Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
no, myth is inappropriate if only by virtue of those definitions you nicely provided. Of course there is science to support the positions you disagree with; you just don't seem to feel that science or its conclusions are compelling enough. I fear, however, you are indulging yourself at the expense of an honest discussion. If you want to claim there is an error in logic, that is different, imo.
This being the real world, one has to remember that vaccines are not perfect. They are not 100% effective, and there can be rare serious side effects. What differentiates anti-vaccine cranks from, for example, scientists who deal with issues of efficacy versus side effects and potential complications all the time, is exaggeration far beyond what the scientific data will support. For example, if the influenza vaccine is less efficacious than perhaps we would like (which is true), then it must be useless. This is, in essence, the Nirvana fallacy, wherein if something is not perfect it is claimed to be utterly worthless. Part and parcel of this approach involves the complement, namely vastly exaggerating the potential side effects and complications due to vaccines to paint them as being far more dangerous than the diseases they prevent.
For instance, individuals object to not being informed of all the risks, or of all the importantly relevant efficacy stats (does it work 99%, 80%, 75%; are all strains impacted, etc). If I expose myself to a vaccine that clearly will be influencing my immune system, I want to know if it is only effective against a single strain of a disease that has 300 strains, and that it only carries a 75% efficacy for that single strain, and maybe needs a a booster...Multiply parallel concerns by how many vaccines? You get the idea?
You speak of disingenuousness; the irony is striking, as this has been claimed to be a core issue concerning some manufacturers of vaccines, as well as their key "supporters".
Many, too, believe that vaccines can serve a good purpose, just not all vaccines at such an exposed age for infants and toddlers . . .
"Giving a child multiple vaccinations for different diseases at the same time increases the risk of harmful side effects and can overload the immune system".
Children are exposed to many foreign antigens every day. Eating food introduces new bacteria into the body, and numerous bacteria live in the mouth and nose, exposing the immune system to still more antigens. An upper respiratory viral infection exposes a child to four to ten antigens, and a case of "strep throat" to 25 - 50. According to "Adverse events Associated with childhood vaccines", a 1994 report from the Institute of Medicine in the United States, "In the face of these normal events, it seems unlikely that the number of separate antigens contained in childhood vaccines . . . would represent an appreciable added burden on the immune system that would be immuno-suppressive."
Indeed, available scientific data show that simultaneous vaccination with multiple vaccines has no adverse effect on the normal childhood immune system.
A number of studies and reviews have been conducted to examine the effects of giving various combinations of vaccines simultaneously. These studies have shown that the recommended vaccines are as effective in combination as they are individually, and that such combinations carry no greater risk for adverse side effects.
. . . There are two practical factors in favour of giving a child several vaccinations during the same visit. First, we want to immunize children as early as possible to give them protection during the vulnerable early months of their lives. This generally means giving inactivated vaccines beginning at two months and live vaccines at 12 months. The various vaccine doses thus tend to fall due at the same time. Second, giving several vaccinations at the same time will mean fewer clinic visits for vaccinations, which saves parents both time and money and may be less traumatic for the child.
Who recommends vaccines and what is considered in the recommendation process?
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sets the U.S. childhood immunization schedule based on recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)—a group of medical and public health experts. This schedule also is approved by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). To develop comprehensive recommendations for each vaccine, ACIP works throughout the year, reviewing available data on new and existing vaccines. The information ACIP reviews for each vaccine always includes—
- The safety and efficacy of the vaccine when given at specific ages—only vaccines licensed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are recommended, and vaccine makers must conduct rigorous tests to show that a vaccine is safe and effective at specific ages.
- The severity of the disease—vaccines recommended for children prevent diseases that can be serious for them, potentially causing long-term health problems or death.
- How many children get the disease if there is no vaccine—vaccines that do not provide benefit to many children may not be recommended.
- The differences in how well a vaccine works for children of different ages—the ability of vaccines to help the body produce immunity can vary depending on the age when the vaccine is given.
. . . or anyone whose immune system may not be fully developed or operational.
And then there is the notion that any govt should have the right to impose its will about the health of a purported majority of its citizens at the expense of the minority. Although this reflects democracy in its undiluted form, I think it also speaks to a darker and more dangerous aspect.
Even if immunization does prove risky for certain children, withholding the vaccine could pose a greater threat. Vaccine-preventable diseases can be particularly severe or even fatal for patients with metabolic disorders, says Marshall Summar, chief of the division of genetics and metabolism at the Children's National Medical Center in Washington DC.
Agreed: There IS too much at stake; in my opinion, that means too much at stake to cede such an important decision concerning one's family to state-protected corporations, bureaucrats, and organizations like the CDC. You have to weigh the data and make a personal call.
Btw, citing the CDC to this audience may not elicit the response you desire.
I believe if you feel a strong support for vaccines, then you should have the freedom to get them - for you and your family.
I just wish people would respect my right to decline them if I so choose.
Mississippi does not allow non-medical exemptions.When the vaccination schedule ultimately has to rely on force, rather than acceptance, for compliance, one has to question the strength of the argument for the schedule. Ironic too that the states and communities with the lowest levels of education tend to be among the ones with the best compliance (think Mississippi), and the states and communities with the highest levels of education (think Colorado) tend to be among the ones with the worst compliance...one would certainly think it would be quite the opposite.
I believe "vaccination" has become more religion than science, and I've never known or seen a single person's mind changed by arguing. I don't care that we can't agree, I do care that one side's faith is now being forced onto the other.
Mississippi does not allow non-medical exemptions.
Vaccinations are not faith-based...
The issue went before the Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts.Indeed they are. Unless you are invoking superior intellect, you have faith that the science regarding vaccines is settled, I have no such faith. I don't mind you having such faith, we all rely on faith in certain institutions to one extent or another, but I do mind you imposing your faith on me.
I'd love to see the issue before the Supreme Court but, having just finished The Great Courses series of lectures on the history of the Supreme Court, I'm not so inclined to have much faith in them either.
People who think vaccinations should be mandatory for healthy children have evidence, not faith, behind them.
... Vaccinations are known to be unsafe for some and there is an avenue for complaint in the USA, so why not put in a complaint...
If a person "put in a complaint" are they able to restore a normal life to the injured person? And why the need to indemnify the vaccine manufacturers, and deny a person a normal trial before a jury?
I already said that the process was imperfect. There is no point in quibbling over vocabulary.Science does not change as new evidence is found, @IreneF . Scientific opinion does.
Scientific opinion is not just predicated on evidence. It is also often a creature of perspective or interpretation. Ultimately, it is an amalgam of facts and perspectives and personalities.
Scientific opinion is not static. It changes. It can change about the same subject, and it has done this often.
Faith comes into play when you become vested in the belief that a given scientific opinion will not change.
My scientific opinion might not trump anyone else's - or visa versa. By the same token, for me, someone's faith does not give them the right to impose their beliefs on me or mine..
If a person "put in a complaint" are they able to restore a normal life to the injured person? And why the need to indemnify the vaccine manufacturers, and deny a person a normal trial before a jury?
. . . . Since 1988, when the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) began, more than 16,000 claims have been considered and a whopping $3.18 billion have been awarded to families alleging some kind of harm from vaccines. That sounds awfully damning, and in this case, unlike in so many other cases, the anti-vaccine crowd isn’t just making stuff up. The numbers are real and the federal government is the first to admit it.
. . . .
The purpose of the court is to reckon with the reality that while vaccines are every bit as safe and life-saving as health authorities say they are, no drug or medical procedure is entirely without risks. Since many millions of children get vaccinated every year, even a few bad outcomes could subject the drug-makers to a storm of liability suits. Some claims might be legitimate, but far more could be frivolous or even fraudulent. Either way, the endless litigation could drive up the costs of vaccines.
In order to ensure that vaccines would be as affordable and available as possible, Congress thus created the VICP, establishing a trust fund for awards financed by an excise tax of 75 cents on every vaccine administered. Under the program, cases are adjudicated on a no-fault basis, with attorneys for the government and attorneys for the families arguing before one of eight special masters. The goal is to settle the matter as quickly and fairly as possible, though petitioners (the no-fault system avoids the word “plaintiffs”) who are unhappy with the special master’s ruling are free to take their case to the traditional civil court system.
. . . .
Even without blame being established, the billions the government has handed over in payouts since the VICP was created does seem to suggest that a whole lot of people are being harmed. But that is not the case. From 2006 to 2014, approximately 2.5 billion doses of vaccines were administered in the U.S. In that time, a total of just 2,976 claims were adjudicated by the special masters and only 1,876 of those received compensation. Divide that number by the vaccine dose total and you get less than a one in a million risk of harm. Going all the way back to 1988—before the flu vaccine became part of the recommended schedule of vaccines—a total of 16,038 claims have been adjudicated and 4,150 have been compensated, bringing the total payouts up to the $3.18 billion figure.
. . . .
“In cases in which there is a lifetime injury, the award will be the equivalent of many millions of dollars,” says New York-based attorney Robert Krakow, who has represented petitioners in hundreds of vaccine injury claims. “It could be $20 million over a lifetime.” Just three such claims a year—out of the many millions of vaccines administered annually—0ver the course of the 27 years the VICP has been in effect can account for half of the total dollars spent on awards.
Scientific opinion is not just predicated on evidence. It is also often a creature of perspective or interpretation. Ultimately, it is an amalgam of facts and perspectives and personalities