California is on its way to becoming the first state to mandate Merck's GARDASIL vaccine for all 11 year old girls.

"Sarah Vaughan" wrote in message
news:f7386o$c6k$1$
I was vaccinated against rubella when I was eleven or twelve, and it
wouldn't even have occurred to me to see this as a message that I was
expected to get pregnant in the imminent future. I had the sense to grasp
that this was something that was meant to protect me for life so that if
and when I was pregnant at some undetermined far-off future point, I would
be protected then. Kids have a lot more sense than we often give them
credit for. ;-)


You do realize that it doesn't protect you for life though, only about 10
years or so. As part of my pre-pregnancy bloodwork when I told the gp we
were trying, was to test me for rubella antibodies. I was no longer immune
and had to have a booster shot. She said that vaccinations usually need
boosters every 10 years because the immunity wears off. just a FYI in case
you didn't know.

You do realize that it doesn't protect you for life though, only about 10
years or so. As part of my pre-pregnancy bloodwork when I told the gp we
were trying, was to test me for rubella antibodies. I was no longer immune
and had to have a booster shot. She said that vaccinations usually need
boosters every 10 years because the immunity wears off. just a FYI in case
you didn't know.

Sarah is a GP, so she's probably well informed about this, I'm well
aware that different vaccines work in different ways and need different
number of shots to get lifelong or relevant time period immunity (bear
in mind that a lot of diseases are much more dangerous to older people
so even if pregnancy is a big concern life long immunity is probably
still the aim). My understanding is that rubella given as part of MMR
with 2 injections at different times, usually does provide life long
immunity, that doesn't mean it's not a sensible thing to test for, but
given how few women do present for pre pregnancy check ups, the check is
usually done during early pregnancy blood work (I'm not sure what they'd
actually do if it came back negative at this stage, the vaccine can't be
given in pregnancy and as the disease has a long incubation period, if
there did happen to be an outbreak you'd probably be aware of it too
late to avoid exposure). Tetanus, is one that I think is still
recommended for every 10 years, though I don't think that is practiced
much and instead it's given when wounds occur.

Cheers
Anne

Stormlady wrote:
"Sarah Vaughan" wrote in message
news:f7386o$c6k$1$
I was vaccinated against rubella when I was eleven or twelve, and it
wouldn't even have occurred to me to see this as a message that I was
expected to get pregnant in the imminent future. I had the sense to grasp
that this was something that was meant to protect me for life so that if
and when I was pregnant at some undetermined far-off future point, I would
be protected then. Kids have a lot more sense than we often give them
credit for. ;-)


You do realize that it doesn't protect you for life though, only about 10
years or so. As part of my pre-pregnancy bloodwork when I told the gp we
were trying, was to test me for rubella antibodies. I was no longer immune
and had to have a booster shot. She said that vaccinations usually need
boosters every 10 years because the immunity wears off. just a FYI in case
you didn't know.

I don't know whether rubella immunisation protects for life (that was a
figure of speech ;-) ) but it almost always protects for longer than
ten years. I've had to look at a lot of routine bloods on pregnant
women in my time, including a lot of checks for rubella immunity. In
that time, I've only ever come across one woman in whom the vaccine had
worn off. (Which would make you the second.)

Of course, it may be a bit more common in the US, because the women
whose rubella results I've been looking at have largely been the women
who've been vaccinated at the age of around 11 or 12, whereas the US has
had it as part of the infant immunisations for much longer. Maybe that
extra ten years means that there's more chance of the jab wearing off -
it would be interesting to look at some comparative statistics. Anyway,
as Anne said, it's now part of the MMR with booster, so hopefully cases
like that will become even rarer.


All the best,

Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell

On Jul 12, 12:05 am, "Stormlady" wrote:

snip

You do realize that it doesn't protect you for life though, only about 10
years or so.

How long does Gardasil protect against HPV?

Beliavsky wrote:
On Jul 12, 12:05 am, "Stormlady" wrote:

snip

You do realize that it doesn't protect you for life though, only about 10
years or so.

How long does Gardasil protect against HPV?

The vaccine is too new to really know.

I think it is known to protect for a number of years, but beyond that,
there is no way to know.

Jeff

On Jul 12, 8:24 am, Beliavsky wrote:
On Jul 12, 12:05 am, "Stormlady" wrote:

snip

You do realize that it doesn't protect you for life though, only about 10
years or so.

How long does Gardasil protect against HPV?

The facts are no one can tell how effective Gardasil is at preventing
cancer; certainly much less than most think . A recent Wall Street
Journal article made that point. Amid growing concerns as to safety
and effectiveness the Texas
Legislature repealed Gov .Perrys executive order mandating HPV
vaccine for all sixth grade girls ;these concerns are outlined in the
April 16 "the Wall
Street Journal" article questioning the effectiveness of
Gardasil Mercks HPV vaccine. Gardasil been
"dogged with uncertainty' as to it's effectiveness read
more
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...67980&nfid=rss...
These and other concerns caused the Texas repeal. The feeling was
summed up by Republican Rep. Dennis Bonnen bristled at the governor's
criticism of his bill.

"We should not and are now not going to offer the 165,000 11-year-
olds
in Texas up to be the study group for Merck to find out what the
implications of this vaccine would be for these girls," he said.".
source Perry won't vetovirus vaccinnations bill. May 8 2007 , Liz Ann
Peterson, A.P. Fox link http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May...vicalCancer,00
.....

The same point was made in the New England Journal of Medicine
"Policymakers, clinicians, and parents have a keen sense of urgency
about HPV vaccination. On one hand, the vaccine has high efficacy
against certain HPV types that cause life-threatening disease, and it
appears to be safe; delaying vaccination may mean that many women will
miss an opportunity for long-lasting protection. On the other hand, a
cautious approach may be warranted in light of important unanswered
questions about overall vaccine effectiveness, duration of protection,
and adverse effects that may emerge over time. HPV vaccination has the
potential for profound public health benefit if the most optimistic
scenario of effectiveness is realized. " http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/19/1991

It 's a little technical but basically it says that the amount this
vaccine will reduce cancer is unknown. The only think known for sure
is that mandating this vaccine will be very profitable for the
maker. Thanks Vince

bigvince wrote:
On Jul 12, 8:24 am, Beliavsky wrote:
On Jul 12, 12:05 am, "Stormlady" wrote:

snip

You do realize that it doesn't protect you for life though, only about 10
years or so.
How long does Gardasil protect against HPV?

The facts are no one can tell how effective Gardasil is at preventing
cancer; certainly much less than most think . A recent Wall Street
Journal article made that point.

Actually, the article was misleading. It focused on teens who already
were infected with HPV, which we hope the 11-year olds aren't.

Anyway, if you want accurate information on the vaccine, go he

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/hpv/default.htm

Jeff

Amid growing concerns as to safety
and effectiveness the Texas
Legislature repealed Gov .Perrys executive order mandating HPV
vaccine for all sixth grade girls ;these concerns are outlined in the
April 16 "the Wall
Street Journal" article questioning the effectiveness of
Gardasil Mercks HPV vaccine. Gardasil been
"dogged with uncertainty' as to it's effectiveness read
more
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...67980&nfid=rss...
These and other concerns caused the Texas repeal. The feeling was
summed up by Republican Rep. Dennis Bonnen bristled at the governor's
criticism of his bill.

"We should not and are now not going to offer the 165,000 11-year-
olds
in Texas up to be the study group for Merck to find out what the
implications of this vaccine would be for these girls," he said.".
source Perry won't vetovirus vaccinnations bill. May 8 2007 , Liz Ann
Peterson, A.P. Fox link http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May...vicalCancer,00
....

The same point was made in the New England Journal of Medicine
"Policymakers, clinicians, and parents have a keen sense of urgency
about HPV vaccination. On one hand, the vaccine has high efficacy
against certain HPV types that cause life-threatening disease, and it
appears to be safe; delaying vaccination may mean that many women will
miss an opportunity for long-lasting protection. On the other hand, a
cautious approach may be warranted in light of important unanswered
questions about overall vaccine effectiveness, duration of protection,
and adverse effects that may emerge over time. HPV vaccination has the
potential for profound public health benefit if the most optimistic
scenario of effectiveness is realized. " http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/19/1991

It 's a little technical but basically it says that the amount this
vaccine will reduce cancer is unknown. The only think known for sure
is that mandating this vaccine will be very profitable for the
maker. Thanks Vince

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/gardasil_h.html

"Sarah Vaughan" wrote in message
...


I don't know whether rubella immunisation protects for life (that was a
figure of speech ;-) ) but it almost always protects for longer than ten
years. I've had to look at a lot of routine bloods on pregnant women in
my time, including a lot of checks for rubella immunity. In that time,
I've only ever come across one woman in whom the vaccine had worn off.
(Which would make you the second.)

Using antibodies as a measure of immunity is junk science
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/antibody.html



Of course, it may be a bit more common in the US, because the women whose
rubella results I've been looking at have largely been the women who've
been vaccinated at the age of around 11 or 12, whereas the US has had it
as part of the infant immunisations for much longer. Maybe that extra ten
years means that there's more chance of the jab wearing off - it would be
interesting to look at some comparative statistics. Anyway, as Anne said,
it's now part of the MMR with booster, so hopefully cases like that will
become even rarer.

Rubella vax is just another useless vaccination
http://www.whale.to/v/rubella9.html

that cripples plenty

The Chronic Rubella Viremia Support Group is a group of over 200 health
care professionals who submitted to rubella vaccination and ended up with
chronic debilitating symptoms attributable to rubella vaccine. The founder
of the group, Katy Fox, RN, suspects that many other health professionals
were adversely affected by the rubella vaccine. When 20/20 did a story on
the subject, she says, over 600 people responded.


"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell

Yeah, but vaccination is holding up well against the truth, but every lie
must die eventually, even vaccination

"In October, 1972. a seminar on rubella was held at the Department of
Pathology, University Department, Austin Hospital in Melbourne, Australia.
Dr. Beverly Allen, a medical virologist, gave overwhelming evidence against
the effectiveness of the vaccine. So stunned was she with her investigations
that it caused her, like a growing number of scientists, to question the
whole area related to herd immunizations. Dr. Allen described two trials:
the first trial concerned army recruits who were selected because of their
lack of immunity as determined by blood tests. These men were given
Cendevax, an attenuated rubella virus that is supposed to protect. They were
then sent to a camp which usually has an annual epidemic of rubella. This
occurred three to four months after they were vaccinated, and 80% of the
so-called immune recruits became infected with rubella virus. A further
trial shortly after this took place at an institution for mentally retarded
people with similar effects. Additional disturbing evidence was sent to us
by a Melbourne GP who was in the United Kingdom at the time that Chief
Health Officer Sir Henry Yellowlees, had released a press statement
(February 26, 1976) informing doctors that, in spite of high vaccination
figures, there had been no detectable reduction in the number of babies born
with birth defects."--Dr Archie Kalokerinos & Glen Dettman "Does Rubella
Vaccination Protect?," Australian Nurses Journal, reprinted in The Dangers
of Immunisation p54

"Beliavsky" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 12, 12:05 am, "Stormlady" wrote:

snip

You do realize that it doesn't protect you for life though, only about 10
years or so.

How long does Gardasil protect against HPV?

no vaccine protects againts anything, they just line the pockets of
allopathy

they make it up as they go along, they said one mumps vaccine protected,
then they said it was completely useless, after using it for decades

just think of all those booster shots http://www.whale.to/v/schedule.html