13 yo daughter and deciding on the hpv vaccine.

Home Forum Chat Forum 13 yo daughter and deciding on the hpv vaccine.

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 158 total)
  • 13 yo daughter and deciding on the hpv vaccine.
  • Premier Icon scaredypants
    Subscriber

    which did you go for Cougar ?

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    It will also be interesting to see if there are other unintended consequences, such as a rise in other STDs because of reduced condom use among vaccinated girls and their partners.

    Sorry, but this is the second time this has been hinted at here, and it’s… weird.

    a) “we’d better use a condom, it slightly reduces the risk of cervical cancer,” said no teenage boy in the history of the world, ever. There’s a slightly more forefront side effect of unprotected sex, which takes about nine months to appear.

    b) what’s the argument here, that actually we should be exposing teenagers to as much risk as possible in order to discourage them from having sex?

    tomlevell
    Member

    Not read much of this but spotted the opportunity to post this.

    6079smithw – Member

    Vaccines are TERRIBLE. Just awful.
    And since when has everyone else doing something make anything right? If everyone was jumping off a cliff etc.

    bencooper
    Member

    I think the argument is that, if no-one tells kids about sex, they’ll never work it out for themselves.

    Premier Icon wwaswas
    Subscriber

    we should be exposing teenagers to as much risk as possible in order to discourage them from having sex?

    this appears to be the approach being adopted by a number of US states.

    All they seem to be achieving is an explosion in teen pregnancy and a huge rise in STD’s.

    Why look at the evidence when the conservative right can feel smug as they go to bed at night?

    Premier Icon martinhutch
    Subscriber

    Sorry, but this is the second time this has been hinted at here, and it’s… weird.
    a) “we’d better use a condom, it slightly reduces the risk of cervical cancer,” said no teenage boy in the history of the world, ever. There’s a slightly more forefront side effect of unprotected sex, which takes about nine months to appear.

    Not at all weird, sometimes the thought processes of teenagers are slightly odd though. Assuming they all make rational, informed decisions is an odder perspective though.

    A fair few teenage girls use oral contraception. Many of these will also insist on condom use because they are aware of STDs. Some won’t, because they are unaware of STD risk generally, choose to dismiss it, or give in to pressure from a partner who doesn’t want to use one.

    What we don’t quite know is whether a vaccine against one particular type of STD will make it more likely that a small subset of teenagers more likely to dismiss STD risk or give into pressure.

    There have been studies which show that knowledge about HPV/STDs generally/condom use is pretty flawed among a large group of teenagers:

    example: http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/78437130/teenagers-knowledge-about-hpv-infection-hpv-vaccination-first-year-public-vaccination-programme

    I recall another which at least hinted that some girls mistakenly believed that HPV vaccination would protect them against all STDs and would be less likely to insist on condom use as a result. Can’t find the link to that one.

    It’s not about choosing to expose your child to more risk to encourage abstinence – that’s just loony. It’s about making sure over time that a vaccination programme which aims to reduce long term risk of cervical cancer does not end up with the unintended consequence of increasing the risk of genital herpes.

    I’d most likely opt to give my daughter the jab, FWIW. But I’d expect researchers to be vigilant for not only immediate side-effects, but also indirect consequences.

    Premier Icon wwaswas
    Subscriber

    martinhutch – your argument seems to support a drive for more education about the purpose of HPV vaccine, not its removal?

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    It’s not about choosing to expose your child to more risk to encourage abstinence – that’s just loony. It’s about making sure over time that a vaccination programme which aims to reduce long term risk of cervical cancer does not end up with the unintended consequence of increasing the risk of genital herpes.

    Which is mostly why the whole thing needs talked about and much better education associated with it. Ignorance will still be one of the biggest causes of infections.

    Premier Icon martinhutch
    Subscriber

    martinhutch – your argument seems to support a drive for more education about the purpose of HPV vaccine, not its removal?

    My argument certainly isn’t for its removal, unless you’ve misread it entirely. Education would certainly be a good thing, although history shows the delivery and efficacy of teenage sexual health education programmes is also a wee bit patchy.

    Vaccination science just isn’t black and white. I broadly support HPV vaccination in girls, from what I’ve seen of the science. I’d support it more if it could be introduced for boys, for herd immunity reasons.

    Doesn’t mean that researchers should not be interested in some of these issues though.

    rockhopper70
    Member

    I’ve only just got that youtube video of the truther girls posted on page 1 to work. That deals with MMR. It kind of suggests some sort of conspiracy and sweeping under the carpet that MMR IS linked to autism.
    Bt surely, some medical professionals (Andrew Wakefield) would be shouting this from the rooftops either for the good of the population or to make a name for themselves in medical circles (Andrew Wakefield) or to say “I told you so”.
    How much credibilty can you give to a blog site?

    6079smithw
    Member

    rockhopper70 – Member

    I’ve only just got that youtube video of the truther girls posted on page 1 to work. That deals with MMR. It kind of suggests some sort of conspiracy and sweeping under the carpet that MMR IS linked to autism.
    Bt surely, some medical professionals (Andrew Wakefield) would be shouting this from the rooftops either for the good of the population or to make a name for themselves in medical circles (Andrew Wakefield) or to say “I told you so”.
    How much credibilty can you give to a blog site?People do try and warn others, however when you have a controlled media it’s difficult to get this message across. This is why alternative media including blogs like you say are such a great thing in this day and age. E.g. when the Jimmy Savile scandal ‘broke’ in the press – that was written about in the alternative media for years.

    From http://www.examiner.com/article/polish-study-vaccines-carry-the-potential-to-do-tremendous-harm

    A new scientific review from Poland addresses vaccines in terms of adverse events, immune system effects and neurological symptoms following vaccination. The following information was gathered form a Gaia Health article dated May 12.

    The authors of the said review state that:

    “…postvaccinal complications among children can be observed in sporadic cases and that they are disproportionate to the benefits of vaccination in the elimination of dangerous diseases in childhood.”

    They point out several adverse effects that occur shortly after vaccination including local reactions and postvaccinal adverse events of the central nervous system which include:

    encephalopathy
    febrile convulsions
    non-febrile convulsions
    paralytic poliomyelitis caused by vaccine virus
    encephalitis
    meningitis
    Guillain-Barré syndrome

    Other adverse events following immunization were also listed. The authors go on to state: “…it is not reasonable to assume that manipulation of the immune system through an increasing number of vaccinations during critical periods of brain development will not result in adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes.”

    How much credibility can you give to authorities who said thalidimide and asbestos were ok?

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Subscriber

    -a lot more than I give some nutter who writes a blog on the interwebz

    fortunately a quick search of pubmed will give you a reasoned, scientific exploration of facts. im not sure ‘Gaia Health’ counts as a legitimate soruce

    thalidomide is perfectly safe*, its used as a cancer therapy

    * as long as youre not an unborn foetus- not enough animal testing was done on that one

    still It must be hard eschewing all medicines because you dont trust the authorities, I take it you would refuse any and all treatments for illnesses, from headaches to heart attacks and cancer?

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    People do try and warn others, however when you have a controlled media it’s difficult to get this message across.

    In fairness the MMR scare (and it is a scare) was the result of bad science, good science has proved that the study was flawed, the results were flawed and the issues were likely created by the mass panic and hysteria caused. The downside now is outbreaks of disease that people would have been protected from. It’s important to listen to the good science, check things and publish. To dismiss one side because “they would say that wouldn’t they” is not the best approach. Take things one at a time don’t make a judgement on everything without hearing the evidence case by case.
    Anyway which of these would you like?

    Vaccine preventable diseases currently include:
    Diseases for which vaccinations form part of the NHMRC Standard Vaccination Schedule
    diphtheria
    tetanus
    pertussis (whooping cough)
    poliomyelitis (polio)
    measles
    mumps
    rubella
    haemophilus influenzae type b infections
    hepatitis B
    influenza
    pneumococcal infections

    How much credibility can you give to authorities who said thalidimide and asbestos were ok?

    Thalidamide is a strange example, the drug itself in one form works perfectly, it’s Chiral opposite causes the problems. It is currently being tested and proving effective in some diseases http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/thalidomide/HQ01507 you just have to get the manufacturing/usage right.
    It was the US FDA that got to the bottom of the issues and in fact banned it’s use in the USA leading to the exposure of the problems world wide.

    tazzymtb
    Member

    Abestos isn’t a medicine though is it? Also with occupational diseases they take a long time to manifest, for example 20-40 years for asbestosis or mesothelioma. Now if we also take into account that many gp paractices historically didn’t initially look at occupational exposure to substances hazardous to health and the fact that historically life expectancy was shorter, the epidemiology for long them occupational illness is much harder to identify. So it’s not that the “man” kept it quiet as a conspiracy, more a case that to identify occupational diseases, cancers etc needs a multidisciplinary approach from doctors, health and safety specialists, and bodies like the hsl and cdc.

    heavyman
    Member

    When my Daughter was old enough to get the HPV we read about it online, about the side-effects etc, she was due to go in on the Wednesday and one of the girls who had been in before her had fainted, she still went and had the first jab but she was quite ill after for a while (and was sent home that day.

    On reading further we found that there were a lot of young girls had been adversely affected after the first jab and went for the 2nd and ended up worse. We decided (incl Daughter) not to get the 2nd jab, we may live to regret it but I doubt it.

    heavyman
    Member

    P.S.
    Don’t read the NHS info about it read independent reports.

    The New Scientist will give you a more unbiased view than health companies who benefit from mass drug use.

    Premier Icon andyfla
    Subscriber

    On reading further we found that there were a lot of young girls had been adversely affected

    Where was this data found ? what were the numbers involved ? Blogs ? Mumsnet ? This is no diff from the mmr scare, you are taking anecdotal evidence and extrapolating it to the an illogical conclusion

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    Living to regret it would seem an unlikely outcome.

    Premier Icon andyfla
    Subscriber

    The New Scientist will give you a more unbiased view than health companies who benefit from mass drug use.

    I love the big scary drug companies are all out to make money and turn us all into zombies approach

    Good article – wouldn’t stop me immunizing though (we have give MMR to both our kids although we have an autistic nephew whose mother is convinced got it from the mmr )

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    The NHS doesn’t benefit from doing this btw, it costs it money. As does dealing with autistic kids, incidentally.

    Premier Icon Drac
    Subscriber

    Not strictly true Molgrips one of the reasons for vaccines is prevention is cheaper than cure.

    heavyman
    Member

    “Where was this data found ? what were the numbers involved ? Blogs ? Mumsnet ? This is no diff from the mmr scare, you are taking anecdotal evidence and extrapolating it to the an illogical conclusion “

    You are quite right it was not evidence but enough to scare us nonetheless, I did quick search and found some REAL scary stuff, it could all be false – or not! Actually heard a lot 1st hand from other schools in the area, probably heard more as I work in schools.

    Cougar – I meant my wife and I as parents making the decision may live to regret it 🙂

    Still very happy with the decision to pull her out, I’ll let you know I the next 20 – 30 years if it was correct decision – if I live that long.

    Premier Icon andyfla
    Subscriber

    one of the reasons for vaccines is prevention is cheaper than cure.

    The other being people don’t die ……

    Premier Icon Drac
    Subscriber

    The other being people don’t die ..

    Do you think.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    You are quite right it was not evidence but enough to scare us nonetheless, I did quick search and found some REAL scary stuff, it could all be false – or not!

    Is cervical cancer not scary then?

    heavyman
    Member

    “The NHS doesn’t benefit from doing this btw, it costs it money. As does dealing with autistic kids, incidentally. “

    Sorry should have worded that better, the peoples who advocate the use of vaccines/drugs etc to the NHS make a LOT of money. Conspiracies abound:- Doctors prescribing wrong medicines to people just because they have to shift (targets) so much a month, Doctors over-prescribing meds for same reason.

    Premier Icon andyfla
    Subscriber

    Doctors prescribing wrong medicines to people just because they have to shift (targets) so much a month, Doctors over-prescribing meds for same reason.

    Never heard of this in the UK, (married to a doctor, the in-laws are doctors, my brother in law is a doctor and I speak to lots of very dull doctors at parties).

    Although GP’s have immunisation targets … I wonder why ?

    heavyman
    Member

    “You are quite right it was not evidence but enough to scare us nonetheless, I did quick search and found some REAL scary stuff, it could all be false – or not!

    Is cervical cancer not scary then? “

    And that’s emotional blackmail exactly why people get the vaccine, we were worried about the reports of paralysis although thought to be temporary it wasn’t for some. All you need to do is type Paralysis caused by HPV vaccine into Google.

    Also as I stated it was our choice, I didn’t want to scaremonger that’s why original post was lacking in detail,

    bencooper
    Member

    Sorry should have worded that better, the peoples who advocate the use of vaccines/drugs etc to the NHS make a LOT of money.

    What do you think makes the drug company more money – a dose of a vaccine, or a course of anti-cancer drugs?

    The conspiracy theorists can’t have it both ways – either the NHS wants to save money, or the drug companies want to make more money. Those two aims are mutually exclusive.

    heavyman
    Member

    “and I speak to lots of very dull doctors at parties).”
    Andy your credibility has gone out the window, there can’t be any dull Doctors 🙂

    I did say conspiracies abound…………

    Premier Icon cinnamon_girl
    Subscriber

    People should make an ‘informed decision’ rather than letting the NHS convince you.

    For example, I am supposed to have regular mammograms but I don’t want them so don’t have them.

    6079smithw
    Member

    kimbers – Member
    still It must be hard eschewing all medicines because you dont trust the authorities

    No, any perfectly rational man or woman would not deliberately ingest or insert toxins into their body.

    It would require a HAZMAT team to clean up the mess if the contents of a vaccine fell on a floor. Yet if you were ever asked if you wanted mercury injected into your bloodstream the answer should be a resounding no. When it’s in a vaccine though somehow that’s ok. Cognitive dissonance much?

    kimbers – Member
    I take it you would refuse any and all treatments for illnesses, from headaches to heart attacks and cancer?

    I would happily take natural treatments.

    Premier Icon cinnamon_girl
    Subscriber

    Ooooooh, interesting stuff from 6079smithw. 🙂

    bencooper
    Member

    People should make an ‘informed decision’ rather than letting the NHS convince you.

    For example, I am supposed to have regular mammograms but I don’t want them so don’t have them.

    I think you misunderstand what “informed” means 😉

    bencooper
    Member

    if you wanted mercury injected into your bloodstream the answer should be a resounding no. When it’s in a vaccine though somehow that’s ok

    Yeah, and don’t put salt on your food – it’s got chlorine in it. Chlorine is poisonous – chlorine gas was used in the trenches, you know. Plus there’s also sodium in salt – every tried adding sodium to water? It explodes! What kind of idiot would eat that?

    6079smithw
    Member

    mikewsmith – Member

    Anyway which of these would you like?That there is bad science. Vaccines never eradicated any illness!
    http://vactruth.com/2010/07/23/fact-vaccines-have-never-eradicated-anything-ever/

    To the OP this would be a useful read http://www.jabs.org.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4488&whichpage=1

    Premier Icon Drac
    Subscriber

    No, any perfectly rational man or woman would not deliberately ingest or insert toxins into their body.

    Definition of a toxin is anything that doesn’t occur naturally in the body. Caffeine for example.

    theflatboy
    Member

    I’ve finally got round to reading Bad Science, and just finished it yesterday. This thread is perfectly timed, well played everyone – I’m enjoying some of the responses much more than I would have a couple of weeks ago. 🙂

    Premier Icon andyfla
    Subscriber

    When it’s in a vaccine though somehow that’s ok.

    Yup vaccines are pure mercury – makes your blood boil doesnt it ……
    link here to show how much there is in each one

    bencooper
    Member

    Vaccines never eradicated any illness!

    Too right, that’s why I got smallpox last week. And polio.

    I got better.

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 158 total)

The topic ‘13 yo daughter and deciding on the hpv vaccine.’ is closed to new replies.