To not let dd have the HVP vaccination?

[DogGoneMad]

Dh and I really disagree on this.

Brigl: Math addressed my points, and Pims didn't. No, of course you don't have to address them if you don't want to, no one does. It's just that you said "you had no interest in a personal argument with me" after you started and continued a personal argument with me. That's the bit where you went wrong. I mean, either talk about the issue or don't, that's what I was saying.

Lemon: I think there is truth in what you say.

I think the whole issue makes some people feel very cross and then it's hard to keep a cool head. And if you feel very cross, you feel insulted when you haven't been; just disagreed with; but it can be hard to tell the difference when furious.

A DIFFERENT perspective on HPV Vaccination..... my DH is a GP and we have recently paid several hundred pounds to have our eldest two SONS vaccinated with Gardasil, which protects against 4, rather than 2 (Cervarix only protects against two, of the most common HPV strains.

HPV has been "sold" to the public as a female issue, but men are also at risk, and increasing risk according to recent data, HPV does not just cause cervical cancer, it also causes cancers of the penis, anus and head/neck/throat tumors. There has been a huge rise head/neck/throat cancers in young men, and the particular tumor types are HPV related. DH has seen several cases in his patients in the last couple of years.

Interestingly, just after we had started the boys on the first dose of Gardasil, a tv documentary looked at the issue of boys being excluded from the HPV program, and interviewed various cancer experts who agreed boys should be vaccinated, and that the vaccine used should be Gardasil as it protects against more HPV types. The dept of health spoke person said they would look at the new evidence, but clearly they didn't want to fund the extra....

Yy oldmum I think the issue of funding re cervarix/Gardasil comes into it. Also GSK has a very close relationship with the UK government.

What is the relationship, BB? It does seem absurdly close.

For example with the swine flu vaccine contracts were already in place to supply vaccine (with Baxter and GSK) if a "pandemic" situation arose. There is also professional movement: a former senior figure in the UK immunisation service is now with GSK and former colleagues are now customers.

Which is not to say, of course, that there is any impropriety. I think a good deal of the corporate-media-civil service world operates this way. In a way it makes sense that an expert on immunisation from the non-profit-making world would take that experience and knowledge with him into the corporate environment - and in fact could even act as a sort of "stay" on excessive enthusiasm for profit margins in that environment. I'm not suggesting that there is anything underhand about this at all.

From an economic/political POV of course Gordon Brown was absolutely desperate to show some kind of economic growth during his tenure as Prime Minister - hence giving the business to Glaxo Smith Kline, regardless of the merits or otherwise of the vaccine. And senior civil servants were intimidated by his tantrums, so won't have dared give impartial advice.

Oh, I am.

Yes there's the GSK British link also. It's all above board - the US government will have its own close links with its own companies. It's just the way things work.

Lemonbalm do be careful about being norty about this sort of thing. It goes down very, very, very badly.

It' s like life under the Nazis, though, isn't it? Surely there should be some freedom of expression. The wretched Fourth Estate are hopeless.

I have to agree with you to not let dd have the HPV vaccine as this was introduced recently with alot of controversy and at least one fatality. The HPV vaccine does not elimate all types of ovarian cancer.
The infection is transfered from boys if your child is sexually active before sixteen your child chance of geting ovarian cancer increases when the child is over sixteen the body is mature enough to fight any infection.
Girls don't need the vaccine unless they are active.

That's a bit extreme Lemon. I mean completely extreme. We have the Telegraph and there are journalists looking into it. I think it's wrong to see bad intention everywhere. It's not as if people who are in favour of the vaccine are actively in favour of multiple adverse events just to sell a product. The intentions of most in the industry are good: "follow the money" is a good mantra when one is looking for some of the reasoning behind it but I know people who work in the pharmaceutical industry and they are all well-intentioned - but they work on a large, epidemiological scale and individual cases can be lost, ignored, dismissed.

Sydney - you're getting your ovaries and your cervix muddled up

I think the government/pharmaceutical industry relationship is indeed "above board" in that it's no secret - obviously seeking to boost the British economy. Many would say: and what is wrong with that?

It's just not spelt out to people who are given the vaccines. And our daughters are too young to understand the implications of our political economy for their health, and to weigh political considerations in the balance when deciding whether or not they should be vaccinated.

Yes that's true - more information on this front would be helpful indeed.

X post. Yes, I agree the Telegraph does a good job. Although they never seem to cover the scale of the problem - life just muddles on regardless.

And most journalists just recycle press material provided by the GSK and their ilk. Why don't they at least look a bit further? Into the politics and economics, if not into the science?

YY. Journalists will cover whatever's "on" and vaccination isn't "on" at the moment. Basically. Also the smearing of Andy Wakefield really kyboshed the taking seriously of any adverse events controversy. Even on this thread - and it's a small example as you know! - efforts continue to portray anyone who questions the status quo or received wisdom as utterly bonkers, and no journo wants to be tarnished with the campaigning bore label.

And yes with knobs on to recycling press releases. Goodness yes.

No health journalist wants to be boycotted by the pharmaceutical industry, more to the point.

Or can afford to be.