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

[lowfatiscrap12]

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?

"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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

No-one has answered my question??

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Nurse - So what if she is "anti-vax"? 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"?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Good point Cote I had forgotten that too.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.