Doctor Issues

[mistoffolees]

>>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.

[Kitty C.]

'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.

[Kitty C.]

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.

[Kitty C.]

'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.

[mistoffolees]

>'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.

[IndigoMama]

>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.

[Sanche99]

>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.  

[Sanche99]

>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.

[Sanche99]

>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.

[Kitty C.]

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.