General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Neil DeGrasse Tyson Tells Bill Maher That Anti-Science Liberals Are Full of Shit Too [View all]Orrex
(63,334 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 9, 2016, 04:49 PM - Edit history (1)
I don't believe that you maintain that requirement for anything else in the universe, so I see no reason to accept that bogus standard here.
As you note, "safety" is indeed a relative term, and it depends on many factors. For instance:
Is the proposed treatment safer than infection by the disease prevented by that treatment?
For modern vaccines, the answer is a resounding and unequivocal yes.
Does the probability of the treatment causing lethal or permanent side effects exceed the probability of lethal or permanent effects of the disease prevented by that treatment?
For modern vaccines, the answer is a resounding and unequivocal no.
Does the proposed treatment have a well-established record of safety after (in many cases) millions of successful uses without serious demonstrable complication?
For modern vaccines, the answer is a resounding and unequivocal yes. Even the HPV vaccine, in use only a few short years, shows a phenomenally good safety record.
Does anything in the history of the universe meet the proposed safety standard requiring that it is "perfectly harmless and never cause problems or adverse side-effects?"
The answer is a resounding and unequivocal "obviously not."
On balance, I would say that vaccines meet any reasonable safety requirement, certainly on par with (or greatly exceeding) any other non-topical medical treatment. And here are two additional bonus questions asked and answered:
Is there a legitimate reason to hold vaccines to this arbitrary, preposterous and unattainable standard?
The answer is a resounding and unequivocal "obviously not."
Does the demand that vaccines meet this arbitrary, preposterous and unattainable standard suggest that the person is an anti-vaxer who doesn't actually understand science despite dubious claims to the contrary?
The answer is a resounding and unequivocal "yes."