To not let dd have the HVP vaccination?

[DogGoneMad]

Dh and I really disagree on this.

Pims: everything I have said is relevant. Actually quite a lot of it is objective.

I'm Dave: you had already made up your mind.

I don't need to do anything, the thread reads plain for all too see. People can make up their own minds.

Ladies you are obviously both passionate about your own POV but is this over-heated discussion really helping the poor OP, who I'm sure wishes she'd never asked?!

PIMs thanks for the offer of more research stats-I'll certainly get back to you.

No problem bossy. All the best

Three or four examples of under-reporting then?
'Obviously there are many thousands of parents who could bring their personal experience of vaccine damage here --'
'Obviously it's not the only one.'
Obviously?

'My point is that these individual cases do not appear in these studies. They are denied. They only appear on adverse events reporting systems - which you dismiss - and adverse event support forums - which you dismiss.'

Anyone can report an adverse reaction. All are noted. If you can come up with anything better than a handful of cases you name and the word 'obviously' as in 'obviously there must be many more', then give the numbers and stop hinting darkly at some sort of tip of the iceberg scenario.

Oh and stop the whining about insults. You are well able to dish it.

Any more comment on temporal correlation?

And to answer another question -- yes until you can provide proof that there is massive under-reporting then I will say you have made it up.

I can predict the reply that's coming...
Hope you are well this fine evening maths

After some comments about vested interests again, I would like to add that I have tried to give info related to screening/prevention development of CIN/cancer and tried (very hard!) to avoid saying what my view on HPV vaccination is.

I guess overall I lean towards being in favour, and that is as someone who personally has nothing to gain, as it will ultimately probably mean I will need to find a new career!

I will try and pick on explaining on what cervical screening is likely to look like in the future, if there continues to be a high % vaccination coverage tomorrow.

I will have a read of the New scientist paper and digest too, thanks for the link.

Bela, to be fair I don't think those comments were aimed at you. Your info has been hugely informative and objective. I enjoyed reading it.
If you do read the ns article (and some of the issues in it I think you may have already addressed), I would suggest you look at the 2011 meta analysis and compare In terms of included information.
I really don't think it's the most balanced article looking at the vaccine all evidence considered

had a busy day teaching and feeling a bit frazzled, probably not the best time to dip into this thread.
Will have a read of NS and come back with thoughts which may even be related

Look forward to it, hope you have a better day tomorrow

I was having a think.

"Daughter, are you having unprotected sex yet, at age 10?"

"No, Mum"

"Well tell me when you are, and we can discuss how many partners you're going to have, and if they're nice boys or not, then we can decide if you need a vaccination which will reduce the risk oif you dying of cancer"

Nope.
To me it seems far simpler to just assume that most people, sooner or later, will have some sex, and may be exposed to the virus.

I was also having a think about this:
" if I may c & p:

"There are many other gaps in our knowledge. How long does the vaccine provide protection without a booster? Does it affect natural immunity against HPV, and with what consequences? Can we really be sure that the vaccine protects preadolescent girls when proper clinical trials have been carried out only in women aged 16 to 24?

Another critical question is what vaccination does to the uptake of cervical screening. As the vaccines protect against only some of the cancer-causing strains, women must continue cervical screening. But vaccinated women may feel protected and therefore be less likely to go for screening.

Resolving these essential questions will require decades of observation of large numbers of women."

These are interesting and challenging questions - and as you say, research is "ongoing". They haven't yet been answered."

So here's an unanswred question. Can we really be sure that the vaccine protects preadolescent girls when proper clinical trials have been carried out only in women aged 16 to 24?

No, we can't. Equally, do we have some reason to be sure that it doesn't? Or do we even have any reason to believe that it does anything other than give protection against the virus? No, we don't. So what is the purpose of the question? Is it to add fog and confusion? Or it is demanding that we find a statistically significant sample of girls under 16, give half of then the jab and half not, and then expose them all to unprotected sex with a number of different partners? Almost certainly not. So, again, what is the constructive purpoise of this question? I can't see it. Can someone point it out to me in short clear sentences please?

And here's another observation "Resolving these essential questions will require decades of observation of large numbers of women."

Yep. So is there a conclusion to be drawn from the fact that long-term research takes a long time? Does it mean that we should not use health-promoting measures until research has ended? Does it provide an argument for delaying vaccinations which are known to save lives? Or is it just adding obfuscation?