Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
General health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

HPV Vaccination Programme

325 replies

AnneWiddecomesArse · 20/09/2011 15:20

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 ?

OP posts:
saggarmakersbottomknocker · 23/09/2011 08:50

Anne - I understand your concerns.

My dd has had this vaccine but not at 12. She had it at 17. I was nervous about it, she has underlying health issues and was actually due to have it the day after Natalie Morton died. Now I know that this has since been dismissed but at the time it was a massive concern for me and the risk (perceived or actual) outweighed the benefit at that time. I accept that this is a good jab to have and she has had it and is OK but for her it was right to delay it.

It's all very well to say why be suspicious of vaccines but advice changes over time and I don't see why you shouldn't wait a while, if you have the opportunity to do so. A couple of years ago we were rushing out to get Pandemrix for our children - now some European countries are advising against it for under 20s.

PIMSoclock · 23/09/2011 08:54

You are misquoting and completely blinkered.
Cervical changes requiring treatment and cervical cancer are more than just statistics, they are real people going through real hell. Does it matter how small the chances are? The consequences are not small. Especially not if it's you or someone you love going through it.
You linked to more than just cancer research, you linked to some ridiculous newspaper articles which really are nothing more than sensationalist journalism, and yet I get accused of scaremoungering??
You are a hypocrite. And your contribution to this discussion has been inflammatory and entirely unconstructive.

You have not read any of the credible research I have linked and so I have nothing more to say to you. You are nothing more than a narrow minded hypocrite who is unwilling to see beyond the end of her nose to understand the hurt and suffering that other people have gone through

bumbleymummy · 23/09/2011 09:23

Actually PIMS I didn't link to any hysterical newspaper articles. Go and check if you don't believe me. I think you are confusing me with someone else which actually makes you a bit hypocritical (not to mention rude) if you are accusing me of not reading things.

What have I misquoted? You can check the NHS website and cancer research if you don't believe me. I am not being inflammatory and, as I said before, the information that I have given has come from reputable sources so I would say it is constructive and will hopefully help someone who is trying to learn more about the risks of cervical cancer and hpv. I will always recommend that people look up information about any disease, its risk and incidence rates before considering any vaccination.

Btw I had to have two Lletz procedures within a year so I do have experience of the treatment and the feelings involved. Don't presume that you are the only person who has any experience of this and that everyone who does will have the same opinion as you about the vaccine. I still wouldn't have had the vaccine even if it had been available and I know that it was the screening and treatment that prevented my CIN from developing any further. Thank goodness screening starts earlier and is more regular where I live. It's a shame that other people can't see the benefits of it.

PIMSoclock · 23/09/2011 09:31

Don't presume you are the only one person who has experience of this??
I'm sorry, I misses the bit where you lost you best friend too!!
Read the literature and stop wasting my time

PIMSoclock · 23/09/2011 09:34

And I've never questioned the benefits of screening, but no treatment is 100% guaranteed to be curative.
Preventing the need for any treatment (and the risks associated) is an undeniable benefit.
There is extensive and quality evidence to support the vaccine can do this. But your clearly not interested in reading about that

Blueberties · 23/09/2011 09:43

I will respond in full later: but briefly: nothing linked to has been hysterical or sensationalist. The websites I've linked to are well established and entirely reputable. The Times and the Telegraph are not sensationalist: as I predicted, it seems one is not allowed even to talk about adverse events.

Blueberties · 23/09/2011 09:44

Bumbley, your patience responses are very clear.

Blueberties · 23/09/2011 09:44

for patience read patient!

bumbleymummy · 23/09/2011 09:55

PIMS, I didn't realise that an opinion could only be considered valid if you lost your best friend. You commented that cervical changes and cervical cancer happened to real people and I was pointing out that I was one of the real people with cervical changes and my opinion on the vaccine is still the same. I believe there have been a few others on this thread who feel the same way as I do after having had treatment.

I am not claiming that the treatment is 100% curative but no treatment is guaranteed to be 100% preventative either.

PIMSoclock · 23/09/2011 09:56

By, read the evidence before you discuss efficacy!

PIMSoclock · 23/09/2011 09:57

The future study found 100% efficacy in preventing carcinoma in hpv naive patients

PIMSoclock · 23/09/2011 10:00

And if you think that your experience compares to loosing a friend, daughter, mother to a preventable cancer, think again
Bb even the times is guilty of sensationalism. It's how papers are sold

PIMSoclock · 23/09/2011 10:02

And bb no one said you can't link to adverse events, I have posted extensive researched published info in them myself.
But if you would rather believe the times and telegraph over credible scientific journal, feel free. Just don't expect me to give the same credence to your sources.

saggarmakersbottomknocker · 23/09/2011 10:03

PIMs - sorry I'm probably being incredibly think here. How can they know that when the vaccine isn't that old? How can they know it's 100 % efficient?

saggarmakersbottomknocker · 23/09/2011 10:05

thick Blimey.

gnushoes · 23/09/2011 10:16

Can I join in, as someone who had a colposcopy for abnormalities? I had a couple of years of worry over this and frequent tests. I had no hesitation in accepting the vaccine for my older daughter and my younger one will have the first jab next week. We can argue till the cows come home about frequency of smear tests but I don't see any problem in giving extra or additional protection to young women with the jab. And remember the Jade Goody effect -- an awful lot of young women just don't like the thought of smear tests and don't go unless somebody dies, very publically, of a disease which this vaccine has made more preventable.
Leaving it till later is not an option. How do you know your beloved daughter won't quietly become sexually active at 14 or 15? When my older daughter had the jab, we had a chat about it and we explained its limitations, about the complications a sexual relationship brings, about safe or protected sex, and how it was much better to wait. The vaccine in my mind is part of a bigger picture, not a substitution for any of it. And I'd have felt negligent if I hadn't allowed my daughter to have it. No jab is perfect -- but we're in the real, imperfect world, and it has real benefits.

bumbleymummy · 23/09/2011 10:18

PIMS, you didn't just mention people with cancer, you mentioned people with cell changes which is what I commented on.

You said:
"Cervical changes requiring treatment and cervical cancer are more than just statistics, they are real people going through real hell."

I am one of those 'real people' but I am not trying to compare my experience to your friend's.

Adverse events to the vaccine were discussed earlier with information from the CDC. Gardasil has had more reports of adverse events. Cevarix is the one used in the UK but it does not prevent against genital warts - which was something you tried to use in one of your arguments for the vaccine earlier.

bumbleymummy · 23/09/2011 10:18

Protect against*

PIMSoclock · 23/09/2011 10:25

Saggar, the study was published in 2006 it's a longitudinal study double blind randomised trial (no one knows what they get) that collected evidence over 5 years and will continue follow up thousands of woman for a long period of time. After five years it found that no women in the vaccine group had any type of anogenital cancer associated with HPV
Given that my friend was 24 when she died of cervical cancer, I'm comfortable this evidence supports that the vaccine could have prevented it.
The vaccine is not as new as some might think.
Hope that helps?
Gshoes, sorry you felt like you had to ask if you can join in. All experience welcomed.
Hope you continue to remain well. Smile

PIMSoclock · 23/09/2011 10:27

By, I have posted info on the adverse events already from credible sources.
Please read it

bumbleymummy · 23/09/2011 10:32

Are you saying the CDC aren't credible?

bumbleymummy · 23/09/2011 10:34

PIMS, which study was that one? Can you link please? Interested to see what age the girls are that are being followed up.

PIMSoclock · 23/09/2011 10:37

And I have never claimed cevarix could give protection against genital warts as it's alternative can
But if you'd taken the time to read my earlier posts you would have seen that. Stop twisting what I have posted out of context. Everything I have said is backed up by research.
I hope your cell changes don't progress. Biopsy, partial removal of your cervix, hysterectomy, hormone replacement, it's a terrible experience that even annual screening can't prevent.
I hope you remain well too

Next month marks the 6th year anniversary of my friends death, it has been a long six years without her. Her dc barely remembers her.
She was screened 2 years before her diagnosis. It detected nothing.
Please leave her memory alone now, you have caused enough pain.
She should have been vaccinated, she would have still been here and saved 6 years of heartache and pain
RIP Anne thinking of you always and missing you more every day

Blueberties · 23/09/2011 10:48

I am withdrawing from this thread. I don't think the tone of some posts is necessary and I resent the name-calling and insults.

PIMSoclock · 23/09/2011 10:52

'Hypocritical and inflammatory' are hardly name calling and insults. I have never used any other offensive language. Unfortunately if the the cap fits...

Swipe left for the next trending thread