A few weeks ago we knew next to nothing about the HPV immunisations in the UK, except that our daughter didnt want one and we did not give permission for her to have one.
But she got jabbed anyway.
Now we have a lot of questions. Other people have questions also. And the right information is really hard to find.
I posted our story on my main blog with a post called "HPV vaccination and the coercion of our 13 year old daughter" but the comments started spiraling out of control so I figured the best thing to do was start a small blog - this one that I am calling The Jab Blog - and see if we can create some space for people to tell their stories and find some information.
Anyway - some of you are parents, some are teachers, some are doctors, some are teenage girls. Lets talk about The Jab.
My daughter is due to have the immunisation today i gave consent but then decided to do some further reading befor d day. I am glad i did. I already had concerns regarding long term side affects which will not be known for some time yet. Then i read some positives but read many more negatives. Yeah they say 1 in 100 but i am not willing to take that chance with my daughters life when she is 18 and perhaps more facts are available then if she wishes she can have it but until then i will educate her in the ifs buts and maybes and hopefully she will listen to a wiser person and things will be good without her having a drug that contains things i do not think should be injected into a person
Posted by: [email protected] | October 15, 2009 at 02:11 AM
I think that would be fine -- Unfortunately, passion, however well-meaning, can sometimes cloud interpretation. Original sources rule!
I agree, the annual traditional Pap smear for cervical cancer screening has stood the test of time. Newer, liquid based Paps (a sample brush is dropped into a liquid filled cup rather than a sample "spatula" rubbing some cells onto a microscope slide) may be slightly better and, if abnormal, can later be tested for HPV from the same sample. Also, some authorities say that, with the liquid based Pap, screening can be every two years. Either method is quite acceptable.
Posted by: Art Morris | October 12, 2008 at 12:16 PM
thanks art - i will remove the link to that video or perhaps mention your comment with it.
and thanks for your story. many people would say that a regular pap smear is sufficient for detecting early signs. would you agree?
Posted by: andrew jones | October 12, 2008 at 03:33 AM
I've enjoyed TSK for a good while and the Jab incident moved me from my lurking comfort. I am a US family physician of 17 years and lay pastor who owns no pharma stock (who am I kidding, I don't own any stock!). I don't even accept medication samples from drug reps in my office. Our office in South Carolina is only 10 miles away from the headquarters of JAARS, the technical affiliate of Wycliffe Bible Translators so I see quite a few missionaries who've racked up not only their share of tropical diseases but also quite a few vaccines as well.
First, I share the nearly universal opinion that the Jab without consent is considered assault.
Next, I would urge extreme caution as you process the information in the Gardisil Hoax Video you reference. Even at first viewing there are quite a few gross misrepresentations of the studies he cites. For example, the JAMA study DOES NOT suggest that Gardisil is not effective at preventing HPV infection. Rather, it says that it doesn't help you clear the virus once you are already infected. (There are very few vaccines that help AFTER you're exposed -- rabies is one, I think). I think his passion overreaches his ability to properly interpret a medical study.
Finally, let me add a personal example of the fact that HPV DOES cause cervical cancer -- When I was in specialty training in Kansas City (Truman Medical Center), a woman was on the gynecology service having had a hysterectomy for cervical cancer. She was attended by her husband -- a caring guy. The nurses were impressed by his love for his wife and remarked that he looked familiar. (now this was in 1991) He said, "You know it's really sad, but my first wife had cervical cancer and we were up here several years ago. She passed away and now my second wife has it as well." Once this information was passed to the attending physicians, the two cancer samples (the older slides were still available )were tested and found to contain the identical HPV strain. -- The husband, serially monogamous, who was asymptomatic, had either infected two women or passed the virus from one to the other. His guilt was huge. There is really no doubt that cervical cancer is indeed an STD and the agent is HPV (the videographer does note correctly that most strains of HPV do not lead to cancer and that the body can sometimes clear the infections on its own -- you just never know how aggressive the strain is going to be).
Whether to vaccinate or not is a family decision. Debbie, your rationale for waiting until a bit more time has passed sounds like a very reasonable desire that should have been honored (even if it were unreasonable!).
I worry much more about the decline of respect for parental authority than any conspiracy on the part of vaccine makers. Especially in the lawsuit-happy US, it is simply too risky for a company to promote a drug where the risks outweigh the benefits.
Posted by: Art Morris | October 10, 2008 at 03:03 PM