[topologistics]

Dividing the issue into pro-vax and anti-vax spreads FUD and obscures the real problems: what preservatives are in the vaccines, what growth medium proteins are in the vaccines due to improper filtering and poor manufacturing processes, how many vaccines are administered at what age, and what all of that that has to do vaccines harming kids (which happens all the time)... bring up any of these issues and you'll be attacked as an antivaxxer who's trying to send us back to the stone age.

[kerkeslager]

No. Impurity problems have occasionally come up over the years, but they have largely been addressed quickly by existing regulations. And at no point have they ever approached the level of risk posed by the return of deadly infectious diseases. Age-related harms are largely unproven, and while they certainly warrant research, the percentage of issues again doesn't approach significance with comparison to infectious diseases.

There isn't a mass conspiracy of doctors to cover up the harms done to kids by vaccinations. The harms are understood well enough, now, to know unambiguously that the tradeoff of vaccinating your kids is more than worth it. More knowledge is always worthwhile, but we have enough knowledge now to decide that vaccinations are unambiguously the right path, and there is no scientific basis for reopening the discussion on that subject.

The "real problems" are the returning infectious diseases which have the potential to kill millions of people. I simply do not care about the issues you are bringing up when i.e. the return of rubella or polio is a real possibility.

[larrik]

I think the fact that we need to portray vaccines as essentially infallable in order to combat the insanity of the anti-vax movement is indeed very dangerous and worrisome. There's so much nonsense to combat that having an actual conversation is impossible.

After all, vaccines aren't risk-free, but they don't cause autism.

[Latty]

This is one of these things that is technically true, but still misleading.

Nothing is risk-free. Eating food has risk, taking paracetamol has risk, getting blood drawn has risk.

Saying something has risk without talking about the amount of risk and the context of the risks it mitigates is pointless.

Vaccines introduce negligible amounts of risk. Giving your child a peanut or taking them for a drive is much riskier, and we almost all do those things without a second thought. By contrast, they mitigate huge risks: the diseases we vaccinate against can, did and do cause horrific harm up to and including death, and do so very well.

Vaccines are not immune to criticism, it is just they have weathered all the reasonable criticism leveled at them. If you are willing to put your child in a car, giving them a vaccine should be a complete non-issue for you.

[Latty]

The reason you get "attacked as an antivaxer" is because you are using weasel words to come to a conclusion that is not supported by any evidence, and presenting it as basic fact.

The claims that all of these vague areas you point to might be issues are clearly just designed to put doubt into people's minds. They sound like they could be reasonable concerns, but I have never seen any evidence to back any of these up as real issues, despite intense scrutiny of vaccines.

[aldoushuxley001]

Yup, some conversations you’re just not allowed to have. Same with discussing the degree to which humans are contributing to climate change.