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?

ROFL at pint scoring.

Probably a better idea.

I'm gutted that they weren't offering this when I was younger, and if I have a daughter she will be getting the jab.

My daughter will be having the jab, I take the advice from the Department of Health and not what I read in the Sun newspaper.

I don't think thaliablogs said that no child had ever been vaccine-damaged, just that she'd seen no evidence to support claims that they had. Not the same, IMO.

pagwatch, not sure if you are off as you said in your post. I didn't mean to offend, but I do get frustrated at the amount of non-science that gets quoted in these debates, and I would genuinely like to see studies that have shown links between vaccines and brain damage if they exist, I like to be well informed and see all sides of the argument.

PS think the sarcastic scientist aside was beneath you, IMO!

stuffit - ok, violent agreement

My original post was not false reassurance but based on the point that it has been tested as well as it can be and on the balance of the evidence. I work in this area and my comments come from a scientific standpoint, where statements such as 'significant risk' and 'safety' are always made on the basis of the weight of the evidence, because that is all that they can ever be made on.

You can never say something is 'safe' outright (not even a meal in a restaurant, re: my earlier point), but you can say that the data show "no significant risk". That is all I'm trying to say.

stuffit- you are kind to jump to someone else's /Riven's defence.
I am very happy to listen to any research anyone has done to support their views. Bring it on! Post it here now! Problem is, you can't really prove a negative.
What I don't accept is 3rd hand knowledge, or views that are linked to other situations, then applied to what is currently under debate.

"What are the 10, 20, 30 year outcomes?"

Can understand your concerns (from family situation), but are you seriously suggesting that even with a chance of a 70% reduction every young woman should wait for 30 years, and not take up the option of getting this (free) vaccination?

'So it protects girls duing the years when they are extremely unlikely to develop HPV anyhow?'

Forgive me if I take the governments recommendation over when girls are actually sexually active and the recommended age when this vaccination is given as the government have access to confidential Youth advisory clinic records and probably know what age they need to give the vaccine. Also youth advisory gives morning after pill so they will no when they are having unprotected sex to.

'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.'

Why? I haven't and will not have the jab as I have been sexually active for a long time. I do not use condoms and am a mother. Yes, the vaccine may prevent cancer, but that doesn't mean having to do what you suggest. How did we all cope before it came along? I have a yearly smear (because I always have), and at 43 seem to be OK.

'the government have access to confidential Youth advisory clinic records' - therefore not confidential at all.

scaryteacher you are living up to your name! It is scary that you can take such a cavalier attitude to something that saves lives. What you do with your own life and how often you have smears is up to you of course.

Smears are not the be-all and end-all of not developing cancer- they have a relatively high false negative rate which is why I too pay for a private smear and have one more often than recommended or provided by the NHS, and have done for the past 25 years.

I am delighted that this vaccine is available and sad that my 21 yr old DD has not had it- so I think that unless it is available free for all women soon, I will pay £500 for her to have it.

I just find it unbelievable that this medical progress in saving women's lives is being debated here and that some of you are saying you will not allow your DDs to have it. it really is a no-brainer.

"Even vaccine inserts have brain damage and death listed as a rare side effect. Or are the manufacturers 'scare mongering'?"
Riven have you seen these inserts?
Which vaccines are they on?

Scary teacher 'How did we all cope before it came along' - well for starters 'we' and our mothers and our daughters and our sisters died of cervical cancer.

No Riven I haven't asked.
Have you ever asked to read the list in any drug before you swallowed it and decided not to because of the side effects? If you had ,you might never take any drug ever again. Even anti biotics and aspirin.

I am fully aware that they have to list any reaction there has ever been. However, if you can show me or tell me where I can read the adverse effects of the CC vaccine that would be great thanks.

Ilike to go by stats which is al we can go on- and if it saves more lives than kills/damages people, that's ok for me.

Not got time to read through all of this and I know it's too late (either way) for OP's daughter, but if anyone else in a similar position is reading this, I just wanted to add another "DON'T DO IT!" to the list. Heard a LOT of bad things about this jag. I would focus on educating my daughter about the necessity of smear tests, rather than taking a chance of even a minor complication arising.

Whiteroses, care to elaborate on the 'bad things' that you've heard ?

And to be honest, I'd recommend that you DO read the whole thread tbh.

i think whiteroses sums up well the attitude of many people here toward vaccines (and many other things): "I heard bad things."

or, even worse, "I know I am right about this, despite all medical evidence to the contrary."

Well, I did not give consent for my DD (age 12) to have the jab last month (after discussion with her) and stand by my decision.

I explained to DD that the jab COULD prevent her getting cervical cancer when she's a lot older or it might not (I had to point out it MIGHT prevent only one form of cancer because other girls at her school were telling her she would die from cancer if she did'nt have it ). On the other hand, the jab could have long term side effects that are not known about as it has only been tested since 2006 and I am presuming that most of the trial group are still quite young and therefore there is not much evidence to prove it's safety or efficiency in any case. There have also been lesser publicised reports of paralysis and unexplained symptons suffered after the jab and I would prefer not put my perfectly healthy daughter at any risk.

As for her chances of getting cervical cancer, I would much prefer to educate her on STDs, about saving herself until she meets someone who will respect her and gets checked out before having sex and the fact that there is no need to have unprotected sex on a one night stand as you will feel crap afterwards!! As she is only 12, I think I have time to drum this into her.

I would certainly not blindly follow what the medical profession tells me to do (there is big bucks being made on this jab of course) as they are not infallible, remember thalidomide [sic]??

Purple you don't make any sense.

Dd had her second jab last Monday. Lots of talk about fainting before the first jab, nothing actually happened (somewhat to my surprise as I cannot remember my own class ever having had the most simple blood test without half the girls coming over funny and having to lie down). Dd's arm still a bit sore but looks normal.