PDA

View Full Version : Cervical Cancer Injections for Young Girls



justine
01-Sep-08, 11:03
just wondering if anyone has any knowledge of this and if it is gonna be planned for up here aswell. Do we get a choise wether our kids get it or not..Or will it be given without parents consent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7590712.stm

TBH
01-Sep-08, 11:17
just wondering if anyone has any knowledge of this and if it is gonna be planned for up here aswell. Do we get a choise wether our kids get it or not..Or will it be given without parents consent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7590712.stmI doubt anyone will be getting forcebly injected.

Thumper
01-Sep-08, 11:21
Girls will be "offered" the vaccine,but have the right to refuse if they so wish,but IMO its a great idea that can only help! x

Angela
01-Sep-08, 11:36
I agree with you, Thumper and teenybash. I lost a good friend very young to this form of cancer and I know lots of women who've had to undergo treatment at the pre cancerous stage. While smear tests have saved many lives, far too many women still die from this disease, and most women (myself included) find waiting for the test results quite an anxious time.

Contrary to what some people appear to think, contracting cervical cancer doesn't mean you're a promiscuous person and I don't believe innoculating girls against it will encourage them to become sexually active at a younger age.

I wish this vaccination had been available when my girls were in their teens. I'm sure it will not be 'compulsory' but I hope that parents will see it as protecting their daughters from a life threatening and very unpleasant disease.

hotrod4
01-Sep-08, 11:37
It has been advertised everywhere for ages, thought every one knew about this.
It explains what is happening here:
"Pupils in other areas of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland will follow in the coming weeks.

All girls aged between 12 and 17 should have been offered the vaccine by August next year."

Its a good idea after all protecting our children is our premium concern.
My daughter will be getting it soon, she doesnt like needles but knows what its all about and agrees with it.

Lavenderblue2
01-Sep-08, 11:41
I can’t imagine that any parent would refuse the chance for their daughter to be protected against this killer disease.

I lost my sister-in-law to cervical cancer – she really suffered for around two or three years, only able to come home very occasionally to be with her very young family.

LB

Valerie Campbell
01-Sep-08, 11:49
Even if parents don't want their daughters to get this, there is a law in place that allows the girl to go ahead and get immunised without parental consent, even if she's under 16 if the health care team believes she fully understands what the injection is all about. My girls are getting it. And I'll be making a GP appointment for them to get the BCG too, which is no longer given routinely.

Scunner
01-Sep-08, 12:00
If I had young daughters, I would never agree to the injection.

Bad Manners
01-Sep-08, 12:05
my OH sufferd from this at an early age and like me wish this had been available then however now that it is available I would advise all to take part in the scheme it is a prevention so you have nothing to loose and all to gain a couple a needle pricks is a small price to pay to stay safe.

toodiemac
01-Sep-08, 12:32
I can’t imagine that any parent would refuse the chance for their daughter to be protected against this killer disease.

I lost my sister-in-law to cervical cancer – she really suffered for around two or three years, only able to come home very occasionally to be with her very young family.

LB



I can see both sides, for and against the vaccine. The parents who refuse the vaccine may well be concerned about the aluminum salts, part of the vaccine, being injected into their children - various studies have shown it's not a good idea, especially in the long term. Also the 'long term' study of safety is only two years so I can understand some parents feeling their children are being used as guinea pigs - who knows the real long term effect of the vaccine.

However, if anyone has known someone with this terrible disease the instinct of course is to try anything to protect their children going through the same.

I think it is a case of doing vast amounts of reasearch and then making an informed decision - let's face it the vaccine is worth a lot of money to the manufacturers so I'm not sure if we can trust the accompanying literature to be totally unbiased. The GP I'm sure will only pass on the information they have been given (I wouldn't think they do their own research) by the manufacturer and from trials funded by the manufacturer. The information will be out there but it's a case of weeding through all the irrelevant and biased stuff, both for and against.

Good luck with whatever decision you make - it's not easy being a parent eh?

brandy
01-Sep-08, 13:03
scunner may i ask as to why you would not agree to it?
i personally do not know all the ins and outs of it, but as long as it is safe and can save a young girls life i would def. have the injection if i could and if i had daughters i would be standing in line to hold their hands while they had it and support them all the way.

dirdyweeker
01-Sep-08, 13:10
If I had young daughters, I would never agree to the injection.

Would be interested in your views/ reasons as to why you would choose not to have any daughters vaccinated.

Scunner
01-Sep-08, 13:16
I have daughters, but they are not in that age group. I've memories of the drugs given to people and proved not to be so good in the following years.

_Ju_
01-Sep-08, 13:33
If I had young daughters, I would never agree to the injection.

why? ??????

Scunner
01-Sep-08, 14:05
Looking at the long term view - i'm an old wifie, and took HRT and have the scars to prove it - now am cautious about any new preventative measures.

justine
01-Sep-08, 14:20
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV

this is some info on what the injections are for. This is HPV a sexualy transmitted disease, that then lives in the body and may or may not cause other complications in a young female, likes of genital warts..Now it seems that this is being used as a preventative but children as young as 12 should not be getting anything like HPV, infact sexual conduct at that age is illegal.
It can also be caught by touching objects that have HPV and then transmitted to the person.
The fact of this is that up until recently i had not heard of any trials regarding this injection, also are there any side effects or are we just to put our children in their hands without fully understanding exactly what it is being given,
My kids have had every injection that they should have as babies, pre-school and older ones like tb,but without more info of what happens when given this drug, over a 6 month period of 1 injection every 2 months, does make me wonder is it right or do i let my daughters decide for themseves if they want it,
It is not compulsory to have this and the choice is there for them to decline, but with all the health issues of today more than likely most will have it done wthout realy understanding what theyare having it for. To kill off HPV to prevent cervical cancer is all they will know..


It apparently can effect males and females alike, causing penial cancer, testicular cancer, so why are the boys not being offered it aswell.

http://www.cancerbackup.org.uk/Aboutcancer/Causes/Viruses/HPVandcancer

hotrod4
01-Sep-08, 14:49
If my daughter wanted to make the choice herself then so be it. Rather than read things off the internet, I would maybe arrange a visit to my GP that way they will get a more detailed description from them as opposed to the "horror stories" that can be found on the net. Researching the net is fan dabi dozi but on matters as serious as that I would defo consult my GP as they would give you a clearer view, but I would most certainly try and influence her into getting the injection,after all they wouldnt release it if it wasnt safe?

justine
01-Sep-08, 14:52
If my daughter wanted to make the choice herself then so be it. Rather than read things off the internet, I would maybe arrange a visit to my GP that way they will get a more detailed description from them as opposed to the "horror stories" that can be found on the net. Researching the net is fan dabi dozi but on matters as serious as that I would defo consult my GP as they would give you a clearer view, but I would most certainly try and influence her into getting the injection,after all they wouldnt release it if it wasnt safe?

They released Thalamine.!!!!!!!!!!!!

Most GP's will not know much, and the internet. is not always wrong. Read this and this is the results of the clinical trials done by the london institute on women 16-25 who have already had a check and been found to have a strain of HPV.. Not 12.18 year olds that they intend to target.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/8/861

Quote from the above link which is about the trials dated 21st August 2008.

"With so many essential questions still unanswered, there is good reason to be cautious about introducing large-scale vaccination programs. Instead, we should concentrate on finding more solid answers through research rather than base consequential and costly decisions on yet unproven assumptions"

mccaugm
01-Sep-08, 15:41
If I had young daughters, I would never agree to the injection.

Why, if something can help them would you deny your children the right to life? I cannot fathom why doctors/boffins whatever you call them spend years trying to come up with cures for people to say I am not going to take it. For your childrens sake take up the offer.:confused

hotrod4
01-Sep-08, 15:53
They released Thalamine.!!!!!!!!!!!!

Most GP's will not know much, and the internet. is not always wrong. Read this and this is the results of the clinical trials done by the london institute on women 16-25 who have already had a check and been found to have a strain of HPV.. Not 12.18 year olds that they intend to target.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/8/861

Quote from the above link which is about the trials dated 21st August 2008.

"With so many essential questions still unanswered, there is good reason to be cautious about introducing large-scale vaccination programs. Instead, we should concentrate on finding more solid answers through research rather than base consequential and costly decisions on yet unproven assumptions"

Most GP's may not know but that article was written by a GP!!!!! :)

It doesnt mention what drug was used though on the tests and the majority of the sources used were in the US.

Below is from Cancer Research,who I would definitely believe.

From September 2008, in the UK, girls in year 8 at school (age 12 to 13yrs) will be offered the HPV vaccine. The vaccine the Government has chosen to use is Cervarix. Girls have three injections over 6 months given by a nurse. A letter about the vaccine and a consent form will be sent to the parents of the girl before she has the vaccine. It is up to her whether she has the vaccine.

This research means that if girls take up the vaccination the programme will prevent at least 7 out of 10 cancers of the cervix and possibly even more in the future. But it takes between 10 and 20 years for a cancer to develop after HPV infection. So any benefits in reducing cervical cancer won’t be seen for quite a long time. But the number of cases of pre-cancerous changes in the cervix (CIN) will fall quite rapidly.

It is not certain how long the vaccination gives protection for. So far the trials have followed people up for 6 years so we know that it lasts at least this long. More research is needed to find out how long it lasts and if women need a booster dose at some time.

balto
01-Sep-08, 15:57
this is something, that all girls should have, if it is going to help prevent this silent killer, then i am all for it, i know that when my girls reach that age they will definatly get it,it has started think it is in glasgow, and it will be rolled out over the whole of scotland within the next few weeks.

Tilter
01-Sep-08, 16:23
If the vaccine had been available 30-odd years ago my mum might still be alive.

hotrod4
01-Sep-08, 17:28
If the vaccine had been available 30-odd years ago my mum might still be alive.

Brings it home how important the vaccine is.

_Ju_
01-Sep-08, 17:37
Now it seems that this is being used as a preventative but children as young as 12 should not be getting anything like HPV, infact sexual conduct at that age is illegal......

...........To kill off HPV to prevent cervical cancer is all they will know..


............It apparently can effect males and females alike, causing penial cancer, testicular cancer, so why are the boys not being offered it aswell.....



Girls are also vaccinated against reubeola because if they suffer the disease when pregnant it severly affects the fetus. Reubeola vaccinations are given age 12. Does that incentivate any of them to go out there and try to become mothers?
This vaccine is only effective if given before natural infection occurs. Lets be real: many kids are doing alot more than we care to admit at alot earlier ages. If the fear of pregnancy and/or aids does not affect what they are doing, then the distant prospect of potencial cerviacal cancer will not either.

Medicine is not an exact science. While there are many unanswered questions, there have also been huge strides made from which we benefit in our everyday lives, because medicine took risks. People died of what we now look at as minor illnesses. Many sever ilnesses are cured or at least managable, which in the past were death sentences. This vaccine has the very real possibility stopping 9 out of 10 cerviacal cancer cases of ever happening. That has to be a great thing.


It will never kill of HPV, just as measles, mumps and chicken pox will never be killed off. Even if boys were vaccinated ( which they will not be), not everyone is vaccinated nor does every person vaccinated respond sufficiently to it. The reason boys are not vaccinated: cost versus result ratio. The costs are huge compared to the relatively few situtions where HPV causes problems in males.

teenybash
01-Sep-08, 17:45
I posted earlier my support for the vaccine but now have done a complete U turn through a conversation with my daughter. Both she and oh are medics and researched the vaccine and based on their findings would not consider any young girl having these injections.
1. A lack of research on long term effects either good or bad.
2. Hyped publicity by drug company who will be supplying vaccine.....they will make mega bucks.
3. Vaccine claims effectiveness in relation to only two of the HPV strains.
4. The adult immune system normally kills off HPVs' rendering them harmless, though there will be those who will develop cervical cancer due to other factors.
5. Inadequate trials of the vaccine.
6. The information in relation to the vaccine is based on the assumption all children from the age of twelve are sexually active.

The list is extensive, the research incomplete and where does that leave our children..........being used as guinea pigs....[disgust]

justine
01-Sep-08, 18:32
Good for you teenybash, nice to see that not all parents would just let someone stick a vaccination into their child because the authorities say so.
I too have done some research on this and have decided that my girls wont get it, not until they can assure me that it will be better in the long run, which cannot be verified..

i always research things like this, for my childrens wellbeing, and it makes me wonder what parents are thinking when they say yes to stuff they have no knowledge about.....:eek:

The only 2 HPV it can help and they are strains, 16-18, There are over 100 strains of HPV and none have been certified of having led to cervical cancer.

My aunty died of lung cancer 5 years ago, she started off with cervical cancer, which then spread to the uterus, she had a historectomy and then it went to liver and lung, would this injection helped her, No..But it seems many are sticking to letting their children have the injection, but i wont be...

armanisgirl
01-Sep-08, 19:22
This sounds like it's going to end up as another MMR argument!!

My daughter is 8, there is no history of any cancers in my family that I am aware of, but I wouldn't necessarily refuse to allow her the vaccine. Why? Because it will be any future sexual partner(s) she has that would pass on the virus to her. Yes, it may only cover 2 strains of HPV, yes there are many more strains out there, but if trials are showing positive, then why shouldn't we take this vaccine up? We allow our children all the other vaccines available, and some of us now request our children to have the BCG vaccine, but not one of us know exactly how our child/ren will react to the vaccines. This vaccine is no different. Everyone reacts differently to all natures of things. As long as trials are monitored (and not just by manufacturers who will make mega bucks), and no negative reactions are reported, this can only be for the benefit of our children. Others on here have lost or are losing relatives through cervical cancer, no doubt if the vaccine had been available when those cancer victims had been children, they would have considered taking the injections, especially if there has been a family history of it.

Time will tell how well this actually works, just as it will no doubt add to the number of strains of HPV that it can prevent. But I don't think people should be 'ordered' to have it, nor do I think people should be questioned about their decision to allow their child to have it. It is down to personal choice, and if my daughter was 12, and we had a history of CC in our family, I'd be first in the queue with her, in the hope it would save her life one day. Who knows if it will be available in 4 years time, when she'll be old enough, but if it is, she'll be given the vaccine too. We have to remember, whether we like it or not, children ARE becoming sexually active at a younger age. But there's also the fact that HPV can be passed on via touching something with HPV on it; it's another invisible and deadly disease that we have to take seriously. But I still think boys should have the vaccine, regardless of cost, if they are the 'main carriers' of HPV. And yes, I would get both my sons vaccinated!!!

TBH
01-Sep-08, 22:42
this is something, that all girls should have, if it is going to help prevent this silent killer, then i am all for it, i know that when my girls reach that age they will definatly get it,it has started think it is in glasgow, and it will be rolled out over the whole of scotland within the next few weeks.No disrespect to you but you are saying your girls will definitely have the injections, have you asked them about it?

karia
01-Sep-08, 22:49
[quote=justine;4260
My aunty died of lung cancer 5 years ago, she started off with cervical cancer, which then spread to the uterus, she had a historectomy and then it went to liver and lung, would this injection helped her, No..But it seems many are sticking to letting their children have the injection, but i wont be...[/quote]

If her cancer started off in her cervix then travelled as you suggest then I fail to see why this injection would not have helped.:confused

TBH
01-Sep-08, 22:57
Nobody knows the long term effects of this drug, we all know about the morning sickness drug, 'thalidomide' and it eventual catastrophic effect.

karia
01-Sep-08, 23:07
No one knows the long term results of tea or coffee drinking!

I have had several recalls and surgery for cervical cancer type cell changes...am awaiting surgery now as are at least 5 of my friends. There were 8 of us but 3 died in the interim. Leaving 7 children.

Show me the girls who (fully informed) don't want the jabs..I will happily take their place.

TBH
01-Sep-08, 23:12
No one knows the long term results of tea or coffee drinking!

I have had several recalls and surgery for cervical cancer type cell changes...am awaiting surgery now as are at least 5 of my friends. There were 8 of us but 3 died in the interim. Leaving 7 children.

Show me the girls who (fully informed) don't want the jabs..I will happily take their place.I think we would know the long term effects of tea or coffee drinking by now?
I hope everything works out for you, sorry to hear about your losses.
If people are willing to take this drug and they nust be fully informed of it's researched effects, good or bad then all power to them but drugs such as thalidomide should definitely serve as a cautionary tale in the usage of any new medicines.

karia
02-Sep-08, 00:07
But it is not a drug like Thalidomide..it is an anti viral and quite different!

Lest you think I treat Thalidomide lightly I was born in the early 60's and my mum was prescribed thalidomide for morning sickness...she didn't take it.

Appreciate your good wishes..some of those I spoke of are fellow orgers but I hardly know a woman who has not had some form of treatment in relationship to this disease.

justine
02-Sep-08, 00:43
No one knows the long term results of tea or coffee drinking!

I have had several recalls and surgery for cervical cancer type cell changes...am awaiting surgery now as are at least 5 of my friends. There were 8 of us but 3 died in the interim. Leaving 7 children.

Show me the girls who (fully informed) don't want the jabs..I will happily take their place.

Unfortunately it does not help cervical cancer, it just kills the HPV virus that may or may not cause the cancer, so women over 30 are not considered right for the drug.Hense why the age group of 12-18.
This is the reason i would say that the drug would not have helped my aunty.If they had been testing it when she was a child she may not have died at 55 yrs old, but it was not to be..
This drug has not been verified to do what they say.The test have only been done in the last 2 years and cannot be proven to help any form of cervical cancer..

_Ju_
02-Sep-08, 06:54
But it is not a drug like Thalidomide..it is an anti viral and quite different!



It is NOT an antiviral. It is a vaccine. A vaccine stimulates the immune system to immediately recognize and attack a foreign agent (in this case a virus). An antiviral drug is a medication that targets a viral infection.
So an antiviral is actually quite like thalidomide (or if you want, a viral antibiotic) and very unlike a vaccine. But the reason I am enfatically pointing this out is that people sometimes get into a frenzy about something that they do not know much about and then jump to conclusions, based on assumptions and facts that could start out like a fact such as this "antiviral drug".
We have a saying in portugal: "De medico e de louco, temos todos um pouco"- Of a Doctor and a mad man we all have a little.

porshiepoo
02-Sep-08, 07:55
Looking at the long term view - i'm an old wifie, and took HRT and have the scars to prove it - now am cautious about any new preventative measures.


I completely understand your point of view as it stems from your own experience however, could you really deny your daughter the chance to protect herself against this disease?

My niece died recently from a rare form of cervical cancer and she was aged just 23. She caught it in the early stages, had so much chemo that if she had survived her body would never have been able to have any chemo ever again, she had radiotherapy etc etc but died in a little under a year from first diagnosis.
It's a cruel disease - as are all cancers - and I for one am hoping and praying that both my daughters get this jab, as are they.

Does anyone know how it's working at Wick High? Both my daughters are in sixth form and I'm worried they won't be given the opportunity to get it.
They turn 18 next March does that mean they won't be given it after that point?

justine
02-Sep-08, 10:09
I completely understand your point of view as it stems from your own experience however, could you really deny your daughter the chance to protect herself against this disease?

My niece died recently from a rare form of cervical cancer and she was aged just 23. She caught it in the early stages, had so much chemo that if she had survived her body would never have been able to have any chemo ever again, she had radiotherapy etc etc but died in a little under a year from first diagnosis.
It's a cruel disease - as are all cancers - and I for one am hoping and praying that both my daughters get this jab, as are they.

Does anyone know how it's working at Wick High? Both my daughters are in sixth form and I'm worried they won't be given the opportunity to get it.
They turn 18 next March does that mean they won't be given it after that point?


According to my daughter who i spoke to last night, she says they are starting theres this month. The exact date is unknown but leaflets will be handed out..You culd phone the school for clarification but all the girls under 18 are being offered it.

Rheghead
02-Sep-08, 10:42
Wasn't there something about innoculating boys against the virus that causes cervical cancer?:confused Would that be acceptable to parents?

justine
02-Sep-08, 10:46
Wasn't there something about innoculating boys against the virus that causes cervical cancer?:confused Would that be acceptable to parents?


But its not a cervical cancer drug, its a HPV sexualy transmitted disease drug, which kills the virus that may cause cervical cancer, but i think that if it is being allocated then boys should be offered but as the strains that the vaccine kills off is 16 and 18 only, the only two that are supposed to cause cervical cancer, then they wont need to get it.But there maybe should be a vaccine that will stop men getting HPV virus which can cause penial and testicular cancer in men.

toodiemac
02-Sep-08, 11:53
Okay, how much do you trust the Government? Would you trust them implicity to make health based decisions for your children? Would you trust the big pharmaceutical company who stands to make millions, if not billions? I for one would not, so it does amaze me when people allow their children to be injected without doing thorough research into just what is going into their bodies - after all if the immunity acquired from the vaccine can last a lifetime, then surely any effects from the vaccine have the ability to do so also.

This vaccine (along with many others) contains alumunum which is highly toxic to the human body, is known to cause brain damage and has been implicated in behavioural problems in children. Yes, we come across it in everyday life from various sources and we do ingest it but very little is absorbed by the body because of the protective barrier in the gut . When aluminium is injected in vaccines of course it bypasses the protective lining of the gut, so what is the long term effect - well nobody really knows because it has never undergone any safety trials. Once aluminium enters the brain it is only excreted very slowly and is liable to accumulate. How can this accumulation affect the immune system in the long term (we start injecting it into our babies at around 8 weeks old)? Well, I think doctors would tell you that it won’t affect the immune system in the long term - we have been using it for many years and we would know by now if there was a problem wouldn’t we?

I just wonder that now we give so many vaccinations (I think it is more than 20 by the time the child is 5 years old) compared to, say, the 1960’s why are we seeing such a rise in immune related problems such as cancer, diabetes, asthma, allergies, autism etc etc? Could it be linked? Why will nobody do an independent study into it? The big studies are usually funded by the vaccine companies so are they truly independent?

There have been vaccines which were withdrawn after being used on many children because of problems, just as medications have been withdrawn. Who knows what effect the HPV vaccine will have on these girls in, say, twenty years time? Nobody.

It would be wonderful if we could wipe out cancer with a vaccine, without causing any harm to these children, but I would be very, very cautious. The GP can only really pass on the information they have been given from the manufacturers - if they had concerns over the safety of the vaccine, do you think they would say so? Of course not, that would be going against the department of health and Government advice. I don’t doubt for one moment that this vaccine will prevent some people developing this cruel disease (perhaps not nearly so many as people seem to think) but at what cost? That is the thing we are not told about and not expected to question or research.

justine
02-Sep-08, 11:57
Okay, how much do you trust the Government? Would you trust them implicity to make health based decisions for your children? Would you trust the big pharmaceutical company who stands to make millions, if not billions? I for one would not, so it does amaze me when people allow their children to be injected without doing thorough research into just what is going into their bodies - after all if the immunity acquired from the vaccine can last a lifetime, then surely any effects from the vaccine have the ability to do so also.

This vaccine (along with many others) contains alumunum which is highly toxic to the human body, is known to cause brain damage and has been implicated in behavioural problems in children. Yes, we come across it in everyday life from various sources and we do ingest it but very little is absorbed by the body because of the protective barrier in the gut . When aluminium is injected in vaccines of course it bypasses the protective lining of the gut, so what is the long term effect - well nobody really knows because it has never undergone any safety trials. Once aluminium enters the brain it is only excreted very slowly and is liable to accumulate. How can this accumulation affect the immune system in the long term (we start injecting it into our babies at around 8 weeks old)? Well, I think doctors would tell you that it won’t affect the immune system in the long term - we have been using it for many years and we would know by now if there was a problem wouldn’t we?

I just wonder that now we give so many vaccinations (I think it is more than 20 by the time the child is 5 years old) compared to, say, the 1960’s why are we seeing such a rise in immune related problems such as cancer, diabetes, asthma, allergies, autism etc etc? Could it be linked? Why will nobody do an independent study into it? The big studies are usually funded by the vaccine companies so are they truly independent?

There have been vaccines which were withdrawn after being used on many children because of problems, just as medications have been withdrawn. Who knows what effect the HPV vaccine will have on these girls in, say, twenty years time? Nobody.

It would be wonderful if we could wipe out cancer with a vaccine, without causing any harm to these children, but I would be very, very cautious. The GP can only really pass on the information they have been given from the manufacturers - if they had concerns over the safety of the vaccine, do you think they would say so? Of course not, that would be going against the department of health and Government advice. I don’t doubt for one moment that this vaccine will prevent some people developing this cruel disease (perhaps not nearly so many as people seem to think) but at what cost? That is the thing we are not told about and not expected to question or research.


The simple answer to that is NO.........

That is wh i started this thread because too many parents just put there trust in what the government and the health officials tell them and do exactly what they are told, without actually researching what is being injected, given to their children..

The average market sales for this particular drug is costing the gov £640m and the drug company is gonna make over £460b..Figures says it all to me..

I like the way you have put this and hopefully it will give other parents a clearer view of exactly what this vaccine involves..

Well done:D

And for the record my daughters have had it explained to them and shown the pros and cons and have decided on their own not to take the medication unless they no it will not harm them,. Their decision.Not mine.

As for immunity that we recieve as babies, does not always carry on..I lost my immunity to Rubella and had to be given another injection to bring my immunity back.We go around life thinking that we get an injection thats makes us immune but it does not always mean for life and i know that from experience.People should have yearly blood tests to establish wether their immune system is still immune to what drugs we have already been injected with..I have no immunity to tb and other things due to being bitten by a dog that had rabies in Nepal when i was nine.Anything can muck up what the government is trying to avoid by giving babies injections for mmr, diptheria, tetanus, hep c and the rest that they are given before they reach the age of one.

toodiemac
02-Sep-08, 12:24
Thanks Justine. I do think we should question these things and never just blindly put our trust in the Government.

Take mercury for example - highly toxic in all forms. Sweden stopped using it in childhood vaccines in 1989 because of the health implications/concerns. Denmark followed suit and stopped using it in 1992. When did Britain remove it from our childhood vaccines? October 2004!! Now if the parents agreeing to it being injected in, say, 2003 were told;-

“this vaccine contains mercury and Swedish and Danish children do not receive it because it is highly toxic to the human body and concerns have been raised, but the British Government, in it’s wisdom, feel that it is okay for your child to have it. We will be removing it from vaccines next year though”

Would they question things a bit more?

As I said there have been vaccines licensed, used extensively, and then withdrawn (usually very quietly). The lack of clear independent information, and the lack of recourse when something does go wrong, makes me quite suspicious. I think we owe it to our children to do our own research, extensively, as the information put out by the NHS can sometimes be nothing short of propaganda.

justine
02-Sep-08, 12:34
Propaganda. Perfect analysis of this i think.

It makes me wonder at times, when you think we go into a supermarkets, check through all the ingredients that is in what we buy so we dont give our childrwen anything that may not be good for them but then we allow them to have vaccines that may or may not be harmful to the child in the long run..

armanisgirl
02-Sep-08, 15:58
As I mentioned in my previous comment, we have no way of knowing how our child will react to any substance. I was safely immunised as a child, as were my children, but there are children out there who have very serious reactions to the same substances everyone else is fine with. I have no known allergies, and therefore buy foods as healthy as possible for my family. Yet my oldest son could literally be killed by consuming peaches or anything containing peach products. When he was a toddler, I innocently gave him a taste of a peach, not knowing he has a strong allergy to them. So although we try to be very careful when feeding our families, it's not possible to know exactly how something may react with them. It's the same kind of principal with immunisations. The only difference is that we are putting our trust in medicinal manufacturers and scientists instead of food manufacturers. (How do we know everything we eat hasn't been contaminated during the growing processes? We don't, we trust that it is safe). We also have the option of doing our own research into vaccines, but this in itself can be quite a dangerous practice - look at the MMR fiasco; many still do not trust the MMR vaccine, and as a result some poor children have been left disabled or dead. Also, doing our own research often directs us to the 'horror' stories that circulate, putting us off accepting a vaccine.

Nobody knows how you or your child will react following a vaccination or a course of treatment, it's down to hoping everything will be okay really. I know that certain medications I have been prescribed in the past do not have any effect on me, good or bad, yet a friend prescribed the same drug for the same condition was 'out her tree' with it! Yet other medications are way too strong for me. Yeah, it could be down to metabolism or whatever, but to me, it would appear that you cannot foretell who is going to be fine with something and who is not. Just as you cannot say one child may have future problems because of a vaccination while another will be fine. But I don't really think that those against the the cervical cancer vaccination should have a go at those who are for it, just as those who are for it shouldn't have a go at those against it. Providing each adult has their daughter's best interests at heart, rather than believing or not believing whatever publicity is about or what a mate or a part of the community thinks, and that the young girl is fully capable of understanding what the vaccine is about, then it's up to each family to decide amongst what is best for them.

But until further research or details are available, we shouldn't really jump on any kind of bandwagon - just as the MMR 'research' showed - it can cost lives, and can cost quality of lives, which is not what the safety of our children should be about.

hotrod4
02-Sep-08, 17:39
I will still get my daughter vaccinated.Life is all about chances and if there is a chance that it can prevent cancer then definitely for me.I have read the "against" vaccine and that is a parents perogative and I appreciate where they are coming from.. Yes there may be a chance that the drug may have problems,but theres also a chance it may save a child in the future. If Cancer research are behind it,NHS behind it, Scottish government is behind it and the British Governmenet is behind it then I will go with them. I cant see Cancer Research getting behind something unless the pro's outweigh the cons?. I cant believe all this "conspiracy" type theories against.

As I stated life is about choices and chances,chances are I could be hit by a bus tomorrow but i can take the choice to look both ways before crossing the road hence increasing my chances of survival, that is why I am a "yes" to the vaccine as that is my outlook on it.

purplelady
02-Sep-08, 23:09
I have two daughthers both too old for the injection now but had it been a available when they were young i would not have thought twice about them having it we have to realise that we live in in a world where are young poeple are sexually active at a much younger age than we were and this discease is caused though having sex at a young age for a lot not all i add but surely we need to protect our kids and do what we can for them i woulld deff say yes to it

Tristan
03-Sep-08, 07:28
I think one thing we need to question is why the UK government is going with the less tested and less effective vaccine Cervarix made by Glaxo.

Most other countries are going with Gardasil. Both drugs protect against against the two types of genital warts believed to cause cancer but Gardasil also protects two other types of genital warts giving 90% protection.

Given a choice I would go with Gardasil for my daughter.

Alice in Blunderland
03-Sep-08, 07:37
I have signed the consent form for my daughter and given it back to her. She has decided to take the vaccination. :)

Its her choice I would not force her but I believe that it will be beneficial.

Al drug companies are making massive amounts of money each year not only from this but many other drugs.

justine
03-Sep-08, 09:30
But until further research or details are available, we shouldn't really jump on any kind of bandwagon - just as the MMR 'research' showed - it can cost lives, and can cost quality of lives, which is not what the safety of our children should be about.[/quote]


The fact about the MMR causing deaths and problems, well the scientist that made the findings about the links to autism and problems with the MMR jab, retracted his statement and made an apology because he got it wrong.

This has not been researched well enough and i hope that it gets more research and they can find it to be totally safe for our children>

Tristan
03-Sep-08, 10:36
Making sure a drug is as safe as possible should always be of concern so I as again why has the UK government gone with Cervarix when Gardasil has had a lot more research done on it, been in use in many countries in the world and protects against more types of warts?

toodiemac
03-Sep-08, 12:25
Cervarix is cheaper than Gardasil which is possibly why it was chosen by the Government, although it protects against only two strains of HPV rather than 4 strains as Gardasil does. In America 20 girls died within days of getting their Gardasil vaccine (which has a similar make-up to Cervarix), but these deaths were dismissed by Merck, the manufacturers. Also there have been concerns raised as to whether there is the potential for the vaccine to cause interference with the body’s natural defence against the other strains of the HPV virus - in other words could it actually be harmful in the long term. Shouldn’t this have been researched before the vaccination programme started?

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) is an independent expert committee which advises the Government on vaccines, but if you actually look at the members on this so called independent committee, many of them receive funding from the vaccine manufacturers, so you must decide how independent it really is.

Now, I really don’t want to start a whole new debate on the MMR, but just to give an example on vaccine safety, when the MMR was fist introduced here in 1988 there were concerns about the mumps component of the vaccine possibly causing meningitis but despite this the JCVI recommended proceeding with the vaccination programme. By 1990 many countries had withdrawn the vaccine containing this particular strain of mumps because of the evidence it was causing a rise in meningitis. It wasn’t withdrawn in Britain until 1992, two years later. This surely goes to show that things can go wrong, even when vaccines have been endorsed and labelled as ‘safe’.

I think it’s important to realise that many, many experts may have concerns about a particular vaccine but that it is not easy for them to speak out. With regards to the MMR, doctor Wakefield and his colleagues (people tend to think he was in it on his own!) simply spoke out about their concerns, and look what has happened there! They did not say MMR was linked to autism (though some experts still believe it is to this day) they said there MAY be a link and that it should be studied further. I wouldn’t think many experts would risk it after that. Now, aside from all the autism stuff, let’s not forget that the earlier MMR vaccines were potentially BSE infected and that the Government kept that very quiet. I’m not sure how long BSE takes to develop, but of all the cases I have heard about there has never been any suggestion that it could be linked to vaccines, only to meat (as far as I am aware).

Surely parents should be given all the information to make an informed choice, not be fed information which the Government wants us to have in order to influence our decisions.

_Ju_
03-Sep-08, 19:27
Propaganda. Perfect analysis of this i think.

It makes me wonder at times, when you think we go into a supermarkets, check through all the ingredients that is in what we buy so we dont give our childrwen anything that may not be good for them but then we allow them to have vaccines that may or may not be harmful to the child in the long run..

People feed their kids the dregs of nutrition made palatable with e-numbers every single day, with no benefit except to their wallets and to the time they spend in the kitchen. A vaccines (with potencial to save their lives) is vilified. It must make some sense, but I don't see it.


PS: Nothing in the world is innocuous to everyone. Every medication is tested as far as possible and used when benefits outweigh the risk of any adverse reactions. Iboprufen makes me feel very ill and has killed people. Yet benefits most who use it. That is the way medicine works. Live with it, but don't scaremonger people into refusing what might help them. (By scaremongering I mean stating as fact something which is not.....like the doctor who terrified parents into refusing MMR, possibly condemning some boys to a future of infertility and health problems because they got the mumps and it was then found he had absolutely no basis for his claims).

kgunn
03-Sep-08, 19:54
If I had young daughters, I would never agree to the injection.

Why not?.

kgunn
03-Sep-08, 19:56
Parents shouldn't get a choice over these types of things. They can save lives, so they should just be given with no fuss over it.

toodiemac
03-Sep-08, 21:41
People feed their kids the dregs of nutrition made palatable with e-numbers every single day, with no benefit except to their wallets and to the time they spend in the kitchen. A vaccines (with potencial to save their lives) is vilified. It must make some sense, but I don't see it.


PS: Nothing in the world is innocuous to everyone. Every medication is tested as far as possible and used when benefits outweigh the risk of any adverse reactions. Iboprufen makes me feel very ill and has killed people. Yet benefits most who use it. That is the way medicine works. Live with it, but don't scaremonger people into refusing what might help them. (By scaremongering I mean stating as fact something which is not.....like the doctor who terrified parents into refusing MMR, possibly condemning some boys to a future of infertility and health problems because they got the mumps and it was then found he had absolutely no basis for his claims).


Mumps is an extremely mild disease when caught in childhood, and before the MMR mostly all children did catch it. Infertility in boys was rarely a problem before puberty. In fact a survey in Scotland of all cases of mumps covering eight years showed that every patient made a complete recovery! Because immunity from mumps in the MMR doesn’t last a lifetime, (whereas immunity from catching the disease in childhood does) what actually can happen is that it pushes up the age that people catch mumps - and it is serious for men and adolescent boys.

How long does immunity to mumps last after the vaccine? Studies have shown that a fifth of children were not protected from mumps four years after vaccination after MMR so the mumps vaccine is a lot less effective than it was first thought. In fact, in one outbreak of mumps more vaccinated children caught it than unvaccinated children!

Believe it or not I am not against vaccination, but I do think that we give far too many vaccinations and it can cause problems, so I am all for selective vaccination. As far as the comment that parents should not be given a choice in vaccinating, remember that VERY serious side effects can and do happen, even death, and that millions has been paid out to parents in compensation. Now if a parent were somehow forced to vaccinate their child against their wishes, and that child then died or became seriously ill it would be very wrong to say the least.

With regard to the scaremongering comment, I think the GMC hearing for Dr Wakefield and his colleagues may be still ongoing. The fact that hundreds of parents have seen their children change within days of having the MMR vaccine and be diagnosed as autistic cannot just be disregarded. I know we are told that autism presents itself at around that age, but why has there not been a rise in autism after other vaccines, why just the MMR? It’s the only vaccine, routinely used, that contains three live viruses. I know that we are told no link has been found (though a lot of the studies are deeply flawed), but remember it’s not really possible to disprove a link either. I think the way all this has been reported seems to make people think that there can be no link between MMR and autism and so MMR is totally safe. What Dr Wakefield suggested at the time was that single vaccines might be a safer alternative to MMR, until further research was carried out, NOT that children should not be vaccinated. I would have thought that quite a reasonable thing to say given that he and his colleagues genuinely thought their might be a problem. There was evidence to back this up, this is not disputed., but whether it was strong enough evidence is the problem. They didn’t just make up all their results to hammer the national vaccination schedule! He didn’t have a problem with the measles, mumps or rubella vaccines, just with putting them all into one (which was done to cut costs).

By the way, I’m not related to Andrew Wakefield or anything, honest. I just hate the way the media reports things selectively, with the other side of the argument hardly ever being heard.

I know I sound like a right old Victor Meldrew saying I don’t trust the media nor the Government, but I’m quite a mild person usually. I do feel passionately about all this though.. And no, before anyone asks, I do not have an autistic child, nor do I have a vaccine damaged child.

purplelady
03-Sep-08, 23:17
Think we have to take time and think about the benifits and not focus on the small chancve of side effects and think of the lives and suffering this vaccine will stop

justine
04-Sep-08, 10:38
People feed their kids the dregs of nutrition made palatable with e-numbers every single day, with no benefit except to their wallets and to the time they spend in the kitchen. A vaccines (with potencial to save their lives) is vilified. It must make some sense, but I don't see it.


PS: Nothing in the world is innocuous to everyone. Every medication is tested as far as possible and used when benefits outweigh the risk of any adverse reactions. Iboprufen makes me feel very ill and has killed people. Yet benefits most who use it. That is the way medicine works. Live with it, but don't scaremonger people into refusing what might help them. (By scaremongering I mean stating as fact something which is not.....like the doctor who terrified parents into refusing MMR, possibly condemning some boys to a future of infertility and health problems because they got the mumps and it was then found he had absolutely no basis for his claims).


This is definatelty not about scaremongering people, this thread was started to make people aware of the fact that there are no real verifications of this drug, it is each and everyones own choise whether their child gets it, but please do research what it is before accepting, thats all this thread is about..

karia
04-Sep-08, 10:58
Think we have to take time and think about the benifits and not focus on the small chancve of side effects and think of the lives and suffering this vaccine will stop

Exactly!

Let's act on what we do know and not a lot of 'oh but what if's'.:roll:

As things stand at the moment cervical cancer can and does kill...FACT!

labsrus
04-Sep-08, 13:58
Sorry Karia, cannot agree with your comments.

HPV vaccines can also kill - FACT. They can also cause serious side effects.

This is an excert from an American website with links underneath to the official vaccine reaction reporting system in the USA (VAERS) It contains reports of serious vaccine reactions and deaths, makes frightening reading and those ARE official facts although had to be obtained through the freedom of information act as the vaccine manufactures for some reason are not too keen to divulge this information!

"Judicial Watch Uncovers New FDA Records Detailing Deaths in 1,824 Adverse Reaction Reports Related to HPV Vaccine

• “20-Jun-2007: Information has been received…concerning a 17 year old female who in June 2007…was vaccinated with a first dose of Gardasil…During the evening of the same day, the patient was found unconscious (lifeless) by the mother. Resuscitation was performed by the emergency physician but was unsuccessful. The patient subsequently died.”

• “12-Jun-2007: Information has been received…concerning a 12 year old female with a history of aortic and mitral valve insufficiency…who on 01-MAR-2007 was vaccinated IM into the left arm with a first does of Gardasil…On 01-MAR-2007 the patient presented to the ED with ventricular tachycardia and died.”

• 28-Aug-2007: Initial and follow-up information has been received from a physician concerning an “otherwise healthy” 13 year old female who was vaccinated with her first and second doses of Gardasil. Subsequently, the patient experienced…paralysis from the chest down, lesions of the optic nerve…At the time of the report, the patient had not recovered.” "



Link to reported deaths http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2008/VAERS_Deaths.pdf

Link to reported serious reactions http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2008/2008SeriousVAERS.pdf

What is the better option, being a guinea pig for an unproven vaccine that MAY prevent only 2 of the many strains of HPV but may also cause serious side effects including death -or going without the new vaccine and getting regular smear tests as has been done until now?

For your information smear tests will still be needed after the HPV vaccine as it only protects for those 2 strains but how many young girls will forego getting smears done thinking they already are protected from cancer with possible dire results. The manufacturers dont know how long the vaccine lasts as it was only tested for 6 years, so will all those young girls need re vaccinated every 6 years?

justine
04-Sep-08, 16:53
Thats some pretty disturbing figures there Labsrus.I did not relaise things were that bad.Some of the effects are horrendous and it suprises me more than anything that it has still been allowed to be given.As you rightly say the girls will need to be reinnoculated but after how many years is anyones guess..

I just hope people do take this seriously and think it through before they allow their children to have it. I wish it had been proven safe and effective from the start and then my children would probably have had it but until things are proven they have decided against it..

Skerries
04-Sep-08, 17:28
Parents shouldn't get a choice over these types of things. They can save lives, so they should just be given with no fuss over it.

What a bizarre remark! Parents shouldn't have a choice in their child's healthcare? I thought the days of believing everything you are told finished in the 1960s?

I am not against vaccination either but I wouldn't blindly agree to anything.

karia
04-Sep-08, 18:09
Let us provide the women of tomorrow with all the information to hand and trust them to make an informed decision regarding their future health.

justine
04-Sep-08, 21:28
which is perfectly fine, except they werent given any information to make up their own minds, and its a long wait to see if they work or not.:eek:

karia
04-Sep-08, 22:15
which is perfectly fine, except they werent given any information to make up their own minds, and its a long wait to see if they work or not.:eek:


Sorry Justine but I am finding lots of information and discussion both online and off.:confused

And I totally agree that if you want complete clearance for any drug and its long term effects you will have to wait for several generations.

Sadly todays young girls will have to live with the consequences either way and I'd hate to have anyone come asking me why they didn't get an injection when it is too late..just as much as have them ask why they were given the injection IF it proves to have side effects down the line.

It's an arrogant voice that would claim all the answers on this one....and it certainly won't be mine.

scorrie
04-Sep-08, 22:55
All modern medications carry endless instructions about side effects, pitfalls etc etc

If you stop and read all that can go wrong, you will probably shy away from taking the tablets. You could hunt the internet up and down, read about poor so and so having a terrible experience, and think "Damn it, I'll stick with a bread poultice and a damn good fill of drink instead"

Rightly or wrongly, I "Bull" the tablets down my throat and hope that somewhere, somebody, knows what they are talking about.

So far, I have three breasts, one testicle, no hair on my head, too much hair on my shoulders and "Rockford Files" like a kilogram bag of grapes, but, hey, my acne is clearing up not too bad!! ;)

karia
04-Sep-08, 23:02
I am sure the tooth suckers sell hats to disuade the optimistic of mind Scorrie.

Limp on!;)

hotrod4
05-Sep-08, 13:37
People feed their kids the dregs of nutrition made palatable with e-numbers every single day, with no benefit except to their wallets and to the time they spend in the kitchen. A vaccines (with potencial to save their lives) is vilified. It must make some sense, but I don't see it.


PS: Nothing in the world is innocuous to everyone. Every medication is tested as far as possible and used when benefits outweigh the risk of any adverse reactions. Iboprufen makes me feel very ill and has killed people. Yet benefits most who use it. That is the way medicine works. Live with it, but don't scaremonger people into refusing what might help them. (By scaremongering I mean stating as fact something which is not.....like the doctor who terrified parents into refusing MMR, possibly condemning some boys to a future of infertility and health problems because they got the mumps and it was then found he had absolutely no basis for his claims).

Excellent post in full agreement,very informed post. Life is all about choices, make up your own mind and dont be "brainwashed" by copy's and pastes, use the brain cell to make an informed choice, i.e look at it from both sides and dont try to force theories onto others, thats how Hitler started after all !! ;)

hotrod4
05-Sep-08, 13:43
which is perfectly fine, except they werent given any information to make up their own minds, and its a long wait to see if they work or not.:eek:

But maybe by taking that chance they are increasing their chances of survival?
If its even a slightest chance of helping then why not?
All products that come onto the market are tested as far as they can be , but as stated eariler we are all different so problems can come from eating a breakfast cereal to driving a car, NOTHING in this world is 100% safe, its about making an informed choice and balancing the "pros" and "cons" of things.

justine
05-Sep-08, 14:44
But maybe by taking that chance they are increasing their chances of survival?
If its even a slightest chance of helping then why not?
All products that come onto the market are tested as far as they can be , but as stated eariler we are all different so problems can come from eating a breakfast cereal to driving a car, NOTHING in this world is 100% safe, its about making an informed choice and balancing the "pros" and "cons" of things.


I agree if it can help save lives, then it can only be good, but if truth be told how many on here would have looked into this if i had not brought up the thread.
Truthfully answer that question..
Not many, most would have gone ahead without fully understanding what they were allowing their children to have.That was the point of this thread, to give people an awareness that they may or may not have looked into.

Many have now gone through the net and looked up info and are making their decisions, which is why i started this thread, not to put people off just to make them aware of what they were being asked to allow their children to have.
This thread was not started to put people off just to give them some info on something that they probably did not think about.

hotrod4
05-Sep-08, 15:59
I agree if it can help save lives, then it can only be good, but if truth be told how many on here would have looked into this if i had not brought up the thread.
Truthfully answer that question...
Quite easily, Most people would have checked out their Local NHS centres or even googled it as everyone else has done.(I know thats what I do if i want info)
I think you are thinking that most people that frequent the org arent informed?
"how many on here would have looked into this if i had not brought up the thread". I think it would have been brought up as its such a big issue,but thanks for being first to do so! :)

armanisgirl
05-Sep-08, 16:38
Here's another angle to think about! there is a lot of disagreement about this vaccine being compulsory, though there is the offer of 'opting out', meaning this vaccine IS NOT actually being 'forced' as some have claimed (which I even saw being claimed on TV yesterday!). Many people may say (or think) nope, I won't allow my daughter to be vaccinated, she can have smear tests when she's older, until this vaccine has been proved safe (nothing is 100% safe though - remember that!).

Now consider this; your daughter is in late teens, and (unknown to you) is a bit promiscuous. She didn't have the vaccine at age 12, but neither does she go for a smear, She enters her early twenties, mid twenties, and still no smear test is done. She says she'll get round to it one day. She's put off though, because she thinks she'll be embarrassed, or because she's heard it can be painful. When she finally does have a smear done, because she has had pain during sex or spotting between menstruation, she's found to have cervical cancer, which is quite advanced. Her only choices now are wether to engage in gruelling chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and/or surgery in the hope of beating the cancer, which she opts for, but still dies from the cancer.

Not a very nice thought for any person, be it the parents or the child. But as smear tests are voluntary and not compulsory and women are not 'made' to have them done, many young girls WILL run the risk of cervical cancer. The above is only an example (the girl may have only had one boyfriend, but he has maybe had many sexual partners), but it is a scenario that will sadly come true for possibly thousands of todays young girls.

Most women do get their smears done every three years, but a lot don't, for exactly the reasons given above. My friend had her first smear done 2 years ago, at the age of 35, and only because she was having ovarian problems, so the consultant insisted she have it done. That was the longest wait of her life; waiting to find out the results. I, like many, get nervous every three years, but she was terrified. She was one of the lucky ones, the ovarian problems were 'just' ovarian problems and not related to cervical cancer. But, sadly, we cannot ensure our daughters WILL get smears done when they should. It's a fact of life. Until smear tests are compulsory (which I somehow cannot see being introduced) any method to prevent cancer is surely something to be very seriously considered?

Yes, there have been inicdences in USA, including death, but these were using a different vaccine, not the one available in the UK, and again, there is no way of telling how each person will react to something. Yes, there are many strains of HPV, and the vaccine only covers two, but these two are the ones found to be most linked to cervical cancer. Yes, more research needs to be done, but how much will be enough to pacify every single person? There will never be enough to convince everyone. Yes, it is highly important to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of any vaccination, but nobody should be actively trying to persaude or disuade any parent or young girl regarding a vaccination like this, and rather than highlighting the negatives, allow each individual access to research it themselves in order to make up their own minds. For those who decide against vaccination - just remember to reinforce the importance of smear tests to your daughter/s, and pray that as they get older, they DO get their smear tests done. It's easy to say, yes I got my smear done, but not so easy to have to sit down and tell the family you have abnormal cells/cervical cancer because you lied about getting a smear test done!

justine
05-Sep-08, 17:05
Quite easily, Most people would have checked out their Local NHS centres or even googled it as everyone else has done.(I know thats what I do if i want info)
I think you are thinking that most people that frequent the org arent informed?
"how many on here would have looked into this if i had not brought up the thread". I think it would have been brought up as its such a big issue,but thanks for being first to do so! :)


I would never imply that people on the org are not informed, but from experience in life it is easy for parents to agree with everything we are told about things for our children.

Not six months ago i was told that my children were no longer allowed to take soya milk and i had to move onto a prescribed milk which costs £20 per tin.I declined as all my children have either been breast fed and then moved onto soya(as three have allergies to milk).
They also recommend not to feed your children solids until 6 mths,and new parents and parents with children may always listen to the health proffesionals, and as some are aware having as many children i have some knowledge at what i think and believe is best for my children.
I just think it is easier to approach a subject with all the ins and outs of it being publicised, which i dont think we had been given enough info on this just to agree with them..
I think that if more info had been put into place over a year ago, and it had not been as most health authorities were infact unaware that this was going to happen until earlier this year, we probably would not have had this thread. I just wanted people to be aware of the dangers and the goods that may or may not come from this vaccine.

Thanks for the last comment although i was not asking for praise for being the first just making sure that people knew what they were up against with this vaccine...

_Ju_
05-Sep-08, 20:03
Good post. I just take issue with this part:




Now consider this; your daughter is in late teens, and (unknown to you) is a bit promiscuous.


You do not have to be promiscuos to get anything at all. From Chlamydia to HPV and passing through HIV, all only take one mistake, one promise broken or one lie to happen. Offcourse indiscriminate behaviour increases chances of it happening.

karia
05-Sep-08, 22:01
Thanks for the last comment although i was not asking for praise for being the first just making sure that people knew what they were up against with this vaccine...

I thought your entire point was that people didn't know what they were up against with this vaccine...that it was unknown and untested.:confused

Alice in Blunderland
05-Sep-08, 23:12
Having read all the posts regarding the safety and accuracy/amount of information regarding this new injection I looked at it form this angle..............what about the member of staff giving these injections?

Do you not for one momment think that this person whoever they may be will not have read into all this as it is after all them who is injecting this drug into the girls.

Would they not be at least confident in the drug not harming the person they are injecting....... :)

Just another angle to look at it all from.

armanisgirl
06-Sep-08, 20:12
Good post. I just take issue with this part:





You do not have to be promiscuos to get anything at all. From Chlamydia to HPV and passing through HIV, all only take one mistake, one promise broken or one lie to happen. Offcourse indiscriminate behaviour increases chances of it happening.


I did actually mention in the next paragraph that the fictional girl may only have had one boyfriend, but he had had several sexual partners - I didn't want to imply anything be suggesting young girls are all promiscuous, hence adding the boyfriend bit. But as there was a degree of concern that offering the girls vaccination may increase promiscuity (not on here but from media coverage) I covered promiscuity as a main example, but do apologise if it was not percieved in that way to all reading it.

However, this actually detracts from my message in this post - we cannot be certain that our girls will have smears done as they get older, not unless it is forced or unless we lead them into the nurse's room by the hand. Therefore the point is, regardless of anyone's feelings or decisions about allowing this vaccination, we must always stress the importance of having smears done every three years, especially if the girls have not had (for whatever reason) a vaccination. I would also encourage the girls who do get the vaccination to attend same smear appointments - prevention is always better than cure, and not all cancers can be cured once they are established. smears can be life-savers for many, though sadly some people get smears done too late or unfortunately the results come back normal when they're not, or cancer develops between smear tests, but for the majority, smear tests can save a life - emphasise that importance to these young girls as well.

karia
06-Sep-08, 20:28
[quote=armanisgirl;428205]I did actually mention in the next paragraph that the fictional girl may only have had one boyfriend, but he had had several sexual partners - /quote]

Indeed he may only have had one other partner too! Let us be wary of branding anyone promiscuous when ONE encounter is all it takes.

Smears are very important and I hope we all teach our daughters how much so.

Saved my life once and after 6 clear years My GP said I could 'give them a miss'.

Thankfully I said...'Humour me' and here I go again!:(

justine
09-Sep-08, 12:48
Puttting this with this thread so as not to duplicate post.


Came across this and it now seems that even the pap test for cervical cancer is wrong.But the new test may help.This is more of a problem than thought and the HPV virus that causes the cancer is not responsible for the actual cancer, but its all in the link.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080909/hl_nm/cancer_cervical_test_dc_1

_Ju_
09-Sep-08, 14:53
Came across this and it now seems that even the pap test for cervical cancer is wrong.But the new test may help.This is more of a problem than thought and the HPV virus that causes the cancer is not responsible for the actual cancer, but its all in the link.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080909/hl_nm/cancer_cervical_test_dc_1

This article doesn't say "the pap test for cervical cancer is wrong". It says that the pap test throws up many false positives ( because of it's limitations) and that the new test being developed is more accurate. The article also does not state that the HPV is not responsible for the cancer. What it does say is that the huge majority of women who have HPV do not develope cancer and the reason for this is not known.


A while ago I was watching a programme about religion in the USA. Specifically, an evangelist sect was producing a panflet about STD's, on which they they manipulated their wording while using real statistics on HPV. On the "information" panflet they stated that 90% of women with HPV infections would develope cervical cancer. These are two very diferent statements. The statistic is that 90% of cervical cancers are HPV related. That is why you have to choose your sources of information carefully, especially when they might influence you to make life decisions. And that is also why everyone needs to read carefully and not read what you want into some things.

justine
09-Sep-08, 15:15
I posted the link to show that the cervical smear that everyone goes on about shows misdiagnosis all the time. How many women have been recalled because of faulty tests. As for the HPV virus our body deals with it in our own way, but being reinfected with it over and over is what is likely to cause some form of cancer, but generally we rid our bodies of it.
As for the putting it on and misleading people, its down to them to do more research on the subject, but a pap test is neither accurate in many cases or gives women the impression they have lesions that are cancerous when they are infact not.
I hope that this new test can be more reliable and out of 1,100 women tested 88% showed signs of severe lesions which cause the worst type of cervical cancer that a pap test did not pick up

Nothing these days is reliable, i am just offering up links to help people make the right choise on their own.I dont believe there is anythng wrong with that.

Margaret M.
16-Nov-08, 03:51
Big Pharma loves those who do not question.

http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_HPV_Vaccine_0.html

For the last several years, HPV vaccines have been marketed to the public and mandated in compulsory injections for young girls in several states based on the idea that they prevent cervical cancer. Now, NaturalNews has obtained documents from the FDA and other sources which reveal that the FDA has been well aware for several years that Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) has no direct link to cervical cancer.

What's clear in all this is that mandatory HPV vaccination programs are not based on anything resembling good science. They seem to be based on a carefully planted meme -- an idea that, coincidentally, spreads from one person's mind to the next much like a virus, gaining momentum as the mainstream media, health authorities, FDA and drug company reps repeat the meme on a regular basis. And what is that meme? That HPV causes cervical cancer, and, therefore, HPV vaccinations could halt cervical cancer and save lives.

This meme appears to have no real scientific basis. It is more of an urban legend than anything resembling scientific fact. Furthermore, it appears to have been conjured by those in a position to financially benefit from the adoption of that meme (the drug companies who manufacture, sell, and profit from the sale of HPV vaccines). In this case, that drug company is Merck, a powerful corporation with a dubious history rife with charges of price fixing, large-scale tax avoidance (it set up offshore accounts to avoid billions in U.S. taxes), widespread biopiracy, conspiring with the FDA to discredit its critics, burying negative evidence about its drugs (see the history of Vioxx at www.NaturalNews.com/vioxx.html (http://www.naturalnews.com/vioxx.html) ) and numerous other actions that many consider to be criminal in nature.

There is no question that Merck has the lack of ethics, the willingness and the means to commit medical fraud on an unprecedented scale. Based on the information revealed in this report, the mandatory vaccination of young girls with Gardasil appears to be the boldest medical hoax yet perpetrated by the company. You can read the true history about Merck and its crimes at: http://www.NaturalNews.com/Merck.html (http://www.naturalnews.com/Merck.html)

justine
16-Nov-08, 15:28
reading that i am glad that my girls opted out/ I know i started this thread and it caused alot of hassle but it has certainly turned out to be right. Check out all vaccines before allowing your children to have them. Well done MM. i found the links very good reading..

Alice in Blunderland
16-Nov-08, 18:33
''All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech.

The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only.

It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind.
Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. ''


playing devils advocate...........The small print from the link. ;)

Sapphire2803
16-Nov-08, 18:36
Turned out to be right? All those links are from one site with a disclaimer (as posted by Alice)

Hardly proof of anything really...

Margaret M.
17-Nov-08, 02:58
The information is from a natural health website. Even though natural health products are the safest products and usually much safer than many prescribed drugs, regulators at the bidding of the drug companies have tried their utmost to put natural health companies out of business. As a result, some of the wording of the disclaimer on their website is a result of these repeated attacks.

Also on their website:
Here at the NaturalNews Network, we believe that information should empower people, not just entertain them. News should be practical and unbiased, not influenced by money from big advertisers. Unlike most news organizations, the NaturalNews Network never solicits, nor accepts money from the companies we write about. This is one reason why our information is known around the world for its authenticity and honesty, and why our readers find tremendous value in the content we offer.

Margaret M.
17-Nov-08, 03:02
One of the concerns I have is the lack of long term testing before rushing this vaccine to market.

The government of New Zealand is taking a more cautious approach.

http://www.ias.org.nz/DiseasesVaccines/CervicalCancerandtheHPVvaccine/tabid/89/language/en-NZ/Default.aspx

The New Zealand Government announced in the May 2008 budget that it has committed almost $180 million over the next five years to the HPV vaccine which is likely to be added to the NZ schedule as early as September this year.

Despite claims that this vaccine can prevent cervical cancer scientists simply do not know if this is the case. Cervical cancer takes 20 to 30 or more years to develop and this vaccine has only been around for five years. In addition, there have been numerous reports of serious adverse reactions to the vaccine where it has been introduced in Australia, the UK and the US.

Smoking and dietary deficiencies are big risk factors for cervical cancer and, even if HPV can be demonstrated to contribute to cervical cancer development, the HPV vaccine only contains four out of more than 100 identified strains of human papilloma virus.

Margaret M.
17-Nov-08, 03:25
The following statement comes from Diane Harper, MD, professor of community and family medicine/obstetrics and gynecology at Dartmouth Medical School, in Hanover, New Hampshire, and director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the Norris Cotton Cancer Center. She was involved in the clinical testing of both vaccines was paid consulting fees by Merck and Glaxo.

As a gynecologist dealing with the general population, her advice on the HPV vaccine is that "if you are at all concerned, then don't have the vaccine — have regular Pap smears and you will be equally protected from cervical cancer."

If a pap smear is very necessary for all women whether vaccinated or not since vaccinated women also run the risk of developing cervical cancer, why be injected with something that has not been tested long term?

From the website:
However, there is also another very important part to the cervical cancer prevention story, Dr. Harper said, and that is regular Pap tests. Even women who are vaccinated need to have regular Pap testing, as otherwise they are still at risk of developing cervical cancer. And women who decide not to have the vaccine can still protect themselves by undergoing Pap testing.
Dr. Harper feels this message has not been made clear to the general public and that it has been overshadowed by what she considers to be aggressive and inappropriate promotion of Gardasil. As a gynecologist dealing with the general population, her advice on the HPV vaccine is that "if you are at all concerned, then don't have the vaccine — have regular Pap smears and you will be equally protected from cervical cancer."
"Pap screening is still the only proven method we have for cervical cancer prevention," Dr. Harper pointed out. "We don't know how long the vaccine will protect a woman from HPV infection, and the vaccine does not protect against all types of HPV infection that cause cervical cancer." She said that the data so far show that vaccination is effective for 5 years, but it is still unknown whether boosters may be needed. Gardasil protects against 4 types of HPV, 2 of which are responsible for about 70% of cervical cancer, and the other 2 for about 90% of genital warts."In the end, regardless of whether a woman chooses to be vaccinated or not, the take-home message is to start and continue Pap screening throughout your life," Dr. Harper said.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/578110

Sapphire2803
17-Nov-08, 09:56
Of course you would still need a pap smear if you had the vaccine, the idea is just to cut down on some of the risk factors.

Show me links from more than one source, sources which don't have a vested interest or axe to grind.

From what I can see, this is like any vaccine. You weigh up the risks of either having it or not having it and make a personal decision based on the facts.

I'm getting a bit fed up with the constant bashing this vaccine gets.
A question for you:

If a girl decides that she doesn't want the vaccine and that decision is based on what you have said and then 20 years down the road she develops cervical cancer and it is proven (beyond doubt) that the vaccine would have protected her. Will you be willing to admit responsibility?

CorneliusC
17-Nov-08, 12:51
One would suspect that the Nobel Institute wouldn't have just awarded one of the medicine prizes to Harald zur Hausen if there was any doubt that HPV was not linked to the development of cervical cancers...

As someone who's just thankfully had the all clear after a colposcopy, this is something I feel strongly about. Yes, there are risks with the vaccine, as with everything, but I would have it myself in the blink of an eye if the NHS was offering it to older women.

The fact is, virtually everyone who is at all sexually active will be exposed to HPV at some point, and because it is transmitted skin-to-skin rather than via bodily fluids, even using condoms effectively every time you have sex only reduces the risk by 70%.

Hopefully, the vaccine(s) will soon be licensed for use in boys, which would cut the spread of the viruses even further, and help the gay community also. Remember, HPV is also a factor in some anal and oral cancers.

Pap screening does not prevent cervical cancer - it's just a pretty effective way of catching and thus treating it early. Surely a belt and braces approach is best?

toodiemac
17-Nov-08, 13:24
There was an American Professor quoted in the media last week saying that this vaccine just hasn't had enough research done on it, and she was concerned about the effects it could have on these girls once they get a bit older. She was also very concerned about the number of immediate reactions to the vaccine.

Also in the media a week or so ago was new research showin that some of the vaccines that babies get at 8 weeks old have shown to be linked to the huge increase in asthma. The research suggested that leaving the vaccines until the child was older could cut right down on this risk.

All I am trying to point out is that a doctor may reassure you that a vaccine is safe (and let's face it, they ARE NOT ALLOWED to say anything but, even if their personal belief is that it is not safe) but that new research may come to light showing otherwise.

Our society is getting sicker and sicker yet we are giving more and more vaccines. Could it be that we are replacing acute illnesses with chronic ones though vaccination? I am no expert but it does make me wonder that when we inject more and more known carcinogens and toxins which are known to attack the immune system, and all the time we hear of the rise in cancer rates and immune deficiency disorders such as diabetes and allergies, could there be a link?

Margaret M.
17-Nov-08, 15:37
A question for you:
If a girl decides that she doesn't want the vaccine and that decision is based on what you have said and then 20 years down the road she develops cervical cancer and it is proven (beyond doubt) that the vaccine would have protected her. Will you be willing to admit responsibility?
Responsibility for what -- looking at the information from all sources? Being concerned about what we inject in our bodies? Being concerned that this product was rushed to market without really knowing the long term effects or for how long the vaccine is effective? Who is taking responsibility for those who have already died or become paralyzed after receiving the vaccine? Not the drug companies -- their main concern is the bottom line on their balance sheet and their stock performance. Word is that the days of big pharma having their way in Washington may be numbered -- let's hope so.

You asked for sources from someone without an axe to grind. What axe does the government of New Zealand have to grind ................. or Dr. Harper who was involved in the testing and was paid fees by the manufacturers of both vaccines?

We can do no more than to research the information as thoroughly as we can so that we can feel comfortable about our decision -- whichever way we decide.

toodiemac
17-Nov-08, 22:21
Well said. The drug companies, of course, are motivated by money, and vaccination is MEGA bucks for them.

Alice in Blunderland
17-Nov-08, 23:47
All I am trying to point out is that a doctor may reassure you that a vaccine is safe (and let's face it, they ARE NOT ALLOWED to say anything but, even if their personal belief is that it is not safe) but that new research may come to light showing otherwise.

Our society is getting sicker and sicker yet we are giving more and more vaccines. Could it be that we are replacing acute illnesses with chronic ones though vaccination? I am no expert but it does make me wonder that when we inject more and more known carcinogens and toxins which are known to attack the immune system, and all the time we hear of the rise in cancer rates and immune deficiency disorders such as diabetes and allergies, could there be a link?


Simply not true the statement highlighted in red. Doctors are not gagged by anyone as far as I am led to believe. :D

It may not be a case of sociey getting sicker but diagnosis getting better thats another theory. The diagnosis of many illnesses is becoming much more accurate. :)

Sapphire2803
18-Nov-08, 09:33
Responsibility for what -- looking at the information from all sources? Being concerned about what we inject in our bodies? Being concerned that this product was rushed to market without really knowing the long term effects or for how long the vaccine is effective? Who is taking responsibility for those who have already died or become paralyzed after receiving the vaccine? Not the drug companies -- their main concern is the bottom line on their balance sheet and their stock performance. Word is that the days of big pharma having their way in Washington may be numbered -- let's hope so.

You asked for sources from someone without an axe to grind. What axe does the government of New Zealand have to grind ................. or Dr. Harper who was involved in the testing and was paid fees by the manufacturers of both vaccines?

We can do no more than to research the information as thoroughly as we can so that we can feel comfortable about our decision -- whichever way we decide.

What bothers me is the fact that (as in the case of this thread) it doesn't just seem to be a case of offering a different viewpoint. It's more a case of trying to convince people that the vaccine is bad for you. Where is your expertees? Where are your years of research and testing?
I'll admit that I don't know. What I do know is that enough experts and medical professionals are convinced it's a good thing that it is being rolled out across the UK. Do you really think they do that on a whim? I also know what a prominent gynaecologist told me about studies which have been done over the last 50 years or so. Studies which have shown the link between HPV and cervical cancer. I was told about these things on one of many visits for various treatments and operations which have followed abnormal smears. It is an absolute fact that if I don't keep on the ball, it will be cervical cancer that takes me out. If this vaccine gives my daughters and other girls like them a better chance to avoid the worry and pain that I have gone through over the last 8 years then I'm all for it.

I don't believe that the internet is a good tool for researching matters such as this. There are too many crackpots and plain old liars out there. Anyone putting their uneducated view on the internet can make it sound like researched facts. I can provide you with (internet researched) evidence that the smurfs were communists and that the world is secretly controlled by reptilian hybrids. I can give you examples of respected experts with a multitude of letters after their names attesting to these facts.
Doesn't that concern you at all?

I am aware that mistakes have been made in the past, but surely we have to put some kind of faith in the medical profession? What do you do when you turn up at the doctors office feeling ill? When he hands you a prescription, do you take 3 weeks researching the medicine on the internet before you take it?

Alice in Blunderland
18-Nov-08, 09:42
What do you do when you turn up at the doctors office feeling ill? When he hands you a prescription, do you take 3 weeks researching the medicine on the internet before you take it?

Why visit the doctor google everything and get your treatment on the internet thus cutting out the middleman ( the qualified after many years of training doctor) :lol:

Sapphire2803
18-Nov-08, 09:53
Incidentally...

Your links to nature news refer to Gardasil. In the UK we are using Cervarix and the FDA has beggar all to do with us over here. Cervarix was approved by the European Commission after 2 worldwide trials.

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=16024




Edit: Oops! Sorry Alice, not you :lol:

hotrod4
18-Nov-08, 12:42
What bothers me is the fact that (as in the case of this thread) it doesn't just seem to be a case of offering a different viewpoint. It's more a case of trying to convince people that the vaccine is bad for you. Where is your expertees? Where are your years of research and testing?
I'll admit that I don't know. What I do know is that enough experts and medical professionals are convinced it's a good thing that it is being rolled out across the UK. Do you really think they do that on a whim? I also know what a prominent gynaecologist told me about studies which have been done over the last 50 years or so. Studies which have shown the link between HPV and cervical cancer. I was told about these things on one of many visits for various treatments and operations which have followed abnormal smears. It is an absolute fact that if I don't keep on the ball, it will be cervical cancer that takes me out. If this vaccine gives my daughters and other girls like them a better chance to avoid the worry and pain that I have gone through over the last 8 years then I'm all for it.

I don't believe that the internet is a good tool for researching matters such as this. There are too many crackpots and plain old liars out there. Anyone putting their uneducated view on the internet can make it sound like researched facts. I can provide you with (internet researched) evidence that the smurfs were communists and that the world is secretly controlled by reptilian hybrids. I can give you examples of respected experts with a multitude of letters after their names attesting to these facts.
Doesn't that concern you at all?

I am aware that mistakes have been made in the past, but surely we have to put some kind of faith in the medical profession? What do you do when you turn up at the doctors office feeling ill? When he hands you a prescription, do you take 3 weeks researching the medicine on the internet before you take it?

I agree completely. Dr Google has lots to answer for. If you believe everything that is posted on the net then you better baton down the hatches cos we're all doomed!

There are a few people who will try and pour their "evidence" down peoples throats and take the moral high ground,without actually fully researching the subject.

For example the thread was started with the question about is it coming here etc, then within the day they had all the answers. How can anyone justify making a decision in less than 24 hrs that affects childrens welfare? personally i couldnt,I would thoroughly research it and whatever decision I took I wouldnt insist that everyone follow my lead.

Best person to ask would be your doctor, after all you trust him the rest of the time so why not now? Or have too many people suddenly become doctors overnight after reading 1 article?????

If you dont trust your Doctor now then either change Doctors or opt out of the NHS and pay for your own doctor and leave the resources for the rest of us who listen to Dr "real person" and not Dr Google!!!:Razz

hotrod4
18-Nov-08, 12:49
reading that i am glad that my girls opted out/ I know i started this thread and it caused alot of hassle but it has certainly turned out to be right. Check out all vaccines before allowing your children to have them. Well done MM. i found the links very good reading..

Maybe I miss the point,but you started the thread asking for info then 7 hours later you had all the answers?

So in 7 hours I qoute........"i always research things like this, for my childrens wellbeing, and it makes me wonder what parents are thinking when they say yes to stuff they have no knowledge about.....:eek:"
Makes me wonder how parents are thinking if they can make a decision in 7 hours that affects a childs future?[disgust]

Margaret M.
18-Nov-08, 17:04
If you believe everything that is posted on the net then you better baton down the hatches cos we're all doomed

I totally agree -- one must ensure that their sources are very credible. Who better to belive than Dr. Diane M. Harper, a lead researcher in the development of the humanpapilloma virus vaccine. I know you dont like to goggle but make an exception and google her, I feel sure you will be convinced that she is legitimate.

Dr. Harper says giving the drug to 11-year-old girls "is a great big public health experiment."
AHRP's stated rationale for objecting to a policy mandating Merck's HPV vaccine in 11 year old girls is validated by an internationally recognized expert in the field who tested the vaccine in clinical trials.
Dr. Harper, a scientist, physician, professor and the director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth Medical School in New Hampshire, said: "It is silly to mandate vaccination of 11- to 12-year-old girls There also is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue."
All of her trials have been with subjects ages 15 to 25.
"This vaccine has not been tested in little girls for efficacy. At 11, these girls don't get cervical cancer - they won't know for 25 years if they will get cervical cancer."
Dr. Harper said, Merck was required to put together a database on the efficacy in children before Gardasil was approved. But instead, the company put together four study sites that "are not necessarily representative, and may not even have enough numbers to determine what they need to know."
She believes the ideal way of administering the new vaccine is to offer it to women ages 18 and up. At the time of their first inoculation, they should be tested for the presence of HPV in their system. If the test comes back negative, then schedule the follow-up series of the three-part shots.
But if it comes back positive?
"Then we don't know squat, because medically we don't know how to respond to that," Harper said.
She said that vaccinating little girls now is not going to protect them later. Since it can take a decade or more to even manifest itself as dysplasia, the HPVs against which this vaccine works may infect a little girl at the age she needs the vaccine most - meaning she will have to have a booster at the right point in time or she will not be protected. And, remember, it won't work at all if she was positive for the virus when she was inoculated in the first place.
Merck knows this, Harper said. "To mandate now is simply to Merck's benefit, and only to Merck's benefit," she said.
Dr. Harper said, she's been trying for months to convince major television and print media to listen to her and tell the facts about the usefulness and effectiveness of this vaccine. "But no one will print it," she said.
Something is very wrong with this commerically driven frenzied marketing which all those who shape public policy and public opinion were caught shilling for Merck.
Independent advocates need to take to the streets to protect our children from irresponsible pharmaceutical companies whose financial largesse buys public officials, government agencies that are supposed to protect us from potentially harmful drugs and vaccines, and the uncritical transcribers of hype in the press!

Margaret M.
18-Nov-08, 17:39
Incidentally...

Your links to nature news refer to Gardasil. In the UK we are using Cervarix and the FDA has beggar all to do with us over here. Cervarix was approved by the European Commission after 2 worldwide trials.

Cervarix has not been given FDA approval because Glaxo is still awaiting some test results. Cervarix was also rushed to market and lacks long term testing so I would have the same concerns.

These vaccines may well be very effective and safe but due to the approval being fast tracked, safety and effectiveness at this point are huge assumptions.

The following scientific issues were raised by Dr. Meryl Nass (the dreaded goggle will verify Dr. Nass as a very credible source).

The vaccine has not been proven to prevent cervical cancers, since none occurred during clinical trials.

The vaccine has not been proven to be safe in women who become pregnant.

The vaccine may cause birth defects if vaccine recipients become pregnant shortly before or after vaccinations.

The duration of protection and extent of protection are unknown.

Merck claims the vaccine is nearly 100% effective, yet it has no way of knowing whether vaccine recipients were ever exposed to these (or any) HPV strains.

FDA admits it lacks conclusive data for safety and efficacy: indeed, the agency has requested that Merck conduct post-marketing clinical trials to resolve the above three questions.

However, as the record shows, the majority of post-marketing clinical trials demanded by FDA have never been performed.

Furthermore, FDA has redacted two paragraphs in its letter to Merck regarding studies of vaccine quality and stability.

This indicates additional unacceptable problems regarding vaccine manufacturing issues. So, conclusive data on the vaccine may never be available.

hotrod4
18-Nov-08, 18:37
I totally agree -- one must ensure that their sources are very credible. Who better to belive than Dr. Diane M. Harper, a lead researcher in the development of the humanpapilloma virus vaccine. I know you dont like to goggle but make an exception and google her, I feel sure you will be convinced that she is legitimate.

Dr. Harper says giving the drug to 11-year-old girls "is a great big public health experiment."
AHRP's stated rationale for objecting to a policy mandating Merck's HPV vaccine in 11 year old girls is validated by an internationally recognized expert in the field who tested the vaccine in clinical trials.
Dr. Harper, a scientist, physician, professor and the director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth Medical School in New Hampshire, said: "It is silly to mandate vaccination of 11- to 12-year-old girls There also is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue."
All of her trials have been with subjects ages 15 to 25.
"This vaccine has not been tested in little girls for efficacy. At 11, these girls don't get cervical cancer - they won't know for 25 years if they will get cervical cancer."
Dr. Harper said, Merck was required to put together a database on the efficacy in children before Gardasil was approved. But instead, the company put together four study sites that "are not necessarily representative, and may not even have enough numbers to determine what they need to know."
She believes the ideal way of administering the new vaccine is to offer it to women ages 18 and up. At the time of their first inoculation, they should be tested for the presence of HPV in their system. If the test comes back negative, then schedule the follow-up series of the three-part shots.
But if it comes back positive?
"Then we don't know squat, because medically we don't know how to respond to that," Harper said.
She said that vaccinating little girls now is not going to protect them later. Since it can take a decade or more to even manifest itself as dysplasia, the HPVs against which this vaccine works may infect a little girl at the age she needs the vaccine most - meaning she will have to have a booster at the right point in time or she will not be protected. And, remember, it won't work at all if she was positive for the virus when she was inoculated in the first place.
Merck knows this, Harper said. "To mandate now is simply to Merck's benefit, and only to Merck's benefit," she said.
Dr. Harper said, she's been trying for months to convince major television and print media to listen to her and tell the facts about the usefulness and effectiveness of this vaccine. "But no one will print it," she said.
Something is very wrong with this commerically driven frenzied marketing which all those who shape public policy and public opinion were caught shilling for Merck.
Independent advocates need to take to the streets to protect our children from irresponsible pharmaceutical companies whose financial largesse buys public officials, government agencies that are supposed to protect us from potentially harmful drugs and vaccines, and the uncritical transcribers of hype in the press!


I google just as much as the next person but I bet for everyone you can find to back your opinion I will be able to find one to disprove it!

All I am saying is listen to your GP thats what they are their for. Speaking face to face with a GP is surely better than reading what someone "reportedly" said? And why not ask a couple of GP's to get a fuller explanation, they may agree with you, they may not!.

I was ill a couple of years ago and had to go away for tests,luckily it wasnt serious and I am OK,BUT if I googled my symptoms(which I did after the all clear) I would have had everything from gonorrhea to beri beri to being pregnant!!!![lol](I am male by the way!)

My point is google is a useful tool but when it comes to things of the severity of someones health I prefer face to face with my GP,its safer.

Sapphire2803
18-Nov-08, 22:54
Cervarix has not been given FDA approval because Glaxo is still awaiting some test results. Cervarix was also rushed to market and lacks long term testing so I would have the same concerns.

These vaccines may well be very effective and safe but due to the approval being fast tracked, safety and effectiveness at this point are huge assumptions.

The following scientific issues were raised by Dr. Meryl Nass (the dreaded goggle will verify Dr. Nass as a very credible source).

The vaccine has not been proven to prevent cervical cancers, since none occurred during clinical trials.

The vaccine has not been proven to be safe in women who become pregnant.

The vaccine may cause birth defects if vaccine recipients become pregnant shortly before or after vaccinations.

The duration of protection and extent of protection are unknown.

Merck claims the vaccine is nearly 100% effective, yet it has no way of knowing whether vaccine recipients were ever exposed to these (or any) HPV strains.

FDA admits it lacks conclusive data for safety and efficacy: indeed, the agency has requested that Merck conduct post-marketing clinical trials to resolve the above three questions.

However, as the record shows, the majority of post-marketing clinical trials demanded by FDA have never been performed.

Furthermore, FDA has redacted two paragraphs in its letter to Merck regarding studies of vaccine quality and stability.

This indicates additional unacceptable problems regarding vaccine manufacturing issues. So, conclusive data on the vaccine may never be available.

You're still giving a lot of information about Gardasil, Merck and the FDA.

None of which has any bearing on the UKs vaccination program.

Sapphire2803
18-Nov-08, 23:18
The following statement comes from Diane Harper, MD, professor of community and family medicine/obstetrics and gynecology at Dartmouth Medical School, in Hanover, New Hampshire, and director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the Norris Cotton Cancer Center. She was involved in the clinical testing of both vaccines was paid consulting fees by Merck and Glaxo.

As a gynecologist dealing with the general population, her advice on the HPV vaccine is that "if you are at all concerned, then don't have the vaccine — have regular Pap smears and you will be equally protected from cervical cancer."

She continued, "Whether or not to get vaccinated with Gardasil is a personal choice by each girl/woman and/or her parents." Each individual must weigh her family health history and whether it may put her at any possible risk for an adverse event that Gardasil might trigger (not even necessarily cause). As examples, Dr. Harper mentioned family history of motor neuron disease or autoimmune diseases, which could affect how the person reacts to the vaccine. She illustrated this point by saying: "Salt does not usually kill anybody, but for a person with congestive heart failure, it could lead to fatal pulmonary edema, so you could say that salt caused their death, as it was the last straw that broke the camel's back."


If a pap smear is very necessary for all women whether vaccinated or not since vaccinated women also run the risk of developing cervical cancer, why be injected with something that has not been tested long term?

From the website:
However, there is also another very important part to the cervical cancer prevention story, Dr. Harper said, and that is regular Pap tests. Even women who are vaccinated need to have regular Pap testing, as otherwise they are still at risk of developing cervical cancer. And women who decide not to have the vaccine can still protect themselves by undergoing Pap testing.
Dr. Harper feels this message has not been made clear to the general public and that it has been overshadowed by what she considers to be aggressive and inappropriate promotion of Gardasil. As a gynecologist dealing with the general population, her advice on the HPV vaccine is that "if you are at all concerned, then don't have the vaccine — have regular Pap smears and you will be equally protected from cervical cancer."
"Pap screening is still the only proven method we have for cervical cancer prevention," Dr. Harper pointed out. "We don't know how long the vaccine will protect a woman from HPV infection, and the vaccine does not protect against all types of HPV infection that cause cervical cancer." She said that the data so far show that vaccination is effective for 5 years, but it is still unknown whether boosters may be needed. Gardasil protects against 4 types of HPV, 2 of which are responsible for about 70% of cervical cancer, and the other 2 for about 90% of genital warts."In the end, regardless of whether a woman chooses to be vaccinated or not, the take-home message is to start and continue Pap screening throughout your life," Dr. Harper said.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/578110

You do seem to have quoted quite selectively on this one. Dr. Harper is not in ANY way against Gardasil, she's just a tad peeved at the way it's been promoted.
The point she makes is that it is worth weighing up your medical history and that of your family when you make your decision. That's the same as any drug. I think she's also trying to make sure that women still have regular pap smears, as some may think they no longer need them.

Margaret M.
24-Nov-08, 05:09
Dr. Harper is not in ANY way against Gardasil, she's just a tad peeved at the way it's been promoted.

Dr. Harper is more than a little peeved -- she is very concerned about the lack of long term testing on CERVARIX as well as Gardasil and feels strongly that it should have been tested for several more years before mass distribution. What Dr. Harper has to say warrants our attention since she was involved in the development and testing of this vaccine for both Merck and Glaxo and has been paid by both companies. The article linked below is from Nov 2008 and Dr. Harper continues to warn everyone that the HPV vaccine has been released too early and has not been tested on anyone under the age of 15. Sadly, those whom make decisions about our health pay no heed to a doctor described as one of the world's leading experts on this vaccine -- I do.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/Expert39s-fear-over-cervical-cancer.4652314.jp

From the above link:
Published Date: 02 November 2008 By Siobhan McFadyen and Kate Foster
MASS vaccination of Scottish schoolgirls against cervical cancer should have been delayed because not enough is known about possible side effects, a leading researcher claimed last night. Dr Diane Harper, one of the world's leading experts in the field, said safety trials of the Cervarix vaccine should have been conducted for at least four more years before the decision was taken to give the jabs to thousands of girls in schools.

Another snippet from the article:
But Harper believes the safety tests for side effects should have been conducted for at least a decade and doses given to millions of individuals around the world before any mass vaccination began. She described the cervical cancer vaccination scheme in Scotland as an "experiment".

And one more:
Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at Dartmouth Medical Centre in the US, was herself paid by Glaxo to help conduct safety trials. She told Scotland on Sunday: "We can't tell you it's 100% safe because we don't know that. I think we would have been better waiting.

"In five years it will be pretty clear how safe it is because 70% of adverse events occur within five years and almost all of them, 97%, within 10 years. That way you have a good sense of comfort and you can reassure your population."

Margaret M.
24-Nov-08, 05:18
You're still giving a lot of information about Gardasil, Merck and the FDA.

None of which has any bearing on the UKs vaccination program.

It has everything to do with the UK program since no long term testing was done on either and no testing was done on anyone younger than 15. Therefore, all the concerns outlined for one apply to the other. Since there is even less test results/data available for Cervarix than there is for Gardasil, the FDA has refused to approve Cervarix.

Alice in Blunderland
24-Nov-08, 23:17
Dr Diane Harper was the principal investigator in the HPV vaccine trial.

It was funded by Merck and Glaxo Smith Clyne (both big pharmaceuticals). She has a vested interest in the project.

The decision to vaccinate in Scotland is taken not only by one person but by a committee of experts in the field.

In reaching this decision not only is Dr Diane Harper's work taken into consideration but also other completed research projects.

It is a difficult task to translate research evidence to real world practice.

There are many differences in the two settings many of us cannot comprehend no matter how much we google. :roll:

Research volunteers do not represent real world diversity of the patients. It is not the true reflection.

In my opinion it is safe because this vaccine has passed strict safety criteria of British approval agencies.

You have to take many American points of view with a large pinch of salt. :eek:

It might be that early closure of the research trial has affected Dr Diane Harper's funding.

It is in millions of dollars.

Don't tell me shes not a bit peeved and it is not affecting her. ;)

Sapphire2803
24-Nov-08, 23:22
It has everything to do with the UK program since no long term testing was done on either and no testing was done on anyone younger than 15. Therefore, all the concerns outlined for one apply to the other. Since there is even less test results/data available for Cervarix than there is for Gardasil, the FDA has refused to approve Cervarix.

Exactly how long term would you like the research to be? How long do you think they research any drug? They can't go on testing forever.

The FDA hasn't "refused" anything, they've asked for more information.

Margaret M.
25-Nov-08, 05:36
Exactly how long term would you like the research to be? How long do you think they research any drug? They can't go on testing forever.

The approval of this vaccine was fast tracked and it was rushed to market much sooner than is normal for a vaccine so it lacks the key testing data that is normally captured during those awaiting approval years.

I choose to not dismiss the opinion of someone who knows this vaccine better than anyone else. She has safety concerns and if she says we should wait four more years before doing a mass distribution, that's good enough for me. By then, hopefully we will know how long the vaccination lasts, if a booster will be required and who should be vaccinated and at what age. I will wait until all concerns about this vaccine have been eliminated and all the unknowns addressed before risking the health of a loved one. If I lived in Asia or Africa where around 80% of the world's deaths from cervical cancer occur and where pap smears and medication are not readily available, my decision would probably be quite different. However, cervical cancer is largely preventable and curable with regular pap tests so it's not like this vaccine is the only line of defense.




The FDA hasn't "refused" anything, they've asked for more information.

"GlaxoSmithKline's cervical cancer vaccine Cervarix has suffered a setback in the US, where regulators have refused to approve it until the company provides more information."

That sounds kinda like a refusal to me. Seemingly, the "more Information" is the completion of a key clinical trial.




You have to take many American points of view with a large pinch of salt.

In my opinion it is safe because this vaccine has passed strict safety criteria of British approval agencies.

Where's the salt?

Alice in Blunderland
25-Nov-08, 09:30
Where's the salt?

http://kids.direct.gov.uk/resource_areas/html/slideshows/images/supermarket12.jpg


Careful mind as this is also not good for your health.......;) :lol:

Alice in Blunderland
25-Nov-08, 23:46
This is the UK Dept of Health team of experts: :cool:

Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation

HPV Sub-group
Professor Andrew Hall (CHAIR)
Professor Margaret Stanley
Dr Katherine French
Professor Paul Griffiths
Professor Leszek Borysiewicz
Julietta Patnick
Professor Jack Cuzick
Dr Charles Lacey
Dr Richard Roberts

Health Protection Agency
Professor Elizabeth Miller
Dr John Edmunds
Dr Mark Jit
Dr Kate Soldan

Health Protection Scotland
Dr Martin Donaghy

NIBSC
Dr Stephen Inglis

Scottish Executive
Dr Elizabeth Stewart

DHSS Northern Ireland
Dr Lorraine Doherty

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Joanne Yarwood
Dr Peter Grove
Dr Sowsan Atabani
Dr Karen Noakes



Is it possible that all these professional people working for the Department of Health UK have got it wrong? :roll:
The group's view was that there is sufficient evidence on the protective effect of HPV vaccines on cervical cancer in the UK to suggest vaccination of girls at 11-12 years of age.


The sub-group agreed that the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness model developed by the HPA needed to be peer reviewed by biologists, mathematical modelers and economists to ensure that the model was robust.

The committee noted that with any introduction of routine HPV vaccination the national cervical screening programme should continue unchanged until further investigation assesses the impact of immunization on its cost-effectiveness.

Some research work taken into consideration as below:



Published mathematical models

Kohli M, Ferko N, Martin A, Franco EL, Jenkins D, Gallivan S, Sherlaw-Johnson C, Drummond M. Estimating the long-term impact of a prophylactic human papillomavirus 16/18 vaccine on the burden of cervical cancer in the UK.
Br J Cancer. 2007 96:143-50.
Dasbach EJ, Elbasha EH, Insinga RP. Mathematical models for predicting the epidemiologic and economic impact of vaccination against human papillomavirus infection and disease.
Epidemiol Rev. 2006 28:88-100.
Van de Velde N, Brisson M, Boily MC. Modeling Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Effectiveness: Quantifying the Impact of Parameter Uncertainty.
Am J Epidemiol. 2007 Feb 1; [Epub ahead of print]
French KM, Barnabas RV, Lehtinen M, Kontula O, Pukkala E, Dillner J, Garnett GP. Strategies for the introduction of human papillomavirus vaccination: modelling the optimum age- and sex-specific pattern of vaccination in Finland.
Br J Cancer. 2007 96:514-8
The group commented that on the issue of whether to vaccinate at age 12 or 15 years, the antibody titres following vaccination are likely to be higher at age 12 rather than 15 years as younger people respond better to the vaccine.

There is much more evidence on safety profile of vaccination taken into consideration.

I put forward my case for HPV vaccination with the help of the aforementioned professionals working for the Department of Health UK.

They have duly considered Dr Harpers work in much more scrutiny than her claims. :D

toodiemac
26-Nov-08, 22:14
This is the UK Dept of Health team of experts: :cool:

Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation

HPV Sub-group
Professor Andrew Hall (CHAIR)
Professor Margaret Stanley - declared interests in GSK or Merck
Dr Katherine French - declared interests in GSK or Merck
Professor Paul Griffiths - declared interests in GSK or Merck
Professor Leszek Borysiewicz
Julietta Patnick
Professor Jack Cuzick
Dr Charles Lacey - declared interests in GSK or Merck
Dr Richard Roberts

Health Protection Agency
Professor Elizabeth Miller - declared interests in GSK or Merck
Dr John Edmunds - declared interests in GSK or Merck
Dr Mark Jit
Dr Kate Soldan

Health Protection Scotland
Dr Martin Donaghy - declared interests in GSK or Merck

NIBSC
Dr Stephen Inglis - declared interests in GSK or Merck



These experts on Vaccination & Immunisation recommend vaccinations to the Government. I think I am right in saying that over half of them are either on the payroll of the vaccine manufacturers or have shares in the company!! That certainly wouldn't give me any faith in the product. Surely the experts who recommend (or don't) these vaccines should be TRULY INDEPENDENT?

If this were any other product there is no way people would take the conclusions at face value given the conflict of interest.

toodiemac
26-Nov-08, 22:26
All I am saying is listen to your GP thats what they are their for. Speaking face to face with a GP is surely better than reading what someone "reportedly" said? And why not ask a couple of GP's to get a fuller explanation, they may agree with you, they may not!.

.

I am 99.99% sure that even in your GP did not think the HPV vaccine was a good idea, they would never tell you so. They would probably be out of a job if they did! As Teenybash said earlier in this thread her OH and daughter are medics but they are against the vaccine - I'll bet they couldn't advise anyone against it if they were asked in a work situation.

As an example, a while ago a large survery was done anonymously among health care workers (nurses, GP's etc) in the UK on their PERSONAL feelings on the MMR jab for babies, and a very large proportion of them admitted that they would not give the vaccine to their own children, though of course they had to recommend it strongly to parents. I wish I could remember the exact details of the study so I could post a link.

Alice in Blunderland
26-Nov-08, 22:54
The people who had a vested interest declared their interests to the group. :)

Should anyone give their opinion in favour of thier vested interest the other members who have no vested interest in that product would not accept an unproven and nonscientific based statement .

These people are well trained in critical annalysis of the scientific research. They are trained to take out the real and hidden truth from the research which is sometimes hidden behind statstical annalysis.

The whole evidence is scientifically scrutinised taking into consideration the strong studies, the weak studies and lengthy discussions over a long period of time. These people who sit on committes realise that they are dealing with public health issues where thier wrong decisions could have devastating effects on the coming generation. :( They realise the huge responsibility on their shouders and give thier oppinion in the best of thier capabilities.

The human error is minimised by open, transparent discussion among the members of the committee.

The evidence is being weighed in a scientific manner.
You cannot swing things in an open and transparent environment.

These decisions are not made on one study,one meeting and limited time.

The minutes of such meetings are available on official Public Health sites .

I agree its a government innnitiative, but its a major public health issue :)

toodiemac
26-Nov-08, 23:30
There seem to be a lot of unanswered questions about the vaccine;

Will the vaccine will prevent cervical cancer when given to young teenage girls? How can we know this if it has only been tested for 6 years? How long will the vaccine stay effective for?

Will the vaccine will interfere with the current relationship between humans and HPV where over 90% of people clear the infection with no trouble and benefit from immunity? If it will interfere further down the line, then it's causing a lot of harm.

Is the vaccine is carcenogenic?

Does the vaccine has any effect on fertility/puberty/hormone levels?

In my opinion: -

there is no doubt that a lot of further study is required. I know that people have said that we have to start somewhere and asked just how much study do people want. Well, until all the questions are answered and until all the sudies are totally complete, then these girls being given the vaccine at the moment are in effect guinea pigs. Yes the vaccine is still being tested and what a lot of parents at the moment don't realise is that it is being tested on their daughters. I really hope that years down the line we don't see major problems as a result of this vaccine. I think that if there are problems, then they will be put down to something different - it is very difficult to link chronic health problems with vaccination because of ineffective or non-existant control trials.

Alice in Blunderland
26-Nov-08, 23:36
I am 99.99% sure that even in your GP did not think the HPV vaccine was a good idea, they would never tell you so. They would probably be out of a job if they did! As Teenybash said earlier in this thread her OH and daughter are medics but they are against the vaccine - I'll bet they couldn't advise anyone against it if they were asked in a work situation.

As an example, a while ago a large survery was done anonymously among health care workers (nurses, GP's etc) in the UK on their PERSONAL feelings on the MMR jab for babies, and a very large proportion of them admitted that they would not give the vaccine to their own children, though of course they had to recommend it strongly to parents. I wish I could remember the exact details of the study so I could post a link.


The doctors are governed by the guidance of the General Medical Council not the Government.

They give their true honest and professional oppinion even if it is not in line with the Government policy.

You will remember the recent bad press about drugs used in Cancer treatment. The doctors were advising it ,but the NHS were not providing it, those Doctors were employees of the NHS not private Doctors.

Doctors are human beings. Sometimes thier personal prejudice and personal beliefs cloud the scientific evidence. :eek:

These are the personal beliefs of individual Doctors.

When an immunisation campaign is conceived it is a collective decision of experts in Public Health.These people are highly trained in making strategys to prevent disease. They are not good at treating the disease as they have no patient contact. The Doctors ( GPs and Hospital Specialists ) who treat the disease are good at it. They are not good at preventing the diseases on mass scales or making a strategy on immunisation. :)



The survey you have quoted is a flawed survey there are many objections to its design, data collection and analysis.

It is the personal view of individuals not a scientific proven study. :)

toodiemac
26-Nov-08, 23:57
The survey you have quoted is a flawed survey there are many objections to its design, data collection and analysis.

It is the personal view of individuals not a scientific proven study. :)

That was my point - it was the personal view of the healthcare professionals, not the view they have to give to patients following the guidelines they have been given. If my GP advised me to have a vaccination because it has been "proven" to be safe and effective, and indeed introduced for mass vaccination, and then went on to say that personally he did not think it was safe and would not have the vaccination administered to himself or his family, I would think twice at the very least, and would do my own "research" in order to make an informed decision. (Of course, I would do my own "research" regardless of what the GP said as may be apparent from my posts).

Could you maybe post a link to the survey mentioned? I can't seem to find it anywhere and I must admit that I didn't know it was flawed. Who objected to it? Surely not the vaccine manufacturer? Now don't rage at me please, I added that a bit tongue in cheek :). Seriously, I would like a link to that survey.

Alice in Blunderland
27-Nov-08, 00:00
There seem to be a lot of unanswered questions about the vaccine;

Will the vaccine will prevent cervical cancer when given to young teenage girls? How can we know this if it has only been tested for 6 years? How long will the vaccine stay effective for?

Will the vaccine will interfere with the current relationship between humans and HPV where over 90% of people clear the infection with no trouble and benefit from immunity? If it will interfere further down the line, then it's causing a lot of harm.

Is the vaccine is carcenogenic?

Does the vaccine has any effect on fertility/puberty/hormone levels?

In my opinion: -

there is no doubt that a lot of further study is required. I know that people have said that we have to start somewhere and asked just how much study do people want. Well, until all the questions are answered and until all the sudies are totally complete, then these girls being given the vaccine at the moment are in effect guinea pigs. Yes the vaccine is still being tested and what a lot of parents at the moment don't realise is that it is being tested on their daughters. I really hope that years down the line we don't see major problems as a result of this vaccine. I think that if there are problems, then they will be put down to something different - it is very difficult to link chronic health problems with vaccination because of ineffective or non-existant control trials.


The logic is the vaccine produces antibodies, these antibodies are protective against a particular antigen, in this case HPV.
The body immune system keeps it in its memory. In future ,when that antigen ( HPV ) is introduced into the body ( in this case through the cervix ).
The already present (memory system) immmune system produces theadequate levels of antibodies to combat and kill the virus. :)

The virology of HPV is different from HIV and Influenza viruses. HPV is a DNA virus and the other I mention are RNA viruses. The natural history of RNA viruses keeps on changing but it does not happen in DNA viruses.
This is the reason that an effective HIV vaccine and effective Influenza vaccine has not been produced so far. :(

The healthcare professionals and the people working in high risk profession are given protective vaccination against Hepatitis B virus. There is a huge data supporting the evidence that these vaccines are protective.

If somebody wants to opt out Hepatitis B vaccination ( working in healthcare proession ) they are not allowed to work with patients. They need to show the evidence that they have adequate levels of protective antibodies ( produced as a result of vaccination ) to take up the job.

The antigenicity of DNA virus does not change so a reliable vaccine will always remain reliable.

Most trials are only run for five to six years.

HPV vaccine is not carcenogenic because it is producing antibodies against HPV. HPV itself is carcenogenic.

This has no effect on hormones and fertility and puberty.

The puberty and fertility hormones are controlled by Pituatory and Gonadal axis ( ovarys in case of girls ) and HPV vaccine or HPV itself has no effects on this. The pituatory hormones are in itself controlled by releasing hormones from hypothalmus ( a higher centre in brain ) and again HPV has no effect on it.

The girls are not being used as guinea pigs. The girls are being given a protective treatment for in the future to protect them from a killer Cancer. :)

Alice in Blunderland
27-Nov-08, 00:13
That was my point - it was the personal view of the healthcare professionals, not the view they have to give to patients following the guidelines they have been given. If my GP advised me to have a vaccination because it has been "proven" to be safe and effective, and indeed introduced for mass vaccination, and then went on to say that personally he did not think it was safe and would not have the vaccination administered to himself or his family, I would think twice at the very least, and would do my own "research" in order to make an informed decision. (Of course, I would do my own "research" regardless of what the GP said as may be apparent from my posts).

Could you maybe post a link to the survey mentioned? I can't seem to find it anywhere and I must admit that I didn't know it was flawed. Who objected to it? Surely not the vaccine manufacturer? Now don't rage at me please, I added that a bit tongue in cheek :). Seriously, I would like a link to that survey.

In todays society its the patient who picks the treatment. The doctors discuss the different options and they give them the benefits and risks of each treatment. In the end of the day it is the patient who chooses one of the treatments or refuses to take any treatment.

If you are doing your own research using 'Google' its best to have your personal spam gaurd turned on high. The internet is deceivingly giving the wrong information. :)

Sorry I cannot post a link to the survey as I have not come across it yet it was my husband that knew of the survey :)

Margaret M.
27-Nov-08, 06:06
If my GP advised me to have a vaccination because it has been "proven" to be safe and effective, and indeed introduced for mass vaccination, and then went on to say that personally he did not think it was safe and would not have the vaccination administered to himself or his family, I would think twice at the very least, and would do my own "research" in order to make an informed decision.

Very wise even when they don't add the personal statement. Medical staff and pharmaceutical companies have become way too cozy and too little disclosure is required. The death rate from medication prescribed by doctors is pretty alarming, so it is always a good idea to understand exactly what you are taking.

Margaret M.
27-Nov-08, 06:33
."
Should anyone give their opinion in favour of thier vested interest the other members who have no vested interest in that product would not accept an unproven and nonscientific based statement .

Oh my stars, :eek: you must be kidding!! Do you really see nothing wrong with the vaccine manufacturer paying members of the committee that decides vaccine policy for the UK? You discounted Dr. Harper's objection to the mass release of the vaccine by saying that she may be losing funding. But yet you don't seem to think that this committee, with members compensated by GlaxoSK, has anything to gain from approving this vaccine quickly? I don't believe for a minute that the non-compensated members are not swayed by the others whom are probably well trained by GSK on how to overcome objections.

Alice in Blunderland
27-Nov-08, 09:16
Very wise even when they don't add the personal statement. Medical staff and pharmaceutical companies have become way too cozy and too little disclosure is required. The death rate from medication prescribed by doctors is pretty alarming, so it is always a good idea to understand exactly what you are taking.

Pharmaceutical industry and Medical Profession have a different code of practice and ethics.

The death rate you mention about prescribed medications is not due to the fact that this is rising. It is due to the fact that the system is becoming more transparent and open. Concerned people are reporting it.


There is a worldwide campaign by the medical profession to make patient safety a priority. In Scotland there is a national programme running which is called Scottish Patient Safety Programmme ( SPSP )
It is rolling into all the Hospitals. It is working in close collaberation with the International Health Institute (IHI) -based in America.

If the medical profession was doing harm the average age of populatipn would not be rising but rather decreasing. It shows that preventive Public Health Strategys, better training, better diagnostic facilities and better treatment are responsible for this Phenomena. :D

This could be verified by epidemilogical studies. :)

Alice in Blunderland
27-Nov-08, 23:33
."

Oh my stars, you must be kidding!! Do you really see nothing wrong with the vaccine manufacturer paying members of the committee that decides vaccine policy for the UK? You discounted Dr. Harper's objection to the mass release of the vaccine by saying that she may be losing funding. But yet you don't seem to think that this committee, with members compensated by GlaxoSK, has anything to gain from approving this vaccine quickly? I don't believe for a minute that the non-compensated members are not swayed by the others whom are probably well trained by GSK on how to overcome objections.


I take your point. There is an allegation that they are taking money for the vaccine to be approved . Has this allegation been proven in a court of law ? ;)

There are members who are trained by GSK to answer the objections. In an open and tansparent discussion they cannot swing the opinion. There are many instances in the recent past where a big trial, sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry has turned out to be a negative trial costing the drug company.

There are always two oppinions to every argument I weigh my argument by listening to both sides. In this instance I have read the original papers and did my own calculations of the trials.

I would go with the Department of Health recommendation. If somebody does not believe or does not have faith then they are free to make thier own judgement. :)

There is no point in going any further trying to prove the other persons opinion wrong.

In my opinion a little knowledge is more dangerous than ignorance. :eek:

You cannot become a health professional just by reading opinion polls, tainted statements by people( having vested interest ) on the important Public Health issues. There is a fundamental difference in health systems in the USA and UK. We cannot sing from the same hymn book.The UK system is NHS ( free treatment for everyone-you dont pay anything ) In the USA it is more like a buisness enterprise. The health professionals are treating thier patients as business clients.The more you pay the more services you get.

Margaret M.
02-Dec-08, 03:45
There are always two oppinions to every argument I weigh my argument by listening to both sides. In this instance I have read the original papers and did my own calculations of the trials.
I wish Dr. Harper could take a lookie at your calculations. Your findings may ease her concerns and convince her that a mass distribution is a good thing. She’s been so busy developing the vaccine, testing it, and going around the world educating doctors on it that she may not be able to see the forest for the trees.


In my opinion a little knowledge is more dangerous than ignorance. :eek:
Really? I have always believed that knowledge is power but if you think it’s dangerous you should be very careful what you do with the knowledge you acquired from your independent study.

We do agree on one thing -- it is time to stop beating the horse.

domino
02-Dec-08, 22:26
It was my misfortune to have cancer (not cervical) The pro's and con',s of all the treatment modalities were spelled out to me.The final decision was mine!! I f I chose to use drugs then I believe the consequences were down,in part, to me. Some things work for some people and not for others. Why, I am not too sre about but,at the end of the day life is just one great gamble and you have to believe in something

Alice in Blunderland
02-Dec-08, 22:57
I wish Dr. Harper could take a lookie at your calculations. Your findings may ease her concerns and convince her that a mass distribution is a good thing. She’s been so busy developing the vaccine, testing it, and going around the world educating doctors on it that she may not be able to see the forest for the trees.

Really? I have always believed that knowledge is power but if you think it’s dangerous you should be very careful what you do with the knowledge you acquired from your independent study.

We do agree on one thing -- it is time to stop beating the horse.

I would like to correct you on one thing.........

Dr Harper is travelling around the world, giving and informing the doctors of her research.

She is not educating them she is informing them of her research and its results. :)

There would be many doctors in her audience who would not 100% agree with her findings. She has a point to make as she was the main researcher on HPV vaccine.

I am making a point that the Department of Health UK has taken more evidence ( than only of Dr Harpers ) into consideration.

There is a large number of people who are on the Department of Healths side and some against it.

It seems that we are on oppposite poles in this regard.

I am of one view and you are of another. :)

We should leave it to individual people to decide on their individual circumstances whatever view they wish to take.

There are only two views ............. For it or Against it.

If you would like to know about my calculations I was suggesting about the critical annalysis of the original research papers. Anybody can do a critical annalysis of original scientific papers provided they have been educated and trained in this field.

The other point you made about knowledge being power. I agree knowledge is power. The information given by you is information, there is a fundamental difference between information and knowledge. Knowledge in a particular field requires lots of years of training in that subject.

Information on this vaccine is being shared between different individuals it might be correct, it might be incorrect. Being educated in that field helps you see which is which.

My final note on this subject .

Last year another one of my close relatives succumbed to this dreadfull disease. She fought a long hard and determined battle against her inevitable death and I admire her courage and bravery. If for one momment she could have recieved a vaccine, any vaccine against this dreadfull disease she would have grabbed it with both hands. Even in her final weeks of life she was clinging to the hope that someone somewhere would come up with an eleventh hour cure a pill or a drug anything that she could take that would save her. Researched or not she would have taken it.

The pain of watching my aunt and uncle bury their oldest daughter knowing that she died way before her time was terrible made more agonising by the fact they lost their youngest son six weeks later also to cancer.

My Gran died of cancer and so did my Uncle its a terrible disease. It strikes at anyone, anytime, no one knows who, when or where but one thing, if the drugs companies and researchers keep on going and unfortunately this does take a lot of time and money then maybe one day we will see an end to this desease as we have seen an end to many others through research and vaccination programmes. :)

toodiemac
02-Dec-08, 23:11
The survey you have quoted is a flawed survey there are many objections to its design, data collection and analysis.



Haven't had a look at this thread for a while, but I did manage to find the information for the survey I mentioned. It was designed and run by the Department of Health , so I would be genuinely interested to learn where the objections came from - I can't find any information on it being flawed.

Indeed I have found at least six similar surveys over a period of over six years showing that Health Professionals (i.e. doctors, nurses, health visitors) have major concerns about the MMR - though of course they will tell worried parents to have full faith in it. I'm not blaming doctors, their job would most probably be on the line if they didn't follow department of health guidelines by recommending the vaccine. Many, many doctors have refused to give their own children the MMR, and I personally know health professionals who have also opted for single vaccines.

I know this thread is not about the MMR but I am just demonstrating how your GP may not necessarily think the injection is a good idea but will not be able to voice his/her concerns.

I'm not trying to say the vaccine is not safe - we don't know that, but neither do we know it is safe. What I am saying is that people must weigh it up themselves, but unfortunately due to it being a new vaccine it will be some years before we have all the information to make a truly informed decision.

toodiemac
02-Dec-08, 23:24
I would like to add that I too have nursed family through to the cruel end of this illness, a truly harrowing time for all of us involved and I wouldn’t wish the experience on anybody. Naturally anybody diagnosed with a terminal illness would try anything for survival.

I would dearly love to think their might be a vaccine to wipe out this devastating disease, without the potential to create severe acute or chronic conditions at the same time. Despite seeing first hand what cancer does, I would still urge great caution, and in depth research. As I said before, weigh up all the pros and cons then make the decision.

Alice in Blunderland
02-Dec-08, 23:33
If I can remember correctly MMR was introduced in 1993 some fifteen years ago now and no major recorded incidents.

Yes there was also allegations from some Drs that the vaccine was not safe. Still there is no clear evidence that it can cause Autism only a suspicion.

Doctors who are not giving their kids MMR vaccine are not doing it on the basis of true scientific base but as a concerned parent if they think something is not safe they will not give it. This is thier own personal view not proffesional they are after all human.

Doctors are free to give their oppinion and frequently do. They do not have to conform you only have to see from the letters page in the Groat a current dispute between one GP from Thurso and the NHS.

All doctors know that smoking is bad for your health. Some of them choose to smoke from personal choice. It doesnt mean smoking is safe because doctors are smoking.:confused

There is a recent outbreak of measles in Cheshire partly responsible for no MMR vaccine given to the affected children. :(

the poacher
26-Sep-09, 00:11
i signed a form today for my daughter to get her cancer jabs done.

but now im wondering if i should have or not
there can be some majour side efects to them.

in my heart of hearts i know i done right for her but you always have a doubt in your head i think

what do you all think about it !!!!

Leanne
26-Sep-09, 00:27
They will stop her from dying like Jade Goody... The disease they protect from is an STD that 80% of the population carry. 10% develop precancerous changes, 10% of them develop to the point of needing surgery and 2% of them can develop into cancer (if left untreated). It is a fully treatable disease but the side-effects of the treatment are reduced ability to carry a child to term. Well done you for protecting both your child, and future grandchildren :)

Edit - the sideeffect is similar to any immunisation - a chance of allergy to the albumin from the egg it is grown in. If you child isn't alergic to eggs then there should be no problem.

The MMR debate - they have proven that the rate of autism is the same in the adult population (pre mmr) as it is in jab recipients. Scare mongering has put many children at risk :(

Stavro
26-Sep-09, 00:36
i signed a form today for my daughter to get her cancer jabs done.

but now im wondering if i should have or not
there can be some majour side efects to them.

in my heart of hearts i know i done right for her but you always have a doubt in your head i think

what do you all think about it !!!!


You have to do what you think is right. If you have changed your mind, you can revoke the form and thus remove your consent before she has the jab.

Personally, I would never consent to any jabs.

Leanne
26-Sep-09, 00:40
You have to do what you think is right. If you have changed your mind, you can revoke the form and thus remove your consent before she has the jab.

Personally, I would never consent to any jabs.

That doesn't surpise me...

The poacher - if you want some evidence that has been peer reviewed check out the cochrane database for real, impartial studies.

Leanne
26-Sep-09, 00:54
Its about the pros and con - cervical cancer is a nasty, nasty disease and if you look on the NICE website (forget DOH - they're smallfry) you will see the reasons for. NICE are a wordlwide organisation and have been criticised for not introducing valuable treatments due to the cost (think oestrogen antagonist breast cancer drugs). If they are behind the introduction (which they are) then there must be a very, very good reason to introduce the vaccine.

As someone who as worked in the diagnosis of cervical cancer I know that 16 and 18 (and 22 but less so) are the HPVs that take the cell change to cancer. The lesser HPVs cause cellular changes but they never turn cancerous - they do not have the capacity to do so. Any vaccine that can do this is brilliant. And just for the record I have retrained and changed jobs as I couldn't see my career prospects being much over the next few years :eek:

Just as an aside - there has been a recent study (peer reviewed - check out the Cochrane database) that has proven that the incidence of autism in children is no higher than that of adults. Basically proving that if the level of autism pre MMR is the same as the level post MMR then how on eartyh can there be a link? The doc who orginally voiced his concerns has since retacted them - this never reaches the press though does it?

Stavro
26-Sep-09, 01:33
The poacher - if you want some evidence that has been peer reviewed check out the cochrane database for real, impartial studies.


No scientific investigations are "impartial," but are heavily biased by what the funding-provider wants the results to be.

Leanne
26-Sep-09, 01:44
No scientific investigations are "impartial," but are heavily biased by what the funding-provider wants the results to be.

The cochrane database is peer reviewed articles - nothing to do with funding. The tripe are soon weeded out by serious scientists ;)

If you think it is all about funding providers you are seriously naive - NICE now is all about saving money so if something is introduced in the NHS then it has been proven to be effective beyond doubt. I can't even get a fax out of the blooming NHS budget! To fund vaccines for everyone under 16 shouts some serious evidence!

Stavro
26-Sep-09, 02:19
The cochrane database is peer reviewed articles - nothing to do with funding. The tripe are soon weeded out by serious scientists ;)

If you think it is all about funding providers you are seriously naive ...


It is you who are naive. The whole peer-reviewed process tows the line of the ruling paradigm, which is decreed by central government. If an article submitted to peer review does not conform, then it does not get in the journal (or database in this case).

I hope that I have explained that well enough for you to understand the problem/bias.

Rheghead
26-Sep-09, 03:15
The cochrane database is peer reviewed articles - nothing to do with funding. The tripe are soon weeded out by serious scientists ;)

If you think it is all about funding providers you are seriously naive - NICE now is all about saving money so if something is introduced in the NHS then it has been proven to be effective beyond doubt. I can't even get a fax out of the blooming NHS budget! To fund vaccines for everyone under 16 shouts some serious evidence!

Well said.

chaz
26-Sep-09, 07:54
All my daughters class have had the forms excet my daughter, when she does recieve the form i doubt i will be consenting to it.
I have a son who after recieving the mmr jab was so ill he nearly died,and went from a normally progressing child to losing his speach,and becoming withdrawn.After a few months of watching my son rapidly go down hill he was diagnosed with autisum.I wouldnt wish this on another parent.
I also know a few others who have had exream reactions to various vaccinations.I also know a few local health proffesionals who refuse to give thier kids some vaccinations.
With saying that each parent must do what they feel is right for thier children,as a parent is the one person with the childrens best interest at heart.

KEEP_ON_TRUCKIN
26-Sep-09, 08:01
has anyone actually HEARD of anyone with "serious reactions" to the vaccine?

chaz
26-Sep-09, 08:18
has anyone actually HEARD of anyone with "serious reactions" to the vaccine?

Yes,i know personaly of one in edinburgh.Also a few interesting articles on the net.

Leanne
26-Sep-09, 09:16
It is you who are naive. The whole peer-reviewed process tows the line of the ruling paradigm, which is decreed by central government. If an article submitted to peer review does not conform, then it does not get in the journal (or database in this case).

I hope that I have explained that well enough for you to understand the problem/bias.

And where are you basing your justifications for this statement? How are you qualified to comment? The statement you made is not true and you give no justification for it. To make a statement like that and not back it up with hard fact shows lack of knowledge. It's very easy to talk the talk but without hard evidence to back it up your argument looks rather thin. Just because you can shout louder doesn't make you correct - you need to back up your statements with justification to be taken seriously in a scientific debate.

The Cochrane database is not government run, the government have noting to do with it. The journals are reviewed by scientists qualified to determine whether the data is worthy - a lot of studies have too few subjects and poor statistical handling of the data giving misleading results. Quality studies can then be accessed by scientist and medical professions to determine if a study is worthy of follow up.

I heard of someone who had a brother who had a friend who's cat died of it doesn't have as much scientific basis as a multi-centre study with tens of thousands of subjects.

Edit - I don't think you understand the concept of a ruling paradigm and scientific progress - scientific progress generally goes against the generalised thoughts of the masses. For a drug to be accepted by NICE and then the NHS there must be a real cost benefit. At the cost of millions and millions the outcome has to be worth the cost - after all it all comes down do finances at the end of the day and if the cost wasn't justified the drug would have been relelgated to the black hole that a lot of the non-conformist data ends up in.

To quote you - I hope that I have explained that well enough for you to understand the problem/bias.

Tubthumper
26-Sep-09, 10:08
Stavro fairly loves debating with you Leanne...

toodiemac
26-Sep-09, 10:17
The journals are reviewed by scientists qualified to determine whether the data is worthy .

Ah, but who employs these scientists? Where does the funding come from to pay their salaries? ;)

Alice in Blunderland
26-Sep-09, 10:45
Ah, but who employs these scientists? Where does the funding come from to pay their salaries? ;)

Not the government. :)
There are many scientists out in the big bad world of employment and many of them are NOT employed by the government and companies with vested interests in the outcome of the research they are carrying out. :)

Leanne
26-Sep-09, 11:36
Stavro fairly loves debating with you Leanne...

You noticed too. I feel they are persistently playing the devils advocate for a rise. Shame I am educated, know my own mind and can argue my point from an informed view point ;)

Back to the debate - Before the screening programme started in 1988 there were approximately 6000 deaths per year in the UK from cervical cancer. In 2007 there were 280. The programme has cut the numbers of deaths significantly but 280 deaths is still to many. Research has shown that 75% of these deaths are in women presenting for a smear for the first time due to unexplained bleeding. I quote 2007 as in 2007 the recall system changed with under 25s no longer being called (it used to be over 20s) and women over 50 moving to 5 yearly recall. The consequences of this change are not yet known.

Education can only go so far before fear and dignity get in the way. Let's face it having a smear is not the most dignified of tests... The treatment for precancerous lesions is even less so. Another consequence of treatment of cervical cancer/high grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia is that the amputation of part of the cervix can result in a scar tissue can completely block the os preventing the entry of sperm, causing fertility problems. The purpose of the cervix is to provide a band of support to the uterus during pregnancy to prevent early labour - removal of part of this tissue can result in the woman being unable to carry a child to term. As we all know premature babies have significant morbidity and mortality.

Surely anything that can reduce the incidence of this disease is a good thing? The consequences are horrific and the treatment can have a detrimental effect on occasion itself.

Stavro
26-Sep-09, 13:49
I am 99.99% sure that even in your GP did not think the HPV vaccine was a good idea, they would never tell you so. They would probably be out of a job if they did! As Teenybash said earlier in this thread her OH and daughter are medics but they are against the vaccine - I'll bet they couldn't advise anyone against it if they were asked in a work situation.

As an example, a while ago a large survery was done anonymously among health care workers (nurses, GP's etc) in the UK on their PERSONAL feelings on the MMR jab for babies, and a very large proportion of them admitted that they would not give the vaccine to their own children, though of course they had to recommend it strongly to parents. ...


I agree with this entirely.

And didn't a certain Mr & Mrs Blair refuse to give their children MMR, whilst at the same time ruining the career of Dr Andrew Wakefield and threatening to place the Editor of The Lancet in The Tower for daring to publish the findings of Dr Wakefield and his research team?

Stavro
26-Sep-09, 14:13
Shame I am educated, ...

:lol:

The fact is that everyone who can (and does) think for themselves is educated. What you call "educated," someone else may call "brainwashed."



Surely anything that can reduce the incidence of this disease is a good thing? The consequences are horrific and the treatment can have a detrimental effect on occasion itself.


Yes, of course it would be a good thing and, since we are talking about cervical cancer, there are many cancer treatments which ought to be funded with public money, but are not. Instead, faith is placed, for whatever reasons, into vaccines that are increasingly dangerous and not tested, but which do transfer huge sums of public money from government (via their research agencies or the Department of Health) into the pockets of international pharmaceutical companies and vaccine producers.

GPs have to tow the line. Therefore, in answer to the original questions and concerns, think for yourselves, because the government is not always (rarely is perhaps a better word nowadays) on your side.

The government will tell you to do one thing, whilst privately they are all doing the opposite. :(

Leanne
26-Sep-09, 14:24
I agree with this entirely.

And didn't a certain Mr & Mrs Blair refuse to give their children MMR, whilst at the same time ruining the career of Dr Andrew Wakefield and threatening to place the Editor of The Lancet in The Tower for daring to publish the findings of Dr Wakefield and his research team?

The same Andrew Wakefield who has since retracted his original study on the basis that it was flawed. After a review of his data Andrew himself has retracted the study due to the fact that no control group was used and the sample size was too small. He also admitted that the age that autism develops in non-imunised children is at the same age as the vaccination regime. Tim Staughan et al and De Souza et al have both, in different studies, found the rate of autism to be no higher in adults (pre immunisation) than in children, concluding that there is no scientific basis for the fears. Further support to this is that Japan withdrew their MMR vaccination programme due to the fear and continued to see a rise in autism. The Japanese scientists concluded that the increased rate is because more cases are actually being diagnosed, rather than a true rise. Deaths from measles in Japan resulted in the closure of schools and universities to control the outbreak and an immediate reinstatement of the MMR vaccination programme.

Just as an aside, if the fears were justified think of this - the rate of autism is said to be 1 in 10,000 but the death rate from measles in unvaccinated children is 10-20% with 25-50% of survivors having permanent brain damage. Would you rather have a small chance of an autistic child or a large chance of a dead/brain damaged child? At the moment measles epidemics are being kept at bay by the numbers of vaccinated children - if vaccination levels fall to 75% there is an increase risk of an epidemic in the unvaccinated (including pregnant mothers who were born before the start of the vaccination drive).

Edit - God I love these debates! Stavos where have you gone I'm missing you???

Leanne
26-Sep-09, 14:34
there are many cancer treatments which ought to be funded with public money, but are not. Instead, faith is placed, for whatever reasons, into vaccines that are increasingly dangerous and not tested,

Oh you;re back ;)

I'll ignore the point of being brainwashed - I know my own mind well enough to choose which information to disregard. I've disregarded yours and you seem to be quite a good debater :)

The whole point of advancements in medicine is to preventative. Curative measures are never 100% - a cure developed that eliminates the diesease is far better for an individual that having to go through years of chemotherapy.

The one year survival for lung cancer currently stands at 13% - 87% of people who are diagnosed with lung cancer will die within one year. Lung cancer, particularly small cell carcinoma is notoriously difficult to treat - prevention is surely better?

I don't know what basis you have for saying the vaccine is untested - where is your evidence? The vaccine for cervical testing has been widely tested over the last 10 years on Americans :Razz I find that fact hilarious lol

toodiemac
26-Sep-09, 14:57
but the death rate from measles in unvaccinated children is 10-20% with 25-50% of survivors having permanent brain damage.

Where did you get these figures from? The measles fatality rates are 1 in 5000 in the UK - doesn't that work out at 0.02%? That's a very big difference - are you talking about third world countries?

chaz
26-Sep-09, 15:08
I for one would not wish my daughter to have this vaccine,one child affected by the mmr is enough for myself and my family to cope with.Statistics are all very well especially for the childless among us and those who dont have the decision to make for one of their own.
When i am advised by several health professionals that their children wont be having certain vaccinations then i am most certain mine wont either.
I have over the years read and researched a lot of information regarding autisum and the mmr.And if its not one of the factors that can cause autisum why are large payouts made as compensation! Which i know is the case.
And for those who take autisum lightly, try living a while in the shoes of a carer of an autistic child/person!!

Leanne
26-Sep-09, 16:01
Where did you get these figures from? The measles fatality rates are 1 in 5000 in the UK - doesn't that work out at 0.02%? That's a very big difference - are you talking about third world countries?

The rate of one in 5000 is in a society with a vaccination programme. Pre-vaccination and when vaccination was dropped in Japan the death rate is much higher. The decreased death rate in the UK is exactly what you would expect to see with a good uptake of vaccinations.

Margaret M.
26-Sep-09, 16:55
Back to the debate - Before the screening programme started in 1988 there were approximately 6000 deaths per year in the UK from cervical cancer. In 2007 there were 280.

Leanne, where did you get the 6,000 deaths per year number? The research I read indicates that there has been a 70% reduction in cervical cancer cases since 1977 so your numbers are not jiving.

Pap smears have made a tremendous difference in reducing the number of deaths from cervical cancer and even if one is vaccinated, regular pap smears are still necessary since the vaccination will not prevent all the possible types of cervical cancer.

Margaret M.
26-Sep-09, 17:15
The vaccine for cervical testing has been widely tested over the last 10 years on Americans :Razz I find that fact hilarious lol

I doubt that the parents whose daughters have died or become disabled after getting the vaccine are finding much to laugh about.

The vaccine has not been widely tested for 10 years, how could it have been when there is no data to support its effectiveness beyond 5 years? The vaccination program in the U.S. did not start until 2006 and thankfully, due to an outcry of opposition, the desire to make this vaccination mandatory was abandoned.

This vaccine was tested for a much shorter period of time than is normal for vaccines and no-one knows what the long term effects of this vaccine may be. No-one knows for sure when booster shots will be necessary. The lead researcher on Cervarix and Gardasil testing has been extremely vocal about neither having been tested enough. It is very unusual for someone who has been compensated by the vaccine manufacturers to speak out against their product.

Here is an update on the “testing” in the U.S.:
It is a vaccine that, by the summer of 2009, already caused more than 15,000 thousand reports of vaccine reactions, including more than 3,000 injuries and 48 deaths. 14 of the girls who died were under age 16.

http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/July-2009/Preventing-Gardasil-Vaccine-Injuries-Deaths.aspx

toodiemac
26-Sep-09, 17:24
The rate of one in 5000 is in a society with a vaccination programme. Pre-vaccination and when vaccination was dropped in Japan the death rate is much higher. The decreased death rate in the UK is exactly what you would expect to see with a good uptake of vaccinations.

You originally said that the death rate from measles was 10-20% - do you mean pre-vaccination in the UK?

The measles vaccine came into use in the UK in 1968 (or maybe a wee bit later), and in 1967 the death rate from measles was around 0.02%. In 1960 it was approx 0.02% and today it is approx 0.02% How far back are you going to find the 10-20% death rate? Or are your statistics based on a thirld word country?

If you look at the statistics as far back as 1940, the death rate from measles was much higher mostly because of poorer living conditions, malnourishment etc - and even then the percentage of deaths from the disease stood at 0.2% (as opposed to 0.02% quoted above).

Can I just ask when and where the death rate stood at 10-20%? And is it in the UK today that 25-50% of people who survive measles have permanent brain damage? I must admit that's a new one to me. You seem to have a medical background, and I don't, so I would really appreciate a link to these studies. :)

(If you are going back centuries though, or talking about third world countries, then perhaps it's not relevant to modern day Britain).

Stavro
26-Sep-09, 22:11
Just as an aside, if the fears were justified think of this - the rate of autism is said to be 1 in 10,000 but the death rate from measles in unvaccinated children is 10-20% with 25-50% of survivors having permanent brain damage. Would you rather have a small chance of an autistic child or a large chance of a dead/brain damaged child? At the moment measles epidemics are being kept at bay by the numbers of vaccinated children - if vaccination levels fall to 75% there is an increase risk of an epidemic in the unvaccinated (including pregnant mothers who were born before the start of the vaccination drive).

Edit - God I love these debates! Stavos where have you gone I'm missing you???


Well, I'd better not disappoint you. :D

Dr Wakefield probably "retracted" some of his (and his team's, by the way) conclusions for the same reason that the editor of The Lancet "retracted" that the research should have been published in the first place - money and career prospects.

But moving along now to measles, you state that the "death rate from measles in unvaccinated children is 10-20% with 25-50% of survivors having permanent brain damage." Strange, then, how our parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, ..., had measles as a perfectly normal and harmless childhood illness and did not suffer from death (obviously), or brain damage (well, I can't speak for your family tree on this one, Leanne :)). Some pretty outrageous figures you have dug up there, me thinks.

And another thing, has anyone ever had the misfortune to get three such illnesses all at once (measles, mumps and rubella)? Do you think that injecting children with three "deadly," in your opinion, diseases all at once is sensible?

That's not to mention the mercury (not present in ALL vaccines), aluminium, etc.

:eek:

crayola
27-Sep-09, 00:34
The same Andrew Wakefield who has since retracted his original study on the basis that it was flawed. After a review of his data Andrew himself has retracted the study due to the fact that no control group was used and the sample size was too small. He also admitted that the age that autism develops in non-imunised children is at the same age as the vaccination regime. Tim Staughan et al and De Souza et al have both, in different studies, found the rate of autism to be no higher in adults (pre immunisation) than in children, concluding that there is no scientific basis for the fears. Further support to this is that Japan withdrew their MMR vaccination programme due to the fear and continued to see a rise in autism. The Japanese scientists concluded that the increased rate is because more cases are actually being diagnosed, rather than a true rise. Deaths from measles in Japan resulted in the closure of schools and universities to control the outbreak and an immediate reinstatement of the MMR vaccination programme.

Just as an aside, if the fears were justified think of this - the rate of autism is said to be 1 in 10,000 but the death rate from measles in unvaccinated children is 10-20% with 25-50% of survivors having permanent brain damage. Would you rather have a small chance of an autistic child or a large chance of a dead/brain damaged child? At the moment measles epidemics are being kept at bay by the numbers of vaccinated children - if vaccination levels fall to 75% there is an increase risk of an epidemic in the unvaccinated (including pregnant mothers who were born before the start of the vaccination drive).

Edit - God I love these debates! Stavos where have you gone I'm missing you???
It's rare and absolutely fabulous to see someone who obviously knows what they're talking about on any technical thread on the Org. I take my hat off to you for engaging with this one.

Stavro
27-Sep-09, 01:07
It's rare and absolutely fabulous to see someone who obviously knows what they're talking about on any technical thread on the Org. I take my hat off to you for engaging with this one.


A somewhat biased opinion, perhaps? :lol:

toodiemac
27-Sep-09, 10:16
It's rare and absolutely fabulous to see someone who obviously knows what they're talking about on any technical thread on the Org. I take my hat off to you for engaging with this one.

Eh? But the poster you are commenting on seems to have the facts totally wrong - so perhaps does not know as much as you think. Measles deaths at 20%? I don't think so, come on let's stick to the facts here.

crayola
27-Sep-09, 12:21
Eh? But the poster you are commenting on seems to have the facts totally wrong - so perhaps does not know as much as you think. Measles deaths at 20%? I don't think so, come on let's stick to the facts here.
You were right in a previous post. She's quoting certain third-world countries which I agree is a bit naughty and not relevant to the current discussion.

Leanne
27-Sep-09, 12:36
I'm quoting WHO data from Japan

crayola
27-Sep-09, 13:06
I'm quoting WHO data from Japan
Can you provide a reference or even better a link to the figures?

Are you sure you're not getting confused with death rates from complications which may arise from measles in a very small number of cases?

toodiemac
27-Sep-09, 13:10
I'm quoting WHO data from Japan

So are you saying that the measles death rate in unvaccinated children in Japan is 10-20%? That seems incredible given that the death rate in the UK is 0.02%. Could you post a link to your source please?

If the information is correct (and I'm not saying it isn't) then there must be something very strange going on there - especially if 25-50% of survivors are left permanently brain damaged in Japan, whereas the figure for that in the UK seems to be negligible.

Anyway, a link would be great :)

Leanne
27-Sep-09, 13:48
Could you post a link to your source please?


Can you provide a reference or even better a link to the figures?

Links like everyone else has posted :roll:

toodiemac
27-Sep-09, 15:20
And where are you basing your justifications for this statement? How are you qualified to comment? The statement you made is not true and you give no justification for it. To make a statement like that and not back it up with hard fact shows lack of knowledge. It's very easy to talk the talk but without hard evidence to back it up your argument looks rather thin. Just because you can shout louder doesn't make you correct - you need to back up your statements with justification to be taken seriously in a scientific debate.


Shame I am educated, know my own mind and can argue my point from an informed view point ;)


You said yourself earlier (directed at another poster) that to be taken seriously in a scientific debate you should back up a statement with hard fact - not to do so shows a "lack of knowledge". You said that you are making an "informed" point.

I'm not saying your information is wrong, I am just really interested on what on earth is going on in Japan to make measles such a devastating, deadly disease compared with the rest of the developed world.

The figures on death rates which I posted can be easily found in any google search, but I can't find any info on your figures, that's why I'm asking for a link. :)

crayola
27-Sep-09, 15:43
Just as an aside, if the fears were justified think of this - the rate of autism is said to be 1 in 10,000 but the death rate from measles in unvaccinated children is 10-20% with 25-50% of survivors having permanent brain damage. Would you rather have a small chance of an autistic child or a large chance of a dead/brain damaged child? At the moment measles epidemics are being kept at bay by the numbers of vaccinated children - if vaccination levels fall to 75% there is an increase risk of an epidemic in the unvaccinated (including pregnant mothers who were born before the start of the vaccination drive).
Since nobody else has posted references let me do it. The following quote comes from the Japanese Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200407/000020040704A0162089.php).

Recently, the number of adult measles has increased in Japan. Acute encephalitis occurs in 0.5% of adult measles and is a life threatening complication. Its mortality rate is 10% to 20% and after effect rate is 25% to 50%.10% of 0.5% is 0.05%. I think we have our explanation. :)

toodiemac
27-Sep-09, 16:12
Ah, thanks for that Crayola. In other words the information Leanne posted about the measles death rates in children was totally incorrect!

Why post incorrect statements as fact in a thread covering such an emotive subject, especially while at the same time challenging other posters to back up their comments with "hard evidence" in order that they be "taken seriously"?

Hmmmmmm, I suppose anybody can make a mistake............... but that was quite a big mistake considering the poster is "educated" and has a medical background. ;)

DOCTOR
27-Sep-09, 16:47
Can I suggest that anyone with any worries or fears regarding this vaccine they should contact their GP.

Their GP is someone whom they can go to talk things over with and ask for their proffessional advice.

This is the same GP most of us will head to when we are unwell and take their diagnosis and perscription so trust them on vaccines as well. :D

As I have always said our good friend google throws up so much information its very difficult to know what information to take on board and what to disregard.

DOCTOR

tootz
27-Sep-09, 18:21
Ive Had All My Cervical Cancer Jabs, I Got A Letter Giving Me Information On It And Advising Me To Make An Appointment With The Nurse To Discuss It, Then I Got It Done. :) :)

Stavro
27-Sep-09, 21:17
You were right in a previous post. She's quoting certain third-world countries which I agree is a bit naughty and not relevant to the current discussion.


Which third world countries?

Stavro
27-Sep-09, 21:21
Ah, thanks for that Crayola. In other words the information Leanne posted about the measles death rates in children was totally incorrect!

Why post incorrect statements as fact in a thread covering such an emotive subject, especially while at the same time challenging other posters to back up their comments with "hard evidence" in order that they be "taken seriously"?

Hmmmmmm, I suppose anybody can make a mistake............... but that was quite a big mistake considering the poster is "educated" and has a medical background. ;)


Yes, I agree entirely. It's also worth mentioning that this was the information that Crayola was praising as being so informative. :roll:

_Ju_
28-Sep-09, 06:44
The fact is, that no matter how tried or innocuous and type of medicine is, there will always be unpredictable and unpreventable idiosincratic reactions. The choice you make as individuals is weather the risk outweighs the benefit. This you do with the help of the doctor you trust. If you trust google more than your doctor, then you need your head examined. If you think that any health organization is going to spend a fortune on a preventative measure whose benefits are a scam then you are a conspiracy theorist. You are welcome to your theories, but if just one person reads this thread, and instead of consulting with their doctor and family decide not to vaccinate their child and that child grows into an adult with cancer then that would be a tragedy just as great as the rare idiosincratic reactions to vaccination or the young women that die every year from cervical cancer.

router
28-Sep-09, 20:06
here is a fine reason not to have it. Our daughter recieved hers today without our blessing, but she wanted it, and she could have been a statistic like this young girl. Her whole life ended.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8279656.stm

Stavro
28-Sep-09, 20:14
here is a fine reason not to have it. Our daughter recieved hers today without our blessing, but she wanted it, and she could have been a statistic like this young girl. Her whole life ended.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8279656.stm



This is terrible. :~(

Notice how dizziness and nausea amongst other pupils have to be described in the article as "mild symptoms."

As for Ju's opinion, that does not merit reply. People who make their decisions based upon unbiased, quality opinions do not need their head examined.

toodiemac
28-Sep-09, 20:22
I don't think that anybody would make their decision based solely on this thread to be honest, but if it encourages somebody to think long and hard before making a decision then surely that can only be a good thing?

If it encourages somebody to google and then present their concerns to a doctor, then surely that can only be a good thing too? Gone are the days when doctors had a God-like status, people want to take responsibility for their own health more and more nowadays.

I have, in the past, raised concerns with health professionals which they knew nothing about and they then had to go and find out the answers - nobody is an expert on absolutely every drug and vaccine going. For example, often the chemist knows a lot more about drug side effects and interactions than the doctor does. Have you never been at the doctor and had him look up a book to find a drug and to find out if it is suitable? Of course they can't be expected to know everything about everything, medicine is constantly evolving and they don't actually do the research, they just pass on the information that they themselves have been given.

It's not a case of trusting Google more than trusting the doctor, it's about doing your own research and finding out as much as you possibly can, weighing up the risks, talking, listening to others (including health professionals of course), hearing both sides of the argument. After all, vaccines can have side effects that last for life, which nobody would dispute, so surely it's worth making a TRULY informed decision and not just assuming it must be okay because ..................

chaz
28-Sep-09, 20:30
I don't think that anybody would make their decision based solely on this thread to be honest, but if it encourages somebody to think long and hard before making a decision then surely that can only be a good thing?

If it encourages somebody to google and then present their concerns to a doctor, then surely that can only be a good thing too? Gone are the days when doctors had a God-like status, people want to take responsibility for their own health more and more nowadays.

I have, in the past, raised concerns with health professionals which they knew nothing about and they then had to go and find out the answers - nobody is an expert on absolutely every drug and vaccine going. For example, often the chemist knows a lot more about drug side effects and interactions than the doctor does. Have you never been at the doctor and had him look up a book to find a drug and to find out if it is suitable? Of course they can't be expected to know everything about everything, medicine is constantly evolving and they don't actually do the research, they just pass on the information that they themselves have been given.

It's not a case of trusting Google more than trusting the doctor, it's about doing your own research and finding out as much as you possibly can, weighing up the risks, talking, listening to others (including health professionals of course), hearing both sides of the argument. After all, vaccines can have side effects that last for life, which nobody would dispute, so surely it's worth making a TRULY informed decision and not just assuming it must be okay because ..................

Well said:)

squidge
28-Sep-09, 20:43
Who doesnt think long and hard about EVERY medical procedure their child undergoes. You weigh up the risks and make your decision after discussing it with people you trust. That may be Doctors or other health professionals or your family and friends or somebody else. Anyone who thinks that any procedure is without risk is fooling themselves.

Some children may indeed have adverse reactions to vaccinations and If any parents believes that the MMR triggered their child's autism I wont be saying they are wrong. But you make a decision based on best evidence available and you cross your fingers. Nothing, not only medical things but arranging babysitters, letting your child go out in the car with his pals, trying your baby with peanut butter for the first time, letting your wee one go to the shop by themselves - nothing is without risk. We can never get a cast iron guarantee and i am surprised that people seem to expect one.

What i do find annoying is when people who hold an informed and clearly well researched opinion on subjects like these dont give a hoot what the laymen amongst us feel when the information they are trying to impart is clouded by petty bickering and sniping and point scoring. It doesnt help

DOCTOR
28-Sep-09, 20:50
I don't think that anybody would make their decision based solely on this thread to be honest, but if it encourages somebody to think long and hard before making a decision then surely that can only be a good thing?

If it encourages somebody to google and then present their concerns to a doctor, then surely that can only be a good thing too? Gone are the days when doctors had a God-like status, people want to take responsibility for their own health more and more nowadays.

I have, in the past, raised concerns with health professionals which they knew nothing about and they then had to go and find out the answers - nobody is an expert on absolutely every drug and vaccine going. For example, often the chemist knows a lot more about drug side effects and interactions than the doctor does. Have you never been at the doctor and had him look up a book to find a drug and to find out if it is suitable? Of course they can't be expected to know everything about everything, medicine is constantly evolving and they don't actually do the research, they just pass on the information that they themselves have been given.

It's not a case of trusting Google more than trusting the doctor, it's about doing your own research and finding out as much as you possibly can, weighing up the risks, talking, listening to others (including health professionals of course), hearing both sides of the argument. After all, vaccines can have side effects that last for life, which nobody would dispute, so surely it's worth making a TRULY informed decision and not just assuming it must be okay because ..................

A very valid argument. The personal research done on the google also includes the majority of wrong information.It means the facts and figures can be twisted by the posters.

No matter what research you do you would not grasp the background knowledge, experience gained over years, specialised training and decision making ability that a fully trained Doctor has.

Treating human beings as patients and giving them a valid advice is the job of a physician.It is a two way process where both parties have faith and trust in each other.

All the medicines, investigations ( tests ) and vaccines have significant side effects. In case of vaccines, these are developed to prevent a fatal disease.

All the people who are offered vaccine will not develop the disease ( if the vaccine is not given ) it is for the minority of the people who would develop fatal disease in absence of a vaccine unfortunately there is no crystal ball to tell who may or may not need this vaccine.

The longevity in the present era is due to better vaccination and better health care facilities.

If you are to fully rewire your house no matter what amount of information you google,in the end of the day you would need a trained electrician to do it properly. If not then it would be a cowboys job. If someone wants to make this kind of decision regarding their own health then that's their own cowboys decision.

The doctor looking in the book is not always looking up the drug, he is looking at the dose according to the wieght and the kidney state of the patient and other possible factors including age, sex, etc. :D

Stavro
28-Sep-09, 21:01
I came onto (a thread that was merged with) this thread because someone asked for opinions regarding young girls having a vaccination against cervical cancer.

After following the whole thread for a while, it does seem remarkably evident to me that those posters who have researched the vaccination issue are far more reasonable and better informed than those who promote the government line.

My own answer to the original question therefore remains the same: do not blindly take the "government knows what's best for your child" line, but research and, most importantly, think for yourselves.

I would never take any vaccination, but each individual is different. One thing that you will discover, though, is that when you seriously question the medical establishment/business, you will almost certainly experience a hostile reaction to not only the vaccination but also your daring to question what they want to pump into you!

Stavro
28-Sep-09, 21:04
The longevity in the present era is due to better vaccination and better health care facilities.


No, it is not. It is due to better hygiene and easier access to varied and nutritional food.

squidge
28-Sep-09, 21:11
One thing that you will discover, though, is that when you seriously question the medical establishment/business, you will almost certainly experience a hostile reaction to not only the vaccination but also your daring to question what they want to pump into you!

I disagree. This may have been YOUR experience Stavro but in presenting it as a "fact" you may put people off from speaking to the medical people and thats not fair.

I have had three out of four children vaccinated for MMR. I made an informed decision not to have the fourth one vaccinated because of contra indications. In making my decision i found all the health professionals were happy to discuss my concerns and my options and at no time did i receive a "hostile reaction" nor was i made to feel a fool for "daring" to question. Once I told my GP i had decided against the vaccination he marked my notes and the subject was closed. No pressure was exerted on me at all.

squidge
28-Sep-09, 21:14
No, it is not. It is due to better hygene and easier access to varied and nutritional food.

AND better vaccination and health care. They are all interlinked. You cant say one without the other. We would still have smallpox without vaccinations and people would still die from it. By all means choose not to have any vaccinations but you cant say they are all rubbish and havent contributed to longer life spans:roll:

DOCTOR
28-Sep-09, 21:17
After following the whole thread for a while, it does seem remarkably evident to me that those posters who have researched the vaccination issue are far more reasonable and better informed than those who promote the government line.

They have NOT researched they have googled information. The research is a valid scientific way/ methodology to find an answer to previously unanswered question.These people have gathered information from different sources. The validity of some those sources is questionable.


own answer to the original question therefore remains the same: do not blindly take the "government knows what's best for your child" line, but research and, most importantly, think for yourselves.

The governments policy is based on expert advice given by a broad range of specialists. You have to make your own decision, nobody is forcing their opinion on people. They are giving them advice and the decision whether to take it is upon themselves.


I would never take any vaccination, but each individual is different. One thing that you will discover, though, is that when you seriously question the medical establishment/business, you will almost certainly experience a hostile reaction to not only the vaccination but also your daring to question what they want to pump into you!

I do not agree with this statement. As a Doctor you offer the patient different options of treatment. Give them the benefits and risks of each option. In the end of the day the patient makes the decision and you agree with it. There is no hostility, whether the patient takes his advice or not.

Have you ever seen a Doctor dragging a patient to the hospital to give them treatment against there wishes ?

As with this vaccine you will be advised. It is then up to the individual whether to take it or not.

DOCTOR
28-Sep-09, 21:20
No, it is not. It is due to better hygene and easier access to varied and nutritional food.

If that is true ( which it is not ) then I would suggest to scrap the healthcare system altogether and invest the money into better and bigger supermarkets. ;)

Stavro
28-Sep-09, 21:23
AND better vaccination and health care. They are all interlinked. You cant say one without the other. We would still have smallpox without vaccinations and people would still die from it. By all means choose not to have any vaccinations but you cant say they are all rubbish and havent contributed to longer life spans:roll:


I have not argued against the smallpox vaccine.

Health care is better since the introduction of the National Health Service, that is true, but vaccines are not getting better, in my opinion, but are becomming much, much worse.

However, to satisfy your concern, I will change my comment to: "It is primarily due to better hygiene and easier access to varied and nutritional food, with some additional benefit brought about by the introduction of a National Health Service."

Stavro
28-Sep-09, 21:27
Have you ever seen a Doctor dragging a patient to the hospital to give them treatment against there wishes ?


I know of it, yes, but if we restrict ourselves to the subject of vaccinations, then there is definite talk of such abuse in the United States over H1N1 and H5N1.

Stavro
28-Sep-09, 21:29
If that is true ( which it is not ) then I would suggest to scrap the healthcare system altogether and invest the money into better and bigger supermarkets. ;)


Why bother? Let's invest all of our money into blowing people up, instead of just some of it.

toodiemac
28-Sep-09, 21:29
A very valid argument. The personal research done on the google also includes the majority of wrong information.It means the facts and figures can be twisted by the posters.

No matter what research you do you would not grasp the background knowledge, experience gained over years, specialised training and decision making ability that a fully trained Doctor has.

Treating human beings as patients and giving them a valid advice is the job of a physician.It is a two way process where both parties have faith and trust in each other.

All the medicines, investigations ( tests ) and vaccines have significant side effects. In case of vaccines, these are developed to prevent a fatal disease.

All the people who are offered vaccine will not develop the disease ( if the vaccine is not given ) it is for the minority of the people who would develop fatal disease in absence of a vaccine unfortunately there is no crystal ball to tell who may or may not need this vaccine.

The longevity in the present era is due to better vaccination and better health care facilities.

If you are to fully rewire your house no matter what amount of information you google,in the end of the day you would need a trained electrician to do it properly. If not then it would be a cowboys job. If someone wants to make this kind of decision regarding their own health then that's their own cowboys decision.

The doctor looking in the book is not always looking up the drug, he is looking at the dose according to the wieght and the kidney state of the patient and other possible factors including age, sex, etc. :D

So, are you saying that if somebody decides not to allow their child to have the cervical cancer vaccine, after months of research and after talking to their doctor, they have made a "cowboys decision" i.e. if they didn't do what the doctor advised then they have made the wrong decision?

Some vaccines have been taken out of use after being given to children because of unacceptable side effects, yet the doctor's administered these vaccines at the time. They did so because they had been told the vaccines were safe, not because they did all the research and came up with the conclusions themselves. I'm not knocking the doctor's for it, I'm just saying that they are not God-like.

And, of course the doctor is not always looking up the drug in his book - but sometimes he is. And with the greatest respect to you if you are indeed a GP, sometimes the doctor doesn't have ALL the answers.

Surely you can't attribute the longevity in present times purely on health care and vaccination - what about better living conditions, better nutrition, workplace health & safety, better self-awareness etc etc?

Just out of interest, would a doctor go against Department of Health advice and guidelines to recommend patients don't have a particular vaccine, and maybe tell the patient he would not have it himself? If he did this and the patient went on to develop the disease could they then sue the doctor or something? I know a lot of doctors don't want their own children to have the MMR for example, and I'm thinking of the swine flu vaccine which seems to be on it's way, and which a large percentage of doctors have said they would not have because it has not been tested enough.

How much honesty are doctors allowed and to what extent do they have to 'toe the line' as it were?

When you mention the years of training and decision making ability that doctors have, which of course they do, you indicate that they can come to the correct conclusions that ordinary (for want of a better word) people probably won't reach. They won't twist the results like others. Remember though that doctors and experts often don't agree with each other over medicines and vaccinations, despite having the same medical training and access to the same science.

So, it's not really a case that the doctor is always right, you could, and do, get two experts in a particular field with vastly opposing views. Which one is right?

Stavro
28-Sep-09, 21:33
... but in presenting it as a "fact" ...


For the record, my actual words were "almost certainly."

:)

DOCTOR
28-Sep-09, 21:35
I know of it, yes, but if we restrict ourselves to the subject of vaccinations, then there is definite talk of such abuse in the United States over H1N1 and H5N1.

I rest my case for the people on this forum to decide on vaccines. :)

I have already made my views clear on this from a professional point of view. :)


A final word :

There is absoloubtley NO comparison between US and British health systems as they are entirely different.

squidge
28-Sep-09, 21:39
For the record, my actual words were "almost certainly."

:)

But that followed "...you WILL discover..." maybe you just constructed your sentence wrongly - it read to me that you were presenting your problems with medical people as fact - i thought it was worth posing a different experience.

toodiemac
28-Sep-09, 21:45
They have NOT researched they have googled information. The research is a valid scientific way/ methodology to find an answer to previously unanswered question.These people have gathered information from different sources. The validity of some those sources is questionable.

The governments policy is based on expert advice given by a broad range of specialists. You have to make your own decision, nobody is forcing their opinion on people. They are giving them advice and the decision whether to take it is upon themselves.

I do not agree with this statement. As a Doctor you offer the patient different options of treatment. Give them the benefits and risks of each option. In the end of the day the patient makes the decision and you agree with it. There is no hostility, whether the patient takes his advice or not.



Firstly, can I just ask how you know that the validity of some of my sources of information is questionable?

I agree nobody is forcing their opinion upon people (thankfully) but can I just make a point in saying that the Government's policy is based on advice given to them by the Joint Committee for Vaccination, and almost half of the experts on this advisory committee were on the payroll of the vaccine companies last time I looked - i.e. they have a financial interest in seeing these vaccines being adopted into the UK vaccination schedule. I'm not trying to press my opinion on this onto anybody, take from this what you will.

I personally have encountered hostility but I totally accept that every GP is different in their manner with patients.

DOCTOR
28-Sep-09, 21:55
So, are you saying that if somebody decides not to allow their child to have the cervical cancer vaccine, after months of research and after talking to their doctor, they have made a "cowboys decision" i.e. if they didn't do what the doctor advised then they have made the wrong decision?

Some vaccines have been taken out of use after being given to children because of unacceptable side effects, yet the doctor's administered these vaccines at the time. They did so because they had been told the vaccines were safe, not because they did all the research and came up with the conclusions themselves. I'm not knocking the doctor's for it, I'm just saying that they are not God-like.

And, of course the doctor is not always looking up the drug in his book - but sometimes he is. And with the greatest respect to you if you are indeed a GP, sometimes the doctor doesn't have ALL the answers.

Surely you can't attribute the longevity in present times purely on health care and vaccination - what about better living conditions, better nutrition, workplace health & safety, better self-awareness etc etc?

Just out of interest, would a doctor go against Department of Health advice and guidelines to recommend patients don't have a particular vaccine, and maybe tell the patient he would not have it himself? If he did this and the patient went on to develop the disease could they then sue the doctor or something? I know a lot of doctors don't want their own children to have the MMR for example, and I'm thinking of the swine flu vaccine which seems to be on it's way, and which a large percentage of doctors have said they would not have because it has not been tested enough.

How much honesty are doctors allowed and to what extent do they have to 'toe the line' as it were?

When you mention the years of training and decision making ability that doctors have, which of course they do, you indicate that they can come to the correct conclusions that ordinary (for want of a better word) people probably won't reach. They won't twist the results like others. Remember though that doctors and experts often don't agree with each other over medicines and vaccinations, despite having the same medical training and access to the same science.

So, it's not really a case that the doctor is always right, you could, and do, get two experts in a particular field with vastly opposing views. Which one is right?


The doctors dont give the government guidelines to the patients, they give their true and honest oppinion.

There are times when Doctors differ on their opinion in treating different patients with different treatments. It is up to the patient to take advice of the doctor they have more trust in. In the end of the day it could be a slightly dis-sadvantaged opinion. The Doctors are not Gods but slightly more knowledgeable than their patients due to their intense training.

I am not saying that Doctors advise is always to be taken. In my oppinion a Doctor is much more knowledgeable, well informed than his/her patient on medical matters he/ she gives their proffesional advice to their patient.

If Im not giving MMR to my kids then I will tell my patients that I have not done so but its a Government policy to give.



A QUestion:

A fighter Pilot is trained to fly a jet plane. If someone is playing at flying the jets on video games and practising with virtual controls googling lots of information and becomes an expert. Would they be able to fly the real Jet as good as a fully trained fighter Pilot ? :)

Likewise trained doctors are in a much better position to give thier independent and honest oppinion to their patients. :)

roadbowler
28-Sep-09, 21:55
A very valid argument. The personal research done on the google also includes the majority of wrong information.It means the facts and figures can be twisted by the posters.

No matter what research you do you would not grasp the background knowledge, experience gained over years, specialised training and decision making ability that a fully trained Doctor has.

Treating human beings as patients and giving them a valid advice is the job of a physician.It is a two way process where both parties have faith and trust in each other.

All the medicines, investigations ( tests ) and vaccines have significant side effects. In case of vaccines, these are developed to prevent a fatal disease.

All the people who are offered vaccine will not develop the disease ( if the vaccine is not given ) it is for the minority of the people who would develop fatal disease in absence of a vaccine unfortunately there is no crystal ball to tell who may or may not need this vaccine.

The longevity in the present era is due to better vaccination and better health care facilities.

If you are to fully rewire your house no matter what amount of information you google,in the end of the day you would need a trained electrician to do it properly. If not then it would be a cowboys job. If someone wants to make this kind of decision regarding their own health then that's their own cowboys decision.

The doctor looking in the book is not always looking up the drug, he is looking at the dose according to the wieght and the kidney state of the patient and other possible factors including age, sex, etc. :D

Are you really a doctor, DOCTOR? I've been reading this thread for awhile with interest. Am really glad to see people are checking things out for themselves.

Although, I think I have read through the entire thread, I don't think it's been mentioned. I believe the main unanswered question about vaccines is the injection of foreign animal proteins into the bloodstream. It is seemingly well known that when foreign proteins are injected into humans the foreign proteins combine with the host cell proteins creating what is called an antigenic complex. Thus the immune system attacks itself - auto immune response. Chronic autoimmune diseases have hit the roof. Every doctor tells you autoimmune diseases are mysterious and cause unknown so... So, my question is besides the aluminum, formeldhyde and various other additives in the vaccine combined with the antigenic complex what really are we doing to our bodies?

Let us not forget one of the biggest medical blunders in history have to do with vaccines. The polio vaccine of the 1950's-60's contained a simian monkey virus known as SV-40 - which causes cancer. This was given to millions of people in North America and Europe.

People might be living longer, however, people are sicker and there is more chronic illness. I would have to disagree about with your statement doctor that people who are vaccinated do not develop the disease they've been vaccinated for. Where did you get this outlandish idea?

DOCTOR
28-Sep-09, 22:05
I would have to disagree about with your statement doctor that people who are vaccinated do not develop the disease they've been vaccinated for. Where did you get this outlandish idea?

Sorry it seems you are reading into the words. I meant vaccinated people are more protected from developing the disease as unvaccinated. :)

Stavro
28-Sep-09, 22:06
I have already made my views clear on this from a professional point of view.


Are you a GP? If so, I would be very interested to hear your answer to toodiemac's questions:
"Just out of interest, would a doctor go against Department of Health advice and guidelines to recommend patients don't have a particular vaccine, and maybe tell the patient he would not have it himself? If he did this and the patient went on to develop the disease could they then sue the doctor or something? I know a lot of doctors don't want their own children to have the MMR for example, and I'm thinking of the swine flu vaccine which seems to be on it's way, and which a large percentage of doctors have said they would not have because it has not been tested enough.

How much honesty are doctors allowed and to what extent do they have to 'toe the line' as it were?"


To say that there is "absolutely no comparison between US and British health systems" is not really correct within the scope of the current discussion.

Both deal with human beings; both have policies dictated by government-salaried "experts"; both use the same vaccine production companies; both have conflicts of interests with some of those alleged "experts" being paid by both the government and the vaccine manufacturer; and so on.

Your comment was really more to do with unrelated issues and, as such, is a little surprising from someone who claims to understand these issues so well.

roadbowler
28-Sep-09, 22:09
Sorry it seems you are reading into the words. I meant vaccinated people are more protected from developing the disease as unvaccinated. :)

I hope you wouldn't tell that to the Swedes or Americans about whooping cough.

roadbowler
28-Sep-09, 22:20
We would still have smallpox without vaccinations and people would still die from it.

Smallpox was on it's way out by the time people were being vaccinated for it.

Leanne
28-Sep-09, 22:20
So, it's not really a case that the doctor is always right, you could, and do, get two experts in a particular field with vastly opposing views. Which one is right?

The one who kills less people...

But seriously - that is what NICE and the WHO are for. They are a panel of experts who collate all the evidence, good and bad, and reach a conclusion based on that evidence. Money is a big issue with the NHS (as we all know) so if NICE introduce something nationwide, at consdierable cost, they must prove they have a good reason.

It isn't about who is right and who is wrong, its about concensus.

Stavro
28-Sep-09, 22:22
I hope you wouldn't tell that to the Swedes or Americans about whooping cough.


Since you have mentioned whooping cough, that was then called by the alternative name of "pertussis" after large numbers of caring parents stopped having their children injected with the vaccine.

Same with MMR - the "R" being rubella, which was at the time better known as German measles.

Of course, the medical fraternity will state that these alternatives were genuine medical terms and not invented to mislead, but the fact remains that there was some element of disguise brought about by the change of popular name at the time.

It is also worrying that GPs are to be paid for administering vaccine shots such as H1N1. Why pay them twice over? What is the point of that?

toodiemac
28-Sep-09, 22:23
The doctors dont give the government guidelines to the patients, they give their true and honest oppinion.

There are times when Doctors differ on their opinion in treating different patients with different treatments. It is up to the patient to take advice of the doctor they have more trust in. In the end of the day it could be a slightly dis-sadvantaged opinion. The Doctors are not Gods but slightly more knowledgeable than their patients due to their intense training.

I am not saying that Doctors advise is always to be taken. In my oppinion a Doctor is much more knowledgeable, well informed than his/her patient on medical matters he/ she gives their proffesional advice to their patient.

If Im not giving MMR to my kids then I will tell my patients that I have not done so but its a Government policy to give.



A QUestion:

A fighter Pilot is trained to fly a jet plane. If someone is playing at flying the jets on video games and practising with virtual controls googling lots of information and becomes an expert. Would they be able to fly the real Jet as good as a fully trained fighter Pilot ? :)

Likewise trained doctors are in a much better position to give thier independent and honest oppinion to their patients. :)

I'm not having a go at doctors, not by any means. I respect the great deal of training they do, the ongoing training they must do, and the very difficult job they do. I'm not saying that somebody who does their own 'research' on a vaccine is qualified to be a doctor, just as somebody googling could not be qualified to be a fighter pilot.

Most people who go to discuss vaccines with their doctor will not keep going to different doctors to get their individual opinions. And some doctors can be hostile, and many doctors would not dare to give a personal opinion against what the department of health recommends.

You, however, have said you do give a personal opinion even if it does not tie in with government advice, which I think is great - I wish you were my doctor. You talk about the trust between a doc and the patient, but often there is none to be honest. I can't tell you how many people over the years I have heard saying "I have no faith in doctors". That's a fact - I'm certainly not saying it's my opinion by the way.

So, would you give the cervical cancer vaccine to your own child? Do you have any concerns about the suitability of the MMR for some (perhaps a small minority) of children - did you or would you give it to your own without any concerns? Do you think that the childhood vaccination schedule starts far too early in this country, given there has been some recent evidence which suggests that holding off the first set of immunisations until the child is older could drastically cut rates of asthma? And lastly, do you think there could come a point (or has come a point) when you would say children are just getting far too many vaccines, or should they just keep on adding to the schedule as and when new vaccines become available?

(I know this is going a bit off-topic, and I apologise, but I am genuinely interested to hear your personal opinion) :)

Leanne
28-Sep-09, 22:28
It is also worrying that GPs are to be paid for administering vaccine shots such as H1N1. Why pay them twice over? What is the point of that?

I didn't know about that - where did you find that information (that could make interesting reading ;) )

roadbowler
28-Sep-09, 22:31
Since you have mentioned whooping cough, that was then called by the alternative name of "pertussis" after large numbers of caring parents stopped having their children injected with the vaccine.

Same with MMR - the "R" being rubella, which was at the time better known as German measles.

Of course, the medical fraternity will state that these alternatives were genuine medical terms and not invented to mislead, but the fact remains that there was some element of disguise brought about by the change of popular name at the time.


Indeed. It is also true that the diagnostic criteria of Polio were changed. Some forms of polio are now called aseptic or viral meningitis.

Stavro
28-Sep-09, 22:32
I didn't know about that - where did you find that information (that could make interesting reading ;) )


http://www.healthcarerepublic.com/news/938316/Practices-paid-525-per-swine-flu-jab/

And after you have read it, you can start answering the questions that were asked of you. :D

Stavro
28-Sep-09, 22:33
Indeed. It is also true that the diagnostic criteria of Polio were changed. Some forms of polio are now called aseptic or viral meningitis.


Wow. I didn't know that. Thank you.

Leanne
28-Sep-09, 22:38
http://www.healthcarerepublic.com/news/938316/Practices-paid-525-per-swine-flu-jab/

And after you have read it, you can start answering the questions that were asked of you. :D

Hmmm not really a site I would class as good information. Google is all well and good but as we have already discussed there is a lot of bad (and even false) data out there. As I have already been stung by by accidentally misquoting a WHO report ;)

Yes, I got upside down but at least the data was from a reputible site and was also proven to be reproducible.

Edit - it says the money is to pay for extra staff etc etc etc...

toodiemac
28-Sep-09, 22:39
Are you really a doctor, DOCTOR? I've been reading this thread for awhile with interest. Am really glad to see people are checking things out for themselves.

Although, I think I have read through the entire thread, I don't think it's been mentioned. I believe the main unanswered question about vaccines is the injection of foreign animal proteins into the bloodstream. It is seemingly well known that when foreign proteins are injected into humans the foreign proteins combine with the host cell proteins creating what is called an antigenic complex. Thus the immune system attacks itself - auto immune response. Chronic autoimmune diseases have hit the roof. Every doctor tells you autoimmune diseases are mysterious and cause unknown so... So, my question is besides the aluminum, formeldhyde and various other additives in the vaccine combined with the antigenic complex what really are we doing to our bodies?

Let us not forget one of the biggest medical blunders in history have to do with vaccines. The polio vaccine of the 1950's-60's contained a simian monkey virus known as SV-40 - which causes cancer. This was given to millions of people in North America and Europe.

People might be living longer, however, people are sicker and there is more chronic illness. I would have to disagree about with your statement doctor that people who are vaccinated do not develop the disease they've been vaccinated for. Where did you get this outlandish idea?

You are right in saying that the ingredients in vaccines are toxins, and though they are called adjuvants when used in the vaccine they are still a toxins at the end of the day.

If you were to look up the potential side effects of some of these ingredients they would of course include auto-immune disorders and cancers. These illnesses are going sky high in developed societies. Why? I'm not saying it's definitely down to vaccines, but why on earth have there been no long term studies into this? Why have there been no (large scale) studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children - surely this would be pure common sense. The studies, of course, would take mega funding and this would most probably have to come from the vaccine companies themselves. Maybe there lies the answer.

There have been some small studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children, small because of lack of funding, and guess which group has more asthma, diabetes, autism spectrum disorders etc..... BUT, as I said these are small studies and therefore may not be all that reliable. I wouldn't make a decision based on them to be honest, but I would like to see the studies done on a large scale. I doubt that's ever going to happen though.

toodiemac
28-Sep-09, 22:42
I didn't know about that - where did you find that information (that could make interesting reading ;) )

Did you know that GP's are paid for administering the baby vaccinations as well? A large sum if they meet a certain qutoa, and less if they don't.

BINBOB
28-Sep-09, 22:42
14 year old girl has DIED...very shortly after receiving her 1st jab at school,in COVENTRY!!
very worrying..............and so sad.:(

toodiemac
28-Sep-09, 22:43
Sorry, should have said quota - too hasty with the submit button.

Leanne
28-Sep-09, 22:46
Did you know that GP's are paid for administering the baby vaccinations as well? A large sum if they meet a certain qutoa, and less if they don't.

You get that from the same site as Stavos?

toodiemac
28-Sep-09, 22:47
14 year old girl has DIED...very shortly after receiving her 1st jab at school,in COVENTRY!!
very worrying..............and so sad.:(

I'm sure a link earlier showed that around 50 girls have now died very shorty after receiving the cervical cancer vaccine in the states. Not scaremongering, just quoting what seems to be the facts. I'm sure any parent deciding on this vaccine would want all the information possible in order to make a decision.

roadbowler
28-Sep-09, 22:47
You are right in saying that the ingredients in vaccines are toxins, and though they are called adjuvants when used in the vaccine they are still a toxins at the end of the day.

If you were to look up the potential side effects of some of these ingredients they would of course include auto-immune disorders and cancers. These illnesses are going sky high in developed societies. Why? I'm not saying it's definitely down to vaccines, but why on earth have there been no long term studies into this? Why have there been no (large scale) studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children - surely this would be pure common sense. The studies, of course, would take mega funding and this would most probably have to come from the vaccine companies themselves. Maybe there lies the answer.

There have been some small studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children, small because of lack of funding, and guess which group has more asthma, diabetes, autism spectrum disorders etc..... BUT, as I said these are small studies and therefore may not be all that reliable. I wouldn't make a decision based on them to be honest, but I would like to see the studies done on a large scale. I doubt that's ever going to happen though.

aye, they can call them what they want but, there is NO safe amount of aluminium or formeldehyde that can be injected into the body. No getting around it in my view. Same goes for foreign animal proteins.. yikes.

I absolutely agree with the rest of your post too!:)

DOCTOR
28-Sep-09, 22:48
I'm not having a go at doctors, not by any means. I respect the great deal of training they do, the ongoing training they must do, and the very difficult job they do. I'm not saying that somebody who does their own 'research' on a vaccine is qualified to be a doctor, just as somebody googling could not be qualified to be a fighter pilot.

Most people who go to discuss vaccines with their doctor will not keep going to different doctors to get their individual opinions. And some doctors can be hostile, and many doctors would not dare to give a personal opinion against what the department of health recommends.

You, however, have said you do give a personal opinion even if it does not tie in with government advice, which I think is great - I wish you were my doctor. You talk about the trust between a doc and the patient, but often there is none to be honest. I can't tell you how many people over the years I have heard saying "I have no faith in doctors". That's a fact - I'm certainly not saying it's my opinion by the way.

So, would you give the cervical cancer vaccine to your own child? Do you have any concerns about the suitability of the MMR for some (perhaps a small minority) of children - did you or would you give it to your own without any concerns? Do you think that the childhood vaccination schedule starts far too early in this country, given there has been some recent evidence which suggests that holding off the first set of immunisations until the child is older could drastically cut rates of asthma? And lastly, do you think there could come a point (or has come a point) when you would say children are just getting far too many vaccines, or should they just keep on adding to the schedule as and when new vaccines become available?

(I know this is going a bit off-topic, and I apologise, but I am genuinely interested to hear your personal opinion) :)

My oldest has been fully vaccinated for HPV and second oldest received her first jag today.:D


I do have concerns for a small minority that said all my children are vaccinated for MMR.They are all healthy children. I delayed MMR for my youngest until she was older than required due to the fact that she was sick for the first year of her life. I discussed with our GP our reasons for this and he agreed.

Personally I think the timing of the starting of vaccination is correct . The vaccination schedule for each country is different. The developing countries have a different schedule to developed countries.

Your last question is difficult to answer as we are in an ever changing world of ever changing diseases.There is currently no vaccine for HIV. In future if HIV vaccine is developed and offered then its up to the people to accept it or not.

The volume of vaccinations given now are helping to keep diseases of the past at bay as long as uptake is sustained. :)

toodiemac
28-Sep-09, 22:50
You get that from the same site as Stavos?

It's common knowledge Leannne - did you know they also get paid for administering the seasonal flu vaccine?

roadbowler
28-Sep-09, 22:50
You get that from the same site as Stavos?

Afraid to say its a fact. Especially for MMR.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1413425/Children-without-MMR-jab-struck-off-GPs-list.html

roadbowler
28-Sep-09, 22:54
Your last question is difficult to answer as we are in an ever changing world of ever changing diseases.There is currently no vaccine for HIV. In future if HIV vaccine is developed and offered then its up to the people to accept it or not.


How can there be a vaccine for HIV? Vaccines are designed to help the body produce antibodies therefore in theory preventing you from getting the disease. If you are HIV positive it means you already have the antibodies?!?

nobody really wants HIV antibodies do they?

BINBOB
28-Sep-09, 22:59
It's common knowledge Leannne - did you know they also get paid for administering the seasonal flu vaccine?

And many other things too............and now we are going to be given much cheaper generic drugs too very soon............and some are not as good as the ones we already get!![disgust]

toodiemac
28-Sep-09, 23:13
My oldest has been fully vaccinated for HPV and second oldest received her first jag today.:D


I do have concerns for a small minority that said all my children are vaccinated for MMR.They are all healthy children. I delayed MMR for my youngest until she was older than required due to the fact that she was sick for the first year of her life. I discussed with our GP our reasons for this and he agreed.

Personally I think the timing of the starting of vaccination is correct . The vaccination schedule for each country is different. The developing countries have a different schedule to developed countries.

Your last question is difficult to answer as we are in an ever changing world of ever changing diseases.There is currently no vaccine for HIV. In future if HIV vaccine is developed and offered then its up to the people to accept it or not.

The volume of vaccinations given now are helping to keep diseases of the past at bay as long as uptake is sustained. :)

Thanks for being so honest, I respect that. When you say you have concerns with the MMR for a small minority of children, would I be correct in saying that there is no way (at present) of telling which children may react badly to it? Are your concerns related to autism and bowel disease? I know that there has been at least one ruling in the US accepting that a child HAS developed autism triggered by vaccinations, and yet all we seem to hear in the UK is that there is no link.

When you delayed vaccinating your child, was it because you felt her immune system may not be quite strong enough to take it, as she had been ill? In that case do you think premature babies should be on a slightly different schedule.

And as for the current advice to start vaccinating all children at 8 weeks old, are you familiar with the research showing that delaying these vaccines by at least two months drastically cuts the risk of developing asthma? Does this conclusion still stand do you know? And if so, why are we still vaccinating at 8 weeks?

Can you accept the 'theory' that through vaccination we may, just may, have replaced acute childhood diseases with chronic long term diseases? I ask because I often wonder about this.

As for the HPV, do you think that since it has only been tested for a small number of years (is it 6?) there is a chance that long term side effects could yet be thrown up? Obviously you have answered that by allowing your own children to be vaccinated I suppose, but are you just hoping it will be okay - you can't really know it will be okay long term can you, nobody knows?

toodiemac
28-Sep-09, 23:27
aye, they can call them what they want but, there is NO safe amount of aluminium or formeldehyde that can be injected into the body. No getting around it in my view. Same goes for foreign animal proteins.. yikes.

I absolutely agree with the rest of your post too!:)

You have hit the nail on the head - there is absolutely no safe level of aluminium or formaldehyde that can be injected into the body, because they have NEVER tested for it. And yet, we are told it is perfectly safe to inject into even a tiny 8 week old baby. Now where is the logic in that? We know these are powerful neurotoxins, we inject them, and yet we don't even know if there is a safe level.

squidge
28-Sep-09, 23:36
So toodiemac you are saying that the diptheria whooping cough tetanus and polio vaccines are not safe?

That the meningitis vaccine isnt safe

That the MMR vaccine isnt safe

That ANY vaccine is unsafe?

What about other medical procedures? Are any of them safe? What would you suggest for a parent faced with making the choice whether to have an operation for their child? Or someone faced with a choice whether to have a C section? Should we avoid EVERY medical procedure because its a possibility that there might be a problem? Antibiotics? other medication? We MIGHT have a side effect to that too? should we refuse that? Should we only accept a risk where it is life threatening or is no amount of risk realistic? I know we are talking about risk with vaccines but there is risk with every medical procedure - where do YOU draw the line?

toodiemac
28-Sep-09, 23:47
So toodiemac you are saying that the diptheria whooping cough tetanus and polio vaccines are not safe?

That the meningitis vaccine isnt safe

That the MMR vaccine isnt safe

That ANY vaccine is unsafe?

What about other medical procedures? Are any of them safe? What would you suggest for a parent faced with making the choice whether to have an operation for their child? Or someone faced with a choice whether to have a C section? Should we avoid EVERY medical procedure because its a possibility that there might be a problem? Antibiotics? other medication? We MIGHT have a side effect to that too? should we refuse that? Should we only accept a risk where it is life threatening or is no amount of risk realistic? I know we are talking about risk with vaccines but there is risk with every medical procedure - where do YOU draw the line?

No, I am absolutely not saying that. I am simply saying that I think if we are to inject our children with known neurotoxins, then there should have been testing done on to determine a safe level of said neurotoxins. There has not been testing to determine a safe level. Nor has there been a safe level determined for adults by the way.

Therefore .............................. I don't see why you are relating that to tested medical procedures and tested medications. Am I missing something?

Stavro
29-Sep-09, 00:03
What would you suggest for a parent faced with making the choice whether to have an operation for their child? Or someone faced with a choice whether to have a C section? Should we avoid EVERY medical procedure because its a possibility that there might be a problem? Antibiotics? other medication? We MIGHT have a side effect to that too? should we refuse that? Should we only accept a risk where it is life threatening or is no amount of risk realistic? I know we are talking about risk with vaccines but there is risk with every medical procedure - where do YOU draw the line?


You may as well ask if we should go outside for fear of being run over by a bus. These points have no relevance to the vaccines issue that I thought we were discussing.

Margaret M.
29-Sep-09, 16:48
You are welcome to your theories, but if just one person reads this thread, and instead of consulting with their doctor and family decide not to vaccinate their child and that child grows into an adult with cancer then that would be a tragedy

Becoming disabled or dying after getting the vaccine is also a tragedy. The concerns expressed in this thread are not theories – many doctors echo these concerns including the doctor who had a lead role during the research and testing of the vaccines. The cervical cancer vaccine is a huge money maker and the marketing tries to convince everyone that the only way to prevent cervical cancer is to get this vaccination and get it now. A condom and a regular pap smear are great alternatives and neither come with death as a possible side effect. Let’s not forget that a regular pap smear is still required even if vaccinated since one will not be protected against all types of cervical cancer.



If you think that any health organization is going to spend a fortune on a preventative measure whose benefits are a scam then you are a conspiracy theorist.

At one time that would have been good logic but the world has changed. It has been established that many of the members on the Committee in the UK were compensated by the vaccine manufacturer. It is no secret that pharmaceutical companies are way too powerful and can get just about anything they desire. Drug companies don’t give a hoot about my health or yours, they care deeply about their bottom line on the balance sheet. I am very familiar with the tactics used by lobbyists to accomplish their goals. Money talks and many of those in decision making positions are all too eager to listen – not theory, absolute fact!

From The Daily Mail on Cervarix: There has been criticism that drug companies funded charities and doctors to lobby the Government in the battle to ensure the programme went ahead.