or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Let's assume this is true...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Let's assume this is true...

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 

And that all the info came from non "natural" website sources: 

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/the-coming-push-to-give-hpv-vaccines-to-infants/

 

Are any of you guys okay with giving newborns the HPV vaccine?

 

I just can't imagine. They are not at risk. But, in my opinion they are not at risk for Hep B, so there's that. 


Edited by littlec - 8/6/13 at 6:55pm
post #2 of 11

The U.S. would be the first to start the universal infant vaccine program for HPV. Europe would lag way behind. Americans who spoke out against it would be labelled "anti-vax," while Europeans not giving their baby the vaccine would simply be following their country's recommendations.

post #3 of 11

reeks of 'population control' since so little is known how this drug affects a woman's (or man's) reproductive system.  

post #4 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlec View Post

And that all the info came from non "natural" website sources: 

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/the-coming-push-to-give-hpv-vaccines-to-infants/

 

Are any of you guys okay with giving newborns the HPV vaccine?

 

I just can't imagine. They are not at risk. But, in my opinion they are not at risk for Hep B, so there's that. 

While I agree the Hep B vaccine for infants is ridiculous, one could make the case that Hep B can be spread (while extremely unlikely)  through other routes besides sex and IV drug use which are the most common ones. This is not the case with the HPV vaccine. It's total BS and anyone who actually thought it was a good idea to give an infant this vaccine has totally drank the KOOL-AID  imo.

post #5 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlec View Post

And that all the info came from non "natural" website sources: 

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/the-coming-push-to-give-hpv-vaccines-to-infants/

 

Are any of you guys okay with giving newborns the HPV vaccine?

 

I just can't imagine. They are not at risk. But, in my opinion they are not at risk for Hep B, so there's that. 

While I agree the Hep B vaccine for infants is ridiculous, one could make the case that Hep B can be spread (while extremely unlikely)  through other routes besides sex and IV drug use which are the most common ones. This is not the case with the HPV vaccine. It's total BS and anyone who actually thought it was a good idea to give an infant this vaccine has totally drank the KOOL-AID  imo.

post #6 of 11

Here is my take:

 

HPV is a fairly unpopular vaccine.  Whomever wants to move it onto the infant schedule wants to do so to increase uptake.  For a variety of reasons, vaccines given in infancy have a higher usage than those given outside infancy.  

 

So society is naughty and questioning the necessity of the vaccine.  We cannot have that (sarcasm):  let's move it into the infant schedule.  Infant vaccines traditionally have higher uptake.  

post #7 of 11

To answer the question:  No, I am not okay with giving HPV to infants.

 

I think the only vaccines that should be offered to parents of infants are those that are an actual issue for infants: pertussis, rota, Hib, and others as appropriate if there are any outbreaks kicking around.  

 

I think the other diseases are rare and vaccines are largely given for reason of protecting the herd.  Even if you want to give the vaccines, they should, IMHO, be spread out and given when the child is older.  Older children can communicate any vaccine reactions.  If your child has any health issue, delaying makes sense as you might know about the health issue and be able to decide if they are a good candidate for a vaccine.    Moreover, delaying vaccines often leads to needing less boosters.  If you are vaccinating primarily to keep a very rare disease from coming back, doesn't it make sense to put your child at the least risk possible?  Less jabs equals less chance of vaccine reactions.  

post #8 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Here is my take:

 

HPV is a fairly unpopular vaccine.  Whomever wants to move it onto the infant schedule wants to do so to increase uptake.  For a variety of reasons, vaccines given in infancy have a higher usage than those given outside infancy.  

 

So society is naughty and questioning the necessity of the vaccine.  We cannot have that (sarcasm):  let's move it into the infant schedule.  Infant vaccines traditionally have higher uptake.  

and with adding it to the schedule, less parents are going to question it in the long run, or even in the short run-- a lot of parents will comply out of a fear based decision  being made--- and this  will eventually be seen as part of the 'routine  vaccination program for infants'  -at least in the USA

 

oh, and let's not forget the money train

post #9 of 11

Will it even be effective long enough to be given that early or will it have worn off by the time they reach the age where they are most likely to be at risk? What about strain mutation? Will they still need to be protected against the original four or will new ones be added?

post #10 of 11

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23902317

 

 

 

Quote:
Human Papilloma Virus Vaccine and Primary Ovarian Failure: Another Facet of the Autoimmune/Inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants.
post #11 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitfulmomma View Post

Will it even be effective long enough to be given that early or will it have worn off by the time they reach the age where they are most likely to be at risk? What about strain mutation? Will they still need to be protected against the original four or will new ones be added?

boosters=cha-ching!!!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Let's assume this is true...