Quantcast
Vaccines and our kids - Page 3 - GF - General Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
AVEEZ

Vaccines and our kids

Recommended Posts

Sorry, I meant if you were 16 but you've answered that.

 

I may be being ignorant here (its happened often in the past) but are you saying that you'd be happy to have it once you are convinced that the lab tests have been thoroughly carried out and they've confirmed it's safe...or that you will be happy to let your child have it once millions of other kids have had it and there's been no reaction? by extension if everyone took that line nothing would ever be rolled out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have no idea whether you are about to be knocked down or not. It doesn't stop you crossing the road. If all clinical trials required highly longitudinal data to support their safety then there'd probably be no medicine that was ever given a safety certificate, by virtue of the fact it would probably require a study with huge statistical power to be definitive given how rare certain side effects can be; the data could probably only be acquired from widespread use of the pharmaceutical.

 

Having no idea of what the effects are is having no idea what the effects are, it's not implying they are bad, nor good.

 

Good point but the fear of being knocked down does prevent us (or most of us) from allowing children to cross on their own. We guide them and teach them how to do it safely over a number of years, gradually allowing them to more freedom until we are confident they are safe

 

I understand that medicines in general cant be tested for 20 years before they are released but vaccines aimed at this age group require meticulous study not 3 yrs..its just not enough (well for my daughter its not enough anyway) I want as near to certainty as possible - I want to know before they offer the jab which kinds of under lying medical problems can cause serious complications and I want to know when they know how long it will last for not a rough guess!

 

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think the majority of 15 year olds are promiscuous. Perhaps they are and I'm an old fuddy-duddy. I still think they should be being taught to use condoms, which would protect them from a lot more than warts.

 

I completely agree lets educate our kids - teach them to cross these roads safely (to refer back above)..

 

I'm not suprised that they say this girl had underlying issues but would these medical issues have killed her had she not had this jab????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, I meant if you were 16 but you've answered that.

 

I may be being ignorant here (its happened often in the past) but are you saying that you'd be happy to have it once you are convinced that the lab tests have been thoroughly carried out and they've confirmed it's safe...or that you will be happy to let your child have it once millions of other kids have had it and there's been no reaction? by extension if everyone took that line nothing would ever be rolled out.

 

I'd be happy for myself, or my daughter to have it once I had been presented with all the facts and was assured that the benefits outweigh the risks. That may be selfish, but I'd no sooner offer up my child to Dr Mengele for some freakish experiment in the name of science.

 

I personally believe the government has far more worthwhile ways to spend hundreds of millions of pounds each year than the prevention of a relatively few deaths, which could be avoided in other ways (through regular smear tests and use of condoms).

 

They anticipate 2 million girls will have had this vaccination in the UK by next year, at a cost of 700 million pounds. That means it's costing us almost one million pounds for every life it saves. I think it's a ridiculous amount of money, and it's the drug companies who are the ones benefiting, not the general public.

 

The best of it is, we don't even know if the bloody thing works yet. There have been hundreds of documented cases in the states of girls contracting genital warts from the vaccine itself, the very virus it is supposed to be protecting them from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the issue of side-effects in vaccines needs to be scrutinised. When you take a medicine against cancer, you way up the side-effects against the cancer that you already have. With a vaccine it is against something you might get. I know i am not explaining myself very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The objection seems to be with the idea that you are horrified by 13 year olds having sex, at times this thread reads like a Daily Mail parody. There will never be definitive results. There have been 1.4 million doses in this country, 25 million in the US. In the US there has been 26 deaths - 1 in a million. There have been 4500(ish) adverse reactions here and 14000(ish) in the US. Doctors expect that these vaccines will reduce the 1100 deaths from cervical cancer per year by 70%. Let's not forget, it won't just reduce deaths by 70% but also the incidence of cervical cancer by 70%. Cervical cancer, survived or not, is no walk in the park and there were approximately 2900 cases of cervical in 2006 in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good point but the fear of being knocked down does prevent us (or most of us) from allowing children to cross on their own. We guide them and teach them how to do it safely over a number of years, gradually allowing them to more freedom until we are confident they are safe

 

They never are completely safe. There's twice as many deaths from road accidents as there are cervical cancer, and infinitely more from road accidents than adverse reactions but you don't stop your kids getting in a car or from crossing the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The objection seems to be with the idea that you are horrified by 13 year olds having sex, at times this thread reads like a Daily Mail parody. There will never be definitive results. There have been 1.4 million doses in this country, 25 million in the US. In the US there has been 26 deaths - 1 in a million. There have been 4500(ish) adverse reactions here and 14000(ish) in the US. Doctors expect that these vaccines will reduce the 1100 deaths from cervical cancer per year by 70%. Let's not forget, it won't just reduce deaths by 70% but also the incidence of cervical cancer by 70%. Cervical cancer, survived or not, is no walk in the park and there were approximately 2900 cases of cervical in 2006 in the UK.

 

Your stats are skewed, Dave. The vaccine only protects against 70% of HPV strains. HPV is only responsible for causing 70% of cervical cancers, which means the vaccine at best can only lower cervical cancer rates by half. Immunoligists anticipate the 30% of HPV strains it doesn't cover to become far more prevalent over the next 10 years, which means by that point there will be no less deaths anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They never are completely safe. There's twice as many deaths from road accidents as there are cervical cancer, and infinitely more from road accidents than adverse reactions but you don't stop your kids getting in a car or from crossing the road.

 

Of course not, but you wouldn't let your child cross the road with a blindfold on, which is pretty much what we're expected to do in letting our daughters have this jab. I'm not saying kids shouldn't cross roads, but they should take off those blindfolds and shed some light so we see whether or not that road is safe to cross.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your stats are skewed, Dave. The vaccine only protects against 70% of HPV strains. HPV is only responsible for causing 70% of cervical cancers, which means the vaccine at best can only lower cervical cancer rates by half. Immunoligists anticipate the 30% of HPV strains it doesn't cover to become far more prevalent over the next 10 years, which means by that point there will be no less deaths anyway.

 

Ah, right, I misperceived it as the primary cause, i.e close to all was caused by HPV.

 

With regards to the last bit, it's the very same sort of guessing people were hazarding against in the beginning of the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course not, but you wouldn't let your child cross the road with a blindfold on, which is pretty much what we're expected to do in letting our daughters have this jab. I'm not saying kids shouldn't cross roads, but they should take off those blindfolds and shed some light so we see whether or not that road is safe to cross.

 

That's reductio ad absurdum, if you keep crossing the road blinfolded you will more than likely be injured, if you take the vaccine, you more than likely won't be injured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your stats are skewed, Dave. The vaccine only protects against 70% of HPV strains. HPV is only responsible for causing 70% of cervical cancers, which means the vaccine at best can only lower cervical cancer rates by half. Immunoligists anticipate the 30% of HPV strains it doesn't cover to become far more prevalent over the next 10 years, which means by that point there will be no less deaths anyway.

 

Is it me, or is that the most irrational thing you've read in a long while?

 

"Hey, AIDS may be a big killer but let's not treat it as scientists reckon bubonic plague is going to be more prevalent in the coming years."

 

What's being said there is one disease will become more prevalent (a guess at that), so it will naturally squeeze out and reduces deaths from a separate cause so there is no point in treating it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's reductio ad absurdum, if you keep crossing the road blinfolded you will more than likely be injured, if you take the vaccine, you more than likely won't be injured.

 

No, it's "I'm repeating myself ad nauseum, because you're not listening". Go to the NHS site about the HPV immunisation Dave. It doesn't mention side effects at all, anywhere on the site, not one sentence, or disclaimer. Not even so much as a harmless rash. Don't you find that strange? A site whose sole purpose is to inform people about the vaccine doesn't even hint at the merest possibility that there may, in rare cases, be adverse effects. Look at what I said before about the cost. One million pounds per life saved. Don't you think that's weird? Until those questions are answered we'll always be blindfolded.

 

Is it me, or is that the most irrational thing you've read in a long while?

 

"Hey, AIDS may be a big killer but let's not treat it as scientists reckon bubonic plague is going to be more prevalent in the coming years."

 

What's being said there is one disease will become more prevalent (a guess at that), so it will naturally squeeze out and reduces deaths from a separate cause so there is no point in treating it!

 

It's not like that at all. It's the same disease, just different strains. It's like saying a piece of bread is the population, and you introduce 2 different types of mould to that piece of bread. One type of spore would be more adapted to the bread, and take over at a greater rate. If you came up with a way of preventing that type of mould, but not the less infectious one, over time that second one would eventually adapt and spread over the bread anyway. It's fruitless combatting one without the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daughter's letter returned without consent.

 

Have to agree, making the decision as a single parent was rather difficult. It would of been nice to have talked this over with her dad, or at least to be able to use him as a sound board for my concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we gave our daughter the choice, because even if you say no they can have it done . bloody crazy world, can't give certain things but can give this without our consent. we gave her he info and she decided no as well. google it and make an informed decision for yourself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we gave our daughter the choice, because even if you say no they can have it done . bloody crazy world, can't give certain things but can give this without our consent. we gave her he info and she decided no as well. google it and make an informed decision for yourself

 

I'm not entirely sure that's the best way to get information on health matters!

 

Hopefully you've got a good local doctor who's opinion you trust on these things.

 

It’s an interesting situation really. As SKI has been going on about, there is definitely some political swaying going on, as perhaps evidenced by the fact that the UK has gone with Cervarix – manufactured and sold by British company GSK, whereas Australia and the US (along with other countries) have used the vaccine Gardasil – conveniently manufactured and sold by Australian company CSL and American company Merck.

 

Also it seems to be a bit remiss that there is no information on potential side-effects on the NHS website. Presumably this decision has been made to prevent unnecessary panic by some members of the population – unfortunately it also gives the more inquisitive parent the idea that they are deliberately being kept in the dark.

 

Still, you have to consider that:

a) Vaccines have an extremely stringent approval process and have to undergo clinical trials in tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of patients before being given to the public.

 

b) The NHS has no interest in giving your daughter something that would cause her immediate, lasting or permanent harm

 

c) The companies involved would have no interest in giving your daughter something that would cause her immediate, lasting or permanent harm. Sure they may make a large amount of initial profit, but that would be nothing compared to what they would lose if they deliberately had.

 

d) Vaccines by their nature are designed to stimulate the body’s own immune response to infection, so they in general have lower side-effects than therapeutic medicines.

 

e) One unfortunate girl has died after the vaccination in Britain – which hasn’t actually been linked to the vaccination yet - and over 1 million have been given it. So worst case scenario that’s 1 in 1 million, compared with the current rate of cervical cancer in British women which is around 1 in 10,000. So basically your daughter would be about 100 times more likely to die a horrible painful death by not having the vaccine... (does evil smiley).

 

What I also find interesting is that the use of vaccines is undoubtedly going to increase in the future due to:

a) It’s obviously better to prevent disease than cure it

b) It’s also an awful lot cheaper

 

With ageing populations causing a strain on government health spending, not to mention all the money spent on bailing out the banks from the government coffers, governments are going to be increasingly looking for ways to bring down the cost of healthcare – and vaccines provide a good way of doing this, with the extra benefit in that they actually stop people getting sick!

 

What’s also going to be in the equation is the reform of the healthcare system in the US. Currently America counts for around 50% of the world’s total market for medicines and medical devices (pacemakers and that). Also companies make a far greater profit margin in the US than anywhere else in the world. What that means in reality is that other governments around the world, such as the UK, can put the squeeze on drug makers to provide cheap(er) prices on medicines that they buy in bulk quantities and provide to the population through subsidised prescription and the like.

 

The drug makers go along with this because the UK would only count for about 5% of their market. If the US ever gets it’s act together it would mean either prices going up elsewhere around the world, less medicines being developed due to the lack of funds available to pharmaceutical companies, or more short cuts being taken getting drugs to market. This last one isn’t going to happen as the approval process has been getting more and more stringent over the years.

 

So what you’re more likely to find is either increased slightly dubious marketing of medicines to both governments and the public (as SKI and others fear has been going on in this case – it’s only going to get worse) or by necessity the greater provision of healthcare from private insurance.

 

When it comes to private insurance I can also foresee that there may a case in the future where insurance companies would refuse to treat someone who hasn’t had a vaccine for a particular ailment. In a hypothetical in this case – if you had refused to take a vaccine that would have prevented you getting cervical cancer, why would an insurance company pay for your treatment if you then contracted cervical cancer? After all you could have easily prevented it yourself.

 

So to conclude this rather long pontification – let’s all hope for the good of our kids, that Obama fucks it up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work for a vaccine manufacturer and the idea that they'd send out a product that could harm people and that the FDA would approve it is mental. These days media coverage is so great that a companies can lose billions and even go bankrupt on the back of one dodgy vaccine. It's in no ones interest for them to risk people's health cos in the long run it will certainly lose them money.

 

The girl who died the other day has severe health issues that hadn't been diagnosed whihc is why she tragically lost her life. I can completely understand why people are cautious cos their kids are som important to them but what has already been said is correct, not immunising your kids is far more risky than giving them the jabs. However. like i said, i can understand people's fears. Look at the MMR case, people stopping having their kids vaccinated cos of a media scare story based on one flimsy tudy by a discredited doctor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bollox, did an epic post and lost it. stupid wireless.

 

Basically.

 

The cynic in me is questioning the need for mass immunisation on children for a type of cancer that is caused by a small minority of the HPV virus strains. Smears still need to be carried out as women are not protected against other strains.

 

Prevention over cure? Just my thoughts - but a relatively new drug and we still don't know the iatrogenic (right word?) issues to take place as the women from the trials are only just reaching child baring ages due to the drug being fast tracked in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bollox, did an epic post and lost it. stupid wireless.

 

Basically.

 

The cynic in me is questioning the need for mass immunisation on children for a type of cancer that is caused by a small minority of the HPV virus strains. Smears still need to be carried out as women are not protected against other strains.

 

Prevention over cure? Just my thoughts - but a relatively new drug and we still don't know the iatrogenic (right word?) issues to take place as the women from the trials are only just reaching child baring ages due to the drug being fast tracked in the first place.

 

 

The WHO do a lot of testing, using some of the top scientists in the world, to see which strains will be the most prevalent in certain parts of the world. Obviously, it can never be 100% but it's by far the most effective way to give protection the highest possible number of people.

 

Even with it being a new drug there will have been a massive amount of testing done on these vaccines. As i said, it is in no one's interest to release a potentially harmful product. People have this image of merciless drug companies but, looking at it logically, who benefits from sending out a product they're not 100% on? If there are any complications it will doubtless end up costing them more than they earn in the long run. They employ scientits to check every possible outcome in situations like the one you mention were they dont know about women when they get to childbearing age. After that, the FDA (who dont benefit financially) do the same thing.

 

I can completely understand your concerns and they're obviously for the right reasons but i'm a firm believer children are safer having had the jabs. The horror stories you here are the results of extreme tragic circustances that happen very, very rarely. Still, if you're not convinced then i can understand why you'd choose against it cos it would be hard to agree to your child having a vaccine you're not 100% sure about. For that reason, i dont think there's a right or wrong in this you've just got to decide what's best for you and your kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×