Whoa! Your parenting choices don't bother me at all, settle! It bothers me when parents won't immunise against measles and then other children die because of it, but if your decisions don't hurt others then that doesn't bother me at all. I think you're the bothered one Trillian!
OK, so what about the children who ARE vaccinated and still get measles because they were one of the 5-10% who the vaccine didn't protect and other people die because a supposedly vaccinated child gave them measles? Vaccines are not 100% effective. I have read that both the whooping cough and chicken pox are now only 70% effective, meaning 30% of children are NOT protected by the vaccine, and unless their parents have their blood tested to confirm immunity, they are still a potential risk for getting and then passing on the illness. Your words seem to give the impression that vaccines are foolsafe.

As for this cervical cancer thing, if you want to have conspiracy theories go for it. Also doesn't bother me. The only thing that bothers me here is that you guys go nuts at someone if they have an opinion other than yours. This forum is the only place where I have ever seen everyone agree on everything (even if it is against the mainstream) and it is incredibly bizarre. Maybe the moderators should put that in the rules, just so it's really clear that things work that way here.
Oh you have no idea how much this has made me laugh. So that's the way things work around here is it? Sorry, I must have missed that during my 10 year membership and years of being a moderator I'm not terribly active on the forums these days but there have been more than a few memorable moments on the forums where there have been some rather intense discussions where people vehemently disagreed with one another. I miss those days You're reasonably new around here, going by your join date I can see in your profile. Those who know me know that I never backed away from a healthy discussion. I'm exercising my right to be selective about what vaccines my kids get. My older three were all vaccinated to their schedules. This was back when I had no issue with what they were being vaccinated for. I even got my eldest two the chicken pox vaccine and paid for it because it wasn't on the schedule back then. Then I had my youngest baby. He had severe reactions to his vaccinations so he's not vaccinated past 4 months. I have a CO form lodged for him. our living situation means that were at in a significantly low risk group/area so I wasn't willing to put him through yet another reaction to protect against something he was extremely unlikely to get.

OK, I disagree with the HPV vaccine on principle because it's a vaccine that is masquerading as a prevention for CANCER. According to statistics, the HPV vaccine is now preventing 100% of HPV infection, but it has only lowered the rate of cervical cancer by 77% out of the 75% of cervical cancers that were attributed to HPV infection. Women can still get cervical cancer without ever have had an HPV infection. I think this vaccine breeds complacency and because of the clever marketing, women are not having regular pap smears. In 2011-12. Only 58% of women aged 20-69 had a pap smear, which could be attributed to the fact that many of those women would have had the vaccine when it came out in 2007 and who now don't think they need to have one.

This is straight from the Cancer Council website
There were 818 new cases of cervical cancer diagnosed in Australia in 2010. The risk of a woman being diagnosed by age 85 is 1 in 155.

In 2011, there were 229 deaths caused by cervical cancer in Australia. Cervical cancer death rates in Australia have halved since the National Cervical Screening Program began in 1991.
Considering these points, metaphorically speaking, we're amputating a leg because of a scratch when giving HPV vaccines as a prevention for cervical cancer. We already had a highly effective national screening program with pap smears that significantly reduced the number of cervical cancers so I feel that statistically speaking, the chance of getting cervical cancer is actually quite low - too low for me to consider it a high enough risk to give the vaccine to prevent something which doesn't always lead to cervical cancer. So it's not consipiracy theories at all. it's being able to critically analyse what you read.

Just to add, if I was saying that everyone should be mindless, why did I say to read a variety of sources? Where did I say everyone should be mindless? Are you saying I'm mindless? (As well as rude and arrogant?) What other names would you like to throw at me? maybe you could make a list, seeing as petty insults are your thing.
But does your variety of sources don't include anything that is not supportive of it? You didn't specifically say that people should be mindless, but you did say that we should believe what Doctors and scientists say. I also never said YOU were rude and arrogant, but your post certainly was. The other way that the forums work around here, particularly this one, is that people are respectful of other people decisions and that we can have a conversation about not vaccinating without being attacked for that. And it's not a conspiracy to say that they don't always get it right. You said you don't understand why people choose not to vaccinate and you feel like you're not being listened to. That's what it's like for people who don't vaccinate - you always feel like you're not being heard. I've said several times why I don't - I just don't feel like the risk of a woman getting cervical cancer is great enough to warrant getting a vaccine that I feel is not necessary when we already had a national screening program. The rate of women getting cervical cancer is so small that I don't feel it's a high enough risk to justify the vaccine.