To not let dd have the HVP vaccination?

[DogGoneMad]

Dh and I really disagree on this.

As for 'patterns are looked for, that is all'
Not in the safety report I referenced. But thanks for the general infor

I am afraid, bridge, that stories and misleading claims about screening will lead to women not pursuing that route. I am concerned that women who read these threads will be so worried about screening and the usually minor procedures which might possibly ensue that they will avoid the whole process.

Screening, regular and frequent, is required and recommended even if you are vaccinated. Therefore I believe attempting to convince women it is virtually useless and possibly life-threatening are Not A Good Thing.

bumbleymummy, i checked. my original recollection was correct. ta.

BB, I am not disregarding vaccine damage, I am putting it in the same context that you and bm have given the death of my friend. You have persistently failed to acknowledge that her death was preventable with the vaccine in the face of hugely convincing evidence
If you think I have been disregarding, then you both need to look in the mirror.

I have never disagreed with BM in saying that screening is necessary, but it is an adjunct, not a replacement

brdgrl, I own you an apology!!

No worries, pims. I am grateful to you for continuing to try and speak sense...

I'm afraid you aren't Pims. I don't deny that your friend died of cervical cancer. I do not think you are lying and neither does bubbly.

You do not offer the same respect to parents of children who have suffered vaccine damage. You presume they are wrong.

This is hypocritical.

Therefore I believe attempting to convince women it is virtually useless and possibly life-threatening are Not A Good Thing.

I am certainly not in anyway saying screening is useless.
I was posting in response to the ridiculous claims that screening was a safe alternative to vaccine. It is not. It is an adjunct and all medical procedures carry risk. The less medical procedures necessary the less the risk IE biopsy, laser therapy, hysterectomy, chemo, radiotherapy could all be avoided with a vaccine

You do not offer the same respect to parents of children who have suffered vaccine damage. You presume they are wrong
I have never suggested you are wrong, just very set in your own opinions
I entirely acknowledge that vaccine damage does occur and is devastating and would never try to brush it under the carpet as acceptable collateral.
Do not imply that I am something I am not

It is not a ridiculous claim. Out of interest, it's a recommendation by one of the researchers into these vaccines. You have certainly claimed that earlier screening and regular screening would be useless in preventing cervical cancer.

You have also certainly claimed that screening, not even the procedures but screening itself, can be very dangerous.

You may well accept that "vaccine damage occurs" but when women relate their personal experience of it you do not believe that their child was injured by a vaccine even though it is not recorded as such.

I would also like to say that I have lost count of the number of times I have read the phrases "the plural of anecdote is not data" "that's not evidence that's anecdote" "these are just stories from people who need something to blame" and so on and so forth.

It seems the evidence of personal experience - which I have no problem acknowledging - is only valuable to some people, like you, when it supports their point of view.

bb stop misquoting me
You have certainly claimed that earlier screening and regular screening would be useless in preventing cervical cancer

I said that in the case of my friend, screening would not have prevented her cancer as she went from having a normal smear to being terminally ill in two years.
I said that even regular screening will not prevent all cancers which is entirely true as its a tool for detection. If screening did prevent all cancers then we would not have the current cervicle cancer rates. Prevention comes from not getting HPV in the first place. This negates the need for any curative treatment. Screening is an adjunct, not a replacement

Anything else you want to misquote me on, you should work for news of the world!!

You owe me one too PIMS...doubt you'll give it though.

PIMS, no one can say that a vaccine could definitely prevent a death from CC. The point we are making is that at some point in the development of CC abnormal cells can be caught and treated before they became cancerous. More frequent screening increases the chances of finding those cell changes thereby preventing cancer and saving lives.

It seems the evidence of personal experience - which I have no problem acknowledging - is only valuable to some people, like you, when it supports their point of view

I fully agree, and you are just as guilty of that as anyone else

PIMS, you keep jumping from screening to cancer treatment - you are aware that there is a stage in between aren't you?

More frequent screening increases the chances of finding those cell changes thereby preventing cancer and saving lives.
Again, those words 'increase the chance' Come back when you have some real evidence and we can talk more

The vaccine has a 95-100% success rate for being able to prevent 70-80% of cervical cancer.

you are aware that there is a stage in between aren't you

Do you mean the colposcopy, or the cone biopsy, or the laser therapy??
Surely if we could reduce the need for any treatment it would be better than saying, well its just a minor procedure so its ok??
Even the 6 month recall wasnt minor to me!!

In fact I linked to the Times and the Telegraph - both to my certain knowledge reputable newspapers - which reported the collapse of a girl half an hour after having the vaccine and her descent into semi-paralysis and chronic fatigue.

Despite the closeness of the symptoms to vaccine adverse events reports, and despite the fact that doctors had no idea what was wrong with her, they were able to state quite categorically very quickly that she demonstrated "no pathological reaction to the vaccine".

I don't know what's happened to this girl. I've tried (not very energetically) to find out. Maybe she got better, maybe it wasn't the vaccine. Who knows? The point is that your reaction, PIMs, was to ignore and then to ridicule as "sensationalist". Which I think is equivalent to brushing under the carpet.

My friend died from cervical cancer just before her 21st birthday. She'd had 2 sexual partners, both were long term boyfriends.

She would have had the vaccine if it was available back then and the screening had she been old enough. But she wasn't and she was fobbed off time and time again by her GP until it was too late.

If you had a DS and he was being offered a vaccine that might prevent, let's say, cock cancer - that kills as many people as cervical cancer - that might well result in having it amputated or an early death do you really think that your DH/DP would be going through the agonies of educating them about safe sex, vaccine damage or the moral dilemmas about promiscuity that applies to girls? Be honest! They'd all get the jab.

Pims: for the last time, I am not misquoting you.

You claimed that all adverse events are investigated.

THEY ARE NOT.

Patterns of adverse events reports are investigated.

That's it.

"It seems the evidence of personal experience - which I have no problem acknowledging - is only valuable to some people, like you, when it supports their point of view" - "I fully agree, and you are just as guilty of that as anyone else"

Firstly, you seem to be contradicting yourself and admitting you are not objective at all - quite happy to call one sort of personal experience "evidence" and another sort, "anecdote".

Secondly, I most certainly am not guilty of that and never have been. Personal experiences of all kinds should be in every woman and mothers "evidence portfolio" when it comes to vaccines, along with clinical and epidemiological contexts. Of course. It's you that denies this - not me.

"If screening did prevent all cancers then we would not have the current cervicle cancer rates."

Not necessarily. You are assuming that everyone goes for their smear tests when they are supposed to and that their cancer starts after the age of 25 (when screening begins) and does not develop quickly (so that any cell changes don't have the opportunity to develop into cancer within the 3 years between smear tests). Those would be very strange assumptions to make given your experience of your friend.

As it happens, the number of women going for screening has been increasing and as a result the number of cases of cervical cancer have been reducing year on year. That may continue. Although no doubt any reduction will be attributed to the vaccine.

All papers are sensationalist. Your link was clearly intended to scare people into thinking this was a genuine risk.
It is skewed reporting and I always question where the newspapers get their info from.

The doctors would be unable to breech patient confidentiality, the patient may not have understood the entire clinical situation

As it happens, the number of women going for screening has been increasing and as a result the number of cases of cervical cancer have been reducing year on year. That may continue. Although no doubt any reduction will be attributed to the vaccine.

and why should the vaccine not take the credit?? Just because you dont believe?? you are being very short sighed