The world must accept that the HPV vaccine is safe

[HuckleB]

http://www.nature.com/news/the-world-must-accept-that-the-hpv-vaccine-is-safe-1.18918

"Every year brings 528,000 new cases of cervical cancer and 266,000 deaths, linked to human papillomavirus (HPV). We have a highly effective HPV vaccine, but suspicion stands in the way of its adoption in many countries. How can we dispel this mistrust?

On 20 November, a report from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) confirmed the vaccine’s safety. The agency had been asked by Denmark to reinvestigate after symptoms of dizziness, fainting, aches and pains were reported in adolescent girls and suspicion fell on the vaccine. It is not the only country to report such events.

...

Evidence suggests that the events were ‘psychogenic illnesses’, psychological reactions that can spread fast, especially when girls are vaccinated in groups at school and witness each other’s reactions. A growing collection of YouTube clips is also fuelling anxieties.

My research group studies situations in which public, provider or political trust in vaccines has been broken. We have heard many testimonies of the anxiety that politicians and decision-makers face when pressured about suspected vaccine reactions while also hearing that scientific evidence exonerates the vaccines. We have learned the importance of monitoring public sentiment, responding promptly to concerns and engaging and listening to the public early on when vaccines are being introduced.


..."


--------------------------------

This is why it's important to discuss these issues when anti-vaccine advocates promote their viewpoints. Public health is at risk.

[restorefreedom]

1. hpv should be a voluntary vaccine

it is not spread through casual contact and is not in the same category as measles.

make it available, educate people, and let them choose. same thing with hep b. you just don't spread it by coughing near someone.

no vaccine is 100 % safe. make them available and let people choose. there is no herd immunity for hpv, you are not going to pick it up on a crowded bus.

we are overvaccinating in this country. vaccines need to be tiered based on risk of transmission and danger of the disease. just cuz the pharma can make it doesn't mean we have to give it to everyone or require it.

[trotsky]

2. "we are overvaccinating in this country."

What is your evidence for this?

[restorefreedom]

3. here ya go

[HuckleB]

4. And the number of antigens given is dramatically down.

We are saving lives, not "overvaccinating."
http://www.vaccinateyourbaby.org/safe/autism/overburdening.cfm

[Dr Hobbitstein]

5. And diseases and sickness are down since 1983...

What else has changed since 1983? Things change as we learn more. We do not overvaccinate in the US (also, the 2007 list lists all the flu vaccines, which are voluntary, not mandatory).

Your argument does nothing but to enable anti-vaxxers.

[longship]

7. Vaccines are good! The CDC recommendations are good.

Those are booster immunizations, per CDC recs.

The more people who follow them the fewer who suffer or die from these diseases. It really is that simple.

To argue that there are too many is just an irresponsible and indefensible position based on ignorance or misinformation by ideologues.

People need to educate themselves.

The CDC isn't just making this up.

[restorefreedom]

16. i am not anti vax

i am against mandating vaccines for diseases that are not a risk by communicability. they should, of course, be available for anyone who wants them.

[longship]

18. Well, the HPV vaccine prevents cancer.

That's right, cancer. Specifically, cervical cancer, which is directly linked to HPV.

So it has that going for it.

Here is some of the science and the silly arguments against the HPV vaccine:
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-the-hpv-vaccine-does-not-cause-promiscuity/

I highly recommend that you read this before judging whether you should skip your daughter's HPV vaccine. I would prefer, for her sake, that you will insist that she get it.

[restorefreedom]

23. am not against hpv vax

i am against mandating it for entry into school for 12 year olds who are at no risk through casual contact.

[longship]

26. It fucking prevents cervical cancer!

All kids that age should get it!

[HuckleB]

31. And it's interesting that the poster is "not anti-vaccine" but...

... regularly uses the debunked anti-vaccine trope that we give too many vaccines. In fact, the poster ignores the information that kids actually are exposed to much fewer vaccine antigens than in the past. It's a very interesting phenomenon.

[longship]

33. And her argument against the HPV vaccine is utter bollocks.

My best to you.

[restorefreedom]

38. so we should require vacs for diseases not spread through casual contact?

then we better require everyone take their blood pressure meds so they don't stroke.
its no different.

the health dept has a responsbility to protect public health and to stop the spread of disease acquired through public square interaction.

any other disease acquisition is up to the individual to prevent

have a healthy day!

[HuckleB]

41. You can repeat your propaganda points over and over again.

You're wrong. It is unethical to leave any kid unprotected during those years.

[restorefreedom]

55. tomato, tomaaaato

it is an issue for the family

[HuckleB]

56. It's an issue for every family, and, thus, the whole community.

If you want to opt out, then you should opt out of the benefits of the community.

[longship]

67. What are you going to do?

Lock your son or daughter into the basement? Good luck with that.

Kids have sex. It is what they do when they pass puberty. A responsible parent protects their children from fucking cancer by making sure they get the damned HPV vaccine when they are 12, like the CDC recommends.

That way you don't have apologize to your daughter on her death bed from cervical cancer because you were too damned blinkered stupid to understand that the HPV vaccine prevents fucking cervical cancer and that one guy she made love with in ninth grade had the goddamn HPV. That would be the guy you never knew about since your daughter never told you.

That is why.

Get it?

[restorefreedom]

74. ok, one more time

i never said kids should not get it or that families and drs should deny it.

i am saying public schools and health departments have no business requiring it for hpv and hepB

that is not the same position as saying it should not be given to people.

i know you know the difference

[longship]

103. And I disagree with you.

I think that it is in the country's interest to protect our children from both disease and ignoramus parents. I would be in favor of a law like Australia has -- no vaccines, no benefits. And California -- no vaccines, no public school for your kids.

And yes, the HPV vaccine at the recommended age would be part of it. It prevents cancer!

That is a responsible health care measure. If you don't like it? Well, no school for your kids.

BTW, I remember grade school before the Salk vaccine. I remember the kids walking with crutches and braces. I remember the kids who would just suddenly disappear from classes. I also remember when the vaccine came out and every single family queued up to get the polio jab. And I remember the booster dose, this time the oral vaccine, it was pink on a little sugar cube. Nobody opted out because everybody was scared witless.

And BTW, cervical cancer is fucking scary and the HPV vaccine prevents it.

Get your vaccines people!

[restorefreedom]

147. i don't disagree with some of what you have said

and i think it is fair to keep a kid away from other kids who might hsve measles and is not vaccinated. but i don't think we should keep kids out of school for not getting hpv or hepb vac. they are not going to give it to other kids unless they are getting high or having sex in the bathrooms between classes. and if that is happening, the school has much bigger problems.

[longship]

145. In my opinion, no vaccines, no school.

Period.

And there should be a way to get the vaccines for free, so nobody gets denied because of cost.

It is in the interest of public health and preserving herd immunity.

[restorefreedom]

158. for publicly communicable diseases, i agree with you.

not hpv and hepB

and yes on the free access.

[longship]

161. Hint: both HPV and HepB are communicable.

So, you are just fucking wrong. And BTW, you do know that HPV causes cervical cancer. So the HPV vaccine prevents fucking cancer. And HepB can kill your liver, and then you. So one reduces cervical cancer and the other may prevent you from dying from liver failure.

You have no leg to stand on here. None whatsoever. Give up.

[restorefreedom]

163. sure they are communicable

but no one is going to get it sitting in math class.

and the hpv vaccine is only one tool to prevent cancer along with proper screening and the usual safety precautions regarding partners as one would take to try and prevent any std.

hepb is another disease which has specific routes of transmission which can be managed.

no need to use a sledgehammer to open a pistachio.

[longship]

165. Vaccines are easy and simple. They fucking work.

Telling ones kid to not have sex because of HPV may result in cervical cancer is fucking difficult. Maybe one ought to get the kid the HPV vaccine to make sure.

Because the fucking result may be fucking cervical cancer.

Gees! Why don't you get this?

The vaccine is a simple jab, as the Brits call it. Explaining to a teen not to have sex, less so. And cervical cancer is forever, if you know what I mean.

That is why every pre-teen needs the HPV vaccine. For Christ sakes! Why do you want to promote more cervical cancer?

Just make sure your pre-teen kids get the god damn HPV vaccine!

I am done with you.

[restorefreedom]

166. not against vaccines

against mandates for certain vaccines

big difference

have a nice evening

[longship]

168. Just those which protect against cervical cancer and liver failure.

You double down; I ridicule.

[restorefreedom]

175. i am not against the vaccines for either

just FORCED vaccines by the government.

jeez, you'd think a place that values choice would value choice.....but i guess not when it comes to meds forcibly injected into our kids bodies?.......

[longship]

190. Just don't try to get your kids into public schools without their vaccinations.

That is how it was when I started school in the early 50's.

You fools think you have a right to spread disease for your perceived freedumbs. Well, you don't. It is in the nation's interest that communicatable diseases do not needlessly propagate through the population. That is why we have vaccines. And why kiddies should not get into our public schools, which are fucking huge vectors for disease spread, unless the kiddies are vaccinated.

That includes HepB at 12 months, and HPV vaccine before 12 years.

To argue against that is to ignore all the science, and to deserve only ridicule.

PFFPBPBPBTTT!
(That's a well earned raspberry for you. I warned you. Ridicule.)

Being naive and ignorant is not helping you here. (More ridicule.)

Did I remind you again that the HPV vaccine protects against fucking cervical cancer! I hope you have absorbed that fact. However, I doubt it. (Piling on more ridicule.)

I can keep this going if you wish. However, I imagine that you will just double down once again. Pshaw!

[restorefreedom]

192. i know a lot more about cancer than you realize

thst doesn't mean i support a mandated vaccine for all children entering school for a disease not casually spread.

and hepB mandate is basically bullshit. the public health officials have pretty much said they only do it as children because thats when they can get them. the disease affects primarily adults.

so let the adults opt in for the vaccine

have a nice evening

[zigby]

198. " thst doesn't mean i support a mandated vaccine... for a disease not casually spread. "

I hate to break it to ya cowboy but high school kids having casual sex = diseases casually spread. And doesn't even have to be sex, HPV is a tricky little fucker and 75% of kids have been exposed and almost all of us will be exposed in our lifetime. That's a pretty shitty roll of the dice if you happen to get a bad strain.....370K will get warts, 12k will get cervical cancer every year.

How about we split the difference? Just the boys get vaccinated. The Little Toms and Jimmys of the world won't be walking asymptomatic disease vectors!

[gollygee]

184. Managing teenagers and sex?

ROFL. You are not realistic. Most teenagers do have sex by the time they graduate high school. And you said they can't catch it in math class, which is true, but they meet the kids they catch it from there, and they set up the dates where the catch it there.

[restorefreedom]

188. then it is a family issue

not a school one.

[gollygee]

191. It's a public health issue

People catch it from each other. I don't care how intimate you have to get. Illnesses can be public health issues no matter how you catch them.

[restorefreedom]

193. much easier for the public to protect against

big difference between intimate contact and sitting next to someone in class. much more control over intimate partner choices.

[gollygee]

195. It doesn't matter

It doesn't have to be passed through casual contact to be a public health issue.

[elehhhhna]

196. Rape. That happens. The vax coincidentally prevents penile cancer from hpv.

[restorefreedom]

200. and people are free to get the vaccine if they want to protect themselves in case of crime

fortunately, there are monitoring protocols in place for victims who were not vaccinated. additional paps, etc. been that way for years.

[Laffy Kat]

289. Yep. As I said above: HepB is 100x MORE transmissible than HIV.

And all hepatitis strains set you up for liver cancer later in life. Why take such a chance?

[longship]

292. Because choice and freedumb? nt

[WillowTree]

199. You do realize there's a difference.......

.......between "no vaccines" and not necessarily all vaccines, do you not?

Why not just have the state take custody of all children at birth because not all parents make the same choices and decisions for their kids? Of course.......we should just take the kids! Parents cannot be relied upon to raise their children according to your standards.

How will you feel about that when the Country shifts back toward the right, as history tells us it almost surely will one day? Will you be OK with them making all the choices for your family based on their priorities and shoving them down your throat then?

[longship]

201. My standards? I go by the CDC standards.

I am no expert in these matters. That is why I prefer to defer to the experts.

One only has to look at the increases in communicatable diseases and the reduction of vaccine adherence, as reported by the CDC and other agencies, to know we have a problem. That we are losing herd immunity for some very serious preventable illnesses which if people would just vaccinate would not be a problem.

Measles, for Christ sake! Whooping cough! Both are extremely contagious and deadly. Heaven help us all if polio comes back (but we are very close to wiping that one out forever, thank goodness).

If there is ever a recapitulation of the 1918 influenza pandemic, the world will overnight change its idea on vaccination because everybody will be lining up for miles for the jab.

You imply freedom. Well, when I take my new born infant to the doctor and some idiot thinks that the whooping cough vaccine puts space aliens in control of his kid who is hacking away across the waiting room, this is no longer about freedom when my new born dies before she can receive the vaccine because some idiot is too ignorant to get his kid protected against a preventable disease.

Also, some people cannot have the vaccine for other reasons. We depend on herd immunity to keep the disease from getting a foothold. Normally that's about 90% vaccinated. ( plus or minus, depending on the disease).

So I am not just making shit up. There is science behind this. It is the public's interest that people vaccinate their kids. That is why I support any encouragement, including mandatory vaccinations for public school, that helps increase herd immunity, so that these diseases never again rear their head.

It really is simple.

[WillowTree]

205. This is exactly the kind of nonsense that drives some people toward the right.

This is often the kind of thing that makes people start thinking and talking in terms of "big government". Heaven forbid that people should be allowed to live their own lives and make their own decisions.......and their own mistakes. Why not stop pushing the "nanny state" and let people run their own lives and families?

[MADem]

209. +1. nt

[longship]

242. Center for Disease Control.

They were started to fight malaria. And they effectively achieved that in the USA.

They track diseases and perform research on diseases.

Who else would you trust about vaccinations? Joseph Mercola? Jenny Fucking McCarthy?

There are some things that governments do well. Like landing humans on the fucking moon. And disease research.

It is in our nation's interest that we are not wiped out in a pandemic and that our citizens do not unnecessarily suffer from diseases. That is why our government formed the CDC.

You call it your own decision.

Just keep your filthy unvaccinated kids away from my family. See how that works?

Anti-vaxxers!!!

ARRRRGH!

[WillowTree]

250. As a matter of fact, my kids were vaccinated.

And I've gotten all of my immunizations, as well. It was my choice.

[longship]

252. Good, then I will allow you to visit with my family.

If only everybody else understood the only rational choice is to vaccinate.

That is the issue.

I support the no vaccination, no public school mandate. It is still people's choice. However, what happens when a parent has to choose between vaccinating their children and their children having sub-standard education. (No, I do not wish to get involved in a discussion on public education here.)

That is being tested in CA. And good for them. It is just plain good health policy.

As I wrote, if ones kids are not vaccinated, I do not want them anywhere near my family.

In this matter, the only choice is to not make bad choices. And government has a compelling interest in making sure people are vaccinated.

[HuckleB]

293. If someone doesn't want their kids vaccinated, that's fine.

Then they should keep them at home. Decisions have consequences.

[WillowTree]

305. The disease that we're talking about here is not spread through casual contact.

According to the CDC

"How is HPV spread?
You can get HPV by having oral, vaginal, or anal sex with someone who has the virus. It is most commonly spread during vaginal or anal sex. HPV can be passed even when an infected person has no signs or symptoms."

http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/HPV-factsheet-March-2014.pdf

So here's the thing.........If you're having your family immunized against HPV, what risk is there for them to be sitting in a classroom, or even participating in a gym class, with someone who is not? Even if some control freak does manage to make the HPV immunization mandatory for school attendance, that won't keep your immunized kid from encountering the oh-so-dangerous kid (who probably still doesn't carry the virus in any dangerous form) at a movie theater or mall or anywhere else where humans gather.

For that matter, when you get right down to it, how much risk does an unvaccinated child pose to one who is immunized at all? I mean, isn't the whole point of having your kids vaccinated to protect them against coming into contact with someone who isn't? If not, what is the point of the vaccination?

[HuckleB]

308. And all of those thing happen quite casually and frequently.

And when those kids are in public school communities.

It's time to stop buying anti-vaccine propaganda.

[WillowTree]

314. But again.......

.......if your kid is immunized, what's the risk?

[HuckleB]

317. This is the risk. The unvaccinated are not just a danger to themselves.

Why Worry About the Unvaccinated?
http://shotofprevention.com/2011/04/12/why-worry-about-the-unvaccinated/

The Choice Not To Vaccinate Doesn’t Only Affect You!
http://www.vaccinestoday.eu/vaccines/the-choice-not-to-vaccinate-doesnt-only-affect-you/

[Warren Stupidity]

310. Hpv is spread through "casual contact".

so I assume then that you are in favor of hpv vac mandates.

[restorefreedom]

311. hpv is NOT spread through non intimate contact

you can't catch it from being in a classroom with someone or on a train, as with measles for example.

whether intimate contact is considered "casual" is a sociological matter, not a medical one.

so thats a no on the mandate for hpv

--------
Sexually transmitted diseases (STD), once called venereal diseases, are among the most common infections in the USA today.

STD cannot be transmitted through casual contact (hand shake, clothing, toilet seats)

What are the most common types of STDs?

Genital warts (HPV)
Genital herpes
Trichomoniasis
Chlamydia
Hepatitis B
Gonorrhea
Syphillis

http://www.clevelandurology.net/conditions-sexually-transmitted-disease.html

[Warren Stupidity]

312. ah so your problem is that it is generally sexually transmitted.

Glad you clarified that, it explains a lot. You should have been clear about that when you used the term 'casual contact'.

You do understand that children as young as 12 are sexually active and that hpv can cause cervical cancer, which is routinely lethal, right, that somewhere around 1/3 of the women who are diagnosed with cervical cancer will die within 5 years of diagnosis from this cancer?

But you it seems are uncomfortable with vaccinating young people against a sexually transmitted disease.

[restorefreedom]

321. it has nothing to do with it being sexually transmitted

except that this mode is not publicly casually spread.,mandated vaccines are to prevent the spread of diseases in the public square that people have no idea they could even be exposed to.

hepB and hpv do not fall into that category. should those vaccines be available to all,at no cost? yes. should education about their availability be given to everyone so they can choose? yes.

also need to remember that this vaccine is only one piece of prevention. responsible sex, regular pap screening, and age/sexual activity appropriate medical screening is very important.

people and parents of minors have a role to play in health and wellness, and that includes sexual health. we should not be forced to be vaccinated to take the place of individual proactive participation in our own health or the health of our children.

[Warren Stupidity]

322. It seems it does. You appear to have a problem with vaccinations against sexually transmitted

diseases. At least be honest about it.

"also need to remember that this vaccine is only one piece of prevention" - yeah, its the part that prevents a horrific disease.

[restorefreedom]

323. there is nothing to be "honest" about

i believe in a large amount of bodily autonomy. to me, that means not forcing vaccines for diseases that are not transmitted in the public square. two of them (hpv and hepb) happen to be ST because there are only a limited number of ways to transmit disease which are NoT casual. hepB is also transmited through iv drug use/needle sharing and blood transfusions, none of which is "casual".

to be honest, i am not a fan of other forced vacs either. chicken pox, for example, while highly contagious, is not typically serious. but i realize that ship has sailed and i am not going to even try and make a case for it. i would like to draw the line however at disease thst is not publicly contagious.

[HuckleB]

316. Humans are often casually intimate.

It's time to take your anti-vaccine propaganda elsewhere.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

71. Same here

Both of my daughters got the HPV vax as soon as they were old enough, and I encourage all parents to look into it.

But I don't believe it should be mandated for school registration. The whole point of the vaccinations for school are to slow/stop the spread of easily communicable diseases, of which HPV is not.

[restorefreedom]

81. agree. i think they are taking advantage of a situation

to push more vaccines that are not for diseases easily spread, which imo is not their business.

[HuckleB]

136. So diseases that are communicable by common human behavior don't count?

Really?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

154. Sure they count

And I'm an advocate of the HPV vax on a voluntary basis.


But unless HPV gets to the point in its evolution that it is communicable via casual contact in a hallway or a classroom, I don't believe that the HPV vax should be mandated for enrollment in school. The point of mandatory vaccines for school is to prevent the spread of easily communicable diseases in school.

[Archae]

76. If there was an anti-AIDS vaccine, would you argue against that one too?

Because AIDS is a venereal disease.

[restorefreedom]

82. i would argue that it should be available and safe

but not mandated.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

83. I would encourage everyone I know to get it

But I wouldn't make it mandatory for school enrollment.

[MADem]

264. Would you be in favor of the state marching into your home, holding you down and forcing

you to take the shot?

That's the other side of this issue that you seem to be missing.

HIV, absent medication, is a self-limiting condition. Most people understand this. Do you seriously think that anyone who was sexually active would eschew an HIV vaccine were such a thing available? A 70 year old nun in a contemplative order might give it a miss, though.

It's nothing to do with "venereal" -- it's to do with not having the STATE decide when you're going to avail yourself of medical treatment.

What's next? The toothbrushing and flossing police?

I'm rather surprised at how many authoritarians we have here at DU!

[MADem]

101. Make your SON get it. He's the carrier.

And it does not "prevent" cancer. It reduces odds of getting specific types of cancer by two thirds.

It's not 100 percent effective--you get a two-thirds reduction of risk for your five hundred dollar investment.

[longship]

112. Two-thirds is pretty damned good, my friend.

Well, it is the HPV that causes the cervical cancer. So getting the vaccine certainly prevents one from getting the cancer from that source if one is exposed and the vaccine does its stuff.

And I'll take two thirds reduction any day. That could be a lot of cancers. Which is why there is no rational reason to not get it.

But you are correct. No vaccines are perfect. It is herd immunity which protects the public. That is why vaccination rates are so important.

We are very close to wiping out the second great disease in my lifetime. First smallpox, and soon polio. Neither have a reservoir in animals, so once no human has active disease, it is gone. I saw the results of active polio in grade school before the vaccine. It was not pretty.

Best regards, my friend.

[MADem]

116. Wonderful--pay your five hundred dollars and take the shot, then. Encourage others to do it, too.

Maybe set up a foundation to collect money to get free or reduced price shots for people who want them.

If Merck made a ton of money off of treating cancer patients, and didn't need this income (and they do need this income), they should have just donated this vaccine, and sold it at cost. They aren't doing that--they're getting RandD and profit from this exercise. And their shareholders are loving it.

[restorefreedom]

181. i must agree. if it was about public good and not profit, it wouldnt bring a profit. nt.

[HuckleB]

204. Thanks for the clear anti-vaccine attack.

This is about the public good. Stop pretending otherwise. Thank you.

[MADem]

208. Thanks for your enthusiastic support of Obscene Profits for Big Pharma!!

That's about as much sense as your post made. Way to let everyone know you aren't reading their posts.

I am not "anti-vaccine" and I am not "attacking." For you to say that tells us all that you just have your button stuck on transmit and don't want to hear any nuanced discussion of this issue, for reasons that I can only speculate about.

I don't think public health agencies should OVER-PAY private Big Pharma companies for vaccines they created that don't do a thorough job to solve the problem and do not constitute an active "transmittable in the public square" public health threat. Let's see them make a frigging FLU SHOT that works for a change--they don't have that shit down, yet, do they?

Get off your best intentions, if you are sincere, and persuade Merck to make that vaccine you're saying you care about so much available as a public service at cost, and not at Extreme Profit. If you spent as much time decrying the way that pharmaceutical companies overcharge for years, change a formula just slightly to keep it under patent, and do all sorts of skeevy things to separate the public from their money for medicines, maybe I'd pay attention to your faux whines.

I'm not buying what you are selling.

[HuckleB]

212. In other words, you have nothing to offer to the conversation.

Got it.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are going to work to help each other live better lives. And that includes the use of vaccines.

[MADem]

214. In other words, you're just trying to make me go away with snarky comments that

have nothing to do with the points I've raised.

The people participating in this thread are not "anti-vax." They are anti-state interference in decisions made between patients/parents and their doctors.

States should not MANDATE that people do anything that isn't a "public square" health issue. Parents can make their own decisions on when they choose to vaccinate their kids.

More to the point, since the thing is covered by the ACA, why do you object to parents being allowed to make that decision? Why do you think that the STATE KNOWS BEST when it comes to timing on this vaccine?

And further, since the vaccine needs boosters every eight or nine years, and then again several years after that (and are those boosters covered, or does the patient have to PAY for those?) the timeframe of the initial vaccination could be salient.

You keep roping 'em in, though, with your false accusations and off point remarks.




Hmmm. Tom Sawyer, indeed. You should be ashamed. That's not how DU used to roll.

[MADem]

217. DU stuttered; pardon the multiple posts. nt

[HuckleB]

218. All you have offered are non-science based snarky comments.

Until that changes, why do you expect others to respond differently?

[MADem]

223. Gee, you wasted no time in mocking me over a DU glitch, but here you are,

hyper-posting replies to a single comment.

Hmmm.

Your comments have NOTHING to do with science. Your comments have to do with the state deciding when is the best time for a child to get a vaccination. You take the parents and the doctor out of the equation.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[HuckleB]

226. Why are you even posting on this thread?

All of my comments have everything to do with science. I am proud of my posts. They are aimed at improving the planet, and saving lives. And they are supported by science in that aim.

So, you want to tell me to be ashamed? Really? No, you don't. We both know better.

[MADem]

230. Why did you start this non-scientific thread?

Your thread is a DEMAND. Demands are not "scientific."

You shouldn't be proud of your posts--you could do much, much better.

You don't "improve the planet" when you pretend that you know best for every child and parent, and you pretend that your advice is better than the doctor who treats that child.

You should be EMBARRASSED, frankly.

[HuckleB]

231. Thanks for the baseless rant.

Vaccines save lives, including the HPV vaccine.

[MADem]

233. There you go again!

Your responses are silly insults that dismiss any POV that opposes yours.

Your thread is a baseless DEMAND that people see this issue your way, OR ELSE.

[smirkymonkey]

246. It's funny how militant some people are about this.

I really can't understand why they feel that it needs to be mandatory when HPV is not something that is spread through casual contact and even if one does get it, does not always develop into cancer.

[MADem]

262. More to the point, the damn thing is now included in the ACA, which the poster doesn't mention.

He just wants to ORDER parents to get that vaccine for their kids Right F---ing NOW, on a timeline that suits him, for reasons that are unclear to everyone.

Children do not all develop at the same rate. A twelve year old can look like he or she is eighteen, and can also pass for a third grader. It just depends on the kid. Some kids want to jump right into the "Where are those boys/girls?" dating/romance/hook-up mentality, and others don't develop that kind of confidence or interest until they are half way through high school or even in college. Having the state say "You can't enter grade X unless you have this vaccine" is nonsensical--particularly when the thing needs a booster after eight to ten years, and who pays for that?

Parents, children and doctors are the ones who need to figure out what the appropriate timeline is for their child--not Big Brother on DU. It's not the job of the state, unless the state is going to start teaching Interactive Sex Education (with "hands on" Lab Sessions) in grade eight, or something.

It's just stupid for states to force this issue, and stupider for anyone to ENDORSE the state trying to bully people into following "their timeline" for what's "best" re: this matter. I can't see this one passing Supreme Court muster--people do have a right to do what they want with their bodies, when they want, without the state interfering. This isn't something where "failing to vaccinate" is going to take down the sixth grade and put everyone in the hospital or at home in quarantine--and that is where "mandatory" comes in. Measles....yep. Mumps...sure. Bubonic Plague...absolutely! HPV. Nope. Parents with pediatricians, you make the call. Not the state's business.

[HuckleB]

219. Four times, and you didn't notice until now.

Impulse control matters.

[MADem]

220. Shows what you know--it happened all at once.

smh--!

Thanks for proving, with that post, what I already knew, though.

[HuckleB]

222. It's magic!

Just like how vaccines cause, uh, what again?

[MADem]

228. No, it's a DU glitch that the admins have acknowledged.

What YOU are doing, though, is goading and baiting.

Who said "vaccines cause, uh, what again?" That's all you, inventing an argument so you can flail against it. I never said that "vaccines cause" anything. You are making that up. You know what people think about people who make stuff up, don't you?

And "magic" has nothing to do with states--instead of doctors and patients--making determinations about when a patient avails themselves of a medical procedure. That's -- near as I can tell -- YOUR argument in this faux whine of a thread.

You're a nanny stater, demanding that parents accede to state demands on timing of an available vaccine, and not their own good judgment in consultation with a doctor -- and you're trying to pretend that One Size Fits All makes you "scientific" when any scientist, and certainly any doctor, knows that one size does NOT fit all.

Generally speaking, LIBERALS don't like governments interfering in medical decisions between doctors and patients--they can make those determinations on their own, particularly if there's no immediate threat to public health. I can't understand why you're pushing this so vociferously and demanding that state schedules be followed, and all parents must OBEY. Reminds me of a politician who likes to tell women what they were allowed to do with their bodies....

[HuckleB]

232. HPV vaccines are safe, effective, and save lives.

That's reality. Your posts are whatever they are...

[MADem]

235. Yes, they are, and they should be given to children when parents, in consultation with their doctors

feel it is best--not on some NANNY STATE schedule where a kid can't go to 6th grade unless they've been jabbed.

You're just way off base on this one.

[HuckleB]

237. You aren't even responding to the content of my post, anymore.

You're just cutting and pasting classic anti-vaccine nonsense.

WOW!!!!

[MADem]

240. No I am not--that's another untruth you are shopping. Not sure why you want to

substitute your judgment for that of a parent/child and doctor. You aren't the decider, nor is the state--the doctor is. If the parent/doctor decide they want the child vaccinated on a different schedule, that's THEIR decision--not yours.

No one likes the government telling people what they must do with their bodies, particularly when it doesn't constitute an immediate health threat. This isn't measles or mumps, that you can catch from a stranger on a crosstown bus.

You're not a doctor--stop acting like you are one.


And prevaricating about my POV doesn't make your case stronger--it makes you look just like what you are.

[HuckleB]

253. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Your posts are ludicrous.

[MADem]

256. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Your posts are ludicrous.


Just feeding back to you the same non-responsive nonsense you're shoving at me. I have every idea what I'm talking about, and you don't. How do you like them apples?

[HuckleB]

257. You haven't posted anything worth discussion.

Do the right thing, and stop posting on this issue. You can only cause harm with the propaganda you are pushing.

[MADem]

258. Yes, I have. If it was so "not worth discussion" why do you keep crying at me because

I am not supporting your reductive exhortations in regard to a complex issue?

One size does not fit all--that's a rather, dare I say, fundamentalist approach to this issue. It is a matter for patients (and their parents/legal guardians) and their doctors. NOT THE STATE.

Unless and until you can contract HPV on a crosstown bus or while sitting in a classroom learning French, it should continue to be thus. The timing of the vaccination should not be a matter for the STATE to decide.

Why don't YOU do the right thing, and stop telling other people what to do? You're rude when you persist in that kind of behavior. You're also showing a rather surprising authoritarian streak that is out-of-step for a liberal/progressive message board.

[HuckleB]

260. No one ever said it wasn't "complicated."

That doesn't mean that the propaganda your promoting here is worth the time of day. You're not actually addressing what matters. You're promoting your own, made up ideology. Nothing more. Game over.

[MADem]

266. Here--let's UNCOMPLICATE it....let's take you, and the state, out of the equation.

Leave it to parents and doctors--they'll come up with an appropriate timeline for each patient, individually.

You don't need to "help" with your rules and demands.

The propaganda and nanny-state attitudes are coming from you. And have you ever heard the term, whoever smelt it, dealt it? You plainly illustrated that axiom when YOU said THIS:

You're not actually addressing what matters. You're promoting your own, made up ideology. Nothing more. Game over.

Yeah, "game over" indeed. Stop trying to be The Boss. You're not.

[HuckleB]

271. Thanks for clarifying that you clearly don't understand any of this.

Wow! You just want to make it up as you go along.

There's nothing complicated about that. It's just BS. Goodbye.

[MADem]

279. WOW! You just want to make it up as you go along. (YOUR words...)

Thanks for clarifying that you clearly don't understand any of this.

Also your words.

You should probably stop talking to yourself....

What's BS isn't the vaccine, it's your FATHER KNOWS BEST attitude about how people will be required to take the shot, based on YOUR world view about child rearing.

[HuckleB]

285. LOL!

Thanks continuing to throw this classic routine.

[proverbialwisdom]

304. Retiring NVICP Special Master Denise Vowell modulated her convoluted legal decisions over 6 years.

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program -> http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html

Special Master Denise K. Vowell in Wright v HHS - 9/21/15 (ii)

(ii) https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2012vv0423-91-0

“I find that M.W.’s development was, more likely than not, within normal limits prior to his July 6 vaccinations. Thereafter, it deteriorated, and eventually he received an ASD diagnosis. I am not required to find that the vaccination actually caused that diagnosis. Rather, I find that the neurological and behavioral symptoms he displayed for well more than six months after the vaccination constituted a chronic encephalopathy, which meets the diagnostic criteria for ASD.

Many, if not most, cases of ASD constitute a chronic encephalopathy. However, only rarely do the symptoms of ASD follow an acute encephalopathy, in which some of those symptoms are part of the acute encephalopathic picture. This case is one of those rare events. Because M.W. had an acute encephalopathy meeting the Table requirements, followed by a chronic encephalopathy, a presumption of causation attaches regarding his current condition.

I emphasize again that this is NOT a case in which a judicial determination has been made that vaccines actually caused a child to develop ASD. Since I was assigned to the “autism docket” in early 2007, as one of the three special masters to hear the OAP test cases, I have had approximately 1800 cases alleging vaccine causation of ASD on my docket. In my nearly nine years on this autism docket, I have not read or heard any reliable evidence in any case, including this one, that vaccines can or do cause ASD…

M.W. experienced an acute encephalopathy, with onset beginning within two hours of his Pentacel vaccination. The acute encephalopathy persisted for more than 24 hours. Although there is some evidence of an intercurrent illness, that evidence does not reach the level of preponderant evidence of alternate cause. M.W. never returned to baseline after the vaccination. He has a chronic encephalopathy which has persisted for over six months…

Petitioners are therefore entitled to compensation for M.W.’s condition as a Table encephalopathy.”

PREVIOUSLY,

Special Master Denise K. Vowell in Snyder v HHS – 2/19/09 (i)

(i) http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vaccine_files/Vowell.Snyder.pdf

"To conclude that Colten's condition (autism) was the result of his MMR vaccine, an objective observer would have to emulate Lewis Carroll's White Queen and be able to believe six impossible (or, at least, highly improbable) things before breakfast.”

Special Master Denise Vowell’s used these words in her stinging dismissal of the Snyder case in the Omnibus Autism Proceedings. By invoking Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass, Vowell was advising the petitioners and the American public that claiming that vaccines cause autism was simply preposterous. The imperious language used in dismissing the Snyder case was designed to send the message that those who claim a link between autism and vaccines are in league with the Mad Hatter.

Lengthy analysis with additional comparable footnotes: The White Queen Awaits Her Breakfast

Gee, why didn't she just quote you?

[HuckleB]

307. Oh, goodie. Anti-vaccine nonsense from DU's hardcore anti-vaccine crowd.

[proverbialwisdom]

319. Every part of your post is false. That's on every level, incidentally. (nt)

[HuckleB]

320. Every part of your constant anti-vaccine propaganda is false, on every level.

And even many DU anti-vaxers know that.

Go away. No one cares about your posts, any more.

[SidDithers]

10. I can't read that graphic...

can you llnk to the source, please.

Sid

[restorefreedom]

13. i think i found it on bing images but here is an article with the info in text form

http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/development-immunization-schedule

[HuckleB]

17. It's from an anti-vax site.

http://www.vaclib.org/intro/howmanyb4six.htm

I don't think the poster wanted you to know that, though. Hmm.

[SidDithers]

39. Even better, from your link...

The Vaccine Schedule graph above was downloaded from: http://www.whale.to, an excellent site for vaccine information.

Yeah, I'd seen it before, just wanted the poster to link to safeminds, or AOA or some other anti-vax nonsense site.

But whale.to is even better than I could have hoped.

Sid

[HuckleB]

40. I missed that!

Indeed.

[LeftishBrit]

318. I wouldn't use the word 'better' of whale.to

It is not only anti-vaccination in general, but anti-all-modern-medicine and generally anti-science; see this choice gem on evolution for example:

'Darwinism and Evolution (along with Heliocentrism) theory was designed to promote Atheism (i.e. suppress spirituality, contact with the true God), and hide the controlling alien entities of this planet known as the Anunnaki /Archons, in the Bible as Jehovah (psychopathic pseudo-'gods'). There are tons of artefacts (many thrown into the sea) showing intelligent life on this planet (see footprint below and Michael Cremo books), many 2-50 million, some 2 Billion (Cremo--older than the Dinosaurs ) years before we were meant to have crawled out of a swamp, the fossil evidence of which they have yet to produce, and they never will, it is absurd (Ancient Artefacts showing Darwinism/Evolution to be wrong Skulls (and giant bones)).

Worse, it is full of vicious anti-Semitism:

"Judaism is a satanic cult masquerading as a religion.' ~ Henry Makow Ph.D.
'Talmudism is Communism.' ~ Edward Hendrie "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer." ~ Harold Rosenthal

and anti-Catholicism:

'The Catholic Church is not Christian, but is rather a gentile front for a Judaic/Babylonian religion'. ~ Edward Hendrie

Their main contributors have included the late Eustace Mullins, a virulent racist, anti-Semite, Holocaust denier, and white supremacist, linked for example to the National Association for the Advancement of White People; the notorious Christopher Bollyn; and the aforementioned Henry Makow, another virulent anti-Semite AND a ferocious misogynist and homophobe.

Is this vile website suitable for a progressive site - or ANY site if it comes to that???

[restorefreedom]

44. the college of philadelphia physicians is antivax?

who knew?

as to the image, the linked source may not be to your liking, but it doesn't make the info any less accurate. i wanted to present it in a graphic. you get what you get.

you really think bristol myers squibb is gonna pretty that info up for you?

[HuckleB]

48. How is it that you keep repeating this debunked "point" of yours?

And fail to acknowledge the rest of the story, over and over again?

That makes no sense at all.

[restorefreedom]

53. we don't know for sure whether this is a long term problem

THAT is the point.

and why does someone on a dem board want to force vaccines for diseases that are not easily spread?

[HuckleB]

54. Yes, we do.

We know the schedule is safe, and we know that it saves lives.

[restorefreedom]

68. hang on to thst if you like

just like every other treatment proffered by big pharma has always been safe and effective......

[HuckleB]

255. Ah, another logical fallacy offered up.

The research on the safety of the vaccine schedule is large and profound. Please stop pretending otherwise. Doing so can only cause harm.

[uppityperson]

69. You say you're not anti vax yet post anti vax replies over and over. Huh.

[restorefreedom]

77. i am anti MANDATED vac

for diseases not spread through casual contact such as hpv and hepB

just as i am against mandating people to take atenolol so their high blood pressure does not lead to stroke. should they? probably. does the govt have the right to force them? no imo

[uppityperson]

84. We over vax, there us no need for many vxs, etc. Anti vax.

You confuse protecting children from preferable diseases and cancer with mandating medication for an adult. Odd.

[restorefreedom]

89. there is no confusion at all

no person of any age should be required to get a vaccine for a disease that is not spread through casual public contact and poses a significant public risk.

all such vaccines should be available with accompanying information for those who want it.

simple.

[uppityperson]

96. All vaccines do have educational material. Did you really not know that?

You compared vxing children to mandating adults take medicine.

[restorefreedom]

98. no one should be mandated

for diseases that do not pose a casual public contact risk.

as to info, yes i knew that. i was shorthanding that info about these options should be presented to teenagers and parents so they can learn and decide.

[SidDithers]

88. Anti-vaxxers at DU should be treated the same a chemtrailers...nt

Sid

[xocet]

300. Indeed, Flat-earther-birther-truther-chemtrailers... n/t

[Codeine]

11. We're vaccinating MORE, but how does that

constitute "over vaccinating"?

[restorefreedom]

14. more of course, is in the eye of the beholder

you can find physicians who will say the schedule is fine, others to say its too much. same with patients..some are ok with it, others think its too much.

these guys suggest it may be too much


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/

[HuckleB]

29. Nope.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/vaccine-schedules-and-infant-mortality-a-false-relationship-promoted-by-the-anti-vaccine-movement/

[restorefreedom]

32. as i said in a post below,

acknowledging that increased vaccs might be causing problems is not antivax, it is smart vax

if they develop vaccines against another 10 diseases in the next few years, are we to mandate those too? where does it stop?

[HuckleB]

35. Oh, goodness. You did not use the anti-vaccine propaganda about "smart vax."

Oh, you did.



Where does preventing disease, death, and disability stop? Are you joking?

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/delaying-vaccines-not-a-good-idea/

[restorefreedom]

58. so we are now in the business of mandating

vaccines for diseases that are not spread through casual public contact?

wow.

[HuckleB]

59. You really don't have any way to justify your stance.

Goodbye.

[longship]

37. Stupid vax is ignoring the CDC recommendations.

Including not vaccinating your 12 year old against HPV.

Maybe especially not vaccinating your 12 year old against HPV. The vaccine prevents fucking cervical cancer!

That is an easy call for all but the delusional or the equivocators.

[restorefreedom]

60. since it will not be spread through normal school interaction,

its a family / doctor decision bases on risk assessment. just like for any other non publicly communicable disease treatment or vac.

[NCTraveler]

90. The governments greatest role is that of protection.

That includes laws and regulations protecting children from many poor choices their parents might make. Mandating some vaccines is about individual protections which are very common.

[restorefreedom]

97. i realize some kids have crappy parents

and that sucks.

but if we allow the public health dept to mandate things for diseases that are not easily spread, it could lead down a road of more and more such mandates for other things not easily spread.

[HuckleB]

100. "Not easily spread."

It appears that you do not have experience with teenagers and 20 somethings. End of discussion.

[restorefreedom]

104. not spread through normal public contact.

better?

[HuckleB]

108. It's quite normal.

[NCTraveler]

109. individual protection by law or regulation.

Very common as it should be.

[trotsky]

12. That doesn't answer the question.

What is the criteria by which you judge there are too many vaccines?

[restorefreedom]

15. how about a toxicity study?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/#!po=2.17391





Human & Experimental Toxicology
SAGE Publications
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CORRECTED.
See Hum Exp Toxicol. 2011 September; 30(9): 1429.
Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?
Neil Z Miller and Gary S Goldman

Additional article information

Abstract
The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important indicators of the socio-economic well-being and public health conditions of a country. The US childhood immunization schedule specifies 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year—the most in the world—yet 33 nations have lower IMRs. Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of r = 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. Nations were also grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges: 12–14, 15–17, 18–20, 21–23, and 24–26. The mean IMRs of all nations within each group were then calculated. Linear regression analysis of unweighted mean IMRs showed a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates, with r = 0.992 (p = 0.0009). Using the Tukey-Kramer test, statistically significant differences in mean IMRs were found between nations giving 12–14 vaccine doses and those giving 21–23, and 24–26 doses. A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs is essential.

[trotsky]

21. So you admit your first chart did nothing to address the question?

Excellent. At least that's a start.

Regarding your study, uhh, let's just say there are some considerable problems with it.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/05/16/vaccines-and-infant-mortality-rates/

Can you provide a source where the authors of your study refute the problems raised in that link?

[restorefreedom]

30. i did not admit the first chart was inconsequential,

but nice tap dancing there... did you study with hines back in the day?

i decided to provide more info from a medical journal that may corroborate the presence of increased risk.

i am not suggesting the study is conclusive. the authors themselves believe further study is warranted.

but to blindly wisk this away as antivax lunacy is not wise and may lead to issues down the road.

admitting the possibility that overvax might cause issues is not antivax...it is smart vax.

[trotsky]

245. It is not I who is tap dancing, sorry.

You first provided a list of vaccines. I asked what made you qualified to indicate that the current count is excessive. You didn't answer.

You then provided a faulty study which I countered with a writeup of its many flaws. You again didn't answer.

Your initial claim on this thread, that "we are overvaccinating in this country," remains completely unsupported.

[restorefreedom]

272. we do not have the long term data yet. its too soon

but there are many more diseases being vax and many more doses. until the long term studies can be completed, i suppose "over" is in the eye of the beholder, which is each of us.

all the more reason these vaccines should be available and VOLUNTARY, esp for diseases not contracted in the public square

[trotsky]

277. "we do not have the long term data yet. its too soon"

Congratulations - you have destroyed your own position. If it's "too soon" to have the relevant data, then you CANNOT make the claim that we are "overvaccinating."

Additionally, as others have pointed out to you, thanks to vaccine technology improvements, the greater number of vaccines today actually use LESS pathogens than the ones in the past! Your own logic defeats you. We actually put MORE pathogens in our children in the past. Today it's LESS.

[restorefreedom]

278. i said for now it is in the eye of the beholder

some will think too much, some won't, including health professionals

until long term data start pouring in, but i don't really expect us to be given the truth about that anyway

[trotsky]

280. No, you made a specific claim that we are "overvaccinating" in this country.

Your claim remains completely unsupported, and in fact contradicted - by yourself. LOL. You're just fear-mongering is all. You can be ignored on this issue.

Bonus points for referencing conspiracy theories, though. You definitely hit most of the traditional anti-vax talking points on this thread, so well done!

[restorefreedom]

282. it is my conclusion, with limited data, that we are overvaccinating

whether supporting data come in to conclusively support that remains to be seen. i am not disputing that.

in the meantime, you are free to reach other conclusions.

have a healthy day!

[HuckleB]

288. The evidence base is overwhelming in opposition to your opinion.

It's time to stop pushing your ideology. It's dangerous.

[gollygee]

62. 75% of people have HPV

http://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/hpv-facts-0

I don't care how casual the contact has to be, it is incredibly common. Why does it make a difference how it's spread?

[restorefreedom]

70. because if i am not going to get it by someone sneezing on me in a classroom,

i don't want to have to be forced to get a vaccine for it.

its about choice

i thought choice and self determination would be popular around here

[gollygee]

78. It shouldn't be any different than any other vaccination

Either they should all be mandatory or not. 75% of people have this. Most people have sex at some point. How it's caught is irrelevant.

[restorefreedom]

87. up to 18 its a parental decision

to assess risk and act accordingly. after that it is up to the individual.
at no point is it the business of schools or government officials

how its caught is relevant because no one is going to catch it walking down the street. that is what public health departments are for. not to be regulating our lives and choices.

[gollygee]

171. The government can mandate seat belts

They are not limited to things people can catch with their clothes on.

[restorefreedom]

176. not a fan of the seat belt thing either. nt

[HuckleB]

203. That tells us all we need to know.

WOW!

[Dorian Gray]

243. For Christ's sake...

I feel like I just wasted my time reading your posts just from this one post.

[restorefreedom]

267. some days i don't feel like putting the belt on

i guess thats an arrestable offense?

[restorefreedom]

276. so choice is ok for some things

but not others?

like the ability to determine my personal safety in the car
like the ability to take a vaccine for a disease not transmissible in the public square

what does that matter to anyone else if my choice puts no one else at risk?

[trotsky]

281. Agreed. n/t

[xocet]

290. That says a lot. n/t

[restorefreedom]

295. really?

to me it says while i understand the need to balance public good and safety matters, i generally prefer to manage my own safety decisions.

what does it say to you?

[xocet]

297. It says that you have libertarian tendencies. Who knows if your username is an ironic joke?

Last edited Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:38 PM - Edit history (1)

However, coupled with the "over-vaccination" statement that you apparently cannot define or defend (that context-free list and source-free list meant nothing in terms of evidence), it makes it easy to look at the position you espouse and equate its value with the values accorded to positions taken by birthers, flat-earthers, chem-trailers, and 9/11-truthers.

That is what it says.

[restorefreedom]

298. so libertarians can't support science or climate change?

because i value personal liberty and bodily autonomy, you assume i am a creationist, birther, climate change denier?

on a site like du, that is pretty sad.

and fyi my name came about during the cheney regime when our freedom was in serious peril.

[xocet]

301. No, it is not assumed that you are any of those things...

Your lack of evidence to back up your position puts your position on vaccination in the same ballpark as the positions of those groups that were mentioned.

If you want to support science, your support has to be evidence-based. "Over-vaccination" is not a real problem. But, let's pretend that it is: How do you define it? How does one exactly measure "over-vaccination"? Who first detected that "over-vaccination" is a problem? What symptoms are correlated with "over-vaccination"? How is so-called "over-vaccination" treated/prevented? What is the standard fluctuation in viral particle count during a day? What is the incremental increase in viral particle count when vaccination occurs? Is that anything that can be seen against the background statistics? What is the immune system's response to any virus?

Do you actually know anything about any of this or whether they mean anything to a proper description of your position? Do you have any reputable peer-review sources to adduce to make your points? If you want to claim that you support science, then you need to actually dig into the real research that is found in actual peer-reviewed medical journals and learn about reality.

So, this has everything to do with your position being ridiculously unsupported not what you may or may not be. You fail to defend your position throughout the entire thread.

[restorefreedom]

302. for now i will define it this way

mandating vaccines for diseases that are not spread through casual public contact. eliminate the mandates for those and its a good start.

[xocet]

303. That definition has not a single thing to do with your self-purported support of science. Try again.

n/t

[jeff47]

80. What's your foolproof method for ensuring your child doesn't have sex? (nt)

[restorefreedom]

86. there is none

which is why concerned parents and parents who think their kid is at significant risk should go ahead and have the vaccine done at their drs at the apporopriate time.

it is not a matter for schools or govt officials to decide however, any more than requiring that all girls be on the pill to prevent pregnancy

[jeff47]

91. Is your kid human? Then they are at significant risk.

it is not a matter for schools or govt officials to decide however, any more than requiring that all girls be on the pill to prevent pregnancy

Ah yes, forcing this evil vaccine on pure girls is so terrible.

[restorefreedom]

94. i never said it was evil

or that girls and boys should not get it.

its just a matter of personal parental choice as to when. not up to the school to say when.

[jeff47]

113. You didn't have to. The implication was clear.

its just a matter of personal parental choice as to when. not up to the school to say when.

Parents are never aware of the point when their children become sexually active. As a result, "personal parental choice" means "MY innocent daughter would NEVER do that!"

You live in a society. That society gives you many benefits. Those benefits come with a variety of costs. One of those costs is not letting your child die from a disease we can vaccinate against.

[restorefreedom]

153. children are unfortunately always at risk of having crappy parents

the solution is not to make a blanket policy to force something on all kids. it is to encourage and reward better parenting.

i would not object to a required wellness visit before entering school. the dr could go over all the vaccs with the parents. the non required ones could be opted in.

[jeff47]

167. They should all be required, even when you think girls don't do that kind of thing. (nt)

[restorefreedom]

178. disagree, and its not just the girls

any such program better fucking well include the boys that are giving it to them....

[gollygee]

180. The recommendation is currently for both boys and girls to get them. n/t

[restorefreedom]

183. at least that is something. nt

[gollygee]

172. You don't use having a cancer-free kid as a reward for "good parenting"

though it appears you define "good parenting" as keeping your teenager from having sex? The average age for kids to start having sex is 16. That's average. Most kids have sex before 18.

[restorefreedom]

177. good parenting would include an open and honest relationship

wherein a kid could talk to the parent about when/if sex is happening and what precautions need to be taken (vaccines, condoms, the pill etc).

this is not a punishment reward system. its about having autonomy over our bodies

i thought du would value that.....

[gollygee]

179. The vaccine is a several month series of shots

So you can't decide right when a kid decides to have sex. Also, even good kids can be afraid to talk to their parents, even if their parents are good parents. Our society has made sex a bit of a taboo in some ways (and all over the place in others) but our weird relationship with sex makes kids respond differently than we might expect.

Kids need to hear about this stuff BEFORE sex starts happening. Autonomy requires an education, or you're just flying blind rather than making choices.

[restorefreedom]

185. i don't disagree with most of what you said.

just not a fan of mandates.

[Thor_MN]

324. You are arguing against your position..

"children are unfortunately always at risk of having crappy parents"

Which is an argument for required vaccines...

[restorefreedom]

325. i do see that side of it

but at some point, there is a line. we can't mandate everything good for everyone because some people will fail to do it. i don,t know where the line is all the time, its a tough line to walk.

[Thor_MN]

326. Well, teenagers are definitely primed for failing to do anything.

The people who do not become sexually active until they are an adult are the exception rather than the rule.
The HPV vaccine works.

Those are facts that are indisputable.

[Laffy Kat]

287. Would you get a vaccine against HIV if it was offered?

FYI - Hep B is 100x more transmissible than HIV.

http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/hbv/bfaq.htm

[restorefreedom]

294. given my current risk profile,

i would not. but such a vaccine would be a huge step forward, esp in dev countries.

yes hep B needs the tiniest drop. and from what i hear its quite hardy, where hiv is a bit more fragile.

[restorefreedom]

6. the reason for mandatory vaccines

is to protect the public health from easily communicable and dangerous disease. hep b and hpv are just two examples of disease that is not a major contagion risk through casual contact. if people want to get those vaccines for their personal protection, fine. but mandating vaccines for diseases that do not pose a public risk is nothing more than a windfall for big pharma.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

8. Hep B and HPV kill.

Why shouldn't we vaccinate against them? They DO pose a public risk. Before the HepB vaccine, there were way more new cases per year than there are now. HPV vaccine will help prevent various cervical cancers. Why would you be opposed to that?

"Big Pharma" doesn't make DICK off of vaccines. They're made cheap, and sell for cheap. Vaccinating against both is the smart thing to do.

[restorefreedom]

20. i have no problem with the vaccines being available

i have a problem with a mandated vax against a disease which is not readily transmitted in the public square.

it is no different than requiring insulin shots or requiring people to take blood pressure medicine to prevent a stroke.

mandating vaccines for diseases not communicable by casual contact is not the business of the health department.

interesting blog post about the vaccine money trail

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/08/02/mandatory-vaccination-in-california-follow-the-biggest-money/

[Dr Hobbitstein]

127. Jon Rappoport is a goddamned anti-vaxxer.

Not to mention completely batshit crazy.

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2014/05/1050-jon-rappoport.html

"He is, for instance, a germ theory denialist, and in his post “Germ theory and depopulation” (discussed here) he argues that “n general, so-called contagious diseases are caused, not by germs, but by IMMUNE SYSTEMS THAT ARE TOO WEAK TO FIGHT OFF THOSE GERMS” (yes, the capitalization is in the original). Indeed, “GERMS ARE A COVER STORY. What do they cover up? The fact that immune systems are the more basic target for depopulation and debilitation of populations.” The main tool is of course vaccines, which are weapons the nefarious powers that be use to kill off, well, it is a bit hard to see, partially because Rappoport’s post is mostly all-caps from there. At least HIV is a cover story as well."

If you believe what he writes, then I don't know what to tell you. Vaccine money trail, my ass. Fucking anti-vaxxer bullshit.

[HuckleB]

150. That's not the first outright anti-vaccine things that poster has offered.

Yikes!

[Dr Hobbitstein]

248. I'm not an anti-vaxxer,

but here's a bunch of anti-vaxxer links and anti-vaxxer arguments, but I'm not an anti-vaxxer.

[HuckleB]

254. I know.

I was referring to the other poster.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

265. I know,

I was mocking said poster.

[HuckleB]

269. Got it.

[restorefreedom]

156. batshit craziness aside, do you deny that there is a money trail? nt

[Dr Hobbitstein]

247. Yes, I do.

When a crazy person makes a claim with nothing to back it up, but more crazy bullshit, I do not believe it.

The fact that YOU chose to is very telling.

[restorefreedom]

275. yes, of course the big pharms as well as the pols they own

are going to come right out and tell us people are making money off these schedules

if you believe no one is profiting off this, i really don't know what else to say

[Dr Hobbitstein]

286. .

[restorefreedom]

296. if you say so.....wait, let me grab my hat...

[HuckleB]

291. There is an anti-vaccine trope trail.

And you are on it, big time.

PS: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/demonizing-big-pharma/

[HuckleB]

9. The focus is on decreasing the number of cases of cancer.

And doing so when the reality of risky behaviors that lead such cancers is at its highest level.

[restorefreedom]

22. and i am all for it as an option

but not a mandate. health departments should not be mandating vaccines for diseases that are not easily caught or a risk to casual contact.

leave it as an option for the family.

[HuckleB]

24. You can prefer all you want.

If your kid goes to a public school, that means your kid is a part of the community, and all the possible interactions. Not vaccinating for this is simply not ethical if your kid is in that environment.

[restorefreedom]

34. it is not an ethical requirement

to vaccinate for a disease which is not communicable through casual contact.

hpv and hepB are not spread through normal student interaction.

diptheria i have no argument.

hpv and hep b do not fall into that category. no risk of spread in a normal school day, no ethical dilemma.

[HuckleB]

36. It is not ethical to withhold those vaccines, and leave people unprotected at that point in life.

Period.

[restorefreedom]

46. that is up to each parent to make that choice for their kid

again, we are talking about disease not spread through casual contact

[HuckleB]

51. If your kid is going to school with everyone else, no, it's not just up to the parent.

This is not hard stuff. Ethics matter.

[restorefreedom]

63. if the kid is not having sex with everyone in school, there is no risk

individual risk assessment with parent, child, doctor.

not the schools business.

[jeff47]

73. And how, exactly, do you ensure you kid doesn't have sex with anyone?

There's billions of devoutly religious people who would be very happy to hear your foolproof method.

[restorefreedom]

92. there is no foolproof method of course

see #86 for more elaboration if you wish

[HuckleB]

105. You don't have much of a chance, really, but...

... if a vaccine doesn't protect from all possible versions of a disease, it's not worthy!

[uppityperson]

72. And to protect children. Rather like car seat requirements. Are you against those too.

Big carseat only wants to make money!!! 111 it should be up to the parents to decide!!!! 111

Right?

[restorefreedom]

102. not a fan of mandated seat belt laws either

but there is a difference between strapping in a seat belt and injecting a substance with potential side effects into your body

[uppityperson]

106. Wow.

[Dorian Gray]

244. So

you are essentially libertarian.

Ensuring that only the educated or privileged do things that keep us safe. Screw the rest of society.

[restorefreedom]

270. i have a strong libertarian streak

but i believe all cars should be required to have seat belts and that recommended vaccines should be available to all at no cost.

not sure how that only benefits the "privileged"

[pnwmom]

19. It doesn't protect against all viruses that lead to cervical cancer

and that could lead to a false feeling of security, leading to fewer pap smears. It could also lead to an increase in the competing viruses.

I don't think there's any "must" about this.

[HuckleB]

25. It's not perfect.

Thanks for your usual repeat. It is definitely a must.

[pnwmom]

42. It has ZERO effect on 30% of the viruses that cause cervical cancer.

Leading to a false sense of security, which would be dangerous if it led to fewer pap smears.

Pap smears and safe sex are a must. The HPV vaccine is an option.

http://www.hpvvaccine.org.au/teens/older-girls-abnormal-pap-tests-after-vaccine.aspx

[HuckleB]

47. Again, it's not perfect. Nor is your repeat of bad propaganda.

It is a must for any parent to keep their kids as safe as possible.

[pnwmom]

110. It isn't propaganda, it's a fact. The vaccine only works for 70% of the viruses.

Your OP is the propaganda.

[HuckleB]

142. "Only." WOW! That is just bizarre.

And only 3 out of 5 people are sexually active by age 18. And yet you don't get that this vaccine will save lives.

That is scary. Really scary.

[MADem]

49. Two out of three ain't bad for gambling, but not for making health decisions. I agree w/you. nt

[HuckleB]

52. Ah, and your posts below are now explained further.

If it won't protect from everything, why bother? FFS.

[Humanist_Activist]

75. That makes no sense, how is reducing risk by about 70% a bad medical decision? n/t

[pnwmom]

114. It isn't necessarily bad -- not as long as women realize that

regular pap smears and safe sex are just as important as they ever were.

Research is still ongoing as to whether preventing these viruses might increase the presence of other strains that are not included in the vaccines.

Also, there is ongoing research about risks. Since the release of the vaccine, a higher risk of blood clots has been reported with Gardasil. The same women at risk from birth control pills might be at risk for blood clots from this vaccine.

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/infectious-agents/hpv-vaccine-fact-sheet

A recent safety review by the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) considered adverse side effects related to Gardasil immunization that have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System since the vaccine was licensed (29, 30). The rates of adverse side effects in the safety review were consistent with what was seen in safety studies carried out before the vaccine was approved and were similar to those seen with other vaccines. However, a higher proportion of syncope (fainting) and venous thrombolic events (blood clots) were seen with Gardasil than are usually seen with other vaccines. The patients who developed blood clots had known risk factors for developing them, such as taking oral contraceptives. A safety review of Gardasil in Denmark and Sweden did not identify an increased risk of blood clots.

[Humanist_Activist]

125. What woman isn't going to get regular pap smears and examinations with the use of vaccines, that...

argument makes absolutely no sense.

There are numerous conditions and infections that can occur and its good health practice to get examined. Are those dispensing with the HPV vaccine telling women and girls to not go to the OB-GYN?

Your argument makes about as much sense as saying that the flu vaccine is bad because people will stop going to the doctor for their yearly checkup because they were given the vaccine.

In addition, has a causal link been established between the vaccine and the fainting and blood clots or not? In addition, what is the risk assessment, and how does that compare to the risk of developing cervical cancer without the taking the vaccine? It seems to me, from the information beyond what you bolded, that no definitive causal relationship has been established.

[pnwmom]

130. This is why more research needs to be done. And why people at risk for a blood clot

might think twice about the need for this vaccine, just as they do for birth control pills.

[Humanist_Activist]

140. If no causal link is established, what then? What will be your next objection? Because it sounds...

like you have thousands of them up your sleeve.

[pnwmom]

143. It would be the first time we had ever MANDATED a vaccine

for a condition that is not spread through casual contact, like measles, mumps, whooping cough, hepatitis, etc.'

I think there should be a public discussion before we take that step.

[Humanist_Activist]

144. Would you say the same for an HIV vaccine? n/t

[pnwmom]

146. I would be more likely to support it for the HIV vaccine.,

because there is already a screening test -- the pap smear -- which catches cervical changes at a very early stage and prevents the vast majority of deaths from cervical cancer.

[Humanist_Activist]

149. But HIV is most often no longer fatal either, with the right cocktail of anti-virals you can live...

relatively long life, with few complications.

Of course, you could also, you know, not get infected, through vaccination, in the first place.

How about an HSV(genital herpes) vaccine, would you support that being mandatory?

[HuckleB]

151. You can keep trying, but there is no logic that will get through here.

Believe me.

[pnwmom]

155. How would you know? Logic isn't your specialty.

That's why you tell people, "Believe me."

[Humanist_Activist]

157. Says the anti-vax nutter. n/t

[pnwmom]

152. When that mythical vaccine is developed, I would want to know what the safety data

showed. And then I would recommend caution -- just as with any other new drug or vaccine. Often problems aren't visible till the drug or vaccine has been released to the general public and adverse reports start to come in.

[Humanist_Activist]

160. How many years are acceptable to you for such a study, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, 100...

years? I could go on.

No one is suggesting that drugs or vaccines not be tested for safety, but the fact of the matter is that the arguments and evidence for the risks of the HPV vaccine have been greatly exaggerated.

[pnwmom]

164. It's not the years that matters. It's how studies are conducted and how many subjects are studied.

The HPV vaccine seems to be fairly safe. But research is still continuing on the possibility of a subset of the population being at higher risk for blood clots and/or Guillain Barre syndrome. Until they know more about that they shouldn't be mandating this vaccine for a condition that isn't spread through casual contact.

[restorefreedom]

186. +10 nt

[HuckleB]

137. Exactly.

[gollygee]

85. So it works on 70%? Wow, that's not bad.

Is this supposed to be an argument against it?`

[pnwmom]

115. It's not a "must." It doesn't obviate the need for pap smears.

Pap smears are a must.

[gollygee]

170. Of course it doesn't.

A lot of women get cervical cancer regardless of pap smears. 70% fewer could.

[jeff47]

66. Yes, better to get 100% of cancers than to block 70%.

[pnwmom]

117. Better to get pap smears on the recommended schedule than to think

that you're protected because you got a vaccine that covers 70%.

[jeff47]

122. You know what's even better than that? Covering 70% and getting pap smears.

Since pap smears don't actually prevent cancer, they just let treatment start early enough to not die.

"But they'll think they're covered!!!" is a really, really lame argument to let 70% get cancer.

[pnwmom]

129. 70% of women don't get cervical cancer!!!! In the vast majority of HPV exposures, the virus

goes away on its own. But the vaccine does offer significant protection and -- coupled with regular pap smears -- should lead to a reduction in cervical cancer.

The 70% refers to the strains that cause the virus. The vaccines in use offer protection against 70% of the many strains of virus that can cause cervical cancer.

[jeff47]

132. Yeah...Using shorthand because this is a message board and not a scientific journal.

You entered this thread claiming the vaccine was bad because women would think they're covered. If we followed that, there would be a lot women who get cancer who otherwise would not.

Instead, give the vaccine and get pap smears...you know, what doctors actually recommend.

[pnwmom]

139. I never claimed the vaccine was "bad." Just that it shouldn't be mandated.

More of your "shorthand," I suppose.

[MADem]

27. MERCK demands it!!! As does Rick Perry, heavily invested in that corporation....

Give the vaccine to boys. They're the ones who spread that shit.

[HuckleB]

28. Do you have something to actually add to the conversation?

Or are you against the prevention of cancer?

[MADem]

43. Do you have a problem READING?

Vaccinate the BOYS. They're the spreaders of the virus.

I said that before--you came back with snark.

And if you don't think Rick Perry shoved that vaccine down the state of TX's throat out of the goodness of his heart, and not owing to his ties to Merck, I have a bridge to sell you, dirt cheap.

[HuckleB]

45. And that is recommended.

Meanwhile, your actually snarky post is still without a point in this conversation.

[MADem]

64. "Actually snarky post" can be translated to read "commentary I do not like."

I didn't say a single thing that wasn't right on point.
I wasn't cheerleading your POV, though, so you read that as "snark."

The points have been provided to you, by me and others.

This isn't a "vaccinate the girls" solution.

The vaccine doesn't work one in three times.

It leads to complacency in terms of barrier protection and pap smears.

No one can catch HPV on a crosstown bus, unless the driver is really inattentive. It's not the flu.

Parents should make the decision; the state should not, particularly with those lousy odds of protection.

Rick Perry pushed this vaccine on the state of TX to the tune of millions, and he had a pecuniary relationship with the vaccine provider, MERCK.

To all these points, you have come back with sneering comments against the people making them -- "snarky" and "without a point" most recently.

Are those points, spelled out, CLEAR ENOUGH for you? There's a load of argument against your 'points.' And it's not "anti-vax" to say so--it's anti-shitty-vax, because the thing doesn't always work, AND it doesn't work for very long, either.

smh.

[HuckleB]

93. You certainly do like to reword reality into your own version.

Boring. If you can come back and discuss the issue without all the BS, then do so. I will not be here for a while, however. I suspect, however, that you are here to do the usual feign routine.

[MADem]

182. Unnnnh....look who's talking!

You're not bored--you are chagrined, I suspect. I did "discuss the issue without all the BS" but you didn't like what I was saying so you mis-characterized my remarks.

Not sure what a "feign routine" even is--is that slang?

[HuckleB]

261. You weren't adding anything that isn't already known.

Yet you think you are. How do you fail to see that by now?

Seriously, get off your pulpit. You have homework to do.

[MADem]

263. Neither are you. See how this kind of thing works?

You just don't like my opinion, so you're reduced to making smirking and childish comments.

I'm not on "my pulpit" (what a mixed metaphor) and I don't have any homework to do. I don't think the state should involve themselves in private health decisions--the Supreme Court agreed with this when they ruled on Roe v. Wade. You should let parents and doctors come to their own conclusions, too--without state interference.

Why are you taking such a paternal attitude about this matter? Do you seriously think you know better than every parent who wants to stick to their OWN timeline? You think you're The Ideal Parental Overlord and you know better than the people who raised a kid what timeline suits them, in consultation with their own doctor?

Who died and made you boss? The answer is NOBODY. You worry about your OWN offspring.

[HuckleB]

273. I see that you think you have something to say.

And when you find out that you don't, your response just as pointless.

Now that you've clarified that you are promoting an old-school classic above, well, you're done.

Goodbye.

[MADem]

274. Are you talking to yourself? Because everything you say applies to YOUR contributions here,

quite decisively, too.

I see that you think you have something to say.

And when you find out that you don't, your response just as pointless.

Now that you've clarified that you are promoting an old-school classic above, well, you're done.

Goodbye.

[pnwmom]

173. +1. n/t

[smirkymonkey]

249. +1000

[restorefreedom]

50. i'll take a pass on that texas bridge

i am sure perry was as magnanimous as one can be



and you are right on about the boys, but....why inconvenience them? its up to the females to get vaccinated and pay for bc out of pocket, while the malefolk spread viruses and get their viagra paid for.

jeez, haven't you heard the wisdom of reverend huckabee?

[smirkymonkey]

111. I am curious, why don't they vaccinate the boys?

According to the CDC, HPV causes cancer in men as well.

[HuckleB]

121. They do.

Boys get the vaccine every day in the clinic where I work. My boy will get it in a couple of years.

[MADem]

210. They let the girls be the canaries in the coal mine.

They're now -- in some but not all countries -- and that is an IMPORTANT point to note -- vaccinating some boys. There's no mandate on that score, not by a long shot, even though boys are the source of infection for most girls.

But this has always been a "vaccinate those dirty girls" exercise, to my view, when in fact, the lads are probably more aggressive when it comes to initiating sexual conduct than the girls--I think they should be first on the firing line. The CDC acknowledges that the boys aren't getting vaccinated in sufficient number.

Also, these things aren't forever. They need, in addition to the initial series of shots at five hundred bucks, a booster shot every nine years or so. This is a moneymaker for Merck. They need to bring their prices down and become part of the solution instead of part of the profit motive.

http://www.webmd.com/children/vaccines/news/20151026/too-few-boys-get-hpv-vaccine-cdc-study-finds

http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/health/to-your-good-health/risks-benefits-of-hpv-vaccine-for-boys/article_b4adc32e-7f95-5855-8a6a-f41e39edcb8f.html

I'm also unclear why this thread is whining about this vaccine, as it's covered under the ACA apparently.

[hack89]

251. My son was vaccinated. nt

[jeff47]

61. You realize that Merck makes much more money treating a single case of cancer

than thousands of vaccines, right?

So if it's all about profit, why are they pushing the much lower profit route?

Give the vaccine to boys. They're the ones who spread that shit.

First, the vaccine is recommended for both genders now. Since men don't get sick from HPV, there had to be further study on the vaccine's safety before risk/reward was high enough to recommend it for boys.

Second, where do you think heterosexual boys get HPV? Hint: It isn't from masturbation.

[MADem]

95. You seriously want to play "chicken and egg" on this?

Second, where do you think heterosexual boys get HPV? Hint: It isn't from masturbation.

If the boys didn't have it, the girls would be safe, now, wouldn't they? Where do you think the GIRLS get it? From the waste paper basket in the teacher's lounge?


Ever hear the expression "fast dimes are better than slow dollars?"

How many people are getting that cancer Merck is curing compared to those THOUSANDS of people (at five hundred bucks a vaccination series) being pushed into taking an ineffective "two outta three" vaccine?

I'm just not understanding your point.

They're not in this business out of altruism. There's money to be made. As for parents, if they want to spend the money for a measure of protection (but not an iron shield) no one should stop them, and there's nothing wrong with touting the vaccine so long as the EFFECTIVENESS of it is spelled out, clearly. This isn't the be-all and end-all of hpv protection, here.

[jeff47]

118. No, you wanted to play chicken and egg by only vaccinating the boys.

It's on the schedule for both genders. You brought up boys.

How many people are getting that cancer Merck is curing compared to those THOUSANDS of people being pushed into taking an ineffective "two outta three" vaccine?

Hundreds of thousands. At several million per cancer, that's a lot more money than $500 a vaccine.

They're not in this business out of altruism. There's money to be made.

And they make more money by treating cancer. That has nothing to do with altruism, it's math.

This isn't the be-all and end-all of hpv protection, here.

Yes, clearly we should want our children to get 100% of cancers instead of 30%.

[MADem]

126. ONLY?

Pull that string. It's not "on the schedule for both genders" around the world, either.

This is a profit making exercise for Merck. They aren't just selling it to USA, they are selling it to Europe and other regions as well.

Again, fast dimes are better than slow dollars. The vaccine game is worth millions, too.

Your last sentence is just crap. If you want your children to have sixty percent protection from some (not all) cancers, open your wallet and take care of business. No one is stopping you from giving your kids this injection. But it's not the government's job to cure every ailment.

[jeff47]

131. So now we should remove it from the US schedule because other countries haven't caught up?

The reason countries are holding off on putting it on the schedule for boys is men do not get sick from HPV. Therefore, the vaccine offers no direct benefit, while having the same risks as any other vaccine. Whereas women do receive a direct benefit.

Society as a whole benefits from both genders getting the vaccine, so it should be added to the schedule for both genders.

The vaccine game is worth millions, too.

Overall. The "cancer game" is worth millions per patient.

Your last sentence is just crap.

No, it's an accurate representation of your position: If the vaccine is only 70% effective, better to let that 70% get cancer to keep evil big pharma from making money off the vaccine...Instead they can make 1000x more off the 70% who get cancer.

[peace13]

57. HPV...let each person decide for themselves.

Men or women can take it.

[Warpy]

65. Uh, no. Just no.

Public health laws have teeth in them because it's the only way to reduce the number of disease carriers. People who decide for themselves often don't have all the information or have disinformation from propaganda sites like Mercola and make stupid decisions.

Public safety trumps the right to be stupid about health care decisions that can and do affect other people.

[Humanist_Activist]

79. If these anti-vax nutters were in charge of public health back in the middle of the last century...

we would still be suffering massive outbreaks of smallpox and polio in this country.

[peace13]

107. Like it or not, not everyone can take vaccines.

You will force someone to take a vaccine that will harm them. As a person that has these issues I really resent this. Some day 'my kind' will be rounded up. HPV will not jump to the innocent unprotected. Take the vaccine if you want. Give it to your kids if you decide to. Now Polio or measles, that is a different story. I might spread something but hey..HPV...we're going to have a few discussions before you are at risk of that.

[HuckleB]

119. We all know that.

That's why it's even more important for everyone who can get vaccines to get them!

[Warpy]

169. And that's why everybody else needs to get them

Reducing the number of potential carriers reduces the odds of transmitting or getting the disease.

Again, public safety trumps the right to be stupid about health care.

(HPV induced cancer kills, if you didn't know that)

[gollygee]

194. That's why it's so important for people who can get them to get them.

I have a friend whose daughter is deathly allergic to eggs and can't get vaccines. Her daughter needs everyone else to be vaccinated so stuff doesn't spread to her.

You've hit a on big reason why people talk about mandating vaccines - to protect those for whom it isn't a choice due to allergies or other health issues.

[pnwmom]

133. In this case, yes. HPV is not spread through casual contact,

like measles, chicken pox, whooping cough, or other previously mandated vaccines.

And research is still being done on possible risks, such as elevated risks of blood clots that has been reported since Gardasil's release.

Since up to 20% of the population has a genetic profile connected with an elevated risk of blood clots (and most of these people don't know it until they have their first blood clot) these vaccines shouldn't be mandated till the risk of blood clots has been investigated further.

Also, there is ongoing research about risks. Since the release of the vaccine, a higher risk of blood clots has been reported with Gardasil. The same women at risk from birth control pills might be at risk for blood clots from this vaccine.

(Some women might choose to take birth control pills even though they have Factor 5 Leiden deficiency, or another genetic pattern linked to elevated risk of blood clots. But no one mandates that they do.)

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/infectious-agents/hpv-vaccine-fact-sheet

A recent safety review by the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) considered adverse side effects related to Gardasil immunization that have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System since the vaccine was licensed (29, 30). The rates of adverse side effects in the safety review were consistent with what was seen in safety studies carried out before the vaccine was approved and were similar to those seen with other vaccines. However, a higher proportion of syncope (fainting) and venous thrombolic events (blood clots) were seen with Gardasil than are usually seen with other vaccines. The patients who developed blood clots had known risk factors for developing them, such as taking oral contraceptives. A safety review of Gardasil in Denmark and Sweden did not identify an increased risk of blood clots.

There is also some concern about the risk of Guillain Barre syndrome with the vaccines. Here is more information about possible risks from a site that recommends the HPV vaccine to reduce cancer:

http://www.stopcancerfund.org/p-cervical-cancer-hpv/the-cervical-cancer-vaccine-what-everyone-should-know-and-what-the-future-holds/

In addition to clinical trials, safety information is available through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). As of September 30, 2010, of the 32 million doses of Gardarsil that have been distributed in the U.S., 17,160 adverse events have been reported. Of these reports, 92% were considered non-serious, which includes fainting, pain and swelling at the injection site, headache, nausea, and fever. It should be noted that fainting is common following most injections and vaccinations. In addition, 8% of the reported events were considered serious. All of these serious reports have been carefully reviewed by medical experts and no common medical problems caused by the vaccine were found. However, there have been some reports of individuals getting blood clots after receiving the vaccine, although these individuals had other blood clot risk factors such as using birth control pills, smoking, and obesity. As of September 30, 2010, there have been 56 U.S. reports of death among females who have received the Gardasil vaccine, with 30 of the reports confirmed. Of the confirmed reports, there was no unusual pattern to suggest that the deaths were caused by the vaccine.8

In spite of this finding, there has been some concern about a link between Gardasil and a rare nervous system disorder known as Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). In a 2010 study in Vaccine, Nizar Souayah and co-authors looked at the VAERS database between June 2006 and September 2009 and compared the occurrence of Guillain-Barré syndrome after vaccination with Gardasil to the occurrence after vaccination with Menactra and influenza.17 The researchers concluded that the average weekly reporting rate of GBS for the six weeks after vaccination was 6.6 events per week per 10 million subjects, which is double what it was for Menactra (also administered to children 11 and up), and about five times the weekly reporting rate for flu vaccine. When limited to the first two weeks after vaccination, the average weekly reporting rate of GBS jumped to 14.5 cases per week per 10 million subjects vaccinated with Gardasil as compared to 5.7 cases among subjects vaccinated with Menactra.

Three CDC researchers have criticized Souayah’s study, pointing out that the VAERS database has numerous shortcomings and that the authors used as their denominator the number of doses distributed, divided by 3, even though not everyone receives all three doses. They also maintain that being a new vaccine, adverse reactions to Gardasil were over-reported.

There are, in fact, problems with VAERS-it is a passive system-but usually the problem is under-reporting. Most parents don’t know how to report problems or don’t find the time to do so, and many doctors under-report as well. If there was extensive under-reporting of problems associated with Gardasil, then that may have partly offset Sourayah’s overestimation of the number of people getting all 3 doses. Clearly, more research will need to be done to determine if Gardasil slightly increases the very low risk of GBS.

Cervarix has only been linked to 3 adverse event reports so far. This low number is due to the fact that the vaccine was only recently approved in the U.S., and relatively few individuals have received it so far.

[grntuscarora]

99. We made sure all three of our girls were vaccinated,

and were glad our insurance covered it.

[zappaman]

120. Not true and I suggest you educate yourself.

A co-worker of mine has a friend who got the vaccine and then 5 1/2 years later was diagnosed with lupus.
Apparently she never had any symptoms before so it;s obvious the vaccine had something to do with it.
Also, why do you hate science?

[HuckleB]

123. You're good.

And scary, at first.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

134. Classic zappaman. n/t

[SidDithers]

202. Why do you hate Michelle Obama?...

Eh? Answer that one, Mr. Smartypants.

Sid

[KittyWampus]

124. Young women's bodies spontaneously rid themselves of HPV and that's who's marketed to.

This should be left to women over 18 who can make their own decisions.

There is next to no scientific/medical reason for young teenage girls to get this vaccine.

[HuckleB]

128. Wow!

Nope. There is plenty of science-based reasons to give this vaccine to young people, most particularly, in fact.

[Humanist_Activist]

141. How, so much ignorance compacted into such a brief post.

Congratulations!

[hifiguy]

135. I am genuinely surprised at the amount of anti-science woo

in this thread. At least nobody managed to gibber out "But, but JEBUS!!!"

[HuckleB]

138. I am, but only slightly.

This used to be common at DU, but I had thought that it was a part of past. I was wrong.

Of course, if a more popular DUer had posted it, it would also have many more likes. I don't care about popularity, obviously, but you have to take the responses to my OPs with a grain of salt.

[HuckleB]

148. At least 60 percent of teens have sex by 18, and it's often quite casual.

It also probably doesn't cover all "types" of sex.

It is ludicrous to see the posts arguing against this vaccine at DU. We should be better than that.

[restorefreedom]

189. i have not seen one person argue against making the vaccine available

its the mandate that some disagree with

its also called choice, personal autonomy, and freedom, although that word has sadly been coopted by the republicans who use it to take away our rights.

[HuckleB]

236. Interestingly...

the OP said nothing about a mandate, but you made that the topic.

AND YES! It should be mandated, and the responses on this thread show why.

[uppityperson]

162. Welcome to DU. I just sent you a pm, please check it out. Thanks.

[GreenPartyVoter]

174. My boys just got theirs.

[Recursion]

187. It's a vaccine for some of the causes of some of the precursors for some cervical cancers

IIRC three strains of HPV raise your lifetime risk from 0.4% to 0.6%, and the vaccine blocks two of them. It's a marginal public health improvement, so a good thing, but I get worried when I see this billed as "a cancer vaccine". You can get cervical cancer without HPV, and you can have HPV without cervical cancer.

[MADem]

211. Oh, stop bringing adult, nuanced points to a discussion that is determined to demonize some

while elevating others. How dare you be mature, and reasonable!

This thing is covered under the ACA anyway. For people who have to PAY for it, in countries where it's not included in the package, that's a separate issue. Also, it's a sixty percent solution--not a cure. It's a risk reducer. Plus, given all the cancers that males can get as a result of HPV, it's interesting how this is relentlessly sold as a 'girl cure' instead of focusing on male bits and bobs as well.

[HuckleB]

224. Thanks for offering up the most careful anti-vaccine mantra available.

It doesn't change reality. Get the vaccine. It's safe, and it saves lives.

[Recursion]

225. Hey, pious one, do you have any idea how much time, effort, and money I dedicate to vaccinations?

Or the amount of shit I put up with trying to pry money out of donors to pay for them? No? Then don't fucking call me "anti-vax".

[HuckleB]

227. Oh, goodness. This is a new attempt at pretense!

Since I know you're not an actual health care provider, I'll guarantee that you haven't spent anywhere near the time I've spent working to get good health care for people, vaccines included. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Recursion]

229. Ah

Goodbye.

[HuckleB]

234. That's cute. HPV vaccines still save lives!

[Recursion]

239. I know. That's why I'm for mandating them, oh sanctimonious one (nt)

[neverforget]

197. My 11 year old daughter just got her 2nd of 3 shots for HPV this week.

I'll continue to listen to the doctors and science on vaccinations. The anti-vax/anti-science woo is incredible here.

[closeupready]

206. lol - 205 posts, 12 recs. Good going, Tom Sawyer!!!

[HuckleB]

207. Actually, I had no idea that the DU anti-V crowd would be so vehement in this era.

[MADem]

213. Calling DUers "anti-vaxxers" because they don't agree with your MANDATORY

STATE-RUN exhortations is a false characterization.

Of course, you know this, and you don't care. You persist anyway.

[HuckleB]

221. I'm sorry that you don't like that reality.

That's not my problem, however.

[HuckleB]

238. DU, we have a problem. Anti-vaccine members continue to dominate many threads.

This is not a good thing.

[pnwmom]

306. When you fill your OP's with words like "the world must" -- then no wonder.

Who appointed you world dictator?

[HuckleB]

309. It's the title of the piece in the OP. And that's not an excuse for anti-vaccine nonsense.

Why do you always blame others when you push your anti-vaccine tropes?

[HuckleB]

259. Antivax 101: Tactics and Tropes of the Antivaccine Movement

http://www.skepticnorth.com/2012/04/antivax-101-tactics-and-tropes-of-the-antivaccine-movement/


Quite a few of these are found in responses to the OP. Yikes.

[Liberal Veteran]

283. “I’m an expert on my own child” - What does that even mean?

That you know he'll eat turnips, but not rutabaga? Perhaps. You do spend time with him.

That you know he is allergic (perhaps) to something? Sometimes. Just because his stomach got upset when treating him for an infection doesn't necessarily mean "allergic".

But what doesn't follow is that somehow you understand science because you did something nearly every organism on the planet can do: reproduce.

That's the same kind of logic that of parents who take their child to the chiropractor for ear infections or perform faith healing on kids.

[HuckleB]

284. Exactly, and yet many people think they can just make it up as they go along...

... while ignoring the science part of the assessment. It's astounding to see it advocated, quite vehemently on this very page.

[HuckleB]

299. Time To Play Bingo

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun:Anti-vaccine_argument_bingo

[Liberal Veteran]

313. 'You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.'

There are certainly some good points to made against HPV vaccination (although to be honest, I haven't found any in this thread that really sing out as particularly reasoned).

Really bad arguments:

Not 100% percent safe. - Nothing is. There is always a minority of people who will have a bad reaction to something. Sugar, water, peanuts, vaccines, aspirin, penicillin. As far as safety is concerned, we are a decade into this and some 86 million doses administered in the US alone pretty much put that concern to rest. So far, the predictions of everything from massive die-offs to mass sterility have yet to materialize in real world usage.

Will encourage risky behavior. - Yeah, that's what they say about giving kids condoms or teaching sex ed. This is hardly worth acknowledging. Sorta like saying making people wear motorcycle helmets or seats belts makes people want to crash their car into the nearest tree.

Doesn't cover all strains/not 100% effective. - The fact that seat belts don't always prevent injury doesn't mean they don't stop a lot of people from flying through the windshield on impact and reduce the risk of serious injury by 45% in car accidents.

Merck and/or some republican supports vaccination for HPV. - So what? Okay, maybe their motives aren't pure, but again...who cares? No matter how you slice that one, it boils down to Argumentum ad Hominem. It is a rubbish argument meant to appeal to prejudice rather than reason.

In case of legitimate HPV infection, the body has a way to shut that down/clear the infection. - I don't even know where to begin with that. Even though that is a paraphrase, that argument immediately brought to mind the whole "pregnancy from legitimate rape" debacle. Yes, the body can do remarkable things, but I'm sure that results in cold comfort for those who end up NOT clearing the infection and enjoying genital warts and/or cervical/anal cancer.

Specious arguments:

Pap smears will take care of the problem. - The value of regular pap smears cannot be understated, but it doesn't change the fact that not everyone goes to their doctor as they should and we still get some 12000 cases of cervical cancer annually in the US.

Too many vaccines. - I suppose if there weren't so many illnesses, we wouldn't have so many vaccines. Even so, it isn't as though the body has some low threshold on the number of pathogens it can recognize and react to and we need to parcel out vaccines like misers for fear that next year you won't be able to get your flu shot because because you used up all your lifetime quota of preventable diseases.

Not easily communicable. - The fact that you aren't going to get it from breathing the same air someone doesn't change the fact that upwards of 75% of the population ends up exposed to HPV.

I don't like mandates. - Mandates are inconvenient and can be expensive. Cancer is also inconvenient and expensive. Complete freedom from mandates doesn't exist when you are part of a civilization.


The really troubling thing is deep down, I know a lot of these arguments were created to justify a position already taken in order to sound reasonable. It all comes out a lot like this:

[HuckleB]

315. You did a lot of work on that. I hope you posted it to your journal.

It should be it's own OP.

And, seeing this, you could turn that into a bigger piece, for a blog. Certainly, it would be much better than most of the stuff posted on HuffPo. I'm thinking of a well-known site that would be perfect, but I can't think of the name right now. Shoot.

Nice work!

[Carolina]

327. Those who question some vaccines are not always wrong and EMA is plagued by

conflict of interest.

The natural history of HPV infection is as follows: >75% of the population is exposed, 50% to high risk serotypes. However, 50% of HPV infections are cleared by the immune system within 8 months and 90% by 2 years.

HPV has over 100 serotypes of which the primary high risk oncogenic (cancer causing) ones are HPV 16 (60% of cases) and HPV 18 (10%). Gardisil protects against these as well as HPV 6 & 11 (types associated with genital warts). It was introduced by Merck and approved by the FDA in 2006 during the time that Dr. Julie Gerberding was director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2009, when Obama took office, Dr. Gerberding was named president of Merck's vaccine division.

Just last month (11/13/2015), the following was reported in http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/854469: Chronic Symptoms After HPV Vaccination: Danes Start Study.

"Last week, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) announced that a task force found no causality between the vaccination and two sets of chronic symptom syndromes in girls and young women, which echoes previous reassurances from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).


Now, some clinicians and scientists say the EMA report is "not valid" and is marred by conflict of interest and reliance on already published data and are calling for an independent study of the association.
Denmark has announced that it is conducting its own independent investigation. More than 1300 girls and young women with such symptoms have been referred to five specialist centers in the country.

It was Denmark that requested the recent review by the EMA into the safety of HPV vaccines. That review... focused in particular at reports of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), a chronic pain condition affecting the limbs, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a condition in which the heart rate increases abnormally after sitting or standing up, causing symptoms such as dizziness and fainting, as well as headache, chest pain, and weakness."

The CRPS symptoms are similar to those of chronic fatigue syndrome but in some case(s) are characterized by outright paralysis. Accordingly, vaccination should be at the discretion of the girl and her parents. In those who opt not to vaccinate, then become infected and even develop cervical dysplasia (low grade squamous intraepithelial lesions), the consensus of physicians is to watch and wait because in young women, HPV is usually cleared by the immune system which is consistent with the natural life cycle of the virus cited above. Only ~10% will have persistent atypia and only ~1.3% will develop invasive cervical cancer, both of which are treatable.

HPV does not present the public health risks of other diseases for which immunization is mandated prior to entry into public schools such as measles, polio, diphtheria or pertussis (to young children), etc. Mandatory vaccinations for HPV are a slippery slope given such serious adverse reactions. Remember in 1999, Merck gave us Vioxx, the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agent proclaiming it was perfectly safe and silencing the MDs who raised the alarm. Later (2011) after such serious ADRs as heart attacks, Merck settled ~60,000 claims and withdrew the drug from the market.

As a physician, I am definitely not an anti-vaxer, but I suggest reading the link in its entirety including the salient and controversial comments by physicians and other health care providers. There are serious, persistent questions about this vaccine. Meanwhile, PAP screening is tried, tested and proven for both safety and efficacy.

Carolina, MD

[proverbialwisdom]

328. Updates.

ESSENTIAL READING: http://nordic.cochrane.org/sites/nordic.cochrane.org/files/uploads/ResearchHighlights/Complaint-to-EMA-over-EMA.pdf

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/865686

Complaint Filed Over EMA's Handling of HPV Vaccine Safety Issues
Zosia Chustecka
July 05, 2016

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/867398

Chronic Symptoms After HPV Vaccine: Part of Wider Syndrome?
Zosia Chustecka
August 11, 2016

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/867772?src=soc_tw_share

Letters to the Editor
Paul Offit Responds to News About HPV Vaccine 'Syndrome'
Paul A. Offit, MD
Disclosures | August 26, 2016

More: Professor Margaret Stanley, Ph.D. Ireland August 2016 (Use BING search, not Google)