>Yeah, so can lightning, bathtubs, and aspirin. The risk from vaccines is miniscule.

Unlike lightning, risk of harm from vaccines is preventable. One commenter mentioned the Polio vaccine earlier. The OPV does cause a small number of people to develop polio. The matter was paid attention to, OPV use was curtailed in favor of the other vaccine, the problem was solved. The reformulated vaccine retained its effectiveness without further incidences of Polio infection. If it happened today, I would expect people like you tell those first Polio vaccine victims to "Piss off!", "It's good enough!", "You're a fake!", "You have a 'genetic predisposition'" or other hand-waviness, "Adverse effects are rare.", "You probably already had Polio.", etc.

>even smoking marijuana, for that matter,

To paraphrase you [Citation_needed]

>Pretty much everything is more dangerous than vaccines,

Most people take various levels of precaution against those risks, yet many will just let anyone in a lab coat jab them without hesitation. Fine for them, fine for you, but don't expect me to fall in line without more information.

>Your kid is at more risk of SIDS than vaccine complications.

Which is why my kids have been vaccinated (with a subset of the vaccines recommended by the schedule). I just don't jump up out of my chair every time some drug company comes out with a new product to sell. Do you rail against people from countries who follow different vaccine schedules from the one in your country? http://vaccine-schedule.ecdc.europa.eu/Pages/Scheduler.aspx What do you think of the Japanese, who are relative "vaccine deniers"[2] yet somehow miraculously have the longest life expectancy anywhere on the planet?[3]

> a number of class-action lawsuits were filed against GlaxoSmithKline

>In effect, your claim appears to be without basis.

Vaccine court doesn't protect companies when they knowingly or maliciously harm people, my mistake.

>absurd and damaging to society.

What is absurd and damaging to society is the persistent obfuscation and non-disclosure of clinical trial data, and the failure to conduct proper non-rigged trials. The safety of drugs and medicine is important and it must be credible. There is widespread doubt (among people who pay attention) about the system that is supposed to ensure peoples' safety. Instead of addressing reasonable peoples' reasonable concerns, people such as yourself resort to rudeness, specious character attacks, and other fallacious tactics.

>The actual incidence of problems caused by vaccines is much lower than the incidence of problems incorrectly ascribed to vaccines.

Fact is, you don't know if that is true or not. You don't have any proof of it. You merely want it to be true that anyone who claims injury by a vaccine is a fraud, and a litigious cheat. [Citation needed, indeed.]

>re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Citation_needed

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=CDC+Vaccine+Adverse+Event

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=NVIC note not a gov't org

Give Google a try, you'll get the hang of it.

see also: The Cochrane Collaboration http://www.cochrane.org/

> Vaccines are by and large rigorously tested before entering the marketplace.

If that were really true for the LYMErix vaccine, the trials would have revealed the large fraction of people[1] who were predisposed to adverse reaction. There are serious problems with drugs qualification testing in the US and EU. Why don't you go read Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre. here is a preview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKmxL8VYy0M

>Is ten thousand people not enough for you? ....

The statistics have to be credible. http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/039...

And: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004879... specifically: " The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. "

>Consider the previous statement about failing to comprehend statistics.

If you believe, based on your statistical prowess that the current system of drug/vaccine certification trials will effectively prevent bad drugs/vaccines from reaching the marketplace, then it is you who has an inadequate grasp of statistics.

>Consider also that your statement is blatantly false:

Or consider that my recollection of the details was mistaken slightly. OPV use was curtailed after VAPP was discovered.

>That means that VAPP is one of the only things that is actually less likely to happen to you than a terrorist attack.

As long as you aren't a starving waif in some developing country (or a starving waif from the US). From the Wiki: In immunodeficient children, the risk of VAPP is almost 7,000 times higher

>I dunno, the existence of people who are willing to spread pseudo-"cautionary tales" based on misrepresented data who can make marketing the vaccine a largely fruitless endeavor seems like it very well might be enough to discourage even a benevolent nonprofit organization. I'm glad we don't have such people around here.

After reading that again, I kind of regret that I wasted any time at all responding to you. If you're the sort of person who thinks a pharmaceutical company makes a favorable comparison to a "benevolent nonprofit organization" then it seems unlikely that you and I will find common ground. You're rude, you're flamebaiting, you've mis-characterized my comments, and your snide innuendo is an offensive character attack.

[1] About one-third of the general population is HLA-DR4+ and risks contracting the arthritic condition when exposed to the vaccine, according to the complaint. The HLA-DR4+ trait is easily detected by a routine blood test; however, SmithKline never recommended that doctors screen for the trait before administering the vaccine, the lawsuit alleges. source: http://www2.lymenet.org/domino/news.nsf/UID/SBHVaccineSuitPR...

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood_immunizations#Worldw...

[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe...