To not let dd have the HVP vaccination?

[DogGoneMad]

Dh and I really disagree on this.

That should say the risks and benefits of vaccination are too unstable.

think I found it

82 participants from one university in one city....!! The power of that statistical analysis could have run my ipod for a whole minute
the conclusions were this:
Among newly sexually active women, consistent condom use by their partners appears to reduce the risk of cervical and vulvovaginal HPV infection.
Not correct use of condoms reduces risk by 70% as you incorrectly state. If that was a vaccine study, you would have found the same flaws as me and said more evidence on a greater level needs to take place before you can conclude anything

I don't understand your first line - how many years did it span?

PIMS, do you understand what 'unlikely' means? It does not mean that there is no chance of anyone in that group developing cancer. What do you think your friend's case proves exactly? What I take from it it is that screening every 2 years isn't frequent enough but you apparently disagree with that based on your comments from the other thread. I don't see how someone can conclude that screening every 2 years is adequate when it allowed someone to develop cell changes that advanced to cancer within that time.

As far as the vaccine being 100% effective goes; let's give it a few more years and look at that rate again. I would put money on it being less than that. Not a single vaccine to date has been 100% effective.

"Before you read this, remember that all reported reactions are included and if serious investigated to ascertain if there is a causal relationship."

This is actually not true. What happens is that patterns of adverse events reports are investigated.

In a link I posted earlier only two adverse events reports were tissue-investigated.

As women - no, as citizens - we should be advocating, publicly and privately, both the provision of smears and the provision of the vaccine, as well as the development and availability of better treatments.

p.s. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

That link was not I'maQuackdotcom, it was Medscape, a resource for doctors and health professionals.

I know what a straw man is: I responded to your claim that smears are a straw man in this debate. I'm actually wondering if you know what it means now.

Before you read this, remember that all reported reactions are included and if serious investigated to ascertain if there is a causal relationship."

This is actually not true. What happens is that patterns of adverse events reports are investigated.

I say black, you say white. It is true, an abnormally high number of minor events would be considered serious and would be investigated...to find a causal relationship if any

I don't feel the need to insult you for your choice.
Um? You totally insulted me with your flip comment about your own experience with an abnormal smear. Insensitive and insulting. So, ummm - yeah.

brdgrl, I think that was bumbleymummy that said that - dont feel too bad, I get blueberties mixed up with her a lot too.

They normally post quite close together on the vax threads and the similar names get me everytime

You didn't find it, I gave it to you

It's something. And for those people deploring reference to other factors including personal responsibility:

"One of the greatest risk factors for acquisition of HPV among both men and women is having a greater number of lifetime sex partners.29,32 In studies of women, risk for genital HPV infection seems to increase with earlier age of sexual debut, higher number of partners among their sex partners (Figure 3), increasing age, and smoking.2,20,29,33,36 In the few studies conducted in men, lifetime and recent number of sex partners and perhaps frequency of sex emerge as risk factors for acquisition of HPV.9,37,38"

In that case, I apologize for mixing you up with another poster, bluberties.

It wasn't a personal insult - it was my own personal experience.

I didn't realise only one kind of personal experience was allowed on the thread.

"I say black, you say white. "

Actually, you are wrong and I am right.

All adverse events are not investigated as you claim, except epidemiologically.

Yet more false allegations PIMS! Find some proof before you make accusations. Unless the fact that I shared my experience makes me insensitive and insulting?

I never said they were all investigated!!! I said 'if serious' and I gave the hard evidence to show how the all adverse events had been broken down and the investigation of the serious ones including one autopsy report!!

Am I going mad???

Please stop posting about things 'I claim', as it seems to be figments of your imagination

I have also posted links to the MHRA to show how drug safety is monitored

Link for the quote above - you will not find it wanting.

Your post regarding your experience was offensive to cancer survivors, in the context and in the tone you adopted. Sorry you can't see that.

"...all reported reactions are....if serious investigated to ascertain if there is a causal relationship."

Yes, you did. I can hardly be imagining something available to copy and paste not a few minutes search away from this post.

This gives the impression the cases are individually investigated for a connection. This is not true.

Patterns are looked for, that's all, even with serious adverse events reports.

PIMS,you are accusing me of writing posts that brdgrl found offensive. I'd like you to prove that I posted something offensive rather than just assuming that it was me. Is it offensive to share a different experience?

bb, you missed out part of the sentence that alters its meaning. you are being misleading, not me
I said 'Before you read this, remember that all reported reactions are included and if serious investigated to ascertain if there is a causal relationship'
that does not imply that all adverse events are investigated

and lets try to stick to the debate shall we?