Les I do not have a daughter, so it is not something I will be doing, but I was pleased to encourage it for a niece when her mom discussed it with me.
Les, will you vaccinate your son? They are giving it to boys too.
graywings Roselvr - I respect your and anyone else's decision regarding this vaccine, but as I understand it, the risk this vaccine seeks to avoid is contracting the virus that LATER leads to the cancer.
So your 17 year old may be at low risk for the cancer, but if she is sexually active, or when she becomes sexually active, then she is at risk of getting the virus. Then it is too late to get the preventative vaccine.
Yes, she's at risk for getting HPV. One of my son's friends was just diagnosed, she's going for more testing this week. The way I feel is that medicine is changing rapidly. I got my girl to the GYN last week & she will now go for regular paps. When/if the time comes where she does have HPV, we will deal with it. We've had 4 cancer diagnosis in our family & even after that, I don't feel the need to vaccinate her because her risks are too great. Out of that list posted my daughter has multiple things - pain, rapid heart; think I counted 6 when I scanned it.
I would rely ONLY on the statistics from the CDC and the AMA, not anecdotal examples from UTube or anywhere else. Sad as those things are, they are anecdotal and not proven, and most likely coincidental to the vaccine. I would not give much credence to sites like the one linked above.
I feel differently & think that people should read whatever they can get their hands on, then use their own common sense when making their decision. You wouldn't believe how many mothers don't know they can report problems to the CDC so they don't.
but IMO the risks associated with the diseases they prevent are far worse than those associated with the vaccine. Though there are consequential "associations" with the vaccine, they are not proven to be the "cause" of the consequences.
You're right, some don't have symptoms nor do they know if it's related yet; but when you have a child that already has health issues; taking the risk is greater. My son's GF had the vaccine & is fine.
The human papillomavirus (HPV), a common virus that can be passed from one person to another during sex, is the main cause of cervical cancer and also causes many vaginal and vulvar cancers. At least half of sexually active people will have HPV at some point in their lives. Keep in mind, many people will have an HPV infection at some time in their lives, but few women will get cervical cancer.
Interesting that it says - Keep in mind, many people will have an HPV infection at some time in their lives, but few women will get cervical cancer.
The physicians in my family and my kids' former pediatrician who lives next door to me strongly recommend the vaccine. All my children who have children will have their kids vaccinated at the appropriate time.
Can I ask how many of your children/grandchildren have actually gotten the vaccine?
My gkids are too young, My youngest dtrs are too old. But all their parents, physicians included, say they will vaccinate all six of my grandkids. No exceptions.
Interesting that it says - "Keep in mind, many people will have an HPV infection at some time in their lives, but few women will get cervical cancer." Very interesting. But it is also interesting that 2 of 32 possible deaths were linked to the vaccine, and 3,976 actually died of cervical cancer.
If my kids were in the right age group, yes, I would vaccinate them.
No kids here, but I can understand on some level the angst that parents must feel about these decisions.
Speaking of vaccines, I will turn 60 next year and plan to get the Zostavax vaccine against shingles. I had shingles when I was in my 30s and never want to go through that again. Had the flu years ago and now get the flu vaccine every year. And a vaccine against pneumonia every five years.
Graywings, I got my shingles vaccine last october when I was 57. I saw DH struggle with shingles , he is still dealing with the aftermath, it was enough to convince me to get it. The vaccine removes 60% of the risk of getting shingles.
Vaccines are always a subject of great discussions. I think all we can do is agree to disagree.
Personally, I work with someone who's 2yr old is not vaccinated. She has done her research and sounds like she strongly believes she is doing the right thing. I respect her for that. I don't agree with her at all, but I respect her. I do not get into discussions when she mentions it, just tell her that I understand her decision.
I told dh, who is in medicine, and it just saddens him when he thinks about how so many diseases we no longer have to endure because we receive vaccines. But he respects her decision.
As for our children, we researched, talked to peds and even my ob. We have decided to do chicken pox and the G for our dd. I discussed the issue with her when she was 12 so that the decision was also hers. I actually told her the pros and cons. SHE decided to get the shot. Luckily none of the vaccines our kids have had have caused any problems. But we were and are at least aware of the risks associated.
I think when it comes to risks and side effects there really is a lot to think about. Every single thing we ingest can have side effects. Some are really scary. And some are listed because one person in the study had it. But at least we are aware.
Having to make choices to treat my cancer has been scary. But my dh and I like to know everything. We crunched the numbers and made decisions that we hope are good ones. Only time will tell. So I am at risk for cervical cancer, lukeimia, heart problems, chemo brain, losing my breasts, other cancers, and the list goes on. But the ultimate risk is death. So I weigh the options, crunch the numbers. I take each pill and each treatment and pray that my body will forgive me and reward me for my choices.
I had chance to participate in a study for a new chemo med that has less damage risk to the heart. But the risks for that med were even scarier and the med really was for more aggressive cancer where someone has huge tumors. The temptation to participate was great but I read all the literature and decided it was not for me. But now I have to accept the risks of the meds I did choose. Hopefully this board will be around when I turn 90 and I can say that my choices worked well for me.
Now we had a scare last week when I got a fever and my white count dropped to basically nothing. DH feared the chicken pox virus could reactivate in me. Wow, never thought that could happen. He did. Wish they had that vaccine when I was a kid but they didn't and so I deal with the chance. I am now taking measures to make sure my count does not drop. That is all I can do.
All we can do is make what we feel is the best choices for ourselves and our kids. No one has all the answers. Respect our choices and accept the outcome, good or bad.
Shannon, look into Vitamin C drips & supplements. They really helped hub when he had them; I noticed a difference. Too bad he wasn't willing to go twice a week like he was supposed to.
If you'd like more info on where to look to get them, send me an email from my member page
DD has gotten 2 of the series of 3 Gardisil vaccinations. No side effects. My feelings on this vaccine is not the same as another's. However, we can all agree that we are doing what we feel is in the best interest of our children. I think this is one subject where each parent needs to consult their trusted physician, do their homework and make a decision that is right for their own child.
Oh yes. I've read and read. I feel comfortable with my position. Heck, I live in an anti-vaccine community. We frequently have outbreaks of whooping cough around here. Go homeopathy! Go karma!
Really? I say 'dumb and low informed parents who haven't a clue...' We've had babies die here from preventable illnesses. And it affected me personally. Education is important. More important: how to tell the difference between snake oil and science.
"Really? I say 'dumb and low informed parents who haven't a clue...' We've had babies die here from preventable illnesses. And it affected me personally. Education is important. More important: how to tell the difference between snake oil and science."
I agree with Sheesharee. Golddust, that was pretty rude ... I'm neither "dumb" nor "low informed" because I embrace alternative medicine, and I don't appreciate your comments.
Oh, I knew someone would jump on that one. I think Golddust was referring to people in her community who are opposed to all vaccinations for children:
Heck, I live in an anti-vaccine community. We frequently have outbreaks of whooping cough around here. Go homeopathy! Go karma! Really? I say 'dumb and low informed parents who haven't a clue...' We've had babies die here from preventable illnesses.
Sadly, I do think that those who do not chose the standard vaccination procedure with their children are considered dumb. I have to respectfully disagree. We have friends who chose not to vaccinate their then babies, toddlers and so on. They chose not to vaccinate because they did very thorough research on this subject, and didn't like the possible side effects suffered from some vaccinations.
I think this thread should just die, but not before getting it right about parents' choices. My friends who chose not to vaccinate are college educated, saavy, forward thinkers. Their choice not to vaccinate was not lazy or dumb. It was intentional and for very good reasons.
I really wasn't brave enough to try that with a child who was already having trouble with a medical situation. I have to admit that I do admire those who aren't just sheep. Followers getting in line for a vaccination that the pharmaceutical companies are selling our government and physicians. Don't forget the big contributions reaped by those representing us who are lobbied, and the many "benefits" physicians receive for writing a script for certain medications.
As usual, there are many sides to a complicated story.
I shudder when I hear about people who don't vaccinate for whooping cough. My mother, who died last year at 80 yrs old, suffered for most of those years with the after effects of that disease. She often could not catch her breath and it effected her life. Vaccines for whooping cough were not available when she was a child. She made sure that all of her children and grandchildren were protected as did my aunt who suffered (and still suffers) from polio. My two daughters got the gardasil vaccine.
As usual, there are many sides to a complicated story.
Precisely. The subject of immunizations remains controversial among many, with alternate schools of thought and differing beliefs.
Graywings, I have no idea what Golddust meant to convey, but I still take exception to her choice of words. Blanket statements of a one-sided nature are disrespectful, IMO - especially in a public forum such as this.
I think that those who do not vaccinate their children may not realize that they are depending on herd immunity to keep their children safe. That is not good enough for me. If too many in the herd choose not to vaccinate, outbreaks occur. That is not a risk worth taking.
As for golddust, I have no idea how anyone could take offense at what she wrote about the community in which she lives. It is obvious to me who she was referring to, and even if she wasn't, so what? This may not be hot topics, but we are all adults. Do we have to "LOL" everything to have a conversation here? We all have our opinions, and I feel we should be free to express them. I see no disrespect in her comments.
Please don't chastise me for expressing my offense at another poster's statements. "We all have our opinions, and I feel we should be free to express them." Practice what you preach.
I think anyone who has a child die of whooping cough in this day & age - because they chose not to vaccinate - is deserving of the title 'dumb and low informed.'
I teach at a school with many immigrant children. We have a few students who have devastating disabilities because vaccines are not the norm where the child was born. I remember hearing parents talk about a case of polio in our neighborhood before the Salk vaccine. We all went through mumps, measles, German measles, etc. IMHO, it is, as Sherry said, not a risk worth taking. Those parents are, whether they are doing so consciously or not, relying on everyone else getting the vaccines so their children will not be exposed and come down with whatever. Unfortunately, some of these diseases are making a comeback in some places and that is very scary. To me, it sounds quite flippant to say that "we'll deal with it when the time comes" if the child comes down with a virus. The consequences can be extreme to say the least and are often permanent-see prairiefox's post or ask a woman who was exposed and contracted German measles during the first trimester of a pregnancy back in the 50s.
I wonder how much the fact that sexual transmission is at play here has to do with reluctance to research this on sites such as NIH, Johns Hopkins, Mayo, etc. Science and opinon are not the same things.
Additionally, this vaccine has been around a while and I would not agree that it was rushed to market. Yes, some people have reactions to vaccines and everyone must decide for him or herself what to do, but that is true about anything in the field of medicine. I know someone who had brain damage after a smallpox vaccine as a baby. Heartbreaking, but I would still have had my son vaccinated if the disease had not been eradicated. Heck, too much of some vitamins is lethal.
Also, I have no problems with anything you said either, golddust. Here's wishing everyone good health and, if you aren't vaccinated, try to to spread anything. Thanks.
I don't get it. We all do things that are on some level potentially harmful to our bodies, such as dying our hair, drinking diet soda, eating junk food, ingesting alcohol (and worse), injecting dyes under our skin, while knowing those behaviors don't promote good health. Yet these vaccines that have been proven for decades to save lives are rejected by some as unnatural, risky, even harmful. Maybe there are people in golddust's community who live a different lifestyle such that a common childhood vaccine truly is an affront to the system. But for the rest of us, it seems inconsistent to reject them without some distinct personal medical reason to do so.
Actually, the herd theory isn't correct. My friends who made a conscious decision not to vaccinate are not relying on anyone else (herds) to protect their children. They are depending on their child's own immune system to protect them. The herd mentality actually applies to those of us who have vaccinated our kids on the time schedule imposed by our pediatricians. This or that shot at this or that age. I never questioned any of it, just did the vaccination process. We have been like sheep, gotten all of the "required" vaccinations.
rilie - have to respectfully disagree with your statement, "I think anyone who has a child die of whooping cough in this day & age - because they chose not to vaccinate - is deserving of the title "dumb and low informed." I've seen a child who had the whooping cough vaccine at the recommended age and actually came down with whooping cough despite having been vaccinated. This child was in a public school setting, meaning that in the State in which I reside, you must present proof from your pediatrician that your child has had all of the "required" vaccinations prior to being admitted to kindergarten. So, how well did having the whooping cough vaccination protect that child? Obviously not very well. I don't know the particular statistics, but when I had my child vaccinated for whooping cough, I was really under the impression that having the vaccination prevented my child from contracting whooping cough.
graywings - that was exactly my point. It isn't inconsistent to reject vaccinating your child if you don't believe it is in your child's best health interest. Again, many who make the choice not to vaccinate their children do so after careful consideration of all of the facts. My friends are fully aware of the pros and cons of vaccinating. In their opinion the cons far outweigh the benefits. Have you ever had a conversation with a parent who has chosen not to vaccinate? Until you have listened to an educated parent who can articulate the reasons why they are not vaccinating, I don't think it is fair to assume they are not intelligent or as golddust put it "dumb and low informed". BTW, what the heck is "low informed"? I know what dumb is, but low informed, I've never heard anyone lacking knowledge being classified as "low informed".
I feel that this subject is being painted with too broad of a brush so to speak. IMHO, the words "dumb and low informed" are derrogatory and offensive words in any context.
The decision to vaccinate or not is a personal decision. If your own child has received the vaccinations you deem appropriate and under your impression, are fully protected, then why get all worked up over parents who chose not to vaccinate? And, I am not talking about "dumb and low informed" parents. I am talking about parents who are intelligent, but chose not to vaccinate for reasons which aren't popular and that which others may not agree.
Vaccinations protect not just the individual but other people. People with compromised immune systems (think cancer patients) and infants that are too young to vaccinate. In 2008, an unvaccinated boy gave the measles to 3 infants (the boy had been exposed to them in Europe).
The Pertussis vaccine (whooping cough) is considered to be 85% effective. No vaccine is a 100%. Those odds are still better than the disease.
So I guess I will stay with sheep, who are also vaccinated.
As I said, "they may not realize it, " but those who do not immunize are, in fact, depending upon herd immunity to protect their children. You wrote, "They are depending on their child's own immune system to protect them." but that is not possible unless the herd is immune. If the disease is present in the community, vulnerable people will come down with the disease. Unvaccinated people are vulnerable. Not all of the vulnerable will get sick, and they may develop immunities without developing the disease. Even during the horrors of the Black Plague epidemics, not everyone got sick and died, only most people.
Since diseases pass from person to person, when a large portion of the population is immune because of immunizations or previous exposure to the disease, those who aren't immune are protected because the disease is not in the community, decreasing the likelihood a susceptible person will come in contact with the disease.
So, your friends may not have said, "We'll depend upon the herd immunity to protect our family," but that is what they are doing. That will work as long as enough people in the community are not susceptible, but the numbers can easily tip in favor of the disease if enough people become vulnerable.
"Les, will you vaccinate your son? They are giving it to boys too."
I was not aware of the vaccine being available for young men. I cannot vaccinate my sons, as they are both adults (19 and 23) and have the right to decide for themselves. But after reading some about the vaccine for males, I have already had a conversation with the older one on Tuesday on the phone, (he is student teaching right now) and will have the same conversation with my younger son face to face this weekend when we go to visit him and hear his last orchestra concert of the semester. My position with both of them will be that having suffered a scare with cervical dysplasia as a result of HPV, I want better for them, and for their future sexual partners.
I wasn't going to mention the subject but now golddust has for me. I live near her and know what she is talking about. But I thought is was a different disease, I don't recall but she may be right. It was in the local news. I think we are talking about the same group. There is a huge group of homeschooling families in one area. (No intent on bashing homeschoolers at all, I agree with doing it in many circumstances). Apparently this group does not vaccinate and there was an outbreak and it spead thoughout this entire group and endangered the community. The medical community was voicing opinion that this particular disease is not seem much anymore because of vaccinations. So they were saying that there was no reason for all these kids and people to get sick and that their choices really endangered more than just their group. My dh, being in medicine, agreed. It just saddened him that there was really no reason for all these people to suffer. I would be curious to know if this group has rethough some of their decisions because this was a really scary situation for them.
I really, really think golddust was talking about this specific group and that her choice of words were not meant in a mean "I hate you" manner.
Golddust, hope you don't mind me adding my comments.
As for me, I just had my lab work done and I have some liver damage, not enough to worry but enough to watch. It is a risk I have to take and am aware of. Just like vaccines, we have to weigh the options and deal with the consequences if there are any. I think what scares most folks is that when there are outbreaks with kids not being vaccinated they fear catching it. But if they are vaccinated they should be fine I would think.
shannon, while it is so nice of you to speak for golddust, I think the most offense part of her statement was the "Go homeopathy! Go karma! Really? I say 'dumb and low informed parents who haven't a clue.."
I really don't care where you live, what you have experienced, there is absolutely no need to disrespect homeopathy and karma and designate certain people dumb and "low informed" (whatever low informed means, I still haven't gotten answer to what "low informed" actually means).
I think golddust is a big girl who particpates on this forum on a daily basis. In the event golddust wanted to clear up any statements she made, I really think she's had ample time to jump in and clear up any misunderstanding of her post.
Sometimes it seems that many folks just want to start an argument. Sherry, the OP, simply posted a link to 'current" information information from the CDC about Gardasil. The first responses were, not for my daughter! If you have such strong feelings (and I am one who thinks those opinions are extremely misguided), then why would you respond? She did not say anyone SHOULD get the vaccine. She did not encourage anyone to get it. She merely posted a link to scientific information for anyone who might be interested. None of the naysayers posted any links to the studies or information supporting their positions. I often think that there are those who can't wait for someone to post a strong opinion just so she/he may get all huffy and insulted. Get over it. You are going to do what you want to do (or not do that which you don't want to do) no matter what science tells us. There are lots of people who don't trust modern medicine, science, technology, etc. Fine and I wish you all a very lucky life.
Oh, and I suspect low informed means the same as ill-informed...but you knew that, didn't you?
Actually cyn427, I have no idea what low informed means. I've never heard that term used prior to the post within this particular thread. I don't read minds, that is why I asked what low informed meant. If I were to take a guess, it would be that your last sentence was directed at me since I was the one who asked the question.
Despite the fact that my child is fully vaccinated, including the Gardisil vaccine, I do find derogatory adjectives used a bit offensive, regardless of what my opinion might be on any subject matter.
If you read my posts, I did ask "Have you ever had a conversation with a parent who has chosen not to vaccinate? Until you have listened to an educated parent who can articulate the reasons why they are not vaccinating, I don't think it is fair to assume they are not intelligent or as golddust put it 'dumb and low informed."
May I ask if you would take the time to read anything published supporting the opinions/decisions made by those you deem to be misguided?
Actually I am very glad that I am not judgmental by nature. After re-reading all of the above posts on this thread, it certainly isn't very flattering.
Here is a link to the type of anti-vaccine information found on the internet. I tried to truth-test one statement on the website:
'Official data shows that large scale vaccination has failed to obtain any significant improvement of the diseases against which they were supposed to provide protection' Dr Sabin, developer of Polio vaccine.
It is repeated on page after page of anti-vaccine literature on the internet, but I could not find a credible source to show that the statement was ever made by Sabin. His 1993 obituary in the NYT doesn't mention it, nor any other entity that isn't staking anti-vaccine claim.
This is actually the 2nd post about the Gardasil Vaccine. I posted about it last year; we had a pretty big discussion about it then. The reason this came up again was because of another post; I mentioned the vaccine in that post.
None of the naysayers posted any links to the studies or information supporting their positions.
Someone who has suffered from cervical cancer might think the vaccine is a great idea; while someone who has suffered from horrible side effects from the vaccine would think it's a great idea to avoid the vaccine.
You can't really say that "none of the naysayers" posted any links because I posted one link here plus I posted 4 or 5 in the topic that I mentioned the Gardasil vaccine in. This is my post from the other thread
- I'm going to directly copy a post I made elsewhere. Posted by deedee-2008 I have not heard of any scientifically proven studies linking it vaccines, except for the old "swine flu" vaccine in the 1970s.
Some reading for those interested- Gardasil on Wiki - scroll down, to where it says Safety - it mentions Guillain-Barr Syndrome - an acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP), an autoimmune disease affecting the peripheral nervous system, usually triggered by an acute infectious process.
Strong Medicine: What's Ailing the FDA? April issue of Readers Digest's article where it says (on page 2) I am copying this; it is not my post Those small clinical trials are designed to measure a drug's safety and effectiveness in a targeted group of patients -- not the dangers the drug might pose when it's taken by people with a wide variety of backgrounds and health conditions. "If it kills one in 2,000 people, or makes one go blind, you may not see that in the trial," says Drummond Rennie, MD, a deputy editor of The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. "You start adding that up, and that's ten in 20,000 going blind, and that's a lot of people."
Those risks are revealed only after a medicine goes on sale and has been used for months or years by hundreds of thousands or even millions of people. Keeping track of those reactions is called post-market surveillance, and experts say it's one of the most important phases of drug testing. Historically, user fees were not allowed to go toward checking the safety of drugs once they were on the market. And until now, those follow-up reports haven't been mandatory. A 2006 report found that 65 percent of the studies that drug firms promised to conduct in recent years hadn't even begun.
And, why some people are scared - More on post-market surveillance.. It seems Raptiva (a drug for psoriasis) That the FDA approved in 2003 is being pulled because....
EMEA's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has now concluded that the benefits of Raptiva no longer outweigh its risks This could be Gardasil in a few more years.. buyer beware!
Cervical Cancer If you're one of the millions of women who regularly visit their obstetricians and gynecologists for routine pelvic examinations and Pap tests, then you are part of the good news about cervical cancer. This disease is almost 100 percent curable when it is diagnosed in its early stages and treated promptly. Pap tests are the single most effective method for identifying irregularities in cervical cells that could develop into cancer. As many as 4,500 of these women will die from the disease because it was diagnosed too late for effective treatment. Sadly, many of these deaths could be prevented with regular screening and early treatment.
Cervical cancer is not as common as other cancers that affect women. Breast cancer is far more prevalent, striking approximately 180,000 women in 1992. In the same year, more than 20,000 women developed ovarian cancer, and nearly 12,000 women died from it
WELCOME to the NCCC Survivor section While this section focuses in on cervical cancer survivors, there will also be comments from women that are battling persistent HPV precancerous lesions and cancer survivors' family members and friends too.
My daughter, Victoria, has been ill since February 2008.
Here is some history. I will be as brief as possible. My daughter had her first Gardasil vaccination November 2007. Her second vaccination was in the beginning of February 2008. Immediately after her second vaccination, Victoria experienced severe diarrhea and was nauseous for about eight weeks. She had blood work done many times and doctors thought she had a virus. On March 31, 2008, she had her first seizure. My daughter has treated with many neurologists, all of whom have not related her seizures to Gardasil. Meanwhile, there are quite a few hundred people that I have found over the internet through my numerous postings and through Erin Brockovich, and their daughters are all experiencing the same symptoms, which occurred after the Gardasil vaccination. We have actually formed a group and share our daughters' stories, symptoms and information. My daughter has had CT scans, MRI's, MRA's, EEG's, blood work and was hospitalized at an epilepsy center in the video EEG monitoring unit for two separate weeks in May 2008 and September 2008. She was put on many different seizure medications. After the normal EEG results, she was taken off all medications. Her SED rate has always been high and she does have protein in her urine, but doctors do not seem concerned. I was told that her red blood are small, but this apparently is not concerning either.
My daughter has been seen by several neurologists, a psychiatrist, psychologist, several neuropsychologists, an immunologist, several infectious disease doctors, and also treated a at Wellness Center for a period of time. Wellness Center physicians believe that my daughter may have Lyme disease that was dormant until the Gardasil vaccine. Infectious disease doctors differ. Which doctors are correct? I have no idea.
My daughter currently experiences the following symptoms: non-epileptic seizures, migraines, fainting, tremors, twitches, numbness, intermittent leg paralysis and facial paralysis, tingling, staring or blank episodes, eye pain, joint pain, neck pain, back pain, memory loss, confusion, brain fog, regression, mood swings and chronic fatigue. She continues to have bouts of nausea and diarrhea. She has not been in school since April 2008. My daughter can never be left home alone. She can't go to school, go out with her friends or work or has little "normalcy" in her life. She has very few good days and always says she doesn't feel good.
I do not know which way to turn for help. We have seen so many doctors and I can't seem to find anyone willing to help my daughter. There are so many other young girls who have the same exact symptoms as my daughter and the one thing that all of the girls seem to have in common is the Gardasil vaccination.
We are on a fixed income, as most people, and we have expended many thousands of dollars in an effort to seek medical opinions and assistance. Although we do have medical insurance, it is very difficult to find doctors willing to treat my daughter who will accept our HMO. Also, there are no "traditional medical doctors" who will relate my daughter's symptoms to Gardasil as I am told "there is not enough information available" about the vaccine and doctors believe it to be "safe" . The vaccine has been available for less than three years. Meanwhile, there are some doctors who are making the correlation between Gardasil and many of the girls' symptoms. However, the only doctors I know of right now are in California and Kansas. Other doctors are willing to "try" treatment, most of which is "homeopathic" in nature and extremely costly. Once again, I must reiterate that there are so many other young girls experiencing negative symptoms.
Each and every night, I check on my daughter many times in the middle of the night to make sure she is still breathing (like we ALL did when they were babies). I have a chime on her bedroom door so that every time she opens it, I know she has walked out of her room. I had a deadbolt put on the front door of our home with a key that can be removed from the inside. I never leave the key in the door for fear that Victoria will be confused after a seizure or when she has memory loss, and leave our home. (This has happened many times and she has been missing). When she is in the shower, I have to either stand outside the door and/or keep asking her "are you okay?"
Each and everyday, I cry and wonder if Victoria will be next one to die from adverse reactions to Gardasil.
We are in desperate need of medical treatment for my daughter. I have run out of ideas, doctors to treat with and finances have dwindled. I do not know which direction to turn. Any thoughts are most appreciated, especially from the medical community.
The National Vaccine Information Center is in the process of circulating a petition to have Gardasil investigated by the government. There are more than 15,000 reported cases of adverse effects from the vaccine which have been reported to the NVIC (many of the adverse effects are extremely serious) and approximately 38 deaths have been reported.
The first responses were, not for my daughter! If you have such strong feelings (and I am one who thinks those opinions are extremely misguided), then why would you respond?
Um, because this is a public forum, and to "put it out there" is to invite all responses. That's just how it works!
Lee, that is a good article-long, but certainly worth reading. Thanks for posting it.
Roselvr, sorry I missed that link. I did check out several of the sites connected to your link. It still seems that a causal link between the vaccine and adverse reactions is rare at best or not found. Perhaps better screening is needed to ensure that someone with immune weaknesses does not get the vaccine.
graywings, all I was saying is that many people responded in a way that seemed critical and judgmental and IMO invited strong reactions when the initial post did nothing of the sort.
All in all, as I said before, we should all do our research and make scientifically-informed decisions about what is best for ourselves and our families. As Dr Offit in the article Lee posted says, "the choice not to get a vaccine is not a choice to take no risk. It's just a choice to take a different risk..."
Just an update that I did have the conversation with my younger son this weekend about considering the vaccine. I told both of the boys that while it might not be covered by our insurance, we would be willing to pay for it for them.
For those wanting more on the subject of vaccinations, "Frontline" on PBS is having an episode based on the current vaccine-fear some parents have. It is to air on Tuesday, April 27th. I'll be recording it to watch later.
How did PBS become a hot topic? My DD never knew there was any other channel on the TV until she entered preschool. The first day she came home asking me if she could watch Power Rangers. After discussing it with DH, we allowed DD to watch the show. When she finally got to watch "Power Rangers", she preferred Barney. She was then into re-runs of Full House.
Back in the day, PBS aired Sesame Street, Barney, and many other benign educational programs without violence for kids. For adults, PBS aired some of the British humor-type shows, old black and white movies, Antiques Road Show, Julia Child and other cooking shows. I thought PBS was the place to go to avoid political drama, "reality" shows, etc. Good documentary programming as well.
How has PBS become controversial? Man, I must be living in a big ole bubble. I don't watch alot of TV, mainly cable programming. I tried Googling PBS controversy, but nothing came up. Can someone help me out here?
natal, okay, so I followed your TV/Internet link. I must be missing some brain cells, as I still can't figure out why PBS is a hot topic? Is it possible to tell me why PBS is a hot topic in a straight forward way? I am not at all good with riddles and puzzles. I don't follow the hot topic threads at all, so sending me there is of no help.
The PBS/hot topic comment just raised my curiousity, as I always thought of PBS as very non-controversial "safe" source of entertainment.
Enlighten me someone please? I feel like an idiot. Is it that I am the only person who can't "get" this one? Anyone?
I'd like to know, too. Just saw that Foyle's War is coming back with new episodes-love Mystery! We watch PBS all the time. My 30 year-old son grew up on Mr. Rogers and Sesame Street. Can't imagine what would make British comedies, educational tv for kids, documentaries, etc. hot topics. I am stumped, too, work.
I did like that link, though, with those clever plays on titles. Very funny.
A small contingent of right-wing loonies finds their news and programming biased, or objects to government-funded TV in general (although most money is from private grants, and the increasingly long announcements of such look more and more like the commercials they aren't allowed to run). Other conservatives praise PBS for offering an alternative to trashy tabloid shows on the commercial networks.
Oh, good heavens. I find it ludicrous that PBS is considered controversial. It's one of the few remaining outlets for intelligent, thoughtful programming IMO.
Work, 3grad made a comment in her thread about being anti-PBS. When I asked why I thought Mitch was saying it should be a hot topics discussion. Knew nothing about the thread on HT that Lena eventually linked.
kellyeng, I was almost going to point out the "gay" Teletubbie as an example of how ludicrous the criticism of PBS had become, but didn't want to stir up things more than I already had.
FWIW, lest anyone thinks I'm a knee-jerk liberal, I bash them plenty often too. (BTW, I've never seen a liberal jerk their knees, or their hearts bleed.) There's plenty of lunacy all over the political spectrum. Indeed, some are so maniacal that their opinions can't be neatly categorized as liberal or conservative.
What gets me is how the two extremes switch positions so often and it gets little notice by the mainstream media. Social conservatives used to like PBS and the National Endowment for the Arts - even if they spent a small bit of taxpayer's money, it went toward promoting wholesome family and educational fare on TV instead of racy soaps and sitcoms, and kept classical-music halls afloat thus saving young ears from all that raucous rock-and-roll. I think the change occurred when word got out that an NEA-sponsored gallery was showing some controversial Robert Mapplethorpe drawings and suddenly the right turned against the NEA.
Cyn427- I really agree with the comment that the choice to not vaccinate is not to not take a risk but rather to take a different risk. When speaking with those who I know who choose to not vaccinate it seems they say that the risks of the vaccine are not worth it to them and that they feel the risks of not vaccinating are a better risk to them.
I truly feel for anyone who does have an adverse reaction to any vaccine or medical treatment for that matter. Anything we do, or do not do, has it's risks.
Regarding the PBS issue... I don't think anything these days is untouchable. There is always somebody, some group, out there that will find something wrong with anything.
Regarding OP. It is always good to have new info brought to our attention and it is always good mental stimulation to have discussions here. Even if I feel someone is being "mean" or "rude" or "downright spiteful" I still think it is good conversation. I always take each posters comments as their own opinion that they are entitled to. I never "read into" anything as it is the typed word. There are many times when I wonder what someone meant by what they typed but always try to remember it is just a comment amongst "friends".
theroselvr
sheeshOriginal Author
Related Discussions
Anyone have experience with Guillain-Barre?
Q
Another Touchy Personal Health Question
Q
Measles - Common Sense May Prevail
Q
California's new vaccine law
Q
graywings123
mitchdesj
Shannon01
theroselvr
golddust
work_in_progress_08
golddust
theroselvr
User
User
graywings123
work_in_progress_08
prairiefox
User
sheeshOriginal Author
User
rilie
cyn427 (z. 7, N. VA)
graywings123
work_in_progress_08
prairiefox
sheeshOriginal Author
les917
Shannon01
work_in_progress_08
cyn427 (z. 7, N. VA)
work_in_progress_08
natal
graywings123
theroselvr
theroselvr
User
lee676
cyn427 (z. 7, N. VA)
les917
deedee-2008
natal
work_in_progress_08
natal
work_in_progress_08
cyn427 (z. 7, N. VA)
lee676
work_in_progress_08
kellyeng
User
natal
lee676
Shannon01