the most read story at nytimes.com:
A study published Wednesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that the prevalence of high-risk strains in teenage girls dropped by half after the vaccine was introduced in 2006, from 7.2 percent in 2006 to 3.6 percent in 2010.No comment from Michelle Bachmann on the success of the vaccine that (she maintained on national television) can make your kid retarded. There is still a ways to go:
. . . but for now let us savior this little moment of win. It works, bitches. If we let it.Unfortunately, many parents still resist having their daughters immunized. A study published in March found that 44 percent of parents said in 2010 that they did not intend to vaccinate their daughters, up from 40 percent in 2008. . . .Increasing the vaccination rate to 80 percent in this country could prevent an additional 53,000 cervical cancers and 17,000 deaths among girls now 13 years old and younger over the course of their lives.
Not worth the risk (which is definitely real). Nobody should be forced to receive a vaccine that they do not want. End of story.ReplyDelete
Thank you for dropping by. Unfortunately you are wrong on all counts.Delete
The "risk" of vaccines as presented by Bachmann et al is not real; it is the opposite of real, made up, fabricated, exaggerated, fictional, a fantasy.
The incredible rare and overwhelmingly minor side effects of vaccination are a straw in the wind compared to the 5,000 deaths per year from cervical cancer.
We can, should, and do force parents to do all sorts of things to promote the welfare of their children, from car seats to cancer treatment.
You've also missed the point, which was not that we should start compelling anti-science idiots to vaccinate (although, since you bring it up, it's not a bad idea.) The point of the post is that the vaccine clearly works, just as the scientists predicted, and the resistance to it is irrational and stupid.
As you say, "end of story."
You made an assumption that I give two-shits about Bachmann, which I don't. I've looked into all kinds of vaccines and am completely unconvinced that these are as necessary as claimed, or that the side-effects are as negligible as claimed.Delete
You also missed my entire point. Nobody should be forced to receive a vaccine that they do not want. It is not your right or anybody else's right insist upon this.
If I want to "die from cervical cancer" as you allege, that is my business.
You are obviously an idiot-Statis, an apologist for the destruction of individual freedom and human rights (to be left the hell alone, in case you need a primer).
"Idiot Tracker" is right - you're right on track to being a true idiot.
Your bookmark is now deleted.ReplyDelete
Your opinionated views clearly interfere with your ability to discern common sense, dissent and the right of others to choose a life without interference from "do gooders" like yourself.
You also can't do math. The 4% increase in parents who declined the vaccine and the 3.6 drop in high-risk strains are not unrelated, but you're not bright enough to make that connection.
All you want to do is breed an entire generation of idiots, incapable of critical thought or independent decisions.
"The 4% increase in parents who declined the vaccine and the 3.6 drop in high-risk strains are not unrelated, but you're not bright enough to make that connection."ReplyDelete
There must be a word for that sinking sensation, unique to the era of Internet debates, of realizing, after thinking you are disputing with someone of a different idealogy, that you are arguing with someone who is actually mentally ill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derailment_%28thought_disorder%29).
Thanks for visiting, Anon. We here at IT hope you find the help you need.
"...the right of others to choose a life without interference from "do gooders" like yourself."ReplyDelete
What of the right of their children to life without interference from preventable diseases? (Not to mention herd immunity.
One only has to look at recent events in Swansea (Wales) to see the pernicious effects of 'do-gooders' (ha) like Wakefield & his anti-science supporters.
'Sara Hayes, public health director for the local Abertawe, Bro and Morgannwg health board, is among those who blame the coverage of the Wakefield claims in the local paper, the South Wales Evening Post, for the lack of protection among today's teenagers. Parents were simply doing what they thought best for their children, she said.
Prominent local people and the paper should have given a more balanced view, Hayes added. "People can be easily frightened. We have assured people it is a safe and effective intervention. Our young mums and dads now are very happy with MMR. We have 93% coverage with the first dose by the age of two. It is probably higher now [because of the recent publicity]."
Authorities in Wales are no longer recording laboratory-confirmed cases ... Even before the Swansea crisis, confirmed measles cases across the two countries at the end of 2012 were running at their highest for many years.
There were 2,030 cases last year, nearly twice the figure in 2011. In 1998, the year of Wakefield's first appearance on the national stage, there were 56.'
Grauniad link probably not definitive but then this link in the Lancet is paywalled:
I see Anonymous has nailed you.ReplyDelete
I have been on the receiving end of your sanctimonious, ill-educated, anti-science bile.
How do kill a troll? (or Robert?)
You raise them to the height of their egos and then let them fall. When they impact at the level of their IQs, death is instantaneous.
Boys should get that vaccine also; the "logic" behind not vaccinating them is beyond me.ReplyDelete