Cervical Cancer Immunisation

[Davros]

I could put this in "Health" but thought it might be more appropriate here. DD is just going into Year 8 and we've been sent the consent forms for this immunisation. I'm inclined to say no as her cousin, who is now 18, had a terrible time with it, off school for months with ME type symptoms. Obviously they are related so DD may react similarly or she may be fine. I am a bit at every teenage girl being immunised and it only lasts (can't remember) 20 years? I'm interested in all advice, opinion, experiences

I think using a yellow card would make it more likely that a damaged child could get compensation, hence the resistance. See that thread I linked to. Or ask Andy Burnham.

Completely undermines the yellow card system. Solo many people do not know about it either. Of course they don't make it wide known.....people might actually report side effects!

You can report all you like, you won't get it put on a yellow card. Unless you kick up a massive fuss, and even then maybe not.

I didn't let my daughter have the HPV jab or booster in Y7 & Y8. She is now in Y9. I felt very strongly about it because I didn't want her to have a genetically modified vaccine at a time when her body was going through many changes, & after doing a lot of research nobody knows how long the vaccine lasts for, or if there will be any effects from it 25 years down the line. To me the vaccine was just too new. There is no test to know if it has caused any immune response in your body to prove any protection. It will not take in everybody.
I also spoke to my gynaecologist who said there it didn't really matter if she was immunise or not as it doesn't cover all the HPV viruses that cause cervical cancer & it's better to teach a girl to respect her body.
It's no good thinking that just because your daughters have had the vaccine you are all done & dusted & they won't get cervical cancer.

Well said moviemaker1

Our bodies naturally deal with viruses they're exposed to. However it may be that if you bombard your body with viruses from a variety of carriers, the immune system will struggle. Also of course having a healthy mind and body, including self-respect, boosts the immune system.

For fuck's sake, what's the link between 'respecting your body' and not getting cervical cancer?

It's possible to contract HPV even if you've only slept with one person. And how is having sex with multiple partners not respecting your body anyway, if that's your choice?

It's already been said on this thread: condoms do NOT fully protect against HPV.

I work in a head and neck cancer unit, and with the large increase in younger people (50s and 60s) getting head and neck cancers related to HPV exposure, I will be paying for ds to be vaccinated next year. But it's easy for me to make that decision as ds is up for it and he is (at the moment, touch wood) healthy. Also we do have the money, though it will take some saving up for.

I understand that the NHS is looking at whether boys should be included in the programme but the cost/benefit profile is different, obviously.

Anyone who is actively ill shouldn't have a vaccination at the time, I would say, because the reaction might be less effective I guess. I personally wouldn't take the statement 'don't have the third vaccine' as a definite connection to 'we think it is the vaccine that caused this illness'.

The patriarchy is alive and kicking on this thread.

No woman deserves to get ill and die of preventable diseases.

My DD have a close genetic link to MS. They have not had the HPV vaccine.

HPV vaccine does not prevent cervical cancer. It gives protection from the infections linked to 70% of cervical cancers, but not the other 30%. Smoking roughly doubles your inherent cervical cancer risk. Concurrent STD infection increases the risk of a persistent HPV infection. I consider my DD "Gillick competent" and they are aware of the health risks in sexual activity. Their peers informed them they are almost guaranteed to get cervical cancer because they have not had the HPV vaccine. I question the ethics of vaccinating large numbers of teenage girls without accompanying understanding and implementation of routine sexual health screening.

(There are roughly 10,000 breast cancer cases a year in women under 49 in the UK against 2,000 cervical cancer cases. Lifetime risk of cervical cancer diagnosis is less than 1%).

I'd be a bit worried if my gynae was that misinformed, personally. Or did he say something slightly different and you have cherry-picked and/or slightly misunderstood what he actually said.

The day they give a vaccine against smoking I will be there with ds's arm outstretched.

the HPV vaccine is now two doses (they've stopped what was the second one). And how does having respect for your body stop you getting the HPV virus? .

The difference between breast cancer and cervical cancer is that cervical cancer has a screening programme that looks for cell change that if untreated may become cancerous. If women attend screening they are most often (but not always) picked up and treated if the have certain cell changes. This screening programme is very successful and this why I suspect there are far few women ring diagnosed with cervical cancer.

Breast screening does not star until a women is 47, because the screening is not cost effective or accurate at diagnosing cancer in younger breast tissue.

The hcp vaccine was trialled for years before it was launched just like all vaccines. It is a very safe vaccine that saves lives.

I'm really at the idea that teaching a girl to 'respect her body' is somehow better than vaccinating against a preventable disease. It smacks of 'only bad girls who sleep with lots of men will contract HPV'. If my gynae said a thing like that, he/she would be my ex-gynae.

I want my DDs to be as protected as they can be - DD1 has had the vaccine, DD2 will be offered it soon as she has now started Year 8. I want them protected by the vaccine and by having common sense and self-respect. This is not a zero-sum game.

Although this thread is a bit old, I'm shocked at some of the comments:
i) Aussiemom asks whether "the maths" suggest the vaccine is worth the risks. Independent of other considerations, her own maths clearly don't show it is "worth the risk" -- 700 cervical cancer deaths (clearly tragic) is a tiny, fractional percentage of total women in this country (perhaps 20,000,000 or so of sexually active age?); while 1:10,000 girls with serious bad reaction to the vaccine is not at all insignificant
ii) OPs daughter is in Y8, so presumably around age 12 -- it is shocking for me to read comments suggesting she is "at an age when she is likely to become sexually active". I do not have my head in the sand, but most 12 year old girls (and boys) I know are no where near thinking about having sex!!

I do not have a daughter and am not sure what decision I would make if I did have a daughter - but I do think OP is right to question and consider whether this vaccine is right for her own child. There is no comparison between this decision and decisions regarding eg MMR in that any decision for a girl not to be immunised does not cause a health threat to other people.

'any decision for a girl not to be immunised does not cause a health threat to other people' - well, yes it does - people she has sex with.

Economic evaluation of HPV vaccination in the UK from the BMJ. I'll be honest, I haven't read it in detail but it does explain that yes, there is a substantial cost to the programme but according to agreed values assigned to the benefits, it DOES make economic sense to carry out this programme. Fundamentally, people don't just die of cervical cancer, they are expensively treated (we hope) for a long time (we hope) and then lose years of productive life if they do die. People who develop early cancers and pre-cancers of all the types linked to HPV exposure also need lots of expensive treatment.

Bet the economic evaluation doesn't include compensation to the many vaccine-damaged children. Because they won't pay it. Again, see Andy Burnham webchat linked to above. If nothing else, people, read that thread - I was shocked.

Why is it only childhood vaccines that are said to cause damage? why don't I get ill from all the vaccines I had to have for work?.

We cant just be grateful for the opportunity to reduce the risk of a generation dying early from cancer.

This has just been posted on another thread:

healthimpactnews.com/2015/gardasil-vaccine-in-denmark-serious-adverse-reactions-now-number-1-in-500-girls/

I'm not too sure I trust the source of that Danish info....

I read the Andy Burnham thread and saw a high number of posters asking about HPV vaccine safety due to illnesss post vaccine in their daughters. Much googling later I also read this which I personally found helpful, particularly given the size of the studies which showed no link between autoimmune dysfunction and HPV vaccine.

I'm not a scientist but I have in the past studied history and I know that every vaccine in every time has always been accused of causing illness - a big example being the 1832 cholera immunisation programme. I also know that there ARE adverse reactions to vaccines, particularly in those with existing health conditions. I'm not someone who posts on here saying 'why aren't you idiots vaccinating' but I've known a lot of people get chronic illness in their mid to late teens long before HPV vaccination was a twinkle in the government's eye.

Elibean me either - looks like a tinfoil hat anti vax group to me...