NationStates Jolt Archive

So, scary day. I can't find my children's immunization records. I called every doctor they have been to in the last 5 years and no luck.

I went searching on the net for what to do when you lose the shot records and found that in my state you can get exemption from immunization for your children for either medical, religious, or personal reasons.

I was wondering what you all thought of this?

I am not attempting to exempt my children from immunizations because personally I think it's a crappy thing to do.....but I want to know what you think of the option being there?

If you had children would you immunize them? why or why not?

Do you think immunizations should be government mandated? why or why not?

Honestly if you can't find the records and you don't know when/where they were done, just hit 'em again.

I'd immunize kids against everything possible, no reason to subject them to diseases they don't have to suffer.

Absolutely, I'd immunise them, because if I don't, then society in general is put more at risk.

Look at the resurgence of Tuberculosis after we've stopped making people have mandatory immunisations against it - an ever growing problem to say the least.

And it should be mandatory. I don't see why everyone should be put at risk, especially for something so petty as religious or personal reasons. I personally have a fear of needles. Doesn't stop me getting immunisations, even if I hate them, as it's just the right thing to do.

Which ones?

i made sure my son got all his shots.

im fine with there being an exception for parents who just dont believe in that kind of thing. its a risk for their kids but not a big one as long as the vast majority of children get immunized.

if you claim an exemption and then get them their next shots, do you ruin your exemption?

have they had Hib and hepititis b shots?

Yes, because immunity from serious diseases is a good thing. I don't see the point in immunising against things like chickenpox - better just to get the thing and then never have to worry about it again.

On the other hand, if they're as allergic as me, then a lot of immunisation courses will be out of bounds to them due to the highly irritating habit of growing the fuckers in eggs. Bastard scientists, grumble bitch moan.

Refusing to immunize means giving the disease another carrier, helping it to survive.

actually there is a point in getting immunized against chicken pox. My husband has never had chicken pox and if he were to catch it from one of my children he would get very very ill. The less chicken pox floating in the air the more people like my husband with weak immune systems are safer.

Chicken pox vaccine doesn't grant immunity forever though. You can get the disease twice, the second time it's worse. Shingles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shingles) I'm told they're not fun.

Yes, because immunity from serious diseases is a good thing. I don't see the point in immunising against things like chickenpox - better just to get the thing and then never have to worry about it again.
actually there is a point in getting immunized against chicken pox. My husband has never had chicken pox and if he were to catch it from one of my children he would get very very ill. The less chicken pox floating in the air the more people like my husband with weak immune systems are safer.

i made sure my son got all his shots.

im fine with there being an exception for parents who just dont believe in that kind of thing. its a risk for their kids but not a big one as long as the vast majority of children get immunized.

if you claim an exemption and then get them their next shots, do you ruin your exemption?

have they had Hib and hepititis b shots?

they haven't had Hib or hep shots yet. They are current, but without records....they will have to get "caught up", which means lots of shots all over again.

My children, if I ever have any, would definitely be immunised. After all, I've been immunised, I understand the process and risks and I really think it's an amazing invention that saves millions of lives. I don't think it should be government mandated because it still has some very minor risks and ultimately it should be a parent's choice. The kid can still be immunised when they're older if they want and can be pissed at their parents all they want.

Immunisation... it's a good thing. Hurts like a bitch but you're body will thank you later when you're not keeling over the toilet puking your guts out.

And it should be mandatory. I don't see why everyone should be put at risk, especially for something so petty as religious or personal reasons.
What other reasons would there be?

To answer the OP though, yes, I believe immunization should be mandatory. First of all, the benefits are tremendous. Just look at small pox...oh wait, you can't, because it no longer exists! The same is true with polio. It's still out there, but not in the United States, and it is no longer the modern equivalent of the plague.
Secondly, like others have said, not getting immunized puts others at risk. Making it optional is like making airport security optional. If for no other reason, people should be immunized to help national security.

Huzzah for big brother!

The health department has an electronic copy of the shot records!!!!

Sadly it's not completely updated so the kids still have to take a few shots they already had :(

1) Your children's doctor sucks. =( I hope they turn up though. Sometimes these things get lost and then turn up.

2) I don't know if it is possible with all of the immunizations, but you could possibly get them checked for titers for at least some of them. If their titers are in the right level, they wouldn't need to get the shots again and I don't see why that couldn't be taken as evidence of their past immunizations.

3) I don't know about everywhere, but in my state the only way they enforce mandatory immunization for children is by disallowing those without current immunizations to enroll in public schools. Is it different where you live? If not, you probably don't need to worry about it as long as you are homeschooling.

4) My gut feeling is to say that immunizations should be mandatory for children. The idea of parents being able reject proper medical care for their children because of the parents' religious views has never sat well with me. The parents can certainly refuse medical care for themselves, but I see refusing it for the children as neglect.

Then again, a government mandate forcing a parent to compromise their own religious views or lose their children doesn't sit well with me either. It's a tricky balance, but my gut instinct definitely tells me to skew that balance in favor of the children, rather than the parents.

Huzzah for big brother!

The health department has an electronic copy of the shot records!!!!

Sadly it's not completely updated so the kids still have to take a few shots they already had :(

That's horrifying. I hate to think the government keeps medical records on people, even just immunizations.

i don't think they should be mandated. but i would respect a person less if they chose not to immunise their kids. it's a simple matter really, immunisation = probably won't get the nasty diseases, no immunisation means maybe possibly unconfirmed will avoid some other disease but probably will get other nasty diseases. no-brainer to me.

I'd get whatever comes under my authority immunized and such, I would never have it mandatory though (do you trust the government with your allergies? etc)

Sadly it's not completely updated so the kids still have to take a few shots they already had :(

tell them there going to Disneyland!

To me, asking if parents should have to immunize their children is like asking if parents should have to feed their children or provide them shelter or other necessities, and the answer is, without hesitation, yes.

That's horrifying. I hate to think the government keeps medical records on people, even just immunizations.

indeed it is horrifying, however, it just saved my kids a lot of pain so I refuse to look at this intellectually at this time.

Wouldn't the government in effect have your medical records if there was government healthcare? I mean they would have to know what they were paying for right?

indeed it is horrifying, however, it just saved my kids a lot of pain so I refuse to look at this intellectually at this time.

Wouldn't the government in effect have your medical records if there was government healthcare? I mean they would have to know what they were paying for right?

Not necessarily. I mean the doctors would have to have it, but not the government per se. Just seems very Orwellian for them to keep records of that kind of thing.

They should not be mandatory. They should not be encouraged by government wasting tax money on ads. However, it is fine for society to encourage it. If you want to be safe, get immunized. If someone else doesn't, let them get sick.

2) I don't know if it is possible with all of the immunizations, but you could possibly get them checked for titers for at least some of them. If their titers are in the right level, they wouldn't need to get the shots again and I don't see why that couldn't be taken as evidence of their past immunizations.
the thing is they have to take blood to test that, and if they are getting stuck, I would rather them just get stuck once.

3) I don't know about everywhere, but in my state the only way they enforce mandatory immunization for children is by disallowing those without current immunizations to enroll in public schools. Is it different where you live? If not, you probably don't need to worry about it as long as you are homeschooling.

as far as I know all states have some sort of exemption, mostly for medical and religious reasons, I think there are only a few that don't have exemptions for personal reasons. My oldest either needs her shot record or an exemption form to enroll in college this winter...so I went looking and couldn't find any of it.


4) My gut feeling is to say that immunizations should be mandatory for children. The idea of parents being able reject proper medical care for their children because of the parents' religious views has never sat well with me. The parents can certainly refuse medical care for themselves, but I see refusing it for the children as neglect.

Then again, a government mandate forcing a parent to compromise their own religious views or lose their children doesn't sit well with me either. It's a tricky balance, but my gut instinct definitely tells me to skew that balance in favor of the children, rather than the parents.

I think everyone should immunize their children, but I am conflicted with the government mandating it, especially when people have religious reasons not to, but then it's not fair for the religious to get a "free pass" and people with non-religious reasons not to. Then I start thinking it's not really fair to the kids for their parents to make such a dangerous choice for them based on religion or personal reasons, but I don't think we should take that choice away either.......I am conflicted.

I think that vaccinations should be mandatory for children. To do otherwise would put them in danger. Children can't make informed decisions, ie they can't consent to procedures. We generally let parents decide what is good for a child, but only if it doesn't put the child's welfare at risk. Not getting a vaccine endangers the child's welfare without their consent. In the US there have been cases where affluent upper-middle class kids have gotten polio and the whooping cough, I'll come up with sources if desired. How fucked up is that? Adults can screw themselves health wise but I don't think we should allow parents to screw over their kids.

Assuming that the people who opt not to get immunized do so out of their own will and understand the risks, then it is fine. Not being immunized is hardly a harm towards everyone else, assuming this is a society that has open access to these immunizations. Though not being immunized could cause issues with international travel.

I myself have few of the standard immunizations.

However, if I had children, I would want them to have all the immunizations.

My own opinion makes no sense to me honestly.

What other reasons would there be?
Health reasons, like Haemophilia etc.

Wouldn't the government in effect have your medical records if there was government healthcare? I mean they would have to know what they were paying for right?

Not exactly. To use the UK as an example, the local GP surgery has your patient records but even though they're a part of the NHS if any information is required about you medical records all queries have to go through your GP first, so the government doesn't have your records your GP surgery does.

In regards the OP, mandatory. It solves a hell of a lot more problems than it causes.

Health reasons, like Haemophilia etc.
Oh, I see. I would classify that as "personal reasons," but I get the point.

Smunkee, there's the afore mentioned blood test, but that only works for the MMRs, not TD I'm afraid.

As for getting excemptions, speaking as someone who worked in university admissions office where we had many annoyed people who also could not produce their records, they are more than welcome to claim the excemption if they cannot produce the records and do not want to get the shots again, but they must also understand that the university/school can and will ban them from coming to school should there be an outbreak of something and will keep them out until the state health department has cleared the return with no danger. There will not be a refund for lost time.

actually there is a point in getting immunized against chicken pox. My husband has never had chicken pox and if he were to catch it from one of my children he would get very very ill. The less chicken pox floating in the air the more people like my husband with weak immune systems are safer.

My mom got chicken pox at 35. She almost died. She spent months on a respirator. Her lungs collapsed. It was awful.

Immunize FTW. How anyone could be against it is beyond me...

Immunize FTW. How anyone could be against it is beyond me...

http://www.deepdownwellness.com/althealth/vaccination.html

I don't know if any of that is reliable at all, but it does show that people are against it and I'm sure they have reasons somewhere.

Unless there's some sort of medical reason not to, I think immunization should be mandatory. It's a public health issue. And parents should never be able to refuse resonable medical care to children for religious reasons. When you are an adult and want to kill yourself by refusing reasonable medical, go for it. But not getting them their shots is like refusing to put the baby in the carseat.

On a more personal note, my shot records where lost when we moved out of state. I don't remember why they couldn't be found, but had to get them all over when I started 9th grade. :gundge:

I sure am glad I was immunized to polio and smallpox as a child.

Yes.

Should it be payed for by the government, (If implied...) No, unless the parents can't pay for it.

Also, HPV vaccine for girls should be mandatory.

Normally I am one to say stay out of the private lives of the people but immunization for children is a flat out necessity and its more for the welfare of the masses. It is an acceptable intrusion.

I'd have my children immunized against only the most probable serious diseases ie. the normal government approved free vaccination program which isn't mandatory but has an opt-out if there's a valid - including personal - reason for it.

It's my personal view that in case you are vaccinated against a disease then your body will be more prepared to fight against a threat it probably never faces - If your strengthened immune system is never tested because of all too clean growth environment you're more prone to develop life-hindering allergies.

As circumstancial evidence I give skyrocketing allergy rates in modern western society.

...just because people are too afraid to let their kids play in the dirt once in a while ;)

I say that childhood vaccinations should be mandatory unless you have a medical reason, for public safety if nothing else.

What other reasons would there be?



Medical - and that should be the ONLY reason for not immunising.

I was in the doctors the other day and a mother was booking her 12 year old in for the HPV vaccine - i thought that was really good, too many parents won't let their daughters have it for "religious reasons"

On a more personal note, my shot records where lost when we moved out of state. I don't remember why they couldn't be found, but had to get them all over when I started 9th grade. :gundge:

Huh? Couldn't they just do a blood test and issue you with a statement that you are immune?

What other reasons would there be?

To answer the OP though, yes, I believe immunization should be mandatory. First of all, the benefits are tremendous. Just look at small pox...oh wait, you can't, because it no longer exists! The same is true with polio. It's still out there, but not in the United States, and it is no longer the modern equivalent of the plague.
Secondly, like others have said, not getting immunized puts others at risk. Making it optional is like making airport security optional. If for no other reason, people should be immunized to help national security.

I guess all of the answers up to now have not been from Brits?

We had a while back a whole lunatic thing happening equating the combined MMR(measles, mumps and rubella) immunisation with childhood aultism.

As a conseqences many, many foolish people did not get their child immunised. Now of course we have had the biggest outbrake of mealses in this country since pre WWII.

Chicken pox vaccine doesn't grant immunity forever though. You can get the disease twice, the second time it's worse. Shingles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shingles) I'm told they're not fun.

Although shingles isn't really a new infection. It's a reactivation of the original infection

I guess all of the answers up to now have not been from Brits?

We had a while back a whole lunatic thing happening equating the combined MMR(measles, mumps and rubella) immunisation with childhood aultism.

As a conseqences many, many foolish people did not get their child immunised. Now of course we have had the biggest outbrake of mealses in this country since pre WWII.
Was just about to post the exact same thing.

Yeah, the MMR scare was idiotic; a disgraced report endangering the lives of thousands of children. You still meet loads of parents who are convinced jabs are a one-way ticket to autism.

Interestingly, Bann-ed’s link says much the same, only about a different jab.

I guess all of the answers up to now have not been from Brits?

We had a while back a whole lunatic thing happening equating the combined MMR(measles, mumps and rubella) immunisation with childhood aultism.

As a conseqences many, many foolish people did not get their child immunised. Now of course we have had the biggest outbrake of mealses in this country since pre WWII.

The annoying thing about that was how stubborn both sides were - parents refused the triple jab, and some health authorities refused to administer separate immunisations which the parents would have accepted.

To be fair, you can't blame parents for being more afraid of a lifelong illness they can see (most people know/know of autistic children) than measles etc, which they see as more trivial. The so-called link between autism and the jab was sensationalised out of all proportion :(

The annoying thing about that was how stubborn both sides were - parents refused the triple jab, and some health authorities refused to administer separate immunisations which the parents would have accepted.

To be fair, you can't blame parents for being more afraid of a lifelong illness they can see (most people know/know of autistic children) than measles etc, which they see as more trivial. The so-called link between autism and the jab was sensationalised out of all proportion :(

I make you right, why the government didn't allow the single jabs to go ahead will I think forever perplex me. Yet I can, and do, certainly blame, the parents.

Are you really saying that parents don't know about measles?

I make you right, why the government didn't allow the single jabs to go ahead will I think forever perplex me. Yet I can, and do, certainly blame, the parents.

Are you really saying that parents don't know about measles?

Unnecessary cost?

Then again it would be more of a long term investment if they did

I make you right, why the government didn't allow the single jabs to go ahead will I think forever perplex me. Yet I can, and do, certainly blame, the parents.

Are you really saying that parents don't know about measles?

My, completely unscientific, research shows me that nobody in my peer group has ever had or known anybody who had measles (hurray for jabs!) and that people are much more likely to dismiss a risk they haven't come face-to-face with. I do think there is a tendancy to regard something which has been so succesfully treated in the past as trivial to treat now, and that people reacted to the newspaper headlines rather than the facts, but this is all only speculation on my part.

My brother suffers from a very serious mental illness (not autism), so I have seen up close how devasting it can be, and I would also have worried about the triple jab, given the media coverage at the time. How could a parent live with themselves if their action, however well meaning, was responsible for inflicting that on their child? If I were I responsible for kids then, I think I would have paid for separate injections.

Unnecessary cost?

Then again it would be more of a long term investment if they did

Perhaps, that certainly makes some sort of sense.

I'm surprised no one's offered up the best answer/solution: don't have kids!
Hahaha...
But seriously, I hate needles. Absolutely ABHOR them. Which is why I'm all for immunizations.
If I don't get that immunization, then I could contract something awful and end up in the hopsital... IVs? Um, actually not.

And if I ever have kids, you bet I'm going to get them immunized.

My, completely unscientific, research shows me that nobody in my peer group has ever had or known anybody who had measles (hurray for jabs!) and that people are much more likely to dismiss a risk they haven't come face-to-face with. I do think there is a tendancy to regard something which has been so succesfully treated in the past as trivial to treat now, and that people reacted to the newspaper headlines rather than the facts, but this is all only speculation on my part.

My brother suffers from a very serious mental illness (not autism), so I have seen up close how devasting it can be, and I would also have worried about the triple jab, given the media coverage at the time. How could a parent live with themselves if their action, however well meaning, was responsible for inflicting that on their child? If I were I responsible for kids then, I think I would have paid for separate injections.

You do have a point, I read somewhere a while back that younger parents, do not really understand the risks of measles, but this MMR malarky took place a while back, what at least 5-6 years ago?

So factoring that the youngest parent must be around the 14-16 year olds in lets say 2002, then they would have been born around the 1985ish mark.

Which in turn means their parents are the generation just after mine, and where probably born mid 70's. That is well within living memory of family measles. If they didn't have it then it's almost garenteed their parents did.

As to the whoo haa surrounding it, I just read the papers, done a bit of reasearch and saw that there was nowt in it, that the arguments for MMR causing autism where not really there.

We track immunizations in our clients' children. There have been a couple families that were worried about giving their babies immunizations so early, but they eventually did it anyway. I had one family that did not believe in immunizations, but they had to get them for public school so they got a buttload of them right before they started school.

I don't know...they seem pretty safe, and they do NOT cause autism for crying out loud, and the illnesses they protect against are pretty unbelievably awful. So, I am not going to question it when it comes time to immunize my kids, should I have them.

Yes, because immunity from serious diseases is a good thing. I don't see the point in immunising against things like chickenpox - better just to get the thing and then never have to worry about it again.

On the other hand, if they're as allergic as me, then a lot of immunisation courses will be out of bounds to them due to the highly irritating habit of growing the fuckers in eggs. Bastard scientists, grumble bitch moan.

Well, if you only catch a mild case of chickenpox, or you never catch it, you are at risk for the much more dangerous version as an adult (shingles) which is unbelievably painful and terrible and can kill you if you're elderly/sick enough. Better to get immunized as a baby (when immunizations can be given for free at the Health Dept if needed) than have to spend ages in the hospital with shingles and you may not even have health insurance! What then?

Well, if you only catch a mild case of chickenpox, or you never catch it, you are at risk for the much more dangerous version as an adult (shingles) which is unbelievably painful and terrible and can kill you if you're elderly/sick enough. Better to get immunized as a baby (when immunizations can be given for free at the Health Dept if needed) than have to spend ages in the hospital with shingles and you may not even have health insurance! What then?

You can only get shingles if you have had chickenpox previously. It doesn't matter how severe the case of chickenpox was

So, scary day. I can't find my children's immunization records. I called every doctor they have been to in the last 5 years and no luck.

I went searching on the net for what to do when you lose the shot records and found that in my state you can get exemption from immunization for your children for either medical, religious, or personal reasons.

I was wondering what you all thought of this?

I am not attempting to exempt my children from immunizations because personally I think it's a crappy thing to do.....but I want to know what you think of the option being there?

If you had children would you immunize them? why or why not?

Do you think immunizations should be government mandated? why or why not?
I am not a doctor, and I am not advising anyone, and I personally believe that people on NSG should NOT be giving any medical advice.

Having said all that, my ex-wife and I made sure that our children received ALL of their required immunizations. Not just for the protection of our children, but also for the protection of others.

I say that childhood vaccinations should be mandatory unless you have a medical reason, for public safety if nothing else.

Well...I'd say they should be recommended, cause it's sort of a civil liberties thing. But also, if you don't have your kids immunized, and the kids don't get the immunizations later as an adult, then they sort of deserve to get the disease. The rest of us will be immune.

Is that a bad thing to think? Am I inaccurate somehow?

You can only get shingles if you have had chickenpox previously. It doesn't matter how severe the case of chickenpox was

What, really?

Crap.

SORRY I SUCK thanks for the correction

Some guy I know didn't get his daughter the MMR jab because of all that hoohah and now she's critically ill in hospital because she developed severe comlications. She now has meningitus too as a result.

This is what happens when the media and and a group of crackpot 'doctors' blow things out of all proportion.

What, really?

Crap.

SORRY I SUCK thanks for the correction

Yup

You get chickenpox (varicella zoster virus) and then when that passes the virus lies dormant in the nerves. Whenever your immune system is at a low point the virus reactivates to cause shingles (herpes zoster). The reason you get discrete points of the body affected is because the nerves supply different portions of the skin (dermatomes)

As long as the disease exist somewhere in the world, there are always chances for new outbreaks even with immunizations. While immunizations have been wonderful for large populations for basically wiping out certain diseases, strains that still exist in other populations mutate. Eventually there will be a mutation that is stronger and more deadly than the one/ones controlled by immunizing populations. This is the regular occurrance with needing yearly flu shots. Diseases mutate and evolve. Still, immunize children against those traditional diseases. This is different in compulsary vaccination that would be required in the US against small pox or other disease "warfare." Drug companies and the gov are already exempt from prosecution from side effects of forced immunizations that are not thoroughly tested and therefore have safety issues. This brings in a new debate.

I believe that Tony Blair hypocritically had his son Leo immunized with seperate vaccines whilst his government officially supported the MMR vaccine, and the Health authorities refused to offer seperate vaccination to parents becuase it would prove too expensive.

Immunization should be pretty much mandatory. If someone doesn't get immunized because of his personal choice and then catches and develops a almost extinct disease, then spreads it to others before they recieve thier vaccine's, then it's no longer his personal problem.

On a related note, I got my notice this morning that I have a flu jab appointment early November. Yay... :(

Also, now I'm scared I'm going to get shingles...


Also, if we do have mandatory vaccination, then the drugs used must be rigorously tested first, on animals. And I suppose human's too, if they volunteer.

I am not a doctor, and I am not advising anyone, and I personally believe that people on NSG should NOT be giving any medical advice.
I wasn't asking for medical advice. I wasn't asking for any advice at all.

Having said all that, my ex-wife and I made sure that our children received ALL of their required immunizations. Not just for the protection of our children, but also for the protection of others.
You personally do that, and I personally do that, what I am asking is do you think the government should mandate it done and if so, should there be exemptions and what type?

Also, now I'm scared I'm going to get shingles...


I had a pretty mild case of shingles last month. It lasted 3 weeks and was a bit itchy. When you scratch though you get some fun horrible pain :p

Not as bad as I had expected though

So, scary day. I can't find my children's immunization records. I called every doctor they have been to in the last 5 years and no luck.

I went searching on the net for what to do when you lose the shot records and found that in my state you can get exemption from immunization for your children for either medical, religious, or personal reasons.

I was wondering what you all thought of this?

I am not attempting to exempt my children from immunizations because personally I think it's a crappy thing to do.....but I want to know what you think of the option being there?

If you had children would you immunize them? why or why not?

Do you think immunizations should be government mandated? why or why not?

I remember we got vacinations at school when I was a kid.
I would agree that it ought to be compulsory. Yes, parents have the right to bring up their children any way they want (mostly), but not vaccinating them is putting them needlessly in serious danger. It's negligence, and should be treated as such.

Mandated and subsidised would be nice. Immunisation is good, free or cheap immunisation is better.

Rather than read five pages, I would say that my children haven't received all the immunisations available. The have received them for most of the serious diseases they could come into contact with, but not all of them. My hesitation to use vaccines, unless I and their doctor determine that the risk of disease outweighs the risk of adverse reaction, is based more on current medical ignorance of long term effects of immunisation.

I personally am against immunization, I am especially against the latest vaccine for cervical cancer. With a quick search I have a wonderful paper that perfectly illustrates the argument against immunization. If you would be so kind as to look over the entire thing, that would be great.

http://members.aol.com/doctorrmosk/articles/immunizations_1.html

I was in the doctors the other day and a mother was booking her 12 year old in for the HPV vaccine - i thought that was really good, too many parents won't let their daughters have it for "religious reasons"

Well, you know, they'll immediately go out and have lots and lots of immoral premarital sex if you immunize them against 4 strains of an STD that might cause cervical cancer. If they decide to have sex at any time in their lives and end up with a cancer-causing strain of HPV, they deserve cancer, right?

for the younger females around age twelve, yes they will take it as a sign that they can freely go about and have sex with no worries. And yes some people, children and adults, are stupid enough to believe that the HPV will protect them.

If you don't believe look at miss South Carolina :D :p

As I said previously I am against that immunization specifically, a small part of the reason is because of stupid people that'll take as a free-for-all pass. Mostly though it is because I have seen no research to prove that long term side-effects are out weighed by the primary effect (a preventive for cancer). That is, in a very consice and watered down summary, my argument for all vaccines.

That's horrifying. I hate to think the government keeps medical records on people, even just immunizations.

Well to be fair, here you have to opt into it. You sign a form at the pediatricians office that copies of immunization records can be sent to the health department.

If you have insurance, there are likely some health records on you with these folks (http://www.mib.com/)anyway.

I personally am against immunization, I am especially against the latest vaccine for cervical cancer.

So, a cancer that can be FECKING PREVENTED shouldn't be? WHY?? because it is a SEXUALLY transmitted disease? Is that the damned reason? That cervical cancer needs to be a fecking punishment? Assorted cusswords here.

I saw a dear friend die of this type of cancer. She was one of the unlucky ones. It got caught early enough actually earlier than most who have this cancer, but she didn't respond to any treatments. Chemo, radiation, and REMOVAL. She got it from her husband.

But I guess that this doesn't make a damned bit of difference to you. Because the PREVENATIVE shots are evil. SNORT!

PREVENTABLE diseases need to be suffered because of what, exactly? If enough members of a population are 'safe' from the disease, than those that don't get the vaccines are protected by 'herd immunities' to some degree. You don't remember that little town in the deep south that nearly lost ALL of their children to viral outbreak of mumps? A preventable disease.

Let me guess, you don't really realize exactly HOW many people DIED from diseases in the past that we (generic) now consider rather preventable. I'd suggest taking a stroll into any nearby cemetary over a 100 years old, and looking at the lifespans listed on the tombstones. That might give you a slight clue. BY four.

for the younger females around age twelve, yes they will take it as a sign that they can freely go about and have sex with no worries. And yes some people, children and adults, are stupid enough to believe that the HPV will protect them.

If you don't believe look at miss South Carolina :D :p

As I said previously I am against that immunization specifically, a small part of the reason is because of stupid people that'll take as a free-for-all pass. Mostly though it is because I have seen no research to prove that long term side-effects are out weighed by the primary effect (a preventive for cancer). That is, in a very consice and watered down summary, my argument for all vaccines.

Unfortunately, your argument does not stand up to scrutiny.

Given that immunization regimes for many diseases have been in place now for close to three generations, and long term side-effects have been: nil, and that the primary effect here is: significantly increased chances of long-term SURVIVAL, your cost/benefit analysis appears to be severely skewed from the reality of the situation.

As to your "stupid people" argument, unfortunately there are such, and we cannot prevent them from being stupid. However, why do you worry about them? Sooner or later, stupidity is it's own death sentence, one way or another. So, why allow stupid people to constrain those who are not stupid?

My position is quite simple. Childhood vaccination should be freely provided by the Federal government, and a full range of shots should be a prerequisite to acceptance at any school, public or private. Non-vaccinated children are a threat to everyone.

for the younger females around age twelve, yes they will take it as a sign that they can freely go about and have sex with no worries.

That is such a ridiculous statement that it alone is probably enuogh to let me reasonably discard whatever you have to say.

And yes some people, children and adults, are stupid enough to believe that the HPV will protect them.

Stupid? Or uneducated? If we don't teach people what the consequences of sex are and how to be safe when doing it, they aren't going to put those things into practice, now are they?

As I said previously I am against that immunization specifically, a small part of the reason is because of stupid people that'll take as a free-for-all pass. Mostly though it is because I have seen no research to prove that long term side-effects are out weighed by the primary effect (a preventive for cancer). That is, in a very consice and watered down summary, my argument for all vaccines.

So you are against a preventative for cancer because some people might recklessly have sex and long-term effects that have not occurred in any significant amount with any of the myriad of vaccines might occur with this one, which was well tested before it went out on the market?

I don't like your poll. I vote for the "ban immunization" option. Most kids in Africa don't get them and they turn out just fine. amirite or amirite?

I don't like your poll. I vote for the "ban immunization" option. Most kids in Africa don't get them and they turn out just fine. amirite or amirite?

No, not in the least...

Huzzah for big brother!

The health department has an electronic copy of the shot records!!!!

Sadly it's not completely updated so the kids still have to take a few shots they already had :(

Weird, i just went through this yesterday. The records I had were not lost, just incomplete...some immunizations were done out of province and some were done in a rural area, so the city health centre didn't have everything up to date. They weren't pushy though, which was nice, because they can be. I said I knew my daughter had already gotten her last MMR, and they said that was fine, even though it didn't show up in the records. Eventually I need to get all the records together, but getting that stuff from where they were born is a real pain in the ass.

It is optional here. You don't have to get your kids immunized...BUT they will not be admitted to some schools, or some programs without immunizations. Certain dayhomes or daycares may refuse them entry. I had some misgivings about immunizations because of stories I'd heard about autism and so forth...but I did some research, and decided the risk was minimal, and the benefits many.

I don't like your poll. I vote for the "ban immunization" option. Most kids in Africa don't get them and they turn out just fine. amirite or amirite?

I'm guessing this was meant to be ironic. If not, I'm betting million will want to use the malaria vaccine if and when it is developed.