those with little girls - oprah
boyohboyohboy wrote: did u see oprah today?
she had on her gyn and there was a question about the new HPV vax. the dr said she was against the vax. that it was noted to cause DEATH in some people, and there were side effects worse then the amount of people who had HPV. she also said that they have not proven that HPV does cause cancer..they feel it is associated with it, but noted to be in people with lower immune systems. she said that building up your immune system was far better..
she said NOT TO let the girls between the ages 9-12 get this..
I thought that was interesting with all the hype on it.
My2Beauties replied: Yeah I definitely won't be getting the vax for my girls and Desiree hasn't had it and will not have it. I just think it hasn't been tested enough and it hasn't been around long enough for me to jump on the bandwagon for it.
gr33n3y3z replied:
Thats with any shot that you get
But you are so right I have 2 girls and I'm not jumping on it yet either with Katie not only that our insurance doesnt cover it yet either 
As for Erin she is 18 and she has to make her own mind up about it
Cece00 replied: Sounds like that person doesnt know what they are talking about...certain strains of HPV DO cause cancer. You can read how that works here...Mayo Clinic and the NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE & CDC
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cervical-cancer/AN00386
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV
>>HPVs are now recognized as the major cause of cervical cancer. In 2006, an estimated 10,000 women in the United States will be diagnosed with this type of cancer and nearly 4,000 will die from it. Cervical cancer strikes nearly half a million women each year worldwide, claiming a quarter of a million lives. Studies also suggest that HPVs may play a role in cancers of the anus, vulva, vagina, and some cancers of the oropharynx (the middle part of the throat that includes the soft palate, the base of the tongue, and the tonsils) (1). Data from several studies also suggest that infection with HPV is a risk factor for penile cancer (cancer of the penis).
http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/common-questions.htm
I also can find no real info that the vaccine caused any deaths.
I'm not sure if my daughter will get it, but probably. She is years off from that, so I'll see how it pans out by then, but yeah...I tend to like to protect my kids and its my opinion that vaccines protect the very large majority of children, since I havent seen any real evidence to the contrary, and actually have seen evidence of them preventing disease and death.
boyohboyohboy replied:
she actually did sound like she knew a lot about what she was talking about. she said that there are over 300 types of hpv and this vax only covers 4 of them..
frankly anything put out by the government on a vax isnt something i am going to trust anyway..who funds those studies?
but i am not getting into a discussion about whether or not vax again.
my point was that there is really some thought to be put into getting little girls this new vax either way you decide...
myself i believe that the time would be better spent teaching abstence then researching this....
but thats also for another thread.
msoulz replied: Too many vaxes, so little time . . .
I figure by the time Erin is old enough it will have been either better researched or taken off the market. 
mommy~to~a~bunch replied: Actually - Gardasil HAS caused deaths:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007_docs/...VAERSDeaths.pdf
http://v.mercola.com/blogs/public_blog/Thr...cine-21325.aspx
And here's more info:
http://www.newstarget.com/Report_HPV_Vaccine_0.html
http://www.nvic.org/Diseases/HPV/HPV_Vacci...sed)%5B1%5D.pdf
Cece00 replied:
Ah, see, none of those are unbiased, reputable websites, hence why I dont believe them.
Cece00 replied:
The vax only covers 4 of them b/c they cause the MAJORITY of the problems associated with HPV.
From the FDA
>>HPV types 16 and 18 cause about 70% of cervical cancers. HPV types 6 and 11 cause about 90% of genital warts.
http://www.fda.gov/WOMENS/getthefacts/hpv.html
The other types cause nothing, minor changes that dont develop into cancer, or just warts. They are considered LOW RISK strains. The ones the vaccine helps to prevent are HIGH RISK strains.
CDC
>>http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/common-downloads.htm
>>1) The new HPV vaccine protects against four HPV types, which together cause 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts.
Again, I dont think the woman knows what she is talking about. I've searched and searched and all I find is that there are over *100* types, which is not even close to 300.
You would think she would know things like this???
>>There are several strains of HPV. There are over 100 different strains of HPV. About 30 of these strains affect both male and female genitalia causing conditions like genital warts and more seriously, cancer.
& I dont quite understand this whole "the govt is out to get me/us/the citizens" mentality, personally. I dont trust everything out there, not even close, but I also know better than to be a conspiracy theorist & think the evil govt is out for me & trying to hurt me & my kids, esp when there is NO real evidence proving otherwise that I have EVER been shown.
& also- no offense to anyone who thinks otherwise- but I think teaching abstinence is outdated & actually harmful in this day & age. That sort of thing is why there are still so many unwanted teenage pregnancies in the US- parents & schools refuse to teach SAFE SEX and so teenagers have no idea how to protect themselves & voila...STD's running rampant & unwanted pregnancy. Teaching safe sex is one of THE most important things anyone can ever do for their children, hands down. Abstinence can be taught along side of safe sex, but should never be taught alone.
My3LilMonkeys replied:
While I think that's a great idea in theory, in practice I think it's pretty safe to say abstinence will never be practiced by 100% of teens or adults, so IMO researching options to protect those that do have sex is a good idea.
As for the vax and all the conflicting information on it, it's such a new thing that honestly I don't think we can really say how good of an idea it is yet - we need to see the long term effects and capabilities. By the time my girls reach an age to consider this we'll have 10 more years of experience to draw on so hopefully by then it'll be easier to make a good, informed decision.
mommy~to~a~bunch replied:
You believe who you want, but I for one would not give much credit to anything the government says. The pHARMaceuticals give MAJOR kickbacks to the government for implementing these MANDATORY vaccinations. and vice versa.
boyohboyohboy replied:
as an example thats part of the reason pharmaceuticals are being told no more "lunchs" and special treats when they come to the dr's office to "sell" their products its seen as bribing...
as a nurse I have seen this myself.
as for abstinence..no not 100% of the population will practice it, just as not 100% wont smoke, or try drugs, or kill themselves..but it sure doesnt hurt to teach what is right. since when is teaching morals outdated?
Calimama replied:
It's not that I DO or DO NOT agree with her. It's the fact that the debate can't be on a mature enough level to leave out the little side rude remarks. Just because a person believes in Vax's does NOT mean they do so because everyone else does. Sheeesh.
My3LilMonkeys replied:
I agree with you that abstinence should be taught - I just think we should also work on research regarding STDs, AIDs, etc. for those who choose not to practice it. Just like I feel we should teach people not to smoke, but at the same time we still need to try and find ways to help people who do choose to smoke quit and ways to make smoking less harmful.
Kirstenmumof3 replied: DH and I have talked at lengths about this vaccination. Emily is supposed to get it next year and we've already deccided that there isn't enough known about this vaccination and we are refusing. When Emily is 18 and wants to make that decision for herself, we will support her either way.
boyohboyohboy replied: [/QUOTE]
i agree with mollie here
You believe who you want, but I for one would not give much credit to anything the government says. The pHARMaceuticals give MAJOR kickbacks to the government for implementing these MANDATORY vaccinations. and vice versa.
[/QUOTE]
It's not that I DO or DO NOT agree with her. It's the fact that the debate can't be on a mature enough level to leave out the little side rude remarks. Just because a person believes in Vax's does NOT mean they do so because everyone else does. Sheeesh. [/QUOTE]
denise my comment wasnt directed at you at all.
i agree that mollie tend to name call, but i guess she is very strong in her beliefs. i have been on the wrong side of her already.
i was mainly just remarking on the thread again.
just for the record. i like your "SHEESH" I am going to start using that... 
Cece00 replied:
PS- in case you hadnt noticed, Gardasil isnt mandatory And actually, thanks to exemptions, neither is any other life saving vaccine.
Cece00 replied:
Which is why I said abstience can be taught ALONGSIDE safe sex.
gr33n3y3z replied: Enough is enough ok
Grow up ladies and be nice to each other and STOP with the dang name calling
I will be sending out warnings
mommy~to~a~bunch replied:
I KNOW it isn't mandatory, but it WAS in certain places for awhile (Texas?), before it was reversed. I think there's a lot of shady government deals going on between drug comapnies & the government. And I'd hardly call vaxes life-SAVING, more like life-THREATENING .
Thank GOODNESS for exemptions  !!!
Cece00 replied:
So how do you explain the millions of lives they save every year in places like Africa?
mommy~to~a~bunch replied:
And how many suffer serious side effects or death? That's OK? As long as some people are saved, that's all that matters?
And it's the sanitation and clean water that the third world contries need, not vaxes.
redchief replied: I have no in depth knowledge on HPV vaccine, or it's side-effects. But I do know that cervical cancer kills around 4,000 women a year. I also know that HPV infection comes from intercourse. So, if we can figure out how to stop men and women from DTD, then we could save everyone that fate... Flaw in that logic is that we can only procreate via the deed, so it wouldn't take long until there wasn't anyone left to get any disease.
I'm pretty sure that none of us will convince all of our children not to make whoopee. We can't even get them off the computer for dinner! So, abstinence, along with good hygiene is one way to stay healthy, but I think that vaccines should be seriously considered by any young woman who is sexually active.
Whatever your stance on vaccines, all women should educate themselves and make the decision whether or not to take that step based on what they feel is best for them.
boyohboyohboy replied: just so we can stay on track here:
here is exactly what she said...the dr that is..
http://www2.oprah.com/health/yourbody/slid...thrup_103.jhtml
Cece00 replied:
You didnt answer my question.
redchief replied: Hmmm... I'm a little concerned at her scientific method after reading the last paragraph in the article.
She said
While it's true that HPV incidence is especially high among the high risk groups she noted, HPV infection is identified in about 10,000 women per year, many without the suppressed immune responses caused by the quoted disease and immunosuppressive drugs. If I must question one of her conclusions, I must question all of them, especially since she admits she is at odds with the majority of the medical community.
Just because it appeared on Oprah doesn't make it fact, or even the best for the rest of us for that matter. After all, Oprah has flipped off her rocker before... she's backing Obama for president.
Cece00 replied:
Agreed.
Plus I just did a little research on her & what I found was not complimentary.
& I love how she really believes it hasnt been proven that HPV causes cervical cancer. Oy!
Hillbilly Housewife replied: I started reading the thread...and no, my daughters will not be getting the shots, until they are old enough and mature enough to make up their own minds.
My religious convictions are strong, but not NEARLY strong enough to be naive enough that teaching only abstinence will be enough to protect my children from stds or unplanned pregnancies. Kids are resourceful, and unless I plan to homeschool and NEVER let them out of my sight, they WILL find out about sex, and they WILL want to experiment, ESPECIALLY if I tell them not to.
I'd rather my kids be SAFE, than moralistic.
Anthony275 replied:
what does that have to do with anything???
boyohboyohboy replied:
i never said that they should ONLY be taught abstinence, but lately its certainly the last thing you hear about..
i am just not sure how threads seem to get so far off base...
Hillbilly Housewife replied:
I wasn't targetting anyone.... 
I was mostly talking from thinking back to previous threads we've had about how in schools they don't teach about safe sex, they just say "don't do it", really...
Like I said...I stopped reading after a couple posts... 
mommy~to~a~bunch replied:
Which vaxes are you talking about? Which are routinely given out in Africa? And please prove they save lives.
I still say that a lot of the disease would be wiped out if the sanitation and water quality was better.
msoulz replied:
Stacy, you bad girl, just look what you started!!!
Hillbilly Housewife replied:
Definitely 100% agree that a lot of disease could be wiped out if EVERYONE in the world had proper sanitation and clean drinkable water.
Just think about it - even people who are PROPERLY vaccinated HAVE to take precautions when travelling to 3rd world country... why would they need to take those precautions if they were so properly protected by the vaccine? 
As far as I'm concerned, and I have no research to back this up, this is just crazy ole me talking here... having half the population have the vax and half not get it, is only, in my opinion, building immunity on the virus / bacteria that cause the diseases... because it's not an 100% erradication, it's only partial. The few survivors will mutate after generationa nd generation, and eventually we will have all these superbugs coming at us from all directions. It's already started.
Why do you think (you is general here) that it's sooo oimportant to finish your doseage of medication when you have a prescription, and not just stop taking it once you feel better? Because you haven't killed it ALL...and the few bacteria/virus that survive will have developped a little bit of resistance to it. Well the ext time that virus comes in contact with that medication, it will be a lot less effective, since the bugs have a resistance to it. And if they aren't killed 100% next time, they have a bigger resistance.
Look around. It's happening already. Super flu. Deadly colds. We are not in the 1700s... flu shouldn't kill. But... our bodies are always so pumped full of crap that the gov't says is beneficial for us, in helping us clear away the disease... but PLEASE. All it's doing is building immunity in the bugs...because not EVERYONE is getting them. Vaccination would ONLY be 100% ewffective if 100% of the population got it. It's the basis behind quarantine. EVERYONE is in quarantine, not half the hosuehold or city and the other half can come and go...it's EVERYONE. If they really wanted to quarantine the diseases...they'd do it. No, they just want to fatten their wallets.
It's very simple, really. At least to me.
Off my box.
Brias3 replied: I'm still leery about it. Personally, I won't have Aliyah get this vax. It's just too new. Heck, its hard enough to be certain about vaccinated with things that have been in existence for awhile. I just simply don't think its necessary because I'm too nervous of the "what-if's" and the unknowns about this new option.
mommy~to~a~bunch replied:
Well said Rocky! But I'll still be in the minority who won't vax their kids. The risks outweigh any benefits there might be.
Hillbilly Housewife replied:
Not saying otherwise Mollie... my 2 year old has only received one vaccine.
Just saying... vaccinations would ouly be 100% effective if 100% of the population got them. Otherwise, it's just a crock of plasma.
redchief replied: I understand the questions raised in the first post in this thread, and I understand why it got off track a little.
For the record, my 14 year-old will not be getting the vaccine until she is old enough to make an informed decision on her own. That is based upon her staying celibate though. Should she decide to get experimental younger than I think she might, I may change my mind for her own protection, but so far I think allowing her to make the choice is the right one.
Erin is 18, so the choice is hers to make. As of now she hasn't had the vaccine.
Also for the record, I can prove that vaccines are working near miracles in Africa. But I have to admit that Mollie has a very valid point. Sanitation and advances in hygiene and prevention have also done wonders for health globally. Where we differ is in whether that is enough to eradicate diseases we know how to kill from the earth.
punkeemunkee'smom replied:
The vax was mandatory in Texas for a period of time...It was also reversed by our legislators (thankfully) after a HUGE public outcry and it came to light that our governer had received several contributions to his campain by the company who makes the vaccine. I stayed out of the last debate along these lines but I will state my piece here....I am the mother of a child who suffered a reaction after the HepB vaccine. My child would not wake up,she was pale and cold and then began seizing....I HAVE seen the effects of a reaction of a vaccine-I HAVE held my child in my arms praying to everything holy that she would wake up again....I HAVE spent hours reading and speaking to well educated immunoligists and taken a good long hard look at the FACTS that some children ARE harmed by vaccines. I understand that these vaccines have diminshed some very painful childhood illnesses but please don't diminish the fact that some parents are left with children who will never be normal again and in worst cases completely empty arms. THANK GOD Taylor recovered completely with no lasting effects but to act as though no real damage is ever done is unfair to those who have suffered....
redchief replied:
Point taken, but I for one have never stated that no harm has come from vaccines. On the contrary, I know for a fact that Lisa can't take some vaccines due to adverse reactions. It is truly tragic when anyone has an adverse reaction to a medication or vaccine, but the truth of the matter is that humans can have a reaction to almost anything aside from water and compounds and chemicals needed to sustain life. Because HPV is transmitted primarily through sexual intercourse, it is good that people have a choice as there is more than one way to prevent infection. This argument would be equally valid should there come along an HIV vaccine as well. But to think that without vaccines plague could once again sweep through the earth's population makes me shudder.
I do advocate vaccination as a general health policy, especially for very damaging and often fatal childhood diseases. I also disagree that any vaccination program that doesn't cover 100% of the population they don't do any good. On the contrary, it's proven fact that disease for which there is plenty of vaccine has been greatly reduced by vaccination programs worldwide. I think there may be some misunderstanding about the ability for viruses to mutate. Viruses do not mutate easily or well. Bacteria on the other hand, are extremely resilient and able to evolve.
Since vaccinations build immunity to viruses, they are a good and scientific means to eradicate them from the world.
punkeemunkee'smom replied: I did not mean to imply that you had,Ed! I have just felt that was an underlying current in this debate and the last one. Bill and I were very pro-vaccine (obviously we tried them) We actually had to cut contact with a close member of the family due to the fact that she has HepB and Taylor was unprotected and ,at the time, we were being told, possibly immune compromised...I will not pretend that I agree with across the board with routine vaccines anymore-I do not believe that everyone needs the same dose and I believe titers should be done to limit the exposure to un-needed chemicals in the vaccines. We have seen a return of whooping cough in recent years...In our area the cases have been in vaccinated children. The problems caused by Gardasil are too new to be dismissed or completely known...
Nina J replied: My girls will be getting this vaccine when they're old enough. I know many people who have had it, the Government here paid for every girl in high school to be vaccinated. Out of the 100's of thousands of girls vaccinated, I never saw anything in the media to put me off them. And the media here covered it pretty significantly.
Vaccinations in third world countries help stop the spread of diseases. Polio is most likely going to be eraticated from this world in the next few years. That didn't just happen magically.
I think at some point, you have to consider the greater evil. Without vaccinations, thousands, even millions, of children in third world countries would die. Is it better to have that happen than to have a needle that could, but probably won't, have adverse side effects?
I think it's fine if you don't vaccinate, we are blessed to live in countries where we can chose not to because these diseases aren't killing our kids every day. But in regards to developing nations, vaccines have saved countless lives and will continue to do that. If you take the vaccinations away from developing nations, then the money saved should be put in to making the coffins that will be needed for the poor children who die of diseases a little needle could have prevented.
lovemy2 replied:
I have alot of opinions about these vax debates and have done alot of research about them for various reasons but hate getting into it - I think we all have to remember that it is all a personal choice - to bring research and info here for us all to "chew on" is a great thing but I get annoyed with these debates over it - not that how I feel about them means much but it does get old...sometimes I want to read these posts to get the info but don't want to deal with all the "red tape" but anyway - carry on......I have said my 
lisar replied: NO DEBATING!!! I am just stating my opinion.
Everyone in my family has to have a hysterectomy before the age of 30. I was the youngest to get it done. Due to having HPV and it causing cancer or cancer cells. (may or may not have caused it) But my girls are still young and I have a while to wait before they would get the shot. I would just like to NOT have my girls go thru what I went thru and have to have a hysterectomy at such a young age. KWIM? I mean this is every woman in my family. My 24 year old cousin is already having problems. I was 27 when I had mine done. These are the things I am thinking about it. I am not saying at this point that my kids WILL or WILL NOT have the shot. By the time they are due for it there will be more studies and things done on it. So I will make my final decision then.
Boo&BugsMom replied: All I can say is...I'm glad I have two boys.  If I had girls though, I would not be getting the vax for them, but I wouldn't throw tomatoes at those who would choose to vax theirs. 
coasterqueen replied: There is not enough information on this for me to make a decision. Thankfully I do not have to make that decision for a few more years.
Thanks Stacy for the information. I feel lucky to be able to follow the whole issue now and to hopefully maintain knowledge on the subject so when it comes time I will have enough information to make that decision.
TheOaf66 replied: well Thank God for 2 boys!
As for the sex education in schools. I remember having some of it in health class but I do think there should be a siminar or something or assembly that is offered to kids (I would say 8th or 9th grade) and the parents can have the say if they want their child to attend.
U can preach abstinence all you want and we are a strong moralistic Christian family but that is not to say that one of my boys won't be messing around. I still intend to talk to them about it and it is the PARENTS responsibility to make sure they are educated about this not the schools'; but it wouldn't hurt for the schools to do it for the parents who refuse.
It is just not realistic anymore to hope that your kids stick to their morals and think they won't be doing anything....we've all been in a parked car at night after a date and one thing does lead to another. You're in high school and think you're mature enough to handle it.
luvmykids replied:
No, but the number of deaths prevented far outweights the number of deaths caused
Are you saying it's better to chuck it and continue to allow millions to die of these diseases? I'm not seeing how that is any better, IMHO that is that much worse when there are preventative measures that could have been taken.
Anyway, like many others, I'm glad I have lots of time before deciding on this particular vax. I'm not 100% pro vax, it's a case by case decision for us.
luvmykids replied:
In this day and age, Rocky, you're probably pretty right on, but that doesn't mean kids shouldn't be taught the option of abstinence....if we never tell them that is a choice they'll never know. And just like 100% of people don't practice it, 100% of teens don't have sex either.
This is OT but I don't see the harm in at the very least presenting the moral aspects to our kids 
Crystalina replied: As for the sex ed in school let's just say there was alot of it but it wasn't necessarily kept in the classroom...if you know what I mean.
lisar replied:
 I am with you!!!!
Hillbilly Housewife replied:
No that's what I'm saying... I wouldn't ever ONLY teach abstinence. I plan to fully educate my kids so that they can make the best choice for them, and one that is good with their own conscience.
jcc64 replied: A little late to the game, as usual. About the HPV vax specifically- my thoughts are in the other vax thread started by LeaAnn.
About vaxes in general, the reason we can't come to a consensus is because there is a kernel of truth in everyone's argument. Yes, vaccines absolutely save or improve lives, and maybe because most of us are too young to remember how terrifying the spector of polio or other deadly childhood diseases really was, we can be cavalier in our opposition to routine vaccinations.
Having said that, I think the pharmaceutical companies, in their perpetual quest for lucrative government contracts and business-friendly legislation, have been far too aggressive in pathologizing common childhood illnesses to the point that the routine vaccination schedule for infants and children is completely out of control and imo, dangerous to SOME children's well being. The amount of vaccinations required for my completely healthy 15 yr old was far fewer than what is now required for my 5 yr old. When is it going to end- when are we going to take a step back and realize that some illness is actually beneficial for our immune systems- or that maybe we can't simply apply a one-size-fits-all policy towards public health? Are all of these new vaccines completely necessary, and is it wise to be constantly challenging a healthy child's immune system with these new vaccines? The relationship between the medical community and the pharmaceutical companies has become so polluted that unfortunately, we can't always trust our doctors anymore either. I don't think it's because drs are money hungry or have sinister intentions, my own brother is a dr, but I think the structure of our health care system, with the influence of insurance companies and politics and business, creates an environment where everyone has an agenda, and it may not necessarily be best for the health of our individual children. So, I have come to the conclusion that for now, we are all on our own to wade through all the information and apply it to our own children's unique medical needs. I just wish I had gotten that medical degree....
holley79 replied: A friend of mine's daughter's Dr told her she had to have the shot. I didn't realize this till after it was done. I have researched it after the fact and Annika won't be getting it just because it is too new. By the time Annika is old enough it will either be off the market or be on the "ok" list.
Not sure if the shot had anything to do with it or not but three weeks after the shot she got AF for the first time and she's 13.
lisar replied:
I agree with this theroy. A month after my 12 year old cousin got the shot she started AF. And we are all blamming it on the shot.
jcc64 replied:
There's PLENTY of evidence, right in front of us on an almost daily basis. And it isn't because the gov't is "out to get you". It's because the pharmaceutical companies are out to get profits, the politicians are out to get the financial support of their lobbyists, the drs are in a rush to get to the next patient and don't question the "studies" done by the pharmaceutical companies, the gov't agencies created to protect "us" are peopled by political appointees or industry insiders whose agendas or political philosophies are at direct odds with their job titles, and so on and so on.
My brother-in-law (by marriage) is a medical dr who is employed by one of the major pharmaceutical companies. His job, his actual job, is to favorably "interpret" medical data and studies done on their future products so they can get to the market asap, regardless of whether the drug is actually safe. He actually said to me, and I quote, "We just have to make it so the public doesn't find out about the harmful side effects."
This is the unapologetic mindset of the pharmaceutical industry. Imo, the only thing standing in between this and my kids, is my cynical mistrust of everyone involved.
My2Beauties replied:
13 is actually older nowadays to start AF to be honest, heck Desiree got it at 9. I was 12 and I wasn't even no where near developed.
jcc64 replied: Actually, 12 or 13 is a pretty normal age to start AF, even back in the Stone Ages when I first got it.
TheOaf66 replied:
I certainly don't disagree that there are Dr's out there like that but it would be irresponsible to assume the whole industry is like that. I don't agree with all the vaccinations out there or pumping a patient full of medicine but some are valid. Just remember w/o a lot of these medications and such we would all be a lot worse off as a whole.
Sorry I work for a healthcare system and have to stick up for it a *little* bit 
Our Lil' Family replied:
Ditto!!! Thanks Troy!
My2Beauties replied:
I think there is good out there too, but I've also had to "shop" around for doctors for years and just recently within the past year or so have finally found someone who I didn't think was an absolute quack.
I had this one doc one time, I went in there for something, i don't know sore throat, back pain, who the heck remembers, this was years and years ago before I even met my DH. Anyways, I remember telling him my symptoms (whatever they may have been) and he goes...well what kind of medication would you like me to give you?  Excuse me! He was basically like ok you want some real good pain pills or what?? That's how I took it. I was like um...whatever will cure my sore throat....(or whatever the heck it was that I had). My point is, he had his prescription pad out in hand before I even got done telling him my symptoms, it could have been something as easy as an infection that I just needed to let it run it's course and meanwhile maybe take some OTC meds or something, it was something simple (again I can't remember what it was) but he was all about wanting to write me some "new and improved" med.
My doc now actually sits down, listens, takes cultures, takes bloodwork, asks questions, spends time with me, asks about family history etc....he very rarely gives me Rx's, especially antibiotics, he is more the well it needs to run it's course, you may want to try this particular OTC or whatever to help out a bit, get some REST...etc...he is very very very good about not over prescribing things.
I just had to add that has been my experience. And I happen to know this particular doctor has been known to do this with many other people and he was one of those big diet pill advocates too, he was definitely getting kickbacks off the diet pills.
jcc64 replied: I'm not trying to indict the whole medical establishment. I'm not even inferring that drs don't have their patients best interests at heart. But the fact is, they don't have the time or the resources to do the necessary research to know if what the pharmaceutical companies are telling them about a particular drug is legitimate. So, they accept what they're told, prescribe the meds, and very often, the negative stuff comes out wayyyy after the fact, if at all. Almost on a daily basis, medication is pulled off the market because of previously unknown harmful side effects. What I'm trying to say is, very often the side effects are known, if only to the pharmaceutical companies, but are buried, and the gov't cannot be relied upon to safeguard us from unscrupulous studies either.
My aunt was just diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer. She was on hormone replacement therapy for 20 yrs, and her oncologist told her point blank that is what caused this particularly aggressive type of cancer that she now has. Long term hormone replacement therapy was routinely prescribed to people her age for uncomfortable but medically insignificant symptoms of menopause. So now, because she trusted her dr's advice and took these meds, she has stage 3 breast cancer. Did her dr mean for her to get cancer- no. But the end result is the same- oops sorry, guess we were wrong about that drug, sorry about that cancer. I can rattle off case after case of this type of thing.
Buyer beware. The less you put into your body, the less your chances of finding yourself in this situation years from now.
Boo&BugsMom replied:
That's very true. I don't think anyone can argue that.
punkeemunkee'smom replied:
I absolutely agree with this statement!
As far as the medical establishment goes I will say this...I have an OB I have been going to for 12 years now. I like him alot-think he knows what he is talking about and trust him when he tells me he feels a certain way about medical issues that I have had arise...HOWEVER I have been battleing extremely severe anemia for several years now...It arose after 2 emergency surgeries during my pregnancy. I have been on iron IVs and had many tests run. They still can't figure out why my counts will not come up BUT they also will not do the futher testing/surgery that is needed because I do not have insurance. Keep in mind that we have always paid cash for my tests and everything has always been paid for but the hospital will not approve what they are still deeming elective procedures (I do still function-although agreeably by all no where near what I should have the stamina to do) If the good of my health was of paramount concern why would a payment plan be the only thing holding futher testing back? We make too much money to qualify for any assitance (medicaid,etc)...I do believe medicine is HUGE business. I have seen it and lived it now myself. While I would love to be able to blindly trust that my best interest is at heart I have seen too much to the contary! 
Cece00 replied:
I'm aware it was temporarily mandatory. I'm also aware its not right now, hence my answer.
Cece00 replied:
Well, we can just use measles for example.
In 6 yrs, from 2000 to 2006, measles occurance dropped by 90%. So 90% less people got measles in 2006 than in 2006. They didnt DIE from measles either.
http://www.redcross.org/pressrelease/0,107...14_7319,00.html
I mean are you going to tell me the Red Cross is full of it? Or the WHO?
>>The significant decline in measles deaths in Africa was made possible by the firm commitment of national governments to fully implement the measles reduction strategy, which includes vaccinating all children against measles before their first birthday via routine health services and providing a second opportunity for measles vaccination through mass vaccination campaigns.
>>“The dramatic drop in measles deaths in Africa and the strong progress being made worldwide are a testament to the power of strong partnerships and the impact they can have on child survival,“ said Ann M. Veneman, Executive Director of UNICEF. “But measles is still killing nearly 600 children under five every day, an unacceptable reality when we have a safe, effective, and inexpensive vaccine to prevent the disease.”
>>Large countries with high numbers of measles deaths, such as India and Pakistan, need to fully implement the proven control strategy. Currently, about 74 percent of measles deaths globally occur in South Asia.
>>Measles is a leading cause of vaccine-preventable death among children.
>>>Measles can cause severe health complications, including pneumonia, diarrhea, encephalitis, and corneal scarring, which can lead to blindness.
>>Spread through the air, measles is one of the most contagious diseases known.
We already help in Africa, getting them clean water & better sanitation practices (so do other countries)...its not those things stopping the mass deaths from measles.
For example- there have been outbreaks in our country & other ones with some of the cleanest santitation practices & water available, and it was due to people no longer vaccinating. So if water & hygiene were the complete answer, that wouldnt happen. Of course we should strive to get all ppl good water, etc, but its not going to stop this many deaths.
Cece00 replied:
Yeah I got my period at BARELY 11, and I didnt get the shot.
Cece00 replied:
Yeah, and I see and get all of that. I come so far from believing everything out there & thinking everything is perfect.
But, without being rude....I dont agree that with the whole conspiracy theory that some people do, where they are trying to HURT kids with vaccines, cover up everything, etc.
I dont think all dr's are just pushing what pharm companies tell them to, because I KNOW there are dr's who REFUSE to do that. In fact, I watched the other day as my husband's neuro basically refused to see & talk to some reps the other day, he just doesnt deal with it.
I dont buy into it. There are many over the top theories people come up with as to why the medical industry is oh so evil & out to get people, and I dont but into it.
And medicine is NOT an exact science. I think a lot of ppl forget that. But look at how FAR we have come. Nothing is going to be 100% for all people- not vaccies, not all meds, not all treatments. But the general death rate in countries like ours is so low compared to what it used to be many many years ago, and westernized medicine is the reason. Modern drugs and vaccines and experimental treatments are the reason. Its surprising to me that people seem to forget that, or take it for granted.
My husband is alive b/c of experimental cancer treatments...they DO NOT KNOW what the all side effects from his treatments might be, because the treatment he was on was brand new. So what? Right now, my husband is alive to love me, and love our children and see them grow up, he is alive to enjoy life. Even when they told him "Look, this can happen to you, or this might be a negative side effect..."- he still had the treatment. Heck, he has a couple of neg. side effects, it was STILL worth it.
Hillbilly Housewife replied:
Sorry for that. It's one reason I'm thankful for our health care system. Sure, we might have to wait a while... but it's always taken care of, we dont get the bills.
Hillbilly Housewife replied:
I started at 9, and I didn't get it either.
jcc64 replied:
I don't think anyone here has suggested that the medical community is intentionally trying to harm children with vaccines. But by blindly trusting the "studies" and data of the pharmaceutical companies, who I do believe are the devil incarnate, they are playing with fire and our lives. There's much more to protecting patients' interests than simply refusing to see a sales rep during office hours. I'm glad your dh had a good experience and is here with you where he belongs. But that doesn't mitigate all the other people whose health or lives have been destroyed by the intersection of greed and medicine. That's what's really at the heart of this discussion.
holley79 replied:
She wasn't quite 13 but it was just weird how she got the shot and then started.
Cece00 replied:
Actually, in a recent post, someone said you are poisioning your children if you vaccinate them.
Hillbilly Housewife replied:
bah...technicalities... 
redchief replied: I was with Jeanne right up until the "devil incarnate" part. It's true that the pharmaceutical companies' lobbies are more interested profits and selling medicine than they are in general overall health. In fact, I believe that boardroom policies in those companies probably start with such meaningful sentences as, "This product will vastly improve the human condition because it prevents whateverthetargetis. Everyone should have it." The last sentence is where they often go wrong, and perhaps, where much of the public backlash comes. I believe we're seeing some of that backlash right here.
I believe that the pharmaceutical companies drive for profits should not be permitted to enter into politics. In other words, ban the pharmaceutical lobby entirely. It is unfortunate that they wield such power as to make that politically impossible. The truth is that pharmaceutical companies have made a huge difference in all of our lives, whether we like to admit it or not. Without their research into new drugs and treatments our quality of life would surely suffer, as would the longevity of humans as a species. I don't know what the answer is, but somehow I believe that if money weren't at the heart of the matter, perhaps there wouldn't be so many people who hate anything corporate medical. Perhaps, too it would be easier to get news of adverse reactions out in the open as well.
jem0622 replied: I am more concerned about other hereditary issues with my girls than HPV. I could go on a rant about how schools bullying parents to immunize their children is flat out wrong...but I'll bite my tongue. They threatened to throw parents in JAIL a few counties down. Ugh.
I'm not on the bandwagon yet...and I'm not on the laser eye surgery bandwagon yet either. Don't touch my eyeballs! LOL. I'll stick with glasses...I look distinguished! LOL.
|
