Infectious disease doesn't care why you're unvaccinated

> science is not a matter of beliefs but facts

Is it? There is a lot of shoddy science that is done, and a lot of things that were accepted as scientific fact only to be overturned. Just because something is accepted by the medical community (for example) doesn't mean that it's necessarily a fact.

I disagree. From what I can tell, there are a lot of people with strong opinions based on a balanced view acknowledging both the risks and benefits. And their opinion is in general favor of mass immunization.

You have only to go to the CDC, or the WHO, and read their reports. Every single Vaccine Information Statement from the CDC says "A vaccine, like any medicine, is capable of causing serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions." They also list the risks, and describe if there are groups of people who specifically should or should not be immunized.

Where then is this large camp of people with strong view for vaccination but who do not acknowledge that there are risks? Because to me it sounds like it's a hypothetical construct based on the assumption that there must be people who are equal but opposite to the anti-vaxxers, when as far as I can tell, such a pro-vaccination group is at best small and with little influence.

Can you point me to their web sites or other literature?

>Honestly, how many times does the link between vaccines and autism have to be disproven before people get it?

Honestly, there are many possible adverse reactions, and honestly, I want to see lots of good data. I know it may be costly, I don't care. I want to see the little bumps and dips in the plots of efficacy and safety for various vaccines. I want continuous quality control. I want it published publicly where the incidences of vaccine related injury were investigated, a cause found, and a problem corrected. I don't question the science or the public benefit of vaccination. I question whether the safety of vaccines as they are manufactured, transported, and stored is as advertised.

This is from the product insert for DTaP, note it cannot be considered conclusive, because the data collection methodology is crap. Would the manufacturer or FDA allow autism to be in the following list if either could conclusively exclude it? Honestly, I hope these guys have it right[1]. I think it would be fantastic if the solution were so simple.

"Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine."

source: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines...

[1] http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/iodine-deficien...

"I'm interested to hear why a five minute old infant is at risk of contracting Hep-B. "

Because a baby whose mother is infected with Hep-B can be infected at birth, it's estimated that only 50% of the pregnant women who have Hep-B are identified, and babies can get Hep-B from other family members and caregivers.

See http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5416.pdf for the full details, but here are two relevant passages:

> Even with improvements in the management of pregnant women, only approximately 50% of expected births to HBsAg-positive women are identified (on the basis of application of racial/ ethnic-specific HBsAg prevalence estimates to U.S. natality data) for case management, which maximizes timely delivery of postexposure immunoprophylaxis (11; CDC, unpublished data, 2004). The need for proper management of women without prenatal care, including HBsAg testing at the time of admission for delivery and administration of the first dose of vaccine to infants > Children who are not infected at birth remain at risk from long-term interpersonal contact with their infected mothers. In one study, 38% of infants who were born to HBsAg-positive mothers and who were not infected perinatally became infected by age 4 years (64). In addition, children living with any chronically infected persons are at risk for becoming infected through percutaneous or mucosal exposures to blood or infectious body fluids (e.g., sharing a toothbrush, contact with exudates from dermatologic lesions, contact with HBsAg-contaminated surfaces). HBV transmission rates to susceptible household contacts of chronically infected persons have varied (range: 14%–60%) (65,66). High rates of infection also have been reported among unvaccinated long-term residents of institutions for the mentally handicapped (67,68), and, in rare instances, person-to-person transmission has been reported in child care settings (69,70).

Also, the vaccine is made from virus capsid protein expressed in Baker's yeast. There's no infectious material at all, making it a very safe vaccine. (Unlike the earlier Hep-B vaccine which had a danger of including viral DNA should something go wrong during purification.)

>That they prevent most people who receive them from getting sick is an added benefit.

You'll have a lot better luck selling vaccines to people if they provide a direct benefit.