To not let dd have the HVP vaccination?

[DogGoneMad]

Dh and I really disagree on this.

yabu.

You really don't want her getting cervical cancer.

And FWIW you don't have to shag around from a young age to get it. I didn't have sex until I was 22, only slept with 2 blokes, had my smear tests, didn't smoke, ate heathily and still had dodgy smear tests when I was 28/29 and a hysterectomy at 35. Luckily I was able to have 2 kids in my early 30's but it was touch and go. I never developed full blown cancer but had CIN3 and carcinoma in situ.

When my DD is old enough for the jab she'll be getting it, although I will do my research and pay for it to be done privately if it's better than the standard NHS version.

THe issue is that screening is as effective a tool against cervical cancer as the vaccine is being made out to be.

NO, it is not. Screening can detect abnormalities. The vaccine can prevent them. The vaccine can also, indirectly, prevent the transmission of HPV to others, so the impact is greater than that of a smear, which applies to one individual.

The two things together are our best protection. But the smear - even if given more regularly - is not an alternative to the vaccine.

This thread is full of so much misinformation, so much nonsensical head-in-sand thinking, and so much flawed logic by some of those opposed to the vaccine, that it has become useless and unhelpful to anyone actually wondering about the vaccine. Pathetic.

'Because she is 12 and I worried about the effects of the vaccine. People end up damaged by vaccines and it scares me.'

She could end up more damaged from cancer later on in life! There is a bigger risk of getting cancer than something going wrong with a vaccine. weigh it up

sorry, brdgrl - did you miss bumbley's direct quote from an nhs/Macmillan site (sorry can't remeber which, and being nagged to get off the computer so will be brief) which said that screening is the most effective way to prevent cervical cancer?

as to the rest of your post - why do you think that contradicts what I said? I said in my post that the two together is what shoudl be being promoted. that screening should be being pushed as aggessively as the vaccine. so not sure why you would take issue with that.

"She could end up more damaged from cancer later on in life! There is a bigger risk of getting cancer than something going wrong with a vaccine. weigh it up. this sort of thinking is very very dangerous

No this is reasoned thinking based on scientific evidence. The evidence that proves the safety and efficacy of this vaccine is well researched and evidenced. The risks of cervical cancer and the treatments requires to deal with it are also well evidenced and researched.

The risks of death from cervical cancer are greater than the risk of the HPV vaccine. No one has died from this vaccine. No one has developed a long term condition or problem caused by it

If you have evidence to prove otherwise, Id be happy to read it

no one could possibly now long term effects, given the short (so far) timescale of use.

future studies are all very well, but in recent hstory they have been shown to be unreliable wrt vaccines time and again.

"Screening can detect abnormalities. The vaccine can prevent them."

Screening can detect abnormalities caused by any strain of hpv, the vaccine may protect against two of the strains that may lead to cervical cell changes.

Screening has been very successful in reducing the number of CC cases. As the number of people getting regular smear tests has increased the number of cases of CC has decreased. There have also been fluctuations depending due to the birth cohort effect which I find very interesting. Cancer Research explains it well:

"The differing cervical cancer mortality trends by age can be explained by birth cohort analysis rather than analysis by year of death. A birth cohort effect is evident when a cohort experiences different disease patterns compared to people born immediately earlier or later than the cohort.

For example, for women born at the end of the nineteenth century and around 1920 cervical cancer mortality was higher throughout their lives than for previous and subsequent birth cohorts. These two cohorts of women (with increased risk) would have become sexually active around the times of World War I and World War II.

For birth cohorts after the mid 1920s until the mid 1940s the cervical cancer death rates are lower. The increased risk in women born after the mid 1940s is consistent with the changing sexual behaviour since the 1960s. In the second half of the twentieth century the death rate from cervical cancer for women aged 55-64 dropped by nearly 80% from 30.0 per 100,000 in 1950-52 to 6.2 per 100,000 in 1998-2000 (see Table 2.2)."

screening is the most effective way to prevent cervical cancer

If screening was 100% effective there would be no need for the HPV vaccine.
Screening will only detect changes and can initiate early therapy to prevent cells further mutating to cancer. Screening and early treatment can be very effective in preventing cancer, but can be affected by a lot of variables.

All medical interventions carry risk. I am not scaring against screening. Screening is HUGELY necessary. Treatments do carry risk. that is undeniable, if changes are present treatment might be necessary, however I am suggesting that negating the need for treatment.

In medicine, it is important to minimise the number of necessary medical interventions to keep risk to a minimum and the vaccine could reduce the number of medical interventions required significantly

Hmm. Well, I'm debating whether to consent to dd having this vaccine as she reacted badly to her first triple as a baby and was subsequently unable to have the follow up vaccines or mmr. Has you dd had other vaccinations successfully, op? I dint think you're necessarily being unreasonable.

"No one has died from this vaccine. No one has developed a long term condition or problem caused by it"

Did you miss the quote from the CDC that said 8% of the adverse reactions were considered serious ie involved hospitalisation, long term damage or worse?

the vaccine may protect against two of the strains that may lead to cervical cell changes.

Being vague is really unhelpful and misleading

HPV VACCINE OVERVIEW ? Human papillomavirus (HPV) is a virus that causes cervical cancer and genital warts. Persistent infection with certain types of HPV can lead to cancer of the cervix, which affects more than 10,000 American women every year. HPV can also cause cancers of the vulva, vagina, and anus, although these cancers are much less common than cervical cancer.

Two vaccines (Gardasil® and Cervarix®) are available to prevent infection with several types of HPV known to cause cervical cancer. It is hoped that these vaccines will significantly reduce the number of women who develop cervical cancer and pre-cancer.

Over 100 different types of HPV have been identified; 40 of these are known to infect the cervix and 15 are known to cause cervical cancer. Researchers have labeled the HPV types as being high or low risk for causing cervical cancer.

HPV types 6 and 11 can cause about 90 percent of genital warts. These types are low-risk because they do not cause cervical cancer. (See "Patient information: Genital warts in women".)

Types 16 and 18 are the high-risk types that cause most (about 70 percent) cases of cervical cancer. HPV types 45 and 31 are also high-risk types, causing about 5 to 10 percent of cervical cancers.

There are two HPV vaccines available. Talk to your healthcare provider to determine which vaccine is best for you.

One HPV vaccine (Gardasil®) helps to prevent infection with four HPV types (6, 11, 16, and 18)

The other vaccine (Cervarix®) prevents infection with HPV types 16 and 18, and it may offer some protection against HPV types 45 and 31.

The two strains that both vaccines protect against cause 70% of cancer and the vaccine give some protection against other strains as discussed

The vaccines have 95-100% efficacy in doing so

Every time you post your vague opinions, I will clarify what the evidence actually proves

PIMS there are other things which reduce the risk of CC but you are very dismissive of them. Surely if you want to minimise risks you should be promoting all of them rather than just pushing the vaccine as a one stop shop solution to CC.

THe issue is that screening is as effective a tool against cervical cancer as the vaccine is being made out to be.

quote from an nhs/Macmillan site... which said that screening is the most effective way to prevent cervical cancer?

You don't understand that these statements are different, do you? I mean, you really don't. It is hopeless.

BM, Can you find a post of mind where I say vaccination is an alternative to screening??

Over and over again I have said they complement one another and should be used together. I think regular screening is so useful that I have lobbied my MP to make cervical screening annual in the UK, what have you done?? Other than go private for your annual smears

Vaccination itself is a medical intervention.

Adverse events reports which come after roll-out are not normally investigated except epidemiologically. For example on this thread a poster has claimed - the patterns and extent of illness and death do not differ from what might be expected. This is not the same as an investigation into whether a vaccine triggered a disorder, illness or death in a particular person at all.

This means that despite assurances that post-roll out events will be monitored (when long term effectiveness and safety is not found before roll-out) pro-vaccinists can simply say : oh that's not a reaction, that's just something someone reported.

You have a sort of hypocrisy. Before roll-out we're told - don't worry we'll follow up what happens when people report their experiences. After roll-out we're told - that's not a reaction, that's just what people have reported.

I'm not sure what is head-in-the-sand about this. I think it really shows a rather clearer awareness of the realities of vaccine roll-out.

brdgrl, nice to see you back. :)

pims, i don't know how long i can stand it, really....you are very noble.

Vaccination itself is a medical intervention
Yes it is and it is much less risky than many of the treatments need for CIN changes and cervical cancer

Adverse events reports which come after roll-out are not normally investigated except epidemiologically

Well, I posted evidence to show that the serious adverse events of this vaccine one had been investigated including autopsy reports. On this thread your point is null and void

Re: death - I know I should post a link but one of the links I posted earlier includes this. There've been (iirc) 47 deaths reported after vaccination with Gardasil, not Cervarix. This does not mean that all the deaths were necessarily caused or triggered by Gardasil,it means that they have been reported (iirc) to the VAERS reporting system.

I'm sorry not to post a link on this, I appreciate it's probably not very sensible with such a statistic, but I did do it earlier and it's easy for anyone to Google I guess.

Gardasil is not the vaccine offered in the UK, it's used in the States, but it can be bought and paid for here (I think) and it is meant to offer protection against all four strains of HPV.

That's not all four strains it's four strains of HPV.

"it is much less risky than many of the treatments need for CIN changes and cervical cancer"

This is not a fact - it's a claim. You don't know.

brdgrl, you are skipping about a bit, it is hard to follow exactl what your problem with my post is.

which bit are you taking issue with - the quote form cancer research, or my take that screening is as effective as the vaccine at reducing rates?

if you take issue with the quote from cancer research, well, erm, take it up with them. I am assuming that they are not in the habit of spreading misinformation about a disease they are trying to prevent and cure.

if it is my post, saying that boht screening and the vaccine are effective that you take issue with (becasue it contradicts what cancer research is saying - that screening is the most effective), well, um - are you not contradicting your own position here? that everyone shoudl be vaccinated, and that screening is not enough?