Child vaccinations - do you or don't you?

g33

With regard to the Gardasil/HPV comments...have any of you ever had warts? If so then you have HPV. It's just a matter of where you get warts, but if you have had any, you can spread HPV to your sex partner and then they may or may not develop genital warts which may or may not lead to cervical cancer. Yep, the same warts you can pick up on the floor of a public shower are a form of HPV. I asked my OB GYN about this while I was pregnant and this info came from him, he's been practicing since 1969.

HPV stands for Human Papillomarvirus---a GROUP of more than 100 viruses that cause warts. Yes the warts on your hand can be caused by HPV and the ones linked to cancer are HPV----but they are NOT the same. 

If you have had warts on your hands it does not mean that you can give the type of HPV which causes cervical cancer to someone else---at least according to the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health.

Human papillomaviruses (HPVs) are a group of more than 100 viruses. They are called papillomaviruses because certain types may cause warts, or papillomas, which are benign (noncancerous) tumors. The HPVs that cause the common warts that grow on hands and feet are different from those that cause growths in the throat or genital area. Some types of HPV are associated with certain types of cancer. These are called "high-risk" oncogenic or carcinogenic HPVs.  

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/hpv.html#cat1 

 

Wow, the amount of incorrect, ridiculous information about vaccinations in this thread is apalling. Please vaccinate your children. It is child abuse in my opinion not to. The reason you don't see people die of these diseases is because we vaccinate for them. They are still out there and when we do get cases from time to time it is horrible. As an adult do whatever the heck you want, if you want to take a risk well then sweet, but for a child? Mercury or anything in vaccinations has NOT EVER BEEN PROVEN TO CAUSE ANY PROBLEM OR INCREASE A CHILD'S CHANCE OF BEING AUTISTIC OR ANYTHING ELSE. Please go speak to someone who can help you understand the literature so you make good choices for your child based in fact and not hysteria. Nonsense............Again, I'm apalled, whatever physician or practitioner who is giving you your "facts" should loose his/her licence. Guardasil is a quadravalent vaccine which covers HPV subtype 6/11/16/18 which are the most common strains of this virus that cause genital warts (6/11) and cervical dysplasia/cervical cancer 16/18. This HPV is NOT the same as skin papillomas whoever told you that is incorrect. HPV is implicated in >80% of cervical cancers and this vaccine will save thousands of lives a year. Whoever said that pap smears are worthless is also incorrect. The reason that cervical cancer is not the #1 cancer killer of women in the united states like it is everywhere else in the world is entirely because of papsmears. The cases of people with cervical cancer who die are for the most part people who did not get annual follow-up as recommended. You do not have to have sex with someone to get HPV. Pap smears catch dysplasia early but do not prevent warts or dysplasia. The surge in autism is due to the increased screening and the pickup of mild cases. The same thing happened with increased *** cancer screening. The surge will level off just like *** cancer did. Wow is all I can muster at this point.

Dogslife - I did mention it to our *real* pediatrician and he agreed that there was really no reason for me to vaccinate her against Hep B, and also didn't agree that the on-call ped's reason was compelling. So, I felt like I did the right thing for us.

Moderator speaking, 

Let's keep our input/opinions couched in a respectful manner all, thank you.

Whoever said that pap smears are worthless is also incorrect. The reason that cervical cancer is not the #1 cancer killer of women in the united states like it is everywhere else in the world is entirely because of papsmears. The cases of people with cervical cancer who die are for the most part people who did not get annual follow-up as recommended.

 Otto - I really did not know this. Do you have any stats? Are you sure? . "worthless" was probably not th e best word I could have used, apologies for sounding alarmist  - They aren't worthless, but they are not this wonderful infallible DX tool that people make them out to be. I am not questioning your knowledge, it is only because my info on PAP smears being not nearly as effective as people think was given to me by a fellows who have essentially dedicated their lives to researching HPV and cervical/other reproductive cancers - not to say that you do not know what you are talking about, I am sure you have good sources, but remember that these guys have very valid info too -  so I would just like to hear where you got the info that it was mostly people who didnt follow up on positive smears.

I am sure that PAP smears did decrease the number of cancers that were allowed to progress, what I was saying is that it is certainly, *certainly* not the best way to say "Ok, you have cancer" or "No, you are fine". Like I said, it is one tiny sample from one tiny area. It may catch a good number, but just because you have a negative PAP smear does not mean you have nothing going on.

 

This HPV is NOT the same as skin papillomas whoever told you that is incorrect. HPV is implicated in >80% of cervical cancers and this vaccine will save thousands of lives a year

Agreed, cervical cancer causing strains are NOT the same as the skin strains. The vaccine will save lives, true, but again it is not a panacea. Still ~20% will progress. HPV will mutate, as it has done for millions of years, with new strains popping up all over the place...some new ones may also become implicated in cancer. So yes, the vaccine is a good idea, I would reccommend getting it, but I don't think it is the end of cervical cancer, not by a long shot. Viruses, especially herpesviruses, are "too smart" for that.

Very good questions Kristin, Here is the mayo clinic fact sheet (I like their patient information site, well done)http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/pap-smear/HQ01177. The best way to get info is probably ACOG and a quick google search will get you all the stats your hear could desire ;). Basically since starting to use the pap smear cervical cancer has dropped from the leading cause of death in the united states (like it is elsewhere in the world) to like below 10 or 20 or something like that. Also, cervical cancer is about 90% curable (five year survival) now or better, much improved since pap's were recommended. Remember also that now we don't just look at cells but actually test the cells for high risk HPV strains which further identifies people at risk. This is the only screening difference, treatment has remained esentially the same so it can with a relatively good degree of confidence that pap's have had a HUGE impact on this disease. No one should downplay their importance IMO. Deaths from cervical cancer are like 4000/year down from WAY WAY WAY more. Look how many women die from lung cancer a year (number one cancer killer of women, like 150000 total/year so probably like 75000 or more women) and remember that more women then that used to die of cervical cancer. The strains implicated in cervical cancer of HPV have remained constant for quite awhile now. No doctor would ever say because you have a normal pap means you don't have cancer, it is just a screening test (like PSA, mammo, FOB). Just like how you would never tell a patient because your mammo is negative you don't have *** cancer. The wisest thing to do is get screening like recommended. THis virus doesn't seem to mutate the way others can. I always tell patients not to focus on the 20% it doesn't catch REMEMBER THE 80% it does prevent! Wowza, I've said it before and I'll say it again, this vaccine is thought of by many in the women's health community as the greatest medical discovery of my generation. The pap and now guardasil will and have done amazing things for women's health in the uniteds states. This is a little of a sore subject with me, the vaccination stuff as I had a six year old boy loose most of his leg to tetanus and a terrible infection following a dog bite recently. The child was not vaccinated for "religious" resions.

ottoluv

This is a little of a sore subject with me, the vaccination stuff as I had a six year old boy loose most of his leg to tetanus and a terrible infection following a dog bite recently. The child was not vaccinated for "religious" resions.

 

Oh my god, that is awful.  That poor little boy.  You didn't need to convince me to get my child vaccinated.  They are there for a reason, and just because the disease is not prevalent in the US doesn't mean it's been wiped out completely.  Even if there's a minute chance it's not worth risking it in my opinion.  Thank you for sharing your information and your story with the rest of us. 

Chelsea, some of the contributors to the increase in diagnoses are as follows:

Increased awareness is probably one of the factors.

Additionally, some categories were only recently added to the DSM. When we talk about autism diagnoses, we are usually talking about all types of autism. So, with the addition of Asperger's Syndrome in 1994, and childhood disintegrative disorder, which I cannot find a year on, but only that it was recently added, there was an increase in the number of people diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders.

I don't have the year on this either right now, but autism was only added in the 90s to IDEA. Children who would have previously been classified under other categories are now classified as autistic. For some time after autism was added, there were decreases in the numbers classified under other categories. 

 I'm sure there are other reasons as well, but that's all I can think of off the top of my head.
 

Did you guys see today's article in the Boston Globe? We're so trend-setting, lol! Whether or not you agree with what it says, it's an interesting read.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/10/17/ap_impact_parents_use_religion_to_avoid_vaccines/ 

Agreed that it's an interesting article, but this one quote is so ridiculous that I just have to point it out...

""When you choose not to get a vaccine, you're not just making a choice for yourself, you're making a choice for the person sitting next to you," said Dr. Lance Rodewald, director of the CDC's Immunization Services Division."

How so?? If your kid's vaccinated and mine's not, and mine gets sick, shouldn't the fabulous vaccine protect your kid (general your, obviously not directed at you Courtney!)? How is it my fault if your kid DOES get sick?

There's a fine line between neglect and protection, I realize, I guess I just believe not vaccinating falls on the protection side, even if the protection is only in your own mind.

It's kind of like how when I mention that my kids will probably be vegetarians or vegans for AT LEAST the first 3-4 years of their lives, or how I'm going to homeschool, I get these looks of disgust, and talk of letting them choose for themselves. Hello?? They have to either eat meat or not, they either go to school or don't, I HAVE to choose FOR them. Same with vaccines. "Don't vaccinate yourself, fine, but not vaccinating your kids is child abuse." What?? Why is the default choice feeding meat? Why is the default choice sending them to school? Why is the default choice vaccinating? Just because..it is? And that's how normal people do it? Sorry if I'm too "abnormal" for you.

Yeah yeah, I'm a crackpot hippie. I know...

chelsea_b

""When you choose not to get a vaccine, you're not just making a choice for yourself, you're making a choice for the person sitting next to you," said Dr. Lance Rodewald, director of the CDC's Immunization Services Division."

How so?? If your kid's vaccinated and mine's not, and mine gets sick, shouldn't the fabulous vaccine protect your kid (general your, obviously not directed at you Courtney!)? How is it my fault if your kid DOES get sick?

 

Chelsea.....you do know that viruses mutate correct? but they require a host to accomplish this. Vaccinated people are not suitable hosts for this...unvaccinated people ARE. There is the risk...and it is real.

A virus that mutates is no longer affected negatively by a vaccine...and will run rampant until a new vaccine is formulated.

http://www.college.ucla.edu/webproject/micro12/m12webnotes/viralevolution.htm

ottoluv - thanks for the info. I always like to hear both sides of the story :) I was not aware the PAPs were more than just cytology - good to know! I'm still a bit ambivalent about how much the vaccine is being touted...just because herpesviruses are sooooo notorious for mutating (perhaps not the CC ones as much, but still).....however, I still do think it is an interesting discovery and hopefully it can pave the way from eliminated cc altogether!

 

ottoluv and Gina, excellent points.   Being educated in health field makes a person more able to understand and explain but total refusal to hear this info is truly unhealthy. And have to agree is neglectful...and dangerous.  I actually find it hard to believe a school system allows this kind of choice~ Most certainly do not.

 

chelsea_b

Agreed that it's an interesting article, but this one quote is so ridiculous that I just have to point it out...

""When you choose not to get a vaccine, you're not just making a choice for yourself, you're making a choice for the person sitting next to you," said Dr. Lance Rodewald, director of the CDC's Immunization Services Division."

How so?? If your kid's vaccinated and mine's not, and mine gets sick, shouldn't the fabulous vaccine protect your kid (general your, obviously not directed at you Courtney!)? How is it my fault if your kid DOES get sick?

Whether or not people vaccinate their kids can have implications for more than just their kids. 

1. Mutation. A bug needs a host. Provide enough hosts and it changes into a slightly different bug which is no longer stopped by the vaccine.---TA DAH---a second grade child incubates a bug that can can cause paralysis, heart failure and respitorary distress in children everywhere.

2. Health care resources. Even a small outbreak diverts resources----- health care workers, hospital beds, etc.  WHAT if a highly contagious, potentially crippling/fatal disease were introduced to a large (or concentrated) population that is suseptible to it? Picture a university campus with a thousand sick kids. 

BTW WHO IS GOING to PAY for an outbreak?

In 2005 a 17 yr old girl unknowingly brought measles from Romania to Indiana and infected 19 people who (in turn) infected 13 more people. Most of the cases were in 4 families. Once the first case was diagnosed, public health officials worked quickly to contact all the people who could have been infected---which was a lot because there was a large church gathering the day after her return.

So how much did it cost to deal with 34 people getting the measles and/or preventing anyone else from getting them?

 $167,685

* 3,650 person hours

* 4,800 telephone calls

* 550 lab specimens were tested

So yes, if you child is not vaccinated it can have implications for people other than your child.  Hopefully we will never see what happens when 1,000 college students get seriously sick at the same time. And if we do see it I hope that no one dies or is seriously hurt because health care resources were focused on the measles cases.

If you choose not to vaccinate then please do so with the understanding that the consequences of your decision CAN impact other people's lives. Just like being a vegetarian doesn't just effect YOU because it has a positive impact on the environment, right?