Vaccination against cervical cancer/HPV

I’m not a troll and my gp was the one who mentioned herd immunity to us to reassure us

No, it's not that it's understood that a majority of 12 year olds are sexually active. Just that a significant minority are or soon will be. If you waited to give the vaccine until a tipping point where a majority where sexually active then it would be ineffective for up to 50% of the children being given it. If you give the vaccine at an age where maybe 1% are sexually active, then it has a chance to be effective for 99%. So you don't wait until a majority are sexually active...

Approx 8% of cervical cancers are non hpv related and they now unfortunately go undetected till it’s harder to treat as smears only check for hpv they don’t look at the cells unless you’re hpv positive

Tres provocative. Just in case you really think like this, you are selfish beyond belief. Hope it's a troll.

The smear test checks for HPV these days which is what causes cervical cancer. If all young people are vaccinated against HPV they wouldn't need to do them.

Most of us over 35 will not have been vaccinated therefore still need to test.

You seem to not like the program but it saves lives.

That age gives the best immune response, (between 9 and 14) it's not because they think they will be sexually active. But obvi it is most effective when its given before any exposure. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-022-00458-0

HNRTT. This seems quite a puzzling thread but has anyone posted any research papers?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10399474/

There might seem to be a question concerning the UK's approach to screening though.

^this Maybe Op thought 13 doesn't sounds a salacious as 11?

But something tells me perhaps op didn't post entirely in good faith😇

Thank goodness - I am sorry you are being confronted in this post by what must be very distressing/triggering posts involving people deciding not to protect their children. Not only did you have to endure the terrible treatments you needed to use, but you have that constant "what if" worry...and the check ups and being on high alert for symptoms etc. I hope other people listen when you tell them about your experience and take steps to protect their kids.

I find it difficult to believe this is a genuine question.

Surely a few moments thought would lead one to reason that the age needs to be set low enough to catch children before sexual activity begins. This will naturally be at least a couple of years before a reasonable number of young people become sexually active. At no point is anyone suggesting that most children are having sex at 11.

Where I live it is offered at 12 or 13. Again, this does not mean anyone thinks it is ok to have sex at that age, or that anyone thinks the majority of children are doing so.

My first response was simply in reply to someone asking if the schools check with children whose parents didn’t consent to see if they wanted to consent for themselves so I didn’t need to add more information about my personal situation at that point I only
added that when asked more about it

@nooshoo in the UK, children aren’t given in at 11. They are offered it in year 8, when they are 12 or 13.

My son was 13 when he had his, the schedule starts at s1 in Scotland so when the kids move to secondary school so most children here will be 12. My son didn’t get it in the first round as he didn’t know what it was and freaked out a bit.

ironic given I’m a vaccinator - younger kids not his age group. But we sat down and had a good chat about it, what it’s for/why it’s given etc and he decided he would have it. He then got it in the next round of vaccines and just recently got the second one. You don’t always need to have it at 11/12 but not sure what difference it makes as long as they are protected if that’s their/your choice.

Of course I will make them fully aware that they aren’t vaccinated and to be as safe as they can be .

But you understand that if everyone thought the way that you do that no one would get vaccinated, right? You did not disclose this history when you said your child didn't get the vaccine. You also did not state whether you child has other illnesses that made a reaction to the vaccine more likely etc etc. The chances of having that kind of reaction are very very small. Far smaller than the risks of getting and suffering through the many cancers that the HPV vaccine can prevent. It's also going to be very important to explain to your child that they are not vaccinated and, given they have long term illnesses, they are even more vulnerable to contracting the types of illnesses that the HPV vaccine is intended to prevent. They will also need to know that they could contract the virus without knowing, and pass it on without knowing - so they will need to practice safe sex - and, sadly, even avoid intimate contact like kissing etc unless they and their chosen partners take regular tests to see whether they have HPV or not.

Hello @nooshoo, is English your first language? It seems you don't understand the meaning of before?

before
Preposition, adverb, or conjunction (it depends on how it's used in a sentence)

Before means earlier than or in front of.

“I brush my teeth before breakfast.”
→ I brush my teeth earlier than when I eat breakfast.

“B comes before C in the alphabet.”
→ B comes earlier in the order.

"She arrived before lunch."
→ Earlier than lunch.

"Doctors recommend getting the HPV vaccine before becoming sexually active to ensure maximum protection against the virus."
→ You get the vaccine earlier than when you might be exposed to the virus (for example, by having intimate or sexual contact).

HTH 👋

@nooshoo - the problem with your argument is you’ve taken that it can be given from aged 11 to mean it is. It can be - particularly if that fits in with when children are having other jabs, but in the UK it’s routinely given in year 8 or 9 (year 8 is 12-13 and year 9 13-14). It is still given at an age it’s most likely children won’t be sexually active yet, but by 14 years you are often not far off for many.

The age of 11 is when it’s safe and appropriate to give. I don’t know why it’s not just rolled into the younger jab schedule and get it out of the way, presume it works better in older children.

Brother has passed his 5 years clear thankfully, I'm at year 3 but fingers crossed. Thx

The posters making various bonkers claims

What claims by posters were bonkers? None.
I noticed most of your posts were bonkers though 👀

It’s a choice not a legal requirement and we have the backing of our gp

So you are relying on other people being responsible to make up for the fact that you aren't??? Wow.
Read the list of cancers again: it's not just cervical. the vaccine prevents against many many types of cancer. And just because you have had negative smear tests does not for one minute mean that they won't snog/have sex with someone who failed to get the vaccine. Your history of sexual contact has absolutely nothing to do with what your child may get up to (or may be forced to endure - god forbid). Plus, not all countries have the HPV vaccine - so if your child goes off on holiday abroad and has intimate contact with a hottie on a beach (as many young people like to do), or meets an exchange student in the UK at university (as may young people do) they won't be protected by herd immunity at all. Yikes. Sounds like you haven't put much thought at all into the repercussions of failing to protect your child from this awful virus.

My child is severely disabled since having the vaccine on high rate for both components and needs a lot of care. Was fine before and developed severe Pots and ME immediately after. I don’t care about ‘what’s ifs’ and other scenarios about possible hpv related issues I care about making sure it doesn’t happen to my other children . My gp actually said to us that herd immunity is for families like us

What if lots of other parents make the same irresponsible choice you've made? Why are you assuming you can freeload on people doing the right thing?

"very unwell"? Have you seen what happens when someone gets anal or cervical cancer??? Clearly your child was fine. And clearly the doctors gave you some information on WHY the vaccine may have caused a reaction: there are different manufacturers, and also things one can do if, for example, the child is allergic to the liquid the vaccine is in. Either way it's far better to feel grotty for a few days than to end up having to have your anus removed and have to poop out of a hole in your side for the rest of your (sadly quite likely severely shortened) life. Or to get cervical cancer and lose your ability to have kids/suffer from rounds of radiation/chemo and whatever other awful interventions are required. It's a shame you decided that it was better to expose your child to a list of awful cancers than to figure out a way for them to get the vaccine and perhaps feel a bit gross, but also get treatment for feeling gross - Doctors are only too happy to figure out alternatives and ways of managing reactions to vaccines.

What do you mean ? I doubt I would be aware or they would be aware if they did have it ? I only know I’m negative from smear tests and unless it caused an issue they don’t routinely test for it ? All their peers have the vaccine so I assume they are very protected by herd immunity ?