H.P.V - Decided not to immunise 12yo - Am I alone in this decision ?

[Tillyboo]

The school nurse letter sat on my desk for a few weeks before a niggling feeling compelled me to research Gardasil.

I have been told that as long as the girl is 100% healthy with no underlying health issues or allergies, the occurances of side affects are few and less serious. But, I have read reports and papers, watched videos of young girls who have been seriously physically affected by the immunisation. Gardasil is relatively new on the market and the US and Denmark do not hold it in high regard. I believe Japan have removed it from the market too ? Am I being selfish to deny my daughter this injection ?

Scientists do their research.

Googling is not research.

If I had a 12 year old son I would be looking into paying for him to be vaccinated against HPV too.

Dd is terrified of injections too. When we got the letter home it was time for a very frank talk about cancer treatment. Which is far worse and far more painful and invasive than the seconds it takes to administer a vaccine. She took it all in sensibly and read the information school had given her and had the injection. To say that your dd wouldn't have it because she is frightened of injections is ridiculous because the consequences could be far far worse.

Well my DD is still in primary school, so below the age for immunisation.

I'm doing research now before I need to as I'm a thoughtful and careful person and I like to take my time researching thouroughly and thinking things over.

I'm not in the uk btw, and websites specific to my country say that the gardasil vaccine is administered with three doses if the girl is over 15, only two doses if under 15.

It is stated the vaccine gardasil only gives immunity for five years according to the health publications in my country. If my DD gets the vaccine at 12 she will not be covered after she is 17.
IME and with respect, sex under 16 is illegal here. So only one year of legal sexual activity will be covered. I live in a predominantly Roman Catholic country, and statistically, the first sexual experience age is considerably higher than that in the UK.

My feeling is that this vaccine is not a universal panacea and prophylactic for cervical cancer, but can immunise against infection from two strains of virus which have been proved to cause cervical cancer, but only for five years.

I'm not sure what the benefit of having such a young sexually inactive person immunised is, considering the vaccine only works for five years. Unless it's to immunise her against illegal sexual contact, in effect statutory rape.

If using condoms and barrier methods are not any protection, why aren't there regular booster programmes as well for the rest of her life?
Why only young girls? When are the booster programmes going to be implemented, and what effect do these have?

There is some reportage that it's the third shot which causes all the trouble with gardasil, and surely booster shots would add to the load, and increase the risk of post vaccination malaise?

I'm not sure either, apart from not having a cervix, why boys who are statically proven to have more partners aren't immunised? Surely they have the chance of spreading the virus much more than the girls.

Is this yet another case of women bearing the brunt of responsibility for community and personal health? as they do with contraception as well

My feeling is that I will enrol my DD in the vaccination programme at 14 years, and advise her to enrol herself in the free cervical smear programme which is available here in her 20s.

Based on the facts received from the official and governmental health publications, has anyone got any other points to make to me about my decision? Have I left anything out in my analysis?

I'm sorry to hijack the thread with all my questions!

Thank you again for all who have added to this debate and shared their experiences.

Scientists do their research
Googling is not research

Ok, so what do you recommend then? Blind faith in anything a pharmaceutical company or doctor wants to give you, because scientists were involved or googling and finding out a bit more about what someone wants to put into your body?

The scientists involved with these vaccines are paid by pharmaceutical companies who have a vested interest in saying that these vaccines are safe. Any doctor or scientist who says otherwise is struck off. It is the public domain that there are lots of shinanigans with published research.

My paid employment depends on googling for answers. I know how to google, I don't just take the first written thing I see as being gospel and I don't assume that I have all the answers either.

I just can't accept this blind faith in scientists.

Consider this

www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/american-college-of-pediatrians-warning-gardasil-hpv-vaccines/

WiMoChi

This has been throughly debunked.

The ill-informed frequently confuse the American Academy of Pediatrics (which is huge) with the American College of Paediatricians, which has one employee. It's basically a cover to try to lend legitimacy to every ridiculous medical claim out there. Most of what so releases is 'pro-family' - misogynistic and homophobic.

You really do need to look on the large sites that collate real medical studies, based on large data sets. Anyone can claim to be an expert on the Internet. Only those with credentials and who are publishing peer-reviewed research should be listened to.

It CANNOT be coincidence

It really can.

Any doctor or scientist who says otherwise is struck off

This is just rubbish. Nobody is "struck off" for publishing well conducted, ethically approved research. They may not be popular with the Pharmaceutical companies, but really, saying they'll be struck off just invalidates your whole argument (and proves our point about anyone being able to say anything on the Internet, however untrue).

This is the American College of Paediatrics.

Yup - it's very easy for fringe groups on the Internet to give themselves legitimate sounding names and legitimate sounding crests,and unless you're an expert in that field it can be hard to tell them from official groups.

That's the whole point of peer-reviewed journals. And the their unanimous opinion is that HPV vaccine is safe and effective.

There's nothing I can say to convince those who see conspiracy
Rabies everywhere though.

Conspiracies theories obviously - rabies has nothing to do with it!

Just so long as research is not a synonym for reading scary stories on the Internet.

This!! This is my bugbear with the anti-vax brigade. Unless you have read the peer reviewed papers published in medical journals, then you haven't done research - and unless you have some serious medical/statistical knowledge, the chances are you won't understand them properly anyway. Why do people who question blind faith in scientists seem to have blind faith in their own opinion, however uniformed?

...sorry - uninformed!

I says something about conspiracy theories that I saw "rabies" and though "bloody hell, some people will believe anything"!

Bloody phone with its bloody autocorrect.

My dd declined it - I wish she hadn't. Hers was the first year of vaccination - a couple of months ago one of my best friends died of a hpv related cervical cancer. She had 8 months between diagnosis and death. She leaves a son (single parent). The rise in throat cancer among young people due to hpv and oral sex is terrifying. It's a cancer with a very poor prognosis. If I could turn back the clock I would find a way to convince dd to have the vaccine. I let her decide and I have to live with that decision.

As a 28-year-old (and therefore missed the chance at getting the vaccine by a few years) who had pre-cancerous cells detected from her first smear, PLEASE reconsider OP.

How dare you suggest I am not taking this seriously !! I am not anti vax at all, I have very real concerns about HPV and expected a balanced and polite discussion.

Oh, and my dd's decision to not go ahead is not based on her fear of injections.

I'm concerned about HPV too. Hence thinking the vaccine is a really positive public health initiative. I fully accept that there will be good reasons for a very small number not to vaccinate. Is that balanced enough?

Because I continue to feel that your original post is not even slightly convincing. I've now watched the video you posted and a couple of others and feel really amazed that anyone could regard them as evidence based.

Beware the passive voice in activist posts.

There are ads for class action suits against the makers of Gardasil in US. My mum's scanty attempts at sex Ed 50+ years ago. Included the warning that cancer of the womb was caused by men with unwashed dicks. Gardasil is being offered to males and females in Canada.