HPV Vaccine should i consent for my 12 year old be given this?

[Rewy]

A little concerned regarding the decision on this as there does seem to be some worrying side effects .

Facts please. How many people have had severe reactions to the HPV vaccine for example?

I'm not talking specifically about the HPV vaccine. I'm on my phone at the moment but you can prob get those figures yourself from VAERS. It is passive surveillance though so under reporting is an issue.

Just to be clear - you think that most vaccine reactions occur in people with known contraindications to the vaccine? Surely that's worrying in itself? If they have a known contraindication they shouldn't be getting vaccine!

I am SO PLEASED for my lovely daughters that they can have this vaccine.

"Just to be clear - you think that most vaccine reactions occur in people with known contraindications to the vaccine? Surely that's worrying in itself? If they have a known contraindication they shouldn't be getting vaccine!"

I think people with allergies to any of the vaccine ingredients shouldn't be vaccinated and some people with immune system issues. But I also know that there are a vanishingly small number of people who suffer severe reactions- and an even smaller number whose reactions are not temporary. And that the effects of the diseases vaccines protect against are much more severe and frequently life threatening.

So, are you saying that the vast majority of girls/women should not be offered the relative protection of a vaccine because some individual may have a reaction to it?

I truly don't understand why any vaccine debate on MN goes this way? It is very confusing. I think for anybody who feels as strongly as you do, MrsWhisterson, do opt out. We all make choices and then have to live with the potential consequences and I am sure we all want to do the best for our children.

I haven't said anywhere that there are loads of people having severe reactions but the fact is that some do and we currently have no way of identifying them. Yes, we can say there are certain contraindications but they aren't all known which is why there are still people reacting badly.

"the effects of the diseases vaccines protect against are much more severe and frequently life threatening."

In most cases this is true, for some it is not.

As mentioned earlier, most cases of HPV resolve themselves and do not go on to cause cervical cancer.

"So, are you saying that the vast majority of girls/women should not be offered the relative protection of a vaccine because some individual may have a reaction to it?"

No, I'm not. I made that clear up thread. I just want people to stop criticising others for making a different decision. If you want the vaccine, great but don't presume that you are in a position to make the right decision for someone else's child.

"No, I'm not. I made that clear up thread. I just want people to stop criticising others for making a different decision."

I will if that decision is based on pseudo scientific claptrap.
I will also criticise people who ride on the coat tails of others-relying on the herd immunity provided by others making the right decision.

'Right decision' - for your child maybe. You have no way of knowing that. Stop passing judgement on others. It's their decision and you don't know if their decision is based on pseudo-scientific claptrap or not. We don't even know how this vaccine will even effect the incidence of cervical cancer just yet.

I don't know anyone who has a child in normal health with no contraindicating family history whose decision not to vaccinate has not been based on pseudo scientific claptrap or religious clap trap. Or sometimes both.

Anecdote = data?

Nope. Didn't say it was data. Just my experience. Happy to change my view when somebody comes along to show me different.

What about people who don't want to vaccinate against HPV due to
-unknown long term effects.
-unknown risk to their individual child.
-not having data that show that the risk of developing cervical cancer is actually significantly decreased?

Just some of the reasons on this thread and others.

"What about people who don't want to vaccinate against HPV due to
-unknown long term effects. "

Why do you think that a vaccination carries a greater risk of unknown long term effects than, say, the new brand of biscuits at Waitrose?

Why are you asking why I think that?

What a strange example to use though. What sort of risk do you think a new combination of flour and sugar could pose?

If, however, Waitrose introduced some new sugar substitute that hadn't been used in biscuits before, I might be a bit wary of it. People telling me, "oh, it'll be fine" isn't exactly reassuring when I know they don't have any additional info either.

I'm not vaccinating but I'm not consciously riding on the back of herd immunity. I've made a conscious decision not to vaccinate, if others choose to vaccinate,that is their choice but I cant be made to feel guilty for something that other people have decided to do.

"I'm not vaccinating but I'm not consciously riding on the back of herd immunity"

You may not be consciously doing it- but that is what you are doing. You have the luxury to make your choice because other people have made a different one. Because you know it is unlikely that your child will get polio or measles or diptheria.

To be fair, the drop in polio and diphtheria can also be attributed to improved hygiene and sanitation.

Ok but there are lots of other diseases that would be killing millions if it weren't for vaccines.

It could be attributed to that. It could also be attributed to intervention by the Great Green Arklsiezure. But that would be very silly. So we're not going to do that, are we?

Yes, decent sewers etc has done more for the reduction of infection diseases than modern medicine including vaccinations. I agree.

However, I have not seen a single case of diphtheria or measles or (new) polio in 22 years of working in medicine with general populations of children. They are (virtually) wiped out because of vaccinations.

I understand very well that vaccines are a. not a guarantee to never get the illness in question and b. that there are potential (and sometimes very serious) downsides to vaccinations.
But I truly thing we have 'forgotten' (as a society) of how horrendous infectious disease epidemics have been within the lifetime of our grandparents. And don't understand why a significant minority of people who do not have recognise immunological problems are happy to accept the much bigger (and proven) risk of whatever-infectious-disease, but will not go near a vaccinations that has been given in millions worldwide?
I am not trying to convince anybody of my point of view (as I know you won't convince me of yours ) but I truly don't follow.

Hakluyt - you're not denying it are you? You may need to do a bit of reading if you are.

Pacific - maybe because knowing the effect on others doesn't mean you know the effect it will have on you? Sometimes that just can't reassure you when you know that the risk for you personally is still an unknown.

No, but equally you don't know the effect of HPV/measles/polio/whatever illness on you as an individual, do you?

I'm not denying that modern hygiene and sewerage and so on made a massive impact on infectious diseases generally. Of course I'm not.

However, I was born in an era where parents were terrified of polio. I had contemporaries who were paralysed by it. And by the time I was, maybe, 10, it was no longer an issue. And that was due to vaccination. People forget so quickly. And herd immunity means that they can continue to forget. Until that immunity drops below a critical point- and they are forced to remember.

No, but it's that decision to actually do something that makes it harder. You may or may not ever be exposed to/contract HPV/measles/polio etc but you have to actually decide to have the vaccine.