Seraphim Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 exactly. no one explained to me what "tetanus" or "polio" is before I got those vaccines. I didn't need to know why i needed the shot. I just knew it was to keep me healthy. Why do you not need to know?? Link to comment
Perfect Dark Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Trust me, they DO test them. There is the scientific literature to prove it. Yep and side effects i.e death are highly rare and are always reported in the press causing mass hysteria. Link to comment
annie24 Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Why do you not need to know?? Well, now I do know! I'm just saying, when I was a little child, my parents didn't explain to me what polio is or what not. I'm just saying, you don't have to give your daughter the "birds and bees" lecture before giving her the vaccine. Link to comment
greywolf Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Indirectly, yes they are. Oh hey it may save millions. If a few people die that is ok. Maybe the company and the scientists that make these vaccines should throughly TEST them. And KNOW what will happen to people with pre existing conditions and then saying "oo ops my bad" I understand that you don't agree with vaccinations. No need to get aggressive about it. Link to comment
EQD Posted October 13, 2009 Author Share Posted October 13, 2009 not only that the only thing i see as far as how long the vaccine protects you is arond 5-7 years. which means girls getting it when they are 11 or 12 will be vulnerable to the HPV strains at any time during their typical introductory sexual years. since they have 'no idea' how long the vaccine is effective then what the hell good is it going to do? is there a booster available? and lets say this stuff didnt work. it would take at least a decade to prove it. By then the people would be dead, the girls would have gotten cancer anyway, and the company that manufactures gardasil will have made billions off the millions of women who thought they were doing their children some 'good' by preventing them from 'certain strains of hpv that may cause cancer' Link to comment
Seraphim Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Trust me, they DO test them. There is the scientific literature to prove it. If they did all kind of people would not have the issues they have and it is the same for medications. Drugs companies that want to make money for the most part. Link to comment
Perfect Dark Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Why have I never even heard of these vaccinations un-till the past few months? Link to comment
waveseer Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 But if it prevents Cancer why not let her have it? She doesn't have to be having sex or anything of that nature. Because she has years and years before she becomes sexually active during which time the vaccine will be improved or disproved and it's side effects well known. Offering this to young girls nowhere near their sexually active years is irresponsible on the part of the medical community. Taking each case individually would dictate a private parental discussion prior to bringing it up in the presence of the child. Link to comment
Seraphim Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 not only that the only thing i see as far as how long the vaccine protects you is arond 5-7 years. which means girls getting it when they are 11 or 12 will be vulnerable to the HPV strains at any time during their typical introductory sexual years. since they have 'no idea' how long the vaccine is effective then what the hell good is it going to do? is there a booster available? and lets say this stuff didnt work. it would take at least a decade to prove it. By then the people would be dead, the girls would have gotten cancer anyway, and the company that manufactures gardasil will have made billions Then they will make a booster, just watch. Link to comment
greywolf Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 If they did all kind of people would not have the issues they have and it is the same for medications. Drugs companies that want to make money for the most part. I agree that pharmaceutical companies are in it for the money. It doesn't mean their products are bad though. Link to comment
annie24 Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 If they did all kind of people would not have the issues they have and it is the same for medications. Drugs companies that want to make money for the most part. for sure, drug companies are about making money, as are all for-profit companies. but i can tell you that they definitely make huge efforts to test for safety. if there are some problems, hopefully those come to light soon and that knowledge gets distributed to doctors to know not to give that drug to certain people. Link to comment
dragon lady Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 I don't know anything about the final shot because I only got 2/3. All I got was a sore arm for about a day after those. There have been reports of people dying after receiving the vaccine, but many more die from cervical cancer. And even if you don't die from CC, the treatments can be pretty traumatic. That's why I decided to get it in the first place. I was also willing to risk something unknown happening in the future. If I had my time over again I probably wouldn't have gotten it because I really would have liked to have that money right now. I'm also not sure whether I'm protected at all after having only had 2. It may have been a big waste. Link to comment
Seraphim Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 People would think about it differently if someone close to them was affected by vaccines. Link to comment
hossman Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Drugs companies that want to make money for the most part. Of course drug companies want to make money. So does everyone else. If it wasn't for vaccines most of the population of this planet would have been wiped out by the plague, or small pox, or influenza, or Ebola, or from a multitude of other disease that are now very controlled if not completely irradicated due to modern medicine and "the drug companies". Just take a look at the level of death and disease in underdeveloped countries that can't afford vaccines and you'll see for yourself. Sure sometimes vaccines go wrong because clinical trials cannot always predict what will happen with every person in every situation and once the vaccine is rolled out large scale, bad things can happen. So what? That's like saying you'll never drive a car because you could get in an accident, or you won't go swimming because you might lose a leg to a shark. Link to comment
Perfect Dark Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 for sure, drug companies are about making money, as are all for-profit companies. but i can tell you that they definitely make huge efforts to test for safety. if there are some problems, hopefully those come to light soon and that knowledge gets distributed to doctors to know not to give that drug to certain people. I agree with all your points. What is the difference between a booster and a normal vaccine? Link to comment
annie24 Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 you are likely partially protected after 2 shots. you may not have full protection for the 5-7 years, but likely, for a few years. my guesstimate anyways. Link to comment
PsychGirly Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Because she has years and years before she becomes sexually active during which time the vaccine will be improved or disproved and it's side effects well known. Offering this to young girls nowhere near their sexually active years is irresponsible on the part of the medical community. Taking each case individually would dictate a private parental discussion prior to bringing it up in the presence of the child. With all due respect, the reason it is offered at such a young age is because, unfortunately, some kids because sexually active in their early teens. I'm not suggesting that this is the case with your daugther, but that one of the reasons why it's offered so early on. My sister had the vaccinations at an early age, and my mom explained to her that it's going to "help protect her body and her female organs". She didn't need to explain anything about sex. Unfortunately, some kids become sexually active without taking any precautions. They don't have the knowledge to protect themselves, & their parents usually have no idea that they're sexually active. It's better to be safe than sorry. Link to comment
PsychGirly Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 you are likely partially protected after 2 shots. you may not have full protection for the 5-7 years, but likely, for a few years. my guesstimate anyways. I had 1/3 shots. Didn't protect me from an HPV, which could have led to cervical cancer if I didn't find out so early on. Link to comment
Seraphim Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 [/b] No, it is not the same in the least. No one is going to convince me vaccines are the ticket. Link to comment
greywolf Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 I agree with all your points. What is the difference between a booster and a normal vaccine? I think a booster isn't as strong. Link to comment
annie24 Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 I agree with all your points. What is the difference between a booster and a normal vaccine? a booster is just that, another dosage to boost efficacy of the vaccine. That has to be done with almost every vaccine out there, you can't just take it once and be protected the rest of your life, as your Memory B-cells (the ones who are literally your immune 'memory') don't live forever. So, every certain number of years, you have to take the vaccine again. Link to comment
greywolf Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 No, it is not the same in the least. No one is going to convince me vaccines are the ticket. No one is trying to. We're just defending against your accusations. Link to comment
Perfect Dark Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 With all due respect, the reason it is offered at such a young age is because, unfortunately, some kids because sexually active in their early teens. I'm not suggesting that this is the case with your daugther, but that one of the reasons why it's offered so early on. My sister had the vaccinations at an early age, and my mom explained to her that it's going to "help protect her body and her female organs". She didn't need to explain anything about sex. Unfortunately, some kids become sexually active without taking any precautions. They don't have the knowledge to protect themselves, & their parents usually have no idea that they're sexually active. It's better to be safe than sorry. I agree!!! [/b] No, it is not the same in the least. No one is going to convince me vaccines are the ticket. But they save millions of people's lifes! I think a booster isn't as strong. Thanx. Link to comment
waveseer Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 With all due respect, the reason it is offered at such a young age is because, unfortunately, some kids because sexually active in their early teens. I'm not suggesting that this is the case with your daugther, but that one of the reasons why it's offered so early on. My sister had the vaccinations at an early age, and my mom explained to her that it's going to "help protect her body and her female organs". She didn't need to explain anything about sex. Unfortunately, some kids become sexually active without taking any precautions. They don't have the knowledge to protect themselves, & their parents usually have no idea that they're sexually active. It's better to be safe than sorry. Medical procedures for a 10 year old are chosen by the parent by law. The child, for better or for worse, is subject to their parent's decision. I never had the immunization because it did not exist and now I am "too old" even though I have no history of ever having hpv. There is something fishy about the way they are pushing this, I smell a rat. Cervical cancer can be caught at every yearly pap test. At this time my best judgement tells me to wait for more information to surface. Link to comment
Seraphim Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Medical procedures for a 10 year old are chosen by the parent by law. The child, for better or for worse, is subject to their parent's decision. I never had the immunization because it did not exist and now I am "too old" even though I have no history of ever having hpv. There is something fishy about the way they are pushing this, I smell a rat. Cervical cancer can be caught at every yearly pap test. At this time my best judgement tells me to wait for more information to surface. Here here. I was never vaccinated either cause it never existed and I do not have it either. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.