Anti-cancer jab for my 13 year-old daughter? No thanks!

Keywords: cervical cancer, draconian, vaccination

Categories: Health, Lifestyle & Living, Kids & Family

Published On: Sep 04, 2008

Last updated on:: Sep 04, 2008

If you live in the increasingly draconian UK, you may be aware of the move to vaccinate 13 year-old girls against cervical cancer at school. If you don'tlive in the UK, count your blessings; well at least this one.

Pictured here is Hollie Anderson, the UK's first 13 year-old to get an anti-cervical-cancer jab (photo courtesy of Daily Mail) whose mother lost no time getting her injected privately. In many of the UK's state schools, she could have saved £450, because it's planned as part of the service alongside an education that teaches you how to be quiet between 9 and 5 for the next 40 years. I digress however...

Where do I begin when it comes to the propostion of my youngest daughter getting such a jab next year? With "No thanks" first of all. I actually have a whole host of objections that range from a gut-felt, intuitive revulsion to more rational and logical arguments (see link below).

Here's what I sent to the Education Welfare Officer at my 12 year-old daughter's school...

-----

Hi Ruth

I got your contact email from the school's recent e-mailing and wondered if you were the right person to receive and answer this question...

Do you know if the school is intending to vaccinate it's female population against cervical cancer as recently featured in the media?

I'm wholeheartedly against this measure and would like to register my objection here and now.

Can you let me know if my wishes will be acknowledged? And if it is indeed possible to keep my daughter out of this with no stigma or embarrassment?

Yours sincerely and thanking you in anticipation of cooperation on this,

Carl Munson

PS As Education Welfare Officer, you may wish to know more: http://www.canceractive.com/page.php?n=2044

-----

Daily Mail article

Report as abuse

Like it! (0)

Related Links

COMMENTS

ian russell wrote at 09:33:37 AM on Sep 05, 2008

What are you doing reading the Daily Mail, Carl?! ;o)

The Cancer Active looks like a good site. It answered my immediate questions which were was it compulsory? - only by inference - and why an exclusive programme of vaccination of 13 yos when it isn't necessary or, presumably, effective - it appears, from reading the article, to need repeating every 5 years(?).

If you look in the news today you'll find people with cancer being denied drugs and having to resort to the courts for their rights to live. It doesn't make much sense, not joined up thinking by the government and authorities. Unless there's a history of cervical cancer in your family I think you're sensible to be thinking about opting out.

Report an abuse | Like it! (0) | Delete

Carl Munson wrote at 10:05:11 AM on Sep 05, 2008

Good question! I just knew they'd have a view and I think I saw the front page (which is as close as I normally go).
Said paper is without doubt insidiously dangerous appealing as it does to the worst in people, yet featuring a lot of interseting health news, if you use your own intuitive faculties, cynicism and lots of salt to read between the lines.
Actually, if you want to know what any good Lemming will be talking and thinking about tomorrow, read today's edition!
They are especially good at crime, immigration and financial terror.

Cancer Active on the other hand has always come from a very good place. Founder Chris Woollams has always struck me as a decent chap with a healthy angle on cancer (?) after challenging the treatment his daughter received until her death and now continuing to carry a flame for truth in the murky mists of CancerCorp.

Inferred compulsion - genius!!

Report an abuse | Like it! (0) | Delete

Carl Munson wrote at 10:58:33 AM on Sep 05, 2008

Further:

Do you accept this definition of terrorism?

Definition of terrorism: Activities thought to be right, even divinely inspired by their perpetrators that may - in their execution - cause terror, injury or even death.

If you do, anti-cancer jabs fit the bill.

Report an abuse | Like it! (0) | Delete

ian russell wrote at 03:00:08 PM on Sep 05, 2008

well, if I put my cynical hat on for a moment, I can believe it's much worse. Pharmaceuticals is big money and these guys have a lot of clout over our leaders by lobbying. It's a mutual back-scratching exercise in high circles of influence. Also, how many people know what's going down in these committees which throw these schemes together? I doubt it's joined-up thinking. The gov. have to look good by doing anything that gets them noticed as doing the right thing right now - it doesn't matter what happens next.

Fighting Cancer is a perfect cause - no one wants it. Children's welfare, as always, is sacrosanct. Pharmaceuticals are powerful and persuasive. Government is weak and desperate.

So, really, I'm not convinced anyone is acting in the belief they're doing right for a worthy cause, for ''the people''. They're just acting to be seen to be acting rather than doing nothing and drawing attention to their numerous failings.

Report an abuse | Like it! (0) | Delete

Graeme Dinnen wrote at 08:30:54 PM on Sep 07, 2008

Carl

THanks for raising this issue. We are running an article in our mid Sept newsletter on this and I will include Chris Woolam's piece in it - if only to show people there is another line of thinking, rather than just the governmental scaremongering we have become so used to.

While we're defining things, a realistic definition of democracy is 'two wolves and one sheep deciding on what to have for supper'.

Sums it all up!

Graeme

Report an abuse | Like it! (0) | Delete

KEITH WARNER wrote at 09:28:12 PM on Jul 27, 2009

It seems there was a market database the drug companies had missed! Adolescent girls.

Report an abuse | Like it! (0) | Delete

Carl Munson wrote at 10:52:33 AM on Jul 29, 2009

Hi Keith
Flu's keeping em busy, but I'm sure there are no limits to the keen minds of marketing and its sub-science of segmentation.
Pets is my next guess...

Report an abuse | Like it! (0) | Delete