Hacker News Reader

Comment by rootusrootus | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Some vaccines can be good, some vaccines can be bad; why is that so hard to understand?

There aren't any vaccines I can think of that made it past clinical trials and were a net negative. There are possibly some cases where they were a net negative for a subgroup of the population or where a batch was contaminated, but I don't think that counts as overall "bad".

Either you're using a different definition of bad, or you've got some information I don't have, or you're wrong.

>that made it past clinical trials

What do you mean by this? Perhaps, that some of them are bad and thus shouldn't be used by the general population?

No, he meant that we don't use vaccines that are bad.

>some of them are bad and thus shouldn't be used by the general population

>No, he meant that we don't use vaccines that are bad.

By "he", you mean me?

I don't understand your point. Vaccines that don't make it past clinical trails are not used. So there are no vaccines that were used that were net negative bad. Does it make it clear?

What I meant was that the general population can't use those vaccines anyway, unless they do the synthesis on their own or get into a clinical trial, so it's disingenuous to talk about them in the context of public safety.

Making a claim about the safety of pre-approval vaccines is misleading because it's claiming one uncontroversial true thing ("some vaccines in development are found to be net negative in trials and do not progress further") that sounds superficially similar to a scary untrue thing ("getting vaccinated by your doctor with an approved vaccine may be net negative across the population") and hoping everyone else will confuse the two.

In this case "some vaccines are bad" was clearly intended to be an ambiguous statement, otherwise it would have been more detailed about which exact vaccines were bad.

The vaccine was introduced after polio prevalence was already plummeting.

I would hardly call that "plummeting" considering the baseline

https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/resear...

I'm sorry... this is ridiculous. I'm not vaccine-heavy (like I don't really think you need a chickenpox vaccine or a rotavirus vaccine if you're healthy or a Hep B vaccine at birth if you're low risk), but the idea of forgoing vaccines for illnesses like polio is just stupid. Too many kids died or were disabled for this. It's just stupid.

The injectable vaccine is safe and has been used for decades. There should really be no objection to it. The oral ones are a different story and I wouldn't let my kid anywhere near those (too high a risk of polio)

I'm not anti-vax, though but my daughter actually got chicken pox from the vaccine. It sucked - we had to get her vaccined to fly back east, so we did... flew and it was supposed to be a trip to chicago zoo but she got CP then night we got there and spent a couple days in the hotel bath with calamine.

I got the chicken pox twice. Once at 6 months. and at 14y.

Cutter incident - The mistake produced 120,000 doses of polio vaccine that contained live polio virus. Of children who received the vaccine, 40,000 developed abortive poliomyelitis (a form of the disease that does not involve the central nervous system), 56 developed paralytic poliomyelitis—and of these, five children died from polio.[2] The exposures led to an epidemic of polio in the families and communities of the affected children, resulting in a further 113 people paralyzed and 5 deaths.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutter_Laboratories

I already addressed this concern. I am categorically against live polio vaccines. Thankfully, today, only the oral one is live. There is no longer live injectible vaccine.

The inactivated injectible vaccine is very safe.

You reference an incident from 1955 when injectible vaccines were similar to oral ones today. Don't take these. Luckily, in 2024, you don't have to.

It is irresponsible TODAY to not get vaccinated. None of what I wrote above applies to 1955.

You're smarter than this.

>"You're smarter than this."

Regardless of how correct you are, or how persuasive you might have been up to this point, uttering this accomplishes nothing and is entirely counterproductive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com