New jab for cervical cancer

[mdrooney]

has anyone else seen the tv adds for the new jabs for yr8 girls for the cervical cancer jab I have read a little about it but dont know much about it, I have two dds one in yr8 and the other in yr7 dos anyone know any more information are they going to give the jabs in school, and what do you think.? what I read about on the negative side is that it could give girls a false sense of security and the age limet for smears will be raised. has anyone else any more information please.

As far as I know, my daughters' school are only doing it for Yr 8 right now (I have one in 7 and one in 9).

Hi,
I have a year 8 tutor group and thought you might be interested to know what has happened in our school - parents of yr 8 girls had an info pack containing leaflets about the vaccine and a consent form which needed to be returned in order for the girls to get the vaccine in school.

We also had an assembly which talked about the vaccines to both boys and girls to help them understand a bit more about it.

The catch up program has started too with year 12 and 13. I believe from our school nurse that the other older girls will get caught up over the next few years although parents can pay at the GP to get it done sooner should you want to/ have concerns about your daughter becoming sexually active.

The NHS website is quite good "look at www.immunisation.nhs.uk/Vaccines/HPV"

Hope that is useful.

Very useful - thank you.

Scarfmaker -
Only just seen your query. We have paid for dd to have the jab at 15 (16 next year). Whilst I would love to wrap her in virginal white cotton wool until she's 30, realistically, she is likely to be sexually active before she is 18, when we were told she would be 'caught up' in the programme.

my stepdaughter has just had the jab, it was offered at college and she is nearly 18 . They came around and she decided it would be a good idea have it . we had already talked about her going to the dr's to have it, when they just turned up at college.

yeah its ridiculous this mad "u must all have jab" thing goin on in the UK.. without not enough research and testing. the daily mail says today (Sept 30, espec see article on page 5..),SAYS"the huge nationwide programme (note: NOT happening in the rest of europe in schools, only in doctors surgeries),-has partly been driven by naked commercial pressure. Its not clear yet that these vaccines even work anythin like as effectively as their promoters claim. Gardisil/Cervarix only preventa fraction of the number of viruses that can lead to cerv cancer, in truth by suppressing these particular viruses they may actually ENCOURAGE growth of others in their place.Around 80% of sexually active women can expect to be infected with HPV at some point, & most will fight off the infection ON THIER OWN.(note).the vaccine protects against the sexually transmitted disease HPV"etc ..(SO, while they are still having doubts bout standard of vaccs quality and side effects, cant teens just use condoms til theyre 16 and its been more tested?
the article further says: the tragic ironly for Natalie Morton, who died, was that the injection may have triggered a reaction FAR more lethal than any future, distant threat of a comparatively rare disease. She is sadly an example of WHY parents should wait until this vaccine is much more thoroughly tested fine tuned and we are sure its not just mass "following the rest of the sheep" in all having our kids given this jab.Lyn, WSM

Just heard on radio that Natalie Morton died from a tumour on her heart that "could have killed her at any time". So, nothing to do with the Cerv. vaccine.

I am amazed how some people believe that the cash-strapped NHS is just dying to hand over millions in taxpayers' money to corrupt drug companies in order to give our daughters, at best a useless treatment, at worst one that will positively harm them.

Cervical cancer affects 3,000 women each year in the UK, kills 1,000, and many more women are recalled after abnormal smears. Cervarix is not perfect, and won't prevent infection from every kind of cancer-causing HPV virus, but the figures for Cervarix show it offers very good protection against the two that are responsible for 70% of cervical cancer cases. As for side effects: mainly fainting, local soreness, headaches etc. 1.4m doses given in UK so far, and no deaths. More trials are always a good idea for any drug or treatment, but there is no evidence this treatment does harm and plenty it is potentially very useful in the fight against a horrible cancer. New medicines, by definition, take time to show exactly how effective they will be. The NHS is committed to evidence-based medicine, and I don't think it will put money where there's no evidence of effectiveness.

yes and 1 that indeed isnt even fully approved by the U.S.A Food and Drug Administration Body. D.Mail saysclosely copying wording]: "USA Regulators have delayed their decision to approve Cervarix. The body announced it needed moer time to consider the applicatino. The FDAs renewed caution came a day after the death of Natalie Morton".--- My opinion is yes, she had underlying health problems, but it was the CERVICARIX jab that tipped her over the edge? which indeed Gardasil its equivalent in other countries has also done, several teens have died after Gardasil jab? would they have died otherwise??..d.mail: "THERE HAS BEEN QUESTIONS over the adjuvant in the vaccine, Adjuvants are substances that boost the immune system to a vaccine." yet we are giving out this vaccine willy nilly in the UK?? to young teens that bearing in mind shouldnt even be HAVING sex at age 12?? mad. and considering it only covers for 10 years, surely mor testing can be done before bothering to vaccine for 10yr cover and taking chances on the risks?? Yes many will have had the jab the parents are entitled to their opinion, but Im erring on the side of caution, best to be on the safe side i reckon.

and yes the government does get it wrong, indeed has many times before, cjd...mad cow disease, swine flu, ..E Coli, sending kiddys to animal farms they should have closed,and years ago remember Thalidomide?? .....says it all. once again i reiterate, err on the side of caution. Teens health should not be put at risk until extensive THOROUGH research and approval is given to these jabs. yes many will not have any problems with it healthwise, but for the 1s that do, the risk was too high, for the sake of cervical cancer which remember...my age group, 40s has never even HAD the jab?? yes lots die, but nowhere NEAR as many as flu, other types cancers, and indeed cervical cancer is THE most curable, and treated by laser. As much as i dont wish cervical cancer on any1, i just think more testing and more research is done, before nationwide giving out of this jab is achieved.

..Dr Diane Harper, one of the worlds LEADING cervical cancer experts, a scientist, today said" health officials and drugfirm bosses are exaggerating the jabs' benefits. She claims parents are not being properly warned about the 'small but potentially adverse' risks of Cervarix & other vaccines.she believes it should have been tested for another 4yrs before being introduced in britain. Parents must be told the duration of the vaccine is unknown {stated in some papers as being MAX 10yrs cover}4,567 reports of adverse reactions". I SAY: & yes the girl thats partly paralyzed, still sitting in a wheelchair for months ill and suffering, instead of achieving her previously potential sporting ambitions..ISNT DEAD..thankfully. BUT wheres her quality of life gone?? - the jab doesnt prevent 30% of cervical cancers, which means women will STILL hav to have smears for precancerous lesions.Gardisil distributed in the US and rest of europe protects against genital warts...for the duration of the vaccine cover. yet a lot of teens have also had awful reactions and indeed died, from that vaccine. Im not saying they shouldnt have it at all EVER, just it needs fine tuning and mor testing than has been done on cervarix to date. My daughter is postponing the jab as agreed by me and her (part scientist job) father,and she will make an adult decision on having it when 16-18 yrs old.

Er, vCJD alias mad cow disease was nothing to do with NHS - was to do with relaxation of controls on heat-treating animal feeds (blame EU for that). Swine flu? the jury is out - perhaps we will have a serious epidemic, perhaps not. If NHS had underreacted, would have still copped a load of Daily Mail flak.
The NHS doesn't run petting farms, or control farms, or have anything to do with farms!
Thalidomide was 50 years ago! And lessons were certainly learned.
Poor Natalie could have died "at any time" according to results from post mortem. So, if she had had a hot curry and died, is the curry to blame?

If I want medical information, I go to my GP or a recognised medical website, with no axe to grind, not the Daily Mail whose job is to sell newspapers and has no responsibility to provide scientifically balanced and nuanced stories.
Love it or loathe it, the NHS gets an awful lot right, but "1.4m girls vaccinated successfully" doesn't make a very sexy headline for Daily Mail.
Not really interested in whether or not the US gets Cervarix. It may well want more evidence of safety, but that's not the same as saying it's seen evidence of harm, just Cervarix is a newer treatment so less time has elapsed to look at longer term effectiveness and side effects.
Also, many vaccines only last a few years - HepB, cholera and typhoid. it doesn't make them pointless.

I think some people would prefer to eat their own arms than agree with the Daily Mail, even if the Daily Mail is making a fair point.

My DD will not be having the vaccine. If she wants to have it when she's 16 and therefore legally able to have sex, I don't think I'll be able to withhold my consent - but I will try to make sure she has all the facts and can at least make a reasonably informed decision. As I did myself with MMR.

Mamazon - I think you're right.

Seems that the US FDA is now recommending Cervarix be introduced into US, and Dr Harper think it's better than Gardasil. Interesting.
www.medscape.com/viewarticle/708761

agree with the daily mail? the scientist wrote the article not the newspaper editor.its not exactly the daily sport saying elvis has been seen in tescos in harlow is it. and if u read the article they do acctually state BOTH sides of the argument. mad cow disease is controlled by DEFRA which is in turn controlled by the government. which is the authoritative body that the other lady was referring to as "dont make mistakes". they do. its only down to our natural instincts and common sense as to whether a parent has their child vaccinated against something or not, indeed my daughter was vaccinated with the MMR jab. its only been in the years folowing that many instances of autism/aspergers has been directly linked, to the MMR JAB. yes i took the risk, im simply saying now, as iv pointed out several times and readers seem not to take on board...IM NOT SAYING SHE WILL NEVER HAVE IT DONE, BUT..ITS MY PREROGATIVE...AS A PARENT..OF A CHILD..NOT AN ADULT...TO DELAY giving her the jab. ok. What you do with your children is the same, your prerogative.We are each entitled to our opinion hence this being a FORUM, of which the point is to DISCUSS our differing opinions. I dont think ur quite following the plot though botu newspapers "running animal parks.."??? indeed they DONT. but DEFRA and the NHS/Government in turn, DO. the newspaper simply reports the FACTS. It would be a very very difficult world to navigate WITHOUT REPORTS IN NEWSPAPERS wdnt it.!! Some people i guess want to stick their heads in the sand...others ...want the bigger pictures. The daily mail dont run the army do they. but they REPORT ON our soldier men dying in AFGHANISTAN.!!!and ruddy good job too, why would we want to remain ignorant?? god , some people. to get BACK TO THE POINT , im simply pointing out that im one of the 30 PERCENT OF UK PARENTS that havent given consent to this jab until their children are 16 or over. if you dont want to read that , then u shouldnt be on a forum. because its a basis for declaring opinions. NOT JUST YOURS.

and.. folks in the UK SHOULD care what the US does bout health issues. so MANY TIMES the UK is wayyyy behind the USA on important health issues. such as the fact Aspartame, (chemical additive in drinks etc); being bad for kids health, making them hyper and causing bad illnesses incl cancer...is BANNED in the USA. indeed as is flea collars for pets that only go into the blood stream, not within the skin , i.e. risking poisonous toxins going WITHIN THE PETS. yes, its banned in the USA BUT NOT IN THE UK YET. i could go on..but this lady is making me vere totally off the point. i PERSONALLY dont want my child having this jab under the age of 16, OR until mor research is dont, You dont agree? nobody said you HAD TO AGREE. its simply MY OPINION, as is my choice of WHAT NEWSPAPER I READ. that ok by you?? thanks.

dear older and wider...you obviously have not read the statement by DR.HARPER HERSELF where as above, within my comment, iv included her opinion on the reasons more testing needs doing on Cervarix. if she approved of it, i wouldnt have needed to type anything she quoted would i. ?? see her report, page 6 daily mail thurs oct 1. she does NOT agree with cervarix being distributed at this stage, within the UK , she thinks FAR MORE TESTING NEEDS TO BE DONE. get ur facts straight.

cervarix will not be introduced to the USA until as SOON AS, next year. i.e. 2010. its only oct 2009. older and wider...its NOT next year yet. the USA usually and often are ahead of us in anything scientic, the UK trails after in such issues. fact.

I agree with Mamazon - I had concerns about this originally because my eldest DD (16) is refusing to have the jab as part of the catch-up program (full details on other thread). Whatever her reasons - and, tbh, I would prefer that she did have the jab in view of her current age - I respect her wishes. DD2 on the other hand is due to have it next year, but as a result of my investigations I have realized that it makes no sense for girls who are not going to be sexually active for a few years to have the jab. How do I know what she'll be getting up to? Well she has promised to talk to me and we'll review the situation. Either way she knows that sex before 16 is ILLEGAL, so we are both a bit puzzled as to why this vaccine is being dished out on such a large scale to such young girls...if it is only effective for about four years, then won't they need another dose or booster later on?

typo error above..add: flea killing DROPS (not only flea COLLAR ingredients). Whatever, every parent as an individual has to make their own decision, based on their own findings, and response to those findings. as indeed they are entitled to.obviously its a very emotive subject as parents of girls will understand, we all worry about such things, i just personally dotn want to "follow the herd" and then think...oh god, what i Id only delayed...like you say thankfully very very few deaths /awful side effects are bein incurred, Im just hoping they fine tune this vaccine even further to prevent more teens having their life quality put in danger. after all , we musnt forget, teens arent even supposed to HAVE sex til 16 or over. i know many do, but surely they know they should use condoms to not just prevent HPV, but to prevent STDs, aids, chlamydia ...and suchlike..anyway? I just dont have much faith in the government i guess, its the lot that said..ahh poor burgler, musnt have the nasty house owner hurting you den..." , OR...let the little yobby boys make a misery of your life outside ur house and make ur life a living hell..cos da poor liddle lads cant help being VISCIOUS LITTLE Sods can they without any laws now for being able to even SMACK YOUR CHILDREN. and very limited police powers to detain these orrible ghastly little brats whose feral behaviour makes honest peoples lives such a misery, and they fight wars like the gulf war to achieve what...sod all.. so no, i dont have much faith in the government.getting off the point again,...!! Anyway, as per the jab, i reiterate...it just needs more fine tuning.

California Dreams - ta, you put it as i wanted to say it...why dish out this vaccine to girls so young in any event.the maximum it would last is 10 yrs, i.e. if done at 12, the girl wd need a booster at 22, when she may not even start having sex til 16. They already pump in a massive load of jabs to babies and children as they are growing, its a lot for them to take to start again having more injected into them at only age 12.& I think the jabs should be done at surgeries, and obviously then any underlying health issues would/SHOULD arise,(as far as can be foreseen by written records anyway).. when checking up childrens' past health records up to when they are 12 and if any doubts arise, then the jab for those teens should most definitely be postponed.

NelloNoNorks.- ta for sayin the D Mail has a point..however i hasten to add theres no need to insult a paper that is read by millions, and U saying MOST OF US would cut our arm off rather than admit reading it?? utter tosh. its a fabulous, EXTREMELY popular all-rounder paper. the sun for isntance, entertaining yes but all comet ads, AMY W, Jordan/her fella..and footie stars and wag waffle. not a lot of news as such. the d mail has entertainment AND lottsa indepth well reportd unbiased news. and its not a stuck up wafflin bout politics and crickets broadsheet, which are not my thing.(quite a lot of folk read those to look intelligent and ostentatious, but not all obviously).

sorry but its got my goat that u insult the Dail Mail. its millions of readers alongside and including ME would NOT agree we'd cut our arm off rather than admit reading it...far from it. Newspaper of the Year several times over read by millions...methinks ur comment grossly innacurate!!back to the jabs issue..my daughters happy to wait til shes 16 and is able to make a decision on the jab based on by then we'l hav more info on it. Im sure lots of girls will cope absolutely fine with the jab, but the Dept Of Health should wise up and get it done at surgeries, in case any more jabs cause a "tip over the edge" for som teen with existing health issues adversely affeccted by having such a jab, just saying like b4, it PURELY needs more fine tuning and testing before dishing it out nationwide to our teens. Fingers crossed itl be fine if they do so, but parents just need to read up on the pros and cons, before getting under 16s to hav a jab that pretty much only is necessary for sexually active kids anyway.

ladybird66 - I'm sorry, but if you re-read my post you will see that I am not insulting the DM (as a frequent reader of the DM, I am hardly likely to!) I feel quite upset that you haven't taken the trouble to read properly what I said. I am in fact getting at the many, many Mumsnetters who disagree on principle with anything that the DM says. Some of the comments I've read about the DM vaccine story seem to be more upset about the DM not being pro-mass-vaccine than they are about someone's daughter dying.

NellyNoNorks..apologies, yes i should have kept the subject entirely to my opinion on withholding the jabs for under 16's..everyone is entitled to read whatever paper they choose. HOWEVER the daily mail were indeed very sympathetic with the fact that several teens are seriously ill, and one died, after having the jab. (yes the jab may just hav been the trigger for their underlying illness to sadly, exacerbate their seriously ill state of health so they could no longer stay alive). I do not take my directions or opinions from newspapers entirely, like any other person i read up on these things, then make my own decision. My daughter may well have the jab at 16?. Was literally expressing my opinion that no parent ought to feel "the baddie" for not having it done if their teen isnt 16 yet. Like everything to do with teens, its all a gamble and we as parents do our utmost to do the right thing, not always knowing if its indeed the "right thing" or not! Each to their own, any parent can make their own mind up how to parent, theres no right or wrong way about this, just an option to personally go one way or the other. Didnt mean to offend you.

protection is given even if girl has been sexually active , assuming that nothing has been caught during these liasons it is always worth having to protect against future partners .