To not let dd have the HVP vaccination?

[DogGoneMad]

Dh and I really disagree on this.

Here's an example: after Pims accused us of aggression and a series of other things (there was none - it's very easy to read back and check) I said - there's an easy solution, stop being aggressive. Result: my post was deleted and not Pims.

This is beyond ludicrous.

Just trying to wrap my head around the idea that something that allegedly did not happen can be documented and set out in a table...

'Math: btw I understood you knew what "temporal correlation" means?'
Well yes, I do know what it means.
I wanted to know what your take on it is.
I'm still waiting.

"I wouldn't accept much risk of side effects at all in an 11-year-old girl, because if she gets screened when she's older, she'll never get cervical cancer," Dr. Haug said in an interview. "You don't have to die from cervical cancer if you have access to health care."
Now that remark I find a bit cavalier. No you mightn't die, but you might end up extremely ill, require a hysterectomy, several years of chemotherapy and radiation, all while in the prime of your life and possibly when you have a young family and/or career to take care of. This happened to a cousin of mine, who had 4 young children at the time, one with SN. Cervical cancer stole from her and from her family several years of her life during which they didn't know if she would still be with them next Christmas.

Access to healthcare obviously counted for a lot, but she personally would have preferred not to have had cervical cancer. My cousin would have agreed with Dr Haupt (of Merck, so a part of the 'corporate-media-civil service world' and therefore anything he has to say should be taken with a pinch of salt right?) -- "Pap screening alone is not the answer".

Hi all,

We want to remind many of you who post a lot in the Vaccinations topic about our Talk guidelines.

We know that vaccinations is an emotive subject that evokes strong opinions and heated debate. And we have absolutely no problem with this on Mumsnet as long as it stays within our guidelines.

But when healthy debate descends into a oneupmanship and personal attacks, we have to step in and remove comments. We would much rather allow the debate to continue and the last thing that we want is to stifle this.

We would like to remind you that our raison d'être is to make parents' lives easier by pooling and sharing advice and support. We ask members to respect each other's opinions even if they don't agree with them. There is, after all, no point having a discussion if you're not prepared to engage with other posters and take the time to consider and respond (respectfully!) to their point of view.

Just trying to wrap my head around the idea that something that allegedly did not happen can be documented and set out in a table...

Well, you know what, it comes from the CDC so there you go. The pro-vaccination mothership.

Temporal correlation - two events happen arround the same time (with HPV vaccine adverse events reports, one following the other). Doesn't mean they're connected, doesn't mean it's a coincidence. Sometimes the way you post, I'm convinced you think "temporal correlation" has equivalence to "coincidence". It doesn't. Remember this - in the same way I'm able to remember it doesn't have equivalence to "causality".

You knew all this. Whatever is your point.

Rebecca, I would really appreciate a response to my email. You are obviously here.

And by the way - I don't need reminding, as HQ very well know.

@Blueberties

Rebecca, I would really appreciate a response to my email. You are obviously here.

Hi BB,

You will be receiving a mail shortly. Apologies, but I hope that you can appreciate that it takes some time to read a thread of close to 1000 posts.

That's the best possible reason for the delay. Thank you.

You are aware that the Lancet has apologised and said it should not have published the untrue and misleading article?

Response: But this is twelve years or more later. For years it maintained the paper was a good piece of science.

So...are you suggesting that because for a period of time, prior to retraction and apology, the paper erroneously (by their own admission) allowed this information to circulate, that it should still be perpetuated??? Don't you see, yourself, how it is a blow against your own position???

At one time, people believed that black people were lower on an evolutionary scale than white people. That statement was published. That position has been soundly and scientifically refuted. Any one who now attempts to repeat it as 'science' is rightly ridiculed. But I guess by your standard, it would hold up???

This is perfect.

BB, with regards to the links you posted. I am really struggling to see your point. no one has claimed that adverse events do not occur.

However there is no evidence to show that there is any worrying causatory relationship between either of these vaccines and serious adverse events.

What point do you want addressed?

Brigl: Piglet was complaining about alleged scare stories and allegedly made up propaganda at the time, not now. She was claiming that was why vaccination uptake dropped.

Why are you comparing it to racism? Why are you doing that. Are you accusing me of being a racist?

Pims: the evidence would be, the similarity of symptoms to those found in safety studies and acknowledged by the manufacturer, and the fact that they occurred after vaccination.

There is less evidence than that show there is no causatory relationship. And yet "no causatory relationship" is claimed. Absolutely claimed, without resort. There is no other reason given for the regression. There's no cause. Doctors are still trying to find out what happened to the girls. But despite this we are told - it is not the vaccine. I just don't see a reason to believe it. I certainly haven't been given a reason.

And Pims: you have claimed that under-reporting of adverse events does not occur. I have shown you (via the CDC website) that you are wrong.

No, I refuted leonies claim that only 10% of events were reported. Your CDC estimations don't support that and are only relevant to America
It is still just an estimation, not proof

You said - twice - that there was more likely to be over-reporting. I think you are now accepting that there is under reporting but it is less than 90 per cent? That's what I've said.

The irony of simply rejecting an adverse event out of hand, and then saying the fact that it doesn't appear in the figures means it's not an adverse event - why that's just so incredibly circular. That's not even thinking straight I'm afraid. That's like saying "it's not an adverse event because it's not an adverse event".

Yes - your last sentence - all that was acknowledged by me when I copied and pasted the table and linked the site.

I said the fact that parents can report as well could lead to over reporting.
I didn't ever state that we had a situation looking at over reporting as there is no evidence that can support that.

Can you try to re quote me word for word as the omission of one word drastically changes the meaning of a sentence. I don't want people to get the wrong idea

All adverse events reported are included in the data regardless of the source

I am glad you accept then that there is not over-reporting and there is under-reporting.

"could lead to over-reporting" - when it's quite easy to find out there is none at all - is misleading

Where did I accept there was under reporting?
It has been suggested by your sources. I don't see any proof.
As I said the CDC is American, do you have info for the uk?

No, I couldn't find info for the UK unfortunately. I don't think the government supplies it.

My sources are the CDC. Are you trying to make them sound suspicious and unreliable?

Do you accept there is under-reporting or not? Do you agree with the CDC efficiency reporting ratios? What reasons do you have to disbelieve them?

Np, they are an estimation. If I was to estimate efficacy of a vaccine you would not accept it as truth or fact, would you?

They have to be an estimation - this is under-reporting we're talking about. So do you accept there is under-reporting or not?

I am saying an estimation of anything is not useful and can be used misleadingly.

You would not accept an estimation from me to support a pertinent point.

I do not accept that an estimation adds or removes any validity from the high quality information that has proven and reported the safety, quality and efficacy of this vaccine

I don't understand why you think it's not useful. I've backed up claims of under-reporting with relevant denied reports. These aren't just claims -- the CDC believes there is under-reporting. Do you disagree with that? Whether or not they're estimates of the extent of under-reporting. Why do you think those estimates are wrong? Are you privy to more information than the CDC.

I do not accept that an estimation adds or removes any validity from the high quality information that has proven and reported the safety, quality and efficacy of this vaccine

That's your prerogative: I've shown however that it's important not to ridicule claims of under-reporting, condemn as "made up" reports which are denied with no apparent clinical reason and dismiss out of hand individual cases which may not appear in large scale epidemiological studies.

What people do with the information is up to them. I think it has value, and I think it's important people have it. It's really up to parents to decide what to do with the info.