Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

General health

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

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:
bumbleymummy · 23/09/2011 12:03

Pims, no one has said it would prevent all cancers but annual screening would certainly prevent many if not the majority. No one is trying to causeyou pain by discussing this subject but you are obviously very sensitive to it. If you do not feel that you can discuss it without getting upset and feeling that people are disrespecting your friend's memory then perhaps you should avoid these types of thread. People are trying to stay polite but it is getting increasingly difficult when you continue to be rude and throw around false accusations. There really is no need for these discussions to get so heated.

PIMSoclock · 23/09/2011 13:45

By, it takes two sides for a discussion to become heated.

I am not upset sharing my experience. I am upset when the progression of her disease is repeatedly and unfoundedly questioned by someone with no knowledge of her situation.
A smear test 12months earlier would still not have resulted in my friend being cured with her reproductive system intact.

PIMSoclock · 23/09/2011 13:51

And the vaccine can prevent 70-80%of cervical cancers.
Surely a combination of screening and vaccination is giving women the best possible chance of never having to deal with cervical cancer

saggarmakersbottomknocker · 23/09/2011 17:37

Thanks for the explanation PIMs.

Mathewbellamyismyman · 23/09/2011 20:55

I'm sorry bm but you are obviously reading a completely different thread to me.

Pims has been brilliant in describing why the vaccine is safer than contracting the virus. As usual you and blueberries will not accept any evidence contrary to your belief that vaccines or any kind are safer than contracting the disease.

Leep going Pims you are doing a fantastic job. If you persuade one mum to vaccinate one daughter who was wavering that would be so fantastic!

Mathewbellamyismyman · 23/09/2011 20:56

Keep not Leep

PIMSoclock · 23/09/2011 21:22

thanks Mathewbellamyismyman Blush
I really do try to include as much info as I can so that people can make the best informed decisions. I really dont want to give the purely pro vaccine info as it wouldnt be fair, I do try to be as transparent as possible. But sometimes its continually hard to argue against anti vax opinion that is so concrete and unwilling to compramise no matter how much hard, objective and scientific evidence I give.

HPV prevention is a bit of a mission for me, think its pretty obvious why. Feel I owe it to my friend :)

Mathewbellamyismyman · 23/09/2011 22:49

You're welcome.

Unfortunately. Some people believe in the university of google and quacks rather than scientific methods and research.

I really don't understand the mentality. Keep up the good work!

bumbleymummy · 23/09/2011 23:27

I'm pretty sure that the NHS and Cancer Research UK base their information on scientific method and research actually....

Blueberties · 23/09/2011 23:32

But when you quote them they become the "university of google and quacks".

Curious.

Matthew, people like you make assumptions about people who disagree with you that seem to be based on quite a strong prejudice.

PIMSoclock · 24/09/2011 00:06

I'm pretty sure that the NHS and Cancer Research UK base their information on scientific method and research actually
Not disputing that, but its amazing how you and I can give exactly the same info, but yours has to be populated with 'in my opinion the is an unnecessary risk that wont work'
No matter what evidence you give, you never give it objectively. You seem incapable of just giving the facts and making sure they are all credible.
You and BB have linked more than just cancer research and medscape

Blueberties · 24/09/2011 00:07

"No matter what evidence you give, you never give it objectively."

Neither can you.

What have we linked that has you so upset?

Blueberties · 24/09/2011 00:09

Perhaps you need the link for my copy and paste

PIMSoclock · 24/09/2011 00:58

that link seems fine, though I do wonder why epidemiology is being posted in the journal of osteopaths??
Was it not accepted for the journal of epidemiology??

bumbleymummy · 24/09/2011 01:06

PIMS - Yes, I actually don't think I linked to anything although I did quote from the NHS as well. What isn't credible about them?

I have said that the vaccine is a risk that may not work. Do you disagree?

PIMSoclock · 24/09/2011 01:14

I disagree with your turn of phrase, it is negatively loaded as are all your posts

The vaccine has a 95-100% chance of preventing 70-80% of cervical cancer

If you want to be negative it has a 0-5% chance of not preventing 20-30% of cancers

Which is why it should be used with regular screening

Using your language, perhaps you can see my point: no protecting will not reduce the risk of cancer beyond the stats associated with current screening intervals and if needed, treatment caries a risk and may not be curative

bumbleymummy · 24/09/2011 08:17

The cevarix vaccine currently has an estimated 95-100 (revision from your initial 100% noted) of preventing 70% of CC. (not 80%) Cevarix is the one mainly used in the UK.

Your 'negative' is phrased incorrectly. It has 0-5% chance of not protecting against the 70% that it is supposed to protect against. It does not protect against 30% of cancers (because they are caused by other strains) so you could say it has 100% chance of not protecting against 30%.

You can think I'm being negative but I choose to err on the side of caution and I will watch the vaccine with interest but I won't be lining up for it just yet. (not that I could get it anyway but I wouldn't be lining my daughter up for it)

Most cases of cervical cancer occur in people who do not have regular screening. (Please note the use of most not all) Cervical cell changes can be very successfully treated if they are caught earlier and the majority (over 90%) of people who develop hpv will not go on to develop
CIN and that most early CIN changes (around 80%) will resolve themselves without needing any treatment. I do not think that not getting the vaccine = definite invasive procedures and/or cancer which, judging by the responses people get when they say they are not sure about the vaccine, is what some people seem to believe.

PIMSoclock · 24/09/2011 09:11

100% was a detect quote from the FUTURE 1 trial, as I stated at the time
Take it up with the results from five and a half thousand women

bumbleymummy · 24/09/2011 09:13

I'll just watch and wait for it to come down as those women get older.

PIMSoclock · 24/09/2011 09:25

And meantime, watch and wait and hope that screening is enough to make sure your daughters don't form the statistic of the unlucky people who develop cervical cancer
I really hope you are right, for their sake

bumbleymummy · 24/09/2011 09:44

I don't have daughters yet so I have plenty of years to watch what happens to that 100% effectiveness. I just hope I don't have to watch a lot of people regretting their decision to vaccinate because their child is now part of an unfortunate statistic of being vaccine damaged by something they were assured was 'perfectly safe'.

PIMSoclock · 24/09/2011 10:20

As the vaccine has been used for 11 years with no reports of vaccine damage, thats an outcome that will be incomparable to those that continue to develop cervical cancer.
You have opinions and fears, I have facts. Thanks

juuule · 24/09/2011 10:47

From An interview with Dr. Diane Harper, HPV expert

" The Benefits of Pap Screening:
? Individual benefit to detect early precancers.
? Public health benefit: Only when 70% of the population has been screened will the population incidence of cervical cancer drop.
? Pap tests do not kill or handicap.

The Harms of Pap Screening:
? Screening must be repeated throughout a woman's life. One screen is not sufficient to protect her from cervical cancer.
? False negative rate of cytology screening: Among the women who develop cervical cancer in the U.S., 30% are women who have been routinely screened, and all their Paps have been normal.
? False positive rate of cytology screening: Women who screen abnormal are psychologically upset, anxious and left doubting the medical process (i.e. Her Pap was abnormal, but her colposcopy and biopsy were normal, with no explanation why her Pap was abnormal).
? Quality of life harms: Women with abnormal Paps have anxiety as high as women diagnosed with cervical cancer undergoing their surgical treatment. The stress of going to colposcopy and biopsy can be high for many women. The contemplation of a cervical biopsy and a scraping of the endocervical canal can lead to fear of pain.
? Relationship harms: Once women are told they have an abnormal Pap and that the Pap is abnormal because of a STD called HPV, most relationships are stressed as the partners attempt to understand who brought the infection to the relationship.
? Excisional treatments for detected precancerous lesions cause preterm deliveries in subsequent pregnancies, with concomitant low birth weight infants (which puts the infant at risk for life). In addition, scarring from the treatments lead to an increased cesarean section delivery method (as the cervix does not dilate normally due to scarring from prior excisions). These reproductive morbidities occur between 70%-300% more often in women with excisions.
? Recurrence of HPV associated cervical/vaginal/anal cancers at a rate of 3-12 times higher than those women who never had a cervical cancer precursor or cancer. These recurrences happen around ten years after treatment with peak recurrences between ten and twenty years from the initial treatment.

The Benefits of HPV vaccination:
? Cervarix protects against five cancer-causing types of HPV, which lead to CIN 2+ (precancers and cancers).
? Gardasil protects against three cancer-causing types of HPV, which lead to CIN 2+ (precancers and cancers).
? Cervarix induces antibody titers for HPV 16 and 18 that are at least ten fold higher than natural infection titers; the antibody titers for the other three cancer causing types (HPV 31, 45, 33) are also significantly higher than natural infection titers, and the titers stay high for at least 7.4 years - lasting the longer of either vaccines.
? Gardasil only maintains antibody titers for HPV 16 (not 18, not 11, not 6) at five years, making the true long lasting (five years) coverage of Gardasil only for one type of cancer causing HPV.
? If vaccination occurs within one year of the onset of sexual activity, there will be 57/1000 cases of all CIN 2+ types and persistent HPV 16/18 infections prevented, as compared to only 17/1000 cases prevented if virgins are vaccinated.

The Harms of HPV Vaccination:
? Duration of efficacy is key to the entire question. If duration is at least fifteen years, then vaccinating 11-year-old girls will protect them until they are 26 and will prevent some precancers, but postpone most cancers. If duration of efficacy is less than fifteen years, then no cancers are prevented, only postponed.
? Safety: There is at least one verified case of auto-immune initiated motor neuron disease declared triggered by Gardasil [presented by neurologists at the 2009 American Neurological Association meeting in Baltimore, Maryland). There are serious adverse events, including death, associated with Gardasil use.
? No population benefit in reduction of cervical cancer incidence in the United States with HPV vaccination as long as screening continues.
? Incidence rate of cervical cancer in the United States based on screening is 7/100,000 women per year.
? Incidence rate of cervical cancer if women are only vaccinated with Gardasil is 14/100,000 per year (twice the rate of cervical cancer if young women vaccinated with Gardasil do not seek Pap testing at 21 years and the rest of their life).
? Incidence rate of cervical cancer with Cervarix vaccination is 9/100,000 per year-- better than with Gardasil, but still more than with screening alone.
? Incidence of cervical cancer without screening and without vaccination is nearly 90/100,000 per year. The combination of HPV vaccine and screening in the U.S. will not decrease the incidence of cervical cancer to any measurable degree at the population level. Those women who do not participate in Pap screening, and who are vaccinated, will have some personal benefit for five years for Gardasil and 7.4 years for Cervarix (maybe longer), but they will not affect the population rates.

Boosters for Gardasil after antibodies wane makes the cost of vaccination escalate significantly, and cause implementation challenges to reach those women who might want to be revaccinated."

There are also some questions and answers at the end of the article..

silverfrog · 24/09/2011 10:57

than you juuule, that is interesting to read.

juuule · 24/09/2011 11:00

And obviously reports such as this one cause doubt as to whether it is worth the risk.

An excerpt:
"This week, relief of sorts arrived for the Steele family in the shape of a government report detailing the 1,340 instances of adverse reactions to the vaccine, Cervarix. Some girls have suffered paralysis, others convulsions; and some, like Carly, have experienced sight problems (in addition, Carly has now developed severe heat intolerance). Nausea, muscle weakness, fever, dizziness and numbness have also been reported.

These are the kinds of reports that worry me. Is it worth risking this from the vaccine for a condition that may be harmless and if not harmless has a high possibility of being detected before it becomes a problem?

Of course, the possibility of serious adverse reaction might be slight and it might be considered unlucky to suffer such a reaction. But then again how common is the situation that Pims friend found herself in with such an aggressive cancer/ Could that be considered unlucky (not meaning to be flippant or disrespectful to your friend Pim. Obviously a very tragic situation).
As with all vaccines people have to judge which risk they would prefer to take and it's very difficult if there is no clear benefit one way or the other and it could be pot luck which is the right choice.

For now I will inform my daughters of the vaccine and it's claims and ask them to consider their options. I will accept their choice.

Swipe left for the next trending thread