SPARC Forums

Main Forums => General Issues => Topic started by: Sanche99 on Jul 16, 2007, 11:56:16 AM

Title: Doctor Issues
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 16, 2007, 11:56:16 AM
We have a potential legal issue coming up with my husband's daughter.  She is 16, and has been living with us since last November.  She is now spending the summer with her mother.  They have joint legal custody, but her mother still has physical custody.  

Her mother wants to take DBM to get the HPV vaccine.  DH is against it.  After explaining what it actually is (NOT a vaccine against cancer at all, simply a vaccine for a couple of strains of an STD that sometimes might cause cancer), DBM doesn't want it, either.  I work at a different doctor's office, and they said that if mom was at the appointment and wanted the kid to get it, they would give it to her.  

Anyone know if there are any legal steps we can take in order to make sure DBM doesn't get this shot?
Title: If you don't mind my asking...............
Post by: Kitty C. on Jul 16, 2007, 09:31:31 PM
Why don't you want your SD to have the vaccine?  Is it only because it won't completely prevent cancer?  Seems to me that if it even prevents certain STD's, it would be worthwhile.  Let's just say I'd have given anything for it to have been around about 20-25 years ago, then I maybe wouldn't have had to go through so much pain and discomfort.  

Many vaccines only cover a very narrow field of disease.  Practically all the childhood immunizations are like that.  But we still get them, for us and our children, because we know that to do otherwise could potentially put us in harm's way of getting seriously ill or dying.

Another new vaccine available is for older teens and young adults against bacterial meningitis.  No, it won't protect my son from infectious mononucleosis (which is spread in the same fashion), but it still could save his life.  And that's all I need to convince me.

And, just in case you were wondering, I've been in healthcare for 20-25 years.  I like to stay informed and will research information if I feel I need to know more, so if there's something about this vaccine that I haven't heard about, I'd be very interested in learning.
Title: RE: Doctor Issues
Post by: dipper on Jul 16, 2007, 09:50:08 PM
I also dont understand why your dh would be against this. DBM is probably reacting to what she is hearing.  

I have two daughters...14 and 11.  When I heard of this vaccine, you bet I asked them about it.  Why take the chance that they will have cancer at some point from something that could have been prevented?  I wish I could get the vaccine, but I'm too old.  My 14 year old is taking the vaccine, my youngest doesnt want a shot.  That's okay..she has time.

Our doctor said that some people think its a way of saying go have sex...which its not.  She said the concept is the same as giving your toddler the hepatitis B vaccine.   I look at it like this...all those vaccinations I took my children for.....the risk wasnt great that my children would ever have those diseases but I did it becaus that slight risk was much too great for me to contemplate my children's suffering.  Same here with the HPV.

If you want to pursue this in court, you need actual reasons other than what has been stated so far.  For example, is there any harm?

It may make you feel better to know the shot is given in three injections over a six month period....so, if its not followed through she will not be protected anyway.
Title: RE: Doctor Issues
Post by: mistoffolees on Jul 17, 2007, 04:00:44 AM
To answer your question, you'd have to file in court to block her getting the vaccine. I doubt if it's anything you could do yourself as it would be fairly complicated with a lot of issues and probably a number of expert witnesses.


Having said that, I would encourage you to reconsider your position. While there's a lot of innuendo going around, the FACTS are:
1. The vaccine is quite effective (but not perfect) in preventing one type of cancer - a particularly tragic cancer that occurs when a woman is often raising a family.
2. The vaccine does NOT increase the frequency of sexual activity (in spite of innuendo otherwise from various religious groups).
3. The vaccine does not have serious side effects.
4. Even if your daughter does not have premarital sex, she could still get HPV (and after that, cancer) from her husband since a large number of men have the virus and do not know. This vaccine will reduce the risk greatly.

Your daughter will or will not choose to have premarital sex (and, like it or not, an overwhelming percentage of people choose to do so). The vaccine is extremely unlikely to change that decision. Whatever she does, it may well save her life. So what argument are you going to present to the court to say that it's in your daughter's best interest to NOT get the shot?

Even if I assume that you don't care a bit about my personal thoughts, I think you're picking a losing battle from the court's perspective.
Title: RE: If you don't mind my asking...............
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 17, 2007, 06:30:02 AM
I don't think that is really the issue, but I will answer it.

We don't want her to have the vaccine because, simply put, we don't trust that it is safe or necessary.  It is very new.  The company that makes the vaccine has been very dishonest in its presentation of what the vaccine is and what it is for:  It is being hailed as a "cancer vaccine," when in fact, it is NOT.  It is a vaccine that MAY help prevent a FEW strains of a STD that MIGHT cause cancer SOMETIMES.  Of course, we don't know that it doesn't CAUSE uterine cancer, or ovarian cancer, or any other number of things.  

The vaccine also has had a HUGE number of serious adverse reactions for the short time it's been available.  THREE girls have DIED from getting it, and numerous others have ended up in the hospital.  Most common, from reading through the reported reactions, are cardiac issues and fainting.  Some girls have had seizures, so there are neurological issues involved.  

It's just not worth the risk.  Much, MUCH more important are regular pap tests, which will pick up abnormal cervical cells no matter if they are caused by HPV or not.


>Practically all the childhood immunizations are like that.
>But we still get them, for us and our children, because we
>know that to do otherwise could potentially put us in harm's
>way of getting seriously ill or dying.

That's not entirely correct.  My son, who is 15 months old, is being immunized on OUR time frame, not the government's.  There are also vaccines he will not be receiving, such as Hep B, Hep A, Varivax, and the MMR.  Believe me, I know all about vaccines.  I work in a doctor's office, in the pediatric's department.  

Like I said, though, that's not the issue.  The issue is that both parents have legal custody.
Title: RE: Doctor Issues
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 17, 2007, 06:37:22 AM
>I also dont understand why your dh would be against this. DBM
>is probably reacting to what she is hearing.  

Well, yes, probably.  Of course, she is much better informed about this vaccine than the average teenager.  Unlike her mother, who honestly believes it is a vaccine for CANCER (which it's not), she knows what it is, what it's for, and what the risks are.  I believe that if she is old enough to make the decision on birth control, she is old enough to make the decision on what foreign material she takes into her body.

>I wish I could get the vaccine,
>but I'm too old.  My 14 year old is taking the vaccine, my
>youngest doesnt want a shot.  That's okay..she has time.

Do you know WHY you can't have it?  Honestly, does it REALLY make sense that they'll give it to our children, but not to adults, who are able to consent?  Sorry, I'm not willing to allow a child I care about to be a guinea pig.

>Our doctor said that some people think its a way of saying go
>have sex...which its not.  She said the concept is the same as
>giving your toddler the hepatitis B vaccine.  

Well, I DON'T see it as a way of telling your teen to "go have sex."  In fact, she's asked about birth control because of her side effects of menstruation, and we have no problem with that.  

You're right, the concept is similar to that of the Hep B vaccine.  Our kids don't get that one, either.  :o)

>If you want to pursue this in court, you need actual reasons
>other than what has been stated so far.  For example, is there
>any harm?

Well, I hadn't stated any reasons until this morning, so I don't know what you mean.  Yes, there IS a great potential for harm.  I posted my concerns in the post above this, and I'll copy that in here:

We don't want her to have the vaccine because, simply put, we don't trust that it is safe or necessary.  It is very new.  The company that makes the vaccine has been very dishonest in its presentation of what the vaccine is and what it is for:  It is being hailed as a "cancer vaccine," when in fact, it is NOT.  It is a vaccine that MAY help prevent a FEW strains of a STD that MIGHT cause cancer SOMETIMES.  Of course, we don't know that it doesn't CAUSE uterine cancer, or ovarian cancer, or any other number of things.  

The vaccine also has had a HUGE number of serious adverse reactions for the short time it's been available.  THREE girls have DIED from getting it, and numerous others have ended up in the hospital.  Most common, from reading through the reported reactions, are cardiac issues and fainting.  Some girls have had seizures, so there are neurological issues involved.  

It's just not worth the risk.  Much, MUCH more important are regular pap tests, which will pick up abnormal cervical cells no matter if they are caused by HPV or not.

>It may make you feel better to know the shot is given in three
>injections over a six month period....so, if its not followed
>through she will not be protected anyway.

Doesn't make me feel better AT ALL.  I am familiar with how it's administered, I work in a pediatrician's office.  :o)  Actually, even without the 2nd and 3rd shots, there is some measure of protection (well, there is with vaccines in general, as I've already stated, I am still not convinced this one actually does protect).  But even with ONE dose, there is a potential for an adverse reaction.  In fact, it's the first dose that generally causes the deaths and serious reactions that have been reported.

Title: RE: Doctor Issues
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 17, 2007, 06:42:36 AM
>To answer your question, you'd have to file in court to block
>her getting the vaccine. I doubt if it's anything you could do
>yourself as it would be fairly complicated with a lot of
>issues and probably a number of expert witnesses.

So a parent who has legal custody can't tell a doctor's office anything and expect it to be respected, if the other parent takes the child in behind their back?  

>Having said that, I would encourage you to reconsider your
>position. While there's a lot of innuendo going around, the
>FACTS are:

Well, working in a pediatrician's office, I doubt you have any "facts" that I haven't yet heard, but...

>1. The vaccine is quite effective (but not perfect) in
>preventing one type of cancer - a particularly tragic cancer
>that occurs when a woman is often raising a family.

That is not at all true.  It may be effective in preventing a FEW STRAINS of a STD that SOMETIMES MIGHT lead to cervical cancer.  Much more important are regular pap tests.  Experts estimate that about 90% of women who die from cervical cancer would have survived if they had had a regular pap test.  And remember, women can get cervical cancer without having HPV, so even those girls who get the shot STILL need to be tested for cervical cancer every year.  Unfortunately, they are being told that this shot will prevent cervical cancer, period, and are even less likely to have regular pap tests for it.

>2. The vaccine does NOT increase the frequency of sexual
>activity (in spite of innuendo otherwise from various
>religious groups).

Never thought it would.

>3. The vaccine does not have serious side effects.

*LOL*  Really?  Are you serious???  So DEATH isn't serious enough for you?

>4. Even if your daughter does not have premarital sex, she
>could still get HPV (and after that, cancer) from her husband
>since a large number of men have the virus and do not know.
>This vaccine will reduce the risk greatly.

If she changes her mind and wants the vaccine later on, fine.  That's up to her.  Right now, though, she sees no reason for it.  
Title: RE: Doctor Issues
Post by: ocean on Jul 17, 2007, 07:32:31 AM
Since you both have legal custody, you BOTH can bring her to the dr. BM has the right to give the shot to her daughter. Your DH would have to fight it in court and have better reasons...because BM will come in with all the "good" documentation about the shot.
I just talked to my girls dr about this and their office gives it around 13 years old...It is a personal decision...The public schools around here require most of the shots you say you do not want to give your children. The only way around it is for documented religious reasons.
Title: I agree with the following.........
Post by: Kitty C. on Jul 17, 2007, 07:57:15 AM
'It may be effective in preventing a FEW STRAINS of a STD that SOMETIMES MIGHT lead to cervical cancer. Much more important are regular pap tests. Experts estimate that about 90% of women who die from cervical cancer would have survived if they had had a regular pap test.'

I completely agree that getting this vaccine doesn't mean you no longer have to get a pap smear.  That would be pure stupidity, because there's too many things out there that can cause cancer.  But I will tell you one thing.  If you've never had an abnormal pap, you have no idea what kind of hell it can put you through, even if it isn't cancerous.  And I've had it happen THREE times.  All 3 times it was proven to come from HPV.  I've even had a LEEP procedure.  Every time this happened, I was informed that the abnormal cells were 'pre-cancerous'.....if left untreated and I never got another pap, I'd be in big trouble.  I certainly didn't want to take the chance.  And after every procedure, the frequency of repeat paps makes you want to lock your knees together (sorry guys, but that's the unfortunate truth).  After the LEEP procedure, I bet I had 6 to 8 repeat paps within the next 2 years, just to make sure they got all the abnormal cells.

But as uncomfortable as that was (and there have been no reoccurances since I married DH), I will never fail to get another pap.  Still, if I was in the same 'environment' as I was in the past and they offered the vaccine to me, I'd jump at the chance.  If there's a chance that it could keep this from happening again, you bet I'd take it.

As it is, I am scheduled for a biopsy this Friday....I've had my first abnormal mammogram.  And I know that will mean many more in the next few years.  But my philosophy has always been to be pro-active with my health........I will take whatever precautions/preventions are available and best suit me and do the preventative care required as well.  
Title: RE: I agree with the following.........
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 17, 2007, 08:11:27 AM

>But as uncomfortable as that was (and there have been no
>reoccurances since I married DH), I will never fail to get
>another pap.  Still, if I was in the same 'environment' as I
>was in the past and they offered the vaccine to me, I'd jump
>at the chance.  If there's a chance that it could keep this
>from happening again, you bet I'd take it.

I can understand that, and that is your decision.  My concern is that we don't know what the long term effects of this vaccine.  It is possible that it renders the girls unable to have children, causes other types of cancer, anything.  We don't know.  If, for instance, we found out it can cause uterine cancer, would you STILL think you'd have wanted it?  We don't know if this is safe, and I think that the decision to subject someone to it should be up to the parents.  To me, it's forcing someone to be a guinea pig.  

The only reason this is in question now is that my husband has joint legal custody of his daughter.  I just want to know if that actually MEANS anything or not.  

Good luck to you with your health.  I know how scary it can be, my 6-year-old daughter finished chemotherapy in January for leukemia.
Title: RE: I agree with the following.........
Post by: Kitty C. on Jul 17, 2007, 09:03:59 AM
Ma'am, I take medications that could kill me and they're very common meds.  If you've ever read the counterindications on any script, the possibilities are endless.  I used to work with a lady who refused to take ANYTHING OTC or prescribed because she was too worried about side and long term effects.  Then she got pregnant and her whole outlook changed.

I have no idea what the outcome will be on anything I've ever taken or diagnosed with, but I will not stick my head in the sand and pretend it won't happen, either.  I also know that eating sugar dramatically increases the possibility of caries and that ALL the preventative care (brushing, flossing, prev. maint., etc) cannot guarantee that I won't get a cavity.  But that doesn't keep me from eating sweets!  The principle is the same.....there are NO guarantees.  Everything and anything can kill or do damage.  You have to weigh the 'potential' for risks over the advantages.  Chemotherapy can make cancer patients sicker than the disease itself, but they still take it, because there's a CHANCE it could put them in remission.
Title: RE: Doctor Issues
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 17, 2007, 09:14:04 AM
Actually, all you have to do in most states is sign a waiver saying your opting out.  They cannot force you to immunize your children in order to go to public school.

And there IS documentation as to the negative reactions of the shot.  The problem is, there is no actual documentation as to the positive results, because it hasn't been around enough.  But for some reason, just saying, "Oh, it's safe" is considered enough.  Yeah...So is thalidomide for pregnant women, right?
Title: RE: I agree with the following.........
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 17, 2007, 09:17:07 AM
I'm quite aware of the side effects of chemothearpy, as I stated my daughter just finished 2 years of chemotherapy for leukemia.  You're right, when faced with certain death or a chance at life, you take your chances with the medications.  

But we are talking about a BRAND NEW vaccine that MIGHT help prevent a FEW strains of an STD that MIGHT cause cervical cancer SOMETIMES if you get it.  In my opinion, it's not worth the risk.  I'm not saying you're a bad person if you believe it's worth it.  It's a very individual decision.  And that's my point.  My question is NOT about the vaccine itself, it is about the rights of a parent with legal custody.

Thanks for sharing
Title: RE: How about....
Post by: janM on Jul 17, 2007, 09:19:25 AM
...SD just refuses to go with her mom to the doctor's office? What is she going to do, drag her? Call the cops? She is old enough to drive, she should be old enough to say what happens to her body.

Even if bm took it to court, I seriously doubt a judge would order it, because there is not an iimmediate threat to her health to NOT get it.
Title: RE: How about....
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 17, 2007, 10:28:06 AM
Hmm, that might work.  
Title: Thank you!
Post by: cinb85 on Jul 17, 2007, 10:46:11 AM
I had no idea that some girls have died from complications due to this vaccine.

Unfortunately some states are thinking about making this vaccine mandatory at a certain age.  

Title: RE: Doctor Issues
Post by: ocean on Jul 17, 2007, 10:46:11 AM
You are entitled to your opinion on the shot but so is her BM. There has to be some positive documentation or they would not get approval. I understand your concern that it is a new drug and want to wait. This was the fear when the chicken pox shot came out, most kids get it. I think putting SD in the middle will not be good. If BM brings her to her DR and the DR tells SD all about the "positives" , will she go against her mom and the DR?

You have your opinion about shots in general...but Legally....BM has the same right as your DH....(someone said that it takes several shots....if this is true then you do not have to worry because SD will be back before the next one right?)
Title: RE: Thank you!
Post by: ocean on Jul 17, 2007, 10:56:23 AM
I just read about it...you need 3 shots in the first year and you "may" need a booster shot if you get in before 12 years old...(I guess that is why our dr said 13 years old). The sites I just visited keep repeating that it is a new drug and they do not know how long it lasts...or if boys should get it too.  Very interesting reading though....
Title: It is interesting.
Post by: cinb85 on Jul 17, 2007, 11:05:45 AM
I was thinking about having my daughter get it, but I didn't realize that there have been some deaths related to it.

I guess I'll be doing more research first.
Title: RE: Doctor Issues
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 17, 2007, 11:24:33 AM
Yes, I understand her mother is also entitled to her opinion on it.  We are simply asking that she wait, and that SDs desire regarding the shot be considered.  She is 16, and able to make decisions regarding her reproductive health otherwise;  Why not immunizations, especially one that has to do with an STD?  

Yes, we absolutely have to worry about it with several shots.  It is the first one that is the most dangerous.  But the thing is, she can always get the shot later if she wants it.  She can't "un-get" a shot.


Title: RE: It is interesting.
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 17, 2007, 11:30:23 AM
I truly believe it is a very personal decision.  The idea of this vaccine, so new on the market that most insurance companies don't even cover it yet, being mandatory, is quite frightening.  

Some people want their children to have it, and that is fine.  That is their decision.  Personally, we want to wait.  If you go to the VAERS website, you can search their database.  Yes, 3 girls have died after taking it, due to cardiac issues.  Many (over 1600, which is a lot considering how new the vaccine is) have had serious reactions.
Title: I'm very glad that you brought all of this up.
Post by: cinb85 on Jul 17, 2007, 11:44:00 AM
I know that the reason that you posted your question has kind of gotten lost in all of this, but I am truly glad that you brought the deaths to my attention.  My boss's daughter has already started the vaccine and I was thinking about having my daughter get it in the near future.  Now, I am going to wait and do a little more research.  I already did a little research and saw a article about those 3 girls who have died.  I also read about some of the serious reactions to the vaccine.

My insurance covers this vaccine fully, but as I said, thanks to your post, I plan on doing more research before I have my daughter get the vaccine (if at all).  I applaud you for taking an active role in your DH's daughter's health.  Unfortunately, my dd's father doesn't play any part in our dd's life, so I have to make all of the decisions myself.

Good luck to you!
Title: RE: I'm very glad that you brought all of this up.
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 17, 2007, 12:17:09 PM
Thanks so much!  It's sort of frustrating to post a question and have it pretty much ignored so people can flame me about not wanting a particular vaccine.  

Like I said, I don't think any less of peole who chose to have their kids get the vaccine, I just think they should be fully informed.  

There is a TON more to the story (isn't there always?), but yeah, we try to be involved.  DBM (Daughter By Marriage) has been living with us this past school year, but is with her mother over the summer.  Her mom has a long history of doing this stuff behind DH's back, so it's not like this is the first.  It's the first that DH has been so adamantly against, though.
Title: RE: Just make sure
Post by: janM on Jul 17, 2007, 04:51:27 PM
that it is totally HER decision. If she says, I'm not going cause stepmom says I shouldn't, that's not a good thing for anyone.

She should be encouraged to have control over her body and make informed decisions about her health care. That means she should not be swayed by peers, or by any of her parents. Did she see the same reports that you saw?

I hope she does the right thing.
Title: RE: Doctor Issues
Post by: dsm on Jul 19, 2007, 08:49:36 AM

>
>So a parent who has legal custody can't tell a doctor's office
>anything and expect it to be respected, if the other parent
>takes the child in behind their back?  

Nope.  The same legal custody that allows your DH to request that the vaccine not be given to their daughter is the same that allows the BM to request that it is given.  It is a rock and a hard place.  The clinic is not going to take sides.

I would assume that you could file a petition to make a court order the vaccine to not be given.  However, the chances of it getting heard before BM makes her move is probably slim to none.  You'd do better to just make it abundantly clear to BM your DH's wishes.  And empower your SD to voice her wishes as well.  When her mom says that she wants her to get the shot, your SD pipes up that she is not comfortable with it and does not want it at this stage of her life.  If her doctor is worth anything, he/she will take some time with SD on her own without her mother being there.  Maybe then, there is a chance that she would not have to go through with it.

Good luck!



==============================================================================

dsm - 36; DH - 40; SD - 17; LO - 11; BB - 4
------------------
3 Cheap Entertainment cats - Sam,  Snoop & Dagger
------------------
Live, Love, and Laugh
------------------
Title: Joint legal means either parent can do what they want "medically"
Post by: Sherry1 on Jul 19, 2007, 11:39:13 AM
with the kids without the other parties approvals.  You would have to retain a laywer and go to court to stop the shot.
Title: RE: Doctor Issues
Post by: Jade on Jul 19, 2007, 09:07:25 PM
>I also dont understand why your dh would be against this. DBM
>is probably reacting to what she is hearing.  
>
Because vaccines don't come without risk.  And this one is really new.

I have a daughter and no way is she getting the shot.  She is not a guinea pig.  

Title: RE: Doctor Issues
Post by: Jade on Jul 19, 2007, 09:11:37 PM
>You are entitled to your opinion on the shot but so is her
>BM. There has to be some positive documentation or they would
>not get approval.

The Rotavirus vaccine got approval.  

And look what happened with that.

Title: RE: Joint legal means either parent can do what they want
Post by: Jade on Jul 19, 2007, 09:14:24 PM
>with the kids without the other parties approvals.  You would
>have to retain a laywer and go to court to stop the shot.

No, that isn't what joint legal means.

Joint legal means that BOTH parents get to give their input without the other having more say over the other.

And if they can't reach an agreement, they need to go to court to settle it.  

But you do need to get approval from both parites on major medical decisions.  And getting a very new vaccine could be considered as falling into that category.

It is too new for them to say conclusively that it works or that it is safe.  

Let's not forget what happened with the Rotavirus vaccine.  Babies DIED because of that "safe" vaccine.


Title: As one that did get cancer from HPV . . .
Post by: hagatha on Jul 19, 2007, 11:09:40 PM

On the vaccine subject . . .
I did have cervical cancer that supposidly came from the HPV virus. I went through all the crap that one goes through when those cancer cells are found. I probably would have had a better outcome if I had the regular yearly paps, but I put those off. I eventualy had a radical hystorectomy. (sp)

Given all this I still will tell my daughter that this vaccine should not be given to my grand daughters. That is if this is still available when they are the age recommended for the vaccine.

On the Legal standpoint . . .
You will have to go to court to prevent the mother from taking the child for this vaccine. However, you will have to rely on the Judges understanding of the drug itself. Most Judges will not have the facts you have available to you. So you will have to educate the Judge with solid FACTS and then it will still be a crap shoot. Just because you accurately present the facts doesn't mean the Judge will really listen.

But, knowing the side effects I would petition for a "show cause" hearing to present the information and hope for the best.

Good luck
The Witch

Remember . . . KARMA is a Wonderful Thing!!!!!
Title: Hag, since you have the experience............
Post by: Kitty C. on Jul 20, 2007, 08:53:39 AM
What about if they get a few years under their belts and are able to refine the vaccine?  If they're able to decrease the side effects?  Would you support it then?

I came real close to where you've been..........luckily I don't have any girls to worry about.  But if your granddaughters are small, they would have quite a few years to perfect the vaccine so that the side effects aren't so severe.
Title: RE: As one that did get cancer from HPV . . .
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 20, 2007, 10:43:17 AM
Thanks so much for your input.  After speaking with one of the doctors (as opposed to the medical assistant...the M.A. gives the shot, but ONLY when the doctor orders it) I work with, we have decided to do this:

DH has a letter we will drop off at the doctor's office.  (I did call, and found out it is scheduled with her old doctor.)  The letter states that they have joint legal custody, and that he does not want his daughter to get the shot.  We'd mail it registered mail, but her appointment is on Monday.

If the doctor hassles SD or tries to tell her she has to get it because her mom wants her to get it, we have give a copy of the letter to SD.  It's the same, except it warns the doctor that if they force her to get the shot, DH will be taking legal action against them.  (IE, sue them)  

Of course, when I asked the doctor about it, she was horrified that we don't want SD to get it.  "But it's WONDERFUL!"  I asked her how long term the studies were.  "Well, they COULDN'T do 30 year studies!"  Well, ok.  We'll wait for them.  Like you said, the yearly paps are SO important.  

Incidentally, I am curious as to how they know that this vaccine will protect girls from HPV.  Did they give them the shot, then intentionally infect them with HPV?  I can't think that is legal!
Title: RE: Hag, since you have the experience............
Post by: hagatha on Jul 20, 2007, 12:20:03 PM


I think I would still say not to give the shot.

This is a very new vaccine and there is no real "long term study" and until they know what can happen I think I will continue to tell my D to wait.

There is no guarentee that when my grand babies are of age to get vaccinated that shot will still be on the market so to speak. It may have been recalled already.

Plus, a very long time ago in the late 50's and early 60's pregnant woman were given meds to prevent miscarriages. My mother took them with both my sister and myself. They learned some 30 years later these meds caused cancer and other gynocologial problems in the unborn child.  My sister has never had children and I had all my stuff removed.

I don't believe the drug companies are entirely truthful or honest about the products they supply the public. While I don't believe they will intentually (sp) produce something that they know before giving it to the general public will have deadly rammifications, I do believe they will hesitate to pull a drug that is making enormous profits. And this new vaccine is making Enormous money for the drug company.

BTW my kids and grandkids didn't and won't get the shots the goverment decided they should get when the government thinks they should. While they will get all the shots they NEED, it is on our timetable.

The Witch
Title: RE: Doctor Issues
Post by: mistoffolees on Jul 20, 2007, 08:08:18 PM
>Actually, all you have to do in most states is sign a waiver
>saying your opting out.  They cannot force you to immunize
>your children in order to go to public school.

No, but your opting out can't prevent the mother from authorizing it.

>
>And there IS documentation as to the negative reactions of the
>shot.  The problem is, there is no actual documentation as to
>the positive results, because it hasn't been around enough.

Funny enought, there IS plenty of documentation that the results are positive. Have you read the FDA file wrapper?

>But for some reason, just saying, "Oh, it's safe" is
>considered enough.  Yeah...So is thalidomide for pregnant
>women, right?

The FDA testing protocols are much more detailed than they were then.  
Title: RE: How about....
Post by: mistoffolees on Jul 20, 2007, 08:10:29 PM
>...SD just refuses to go with her mom to the doctor's office?
>What is she going to do, drag her? Call the cops? She is old
>enough to drive, she should be old enough to say what happens
>to her body.

Sorry, but she can't. At 16, she's still a minor. If the mother asks for her to get a shot, the cops aren't going to interfere.

Yes, you could encourage the daughter to get into a fist fight with her mother over the issue if the mother tries to take her to the doctor, but that seems a little extreme - and unjustified.

>
>Even if bm took it to court, I seriously doubt a judge would
>order it, because there is not an iimmediate threat to her
>health to NOT get it.

The judge doesn't have to order it. The mother has every right to request it from the doctor.
Title: RE: Thank you!
Post by: mistoffolees on Jul 20, 2007, 08:11:17 PM
>I had no idea that some girls have died from complications
>due to this vaccine.

Care to provide documentation of that assertion?

>
>Unfortunately some states are thinking about making this
>vaccine mandatory at a certain age.  
>
>
Title: RE: I'm very glad that you brought all of this up.
Post by: mistoffolees on Jul 20, 2007, 08:15:13 PM
>I know that the reason that you posted your question has kind
>of gotten lost in all of this, but I am truly glad that you
>brought the deaths to my attention.

Keep in mind that you have nothing but ASSERTIONS that the vaccine has caused deaths. Not that the person who claimed that is trying to stop her daughter from getting the vaccine, but has not provided any references supporting her assertion.

And even if it were true, it comes down to the same thing as the polio vaccine. The first version of the polio vaccine did cause an occasional death - but saved 1000 lives for every death. Since you have no way of knowing whether your kid would die of polio, it made statistical sense to get the vaccine.
Title: RE: As one that did get cancer from HPV . . .
Post by: mistoffolees on Jul 20, 2007, 08:18:39 PM
>Thanks so much for your input.  After speaking with one of
>the doctors (as opposed to the medical assistant...the M.A.
>gives the shot, but ONLY when the doctor orders it) I work
>with, we have decided to do this:
>
>DH has a letter we will drop off at the doctor's office.  (I
>did call, and found out it is scheduled with her old doctor.)
>The letter states that they have joint legal custody, and that
>he does not want his daughter to get the shot.  We'd mail it
>registered mail, but her appointment is on Monday.
>
>If the doctor hassles SD or tries to tell her she has to get
>it because her mom wants her to get it, we have give a copy of
>the letter to SD.  It's the same, except it warns the doctor
>that if they force her to get the shot, DH will be taking
>legal action against them.  (IE, sue them)  

You have no grounds to sue him. You're making groundless threats to try to control a situation you have no right to control.

>
>Of course, when I asked the doctor about it, she was horrified
>that we don't want SD to get it.  "But it's WONDERFUL!"  I
>asked her how long term the studies were.  "Well, they
>COULDN'T do 30 year studies!"  Well, ok.  We'll wait for them.
> Like you said, the yearly paps are SO important.  

No, but they've been doing vaccine studies for many decades, and the accumulated knowledge is helpful. For example, reactions and side effects to vaccines almost never occur after the first few weeks.

>
>Incidentally, I am curious as to how they know that this
>vaccine will protect girls from HPV.  Did they give them the
>shot, then intentionally infect them with HPV?  I can't think
>that is legal!

It's not. It does, however, indicate that you don't know enough about the subject to be making the blanket assertions and accusations you're making.

Why not learn something about how the testing is done and reported and how the FDA approves a vaccine before taking a knee-jerk response against it?
Title: RE: Thank you!
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 21, 2007, 05:23:09 AM
>>I had no idea that some girls have died from complications
>>due to this vaccine.
>
>Care to provide documentation of that assertion?

All you have to do is check the VAERS website.  3 girls have died from receiving this shot.  Over 1600 have had serious reactions.  It's only been offered a very short time, and only a few girls (relatively speaking) have received.  That is a HUGE percentage.
Title: RE: Doctor Issues
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 21, 2007, 05:27:55 AM

>No, but your opting out can't prevent the mother from
>authorizing it.

No, it can't.  However, as I stated, when BOTH parents have the legal right to make medical decisions, they need to BOTH agree, or it should be taken care of through the courts.

I spoke to one of the doctors I know.  She certainly didn't agree with my opinion on the vaccine, but she said that it is NOT the responsibility of the doctor to get into the middle of it.  It would need to be hashed out in court.

>The FDA testing protocols are much more detailed than they were >then.

Ok...So tell me, how are they able to do a 30-year study in less than 30 years?  Did they give a bunch of girls the vaccine, then inject them with HPV?  Sounds pretty unethical to me, I doubt they did that.  
Title: RE: How about....
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 21, 2007, 05:32:14 AM

>The judge doesn't have to order it. The mother has every right
>to request it from the doctor.

So what?  She can "request" whatever she wants, but if the other LEGAL parent of the child requests the opposite happen, it needs to go to court if they are both going to push for it.  I'm sure you're aware of cases where one parent, say, wants the child to have an operation and the other parent doesn't?  

Yeah, if we make it known to the doctor that she is NOT to get it, he can't get it.  If her mother then wants to make her get it, she'll have to take it to court.  I asked because I wasn't sure of the proper course to take.  On this forum, I got a bunch of flak for not being a sheep, and not wanting my SD to be a guinea pig for the drug company.  No actual help for this issue, though.  I finally went elsewhere for that.
Title: RE: I'm very glad that you brought all of this up.
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 21, 2007, 05:40:34 AM
>Keep in mind that you have nothing but ASSERTIONS that the
>vaccine has caused deaths. Not that the person who claimed
>that is trying to stop her daughter from getting the vaccine,
>but has not provided any references supporting her assertion.

Sorry, didn't realize I had stumbled upon a debate forum.  Get your panties out of a bunch.  I told you where you can find this information:  The VAERS website.  They are required to report it.  

>And even if it were true, it comes down to the same thing as
>the polio vaccine. The first version of the polio vaccine did
>cause an occasional death - but saved 1000 lives for every
>death. Since you have no way of knowing whether your kid would
>die of polio, it made statistical sense to get the vaccine.

Wow...Just...Wow.  You are not SERIOUSLY comparing HPV to POLIO, are you?  One was a disease that was running rampant throughout the country, killing and paralyzing thousands, and ANYONE could get it.  The other is something that a few teens might get if they are having unprotected sex, and even then, it only *might* turn into cervical cancer, and IF they don't get checked every year, it MIGHT cause a few deaths.  
Title: RE: As one that did get cancer from HPV . . .
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 21, 2007, 05:44:08 AM

>You have no grounds to sue him. You're making groundless
>threats to try to control a situation you have no right to
>control.

Are you kidding me???  DH has no right to make medical decisions regarding his own daughter???  He would ABSOLUTELY have the right to file charges against the doctor.  

>No, but they've been doing vaccine studies for many decades,
>and the accumulated knowledge is helpful. For example,
>reactions and side effects to vaccines almost never occur
>after the first few weeks.

General knowledge does NOT dictate what a particular vaccine will do.  Have they done a study over 30 years?  Nope.  

>It's not. It does, however, indicate that you don't know
>enough about the subject to be making the blanket assertions
>and accusations you're making.

No, I guess reading everything I can about the subject (from both sides), talking to medical students, and working with doctors for 10 years means nothing.  Next to making money, of course.

>Why not learn something about how the testing is done and
>reported and how the FDA approves a vaccine before taking a
>knee-jerk response against it?

I have.  Just because YOU disagree with my conclusions doesn't mean that I am uneducated.  
Title: RE: As one that did get cancer from HPV . . .
Post by: mistoffolees on Jul 21, 2007, 06:23:25 AM
>
>>You have no grounds to sue him. You're making groundless
>>threats to try to control a situation you have no right to
>>control.
>
>Are you kidding me???  DH has no right to make medical
>decisions regarding his own daughter???  He would ABSOLUTELY
>have the right to file charges against the doctor.  

Not if the doctor is following orders from a parent who has the right to have the daughter vaccinated.

You might want to calm down and check your facts. Better yet, consult an attorney before making threats.

>
>>No, but they've been doing vaccine studies for many decades,
>>and the accumulated knowledge is helpful. For example,
>>reactions and side effects to vaccines almost never occur
>>after the first few weeks.
>
>General knowledge does NOT dictate what a particular vaccine
>will do.  Have they done a study over 30 years?  Nope.  

General knowledge is PART of knowing what is going to happen. No one ever said that it was a 30 year study. That's your arbitrary requirement. Why not 1,000 years?

In reality, the FDA has requirements for vaccine testing. The fact that they do not meet YOUR standards doesn't change that.

>
>>It's not. It does, however, indicate that you don't know
>>enough about the subject to be making the blanket assertions
>>and accusations you're making.
>
>No, I guess reading everything I can about the subject (from
>both sides), talking to medical students, and working with
>doctors for 10 years means nothing.  Next to making money, of
>course.

Well, if you had read a lot about the subject, you would know that they don't intentionally infect people with the virus. When you made that statement, it demonstrated beyond any doubt that you don't have any idea waht you're talking about.

>
>>Why not learn something about how the testing is done and
>>reported and how the FDA approves a vaccine before taking a
>>knee-jerk response against it?
>
>I have.  Just because YOU disagree with my conclusions doesn't
>mean that I am uneducated.  

It's not that I disagree with your conclusions. Your own statement indicated that you don't have any idea how the studies were done or how vaccines are tested. That is more than enough to make all your statements questionable.
Title: Many times with Joint Legal...
Post by: Genie on Jul 22, 2007, 11:21:16 AM
if they can't agree, one parent (usually the one with primary placement), has the right to make the decision. Geting both parent's "imput" really means nothing because the one with ultimate decision making authority will still go on what they think.

You can't run into court everytime you disagree. I don't know if this would be considered a major medical decision b/c vaccines are standard practice and many states are requiring or thinking of requiring this one for school.

I don't agree with the vaccine only b/c I feel that it gives girls more lisence to have sex.  Now they won't have to "worry" about getting HPV even though it doesn't cover all the strains.  Below Sanchez kept saying it needed "30 years of research" to be considered effective.  Well, even 30 years doesn't mean it will work or last how it should.  The measles/mumps shots I got as a kid should be redone b/c they think they don't last forever.  Never got them redone but should.

I never agreed with the chicken pox shot being mandatory.  If you don't get it as a child I do think you should have it as an adolesent b/c it is so much worse.  But I didn't think it should be mandatory for school.  But my girls have both gotten it.  And they haven't done that many years research and don't even know now if it is permanent. It may need to be redone at some point.
Title: Thank you, Mist.................
Post by: Kitty C. on Jul 22, 2007, 03:25:49 PM
I've been in healthcare for 20-25 years (not 10) and have had plenty of vaccines in my life.  I could not be in healthcare or work as an EMT-B without taking the Hep B series.  And I vivdly remember the vaccines we HAD to take in grades school, back in the 60's and 70's.

The polio vaccine is one of the greatest discoveries of mankind.  And when it was initially given, it certainly wasn't after waiting 30 years or better to see what the long-term side effects were.  And that vaccine has saved millions, if not billions of lives.  And I would venture to say that everyone currently posting on this site has had it.  AND the guidelines that the FDA used to approve this vaccine are more lenient then the ones they use now.

There have been plenty of vaccines and medicines that have been put on the market that have not had long term studies done on them.  I would also venture to say that the majority of the females on this site have taken some form of oral contraceptive/patch at some point in their life.  And OC's have only been on the market for 40+ years.  The potential long term side effects of OC's can be just as dangerous as Gardasil.  I found that out, too.  Two years ago, all of a sudden my blood pressure went up dramatically and my PCP yanked me off the Patch immediately.  I really had no alternative (given our situation) but to have my tubes tied.  But the potential for other side effects is enormous and still there are millions/billions of women who use them.  More women have died from the side effects of birth control meds in relation to the time it has been on the market than Gardasil, and it sounds like more parents are willing to put their girls on BC than they are to give them a vaccine.  And the girls need both, IMO.  

To me, there is absolutely NO difference.  
Title: RE: As one that did get cancer from HPV . . .
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 22, 2007, 04:08:23 PM
>Not if the doctor is following orders from a parent who has
>the right to have the daughter vaccinated.

Yet if the doctor has two conflicting orders, BOTH from parents who have the right to make medical decisions for the child, he can be in a heap of trouble if he gives her the shot.

>You might want to calm down and check your facts. Better yet,
>consult an attorney before making threats.

I did.  I believe I posted the answer to you already.

>General knowledge is PART of knowing what is going to happen.
>No one ever said that it was a 30 year study. That's your
>arbitrary requirement. Why not 1,000 years?

Yes, PART.  They've been doing studies for years, yet they have pulled vaccines VERY recently.  What does that tell you?  That they can't know the full effects of the vaccines until they have been followed for longer than their "studies" last.  

As for the time limit...Well, gee, since humans don't live 1,000, I don't see what sense it would make to try to follow how the vaccine might affect someone over the next 1,000 years.  However, people DO generally live to be in their 40's, so I think it's perfectly reasonable to know how it will affect them years down the road.

As for the polio vaccine...Interesting that you mentioned that one, consider that the OPV has been pulled and is no longer used.  Because despite being very effective, it also causes polio in some patients.  Took them YEARS to pull it, too.  And it was done recently.  

>Well, if you had read a lot about the subject, you would know
>that they don't intentionally infect people with the virus.

Yes, I know that.  That's WHY I made it.  Because it's obvious they can't do that, so I would like to know how they can claim that it's so effective.  

>When you made that statement, it demonstrated beyond any doubt
>that you don't have any idea waht you're talking about.

*LOL*  No, you simply proved that you can't read my mind.  

>It's not that I disagree with your conclusions. Your own
>statement indicated that you don't have any idea how the
>studies were done or how vaccines are tested. That is more
>than enough to make all your statements questionable.

No, my statement was perfectly logical.  You are the one who jumped to some ridiculous conclusion based on the fact that I made a sarcastic statement.  
Title: RE: Many times with Joint Legal...
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 22, 2007, 04:13:04 PM
>if they can't agree, one parent (usually the one with primary
>placement), has the right to make the decision. Geting both
>parent's "imput" really means nothing because the one with
>ultimate decision making authority will still go on what they
>think.

When one parent absolutely refuses to allow a doctor to do something, the other parent must go to court if they want it done.  Our case is further complicated by the fact that we are in limbo right now regarding physical custody (the ex has it at the moment, she has had it for years, but SD has been living with us since last fall).  However, that is not the issue, as both parents have legal custody.

>You can't run into court everytime you disagree.

Well, you COULD.  They would then probably give one parent legal custody.  And we aren't running in to court.  In fact, in the past we have held our tongues and not said anything about what we believed were unnecessary procedures.  However, THIS is not something my husband is prepared to sit back and allow to happen.  It's too important.

>Below Sanchez kept saying it needed "30 years of
>research" to be considered effective.  Well, even 30 years
>doesn't mean it will work or last how it should.  

No, it doesn't.  But at least then we'd know if it made the girls who got the shot infertile, or caused other kinds of cancer.

Title: RE: Thank you, Mist.................
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 22, 2007, 04:30:41 PM
>I've been in healthcare for 20-25 years (not 10) and have had
>plenty of vaccines in my life.  I could not be in healthcare
>or work as an EMT-B without taking the Hep B series.  And I
>vivdly remember the vaccines we HAD to take in grades school,
>back in the 60's and 70's.

Interesting, because many of those vaccines have been pulled from the shelves.  Why?  Because the side effects were too risky.  They really weren't safe.  Just because YOU were ok is like saying it's not a big deal to wear seat belts, since Grandma and Grandpa never wore them and they are still around.

>The polio vaccine is one of the greatest discoveries of
>mankind.  And when it was initially given, it certainly wasn't
>after waiting 30 years or better to see what the long-term
>side effects were.  And that vaccine has saved millions, if
>not billions of lives.  

You're not SERIOUSLY comparing polio to HPV, are you?  I mean, being in healthcare, I would think you would know there is a HUGE difference.  One is a virus that is transmitted ONLY through sex, and if you happen to get it, it MIGHT turn into cancer, and IF you don't get annual pap tests, you'll get pretty sick.  The other is a virus that was rampaging the entire COUNTRY, and all you had to do to get it was be around someone who had it (transmitted through contaminated stool, so if your spoon wasn't clean enough, you could get it;  also transmitted orally...unlike HPV, which is ONLY transmitted through sex).  If someone had it, it could take as much as a MONTH for them to start showing signs.  But they were contagious for about a week, week and a half.  

The risks sound pretty different to me.  One, you can reduce (even completely eliminate) your exposure to, and even if you get it, an annaul pap test should find it.  The other, you can't do a thing to keep from being exposed.

>And I would venture to say that
>everyone currently posting on this site has had it.  

Well, gee, which version?  They don't even generally recommend the oral polio vaccine anymore!

>There have been plenty of vaccines and medicines that have
>been put on the market that have not had long term studies
>done on them.  

So what???  That makes it ok?  It's a crapshoot.  A lot of the time, they are pulled from the market because it's discovered that they are a lot more harmful than helpful.  Thanks, but my kids won't be the guinea pigs to determine which it'll be.

>The potential
>long term side effects of OC's can be just as dangerous as
>Gardasil.  

Yes, that's why I don't use them.

If you want it, fine.  Get it, give it to your kids, whatever.  I don't care.  Just don't try to FORCE other parents to give it to theirs.

Title: RE: Thank you, Mist.................
Post by: Kitty C. on Jul 22, 2007, 07:14:13 PM
Where do you get off telling me I'm trying to force anyone to do anything?????  Seems to me you're WAY too emotional about this issue to even TRY to look at it objectively.  I couldn't force anyone reading this thread to blink, let alone get them to have their children immunized.  Sounds like you need to back off and rethink.....

Now that I see where you're 'really' coming from, I know that this whole thread's main issue probably doesn't have anything to do with the vaccine.  And I won't further comment to anyone who doesn't hesitate to put words in my mouth.  I NEVER mentioned anything about ORAL polio, just polio.  And you can't tell me you never got it. And I NEVER was comparing the two vaccines, JUST that the side effects for MANY vaccines and meds are just as dangerous as those of Gardasil, but no one seems to be paying any attention to that.  Being so selective in what one wants to consider can be dangerous, too.
Title: RE: Thank you!
Post by: mistoffolees on Jul 22, 2007, 07:47:30 PM
>>>I had no idea that some girls have died from complications
>>>due to this vaccine.
>>
>>Care to provide documentation of that assertion?
>
>All you have to do is check the VAERS website.  3 girls have
>died from receiving this shot.  Over 1600 have had serious
>reactions.  It's only been offered a very short time, and only
>a few girls (relatively speaking) have received.  That is a
>HUGE percentage.
>

I have no idea what the VAERS web site is, nor do I have any reason to believe that their posts are factual.

Do you have a documented web site which supports your claim?
Title: Where are these statistics at?
Post by: dipper on Jul 22, 2007, 09:05:52 PM
Where is the info that two girls have died and that others have had seizures?  

When my daughter got her first shot, we were told that some teens have passed out when receiving the shot.  As this is a mix of teens and needles and I have seen adults pass out when giving blood, I didnt think that was very odd myself.

I did read in one post where you stated that you werent questioning people who want to allow their child to have it, but simply wanting to know about the legalities if one is for and one is against... no problem with that.....I would hope at age 16, the parents would both agree to let the daughter make the choice.

My daughter was aware of what the vaccine actually was for...and she wanted this vaccine.  

I think, personally that as parents, its what you weigh as the greater risk.  Vaccinations come with some amount of risk....

Title: RE: Thank you, Mist.................
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 23, 2007, 05:21:30 AM
>Where do you get off telling me I'm trying to force anyone to
>do anything?????  Seems to me you're WAY too emotional about
>this issue to even TRY to look at it objectively.  I couldn't
>force anyone reading this thread to blink, let alone get them
>to have their children immunized.  Sounds like you need to
>back off and rethink.....

Your attitude from the beginning, the VERY FIRST POST, was that I was doing something "wrong" because I don't want my SD to receive this vaccine.  The pros and cons of the vaccine aren't the issue, but I answered your question about why I don't want her to get it.  You STILL couldn't "move on," and got quite rude.  

>Now that I see where you're 'really' coming from, I know that
>this whole thread's main issue probably doesn't have anything
>to do with the vaccine.  

Where I'm "really" coming from?  What, that I "really" don't want my children, including my SD, to receive this vaccine?  Oh, how horrible.

>I NEVER
>mentioned anything about ORAL polio, just polio.  

Um...So what?  They are BOTH vaccines for polio.  In fact, the OPV is generally considered a "better" vaccine, in that it is more effective.  Our doctors still don't administer it.  
Title: RE: Thank you!
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 23, 2007, 05:29:51 AM

>I have no idea what the VAERS web site is, nor do I have any
>reason to believe that their posts are factual.

*ROFL*  Um...Yeah, and *I* haven't done enough research.  VAERS = Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.  //www.vaers.hhs.gov  Yes, "dot gov."  It's a GOVERNMENT website.  Doctors are required by law to report adverse effects of vaccines.  The government compiles their reports.  The VAERS website has nothing to do with "posts," it's the report from the United States government about the adverse effects of vaccines.  

>Do you have a documented web site which supports your claim?

Here is a copy of the VAERS reports on the deaths, as of May 11, 2007.http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/GardasilVAERSDeaths.pdf

And a copy of the VAERS reports for the 1637 serious side effects as of May 11, 2007.  http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/GardasilVAERSReports.pdf
 
But gee, if the govenment isn't well "documented" enough for you, don't know that I can help.  
Title: RE: Where are these statistics at?
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 23, 2007, 05:36:15 AM
>Where is the info that two girls have died and that others
>have had seizures?  

Actually, 3 have died, as of May this year.  You can find the info on the VAERS website.  Here is a link to an article about it.  The article has links to the VAERS reports, too, so you don't have to go and mess around VAERS with a search. http://judicialwatch.org/6299.shtml

>When my daughter got her first shot, we were told that some
>teens have passed out when receiving the shot.  As this is a
>mix of teens and needles and I have seen adults pass out when
>giving blood, I didnt think that was very odd myself.

The teens who passed out didn't just do this immediately upon receiving the injection, but up to hours afterwards.  At least one girl (I didn't read EVERY SINGLE over 1600 report) had a tonic clonic seizure, not just a "slump to the floor" reaction.  

>I did read in one post where you stated that you werent
>questioning people who want to allow their child to have it,
>but simply wanting to know about the legalities if one is for
>and one is against... no problem with that.....I would hope at
>age 16, the parents would both agree to let the daughter make
>the choice.

I agree.  And we have discussed it with my SD.  We gave her the pros, too.  She decided that she didn't want it now, and I think that should be respected.  They'll give her an abortion if she gets pregnant, but they won't let her choose whether or not they inject her with a brand new drug?  That just sounds messed up.

>My daughter was aware of what the vaccine actually was
>for...and she wanted this vaccine.  

Did she realize that it wasn't a vaccine for cancer?  I have scheduled tons of girls for appointments for this vaccine, and I cringe every time I hear the girls being "informed" about it.  Typically, it goes something like this:

Girl:  Wait, what's that for?  Why do I need a shot?
Mom:  It will keep you from getting cancer.
Girl:  Oh, cool.  

>I think, personally that as parents, its what you weigh as the
>greater risk.  Vaccinations come with some amount of risk....

Exactly.
Title: RE: Where are these statistics at?
Post by: mistoffolees on Jul 23, 2007, 06:30:09 AM
>>Where is the info that two girls have died and that others
>>have had seizures?  
>
>Actually, 3 have died, as of May this year.  You can find the
>info on the VAERS website.  Here is a link to an article about
>it.  The article has links to the VAERS reports, too, so you
>don't have to go and mess around VAERS with a search.
>http://judicialwatch.org/6299.shtml
>

Typical article. No facts, just allegations. People die all the time. There is absolutely no evidence that the vaccine caused those deaths.

Since you've already demonstrated that you don't know how these tests are run, they run both a test group and a control group which doesn't get the vaccine. They compare deaths and adverse reactions for both groups. The incidence of death and severe reactions was no different in the control group and the test group.

IOW, some people die whether they receive the vaccine or not. The fact that someone died after receiving the vaccine does not demonstrate causality.
Title: RE: Thank you!
Post by: mistoffolees on Jul 23, 2007, 06:32:46 AM
>
>>I have no idea what the VAERS web site is, nor do I have any
>>reason to believe that their posts are factual.
>
>*ROFL*  Um...Yeah, and *I* haven't done enough research.
>VAERS = Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
>//www.vaers.hhs.gov  Yes, "dot gov."  It's a GOVERNMENT website.
> Doctors are required by law to report adverse effects of
>vaccines.  The government compiles their reports.  The VAERS
>website has nothing to do with "posts," it's the report from
>the United States government about the adverse effects of
>vaccines.  
>
>>Do you have a documented web site which supports your claim?
>
>Here is a copy of the VAERS reports on the deaths, as of May
>11,
>2007.http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/GardasilVAERSDeaths.pdf
>
>And a copy of the VAERS reports for the 1637 serious side
>effects as of May 11, 2007.
>http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/GardasilVAERSReports.pdf
>
>But gee, if the govenment isn't well "documented" enough for
>you, don't know that I can help.  
>


Except for one thing that you've missed. That does not prove causality. Doctors report everything that might possibly be related, but only after statistical analysis can it be shown that the vaccine caused the deaths or reactions.

Some people die all the time - whether they receive the vaccine or not. The fact that someone died after receiving the vaccine does not prove the vaccine caused it. For example, if someone were run over by a car after receiving the vaccine, would you also claim that the vaccine causes auto deaths?

The FDA's analysis is currently that the vaccine remains on the approved list and there is no evidence that it causes significant harm or death.
Title: RE: Where are these statistics at?
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 23, 2007, 11:19:57 AM
>Typical article. No facts, just allegations. People die all
>the time. There is absolutely no evidence that the vaccine
>caused those deaths.

*LOL*  Do you have problems with reading comprehension or something?  I am beginning to wonder, just based on the many mistakes you've made just here.  

The article contains a link with the ACTUAL REPORTS from the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.  Do you seriously not understand that?  

>IOW, some people die whether they receive the vaccine or not.
>The fact that someone died after receiving the vaccine does
>not demonstrate causality.

Yes, I'm sure teenage girls drop dead from cardiac arrest all the time, the fact that it happened upon receiving this vaccine means nothing.  *snort*
Title: RE: Thank you!
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 23, 2007, 11:24:14 AM
>Except for one thing that you've missed. That does not prove
>causality. Doctors report everything that might possibly be
>related, but only after statistical analysis can it be shown
>that the vaccine caused the deaths or reactions.
>
>Some people die all the time - whether they receive the
>vaccine or not. The fact that someone died after receiving the
>vaccine does not prove the vaccine caused it. For example, if
>someone were run over by a car after receiving the vaccine,
>would you also claim that the vaccine causes auto deaths?

Funny how you were bashing me and claiming there was no evidence, and that the website I mentioned was a bunch of "posts" that couldn't be verified...Yet now you're blithering on about causality.  Care to get your story straight?

The reports don't mention people being run over by cars.  They mention girls dying of cardiac arrest after receiving the vaccine, or dropping into seizures right there on the floor, and a whole host of other problems.  The fact that we see the SAME reactions, over and over again, tells us that there IS causality, not just correlation.

>The FDA's analysis is currently that the vaccine remains on
>the approved list and there is no evidence that it causes
>significant harm or death.

Yeah, and how long did it take for them to drop Thalidomide from their list of "approved drugs?"  How long before they stopped using the oral polio vaccine?  It's a HUGE money maker, if they drop it from their approved list, they will have to admit they made a mistake.  And we all know how much the government likes to do that.

Title: RE: I'm very glad that you brought all of this up.
Post by: mistoffolees on Jul 23, 2007, 12:18:40 PM

>
>Wow...Just...Wow.  You are not SERIOUSLY comparing HPV to
>POLIO, are you?  One was a disease that was running rampant
>throughout the country, killing and paralyzing thousands, and
>ANYONE could get it.  The other is something that a few teens
>might get if they are having unprotected sex, and even then,
>it only *might* turn into cervical cancer, and IF they don't
>get checked every year, it MIGHT cause a few deaths.  
>


I guess your post might be accurate IF you consider 5,000 deaths per year from cervical cancer to be a "few".

If the vaccine prevents even half of those deaths, it makes a difference. Not to mention the network effects.
Title: RE: Where are these statistics at?
Post by: mistoffolees on Jul 23, 2007, 01:25:40 PM
>>Typical article. No facts, just allegations. People die all
>>the time. There is absolutely no evidence that the vaccine
>>caused those deaths.
>
>*LOL*  Do you have problems with reading comprehension or
>something?  I am beginning to wonder, just based on the many
>mistakes you've made just here.  
>
>The article contains a link with the ACTUAL REPORTS from the
>UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.  Do you seriously not understand
>that?  

Of course I understand it. I also understand that anecdotal evidence is not proof.

>
>>IOW, some people die whether they receive the vaccine or
>not.
>>The fact that someone died after receiving the vaccine does
>>not demonstrate causality.
>
>Yes, I'm sure teenage girls drop dead from cardiac arrest all
>the time, the fact that it happened upon receiving this
>vaccine means nothing.  *snort*
>


The FDA has testing protocols in place. After spending half a billion dollars on testing, the drug has been approved. The results are good enough that quite a few states are looking at making it mandatory. Is the FDA perfect? No. But they do a very good job - and there's still no evidence backing your claim. A few isolated cases which have not been shown to be cause and effect is not proof.

It's obvious that you prefer your conspiracy theory to facts and research. But what would you expect from someone who thinks that they infect people with HPV to test the vaccine?


I'm through with this discussion.
Title: RE: Thank you!
Post by: Kitty C. on Jul 23, 2007, 02:40:13 PM
'But gee, if the govenment isn't well "documented" enough for you, don't know that I can help.'

Well, the last time I looked, the FDA WAS the 'government', and they're the ones APPROVING the vaccine.  And you've been bashing them all through this thread.  So which is it?  You keep levitating back and forth and contradicting yourself, so I wouldn't know whether to believe you or the government, since you both can't give a straight answer.
Title: Now that's the pot calling the kettle black.............
Post by: Kitty C. on Jul 23, 2007, 02:50:20 PM
My very first post to this thread asked an innocent question as to WHY you didn't want your SD to get the vaccine, because I have NOT heard one adverse comment about the vaccine.  But then I don't have girls and am too old for it anyway.  So my question was one of interest, NOT to be rude.  But then, I have absolutely no control how you perceive anything, so that's YOUR problem, not mine.  Which is why it is still very evident how emotionally involved you are in this.  If you cannot look at this issue objectively, meaning WITHOUT emotion, regardless of what you 'think' others are saying about it, then you cannot make an informed decision about it.  I strongly suggest you get out of conflict completely and leave it up to the biological parents.
Title: RE: Where are these statistics at?
Post by: Kitty C. on Jul 23, 2007, 02:57:49 PM
'Girl: Wait, what's that for? Why do I need a shot?
Mom: It will keep you from getting cancer.
Girl: Oh, cool. '

Then why aren't you/your office informing the parents as well?  Seems to me, they'd be the first ones you talk to, right?  Seems very ignorant that you or the staff in your office would still allow a child to be vaccinated when you KNOW the parent is telling them that.  No, it has NEVER been touted as a vaccine for cancer, ONLY as a vaccine against certain strains of HPV.  A sentence as simple as that is all it takes to inform.



Title: RE: Where are these statistics at?
Post by: mistoffolees on Jul 24, 2007, 06:19:28 PM
>'Girl: Wait, what's that for? Why do I need a shot?
>Mom: It will keep you from getting cancer.
>Girl: Oh, cool. '
>
>Then why aren't you/your office informing the parents as well?
> Seems to me, they'd be the first ones you talk to, right?
>Seems very ignorant that you or the staff in your office would
>still allow a child to be vaccinated when you KNOW the parent
>is telling them that.  No, it has NEVER been touted as a
>vaccine for cancer, ONLY as a vaccine against certain strains
>of HPV.  A sentence as simple as that is all it takes to
>inform.

That's misleading, as well. Those strains of HPV have been shown to cause a large portion of cervical cancer. So preventing infection by those strains of HPV DOES reduce the incidence of cancer.

A full disclosure would state that the vaccine is intended to reduce infection rates by certain strains of HPV and therefore reduce the rate of cancer often caused by those strains of HPV. It is not 100% effective, nor is it 100% free of side effects. But the best available evidence at this time indicates that the benefits outweigh the risks. Erring in either direction to support a bias is not correct.
Title: RE: Thank you!
Post by: IndigoMama on Jul 25, 2007, 12:57:04 PM
>I had no idea that some girls have died from complications
>due to this vaccine.
>
>Unfortunately some states are thinking about making this
>vaccine mandatory at a certain age.  
>
>

Actually many states had mandated it and others were considering it. However due to the risk factors and reactions so far to the vaccine they have rescinded the mandate and it is not longer mandatory in those states.
Title: RE: I'm very glad that you brought all of this up.
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 25, 2007, 02:44:59 PM
>I guess your post might be accurate IF you consider 5,000
>deaths per year from cervical cancer to be a "few".

And getting your annual pap test would result in about 4500 of those deaths NOT happening.  500 deaths a year?  Tragic, yes.  Some big health crisis?  Well, considering that more than THREE TIMES that number had already had a serious reaction to that vaccine by the end of May, looks to me like getting the vaccine is more dangerous than forgoing it.

>If the vaccine prevents even half of those deaths, it makes a
>difference. Not to mention the network effects.

If they had spent half of the money they spent on developing a vaccine on encouraging women to get their annual pap test instead, they could prevent 90% of those deaths.  
Title: RE: Where are these statistics at?
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 25, 2007, 02:51:05 PM

>Of course I understand it. I also understand that anecdotal
>evidence is not proof.

No, a few people telling what happened to them isn't proof.  However, over 1600 serious reactions are compiled together.  Chances are, that is only a fraction of the number of reactions, considering how reluctant doctors are to report adverse effects.  And a lot of "anecdotal evidence" is what MAKES statistics.

>The FDA has testing protocols in place. After spending half a
>billion dollars on testing, the drug has been approved.

So was Thalidomide.  So was the oral polio vaccine.  And how many others have been approved, then pulled?  It sounds to me like you have blinders on regarding this.  Just because the government approved it does not mean that it is automatically safe.

>The
>results are good enough that quite a few states are looking at
>making it mandatory.

Um...Yeah, and of the TWO states working on making it mandatory, one of them was signed by the Governor, instead of going through the normal channels.  A Governor whose campaign was funded primarily by Merck (the company who makes Gardisil).  Hmm...

>It's obvious that you prefer your conspiracy theory to facts
>and research.

On the contrary, I fully support research.  I simply feel they have not done ENOUGH of it.

>But what would you expect from someone who
>thinks that they infect people with HPV to test the vaccine?

Wow, you really are a prize, aren't you?  Are you sure you graduated from high school?  Because your reading ability seems very, very lacking.  I made it quite clear that I did NOT think that, but you still would rather set up a nice straw man.

>I'm through with this discussion.

Good for you, maybe you can move on to harassing other people in order to boost your obviously lacking self-esteem.  

Oh, and by the way:  SD saw the doctor on Monday.  They did not give her the shot.

Title: RE: Thank you!
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 25, 2007, 02:53:58 PM

>Well, the last time I looked, the FDA WAS the 'government',
>and they're the ones APPROVING the vaccine.  And you've been
>bashing them all through this thread.  So which is it?  You
>keep levitating back and forth and contradicting yourself, so
>I wouldn't know whether to believe you or the government,
>since you both can't give a straight answer.

My point is that I don't believe there has been enough research to accept the vaccine as safe.  Your argument has been that the FDA says it is, so it is.  I posted pages of reports to VAERS which show that it is not, and I'm told (by the other poster) that it's not good enough.  Now, if VAERS (a government website) isn't good enough, how can they trust that the vaccine is safe?

"Bashing?"  *LOL*  I guess that's what you WOULD see it as, since I don't just accept what I'm told at face value.
Title: Whoa, whoa, whoa......back up the cart here........
Post by: Kitty C. on Jul 25, 2007, 02:58:24 PM
Just because a woman gets annual pap smears doesn't mean she won't get cancer.  Encouraging women to get paps does NOT prevent anything, it ONLY diagnoses.  You of all people should know that.  The ONLY way deaths can be prevented is either by a vaccine, a cure, or knowing specifically what causes it and steering clear of it.  The first is a crap shoot and the second two certainly won't happen in our lifetimes.

Just more proof that you are way too emotionally involved to be objective about this.  Like I said before, stay out of this issue and let the BF and BM handle it.  You have no say-so in the decision anyway.
Title: RE: Now that's the pot calling the kettle black.............
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 25, 2007, 02:58:25 PM
>My very first post to this thread asked an innocent question
>as to WHY you didn't want your SD to get the vaccine, because
>I have NOT heard one adverse comment about the vaccine.  But
>then I don't have girls and am too old for it anyway.  So my
>question was one of interest, NOT to be rude.  

And that's what I assumed was going on, and that is why I politely answered your question.  And then you took it and ran, becoming very rude and oppositional, when my point was NOT to debate the vaccine, but to ask for some help with a legal issue.  So, thanks a lot.  I wonder if the people who created this website realize that their forums are being used to bash NCPs asking questions, instead of helping them?  

>I strongly suggest you get out of conflict completely and
>leave it up to the biological parents.

*Rolling eyes*  Yeah, cause if they are related BIOLOGICALLY, they are the best ones to make decisions, right?  SD's mother is emotionally and physically abusive to her (yes, it's documented), and thought it was ok to move her then-12-year-old daughter in with an ephebophile.  

And FTR:  DH IS the one making the decision.  HE is the one who said, "I don't want her to get the vaccine, what can I do to make sure she doesn't get it?"  Excuse me for daring to support my husband!
Title: RE: Where are these statistics at?
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 25, 2007, 03:02:42 PM
>Then why aren't you/your office informing the parents as well?

The parents are told.  But then, it doesn't sound as great if you just say, "It's a vaccine that may help prevent a few strains of a virus that occasionally lead to cervical cancer, which can be deadly if you refuse to get yearly pap tests."  And the doctors want to push the vaccine, so they're going to let them think what they want.

>No, it has NEVER been touted as a
>vaccine for cancer, ONLY as a vaccine against certain strains
>of HPV.  

Yeah...I guess that's what "Gardasil The only cervical cancer vaccine" means, huh?  FYI, that is EXACTLY what the Gardasil website says.  Yes, it give more information down below, but what's in big letters there, and in the commercials?  The information that most people see?  "Gardasil The only cervical cancer vaccine."  To make the claim AT ALL that it is a vaccine against cervical cancer is sickening.
Title: RE: Where are these statistics at?
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 25, 2007, 03:04:20 PM

>But the best available evidence at this time
>indicates that the benefits outweigh the risks. Erring in
>either direction to support a bias is not correct.

Actually, the evidence at this time says that getting the shot may help 500 people or less a year.  Getting the shot may harm 3200 people or more a year.  Gee...I'll take my chances with the LOWER number of people harmed, thanks.

Title: RE: Thank you!
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 25, 2007, 03:06:13 PM

>Actually many states had mandated it and others were
>considering it. However due to the risk factors and reactions
>so far to the vaccine they have rescinded the mandate and it
>is not longer mandatory in those states.

Interestingly, the state that was quickest to try and mandate this vaccine had it signed by executive order, instead of going through the regular channels, by a governor whose campaign was funded by Merck.  Sounds fishy to me.
Title: RE: Whoa, whoa, whoa......back up the cart here........
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 25, 2007, 03:09:37 PM
>Just because a woman gets annual pap smears doesn't mean she
>won't get cancer.  

Never said it would.  However, cervical cancer is EXTREMELY curable in the early stages.  It has been estimated that 90% of the women who die of cervical cancer could have survived, if they had gotten annual pap tests.  

>Just more proof that you are way too emotionally involved to
>be objective about this.  Like I said before, stay out of this
>issue and let the BF and BM handle it.  You have no say-so in
>the decision anyway.

And like I said, the father (my husband) is the one who said to me, "I don't want my daughter to get this vaccine, what do I have to do?"  Why do you have such a problem with me supporting him?  

You bet I'm "emotionally involved" in my SDs life.  I've known her since she was 6 1/2, and I've been more of a mother to her than her own biological mother.  If you think I'm going to stop helping her because YOU say I shouldn't, too bad.
 
Title: RE: Whoa, whoa, whoa......back up the cart here........
Post by: wysiwyg on Jul 25, 2007, 05:15:32 PM
>You bet I'm "emotionally involved" in my SDs life. I've known her since she was 6 1/2, and I've been more of a mother to her than her own biological mother. If you think I'm going to stop helping her because YOU say I shouldn't, too bad."

As all of us second moms and dads wish to be involved in our step childs life, the fact is that you are not a party of the courts order therefore you have no say in anything regarding the kids unless it specifically states so in the parents court order.  

You can try and be involved in the kids life but understand that the courts can also remove you totally and the repercussions of that might be that when the child comes to see dad you may have to leave.  Yes it has happened.  No matter if the BM is abusive and all the things you said in other posts about her, the courts have not removed her from the childs life, nor have I seen (I could be wrong) anything about supervised visits for the BM, therefore perhaps the courts have not deemed her as bad a person you say she is.  I do understnad tho that we all know our cases better than the attorney's and the judges and we all have our opinions and know differently, and I also understand we have the tendancy to over dramatize.  

I read with interest the posts going on back and forth here and as another mom I think you are in that protective stage and want to do what is right, however you need to understand that it is not your cause, and you need to allow the parents to make a rational decision and back down a bit.  While you can give your opinion, it is obviously biased, and perhaps the better thing to do is to have your husband set up an appointment with a physician or 2 that is familiar with the vaccine, and speak to him or her to make his own opinion and decision.  

I believe that your original question as to who can give permission for the vaccine with both parents having joint cusotdy has been answered.  Anything beyond that I think you need to consult an attorney and perhpas get a court ruling on that.  However, understand that even court orders are broken and you can not really do anything after the vaccine has been given.

Perhaps the best thing you can do is be there for the child to speak to and not be a part of the bickering that she sees and feels in a high conflict post dissolution.

Just my 2 cents.................
Title: RE: Thank you!
Post by: Kitty C. on Jul 25, 2007, 08:28:10 PM
So basically you're saying you can pick and choose who you believe, right?  If the FDA is part of the governemnt and if VAERS is part of the govenment, you just pick whichever one suits your needs, right?

That's what I mean by contradicting..........either govenment agency could be right..........OR wrong.  Like you said, you don't believe everything you read, but apparently those VAERS reports are as good as gospel for you.  Seems you've certainly accepted those reports only at face value, so you've contradicted yourself AGAIN.

Yes, you most definitely very emotionally involved.  I've been in my teenage SS's life since he was 2 and there have been MANY occasions where I have asserted myself/my opinion about certain situations involving SS and his BM.  I have learned that I can give DH my opinion, but that is where it stops, period.  What DH does with it is strictly up to him and I have absolutely no say-so in the matter, no matter how emotionally involved I might be.

Another poster made the suggestion that you back off before you're ordered to by the court.  I strongly recommend it as well.  If you REALLY want to help your SD, it would be the best thing for her, before you do any damage to her relationship with her father.

Just remember one thing...........all who have posted here in response to you are giving their opinions and views of the situation, their 'recommendations'.  Absolutely NO one has 'ordered' you to do anything.......they can't.  So don't go 'assuming' we're trying to force you to do anything, nothing could be further from the truth.  But if you post here, you will get dissenting views.  If you don't like what you see/hear, you don't have to continue posting here.
Title: Didnt I say that?
Post by: dipper on Jul 25, 2007, 09:26:46 PM
**Did she realize that it wasn't a vaccine for cancer? I have scheduled tons of girls for appointments for this vaccine, and I cringe every time I hear the girls being "informed" about it. Typically, it goes something like this:

Girl: Wait, what's that for? Why do I need a shot?
Mom: It will keep you from getting cancer.
Girl: Oh, cool. "***

Yes, my daughter did know what the vaccination is for.  And yes, she still wanted a vaccine that could actually protect her...imagine that.    I stated specifically that she knew, so there was no need for you to question.  

For you to want the right to pick what shots your stepdaughter gets, you should have a little more consideration that some people do want their children to have these shots and that is their right.....their choice, not yours.

Also, the doctor should explain it fully to the patient as that is their job...to inform their patients and our doctor and I discussed this fully in front of my daughter....

I have not read all the posts, I missed a few days and this thing took off....but, I did get the notion once that this was more a matter of just not wanting bm to get her way.  Now its a mission against a vaccine and an effort to keep others from having their children protected....or in my opinion at any rate.....
Title: RE: Whoa, whoa, whoa......back up the cart here........
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 26, 2007, 04:39:11 AM
>As all of us second moms and dads wish to be involved in our
>step childs life, the fact is that you are not a party of the
>courts order therefore you have no say in anything regarding
>the kids unless it specifically states so in the parents court
>order.  

Of course.  However, what I am doing is at the request of my husband, who has joint legal custody of his daughter.  

>You can try and be involved in the kids life but understand
>that the courts can also remove you totally and the
>repercussions of that might be that when the child comes to
>see dad you may have to leave.  

Um, no, it can't.  Unless she can prove I am a danger to SD, she can't make it so that DH can only see his daughter if I'm not there.  Perhaps it's happened in a few isolated cases, but with our history, there is no possible way.  

> No
>matter if the BM is abusive and all the things you said in
>other posts about her, the courts have not removed her from
>the childs life, nor have I seen (I could be wrong) anything
>about supervised visits for the BM, therefore perhaps the
>courts have not deemed her as bad a person you say she is.  

That is because we have not taken it to the courts yet.  We are in the process of doing that.  Oh except for the fact that they didn't care if she moved in with a sex offender.  Which is why we're getting all of our ducks in a row, so to speak:  Because it's obvious to us and the professionals around us that the courts do NOT care about the best interest of the child.

>I read with interest the posts going on back and forth here
>and as another mom I think you are in that protective stage
>and want to do what is right, however you need to understand
>that it is not your cause, and you need to allow the parents
>to make a rational decision and back down a bit.  

I have made it clear that that is EXACTLY what I was doing here.  My husband ASKED ME to find out about making sure his daughter did not get this shot.  So I asked here.  I was pretty disappointed to discover that most people here don't actually care about helping with that, they just want to bash.  Luckily, I got a very good suggestion in another forum, and that has served us well:  SD had her appointment on Monday, and she did not receive the vaccine.

>Perhaps the best thing you can do is be there for the child to
>speak to and not be a part of the bickering that she sees and
>feels in a high conflict post dissolution.

And that is exactly what I have done.  So has my husband.  And after about 10 years, she knows that we are not going to cause problems just to cause problems, and that we wil support her and have her best interests at heart.
Title: RE: Didnt I say that?
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 26, 2007, 04:43:17 AM
>Yes, my daughter did know what the vaccination is for.  

Good.  Why can't you just end it there?

>For you to want the right to pick what shots your stepdaughter
>gets, you should have a little more consideration that some
>people do want their children to have these shots and that is
>their right.....their choice, not yours.

You're absolutely right, which is why I have no problem with people giving their kids shots, as long as they are informed.  I believe I have stated that quite a few times already.

>I have not read all the posts, I missed a few days and this
>thing took off....but, I did get the notion once that this was
>more a matter of just not wanting bm to get her way.  Now its
>a mission against a vaccine and an effort to keep others from
>having their children protected....or in my opinion at any
>rate.....

Not at all.  I have made it clear, over and over, that I believe the decision to administer vaccines to children is a personal one.  That as long as the parents are informed, I have no problem with it, whether they vaccinate or not.  

And this was not just not wanting BM to get her way.  It was an issue of the father of the child making sure that his daughter was safe, what HE believes to be the safer course.

Title: RE: Thank you!
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 26, 2007, 04:51:11 AM
>So basically you're saying you can pick and choose who you
>believe, right?  If the FDA is part of the governemnt and if
>VAERS is part of the govenment, you just pick whichever one
>suits your needs, right?

Not what I've said, but...Yeah, I believe the one I think represents the truth better.  So do you.  As for VAERS and the FDA, have I EVER said that there is some big government conspiracy???  *LOL*  No, I pointed out that the FDA simply jumped the gun, so to speak.  The reports on VAERS prove it.  Works together pretty well.

> have learned
>that I can give DH my opinion, but that is where it stops,
>period.  What DH does with it is strictly up to him and I have
>absolutely no say-so in the matter, no matter how emotionally
>involved I might be.

Good for you.  Did you miss the part ENTIRELY when I mentioned that I had asked this ON BEHALF OF MY HUSBAND?  That he ASKED ME about it?  

>Another poster made the suggestion that you back off before
>you're ordered to by the court.  I strongly recommend it as
>well.  If you REALLY want to help your SD, it would be the
>best thing for her, before you do any damage to her
>relationship with her father.

Um..."back off" how?  Stop caring about her?  Stop supporting my husband when it comes to his daughter?  The idea that doing those things would somehow "damage" her relationship with her father is just plain ridiculous.  Why do you insist on setting up straw men?  Do they make you feel big and powerful?

>Just remember one thing...........all who have posted here in
>response to you are giving their opinions and views of the
>situation, their 'recommendations'.  Absolutely NO one has
>'ordered' you to do anything.......they can't.  So don't go
>'assuming' we're trying to force you to do anything, nothing
>could be further from the truth.  

Oh, no, telling me that I'm stupid, that I'm ruining my husband's relationship with his daughter by helping him when asked, implying that my kids are going to get sick and die if I don't give them this vaccine...NONE of that is intended to compel me to do anything, huh?  Get real.

>But if you post here, you
>will get dissenting views.  If you don't like what you
>see/hear, you don't have to continue posting here.

I have no problem with dissenting views.  It's the nastiness that bothers me, especially in a place where people are supposed to be HELPING others.  So I guess I WON'T continue posting here.  I can get dissenting views without subjecting myself to nasty people who are so obsessed with control and power that they project their issues onto me.  

Hope you have fun bashing the next person who asks for a little help and support!  I just REALLY hope that they have skin as tough as mine, and don't fall apart when you ream them for something you don't agree with.
Title: RE: Thank you!
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 26, 2007, 04:51:11 AM
>So basically you're saying you can pick and choose who you
>believe, right?  If the FDA is part of the governemnt and if
>VAERS is part of the govenment, you just pick whichever one
>suits your needs, right?

Not what I've said, but...Yeah, I believe the one I think represents the truth better.  So do you.  As for VAERS and the FDA, have I EVER said that there is some big government conspiracy???  *LOL*  No, I pointed out that the FDA simply jumped the gun, so to speak.  The reports on VAERS prove it.  Works together pretty well.

> have learned
>that I can give DH my opinion, but that is where it stops,
>period.  What DH does with it is strictly up to him and I have
>absolutely no say-so in the matter, no matter how emotionally
>involved I might be.

Good for you.  Did you miss the part ENTIRELY when I mentioned that I had asked this ON BEHALF OF MY HUSBAND?  That he ASKED ME about it?  

>Another poster made the suggestion that you back off before
>you're ordered to by the court.  I strongly recommend it as
>well.  If you REALLY want to help your SD, it would be the
>best thing for her, before you do any damage to her
>relationship with her father.

Um..."back off" how?  Stop caring about her?  Stop supporting my husband when it comes to his daughter?  The idea that doing those things would somehow "damage" her relationship with her father is just plain ridiculous.  Why do you insist on setting up straw men?  Do they make you feel big and powerful?

>Just remember one thing...........all who have posted here in
>response to you are giving their opinions and views of the
>situation, their 'recommendations'.  Absolutely NO one has
>'ordered' you to do anything.......they can't.  So don't go
>'assuming' we're trying to force you to do anything, nothing
>could be further from the truth.  

Oh, no, telling me that I'm stupid, that I'm ruining my husband's relationship with his daughter by helping him when asked, implying that my kids are going to get sick and die if I don't give them this vaccine...NONE of that is intended to compel me to do anything, huh?  Get real.

>But if you post here, you
>will get dissenting views.  If you don't like what you
>see/hear, you don't have to continue posting here.

I have no problem with dissenting views.  It's the nastiness that bothers me, especially in a place where people are supposed to be HELPING others.  So I guess I WON'T continue posting here.  I can get dissenting views without subjecting myself to nasty people who are so obsessed with control and power that they project their issues onto me.  

Hope you have fun bashing the next person who asks for a little help and support!  I just REALLY hope that they have skin as tough as mine, and don't fall apart when you ream them for something you don't agree with.
Title: RE: Whoa, whoa, whoa......back up the cart here........
Post by: wysiwyg on Jul 26, 2007, 07:37:21 AM
It does not matter if you do posting or research at the request of the your husband, the court order is that it is a dissoluition between the BM and the BF and you are not a named party of the order.  YOu can simply ONLY provide him with the info, the decision is his and the BM, the courts REALLY look down upon the new wife/ old wife bickering, and when push comes to shove the mother not the step mother usually wins, usually = SM is awarded custodial or parental rights in an adoption, and in absence of this, you will loose.  

The court can remove you, it does not matter if you are a danger or not, if you are an INTERFERENCE or BAD INFLUENCE then they can remove or limit you, remember the courts can do what they want at their discretion.  And they have immunity.

Just because you are taking BM back to court does not mean that the courts will rule in your DHs favor.  Until there is a ruling, again the existing court order stands and again you have no rights or claim to do anything, and I am again cautioning you as has everyone else - your involvement, it can backfire on you and your family.  

re: the comment about bashing, no one can help the way you interpret a reply to a post, I did not see any "bashing" I saw good healthy advice, that you obviously are opposed to, but we all have been here and done that, we all have our weird ex's and our problems, we come here to share that wealth of information.  IF you do not like what we have to say, take it with a grain of salt and politely oppose and respect us as we have tried to repsect you and give you our thoughts and share a little bit of our lives with you, and that little bit that we have shared is painful for us to talk about but in hopes of helping you we have let down our barriers to share and try and help you. I fail to understand why every reply from you is laced with adversity instead of a thank you.

Title: TROLL ALERT........................
Post by: Kitty C. on Jul 26, 2007, 07:40:43 AM
Anyone who accuses others of what they're doing themselves, and in spades, can't really be taken seriously.  All you've done throughout this entire thread is attack people for having a dissenting view, and you are the one using words like 'bashing', 'nasty', 'obsessed', 'stupid' when talking about other posters, which has NOTHING to do with the real subject of the thread.  When you resort to those kinds of terms, we can only conclude that you're too emotionally wrapped up in the situation to see it clearly.

Obviously you have never posted to this forum prior to this thread or read from this forum in the past, or you would know that these kind of 'spirited' dialogs go on quite frequently.  I've been on this site almost since inception (9 years) and I and others who have 'been through the trenches' have certainly had disagreements and dissenting views with other posters, but when the integrity flies out the window, that's where it ends.  And for me personally, you've completely lost all integrity.  I'm quite proud of my 'thick skin' because I never resorted slams or name-calling, but I certainly question yours.  Because the 'nastiness' that you speak of seems to come only from your posts......

END OF THREAD............

Title: RE: TROLL ALERT........................
Post by: mistoffolees on Jul 26, 2007, 09:10:11 AM
>Anyone who accuses others of what they're doing themselves,
>and in spades, can't really be taken seriously.  All you've
>done throughout this entire thread is attack people for having
>a dissenting view, and you are the one using words like
>'bashing', 'nasty', 'obsessed', 'stupid' when talking about
>other posters, which has NOTHING to do with the real subject
>of the thread.  When you resort to those kinds of terms, we
>can only conclude that you're too emotionally wrapped up in
>the situation to see it clearly.
>
>Obviously you have never posted to this forum prior to this
>thread or read from this forum in the past, or you would know
>that these kind of 'spirited' dialogs go on quite frequently.
>I've been on this site almost since inception (9 years) and I
>and others who have 'been through the trenches' have certainly
>had disagreements and dissenting views with other posters, but
>when the integrity flies out the window, that's where it ends.
> And for me personally, you've completely lost all integrity.
>I'm quite proud of my 'thick skin' because I never resorted
>slams or name-calling, but I certainly question yours.
>Because the 'nastiness' that you speak of seems to come only
>from your posts......
>
>END OF THREAD............
>
>


Amen!
Title: nm
Post by: wysiwyg on Jul 26, 2007, 09:27:19 AM
AGREED
Title: RE: Thank you!
Post by: lilywhite on Jul 26, 2007, 08:24:24 PM
The report says that one patient died on heart disease.  She had a serious heart condition that had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the injection.  One apparently died from an infection from the site where she was injected.  I can't remember the third.

Title: RE: Whoa, whoa, whoa......back up the cart here........
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 28, 2007, 05:50:41 AM
>YOu can simply ONLY provide him with the
>info, the decision is his and the BM, the courts REALLY look
>down upon the new wife/ old wife bickering, and when push
>comes to shove the mother not the step mother usually wins,
>usually = SM is awarded custodial or parental rights in an
>adoption, and in absence of this, you will loose.  

What will I "lose?"  For getting information for my husband, at his request???  What on earth do you think I'm doing, filing stuff in court under MY name?  Telling the doctor that *I* don't want SD to get the shot?  No, my HUSBAND, the FATHER, asked me to find out what HE can do.  HE is the one who doesn't want her to get the shot, and it is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE for him to ask me to support him, and to help him by checking on his legal rights.  

>The court can remove you, it does not matter if you are a
>danger or not, if you are an INTERFERENCE or BAD INFLUENCE
>then they can remove or limit you, remember the courts can do
>what they want at their discretion.  And they have immunity.

I've told you, there is NO WAY they can do that.  Sorry, but yeah, you have to be a danger to the child for them to do that, and bio-parent saying "I don't like her" still doesn't cut it.  ESPECIALLY when, if by some miracle she was able to get that ordered, the child in question is 16 years old and and LIVING WITH US.

>Just because you are taking BM back to court does not mean
>that the courts will rule in your DHs favor.  

I can GUARANTEE that at this point, they will.  There are too many factors.  

>Until there is a
>ruling, again the existing court order stands and again you
>have no rights or claim to do anything, and I am again
>cautioning you as has everyone else - your involvement, it can
>backfire on you and your family.  

Why don't you understand that I'm not "doing" anything?  What on earth do you think I'm doing that can "backfire?"  Seriously, I don't know what the hell you are talking about.  Checking on what my HUSBAND can do legally, at HIS request, is perfectly acceptable.  In fact, the courts KNOW that I've done it before and have no problem with it.  DH's attorney even referred to me as "co-counsel" TO THE REFEREE in court, and they had no problem with it.  

>re: the comment about bashing, no one can help the way you
>interpret a reply to a post, I did not see any "bashing" I saw
>good healthy advice

Then I guess you haven't read all the posts.  Or does telling someone they are stupid not count as "bashing" to you?

>I fail to understand why every reply from you is
>laced with adversity instead of a thank you.

What, I should "thank" people for telling me that I'm stupid?  I should "thank" people for attacking me for being opposed to this vaccine?  When people actually posted information RELATED to what I asked, I have thanked them.  But you're nuts if you think I'm going to bow down and kiss the feet of people who refuse to see what I'm actually saying, and instead build up straw men to tear down.
Title: RE: TROLL ALERT........................
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 28, 2007, 05:54:05 AM
>All you've
>done throughout this entire thread is attack people for having
>a dissenting view, and you are the one using words like
>'bashing', 'nasty', 'obsessed', 'stupid' when talking about
>other posters, which has NOTHING to do with the real subject
>of the thread.  

Yeah, and telling me that I am stupid for opposing the vaccine is the height of maturity, huh?  Get real.  

>Obviously you have never posted to this forum prior to this
>thread or read from this forum in the past, or you would know
>that these kind of 'spirited' dialogs go on quite frequently.

Actually, I have.  When I posted several years ago, I didn't have this number of rude people crawling out of the woodwork to bash me.  Or is that just how this forum is now?

> And for me personally, you've completely lost all integrity.
>I'm quite proud of my 'thick skin' because I never resorted
>slams or name-calling

*LOL*  Do I need to post YOUR quotes that prove otherwise?

>END OF THREAD............

Ooh...You declared the thread ended, I guess I should run and hide now.  

Title: RE: TROLL ALERT........................
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 28, 2007, 05:58:31 AM

>Amen!

Only because you are mad that I answered EVERY question you asked, and you looked foolish.  Grow up and learn something.

Never mind, I have better things to do than try to convince people as slow as some of you here.  I refuse to argue with someone I have to educate.  I'll stick with asking people who actually know what they're talking about and don't slam me just I'm not a sycophant.

Title: RE: Thank you!
Post by: Sanche99 on Jul 28, 2007, 06:27:16 AM
>The report says that one patient died on heart disease.  She
>had a serious heart condition that had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to
>do with the injection.  One apparently died from an infection
>from the site where she was injected.  I can't remember the
>third.

The first one says, "the patiend died of a blood clot 3 hours after getting the Gardasil vaccine."

The second one collapsed, and the autopsy found heart abnormalities.  I would think there would be a record if she already had these problems.  There isn't.  

The third one had some heart problems, but nothing that would cause her to DROP DEAD at the age of 12.

I don't see anything about an infection.