This probably needs to be discussed for each vaccine separately. I am not an expert, but I can easily imagine a world where vaccine A contains harmful content, and vaccine B does not; or where vaccine C needs to be taken at very young age (e.g. because the disease is extra dangerous for the babies), but vaccine D does not. I can imagine some vaccines being harmful for people with specific genes.
Any of these claims about a specific vaccine can be right or wrong, and proving them right or wrong for a specific vaccine X does not tell us whether they are right or wrong for a different vaccine Y. So the claim of your relative about a specific vaccine can be correct, or can be complete bullshit, or anything in between (e.g. kinda true, but the risk in real life is negligible).
They also believe its an affront to freedom in general to force vaccinations.
This part is a value debate, not a factual debate. Vaccination is a form of trolley problem: we sacrifice the few people who get an adverse reaction to the vaccine, to save health and lives of the majority. Makes sense statistically; also makes you mad when it is your child thrown under the trolley. (The converse point is that when everyone else vaccinates their kids and you do not, you are free-riding on other people’s sacrifice, and your ethical concerns seem to them like self-serving bullshit.)
So… which vaccine specifically are we talking about, and what specifically is the “history of reactions in a family”? (Because many babies have a minor reaction; they may be crying for a day or for a week. Are we talking about that, or about something more serious?)
Note: I am not an expert, so even if you give me these answers, I can’t help you. But the data will probably be necessary for any expert who happens to join this debate.
I do agree that separate vaccines may have different safety concerns.
The ones my relative seems to dislike most are the DTAP, measles, and Flu vaccine. They seem to think these ones in particular are more dangerous/less effective (especially concerning effectiveness and the flu vaccine).
This part is a value debate, not a factual debate. Vaccination is a form of trolley problem: we sacrifice the few people who get an adverse reaction to the vaccine, to save health and lives of the majority. Makes sense statistically; also makes you mad when it is your child thrown under the trolley. (The converse point is that when everyone else vaccinates their kids and you do not, you are free-riding on other people’s sacrifice, and your ethical concerns seem to them like self-serving bullshit.)
This is true. I think my relative is partially mad at the whole trolley problem thing, partially mad that individuals maybe “could be saved” provided family history was taken into account, but aren’t because of a “corrupt medical system”
(Because many babies have a minor reaction; they may be crying for a day or for a week. Are we talking about that, or about something more serious?)
My nephew had seizures after I think the DTAP, but I’m not sure. I’m not sure if that is statistically relevant anyways. The family member in question seems to think that minor reactions might be indicative of future major reactions from different shots or booster shots for same disease.
It was here: “My nephew had seizures after I think the DTAP, but I’m not sure.” Yep, needs to be verified first.
Billions of safe vaccinations in the past, widely accepted as safe, solid scientific basis, etc.
Not an expert, but as far as I know, adverse reactions to vaccines are also a known thing. It’s just when you do the trolley calculation, the total damage from the adverse reactions is much smaller than the counterfactual total damage from the disease if people were not vaccinated.
If the chance of adverse reaction is roughly the same for everyone, there is nothing you can do about it. But if it turns out that e.g. a minority of people with some specific gene has an unusually strong adverse reaction, it would make sense to make an exception for them.
This probably needs to be discussed for each vaccine separately. I am not an expert, but I can easily imagine a world where vaccine A contains harmful content, and vaccine B does not; or where vaccine C needs to be taken at very young age (e.g. because the disease is extra dangerous for the babies), but vaccine D does not. I can imagine some vaccines being harmful for people with specific genes.
Any of these claims about a specific vaccine can be right or wrong, and proving them right or wrong for a specific vaccine X does not tell us whether they are right or wrong for a different vaccine Y. So the claim of your relative about a specific vaccine can be correct, or can be complete bullshit, or anything in between (e.g. kinda true, but the risk in real life is negligible).
This part is a value debate, not a factual debate. Vaccination is a form of trolley problem: we sacrifice the few people who get an adverse reaction to the vaccine, to save health and lives of the majority. Makes sense statistically; also makes you mad when it is your child thrown under the trolley. (The converse point is that when everyone else vaccinates their kids and you do not, you are free-riding on other people’s sacrifice, and your ethical concerns seem to them like self-serving bullshit.)
So… which vaccine specifically are we talking about, and what specifically is the “history of reactions in a family”? (Because many babies have a minor reaction; they may be crying for a day or for a week. Are we talking about that, or about something more serious?)
Note: I am not an expert, so even if you give me these answers, I can’t help you. But the data will probably be necessary for any expert who happens to join this debate.
I do agree that separate vaccines may have different safety concerns.
The ones my relative seems to dislike most are the DTAP, measles, and Flu vaccine. They seem to think these ones in particular are more dangerous/less effective (especially concerning effectiveness and the flu vaccine).
This is true. I think my relative is partially mad at the whole trolley problem thing, partially mad that individuals maybe “could be saved” provided family history was taken into account, but aren’t because of a “corrupt medical system”
My nephew had seizures after I think the DTAP, but I’m not sure. I’m not sure if that is statistically relevant anyways. The family member in question seems to think that minor reactions might be indicative of future major reactions from different shots or booster shots for same disease.
What about the idea that claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence?
Evidence for safety of vaccines? Billions of safe vaccinations in the past, widely accepted as safe, solid scientific basis, etc.
Evidence for your Uncle’s claims?
It was here: “My nephew had seizures after I think the DTAP, but I’m not sure.” Yep, needs to be verified first.
Not an expert, but as far as I know, adverse reactions to vaccines are also a known thing. It’s just when you do the trolley calculation, the total damage from the adverse reactions is much smaller than the counterfactual total damage from the disease if people were not vaccinated.
If the chance of adverse reaction is roughly the same for everyone, there is nothing you can do about it. But if it turns out that e.g. a minority of people with some specific gene has an unusually strong adverse reaction, it would make sense to make an exception for them.
Hopefully genetic widespread genetic tests will help with this.
That’s a fair point. I don’t know of any studies that showed vaccines are dangerous.