The HPV Vaccine - is it a good idea ?

[PriorityOne]

Just wondering....

 

My daughter is 18 years old.... older than the 12/13 year-olds that the vaccine is aimed at.... yet has been offered it at school (6th form). She's already been in a relationship as well, so has been sexually active.

 

Does anyone know if there are any real benefits to her having it at her age ?.... after being in a relationship ? We have to have the consent forms back by Wednesday and I'm still sitting on the fence...

 

[PriorityOne]

Thanks for your replies...

 

I've not heard of Gardasil.... and don't trust the Government anyway, which is one of the reasons why I'm so hesitant about this. The leaflet says that the NHS HPV jab protects girls who are not sexually active... so I'm wondering if my daughter having the jab at 18 years old is a waste of time... as the implication seems to be that it only protects girls who are not sexually active, which is why the injections are given at a young age. Do you know if Gardasil still offers protection against the disease(s) when a girl is already sexually active ?

 

I'm so sorry to read your story Kiwi.... and I hope there's some kind of comeback for you over this.

[PriorityOne]

hi. i think you should talk to your family physician for advice. what i know is that Gardasil is given in USA and Cervarix in UK but they are related.

 

i do not know if you can get it in Uk but since there are 20 deaths associated with Gardasil, and thousands of serious medical cases induced from the vaccination, you might want to think twice about asking for it.

 

I have heard that the vaccination still works if the patient has not yet contracted the HPV sexually transmitted disease. For a girl who is planning to be sexually active with multiple partners, it is probably a good idea but still not as good as the only proven way to prevent HPV which is a monogamous sexual relationship with a single healthy individual . . . which is what our daughter is looking forward to.

 

but, i am not a doctor. just a father.

 

I'm inclined to let this one pass and not encourage my daughter to be vaccinated now, after all.

 

Poppynurse... I understand about protecting our children as much as possible, but the HPV vaccine doesn't seem to be all it's cracked up to be IMO.

 

From my own viewpoint, I've had a dodgy smear test myself in the past; not through my own promiscuity, but from my ex's... This was successfully treated before it had the chance to develop into anything serious and some 10 years later, my recent smear test is completely clear.

 

Although my daughter is not promiscuous either... no-one can guarantee how any of her future partners will choose to lead their lives and the only thing I have rammed home to her is the importance of regular STD checks for her own peace of mind. Once she's old enough to have smear tests, then the same priniciple will apply.

 

If the HPV vaccine was offering a higher rate of protection against more strains of the virus than it currently is.... then I would be more inclined to trust it.... but something is holding me back from doing so and I'm inclined to go with that gut instinct for now.

 

[PriorityOne]

 

Personally, my family and I will continue to take advice from qualified medical professionals, such as my GP, who has 5 years of university training, the same again in hospital training, and over a decade in general practice, over and above agenda driven FUD from a stranger on the internet, who's daughter may wel be lying to them.

 

 

I respect your view.... but qualified medical professionals don't always get it right either.... Just something to bear in mind.

 

[PriorityOne]

Some interesting points here.... but having been let down by both the legal profession and the medical profession, I put my trust in no-one on the basis of a few letters after their name.... and the Gov. will always play down what it doesn't want you to know.

 

Sceptical ? Very. On a very different note.... I've been slamming the over-use of Ritalin for years.... and look what's happened there.

 

Each to their own though.... I do understand the arguments for the vaccine, but while it still leaves room for cervical cancer to develop, only deals with 2 (most common) out of 13 papillomavirus and, the need for smear tests is just as relevant as without it.... I'm still inclined to pass.

 

Had my daughter been born just one week earlier, she wouldn't have been offered it anyway.

[PriorityOne]

But PO - the aim of the vaccine is not to "prevent" smear tests, but to "prevent" some cancers. I fail to see the argument - some protection has to be better than no protection.

 

I do understand your point Mr Shed....but as a mother, I feel as if I'm being railroaded into a decision that I'm not entirely comfortable with. I need to look into the issue more thoroughly and if that means paying to go privately at a later date after I've been able to make an informed choice, then so be it.

 

[PriorityOne]

My main issue is that she's 18 and has already been sexually active anyway. She doesn't want the vaccine herself, but would have it if I thought it was a good idea because she trusts me. As she is 18, she could over-rule me on anything if she chose to do so though.

 

I have terrible trust issues with people in the so-called "know" who claim to be experts in this and that though....as you can tell.... lol.... which is why I question most things.

 

If she was a virgin, I would probably have approved it, but she's not..... and, as far as I know, it doesn't offer protection for life anyway...

[PriorityOne]

Unfortunately, this debate could go on forever.... My mistrust of so-called experts involves both the legal and medical professions. Not everyone with letters after their name knows what they're doing.... but fortunately, my gut instincts have always saved the day.

 

At no point have a I read that this vaccine gives "lifelong protection". The literature actually states "many years"....which is not the same thing. You have also referred to the cost/benefit of mass immunisation in older children... and the benefit to her as an 18 year old non-virgin was the basis of my argument.

 

[PriorityOne]

 

I'm not sure I understand what your argument actually is.

 

Then you need to re-read the thread....

 

Thanks for the link you gave though... I've highlighted particular points.

 

Pap smear screening can identify potentially precancerous changes. Treatment of high grade changes can prevent the development of cancer. In developed countries, the widespread use of cervical screening programs has reduced the incidence of invasive cervical cancer by 50% or more.

 

These would carry on regardless of the HPV vaccine.....

 

Since the vaccine only covers some high-risk types, women should seek regular Pap smear screening, even after vaccination.

 

I have no wish to argue with you or anyone else over this issue.... but I do feel it's important to question things in life. Experience has taught me very well in this respect....

 

If this vaccine is not going to offer any significant benefit to my daughter as an 18-year-old non-virgin, then I don't see the point. Pap smears would still need to be carried out anyway and providing these are maintained as a regular part of a woman's sexual health regime, abnormalities can be treated before they have a chance to blow up into something more serious.

 

[PriorityOne]

As most of the public, including myself, do not test things as a standard deviation from the mean.... I cannot provide you with the scientific results that you're after.

 

Please try not to show off. .... simple language will do just fine.

 

I've explained my reservations about the vaccine throughout the thread already....I also didn't say that the vaccine would replace screening, but that screening would still need to be carried out.

 

Bad experiences are not irrational to those who've had them, by the way...

[PriorityOne]

Ok.... this seems to have deteriorated into providing measures of significance... which are a type of "result" or indicator, if you prefer. I cannot provide you with those and did not start the thread to discuss those anyway.

 

You seem to be approaching the thread from a professional standpoint and I'm approaching it (primarily) from a mother's.... so my view aren't going to be as clear cut as your own anyway.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong (which I'm sure you will anyway), but cervical cancer is more prevalent in women who either have a chequered sexual history or, are unfortunate to hook up with men who can't keep their pants on.

 

As my daughter has already been sexually active with 2 partners (to my knowledge).... I can't see the benefit of her having the vaccine at the age she is now.... when she may already have the HPV virus anyway... and would still need Pap screening like everyone else.... which would detect any abnormalities at a later date, if there were any.

[PriorityOne]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one for the time being.... it's starting to feel like an inquisition.... and your posts appear to be a tad on the arrogant side.

 

Thanks for your input anyway.

[PriorityOne]

I do care about what you've said.... but my position remains unchanged. This is a relatively new vaccine, don't forget.

 

Look upon it as a cop out if you wish.... or you having the last word, if you prefer .... but I have no more to add at this point.

[PriorityOne]

It's not a cop out, you are trying to 'force' your views (and maybe beliefs) onto someone and that is not right.

 

Thank you....

[PriorityOne]

I quite agree. Every day I interact with people that hold widely differing viewpoints to me. Holding a opinion is never wrong or inherently, per se. Basing that opinion on flawed assumptions, ignoring evidence to the contrary and failing to address a core disparity in their reasoning, however, makes it inherently flawed.

 

Again, I quite agree, and I would never dream of coming between a person and what they feel is right for them. However, fortunately or unfortunately, my personal principles and values mean that I am not prepared to gloss over glaring misrepresentations without reason.

 

In your opinion....

 

There are many examples of people throughout history who have behaved precisely in the way you describe.... and received a similar response to the one you've delivered on here, only to be proved right months/years later.

 

The medical profession do not know everything.... and seeing as we now live in a diagnosis culture, particularly where kids are concerned (slightly of topic here), I will continue to question everything until satisfied that what my child is being offered is the right way forward.... and can be trusted to do what it claims.

 

[PriorityOne]

You seem upset....

 

I've no idea who you are or what authority you claim to have.... but it's getting really boring now.

 

If you need me to give you examples of medical negligence, then I suggest you read more....

 

You seem to be baiting for a row...

 

Strange.

[PriorityOne]

 

I certainly have nothing further to add.

 

Fantastic... finally !....

[PriorityOne]

Almost a year after I started this thread.... a 14-yr-old girl dies after receiving the vaccine. Very sad... It'll be interesting to read what caused this.... and/or any spin that goes with it.

[PriorityOne]

It's still a new vaccine.... and seeing as the Gov. want us to trust it so much, then it must be ok, mustn't it?

 

The girl in quesion may well have had an underlying medical condition.... but which one?....

[PriorityOne]

Ok..... I'm in the minority, it seems..... No choice but to agree to disagree on this one for now, or it'll just drag on.

 

For the record though.... I DO NOT read "The Sun"... p-lease!!!

[PriorityOne]

I was referring more to the people who believe that the vaccine is a vaccine against cancer itself and the saviour of all mankind, then turn on a sixpence and decide that it's the spawn of Satan because they've read one very flawed bit of reporting by someone who knows as much as they do.

 

I've read the whole thread and I completely respect and understand why you've made the choice you did. I thought the same things myself, we just ended up at different conclusions.

 

P.S: I agree with you about Ritalin, but that's a whole nother story.

 

Thank you MsWeatherwax....

 

Don't get me started on Ritalin though...!!!

[PriorityOne]

My daughter did not have the vaccine... no. There were several who didn't and I did give her the option to decide for herself. As for Jade Goody.... I won't comment other than to say that she'd had a questionable smear test some years ealier, which was ignored (apparently), so there may have been other factors. Vaccine or not, women will still have to have regular smear tests.... and, as my daughter had already been sexually active anyway, this did influence the decisios we made.

 

As for ADHD.... I don't believe in it as a widespread phenomenon and have seen far too much associated with my job; parents who want a "diagnosis" because it lets them off the hook for being cr*p at it and teachers who're convinced a child has it because they can't handle that particular child..... yet the same child is fantastic with a different member of staff.

 

Ritalin interferes with dopamine receptors in the brain, is linked to schizophrenia and is an amphetamine-based drug (If I remember rightly... it's been a while since I researched it).... but I'm sure someone will lynch me if I harp on about it.... so I won't.