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 ?

My opinion is that you'd be doing your daughter a great disservice if you persuaded her to not have it.

Bumblymumy - I have to disagree with you. I was part of a research programme when I was in my late teens. I caught HPV from my then-fiancee. I went from a clear cervical smear to CIN III (that's the final stage before cancer) within 6 months. Luckily as part of the programme I was having the smear every 6 months or I might not be here to tell the tale. I agree that smear tests should be offered a lot earlier, from the day a woman is sexually active if under 25.

That's very interesting wgc. It doesn't seem to be the norm though because most of the information on the health/cervical cancer information websites do say that it takes a long time to develop. If it can develop more quickly it puts a question mark over the frequency of the screening tests. Perhaps they should be offered every six months/annually.

I would be keen for dd to have the vaccine, but not at 12 years old. I get that some girls can be sexually active at that age, but why does everyone have to be tarred with the same brush? Why not tailor the vaccination programme according to the profile of the area?

bumblymumy - I had to have tests annually for the next few years but after that switched back to ever 3 years, though my GP did give me the option fo yearly tests if I still wanted them. Unlike a PP I didn't have to have yearly colposcopies or smears for the rest of my life, nor did it have any effect on my pregnancy, it wasn't even noted.

If there is only a short period of efficacy (you suggested 5 years) then that is extremely worrying as I guess most women are at their most sexually active and promiscuous in their late teens/early 20s, precisely when the efficacy is wearing off.

I needed treatment for CINII which was caused by cell changes due to HPV. The treatment can cause weakening of the cervix which can lead to late miscarriage (fortunately this didn't happen with my last pg, fingers crossed for this one.) Yes I had unprotected sex, more than once, more than one person. My fault entirely. I was young, foolish and usually drunk - far too many hedonistic nights out at university. I never had any wart symptoms, only abnormal smears. Fortunately this was in the days before the NHS refused to pay for tests for the under 25s so my abnormal cells were monitored from age 21 until they went to CIN II and needed removal.

If this vaccine had been around when I was a young teen and my parents had refused to vaccinate me due to their moral stance/naive belief that a few lessons in safe sex would see me right until my wedding night, I'd be bloody furious with them now. Great intentions, dreadful outcome.

It's difficult to face the facts that your child, your little girl, will one day become a sexually active adult but she will (barring the nun career choice). The vaccine is not about equiping 12 year olds for an active unprotected sex life, it's real value reaches far beyond that. Proper sex and relationship education for young people is absolutely essential. But to think that will be enough to protect them from their own foolish actions later on in life is naive in the extreme.

Please support vaccination of your daughters.

I guess some people just don't get that it isn't to do with good morals no matter how many of us say it.

I also think they should bring back cervical screening from age 20 like it used to be.

I am shocked at the proposal to identify some slutty chav regions to receive earlier vaccinations whereas the nice middle class areas wait until later. Stereotyping much?

herethere - the vaccine isn't a guarantee that you won't get hpv or cell changes (CIN) You would still need the smear tests - that's the only way of knowing if you need treatment. It really worries ms that people seem to assume if they get the vaccine that they are 'safe' from hpv.

Bumbly mummy, my friend died at 24 from cancer caused by HPV, is that not convincing enough that you do not have years?? For what it's worth she was diagnosed with cancer at 22.

Bm, the vaccine has a great and proven efficacy for the most serious forms of HPV.
have you read the papers I posted?
As I also mentioned, the five year guarantee is likely to be extended. The large double blind longitudinal study measuring immunity levels only started in 2006, immunity is estimated to last beyond 15 years.
Surely better than no immunity at all.
This vaccine is not a replacement for screening or a reason to be complacent.
It does have very powerful and proven preventative properties for the worst types of HPV.
I appreciate your general concerns re vaccines given your own experience, this vaccine could have saved by best friend.
Used as an adjunct to good sexual health, regular screening and safe sex It could and will save the lives of daughters sisters unborn children.
You can not produce any amount of evidence to show that this vaccine does not do exactly what it states it can.

In terms of safety, one has a perfect safety record, the other has to be avoided by people with known clotting disorders.
I have been transparent I'm sharing all of this

soda1234, your post is very useful to me, given that I am not going to give consent at 12. If my daughters want to have the vaccine later on, they are welcome to do so.

I recall my mother refusing to have me vaccinated against rubella at 13 or whatever it was on the grounds that I was not likely to become pregnant at 13 (or indeed to have sex - which I didn't in fact do until I was 21). She thought I could decide for myself once I was likely to become sexually active (and, thus, there was a possibility of becoming pregnant). She thought I had enough sense not to jump into sex with people without thinking of the consequences in advance, and being prepared for what they might be. She was right.

My daughter has had the jabs, I am saving to get them for my son as well (and he is going to get the Gardasil, because the protection against genital warts is better).

With rubella, by having the vacc you're helping protect the unborn children of mothers who for some reason can't be vacc'd themselves - herd immunity.

I'm not into herd immunity, I'm afraid. If I don't think a vaccine is the right thing for my children (for whatever reason), they won't have it - regardless of the herd. But then again, I tend to steer clear of the herd generally.

I don't have a DD so I'm spared this decision, at least at the moment. However, I too am a strong supporter of regular smear tests starting early and fear that the vaccine fosters complacency - why has the age of the first smear test risen? Is it because the vaccine was introduced?

I had multiple problems with my cervix and problems with pregnancies too. I now have very little cervix left. None of it was down to HPV. I am clear. If I hadn't had a smear test at 20, my first abnormal cells would not have been detected and I would not have been spared possible disease as it wasn't caused by HPV.

It's imperative that smears are given early and if I had a DD, I would pay for that if necessary. Then you're really covered.

ashtangini the cervical screening age changed before the HPV vaccine was introduced. This link answers the question as to why women under 25 aren't routinely screened.

The HPV programme literature makes it quite clear that vaccinating doesn't exclude the need when an adult to have regular smears. The HPV programme complements screening it doesn't remove the need for it.

Well, the information in that link's not true for everyone - PIMS' friend died before the age of 25.

I still think it's imperative to get smears every 3 years ideally from the time you are sexually active and definitely from 20.

I agree the vaccine is a supporting measure but for me, it would have been an unnecessary one.

But women with cervical cancer will be symptomatic. It would be very very rare for a woman to have cervical cancer and not have had any bleeding, pain or discharge.

Screening has nothing to do with appropriate clinical assessment and intervention for women with symptoms.

Sidge isn't the idea of screening to find the changes before it turns to cancer? I don't think that there are any symptoms at early stage.

There are degrees of cervical changes and CIN screening is there to pick up pre-cancer. If you have CIN 1 or 2 your cervix may return to normal, although you should be monitored in case it doesn't. If you have CIN 3 then things are more serious and malignancy may be the next step.

Would you rather let girls get to the bleeding, pain and discharge stage of true cancer and likely have most of their cervix removed so they can never have kids? Or would you rather they had a simple procedure at CIN 3 stage and have every likelihood of having a normal pregnancy? I know which option I'd prefe

juule - x post!

I had a hysterectomy this year because I had HPV which caused cin 3 changes which kept coming back after treatment. I have never missed a smear and have had the same partner for 20 years. My consultant told me that 80% of the sexually active population has HPV. I think the vaccine makes sense.

Yes but minor changes are more common in the cervices of younger women, and may lead to unnecessary intervention. I was responding to your comment about PIMs friend.

Omnium - seriously? Fuck society, fuck other women and their babies so long as you are ok? What a shitty attitude.

Have a look at this story in the Telegraph and in the www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/child_health/article6823345.ece

If anyone has any updates, that would be great.

In the meantime a number of questions are salient. Are the newspapers making this up or are the mother and daughter making it up? If the mother and daughter are not making it up why are we to assume coincidence when the symptoms mirror adverse event reports and reactions? How are we to assess risk when events such as the above are excluded? How many other adverse events are dismissed as psychosomatic?

This story has relevance for two reasons: claims that the risks are minimal (we don't know) and advocates of social responsibility (as our responsibility to this family has plainly been fulfilled in nil terms).