Forums >Health and Nutrition>Flu shot heresy
Otium cum dignitate
With consensus unlikely on this issue, can we at least agree to throttle back on the rhetoric?
Good Bad & The Monkey
wasn't there 'credible scientific research' during the 20th century that said that smoking was good for you, asbestos was harmless, forced lobotomies were a promising remedy for people with mental health problems, etc ... ?
Not by the standards of today's science, the standards to which current influenza research is held.
I'm running somewhere tomorrow. It's going to be beautiful. I can't wait.
Poor baby
But wouldn't the scientists of yesterday have said the same thing about their research? Regardless, my concern is less about the topic (in fact, I'll get the H1N1 shot when it becomes available) and more about the tone coming from some of those on the pro-vaccination side - it has too much the whiff of current political debate (vilify the opposition). If the other side is "insane" and you're "pissed" at them from the get go, dialogue is not really possible. I was just trying to give a context that might encourage understanding, with agreement probably impossible.
Imminent Catastrophe
wasn't there 'credible scientific research' during the 20th century that said that smoking was good for you,...
No, that was a Woody Allen movie. Sleeper.
"Able to function despite imminent catastrophe"
"To obtain the air that angels breathe you must come to Tahoe"--Mark Twain
"The most common question from potential entrants is 'I do not know if I can do this' to which I usually answer, 'that's the whole point'.--Paul Charteris, Tarawera Ultramarathon RD.
√ Javelina Jundred Jalloween 2015
Cruel Jewel 50 mile May 2016
Western States 100 June 2016
But wouldn't the scientists of yesterday have said the same thing about their research?
So many people are exasperated that there are so many out there who ignore the clear and obvious risk of not vaccinating out of a fear of well-disproven and therefore nonexistent risks of vaccinating. And in doing so, they put others at risk.
Exactly.
But in the end a lot of people believe what they want to believe irrespective of the data, information, facts, etc. And as you said, their actions (or inactions) put others at risk.
(Nothing new here; just exasperating.)
Trent, I don't think there's anyone who disputes that vaccines are effective in helping stop people from 'getting diseases that make them sick', at least, I'd not take anyone seriously who'd argue such (which was your point, I guess), but it's the long term impact of the vaccines that are in question for most of the people I know who are of the skeptical camp mentioned above. These are folks who are concerned that the science that's 'danged good' today is going to be trumped by science that's 'danged better' tomorrow, but only after some unfortunate and possibly significant side-effect occurs the likes of which might make dealing with our exasperation at their hesitancy today seem like small potatoes. Like it or not, these are people who believe that precedent has been set which lends credence to a lack of trust in the 'establishment', political or medical, and as a result, they see themselves as rational as do those on the other side of the issue (and, I imagine, as exasperated, as well).
This has been an interesting exercise - I had been unaware of this debate until reading this thread after my long run today and though I'm pretty certain I wouldn't be welcomed by the most "ferocious" of the anti-vaccinators (because, as stated, I have been and will continue to be vaccinated), I've found myself arguing their side. Perhaps this is a good way to generate healthier dialogue on the topic ... or maybe not ... either way, I'm going to bed.
rectumdamnnearkilledem
Getting the wind knocked out of you is the only way to
remind your lungs how much they like the taste of air.
~ Sarah Kay
Feeling the growl again
The problem is that rational people cannot have a productive dialogue with irrational people. If someone is going to believe that vaccines cause autism despite the numerous studies showing no linkage, if they are going to not take them because there MAY be some long-term effect found in the future yet we KNOW kids are dying today, how do you have a rational dialogue with such a person? Technicalities like facts, probabilities, and fundamental laws of science do not prevent them from clinging to their conspiracy theories and internet urban legends.
While this has been going on, an otherwise perfectly healthy little girl in Beechwood, IN nearly died from H1N1. Her brother recovered but she just got sicker and was hospitalized, and also developed pneumonia. They interviewed her mother on TV talking about how she'd thought H1N1 was no big deal and they were just trying to scare everyone. Until now.
Most people recover fine (I think my whole family has had it already, and it hit my pregnant wife a LOT harder than the rest of us) but it sucks if a $25 shot could have prevented your kid from being one of the few like the girl mentioned above.
"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand
I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills
Right. Also, nobody says that vaccines are safe. Only that they are relatively safer than the risk of contracting and getting seriously ill from one of the diseases against which they protect. The chance of dropping dead from influenza or its complications, even if you are an otherwise healthy and active adult, are substantially higher than some theoretic risk that some random person on the internet or on television hypothesized, and yet which all science to date has been unable to show. It is all about weighing risks.
I won't try to reach consensus with a drunk driver speeding through my neighborhood. They are endangering everyone around them.
Look, the science is in and it's unequivocal. You and I are sitting here typing, not having died from polio, smallpox, diphtheria, tetanus, or any other number of diseases that used to kill hundreds of millions, precisely because our parents wisely had us vaccinated against those threats.
Sure, you can require a 10-year safety study on each and every drug to try and prove there is no long term risk. You can require a sample size of 2 million people to make sure there is no tiny tiny risk. And then you can hope you are happy with whatever treatments are available today, because development of new ones will cease.
The identification of new side effects not seen in clinical trials of 1000s of people after the drug has reached the market and used to treat millions is not new, and it will happen again. But people need to stop anchoring just on the risk and look at what we're getting in return. My grandmother was distraught when they took Vioxx off the market, it was the ONLY thing that was helping with her pain. To her, the benefit was worth the risk.
One day at a time
"With consensus unlikely on this issue, can we at least agree to throttle back on the rhetoric?"
Throttle back? Throttle back?? No. I do thank you - you've convinced me I need to push even harder. This is absurd. PEOPLE ARE RISKING THE LIVES OF OTHER PEOPLE, don't you get it?? My head is exploding again.