HPV Vaccine

[KaraTopTitan]

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=22 620


I've heard lots of conflicting opinions on this.

So, what do you think: good idea or bad idea

[Sam!]

I can't believe they are advocating girls as young as 9 get this vaccine.

[NotMyOwn]

I think people should be very wary of this vaccine, until more testing is done. Drug companies excel at selling things they think are good for you, only to find later down the road that the medicines themselves can cause cancer or otther diseases.

[KarenAlexa]

I think it's a miracle -- I'll be getting it this fall when it becomes avaliable and I praise God that i'm still in the recommended age range (9-26)!

I can't believe people are so ignorant as to be against it. Which is why I'm not going to post again in this thread because the stupidty of the general public makes me want to get violent. They're recommending it for girls age 9 because they need to have it before they become sexually active and because they want it to be something everyone gets. And since some people are actually going to deny their children having it (I'm gritting my teeth to not go off right here) and because it's so expensive, they're afraid that unless they require it and start it early, then not enough people will get it for their child.

Fact: 1 in 2 women WILL get HPV. That's not 1 in 2 non-christians -- that's everyone. If it goes to cancer -- then you have to have a hysterectomy and maybe even die. This can be PREVENTED! And even if a girl remains a virgin until marriage, there's a good chance her new husband will have HPV and just not know it (most men don't know they have it -- but they carry it just as women).

Havn't you ever heard the jokes that end "and we still don't have a cure for cancer" WELL NOW WE DO! And the government and ignorant people actually want to deny women this!? It boggles my mind! Health decisions should be made on whats best for the patient -- not religious reasons. I wish I could take back my votes in the last election just because of this whole mess.

And any parent who can and yet doesn't give this to their daughter, I hope they get cancer. Not their daughter -- but them. And they should have to meet the women affected by cervical cancer -- the family members of those who died from it and the women who have been devestated by it. They aren't sluts and promiscuous women -- they're just like you and me -- and plenty of the are Christians.

I'm so getting is ASAP -- and I'm seriously praising GOD that I'm in the age range! I don't know where I'll get the money (near 400) but I have faith that God will provide away. THANK YOU! And I'll give it to my future children as soon as they are of age. I think that it should be a required vacinne just like the laundry list of other vacinnes we get as children.

This is a miracle plain and simple -- this can prevent such a huge killer of women. This can prevent so much pain and suffering -- prevent it! Praise God!

[Sam!]

Sorry. I would not give my 9-year-old daughter an experimental vaccine. Your 1 in 2 figure is misleading... only a few types of the virus can lead to cancer, many don't even produce symptoms and some strains aren't even found in the genital area. FWIW, I don't wish cancer on anyone.

[Evanescence]

I think someone is a little young...and a little angry....:( :cool:

Good points though girl. I'd do some research first, but do as you wish....

Good luck! :cool:

[Yippy]

FWIW, I don't wish cancer on anyone.
I'm with you.:)

[Grank]

almost everybody has hpv...

[SmileyFreak1981]

I can't believe they are advocating girls as young as 9 get this vaccine.
Because some girls are becoming sexually active at 9...10...11 years old. Sad, but true.

I don't see what the harm is in giving girls this vaccine, provided that thorough testing has been done to make sure the vaccine is safe. It's not like you're saying, "Hey, go have sex now, it's safe!" There's a lot of STDs other than HPV, like HIV/AIDS and herpes, for instance, that this vaccine isn't going to protect you from. It doesn't prevent the emotional consequences of casual sex either.

My $0.02 :o

[Grank]

yes, because hpv is only contracted sexually...

[coldcupofjoe]

yes, because hpv is only contracted sexually...
Quick Grank! Whats the list of ways you can get HPV?

[jennann]

Check this article out from the American Cancer Society
HPV Vaccine Approved (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_HPV_Vaccine_Appr oved_Prevents_Cervical_Ca ncer.asp)

After seeing a dear childhood friend die of cervical cancer at the age of 21, I think to not give this to all girls is a great injustice. HPV causes 70% of cervical cancer. If we can greatly reduce the risk of women contracting HPV, why not?

[cheewiee]

Check this article out from the American Cancer Society
HPV Vaccine Approved (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_HPV_Vaccine_Appr oved_Prevents_Cervical_Ca ncer.asp)

After seeing a dear childhood friend die of cervical cancer at the age of 21, I think to not give this to all girls is a great injustice. HPV causes 70% of cervical cancer. If we can greatly reduce the risk of women contracting HPV, why not?

I think the point Sisko is trying to make, isn't about the moral ramifications... it's about the unknown side effects of giving a new vaccine... In the last 2 or 3 years how many drug recalls have been made because of possible fatal side effects?

[jennann]

I think the point Sisko is trying to make, isn't about the moral ramifications... it's about the unknown side effects of giving a new vaccine... In the last 2 or 3 years how many drug recalls have been made because of possible fatal side effects?

Yes there has been drugs recalled, but that doesn't mean every new drug has fatal side effects. The HPV vaccine has went through the FDA and been approved, and hopefully since it is being pushed to be an immunization for children, the vaccine will be looked at more closely before it is given to children in their immunizations.


(sorry if my last post was argumentative. It was late. lol)

[cheewiee]

Yes there has been drugs recalled, but that doesn't mean every new drug has fatal side effects. The HPV vaccine has went through the FDA and been approved, and hopefully since it is being pushed to be an immunization for children, the vaccine will be looked at more closely before it is given to children in their immunizations.


(sorry if my last post was argumentative. It was late. lol)

In the past few years we have seen several FDA approved drugs pulled from the market. Vioxx, Baycol are just a few that has had FATAL side effects... So you should really excuse people who are unwilling to trust FDA approval...

Second there are ALOT of people, espeically Christians who tend to be more holisitic in terms of Medicne and dont' give their kids ANY vaccinations...

[Grank]

seeing as how like 80% of women get genital hpv by the time they are 50 i fail to see why this is bad to give out at the age of nine... why is the age even an issue?

jason, you can get hpv from direct and indirect contact. it's not known exactly how communicable it is indirectly, but you can get it from a towel that somebody used on an open wart and then have it come in contact with a break in your skin...

[cheewiee]

seeing as how like 80% of women get genital hpv by the time they are 50 i fail to see why this is bad to give out at the age of nine... why is the age even an issue?

jason, you can get hpv from direct and indirect contact. it's not known exactly how communicable it is indirectly, but you can get it from a towel that somebody used on an open wart and then have it come in contact with a break in your skin...

I am not personally against it, but it's a parents choice... I know parents who don't give their children ANY vaccines because of their views on them and on health care in general...

I just think for one to get their blood boiling over people questioning this vaccine is just silly...

[Pouye]

I'm all for vaccinations. It is true they need to be tested for a period of time, but to be honest, to know for sure a vaccine works on humans, it needs to be tested on humans. This is just a risk that has to be taken to develop effective vaccines.

It is statements like this that boils my blood:

"Abstaining from any type of sexual realtions is ideal in preventing HPV, but not very realisitc these days for adults. Wearing a condom provides limited protection. The male condom provides limited protection. Keep in mind that since HPV may not show any visible symptoms, your partner may still be infected."
(from the About.com website: http://cancer.about.com/od/cervicalcancer/a/whatishpv.htm)

Neither me nor my wife have HPV. We were tested. The reason why? Because we were virgins when we got married (she 22, me 23). Why is in not very realistic these days for adults to abstain from sex? What are young people being taught these days? It upsets me that the prevention for AIDS and almost every other sexually transmitted disease is really very simple -- you and your partner abstain from sex until you are married, and remain faithful to each other sexually.

Getting HPV or any sexually tranmitted disease indirectly is very rare. HPV is a virus that is transmitted primarily through sexual contact. With over 20 million people in the U.S. affected, it is by far the most common sexually transmitted disease. HPV is not easy to catch indirectly. The reason so many people have the virus is because they do not seek the Biblical path for marriage and sex. Loose morals breed sexually transmitted diseases, and it is obvious that loose morals are becoming the norm as sexually transmitted diseases are not only rampant, but on the rise.

It angers me when people say that remaining a virgin until married and being faithful to your partner are both not very realistic in todays society. If it is possible, then why is it not realistic? If it has been done by thousands of couples over the centuries, why is it not very realistic?

Rock

[Yippy]

It angers me when people say that remaining a virgin until married and being faithful to your partner are both not very realistic in todays society.
I have heard this said by my boss who is an avid Planned Parenthood supporter. I don't know how many times I've heard her say that teens are going to have sex anyway. I've told her that I don't really think teens are that stupid, which is what that is implying to me. I think it's easier now to remain a virgin than it was in my day (not that it's easy), because back then HIV and STDs were not even talked about and "free love" was in. It's downright scary out there now. But of course, we're not only battling someone's intelligence, we're battling a culture that is permeated in sex and in being sexy. Self control and personal responsiblity is not lauded on the billboards. We don't expect people, nevermind teens, to be responsible.

In our household, though, we talk to our kids about everything. They're intelligent young people and to assume they don't get it and will have sex anyway is insulting to them, IMO.

[Mugirl04]

I have heard this said by my boss who is an avid Planned Parenthood supporter. I don't know how many times I've heard her say that teens are going to have sex anyway. I've told her that I don't really think teens are that stupid, which is what that is implying to me. I think it's easier now to remain a virgin than it was in my day (not that it's easy), because back then HIV and STDs were not even talked about and "free love" was in. It's downright scary out there now. But of course, we're not only battling someone's intelligence, we're battling a culture that is permeated in sex and in being sexy. Self control and personal responsiblity is not lauded on the billboards. We don't expect people, nevermind teens, to be responsible.

In our household, though, we talk to our kids about everything. They're intelligent young people and to assume they don't get it and will have sex anyway is insulting to them, IMO.
well said! lets not give people excuses.

[wannabaRSgirl]

I am willing to bet if you did a blind survey in any church youth group you'd be surprised at how many "Christian kids" are having sex. So nevermind if your 9 year old isn't, most likely the person they marry has.

I know a girl who was a virgin when she married and 6 months into her marriage was having to take all the HPV steps because of her sweet husbands lifestyle before they met. (Seriously, he is a great guy.)

If I were to give my child the vaccination I would not tell her what it is or why we are doing it. Just like kindergarten shots, "you can't go to school until you get your shots". She will never know she has been vaccinated so she won't feel that security.
I would probably do alot of research before I gave this shot to my child. But if it works, it has to be better than the humiliation of all the times you have to climb up in that "recliner"(as Chonda Pierce calls it) to be treated for your sin-or your husbands.

[Howlin' Wolf]

It angers me when people say that remaining a virgin until married and being faithful to your partner are both not very realistic in todays society. If it is possible, then why is it not realistic? If it has been done by thousands of couples over the centuries, why is it not very realistic?


do you seriously expect non-believer's to abstain because the bible says it would be totally awesome to do so?

come on, man. you know better than that. why do the actions and subsequent reactions of a non-believing world anger you?

[Pouye]

do you seriously expect non-believer's to abstain because the bible says it would be totally awesome to do so?

come on, man. you know better than that. why do the actions and subsequent reactions of a non-believing world anger you?

No. I expect doctors and medical professionals who know the truth about how diseases are spread to uphold the principles of prevention and strive toward educating people about prevention, rather than saying things like "it's not very realistic". It is this sort of defeatist thinking that people do not need to hear, whether they are believers in Jesus or not. The doctor who said this very quote probably has loose morals herself, and was sleeping around. She developed cancer as a result of HPV. I think she is simply trying to justify her lifestyle by making such comments.

The reason why I'm angry is I don't like to see people suffer needlessly. The physical suffering that is caused by STD's has a significant impact on our world. AIDS is ripping through the lives of men, women and children all over the globe. HPV can be, for the most part, prevented completely -- if people kept their pants on long enough to be married and remained faithful to their spouse. Why not set faithful marriage as the standard, and do away with even the medical world's justification or glorification of sex outside of marriage and extra-marital sex?

It is like the surgeon general saying, "Oh, well, kids are going to smoke anyway, so forget about the warning labels and bans on cigarette commercials on TV." That sort of defeatist attitude can only make matters worse.

Rock

[DareDevil]

The statement was probably not the most prudent one, but I agree with the underlying idea that doctors should also try to come up with methods that reduce the negative effects of mankind's stupidity. I mean, sure such things are only about damage control but unless one thinks that sexually transmitted diseases are a punishment from God and that one must not interfere with his will there then one will have to be honest and helpfull about these issues.

[wannabaRSgirl]

Hate the sin, love the sinner.

[DareDevil]

Hate the sin, love the sinner.
That's the point.

[Sam!]

I am willing to bet if you did a blind survey in any church youth group you'd be surprised at how many "Christian kids" are having sex. So nevermind if your 9 year old isn't, most likely the person they marry has.

I know a girl who was a virgin when she married and 6 months into her marriage was having to take all the HPV steps because of her sweet husbands lifestyle before they met. (Seriously, he is a great guy.)

If I were to give my child the vaccination I would not tell her what it is or why we are doing it. Just like kindergarten shots, "you can't go to school until you get your shots". She will never know she has been vaccinated so she won't feel that security.
I would probably do alot of research before I gave this shot to my child. But if it works, it has to be better than the humiliation of all the times you have to climb up in that "recliner"(as Chonda Pierce calls it) to be treated for your sin-or your husbands.
I'm not against the HPV vaccination. Or even necessarily giving it to 9-year-olds. I wouldn't give it to my 9-year-old right NOW though...it is still experimental.

However, don't think that not telling your child what she is being vaccinated for will work for a second. 4th graders will talk. She'll know one way or the other.

[wannabaRSgirl]

However, don't think that not telling your child what she is being vaccinated for will work for a second. 4th graders will talk. She'll know one way or the other.[/QUOTE]

You can't just throw it in as a routine shot? Plus it's purpose would not be to protect her from being 9 or 10 or 11 but protect her while she is a young married woman with a couple of babies.

I agree, I wouldn't give it at the experimental stage.

[KarenAlexa]

It's not experimental. It's approved. The article you're reading (that is linked) is over a year old.

[Sam!]

It's not experimental. It's approved. The article you're reading (that is linked) is over a year old. Sorry, until the longterm effects are studied, to me it is experimental. Plenty of approved drugs are safe, but there are enough drugs approved that really are not safe that I don't immediately believe everything the FDA says. Most of the times, the "independent" studies that verify the safety and effectiveness of treatments are paid for by drug companies and/or their subsidiaries/affiliates. Drug companies that don't necessarily have our best interests in mind... because capitalism doesn't require that. They have their bottom line and duty to stockholders first. The money spent on advertising drugs that are "convenience" drugs rather than lifesaving or genuine life-altering could basically prevent child starvation in Africa every year. So excuse me if Merck et al. don't exactly have much credibility with me.

I should mention... by the time I have a 9-year-old girl (assuming I even ever have a daughter), we'll know. I can afford to "wait" because we don't have any children yet.

[Pamster]

I have a 12 year old daughter (she will be 13 in September). I will ask about this vaccine her next physical. I won't turn this into a Christian/non-Christian thing, I believe in vaccines. My children got the chickenpox vaccine (which is also elective or it was then). I know I was tested for HPV my last exam (in the recliner LOL) and didn't know it was routine (for my doctors anyway). I was negative so I don't have to have yearly tests now (pap) but every couple of years. It was also mentioned that I should still have yearly visits etc. The fact that they found that this virus caused 70 % of cervical cancer speaks volumes to me.

Now back to why I will vaccinate my daughter...

It takes ONE stupid judgement/moment in a teenager/childs life that can change it forever. If one shot can prevent her from being more at risk to 'female' cancer...then I am going to give it to her. I pray she has the proper judgement as she goes through her teenage years, but I am not going to 'thin the herd' because of a mistake she might make.

[middletree]

To KarenAlexa: I hope several people here have made it clear that the objection is not about Christianity or morals or abstinence. It's about the fear of the effects of new vaccines. Nobody can say with certainty that this or any vaccine is safe, but I am more likely to trust vaccines that have been around for a long time (like Polio) than with something that just came out recently. I happen to draw the line at this one because it's so new.

Yes, it's FDA approved, as you point out. But the FDA approval process has dropped the ball before, and it can do it again.

Rock: I agree with you in your anger towards those who consider themselves to be authorities who insist that abstinence isn't realistic.

[KarenAlexa]

To KarenAlexa: I hope several people here have made it clear that the objection is not about Christianity or morals or abstinence.

I beg to differ. The fact that this thread has spurred an argument about abstinence (***for ref, see you're own quote mentioning it below) is proof of my point. People are not judging this vaccine on it's medical merits but on "Christianity [&] morals [&] abstinence."

***Rock: I agree with you in your anger towards those who consider themselves to be authorities who insist that abstinence isn't realistic.

[middletree]

I beg to differ. The fact that this thread has spurred an argument about abstinence (***for ref, see you're own quote mentioning it below) is proof of my point. People are not judging this vaccine on it's medical merits but on "Christianity [&] morals [&] abstinence."
I'm not saying that some people aren't avoiding the vaccine for that reason. I meant to say that several of us here are doing it for a completely different reason. I'm asking you not to lump us all together.

[SacredHeart]

To KarenAlexa: I hope several people here have made it clear that the objection is not about Christianity or morals or abstinence. It's about the fear of the effects of new vaccines. Nobody can say with certainty that this or any vaccine is safe, but I am more likely to trust vaccines that have been around for a long time (like Polio) than with something that just came out recently. I happen to draw the line at this one because it's so new.

Yes, it's FDA approved, as you point out. But the FDA approval process has dropped the ball before, and it can do it again.
I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments, Middletree. While many drugs and vaccines are nothing short of miracles, much damage has been caused by drugs approved by the FDA. Autism is just one neurodevelopmental disorder heavily linked to vaccines and has increased by over 6000% since the 70's.

I don't have daughters so this is not a decision I will have to make, and while I don't have a moral issue with parents protecting their children from any disease, I do urge caution about readily giving them any drug that has not been proven over time.

[Evanescence]

I've been checking out this thread for some time and it has stirred a lot of emotion....

I'm always skeptical of FDA approved whatever's, I think that in time we'll see if this vaccine is worth its weight or not. I alwasy think its good to wait for things that are NOT really necessary...right away.

Now, on to the abstinence issue. While it is noteable that some people wait to get married and do not have INTERCOURSE before marriage, there are some that do not. Like one earlier post said, one slip and your life can be ruined.

I feel too many Christians have this robot mentality about us humans. Quotes like, "If we can abstain, why can't you...." Or, "If you try hard enough you can.." are common. Fact is, we're not robots. No one person is alike and neither is their sex drive.

To expect every single person to be able to abstain is just not realistic....and an impossibilty. Some people don't believe in God at all, so sex is just recreational. Other times, their sex drive is so strong that they will struggle with it and break the vow of fornication. Not everyone has the same leevl of control that another person may have. Not everyone Christian believes sex before marriage is a sin...or they think its forgiveable....or just aren't at a point where they take Gods laws seriously. So they have sex.

As a parent my kids will be taught that sex before marriage isn't right and even simple touching and kissing can lead to other things. They'll be taught from my experience.....

My experience:

I was 18 when I lost my virginity to a girl I cared about for a LONG time. We never had a relationship and she soon left the state and I seldom saw her again. While it was "special" at the time, it was the beginning of a slippery slope for me. I met my EX-wife shortly thereafter and began having unlimited sex with that relatiuonship. Yes, we loved each other, but at first it was more sexual. I was on a path of self-destruction and couldn't see it....because of the sex. My ex-wife was a troubled person with a bad temper and more issues than all of Washington put together. She was really a wild and contentious person. But the sex clouded my judgement.

I married that person despite warning signs and we had a really bad and destructive marriage. We both matured and settled down, but the fact is, due to the fact I was blinded by the sex, i didn't see her serious issues and married someone I couldnt live with.....and that was a wicked person.

There were other issues, but the fact we had a sexual relationship within 30 days of knowing each other, was a HUGE factor. Let this be a lesson to all.

But, that being said, back to my kids. My kids will be taught the dangers of having premarital sex and how wonderful it is to be with someone you love, when married, your first time. BUT, if they absolutely insist...and don't feel the same way, I will protect them at an age I feel is satisfactory. Probably 16-17 depending on the child. Especially a girl, as we're talking about HPV.

I'm not going to turn my back on my kid because their beliefs and mine don't mesh. They will NOT be permitted to have sex in my house, but if they insist, then I would put them on birth control, get them this HPV vaccine....if its still safe, and do what i can to protect them. How do you police your kid having sex? You don't.

Now, don't give me this...."Well if your kid does drugs are you gonna buy the good stuff, so they don't...." OR, "Why not take them to buy their drugs so they're safer..."

Thats not the same by a long shot. Sex before marriage doesn't cause you to go into cardiac arrest or have a stroke ...or overdose. I dont subscribe to that thinking....

Here's the thing. Sex is a natural thing and VERY difficult to control. It's a careful mixing of mind, body and spirit and even when we're married to that perfect person, our minds and eyes wander. Its not right, but we all do it....or have done it. Sex is soemthing we crave daily...hourly, like food and its SO easy to abuse and get roped into. I feel God understands this and judges accordingly based on the persons heart. The verse, "Love God with all YOUR heart," comes to mind. Emphasis on YOUR. We're all different, with different bodies and personalities. Its still WRONG, but for us mere humans to expect all people to abstain is just questionable....and almost hypocritical...why?

Why? because all of us are guilty of SOME sexual sins. Whether it be a TINY bit or off the scale as an addict. We all have lusted, imagined and done a host of other things...before marriage and after. None of us is innocent of sexual sins.

I always laugh at these young teenage, early 20's, Christian couples who boast..."we have a pure relationship," or..."we're keeping our relationship pure,"

Then, I ask, do you guys kiss? They say yes...in a worried tone.

Have you ever lusted after your boy/girl friend? Well....um...they stammer.

How about self pleasure? They are speechless and often offended. Because I struck a nerve. Lets call it what it is. Your not having sex,..intercourse persay, ya'll are virgins. That's great and God Bless you for that...its smart and you'll be rewarded. But its not pure. You DO and WILL have impure thoughts of some sort....so don't boast or brag, cause its a farse. Christians like labels, so they should go by them...

I feel we need to be more understanding and forgiving of those that stumble or can't/won't abstain. My girl wont be getting a vaccine at age 9 or 10, but if she wants one at age 17-18 and is sexually active despite my wishes, she can get it. It takes a special, Godly man to condemn sexual issues, I've only met a few that wouldnt offend me for such a thing. Everyone else making a fuss is just a hypocrit with skeletons in their closet.

Another thing, what if the girl is raped? She didn't ask for that and could get this HPV from that. I'm not sure but in extreme cases, there may be other ways of getting it. But rape is a thing to keep in mind here.

[Yippy]

Everyone else making a fuss is just a hypocrit with skeletons in their closet.
Ah, E, I wouldn't go that far. It's because of the skeletons in my closet that I feel that we cut young people short by treating them like they're stupid. When authorities and adults tell young people that they can't help themselves and they'll have sex anyway, they're not even going to think about bucking the hormones raging. But, I can see and agree with much of what has been expressed here.


I beg to differ. The fact that this thread has spurred an argument about abstinence (***for ref, see you're own quote mentioning it below) is proof of my point. People are not judging this vaccine on it's medical merits but on "Christianity [&] morals [&] abstinence."
I don't think abstinence is exclusively a Christian thing. Whether you're a Christian or not, abstinence would cause one to avoid a whole lot of grief. It doesn't require a relationship with Christ to abstain (although some may think so:) ), and abstinence until marriage has no adverse consequences. I'm all for prevention of any cancer, I just wish at this time that this vaccine was a sure thing as far as side effects is concerned.

[middletree]

I was 18 when I lost my virginity

See, that's the thing. A few years ago, I had a co-worker who inststed that every American kid had tried illegal drugs when in high school, and anyone who said different was a liar. The truth, of course, is that all the kids he knew took drugs. He was trying to apply his experience to everyone else.

Similarly, someone who has had premarital sex, as you describe above, has a hard time believing it's realistic to tell kids to stay pure. And someone like Rock, who was a virgin who married a virgin, and myself (same situation) insist otherwise, because we know that it's possible, and because we know that there are a lot of kids out there who are abstaining. It's doable not because a precious few are accomplishing it, but because God is a powerful God who answers prayers, and strengthens those who need and receive His strength.

[Yippy]

Similarly, someone who has had premarital sex, as you describe above, has a hard time believing it's realistic to tell kids ot stay pure. And someone like Rock, who was a virgin who married a virgin, and myself (same situation) insist otherwise, because we know that it's possible, and because we know that there are a lot of kids out there who are abstaining. It's doable not because a precious few are accomplishing it, but because God is a powerful God who answers prayers, and strengthens those who need and receive His strength.
As a parent of two teens, I thank you for this!!!!!!!

[middletree]

Steering this conversation from abstinence back to the vaccine, I have a couple of problems with this, not with the vaccine itself, but with people who insist that there is only one reasonable point of view on this. Fact is, it's not that black & white.

Issue #1: Some vaccines are hamful. The more time a vaccine has been in use, the more likely it's safe. This vaccine is brand new.
I have three people in my life whose kids were permanently harmed by vaccines. Two are autistic. The other is barely more than a vegatable. That's not entirely true. Other than her brain, her body is healthy and she is into her 30's. But cognitively, she's about 2 months old. Because the rest of her body is fine, she is going to spend a full life span in a speical home where she's essentially a 2-month-old baby, with no hope of every being anything else. Al because of a vaccine.

Issue #2: We are told we have to vaccinate. Technically, there is no law on some of these, but the schools, including private ones, won't let your kid enroll without them. This is understandable for diseases that are airborne, or can be passed from kid to kid in normal ways. Like chickenpox, measles, etc. But Hepatitis B, and now HPV, are spread through sexual contact. And we're prevented from letting our kids go to school with other kids for fear of giving them a disease that can only be spread through sex.

For those who see the HPV vaccine as a positive thing, I completely understand where you're coming from. But I'd sure like to have a little more choice in this.

[Evanescence]

Issue #1: Some vaccines are hamful. The more time a vaccine has been in use, the more likely it's safe. This vaccine is brand new.


Who said anything about Ham? :confused: :D
Breakfast anyone?:cool:

[coldcupofjoe]

You do. And its the best option out there as long as you yourself are moderatly intelligent which I assume most of you are. It's called homeschool.

[middletree]

Who said anything about Ham? :confused: :D
Breakfast anyone?:cool:
Oh, like you don't have any typos in your posts! ;)

[Pamster]

Similarly, someone who has had premarital sex, as you describe above, has a hard time believing it's realistic to tell kids to stay pure. And someone like Rock, who was a virgin who married a virgin, and myself (same situation) insist otherwise, because we know that it's possible, and because we know that there are a lot of kids out there who are abstaining. It's doable not because a precious few are accomplishing it, but because God is a powerful God who answers prayers, and strengthens those who need and receive His strength.

I agree with this to a point. And I totally agree that God has a hand in this (abstaining)...but there are a lot of kids out there that don't know God, they haven't met him yet. And they might not until after the fact. I totally commend those who have abstained. Those that do, will probably have less complicated young lives.

I will say that coming from a family of 3 girls, I am the only one that didn't contract the HPV virus. My sister, who was a virgin when she married her virgin husband (right out of high school ~ as he was joining the marines) contracted the virus after said husband decided he wanted to see what else was on the menu and cheated on her (come to find out ~ repeatedly). My other sister...well she was out there in the world. No one went out there looking to contract the virus. In fact, little was known about HPV back then. Not as much information was available like it is now. We as a society are way more educated. I know that both of my sisters have had to have procedures to remove pre-cancerous cells.

Again, I think this is an incredible breakthrough...and this probably has a lot to do with the fact that I come from a family of nurses (I am the blacksheep and pass out at the sight of blood). And a part of me thinks of the odds. So a new vaccine might cause cancer 10% of the time...and HPV does 70% of the time. The new vaccine might cause some kind of reaction, leading to death. My sister nearly died the first time she took Tylenol. There is risk with anything you put in your body. I think the thing that bothers me is the tone that those that support this vaccine are aiding in the demise of our young girls, or at least the demise of morality in our world.

I guess, if you are 100% sure that you, or your daughters, are never going to come in contact with HPV...then there is no need for the vaccine for you. But there are people out there that might not have such luck and I don't see how we should deny people from this vaccine because of a moral issue...and really, that is what the conversation is boiling down to here.

[middletree]

But there are people out there that might not have such luck and I don't see how we should deny people from this vaccine because of a moral issue...and really, that is what the conversation is boiling down to here.
I just disagree with this, don't know any other way to put it. I made it clear in my post from late last night that it isn't about the moral thing for me. It's about those three kids I know whose lives were horribly, permanently wrecked because of a vaccine. Let it get tested for a decade, then I'll consider it. But for now, it's too new, and just as risky to not have it as to have it. My daughter's 4, so she'd still fall into the window in 10 years or so.

As for the moral issue you quoted above, I wasn't using that as a reason not to vaccinate. I was responding to Rock's point, and agreeing with him, that for other issues, not related to the vaccine, I am tired of hearing secular 'experts' dismiss the idea of abstenance as an unreasonable goal to shoot for. People are using this idea to justify not ever even mentioning abstinence to teens, which is what is making me crazy. As a former science teacher, I can tell you with certainty that this is exactly what is being said when anyone wants to promote teaching abstinence in schools.

I also want to issue the caveat that while I want to teach my kids the importance of abstinence, I want to treat it as a heart issue. I have no use for Phariseeism, and want to avoid that mindset with my kids. I want to teach them to follow God first, and the abstinence will just be a symptom of submission to Him. Abstinence won't be the goal in itself.

[Yippy]

and really, that is what the conversation is boiling down to here.
I didn't realize that.:confused:

[middletree]

I didn't realize that.:confused:
I think the problem is that the idea of abstinence and Rock's anger with how it's treated has been mixed into this thread to the point that many are confused and think that those who aren't sold on the vaccine take that position because of the moral/abstinence line of reasoning. I have repeatedley said, as have some others, that it is about the newness of the vaccine, which was just recently approved, that makes me want to stay away, but it seems that such statements are unheeded. Perhaps we should all quit discussing abstinence in this thread, then.

[Yippy]

I guess I was guilty of picking an off topic bone. But it's hard not to include abstinence in the conversation when we're talking about something that is contracted sexually. I never got the message that people here were against it at all...just cautious.

[Pamster]

Middletree, I wasn't pointing my finger at you...my comments were in regards to the whole tone of this thread. I just happened to use your quote because it was maybe the fork in the road that moved the thread further into that direction and maybe blended the 2 subjects.

And to all, again not pointing fingers...In regards to drugs approved by the FDA, but still considered somewhat experimental, I will use my cousin as an example. Years ago, my cousin was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis as a baby. The doctors said that if she was lucky, she might make it to the age of 3, maybe 4. I would also like to comment that the family is close to being considered faithless (as is a large majority of my family). When a new drug came along, even though it was approved to use, but too new to know of any long term affects, they tried it. Ann lived until 21. She may have lived longer, except she decided she didn't want to live the rest of her life testing out new drugs in hopes that some kind of cure might happen. After she turned 18, she rebelled and decided to 'live life to the fullest' which included things that I am sure where harmful for her and shortened her life (drugs and smoking). She didn't seem to have any regrets to that decision, but it was sad none the less...

But not to move away from the point I unsuccessfully tried to make...and that is that new drugs can help, and the only way to know if they work is to use them. It isn't a mandatory thing to use them so if you choose not to...then you don't have to and that is fine. I think the thing that stirred me up about this is that when you have these 2 debates running parallel to each other, it creates a darned slippery slope.

Basically, you (general not finger pointing) start an argument that vaccines and these drugs put on the market too early are wrong and irresponsible...and then you bring in morality (the only ones that would need to use these drugs are those that sin and are irresponsible). On the whole, that sent a subliminal message that I found disturbing. If these 2 subjects didn't walk hand in hand, they would have been in different threads, no?

Also, I would like to add that Hep B isn't only transmitted via sexual contact. As with HIV, it is also transmitted with blood contact (by either exposure to blood or blood products ~ products now pretty safe in the US) and from mother to infant. Even though the US has been able to control the epidemic, other countries have not had as much success (Asia for example). When my child was little, I didn't opt for Hep B vaccination, until I moved to Miami. The schools there were full of kids from other countries (Cuba, Haiti, etc) that have a higher rate of illnesses that we had almost wiped out because of vaccinations. These illnesses started to come back to the forefront again, because of the children in these schools that had never been vaccinated at all. Children were considered 'at risk' because of possible blood exposure in schools and daycares.

And you are correct in saying this isn't a black or white thing. And maybe I was incorrect in putting the 2 discussions together even though they are in the same thread. But with that being said, I think it is OK that we have differing opinions on both matters. If you want to disregard my opinion, or even consider it argumentative because it doesn't agree with yours, that is really OK too. I didn't unheed anyones opinion, mine just differs and views this at a completely different side to the story.

If we never use the vaccine, we will never know if it works or not. And some people, like yourself (with a 4 year old), have time to put this off; whereas someone with a teenager has to make a decision to try something new and put a little faith in the medical profession, or wait and cross you fingers that your teen doesn't make a poor judgement call and wait and see.

I do want to also say that I can see your opinion of vaccinations and I am truely sorry that people in your life have seen and had to deal with such a thing. I, on the other hand, have not seen anything like that in my life. I am sure if I had, I would probably also have a different view of this also. I have seen them work with very little side affects (maybe a low-grade fever for a day) and weighed that against the possible affects of the illnesses that could have been contracted without vaccinations (polio, measles, mumps, etc).

And I won't even stir the pot and ask if anyone uses flouride toothpaste LOL (which I do). :D

[Sam!]

Let's unpack something here:
"So a new vaccine might cause cancer 10% of the time...and HPV does 70% of the time." (Pamster)

HPV does not cause cancer 70% of the time. Of all women with cervical cancer, 70-90% of them are believed to have contracted it because of HPV. There are dozens of forms of HPV, many harmless or at least not life-threatening. The human immune system is capable of repelling some strains, to varying degrees of success. 2 strains are believed to cause cervical cancer.

Something like 50% of women will be infected with some form of HPV by a certain age. But that does not mean half of all women will get cervical cancer without this vaccine. That's the issue here..."About 12,800 women in the United States are diagnosed with cervical cancer and about 4,800 die each year (Canavan & Doshi, 2000)." (Wikipedia) We have a much lower fatality rate of it here in the US than worldwide. It's treatable when found early and women are encouraged to be tested for it by their doctors.

So, if a vaccine actually did cause severe problems in even 1% of the people who got it, we would have a problem. There are roughly 35 million girls int he US under age 18 (maybe more). If they all got the vaccine, and 10% had a severe reaction (which I believe was a fictitious number), that is 3.5 MILLION girls! We don't know what the longterm effects of the vaccine are. There are ways to prevent, test for, and treat the disease before it turns into cancer, and after. Those of us who are not embracing the vaccine are not exactly condemning to death 50% of women or 70% of women or the other ridiculous numbers spouted off in this thread. We need to be careful with numbers and statistics!

[Sam!]

The difference is that this isn't a radical/experimental cure for a life-threatening condition...it's ONE preventative measure. It has been suggested here that it SHOULD be mandatory, so some of us were responding to that.

[Pamster]

Let's unpack something here:
"So a new vaccine might cause cancer 10% of the time...and HPV does 70% of the time." (Pamster)

HPV does not cause cancer 70% of the time. Of all women with cervical cancer, 70-90% of them are believed to have contracted it because of HPV. There are dozens of forms of HPV, many harmless or at least not life-threatening. The human immune system is capable of repelling some strains, to varying degrees of success. 2 strains are believed to cause cervical cancer.

Something like 50% of women will be infected with some form of HPV by a certain age. But that does not mean half of all women will get cervical cancer without this vaccine. That's the issue here..."About 12,800 women in the United States are diagnosed with cervical cancer and about 4,800 die each year (Canavan & Doshi, 2000)." (Wikipedia) We have a much lower fatality rate of it here in the US than worldwide. It's treatable when found early and women are encouraged to be tested for it by their doctors.

So, if a vaccine actually did cause severe problems in even 1% of the people who got it, we would have a problem. There are roughly 35 million girls int he US under age 18 (maybe more). If they all got the vaccine, and 10% had a severe reaction (which I believe was a fictitious number), that is 3.5 MILLION girls! We don't know what the longterm effects of the vaccine are. There are ways to prevent, test for, and treat the disease before it turns into cancer, and after. Those of us who are not embracing the vaccine are not exactly condemning to death 50% of women or 70% of women or the other ridiculous numbers spouted off in this thread. We need to be careful with numbers and statistics!


My bad...I meant the 70% of all cervical cancers...really, truely, my bad.

but we also need to back away from the assumption that they will innoculate 3.5 million girls while tragedy is occuring and continue to do so until they complete innoculating every child without male gentalia. Like any of the drugs out there, get some bad reactions, the media gets whiff of it...basically, the results are not going to be hidden for 10 years...

Read my long novel above with my stance on the matter because this is where I stand on the subject.

[Pamster]

One more thing to put out there to explain whatever is going through my head and then I am stepping out of this discussion...because I don't think it is as productive as it could be and the dead horse is sitting there beginning to smell up the place.

Sin as it may be, I went into the particular subject with God removed. Why? Because 5 days a week, 40 hours a day, I sit in a CPS office and listen to social workers work with whatever tools they have available. Most of what I hear, it is obvious that God is not acknowledged ~ though I know he is there. I guess I hear day in and day out what these young children are up against, and as they grow into teenagers, the trials are much worse for them. They have very little resources available, or maybe not as much availablility but not used none the less. The statistics (and I am not going to throw out numbers LOL) are that these kids are more likely to use drugs, have premarital unprotected sex, deal with depression and mental illness, horrible things that a child shouldn't have to go through.

These are the people I am thinking about. I am not thinking about the children being raised in a God filled home. I am not thinking about concerned parents and how they lovingly raise their children. They are cared for. I am thinking about those lost children. And now I am thinking about the possibility of a new tool that might take away some possible road block in their future. Whether or not their strain of HPV will cause cancer...it is possible that just the knowledge of ANY HPV virus is going to cause those souls to feel dirty or stigmatized. As with Herpes, you say herpes, you think STD...though that common cold sore, shingles, chicken pox...all forms of herpes, just a different strain.

And maybe that is the battle I am facing right now. Maybe my battle is my place in the world outside the box, outside of the church, and out there with those that I deal with quite a bit more than my church family. I am pretty sure that is why I got a little un-nerved with the abstinence issue brought up. Right now, my concern is less with those who have God in their lives, His people...but with those out there that need. And I can't force God into their lives, just hope that they might catch a glimpse of Him.

I acknowledge the fact that right now, it feels like me alone, I am the one with issues. I have never had a problem with God, he has always been here for me whether I felt I needed Him or not. But right now I am having trouble with His people and I shouldn't have brought that in here. I truely think lately that it isn't about us, the followers of Christ, but them, the ones treading water. I jumped out with them and watched as you guys (not you personally, but my family in Christ) have floated further away. And now I am trying to figure out if the lifelines thrown to me are those from Him, or a distraction to pull me further away.

What I guess I am sensing is that this supposed breakthrough is either good or evil...and I am holding on to the faith that no matter what it is, He will use it to do good.

So with that, I am kinda out of here for awhile...or at least until I can figure some things out in my head.

[middletree]

Middletree, I wasn't pointing my finger at you.

Oh, I didn't think you were. I had no negative or angry thoughts as a result of your post. As for this one, you make good points, thereby proving my point that this isn't black & white. Which is fine. But I got the impression from others in this thread that parents who opt out of the vaccine are wrong, and I was explaining my stance.

If my kid had CF or other disease, that would be one thing, but my kids are healthy (all thanks to God!). Just as you have stories to relate about people you know, I have stories about how vaccines have ruined some lives.

Basically, you (general not finger pointing) start an argument that vaccines and these drugs put on the market too early are wrong and irresponsible

I don't think anyone did that at all. I was using the "early" argument to explain why I'm not leaning toward having my kid get vaccinated. I'm not judging anyone else who does otherwise. I completely understand their position.


Also, I would like to add that Hep B isn't only transmitted via sexual contact. As with HIV, it is also transmitted with blood contact (by either exposure to blood or blood products ~ products now pretty safe in the US) and from mother to infant.

Of course, but none of those causes is going to happen on the playground. My problem was that kids have to have the Hep B vaccine in order to enroll in school.

[Sam!]

well, the Hep B vaccine anyway. THAT would be quite a school...if they had to have Hepatits B to enroll... ;)

[middletree]

well, the Hep B vaccine anyway. THAT would be quite a school...if they had to have Hepatits B to enroll... ;)
I have no idea what you are talking about ;)

[Grank]

...we're talking about something that is contracted sexually.
... as well as other ways...

[Sam!]

I have no idea what you are talking about ;)
uh yeah me neither

[bdfwinn]

Let me on now about vaccines. The US is the ONLY Western nation that still has forced vaccinations. SIDS is linked to vaccines. Don't believe me? Do some homework. Before our daughters were born we read books for 9 months and purchased videos and documentaries both for and against vaccinations.

Here is just an example of how the Pharm Industry (in which I used to work so I have seen it first hand) is about money not you. Themerasol is a mercury based preservative that came to prominent use in the late 70's and 80's. If medicine expires on the shelf the Pharm. Company has to buy it back, so to protect the bottom line the medicine must have a very long shelf life. Themerasol solved that problem. Trouble is the FDA ignored the fact that it was MERCURY!!!!! It has been linked to Autism and SIDS. Of course you friendly neighborhood CDC denies this. But on the vaccine information pamphlet you get at the hospital when your new miracle is born they warn you to watch your children and monitor their breathing in their sleep for the next 72 hours after the shots are given. At 1 day old the doctor came and tried to convince us that Faith should have a Hep B vaccine. I told him HELL NO! Sorry for the lingo but this is what I said. He got the point. I reminded him that a baby's immune system is not fully developed until age 2 or 3 and that the antibodies of the mother will sustain and protect the infant while breast-fed. He said, "I know that but it is still a good idea to get her the shot." Like he only cared about the $50 per shot the govt. reimburses hospitals.

After much pressure Merck stopped making drugs with Themerasol but they still sold 500,000 more doses with the Mercury-based carcinogenic preservative after the agreement was reached.

The US is the most medicated society in the world we have more Pharmacies (Chemists for those over seas) than we have gas stations almost. Yet we have higher rates of diabetes, heart disease, stroke, etc. So the drugs don't seem to be helping overall.

Okay my rant is over. We are planning to join a home school association when our girls are old enough to start school and one major reason is to keep the GOVERNMENT from forcing harmful carcinogens into their bodies.

I would never intentionally put synthetic chemicals in my body. I don't eat canola oil, or aspartame, and I don't drink bleach! So why would I go volunteer to pay someone to damage my body?
Bill

[middletree]

Great post, with info I wasn't aware of.

What's wrong with canola oil?

[bdfwinn]

Great post, with info I wasn't aware of.

What's wrong with canola oil?

It is not a plant or something that most people assume. When it first came out I wondered "What is a canola plant?" It is short for canada oil. It is produced from the rapeseed plant. The oil from this plant has long been known to be toxic to animals and humans. In fact it makes great insect repellant. Canola oil was used as an industrial lubricant for years in machines and electric motor bearings. It is only recently that canola was "cleaned up" for human consumption. There are many who believe that the oil itself is toxic. Rape oil is thought by many to cause emphysema, respiratory distress, anemia, constipation, irritability, and blindness in animals and humans.

Rape oil was removed from European cattle food and certain "new" cattle diseases that had popped up disappeared.

Canola oil is off my list of foods suitable for consumption.

I try hard to stick to what is natural. ie. no hormone/ antibiotic injected beef, no pesticidal veggies, no by-product fed chicken etc...

I never cared about such things until after I married a Nutrition Major.

Bill

[SacredHeart]

Themerasol is a mercury based preservative that came to prominent use in the late 70's and 80's. If medicine expires on the shelf the Pharm. Company has to buy it back, so to protect the bottom line the medicine must have a very long shelf life. Themerasol solved that problem. Trouble is the FDA ignored the fact that it was MERCURY!!!!! It has been linked to Autism and SIDS. After much pressure Merck stopped making drugs with Themerasol but they still sold 500,000 more doses with the Mercury-based carcinogenic preservative after the agreement was reached.



Bill, thank you so much for this information. I've wanted to share similiar thoughts but have wondered how. You did it and i'm grateful.


For those of you who are wondering if any of this is true...wondering how you can get more information...wondering if there is ANYTHING that can be done for children with Autism, ADD/ADHD, Asperger's Disease, or any other neurodevelopmental disorders including speech delay, developmental delays and learning disabilities, I'd like to suggest that you look at this website. (http://www.generationrescue.org/) It has more information than you can fathom but most importantly, it gives hope. My pastors have 2 little daughters who were diagnosed with Autism. Until they learned about the information this website provides, they were without hope. They have been working with some amazing doctors all over the country and after several months of intense detoxification, they are seeing remarkable results with these two girls.


Please feel free to PM me if you'd like more information.

[middletree]

It is not a plant or something that most people assume. When it first came out I wondered "What is a canola plant?" It is short for canada oil.

Much of what you say in this post appears as if it came from this site: http://www.tetrahedron.org/

which is fine and informative in a lot of ways. However, he has this article: http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/apocalypse/25_reasons.html, in which he claims that the Bushes (including Jeb) knew about 911 ahead of time. Good grief. Still, this article, http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/apocalypse/pearl_harbor.html is very much worth reading.

[Yippy]

... as well as other ways...
Yes, that had already been pointed out...:) I should have replaced "is" with "can be"...oh well...


Thanks for the info, Bill and Pam. :) We could start a whole other thread on FOODS. You can't put too much stock in "organic" and other terms either.

[Gandalf]

Themerasol is a mercury based preservative that came to prominent use in the late 70's and 80's. If medicine expires on the shelf the Pharm. Company has to buy it back, so to protect the bottom line the medicine must have a very long shelf life. Themerasol solved that problem. Trouble is the FDA ignored the fact that it was MERCURY!!!!! It has been linked to Autism and SIDS. Of course you friendly neighborhood CDC denies this.
Actually, there's no proven link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152110,00.html) between vaccines and autism.
“Studies do not demonstrate a link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autistic spectrum disorders,” concluded researchers from the Children’s Hospital and University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The researchers further concluded that the range of blood mercury levels measured in children after vaccination is not in the known range of mercury toxicity. It’s the dose that makes the poison, after all.

The researchers also noted that, while several studies reported correlations between thimerosal and autistic disorders, they had “significant design flaws that invalidated their conclusions.”

Other researchers even reported in January 2004 that, “The discontinuation of thimerosal-containing vaccines in Denmark in 1992 was followed by an increase in the incidence of autism.”
Whether you want the vaccines or not is up to you, but there's no reason to be afraid of them.
I would never intentionally put synthetic chemicals in my body. I don't eat canola oil, or aspartame, and I don't drink bleach! So why would I go volunteer to pay someone to damage my body?
Bill
Canola is a variety of the rapeseed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapeseed) family, and is also perfectly safe:
Natural rapeseed oil contains erucic acid, which is mildly toxic to humans in large doses but is used as a food additive in smaller doses. Canola is a tradename for low erucic acid rapeseed that is sometimes mis-applied to other cultivars.

[SacredHeart]

Actually, there's no proven link between vaccines and autism.
Sorry Gandalf, but there is just too much evidence (http://www.generationrescue.org/index2.html)that suggests otherwise.

[Gandalf]

I didn't say no one had suggested such links. I said there is no proven link. No one knows what causes autism, and thimerosal has not been shown in any rigorous studies to actually be dangerous. I didn't say it's impossible that there could be such a link, but it's just speculation. It has not been shown that vaccines cause autism or anything else of the sort. It has, however been shown that they (in general) do a great deal of good in eradicating disease.

And, regardless, thimerosal has pretty much been phased out since 2001. Most pediatric vaccines in the US don't contain it any more.

[middletree]

Actually, there's no proven link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152110,00.html) between vaccines and autism.


My reading is showing that it's very hotly debated. One might not agree with the studies that say there's no link, but one cannot say that it's not been proven at all. It jsut hasn't been proven enough to convince you.

I'm suspicious of the organizations that say there is no link. It seems the ones making the loudest noises about there not being a link happen to have a financial stake it it. This http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf/news/amish3.pdf UPI report is very fair and balanced, and brings up the arguments for and against. It points out that the CDC is not as convinced as the article you provided would suggest, and the CDC has the best handle on current data.

Besides, there's cirumstantial evidence. The first use of thimerosal was in 1931, and the first American child was diagnosed with Autism the same year. More vaccines began being required in 1990, and during the next decade, autism rates went from 1 in 10000 to 1 in 166. That's circumstantial, but it's a huge swing.

The article I linked to is focused on finding autistic kids in the Amish communities in PA. They basically found none, except for 3 who had been vaccinated, and a few more who had been exposed to high levels of mercury in other ways.


Whether you want the vaccines or not is up to you, but there's no reason to be afraid of them.

In my case, afraid is too strong a word. Just cautious. Especially regarding vaccines for things that a kids is extremely unlikely to attain.

Canola is a variety of the rapeseed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapeseed) family, and is also perfectly safe:

Sorry, but wiki is entirely unreliable.

[Gandalf]

Again, I didn't mean to imply that there couldn't be a link between thimerosal and autism, only that it hasn't been conclusively shown to exist. And it's almost a moot point in practice, since it's been effectively phased out anyway.
Sorry, but wiki is entirely unreliable.
True, but it's convenient, and I don't think much is needed to establish that canola is a low erucic acid variety of rapeseed, or that erucic acid is the component of rapeseed oil that is toxic in high doses.

[SacredHeart]

Again, I didn't mean to imply that there couldn't be a link between thimerosal and autism, only that it hasn't been conclusively shown to exist. And it's almost a moot point in practice, since it's been effectively phased out anyway.
It's not a moot point because treating an illness is often times dependent upon knowing its cause. Until mercury poisoning is recognized as a primary cause of autism, children will remain untreated. Mercury poisoning IS treatable and its symptoms ARE reversable. link (http://www.generationrescue.org/mercury_myths.html)

[Gandalf]

That page does not prove that mercury poisoning causes autism; it simply assumes it to be the case.

[middletree]

That page does not prove that mercury poisoning causes autism; it simply assumes it to be the case.
It provides compelling circumstantial evidence.

[bdfwinn]

Much of what you say in this post appears as if it came from this site: http://www.tetrahedron.org/

which is fine and informative in a lot of ways. However, he has this article: http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/apocalypse/25_reasons.html, in which he claims that the Bushes (including Jeb) knew about 911 ahead of time. Good grief. Still, this article, http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/apocalypse/pearl_harbor.html is very much worth reading.

no sorry it did not come from there I did copy/ past the list of diseases from a web article someplace though.
Bill

BTW it wasn't just the Bush's that knew about 911 it was Colonel Sanders and the whole lot of world dominators that meet at the vatican fortnightly!

[Gandalf]

A new study shows a link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212230,00.html) between older fathers and increased autism rates. Just thought you might be interested that there are correlations shown by scientific studies that have nothing to do with heavy metal poisoning. It doesn't mean that mercury poisoning couldn't be a factor, but it illustrates that it hasn't been proven to be the cause, and doesn't explain all the evidence.

My own view is that we don't know what causes autism - studies haven't conclusively found a cause, just some statistical correlations with a variety of different factors. There may not even be one specific cause; we don't know yet.