To not let dd have the HVP vaccination?

[DogGoneMad]

Dh and I really disagree on this.

Leonie, you really are missing the point about causation and link

I'm not sure what you are trying to demonstrate with those links. They do not show that the vaccine caused the event.

I have posted the information from a safety review of all adverse data reported.

The most up to date meta analysis from this year extensively examined all studies and adverse reporting and found the vaccine to be safe.

I really am not patronising here but you are totally misinterpreting the information you are linking.

I could report sudden appendicitis as an adverse reaction, (it's not!!!) but this doesn't mean the vaccine caused it.
I could have had appendicitis developing before the jag, I would have developed it any way, but has to be reported.
Then the info is collated and examined compared to the number of episodes that would have been expected in the general population anyway. We can tell if there is a problem if a higher than expected number of diseases or reactions take place.

The safety report on these vaccines actually investigated further than that

DD was due to have it a few days after the girl died immediatley after having the injection at school. I did some research and withdrew my DD from the programme as I felt it hadn't been tested enough and I didn't like the idea of mass injections at school, although I realise it is an effective way of doing things.

However, she did later have the vaccine in the doctors surgery before she was at risk. Most women will get the HPV virus that can lead to cervical cancer. If you are really frightened by her having it at school then do what mine did but before she becomes sexually active.

The problem is, that if debate is stifled, there can never be an answer to the question: What is the alternative to a child having a cervical cancer jab?

That's what I'm seeking.

And I know some people will say: the only alternative is cervical cancer and certain death.

It's not a case of one of the lucky ones . Millions of children suffer no adverse reactions. Vaccines are on the whole far, far safer than allowing children to come down with the diseases they guard against. Hepatitis and Meningitis and even measles are much more of a risk than any vaccine to the health of children. Cervical cancer is something I would not wish on my worst enemy, let alone my child.

No-one is accusing you of not loving your children. What you are being accused of here is scaremongering and not understanding basic scientific principles.

There is no reason to allege a 'gung ho' attitude to vaccinations. A lot of people have made completely informed decisions that have taken them in the opposite direction from the one you have chosen. It is not gung ho or reckless in any way to look at the statistics and decide that your child is better off being vaccinated than going without protection.

The alternative is not cervical cancer and certain death.

The alternative is risking some forms of HPV, those most likely to cause cervical cancer. Cervical cancer can be cured but obviously it claims many victims and leaves many devastated families thanks to the fact that it attacks women. The vaccine guards against most types of HPV but not all. Pap smears are still necessary on a regular basis once a woman becomes sexually active. Most women will be exposed to the HPV virus once they become sexually active.

The alternative is to live with more risk as opposed to less risk.

But if you consider what happens with HIV and herpes: a putative partner is supposed to be responsible for knowing their HIV status and warning anyone they want to sleep with in advance. In fact it's a criminal act not to do so. I don't know what the situation is with herpes; I imagine it ought to be the same.

So if, as Bela's links seem to show, we are on the brink of being able to detect HPV and identify the strains, then it will be the responsibility of a carrier to inform a potential partner that they have HPV.

I might be wrong in the above; I'm asking, not stating. Grateful for any feedback.

Continuing my line of thought based on Bela's links:

We expect our dc to protect themselves against HIV and herpes mainly by:

• only sleeping with someone when they know them well
• only sleeping with someone they believe to be unlikely to deliberately lie to them
• only sleeping with someone who is prepared to take a test for HIV or herpes if they suspect they could conceivably have been infected

So if our dc take that approach, and in the near future there is a test for all HPV strains, then HPV is covered, surely?

I would feel a bit shit if I had my dds vaccinated, only to be told shortly afterwards that there's a better way of doing things.

' VAERS data cannot be used to prove a causal association between the vaccine and the adverse event. The only association between the adverse event and vaccination is temporal, meaning that the adverse event occurred sometime after vaccination. Therefore, the adverse event may be coincidental or it may have been caused by vaccination, however we cannot make any conclusions that the events reported to VAERS were caused by the vaccine.'

From your link, Leonie (US CDC).
Your bald statement that there have been 68 deaths in the US from Gardasil is not actually true.

Please read the links you post and try to understand the huge difference between saying 'there have been a total 68 VAERS reports of death among those who have received Gardasil' [CDC report] and your assertion that these deaths were from Gardasil, in light of what the CDC points out right off the bat in the article: VAERS data cannot be used to prove a causal association between the vaccine and the adverse event

Lemonbalm --
From the US CDC:

'How do people get HPV?

HPV is passed on through genital contact, most often during vaginal and anal sex. HPV may also be passed on during oral sex and genital-to-genital contact. HPV can be passed on between straight and same-sex partners?even when the infected partner has no signs or symptoms.

A person can have HPV even if years have passed since he or she had sexual contact with an infected person. Most infected persons do not realize they are infected or that they are passing the virus on to a sex partner. It is also possible to get more than one type of HPV.

Rarely, a pregnant woman with genital HPV can pass HPV to her baby during delivery. Very rarely, the child can develop juvenile-onset recurrent respiratory papillomatosis.'

Further:
'People can also lower their chances of getting HPV by being in a faithful relationship with one partner; limiting their number of sex partners; and choosing a partner who has had no or few prior sex partners. But even people with only one lifetime sex partner can get HPV. And it may not be possible to determine if a partner who has been sexually active in the past is currently infected. That's why the only sure way to prevent HPV is to avoid all sexual activity .'
If that is a realistic option for you or for your DCs then that is a valid choice to make.

There is only so much you can know about anyone, and people sometimes don't even know they are infected or could be infected. The virus can remain dormant for years. Condoms are not effective against HPV as the virus can affect areas that are not protected by the condom.

Yes, but Math, that's the exciting thing about Bela's info. We are going to be able to test for HPV - just as we can find out if we are HIV positive.

It seems to me that JPV is very like HIV. Isn't it?

Sorry HPV.

And all those teens and young adults out there can cross their legs until then.

I don't think any parent can do anything except make a judgement about what's right for their own dc. Based on stuff like individual medical history, family medical history, peer group, personal belief system, etc etc.