Vaccine or No Vaccine?

You should get the vaccine. It doesn’t mean anything socially. Here’s an article that describes the controversy. This factsheet may also ally some of your concerns. The rumors are pretty much all wrong. The vaccine is pretty expensive ($360), so if your school is paying for it, I’d get it.

I would recommend getting the vaccination. Cervical cancer kills thousands of women a year compared to the very very few who have a serious or reaction to the vaccine. I recommend starting to read the Wikipedia page about it, then follow up with more questions. I would not trust any of the rumors without seeing proof of them, and that’s where a lot of rumors start breaking apart :)

Hands down get the vaccine. It will be something you will want to get in the future anyway when/if you become sexually active.

I strongly recommend doing research. This is your body, and your health. Look up HPV, and decide for yourself if you want to get the vaccine.
Here are sites giving pro-vaccine information: http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine-young-women.htm
It only protects against TWO strains of HPV. TWO. There are over 40 types of HPV. http://www.cdc.gov/STD/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm#Whatis (I actually thought there were more than that.)
Here is a list of the side effects http://hpv.emedtv.com/hpv-vaccine/hpv-vaccine-side-effects-p2.html

You do not have to get the vaccine. This is your choice. Do not let anyone pressure you into it.

I personally have HPV, and even if they came out with the vaccine before I got HPV, I wouldn’t have gotten the vaccine. And I doubt I’ll ever get it for my children, but that’s minimum ten to 15 years from now, so there might be more research by then…and who knows, they might pull it off the market because they realize the long term damage it can do.

I would strongly recommend the vaccine, but then again I am a drug and vaccine promoting infectious diseases doctor. Vaccines today are very safe, and preventing the consequences of HPV (i.e. cervical dysplasia and cancer) is very important for young women. Here is a discussion of some of the concerns as discussed on Fluther.

The biggest problem I have seen with this vaccine where I live is simply the way in which our governor, who gets campaign contributions from the manufacturer, tried to force the girls of Texas to get it by pushing through an inappropriate law.

It is a good vaccine, and it will save lives and reduce testing and treatment costs over time. However, it only helps those who are sexually active, so for our governor to insist that all girls over the age of 12 get the vaccine or face legal penalty was overbearing to say the least.

A vaccine for something like meningitis is different in that exposure to meningitis does not require sexual activity, simply presence near an infected person. Meningitis is also an immediate killer and can spread readily through any group of people.

My point is even though this is a good vaccine that will make a difference in a lot of lives, it isn’t for a disease that can be spread by simply being around those who have HPV. It isn’t really necessary until people decide it is time to become sexually active. That tends to be an individual decision and so should not be regulated by law.

I recommend that you do get the vaccine either before you become sexually active or if you test negative for the forms of HPV it prevents. However, I also suggest that you do some research so you can be comfortable when you make your decision, whichever way you choose to go.

@casheroo The vaccine only protects against two strains because the majority of the other HPV strains do not cause cervical cancer. They are much more benign, and thus, there is no point in preventing infection from those strains. Thus, the fact that the vaccine only protects against 2 serotypes, 16 and 18, should not be the mitigating factor in anyone’s decision.

We just discussed this, and this discussion has a lot of good information.

@shilolo Majority, or all? So just these two cause cervical cancer?
Are there specific types of HPV that are associated with cancer?
Some types of HPV are referred to as “low-risk” viruses because they rarely cause lesions that develop into cancer. HPV types that are more likely to lead to the development of cancer are referred to as “high-risk.” Both high-risk and low-risk types of HPV can cause the growth of abnormal cells, but only the high-risk types of HPV lead to cancer. Sexually transmitted, high-risk HPVs include types 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 66, 68, and 73 (4). These high-risk types of HPV cause growths on the cervix that are usually flat and nearly invisible, as compared with the external warts caused by low-risk types HPV–6 and HPV–11. HPV types 16 and 18 together cause about 70 percent of cervical cancers (4, 5). It is important to note, however, that the great majority of high-risk HPV infections go away on their own and do not cause cancer (5).

So do people not have those other high risk ones?

Also, I find it disturbing whenever a school tries to enforce or promote a vaccine. It makes me wonder why the OP’s school is doing it.

@casheroo

Some protection is better than no protection. I work in a school, so I get the flu vaccine every year, even though it doesn’t protect against all strains of flu.

@casheroo
“Also, I find it disturbing whenever a school tries to enforce or promote a vaccine. It makes me wonder why the OP’s school is doing it.”

Um…to prevent disease?

@crisw Flu vaccine? Nothing we say to each other in this thread will be helpful.

In the long run, it can’t hurt. I know there are side-effects (some flu-like symptoms if I understand right) but if you are exposed to the few strains of the virus this prevents, it’s worth not getting cervical cancer. I wish this was available before I contracted HPV. I don’t know if mine is a type prevented by the vaccine, but at least I could’ve taken the measure.

@crisw : Protection, yes. But a school promoting vaccination is, in my opinion, none of their business, and I am also suspicious of what they’re getting in return for the promotion. This is not the school’s place. But, since they’re doing it, I would advise everyone to take advantage of the service.

@casheroo No vaccine is perfect, but the HPV vaccine in its current form protects against 70% of all cases of cervical dysplasia and cancer. The pneumococcal vaccine (against pneumonia and meningitis) is 23-valent (i.e. it contains epitopes for 23 different Streptococcus pneumonia serotypes) and protects against 90% of cases (that still leaves a 10% window). Many other vaccines have similar numbers (i.e 80–90% protection) that is a result of imperfect immune responses in a population and the inability to include every serotype in every vaccine.

I would rather send my children to a school that promotes vaccination, including for diseases such as Diptheria, Polio, Whooping Cough, Small Pox, Chicken Pox, Meningitis, Hepatitis, and other diseases that were the cause of many, many deaths, than to a school that does not.

It really all comes down to public health – if children are to be gathered together in order to teach them, then I would hope the school would also want to protect them from deadly illness that can readily be spread from child to child.

My only problem with the HPV vaccine is that it, like full GYN examinations, isn’t needed until adulthood approaches. My daughter will get it eventually, but not when she hasn’t even started menstruation yet.

@ubersiren Some schools promote condom use as well, recognizing that high school kids will have sex, and that in combination with safe sex education, free condoms will reduce the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. I don’t see how this is different (it is being offered, not made mandatory as far as I can tell by this post).

@Darwin I would never send my children to a school that does not insist on vaccinations for all its students, particularly for highly contagious diseases. To allow selfish parents to leech off the herd immunity afforded by other children getting vaccinated while at the same time potentially creating a reservoir of disease is unacceptable to me. For example, just in the past few years there have been several measles outbreaks owing to lack of vaccination. I consider this to be reprehensible.

@shilolo – I agree wholeheartedly. I have lived in places where universal vaccination was not available. I do not ever want to see or hear of a child dying from a preventable disease again.

I do vaccinate my children against all the readily communicable diseases. I am only delaying my daughter’s vaccination against HPV until it makes sense in terms of her age. I also am waiting for the decision that males be vaccinated, too. HPV is spread between females and males and so to control it both should be vaccinated. I understand that HPV can (rarely) cause various male genital cancers, so it only makes sense to me.

The problem here in Texas was simply that the governor, who gets campaign money from Merck, suddenly announced that all girls had to have Gardasil or face legal sanctions. There was no explanation of why only girls and not boys, there was no openness about the possible financial incentive, nothing. It doesn’t mean the vaccine is a problem, but that the politics is a problem.

Texas, like a lot of states, provides a process by which parents/guardians can claim exemption from required vaccinations.

@Darwin I live in Northern California amongst many highly educated people. Yet, many parents in the area are against vaccination. Shocking, to say the least. Many pediatricians in the area do not accept this as viable, and therefore lots of parents have to look elsewhere for care as a consequence.

@robmandu Here’s a breakdown of each state: http://www.nvic.org/Vaccine-Laws/state-vaccine-requirements.aspx I dislike that I have to use a religious expemption, I wish my state had a personal conviction exemption.

@casheroo So, are you opposed to childhood vaccination? Because, the website you linked to is clearly an anti-vaccine site. I should add that the site is not very scientifically valid in its attack of vaccines, with mixed messages and false statistics, but I digress.

@shilolo I just googled “vaccine expemtion by state” I don’t have one bookmarked…so I didn’t read the entire site. But, I read that PA is a religious exemption state before. I’m not opposed to childhood vaccinations. I’m opposed to giving them to extremely young infants. I delay, not refuse. But, even with delaying, you still have to get exempt..even if you plan on getting the vaccines eventually.

eta I actually do refuse the flu vaccine and the rotavirus one. But, my child stays at home with me, I found no reason to get the rotavirus. If he entered daycare, I would do it because of how prevelant it is in daycares. But, I think they only allow it at 2,4,and 6 months right?

@casheroo What is your rationale for delaying, if I may ask?

Does an infant – for example, say 10 minutes out of the oven – have an immune system ready to tackle the same challenges as a 3–5 year old? or an adult?

I always thought the answer was “no”. And yet we’re pumping those brand-new babies up with Hep C B (thanks @cash) vaccine. Why so frickin’ early? He’s not living an “at-risk” lifestyle yet.

What’s the urgent urgency to get these vaccines plugged in so soon? In case the parents forget? Seems over-zealous to me.

@robmandu It’s a hep B vaccine, the same day they’re born.

@shilolo This may not be medically backed up, but I personally feel that injecting my child with multiple vaccines in one day, at such a young age is not a good idea. I am not comfortable with it. It has nothing to do with Autism, so you don’t have to go into that discussion with me ;) I will get my son his vaccines on a delayed scheduled that I made by looking at the CDC’s recommendation, Dr Sear’s, and talking to my own pediatrician. My pediatrician is fine with it since we will eventually get the vaccines. (Other than Chicken Pox…but, if our son doesn’t get it by age 10, we’ll most likely get the vaccine.)
Just to add, my son is up to date on all his vaccines except the MMR and Chicken pox, which they usually give at 15 months. He’s 23 months currently.(oh, and no rotavirus)

@robmandu First of all, it’s Hepatitis B, not C (there is no Hep C vaccine). Second, a neonatal immune system is immature, but has already been exposed to numerous antigens that cross the placental barrier. Third, the opposition to having “too many” shots in one day (that is, too many antigens) is (as you said) not backed up by science (or even common sense). Babies are exposed to literally thousands of new antigens (the same things in vaccines) daily. Adding a few more, as in the case of getting 5 vaccines in one day is a drop in the bucket. Yes, some come with adjuvants to stimulate a more robust immune response, but those vaccines (i.e. the conjugated vaccines) are designed to prevent serious illnesses, like pneumonia and meningitis. Once you’ve seen a kid die from a preventable disease because their paretns opted out (as I have), you’ll think twice (I would hope).

@robmandu I’ve always wondered that myself, about why we have to do so many so early…but my theory is that it’s because those diseases affect the young and elderly the worst, so they want to protect them as soon as possible. I do wonder why they get the Hep B the day they are born. I didn’t know about it. Never signed consent. Hospitals do it without consent and then get consent afterwards. Pretty messed up. @shilolo why do they get that one, by itself, so early?

Who gets hepatitis B?

Anyone can get hepatitis B, but some people are at higher risk, including
– people who were born to a mother with hepatitis B
– people who live with someone who has hepatitis B
– people who have lived in parts of the world where hepatitis B is common
– people who are exposed to blood or body fluids at work
– people on hemodialysis
– people who have had more than one sex partner in the last 6 months or have a history of sexually transmitted disease
– injection drug users
– men who have sex with men

—

Please explain to me why an infant 10 minutes old needs this particular vaccine so immediately.

@robmandu Maternal fetal transmission of hepatitis B is a serious problem. Even though most women are tested during pregnancy, not all are. Furthermore, there is a window of time when women (and men) have viremia (are infected) but do not show up as infected by standard tests. Thus, the safest thing to do is to assume the mother is HepB positive at delivery and vaccinate the neonate.
@casheroo With respect to the other vaccines, some are delayed beyond birth because the infant is protected by circulating maternal antibodies up until around 4–6 months. However, both the Hib and Prevnar vaccines are started earlier (2 months) because infants are highly susceptible to pneumonia and meningitis from those organisms at a young age. The consequences of Haemophilus or Pneumococcal meningitis to an infant are potentially devastating, and these bacteria are found everywhere (as opposed to say, measles or mumps, which require transmission from an index case).

So when big pharm comes up with an HIV vaccine, an NGU vaccine, a gonorrhea and a syphilis vaccine, we will take all our 10 yo daughters in for their shots? That’s great preventative medical treatment. It’s also a lot easier than teaching them all the consequences for behavior (and big pharm becomes richer than big oil)

There is no magic bullet or cure-all. Obesity kills more women than cervical cancer so why don’t we put our girls on Alli? Because of the side effects!

@galileogirl

” It’s also a lot easier than teaching them all the consequences for behavior”

Ah…so you would rather that girls be “punished” for having sex before marriage. You’d rather let disease flourish than remove this “tool” to enforce your religious beliefs. How kind of you.

@crisw Not even close, Bucko. Just pointing out what comes about when we abrogate responsibilities. The easy way is seldom the best way. And I wouldn’t trust anything big pharm said when they are trying to stampede us. Give young women (and young men) the truth and let them decide for themselves. Currently the truth is too “embarrassing” for parents to talk about in a straightforward honest way. It is still all euphemisms and nudge-nudge-wink-wink.

Consequences ≠ Punishment.

@crisw I’m only 22, so it wasn’t that long ago that I had sex-ed. If I was told that condoms didn’t protect against HPV, I would have held off on sex. I wouldn’t have been diagnosed with HPV at only 17, I wouldn’t have had to endure the pain and embarrassment. Education is key.

@galileogirl

So what exactly is your reasoning, then? If I had a daughter (or a son- why didn’t you mention them?), and there were vaccines available against HIV or syphilis, of course I’d get them vaccinated, just like I would vaccinate them against measles or polio. Why in the world wouldn’t I? The “let them decide for themselves” simply doesn’t apply here- we don’t say it about polio or measles, why HIV or syphilis?

Get the vaccine. Simple.

@galileogirl You seem to be a forceful advocate against vaccination since it appears to “benefit big pharma”. The same big pharma that puts in all the research and costs to develop the vaccine, all so people can complain about it. Every single person who is so against the vaccine needs to see someone dying young from a preventable illness in my opinion. Only then will you be able to say, “Sure, that 2 year old died from meningitis, but we prevented him from getting autism! And those fat cat big pharma execs didn’t make an extra $100! Good for us!”.

In the case of HPV, young women (and men) need to be vaccinated before they become sexually active. All the education in the world doesn’t actually stop kids from fooling around (thus the utility of providing education and condoms). Waiting until they are 18 is probably too late in most cases.

You said “So when big pharm comes up with an HIV vaccine, an NGU vaccine, a gonorrhea and a syphilis vaccine, we will take all our 10 yo daughters in for their shots?” My answer would be “Awesome! Hell yes!” Should we eliminate safety belts and airbags because they cause people to be more risky when they drive? According to you, those drivers should suffer the consequences for their poor driving, right? Why can’t people learn safe driving and have a safe car? By the same token, why can’t people have vaccines for preventable diseases and learn safe sex?

You obviously have no idea about how much better all of our lives are owing to vaccines, antibiotics, and improvements in medical care in general. Get off your high horse about “big pharma”. If you truly don’t believe in it, don’t take any medications and roll the dice. You certainly will screw the pharmaceutical companies then…

@shilolo : I know condoms are promoted in schools, and it’s not different. It’s just not how I expect my tax money to be used in a school. It’s not the school’s place. I’m not morally against it, I’m politically against it.

@shilolo
“All the education in the world doesn’t actually stop kids from fooling around (thus the utility of providing education and condoms). Waiting until they are 18 is probably too late in most cases.”

Plus the fact is, if you leave it up to 16 year olds who are having sex for the first time, they very well won’t choose to get vaccinated. We all know how indestructible kids of that age feel- they will choose risky sex over needle pokes. (Plus, of course, the real and sad agenda of the right-wing religious nutcases would no doubt be to require “parental permission” before teenagers got the vaccine and thus discourage it even more!)

I think it’s heinous to “encourage” chastity by allowing a deadly but preventable disease to flourish.

@ubersiren Not all schools provide free condoms, only some. In any event, why shouldn’t tax dollars be spent on providing condoms again? I fail to see your reasoning. Schools provide sex education, right? Part of sex education is prevention. Providing the means of prevention doesn’t seem that far off from teaching it, in my opinion. Otherwise, kids who are sheepish won’t buy them themselves, or talk with their parents about it and then make poor decisions. It seems to me that it is a lot cheaper for society to pay for some condoms than it is to pay for a bunch of abortions or STD treatments. In fact, all the data points to reduced rates of unwanted pregnancies, abortions and STDs when condoms are readily available, and that kids don’t go out having more sex if condoms are available.

Until there is an AIDS vaccine, I think schools providing condoms to those who need them is an excellent idea. The fact that condoms prevent pregnancy is almost minor in the face of contracting AIDS.

@ubersiren

I think it’s a school’s job, at least in part, to ensure that kids stay in school and get an education. Teenagers are going to have sex. Teenagers who don’t have money to buy condoms or who are scared to death of their parents, or whatever are still going to have sex. If a girl gets pregnant, there goes her schooling- and, according to all the studies I’ve seen, there, most likely, goes a good part of her potential to contribute as much to society as she otherwise could have. So, giving out condoms saves money and heps prevent societal woes, in the long run, as well as saving lives.

Put em’ out in big bowls in the hallways, as far as I’m concerned :>D

I would want to know how many people here are female or are parents of females. That would matter to me, personally, when taking into account someone’s opinion on the issue.

@RedPowerLady I am the father of a boy and girl. I intend to have them both vaccinated when they are old enough. It goes without saying that both are on time with their standard childhood vaccinations.

I am a girl and I have both a boy and a girl child. Both are fully vaccinated, although my son needs one booster this summer, and they aren’t yet old enough for Gardisil.

I am female. I also think that this has no bearing on the issue; it should be judged solely on whether the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks- if the answer is yes (and I think it is) then the vaccine should be given.

Both of my children are vaccinated and up-to-date; and, my daughter will finish the series for Guardisil at her next appointment.

I realize there are concerns, but very simply put. In this case, the good outweighs the bad, IMO.

I am the mother of two, a boy and a girl.

As a side note, as an adult, I am up-to-date on my boosters, too.

@cak I bet a lot of people don’t realize that they actually need boosters, as adults.
My plan is to check my sons titers, after the first series of vaccines to see if he needs the rest.

thanks to everyone
@crisw I understand we disagree but I do think it matters, well it does to me personally anyhow, it does not have to matter to you. For example it is easy to tell a homeless person to “get a job”. It is much different when you are that homeless person. I believe the same applies to vaccines.

@casheroo What does check titers mean???

@RedPowerLady http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody_titer I hope that’s accurate. It says it doesn’t have reliable sources. Maybe just the titer page has enough information.

@casheroo Thanx. I get the idea now. That is a great choice, to check for the titer before getting more vaccine.

Checking the titer before getting another vaccine is by no means standard or care, or cost effective for that matter. It is prudent for certain people, like health care workers to check titers before they embark on their medical career, so that they know which if any vaccines require boosting (for example, checking chicken pox or measles titers). For the average person, titers aren’t really necessary, and only a few vaccines (like tetanus and diptheria) require boosting in all adults.

All this concern about vaccines is based on a lack of understanding of how they work (there are different kinds). Most people don’t realize that their bodies mount a “vaccine response” thousands of times over, every day. So, to fret and worry about one shot (one antigen, of thousands exposed to daily) is absurd.

@RedPowerLady

” For example it is easy to tell a homeless person to “get a job”. It is much different when you are that homeless person. I believe the same applies to vaccines.”

What applies, exactly? I really am not following your point here. What else, exactly, is there to consider besides cost/benefit rations, which do not apply at all to your homelessness example?

@crisw Life is not a cost/benefit ratio. It applies to individual lives. A man, whom this vaccine would not effect (or rather in a much smaller way) , would not have as much affect on me when stating his opinion (unless of course he has daughters but still a bit less so) because he cannot take on the perspective of the women being targeted for this vaccine. He will never be directly affected by the vaccine. There is no personal experience as it applies to an individual’s life. IMO that matters. You do not have to agree

@RedPowerLady I’m sorry to have to tell you this, but empathy isn’t the only thing required for rational decisions about issues such as this. I don’t have to be a woman to worry about breast, ovarian or cervical cancer. I’m a human being, and that is enough.

Implying that only women can understand this issue is insulting, especially when your resistance to vaccination is coupled with a lack of in depth knowledge on the biology of vaccination.

@RedPowerLady

I agree with shilolo- and I am female- but the point I made earlier still remains as well. What the heck does being female or not being female have to do with the decision? Why should emotions or feelings or anything other than the effectiveness of the vaccine versus possible risks be considered? What rational reason would there be not to get the vaccine? I really am trying to understand your point of view here, but it’s difficult.

@crisw @shilolo Actually there is a difference between measles and HIV, between polio and HPV. The former are common in children and childhood inoculation makes sense. Also they are spread in entirely different ways than STD’s.

You are also wrong in your assumption that I am anti-vaccination in general. My mother was a pediatric nurse and my siblings were among the first to receive the Salk vaccination the first summer it was available. Weeks before that a friend (the son of a Dr) came down with polio. I received all childhood vaccinations as did my daughter.

There is just something gut-wrong with this whole campaign. It is too much corporate propaganda design. It is too focused on young girls. There is too much urgency. Why aren’t they encouraging young men to get the vaccine? Because there would be too much resistance. There is evidence to show that men are carriers to a greater extent than women. Statistically males have more partners than women, earlier. If a man’s wife dies of cervical cancer, there is a statistically higher chance that later wives will also develop cervical cancer. I am not proposing vaccination of pre-adolescent males either. But I do think there is a trend in checklist parenting where we are encouraged to do what experts tell us to do as we become less engaged in our childrens’ lives. I believe we should listen to our own, educated instincts and stop running like lemmings after every new untried theory that comes along.

@galileogirl

“Why aren’t they encouraging young men to get the vaccine? Because there would be too much resistance.”

I am very disappointed that you’re still making statements that were repeatedly shown, quite clearly, to be false in the other discussion I linked to above.

Again, this doesn’t help your cause.

The specific issue of male vaccination was discussed there. You claimed that “nobody is talking about boys.” That was shown to be false with links to studies of the vaccine in men.

The reason that it isn’t being given to males yet were excplained by shilolo, and they had nothing to do with resistance.

I understand you’re opposed to this, but can you at least be truthful in your replies?

As far as some of your other statements:

“Actually there is a difference between measles and HIV, between polio and HPV. The former are common in children and childhood inoculation makes sense. Also they are spread in entirely different ways than STD’s.”

Children don’t get HIV? Do you have any awareness of how many children in Africa are infected with HIV? Or even how many there are in the United States? And what does the way that they are spread have to do with anything? Should sexually transmitted diseases be treated differently? If so, why?

“every new untried theory that comes along.”
Are you saying the vaccine doesn’t work? Where’s your data on that?

Again, if the vaccine is effective, and getting it is less likely to result in harm than not getting it, why not get it? Why is it that no one who’s against the vaccination can offer a simple answer to this simple question?

@crisw I have no “cause”, I have an opinion. Maybe the fact that you have taken this to be a cause leads you to twist and misrepresent what I am saying.

Of course children get HIV but not in a manner that innoculating them as children will prevent. Children get HIV pre-birth or in a few cases in the US they may be exposed through blood transfusions. You knew exactly what I meant and sophistry is not honest discussion. Nor is just putting your fingers in your ears and saying I’m wrong. Get honest with yourself

@galileogirl

You’re still avoiding the question (as well as side-stepping the issue of the truthfulness of your arguments.) Once again-if the vaccine is effective, and getting it is less likely to result in harm than not getting it, why not get it? There is no twisting here. There is no opinion. This is a fact-based question. What is your answer?

Let’s take HIV as an example, again. Let us say that a vaccine for HIV existed. What possible reason would there be not to inoculate a child? We inoculate children for all manner of diseases that they may not be exposed to as children. What fact-based reason could there be to give HIV any different status?

As far as sophistry is concerned, the real sophistry here is in the argument that sexually transmitted diseases are somehow different than any others in terms of vaccination. The real sophistry is from religious groups who oppose such vaccinations because they want to keep the fear of disease as a tool to manipulate. I don’t know if that is your motivation, but it is certainly the motivation of many.

@shilolo I’m sorry to have to tell you this, but empathy isn’t the only thing required for rational decisions about issues such as this.

I never said it was the only requirement. I said it is a useful one for me personally.
I personally prefer to hear from people in some circumstances where they issue will affect them directly. This does not stop you from being concerned or having a part in the issue. All it does is provide a different angle on the questions/answers. An angle you may or may not agree with as valid or interesting.

@crisw I never stated that I had any rationale for not getting the vaccine. All I stated was that I personally find it interesting and a good point of reference as to who is providing the responses. I personally like to hear from people who will be directly affected. All it does is provide a different angle on the questions/answers. An angle you may or may not agree with as valid or interesting. You do not have to agree with me or even understand my point of view, as I have said countless times.

This has been a great conversation – very informative. Lurve all around!