(HPV) Vaccine under suspicion

[Ms. Toad]

Source: Akron Beacon Journal

For months, more than a dozen doctors have studied why Kenzie Bear has been so sick.

The once-healthy, active 15-year-old from Stow suffers from constant nausea, debilitating fatigue, seizures and other symptoms that have left her unable to attend school or play sports.

. . .

Shoemaker said blood tests have confirmed that Kenzie has a series of abnormalities in her innate immune system, a condition that affects less than 1 percent of Americans.

. . .

Shoemaker said he is treating two other young women who received the Gardasil vaccine and have ''strikingly similar'' symptoms to Kenzie. Their lab results are pending.

Read more: http://www.ohio.com/news/top_stories/40948777.html

---

I have said since some states started to make this vaccine mandatory almost immediately after it was released that more study with the target population over a longer term was needed before making the vaccine mandatory.

My 18 year old daughter has not had it yet - although we are still seriously considering it because of the gravity of the health consequences associated with the viruses the vaccine targets. She knows that before she becomes sexually active she needs to talk to me and/or her doctor about the vaccine, and that it doesn't provide instant protection - so she needs to begin thinking about it well in advance of becoming sexually active.

I have no idea whether my daughter has the same kind of abnormalities in her immune system that girl in the article does - but she does have at least one serious autoimmune disorder, and is currently undergoing evaluation for a second one. So far, I'm glad I did not join the blind rush on this one.

I am not suggesting that the vaccine be pulled from the market, or that people blindly avoid having it because the CDC and FDA consider 6% of the correlated side effects reported to it through the VAERS system to be serious - just that it is too soon to make it mandatory, and that further investigation is needed into the growing number of teens who are reporting seizures following vaccination with Gardasil. Right now, Merck is sounding suspiciously like it did when reports of heart attacks and strokes started showing up in connection with the use of Vioxx. It may end up being nothing, but it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

[madaboutharry]

1. I will tell you what you hear when there is

a doctor in the family: Sit back and wait. It takes a couple of years for reports of side effects to make their way into the media. There was suspicion about this vaccine a year ago in medical journals.

[CoffeeCat]

2. The fact is...

...that it MAY be something.

I will protect my daughters from this vaccine.

Vioxx is a good example. So is Avandia. The FDA is a gutless paper tiger that has served to enrich Big Phara.

The FDA ceased being an advocate and protector of consumers during BushCo.

Isn't that reason enough to be cautious, and to read when it comes to new drugs--especially injections that go into our
growing children?

If people are willing to be guinea pigs, that's fine. The rest of us can wait a few years for the truth to come in--before
we decide that these drugs and vaccines are safe.

The sad truth is---we have drugs and vaccines on the market far too early. People die and are debilitated with serious side
effects--then the drugs are pulled.

That's not safe.

I'll wait a few years before making this Gardisil decision. It's my children after all.

[depakid]

3. Reactions to HPV vaccine Gardasil very rare

The vaccine was given to all Australian females aged 12 to 26 years as part of a national immunisation programme beginning in 2007.

Some components of the vaccine such as aluminium salts and yeast have previously been associated with hypersensitivity reactions and some reports of adverse events followed the school vaccination programme.

The study is the first evaluation of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine after more than 380,000 vaccine doses were given in schools in Victoria and South Australia.

Thirty five schoolgirls with suspected hypersensitivity reactions including urticaria (hives), generalised rash, angioedema (swelling of subcutaneous tissues) and anaphylaxis were reported to specialised immunisation services and 25 agreed to be referred to paediatric allergy centres for further evaluation.

The researchers kept a detailed account of the reactions which included previous doses of the vaccine, time and severity of reaction, and previous clinical history and skin prick tests of the HPV vaccines were carried out.

The girls were followed-up by telephone one week after the subsequent dose and any adverse events were recorded and the research team found that only one reported a negative reaction of hives which occurred four hours after the vaccine was given.

The researchers suggest that only three of the 25 evaluated schoolgirls possibly had hypersensitivity to the vaccine, and they say true hypersensitivity is uncommon.

They say that suspected hypersensitivity reactions such as hives are often "idiosyncratic" and do not increase the risk of adverse reactions in subsequent vaccinations.

The authors recommend that girls with suspected hypersensitivity to the quadrivalent vaccine should be evaluated before receiving more doses, and call for research into the mechanisms of hypersensitivity to the vaccine.

Gardasil and Cervarix are vaccines designed to be given to girls and young women to protect them against cancer-causing strains of the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV), which can cause cervical cancer.

Gardasil targets four strains of HPV -- two responsible for cervical cancer and two causing the less serious condition of genital warts while Cervarix targets the two cancer strains.

In October this year the U.S. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that girls and young women given Gardasil were no more likely than usual to faint, have an allergic reaction, blood clot or other adverse reaction.

http://www.eatg.org/eatg/Global-HIV-News/HIV-STIs/Reactions-to-HPV-vaccine-Gardasil-rare

[Ms. Toad]

6. The CDC has received over 700 reports

of incidents THEY categorize as serious (6% of the 11,916 reports they have received, according to the article).

Again - I am not saying toss the vaccine. Cervical cancer is nothing to sneeze at. What I am saying (and have been saying all along with respect to this particular vaccine and with respect to the chicken pox vaccine) is that more research is needed before it is made mandatory - and perhaps to discover populations for whom the vaccination itself is more risky than what is being vaccinated against.

[pnwmom]

24. And cervical cancer has been almost eliminated simply through the use

of pap smears, which must be continued anyway.

[Ms. Toad]

26. You are absolutely correct about the need to continue

pap smears. I had a very educated person tell me recently that all cervical cancer was caused by one of the HPV viruses (not correct), and that the vaccine protects against all of them (also not correct).

It is essential that even women who have had the vaccination continue to have annual pap smears to catch cervical cancer early.

[Hannah Bell]

80. cervical cancer: also very rare, & most cases occur in women over 60.

[TZ]

113. Yes. So lets not help ANYONE

avoid cervical cancer cause its rare. I'm sure LONGHORN would agree with you..People like you..who suggest that Pharmas aren't looking for cancer cures and then when they come up WITH A GODDAMN PREVENTATIVE DON'T WANT IT MAKE ME FUCKING SICK.:puke:
Cervical Cancer..much more vicious than a fucking vaccine which despite what the anti-vaccine brigade likes to think isn't very dangerous. Its okay if women suffer and die as long as we avoid the evul vaccines!

[ejpoeta]

4. guess it's a good thing people fought the mandatory vaccine.

Especially since it was so new. and it seems pharmaceutical companies like to make people pay to be guinea pigs for their drugs these days. Has it always been like this?? because it seems more and more drugs come out and then we find out years later that they have problems. I am not sure, but I don't remember it always being like this with medicines.

[leftchick]

5. I would never give this to my daughter

yearly Pap smears are sufficient. God only knows what the hell is in that 'vaccine'.


<snip>

"I saw the wonderful ad on TV, and I thought, 'Wow! I'm going to do that for my daughter,' but now I say, 'Wow! Don't do it,'" Mrs. Cook said.

She said Kirstie received her first injection in February 2008 and shortly after began having headaches and became dizzy, confused and lethargic.

Her second Gardasil dose was in April, and Mrs. Cook said the teen continued to complain about the troubling symptoms.

"In June, she had a grand-mal seizure, and we almost lost her. Now, she has auto-immune disease, a problem with her brain."

http://www.pressrepublican.com/homepage/local_story_059222525.html

[pnwmom]

11. How heartbreaking for a parent to have to worry that the vaccine she approved

for her daughter might have made her so sick.

True -- it might NOT be the Gardasil. But it will probably be years -- if ever -- before they find out.

[pnwmom]

7. I agree -- it was premature to try to make it mandatory. But I'm sure

you'll hear a different opinion when the Vax-to-the-Max Squad jumps in.

10. . . 9. . . 8. . .

[trotsky]

12. Now that's a helpful, respectful comment.

Way to elevate the debate! :eyes:

[Ms. Toad]

16. Well, it did turn out to be an accurate prediction

thirteen minutes later.

I do wish we could have a respectful, productive discussion.

Unfortunately, anytime anyone suggests that even though vaccinations are essential and have their proper place, not all vaccinations are equal and not every vaccination should be mandatory, the suggestion is followed very quickly by a post like this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x55563#55573 (This one is actually very mild compared to most of the condescending rhetoric that has been thrown at me whenever I suggest that the decision to vaccinate your child is no different than any other medical decision you must make for them - and that one has an obligation to engage one's brain rather than blindly holding out one's child for every vaccination that comes along.)

[trotsky]

17. No, it was inflammatory and inaccurate.

"vax-to-the-max"?? Ridiculous.

[Ms. Toad]

18. Characterizing my OP,

which suggested the need for additional research, "BS alarmism promoted in the OP" is (as noted) relatively mild phrasing, but it is characteristic of the unfortunately typical responses which characterize everyone who does not believe that all vaccinations are inherently harmless as anti-science, anti-vaccination, etc.

I might not have phrased the anticipated reaction the same way, but the sentiment did make me hesitate before even posting the article because of the attacks it would inevitably draw. Ultimately, I decided to post it hoping that reports of significant problems correlated with receiving Gardasil - might lead some people, who had insisted it could not possibly be harmful during the flamewars surrounding making it mandatory very early on, to re-evaluate whether further study might be warranted. (Again - not to toss out the vaccine, but to study whether there is a causal connection between the reported incidents and the vaccination - at lest in certain populations, so that appropriate fact based decisions can be made regarding risk v. benefit of the vaccine.)

[trotsky]

19. Just two questions.

Do you agree or disagree that calling other DUers a "vax-to-the-max squad" is a disparaging/disrespectful comment that poisons debate?

If you agree, do you acknowledge that pnwmom was the first poster on this thread to poison the debate?

Thanks in advance.

[Ms. Toad]

20. I don't think it is appropriate

to view this thread in isolation regarding poisoning the vaccination debate. That horse left the barn ages ago.

If your intention is truly to promote respectful discussion on the matter, I am sure you will agree that asking me to publicly endorse your (negative) characterization of a third person's remarks doesn't particularly further that goal. Saying someone else started it isn't very helpful when we're all sitting in the middle of the floor in a bloody mess.

[trotsky]

21. Can't blame you for avoiding those questions.

I'm not going to give up hope that maybe the level of debate CAN rise in here - but I'm also not going to ignore the fact of who introduced the negativity and disrespect into an individual thread.

Saying someone else started it isn't very helpful when we're all sitting in the middle of the floor in a bloody mess.

Well then, why are you selectively taking depakid to task instead of condemning the snark from both sides?

[Ms. Toad]

22. Probably because I was the target of that particular snark n/t.

[trotsky]

23. At least you're honest about the double standard, I guess. n/t

[Ms. Toad]

25. On reflection - here's a bit more.

I am in the middle of this debate. I mostly vaccinate my child, and mostly believe vaccinations are a good thing.

I do think that recently we are moving too quickly to mandate every new vaccine - and I am concerned about the interplay between our immune system, autoimmune disorders, and the overwhelming number of vaccinations we subject our children to at such a young age. Virtually no child would ever naturally be exposed to polio, mumps, measles, rubella, pertussis, tetanus, diptheria, HiB - have I missed any - by the time they are 18 months old. I have done a fairly thorough search of the medical literature available online, and have not found a single study that evaluates the impact of that condensed quantity and variety of exposure at that age - so, to my mind, that is one of the open questions about how we currently use vaccines.

Both extremes call each other names regularly, and I don't find that particularly productive. But - I personally have never been called names on DU by anyone who is on the anti-vaccination extreme. In contrast, every time I have posted at least one person on the pro-vaccination extreme has called me an alarmist, unscientific, an idiot, or some other derrogatory description AND accused of being anti-vaccine because I have the audacity to question the use of, and rush to mandate, a few vaccines - or the current vaccination schedule.

My educational background and current work are science based. I have a physics degree and two math degrees. The last time I entered one of these threads, I was told that that I must be calling a prize in a junior high science fair a science degree and I must work as a secretary who checks the grammar of real scientists.

Scientific inquiry is based on making observations, asking questions and seeing where the search for answers leads us - without a rigid preconception as to the outcome. (Hypotheses are an initial guess - but they can just as easily be disproven as proven. To reject anyone making observations and asking questions as unscientific is, frankly, to reject the scientific process. Yes, it gets under my skin, and I don't always manage to keep from reacting - and when I react it will be against the extreme pro-vaccination side because that is the only side that has ever attacked me.

After being here for a 5 years without even seriously considering putting anyone on ignore, I put that poster (two paragraphs up) on ignore to give me a little buffer against saying things I would regret later.

[trotsky]

27. There is quite a bit of misinformation in your post.

I do think that recently we are moving too quickly to mandate every new vaccine

"We" do this? The only recent attempt I've heard to mandate a "new" vaccine was with Gov. Perry in Texas, and that was rejected by the legislature, so it was never mandated.

Virtually no child would ever naturally be exposed to polio, mumps, measles, rubella, pertussis, tetanus, diptheria, HiB - have I missed any - by the time they are 18 months old.

Yeah, you missed about 100,000 pathogens (probably a very conservative estimate) that children are exposed to by 18 months of age from their environment and diet - including ones that directly enter the bloodstream (unlike vaccines) through cuts and abrasions. Vaccines introduce a miniscule number by comparison - and do so in a very controlled manner (into tissue, and with a weakened or killed virus).

I have done a fairly thorough search of the medical literature available online, and have not found a single study that evaluates the impact of that condensed quantity and variety of exposure at that age

One of the sad facts of modern life is how doing some Google searches makes some people think they know more than highly trained immunologists, disease specialists, and health experts. I don't try to insist that I know better than people who have devoted years of their life studying these things in an actual research environment.

But I would have to question your Google skills when a simple search for "studies of multiple vaccines" turns up a New York Times article as the #2 result:

Children, who receive as many as 11 vaccinations routinely, are not in danger of having their immune system overwhelmed, according to a study published today.

''Current studies do not support the hypothesis that multiple vaccines overwhelm, weaken or 'use up' the immune system,'' said the report from Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and several other institutions.

''On the contrary, young infants have an enormous capacity to respond to multiple vaccines, as well as to the many other challenges present in the environment,'' it added.

''By providing protection against a number of bacterial and viral pathogens, vaccines prevent the 'weakening' of the immune system and consequent secondary bacterial infections occasionally caused by natural infection,'' it added.

But - I personally have never been called names on DU by anyone who is on the anti-vaccination extreme.

Well, I have. And it should be noted that depakid didn't call you a name on this thread. It should also be noted that the name-calling that does happen is quite different in nature. Comments directed at vaccination opponents tend to refer to ignorance. Comments directed at vaccination proponents attack the person and their morals (the prime example being called a shill).

I was told that that I must be calling a prize in a junior high science fair a science degree and I must work as a secretary who checks the grammar of real scientists.

Not excusing it, but it sounds pretty mild compared to what's been launched at individuals I know. I invite you to go back through old threads sometime and see if you can determine who has more posts deleted, if you really want to get into a game of "who's worse."

To reject anyone making observations and asking questions as unscientific is, frankly, to reject the scientific process.

So, do you read articles by global warming denialists and would you prefer to keep that debate open?

[pnwmom]

32. 11 vaccines? Are you really that uninformed? Or just hoping no one else will notice

that the NYTimes article you cited was dated 2002.

For your information, the CURRENT number of recommended vaccines is about 30 by the age of 2.

[trotsky]

34. Good job missing the point.

The other poster specifically said she found NO studies. I found one in the first page of Google results. Back from the days of - gasp - thimerosal!

[pnwmom]

36. That is very much to the point. While 11 vaccines over 2 years might not have

overwhelmed the immune system, 30 over the same period of time might. Without the research, we don't know.

[trotsky]

43. 30, eh?

Perhaps you could name all 30 distinct vaccines that children routinely receive before 18 months of age.

[pnwmom]

45. I said by the age of 2, and I included vaccines and boosters.

I didn't say "distinct" vaccines. Boosters also cause an insult to the immune system, sometimes worse than the original shot.

[trotsky]

49. So enumerate the 30.

From the article: "Today children in developed countries receive 11 vaccines routinely and will have had as many as 20 completion shots by age 2."

Where are you getting the 30 from? I'm guessing there are a few more than 20 total shots today, but not 50% more.

[Liberal Veteran]

54. I'm not sure it's a relevant point anyway.

Children are exposed to hundreds of disease causing organisms even without immunizations.

The notion that staggered immunizations are harmful because they get 10 or 30 different immunizations is really a non-starter when you consider that children are exposed to hundreds of different bacteria, fungi, and viruses in their formative years. This idea that the teaching the body to recognize and destroy measles, chickenpox, mumps, etc, as being a harmful thing is a notion that defies logic.

That is what the immune system is designed to do and immunization is a far safer option for the vast majority than trying to fight off the real pathogen or treating an illness through antivirals or antibiotics.

[trotsky]

57. Absolutely correct.

My suspicion is that this poster just pulled the number 30 out of thin air as something that sounded big and impressive, but even the CDC says that a typical case of strep throat introduces a child's immune system to up to 50 antigens. 50! All in one illness! It's amazing any of us are alive if 30 weakened or inactive antigens are more dangerous than 50 live, full strength ones.

[Why Syzygy]

72. "Routine"

Good gawd. I had no idea. I am frightened for my first grandchild coming in 7 weeks.

1. Hepatitis B vaccine (HepB). (Minimum age: birth)
At birth:
• Administer monovalent HepB to all newborns before hospital discharge.
• If mother is hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive, administer HepB and 0.5 mL of hepatitis B immune globulin (HBIG) within 12 hours of birth.
• If mother’s HBsAg status is unknown, administer HepB within 12 hours of birth. Determine mother’s HBsAg status as soon as possible and, if
HBsAg-positive, administer HBIG (no later than age 1 week).
After the birth dose:
• The HepB series should be completed with either monovalent HepB or a combination vaccine containing HepB. The second dose should be
administered at age 1 or 2 months. The final dose should be administered no earlier than age 24 weeks.
• Infants born to HBsAg-positive mothers should be tested for HBsAg and antibody to HBsAg (anti-HBs) after completion of at least 3 doses of the HepB series, at age 9 through 18 months (generally at the next well-child visit).
4-month dose:
• Administration of 4 doses of HepB to infants is permissible when combination vaccines containing HepB are administered after the birth dose.
2. Rotavirus vaccine (RV). (Minimum age: 6 weeks)
• Administer the first dose at age 6 through 14 weeks (maximum age:
14 weeks 6 days). Vaccination should not be initiated for infants aged
15 weeks or older (i.e., 15 weeks 0 days or older).
• Administer the final dose in the series by age 8 months 0 days.
• If Rotarix® is administered at ages 2 and 4 months, a dose at 6 months is not indicated.
3. Diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis vaccine (DTaP). (Minimum age: 6 weeks)
• The fourth dose may be administered as early as age 12 months, provided at least 6 months have elapsed since the third dose.
• Administer the final dose in the series at age 4 through 6 years.
4. Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine (Hib).
(Minimum age: 6 weeks)
• If PRP-OMP (PedvaxHIB® or Comvax® ) is administered at ages
2 and 4 months, a dose at age 6 months is not indicated.
• TriHiBit® (DTaP/Hib) should not be used for doses at ages 2, 4, or 6 months but can be used as the final dose in children aged 12 months or older.
5. Pneumococcal vaccine. (Minimum age: 6 weeks for pneumococcal conjugate vaccine ; 2 years for pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine )
• PCV is recommended for all children aged younger than 5 years. Administer 1 dose of PCV to all healthy children aged 24 through 59 months who are not completely vaccinated for their age.
• Administer PPSV to children aged 2 years or older with certain underlying medical conditions (see MMWR 2000;49), including a cochlear implant.
6. Influenza vaccine. (Minimum age: 6 months for trivalent inactivated
influenza vaccine ; 2 years for live, attenuated influenza vaccine )
• Administer annually to children aged 6 months through 18 years.
• For healthy nonpregnant persons (i.e., those who do not have underlying medical conditions that predispose them to influenza complications) aged 2 through 49 years, either LAIV or TIV may be used.
• Children receiving TIV should receive 0.25 mL if aged 6 through 35 months or 0.5 mL if aged 3 years or older.
• Administer 2 doses (separated by at least 4 weeks) to children aged younger than 9 years who are receiving influenza vaccine for the first time or who were vaccinated for the first time during the previous influenza season but only received 1 dose.
7. Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR). (Minimum age: 12 months)
• Administer the second dose at age 4 through 6 years. However, the second dose may be administered before age 4, provided at least 28 days have elapsed since the first dose.
8. Varicella vaccine. (Minimum age: 12 months)
• Administer the second dose at age 4 through 6 years. However, the second dose may be administered before age 4, provided at least 3 months have elapsed since the first dose.
• For children aged 12 months through 12 years the minimum interval between doses is 3 months. However, if the second dose was administered at least 28 days after the first dose, it can be accepted as valid.
9. Hepatitis A vaccine (HepA). (Minimum age: 12 months)
• Administer to all children aged 1 year (i.e., aged 12 through 23 months). Administer 2 doses at least 6 months apart.
• Children not fully vaccinated by age 2 years can be vaccinated at
subsequent visits.
• HepA also is recommended for children older than 1 year who live in areas where vaccination programs target older children or who are at increased risk of infection. See MMWR 2006;55(No. RR-7).
10. Meningococcal vaccine. (Minimum age: 2 years for meningococcal conjugate vaccine and for meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine )
• Administer MCV to children aged 2 through 10 years with terminal complement component deficiency, anatomic or functional asplenia, and certain other high-risk groups. See MMWR 2005;54(No. RR-7).
• Persons who received MPSV 3 or more years previously and who remain at increased risk for meningococcal disease should be revaccinated with MCV.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/default.htm

Childhood Schedule (birth to 6 years old)

* Childhood Immunization Schedule NEW Jan 2009
Print office-size, brochure-size, pocket-size, download to PDA, etc.
* Interactive Child Scheduler
Make schedule for 1-6 years old children
* Catchup Schedule NEW Jan 2009
(4 months through 18 years)
* Interactive Catchup Scheduler
This tool once downloaded can be used to determine the vaccines your child needs and is especially useful for quickly seeing missed or skipped vaccines according to the Immunization scheduler
* Summary of Recommendations for Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Adobe Acrobat print-friendly PDF file (exit)

Adolescent Schedule (7 to 18 years old)

* Adolescent Immunization Schedule NEW Jan 2009
Print office-size, brochure-size, pocket-size, download to PDA, etc.
* List of vaccines needed by teens
* Catchup Schedule NEW Jan 2009
(4 months through 18 years)
* Summary of Recommendations for Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Adobe Acrobat print-friendly PDF file (exit)
* Adolescent & Adult Vaccine Quiz

Adult Schedule (over 18 years old)

* Adult Immunization Schedule NEW Jan 2009
Print office-size, poster-size, pocket-size, or download to PDA, etc.
* Adolescent & Adult Vaccine Quiz
* Adult Screening Form
* List of vaccines needed by college students
* Summary of Recommendations for Adult Immunization

[semillama]

73. Why frightened? No need to worry.

This is the routine schedule. Routine in that pretty much everyone gets it without any problems.

I have a 6-week old, and the ONLY deviation from the schedule he has experienced is that we declined HepB at birth, not because of concerns about the vaccine, but because my wife didn't want a newborn baby screaming in pain after an exhausting delivery. Otherwise, he's getting the full schedule.

I don't think you should be concerned about the vaccination schedule. In comparison to the thousands of pathogens your grandchild will be exposed to on a daily basis, a small amount of vaccines aren't going to be a bother.

[trotsky]

74. Because it's all about ignorance and fear.

Ignorance of what's in vaccines, how they work, what "burden" they put on the immune system. But that doesn't stop some folks from just *knowing* that we give too many vaccines spaced too closely together.

And fear of doctors, fear of medicine, fear of "big pharma," fear of just about anything except the horrible, nasty diseases that vaccines have helped to eliminate.

[Hannah Bell]

82. are most children routinely exposed to hep b in their environment?

i wasn't aware.

transmission via sex, needles, or infected mother. my my, how times change.

[trotsky]

87. Do most people bring up red herrings?

I guess so. Times haven't changed.

[Hannah Bell]

95. not a red herring. not that i expect you to give up your snarky nonsense.

[trotsky]

99. Sadly, it's quite the red herring.

Why should I vaccinate my newborn child if I know that I am not infected with hepatitis B virus?

Before the hepatitis B virus vaccine, every year in the United States about 18,000 children were infected with hepatitis B virus by the time they were 10 years old. This statistic is especially important because people are much more likely to develop liver cancer or cirrhosis if they are infected early in life, rather than later in life (most people are infected with hepatitis B virus when they are adolescents and young adults).

About 9,000 of the 18,000 children infected in the first 10 years of life caught the virus from their mother during birth. However, many young children didn't catch the disease from their mother. They caught it from either another family member or someone else who comes in contact with the child. Because the disease can be transmitted by casual contact, and because many people who are infected with hepatitis B virus don't know that they have it, it is virtually impossible to be "careful enough" to avoid this infection.

For these reasons, all young children are recommended to receive the hepatitis B vaccine. The best time to receive the first dose is right after birth. This will ensure that the child will be protected as early as possible from catching the disease from someone that doesn't know that they are infected with the virus.

Source: Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

Adults and other children can be carriers of Hep B without exhibiting any symptoms.

[uppityperson]

109. Is a red herring different than a straw man?

Red herring implying something thrown out there to distract. Straw man implying false comparison? Trying to get my terms straight here.

[uppityperson]

108. Blood. Example: Kid with hep B has a nosebleed at school. Other kids are exposed.

Another example: Kid visits someone who has unknown hep B, has nicked their finger and bled on the sink. Kid puts hand on sink to stare at self in mirror, kid also has a nick in their finger.

Hep B can be passed other ways than sex, needles, or infected mother. Times have changed since this is now recognized more widely.

[Ms. Toad]

111. If you are referring to my posts,

that is a gross mischaracterization of anything I said.

I have suggested the need for more research regarding whether the current vaccination schedule is appropriate (number, commingling, and timing). Suggesting a need for more study is a far cry from "*knowing*" that it is inappropriate, and I would appreciate it if you want to put down my concerns you at least accurately state what they are.

[trotsky]

112. Wow, you resurrected this old thread? Good grief.

Even "suggesting a need for more study" implies that YOU feel you are more knowledgeable than the experts. YOU think they've missed something. It doesn't change a thing - you show the same disdain for science that the Bush admin lackeys did, when it didn't fit what they wanted to believe either.

[Ms. Toad]

115. I came back to the thread

because I wanted to use some of the phrasing I recalled using in one of my posts. I saw the slam - and, as I said, if you disagree with me that is one thing, but please do it in a manner intended to further disucussion not insult the participants in the discussion, and please don't mischaracterize my position.

[trotsky]

116. Let's take a look at the two words I used: ignorance and fear.

In your OP, you are fearful that the vaccine hasn't been tested enough, and you base this fear on ignorance. You use terms like "blind rush" and "mandatory" (which of course is false). You don't have any idea just how much the vaccine was tested, nor do you know that the testing that was done was somehow inadequate, NOR do you know how much more testing (or what kind) would be enough to satisfy you. That's a lot of "don't knows", which translates to ignorance in my book. We will have to agree to disagree that I "mischaracterized" your position.

If there's any insulting going on, it's you insulting the incredibly educated experts who shape our public health policy. You should really apologize to them for what really is a form of libel.

[Ms. Toad]

118. You continue to make a lot of assumptions

about what research I have, or have not done, and to mischaracterize the concerns I have raised.

I do know what studies have been done, and what studies have not been done, to the extent they are reported in mainline medical publications. The studies that I have suggested need to be done have not already been done. It is not insulting to review the research that has been done, to note what has not been done, and suggest there is a gap in the research. And, for what it's worth, the vaccination schedules are imposed by legislators who - by and large - have far less scientific training than I do.

By your reasoning, I should just have followed my daughter's doctors' advice when he insisted about a month ago that there was nothing seriously wrong with her, rather than "insult" him by suggesting that he had missed something. I wish I had been wrong, but this week she was diagnosed (by unmistakable physical characteristics seen by the pathologist reviewing her biopsy) with the chronic progressive disease I suggested to her doctor a month and a half ago that she had. As a friend of mine characterized the severity of the disease, "the 'good' news is that that the long term treatment is a transplant." But, according to my daughter's doctor - who I should have listened to rather than insult that "incredibly educated expert" by pressing him to perform additional diagnostic tests - nothing serious was going on.

You'll forgive me, particularly right now while I take a breather after fighting to get the doctor to pay attention to the life threatening illness my daughter has, if I have little patience with people who view questioning whether "incredibly educated experts" might have missed something as insulting rather than as the duty of a responsible citizen (or more personally, a parent).

[trotsky]

119. I wish I had the time to fully explain the logical fallacies you have embraced,

but unfortunately I do not. However I don't get the feeling you are interested anyway, since you already clearly know better than anyone else in the entire field of medicine how to approach any issue once you've read a few articles on the subject. I only wish that we had your incredible, amazing knowledge and intuition available to us all. No doubt every disease known would be cured by now. (Good luck with your daughter though - and if you want to discuss facts rather than try to lay a shame/guilt trip on me, let me know.)

[Ms. Toad]

120. I don't know better than anyone else in the entire field of medicine

I never said I did.

What I did say is that I have the ability to research the available medical literature, to evaluate that research, and to make medical evaluations (that in a number of instances have been confirmed by subsequent diagnosis, revision of disease theory, and treatment strategy ). I have not investigated everything in the medical arena. For example, I know little to nothing about cancer, heart disease, or mental illness. I have, however, researched what has and has not been evaluated with respect to the current vaccination schedule - and believe that additional research needs to be done with regard to the impact that vaccinations given in accordance with the current schedule have on infants and toddlers both generally - and particularly with respect to individuals with abnormal immune systems.

It is insulting to suggest that only "incredibly educated experts" are capable of reviewing the medical literature available, making observations as to what has and has not been evaluated, and suggesting where additional research is needed, and further to suggest that everyone who dares to think otherwise is anti-science.

Edited to add:

The point I was making with what is going on with my daughter is that it is the same skillset required, and the same dynamics, albeit on a personal rather than a public policy scale. I have pretty well established that I am competent to evaluate the medical literature and be pretty certain what my daughter had she has before the doctor even acknowledges something serious is going on (and in prior similar circumstances, disease theory and treatment strategy). I am no less competent at performing the same skills just because the subject is evaluating the medical literature on vaccination research. That is not a skill that is unique to me - or to physicians, and there is no reason to elevate phsicians or others doing medical research to a god-like status by suggesting that anyone who questions the current recommendations regarding vaccinations is committing libel or anti-science.

[trotsky]

121. So let me get this straight.

You re-opened this thread so you could express your concern that *I* had somehow inaccurately stated your position.

But now you launch this little salvo at me: "there is no reason to elevate phsicians (sic) or others doing medical research to a god-like status"

Seems to me you'd better eliminate such behavior in yourself before you criticize it in others! I have not once said that educated professionals be accorded "god-like status" - only that if YOU are going to say that they're all wrong (which you are, by insisting all the things you have in this thread regarding vaccination) that you had better have the knowledge, education, training, and scientific thought processes to do so. But you have none of that - all you have is righteous indignation that anyone DARE suggest you need those things when making the kind of pronouncements you have.

It is insulting to suggest that only "incredibly educated experts" are capable of reviewing the medical literature available, making observations as to what has and has not been evaluated, and suggesting where additional research is needed, and further to suggest that everyone who dares to think otherwise is anti-science.

Oh but of course. You've read absolutely EVERY article on the topic (right?), and thus you know better than anyone else what hasn't been done, and what needs to be done. You keep stating and re-stating your absolutely certainty on this issue, I'm guessing because you hope that by repeating it enough, anyone asking you WHY (and requesting factual data and/or technical reasoning) will be silenced. Well in case you hadn't figured it out, I'm not cowed by your attempts at intimidation or emotional brow-beating. Only data and reason will sway me, and you have neither. All you have is your (no doubt earnestly-held) opinion after reading some medical articles. But that's all you need to be religiously certain that everyone in the fields of immunology, physiology, and the like are ABSOLUTELY WRONG and they BETTER DO MORE RESEARCH.

Just don't ask you for details. :eyes:

[Ms. Toad]

122. Characterize it however you want

but when you tell me that a suggestion that research needs to be done is libelous unless I am "religiously certain" that "everyone in the fields of immunology, physiology, and the like" is "ABSOLUTELY WRONG" that sure sounds to me like you are elevating that group to god-like status.

I've done the research, and am pretty sure what is there and what isn't - but I am certainly willing to look at any medical article that is on point. Despite numerous requests, neither you nor anyone else has produced any actual research (not a theoretical analysis) on the concerns I have raised. The substance of your response has been: Stop questioning the experts; questioning the experts is either anti-scientific or libelous, or both. That's not a productive discussion - so carry on with stuffing overalls with straw.

I'm done unless you come up with a medical article reporting actual research as to the impact (safety, efficacy, side effects) on infants and toddlers of the full course of vaccinations administered on the current vaccination schedule - either with or without a particular focus on individuals with abnormal immune systems.

[trotsky]

123. More mischaracterizations from you.

No, I'm not telling you to stop questioning the experts - I'm telling you that unless you have informed yourself to the same degree they have (and no, reading a bunch of articles doesn't do that), then you really have no grounds to declare unequivocally that more research must be done. You fancy yourself an expert, but you are not. Period. Take your strawmen elsewhere.

[Why Syzygy]

75. Even 30 years ago,

my son had fever and diarrhea for a few days, red swollen arms. I don't remember him getting them at such a young age. I also have a lot more faith in our natural immune systems than many seem to. I had measles when I was about 18 months. I remembered sitting in the closet where it was dark to feel better. The new parents have two debates going about other topics, which are on my mind as well. I've given my input and that's all I can do. My son is in the military and has had all those shots and the pills they give them. I assume they will be using military doctors.

Thanks for your comforting message.

[Liberal Veteran]

76. I get the feeling some people don't quite understand how vaccines work.

From some of the posts I have read, you would get the impression that you are being injected with special immune serum that creates immunity in and of itself.

Instead what a vaccine really does is just teach the body how to produce to antibodies specific to a particular pathogen so that when the person does come into contact with the real pathogen, their body already knows how to fight the infection.

Somewhere along the lines, some people seem to be under the impression that immunization bypasses the immune system and that notion leads to very interesting ideas that aren't well thought out.

[Why Syzygy]

77. I don't know if you're referring to my comment about

the immune system. While I have great confidence in the human body, and do understand the action of immunizations, in real life chances are next to ZERO to be exposed to HepB at birth, unless there's infection of the mother or hospital.

Likewise, consider the possibilities of being exposed to natural invaders of Rotavirus, Diptheria, Hib, Pneumococcal, all at THE SAME time before the age of six weeks.

Likewise, how many times has anyone ever been exposed to mumps, Rubella and measles all at the same moment?
No. Any pretense that vaccines, as practiced, are akin to a natural immune response are unpersuasive and condescending.

[trotsky]

78. But a child isn't exposed to those viruses in their wild form when they are vaccinated.

They are weakened or killed versions of them. You seem to think that the antigens in a vaccine are just as deadly as the ones encountered in normal exposure - and that just isn't so. Your whole position is based on a considerable lack of understanding.

[Liberal Veteran]

79. What do you mean by "natural immune response"?

By definition all immune responses are natural. Unfortunately, the natural immune response to pathogenic organisms in a body never exposed to said pathogen is quite often not enough to prevent disease. That's why we used to have large scale outbreaks of diseases that in the past.

[Why Syzygy]

86. By "naturual immune response", I mean "as required by exposure".

Or, as likely to be found in routine exposure situations.

[Hannah Bell]

83. i count 14 vaccines, 38 doses.

http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p2010.pdf

[trotsky]

88. You are double-counting alternate vaccines,

counting doses that aren't necessary if the prior dose schedule was adhered to (or that are scheduled AFTER the age of 2), and including two vaccines (HPV, MCV) given to adolescents when the other poster specifically referred to vaccines dispensed to children under the age of 2.

But apart from all those blatant errors, you're spot on! :eyes:

[Hannah Bell]

94. don't think so, trots, except for the adolescent bit.

[trotsky]

98. Thank you for admitting some of your errors.

The others, well anyone who chooses to consult that PDF will see them.

[Ms. Toad]

47. New vaccines that have been mandated

relatively quickly after their introduction HiB and Chicken Pox. (I did not limit that statement to mandating the new HPV vaccine.)

As to what I'm missing - I was obviously listing exposure to the major illnesses that many states have decided are life threatening enough to mandate vaccines for. The other things you listed are routine pathogens to which virtually every child has been and will continue to be exposed, regardless of vaccinations.

As to the search, I did not say I did a google search. I said I searched the medical literature available on the internet - only a small fraction of which is available through google - as I am sure you know. I will see if I can find the "current studies" or the pediatric article referenced in the article. Newspaper articles generally do not summarize medical research well enough to be reliable, so I am surprised you trivialized what I described as doing a search of the medical literature by citing a newspaper article purportedly summarizing a bunch of "current studies." The medical studies I have reviewed (directly through the medical literature - not through a prepared-for-the masses summary of multiple studies) include a number of studies which looked at a limited range of side effects associated with the use of a single combination vaccine (such as MMR) in children, and one or two studies which reviewed multiple vaccines given to adults over a short period of time.

As to whether I know more than highly trained immunologists - probably not as a broad generalization - but I preceded two of my daughter's specialists and the Crohns & Colitis Foundation by a number of years in understanding what is now the recognized disease process for that particular auto-immune disorder - so I'm no dummy, either.

As to name calling - I don't see that having one's intelligence or intellectual integrity called into question is any better or worse than being called a shill (or vice versa). Although I would prefer the name calling stop, since I am not in either extreme camp it doesn't impact me except when I get dragged into it by someone in the pro-vaccination extreme not bothering to read carefully - or at all - what I have written, throwing me into the anti-vaccination camp, then proceeding to call me names. I have not personally, nor have I observed anyone else recommending moderation and additional research, been thrown into the extreme pro-vaccination camp by those opposed to vaccinations, and then called names.

As to your final question, I would have to see what observations are being made and what questions are being asked. It was only a little over a generation ago that the big concern was global cooling, and the next ice age. I think we're headed in the right direction in acknowledging that global warming is occurring and that we know some of the causes, but I think there are details around the edges that could still bear additional research. I certainly wouldn't call someone who makes observations or raises questions around the edges of what we know about global warming an idiot, anti-science or any names similar to what those been called for making questions and raising questions around the edge of our vaccination program.

[trotsky]

52. Really? HiB and chicken pox vaccines are *mandated*?

Please provide evidence to support that assertion. I'm not sure you understand what "mandated" means.

The other things you listed are routine pathogens to which virtually every child has been and will continue to be exposed, regardless of vaccinations.

To most people, viruses like measles, mumps, and rubella are relatively "routine." My dad had all three as a child. However they can cause significant illness, injury, and death in others. The same can be said about virtually all the other environmental pathogens. The point is, if you're going to somehow make the claim that one can get "too many" vaccines, then you must explain how encountering thousands of pathogens daily ISN'T too many and in fact quite easily dealt with by all but the most fragile of immune systems. I await your technical explanation.

I said I searched the medical literature available on the internet - only a small fraction of which is available through google

Yet in this "small fraction" I easily found a hit. You'd think that by searching just a tiny amount of the data that's out there, I would have had LESS success. Strange, that. Do feel free to read the actual study - the American Academy of Pediatrics (shills?) posted the whole thing on their website if you don't trust the NY Times' reporting of it. There's a lot of really useful data in it - I strongly encourage you to read the whole thing.

...I preceded two of my daughter's specialists and the Crohns & Colitis Foundation by a number of years in understanding what is now the recognized disease process for that particular auto-immune disorder

An impressive fact if true, but still not a sign that you are nearly as educated or qualified as people who have spent years of their lives studying and working full-time in the field. However it is the age of Google, so everyone's an expert, I suppose.

I have not personally, nor have I observed anyone else recommending moderation and additional research, been thrown into the extreme pro-vaccination camp by those opposed to vaccinations, and then called names.

What the hell is "the extreme pro-vaccination camp"? There is NO ONE in this forum who has ever said that vaccines are 100% safe and we should never work to make them safer. What kind of strange strawman are you arguing with?

Obviously you were really hurt by someone else allegedly calling you names. I'm sorry that happened, but you need to remember I'm not that person so either you need to let it go and proceed with our discussion or go find the person who hurt you and direct your anger and energy at them instead of me.

It was only a little over a generation ago that the big concern was global cooling, and the next ice age.

Coincidentally, that bit is frequently quoted by the global warming denialists, so maybe you are a little more comfortable with them than the average DUer. Perhaps we'll see you jump into the next global warming thread with these simple "questions around the edges"? I mean, if you're really that into science and making sure all viewpoints are heard - which you are, right?

The funny thing is, immunology and pathology and related sciences are far more understood and researched than global warming is. We can study immune responses, both in humans and in animals. We have decades of real-world data, in different populations, in different areas of the world. Hard experimental data is one thing that climate scientists have a tough time getting - because we've only got the one world and we can't exactly do a "reset" on it. So to have some kind of reasonable footing to question vaccination at the level you are proposing requires a thorough knowledge and understanding of the science. And no offense, but neither you nor I have that kind of understanding.

[Ms. Toad]

55. By now, you don't seem to be interested

in having a substantive discussion.

If you want to have a substantive discussion, not just a put down contest I'll be glad to have one - but that is not appears to be happening here since you haven't been able to keep the condescension out of your posts. ("I'm not sure you know what mandated means," "if true," "One of the sad facts of modern life is how doing some Google searches makes some people think they know more than highly trained immunologists . . . ", and "But I would have to question your Google skills" to identify a few condescending fragments from your last two posts.) Unless the tone changes, I won't be responding any more.

The website you linked to does not include any study I have not already reviewed. As I summarized earlier, the actual studies involved a very limited set of vaccinations (I believe four was the maximum), generally studied combination vaccinations like MMR or DPT, and studied a limited subset of possible reactions. None studied the overall impact of quantity, frequency, and combinations of vaccinations that are currently part of the vaccination schedule in most states. The only exception I hadn't previously summarized (but had reviewed) was a theoretical exercise estimating the number of vaccinations to which a child's immune system could respond - which is a good start, although I am still interested in more than just the capacity to produce immunity.

In addition, theory and reality do not always match - so although it is a start, it does not satisfy the research that I believe needs to be done to justify the current vaccination schedule in most states or to justify adding more vaccinations for increasingly less serious illnesses(or situationally serious/situationally high risk of exposure) to the list that each child must have in order to be entitled to participate in "minor" things like education. (And, frankly, the fact that neither you nor I are capable of doing the research has nothing do do with whether it should be done - or with whether anyone who suggests it needs to be done is ignorant or anti-science, for that matter.)

I will leave you with the evidence you requested - it's an old list (05-06 school year), but I am sure the list of states mandating HiB and chicken pox vaccination has only increased since then. Every state or territory but two required HiB vaccination prior to entering child care; whether or not it is required for entry into kindergarten is not separately listed in this particular compilation, but some states (including Ohio) require it for kindergarten entry. All but 8 of the states and territories require varicella vaccination for entry into kindergarten (in some states, but not all, documented evidence of the disease can be substituted for vaccination history).

[trotsky]

56. But DO you know what "mandated" means?

Because you still haven't indicated that you do. Parents can opt out of any vaccine they choose, in some states for religious reasons, in others for merely philosophical or conscientious ones. Is it really a "mandated" vaccine if you don't HAVE to get it?

(BTW - "evidence" doesn't mean a paragraph of your uncited, unverified assertions.)

The website you linked to does not include any study I have not already reviewed.

Then either you were wrong before, or that statement is wrong. Because your exact initial quote was:

I ... have not found a single study that evaluates the impact of that condensed quantity and variety of exposure at that age

That study shines brightly as just one counterexample. So if you are claiming now that the AAP's site "does not include any study I have not already reviewed," then that must mean you DID review this particular study which DOES "evaluate the impact of that condensed quantity and variety of exposure at that age." I do think you see the quandary you put yourself into, which is why you are now rapidly shifting the goalposts to try and make this study fall outside your suddenly-narrow range of acceptance. I can only read that as an admission of error in your first statement.

it does not satisfy the research that I believe needs to be done to justify the current vaccination schedule in most states

But what exactly are your professional qualifications that make you an informed judge of not only that today's schedule is wrong, but also how one would "justify the current vaccination schedule"? What kind of training in immunology and physiology have you had? What makes you know more than everyone else in the field?

the fact that neither you nor I are capable of doing the research has nothing do do with whether it should be done

But the crux of the matter is, you need to have at least a certain amount of training and education to understand WHAT research should be done and HOW it should be done. You are obviously a very intelligent and educated person, but you also obviously do not have THAT kind of education or experience. The biggest problem I see in the whole vaccination "debate" is that people all the way from the rabid anti-vaxers who think EVERY vaccine is deadly poison to those who merely want "more research" done into vaccines think that they know and the stupid experts simply do not. Anti-intellectualism is unfortunately not confined to one area on the political spectrum - it's just targeted at different intellectuals.

[Ms. Toad]

58. Link for last paragraph

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/laws/downloads/izlaws05-06.pdf

[trotsky]

62. Since you ignored my post above, I'll repeat this:

Parents can opt out of any vaccine they choose, in some states for religious reasons, in others for merely philosophical or conscientious ones. Is it really a "mandated" vaccine if you don't HAVE to get it?

[Ms. Toad]

63. As I previously indicated,

when your tone changes to conversational, as opposed to condescending, I am willing to have a substantive discussion.

I ignored the condescension in first post, and continued to respond politely to the substance. The second one that continued in the same tone (and a third one after that) tells me you are more interested in scoring put downs than in having a real conversation. I have no interest a contest over who is the best nit-picker.

[trotsky]

64. There's no condescension involved at all in asking:

How can a vaccine be considered "mandated" if people are allowed to refuse it?

You can continue trying to make this personal if you wish, but it's a simple question. Will you please answer it?

[Ms. Toad]

65. That single question, perhaps not.

isolated from the context. On the off chance you really don't understand how you're coming across (and really would like to continue to have substantive conversations on the matter) here's a summary of the particular conversation thread that led to the question above:

The substance of the concern was the growing number of new vaccinations added to the mandatory vaccination schedule very shortly after being introduced.

You responded that there was only one failed attempt to add HPV.

I responded that HiB and Chicken Pox were additional new vaccinations that followed that pattern.

You responded with disbelief, demanded evidence and added snark about whether I understood what the word mandatory meant.

I provided a summary of the state and territory list compiled by the CDC, but forgot to include the link.

Instead of asking if I forgot the link (which someone really interested in a substantive conversation might have done), you proceeded to lecture me about the meaning of the word evidence, and repeated the question about the meaning of the word mandatory - which is irrelevant to whether or not HPV, HiB, or Chicken pox had been added to the list.

So - if the question above had been the first question, not a snarky response to the substantive concern about the vaccination schedule, I would have answered it and we could have a substantive discussion about legal mandates, narrow exceptions to those mandates, enforcement of the law versus what people get away with, whether religious exceptions should be allowed - perhaps even how those impact concerns I have about the current vaccination schedule.

So, as I said, I'm not interested in contests over put downs or nitpicking over the meaning of words. If you want to continue the conversation - and really didn't know how you're coming across - now you do. Feel free to change it, but don't expect a response to a question that began as a put down until we've re-established a substantive, polite, conversation and the question is relevant to that conversation.

[trotsky]

66. All this to avoid answering a simple question?

Because I didn't ask it politely enough?

Look. I am very sorry that I have failed to be what you think is adequately respectful. But what this comes down to is that you are essentially saying you know better than the thousands and thousands of highly educated professionals who help shape our public health policy. That YOU know better what research needs to be done and - tacitly, but more importantly - they don't. Those are mighty big claims and I think you should provide some mighty big evidence to support them. You have steadfastly refused throughout this thread, instead engaging in the nitpicking you claim to oppose, by complaining about my posting style or that I'm not being nice enough to you. The reasonable assumption I am forced to make is that you can't defend your claims and this is the only way you can save face - by directing your attacks at me instead of the arguments.

So if you need to bow out by making this about me, go right ahead. You may even throw in some more lecturing about my poor manners if you think it will make you look better.

[Ms. Toad]

67. Nope - not to avoid answering a question

Just making it clear that I'm not going to have a conversation if it starts with the bait I declined to take yesterday.

[trotsky]

70. I was not aware that asking someone to back up what they say is "bait."

Learn something new every day.

[Hannah Bell]

84. One can refuse. But one will not be allowed, e.g., into many public or private schools, day

cares, children's camps, etc.

For starters.

No, the storm troopers don't come & haul the kids to the doc - that's your spin on "mandate," i suppose.

[trotsky]

89. "One can refuse."

That's all that needed to be said. However, to your concerns about not being able to go to school:

Thousands of unvaccinated children enter schools
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/35758
A Scripps Howard News Service review of incomplete surveys submitted to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows at least 135,000 children (out of about 4 million new students) started kindergarten last fall exempt from vaccine requirements.

For optional events like camps, that's some real desperation to extend the word "mandate" to mean "you can't go to a camp if you don't get it." :eyes:

[Hannah Bell]

93. In my district, children can't enter the public schools without having their

vaccinations up to date.

There are many districts with similar "mandates".

Regardless of your feelings about camp, it's an activity kids can't do without vaccination, i.e. if you want to participate, it's "mandatory".

"Mandates" continue as one ages, i.e. some colleges, certain professions, etc.

[TZ]

114. Thats totall BULLSHIT and you know it

HPV isn't an infectious disease that would cause that types of reaction. Your woo-woo tinfoil hat is cutting off the blood circulation to your brain.
BTW I would like to thank you and yours for allowing measles to survive and maim and kill people because of your health ignorance. You and yors are the pathogens best friend....Anti-vaxx=pro-infection.

[Hannah Bell]

81. thank you. it's impossible to even discuss the issue here without being called names & the threads

becoming personal. & it's usually pretty clear why that is.

[trotsky]

90. So sayeth the pot. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

96. you & you gang were snarking away in health long before i came on the scene.

[pnwmom]

30. So all the times that you introduced the negativity, are you going to apologize?

I didn't think so.

[trotsky]

33. Since you started it on this thread, you first. n/t

[pnwmom]

39. Since you never felt the need on any previous thread, then neither will I. n/t

[trotsky]

41. LOL

Glad to see you're a much better person than I am.

[pnwmom]

29. Funny that a person who so freely tosses out the term "anti-vax crowd"

is so sensitive about its verbal equivalent, coming from the other side.

[trotsky]

31. I would invite you to go refer to past threads.

And see that when I use the term "anti-vax crowd" (or brigade) I am trying to refer to the culprits behind the movement (Kirby, RFK, the Geiers, et al). In fact when addressing someone here I try to specifically keep them separate, only noting similarity of tactics or source of misinformation.

[pnwmom]

37. You directed that term at me quite a number of times.

Whereas I specifically did NOT include you in the "vax to the max crowd."

But you seem to automatically have included yourself in that group.

I wonder why?

[trotsky]

40. I invite you to read more closely. n/t

[pnwmom]

42. I did. And I definitely did not name you in my post, or any other specific DUer

for that matter.

As for sifting through a bunch of old threads, looking for your name on posts . . . no thanks.

[trotsky]

44. Well then, without justifying your claim, there we are.

But you know what? I show I can be a bigger person than you, and apologize sincerely for making you think I was lumping you in an "anti-vax crowd." Even though, looking back at the most recent thread, I pretty clearly did not:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x54941#55099
"More of the same tactics used by the anti-vaxers you are parroting"
"But I'll tell you a little secret: the anti-vax movement isn't interested in truth"

Neither mention puts you in the group.

[pnwmom]

48. I "parrot" rather than think. That's a nice apology.

:sarcasm:

But I'll point out again: I never named you as part of the "vax to the max squad." You decided to include yourself for some reason.

[trotsky]

50. I just pointed out that you brought the snark to this thread FIRST.

I said nothing about taking it personally. You have tried to turn this back around as an attack on me ("But maw, HE did it first!") but when faced with evidence had to backtrack. All to avoid taking responsibility for your own words.

[pnwmom]

53. I take full responsibility for my words, I wouldn't dream of avoiding them. n/t

[pnwmom]

28. No more ridiculous or inflammatory than referring to DUers with specific concerns as

the "anti-vax crowd."

[trotsky]

35. So then you're OK with that tactic? n/t

[pnwmom]

38. As long as you keep it up, so will I. n/t

[grasswire]

59. what the hell is your problem?

I've rarely seen a more bellicose poster.

[uppityperson]

60. I have. Read the rest of the Health Forum.

They are here. They snark. They insult. They reply only to say "now the other side will say something bad".

Vaccine wars, insults, have gone on for quite some time. Read the other posts in this subthread even.


Snark snark snark. Did not. Did to. You did first. No you did. See you just like to insult me you (enter insult here). *I* never said that. etc. snark snark snark.

[trotsky]

61. My problem is with people who lack the understanding of an issue,

yet feel that they're experts. My problem is with science and health policy being determined by people who know how to use Google. Stick around though, and you'll find that I'm pretty mild compared to some who bash scientists and doctors.

[grasswire]

68. you must be a very lonely person (eom)

[trotsky]

69. As must you, to have a compulsive need to confront me. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

85. there is a group of health posters who consider it their mission to drown out any

questioning of party line medicine with derision & personal attacks.

[trotsky]

91. I agree.

There's one who routinely added "Go Democrats!" to the end of her posts, implying that anyone who disagreed with her wasn't a Democrat. Now that's a pretty nasty tactic, wouldn't you agree?

[Hannah Bell]

92. i don't know who that is. Myself, i dislike the tactics of posters who respond to posts they

disagree with with personalism & snark.

"Go Democrats" is pretty inocuous in comparison.

[trotsky]

97. So when will you start displaying the behavior you desire to see in others?

This post certified 100% snark-free.

[Hannah Bell]

102. when you do, trots.

[trotsky]

104. So I don't even start the bad behavior on the thread,

but somehow I'm the one responsible. Figures. LOL.

[LeftishBrit]

100. I agree that 'Go Democrats' is pretty innocuous in comparison with those posts that imply that

anyone, who supports a vaccine or medicine that someone else distrusts, must have a corrupt financial motive for doing so.

[Why Syzygy]

101. Don't worry.

New light has been shed which indicates it is more about weird government partisanship than any financial motive.

However, there is at least one poster who has been known to join the distractions here who makes no secret of his paid industry involvement.

[LeftishBrit]

106. Weird government partisanship?

Some of us 'vax to the max'-ers aren't even American!

And the only British government that I might ever have felt 'weirdly partisan' about is that of Attlee, and I wasn't even born at that time.

[Hannah Bell]

103. where do you see that in this particular thread, lb?

[LeftishBrit]

105. Not in this thread, but frequently elsewhere. Where in this thread are all the personal

attacks that you allege? There are plenty of *allegations* - from both sides - of personal attacks; but most of these attacks originated in other threads.

[Why Syzygy]

71. "Vax-to-the-Max"

:thumbsup: Nice coin.

[Sydnie]

8. I did take my daughter for this vaccine

and she is due for her last shot this month. So far, she hasn't had any adverse reactions to it but all the talk about it is now making me very nervous. My daughter, who is not fond of needles, reminds me every few days that she is due for her final shot.

I am torn on whether to follow through with the last shot ot not.

[depakid]

9. Don't buy into the hysteria

Make your decisions based on medical science- BS alarmism promoted in the OP.

[pnwmom]

10. What Ms. Toad said was reasonable and thoughtful.

Not hysterical or alarmist at all.

"I am not suggesting that the vaccine be pulled from the market, or that people blindly avoid having it because the CDC and FDA consider 6% of the correlated side effects reported to it through the VAERS system to be serious - just that it is too soon to make it mandatory, and that further investigation is needed into the growing number of teens who are reporting seizures following vaccination with Gardasil. Right now, Merck is sounding suspiciously like it did when reports of heart attacks and strokes started showing up in connection with the use of Vioxx. It may end up being nothing, but it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand."

The FDA as of late has a spotty record. Time will tell whether they made the right call for Gardasil.

[Ms. Toad]

15. Thank you. n/t

[depakid]

46. Not talking about you- but the article

which most assuredly was alamist and unscientific.

[Ms. Toad]

51. The article is reporting what one family experienced

and the conclusion of the article is that this particular girl has particular, relatively rate, immune characteristics that may put her at particular risk. She has been tested, two (I believe) additional girls are being tested to see if they have the same characteristics.

Trying to make people aware of that experience (so others might make connections), and reporting that testing to determine if the problems are related to the vaccination, identifying a particular characteristic that might have caused it, if it is related, testing others for similar characteristics, with the goal of suggesting that it might be wise to pre-test for those particular characteristics before having the vaccination strikes me as relatively scientific (at least as scientific as most popular articles get).

I would certainly prefer to hear about potential reactions so they can be evaluated - how many more lives would have been lost if the reactions to vioxx were kept silent for fear of being perceived as alarmist.

[Ms. Toad]

14. Carefully reading what is written is usually a good thing.

You might give it a try.

[Ms. Toad]

13. If my daughter was already partway through the series

without adverse reaction, I would complete the series.

I don't automatically give my daughter every vaccination that is available, but she had all of the ones that were mandatory at the time she was of the age for vaccinations - and if I had an infant currently she would have all but one of the mandatory ones (HiB - since she was not in a daycare setting, which is the major risk for HiB infection), and I would insist on splitting the MMR into its component parts, with mumps being given separately in time from the measles.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

110. One post? Good job mods!

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.