to re-open the dialogue about the cervical cancer jab?

[gonetoseeamanaboutadog]

Read threads about this issue on MN before, but somehow I'm no further along. In light of the tragic death of athlete, Sarah Tait, who died of cervical cancer despite having received the HPV vaccine, the time seems right to ask more questions.

In controlled trials of the cervical cancer vaccine, the evidence suggests that the vaccine actually caused cancerous lesions in girls in the 16-18 age group, even those who had no pre-existing HPV infections.

Now, the NHS considers it more or less impossible to have cervical cancer in the absence of an HPV infection. Even if a smear test shows abnormal cell growth, if there is no HPV infection you're considered 'safe' and no further action is taken. So did these girls get cervical cancer?

There is also research to suggest that while cervical cancer is a common killer in developing countries, this is very rarely the case in developed countries. In fact, the deaths from cervical cancer are several times lower than the rate of adverse reactions (including death) connected with the HPV vaccine. And the adverse reactions can be debilitating, life-limiting and life-long.

Meanwhile, it's claimed that the evidence to show the HPV vaccine actually reduces the cancer rate simply isn't there, especially given the high adverse reactions. There is a school of thought claiming that this vaccine is being routinely administered without properly observing the patient's right to make an informed choice; we are trusting the NHS that the risk of adverse reactions is as tiny as it usually is for vaccines, but this may not actually be the case.

This is all I know. One day, although not soon, I'll have to make this decision with my DD. At the moment, I'm decidedly on the fence.

goneto I think it's actually pretty disgusting to suggest that dying of cervical cancer would be better than POTS.

Apart from the link I posted upthread, that's all the data I have on this, I'm afraid. I took what I gathered randomly, posted it in the thread with my one research article and hoped that there would be engagement. I expected that if the were any professionals on the thread who were at all clued up in this area, they would be aware of the negative studies and would be able to tell me more about them. But it turns out that this thread believes there are no negative studies at all, so that didn't happen!

Ovaries Well, I do think it because of my personal experience, but it's a silly conversation to have so let's leave it.

OP, your one link at the start of the thread has no verified statistics, it states someones opinion.
From a study in the USA that I did quote earlier - 80 million plus vacinations given between 2006 and 2015 led to reports to the authorities of 127 deaths. When these were investigated via autopsy reports not one of the deaths were show to have any relation to the vacination. Not one. BUT - even if those deaths were directly as a result of the vacination I still think that statistically we are better to give the inection than not. Compare that figure to one like the 99 people in England and Wales that died falling out of bed in 2010 - from a poulation of 56 million - thats similar odds of that happening than dying from the HPV vacination, and I'm not going to tell my daughters to never get into bed because theires a chance they might die getting out of it. Statistics taken from Here
Everything we do has a risk element, absolutley everything. The fact that we are not professional researchers (although at least one peroen on this thread IS) doesn't mean that we can't evaluate risks.
Please show us the negative data, I'm very interested.

I don't think anyone said that there were no negative studies. They were saying that if there are hundreds of studies showing that something is safe and only one or two showing that it isn't, it is highly likely that the ones showing it isn't safe are some sort of anomaly. Which happens.

My niece is severely allergic to paracetamol, she could die if she takes it. But that doesn't change the fact that it is a very safe drug for the population as a whole. Nothing is risk free for every single person, even if it is generally safe.

80 messages on the thread? I think you have got engagement. I think you should feel reassured by the fairly unanimous response. I did look up the negative rumours I'd come across, largely on here tbh, before taking ds off and spending £300 on this vaccination because I didn't want to be blindly pro vaccination as it is clearly not impossible for some kind of mistake to be made in any proactive health intervention, or there might have been a clinical reason rather than a cost-benefit reason why boys weren't being vaccinated. This vaccination seems pretty good to me and I do get cross when I think these amazing free public health programmes are being undermined without very much evidence. Just think about it, anyone whose daughter decides not to get the vaccination but who meets and has sex with my ds is protected to some extent anyway, because of the £300 I spent.

Read the full text online for free, btw.

There could be many studies suggesting something is safe, but the studies suggesting it isn't [safe] are the ones that we should be pausing over, not dismissing.

Is that saying that if 5 studies decide something is unsafe and 55 say it's safe, that the 5 are somehow more important than the 55... but why? The important studies are the ones done to a high standard, because they are the ones with the most reliable evidence. The 5 are only most important if they are the best quality studies. Shaw & Tomljenovic aren't rating evidence for quality... or carefully looking for ALL the evidence, or combining all the reliable evidence robustly (that they didn't look for) together to make a statement about the statistical strength of evidence. There are high quality procedures (systematic review or meta-analysis) for figuring out what medical evidence to believe, but instead S&T just cherrypicked bits of evidence they liked. The article is a detailed yr11 extended project essay, basically.

'Notorious' anti-vaccer sounds like opposing any vaccination is proof of quackery in itself

It is.

Thanks for starting this thread OP. It has confirmed for me that I made the right decision ensuring my girls received the HPV vaccination.

Happy to help

You don't discuss the negative implications of cervical cancer that is NOT death, where as you discuss long term implications of the vaccine. Just because someone survives cervical cancer doesn't mean it is hunky-dory. There are significant life long issues there too. As for the rest of the op, I'll need to look in to it further.

Easy decision for me, having had cervical cancer.

Why does having doubts about any vaccine make you a quack? Id be interested to hear that train of thought.

Technically the talk of quackery was about people who produce unreliable pseudo-science, not about ordinary people who have doubts. Hard to blame Jo Public for having doubts.

I think there is a valid reason to feel that wishing severe illness/disability on a small number of people in order that a larger number of people may stay healthy is wrong. It's not a foregone conclusion that the utilitarian philosophy behind vaccinating is right or everyone's cup of tea.

I haven't the time or qualifications to go through all the trials and data on the hpv vaccine.
But a lot of very highly qualified researchers working for NICE do this for a living. If they conclude that it prevents more cancer than it causes side effects or more deaths than it causes then I believe them.
Yes it's a risk to have it (nothing in life is risk free) but they've concluded is a lesser risk than not having it and I don't believe they have any motivation for doing so fraudulently.

In the other hand, your accusation that the nhs is not taking reports of symptoms seriously because they believe the cancer is not possible without hpv that is a concern if true but not an argument against the vaccination.

What OP just talks about, is already a huge principle that exists in medicine. Think of aspirin ban for under 16s -- people now age 40+ were routinely given aspirin as children because it usually was very safe, many people benefited a lot with zero harm. Yet aspirin is now strongly advised against for under 16s, even though Reye syndrome is extremely rare.

I agree it does seem ridiculous (and possibly a massive waste of money?) to only vaccinate the girls.

DD had a really weird reaction the the vaccination (she's not a drama lama) which worried me tbh.

What happened, cutecat?

Dd described borderline hysteria while the girls were queueing for the jab. Floods of tears & so on. They really worked themselves into a state convinced it would be unbelievably painful. DD is maternal & went around patting hands, hugging, reassuring & so on. I'd be surprised if some girls didn't have weird after affects merely from the ordeal of dancing with hysteria. Plus jabs are supposed to have some effect, that's how you know they worked.

A (dated) CDC report talks about aspirin still being widely given out even though it's known that it causes a rare but horrible side effect. Because people like familiar risks even if they are much more dangerous than alternatives, I suppose. That's what Paul Slovic said, which seems doomed to stand true forever.

I know what you are describing (work within a secondary school) .

DD not like that she's very matter of fact but has weird reactions to things that we have never really got to the bottom of.

She just went all confused and her legs went to jelly went white and tried to tell someone but was kind of ignored as hysterical then one teacher who knew her said "omg are you ok?" As she looked so dreadful then she passed out and they believed her