My Doctor Told Me I Should Vaccinate My Children, But ...

[Sava]

Watching Ben argue reminds me of this old Starcraft map. It was a giant zerg invasion and you had to hold out as long as possible... with each wave getting progressively stronger.

Only, he doesn't kill any of the zerg and they rape and teabag his dying body.

[Ben Kenobi]

Watching Ben argue reminds me of this old Starcraft map. It was a giant zerg invasion and you had to hold out as long as possible... with each wave getting progressively stronger.

Only, he doesn't kill any of the zerg and they rape and teabag his dying body.

Apolyton as the zerg rush? What would that make me? Human? Protoss?

[N35t0r]

You're arguing that how a disease is transmitted is not relevant to whether it ought to be mandatory inoculations.

Um, no, I didn't say that. I also don't think it's the primary thing that should be considered. I think the economic impact of the disease and the cost of the vaccine are more relevant, don't you?

This is just straight up wrong. Public health officials when MMR and DPT were developed argued that the modes of transmission were relevant as to whether or not they should be mandatory.

First, go and learn the difference between simple conditional and biconditional statements. Then we can continue arguing.

I'm going to go with the actual public health officials and not you.

And I guess you have actual quotes of public health officials supporting you on the case of the HPV vaccine?

I won't say all, because that's inaccurate, but, some only care because it's a STD. If it wasn't an STD, they wouldn't give two ****s about it.

And some people believe that vaccines are a conspiracy by the government to mentally control the population. It's irrelevant to the argument, just like your point.

People don't die from HPV.

So cervical cancer doesn't exist?

People wouldn't care about HPV if it were not a STD. It's just not that prominent a disease.

The CDC consults with you now, to decide what is prominent, and what isn't?

You're arguing HPV is going to somehow mutate and start killing people?

Um, no? If you get that from what I said, you have serious reading comprehension issues.

Sure, if HPV mutates and starts doing that I can absolutely see the reason for the inoculations.

But OK, I see your view is that diseases are irrelevant until they start killing people.

Who dies from HPV? Nobody dies from HPV.

So HPV doesn't have any effects whatsoever?

Again, how does this justify forcing inoculations on children for a STD?

Again, there are cheaper ways to avoid infection 100 percent.

Yes, but since we don't live in a police state that forbids people from having sex, we think that a shot is a better alternative.

The science of HPV transmission notes that the primary mode of transmission is sex. Ergo - refraining from sex is the scientific way to prevent yourself from getting HPV.

Do you listen to yourself? Heart disease is the primary cause of death in the US, ergo avoiding things that cause heart disease is the scientific way to avoid dying? And you say to know science?

If you want to have sex and avoid HPV, then it makes sense for someone past the age of consent to seek the HPV vaccine.

It'd make sense if nobody had sex before the age of consent.

Or you do believe that people should be having sex without consenting to it?

Oh look! I make tricky arguments using semantics!

I significantly doubt HPV is the highest priority disease.

Yeah, you don't care about the 14 million people in the US who get HPV in the US every year, we get that.

Why is that?

I don't know, you asked which inoculation would he chose if he could only chose one. I assume there was a point behind the question. Please make it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Um, no, I didn't say that.

You said it was 'irrelevent'. I'm glad to see you've come to your senses.

I also don't think it's the primary thing that should be considered.

Uh, yeah, I think the mode of transmission is the primary thing to be considered. A disease that is airborne, known to cause massive, fatal epidemics is a far higher priority than other diseases.

I think the economic impact of the disease and the cost of the vaccine are more relevant, don't you?

Are you arguing that Measles causes less of an economic impact than HPV?

And I guess you have actual quotes of public health officials supporting you on the case of the HPV vaccine?

Yes, actually I do.

And some people believe that vaccines are a conspiracy by the government to mentally control the population. It's irrelevant to the argument, just like your point.

That some of these are public health officials is irrelevant to the argument? Curious. I thought your argument was that the consensus supports you ergo it must prevail.

So cervical cancer doesn't exist?

Cervical cancer!=HPV.

The CDC consults with you now, to decide what is prominent, and what isn't?

Are you arguing that HPV is a higher priority than measles?

So HPV doesn't have any effects whatsoever?

So we've confirmed then that HPV doesn't actually kill anyone. Yes, it has some effects, but very very rarely serious ones.

Yes, but since we don't live in a police state that forbids people from having sex, we think that a shot is a better alternative.

Most democracies regard sex as a matter of choice not an obligation.

Do you listen to yourself? Heart disease is the primary cause of death in the US, ergo avoiding things that cause heart disease is the scientific way to avoid dying? And you say to know science?

Ooh. Is the percentage of HPV contracted through sex equivalent to the percentage of deaths caused by heart disease?

It'd make sense if nobody had sex before the age of consent.

Gosh. That would make you an advocate of Rape.

Oh look! I make tricky arguments using semantics!

I'm not the one suggesting we should treat all children for STD because they sometimes get raped.

Yeah, you don't care about the 14 million people in the US who get HPV in the US every year, we get that.

Yeah, just like I don't care about the percentage who contracts eczema.

I don't know, you asked which inoculation would he chose if he could only chose one. I assume there was a point behind the question. Please make it.

Most regard measles as a higher priority than HPV. Why? Because measles is airborne and kills people and HPV does neither.

[N35t0r]

You said it was 'irrelevent'.

Then I guess you'll be able to quote where I did.

Unless you want to continue with your streak of accusing people of saying tings they didn't.

Uh, yeah, I think the mode of transmission is the primary thing to be considered. A disease that is airborne, known to cause massive, fatal epidemics is a far higher priority than other diseases.

If we're arguing the mode of transmission, why did you feel inclined to include the bolded part?

Are you arguing that Measles causes less of an economic impact than HPV?

Did I say that?

Yes, actually I do.

Then go ahead and provide them. Duh.

That some of these are public health officials is irrelevant to the argument?

*sigh*
1) If them (hypothetically) being public health officials were relevant, why didn't you mention it?
2) I'm sure you have quotes of said public health officials explicitly stating they only care about HPV because it's an STD. When you provide them, I'll be happy to dismiss their arguments.

Curious. I thought your argument was that the consensus supports you ergo it must prevail.

Oh, I thought my argument was what I was arguing, not whatever thing you decide my argument is.

Cervical cancer!=HPV.

Almost all cervical cancers are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV)

OK, sorry. And cutting your head off doesn't kill you, lack of oxygenated blood flow to the brain kills you. So, according to your logic, you should be OK if we cut your head off.

Are you arguing that HPV is a higher priority than measles?

If I was, I'd say that. But I don't, so I didn't.

So we've confirmed then that HPV doesn't actually kill anyone.

I don't know, have you?

All I have is this:

Worldwide, cervical cancer affects half a million women and kills a quarter million women each year. Over 85% of cervical cancer cases and deaths occur in developing countries. Virtually all cases are linked to persistent infection with human papillomavirus (HPV).

But I guess those 250,000 women don't count to you.

Yes, it has some effects, but very very rarely serious ones.

Why don't you go and catch a rarely serious case of death?

Most democracies regard sex as a matter of choice not an obligation.

Yes? Which is why some people advocate for

Ooh. Is the percentage of HPV contracted through sex equivalent to the percentage of deaths caused by heart disease?

That'd be irrelevant in lieu of your 'reasoning'.

Gosh. That would make you an advocate of Rape.

Just like you are an advocate of abortion.

I'm not the one suggesting we should treat all children for STD because they sometimes get raped.

Neither am I.

Yeah, just like I don't care about the percentage who contracts eczema.

A disease for which there is no known cure, and which doesn't lead to cancer?

In any case, colour me surprised that you don't care about them either. Very christian of you. If you ask me, I'd happily take a shot if it meant a drastic reduction in the amount of eczema cases.

Most regard measles as a higher priority than HPV. Why? Because measles is airborne and kills people and HPV does neither.

1) HPV can lead to fatal cervical cancer
2) That's still not an argument. What is your argument? That diseases that aren't airborne or don't kill as many people as measels should be ignored? That any inocculation that isn't the one you would chose if you could chose one is irrelevant?

[Dr Strangelove]

I asked if HPV itself were an epidemic killing people. Yes or no, Doc. Is it Ebola related diseases or Ebola itself?

Actually in an Ebola related disease it's your immune system that kills you. The release of cytokines from macrophages cause the destruction of the endothelial cells lining blood vessels, leading to internal bleeding and shock.

Gee, a dishonest answer. I'm shocked that someone who believes that parents should simply submit to your directions would willingly lie to them.

Do you know anyone who got HPV from anywhere else but another person? OK, if you've been introduced to a lady who claims to have gotten HPV from a Mexican donkey show, she's lying.

Perhaps someone should come straight out and define some of the words you're using;
Define "vector".
Define "communicable".
Only legitimate medical sources will be accepted. The Catholic Encyclopedia is not allowed.

[DaShi]

Actually, given that some studies find a correlation between vaccinations and autism, a parent should at least get counselling from a trained professional before making the decision whether or not to vaccinate.

[Ben Kenobi]

Actually in an Ebola related disease it's your immune system that kills you. The release of cytokines from macrophages cause the destruction of the endothelial cells lining blood vessels, leading to internal bleeding and shock.

Okay. Which still doesn't answer the question of 'Ebola related' or Ebola itself. Ebola doesn't need any help to kill you.

What percentage of HPV infections result in the eventual death of the person?

Do you know anyone who got HPV from anywhere else but another person? OK, if you've been introduced to a lady who claims to have gotten HPV from a Mexican donkey show, she's lying.

So you're ignoring the fact that sex is the primary transmission method?

Only legitimate medical sources will be accepted. The Catholic Encyclopedia is not allowed.

Communicable - in the context of immunization refers to diseases that can be spread through casual contact.
Vector - how the disease infects the person.

[Ben Kenobi]

Then I guess you'll be able to quote where I did.

Gee this is fun. If I quote you, you'll claim I misinterpreted what you said or "I didn't really say that". Boooring.

At least you've admitted now that the mode of disease transmission is relevant, since you've retreated to arguing over, "what did I really say", rather than contesting the point at hand, after you got outed.

If we're arguing the mode of transmission, why did you feel inclined to include the bolded part?

Uh, that's been the argument since like, 25 posts ago. Try to keep up.

Did I say that?

You're conceding that by your own standards we should immunize measles before HPV?

Then go ahead and provide them. Duh.

Your question, "do you have public health professionals who agree with you"?

Perhaps you should ask better questions.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/news/2007/03/12/2718/mandatory-opposition/

Center for American Progress.

the lack of education for parents on the issue,
the undue influence of pharmaceutical giant Merck on state legislators,
and the tremendous cost of the vaccine.

Public trust has been weakened, however, by revelations that Merck, the maker of the only FDA approved HPV vaccine, put heavy pressure on state legislators to quickly pass mandatory vaccination laws before a competitor vaccine was approved as well. The pharmaceutical company has since said it will cease its lobbying campaign, but many parents are concerned that Merck’s bottom line, not children’s health, is dictating decisions about the HPV vaccine.

CAP goes on to argue:

Cervical cancer is a terrible disease, yet the U.S. has largely been able to control it through regular screening and pap smears. The disproportionate effects of the cancer are largely due to inequalities in healthcare access; half of all women with cervical cancer have never had a pap smear. Improving access to inexpensive screening measures could greatly reduce the disease burden for far less cost than the vaccine.

So, now that the Centre for American Progress basically nuked your argument - take it up with them.

1) If them (hypothetically) being public health officials were relevant, why didn't you mention it?

Do you always assume that arguments contrary to you are unsupported by evidence? You never asked. There are solid arguments contra mandatory HPV vaccines.

2) I'm sure you have quotes of said public health officials explicitly stating they only care about HPV because it's an STD. When you provide them, I'll be happy to dismiss their arguments.

So far I've yet to see evidence from either you suggesting that HPV warrants the concern placed. But, It's good to know we have shills for Merck here.

Almost all cervical cancers are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV)

Again, I quote Centre for American Progress on this:

Cervical cancer is a terrible disease, yet the U.S. has largely been able to control it through regular screening and pap smears. The disproportionate effects of the cancer are largely due to inequalities in healthcare access; half of all women with cervical cancer have never had a pap smear.

OK, sorry. And cutting your head off doesn't kill you, lack of oxygenated blood flow to the brain kills you. So, according to your logic, you should be OK if we cut your head off.

Yer gonna need a source for that baldface assertion. And no - Wikipedia won't do. Reliable source.

If I was, I'd say that. But I don't, so I didn't.

Then it's reasonable to argue FOR the mandatory MMR vaccine, and AGAINST mandatory HPV vaccine.

Worldwide, cervical cancer affects half a million women and kills a quarter million women each year. Over 85% of cervical cancer cases and deaths occur in developing countries. Virtually all cases are linked to persistent infection with human papillomavirus (HPV).

How does that apply to America? Also, gonna need a source for that.

But I guess those 250,000 women don't count to you.

I support effective screening and pap smears to detect cervical cancer.

Why don't you go and catch a rarely serious case of death?

Perhaps you can provide some fatality statistics.

Yes?

You're arguing that sex is an obligation that people must undertake and that abstinence is not an effective means of avoiding HPV.

That'd be irrelevant in lieu of your 'reasoning'.

"That would be devastating to my case!"

What is the mortality rate associated with HPV vs heart disease?

Just like you are an advocate of abortion.

You're the one suggesting that we should require the inoculation of all minors unable to consent to sex for HPVs, not me.

If the inoculation is so amazing, why not let people choose?

Neither am I.

So you're backing off requiring minors to get a HPV vaccine?

A disease for which there is no known cure, and which doesn't lead to cancer?

Just like HPV then.

In any case, colour me surprised that you don't care about them either. Very christian of you. If you ask me, I'd happily take a shot if it meant a drastic reduction in the amount of eczema cases.

Not to the extent of forcing people to do what I want. I believe people should have the right to make their own health decisions.

1) HPV can lead to fatal cervical cancer

Gonna need a 'citation needed', plus let's see some percentages.

2) That's still not an argument. What is your argument? That diseases that aren't airborne or don't kill as many people as measels should be ignored?

That measles is a good candidate for mandatory inoculations, unlike HPV, because it has airborne transmission and it leads to fatalities.

That any inocculation that isn't the one you would chose if you could chose one is irrelevant?

Curious. You're arguing that I instituted mandatory MMR inoculations? I suggest you study the history.

[N35t0r]

Yeah. I totally walked right into it.

If you're going to read what I say and then act like if I said something completely different, I won't even bother.

[C0ckney]

is that bumhole really trying to deny that HPV causes cervical cancer.

from the the national cancer institute

HPV and Cancer

Key Points
Some types of sexually transmitted human papillomaviruses (HPVs) can cause genital warts. Other types, called high-risk or oncogenic HPVs, can cause cancer.

High-risk HPVs cause virtually all cervical cancers. They also cause most anal cancers and some vaginal, vulvar, penile, and oropharyngeal cancers.

Most infections with high-risk HPVs do not cause cancer. Many HPV infections go away on their own within 1 to 2 years. However, infections that last for many years increase a person’s risk of developing cancer.

[Dr Strangelove]

Communicable - in the context of immunization refers to diseases that can be spread through casual contact.
Vector - how the disease infects the person.

From Merriam Webster's Online Medical Dictionary (so you can goggle these if you wish to double check me.)

Communicable: able to be passed to another person.

Vector: an organism that transmits a pathogen.

So yes, HPV is a communicable disease and people are the vector for HPV.

[molly bloom]

Is there a HPV epidemic where people are going to die from HPV? No. Odd then we'd be all raised into a froth over the issue.

Breaking news for non-doctor Sister Bendy- people do not necessarily die of the disease they contract (whether it's measles, the common cold or even H.I.V.)

They most certainly can die of complications arising from those diseases and secondary infections or even developments such as cervical cancer.

You cretin.

[molly bloom]

You can't catch HPV just from being in the same room as someone.

Are intransigency, obstinacy and idiocy the same ?


If so, how fortunate your pupils and fellow 'teachers'.

[H Tower]

Here's a good Anti-Vax article that actually make sense to me.

http://nightofthelivingdad.net/2014/08/13/why-we-didnt-vaccinate-our-child/

Why We Didn’t Vaccinate Our Child

We’re not ashamed to say that there are many vaccines we haven’t given our child. Here’s why…

Pertussis, also known as “whooping cough”, is a bacterial disease that can permanently injure or kill a child. Despite the pertussis epidemic currently sweeping California, we didn’t vaccinate our son against pertussis, because he’s only one month old. And you can’t vaccinate a child against pertussis until he is like two months old. Of course we will when he’s old enough. We’re not morons.

Yellow fever is a viral disease that’s common in Africa and parts of South America. It’s pretty much non-existent in the U.S., so it would be kinda silly to vaccinate our son against it now. No one does that. But if we’re ever going to be visiting those parts of the world, of course we’ll vaccinate him against Yellow fever. We’re not drooling idiots with no regard for the welfare of our child.

Ebola Zaire has one of the highest mortality rates of any disease people get. There’s currently a flare up of the disease in some parts of Africa. There have been a couple of Americans that have had it, but it’s so difficult for Ebola to be transmitted from person to person that there’s not really much risk of a major outbreak in the U.S.. That said, it’s a scary disease. We haven’t vaccinated our son against Ebola Zaire because a vaccine for it doesn’t exist yet. If the disease became more common where we live and researchers developed a safe and effective vaccine, of course we would give it to our child. We’re not completely braindead troglodytes with no understanding of modern medical safety standards.
person vomiting

Ebola is not a fun way to go.

Ebola Reston is a variant of the Ebola virus that first appeared in the United States, in Virginia. Ebola Reston is just as lethal as Ebola Zaire, but gave Americans a bigger scare when the first outbreak of it appeared so close to our nation’s capital. We’re not vaccinating our son against Ebola Reston because the disease it non-pathogenic to humans. It only affects monkeys, and our son, despite his behavior, is not technically a monkey. If it were hazardous to humans, we would have to be as dumb as monkeys not to consider giving our child every resource available to avoid contracting the disease.

Andromeda Strain is a crystalline agent that causes instant death from coagulation and deterioration of one’s circulatory system. In its most recently discovered forms, it has been harmless, but it evolves so quickly that it could easily become fatal again. We chose not to vaccinate our son against the Andromeda Strain because it’s a fictional disease, so it’s very unlikely that he would contract it. Even if it were real, his incessant crying would likely raise the level of CO2 in his blood sufficiently to make it inhospitable for the agent to take hold. However, if it were a real pathogen, and it were common in the U.S., and there were a vaccine for it, of course we would vaccinate our child. We’re not monsters.

Calculus isn’t actually a disease, but many people like to pretend it’s just as unpleasant. We’re not going to vaccinate our son against calculus, because it’s actually pretty useful. We’d love it if our son learned calculus. But if it were a terrible disease, I guess we’d vaccinate our son against that, too. Only a moron would risk their child contracting a known, debilitating illness against unsubstantiated rumors of statistically insignificant side effects of vaccines that have been given to large populations for many years.