No really, vaccines good things, anti-vac is growing more and more deadly.

[mirkwood]

I'm pro vaccine.  I could not see any legitimate reason for the HPV and we skipped it.

[Guest Scott]

Quote

But what are the statistics?  I have never seen them. 

There are plenty of statistics that show that vaccines work:

http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4037.pdf

 

Seriously, how many polio or small pox cases are there in the US compared to that of the past?  

 

Smallpox before vaccines:

 

 

Polio before vaccines:

 

 

Edited August 22, 2018 by Scott

[MarginOfError]

I'm a professional statistician. I have reviewed countless studies on vaccination. While there may not be one single data set available regarding the efficacy of vaccines, we do have thousands of peer reviewed studies that overwhelmingly support the use of vaccines. 

Regarding the HPV vaccine, your boys and girls should receive it. The original bivalent vaccine protected against two strains of HPV that were associated with over 90% of cervical cancers. The last study I read on the matter estimated that 2000 new cases of cervical cancer can be prevented annually with HPV vaccines. Last I had read, the vaccine injury database had claims of two deaths due to HPV vaccines and less than 10 permanent sterilization injuries. Over a ten year period. That means 20,000 fewer cases of cervical cancer, a disease with a 40 - 60% 5 year survival. That math suggests about 9,998 lives saved.

The biggest mistake made with HPV vaccines was marketing them as HPV vaccines. They are primarily cervical cancer vaccines. Please, use them.

[Lost Boy]

5 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

I'm a professional statistician. I have reviewed countless studies on vaccination. While there may not be one single data set available regarding the efficacy of vaccines, we do have thousands of peer reviewed studies that overwhelmingly support the use of vaccines. 

Regarding the HPV vaccine, your boys and girls should receive it. The original bivalent vaccine protected against two strains of HPV that were associated with over 90% of cervical cancers. The last study I read on the matter estimated that 2000 new cases of cervical cancer can be prevented annually with HPV vaccines. Last I had read, the vaccine injury database had claims of two deaths due to HPV vaccines and less than 10 permanent sterilization injuries. Over a ten year period. That means 20,000 fewer cases of cervical cancer, a disease with a 40 - 60% 5 year survival. That math suggests about 9,998 lives saved.

The biggest mistake made with HPV vaccines was marketing them as HPV vaccines. They are primarily cervical cancer vaccines. Please, use them.

Yeah, but two people died from it....   I don't think it is worth the risk...😉

[NeuroTypical]

5 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

While there may not be one single data set available regarding the efficacy of vaccines, we do have thousands of peer reviewed studies that overwhelmingly support the use of vaccines. 

Too many big words, and not nearly snarky enough.  I prefer pictures.

 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[zil]

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Meanwhile, when evil Mr. Vaccine is done, you could use him to refill one of those black ink cartridges with a more interesting color...

[MarginOfError]

31 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Yeah, but two people died from it....   I don't think it is worth the risk...😉

I almost had an aneurysm before I recognized the windy face. Lol

[unixknight]

All of my kids get all the vaccines.

That said, I do support parents' right to make that choice for their kids.  

I wonder how much of the anti-vaccine movement in tbe U.S. is related to pushback against the Government.

[zil]

21 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

I almost had an aneurysm before I recognized the windy face. Lol

I guess you never got your aneurysm vaccine.  :smh:

[Anddenex]

18 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Anyone who is really anti-vaccine should spend five minutes talking to someone in an iron lung. 

Was that "iron lung" from smoking or not having a vaccine?

[Lost Boy]

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

I almost had an aneurysm before I recognized the windy face. Lol

You know there are plenty of people that think this way.  It is essentially the reason people play the lottery.  

Huge chance of losing your money for the slim chance of getting more.  Playing the lottery makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, yet a huge portion of the population plays it.

This would be opposed to investing money in the market that has a long running track record of positive returns.  Yes, you can lose, but more likely you will win.

[Just_A_Guy]

Isn’t HPV only transmitted sexually?

Is HPV the sole cause of cervical cancer?

[anatess2]

16 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

You know there are plenty of people that think this way.  It is essentially the reason people play the lottery.  

Huge chance of losing your money for the slim chance of getting more.  Playing the lottery makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, yet a huge portion of the population plays it.

This would be opposed to investing money in the market that has a long running track record of positive returns.  Yes, you can lose, but more likely you will win.

Okay okay... let's bring this out of Monster Painting arena back into productive discussion.

"Anti-vaxxers" just like Vegans get a lot of negative flack because of their extreme factions.  Most people are not on the extreme but they get painted with the extreme anti-vaxxers anyway.  Most people who bring up the issues of anti-vaxxers are not wanting everybody to stop vaccinating their children.  Rather, they simply want more support in conducting research on the negative effects of vaccines, its dosage schedule, etc. and make the vaccines safer or provide safer alternatives.  It is a tough road to try to get yourself heard when you're going against the grain of people who are satisfied with vaccines and the cut-throat pharma industry just to feel that somebody is looking at the issue seriously and honestly.  It's the same challenge as "climate change deniers" if you think about it because if you question the "99% of scientists agree" then you get Monster Painted as a denier.  And then you got people like Jenny McCarthy that muck it all up for everybody.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

Was that "iron lung" from smoking or not having a vaccine?

This parents of this kid have the right to slap anyone who complains about vaccines. No, seriously. 

[MarginOfError]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Isn’t HPV only transmitted sexually?

Is HPV the sole cause of cervical cancer?

Primarily, it is transmitted through sexual contact, though not exclusively. It is not the sole cause of cervical cancer.

However, considering that less than 5% of Americans wait until marriage to have sexual intercourse - even fewer to have sexual contact - and that over 60% of humans carry at least one strain of HPV, it strikes me as somewhat futile to attempt to protect our daughters by preaching abstinence.

[omegaseamaster75]

19 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I wouldn't discount that either.  But what are the statistics?  I have never seen them.  Take this case in Europe for instance.

You have an influx of refugees from foreign countries.  No doubt (???) they were the ones who brought measles with them.  But no one knows who patient zero was.  I'd also bet that the "majority of those who were ill were unvaccinated" meant that the majority were from foreign countries.  What about the native Europeans (from the first world countries)?  How many of those who natives were vaccinated?  About 90%?  How many native Europeans in general get vaccinations?  90%?  Oh.  Did the vaccines do any good then?

That is just as easily a correct statistic.  But we'll never know because we simply don't have that data.  Why don't we have that data?  Because no one asks the question.

Did you know that the main reason why doctors say that smoking causes heart conditions is because it was found that (at some point in history) 40% of those who had heart conditions were smokers.  Well, how many Americans in general were smokers?  40%.  Oh.  So, is smoking really a factor in heart disease?

It's really easy to pin it on smoking because everyone knows nicotine is a stimulant and stimulants cause heart disease... blah blah.  And smoking is known to be unhealthy for a slew of other reasons.  But look at those numbers.  It would seem like there isn't a relationship.

Same with vaccines.  We see conditions where reason would tell us that vaccines are helping and non-vaccinated are hurting.  But look at the numbers.  Oh, wait, there aren't any.

Take your head out of the sand

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/polio-vaccine-thanks-jonas-salk/

[Lost Boy]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Okay okay... let's bring this out of Monster Painting arena back into productive discussion.

"Anti-vaxxers" just like Vegans get a lot of negative flack because of their extreme factions.  Most people are not on the extreme but they get painted with the extreme anti-vaxxers anyway.  Most people who bring up the issues of anti-vaxxers are not wanting everybody to stop vaccinating their children.  Rather, they simply want more support in conducting research on the negative effects of vaccines, its dosage schedule, etc. and make the vaccines safer or provide safer alternatives.  It is a tough road to try to get yourself heard when you're going against the grain of people who are satisfied with vaccines and the cut-throat pharma industry just to feel that somebody is looking at the issue seriously and honestly.  It's the same challenge as "climate change deniers" if you think about it because if you question the "99% of scientists agree" then you get Monster Painted as a denier.  And then you got people like Jenny McCarthy that muck it all up for everybody.

 

I understand the point that you are trying to make, but my experience with anti-vaxxers are that they are pretty black and white.  They "know" the vaccines cause autism or whatever other ailment they want to blame on the vaccine.

Vegans don't get a bad rap because of not wanting to eat meat.  They get a bad rap because many of them act like awful children when talking about food.  And there is plenty of evidence to support a balanced vegan lifestyle.  There is very little in the ways of actual scientific studies to support anti-vaxxers.  The anti-vaxxers will purport studies, but these are generally not scientific.

The other thing is that if someone chooses to be vegan, they don't affect the people around them except being obnoxious.  But if enough people don't get vaccinated, bad things can happen.

Now for the climate issue.  99% of scientists may agree that man made climate change is happening, but that is the extent of the agreement.  Ask if they agree on the extent or the ramifications of climate change and you will see much disagreement.

[Lost Boy]

11 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Primarily, it is transmitted through sexual contact, though not exclusively. It is not the sole cause of cervical cancer.

However, considering that less than 5% of Americans wait until marriage to have sexual intercourse - even fewer to have sexual contact - and that over 60% of humans carry at least one strain of HPV, it strikes me as somewhat futile to attempt to protect our daughters by preaching abstinence.

One other point to add here.  Just because you want your precious angel to remain pure until marriage, many do not.  Many LDS girls are not virgins when they get to the altar.  And many will marry men who are not virgins.

It is like trying to ignore the issue by putting our heads in the sand.  I know couples that lied about being a virgin when they got married...

There is really no point in pretending we live in a perfect world with perfect children.

[Just_A_Guy]

9 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

One other point to add here.  Just because you want your precious angel to remain pure until marriage, many do not.  Many LDS girls are not virgins when they get to the altar.  And many will marry men who are not virgins.

It is like trying to ignore the issue by putting our heads in the sand.  I know couples that lied about being a virgin when they got married...

There is really no point in pretending we live in a perfect world with perfect children.

That’s a fair point.  But if you’re asking someone to risk illness, sterility, and possible death in order to avoid a problem that is eminently avoidable through some other course of action that never killed anyone . . . 

If people want their sex, they can have their sex.  It’s when they try to make me (or my loved ones) underwrite the financial, emotional, and/or health costs for their risky behavior, that I get a smidge cranky.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Lost Boy]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

That’s a fair point.  But if you’re asking someone to risk illness and possible death in order to avoid a problem that is eminently avoidable through some other course of action that never killed anyone . . . 

If people want their sex, they can have their sex.  It’s when they try to make me (or my loved ones) foot the bill for their risky behavior, that I get a smidge cranky.

We foot the bill for all sorts of poor behavior.  If we as a people didn't have poor behavior, there would be little need for a police force, for prisons, for a military, for attorneys. 

And then there are poor diet issues that lead to obesity, cancer, heart disease, liver failure, kidney failure.

Poor sexual decisions is just another thing to add to the list.  LDS people tend to focus more on it because it is quite important to us.  But it isn't to 95% of the population.

So unfortunately we get to pay for all sorts of bad behavior that we don't engage in.

[Just_A_Guy]

5 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

We foot the bill for all sorts of poor behavior.  If we as a people didn't have poor behavior, there would be little need for a police force, for prisons, for a military, for attorneys. 

And then there are poor diet issues that lead to obesity, cancer, heart disease, liver failure, kidney failure.

Poor sexual decisions is just another thing to add to the list.  LDS people tend to focus more on it because it is quite important to us.  But it isn't to 95% of the population.

So unfortunately we get to pay for all sorts of bad behavior that we don't engage in.

Ah, but in this case, one side has been actively encouraging poor behavior; for decades.

It’s a familiar pattern:

1) Identify a theologically/socially conservative practice that prevents a certain widespread social problem.

2) Mount a full scale assault on that practice.

3) Once the practice ends, watch as the problem grows and threatens to become a crisis.

4)  Carefully de-platform and/or discredit any conservative who points out that what’s happening is *exactly* what they warned about all along.  

5)  Propose a “fix” to the problem that benefits your own pet constituencies even as it encumbers the life, liberty and/or property of those who are not in your pet constituencies.

6)  When conservatives protest at your attempt to enslave them, blame them for causing the problem in the first place. 

Edited August 22, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Lost Boy]

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Ah, but in this case, one side has been actively encouraging poor behavior; for decades.

It’s a familiar pattern:

1) Identify a theologically/socially conservative practice that prevents a certain widespread social problem.

2) Mount a full scale assault on that practice.

3) Once the practice ends, watch as the problem grows and threatens to become a crisis.

4)  Carefully de-platform any conservative who points out that what’s happening is *exactly* what they warned about all along.

5)  Propose a “fix” to the problem that benefits your own pet constituencies even as it encumbers the life, liberty and/or property of those who are not in your pet constituencies.

6)  When conservatives protest at your attempt to enslave them, blame them for causing the problem in the first place. 

I agree.  The only cures is to convert them and we are far behind the 8 ball.

You may not like the reality that we have today.  You can either try and deny the reality, or you can accept it.  Those that accept and understand the reality can then effectively deal with the reality.  You don't have to like it, but as long as you understand it, you can deal with it.

[Just_A_Guy]

12 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I agree.  The only cures is to convert them and we are far behind the 8 ball.

You may not like the reality that we have today.  You can either try and deny the reality, or you can accept it.  Those that accept and understand the reality can then effectively deal with the reality.  You don't have to like it, but as long as you understand it, you can deal with it.

And in the case of STDs, if I understand MoE correctly, that entails subjecting my pre-pubescent daughters to a vaccine that may (probably won’t, but may) hurt them badly.

[Lost Boy]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And in the case of STDs, if I understand MoE correctly, that entails subjecting my pre-pubescent daughters to a vaccine that may (probably won’t, but may) hurt them badly.

Or it may help them in the future.  The likelihood of it helping vs. not is significantly higher.  You putting faith in your daughter or her husband is not faith, it is fantasy.  she and he will make decisions growing up.  Some might be bad.  You cannot stop bad decisions.  You can arm your kids with knowledge, but it is ultimately up to them to utilize that knowledge.

So yes, it may hurt them badly, but the odds are far higher that they will be hurt by not getting it.

[estradling75]

11 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And in the case of STDs, if I understand MoE correctly, that entails subjecting my pre-pubescent daughters to a vaccine that may (probably won’t, but may) hurt them badly.

And like any parent you have to weight the risk of what "may happen"  if you do and what "may happen" if you don't.