Community Chat

[Disneylandfan]

I'm concerned with a mandate that everyone must vaccinate. I vaccinated both my kids. However, the gardasil vaccine is one that has me concerned after reading stories of how it has affected some girls. The stories are anecdotal but it gives cause for concern. At this moment it's not one that I am interested in having my daughter take.

What if new vaccines are created that haven't been tested as long as some of the ones we have now? Not sure I'd want to be forced to use them.

I also think vaccines should be spread apart and not given together. While we're told they're perfectly safe to give them together doesn't mean that's the best method. My brother was allergic to tetanus but because the vaccine was multiple they weren't sure what he was having the reaction to. Had they been separated the doctor would have known instantly which vaccine had given him an adverse reaction.

[sfnative]

I haven't read the thread, but will state that this anonymous writer's bottom line is really what is safe for her child in the greater scheme of things. I would ask her to talk about things like every single consumable, including bottled water, they use and the conditioned air they breathe. What have they done to make their encironment as perfect as possible? And, are they bringing legal action against pharma for this?

The real bottom line here is two-fold:

1. Her child had a very rare reaction to vaccination, which was extraordinarily harsh on his body and all of their lives.

2. No, there is no protocol in place at present to screen each child for THE gene or genes which may be the causative agents in this reaction. This is going to take time.

In the meantime, I hope the author's angst doesn't prevent others from withholding vaccines from their children.

[terrier3]

Why is there a supposed link between getting vaccinated against HPV and having relations?

I just don't see it.

Sooner or later most people in the USA do have relations. It's a natural part of life. Getting a vaccine at a young age that can protect someone against cancers caused by s3xual transmission doesn't mean they will run out and find a partner, especially if they receive the shots at the earliest age allowed. Why even discuss the details - telling your children it's a vaccine that prevents a certain type of cancer is more than enough info, IMO.

A 30 year old virginal woman could still get HPV on her wedding night from a new husband who wasn't as abstinent all his life...or two people who were virginal at their marriage culd stray later and infect the other spouse. There are a lot of scenarios - but the bottom line is that we now have a way to PREVENT cancer. How can that be wrong????

Why take unnecessary chances with cancer????

[Disneylandfan]

On 2/28/2015 terrier3 said:

Why is there a supposed link between getting vaccinated against HPV and having relations?

I just don't see it.

Sooner or later most people in the USA do have relations. It's a natural part of life. Getting a vaccine at a young age that can protect someone against cancers caused by s3xual transmission doesn't mean they will run out and find a partner, especially if they receive the shots at the earliest age allowed. Why even discuss the details - telling your children it's a vaccine that prevents a certain type of cancer is more than enough info, IMO.

I'm not sure if you're responding to my post or if someone else posted something but I said nothing about a link to having "relations". There are anecdotal stories of the vaccine having adverse physical reactions for some girls.

Everything you put in your body has an effect. Many commercials for medicines make the "cure" sound worse than the disease.

[Autumn in NY]

On 2/28/2015 terrier3 said:

Why is there a supposed link between getting vaccinated against HPV and having relations?

I just don't see it.

Sooner or later most people in the USA do have relations. It's a natural part of life. Getting a vaccine at a young age that can protect someone against cancers caused by s3xual transmission doesn't mean they will run out and find a partner, especially if they receive the shots at the earliest age allowed. Why even discuss the details - telling your children it's a vaccine that prevents a certain type of cancer is more than enough info, IMO.

A 30 year old virginal woman could still get HPV on her wedding night from a new husband who wasn't as abstinent all his life...or two people who were virginal at their marriage culd stray later and infect the other spouse. There are a lot of scenarios - but the bottom line is that we now have a way to PREVENT cancer. How can that be wrong????

Why take unnecessary chances with cancer????

Have you ever smoked or knew someone who did? The Surgeon General's warning is right on the pack. We all know the dangers of smoking and the fact that it causes cancer. Yet why do people take unnecessary chances and smoke knowing they will get lung cancer? We all know obesity is linked to cancer yet people continue to eat what they want, how much they want, when they want and nobody can stop them, not even our 1st Lady! So lay off with your preaching!

[terrier3]

On 2/28/2015 Autumn in NY said:

<br />

Have you ever smoked or knew someone who did? The Surgeon General's warning is right on the pack. We all know the dangers of smoking and the fact that it causes cancer. Yet why do people take unnecessary chances and smoke knowing they will get lung cancer? We all know obesity is linked to cancer yet people continue to eat what they want, how much they want, when they want and nobody can stop them, not even our 1st Lady! So lay off with your preaching!

When people know that something harms their health, why do they continue to do it?

Why won't they help themselves?

I don't consider it preaching to discuss this issue.

I'm interested in knowing WHY people refuse to have their children vaccinated against a cancer that could easily be eradicated.

Anecdotal comments just don't cut it for me.

It seems to be all part of a trend away from science towards "gut" feelings.

[Autumn in NY]

On 2/28/2015 terrier3 said:

On 2/28/2015 Autumn in NY said:

<br />

Have you ever smoked or knew someone who did? The Surgeon General's warning is right on the pack. We all know the dangers of smoking and the fact that it causes cancer. Yet why do people take unnecessary chances and smoke knowing they will get lung cancer? We all know obesity is linked to cancer yet people continue to eat what they want, how much they want, when they want and nobody can stop them, not even our 1st Lady! So lay off with your preaching!

When people know that something harms their health, why do they continue to do it?

Why won't they help themselves?

I don't consider it preaching to discuss this issue.

I'm interested in knowing WHY people refuse to have their children vaccinated against a cancer that could easily be eradicated.

Anecdotal comments just don't cut it for me.

It seems to be all part of a trend away from science towards "gut" feelings.

Oh I totally agree with you but just pointing out the obvious that some shouldn't criticize others for not caring about their health or their loved ones health or getting cancer, when they sit there puffing on cigs, bordering on obesity, exposing themselves to cancer causing risks but pounding their fists and preaching about cancer prevention.

[brii]

Curr Pharm Des. 2013;19(8):1466-87.

<h1>Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines as an option for preventing cervical malignancies: (how) effective and safe?</h1>

Tomljenovic L¹, Spinosa JP, Shaw CA.

<h3 style="-ms-zoom: 1;">Author information</h3>

• ¹Neural Dynamics Research Group, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia, 828 W. 10th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1L8, Canada. lucijat77@gmail.com

<h3>Abstract</h3>

We carried out a systematic review of HPV vaccine pre- and post-licensure trials to assess the evidence of their effectiveness and safety. We find that HPV vaccine clinical trials design, and data interpretation of both efficacy and safety outcomes, were largely inadequate. Additionally, we note evidence of selective reporting of results from clinical trials (i.e., exclusion of vaccine efficacy figures related to study subgroups in which efficacy might be lower or even negative from peer-reviewed publications). Given this, the widespread optimism regarding HPV vaccines long-term benefits appears to rest on a number of unproven assumptions (or such which are at odd with factual evidence) and significant misinterpretation of available data. For example, the claim that HPV vaccination will result in approximately 70% reduction of cervical cancers is made despite the fact that the clinical trials data have not demonstrated to date that the vaccines have actually prevented a single case of cervical cancer (let alone cervical cancer death), nor that the current overly optimistic surrogate marker-based extrapolations are justified. Likewise, the notion that HPV vaccines have an impressive safety profile is only supported by highly flawed design of safety trials and is contrary to accumulating evidence from vaccine safety surveillance databases and case reports which continue to link HPV vaccination to serious adverse outcomes (including death and permanent disabilities). We thus conclude that further reduction of cervical cancers might be best achieved by optimizing cervical screening (which carries no such risks) and targeting other factors of the disease rather than by the reliance on vaccines with questionable efficacy and safety profiles

[brii]

That was published by the NCBI. I'm sure it will be mocked as not a credible source.

[Disneylandfan]

brii that is very interesting. Sometimes anecdotal events are what get people looking closer at the product.