very few people are against vaccines per se, they are just against *unsafe* vaccines. "anti-vax" is a term used to dismiss dissident without having to deal with their arguments i.e an ad hominem. As an analogy, if I object to high levels of mercury in fish, am I anti-fish? or anti-poisonous-fish ?

▲

kentm 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

The people that are against "unsafe" vaccines do not do the proper research to determine whether a vaccine is actually safe. These people claim that safe vaccines, like the COVID shots, are actually unsafe because they googled up some claims that were not rigorously researched or reviewed.

I had seen attempts to engage with these arguments in good faith. It was wasted effort.

▲

dotnet00 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

For just being "against *unsafe* vaccines" they sure tend to have some very weird ideas of what a safe vaccine is.

▲

8note 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"unsafe" is a loaded term

in your fish analogy, you eat mecury directly, but wont eat fish that might have mercury.

the communicable disease is itself quite dangerous

▲

boxerab 4 days ago | parent [-]

I think you missed the point. Granted the disease is dangerous, but what if the cure is worse ? If we don't know this is true, we ought to assume the risk outweighs the benefits until PROVEN otherwise- that is the precautionary principle. As an analogy take Vioxx, a headache remedy that caused thousands of heart attacks. Merck the manufacturer started an advertising campaign for the drug AFTER the learned it was killing people - they were ultimately fined 4.5 billion.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp048286

The docket shows us that pharmaceutical companies are serial felons who have paid some of the largest fines in history for lying about their products. It is prudent to be skeptical until proven otherwise.

	▲	braincat31415 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I agree. Pfizer settled more than a few cases. When talking about a low probability but catastrophic event, the burden lies on the side of the vaccine manufacturer and a mandating agency (and not on the side of the consumer) to prove beyond any doubt that the treatment is safe. I doubt Pfizer has met that bar. Edit: To all the pro-Pfizer downvoters, feel free to take some Zantac. You have learned nothing.

▲

antonvs 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Which vaccines that are widely used today do you believe are unsafe? And why do you believe they’re unsafe?

> “anti-vax" is a term used to dismiss [dissent]

No, it’s a term used to dismiss people who keep bringing up the same arguments that have been refuted over and over.

▲

AdrianB1 4 days ago | parent [-]

All the brand new vaccines with no sufficient testing can be considered unsafe. I like vaccines in general (I am European, we have lots of free and mandatory vaccines as kids), but I don't like to be a test subject for brand new ones. Yes, someone needs to test new vaccines to gather data about safety, but some people are more risk adverse. I am a "take it later" guy.

	▲	antonvs 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I specified "widely used", which effectively excludes brand-new vaccines. I don't have any issue with what you're describing. The J&J COVID vaccine would be an example of caution being advisable, since you never know what unusual interactions (e.g. with blood clotting) might occur in a larger population than the safety studies looked at. But that's not the usual definition of an anti-vaxxer. Anti-vaxxers carry on about things like thimerasol which (1) were removed from most vaccines 25 years ago and (2) give you an exposure to mercury equivalent to eating something like a single can of tuna.

▲

chris_wot 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We've been dealing with anti-vaxxers for years. I've yet to see an argument from one that holds any water.

▲

delichon 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> "anti-vax" is a term used to dismiss dissident without having to deal with their arguments i.e an ad hominem.

A slur.