Australia to withhold welfare payments if parents don't vaccinate.

A Neurotic

Australia planning on playing hardball with reluctant vaccinators.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-32274107

What do we think? Could something like this catch on worldwide? I wonder though, what proportion of unvaccinated children are from more well-off families as opposed to welfare-dependant families?

echo beach

As somebody fully committed to vaccination, I don't think this is a good idea.
All it does is give those opposed to vaccination, for whatever reason, ammunition for their paranoia based conspiracy theories. The more we exclude people, either by penalising them financially or by pushing them into home-schooling their children, the more difficult it will be to persuade them of the benefits of vaccination and other public health initiatives. Given Australia's history towards aboriginal children this move will be very easily spun into another attempt to force parents, particularly disadvantaged ones, to act in a way they feel is inappropriate.
If parents choose not to vaccinate then that is a failure on the part of those charged with convincing them of the benefits. Turning it into a failure on the part of the parents is unfair and counterproductive. Nobody wants to be told that they are wrong.

Kurtosis

I think it's a good idea. The decreasing numbers being vaccinated and increase in preventable illness rates are a serious problem and incentives to promote vaccine uptake should definitely be employed. It's particularly justified for transmissible diseases/vaccination over other types of health promotion given the wider benefits conferred by herd immunity.

It's a fair point that by the sounds of the proposals, this will only affect families in receipt of welfare payments. There's a better case for doing something like this in Ireland with child benefit, where it would impact all families (to some extent) regardless of socioeconomic status.

mikom

A Neurotic wrote: »

Australia planning on playing hardball with reluctant vaccinators.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-32274107

What do we think? Could something like this catch on worldwide? I wonder though, what proportion of unvaccinated children are from more well-off families as opposed to welfare-dependant families?

Coming soon.....

Australia to withhold welfare payments if parents don't get their child fitted with a microchip and have a barcode tattooed on their arm.

Atlantic Dawn

It's a good idea if the vacines are 100% safe and full indemnity is given by the drugs company providing them that they are safe, unlike the swine flu vaccine the HSE bought from Glaxo which caused narcolepsy in some users. The HSE signed a deal to purchase drugs from the company and agreed to a indemnity clause signed as part of an advance-purchase agreement. They might has well bought the drugs from a lad on Ebay...

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-26726426.html

The State indemnified British drug company GlaxoSmithKline from liability from any side effects associated with the swine flu vaccine Pandemrix, which has been linked with the disabling sleeping disorder narcolepsy.

The indemnity clause, signed as part of an advance-purchase agreement, means that any legal actions that might be taken by people alleging a link between narcolepsy and Pandemrix will have to be lodged against the State.

echo beach

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

It's a good idea if the vacines are 100% safe and full indemnity is given by the drugs company providing them that they are safe,

Nothing in life is 100% safe. Nothing in medicine is 100% certain. We shouldn't pretend that it is.

galljga1

Any figures on the number of deaths attributed to non vaccination worldwide?

Anita Blow

I'd imagine the people supporting this are the same people that would be opposed to mandatory drug-testing for welfare recipients also. I'm all for vaccinations and educating those who are opposed to them, but I find linking mandatory health initiatives to welfare payments to be completely wrong. All it does is punish the poor and will further galvanize opposition to vaccines among those who will have their welfare withdrawn. What about middle-class and rich people? Do they not need to be vaccinated too?

Turtwig

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

which caused narcolepsy in some users.

It increased the risk but such is the ethical dilemma that the people who are at most risk of getting narcolepsy from a H1N1 vaccine are also at the most risk of getting narcolepsy from the H1N1 virus. It wasn't the vaccine per se that caused the increase risk of narcolepy. Rather, it was a protein contained within in the actual virus. That protein confuses some people's immune systems into attacking the nerve cells in the brain. We need to develop a way to screen out the at risk individuals for similar situations that may occur in future.

Regarding the OP. I don't think it's a constructive move at all.

sleepyheadh

I think its a great move by Australia. People don't understand the dangers of these disease's because they don't see them.

If someone was walking around Australia with a gun, killing, or seriously injuring people, people who are already immuno-comped, I hope that actions would be taken to prevent it.

echo beach

sleepyheadh wrote: »

If someone was walking around Australia with a gun, killing, or seriously injuring people, people who are already immuno-comped, I hope that actions would be taken to prevent it.

So would hope so too, but I would hope that those actions would be ones likely to help, not ones likely to led to more people getting guns.

sleepyheadh

echo beach wrote: »

So would hope so too, but I would hope that those actions would be ones likely to help, not ones likely to led to more people getting guns.

How do you think vaccinating people would be akin to giving people more guns?

galljga1

Maybe I am being overly simplistic but this does not make sense.
If you and your family are vaccinated what health risk is posed by others who are not vaccinated? Is it not only those who are not vaccinated that are at risk? If you do not vaccinate, you are accepting the risk.

Maybe not so simple, when you go back in time. If Australia is like Ireland and the 3 in 1 became 4, 5, 6, (possibly more) in 1 there is a huge portion of the population not vaccinated against various diseases which have been added to the vaccination programme in recent years. What about these people? What about people not on welfare. This will encourage (blackmail) a number of people into vaccination but only addresses part of the problem.

sleepyheadh

galljga1 wrote: »

Maybe I am being overly simplistic but this does not make sense.
If you and your family are vaccinated what health risk is posed by others who are not vaccinated? Is it not only those who are not vaccinated that are at risk? If you do not vaccinate, you are accepting the risk.

You need to look up herd immunity, on wikipedia, that should explain a lot as to why high levels of vaccination uptake are essential for there effectiveness.

You have to consider those who are unable to be vaccinated, i.e those who are immuno-comprised. They are unable to be vaccinated and are those at an increased risk of contracting disease, unless the rest of the herd, who can be vaccinated, do so.

Again I think its a issue relating to detachment. If we all could see the children dying everyday, we would all be vaccinated, but we don't so we can't see the issue.

galljga1 wrote: »

What about people not on welfare. This will encourage (blackmail) a number of people into vaccination but only addresses part of the problem.

Not sure exactly what welfare has to do with it, and I'm not sure how it addresses only part of the problem either. Maybe you could explain further.

A Neurotic

galljga1 wrote: »

Maybe I am being overly simplistic but this does not make sense.
If you and your family are vaccinated what health risk is posed by others who are not vaccinated? Is it not only those who are not vaccinated that are at risk? If you do not vaccinate, you are accepting the risk.

Maybe not so simple, when you go back in time. If Australia is like Ireland and the 3 in 1 became 4, 5, 6, (possibly more) in 1 there is a huge portion of the population not vaccinated against various diseases which have been added to the vaccination programme in recent years. What about these people? What about people not on welfare. This will encourage (blackmail) a number of people into vaccination but only addresses part of the problem.

A lot of people are unable to receive vaccinations, even if they're willing - e.g. immunocompromised, pregnant, newborns. They're put at risk of contracting illness from otherwise healthy people who choose not to vaccinate.

galljga1

sleepyheadh wrote: »

You need to look up herd immunity, on wikipedia, that should explain a lot as to why high levels of vaccination uptake are essential for there effectiveness.

You have to consider those who are unable to be vaccinated, i.e those who are immuno-comprised. They are unable to be vaccinated and are those at an increased risk of contracting disease, unless the rest of the herd, who can be vaccinated, do so.

Again I think its a issue relating to detachment. If we all could see the children dying everyday, we would all be vaccinated, but we don't so we can't see the issue.





Not sure exactly what welfare has to do with it, and I'm not sure how it addresses only part of the problem either. Maybe you could explain further.

Ah yes, I was indeed forgetting those who cannot be vaccinated.

With regard to the connection to welfare, the topic of the thread is "Australia to withhold welfare payments if parents don't vaccinate". Not sure what % of Australian parents receive welfare payments but I would assume not all. Regardless, even if all currently in receipt of welfare payments vaccinated their kids, there would still be a large % of the population who would remain unvaccinated. Under the principle of herd immunity, wouldn't these people need to be vaccinated.

Kurtosis

Would an extra incentive/bonus to those who do vaccinate rather than penalising those who do not be more acceptable? For example the next increase in child benefit only applying if the child has been immunised.

sleepyheadh

galljga1 wrote: »

With regard to the connection to welfare, the topic of the thread is "Australia to withhold welfare payments if parents don't vaccinate". Not sure what % of Australian parents receive welfare payments but I would assume not all. Regardless, even if all currently in receipt of welfare payments vaccinated their kids, there would still be a large % of the population who would remain unvaccinated. Under the principle of herd immunity, wouldn't these people need to be vaccinated.

Sorry, I completely forgot the headline when I was replying, makes sense now thanks.

You are absolutely correct, those not in receipt of welfare would also need to be vaccinated. I suppose in a way you could see it as the government strong arming its citizens into doing something. However, when you consider the good that a successful vaccination programme can do, I personally feel that it is totally justified.

Sorry, I should have read your first comment more closely.

galljga1

I cannot remember if the same was required for my 11 year old but when my 6 year old first went to school, I had to get a letter from our doc listing vaccinations received. Not sure what the school policy is for kids not vaccinated.

sleepyheadh

penguin88 wrote: »

Would an extra incentive/bonus to those who do vaccinate rather than penalising those who do not be more acceptable? For example the next increase in child benefit only applying if the child has been immunised.

I don't know about you, but if I was on the fence with regards to vaccinating my children, I think the prospect of totally losing all benefits, would act as a bigger incentive than a slight increase in benefits.

galljga1

sleepyheadh wrote: »

Sorry, I completely forgot the headline when I was replying, makes sense now thanks.

You are absolutely correct, those not in receipt of welfare would also need to be vaccinated. I suppose in a way you could see it as the government strong arming its citizens into doing something. However, when you consider the good that a successful vaccination programme can do, I personally feel that it is totally justified.

Sorry, I should have read your first comment more closely.

The imposition of a school entry requirement would be more encompassing.

Do you know how many diseases are now included in the 3/4/5/6 in one?

gctest50

galljga1 wrote: »

.........
Do you know how many diseases are now included in the 3/4/5/6 in one?

http://bit.ly/1D9jqpr <<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Kurtosis

sleepyheadh wrote: »

I don't know about you, but if I was on the fence with regards to vaccinating my children, I think the prospect of totally losing all benefits, would act as a bigger incentive than a slight increase in benefits.

Definitely true, but that would effectively make vaccinations mandatory if families dependent on social welfare faced the prospect of poverty if they did not vaccinate. I think the most successful approach would be a number of small incentives across sectors (e.g. benefits, education) to encourage and "nudge" people towards vaccination and encompass all types of families.

sleepyheadh

galljga1 wrote: »

The imposition of a school entry requirement would be more encompassing.

Do you know how many diseases are now included in the 3/4/5/6 in one?

Here is the immunisation schedule.


http://www.hse.ie/eng/health/immunisation/pubinfo/babychildimm/parentsguide.pdf

sleepyheadh

penguin88 wrote: »

Definitely true, but that would effectively make vaccinations mandatory if families dependent on social welfare faced the prospect of poverty if they did not vaccinate. I think the most successful approach would be a number of small incentives across sectors (e.g. benefits, education) to encourage and "nudge" people towards vaccination and encompass all types of families.

I feel that this is a serious issue and nudges aren't what is necessary. This is a important thing to do, and yes maybe it is wrong to force people dependent on social welfare to immunise their children. But it could be argued that they, by not immunising their children are endangering the welfare of others.

When it comes down to it, both are social welfare issues. And I think that it is fair to require people who are availing of social welfare in one respect, to return the benefit to another area of society.

echo beach

sleepyheadh wrote: »

How do you think vaccinating people would be akin to giving people more guns?

I don't think that. What I do think is that a policy of withholding benefits could backfire. It may have the unintended consequence of ending up with more unvaccinated children.(In the same way as some very graphic anti-drug campaigns have been shown to increase interest and lead to an increase in drug taking.)

sleepyheadh wrote: »

I don't know about you, but if I was on the fence with regards to vaccinating my children, I think the prospect of totally losing all benefits, would act as a bigger incentive than a slight increase in benefits.

People are on the fence because of genuine concerns about health risks. We may feel those concerns are illogical or unreasonable but they exist and are genuine. Giving or taking away money introduces an unrelated issue. It doesn't take away the concerns. It may even fuel them. It certainly muddies the waters and complicates what should be a simple choice based only on what is good for the health of the child and of the community as a whole. What if the anti-vaccination lobby offer to pay the withheld benefits, or even start to offer cash incentives to poor parents who don't vaccinate their children?

Stark

galljga1 wrote: »

With regard to the connection to welfare, the topic of the thread is "Australia to withhold welfare payments if parents don't vaccinate". Not sure what % of Australian parents receive welfare payments but I would assume not all. Regardless, even if all currently in receipt of welfare payments vaccinated their kids, there would still be a large % of the population who would remain unvaccinated. Under the principle of herd immunity, wouldn't these people need to be vaccinated.

For the record, I read the article and it appears that the moves target both those receiving welfare payments and those getting tax credits for their children. So that would probably target most parents.

sleepyheadh

echo beach wrote: »

I don't think that. What I do think is that a policy of withholding benefits could backfire. It may have the unintended consequence of ending up with more unvaccinated children.(In the same way as some very graphic anti-drug campaigns have been shown to increase interest and lead to an increase in drug taking.)

I find it hard to envisage a situation were this policy could lead to a decline in vaccination. People are principled, but I doubt that a substantial majority are principled to refuse social welfare on these grounds.

echo beach wrote: »

People are on the fence because of genuine concerns about health risks. We may feel those concerns are illogical or unreasonable but they exist and are genuine. Giving or taking away money introduces an unrelated issue. It doesn't take away the concerns. It may even fuel them. It certainly muddies the waters and complicates what should be a simple choice based only on what is good for the health of the child and of the community as a whole. What if the anti-vaccination lobby offer to pay the withheld benefits, or even start to offer cash incentives to poor parents who don't vaccinate their children?

Vaccination policy is set out by healthcare professionals, after many years of detailed research and study. I think it is quite crazy to give someone who has done little to no real research in the area, and is not fully informed on the issues the ability to influence policy.

You have it in one when you say " choice based only on what is good for the health of the child and the community". That is exactly what the government of Australia is aiming to do. Unfortunately, there is a strong, anti-vax movement wishing to undermine this issue, based on hear-say and misguided evidence.

With regards to the anti-vax lobby funding parents. To use the laconic response. IF! If the anti-vac lobby want to do that, which I highly doubt they would, let them. Its a clear loophole in the proposal, once the family are no longer on social welfare they are not forced to immunise. I highly doubt this happening though.

Stark

echo beach wrote:

What if the anti-vaccination lobby offer to pay the withheld benefits, or even start to offer cash incentives to poor parents who don't vaccinate their children?

Why would they? Pretty much every hardline member of the anti-vax lobby I've seen is in it to make profit for themselves selling their alternative homeopathic quack remedies. Why would they give their money away?

echo beach

QUOTE=sleepyheadh;95056321]
Vaccination policy is set out by healthcare professionals, after many years of detailed research and study. I think it is quite crazy to give someone who has done little to no real research in the area, and is not fully informed on the issues the ability to influence policy

Governments make policy. The healthcare experts have an input but they don't make the calls. Policy is influenced by many factors, including what opinion polls and focus groups turn up as likely to be popular with the electorate.

You have it in one when you say " choice based only on what is good for the health of the child and the community". That is exactly what the government of Australia is aiming to do. Unfortunately, there is a strong, anti-vax movement wishing to undermine this issue, based on hear-say and misguided evidence.

I know that is what they are aiming to do and it is an aim I fully support. If it turns out to be successful I will congratulate them and advocate that other countries copy them BUT I'm not so sure it will be. Actions often have unintended consequences. As you say the opposition is strong and I fear they will turn these strong-arm tactics into another plank of their case. "If vaccination is so wonderful why do you have to bully people into having it?"

I agree with the aim but not with the method. I would prefer to see carrots, not sticks.

sleepyheadh

echo beach wrote: »

Governments make policy. The healthcare experts have an input but they don't make the calls. Policy is influenced by many factors, including what opinion polls and focus groups turn up as likely to be popular with the electorate.

Government finalises policy, after consultant with professionals. The point being made is that anti-vaxxers shouldn't be able to influence the polices. They are thnakfully a small minority and should remain just that.

echo beach wrote: »

I know that is what they are aiming to do and it is an aim I fully support. If it turns out to be successful I will congratulate them and advocate that other countries copy them BUT I'm not so sure it will be. Actions often have unintended consequences. As you say the opposition is strong and I fear they will turn these strong-arm tactics into another plank of their case. "If vaccination is so wonderful why do you have to bully people into having it?"

I agree with the aim but not with the method. I would prefer to see carrots, not sticks.

If I was on welfare and someone offered me the choice of vaccination or no more money, i know which I would think the carrot was!

Xeyn

The reason government and law exists is because not everyone can be trusted to do whats right for the community. Fear that legislating what is correct for the health of a community will result in certain factions turning it into a conspiracy theory should rightly not be entertained.

his_dudeness

penguin88 wrote: »

Definitely true, but that would effectively make vaccinations mandatory.......

They should be mandatory, barring medical reasons preventing vaccination.

Simon2015

This is medical fascism.

It is against a persons human rights to force any medication on them.

sleepyheadh

Simon2015 wrote:

It is against a persons human rights to force any medication on them.

Suppose every patent who gives there kids calpol should be locked up for human rights violation!

Xeyn

Simon2015 wrote: »

This is medical fascism.

It is against a persons human rights to force any medication on them.

Completely untrue. You only have rights as long as they don't imfringe on others rights. Refusal to vaccinate infringes on the health of the community. Wilful ignorance or refusal to accept scientific evidence is not an acceptable excuse.

JohnBee

Simon2015 wrote: »

This is medical fascism.

It is against a persons human rights to force any medication on them.

This is absolute cr A p.

When you talk about human rights, whose rights do you refer to, the child? Are you suggesting that a 2 year old has the capacity to review the medical evidence and then decide to reject it all, and side with an ex playboy model who says vaccines are bad?

Don't you realize, that by what you said, really what you mean is "I don't think we should be allowed to deny parents the right to put their childrens lives at risk from death/disability".

I always find it a failure of modern society (with no solution) that until you are 18, your life and health choices, no matter how crazy and stupid, are made by some other person who by nature of commonality of genetics, get special legal powers to do so.

Xeyn

They are taking away the religious exemption as well, even more common sense prevailing.

Simon2015

Xeyn wrote: »

They are taking away the religious exemption as well, even more common sense prevailing.

Its "common sense" until somebody gets injured by a vaccine.

Xeyn

People die of the diseases you are required to vaccinate against every single day, the ignorance is mind boggling.
The risk of 'vaccine injury' is extremely small. The risk of anything resembling a significant injury is even rarer. The risk of contracting and spreading preventable diseases is extremely well documented.

Simon2015

Xeyn wrote: »

The risk of anything resembling a significant injury is even rarer.

Have you heard of the Gardasil vaccine ? patients are more likely to die from the vaccine than disease it is suppose to stop.

The vaccine has also left a significant number of patients with a life changing disability.

http://truthaboutgardasil.org/

http://vaccineimpact.com/2015/hpv-vaccine-injuries-i-cannot-begin-to-describe-what-it-is-like-to-watch-your-daughter-live-in-such-agony/

Xeyn

This is a science forum. Those websites have no credibility whatsoever. They are nothing but conspiracy websites with no scientific evidence to back their claims. Gardasil has been proven safe.

Stark

Simon2015 wrote: »

Have you heard of the Gardasil vaccine ? patients are more likely to die from the vaccine than disease it is suppose to stop.

Any evidence for this that isn't a link to a conspiracy theory website?

walshyn93

Turtwig wrote: »

It increased the risk but such is the ethical dilemma that the people who are at most risk of getting narcolepsy from a H1N1 vaccine are also at the most risk of getting narcolepsy from the H1N1 virus. It wasn't the vaccine per se that caused the increase risk of narcolepy. Rather, it was a protein contained within in the actual virus. That protein confuses some people's immune systems into attacking the nerve cells in the brain. We need to develop a way to screen out the at risk individuals for similar situations that may occur in future.

Regarding the OP. I don't think it's a constructive move at all.

This is one of the reasons I'm against forcing people. I don't think anyone's out to get me but I do like to be able to make my own informed choices about things rather than someone else forcing my hand. I'm educated enough that when I have kids I'll probably be able to sit down and go through the published research on whatever vaccines are around at the time. I'd like to have that option, even if 99% of the time I'm going to go along with it.

walshyn93

Xeyn wrote: »

Completely untrue. You only have rights as long as they don't imfringe on others rights. Refusal to vaccinate infringes on the health of the community. Wilful ignorance or refusal to accept scientific evidence is not an acceptable excuse.

Is this going to be something like second hand smoking, the effects of which are wildly exaggerated but at least a ban on smoking indoors doesn't impinge on human rights. I'd say the risk to others of not getting vaccinated is fairly minimal, but that's just my bias towards not being panicky.

Simon2015

Stark wrote: »

Any evidence for this that isn't a link to a conspiracy theory website?

The first website is not a "conspiracy theory" website it was set up by the family of gardasil victim.

Simon2015

Xeyn wrote: »

Gardasil has been proven safe.

If its "safe" then why are there so many people online claiming the vaccine has destroyed their lives ? They cant all be liars.

sam34

Simon2015 wrote: »

Have you heard of the Gardasil vaccine ? patients are more likely to die from the vaccine than disease it is suppose to stop.

The vaccine has also left a significant number of patients with a life changing disability.

http://truthaboutgardasil.org/

http://vaccineimpact.com/2015/hpv-vaccine-injuries-i-cannot-begin-to-describe-what-it-is-like-to-watch-your-daughter-live-in-such-agony/

you're new here, so we'll cut you a little slack. However, this is the health sciences forum. We expect a certain level of posting here and that is that claims you make must be supported by peer reviewed science-based articles. Neither of your links reach that standard. Please don't post similar links again.

Turtwig

walshyn93 wrote: »

Is this going to be something like second hand smoking, the effects of which are wildly exaggerated but at least a ban on smoking indoors doesn't impinge on human rights. I'd say the risk to others of not getting vaccinated is fairly minimal, but that's just my bias towards not being panicky.

It depends what disease, vaccine and what version of the vaccine you're talking about it. Everything in life, from choosing to cross the road to eating a banana is a risk benefit assessment. Vaccines are no different. Any individual who takes a vaccine is at risks of side effects. There is also the risk of the vaccine not actually working. These risks when weighed against the benefits are usually negligible. However, just like your chances of winning the lotto are negligible, someone does actually win the lotto.

People who don't vaccinate contribute mainly to 3 things:
1) They expose people who cannot get vaccinated for health reasons to diseases that will increase their morbidity. In other words, they put the most vulnerable in society at even greater risk.
2) They help contribute towards a disease propagating putting greater strain on wider society's resources. Potential for mutations is much higher as a result. Increasing the global risk on just about everyone.
3) Should a similar strain of virus come along, or an identical one, their immune system will be far less primed and ready than someone who was vaccinated. They are thus more likely to experience higher morbidity or a fatality than a vaccinated person.

I'll put it very simply. In Syria immunisation rates almost halved and Polio made a resurgence. Areas in Europe, eastern Europe in particular, are woefully under immunised for a polio outbreak. If you were living in one these countries and had the option of getting vaccinated it's in your very best interest to do so. Being less selfish, it's also in everyone around you best interest that you do so. That's ultimately what a vaccination is weighing up the risk to yourself against the benefit to both you and the common good.

Few in the west remember Polio or smallpox. That's because we effectively eradicated the latter (for a while). That eradication was achieved by vaccination and not everyone who was vaccinated reacted pleasantly to such vaccines. A small percentage of people who are given one variant of the polio vaccine experienced paralysis*. The majority though experienced nothing. Because of the vaccination of everyone we now are in situation where we don't even have to vaccinate kids with the higher risk variants of polio vaccine. In fact such is the way we kicked Polio's arse that the only way for kids in certain countries to actually get the virus is from vaccination.

Ultimately vaccines can be summed in one simple question:
Does the individual right of one person supercede the potential well-being of millions?
I'd like to think everyone should be able to choose whether they want to take the miniscule risks to benefit everyone. I'd also like to think that everyone would take those risks. However, what exactly does society do when people don't take those risks and the risk of serious morbidity even death is abnormally high? It's never an easy question to answer.


*Or sometimes a combination of different Polio vaccines... but let's not complicate things here.

VinLieger

walshyn93 wrote: »

Is this going to be something like second hand smoking, the effects of which are wildly exaggerated but at least a ban on smoking indoors doesn't impinge on human rights. I'd say the risk to others of not getting vaccinated is fairly minimal, but that's just my bias towards not being panicky.

Just another person who blindly wades into a scientific and factual topic without a clue what they are talking about and tries to pass off their uninformed opinion as a reasonable position, try google herd immunity to understand why it's in everyone's interest to have as many people vaccinated as possible and why you are completely incorrect

Xeyn

Simon2015 wrote: »

If its "safe" then why are there so many people online claiming the vaccine has destroyed their lives ? They cant all be liars.

No one is calling anyone a liar but I wouldnt trust a lay person not to use anecdote to 'prove' causation. There has been no scientific evidence that Gardasil is unsafe. None. Anecdotes are not evidence. I can shout at the internet that going to sleep on a Sunday caused Monday, a billion people can claim the same but it doesnt make it true.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. After this therefore because of this. Its a logical fallacy. People have a vaccine then a month later get a debillitatig headache and blame the vaccine because it happened before the vaccine. It proves nothing and all the claims in th world wont change that.

This is part of the reason this forum doesnt trust the links you provided. They are not quality controlled reproducable tests. They are emotive and dont rely on facts just spurious accusation of causation without any proof. They may all believe that Gardasil caused their injury (and hence one would refrain from calling them liars) but belief is not evidence.