>if it was so clear cut and widespread, these vaccines would be pulled from the market yesterday

That argument is empirically false, as there have been multiple medications and vaccinations which did widespread harm.

Granted, nearly all of them occurred 30+ years ago. However I don't think we should ever claim we've advanced to the point where we _know_ that there are _no_ medications or vaccinations that are causing problems we aren't aware of yet, especially given how long it might take for those problems to manifest themselves.

Not an argument against vaccination at all, just an argument for intellectual humility.

Yes, and those vaccines were pulled.

Once a vaccine has shown to be just remotely as dangerous as the illness it is trying to prevent, it becomes pointless and is no longer available. The respective regulative bodies in either country are rather strict about which vaccine is allowed to circulate.

Those vaccines were pulled _eventually_. We cannot know if we're in the period where harm is being done but before it's realized and the vaccine then pulled.

Most "Vaccine injured" children have a no vaccine related cause to their problems. It has become hip to blame autism on vaccines even though there is no relation.

Something like 1 in million do have a serious side effect of the vaccine. This is far less than the 6000 dead in Congo because they don't have the vaccine, but it isn't zero. The fact that it is far less is reason to vaccinate anyway - but if doctors can determine that your child is one of that 1 in a million before hand (they normally cannot!) it would be wise to skip vaccination for just those kids.

People who are immunocompromised or who have an autoimmune condition may get serious complications from vaccines. It is, in fact, a well known contraindication.

Some people do not know they are in one of those groups, and ARE likely to experience harm. These groups (unaware immune issues) are statistically insignificant compared to the entire population, of course.

But ignoring them is in fact contributing to the antivax movement; primes are statistically rare but if you told people they don’t exist, you would be working for the antimath movement.

I fully agree.

The problem is: Even to well educated parents the summary "Everyone could be affected by life-long effects due to vaccination" has a drastically different meaning compared to an objective bystander that looks at the real numbers, and this leads to (seemingly irrational) decisions. Some even are mislead into feeding crusades against this "well known danger called vaccination".

>if it was so clear cut and widespread, these vaccines would be pulled from the market yesterday

bipson, Ever read of Vioxx or Thalidomide? Yes it was pulled, a tad late though. What is the point that you are trying to make that somebody doesn't already know?

1. Yes, I heard about them. And the point remains, as soon as their effects were discovered, they were pulled.

2. These are not vaccines, but medications. So this has virtually nothing to do with "known vaccine-induced ongoing illnesses"

Which is the prisoner’s dilemma I mentioned earlier - if you already enjoy herd immunity, why risk being part of the group in which the problems are discovered?

>Yes, I heard about them. And the point remains, as soon as their effects were discovered, they were pulled.

Then you have not read of Vioxx or Thalidomide in sufficient detail. There were also massive coverups (or being dismissive of reported negative effects) did you notice that when you read it?

> These are not vaccines, but medications.

bipson, what the point that you are trying to make? Is it that the production/administration of vaccines (but not medications) are not prone to incompetence and coverups by govt, pharma? It is not a rhetorical question.

Hmm, I don't know anyone whose personally got an ongoing condition attributed to a vaccine.

Scarlett fever vaccine (decades ago) made me very ill. Flu vaccine this year seemed (it could be coincidental) to make one of my children ill enough to be off school. These are expected consequences.

It's also expected that some few people will die and others will have life altering conditions. These vaccines should still be used, because vaccines address the needs of a population in the first instance.

Why adding the last paragraph, in particular the first sentence of it?

Although I can't prove the sentence incorrect as such, it is stated in such a vague and alarmist way, that it could easily taken as an example of fueling the FUD?

What's the problem, you don't believe vaccination causes any harm, ever? Just look up a vaccine (eg https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/1159), febrile seizures, conjunctivitis, anorexia, etc., even just the vaccination might render someone dead/hospitalised through anaphylaxis.

You know crossing the road can kill too. You'll probably be fine, but I'm not going to lie and say you'll never be the one who gets hit. If I did lie to you, then you heard about someone getting hit, you should then not trust me and be hesitant about taking advice from me. Now, do you see how this works with something like flu vaccine? "It's perfectly safe" and "≥10%" get minor illness from it are not the same thing - saying the former when the evidence supports the latter means someone won't trust you for health advice even if you're objectively the best source because they can no longer be as objective about it.