To not let dd have the HVP vaccination?

[DogGoneMad]

Dh and I really disagree on this.

"she went from having a normal smear to being terminally ill in two years."

I don't see where the argument is here - isn't bubbley recommending earlier and more frequent smears?

Do you think that six monthly smears would not have made a difference? Have you been told this?

Do you realise that more regular smears than every two years would be recommended even with Cervarix because it only protects against two strains?

Given that Cervarix protects against two strains only, is it not entirely possible that even with the vaccination, a person could contract life-threatening cervical cancer if they hadn't had a smear for two years?

*Pims: for the last time, I am not misquoting you.

You claimed that all adverse events are investigated.

THEY ARE NOT*

I never claimed all adverse events are investigated. Shall I start claiming that you believe in the tooth fairy??

PIMS - If you have 1 smear test every 3 years you have 1 chance of finding cell changes in 3 years. If you have smear tests every 6 months you have 6 chances of finding cell changes in 3 years. 6 vs 1 - an increased chance. How many qualifications did you say you had?

I notice that your 100% effectiveness has now dropped to 95-100...

There you go again.

All papers are not sensationalist This is the equivalent to brushing under the carpet and it makes you a hypocrite.

The mother was threatened with having her daughter taken into care unless she stopped connecting her condition with the vaccine. She was also accused of Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy.

And by the way, it's "breach".

And any time you feel like stopping with the hysterical exclamation marks!!!!!! would be great.

*Given that Cervarix protects against two strains only8
just so we are clear, they are the strains that cause 70% of cancer

Given that Cervarix protects against two strains only, is it not entirely possible that even with the vaccination, a person could contract life-threatening cervical cancer if they hadn't had a smear for two years?
Proving my point that vaccinations significantly reduce the risk and will work fantastically as an adjunct to regular screening

Thanks for clearing that up

Are you trying to distinguish between all adverse events and all serious adverse events?

Are you saying all serious adverse events are investigated (as opposed to all adverse events)?

Then let me be clear.

Not all adverse events are investigated.
Not all serious adverse events are investigated.

So whichever you said - it's wrong.

Buster of Doom, really sorry to hear about your friend.

"why should the vaccine not take the credit??"

Because it might not be due to the vaccine. It might be due to an increased number of people going for screening which has what has been causing the reduction for years. From now on though it will probably all be attributed to the vaccine. Do you think that is appropriate? Even if it wasn't the vaccine that caused it?

Pims, you miss the point entirely.

Even with the vaccination, someone can contract HPV and life-threatening cervical cancer.

Especially if they do not have a smear for two years.

I'm not sure where the controversy is here.

*Even with the vaccination, someone can contract HPV and life-threatening cervical cancer. (though the risk is 70%less with the vaccine) Especially if they do not have a smear for two years (why there is a need for regular screening

Sorry to hear that buster. How awful that she was fobbed off. :( Moving the screening start date to 25 seems to be putting a lot of women's lives at risk.

I still don't know why it is impossible that someone might not have been saved by a screen six months earlier, a year earlier, six months before that.

How is it possible to know this? Given the high success rate of smear cell detection and early treatment, isn't the opposite more likely?

I gave the evidence that showed how the events had been investigated in the post licensed safety paper I quoted.
Please read it
Im not unhinged, just trying to put your continued claims into context

Why don't you post it again? In the midst of all the hysterical accusations and insults I must have missed it.

And the link which I posted gave two cases out of all adverse and serious adverse events reports being tissue-investigated.

That's two, PIMs. All the rest are pattern-investigated.

I still don't know why it is impossible that someone might not have been saved by a screen six months earlier, a year earlier, six months before that

because you dont have a crystal ball
and smears aren't done 6 monthly anywhere. 12 months before she was diagnosed, it is likely that the cancer would have infiltrated her uterus and possibly bladder. On diagnoses, she had liver lung and brain metz
I find it frustrating that you would rather use the what if scenarios for systems that aren't available when there is a vaccine available that would have negated the need for ANY treatment, not just saved her life
Even if the government agreed to 6 monthly screening it would take time and money to get it up and running, why let people needlessly contract a disease in the mean time?? Why let them contract it at all?? Why wait to treat??
I really dont get it
Why would you rather take your chances with a disease that could cause cancer than get a vaccine and undertake regular screening (belt and braces)

But PIMS you are using the 'what if' in relation to the vaccine. It wasn't available, it can't guarantee protection and it isn't proven to be long lasting yet you insist that it would have saved her.

But you are claiming to know something you don't know. I am not. All I'm saying is that it's possible she might have been helped. Why do you deny this? I'm not claiming a crystal ball - in fact, given a series of factors it's actually more likely than that she wouldn't not have been helped.

The vaccine would not have meant that she needed no treatment - if she didn't have a smear for two years she could still have contracted HPV which might have developed into cancer in that time.

I've told you why I would rather pay for earlier and more frequent screening. I have more faith in screening than in the vaccine, and the risks of the vaccine are still unknown, under-investigated and under-reported.

BB if you think she might have been helped by screening then you have to agree that her disease might have been prevented by the vaxine

There proven efficacy is undeniable

the risks of the vaccine are still unknown
I dont agree, but I do know what the risk of cervical cancer are and I only wish my dear friend was here to support me.

I know where ever she is she is shouting at you, and thats the only reason I am continuing this debate
You have the same right as anyone to your own opinion, but you have not managed to address any of the facts I have given.

There is good evidence to demonstrate this vaccines safety and efficacy and no matter how much you roll your eyes or call me names or misquote me you cant disprove that.

I've told you why I would rather pay for earlier and more frequent screening
You shouldn't have to pay, cancer prevention is not just for those that can afford it and it wont solve the problem
If you believe in more regular screenings, you should lobby your MP, I have! Just goes to show that I think vaccine and screening go hand in glove and should not be alternatives to one another

I am excited to see how the cancer figures will reduce with the use of both and pray that no more people will have to go through the suffering that my friend endured