My oldest daughter almost died from the first Gardasil, so you may not die from cervical cancer, but die from something else. I am not against vaccines; my kids are all fully vaccinated on a spaced-out schedule and not taking more than one shot in at least 2 months, and so am I, but the HPV vaccine was not mandatory, so, given the experience and the similar genetics, we didn't do it for the other two kids. Yeah, there's a risk of cancer, which might be curable 5-10-15 years from now, but the risk of side effects is here now... for some. So, it's not always a win-win, and we've got no interest from health authorities in assessing the risk for my other two kids, so they also seem very risk-averse and want us to assume all the negatives.
Yeah I thought about mentioning the fairly rare but awful cases that seem pretty clearly linked to the shot. It may be not very common, but it is a thing, and it's worth considering in the cost-benefit analysis.
I find it extremely troubling that this comment detailing your very personal experience was flagged because it went against a prescribed narrative.
It’s predictable in this community unfortunately. Only sheep behavior is acceptable here.
Except that HPV vaccines are not mandatory in most states [0].
[0]: https://www.immunize.org/official-guidance/state-policies/va...
> my kids are all fully vaccinated on a spaced-out schedule and not taking more than one shot in at least 2 months
Why? At what point did you say “I know a better vaccine schedule than highly trained specialist doctors who have done decades of research on hundreds of thousand of children”? You don’t find this incredibly naive to think you know better than them?
I have seen a "highly trained specialist" declare that a baby can easily accommodate thousands of vaccines a day (advocating for the then existing vaccine schedule), because the immune system encounter that many pathogens per day!
I hope I don't have to explain the fallacy in that to the crowd here.
There exists a possibility that they were correct and you are not.
But the larger possibility is that it is the other way around...
Because it's his kid and he can raise her however he wants.
Vaccines represent a calculated risk.
Maybe he's raising his daughter in a culture that doesn't celebrate hedonism and massive numbers of casual sexual partners, effectively reducing the risk of HPV-induced cervical cancer to near-zero, no magic potion needed.
> Maybe he's raising his daughter in a culture that doesn't celebrate hedonism and massive numbers of casual sexual partners, effectively reducing the risk of HPV-induced cervical cancer to near-zero, no magic potion needed.
This is like saying "We don't need fire alarms (and all the risks involved with installing them) because we're responsible people, not reckless morons who go playing with matches in their home."
There are, on the low end, thousands of people who've died of cervical cancer they caught from HPV given to them by their one and only partner.
> This is like saying "We don't need fire alarms
You might want to let Europe know about your fire alarm analogy because the whole of Eastern and Southern Europe including Spain and Italy as well as Iceland have no requirement for smoke detectors in residences.
The justification is their superior brick and plaster construction makes them unnecessary compared to American and Australian matchstick and drywall construction.
This is interesting but not relevant to the discussion at hand, thanks for the info though!
It's relevant in the same sense that they feel the risk is sufficiently low for their particular circumstances that the threat to their well being is not enough to mandate it.
Great point.
Some places, like Denmark, have Cadillac-grade health care systems and are able to manage infectious disease on a national level like a Formula 1 team. They are able to be less stringent because it's far easier to get a handle on disease outbreaks.
Other places, like the US, are running 1992 Chevrolet Cavalier-grade health care system and are able to manage infectious disease on a national level like a group of drunk fraternity members. There's little choice but to use every blanket policy available to try to keep disease in check.
I don't think fire alarms is the right analogy. More like an Amish person getting antivirus software for their nonexistent computer.
That's a broken analogy because everyone has the 'computer,' which in this situation is cells which are capable of being infected.
It's not clear my analogy is more broken than yours, which is taken to task elsewhere in this thread. You can't get an STD because your neighbor has unsafe sex; your house can burn down because your neighbor smokes in bed.
Anaphylaxis is going to happen something like 3 per million Gardasil doses.
The math doesn’t math on the decision not to get the vaccine unless you know for a fact that you’re going to have an anaphylactic reaction. The risk of cancer is far higher if you choose to take the alternative risk.
When you got the shot didn't they tell you about the possible side effects and what to watch for?
I know for the Covid vaccine I had to sit for an hour to make sure of something not happening.
We forgot to get another vaccine shot. On the form, they ask if we want Gardasil. We declined. Then they took our daughter to administer the shots. They brought her back and started to apologize: "We're sorry, we didn't see that you declined, and we gave her the shot anyway." We could've sued them, especially with the adverse effects, but we're coming from a culture that's not overly litigious.
And this is not the first time doctors in leading Southern California medical groups have completely ignored what's on the form! My son was going to have a minor surgery, so they asked me: "Oh, we give an anesthetic before we actually administer the actual one, because some kids are afraid of shots." I told them he's one of those kids and always liked, actually, even watching when they administer the shot, and never cries. This is given he's already on IV! Another doctor came a minute later and started changing the IV. I asked him, "What are you doing?" He said he was administering the pre-anesthetic. And I said that we declined it on the form, but it was too late. Then another doctor came and started to apologize - they don't read, they assume what people want! And this was at CHOC, the most prestigious children's hospital! Of course, as I said, we didn't sue.
So, I know that you should double-check and ask exactly what they are doing. Unfortunately, you can do this only if you're present. And you should always require them to repeat what they plan to do to your kids if they are taking them away from you. And... you should sue, as commercial entities, just like people, learn best when it hurts.
When I got it they didn't, no. Didn't have to stay either. But I was fine.
My condolences and a hug.
Please forgive others who are insensible in this community and downvote you in spite of the terrible situation you had to deal with.