not letting my 13-year old DD have the cervical cancer jab?

[IloveJudgeJudy]

It's now crunch time. I have a letter and form from school that I have to sign to allow my 13-year old DD have the three cervical cancer jabs. The form HAS TO be in tomorrow, one way or the other.

Last year when this vaccination came in I was all for it. BUT I have been reading up a bit more about it and have read that it only covers 70% of cervical cancers, far fewer people are affected by cervical cancers than by, for example, lung cancer or heart disease. I have also read, but I am not sure how true it is, that some girls have had quite severe adverse reactions to the vaccination.

So, AIBU to stop my daughter having these jabs?

That is inconsistent then isn't it?

Mumps is given to little girls although it is rarely a problem to anyone other than older boys and men. Rubella is given to toddlers when it is rarely a problem to small children but is a danger to a pregnant womans foetus .

Vaccination is often given to protect herd rather than the individual.

MY DD is only 7. She won't get it until she chooses to when she is old enough to be contemplating sex.
My DS is lectured regularly and understands entirely that condoms are not just to prevent pregnancy and that he has a responsibilty to assist a girlfriend protect her health as well as protecting his own.

He knows too that he unfortuamtely has genes that do not blend well with vaccination and so has had to become actively involved in his health care from an early age. So far he continues to decline all vaccinations.

I am wondering how he will cope with all the 'why oh why' questions as he gets older. It is an area where people are always ready to lecture rather than ask

Mumps can be dangerous to adults of both sexes.My neighbour had it last year, he walked like a crab for a week. I had it the year before that, I was hospitalised with what could have turned out to be a life threatening complication.

..I said 'rarely'

I'm not sure I understand your point Pag ? Yes, other vaccinations offer herd immunity, this one only needs to offer individual immumity. A child infected with rubella can infect 100's of people just by being in close proximity to them. 'Anyone' can become ill with rubella (the severity and it's impact is a whole other debate) Cervical cancer will ONLY affect women.

Why is the fact that it appears to be 'inconsistent' with other vaccines an issue ? (Genuine question not 'aving a go )

Surely if everyone had the vaccine then eventually there'd be herd immunity (of sorts) from HPV (and thus associated cancer cases)? So it isn't that much different than other vaccines.
I know bugger all about this btw

YABU. I would definitely want it for myself or daughter. I had an abnormal smear at 21 and was found to have HPV, had a biopsy and that seemed to get it all since it never showed up again. (so far)
Vaccines can be worrisome and many are not failsafe but it's a strong line of defence.

Fair enough Sassy

A child infected with rubella can infect loads but is only really a danger to a pregnant woman. That premis makes the Health Authorities feel that this potential exposure is sufficient to make a vaccine a reasonable thing for the toddler.
As we are talking about a virus which a man can have and potentially infect lots of girls/women even though it is of little concern to him, why not apply the same greater good standard and offer it to all young people.

I am standing shoulder to shoulder with OtterInaSkoda in my lack of detailed knowledge here btw.

I just think we jab toddlers with everything that may be a risk to others on the grounds that they are available and mostly parents are concerned and co-operative. But the vaccinating of young men would surely help restrictthe spread but we are only offering it to girls....*

• this may be bunkum disclaimer

'Herd' protection is desirable because it eventually results in the eradication of the disease from the population completely - see Smallpox. This then removes a disease from needing to be accounted for and frees up research/diagnostic time/treatment time etc for other still-about illnesses.

Children are vaccinated as young as they are because it a) gets that 'herd' protection going - precious little point in hoping for eradication if there's a whole cadre of kids who can be brewing the disease between themselves - and b) precisely because many illnesses are less severe in kids than in adults and because kids still developing immune systems cope better and faster with the introduction than an adults.

It's hard, now, for us to imagine a world where illnesses such as measles and TB devastated families but talk to anyone who remembers and they'll paint a pretty grim picture. Measles kills, TB kills but because it doesn't happen very often anymore these diseases are getting downplayed.

I understand entirely that parents are, rightly, concerned about giving our child anything that might harm them, but this jab isnlt one of those things and could well save your daughter's life one day.

As for safety - unlike Swine Flu, this one has been tested thoroughly and is as safe as any other jab, antibiotic, medication or treatment or otherwise and one hell of a lot safer than any drug being used for Chemotherapy!

YANBU to be worried, but please don't reject this one out of hand.

Pag - I'll add my bunkum disclaimer I suppose it comes down to cost effectivenness - if you only need to vaccinate approx half the population, why spend money vaccinating the whole lot ? 'dunno'

Riven - stop confusing me more I suppose the target age has been identified using info on teen pregnacies and other STIs that are affecting young women. That data gives a truer idea of the age at which girls become sexually active than actually depending on THEM to tell the truth ? 'potential bunkum disclaimer again'

You decide but you live with the consequences. Take responsibility whatever your decision.

Riven I think you should read this

""It is also possible to have the vaccination privately. The cost for private treatment varies from doctor to doctor. We are hearing reports of about £500 being charged for a course of 3 injections.

This research means that if girls take up the vaccination the programme will prevent at least 7 out of 10 cancers of the cervix and possibly even more in the future. But it takes between 10 and 20 years for a cancer to develop after HPV infection. So any benefits in reducing cervical cancer won?t be seen for quite a long time. But the number of cases of pre-cancerous changes in the cervix (CIN) will fall quite rapidly. It is not certain how long the vaccination gives protection for. So far the trials have followed people up for 6 years so we know that it lasts at least this long. It is expected that the vaccines should last for life but more research is needed to find out if this is the case. It may be that women will need a booster dose at some time.""

If you read it, it says that the vaccine is effective for at least 6 years and possibly for life. (THis is because it was only tested 6 years ago I imagine.)

It also makes the point that cancer can take 20 years or more to develop after infection, so even if a girl waited til he was 17-18 to have unprotected sex, she might still develop cancer inher 40s.

actually I don'tthink they are downplayed.

When I was a child I had measles and all my mahoosive extended family had measles as I was growing up. We all had mumps too.

I remember one of my reading books had a story about a child who was ill but then they got the Doctors and were hugely relieved that it was only measles.Books and stories joked about people being spotty with the measles. I had old medical dictionaries and home doctor encyclopedias that said the same
My parents grew up taking children to measles parties to get it out ofthe way. There was none of the 'panic' about measles in general.
Now you can of course argue that the blase attitude was wrong or misplaced. But people really were not terrified of this as a killer disease

The truth is that of course there can be many compliactions and they can be serious or fatal. I am not minimizing that.
But the idea that keeps being spouted that we have forgotten how we used to view is not true. I am old. I remember.
We used to think of it as a broadly mild disease which unfortunately sometimes had tragic complications.

But I digress....

Sassy - quite apart from remembering how unreliable I was when it came to using johnnies in my teens (though I was on the Pill), I'd have thought that chlamydia infection rates amongst under-21s would be enough to convince people that 13-18 is exactly the age when girls are at risk, or at least start to be. Err, so I am agreeing with you (but not with Riven).

Pagwatch - are you sighing at me? I'm not being bitchy, I'm just making a point.

Vaccines are just one of millions of products out there that we all consume on a daily basis that have not been proven 100% safe for the past 100 years. Nothing ever has and nothing ever will, because there will always be someone who reacts badly to it, whether it be a vaccine, a prescription medicine, an over-the-counter drug, or a meal in a restaurant.

So we have to balance the evidence. And the evidence of cervical cancer being a deadly but largely preventable disease far outweighs any evidence that the vaccine might be dangerous.

Riven, I don't think it is helpful to quote the number of deaths through road accidents really.

You can't vaccinate or legislate against accidents on the road- people make a choice whether they use a car or not, and a proportion of deaths are innocent pedestrians too.

I really do have a problem following your argument other than you are anti- vaccinations full stop.

There are no figures on long term outcomes as this is a new ish vaccine but does that mean it will have adverse outcomes? Why are you assuming the worst?

Ther is no indication it will affect fertility- how can a virus which essentially causes papillomas (warts) affect fertility?

I think you are scaremongering- and you are affected by this- you have a 17 yr old DD who is sexually active- she ought to have the choice over what todo- and an unbiased choice without you brainwashing her, if you are.

If she is having unprotected sex she might be ok or she might not be okay-don't you feel she ought to decide with the full facts?

Riven- is your own child damaged through vaccines? If so, I am truly sorry.

Please can you try and debate without resorting to swearing. it is unnecessary and offfensive.

I think you should try and step back and see that although some vacccines have a bad track record- and there is still debate over that anyway- not all vaccines are risky.

You are reacting to this in a very blinkered way, saying in effect that just because some children have had severe reactions, then that is always possible/likely.

Can you not see that this is prejudice, not rational thought?

And one more thought- it's NOT too late for your other daughter. I pointed out why it might be and might not be- did you not read that bit?

Yes, but by that token Peony, people can decide to have sex or not, and to use contraception (drive safely if you want the analogy).

I think Riven will have done research on this, and I don't think she scaremongers. As I said, I don't have a daughter, but if I did, I would be researching this carefully. If it becomes available for boys, then I will be researching it minutely, as my ds has an underlying heart defect, and I will want to see my GP and discuss it before I let him anywhere near a needle.

I understand that people believe their children are brain damaged by vaccines, but all the evidence I have seen (I am a scientist) shows that there is absolutely no link between vaccines and brain damage (and certainly no causality). I haven't read everything, of course, so happy to see other evidence if people can point me in the right direction.

scaryteacher- agreed, but by the same token a woman who hadn't had the vaccine would be at greater risk- just as someone would be if they didn't wear a seatbelt- there are people who don't use them as they think they might be worse off in an accident.
In addition, she would have to use condoms for life unless her partner was tested for HPV and negative- and that would mean forgoing motherhood if he wasn't.

Peony: do not accuse Riven of prejudice rather than rational thought. You have no idea how much research people have done before they reject a vaccination.

Toosh, you and I agree, nothing is 100pc safe: so why offer a false reassurance mdear -- people read too much to think "if it's approved it must be ok". Yeah right

Toosh
I wasn't sighing at you. I was sighing at the way the discussion always descends into pint scoring rather than point making. A general ambient type of sigh really

Re the 100 of things that are not absolutely safe - I am not sure how that is relevent. We assess how readily we use things based on our personal experience don't we?
I think anti-biotics are pretty safe but I also think they are massively over subscribed so I only use them when it seems dangerous not too.
My family has a history of adverse reactions to vaccinations including seizures and long term damage so I am very wary.
Just specific risk analysis.

But as we now have posters, sorry scientists claiming that children do not ever get brain damage from vaccination I am now off.

The conversation can only plumb a certain depth for me.

I strongly believe that almost everyone weighs these decisions carefully and we chose in the best interests of our children and our communities - whatever that choice may be.
I wish everyone well