No I'm not ok with it, if a good mechanic can give you risks, benefits and alternatives with your car than certainly an MD should be required to. If they fail to do so then I would be looking for another Dr.
In my experience, you would be looking for another doctor for a while... although to be fair, they would have to spend a considerable amount of time with each patient if they actually had to discuss things like odds of catching disease and the various vaccine adverse events that may occur.
And yes, the overwhelming majority of experts who are most conversant with the data are pro-vaccination, I'm not sure why you'd be surprised.
I didn't say I was surprised, I noted that in the rare instance that your doctor even discusses vaccines beyond "its safe and effective," vaccines are discussed with a focus solely on the positives.
He is stating that from his experience and/or education, testing and treating mild allergic reactions to vaccines is far more elementary than dealing with disease outbreaks.
This seems contradictory. Your friend's statement about allergy testing was that it is "highly inaccurate and expensive." Did he share any insights on what it is like to treat a severe AEs, like allergic reactions or febrile seizure?
As for disease outbreaks, treatment for measles basically requires one to control fever, rest, and drink plenty of fluids...
I really don't know what to say to this, you would rather our society have disease outbreaks with risks of complications (yes I know minimal) than vaccinations... mind boggling!
Well, to me it is mostly about cost/benefit analysis. One problem is that we aren't given accurate data on disease versus known adverse event incidence.
Overstated?? The introduction of vaccines caused our bodies to create the antibodies necessary to fight off these diseases. There is a mechanism and direct causation... how can you dispute this?
Antibody response is a "correlate" of immunity. There are documented instances where "sufficient" titre levels were not protective, and where individuals who lacked antibody responses did not suffer from the disease after exposure.
The original vaccine was not effective, researches are developing new ones. When an effective vaccine is distributed than herd immunity will take place.
Do you blame people for opting out of this sort of experimentation?
Compared to the risks of epidemic vaccine injuries? I think not.
My point is that people are scared into getting vaccinated. For example, research suggests that measles mortality is around 1 in 10,000 (and occurs almost exclusively in immuno-compromised individuals) in first world countries, yet CDC will claim it is 1 in 1000. As I stated previously, incidence of adverse reactions is significantly under-reported, preventing an accurate comparison.
So, we have a "science based" system of care in which the risk of disease is overstated while the adverse reactions to vaccines are understated...
I agree with you here, a body like the CDC should source all their statistics on their website.
Glad to hear this!
How is the manufacturer liable when it is following all the regulations given to it by the FDA? They follow policy and regulations and do not create them.
The manufacturer created the product and produced the data suggesting that it is safe. I must admit that I am not entirely versed on the subject, however, I don't see why vaccines should not be handled just as other pharmaceuticals are.
I'd like to hear your take on it.
Besides, the FDA is basically a rubber stamp and virtually always follows the recommendations of the advisory committees. What is disturbing, is that some of these committees have voting members who have direct financial ties to the companies whose products they are voting on.