Why Vaccines Matter

[Walking-Iris]

No there isn't.  Even if you can come up with a specific date you had a tetanus shot when in the ER with an injury, if it's more than 5-7 years ago, they are going to give you another shot.  It won't hurt you if it is tetanus only (whether the tig or the regular vaccine is given will vary - some places will give you the Tdap, particularly if you know when your last tetanus booster was, because, like with babies/well visits, it's a captive audience).  Now, if it has pertussis in it, it's a little different.  For example, for school my son needed 4 DPT, DT, DTaP, or Tdap in any combination.  He's had 3.  His ped will not give him another Tdap for a minimum of 5 years (she said higher risk of reaction due to the pertussis) so she has to write an annual note saying it would be medically dangerous for him to have another shot of one of those at this time (technically, he could have the DT and be "up to date" according to the school, but the ped feels that would be silly and isn't a fan of schools playing doctor with certain requirements).

 

 

That is a major issue. I'm not at all happy with schools playing doctor in this way and withholding report cards and such until a parent complies. Health care is not as cut and dried as that, and I do not feel it is fair for schools to insert themselves into the health care arena with their policies. 

 

My oldest was completely vaxed. We delayed only his MMR. He has always been my sickest child.

 

My second child we selectively vaxed and he had a severe reaction to the DtaP/Prevnar combo. Here...pedes don't vaccinate. People used to have to go to the local health dept where a main nurse did all the vaccinations. I called our Dr after my ds's incident and he said that it can happen with the combo that babies will have a severe reaction. (my 2 month old screamed and shook literally non-stop for 3 and half hours the evening after the vax.)   His advice was to separate the DTaP and prevnar as a precaution against another episode. So one month my ds could only have Dtap and then we had to go back the next moth for the Prevnar. I was blown away at how the nurse was against this. She felt that it was more important to not stick a needle in the poor baby more than necessary than it was to worry about the reaction he had. I distinctly remember telling her that pain from a needle stick isn't really my concern over a repeat reaction. And besides it was my doctors advice to do so. I was also kind of mad!!!! They know that these reactions can happen, but chose to wait for it to happen before separating out and changing the schedule of the shots. This was also around the time there was a huge HiB recall and our lot was affected. They seemed so unconcerned. 

 

My dd is completely unvaxed. 

 

I'm neither against or for vaccinations. But I feel that the health care powers that be are not quite as transparent about the information on vaccinations like they could be. It's assumed that parents will do what they say, and they tie public education policies into it to insure most parents will do it unquestionably. 

 

I also feel that there is a push to vaccinate or develop a vaccine for everything these days. They are a profit making machine. Rotovirus for instance. That guy is a millionaire for making a vaccine for something that is a normal childhood disease. My oldest had it as a toddler. Yeah he was sick, not fun...but honestly the real danger of rotovirus comes from the threat of getting dehydrated. Loads of kids get it and deal with it very well, and then there they are...they're immune to it. So unless someone can make a vaccine against dehydration, I find it pointless.

[MercyA]

We selectively vaccinate. Dtap & TDap is one we do because of Tetanus. The most recently vaccinated person in our household was 1 year post booster when she was diagnosed with Pertussis. The rest of us didn't get it. She contracted it from another vaccinated teenager and a week later, another vaccinated friend was diagnosed. It is not necessarily non-vaccinated children spreading communicable diseases. My needs a booster now, asthmatic child didn't even catch it. It's a crapshoot.

 

True.  From the California Department of Public Health's June 10, 2014 pertussis report:  "Among 2,039 (70%) of pediatric cases with vaccination history information, 9% had never received pertussis-containing vaccine."   The majority of children affected had received at least one pertussis vaccine.

[magnificent_baby]

That is a major issue. I'm not at all happy with schools playing doctor in this way and withholding report cards and such until a parent complies. Health care is not as cut and dried as that, and I do not feel it is fair for schools to insert themselves into the health care arena with their policies. 

 

My oldest was completely vaxed. We delayed only his MMR. He has always been my sickest child.

 

My second child we selectively vaxed and he had a severe reaction to the DtaP/Prevnar combo. Here...pedes don't vaccinate. People used to have to go to the local health dept where a main nurse did all the vaccinations. I called our Dr after my ds's incident and he said that it can happen with the combo that babies will have a severe reaction. (my 2 month old screamed and shook literally non-stop for 3 and half hours the evening after the vax.)   His advice was to separate the DTaP and prevnar as a precaution against another episode. So one month my ds could only have Dtap and then we had to go back the next moth for the Prevnar. I was blown away at how the nurse was against this. She felt that it was more important to not stick a needle in the poor baby more than necessary than it was to worry about the reaction he had. I distinctly remember telling her that pain from a needle stick isn't really my concern over a repeat reaction. And besides it was my doctors advice to do so. I was also kind of mad!!!! They know that these reactions can happen, but chose to wait for it to happen before separating out and changing the schedule of the shots. This was also around the time there was a huge HiB recall and our lot was affected. They seemed so unconcerned. 

 

My dd is completely unvaxed. 

 

I'm neither against or for vaccinations. But I feel that the health care powers that be are not quite as transparent about the information on vaccinations like they could be. It's assumed that parents will do what they say, and they tie public education policies into it to insure most parents will do it unquestionably. 

 

I also feel that there is a push to vaccinate or develop a vaccine for everything these days. They are a profit making machine. Rotovirus for instance. That guy is a millionaire for making a vaccine for something that is a normal childhood disease. My oldest had it as a toddler. Yeah he was sick, not fun...but honestly the real danger of rotovirus comes from the threat of getting dehydrated. Loads of kids get it and deal with it very well, and then there they are...they're immune to it. So unless someone can make a vaccine against dehydration, I find it pointless.

 

Just repeating one of my previous posts. Schools have to comply with guidelines within their state. It's not the schools coming up with these policies. In my district (I'm a school nurse), we do have a little bit of wiggle room when working with families. If their doctor signs exemption forms and they are turned in on time, they are fine. I'm not directly responsible for vaccines in my position, so I'm not sure if that's the case for ALL vaccines or particular ones. If they ignore repeated requests from the school for vaccine records, they cannot attend until it's taken care of. A line has to be drawn somewhere, or the school is not compliant with state health department regulations and faces repercussions if/when caught by our yearly state audit. 

[Walking-Iris]

Anecdotally, not from hard numbers and facts and "stuff".

 

Listening to my anti-vax friends, they aren't looking at the science. They've been pulled into many of the pseudoscience websites, false autism scares, and other things.  Does this mean that everyone who chooses not to vaccinate didn't look at the science? No. But I am finding it more common than I anticipated among homeschoolers who I would expect to value good research.

 

 

This is my own personal observation, it's not a scientific study nor should it be misconstrued as fact.  I find it scary. 

 

Both my children are fully vaccinated with all "required for school" vaccines.  They get to choose when they are 13+ if they want to get the Gardassil vaccine. The discussion fits in nicely with human reproduction education.  My younger son was on a delayed schedule since some of the vaccines gave him a mild reaction (high fever).

 

We have had the flu vaccine before, but I am less urgent about it since it only has about a 60% (?) effectiveness rating. I personally can not get the flu vaccine because of allergy. There is a new flu vaccine made without egg but it was impossible to find in my area, if I can find it this coming year I'll likely get it.  Flu hit me hard because of other health issues.

 

IMHO there are a lot more people who are vaccinating their children who haven't a clue about what is in them, what the diseases are, the history of those diseases, and wouldn't understand the science of them even if they tried or cared to look into it. They vaccinate their children because "that's just what you do." There's a huge culture and mindset of not questioning what a health care official  (or the mainstream media) says.

 

For the most part, people who selectively vax or don't at all have researched it endlessly (or unfortunately have had bad experiences) and it's not as easy a decision to make as just blindly trusting mainstream medicine like the general public tends to do. 

 

Now of course there are fringe people in any area you can look at. And definitely in the vaccine area (chickenpox lollipop anyone?). But IME overall the people who are thinking about it, researching it, are people who are as concerned about their children's health as you are.

 

I've also encountered very real animosity and just plain aggressive rudeness form pro vaxers than I have from those who don't. IME typically those who don't are just as willing to respect a parent's choice to vaccinate. The same isn't true the other way around. 

 

1 in 68 children are being diagnosed with autism. Vaccines or not? I don't know. I suspect it's a combo of issues both genetic and environmental. But I typically think it's a bit ungracious to write of people's concern about it as a "scare" or fear-mongering etc when our mainstream media uses the same fear-mongering tactics to  persuade people to vaccinate.

 

Some people I have talked to IRL seem to think we're all going to die of a measles apocalypse and they truly seem scared of it. (fear usually fueled by mainstream media)That's not showing a real understanding of science or biology either.

 

 

[Walking-Iris]

Just repeating one of my previous posts. Schools have to comply with guidelines within their state. It's not the schools coming up with these policies. In my district (I'm a school nurse), we do have a little bit of wiggle room when working with families. If their doctor signs exemption forms and they are turned in on time, they are fine. I'm not directly responsible for vaccines in my position, so I'm not sure if that's the case for ALL vaccines or particular ones. If they ignore repeated requests from the school for vaccine records, they cannot attend until it's taken care of. A line has to be drawn somewhere, or the school is not compliant with state health department regulations and faces repercussions if/when caught by our yearly state audit. 

 

Right. I understand that. But I repeat what I said before that those policies are what I don't agree with. The state is still using the public education as a way to force compliance. 

[FaithManor]

I personally believe that pertussis, like many viruses and bacterium, have mutated and the vaccine is not effective or has significant reduced efficacy due to the change. If vaccines are going to be effective in the future, researchers will have to make new formulations regularly. The problem with that is that they need to be tested for safety and that process can be very, very slow resulting in another mutation before the vaccine can be brought to market. Just think about how often the flu vaccine is A. a guess about which one will actually be the plague for that season and B. mutates form resulting in C. we hope you get the flu shot and we hope it will work or at least make your symptoms less but this is a lot like a game of Russian roulette so fingers crossed!

 

Superbugs are living amongst us. That's the really scary part. It used to be you could believe in herd immunity. Not so much anymore. Pertusis now, measles in the future? Mumps? Meningitis? It's not fun to think about. They are going to have to put more money into research for other ways to strengthen immune systems and into treatments for disease they thought they'd never have to treat again.

 

At least, that's my opinion of what is happening with communicable diseases.

 

And, no matter what, I am NO FAN of schools playing God with health. I have three kids who can be vaccinated without dangerous side effects. I have one who has nearly died more than once from vaccine reactions resulting in us saying "NO MORE!" We had the option to homeschool, but many families simply can't. So there has to be a balanced approach.

[magnificent_baby]

Right. I understand that. But I repeat what I said before that those policies are what I don't agree with. The state is still using the public education as a way to force compliance. 

 

Well hopefully that's not why the state has these policies, but I'm sure anything is possible. IMO, the main purpose is to protect the public (children in this case) from the quick spreading of disease when a large amount of children are in relatively close contact with each other. One of my buildings (and my own kids' school) holds nearly 1,000 kids, not including staff. That's a lot of children to keep healthy, and outbreaks occur quickly. 

[Lara in Colo]

Honestly, I think this is less about vaccines and more about that we just don't trust our gov't to be on OUR side anymore. 

[swellmomma]

From birth to 6

 

Rotavirus (x3)

Pneumoccocal (x4)

HiB (x4)

Hepatitis A (x2)

Hepatitis B (x3)

MMR (x2)

Polio (x4)

Varicella (x2)

DTaP (x5)

Flu (annually)

 

From 7-18

 

TDap

Guardisil (HPV) (rec' at 10)

Menengitis (MCV) x2

Flu (annually)

 

I know I had an MMR booster again at 18 when I went to college, but that isn't on the site.  I think it may have been due to a Measles outbreak at the school... because there are a bunch that you *may* get under certain circumstances, but they aren't routine.  I do get a TDaP every 5-10 years as an adult.

 

ETA:  We've never had the flu vaccine in our family.   We haven't done HPV.  I did do the MCV.  I don't think my kids had the Rotavirus one, either, and I've heard that the MCV is being recommended for younger children now.

Vaccine schedule in Canada is different.  No rotavirus,no hep A.  Hep b done in 5th grade here in alberta. Chicken pox done at 1 year.  MMR done at 1 year and 4-6 years

 

The schedule typically here in Alberta is:

 

2 months- DTaP-IPV with Hib, pneumococcal, menigicoccal

4 months- same as above

6 months -  same as above (plus flu if opted for during flue season)

12 months- MMR, menigicoccal, pneumococcal, varricella

18 months- same as the 2-4-6 month series

4-6 years - DTaP-IPV with Hib, MMRV, pneumococcal for those that need to "catch up"

Grade 5- Hep B, HPV

Grade 9- Tdap, Mengicoccal

 

Other:

Hep A if travelling, no younger than 1 year

Pneumococcal past the age of 2 if certain illnesses are present

 

Many people tend to stick with the "normal" stuff but opt out of HPV and flu shots, we also opt out of chicken pox.  youngest never had pneumococcal shots because we did a delayed schedule and spread things out more.  We also only did 2 of the 3 shots of HPV for dd14.  

[Murphy101]

I think ALL shots should be available individually.

 

My older kids got the individual measles, mumps, and rubella shots so that I could spread them out. But by the time my youngest had come along the Feds had pressured the manufacturer into discontinuing the individual shots. So parents were faced with an "all-or-nothing" decision about MMR. I didn't feel comfortable forgoing it entirely, but I delayed years past when I would've had the individual measles shot administered. Many parents who might've done the individual measles shot but don't feel comfortable with the potential risks of the combo MMR choose to skip it entirely.

THIS!!! YES!!!

 

I used to take my older kids in for tetanus around age 2 yr. Now I have to choose between no shots at all or a whole mess of them in one. It really angers me.

 

I personally avoid all vax until around age 2, then I start selectively doing them based on the current info I can find when that time comes up. Bc things do change wrt to the vax and I take my individual child and circumstances into consideration.

 

I don't do what alice referred to as lifestyle vaccines until they are about 14.

 

And I never allow more than one injection per visit and I won't take them until they are otherwise perfectly healthy.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

Honestly, I think this is less about vaccines and more about that we just don't trust our gov't to be on OUR side anymore. 

 

This does seem to be an ongoing theme within a variety of hot button topics.

[DesertBlossom]

I agree Big Pharma <insert evil villian music here> is in it for the money, go capitalism!  

 

Well, but it's not pure capitalism.  The government "requires" vaccines and has also made it so that pharmaceutical companies are not liable for the injuries they cause.  They did this because pharmaceutical companies threatened to quit making vaccines for fear of lawsuits.  So not only is there artificial demand for their products, there is less incentive for them to make their products safe.

[Wheres Toto]

With a few exceptions (Guardasil being a big one), the pharmaceutical companies are not making big bucks off of vaccines.  That's why shortages happen, it can be hard to find companies willing to manufacture vaccines because they aren't a money maker.  Most are available as generics and return is extremely low.  The government has to offer incentives to keep certain ones available at all.

 

[magnificent_baby]

I personally believe that pertussis, like many viruses and bacterium, have mutated and the vaccine is not effective or has significant reduced efficacy due to the change. If vaccines are going to be effective in the future, researchers will have to make new formulations regularly. The problem with that is that they need to be tested for safety and that process can be very, very slow resulting in another mutation before the vaccine can be brought to market. Just think about how often the flu vaccine is A. a guess about which one will actually be the plague for that season and B. mutates form resulting in C. we hope you get the flu shot and we hope it will work or at least make your symptoms less but this is a lot like a game of Russian roulette so fingers crossed!

 

Superbugs are living amongst us. That's the really scary part. It used to be you could believe in herd immunity. Not so much anymore. Pertusis now, measles in the future? Mumps? Meningitis? It's not fun to think about. They are going to have to put more money into research for other ways to strengthen immune systems and into treatments for disease they thought they'd never have to treat again.

 

At least, that's my opinion of what is happening with communicable diseases.

 

And, no matter what, I am NO FAN of schools playing God with health. I have three kids who can be vaccinated without dangerous side effects. I have one who has nearly died more than once from vaccine reactions resulting in us saying "NO MORE!" We had the option to homeschool, but many families simply can't. So there has to be a balanced approach.

 

However, all 50 states have medical exemptions, so no one would force your family or anyone else's to vaccinate that have had dangerous reactions. And just to reiterate (and I promise I'll stop after this last reiteration, LOL) it is NOT the schools that are playing God here. They are complying with state health department regulations. In my district, administration has very, very little to do with medical policy decision making. They fully entrust district RN's to comply with state standards and current practice guidelines. We are audited every year for vaccine compliance. Schools are not always the bad guys, especially when it comes to health regulations, otherwise state funding can be withheld. 

 

For what it's worth, we vaccinate for all the main ones that have been around a long time. We do not vaccinate for flu (at this point), and likely never for HPV, so I'm not exactly super pro-vaccination. 

 

[heartosunshine]

They don't usually give the first MMR until after a year old, so you shouldn't have had a second at 11 months.

 

 

Just realized that maybe you meant years...

 

Oops, I stand corrected! My first MMR when I was 11 months, then I had a booster later. Since the first one was before I was a year old, it didn't count & I had to have another before college.

 

[Χά�ων]

As the mom of a a child who is on not one but two immunosuppressants to keep him alive and healthy, if I find out that someone is too stupid to take steps that will ensure his health, they are cut from our lives. 

 

We no longer hang out with the following:

 

Those who are anti-vaccine

Those who knowingly take their sick child out in public

Those who bring their sick child around my child, knowing that my son's immune system cannot handle it

 

And yes that happens. There are people who are completely convinced my son just needs to spend more time playing video games and he will be fine. These same people have flat out refused to respect that their actions and inaction in regards to their sick children can kill my son. My son's social circle shrunk dramatically.  

 

This was the case last fall before Thanksgiving. My son is STILL suffering the fall out from that virus and it is the middle of June. He is not allowed to see his best friend because his friends cold almost killed him and has robbed him of his physical health and well being. I do not blame the child. I blame the mother. I am very very open and upfront about it with people and I expect people to take certain precautions. I am willing to reschedule and go out of my way to make it work out. 

 

 

I take precautions. For example, My son is not allowed to touch anything at the check out isles, he is not allowed in the pharmacy area of any store and if there is the option, he even uses the opposite entrance. I understand those who are very sick and have no choice but to go stand in line at the pharmacy to pick up an antibiotic. I understand that licking the boxes of OTC cold medicine is not the best best to stay healthy. However, those who bring a sick child to a play date or drag a sick sibling along rather than rescheduling are high on my shit list. Common sense people!

 

 

ETA: I debated enrolling my son in the public school but was flat out told by my son's doctor that he would need to be on homebound. 

[Butter]

Well hopefully that's not why the state has these policies, but I'm sure anything is possible. IMO, the main purpose is to protect the public (children in this case) from the quick spreading of disease when a large amount of children are in relatively close contact with each other. One of my buildings (and my own kids' school) holds nearly 1,000 kids, not including staff. That's a lot of children to keep healthy, and outbreaks occur quickly. 

 

Well... public school immunization requirements are the same if you use a virtual school and never are around another student at all.

[magnificent_baby]

Well... public school immunization requirements are the same if you use a virtual school and never are around another student at all.

 

Hmm, interesting. I didn't know that. 

[Reefgazer]

I actually brought this issue up last year when discussing the Gardasil vax with my kids' pediatrician.  My kids are fully vaxed, but I was hesitant to get this one because 1) the vaccine has not been on the market as long as others and the long-term effects are less well known, and 2) the role of money in medicine is so prevalent now (much more so than in the past when many vaccines were developed).  Anyway, I voiced my hesitancy about the vaccine, and the doc just assumed I was opposed because it was sexually transmitted and he figured I was some social conservative (which I suppose I am to some degree, but that wasn't driving my vaccine concerns).  I had to clarify that my hesitating was more because of the money issue and drug-review process, which I see as corrupted and not rigorous.  I found it funny he jumped to the conclusions he did.  He did ease my concerns some by explaining that that was exactly the case with most drugs (like the statin situation you mention), but that vaccines had a much more rigorous review process because the government has a financial stake in their safety because they have a vaccine fund that pays out if someone is injured.  So I got the vaccine, although I had my reservations; his explanation was just enough to tip someone like me, who was on the fence about it, over to the vaccine side.  I still don't think vaccines like Gardasil should be required by the government because they are not casually communicable through non-contact means, but taking the vaccine was the right choice for us, in this case.

 

Another issue is the Pharmaceutical industry. They are in it for the money.  There are big bucks to be made in requiring certain vaccines and drugs. I'm not saying all are bad, but there are instances where I feel we've been fed misinformation for the sake of the almighty dollar. 

 

Let's take statins for example.  I've done some research on cholesterol, blood pressure, and such.  Several doctors believe that we are pushing artificially low cholesterol levels to benefit pharmaceutical companies.  Our cells and arteries need cholesterol to maintain their flexibility.  If you check, each year the levels required get lower and lower (and I'm talking about the so-called "bad" cholesterol).  It's getting to the point where everyone is going to be required to be on statins.  For example here's one article that sheds some light on cholesterol: http://www.healthy.net/Health/Article/Cholesterol_tests/2750

 

My father died at 59 with his 4th heart attack.  Since the age of 42 he had been on statins and told his cholesterol was doing well.  In fact, his cholesterol may have been so artificially low, it may have caused hardening of the arteries and actually contributed to his death.  Am I absolutely sure of this? No, but several other things I've read suggest that when we starve the body of cholesterol, it can cause the same symptoms and worse than those we are treating people for in the first place.  Here's another more scientific article with cited sources: http://diaryofalegaldrugdealer.com/the-great-cholesterol-myth/   Yet another one: http://experiencelife.com/article/cholesterol-reconsidered/  These are just relative to statins, but when you involve profits to big pharma, you need to do due diligence and question what is really the impetus for these drugs and vaccines and what is in them. 

 

I'm not anti-drug  (legal drugs anyway) or anti-vaccination. For the most part, we also vaccinate.  However, we also have a history of serious allergies with some vaccinations.  Therefore we question.

 

My mother was a surgical RN for 28 years.   Because of the stories she relayed each night after work at the dinner table, I've learned to question, question, question and research! In fact, I've had doctors ask me before if I was a nurse because of all my questions. The point is that we are our own best advocates.  We do actually know our bodies and how they normally work better than our doctors.  We do not arrive in this world as a standard model like a Buick.  Each body has its own idiosynchrasies. We all react differently to different chemicals and plant bases.  Therefore, we must really research a vaccine, be our own advocates, and judge the potential risks before just blindly following recommendations.

 

[Momof3littles]

Well... public school immunization requirements are the same if you use a virtual school and never are around another student at all.

In some states home schoolers ( not part of virtual charters) still have to submit an exemption or be fully up to date. I live in one of these states. We have to submit physical paperwork, shots must be up to date, blood testing for diabetes is being proposed as mandatory for all students. Bmi, vision, dental all go to the district or you file exemptions. My kids have never set foot in public school but we have to comply in exactly the same way we would if they were enrolled full time.

[Reefgazer]

Have you read the book "Over-diagnosed"?  It's an excellent book that addresses the money issue on the drug industry and points out the really lax oversight and poor standards that are tolerated by the US government.  It is interesting to note other countries' more rigorous standards for making drug research public; much more so than in the USA.  The author used statins as a primary example of this, pointing out primary research in reputable medical journals (JAMA) that  showed while statins decreased the risk of "cardiovascular events" (stroke, MI, etc), it did not increase life expectancy, mainly because statin patients died earlier from other causes (such as liver disease).  Most surprisingly, because medicines, until recently, were tested on males only, there is no primary research on the use of statins for women; the recommendations for women, men who have never had a heart attack, and men over 74 are based on extrapolations and assumptions on how they would be affected and feed heavily off the tested group of men between the  of ages 55-74 who have already had heart attacks.  Most interesting, he noted that the drug companies' studies compare statins and other meds to current medications on the market, not to lifestyle changes, which are often more effective than any drug out there.  He had other examples in his book, as well (BCP, some blood pressure meds, bone strengthening meds), but he spent quite a bit of his paper on statins. 

Another issue is the Pharmaceutical industry. They are in it for the money.  There are big bucks to be made in requiring certain vaccines and drugs. I'm not saying all are bad, but there are instances where I feel we've been fed misinformation for the sake of the almighty dollar. 

 

Let's take statins for example.  I've done some research on cholesterol, blood pressure, and such.  Several doctors believe that we are pushing artificially low cholesterol levels to benefit pharmaceutical companies.  Our cells and arteries need cholesterol to maintain their flexibility.  If you check, each year the levels required get lower and lower (and I'm talking about the so-called "bad" cholesterol).  It's getting to the point where everyone is going to be required to be on statins.  For example here's one article that sheds some light on cholesterol: http://www.healthy.net/Health/Article/Cholesterol_tests/2750

 

My father died at 59 with his 4th heart attack.  Since the age of 42 he had been on statins and told his cholesterol was doing well.  In fact, his cholesterol may have been so artificially low, it may have caused hardening of the arteries and actually contributed to his death.  Am I absolutely sure of this? No, but several other things I've read suggest that when we starve the body of cholesterol, it can cause the same symptoms and worse than those we are treating people for in the first place.  Here's another more scientific article with cited sources: http://diaryofalegaldrugdealer.com/the-great-cholesterol-myth/   Yet another one: http://experiencelife.com/article/cholesterol-reconsidered/  These are just relative to statins, but when you involve profits to big pharma, you need to do due diligence and question what is really the impetus for these drugs and vaccines and what is in them. 

 

I'm not anti-drug  (legal drugs anyway) or anti-vaccination. For the most part, we also vaccinate.  However, we also have a history of serious allergies with some vaccinations.  Therefore we question.

 

My mother was a surgical RN for 28 years.   Because of the stories she relayed each night after work at the dinner table, I've learned to question, question, question and research! In fact, I've had doctors ask me before if I was a nurse because of all my questions. The point is that we are our own best advocates.  We do actually know our bodies and how they normally work better than our doctors.  We do not arrive in this world as a standard model like a Buick.  Each body has its own idiosynchrasies. We all react differently to different chemicals and plant bases.  Therefore, we must really research a vaccine, be our own advocates, and judge the potential risks before just blindly following recommendations.

 

[Momof3littles]

Part of the difficulty in saying those who have concerns haven't researched the topic (or are lead by pseudoscience) is that there is a bias to what is published. Take pseudoscience and antivax sites out of the equation completely for a moment.  Industry sponsored studies are highly influential. Cochrane (reputable journal) has brought up this issue in their review studies on influenza vaccination. They have also mentioned "spurious conclusions" drawn from some of the studies.

 

[ Edit: I misquoted the spurious conclusions, but here's the study I'm thinking of:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20614424

 

The authors note publicly funded studies were less likely to publish conclusions favorable to the vaccines than pharma-funded studies.  The "spurious" portion was regarding notoriety of the studies.  They also mention evidence of "widespread manipulation" of results.  I don't think that those concerns only exist with respect to influenza vax.  IMO, this is why some people question, even if they are well aware of the body of evidence regarding safety, efficacy, etc. It isn't all pseudoscience leading their concern.  There's enough real concern there to be concerned at times, IMO.  No matter where your opinion falls on this issue, it is no wonder to me that some people have a sense of distrust or a need to question the standard line.]

 

Pharma also has employed medical ghostwriters, which has been discussed in various journals including JAMA. I don't know what is happening with that currently, but yrs after it hitthe news and was discussed in the journals, it was *still* going on. I think that colors the skepticism of some people. How much do we trust published science? My husband is a scientist, but I think chalking up those with some reservations about what gets published as " not reading the science" is a bit unfair.  As is attributing their skepticism solely to pseudoscience and a bunch of awful websites. I am well aware of the published research, but I also have reservations about some of the publication process, peer reviewed journals included.

 

edit to add links about medical ghostwriting:

from 2009: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/business/11ghost.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/08/10/a-former-pharma-ghostwriter-speaks-out/

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001163

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001071

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/09/us-health-ghostwriting-idUSBRE93813720130409

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ghostwriter-science-industry/

http://www.bmj.com/content/336/7649/849.1

That's a real concern, regardless of what side of the issue you come down on. 

[Reefgazer]

As you can see from my post above, I am/was on the fence about the Gardasil vaccine, so I am not a gung-ho defender of it.  But your young adult could be raped and infected that way, and that has nothing to do with the girl's personal sexual choices.

I know 3 babies that died that way too. It was horrifying.

 

The first time, it was a neighbor. We lived in a apartment. I was very pregnant at the time. We could hear screaming going on outside and could see the lights from the ambulance and fire truck. We looked out the window and saw the mom screaming. They all left. The next day, we got notice from the complex that it had been a baby girl...Cassandra. It was March 1996. I went to the candlelight vigil. The mom told me she was never able to return to the apartment and had been staying elsewhere ever since. She said she did not understand how this had happened, she had been to the ped earlier that day and everything was fine and she had her shots. It was her 2 month shots.  She told me they cannot tell her at all why her daughter suddenly died. And it was not SIDS. The baby was awake when it happened. They were holding her.

 

That was the first, but it will always be etched in my mind. Vaccines are still a medical treatment. It should be researched before using it. 

 

Even since the birth if my first, the "required" shots have increased incredibly. Hep A? That gets a WTF from me. HPV shot for non-sexually active children? And they lie to the parents and kids to get them to sign off on that shot...tell them it is for cervical cancer. HPV is sexual health. Any child receiving that should be offered birth control and have full knowledge of what they are being given and ways to prevent HPV other than the shots. I feel like we have stepped back in time to when parents would decide their unfit child needed to be sterilized against their will. It is disgusting.

 

[magnificent_baby]

In some states home schoolers ( not part of virtual charters) still have to submit an exemption or be fully up to date. I live in one of these states. We have to submit physical paperwork, shots must be up to date, blood testing for diabetes is being proposed as mandatory for all students. Bmi, vision, dental all go to the district or you file exemptions. My kids have never set foot in public school but we have to comply in exactly the same way we would if they were enrolled full time.

 

I completely forgot about this, but yes, we had to do the same. 

[Reefgazer]

This.  This is the crux of the issue.  I even mentioned this when I discussed my hesitancy to get DD the Gardasil vaccine.  I told the ped I had no confidence in the government to regulate medicines anymore because they leave too much evaluation and testing to the drug companies.

Honestly, I think this is less about vaccines and more about that we just don't trust our gov't to be on OUR side anymore. 

 

[Guest]

The bigger problem to me though is the basic argument that "what was ok for me is ok for my kids". I don't know about you but I grew up when we rarely wore seatbelts. We all lay in the back of the station wagon and rolled around. Or I sat in the front seat between my parents at a young age with only a lapbelt protecting me. I never wore a bike helmet. We ate a lot of processed junk food. Back when my grandparents were kids penicillin wasn't available. My grandfather was one of 7 kids and only 2 survived childhood. Most died from childhood diseases that could easily be prevented or treated today. One burned to death when a spark from a fire got on her very flammable pajamas.

 

A lot of things change, often for the better. Sometimes not. I hear all kinds of arguments about vaccines and people can have their own opinions even if I disagree but this attitude is the hardest for me to understand. Yes, the shot recommendations have changed. We've learned new things. We'll probably learn more. Some of the shots may go away (like smallpox which I'm just old enough to have gotten). Some new ones may get recommended. Maybe in 20 years the current crop of doctors will all look at what we are doing now the saw way we look at leeches (which are actually making a comeback). But it always surprises me that people are surprised that medicine, which is at least in part a science, changes.

 

I'm snipping for brevity, but, Alice, I appreciate and agree with your entire post. Two of my children did not have vaccines according to a standard schedule, because I was afraid and confused about vaccines. This was during the height of anti-vax hysteria and it was hard to parse out benefits/potential harm. The scientist from Apologia wrote an article that really opened my eyes.

[umsami]

Just anecdotal evidence, but I personally know of two babies that died suddenly of unknown causes the night after being vaccinated. (Not SIDS) I did decide to vaccinate my kids, but I deliberated long and hard about it.

 

If this is true, I'm assuming autopsies were done.  What was the cause? How did they rule out SIDS? (as SIDS is the default for infants who die with basically no other known reason)?  Was it reported to VAERS?  

[umsami]

You can actually go back and see old vaccination schedules on the CDC website.  It's kind of fun, actually.

 

Hep A and B weren't given in the 80s because they didn't exist as vaccines.  

 

Same with Rotavirus.  Same with varicella.  We want to think that they're not a big deal. I mean, I got chicken pox.  So what?  Well, there were roughly 2000 people who died in the US from chicken pox during my youth.  Not a big number, but not easy to just ignore.  If 2000 people had really died from Gardasil vaccine (or any vaccine) people would be horrified.  Each year, rotavirus kills roughly 400,000 people worldwide.    

 

Gardasil is the dream we used to dream about.  Remember, what if there was a vaccine against cancer?  Well, there actually is.  And studies looking at over 100,000 patients showed no adverse events.  Yet the pseudo-scientists hold more weight.  Amazing and sad.    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23027469

 

 

We were spoiled by Salk and Roentgen and others who never took patents on their inventions.  These days, vaccines and everything else is big bucks. I used to work for pharma, you think only about billion dollar drugs.  We need to change how vaccine and antibiotics (and perhaps other drugs) are funded/researched/and marketed.  It can't just be about profits.   The skepticism against science doesn't help.  Of course, when you actually need a life saving drug, the science matters.  Then you want your doctor up to date.  But if you're just a pundit or talk show host, you can blast it all you  want.  

[Laura Corin]

This is the UK suggested schedule.  As far as I remember, they brought the vaccinations earlier because the take-up was more complete when parents were still taking their children to frequent well-baby checks.   When the well-baby visits began to space out, more people missed them and the jabs:

 

2 months

5-in-1 (DTaP/IPV/Hib) vaccine â€“ this single jab contains vaccines to protect against five separate diseases: diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough (pertussis), polio and Haemophilus influenzae type b (known as Hib â€“ a bacterial infection that can cause severe pneumonia or meningitis in young children)  

Pneumococcal (PCV) vaccine

Rotavirus vaccine

3 months

5-in-1 (DTaP/IPV/Hib) vaccine, second dose

Meningitis C

Rotavirus vaccine, second dose

4 months

5-in-1 (DTaP/IPV/Hib) vaccine, third dose

Pneumococcal (PCV) vaccine, second dose

Between 12 and 13 months

Hib/Men C booster, given as a single jab containing meningitis C (second dose) and Hib (fourth dose)

Measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, given as a single jab

Pneumococcal (PCV) vaccine, third dose

2 and 3 years

Flu vaccine (annual)

3 years and 4 months, or soon after

Measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, second dose

4-in-1 (DTaP/IPV) pre-school booster, given as a single jab containing vaccines against diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough (pertussis) and polio

Around 12-13 years

HPV vaccine, which protects against cervical cancer (girls only) â€“ three jabs given within six months

Around 13-18 years

3-in-1 (Td/IPV) teenage booster, given as a single jab and contains vaccines against diphtheria, tetanus and polio

Around 13-15 years

Meningitis C booster

 

My boys had most of that - not the meningitis, because it wasn't offered when they were younger.  They were also vaccinated against TB, Japanese encephalitis, typhoid and rabies.

 

L

[momto10blessings]

Wow, 2 pages of vaccine discussion and everyone is still civilized (unless I missed something). I like!

[DesertBlossom]

I actually brought this issue up last year when discussing the Gardasil vax with my kids' pediatrician.  My kids are fully vaxed, but I was hesitant to get this one because 1) the vaccine has not been on the market as long as others and the long-term effects are less well known, and 2) the role of money in medicine is so prevalent now (much more so than in the past when many vaccines were developed).  Anyway, I voiced my hesitancy about the vaccine, and the doc just assumed I was opposed because it was sexually transmitted and he figured I was some social conservative (which I suppose I am to some degree, but that wasn't driving my vaccine concerns).  I had to clarify that my hesitating was more because of the money issue and drug-review process, which I see as corrupted and not rigorous.  I found it funny he jumped to the conclusions he did.  He did ease my concerns some by explaining that that was exactly the case with most drugs (like the statin situation you mention), but that vaccines had a much more rigorous review process because the government has a financial stake in their safety because they have a vaccine fund that pays out if someone is injured.  So I got the vaccine, although I had my reservations; his explanation was just enough to tip someone like me, who was on the fence about it, over to the vaccine side.  I still don't think vaccines like Gardasil should be required by the government because they are not casually communicable through non-contact means, but taking the vaccine was the right choice for us, in this case.

 

The studies for the Gardasil vaccine were very poorly done, however, despite what your doctor said.  Not only did they rush it through the trials, they recommended it for children younger than the ones who participated in the trial.  I wouldn't consider myself anti-vaccine. More like vaccine-wary. But Gardasil is one that my children will not get ever, unless they choose it for themselves later on.

 

Years ago we had a pediatrician who was fine with our choice to selectively delay vaccines. (He said he found that when mother's had a feeling about something, it was usually for a reason, which I appreciated. When my daughter was diagnosed with an auto-immune disease it completely changed the way I feel about vaccines for our family.)  Anyway, at one visit we saw a different doctor in the practice who questioned my decision to delay certain vaccines. I still wonder why he said this, but I found it curious. He told me "It's not like we doctors get compensated for our patients being vaccinated.... well, actually we do, but.... " and then he changed the subject.  I wondered why he told me that. I do know that many pediatricians are "graded" based on the percentage of their patients who are vaccinated. I think it makes pediatricians push for them more. We later switched to a family practiced doctor, who said he doesn't care at all about the vaccination status of my children.

[Kathryn]

Is Meningitis C a UK thing? I've not heard of that one.

[momto10blessings]

. He told me "It's not like we doctors get compensated for our patients being vaccinated.... well, actually we do, but.... " and then he changed the subject. I wondered why he told me that. I do know that many pediatricians are "graded" based on the percentage of their patients who are vaccinated. I think it makes pediatricians push for them more. We later switched to a family practiced doctor, who said he doesn't care at all about the vaccination status of my children.

I was told by our old ped's office that they receive incentives from the insurance companies if all their patients are vaxed. I have no idea if this is true or not.

[Guest]

I think ALL shots should be available individually.

 

My older kids got the individual measles, mumps, and rubella shots so that I could spread them out. But by the time my youngest had come along the Feds had pressured the manufacturer into discontinuing the individual shots. So parents were faced with an "all-or-nothing" decision about MMR. I didn't feel comfortable forgoing it entirely, but I delayed years past when I would've had the individual measles shot administered. Many parents who might've done the individual measles shot but don't feel comfortable with the potential risks of the combo MMR choose to skip it entirely.

My previous pediatrician, who was very "soft" on vax enforcement (and who had one child who was not vaxed) explained to me that splitting the shots is not logical from the standpoint of avoiding side effects or harm. In her eyes the detriment of vaccines is the "other" ingredients - the stabilizers and preservatives and such. Building immunity to three diseases with one shot is not an issue.

[Catwoman]

As the mom of a a child who is on not one but two immunosuppressants to keep him alive and healthy, if I find out that someone is too stupid to take steps that will ensure his health, they are cut from our lives. 

 

We no longer hang out with the following:

 

Those who are anti-vaccine

Those who knowingly take their sick child out in public

Those who bring their sick child around my child, knowing that my son's immune system cannot handle it

 

And yes that happens. There are people who are completely convinced my son just needs to spend more time playing video games and he will be fine. These same people have flat out refused to respect that their actions and inaction in regards to their sick children can kill my son. My son's social circle shrunk dramatically.  

 

This was the case last fall before Thanksgiving. My son is STILL suffering the fall out from that virus and it is the middle of June. He is not allowed to see his best friend because his friends cold almost killed him and has robbed him of his physical health and well being. I do not blame the child. I blame the mother. I am very very open and upfront about it with people and I expect people to take certain precautions. I am willing to reschedule and go out of my way to make it work out. 

 

 

I take precautions. For example, My son is not allowed to touch anything at the check out isles, he is not allowed in the pharmacy area of any store and if there is the option, he even uses the opposite entrance. I understand those who are very sick and have no choice but to go stand in line at the pharmacy to pick up an antibiotic. I understand that licking the boxes of OTC cold medicine is not the best best to stay healthy. However, those who bring a sick child to a play date or drag a sick sibling along rather than rescheduling are high on my shit list. Common sense people!

 

 

ETA: I debated enrolling my son in the public school but was flat out told by my son's doctor that he would need to be on homebound.

 

:grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug:

 

I think it's inexcusable to knowingly expose any child to an illness, but when you know a child is immunocompromised or has other health issues, it's absolutely awful!!! :angry:

 

One of my ds's friends has a major health issue. I don't think it's anywhere near as serious as your ds's situation, but his mom needs to be super-careful that he isn't exposed to illness, because as you said, it's NOT "just a cold" if he catches it.

 

I am amazed at how many people don't take her seriously when she tells them to let her know if anyone in their house is ill. She's so polite about it, and she always goes out of her way to make things as convenient as possible for everyone else, but if someone is sick, her ds can not attend their party or go to their house to play video games or even meet for lunch outside their house. She's not "being paranoid and overprotective," as some people have told her. She simply can't take that risk with her son's health.

 

My friend doesn't expect the world to stop just because her ds has a health issue. She doesn't expect people to reschedule a party because one of the guests is just getting over a virus. It would just be nice if they were accepting of the fact that she's not being a prima donna, and to believe her and take it seriously when she tells them about her ds's situation.

[Guest]

I was told by our old ped's office that they receive incentives from the insurance companies if all their patients are vaxed. I have no idea if this is true or not.

My previous pediatrician told me she is financially penalized by the insurance companies when she does not vax according to schedule.

[FaithManor]

However, all 50 states have medical exemptions, so no one would force your family or anyone else's to vaccinate that have had dangerous reactions. And just to reiterate (and I promise I'll stop after this last reiteration, LOL) it is NOT the schools that are playing God here. They are complying with state health department regulations. In my district, administration has very, very little to do with medical policy decision making. They fully entrust district RN's to comply with state standards and current practice guidelines. We are audited every year for vaccine compliance. Schools are not always the bad guys, especially when it comes to health regulations, otherwise state funding can be withheld. 

 

For what it's worth, we vaccinate for all the main ones that have been around a long time. We do not vaccinate for flu (at this point), and likely never for HPV, so I'm not exactly super pro-vaccination. 

There may be exemptions, technically, but the schools in our area do not allow them. I know this for a fact. Parents have to hire attorneys in order to make it happen and many can't afford that so they end up caving and vaccinating AGAINST medical advice because the school simply will not enroll. They know they have you over a barrel. This is a problem in Michigan during the tenure of Governor Engler, his wife's major project was vaccination and she personally went after school districts to find ways to force parents to comply. This is one of the ways. They just simply deny your child access to school until you get a lawyer and if you call the state attorney general, the health department, or the state board of education you will not be helped. School districts and county health departments are monetarily penalized for every child they have in the system who is not fully vaccinated. Parents receive letters from the state listing the vaccines their kids have had with big bold print letter highlighting what they haven't had. For a while there was pressure on doctor's offices to also issue letters monthly until the parent complied. Some doctors and insurance companies still do this. Others have relented.

 

So, in some places, it's not as easy as you think to enact a medical waiver and the schools do use their position of authority - ie. mandatory attendance requirements unless one enrolls in private school or homeschooles - to try to enforce a 100% vaccination goal.

[Laura Corin]

Is Meningitis C a UK thing? I've not heard of that one.

 

I don't know.  It apparently hits small children and then teenagers.  The universities want it done before you become a student - it's not compulsory, but it's recommended.

 

L

[Murphy101]

I don't know.  It apparently hits small children and then teenagers.  The universities want it done before you become a student - it's not compulsory, but it's recommended.

 

L

I'm having a brain fart, but I think we just call it something different here? Because I know my teens have had to that one. I just can't remember what the dr called it off the top.

[Kathryn]

I don't know. It apparently hits small children and then teenagers. The universities want it done before you become a student - it's not compulsory, but it's recommended.

 

L

I looked up our meningococcal vaccine and it apparently protects against four types, C being one of them.

 

ETA: ours is given at age 12.

[Guest]

And they lie to the parents and kids to get them to sign off on that shot...tell them it is for cervical cancer. HPV is sexual health.

Virtually all cervical cancer are cause by HPV. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV. This is not a "lie." I respect the right of a parent to not receive Gardisil, but it is not a "lie."

[Guest]

If this is true, I'm assuming autopsies were done. What was the cause? How did they rule out SIDS? (as SIDS is the default for infants who die with basically no other known reason)? Was it reported to VAERS?

I would think definitely. I don't think you can refuse an autopsy if your child dies from an unknown cause, at least in the US. They must determine a cause of death to rule out something like parental suffocation, or any foul play.

[Caroline]

Even since the birth if my first, the "required" shots have increased incredibly. Hep A? That gets a WTF from me. HPV shot for non-sexually active children? And they lie to the parents and kids to get them to sign off on that shot...tell them it is for cervical cancer. HPV is sexual health. Any child receiving that should be offered birth control and have full knowledge of what they are being given and ways to prevent HPV other than the shots. I feel like we have stepped back in time to when parents would decide their unfit child needed to be sterilized against their will. It is disgusting.

It is for cervical cancer. That isn't a lie. I am not sure what you mean by "sexual health." Birth control does not prevent HPV. Condoms do not prevent HPV. I truly do not understand what you are saying here. Anyone getting the HPV vaccine should automatically get birth control? That is ridiculous.

[magnificent_baby]

There may be exemptions, technically, but the schools in our area do not allow them. I know this for a fact. Parents have to hire attorneys in order to make it happen and many can't afford that so they end up caving and vaccinating AGAINST medical advice because the school simply will not enroll. They know they have you over a barrel. This is a problem in Michigan during the tenure of Governor Engler, his wife's major project was vaccination and she personally went after school districts to find ways to force parents to comply. This is one of the ways. They just simply deny your child access to school until you get a lawyer and if you call the state attorney general, the health department, or the state board of education you will not be helped. School districts and county health departments are monetarily penalized for every child they have in the system who is not fully vaccinated. Parents receive letters from the state listing the vaccines their kids have had with big bold print letter highlighting what they haven't had. For a while there was pressure on doctor's offices to also issue letters monthly until the parent complied. Some doctors and insurance companies still do this. Others have relented.

 

So, in some places, it's not as easy as you think to enact a medical waiver and the schools do use their position of authority - ie. mandatory attendance requirements unless one enrolls in private school or homeschooles - to try to enforce a 100% vaccination goal.

 

Wow. I've never heard of it being so difficult, and fortunately my district is NOT like this at all, and have never heard of it being a problem in our surrounding area either. That would certainly be concerning.

[Dory]

Virtually all cervical cancer are cause by HPV. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV. This is not a "lie." I respect the right of a parent to not receive Gardisil, but it is not a "lie."

 

But there are over 100 different strains of HPV and 30 of them affect the reproductive organs. Gardisil and Cervarix only protect against type 16 and 18. Also to really protect against a tumor which can be slow growing, they would need to be affective for up to 15 years and right now they seem to only be good for 5 years. Right now I don't know of any long term studies having been done on either of those vaccines. Regular pap smears are a more sure fire way of protecting ones self as early detection of cervical cancer puts the cure rate at 92%.

 

The Cancer Society says the biggest risk for HPV is having multiple partners, having sex young (16 or earlier), and or having an uncircumcised male partner.

[Walking-Iris]

But there are over 100 different strains of HPV and 30 of them affect the reproductive organs. Gardisil and Cervarix only protect against type 16 and 18. Also to really protect against a tumor which can be slow growing, they would need to be affective for up to 15 years and right now they seem to only be good for 5 years. Right now I don't know of any long term studies having been done on either of those vaccines. Regular pap smears are a more sure fire way of protecting ones self as early detection of cervical cancer puts the cure rate at 92%.

 

The Cancer Society says the biggest risk for HPV is having multiple partners, having sex young (16 or earlier), and or having an uncircumcised male partner.

 

 

From one controversial topic to the next.

 

This reminds me of the uncircumcised men having more of a risk of HIV. I did not circumcise my boys. I'm not concerned about it. My FIL isn't. They've never had issues, aren't concerned about it. 

 

It's odd considering that the majority of males *are* circumcised, and if HPV is so common to be a problem?....

 

....That doesn't compute. Especially since the media and <ahem> industries that would promote sexual promiscuity do not typically hold up an uncircumcised male as the ideal.

 

I'd say multiple partners and unsafe sex is more of concern here than circumcised or not. 

 

I'd also say that certain studies using third world countries as a basis for study are a problem (I've seen quite a few of those) Hygiene and access to medical care being a big factor as well.

 

Gardisil and other HPV vaccines are a big issue. Of all of them, I truly believe that one can cause more harm than good.

[Guest]

But there are over 100 different strains of HPV and 30 of them affect the reproductive organs. Gardisil and Cervarix only protect against type 16 and 18. Also to really protect against a tumor which can be slow growing, they would need to be affective for up to 15 years and right now they seem to only be good for 5 years. Right now I don't know of any long term studies having been done on either of those vaccines. Regular pap smears are a more sure fire way of protecting ones self as early detection of cervical cancer puts the cure rate at 92%.

 

The Cancer Society says the biggest risk for HPV is having multiple partners, having sex young (16 or earlier), and or having an uncircumcised male partner.

Even so. As umsami said upthread, a vaccine against cancer...haven't we wished for this? If there was a vaccine that prevents two causes among many for breast cancer, wouldn't it be wise to consider it? I would.

 

Unfortunately the statistics on upper teen/young adult sexual behavior indicates that our children are more likely to be at risk than not. Like most parents with teenaged children, I hope my dd is not going to be in those at-risk categories, but one can't stubbornly shake their head and state, "Not MY daughter!" Also, I think it is ironic that the crunchy crowd speaking out against circumsising their sons has unwittingly placed their sons in the "risk factor" category. I can't be certain, but I'm guessing more of the young men amongst homeschool populations are uncircumsized than in the larger public, just given the tendencies of homeschoolers to be iconoclastic.

 

I am all for informed consent. I don't think anyone should get Gardisil just because they heard they should or a school insists. My own DD has not received the vax yet, but I am in favor of her receiving it prior to college.

[Upennmama]

I don't understand the "modified schedule" or delayed schedule, or all the talk of it being too many vaccines at once. I have read many times that even the times when a baby get 4 shots on one visit, the amount of immune challenge that this introduces is far less, scientifically speaking, than licking a shopping cart (all my kids did this a few times) or playing on a playground with germy kids. 

[DesertBlossom]

From one controversial topic to the next.

 

This reminds me of the uncircumcised men having more of a risk of HIV. I did not circumcise my boys. I'm not concerned about it. My FIL isn't. They've never had issues, aren't concerned about it. 

 

It's odd considering that the majority of males *are* circumcised, and if HPV is so common to be a problem?....

 

....That doesn't compute. Especially since the media and <ahem> industries that would promote sexual promiscuity do not typically hold up an uncircumcised male as the ideal.

 

I'd say multiple partners and unsafe sex is more of concern here than circumcised or not. 

 

I'd also say that certain studies using third world countries as a basis for study are a problem (I've seen quite a few of those) Hygiene and access to medical care being a big factor as well.

 

Gardisil and other HPV vaccines are a big issue. Of all of them, I truly believe that one can cause more harm than good.

 

I agree. Now the push is to circumcise to reduce the risk of AIDS. If that were true, then the US (where men are largely circumcised) would have much lower rates of HIV/AIDS than other developed countries where most men are intact.. And it's just not true. Our rates are much higher. And yet they are still pushing circumcision in Africa... which is just making things worse!

 

When it comes to Gardasil, I think that safe sex practices and regular check ups do more good than the vaccine.

[Dory]

From one controversial topic to the next.

 

This reminds me of the uncircumcised men having more of a risk of HIV. I did not circumcise my boys. I'm not concerned about it. My FIL isn't. They've never had issues, aren't concerned about it. 

 

It's odd considering that the majority of males *are* circumcised, and if HPV is so common to be a problem?....

 

....That doesn't compute. Especially since the media and <ahem> industries that would promote sexual promiscuity do not typically hold up an uncircumcised male as the ideal.

 

I'd say multiple partners and unsafe sex is more of concern here than circumcised or not. 

 

I'd also say that certain studies using third world countries as a basis for study are a problem (I've seen quite a few of those) Hygiene and access to medical care being a big factor as well.

 

Gardisil and other HPV vaccines are a big issue. Of all of them, I truly believe that one can cause more harm than good.

 

Sorry, I wasn't trying to stir up trouble with the circumcision thing. I was simply stating what has been presented as risk factors. Men who are circumcised can still get HPV and pass it on to their partners, but it would seem the risk is higher with uncircumcised men. It's just like any other risk we talk about when it comes to decisions with our kids. We weigh the pros and cons and everyone has to make the decision that is best for them. I'm not trying to argue for or against circumcision. I know that can be a pretty touchy subject.

 

Even so. As umsami said upthread, a vaccine against cancer...haven't we wished for this? If there was a vaccine that prevents two causes among many for breast cancer, wouldn't it be wise to consider it? I would.

 

Unfortunately the statistics on upper teen/young adult sexual behavior indicates that our children are more likely to be at risk than not. Like most parents with teenaged children, I hope my dd is not going to be in those at-risk categories, but one can't stubbornly shake their head and state, "Not MY daughter!" Also, I think it is ironic that the crunchy crowd speaking out against circumsising their sons has unwittingly placed their sons in the "risk factor" category. I can't be certain, but I'm guessing more of the young men amongst homeschool populations are uncircumsized than in the larger public, just given the tendencies of homeschoolers to be iconoclastic.

 

I am all for informed consent. I don't think anyone should get Gardisil just because they heard they should or a school insists. My own DD has not received the vax yet, but I am in favor of her receiving it prior to college.

 

Yes, people who like to think that their children would NEVER do anything like that are just sticking their head in the sand and ignoring what might be happening. I would hope my kids wouldn't be putting themselves at risk but I would rather be safe then sorry. Unfortunately, the vaccine doesn't seem to be a very good long term solution and carries some pretty hefty risks, so until there is more study behind it, we are going the route of regular pap smears and safe sex education as well as instruction on abstinence which is what we think is best. Kinda along the lines of, "this is what we think is best, but if you choose to do different, this is what is necessary to keep yourself safe."