to be worried about this consent form?

[LightShinesInTheDarkness]

DD (12) has brought home the NHS Consent form for the HPV Immunisation for Year 8s.

We have decided, in a discussion involving me, DD and DH, that we do not want her to have the vaccine.

However, I am upset that the form says : (quote) Please note that while your consent is important, if you refuse consent the vaccination may still be given

It also says, 'Reason consent refused (PTO for additional space to give us your reason for your decision' - do I really have to give details?

AIBU to feel concerned?

NoMeDoIt, I think it's worth remembering too that Cervarix is manufactured by GSK, a wonderfully trustworthy, honest pharma company.

Not.

I've just googled for nomedoit's uncited quote. Hit #1 is this:

www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=44262

"Texas Requires Jewish Vaccine for Girls"

The poster goes on to complain about "Fucking Kike-Whores!!" and tells us "What is actually in the vaccine? Live genetically engineered cancer virus. As the vaccine spreads in use, reports of horrible side effects are already starting to proliferate. " Apparently "Sneaky Kikes at Merck are implementing a new strategy for their poisonous vaccines!"

That's nice company you're keeping there. Do you have some sources for your concerns that aren't from anti-semitic whack-jobs?

"A parent is not obliged to give the school visiting nurses their childs full medical background. What if the child was allergic to something in the vaccine?"

A parent is under no obligation to give school nurses any information at all about their child, but given that the school nursing team is part of the Child Health Team, and so an extension of their GP care, then why wouldn't you share information?

It is crucial that parents inform nurses of any relevant information especially where the child may not. Nurses are professionals bound by a code of conduct - just because they are centrally located serving a group of schools, rather than within school premises, doesn't mean they are any less professionally involved with your child's health.

Good source of info on cervical cancer for anyone needing to discuss the issues with their kids :

www.macmillan.org.uk/Cancerinformation/Cancertypes/Cervix/Cervicalcancer.aspx

I ffel like the link monitor today

No, Tokyo, that quote is from the Corporation Watch article I cited earlier. If it has been copied elsewhere, then that's nothing to do with CorpWatch which is a very good website.

A liberal website, by the way. They can't control how their info is disseminated.

NoMeDoIt- No, I'm interested - what WHO issues? I haven't heard anything about that.

Ooops - www.macmillan.org.uk/Cancerinformation/Cancertypes/Cervix/Cervicalcancer.aspx

Valhalla - Which is why we have regulators.

I agree with Valhalla, it's the patronising time that NHS leaflets have regarding vaccination. It's frustrating when all you want is balanced information on pros and cons.

Why would the NHS be impartial?

Coalition, I've still yet to work out why our government is allowed to accept enormous sums of money from big pharma.

The same government which decides upon our health care and goes to what are imho unacceptable lengths to bully the public into accepting vaccinations such as the HPV one.

This was flagged up back in 2005 by a select committee in the House and yet nothing has changed.

"nomedoit, likewise Cervarix, which is not recommended for use in pregnancy due to insufficient data"

No drug is considered safe in pregnancy because it cannot go to human trial, can you imagine the que of pregnant women prepared to test drugs, no doubt that would be out the door

Is the school handing out condoms to prevent hiv & other stds? If they vaccinate they should be offering protection against other stds

The Coalition - I have to go to work now! In brief, the main issue here in the US with SF was that the FDA approved the vaccine fast-track with a 'waiver' which limited their liability in the event of side-effects. That's why many mothers and health pros didn't take it. Also, the WHO over-stated the case on swine flu (OK, that's with hindsight) but there was never enough evidence to support their predictions.

Of course the NHS is impartial.

Of course it doesn't have an quotas to meet.

Of course pigs fly.

Valhalla - which is why we have a transparent regulation system where professionals can challenge decisions over recomendations.

Dreadful, terrible targets. Such as getting x% of children vaccinated against illnesses. The bastards.

Ring the school or whoever it is dishing the thing out OP. Whilst she is 12 so getting towards the age of being able to give her own consent in practice they will be wary of giving a vaccine if they know you don't want her to have it.

I do know some parents who keep their children home from school on vaccination days just to be sure, but it depends how strongly you feel.

BellasFormerFriend/Sidge - so you are telling me that they look up every single childs records before vaccinating them? No, thought not.

If I want my child vaccinated I take them to a trusted HCP. I don't want them stood in a line, like a herd of cattle, being randomly and routinely given a vaccine and that, as a parent, should be my perogative.

I don't want letters demanding information & justificiation of my decisions, sent through the school. I send my children to the school to be educated not vaccinated.

NoMeDoIt - The WHO didn't overstate the case - we were lucky. People don't understand risk and probability. Including mothers and health care professionals.

The 'flu virologists I know who do work for the WHO had the vaccine and told their family and friends to do so.

ChippingIn: The NHS didn't decide, the girls themselves did. No one was forced to have the vaccine if they didn't want it, including girls whose parents had given consent. when I had it they must have seen my medical records because they knew I had had a reaction to a different vaccine, so I think any allergies would be known, surely the girl in question would know she was allergic anyway if that was the case. The point was anyone who was Gillick competent could decide for themselves, and IMO the vast majority of 12/13 year olds are fine to decide for themselves. It is a principle I firmly believe in, anyone who properly understands the risks can decide for themselves, rather than it being purely decided on age.

With regards letters sent home. I just put 'on medical advice' as my reason in the box - never been questioned about it - I think they just want something to file.

Ah, Corp Watch, with their "let's not trouble your pretty little heads" policy around citation and numbers.

I've just fished out the document in question, which I believe to be "VRBPAC Background Document Gardasil? HPV Quadrivalent Vaccine May 18, 2006 VRBPAC Meeting", available here. That's what's great about Corp Watch: they can be mysterious, and imply that they're citing special secret stuff, when it's there on the website.

What it shows is that in one study, there was a higher rate of abnormality than with placebo. But Table 34, page 24, shows that the rates were equal when taken over all studies. And that although the rate of abnormality was slightly higher amongst people who had had Gardasil within 30 days of conceiving, it was slightly lower amongst people who had had Gardasil more than 30 days before conceiving, a fact that Corp Watch didn't quite have time to report.

Congenital anomaly infant
or fetus 15 16
EDC within 30 days 5 0
EDC beyond 30 days 10 16

So the overall rates of abnormality were fractionally lower. Now, your point?

ChippingIn - So the NHS should say "Well we reckon this vaccine is a good idea that will benefit the public, but we won't actually bother doing anything about it."?