There is evidence that vaccines are not safe

The argument

Vaccines should not be mandated because there are many cases that have proven vaccines do significant harm. There are real-life stories that have shown vaccines to be harmful to the health of individuals. There have been many tragic cases where completely normal children end up developing profound mental disorders after being vaccinated. There is increasing anecdotal evidence in the medical field of parents who have reported that their children have been fundamentally changed for the worse after receiving a vaccination. For instance, several parents have reported their children being diagnosed with autism after vaccination. Vaccines should not be mandatory because there is evidence that they cause harm to individuals.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Vaccines should be mandated because the testimonials given by parents about how they do harm are not substantial enough evidence. For instance, anti-vaxxers have concerns that Autism spectrum disorder might be linked to the vaccines children receive, but studies have shown that there is no link between receiving vaccines and developing ASD. There is no evidence that vaccination leads to any type of disorder or serious harm. It is only in very rare cases that vaccines can cause serious problems, such as allergic reactions. But in the majority of cases, vaccines cause no side effects. The benefits of mandating vaccines far outweigh any of the rare instances where vaccines may do some damage; thus vaccines should be mandated.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Individual cases are not evidence of causation, because they lack the comparison that would establish it. Vaccines are given to almost all children at the ages when a range of conditions first becomes apparent, so some diagnoses will follow vaccination by coincidence alone. Establishing a causal role requires comparing rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, which is what the epidemiological studies do. [Rejecting P2] The autism claim has been tested repeatedly and has not held up. The 1998 paper that launched it was retracted after its findings were found to be false, and its lead author was struck from the UK medical register. Studies since — including a Danish cohort of more than half a million children and later ones of comparable size — have found no association. The apparent timing reflects the fact that autism is typically identified in the second year of life, when several routine vaccines are given, and studies of early regression have found signs present before vaccination in children later diagnosed. [Rejecting P3] The conclusion misstates the safety standard, which is not that a medical intervention carry no risk but that its benefits exceed its risks. Serious adverse events do occur, are recorded, and are compensated in several countries, at rates far below the harms of the diseases prevented — and the argument never states the other side of that comparison, that measles alone killed hundreds of thousands of people a year before widespread vaccination and returns wherever coverage falls. Whether vaccination should be compulsory is a further question, turning on the balance between individual liberty and the protection of those who cannot be vaccinated, and this argument does not engage it.