Your Argus
TEXT your pictures, videos and messages to 80360. Start your message with SUPIC or email your tip-offs »
Why I won't let my girls have these cancer jabs
12:59pm Friday 3rd October 2008
Comments (43)
As thousands of young girls across Sussex undergo a series of jabs to protect them against cervical cancer, one mother has urged parents to educate themselves about the risks involved.
Reporter Samuel Underwood talks to her about why she is concerned about the vaccine and why her daughters will not been immunised.
Jacqui Andrews is like any other mother – doting on her children, devoting much of her life to their welfare and putting their safety and health first.
But unlike most parents, she has taken the bold step of refusing to have her eldest daughter Jasmine immunised against the human papilloma virus (HPV).
Cervarix vaccine is made by GlaxoSmithKline, which has a factory in Crawley.
The vaccine is being given to girls aged 11 and 12 across the country in a Government bid to protect against the virus which can cause cervical cancer.
But Mrs Andrews, 39, from Hove, claimed it had not been properly tested, was not proven to work and could lead to further health problems.
She said: “When the immunisation campaign started about six months ago I thought I would look on the internet to find out a bit more about the vaccine and what was involved.
“I was shocked to find details of the side-effects and possible health impacts of it and also to see that there was no proof that it would actually protect girls from cervical cancer.”
As she delved deeper into the issue, Mrs Andrews found that a similar vaccine, Gardasil, had been given to girls in America and that numerous law suits had been filed by parents whose daughters had adverse reactions to the vaccine.
Twenty girls died within a few days of receiving Gardasil, which has a similar make-up to Cervarix, although the deaths were dismissed as coincidence by the manufacturer, Merck.
Side-effects of both vaccines listed by their manufacturers include fainting, dizziness and sore arms.
She said: “In America it’s mandatory that girls are immunised and some are told they cannot go to school unless they have been.
“I’m concerned. The girls are too young. They are not sexually active yet and their bodies are still developing.
“You can have the vaccine up to the age of 55, so why not wait until they are old enough to make the decision for themselves?
“It is a dead virus that they are being injected with but Cervarix has got aluminium in it, which is a heavy metal that can cause joint problems and auto-immune responses.”
She added: “It is so controversial. I just want parents to be informed. They need to find out what exactly is being injected into their children before they have it done so that they can make an informed choice.”
Mrs Andrews said she made that choice early on in her eldest daughter’s life and after having her immunised against polio, decided to go no further.
She said her GP tried to convince her that immunisation was the right path but she stuck to her guns and has raised Jasmine, and her younger sister Isobella, four, without vaccines.
She said: “I think it’s irresponsible of the Government to push this vaccine forward when it has not been properly tested yet and may do more harm than good. It’s scaremongering in order to make a profit for the drug companies and should not be allowed.
“I think the Government should do more to encourage screening for cervical cancer and promote smear tests to get more women to have them regularly rather than injecting every girl with a vaccine that might not be safe.”
Mrs Andrews said she was aware of several natural remedies that were available to protect against the HPV virus, including Amazonian bark lapacho, also known as paud’arco.
She said: “All I want is for parents to make an informed decision about their daughters’ health and not to follow the Government’s plans like sheep.
“As long as they know the risks and are aware of what could happen before they go ahead with it then they will be able to make the choice that is right for them.”
Anyone who wants to get in contact with Mrs Andrews should email her at jacquia1@hotmail.co.uk.
Your Say YourThe Argus
BBBrighton, Brighton says...
3:16pm Fri 3 Oct 08
jacquia, Hove says...
3:28pm Fri 3 Oct 08
Susie 66, Goring-By-Sea says...
4:22pm Fri 3 Oct 08
BEN-jam, Brighton says...
4:35pm Fri 3 Oct 08
censored, Brighton says...
4:44pm Fri 3 Oct 08
It's a tough call, but you're right. Best get the chemo on standby...
Wilftop, Brighton says...
4:45pm Fri 3 Oct 08
No durg can be released for use unless it has passed rigourous testing. There are a number of small ways a drug will fail & it's back to the design stage.
This should not abdicate the parents responsibility of educating their daughters. Just because you have the vaccine doesn't mean your safe to sleep with all & sundry.
jacquia, Hove says...
5:17pm Fri 3 Oct 08
notasheeple, Chichester says...
6:39pm Fri 3 Oct 08
As for Gardasil (the one used in the US), it's interesting to note that it's the most expensive vaccine ever made, and is from Merck Pharmaceuticals - the company with enough lawsuits against it to sink the whole company after it killed over 50,000 people in the US alone with its Vioxx drug. Coincidence?
So many girls have died or been left seriously damaged after these HPV vaccines - people, please think!!
Immunisation, as it is in its current state, is not safe. One only has to look on the vaccine inserts or the CDC website to see just what else they contain!!
I'd recommend to anyone interested the book 'Fear Of The Invisible' by Janine Roberts. It's written by a highly acclaimed investigative journalist (who has made documentaries for the BBC, ABC etc and virtually started the 'blood diamond' campaign) who was asked by parents of children who'd suffered severe reactions to vaccines if she could investigate their safety. She began skeptical and a novice in the world of virology and immunology, and slowly began to unravel some truly terrifying facts and information. The book is the result of 10 years worth of investigation, checked for accuracy by a leading professor, loaded with references and footnotes, and I can guarantee that after reading just two chapters any thinking person would reconsider vaccination. Truly the most terrifying book to come out in years.
- A qualified, intelligent young woman, rarely sick and never vaccinated.
Em in NZ, Auckland, NZ says...
6:55pm Fri 3 Oct 08
jacquia, Hove says...
7:32pm Fri 3 Oct 08
I would like to clear up some misquotes on the article.
Age of UK HPV vaccine programme 12 yrs and above.
Aluminum NOT Aluminium
Twenty girls have died to date since exposure to Guardasil , NOT within 2 days of immunisation.
jacquia, Hove says...
7:56pm Fri 3 Oct 08
Cervarix
side effects that occurred during clinical trials with Cervarix were as follows:
Very common (side effects which may occur in more than 1 per 10 doses of vaccine):
• pain or discomfort at the injection site
• redness or swelling at the injection site
• headache
• aching muscles, muscle tenderness or weakness (not caused by exercise)
• tiredness
Common (side effects which may occur in less than 1 per 10 but more than 1 per 100 doses of
vaccine):
• gastrointestinal symptoms including nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and abdominal pain
• itching, red skin rash, hives (urticaria)
• joint pain
• fever 38°C)
Uncommon (side effects which may occur in less than 1 per 100 but more than 1 per 1,000
doses of vaccine):
• upper respiratory tract infection (infection of the nose, throat or trachea)
• dizziness
• other injection site reactions such as hard lump, tingling or numbness.
A look at Cervarix ingredients, from the same document;
The active substances are:
Human Papillomavirus1 type 16 L1 protein2,3,4 20 micrograms
Human Papillomavirus1 type 18 L1 protein2,3,4 20 micrograms
adjuvanted by AS04 containing: 3-O-desacyl-4’- monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL)3 50 micrograms
adsorbed on aluminium hydroxide, hydrated (Al(OH)3) 0.5 milligrams Al3+ in total
L1 protein in the form of non-infectious virus-like particles (VLPs) produced by recombinant
DNA technology using a Baculovirus expression system which uses Hi-5 Rix4446 cells derived
from the insect Trichoplusia ni.
- The other ingredients are sodium chloride (NaCl), sodium dihydrogen phosphate dihydrate
(NaH2PO4.2 H2O) and water for injections.
youngone, brighton says...
10:27pm Fri 3 Oct 08
jacquia, Hove says...
10:44pm Fri 3 Oct 08
Jackie-Fletcher, JABS, UK says...
11:17pm Fri 3 Oct 08
School governors and head teachers should be questioning the use of their school premises for such a new vaccine. It implies endorsement of the vaccine. If any child suffers a severe reaction who will accept responsibility?
It is interesting that one school in the north-west of England has decided not to allow HPV vaccinations to be given in school. Reasons given include: '...When a pilot study was conducted in the local clinic during the last academic year, a number of our girls were either absent from school the day following vaccination or had to be sent home from school suffering dizziness, nausea, joint pain, headaches or high temperature...'
How effect is this vaccine? How long will it last? Can it interfere with the body's natural defences against other HPV strains? The vaccine cover 2 of possibly 100 strains.
The US experience with its choice, Gardasil, has resulted in some 8,000 reports of adverse reactions and 18 - 20 deaths in a two year period. We should be holding back until each of these has been independently investigated.
Lawson-land, Brighton says...
11:29pm Fri 3 Oct 08
ough she mis-carried soon after, the effect of this women-child on our naieve class was like a dose of poison. To cut a long story short, me and several classmates had a few mad teenage years that led to us having cancerous pre-cervical cells by the time we were 17. I had several hospital operations and my family thought I was going to die. The memory of my Father sobbing in the hospital will never leave me. I am now 40 and had no idea of how what happened to me did until news of the hpv virus struck recently. If your girls are not going to have the jabs - give them a better Birds and the Bees talk than my generation had - then keep your fingers crossed....
Justin, Brighton says...
11:35pm Fri 3 Oct 08
feline1, Brighton says...
1:42pm Sat 4 Oct 08
jacquia wrote:Thanks for your santimonious reply. No, I don't have any children, so of course, I am an inhuman monster who just couldn't *possibly* UNDERSTAND. The day I go to the Argus for a rigorous discussion of evidence-based medicine and pharmacology will also be the day I go skating in hell, however.
Dear Feline1, Thanks for your comments on my so called rant, please be aware that there are a few journalistic inaccuracies, aluminum salt adjuvant being one of them, Hope you put your degree in chemistry to some good use instead of slagging people off who have a valid point to raise. Have you got children to bother about?
Now, who's for veruccas? :)
harwood, Brighton & Hove says...
2:43pm Sat 4 Oct 08
As for the side effects, if you read the leaflet in a standard box of asparins, some people wouldn't take them because of the possible side effects, HEADACHES (lol),bleeding of stomach, and rarely death! Sound familiar, people always look at the one in a million chance, "oh my children could get hurt" yeh right, only if you are paranoid!
As for the few people that have died, I'll bet that you find out statistically that it is not unusual as some people taking any drug will die!
Let's hope her kids don't get cervical cancer.
feline1, Brighton says...
5:15pm Sat 4 Oct 08
davyboy, abingdon, oxon says...
5:53pm Sat 4 Oct 08
sweetpea, worthing says...
10:27pm Sat 4 Oct 08
WideAwake, Eastbourne says...
8:00am Sun 5 Oct 08
8:51pm Fri 3 Oct 08
A few small cases of side effects (which drug doesn't show this)...
Erm, you might want to Google 'iatrogenic deaths' to learn more about why some commentators argue that adverse drug effects (ADRs), and the medical system generally, are the leading cause of death in the US, and why possible side-effects of any drug should be taken seriously.
freedomofchoice, london says...
9:47am Sun 5 Oct 08
The clinical trials that new drugs go through are by far the last word in potential toxicity.
Besides I doubt 12 yr old girls have the capacity to make an informed decision on this issue.
Despite having gone through the whole of medical school and then worked for over 10 years in this country as a doctor I personally would not be giving any children of mine this vaccine. I dont see why anyone should be given a hard time for coming to their own conclusions.
-A UK medical doctor
MFC, Brighton says...
10:01am Sun 5 Oct 08
From what I have read, (I know I will be corrected if I am wrong!)it seems the reason it's being given so young is because 'girls are sexually active' at that age. 11?? 12??
Wouldn't it be better to have the jab once they are sexually active? Or am I missing something here? Should I be putting my 11 year old on the pill, too??
Thanks, Jaqui, for speaking your mind. You have taken a lot of flack here, but I'd rather people question authority than just blindly follow what they are told to do.
I will be doing more research now and making my own mind up about it.
notasheeple, Chichester says...
12:12pm Sun 5 Oct 08
Not getting the jab does NOT mean your child will get cervical cancer. This thing has been around on the market for a year or so - before that, did every girl born and left unjabbed get cervical cancer? No. There are plenty of things one can do to remain protected from it, and this jab is not one of them.
I'd suggest the NHS rethink their stance on the issue of smear tests, and bring the age of first smear down to 20 or first sexual activity, in line with most of the rest of the world. As a start.
Read over these comments from the people accusing this woman of being a terrible mother, lacking maternal instinct (an amusing comment to say the least, given 'maternal instinct' is probably the biggest reason driving her quest for information on it!), ignorant, uninformed, etc etc. Read them with an open mind and see just how much fear-mongering there is from people regurgitating the fear being instilled by the propaganda abounding on posters, TV adverts, news media, etc.
People, this is a campaign of fear designed to get your to run for your vial of poison. Nothing more, nothing less. 'If you don't give your beautiful, precious young daughter this jab she will die' is the message, and it's preying on people's love for their children and desire to protect them. It's insidious, it's immoral, and it's disgusting.
You also have to bear in mind that, beyond the long-term side effects not being known and the lack of proper testing, it's likely to only be effective for a few years. By the time a lot of these 12-year-olds are sexually active, they're going to be needing 'top up' jabs anyway!
Again, read up on this people before you let them inject your daughters. Don't just take the NHS's word on it or read the propaganda GSK (the manufacturers) are giving you - remember, there's a lot of vested interest there; they want to sell their drugs! There are plenty of other things shown to be effective against cervical cancer - lycopene, folate, B-group vitamins, and Vitamin C amongst them. Please, just read and consider your options, see through the fear campaigns, and don't be pressured into doing it quickly or doing it at your daughter's school for convenience. This is a drug that interferes with her fertility and her immune system - it's not 'just a quick ****'.
- A young woman who has never been vaccinated against anything, and is very rarely ill.
notasheeple, Chichester says...
1:12pm Sun 5 Oct 08
notasheeple, Chichester says...
2:53pm Sun 5 Oct 08
However, on this occasion I do feel you're missing the point a bit. Sex and the idea of young girls having sex does play a part in the decision of some parents not to give this particular vaccine to their children, granted. But I don't see any of that in what Jacqui has been saying - both in the story and in her comments on here.
Surely you can understand that for some people, the idea of injecting a vial of neurotoxic adjuvants and allergenic chemicals into a young girl's arm with the express aim of interfering with her immunity is worrying at best?
Speaking purely for myself, there is no way I'll ever be getting a vaccine, nor will my children - least of all this one! - and that's not to do with when they have sex or 'encouraging promiscuity' or whatever else people are using to side-step the issue of safety and efficacy.
I personally know a lot of people who won't be getting this jab - you can perhaps argue that it's from the 'like attracts like' principle and that, as an unvaccinated person, I happen to meet others like me - but in this case I'm convinced it's more to do with the way in which it hasn't been properly tested, and has been heralded by a swarm of publicity without any discussion of the real issues at hand.
Perhaps if the manufacturers were to acknowledge people's fears and address them with science instead of a patronising 'don't be silly, it's all ok', or would acknowledge adverse events post-vaccine rather than denying any culpability or responsibility, as so often happens, then people might be more open to the possiblity?
As it is they won't accept responsibility for adverse reactions a lot of the time - they blame 'coincidence' more often than not - and stories abound both online and in books of parents reaching dead-ends in the quest to get their dead or disabled children's stories out there; two of the places people look to most for information. And before you say it, no, we aren't just talking about autism (yet another example of the misinformation campaign being used to side-step the true isses of safety and efficacy; 'people are only worried about autism' - not true).
The spin and propaganda being forced upon us during this campaign has been blindingly obvious to a lot of people, and is, in my opinion and in that of others I've spoken to, something that's put a lot of people off. They need to start treating people as intelligent human beings with serious question and giving us answers instead of this patronising BS about 'not caring for your daughter' and 'how would you feel if she were to contract HPV and later cervical cancer'.
It's a telling point that, in several studies in the past few years, the ones most likely to refuse vaccination are not the uneducated and hysterical 'lower classes', but good-income middle-class parents with at least one university-level qualification per household.
In short - there are plenty of issues related to this jab, and that of 'the idea of children of 12 talking about or engaging in sexual activity is repulsive/wrong/etc' is a side-issue that, bar the Catholic groups, most people refusing this jab would likely have not given a great deal of thought to. At the end of the day, the problems are with the vaccine itself, not the moral accompaniments. Facts are some people just don't like the idea of repeatedly injecting poisons that interfere with the immune system into their kids!
I personally would love to vaccinate if I thought they were safe. As it stands, they aren't, and as long as the manufacturers refuse to admit there can be problems and they aren't as perfect as they'd like us to think, and accept some responsibility for that, mine and my children's bodies will remain free from their poison.
Hope that clears a wee bit up..?
feline1, Brighton says...
4:04pm Sun 5 Oct 08
I'm not so naive as to believe that medical science never makes mistakes, or that the pharmaeutical industry is 100% saintly,
but the fundamental point is this:
the safety and roll-out of a new drug or vaccine needs to be the subject of sober research and clinical study - which will already have gone on at length, if the vaccine was ever to be licensed for use by the fearsome FDA in the USA, and the various European equivalents. I don't personally know anything about this particular vaccine, but if I was going to find out, I'd read the relevant reports and data in peer-reviewed scientific literature. I would NOT log on to some stupid local news website which has a polemic unbalanced article full of school-boy factual errors and zero referencing to any reputable source. (Someone mentioned wikipedia up there, lol!)
Without wanting to turn into Richard Dawkins, this kind of populist, anti-Englightment, superstitious dumbed-down loonery is a growing problem in society. We see it on the news, we see it in the papers. Any gasbag with a internet connection can log on and be "entitled to their opinion". What do you think this is, an episode of 'Brass Eye'?
"Yes, I may have failed biology GCSE and not have read any of the actual clinical studies whatsoever, but I think this vaccine is dangerous! And I'm entitled to my opinion!" ARRRRRGH.
notasheeple, Chichester says...
4:24pm Sun 5 Oct 08
As for the medical data, in the case of Cervarix it's not as easy to find as information on other drugs is, unfortunately, nor as easy as it is to get info on the other HPV jab, Gardasil. It's out there in journals and in medical literature, but unfortunately the lay-person isn't likely to have easy access to them or to think to read them anyway.
Anecdotes are important, yes, as a starting point for research and for data itself, but let's face it - they're also far easier to read and less dry than a study in a science or medical journal! You can hardly blame people for not wanting to trawl them doing the full research, which is where stories by experts in the field - either for or against - come in. It would be nice to get an eminent 'dissenting' voice to back up Jacqui's assertations.
As for the 'fearsome FDA'... they're hardly known for their credibility or opposition to industry pressure and bribes, are they? Cervarix, the one here, was rejected by them anyway - they opted for the arguably even more dangerous 'other jab', Merck's Gardasil. But that's all a whole 'nother story.
I do think these sorts of stories are important, though - you rarely hear the voice of the opposition in the media while they bay for total population compliance, and if we're to truly have personal freedom of choice over our health and our lives then these kinds of story need to be published, whether you agree with the content or not
It's also something that can show others choosing not to vaccinate because of their concerns over efficacy and safety that they aren't the only ones doubting the propaganda, and they aren't the only ones unconcerned about side-issues of morality or promiscuity (because lets face it, teenagers will be teenagers), but extremely worried about the dangers of the drug itself.
After all that, again, I agree on your 'arrrrgh' over the masses of uneducated and unqualified - and I'm not aiming this at Jacqui, either! - people spilling out mistruths and innaccuracies across the internet as they try to get the word out about science. So many people are against vaccination for the right general reasons, but lack the scientific understanding or ideas to back up their standpoint under medical scrutiny, and they don't seem to realise just how much more damaging it is to put out an uninformed argument than to keep quiet altogether. It's something that drives me mad on a daily basis. If you can't back up your thoughts with data - especially that backed up with peer-reviewed studies in reputable journals - then keep your trap shut, please, bar anecdotal evidence perhaps. 'Populist, anti-Enlightenment, superstitious, dumbed-down loonery' is a great way of putting it - that goes for those on both sides of the pro/anti vaccine coin. The media has much to answer for, however.
notasheeple, Chichester says...
5:11pm Sun 5 Oct 08
I'd love nothing more than for people to do their own reading - thorough reading of accurate scientific information on all sides of a debate - but I'm also realistic enough to know that will never happen, so we need 'experts' to voice their opinions (again, on both sides of a story) in order for people to be able to reach their own decisions. Sad but true, the people generally are the sheeple...
Lol, I completely understand your sentiments about 'why do we bother' - I should probably have a whopping great concussion by now from the amount of banging-head-against
-brick-wall I do these days; I'm sure you know the feeling. ;-)
freedomofchoice, london says...
5:51pm Sun 5 Oct 08
If I started acting so arrogantly Id lose my job. Personal freedom to accept or refuse medication is a basic human right in my book.
As a doctor it is my duty to respect the wishes of my patients and yes give them the freedom of choice with treatments while giving them as much information as they wish for to come to a decision.
I am not waxing lyrical about a "capitalist dream"
Lay people are quite capable of asking intelligent questions about treatments on offer and appreciating say that the long term side effects especially of a new vaccine are unknown as are any claimed benefits despite what anyone may say. Simple as that.
As for depending entirely on clinical trials, I can assure you that they are not the last word on safety by any means ( but of course youd have had to have gone to medical school to understand that...joking)
notasheeple, Chichester says...
6:01pm Sun 5 Oct 08
For some reason part of my last comment didn't post - that freedom of choice over our bodies and our healthcare and all that entails is nothing to do with capitalism; it's a basic right that, in any modern society, has to be maintained to avoid basic dictatorship.
You bring up an interesting point, freedomofchoice - Feline, take note, though I'm sure you're aware of it. Even when reading the journals you need to check up on where the studies have come from and who the people are who've done the research to make sure there's no vested interest coming into play. Plenty are out there saying how great a particular drug is that turn out to be written by people who work for the manufacturers; hardly unbiased information! Ghost-writing is a scary trend in the industry today.
For example, earlier this year Merck (makers of Gardasil) were caught out with staff members posing as independent university researchers to lend credence to studies they published in journals.
Also, FOC, am I right in asserting that the longest Cervarix has been followed for for efficacy and safety is just six years (when the first trials began), yet things like cancer or neurological problems some of the ingredients have been linked to can take far longer to manifest? And that those potential problems aren't even being monitored for?
notasheeple, Chichester says...
7:18pm Sun 5 Oct 08
I think the implication of health freedom is freedom within reason, and that which pertains to the individual without having too big an adverse effect on others. Your suicidal Waitrose customer wouldn't quite fit that bill, unless of course his fellow shoppers were of the depraved blood-fiend variety, so I don't think the example is entirely relevent to the conversation?
Will look up that DVD though.
freedomofchoice, london says...
7:31pm Sun 5 Oct 08
Every drug yields more and more safety data the longer it has been around for all pathology.
Yes there is always a balance between what is considered anti-social behaviour vs human rights
Personally I hope that refusing this vaccine does not become viewed by society as an anti-social act. Do do so would set a rather dangerous precedent i feel .
I havent seen "The prisoner" but look forward to it.I have seen "1984" though!
bugmenot, none says...
9:04am Mon 6 Oct 08
A parent goes on the internet and weighs up the pros and cons of the vaccine (okay, she's believed the anti-vaxxors, rather than the whole evidence-based scientific and medicine data out there, but that's her decision).
She decides not to let her children be vaccinated and risk them to not just the HPV vaccine, but everything that is offered... except polio (again, her choice )
This might be viewed by many as irresponsible, but hey, it's a free world.
What I don't get is why she'd want to broadcast this all over the place-- internets, newspapers-- especially a local one where I'm betting there's no journalists with a scientific background, or editors that can do anything but take her at her word (hey, perhaps they actively spoke to big pharma's press office for balance for balance, but it looks like they've rehashed some statements they've read elsewhere about the US drug).
Hmm...............
Everyone has an agenda. And I smell one that's more than just "I'm a concerned parent".
Derrik, Cambridge says...
6:22pm Mon 6 Oct 08
We are used to thinking of vaccinations as protecting us as individuals perhaps because we use them to protect ourselves when we go on holiday and we are used to thinking of ourselves as individual consumers of healthcare. It may be politically inconvenient but vaccination programs really work in a rather communist fashion by creating a population of mostly resistant people so that infection can no longer spread. Most vaccinated people, most of the time, are just part of one giant fire break containing infection in small pockets and preventing an epidemic spreading like wild fire. This fire wall then protects people who are not immunised, this includes people with compromised immune systems, the old, the week and those who refuse vaccination.
This vaccination program will create a generation of young women largely free of PV. Those who welch on the risk of the vaccination themselves will therefore benefit from the risk taken by others. Is that acceptable behaviour? Such people not only benefit from protection afforded by others brave enough to take a risk, they put those who can not be immunised, due to compromised immune systems etc at risk, by permeating the fire break of immunised people, with a pathway for infection to travel. This last is probably less relevant in this case, but a serious issue in the case of MMR.
I wouldn’t advocate compulsory vaccination or the vaccination of these girl’s male compatriots, who may carry and transmit the virus but could not benefit from the vaccination themselves. It is however important to remember that this is a public health measure in which individuals decisions have an impact on the group and the behaviour of the group as a whole provides individuals with the chance to “cheat”.
notasheeple, Chichester says...
8:41pm Mon 6 Oct 08
I have every right not to vaccinate myself or my children, as does every other person. If everyone else chose not to that would not be a problem at all.
So yes, to answer your question, it is perfectly acceptable behaviour to protect your own children from these toxins, just as it's perfectly acceptable to encourage others to do their research and make an informed decision themselves as well. The fact that you imply we're being selfish, ignorant, or deliberately harming the masses is appalling and extremely offensive.
You are also, of course, assuming that these vaccines actually work in the first place?
Derrik, Cambridge says...
9:08am Tue 7 Oct 08
I suggest you try not to be offended by things people write on the internet, there is rarely enough space to make a nuanced position clear and taking things personally gets in the way of dialogue.
jacquia, Hove says...
9:29am Tue 7 Oct 08
Jacquia,
They have given the hpv vaccine at our schools in Orkney. I did my research. Talked to my daughters. I put NO on the permission slip my 13 year old, pre-pubescent daughter brought home. With the permission slip in front of her the doctor gave my daughter the vaccine anyway.
A 16 year old girl that frequents our house was given no permission slip and said no to the vaccine knowing that her father said no as well, they gave it anyway.
Tell parents to keep their girls home on vaccination days because it will given anyway if they are in school.
I am hand delivering a letter of complaint to the headteacher of the school and the local NHS representative tomorrow.
feline1, Brighton says...
10:58am Tue 7 Oct 08
jacquia, Hove says...
11:47am Tue 7 Oct 08
Ced, Swindon says...
6:40pm Wed 8 Oct 08
Please make an informed choice and dont be a sheep blindly following what the Gov tells you to do.
This is an experimental jab that has never been proven to work and has no long term safety information.
You owe it to your daughter to think hard. Woman only have a 3 in 100,000 chance of death by cervical cancer. 17 woman died during the trials of Gardasil, a very similar vaccine.
They will not even know for another 5 years or so if the jab even works, why make your girl the guinea pig for glaxo profits?
Any new drug or vaccine is an experement and takes at least 5 years testing on the public before true safety can be confirmed or not.
If your daughter is damaged by the jab or gets a major side effect like juvenile artheritus or infertility they will wash their hands of you, never forget that.
Remenber Vioxx that killed over 50,000 people, they said that was safe and effective too.
If people had done more reseach rather than being a blind sheep they may be still alive.
PLEASE MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE, dont be swayed by the propaganda and scaremongering to sell this jab and dont let your dauughter be a guinea pig for glaxo profit with an experemental jab that has not even been proven to work without deep thought.
Jacqui Andrews is determined to protect her daughter Jasmine from the possible risks of the HPV jabs
In this section
- What is being done about health inequalities?
- Has Starbucks decision damaged confidence in planning system?
- Don't keep your savings at home
- 'Don't let having fun now ruin your life forever'
- Potential MPs could be put off public life
- Brighton council election could create 'electoral tsunami'
- The day dreams were shattered
- NHS owes a debt to work of Sussex hospices
- Will people power hold back Brighton and Hove?
- Why Eastbourne Pier is vital to Sussex's heritage
Sponsored Links
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
feline1, Brighton says...
2:08pm Fri 3 Oct 08