HPV gardasil

[Mumoftwodaughters]

My daughter's school are vaccinating for HPV next week, but I am not sure whether to go ahead. I am alarmed having read the side effects & personal experience comments at the bottom of the HPV side effects page on the NHS website:
www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/pages/hpv-vaccine-cervarix-gardasil-side-effects.aspx
I quote: 13yr old girl in ‘waking’ coma since her 3rd HPV.
In Japan 1928 side effects reported & the Health Ministry has withdrawn its recommendation of the use of HPV vaccine.
Polysorbate 80 - said to be linked to infertility in mice
May increase risk of cancer: (1) Gardasil not tested for cancer causing properties/carcinogenicity; (2) due to replacement; (3) due to presence of recombinant HPV DNA.; 1287 serious side effects reported to June 2013;
HPV: www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/pages/hpv-human-papillomavirus-vaccine.aspx Cancer Research apparently have no figures on the instance of HPV strains 16 & 18 related to cancer to 31 December 2012.

To a parent this all looks quite alarming and at the moment I shall not be going ahead, but does anyone have any views? Incidentally, my daughter has been through anti-candida process and is now wheat free, having suffered from perioral dermatitis, so I imagine she is considered to have had a lowered immunity (but no longer). Not sure if this makes her more at risk or not. I have sought advice in writing of her GP/homeopath who has treated her for the past 4 years.

My daughter got the Cervarix at school (still miffed that they are giving the HPV4 now, which I would have preferred). I have friends and family who had cervical cancer and I would not want that for my daughter.

Both HPV2 and 4 have been extensively tested (see list of trial publications here: www.uptodate.com/contents/clinical-trials-of-human-papillomavirus-vaccines) and the follow up period is constantly being extended (I think currently to 12 years, yupp: clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00092521 also see impressive list of publications out of this trial).

Diane Harper was misquoted by antivaccine activists (see www.badscience.net/2009/10/jabs-as-bad-as-the-cancer/, www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/gardasil-researcher-against-vaccine-myth-debunked/)

and kids often don't given parents a 6 months lead time to their first sex to allow quick vaccination.

Polysorbate 80 causes infertility in rats if you take newborn rats, about the size of your pinkie and you inject them with 300000x the amount of polysorbate 80 in a Gardasil shot directly into their abdomens. Hardly a concern, but one of the anti-vaccine propagandists' beloved horror stories.

Pap smears can only detect the cancer when it has started. They are not preventative.

Pap smears can detect the cells that may cause cancer before the cancer itself has started. They are required even if you have the vaccine because the vaccine does not guarantee protection.

Just because you have the HPV virus (and recent studies show that most women do!) does not mean that you are going to develop cancer. The presence of the HPV virus is not the only factor required for cervical cancer to develop. Some cervical cancer can develop without the virus or with strains other than those in the vaccine.

Personally, I think the vaccine creates a bit of false security. There seem to be an awful lot of people thinking that if they've had the vaccine, they won't get cervical cancer. There are some concerns that this may result in fewer women having regular smears and may result in more cases of cancer because changes will not be picked up early enough.

Catherina, I know you feel quite strongly about this subject and I'm very sorry about what happened to your friend but I have actually had a few conversations with people in public health at the moment and these are genuine concerns.

At the moment? I mean recently! Sorry!

Bumbley - what is the concern though? That women no longer go to get their Paps? Certainly, that would be a matter of proper public information, not of not vaccinating?

My daughter did the research herself (at school and guided by school) and has decided that she will have it at 16 and not now (at 12). She only knows of one other girl in the year who has made the same decision, although I suspect there are others. I support her informed decision and will remind her when she is 16.

I'm watching with interest my DD is 12 and had her letter

My dd isn't old enough for hpv vaccine yet, fwiw I will be refusing when she is.

However, flak jacket, I love that your daughter has researched it herself and reached her own decision which she can carry out at 16. I think that is the best decision, if my dc decide to have vaccines that I have refused when they are 16, then it is their decision and I will support it.

I guess its the way the vaccine has been promoted Catherina. After convincing everyone that they need the vaccine to prevent them getting cancer, now they have to convince them that it isn't enough and they need to have smear tests as well.

it's - apostrophe is dodgy on this keyboard

www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2032

In April the British Medical Journal published very positive findings about the decline in genital warts in young women (and young men as a result of herd immunity) in Australia attributed to the HPV programme there.

but that information was on every vaccine leaflet and page thing that I have seen, too, Bumbley, e.g.

www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/pages/hpv-human-papillomavirus-vaccine.aspx

Cervical screening and the HPV vaccine

Cervical screening is a way of picking up abnormal cells in the cervix before they progress to cancer. It's been shown that early detection and treatment of cervical abnormalities picked up by screening can prevent three-quarters of cervical cancers.

The NHS cervical screening programme involves checking women between the ages of 25 and 64 every three to five years for early cervical abnormalities.

Regular cervical screening is the best way to identify abnormal cell changes in the cervix. So it's important that all girls who receive the HPV vaccine also have regular cervical screening once they reach the age of 25.

RummidgeGeneral, genital warts may be an embarrassing and distressing condition but not serious, I won't be persuaded to vaccinate because of a decline in genital warts.

Yes, last line at the bottom after several paragraphs about the vaccine including including promoting it as protection against cancer. I can see why they're having problems! If you ask most people what it is for they will tell you that it protects them against cancer and that's pretty much as far as it goes.

Interesting that the figure is saying it protects against the two strains that cause 70% of teh cancers. Im pretty sure that figure than what I have previously seen quoted. It was one of the things we were chatting about the other day as well - that there are other strains of the virus that can also cause cancer and that we may see an increase in those even if we see a reduction in the cases from strains 16 and 18.

I agree bumbleymummy, we may see an increase in the other strains not covered by the vaccine, perhaps these strains may also become more aggressive, we just don't know.

Homeopath has advised that my daughter does not have reduced immunity, if anything it is stronger! No other comments really. Nothing is risk free ... I will follow up the links above, but am now short of time as vaccinations are tomorrow. We will forgo it and I will consider the positives, ready possibly for a late vaccination. I have discussed all the issues that concern me with my daughter. Really impressed with flakjacket's daughter - I wish there had been more discussion at school about the HPV both with parents & with children, so that a considered approach could have been taken. I have run out of time for proper consideration. I would really like to hear many more parents views over the coming weeks, as I think 2nd injection opportunity is November. Also, how do you feel about your child having vacc at school, with no opportunity to have it at the GP then come home after? Reason comes down to money only, too expensive for GP at £240 a shot, so it is given at school & sometimes they have to get on with PE straight afterwards. Is this OK in your view?

Also, surprised to read somewhere that you don't have to have sex to get HPV. It can be transmitted by other means. If this is true, this could be a good case for taking the risks associated with the vaccine. Does anyone know the answer to this?

Mum, yes it is possible to contract HPV through other forms of sexual contact BUT it may not be one of the strains that causes cancer and even if it was, the majority of people who contract HPV DO NOT develop cancer. Only a very very small percentage of them will. Most early changes are detected during routine smears before any cancer develops.

Hi I am new to Mumsnet and new to being a stepmum so I joined because of my concern about the misleading facts about the HPV jabs and wanted to hear what others thought about it. I work in complementary healthcare and there are many (and I think) better ways to boost the immune system against viruses. The contents of the gardasil vaccine are scary in particular the aluminium adjuvant - isn't there a link between aluminium and breast cancer and Alzheimers? I have challenged the Department of Health on its literature since its misleading and gives rise the some of the comments above ie that the jab will protect against cancer and not just the 4 strains of HPV which may or may not lead to cervical cancer. I am not convinced (and neither are the Japanese) that the vaccine has been properly tested for safety and efficacy. My SD has had one of the jabs already but does not want to continue. Why does it need three jabs? The MMR was only one... Sorry but I am cynical of the pharmaceutical companies and profits at our children's expense..

My mum has had cervical cancer and lost her womb and a baby because of it.

I have 2 friends who have to have pre-cancer cells burned off their cervix every few months because of HPV.

I would take that vaccine any time - and I hope that they give it to boys when my DS is of age.

oystercatcher: here is the best statement of current thinking on aluminium levels that I have found: Updated aluminum pharmacokinetics following infant exposures through diet and vaccination (2011).

Looks pretty safe to me.

Do you think that the pharma companies (or, at least some people in those companies) are knowingly harming children for financial gain? If so I am sure there are plenty of people who would agree with you. If I thought that myself I wouldn't touch any vaccines with a bargepole.

As it is I'm happy to follow the full vaccination program with my children - but I'm interested in why other people feel so differently.