Schools denying girls the cervical cancer jab on religious grounds

Edam: that "feel free to google" was sneery, I'm sorry.

This girl's mother has been threatened with having her child taken into care because she refuses to accept the denial of the role of the vaccine in her condition

There are girls and women adversely affected by this vaccine who are struggling to be heard. Who is listening to their voices? If HPV vaccine is a feminist issue, I fear you have taken the wrong side.

This is what one of the women Edam talks about says about Gardasil.

"Pap smears have never killed anyone. Pap smears are an effective screening tool to prevent cervical cancer. Pap smears alone prevent more cervical cancers than can the vaccines alone. Gardasil is associated with serious adverse events, including death. If Gardasil is given to 11 year olds, and the vaccine does not last at least fifteen years, then there is no benefit - and only risk - for the young girl. Vaccinating will not reduce the population incidence of cervical cancer if the woman continues to get Pap screening throughout her life.

If a woman is never going to get Pap screening, then a HPV vaccine could offer her a better chance of not developing cervical cancer, and this protection may be valued by the woman as worth the small but real risks of serious adverse events. On the other hand, the woman may not value the protection from Gardasil as being worth the risk knowing that 1) she is at low risk for a persistent HPV infection and 2) most precancers can be detected and treated successfully. It is entirely a personal value judgment."

This is her - Dr Diane Harper - "principal investigator (PI) for clinical vaccine trials" for Merck (Gardasil) and GlaxoSmithKline (Cervarix)

"I am an international expert in HPV science, its vaccines, its clinical disease and treatment. I have personally seen tens of thousands of women with abnormal Pap smears and have a referral clinic/office that includes women coming from all continents of the world to consult for my opinion on their personal care."

I wouldn't call her "anti-vaccination", PigletJohn.

PigletJohn: you could save your for the women and young girls damaged by the vaccine. These are not "ant-vaccination grounds". They are "crappy safety testing" grounds and "failure to use a proper control" grounds.

Edam: you mean like Diane Harper? Feel free to google.

Forward: isn't it the case that most cases of HPV infection resolve themselves?

"There is no evidence to suggest that lowering the screening age will save any more lives."

Women under the age of 25 die of cervical cancer. In what way would their lives not have been saved by a cervical smear? In what way would their lives have been endangered by a screening.

A smear test is not a life-threatening intervention. Am amazed that a feminist would go along so easily with this reasoning.

Smear years aren't offered to women under 25 for good reason. The developing cervix contains cells that appear abnormal under a microscope. They look suspicious but most of these 'abnomalities' resolve themselves.
But when abnormal cells are found, they have to be treated so, the patient would have to undergo treatment which they probably don't need. It's about false positives and the dangers of over treatment that dictate the age at which screening starts here.
There is no evidence to suggest that lowering the screening age will save any more lives.

I didn't know that smear tests were being pushed back. That's really not good. What is the reasoning for that? Are they less effective/clear for younger women?

Many of the people involved in research and testing this vaccine were women, fwiw. I've interviewed some of them. Very passionate about the lives that could be saved by preventing HPV infection - one of them was a woman in her 40s who said she'd had the vaccine herself, even though they can't yet prove it's effective in people who have already been exposed to HPV - she thought the results were so promising it was a worth trying.

I see the question has been changed from "...on religious grounds" to
"...on anti-vaccination grounds"

"patriarchal control of young women's bodies/sexuality that's manifested in the particular reaction to this particular vaccine."

how ironic - this vaccine is really, really not about freeing young women

it's about men (mainly by a long long way men) making money

hth

"One of my concerns is cervical smear testing as we know it in the UK will diminish on the back of this vaccination"

Excellent point, aqnd an exccellent response to blackcurrants' empty dental floss analogy.

It's already happening. Smears being pushed back to age 25. I'll be paying for my daughter to have private smears befor ethat, if I have to.

"To me, not wanting your daughter to have this vaccine in case she didn't then go for regular smears seems like not teaching your daughter to floss in case she then doesn't go for regular dental checkups"

no - not realistic or pragmatic - a very sentimental view i'm afraid

Blackcurrants - you obviously aren't interested or you would understand the problem with the safety studies. That's not climate change denial - that's protecting my daughter. If you want to expose yours, that's fine, and I won't insult you for it. Please don't insult me either.

I'd be interested in knowing exactly which schools are choosing not to offer the jab. Does anyone know?

And really, should't this be in the philosophy/religion topic, rather than feminism?

I never lose sight that big pharma always has it's own interests at heart, and their main shareholders are men. One of my concerns is cervical smear testing as we know it in the UK will diminish on the back of this vaccination, especially when it comes to cut backs.

erm, you realise you're in the 'feminism chat' section?
Where people chat about feminism?

I suppose we all have to get indignant about something...

Sos I looked at the links. TBH I'm not interested in debating with anti-vaxxers, it's about as rewarding as talking to climate-change deniers. I'm interested in the patriarchal control of young women's bodies/sexuality that's manifested in the particular reaction to this particular vaccine.

EG: How women's sexual health is sacrificed to the altar of "But only sluts have sex" - that's a fascinating thing to discuss, IMO, that's what made me open the thread.

blackcurrants read my post above ^, might give you a clue.
Also I think you are being a bit simplistic when you say that the HPV vaccine will prevent 70% of all cervical cancers.

Strains 16 & 18 cause 70% of cervical cancers in the UK, other strains are more prevalent in other countries e.g. in Canada HPV 31 is much more prevalent. Your children may end up migrating to Canada (for example) there the vaccine will give much less protection. People travel a lot these days!

lighthousekeeping says her cervical changes were not caused by HPV, that's another thing to take into account.
The vaccine may not be 100% effective, I don't think there is a vaccine that is (but correct me if I'm wrong).
Many people will not finish the series of jabs,, especially the ones that have any kind of reaction.
70% is overestimating it a bit IMO

I can't get worked up about this.

It's only available in schools because it's quicker and easier than having all the girls go to GPs surgeries like baby's/pre-schoolers have to.

If a school decides not to allow the vaccination to be offered in school time, then parents will just have take their daughters themselves.

Interesting that boys aren't being given the jab.......maybe test it on the girls first?

It might be helpful to separate objections-about-vaccines, including this one, to objections to this vaccine which is seen to be pertaining to sex.

I know people have objections to vaccines - I don't happen to agree with many of them, but I know about that and to a certain extent I understand the thinking behind the objections. (To me, not wanting your daughter to have this vaccine in case she didn't then go for regular smears seems like not teaching your daughter to floss in case she then doesn't go for regular dental checkups. It's not hard to teach BOTH acts of preventative behaviour, surely? But that's only part of your objection, the rest are 'dangers of the vaccine' objections, which I can't answer to, because I don't know of any)

What I don't understand is the objections to this vaccine in particular, from a group of people who have not objected to vaccines in general, and the objections that are basically "Nooo because ...SEX!! IS WRONG!111!!!"

it seems particularly wrong to deny this vaccine to teens because it's a time-sensitive vaccine. I was about 26 when they started offering it and I'd had some sexual partners - and some broken-condom incidents. At that point there was no point me getting a vaccine - it doesn't work for people who are already sexually active. So if you deny your teenage this vaccine and they go on to have sex, as teenagers/people in their early 20s do, you have denied them the chance to be protected against 70% of the cervical-cancer causing viruses out there. It's too late for them, in their 20s or wherever, to get it themselves.

To me, it's just one more thing a parent should do to protect their child. I understand that people think their children need protecting from vaccines, but to me, vaccines are the things that protect children from diseases.

And I do not see that it is my job to attempt to prevent my (future) teenage offspring from sexual behaviour. It's my job to teach them about safe sex and consent and happiness and pleasure and emotional security. . . not to say NOOO SEX is WRONG!

sossiges exactly, and it's not 'bad science' to refuse, as another poster told me.

That's rather a simplification. It's more complicated than that. I'd be concerned that my daughter wouldn't go for regular smears if she'd had the vaccine, in addition to the dangers of the vaccine itself.

"We have a vaccination that protects you from the strains of a virus that causes cancer. We've basically discovered a way to prevent 70% of all cervical cancer! SO: out of a 100 women who would have got cervical cancer before the vaccine; if they're all immunised, 70 won't get cervical cancer! Do you want your daughter to have the vaccine and reduce her chances of contracting cervical cancer?"

"Nooo! It might make her a slut!"

For fuck's sake.

We will be paying for my son to be immunized, when he's old enough. Men get HPV too. Gay men too. Everyone should get it.