Declining 8 week vaccinations for my baby - experiences?

[Plasticpineapple]

I don't want this to be about whether you should or shouldn't vaccinate your baby. I have chosen not to and I'm looking for experiences from others who have done the same. What did you say? What did the doctor say? Did you discuss vaccination once the child was older or flat out decline all vaccines?

My 7yr old could understand the concepts at stake here better than you, bumley xxxx

Bumbley love, do you think a test for one thing is only ever a test for that one thing? Are the CDC wrong re HIV? Will bio markers tell us anything about autism? Do you understand that HPV alone tells is with more accuracy if a woman has pre cancerous cell changes than a positive smear?

Aly, you're in no position to be patronising when you can't understand a very basic difference between two tests.

The HPV test does not test for pre-cancerous cell changes. I've asked you a few times if you know what actually happens with these tests and you haven't answered so I can only assume that you don't. If you did you would understand the difference I am pointing out to you in what they actually do.

What do you think a pre-cancerous cell change is and how do you think a cell is identified as pre-cancerous?

The HPV test does not tell you if you have pre-cancerous cell changes. It tells you whether you have certain strains of HPV. If you do, you are sent for further testing. All the HPV test does is look for strains of HPV. Having HPV does not necessarily mean you have pre-cancerous cell changes.

To be honest I think you must actually understand this at this stage but you're just trying to squirm around it because you don't want to admit you were wrong.

Fascicle - Goodman and Nordin 2006

Yes, it's discussing VAERS in the US.

Missed your post there onholiday. :)

Which concepts are you talking about?

Look Bumbley, I'll try and make it really easy for you. Are the CDC wrong? Is the test for a particular type of pneumonia not also a test for HIV? Is a test for biomarkers also a test for autism?

Can I just say at the start that for someone who accepts the causative role of HPV in cervical cancer, you are finding this remarkably difficult to understand.

You clearly don't get it; smears are highly inaccurate. The cell changes observed (mainly by human beings) are to some extent subjective; and furthermore the appearance of dysplasia can be mimicked by inflammation and infection. For a while they were the best we had and they saved many, many lives. But the world has moved on - the NHS is moving towards adjunct testing, which the best way to do it as together HPV & Smears are better at detecting pre-cancer than either test alone.

However that doesn't change the fact that HPV testing is more accurate than smears alone at identifying pre-cancerous cells.

High risk HPV testing tells you with greater accuracy whether or not there are actually pre-cancerous cells are on the cervix. A smear looks at the cells, but we do not yet have the technology to determine the fate of each cell (returning to normal, continued abnormal development) the HPV test, if positive, shows that even in the presence of a clear smear you more than likely have some cell changes that aren't being picked up, because the smear only collects a very small sample of cells from your cervix.

Of course the vast majority of these are nothing to worry about and will return to normal. However in some cases they will develop into cancer. HPV testing is a better indicator of whether or not you actually have pre-cancerous cells on your cervix than smears. We know this because it better identifies women who will go on to have invasive cancer than smear tests alone. I.e. it is telling us which women have cell changes they need to worry about, even if we can't see them on a smear. Clear?

It is being used as a cervical screening tool on its own, without the involvement of smears at all in some populations.

Which makes it a highly accurate test of cervical cell changes.

Re Mumps: the US reported one death a year from Mumps between 1989-1999, despite the fact that incidence was very low; around 6000-20 cases (in 1989) steadily reducing towards 1999. So although I can't find the death rate - it definitely happens. And it seems to be within the 1 in 10,000 figure.

Information from here: www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/mumps.html#complications

Aly. Stop. You are not getting this. You think you are telling me things that I don't understand. You are not. You have made a mistake in what you think the HPV test does. I am trying to point it out to you.

Please step back for a moment and read what I'm actually writing.

1. The HPV test is not looking at cells. Do you understand that bit? You know that the HPV test does not look at cells right?

2. The HPV test is testing for the presence of certain strains of the HPV virus. Do you understand that? Do you see how that that is different to looking at cell changes like the pap smear does?

3. Your HPV test will come back either positive for certain strains or negative. Having a positive HPV test does not mean that you have pre-cancerous cells. Do you understand that? It can not tell you if you have pre-cancerous cells on your cervix because that is not what it is testing for. All it can tell you is whether or not certain strains of HPV are present. That is what it is testing for.

You don't have the figures but you're going to assume it's within 1/10,000

Remember, you think mumps too deadly for children to delay the vaccine so you should specifically be looking for fatalities in children.

point 1 should be not looking/does not look at changes in cells.

Bumbley, I think you are having a conceptual problem with the idea that the presence of one thing implies another thing.

First of all, please answer this: Are the CDC wrong? Is the test for a particular type of pneumonia not also a test for HIV? Is a test for biomarkers also a test for autism?

HPV testing tells us with great accuracy whether or not pre-cancerous cells actually exist on the cervix, Bumbley. This has been proven in a large clinical trial of over 40,000 women.

Smears are quite ineffective at picking up cell changes.

We know this because, for the umpteenth time, HPV testing alone is a more accurate predictor of your risk of invasive cervical cancer than smear tests. I.e. HPV is better at picking up your risk of pre-cancerous cells than smear tests.

The best method is both together.

Where have I said Mumps is too deadly for children? I agreed with you that it is usually mild! But all illnesses, even mild ones, can cause death and disability, like Mumps does. I think that's worth protecting children from, clearly you disagree...

And once again Bumbley "I'm not against it" is not a position. On anything. Would you like to outline your position on vaccines, Bumbley? We have 41 posts left.

"HPV testing tells us with great accuracy whether or not pre-cancerous cells actually exist on the cervix, Bumbley. This has been proven in a large clinical trial of over 40,000 women. "

Aly, if you look at ANY study you will see that the HPV test is not what they are are using to see whether pre-cancerous cells exist on the cervix. You are misreading them if that is what you are getting from them.

Did you actually understand the points I made above?

Answer this. What do you think a positive HPV test means?

You argued that it could be deadly so was too risky to postpone until puberty.

You seem very keen to avoid answering these questions, Bumbley:

Are the CDC wrong? Is the test for a particular type of pneumonia not also a test for HIV? Is a test for biomarkers also a test for autism?

If you test positive for high risk HPV, it means you are very likely to have some cell changes, which will most likely go back to normal.

No Bumbley, that is exactly what the trial was doing: "The new approval was based on long-term findings from the ATHENA trial, a clinical trial that included more than 47,000 women. The results showed that the HPV test used in the study performed better than the Pap test at identifying women at risk of developing severe cervical cell abnormalities."

The HPV test performed better than the pap test at identifying women who would go on to develop severe cervical cell abnormalities.

That means the HPV test is better at identifying pre-cancer.

Are you denying that Mumps can be deadly, Bumbley?

And what is your stance on vaccines? (Please remember "I'm not against them" is not a stance)

"If you test positive for high risk HPV, it means you are very likely to have some cell changes, which will most likely go back to normal."

Finally! So you know that the HPV test isn't actually testing for cell changes? Good. We got there in the end! :)

The results showed that the HPV test used in the study performed better than the Pap test at identifying women at risk of developing severe cervical cell abnormalities."

That is not the same as saying it identifies pre- cancerous cell changes which is what you have been saying. It is able to identify women who have certain strains of hpv which makes them more likely to develop cervical cancer. Not the same as 'identifying pre-cancer' have you actually read about the test itself?

Are you still not producing that fatality rate for children?

Just because you don't like an answer doesn't mean you can get another one :)

You seem very keen to avoid answering these questions, Bumbley:

Are the CDC wrong? Is the test for a particular type of pneumonia not also a test for HIV? Is a test for biomarkers also a test for autism?

HPV is a test for cell changes, Bumbley. It is a more effective test for those cell changes than smear tests are.

Are severe cervical cell abnormalities not pre-cancerous cell changes, Bumbley??

Why do those strains of HPV make them more likely to develop cervical cancer, Bumbley? Is it because they cause DNA damage and cause pre-cancerous cell changes, perhaps?

Well Bumbley, my best guess was the WHO - and in the USA it seems to be around 1 in 10,000 as well. So 1 in 10,000. Apparently that's not scare mongering :D .

Are you denying that Mumps can be fatal, Bumbley?

"I'm not against vaccines" is not a stance on vaccines, Bumbley. it doesn't mean anything. You could be against every vaccine but still be for a hypothetical as yet uninvented vaccine for a random illness you haven't disclosed. It is meaningless.

They aren't really relevant to whether or not you understand what the HPV test is actually doing Aly. Happy to read about them though if you'd like to link.

"HPV is a test for cell changes, Bumbley."

I thought you got there when you recognised that the positive HPV test means you are 'very likely' to have cell changes. If it was actually testing for cell changes then it would be able to tell you if you had them or not.

Not denying that HPV can cause cell changes - still doesn't mean the HPV test is testing for pre-cancerous cells.

The WHO said 1 in 10,000 case fatality from mumps encephalitis - not mumps. Mumps encephalitis occurs in 1-250 to 1-5000 cases as mentioned earlier.

They are highly relevant Bumbley, because you appear to be under the misapprehension that tests can only test for one thing at once, and they can never be proof of something else going on.

As I said, if we finally find a biomarker associated with autism, will you say "a test for that biomarker is not a test for a child being susceptible to autism, only a test for that biomarker"?

Read all about it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumocystis_jirovecii.

Are you under the impression that positive smear test is 100% accurate? An HPV test is more accurate than a smear test at telling you you have cell changes.

By your own logic Smear tests are therefore not tests of cell changes as they are not 100% accurate at telling you if you have cell changes or not.

I re read that WHO page and it is a little unclear. I think it can be read either way tbh. Considering death from Mumps is still at 1 a year despite incidence being at about 200~ish cases I'd say that's enough of a risk to worry about.

That's not even counting deafness/orchitis/pancreatitis.

Is your position that Mumps is so trivial we shouldn't vaccinate against it?
And again Bumbley, you haven't told us what you think of vaccines.

I'm not under that misapprehension at all. You just don't understand how the HPV test works. You don't seem to know what it actually does and you don't seem to want to have it explained to you.

It doesn't tell you you have cell changes. You seem to know that already because you just said it can tell you if you are 'more likely' to have cell changes. You're contradicting yourself. If it is testing for cell changes then it would tell you if you had them or not.

"By your own logic Smear tests are therefore not tests of cell changes as they are not 100% accurate at telling you if you have cell changes or not."

Oh dear. That certainly isn't my logic. The Pap smear actually looks for cell changes - the HPV test does not. Where have I said anything about it having to be 100% accurate?

Again, have you read about the tests themselves?

"I think it can be read either way tbh."

No, it can't.

As I said, if we finally find a biomarker associated with autism, will you say "a test for that biomarker is not a test for a child being susceptible to autism, only a test for that biomarker"?

Read all about it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumocystis_jirovecii. Do you believe there is such a thing as an Aids defining illness?

Bumbley, HPV is being used as a test of you having pre cancerous cells. They take a sample of cells from your cervix (or anus, or mouth) and test them for 40 odd strains of HPV. If your cells test positive for high risk HPV, it's likely you have pre-cancerous cell changes. More likely in fact than someone looking at those cells under a microscope to look at how large/irregular the nuclei are.

How do we know this? We know this because HPV testing alone is a better predictor of those women who will develop cervical cancer than smear testing. So from this we know that HPV identifies the presence of pre-cancerous cells that need treatment better than Smear tests. Women can then be referred for colposcopy immediately.

Read about people using it as a primary screening tool here: time.com/3025178/hpv-test-vs-the-pap-smear-which-detects-cancer-better/

It is a test for pre cancerous cells, because it is being used that way by several medical researchers and OBGYN practices in the USA. So yes, it is a test for pre-cancerous cells.

Are you disputing that? It sounds like you are but I can't tell as you seem to simultaneously agreeing that HPV testing is better than Smear testing at detecting pre-cancer but also saying that despite this, HPV isn't a test of pre-cancer, despite the fact that it is being used that way by health systems across the globe. Perhaps you should write to them and tell them they're making a big mistake?

Just like a test for a certain type of pneumonia can also be a test for HIV/Aids.

Maybe you should ring the CDC and tell them that they're wrong?

Bumbley, I think the wording is quite ambiguous as to which part of the clause it's referring to. Still 1 death a year with an incidence of between 4000-200 cases total is quite scary really.

I can tell you're chomping at the bit to tell me Mumps fatality statistics, so go ahead. I've looked and that was the best I could find.

Presumably you're not claiming no one ever dies or is disabled by Mumps, are you Bumbley? Or is your position that we shouldn't bother vaccinating kids against Mumps?

Now I know you're against MMR, would you mind explaining how you square the amazing success of this vaccine at further reducing the incidence of Measles, Mumps and Rubella and your opposition to it?

Aly, if the HPV test did, as you have said, test for pre-cancerous cells then it would should be able to tell you if you had them or not - not whether you were 'likely' to have them.

It is not used to test for pre-cancerous cells by researchers and OBGYNs because that is not what the test is for. They do use it to test for strains of HPV though - as it has been designed to do.

Information on the cobas test

"Intended Use

This test is a qualitative in vitro test for the detection of Human Papillomavirus in patient specimens. The test utilizes amplification of target DNA by the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and nucleic acid hybridization for the detection of 14 high-risk (HR) HPV types in a single analysis.

The test specifically identifies (types) HPV 16 and HPV 18 while concurrently detecting the rest of the high risk types (31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 66 and 68) at clinically relevant infection levels."

Not a single claim in any of the literature that it identifies cells with pre-cancerous changes. I'm not sure why you keep insisting that it does something that it doesn't. What's wrong with what it actually does do?

You're not suggesting that the PCP test is an HIV test are you?

No need to tell the CDC that they're wrong. They're using the test in the way it was intended - to test for the presence of certain strains of HPV :) Maybe you should ring them and tell them that they're using it wrong? That it's actually to test cells for pre-cancerous changes.

I don't think it's ambiguous at all.

"1 death a year with an incidence of between 4000-200 cases total is quite scary really. "

By that logic, you are suggesting that the mumps vaccine has actually made the diseases more deadly.

I've already told you the fatality rate. I think you need to read things a bit more carefully.

"Now I know you're against MMR"

No, that was just something you made up.

The HPV test tells you with more accuracy if you have pre cancerous cells than Smears do Bumbley.

That is a Fact.

It is being used as a firstline test for pre cancer, whether you like it or not.

"The potential role of HPV testing as a first line screening tool for detecting cervical cancer is also supported by an April study published in the Lancet that looked at four randomized controlled trials in Europe and concluded that the HPV test was the superior screening method. Other studies in rural populations have also been able to cut down on advanced cervical cancers and deaths using just HPV screening."

Please do get in touch and let them know they're doing it wrong. I'm sure they'd be delighted to hear that this new, highly effective method of screening for pre-cancerous cells is ineffective.

Do you disagree with the CDC that the presence of Pneumocystis jirovecii is a test for Aids/HIV in an otherwise non-imunologically compromised individual? Are they wrong? Perhaps you should tell them..

How am I suggesting that?

I am just saying that Mumps does kill people. And it kills fewer people than the vaccine to prevent it. So it's a net positive really.

Bumbley.

You don't think it's worth vaccinating against Mumps.
You don't think we should vaccinate young kids against Rubella.
You said on the other thread you can't see the point of three jabs in one
You seem to think it might trigger autism

All of these things together really do lend the impression that you are anti MMR.

Also

"That’s why in April, the Food and Drug Administration unanimously approved an HPV DNA test developed by Roche as a primary screening tool for cervical cancer for women ages 25 and older. The test screens for the strains most commonly linked to the cancer — HPV 16 and HPV 18 — as well as for others. Along with the approval, the FDA offered guidelines for how the test should be used, advising that women who test positive for HPV 16 or HPV 18 should have a colposcopy, or a procedure that magnifies the cervix so physicians can take a better look at abnormal cells and take biopsies if needed. If women test positive for other strains of HPV, they should have a Pap test as a follow-up to determine the state of their cells."

No smear test involved.

Well, if you have high risk, no smear test involved.

No Aly. It's not a fact. No matter how many times you say it. It isn't a fact because it doesn't tell you if you have pre-cancerous cells. It tells you if you have certain types of HPV. If you get a positive test result it means you have those strains - it does not mean that you have pre-cancerous cells.

None of the stuff you are quoting supports your assertion that it tests for pre-cancerous cells.

Why would I tell them they're doing it wrong? They're using it the way it's supposed to be used - to test for HPV. You're the one suggesting that it is used to test for pre-cancerous cell changes - which it is not.

I'm not sure why you don't get it but if you haven't got it by now you're not going to - even if I say it again another 10-15 times.

Where have they said that the PCP test is a test for Aids/HIV?

Right so the risk of death from a vaccine is 1 in a million according to you, yes? The risk of death from mumps encephalitis is 1 in 2 million according to those incidence figures. That's across all age groups but the risks are higher in adults and lower in children.

Nope. Not anti-MMR.

"If women test positive for other strains of HPV, they should have a Pap test as a follow-up to determine the state of their cells."

See - separate tests. HPV test to test for HPV and pap test to determine the state of the cells. If the HPV test did as you said and tested for abnormal cells then they wouldn't need that follow up pap smear.

Yes Bumbley, HPV testing is a better test of whether you have pre cancerous cells on your cervix than smear tests.

We know this because it more accurately identifies women who will go onto develop cancer than smear tests.

It is being used to identify women at risk of cancer, because the presence of HPV is an indicator you have pre cancerous cells.

Why else do you think they are using it as a front line screening technique, Bumbley? For the hell of it?

Do you accept that HPV testing alone is a more accurate predictor of your cervical cancer risk than smears?

If you do, you must accept that HPV is a test for precancerous cells.

I see you only read the part that agreed with you...If a woman tests positive for the lower risk strains she is recommend to have a pap. However, if she tests positive for high risk strains:

"That’s why in April, the Food and Drug Administration unanimously approved an HPV DNA test developed by Roche as a primary screening tool for cervical cancer for women ages 25 and older. The test screens for the strains most commonly linked to the cancer — HPV 16 and HPV 18 — as well as for others. Along with the approval, the FDA offered guidelines for how the test should be used, advising that women who test positive for HPV 16 or HPV 18 should have a colposcopy, or a procedure that magnifies the cervix so physicians can take a better look at abnormal cells and take biopsies if needed".

Do you want to read the article I linked Bumbley? "A patient presenting one of the above conditions but with laboratory evidence against HIV infection is not normally considered to have AIDS, but an AIDS diagnosis may be given if the patient has had Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia, and has either:

not undergone high-dose corticoid therapy or other immunosuppressive/cytotoxic therapy in the three months before the onset of the indicator disease
been diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease, Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, lymphocytic leukemia, multiple myeloma, or any cancer of lymphoreticular or histiocytic tissue, or angioimmunoblastic lymphoadenopathy
or been diagnosed with a genetic immunodeficiency syndrome atypical of HIV infection, such as one involving hypogamma globulinemia."

Could you link the Mumps stats please, Bumbley?

Of course you need to balance the risk of dying of Measles Mumps and Rubella into that risk as the vaccine protects against all three. As you're not against MMR not even sure why we're having this conversation - you clearly think it's worth vaccinating against Mumps & Rubella.

When would you give the MMr then?

"The second paper published in the journal examines end-of-study results from the ATHENA trial. In the study, 42,209 women aged 25 and older had both Pap and HPV testing and the results were compared. The researchers also examined data on the impact of starting HPV screening at different ages.

The authors found that the HPV test identified about twice as many serious cases of cervical disease in the 25-29 age group as the Pap did."

The HPV test is being used to identify Cervical Disease as a primary screening tool.

Should they not be using it instead of Pap? www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/287805.php