Slashdot Mirror
Uptick In Whooping Cough Linked To Subpar Vaccines
sciencehabit writes "Whooping cough, or pertussis, has exploded in the United States in recent years. A new study (abstract) confirms what scientists have suspected for some time: The return of the disease is caused by the introduction of new, safer vaccines 2 decades ago. Although they have far fewer side effects, the new shots don't offer long-lived protection the way older vaccines do."
Or, maybe vaccines aren't effective period. Just a thought.
Blacks don't think anything is their fault. Having more of themselves in prison than college at any given time is magically not their fault. Black kids that study and try to learn and do good in school to get ahead are beaten up. Did you think it was racist white kids doing that to then? Noooo... It's mainstream black kids. They beat up the black kids who study because they're "acting white". But somehow, that isn't their fault.
The crack epidemic in the 80s affected mostly blacks. Why? Because racist whites held guns to their heads and forced them to smoke crack? Nooo.... Because of their decisions to use crack. That they made. More than anybody else did. But somehow, that isn't their fault.
Black women disproportionally get most abortions. They disproportionally get knocked up out of wedlock and have kids they can't afford. If they thought abortion was expensive, just think about what it costs to raise a child. If they thought abortion was cheap, compare what birth control would have cost. Did racist whites hold guns to their heads and force them to copulate and get inseminated? Noooo.... But somehow, that isn't their fault.
Black fathers disproportionally abandon their children, leaving them as bastards raised by single mothers. Even though this causes all sorts of probelms, making the kids more likely to go to jail, to not go to college, to do drugs and alcohol, to be criminals, all sorts of shit. Did racist white people hold guns to these "father's" heads and make them abandon their children? Noooo... But somehow, that isn't their fault.
But if you don't like niggers and OBJECTIVELY EVALUATE WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY DO and then draw YOUR OWN conclusions... somehow, that's YOUR fault. Do libtards ever run out of excuses for these burdensome underachievers?!
Vaccines have a great reputation, largely resulting from the highly successful campaigns with smallpox and polio. However, these were done in a less litigious era, and unlike today's medical practice, they could operate without the fear of gigantic lawsuits if something went wrong.
These reduced-effectiveness vaccines are like many "safer", "greener", or otherwise "less harmful" solutions; they have their drawbacks, but only a fool would try to push their solution by advertising those drawbacks. Now we're seeing two effects. A re-emergence of pertussis, and decreased public confidence in vaccines.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
It's pretty well known that illegal immigration to the United States from third-world countries, many found in Central and South America, has been a real problem that past couple of decades. People sneaking into the US in a clandestine manner enter the country without any sort of medical screening or quarantine. Most of them come from places where basic hygiene practices and infrastructure are insufficient, resulting in disease being quite common. It does not help that they will travel through such areas while making their way to the United States, as well.
So how much of this disease can be attributed to this illegal immigration?
Perhaps there are problems with modern vaccines, but it is absurd to ignore the vectors of such disease, as well.
I wonder when it will become mainstream for our vaccinations to be based in part on nanotechnology to further the delivery and the effectiveness of vaccinations and our ability to stimulate our immune system towards fighting these diseases.
With population exploding, shouldn't we return to an era where the weak were culled out? With chronic unemployment as the new norm, maybe there's just too many people. It's like managing these "lifestyle" diseases - back in the day old people had the grace to die of diabetes or a heart attack, now they live until 90, but don't work the last 30 years of their lives, effectively eating the seed corn of the new generation. We're soon going to be victims of our own successes.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
queue the crazies. "vaccines make autism!" "they poison you and are mind control!" :) where is your iron lung? remember that time you had smallpox?
the facts are that hundreds of millions of people have died of stuff we now vaccinate for before vaccines were created for them. re: jason777's post that "or maybe vaccines aren't effective period", i dont think you understand what hundreds of millions means
Couldn't they just give the safe one first and the older, more effective one a few months later? And if not, why not just do the weaker one yearly? I think an elegant solution for a lot of these weaker vaccines is to simply do them yearly, around the same time you get your flu shot. Other than further aggravating the Jenny McCarthys of the world, I think this would be a fine solution.
With population exploding, shouldn't we return to an era where the weak were culled out?...
Unless you live in Africa, population is not exploding. The population growth rate is slowing, the UN predicts that the world population will stabilize around 2090 and fall afterwards. Most (more recent) predictions think that this estimate is pessimistic - it's looking like population will stabilize around 2050 and decline afterwards.
Most industrialized nations have negative population growth already, the US *would* have negative population growth if you discount immigration. Even with immigration, the US population is slowing and will turn the corner sometime in the next couple of decades.
... back in the day old people had the grace to die of diabetes or a heart attack, now they live until 90, but don't work the last 30 years of their lives, effectively eating the seed corn of the new generation.
I think the problems you are seeing is due to a lack of an evolved sense of morality. On your part.
Nothing like vaccine stories to get the loonies going, is there?
How can anyone call a vaccines sup-bar when it causes less cases of brain damage?
Do you get your children vaccinated?
It's much more likely that your child will have a bad reaction to the vaccine than to actually get the disease. And if everyone *else* gets vaccinated, there's no need for any specific child to take that risk. That's the dilemma facing parents nowadays - from their individual viewpoint, there's a higher risk from the vaccination than there is from the disease.
Taking polio (about 30 years ago) as an example, the chance of getting polio from the vaccine was about 1 in 750,000. Polio became largely non-existent in the US during the later years of the vaccination program, so individually it's easy to see why parents might not want to take the risk.
And yet if everyone makes the best choice for their personal welfare, polio runs rampant in the country with 35,000 cases per year.
This is a variant of the Prisoner's dilemma, where if everyone does what's in their immediate best interest then everyone suffers needlessly.
We must accept the fact that sometimes we forced to take risks, and sometimes those risks will go badly. The risks are structured such that by taking the forced risk we are lowering everyone's total risk, and in the case of diseases, lowering it to a point where eventually no one will have to take the risk in the future.
That's simple enough, just offer a significant tax break for people who elect to maintain their vaccines. The conspiracy theorists will still scream their heads off while everyone else says "$250 tax credit? Shoot me up!"
Of course this makes the neocon/libertarian baby Jesus cry, nevermind the fact that we'll all save money (and lives) in the long run.
First off, let's get this out of the way. "Conspiracy Theory" is ultmately a mistrust in the systems we are required to live in. Especially lately, many of the things people have been label "conspiracy nut" over have come to light as either likely or simply the truth. This can be especially marked by the general non-acceptance of the Boston Bombing story. People just aren't believing any longer.
Now, the thing about vaccines is that it's supposed to be an inert version of a virus which is introduced to the body giving the person's immune system a chance to develop and immune response to the 'real' disease. This immunity response does vary from person to person and from disease to disease. But this is the first time I've heard a variation based on the "quality" of the innoculation. Think back to the first innoculations. They had to have been of crude quality and yet were highly effective to the point that it eradicated smallpox.
If you ask me, I would be more concerned about other factors which may lead to such problems and there could be MANY.
But the thing I'm getting at is now they are going to start recommending even more and frequent innoculations. Now under the current state of general government mistrust, I have to worry about what other things they might pull. I know the suspected links to autism and vaccinations are extremely unpopular discussion, but I have to wonder why, with all of our other redundant and seemingly useless studies why everyone seems so unwilling to allow any sort of studies over the links between autism and vaccinations? (For that matter, I'd like to see a study on autism and GMO foods.)
And before anyone starts into it. I want you to think about what 1 in 88 children means. And the numbers are worse for boys 1 in 53 boys is the current rate of autism. That's beyond what would normally be considered an emergency epidemic and yet it's not being treated as if it were any sort f emergency. Instead they are lowering the criteria for what is considered "autism" and are redefining it to change the numbers. If ever there was something that needs to be looked at, it's this. A significant portion of the human gene pool is being affected by this. This is serious. And yet no studies on the subject are allowed and any attempt will result in the end of a career.
>>- back in the day old people had the grace to die of diabetes or a heart attack, now they live until 90, but don't work the last 30 years of their lives, effectively eating the seed corn of the new generation.
If you're able and society needs you to work, then you should work, even in the last "30 years of your life" and even if you've done far more than provide for your own retirement.
Good human beings don't live solely for themselves--they also work to help others out.
However, I'm NOT in favor of the masses continuing to work all the way to death solely so that the 1% can pile more gold up onto their hoards.
--PM
A better study would group effectiveness by age group. Thanks to new vaccine children can be vaccinated earlier with fewer life threatening side effects therefore are more effective preventing death in younger patients.
For any parent, guardian, or patient to make an informed decision, we have to have two pieces of information: how well a medicine generally works, and what risks there are to take it. Number One Son does this with several medicines: Colcrys controls the symptoms of his Familial Mediteranian Fever, at the risk of messing with his liver. He takes the flu shot because of the risk to the 1 and a half lung he has left are higher than the risks of the vaccine itself.
A vaccine that doesn't work, or doesn't work well, means that vaccinated patients are accepting the vaccine risk for no significant reward.
I am not anti-vaccine, I am just against unneeded risk. My kids got a round of the Salk vaccine, because the Sabin vaccine might wear out. We also did the chicken pox vaccine, to try to prevent shingles later in life (both families have had extreme shingles outbreaks later in life). OTOH, my daughter will NOT get the cervical cancer vaccine, because HPV is preventable in behavior and the real side-effect rate to the vaccine is a lot higher than the manufacturer is reporting.
My own anecdote is that the reporting on pertussis is off by at least half to two-thirds. Little Miss fought a persistent cough (with antibiotics) for weeks until her allergist said "oh, you have whooping cough. You sound exactly like I did last week." There was no use testing her, because she'd been on antibiotics. Milady and I both caught it from her. The nurse ruined my test by doing it wrong, and Milady's doctor flat-out wouldn't test her (she just got antibiotics, because she was #3 in the house to catch it). The scuttlebutt in the health profession was that the Health Department was desperately trying to keep their numbers down, by hook or by crook.
With my kids' various lung-related issues, they needed a vaccine that actually helps prevent whooping cough. The current one isn't it.
IT is only so natural that having a large of the population poor and without conditions to pay a minimum standard of living, that many old diseases will make a comeback. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of vaccines.
I took the new TDaP vaccine last year (Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Pertussis). It made my whole upper arm, from shoulder to elbow, turn black and I was unable to move it for 2 days... 2 days I spent the barely moving with intense fatigue and a low grade fever. None of this is unheard of. Now I've had a few TD (Tetanus/Diphtheria) shots over the years and never had a reaction before, and I don't suffer from any allergies. So, if this is what the current Pertussis vaccine does, what horrors were wrought by the previous one? Was it really that much worse?
But why vaccinations? Maybe it's tap water. Maybe it's video games. Maybe it's birth control pills. Maybe it's Flying Spaghetti Monster causing autism. All these anti vaxers are looking for a way to blame vaccines for autism. Maybe instead of looking for a link to autism which, so far, has not been established, leave it up to scientists to find a link to anything? One million concerned mommies on the internet willing it so are not going to somehow create the link to vaccines that you all have collectively decided must be the cause. Leave science to the scientists.
HPV is preventable in behavior? Pray tell, how? LOL.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
I just had whooping cough myself, contracted it on a business trip in china.
One of my symptoms was throwing up repeatedly after every meal that was bigger than an apple. This went on for 6 weeks. I'm now 4 months down the road and the symptom still comes back every once in a while if I eat a little bit more than I should. It's like "involuntary" bulimia, not that any eating disorder is voluntary.
Lost 14 pounds and everyone tells me I am more handsome than usual, but I would have rather used the gym card I bought after new years.
Anyway, a friend of mine who is from malaysia develops vaccines. Since the disease is common there I guess they have a bit higher focus on it. He told me that the current vaccine has to be boosted every 15 years or so.
In my case I had it as a kid, and that didn't prevent me from getting it again either.
So, if you are 25 or older and haven't had the vaccine boosted, perhaps it's about time.
OK, so this vaccine needs a booster every decade or so. Lots of vaccines are like that. The vaccines against tetanus and hepatitis A and B all need to be re-administered every few years. No big deal.
This article talks about how in England there has been a huge increase in the number of measles cases since Wakefield published his claptrap about vaccines causing autism and other nonsense.
For those not bothering to read the article, this is part which you need to know:
This year, the U.K. has had more than 1,200 cases of measles, after a record number of nearly 2,000 cases last year. The country once recorded only several dozen cases every year. It now ranks second in Europe, behind only Romania.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Let me tweak that idea for you a bit. Despite the childish selfishness of many of their ideas, a few of the memes the right wing is shopping are essentially correct.
Their "government shouldn't pick winners" mantra is well supported by the entirety of US history; what the government should be doing in the marketplace is identifying losers. Penalizing bad behavior that would otherwise be rewarded by a free market is one of government's primary functions - for example, murder-for-hire would be incredibly profitable if it weren't for laws that make it much less so. Theft and contract violation are legitimately penalized by government and not by armed vigilante action by businesses that have been harmed. I'll stop there but you can see the list is long!
Carbon taxes and sin taxes were once right-wing ideas - and good ones, too; taxation can be used to redress the externalization of costs by corporations and individuals. We currently punish people for working (income tax) and encourage successful companies to distort both the market and political governance (regulatory competition and so-called business inducements). A wiser course would be to eliminate income tax and outlaw state government "tax break and cash grant competitions" at the federal level, and finance federal government by taxing actors who physically harm the entire citizenry through air, water and ground pollution. If the only way to make something the people want entails high pollution, then the costs will be very high and profit margins slim - until human ingenuity, harnessed by greed if necessary, solves the problem. This is a market approach, but one where the government picks losers, based on quantifiable harm and not pie-in-the-sky techno-dreams of politicians whose sole scientific qualifications are an ability to read opinion polls.
If it's true that anti-vaxxers are harming society as a whole, make them pay for the harm. Tax them extra! Don't un-tax the winners, tax the losers; you can claim it's mathematically the same, but socially and psychologically it's entirely different. Let me pay a "nonvaccination tax" if I have some objection to preventing pandemics, and you'll cut the number of anti-vaxxers down to insignificance in a decade or less.
OTOH, my daughter will NOT get the cervical cancer vaccine, because HPV is preventable in behavior and the real side-effect rate to the vaccine is a lot higher than the manufacturer is reporting.
Hate to say this, but going by teen pregnancy studies parents who make statements like this are the one's who's kids are most at risk.
Also, what sort of creditable study do you have that the risks are higher than what the manufacturer claims? If so, wouldn't the CDC be shutting them down?
I don't read AC A human right
Never having sex with anyone who ever had sex with anyone. Simple really.
The shame is that we _could_ do the same to Measles as we did to Smallpox - just wipe it off the face of the earth. Measles is a human-only disease that we have good vaccines for. We are only lacking the willpower to eradicate a virus that has a 1% mortality rate
Another part of the reason these diseases are coming back is the old vaccines also wear off and the FDA delayed approving a booster for adults until decades after use in Europe had proved it safe.
Damn those anti-vaxxers at the FDA!!!
Look, the reality is that no vaccine lasts forever despite the claims of the 1950's and increased population movement means that more people will contract diseases that treatments had locally reduced. Pertussis outbreaks in the US would also be vastly smaller if primary care physicians were allowed to spend the more than 5 minutes with a patient that is generally needed to hear a classic pertussis "whoop" so they'd know to prescribe antibiotics.
So blame airplanes, blame Big Healthcare, blame FDA lazyness..
Well, is this such a bad thing? I mean, the 'nut jobs' will be selecting themselves right out of the gene pool, right?
I know you are joking but yes it really is such a bad thing. The problem is that some people cannot get vaccinated due to things like allergies to vaccine components, a weakened immune system or other health issues. The more people that get vaccinated the stronger the herd immunity and the less chance an unvaccinated person has of exposure. These idiots who don't get vaccinated increase the risk to both themselves and the people who through no fault of their own cannot have the vaccine administered. If I may be so crude, they are basically peeing in the gene pool and endangering others in the process.
Plus you have to consider that most vaccines are administered to minor children who legally cannot decide for themselves whether to get the vaccine or not. So basically a scientifically illiterate adult is preventing them from receiving standard medical care. Personally I think that amounts to reckless endangerment of a child and in some cases where the child gets ill and dies I think it is basically manslaughter.
because HPV is preventable in behavior
Right, which is why states with abstinence-only sex ed have the highest incidence of teen pregnancy...
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Tell that to runwaway juries making OB-GYN a no-go zone. American mothers have now become convinced (mostly be daytime TV, I'll warrant) that there should be an absolute, 100% guarantee that absolutely nothing will ever go wrong during the birth of their above-average snowflake. If not, here come the ambulance chasers taking in ~80% of the millions in lawsuit damages, doing nothing but increasing the angle of attack of the medical cost spiral.
Religious debates imply that both sides have equally valid claims, typically based on un-quantifiable issues. In this case it is very clear that we can quantify the tradeoffs, and by any reasonable standard (e.g., 10 10,000 type standards) the benefits of vaccines outweigh their risks. To claim that their risks are on the same level as their benefits is absurd and is simply trying to make a two-sided argument for the sake of seeming "balanced." No medical professional denies there are risks to vaccines, they just understand that objectively the risks are so much lower than the risks of not using them.
Your vaccination choices are interesting in that they are almost the opposite of mine. I would get my daughter the HPV vaccine because the behavior that leads to HPV is almost guaranteed to happen. Conversely, the Chicken Pox vaccine only offers temporary protection, adults who get Chicken Pox are 10x more likely to die from the disease, and the disease can be given after natural immunization for shingles protection.
Please, for the love of KHHHAAAANNNNN, mod the parent up.
I wonder what the equilibrium point is? it should be mathmatecally determinate: Given a risk of 1 in 750,000 for the vaccine to cause a polio, what percentage of the population would have to take the vaccine to produce a 1 in 750,000 risk of an un-vaccinated person contracting the disease, accounting for socialization patterns, etc.
Further, what would the media impact be? would people be frightened into taking the vaccine before the equilibrium point? or would the media lag so badly we'd wind up in an occillating pattern?
I suggest it as a question for What If...
There may be a smallpox epidemic in this country. Unbelievable. A smallpox epidemic. How could that be possible? And the reason is the smallpox vaccine that we were given, and that I was told was gonna last forever, wore off. And our government waited until a possible emergency condition to inform us. Now, that's a cracker jack group of fuckers, isn't it? How could you fuckin' not call us? 'Hey Lew, uh, your smallpox vaccine wore off. You want another?' 'YOU'RE FUCKING RIGHT I WANT ANOTHER!' Because my whole life has been a delusion. Because everyday I'd wake and I'd go, 'You know, it's gonna suck today, but at least I'm not getting smallpox!'
-Lewis Black
good news. Your daughter never needs to have a pap smear, since you are convinced she won't get cervical cancer. If you never want your daughter to have a pap smear, then it still might be reasonable to get an HPV vaccine. Prevent the disease, but don't screen for it. What makes no sense are the people who don't vaccinate their kids, and want them to have pap smears later on in life. If you are going to screen for cervical cancer, shouldn't you do SOMETHING to prevent it?
OTOH, my daughter will NOT get the cervical cancer vaccine, because HPV is preventable in behavior
Preventable only if your daughter has no intimate sexual relationships ever.
Who is at risk for HPV?
Anyone who is having (or has ever had) sex can get HPV. HPV is so common that nearly all sexually-active men and women get it at some point in their lives. This is true even for people who only have sex with one person in their lifetime.
How do people get HPV?
HPV is passed on through genital contact, most often during vaginal and anal sex. HPV may also be passed on during oral sex and genital-to-genital contact. HPV can be passed on between straight and same-sex partners --- even when the infected person has no signs or symptoms.
Most infected persons do not realize they are infected, or that they are passing HPV on to a sex partner. A person can still have HPV, even if years have passed since he or she has had sexual contact with an infected person. It is also possible to get more than one type of HPV.
Genital HPV Infection - Fact Sheet
Per the CDC:
For those who are sexually active, condoms may lower the risk of HPV infection. To be most effective, they should be used with every sex act, from start to finish. Condoms may also lower the risk of developing HPV-related diseases, such as genital warts and cervical cancer. But HPV can infect areas that are not covered by a condom - so condoms may not fully protect against HPV.
People can also lower their chances of getting HPV by being in a faithful relationship with one partner; limiting their number of sex partners; and being with a partner who has had no or few prior sex partners. But even people with only one lifetime sex partner can get HPV. And it may not be possible to determine if a partner who has been sexually active in the past is currently infected. Not having sex is the only sure way to avoid HPV.
http://www.cdc.gov/hpv/prevention.html
Overall, they recommend the vaccine, but they acknowledge both that there are alternatives and the vaccine is not a cure-all.
OTOH, my daughter will NOT get the cervical cancer vaccine, because HPV is preventable in behavior
On the plus side for her, even if she contracts the virus the most likely outcome is that she will eventually clear it, as most infected individuals do. The risk for cervical cancer arises from the collision of a rather rare outcome with a extremely common exposure; nearly all sexually active adults will unknowingly carry HPV at some time in their lives. Unfortunately, the combination results in some 12,000 cases of cervical cancer per year, in the US.
The original research that identified the HPV-Cancer link actually had to study Nuns to find a sufficiently isolated population; the virus is actually rather common even in monogamous women. Men are not routinely screened for HPV status, and contrary to common belief infections does not necessarily result in genital warts -- for instance, high-risk strain HPV 16 is exceptionally good at producing invisible infections (which may be why it ranks among the more common of HPV strains, actually). These infections may persist undetected for anywhere from months to years, and while your daughter may remain virgin until her wedding night, the same might not be true for her husband (and oral sex counts as far as the virus is concerned, being related to risk of head-and-neck cancers).
An interesting bit of trivia: genetic material from high-risk strains of HPV can be found in some 15-25% of lung cancers tissue samples. We don't have sufficient evidence to make a claim for a causal relationship at this time, but it's a very interesting coincidence. Also interesting is that high-risk strains of HPV have also been found in the CNS of infants with certain forms of intractable epilepsy (Focal Cortical Dysplasia Type II-B). The more we look, the more places we are finding this virus.
Originally, we had live attenuated virus. These are GREAT, with one exception: they CAN revert. That was esp. true of the small pox vaccine. So, then they went to killed virus. But this also introduces some issues with cross-over stimulis. So, now, they try to pick one or two proteins and grow just those. That is probably the worse way to do it. We should go back to live virus for the majority of diseases (those that are not killers), and then use the killed virus for those that would normally kill.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"Although they have far fewer side effects, the new shots don't offer long-lived protection the way older vaccines do".
...
Child compensated for damage from MMR Vaccine
And there never was any danger with the old ones
AccountKiller
Why does this story make me wonder if the patent on the current vaccine may be expired or close to expiring, and a new version due to be announced within the next year?
I'm sure someone here knows the answer to that. From me it's just innuendo, but I do know that's how Big Pharma works, and this story has many of the hallmarks of preparing the ground for an upcoming announcement.
Hey nice ad hominem reply. The cool thing about ad hominems is that what goes around comes around. You know - turnabout being fair play, and all that? Every asshole knows that, so I'm confident you know it well.
Assuming for the moment your lil girl does refrain....that's only half the equation. It takes two to tango, and males are just as likely to carry it as women. HPV is the single most common STD in the world.
How much are you willing to bet that her future husband has been perfect up to that point?
Maybe he only fooled around once. Now what about that person? How perfect was he/she?
And on and on.
And Cervical cancer (or any cancer) is no joke. It's caused by the herpes simplex of viruses, which also cause several other diseases. It's the most common STD in the world, with 60% of the population OF THE WORLD carrying it, if not more. And you're saying she won't get the vaccine? you're as big an idiot as those who would deny that vaccines even work.
and yes, the vaccine for it isnt perfect and only protects against a couple strains. but it's still a lower chance of cancer.
She may have self-control, sure. But are you willing to bet your lil girls body parts and ultiamtely her life on other peoples' behaviour when prevention is so incredibly easy?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
actually no.
the highest teen pregnancy rates are among: hispanics and blacks, low income families, and families in urban areas
which puts low income blacks/hispanics in cities in a perfect storm of risk.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
So, this vs. taking the vaccine and its horrible risks. I think I'd rather risk it, you know :)
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
So your daughter eventually marries a fellow who wasn't entirely pre-marital celibate, or was previously married (caught it from his wife, and has since divorced) ... and he gives your daughter HPV...
Now what?? Your daughter, virginal til marriage, is now infected through no direct fault of her own and perhaps not even of her spouse.
It's not about behavior; it's about mitigating future risk that might nail you despite your best behavior.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Wasn't it also implicated in prostate cancer? Thought I heard something about that as well.
I expect if that becomes proven, many minds will change about many daughters.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The guy is a fervent Young Earth Creationist. It is neither intellectually inspiring nor particularly faithful. But it explains why his kids are at risk.
http://www.kypackrat.com/2005/06/why-i-am-young-earth-creationist.html
OTOH, my daughter will NOT get the cervical cancer vaccine, because HPV is preventable in behavior and the real side-effect rate to the vaccine is a lot higher than the manufacturer is reporting.
Hate to say this, but going by teen pregnancy studies parents who make statements like this are the one's who's kids are most at risk.
Also, what sort of creditable study do you have that the risks are higher than what the manufacturer claims? If so, wouldn't the CDC be shutting them down?
ROFL
Naive beyond words.
to reduce the propagation of the very-stupid.