Jump to content

Menu

If you were at some point against vaccines, but now differ, what changed?


Quill
 Share

How has your mind changedre: vaccines?   

165 members have voted

  1. 1. Since becoming a parent, have you

    • Always been in favor of vaccines?
      94
    • Always been against vaccines?
      6
    • Changed your mind from anti-vax to pro-vax (your current position)?
      21
    • Changed your mind from pro-vax to anti-vax (your current position)?
      5
    • Waivered back and forth and haven't come to a firm conclusion?
      17
    • I'm not a parent.
      0
    • I don't know what vaccines are.
      0
    • I have always been a non-candidate for vaccination due to religious or medical reasons.
      1
    • Other
      21


Recommended Posts

I've never been against vaccines although I checked that option. I am however, cautious given how many vaccine reactions I've seen in veterinary medicine, including autoimmune issues. And in vet medicine it is fairly standard to acknowledge that smaller animals can an possibly should recieve smaller doses and/or more spaced out vaccinations. So I took that attitude into my choices for my children. My oldest also had some issues that we took a while to diagnose, as well as some allergies, so we spaced his widely apart. Oh, and his father has an autoimmune disease and we aren't sure if DS inherited it.  But, back then we were also seeing way fewer instances of vaccine preventable illness as less people chose not to vaccinate, and I didn't live in a tourist hub. Also, oldest never did really have any issues with vaccines other than the flu vaccine, which gave him a fever that lasted for a few days. We don't do that one anymore for him. 

 

I've still spaced out my other kids' vaccines to some extent, and I don't worry about say, Hep B too much for instance. But I do worry about Pertussis. Polio is later on my personal schedule just because the chances of my kid being the first in the western hemisphere to get it in what? decades? seems unlikely. If polio broke out I'd have headed straight for the doctor. 

 

Now, with this kid, I've read more studies showing that combination vaccines actually are less likely to cause reactions than single vaccines given separately which, thinking about it, makes sense as there would be less adjuvant exposure (which is what I worry about much more than the actual viral components). So this baby will probably get more combination vaccines...less reactions plus less needles is a win for me. I am actually researching now which vaccines we will be doing when, and will make up a spreadsheet like I did my other kids. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If medical science really wanted to do what was best for all kids, they would develop better ways to identify which kids will be injured by vaccines, make the vaccines safer, and provide better education about vaccines for lay people.  And doctors would treat parents with respect as they make informed decisions for their own kids.

 

There is nothing wrong with the idea of vaxing partly to help other people's kids.  But it makes more sense if they can reassure parents that it's safe for their own individual kids.  The very aggressive vax schedule that is pushed does not help in this regard.  The fact that there is NO way to tell which kids will be injured does not help.

 

We live in a society where parents will hold a bright, neurotypical kid back a year in school because they want *their* kid to be the oldest and most mature.  This is actually encouraged by the professionals.  When I took my kids to get their CP shot in 1st grade, the standard printout I received after the visit was mostly about considering whether or not my nearly-6yo kids were ready for KG or should be held back.  I find that kind of ironic.  Is it best for other people's kids if they have to compete with neurotypical 7yos in KG?  Not really.  The "do it for others' kids" argument is applied very selectively in our society.  Maybe that's one reason why it doesn't resonate when coupled with potential health risks.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never been against vaccines although I checked that option. I am however, cautious given how many vaccine reactions I've seen in veterinary medicine, including autoimmune issues. And in vet medicine it is fairly standard to acknowledge that smaller animals can an possibly should recieve smaller doses and/or more spaced out vaccinations. So I took that attitude into my choices for my children. My oldest also had some issues that we took a while to diagnose, as well as some allergies, so we spaced his widely apart. Oh, and his father has an autoimmune disease and we aren't sure if DS inherited it. But, back then we were also seeing way fewer instances of vaccine preventable illness as less people chose not to vaccinate, and I didn't live in a tourist hub. Also, oldest never did really have any issues with vaccines other than the flu vaccine, which gave him a fever that lasted for a few days. We don't do that one anymore for him.

 

I've still spaced out my other kids' vaccines to some extent, and I don't worry about say, Hep B too much for instance. But I do worry about Pertussis. Polio is later on my personal schedule just because the chances of my kid being the first in the western hemisphere to get it in what? decades? seems unlikely. If polio broke out I'd have headed straight for the doctor.

 

Now, with this kid, I've read more studies showing that combination vaccines actually are less likely to cause reactions than single vaccines given separately which, thinking about it, makes sense as there would be less adjuvant exposure (which is what I worry about much more than the actual viral components). So this baby will probably get more combination vaccines...less reactions plus less needles is a win for me. I am actually researching now which vaccines we will be doing when, and will make up a spreadsheet like I did my other kids.

This is what my pediatrician explained to me once when I was asking about separating MMR. It made a lot of sense to me. Also, the rationale that a normally-functioning immune system is very efficient at building antibodies to multiple potential threats at one time. There isn't really any logic in saying that it can't handle identifying mumps and measels and rubella simultaneously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If medical science really wanted to do what was best for all kids, they would develop better ways to identify which kids will be injured by vaccines, make the vaccines safer, and provide better education about vaccines for lay people.  And doctors would treat parents with respect as they make informed decisions for their own kids.

 

There is nothing wrong with the idea of vaxing partly to help other people's kids.  But it makes more sense if they can reassure parents that it's safe for their own individual kids.  The very aggressive vax schedule that is pushed does not help in this regard.  The fact that there is NO way to tell which kids will be injured does not help.

 

We live in a society where parents will hold a bright, neurotypical kid back a year in school because they want *their* kid to be the oldest and most mature.  This is actually encouraged by the professionals.  When I took my kids to get their CP shot in 1st grade, the standard printout I received after the visit was mostly about considering whether or not my nearly-6yo kids were ready for KG or should be held back.  I find that kind of ironic.  Is it best for other people's kids if they have to compete with neurotypical 7yos in KG?  Not really.  The "do it for others' kids" argument is applied very selectively in our society.  Maybe that's one reason why it doesn't resonate when coupled with potential health risks.

 

Parents are encouraged to see if their kid is ready for school because at that age, they aren't all developmentally at the same place, and the school programs don't really account for that.

 

How does that mean you are acting against others kids?  Isn't it better for all of the kids if they are all about ready to tackle first grade?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always been pro vaccines.   Very pro.

 

Ditto.  I never realized there were so many against vaccines until I started homeschooling.  I'm glad I didn't find out about homeschooling earlier TBH.

 

My grandparents would have been really upset if I'd been anti-vaccine.  They had too many stories they told me about friends.  I also had an IRL friend who was wheelchair bound from polio when I was a young mama.  She had stories too and she was younger than my grandparents.  I'd been pro-vaccine before, but that undoubtedly added more fuel to the fire.

 

We never had our guys get the chickenpox vaccine, but they had the disease in their youth before the vax was common.

 

Mine get whatever is recommended (or required) when they travel overseas.  Youngest just got some for that last week.  No prodding needed from mama.  

 

Not vaccine related, but health related, this death of a 2 year old is relatively local to us:

 

http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/03/minister_and_grandfather_of_2-.html

 

Parents refused medical help for pneumonia.  I hope they are held to task for it by society and God.  Some things (some vaccines included) are so basic that it's not fair parents get to "choose" to let their kids potentially suffer due to their beliefs when their beliefs are so out of line with reality.  Kids lives matter too and the birth lottery shouldn't make a difference to the kids.  Unfortunately, it does - and yes - the birth lottery puts kids in far nastier situations than just no vaccs when vaccs are available - but this thread is about vaccs.  I hate the rest of the birth lottery unfairness too FWIW.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If medical science really wanted to do what was best for all kids, they would develop better ways to identify which kids will be injured by vaccines, make the vaccines safer, and provide better education about vaccines for lay people. And doctors would treat parents with respect as they make informed decisions for their own kids.

 

There is nothing wrong with the idea of vaxing partly to help other people's kids. But it makes more sense if they can reassure parents that it's safe for their own individual kids. The very aggressive vax schedule that is pushed does not help in this regard. The fact that there is NO way to tell which kids will be injured does not help.

 

We live in a society where parents will hold a bright, neurotypical kid back a year in school because they want *their* kid to be the oldest and most mature. This is actually encouraged by the professionals. When I took my kids to get their CP shot in 1st grade, the standard printout I received after the visit was mostly about considering whether or not my nearly-6yo kids were ready for KG or should be held back. I find that kind of ironic. Is it best for other people's kids if they have to compete with neurotypical 7yos in KG? Not really. The "do it for others' kids" argument is applied very selectively in our society. Maybe that's one reason why it doesn't resonate when coupled with potential health risks.

SKL, scientists and pharmecuetical companies and medical entities already go to great lengths to ensure the safety of vaccines. Billions of dollars are already spent doing so. Billions of dollars are already lost when a company has to pull a vaccine out of use because too many deaths or adverse reactions have already occurred. There is always some component of risk; it cannot be totally eliminated.

 

Once in a while, a teenager dies at football practice or during a basketball game because the child had an unknown heart condition. Does this mean all children should go through an extensive medical workup before they ever do a sport?

 

Some babies die in labor; I know because it happened to me. Does this mean all pregnancies should be considered candidates for caesarians because labor is sometimes unknowingly threatening?

 

Some college-aged kids carry a predisposition to alcoholism. Should those young people be prevented (ha ha, as if that were possible!) from every drinking alcohol because there are greater risks for that person?

 

Vaccine development already has extensive (and expensive) studies and trial uses in place for a long time before they are available, let alone required. The companies have and do pull them if adverse effects reach a threshold of unacceptability.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And billions lost when quality control finds an issue with the vaccine and they don't pull it because of the expense of a plant shutdown.  It happens; I've seen it firsthand.  I think this is way more common than injury due to the vaccine per se, and the dangers of this are much higher, but with the same effects antivaxxers are pointing out.

SKL, scientists and pharmecuetical companies and medical entities already go to great lengths to ensure the safety of vaccines. Billions of dollars are already spent doing so. Billions of dollars are already lost when a company has to pull a vaccine out of use because too many deaths or adverse reactions have already occurred. There is always some component of risk; it cannot be totally eliminated.

Once in a while, a teenager dies at football practice or during a basketball game because the child had an unknown heart condition. Does this mean all children should go through an extensive medical workup before they ever do a sport?

Some babies die in labor; I know because it happened to me. Does this mean all pregnancies should be considered candidates for caesarians because labor is sometimes unknowingly threatening?

Some college-aged kids carry a predisposition to alcoholism. Should those young people be prevented (ha ha, as if that were possible!) from every drinking alcohol because there are greater risks for that person?

Vaccine development already has extensive (and expensive) studies and trial uses in place for a long time before they are available, let alone required. The companies have and do pull them if adverse effects reach a threshold of unacceptability.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SKL, scientists and pharmecuetical companies and medical entities already go to great lengths to ensure the safety of vaccines. Billions of dollars are already spent doing so. Billions of dollars are already lost when a company has to pull a vaccine out of use because too many deaths or adverse reactions have already occurred. There is always some component of risk; it cannot be totally eliminated.

 

Once in a while, a teenager dies at football practice or during a basketball game because the child had an unknown heart condition. Does this mean all children should go through an extensive medical workup before they ever do a sport?

 

Some babies die in labor; I know because it happened to me. Does this mean all pregnancies should be considered candidates for caesarians because labor is sometimes unknowingly threatening?

 

Some college-aged kids carry a predisposition to alcoholism. Should those young people be prevented (ha ha, as if that were possible!) from every drinking alcohol because there are greater risks for that person?

 

Vaccine development already has extensive (and expensive) studies and trial uses in place for a long time before they are available, let alone required. The companies have and do pull them if adverse effects reach a threshold of unacceptability.

 

I don't believe they are doing enough.  They are shifting their resources to new drugs that can be patented so they can make lots of money on things that are less important to overall public health.  That's their prerogative, but then don't expect parents to accept that their kids need to "take one for the team."

 

To answer some of your questions - re football, we know going in what the risks are and we either accept them or we don't.  Nobody is trying to make football mandatory or verbally abusing people for not forcing it on their kids.  Many parents and kids say "no thanks" to football because they don't want to take the risk.

 

Re miscarriages (I'm sorry that happened to you), that is not something a parent chooses for her child; it is not something people do because they are uninformed or feel coerced.  To the extent risks are known and can be managed, people's and doctors' risk tolerance is pretty low.

 

Re alcoholism, to some extent it can be known how a person will react to alcohol, and adults need to make decisions for themselves.  (They did go to the extent of banning alcoholic beverages (in US and other countries), though that didn't work out as expected.)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And billions lost when quality control finds an issue with the vaccine and they don't pull it because of the expense of a plant shutdown.  It happens; I've seen it firsthand.  I think this is way more common than injury due to the vaccine per se, and the dangers of this are much higher, but with the same effects antivaxxers are pointing out.

 

And they should be held accountable too - even if they just ship that version overseas to third world places.  No one (on this thread) is giving them a free pass.

Edited by creekland
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is dying because I don't put my kids in public school. The mother of the child who gave my infant son whooping cough (and yes we know for sure where he got it) said to me "I'm sorry your son got sick, but as a parent it is my responsibility to do what is best for my kids. It is not my responsibility to take care of other peoples kids." My son is fine, but he was really sick. I just can't wrap my head around that kind of thinking. Obviously if a child has a medical reason for not being vaccinated, the parent should put their kid's needs first. The child who passed whooping cough to my son was not vaccinated for philosophical reasons.

 

But you are right that people in general don't think they have a responsibility to other kids. There have been studies done on it and telling parents they may save another child's life by vaccinating their child did not sway parents to vaccinate.

 

Where the parent failed in her responsibility was in taking a sick child out in public.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I put "Changed your mind from anti- to pro-" though for me it's more afraid of the medical community & being supported by a community in my early parenting years that fed that fear to coming to terms with medical abuse that was inflicted on me and having a wider community that helped me understand and support me with my fears around medicine. 

 

I have been verbally, physically, and sexually assaulted by medical professionals and had some who put my well being and life [and in one case a pregnancy] at risk for their pride/bad mood/whatever. It was very very easy to convince me that doctors and the medical community did not have my or my child's best interest at heart. I immigrated shortly before becoming pregnant with my eldest and my family were far both physically and emotionally and I didn't know many people locally so I kinda grabbed the first group with both hands and they were a "natural" group that felt the world and everything was purposefully trying to make us all miserable and sick and whatever and stories like mine which are awful enough would be...encouraged is the wrong word but anecdotes were certainly used to prove that by avoiding all of whatever we were doing the best thing. If anything they inflamed my anxiety and the few medical professionals I came across did not help, it was very black or white from all sides. 

 

I thankfully didn't have anything horrible happen like I know some others who switch sides do. I just needed more time, more people, more...kindness. I was simply terrified of doctors and what they could do because of what had happened to me and so many I know. I needed everything explained nicely and someone to hold my hand. Now all my kids are caught up as they can get. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went anti-vax to pro-vax.  Two things prompted the action.  First, I did not want to have to put the burden on medical professionals to take care of my child if they developed complications from something I could have prevented.  Also, on my way to get my child help, I would have been putting doctor's offices and possibly hospitals through all sorts of expense (telling other parents in waiting rooms they have been exposed/ disinfecting whole waiting rooms/offices) because my child had a disease that could have been prevented.  I would have to live with the " I did nothing to prevent this" vs. "I did everything I could and they still got xyz".  There was an incident in the doctor's office where a child came in with chicken pox and the whole office had to be sterilized.  

 

The second thing that prompted my stance was adopting dd from China.  I thought that she could come into our house with any number of diseases and I didn't want to have an outbreak of some sort in my home right after adoption.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where the parent failed in her responsibility was in taking a sick child out in public.

 

The child wasn't really sick at the time. The child was diagnosed with whooping cough 5 days after being in close contact with my ds. When the child was near my ds, they just had a slight runny nose. Unfortunately, that is when whooping cough is most contagious.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where the parent failed in her responsibility was in taking a sick child out in public.

 

Yes, but many illnesses can be spread before symptoms show, measles being one. I'm very pro vax and completely uninvolved in the local homeschooling community because of my position. Lots of non vaxers.

 

I've always vaccinated, and my opinion has been strengthened over the years mainly due to my child's health.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general, I think the anti-vaxx status is a very privileged one.  People feel safe making that choice in large part because measles, polio, etc. is not running rampant here.  They don't know kids who have died of measles.  They don't know victims of polio (my Mom had it).  If TB existed here, I'm sure people would be lining up for the BCG vaxx.  

 

I have yet to find any of the anti-vaxx science compelling at all.  I do know that some people are vaccine injured--but it is extremely rare.  Should people who have had injuries in their family be given some sort of exemption? At this time, yes.  But I don't agree with philosophical exemptions.... I don't agree with religious ones either.  (Probably because i have severely immunocompromised family members who rely on herd immunity.)

 

I honestly think the varicella vaccine hurt the industry--because so many people say "Well, I had chicken pox and I'm fine."

 

I do not get the opposition against the HPV vaccine.  A vaccine against cancer was the dream.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SKL, scientists and pharmecuetical companies and medical entities already go to great lengths to ensure the safety of vaccines. Billions of dollars are already spent doing so. Billions of dollars are already lost when a company has to pull a vaccine out of use because too many deaths or adverse reactions have already occurred. There is always some component of risk; it cannot be totally eliminated.

 

 

I don't think this is true. There are numerous example of sketchy "research."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have yet to find any of the anti-vaxx science compelling at all.  I do know that some people are vaccine injured--but it is extremely rare.  Should people who have had injuries in their family be given some sort of exemption? At this time, yes.  But I don't agree with philosophical exemptions.... I don't agree with religious ones either.  (Probably because i have severely immunocompromised family members who rely on herd immunity.)

 

I honestly think the varicella vaccine hurt the industry--because so many people say "Well, I had chicken pox and I'm fine."

 

I do not get the opposition against the HPV vaccine.  A vaccine against cancer was the dream.

 

I find the research very compelling.There is SO MUCH research out there about what happens inside the body when vaccines are given, the kind of immune response that happens, how it can damage the immune system, etc. The research about how it's affects a baby's immune system is especially fascinating. There's a lot we know and a lot we still don't know. At the very least, the research shows that we still need so much more research done.

 

And the opposition is to the HPV vaccine is because it's was fast-tracked through the approval process, it's an ineffective vaccine, it has a very high rate of adverse reactions, and it's being pushed on kids who are younger than it was ever even studied on. Research is showing that with the young kids getting it, immunity is likely to be waning before they are ever sexual active anyway. They came out with a new gardasil version that covered more strains because they found that while the old gardasil was preventing some strains of HPV, other strains were moving it to take their place. So they needed a version with more strains. There are all sorts of unintended side effects that we are just beginning to understand. There's also evidence that in the vaccine trials the "placebo" they used actually contained vaccine adjuvants, just no strains of HPV. So when their "placebo" resulted in a similar number of adverse reactions as the vaccine itself they can call those reactions "coincidence" and declare the vaccine safe. There are a lot of really good reasons to be opposed to the HPV vaccine.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think this is true. There are numerous example of sketchy "research."

 

The vast majority of the sketchy research I've seen has come from the anti-vax side. Numerous articles (not just the Wakefield "study") have been retracted for poor methodology.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the research very compelling.There is SO MUCH research out there about what happens inside the body when vaccines are given, the kind of immune response that happens, how it can damage the immune system, etc. The research about how it's affects a baby's immune system is especially fascinating. There's a lot we know and a lot we still don't know. At the very least, the research shows that we still need so much more research done.

 

And the opposition is to the HPV vaccine is because it's was fast-tracked through the approval process, it's an ineffective vaccine, it has a very high rate of adverse reactions, and it's being pushed on kids who are younger than it was ever even studied on. Research is showing that with the young kids getting it, immunity is likely to be waning before they are ever sexual active anyway. They came out with a new gardasil version that covered more strains because they found that while the old gardasil was preventing some strains of HPV, other strains were moving it to take their place. So they needed a version with more strains. There are all sorts of unintended side effects that we are just beginning to understand. There's also evidence that in the vaccine trials the "placebo" they used actually contained vaccine adjuvants, just no strains of HPV. So when their "placebo" resulted in a similar number of adverse reactions as the vaccine itself they can call those reactions "coincidence" and declare the vaccine safe. There are a lot of really good reasons to be opposed to the HPV vaccine.

 

I've never seen anything that supports the idea of vaccines damaging the immune system outside sketchy websites like Mercola or anti-vax blogs. And not surprisingly, they don't cite any peer-reviewed studies backing this up.

 

As for the HPV vaccine, that's how it's SUPPOSED to work. They create a new vaccine, continue to study its effectiveness, and if possible, improve it. The fact that we have a more effective version of the vaccine now isn't evidence of a vast government conspiracy. It's science doing its job.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the research very compelling.There is SO MUCH research out there about what happens inside the body when vaccines are given, the kind of immune response that happens, how it can damage the immune system, etc. The research about how it's affects a baby's immune system is especially fascinating. There's a lot we know and a lot we still don't know. At the very least, the research shows that we still need so much more research done.

 

And the opposition is to the HPV vaccine is because it's was fast-tracked through the approval process, it's an ineffective vaccine, it has a very high rate of adverse reactions, and it's being pushed on kids who are younger than it was ever even studied on. Research is showing that with the young kids getting it, immunity is likely to be waning before they are ever sexual active anyway. They came out with a new gardasil version that covered more strains because they found that while the old gardasil was preventing some strains of HPV, other strains were moving it to take their place. So they needed a version with more strains. There are all sorts of unintended side effects that we are just beginning to understand. There's also evidence that in the vaccine trials the "placebo" they used actually contained vaccine adjuvants, just no strains of HPV. So when their "placebo" resulted in a similar number of adverse reactions as the vaccine itself they can call those reactions "coincidence" and declare the vaccine safe. There are a lot of really good reasons to be opposed to the HPV vaccine.

 

 

Actually, there are studies on millions of doses out of Denmark which show it is extremely safe.  I don't think you can get much more comprehensive than that.  The HPV vaccine has been out for 11 years now.  Denmark has given millions of doses and only seen 650 serious adverse effects.  As cervical cancer (and I won't even go into anal and throat cancers) kills roughly 5,000 women per year here....that's pretty good.

 

"Since 2009, the Danish Medicines Agency has received slightly more than 650 reports of presumed serious adverse effects following HPV vaccines, the vast majority following Gardasil®, which has so far been used in Denmark, both in the childhood vaccination programme and in several catch-up programmes.This number should be seen in relation to the very large number of Danish girls and women who have received vaccination against cervical cancer in this period. A total of more than 1.6 million vaccines have been sold, and therefore approx. one in every five Danish women has currently been vaccinated. 

With a view to describing any association between HPV vaccines and syndromes like POTS (postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome), CRPS (complex regional pain syndrome) and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), the European Medicines Agency (EMA) prepared and published a safety review of both HPV vaccines in 2015 by Danish request.

The review demonstrated that no data indicate any association between the HPV vaccine and the POTS and CRPS syndromes. Furthermore, the EMA placed great emphasis on a population study, which found no association between HPV vaccine and CFS or symptoms of chronic fatigue. 

 

By December 2015, the WHO’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) published a statement on the safety of the HPV vaccines. In line with EMA, the GACVS assessed that, based on the existing knowledge there is no documentation of any safety issues that give rise to a change in the use of the vaccines. "

 

Yes, I trust the WHO.  Yes, I trust the EMA.  If you do not, then you need to discount all evidence based medicine IMHO.  

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the research very compelling.There is SO MUCH research out there about what happens inside the body when vaccines are given, the kind of immune response that happens, how it can damage the immune system, etc. The research about how it's affects a baby's immune system is especially fascinating. There's a lot we know and a lot we still don't know. At the very least, the research shows that we still need so much more research done.

 

And the opposition is to the HPV vaccine is because it's was fast-tracked through the approval process, it's an ineffective vaccine, it has a very high rate of adverse reactions, and it's being pushed on kids who are younger than it was ever even studied on. Research is showing that with the young kids getting it, immunity is likely to be waning before they are ever sexual active anyway. They came out with a new gardasil version that covered more strains because they found that while the old gardasil was preventing some strains of HPV, other strains were moving it to take their place. So they needed a version with more strains. There are all sorts of unintended side effects that we are just beginning to understand. There's also evidence that in the vaccine trials the "placebo" they used actually contained vaccine adjuvants, just no strains of HPV. So when their "placebo" resulted in a similar number of adverse reactions as the vaccine itself they can call those reactions "coincidence" and declare the vaccine safe. There are a lot of really good reasons to be opposed to the HPV vaccine.

 

I would appreciate a legitimate source for the bolded.

 

Regarding the vaccine being adjusted to account for new strains, I am failing to see how that is a criticism.  Do you understand how vaccines work?

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never thought much about vaccines until my youngest.  We have three older kids and a gap before #4.  My three big kids all have auto immune diseases.  I read that vaccinations could be the cause of the high incidences of auto immune disease.  I don't know how legitimate the studies were but they seemed very legitimate at the time. Sorry, I am not going back and finding the research on it now.  We went delayed and slow with youngest.  He is 8 and so far hasn't had any autoimmune issues.  He is too young to know if not vaxing until 5 and going slow has helped?  They might come later.  

Edited by Attolia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My older kids were born when the questions about vaccines were first being raised.  They were very specific back then, and the government was aware of the problems, and even had special programs to compensate families affected by the rare side effects of the vaccines.  This was before the the scare went so widespread.  

 

Back in the 90's, when I had my kids, they were still giving whole-cell pertussis vaccine (in DTP), and it was causing major problems.  My best friend's baby was affected (contracted encephalitis, among other things), and spent his short life severely mentally handicapped, epileptic, and nearly blind.  My friend actually testified to the U.S. Senate about their experience, and ultimately received a large settlement from the federal government).  There was no way I was going to give my baby that vaccine, but I didn't have a problem with any of the others.  I did some research and decided that we weren't in any of the risk groups (like egg allergy, for the MMR).

 

As it turned out, two months before my oldest was born, the new a-cellular pertussis vaccine (aP, or combined in the DTaP) which would not cause pertussis or the other side effects of the whole-cell vaccine.  I vaccinated my baby, and my subsequent babies, and never looked back.  

 

I have another close friend who never vaccinated her children.  They are all grown now, and the oldest was rather perturbed with her mother for not vaccinating her.  She loves to travel, and it caused a lot of problems when she was older, having to get up to date on all her shots in order to go overseas.  I think she's over it now.  :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the HPV vaccine - I wonder perhaps if what DB means is that when it came out, people were unsure how effective it would be.  The issue with it having too few strains was something that was brought up at the time.  If I had been making a decision about it then, I might have chosed to wait a bit to see what happened, and if anything better was going to be offered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've pretty much always been pro-vaxx, but not blindly.  

 

My oldest had a reaction to the DTP and didn't receive it again until the newer version came out.   She also didn't get chicken pox vaccine because she had chicken pox at 9 months old.  She also didn't get Guardasil because it was so new at the time.

 

My younger two get all their shots at the scheduled time except flu shots.  We don't do flu shots.  Mainly because they often seem ineffective, and partially because it would often mean a second trip back to the pediatrician.  We stopped getting them a year there was a shortage.  Nobody in my family falls into a high risk category so we weren't going to get it until more was available.  We didn't bother going back.

They also haven't gotten Guardasil yet, but we probably will in the next few years.

 

I have an amazing pediatrician that I've been going to since my oldest was born - 23 years.   I've always felt like she respects my thoughts and opinions about my children, talks to me about things like I'm an intelligent person, and has never given us a hard-time about our choices - whether that was flu shots or homeschooling or whatever (although those are probably the only two areas we are a little off the mainstream). 

 

Dh is a pharmaceutical chemist so we are pretty educated about vaccines.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

As for the HPV vaccine, that's how it's SUPPOSED to work. They create a new vaccine, continue to study its effectiveness, and if possible, improve it. The fact that we have a more effective version of the vaccine now isn't evidence of a vast government conspiracy. It's science doing its job.

 

 

Exactly.  The very nature of the scientific method means, always, we're not done.  As new data / other information / techniques / measurement methods becomes available, we'll look to improve / refine.  That's the method.  

 

Science does not lay claim to holding inalterable perfect absolute truth -- it is, always, more like the Best Working View, subject to improvement as more data comes available.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the research very compelling.There is SO MUCH research out there about what happens inside the body when vaccines are given, the kind of immune response that happens, how it can damage the immune system, etc. The research about how it's affects a baby's immune system is especially fascinating. There's a lot we know and a lot we still don't know. At the very least, the research shows that we still need so much more research done.

 

And the opposition is to the HPV vaccine is because it's was fast-tracked through the approval process, it's an ineffective vaccine, it has a very high rate of adverse reactions, and it's being pushed on kids who are younger than it was ever even studied on. Research is showing that with the young kids getting it, immunity is likely to be waning before they are ever sexual active anyway. They came out with a new gardasil version that covered more strains because they found that while the old gardasil was preventing some strains of HPV, other strains were moving it to take their place. So they needed a version with more strains. There are all sorts of unintended side effects that we are just beginning to understand. There's also evidence that in the vaccine trials the "placebo" they used actually contained vaccine adjuvants, just no strains of HPV. So when their "placebo" resulted in a similar number of adverse reactions as the vaccine itself they can call those reactions "coincidence" and declare the vaccine safe. There are a lot of really good reasons to be opposed to the HPV vaccine.

Vaccines do not "damage the immune system." If you have some compelling research to back that up, I'd happily read it. Vaccines strengthen the immune system by giving it information so it produces antibodies against the virus.

 

That they came out with better vaccines to affect more strains of HPV is evidence that the companies are doing *exactly* what they should be doing - continuing to research and improve the vaccine. Personally, I did not have my DD get the shot at 11, but she did choose it for herself in her upper teens. (If she had not, I would have recommended it, but it was still her option.)

 

I agree with the poster who said a vaccine against cancer is a dream come true.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. The very nature of the scientific method means, always, we're not done. As new data / other information / techniques / measurement methods becomes available, we'll look to improve / refine. That's the method.

 

Science does not lay claim to holding inalterable perfect absolute truth -- it is, always, more like the Best Working View, subject to improvement as more data comes available.

I remember watching a documentary once about the development of vaccines against polio. The first round of vaccines produced a devastating (and unacceptable) number of adverse effects (deaths). Going only on memory, I think it was 10,000 deaths. Of course this is unacceptable, but I'm very thankful they didn't say, "Well, that didn't work. Might as well scrap this project." *

 

I do wonder if we could get to eradication of any disease through vaccination in the current time. I feel like we no longer have the national will to withstand going through the bad to get to the good.

 

*This Is where I can see how our grandparents would never have dreamed of not getting vaccinated against polio once it was available, because they had the lived experience of witnessing the evils of that disease.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general, I think the anti-vaxx status is a very privileged one. People feel safe making that choice in large part because measles, polio, etc. is not running rampant here. They don't know kids who have died of measles. They don't know victims of polio (my Mom had it). If TB existed here, I'm sure people would be lining up for the BCG vaxx.

I agree and I don't think I really felt it nearly as keenly except when chicken pox ran through the inclusive co-op like wildfire. Yes, my kids had had all of their vaccines by that point and they were fine, but it struck me just how dangerous that could have been to someone who for whatever reason couldn't have one (or more) of a number of vaccines. It's not like to co-op asked about vaccination status and none of those parents offered up the information. I have a feeling that for some homeschooling communities, it is likely a minefield to navigate if that's a concern. After the things that were said both by the leadership and by other families in the group, that was the end of co-op for us.

 

I vaccinated my oldest on schedule and didn't with my younger two for what were definitely ill-advised reasons. All three of my children are now fully vaccinated. My ds has had his first dose of the HPV vaccine.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  As cervical cancer (and I won't even go into anal and throat cancers) kills roughly 5,000 women per year here....that's pretty good.

 

How many of those American women who die of cervical cancer were getting annual Pap smears? Absolutely I think the HPV vaccine is important in the developing world where women don't have access to good gynecological care on a regular basis. But here in the U.S. there are tons of options for getting Pap smears, including no-cost ones at community health clinics through Title X.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do people get the idea that the HPV vaccine wasn't tested for the normal amount of time?

 

I was in an HPV vaccine trial nearly nearly 20 years ago and that wasn't the first phase of the testing process.

 

Not a fan of the HPV vaccine.  I don't think it is necessary.  The majority of people who get hpv never know they had it as it clears up on it's own.  

It also bothers me that they tout it as a cancer vaccine.  It is not a cancer vaccine.  It is an hpv vaccine. Yes, hpv can cause cancer but most of the time it does not.  I don't think we know enough about long term effects on fertility-if any-but I would like to see that information now that the vaccine has been rolled out to the masses.

 

When it first came out the cdc site had the information about most cases clearing up on it's own.  That if you had already been exposed to hpv the vaccine increased your risk of cancer.  Cancer deaths were already on the decline due to increases in women getting annual pap smears.  At some point, some of this info was removed from the cdc website.  I wish I had screen capture of it.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went from anti to pro, for my children. I have no opinion on what other people choose for their children. I was very crunchy when my kids were very small. I lived in a small town, they didn't go to daycare, they were exclusively breastfed. I talked to my ped about it, and she was fine with delaying for a while. I really don't like SO many vaccines for newborns. Hep B for my one day old baby? Seriously? If I or my husband or family member was in a high risk group, yes I would have done it. Anyway, I was mostly planning to delay, not skip forever.

Then, we moved to a much higher population area. My kids went on a trip with inlaws that included a stop at LAX. At the time, measles were in the news a lot because of outbreaks in California. So they got the MMRV. 

Also, both my kids got a weird rash about 3 days apart from each other. When the first got it, I thought it was a reaction of some kids. He was not ill at all, and it didn't itch. I was not really concerned. Then the other child got the same rash, so I took him to a minute clinic. The NP thought it looked like Rubella. Rubella passes quickly with no ill effect to the patient. But of course it is very dangerous to pregnant women. I thought a lot about that, that I may have exposed a pregnant woman and her baby to rubella. A state health nurse called a few weeks later to ask about it. She said it was unlikely to be rubella, since there were no known outbreaks, and we hadn't been out of the country. I still feel pretty bad about it, several years later.

Then, I decided oldest would go to PS. When I looked at the requirements for school and the schedule for children starting immunizations at age 7+, I was ok with them. MMRV, polio, hep a, hep B, DTap. That's it. I think I changed my mind because it became very personal. Also, life circumstances changed and I became less crunchy in general. The recommended shots were much less than what is recommended for infants/preschoolers. Now both children are caught up. No shots for years! If I ever have another baby, there are some vaccines that i will probably refuse, some I will delay, and some I will get on time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I put changed from anti to pro because I read more on the science, but I'm still anti flu vax. Partially because I personally had a terrible reaction to my last one, and partially because a doctor who worked on research for the flu vaccine talked me out of them.  He basically said even those in healthcare should only take the vaccines for the rare, deadly forms, like swine flu (in 2008?).

 

Did you know that for the purposes of justifying the flu vaccine they include ALL pneumonia deaths (even inhalation pneumonia) as a "flu" death?  Most of them have NOTHING to do with influenza.  Viral pneumonia is very rare and tends to be mild unless you suffer from something else that already lowers your immune system.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a fan of the HPV vaccine.  I don't think it is necessary.  The majority of people who get hpv never know they had it as it clears up on it's own.  

It also bothers me that they tout it as a cancer vaccine.  It is not a cancer vaccine.  It is an hpv vaccine. Yes, hpv can cause cancer but most of the time it does not.  I don't think we know enough about long term effects on fertility-if any-but I would like to see that information now that the vaccine has been rolled out to the masses.

 

When it first came out the cdc site had the information about most cases clearing up on it's own.  That if you had already been exposed to hpv the vaccine increased your risk of cancer.  Cancer deaths were already on the decline due to increases in women getting annual pap smears.  At some point, some of this info was removed from the cdc website.  I wish I had screen capture of it.  

 

Deaths from cancer of the throat, nose, and mouth have been going up though, and they are usually caused by HPV.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deaths from cancer of the throat, nose, and mouth have been going up though, and they are usually caused by HPV.

 

Untrue. 80% of throat and mouth cancers are in tobacco users and 70% are in heavy drinkers. HPV only accounts for 25% and presumably there is high overlap with the tobacco and heavy alcohol user groups (since high risk behaviors tend to go together).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I put I've always been pro-vax.

 

For the most part, I have vaccinated on schedule. Oldest was pre-rotovirus vaccine - she got rotovirus. Cleared it herself within a week or two. My nephew, however, was hospitalized for a few weeks with severe dehydration.

 

I did delay vaccines for youngest. She was born with kidney issues, and she fought against constant kidney infections her entire first year. We, with her doctor's approval, didn't do any vaccines before her surgery in order to allow her immune system time. We started her schedule at about 1 1/2 years old.

 

I was that weird kid in 2nd grade who got severely sick with the chicken pox, so I'm delighted to hopefully allow my children to miss that. I was sick for 9 weeks with various secondary infections and hospitalized for fevers and dehydration all due to the chicken pox. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were held accountable, to the tune of $18 million (the number was in that ballpark, as I recall).  But no amount of money is going to restore the health of the people who contracted polio from this vaccine.

And they should be held accountable too - even if they just ship that version overseas to third world places.  No one (on this thread) is giving them a free pass.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My kids had the HPV vaccine, so clearly, I think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, but be honest....11 years is not long term data; in fact, it's relatively short term.  No one really knows what the effects of this vaccine will be in 30-40 years.

Actually, there are studies on millions of doses out of Denmark which show it is extremely safe.  I don't think you can get much more comprehensive than that.  The HPV vaccine has been out for 11 years now.  Denmark has given millions of doses and only seen 650 serious adverse effects.  As cervical cancer (and I won't even go into anal and throat cancers) kills roughly 5,000 women per year here....that's pretty good.

 

"Since 2009, the Danish Medicines Agency has received slightly more than 650 reports of presumed serious adverse effects following HPV vaccines, the vast majority following Gardasil®, which has so far been used in Denmark, both in the childhood vaccination programme and in several catch-up programmes.This number should be seen in relation to the very large number of Danish girls and women who have received vaccination against cervical cancer in this period. A total of more than 1.6 million vaccines have been sold, and therefore approx. one in every five Danish women has currently been vaccinated. 


With a view to describing any association between HPV vaccines and syndromes like POTS (postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome), CRPS (complex regional pain syndrome) and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), the European Medicines Agency (EMA) prepared and published a safety review of both HPV vaccines in 2015 by Danish request.

The review demonstrated that no data indicate any association between the HPV vaccine and the POTS and CRPS syndromes. Furthermore, the EMA placed great emphasis on a population study, which found no association between HPV vaccine and CFS or symptoms of chronic fatigue. 

By December 2015, the WHO’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) published a statement on the safety of the HPV vaccines. In line with EMA, the GACVS assessed that, based on the existing knowledge there is no documentation of any safety issues that give rise to a change in the use of the vaccines. "

 

Yes, I trust the WHO.  Yes, I trust the EMA.  If you do not, then you need to discount all evidence based medicine IMHO.  

 

Edited by reefgazer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I put I've always been pro-vax.

 

For the most part, I have vaccinated on schedule. Oldest was pre-rotovirus vaccine - she got rotovirus. Cleared it herself within a week or two. My nephew, however, was hospitalized for a few weeks with severe dehydration.

 

I did delay vaccines for youngest. She was born with kidney issues, and she fought against constant kidney infections her entire first year. We, with her doctor's approval, didn't do any vaccines before her surgery in order to allow her immune system time. We started her schedule at about 1 1/2 years old.

 

I was that weird kid in 2nd grade who got severely sick with the chicken pox, so I'm delighted to hopefully allow my children to miss that. I was sick for 9 weeks with various secondary infections and hospitalized for fevers and dehydration all due to the chicken pox.

Something similar happened to my niece, shortly before the chicken pox vaccine was introduced. Her face was SO severly ravaged, I thought she would have scars for life. Her cheeks became infected with impetigo on top of the Pox. They were a sheet of purple-red tissue. It is a miracle she did not have permanent scaring.

 

It influenced me enough that I happily had my first child vaxxed against CP at one year old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were held accountable, to the tune of $18 million (the number was in that ballpark, as I recall).  But no amount of money is going to restore the health of the people who contracted polio from this vaccine.

 

:iagree:  What they did was horrid and I wish they'd been held far more liable (jail, significantly more $$).  Like you said, the lives affected can't be fixed.  

 

I feel the same way about parents who don't vaccinate against the horrid diseases and their kids have to live with that decision.

 

Delaying (in general) or skipping for real medical issue reasons doesn't bother me at all.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very pro-vax for my kids. Of course I was nervous when they had their shots but thankfully they were all perfectly fine.

 

Truthfully ..the main reason that made me vaccinate my kids, on schedule and with every vax offerred ( except flu) was the fact that on every online board I belong to ( homeschooling, sewing, etc etc..doent matter what it is) at least half the posters admit being non-vaxxers. In our large local homeschool group only two families ( one mine) vax. Of my kids friends who go to school...there are also many families who do not vaccinate. I decided that with knowing of such a large population of people who don't vaccinate there was a big chance of my kids getting these diseases...so I vaccinated...because it seems at least in my circle..homeschooled or not...no one else is. So no herd immunity to rely on.

 

I also,decided I would feel less guilty if my kids were vaccined injured whilst I was trying to protect them then if they were injured by a disease I could have prevented..or at least tried to. So I vaxxed them all and am happy with my decision so far.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My kids are fully vax'd (except flu and HPV).  Oldest son just had his 2nd Meningoccocal vaccine 2 weeks ago.

 

I started off cautiously spacing them out, and by the 5th was a lot less cautious, but still spaced them out a bit.  As the "pro-vax" crowd has become louder and less tolerant, and more vocal about calling anti-vaxxers all kinds of names, I've found myself swinging a bit back to being cautious.  Mostly, because those screaming so loudly and frantically seem to have come unhinged.  THAT, and living where I do has such a completely different approach to vaccinations (quantity and timing), and research out with regard to veterinary medicine, it has made me question WHY we have so many, IF every dose is vital, and what the cumulative effects MIGHT be.  I started to become even more perturbed when I refuse an "optional" vaccine that I have to fill out a "refusal to vaccinate" paper or a "religious waiver" (we're talking flu vaccine), and am treated the same as if I've sent my kids out in public with an active case of the measles.  I get really upset when doctors proclaim loudly that you WILL vaccinate on-schedule, NO EXCEPTIONS, or I WILL NOT treat your kids.  That is not a pediatrician I would ever choose to visit -- because they expect me to never question or discuss -- just do whatever they say.

 

As some have pointed out, there is a difference between one vaccine and multiple, and it is not a universal truth that more vaccines equal better protection.  As with Flu and Pertussis, they are finding that the more often the vaccine is given, the less effective they become.  I do understand that sometimes combination vaccines can be beneficial. But, after that Tetanus Booster (which has shown 30 years efficacy), why do I have to get that repeatedly when the only part of the vaccine that is waning is Pertussis?  And Pertussis is good for 5 years (and even less after the 2nd booster? Like 3 years??).

 

So, I'm not "anti-vaxx" -- but I'm not "do whatever and never question" either.  But, we live in an age where name calling and shouting down is called "debate" and actual "debate" is quashed at every turn.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My kids are fully vaccinated but we did so on an irregular schedule.  My kids have large local reactions to vaccines. Back in ye olden days, when we had to fight off T-Rexes in the parking lot of the pediatrician's office, there really wasn't much fuss to spacing out vaccines.  There were also a lot fewer required. I had many rational discussions with the ped about efficacy, exposure to preservatives, disease prevalence in the community, etc.  

 

Fast forward a couple of decades, and there is a lot of vitriol about vaccines with both camps (pro and anti-vax) becoming near-militant.  I understand the debate. I really, really do.  It's the individual v. the obligation to the community. (And I had a kid who medically could not be vaccinated due to chemo she was undergoing.)

 

We moved a couple of years ago, and all of the pediatricians here have, in bold print, a requirement to be fully vaccinated. I understand and respect their ability to limit their practice to their preferences.... We send our kids to a ped with that requirement....and after the first big reaction, we went back to one vaccine at a time, administered in a rotating schedule with me coming in every 2 months for a different shot.  We are finally all caught up with everyone, but it required flexibility and a willingness to listen and understand a different perspective.

 

Calling anti-vaxxers radicals creates an us v. them barrier which breaks down community.  I think most people are rational enough that if everyone came to the table and had some discussion over facts and studies and experiences that a number of perspectives--on both sides--would change.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My kids are fully vax'd (except flu and HPV).  Oldest son just had his 2nd Meningoccocal vaccine 2 weeks ago.

 

I started off cautiously spacing them out, and by the 5th was a lot less cautious, but still spaced them out a bit.  As the "pro-vax" crowd has become louder and less tolerant, and more vocal about calling anti-vaxxers all kinds of names, I've found myself swinging a bit back to being cautious.  Mostly, because those screaming so loudly and frantically seem to have come unhinged.  THAT, and living where I do has such a completely different approach to vaccinations (quantity and timing), and research out with regard to veterinary medicine, it has made me question WHY we have so many, IF every dose is vital, and what the cumulative effects MIGHT be.  I started to become even more perturbed when I refuse an "optional" vaccine that I have to fill out a "refusal to vaccinate" paper or a "religious waiver" (we're talking flu vaccine), and am treated the same as if I've sent my kids out in public with an active case of the measles.  I get really upset when doctors proclaim loudly that you WILL vaccinate on-schedule, NO EXCEPTIONS, or I WILL NOT treat your kids.  That is not a pediatrician I would ever choose to visit -- because they expect me to never question or discuss -- just do whatever they say.

 

As some have pointed out, there is a difference between one vaccine and multiple, and it is not a universal truth that more vaccines equal better protection.  As with Flu and Pertussis, they are finding that the more often the vaccine is given, the less effective they become.  I do understand that sometimes combination vaccines can be beneficial. But, after that Tetanus Booster (which has shown 30 years efficacy), why do I have to get that repeatedly when the only part of the vaccine that is waning is Pertussis?  And Pertussis is good for 5 years (and even less after the 2nd booster? Like 3 years??).

 

So, I'm not "anti-vaxx" -- but I'm not "do whatever and never question" either.  But, we live in an age where name calling and shouting down is called "debate" and actual "debate" is quashed at every turn.

 

Some people do have waning tetanus protection after less than 10 years.  I used to get antibody testing for every nursing job change, and for a while I was working for a travel nurse agency and got them tested every 6-8 months or so.  My tetanus antibodies tend to be gone in less than 10 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people do have waning tetanus protection after less than 10 years.  I used to get antibody testing for every nursing job change, and for a while I was working for a travel nurse agency and got them tested every 6-8 months or so.  My tetanus antibodies tend to be gone in less than 10 years.

 

On our farm we still update our booster every 10 years or so if not needed in between boosters due to an injury.  I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Untrue. 80% of throat and mouth cancers are in tobacco users and 70% are in heavy drinkers. HPV only accounts for 25% and presumably there is high overlap with the tobacco and heavy alcohol user groups (since high risk behaviors tend to go together).

 

HPV is the most common cause of oropharyngeal cancers.  25% isn't negligible either.

 

And cancers from smoking are going down whereas ones related to HPV are going up.  The fasted growing segment of oral and oropharyngeal cancers is in healthy non-smokers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...