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'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.

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%.

Should say 'helps' to prevent cervical cancer.

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?

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.

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?

I meant semantics - sorry

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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 thing
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

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.

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?

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.