To not let dd have the HVP vaccination?

[DogGoneMad]

Dh and I really disagree on this.

The HPV vaccination is one of the major developments in recent medecine. Today's young girls are lucky to have the oportunity.

YWBVU to not allow her that opportunity. And imagine how guilty you would efel if later on she went on to develop HPV, as so many of us have, and that she was one of the unlucky ones which developed cancer.

Whatmeworry, I have reported your post.

Yes, inflammatory and hypocritical are terrible phrases. My mouth should be rinsed out with soap and water.

You are clearly twisting all that I have said. Another continuing trait of you and your crew.
If you actually read what wrote, it was in response to bb's accusation of emotional blackmail.
I simply said that posters sharing their experiences of cancer is NO MORE emotional blackmail than posters sharing experiences of vaccine damage.

No accusation of emotional blackmail from me!!
And don't exaggerate about my language. I have never used any profanities or personal insults.

It is one thing for me to share a story, it is quite another for someone who has NO knowledge or medical training to suggest that she could have been saved by screening 12 months before. THAT is what I find insulting.
I will continue to share her story so others can learn the dangers, not so someone can tell me a pack of lies about the progression of her disease!

Highlander, I agree that shifting responsibility to females is wrong. This vaccine should not just be offered to girls.
I don't agree that HPV can be prevented by good sexual health.
Condoms and abstinence from sex will not prevent it. It can be passed by ANY skin to skin contact. Hand to genitalia etc

What me worry, I'm struggling to find a reportable post from you?!
Is it in code??

Malcontentedinthemiddle, hope your results come back ok, good luck

PIMS, I am not exaggerating about your language. I never mentioned personal insults or abuse. I said it was extraordinary. which it was.

May I jsut say I do not have a 'crew'.

I will be encouraging my DD to have this vaccination.

However, I have some sympathy with the OP. HPV is sexually transmitted. Teaching young men to wear condoms would also help reduce cervical cancer rates, as would teaching young girls that they can say "no" if their partner refuses to wear a condom because she's already protected by the pill/implant/etc

I can't help worrying that while the HPV vaccine comes from a good place and it is a good thing, it is yet another way that girls/women are being made responsible for safe sex and having to deal with the consequences of unsafe sex.

PIMSoclock (great name BTW ), I know, which is why I will be encouraging my DD to have it. Skin-to-skin contact has to be contact between mucous membranes, not just any skin, as far as I can remember (ok so it;s unrealistic to expect teenagers to give up kissing, I know, so definitely another reason to go for the vaccine). However, the risk of developing cervical cancer from HPV that is not sexually transmitted are statistically very small indeed.

Far less than the impact that would be made if young men were to wear condoms routinely as a matter of course.

As with any vaccination is all about weighing up risk. regular smears reduce the risk of developing/dying from cervical cancer, this risk is reduced further with vax as it stops people getting the viruses that can lead to the cancer. So to me, its just about closing a few more doors earlier in the cancer generation process. But still some doors are open and any amount of smear test of vaccines wont prevent all. There is a risk and consequence fo it with everything in life.
If 1 million people walk across a road at a crossing where the green man is showing, a few of them will no doubt still get knocked down, some will die.
But the risk is small. You just have to weigh up the risk and also the consequence of taking those risks (or not). Thats why for me, vaccinations win the day as the consequences of not vaccinating are much much greater than the risk of problem with a vax.

Blue to the contrary, a smear is very much an irrational choice to "employ as a cancer prevention tool". Because it cannot prevent cancer and can only detect it once it is there (or there are at least pre-cancerous changes to the cells).

In my mind it is much more preferable to have a vaccine that gives a good chance of preventing someone contracting HPV in the first place rather than to just rely on a system to detect it once cancer or pre-cancerous changes have occurred. Particularly when the treatments for removing cancerous or pre-cancerous cells in the cervix are as undesireable as some of the examples posted on this thread show them to be.

Yes yabvu

I wish it had been around when I was 12, then I would not have had to go through a nightmare few years in my 30s.

I am sad to see that at no point in your postings have you mentioned what your daughter thinks of it... after all it is her body and not yours. In all honesty she has more chance of being the victim of an RTA but I presume you still allow her to cross roads?

Just had a thought here so bear with me:-

If all females in a generation (or as many of them as possible allowing for those who can't vax) have the HPV vax, the males they have sex with will have less chance of infecting them with the strains of HPV the vax protects against.

That is assuming the males have been infected from older females or other males, if not then they have less chance of getting one of the vaxed for strains of HPV themselves. If the males of that generation only have sex with females their age or younger (not illegal younger of course!) then they have a very low chance of getting or passing on HPV strains that are vaxed for.

As time goes on it will be less and less likely that males will have sex with unvaxed females/infected males from previous generations so the rates of CC will fall (hopefully vaxes against the other strains will be developed in time).

The quickest way to achieve a reduction in CC would be to vax males before the onset of sexual contact too but given the resistance to parents of females who actually have a concrete benefit of vaxing I doubt many parents of males would go for it.

So really the HPV vax isn't about your child not getting HPV (it's a good side effect that they have a lower risk of CC) but a way of getting rid of a virus that causes cancer in a few generations (hopefully).

It's not an irrational choice at all. The effectiveness of screening is well recorded. In fact one senior cervical cancer vaccine researcher has said that the vaccine and screening should be considered equally effective alternatives -- rather than one (ie, vaccination) being aggressively marketed at the expense of the other. Talk about the dangers of smears I would definitely consider to be scare-mongering.

I don't think the herd immunity argument is very powerful. The problem is that many people are poorly informed, they think it's a vaccine against cancer, they think it's a vaccine against HPV, and may make themselves more vulnerable to other HPV infections through non-safe sex and will not have the frequent and regular smears needed because they think they're protected, and let's face it smears are no fun even if they're not dangerous. Any excuse not to go. And they're being withdrawn at younger ages, at a time of exciting and explorative sexual activity. In addition long term effectiveness of the vaccine is not known and the history of "one-shot lifetime immunity" vaccinations is not good.

It is very possible to control risk in a number of ways which others have detailed. The alternative described by many posters seems to be get vaccinated or die. I think this is profoundly exaggerated.

I've had treatment for cell changes. It was neither traumatic nor a nightmare. I am not alone: there are many thousands of women like me.

She's much more likely to be damaged by having cervical cancer than by the HPV vaccine. What exactly are you worried about? I just Googled 'risks HPV vaccine' and looked at the NHS website. The risks are all extremely mild (eg. runny nose) except the anaphylactic allergic reaction which occurred in 41 cases out of four million vaccinations. Anyway, if she was to experience an anaphylactic reaction she would be in the best possible place (ie. in a medical environment with a healthcare professional) and she would be fine.

So, let her have it, it's ridiculous and dangerous not to.

[I speak as someone who contracted HPV at university and I wish the vaccine had been available when I was 12]

Unfortunately there appears to be under-reporting and denial of adverse events.

"I've had treatment for cell changes. It was neither traumatic nor a nightmare."
well, lucky, lucky you! my experience with cervical cancer WAS. and frankly, i think that your comment is really, really obnoxious. A number of people have posted on this thread, including myself, about their own traumatic and nightmarish experiences with cervical cancer, as a way of emphasising to the OP the potential seriousness and the widespread occurance of hpv infection.

My DH's first wife died of skin cancer. He has been known to tell people about the experience in order to encourage them to use proper safeguards in the sun. I guess I could walk around behind him saying "yeah...i had sunburn once. It wasn't that bad." Do you think that would be useful to anyone? or just maybe, a tad ridiculous and insensitive? wow.

I hope fthe OP will ignore the posts which tell her that cervical abnormalities are not that big a deal. Or that her daughter doesn't need anything but a good chat about safe sex. God.

Unfortunately there appears to be under-reporting and denial of adverse events

Or possibly an under-understanding of risk, and denial of vaccination effectiveness in your case?

Love to see your proof of this allegation you made, the given stats seem pretty firm to me.

whatmeworry, you took the words out of my mouth...