Saturday, May 27. 2006
Cervical Cancer Vaccine
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
I agree insofar as I would certainly have my future children vaccinated, but my concern comes with mandatory vaccination. If some Christian parents are more concerned about the possible message that such a vaccination would send to their kids about promiscuity, then I think it should be within their rights to not vaccinate. But, it seems a huge stretch to say that risk of cancer is an issue keeping people from being promiscuous...
I can't bear the idea of the mandatory vaccines, but I'm laughed at at the Texas Medical Association meetings. Seems the "physician-patient" relationship is more important than the "parent-child" relationship to some docs.
We never know how the spouses of our own children will grow up. And I love my vaccines.
I do not love "big brother knows best" when it comes between parents and children.
We never know how the spouses of our own children will grow up. And I love my vaccines.
I do not love "big brother knows best" when it comes between parents and children.
You're laughed at too, Beverly? I quit the AMA and the NC Medical Society shortly after I was verbally accosted while giving testimony against promoting adoption of children by homosexual couples...that made me reconsider whether I could be a part of such organizations that took stances opposite of my own.
I fear that Big Brother may win out on this one, though...
I fear that Big Brother may win out on this one, though...
I'm against mando STD vaccination, however... assuming no side effects.... I'd have my kids get it.
"and the most effective way to continue to research the vaccines' efficacy"
Nobody is in the least little bit concerned about this?
Just to be clear about my biases, I have not vaccinated my children since the first. There are many reasons why, the impetus being meeting a real life vaccine injured child while I was pregnant with my second.
But, I strongly object to the using of our children as guinea pigs! This is ridiculous. The FDA keeps approving these things before anyone has any idea what the side effects might be. So we get varicella vaccines which cause shingles, and rotavirus vaccine which had to be recalled before it killed someone.
Parents are never given full informed consent that these vaccinations are still undergoing testing, on their very own children no less. There is no excuse for that.
Nobody is in the least little bit concerned about this?
Just to be clear about my biases, I have not vaccinated my children since the first. There are many reasons why, the impetus being meeting a real life vaccine injured child while I was pregnant with my second.
But, I strongly object to the using of our children as guinea pigs! This is ridiculous. The FDA keeps approving these things before anyone has any idea what the side effects might be. So we get varicella vaccines which cause shingles, and rotavirus vaccine which had to be recalled before it killed someone.
Parents are never given full informed consent that these vaccinations are still undergoing testing, on their very own children no less. There is no excuse for that.
Bekah? You NEVER vaccinate?
Be glad that those kids your kids play with have been.
Be glad that those kids your kids play with have been.
No, that's the view of someone who grew up vaccinating cattle.
I've seen what happens when herds aren't done, although we can get away with not doing a few.
I'm also familiar with a lack of smallpox and a dozen other diseases that are and were controlled by vaccination.
You might want to look in the mirror before you use words like that...
Naive-
adj.
Lacking worldly experience and understanding, especially:
Simple and guileless; artless: a child with a naive charm.
Unsuspecting or credulous: “Students, often bright but naive, bet—and lose—substantial sums of money on sporting events” (Tim Layden).
Showing or characterized by a lack of sophistication and critical judgment: “this extravagance of metaphors, with its naive bombast” (H.L. Mencken).
n.
One who is artless, credulous, or uncritical.
I've seen what happens when herds aren't done, although we can get away with not doing a few.
I'm also familiar with a lack of smallpox and a dozen other diseases that are and were controlled by vaccination.
You might want to look in the mirror before you use words like that...
Naive-
adj.
Lacking worldly experience and understanding, especially:
Simple and guileless; artless: a child with a naive charm.
Unsuspecting or credulous: “Students, often bright but naive, bet—and lose—substantial sums of money on sporting events” (Tim Layden).
Showing or characterized by a lack of sophistication and critical judgment: “this extravagance of metaphors, with its naive bombast” (H.L. Mencken).
n.
One who is artless, credulous, or uncritical.
Are you familiar with the statistics on the current epidemics of mumps and pertussis? The afflicted individuals are at least as likely to have been vaccinated.
Vaccination is not a guarantee of protection. I choose to be aware that my children are not protected and take appropriate precautions. I am also diligent about the choices we make alongside the non-vaccination, like keeping my children at home, not day care, and home schooling. I recommend that those that are not going to do likewise to evaluate the decision based upon their personal circumstance.
Smallpox was on the decline before vaccination. There are quite a few other factors that have changed since the days of rampant viral disease epidemics, and I don't find the argument that the decline is solely attributable to vaccination compelling.
Animals are, excuse the pun, quite a different beast. They cannot make their own decisions based on weighing of risk. They cannot nourish themselves beyond what they are provided. They're hygiene is limited to their instincts. They cannot seek appropriate medical care on their own account, or investigate alternatives which may be useful or effective.
I make the statement that your view is naive, because it is one of the prominent rebuttals to non-vaccination, and in my experience is offered when one is not familiar with the issues involved but trusts the medical system to properly make those judgements. When one has researched the issues, generally other objections are offered. I didn't mean to offend you.
I find it appalling that you find it more necessary to comment on my informed choice to not vaccinate rather than my point that this doctor wants the vaccine to become standard so he can increase his reasearch base of the efficacy of the vaccine.
This researcher is not fully convinced of the efficacy! And yet he wants to make it available for public consumption by children. That is disgusting.
Vaccination is not a guarantee of protection. I choose to be aware that my children are not protected and take appropriate precautions. I am also diligent about the choices we make alongside the non-vaccination, like keeping my children at home, not day care, and home schooling. I recommend that those that are not going to do likewise to evaluate the decision based upon their personal circumstance.
Smallpox was on the decline before vaccination. There are quite a few other factors that have changed since the days of rampant viral disease epidemics, and I don't find the argument that the decline is solely attributable to vaccination compelling.
Animals are, excuse the pun, quite a different beast. They cannot make their own decisions based on weighing of risk. They cannot nourish themselves beyond what they are provided. They're hygiene is limited to their instincts. They cannot seek appropriate medical care on their own account, or investigate alternatives which may be useful or effective.
I make the statement that your view is naive, because it is one of the prominent rebuttals to non-vaccination, and in my experience is offered when one is not familiar with the issues involved but trusts the medical system to properly make those judgements. When one has researched the issues, generally other objections are offered. I didn't mean to offend you.
I find it appalling that you find it more necessary to comment on my informed choice to not vaccinate rather than my point that this doctor wants the vaccine to become standard so he can increase his reasearch base of the efficacy of the vaccine.
This researcher is not fully convinced of the efficacy! And yet he wants to make it available for public consumption by children. That is disgusting.
If you read what I actually wrote, I qualified that I would use it if there weren't serious side effects, and that I would not require it. That’s mostly because I don’t like government requiring folks to do something. (I’m alright with requiring vaccinations to get into public school because it is a public service, and not mandatory.)
I’d find it 'appalling' that you think folks can't come to the opposite view with equal or greater knowledge of the involved issues. That's usually considered condescending, especially when taken with the word 'naive'.
I admit it hits a nerve in me, personally, because your reasoning is the same as that of the folks who condemn my following an orthodox faith like Catholicism. Not a rational response, sorry.
I am (as ya might guess from the 'nick) in the Navy, and do a LOT of research on everything they pump into me.
There are very few vaccines that aren't useful in at least some situations, and the best are under-used and over-derided. I’ve been too many places where there isn’t much of a vaccination program for me NOT to support access, and be worried when folks don’t use anything. Same way I’d worry if you said your favorite dish was rare pork in egg sauce.
As for taking care to avoid exposing your kids to the germs—to be effective, you’d have to make sure that a) they never went to populated public areas and b) anything that touched down in populated public areas was cleaned before it hit your house. Frankly, unless you’re fortunate enough to have a house like the ones I grew up in (no less than three miles by the road from town, and they were small towns, no close neighbors) you can’t very well control all human access.
In response to your comments on cattle: do you put all human visitors under a 7 day quarantine with close observation, medical exams and make sure that they’ve had their shots? Inner-species contact is how most diseases are spread, after all.
Maybe you’re comfortable with the risk, given that there is such a currently low public risk, but it’s generally agreed that the low public risk is because of the high number of folks whose immune systems are resistant to the diseases. IE, the vaccinated or previously ill. Vaccines just get your immune system on alert, they don’t make you immune. (Although lots of folks think they do, oddly enough.)
Without doing any research, I can guess that smallpox was in decline partly because folks were more aware of how it spread. Kinda like how women stopped dying in childbirth as much once doctors started washing their hands. I’ve also heard of the rise in mumps in areas where there is a high level of folks who haven’t been vaccinated, but that was a few years ago and might be a different point.
OOT, dear Blogger, where on earth did you get the idenity code thing that looks like those old letters from a fridge or simple letters/numbers? Love it!
I’d find it 'appalling' that you think folks can't come to the opposite view with equal or greater knowledge of the involved issues. That's usually considered condescending, especially when taken with the word 'naive'.
I admit it hits a nerve in me, personally, because your reasoning is the same as that of the folks who condemn my following an orthodox faith like Catholicism. Not a rational response, sorry.
I am (as ya might guess from the 'nick) in the Navy, and do a LOT of research on everything they pump into me.
There are very few vaccines that aren't useful in at least some situations, and the best are under-used and over-derided. I’ve been too many places where there isn’t much of a vaccination program for me NOT to support access, and be worried when folks don’t use anything. Same way I’d worry if you said your favorite dish was rare pork in egg sauce.
As for taking care to avoid exposing your kids to the germs—to be effective, you’d have to make sure that a) they never went to populated public areas and b) anything that touched down in populated public areas was cleaned before it hit your house. Frankly, unless you’re fortunate enough to have a house like the ones I grew up in (no less than three miles by the road from town, and they were small towns, no close neighbors) you can’t very well control all human access.
In response to your comments on cattle: do you put all human visitors under a 7 day quarantine with close observation, medical exams and make sure that they’ve had their shots? Inner-species contact is how most diseases are spread, after all.
Maybe you’re comfortable with the risk, given that there is such a currently low public risk, but it’s generally agreed that the low public risk is because of the high number of folks whose immune systems are resistant to the diseases. IE, the vaccinated or previously ill. Vaccines just get your immune system on alert, they don’t make you immune. (Although lots of folks think they do, oddly enough.)
Without doing any research, I can guess that smallpox was in decline partly because folks were more aware of how it spread. Kinda like how women stopped dying in childbirth as much once doctors started washing their hands. I’ve also heard of the rise in mumps in areas where there is a high level of folks who haven’t been vaccinated, but that was a few years ago and might be a different point.
OOT, dear Blogger, where on earth did you get the idenity code thing that looks like those old letters from a fridge or simple letters/numbers? Love it!
"I’d find it 'appalling' that you think folks can't come to the opposite view with equal or greater knowledge of the involved issues."
I never stated that. I was pointing out that the researcher in question was admitting that the product had not been fully tested, as most vaccines aren't when released for public consumption, and already everyone else on the comments was ready to jump for it.
If you read my words carefully, I stated above that I recommend that other people make different decisions from mine if their circumstances are different. That hardly sounds like one who cannot allow others to make opposing decisions.
I cannot understand your reasoning behind this:
"I admit it hits a nerve in me, personally, because your reasoning is the same as that of the folks who condemn my following an orthodox faith like Catholicism." I am Catholic as well. I believe that Catholicism is the most rational, reasonable faith, and if one is truly seeking and does the research, will find themselves on the doorstep of their nearest Catholic Church.
On the other hand, individuals who research vaccines will find that there are risks/benefits on either side of the issue, reasonable people can disagree. But to make a blanket judgement that I am lucky other kids are vaccinated, in a condescending way, is to participate in the very behavior of which you accuse me.
Frankly, I'd prefer to avoid exposing my children to something with known risks on the supposition that not only may they become ill, but they will also succumb to rare side effects of disease. Too much hypothetical for me to knowingly risk the life of my child.
On the other hand, reasonable parents may decide that the opposite risk to them is unthinkable, and choose differently. No one should force us in either direction, or judge either decision. This is not a moral dilemma (leaving the issue of fetal cell derived vaccines aside).
I did not post my bias to force it on others. I posted it so that others would know that I would not use the vaccine even if it were properly tested before hand.
But the issue at hand is not my decisions. The issue is that this researcher would like to expose more people to this drug so he can continue his research. Appalling.
I never stated that. I was pointing out that the researcher in question was admitting that the product had not been fully tested, as most vaccines aren't when released for public consumption, and already everyone else on the comments was ready to jump for it.
If you read my words carefully, I stated above that I recommend that other people make different decisions from mine if their circumstances are different. That hardly sounds like one who cannot allow others to make opposing decisions.
I cannot understand your reasoning behind this:
"I admit it hits a nerve in me, personally, because your reasoning is the same as that of the folks who condemn my following an orthodox faith like Catholicism." I am Catholic as well. I believe that Catholicism is the most rational, reasonable faith, and if one is truly seeking and does the research, will find themselves on the doorstep of their nearest Catholic Church.
On the other hand, individuals who research vaccines will find that there are risks/benefits on either side of the issue, reasonable people can disagree. But to make a blanket judgement that I am lucky other kids are vaccinated, in a condescending way, is to participate in the very behavior of which you accuse me.
Frankly, I'd prefer to avoid exposing my children to something with known risks on the supposition that not only may they become ill, but they will also succumb to rare side effects of disease. Too much hypothetical for me to knowingly risk the life of my child.
On the other hand, reasonable parents may decide that the opposite risk to them is unthinkable, and choose differently. No one should force us in either direction, or judge either decision. This is not a moral dilemma (leaving the issue of fetal cell derived vaccines aside).
I did not post my bias to force it on others. I posted it so that others would know that I would not use the vaccine even if it were properly tested before hand.
But the issue at hand is not my decisions. The issue is that this researcher would like to expose more people to this drug so he can continue his research. Appalling.
Ms Tailor, sorry to hi-jack your thread like this.
"I make the statement that your view is naive, because it is one of the prominent rebuttals to non-vaccination, and in my experience is offered when one is not familiar with the issues involved but trusts the medical system to properly make those judgements."
Restated: You have this view, and so do some folks who I don't think know enough, so you obviously don't know what you're talking about and have let The Doctors tell you what to think. Heaven forbid that you actually though it out and came to this conclusion.
That statement isn't:
"I never stated that. I was pointing out that the researcher in question was admitting that the product had not been fully tested, as most vaccines aren't when released for public consumption, and already everyone else on the comments was ready to jump for it."
Three people posted besides yourself, all three against requiring that the shot be taken, two worried that it would be forced, and one besides yourself worried about other effects. One said nothing either way about if they’d use it or not.
" cannot understand your reasoning behind this:
"…*snip*..." I am Catholic as well. I believe that Catholicism is the most rational, reasonable faith, and if one is truly seeking and does the research, will find themselves on the doorstep of their nearest Catholic Church."
To re-explain what I said: you assumed that because I held the same view as someone you believe to be uncritically accepting, I must have just swallowed it whole without consideration, as there is such a small chance that I came to it rationally. This is exactly what my anti-organized-religion friends do.
"But to make a blanket judgment that I am lucky other kids are vaccinated, in a condescending way, is to participate in the very behavior of which you accuse me."
The majority of scientific evidence points to vaccination and the stimulation of the immune system as the primary way to prevent death or harm through previously common diseases. When folks that aren't vaccinated are exposed to the diseases, they are more likely to be made direly ill. That is scientific fact.
Sorry if you find statistical probabilities "condescending." Try growing a sense of humor.
"I make the statement that your view is naive, because it is one of the prominent rebuttals to non-vaccination, and in my experience is offered when one is not familiar with the issues involved but trusts the medical system to properly make those judgements."
Restated: You have this view, and so do some folks who I don't think know enough, so you obviously don't know what you're talking about and have let The Doctors tell you what to think. Heaven forbid that you actually though it out and came to this conclusion.
That statement isn't:
"I never stated that. I was pointing out that the researcher in question was admitting that the product had not been fully tested, as most vaccines aren't when released for public consumption, and already everyone else on the comments was ready to jump for it."
Three people posted besides yourself, all three against requiring that the shot be taken, two worried that it would be forced, and one besides yourself worried about other effects. One said nothing either way about if they’d use it or not.
" cannot understand your reasoning behind this:
"…*snip*..." I am Catholic as well. I believe that Catholicism is the most rational, reasonable faith, and if one is truly seeking and does the research, will find themselves on the doorstep of their nearest Catholic Church."
To re-explain what I said: you assumed that because I held the same view as someone you believe to be uncritically accepting, I must have just swallowed it whole without consideration, as there is such a small chance that I came to it rationally. This is exactly what my anti-organized-religion friends do.
"But to make a blanket judgment that I am lucky other kids are vaccinated, in a condescending way, is to participate in the very behavior of which you accuse me."
The majority of scientific evidence points to vaccination and the stimulation of the immune system as the primary way to prevent death or harm through previously common diseases. When folks that aren't vaccinated are exposed to the diseases, they are more likely to be made direly ill. That is scientific fact.
Sorry if you find statistical probabilities "condescending." Try growing a sense of humor.
Follow or Contact me
marymeetsdolly [dot] com
Quicksearch
Recent Entries
- Value of IVF Embryos "Infinitely Variable?"
- Tuesday, May 21 2013
- Uterus Transplant Baby Lost
- Friday, May 17 2013
- Human Embryos Created by Cloning in Oregon
- Wednesday, May 15 2013
- California Bill Would Lift Ban on Paying Women for Eggs
- Tuesday, May 14 2013
- Is Sex-Selective IVF Harmless?
- Wednesday, May 8 2013
Archives
Blogs of Interest
Warning many of the following blogs are not Catholic or pro-life!
My ears are burning...
"great title, very informative site/blog" -- Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex
"Cool blog! ...I like your honest and smart style..." -- Glenn McGee"
"A must for every pro-lifer's bookmarks." -- Fr. Tim Finigan
"really worth talking about" -- GOP Soccer Mom
"She knows her stuff..." -- Spinal Confusion
"a valuable resource" -- Amy Welborn
"a must read for any Catholic or Medical Ethicist" -- Tomfoolery of a Seminarian
"She's charitable AND loyal to the team. What a gal!" -- Amateur Catholics
"For the love of little green apples!" -- Sailorette
Categories
Blog Rings etc.
