HPV Vaccination Programme

[AnneWiddecomesArse]

I'm a bit side swiped by this.
I've read some stuff in papers etc. but now my DD has been offered the vaccine in this school year (she's 12 years old); and it's time for a decision.
What are your thoughts/research on this ?

OK. What is your precious question. If you feel like playing games, as with Catherina, can you give me a hint about where the question is? You can then tell me if I'm getting hotter or colder...

And while we're at it, can you answer some of mine?

"Where is my precious question?"

What's with the tone?

It's in the last few posts - and you seem to playing the game, not me. I'm just asking a question and you seem to be avoiding it and now you're accusing me of playing games?

Just answer the question if you can, if not, then don't, I can't make you. But be honest about it, don't pretend I'm trying to play a trick on you.

Here:

Me - I don't know what you mean. Already adverse events reports are denied out of hand. Are you saying those women are making things up? They don't appear in official statistics. Are you coming straight out and saying they are lying or imagining it?

You - Imagined events are those you fondly believe exist but of which there is no record.

Me *Can you answer my question? Are you coming straight out and saying these women are lying or imagining it? Are you also saying that because there is no record, that is proof that they are made up? Are you coming straight out with the assertion that they are making it all up?

I'm not sure what it is that makes these difficult to spot as questions.

Perhaps I could just explain something which might help you reflect on your apparent thought process.

Adverse events are denied and therefore not recorded in official statistics. The official statistics are then use to deny the adverse events, because if they don't appear, they weren't adverse events.

Perhaps you can see that this is deeply circular. Perhaps you can't.

But it is, anyway.

Ok you're definitely avoiding it. I'm going to bed.

Are you saying those women are making things up? They don't appear in official statistics.
Are you coming straight out and saying they are lying or imagining it?

Which adverse events reports are "imagined"?
That's very telling.
Specifically, which reports which are not counted are "imagined"?
Do you think people are making things up?

Can you answer my question?
Are you coming straight out and saying these women are lying or imagining it?

Are you also saying that because there is no record, that is proof that they are made up?

Are you coming straight out with the assertion that they are making it all up?

Have you not read previous links on names like Ashleigh Cave, Stacy Jones, Carly Steele?
Their cases are reported in reputable newspapers, vaccine event forums, Hansard even.
I'm assuming therefore that all an official has to do is say "I'm not writing this down as an adverse event" and that's enough to convince you?

Or do you think they're imagined, because you've never read about them?

So why are you avoiding the question?

-- and in response, there are apparently three cases where you believe their reactions were not reported, recorded, or investigated. I am underwhelmed.

'Adverse events are denied and therefore not recorded in official statistics.'
So what do the stats consist of then? Happy ever after stories exclusively?

Can we put these cases in context and perspective.
There were 5 highly publicised cases that were reported between 2006 and 2008.
There have been none since.
All cases were reported to the MHRA via the yellow card system by either the patients or medical staff

Ashleigh cave: fluctuating paralysis between right and left leg. Extensively investigate with no cause found on CT/MRI or biopsy. She has no pathological diagnosis for her disease

Carly steel: aching joints and blackouts (not seizures). Thoroughly investigated with no pathological cause.
(both aching joints and blackouts are acknowledged as being potential adverse effects of the jab)

Sarah chandler: worsening of her chronic fatigue syndrome. Now resolved
Again the diagnosis of CFS is one of exclusion. It is not because any pathological findings can pinpoint a disease. Therefor worsening of this condition is reported entirely but the patient and can not be measured.

Lauren smith, numbness in her arm then leg (without paralysis). Dizzyness. Symptoms now resolved. Though she now has possible chronic fatigue syndrome
Her symptoms were investigated with no pathological cause. It is impossible, due to anatomy, to find a condition or drug or disease of any sort that with cause numbness without paralysis of one arm then the opposite leg.

Leah Mann: seizures. Drs have said this was an adverse reaction to her anti depressants

All adverse events discussed were reported. All have been investigated exhaustively by medics who agree that the symptoms are unlikely to have been caused by the jab (or any other pathological disease for that matter)

This is 5 reports out of tens of millions of vaccines given. No body has tried to cover these reports up. They have been take. Very seriously and investigated properly and thoroughly. There is no cover up. Simple 4 girls who have developed pathologically unexplainable symptoms and one who's had an adverse reaction to Anti depressants.

You still haven't answered the question. Do you think they've made it up?

Does underwhelmed mean "you don't care", "you don't believe them" or "it's only three so it doesn't matter even if it's true"?

There were thirteen cases of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome reported in the first year and ten cases of Chronic Fatigue and Post Viral Syndrome reported in the second. One case of Guillaine Barre in the second, one of systemic inflamatory response, eighteen of fatigue, one of abasia (inability to walk), one of asthenia (similar to chronic fatigue).

All are put down to coincidence and don't appear in safety studies, not after clinical investigation but after pattern and background study. No cases are being followed up except for patterns of CFS.

You are welcome to shrug but I am interested in what that shrug means, and how you square the circle. I suppose I want to bring your shrug out into the open. I'm sure it doesn't mean "I don't give two hoots" but I'd like you to justify it. I'd like you to be clear in your own head what your view of these cases is because I think often pro-vaccinists don't give them "head space".

I have to go out for the day but just to pre-empt your question: I don't assume all of these are linked - they may well be but of course I don't know. Some of them it does, as I said earlier, defy rational process to deny - and these cases aren't available as part of the decision-making apparatus when parents look at safety studies.

These very strong cases lead to the questions: to what extent are the official statistics undermined and to what extent can they be trusted?

Pims: I don't know where you got the figure of five from. My figures are from the MHRA.

There are forty-five with similar symptoms I've noted above, and those are mainly from the second year. The first year only offers CFS figures and doesn't break down the rest, so I've just left it there (though of course one could assume similarity of reporting outcomes and assume another thirty or so but it seems a bit pointless).

Also you seem to be claiming there were exhaustively investigated. This isn't true. For example wrt Ashleigh Cave, Dr Andrew Curran who was treating her said almost immediately "there is no pathological reaction to the vaccine". The MHRA itself explains how case reports are denoted as coincidence because of pattern investigation.

Covering them up is not something I've claimed - outright denial is, however.

Finding "no pathological cause" is a way of saying "we don't know but it's not the vaccine and that's that".

Obviously that's good enough for you.

No, an adverse reaction to the vaccine would be considered a pathological cause of disease. Thorough investigation by the medics have concluded these were not pathological.
The Fluctuation paralysis and sensation reported by these girls as I have described in my previous post can not be caused by any physical condition. It is anatomically impossible

Could you ask for clarification on my meaning if you are unsure, rather than paraphrasing that I'm saying something I am categorically not, thanks

I think the points you are trying so hard to make, derived from very unpromising material as PIMs has shown, are tenuous at best and downright ludicrous at worst.

The question 'are they making it up?' is irrelevant. There is no circle to square. Just a statistically very insignificant number of cases, that have been investigated despite your protests and nit-picking, and no vaccine-related cause found. (So, not enough to make a difference to my risk evaluation process/"it's only three so it doesn't matter even if it's true"?) They are not very strong cases. They are the opposite in fact.

I don't know what question of mine you were preempting. It's nice to have someone else offer to do my thinking for me, but I can assure you I am well able to do that for myself still.

It seems to me, again, that you really do not trust anyone in the medical profession one inch and are able to fixate minutely on the smallest issue you identify to justify incredibly far-reaching statements wrt vaccines, while there is a vast body of figures that have been reported, verified, tested and investigated that you question and ignore. Nothing the medical or scientific community says about vaccines is good enough for you, in other words.

And the exhaustive investigation was by each patients own clinical team. The MHRA have looked at the clinical notes of each case.

I'm not trying to be rude, but your posts are quite difficult to follow. You jump from wanting individual cases acknowledged to all adverse cases reported to one report of GBS. I am happy to address any and all points, but you make it difficult when you make unrelated points.

It is clear from the evidence that there is no causative link between the vaccine and these girls symptoms.
It was concluded on autopsy that the other case of ascending paralysis was NOT caused by the vaccine.

This vaccine does have recognised side effects, no one is disputing that. There is no evidence to show an increased risk of serious effects as I have demonstrated.

Math: how refreshing that you have found your voice this morning. The "unpromising" material from Pims doesn't cover the number of cases involved but if you prefer you can continue to ignore my post with its references to the true numbers involved.

Pims: I feel that you are trying to be rude because it's obvious that I'm not jumping about - and my posts aren't difficult to follow at all. I think you might have been confused by Maths being incapable or unwilling of understanding and answering a straightforward question.

Math you still haven't answered it, though you've found a lot to say. It's not irrelevant, and goes to the very heart of the issue where official statistics are quoted again and again and again.

The crux of the issue being, of course: are these statistics to be trusted? This is not difficult to understand. In fact it's so easy to understand I think you might both be trying to distract attention from it by accusing me of trying too hard, jumping about, misquoting you, nit-picking and so on.

In fact I think you're probably deliberately goading now because it is a difficult question. You never do it when you feel you're on safe ground, only when things become more difficult for you to respond to. If you're just going to be personal and perjorative there seems little point in responding to you.

Are these statistics to be trusted?
Yes. Based on a number of reasons
One, the quality evidence is of a very high standard and volume of evidence and also high

Two, there is a lack of pathological disease in the adverse cases i discussed.

Three, no causative statistical link to show increased risk of any serious reactions

Four, no causative risk found on thorough review of serious reactions reported

Five, the risks of the disease are significantly greater than the risk of the jab

These are the facts

If you base the argument on the estimation that adverse events are under reported (could I also point out that bumbleymummy agreed that estimations are not helpful)
If you think that potential adverse reactions of vaccines are under reported, you also have to accept that the adverse events of the medical treatments and investigations for HPV are also under reported. (I don't think that they are)
What I am saying is that the standard you use to discredit one medical treatment you can't not use to defend another.
If vaccinations are under reported then so too are the adverse effects of smears, HPV and cancer treatment. So how can you confidently say that smears are safe and should be used instead of the jab when they are judged by the same standards and judged by the same people.
Again, I reiterate, I don't think there is an issue here. However this is the crux of your debate.

With an increased understanding of the pathology anatomy and physiology of the body alongside a grounded understanding of the research process (including what does and does not constitute good evidence) I am satisfied that the evidence is full and accurate and the statistics are safe. (this is my opinion, but is based on analysis of the evidence)

If your 'true numbers' come from vaccine forums, newspapers and Hansard,, then I wonder how you think they are true yet other sources of numbers are certainly tainted.

May I say that I find your posts very hard to follow, hence my query about exactly what question you wanted answered -- especially as some of your questions appear to be rhetorical. Style of writing and organisation both militating against ease of comprehension therefore.

'Math you still haven't answered it, though you've found a lot to say.'
You've had your answer.
Here it is again --
The people with the symptoms probably weren't lying about the symptoms.
However, if they claimed the vaccines caused the symptoms they were not qualified to make any diagnosis and therefore their opinions about the cause of the symptoms are irrelevant and so is your question about whether they were lying, whether it refers to lying about symptoms or guessing about the causes .
The doctors who examined them and found no link to vaccinations were not lying.
The only element that is relevant therefore is the opinion of the examining doctors about the symptoms.

The statistics are trustworthy. There are lots of them, from a lot of different sources. On balance, they tell the truth about the situation. (This answer is based on an assumption that your question refers to the masses of statistics from reporting. If not, you are welcome to clarify.)

You can't completely dismiss one set of stats and completely believe another -- dismiss the yellow card or CDC figures and believe newspaper accounts. That approach is irrational.

here are

some links about

aluminium hydroxide and hypophosphatemia to deal with your claims about "anatomical impossibility"

You can believe the stats are trustworthy if you like. It's a condition of belief though.

I see no reason why they should be any more trustworthy with this vaccine than, say, MMR.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Well done and thank you for being more civil. Let's keep it this way.

The side effects you linked earlier are pathological and diagnosed in a clinical exam and investigation. None of them mention fluctuating paralysis in contralateral limbs either.

What exactly have your most recent links to do with the topic at hand, Blu?

Well, it's been about 10 years since I've been on mn. The girls in my daughter's class are being given the HPV jabs tomorrow. She is the only one not having it. We discussed the issues together, did some research - there is SO MUCH info available online - some of the academic papers quoted here, Cancer sites, BBC, broadsheet sites, pro-vac sites, anti-vac sites - and we've decided to decline, for now. All the information provided by the school has come from the manufacturers of Cervarix - and I've been shocked at how unquestioning parents are about it! - so really welcome the debate on this thread. I'm not anti-vaccination, btw but I am concerned that it is too early to tell, yet, of the long-term side-effects of Cervarix. Thank you for the links you've posted - I've been reading all of them, hence I'm still up at this hour.

The AS04 adjuvant, containing aluminium hydroxide.

"Metabolic side effects have included hypophosphatemia with the use of aluminum hydroxide...Aluminum hydroxide complexes with phosphate in the gut to form insoluble aluminum phosphate, thus inhibiting the absorption of dietary phosphate."

"Hypophosphatemia: Hypophosphatemia is a low level of phosphorus in the blood.

Symptoms
?Bone pain

?Confusion

?Muscle weakness"

Fifi thank you for your contribution. How was the response of the school to your decision?

Weren't safety tests done with the control group receiving a "vaccine" containing only the adjuvant?

That would mean the safety studies pims is quoting wouldn't have looked at adjuvant problems.