Cervical Cancer vaccine death
Discussion
Dreadful story from the school in Coventry...
When the program was announced last year, I was very much in 2 minds about it, vaccinating kids so young because some of them are sexually active seems the wrong thing on many levels, maybe a bit of control and education of them would be a bit better idea. But at 16, there is nothing legally to stop them being sexually active, so they maybe should be protected.
But this death has put the whole program in doubt now IMO. I am not sure if this could have been prevented, or if this girl was older, she would not have had the reaction, but there seems to be one thing for sure. This vaccine did not actually save anyone's life yesterday, ie stop someone from dying who would have died yesterday, but it does seem to have taken someone's life.....
When the program was announced last year, I was very much in 2 minds about it, vaccinating kids so young because some of them are sexually active seems the wrong thing on many levels, maybe a bit of control and education of them would be a bit better idea. But at 16, there is nothing legally to stop them being sexually active, so they maybe should be protected.
But this death has put the whole program in doubt now IMO. I am not sure if this could have been prevented, or if this girl was older, she would not have had the reaction, but there seems to be one thing for sure. This vaccine did not actually save anyone's life yesterday, ie stop someone from dying who would have died yesterday, but it does seem to have taken someone's life.....
poo at Paul's said:
Dreadful story from the school in Coventry...
When the program was announced last year, I was very much in 2 minds about it, vaccinating kids so young because some of them are sexually active seems the wrong thing on many levels, maybe a bit of control and education of them would be a bit better idea. But at 16, there is nothing legally to stop them being sexually active, so they maybe should be protected.
But this death has put the whole program in doubt now IMO. I am not sure if this could have been prevented, or if this girl was older, she would not have had the reaction, but there seems to be one thing for sure. This vaccine did not actually save anyone's life yesterday, ie stop someone from dying who would have died yesterday, but it does seem to have taken someone's life.....
No point jumping to conclusions before the full result of the post-mortem,When the program was announced last year, I was very much in 2 minds about it, vaccinating kids so young because some of them are sexually active seems the wrong thing on many levels, maybe a bit of control and education of them would be a bit better idea. But at 16, there is nothing legally to stop them being sexually active, so they maybe should be protected.
But this death has put the whole program in doubt now IMO. I am not sure if this could have been prevented, or if this girl was older, she would not have had the reaction, but there seems to be one thing for sure. This vaccine did not actually save anyone's life yesterday, ie stop someone from dying who would have died yesterday, but it does seem to have taken someone's life.....
but I agree it does raise concerns.Tragic result for the girl and her family. 
I wonder if/when we'll hear the truth- the medical profession does have quite a history of covering for themselves/each other (just to be fair, all our old 'professions' do).
Hopefully, at least behind closed doors, this will wake up a few who should have known that vaccines are not inherently safe, and that careful judgement must be used as to who to give them to, and when. Preferably before the latest Swine Flu vaccine is thrust on our kids.
I wonder if/when we'll hear the truth- the medical profession does have quite a history of covering for themselves/each other (just to be fair, all our old 'professions' do).
Hopefully, at least behind closed doors, this will wake up a few who should have known that vaccines are not inherently safe, and that careful judgement must be used as to who to give them to, and when. Preferably before the latest Swine Flu vaccine is thrust on our kids.
poo at Paul's said:
Dreadful story from the school in Coventry...
When the program was announced last year, I was very much in 2 minds about it, vaccinating kids so young because some of them are sexually active seems the wrong thing on many levels, maybe a bit of control and education of them would be a bit better idea. But at 16, there is nothing legally to stop them being sexually active, so they maybe should be protected.
But this death has put the whole program in doubt now IMO. I am not sure if this could have been prevented, or if this girl was older, she would not have had the reaction, but there seems to be one thing for sure. This vaccine did not actually save anyone's life yesterday, ie stop someone from dying who would have died yesterday, but it does seem to have taken someone's life.....
...and the widespread use of the vaccine will save thousands of lives. If this death is a side-effect (which is by no means certain) then for society its a price worth paying.When the program was announced last year, I was very much in 2 minds about it, vaccinating kids so young because some of them are sexually active seems the wrong thing on many levels, maybe a bit of control and education of them would be a bit better idea. But at 16, there is nothing legally to stop them being sexually active, so they maybe should be protected.
But this death has put the whole program in doubt now IMO. I am not sure if this could have been prevented, or if this girl was older, she would not have had the reaction, but there seems to be one thing for sure. This vaccine did not actually save anyone's life yesterday, ie stop someone from dying who would have died yesterday, but it does seem to have taken someone's life.....
Dreadful for the girl concerned (if indeed it was caused by the vaccine), but tragic if it means that it puts others off from taking up the opportunity to protect themselves against this proven killer. One girl dead out of around 1.5 million that have had the vaccine, I'd happily take those odds for the greatly reduced risk of contracting cervical cancer later on.
That is the problem with the media. Exceptions and rare events make the news. Once the exceptional or rare event becomes a news headline, the vast bulk of people who will never be affected by such a rare or exceptional event become afraid that that this specific exceptional or rare event might happen to them.
I think this phenomenon has a crippling effect on society.
I think this phenomenon has a crippling effect on society.
Eric Mc said:
That is the problem with the media. Exceptions and rare events make the news. Once the exceptional or rare event becomes a news headline, the vast bulk of people who will never be affected by such a rare or exceptional event become afraid that that this specific exceptional or rare event might happen to them.
I think this phenomenon has a crippling effect on society.
It certainly kills hundreds, thousands even.I think this phenomenon has a crippling effect on society.
Real irony.
I weighed up the pros and cons of the MMR and decided to take my chances and let my kids get vaccinated. I have so far allowed the doctor to stick pretty much all the needles in them (including the one for meningitis).
My daughter is having her first shot at the cervical cancer jab tomorrow, I read up on it and made an informed decision that again, the benefits outweigh the risks. Plus its been tested and trialed,
But.... neither of my children are having the swine flu jab, I just have a bad feeling about that, and don't feel that its been tested enough, plus I would rather if they got antibodies to swine flu, then they did that naturally.
My daughter is having her first shot at the cervical cancer jab tomorrow, I read up on it and made an informed decision that again, the benefits outweigh the risks. Plus its been tested and trialed,
But.... neither of my children are having the swine flu jab, I just have a bad feeling about that, and don't feel that its been tested enough, plus I would rather if they got antibodies to swine flu, then they did that naturally.
LittleMiss said:
As someone whose had cervical cancer, my daughter will still be having the three shots of vaccine, for me it's worth the 'risk'
My daughter is 13 and hopefully won't start bonking for a while, so she is probably unlikely to trip up over HPV for a few years yet.So we decided to wait and see if there are any longer term side effects. If she was promiscuous, or a little older, then the decision would be different.
I was at school with a Thalidomide baby, which has probably clouded my views a little.
The death of this young girl is an awful tragedy, and the media will do catastrophic damage with the inevitable scaremongering.
LittleMiss said:
As someone whose had cervical cancer, my daughter will still be having the three shots of vaccine, for me it's worth the 'risk'
(Tabloid mode on)
You realise that there's only a 99.999999% chance that she'll be absolutely fine and dandy from the jab, completely aside from the fact that this may reduce her risk of cervical cancer! You'll be speeding next!
(tabloid mode off)
speedchick said:
I weighed up the pros and cons of the MMR and decided to take my chances and let my kids get vaccinated. I have so far allowed the doctor to stick pretty much all the needles in them (including the one for meningitis).
I assume you know, but the MMR story was purely a media-scare. Anyone who wants more information on this sort of thing should take a look at Ben Goldacre's Bad Science website.As Eric says, the media are superb at using statistics to scare people. For example, we often see headlines along the lines of "Cancer risk DOUBLED if you eat lots of processed meat!".
What they usually fail to say is that if a risk changes from 1 in 10,000,000 to 1 in 5,000,000, that's double the risk but still a tiny tiny risk, another 6 people in the UK. The most sensational headline possible is "DOUBLED!" so of course the media (and some science press offices) focus on that. This can easily give people false impressions of how the potential risk has actually changed.
IMO "1 in 10m to 1 in 5m" is not useful in general, "DOUBLED!" is over-sensationalist, but describing that change as "an extra 6 people effected in the UK" allows people to actually judge the real change in risk.
Of course, if you are one of the unlucky 6, then your personal risk is 1 in 1, but that's only after the fact.
Stats, wonderful aren't they...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff