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?

They go on about rats being similar to humans. Well some humans are like rats, but thankfully not all. But I can smell a rat, a big fat rat, when concerns are dismissed as moronic, idiotic and irrational.

Dr. Strangelove arm-jerking reactions like these show desperation, arrogance and a lack of empathy for people's concerns. They seem somewhat unhinged, which makes one think they may be wrong and misguided.

Tell me claig: evolution. What do you think?

wot Darwin said

I think I'm going to stop letting my kids drink water. I've a number of concerns about how its produced and that isn't proven safe for use by humans.

I'm not going to explain my self or elaborate on why I don't think water is safe but I'm going to tell everyone who says I'm being silly that they're wrong and provide a couple of piss poor examples why water isn't safe - like this [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16614865/] for example.

I'm basically going to repeat myself every time someone explains why I'm wrong.

** This link: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16614865/

hi shrinking violet - my children were home edded for 4 years (both are now in High School) and whilst they were I simply made appointments with my practice nurse for any jabs we thought they needed. The school medical service is just that and complements the family GP.
PS Just to share my position/thinking with you so you can see where I am coming from: mine have had all but the MMR and, now that I am confident that they are mature and not likely to be susceptible, I contacted my excellent practice nurse to discuss it all. First we discussed my daughter, now 12, having the single Rubella only to be told by a surprised and concerned practice nurse that the pharmaceutical company concerned has allowed the licence for the single rubella jab to lapse so that it is only available as part of its MMR! Wow is the s*t going to hit the proverbial in a few years time when rubella affected babies start being born... so mine will probably have the MMR now to be on the safe side.

complicated world eh?

What relevance does evolution have?

Vaccination safety trials look at safety at group level. If you are making a decision for a child you are looking at individual level. Not every individual child has the same risk from a vaccination. The vast majority will be at low risk. A few will have a much higher risk.

Personally I would prefer to vaccination programmes to be more personalised to take account of individual risk.. The reasons for not doing so are presumably economic .

These concerns have been - in detail - explained and why you're either wrong or simply don't know enough about the testing process to come to an informed decision.

For a start i didnt ask for them to be explained and i think i made it clear that i didnt want a discussion about it. Maybe you are having a problem remembering what you have read as you are so busy shoving your veiws down peoples throats. I dont claim to be right , again " im going to find out more information before i decide ". What dont you get?

I should accept what you say without question because ? Are you a moleculer scientist , a pharmacist , a biologist perhaps ? Do you want me to accept that what you say is accurate and right and all the scientists and other professionals who expressed similar concerns are wrong ? Do you think you know more than the scientist and others who also have concerns about this vaccine ? Are they all wrong and you are right ?

As stated , i have reservations and concerns and intend to find out more. But really i am not going to be convinced by someone who resorts to comments such as idiotic , moronic , half arsed ect.

And your absoluteley right , i dont understand a lot of it , its way over my head , which again , is why im looking into it . Perhaps youve already researched it and are comfortable with what youve found ? Perhaps you could respect the fact that id much rather do the same than simply blindly accept other peoples opinions.

I'm not going to explain my self or elaborate on why I don't think water is safe but I'm going to tell everyone who says I'm being silly that they're wrong and provide a couple of piss poor examples why water isn't safe

Dont do that Lookto, you might attract the attentions of someone who,ll get so frustrated because you wont take their word as gospel that they,ll start calling you idiotic , moronic ect. They might get sarcastic too.

Hi, we had a thread recently where all the whackjobs and loons were required to pay attention to Occam's Razor wrt 9/11.

Can we not apply it the beloved razor in the case of HPV vaccine too: that where parents have said, the vaccine was administered, and this happened say, increasing paralysis that the simplest explanation must be accepted: the vaccine was the cause of the outcome?

I'm thinking particularly of cases, which it must be said are the vast majority, where there is no other cause found, and that the problems are ascribed simply to coincidence. As in, "we don't know what it is, but it isn't the vaccine".

There's a lot of abuse on this thread. The anti-whackjobs should be ashamed of their poverty of self-control.

As for this aggressive demanding of proof, I think the first job is for you guys to prove that at least one of the vaccines didn't cause these terrible problems in teenage girls which they're reported to have.

I'd like you to prove it now, you moronic idiots, go on prove it, none of your piss poor excuses, what's the matter with you, are you stupid, are you refusing to understand, shit or get off the pot.

dignified, keep looking into it. It might surprise you what you find. The name-calling and derision is designed to stop you looking for yourself.

I'd like you to prove it now, you moronic idiots, go on prove it, none of your piss poor excuses, what's the matter with you, are you stupid, are you refusing to understand, shit or get off the pot.

dignified, keep looking into it. It might surprise you what you find. The name-calling and derision is designed to stop you looking for yourself.

Thanks Claig , i intend to. Im just reading stuff now and im a bit surprised. It seems that each year aprox 900 women die of cervical cancer , but 34,600 women die of lung cancer. I wonder if the money spent on this vaccine wouldve been better spent on lung cancer research.

Im not sure about the hype either , suggestions of putting children at risk by not having it ect. The company stands to make millions to vaccinate against something that apears to be quite low risk and they boast that up to 400 lives can be saved. If we applied that logic and statistics to anything ele it would be ridiculous .

GSK has a "special relationship" with the British government. This is entirely coincidental of course.

exactly

"I wonder if the money spent on this vaccine wouldve been better spent on lung cancer research."

What's to research? Smoking's bad for you. If you stop smoking, your risk of lung cancer drops by a factor of 23: a non-smoker has about 4% of the risk of a lifelong smoker of contracting lung cancer. You can't vaccinate against it, as it isn't caused by an infective agent, so the only thing you can do is improve the outcomes for people who contract it. It's usually metastised before it's found, so a solution to lung cancer involves finding a solution to all cancers, which has been resistant to pretty well all research. Smoking's bad for you. Best not do it. Can I have my research grant now, please?

There are a handful of cancers that are caused by infections. Cervical is one of them. We know the infective agent, we can build a vaccine, vaccines are well understood. What's not to like?

This is all pretty desperate stuff. Anti-vax loons have in the past been able to ignore polio because they're too young, rely on diptheria and tetanus being quite rare, and then dismiss vaccination against mumps, pertussis, measles and rubella as being an over-reaction to harmless childhood diseases (well, except for the children born deaf and blind, but mercifully their daughters get get a free ride on herd immunity).

Now there's a vaccine to a relatively common and relatively dangerous condition, whose treatments are unpleasant, they're forced into either attempting to find reasons the vaccines' dangerous, pretending that cervical cancer is a sort of cuddly cancer than isn't dangerous, playing whatabout with other conditions that are far more intractable or inventing spurious moral explanations. Plus the usual "big pharma shill" drum beat from people who are - quelle surprise! - also 9/11 troofers.

Give me a thought on Occam's Razor, Tokyo.

It's true that GSK has a special relationship with the government.

There are a lot of anti-debate loons on this thread. It would be nice not to resort to this language.

toky- do you believe that the risk from a vaccine is the same for every individual in the population, or do you believe the risk varies from individual to individual?

You're not really saying that vaccinations never cause damage are you?

"Give me a thought on Occam's Razor, Tokyo. "

Co-incidence is more likely.

"do you believe that the risk from a vaccine is the same for every individual in the population, or do you believe the risk varies from individual to individual?"

In general, I don't think it's well understood. Whatever it is, it isn't 1 in 130, which is the lifetime risk of cervical cancer.

What never? For an individual who goes onto have a bad reaction to a vaccine - surely their individual risk from that vaccine might have been very much higher than 1 in 130 (which presumably varies from woman to woman anyway- depending on various other factors).

I find comparing risk at population level a bit nonsensical really. I'd rather look at my own/my kids situation and assess their risk from the vaccine vs whatever it is we're protecting against.

So for example I have a severely learning disabled boy who I assume will never have sex (if he does- something has gone very very wrong). This jab doesn't really come up as he's a boy obviously, but if he happened to be a girl then his risk of cervical cancer would be very much lower than 130 presumably and so the risk from the jab would be extremely important. In his case quite possibly higher than the average population (as there appears to be some sort of immune issues with viruses in the family).

Why is it more likely that a number of possibly varying unknown conditions would cause similar outcomes when there is one constant element: the application of vaccine?

That is no answer -- that is an article of faith.

It is not more likely.

"I think it is not well understood".

If this is so, it is probably because vaccine adverse events are underreported. I think it may not be well understood by those who choose to ignore vaccine adverse events and to smear the complainants: I think it may be better understood than those who don't.

You are on thin ice if you accuse mrsturnip of limited understanding of this issue.

I do know by the way (before it's pointed out) that HPV isn't a live attenuated virus.

some brave doctors warned about thalidomide, but the warnings were ignored. It had been tested on animals and passed as safe. It was even tested on 140 children without their parents' knowledge, and had observable side effects.

The doctors who objected to it at the time were also probably called something akin to 'troofers' by the ignorant and by those who were aware of the risks but ignored them.

www.vaccinetruth.org/thalidomide.htm

"I think it may be better understood by those who don't.