So tell me about this cancer vaccine for year 8 girls

[AtheneNoctua]

A school in Manchester has decided not to allow it to be administered at school. They say school is no the place for it, but have no objection to the vaccine.

What do you think?
Is school the right place to give jabs?

I'm inclined to think I agree with the school. Schools have a hard enough time stretching the budget for education. I don't think it's right for the NHS to expect them to set aside part of the day to help fund the vaccination program. But, then, how much does it really cost to let a few nurses and a table in the door to jab girls between classes?

I wonder what the side effects are of this jab. I'm not really in favor of jabbing for everything under the sun. I'm not I'd want my DD to get the jab if I didn't think she had some high risk factors for contracting cervical cancer.

Just wondered what other people think of this program...

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7633761.stm

[PortAndLemon]

Beachcomber's NEJM article is about Cervarix not Gardasil, though, isn't it? At least, it appears to be about an (unnamed in the article) vaccine that protects against the HPV-16 and HPV-18 serotypes, like Cervarix, rather than one that also protects against the HPV-6 and HPV-11 serotypes, like Gardasil.

[Beachcomber]

Thanks for noticing portandlemon!

I agree that it is harder to get information about Cervarix as it was released after Gardasil.

Don't take this the wrong way therealmrsosborne but the info on the NHS link you posted is the most dumbed down misleading pile of crap I've come across in a long time and I read a lot of vaccine information.

I recently posted about these HPV vaccines on a forum for people who have suffered from vaccine damage.

I'm going to post a copy of what I said here;

"I think this situation is very complicated. As cybertiger points out, there is a lot of talk going on about this vaccine that has little to do with the medical arguments. Personaly, I think that alone is one reason to be cautious about it. I find it very concerning that the limited information that is given to the public tends to be misleading and dumbed down.

If you are looking for medical arguments against HPV vaccines then the NEMJ link and the Judicial Watch links summarise many of them. As for arguments for, well, I'm not sure that you have come to the right place for that!

In my experience the people I have come across who are for the jab either have a vested interest in it or are pretty ignorant of the science.

I have a simple question for you. Considering how much is unknown about this vaccine, do you think it is ethical to encourage such a large proportion of the population to have it?

When I mean what is unknown, I'm refering to the following;

If the vaccine will prevent cervical cancer or not.
How long the vaccine works for.
If boosters will be required, and if so, how many over what time period.
If by vaccinating against certain strains of HPV serotype replacement will take place rendering the vaccine at best useless and at worst dangerous.
If the vaccine will interfere with the current relationship between humans and HPV where over 90% of people clear the infection with no trouble and benefit from immunity.
If the vaccine is carcenogenic.
If the vaccine has any effect on fertility/puberty/hormone levels.
If the vaccine is safe for younger girls.
If the vaccine is really responsible for the side effects and deaths that have so far been reported to VAERS.

There are plenty other unanswered questions about this vaccine, but I think the above is enough to warrant its withdrawal and to demand further testing.

It seems that the only thing that we can be sure of so far with this jab is that it is worth a lot of money."