To not let dd have the HVP vaccination?

[DogGoneMad]

Dh and I really disagree on this.

Only read OP. I think YABU. My older DDs had it doen as did almost all girls in their year (150 ish). All were fine. I worried abit but felt it only fair to go along with what was recommended. These are the same experts we entrust with our lives when something is wrong. And it is quite grim to think of but it something did go wrong, would you rather it because the country's health care recommended it who you assumed knew better or because you had gone against medical advice?

I think Callisto's article is very interesting. I'm not sure why you describe it as biassed. It asks some very good questions. This challenge is particularly relevant, if I may c & p:

"There are many other gaps in our knowledge. How long does the vaccine provide protection without a booster? Does it affect natural immunity against HPV, and with what consequences? Can we really be sure that the vaccine protects preadolescent girls when proper clinical trials have been carried out only in women aged 16 to 24?

Another critical question is what vaccination does to the uptake of cervical screening. As the vaccines protect against only some of the cancer-causing strains, women must continue cervical screening. But vaccinated women may feel protected and therefore be less likely to go for screening.

Resolving these essential questions will require decades of observation of large numbers of women."

These are interesting and challenging questions - and as you say, research is "ongoing". They haven't yet been answered.

Pims - you're showing your own bias by attacking the NS article as biased. The NS is a very well respected magazine that only exists because it publishes articles about science that generally show all sides of the argument. They have no agenda other than selling copies of the magazine - decent unbiased reporting aids this. You, however, obviously do have an agenda and your blind faith in this vaccine is remarkable considering you seem to be setting yourself up as some kind of expert. And your posts about the 'very difficult conversation' I'm due to have with my daughter are patronising and insulting.

There is a difference between attack and critique. As the article omit pertinent evidence it is biased by definition. This is a point of information, not an attack

No agenda other than selling copies of a magazine is a HUGE agenda!
Controversy sells

Pims: I can't make you address my points. I can only point out that you haven't.

Callisto's article is not an attack: it poses some challenging questions that remain unanswered because - as you yourself have pointed out - research is "ongoing".

Your point about an agenda and "selling" is matched without difficulty by the agenda of pharmaceutical profits, which I would say are probably without compare to the profits of New Scientists magazine. Of course I can't stop you raising it again but it would seem rather an empty point

I have no blind faith in this vaccine, I have a good understanding of the quality objective research that supports it's efficacy. I have an analytical mind and have analysed the risk and benefits on both sides.
As for insulting you by suggesting you may need to have a difficult conversation with your daughter. There was no offence intended. It is her body to and if she contracts a preventable for of HPV she will ask questions and look at the evidence herself. That is not insulting, it is a statement of fact. She will question your decision and justifying it in the face of all the contemporaneous literature available will be a difficult conversation. That, again, is not an insult or a guilt trip. It is a statement of fact.

Bb you have given no objective evidence or made any clear points to be addressed

Pims: I certainly have, and I maintain that you have not addressed them. It's your prerogative not to do so. It's my prerogative to point out that you have not done so.

I've made them three times: they are very clear. If I repeat them again you may accuse me of bullying. They are there: you can read back.

You have not addressed them and you show no intention of doing so.

I can't speak for Blueberties, but it appears to me that one of her points is:

"Vaccines cause problems. The number and severity of these problems is not known because I think they are under-reported. My guess is that if we knew the number and severity of these problems they would be greater and/or more numerous than the diseases which the vaccines prevent"

Is that right?

I'm not sure what her other points are. One of them might be:

"Pharmaceutical companies, doctors, nurses, researchers, governments, professional journals, the UN and health professionals are in it to make money, therefore you can't believe anything they say. People who are not doctors, nurses, or health professionals, and are not funded or employed by goverments, professional journals, the UN or pharmaceutical companies are not in it to make money therefore you can believe anything they say"

Is that right?

Having clicked on this thread with an entirely open mind about the HPV vaccination, and read all 35 pages with expressions ranging from to to , I can say that I will definitely be having DD vaccinated when the time comes.

The anti-vac people have really, really done themselves no favours on this thread...

Thanks piglet, I am really struggling to clearly answer her questions because I really don't know what they are.
There are a few unfounded unsubstantiated claims, and some (relating to the medical profession) are offensive conspiracy theories.
For the HPV vaccine there is no evidence to suggest under reporting.
Despite repeatedly asking for evidence to support her claims, all I've seen is old MMR data. Nothing relevant to the current vaccine in the current debate. As I have said on soo many occasions, patients are able to report themselves. This means that we could actually end up with over reporting.
Additionally, it is important to differentiate between a link/correlation and a causation.
A term, I'm still not sure that bb grasps.

That's good to know Imdave
I really had hoped all the best quality evidence and real objective risks of the disease would not be lost along the way

Correlation:
100% of people who die in burning buildings are known to have drunk water, or fluids containing water, in the days and hours before their death. The majority of burning buildings have large amounts of water sprayed onto them.

Causality:
Therefore we know that drinking water, or having it sprayed on your house, causes you do die in a fire.

I got HPV at 17 through stupidity - I am now 42. On the plus side I have had yearly pap smears ever since, on the minus side - I have had yearly pap smears ever since.

I am a big fan of every vaccination going though.

Glad to hear your doing ok.
Don't be so quick to Say you were stupid though, even condoms can't guarantee you won't get HPV.
Cover as many bases as possible for best possible outcome. I really hope things continue to stay well for you, glad ur getting your yearly paps

Interesting thread, thanks for the info.
I took the option of discussing it with my daughters as well as looking at the evidence. We discussed the possibility of infection & its implications. We felt that if they are not sexually active yet & are not intending to be for some time AND they would be practising safe sex when they did ( not 100% effective I know but nearly) then we would be happier to wait & get some more information. I feel it has been a blanket mass marketing campaign rushed through to meet targets & want to see if HPV rates go down significantly over the next few years. I'm not concerned about side effects just want more information. I have time before the DD's are out of the optimum age range,luckily .Of course we all want the best for our daughters & I don't berate anyone for choosing to have it. But that's what it is a CHOICE, we shouldn't judge.

A few facts...
The majority of women who get the HPV do NOT go on to get cervical cancer, this injecion is not 100% fool proof.

Also HPV is unheard of in nuns, cervical cancer significantly lower in those with few sexual partners, ( eg the jewish community)

So I'll agree to disagree with the majority of you & say to the OP don't be rushed into deciding until you & your daughter is/are entirely happy with the whole situation.

Bossy, totally respect your opinion and commend you for being able to discuss it do openly and honestly with your daughters
The meta analysis of all the research released this year is very positive. Showing 95-100% efficacy with no increased risk of reaction compared to other vaccine or risk of causing severe adverse.
Your absolutely right about low rates of infection where there are only single life time sexual partners, but I'm sure you know that this is only relevant to those populations. Ie your daughter may only have one partner who may have had sex with three others who may have had sex with four others and you can see the increased risk. My best friend only has two sexual partners when she died in her mid twenties of a preventable strain of cervical cancer.
I am sure by the time ur daughters are of age the info will continue to report efficacy and safety. I really do whole hartedly applaud you in giving them all the facts and allowing them to make this decision based on all the evidence.
If you are looking for any further info or research please don't hesitate to ask and I'd gladly look for it

Bb, do you have anything relevant or objective to add?

There are a few unfounded unsubstantiated claims

This goes to the heart of it: dismissal. You expect credence and respect for your personal experience but deny it to others. These figures will not appear anywhere because of denial - and yet, many years later, their claims may be vindicated. They are not to be ridiculed. I'm sorry you find them funny.

For the HPV vaccine there is no evidence to suggest under reporting. not true

Despite repeatedly asking for evidence to support her claims, all I've seen is old MMR data.

Not true. If I linked to thirty, forty personal experience of denied adverse events you would accuse me of scare-mongering. The one that I have linked to, you described as sensationalist.

Nothing relevant to the current vaccine in the current debate. not true

As I have said on soo many occasions, patients are able to report themselves. and you instantly dismiss those events as "only reported by patients, anyone could write anything"

Additionally, it is important to differentiate between a link/correlation and a causation. A term, I'm still not sure that bb grasps.

Thank you - I grasp it. Again with the insults.

You have not addressed the points - you understand them and you are uncomfortable with them.

I also note that you returned to the thread only when someone came along with a piece of ridicule that you could at. You could not address the points but you are happy to join in with ridicule of other people's personal experiences - while expecting others to defer to yours.