Vaccines: Overwhelming Benefits, Few Risks

[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

 

[Dale]

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

Then make your argument for choice on a sound basis. The basis only that there is a risk, deliberately and emphatically ignoring the benefit, is not a sound basis. Nobody actually makes choices on that basis.

So far, I haven’t seen you present a rational argument for why this choice should be allowed. Even in “free societies” not all choices are permitted. Why should this one be in the permitted category? Merely that there is a risk is not a justification, many choices with risk are mandated.

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.

OK, there is the risk. So now add in the benefit and compare. Make your argument sound. “This should be a permitted choice because the risk of a limited number of children with high fevers can outweigh the benefit of ____”

 

[fresh_42]

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

What about my cost argument?

If you catch measles in Denmark, the cure will generate costs. The necessary quarantine will create costs. The necessary examination of the person's contacts will create costs. And all these costs are carried by the community. So doesn't the community in reverse have the right to demand precaution ahead of the cost situation?

 

[russ_watters]

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

Then it isn't a reasonable approach and it is a very good thing the government is forcing this decision on you.

When you brought up death stats (even in a hand waving way), you made it sound like you wanted to make a rational choice and argue that you were worthy of making the choice yourself. Nope. You want the freedom/power without the associated responsibility. This is precisely why you aren't being allowed it.

 

[Orodruin]

I think it is also worth pointing out that I know that several of the people (I will not call out names though) who are in this thread arguing that this is a decision to be taken on a government level are generally people who otherwise tend to argue for minimal government interference in most aspects of politics and regulation. This should tell you something about how important it is to have a collective responsibility in this question and not allow a free choice. Free choice is a wonderful thing and you will often hear it argued that it is a cornerstone of democracy - and it is true. But just putting that forward is completely neglecting other democratic values such as strong democratic institutions and responsibilities of the individual to the democracy. It does make sense to have free choice when it does not affect others, but this is not the case here. Some very nice examples have already been raised in this thread. But let me recap some vaccines:

MMR vaccine: Measles is a deadly disease that could be eradicated by a rigorous vaccination program. Since measles is highly contagious, a large immunisation rate is necessary to achieve herd immunity. If you do not believe in herd immunity - it is actually a very simple concept and you should check it out. It is extremely easy to model and simulate. I have done it myself at times just for fun. Letting the individual decide for themselves puts herd immunity (and therefore a significant portion of the population, not to mention future generations) at risk.

TBE vaccination (I had a shot of this vaccine last week - for those concerned, I feel fine): For those who do not know it, TBE is tick-borne encephalitis, which is exactly what it sounds like. It is a disease carried by ticks (Sweden's most dangerous animal!) that can have severe consequences for the individual. However, the way to get infected is to get bitten by a tick, it is not contagious in the same fashion as measles. Here I have no problems allowing a free choice - the risk for a person living in an area where TBE exists and spends a certain amount of time in nature is purely personal. It has no direct effect on other individuals (except the additional healthcare costs that would be incurred on the state if one is infected).

Polio vaccine: Like measles, polio is a horrible disease that is vaccine preventable. It is likely to be the next major disease eradicated by vaccination programs. Luckily, the vaccine is very easy to administer and the eradication program is working a lot on information about vaccination. If eradication is successful, in a decade or two nobody will ever again have to be vaccinated against polio - just like smallpox. For those interested, see http://polioeradication.org
This could also be the case for measles in the longer term https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5745928/

 

[fresh_42]

... several of the people (I will not call out names though) who are in this thread arguing that this is a decision to be taken on a government level are generally people who otherwise tend to argue for minimal government interference in most aspects of politics and regulation.

Me, for example. Such a marginal interference of personal freedom which pays back multiple times, is nothing I would fight for. There are a lot more restrictions which really limit personal freedom to fight for instead! Or why does the US want to know my facebook account if I planned to visit, say the Grand Canyon? I bet the most likely argument will be that society must protect itself from evil. Well, exactly!

I know that one bad cannot be justified by something worse. So this isn't judging the issue, it is putting consequences into respect.