# Do you think you are protecting your children by not getting them vaccinated?



## DennisBreene (Feb 15, 2014)

Vaccination rates are steadily declining as parents avoid having their kids vaccinated because of fear of side effects.  The problem is, parents have no memory of the annual epidemics of these deadly diseases, and therefore don't fear the diseases, and they are coming back.
http://contemporarypediatrics.moder...dern-medicine-now/declining-vaccination-rates
 and this is what the resurgence resembles.


http://www.upworthy.com/the-debate-on-vaccines-looks-super-ridiculous-when-you-see-whats-happened-in-the-last-5-years-3


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 15, 2014)

This is definitely a problem, but if I were to strike at the root of the issue, I think the anti-vax folks are responding to the fact that the FDA has become a revolving door, dozens of new vaccines have been approved and sometimes the safety and effectiveness is questionable. When you couple this with big Pharma companies using vaccine protection laws to protect themselves from liability for some of these products, it creates an atmosphere of mistrust. 

Anti-vax folks have taken it too far though. There was a reason why this technology developed.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 15, 2014)

People seem to think that the lack of epidemic diseases means there is no danger or need to vaccinate. When things like measles start killing people wholesale again who will they complain about??


----------



## K-man (Feb 15, 2014)

We have a similar problem in Australia. As you say, the diseases we grew up with are now pretty much a distant memory. As a result the focus has changed from the damage caused by disease to the side effects of the vaccination, in most cases much less severe anyway. But the most worrying aspect for me is the propaganda peddled by many alternate therapists who maintain that things like homeopathy, aromatherapy and Bach flower remedies have a place in modern medicine. If you can believe such rubbish you can easily be convinced vaccination is harmful.

Now, I am all for freedom of speech and freedom of choice but I would like to see some sort of protection against snake oil salesmen. Common sense should convince people that certain things are unlikely to be true, but unfortunately as they say, common sense is not that common.
:asian:


----------



## DennisBreene (Feb 15, 2014)

K-man said:


> We have a similar problem in Australia. As you say, the diseases we grew up with are now pretty much a distant memory. As a result the focus has changed from the damage caused by disease to the side effects of the vaccination, in most cases much less severe anyway. But the most worrying aspect for me is the propaganda peddled by many alternate therapists who maintain that things like homeopathy, aromatherapy and Bach flower remedies have a place in modern medicine. If you can believe such rubbish you can easily be convinced vaccination is harmful.
> 
> Now, I am all for freedom of speech and freedom of choice but I would like to see some sort of protection against snake oil salesmen. Common sense should convince people that certain things are unlikely to be true, but unfortunately as they say, common sense is not that common.
> :asian:



To follow through on that thought; the contemporary Pediatrics article is proposing much more aggressive enforcement of vaccination.. At what point does the parents right to choose need to be overridden to protect the population at large.  Clearly, major outbreaks of measles, mumps, rubella, whooping cough are beginning to resurface.  Do parents have the right to choose foolishly for their children?  If a parent came to the ER with a desperately ill child but refused treatment, we would get a court order to allow us to treat the child.   So when do we tell parents  that the choice is out of their hands.


----------



## K-man (Feb 15, 2014)

DennisBreene said:


> To follow through on that thought; the contemporary Pediatrics article is proposing much more aggressive enforcement of vaccination.. At what point does the parents right to choose need to be overridden to protect the population at large.  Clearly, major outbreaks of measles, mumps, rubella, whooping cough are beginning to resurface.  Do parents have the right to choose foolishly for their children?  If a parent came to the ER with a desperately ill child but refused treatment, we would get a court order to allow us to treat the child.   So when do we tell parents  that the choice is out of their hands.


Ah! We are of similar mind. Back in the 50s we were vaccinated at school, I presume with parental approval. No single use syringes in those days either. If you were at the end of the queue the needle was quite blunt. Mind you, it could even have been blunt to start with.  

Personally I would be for compulsory vaccination unless there was a proper reason not to vaccinate.
:asian:


----------



## DennisBreene (Feb 15, 2014)

Makalakumu said:


> This is definitely a problem, but if I were to strike at the root of the issue, I think the anti-vax folks are responding to the fact that the FDA has become a revolving door, dozens of new vaccines have been approved and sometimes the safety and effectiveness is questionable. When you couple this with big Pharma companies using vaccine protection laws to protect themselves from liability for some of these products, it creates an atmosphere of mistrust.
> 
> Anti-vax folks have taken it too far though. There was a reason why this technology developed.



I think that you may be mistaking a perception by the public for a fact.  Vaccines take years to develop and I doubt the total number of available vaccines is  much more than a dozen (a quick fact check just yielded 18 available vaccines for the public in the US). http://www.vaccines.com/vaccines-immunizations-information.cfm    But we live in a society where people (and their lawyers) expect risk free, flawless results.  If that were the FDA standard, no drug or vaccine would ever get to market.  Side effects are unfortunate, but the diseases that are being treated or prevented, can be truly horrifying.   And IMHO, there are cadres of lawyers out there who prey on the existence of side effects to create spurious suits that essentially extort cash from the pharmaceutical and device industries.  If you check the known side effects in the Physicians Desk Reference against the side effects being named in product liability they are essentially the same. My guess,  some lawyers have discovered that they can look up a popular drug, identify the side effects that are listed, solicit patients who have had said side effects and start a class action suit.  Easy pickings by implying that the effects of known risks are evidence of negligence.


----------



## DennisBreene (Feb 15, 2014)

Tgace said:


> People seem to think that the lack of epidemic diseases means there is no danger or need to vaccinate. When things like measles start killing people wholesale again who will they complain about??



To give some idea of the impact of these diseases, I'll add this article to the data pool.
http://www.vaccinateyourbaby.org/why/history/index.cfm

"In the U.S., roughly one in five people who develop measles require hospitalization for one or more of these complications. Widespread introduction of the measles vaccine has resulted in a significant reduction of measles cases.
Despite this great success, outbreaks are still occurring. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2011, there were 222 cases of measles reported in the U.S. Most of the cases were associated with importations from other countries. Eighty-six percent (86%) of the patients were unvaccinated or had unknown vaccination status"

"Since January 2013, over 160 measles cases have been reported across the United States and the majority of this year's cases were unvaccinated individuals.
Studies show that children with exemptions from the measles vaccine (MMR) are 22 times more likely to contract measles than non-exempt peers, making immunizations that protect from this deadly disease critical."


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 15, 2014)

DennisBreene said:


> I think that you may be mistaking a perception by the public for a fact.  Vaccines take years to develop and I doubt the total number of available vaccines is  much more than a dozen (a quick fact check just yielded 18 available vaccines for the public in the US). http://www.vaccines.com/vaccines-immunizations-information.cfm    But we live in a society where people (and their lawyers) expect risk free, flawless results.  If that were the FDA standard, no drug or vaccine would ever get to market.  Side effects are unfortunate, but the diseases that are being treated or prevented, can be truly horrifying.   And IMHO, there are cadres of lawyers out there who prey on the existence of side effects to create spurious suits that essentially extort cash from the pharmaceutical and device industries.  If you check the known side effects in the Physicians Desk Reference against the side effects being named in product liability they are essentially the same. My guess,  some lawyers have discovered that they can look up a popular drug, identify the side effects that are listed, solicit patients who have had said side effects and start a class action suit.  Easy pickings by implying that the effects of known risks are evidence of negligence.



There is a lot of politics involved in the making and mandating of various vaccines.  When stories like this get into the public, it plants the seeds for hysteria.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-hpv-vaccine/2011/09/13/gIQAVKKqPK_story.html



> His gubernatorial campaigns, for example, have received nearly $30,000 from the drugmaker since 2000, most of that before he issued his vaccine mandate, which was overturned by the Texas legislature.
> Merck and its subsidiaries have also given more than $380,000 to the Republican Governors Association (RGA) since 2006, the year that Perry began to play a prominent role in the Washington-based group, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.
> Perry served as chairman of the RGA in 2008 and again this year, until he decided to run for president. The group ranks among the governor&#8217;s biggest donors, giving his campaign at least *$4 million* over the past five years, according to Texans for Public Justice, a watchdog group.


----------



## granfire (Feb 15, 2014)

HPV virus vaccines are hardly to compare to measles, croup, whooping cough, polio etc....
(not to mention the outcry was because it was aimed at young girls, for an 'STD')

Complications from the disease can be terrifying. Death is probably not the worst.

However, there are few individuals who cannot be vaccinated, due to existing health problems. These people (as well as children too young to receive the vaccines) have to rely on 'herd immunity' for their health. 

So every Jenny McCarthy in the bunch makes it worse for those who can't.


----------



## DennisBreene (Feb 16, 2014)

http://www.cdc.gov/hpv/cancer.html

*"HPV and Cancer*






Several types of cancer are associated with HPV: 

Cervical cancer: The most common HPV-associated cancer. Almost all cervical cancer is caused by HPV.
Vulvar cancer: About 50% are linked to HPV.
Vaginal cancer: About 65% are linked to HPV.
Penile cancer

: About 35% are linked to HPV.
Anal cancer

: About 95% are linked to HPV.
Oropharyngeal cancers (cancers of the back of the throat, including the base of the tongue and tonsils): About 60% are linked to HPV. [Note: Many of these cancers may be related to tobacco and alcohol use]
Most of the time, HPV goes away by itself within two years and does not cause health problems. It is thought that the immune system fights off HPV naturally. It is only when certain types of HPV do not go away over years that it can cause these cancers. It is not known why HPV goes away in most, but not all cases. There is no way to know which people will go on to develop cancer or other health problems."

http://www.followthemoney.org/database/topcontributor.phtml?u=1702&y=0

Between 2001 and 2012 Merck contributed $14.6 million to political action. 13.6% went to Democratic Candidates and 18.6% went to Republican Candidates.  The majority went to ballot initiatives.  In gambling parlance, that would be called "playing the field".  Like many lobbying interests, they ensured access to whatever candidates were likely to be in office.  Did they buy the candidates, or just an opportunity to be heard?  Regardless, the case for immunizing against HPV is extremely strong.  It is the #1 STD and strongly linked to the cancers noted above. It is now recommended for young women and men as the supply of vaccine is more available.  Initial efforts were in vaccinating young women before they were likely to be involved in sexual activity as they are the most "at risk" population from the infection.  Is there economic self interest at play? Absolutely!  Does that make Merck or any other company that lobbies, inherently evil?  I'm less convinced of that.


----------



## aedrasteia (Feb 16, 2014)

DennisBreene said:


> Vaccination rates are steadily declining as parents avoid having their kids vaccinated because of fear of side effects.  The problem is, parents have no memory of the annual epidemics of these deadly diseases, and therefore don't fear the diseases, and they are coming back.
> http://contemporarypediatrics.moder...dern-medicine-now/declining-vaccination-rates
> and this is what the resurgence resembles.
> http://www.upworthy.com/the-debate-on-vaccines-looks-super-ridiculous-when-you-see-whats-happened-in-the-last-5-years-3



Thanks Dennis. This issue had a major effect on exposure of our unvaccinated infant niece to unvac. children re: measels and rubella

Mr. Cihack posted this awhile back: it's from another author and my assumption is it expresses
how he sees biological science/vaccinations.  The OP reminded me of Bill's perspective. 
Useful to know this POV.
 Are Bill's children vaccinated?    I don't know if he has kids but maybe someone else remembers.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/98824-Science-for-stupid-idiots


----------



## DennisBreene (Feb 17, 2014)

aedrasteia said:


> Thanks Dennis. This issue had a major effect on exposure of our unvaccinated infant niece to unvac. children re: measels and rubella
> 
> Mr. Cihack posted this awhile back: it's from another author and my assumption is it expresses
> how he sees biological science/vaccinations.  The OP reminded me of Bill's perspective.
> ...



There will always be people who feel there is no acceptable risk when it comes to their children and I can understand that emotional response.  My hope it that providing accurate information about the nature of the risks involved will persuade some people that the greater risk is in leaving your child unvaccinated.  At least with regards to some major childhood killers.  If someone makes the conscious choice to forgo the flu vaccination, shingles, pneumovax, or others as an adult, generally they are only putting themselves at risk. Provided they stay away from everyone else if they end up contracting one of these illnesses.


----------



## donald1 (Feb 17, 2014)

that depends how well there immunity is, two people a person with a good immunity vs. person without good immunity. the odds are the person with better immunity is probably less needing of the vaccine. as long as there healthy and strong immunity (preferably away from potential illness) they should be fine
,best of luck


----------



## DennisBreene (Feb 17, 2014)

donald1 said:


> that depends how well there immunity is, two people a person with a good immunity vs. person without good immunity. the odds are the person with better immunity is probably less needing of the vaccine. as long as there healthy and strong immunity (preferably away from potential illness) they should be fine
> ,best of luck



Sorry but  diseases such as measles, rubella, chicken pox and diphtheria, are not like shaking off a cold.  Even the healthiest in the population can be stricken with the disease and fall prey to devastating complications. Some diseases like influenza, pneumonia, shingle,  do have their most devastating impact on the infirm but occasionally you get a strain like the 1918 influenza break out that devastated the healthy members of the population as well.


----------



## donald1 (Feb 17, 2014)

DennisBreene said:


> Sorry but  diseases such as measles, rubella, chicken pox and diphtheria, are not like shaking off a cold.  Even the healthiest in the population can be stricken with the disease and fall prey to devastating complications. Some diseases like influenza, pneumonia, shingle,  do have their most devastating impact on the infirm but occasionally you get a strain like the 1918 influenza break out that devastated the healthy members of the population as well.



i see... that's a tough call, whatever choice you make best of luck


----------

