Schools denying girls the cervical cancer jab on religious grounds

[DowagersHump]

This is absolutely appalling. Even worse, they are not telling GPs that they are choosing not to offer vaccination :(

Grauniad article

lightouse - HPV infection is the leading cause of cervical cancer but not the only one. I'm no expert though so can't tell you much more than that, I'm afraid.

HPV causes 70% of cervical cancers. The other 30% due to other causes hence we will still need the smear.

Im totally pro the vaccination, dont get me wrong. I just wondered what could be causing mine? My friend is exactly the same.

colouringin, sorry but you've been misinformed. HPV causes cervical cancer, but two types (16 and 18) are responsible for 70% of the cases. The other 30% are caused by other types of the virus.

Smear tests don't look for HPV, they look at cervical cells, specifically for early changes that may (or may not) lead to cervical cancer. The idea is that if these changes are detected early, they can be dealt with quickly and (relatively) easily.

So does HPV jab work for those 70% of cases or not. I was told by an immunologist that it does ...or I could have misunderstood her.

Am aware that smear tests don't look for HPV. Just pointing out that even if we eradicate those 70% ones there will still need to be smear tests to pick up those changes in women who develop CC from other causes.

Sorry, I'm not being clear.
Imagine 100 hypothetical cervical cancer patients. Almost all of them (probably over 99 of them) will have had a persistent HPV infection.

Out of those 99, around 70 of these cases will have been caused by HPV 16 or 18. The rest will have been caused by other types of HPV.

These 70 women would have been protected by vaccination.
The jabs protect against these two strains (16 and 18) but they don't provide protection against all of the HPV types that lead to cervical cancer.

The virus basically enters cells and causes them to behave abnormally. Sometimes, this change in behaviour can lead to cancer, but not always. The screening programme is there to look for these early changes before they develop into cancer.

My point is that HPV infection is associated with virtually all cases of cervical cancer.

S

S

I think it's pretty disgusting that schools are considered an appropriate place for such a risky medical intervention.

I've just posted elsewhere that two of the three Cervarix safety studies are very misleading. As a control the Havrix vaccination was used, which contains the same highly potent adjuvant (AS04 MPL) and which has the same adverse events/reactions reported as have been reported with Cervarix. So that when it's said that the reactions to Cervarix were no greater than the "background" incidence, it was a false comparison. The background incidence of these reactions, many of the auto-immune and profoundly damaging in nature, would have look banal in comparison to Havrix anyway. In addition, when the roll out began the authorities siad they would monitor population reactions. in fact reactions on the roll out have been ignored and dismissed and put down to coincidence. I believe one mother who continued to insist that her daughter's prolonged debilitating illness was due to the vaccination, was actually theatened with having her child taken away from her by social services.

So I'm with those who say no to schools.

(which everyone knows is useless anyway)

yeah, most people do, most european countries don't even stock it in the pharmacies and if you want it you have to have it imported

that's the BCG vaccination btw

Reading the article I don't think the schools they are talking about are mainstream Catholic state schools:

E.g. "pupils follow strict Christian principles, marry within their own community and do not practise sex outside marriage"

My guess is the 24 schools are more likely to be more exclusive religious schools like Christian Brethren and Muslim schools.

Not that I'm a particular defender of the Cargolic church, but I think this might not be them. I wonder why the article didn't spell out the religious basis of the schools.

I think the schools they are talking about are very sensibly using any excuse they can not to be involved with this vaccine. Has it even been trialled in under-15's (which is the group they're now aiming it at)? Nope.

"We have a vaccination that protects you from the strains of a virus that causes cancer. We've basically discovered a way to prevent 70% of all cervical cancer! SO: out of a 100 women who would have got cervical cancer before the vaccine; if they're all immunised, 70 won't get cervical cancer! Do you want your daughter to have the vaccine and reduce her chances of contracting cervical cancer?"

"Nooo! It might make her a slut!"

For fuck's sake.

We will be paying for my son to be immunized, when he's old enough. Men get HPV too. Gay men too. Everyone should get it.

That's rather a simplification. It's more complicated than that. I'd be concerned that my daughter wouldn't go for regular smears if she'd had the vaccine, in addition to the dangers of the vaccine itself.

sossiges exactly, and it's not 'bad science' to refuse, as another poster told me.

It might be helpful to separate objections-about-vaccines, including this one, to objections to this vaccine which is seen to be pertaining to sex.

I know people have objections to vaccines - I don't happen to agree with many of them, but I know about that and to a certain extent I understand the thinking behind the objections. (To me, not wanting your daughter to have this vaccine in case she didn't then go for regular smears seems like not teaching your daughter to floss in case she then doesn't go for regular dental checkups. It's not hard to teach BOTH acts of preventative behaviour, surely? But that's only part of your objection, the rest are 'dangers of the vaccine' objections, which I can't answer to, because I don't know of any)

What I don't understand is the objections to this vaccine in particular, from a group of people who have not objected to vaccines in general, and the objections that are basically "Nooo because ...SEX!! IS WRONG!111!!!"

it seems particularly wrong to deny this vaccine to teens because it's a time-sensitive vaccine. I was about 26 when they started offering it and I'd had some sexual partners - and some broken-condom incidents. At that point there was no point me getting a vaccine - it doesn't work for people who are already sexually active. So if you deny your teenage this vaccine and they go on to have sex, as teenagers/people in their early 20s do, you have denied them the chance to be protected against 70% of the cervical-cancer causing viruses out there. It's too late for them, in their 20s or wherever, to get it themselves.

To me, it's just one more thing a parent should do to protect their child. I understand that people think their children need protecting from vaccines, but to me, vaccines are the things that protect children from diseases.

And I do not see that it is my job to attempt to prevent my (future) teenage offspring from sexual behaviour. It's my job to teach them about safe sex and consent and happiness and pleasure and emotional security. . . not to say NOOO SEX is WRONG!

I can't get worked up about this.

It's only available in schools because it's quicker and easier than having all the girls go to GPs surgeries like baby's/pre-schoolers have to.

If a school decides not to allow the vaccination to be offered in school time, then parents will just have take their daughters themselves.

Interesting that boys aren't being given the jab.......maybe test it on the girls first?

blackcurrants read my post above ^, might give you a clue.
Also I think you are being a bit simplistic when you say that the HPV vaccine will prevent 70% of all cervical cancers.

Strains 16 & 18 cause 70% of cervical cancers in the UK, other strains are more prevalent in other countries e.g. in Canada HPV 31 is much more prevalent. Your children may end up migrating to Canada (for example) there the vaccine will give much less protection. People travel a lot these days!

lighthousekeeping says her cervical changes were not caused by HPV, that's another thing to take into account.
The vaccine may not be 100% effective, I don't think there is a vaccine that is (but correct me if I'm wrong).
Many people will not finish the series of jabs,, especially the ones that have any kind of reaction.
70% is overestimating it a bit IMO

Sos I looked at the links. TBH I'm not interested in debating with anti-vaxxers, it's about as rewarding as talking to climate-change deniers. I'm interested in the patriarchal control of young women's bodies/sexuality that's manifested in the particular reaction to this particular vaccine.

EG: How women's sexual health is sacrificed to the altar of "But only sluts have sex" - that's a fascinating thing to discuss, IMO, that's what made me open the thread.

I suppose we all have to get indignant about something...

erm, you realise you're in the 'feminism chat' section?
Where people chat about feminism?

I never lose sight that big pharma always has it's own interests at heart, and their main shareholders are men. One of my concerns is cervical smear testing as we know it in the UK will diminish on the back of this vaccination, especially when it comes to cut backs.