HPV Vaccine for Boys

I am not trying to allude that I am all anti-vaccine or that there isn't some good that may be accomplished with a vaccine. I do feel that the whole vaccine story isn't as rosy as we are led to believe and there may be some serious consequences from our current practice of ramping up the number of vaccines and administering them at younger and younger ages. I also doubt the safety of the vaccine itself and every parent should weigh the risk verses reward for themselves before just blindly accepting. Just because it may or may not have been the right thing at any point in the past or in another environment doesn't necessarily make it the right thing now for you. I initially jumped into this thread because I feel there are many doubters who aren't the "religious right" or simply uneducated on the matter and am tired of seeing those in the debate getting discarded as such. We are all concerned about the greater good and what's the best choice for our children. We just don't necessarily agree with the course to achieve it. I respect all who do the research and come up with your own decision regardless which choice is made. I do however take offense at anyone saying that someone else has the right to make the choice of what is injected into my bloodstream.

One big difference with the past versus today is we've also lost any checks and balances. Vaccine providers are by law immune from lawsuits. Furthermore they are allowed to do their own research which is used to defend vaccine safety. Combine this with the fact these are for-profit businesses with strong ties in government and you have opened the door for potential problems.

 

Sure I can think of several examples here.

-jurisdictions where the 2nd amendment is not honored
-anytime a curfew is set in place
-eminent domain

I am sure there are several others. We can debate each one but that is not where I am going here. In every single example the individual's right being taken away involves removing access to an action or item. Right or wrong, agree or disagree, it's more inline with removing a privilege even if that privilege is generally accepted as a basic right. However in the vaccine debate, it's not so much a right being taken away as it is the involuntary violation of a person's body. We know vaccines are capable of a slew of non-trivial side effects. This is well documented. Even if the chance of such is small, the decision to accept this risk should not be made for anyone other than that person or of course by a parent. To get back on KTDID's original thread let's look at HPV.

So with this already arguably (from the comments on this thread) necessary vaccine we know of at least 1600 reported serious effects. As pointed out earlier only 15 of the 100 known HPV varieties cause cancer and this vaccine only targets 2 of those. Furthermore the relationship between infection with HPV at a young age and later development of cancer is unknown. How many of the 4000 women who die per year would be saved by this vaccine? Anywhere near 1600? I don't know. Noone knows. And we want to mandate this vaccine? No thanks.

 

Now, I need that LIKE button again, Flynnibus!

 

So that makes it OK not to vaccinate, then? You seem to think that 1% is an acceptable rate for permanent damage due to the disease. I'd rather have 0%. What's the upper limit of tolerance for you?

OK, so that's another acceptable number. No need to vaccinate then!

Unless you were one of the 3 in 100,000 who caught a minor case of death. Though at that point, you wouldn't need to worry about a more dangerous episode later in life either, right? Again, you've put forth this idea of acceptable losses due to curable diseases.

How much have the total mortality numbers increased? How many total cases are we seeing now compared to then? You're trying a left hand/right hand thing here. 3/1000 is only more fatal than 3/100,000 if the number of incidents remains high.
Also, blaming evolution (more properly mutation) on vaccines is..weird. Mutation and survivability deltas occur in response to any stimuli, not just vaccines. Like, say, the herd immunity you're advocating.

I don't know, do you have any numbers to support this odd assertion? Your "higher risk group" above is adults, so what you seem to be saying is that fewer kids are catching the disease because...kids are vaccinated against it. Righto. That's a good thing.

But they are _less likely to do so_ and, hence, less likely to carry it and transmit it to others. Herd immunity does not work.

Yes, let's.

Yet you'll freely speculate.

So we have no such thing as medical records...except this one! Was the vaccine administered properly? Was it a true vaccine and not some homeopathic remedy? What's your citation for this? Which town was it?

The doctors who tried very hard to save their lives?

So you'd rather have preventable deaths than promulgate a cure? "Sometimes it changes" means more deaths. "Sometimes it sticks around" means more deaths. I don't believe society should gamble on some abstract "sometimes it goes away" when deaths can be prevented. We have moral and ethical obligations to save as many lives as possible, not stick our heads in the sand and hope the storm blows over. The idea of acceptable losses due to preventable disease is reprehensible.

 

I am not telling anyone they should not vaccinate if they want to vaccinate. I am merely trying to suggest that one should consider the possible side effects in a risk/reward analysis before blindly accepting a vaccine that is offered. Some of these vaccines have potential very serious known side effects. Furthermore take a look at the current vaccine schedule. We are injecting at an ever increasing rate and at younger ages. We don't truly know what impact this will have but we do know that childhood chronic disease is increasing. We do have evidence that vaccines can actually weaken our immune systems and many of the delivery agents which are used can cause permanent neurological damage. In general it is accepted that these casualties are "for the greater good". I am merely saying make that choice for yourself. Don't allow the system to make it for you.

As I posted earlier, we suffer more now from chronic illness than we do from infectious disease. It is clear chronic illness is on a continual increase. We've yet to find cures despite tons of money being spent on doing so. Perhaps we could throw more resources into finding a reason. Is it vaccines? Perhaps it's all the chemicals we've put into the the ground/water over the years? Maybe it's all the engineered crops and slew of "safe" chemicals that's buried in just about any food you'll find on a grocer's shelf, many even without a requirement for labeling? Or could it be our ever-expanding wireless world? My bet is it's a combination of all of the above and if you look for it you will find tons of supporting information. Unfortunately all of the above are also very profitable industries and generally highly desirable products. I am in no way suggesting we go back to the stone age however I am suggesting we look at the big picture and do our own research. Don't blindly rely on anyone, especially the respective industry or government agency to tell you something is safe, including vaccines.

 

I thought it was Bush's fault.

OR are you trying to say that Bush is an alien?

 

Can you provide me with scientific data on any study that confirms long term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

 

"Even without mass vaccination, smallpox would have died out anyway. It just would have taken longer."REF: Dr. Tom Mack, of USC, reported at the CDC meeting June 20, 2002. From the verbatim transcript of the meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) June 19 and 20, 2002.

 

The death rate from measles in 1955 was less than 3 per 10 million: that was eight years before the measles vaccination campaign began in 1963. REF: MMWR . Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999. Impact of Vaccines Universally Recommended for Children in the US, 1190-1998. April 02, 1999/48; 243-248.

 

Up to 95% of all polio infections are completely asymptomatic. Between 4 and 8 percent of polio infections consist of a minor illness, indistinguishable from the flu with complete recovery in less than a week. 1 or 2 percent of polio infections present as stiffness in the neck, back and/or legs, usually following several days of flu-like symptoms. Complete recovery occurs within 2 to 10 days. Fewer than 1 percent of all polio infections result in paralysis. Many persons with paralytic polio recover completely and, in most others, muscle function returns to some degree. REF: Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Disease, Chapter 8 "Poliomyelitis." The Pink Book, published by the CDC.

 

Between mid-1999 and Jan 4, 2004, a total of 128,035 adverse reactions were reported to VAERS. Because it is estimated that only 1 percent of all adverse drug reactions are voluntarily reported, this figure may actually represent 1.28 million adverse reactions. During that same period, 2,093 deaths that occured soon after vaccinations were reported to VAERS. This may actually represent between 20,930 (10%) and 209,300 (1%) of all deaths possibly associated with vaccines. REF: JAMA 269 (1993): 2765-2768. Kessler, D.A. "Introducing MEDWatch. A new approach to reporting medication and device adverse effects and product problems."


It's not okay that children die from infectious disease. And it's not okay that children die or become permanently injured from vaccination. It's not okay for us to choose which group dies. Some will argue about which group is smaller and then it's okay to sacrifice them "for the greater good." We do not have the numbers to make these claims. It's impossible to know how many people would die from vaccine-preventable diseases today in 2012 America if there were no vaccines. We do not have an accurate count of how many vaccine deaths and injuries occur. Even if we did have the numbers and one group was smaller than the other group...we cannot, as a collective choose to let one group die to save another. All we can do is let each person choose which risk they want to take. And it would be really nice if we could start respecting those choices and not attack one another when we're all really after the same thing. We want the facts so we can make an informed choice and we want what's best for our children and our families.

 

2012 Immunization Schedule: Birth to 6yrs.

Here's the Center for Disease Control's recommended immunization schedule for 2012. I think any rational person would find this information alarming even if you believe that the benefits (injecting microbial agents into a child), outweigh the risks. Scroll down below the graph for descriptions of the vaccine and the number of antigens contained within each.

http://vaxtruth.org/2012/02/cdc-recommended-immunization-schedule-2012-birth-through-6-years/

 

And stop feeding the troll

 

I admit I'm pretty ignorant on this topic. All I know this is one of the few vaccines that is not covered by my insurance company, our family doctor does not support nor persuade against-said its up to us, is pretty expensive, requires multiple visits. The take away I got was that it was only beneficial against a small number of viruses and was a significant source of income to the company that created it. I haven't looked into it again from that time two years ago, but felt more like a business decision than a medical one......