Abakus
Member
- Jan 29, 2014
- 35
- 0
- 16
To preface, my posts have little substance on this issue because it has been beaten to death numerous times, and thus you won't find too much substance here. Vaccines are one of the greatest medical advances in the last 200 years. I say you have no idea because you qualify vaccines as having risk, which no one would deny, but you fail to adequately weigh it against the risks, which are far greater, of serious illness with potentially life-altering complications. The risk is relative.
Okay. I haven't been on Anandtech for long so I haven't seen the instances where the subject was talked to death, but I understand.
As for the vaccines; I didn't say they weren't great medical advances, or that they weren't beneficial to mankind or history, or anything else. I was only trying to argue that some people find even the small risk too much of a risk for them or their children. And before I knew the context of the thread was for private practices onlyhaving pretty much be told the proper context a few posts after my second postI said just because someone has that view doesn't mean one can deny them health care.
That was all I was trying to say, at first. Then it turned into trying to prove adverse effects happen to justify said people's rejection of vaccinations on another misunderstanding and now? Well...
Attacking the immune system? Where do you get this from? The body is under constant attack from the environment. A vaccine, or even mutliple ones at the same time, is not dangerous to an infant.
I got it from a uni med book, and a few pamphlets at the medical station at my nearest hospital. As for my comment, I meant it puts a greater strain on the immune system being vaccinated with more than 5+ vaccines.
A lawsuit is not scientific evidence of a vaccine actually causing the injury.
This is true. I was just providing it as a means to prove it does happen and that even if it is rare, it has hurt people before. But this was apparently on a misunderstanding.
Lastly, on the mercury point: Thiomersal has not been shown to produce a toxic form of mercury and it is not in use for the majority of vaccines used in the United States.
Okay, that clears it up. I remember reading an article at uni a few weeks back about how vaccines used to have them (back in the '80s when babies were dying after vaccination) but I guess I read it for either another country or maybe it was someone's views on it.
You should consider doing some basic reading from some authoritative, and scientifically backed sources:
eg: the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm
The preceding section even explains the flaws of using the VAERS system alone to infer vaccine risk.
And finally, they include some risk analysisMISCONCEPTION #4. Vaccines cause many harmful side effects, illnesses, and even death - not to mention possible long-term effects we don't even know about.
Vaccines are actually very safe, despite implications to the contrary in many anti-vaccine publications (which sometimes contain the number of reports received by VAERS, and allow the reader to infer that all of them represent genuine vaccine side-effects). Most vaccine adverse events are minor and temporary....More serious adverse events occur rarely (on the order of one per thousands to one per millions of doses), and some are so rare that risk cannot be accurately assessed. As for vaccines causing death, again so few deaths can plausibly be attributed to vaccines that it is hard to assess the risk statistically. Of all deaths reported to VAERS between 1990 and 1992, only one is believed to be even possibly associated with a vaccine. Each death reported to VAERS is thoroughly examined to ensure that it is not related to a new vaccine-related problem, but little or no evidence suggests that vaccines have contributed to any of the reported deaths. The Institute of Medicine in its 1994 report states that the risk of death from vaccines is "extraordinarily low."
To top it off, they have a great line:Risk from Disease versus Risk from Vaccine: Even one serious adverse event in a million doses of vaccine cannot be justified if there is no benefit from the vaccination. If there were no vaccines, there would be many more cases of disease, and along with the more disease, there would be serious sequelae and more deaths. But looking at risk alone is not enough - you must always look at both risks and benefits. Comparing the risk from disease with the risk from the vaccines can give us an idea of the benefits we get from vaccinating our children.
DISEASEMeaslesVACCINES
Pneumonia: 6 in 100
Encephalitis: 1 in 1,000
Death: 2 in 1,000
Rubella
Congenital Rubella Syndrome: 1 in 4 (if woman becomes infected early in pregnancy)
MMR----
Encephalitis or severe allergic reaction:
1 in 1,000,000
Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis vs. DTap Vaccine
DISEASEDiphtheriaVACCINES DTaP
Death: 1 in 20
Tetanus
Death: 2 in 10
Pertussis
Pneumonia: 1 in 8
Encephalitis: 1 in 20
Death: 1 in 1,500
Continuous crying, then full recovery: 1 in 1000
Convulsions or shock, then full recovery: 1 in 14,000
Acute encephalopathy: 0-10.5 in 1,000,000
Death: None proven
In fact, to have a medical intervention as effective as vaccination in preventing disease and not use it would be unconscionable
Thank you for the link. I am reading over it right now, and at least I can maneuver through the website and search results actually give me something.