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In Japan 1928 side effects reported & the Health Ministry has withdrawn its recommendation of the use of HPV vaccine.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

......and even more so, too many moral issues.

There has been a shift in the number of cases of cervical cancer caused by different strains of HPV. Even the information about the vaccine has changed. It used to be cited as being much more effective, now it is less effective because other strains are 'taking over' as such. I've spoken to a couple of people in public health who have expressed concerns about this. There are also investigations into other things that influence the development of cervical cancer and there seems to be some evidence that HPV isn't as influential as originally believed.

Links please, Bumbley.

Moral issues? Indeed, it is immoral not to protect young people of cancer if you can.

catharina so you honestly think that this is to 'prevent deaths'? ha ha.
no it is to make a shedload of money for the drug companies, just like tamiflu.
and no i am not a 'conspiracy theorist'

CatherinaJTV, I don't think it is immoral not to protect young people, I don't think there is a moral issue in not giving a vaccine.

However, there is a huge moral issue in giving a vaccine to a healthy, living, breathing child to protect at some point in the future a theoretical child, I.e. A baby that the healthy, living , breathing child may or may not have in the future. This is also my issue with the rubella vaccine.

NigellasDealer, I agree with you.

Frontdoorstep - the HPV vaccine protects the vaccinee AND preserves her capacity to carry children to term. I have multiple examples of what cervical cancer can do to women and their fertility amongst family and friends.

NigellasDealer - I also think the vaccine is overpriced, but that doesn't change its health benefits.

Catherina, I gave you a link to the reduction in effectiveness of the vaccine on another thread before. The other info came from lectures from/conversations with people working in public health.

As for 'preserving the capacity to carry children to term'. I think you're exaggerating the risks a bit there. Firstly, you still need smear tests even with the vaccine - they will detect changes in your cervix that may or may not need treatment. If they do require treatment (and many will not) that treatment may or may not involve cells from the cervix being removed or possibly a small part of the cervix. That part may or may not (usually not) compromise the cervix in relation to carrying a pregnancy but this can be assisted by something as simple as putting in a stitch.

Personally, I'm more concerned by making smear tests later and less frequent.

CatherinaJTV, you and I are never going to agree on the morals of this vaccine.

Bumbley - I have a close family member who is currently counting the days until her baby is viable - she is on bedrest, cervix sewn shut, so she won't use the baby like that last one. The regular pap smears discovered the cervical cancer, but the necessary treatment comes with its side effects. If a vaccine can lower the risk of having to undergo an invasive procedure, I don't see why I should not give it and I certainly see nothing "amoral" about it.

What would lower the risk of having to have that procedure is more regular smear tests! Detecting those abnormal cells early means less invasive treatment.

CatherinaJTV, there is nothing "immoral" about the vaccine, I agree with you on that. The "immoral" comes from giving it to one person to protect another person. The "immoral" part of it is giving my child a vaccine to protect a potential future grandchild.

Bumbley - she had one a year, as it is done in Germany.

More frequent than over here and if she still needed invasive treatment to the extent that it compromised her cervix then either they didn't pick up on it quick enough or they need to be thinking about making them even more frequent.

or you reduce the risk by getting folk vaccinated AND PAPed.

Just in case people are worried about what Catherina has said about cervical incompetence and LEEP. Recent studies (including a meta analysis) have shown no significant increase in cervical incompetence in women who have had LEEP unless they have had large samples removed or have had to have multiple procedures. Please don't think it is a common complication - the evidence indicates that it is not.

newest article on pubmed

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24332739 According to recent studies LEEP provides a 1.4 to 7.0 fold increase of preterm delivery.

Yes, the risk is the higher, the larger the amount of tissue removed is, but that is not in the hands of the woman...

Do you speak French Catherina?

(The full article is written in French)

yes, I do

As someone who has had 2 leep procedures due to pre cancerous cells, resulting in me needing a cerclage when pregnant, I have had the vaccination and my daughter will be too when the time comes.

Well that's nice for you Catherina. Seeing as most of us here don't (or not to the extent required to translate a scientific paper) it would be useful to know how many people were in the study, the size of the samples removed from the cervix, whether the subjects had any previous procedures carried out and what confounding variables were taken into consideration.

I have just had parts of my cervix cut away and cauterised under local anesthetic, at 34 with a seven year old and a 7 mo I could not put it off.
Have her vaccinated in cuts the risk of some frankly horrible treatment by 50 percent.

Please, please do not over emphasise the benefits of this vaccine and play down the value of screening. Screening is what has led to the huge decrease in cervical cancer cases. (75% decline between 1970 and 1990 alone). Placing so much emphasis/value on the HPV vaccine carries the very real risk of discouraging people from attending regular screening.

I gave been screened every year since I was 18, it still came up, I will now be screened every six months, anything that can reduce the necessity for treatment is welcome.

As I said earlier, I have also had two LLetz procedures and have been screened every 6-12 months since. I just see a lot of 'get the vaccine' and not enough 'make sure you attend your screening appointments regularly' on these threads.

Can I ask where you got the 50% reduction figure from?