HPV - looking for informed opinions please.

[pleasedeletemeletmego]

I consented for my dd to have this jab some months ago. The week it was due she wasn't 100% well and I was wavering as to whether she should have it. The day before her jab Natalie Morton died and I withdrew consent.

As yet she hasn't had it and I seem to have lost confidence in making a decision.

I'm not anti-vax - dd has had all her other jabs but in the Autumn she had the swine flu jab and had her worst winter ever. I was swayed by the government/media frenzy and it was against my better judgement.
I'm in a quandary about it TBH and would welcome some informed opinions.

Thanks.

Hmm... I don't have a daughter, so no personal experience, but if I did, I think I'd be waiting and looking at all available evidence of safety first...
Why?

I used to work in the pharma industry, and I've seen first hand the pressure to get new vaccines (and other products) launched with just the first wave of required safety data.
The first people receiving any new medicine are, to some extent, just the final stage - mass market testing....

I was a little unsure but my eldest dd 15 has had the first 2 parts and the 3rd part is on thursday and she has been fine, she felt a little unwell and her arm was painful but thats it.
Apparently you can have a different strain of the vaccine at the doctors, its meant to be better and has to be ordered but I was happy to go ahead.
But I didn't agree with the swine flu jab and none of mine had that.She has just had her diptheria, tetnus and polio booster as well and it all seems quite alot to have in one year but she's fine.
Ive got another dd due to have it next year and she will have it as well.

Thanks for that fluffy.

The 'wait and see' approach is slightly problematic in that dd is 16 and if we wait and she becomes sexually active the horse may have bolted so to speak.

I take your point about the mass market testing and think that was the case with the swine flu. I felt initially that for her, the benefit of the jab outweighed the risk. However the risk of the disease itself was overstated it seems.

Dan, yes that is another thing to think about - dd will now have to have it via the GP if we go ahead. Is one vax better/less risky than another?

I can't discount it Chuck.

dd has a complex health problem and I find it difficult to accept the coincidence that Natalie's condition which could have killed her at any moment, actually did so soon after her having the vaccination.

My neice didn't have it. She had all of her other vacs but my sister started to research things more and she didn't have the extra "booster" of stuff, nor this one. But I guess that is irrelevant, obviously she is 16 - she know why it is there and how she can help prevent these things herself. Arm her with a bag full of condoms!! Wiki only says MAY prevent

Thanks maxi dh is already going postal at the thought of a boyfriend on the scene.

I'm facing the same dilemma Pleasedeletemeletmego. The things that make me unsure are 1. It's new so nobody knows about long term effects 2.It doesn't protect them against CC completely anyway 3. If our daughters are listening to us they shouldn't be having unprotected (no condom) sex anyway, so they wouldn't be at risk of CC.
I am concerned that the risk of developing CC in the first place have been overstated and suspicious in general of huge drug companies - do GlaxoSmithKline really care about our daughters health or keeping up their massive profits? Having said that, like you, I'm not at all anti-vax per se, she's had all her other jabs up to now. For all the others the risks of the illness seemed to be worse than the minor (IMO) risks of the vacc. With this one it's the other way round, plus it's new so our 12/13 yr olds are guinea pigs.

Google it with the word paralysis and see what you get..

Have a look at the Cancer Research UK website. Reasonable balanced advice from a reliable source.

FWIW, I interviewed three relevant experts for an article about this (am a hack), including a reputable cancer specialist, a virologist who was one of the lead researchers and someone else I forget at this time of night but who was a relevant expert... and they convinced me I should pay privately to have it. Despite being sexually active for two decades hence not in the group that is targeted for maximum benefit. They all had.

I don't have the article or background research at my fingertips now but millions of women and girls around the world have had the vaccine and there is absolutely no evidence that it has caused any problems other than minor reactions you'd see with any vaccine, such as redness and swelling around the vaccination site. And a bit of hysteria as queues of teenage girls get rather over-excited.

If you take any population of millions of people, you will always find a handful who get ill or die - that's just maths and the human condition. You don't blame Coronation Street for killing X people every day, even though X people die every day after watching Corro.

(Btw, I got ds singles instead of MMR, so I'm not gung ho about vax. I do think this one is worth it.)

Only if you are paying, I'd go for the one (Gardasil?) that also offers protection against genital warts. Just because if your child is ever unlucky enough to sleep with someone with warts...

Wrt GSK -- "do they really care about our daughters or their profits?"

They really care about their profits, and only care about our daughters as it affects their profits: that is, they don't want adverse reactions because of their margins, but more than that -- they really don't want publicity about adverse reactions because of their margins. That is the beginning, end and middle of it.