HPV Vaccination Programme

[AnneWiddecomesArse]

I'm a bit side swiped by this.
I've read some stuff in papers etc. but now my DD has been offered the vaccine in this school year (she's 12 years old); and it's time for a decision.
What are your thoughts/research on this ?

"So because a vaccine may make people feel they are not vulnerable to one std, not being vaccinated is therefore sensible?"

Yes, because its long term effects aren't known and because women might be put off going for smears.

There has been enough reporting and counting, as well as cross checking with other sources of reports, to satisfy me that there is no vast 90% of the iceberg lurking beneath the surface when it comes to vaccine safety and statistics. Yes, sure - everyone must follow their instinct. You are satisfied - I think you used the word "inclined" earlier which is quite a good one in the vaccine debate. Your natural inclination is towards belief and trust. It was mine until too much evidence emerged indicating that official statistics and "counting" might not be all they claimed to be.

But sure, follow your inclination. It's all we can do.

Wormshuffler
this study shows how they looked at condom use and HPV infection
It is not brilliant quality evidence, it is quite a small sample from only one university.
A literature review concluded that condom transmission could be reduced by condom use, though their exact efficacy varies between studies.

juuuule
""the risk of getting cervical cancer is one in 136."

How is this worked out?"

cancer research uk stats

HPV can be transmitted through any skin to skin contact. IT is the same virus that cause (hand/facial) warts and verrucas on the feet.

I know you will appreciate that these are not transmitted from person to person via fluid exchange or membraneous contact. HPV is transmitted via touch and can be transmitted from ANY skin to skin contact

To address the issue of potential reduced uptake of Pap smears secondary to the vaccination.

This is a completely separate consideration and should have no bearing on if the vaccine is or is not given. IT is a weak argument against giving the vaccine as it has nothing to do with the vaccines efficacy or ability. It is about good sexual health education and ensuring that the decision to vaccinate is informed with good understanding of what the jab can and cant do. 'No one wants to go for a smear, its no fun.' Neither is going to the dentist, but we all need to take a degree of personal responsibility for our health.

I think on this one BB, this is your opinion but certainly doesn't add strong weight to an argument against the vaccine. It does not make the vaccine less effective or safe at what it states it can do.

As for your arguments about safety concerns. Vaccines are no different from any other medication. Their side effects and adverse incidents are reported in the same way as any other medication. The MHRA regulates all medicines very closely and drugs are withdrawn if they are considered not to be safe. There is no conspiracy theory here. There is extensive good quality evidence that clearly demonstrates this vaccines efficacy and safety.

I understand that as a parent you would demand answers if your child develops any health problems, not just post vaccination. Sometimes in medicine, we dont know why diseases happen or what triggers them. We do investigate as far as we are able and to say that an adverse event has or has not been caused by a vaccine or medicine is well within the scope and ability of the medial profession.

There are no increased risk of serious side effects with either jab. This is supported by good quality and a high volume of evidence.

As for the efficacy,the vaccine does not 'only last 6 years', this is misleading. The studies published are showing that patients who have been vaccinated have no signs of reduced immunity at 6.4 years, there is not evidence that immunity reduces after this time. The studied patients will continue to be followed up and research is ongoing to monitor the maintenance of immunity (estimated between 15-20 years)

"estimated" is an important word there. When the MMR was released it was estimated that one jab would give lifetime protection which clearly isn't the case.At the moment 6 years is all that we know about - they can estimate away but it will be a long time before we see if it has made an impact anyway. Also worth noting that cases of CC have been declining anyway since more people have taken up screening so it will be interesting to compare that to the vaccine. Although no doubt the vaccine will be given ALL the credit for any reduction in the number of CC cases.

BM you always say what I'm thinking. I may as well retire and go to work at B & Q.

It's not a separate issue, it's bound to have bearing. Separating them out is a way of persuading people to have the vaccine. It's troublesome for pro-vaccinists if the same protection from cervical cancer is available from regular and frequent smear tests. It suits them/you to treat them as separate issues.

You are hopeful that the vaccine will not negatively affect behaviour. I think we can be certain that some people will think they are well protected and don't need smear tests. That fear's been expressed by researchers and doctors too. I don't know how anyone can think that's unfounded - it makes perfect sense that this could or is likely to happen.

You present your opinions about safety as if they were facts. I'm not sure this is appropriate.

No, I present the facts as facts.
I try to keep the information relevant, and let people make up their own minds with all the facts.

Pap screening up take is a separate issue and should be addressed separately. It seems quite strange that you are suggesting that the vaccine will cause complacency. Drugs dont cause that, people do. Your concerns are a sensible note of caution, but absolutely not a reason to with hold vaccination. That makes no reasonable sense. Your opinions on uptake are just your opinions, there is no objective evidence to support this is the case.

IT also seems strange that you think that screening should be the only option. Screening can not un do the damage of infection. It can not prevent it.

Vaccines are an adjunct to screening. This is the recommendation of the manufacturer and the NHS. Fact
The evidence is clear otherwise that the vaccine is 95-100 efficient in preventing the HPV strains that cause 70-80% of cervical cancers.
Screening alone can not prevent these strains, just detect and treat if needed. fact.

My statements on safety are fact based on high quality high volume scientific evidence.

This vaccine has a very positive place in preventing a disease that took nearly a quarter of a million lives last year. That is fact.

Bluberties, I am getting a better picture of your mental process wrt vaccines now that you have isolated the word 'inclined' and gone off to the races with it. Maybe you should read articles about vaccines and see them in their entirety instead of becoming fixated on one teeny tiny aspect or element.

And of course there's a large dose of paranoia.

Bubbley, same goes for you and your cherry picking of the word 'estimated'.

Bluberties, if screening was the be all and end all you seem to think it is, even without a vaccine, how come any woman still dies from cervical cancer?
Screening is good, but it's not that good. (See what I posted above)

Math, because many women don't get screened early enough or regularly enough. That doesn't account for all the cases but it certainly accounts for many.

I'm not cherry picking anything - just pointing out that an estimate is only an estimate and it doesn't guarantee anything.

It seems quite strange that you are suggesting that the vaccine will cause complacency. It's not strange, nor am I the only one. It's a viable concern. I'm not sure why you think it's strange, as it was a hugely publicised concern at first which has now died away. I'm not worried about the idea of it being "a promiscuity jab" -- in the sense that women will behave as irresponsibly or responsibly as they would have done anyway. I would be worried about it causing complacency about smear tests.

I don't think screening should be the only option, why would you think I've said that when I never have? I think that's a straw man thing. My position is that screening is a sensible and rational choice. You can make a different choice if you like, the option is there.

Yes safety: absolutely. Because you ignore adverse events reports which really do challenge rational process to deny, your safety complacency rate is pretty high. Obviously you'd want to share that complacency with as many people as possible but it is based on denial.

Maths: I'm not sure what you think I'm paranoid about. It's probably helpful to you to throw that out when faced with the fact that you are denying adverse events reports which it is beyond rational process to deny. Nor am I convinced that serious adverse events are "a teeny tiny aspect".

I'm thinking at the moment that perhaps your mental process goes along the lines of "well even if they were true, the risk is still less than the vaccine." That would make more sense than just pretending they didn't happen and don't exist.

How os screening a sensible and rational choice and vaccination not?

We are talking about a population that is not too careful about its sexual health and a disease that kills a lot of women every year, a not very reliable barrier method of stopping its spread, a test that has many drawbacks to it even when it is done (voluntarily) by potential victims, vs a vaccine that is very effective..

The adverse reactions to the vaccine, as reported and not as imagined, are far less serious than the numbers of deaths of real women every year in my book.

We don't know the long term effects of vaccination. But I wouldn't stop you making the choice or get all hysterical and perjorative about it. I simply assert that frequent and regular screening is a rational and sensible alternative.

Which adverse events reports are "imagined"? That's very telling. Specifically, which reports which are not counted are "imagined"? Do you think people are making things up?

'We don't know the long term effects of vaccination'

We don't know if there are any at all. So we are imagining some.

I don't know what you mean. Already adverse events reports are denied out of hand. Are you saying those women are making things up? They don't appear in official statistics. Are you coming straight out and saying they are lying or imagining it?

Imagined events are those you fondly believe exist but of which there is no record.

Can you answer my question? Are you coming straight out and saying these women are lying or imagining it?

Are you also saying that because there is no record, that is proof that they are made up?

That would mean that all you have to do is not record something as an adverse event, and that means it didn't happen

This is very revealing about your thought process. Are you coming straight out with the assertion that they are making it all up?

Two threads, same conversation.

So why are you avoiding the question?

Oh you'd still rather not talk about it. Fair enough.

What women?

Where are their reported adverse reactions, if according to you the reactions are not recorded?
Because there is no record of reports there is no proof there are even any reports, is what I'm saying.

'That would mean that all you have to do is not record something as an adverse event, and that means it didn't happen'
Well DUH.
Yes. If something is not recorded, then how can you be certain it exists?

What question are you talking about?
And can you give me time to actually consider an answer and physically type whatever answer you are awaiting?
Sheeeesh.

There's no need to be rude. For me, anyway.

Have you not read previous links on names like Ashleigh Cave, Stacy Jones, Carly Steele? Their cases are reported in reputable newspapers, vaccine event forums, Hansard even. I'm assuming therefore that all an official has to do is say "I'm not writing this down as an adverse event" and that's enough to convince you?

Or do you think they're imagined, because you've never read about them? Happy to enlighten you.

I did give you time. In fact you responded two or three times while avoiding the question. You could have just said, I've never heard of any serious adverse events reports which are denied and don't appear in official statistics. It would be odd, because of previous threads and maybe suggests you aren't reading links, but you could have done it and asked for more information.