To not let dd have the HVP vaccination?

[DogGoneMad]

Dh and I really disagree on this.

'but they reckon that only 10% of adverse events are reported, and that may be a generous estimate...'

What do they base their reckoning on?

There are people who believe the CIA is responsible for 9/11.
There are people who believe the KGB killed JFK.
What do they base their theories on?

The idea that people are running scared of chicken pox in the US does not match my experience. Four of my DCs got chicken pox naturally. The fifth had no chance of catching it as most of her peers had been vaccinated by the time she came along. People get their children vaccinated because it is compulsory before entering school and because your chances of catching it naturally are slim to none. Not because there is hysteria about the disease or what it can do, though in adults who have never had the disease, complications are much more likely to be serious and life threatening. It is indeed very handy not to have to take time off work and be immunised with a jab instead of the illness and to be assured that the vaccination prevents 95% of serious cases where complications can be serious.

'"Please try and make sure the info you share is based on the best objective scientific evidence available. "

PLEASE tell me exactly why I have to do that?'

LeonieDelt, you need to do that because this is a matter of science, not what you feel or intuit .

...and because it is irresponsible and antisocial not to do so.

dd1 had chicken pox in the USA 3 years ago. she was all but put in an isolation ward. I had to tell the doctor what symptoms she shoudl be looking out for, what possible complications might be.

the hospital did not know what to do with us when we arrived (we needed certification of when she had come down with chicken pox, as proof for the airline so we could fly home again), and treated dd1 as though she had the plague. it was most bizarre.

I don't know how old your dc are, math - maybe some of the hysteria surrounding it is more recent, due to no one seeing much chicken pox anymore?

Comparing under-reporting to conspiracy theories about 9/11 is misleading.

Robert Fletcher received compensation for his profound vaccine injury 17 years after the vaccine was administered. It took that long, so much legal action, so much money, everything the manufacturer and the government could throw at the family. During that period his injury was never reported as a vaccine reaction. It could never have been used as a "decision-making" tool by parents considering MMR.

If you think his case is isolated that's up to you, of course; if you think there aren't thousands of people who have given up in the face of opposition, threats, financially exhausted, exhausted by caring for their child or children, have lost all hope after resting their trust in the medical authorities - that's up to you of course.

If one wishes one's own anecdotal evidence to be given respect and credence with regard to losses we may have suffered, we should accord the same to others. Or we might all be making things up.

Comparing claims that the HPV vaccines has been designed to sterilise young women is on a par with the 9/11 conspiracy theories, if not worse.
As for people just making things up, leonies 10% claim is a made up number. As you well know 80% of statistics are made up on the spot!
If I have used stats and figures I have supported them with a good evidence base. That last website leonie linked had some absolutely ridiculous sensationalist stories on it.

Adverse reactions can be reported by anyone via the yellow card system in the uk, a positive change to ensure that vaccines are not being under reported and could be flagged by anyone regardless of qualification. If anything this should lead to over reporting of adverse events.

Pims: if you want to respond to my post that would be great.

(and wildly shouting it's all made up!!!!!! won't really count I don't think)

Comparing claims that the HPV vaccines has been designed to sterilise young women is on a par with the 9/11 conspiracy theories, if not worse.
I don't know what this means, it's not a sentence, I don't know what it's referring to. It's certainly not a response to anything I've written.

as for people making things up.." it's you that is accusing people of making things up.

Did you not understand the sentence about according respect and credence to other people's personal experiences, as they have done to yours?

the yellow card system is all very well (and a good step in the right direction) but if people do not know it is there, they cannot use it. and the information is not given out readily.

a friend of mine had the flu jab last year (as he does every year). he collapsed, on the spot, and was bluelighted to hospital.

no one mentioned the yellow card system, nor did they seem in the slightest bit interested in even recording that it had happened immediately after vaccination. nor did they record the batch number of the jab. he had no idea that it was possible to self report, no idea at all.

so much for a system which s trying to record all adverse events

Quite silver: and Pims shows us exactly why it's pointless in terms of public awareness. Yellow card reports are just dismissed (ibid Pims) as "yes but they're just yellow card reports" - ie there's nothing in them.

Given that it can take a decade and a half (or until the twelfth of never) to achieve legal reparation, these cases just don't count anywhere - it's hard to know where to go for accurate figures but I would venture to say with confidence it's certainly not, therefore, the official statistics.

I learned something on this thread - I didn't realise UK yellow cards were assessed solely by computer. So if the computer doesn't observe a pattern, and legal reparation takes seventeen years, and people tell you that "those yellow card reports are exaggerrated and probbably made up" - where is the reliable information?

i spelt exaggerated wrong
or did i

BB, I was waiting for some objective evidence to support your claims

yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk/the-yellow-card-scheme/
Your claims are completely misleading and the info from the web gives a much more precise overview of how the yellow card system works.

I didn't say YOU made it up. I said Leonie made up the erroneous figure of 10%. I am not shouting that you are wrong. Am asking you to prove you are right with some reliable evidence.

I get from your post that you are angry but is it cause Ive called your bluff and you cant prove it??
You could ask people to post their stories of adverse events. I am not claiming that they don't happen, I have shared the adverse events associated with this vaccine honestly and openly. There are millions of mums out there who have vaccinated and can post positive stories. I know that you both have a personal axe to grind with MMR and childhood immunisations, but this thread is about HPV vaccination and information relevant to that would be considerably more useful. Start the MMR/chicken pox debate on another thread.

The crux of the debate is to compare the risk and I have consistently demonstrated the risks associated with HPV far outweigh the risks of the vaccine through evidenced based, scientific rigorous information

PIMS, do you understand the concept of conversation?

my post about chicken pox followd a couple of others on that subject, and aded my experience. it was not an attempt to derail the thread, only me adding an experience which was relevant to the thread at that point.

as was my post re: the yellow card system. yes, it was a reaction to the flu jab, not to hpv. but the thread was talking about the yellow card system, so I added my experience - it is how back-and-forth interaction works, usually.

I have no axe to grind wrt mmr and childhood immunisaitons, by the way. I do not think they are a good idea for my children, that is all (and with good reason, since dd2 has a medical condition which leaves her vulnerable to reactions).

oh, and am not sure why you wanted to bring the mmr or childhood immunisations into it at all, really, since I have mentioned neither on ths thread - wasn't it you who wanted to keep to the subject under discussion on the thread?

I don't know if this has been posted already, if so I apologies, but I don't want to trawl through 800 posts to find out. The New Scientist has an article in this weeks edition about the pros and cons of the HPV vaccine. I'm not going to go into it here, but the pro arguments are pretty well shot to pieces. New Scientist

thanks, Callisto. that is an interesting read. given my dds are still very young, I have the luxury of (some) time to wait and see for this one.

Callisto, it is an interesting piece, but it does not include the most up to date evidence available.

It is not particularly objective either. The info about VAERS fails to differentiate that although GBS has been reported it has been concluded that the vaccine was not causative of it.
A meta analysis of the literature was performed this year and found the vaccine to be safe and effective.

It supported ongoing research that is currently taking place

silverfrog, you would get a wealth of information more from the contemporaneous research articles I posted.

The vacccine only vaccinates against a minute percentage of HPV strains. Some of the strains it doesn't vaccinate against are also cancer causing. This is not a vaccination that can be compared to MMR because it doesn't necessarily do what it is meant to do. At the moment and with this information, I wouldn't get my DD vaccinated. Luckily she is only six.

A minor percentage of strains that cause 70-80% of cervical cancers
And one that causes 90% of genital warts

And the most recent meta analysis (2011) demonstrated that it is 95-100% effective in doing what it's supposed to.

PIMS, are you seriously trying to imply that I don't read links? honestly, your posts get more and more bizarre.

quite why you felt the need to post that, I don't know.

Callisto, thanks for posting that link which sums up quite a few of my concerns.