[exDemMom]

You *have* said such a thing. Not in one statement, but that attitude comes across when you say that there’s no way you will vaccinate your children, but if an adult wants that vaccine series, you’re okay with it. You most certainly *are* saying that you don’t want children to be vaccinated. Didn’t you ever learn reading comprehension in school?

And don’t be stupid with “I take it you have not scheduled your own shot sequence yet and would rather attack me than face your own hypocrisy.” As I pointed out earlier, I’m way past the age at which the vaccination is effective (and I’ve already been exposed to the virus anyway). It’s recommended for 9-26 year olds. What part of “I’m too old for it” do you not understand?

If anyone is failing to read before firing off non-sensical postings, it’s you.

By the way, did you read that abstract from Dr. Harper’s peer-reviewed paper yet? Do you have any idea of what it says?

[so_real]

The next person in this forum who finds you a tad delusional will check your post history and find this thread. And to that individual I say, read on and please do follow it backward for accuracy. This FRiend's heart is in the right place; I genuinely believe she cares exceedingly for others. But she is far too close to one side of the coin to see the other. All efforts to expose the other side of the coin to her result in venom and hostility. She also appears to have an inflated sense of her own intelligence and will judge you by words she crafts with her perception of your "attitude", thus making a rational discussion difficult. Lacking the ability to analyze herself from a third-person perspective, we must stoically play that part for her to remind her the other side of the coin exists and not in the Utopian frame she would see it.

More than just an abstract summarizing efficacy confidences, here's a whole article for you : Cervical cancer incidence can increase despite HPV vaccination and one paragraph I find particularly apropos :

Organised HPV vaccination combined with screening could potentially prevent most cervical cancer. Vaccinations alone will not prevent cervical cancer unless their efficacy is longer than 15 years; if the duration of efficacy is shorter and efficient boostering is not organised, the onset of the cancer in women is merely postponed. Previous studies have already shown that a willful cessation of screening in a generation of women who had little contact with friends who were developing or dying from invasive cervical cancer has resulted in increases in cervical cancer rates measurable at the population level. Misunderstanding of the benefits of individual HPV vaccination is real. If even more young vaccinated adolescents mature into women who willfully refuse cervical cancer screening, the population rates of cervical cancer will increase.

The underlined portion I attribute specifically to you. Once the HPV vaccination is as safe in the field as an MMR, has a proven efficacy of fifteen years or longer (organized boostering is a non-starter), and organized screening is ingrained in the population, I'll support it. Evidence exists that none of these requirements have been met and therefore I do not. I do not expect you to understand this simple logic, but I do believe the vast majority of readers that follow along will -- despite the level of intelligence you attribute to us. Those sharing your one-sided point of view may well, and unintentionally, increase in the incidence of the disease you so despise. I do not find that irony amusing; it is indeed heart-wrenching.