Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

anti-vaccines?

I've heard over and over again about how parents don't want to vaccinate their kids against diseases that they can catch and get over (i.e. measles, mumps, chicken pox...). I've also heard many people wishing that their was a cure for cancer, more money should go into cancer research, etc. However, when they come out with a preventative measure that can be taken to prevent cancer (cervical cancer to be precise) the same people who say they want their kids to build their immune system naturally say they won't allow their daughters to receive this vaccine, despite the fact that HPV has no cure, and can cause cancer. They claim that they don't want their children experimented on. However, if their child were to contract HPV, and it did lead to cervical cancer (far more likely to develop than polio), and your child had to receive chemo.. would the ends justify the thought process?

Answer Question
 
prinzesstephi

Asked by prinzesstephi at 2:55 AM on Jun. 20, 2009 in Kids' Health

Level 12 (822 Credits)
Answers (26)
  • idk some ppl are just stupid i guess ... uhh if the help is there, take it ..
    why not prevent something you wouldnt want your child contracting?
    duh ..
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:58 AM on Jun. 20, 2009

  • Um. There are many risks involved with the vaccine for HPV, then the chances of catching cancer IMHO.

    You do realize that they only study vaccines for 5 years before they submit them to the general public (which mainly consists of our children) for further research, dont you? And i'm sure you realize that they spend at least 20 years or more approving a drug in pill form that is going to be given to dying elderly? ...Where are their priorities?
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 3:00 AM on Jun. 20, 2009

  • I suppose the priorities are getting the help to the people who need it most (our children) as quickly as possible. How long do you think that they should research it in labs? Ten years? Twenty? What more to you expect that they'd find out? Especially given that the animals that they test these drugs on don't have lifespans of 70-90 years like humans do?
    prinzesstephi

    Answer by prinzesstephi at 3:02 AM on Jun. 20, 2009

  • the problem is what is in the vaccinations and that there are risks in vaccinations and that they are not 100% effective. www.909shot.com or is it www.909shots.com I forget.
    Precious333

    Answer by Precious333 at 3:03 AM on Jun. 20, 2009

  • Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 3:07 AM on Jun. 20, 2009

  • So you would rather have them hurry up and push out a vaccine that may not be effective or safe because it MIGHT be able to help the child vs making sure that it is effective and safe by doing thourough research and study?
    hmmmm.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 3:08 AM on Jun. 20, 2009

  • outstandingLove

    Answer by outstandingLove at 3:12 AM on Jun. 20, 2009

  • I'd rather teach my child safe sex practices and encourage positive sexual health than give my child a vaccine that has already killed and damaged too many young girls. HPV is an STD, I don't know why so many people DON'T realize that...
    NoNonsenseMama

    Answer by NoNonsenseMama at 3:20 AM on Jun. 20, 2009

  • No, I'm not saying that they should "push vaccines out"... but what I'm asking YOU is how long would you deem appropriate before you'd protect your child?
    prinzesstephi

    Answer by prinzesstephi at 3:21 AM on Jun. 20, 2009

  • You can teach your child safe sex practices... in fact, I'd encourage that! My mother also taught me safe sex practices, and although I didn't contract HPV or I did wind up pregnant at 17. Unless you're going to help your son put on a condom, or help your daughter put on her boyfriends condom, unless you're going to watch your child 24/7 to make sure they're not having sex, you can't be sure. And "safe sex" isn't 100 percent effective either. You don't criticize someone for catching a cold or for catching the flu, but those are also viruses. Mono... maybe a little more criticism... I mean, it's the "kissing disease", right? A little more sexual? Now, someone catches an STD, and all of a sudden they're to blame. It's JUST a virus. It's been demonized by our societies simultaneous disgust and fascination with sex.
    prinzesstephi

    Answer by prinzesstephi at 3:27 AM on Jun. 20, 2009

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.
close Cafemom Join now to connect to other members! Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN