surely this is evidence that state funded faith schools are run by total nutters

[Reallytired]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7633761.stm

I cannot understand why a school should not want to be involved in the vacination programme against cervial cancer. It may be true that the HPV is sexually transmitted, but a good catholic wife could end up with cervial cancer if her husband has an affair.

Prehaps the catholic school governors think that cervial cancer is a well deserved punishment, in the same way that a few strange people thought that homosexuals deserved AIDS.

Should such people be allowed run state funded schools. Especially as the mainstream Catholic Church doesn't object to the vaccine.

(Really not trying to be antagonistic here, Sidge, this is a genuine question) how long on the day did you spend following up any reactions (things like the stiff and painful arms mentioned by the school in this case)? I wouldn't have expected most parents to fill in a yellow card report for something like that (although I may be overgeneralising there from my own experience as I never reported DS's reaction to the MMR (I'd forgotten that parents could file yellow cards themselves until enough time had passed that I'd forgotten the dates etc.).

I think I should clarify that if DD were old enough now I would probably, on balance, get her vaccinated. I just think the "wonder cancer vaccine" line is being overpeddled and that as a result there may be a certain amount of pressure behind putting a positive spin on everything, as anything short of "wonder cancer vaccine" results will now be seen as relative failure.

And another one. Please read about this a bit folks.

www.naturalnews.com/023080.html

I can't link to this article for some reason but here is an interesting quote from it;

"Warning: Merck?s Vaccine Is Hazardous to the Truth
Written by Pam Martens, published at Alliance for Human Research Protection on 23/2/2007

Merck, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, is heavily marketing a vaccine, Gardasil, that it touts as 100% effective in stopping strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV) from developing into cervical cancer. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) went even further, headlining its press release ?FDA Licenses New Vaccine for Prevention of Cervical Cancer.? What has gone largely unnoticed, except for a few sharp eyed doctors and researchers, is that these strains of HPV take 8 to 12 years or longer to develop into cancer and Merck has studied women in its clinical trials for less than five years. Because its test candidates ?had normal baseline pelvic examinations? when the clinical trials began and were not likely to develop cervical cancer for 8 to 12 years, Merck has, essentially, created a vaccine that has proven to be 100% effective in preventing what isn?t there. [1]

Here is how Dr. Clayton Young explained Merck?s cancer treatment for cancer-free women in a letter to The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: ?The maximum median follow up in any of their studies is four years. However, the time course from CIN II to invasive cancer averages between 8.1 to 12.6 years. [2] Claiming this vaccine prevents cervical cancer, with the longest median study subject being 4 years, is inappropriate.?

PortandLemon we stay in the school for at least 30 minutes (usually longer as it takes us ages to finish the paperwork) after the last child has been vaccinated. We wouldn't record a stiff or sore arm as an adverse event as that is a normal reaction to any vaccine, and we warn the girls that a stiff or sore arm is a common side effect.

Teachers are told to return to us any girl experiencing any symptoms that may be attributed to a vaccine eg swelling, rashes, difficulty breathing and the same info was in the leaflet they took home so that the parents can inform us by telephone if their daughter has any side effects.

I agree with you re the 'wonder vaccine' angle FWIW - I am very careful not to over gilt the benefits. We did assemblies in our schools prior to starting the vaccine programme to which parents were also invited, and tried very hard to be factual and informative rather than pushing it as an 'anti-cancer' vaccine (which IMO is not true).

That's good to hear Sidge. Are recipients given clear information about how we don't actually know whether the vaccine will protect them from cervical cancer at all and that we will need to wait some time to find out?

This vaccine is still in a very experimental phase and people who get the vaccine have a right to know, that for all intents and purposes, that are participating in a public health experiment.

I feel very concerned when people say that HPV vaccines will prevent 70% of cervical cancers and that parents who chose to opt out are being irresponsible. There is NO science to back this fantastic claim up, it is pure misinformation (which manufacturers and governments seem to have been quite happy in disseminating).

It is hard to get much info on the vaccine being used in the UK but there is much that is concerning about not only Merck's inadequate safety testing but also their marketing,
dodgy lobbying techniques and reluctance to investigate reports of serious adverse events.

It's all very well reporting adverse events but if they are not seriously followed up or are declared 'a coincidence' (as has happened with all the deaths associated with the vaccine in the US for example) then how are we to know how safe or not this thing is?

As for this not being an 'anti-cancer' vaccine, well somebody needs to get on to the NHS and tell them that cos they don't seem to know.

Quote from the NHS official website;

"What if I want the vaccination but my parents would rather I didn?t have it?

You should ask your parents to discuss this with your doctor or nurse to get more information about HPV vaccine, which will protect you against cervical cancer. Once you are 16, the decision is legally yours. Even if you are under 16, if you can show that you fully understand what is involved in having the vaccination, you can still decide for yourself. It is recommended that girls talk to their parents when making the decision. It is important that your parents appreciate that having the vaccination now will protect you from the most common cause of cervical cancer for many years to come."

I'd just love to know how the NHS is able to be so confident that this vaccine WILL PROTECT YOU AGAINST CERVICAL CANCER when the manufacturers own studies have yet to show any such thing.

This is more than misleading, it is plain untrue. How much else on there website is also not entirely truthful and who the fark do they think they are to be misleading the public in this way??

How can people be expected to make an informed decision when the NHS is not telling the whole truth?

This whole thing makes me very angry. Our right to informed decision about medical interventions is being made a mockery of, I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't like having the piss taken out of me, particularly when it comes to my kids' health.

This link is to a whole load of articles discussing the subject, there is a lot to read but at least it isn't the dumbed down crap that is on the NHS site;

womenhurtbymedicine.wordpress.com/background-info/

"You should ask your parents to discuss this with your doctor or nurse to get more information about HPV vaccine, which will protect you against cervical cancer. Once you are 16, the decision is legally yours. Even if you are under 16, if you can show that you fully understand what is involved in having the vaccination, you can still decide for yourself. It is recommended that girls talk to their parents when making the decision. It is important that your parents appreciate that having the vaccination now will protect you from the most common cause of cervical cancer for many years to come." "

Teenagers can consent to an abortion or contraception or go and see their GP without parental permission. Its prefectly logical that they can go have the vaccine against parental wishes. Reallytired would congratulate such a brave, mature, and sensible child.

Prehaps teenage girls need to be made aware of their right to go against stupid parents inorder to get medical treatment of any nature.

The stuff about the vaccine being still experimental is bollox. It has been tested in other countries and will have had to pass extensive medical testing before being licenced yet alone approved by NICE.

"vaccination now will protect you from the most common cause of cervical cancer for many years to come." "

Most common, but not all cervical cancers. Ie. 7 out 10 cervial cancer. Just think if we can stop 7 out 10 cervial cancers then we can afford to give the best cancer drugs to the 3 out of 10.

It's semantics isn't it? The vaccine will protect against the 2 most common strains of HPV that are shown to have a causative influence in 70% of cervical cancers, therefore the vaccine can protect against cancer.

The research published has demonstrated 100% protection against cervical pre-cancerous lesions caused by HPV 16/18, which was sustained for at least 5 years to date - long term follow-up is ongoing. I agree this vaccine hasn't been around for donkeys years but it's not experimental - the trials have been carried out and it has been approved in a number of countries. It can't be used on general licence if it is still in trials.

Good to hear Sidge - sounds like things have imporved a lot since last time I dealt with school vacs, which always seemed to be done in the big school hall with a massive queue of people all waiting to be done.

Message withdrawn

Again, it is very hard to get info about Cervarix as it is more recent. However I can assure you that Gardasil has been and is been used on general licence despite still being in the testing stage. It has been fast tracked through the FDA in a process that is normally used for life saving drugs.

See below quote from the Judicial Watch link (that I'm wondering if anybody has looked at);

www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2008/JWReportFDAhpvVaccineRecords.pdf

"Judicial Watch obtained these records under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552. The request, asking for documents concerning Gardasil, was originally submitted to the FDA on May 9, 2007. The FDA produced documents on May 15, 2007; September 13, 2007; February 27, 2008, and June 10, 2008. Judicial Watch uncovered thousands of pages of material pertaining to Gardasil, which is
designed to prevent cervical cancer. The controversial vaccine was fast-tracked for approval by the FDA despite concerns about Gardasil?s safety and long-term effects. The vaccine is still in the testing stages (final report due September 30, 2009), but it is already being administered to thousands of young girls and women. Mandatory vaccination has been opposed by the American College of Pediatrics and The New England Journal of Medicine. "

Plus this from the same link;
"There is proof that Gardasil will prevent about half of the high-grade precursors of cancer, but half will still occur. Hundreds of thousands of women who are vaccinated
with Gardasil and get yearly Pap testing will still get high-grade dysplasia (cell abnormalities).43 Gardasil has been shown to prevent precancerous lesions, but it has
been impossible to ascertain whether it will actually prevent cancer because the testing period has been so short. While young women occasionally get cervical cancer, it is far more common in women in their late forties. The average age of a cervical cancer patient
is forty-eight years. Keeping this in mind, it could easily be decades before anyone truly knows if the Gardasil vaccine prevents cervical cancer. The most that can accurately be said at this point is that Gardasil has been shown to help prevent precancerous lesions, but in its extremely aggressive advertising and political lobbying campaigns Merck states that "Gardasil does more than help prevent cervical cancer. Gardasil is the only cervical
cancer vaccine that helps protect against . . . human papillomavirus (HPV) types that cause 70% of cervical cancer cases."44 The FDA only speculates that, ? . . . it is believed that prevention of cervical precancerous lesions is highly likely to result in the prevention
of those cancers.?45 No one knows if the vaccine prevents cancer, or for how long, or even whether it is safe.

When the FDA fast-tracked Gardasil, it was with the condition that Merck must conduct a safety surveillance study:

The study will include approximately 44,000 vaccinated
subjects who will be followed for 60 days for assessment of general short-term safety (i.e., emergency room visits,
hospitalizations, and deaths). The subjects will also be
followed for 6 months subsequent to vaccination for new
autoimmune disorders, rheumatic conditions, or thyroiditis. Also, a sufficient number of children 11-12 years of age will be studied to permit an analysis of safety outcomes.
The study will be completed by June 30, 2009. The final
study report will be submitted by September 30, 2009.

Even though Gardasil will not be fully tested for safety until 2009, physicians are already pushing it as a routine, harmless vaccine. ................ Those who push to administer Gardasil three years before its safety testing is complete may be placing young girls and women at risk. "

So, we don't know if it is safe as the testing is not finished and we don't know if it will lead to a reduction in the number of actual cervical cancer cases as the testing is not finished. Sorry, but this HPV vaccine is most certainly experimental. If someome has info to prove that GSK's version is amazingly better, I'd love to see it.

Also this vaccine is VERY expensive (and that is without taking into account the unknown costs of the inevitable boosters). It is naive to think on the basis of current science that this vaccine will prevent anything like 70% of cervical cancers thereby freeing up funds to treat the other 30%. The funds are being spent on a very costly vaccine that we don't know works and that,so far, has clocked up a concerning number of adverse events, some of them very serious and long term.

By the way, reallytired, I support the right of teenagers to access medical care but I fail to see how ANYBODY can make an informed decision based on the limited and not entirely truthful info thatis routinely being given out.

Also I think suggesting that parents are stupid because they are cautious about a new, inadequately tested, experimental procedure that carries a risk of adverse event is pretty shocking.

How much independent research have YOU gone out and done on this thing?

And it's not just about semantics, either we KNOW this vaccine reduces the volume of cancer cases or we don't. At the moment WE DON'T KNOW, we are making assumptions and educated guesses.

'I feel very concerned when people say that HPV vaccines will prevent 70% of cervical cancers and that parents who chose to opt out are being irresponsible. There is NO science to back this fantastic claim up,'

Actually that's rubbish Beachcomber. There's plenty of evidence to back this up.

And the stuff about mortality rates being quite low for cervical cancer is irrelevant. Screening is v. effective so most women are diagnosed and treated while they have precancerous cell changes or in the early stages of cancer. But having precancer or early stage cancer is still highly distressing especially where it entails hysterectomy etc.

As it is proven that side effects are rare and serious side effects extremely rare I would much rather my kids had the vaccine that took the risk of NOT having it.

And I very much wish it had been available to me as a teenager.

Yes, there is a chance that it will not protect them but since it IS likely to and since it is very unlikely to cause them any harm I'd be pretty stupid NOT to be delighted they have it esp given my own experience.

You're just wrong beachcomber. It HAS been rigorously tested. Side effects are extremely rare.

It has been used over a number of years.

By your reasoning nobody would have any medical treatment on the grounds that all treatment and vaccinations carry some risk and you can never fully be aware of the consequences until decades after the treatment and even then there may be changes.

As with anything else, it's a question of balancing the risks and there is plenty of evidence that tells us the risks are minimal and the advantages are great.

BTW, what is your personal interest in arguing against the vaccine Beachcomber since you clearly have one. Are you part of some sort of anti vaccination organisation. Since you are citing 'research' I think you should declare your interest.

Sure thing I don't have time to say a lot just now, am in the middle of cooking.

I have an interest in vaccination because my eldest child suffered severe adverse reactions to the DTP vaccine. She was very ill for the first two years of her life, now at nearly five things have improved but it has been a long hard road.

I vaccinated her, as do most people, thinking that there was little to fear and much to gain. I didn't know much about vaccines and followed my doctor's guide.

I have since made it my business to read everything I can get my hands on and much of it has made for disturbing reading.

I'm posting about this because I care and I don't want other people to have the experience we have. I don't think this vaccine is well tested and I think this on the basis of having tried to find out as much as I can. You are saying that this vaccine is safe and effective but on the basis of what information? Do you have a link to anything that answers some of the many questions raised by Judicial Watch say? I would be very interested. Thanks.

I am not part of an organisation although I do sometimes post on a forum which gives support to parents of vaccine damaged children.

The only reason I am linking to articles is because I think people should check things out for themselves. Why on earth would you believe what some anonymous poster on an internet forum says, especially when they are challenging an idea?

I'm sorry to hear of your most distressing experiences with this illness.

Don't take this the wrong way fivecandles but it's not enough to say that I am 'just wrong'. Can you show me that I'm wrong with some information.

Are you saying that the info obtained by Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act that says that the US HPV vaccine has been given to thousands of women before the safety testing was finished is incorrect?

I'm sorry to hear about your dd's experience of vaccination.

I did sort of suspect that there might be something like this at the bottom of what you were saying.

I've noticed that a significant number of parents whose children have suffered adverse reactions to vaccination become campaigners against vaccination per se and I just find this odd.

As I've said there any medical treatment or medicine carries risks which are very often impossible to predict. The minority of cases who suffer adverse reactions do not outweight the benefits to the majority though and I do find it odd that some people should advise otehrs not to have vaccinations or make them unduly concerned about them (therefore putting them at greater risk) based on their own very personal and very unusual experience.

And not just medicine. My dd has a severe peanut allergy but this doesn't mean I campaign against peanuts.

As far as I'm concerned the testing for the vaccination has been as rigorous as it has been possible for it to be. As side effects have been extremely rare and serious side effects even rarer and as there has been proven benefits it seems madness to refuse the vacciantion on the basis that the risk of getting cervical cancer or pre cancer is significantly greater than the risk of any adverse consequences of the vacciantion. If the vaccination proves to be ineffective in the long term then my dds have still lost nothing. If they simply need a booster in a few years so waht? That's the case with Tetanus and other vaccinations. No big deal.

To suspect that the Govt and the Australian and US govts would invest millions of pounds in this vaccination without having fully researched risks and benefits is pure paranoia and the research is widely available. One of your own links showed that side effects were worse with a placebo!!

There has been a great deal of paranoia about vaccinations ever since the MMR scare which was proven to be unfounded.

Of course, there will always be reactions and sometimes devastating ones but that doens't outweight hte benefits. There are also reactions to antibiotics and anaesthesia etc but you don't see people campaigning agains these potentially lifesaving drugs. Why is it different with vaccinations?

Beachcomber's extract
" While young women occasionally get cervical cancer, it is far more common in women in their late forties. The average age of a cervical cancer patient
is forty-eight years"

How does that tie with this from NHSdirect
"Research has shown that the HPV vaccine's protection is effective for four-and-a-half years after completing the three dose course. Beyond that, it is not known how long the vaccine's protection will last."

So will we need lots of boosters?
This seems to suggest that if someone is vaccinated at 13y it may well have worn off by the time they are 17/18y.

So, it's not as if they expect it to last for life or even a large portion of it.

They don't seem to know a whole lot about it and I don't really feel a great deal of confidence in it from what I've been reading.

I think the issue is that it's just not been around for long enough to know how long its effects will last. What exactly do you mean that you haven't got a great deal of confidence in it juule.

If it's about risks of side effects, its been proven to be one of the most safe vaccinations there is. All medication carries some risk including very common medicines like paracetamol and antibiotics but that's not a reason not to take them unless you have contraindications or have had medical advice not to.

If its about its long term effectiveness then surely some protection is better than none. And what's the problem with boosters? ATM you have to have boosters for Tetanus and you don't get people saying, 'Ooh, no I'm not going to bother having or giving my kids Tetanus injections in case they might need a booster later'.

The bottom line is that cervical cancer is a very nasty disease. Pre cancer can also be incredibly nasty and have long term and distresing consequences. Why would you not want to reduce your daughters' chances of getting it?

The point about age of getting cancer as well is that you can contract HPV but then not be diagnosed with cervical cancer or precancer for years later. So not getting HPV at age 18 may quite possibly prevent you from getting cervical cancer at 48.

Hey fivecandles thanks for your response. You make a lot of points in your posts and I'd like to give my opinion on some of the issues you raise. To make things clear I'm going to quote from your posts and then answer underneath, I hope that's ok with you.

You say;

"I've noticed that a significant number of parents whose children have suffered adverse reactions to vaccination become campaigners against vaccination per se and I just find this odd."

I think there are lots of issues that you have uncovered here. One of them is that unfortunately if your child does have an adverse reaction then you are on your own. The medical community will do very little to help you and generally will try very hard to claim that the child did not suffer an adverse reaction but that whatever happened was 'a coincidence'. I had to fight very hard to get my daughter's reactions reported and have since been told that I am no longer welcome at the surgery. This is not uncommon.

It is a fact (admitted by the government) that vaccine reactions are hugely under reported, estimates are that only about 10% of adverse events are reported. We cannot honestly and usefully make claims about vaccine safety when we are not making a serious effort to find out how widespread adverse events are. I think a lot of parents whose children have been damaged campaign essentialy for vaccine damage to be recognised and better reported and for vaccines to be made safer.

Vaccination policy works on the premise that it is for the greater good and that those who have their health destroyed or are killed, along the way, are dispensible. That becomes a little hard to swallow when it is your kid's health or life that is being talked about in this way.

Most importantly, when your kid gets hurt by vaccines most people tend to try to find out what happened and if there is anything you can do to help get your child back. As I say, you will be on your own. We saw over 10 doctors who all washed their hands of us, diagnosed my daughter as failure to thrive and said there was nothing they could do apart from put her on strong medication that had heavy side effects and that would ultimately worsen her condition. Two of them admitted that they didn't think she would make it. We had no choice but to get on the internet and figure things out for ourselves. In doing so we read a lot of research and came into contact with A LOT of other parents who were in a similar situation. We believe that in doing so, we saved our daughter's life, our current GP agrees.

Whilst doing the research necessary to help us nurse our daughter back to health, we stumbled upon a few undeniable facts; vaccine damage is not as rare as we are led to believe, vaccines are not as safe as we are led to believe, vaccination development, marketing and policy are rife with conflict of interest and corruption as there is a lot of money at stake.

Very often people whose children are vaccine damaged and who are fighting for improved vaccine safety and transparency are accused of being "anti vaccine". How ridiculous, how can we be anti vaccines when most of us are here BECAUSE we vaccinated our children. I think vaccination is a great idea on paper, I'm all for it, you'd have to be crazy not to! However the reality is that there are lots of downsides and problems with mass vaccination. Currently these problems are not being addressed and are being brushed under the carpet. This is no way to conduct science or implement public health policy. These 'problems' are people, they are not statistics.

Am doing this in separate posts for clarity. Sorry for long replies and hogging of thread but these issues are complex and kinda hard to give short answers to!

Fivecandles said;

"One of your own links showed that side effects were worse with a placebo!!"

VERY important point here. In the testing of the Gardasil vaccine for example and aluminium containing 'placebo' was used for much of the safety testing. By not using a proper saline placebo testing results are skewed. We know that aluminium is one of the safety problems with vaccines, it is therefore not surprising that there were lots of adverse effects reported by the so called placebo group. This sort of testing does not show the vaccine to be safe, it just confirms what we know about aluminium being reactive.

This is a dirty and unscientific trick used to make safety results look better.

See how this stuff is complicated and corrupt?

Fivecandles said;

"As far as I'm concerned the testing for the vaccination has been as rigorous as it has been possible for it to be. As side effects have been extremely rare and serious side effects even rarer and as there has been proven benefits it seems madness to refuse the vacciantion on the basis that the risk of getting cervical cancer or pre cancer is significantly greater than the risk of any adverse consequences of the vacciantion. If the vaccination proves to be ineffective in the long term then my dds have still lost nothing. If they simply need a booster in a few years so waht? That's the case with Tetanus and other vaccinations. No big deal."

There have been reports of nearly 10,000 adverse events and 19 deaths in the less than two years that HVP vaccines have been administered in the US. Remembering that reactions are known to be under reported, this is NOT a good safety record. Of course Merck is declaring all this 'a coincidence' in time honored fashion despite the fact that their product is still in its official testing period.

I would agree with you that even if a vaccine had only limited or unproven benefits then it would be worth having as it can't do any harm and might do some good. This is a nice idea but the reality is that there is a risk and at the moment we don't have a clue what the risk/benefit ratio of HPV vaccines is. Unless we start making more of an effort to count the number of reactions, through a follow up system, we can't even hazard a guess.

Boosters increase the risk factor, increase the cost and are an admission that the original efficacy rates and benefit ratio were wrong.

Remind me again, why are we spending millions of precious health funding on a product that has not been proven to work, has a bad safety record, isn't even finished being tested and isn't being adequately surveyed by the company that made it or the government that is implementing it?

Gotta go, real life calls.

Just another couple of quick points in answer to fivecandles posts.

You mention that your DD has a severe peanut allergy. I'm very sorry to hear that and understand what you are dealing with as my DD1 has some severe allergies. You say that you don't campaign against peanuts but would you feel any differently about vaccination if you knew that certain vaccines and adjuvants have been linked to allergic disease?

www.vran.org/vaccines/anaphylaxis/ana-vac.htm

www.vran.org/vaccines/anaphylaxis/vaccine-ana.htm

Also you mention that the concerns over MMR are unfounded. Most people in the UK are not aware that recently a case of vaccine damage leading to a girl becoming autistic was conceded in the US. There are nearly 5000 similar cases pending. The MMR/vaccines/autism controversy is not unfounded.

www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/government-concedes-vacci_b_88323.html

Beachcomber, it has not good a bad safety record. An 'adverse effect' could include a girl who fainted because she was scared of needles as the nurse suggested above. I'd like to see your evidence of the 19 deaths.

But as I've said before all medicine has risks. Maybe you're right that the risks should be better advertised but it's hard even to see how that would be helpful. BEcause there's usually no way of predicting who will have an adverse reaction and adverse reactions are still rare there are likely to be lots of people put off who would not have had a reaction while the people who may go on to have reactions might not be put off because they're more worried about the risks of the illnesses the vaccinations guard against (and rightly so).

Look what happened with MMR there was a huge scare caused by one person's bad research with the result that there was a huge amount of anxiety and many parents refused the vaccine or went for single doses and therefore put their kids at risk of potentially fatal diseases.

But back to my point. ANy sort of medication or treatment carries risks. There are many, many people who have severe reactions to antibiotics or anaesthesia or even the common aspirin but I've never heard of anyone campaigning against these common and potentially lifesaving drugs or warning people about their dangerous side effects. Why is it different with vaccination? Why do some people think it's a good idea to cause anxiety to people in general because of their personal and exceptional experience?