Vaccines: Overwhelming Benefits, Few Risks

[brainpushups]

As far as vaccinations go, our family had practiced getting all the required vaccines according to the schedule. But we believe in informed consent and actually reading the package inserts to understand the risks and benefits. I just got my tetanus update earlier this month. But we also politely refuse some vaccines when informed consent leads us to believe that the risks outweigh the benefits for specific circumstances and individuals.

This is the ideal thing to do. I heard that there is a bill being drafted in my state that would require informed consent for vaccines and doctors who did not obtain it would be guilty of malpractice.

Don't we want people to THINK? Wouldn't it be best if doctors spent the time with patients to say that "X has these benefits and these risks and the risks are higher when conditions ... are present" rather then following some protocol which may have heightened risk for some of their patients without explaining or perhaps even knowing about it? Did you read the NPR article linked in my post #15? Do you see how the repercussions of informed consent may actually help increase vaccination rates? As explained in the article, 100,000 children were given a vaccine when they should not have been. Yes, only 10 or so charges of wrongful death are pending, but it caused a huge drop in getting vaccines for measles and then there was an outbreak. Had the risk been communicated the deaths may not have occurred and the measles outbreak may have also not occurred.

 

[sysprog]

So you assess by a case by case?
Is there a downside to receiving the HPV vaccine?

In my opinion, there's not much downside regarding the vaccine that's been reliably reported, but there is a downside regarding HPV that's uncommon among dangerous virii (viruses). Almost all males are asymptomatic compared to females, due mainly to the differences between boy parts and girl parts (inguinally proximate apparatuses). The vaccine can help to immunize females. It does nothing to stop us males from transmitting the virus, unless we (males) take it prophylactically in advance of exposure and infection so that we're never hosts to a colony. If I'm already infected, the vaccine won't change that. So far, we don't have a reliable test for males, and people aren't even advised about the possibility of an asymptomatic male unknowingly transfecting a to-her-fatal strain of the virus to an intimate-with-him female. We need such a test. Given that we don't have such a test, we should inoculate everyone who might couple with anyone, and to wipe out the disease as well as or better than we did with polio and smallpox, we should do that anyway, test for men or not. As things stand now, a man could think he doesn't have any STDs, and still give the virus to the love of his life on their first honeymoon night. That shirt don't fit. It ain't right.

 

[sysprog]

To a reasonable extent. There are good reasons nurses are vaccinated against Hep A. There are reasons, people traveling to tropic regions get extra vaccination, and they are sometimes demanded to do so by the countries they travel to, but usually act by their free will. So depending on where you live, the lists might vary. But smallpox, polio, tetanus and MMR should be on the list around the globe. Malaria is a more complicated issue.

So far I agree.

If you willingly take your child at an unnecessary risk, then it is abuse.

That's in my view an overly stringent standard. Many reasonable risks are unnecessary. Letting a kid go outside is a risk that often doesn't qualify as necessary.

It is in the same category as throwing your child into the pool knowing it cannot swim. Maybe it learns it this way. Natural immunization so to say.

That seems to me to be an exaggeration. I can understand your pique at the anti-vaccination advocates. Anecdotally, I can also say that I sympathize with a friend of mine who is a Mom, who says that her (now 12-year-old) daughter invariably becomes almost hospitalizably febrile (e.g. 103 degrees F) for days after any vaccination.

 

[fresh_42]

That seems to me to be an exaggeration.

Yes, it was meant to be. However, as I thought about it, it is exactly what those parents do. They throw their unprotected kids in the pool of viruses out in the wild. Or do you think they would never ride the NYC subway, attend a football match or festival, refuse people to shake hands and so on and so on. They are literally out there in the pool. It is a matter of luck, if they stay healthy.

 

[Dale]

I can understand the toxic message that there is something or someone to blame for a child’s disability, but its a lie and a great disservice to autistic people,

My nephew too. The lie is not just a disservice to the autistic child but also to the parents. My sister understands in her mind that it is a lie, but in her heart it feels like an accusation: “you did this to your own child”

 

[fresh_42]

My nephew too. The lie is not just a disservice to the autistic child but also to the parents. My sister understands in her mind that it is a lie, but in her heart it feels like an accusation: “you did this to your own child”

The example par excellence what a faked study can cause! And once in the world ...

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I tend to see the vaccination issue as a symptom of the loss of trust many have for the medical profession as a result of the tendency to over-prescribe various classes of medications - pain relievers, mood medications, various prevention-oriented medications, etc.

After blood tests, my own physician has prescribed a couple of meds without even discussing them with me - Metformin for a pre-diabetic diagnosis and Lipitor (or the generic equivalent) for cholesterol. There was no discussion of whether the goals could be met (reduction of risks) with lifestyle changes, just called in the prescriptions to my pharmacist. I reviewed the test results carefully with other medical advisers and we determined that lifestyle changes had a better chance of reducing my risks (for diabetes and heart disease) than the medications. So far, subsequent tests have supported my hesitancy to accept additional medications. Why not both? Cost and risk. Also, I recognize my own propensity to possibly eat less carefully and exercise less if a pill is supposed to solve the problem. I know a lot of overweight guys in horrible health on Lipitor and Metformin who "eat whatever they want" because they trust their medications too much.

Is there a downside to receiving the HPV vaccine?

Other than the $500ish out of pocket costs (for me) and three trips to the doctor in a six month period, there are a laundry list of things described on the Gardasil label. The risks are not very great for me at all, but one could say the same thing about Metformin and Lipitor. But in a generation of medicine where there is a tendency to overprescribe medications, I'm inclined to withhold my informed consent for lots of "just in case" drugs for abstract possibilities whose risks can be mitigated with other means. I skip the flu shot most years, but I also wash my hands more than anyone I know. Those hand washings prevent lots of bugs that the flu shot doesn't. I asked my wife what she thought about me getting the HPV vaccine. She asked me which guitar I was going to sell to pay for it.

I just visited the "Vaccine hesitancy" article on Wikipedia (because I was researching for a new joke in the PF science jokes thread ), and I stumbled upon the very interesting information that WHO has listed "vaccine hesitancy" as one of the ten top threats to global health in 2019:
http://www.who.int/emergencies/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019

I think you could probably classify me as having a "medication hesitancy." Unless something is imminently life threatening, I'm going to read the labels and get a second opinion. Efforts to discourage label reading and getting a second opinion en route to fully informing consent regarding vaccinations are foolish and unfounded. Vaccines should not be treated differently from other prescription drugs.

If I accepted every medication the first time some doctor was willing to prescribe it, I'd have an awful lot of drug interactions to keep up with, very costly bills for prescription meds, and a bathroom counter full of pill bottles. No thanks.

 

[bobob]

I think you could probably classify me as having a "medication hesitancy." Unless something is imminently life threatening, I'm going to read the labels and get a second opinion. Efforts to discourage label reading and getting a second opinion en route to fully informing consent regarding vaccinations are foolish and unfounded. Vaccines should not be treated differently from other prescription drugs.

I disagree. A person who is unvaccinated and acquires measles or whatever, places those people with compromised immune systems at risk of dying should they pass along the infection. My parents are 89 and 90 and I don't think they should have to worry about catching some disease that could easily be eradicated by a vaccine. Although my parents have some immunity from being vaccinated, at that age, their immune systems may not provide them enough resistance to these easily preventable diseases. Allowing people to opt out of vaccination for trivial reasons, like they just don't want to do it, is giving them a license to walk around, infect and potentially kill people, or in a case like measles, also cause birth defects.

You are free to not take medicines for which you are the only person who will suffer the consequences, but that is not the case with vaccinations.

 

[sysprog]

Yes, it was meant to be. However, as I thought about it, it is exactly what those parents do. They throw their unprotected kids in the pool of viruses out in the wild. Or do you think they would never ride the NYC subway, attend a football match or festival, refuse people to shake hands and so on and so on. They are literally out there in the pool. It is a matter of luck, if they stay healthy.

I think the analogy is faulty, at least in that realistically the risk of throwing a non-swimmer kid into a pool is mainly that he might drown, and does not include much likelihood that the other kids in the pool will because of the risky action drown too.

I also think that the likelihood of drowning for a non-swimmer kid thrown into a pool and left to fend for himself unaided, is much greater than the likelihood of a kid not vaccinated with this year's vaccine for this year's non-epidemic illness getting sick and dying due to not having been vaccinated.

I'm not trying to join the anti-vaccination advocates, but I do think that think we vaccination advocates should try to keep ourselves immune to realistic possibilities of reasonably sustainable accusations of having overstated our case (or cases) versus that (or those) of the anti-vaccination advocates.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Efforts to discourage label reading and getting a second opinion en route to fully informing consent regarding vaccinations are foolish and unfounded. Vaccines should not be treated differently from other prescription drugs.

On the face of it, this sounds great, as I think most would respond positivelly if asked whether people should think for themselves instead of blindly doing what they're told (especially if framed in terms of individual freedom vs oppressive government).
But then again, 'read the inserts' is one of the rallying cries of the pro-epidemic movements all around the world. After all, e.g. the CDC VIS for MMR lists among risks of the vaccine: deafness, coma, brain damage, and death. That sound much more dangerous than having your child sick for a week or two and acquire natural-immunity in the process (using their narrative).
Turns out not everyone thinking for themselves will be able to properly evaluate the information they encounter and come to valid conclusions. This is true of all of us, as it's become impossible to be sufficiently informed on everything in this day and age, especially as the modern society is still struggling to come to terms with the influx of readily available but not curated information, fake news, information bubbles, etc.
So even though your approach has undeniably good intent behind it, the practialicty of its implementation is that rates of vaccinations against dangerous pathogens go down.

 

[brainpushups]

But then again, 'read the inserts' is one of the rallying cries of the pro-epidemic movements all around the world. After all, e.g. the CDC VIS for MMR lists among risks of the vaccine: deafness, coma, brain damage, and death. That sound much more dangerous than having your child sick for a week or two and acquire natural-immunity in the process (using their narrative).
Turns out not everyone thinking for themselves will be able to properly evaluate the information they encounter and come to valid conclusions. This is true of all of us, as it's become impossible to be sufficiently informed on everything in this day and age, especially as the modern society is still struggling to come to terms with the influx of readily available but not curated information, fake news, information bubbles, etc.
So even though your approach has undeniably good intent behind it, the practialicty of its implementation is that rates of vaccinations against dangerous pathogens go down.

That is a reasonable objection to letting the patients determine for themselves the risks because a list of potential side-effects isn't very informative to the individual.

The physician should help their patients determine whether or not they have heightened risk for vaccines (or medication). This would require a bit of a culture change in the medical field because doctors will need more time with patients and will need to perhaps shift to a more 'holistic' approach and not just one that throws a pill at the problem, but considers instead the individual and other potential treatment or lifestyle options. When that trust is established physicians should have no trouble advocating that vaccination is appropriate for the vast majority and catch those that are at high risk of complication.

 

[bobob]

But then again, 'read the inserts' is one of the rallying cries of the pro-epidemic movements all around the world. After all, e.g. the CDC VIS for MMR lists among risks of the vaccine: deafness, coma, brain damage, and death.

If you read the packge inserts for even the most benign medicines that almost no one would blink an eye at taking, you can find all sorts of horrible potential side effects listed which get worse as the percentage of incidence becomes smaller. If you took those seriously, you would never take any medicine and would proble shorten your lifespan considerably. The problem with those serious side effects that fall into the low percentages is the way drug trials are conducted. When a drug is studied, the participants must record EVERY headache, incidence of nausea or anything else. People get headaches, nausea and maybe even a serious disease like cancer whether or not any of those thing are related to the drug being tested. There is no way to link cause and effect with the drug being tested for incidence rates comparable to the number of people in the general population who would end up with those same issues, but it is required to include all of that in the analysis. If you are looking at a drug insert where there is a 1% incidence of some side effect, in all likelyhood, that side effect has no relation to the drug being tested. It's there because the patients recorded EVERYTHING they expeienced and the data must be included, even if it is impossible to know the origin of some condition they reported.

That sound much more dangerous than having your child sick for a week or two and acquire natural-immunity in the process (using their narrative).

Well, no it isn't. If your child comes down with measels, it might be a mild case or maybe it could be much more serious. Furthermore that measels infection could be spread to pregnatny women whose children stand a good chance of being born with birth defects or even result in miscarriages. In addition, elderly people (whose immune systems are weakened by age) could contract measels from your kids "mild case' and subsequently die. Eradicating diseases requires a critical mass of people to be immune such that those whose immune systems are compromised stand little chance of contact with an infected person. Living in a very social environment imposes some responsibilities on people who wish to be part of that environment. If those responsibilities impose too much in the way of restricting someone's lifestyle, the thing for them to do id to move out to the sticks where they can do as they please without risking other people's lives. Al;so, for some people who might have soe sensitivity to the vaccines, this is something that can be addressed beforehand so that someone who might suffer an adverse reaction doesn't get the caccine. However, that unvaccinated person receives protection only by virtue of being surrounded by those who have been vaccinated.

Turns out not everyone thinking for themselves will be able to properly evaluate the information they encounter and come to valid conclusions. This is true of all of us, as it's become impossible to be sufficiently informed on everything in this day and age, [/quote[
Well, not everyone. I manage my parents' medications and I know everything in the package inserts plus as much as I can research online just to be sure they aren't going to be prescribed something that has known interactions with what they are taking, what to do if they accidently take a second does and what symptoms to watch out for to determine if they need to head to the doctor to have something changed (which has actually happened.)

I know every detail about the surgeries they've had and even the surgeries I've had going back 30 years, although by now I could not tell you what types of sutures were used. When I take my parents to the doctor, I have already spent hours researching whatever it is that has prompted the visit to the doctor along with any other questions about how they are being treated. I am constantly astounded by people who cannot tell me what medicines they were prescribed or the dosagees or much of anything but what the label says about how many times a day to swallow a pill. It is NOT impossible. If anything, the wealth of information including various studies available to anyone from the NIH makes it easier than ever to be extremely informed of the most minute details that might bring up questions to ask a physician. It might be difficult for people who are less educated, but I don't think that applies to anyone in these forums.

especially as the modern society is still struggling to come to terms with the influx of readily available but not curated information, fake news, information bubbles, etc.
So even though your approach has undeniably good intent behind it, the practialicty of its implementation is that rates of vaccinations against dangerous pathogens go down.

The NIH website has an abundance of research articles that cover almost anything you can imagine that is related to various diseases and the efficacy and side effects of the medicines used to treat thoose conditions - even things that get used off label. People who lack the education to understand the more scientific articles have a valid excuse for being a bit unsure of what to do, but anyone with a college education ought to be able to read a medical journal article and pretty much grasp the results and understand the methodolgy (perhaps with some further reading to clarify some unfamiliar terminolgy). Someone who doesn't do things is not being very helpful in maximizing the benefits of modern medicine and will also probably have a more difficult time choosing the better doctors from the spectrum of those who went to medical school.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Yes, it's great that it works for you. But you might have missed my point - it doesn't work for everyone, as borne by evidence in the movements.

 

[PAllen]

Do you believe that people with communicable diseases - a cold, the flu, measles, AIDS, should be quarantined (if voluntary) or incarcerated (if otherwise)? If not, you might need to pedal this back a bit.

Hmm. In general, the idea of quarantine is accepted as a terrible but necessary for many diseases. Indeed I think, in many cases, failure to be vaccinated warrants some form of quarantine, for equivalent moral motivations - actually, it is more justified because the threat to others is chosen rather than involuntary.

Let's take your examples, one by one, since they are very different, but in reverse order.

1) AIDS: this is not contagious except for 'very specialized forms of contact'. Engaging in these without disclosure if you know you have it is well accepted to be criminal behavior. There is no need for quarantine because there is no communicability for every day contact. There is also no vaccine for it. If there were an effective vaccine conferring herd immunity, I would definitely support mandatory vaccination to eliminate this disease (but see below for an exception).

2) Measles: This has at least 1% death rate for those who get it. I would say without doubt self quarantine while contagious should be expected (and historically, no one would knowingly send their child with measles into public spaces). With an effective vaccine conferring herd immunity, it is a no brainer that it should be mandatory.

3) Flu: in a pandemic of a severe flu, I think quarantine would near universally be supported (e.g. the 1918 flu). However, there is no generic vaccine. The vaccines we have change every year and are of limited effectiveness, and there is no herd immunity. If a generic vaccine were developed, that could foster herd immunity, then mandatory vaccination would certainly be warranted. For the current vaccines, there is no real evidence of any benefit except to individuals, so it can remain an individual choice. However, note that vulnerable populations request voluntary quarantine (e.g. elder facilities request no one with flu visit), and violating this is ethically repugnant. (Actually, many request that if not vaccinated during flu season, a mask should be worn, even with no signs of symptoms. This seems to me a justified requirement).

4) Cold: A near total red herring. Risk is moderate except to immune compromised individuals who need isolation anyway. Quarantine would be absurd given the number of affected individuals. There is no vaccine.

----

Exception to mandatory vaccination:

Anyone (or community) that chooses not to accept a vaccine considered generally mandatory is free to do so if and only if they self quarantine from the rest of society, i.e. live isolated from them.

 

[PAllen]

Also, let me share a personal story about autism and vaccination. My daughter is pretty severely autistic. When I first let go of denial and admitted it, I began hearing about the MMR autism 'theory'. Without seeing a single study on this, my immediate reaction was that this vaccine is given at the age autism is most commonly noticed (and this was true before the vaccine existed). Thus, one would expect extremely high correlation between diagnosis and recent vaccination even if the causal relation was exactly zero. Thus I would need to see strong evidence for actual causation to give any credence to this. With this thinking, I attached no significance whatever to the temporal coincidence of diagnosis and MMR vaccine for my daughter.

Lo and behold, when my daughter was 18, we enrolled her in a study that did genetic testing in passing. Turns out she has a known genetic cause inherited from my wife (who is a risk carrier whose children are at risk though she is asymptomatic). We learned that known genetic causes now account for 20% of cases, and the percentage is steadily growing.

 

[member 342489]

I am shocked to see so many "intelligent" people want to force their own opinion upon others!

 

[fresh_42]

I am shocked to see so many "intelligent" people want to force their own opinion upon others!

This is plain nonsense. Nobody forces anybody here. However, it is a legitimate question how to deal with a few ignorants who put the many at danger.

 

[Dale]

I am shocked to see so many "intelligent" people want to force their own opinion upon others!

Why would intelligence lead people to not force their opinions on others? I don’t see the connection. If anything I would expect intelligent people to be more likely to want to force their opinions on others.

 

[member 342489]

This is plain nonsense. Nobody forces anybody here. However, it is a legitimate question how to deal with a few ignorants who put the many at danger.

I admit, that my use of the term, intelligence was unneeded.

I do understand the need to isolate people infected with diseases that can cause a lot of harm or even death.

On the other hand, I consider it a fact, that the MMR.vaccine itself causes people to die.
I do not claim, that the vaccine, kills more people than it protects, only that the vaccine causes death.

So to force vaccines, is in my opinion the same as saying, that people shold run a risk of killing their own
kids.

So until the vaccine is almost guaranteed riskfree, I find forcefeeding it totally wrong a egoistic.

 

[Orodruin]

I am shocked to see so many "intelligent" people want to force their own opinion upon others!

There is a difference in forcing a scientifically established fact on someone and spewing harmful nonsense opinions on someone. The fact is simply not up for discussion (barring extreme evidence to the contrary). It is not a matter of opinion.

 

[Orodruin]

I admit, that my use of the term, intelligence was unneeded.

I do understand the need to isolate people infected with diseases that can cause a lot of harm or even death.

On the other hand, I consider it a fact, that the MMR.vaccine itself causes people to die.
I do not claim, that the vaccine, kills more people than it protects, only that the vaccine causes death.

So to force vaccines, is in my opinion the same as saying, that people shold run a risk of killing their own
kids.

So until the vaccine is almost guaranteed riskfree, I find forcefeeding it totally wrong a egoistic.

Perfect example of unsubstantiated opinion. Thank you. Now go read the actual scientific literature on the subject.

 

[member 342489]

There is a difference in forcing a scientifically established fact on someone and spewing harmful nonsense opinions on someone. The fact is simply not up for discussion (barring extreme evidence to the contrary). It is not a matter of opinion.

So do you believe the MMR to be guaranteed unharmfull?

 

[fresh_42]

So do you believe the MMR to be guaranteed unharmfull?

Life is harmful and guaranteed lethal.

This is a stupid argument. We long wouldn't need it anymore if people were vaccinated. The cases of casualties by the diseases outnumber the cases by vaccination by far. There are many people who cannot be vaccinated, and every single one of them makes an unnecessarily unvaccinated person a potential murderer.

 

[Orodruin]

So do you believe the MMR to be guaranteed unharmfull?

It is scientifically established beyond any reasonable doubt that the MMR vaccine is safe and extremely helpful in keeping severe diseases under control. Diseases that historically have killed and incapacitated countless people. Measles alone is a horrible and highly infectious disease and it is making a comeback in outbreaks all over the world due to unsubstantiated opinion being spread. When this kind of misinformation is spread and putting others in harm’s way (in particular people who for various reasons cannot be given the vaccine) - yes, I get angry. Measles has the potential of being completely eradicated through the appropriate use of vaccines and then nobody will ever need to take that vaccine again. How many people today are vaccinated against smallpox? That’s right, not many - a horrendous disease eradicated using vaccines.

 

[member 342489]

Life is harmful and guaranteed lethal.

This is a stupid argument. We long wouldn't need it anymore if people were vaccinated. The cases of casualties by the diseases outnumber the cases by vaccination by far. There are many people who cannot be vaccinated, and every single one of them makes an unnecessarily unvaccinated person a potential murder.

What??

Like I said in an earlier post, I have experienced kids who got so high fever from the MMR, that they experienced cognitive regression (loss of beginning language)

Also you can vaccinate against new life, but it is not forced many places.

The problem with the MMR can be, if you already have some sickness in your body, and the minor sickness from the MMR on top.

Expirences like this spreads an causes fear.

 

[member 342489]

It is scientifically established beyond any reasonable doubt that the MMR vaccine is safe and extremely helpful in keeping severe diseases under control. Diseases that historically have killed and incapacitated countless people. Measles alone is a horrible and highly infectious disease and it is making a comeback in outbreaks all over the world due to unsubstantiated opinion being spread. When this kind of misinformation is spread and putting others in harm’s way (in particular people who for various reasons cannot be given the vaccine) - yes, I get angry. Measles has the potential of being completely eradicated through the appropriate use of vaccines and then nobody will ever need to take that vaccine again. How many people today are vaccinated against smallpox? That’s right, not many - a horrendous disease eradicated using vaccines.

This report shows, that MMR can cause death, perhaps not many but still someones kid. This some one will not be happy about the descision to vaccinate

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4599698/

 

[fresh_42]

The problem with the MMR can be, if you already have some sickness in your body, and the minor sickness from the MMR on top.

Sick people don't get vaccinated. Doctors wait until they are healthy again.

I don't know how it is dealt with in your country. But here if someone who is HIV positive risks to infect knowingly someone else, he will be prosecuted. Running around with measles is nothing else, only that it is more effective.

Many people are e.g. immune suppressed. They already have a hard life without measles on top.

 

[fresh_42]

This report shows, that MMR can cause death, perhaps not many but still someones kid. This some one will not be happy about the descision to vaccinate

Neither will be the dozens who get infected instead. Please cite a serious(!) medical reference for all the claims you make, including your child. I doubt that anyone has proven a connection between the events. And you could have reduced any risks by a M+M+R vaccination instead of MMR.

 

[Orodruin]

This report shows, that MMR can cause death, perhaps not many but still someones kid. This some one will not be happy about the descision to vaccinate

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4599698/

So what? It is just the classic kill one known person or kill a thousand unknown people conundrum. From a societal standpoint, the choice is obvious. Also, if you eradicate a disease you will never again have to vaccinate against it - saving all future generations from boththe disease snd the vaccine. So please spare us the single case studies. This is about large numbers, not individual cases.

 

[fresh_42]

However, making general assumptions and drawing conclusions about vaccinations causing deaths based on spontaneous reports to VAERS – some of which might be anecdotal or second-hand – or case reports in the media, is not a scientifically valid practice. ... A study published in 2013 using electronic health record databases reviewed health information on over 13 million vaccinated persons and compared causes of death in the vaccinated study population to the general US population. The death rate 1 or 2 months following vaccination was lower than that in the general US population, and the causes of death were similar [28]. This study provides convincing evidence that vaccinations are not associated with an increased risk of death at the population level.

 

[member 342489]

Sick people don't get vaccinated. Doctors wait until they are healthy again.

I don't know how it is dealt with in your country. But here if someone who is HIV positive risks to infect knowingly someone else, he will be prosecuted. Running around with measles is nothing else, only that it is more effective.

Many people are e.g. immune suppressed. They already have a hard life without measles on top.

In principle sick people don't become vaccinated.
I and many parants are not doctors, and are not eqipped with knowledge to detect any desease.
Doctors where I live, often seems way to busy to notice, and a fact is, that I know kids who experienced trouble because of, or perhaps just coincidentally the same time the vaccination took place.

PS: I live in Denmark.

PSPS: I can see, that my opinion is just as egoistic as I blame other for beeing, sry

 

[member 342489]

So what? It is just the classic kill one known person or kill a thousand unknown people conundrum. From a societal standpoint, the choice is obvious. Also, if you eradicate a disease you will never again have to vaccinate against it - saving all future generations from boththe disease snd the vaccine. So please spare us the single case studies. This is about large numbers, not individual cases.

If it is a free choice, it would be the same.

 

[Orodruin]

If it is a free choice, it would be the same.

If you let the single person decide, yes. Which is exactly why it should not be up to the single person to decide. In addition, it is actually not the choice put in front of you if you do have it. The choice is to participate in reaching herd immunity or not. Even if we accept for a fact that this particular vaccine comes with a risk, this risk has to be weighed against the risk of not reaching herd immunity. It is a game theoretical gamble where the correct choice is to take the vaccine. People making the wrong choice are paying for it in the outbreaks occurring all over the world to a far larger extent than vaccines cause complications - and this is even as a larger part of the population is actually getting vaccinated.

 

[member 342489]

If you let the single person decide, yes. Which is exactly why it should not be up to the single person to decide. In addition, it is actually not the choice put in front of you if you do have it. The choice is to participate in reaching herd immunity or not. Even if we accept for a fact that this particular vaccine comes with a risk, this risk has to be weighed against the risk of not reaching herd immunity. It is a game theoretical gamble where the correct choice is to take the vaccine. People making the wrong choice are paying for it in the outbreaks occurring all over the world to a far larger extent than vaccines cause complications - and this is even as a larger part of the population is actually getting vaccinated.

Like said earlier, I am no doctor or scientist.Some claim, that right before the first mass-vaccination against measels, not many died or suffered serious health concerns.Here an article describing this.

https://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j5104/rr-13
So what are the actual consequence of havibg measels? And how many will experience these.?

 

[fresh_42]

Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles
There is a Danish language version, too: death rate in DK 1/3000 - the disease, not the vaccine.

 

[Orodruin]

What you are doing now is called “cherry picking” and is frowned upon in science. In particular if you do not have the appropriate credentials to judge. You admitted to not being a scientist nor a doctor. What then makes you qualified to judge the scientific forefront and pick the particular papers that happen to fit with your own views/fears? Do you really think that you have more chances of reaching a good decision than the collective scientific community dedicated to these issues? If you do, then to me that sounds like going to the cockpit before landing and asking the pilots (both captain and copilot) to step aside because it is your life on the line and you want to land yourself without any training. Not only that, you also do not want their input or any guidance from the control tower.

 

[Orodruin]

Wikipedia:

View attachment 245928

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles
There is a Danish language version, too: death rate in DK 1/3000 - the disease, not the vaccine.

And this is in Denmark. In less developed countries it can reach as high as 10%.

 

[fresh_42]

And this is in Denmark. In less developed countries it can reach as high as 10%.

But even if we calculate Denmark and assume nobody was vaccinated. Then an assumed infection rate of only 5% would lead to 100 deaths. Hence the only reason this doesn't occur on a yearly basis is the fact that the unvaccinated rely on all the others who are, including their foreign guests.

 

[member 342489]

Wikipedia:

View attachment 245928

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles
There is a Danish language version, too: death rate in DK 1/3000 - the disease, not the vaccine.

Uhh this is a long read, will do it later. my point is not to debate if measels are a dangerous desease, my point is, that the vaccine to protect also can be harmful.
Because the vaccine also can be harmful, I want people to be able to choose.
I actually do accept,, that vaccination is a good thing.

 

[member 342489]

What you are doing now is called “cherry picking” and is frowned upon in science. In particular if you do not have the appropriate credentials to judge. You admitted to not being a scientist nor a doctor. What then makes you qualified to judge the scientific forefront and pick the particular papers that happen to fit with your own views/fears? Do you really think that you have more chances of reaching a good decision than the collective scientific community dedicated to these issues? If you do, then to me that sounds like going to the cockpit before landing and asking the pilots (both captain and copilot) to step aside because it is your life on the line and you want to land yourself without any training. Not only that, you also do not want their input or any guidance from the control tower.

Are you saying, that I am to unintelligent tohave an opinion.?
Are you saying that I am not enough educated to have an opinion.?

I am also not able to judge your credentials, and my trust is low, should I just accept your opinion and knowledge based on that lack of trust.
All you imo have done so far, is spamming opinion, without any actualy litterature or research to support it.

 

[Dale]

I do not claim, that the vaccine, kills more people than it protects, only that the vaccine causes death.

This is true but completely vacuous. The same could be said for the majority of everyday decisions that are necessary for survival.

I do not claim that eating food kills more people than it helps only that eating food causes death.

Getting out of bed, eating, drinking, walking, driving, exercise, etc., all can be fatal. Considering only the risk is not how any decision is made. Decisions are always made considering risk vs benefit.

 

[Dale]

Because the vaccine also can be harmful, I want people to be able to choose.

Food can also be harmful, but we do not allow parents to choose not to feed their children. Again, this is not a rational basis for decision making. A risk is always considered compared to the benefit. This is simply how decisions are actually made (at least by sane people).

Every time you suggest this line of reasoning you are being disingenuous. You are claiming a decision-making process that you do not actually use for the decisions in your life.

If someone were to actually make decisions on this basis they would be completely non-functional. They would be hospitalized and all decision-making power would be removed from them. This is simply not a rational stance.

Rather than articulating a literally insane criterion, you should simply acknowledge that your personal experience leads you to have a substantially higher estimate of the risks than most people do. Argue for your elevated estimate of the risk compared to the benefit. But do not assert that it is valid to consider risks in isolation.

 

[russ_watters]

This report shows, that MMR can cause death, perhaps not many but still someones kid. This some one will not be happy about the descision to vaccinate

That line of reasoning is reasonable, but only if you complete it. In order to do that, you need to find out what the odds of death or serious illness are with and without the vaccine. Only then can "can cause death" be a useful thing to say instead of being a completely meaningless thing to say.

There are people who argue that wearing a seatbelt in a car is a bad thing because if your car catches fire it may trap you and kll you. This is true, but so what? It's meaningless to say it unless you have the actual statistics on how many people are saved by seatbelts vs killed by seatbelts.

But even then you may lose:

Because the vaccine also can be harmful, I want people to be able to choose.

Even in free societies, governments sometimes make laws to protect the masses from themselves or from individuals. Even though you may not be able to clearly define the problem with vaccines, you should be able to look at a graph of measles (or other disease) deaths per year and see the clear societal benefit. Even in a free society governments can mandate action based on major societal benefit, even if the individulas don't see/believe it (whether they are right or wrong almost doesn't even matter).

 

[member 342489]

This is true but completely vacuous. The same could be said for the majority of everyday decisions that are necessary for survival.

I do not claim that eating food kills more people than it helps only that eating food causes death.

Getting out of bed, eating, drinking, walking, driving, exercise, etc., all can be fatal. Considering only the risk is not how any decision is made. Decisions are always made considering risk vs benefit.

Yes but I choose those you mention.
The only thing I am in this debate, is to arguee pro free choice.

Food can also be harmful, but we do not allow parents to choose not to feed their children. Again, this is not a rational basis for decision making. A risk is always considered compared to the benefit. This is simply how decisions are actually made (at least by sane people).

Every time you suggest this line of reasoning you are being disingenuous. You are claiming a decision-making process that you do not actually use for the decisions in your life.
If someone were to actually make decisions on this basis they would be completely non-functional. They would be hospitalized and all decision-making power would be removed from them. This is simply not a rational stance.
Rather than articulating a literally insane criterion, you should simply acknowledge that your personal experience leads you to have a substantially higher estimate of the risks than most people do. Argue for your elevated estimate of the risk compared to the benefit. But do not assert that it is valid to consider risks in isolation.

If my kid gets sick from milk, I stop giving him/her milk, that's my desicion.

Here in Denmark, people that deny taking the MMR vaccine and others, are urged to get their kids infected as early as possible.
I have heard of networks, where people that denies the vaccine, contacts other parents when their kids get sick. These networks are beeing recommended from the nurse at schools, as a legimate option to vaccine.

What I have describe previously, are a limited number of cases I know about, where kids have become very high fever (40 degress ) for more than a week and in two cases have been hospitalized.

 

[Rive]

Here in Denmark, people that deny taking the MMR vaccine and others, are urged to get their kids infected as early as possible.

In short: the basis of this discussion here are some parents who are choosing risks >10000 times higher than the necessary for their child, and you are expecting this to be taken seriously as some kind of argument.

 

[pinball1970]

Yes but I choose those you mention.
The only thing I am in this debate, is to arguee pro free choice.
If my kid gets sick from milk, I stop giving him/her milk, that's my desicion.

Here in Denmark, people that deny taking the MMR vaccine and others, are urged to get their kids infected as early as possible.
I have heard of networks, where people that denies the vaccine, contacts other parents when their kids get sick. These networks are beeing recommended from the nurse at schools, as a legimate option to vaccine.

What I have describe previously, are a limited number of cases I know about, where kids have become very high fever (40 degress ) for more than a week and in two cases have been hospitalized.

As the others have pointed out this is about numbers. Those numbers illustrate why taking your kid to a measles party instead of choosing to give the vaccine is crazy. Deliberately making your child sick instead of offering protection from three diseases can be and has been described as child abuse.
http://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/mmr-vaccineLook at the numbers, you don't have to be a statistician or Dr to make the right choice.
(Edit) This is the correct choice for your individual child but the population also relies on this choice. This is how diseases are eradicated.

 

[Orodruin]

Are you saying, that I am to unintelligent tohave an opinion.?
Are you saying that I am not enough educated to have an opinion.?

No. I am saying your opinion is never going to matter as much of that as someone who has spent decades on dedicating their professional lives to understanding and adding to the wealth of research that is available. If you ask the other passengers in the plane who they want to land it, they will pick the pilot. Sure, it may be a man who wants to hurt them (it has unfortunately happened in recent times), but the odds are just much better that the pilots will land safely. If you insist on landing the plane, expect to get arguments from the other passengers. This is what is going on here. You are essentially arguing that every passenger individually should be offered the free choice of whether to land the plane or not because there has been an instance of a pilot crashing and some instances of people being able to land planes after pilots have been somehow incapacitated.

The only thing I am in this debate, is to arguee pro free choice.

Which in this case is crazy, harmful, selfish, and morally reprehensible. Do you you also think it should be free to choose to inform a sexual partner if you are hiv positive? You cannot compare with giving your kids milk. It is more comparable to letting your kids run around with an assault rifle. Letting your kids attend a measles party is even crazier. That is like having them play Russian roulette.

 

[Rive]

The only thing I am in this debate, is to arguee pro free choice.

Parents are used to decide instead of children (thus, limiting their freedom to choose) on basis children might not be clear about the consequences.
But with every word of yours here you are proving that you are not clear about the consequences either: yet, you are claiming your right for free choice, and expecting this to be taken seriously as some kind of argument.

 

[phinds]

@Brian E if you don't know the First Law of Holes, you might want to look it up.

 

[pinball1970]

It is more comparable to letting your kids run around with an assault rifle. Letting your kids attend a measles party is even crazier. That is like having them play Russian roulette.

Which is why the science is either minor or missing with anti vaxers