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?

Erm, forever, 70% reduction in cases of cervical cancer has got to be a good thing hasn't it? I think arguing about semantics is somewhat missing the point. You can help your daughter reduce her risk of a common female cancer. 1 in 136 is hardly a tiny risk is it??? Would you prefer that cancer research and potential preventative treatments where ignored so as to salve the moral panic of some people?
Our daughters are going to have sex at some point in theor lives, they risk getting HPV by having sex, and HPV raises their risks of cervical cancer - its not rocket science.

tokyonambu - I am not arguing about Gillick / Frasier competency. I am arguing about the agressive and authoritarian approach of the NHS. It gets people's backs up. They need to engage people, not put them off. And how do you know teachers / nurses do not brainwash kids?

"And how do you know teachers / nurses do not brainwash kids?"

Because I don't have a cache of canned food buried in my garden.

There are not significant numbers of 12 year olds getting pregnant, so think the BF question is redundant. I believe it should be part of usual early immunisations at pre school age to avoid all these arguments/knee jerk reactions/moral panics.

Whether it was part of the usual early immunisations or not people wuld still object , many still object to the mmr as is their right . Its interestesing that some people have picked up on the breastfeeding point but ignored the others. Ill maintain im not happy to give her something that the long term effects of are not known either on fertlity or anything else , and yes , i know the studies show no long term effects on rats , but shes not a rat, shes a human obviously.

YABU. And very petty.

the long term effetcs of cervical cancer are also fairly unpleasant, dignified.

But we DO know the effects of cervical cancer on fertility. And, as someone said, unless you catch it really early it's pretty much hysterectomy territory. THAT'S a pretty big effect on fertility right there. And death, that has a fairly big impact on fertility, too.

" i know the studies show no long term effects on rats , but shes not a rat, shes a human obviously."

Please explain the physiological differences between rats and humans relevant to the HPV vaccinate that render any tests on rats irrelevant.

**vaccinate should read vaccine.

The fact that death has an impact on fertility isnt really much of an argument in favour of it. I dont know the actual statistics of how many women get cervical cancer , or out of them how many have regular smears , but the fact is that only a small per cent of all these girls who are going to have the vac are likeley to develop cervical cancer , the rest wont.

Sureley the risk of both need to be weighed up carefully , i intend to find out all the facts about cervical cancer and also all the facts about the vac. The manufacturers of this drug boast of 100 per cent success , yet only 20,000 women and girls were tested and monitored for 4 years afterwards .Some of these were very young girls so they can be excluded as they are unlikeley to have come into contact with the infection.

Im not going to go ahead and vaccinate and ignore the fact that the manufacturers of this drug state clearly that the long term effects on fertility are not known , nor are any other long term effects. The argument of death affecting fertility does not stand up.

I think they have successfully scare mongered parents into having it without asking the apropriate information. They state CLEARLY that long term effects are not known and effects on fertility are not known.
I

Please explain the physiological differences between rats and humans relevant to the HPV vaccinate that render any tests on rats irrelevant

You feel i should spend time researching / posting on here and arsing about to defend my veiw ? I dont have to defend , or explain to anyone so im not going to , its simply a concern. Its interesting that the the small minority of posters who have chosen to not vaccinate their children have been challenged as to why and asked for proven facts to back it up. But neither i or anyone else has asked the majority for proven facts or attempted to change their mind.

But if you are aware of the physiological similarities between rats and humans that make it relevant then please explain in detail. As i said earlier im currently looking at information ect so ill happily take it on board.

Light: yanbu: it's dreadful, really, that your wishes may not be respected. It's not that they respect your daughter's wishes: of course they don't care about that at all. They just disrespect yours.

Actually yanbu about not wanting her to have it either. But that's slightly different.

"But if you are aware of the physiological similarities between rats and humans that make it relevant then please explain in detail"

That they're both mammals? That they share about 90% of their genes? That they're relatively closely related in evolutionary terms to the point that their gross anatomy and response to infection are easily related? That the number of drugs trials in which rats have not been an effective human analogue is essentially zero (don't try "but penicillin is toxic to guinea pigs", because in fact it isn't, directly, and the reason it's indirectly very bad for them is both theoretically and practically well understood and is the reason guinea pigs don't make good guinea pigs)? That almost all mammalian reproduction is so similar in mechanism than it's unlikely that there's a difference in response to challenge (don't try "what about thalidomide?" because it wasn't tested in pregnant rats to look for effects on the foetus; had it been, it would have rapidly been seen for the teratogenic drug that it is)?

(don't try "but penicillin is toxic to guinea pigs",
(don't try "what about thalidomide?"

I think, totyonambu , that i will " try " what i want and i dont really apreciate being told what i can and cant respond with.

Your wrong. For a start the number of drug trials in which rats have not been an effective human analogue is NOT zero. There was TGN1412 for a start , Opren which killed nearly 80 people and left another 3000 seriously ill , there are drugs that are poisenous to animals that do not affect people , and vice versa, i could go on and on if i could be arsed . Humans and rats or any other mammals respond differantly to differant chemicals.Its not about their anatomy. Anyone whos got a dog knows choclolate is poisenous and im sure owners of other pets are aware of certain foods that their pets are to avoid so your 90 per cent geneticly similar argument doesnt make much sense.

Ive no need to defend my veiw or my caution about this vaccine , if your happy to give it to your dcs then do , i respect your choice , perhaps you could respect mine instead of posting incorrect information and dictating how i should respond.

missmoopy-it isn't a common cancer. It is very rare. As I detailed above there are 11 other cancers which a woman is more likely to get.

And the 70% figure is dependent on smear uptake which is almost certianly going to fall amongst vaccinated girls.

Neither Opren not TGN1412 were related to differences between rats' and humans' physiology. In the former case, a drug was tested on young animals, but caused liver toxicity in elderly patients with rheumatism because they take longer to eliminate the drug (or its breakdown-products, I can't remember). Had it been tested on elderly rats, or those with otherwise impaired liver function, it would have been spotted. TGN1412 (let's leave aside that it was a sketchy drug from a sketchy company that went into liquidation immediately it failed: a one-drug company with an interest in success at most costs) was traced to a reaction with "memory" lymphocytes, which animals (or humans) raised in sterile environments don't have, but real humans do because of past infection.

They both raise real questions about how effective animal testing is, and are arguments for better testing (although not quite the argument that the anti-vivisectionists quite think). But short of getting poor people to take untested drugs for money (as happens in the US) it's not clear how you solve that. They point to differences between laboratory animals and wild animals, and between old animals and young animals. What they don't point to is differences between humans and rats.

And chocolate is no more poisonous to dogs than it is to humans. Chocolate contains theobromine, which is is similar to caffeine and is toxic at about 150mg per kilogram of body weight (ie, not much) and fatal at a few times that. The toxic dose of caffeine in humans is, unsurprisingly, about 150mg per kilo or thereabouts. To harm a 10kg dog, you'd need about half a pound of plain chocolate or about a pound and a half of dairy milk. If they lay paws on an easter egg, that's not implausible.

Eating 5x that if you weight 50kg wouldn't do you much good (ie, a kilo of plain chocolate at a sitting), and consuming the equivalent amount of coffee (a lot) would be fairly dangerous. The difference is that humans wouldn't eat that much chocolate in a sitting, and because coffee is a diuretic you'd excrete the caffeine fairly quickly.

dignified - "But neither i or anyone else has asked the majority for proven facts" - I think this is less due to a desire to see a variety of views flourish and more because you're not interested in the evidence.

Why does the fact that there are other cancers that a woman is more likely to get negate the need for the HPV vaccination?

"And how do you know teachers / nurses do not brainwash kids?'

It's not brainwashing but there is certainly intimidation and emotional blackmail used which is disgraceful. If that doesn't work of course there's always the threat of social services, I've personally heard that line trotted out.

Neither Opren not TGN1412 were related to differences between rats' and humans' physiology.

Of course it was. The drugs were given to animals and caused a positive biological effect. The same drugs were given to humans causing a catastrophic biological effect. Id say that is due to the physiological differances between rats and humans physiology . The biochemistry of humans and animals are vastly differant . The possibility that top scientist , biologists and other proffesionals are all wrong about this is quite low id say.

Coalition , i could say the same , that the majority do not want to see other veiws flourish . The point is , i did not ask for evidence , i simply stated i had concerns about it , it wasnt an invitation to start challenging my veiws or to ask for evidence. Not one person whos in favour of this vaccine has been asked for evidence to back it up or anything else , why have i ?

dignified - In order to demonstrate whether or not your concerns are rational.

well done dignified, mamatomy, foreverastudent et al. Don't be browbeaten by the big pharma supporters. Big pharma seems desperate to get girls to take the vaccine. There is a reason why they never talk about the dangers of aspartame in food, sweets and drinks, but have removed the parental veto for the vaccine and want it used despite a lack of testing. On youtube you can find reports by ordinary people of adverse effects, not just the statistics of the pharmaceutical establishment.

Of course dignified's concerns are rational. Plenty of rational people have expressed concern. That's just a smear.

Mama is right: it is strong child who withstands the persuasive attempts of a school authority figure in a nurse's uniform.

Parental consent is parental consent: attempts to undermine it through children are nauseating. We don't need a stash of beans in the garden to tell us that.

Appletrees - You can't just assert that an argument is rational - you have to demonstrate it. That is why evidence was asked for.

Eveytime someone brings up examples in the newspapers of girls who have suffered side effects, such as brain damage, paralysis or even death shortly after taking the vaccine, big pharma supporters say that it was a coincidence. Is it any wonder why people have concerns?