2011.03.05 Q'uo on Vaccines

[Louisabell]

https://gizmodo.com/it-took-two-months-a...37421?IR=T

I am not an anti-vaxxer, and I do no like to engage in pushing fear mongering information onto already stressed parents. I would like to shed some light on why stories like this (which has been republished on many news sites all over the world) do little to alleviate the fears of anti-vaxxers, and I think it's because stories like the one linked below gets barely any press coverage:

https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/family-se...b88344054z

Now, I don't think pushing an agenda based on a case report of one person is useful at all (on both sides) because in a population so large, these events are so statistically insignificant that it shouldn't factor into anyones decision making. That is the problem with basing conclusions on anecdotal information. We need to move beyond this way of thinking, and the pro-vax side doesn't help by continuing to foster that type of thinking.

Moreover, in Australia there is NO compensation program for vaccine injury cases, and you cannot sue over the death of your child over vaccine injury because there is no legal case to sue for grievance alone. So in a country with some of the most pro-mandatory vaccine policies "No Jab No Pay/Play", there is literally no avenue to get any compensation whatsoever for your child if the worst occurred. This man in the story I linked is only able to present a legal case to the health minister because of loss of income as he is no longer able to work. I also find it quite the coincidence that the WA police decided to target his home for a 6AM drug raid.

If vaccine companies were still liable for vaccine injury cases then they would have to pay insurance companies to cover them for indemnity. They would have to negotiate with the insurance company to uphold certain protocols in order to minimise their risk exposure. For example, each batch would have to be tested and safe transport and storage procedures upheld. There would be quite a bit of reporting involved at each junction. By removing the liability on vaccine companies they no longer need to do this. Not only does this make the product cheaper, but it also satisfies the intention of the legislation which is to ensure the consistent supply of vaccines to every person in every part of the country. The government has chosen that this is more important then the few odd cases of vaccine injury caused by the lowering of safety standards. And perhaps they have a case, especially if they want to assure herd immunity with a 99% vaccination rate.

It's easy to assume people think the way they do because they're idiots. It takes a lot more time and effort to hear them out. Many "informed consent" people just want to see well-designed long term studies showing that the current vaccine schedule is safe. You might think this has been well and truly done, but unfortunately many studies are short-term or case controlled and not comparing vaccinated children with non-vaccinated children. Also ONE study is not enough to prove anything, it needs to be repeated. Meta-analyses are the gold standard.  

Anyway, after all this, I am not anti-vax, and if I had children I would vaccinate them. But I would also definitely record and report the whole experience so that if I am that "one in a million" that gets an adverse reaction I would want it well documented.