Doctor Issues

[Kitty C.]

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.

[Sanche99]

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!

[hagatha]

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

[mistoffolees]

>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.  

[mistoffolees]

>...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.

[mistoffolees]

>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.  
>
>

[mistoffolees]

>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.

[mistoffolees]

>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?

[Sanche99]

>>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.

[Sanche99]

>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.