Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
General health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

HPV gardasil

110 replies

Mumoftwodaughters · 10/10/2013 15:03

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In Japan 1928 side effects reported & the Health Ministry has withdrawn its recommendation of the use of HPV vaccine.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.

OP posts:
Frontdoorstep · 04/11/2013 20:27

Agree CoteDAzur, there is no benefit to the child that is given the rubella vaccine and yes totally immoral and unethical to subject a child to something that has no benefit to themselves.

Yes, I would be happy enough to test teenage girls, preferably ones over the age of 16, so they can consent or not themselves and can take their own responsibility for their decision.

bruffin · 05/11/2013 19:36

When we vaccinated teen girls, it didnt stop rubella and as mentioned on here too many times but ignored, Rubella is not a disease that you can guarantee that you get in childhood. Why do you think there was so many case of CRS if all children caught it in childhood. Epidemics only happen every 5 to 7 year, it is not so easy to catch as a child which is why so many pregnant women caught it.

this is what is happen in Romania If it is such a mild disease why did 35 need hospitalisation?

bruffin · 05/11/2013 19:40

"Rubella illness in a child or adult is usually benign although arthritis and arthralgia has been observed in association with viral replication in the synovial cavity of the joints (Plotkin and Reef, 2008). Other complications of rubella include encephalitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), progressive rubella panencephalitis, and thrombocytopenia (Gershon, 2010b; Plotkin and Reef, 2008)."
From the IOM

Frontdoorstep · 05/11/2013 20:33

Bruffin, that's fine about complications, I understand, after all nothing in life is risk free. Should we really vaccinate for a disease that might cause a rare complication like that, I mean people get struck by lightning but its not that likely to happen, planes crash but does that stop people flying?

So vaccinating teen girls didn't stop rubella, is that you saying then that the vaccine didn't work, sounds like it, in which case we need a more effective vaccine. Instead of bullying people into vaccinating babies to protect pregnant women should n't we be campaigning for a more effective rubella vaccine.

bruffin · 05/11/2013 21:29

Vacvinting all babies is more effective than vaccinating teenage girls which again more effective than not vaccinating at all. In the US and UK rubella has been vituallly eliminated is a handful of cases a year. Why would you allow a diseae to circulate that harmed so many people in the past and doesnt now. Why go back in time.
The risk of vaccination is nothing compared to the disease and i see nothing wrong in vaccinating my son if it helps to reduce the risk to his future children. He is 18 and more than happy with that.

bumbleymummy · 05/11/2013 22:18

Vaccinating all teenagers (if they need it) may have been as/more effective. They changed two things at once - the age at which it was given and giving it to both boys and girls.

ArgyMargy · 05/11/2013 22:31

Bruffin I don't think you can say that rubella is virtually eliminated in the UK. Cases may not be notified. I had it as an adult - I mean my doctor said he thought it was rubella. I had the right symptoms but he didn't take any swabs or bloods so clearly had no intention of notifying it. I think GPs are only likely to notify if symptoms are severe.

bruffin · 06/11/2013 01:53

There are a lot of viruses very similar to rubella, of those that are notified over 95 % of the time come back negative. There was just a handful of cases that come back positive Ie less than a 100 in a year. 99% of the cases in the whole of europe are in poland or rumania.
In the Us the only cases of CRS have in immigrants who were pregnant and caught rubella prior to coming to US.

Thats a pretty nonsense argument BM. The fact that most children are vaccinated as babies means there is a smaller pool for the virus to circulate. Its not as if there is any evidence to believe its safer to vaccinate teenagers so there is no reason to wait. We have been vaccinating against rubella for 35 years and there is no evidence of it actually waning in the community.
Why leave a pool for rubella to circulate when we dont need to.

CoteDAzur · 06/11/2013 08:08

" Rubella is not a disease that you can guarantee that you get in childhood."

... Which is why we say girls should be tested in their late teens and vaccinated if necessary.

It is in a girl's best interest to (1) not be needlessly vaccinated as a baby, (2) have rubella and be naturally immune for the rest of her life, and failing that, (3) have the vaccine in her late teens before she gets pregnant.

It is in a boy's best interest not to get needlessly vaccinated for rubella at all.

And this is what I'm doing with DD and DS, regardless of what fringe arguments strangers on the internet can come up with. "Smaller pool for the virus to circulate", indeed Hmm I want DD to have it! (She may have already had it, because I'm pretty sure that DS did. I guess the pool is not that small after all)

CoteDAzur · 06/11/2013 08:11

"Vacvinting all babies is more effective than vaccinating teenage girls"

More effective for whom? Certainly not the baby boy you are vaccinating who is in no danger from the disease itself. And not the baby girl who has no need for rubella immunity at the age of 18 months.

bumbleymummy · 06/11/2013 13:23

It's not nonsense at all. You said that vaccinating all children was more effective than vaccinating teenage girls- how do you know what it is that is more effective? Vaccinating all children or vaccinating children at a certain age? You don't. It's a perfectly valid point.

If children contract it themselves as children then they will not need the vaccine as teenagers/adults.

I actually wonder how many children have had rubella prior to having the vaccine anyway. Both my DSs had it before they were 1 year old.

Frontdoorstep · 06/11/2013 16:03

Bruffin, you say the risk of the vaccine is nothing compared to the disease, I don't agree. The vaccine carries a risk, it might be a small risk but it is a risk all the same, the disease carries no risk to the person having the vaccine. why should my child have this vaccine to protect someone else, it is a huge issue of morals and ethics and worse than that I have to consent on behalf of my child. How do I know that my child wants to protect someone else.

Original poster
Mumoftwodaughters · 20/12/2013 23:44

This thread seems to have gone off subject. The corollary is that my daughter felt stigmatised by being singled out for not having the HPV vaccination and due to the very varying responses on this thread, I had gone to some lengths to agree with the school nurse that she might have been able to have a catch up vaccination in Year 10. However, there is no administrative process in place to deal with catch-ups of this kind, so it would have been with me to contact them & arrange this. Incidentally, did anyone know that this vaccination costs ~ £250. It is a pertinent point, as anyone opting out at the last minute is also spending that money on the NHS bill, as the vaccine will have had to be bought in.

My daughter had the vaccination and had no reaction whatsoever. She continued normal life. This was such a difference experience to my elder daughter's Cervarix, which ached for several nights & made her feel shaky & dizzy an hour or so afterwards. She does, however, have very sensitive skin and has yeast intolerance. I wonder now whether there was yeast in the vaccine. Does anyone know?

OP posts:
bumbleymummy · 22/12/2013 10:13

You should be able to check the ingredients on the vaccine insert.

CatherinaJTV · 22/12/2013 13:41

Yeast is used in the production of Gardasil, but not for Cervarix

Original poster
Mumoftwodaughters · 23/12/2013 23:42

Thanks Catherina, I wondered about that. So those with yeast intolerance should not have Gardasil.

OP posts:
CatherinaJTV · 25/12/2013 10:11

I am not sure that it will post a problem at the tiny amounts that are left in the vaccine.

NigellasDealer · 25/12/2013 10:15

personally I do not think our schools are the place for mass drug trials.
just saying.

CatherinaJTV · 25/12/2013 17:25

oh the drama Hmm

Clearly, the mass trials have been done and we are in the vaccine delivery phase. Both HPV vaccines are safe and effective (so far in terms of preventing HPV infection and reducing the rate of genital warts).

NigellasDealer · 25/12/2013 17:28

Clearly, the mass trials have been done
really? are you sure about that?

CatherinaJTV · 25/12/2013 18:11

Yes, I am sure about that.

NigellasDealer · 25/12/2013 18:13

well that is good then

Frontdoorstep · 26/12/2013 13:40

NigellasDealer

While I have to concede to CatherinaJTV that trials have been done, I also agree completely with you about our school being used for mass drug trials.

After all, the long term effects will not be known for years.

CatherinaJTV · 26/12/2013 17:48

for now, we know that Cervarix holds at least 9.4 years (that data is 2 years old). I am not sure how long you want to wait and risk your grandchildren...

Frontdoorstep · 26/12/2013 20:12

CatherinaJTV, by saying that Cervarix holds for at least 9.4 years, I suppose by that you mean that it lasts for 9.4 years, I have a list of issues with that length of protection but won't go there for now because that wasn't what I meant.

What I meant, was that, we no do know if there will be long term side effects from this, what if in, say, 30 years time we discover there is an increase in cancer (or any other disease in people who had the hpv vaccine. I'm not saying this will happen but no one can know that it won't.

As for risking my grandchildren, I am NOT going to risk my child today to potentially protect a grandchild that I might have in the future. There are too many unknown variables for me to put the welfare of future grandchildren over and above my child today.