HPV jab

[TeenageWildlife]

My DD has been told that they are about to do these jabs at school. She is 17 so they have spread the initial target recipients. I have done some research on Gardasil and wil be encouraging her strongly NOT to have it. I am shocked by the number of deaths, the fact that it has been withdrawn in Spain, and especially this What do people think?

would you be happier with 13? or 14?

6 years from 12 is 18...then they can make their own minds up.

Cancer is cancer Kadeweh.

However you get it. However you stop it.

tatt
"Most women are infected with HPV at some stage after they become sexually active. It doesn't usually lead to cervical cancer. Where it does cause abnormal cells they can often be treated - and there used to be a theory that many women were treated when the abnormality probably wouldn't have progressed anyway."

see my post (BellaNoir) of Sat 12-Sep-09 00:15:48

Wouldn't it be good to not have to have part of your cervix removed because there are abnormal cells which have between 30-50% probability of developing into cancer? When you could be vaccinated instead?

as for the theory that having the vaccination will make young women go out and have sex....
I was vaccinated against TB - it didn't make me want to go out and cuddle badgers & lick cattle

...or indeed sleep in homeless shelters, which is where most TB infections currently take place. In 15yo+ not 11 yo..but it's best to get in early, no?

I totally disagree with this vacine & i would not let my daughter have it, really it's vacinating the wrong gender...

kikid - after a quick look at oneopinionated mother's link, it looks like some would like to see how it pans out for girls before they try it out on the boys.

Thank you to oneopinionatedmother for the link.

The most balanced information I have found on the vaccine is here www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=16024 It is much better than the government advice.

The risk of cervical cancer has always been said to increase if you start your sexual experience young, possibly because cells in the cervix are more susceptible to change during puberty. Now we are introducing HPV to children who would not normally acquire the virus for several years. I know it is said not to contain live cells. The same thing has been said about other vaccines that anecdotally seem to generate an unusually high number of cases of the disease at a time after vaccination consistent with the incubation period. Reporting of such things is non-existent because doctors deny the possibility.

BellaNoir in many cases what will be removed is a few cells. When the treatment was first introduced doctors said the treatment was painless and easy. Strangely most of the women who had it didn't see it quite the same way but it is still normally a relatively minor procedure. I appreciate factual information but not implied exaggeration. As for the 30-50% chance of developing into cancer - where are your figures from please?

Personally I'm not bothered by suggestions that vaccination will encourage children to have sex early. Mine has more sense than that.

KadeWeh said
" I think this would be preferable to vaccinating young people who are never going to be at any significant risk of contracting any sexually transmitted diseases."

That would be young people who are going to stay completely celibate throughout their whole lives?

(Condom use does not prevent HPV transmission. Not being promiscuous does not prevent STDs - as we all know you can catch them from the very first person you sleep with.)

How do you suggest identifying the lifelong virgins at the age of 12? They are the only ones who will never be at risk.

Of course you can catch STDs from the first person you sleep with. However, a girl who isn't promiscuous is far more likely to be very careful about whom she sleeps with (if you're not promiscuous yourself, you're unlikely to be attracted to someone who is on the whole. It's not impossible, but it's not so likely). She is also more likely to ask the man to get himself tested before putting herself at risk (I did - my DH wasn't 'promiscuous' as such, but had had three or four partners over 20 years).

Oneopinionatedmother - there may only be six years between 12 and 18, but that's a vast amount of developing and growing up.

139 - I think you're deliberately misunderstanding. Nobody's talking about lifelong virgins. I'm talking about vast numbers of young people being vaccinated unnecessarily, with all the risks that vaccination involves. People who aren't promiscuous and who don't start having sex at an early age are infinitely more likely to be killed in a car crash than to die of cervical cancer.

Interesting (if very technical) discussion about the factors that increase the risk of HIV infection progessing to cancer here
[http://ibmi.mf.uni-lj.si/acta-apa/acta-apa-02-3/derma3-2cl.html]]

It also talks about the role of HIV in problems that may affect boys.

try again with link ibmi.mf.uni-lj.si/acta-apa/acta-apa-02-3/derma3-2cl.html

I have the hpv virus, i caught it from my xp whilst i was pg with dd1 (he was sleeping around) if i could have been vacinated against it i would have done without a thought.

If there was a vaccine against being killed in a car crash, I'd have it like a shot. Not an argument against the HVP vaccine imho.

it doesn't do anything against cancer. Nothing.

It ONLY prevents 3 (I think) of the 15 possible wart viruses.

If you get a wart virus that doesn't mean you WILL get cancer, but you won't get cancer without one IYSWIM.

So there are still another 12 out there you can get.

And globally there has been a lot of concern about reactions - and that is building in this country.

I know some posters feel very strongly about this, and respect that, but whilst I'm not sure then my girls won't have something that has such tremendously limited, and unproven benefits so for me the answer for now will be no.

Chegirl I'm so sorry to hear that about your daughter. I can't imagine what you have been through and how you feel. Thank you for your post.

Nope.

Have discussed it closely with both daughters.
As always have given them the information they need to make an informed choice about their lives and their health.

They will definately not be having this vaccine.

Or any other one for that matter.

tatt
An overview is here it's an analysis and projected figures based on data from what happened when a gynaecologist in New Zealand decided not to treat women with CIN3 as he believed that it wouldn't progress to cancer.
The accepted treatment for CIN2-3 is the LLETZ or LEEP. It is an uncomfortable procedure and involves the removal of approx 1.5-2cmx0.8cm depth of cervix (usually oval shape). It is very effective and usually well tolerated. There has been recognition more recently that there may be a risk of early delivery in pregnancy (I'll have to look for the paper but the BSCCP website will have info) which is one of the reasons for not wanting to have to treat younger women for persistant low grade abnormalities which would eventually resolve untreated.

Someone mentioned the valency of the vaccine - I think it would have been better to have used the multi-valent vaccine which has more cross-reactivity between the different HPV strains and will take more out.

Can I ask about this on wiki:

Adjuvant
Adjuvant system 04 (AS04), contains an aluminum salt and monophosphoryl lipid A.[5]

Monophosphoryl lipid A, may also boost naturally-occurring antibodies to cholesterol anticholesterol

Is that saying that the Monophosphoryl may also have an anti-cholesterol effect?

It's a side-issue really but thought it interesting.

I have to make a decision on this by tomorrow and I'm really struggling as to what to do for the best.

do some research about how fertility is affected - at the rate we are going ALL babies will be IVF soon....its scary do we really know what we are doing with these jabs....WE NEED LONG TERM STUDIES..sadly thats what I think our girls are ;-(

Easy decision on my part - don't fix what isn't broken

AJ x

Thank you BellaNoir. Many women (about 1 in 20 according to the cancer help site) are told they have "abnormal smears" when they have CIN1 changes - abnormal cells that often regress. Your figures are for those with CIN3, which is much rarer. It is interesting that even then it doesn't always progress to cancer and that where it does it may take many years. I had heard that some women were untreated in New Zealand but had been told they were always treated after 3 years.

From the studies I have been looking at it seems that if you choose not to be vaccinated you need to start your sexual activity late, never smoke, not get pregnant too often and possibly ensure you get a high level of beta carotene. And if you have any bleeding you make sure you are investigated promptly.

I'm still unhappy about giving children exposure to HPV before they would normally be exposed to it, especially in combination with aluminium.

you don't have to make a decision by tomorrow, surely?

just do it at the gp at some point if you are still undecided

this is just so pressurising

Tatt - yes - that's what I meant to say in my original post , which on re-reading, isn't clear enough that the 30-50% progression rate refers to CIN3, not CIN1.
CIN1 in the main (figures vary alot! There is marked inter-observer variation in the reporting of CIN1) does regress.
The reason women are referred for colposcopy after persistent low grade Pap tests is because cytology isn't 100% at picking up the high grades, therefore colposcopic assessment in needed to rule out the presence of a high-grade abnormality. Approx 20-25% (again it varies) of persistent mild dyskaryosis will have CIN2 or CIN3 on biopsy.
If you have a look at the programme data here this gives you more idea of the numbers and percentages of abnormal test results and the outcomes of colposcopy referral.
"From the studies I have been looking at it seems that if you choose not to be vaccinated you need to start your sexual activity late, never smoke, not get pregnant too often and possibly ensure you get a high level of beta carotene. And if you have any bleeding you make sure you are investigated promptly."
Indeed, though I would have to go and read up on the beta-carotene.
And investigation for bleeding does not mean just having a smear test and no-one should settle for just that if they're having bleeding.

Tatt - the progression of CIN3 to cancer can take years - but it can also be swift. There studies on the molecular genetics of cancer development (tumourigenesis) which are trying to find markers to use to determine whether 'your' CIN3 is the sort which will progress but they are years away from being any clinical use. This is why a woman with CIN3 is offered treatment, but they don't have to have it.

Can I suggest reading of this paper by Bosch and this interview. Bosch and Munoz (and their group) did the key work on the link between HPV and cervical cancer