Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Undertoad
Something neurological OR something psychosomatic.
|
And yet you are so personally offended (and rightly so, in my opinion) when someone suggests
your symptoms are psychosomatic, and yours don't even have overt physical symptoms. You are dismissing this woman's problem as psychosomatic
only because she has made the connection that the vaccine happened just before onset, which is exactly the reason the dystonia foundation has "reviewed the videos" and come to that conclusion as well. Except for you, the reason is only cognitive dissonance--you know vaccines are safe because you believe pharmaceutical researchers have been honest with themselves and with you, so it must not be possible that this vaccine damaged her in the way she says it has. (Which is funny, since the CDC will readily admit such things are possible, they just point out the numbers are very small and the benefits outweigh the risks.) In the case of the dystonia foundation, it is both cognitive dissonance and political pressure. Maybe some had doubts, maybe some didn't, but it would certainly be a career-ender for any member of that team to come to any conclusion other than the one they did.
This is a woman who received a flu vaccine every single year up to this point; she was not an anti-vaccine proponent looking for a scandal. You want to tell me that 'them's the breaks, one woman with a severe muscular disorder is worth it for thousands of people to be saved from the flu,' then fine, I'll accept that you feel that way. But it is hypocritical for you to broadly declare that all she needs is a little talk therapy, and just as offensive to me as when someone says it to you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by glatt
Let's use your numbers. The vaccine has killed 44 people since its inception a few years ago. It's been out for a few years now, so it's like 10 deaths or so a year. (a guesstimate) On the other hand you have 2,800 cancer deaths in a year. That's the fair comparison. 10 vs 2,800. Death vs. death. Cancer is 280 times deadlier than the vaccine.
The chart said that the odds of dying of cervical cancer are 1 in 500 and dying of the vaccine are 1 in 145,000. According to that chart, cancer is 290 times deadlier than the vaccine.
The chart talks about lifetime risks, and your numbers are annual risks, but the comparison winds up in the same ballpark. Cancer is 280 times deadlier according to your numbers and 290 times deadlier according to the chart's numbers.
When you compare injuries to death, the results can be wildly different but then you aren't comparing apples to apples. If you want to talk about the number of serious side effects, then on the other arm of the scale, you should be talking about women who have survived cancer.
Compare deaths to deaths, and injuries to injuries. Compare annual risks to annual risks, and lifetime risks to lifetime risks.
|
That's a fair numbers-to-numbers comparison. It would be interesting to know what the rate of lifelong complications are among cervical cancer survivors. But I would still point out that getting cervical cancer is not a purely statistical chance. The rate of cervical cancer deaths has not gone down yet despite the use of the vaccine, because the people responsible enough to go to the doctor to get vaccinated are by and large not the people who are getting the disease in the first place. If you believe your daughter will attend her annual gynecological exams, and have a responsible sex life as an adult, then her personal risk of cervical cancer is far, far lower than the national average. No one can yet pinpoint the risk factors for vaccine reaction though, so her risk for that is going to stay just as high as it is now until someone can.
Everyone's got to make their own call about their own risk level. But it's not a game of Russian Roulette, individual behavior
does play a role.