to change my mind and tell the school I don't want dd to have cervical cancer jab?

(305 Posts)
lowfatiscrap12 Mon 09-Jul-12 12:49:27

Yes, I know there's another (very long) thread about vaccines.
I was going to post my question there, but thought it would be lost under twenty odd pages of replies.
Last week I gave dd1 (aged 12) a consent form to have all 3 of her vaccinations for cervical cancer.
Now I should point out that I am very pro-vaccination. All three of my dc's have had, after plenty of research and reading by me, all of their childhood vaccinations. I've read and researched and looked at all the pros and cons and am generally pro vax.
But I've been umming and ahhing over this one.
I've checked and it's Gardasil she'd be having.
I've looked at the reasons for and against it.
I decided last week that the benefits outweighed the negatives, but now I'm wavering slightly.
I'm 39. I didn't have cervical cancer vaccinations at school.
I had safe sex and smear tests.
I've read about some of the side effects of Gardasil and I'm now quite tempted to phone the school and ask them to destroy my consent letter. Or send another letter in. Or just keep dd at home the day they do the HPV jabs.
AIBU?
What does everyone on Mumsnet think about the new HPV vaccine?

valiumredhead Mon 09-Jul-12 12:51:20

Tbh I am very glad I have a ds and don't have to make this decision. I am also very pro vaccination but would struggle a lot with this.

nethunsreject Mon 09-Jul-12 12:51:58

You've weighed up the pros and cons and come to your own conclusion, so go with it.

DOn't know what I'd do as I don't know anything about it (young dses), but am generally pro vaccine, for my own kids, but well awarre it is not a straightforward issue.

AKMD Mon 09-Jul-12 12:53:03

Does your DD have an opinion?

If it was my DD, I'd let her have it. She might be the most sensible person in the world but that doesn't make her immune from sexual assault sad

MsVestibule Mon 09-Jul-12 12:53:15

My DD is only 5, so not something I've had to think about much yet, although in principle, I do think I would agree to her having it at the right time.

Yes, you had safe sex and were OK, but there's nothing to say your DD will do the same. However, you've done your research and if you don't want her to have it, I'm sure you're entitled to change your mind. What does your DD think about it?

Well you couldn't have had continual safe sex, otherwise you wouldn't have a DD.

My eldest was to old to need my consent to have this when it came in, but my two youngest have had it.

There is a high rate of 'non promiscious' cervical cancer in my family, so i felt there wasn't really 'cons' to consider.

smellyolddog Mon 09-Jul-12 12:57:00

Hi - I don't have a DD but as a woman who had Cervical cancer cells removed at the age of 24 I would do it.

They have changed the age for smears to over 25's so i would of been one that was missed.

My neice died of cervical cancer at 22, the doctor wouldn't give her a smear, she paid privately but it was to late, she passed away after suffering major opperations to try to save her life.

Orlando Mon 09-Jul-12 13:03:11

I didn't let my two dds have it, because I felt that emphasis should also be put on promoting condom use to avoid infection with HPV - and that's what I do at home (mantra: 'Don't ever get in a car without wearing a seatbelt, don't ever have sex without using a condom.') However, I've since done more research and realised it's not quite as straightforward as I initially thought, and that HPV can cause oral cancers from oral sex etc and so it's something I'll need to revisit in time. Neither of my daughters are at the stage where it's really pertinent just yet, but when they are (or when they go to uni and I won't necessarily know anymore!) I'll probably recommend they have it. But I do tend to think that where any new vaccinations are concerned, hanging back a little isn't a bad thing.

OneHandFlapping Mon 09-Jul-12 13:03:30

I let DD have it. As far as I know, all her friends had it too.

If it was available for boys, DSs would have had it as well - those poor girls have to catch it from somewhere.

Paiviaso Mon 09-Jul-12 13:04:52

HPV can be spread even through "safe sex." HPV is very prevalent. So much so I couldn't even get tested for it!

When I became informed about HPV I asked to be tested for it during a routine STI screen. I was told there are so many strains, and it is so prevalent, there was no point. I asked for the vaccine, and again, was told it is so prevalent that was no point, I was too old (25) and surely already had it. If I wanted the vaccine I could pay for it myself; I decided not to do this and just get my regular smears.

Your daughter needs to have this vaccine before she becomes sexually active.

Also, to those that have sons, HPV is now being linked to throat cancer in men. There are discussions about the benefits of males also getting HPV vaccinations, have a Google.

DanyTargaryen Mon 09-Jul-12 13:05:45

OneHandFlapping How can cervical cancer be caught from boys?

Ariel24 Mon 09-Jul-12 13:06:55

OP sorry if I'm ignorant, what are the side effects of the HPV jab? I don't know enough about it.

I'm 24 and personally would have loved the opportunity to have this. I fall into the group of women who were too old to have this (and by the time it came out it s probably too late, I don't know if I can be tested for HPv?) and also they raised the age of cervical cancer screening to 25. They even refused to do a smear test for me upon request, despite me having been sexually active for a number of years. Not exactly encouraging young people to be responsible for their own health but thats another thread I guess!

Im pregnant with first baby (girl) and I would want her to have the HPV jab later on. But if you have concerns about it I can understand that too. Out of interest what does your daughter think?

DD1 is in year 9. She had the jabs. DD2 is in year 4 I will do the same for her when she is old enough. That was/is my decision.

You must go with what you think is right.

EndoplasmicReticulum Mon 09-Jul-12 13:09:20

You're perfectly within your rights to change your mind.

What worries me a bit about this vaccine is that it is not effective against all the strains of HPV, just the most common ones. So, even if you are vaccinated you are not 100% risk free. So will still need to have smear tests. My concern is that young women will think "I've had the vaccine, so I don't need the smear test".

From a personal point of view, I only have sons, and it's currently not offered for boys.

I'd vaccinate my imaginary daughter though.

EndoplasmicReticulum Mon 09-Jul-12 13:10:41

Dany - cervical cancer can be caused by HPV, which is a virus, which is spread by sexual intercourse. It's the HPV that is being vaccinated against.

JuliaScurr Mon 09-Jul-12 13:10:46

Dany it's a virus that causes cervical cancer
boys can catch it, thus get cancer oral or anal from sex with other men
boys should get vaccine imo

Paiviaso Mon 09-Jul-12 13:10:53

DanyTargaryen, the vaccine is for strains of a virus called HPV, some strains of HPV are cancer causing.

GnomeDePlume Mon 09-Jul-12 13:11:01

Dany, it isnt the cancer which is spread but the virus which causes it.

lowfatiscrap12 Mon 09-Jul-12 13:11:34

my daughter is very intelligent and mature for her age and has done lots of her own research. She says she wants it. I'm torn. I guess the problem is that, as with all vaccine damage cases, millions are vaccinated, a tiny minority have complications (which could also be coincidental and not vaccine related) and it's only ever the ones with bad experiences we hear about.

bigTillyMint Mon 09-Jul-12 13:11:39

DD has already had all 3 - she is in Y8. So have all her friends at lots of different schools. She felt a bit funny after the first one, and said they all hurt, but apart from that?

What are the cons?

CecilyP Mon 09-Jul-12 13:15:06

That is just so sad, Birds, I am really sorry for your loss.

While I think promoting a safe sex, or even an abstinence, message is a good one, I had a friend who had to undergo a hysterectomy at 34 because of cervical cancer. She is quite straight-laced and certainly didn't sleep around, but she married quite young and her even younger husband, who was obviously not ready for commitment, was not faithful to her.

TheRhubarb Mon 09-Jul-12 13:15:07

I have an 11yo dd and I don't want her to have the vaccine, although I will be letting her make her own mind up as she will be 12.

Why not give your dd the options and let her decide, she's not a tot anymore.

I agree with Endo - this only protects against one strain. I would hate to think that girls believe this will protect them against cervical cancer so they don't have to worry so much about safe sex.

My nieces both had their vaccines at this age. I asked them if they knew what cervical cancer was and how it was contracted (generally), they didn't have a clue. The school had not educated them about it at all, just given them the injections.

There should be discussions about it and plenty of info on safe sex and the different strains of cervical cancer.

MorrisZapp Mon 09-Jul-12 13:15:14

If I can be frank, putting on a seatbelt does not take the pleasure and spontaneity out of driving.

Using a condom however, can do that for sex. Which is why good advice/ sensibleness/ education is never going to be enough. Mistakes happen, and they always will.

BartletForAmerica Mon 09-Jul-12 13:15:34

You can change your mind, but I think you'd be making the wrong decision.

Of course, Gardasil doesn't cover everything, but neither does any vaccine or treatment.

I believe in no sex before marriage and my husband and I were both virgins when we married and we'll be teaching our children (although I just have a boy at the moment) to believe the same, BUT that doesn't mean they will or that that their future partners will.

This is a way to significantly reduce deaths and problems from cervical cancer.

Ariel24 Mon 09-Jul-12 13:16:40

As you say your daughter is intelligent and mature for her age, I would be inclined to let her have a big say in whether she has iit or not, especially if she has done her own research and is making an informed choice for herself.

I think it can only be a good thing for her to start thinking about looking after her own health, also hopefully it will encourage her in the future to make other responsible choices about sex and relationships.

All that is needed is genital contact of some sort, so same sex couples and those not having intercourse, are still at risk.

HPV is connected to cancers of the vulva and throat, as well as others.

My DD hasn't had it, we talked about the pros and cons and she decided she didn't want to have it. I have said that if she even begins to think about becoming sexually active, she will need to have the jab, but (hopefully) that won't be for at least another couple of years.

However if your DD wants it, you should take that into account too. My DD was a bit of an 'odd one out' because all her friends had it.

But what is the success rate for this jab?

I discussed it with my 2 dd's & we decided they would wait & get it later before/when they start being sexually active. I'm just a bit hmm about rushing into these blanket immunisations and would like to see some more long term studies.

edam Mon 09-Jul-12 13:23:35

The vaccine protects against the strains of the HPV virus that are the most common causes of cervical cancer. Millions of girls have received it all over the world without any problems (bar temporary redness/swelling and some hysterical fainting in the queue - I remember teenage girls being just as silly in my day with the TB jab). so it is clearly very safe.

A safe, effective vaccine that could save your daughter's life - what's not to like?

(The argument that it doesn't protect against all strains of HPV is really odd. Seatbelts don't protect against every form of traffic accident either but that's no reason not to use them! Just make sure your daughter understands that she STILL needs to go for smear tests.)

TheRhubarb Mon 09-Jul-12 13:23:59

Cervical cancer risk factors Hope this helps both you and her OP to make up your minds. smile

mumto2andnomore Mon 09-Jul-12 13:24:22

My DD and all of her friends had it , in my eyes anything which protects from cancer has to be a good thing.

I can't imagine anyone will think "I'm protected against (some strains of) HPV, so I'll just forget about chlamydia, gonorrhoea, HIV etc." and stop using condoms. Or even avoid smear tests, as HPV isn't the only cause of cervical cancer.

SCOTCHandWRY Mon 09-Jul-12 13:25:35

If it was available for boys, DSs would have had it as well - those poor girls have to catch it from somewhere.

It is probably going to become available for boys. Gardasil, The quadravalent vaccine, has, or will very shortly replace the divalent vaccine (cervirex), which never should have been picked for this vaccination program in the first place.

Boys should have the vaccine too, because the 4 HPV strains it protects against don't just cause cervical cancers, but cancers of the penis, anal area, tongue, mouth, throat and neck, and these cancers for reasons which are not fully understood are increasing VERY rapidly in young people.
DH is a Dr and has seen so many young, otherwise healthy men develop cancers of the tongue/throat (used to be very rare), that we took the decision to have our sons vaccinated (over £300 per son) last year. Many Dr's working with young cancer patients are pushing the govt to offer this vaccine to boys on the nhs as it would actually save money as well as lives.

seeker Mon 09-Jul-12 13:27:36

What specifically are you concerned about?

"But what is the success rate for this jab"

70% on one strain and 90% on another and 100% on strain 16 & 18, the latest studies show. They estimate that 3,400 lives (at least) will be saved a year in the UK.

Just make sure that they understand that there is risk to oral sex and any contact, even sex toys.

As others have said, not all girls become sexually active by choice.

SCOTCHandWRY Mon 09-Jul-12 13:29:01

All that is needed is genital contact of some sort, so same sex couples and those not having intercourse, are still at risk.

It is highly probable that these HPV viruses can be passed just by deep kissing, with no genital contact of any kind, though this has not been proven.

hairylemon Mon 09-Jul-12 13:30:00

Hpv can be contracted if you practise safe sex. I've had pre cancerous cells removed and I know there is s good chance ill have to have it done again. I wish there had been a vacc when I was younger

Orlando Mon 09-Jul-12 13:33:02

Funnily enough MorrisZapp, my father actually used to say that about seatbelts! I think his point might have been more that he felt too constrained by them (no shit, sherlock) and so when the seatbelt enforcement law came in (in the late 70s??) he belted his around the back of the seats to stop the warning light flashing. That seems like insanity now - thank goodness. Attitudes have changed.

The problem with the HPV vaccine is as Rhubarb says, that it kind of blurs out the specifics and small print so that it becomes a black and white issue. Vaccinated = safe, even though there are strains of HPV which are untouched by the vaccine, and even though having sex without a condom leaves you open to contracting numerous other STIs and getting pregnant. Promoting and normalising condom use is the only way to make inroads into those statistics.

DanyTargaryen Mon 09-Jul-12 13:35:09

Oh I'm sorry I misunderstood. blush

YouOldSlag Mon 09-Jul-12 13:36:01

Op- what is your fear?

I also think that if your daughter has researched it herself and wants it, then you should give her opinion a great deal of weight.

I haven't yet heard your argument for exactly why you don't want it.

Katienana Mon 09-Jul-12 13:36:19

I would definitely have it, I am also of the generation that just missed out on starting a smear programme at age 20 but didn't get offered the vaccine either. I think the idea is that having the vaccine reduces the risk of not having a smear till age 25. Bearing that in mind I would definitely have the vaccine. As another poster said, your DD may be sensible but that won't be much help if god forbid she was assaulted.

eurochick Mon 09-Jul-12 13:38:57

I've just had my first abnormal smear at the age of 36. It's very worrying. I wish a vaccine had been available when I was younger.

99.7% of cervical cancers are caused by HPV, so the vaccine should help hugely. Boys can transmit it but it causes far fewer problems for them.

80% of adults have some strain of HPV at some time in their lives, so it's not exactly an indicator of promiscuity (I wouldn't consider myself promiscuous but I have had two sexual partners who had previously been promniscuous). There are many strains and only a few are cancer causing though.

DilysPrice Mon 09-Jul-12 13:41:29

Truly "Safe sex" in this case would require using condoms, latex gloves and dental dams from the moment you take your knickers off, and of course using IVF to conceive.

Condoms alone are great, but will not protect you fully from HPV, only a nunnery will do that.

UnimaginitiveDadThemedUsername Mon 09-Jul-12 13:42:15

OP - just because the cervix is connected to the sex organs, don't go falling into the trap that this is a decision where morality is the key factor.

lowfatiscrap12 Mon 09-Jul-12 13:43:24

YouOldSlag, my fears are based mostly on anti-Gardasil websites. I know I'm overreacting massively to a website which exists solely to publish alleged cases of gardasil damage. And that there are millions of girls who've suffered no ill effects. There was a scare over the whooping cough vaccine when I was a baby and my Mother refused to get me vaxed. I got whooping cough and was extremely poorly with it. My Mum has always said she felt terribly guilty about that. The reason I'm asking this question here is to help put my fear into perspective.

My DD1 has had it and my DD2 will have it when her time comes. Without being too dramatic if your DD wants it I would let her have it because if she contracts those illnesses you would never forgive yourself.

Also if you ever choose to have unprotected sex as in with a long term partner or ttc then you could be exposed plus there have been suggestions it can be passed through some kissing etc.

I didn't look into the side effects other than the information we were given because I knew it was something I wanted her to have done.

YouOldSlag Mon 09-Jul-12 13:49:07

Well OP, if the chances of her contracting HPV without the vaccine are greater than the chances of suffering a side effect, then there's your answer.

NB I am just trying to a be a logical devil's advocate here, as I have no daughters but I think I probably would allow her to vaccinated if I had one.

TheRhubarb Mon 09-Jul-12 13:49:28

From what I can gather from the cancer help website, there is insufficient evidence to show how long the vaccine lasts. American sites say 4 years, the UK site says 8 years. So it's still vital to have smears.

My worries are for those girls whose parents don't inform them. I worry that they may think this protects them against ALL cervical cancers.
They may decide they don't need to go for smears anymore.
They may take risks that they wouldn't otherwise take.

On the whole, yes it's good that there is a vaccine but as usual in the UK, schools are merely dishing it out without giving out the relevant information about cervical cancer.

Jenjii Mon 09-Jul-12 13:50:34

I have yet to meet a teenager who would think 'I must have safe sex to avoid contracting cancer in 10 years time'. Ime they just aren't that able to process long term consequences of their actions at that age. If you want your dd to practice safe sex, then a much stronger motivation would be to avoid pregnancy/stds in the near term. I very much doubt wether or not she's vaccinated would have any influence on her decisions regarding safe sex. When you first started having sex was cervical cancer one of the things you worried about? I certainly didn't and I doubt many young women do.

LadyInDisguise Mon 09-Jul-12 13:52:04

Personally I wouldn't do it. And not because of the possible side effects of the vaccine.

it's about the fact that it only protects from one strain of the virus, leaving you unprotected for all the others.
So it doesn't protect you from cervical cancer. It protects you from one strain of a virus that might lead to cervical cancer.
the bottom line is that you still need to do all the SMEAR tests because they are still your best protection.
BUT (young and not so young) women will be even less keen on doing the SMEAR test because they think they are 'protected'.
Some studies think that it will mean the number of people dying from cervical cancer will be the same because that sort of cancer will be spotted later (as women will do less test) hence there will be no benefit at all.

Having said all that, if you have done some research and have changed your mind, then it is totally OK to take your consent for this vaccination away.

If u dont want her to have it then phone the school smile my dd is only 5 so a way away yet but I do have concerns given that it's so new and all the complications can't possibly be known! I will be researching very thoroughly when the time comes! I allowed my dd the swine flu jab and still regret that given how ill she was days later. I'll never know if it was down to that or not but wish I'd researched more. I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to do what u believe is right for your family whether others agree or not. You can always go private in a few months if u change your mind . Don't be bullied into it if you have doubts and they r valid then do what u think is right for ur dd smile

Zimbah Mon 09-Jul-12 13:56:35

I am a long way off having to decide this yet, but if the jab only lasts 4 - 8 years then shouldn't it be repeated later as well? What's the point in only being protected until 20?

SCOTCHandWRY Mon 09-Jul-12 13:57:56

Ladyindisgise,
WRONG! Gardasil protects against 4 strains of HPV, the 4 strains which cause almost all cancers of the cervix, anal cancers, cancers of the vulva, penis and about 70% of throat/tongue/neck cancers (and is very effective in protecting both males and females).

FoxyRoxy Mon 09-Jul-12 13:59:26

I practiced safe sex, had all the usual tests before going on the pill with ex partners and them the same. I still contracted the HPV virus and I've had abnormal smear tests for the past 5 years. Your daughter could only have one partner her whole life but if that partner is carrying HPV then at some point she's going to become at risk to it. If you can reduce that risk then imo it's worth her being vaccinated.

I have an 11yo DS and if I could get him vaccinated then I would.

LadyInDisguise Mon 09-Jul-12 14:00:51

that's the * almost* that is the issue here SCOTCH....

TheRhubarb Mon 09-Jul-12 14:04:09

zimbah, they are looking into doing a booster for older women.

You see, none of this info is given to the girls who are old enough to absorb all of this and make an informed decision for themselves.
How can they act like sensible and cautious adults when we don't treat them as such?

SCOTCHandWRY Mon 09-Jul-12 14:05:19

Foxy, as I said upthread, you can get your DS vaccinated (we did with our DS's, last year), but it will cost quite a bit (£300+), however it may be worth pushing your GP to provide it on the NHS, a few months ago there was a partial policy change..... they are currently examining the idea of offering Gardasil to boys as well as girl due to new evidence about the rate of male cancers caused by HPV.

Orlando Mon 09-Jul-12 14:05:55

TheRhubarb has pinpointed it exactly for me. It's not the vaccine that's the problem but the way it's being given, without ANY (in my dds' cases) background information. My daughter was upset because she thought that by not having it she was at risk right now of getting cervical cancer - she didn't know that the vaccine was against HPV, never mind that HPV is sexually transmitted.

So long as you make sure your daughter is in full possession of the facts, and can then take ownership of her choices and decisions, that's probably the main thing.

NoComet Mon 09-Jul-12 14:08:01

I think our DDs are quite intelligent enough to understand that the vaccine just acts as an extra tool in the battle against cervical cancer. I'm sure they know they still need to practice safe sex and have regular smears.

I'm certain public health campaigns will continue to say that too!

DD1 had hers, after a bit of plea bargaining, she hates needles.

We agreed she'd have her HPV and I'd let her off her flu one. She's on the list for ridiculously mild asthma and reacts really badly to them (gets a really painful arm for a week, HPV didn't bother her at all)

SCOTCHandWRY Mon 09-Jul-12 14:10:39

Ladyindisguise, not quite seeing your point! If you prevent more than 90% of the cancers happening in the first place, and screening is still available for those in at risk groups, older women etc, why would the same number of people die? Even if you had very high mortality in the unlucky few who contracted it, fewer people would still die.....

seeker Mon 09-Jul-12 14:15:55

And also- even if you do stilll have to have smear tests for the other 30%, so what? Smear tests show changes that have already started to happen. No the same as protecting against some viruses that cause some of the cancers.

AmINearlyThereYet Mon 09-Jul-12 14:16:19

I would let her have it.

When you aren't actually dealing with cancer, it is easy to forget the horror of it, or to think that it only happens to other people. The websites discussing the vaccine are probably focussing on the risks/ disadvantages; and not spelling out the reality of getting cancer. I suggest you balance those websites by having a look around some of the other threads here - in, for example, bereavement and life-limiting illness; and the tamoxifen thread.

Yes, there are very many types of cancer, so the vaccine will only reduce your DD's risk of getting some sort of cancer by a fairly small amount. But when you are balancing the risks and benefits you need to have in mind not "cancer" in some generalised way but the reality of it as illustrated and described in the threads.

DilysPrice Mon 09-Jul-12 14:20:19

Actually LID, if 75% of cancers were eliminated, nobody went to smear tests anymore and exactly the same number of people died I'd still count it as a win. Smear tests are uncomfortable and expensive, and more to the point they result in large numbers of false positives - thousands of women being scared and operated on needlessly every year. They do prevent some deaths but at a pretty high cost.

Also Gardasil may well wipe out genital warts, which would save the NHS millions and save loads of people unpleasant treatment.

TheRhubarb Mon 09-Jul-12 14:23:38

What public health campaigns? I've seen none.
The NHS have left it up to the schools and just like most of sex education, the schools are failing to education our children properly.

So actually, most of them don't even know what cervical cancer is.

downindorset Mon 09-Jul-12 14:26:58

I had my first abnormal smear at 21 and I've since had most of my cervix removed.

I do not have HPV.

Smear tests are essential from an age earlier than 25. If I had a DD I'd be focusing on smear tests and safe sex and putting less emphasis on the vaccine. Although I wouldn't rule out giving it.

Cervical changes also result from lifestyle choices like smoking and alcohol so education there is key too.

Dawndonna Mon 09-Jul-12 14:32:46

Both of my daughters and my son have had it. I am extraordinarily angry that the NHS chose to only vaccinate girls on the basis of cost.
The safe sex mantra is just that, a mantra. The HPV virus is no respecter of safe sex. As has been pointed out, oral and anal cancers are on the rise, due to the virus.

"What public health campaigns? I've seen none."

This must vary, area to area. Every statutory and health building in my work area has posters up and our Children Centre's, womens groups etc have all had talks on contraception, smears and the risks to health, once sexually active, in any way.

I have attended a anti natal appointment this morning and there were posters up. I attended the teen midwife and it was on the list of questions, with a recommendation to have the vacination, once my client has given birth.

Hopeforever Mon 09-Jul-12 14:46:30

Friend developed arthritis after the injection.

I can't prove a link, her parents didn't peruse it but it made me think twice.

FoxyRoxy Mon 09-Jul-12 14:48:46

SCOTCH I don't live in the UK, unfortunately.

RevoltingPeasant Mon 09-Jul-12 14:49:45

Wait, can I just derail a minute???

Birds & others - are you seriously saying that the NHS refuses to do smear tests on girls under 25, even when those girls report abnormal symptoms and specifically request tests?

They tell girls in those situations to go private?

Have I got that right??? They are refusing basic check ups on the basis of age? Isn't that discriminatory?

AllOverIt Mon 09-Jul-12 14:50:15

Lost one of my ex pupils at 22 to cervical cancer from hpv. She would have been missed as she hadn't started her smears yet. My best friend and sister both have hpv and have both had cancerous cells removed. My good friend has also had cervical cancer.

My pupil was a gorgeous, smiley lovely girl and died a horrible death.

My DD will be having it.

seeker Mon 09-Jul-12 14:50:27

No. Your friend had the injection. Full stop. Your friend developed arthritis. full stop.

Unless you have any evidence that there is a link, that is a very irresponsibly thing to say.

Hopeforever Mon 09-Jul-12 14:55:44

Seeker, thing is, if we follow that line of thought there would not be progressing medicine.
I stated I couldn't prove a link, but having had a very bad reaction to a vaccine 20 years ago that has forced me to spend over 8 of the last 20 years fighting illhealth I think we need to know the facts. I only made a real link with the vaccine when I discovered other people who were I'll as a result too.

Try looking at

http://truthaboutgardasil.org/

I am in no way saying that the vast majority of girls will be harmed. But with a family history of reaction to vaccines I'm wary

MarysBeard Mon 09-Jul-12 14:57:37

What's wrong with Gardisil?

TheRhubarb Mon 09-Jul-12 14:58:10

So Birds, where are the posters where teenage girls will see them? Because half the places you mentioned aren't on every teenage girls 'places to go' list. Why aren't there ads on the TV, internet and posters up in schools?

Why aren't schools being told to educate our youngsters properly about ALL the risks of STIs?

And FWIW I was a virgin until my mid-twenties. Every time I went to the GPs I was told I needed a smear. Every fecking time. It was as if they didn't believe I was a virgin. And this was quite a while ago.

I didn't even know what a bloody smear was or why they were so keen to do them.

MarysBeard Mon 09-Jul-12 14:59:53

Having HPV myself, two colposcopies and CIN1 cells removed recently as a precaution and smears every six months I think it's fantastic that girls more opportunity to prevent this now.

RevoltingPeasant Mon 09-Jul-12 15:02:11

Rhubarb surely that is because you can develop cervical cancer without having had sex? HPV is one cause, as I understand it, but not the only.

TheRhubarb Mon 09-Jul-12 15:04:41

Sorry, that was to answer the query about girls being refused smear tests under the age of 25.

It's not true because I was badgered by the NHS to have a smear test when I was under the age of 25 and still a virgin.

I was not in a high risk group either, having no history of cancer in the family, not being overweight, not smoking and not drinking very much.

Tressy Mon 09-Jul-12 15:05:41

Mine was due to have it a week or so after a young girl dropped dead after standing in line at school. Tbh, it was quite a new vaccination and upset DD and I at the time. I had always made sure that all vaccinations were up to date but wasn't sure about this one.

Coupled with the fact that DD was young at the time and wasn't sexually active and that it lasted 5 yrs (I might be wrong on this). I didn't give consent and she decided, later on, to get it done at the doctors surgery.

Hopeforever Mon 09-Jul-12 15:06:54

truthaboutgardasil.org/

Sorry forgot to press the link button

Shullbit Mon 09-Jul-12 15:07:31

I was too old to have the vaccine, and was too young by the time they increased the age limit for smears.

I am still months away until they will agree to give me a smear. I have had symptoms, which they don't quite understand and just keep throwing antibiotics at me even when swabs come back clear. My Mother and Grandmother have both had abnormal smears, both ending up with Hysterectomies and still my doctor refuses to send me for one. All I get told is that they are not allowed due to the PCT trust. I must wait till I am 25.

It is ridiculous. The fact too many women are dying of cervical cancer at 22 years old shows that they need to decrease the age limit.

I wish I was able to have the jab, and I shall be making sure both of my boys do when the time comes, even if I have to go private.

Shullbit Mon 09-Jul-12 15:13:02

TheRhubarb, I can't remember how long ago it was, but it is only a recent thing that they have increased the age for smears to 25 years old. It is true, due to their reasoning that many women got false results till 25 years as everything is still changing.

Never mind all the right results which have saved lives hmm

LeBFG Mon 09-Jul-12 15:18:50

Oh please 'Hope' - this old problem of causation/correlation thing again. It is VERY strong in humans - we look for associations and make links all the time. Thanks goodness science is there to set things straight.

I find it odd that parents are consulting with their underage daughters. When I was in Y9, I'm sure I was a know-it-all clever-clogs. I'm NOT sure I would have made the choice to have the vax though as I was so anti-interventionist and hated needles. YOU are the responsible adult to step in at times to make the right choice.

My neighbour naively believes her 16 yo DD would tell her when she was going to get sexually active and have the vax beforehand. Her DD is now 21 and lives away from home...and never had the vax. Apparently still a vigin too [eyes-to-ceiling]

lastnerve Mon 09-Jul-12 15:40:17

Even if your daughter does use a condom if she was to have lots of sex at an early age before shes properly developed it would cause major damage having sex with an under developed body.

but of course cervical cancer can be for reasons other than that.

I see where you are coming from though, I made sure my DS had all jabs separate instead of the MMR.

TheRhubarb Mon 09-Jul-12 15:41:47

I think it's right to discuss this issue with them. Parents who do so are also likely to discuss their sex lives and safe sex with their teens.

Teenagers need to know. They are 12 going on 13. Yes some decisions still need to be made for them but they also need to be treated with some respect and told what the vaccine is for and why they are having it. If they strongly object, their objections need to be listened to and taken on board.

If you listen to your teenagers then a strong line of communication will be opened between you and many problems can be prevented in this way. That's my strong opinion on this.

I am shocked they will not offer smears to young girls.

eurochick Mon 09-Jul-12 15:50:34

Shullbit that is disgraceful. In your situation, I think I would have the test privately. It doesn't cost a lot.

Marie Stopes will do it for £75 for the under-25s:
www.mariestopes.org.uk/Womens_services/Cervical_screening/Screening_for_under_25s.aspx

I would think it would be money well-spent to ease your worries.

Shullbit Mon 09-Jul-12 16:15:13

eurochick, thank you for that link. I have had a lot going on the past month but the symptoms are getting worse over the last week so have been thinking about going elsewhere for one rather than waiting. Will look at their website now thanks

BartletForAmerica Mon 09-Jul-12 16:27:28

Shullbit, if you have symptoms, you DO NOT need a cervical smear. This is a SCREENING test for asymptomatic people. If someone has symptoms, they need a proper assessment, including examination, swabs, & possibly colposcopy.

BartletForAmerica Mon 09-Jul-12 16:29:31

As for people concerned about side effects, nothing, nothing, nothing is without risk, but the harm a medicine can do has to be balanced by its benefit. Someone said that 3000+ lives a year in the long run might be saved as a result, so compare that to the 1 significant side effect each year.

TheRhubarb Mon 09-Jul-12 16:41:30

Agree, if you have symptoms then you need to be properly examined and the NHS is obliged to provide this kind of care for you.
You are not asking for a smear, you are asking for an examination of your symptoms and a diagnosis.

Sidge Mon 09-Jul-12 16:45:50

My DD1 has had the HPV vaccines, but even I admit to a wobble when it came to signing the consent form with her. I was part of the school health HPV vaccination team, and am a practice nurse now doing daily smears!

I don't know if information regarding the HPV jabs vary between areas but in the county where I work we used to do presentations in school prior to each school year programme of vaccination to which parents were invited. Consent forms are sent home with a leaflet about the vaccine which contained lots of information about the vaccine as well as links to websites etc. The vaccination is nothing to do with Education (ie the school) but all to do with School Health (ie the NHS).

Cervical screening is offered to women 25+ routinely; it's not offered to under 25s because the rate of false positives is so high and screening can lead to unnecessary intervention and colposcopy.

If a woman presents to a HCP with concerning symptoms such as bleeding between periods, bleeding after sex, unusual vaginal discharge and pain she may be offered a smear as part of clinical investigations - this is NOT the same as national screening.

Shullbit Mon 09-Jul-12 16:49:23

Oh ok. I don't know much about it. I just assumed the doctors knew what they were doing until it started getting worse and I spoke to my Mother and Grandmother. Both advised me to demand a smear but the doctor said that until I am 25, there is nothing he can do. Mother, whilst getting concerned and ending up scaring the living daylights out of me with it, suggested to go private and that she would even pay for it if need be so I assumed that was the way it was done.

I don't like searching online, as I find that it ends up scaremongering people but I think it is something I am going to have to do so I can go to the doctors armed and prepared.

Thanks for putting me in the right direction ladies.

jamdonut Mon 09-Jul-12 16:51:02

My daughter has had the vaccine. I'd rather her be safe(r) than sorry. Its all very well saying "promote safe sex" etc, but I do actually remember being a teenager, and its not always as easy as that, is it? You can talk about it till the cows come home and it won't necessarily make any difference.
Anything that helps guard against any cancer is surely a good thing?

whiteandyelloworchid Mon 09-Jul-12 16:55:29

i'm not really up on teh side effect of this vaccine, can anyone enlighten me

RevoltingPeasant Mon 09-Jul-12 16:59:05

I am still just shock that people are apparently being refused medical treatment on the basis of age.

DeepPurple Mon 09-Jul-12 17:02:02

My sister has had pre-cancerous cells removed at age 19 and again at 21. They then refused to give her another smear until she was 25 hmm

She isn't promiscuous so god knows how she got it.

FairPhyllis Mon 09-Jul-12 17:13:34

Please remember that the side effects are only potential side effects. The reason scary ones are listed is not because they are common but because the vaccine manufacturer is covering their arse legally. Even everyday drugs can have very rare serious side effects.

-Your DD may not necessarily have safe sex (she may be sexually assaulted) or have regular smears.
-even if she has safe vaginal sex, she is more likely to contract HPV orally and increase risk of oral/throat cancers if she does not use a condom in oral sex. Even if she is sensible would it occur to her that this is a risk of oral sex?
-You only need one partner to give you HPV.
-The vaccine is also targeted at genital warts, which although not life-threatening, are extremely unpleasant.
-I would not take any notice of any anti-vaccine site unless it happened to be run by some top flight immunologists. Which I somehow think is unlikely.

FWIW I have had Gardasil and I was fine apart from a sore arm!

Sidge Mon 09-Jul-12 17:16:32

revoltingpeasant they're not.

Screening is often age dependent (think smears and mammograms) but assessment and treatment isn't.

I don't know Shullbit's situation obviously, or what sort of symptoms she's been having, but any GP can order a cervical smear as part of clinical investigations regardless of age. Whether one is indicated or not depends on the clinical presentation and assessment.

whiteandyelloworchid Mon 09-Jul-12 17:28:35

what age do they give this vac?

Hopeforever Mon 09-Jul-12 17:29:12

LeBFG. Smoking was once seen as a safe social habit. This info is from a talk in the USA on the history

Now the first published report that tobacco smoking might be linked to lung cancer was 1912, but it was really in 1954 or so that the first epidemiological experimental found that there was a relationship.
And what you have to understand to see why did it take so long, is that as medicine was evolving into its modern form. It takes certain challenges in the early 20th century: it was all about infectious disease. And it was all about penicillin. And it was all about staphylococcus and diphtheria and tetanus. And you had all these bacteria that were being isolated, and there was this thing it’s called Koch’s postulates, and Koch was a German microbiologist, I think. And he came up with this sense that in order to prove something you had to isolate an organism. You had to isolate a cause. You had to be able to transmit it to another person or entity or animal, and it had to cause the same disease, and so there was these series of steps you had to take in order to say, “Yes, there’s no question -- this bacteria or this process causes this illness.”
The data on tobacco was not that way. It was all sort of circumstantial; it was all “we see people smoking and we see people with diseases”. But nobody could ever show that if you had rats inhale tobacco smoke it caused lung cancer, or emphysema. You didn’t have that kind of data, and so it was all epidemiologic data, and in the 50s and 60s when the data stuff started coming out.
This was new science, this was a new idea. Are you sure this is because these two things seem to track together? People smoking and people getting lung cancer. Are you sure there a causation or it’s the company it keeps, or it’s caused by other factors we don’t understand? And these were huge questions that were that were raised.

At no point have I said that my friend defiantly had arthritis from her jab, but that it closely followed the jab. When you have been as ill as I have you are very careful about your body and that if your family. That's all I'm saying....

LeeCoakley Mon 09-Jul-12 17:35:14

My 2 eldest dds have not had it. They agreed that they would consider it at a later date. Not enough testing and no one knowing what the term effects are put me off. Immunising against some strains will encourage new super strains to emerge I would have thought. I'm not an expert though! The websites I have read about the testing indicated it was rushed through. Also when will we know it is effective?

Can I just say that I am glad this thread hasn't turned into the usual bunfight about selfish parents not vaxing.

Shullbit Mon 09-Jul-12 17:37:28

I have all of those symptoms you listed Sidge, but all my doctor keeps doing is taking swabs, giving me antibiotics "just in case an infection wasn't picked up on". The past 10 days, the bleeding has become even more erratic. I bled heavily for 2 days, then stop for a day, bled again for a day, stop for 2 days, bled for half a day, then stopped for 12ish hours and started again and so far, only appeared to stop last night for 4 hours. When I am not bleeding, I lose unusual vaginal discharge and the pain I get can feel like a knife is stabbing my cervix if you get what I mean, and also like my lower abdomen has been kicked around a pitch like a football. Everything, apart from the really random bleeding which has only happened in the last 10 days, I have had for months.

Nothing else has even been mentioned. Even when I ask "Well what happens when I have done what you have said, taken the 2 week course of antibiotics, and waited 4 weeks and still I have the symptoms or they have got worse, or even got better but still there, what then?" I get told to just come back and we will see. But then only do more swabs.

Honestly, I just feel like giving up and accepting it is just one of those things sometimes. But then when I end up doubled up in pain, I just know something isn't quite right.

Maybe I need to try a different doctor

bumbleymummy Mon 09-Jul-12 17:39:12

I don't think YABU. I wouldn't want any future daughters of mine to have it (I only have sons) HPV does not = cervical cancer. Only a very small percentage of people with HPV will go on to develop cervical cancer. I think early and regular smears are much more important and I think it is ridiculous that they don't offer them to people until their mid -20s in England. The fact is that even with the HPV vaccine you could still develop hpv, develop abnormal cells and potentially develop cervical cancer and you wouldn't know because you haven't had a smear test!

There are some concerns among medical professionals that the vaccine may actually result in more cases of cervical cancer because people may become complacent about smear tests because they think they are safe and protected from having the vaccine.

thebody Mon 09-Jul-12 17:40:53

Shullbit, I do hope this isn't your GP putting you off like this? You need to demand to see a specialist.

On vaccination my older ds has had it.

Personal choice but think you should let your dd decide.

seeker Mon 09-Jul-12 17:41:10

Hope forever, the difference is that loads of people who were smoking also got lung disease. The circumstantial evidence just kept piling up until research finally found the actual link.

As far as I am aware, there are not loads cases of arthritis following the HPV vaccine piling up waiting to be analysed.

Sidge Mon 09-Jul-12 17:44:21

Shullbit you should most definitely see another GP.

Krumbum Mon 09-Jul-12 17:46:53

Even if you have safe sex you can still get hpv. Why are you only against this vaccine?

AGiraffeUnderTheFloorBoards Mon 09-Jul-12 18:03:53

Normally I'm really good at reading threads before I comment but my DCs are bawling so I've not got much time.....so I'm sorry if my post doesn't follow or points already made. I'm sorry - I know nothing about the vaccine and my DD is pre school so I haven't educated myself yet so can't comment on your choice.

But my personal experience of this subject is that I caught genital warts from a long term BF who I was engaged to (but who I later found out wasn't entirely faithful!! ) and I went on to do a series of abnormal smears and it was a while before anything was done or concerns were raised by GP. I would just be called back for more because I was showing pre cancerous cells or something. I was probably about 25 or 26 years old and had been with the BF for 2 years by this stage and was on the pill. In the end I had the cancerous cells lasered off which wasn't so bad and after the prolonged and embarrassing treatment for warts it was a breeze. I had to have smears every 6 months and then every year for a long time - I'd say 6 years or more - after that. I have to say I'm more worried now hitting my 40s about what I caught from him - especially as diseases such as throat cancer are linked to the HPV virus.

diabolo Mon 09-Jul-12 18:07:08

I wish it had been available when I was 13 - it would have saved me years of pain, worry and the constant fear that my abnormal cells (found when I was 21) may return one day.

If I had a daughter, she would be having the jab - no question.

RevoltingPeasant Mon 09-Jul-12 18:13:30

Sidge sorry, I was reading Shullbit's posts but also DeepPurple's and Birdsgottafly's. They all sounded like they were young women reporting symptoms to a GP who refused further investigations in time.

I'm sure GPs can order smears at any time, but it sounds from Shullbit's and other posts as though GPs are refusing these on the grounds that the women are under 25. I'm sure that's not 'regulation' iyswim but if those posters are to be believed, it seems to be what's happening.

bumbleymummy Mon 09-Jul-12 18:13:45

Should also mention that I've had abnormal cells lasered twice (not done properly the first time!) and I still wouldn't want the HPV vaccine for me or future DDs.

bumbleymummy Mon 09-Jul-12 18:15:22

I was early 20s btw - smears were routine at that age where I live. It's madness not to offer them to under 25s. The vaccine doesn't guarantee anything. Without earlier smears people will still slip through the net.

RevoltingPeasant Mon 09-Jul-12 18:15:48

Sidge (again smile) and Shull as a contrast, I had symptoms recently similar to what Shull describes though without such severe pain - I was whipped in to see a nurse for a smear the same week - I am 32.

Sorry Sidge but it really does sound to me like Shull is being denied treatment using her age as an excuse.

Shullbit Mon 09-Jul-12 18:19:44

The only thing I have been refused is a smear test until I am 25. Nothing else has even been suggested, no investigations etc, apart from 4 lots of swabs, all clear. But I will be demanding to know why before seeing a different GP.

Thank you ladies for the information and advice.

CoteDAzur Mon 09-Jul-12 18:23:41

"vaccine may actually result in more cases of cervical cancer because people may become complacent about smear tests because they think they are safe"

Tell your DD that the vaccine is for something else. If she doesn't know she is vaccinated for cervical cancer, she won't become complacent about it.

RevoltingPeasant Mon 09-Jul-12 18:25:50

Cote, seriously? You think lying to a young woman about what's happening to her body is ethical? Wow.

What happens when one of her mates who has had it tells her what it's really for? poof! goes your relationship with DD.

Krumbum Mon 09-Jul-12 18:26:04

I have pain during sex and have been refused a smear. I can understand not routinely smearing everyone til age 25 but if someone has symptoms then it's insane sticking to that rule.
Im too old for vaccine and too young for smear sad
I would definately vaccinate at daughters.

CoteDAzur Mon 09-Jul-12 18:26:40

"I've had abnormal cells lasered twice (not done properly the first time!) and I still wouldn't want the HPV vaccine"

Burning the cervix (with laser or cryo) is not the best removal method for precancerous cells. Dr needs to cut out the infected zone, send it for biopsy, and therefore be sure that they have all been removed (= clean outer zone).

Meglet Mon 09-Jul-12 18:30:34

The thing is you don't have to take many risks to contract HPV. As far as I understand it's not accumalitive (sp?) like smoking or sunbathing.

I didn't have sex until I was 22, never smoked, was a veggie health freak, 2 boyfriends, regular smears. And hey presto by 30 I had what they call 'carcinoma in situ' and had 2 big chunks of my cervix cut out. Luckily I was able to have 2 kids afterwards but ended up with a hysterectomy at 35 as the remaining cells were starting to change.

When my 3yo DD is a teenager I will get her the best vaccine on the market. It's not worth the risk skipping the jabs IMO.

RevoltingPeasant Mon 09-Jul-12 18:31:46

Krum do you know if you have a retroverted cervix? Ironically, you often only find out during a smear! But you could ask for a pelvic exam (looking up your vadge with a speculum but NOT doing the smear) to check. I ask because lots of women with retro cervices apparently have pain with sex. I have one and I don't get pain, but it is apparently common.

Meglet Mon 09-Jul-12 18:32:47

shullbit you need to see another GP and refuse to move until they refer you for proper investigations.

CoteDAzur Mon 09-Jul-12 18:34:35

Revolting - That got you all excited, didn't it hmm

If you are concerned about complacency re smear tests, you can still give your DD the vaccine during a routine dr visit for example. No risk of friends telling her what it is.

"Ethical" has nothing to do with this. If you need to send a consent form, this means your DD is not of an age where she can take these decisions for herself. Later on in life, you can mention to her that she has had the vaccine, if you so wish.

By the way, weighing "DD has to know everything" against "DD must be protected against cervical cancer as much as possible", I know which would win. Complete honesty is nowhere near as valuable as DD's life, imho.

RevoltingPeasant Mon 09-Jul-12 18:36:52

Eh? I don't think I responded in a particularly inflammatory way. I just think lying to a 12/ 13 yo girl about a medical treatment is massively unethical, and I think you wouldn't find an NHS dr who'd collude in it. Surely Gillick competency would apply?

I think ethical has everything to do with this myself, and this is on a continuum with HCPs doing things without consent during childbirth because 'it's necessary, and what she doesn't know won't frighten her' etc.

CoteDAzur Mon 09-Jul-12 18:39:46

You don't tell an 8 year old what her vaccine is for but doing the same to a 12 year old is massively unethical, is it?

Why? They are both children.

Or do you think the 12 year old is a woman?

DilysPrice Mon 09-Jul-12 18:39:49

But cote, given that your DD would not be making any decisions about whether to go to routine smear tests until she was 25 I can't see that lying to her when she's twelve would help at all. By the time she's old enough for the purpose of the lie to apply she'd be old enough to be told the truth and / or find out for herself.

RevoltingPeasant Mon 09-Jul-12 18:42:49

Cote, sorry, I am really confused. What 8yo and what vaccine? I would always tell a child what their medical treatment was for if they were verbal enough to understand. Can't imagine doing differently.

Of course I don't think 12yos are women, but I do think they are of an age where a dr would talk to them as well as to parents, and I honestly think you wouldn't find an NHS GP who would go along with a plan of lying to a 12yo.

Anyway, whatever, we differ <shrug>

CoteDAzur Mon 09-Jul-12 18:44:13

Where I live, girls have smear tests whenever they ask for it, usually when first show their faces at a gynaecologist for the pill.

This isn't about me, by the way. It's about whoever said maybe vaccine isn't a good idea because it would cause complacency about smear tests.

CoteDAzur Mon 09-Jul-12 18:49:16

Revolting - Do you not have boosters in the UK? And if so, do you really explain the diseases they prevent and ask for your DD's consent at the age of 8 or whenever?

My point was that not allowing a potentially life saving vaccine because the knowledge of it might cause complacency is very unreasonable. If people are so worried about this, they can just not tell what the vaccine is about. That is all I am saying.

Potentially saving your DD's life is slightly more important than sticking to the principle that you will always be 100% honest with her, I would think.

NowThenWreck Mon 09-Jul-12 18:52:37

They used to smear test from the time girls were sexually active.
Then they decided that, because a girls body is still biologically adolescent until around 20, and this was showing abnormal results, that post 20 was better.
Recently PCT's, in their wisdom hmm have deemed 25 to be the age that women begin to get smears.
In Shullbit's case, I reckon she needs a colcoscopy, which is where they get a camera up there and have a really good look. They can also take a biopsy while they are doing it.
Shullbit-don't get fobbed off. Try another GP and refuse to leave until you get referred immediately to a specialist. You GP is a twat.

In the OP's case, if a vaccine exists to help prevent a cancer, why the hell wouldn't you vaccinate your child with it? If the vaccine was to prevent breast cancer would you even think twice?
I hate that because this virus is linked to sex, people get their knickers in a twist about it.
The vaccine helps, condoms help, being responsible helps. Anything that helps ward of the evil cervical cancer is all good.

SCOTCHandWRY Mon 09-Jul-12 18:52:40

SHULLBIT, (and others who are sexually active, with symptoms) Change GP's or get a private smear, your age should absolutely NOT be a reason for you to be denied a smear (as this would be a diagnostic test, not "screening"), if you have worrying symptoms - fair enough for the GP to test for infections first (very common), but referral/investigation should follow swiftly if no resolution.

Bumbbelymummy, if you had been vaccinated, it is very, very unlikely you would have developed those abnormal cells in the first place! That is the whole point of the vaccination program, to prevent cancer, which is much better than catching it early and treating it while it's "pre-cancer" ...... as you know, the treatment at that very early stage is not pleasant and may need to be done again (either cells are missed, or further abnormal areas can develop). My very good friend eventually had a cone biopsy in her 20's and was told it would increase her risk of miscarriage/premature labour......... prevention is surely better than cure.

And this vaccine will prevent almost all cases of Cervical cancer and most cases of a number of other types of cancer (of the penis, anus, Vulva, throat, mouth, tongue) in both males and females in people who get vaccinated (as I said upthread, I paid a lot of money to have my DS's vaccinated with Gardasil last year).

Why do so many people on this thread think that because this vaccine prevents most HPV cancers (saving thousands of lives a year), rather than all of them, it's not a good idea? No vaccine prevents disease 100%! Does that mean we just shouldn't bother?

Hopeforever Mon 09-Jul-12 19:27:08

Seeker - there are documented cases of autoimmune disease after vaccinations. Some forms of arthritis are autoimmune and are known to be a side effect. How many it's too early to tell.

www.iaamovement.org/Autoimmune_Arthritis_BQVI.html

Link to vaccine

www.whale.to/v/arthritis8.html

I repeat, it's only the few, but how many is acceptable?

Hopeforever Mon 09-Jul-12 19:30:48

Sorry, me again, this is the jab I had that proceeded my autoimmune illness. Can't be proved but....

rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/10/978.full

pinguthepenguin Mon 09-Jul-12 19:51:50

Like Herpes, condoms don't protect against HPV completely. It can be in the general pubic area not covered by condoms, especially if they have the wart-causing strains. I think when it comes to this particular virus 'safe sex' is a lot harder to achieve that you think.
I'm all for the vaccine.

LeBFG Mon 09-Jul-12 19:52:02

OK, I understand the POV of anti-vaxers (don't agree mind). But...

There seems to be a group on here who come over all queasy with this HPV vax and I have to assume it's because they are facing DD having sex. This is certainly the case with my neighbour. If DD stands on a rusty nail would you consult your DD about having a tetnus, discussing pros and cons etc etc or do you just get it done?

LeBFG Mon 09-Jul-12 20:00:43

Purlease Hope.

Arthritis can be autoimmune - so what?

Second link is to a website with topics that include mind control. Please find a link to a peer reviewed immunology paper.

How many is acceptable? That depends on how many are saved by the vaccine. If three people get arthritis for every 100 that do not die from cervical cancer then I think that's tolerable.

MammaTJ Mon 09-Jul-12 20:05:39

My DD and I discussed it at length and she decided to get it done. She had been off sick with apendicitis when all the others had it. She decided to get it done and made doctors appointment herself to have it.

I have a DD age 6 and hope that by the time she gets offered it, it will be clearer and easier to make the decision.

Shullbit Mon 09-Jul-12 20:06:53

Sorry, wasn't being rude. Been a bit preoccupied.

Thank you to all who have given me information and advice. I really do appreciate it. I had gotten to the point of thinking I was wasting the doctors time, but now realise that isn't the case and I need to demand an investigation. Thanks for the push ladies thanks

bumbleymummy Mon 09-Jul-12 20:09:14

Actually cote, I had the Lletz procedure which uses a hit loop to cut them away - I was typing quickly earlier.

bumbleymummy Mon 09-Jul-12 20:09:23

Hot*

bumbleymummy Mon 09-Jul-12 20:12:00

Cote, it was me who said that some medical professionals have expressed concerns about complacency.

dottyspotty2 Mon 09-Jul-12 20:12:22

Bear in mind whatever you decide to do that your daughter has the right to choose for herself if she wants it or not.

Catzzndogzz Mon 09-Jul-12 20:14:37

A dad here. I have two girls, 12 and 14. Let's be grown -up and live in the real world. An analogy -if I take my kids to a malaria area, I will give them the appropriate prophylaxis and not just advise them to wear long sleeves and trousers around dusk and to use a moquito net.

Catzzndogzz Mon 09-Jul-12 20:15:08

A dad here. I have two girls, 12 and 14. Let's be grown -up and live in the real world. An analogy -if I take my kids to a malaria area, I will give them the appropriate prophylaxis and not just advise them to wear long sleeves and trousers around dusk and to use a moquito net.

All my dds will be having it when they are old enough.
Cervical cancer is a killer, this injection protects against some forms of it.
I want my dcs to be protected from cancer as much as possible and that is all i care about.
It is your decision op, but imo it is a risk worth taking over a deadly disease like cancer.

dottyspotty2 Mon 09-Jul-12 20:25:21

Smear tests are now from 20 unless a high risk case when it can be younger.

LeeCoakley Mon 09-Jul-12 20:25:39

Remember that this vaccine has never been tested on the target group and has never been proven to work. Unlike malaria tablets.

toptramp Mon 09-Jul-12 20:29:33

Hi op. YABU. How can you be sure that your dd will have safe sex consistently etc? You would be in denial to think it's a given. Plus cervical cancer isn't necessarily a result of sexual promiscuity. Cancer can happen to anyone. I watched mum die of cancer and it is the most hidious disease.
It basically eats you alive. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
If you have no problem with vaccinations why risk it?

toptramp Mon 09-Jul-12 20:30:06

Oh and btw; mum didn't drink, smoke or have multiple partners and mouth cancer still got her.

LeBFG Mon 09-Jul-12 20:35:29

First hit on google.

^VLP vaccines were evaluated in phase IIb trials
(i.e., proof-of-concept trials) that enrolled young women
(15–26 years of age) from both developed and developing
countries.^

^Both vaccines have the
potential to substantially reduce HPV-related morbidity and
mortality.^

CoteDAzur Mon 09-Jul-12 20:38:07

toptramp sad

bumbleymummy Mon 09-Jul-12 20:40:21

Scotch, maybe, maybe not but I know that it could have been much worse if I hadn't had a smear which picked them up early and allowed them to be treated.

bumbleymummy Mon 09-Jul-12 20:43:04

pumpkin, I think you got that slightly wrong - it doesn't protect against sme types of cervical cancer. It may protect against some strains of HPV that may cause abnormal cell changes that may develop into cervical cancer.

SecretPlace Mon 09-Jul-12 20:46:10

Are any of the side effects as bad as cancer?

bumbleymummy Mon 09-Jul-12 20:48:31

Why secret? It's not like if you don't get the vaccine you're definitely going to get cancer.

SecretPlace Mon 09-Jul-12 20:49:54

No but if it helps to prevent the disgusting disease that is cervical cancer than I'm all for it.

Mum had it, along with a brain tumour. I went ahead and had the HPV jab straight away.

CoteDAzur Mon 09-Jul-12 20:52:00

bumbley - I am familiar about LLETZ procedure because I have had it done. You said your abnormal cells were "lasered" which is another procedure.

What do you mean by "it wasn't done properly"? Sorry to pry, but this interests me for obvious reasons.

Btw, I know it was you who said it. I often use "you" rather than "one" in that context, like Americans.

Hopeforever Mon 09-Jul-12 20:53:34

LeBFG, maybe you'd like to walk a mile in my shoes, oh I forgot, I can't walk a mile in my shoes sad

LeBFG Mon 09-Jul-12 20:55:20

The vaccine has been shown to protect against some cancer-causing virus strains. In these women, there is zero chance of developing cancer caused by these virus strains. Why would you not vaccinate?

bumbleymummy Mon 09-Jul-12 20:58:25

What age was that at secret? I don't think it's effective after you've become sexually active because you could already have been exposed to hpv.

Sorry to hear about your mum.

LeBFG Mon 09-Jul-12 20:59:02

I'm sorry you're in a bad way Hope...

We're discussing whether or not to vaccinate and people frequently like to make simple links between two (probably) unrelated events. This is really common with vaccines. But I believe vaccines almost always save/improve people's lives more than they harm. So I argue when people don't think this is the case.

Bumbley-same thing though isn't it, even though i worded it wrong.
I even know a virgin who got cervical cancer so it can happen to anyone, sexually active or not.
Why not give something that could save your childs life?
Cancer is not something you want happening to your child, the jab isn't going to cause promiscuity-i find that a stupid thing for people to say

bumbleymummy Mon 09-Jul-12 21:00:06

I know I did, someone had said it in a post just before mine and I was posting quickly and just wrote lasered. I didn't bother correcting it then because I didn't think it was that important which treatment I'd had- I was just pointing out that I'd also had abnormal cells removed.

SecretPlace Mon 09-Jul-12 21:02:51

It was at 18 bumbley. 2 years ago.

bumbleymummy Mon 09-Jul-12 21:02:51

They just hadn't removed all of the cells in the area so they redid it.

bumbleymummy Mon 09-Jul-12 21:03:42

LE, there is not zero chance. No vaccine is 100% effective.

bumbleymummy Mon 09-Jul-12 21:08:33

I've never said that it causes promiscuity although I do share the concern that some medical professionals have about whether it will cause complacency wrt smears. Particularly when I read so many people saying that it will definitely prevent cervical cancer etc.

Smears caused a huge reduction in the number of cervical cancer deaths. I don't think the HPV vaccine will do anywhere near as much (although it will probably get a lot more credit and recognition if it does make a difference) and I worry that smears are going to be pushed back further or disregarded because people think the vaccine keeps them safe.

GnomeDePlume Mon 09-Jul-12 21:28:42

My DDs have had and will have the vaccination. If it was offered then DS would as well. IMO waiting until they are becoming sexually active is dangerous. There is every chance that their first sexual experience will be with someone who isnt a virgin. That being the case there is risk right from the start.

Protecting DS would potentially be protecting my future DiL.

Dawndonna Mon 09-Jul-12 21:30:10

Gnome
Your ds can get the vaccine through your gp surgery, unfortunately, it will cost.

GnomeDePlume Mon 09-Jul-12 21:32:07

Thanks Dawn, I will look into it.

MammaTJ Mon 09-Jul-12 21:35:13

I quite agree gnome I shall try and get DS done too. He may be in a reationship woth a vaccinated girl, he may be in a reationship with a boy. He needs to be protected too!!

MammaTJ Mon 09-Jul-12 21:36:02

reationship relationship

Wormshuffler Mon 09-Jul-12 21:40:59

My DD is 13 and I chose not to have her vaccinated last year. My reasons were/are that it hasn't been around long enough yet to know what the long term side effects are (if there are any) , and more to the point if it actually works. DD isn't any where near sexually active, provided this continues I will keep defering it until she is 16 when provided there have been no issues she can have it (if she chooses).

SCOTCHandWRY Mon 09-Jul-12 21:47:08

LE, there is not zero chance. No vaccine is 100% effective.
The vaccine does not confer immunity to ALL the strains of HPV which cause cervical and other cancers, but, if the course of vaccinations is completed, then it does give pretty much 100% protection against cancers caused by those strains of HPV (over 90% of cervical cancers and over70% of mouth, tongue and throat cancers are caused by the HPV strains covered by the vaccine).

Several people have mentioned smoking and drinking as a cause for these same cancers - they are a risk factor yes, because it make it more likely that tissues already infected by HPV will undergo cancerous changes.

Even if you have been sexually active, no matter what your age, it could still be worth having the vaccine as you may not have been exposed to the most dangerous strains of the virus (or any strain).

dottyspotty2 Mon 09-Jul-12 21:47:48

Wormshuffler DD2 was among the first to get the vaccinations I wasn't sure but she chose to have it as she had the right to so I signed it knowing she wanted it they don't need parental permission it's their body they aren't babies. Not critisising just saying the facts.

dottyspotty2 Mon 09-Jul-12 21:49:01

IIRC its also only affective for about 10 years if that.

SCOTCHandWRY Mon 09-Jul-12 22:04:58

Gnome, you may have to see a private GP (our NHS GP was told by our local health care trust that he could not prescribe it, this was about a year ago). It cost about £300 per child for the 3 doses (about £90 per dose of vaccine, 3 doses each plus the DR's fee). Cost is spread out over a few months so that eases the expense a little.

As I said up thread, there has been a partial change of policy, giving boys the vaccine is being looked into now, so you MAY be able to get the vaccine on the NHS if you push for it.

SCOTCHandWRY Mon 09-Jul-12 22:13:06

DOTTY,

A booster will be introduced at some point, but don't forget, if at the end of 8 years, or 10 years, the immunity conferred by the vaccine wears off, even without having a booster, you are still in a better position than if you never had the vaccine - you've been protected for 10 years (and the younger you are when you are exposed to HPV, the stronger the association with developing cancer at a later date). And typically, the younger years of a persons adulthood are the most sexually active, and therefore the most risky in terms of catching these viruses.

dottyspotty2 Mon 09-Jul-12 22:18:55

Scotch she had hers 3 nearly 4 years ago

bumbleymummy Mon 09-Jul-12 22:37:45

Actually, around 30% of cervical cancers are not protected against by the vaccine according to the CDC. Nearly 100% is still not 100% so there is not 'zero chance' as a PP said. In any case, these things do tend to be over estimated so chances are, that will decrease in the future.

GnomeDePlume Mon 09-Jul-12 22:42:35

Thanks Scotch I will check with my local surgery

dottyspotty2 Mon 09-Jul-12 22:43:51

Personally I was high risk of getting cervical cancer but luckily I've escaped so far

Better be protected by 70% than none at all.

Flisspaps Mon 09-Jul-12 22:54:43

pumpkin agreed

OP, bear in mind that should your DD ever choose to have children, that will require unprotected sex.

My DM, DSis and me have ALL had cervical abnormalities requiring treatment.
My DD will have the vaccine when she is old enough, hopefully DS will be able to have it on the NHS by then too.

bumbleymummy Mon 09-Jul-12 23:05:33

I don't know- possibly protect temporarily against some strains of HPV which may (very small chance) develop into cervical cancer with the risk of a vaccine that you won't know until you've had it. It all just seems a bit woolly to me.

I'll stick to smears seeing as they are proven to prevent cervical cancer and a cotton swab scraping a few cells off my cervix carries fewer risks than a vaccine.

comptoir Mon 09-Jul-12 23:07:56

Safe sex doesn't stop transmission of HPV. I would encourage her to have it but then I am not anti-vac.

Vaccines along with smears are the best prevention, i think a 12yo shoul be allowed to make the choice herself i need be.
After all it is her body, the hpv vaccine is a prevention of certain hpvs even starting whereas smears only pick up on cell changes/cancer that has already taken place.

SCOTCHandWRY Mon 09-Jul-12 23:12:52

Bumble, I get where you are coming from, saying cervical screening is important, and needs to remains so - no argument there, there will be un-vaccinated women, women who don't get the booster (in the future), and women who get cancer after contracting other HPV strains not currently in the vaccine (together these cause pretty much 100% of cervical cancer).

However, I don't think you are seeing the enormity of 70%+ of these cancers just not happening in the first place! 70% a is massive, astounding piece of prevention. Imo, the next most dangerous strains will be added to the vaccine at some point.
It's not all about cervical cancer prevention - these 4 strains together cause very large% of other cancers in the both the male and female genital/anal area, and oral/throat area....... in fact the oral cancers are due to over take the cervical cancers in number within the next 5 to 10 years.

I say once more, PREVENTING is surely an enormous improvement over simply DETECTING most of these cancers after they have already developed!

I am very happy that my SONS are protected against the most virulent strains of these viruses - and they can't therefore pass these particular viruses on to the people they love (or have sex with grin).

I am bowing out of the thread now, I've done my bit for the pro-vaccinate camp, and it's time for bed! smile

Totally agree with<SCOTCH>

bumbleymummy Mon 09-Jul-12 23:19:15

Only time will tell. Smear tests and treating pre-cancerous cells have reduced cervical cancer by up to 90%. We'll see how effective the vaccine is (although what it actually does and what the manufacturers say that it does could be very different)

Goodnight! smile

dottyspotty2 Mon 09-Jul-12 23:24:21

pumpkins as I said before the forms DD2 brought home stated that they didn't need our permission. The rights of the child to choose whether they receive it matters they have that right by law.

SCOTCHandWRY Mon 09-Jul-12 23:26:16

I've thought hard about what to write on this thread. It's quite difficult.

I had cervical cancer in my thirties, even though I had regular smears. It required major surgery, including a hysterectomy and the removal of part of my vagina. As a result, I will never be able to have my own daughter to have this conversation with.

People often talk about the worries caused by long term effects of vaccination. I'd just like to share some of the long term effects of being a cancer survivor (and I'm one of the lucky ones, in that I am still here - cervical cancer is still killing far too many women, both here and all around the world). The surgery removed many lymph nodes so now I have to be very careful about lymphoedema (swelling and fluid retention in the lower part of my body). This means no waxing, no cuts, no bites, no kicks or scratches, no sunburn, never going barefoot. I've got a hernia after the operation, and a big old scar. The nerves of my bladder were affected, so although I'm not incontinent, I do need the loo a lot more often and this has had a limiting effect, for instance on where we stay overnight. Like many cancer survivors, and infertile women, I had problems with depression after the illness. My immune system is permanently affected. Psychologically and emotionally, it was like being run over by a train. It had a long lasting effect on our sex life, especially since part of my vagina is now gone. I couldn't even imagine attempting sex with anyone else if anything ever happened to DH. Financially, I went from being a successful local authority chief officer to a non working person on benefits after working my socks off in a male dominated field and studying successfully.

Finally, I'll mention the misery it caused to those who love me - my family, my DH particularly and my friends.

OP, so when you and your DD are having this conversation, please do not forget what cervical cancer is like, even for women like me who are genuinely fortunate in surviving. My life has changed enormously and permanently since cancer.

If vaccination could prevent this happening to other women, then I'd be delighted.

NovackNGood Tue 10-Jul-12 00:08:11

If the post above from scuttlebutter does not wake you up to how unreasonable your anti vaccination view is then sadly i doubt nothing will. Surely it is your daughters right to decide if she wants to have the added protection or not. Not yours.

unitarian Tue 10-Jul-12 00:50:26

My DD's had the jabs aged 17. She and I didn't hesitate for a moment over it but we did discuss the need to never ignore an invitation to have a smear test (or breast check for that matter) and to practise safe sex.

This generation of young women are fortunate to have this opportunity and it's also a golden opportunity to have a mother/daughter chat about women's health.

Pitmountainpony Tue 10-Jul-12 03:05:12

I was shocked as a teacher to become aware( only the ones that came on my radar) of how many girls are sexually active by Year 9 and some in year 7 and 8 and it was a good school.Often with older boys who they were only to keen to please in the way demanded by such lads.....the impression I got from pastoral care of 13-14 year girls in se london.
However you raise your daughter the chances are at some point she will have unsafe sex and no doubt sooner than you would like such is the peer prerssure from friends and the media- protect her with this vaccine at least against this risk.

Scuttlebutter-sorry for the pain you have suffered, if any post should change anti-vac views it will be yours.
No-one wants cancer and if this vacc wipes out 70% of cervical cancer, it is doing nothing but good imo.

sashh Tue 10-Jul-12 05:58:28

I had safe sex and smear tests.

Nut you cannot know that will be the same for your daughter. Rape is a possibilty for any female, there is the possibility of an STD afterwards, or after a split condom for that matter, or from oral sex.

Give her the jab.

bumbleymummy Tue 10-Jul-12 07:47:46

Scuttlebutter, thank you for sharing your story. Do you mind if I ask when you started having smears and how often they were and how old you were and what stage the cancer was at when it was identified?

Sorry for all the questions! I hope you don't mind answering them.

LeBFG Tue 10-Jul-12 08:37:41

bumble - please just say the truth - you are anti-vaccine. I disagree with the anti-vaccine stance but at least I know where you are coming from.

Your anti-HPV vaccine stance is motivated by no other goal than your general anti-vaccine POV.

No one has pointed to any downsides (frankly, not being 100% effective is not a downside - cancer treatment isn't 100% effective either - no one is saying stop treating cancer). Some have merely speculated this may reduce smear rates (the same argument was used with car seat belts - because people felt more secure, surely they were going to drive less carefully thereby increasing accidents). This is pure supposition whereas the trials on the vaccine show they prevent cancer!

NervousAt20 Tue 10-Jul-12 08:42:20

When I was at school and they gave the vaccine about 5 years ago 8 didn't have it and was frowned upon completely, after lots of reading about it it wasnt something I wanted and my mum supported me too, there wasn't as much information available then and was a fair bit of bad press at the time but you need to make a choice that's right for you and your DD. smile

sashh Tue 10-Jul-12 08:44:45

I'll stick to smears seeing as they are proven to prevent cervical cancer and a cotton swab scraping a few cells off my cervix carries fewer risks than a vaccine.

WTF? A smear is a test that CAN but does not always pick up precancerous cells. It does not prevent cancer. It never has, it never will.

bumbleymummy Tue 10-Jul-12 08:56:22

I'm actually not anti vaccine. I just don't like this particular vaccine. I dislike the way it has been promoted, its benefits are a bit woolly, we haven't really seen the long term impact of it yet and whether it actually 'works'. I'm just not sold on it at all. Fair enough if you are, we all think differently about these things.

Sashh, it prevents cancer by identifying pre cancerous cells that can be treated if required. Smear tests and treatment of pre-cancerous cells have reduced cervical cancer by up to 90%.

bumbleymummy Tue 10-Jul-12 08:58:27

Should say 'helps' to prevent cervical cancer.

LeBFG Tue 10-Jul-12 09:14:57

Looking at your previous posts, you are anti-vaccine bumble.

Smears work by identifying cells that have already been altered. Smears are fantastic (no one arguing that point) but can't prevent the virus from starting the cancer.

The benefits are not woolly - they are clear and strong.

The vaccinations have already been going on a while now. The paper I linked to back in the thread was written in 2006. We are already six years on from then. What 'long term impact' are you looking for?

Shullbit Tue 10-Jul-12 09:26:26

Smears may be great, but what about those who are too young? Too many under 25's are dying of Cervical Cancer because theirs wasn't picked up due to no smear. This vaccine, if they had had it, could of saved their lives.

Again, smears sometimes pick up changes when it is too late, as in Scuttlebutters case. Sometimes, even later than that. This vaccine could help that.

I look forward to it becoming something which all can use, girls and boys, and for boosters to be brought in. Cancer is an horrific thing. I have watched too many loved ones suffer and die from it, and others suffer and "survive". I put that word in brackets, as they still suffer on a daily basis from the after effects of the horrid C word.

Anything that can prevent that, is a good thing in my eyes.

"its benefits are a bit woolly, we haven't really seen the long term impact of it yet and whether it actually 'works'"

No they aren't. There have been studies since 2006 (and sooner from other countries). The studies were linked to earlier in the thread.

It isn't some strains that it is effective against, it is the main killer cancer strains and not just cervical. That is why it is given to same sex couples and males.

X post with Le.

We have talks given in our Children's Centre and in the groups that we run. If there isn't sound research that shows results then we cannot advocate, or rather the HCP's that we use, cannot, recommend a course of action or vacine.

They have the latest data on these things.

sashh Tue 10-Jul-12 09:38:14

Bumbly

It might be a matter of semantice, but it is the treatment, not the smear that prevents the cancer developing.

Doesn't the vaccine prevent you from contracting some forms of HPV that could develop into cancer, so that you would never get abnormal cells from that infection (I know it doesn't cover all of them) as well?

sashh Tue 10-Jul-12 09:42:55

I meant semantics - sorry

lowfatiscrap12 Tue 10-Jul-12 09:57:12

thanks for everyones replies.
I was very much heading towards an anti vax position on this one, but having read all your replies, I've changed my mind. It was scuttlebutters post which clinched it. I'm sorry you had to go through that horrendous experience scuttlebutter.
I'm going to let her have the vaccination.

bumbleymummy Tue 10-Jul-12 10:04:05

LeBFG, if you'd read my other posts, you would know that I'm not. Unless your definition of 'anti-vax' means not agreeing with certain vaccines and the current childhood vaccination schedule.

I'll repeat, a vaccine that may provide temporary protection against certain strains of HPV which may cause cell changes which may if left untreated go on to develop into cervical cancer are not 'clear and strong' benefits IMO. It may satisfy you but it seems woolly to me. I also don't consider 6 years to be a 'long term impact'.

Shullbit, that's why I think smear tests should start earlier and should be more frequent. 25 is ridiculous and much older than many other countries. The HpV vaccine may have prevented those cell changes but it may not and if they had been screened earlier they could have been caught.

bumbleymummy Tue 10-Jul-12 10:07:49

Low fat, obviously it's your choice to make but personally i would want to know which strain caused scuttles cancer, when she had her first smear, how frequently she was having them and what stage the cells were at when they were identified and treated before I allowed it to influence my decision. If you're happy with your choice then that's ok with me. I won't tell people what they should do with their bodies.

Shullbit Tue 10-Jul-12 10:13:23

I agree, smear tests should be offered from an earlier age. The fact is though, they aren't. So this vaccine is better than nothing until at least they reach 25, or that the age is dropped. Without it, the chances of getting to 25 years of age and getting an abnormal result are more likely than those who have had it.

Shullbit Tue 10-Jul-12 10:21:11

I don't think it really matters what strain caused Scuttlebutters Cancer. The fact we can prevent Cancer from developing from some strains and stopping women from going through the suffering that she did, or similar, has to be a good thing.

bumbleymummy Tue 10-Jul-12 10:23:37

An abnormal smear result doesn't necessarily mean cancer though shullbit. I think we will have to wait until the girls who had the vaccine get to the screening age and see what difference it actually makes and that will take several years.

LeBFG Tue 10-Jul-12 10:23:59

I love this semantics of 'maybe' and 'possibly' - you aren't using very definate terminology here. I could easily change a few words in what you posted, highlighted in bold:

a vaccine that may provide long term protection against certain strains of HPV which in some individuals will cause cell changes which will if left untreated go on to develop into cervical cancer

Sounds good to me.

I also don't consider 6 years to be a 'long term impact' - the study was published in 2006. The data was from years before that. It was just the very first article I clicked on. I'm sure other studies were initiated before that one. How long do you want to wait? What long-term impacts do you think will arise?

Shullbit Tue 10-Jul-12 10:27:35

Maybe so, but the chances of it developing into Cancer are less with those who have had the vaccine. Surely that is a good thing for those under 25?

bumbleymummy Tue 10-Jul-12 10:28:01

Shullbit, well if it wasn't one of the strains that the vaccine tries it protect against then the vaccine wouldn't have prevented it.

I think it is important and also interesting to know whether certain strains develop into abnormal cells and cancer faster than others because cervical cancer is generally thought to be quite slow and is much more likely in people who haven't had regular smears.

LeBFG Tue 10-Jul-12 10:28:54

If you are against this vaccine with no published downsides, you must either be anti-vax or terribly squeamish about considering girls of 12/13 year engaging in future sexual acts. This latter one is certainly what prevented my neighbour vaccinating her 16yo DD.

It protects against 70% of strains, that can only be a good thingsmile
I can't see what reasons warrant not having it-Cancer is a killer

If a teenager is going to have sex , they will do it regardless of being vaccinated or not.
I would rather my children were not the ones to catch one of the %70 of strains so once my 9yo is 12 she is going to have it

Shullbit Tue 10-Jul-12 10:33:29

It may not of protected her exactly, but it will protect many others against some strains that can, and do, develop into Cancer. Just because one person who has posted about her experience with Cancer, which may of been caused by a different strain, is not a good enough reason in my eyes to not protect against the strains that we can.

bumbleymummy Tue 10-Jul-12 10:34:36

That's becuase there isn't very definite terminology LeBFG. Long term protection? We don't know that yet. Also, abnormal cells don't always go on to develop into cancer so your use of will there is not appropriate.

What reasons do those Anti-vacc have for NOT letting their child have it?
Just interested to know why as i cannot see a good reason for not giving it?

bumbleymummy Tue 10-Jul-12 10:40:04

LeBFG, it's neither which should be obvious seeing as I'm not anti-vaccine and I haven't mentioned anything about teenagers having sex.

NurseBernard Tue 10-Jul-12 10:40:58

"I think it is important and also interesting to know whether certain strains develop into abnormal cells and cancer faster than others because cervical cancer is generally thought to be quite slow and is much more likely in people who haven't had regular smears."

Please be very careful with what you write. The above is scare-mongering.

Cervical cancer is NOT much more likely in people who haven't had regular smears. Smears are a way of detecting cervical cancer; not a method of prevention.

NurseBernard Tue 10-Jul-12 10:43:17

You're 'not anti-vaccine' and yet you pop up on every single vaccine thread to take an anti-vaccine stance.

Whatever. You've a vested interest in this subject - don't be surprised that people take you at that face value.

LeBFG Tue 10-Jul-12 10:43:23

Bumble - some of the cells will become cancerous though, that's my point. You're dwelling on the worst possible senario.

There is definately terminology - the vaccine protects against 70% of cancer-causing virus strains.

Long term impacts? Still waiting to hear your suggestions wrt this one. Long-term protection: one study shows 6 years of immunity without a reduction. This is pretty effective for a vaccine, don't you think? Even if turns out not to be life-long - so what? That's what boosters are for.

bumbleymummy Tue 10-Jul-12 10:57:07

I suppose it depends on what your idea of 'anti-vax' is nurse. I know that genuine anti-vaxers wouldn't consider me to be. I'm not sure what my vested interest would be either confused

LeBFG, I haven't said that some won't. You added things into my statement and the word 'will' was not appropriate in the context you used it.

The vaccine has only been used in the UK for the last 4 years iirc. Let's wait until they all start reaching 25 and start getting their smears and see what difference it has made before we start talking about long term protection shall we?

bumbleymummy Tue 10-Jul-12 10:58:17

And no, I don't think 6 years is long term.

No-one has answered my question??hmm

NurseBernard Tue 10-Jul-12 11:11:34

You don't have anything to say in defence of your incorrect scare-mongering comment? hmm

NurseBernard Tue 10-Jul-12 11:13:30

Oh, and my idea of anti-vax is popping up on every single vaccine thread and being anti-vax.

dottyspotty2 Tue 10-Jul-12 11:22:10

Smears do only detect cervical cancer I had a sub-total hysterectomy at 30 was advised to keep my cervix as they couldn't detect cancer if I had the lot taken away and I was always high risk due to my history.

bumbleymummy Tue 10-Jul-12 11:24:53

Sorry, that reply was lost when it logged me out mid-post and I forgot to repost it.

Nurse, It's not scaremongering. Most cases of cervical cancer are found in woman who have not had regular smears. The smear test helps to detect the pre-cancerous cells before they become cancerous so if women aren't being screened often enough (or early enough!) these cells can go on to develop into cancer.

bumbleymummy Tue 10-Jul-12 11:25:22

Nurse, again. It depends on what you mean by anti-vax.

gnushoes Tue 10-Jul-12 11:34:14

I have had a series of dodgy smear tests and I wasn't a particularly high risk person. I was pleased that this vaccine was offered to my daughters: we know it isn't perfect but frankly every little helps, doesn't it? If it increases their changes of not getting cervical cancer then that is worth doing.

CoteDAzur Tue 10-Jul-12 11:39:32

Nurse - So what if she is "anti-vax"? hmm That is a conviction, probably born out of her family's circumstances, not a disease or a mark of insanity.

If you looked only at MMR threads, you would think of me as "anti-vax", too. Then you look at this thread, and I'm "pro-vax". Do you think it is possible that people might be a bit more complex than the labels "pro-vax" and "anti-vax"?

FushiaFernica Tue 10-Jul-12 11:41:41

I am one of those silly people that read articles like this, and am put off this injection.
www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2061267/Girl-13-left-waking-coma-sleeps-23-hours-day-severe-reaction-cervical-cancer-jabs.html

I know I shouldn't be, my dd has had all other injections it is just this one that I am really concerned about.

CoteDAzur Tue 10-Jul-12 11:42:23

Judging by the last page or so of this thread, most people here are missing the fact that smears detect only cervical cancer but HPV also causes oral and anal cancers.

There are no smears for those. Vaccine is your DC's only protection.

dottyspotty2 Tue 10-Jul-12 11:48:46

Cote DD2 had hers in the early days of the vaccine so can't remember all the details but that is good to be reminded thanks. smile

eurochick Tue 10-Jul-12 11:52:19

I think it's amazing that science has developed a vaccine against a cancer-causing virus. Absolutely amazing. I would definitely have taken advantage of that development if I had been of an age to do so.

I wonder how many other cancers have viral triggers?

gnushoes Tue 10-Jul-12 11:57:09

Good point Cote I had forgotten that too.

firemansamisnormansdad Tue 10-Jul-12 11:58:41

I didn't have my DD vaccinated for this at 12 as there was a lot of negative publicity about adverse reactions around this time (ie 1,000 of them and one poor girl died the same day even though it was said that this was not connected). She is now 14 and i'm beginning to wonder whether i made a mistake. She will have to havethem done privately before she goes to college.

OP, I'm delighted if my experience has been helpful. If you would like me to write more for your DD, please PM me. Can I just clarify - I am very much in favour of encouraging women (and girls) to take up screening and am delighted that in Wales smears are offered to younger women than in England. The vaccine by itself is not a magic bullet but it will help considerably in reducing the misery, suffering and death caused.

And while we are talking about the vaccine, it also offers great hope for women in developing countries, especially Africa, where rates of cervical cancer are very much higher and outcomes are poorer, leading to many more preventable deaths. In the UK, we have the luxury of a well developed, free and effective screening programme, something many women round the world don't have. A vaccine for them will be a life saver.

Can I also just remind all women that even if you have regular smears (as I did) that any symptoms should always be checked out, particularly unexpected bleeding between periods.

I'd also like to endorse the points made by other posters about the protection offered against a range of other cancers, such as throat, mouth etc.

LeBFG Tue 10-Jul-12 13:48:01

That bloody DM - it's only because of DM and its ilk that the crap surrounding MMR has perpetuated so long. In your link Fushia, note that of the four million vaccinations over two years, I repeat four million, FOUR girls suffered from Guillan-Barre Syndrome which they follow by saying 'There is no evidence that the vaccine has increased the frequency of GBS above that expected to occur naturally in the population'.

Deciding whether to vaccinate or not really is a no-brainer.

MarysBeard Tue 10-Jul-12 14:00:39

I had ten sexual partners between the ages of 17 and 23, most sex was with a condom but not when I'd being going out with someone for a while. I knew about the risk of HIV but had never heard of HPV then. I don't think my sexual history is particularly unusual or promiscuous, and as others have pointed out, HPV is so common and you only need one partner to get it...I think the vaccine is so fantastic, my daughters will definitely have it.

SCOTCHandWRY Tue 10-Jul-12 14:19:03

I wonder how many other cancers have viral triggers?, probably MANY maybe even most types of cancer have a viral origin (with environmental factors like smoking, alcohol, toxins playing a part in triggering), this is new, cutting edge medicine and a lot is going to change in the next couple of decades in the field of cancer prevention.

I am going to repost a link I posted a few pages up thread, brand new, and very good news about the fact that Gardasil does indeed appear to be working by preventing the spread of the most virulent HPV strains, even where only one of the 3 vaccinations was given (a % of people will get full protection after only 1 jab, 3 jabs are given to ensure full immunity to almost everyone).

www.wsfa.com/story/18979290/hpv-vaccine-reducing-infections-even-among-unvaccinated-study

And once again, PREVENTING people from getting the virus which (eventually) causes the cancer is so much better than screening to find the cancer/pre-cancer the treatments for even the mild forms of abnormality causes stress, pain, worry and may also impact on your chances of carrying a pregnancy to term. Yes screening is still needed but it's not an either/or - both vaccine and screening should be used........ and most of the other forms of cancer caused by these 4 types of HPV in both males and females do not HAVE a screening program anyway!

The "temporary" immunity the vaccine gives against these 4 strains is a bit of a red herring..... a booster will be introduced at some point, but as I said before, 8 or 10 years of good immunity followed by a declining immunity, even if no booster is ever given, will still have significant impact on infection rates. This is because, the younger you are when you are first infected with HPV, the stronger the chance of cancer developing at some point later, and the younger you are the more short relationships you are likely to have (and ditto your partners). With a strong vaccination program, there will also be fewer infected people spreading the infections around to people who have lowered immunity so they would be less likely to contract the viruses when immunity (if) wears off.

dottyspotty2 Tue 10-Jul-12 15:14:38

Firemansam no it was definately not connected she was found to have an underlying illness sure it was a growth or something that was not known about.

bumbleymummy Tue 10-Jul-12 18:03:00

Would anyone advise their daughter not to take the pill because it increases her chance of cervical cancer? I suppose I would direct that more towards the people who have said that they think anything that reduces the risk of cancer is worth it.

DesperatelySeekingPomBears Tue 10-Jul-12 18:23:52

Just wanted to chuck in my own personal experience. The vaccine wasn't available to me at school (I'm 26), I only ever had sex with my DP and we used condoms for months etc etc.

My very first smear test came back abnormal (CIN 1) and it was the single most terrifying experience of my life so far, especially as I was already pregnant so had to wait almost a year before they could retest me and think about treatment.

Personally, should I have a DD in the future, I would be giving my consent for her to have the vaccine.

bumbleymummy Tue 10-Jul-12 18:37:27

Desperately - CIN1 is not cancer and, in most cases, is cleared by the body's immune system. Obviously not always and if not, they can be treated.

bumbleymummy Tue 10-Jul-12 18:40:43

Sorry, that could sound harsher than I intended. I just wanted to point out that CIN1 changes don't always require treatment. I've had a few that had disappeared by themselves when I went back for my check up 6 months later.

Flooded Tue 10-Jul-12 18:45:31

Just think how you would feel if your daughter got cervical cancer when she was older, and she knew you had stopped her getting the vaccine? Decision made.

Flisspaps Tue 10-Jul-12 18:45:44

bumbley isn't the Pill thought to decrease the risk of other cancers though? And the increased risk of cervical cancer could be down to sex being without a condom - not the Pill itself.

bumbleymummy Tue 10-Jul-12 18:51:29

It's not Fliss, those things were taken into consideration.

It increases your risk of cervical and breast but decreases the risk of ovarian and uterine. I was just wondering what people thought because some people considered any risk of the vaccine worth a reduction in cervical cancer. I wonder how they feel about the pill increasing it.

Shullbit Tue 10-Jul-12 19:05:59

There isn't just the pill. If I had a daughter, I would encourage her (but ultimately it would be her decision) to not only use condoms all the time until well into a relationship, but also to use a more longer term contraceptive like the implant which she couldn't forget to take, and also doesn't (as far as I am aware) have links to Cancer.

GnomeDePlume Tue 10-Jul-12 22:05:05

For all parents who decided for whatever reason not to immunise their daughters:

you must tell them that they are not immunised and remind them of this regularly

They wont remember so you are responsible for reminding them.

Waiting until they are already sexually active to immunise is like waiting until they are already sexually active to start using contraception - it could already be too late.

CecilyP Tue 10-Jul-12 22:17:04

Firemansam, would your DD not be able to get the vaccination at school next year when it is offered to the next group of girls?

pinkstinks Tue 10-Jul-12 22:24:46

I am another of those too old for the jabs to have been happening when in school and too young for a smear.
I booked a day off when I had a job to try and investigate the syptoms and when I was at the dr's they turned me away and said they vcouldnt do a smear until i was twenty five.
I have been to two other doctors since witht the ame persistant symptoms and they keep turning me away. I dont know what to do, I am twenty three and have been having sex since I was fourteen and I have weird bleeding and pains in between periods but no seems to be able to help me, or try to find out what is causing this. It makes me really angry that the age for smears is twenty-five. By that point I will have been sexually active for eleven years.

edam Tue 10-Jul-12 22:32:31

pink, that's all wrong - although you are too young for the regular screening programme, you should be able to raise any concerns with your own GP who should listen to you and take any action that is medically justified. It's the difference between a general programme of checks for everyone in X group and an individual seeing their GP with worrying symptoms - I'm too young for a mammogram but if I was worried about a lump, of course the GP should check, rather than turn me away!

What have the doctors said to you about your symptoms - do they think it's normal and not a sign of anything worrying? Maybe you could try an STD clinic - I know it's not an STD but the staff there might be more prepared to investigate if you explain you are worried and can't get any help elsewhere?

pinkstinks-keep on at your doctor until you are listened to!!
Cant believe they would turn away a woman with symptoms, its a disgrace!
Keep phoning and pestering until you get your smear

bugsylugs Tue 10-Jul-12 23:11:07

Sidge 'any GP can order a cervical smear as part of clinical investigstion' this is not correct maybe in some areas of the country in others GP needs to refer onto gynaecology for investigations. Referral should never be delayed by a smear or waiting for the result. Likewise early smears cannot be requested by GP in all areas.

Shullbit if your GP does not know what is going on they should be referring you with your family history in the letter.

Deeppurple am truly shocked

bugsylugs Tue 10-Jul-12 23:14:02

Pinsticks request a referral to gynaecology. We cannot do smears in under 25 they go in the bin. Until recently they could be done at GUM that is blocked now. Gynaecology is the correct route

bugsylugs Tue 10-Jul-12 23:16:26

Pumpkin sweetie accuse phone corrective texting. See posts above hands are tied BUT worrying signs and symptoms should be investigated by gynaecology hence referral needed

Pinsticks hope GP has at least examined you

pinkstinks Tue 10-Jul-12 23:25:51

Hi All, thanks for your kind words, I have always felt like I have been fobbed off, have been to two different GP's and sexuak health clinic and have been refused at all, have not even been examined, even when sat there crying about it.
They have all said there is absoluutely no point giving me one as as I am young there will always be significant changes etc and inaccurate readings may happen. And im sat there saying ''but im presenting symptoms''. And they are saying that it would brobably come back with a false reading which would unnecessarily worry me? This has been going on for over a year now...
I will try and request a referral, thankyou for the advice, and sorry to derail the thread, but I would ask you to vaccinate your daughters so they don't face this wall of beaurocracy.

bugsylugs Wed 11-Jul-12 00:14:05

Pinksticks think they are very Remiss at not examining you. If they refuse referral for your own peace of mind could you go privately for an initial consultation? And then explain lots of consultants if they do nhs work will then transfer you back to nhs if they know the situation. Would probably cost 120-180 pounds but you can ask the clinic first. Not meaning to criticise but wonder if you have gone in asking for a smear not realising they cannot be over ruled as opposed to going in saying these are my symptoms I am very scared. Though your post above makes me think you may have done both. Seems poor care to not put a hand on your tummy, vaginal examination and a speculum.

Good luck. Which area are you in if you do not mind me asking?

edam Fri 13-Jul-12 21:19:52

Agree with bugs, you may be too young for a smear - because smears are inaccurate at your age - but that does NOT mean it's OK to ignore any symptoms you notice. They should take a history and examine you. I don't know whether there are any NICE guidelines for cervical investigations - worth googling National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to find out. Or you can download an information leaflet from the Eve appeal - a charity that funds research into gynaecological cancers. (I don't want to worry you, always bear in mind it's VERY unusual in someone of your age, but given you are worried, better to have some information that might either put your mind at rest or help you have a better conversation with your doctors.)

CoteDAzur Fri 13-Jul-12 22:16:22

Are you sure that smears are inaccurate at the age of 23?

I was having smears at 21, 22, and 23 and nobody had a problem with doing them nor were they worried the results wild be inaccurate.

Can someone provide a link?

edam Fri 13-Jul-12 22:27:27
CoteDAzur Fri 13-Jul-12 22:38:22

Not a great explanation, though:

"One in three women under the age 25 will have an abnormal result compared with one in 14 for older women, meaning there would be many false positives.
The experts warned this would lead to unnecessary treatment which then increases the risk of premature births in the future."

Not true.

If you get a positive, false or otherwise, you don't get treatment. If it is a mere CIN I, you get "Wait and see". Even if it is an alarming CIN III, you get a colposcopy, where dr paints your cervix with vinegar and looks at it. If he sees anything suspect, he clips several tiny bits and sends them to biopsy.

*Only after *biopsy confirms severe abnormal changes do you get treatment.

AND

That treatment doesn't, under normal circumstances, cause premature births.

DilysPrice Fri 13-Jul-12 23:45:06

The problem is cote, that biopsies have false positives, colcoscopies have false positives, If you start ten times as many women down that path then, crudely speaking, you'll get ten times as many women being treated unneccessarily, and if the risk of actually having cancer is tiny to start with then those unnecessary treatments will affect far more women than will have been legitimately treated.

None of this means that you shouldn't investigate women who have significant symptoms though.

CoteDAzur Sat 14-Jul-12 07:53:52

I suppose you are referring to human error here, because it is not really that easy to mistake a normal biopsy specimen for a CIN III with severe abnormalities. Take a look at the pictures here.

In no other suspicion of pre-cancer would you not biopsy because there is a small chance of false positive. It's insanity.

The real reason why smears are delayed is that even if you are infected ei HPV at first sexual intercourse, you will take about 6-9 years to get to CIN III (about 2-3 years between each stage: normal to CIN I, CIN I to CIN II, and CIN II to CIN III). So the state is basically assuming girls start sexual activity at legal age of consent and feel they will catch CIN III's at age 25.

Bad news for those who first have sex at 14 and/or skip between these stages in 2 years. However, they are a small minority, so the state calculates them as collateral damage.

CoteDAzur Sat 14-Jul-12 07:58:49

"investigate women who have significant symptoms though"

You must know very little about cancer, indeed sad

By the time symptoms appear, it is usually too late to save the organ or possibly even your life. Hence the reason why we all go for smears to test for pre-cancerous cells. (apologies to those experiencing symptoms)

DilysPrice Sat 14-Jul-12 08:17:06

I was talking specifically about pink with that last comment actually, but the further detail is really interesting thanks. My interest is epidemiology and Bayes Theoren in general not cc specifically so the specific details you refer to are new to me - although some false positives are unfortunately a fact of life.

Ariel24 Sat 14-Jul-12 08:39:03

With regards to not offering smears to under 25s, I can understand that there is a far higher chance of abnormalities and false positives. But Im pretty sure it really is just due to cost that they upped the screening age to 25. I'm sorry but I thought the point of smear tests was to pick up potentially cancerous cells in women who have no symptoms anyway (which is wh I is called a 'screening' programme)? So to say that they would only investigate and give treatment to women under 25 who present symptoms is wrong! When I was about 19 or 20 I went to the dr requesting a smear; I had no symptoms, but I had been sexually active for 5 years at that point, and as I was an IDIOT, hadn't always used condoms. She refused the smear due to my age. I'm now 24 and still haven't had a smear and I am actually now terrified about what could have been changing and happening in my body in the past 9 years since becoming sexually active. I'm currently pregnant so I can't even pay privately for a test right now.

It was only recently reported that the boost in numbers of women going for smear tests following Jade Goody's death has started to really fall back again. When a huge number of women over 25 are choosing not to go for smears, what is wrong with allowing the under 25s who have requested smears to take their places? The cost would surely balance out.

SecretPlace Sat 14-Jul-12 08:57:34

I was refused a smear and was so upset and angry.

Both my mum and grandma had cervical cancer. I went to the doctors because I was getting unexplained bleeding and the doctor wanted me to have a smear but the nurse refused confused I had loads of tests but each time they were careful to point out 'we are not going to do a smear' as if they'd get into trouble if GOD FORBID they gave me one.

Still have the bleeding and chronic pain. Have been told to 'deal with it' because they can't find what it is (because they're not looking in the right place which I've told them but get ignored, so I'm going private) I don't think it is cervical cancer AT ALL but you'd think with it being the area and unable to diagnose it they'd give me a smear.

Ariel24 Sat 14-Jul-12 09:05:05

Secret that's awful. I didn't think a nurse would be able to override a dr like that for one thing! As others have mentioned, surely when someone is presenting symptoms, it isn't even about a screening test like a smear anymore but an actual medical investigation? Its so so WRONG!

I hope you get treated and all is ok.

SecretPlace Sat 14-Jul-12 09:11:47

I thought the same thing, but she just abruptly refused an he accepted it!

It makes me so angry, there could be women out there who have been refused again and again like I have, who are actually in the stages of cancer. One small test could save their lives, how dare they refuse.

Thankyou, me too. X

bumbleymummy Sat 14-Jul-12 09:32:05

Secret that is really awful sad

I totally agree with cote here. It seems ridiculous not to test because you may get a false positive. I would much rather have a false positive and go back six months later to be checked again than to not have a test at all and find out that I have CIN3 changes at age 25.

In order for there to be unnecessary treatment there would have to be a lot of human error. Your first smear would have to pick up changes, the second smear 6 months later would have to pick up changes and the colposcopy would have to pick up changes before any treatment is carried out. Let's face it, it's all down to the money!

SecretPlace Sat 14-Jul-12 09:35:32

Defo all down to money.

Yet we spend millions on the overweight for gastric bands, rehabilitation for addictions.... These things are needed and I don't begrudge anyone but people get cervical cancer through no fault of their own and shouldn't be treated like a lesser person just because we're under 25.

It's really sad sad

edam Sat 14-Jul-12 10:20:19

Please look at my link to the Eve appeal a few posts back. If you are worried, talk to them - they may be able to help you negotiate the system. Or talk to Cancer Research UK - anyone who will be able to arm you with the information you need to push your doctors.

SecretPlace Sat 14-Jul-12 10:24:26

Thankyou it's much appreciated.

My mums friend is a nurse and has agreed to give me a smear at home, later on today so quite nervous! (not sure why as I've had all sorts of people having a fiddle lately)

It's really sad that women who could potentially have cancer have to go through agro to get diagnostic tests. X

ArthurPewty Sat 14-Jul-12 10:27:02

My children have no vaccinations.

They will be instructed explicitly to REFUSE outright anything jabbed into their arms at school.

Jabs are a medical procedure, they have no business being done in a school in the first place.

Secondly, I want none of that in my children.

edam Sat 14-Jul-12 10:29:47

secret, that's good news - will she be able to get the smear analysed?

Leonie, how will you feel if your daughter gets cervical cancer? By the age when HPV vaccine is given, she'll be old enough for her views to count towards any decision. Will you allow her to choose?

bumbleymummy Sat 14-Jul-12 10:30:13

I hope it goes well today Secret! Keep us posted (only if you want to!)

SecretPlace Sat 14-Jul-12 10:32:30

Thankyou!

Yeah Edam I'm not sure how it works but she's done it for her own daughter too x

saggarmakersbottomknocker Sat 14-Jul-12 10:35:55

lowfat - long thread, not sure of your final decision without reading the whole way through. But just to say you can refuse consent at this point and have it done later if you prefer; they may chase you up throughout your dd's time at school and if not you can approach school health to get it done next year or the year after. Mine had hers late, at 16 via the GP with no issues.

ArthurPewty Sat 14-Jul-12 10:55:53

Edam: they both have high functioning autism and they BOTH have trouble seeing consequences of their actions.

There is no way that at 12 they will be responsible enough to make a decision over this vaccine. Probably not at 16, though maybe at 18.

There is no way in hell they will have this vaccine or any others until our parental responsibilities of care over their bodies are done.

hettiebull Sat 14-Jul-12 11:15:46

Good job most of the rest of us vaccinate, so you can rely on the herd immunity that they provide those who choose to object...

saggarmakersbottomknocker Sat 14-Jul-12 11:55:50

Good for you hettie. Looking after the greater good hmm

That's very judgmental particularly if you don't have a clue why a person hasn't vaccinated. Or chosen not to do it to the government timetable.

Perhaps you'd like to consider why I may not have vax'd my dd against HPV until later?

Aside from the fact that she was an immature 12 year-old and not likely to be having sex in the immediate future, dd has issues with clotting and a significant heart problem. These two things combined are problematic to say the least. HPV vax had (at the time) been linked to clotting issues. I preferred to have the input of dd's cardiologist and get her jab done in a safer environment at a time when she was clinically well. That happened to be a good 3 years later.

What would you have done differently? Sent her off to have it without medical supervision, at school, for the benefit of the wider population?

And actually can someone explain to me how herd immunity works with HPV as young males aren't vaccinated?

edam Sat 14-Jul-12 12:08:33

OK, high functioning autism is of course relevant to your decision about vaccination.

Ariel24 Sat 14-Jul-12 12:29:51

Secret just seen your post, good luck and I'm sure all will be fine. What I nice lady, hope she can help to put your mind at rest.

Leonie I totally get your own personal decision for your daughters not to have the vaccine, sometimes there are definite valid reasons not to. But I think the school vaccination programme is a great thing, it means that a lot more children get vaccinated than otherwise would. So in my view it definitely has a place in schools.

DilysPrice Sat 14-Jul-12 12:44:43

Herd immunity should eventually have a big impact on HPV rates amongst heterosexuals (and lesbians) because if a high percentage of teenage girls are vaccinated then they'll act as a "firewall" and stop it spreading amongst males, leaving it as one of those infection mostly restricted to gay men. But it would take a very long time, because HPV infection is near total amongst sexually active adults, and obviously lots of people have sex outside their age group. Presumably someone's got a computer model of how long it should take, but I'd guess at a few decades.

dottyspotty2 Sat 14-Jul-12 15:41:11

Didn't realise smears weren't available in England to under 25's Scotland its 20, I was younger very high risk so was also yearly until 22.

Sidge Sat 14-Jul-12 16:54:01

Maybe the nurse refused to do a smear because she knew the lab would just return it?

They won't process them unless the woman has been invited and the form has been generated.

SecretPlace I have no idea how your nurse friend plans to process your smear that she may take, without the relevant paperwork I doubt it will be processed by the lab.

SecretPlace Sat 14-Jul-12 19:54:02

So Sidge what are you saying. That all smears have to be pre planned? I know this isn't the case. She could have done it. But she refused.

I'm not sure how she's getting it done but she is.

The same nurse did my mums, at random (she was flabberghasted that my mum hadn't gone to previous smear appointments)and that's the one that diagnosed her.

So obviously they don't all go by this 'invite' system you speak of.

Sidge Sun 15-Jul-12 15:56:41

Secret Yes, you have to be 'invited' by the Cervical Screening Programme, in the UK at least.

In some areas GPs can request smears as part of investigations, in some areas apparently only gynae can do this, but random nurses can't just send samples to labs without the appropriate forms and paperwork.

Unless the smear taker has the proper form the lab won't process the smear. I don't know what happened in your mum's case, it could be that the nurse had access to the form because your mum was due a smear or had been due one and not attended and so the paperwork was still in existence.

SecretPlace Sun 15-Jul-12 17:29:26

She isn't a random nurse, she's an RGN who specialises in sexual health. She goes round to 'parlours' in the area and tests the girls who work there for STI's AND gives them smears.
That get processed.

I don't know how it works for her and I'm not going to pretend to, I just know she'd an experienced nurse, she isn't some weirdo doing things on the side.

Mines been done now. We'll see the results smile

Saying that, I know someone who was given a smear there and then :s how did this work then if they can only be given one by invite? Genuine question.

edam Sun 15-Jul-12 18:22:13

Sidge said 'In some areas GPs can request smears as part of investigations', Secretplace. Glad you've had yours done, hope it puts your mind at rest.

Sidge Sun 15-Jul-12 21:11:56

I meant random nurse in that not your practice nurse or GP, the person who would normally be involved in cervical screening. For example sending a smear to the lab isn't like sending a urine sample or blood test. In our area (I can't speak for the whole country but I imagine it's similar) you have to have the right form, and all smear takers have a code that has to be 'registered' by the area lab to allow the sample to be processed.

If your friend works in sexual health then she probably has her own code; how she accesses the paperwork I have no idea.

SecretPlace Sun 15-Jul-12 21:27:27

I haven't either but I'm going to ask her as I'm intrigued now grin

Sidge Sun 15-Jul-12 22:03:23

So am I! Do let me know grin

<Sidge sees a potential business opportunity...>

bumbleymummy Mon 16-Jul-12 11:15:26

It doesn't work like that where I am. I just make an appointment for a smear and go along.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now