4 ms·

Hey if they have their way, we'll all "continue to study" HPV vaccines so that more girls can die of cervical cancer. Fuck those cynical monsters. I don't wis

by apathy 10y ago

Hey if they have their way, we'll all "continue to study" HPV vaccines so that more girls can die of cervical cancer. Fuck those cynical monsters. I don't wish people ill lightly, but they're taking chances with the lives of their children and of others, and I just can't stand that.

Tharkun 10y ago
They mess up 'herd immunity' and should be locked up in padded rooms. I don't mind if they want to fuck themselves up, but they're jeapordizing the health of everyone they come in contact with.
- nikolay 10y ago
  I don't think you're correct. If you're vaccinated, you can't get harmed by that pathogen anyway. Only those who choose not to get vaccinated, can get infected, but by refusing to get vaccinated, they should be waiving some rights, or have to pay some deductibles. What I don't get is why unvaccinated children are not allowed in California schools as they supposedly can't harm the vaccinated ones.
  - aianus 10y ago
    Vaccination is not 100% effective. People for whom vaccines are not effective rely on the majority of others to be vaccinated so they don't come into contact with the pathogen.
    - todd8 10y ago
      Yes, see for example: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectiveness-studies.htm http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectivene...
  - Sanddancer 10y ago
    In addition to people for whom the vaccine doesn't work, there are certain groups, like those with compromised immune systems, and infants, that rely on herd immunity. There's also the disruption from mass absences if an outbreak does happen. The teacher has to spend time to reteach things because of absences, to the detriment of everyone involved.
danieltillett 10y ago
The solution is to make the anti-vaxxers liable for any outbreak and make them take out insurance to cover this risk (treat it like a we do car insurance). If the average anti-vaxxer had to fork out $20,000 a year in insurance then we might find herd immunity is quite a lot stronger.
- apathy 10y ago
  Genius. Post a bond.
nikolay 10y ago
I think you're a cynical monster. And, by the way, this is not a binary situation - you either get vaccinated, or you don't. I'm not per se against vaccines, but I'm against the following I can think of right now: - To lower insurance costs, we inject infants, and toddlers with many vaccines at a time, often without much space between shots either. My kids are fully vaccinated but on a spaced-out schedule, and our family doctor fully supports this as a smart choice. There are toxins in vaccines and the more you put at once, the greater the toxicity, so, an intelligent person would try to space out, don't you agree? - Again, to lower costs, all kinds of questionable preservatives were/are used in vaccines - just like with drugs where you have generics and brand ones, I'd rather have choices and pay extra to get a less toxic form if available. Although ethylmercury is pretty much out (mostly thanks to anti-vaxxers), I'm pretty sure there are other better choices at higher costs; - Hepatitis vaccine given to infants is usually not justified and could be delayed unless justified by a simple blood test; - Studies just confirmed that tetanus vaccine works twice long as previously thought - why schedules are not immediately adjusted to both cut costs, and reduce risks? - Flu vaccine is useless if not harmful.
- apathy 10y ago
  The only reason you know that Tamiflu is useless is "cynical monsters" like me who bite the hand that feeds them. As far as spacing doses, just like anything else it's subject to revision. Nonavalent HPV vaccines produce antibodies against nearly every HPV variant known, reduce the likelihood of HPV integration, and for someone who has verified that at least a quarter of head & neck squamous, almost half of anal, and far better than half of cervical carcinomas show HPV integrations, typically right into the middle of tumor suppressors or onto oncogene promoters, this is a big deal. These cases are preventable. Not preventing them, when it's relatively cheap and available, is (to me) APPALLING. The antivaxxer pricks are cynical for relying on the rest of us, who are responsible enough to assume a TINY risk to our kids in order to protect them and others, to take the risks so they can enjoy the benefits of herd immunity. If that isn't the definition of cynical, I don't know what is. It's on a level with the Soviets celebrating the "eradication" of smallpox while internally working to weaponize it. Provided a child develops appropriate immunity by the time they're regularly interacting with others, I could care less about the spacing. But that's not really what this is about, is it? If you have kids and you don't get them vaccinated on an appropriate schedule, you are being a cynical prick. If you fight HPV vaccination because it might "make girls promiscuous", you are a cynical prick. You are presuming to judge risks for others, risks which we as a society have determined are unacceptable. And that makes you a cynical prick, if indeed you do it. (Maybe you're playing devils advocate, I don't know. But I really hate this line of reasoning, and on balance, it doesn't hold water.)
apathy 10y ago
I really ought to clarify this: yes, we absolutely should do follow up studies to make sure HPV vaccines are doing what we think they are (Gardasil for example). I do not under any circumstances think it's appropriate to delay HPV vaccination incentives to do these studies. If you think about it, the only perfect model organism for humans is humans. As long as it's ethical (IMHO it absolutely is), the right choice is to proceed and monitor; doing both will provide the appropriate data to judge whether we are accomplishing the goal.

by apathy 10y ago

Tharkun 10y ago

They mess up 'herd immunity' and should be locked up in padded rooms. I don't mind if they want to fuck themselves up, but they're jeapordizing the health of everyone they come in contact with.

nikolay 10y ago
I don't think you're correct. If you're vaccinated, you can't get harmed by that pathogen anyway. Only those who choose not to get vaccinated, can get infected, but by refusing to get vaccinated, they should be waiving some rights, or have to pay some deductibles. What I don't get is why unvaccinated children are not allowed in California schools as they supposedly can't harm the vaccinated ones.
- aianus 10y ago
  Vaccination is not 100% effective. People for whom vaccines are not effective rely on the majority of others to be vaccinated so they don't come into contact with the pathogen.
  - todd8 10y ago
    Yes, see for example: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectiveness-studies.htm http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectivene...
- Sanddancer 10y ago
  In addition to people for whom the vaccine doesn't work, there are certain groups, like those with compromised immune systems, and infants, that rely on herd immunity. There's also the disruption from mass absences if an outbreak does happen. The teacher has to spend time to reteach things because of absences, to the detriment of everyone involved.

danieltillett 10y ago

The solution is to make the anti-vaxxers liable for any outbreak and make them take out insurance to cover this risk (treat it like a we do car insurance). If the average anti-vaxxer had to fork out $20,000 a year in insurance then we might find herd immunity is quite a lot stronger.

apathy 10y ago
Genius. Post a bond.

nikolay 10y ago

I think you're a cynical monster. And, by the way, this is not a binary situation - you either get vaccinated, or you don't. I'm not per se against vaccines, but I'm against the following I can think of right now: - To lower insurance costs, we inject infants, and toddlers with many vaccines at a time, often without much space between shots either. My kids are fully vaccinated but on a spaced-out schedule, and our family doctor fully supports this as a smart choice. There are toxins in vaccines and the more you put at once, the greater the toxicity, so, an intelligent person would try to space out, don't you agree? - Again, to lower costs, all kinds of questionable preservatives were/are used in vaccines - just like with drugs where you have generics and brand ones, I'd rather have choices and pay extra to get a less toxic form if available. Although ethylmercury is pretty much out (mostly thanks to anti-vaxxers), I'm pretty sure there are other better choices at higher costs; - Hepatitis vaccine given to infants is usually not justified and could be delayed unless justified by a simple blood test; - Studies just confirmed that tetanus vaccine works twice long as previously thought - why schedules are not immediately adjusted to both cut costs, and reduce risks? - Flu vaccine is useless if not harmful.

apathy 10y ago
The only reason you know that Tamiflu is useless is "cynical monsters" like me who bite the hand that feeds them. As far as spacing doses, just like anything else it's subject to revision. Nonavalent HPV vaccines produce antibodies against nearly every HPV variant known, reduce the likelihood of HPV integration, and for someone who has verified that at least a quarter of head & neck squamous, almost half of anal, and far better than half of cervical carcinomas show HPV integrations, typically right into the middle of tumor suppressors or onto oncogene promoters, this is a big deal. These cases are preventable. Not preventing them, when it's relatively cheap and available, is (to me) APPALLING. The antivaxxer pricks are cynical for relying on the rest of us, who are responsible enough to assume a TINY risk to our kids in order to protect them and others, to take the risks so they can enjoy the benefits of herd immunity. If that isn't the definition of cynical, I don't know what is. It's on a level with the Soviets celebrating the "eradication" of smallpox while internally working to weaponize it. Provided a child develops appropriate immunity by the time they're regularly interacting with others, I could care less about the spacing. But that's not really what this is about, is it? If you have kids and you don't get them vaccinated on an appropriate schedule, you are being a cynical prick. If you fight HPV vaccination because it might "make girls promiscuous", you are a cynical prick. You are presuming to judge risks for others, risks which we as a society have determined are unacceptable. And that makes you a cynical prick, if indeed you do it. (Maybe you're playing devils advocate, I don't know. But I really hate this line of reasoning, and on balance, it doesn't hold water.)

apathy 10y ago

I really ought to clarify this: yes, we absolutely should do follow up studies to make sure HPV vaccines are doing what we think they are (Gardasil for example). I do not under any circumstances think it's appropriate to delay HPV vaccination incentives to do these studies. If you think about it, the only perfect model organism for humans is humans. As long as it's ethical (IMHO it absolutely is), the right choice is to proceed and monitor; doing both will provide the appropriate data to judge whether we are accomplishing the goal.