We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Are you guys for or against childhood vaccines?
Replies
-
Recommending condom use in casual sex and giving HPV vaccines are not mutually exclusive.
I don think anyone in favour of HPV vaccines is against condom use.0 -
Condoms protect against unwanted pregnancies and STDs. There is NO SHOT or MED that will provide the same protection as condoms. PERIOD.
Condoms may be good for REDUCING the risk of contracting certain STDs and be passable as birth control (12% failure rate with perfect, lab condition usage is better than nothing, but not ideal BC for anyone wishing to be serious about not having a pregnancy), but they do NOTHING to even reduce transmission of the HPV virus. Ever.
They also don't do much to reduce liklihood of chlamydia which is commonly asymptomatic and can fairly rapidly lead to infertility in men and woman, but is detectible with simple testing. The upsurge in comdom usage has actually correlated with an uptick of undetected chlamydia infections leading to PID and infertility because people thought condoms prevented everything...and they stopped getting tested. Is the answer to stop telling them to use condoms so they won't have a false sense of security?
No. The answer is that complex, multifactored health risks require education and a complex, multifactored approach to prevention. For HPV that means vaccines and frequents paps WITH HPV screening.0 -
I don't know when it become okay to avoid using condoms, but I find it appalling.
http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm
You should note that no one in this entire discussion has asserted they shouldn't be used.
But, using a condom to prevent HPV transmission is like trying to shovel snow with your umbrella - it's not the tool for the job.0 -
Transferred a 1 month old baby to the NICU from my emergency department with pertussis ... have no idea if they lived or died. It was horrendous.
I am definitely pro-vaccine.
Even if every adult or older child in the family had been vaccinated (which is unlikely), that is no assurance that the baby would not have contracted the bordetella p. infection. The best insurance against infection in newborns is breast feeding---the mother's immunity is passed through her breastmilk. And that is the case with all infectious diseases--and there are many for which we do NOT have vaccines (and likely never will have). Vaccines are not some magic elixir.0 -
In for childhood vaccines. Taking my kid in for shots next week (MMR, Dtap and Roto).0
-
Recommending condom use in casual sex and giving HPV vaccines are not mutually exclusive.
I don think anyone in favour of HPV vaccines is against condom use.
I don't think ANYone advocates condoms anymore the way they used to. It's like it's long forgotten.0 -
You should note that no one in this entire discussion has asserted they shouldn't be used.
But, using a condom to prevent HPV transmission is like trying to shovel snow with your umbrella - it's not the tool for the job.
Oh, like you are just going to know, oh it's only warts, not herpes. Seriously, babe. ****!
ETA: And yes, it *CAN* prevent infection in times when there isn't an outbreak. Like with herpes, using a condom when the "afflicted" partner is showing no sign of outbreak, can protect them.0 -
In cuz thats life!0
-
Oh, like you are just going to know, oh it's only warts, not herpes. Seriously, babe. ****!
ETA: And yes, it *CAN* prevent infection in times when there isn't an outbreak. Like with herpes, using a condom when the "afflicted" partner is showing no sign of outbreak, can protect them.
You are not making any sense. The discussion is about vaccines to prevent transmission of HPV. That has nothing to do with your rant.0 -
Condoms may be good for REDUCING the risk of contracting certain STDs and be passable as birth control (12% failure rate with perfect, lab condition usage is better than nothing, but not ideal BC for anyone wishing to be serious about not having a pregnancy), but they do NOTHING to even reduce transmission of the HPV virus. Ever.
They also don't do much to reduce liklihood of chlamydia which is commonly asymptomatic and can fairly rapidly lead to infertility in men and woman, but is detectible with simple testing. The upsurge in comdom usage has actually correlated with an uptick of undetected chlamydia infections leading to PID and infertility because people thought condoms prevented everything...and they stopped getting tested.
That's not true! Sorry. I will repost this here:
http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm
Also: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ReproductiveHealth/story?id=2102991
And: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9383-condoms-provide-protection-against-hpv-study-finds.html#.Uxne3fldVzo
Nothing is 100% effective other than abstinence, but condoms remain the best form of protection, in spite of efforts to downplay their effectiveness.
Condoms save lives. And I have personally known people that had sex with HPV-infected partners who did not contract it because of condoms. I also remember the feeling of waiting for test results to come back. Why should a new generation ignore everything we learned during the AIDS scare?0 -
You are not making any sense. The discussion is about vaccines to prevent transmission of HPV. That has nothing to do with your rant.
It doesn't make sense to use condoms, every time?
Derp.0 -
I can't believe anyone is seriously asking this question. There's a reason childhood mortality is so low now in comparison to pre-mass-vaccination eras. Get your children vaccinated, unless there is a serious medical reason not to. Herd immunity keeps us all safer (see last summer's measles deaths in Wales), and there is no credible scientific evidence that supports any of the popular anti-vacc rhetoric.0
-
"...However disease when it occurs in vaccinated people is almost always MUCH less severe than when occurring in unvaccinated people... "
Yes--and that is part of the confounding problem. The real danger of pertussis is for those who are quite young--it can be lethal in a baby. The fact that older children in the family have been vaccinated means that they could have a mild pertussis infection and it would go unnoticed until baby brother or sister comes down with a full-blown case. If the older child's immunity from the vaccine has waned (and pertussis vaccine is one of the worst in that category as its protection wanes very quickly) then they can become walking infection vectors. I'm not actually anti-vaccine, but I am against just blindly following what the pharmaceutical houses prescribe. Unfortunately, we live in a time when the profit-motive outweighs the motive of "doing nothing" to harm their clients.0 -
It doesn't make sense to use condoms, every time?
For the last time. Try following. You are arguing against NO ONE. Why? Because no one was arguing "It doesn't make sense to use condoms." Period.
That's not true! Sorry. I will repost this here:
http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm
Also: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ReproductiveHealth/story?id=2102991
And: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9383-condoms-provide-protection-against-hpv-study-finds.html#.Uxne3fldVzo
Nothing is 100% effective other than abstinence, but condoms remain the best form of protection, in spite of efforts to downplay their effectiveness.
Condoms save lives. And I have personally known people that had sex with HPV-infected partners who did not contract it because of condoms. I also remember the feeling of waiting for test results to come back. Why should a new generation ignore everything we learned during the AIDS scare?
For the last time, condoms are only effective for the skin they cover, and no one has stated they should not be used. Latex is a barrier for lots of things. The problem is that almost all bacterial STDs and HPV strains are highly transmissible skin to skin and some even through undergarments. The best protection is offered against HIV, which does not survive long exposed to air.
But, you cannot have known people that had sex with HPV-infected partners who did not contract it because there is no way to test for the presence of the strains of HPV that cause cervical cancer. The only thing we can do is detect when HPV has resulted in abnormal cell growth. You cannot test negative for HPV and you can have it for many years (decades) and never have abnormal cell growth. In fact, there's no way to tell if males have those forms of HPV at all.0 -
Meh. My husband's monster-in-law got shingles. We didn't feel a bit sorry for her mean *kitten*.
Not to digress from the main conversation, and this might be a silly question, but...wouldn't your husband's mother-in-law be your mother?0 -
I am For childhood vaccines
Why: the risks are outweighed by the benefits0 -
Not to digress from the main conversation, and this might be a silly question, but...wouldn't your husband's mother-in-law be your mother?
LOL--I thought the same thing.0 -
Not to digress from the main conversation, and this might be a silly question, but...wouldn't your husband's mother-in-law be your mother?
That's actually her least nonsensical post this morning.0 -
Not to digress from the main conversation, and this might be a silly question, but...wouldn't your husband's mother-in-law be your mother?
HAHA!0 -
Also I don't know how this started like 14 pages into the topic, but as someone else has said, we're talking about the pros and cons of vaccines, not condoms. No one is disagreeing with using condoms. This kind of came out of nowhere lol0 -
For the last time. Try following. You are arguing against NO ONE. Why? Because no one was arguing "It doesn't make sense to use condoms." Period.
For the last time, condoms are only effective for the skin they cover, and no one has stated they should not be used. Latex is a barrier for lots of things. The problem is that almost all bacterial STDs and HPV strains are highly transmissible skin to skin and some even through undergarments. The best protection is offered against HIV, which does not survive long exposed to air.
But, you cannot have known people that had sex with HPV-infected partners who did not contract it because there is no way to test for the presence of the strains of HPV that cause cervical cancer. The only thing we can do is detect when HPV has resulted in abnormal cell growth. You cannot test negative for HPV and you can have it for many years (decades) and never have abnormal cell growth. In fact, there's no way to tell if males have those forms of HPV at all.
Studies show otherwise.0 -
Also I don't know how this started like 14 pages into the topic, but as someone else has said, we're talking about the pros and cons of vaccines, not condoms. No one is disagreeing with using condoms. This kind of came out of nowhere lol
It is related to the HPV vaccine. The HPV vaccine is not as effective as condoms.0 -
HAHA!
Whoops! I meant step-monster. :laugh:
She was a total you-know-what and deserved every ounce of pain and then some for the pain she inflicted on others.0 -
I'm for every vaccine!0
-
^^^YES^^^
I find this funny if you and your kids have had your vaccines what do you have to worry about. :laugh:0 -
This doesn't make sense. By getting a vaccine you are exposing your immune system to "things" (an attenuated virus) to build natural immunity. I'm not saying the flu shot is extremely effective but it can provide some preventative measures. For the average over 10 year old and under 70 year old person who isn't around those age groups or people with immunodeficiencies or pregnant women getting a flu vaccine doesn't make a huge difference. So you're laid up in bed for a week, not a huge deal you won't die or anything. Also, the vaccine is predictive of the most common strain for the season, there will always be other flu viruses around you could contract or the virus you were vaccinated against could mutate enough to render your vaccine kind of useless. But there are not really any negative effects of the flu shot and getting a vaccine certainly isn't cheating the system or technically "unnatural". It's simply choosing what you expose your immune system to, when, and how much in an effort to increase its efficacy against fighting later infections.
I disagree. The flu shot has a bunch of things in it that I just don't think belong in our bodies, like formaldehyde for one. I don't think that helps my body to create natural immunities. I've always been very healthy (never ever laid up for a week in bed) and it's just my personal belief that allowing my body to fight things off on it's own is part of that. I think my immune system is the stronger for it. If I do get laid up in bed for a week from sickness that will be alright. That's what sick time is for and I can afford that. But I don't think getting the flu shot will prevent that from happening. The chances that the flu shot are actually made to prevent the current flu strain is so slim I'd just rather not put all that other junk in my body that is in the flu shot.0 -
Also I don't know how this started like 14 pages into the topic, but as someone else has said, we're talking about the pros and cons of vaccines, not condoms. No one is disagreeing with using condoms. This kind of came out of nowhere lol
It is related to the HPV vaccine. The HPV vaccine is not as effective as condoms.
[/quote]
That's not true. The vaccine provides protection against the two forms of HPV responsible for 70% of cervical cancers. The barrier only protects against transmission through the areas it covers.
The CDC's own site shows:
Magnitude of Effect: Total use of barrier protection decreases cancer incidence, relative risk of 0.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2–0.9).
Magnitude of Effects: Vaccination against HPV-16 and HPV-18 reduces incident and persistent infections with efficacy of 91.6% (95% CI, 64.5–98.0) and 100% (95% CI, 45–100), respectively. Efficacy beyond 6 to 8 years is not known.
The answer is that complex, multifactored health risks require education and a complex, multifactored approach to prevention.0 -
The best prevention for cancer is regular screenings. An immunization is a false sense of security in this instance, I think.
ETA: And the best prevention of STDs is CONDOMS! When I was a kid, everybody was pushing condoms. Now it's like condoms don't even exist anymore. smh
Um... screening doesn't prevent cancer. If they can find it by screening, it means you already have it. And, sometimes, then is too late for treatment.
Prevention > screening. And vaccines are one tool in the arsenal for prevention. Condoms are another.0 -
I disagree. The flu shot has a bunch of things in it that I just don't think belong in our bodies, like formaldehyde for one. I don't think that helps my body to create natural immunities. I've always been very healthy (never ever laid up for a week in bed) and it's just my personal belief that allowing my body to fight things off on it's own is part of that. I think my immune system is the stronger for it. If I do get laid up in bed for a week from sickness that will be alright. That's what sick time is for and I can afford that. But I don't think getting the flu shot will prevent that from happening. The chances that the flu shot are actually made to prevent the current flu strain is so slim I'd just rather not put all that other junk in my body that is in the flu shot.
The amount of formaldehyde in a shot of vaccine is essentially negligible (if it is even present at all). Even if a six month old got all their shots at one time, the amount of formaldehyde they got would be 160 times less than what their body produces normally, through metabolism, in a day.
http://www.harpocratesspeaks.com/2012/04/demystifying-vaccine-ingredients.html0 -
The amount of formaldehyde in a shot of vaccine is essentially negligible (if it is even present at all). Even if a six month old got all their shots at one time, the amount of formaldehyde they got would be 160 times less than what their body produces normally, through metabolism, in a day.
http://www.harpocratesspeaks.com/2012/04/demystifying-vaccine-ingredients.html
[/quote]
Fair enough Richard. As long as my body can handle the flu though, I'm still not going to get the flu shot as I just don't see it as needed. I feel much differently about polio vaccines, etc. as that is not something I can rely on my body to just flush out and the vaccine in cases like that is an actual proven preventative, unlike the flu shot trying to match the right strand. At a certain point in my life, I'm sure the flu will be a much riskier thing for me or my family due to age, health, etc. and when that time comes I'll get the flu shot in the hopes that it's match for that year's version.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions