Cervical Cancer Injections for Young Girls

[squidge]

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]

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

[DOCTOR]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

... but in presenting it as a "fact" ...

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

[DOCTOR]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?