OMG - teen dies after being given cervical cancer vaccine

[GirlsAreLOud]

here

(apols for DM link)

Avril, a recent report in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)stated the the incidence of blood clots was "disproportional" and one of the report's authors said it is "worrisome" and that they are concerned about this particular side effect.

Unfortunately post marketing surveillance of vaccines is a numbers game. You get 10 girls who drop down dead with thrombrosis in the period following vaccination and you can probably call it a coincidence. If the numbers start to climb then the coincidence line starts to wear thin and look a little unscientific. If you have girls dropping down dead from effects that were identified in the safety trials then it starts to look like you are going to have to recognise that particular event as a known adverse reaction.

This is about where we are at with Gardasil (too early for Cervarix).

When people like the JAMA start to admit that there is a problem things begin to get kinda official.

Of course all these reports of blood clots (not all of them deaths thankfully) are being described as happening in people who are pre-disposed to the condition.

And there we have it, that is the problem with vaccines. Not everybody reacts the same, some (most) people are just dandy and some people drop down dead with a whole spectrum of reactions in between. The supposed point of VAERS and the Yellow Card system is to figure out who is at risk from adverse reaction and then screen those sorts of individuals out of the programme. In theroy, great. In practice most events are declared a coincidence, very little screening happens, and children who are pre-disposed (and whose parents may be completely unaware of the fact) continue to line up to get a vaccine that quite possibly will no longer protect them from HPV by the time they become sexually active. Let's hope they survive the booster, eh?

Even if the vaccine does protect girls when they become sexually active, there are many other problems with this vaccine like the question of serotype replacement over which currently there is hanging a big fat unscientific question mark...

Notmumbutadad manufacturers have been unable to obtain licensing for HPV vaccines in older women (they tried). I'm guessing this is because the vaccine has been shown to seriously worsen some cases of pre-exisiting HPV infection (which are more likely to occur in older women).

It's a case of jab 'em young, run to the bank and hope for the best.

notmumbutdad
"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?"

whatever the arguments regarding safety of the vaccine, i must take you up on this point above.

its akin to saying that sex education encourages young people to have sex.

the point of the vaccine is that it is most effective in non sexualy active women.

in that case 12/13 sounds like a good age.

also, if it were put in line with the age of consent (16) then presuming ( and its a huge presumtion) that girls don't have sexual contact until that age, i think its a big decision for them to make as 16 year olds as to whether they should have the vaccine or not. this is the realm of parents, this huge decision making process is for us as parents to make given the knowledge that we find out, discuss and research - rather than based on panicky news reports.

It's all very well 'encouraging your daughters to wait' but...

Did any of us have parents who didn't encourage us to wait to have sex?
And how did that turn out?
And even if you waited till you were 16/engaged/married/whatever, did all your friends?
And in those awkward teenage years of sweaty fumbling, did you always feel in a position to insist that the boy used a condom? Did all your friends? No pregnancy scares? No STDs?

The thinking behind 12/13 is to catch all the girls before any of them become sexually active.
We had rubella vaccinations at school, I don't recall thinking, woo-hoo, now I can go out and get pregnant...

no i was thinking " i hope mine doesn't pop-up and go red or else i have to have 6 scary huge needles and i might faint"

those were always the rmours!

seriously though - the argument that it encourages sex - astounds me

I think the government should use the vaccine money for earlier smear testing. 25 is too long to wait.

All sexually active women should be given the right to screening.

It is a treatable cancer if caught early enough. The smear results are an indication of pre cancerous cells in 3 stages. Therefore, with good sex education, and regular screening i believe the money would be better spent.

indeed sunt

I think the logic that giving young girls an HPV vaccine encourages them to start having sex is ludicrous.

I doubt there is a teenage girl anywhere that thinks "well I'd held off on having sex until now, but now I've had a vaccine that may protect me from cervical cancer I'm off to start having sex".

Those that believe this sort of thing are seriously naive as to the reasons why young people start having sex.

oh but they might think : don't need to use a condom

I think they might think that, you know what teenagers are like, just another excuse not to use a condom

I don't think they will stuffitllama - the condom message is drummed into them so much IME that if they weren't using condoms before their HPV jab then having it won't make them any more or less likely afterwards.

I find that those teens that use condoms will use them anyway because they are clued up on all the benefits that condoms offer; however there are always a number of young people that don't use condoms regardless and I'm not sure that the HPV vaccine alone will change their minds/actions.

Certainly we have been giving them the message that an HPV vaccine is not the only way to reduce the risk of HPV transmission and condoms should still be used and smears needed in the future. But obviously I can't speak for all School Health teams.

It is a tricky one

abouteve your ignorance and naivety (sp) is quite frankly shocking.
Things you have said and referred to on this thread make no rational sense whatsoever.

As I said before my dd has been vaccinated for this, with no problems. As with any vaccine or drug there will be people who have reactions but how we process that information is what matters.

I am pro-vac and believe that every child should be vaccinated, however I do appreciate that there are parents on here who have done proper medical research and/or vaccinated their child in a different way for many different reasons.
What makes me is when people read things on the internet or cross information with drugs that are not even being given in this country to make an uninformed decision regarding the health and wellbeing of their child.

I don't know Sidge, I think that's just as naive as expecting them not to have sex! The no sex message can be drummed into them too!

mosschops, the decision is uninformed anyway! tell me, did you know this hadn't been tested on immune impaired groups? if so, how did you get this information?

not quite as uninformed as talking about the perils of Gardasil, that it causes genital warts??? or that 'something i read on the internet' la la la and now Im not even consaidering it. And as for making sure our daughters always use condoms is just laughable quite frankly, unless you plan to be present for all your daughter's sexual experiences.

I did not know it hadnt been tested on immune impaired groups, but then I dont belong to an immune imapied group and AFAIK neither do my dc's, so why would I?
Like I said, for children with other issues or health problems then I respect those parents who make alternative arrangements or decide not to vaccinate.
When you decide not to vaccinate because youve seen something on YouTube or are reading up on a drug thats not given in this country then I do not respect your decision!

I think Beachcomber provided jolly good links for that, if you go back and check Moss. Really solid links, so you're a bit (a lot) wrong on that.

I agree with you about the condoms, Sidge said it was drummed into them so they wouldn't think they don't have too.

You don't know your children aren't in an immune impaired group, so you haven't made an informed decision, though you might like to think so. That's a bit "I'm alright Jack!"

I mean, this girl's parents didn't know either! So basically it's an uninformed risk for you. Although not now I've told you of course, possibly a bit late in the day! I think GPs should say it up front. Instead of just saying, whatever, thoroughly tested, because that's just not true! And people don't know if their children are in that group, like you. So that's a decision made in ignorance, really.

Moss why do you make that presumption on the Youtube thing? I think you can only make that judgement about the OP. Where did you get your info from? The NHS? Did you bother to go further than that? We share one source GSK. But I had to dig for mine while you just bought the info in the leaflet am I right to presume that?

It's all there, from good sources, and you don't have to wallow around in dodgy ones to find it!

Oh I agree stuffit, the no sex message is pushed as well, at least in our area. I was referring to those young people who are already having sex or planning to, and how I don't think that the HPV message affects their decision making in that respect at all. There are far too many other factors involved.

not willing to get into a tit-4-tat argument with you because I havent got time.
Beachcombers posts refer to Gardasil from what I can see, which is not being used in the HPV programme in the UK.
No I dont know 100% if my children are immune impaired, but yes I have to give them what I think is best with the information I have, if every parent in the UK didnt vaccinate just incase then we'd be in a sorry state.
The YouTube reference was made about an earlier thread, proving my point that people will read stuff wherever it is and take it as good material.
FYI I am a health professional and know a bit about good and bad research (I stree 'a bit' - I am by no means an expert).

You have your opinion and I have mine, and thats what life is about, Im as entitled to mine as you are to yours. I will continue to vaccinate my children as I see fit, and nothing you say will sway me from that because you are a Mnetter not (AFAIK) a medical research bod.

No that's right, she was responding to someone who said they were worried about it causing genital warts, and someone said "that's nuts" (more or less) and so she provided links to say actually, it's not nuts, but it's about Gardasil.

Gosh am not trying to persuade you Mosschops. Especially not with your white coat on, which might be an attempt to impress, but as you imagine, isn't that effective. Doctors and health professionals have been wrong many times, and will be wrong again, so we really ought to educate ourselves as much as possible, especially when they are in possession of info which they don't really want to share (even with other health professionals like you, apparently!)

No, am not trying to persuade, but it's better to have an informed decision, and let's face it, you might not change your opinion, but at least you know more about Cervarix and Gardasil than you did before this thread!

dd should have been having this tomorrow. I've withdrawn consent as she is off school today with a temp and I would feel better about it if she was as well as she can be. The tone of the person I spoke to about it this afternoon left a lot to be desired. She obviously has me pegged as hysterical and over anxious; it's unhelpful to treat real concerns in this way.

SMBK - it is outrageous that someoone should treat you as hysterical when yuo are making a perfectly ratianl jusdgement - ie not to have the vaccine when yuor DD is ill, but wait itll she is better! Interestingly, when I hadbooked my DS in for a private single measles vaccine, the doctor refused to administer it as he had a slight ( not noticable to me) temperature - told me to come back anotehr day which I did. At the local docs, for other jabs, they have never taken his temperature or asked if he is healthy - barely even looked at him.

Mosschops, read the link posted by beachcomber, Oh I see you have, yes it was about Gardisil I already stated that.

Your comments were very rude and uncalled for. I'm furious. Some of us on this thread are still trying to decide if our DD's should have this jab, your's has and I'm pleased she was OK after it.

Mosschops there is very little by way of post marketing info on Cervarix because it hasn't been used for very long. I appreciate that a different brand is being used in the UK to the US but I happen to be interested in discussing HPV vaccines and not brands and marketing.

I am discussing HPV vaccines in a similar way to the way I would discuss MMR vaccines or DPT vaccines. I live in France and the DPT that is given here is not the same brand as the DTP which is given in the UK, same for MMR.

Actually this is the first time I've seen people discuss different brands rather than discuss vaccines as their type. Both of these vaccines are HPV vaccines, yes they have their differences as they have similarities (same for MMR and DPT vaccines).

Both of these vaccines are being marketed in similar ways ie as cancer vaccines when they have yet to prevent a single case. Both of these vaccines are being given to age groups on which there have been limited safety trials. Both vaccines cause young girls to faint and some poor souls to develop Guillian Barre Syndrome. Both vaccines have been implicated in concerning numbers of adverse reactions and of similar types including blood cloting.

Of course we can hope for the best that our government has made a better choice that the US government and that Gardasil is more reactive than Cervarix. Seems a touch all right Jackish to me but hey each to their own.

If it turns out that both vaccines are turkeys we would do well to pay careful attention to what is happening in the US.

If all turns out well for those in the UK then we will have lost nothing more than a little time in having checked out the US situation.

not rude or uncalled for IMHO - if you dont like people being honest and giving their opinions then dont come on sites like this looking for answers because not everyone will agree with you.

Mosschops, and another thing, how do you know that my DD doesn't have an underlying medical problem, fyi, she is seeing a specialist for a problem that we are hoping to get a diagnosis on later next month.

X post.

Don't want to get into a silly squabble but how is saying that someone's ignorance is "shocking" disagreeing with their opinions?

If you disagree than post summat of interest about why rather than engaging in personal attack.

I'm always astounded that posters think that most of us who decline vaccines do so from a position of ignorance. Very odd idea.