New vaccination against cervical cancer for girls - what are general thoughts on it.

[mears]

I am not sure.

My 14 year ols DD will be offered it soon but there has never been cervical cancer in our family and I am sure, like me she will have regular screening.

You worry about what vaccinations can do to the rest of your system to some extent.

Any thoughts?

i think so far the only way to test for it is to biopsy.

(expat have you seen this?

hijack over

It's against HPV, the most common sexually transmitted disease, that sometimes has no sypmtoms at all.
MY dd will be having the vaccine

Nooo, hadn't seen it. It's too late for us to be torn over that decision anymore .

Roll on Halloween season .

My DD's 9 and she'll definately be getting it.

On the issue of boys I can understand why they're only offering it to teenage girls. Once you've been exposed to the HPV virus I believe the vaccine is of little use. Therefore for public health purpose to me it's more important we educate all teenagers on safe sex and the importance of using condoms to limit the spread of sexually transmitted diseases - look at the rise in chlamydia which has implications for a couples future aspirations to conceive.

Another point - cervical screening will still stay as really important as the HPV vaccine only covers the majority of HPV viuses but there is still a minority that can cause cervical cancer

I am shocked that the average age of treatment in Cmotdibbler's clinic is 27yo. I'd imagined it would be women over 40-odd years. That inclines me more towards the dd's having the vaccine.

The vaccine is being 'sold' as a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer.

It is a vaccine to prevent H.P.V. a sexually transmitted disease.

Of course, other strains of cervical cancer can be caught that have nothing to do with H.P.V. and therefore this vaccine will not protect against those.

Surely, teaching our children to be careful and not be sexually active at a young age with mutiple partners is more important than just vaccinating them against H.P.V.

I would rather bring up my daughter to be careful, sensible and respect herself rather than vaccinate her against s.t.d.s assuming that she will be sexually active at a young aage and put herself at risk.

I would want my daughter to have it, no question.

Suedonim - its not where I work btw, just a place where I know the figure for sure.

In western europe theres a double peak to the incidence of invasive cervical cancer - 30 or so, and then 60.

Cervical screening will always be important - and its the only screening that picks up pre cancerous changes, so the cost/benefit is huge.

Has there always been a double peak or is that a recent phenomenon?

I actually don't know that much about HPV. It was certainly never mentioned when I was first married in the 70's and the same for Chlamydia. Have they always existed but only relevantly recently been discovered or are they new conditions?

'Surely, teaching our children to be careful and not be sexually active at a young age with mutiple partners is more important than just vaccinating them against H.P.V. '

Not necessarily, as you can easily contract multiple strains of HPV from a) only one partner b) not necessarily engaging in penetrative intercourse.

Furthermore, you can carry mulitple strains of HPV for decades or even for life and never have an abnormal smear, cancer, precancerous cells, etc.

No one is exactly sure what makes the virus behave in such a way that it starts to produce abnormalities and/or cancer, although there is a not insignificant body of evidence now that does link smoking with increased risk of developing cervical cancer.

But in many there is no real or definitive explanation.

My 2 DDs will be having it.

There may not be any evidence of it's long term safety but there is plenty of evidence of the devastating effects of cervical cancer in women - young and old.

The reasoning for the double peak is that they are 2 different types of cervical cancer, the second peak (caused mainly by adenocarcinomas) being less related to HPV and more related to older age.

The reasoning for vaccinating boys is:

1. Girls usually catch HPV from boys. If boys were immunised, it would help protect those girls that aren't immunised. When the uptake of vaccine is below 80%, you lose the herd immunity effect which helps to protect the non-vaccinated. Pilot studies of HPV vaccine have suggested approximately 70% uptake rate, therefore the net needs to be cast more widely.

1. HPV doesn't just cause cervical cancer, it causes anal cancers in men who have sex with men. The numbers affected who die each year exceed that of women dying of cervical cancer. It is a nasty disease, and we have the means to help prevent it.

I haven't read the entire thread, so apologies for any repetition, but there have been 2 cases where young women have died a short while after having the vaccine, although a connection hasn't been proven. I don't intend to scare anyone, but it's better to be fully informed.

Here's the article, if anyone wants a translation, let me know:

www.sueddeutsche.de/,tt6m1/wissen/artikel/499/155095/

The double peak is more recent - basically the women in the middle are being taken out by smear testing. Smoking quadruples your chance of having cervical dysplasia and doubles the chance of getting cervical cancer - and as women have been smoking more, and starting younger thats a key factor.

HPV interferes with the ligase that repairs DNA damage and so allows DNA that is damaged to go on, rather than being dealt with within the cell

newpup ! - I was careful, not sexually active at a young age, didnt have multiple partners; I was also sensible and respected myself but my very first smear at 21 showed I had hpv and pre-cancerous cells which needed treatment and much follow-up.

I will be teaching my dd to be all of the above but I will also give her the vaccine if it is still around when she is older.

georgesdinosaur. I certainly did not mean to imply that anybody who has been unfortunate enough to catch H.P.V. has been all of those things I would not assume that about anyone. However, those things do increase your chances obviously, of catching an S.T.D which essentially the vaccine is for.

I am angry that the government is 'selling' parents the vaccine as an anti-cancer drug. It is not. Is is a vaccine against H.P.V.

It is the way the they (the government) imply that this is the way forward. Parents should make an informed decision about vaccinating their children. I imagine there will be some parents who believe their daughters are being protected aginst cervical cancer. They are being protected aginst H.P.V.

there will be a lot more known about this vaccine by the time my two dds are old enough for it, but even now i would be inclined to say that im all for them having it. cancer is a terrible disease that no one should have to go through and the more we can do to help prevent it the better imo.

are the government selling it as a vaccine against cancer? i havent really researched it or watched much about it since my two are far too young but i knew that it was a vaccination against HPV not cancer.

and as for teaching them to be sexually aware and respect themselves i think any parent would do that but HPV is not really caught by being sexually permissive. say if your 17 y o daughter lost her virginty to a boy she had been with since the age of 13, which would be fine. she could get it then.

also how do you know for sure that you kids will a) believe what you tell them and not their stupid mates who tell them things like "oh no you cant get pg as long as you stand on your for five minutes afterwards" or "no you can only get std's after you have slept with three people" and other such bollocks that niave teenagers believe and b) will they care even if they do believe you? most teenagers are invincible you know, it will never happen to them it only happens to others.

of course i will educate my daughters but i will still do as much as i can to help protect them and they will have this vaccine.

Newpup - I'm sorry but you are utterly wrong! The World health Organization recognise the HPV virus as the causative agent for the vast majority >70% of cases of cervical cancer. So the vaccine MOST DEFINITELY IS an anticancer vaccine.

HPV is endemic (meaning most people carry it) in the community and is not an STD in the traditional sense in that you do not actually have to have penetrative sex to catch it and condoms do not protect against it. It can be caught through genital contact as it's found in the skin cells of the genital area.

I cannot find a single solid and logical argument against using this vaccine - it will save lives and prevent most cases of cervical cancer. We'll start to see the real benefits in about 20 years or so. I will be arranging for both my boys to have the quadruple vaccine when they're old enough to protect them and anyone they sleep with. The quad vaccine also protects against the most common HPV strains that cause genital warts but NICE in its wisdom decided cos the dual vaccine is cheaper to go for that - short sighted IMO. Also IMO its almost a social responsibility.

PS. I'm not a rep or even a doc but have looked at the research

newpup. I agree that these things can increase your chances of catching an STI but i also think its important that young people understand that yuo can have only one faithful partner all your life and still be at risk of an STI.

I don't live in the UK so haven't seen 'publicity' or anything for the vaccine but having read about it inthe papers and online, IMO I think it's clear that it is to prevent HPV which can be a cause of cervical cancer. But that maybe because I know too much about it!

Pheebe (sorry, took me so long to post I x-posts!)I didn't know that condoms didn't protect against HPV. And interesting to hear about the quad vacc - I will look into it nearer the time. Thanks for that info.

Pheebe. With respect, H.P.V. whilst being a causative agent is not cancer.

The vaccine is not a vaccine against cancer.
I repeat, it is a vaccine against H.P.V. There is a difference.

Whilst I agree you do not have to have penetrative sex to catch H.P.V. you would have to have intimate contact.

Shesells, call me naive but I would like to educate my daughters to be a little bit more aware than to believe anybody telling them the things you suggested. Of course, teenagers have often not developed a full sense of risk at this stage but I hope that they are equipped to cope with peer pressure of any sort.

With regard to the press coverage, I can only say that it clearly states on the front page of the paper I can see from my chair 'girls to be offered anti-cancer drug'.

Looks like it will provoke a lot debate

Well, newpup, I have always had a terrific self-esteem.

But when I was a teen, I was a horny young thing.

I just was randy.

I chose to lose my virginity when I was 16 to a 23-year-old Frenchman because I wanted to.

No peer pressure, no lack of respect for myself. I wanted a lover and selected him very carefully. I was well aware of how much power I had as a very attractive young woman.

I enjoyed having sex, always with condoms.

I was also a clever person who was good at lying to my parents.

No matter how well you educate your children, they may be more sexually mature than you realise or can even account for.

expat. You sound like you were a wonderfully mature teenager and if you have no regrets and looked after yourself then all is well.

reading back my posts I do seem a little like a 'nun'. I am not but I can only hope for the best for my daughters and I refuse to write them off just yet as potential sexually reckless madams!

I will do my best and time will tell. Well, either that or lock them in their bedrooms until they are 25!!

"You worry about what vaccinations can do to the rest of your system to some extent." yes

• although I am not concerned about other general vaccinations so I don't know why new ones worry me, but they do.