Pharyngula

Vaccines are good things

naro-vax

Maki Naro has put together a must-read primer on the basics of vaccination, in cartoon form, of course. Send it to all of your denialist friends and family!

Comments

  1. […] Source: Vaccines are good things [Pharyngula] […]

  2. #2 joseph
    December 28, 2014

    Missing from the primer are the science of scheduling, the science on the mixing of supplements and vaccines, and the abhorrent institutional practice of using third world countries’ children as laboratory mice to test efficacies of vaccines. Guinea-Bissau.

    The only science being practiced is statistics, with risk/benefits analyses and statistical insignificance of harmful effects.

  3. #3 thaddeusgadfly
    san diego
    December 29, 2014

    HPV VACCINE VAERS REPORTS AS OF 14 DEC 2011
    Description Total
    Disabled 872
    Deaths 114
    Did Not Recover 5,318
    Abnormal Pap Smear 490
    Cervical Dysplasia 195
    Cervical Cancer 56
    Life Threatening 493
    Emergency Room 9,706
    Hospitalized 2,669
    Extended Hospital Stay 220
    Serious 3,584

  4. #4 G
    December 29, 2014

    Oh look, the anti-vax nutters are already showing up.

    Hey Joseph & Thaddeus: Thanks for the measles and the whooping cough, idiots!

  5. #5 Chris
    December 30, 2014

    @Thaddeus: You know that’s just raw data, right? No proven or implied correlation to any vaccines.

  6. #6 joseph
    December 30, 2014

    @G

    Thanks for not caring about those killed by the institutional dissemination of the vaccines. At least, you can tell the surviving family members and their friends they didn’t suffer the measles and whooping cough. “The sacrifice of a few for the benefit of the many.”

    Go practice that motto in first-world nations, openly. But, no. You only tell the parents their children will be better off not getting the measles or whooping cough. You don’t tell them about the increased risk of dying because of factual data at this place or that place, because their lives and deaths were statistically insignificant. In the third-world countries, they would have died anyway, statistically speaking.

  7. #7 Joseph
    December 30, 2014

    I should also add, vaccines MAY be safe in isolation, i.e. in laboratories. Once it gets out into the wild, the ‘chaotic’ human nature determines the efficacy of the vaccine.

    Contaminants are all around us. No science lab will test for the interactions between MANY contaminant and vaccine. A few will be tested. That’s it.

    In Guinea-Bissau, Vitamin A supplements turned out to be a contaminant and lethal to some girls vaccinated.

    In first-worlds, it is likely there is a doctor around every corner and a hospital a bus ride away. Scheduling is not an issue. In third-worlds, WHO vaccine disseminations have to be budgetarily managed. One can’t circuitously drive to every remote village. No, they make the patients come ambulatorily to them, periodically. Re-scheduling is not an option. No science lab will test that kind of complexity of child development and contaminants. These third-world patients become, de facto, laboratory mice.

    Is there a better solution to the current regime? Only if we acknowledge such concerns can we move forward to a better solution with less negative impacts.

    At the moment, there is no financial incentive to do that. The vaccine production complex is a well-oiled machine with its vocal defenders, “Another anti-vax nutter!”

  8. #8 dean
    December 30, 2014

    “Thanks for not caring about those killed by the institutional dissemination of the vaccines.”
    “You don’t tell them about the increased risk of dying because of factual data at this place or that place,”

    There is no data to support such hysterical claims. Why do you feel the urge to tell such transparent lies?

  9. #9 A.D.
    January 2, 2015

    Wait a minute, so you’re arguing that vaccines are bad because bad stuff might have gotten into them at some point between their production and use? Seriously now?

    …How do you even eat? There might be bad stuff contaminating your food, y’now. Should we starve our children so that they don’t get all these bad contaminants and (gasp) chemicals into them? Or do you check the entire chain of supply for everything you buy?

    And let’s say that vaccines do result in serious negative effects (and they can, at very low rates). Do you think it’s sane and reasonable to opt out of a treatment that will help you almost all the time and end up harming one child out of say, a million? You prefer the 5% death rates of pre-vaccination measles outbreaks to the one-in-a-million deaths that we have now?

    Nope, I’m not having any of this. Do we need better vaccines? Sure do. Better ways of delivering them? Definitely. Better budgets for vaccine development? I’m on board. But for the meantime, everyone who can get vaccinated, should get vaccinated, because get this: if we stopped vaccination, more children would die in a year than they have died from adverse effects in the whole damn history of vaccination.

    It’s not picking between the lives of the few and of the many. It’s picking between six deaths per year and six million deaths per year. I know which I prefer.

  10. #10 Chris
    January 2, 2015

    A. D: Well put!

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.