tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576825418451862429.post7631650308693608992..comments2021-08-06T06:22:24.902-07:00Comments on Sociologist in Fall Creek Place: Vaccine Deniers vs. Scientific DataJeramy Townsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12909937186891077417noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576825418451862429.post-71101382701758344972014-04-30T09:43:09.160-07:002014-04-30T09:43:09.160-07:00To your second concern, I can certainly point you ...<br />To your second concern, I can certainly point you to the myriad of a century of vaccine side-effect reports that pharmaceutical companies and governments produce when testing vaccines, which are then subsequently evaluated by institutions such as the FDA, etc. For all vaccines, such safety data is verified on numerous levels by numerous agencies. However, such data is typically distrusted by people who are opposed to vaccines, who often believe the safety data is fabricated. So pointing a person who distrusts vaccines to safety data is often pointless, since they have already seen it, and reject it because they distrust the labs that produced the data, and the agencies that verified the data, as corrupt. There is little I can do to convince such people of the validity of safety data, other than simply to point to reality--if the products were harmful, then where is the evidence--not anecdotes and conspiracy theories, but incontrovertible evidence of falsified data and harm from vaccines? Such data doesn't exist, other than for specific batches of specific vaccines, representing a very small fraction of vaccines, and the costs of not vaccinating are now being seen in the US with a series of "old" diseases re-emerging that new physicians have never seen, simply because vaccination programs of the 1950s-1980s functionally eradicated them. To argue that "I would rather be safe that sorry, by not vaccinating than take a risk of causing harm from the vaccine" is identical to saying "I will never take any medicine because of the risk of harm," since all medications have side effects, even aspirin and herbs, and there is a risk of death, however remote, from consuming any kind of substance. Jeramy Townsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12909937186891077417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576825418451862429.post-53036834289460436462014-04-30T09:42:56.456-07:002014-04-30T09:42:56.456-07:00Thanks for your comments. Regarding your first co...Thanks for your comments. Regarding your first concern, about pre-vaccine mortality, it's undeniable that some communicable diseases had declining incidence prior to widespread vaccine. However, part of what you see in the details of the chronological data above, is that after widespread vaccinations for specific diseases, the incidence of that disease dramatically fell. Further, there is a population curve based on the percent of the population that was vaccinated in different communities compared to the incidence of that disease in that community. These, and other similar kinds of comparative data, strongly indicate a primary contributing factor to the dramatic reduction of the specific disease associated with specific vaccinations. <br /><br />A related issue, is that the argument stemming from your broader point, "disease had radically decreased due to other public health measures, like sanitation," typically ignores the radically different nature of the various diseases, as well as the radically different nature of vaccines. There is no one "type" of cause for communicable diseases, and no one "type" of vaccine to eliminate the disease. Take the disease we call "influenza," which is caused by a virus. One of the fundamental biological difficulties in talking about "viral diseases" for people who haven't had a class specifically on virology, is that we imagine all viruses are basically alike with minor differences, just like all humans are basically alike, even though we come in various colors, sizes, etc. Viruses are not "different" in the way that humans are "different"--you have DNA viruses, RNA viruses, single and double-stranded viruses, etc. Talking about the diversity between viruses is far more like talking about the diversity in ocean-dwelling organisms than talking about the diversity of humans. For example, in the ocean you have mammals, fish, algae, corals, etc--that breadth of diversity is the kind of diversity you see in viruses. All of this just to point out that any vaccine we produce for any given viral disease will likely not have much bearing on a possible vaccine for other viral diseases, and each of the anti-viral vaccines function in dramatically different ways. A second important factor, is that there is no "one influenza virus" for which we can vaccinate--the virus mutates so rapidly that every year, our "flu vaccine" is a predicted mixture of 3 different types of anti-influenza vaccines that we "guess" will be active in any given season. Sometimes people who oppose vaccines use influenza vaccine failure rates as an example of why all vaccines likely are prone to failure. But that argument ignores the fundamental biology of virii,and vaccines.<br />Jeramy Townsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12909937186891077417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4576825418451862429.post-57534327867518406302014-03-29T16:38:34.246-07:002014-03-29T16:38:34.246-07:00It looks like you have taken an unemotional approa...It looks like you have taken an unemotional approach to this, which is very hard to find, however, you fail to discuss the very low incidence rate (percentage wise) pre-vaccine, or the declining mortality rate. If mortality rates were dropping pre-vaccine, do you still feel it is responsible to attribute the current lack of deaths to the vaccine? <br /><br />Also, the most important aspect in this "argument" is really the rate of adverse events versus severe reactions to the natural disease. Have you done any research into the data regarding adverse events?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com