Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any medical concerns we suggest you consult your GP.

Cervical cancer vaccine - Japan no longer recommends because of side effects concern

(137 Posts)
Crumbledwalnuts Tue 18-Jun-13 06:46:09

there are quite a lot of different places this story is written, this is one of them

It's not being withdrawn but the government isn't recommending it any more. At least for now, while it investigates.

Crumbledwalnuts Fri 21-Jun-13 16:58:22

I think your grin is rather misplaced there Caterina.

I've not seen anything about folic acid and cervical dysplasia at all. I think it's really helpful.

CatherinaJTV Fri 21-Jun-13 17:06:47

I cannot even express how excited I am about the availability of an anti-cancer vaccine. HPV and past cervical cancer treatment are threatening the likelihood of successful pregnancy for someone I love very much and care deeply about. If I can reduce my son's risk of contracting HPV and giving it to his partner, I will and that includes the vaccine (just debating whether I should wait for the new HPV9, or go ahead with the HPV4) amongst other health information.

That bit about folate and cervical cancer is interesting but not as straightforward as one might think (data from the US, where all flour is folate fortified indicates that folate may actually increase the risk of cervical neoplasia progression). Nutritional supplementation is not trivial (and would never replace the benefits of any of the current vaccines).

Crumbledwalnuts Fri 21-Jun-13 17:24:11

It's not an anti-cancer vaccine - HTH.

CatherinaJTV Sat 22-Jun-13 18:58:40

HPV is an anti-cancer vaccine just like HepB

Crumbledwalnuts Sun 23-Jun-13 00:31:46

HPV is a virus.

Cervarix and Gardasil protect against a small number of strains. They protect against the strains found most likely to cause cancer. Women will still need smear tests if they have the vaccine.

Calling it an "anti-cancer" vaccine is rather dangerous.

Crumbledwalnuts Sun 23-Jun-13 22:11:34

Bump

Frontdoorstep Mon 24-Jun-13 07:38:01

Yes, the vaccine protects against the hpv virus which leads to cancer, it's not protecting against cancer, only the virus that leads to cancer.

I agree, crumbled walnuts, calling it an anti cancer vaccine is dangerous and misleading.

noblegiraffe Mon 24-Jun-13 07:46:03

Why did crumbled walnuts call it the 'cervical cancer vaccine' in the thread title if she thinks it's that dangerous and misleading confused

I think it's a fair enough label, its purpose is to reduce the incidence of cancer. No one would give a shit about HPV otherwise.

When I had all my treatment for pre-cancerous cells at 19 through to 30 I was tested for HPV and was found not to have it.

A vaccine wouldn't have prevented it. So when the time comes I'll be paying for DD to have smears until she comes of age that she can have them on the NHS. I think £70 is a small price to pay for peace of mind.

I am still undecided about the vaccination but have some time to do some research as she's only 10

Yes, I have found the lack of reporting of this (came across it a few days ago) somewhat surprising (not).

Forevergreek - you may well now know but was your sister's stroke yellow carded, I'm pleased to hear she is improving.

CatherinaJTV Mon 24-Jun-13 08:17:17

what noblegiraffe says

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 24-Jun-13 21:34:06

Good God I don't mind you picking up on that. I was surprised Catherina didn't do it straight away, and pretty easy as nitpicks go. Yes, it's dangerous - I put my hands up to it - and it just goes to show how the publicity for this vaccine, the innaccurate shorthand, works its way in. You can already see the effects of this vaccine on public health policy, pushing back NHS smear tests to the age of 25. Absolutely shameful.

It's not a "fair enough" label, it's misleading for the reasons described. Women still have to have regular checks for pre-cancerous cells.

Feetlike, hope you are ok now.

noblegiraffe Mon 24-Jun-13 21:44:08

NHS smear tests were pushed back to 25 years ago, and that decision was nothing to do with this vaccine, which wasn't even around at the time.

Kids are vaccinated against meningitis yet parents know that they still need to look out for it because they aren't protected against all meningitis strains.

Are you assuming stupidity on people's part? That they won't understand the information when they are called for their routine smear test?

ZZZenagain Mon 24-Jun-13 21:48:39

I was worried about the side effects. Difficult decision to make. My paediatrician said she had doubts about it too. In the end I decided against it although dd has had all the usual vaccinations

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 24-Jun-13 21:55:02

When they are called for their routine smear test at 25? Isn't that a bit late? Why is it assuming stupidity when they are told they've had a cervical cancer vaccine and they don't get an invitation to a smear? Why would it even occur to them?

Are you kidding me?

noblegiraffe Mon 24-Jun-13 21:57:17

Eh? Who's saying they don't get an invitation to a smear test?

CatherinaJTV Mon 24-Jun-13 22:35:18

the age has been 25 for a while, well before the HPV was introduced (remember Jade Goody?) and there have been special programmes to increase uptake of screening in the younger age groups (25 to 30odd).

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 25-Jun-13 06:00:51

It's been 25 for 10 years and there's a campaign to bring it down.

Noblegiraffe - eh? the NHS says women under 25 are not invited. You say it. I say it. So how will you know you're at risk before 25 if you've had "an anti-cancer vaccine" and you don't get an invitation to a smear?

noblegiraffe Tue 25-Jun-13 07:31:21

You said that it had been pushed to 25 because of the vaccine which is bollocks. So women weren't getting an invitation for a smear til 25 anyway. Having the vaccine means that they are at an even lower risk before the age of 25 than women previously.

I know there's a campaign to lower it to 20 again. The issue is that the test under the age of 25 gives too many false positives. So it was telling loads of women they were at risk when they weren't, and causing lots of distress and unnecessary retesting. A routine smear testing program under 25 just isn't fit for purpose, so now that the risks are even lower, I can't see them bringing it back.

I know what you mean crumbled. I'm not sure it's that different from people not realising they can get a childhood illness (and this is the important bit - still be contagious) if they have been given the vaccination. Mind you plenty of doctors don't seem to understand that either 'cough, followed by rash starting behind ears and spreading to face and downwards with temperature no saintlyjimjams couldn't possibly be measles as he's been vaccinated' (OOH quote).

noblegiraffe Tue 25-Jun-13 08:40:45

But it's not called that when the girls get it, it's called the HPV vaccine. People on the Internet referring to it as an anti cancer vaccine are describing its purpose, which is true.
If girls were being given something that the bottle said 'cancer vaccine' then this fretting might be valid.

Worrying that girls are too thick to read the information that says they are being given the vaccine to protect against one of the main causes of cervical cancer, but that they will still need smears, and to respond to their smear invitation is just a bit insulting.

Well plenty of people don't seem to realise that you can still get a disease after being vaccinated. That's how ds1 caught rubella - via a vaccinated child whose mother didn't realise that her son could possibly have rubella after a vaccination. I don't think she was thick, she just hadn't read the information properly or it wasn't highlighted. People don't read the information do they? I didn't until it all went a bit pear shaped.

noblegiraffe Tue 25-Jun-13 09:23:37

Saying that someone doesn't realise that you can get a disease after being vaccinated against it is rather different to saying that girls will ignore a national cancer screening program because someone on the Internet called the hpv vaccine an anti-cancer vaccine.

Are you suggesting that girls shouldn't hear at all why they are having the vaccine in case they bunk off their smears?

I'm not saying anything about whether people should have smears or not or at what age (tbh I'm a bit meh about screening although I am do attend smear tests, but that's irrelevant). I'm interpreting crumbledwalnuts posts as saying it is likely to give a false sense of security (rather than seeing her describing people as thick, which she has been accused of). My point was that the false sense of security, for want of a better way of putting it, happens with other vaccinations so this is a reasonable suggestion.

noblegiraffe Tue 25-Jun-13 23:09:12

Easily remedied by a 'I've had the jab, do I need the smear? - yes' bit of waffle on the smear invite, I'd have thought.

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