Vaccines: Overwhelming Benefits, Few Risks

[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.