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?

stuffitllllama - perhaps if something doesn't make sense, you could at least mention (a) which of several posts it was that you had difficulty with, and (b) what in particular you felt was 'wrong' - or maybe it's just me that doesn't see (from the most recent of PP's comments) anything wildly senseless.

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

You surely don't mean that, do you? I hope everyone would be aware that various statistics, such as age (yy/mm), and so on (age at start of active sex life, gender, and perhaps stats on any STIs detected), can be collected with complete anonymity.

it's most of them self-contradiction, expecting people worried about the vaccine to produce research and links, while admitting you've never even read the manufacturers' inserts, then saying that you shouldn't read up because nothing is 100pc safe anyway, you can't prove a negative, accusing people of prejudice and brainwashing it just seems a bit like wittering to me.

eg "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"

no offence but I can't make head nor tail of most of it

I understand perfectly what pp is saying she is saying that she has not researched the vaccine as for her own personal reasons has not felt the need to.

However now that you and a few others are saying death and brain damage are a possible outcome could you please link to a site that shows where you got your facts from. As she won't just write the vaccine off because someone has heard bad things and therefore does not like 3rd hand knowledge and wants scientific facts so she can study them and determine the risk for herself.

Why should she not give the vaccine just because you say it is dangerous based on your personal experience without you giving the evidence to back it up I take you do have some and you don't just dislike it because you heard of a friend that her friend's daughter knew someone who had a bad reaction. If not please post links to prove what you say.

The element of conspiracy theory disturbs me here as well. "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]??" - well, yes, I agree that the medical profession is not infallible but do you really think that there are consistent attempts by pharmaceutical companies to
peddle drugs to make money, even if they don't work? Yes, there may well be people within those companies who don't care about the consequences but in most cases, it seems unlikely to me that the hundreds of doctors who would work on these trials and other areas of medical research would just roll over blindly and accept what's up.

As a society, we've moved on - pharma companies don't just put out new drugs. There are processes, tests, trials and the like before anything gets actually used on the public. And I agree with Purple - hearing vaguelly about "bad things" to do with this vaccine does not constitute scientific research. More specifically, no one seems to have produced a shred of conflicting evidence that this vaccine causes any problems whatsoever.

I think the main problem is it is new to most people and it has been proven that humans don't like change I can understand kinda my uncle who is an electrician refused to use a microwave for ten years because he said they have not seen the long term effect of cooking food so fast it may leak harmful substances into your food. Lots of people laughed at him but it is kind of the same as the people who feel there has not been enough study done on this vaccine.

PP can do what she likes: I don't advise to give or not to give: merely advise people to inform themselves. Poor argument and misinformation always jar which is why I post here.

Her central argument (and yours perhaps, and many on this thread) seems to be that it's approved, and drug companies wouldn't approve a bad drug, and there are risks with every treatment, so stop being silly.

Others prefer to inform themselves further: we are a long way from "take the red pill and then the yellow pill and everything will be alright". With good reason. There have been many cases of medical and pharmaceutical misadventure which some may seek to downgrade but others like to look into further.

It is also sensible to remember that should there be any serious adverse reaction, the parent and child are often left to cope alone: the response is deny, deny, deny and claim coincidence.

I used to think I wanted to vaccinate to do the right thing, as doctors advised, as that is a supported decision and one which will engender further support if things go wrong. Whereas not vaccinating is often lonely, with the highest personal responsibility.

However it soon became clear that support in case of adverse event would be slow or non existent, and that it would have to be fought for in the face of official and corporate denial.

If you are concerned at a lack of trust, as I think you are, then there is a reason for it.

stuffit- here it is again in simple English.

Hope I cover all your points.

1. No one in my experience is given the inserts on drugs to read before they are given them. They are sometimes in the packs of drugs but not always. I would love to hear from anyone who has asked for these leaflets in advance or at the time of vaccination and read them in front of the dr or nurse, keep them waiting, before making a decision.

1. If you read all the side effects of any drug you care to mention, the likelihood is you would be wary of taking it- from common aspirin to antibiotics. Yet most people don't think twice. This is because they think the benefits outweigh the risks.

1. IMO I do not believe all that is written or promoted by drug companies- far from it. I delayed by own DCs MMR vaccinations, FWIW, until I was more convinced of the safety, considering my DCs medical history.

1. Ultimately, I would take a drug or have a vaccination, or allow my DCs to- though they are now adults in their 20s - if the benefits outweighed the risks.

If you knew me, you would know that I am one of the most inquisitive, researching person there is. I do not blindly go with the herd.

However, I cannot go along with people whose strong opinions are simply that, and not backed up by evidence, scientific facts and data.

stuffit
eg "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"

This is what I said several posts back- it seems terribly clear to me!

What I am saying is that scares/evidence possibly about other vaccines, such as MMR and the old whooping cough vaccine, are being dragged up as reasons not to have THIS vaccine.

By 3rd hand knowledge I mean heresay, rumours, Chinese whispers, and general gossip that people are posting here- with not a shred of evidence to show the real facts.

An NCT friend of a friend has just been diagnosed with cervical cancer - she's in her late 20s and had a baby this year. Now she faces the possibility of not seeing her baby grow up, and if she survives, not being able to have any siblings for her baby. Have you ever seen anyone close to you die of cancer? It is the most awful thing in the world, and I would take up any opportunity to reduce the risks of my children ending up with the disease.

I was out all of yesterday with DS2 at the O2 so didn't see DD at all since she left for school yesterday morning. She was in bed when we returned.

I only saw her for a minute this morning, but I think the vaccine has been delayed to later this week or early next week due to something happening at the school. I am late home again tonight, but will have a few minutes to discuss it with her again then.

Thanks for all your comments. At the moment, completely illogically probably I am still tending towards not letting her have the vaccine.

I will let you know what we decided when I know.

Purplepeony, you've been patronising earlier, I'm not sure why you feel the need to do that.

Anyway flower, you can have the insert if you ask for it, lots of people do nowadays, especially for vax, am surprised you don't know this especially if you looked into MMR.

Hearsay (not heresay) -- do you mean people's personal experiences? General gossip, you mean, what? News reports that people talk about? I must go but you are quite prejudiced yourself I think.

stuffit- my Dcs are in their 20s- I have no need to read vaccine leaflets at present unless my DD chooses to have the CC vaccine.

The spelling mistake was actually a typo.

How can I be patronising when you said you didn't understand my post? Patronising seems to be a fave MN word when someone says something with which someone else disagrees, or feels a point has been made!

My only prejudice is against people who are misinformed or poorly informed, but spout their opinions as scientific facts.

Quickly back: my point is that people have the right to inform themselves (certainly further than NHS direct) and to make the decision they feel is right for themselves. They shouldn't be discouraged from doing so either. You seem to think people who have a different reasoning to you are a little stupid -- I'm sorry I can't disabuse you of that misconception, but there we are.

Information comes in various forms and one of those is direct personal experience. Perhaps you believe people are lying when they give these experiences: I'm sure you think they are mistaken about the cause. But you don't have any right to say they shouldn't be talked about. If that's what your reasoning relies on then it's a pretty poor defence: "shut up I'm right".

"here it is again in simple english", that's patronising, "wake up to reality" "get over your issues" "is it becoming clearer to you" they're all quite patronising really

you were terribly muddled, I don't understand how you say you've investigated this when you haven't looked at the adverse reactions

it's easy to google the package insert by the way, google "cervarix package insert"

re: your last -- yes, "shut up I'm right"

But stuffit - no-one can use 'direct personal experience' of the cervical cancer jab to decide if they want their DD to have it because they have no personal experience of it.

So, that is where balancing the scientific evidence comes in.

Further, one person's experience is very much 50:50 - either something bad will happen or it won't. But that does not mean that the chances of the next person experiencing something bad are also 50:50. They are not. You need mass data from clinical trials, post-marketing, etc to make rational judgements about the risk:benefit of new drugs, or any drugs for that matter.

As I and purplepeony have both said, no drugs out there have a 100% safety record. Nothing does - not a car, or a foodstuff, or a children's playground. But we don't all hear a scare story or read a paper citing 5% of patients experiecing side-effects and run screaming from the building.

We weight up the pros and cons, yes sometimes based on personal experience (if you know ibuprofen upsets your stomach, you don't take it, but I do!) but when you have no personal experience of your own to draw on, it makes absolutely no sense to use heresay or third-hand accounts of someone else's experience. That is not rational at all.

The only rational way to weight up the pros and cons of medical advances is to use the clinical data.

I have just found the insert but it is a pdf so I cant link to it but the leaflet says nothing about death or brain damage.

If you go here and click the fifth site you can download the vaccine insert

Toosh, if someone has a personal experience of an adverse reaction do you want them never to mention it to anybody that seems very odd to me. What other people do with that information is up to them probably weigh it up with the clinical data -- but it shouldn't be suppressed.

For example: multiple personal experiences related of an adverse reaction which is denied or not predicted by the manufacturer.

We know the government has requested this sort of information from health service providers. We know that there will be reactions not predicted by the manufacturer, and I don't know why you would want to suppress this. Is this what you are suggesting?

stuffit every licensed drug has adverse reactions listed. Every single one. That will never change.

If a clinical trial of drinking water was run, I guarantee that would also list adverse reactions.

THis is because clinical trials have to report all adverse reactions that occur in patients receiving the treatment, whether they were deemed to be related to the study drug or not. People drinking water will still break their leg, get a cold (listed as nasopharyngitis), experience nausea, diarrhoea, etc etc, and these things have to be reported. Similarly, if you inject an inert substance such as saline into people and run a clinical trial, you will see adverse events related to the administration - i.e. injection site reactions. This is because guess what - injections can cause pain, irritation, etc etc. That doesn't mean that the substance being injected is dangerous.

As I've said before, life is full of things that do not have 100% safety record. Therefore, if you look at any drug or medical intervention and expect it to have no adverse reactions listed, you will be looking for a long time, and that includes all the medications you've ever taken in your life.

No, it doesn't. But then, it doesn't say anything about GBS either: and we know the government is using the rollout to discover if it does trigger GBS. (The insert does deal with some of the posters on here spouting opinions based on no scientific fact -- for example, that all the girls who faint are putting it on. The package insert says quite clearly it's a potential reaction.)

Toosh, x posted, but see my comment: not all adverse reactions are discovered in trials and some are very serious. Likewise with long term reactions.

stuffit you are just being melodramatic now and I've no time for that kind of silliness. Intelligent debate, yes. But I am certainly not suggesting that anything be covered up - how ridiculous. That is the type of scaremongering attitude that leads to these scare stories about false reports of the vaccine causing a death (which it didn't).

If you know anything about clinical trials and the reporting of them, you will know that disclosure of adverse events is mandatory. So it is a bit silly of you to suggest that manufacturers 'deny' the occurrence of adverse events.

It is also highly offensive of you to attempt to imply that I am suggesting that anything should be or is being suppressed.

FOr the record, I also did not ever suggest that people who have experienced an adverse reaction should not say so. I merely suggested that this is not a rational basis on which for other people to make their decisions.

I'm not interested in a childish battle with you. You are clearly not interested in accepting the rational arguements being put to you, and therefore an intelligent debate is not possible with you. So I will be leaving it there.

bye

someone mentioned that they had never, or have yet to see, studies showing a link, or cause brain damage, as a result of immunisation.

first thing that springs to mind is would the pharma companies, or the manufacterers conduct these studies knowing that evidance may show a link? there does seem to be 'evidance' that there 'could' be a link between brain damage caused by the ingredients in the vaccines. however, studies and evidance are two very differant things. and if studies were carried out, which then most certainly showed a link,(just for arguements sake), would these studies be published?

i simply dont trust pharma companies.

NO one said that all girls were putting it on just that some if not many were after reading this insert and thinking if I feint I can go home undoubtedly some were genuine the comment was only made in response to claims that that nearly all girls who have it feint.

Plus it gives no information on whether the girls who had adverse reactions had any other health issues. The gbs is not mentioned because as you said the government are currently trying to find out if there is a link if they find one I am sure it will be on there. Also feinting not really as bad as cancer.

Just so you know I don't normally take medicine including pain killers unless absolutely necessary because of the risk but the way I see it is if my dd had cervical cancer and I could give her the vaccine it had a 70% success rate but it was possible that all those side effects could happen I would give it to her would you? Prevention IMO is better than cure.

stuffitInformation comes in various forms and one of those is direct personal experience. Perhaps you believe people are lying when they give these experiences: I'm sure you think they are mistaken about the cause. But you don't have any right to say they shouldn't be talked about. If that's what your reasoning relies on then it's a pretty poor defence: "shut up I'm right".

I really don't understand a word of this and you don't seem to be able to put together a logical argument.

Which people have written about any adverse personal reactions or experiences?
Which people are you saying I am accusing of lying?
Are you talking about the one example of a girl dying which was shown to be totally unconnected with the vaccine?

As others have pointed out, every single medicine has side effects. I bet you take pain killers and anti bitoics? Why do you take them if they have side effects?

Because you want the benefits.

If you could follow through your comments rather than flounce off in a hissy fit when the going gets tough, I'd be more inclined to listen to you.