Gardasil

[EQD]

Are you more afraid of being bitten by a unicorn or being hit by a car? lol

CC from HPV is much more common than side effects from Gardasil right now. People just play the odds, that's why they get the shot.

 

I couldn't afford Gardasil and actually heard about it as my pap came through and my Dr. was consoling me saying "we'll just have to keep testing you and hopefully this won't progress." Sweet! Every 6 months I was having acid poured on my cervix to make sure the cells weren't getting more screwy.

 

I wasn't living in fear of getting HPV/CC until it was right in my face. Since the vaccine is new, I think it should be a choice. If you don't want it, don't get it.

 

But for children, hep shots, boosters, and all of those serious illness vaccines should be mandatory.

 

bitten by a unicorn doesnt exactly express what it is i have concerns for.

 

its more like, would you rather run accross a highway or jump into a black pit?

 

its the unknown versus the bigger unknown.

 

and i do still firmly believe that the campaign word here is fear.

And its playing on a hell of alot of women regarding this. If i get cervical cancer i wont be upset that i didnt take this vaccine. I'll die like i was meant to because i chose not to take my chances with an unproven drug thats being pushed hard on the general population.

 

Once upon a time i trusted healthcare to do what was best for me and to keep me informed. Until one day i did a little digging on my own, and found that alot of what they said was wrong, and they werent looking out for me at all. They just liked the money i brought in with me every time i visited them.

 

thats made me more weary.

Now if i saw more reliable and long term studies, i'd have more faith in this 'vaccine'

But i am not seeing anything definate. So i'm not going to take it. i'm not forbidding anyone.. but alot of the people who are afraid of cervical cancer are the ones running like hell towards this vaccine. and fear doesnt always inspire a good decision.

 

I'd say its always smart to be weary, and to do alot of research and weigh the risks. for some people its to take the vaccine, for others its to avoid it and take the miniscule chance that i will die of cervical cancer.

 

out of 308 million people in america only 11,000 are diagnosed each year with it, and only 4,000 die from it.

 

From 1955-1992 deaths from cervical cancer decreased by 74% due to pap screens, and keeps declining 4% each year despite the vaccine.

[annie24]

Are you sure you wouldn't hesitate to give your next new baby the same shot that killed your previous baby?

 

that would depend on the reason that the vaccine killed my baby (in this hypothetical scenario). if it was from a contaminated batch, I would make sure that the problem was solved, or that i got a vaccine from a different manufacturer. if it's because my child has some genetic reason for not tolerating the vaccine, then no, i would not give it to its sibling. in that case, i would be relying on 'herd immunity' hoping that the other parents around ARE giving their children the vaccine so mine doesn't get ill.

 

like i said, a recent case was that an infant contracted measles because they were too young to get the vaccine, and they got it from another child in day care (who was older) but whose parents didn't give them the vaccine. 'herd immunity" is key!

 

it's just strange to me. I know each oand every single one of us knows someone who was killed in a car accident, but no one ever says, 'cars are dangerous, i'm never getting into a car again!'

[EQD]

Do you take anti-biotic's when you get ill?

 

*thinks*

 

it depends.

[karvala]

I always enjoy your posts, karvala.

 

Thanks! I think I had WAY too much fun on that thread! I'm still hoping that the OP is going to invite me to come and meet the ghosts!

[IphigeniaSaysHi]

I don't disagree about Gardasil and you should go with what you feel.

Hopefully you never have to worry about HPV or cancer. It isn't fun.

[Perfect Dark]

*thinks*

 

it depends.

 

Lol. I have only taken them once, true story.

 

Why is it such a bad thing to have faith in doctors these days?

[waveseer]

I can completely understand your analysis. To answer my question then, yes, you would hesitate until you could find some assurance there would not be a repeat reaction.

[annie24]

I'd say its always smart to be weary, and to do alot of research and weigh the risks. for some people its to take the vaccine, for others its to avoid it and take the miniscule chance that i will die of cervical cancer.

 

out of 308 million people in america only 11,000 are diagnosed each year with it, and only 4,000 die from it.

 

i think that's being glib, if your mom or sister was one of the 4,000, you would probably care more or wouldn't use those words.

 

vaccinations can't prevent all deaths, but they can certainly help cut down the numbers. wearing a seatbelt doesn't mean you won't get killed, but it will help improve your chances.

 

i think if you choose to go without gardasil, but you continue to get regular pap smears, you'll likely be alright. there are other vaccines i would never skip, MMR for starters. DPT also.

[doyathink]

Not just with the HPV vaccine's all vaccinations in general. All we hear in the press is the rare deaths and side effects. If I get another form of Cancer from this vaccination I wont blame the doctors; I will have taken it at my own risk.

 

Hell. everything causes Cancer these days. One day there will be a cure to cure all Cancers; would you take it? I would.

P.S I love your threads lol.

 

Hell no. Didn't you see I am Legend? A cure for cancer caused everyone to break out with zombie-itis, and they turned rabid! lol

 

Everything now does cause cancer, and I'm not so sure some of it isn't caused by our wonderful medicine.

 

I was on the Depo shot for 5 years, and took myself off. Now! the studies show you cant be on it for more then 2 years because it gives you a calcium deficiency, and leads to Osteoporosis gee thanks all you wonderful scientist for effectively testing it.

[IphigeniaSaysHi]

Are you sure you wouldn't hesitate to give your next new baby the same shot that killed your previous baby?

 

Of course you would hesitate. You now have the fear. You now no longer consider statistics and would just use your personal experience instead of logic. I understand that, that's how humans think.

[Perfect Dark]

I don't disagree about Gardasil and you should go with what you feel.

Hopefully you never have to worry about HPV or cancer. It isn't fun.

 

I think they should promote the vaccination more! I didn't even hear about it since the Jade Goody thing nearly a year ago. I only got a pap for the first time 6 months ago...

 

Luckily I am fine.

[karvala]

I can completely understand your analysis. To answer my question then, yes, you would hesitate until you could find some assurance there would not be a repeat reaction.

 

I'll answer your question too if you like; yes, I think if I'm honest I would hesitate, which is why I can understand Victoria's reaction, though I suspect I would still end up giving them the vaccine. But if I did hesitate, and I asked other scientifically-informed folk what I should too, I sincerely hope they would all give me a dispassionate, rational view, rather than be clouded by the same emotion that would be affecting my own opinion. Which is why I can also understand the reaction of the majority here.

[annie24]

I can completely understand your analysis. To answer my question then, yes, you would hesitate until you could find some assurance there would not be a repeat reaction.

 

i would certainly dig through the medical literature and find out everything there is to know about how the testing was done, and i would probably even use my connections and friends to try to get a meeting with people involved. and sue even if there was gross negligence on their part.

[Lecturer]

In the anti-vaccine community, there is a lot of misinformation that has propogated due to sensationalism - probably because it is human nature to enjoy being outraged by something, and to outrage others.

 

One topic is the false "vaccinations lead to autism" argument. This actually came from a medical study released decades ago that had some medical lingo that was misinterpreted by laymen. It basically said "this study has not disproven a connection between the vaccine and autism". People mistakenly read that as "this study has proven a connection". Ever since that article, the false connection has been feared .. despite countless studies continueing to disprove the connection. I first found out this interesting piece of information from an article released a few months ago calling for the medical community to use less lingo/jargon, and word things more for the layman, now that articles are more widely available due to the internet.

 

Also... the trace amounts of mercury used in some vaccines are no longer used (at least for the ones I'm aware of). While those trace amounts had peer reviewed studies proving they are safe (we ingest FAR more mercury through foods anyway), they are now gone completely.

 

While I don't require a person to have a medical or scientific degree for me to listen to them, I do require that they have some proof of what they are saying... I can't form or change an opinion based on fact-less opinion.

[EQD]

This is true, and certainly people shouldn't take things on blind faith, or believe that the medical profession is infallible. But that simply means that we need to agree on a method of knowing when something is beneficial, or at least maximising the probability that it is so. That's why I'm always at least as interested in knowing what methods people use to determine the truth as they see it, as I am in what they actually believe. This was evident in my responses on the haunted house thread, I think. So, if you don't believe in this vaccine, that's all well and good, but what leads you to this view?

 

there is no proof of its efficacy yet.

 

i think this *could* be a great vaccine. that thats just wonderful if it is.. but!!!.... it could also be nothing.

i wasnt aware that in their trials that they were intentionally exposing women with the strains of HPV that caused cervical cancer (not all cervical cancer mind you)

 

if that was the case (and i dont think it was) then we would have a control group. but *shrug* i dont think we do.

 

there are too many unknowns for me in this.

[Seraphim]

I'll answer your question too if you like; yes, I think if I'm honest I would hesitate, which is why I can understand Victoria's reaction, though I suspect I would still end up giving them the vaccine. But if I did hesitate, and I asked other scientifically-informed folk what I should too, I sincerely hope they would all give me a dispassionate, rational view, rather than be clouded by the same emotion that would be affecting my own opinion. Which is why I can also understand the reaction of the majority here.

 

No, there is some emotion yes. I am not clouded. Not every reputable scientist works for the cdc or for governments.

[IphigeniaSaysHi]

Humans have a hard time thinking rationally. It makes total sense to want to blame, panic and say "well I saw this..." or "well this happened to..."

 

We're all anecdotal by nature, we should make choices and be informed but there are some things numbers and history cannot deny.

[EQD]

AND just to be clear absolutely clear here...

 

i have nothing against proven vaccines.

 

since gardasil FIRST came out i havent trusted it. Since i FIRST started researching their research, i havent trusted it.

 

And only today was i ever even aware that there were side effects, or deaths, related to this vaccine.

[annie24]

but alot of the people who are afraid of cervical cancer are the ones running like hell towards this vaccine. and fear doesnt always inspire a good decision.

 

i see a lot more fear on the side of people who are anti-vaccines. the reason i chose to take it, and other vaccinations, was out of logic. I know what's out there, I know the chances of getting that disease, and I know the possible outcomes of the disease, and I know the risks and side-effects of the vaccine.

 

i see a lot more people saying things like, 'well, this 1 person died after getting it and this vaccine is evil' and therefore they aren't going to vaccinate their kids. that all without having any evidence of how or why the child died (like the one in this thread that died of an unrelated cancer.) that to me is fear-mongering.

[Seraphim]

Humans have a hard time thinking rationally. It makes total sense to want to blame, panic and say "well I saw this..." or "well this happened to..."

 

We're all anecdotal by nature, we should make choices and be informed but there are some things numbers and history cannot deny.

 

I am not rational?

 

 

 

GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE because I am not doing something like the "herd" now I am stupid, not rational and I do not have a medical degree. Cute.

[EQD]

Thanks! I think I had WAY too much fun on that thread! I'm still hoping that the OP is going to invite me to come and meet the ghosts!

 

i have literally no idea what you are talking about.

 

and i'm glad you are having fun on my thread.

[dragon lady]

Also... the trace amounts of mercury used in some vaccines are no longer used (at least for the ones I'm aware of). While those trace amounts had peer reviewed studies proving they are safe (we ingest FAR more mercury through foods anyway), they are now gone completely.

 

I was not aware of this. I just looked it up and apparently it's only used in flu vaccines now.

 

link removed

 

good to know!

[waveseer]

Who wouldn't be suspicious of a vaccine which is confined to such a small segment of the population? How can safety assurances be met if the target demographic has to be so small?

[hossman]

i have literally no idea what you are talking about.

 

and i'm glad you are having fun on my thread.

 

He was referring to a thread about an alleged haunted house, not this thread.

[annie24]

there is no proof of its efficacy yet.

 

i think this *could* be a great vaccine. that thats just wonderful if it is.. but!!!.... it could also be nothing.

i wasnt aware that in their trials that they were intentionally exposing women with the strains of HPV that caused cervical cancer (not all cervical cancer mind you)

 

if that was the case (and i dont think it was) then we would have a control group. but *shrug* i dont think we do.

 

there are too many unknowns for me in this.

 

well, people do the best they can. it would be completely unethical to have a proper control group, in which healthy humans are injected with the virus and see if they do or don't develop it after being exposed to the vaccine. there are laws against medical research like that.

 

i understand why you are hesitant, as it is still a very new vaccine. hopefully, us trailblazers will be able to generate some good long-term data.