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 ?

Bm, I think you are at the wind up. Seriously.
Heart disease can be prevented by healthy diet and life style?? Have you been to medical school?? Do you understand the genetics of predisposition??
You can live healthy and exercise and still develop heart disease! My father ran three times a week and had a cholesterol of 3 when he had a heart attack at 50. Never smoked or drank in his life, but that must have been his fault, right?!
Please don't pass superficial judgement on something you clearly know nothing about.
As for all your MAYS and MIGHTS, screening my friend a year earlier MIGHT have let her escape with just a hysterectomy, but the vaccine would have given her a 98% chance of escaping with both.
I am not under the delusion that the vaccine is risk free and have quoted the risks with some excellent refs to support.
Have you even bothered tp read the papers?
You were making the ridiculous claims that screening is completely safe. It carries risk of anaphylaxis and cervical shock. You didn't mention that in your safety report.
And the treatment needed to treat so called 'minor' changes is not risk free. It carries risk of anaphylaxis, infection, shock, haemorrhage, and infertility along with the risks of a general anaesthetic if it is needed.
You are being so narrow minded.
I lost my best friend to a preventable disease. This vaccine will prevent far more problems than screening alone

As far as I am aware the contraceptive pill does not actually cause cervical cancer in itself. They have detected an increased rate (slightly) amongst pill users but that is more likely to be the result of unprotected sex (not that condoms offer complete protection)
It is bizarre to expect people to want to have protected sex forever. Going on the pill is also not the only reason for ditching the condoms. Some people decide to use natural family planning when they are in a monongamous relationship, some people decide they don't want to use contraception.

Vaccination AND screening are what is needed. The screening is a good thing but sadly people still either die or need invasive treatment. Vaccination should reduce the number of people who need treatment after a screening.

No PIMS, I'm not on the wind up. Are you?

Re heart disease - I am aware that there are pre dispositions to it as well I'm not sure why you think that I said a good diet and lifestyle would guarantee that you wouldn't have heart disease. There are no guarantees of anything in life.

There is no definite 'would' with the vaccine. It may have given her a 98% chance protection against the few strains that the vaccine covers for a temporary amount of time. I'm really not sure why you are so insistent that a vaccine could have saved her life but that screening - the thing that actually identifies whether the cells are abnormal and require treatment wouldn't. It's very strange logic.

You seem to like talking in extremes - cervical changes do not = hysterectomy. If they are caught early enough they can be removed with the Lletz procedure which, like any medical intervention (including vaccines) can be risky but it is a very small risk. The number of people who will have to put themselves at that risk is a very small number in comparison to the large number of people who take the risk of the vaccine.

From cancer research UK:

"A meta-analysis found risk of invasive cervical cancer in current users of combined OCs increases by 7% for each year of use. The risk increase for five years of use is approximately 40%. "

It is temporary while the OC is being taken and can reduce over a few years after stopping taking it but I would say it is significant.

However it does reduce the incidence of ovarian cancer, "the silent killer", which is harder to detect. Not a great fan of the pill myself but it is swings and roundabouts a bit.

I don't see the point in taking a risk to prevent something which, in the vast majority of cases is not going to do you harm.

I think these links may be helpful.

Medscape

info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/cervix/mortality/

Pims, I am sorry you lost your friend. I believe what you say about her: I am also touched by reports of dreadful vaccine damage.

There is no denial on this thread that HPV can cause cancer which can lead to death. Of course.

What's in dispute is the level of vax risk, the level of vax benefit, the risks of screening and the benefits of earlier screening.

The risk is an unknown, with the vaccination, and the length of the benefit is highly, highly questionable.

I am completely in agreement with bubbly about screening and I think it's rather ludicrous that early screening is not available. After all, early screening is still advisable even if you are vaccinated (with Cervarix) as it only covers two strains.

As you know, one cervical cancer researcher has said screening offers the same protection as vaccination - that the two should be alternatives, rather than one being aggressively marketed at the cost of another.

I'm very confident with my decision for my daughter.

I have experience of treatment and I think your description of it is scaremongering.

I also want to defend bubbly very, VERY strongly against an accusation of hypocrisy. That is outrageous.

Oh by the way one of those links talks about increased risk with the vaccine to women who are using oral contraceptives.

Neither is I'maquackdotcom in case you're wondering.

I'm so tired. I agree with you bubbly.

Can I also post this link

A healthy lifestyle can and does prevent heart disease. We are not all at risk of death unless we take every single medication pressed upon us. A great deal is to do with choice and within our personal control.

We cannot remove all risk factors: but then, we can't remove all risk factors with medical intervention and we introduce new risk factors which often are unknown and under-reportd, and even when not unknown and under-reported can be equally catastrophic.

"You have the same chance of anaphylaxis to the rubber of the latex used to 'perform' the pap smear as you do for the injection."

This, for example, is misleading if you read reports of adverse events. It's highly misleading and very irresponsible.

If this vacc provided longer term immunity it would be better included as part of childhood immunisations.

Introducing it around puberty is apparently confusing to some parents who seem to be imbuing it with some kind of moral and sexual implications. Something which they would not think to do for the rubella jab given to infants, say. Or mumps.

I fear that may not be far away

Well, good. Provided it proves to be 'safe' within the same standards of acceptable risk of side effects as other childhood immunisations.

As it's still at the testing stage, I think I would rather not inject it into any of my children (and as for babies....I'm glad I don't have to make that choice). The risks outweigh the benefits at this point for me.

No one knows, carrot. No one knows.

Who is going to volunteer their baby for testing this, when the health authorities are already ignoring adverse events reports?

Babies would be preferable in one sense. They're not already walking, talking, taking exams, visibly performing appropriately - thus making a setback all too obvious.

Juule, what do you mean when you say as this is still in the testing stage?
Both vaccines are licensed medications

Before any medicines can be used in the UK they have to be licensed. Drugs are licensed for use in the UK either with a European licence or a national licence. Drugs are either licensed through the

European Medicines Agency (EMA) for a Europe wide licence
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) for a UK licence

This explains how medicines are licensed and regulated to ensure safety

BB, thanks for the link on preventing heart disease, Ill be sure to pass it on to my dad! Can I just say, that if preventing heart disease was as easy as telling people to eat right and exercise it would not be the leading cause of sudden death in the western world.
I would love to live in your ideal world, but along with the rest of society I live in the real world and humanity plays a part in this is well.

BB and BM before you continue to question the efficacy and safety of this vaccine, have you actually read the quality double blinded RCT that I referenced? Otherwise it is pointless that we continue this discussion. I am certainly reading your links.

I find a lot of your links to website and newspapers are really nothing more than sensationalist journalism and hold no substance. If you have any research papers to support your claims Id be keen to read them.

You have the same chance of anaphylaxis to the rubber of the latex used to 'perform' the pap smear as you do for the injection.

This, for example, is misleading if you read reports of adverse events. It's highly misleading and very irresponsible

Chance of anaphylaxis from latex contact
latex sensitization (IgE antibody positivity) among the general population was estimated at 3 to 9.5 percent in the mid 1990s

ref: The spectrum of IgE-mediated responses to latex. AUSussman GL, Tarlo S, Dolovich J SOJAMA. 1991;265(21):2844.
The incidence of latex sensitivity in ambulatory surgical patients: a correlation of historical factors with positive serum immunoglobin E levels. Lebenbom-Mansour MH, Oesterle JR, Ownby DR, Jennett MK, Post SK, Zaglaniczy K
Anesth Analg. 1997;85

Change of anaphylaxis from HPV vaccine

Yeah, that's exactly what I said

I have stated several times that it is possible for certain strains to cause CIN which may develop into cancer. That is acknowledging that it can happen without exaggerating the risks - which are small, whether you want to accept it or not.

Screening would not have cured her (how could it?) but the treatment given after screening identified the changes may have. I'm not sure why you are jumping to the conclusion that it is only possible for screening to detect changes when they have got to a stage where a hysterectomy is required. Clearly that is not the case. If your friend was able to have smear tests more frequently then there would have been a better chance of those changes being noticed before they got to the cancer stage. I'm not sure why you are struggling to understand that tbh.

Screening would not have cured her (how could it?) but the treatment given after screening identified the changes may have. I'm not sure why you are jumping to the conclusion that it is only possible for screening to detect changes when they have got to a stage where a hysterectomy is required. Clearly that is not the case. If your friend was able to have smear tests more frequently then there would have been a better chance of those changes being noticed before they got to the cancer stage. I'm not sure why you are struggling to understand that tbh

She went from a negative smear to having cancer that could only be treated palliatively in 2 years. I am not the only person on this thread to have experience similar to this.
I dont get why you are struggling to understand the aggressive nature of this condition meant that even if she had been picked up a year previously she would have required extensive treatment.
I think it is really inappropriate that you continue to argue with a situation that you clearly dont understand. Can you imagine how you would feel if I told you that your dc couldn't possibly have vaccine damage as no medical professional would support the diagnosis? I cant and wont pass judgment on a clinical situation that I have no in depth knowledge or understanding of.

HAving re reviewed the literature, the FUTURE trial shows that Vaccine efficacy was 100 percent in preventing CIN grades 1 to 3 or adenocarcinoma in situ caused by the vaccine-type HPVs in those women who were "HPV-naive" (ie, no cases were diagnosed in the vaccine group, whereas 65 cases were diagnosed in placebo group).

My friend could have been saved not only treatment for cancer in situ, but any treatment at all. This vaccine would have prevented the need for ANY treatment. End of story

and could you please read the literature before coming up with any more sarcastic
I've taken the time to read yours and struggle to find anything but sensationalist journalism

I have stated several times that it is possible for certain strains to cause CIN which may develop into cancer. That is acknowledging that it can happen without exaggerating the risks - which are small, whether you want to accept it or not.
This is where you are hypocritical. When we talk about the minimal risks associated with vaccination, they are too great for you because you have seen the damage they can do. For me the minimal risk of death from cancer that you see is too great as I have seen first hand the damage your 'small risks' can do!!

Well said PIMS and KAT
BM you are imo wrong and ill informed. Lletz involves aneasthesia which in itself is a higher risk than vaccination. Also the risks of bleeding and infection are added to that. PIMS friend or anyone else could not be saved even by doing annual screening because of the aggressive nature of cervical cancer. Take Jade Goody for example approximately 6 months from diagnosis to death. You are being ridiculous to suggest that vaccinating against the HPV virus strains that are most likely to prevent cancer is more dangerous than just having screening every 3 years.
I think what you also forget is the spread of the disease and few symptoms until it has metastasised i.e. to the bladder, bowel, liver, vagina as happened to a girl I know. Luckily she survived against the odds - she was in her twenties and just about to get married. Extensive surgery over several years, intensive chemo and radiotherapy not to mention the psychological impact of all this is enough for me to ensure I get both DDs vaccinated when the time comes.

Pims, I understand what you are saying, I just disagree with your insistence that earlier screening wouldn't have made a difference. Are you honestly saying that if they changes had been picked up at an early stage you know for a fact that there would have been no way of treating them even though people receive very successful treatment for CIN every year? You can't just say "It couldn't have been picked up at an early stage" - all cancer has an early stage and a pre-cancer stage and that pre-cancer stage is what screening is looking for. An earlier poster mentioned that her CIN3 (pre-cancer) developed over a period of six months and she was fortunately participating in a study that involved 6 monthly smears and that meant that it was caught and she was treated (not with a hysterectomy).

Also, you say you have read my posts and then accuse me of posting 'sensationalist journalism' when I haven't linked to anything of the sort and any information I have given has come from reputable sources eg. NHS, Cancer Research. BB also linked to Cancer Research showing the incidence and risk of cervical cancer earlier but you seem to be ignoring that so you can be dismissive.

Some information for you (from reputable sources):

The NHS:

"Cancer of the cervix is a relatively rare type of cancer."

"Cervical cancer can be prevented if it is detected in the early stages via cervical screening." *My emphasis.

"most women who are infected with HPV will not develop CIN ? HPV infection simply increases the risk. " *my emphasis

"Cancer of the cervix usually takes many years to develop. Before it does, the cells in the cervix often show changes, known as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). CIN is a form of pre-cancer and is linked to infection by HPV.
If left untreated, CIN can develop into cervical cancer. However, the majority of women with CIN do not develop the disease." *My emphasis

From Cancer Research UK:

"Most HPV infections will not progress to cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) . " (worth repeating again I think)

If you want to argue with the NHS and Cancer Research UK then please go ahead but in the meantime please stop the false accusations and patronising attitude. NB I am not saying ALL cases and neither are these sources so we are not denying that in some instances cancer can develop faster which is why 3-yearly smear tests may be too infrequent.

AnxiousElephant:

"Lletz involves aneasthesia which in itself is a higher risk than vaccination."

I've already pointed out that fewer people are going to need a LLetz procedure than are being vaccinated so fewer people are going to be exposed to the risk. All girls of a certain age being vaccinated vs a very small percentage (According to many reputable sources) who will go on to develop cell changes that require treatment.

" 6 months from diagnosis to death"

Because she was diagnosed at a late stage - she hadn't had a test for years even though she had received a few abnormal smears.

I am saying that having screening every 3 years starting at age 25 isn't good enough.

The Stage 4 cancer that you are talking about is also very rare and wouldn't get that far if screening was more frequent. Cervical cancer doesn't appear from nowhere. The call changes happen first and if they are detected early then they can be treated less invasively than having to treat cancer itself. Obviously if there are several instances (and it would be interesting to see how many there are) of people developing cancer within the 3 year smear tests then obviously that needs to be reduced.