I don't know. This is a tough one.

One of my aunts died at 13 months old because of what was thought to possibly be Polio. We now have a vaccine against that. It's not fair to expose people to a disease we can easily eradicate or prevent. There are some vaccinations like Guardasil that I simply don't trust. I wouldn't want to be forced into a vaccination for that.

Even if these little germ factories are kept out of schools, they will still be at all of the public venues, amusement parks, restaurants, trains, planes, etc.

I think that it's only reasonable to force noncompliant parents into keeping their kids at home.

My grand daughter has all her shots recommended for her age. But she just came down with chickenpox. Yeah! and I haven't been vaccinated for shingles yet.

So far, so good. Outbreak for her is not strong, but confining during your visit with Omi sure isn't the most fun thing. I hope, we can get past this without getting on each others nerves. ;)

Moni

That's a good point. I don't trust Guardasil either even though I had it myself without any issues. Here's a list from the law of the required vaccines, though they are allowed to add to it:

(1) Diphtheria.
(2) Haemophilus influenzae type b.
(3) Measles.
(4) Mumps.
(5) Pertussis (whooping cough).
(6) Poliomyelitis.
(7) Rubella.
(8) Tetanus.
(9) Hepatitis B.
(10) Varicella (chickenpox).

You know, this is why we call it *public* health. People living with the benefits no longer have a clue what life would be like without it. Few living in first world nations today ever experienced epidemics, thanks to public health.

It's amazing. It's only been a few months since the frenzy HERE over Ebola -- which was easily able to become epidemic THERE, in a nation *without public health*.

I'm starting to see TV and print ads featuring newborns, cautioning adults to get vaccinated against whooping cough before visiting the new baby.

I agree, chisue. I think the parents making these decisions right now have no idea how scary something like polio is because it was eradicated in the US before they were born. They didn't see the death and suffering. And now it could easily come back but these parents aren't taking it seriously enough. Their biggest concern is measles, and yes, measles can be deadly but there are many other terrifying diseases that could come back.

As for the kids still being allowed in public. That's true, but I think what this is going to do is improve our vaccination rates significantly in some areas. A lot of parents who opted out of vaccines before will now vaccinate when their only option is to quit their job and homeschool. Just a guess but I bet there are a lot of casual non-vaccinators who refrained just in case and now will vaccinate due to the inconvenience of not doing so.

Oh and when I have a baby, no one is coming near him/her without the whooping cough vaccination until the baby is old enough to be vaccinated. California is having it's worse epidemic in 70 years and it's just too risky with a newborn.

No, no, most of the anti-vaccinators I've heard about or seen interviewed are upper middle class moms with too much time on their hands. They're not homeschooling types. They don't "believe in" vaccinations just because of their feelings. They've read some unscientific propaganda, or confuse a mild allergic reaction (i.e., an owie) with major harm, or just want to be "natural" without understanding that cyanide, arsenic and whooping cough are all natural. There were tens of thousands of cases of whooping cough reported to the CDC. Babies die from it. It's a horrible disease. Edit--I crossed posted with the Chi's about whooping cough. I could have said similar things about any of those diseases.

The basics as reported on the news are that children entering both public and private preschools, elementaries and middle schools would be required to have immunizations. They didn't mention either way about ones who transfer in during middle grades. Children who have compromised immune systems or other severe medical reasons why they cannot tolerate the vaccines would be exempt with a letter from a doctor explaining the reason (i.e., as I understand it, can't just be "please excuse Johnny"--it would have to be a formal medical opinion). People who don't want to vaccinate their children would be allowed to homeschool them in the kind of homeschooling group "schools" (the current homeschooling option) or one of the online public schools.

I feel bad for the Jehovah's Witnesses and similar members of religious groups who as part of their faith do not vaccinate. They used to be covered easily, along with the medically unable kids, by the group immunity that's created when not quite 100%, but approach it, are immunized. Now, they've lost their religious rights because a bunch of educated people who are being willfully ignorant have endangered whole cohorts of children.

There are pockets of California, generally wealthy ones, where the immunization rate was down to 80%, which is scandalous. Considering how many people from less developed parts of the world visit California, and vice versa, there's absolutely no protection for the 20% from all kinds of diseases that haven't been seen much here for decades. The measles outbreak at Disneyland was only the most famous. When I was a kid, I was told how lucky I was to have a measles vaccine, because of all the children who died, had brain damage or were blinded. It's outrageous that people would want to expose their children to that! These are the same parents who don't let their kids walk to school because it's "dangerous".

Moni, she's had at least one of the shots and she still acquired chicken pox? I thought it was super effective, like about 95% after 1, 98% after 2 shots. What kind of luck is that. Have you had chicken pox yourself? I have, but haven't' gotten around to the shingles vaccine yet either. DH got his and I keep meaning to, then not following through. I hope GD's case is mild - what a shame she has it at all, then to have it affecting your visit...

I have young kids (my oldest is 7) and I'll admit that I was leery of vaccinations while pregnant the first time. I think the fear came from celebrities getting the spotlight and saying they are bad. Plus, I've never seen the horrible diseases first hand (thankfully).

I trusted my pediatrician and followed the recommended vaccination schedule though. I'm so glad I did! Especially with the recent measles out break. I just received a notification from my pediatrician's office stating that they will no longer accept patients who do not vaccinate (medical exceptions of course). I'm thrilled with that news. I hope to never see preventable diseases!

In Los Angeles, 800 schools were reported to be in the less than 8% for kindergarten. LA TIMES

Vaccinations are mandatory for school attendance here - public and private.

Bravo California. Its rare nowadays for legislators to have the spine to do anything, much less something that is unpopular. I hope they have the willpower to stick with this decision and not cave in at the first strongly worded email rant or irate phone call they receive. I also hope the requirement for a medical exception are more stringent than "a note from a doctor" or inevitably there will be "doctors" who will establish a thriving practice handing out xeroxed medical exception letters for every patient after conducting a thorough 5 minute exam.

I was irked this morning when the Today Show reported on the decision and decided it was important or newsworthy that Jim Carrey strongly opposes the law, as if the views of a comedian have any relevance in a matter of medicine or public health. Partly it was due to "news" programs giving equal voice to whackadoodle notions simply because some celebrity believes it to be true that we are in this situation in the first place.

Well, Jim Carrey was with Jenny McCarthy for 5 years, so I'm sure it's because of that. She's often blamed for being a large part of the "vaccines cause autism" movement for the last decade. She claimed her son became autistic after a vaccine, but it turns out he doesn't actually have autism. I wonder how many people have died from her bad advice.

I just wanted to add that most of these current exemptions are based on personal belief not religious ones. The only religion I know of of that would forbid vaccinations would be Christian Scientists. Jehovah's witnesses ended the ban on vaccinations way back in 1952.

Homeschooling is no longer a Christian/religious thing either in California. It is quite secular now and those that home school that I know of do in fact vaccinate their children. In fact homeschooling parents are for the most part vigilant on providing their children with the best of things they believe that matter, from the best medical care, social experience and educational opportunities. They are wiling to sacrifice to achieve these things.

This is a good law and I only wish it went further. It still has loopholes the worst being that children currently exempted do not have to show proof of vaccination until they advance to the next level in school. So a kindergartner with a current exemption would have until middle school (6th or 7th grade) before they needed to be up to date. I don't think this "grandfathering" has a place in public health matters.

Just to further clarify, from what I understand the Jehovah's Witnesses stopped the outright ban and left the choice of vaccination to the individuals, but there was still a discouragement. Even then, however, they recognized that while they might not be a good mesh with their religion there was enough benefit to let people choose to get them. The thing is, because they were few in number and had a strong religious precept, I thought they, as well as the Christian Scientists should have that right. Those who just had some kind of wifty wafty "personal belief" spoiled it for those with an accepted religious conviction.

I don't think it was "grandfathering" of exemptions, per se, but rather keeping the new law cost neutral. They'd have to hire a lot of people to track down the exceptions and bring their files up to date. This passed so fast because there was no real disagreement.

Re celebrities, Jenny McCarthy says she never was anti-vaccine (though often misrepresented as such), just that she didn't like the bundles. http://chicago.suntimes.com/?p=195868#.U07QS-ZdXfF

The L.A. Times quoted a specialist during the measles outbreak who said that the amount of immune activity caused by a compound vaccine was way less than the usual day to day assaults on the immune system, but if you'd rather go to the doctor more often and get each shot separately, it doesn't sound like it will bring any societal harm.

"Homeschooling is no longer a Christian/religious thing either in California."

It remains so in the part of California I inhabit. The excuse I've most often heard is that the motivation is to "protect" children from exposure to undesirable things that might be encountered in public and in school. Ironically, Muslim fundamentalists (like the Taliban when in power in Afghanistan) have used the similar reasoning to argue why female children shouldn't be educated and when older need to wear burqas.

The schools already require vaccination records. They already have the exemptions on file. Every child has a health card on file, probably computerized these days but it's there. It's not that difficult to pull them. Would not be that difficult to tell parents to start getting those vaccinations or there would be no re-admittance for their kids in the following school year. Of course a reasonable amount of time should be given to catch up but no child should be exempt for 6 years.

Personally I think they left the loophole for the schools. They want those noses counted for the dollars. That is why even in the years they stated that no child without an exemption on file would be admitted with this or that vaccine. They waffled and you would see reminders of the "strict policy" LOL into the second semesters. The schools wouldn't do their duty and enforce the law or their own rules. $$$$

In my opinion a Jehovah's Witness who decides not to vaccinate their child falls under "personal belief" since the it is no longer church doctrine. They have choice given them by their church. So it becomes a personal choice.

Parents who don't provide needed common medical treatment to their kids, even when for religious reasons, have been prosecuted and convicted of child abuse, child endangerment, and even manslaughter.

I'll never understand how people allow themselves to be so brainwashed by religious dogma that they allow it to override what should be the use of their own judgement and common sense.

Snidely I agree that the excuse you hear is correct among some circles. But among the many homeschoolers in the SF Bay Area my DD has gotten to know, it is based on the way the schools have been taken over by the far left, the time spent testing instead of teaching, the level of education that has dropped drastically since you cannot track children or group by ability, the zero tolerance policies, the everyone gets a ribbon policy, the lack of accountability from the admins, the social engineering etc. The parents I have met tend to lean center or toward more conservative values like personal responsibility but they certainly aren't the far right wing Christian groups. They are for human rights and equal rights, not special rights. If you saw them on Facebook most would have a rainbow filter because they aren't threatened by same sex marriage. The extreme groups that want to shelter their children from the secular world exist but secular homeschooling is growing by leaps and bounds now. Parents are simply fed up. I've met these parents at birthday parties. They are diverse, some have tattoos, some attend church and others are atheist. The common theme is no one is extreme and they want their children to be diverse without having it shoved at them through stuff like check your white privilege or because your kid is brown he needs more help or black kids can't compete. They don't buy into that nonsense. They believe their children are capable of much more than the public schools have to offer and many cannot afford private school or may even find them too "churchy". It's the ones that are quietly going about parenting the best they know how without the extremism. It's a new breed of homeschooling parent you may have not met but their numbers are increasing and it's working.

A few months ago we had a measles outbreak in Illinois, most of the cases were traced to a KinderCare ~5 minutes away from my house. Suddenly everyone wanted vaccine titers or boosters, some even coming into our ER asking for them.

People think it won't happen to them, until it happens to someone they know.

The extreme groups that want to shelter their children from the secular world exist but secular homeschooling is growing by leaps and bounds now. Parents are simply fed up. I've met these parents at birthday parties. They are diverse, some have tattoos, some attend church and others are atheist.

I think this is more what I was talking about. It seems like this group has decided it knows better what their child needs, and will refrain from schools and shots. Again, just a guess.

My kids are all vaccinated but I notice a few glaring biases that stood out in some of the posts.

1. Not all homeschoolers do so for religious purposes. I homeschooled my kids for 5 years and did so because I could provide child centered 3 to 1 teaching ratio education for my children. Though there was a Christian based homeschooling group in our area, there was also a secular one. We often did groups activities together and you did not have to be Christian to be a member of their group. My kids have been back in the school system since Jan 2013 and FYI, my two kids that have normal learning capabilities, 1 has made the honor roll for the past two years and the other is in the gifted program. So it's time to stop being so closed minded about homeschoolers people.

2. I find it funny that multiple people say they don't trust Gardasil. All vaccines start out new at some point. If you are anti anti-vacciners then you yourself should be open to all vaccines.

What happens here is that it is mandatory for you to keep your children's vaccination record up to date. That could also be a exemption notice. If there is an outbreak your child cannot attend school.

Being immunized does not mean you are 100% protected. For some vaccines it's even 15% still will come down with it if exposed. Much, much better odds than non vaccinated people, but still it's not 100% effective.

Add me to the list of non-religious, vaccinating homeschooling moms.

Just want to add to my above comment about effectiveness. Turns out the numbers are even worse for some vaccines than what I had heard about a few years back. This is the latest on the MMR vaccine as it relates to Americans. This is from usnews.com "Though getting vaccinated is the best way to prevent against the virus, for some, the shot’s immunity simply doesn’t stick.

Two doses of mumps vaccine are said to be 88 percent effective at preventing the illness; one dose is 78 percent effective, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That means if 100 people were to get a single vaccine, as many as 22 people could still become infected with mumps."

That is very high if you ask me for people walking around believing they are immune. The immunization is far more effective with measles and rubella. Those statistics come from the CDC's website.

I said I don't trust Gardasil. It is a newer vaccine. Some pretty severe side effects have been reported. Unlike Polio, Chicken Pox, measles, etc., you don't just randomly catch HPV from common exposure. HPV is not an immediate death sentence. Gardasil only protects against a few strains of the virus. IIRC, it was one of those drugs that sort of got pushed out there without a lot of testing so the kids taking it the last few years are more like guinea pigs. If I eventually decide this is something my kids need, I still have a few years for them to get vaccinated.

I'd be more likely to allow my kids to be vaccinated with a newer vaccine like an Ebola vaccine than I would the Gardasil. Even then, I would evaluate the merit of a newer, untested vaccine versus the the risk of exposure and catching the disease.

Being suspicious of Guardasil is not the same as being anti-vaccine. Guardasil is relatively new, long term effects are still being studied. Countries have pulled it from their recommended vaccines because of the side effects. There is concern if you have already been exposed to hpv, getting the vaccine actually increases your chances of cervical cancer.

It is not the same as refusing polio or measles or all the other ones that have been around for decades and protect against deadly diseases. A child in a grocery store is not going to infect an elderly cancer patient with hpv.

Also I think homeschooling is great. I have thought about doing it myself someday. I never thought it was only for religious people,

"But among the many homeschoolers in the SF Bay Area my DD has gotten to
know, it is based on the way the schools have been taken over by the far
left,"

We often agree, watchme, but this comment is absurd. Your daughter needs to find more thoughtful people to exchange views with

Where's Joe McCarthy when we really need him?

We often disagree, Snidely, but not this time.

If you read through the side effects of vaccines you'll see that many have just as severe, if not more severe than the HPV vaccines. Heck, look at MMR vaccine side effects. As for common but not severe side effects. My kids seem to get those for every single shot they get. The youngest often gets headaches and feels ill for at least a day. It hasn't been with all, but the majority.

As for it being new, so is mennigoccal vaccines and yet those are now mandated here for school entry (unless exemption is filled out). Hep vaccines are pretty new as well. They had only been out a few years before my oldest was born. In the history of vaccines, every single one people are the guinea pigs.

The HPV vaccine covers the two strains that cause 70% of all cervical cancer as well as other cancers caused by HPV like anal, oral and a few others that are escaping me at the moment. While HPV isn't an immediate death sentence, neither are the vast majority of the illness we vaccinate for, for the majority of the people. Regardless if it's immediate or not women still die from this every year and it's still a huge drain on heath care costs. Sure death rates have went down likely due to more women getting paps and early treatment, but with the vaccinations you'll likely see a decrease in women and men even contracting it in the first place.

As to the elderly comment and HPV (this is an offside) I recently watched a documentary on the very high STD rates among the elderly. Seems there is a lot of hanky panky without protection in that age group.

I guess the difference to me is that meningitis is a very serious, often deadly and contagious disease, so the potential risk/reward analysis errs on the side of risking the vaccine. The HPV vaccine, not so much. Pretty much everyone gets HPV at some point (there is no way to prevent it) and only very rarely does it turn into something more serious, and if you keep on top of your paps there's an extremely low chance of ever developing cervical cancer in nations where routine paps are common. It's a very different story of course in developing nations where many women still die of cervical cancer.

Don't get me wrong, I 100% see value in preventing HPV and I'm not trying to say it's not a big deal. But rushing it through is not the same to me as rushing through a vaccine for something that is deadly and contagious. It also doesn't even work sometimes. It didn't work for me, and I'm not alone.

I think parents of kids reaching their young teens should seriously consider it, since it should be done before any type of sexual activity, but I think the parents of kindergarteners have some time to assess. I don't even have kids yet so hypothetically I have another 15 years before I have to decide and by then it will have been around long enough for me to feel comfortable with it.

Chi83, I get what you are saying, but even with meningococcal disease causing death, there are still more women that die every year due to cervical cancer than people who even contract bacterial meningitis (in developed countries). Of those people that contract it the majority survive without any lasting consequences. So can you really still say that the meningococcal vaccine has more value? And I'm just speaking of cervical cancer, not even talking about the other cancers that it causes that effect both women and men.

Well, yes, I do think meningitis vaccine is more valuable. Simply because meningitis happens so quickly, and it spreads easily especially in close quarters like dorms. There's not much you can do to prevent it. I have two friends who contracted meningitis. Both nearly died, and one still has health issues related to it.

Cervical cancer can take years to develop, and most women who develop cervical cancer do so because they aren't being screened regularly. Paps can pick up abnormalities long before it turns into cancer and with proper screening and treatment it's very unlikely for cancer to develop. There are always exceptions of course where a small percentage of women who develop cervical cancer are regularly screened, but it's rare.

So I'm coming in at the end of the Gardasil discussion and have to say how pleased I am by it! On all sides we have informed people having a civil discussion about making informed choices. I'd have a lot less issue with the anti-vaxers if there were a particular vaccine they had researched and had some issues with, rather than the whole gamut of vaccines for no stateable reason. If they only had an inkling of the numbers of grateful people who lined up to be infected with cow pox once it was revealed that it could immunize them from small pox!

I had forgotten until this morning--pushed it out of my mind--I have a relative who is an epidemiologist who wouldn't vaccinate her child until he was refused entry into school. She's part of that same cohort (age group) who don't remember what outbreaks look like, but you'd think she'd have learned in her education!

Re homeschooling, California is a BIG state, both in land mass and population. Throw in the size of the economy and, without the other 49 states and US territories, California is one of the larger countries in the world. We have everything here. There are anti-education religious homeschoolers who choose that because they don't want their children exposed to Darwin, Shakespeare, Freud, and Twain. There are flippy dippy hippie homeschoolers who don't want their children ruled by rules and bells and curricula, and let them learn whatever they want on any particular day. There are religious pro-education homeschoolers who want to keep a devotional schedule or calendar, which would otherwise have the kids out of class too much, but who have plenty of lesson time for teaching a greater breadth and depth than is offered in a public classroom because they don't spend time on taking roll, lining up, announcements, etc. There are liberal homeschoolers who just want to share the educational experience with their kids and keep them close. There are underserved homeschoolers whose kids need more attention, or are too bright or too slow to be well instructed in a large classroom and don't have other nearby alternatives, who homeschool out of necessity. There are many more broad categories, and each family has its own story. This has been true all along. The anti-school zealots used to get lots of press, but that doesn't mean the others didn't also exist.

My favorite school I've heard of is a kindergarten in Germany where the parents drop off the kids in the woods for the day. With teachers. :) There's a small building in the woods for when the weather is just too foul, but the trees offer a lot of protection, and most of the lessons are conducted outside. I bet that's good for the kids' immune systems, too, rather than being cooped up inside. It's too bad they can't do that for all their primary education.

Chi83, yes college dorms are definitely more likely contact because of behavior. Meingococcal is spread by saliva which we all I'm sure can admit happens quite frequently in college. You don't contract it with the same frequency or in the same way you would say a cold, flu, or measles. My point is that, I really don't think that it's any more severe than something like HPV which actually affects a greater portion of society, with just as great of consequences since both can and do involve death.

I am just glad that the hpv vaccine isn't required at this point in California. Meningitis is and I think that's great.

Since most cervical cancer happens in middle age, we won't see the benefits for a few decades in terms of cancer prevention. Those at risk for developing cancer in the next 20 years have likely already been exposed to hpv. The benefits to meningitis vaccines are more immediate. That's another benefit in my book. I think cancer in general will be a completely different situation in 20-30 years, at least I hope so.

I do hope that the hpv vaccine proves to be safe and effective long term, especially for those communities that don't have screening.

Sorry to say, but some of you are acting like complete fools to even remotely suggest that as lay persons you have ANY, repeat ANY, basis, ability, or information to thoughtfully assess pros and cons of vaccine use or other public health measures. Just the same as the those who speak out in public in these "movements" who don't have the slightest idea what they're talking about.

You're on my Team 2 because you lack the education and professional experience to address these issues knowledgeably. You're well intentioned, but clueless. Don't for a minute think it's otherwise.

If any of you are MDs or medical researchers, different story. Otherwise, what'll be your next topic to weigh in on, the effect of tea kettle use on global warming?:

One hint I have about vaccines for kids. Try to take them in the summer months. Then take them swimming. Keeps the muscle soreness down without meds. Or let them play in the tub.

Snidely - pot meet kettle. I seem to recall plenty of posts written by you on various subjects where you do not hold a degree. People have discussions all the time on issues that they don't have professional expertise in. Shall I call you a fool every time you debate a topic with someone? Despite vaccinations being for the better good of society there actual real pros and cons. Blindly following "experts" doesn't guarantee they are always right, ever hear of thalidomide? I appreciate hearing Chi83's point of view and I actually can understand where she is coming from. Neither her nor I are fools. We're simply having a discussion, just like any other topic that people discuss.

Luckily, Snidely thinking we're fools doesn't actually mean anything, so he's free to think what he wants.

I appreciate a thoughtful debate, and will continue to use my own judgement when it comes to the health of myself and my family, along with guidance from our doctors. I'm not telling anyone else what to do or trying to sell books on the subject. I agree only experts should do that.

On a sad note, the first US death from measles in 12 years occurred today. A young woman in Washington who was immune-compromised and in a hospital for treatment crossed paths with someone with measles. This was so preventable. I feel so bad for her loved ones. How infuriating must it be to know this could have been prevented with vaccines. Measles was eliminated from the US in 2000 and now it's killing people again.

National Geographic Report

Nah. I was referring to pseudo-technical comments. Risk assessments, technical factors underlying recommendations, medical evaluations. Here's quotes from above

......This is a tough one....
......I was leery of vaccinations....
......I would evaluate the merit of a newer, untested vaccine versus the the risk of exposure and catching the disease...
.......If you read through the side effects of vaccines you'll see that many
have just as severe, if not more severe than the HPV vaccines. Heck,
look at MMR vaccine side effects...
......to me is that meningitis is a very serious, often deadly and contagious
disease, so the potential risk/reward analysis errs on the side of
risking the vaccine. The HPV vaccine, not so much
.........we won't see the benefits for a few decades in terms of cancer
prevention. Those at risk for developing cancer in the next 20 years
have likely already been exposed to hpv.

and my favorite:

.....Meingococcal is spread by saliva which we all I'm sure can admit happens quite frequently in college.

Which is wrong. It has a respiratory spread, like many other illnesses. It's easily spread among people in college and in the military because of people sleeping and spending more time in closer proximity to many others. When I was in the Army (ages ago) we had to sleep with barracks windows wide open and alternating head and foot bed layouts because of an outbreak in another part of our base.

Why pretend to know and understand something when that isn't the case?

I'm a curious guy, I read a lot, and I'm the person who asks a lot of questions of people in the know on various subjects (though never at the end of a class session). I don't blow smoke. Anytime you want to question something I've said, please do. I'll repeat what I've heard that I think is credible but never with the pretense of adding my own analysis to subjects I'm not qualified to do so with.

I feel like I should win a prize or something that your favorite was one of my quotes about transmission due to saliva. I'm glad that you are acting the fool, just like Chi83 and I since you think despite your lack of medical degree, you can weigh in and claim to know that it has a respiratory spread. However, the cdc does not agree with you, "The germs that cause bacterial meningitis can be contagious. Some bacteria can spread through the exchange (e.g., by kissing) of respiratory and throat secretions (e.g., saliva or mucus). Fortunately, most of the bacteria that cause meningitis are not as contagious as viruses that cause the common cold or the flu. " Neither Chi nor I claimed to know or pretended about anything. We're just having a discussion. I find it peculiar that you are so offended that by what we had to say. Slow day Snidely?

Snidely, I also repeat what I think is credible, like you do. I get my information from trusted sources and use them to make my comments. Below are some examples of my statements along with their credible sources such as WHO, the CDC, the FDA, Cancer.org and the Mayo Clinic.

For example, when I say, "Countries have pulled it from their recommended vaccines because of the side effects." it's because Japan pulled their recommendation for it because of side effects in 2013. Japan Times Article

When I say, "There is concern if you have already been exposed to hpv, getting the
vaccine actually increases your chances of cervical cancer." According to the VRBPAC, it's true. FDA Document Bottom of page 13.

When I say, "I guess the difference to me is that meningitis is a very serious, often
deadly and contagious disease, so the potential risk/reward analysis
errs on the side of risking the vaccine. The HPV vaccine, not so much" is because meningitis is considered an urgent condition, can be deadly, and can be contagious (Mayo Clinic Source). HPV is not considered an urgent condition, and is very rarely deadly with proper screening and treatment. CDC

When I say, "Pretty much everyone gets HPV at some point" it's because it's true. CDC Statistics

When I say, "only very rarely does it turn into something more serious, and if you
keep on top of your paps there's an extremely low chance of ever
developing cervical cancer in nations where routine paps are common" because it's true according to the CDC. CDC Statistics Cancer.org

How about, "Cervical cancer can take years to develop" it takes 15-20 years according to WHO. WHO source

And, "most women who develop cervical cancer do so because they aren't being screened regularly" Cancer.org source

When I say, "Since most cervical cancer happens in middle age, we won't see the benefits for a few decades in terms of cancer prevention." it's
because the CDC says that the median age for HPV-associated cervical
cancer is 48. CDC Statistics According to Cancer.org, "The time from HPV infection to cancer can be decades, so it will take
more time to see the impact of vaccination on cancer rates." Cancer.org source

And finally, when I say, "Those at risk for developing cancer in the next 20 years have likely already been exposed to hpv." it's because most people today have been exposed to HPV. WHO Statistics

I fully expected (and so accept) that return fire would be a consequence of the critical comment.

Look, Google isn't your friend with topics like this. Accumulating a number of search results isn't a demonstration of knowledge. Yes, you can inform yourself, but recognize that often opinions differ, and many things found on non-institutional websites (like the lawyer's site someone cited recently on a health topic) are no more authoritative than the uninformed comments that you and I can offer. Other things on authoritative sites are dumbed-down for the general public, Issues are nuanced and very important and even sometimes contradictory technical details are intentionally left out.

These topics are complicated and like others in the health sciences, often understanding is incomplete and consensus conclusions aren't immediately available. Know how to spot an honest and capable scientist or doc? In conversations with such experts, you'll always hear the speaker repeatedly referring to unknowns, uncertainties, unanswered questions, and surrounding issues that the speaker feels to have an incomplete understanding of. So in that context, how do so many of you have firm conclusions? Decisions are often compromises, the weighing of risks. The outcome may not be a consensus about the science, but rather a consensus of what approach to take in dealing with uncertainties.

So back to the beginning, the best anyone can do is to trust the experts whose lives are dedicated to improving public health and treating diseases. Lay people will (and should) talk about developments, consequences, and their own feelings as these things affect their lives. But for uneducated people to pursue the folly of assessing and plunging into technical details far beyond their understanding is nonsense.

If you want to learn an expert view, walk away from your computer and go talk with your doctor. Follow their advice and let it go at that.

Hmm, so let me get this straight, as a person whose children are up to date with their immunizations, I should book an appointment with my doctor to discuss immunizations that my children nor myself require. That sounds like a brilliant plan.

Actually, what good doctors do is provide the patients with similar information as Chi83 found by reading what was posted by reputable sources, and provide discussion and feedback while answering questions, so the patient can make an informed decision. Just blindly throwing up your hands and saying "you're the doctor" is what gets people in trouble. No one is going to be a better advocate for ourselves and our children than us. There is an obligation to become informed before making decisions. Discussion is a tried and true method for piecing through piles of information. It's less formal than the Dialectic, but serves a similar purpose. One need not be able to devise the experiment in order to read and understand the results.

You know it's funny how a thread can get derailed so quickly. I may be off base so Chi83 feel free to correct me, but neither of us felt the need to post fact after fact showing medical data on things like side effects of Gardasil or statistics on the deaths due to cervical cancer because we were having a light discussion. My comments weren't flippant. They were based on medical literature. I personally wasn't trying to prove a point (and I don't think she was either) just trying to have a simple dialogue. People are more than capable to look up data on their own and make their own opinions. My whole point was that I thought it was strange that some people who were putting down people who are anti-vaccine were then anti some vaccines themselves. That evolved into a discussion with Chi83. I felt it was a pleasant discussion, a grown up discussion. Personally I left childhood a long time ago, when I was scolded and told what I could and couldn't talk about. We're all grown ups here and if you don't like the topic, the mature thing to do is to not participate.

LM3, to your point about the vax, anti-vax, it's a fair point. I think the nuance, however, is that the anti-vaccination movement which seemed to be the charlatans leading the ill informed leading the don't have time to make their own informed decisions, at least here in California where this law was just created, was against well proven and established vaccines that prevented or near to locally eradicated devastating, highly contagious illnesses like measles, whooping cough and polio. Dead, disfigured and damaged children abounded. The local eradication depended on the whole population being immunized to near 100% as there are parts of the world where these diseases still run wild, and people (unwittingly) bring them into the state.

Having some caution over first generation vaccines, like for HPV, is also wise. The side effects warnings for all of the HPV vaccines, according to the CDC, have them quite common but not usually serious. It's good to be prepared for them, however, and for the ensuing discomfort. Also to be aware if the patient in question is prone to bad reactions.

There have been serious side effects to MMR and DPT too. It's just that the benefits to all so outweigh the chance of contracting them that withholding the shots from your kid is a statistically cruel choice which depends on everyone else getting the vaccine so that your child can be the one who doesn't risk the serious side effects. When 20% of the parents are making the same selfish choice, even the vaccinated kids are no longer safe.