To not let dd have the HVP vaccination?

[DogGoneMad]

Dh and I really disagree on this.

Where did I say ALL vaccines work like that? I pointed out that the hpv vaccines work by inducing immune response - you tried to say that they didn't because they weren't live and only live vaccines can induce an immune response. I corrected you because inactivated vaccines can also produce an immune response.

You suggested that the hpv vaccines 'introduced' antibodies, as if they were passive vaccines which they are not. The hpv vaccines DO NOT administer immunoglobins, they induce the production of antibodies.

This vaccine gives immunity without exposure to live disease. Happy?!
Thanks for the invite to read the power point presentation happy to say I'm more than familiar with the content.
And hep b has two forms, immunoglobulin for immediate protection following exposure and inactivated that will provide life long immunity following loading schedule

That's not what you said initially PIMS and you know it. Glad you've informed yourself now though. :)

Where did you say it? here

"In vaccines antibodies are introduced that will essentially give immunity without exposure to the disease"

I canNOT sleep

You should try hot milk and counting sheep

I did have more questions about screening intervals but I can see they'll probably be answered in the Artistic report which I haven't read yet.

Is this something I've missed on the thread

Blueberties - I did write about HPV testing earlier. Don't think artistic goes into screening intervals. Suggest reading BMJ article re screening and WHO report.

Interesting reading, shame it still isn't 100%effective at prevention.

Gonna try and dig out the paper to see what happens for the under thirties.

Considering the test is nearly 4 times more expensive, it really would have been useful to know the incidence of false positive and ability to distinguish between high risk and low risk strains

Bela: thanks, sorry to ask you to go over old ground.

DogGoneMad I agree with you - it's not a good idea to have your 12 year old vaccinated.

Don't let the bullies win the day.

You know best when it comes to your child.

There's an awful lot of rubbish propoganda spouted on here.

That's certainly one point of view. Unfortunately, the difficulty is that it's her body and her decision too.

I think a blanket approach of mum knows best could be dangerous.
Certainly in medical situations they have to rely on guidance and advice from the medical profession or take the time to achieve their own medical qualification.
To make decisions based on ignorance is hugely dangerous. Decisions can incorporate intuition with ALL the evidence avaliable.
A decision has to be informed and based on the best information available at the time.

Would you argue that you 'knew best' what treatment your child should receive in intensive care?
I have argued the huge benefits of vaccination against this disease and also very frankly reported the adverse events associated with.
If you think that is rubbish, I'm not going to change your mind.
To the op, please help her make the best decision based on all the evidence available. At the end of the day to withhold your consent if she wants it herself could have disastrous consequences on your relationship in you as a confidante as she starts to experiment with sex.
Not to mention, she may be allowed to have it anyway

Pims: are you talking about HPV testing? What you're looking for is the sensitivity and specificity of a test. HPV testing is very sensitive ie its nearly guaranteed to detect the HPV type you're testing for. It lacks specificity. Ie a woman may have HPV present but that doesn't mean she has CIN. Cytology (pap/smear test) is more specific than HPV testing. The sensitivity compared to HPV testing is often quoted as less but the NHS CSP stands up against it pretty well. The performance of the NHS programme against that of EU and the US is better. This is probably due to the quality standards, central/regional/local organisation and training which other countries don't have.

Pimsoclock. To answer your question, if my DD was in intensive care I would absolutely allow the medics to do their stuff - because, as you say, mother knows best, and mother knows that that would be the best for DD.

We have all lost touch with our innate sense of 'knowing' what's best. Best is not always dictated by statistics and data - that's why no vaccine is 100% safe - and that's why it's best to go by your gut instinct if you have one.

Having written done a lot of research a few research papers (not on this subject) it's familiar phraseology
Was curious to see what the paper actually said. I thought the specificity was likely to be pretty low.
Have you read the paper, is it the HPV-DNA viral testing they use in most vaccine efficacy studies?

PIMS the studies do go into the ability to distinguish between high and low risk HPV. There's an excellent paper looking at the difference between analytical and clinical sensitivity which I'll have to post later.

Blueberties: what was your question?

Yummyhoney: what do you consider to be propangda? I hope you'll read some of the info I've posted which gives you background info about HPV and screening.

PIMS my next q was going to be your background as your line of questions/turn of phrase suggests as much. I'll dig out some refs a bit later when I'm at my comp.
Personally at present with the small % of women vaccinated I think HPV testing is less useful particularly as primary screening. Triage for low grade abns is due to be rolled out next year and there's a lot of public education to be done.
I've suggested to MNHQ that they have a webchat on screening and HPV testing with someone from Cancer research UK and/or NHS CSP.

YH, I agree that intuition always has a place in decision making, put needs to be considered with ALL the information available.
And there is A LOT of info on HPV vaccines, CIN changes and cervical cancer.

If my mother made the decision for me then I contracted HPV, I would be angry at her for not giving me the choice.
My mum made a choice to not give me prophylactic antibiotics even though the medics advised it for recurrent kidney infection. She thought she knew me best and could tell if I wasn't well and thought the antibiotics would cause me problems.
As a result of this I have irreversible kidney damage and will potentially end up on the transplant list or needing dialysis.
My mum thought she made the right decision at the time based on intuition and she now regrets it bitterly.
When i was diagnosed i was angry, I'm less angry now but I do still feel resentful that she didn't listen to the medics especially as I know the pros and cons that were explained at the time.

It needs to be an open conversation, where the risks and benefits are clearly outlined and the outcome is agreed by both parties.

Bela, I'll be watching that roll out with great interest.
Good idea on contacting mnhq, given the level of interest in the thread I can imagine it would be hugely useful

Bela - I shall read it tonight - thanks.

Pims - Yes, that was a tragic situation for you, but I imagine the reverse is true of others. Sometimes it's a case of 'damned if you don't, damned if you do'.

I hope you'll forgive your mum, knowing that she is herself tormented.

With regards to my own DD, she is very studious, very sensible, quite prudish and no boyfriends on the horizon, and I explained to her that I didn't feel she needed it whilst she was a virgin (now 16) and that when she starts dating, if she wants to be vaccinated then it's up to her. At the time my instinct told me that she shouldn't have it, and I stand by that.

I've raised her to have high self-esteem and self-worth and I don't think she'll give herself too easily, so I feel the risks of the vaccine are not worth it for her. I don't think that of every girl - certainly.

YH, of course I forgave my mum. But she'll never forgive herself.
I don't agree that this is one of those situations where you are damed if you do or damed if you don't.
For me the greater risk, based on all the objective evidence, lies with vaccination.
That is my opinion, and each individual will have to make their own decision based on all the information they have available.

I think if there are any risks on both sides, this adds weight to support that the decision should be joint and certainly not dictated.

for me the greatest risk based on all the evidence is not giving the vaccine. The risks of HPV are much greater than the risks of the vaccine
jeez

Oh dear, I was sent this today:

Abstract:
Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science's understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously
evaluated in the medical and scientific community. We hope that the present paper will provide a framework for a much needed and long overdue assessment of this highly contentious medical issue.
Keywords: Aluminum adjuvants, adjuvant safety, autoimmunity, autism, Gulf War Syndrome, multiple sclerosis, macrophagic myofasciitis, neurotoxicity, seizures, Th2 immune response, vaccines
Affiliation: Post-doctoral fellow, Neural Dynamics Research Group, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia, 828 W. 10th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1L8, Canada.

in the paper this is also said:
"Another issue of concern is the lack of any toxicological evaluation about concomitant administration of aluminum with other known toxic compounds which are routine constituents of commercial vaccine preparations, e.g., formaldehyde, formalin, mercury, phenoxyethanol, phenol, sodium borate, polysorbate 80, glutaraldehyde "

Sorry this is the author:

New paper by Vancouver neuroscientist Chris Shaw, and Tomljenovic continues raising critical questions about the assumed safety of aluminum, which is in virtually all vaccines these days, and the demonstrated neurotoxic effects of aluminum, which are at least as bad, probably worse, than mercury (thimerosol) .