<p>ariesathena, there is just so much worong with your statement that I give up. You have a right to your opinion, but so much of your argument is based on wrong information. You don’t understand the field of health, or the science behind the spread of disease, or the rationale behind public health decisions. It’s not possible to engage in a rational discussion with you.</p>
<p>Pardon me.</p>
<p>What do I not understand? I’m a fairly intelligent woman. Instead of telling everyone who disagrees with you that they are irrational atheists, try engaging US in discussion. For the record, you told a Harvard-educated young woman that,
It is possible to engage in a rationale discussion with me. You might not agree with what I say, but it does not make me wrong. The fact that you would tell an engineer-law student that she doesn’t get science & policy is, frankly, hilarious.</p>
<p>StickerShock, instead of telling off smart, educated young women, perhaps you could use some of your much-lauded intellect and training to respond to our points. Clear?</p>
<p>And on that note … shall we adjourn for refreshments? Oh, and for your continued amusement you can bash my beliefs: that vaccination can prevent disease or cause it. Health care professionals with vested interest in the technology unfailingly support universal vaccinations for every imaginable possibly-preventable disease. Health care professionals with no such interest, and these are rare because dollars drive the industry, often counsel caution and further research before vaccine use is extended. For a sample, go here: <a href=“National Vaccine Information Center”>National Vaccine Information Center; and also do independent research into the possible bad outcomes from vaccinations of all sorts (from sudden death to immune diseases to brain injuries resulting in autism). Despite what you may read from the industry, or hear from your family doctor, it is not at all clear that vaccinations have actually improved overall health.</p>
<p>I agree with most of it. That’s why I brought up chickenpox, which, IMO, is ridiculous to vaccinate against. </p>
<p>The conclusion, though, I disagree with. You’re living in 2006. Polio, smallpox, and MMR are unheard of. (Having had whooping cough, I can’t say the same for that.) It’s so very easy to say that vaccines don’t do anything when no one gets sick from those diseases anymore. 
Sure, there’s been talk about eliminating the polio vaccine or using a less-effective but safer variety, but, mostly, I think we take a polio-free, mumps-free, smallpox-free world for granted.</p>
<p>“I think we take a polio-free, mumps-free, smallpox-free world for granted”</p>
<p>ariesathena, perhaps you’re right; perhaps we have, as a society, begun to think of smallpox as a scourge of ancient history; global smallpox vaccination appears to be a success story. (Though fear of its re-release by accident or terrorists still haunts some nightmares.) The risk/benefit appears to have favored smallpox vaccine, and maybe that’s why so many of us are willing to accept, for example, universal HepB vaccines. Don’t count me among them. My scepticism first arose 30 years ago in a microbiology class taught by an early Salk researcher: he described how potentially carcinogenic monkey viruses had been accidentally incorporated into the polio shots I got as a child. That information is freely available now, but it was hidden at the time. Yes, polio has been pretty-much wiped out, but who knows how many cancers arose later because of the vaccine. On balance, polio vaccines have probably prevented more misery than they’ve caused: polio was deadly and epidemic, maiming and killing our kids. But Gardasil? No way! Until the researchers have done 30 years of controlled studies and proven its relative safety, there’s no way I’d accept universal vaccination to save a tiny cohort who might eventually die from cervical cancer.</p>
<p>Diphtheria and tetanus are pretty much unheard of in this country, too. Diphtheria used to kill a lot of children. Not to mention the original manufactured vaccine, rabies, which used to be an automatic death sentence. I don’t have any doubt that the pros of vaccines have far outweighed the cons in human history.</p>
<p>That being said, I respect your wait-and-see attitude. Where, as here, there are other ways to protect yourself, caution about side effects strikes me as a totally legit reason to hold off on a vaccine. (The thimerosol-autism link, though, I think has been pretty much disproved via the Netherlands.)</p>
<p>“hepB and HPV are spread in pretty much the same way.” WRONG! Maybe you should read up on the disease transmission route. Plus, hepatitis is deadly. HPV is usually harmless. This factors into the vaccination decision, too.</p>
<p>“The LOGIC behind the HepB vaccine has nothing to do with random contact with blood and everything to do with preventing communicable diseases.” WRONG! It has EVERYTHING to do with contact with blood. That’s how it’s transmitted. This is the very definitin of a communicable disease.</p>
<p>“That’s why I brought up chickenpox, which, IMO, is ridiculous to vaccinate against.” Well, if you don’t find death to be an adverse effect of a disease, I guess you might say it is “ridiculous” to vaccinate against varicella. Or if you are unaware of the painful, serious impact that shingles has on the senior population. I sincerely hope you are immune, or never become pregnant. Because becoming infected while pregnant will cause birth defects in the 1st half of pregnancy. </p>
<p>ariesathena: I really don’t give a hoot where you attended school or what you are majoring in. You continue to post opinion as if it is fact. Do some research before posting. Your “facts” are way off. Your analogies are incomprehensible. Health policy formation is multi-faceted. Sometimes vaccines are mandated because life-threatening diseases would reach endemic proportions. Other vaccines or their administration timetables are mandated for political reasons, or because children are generally a “captive” population and the threat of being kept out of school ensures an excellent compliance rate.</p>
<p>celloguy: I would agree that everyone should carefully consider all healthcare decisions & make informed decisions. Some of the research pointing to problems with vaccines is valid & frightening. Some is junkscience published by moonbats. Too bad more of us didn’t have the benefit of studying microbiology under a Salk researcher. That must have been quite a fascinating experience!</p>
<p>I think more sunshine has been directed at the vested interests of healthcare professionals over the years. Fewer cases of doctors owning labs & ordering excessive testing, etc. More careful scrutiny of doctor perks/quid pro quo practices.</p>
<p>LMAO!!!</p>
<p><a href=“http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communicable%20disease[/url]”>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communicable%20disease</a>
ommunicable disease
n.</p>
<pre><code>A disease that is transmitted through direct contact with an infected individual or indirectly through a vector. Also called contagious disease.
</code></pre>
<p>But according to you, it’s through BLOOD only. Um, no. I beg of you to revise your definition and admit to being wrong. </p>
<p>I don’t post opinion as if it were fact. The sole difference between transmission of HPV and HepB that you mentioned (yes, yes, we’re talking about your posts!) is blood. Ergo, if the only difference is that HepB is transmitted through contact with blood but HPV is through genitals only (no sex required), then, honey, the policy difference is vaccinating against diseases that are transmitted through blood. </p>
<p>I’m well aware of the policy reasons behind mandating certain vaccines and not others. You, however, are not - or you are so upset about it that you pretend that things work a different way.</p>
<p>Don’t patronise me about chicken pox - if you pull half this “high & mighty” stuff with your patients, you would have lost your license long ere now. </p>
<p>Most children get it and are fine. Some get it twice when their first exposure was at a young age. Exposure to the chicken pox can prevent further disease later (DUH!). There is also evidence that living in too antiseptic a world does not allow the immune system to develop properly. Ergo, exposure is often either harmless or a good thing. If you’re pregnant and haven’t had the chicken pox, you’re probably told to not spend your time at a slumber party for kids who are slathered in Aveeno. </p>
<p>If we were really worried about shingles or pregnancy, why wouldn’t we vaccinate everyone who hasn’t gotten the pox by age 15 or so? Young enough to not be problematic; old enough so that they should have been exposed on their own. IMO, for the vast majority of people, chicken pox is nothing save a week of itchiness and possible scarring. Hence the relation to acne, which, in case you’ve missed having teenagers, can cause years of anguish, teasing at the hands of your peers, and possible scarring. </p>
<p>So get off your high horse, stop saying that I’m heartless, and either post some sense or take it elsewhere. </p>
<p>If my facts are wrong, perhaps you ought to CHECK YOUR OWN. I’ve posted facts with links to the CDC; you’ve posted b.s. that you’ve made up yourself (and are clearly wrong, see above). </p>
<p>If the facts are not as you wish them to be, work with them instead of rearranging them to fit your opinion. At this point, you’ve trashed two intelligent young women as being stupid and irrational - I would suggest that the more logical interpretation is that you simply refuse to believe what does not conform to your ideology. That does not make us wrong or mean that we don’t understand science; it is, in fact, your problem.</p>
<p>If my analogies are incomprehensible, I would suggest that they are only so to those who either lack intellectual gastric juices or are so blinded by ideology that they cannot think straight. Perhaps you don’t like being called out on the fact that being anti-sex, for you, trumps pro-life tendencies?</p>
<p>
Um, no. <a href=“Division of Viral Hepatitis | CDC”>Division of Viral Hepatitis | CDC;
<p>Dahlin, try posting FACTS and back them up with sources before you patronise me. </p>
<p>"Chronic infection occurs in:</p>
<pre><code>* 90% of infants infected at birth
- 30% of children infected at age 1 - 5 years
- 6% of persons infected after age 5 years
</code></pre>
<p>Death from chronic liver disease occurs in:</p>
<pre><code>* 15-25% of chronically infected persons"
</code></pre>
<p>So 6% of people who get this after age 5 will become chronically infected. Of those 6%, 15-25% (i.e. 1%-1.5% of the total!) will die from it. </p>
<p>According to you, 1% is “usually deadly.” :)</p>
<p>Transmission methods
HepB:
“HBV is spread through having sex with an infected person without using a condom (the efficacy of latex condoms in preventing infection with HBV is unknown, but their proper use may reduce transmission), by sharing drugs, needles, or “works” when “shooting” drugs, through needlesticks or sharps exposures on the job, or from an infected mother to her baby during birth.”
<a href=“Division of Viral Hepatitis | CDC”>Division of Viral Hepatitis | CDC;
<p>Okay, so sex and drugs (no rock 'n roll). </p>
<p>HPV:
“Human papillomavirus is the name of a group of viruses that includes more than 100 different strains or types. More than 30 of these viruses are sexually transmitted,”
see, <a href=“http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/default.htm[/url]”>http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/default.htm</a></p>
<p>If you don’t like this, take it up with the CDC. </p>
<p>Now, let’s examine our data.</p>
<p>30% of HPV is sexually transmitted. The other 70% is unaccounted for.
HepB is transmitted sexually or through blood.</p>
<p>Ergo, what are our main differences? Blood? Sometimes sexually v. most often sexually? </p>
<p>1% fatality for HepB in adults? 4,000 women per year to cervical cancer? </p>
<p>Sorry, I fail to see any meaningful distinction. </p>
<p>I would ask you, StickerShock, to stop telling me to do my research. I’ve done my research. If you would like to continue this debate, please do your own, fully cited, research.</p>
<p>Shingles:
4. Can someone who has been vaccinated for chickenpox develop shingles?</p>
<pre><code>Yes. However, a study conducted among children with leukemia determined that after receiving the vaccine these children were much less likely to develop shingles than children who had prior natural chickenpox. Available information from healthy children and adults suggest that shingles is less common in vaccinated healthy persons compared with persons who have had natural chickenpox.
</code></pre>
<ol>
<li><p>Is there a vaccine available to prevent or modify shingles?</p>
<p>No; however, a study is currently underway with a new formulation of the chickenpox vaccine to determine whether vaccination of persons older than 55 years of age will reduce the frequency and/or severity of shingles in adults. Results from this study will be available in about 5 years.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>As of 19 June 2006.</p>
<p>So apparently you know something that the CDC doesn’t know. Chickenpox vaccine MAY prevent shingles; it may not. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cdc.gov/nip/diseases/varicella/faqs-gen-shingles.htm[/url]”>http://www.cdc.gov/nip/diseases/varicella/faqs-gen-shingles.htm</a></p>
<p>Chicken pox can be deadly to someone who’s going through chemotherapy, as can many other “routine” childhood diseases. Many chemotherapies are immunosuppressive. <a href=“http://www.cancernet.co.uk/chem-ad-life.htm[/url]”>http://www.cancernet.co.uk/chem-ad-life.htm</a></p>
<p>Those of you who are interested in the issue of carcinogenic monkey viruses being found in poliovaccines might want to read this study: <a href=“http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/cancer/default.htm[/url]”>http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/cancer/default.htm</a> which points out (among other things) that only the injected polio vaccine (which was not widely used) had SV40, not the oral poliovaccine (sugar cube) that most of us remember.</p>
<p>dmd77: Good point to remind everyone how serious exposure to childhood diseases (even simply being around a recently vaccinated person) can be for chemotherapy patients.</p>
<p>I remember lining up at the local school to get the Sabin sugar cubes. Polio was so terrifying back in the day. I had a schoolmate born in 1957 who was afflicted. Don’t know if she had missed being vaccinated or was one of the unlucky kids who contracted the disease regardless.</p>
<p>ariesathena: Keep laughing. And do keep posting your cdc website links. (You seem to feel reading from a website directed to consumers is scholarly research.) Anyone who checks the links and reads your interpretations will see that you suffer from major reading comprehension problems.</p>
<p>StickerShock,</p>
<p>Instead of telling me that I “suffer from major reading comprehension problems,” why don’t you do a little research and post it? </p>
<p>Frankly, with several billion web pages out there, I think you should be able to find something that backs up your point. Once you have your research and I have mine, we can have an intellectual debate. As of now, it’s entirely one-sided - me and the others bringing up facts and you saying we are wrong without any justification.</p>
<p>I am very sorry - I thought that the Center for Disease Control was one of the leading authorities on the subject of diseases, their spread, and their control and prevention. (Sarcasm should be dripping through the screen at the moment.) </p>
<p>~Aries</p>
<p>ariesathena, the faulty interpretations you’ve posted are many. so are statement sof opinion as fact. Not to mention misquoting me or misinterpreting what I’ve said several times. (You even put quotes around a phrase that I never posted and attributed it to me!)</p>
<p>Here’s just one example of the problem. You posted this from the cdc: “Human papillomavirus is the name of a group of viruses that includes more than 100 different strains or types. More than 30 of these viruses are sexually transmitted,”</p>
<p>That’s a fact. Nobody disputes it. But then you add your interpretation: “30% of HPV is sexually transmitted. The other 70% is unaccounted for.”</p>
<p>HUH??? How do you reach that conclusion? In fact, the “comon” warts that many people get on their hands are caused by a HPV strain. Because the cdc didn’t launch off into a discussion of warts of all shapes and sizes and locations on the body, you state that 70% are unaccounted for. When in fact, the cdc is making a distinction between genital HPV and other types. You have major compehension problems and jump to illogical conclusions without delving further into your sources. I could post sources all day long, but I can’t comprehend them for you.</p>
<p>Here’s another one: “Polio, smallpox, and MMR are unheard of.” Just plain wrong.</p>
<p>Hana & celloguy & dmd have made reference to the risks associated with vaccines. Thimerosol/autism connections, SID concerns, and public health advancement vs. profit concerns. All fascinating stuff to explore. But until you understand that a disease that can be spread by contact with infected blood is indeed, a communicable disease, I don’t think you’d be able to grasp much of the literature.</p>
<p>Um… a communicable disease, as I stated earlier, is anything that is transmitted from person to person. Contact with blood is sufficient but not necessary. </p>
<p>Your assertion was that communicable disease = contact with blood. You are the one who is incorrect.</p>
<p>Sorry, you’re wrong. Or you so blatantly misinterpreted what I said to fit your agenda.</p>
<p>Who do you know that has smallpox? Mumps? Polio? I did not mean that those diseases are the equivalent of guinea worms but rather meant that people don’t get them anymore. Frankly, everyone else seems to have interpreted what I said well enough… why are you the one with issues?</p>
<p>I don’t have reading comprehension issues. If 30% is transmitted sexually, then what about the other 70%? That is not an illogical conclusion. If 100% were transmitted sexually, I would understand saying that there is no way to get HPV without genital contact (your assertion!). But that’s not the case. </p>
<p>You said that you need to have genital contact to get HPV. According to the CDC, only 30% of HPV viruses are transmitted that way. But I’m wrong and stupid?</p>
<p>I can try to assert my intelligence, or, I could just point out that you’ve told an engineer (me) and a Harvard grad (Hanna) that we have comprehension issues. Telling highly educated women that they lack basic intelligence doesn’t reflect upon us.</p>
<p>Engage in discussion without throwing slurs, babe. Your inability to do reflects poorly upon YOU.</p>
<p>ariesathena, while i agree with you, i have to point out that, as the previous poster said, the HPV vaccine in question protects against the sexually transmitted strain of HPV, not the HPV that is transmitted through other means.</p>
<p>I have had HEp B and HPV ( although not the kind that causes cancer)
I have no- idea how I contracted HepB, as none of my family members have had it & I was not using needles- having unprotected sex etc…
don’t really know enough about the HPV vaccinne but I did want to remind people that some of these viruses live a long time on surfaces</p>
<p>Thank you, JimBob. (Very succient and directed way of making a point. Never going to quarrel with that.)</p>
<p>Emerald: HPV at least can remain dormant for years. It usually goes away within two years, though. Apparently, even condoms do not protect against HPV; also, intercourse is not necessary - genital contact is enough. </p>
<p>For what it’s worth, one of my friends got African sleeping sickness… and he had not been to Africa ever!</p>