OMG - teen dies after being given cervical cancer vaccine

[GirlsAreLOud]

here

(apols for DM link)

The answer is condoms and regular smears. Cervical cancer is curable. If caught early enough. though smears they can detect PRE cancer at 3 different stages.

Educating your children about safe sex is vital.

Sadly this wasn't just a pimple on the nose. I still don't want DD to have this, it's not going to save her life. Agree with Seeyounexttuesday. Condoms and Smears more effective in the long term than a vaccine that is effective for 6 years.

at least six years, probably much longer

There are many questions unanswered about programme, that's the problem.

I'm not saying DD won't have this vaccine but not next week. She can get it later if she wants in the doctors surgery.

young women aren't offered smears tho abouteve, that's part of the problem. And it's a little naive to assume all young people will use condoms - they all get told that but the high rate of teenage pregnancies show that they don't all heed the advice. I understand that you don't even have to have had a lot of sexual partners to be at risk now (as I think was once the case?) The only point i am trying to make is that the

Who is going to believe them this time when they say it's a serious underlying condition?

Nauseating. Are they saying: by the way, we didn't test it on certain groups but we didn't tell those certain groups before we started the programme? No, of course not.

The "serious underlying condition" is probably nothing more or less than a fatal allergy to the vaccine and its ingredients.

Avrilh i shouldn't think you even have a teenage daughter. Comparing it to a pimple on the nose isn't being bothered to take it seriously, it's just sort of point scoring.

I can't believe the announcement is 'serious underlying health condition' after how often that phrase has been overused in swine flu cases. It's laughable that the government/ NHS should take a potentially massive wobble in public confidence so lightly.

this is yet another example of irresponsible and inflammatory "news" reporting

what is inflammatory, should there be a blackout? which bit do you have a problem with

it dropped down the order quite quickly yesterday

So are they going to test everyone first to see if they have an underlying health condition? Of course not, so parents are expected to just accept that it is for the greater good if their child dies?
Public health priorities - the greatest good for the greatest number, and a small number of fatalities is acceptable - is always in conflict to the parents priority which is the well-being of their own child.
There are numersous sdied effects with all vaccines - just read the accompnaying leaflet if you are allowed access to it - but parents are blithely reassured there is no risk from heath workers who have a differnt priority.

GPs are told more than us and they don't pass it on

We've looked at the leaflet again and it states that even with the vaccine regular smears are still required. It's 25 for the first one, which I think is reasonable.

I might sound naive but I know that DD hasn't 'gone with' any boys yet and when she does she will ensure she is careful especially in light of all this information about HPV and cervical cancer. It's brought the condition in the open which is the one good thing to come out of it.

We didn't have this information when we were teens. We went on the pill and thought that was all we needed to do. I'm please that our girls our now educated in sexual health. She won't be having the vaccine in school next week.

I am very pro-vaccination in general, but I think it's ridiculous for our govt to spend a huge amount of money on a, IMHO, useless vaccine.

To reduce the incidence of cervical cancer, STDs and teenage pregnancy, I think the money could have been put to better use on a rigorous sex education programme that begins in Year 1.

DH reckons she had a cardiac problem

i paid for my daughter to have it done priveatley when she was just 15.

received a letter from the doctor last week saying she could have it free.

at this point it becomes a waste of public money.

the vaccine is most efective in those who have not had sexual intercourse. i think that at 16.5 its too late.

Can anyone link to the fact stated further down that the vaccine may only be effective for 6 years? My dd is only 12 so (now I know I may be naive here!) if she did not become sexually active until she was an adult, i.e. 18 is there any point in her having it now as presumable she would need a booster at 18? I take your point Custy about it being more effective if they have it before they are sexually active - so I am thinking it would make more sense to wait until she is 15 or 16? (I know some of you will say she may be sexually active by then but I sincerely hope not.)

I think its more like the vaccine hasn't been around all that long, so the most they can say is, 'six years after vaccination, the test subjects were still immune to HPV'

www.immunisation.nhs.uk/Vaccines/HPV/About_the_HPV_vaccine/How_long_does_protection_last_for

Hope the link works.

Oops sorry about the gap.

Would like to point out that condoms whilst vital to help prevent stds and HPV they are not the be all and end all - they do not make sex safe merely safer.

The failure rate for pregnancy is still higher for condoms than most other forms of contraception - if you factor in the chances of getting pregnant - they the actual failure rate of being exposed to an std or HPV must be considerably higher.

So women who use condoms can still be susceptible to HPVs and still get cervical cancer - although the risk is lower there may be a false sense of 'It won't happen to me'.

i have not had time to read the entire thread and probably what i have to say will be seen as unpopular, but i have my reservations about the vaccine and the message it sends out

cervical cancer is associated with

1. early start to sexual relationships
2. multiple partners

OF COURSE I know you can get HPV from your only partner, OF COURSE there are women who have never had sex or very few partners, or never had HPV but still get cancer. Family history is another risk factor, and families with a genetic risk might reasonably be first in the queue for the vaccine for their DDs.

if you think your child is going to start having sex as young as 12/13, then FGS talk to them about using condoms all the time - they prevent STDs as well as unwanted pgs and HPV is an STD. Not everyone who has it will develop cancer of the cervix, and not everyone who develops cancer of the cervix has been exposed to HPV. you might get some lulled into a false sense of security eg, "i am not worried about these odd symptoms because I have been vaccinated so can't possibly have cervical cancer".

Am I the only one who will be encouraging their DDs to wait till they are in a serious long term relationship before indulging in sex.I think it is sad so many assume this is not going to happen. If once they are 16 mine want the vaccine, then that is their choice.

Yes butas Beachcomber said if you already have HPV, it can make it worse. That's the argument for having it earlier.

I don'tthink the tests have even been going on for six years. Have they? Where does it say they started the tests in 2003? I thought they only developed the vaccine max four years ago.

Peedoffwithnits - I was told that cervical cancer wasn't hereditary.

hmm it doesn't say anything on that NHS website about needing boosters after 6 years - they obviously haven't thought that far ahead

POWN - I will also be one of those locking up dissuading my daughter from becoming sexually active too young - that is why I am not unsure of the wisdom of her having the vacc so young.

Our heart felt sorrow goes out to the family of Natalie Morton.

The government health minister/s are insisting that the cervical cancer vaccination programme to go ahead, based on the initial post mortem results suggesting that the schoolgirl had a serious underlying health condition which meant it was 'unlikely' the vaccine had caused her death. Yet, the local health trust in Coventry, which made the announcement, would not give any further details to the nature of the problem or more importantly what this underlying is? Why are they keeping this information so secret and withholding it from the public? Does the Natalie's parents know this information or not I wonder, or are they keeping this information from them as well? Anyway all the female pupils and their parents have a right to know this underlying issue that they say that Natalie had because there could be another person with the same. Or are the health authorities under (perhaps) indirect pressure from the government health minister/s not to disclose information to the public in fear of their programme failing (which would be seen as political blow to them with their current conference being held in Brighton and the general election round the corner - next year)?

Coming back to Natalie's initial post mortem results, which I personally have little trust given the above perception and also, G20 Mr Ian Tomlinson's initial post mortem which was flawed and incorrect (when all relevant authorities including home office minister/s tried to suppress from the truth coming out). It was only when a second independent post mortem which was carried out (intitiated by Mr Tomlinson's family and the IPCC, carried out by Dr Nat Cary), revealed that the first post mortem was incorrect and flawed, which was carried out by the Home Office's own pathologist Dr Freddy Patel who we later learned was reprimanded by General Medical Council prior to conducting Mr Tomlinson's initial post mortem, no doubt under the home office minister/s instruction to do so (perhaps to prevent the truth from coming out)?

The big question in my own mind now, is; Could the same tactics be employed by the government health minister/s with Natalie's death? If not, then why are they not being transparent and holding back information and who has carried out Natalie's initial post mortem and under whose instruction? Is it independent?

My daughter was hand out a consent form for us to fill in for the cervical cancer vaccination programme on the same day that Natalie Morton passed away. As a parent, in light of the above and the authorities chaos I will not give consent for my daughter to have the vaccination. Personally I can not trust another minister/politician at their face value. Further, this vaccination is said to prevent one getting or developing cancer later in their live which can only be attracted through sexual intercourse. Therefore, giving 12 to 13 year olds this vaccination now is kind of indirectly encouraging and/or telling these young girls that they would be safe at their age from such intercourse. It is sending out wrong signals at a early age. Personally this programme should be introduced in parallel to the legal age of consent, when they would be young ladies (not girls) to decide for themselves as to whether they should take the vaccination or not? With the government health minister/s pushing this on to 12 to 13 year old female pupils is irresponsible and will indirectly lead to those pupils to enact and explore their sexual experiences as they will regard themselves as being safe with the vaccination, which would lead young pregnancies and single parent families, thus a burden on the social security?

Where is the sense, if the cancer is not diagnosed until much later in a female's life, then why not postpone such vaccination if found to be safe at the age of consent? Why is government health minister/s using young girls as guinea pigs to meet their own political agendas? Why.......Why......Why?