Mapping the world's opinions

argument top image

Are vaccines bad? Show more Show less

The safety of vaccines has been contested since 1763 when an Italian Doctor named Gatti introduced inoculations to the French. Since then, concerns over the safety and sanitation of vaccinations have led to a world-wide anti-vaccination movement. Are ‘anti-vaxers’ right to refuse inoculations? Are vaccines safe?

Vaccines are bad. Show more Show less

Big Pharma puts profit above safety, and promotes misinformation about the dangers of disease that our bodies are perfectly capable of fighting off without vaccinations.
<< Previous (2 of 3 Positions) Next >>

Vaccines aggravate existing illnesses

In some cases, vaccines have aggravated other underlying illnesses, with disastrous consequences.

<< Previous (7 of 7 Arguments)
Health Warning Misleading


In 2008, a nine-year-old girl in Georgia received a vaccine that aggravated her pre-existing cellular disease. After receiving inoculations, the disease caused a brain disorder that led to severe damage and led to the child displaying autism-like symptoms.[1]

The Argument

In children, it is not always possible to detect underlying conditions. Any child could be carrying a disease similar to the one mentioned above without any doctor knowing. This makes vaccines exceptionally risky and unsafe.

Counter arguments

The exception proves the rule. The case was such a high-profile one precisely because it was so rare. By and large, vaccines are exceptionally safe for approximately 99.5% of the population. In the rare cases where the child may have a pre-existing condition that could be aggravated by inoculations, doctors are able to provide medical exemptions for diseases. In the US, approximately 0.05% of children enrolled in schools are exempt from inoculations on medical grounds.[1] Setting the Bar for Safety Impossibly High If parents ruled out inoculations and medical procedures that had the possibility of aggravating an undiagnosed illness, they would deny their child almost all medical treatment. Almost all treatments carry the risk of aggravating an undiagnosed illness in some form. We must devise a standard for "safety" that means that the risk of aggravating an underlying illness or disease is sufficiently small to justify the widespread use of the treatment. Vaccines would meet this standard for safety, even if it cannot be called 100% safe.


Enter the framing of the argument here ...


[P1] Vaccines can aggravate underlying existing conditions. [P2] Therefore, they are not safe.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] This only occurs in very exceptional cases. [Rejecting P2] Therefore, we can accept that vaccines, relatively speaking, are a safe form of medical treatment.


Do you agree?

Sign up or log in to record your thoughts on this argument

Further Reading

Enter more information about the argument here ...



Explore related arguments

This page was last edited on Wednesday, 5 Feb 2020 at 12:10 UTC