Community Chat

[Stella Dallas]

Children who haven't been vaccinated shouldn't be allowed out in public, much less into school. The diseases they can catch and spread don't care about your religion, your freedom of choice, your philosophy...whatever. All the care about is finding an unvaccinated victim and doing their best to kill them.

If you want to be a negligent parent, so be it; but you are not allowed to endanger me and mine. Keep your kids home and make sure you have PLENTY of insurance for a long hospital stay.

[dooBdoo]

The problem with the opinion piece in the original post: It's anonymous and sounds much like some of the internet astroturfing being perpetuated and promoted by anti-vaccination groups, so it's hard to give it resounding credibility.

About vaccines: time after time they've been proven to be so much safer than the dreadful diseases they help prevent. This is not directed at any specific poster: Sometimes I'm surprised at the audacity of those who presume they know more than medical and research professionals, who are certain they can read all the literature, interpret it properly, and then dole out advice. I've always said people must be their own best healthcare advocates, but sometimes we can misinterpret what we read. There's a reason medical and research professionals invest so many years and money and give up a lot of their personal life for their profession.

[MickD]

Wonderfully said dooBdoo....I have the utmost respect for our public health policies...

[sunshine45]

On 2/28/2015 dooBdoo said:

The problem with the opinion piece in the original post: It's anonymous and sounds much like some of the internet astroturfing being perpetuated and promoted by anti-vaccination groups, so it's hard to give it resounding credibility.

About vaccines: time after time they've been proven to be so much safer than the dreadful diseases they help prevent. This is not directed at any specific poster: Sometimes I'm surprised at the audacity of those who presume they know more than medical and research professionals, who are certain they can read all the literature, interpret it properly, and then dole out advice. I've always said people must be their own best healthcare advocates, but sometimes we can misinterpret what we read. There's a reason medical and research professionals invest so many years and money and give up a lot of their personal life for their profession.

i completely agree with this doobdoo!

[SydneyH]

On 2/27/2015 NoelSeven said:

That's not true at all. You have the right to deny your child medical protection from vaccination, but you don't have carte blanche in deciding what is best for them. There are already plenty of laws to protect children from that.

Sorry Noel but YES I DO, until they decide my decisions are not worthy, it's my way all day.

[terrier3]

On 3/1/2015 SnowPink said:

On 2/28/2015 brii said:

Curr Pharm Des. 2013;19(8):1466-87.

<h1>Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines as an option for preventing cervical malignancies: (how) effective and safe?</h1>

Tomljenovic L¹, Spinosa JP, Shaw CA.

<h3 style="-ms-zoom: 1;">Author information</h3>

<ul class="ui-ncbi-toggler-slave ui-ncbitoggler ui-ncbitoggler-slave-open"> <li>¹Neural Dynamics Research Group, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia, 828 W. 10th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1L8, Canada. lucijat77@gmail.com</li> </ul>

<h3>Abstract</h3>

We carried out a systematic review of HPV vaccine pre- and post-licensure trials to assess the evidence of their effectiveness and safety. We find that HPV vaccine clinical trials design, and data interpretation of both efficacy and safety outcomes, were largely inadequate. Additionally, we note evidence of selective reporting of results from clinical trials (i.e., exclusion of vaccine efficacy figures related to study subgroups in which efficacy might be lower or even negative from peer-reviewed publications). Given this, the widespread optimism regarding HPV vaccines long-term benefits appears to rest on a number of unproven assumptions (or such which are at odd with factual evidence) and significant misinterpretation of available data. For example, the claim that HPV vaccination will result in approximately 70% reduction of cervical cancers is made despite the fact that the clinical trials data have not demonstrated to date that the vaccines have actually prevented a single case of cervical cancer (let alone cervical cancer death), nor that the current overly optimistic surrogate marker-based extrapolations are justified. Likewise, the notion that HPV vaccines have an impressive safety profile is only supported by highly flawed design of safety trials and is contrary to accumulating evidence from vaccine safety surveillance databases and case reports which continue to link HPV vaccination to serious adverse outcomes (including death and permanent disabilities). We thus conclude that further reduction of cervical cancers might be best achieved by optimizing cervical screening (which carries no such risks) and targeting other factors of the disease rather than by the reliance on vaccines with questionable efficacy and safety profiles

**crickets**

What does a Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, have to do with HPV?

[Deb1010again]

On 2/27/2015 lovescats said:

On 2/27/2015 occasional rain said:

On 2/27/2015 chrystaltree said:

I have no problem with parents opting out of vaccinations for their kids for LEGITIMATE health reasons. In fact, states that mandate vaccinations allow that. But parents shouldn't be allowed to opt out for philosophical or psuedo-science reasons or just plain ignorance. Every parent has a right to put their own child at risk but they do not have a right to put other people's children at risk and that is what happens when we allow people to opt out of vaccinations. Like it or not, for the good of society, we all have to do things that we aren't particularly happy about. It's not like vaccinations are brand new and untested and it's not like the Small pox, measles, ruebella etc aren't serious diseases.

Since other parents have the right to vaccinate their child and therefore remove the health risk presented by those unvaccinated it's not a public health concern sufficient to require giving up one's rights. Even unvaccinated, the measles is not fatal in most people, so again not sufficient to force people to give up the right to choose what's put into their body or the bodies of their children.

Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.

In 2013, there were 145 700 measles deaths globally – about 400 deaths every day or 16 deaths every hour.

Measles vaccination resulted in a 75% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2013 worldwide.

In 2013, about 84% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 73% in 2000.

During 2000-2013, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 15.6 million deaths making measles vaccine one of the best buys in public health.

from the world health organization

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/

The death rate from measles is 1 in 333, when you apply that to a population of 300million it adds up to lots of friends and family dying from a now preventable disease.

Adverse effects from the measles vaccine is 1 in 146,000

[sunshine45]

Law Requiring California Parents To Vaccinate Their Children Likely To Pass

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/02/23/measles-vaccine-children-school-california/

[Lila Belle]

On 2/28/2015 Autumn in NY said:

On 2/28/2015 terrier3 said:

Why is there a supposed link between getting vaccinated against HPV and having relations?

I just don't see it.

Sooner or later most people in the USA do have relations. It's a natural part of life. Getting a vaccine at a young age that can protect someone against cancers caused by s3xual transmission doesn't mean they will run out and find a partner, especially if they receive the shots at the earliest age allowed. Why even discuss the details - telling your children it's a vaccine that prevents a certain type of cancer is more than enough info, IMO.

A 30 year old virginal woman could still get HPV on her wedding night from a new husband who wasn't as abstinent all his life...or two people who were virginal at their marriage culd stray later and infect the other spouse. There are a lot of scenarios - but the bottom line is that we now have a way to PREVENT cancer. How can that be wrong????

Why take unnecessary chances with cancer????

Have you ever smoked or knew someone who did? The Surgeon General's warning is right on the pack. We all know the dangers of smoking and the fact that it causes cancer. Yet why do people take unnecessary chances and smoke knowing they will get lung cancer? We all know obesity is linked to cancer yet people continue to eat what they want, how much they want, when they want and nobody can stop them, not even our 1st Lady! So lay off with your preaching!

It's one thing for a parent to smoke, overeat, drink in access, but to put their children at risk or doom them to a horrible death and preventable disease or death is not what a caring and loving parent does.

The First Lady comment is absolutely ridiculous and quite frankly telling of some segments of our country's lunacy.