To ask you to tell me about the HPV Vaccine and if your daughters had it?

[neighbourhoodwoes]

DD just gave me the letter which has to be returned by tomorrow.

Everything I read online about how effective and how long it lasts is conflicting.

Does anyone have any info or views which may help!

I think on the consent form we got, the parent could say no, but it explicitly said that the girl could still have it if that was her choice.

I think on the consent form we got, the parent could say no, but it explicitly said that the girl could still have it if that was her choice.

I think that is what it said on the form we received. By signing something, it might make some parents feel like they are giving consent but in reality if the child's decision overrules this and they also sign a consent form, it is fairly meaningless.

The link below makes it clear that the decision will be your daughters.

"The decision to have the vaccine is legally your daughter's, as long as she understands the issues in giving consent. Discuss this with your daughter, the doctor or nurse to get more information."

www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/Pages/hpv-vaccination-parents-rights.aspx

The nurses giving jabs strongly prefer to have parental consent; they will go to lengths to avoid giving jab if they think they can get parental consent later. I've had to jump thru hoops (lots of phone calls & emails!) to get meningitis jab for my teen son because he was too disorganised to return permission forms & the nurses were very reluctant to give jab without me giving OK.

I think maybe it's bad to harp on about how kids can give consent without parental permission. It's a red rag to bull when A) nurses strongly prefer not to go ahead without parental consent anyway, plus B) the parents with the most reservations may be horrified at their kids getting any treatment without parental consent. Why inflame that, when the nurses want to have a chance to placate concerns. Also, no decent adult wants to set up a kid to go against their parent's wishes. This could be very bad for the child's home life, so another reason to get parent consent.

"My expectation is that over time we are going to find that more and more of the cancers which are currently seen as 'just bad luck' or 'lifestyle' will have a virus as the root cause."

Gnomedeplume, ^ THIS, absolutely.

"This vaccine is to prevent cancer not prevent HPV infections / genital warts ."

It's to protect against the strains of HPV that are responsible for most cases of cervical cancer. It does not protect against all strains and it most certainly does not prevent all cases of cervical cancer. Gardisil protects against two additional strains that are responsible for the majority of genital warts cases so its purpose is to prevent genital warts.

The nurses giving jabs strongly prefer to have parental consent; they will go to lengths to avoid giving jab if they think they can get parental consent later. I've had to jump thru hoops (lots of phone calls & emails!) to get meningitis jab for my teen son because he was too disorganised to return permission forms & the nurses were very reluctant to give jab without me giving OK.

I'm sure that they do prefer parents to agree. However, for the HPV vaccine the decision has been made to let children have the vaccine regardless of the parents views. At DD's school they received a lot of information about the vaccine before hand and it was made very clear that it was the children's choice not their parents. I'm sure that quite a few parents didn't give consent as it is a very multiracial school with some children coming from quite religious backgrounds. Despite this only two children of the 150 children in DD's year didn't give consent.

www.jostrust.org.uk/about-us
Sensible British website with up to date info with scientific references

anotherbusymum14

That article is not worth a read, it gives misinformation eg 'studies prove...' - no studies indicate, they don't prove, in science proof is very difficult hence gravity and evolution still being theories.

Things like " So far, 15,037 girls have reported adverseside effects from Gardasil™ alone to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and this number only reflects parents who underwent the hurdles required for reporting adverse reactions."

That doesn't mean 15 000 adverse effects, but reports. So anything from a bruise or a sore arm. It will also include events that have nothing to do with the jab itself eg someone fainting afterwards because they hate needles would be reported, but they may well faint from a saline injection too.

And then again, we have an antivaxer's interpretation of what was said by someone who wasn't a 'bench researcher'

www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/gardasil-researcher-against-vaccine-myth-debunked/

Link to what was actually said.

Under reporting of ADRs is a well known issue. I don't think we can be dismissive of any adverse reactions that are reported when many won't be reported at all.

Using peer pressure to influence a teenager's decision about whether or not to have a vaccine is an interesting approach.

Over reporting is an issue as you well know. Bubblemummy

Just to be clear bruffin - are you actually trying to suggest that over reporting of ADRs happens more often than under reporting?

There's now a new version of Gardasil that prevents 9 strains of virus. I'm waiting for my doctor to receive stocks of that one, then getting my kids immunized later this summer (I'm in the US, but it's been approved in the UK too).

www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/items/smd/148932.html

Your point is what exactly? You know under repirting is usually mild symptons. You are here just to undermine vaccines as usual

Bruffin, you may want to do a bit of reading about under reporting before you try to start an argument.

Gardasil was brought into Canadian schools a few years ago , after US used it. There are serious side effects to the extent that lawyers in US are advertising for clients for group action suits. My mum told me that women get cancer of the womb from men with dirty dicks. Perhaps we need to train our males to wash their penises thoroughly before we give them sexual privileges.

I had it at secondary school. It was two or three injections (can't remember exactly) and had a very sore arm for a few days but it was fine. This is of course completely anecdotal but there were 210 girls in my year and none of us suffered any complications.

My mum told me that women get cancer of the womb from men with dirty dicks

Er... I think you'd be better off listening to medical experts rather than your mum...

amarmai I assume that was a joke?

I had the vaccine when it was first introduced in 2009; as I recall there was 3 injections in total (obviously there's the first injection, the second injection is done a month after the first and the third injection is done 6 months after the first injection). The only side effect I had was an achy arm after the third injection!

VAERS is subject to the limitations inherent in any passive surveillance system (54). Among those, underreporting (only a fraction of the total number of potentially reportable events occurring after vaccination are reported) and differential reporting (more serious events and events with shorter onset time after vaccinations are more likely to be reported than minor events) are most noticeable (44). Overreporting also occurs because certain reported adverse events might not be caused by vaccines, and some reported conditions do not meet standard diagnostic criteria. Many reported events, including serious ones, might occur coincidentally after vaccination and are not causally related to vaccination. Other potential reporting biases include increased reporting in the first few years after licensure, increased reporting of events occurring soon after vaccination, and increased reporting after publicity about a particular known or alleged type of adverse event. Individual reports might contain inaccurate or incomplete information. Because of all of these reasons as well as the absence of control groups, differentiating causal from coincidental conditions by using VAERS data alone usually is not possible. Other methodologic limitations of VAERS include the fact that it does not provide information regarding background incidence of adverse events in the general population nor does it provide information concerning the total number of doses of vaccine or vaccine combinations actually administered to patients."

And?

This episode of More or Less is really worth a listen on VAERS and irresponsible reporting: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05wz90d

One of the worst aspects of cervical cancer is that it very often strikes when a woman is in the midst of the childbearing part of her life, or when she has a few children to care for. This was certainly the case for a relative of mine, the mother of four children, one with SN.

She was diagnosed quite late but thanks to probably sheer luck was given the all clear a few years later, though she still goes back for tests. The period of active treatment was terrible of course, and afterwards the threat of metastasis hung over her. You learn to live with anything (if you manage to live past the first round).

But it was very traumatic for her children too, all of whom had to be told there was a chance mummy wouldn't live past Christmas, and who worried about her for years. It changed everything for her family.

My daughter didn't get it. I read up on the information that was around at the time. It was when it first came out.

She has complex meds due to a health condition but that wasn't what swayed me.

What put me off was that the studies were short term. The injection covered only a small number of hpv types. Not the main ones.

There was no long term studies into the effects, or how long girls would be protected for.

I have a son now. But no I don't regret not giving it to her. I doubt I would still without looking at studies and data.