[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

Did I miss chemtrails???

They'll probably be back, in this very thread.



Sid

They received all of the vaccines. Our girls are 12 and 13 and this was their last round of vaccinations.

They had their MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) as well as many other vaccines. We discussed all of the vaccines with their doctor. I knew it was a lot of vaccines in one shot (forgive the pun!), but I did it with no qualms.

The vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, Polio and other diseases have been around more several decades.

The HPV vaccine (Gardisil) has not. Like it or not, there are many parents who have had young girls experience horrendous complications after getting this vaccine. Are these complications due to the HPV vaccine or were there underlying medical conditions--and the vaccine had no impact? Those are good questions. Questions that have yet to be answered.

The HPV vaccine is too new. We don't know the long-term effects. That is a fact. It is reasonable to take a wait-and-see-approach. Most of the moms who I know---including one OB/GYN and two nurses feel that this is a reasonable attitude as well.

Furthemore, the HPV vaccine (Gardisil) does not protect women from all forms of cervical cancer. Just some. It is not a cure-all as the Polio vaccine is. The possible risks (and current lack of long-term studies) just aren't worth this vaccine that only *partially protects* women from some cancers, but not the majority of cervical cancers strains. Women still have to get PAP smears, even if they get the vaccine. And an annual PAP would catch precancerous and cancerous cells. I'm just not sure that this vaccine is worth it.

As an informed, caring parent--who is definitely not "anti vax" I do not think the long-term health consequences of the HPV vaccine are yet known and furthermore, it is not a big miracle, cure-all vaccine like the Polio vaccine is. The benefits just are not there.

It's just not worth it. Frankly, I am tired of people attempting to group conscientious, intelligent, reasonable moms, such as myself--with these looney, sensational anti-vaccine fools. I have a degree in science writing and I did my due diligence when it came to this issue. Many of my friends in the medical community--and well as my children's pediatrician supported my decisions.

I stand by it and I encourage EVERY FATHER AND MOTHER to do your own due diligence. Do not be bullied by people who name call and insult thoughtful, reasonable parents who care about their kids and choose to say "NO" to the HPV vaccine.

vaccines, including HPV. So did my nieces. No issues with anything

It is a choice, risk verses reward, each one decides their own.

There is always a risk with vaccines, including those that have been around for a while

Pertussis is making a resurgence. Is that because less people are getting the vaccine, the original vaccine is not as effective, or some other reason

Each of us, as mothers and fathers, must make informed decisions that are best for our families.

You are right. There are risks and rewards with any vaccine--or medication.

I did a great deal of reading and I am able to understand the difference between a medical-journal article and information from physicians--as opposed to something I may read on OMG.com.

I support you. I support anyone doing their due diligence and making informed decisions.

I don't like it when some posters try to lump conscientious parents like myself--who made a reasonable, rational decision for their daughters--with the irresponsible people who don't vaccinate at all. I don't appreciate that.

I'd also like to add something. It doesn't help when Merck (the makers of Gardisil) donate a windfall to Texas Governor Rick Perry--who then mandates the Gardisil vaccine in Texas. This smacks of corruption and payola. When you have nefarious, corrupt behavior by Merck (bribing a politician to mandate a vaccine) surrounding your product--it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in your company or your product.

and that the safety or effectiveness of the vaccine is irrelevant?

I mean, if you looked at the evidence and scientific studies done, very few causal links can be found, the Gardasil vaccine has been tested as being safe and effective in what it vaccinates against.

I did my research, over a period of months--(and so did my husband) before making our final decision.

The decision was ultimately based on reports of deaths/injury and complications--while combined with the fact that no long-term effects are known because no long-term studies on Gardisil exist.

The vaccination hasn't been around as long as the vaccines for measels, mumps, Polio, etc.

I feel that more study is needed.

And yes, it didn't help that Merck, the maker of Gardisil, bribed a right-wing Texas governor who then made Gardisil mandatory. That didn't inspire confidence. It was one of the many bits of information that I unearthed when I did my research. Merck's corruption and payola may not have been a determining factor in our decision, but it didn't do anything to tip the scales in their favor, that's for sure!

NOTE: My children are not of an age when we have to decide about Gardasil.

The quote from the poster was this:

"It doesn't help when Merck (the makers of Gardisil) donate a windfall to Texas Governor Rick Perry--who then mandates the Gardisil vaccine in Texas."

interesting issue with Texas, and you are correct, it was way out of line what Perry and Merck did, however, a lot of the right's argument against the vaccine seems to be more focused that it will make their daughters more promiscuous, and not on the actually safety or potential side effects of the vaccine. At least that is my impression

given the fact that pap smears are still necessary because of non-covered strains and that they have already almost eliminated cervical cancer on their own?

Just what are these "serious complications"?

The CDC reports 32 deaths after administration, and 6% serious complications over all. A death sounds like a "serious complication" to me. That means 32 deaths of girls who most likely would have lived for decades longer, even if they happened eventually to get the HPV virus. If they had gotten the virus it could have been detected in a pap screen and any lesions could have been removed before they turned cancerous -- which, again, would have probably been decades in the future.


So, the question remains. How many deaths of healthy girls or young women is acceptable for a vaccine that doesn't cover all strains, to prevent a cancer that can be avoided/treated by having regular pap smears?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19690307

VAERS received 12 424 reports of AEFIs following qHPV distribution, a rate of 53.9 reports per 100,000 doses distributed. A total of 772 reports (6.2% of all reports) described serious AEFIs, including 32 reports of death. The reporting rates per 100,000 qHPV doses distributed were 8.2 for syncope; 7.5 for local site reactions; 6.8 for dizziness; 5.0 for nausea; 4.1 for headache; 3.1 for hypersensitivity reactions; 2.6 for urticaria; 0.2 for venous thromboembolic events, autoimmune disorders, and Guillain-Barré syndrome; 0.1 for anaphylaxis and death; 0.04 for transverse myelitis and pancreatitis; and 0.009 for motor neuron disease. Disproportional reporting of syncope and venous thromboembolic events was noted with data mining methods.

I mean, that amounts to...misrepresenting the facts.

What difference does it make for the purposes of this discussion?

From the link:

In June 2006, the Food and Drug Administration licensed the quadrivalent human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, and 18) recombinant vaccine (qHPV) in the United States for use in females aged 9 to 26 years; the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices then recommended qHPV for routine vaccination of girls aged 11 to 12 years.

by a physician to the government reporting system.

The government isn't saying the deaths are unrelated; that's your claim, based on nothing.

only a few of those cases even have autopsy reports, but its reported, so HPV HAD to have caused it, never mind the fact that you have to have a mechanism that makes sense for there to be a causal link. But I guess you better avoid drinking water, its the leading cause of death in the world today, everyone who drinks it dies, usually within days of their last drink, if not sooner.

When I was young and my son had seizures after the DPT, my doctor didn't even have me come to the office -- even though my baby had never had a seizure before and didn't have a high fever (below 102). (I was young and inexperienced and didn't argue -- just stayed home and waited for him to get better.)

When it came time for another booster, I told my mother how much I was dreading it and that's when I found out that my baby sister had died the day after the same vaccine -- the old DPT -- after developing seizures and encephalitis. And that one of my mother's cousins had also died the day after getting the vaccine, and another had been permanently paralyzed.

My new pediatrician decided to stop the DPT in that child; and a cousin's series was stopped when she had a fever over 105.

Neither of our children was reported to the system by the doctors. Neither was the reaction of the child who had a fever for a solid week after the vaccine -- because that reaction was so unusual, that doctor said it must not be related to the vaccine.

I wonder how often that happens -- a doctor deciding not to report because it couldn't be vaccine related. Just because.

And guess what, there's isn't a causal relationship...

Here's a link to the peer reviewed study, if you are curious.

http://www.rima.org/web/medline_pdf/EncephalopathyAfterVaccination.pdf

Now, having said that, high fevers are not an uncommon reaction, particularly in infants, to ANY vaccination, and something to watch out for, still better than whooping cough.

Nothing is 100% safe. Never has been, never will be.

How many girls and women have been spared cervical cancer, pain and suffering, because of this vaccine?

I'm not arguing that 32 deaths are irrelevant, but the benefits seem to outweigh the harm, especially when weighed against not giving the vaccine at all.

none of which would happen in girls this age. I have a friend who works at a cancer research center and had a hysterectomy after developing early stage cervical cancer herself. For her daughter, she recommended that she not get the vaccine, but get annual pap smears instead.

So you are saying that the deaths of these 32 girls from a vaccine for a cancer that can be prevented by pap smears is acceptable, along with the rest of the 6% of serious complications.

Clearly you aren't a parent of a daughter.

I am the parent of a daughter. And there is no need to be combative and hurl insults. We're just having a conversation.

I'd like to continue unless you'd rather trade insults instead?

Care to readdress my post above and move on? Ball is in your court.

decision for himself or herself, so I'm glad it is not required. Since it isn't casually transmissible, there's no urgent public health need to do so.

My niece on her own decided to get the vaccine (as a college student) and I didn't discourage her. But I didn't encourage my daughter to do so. As it turned out, she married her first serious boyfriend and gets regular pap smears. She is at very low risk for HPV or cervical cancer.

Why the big to-do over this HPV vaccine? Why is it considered so groundbreaking?

And according to the CDC, the "serious" side effects are not death.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/HPV/Index.html#data

nausea, dizziness, and in extreme cases, fainting are the most common complications. Pretty much complications you can get with any injectable vaccination.

but mostly manageable and temporary, a reaction most people have to pretty much all vaccines they get.

All I did was Google "HPV vaccine" "Gardisil" and other keywords such as: "Gardisil complications" "Gardisil controversy"; "What doctors think about Gardisil", etc.

Furthermore, I spoke with a good friend who is a physician and a couple of friends who were nurses.

Believe me. I did my due diligence. This was not a decision I took lightly. I didn't even start out anti Gardisil. I just wanted to find answers. As I mentioned earlier, I have a degree in science writing and I began my research with open-minded curiosity.

There is a link from someone in this thread--detailing young women who have died from very similar complications/symptoms--very soon after receiving the Gardisil shot. As I mentioned before, it is possible that these women had unknown, underlying conditions that were the cause.

The big issue for me--is that Gardisil hasn't been around for that long. We simply do not know the long-term effects. That is fact. Furthermore, the fact that Gardisil doesn't protect women from the majority of cervical cancers--tipped the scales as well.

If Gardisil was a cure for cervical cancer, as the Polio vaccine is a cure for Polio--I may have chose differently. But Gardisil is not a cure for cervical cancer.

plus you have a mistaken belief that the vaccine is marketed as a cure for anything, its a fucking vaccine, learn what the fuck those are before you have an opinion on it!

Even the fucking Polio vaccine doesn't cure polio!

is the double blind study.

The Polio vaccine prevents polio by creating antibodies, it doesn't cure it

...which was one of the reasons that my daughters did not get this vaccine.

That's the problem.

I am very interested in those long-term studies and when those results are produced, I will read them with an open mind. But they don't exist.

And yes, anecdotal evidence has to be weighed very carefully. However, there are several dozen documented deaths of healthy young women. These deaths occurred shortly after they had their HPV vaccine. The doctors of some of these women have said that the HPV vaccine should be factored in as a possible cause of death. There are still many questions remaining. No certainties yet.

That's the problem.

I most certainly understand that vaccines are not a cure per se. I understand that these vaccines provide protection against these diseases, and that they are never 100 percent guaranteed.

The distinction that I was attempting to make, was about the Polio vaccine irradicating Polio. It wiped it off the face of the planet for a while. But the HPV vaccine would not do that for cervical cancer. It doesn't even have to potential to wipe out cervical cancer, as the Polio vaccine has done.

The HPV vaccine does not protect against the majority of cervical cancers--just some of them.

In effect, women must get an annual pap smear anyway--which would detect any pre-cancerous or cancerous cells at that time.

And again, no long-term HPV-vaccine studies exist. The long-term effects are unknown. I wasn't willing to risk those "unknowns" with a vaccine that protects against some (but not the majority) of cervical cancers.

Sorry for the miscommunication. I'm just a mom, trying to do what is best for our daughters!

Polio has one primary cause, Cervical cancer has several, and the HPV vaccine helps reduce the risk of contracting it, since its one of the few cancers that can be contracted through a virus. I don't understand why you wouldn't want to reduce the risk for your daughters?

Do the risks outweigh the risk reduction?

Since no long-term studies on the HPV vaccine exist, because the HPV vaccine hasn't been around long enough--the risks are unknown.

"Unknown" long-term risks--is too risky for me, when it comes to my kids. Especially given the following factors:

--The HPV vaccine does not protect against the majority of cervical cancers.
--An annual pap smear would detect precancerous/cancerous conditions in the early stages.
--A few dozen deaths have occurred in young healthy women who died shortly after receiving the HPV vaccination. There is still no definitive proof that their deaths were not due to the vaccine, and a few of their family doctors have gone on record to say that the HPV vaccine has not yet been ruled out as a contributing factor in their deaths. We just don't know yet.

I look forward to the long-term studies.

So your first point is a lie.

I really don't understand this argument about annual pap smears, they are for testing for more than just cervical cancer, do you think its a cure-all.

Out of the millions of people who have so far had the vaccine, a few dozen have been reported to have died after having it administered, and why the fuck would I listen to the family doctor, when they are not equipped to diagnose why the girl died?

I have a feeling that the vaccine could be in use for over a 100 years and you would still say no "long term" studies have been done yet.

Your point is well taken and you have rationally evaluated the risk to your satisfaction. What more could anyone ask?

There is no "one true" answer here and we all have not just the the freedom, but the obligation to do a risk/benefit analysis, especially where children are involved. I don't see anyone arguing with you drawing their own lines and explaining why they might be better for you or anyone else, just arguing pretty much for the sake of arguing.

many of her points, I would like to see her apologize for misrepresenting her "months of research".

Just this morning I was able to disprove global warming, because damn it's cold here!

That's all the "evidence" I need!

will be left in the dust.

I can just see their heads explode when the amazing advances will occur based on the human genome within the next decade

Just curious....

Sid