dukebdc wrote:

"One baby strangles in an improperly set up crib, and the entire production line is shut down and recalled. An unsupervised toddler falls out the window of a high-rise and within months there are mandatory city-wide rules about how far windows can open, and how sturdy screens must be. However there is a known and unpredictable risk of vaccination, yet the parents of children sickened or killed are dismissed as exceptions and unforseen tragedies."

I believe you are still missing the point. If someone discovered that a vaccine has more risks than necessary, they would shut down the production line and recall the unused portions. However, once every reasonable precaution has been taken, and it can be shown that NOT using the vaccine is much more hazardous than using it, THEN we go ahead and use it despite the known dangers. At no point does anyone "dismiss" grieving parents. The price they pay is terrible -- unimaginable -- but they must pay it to ensure safety for the larger number of people. If they do not pay this price then far more parents will suffer.

To take another example, everyone knows that automobiles cause ~40,000 deaths per year. We make great efforts to reduce this toll (although we do not do enough, in my opinion). When a safety hazard is revealed they shut down the production line and recall the defective cars. However, we do not all stop driving cars just because they kill many people. We accept the risk because the benefits outweigh the cost. No one "dismisses" grieving relatives and friends of people killed by cars, but on the other hand we do not allow them to bankrupt auto manufacturers with lawsuits, or hammer the U.S. transportation system into paralysis. Celebrities are not going around telling us to abandon automobiles because they kill thousands of people.

In the case of vaccines the benefits far outweigh the costs, at a much higher ratio than for automobiles.