To not let dd have the HVP vaccination?

[DogGoneMad]

Dh and I really disagree on this.

clinical trial on 10-14 y/os scroll down to the 'eligibility' section.
study results including reported adverse events
To find this I googled "hpv vaccination trials" it was 9th result. I didn't click on the others because they were wikipedia, discussion pieces and this is a us government website for registering clinicial trials. It took me about 90 secs to find this.

Will have further look tomorrow.

Glad it's not just me piglet. I was starting to worry I had actually missed an answerable question
Despite certain claims, I would actually like to be helpful on this thread

thanks, belal, that's great. Though I'm puzzled to see that "serious adverse events" includes constipation and pyrexia. As the serious adverse events list includes fractured skull, alcohol poisoning and broken legs, I think we can safely say that is no causative link established between events and vaccination, would you agree?

Can you point me to the study that gives the estimates for deaths avoided by prevention of infection, and give me your opinion on whether the "adverse events" outweighs them?

that'd be super.

Thanks bela. Looks positive
this years meta analysis

good overview of the current situation

Fair enough I'mDave: I think it was the arrogance of calling people "anti-vac" when at least one, maybe two have very specifically said they aren't, and when for example my own children are partially vaccinated, I know Silver's had a poor experience of vaccination but has vaccinated - I think it was this arrogance that led me to belive you have what Pims would call a certain "mindset". But it's good that you say you have an open mind.

Can I just point out that there's been no "deeply unpleasant" posting from me - that is completely untrue. Please don't repeat it.

This is two years old but an interesting overview. It particularly speaks to the issue of trust. After the FDA safety review there's an assessment by Charlotte Haug published in Jama One of the interesting things about this is that there's no ridicule here (of adverse events reporting) from people who know a lot more than people on this thread. It's a detached assessment. It asks more questions than it answers, or have been answered.

VAERS

As you can see from the link above, the CDC estimates of reporting efficiency of adverse events to VAERS as between under one per cent and nearly seventy per cent. These relate to vaccines other than HPV but reference to under-reporting of adverse reaction to HPV is contained in the text linked to above. There is no reason to assume that this vaccine would have a different under-reporting trend. As the table shows, the most serious reactions are more likely to be reported. None of this speaks of under-reporting. I've copied and pasted the table but it's in the link:
Event* Reporting efficiency % nder one
OPV and vaccine-associated paralytic polio 68%
Rotashield® rotavirus vaccine and intussusception 47%
MMR + MR and seizures 37%
DTP and seizures 24%
MMR and thrombocytopenia 4%
DTP and hypotonic hyporesponsive episodes 3%
MMR and rash

In many ways I don't think it would matter how many cases I posted, as any such reports are instantly, automatically, dismissed and ridiculed, even described as "made up".

For example:this question was asked in parliament by the MP for Stacy Jones.

This case, like those of Ashleigh Cave and Carly Steele, is not under-reported. They are reported - but they are denied without resort. They do not appear in any statistical studies or any safety assessments. They are not available as a "decision-making tool" from any official source. They are either described as "made up" an extremely arrogant assessment - or dismissed as coincidence - not because of the specific clinical details of the case but because they do not fit into a pattern. This happens even when the effects suffered seem to be very similar to the warnings of adverse events identified in safety studies (≥20% of subjects were fatigue, headache, myalgia, gastrointestinal symptoms, and arthralgia.).

This denied level of risk, combined with the availability and effective smear testing, is the reason why I will not allow my daughter to have it and why I'll be recommending frequent testing instead.

I've found the links from Bela to be very interesting but I didn't expect to have my mind changed about Cervarix on the thread. I wanted to correct some of the misleading information and try to limit the emotional blackmail and ridicule. I don't think ridicule has any place on a thread where we are talking about serious morbidity and serious vaccine injury. Obviously other people disagree with me about that and seem to think it's the perfect place for it.

People should be able to make their decisions with as much information as possible - and that includes information not from official sources. I would be as concerned about persuading people one way or the other as I would about actually telling people what to do - either decision could be a tragic one for the family and the family ought to make it themselves. All one can do is urge a clear train of thought and a lot of research.

I'm very happy to say with confidence that there has been no deeply unpleasant posting from me on this thread. There has, however, been deeply unpleasant posting from a number of posters who disagree with me.

It doesn't become true if you say it a lot Bridge. I doubt there are many people who are going to read the whole thread: marvellous if they do - there is nothing to be embarrassed or ashamed of as far as I'm concerned.

You were unpleasant to me personally regarding my personal experience with cancer. You may not recall it or care, but you were.

I've also seen you be unpleasant to others.

But as I said - I'm happy to leave that judgement to others on the thread. As you have said yourself - repeating something doesn't make it true.

You should be ashamed. The fact that you don't see that is sad, but I suspect it is obvious to others. (Actually, I suspect you are a bit ashamed, but have backed yourself into a corner. Also sad.)

I have nothing to be ashamed of - I think there are others I would mention in that respect, with enthusiasm, but hey ho. This is just an attempt at personal attack rather than address the issues. It seems to have become rather a theme.

Why have I backed myself into a corner? What do you mean? What is sad?

If enough people have considered your posts to be unpleasant you have to reflect on what you have written. You have offended the last 4 posters you have addressed and that's just in the last few days.
You have accused me of ridiculing victims of vaccine damage when I have done nothing of the sort and am deeply insulted that you would suggest I have.
'just cause you say it doesn't make it true' and I can't understand why you think your opinion is exempt from this.
It has taken you ages to post anything close to evidence to support your opinion.
Will read your links and get back to you

Again, if anyone reads the thread, they will see the context of your remark. No interest in getting into a personal argument with you, but you have been repeatedly offensive and argumentative on this thread. I will say no more, because I do think it speaks for itself, but I also did not wish to let your claim that you are somehow the 'victim' here go unchallenged. It's disgusting.

I have not been repeatedly offensive. You need to stop pretending this.

Are you suggesting that being "argumentative" - as opposed to agreeing with you - is somehow abusive?

No interest in getting into a personal argument?

Bridge - that seems to be your only interest right now. If you want to address some of the points I've made, that would be great. I've tried to stick to the topic all the way through but many posters on the pro-vaccine side of the argument try continually to veer off into personal attack and accusations of aggression.

I'm not playing the victim - this is the way it is, plain and simple. I don't "do" victim.

I think the problem is that disagreeing with the mainstream medical opinion - as it stands currently - is seen as deeply offensive by some, especially people employed by the Health Service. It's seen as deeply disrespectful to the medical profession, and therefore intrinsically rude.

It really isn't. It's just a different opinion.

And, what must appear to be "stubbornness" in not accepting the arguments used by the medical profession over and over again.

It's really not rudeness. It's just having a different opinion.

And furthermore some people really do want to hear other opinions, not the same ones ad nauseam.