is there any ACTUAL proof that vaccines are dangerous, more than the diseases that they stop? Please don't just list TEH SPOOKY CHEMICALS that they have. I want hard evidence, because it seems like everytime a ton of people refuse to vaccinate themselves, we have a disease outbreak that could have been easily prevented
There are study databases which have only corporate interest and grants in mind. Is it so confounded to think this cuts both ways in that corporations can control both the flow and ebb of scientific information? Vaccines make a lot of money, some people would be much poorer without them existing.
A small number of people will suffer side effects to any vaccine that are adverse enough to be considered significant. For influenza, for example, it's on the order of 1 in 1 million. But those risks are carefully weighed against the benefits of the vaccine, and since we tend to only produce vaccines for diseases with widespread and serious consequences, it always works out to be of net benefit to be vaccinated (and to convince/help everyone else to be vaccinated, too).
It's the most widely studied issue in public health, with an absolutely massive body of peer-reviewed evidence from mostly independent researchers in favour of this conclusion.
Well, it doesn't always work out that way. A while back I was travelling internationally and wanted to get a bunch of vaccinations. My doctor talked me out of one of them on the grounds that the vaccine tended to have side effects, didn't provide terribly strong immunity, and although the disease would ruin my trip (and the rest of my month) it wouldn't cause permanent harm if I was unlucky enough to catch it, which I probably wouldn't even be exposed unless I was a hospital worker or something. So, the balance went the other way for that vaccine, for my situation.
But that's pretty different from the flu / pertussis / polio / tetanus / etc shots that people are mostly talking about
That makes sense. For one trip, your risk of exposure would be small. But if you lived in that place and were constantly exposed, it might be worth it, and as you said, for hospital workers it definitely would.
The point is that the data is always available to be able to make that decision, and public vaccination initiatives are based upon that data.
Doesn't exist. This isn't math, and this isn't some fantasy world where you verifiably have absolute knowledge of the whole and entirety of all things.
The word you're looking for is "evidence", or "indication". Scientific thought should be backed by inherent uncertainty, don't seek out binary answers. The best we've got is the implications of a set of evidence and how much confidence can be invested in a given conclusion based on it.
There have been some flare ups of measles recently b/c anti-vax is gaining popularity among some groups.
That said, it hasn't been anything like what happened before the vaccine was developed.
Let's talk about flu shots instead. Why do people get these things again? Is there any evidence it meaningfully reduces influenza rates relative to their risks, compared to other approaches?
>all mercury compounds have the same biological activity
you're a fucking idiot, not that this is going to convince you of anything:
It shouldn't convince anyone of anything. Primary literature, or don't bother.
This is /sci/, and science is not a religion. Don't encourage people's tendency to line up and adopt the views of whatever perceived authority figure happens to be speaking. It's fucked us before, it's fucking us right now, and it'll fuck us all again.
Just don't do it.
>is there any ACTUAL proof that vaccines are dangerous
There is the problem right there.
People either say that all vaccines are good or all vaccines are bad, there's no other opinion being presented.
How is it possible for all vaccines to be good or bad when they are made for dozens of different diseases, in different countries, by different companies, etc..?