Schools denying girls the cervical cancer jab on religious grounds

Gardasil is even more dangerous than Cervarix, judging by the numbers of reports of adverse reactions.

Excellent vactruth article, Ann and you are probably right about the smokescreen, Gardasil is going to be rolled out in Oct 2012. More money for Merck - hurray!

Accuracyrequired, just for you

www.gaia-health.com/articles51/000088-UK-Forced-Vaccinations.shtml

Excuse me Ann -- you're way ahead of me. I'll copy and paste.
Plse note readers: this is a committee making policy decisions on vaccine rollout.
Agenda Item III
The following members declared interests in companies that manufacture and supply influenza vaccines (Abbott, AstraZeneca, Baxter, Crucell, GSK, MASTA, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Pasteur MSD)
Ray Borrow
Non-personal, non-specific GSK, Baxter, Novartis, Pfizer and Sanofi-Pasteur MSD
The member is able to participate in the discussion and to vote
Judith Breuer
Non-personal, non-specific Sanofi-Pasteur MSD
The member is able to participate in the discussion and vote
Anthony Harden
Personal, non-specific AstraZeneca
The member is able to participate in the discussion but not to vote
Pauline MacDonald
Personal, non-specific GSK
The member is able to participate in the discussion but not to vote
Anne McGowan
Non-personal, non-specific GSK and Sanofi-Pasteur MSD
The member is able to participate in the discussion and to vote
Andrew Riordan
Non-personal, non-specific GSK
The member is able to participate in the discussion and to vote
Professor John Edmunds (LSHTM), an author of the cost effectiveness study, also declared a personal, non-specific interest in GSK. He presented the study and discussed the findings.

Nice link. I lost count of the number of times "cost effective" and "cost effectiveness" were used, whereas "adverse events" I only saw once. But that's only on a skim reading. Do you know about the interests of members? I don't.

"I believe the religious slant on the HPV vaccine is mearly a smoke screen and ... It's being used to promote another uptake."

I'm sure this could well be true - and a good reason why it's being fed through the Guardian. For a long time now they've been very anti the people and pro the big money corporation when it comes to health issues.

PigletJohn, I believe the religious slant on the HPV vaccine is mearly a smoke screen and tends to put many people in a bit of a tizz. It's being used to promote another uptake. Do a little research and you'll find Cervarix will soon be used as the vaccine of choice in England (GlaxoSmithKleine).

Dig a little further and there's to be a push for all children between 5 and up to 17 to be vaccinated against influenza in 2014. Don't appear to be many benefits expected but it was interesting to find on pg12 of the attached link how many of those calling for this mass vaccination are linked to big-pharma (one of my GDs will be old enough to be offered it, so feel I have a vested interest in what somebody wants to stick in her body and what the implications of that may be)

www.wp.dh.gov.uk/transparency/files/2012/05/JCVI_draft-mintues-13-April-2012.pdf

And, PigletJohn, I repeat my comment about feminists protecting the powerful from the powerless. I really don't think that's how it's supposed to be. But I guess people get complacent.

Yes because you have no response. We're all talking such sense and you can't stand it.

I think I'll leave the anti-vaxxers to chat among themselves.

Enlightening article.

vactruth.com/2012/01/25/gardasil-killing-us/

Nobody knows how long it lasts anyway. It may well run out by the time the woman hits her twenties. The whole thing, rolling it out in schools, is an utter disgrace.

I'm very disappointed that feministers and journalists are defending the powerful against the powerless. My experience is that health journalists in particulare are guilty of valuing their scepticism against anything they perceive as "campaigning" far too highly, and don't put corporate health PR in this category. Members of the public who complain of vaccine damage are considered to be well intentioned but silly, stupid people who don't understand the science. Health journalists value highly a. their own scientific understanding and b. their contacts at the DoH - they really don't want to lose these or annoy them by printing material about vaccine damage because then they might have to do some real work. There are few who listen to the public. "Trust me I'm a health correspondent" could be their motto.

Very true

Good link Leonie but I was really shocked about the bill AB499, isn't that awful? Who do these people think they are? I would be after blood if that happened to my child.

To go back to the original "on religous grounds/ fear of women being allowed to have sex" part of the debate - can you imagine if there was a cancer which caused death and/or infertility in men (in addition to various horrible things happening to the male anatomy used for sex) but which could be prevented by a jab before the boys become sexually active? Can you imagine anyone saying, "No don't worry, the boys are not going to have sex for ages, not till they're married so they won't be needing that thankyou." The most stringent religous groups would probably accept that the odd chap is going to fall through the net and therefore it's worth immuninsing everyone on those grounds. Also, do you think we would be prepared to wait for the boys to turn 13? Or do you think there would be an "earlier the better, you never can be quite sure" mentality?

I think that had this been an illness that affects men, there would have been no hue and cry in the press about underage sex, no debates about whether schools or GPs should offer it but instead general agreement that the fastest method for getting all vaccinated as quickly as possible (ie schools) was the best policy. I even suspect that there would have been fewer fears and worries on the "anti-vaccination/safety" grounds.

Edam, "Many of the people involved in research and testing this vaccine were women, fwiw. I've interviewed some of them. Very passionate about the lives that could be saved by preventing HPV infection - one of them was a woman in her 40s who said she'd had the vaccine herself, even though they can't yet prove it's effective in people who have already been exposed to HPV - she thought the results were so promising it was a worth trying."

Gardasil is produced by Merck and Co., and one has to admit it's PR team did an excellent job of having the government circumvent it's usual procedures to bring the vaccine into use and caused a frenzy of people wanting to vaccinate their DDs.
Merck and Co., incidently were the same company who were forced to withdraw Vioxx because of it's increased increased risk of heart attack and stroke associated with long-term, high-dosage use. It withheld information about the drugs risks from doctors and patients for over five years, resulting in between 88,000 and 140,000 cases of serious heart disease.

Forwardscatter, presently screening is offered from the age of 20 in Scotland.