beers and drive, just because you can't is your problem.

The drunk driving analogy is not an accurate one. Impaired driving involves putting toxins into your system. That's more analogous to taking vaccinations than not taking them. Check this article out:

Tetanus boosters can make you faint - Snappy Living

I picked that analogy because I think it's quite apt. If you don't, let's pick a new one - one where you perceive a low risk and want to do something, but it increases everybody else's risk.

Say, smoking.

Which is also illegal in public places now. Should you be allowed to smoke in public places?

(Some people still think smoking is a healthy activity, btw)

and from the CDC:

"Fainting can be common among adolescents after vaccination.
Reports from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) shows that fainting after vaccinations is common in adolescents. One study of VAERS reports found that 62% of syncope reports were among adolescents 11 to 18 years old. However, because syncope may not always be reported, VAERS data cannot be used to determine how often fainting happens after vaccination."​

It's not just limited to adolescents either: Fainting (Syncope) Concerns | Vaccine Safety | CDC

You are of course free to express your view and lobby for forced vaccinations, just like I'm free to express my distaste for governments forcing things down our throats for our own good.

There are multiple angles to risk, including the potential possibility of the consequence, and the potential impact of the consequence.

The potential impact of an infant feinting is low. The potential impact of an infant being exposed to someone carrying Measles, Mumps, or Rubella is high.

If you were faced with equivalent probabilities - say 10% risk that you feint or 10% risk that you die - what choice would you take?

Again, if you don't want the flu vaccine I couldn't care less. If you don't want to get the MMR vaccine I couldn't care more.

 

[Randall]

You can be a carrier while being immunized, but it's a vastly lower probability because you won't become infected to begin with.

This is akin to me saying I can handle 10 beers and drive, just because you can't is your problem.



I picked that analogy because I think it's quite apt. If you don't, let's pick a new one - one where you perceive a low risk and want to do something, but it increases everybody else's risk.

Say, smoking.

Which is also illegal in public places now. Should you be allowed to smoke in public places?

(Some people still think smoking is a healthy activity, btw)



There are multiple angles to risk, including the potential possibility of the consequence, and the potential impact of the consequence.

The potential impact of an infant feigning is low. The potential impact of an infant being exposed to someone carrying Measles, Mumps, or Rubella is high.

Again, if you don't want the flu vaccine I couldn't care less. If you don't want to get the MMR vaccine I couldn't care more.

Smoking, drinking alcohol, and getting vaccines all have the common factor that they are putting toxins into your system that have proven health risks. So the analogy can be completely reversed. Some doctors say a glass of wine a day is actually healthy. I don't know. But to use your alcohol analogy what I'm saying is if you're not drinking wine and feel fine and can drive without it, then it should be up to you to decide not to take it, even though drinking one glass might be technically safe and legal while driving.

 

[marduk]

Smoking, drinking alcohol, and getting vaccines all have the common factor that they are putting toxins into your system that have proven health risks. So the analogy can be completely reversed. Some doctors say a glass of wine a day is actually healthy. I don't know. But to use your alcohol analogy what I'm saying is if you're not drinking wine and feel fine and can drive without it, then it should be up to you to decide not to take it, even though drinking one glass might be technically safe and legal while driving.

Lol I think we better find a new analogy because I'm lost. How can you not drinking wine harm me?

 

[marduk]

OK OK OK... Maybe I have a better analogy but it's a bit of a stretch.

Imagine the following scenario: the tragedy of the commons.

There's a finite chunk of arable land that we both have access to. I want to farm it so we both can eat, but to do so we both have to become vegetarians.

You want to raise a cow on the land because you hate vegetables, and we could share the meat. I like meat too.

So, all good at that point, right?

Now, let's talk about risk tolerances. Growing veggies has a 90% chance of yielding more than enough for us to eat, and a 10% chance of yielding just enough for us to not starve. But you have to eat only veggies, which you don't like.

Raising a cow has a 70% chance of yielding enough for us both to eat, and a 30% chance of it dying as a calf and we both starve to death. You'd rather take the chance, and I'd rather not.

Currently, I'm planting veggies and you're letting your calf eat the shoots. We can't agree.

Is that a better analogy?

 

[Randall]

OK OK OK... Maybe I have a better analogy but it's a bit of a stretch.

Imagine the following scenario: the tragedy of the commons.

There's a finite chunk of arable land that we both have access to. I want to farm it so we both can eat, but to do so we both have to become vegetarians.

You want to raise a cow on the land because you hate vegetables, and we could share the meat. I like meat too.

So, all good at that point, right?

Now, let's talk about risk tolerances. Growing veggies has a 90% chance of yielding more than enough for us to eat, and a 10% chance of yielding just enough for us to not starve. But you have to eat only veggies, which you don't like.

Raising a cow has a 70% chance of yielding enough for us both to eat, and a 30% chance of it dying as a calf and we both starve to death. You'd rather take the chance, and I'd rather not.

Currently, I'm planting veggies and you're letting your calf eat the shoots. We can't agree.

Is that a better analogy?

I liked your post because of your creative imagination. Maybe we could compromise by keeping the cow for milk and fertilizer while growing the vegetables? When I jumped into this discussion I took the con position and ran promptly into heavily biased sources based on fear and misinformation, and it became obvious that a lot of anti-vaxxers base their decisions on that sort of thinking. Then I looked at the pro position and found that although generally better presented so that it seems more reasonable, they are still doing their own style of fear mongering and disinformation. Finally I found the NOVA video ( above ), which is fairly well balanced.

Thanks for the lively counterpoint. I think I'm going to step back out of here and leave the last word for you guys.

 

[marduk]

I liked your post because of your creative imagination. Maybe we could compromise by keeping the cow for milk and fertilizer while growing the vegetables? When I jumped into this discussion I took the con position and ran promptly into heavily biased sources based on fear and misinformation, and it became obvious that a lot of anti-vaxxers base their decisions on that sort of thinking. Then I looked at the pro position and found that although generally better presented so that it seems more reasonable, they are still doing their own style of fear mongering and disinformation. Finally I found the NOVA video ( above ), which is fairly well balanced.

Thanks for the lively counterpoint. I think I'm going to step back out of here and leave the last word for you guys.

Aw, it was getting fun.

Thanks for the debate.

 

[mike]

Safety research and testing is an essential part of developing vaccines.

Vaccine safety is first tested on animals. Then, if a vaccine is found to be safe in animal trials, it is
evaluated in humans in three phases of clinical trials.

Phase 1 trials:
The new vaccine is given to a small number (25–50) of healthy adults with the primary aim of assessing safety.

Phase 2 trials:
If the new vaccine is found to be safe in Phase 1, it is then given to hundreds of people to determine: how effectively
it stimulates immune responses; how much or how many doses need to be given in order to protect against the target disease;
and whether there are any side effects.

Phase 3 trials:
If the vaccine is found to be effective and safe, it is then given to many thousands of people to test whether it
protects large populations from the target disease and check if there are any uncommon or serious side eects. Every vaccine
given to Australian children must pass all of these phases before it is registered for use by the Therapeutic Goods Administration


The safety and effectiveness of vaccines are under constant study. Because vaccines are designed to be given routinely during well-child care visits, they must be extraordinarily safe. Safety testing begins as soon as a new vaccine is contemplated, continues until it is licensed, and is monitored indefinitely after licensure.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) works closely with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to make recommendations for vaccine use.

Over the past decade, questions have been raised regarding a relationship between autism and vaccines. Along with general safety concerns, parents have wondered about:

• Too many vaccines overwhelming the immune system
  
  
• The measles, mumps, rubella combination vaccine (MMR)
  
  
• The preservative thimerosal, which was never present in MMR but was present in several vaccines used in the 1990s—it has since been removed from all routinely used childhood vaccines with the exception of flu.

Research has been conducted on all of these topics, and the studies continue to find vaccines to be a safe and effective way to prevent serious disease.
This article lists those studies and provides links to the publications to allow parents—and all those who administer or recommend vaccines—to read the evidence for themselves. These studies do not show any link between autism and MMR vaccine, thimerosal, multiple vaccines given at once, fevers or seizures

Vaccine Safety: Examine the Evidence

The cry of the antivax movement and thats been echoed here by some is that they are absolutely unsafe, and NO CHILD should be vaccinated.

Thats like saying because some people die in car accidents, no cars should be allowed on the road.

And i cant believe i read this

but with vaccines, unless there is an actual epidemic going on

Anti-Vaccine Movement Causes Worst Measles Epidemic In 20 Years

Anti-vaccine ‘propaganda’ is driving Minnesota’s measles outbreak

Measles outbreak spreading across Europe as parents shun vaccinations


Before the middle of the last century, diseases like whooping cough, polio, measles, Haemophilus influenzae, and rubella struck hundreds of thousands of infants, children and adults in the U.S.. Thousands died every year from them. As vaccines were developed and became widely used, rates of these diseases declined until today most of them are nearly gone from our country.

• Nearly everyone in the U.S. got measles before there was a vaccine, and hundreds died from it each year. Today, most doctors have never seen a case of measles.
• More than 15,000 Americans died from diphtheria in 1921, before there was a vaccine. Only two cases of diphtheria have been reported to CDC between 2004 and 2014.
• An epidemic of rubella (German measles) in 1964-65 infected 12½ million Americans, killed 2,000 babies, and caused 11,000 miscarriages. Since 2012, 15 cases of rubella were reported to CDC.

Given successes like these, it might seem reasonable to ask, “Why should we keep vaccinating against diseases that we will probably never see?” Here is why:

Vaccines: Vac-Gen/What Would Happen If We Stopped Vaccinations

'Misinformation about vaccines continues to proliferate on the internet. This is dangerous'

 

[mike]

Like any medication, vaccines can cause side effects

Understanding Side Effects and Adverse Events Side Effects | Ensuring Safety | Vaccine Safety | CDC

So if we take the "Ohhh side effects" argument, then no one should take any medication..... How stupid is that ?

 

[mike]

A final example: what could happen.
We know that a disease that is apparently under control can suddenly return, because we have seen it happen, in countries like Japan, Australia, and Sweden. Here is an example from Japan. In 1974, about 80% of Japanese children were getting pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine. That year there were only 393 cases of whooping cough in the entire country, and not a single pertussis-related death. Then immunization rates began to drop, until only about 10% of children were being vaccinated. In 1979, more than 13,000 people got whooping cough and 41 died. When routine vaccination was resumed, the disease numbers dropped again.

The chances of your child getting a case of measles or chickenpox or whooping cough might be quite low today. But vaccinations are not just for protecting ourselves, and are not just for today. They also protect the people around us (some of whom may be unable to get certain vaccines, or might have failed to respond to a vaccine, or might be susceptible for other reasons). And they also protect our children’s children and their children by keeping diseases that we have almost defeated from making a comeback. What would happen if we stopped vaccinations? We could soon find ourselves battling epidemics of diseases we thought we had conquered decades ago.

 

[Nix]

Thank you Mike, for bringing common sense to this ridiculous thread.

Personally I think there is nothing to debate.

Here is my message to anti-vax crusaders: There is no "fight", you are not a hero, and the government is not out to get you. You are just an angry little person trying to stir up attention by becoming a toxic menace. Literally spreading both toxic ideology and germs. Modern life has made you so sheltered, pampered and ungrateful that you think everything should be risk free. You can't handle the idea of going through what is, 99.9% of the time, a minor discomfort, in order to help others.

The real heroes are the people who man up, get themselves and their kids vaccinated and don't whine about it.