Online Polls

Thank you for participating in our online poll.

Click here to see our previous polls, or go to your main page.

Poll: Do you agree that 12-year-old girls should be vaccinated against cervical cancer?


* Please note that the results of the online poll represent just a snapshot of opinion from the site members who participate. The results of each poll do not necessarily represent the national picture. Participants are only allowed to vote once in each poll.


   ·   11/08/2008 13:34

Yes, However the public & parents should be made fully aware of the results of all trials into the vaccination along with knowing what the duration of the trial periods were, as well as being given full warning of any side effects if any are known.

   ·   11/08/2008 22:01

The answer is obvious. Would anyone allow their daughter to be exposed to the possibilty of getting cancer.

   ·   13/08/2008 05:05

I have recently heard rumours on this that problems may arise.


   ·   14/08/2008 10:30

Absolutely. What kind of parent would forego the the option of something which, in conjunction with regular smears later on, reduces the risk of them getting which is a killer disease, by 95%. Thousands of women die from cervical cancer every year. In the future, we can protect our daughters from that. My only regret is that there is no catch-up offered for the 13 - 15 age bracket and this is purely down to money. Sure, we can afford it for our teen dauhter but what about the parents who can't. It would cost the state 29m apparently but they fritter away money on useless projects. What price is the life of a woman who could die a totally preventable death.


   ·   14/08/2008 15:05

There is growing concern in the USA about this vaccination. Apparently, trials that revealed a high risk of long-term side-effects were disregarded or manipulated. As the incidence of cervical cancer among women is relatively low, one has to ask who benefits most from this vaccination programme, drug companies or young women? And as men are the ones carrying and disseminating the virus, aren't they the ones who should be vaccinated?


   ·   14/08/2008 15:56

Barbara, Ireland has a highly trained group in the Irish Medicine Board who will be aware of all the data on drugs and whose full-time job is monitoring this type of data. The UK have a similar group. Unless you have their level of expertise reading crank conspiracy theory websites is not really a safe way to dictate national vaccination policies. You are correct that the death rate from cervical cancer is relatively low (approx 100 per year). However the point is that cervical cancer is unique in being preventable, so most of these deaths are preventable with vaccination and a good uptake in a screening programme. Apart from the obvious benefit to the individuals, the analysis shows that there is a cost-benefit with the vaccination. This was done by NICE in UK and also by our own HIQA and the findings are the similar. The cost benefit takes into account the savings from treating the prevented cancer cases and also life-years saved by preventing the deaths. Regarding your comment regarding men, it ignores the fact that both men and women have sex and the HPV is essentially an STD. So both men and women carry it. How do you think a man first picks it up, except from an infected woman, and likewise a woman picks it up from an infected man. Why did they pick the woman to vaccinate? I dont know; there may be medical reasons for it. But apart from the medical reasons, at the end of the day it is to benefit the womans health, so like the male version of the pill, is it safe for a woman to trust that a male has been vaccinated or is taking the pill? A sad but true reflection on mankind!!


   ·   14/08/2008 16:56

Barbara, the "growing concern" in the states is something which can be traced back to an extremist right wing group called "judicial watch" The incidence of cervical cancer might be low - but compatred to what. In the U.S. alone 130,000 women die from it.i do not want my daughters to form part of an uneccessary statistic. Yes, carrying and disseminating the virus to women - who pass it onto men and back to other women. Perhaps boys should also be vaccinated - true but it is the women that it harms so any damage limitation in the form or vaccination should be firast targeting to those most likely to be harmed - in this case women as they can ger cervical cancer.

   ·   14/08/2008 21:11

People please research this HPV Vaccine here are some links ONE HPV Vaccine Reaction TWO Deaths Associated with HPV Vaccine Start Rolling In, Over 3500 Adverse Affects Reported


   ·   14/08/2008 23:19

I have two daughters and wouldn't vaccinate against it. Firstly it only protects you agains a few strains, and for what, 3 years or there abouts. Plus I would be afraid the vaccination would stop them going for regular smear test when the time comes.


   ·   15/08/2008 11:29

I think every 12-year-old girl should have this vaccination. Why? Having had months of cancer treatment for an un-related cancer I met several young women being treated for cervical cancer. I got an insight into how they were feeling, how it affected them. Anything that prevents the devastation of cervical cancer should be promoted.


   ·   15/08/2008 15:59

Adam, I had a quick look at the two websites that you referenced. I believe that when you look at the calibre of stories contained on these websites it is clear they come under the description of crank conspiracy theory websites. Take a look at the Alex Jones stuff re 9/11 on these websites. This is not a safe source for formulating National health policy.

   ·   15/08/2008 16:39

JamesH Here is another link to all the available info you need to read before you bring your little girls to get their shot,it brings you straight to government sites plus the pharmaceutical sites.3 people died in the trials of the vaccine,and this has officially risen to 20. National Vaccine Information Center People need to wake up its all about pharmaceutical companies making lots of money by pushing their vaccines on people,do not believe everything governments tell you, they have been known to lie before.

   ·   15/08/2008 17:06

National Vaccine Information Cent


   ·   18/08/2008 01:55

Adam I totally agree with you, I have to admit initially I thought it was a good idea, however having lived in the U.S. for the last 6 months, it is getting very bad press here, the number of deaths is on the increase, it does not protect for a long period of time, nor does it protect from all will probably get withdrawn like so many other meds over here...


   ·   18/08/2008 14:39

Thank you James for your voice of sanity and reason. If only every parent of daughters was so level headed. The Alex Jones website, extremist right wing religious fundamentalists in the U.S., conspiracy theorsts (and assorted crackpots and fruitloops) are the ones pushing, without evidence, the opposition to a life saving vaccination. Give people credit for some level of intelligence before thinking about presenting them with this nonsense. It would be funny if it were not so downright dangerous that people would actually be taken in by crank websites at the possible expense of their daughters LIVES. An adverse affect can be anything from discomfort at the location of the injection to ANY effect reported for quite some time afterwards which does not have to be proven to be linked with the vaccine in any way for those reporting the effect. - for example in one case it was many many months later than an adverse effect as reported with no proven link whatsoever to the vaccine - expect in the minds of some, which is hardly medical science. The nvic despite its convincing title is NOT an authorised National Vaccine information Centre it is a website set up specifically for and by those opposed to vaccination and does not represent worldwide medical scientific opinion. The 20 "reported" deaths have NOT been proven to be linked to the HPV vaccine - so 20 suspected deaths, unproven to be from a vaccine vs. 130,000 needless and preventable deaths in the U.S. alone every year from cervical cancer. The fact remains that the vaccine protects against the four main strains for HPV which are known to cause cervical cancer and in conjunction with regular cervical smear testing reduces the risk by 95%. Now unless any of these conspiracy theorists are qualified to present evidence contrary to that of world renowned oncology specialists, the choice is obvious for any responsible loving parent.

   ·   18/08/2008 22:23

first alex jones website if you listen to him, is not left or right wing both sides are the same bought and paid for by the big pharmaceutical companys. In my opinion, vaccine's are not safe. most people have not heard about the court case in america on the 26 feb this year when the us government paid out millions to a little girl you got autism after the mmr. please read and watch this short video on the hpv vaccine,do your own research and make up your own mind.after all is that what any responsible loving parent would do.


   ·   06/11/2008 22:17

No, I do not agree that 12 - year-old girls should be vaccinated. This matter would not be the problem that it has now become if Mary Harney had not introduced it with such fanfare last year. At that time she would have been serving the Irish people better by giving her attention to all the more serious existing health problems, and in trying to ensure better value for money together with less wastage. That would have left the health service in a better state now and more able to cope with recession problems.


   ·   07/11/2008 12:08

This is not about autism it is about cancer Adam and the "wiseupjournal" is not a medical website - would you deny your daughter a vaccine in circumstances where it is available (I know that has changed now) knowing you were willingly denying her protection from a killer disease?I don't think any parent could do that. The problen Aremnillian, is that girls are neing denied the vaccine - that is the problem and more specifically,that the daighters of those on lower incomes will not be in a position where their parents can pay for it privately, unlike those on higher income so they will suffer disproportionately to their better off contemporaries. Without prevention, future problems will most certainly become serious existing health problems.


   ·   10/11/2008 19:54

Pat, Correct....those daughters of the less well off will indeed suffer disproportionately to those of the better off....but, the horrific truth of this inequality is (has already been) accepted as a fait accompli by many posters e.g ; "ah sure, we can't do anything....there's no's more efficient to throw money elsewhere" etc etc ! The real truth is....if there is a vaccine that reduces (by any degree) the chance of your daughter getting that horrible disease...she's entitled to it; the rich (including politicians) will afford it and avail of it....why are you not allowed to try and save your child like the wealthy??.....Are their children worth more than yours?? the that what the politicians are telling you?....who the hell pays the politicians ?? I, for one, believe my daughters are every bit as precious and valuable as theirs....shame on them for intimating that they are not !!


   ·   11/11/2008 11:23

Brandy, they say "there's no money - it's more efficient to throw money elsewhere" That exactly it, they're investing in screening which is important of course but the prevention of cervical cancer requires BOTH. Screening for a disease is a small part of the picture if you haven't tried to prevent it - when the means are available. Besides - how much would it have cost. And extra 10 per week from the income of everyone on the upper tax bracket. I would pay it GLADLY until the country as in recovery from recession and so would my spouse. She is of course entitled to it - and we are lucky - we can make sacrifices and pay for it but not everyone is that lucky to have 600 or 1200 if they have two daughters. But why is my minimum wage neighbour's daughter not entitled to it. She is just as precious to her parents as our daughter is to us.


   ·   14/12/2008 20:40

My one peeve with this hpv vaccine is that i do not agree that it should be given for free. the govt have more important areas to concentrate on in the health board. only today, it was in one sunday newspaper that the hse cant even afford to pay their existing staff! so if the staff cannot be paid and there are layoffs of important medical personnel, how on earth is it going to pay for a vaccine that was never an issue until now and which may i add isnt 100% effective. the govt is already crippled from paying out huge social and child benefit among squandering the rest of it... too many people expect everything for free even though they have done little to deserve it. bring in a means test for the vaccine.... that should solve it!  that means both rich and poor will be judged on an equal footing.


   ·   16/12/2008 09:56

"a vaccine that was never an issue until now". There are 80 women DEAD every year in this country due to cervical cancer and countless more who's livs have been affected and who have needed treatment. WAKE UP.

The government squanders huge sums, I agree - so why should the daughters of the poor suffer becuase their parents cannot afford the vaccine. Afterall the well off can afford it.

"even though they have done little to deserve it". DESERVE healthcare?? What a disgustign sentiment - you expect little girls to DESERVE a vaccine to protect them from cancer? Perhaps we sould see if babies "DESERVE" polio and TB vaccines as well.


   ·   16/12/2008 11:34

I think the point was that some people CAN well afford it, but complain about it anyway, because we are a nation of professional moaners. That being said, 80 is too high for a disease that is preventable. Even if ONE woman had died as a result it would still be one too many, if the disease is preventable. It matters to the families left behind of those 80 women.


   ·   16/12/2008 12:05

I am well aware of how many women are effected by cervical cancer in this country every year! this vaccine is to help prevent "HPV" which is a STI, it does not prevent cervical cancer and there is no guarantee it will work.. i certainly was not aware there was a vaccine available before now as it was never menioned by anyone until mary harney annoounced it would be free. do you know many 12 years old who catch the HPV virus. i dont! i did not mean that the 12 years old have done little to deserve it, i mean the parents that are demanding it be free regardless of their income have done little to deserve it. my comments stemmed from a discussion which ended in a full scale argument betwene acquiantances of mine where one woman, whose husband has a government job, they live in a 6 bedroom mansion and also run a sucessful business and enjoy several trips abroad a year, all the while they are also defrauding the social welfare by claiming dole when they clearly do not deserve it... this woman had a audacity to state that yes, we the tax payer had to pay for it because she was on social welfare and she was going to take full advantage!!! she was informed she could pay for it, if she was that concerned but noooo.... she said she was not going to pay because why should she???i am all for the less well off recieving help from the tax payer. proper sex education in relation to HPV and sexually transmitted diseases woudl be a lot cheaper and let the money be spent on cancer treatment facilities and ensuring that people are not left on trollies on hospitals. may i add i am a working mother of two and live in a modest house and do not expect anything free from the govt just becuase i am a mother. i could easily sit at home and claim everything under the sun and i actually would be better off financially if i decided to however i dont. when my daughter is old enough i.e. over 16, to get the vaccine, i will find the money to pay for it instead of whining about it if it is not free


   ·   16/12/2008 12:39


While I agree that the vacinne doesn't need to be free for everyone, you are missing an important point. Virtually every sexually active woman will have had the HPV at some stage, probably without sympthoms and her body will have got rid of the virus. Some women don't get rid of the virus and it is this that then can lead to cervical cancer. This is true for about 70% of cases. That is why 12 year olds are suggested, so as to get the vacinne before being exposed to the virus. Hopefully most of our 12 year olds are not sexually active.


   ·   16/12/2008 14:33

Jazzy, given that it prevents the four main strains of HPV which CAUSE cervical cancer then OF COURSE it helps prevent cervical cancer. The vaccien has been in the news for quite a number of years now and is certainly common knowledge among the people I know.I don't know any 12 years olds who have or have had HPV, I am not in the habit of askign any of their personal medical detials but given that very few are likely to have it, this is EXact POINT. The key is to provide the vaccination BEFORE they are likely to get it - it would not be much use afterward givne that it it is a vaccination - for prevention not a cure.

So you think people have to "deserve" healthcare and disease prevention for their own children - what an obscene concept.Your acquaintance who's lifestyle you describe , it would seem does not need social welfare but why should her daughters suffer the denial of preventative healthcare becuase she is commiting fraud?

I am for ALL children of the state recievign preventtive healthcare, regardlss of their parents actions. proper sex education is of course very important but you can hardly expect it to do the job of a vaccine, especially givne that over half the populaiton of adult women will have had HPV at some point - tho not neccessarily one lof the 4 mian strains responsible for cervical cancer.Where on earth is the logic of spending money on cancer treatment when girls are beign denined access to cancer prevention - at a fraction of the cost to the state not to mention their lives and health. We are workign parents, of three, l,iving in a modest house also so I get where you're coming from. However, i pay my taxes and pay them handsomely as is my due to yes, I do expect that basic prevntative halthare such as vaccination is provided for all children. I would have no problepayign for it, it's cheap at any cost to protect my daughter life but why on earht wait until your daughter is 16. The mot effective time for the vccine is at puberty - which is precisley why it is recommended then. 16 is not "old enough" in fact it may well be too late.


   ·   16/12/2008 15:31

Jazzy there is a way you can report your "acquaintance" anonymously if you wish to do so. Welfare fraud is a crime and people should not get away with it given our current economic situation. The irony of the situation here is that if people like your acquaintance did not scam money off the state, perhaps there WOULD have been enough cash in the pot to fund this scheme!


   ·   16/12/2008 17:40

The very words in the proposal should lead any 'human' being, with a modicom of humanity, to agree that we wish the best for our children.

....assuming the necessary tests have been carried out over a significant ensure the safety of all.....don't we all wish the best for our kids?? !!


   ·   16/12/2008 19:07

Very true lou... very true! too much of it goes on. yes, it would be great if the govt operated properly and there was surplus money to provide such services however the reality is very different, i think for the times we live in and the point i had tried to make previouisly was that a means test would be the best way to solve this in which obviously the deserving people would should get preference and the ones who it is proven can afford to pay should pay and not get it for free. this is my final comment on the matter as i saw red earlier at anonymous response. they took me completely out of context and maybe it was the way i had worded my comments however, nothing we say or do is likely to change the govt's mind on this subject. they have new toilets etc to instal for certain politicians instead!


   ·   17/12/2008 10:25

Jazzy, Why on earth shoud one vaccination be singled out for a parental means test? Would you suggest that polio and TB vaccinations be means tested as well? If you know anything about the culture of means testing you will know the absolute last thing it should be used for is preventative medicine.

Oh I agree - new toilets etc to install for certain politicians instead of providing vaccination to prevent needless illness and death. Priorities my eye.


   ·   06/01/2009 16:16

Parents need to do some research on the HPV vaccine.

You should be taking your information from the U.S. where the HPV vaccine

Gardasil was licensed in 2006.

Click on to to the National Vaccine Information Center (nvic) in the U.S.

where you will get plenty of information on this vaccine.

You can also see a mother talking on YouTube about what happened to

her daughter following the HPV VACCINE.


   ·   07/01/2009 08:40

Please bear in mind all that to be listed as a reported adverse-effect instance of a side effect - of any drug, niether those reporting it nor anyone else actually has to prove any link whatsoever, not even tenously. One simply has to report it and think that it is linked, (without medical evidence) and adverse incidents are being reported not weeks or months but up to a year after the patient recieved the vaccine - with no real evidence to suggest a link. Also an adverse reaction can be anythign the patient feels to be adverse, including someing as minor and expected as redness around the injection site - which is something common to most injection sites for most patients. Take your doctors advice when it comes to protecting your children from illness, including the risk of cancers.


   ·   09/02/2009 19:53

Here is a must see 3 min clip about gardasil vaccine before you bring your little girl for the shot


   ·   10/02/2009 10:10

I generally don't take my medical advice from YouTube or from any sensationalist media but from a qualified medical person such as a doctor. I don't suppose YouTube has any videos about the horrors (now needless) of cervical cancer.


   ·   10/02/2009 17:49

I do not generally take vaccines that 29 girls have died from but then again some people do not have a mind of their own and just love big pharma and trust everything they are told.


   ·   12/02/2009 09:36

Given that all of those links bar 2 are totally unproven and a further one is tenuous - within the framework that adverse event can be reported up to 24 months post vaccination and no link whatsover has to be shown at all between the vacine and te death I stand by what I say - I seek mymedical advice from medically qualified people. I certainly don't want my daughters to be needless victim to a preventable diesase which kills 80 - 90 women in Ireland alone every single year and 10's of thousands more in Europe.


   ·   19/02/2009 12:23



   ·   19/02/2009 14:05

Any justification Claudia for not wanting your daughters protected against a killer disease which needlessly kills thousands every year? Do you object to the Hep B and polio vaccines too?


   ·   19/02/2009 15:17

Absolutely - this should be given priority by the HSE and not put on hold at all. It is a life-saver which I wish was available to previous generations, but as it is available to this young generation of girls, it would and is criminal to not offer the vaccine to them.


   ·   24/02/2009 23:14


yes, any girl no matter what age should be entitled to get vaccinated againist this terrible disease.


   ·   14/03/2009 20:54

hi all

is it true that it costs 400 euros to have a 12 year old vaccinated against this disease? i have no girls, but i just heard about the cost.


   ·   14/05/2009 21:18

Yes I most certainly do.   We have just had a vaccination compaign carried out

in the schools against Mumps.   Have the HSE learnt nothing.


   ·   02/10/2009 00:51



   ·   02/10/2009 13:17

Absolutely to all the YES's - the cost is nothing when you consider you could lose your child to this disease (not to mention her physical suffering that can be prevented as well).  We are all prepared to give our children everything they want and need to make them happy.  Braces for their teeth if needed, college educations, holidays in the sun etc.  This vaccine against Cervical Cancer should be one of the most important and vital things we can do for our daughters and the cost, with or without the government's assistance - should be worth a sacrifice on our parts as parents.


   ·   25/01/2010 11:38

I am very glad to hear that the cervical cancer vaccine scheme has been re-introduced for 12 year olds. ONE thing that Mary Harney has to her credit.

Informed, do you know what the side-efects of cervical cancer actually ARE? DEATH for over 200,000 women every single year. It doesn't get much more serious than that.


   ·   25/01/2010 11:57

Jabs??? As in the slang word for injections??? Speaks volumes about the websites credibility and the presumed intellect of their target audience.


   ·   27/01/2010 12:20

Have they also reported the horrendous side effecgts that cervical cancer has?

Multiple invasive procedures surgeries, organ loss, infertility and death - sound about as serious as it can get to me.


   ·   27/01/2010 12:30

I know what it stands for, I still think its a tabloid type name so yes it DOES speak volumes about it's target audience and no I am not saying that those people who suffer AE's are intellectually challenged, more those who actually buy into claims of conspiracies and the like.

Maybe we should also set up a website whihc highlights the AE's of cervical cancer, the biggest one of course being DEATH.


   ·   01/02/2010 03:07

Parents who wish to have their daughter vaccinated with the HPV vaccine should be fully informed of the reported side effects /deaths that have been reported in the US according to a US doctor interviewed by George Hook on his radio programme( the right hook) on newstalk 106 last week.

The doctor has also said in interviews that parents should be aware that the vaccine is said to last for only FIVE YEARS.



   ·   01/02/2010 11:49

In that case they should all be fully infirmed that in order to report a side effect, one needs to do just that - report it. There does not have to be ANY cuasative or even assoiciatrive link between the side effect and the vaccine. Nor does ther have to be ANY scientific evidence or medical proof that the vaccine actulaly caused the reported effect - NONE whatsoever.Also parents should be fully informed and educated as to the horrific effects of cervical cancer which kills over 200,000 women every year.


   ·   06/04/2010 09:55

How come they have not introduced a vaccine that can PREVENT breast cancer? - Because such a vaccine does not exist - not as yet any way. And because a significant proportion of breast cancer is scientifically proven to be genetic and as such is inherited. In point of fact, if a number of female relatives have had breast cancer, a woman can be tested for the gene and this is something which is not widely enough advertised.

Long term use of the combined contraceptive pill has been "linked" -NOT proven to be a causal factor when it comes to cervical cancer. It is rather like saying that having a drivign license has been linked to being involved in car accidents! What HAS been proven is that the vast majority of cervical cancers are caused by the four main strains of the human papiloma virus - for which vaccination is used. What is also interesting is that for women using the comboined contraceptive pill long term, the detection rates are higher, simply because women attending such a clinical care setting will have more regular smear tests.


   ·   07/04/2010 14:23

Let's get down on our knees and ask what Mary thinks.


   ·   07/04/2010 15:38

Informed, I have looked at the website and the first item one comes across makes it clear that there was no connection between a vaccinated person's death and the vaccine.

I see no reason to suspect an unacceptable hazard here, especially when the life-saving value of the campaign is pretty well guaranteed on the evidence of other similar campaigns.

I think there is a certain tendency for unqualified people, and even some qualified people as in the case of the MMR scare in England, to seek notoriety and power by scaremongering about medical subjects on the basis of little or no evidence. Such people and those whoi are influenced by them will never believe contrary evidence once the scare is implanted; cconversely,m they will tend to accept all sorts of "alternative" medical theories about toxins, vitamins etc.


   ·   18/05/2010 19:12

NO not unless you want to play russian roulette with your daughter's health

especially if she suffers from any allergies and you have a strong family medical history of autoimmune disease.

Children with that kind of family medical history are more likely to have an adverse reaction to this vaccine.


   ·   19/05/2010 08:28

if we're going to use that logic, we should all stop eating tomatoes because some people are allergic to them.


   ·   19/05/2010 09:11

"informed" there is NO reason not to protect your child from a killer disease which takes the lives of over 200,000 women every single year and reults in repeated traumatic surgeries and treatments, infertility and organ loss for hundreds of thousands more - unless of course you think it ok to play Russian roulette with your childs very life .There is no more adverse reaction to anything than it killing you - and that is exactly what cervical cancer does to so many women every single year. 

Do you have any scientifically proven medical evidence to prove that there is any corelation between allergies and adverse reaction (which can include anything and does not have to have any proven corenaltion in order to be reported as you are by now perfectly well aware)? Also of there is a medically proven link between events reported as adverse, then you GP is certainly going to know if the patient (ie. girl recieving the vaccine) is being trated for an autoimmmune condition  - as that is going to be on her chart and documented in her medical history. That siad for any parent or indeed girl, the most common adverse event - such as a perfectly normal swelling or redness at the injection site is an obviously tiny price to pay to save a life.


   ·   19/05/2010 09:27

Informed, are you going to simply jump from one thread to another spouting the same rubbish? There's a pattern here whereby you post some ludicrous claims, people challenge you on them and you scurry away to ANOTHER thread to post the same ridiculous claims all over again. Please stay and stand your ground this time! Laughing


   ·   19/05/2010 11:44

"Informed", I find your pen-name bizarre. To me, there is far more of a Russian roulette aspect to declining this vaccine than availing of it.

I think there is a cultural factor at work here -- suspicion of mainstream science and medicine and respect for the "alternative" world. In my view, this arises from the psychology of getting a sense of control and security from adhering to the advice of a source that seems more comprehensible, knowing that there have been calamities in the modern medical domain such as Thalidomide.

I distinguish between this vaccine and things like thalidomide (in favour of the former) on the grounds that in both cases the results have been sufficiently proven by experience.


   ·   19/05/2010 12:01

Informed, with Russian Roulette there is a 1 in 6 chance of failure. Do you honestly think that 1 in 6 vaccines end in death? Your comparison is completely flawed, to say the least.


   ·   19/05/2010 15:19

I read in the paper earlier about a young girl who first wrote to Mary Harney last year after Jade Goody's death to query why young Irish girls were not all being protected under this scheme. She was one of the first to avail of the vaccine recently. Fair play to her young mind for being so forward thinking and open. It's refreshing to see our young thinking for themselves and speaking out (and being rewarded for doing so)


   ·   14/07/2010 02:02

The information on the web does not go far enough in telling parents about the possible side effects of Gardasil HPV vaccine.

The HSE and the Irish print and broadcast media have not been telling parents of the incidence of serious side effects and some Deaths that have been reported in countries like US,Canada,Australia, New Zealand,Netherlands,Spain etc following vaccination with Gardasi HPVl vaccine.

Check out Facebook Gardasil vaccine Deaths/ Gardasil warnings and more. 


   ·   14/07/2010 11:36

Campiagner, I for one, do not take health advice for my family from a social networking site. I consult medical a scientific papaer and those who are medically qualified on the subject. The most predominant side effect of the HPV vaccine is redness and swelling a tthe site of injection - an entirely normal reaction in the vast majority of peopel, to any injection. The greatest side effct of cervicalc ancer - is deathand Death affects over 220,000 women every year all across the globe. This does not take into accout of course, organ loss, ifertility, numerous invasive treatments, truama and the effect on hundreds of thousands of families.

The vaccie has been associated with exactly TWO deaths and in both cases no proven causal factors to the vaccine was found. Bear in mind that for a side effect to be associated with the vaccine, it only has to be reported - no link has to be proven. Check out Facebook Gardasil vaccine Deaths/ Gardasil warnings and more


   ·   14/07/2010 13:07

Campaigner, you should read the CDC information on this subject and not rely on the Times of India alone.

I repeat my opinion, confirmed by reading this evidence, which is that apparently there are very few serious cases of side-effects in comparison to the immense proterction afforded by this vaccine. By the way, I have a daughter.

The CDC states the following on


"Based on all of the information we have today, CDC recommends HPV vaccination for the prevention of most types of cervical cancer.



As of May 31, 2010, there have been 53 U.S. reports of death among females who have received Gardasil. Twenty nine of these reports have been confirmed and 24 remain unconfirmed due to no identifiable patient information in the report such as a name and contact information to confirm the report. Confirmed reports are those that scientists have followed up on and have verified the claim. In the 29 reports confirmed, there was no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine.




   ·   14/07/2010 14:18

"The information on the web does not go far enough in telling parents about the possible side effects of Gardasil HPV vaccine"

...or maybe you mean, "the information on the web does not exaggerate and inflate rare instances of non-serious AE's in order to scare monger and terrify parents"????


   ·   15/07/2010 02:49

Check out youTube Gardasil vaccine Deaths.

 Misleading information given to parents of Irish schoolgirls re: safety of

 HPV vaccines especially in an Irish Tabloid newspaper who had a campaign

 calling for the HPV vaccine to be introduced for Irish schoolgirls while it's sister

newspaper in the UK has published the reports of some Deaths and a high

incidence of serious side effects from the HPV vaccines.


   ·   15/07/2010 12:23

You Tube???



   ·   15/07/2010 13:54

"informed" do you really expct intelligent parents to take health advice from an entertainment website (or online tabloid rag) where people can upload any sort of fanstatical rubbish which amuses them - rather than from publicatiosn and expertrs who are medically and scientifically trained.Do you know the death rate from cervical cancer? I do. Do you know the numbers of women who have suffered organ loss and infertility from cervical cancer? Do you know the number of women who have suffered repeated traumatic surgeries and treatments for cervical cancer  - a now preventable illness? People have attempted to educate you over and over on this thread to the FACT that in order for a side effect to be linked to the vaccine it only has to be reported and there does not have to to be any proven causation and in the case of those deaths - there was NO proven link whatsoever - that is 220,000+ less deaths than cervical cancer and yet the pathetic scaremongering attempts continue - TO WHAT AGENDA? I ask,


   ·   15/07/2010 15:10

The internet is a great thing, but it really seems to have increased the comspiricy theory people. Stop reading pages like indymedia, jimcorr, anything site that thinks vaccines, drug companies, the media are all evil. The film Loose Change was lapped up by these people. Peer reviewed proven scientific papers are below youtube videos with sinister music in what they choose to believe. It's all very well if they keep to their own conspiricy theory sites, but when they begin to post their rubbish on medical sites it's worrying! Of course, no one should go purely on what's posted on messageboard to decide on weather to vaccinate their child, or make any important medical decision!


   ·   16/07/2010 17:55

Jamie and Anonymous, I agree with your posts. After Thalidomide, everyone should be cautious about new treatments, but another aspect that these scaremongers refuse to take on board is that there is often an element of risk in valuable treatments. To take a simple example, pure oxygen is quite toxic. The question is whether you are harming a person (or small number of people) in order to save many times that number or whether the treatment is so nearly worse than the disease as to be inadvisable.

In the case of this vaccine, the number of deaths occurring as a result of having it appears to be uncertain, but definitely miniscule in relation to the number of lives saved.

The conspiracy theorists default to the position that anything that comes from the major laboratories or is endorsed by some official agency should be treated as a threat, an attitude that makes them forget the threat of the condition itself.


   ·   02/11/2010 13:44


  To join the discussion, register by clicking here