A clear allegation from mdf that vaccination and contraception causes sex.
Yes, that is what he's saying.
Ah Ignorance of the law is a defence !
- Thread starter gasbanni
- Start date
- Status
Yes, that is what he's saying.
Sponsored Links
M
mdf290
The point of that post went straight over my head...
Did you click on the link??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Whitear
I'm sure Rachels mother thought her daughter was sensible and safe also, i think although your intentions are good, there are flaws in the way you are thinking, i reckon you to be one of those parents who think their little darlings will never try any sort of drugs??
I have no idea what Rachels or her parents backgrounds are.
So how do I know that the cases are the same.
I got my daughters two older brothers through state schooling to 3 A Grade A levels and redbrick University and other than the whole student binge drink thing neither went the route of drugs.
I don't see any reason why my daughter can't be responsible too.
Your wifes and girlfirends did they all have sex at 14 and have multiple sexually transmitted infections and abortions?
Did they?
or is it true that not everyone has lazy parents that don't take a lead?
M
mdf290
But you are saying that by not giving my daughter the jab she will have underage sex and die . .
So what is the driver of underage sex vaccine or your theory of no vaccine?
It may even be that knowing she is only one of a few of her peers not to be vaccinated she thinks a bit harder about the responsibilities of sex than they will.
With utmost respect to everyone . I really do think it's time to close this thread .
No winners and losers on here-- . Lets spare our kids embarrassment please .
No winners and losers on here-- . Lets spare our kids embarrassment please .
Sponsored Links
Plenty of lazy parents, plenty of irresponsible parents, plenty of adults who overhear the word 'indicated' used in a conversation and then think they are experts in immunology with a clinical background to boot.
A responsible parent would weigh up the evidence and protect their child against cancer (we are talking CANCER FFS), however unlikely they think it is for them to "catch it", if it was safe to do so.
Which is why we immunised our daughter at the earliest opportunity, privately in fact as to us it was a no brainer and we didn't want to wait for the NHS to faff around like it always does. And I can promise you we do know a lot about drug companies, immunology, cervical cancer and all that other guff that goes along with it.
But hey ho, if she does end up with a dodgy smear you can comfort her with the knowledge that it's probably OK, most of them don't progress to full blown carcinoma, and she should stop worrying.
My my JohnD, quoting out of context, how very unlike you!
It's clear to me it's a multi faceted argument, maybe that's too much for you. or maybe you are just trying to hard?
M
mdf290
Chlamydia and smoking are big indicators in cervical cancer as you know?
I am not saying what you have done is wrong. Immunising your child is a great idea , however Chlamydia can be caught by anyone whether immunised or not through unprotected sex and this is not tackled by this vaccine only regular check ups at an std clinic can do that.
The NHS and the schools DID faff around with the HPV vaccine so much so they withdrew the first vaccine and relaced it. How strange since they trupmeted its arrival with such a fanfare.
I will also be privately having my daughter vaccinated in due time probably around 15 yrs old because then its active effectivness will be more useful. No point wasting 2 years of protection during a dormant period of her sex life. Thats like taking flu jabs for the bahamas.
But you are right Gardasil only protects a few HPV strains.
They are developing another vaccine which protects against more as we speak but they cannot test its effectivness in trials because 'There are not enough youngsters with HPV' to be able to claim it works.
You are also right about the real threat from HPVs and that 90% self heal within 2 yrs. The statistics currently for getting an adverse reaction to the immunisation run higher than the risk of getting a fatal HPV
No I didn't know that. That's because what it makes no sense. You overheard a clever person use the word 'indicator' and thought you'd impress us by using it in a 'medical way' and you got it wrong.
Let me give you a lesson.
Cone Biopsy is indicated in cervical cancer
An indication for radiotherapy is cervical cancer
Bleeding PV is an indication of cervical cancer
What you are saying:
You treat cervical cancer with chlamydia. hahahah WRONG
If you smoke then a cause can be cervical cancer. hahahaha WRONG
Leave the medical stuff and advice about immunisations to the guys who know about it. And that ain't you.
Arrogance.
Inability to listen.
Know it all.
Perhaps you are a doctor after-all.
Inability to listen.
Know it all.
Perhaps you are a doctor after-all.
M
mdf290
Chlamydia weakens the immune system allowing HPV virii to attack.
If you have Chlamydia then it may indicate cervical cancer...
Pointless trying to educate you isn't it.
Medical dictionary for dummies.
in·di·cat·edin·di·cat·ing
Definition of INDICATE
1
: to be a fairly certain symptom of : show the presence or existence of <the high fever indicates a serious condition>
2
: to call for especially as treatment for a particular condition <radical surgery is often indicated in advanced cancer>
Sorry what exactly was your clinical role again?
Are you implying that mdf290 is a numpty? I think there are a few numpties on this forum, in particular PP, however a few pages ago he stated this topic should be put to bed, on this occasion i found myself agreeing with him.
I think i have got everybodies attention now and would like to draw attention to the post i made in the tiling section as i haven't had an answer yet...
- Status
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
- Locked
- Lincsbodger
- General Discussion