31 1 min 15 yrs

Wonder what you make of the news in the Daily Express that eight deaths have been linked to the cervical cancer jab which will be given to every 12-year-old girl in Britain under Government plans announced last week? Doctors suspect the jab, which protects against a sexually transmitted human papilloma virus that causes the cancer, may be implicated in 3,461 adverse reactions, including paralysis and seizures. Last week Health Secretary Alan Johnson revealed plans to vaccinate all girls aged between 12 and 13 to cut Britain’s death rate from the disease. He said: “Prevention is better than cure and this vaccine will prevent many women from catching the virus in the first place. This is a tough issue. Any parents would wish to endure that their daughter does not get cervical cancer. I’m unsure as to the motivations of Government here however. 

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

31 thoughts on “A JAB TOO FAR?

  1. A lot of decent parents will find this govt release very depressing because this virus is frequently associated with multiple sexual partners. Multiple! Strewth; at 12/13 years of age?
    To soften the social connotations of this announcement, notice how Mr. Johnson uses the word ‘women’ instead of children.

  2. ”I’m unsure as to the motivations of Government here however.”

    What do you think the governments motivations are?

  3. What do you think? maybe its to stop teenagers getting cancer from having sex. Its a tricky area should Britan form policy based on social abnormalities?

  4. ”I do NOT trust this government, or indeed any left wing government.”

    But whats your issue with the jab?

  5. BTW I see the Irish republic is thinking of adopting similar jabs for young girls on last nights RTE news.

  6. Even if we buy into government knows best. Why not at 15/16. Are we saying that the British Government accepts and will legislate for children having sex at 12/13

  7. There are apparently around 1000 women a year who die of cervical cancer and the jab would prevent three quarters of them. Whilst there can be adverse effects from vaccinations and it is tragic when they occur, the risks of not being vaccinated vastly outweigh the risks of having it done.

    The Daily Express is very vague about the details, but there appears to be no proof that the deaths were caused by the vaccination and there is no indication as to how many people had it. Their reporting of the story appears to be irresponsible scaremongering.

  8. Sorry can I just say that I dont for one second think that people are not being genuine in trying to effect this problem. Cancer is awful. But with regard to the age brackets society needs to fix its own problem.

  9. As a pharmacist, I say follow th money. Here in Tx, the Gover. Office was going to make it manditory to have this shot to go to school. There were allegations of Drug Company payoff to government officials. Billions of dollars are at stake.

    Now, that’s not to say that prevention of cervical cancer is bad. To the contrary. However, it the way it’s being done that raises questions.

    Qui Bono?

  10. My only concern is that boys are not equally being vaccinated. As this virus also causes genital warts there is a reason to vaccinate both sexes. Equally as men and boys can carry the virus and therefore infect women, prevention is better than cure.

  11. ‘Their reporting of the story appears to be irresponsible scaremongering’

    Exactly

    ‘follow the money’

    I remember Richard Carey writing about this sort of issue with drugs companies and their scams. I agree with microbiologist above about the virus carriers which is why i question the ‘direction’ of the vaccine. The boys and emphasis on their ‘role’ in this issue goes unchecked because chances are we wouldnt run a widespread campaign and the drugs companies wouldnt make their profit.

  12. Not wishing to change subject, but I wonder if in ‘the olden days’ religion recognised how deadly these STD’s were, and it’s list of sins was the only way they could do anything to stop the spread.

    Of course, as we have all become more knowledgeable, we have all become less fearful of the ‘fire and brimstone’, and thus need to be more fearful of the real consequences of multiple partners, and casual liaisons.

    Just a thought – sorry to interrupt

  13. Government intentions? To change the moral composition of this country beyond any previously accepted norm. Why? I don’t know.

  14. Is there anybody who decides not to have sex on the basis of not having been vaccinated against the human papilloma virus? Does a 12 year old girl considering having sex even know what the human papilloma virus is or care about it? I suspect not, in which case this won’t have any measurable effect on the number or distribution of under-age girls having sex. It will, however, save thousands of lives. And of course, anybody concerned about STIs can just buy condoms.

  15. Explain what a jab for cervical cancer which you are twice as likely to contract the more kids you have, even if it is with one partner, has to do with ‘changing the moral compass of our country’ please. Is this more christian right wing women who have sex ‘are sinners’ blather?

  16. Ernest Young.

    Not off topic at all. Quite to the contrary.
    There’s a very valid proverb that Andrew would have understood because I think it’s a Chinese one.
    It goes: "Man sometimes forgives; God always forgives; but Nature never forgives".

  17. I dont get Ernests point. After all for all its list of sins, religion put the onus and guilt on the woman and patted the fella on the back – so it was hardly balanced, given who carries and spreads this virus.

  18. Religion didn’t preach ‘fire and brimstone’ in order to prevent the transmission of STDs, but simply because fornication was considered sinful. Simple as.

  19. Colm – i think they were saying that this was a plus – since the less sex you had other than for procreation the less STDs. However cervical cancer can affect anyone, including women married to one man from the word go. Religion was quite happy for guys to go a-rutting like stags whilst the onus was placed on women to feel like they werent ‘entitled’. That stigma still sticks (as you can read here).

  20. Alison

    That is an age old prejudice prevalent in all cultures and communities of all faiths and none. Can anyone name a genuinely derogatory and shameful word for a man who ‘puts it about’ – or a complimentary word for a woman who does ?

  21. It’s not irresponsible to report the dangers of vaccines. Individuals have a right to know the pros and cons, otherwise how can they make an informed decision. The solution to one problem can often be the cause of another problem. Everything involves trade-offs. The manufacturers claim this will cause a reduction in deaths from cervical cancer, and are now to be given a huge amount of money for their vaccination, money that could be spent in other ways, that might be equally or more efficient in reducing this death toll. The vaccination may cause serious harm to a minority of those given it, and if it is given to a large number of girls, that minority may be a significant number of people. Are we supposed to take a statistical view, and say; "well, that’s just tough on them?" Will the drug companies admit the link between their vaccinations and the adverse reactions they cause? Of course not, they’ll fight it tooth and nail through the courts like they always do.

    I think Ernest’s point is clear. The rules on, for instance, what food was unclean may not elaborate the reasons why, say, eating an animal that died of natural causes, but there is a correlation between these rules and common sense.

  22. "It’s not irresponsible to report the dangers of vaccines. Individuals have a right to know the pros and cons, otherwise how can they make an informed decision. The solution to one problem can often be the cause of another problem. Everything involves trade-offs"

    I agree with all that, but the Daily Express piece conveyed the information in such a way that anyone who relied on it would not be able to make an informed choice. They give no sense of how probable the link between the vaccine and the deaths is considered to be, and they give no indication as to how many girls had received it, Eight deaths out of a thousand is very different to eight deaths out of ten million.

  23. I think society would be better served if money and attention went to promoting the idea that girls and boys SHOULD NOT HAVE SEX until they are married.

    What’s wrong with everybody? Have we become wild animals mating at whim,without thought?

    Accepting this vaccination is tacit permission for children as young as 12 to have sex.

    This vaccination – ostensibly to save lives – is one more way to unravel the structure of traditional society – leaving little moral and dependency on the State.

  24. If the jab were given at birth, Patty, would you take that as tacit permission for babies to have sex?

    Since the NHS provides free (at the point of use) treatment for people who don’t wear seatbelts, is this tacit permission for people to not wear a seatbelt?

    In fact, since the law requires that you wear a seatbelt, which protects against injury in the event of a crash, is this tacit permission to crash your car (and presumably those of others, as they will be wearing seatbelts too)?

  25. CL,

    ‘If the jab were given at birth,would you take that as tacit permission for babies to have sex?’

    if they were to do that we’d debate the issues surrounding that

  26. I think society would be better served if money and attention went to promoting the idea that girls and boys SHOULD NOT HAVE SEX until they are married.

    In other words, people who don’t accept your VIEWS should die of cancer then?

  27. I think the drug companies have worked a blinder here. All over europe, the governments are rushing to introduce this vaccination. Is the sudden timing not a mystery? As has already been noted – "Follow the money!" Someone else also pointed out that males carry the virus, why are they left out, just because they do not get cervical cancer?

    What we have here is a severe case of treating the symptoms, not the cause. We also have a case of addiction to the drug companies, not to good public health.

    For all the reasons that have been alluded to above and elsewhere, sexually transmitted diseases are in a state of epidemic at the moment. The use of vaccine in an epidemic is intended to give sufficient immunity to the population, that on average each actual carrier passes the disease to fewer than one person. The disease then slowly dies out. Vaccination never claims that the inoculated person is incapable of getting the disease, just less likely.

    There is another way of providing the population with such immunity, and at significantly less cost. That way is male circumcision. It has been shown to reduce the transmission of HPV (the cervical cancer virus) as well as HIV (trials have shown it to be more effective than most vaccinations), and a number of other sexually transmitted diseases. It does not make the individuals "proof" against these diseases, but on the overall population level it will give us a fighting chance to address the issues.

    But will male circumcision overcome the bias of the left and the medical lobbies? Never! They would sooner bleed the population dry (by prescribing a new vaccination that costs more than all the other childhood vaccinations put together) to prop up the drug companies than permit a simple safe surgery provide protection for a wider range of diseases at significantly less cost.

    Oh, it seems to have other advantages as well. It is reported by women who have sexual experience of both circumcised and uncircumcised men, that they much prefer the circumcised man. Men circumcised as adults regularly say that sex "just gets better".

Comments are closed.