Required Vaccine

[sgeeeee]

I know people got tired of the original thread, but it did generate interest and here is some new information on that topic. You will have to register (no cost) to read this Washington Times article:
http://insider.washingtontimes.com/a...6-115014-2031r

Quote:

CDC doctor opposes law for vaccine By Gregory Lopes The chairman of the federal panel that recommended the new cervical-cancer vaccine for pre-teen girls says lawmakers should not make the inoculation mandatory, as the District and more than 20 states, including Virginia, are considering. Dr. Jon Abramson, chairman of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's advisory committee on immunization practices (ACIP), also said he and panel members told Merck & Co., the drug Gardasil's maker, not to lobby state lawmakers to require the vaccine for school attendance. "I told Merck my personal opinion that it shouldn't be mandated," Dr. Abramson told The Washington Times. "And they heard it from other committee members." Dr. Abramson said he opposes mandating Gardasil, which prevents the cervical-cancer-causing human papillomavirus (HPV), because the sexually transmitted HPV is not a contagious disease like measles and he is not sure states can afford to inoculate all students. "The vaccines out there now are for very communicable diseases. A child in school is not at an increased risk for HPV like he is measles," Dr. Abramson said. In addition, Dr. Abramson said a discussion about making the vaccine mandatory should not be had until states show the money is available to vaccinate every child, adding, "I don't see that yet." Taken in a series of three shots at $120 each, Gardasil is the most expensive vaccine on the market. About 45 percent of children would be eligible for free vaccines from the federal Vaccinations for Children program, while the other 55 percent would depend on the state programs and insurance companies. . . .

[Peaceful_Warrior]

Even if "mandated" people can still get exemptions to allow the child to go to school without the "required" vaccinations. All it does is add to the list of already "required" vaccines.

[bright eyed]

arg they just introduced a bill in CA to mandate it AB 16

i will definitely opt my girls out if that is the case.

[Peaceful_Warrior]

After watching "Vaccines" DVD by Dr. Tenpenny (and doing some of my own research), I'm never vaccinating myself or my children again.

I'm not fond of knowingly putting mercury and formaldehyde into my body...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bright eyed arg they just introduced a bill in CA to mandate it AB 16 i will definitely opt my girls out if that is the case.

[bright eyed]

update in texas

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/us...th&oref=slogin

<<Six weeks after Gov. Rick Perry issued an executive order making Texas the first state to require that sixth-grade girls be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer, the State House of Representatives voted 119 to 21 yesterday to approve a bill that would nullify the order.>>

[Brat]

From a public health standpoint vaccines have had a tremendously impact in preventing serious disease. I think that the public as a whole has forgotten that. However, I think that our Public Health Service hasn't done enough to help our citizens understand the value of vaccines, and they haven't heard the concern of many about preservatives.

Frankly I think our Public Health Service has been used too much for as 'values' forum and has lost some of it's credibility as a health science agency.

In addition, I think that many health care providers have forgotten the care that must be taken for several weeks after administering a vaccine. The incident with the military family in Chicago recently is a good example. When I was I kid I got the small pox vaccine and a series of immunizations at the end of WWII. My uncle was a physician and made sure that I, and my parents, took care not to transfer the immunization virus to others.

Had I a daughter I would see that she received the vaccine. No one wants to be 'forced' to do this type of thing, it is far better to be convinced that it is the right thing to do.

[Peaceful_Warrior]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brat From a public health standpoint vaccines have had a tremendously impact in preventing serious disease.

Which ones specifically?

CDC statistics for several vaccines show that there were significant declines in the infection rates prior to the corresponding vaccines being introduced, and that for some vaccines an insiginficant number of people contracted the virus even after a full immunization schedule.

In the case of smallpox, there's no evidence that the vaccine actually prevented nor eradicated the disease. During the 'mass vaccination' campaign, it was not eradicated. Then, when the strategy was changed to targeted (i.e. infected individuals were quarantined and all relatives/friends/associates were vaccinated), was the virus eradicated.

So in that situation, it is clear that its eradication was due to that strategy, but given the fact that a change of strategy was required because the mass vaccination was not effective leads one to wonder if the eradication was due to the vaccine or to the quarantine.

I think a lot of people take for granted the public information about vaccines, and don't actually understand the details of each infection and the associated vaccines.

For example, polio... so many people are scared about the worst-case scenario of being paralyzed, that they don't realize they're not only in a country where the disease has been declared eradicated since 1994, but also that the odds of getting polio are very slim, and then the odds of even knowing you have polio are slimmer (because 50% of the time it passes as nothing more than a mild flu), and then the odds of having *temporary* partial paralysis are slimmer, and then the odds of having any form of permanent paralysis is miniscule.

My dad had polio, but only knew it because the doctors said, "You've got polio." He recovered completely fine, the same way most people who contract polio recover (especially since most never knew they even had it).

Tetanus is another misunderstood disaease, for which he vaccine is generally unnecessary. The disease is not permanent, and it can be prevented as much as 1-2 weeks after infection if a person is still concerned about it. Not to mention the conditions required to contract tetanus are generally uncommon to begin with.

I think if more people understood the risks associated with each disease they are vaccinating against and the risks associated with vaccinating, they would at the very least choose to be selective about which vaccines they take rather than just going through the whole immunization schedule as dictated by others.

[farmerEd]

If you don't want to register to read the article, you can use:

"test@test.com" as a userid and "test" as the password...at least for now...

http://insider.washingtontimes.com/a...6-115014-2031r

Additional userids and passwords can be found at http://www.bugmenot.com

[mountaintosea]

If you have a daughter get the vaccine. Stop being so concerned about yourself (which is all it is). I know a few women who got the disease and had to go through serious surgeries at an early age. Guess what? It was their husbands who fooled around on them! Get off your high horse and protect your daughters!

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I'm giving my son all the vaccines anyone wants to make. I'll take the risk on the .001% chance of a problem with the vaccine rather than have him become seriously ill or worse.

By the way, I had a very nice bible thumper girlfriend give me the HPV about 15 years ago. She made me go to church with her for two months before she slept with me, and allegedly had only 'been with' me, her ex husband, and a 'weak moment' with the tennis pro. It turned out to be a simple matter with no symptoms, just had to take a few pills for a couple of weeks.

Oddly enough, even though I was a little whore all my life, I never got a thing from anyone else. Good thing one of her routine gynie tests picked it up, or I might have given it to a few dozen other nice religious girls.

[Fireup2020]

Just had round one of the HepA/HepB combo vaccine, but will NOT submit to Anthrax - yes, I have researched some of the vaccines out there if relevant to me. If I had a daughter over age 13, she'd be getting the HPV vaccine. One of the kids I went to elementary school with died from a disease there was a vaccine for - was allowed to go to school because of "religious reasons" (my mom was the school nurse, this is where the "info" came from) That death would rest heavier than from complications as a result of the vaccine...

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bright eyed arg they just introduced a bill in CA to mandate it AB 16 i will definitely opt my girls out if that is the case.

why? -ERD50

[Brat]

Peacefull, you are much too young to remember the illnesses vaccines can prevent today. Yes, some folks who contracted polio had a mild case, but I have a sorority sister who was in an iron lung for many months, walked with a limp all through adult-hood, and died of it's complications in her 50s. In my youth there were ranks of iron lungs in hospitals. I cried when I saw the last one in town loaded in a metal re-cycling bin.

Whole communities died of small pox in my parents' generation and it was not unknown in my own. Since about the 60's the incidence of small pox was so low as the result of vaccines that the vaccine itself was more of a risk. But do not take for granted today's small pox risk.

Children whose parents do not give them DPT die in the US today from whooping cough.

Phenomia is a real risk for many, a vaccine is available. Same with HepA/HepB. Anthrax is a risk for veterinarians, most get it but for the rest of us probably not suitable. There is a vaccine for some types of TB - in the 70s most Japanese were inoculated - did you know that your greatest odds of contracting TB in the U.S. is in an elevator?.

It really isn't necessary that everyone receive a vaccine to interrupt the chain of infection. However, some vaccines need time to build up resistance. IMHO, if you don't get inoculated and become a vector you are as good as a cluster bomb landmine - an unseen source of death and injury. If the day comes when an agent crosses the infection chain barrier it may well be too late to get inoculated.

My attitude and 'edge' comes from remembering the world when vaccines were few.

[bright eyed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 why? -ERD50

The vaccine is new, and while tested, it is difficult to say how it will affect the general population. An official from the cdc even said he didn't recommend the vaccine requirement and that we should move forward slowly...proceed with caution!

if you get your yearly pap and test for hpv at the same time you should be able to catch any problems - as well as practice safe sex.

Most of us probably had hpv at one point or another - it is the most common std...

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bright eyed The vaccine is new, and while tested, it is difficult to say how it will affect the general population. An official from the cdc even said he didn't recommend the vaccine requirement and that we should move forward slowly...proceed with caution!

Yes, it is a bit uncomfortable to think there is a chance that we could possibly be doing harm, if some unforeseen problems do arise.

But, when I get more analytical about it, we are talking about a known benefit versus some speculation of a unknown problem of unknown severity. I need to do more research myself, but from what I've heard I would probably be in favor of it for my girls.

I guess this is a bit different than some other immunizations, it protects the individual rather than helping to protect a group ( I think). So, widespread use is probably not as important as with other immunizations.

-ERD50

[Brat]

I agree that any new med should be adopted slowly. My MIL's sister died as a result of the use of the first small pox vaccine. As a public health measure that vaccine was a life-saver for the population as a whole, but that is not to deny the reality that some had a very bad reaction.

Even something whose benefit was so 'self evident' as hormone replacement therapy turned out to be not a good public health treatment.

Each of us must make our own calculation about the risk of any action, never accepting any proposition without thoughtful consideration. I agree that 'mandatory' was not justified. If anything is important enough for 'mandatory' it should be available to all for free.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaceful_Warrior I'm not fond of knowingly putting mercury and formaldehyde into my body...

But, you need to look at the whole risk/reward equation. Mercury is a poison, all sorts of bad health effects, right? But, don't throw out the baby with the bath water. On a recent Science Friday podcast, a reporter talked about high levels of mercury found in fish in the store. Another scientist had studied the health of two communities that had extremely high levels of mercury in their blood. Guess what?

The kids with the high mercury levels tested *better* in virtually every standardized test they threw at them. And, their scores correlated with the level of mercury - the higher the better! The scientist theorized that because the mercury came from the fish they were eating, that fish (probably the omega-3 oils) are good for you. So be careful what you reject.

Of course, fish w/o mercury would probably be better yet, but what is the phrase - the enemy of the good is the perfect?

-ERD50

[bright eyed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 why? -ERD50

I would feel better after the drug has been around for a lot longer, - my girls are young so i am fortunate that i don't have to decide for them - they have time on their side.

also, given the seeming increase in release of drugs to the public, then retraction due to reactions including death, i am wary!

My mom was on both the hormone therapy for women and the arthritis medicine recently taken off, a friend of mine is infertile due to norplant, another of mine was on the patch and that was also retracted...

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brat I agree that any new med should be adopted slowly. My MIL's sister died as a result of the use of the first small pox vaccine. As a public health measure that vaccine was a life-saver for the population as a whole, but that is not to deny the reality that some had a very bad reaction.

Of course, any individual that is harmed is a tragedy, but if we are overly cautious, how many people do we 'kill' through inaction (the ones that would have been saved if the vaccine was made available earlier)? People seldom look at it that way. They irrationally attach more significance to a death that was a result of an action, than they do many more deaths caused by inaction.

News reports can point to a few people harmed by a medication, but it does not make big news to say 'X thousand additional people led normal lives this year, blah, blah, blah'.

I've read a bit about the work of Kahneman and Tversky - fascinating stuff.

Here is a relevant view from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion

Quote:

An Alternative Example Imagine that your country is preparing for an outbreak of a disease which is expected to kill 600 people. Given the choice between two vaccination schedules, Program A which will save 200 and Program B which will save all 600 with probability 1/3, most will choose Program A. However, if the question is framed as: Imagine that your country is preparing for an outbreak of a disease which is expected to kill 600 people. Given the choice between two vaccination schedules, Program C which will allow 400 people to die and Program D which will let no one die with probability 1/3 and all 600 will die with probability 2/3, most people will choose option D. This is an example of loss aversion: the two situations are identical in quantitative terms, but in the second one the decision maker is losing instead of saving lives, thus setting 0 lives lost as the status quo from which losses are measured, making the sure loss of 400 people more loathsome than the probable loss of 600.

Some of their examples really make your mind kind of scrunch up and you think - would I really make a different decision based on the same numbers? But their studies show that you probably will.

-ERD50

[Brat]

Agree ER50.

My MIL focused on the death of her sister but overlooked that small pox wiped out entire families on the farms surrounding their own. Her sister was the only death in a family of about 10.

The death rate on the highway is not small yet no one is proposing abandoning the automobile.

I think the fact that we have small families will slow down acceptance of some new vaccines, we will each be focused on the risk to the few members of the family rather than the risk to humanity as a whole.