MMR vacine

[streaker99]

As long as doctors prescribe the pill to 13 year olds then everyone will need these vaccinations.

And you are talking as if this is a scheme for encouraging under-age promiscuity

Ok lets do the ethics debate of underage sex.

It's illegal. Has anyone actually conveniently forgot that fact?

Lets not punish children who have sex underage lets actually facilitate it , why?

I am a male and I was over 18 before I lost my virginity.
Whats gone wrong with maintaining some semblance of rules and orders.

Are you also suggesting all 12 year old kids should get driving lessons just in case they steal a car?

Stop bowing to the actions of immature children and abandoning them when you should be looking after and supporting them.

As I said your argument simply follows the route of it's inevitable so lets deal with the aftermath.

Of course the real point you should be making is the HPV vaccine is preventative and thats why there is a need to actually have the jab BEFORE any sexual contact has occured as afterwards it is ineffective.

If doctors are prescribing the pill to 13 year olds and they DO then THEY are creating the breeding grounds for these viruses in the first place. It matters not one jot how chaste your own child is or even if they are 20 yrs old before they have sex if the other person is already carrying.
Therefore GPs should be giving CONDOMS to underage girls if they must and not the pill.

However I WILL be sending my daugher for her gardisil vaccine this september.
It would also be hoped that she will see the value of using condoms for any casual sex after 16 until she has found her prospective life partner.

 

[JohnD]

Ok lets do the ethics debate of underage sex..

You are being very silly, or pretending not to understand my point.

The idea is to immunise people before they are at risk.

It is nothing to do with underage sex.

 

[EddieM]

If doctors are prescribing the pill to 13 year olds and they DO then THEY are creating the breeding grounds for these viruses in the first place. It matters not one jot how chaste your own child is or even if they are 20 yrs old before they have sex if the other person is already carrying.
Therefore GPs should be giving CONDOMS to underage girls if they must and not the pill.

Huh??

 

[JohnD]

poor old streaker appears to be obsessed with underage sex

it is blinding him to the benefits of cancer prevention

 

[alumni]

If doctors are prescribing the pill to 13 year olds and they DO then THEY are creating the breeding grounds for these viruses in the first place. It matters not one jot how chaste your own child is or even if they are 20 yrs old before they have sex if the other person is already carrying.
Therefore GPs should be giving CONDOMS to underage girls if they must and not the pill.

GPs prescribe the pill to young girls for various reasons and usually nothing to do with sex.

Don't stigmatise others just because your morals cloud your thinking.

 

[gasbanni]

We didn't give our kids it because we had read some unsubsubstantiated and untrue rumours in newspapers.

as a result of the article countless numbers of parents in Britain refused to let their children have the jab, and cases of measles — which is very occasionally fatal — went up significantly.

Our business is selling newspapers, it's none of our concern is we spread fear and panic and cause more kids to suffer from preventable disease, by printing untrue stories

Much more here http://www.badscience.net/2010/01/the-wakefield-mmr-verdict/

Or if you want a laugh at the stunningly bad Daily Mail's record on made-up and untrue health stories that keep its readers buying the paper, see http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/ Just look at he Aspirin section!

Anyone who thinks that giving a baby three disease to fight at once is ok, an absolute idiot including idiotic medical professionals that are afraid not to toe the party line. Wakefield well he supposedly found a measles virus in the gut of some kids and got lynched for it.

Time will certainly show a link between autism and the MMR jab, so many parents "know " their kids changed after the jab.

Some heartbreaking stories here, are the parents lying ? any reason to ? No....... not all mmr experiences but some. Just because the link hasn't been proved or found it doesnt mean its not there. One thing that stands out to me is how these parents notice the adverse reactions very quickly after the jabs...................

http://www.thinktwice.com/stories2.htm
http://www.thinktwice.com/multiple.htm

 

[joe-90]

is autism higher in the group that had the jab compared to the rest that didn't?

 

[JohnD]

Time will certainly show a link between autism and the MMR jab, so many parents "know " their kids changed after the jab.

In fact, the evidence is available, and shows that you are wrong.

I happen to know that 100% of liver cancer sufferers have been exposed to long-term contact with Dihydrogen Monoxide before the disease appeared. Does this show that there is a link? Does it show that exposure to the chemical caused the disease?

 

[streaker99]

If doctors are prescribing the pill to 13 year olds and they DO then THEY are creating the breeding grounds for these viruses in the first place. It matters not one jot how chaste your own child is or even if they are 20 yrs old before they have sex if the other person is already carrying.
Therefore GPs should be giving CONDOMS to underage girls if they must and not the pill.

GPs prescribe the pill to young girls for various reasons and usually nothing to do with sex.

Don't stigmatise others just because your morals cloud your thinking.

ok then give the pill to regularise periods or make them less severe but STILL provide CONDOMS as well.

We are talking about minors who are children here. People who are breaking the law if they have sex but then again we have seen how the 'hands off' approach worked with the 'children in care' in Rochdale et al haven't we?....

 

[streaker99]

Ok lets do the ethics debate of underage sex..

You are being very silly, or pretending not to understand my point.

The idea is to immunise people before they are at risk.

It is nothing to do with underage sex.

The age of sexual consent is 16

Why not give the vaccine to children in the 15-16 school year group. That would ultimately be more beneficial since the vaccines effective life has only been summised at 4-5 yrs.

This would protect them till they were 21 not 18.

Or are you saying that they need to have the jab at 13 because they will have sex before 15-16.

What did you say about this not being an underage sex issue again?

 

[JohnD]

FFS we are talking about an immunisation to prevent an infection which is known to lead to a common cause of cancer.

And you seem to be arguing that it should not be offered to potential victims until it's too late?

Your obsession with underage sex is entirely irrelevant. The age has been specifically chosen so that in most cases it wil be given before the people are exposed to risk. There's not much point in inoculating afterwards.

 

[streaker99]

But if given at 13 its effect will no longer be effective at 18.

What cuts the cervical cancer death rate down is the pap test and treatment.

However you can't have a smear till you are 25 in England or 20 in Wales and Scotland.

An English girl sexually active at age 18-25 will no longer be protected by the vaccination she had at 13 so will go through those years at risk.
I can see that there is a need to screen everyone from 16 onwards as it's catching the disease early that makes the biggest difference.

John I understand what you are saying but its a typical knee jerk policy led by pharmasutical profit.
I am trying to help educate here John as I do have some experience relating to health policies.

excerpt:-
'This raises questions about the CDC's recommendation that the series of shots be given to girls as young as 11-years old. "If we vaccinate 11 year olds and the protection doesn't last... we've put them at harm from side effects, small but real, for no benefit," says Dr. Harper. "The benefit to public health is nothing, there is no reduction in cervical cancers, they are just postponed, unless the protection lasts for at least 15 years, and over 70% of all sexually active females of all ages are vaccinated." She also says that enough serious side effects have been reported after Gardasil use that the vaccine could prove riskier than the cervical cancer it purports to prevent. Cervical cancer is usually entirely curable when detected early through normal Pap screenings.'

full article:-

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500690_162-5253431.html

 

[JohnD]

I'm glad to see you have stopped pushing your previous argument

This is a solution based on pandering to the lowest common denominator.

As long as doctors prescribe the pill to 13 year olds then everyone will need these vaccinations.

Whats wrong with using condoms?

Its pure social laziness allowing kids to dictate policies

Do you have knowledge about the actual effective life of the imunisation, when you talk about it losing its effect? Or would you agree that "Currently HPV vaccines are effective for at least 5 years in the prevention of HPV 16 and 18 associated precancerous lesions however the duration of vaccine protection is unknown."

Obviously a vaccine which was not in existence 30 years ago cannot be shown to be effective for 30 years.

Which suggests to me that immunisation at age 13 will protect most of them through the beginnings and first few years of sexual activity, and into adulthood when they will be able to renew their immunisation, once it is known if and when it may be necessary.

BTW I see that "Professor Harper has complained to the PCC. “I fully support the HPV vaccines,” she says. “I believe that in general they are safe in most women. I told the Express all of this.”

see http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/jabs-as-bad-as-the-cancer/

 

[alumni]

ok then give the pill to regularise periods or make them less severe but STILL provide CONDOMS as well.

We are talking about minors who are children here. People who are breaking the law if they have sex but then again we have seen how the 'hands off' approach worked with the 'children in care' in Rochdale et al haven't we?....

Errr, i thought minors were/are children. Could they be anything else?

And yes, the topic does somewhat relate to VERY young children. Unfortunately you keep swinging it back round to sex with minors.

Strange, nay, worryingly strange.

 

[gasbanni]

Some people seem to think doctors know best

Bit of history (notice they were reluctant )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
however
http://www.naturalnews.com/027981_doctors_hand_washing.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...d-by-doctors-failing-to-wash-their-hands.html
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/11/10/0956797611419172.abstract

and some on here slurp up th party line of mmr being ok and refer to unsubstantiated stories of parents experiences


If we'd listened to the professionals my mother in law would be dead, they were going to send her home despite severe breathing difficulties she'd gone in for heart problems that was sorted.......but the breathing became a separate severe problem..........until my wife insisted a breathing specialist came to see her...........

Working at one job the wife a ex nurse saved the life of her son realizing
what his health issue was despite the supposed specialist doctor missing the problem (the nurse named the doctor and was dismissive of him calling him an idiot).

A lump in her husbands groin was on the bone and she knew it was bone cancer got him in at a specialist bone hospital down south to sort it.

One old chap I know got severely scalded got in to a bath where the immersion had failed couldn't get out of the bath wife was deaf...........

When friends went to visit him in hospital they'd laid him on his scalded back ffs !!!!!

and some on here swallow the mmr, single vaccines ok but subjecting several virus to a young child all at the same time defies common sense