General Chat

should add that the vaccine she was given was Cervarix.

Charlotte had her first jab today. She now has a very hurty arm that she can't lift above her head. No other effects at the moment.

The leaflet they gave her does state that the injection should not be given if the girl is allergic to any of the active substances - which of course you don't know in advance - and non of which I've ever heard of!

It also lists side effects as follows ...

Very common - more than 1 in 10 - pain/redness at injection site, headache, aching/tender/weak muscles, tiredness

Common - less than 1 in 10 but more than 1 in 100 - upset stomach/pain, itching/rash, joint pain, fever

Uncommon - less than 1 in 100 but more than 1 in 1,000 - upper respiratory tract infection, dizziness, lump/tingling/numbness at injection site

Just thought I would add this for anyone whose daughter has not had the jab yet but is scheduled to.

Maz. XX

Janey,

You have raised some very valid points.
We raise our children hoping that we are never faced with situations as you have enumerated. However, such things do occur. There are some very nasty people out there.

I think, that if I were given the option I would certainly vaccinate

Elizabeth -- just wanted to re-say something I'd said earlier.

Sex education is no protection against sexual assault.

I have no way of knowing whether my dyskaryosis was a result of HPV infection, and if so whether I acquired the HPV when I was raped.

The problem is that nothing protects girls and women against sexual assault, and the many effects it can have. And 11-13 yr old girls can be assaulted by strangers, or friends or family. Better protected than infected.

Cervical cancer has long been associated with early / multiple sexual partners. The risk increases with those activities -- it just wasn't known until recently that the risk was actually the risk of exposure to a virus.

The vaccine is to guard against cervical cancer, but also the surgeries that must often be performed (like mine) to ensure that a pre-cancerous condition doesn't progress to cancer.

Thinking of it just in terms of preventing cancer, as some comments in this thread suggest, neglects the fact that it also protects against the pre-cancerous conditions and the surgeries they require, and the possible negative effects of the surgery (like "incompetent cervix" which can make it difficult to carry a pregnancy to term).

Janey,

Your post on transmission of disease reminded me of a TV ad we had a few years back on HIV - 'How many people are you sleeping with' - referring to how this insidious disease can spread.

Back to Gardasil. To which cancer does it refer. Cervical, uterine or ovarian? Ovarian cancer is the 'silent killer' as it is usually not detected until the later stages.

I haven't read any literature on the subject of Gardasil but a very early report indicated that a good proportion of women showing symptons of cervical cancer had been 'indulging' at an early age. This is probably the reason they are trying to get the 11-13 year age group vaccinated. Perhaps, if parents do not wish to vaccinate, sex education is the answer with all the pros and cons of early sexual activity discussed. Preventative measures are readily available these days, even at supermarkets.

I'd like to know the source of the 1% figure, Jeannette. (1% of people infected with HPV get cervical cancer -- 1% of female people, I presume.)

HPV is *not* always present at the time cancer is detected.

The infection could have been many years before and the virus long gone at the time of the cancer diagnosis.

I would also assume that the 1% *excludes* people like me -- who lost my cervix because of pre-cancerous changes detected (dyskaryosis) and pre-emptive surgery, but yeah, never have got cancer, so far.

I don't find that kind of statistic really useful, for those reasons, for starters. I'd still like to know where it came from.

I would also disagree that smears are not needed until one is sexually active.

It's unusual, but nuns do get cervical cancer. It can occur without exposure to a virus.

Granted, it is very unusual for a very young woman who has not had sex to have the cervical changes that precede cancer. But no one should think that because they have not had sex they don't need smears.

It's also wise to keep in mind that not all girls are going to tell their mums when they've had sex, so this is something that should definitely be discussed between a girl and her doctor, no parent present.

It seems to me that Gardasil creates herd immunity in the same sense that any other vaccine does.

If a man has sex with a woman who has been exposed to HPV but has been vaccinated against it, he will not get the virus from her as he could otherwise have done, if she had not been vaccinated.

He will then not transmit it to another woman. So of course one young woman having the vaccination may very well have a protective effect on someone else who has not had it.

Just as, if a child who has been vaccinated against measles, s/he will then not transmit it to another child even if exposed to measles.

Of course it's not wise for anyone to rely on herd immunity. (That's basically what the non-vaccinators do: they rely on their children not being *exposed* to a disease, because all the other children are vaccinated and therefore will not transmit it.)

But there will still be some herd immunity effect, nonetheless.

Sorry liz I am a bit confused by your post are you talking about immunised children being infected by non immunised children..??
I am not anti immunisation as it would happen but I am pro people making an informed choice about the immunisations they have and any risks that are involved with them.
If a parent decides that the risk of immunisation outweighs the benefit for them then I believe that is ok.
Im afraid I dont really follow your argument as Gardasil is not creating herd immunity which seems to be what your post is about,one young women having gardasil vaccination will have no impact at all on anyone but herself.

Tanianz,

Are you anti-innumisation?

Have you ever seen the results of children who have been infected by non-immunised kids?

I have!

Do you remember the case of the Maori settlement near Morrinsville in the late 1970's where there was a diphtheria outbreak? Children had not been immunised. Thankfully, Health officials were on the ball and contained this outbreak.

I am of the generation who believed in immunisation. My children were all imunised for everything under the sun. However, we seem to have a very vocal anti-immunisation brigade who believe that 'this will not happen to them'. Unfortunately disease is non-selective and will hit the most vulnerable i.e. those with no protection.

Most of the more virulent diseases have been contained by immunisation but if health officials are not vigilant they will again rear their ugly little heads and become a problem. viz Morrinsville and diphtheria.

That's my soapbox for today.

Thanks for posting, Maz.

I just wanted to note that the possible reactions described, including anaphylaxis, are possible reactions to *all* vaccinations. They are not in any way specific to this one or related to the nature of this one.

Charlotte brought home her letter and a leaflet today. Here are a couple of points from the leaflet "all you need to know about the new HPV vaccine that protects against the commonest causes of cervical cancer". The leaflet is produced by the Department of Health and the NHS.

"Because it is so common, most people will get infected at some point in their lifetime. Most of the time, the virus does not cause cancer because it is killed off by the body's immune system, but not always - this is why the vaccine is so important"

"The vaccine protects against the two types of the virus that cause most (over 70%) of the cases of cervical cancer. It does not protect you against all of the other types, so you will still need to have cervical screening when you are older."

"By having the vaccination you will reduce your risk of getting cervical cancer by over 70%"

"older school girls will be offered the vaccine over the next couple of years"

"The side effects of the vaccination are quite mild - usually just stinging and soreness in the arm that soon wears off."

"Very rarely, some people have a reaction soon after the injection. This reaction may be a rash or itching that affeccts some or all of the body. The nurse will know how to treat this."

"Even more rarely, some people can have a severe reaction soon after the immunisation which makes it difficult for them to breathe and may make them collapse. This is called an anaphylactic reaction. These are extremely rare and nurses are trained to deal with them. People recover completely with treatment, usually within a few hours."

"You can get more information at www.nhs.uk/hpv where you ... can also download a question and answer sheet ... You can also phone the HPV helpline on 0845 602 3303."


So the DOH are saying that there is a possibility of side effects, but they are rare. They are also saying that this will reduce the risk of contracting cervical cancer by over 70%.

Has anyone's daughter actually had the jab yet? Charlotte's school are giving the first one at the end of October.

Maz. XX

Ahh Janey again with the scornful answers
come on its easy to post without doing that you know,
Gardasil is a recombinent vaccine made up of proteins from the 4 HPV types,the idea in simple terms being that our bodies will react to those proteins and create an immune response,so actually getting an auto immune disorder after a vaccine isnt such a perposterous idea,nor in fact is it unheard of unlike your fairies in the garden.
then of course you could throw in the aluminium and sensitivities to yeast.

vaers.hhs.gov/info.htm is the link for vaccine adverse effect register
it is a CDC ADA data base.it is here you will find the information I quoted about gardasil and Guillaine Barr
Because there is no compulsory notification of vaccine adverse effects this is about the only source of numbers world wide that is publically available so it is a good source of raw information.
Now I dont believe that my encouraging people to make an informed decision about guardasil
means I then have to lead them about by the nose to make it,nor do i have to agree or disagree with choices they make,everybody will do what is right for them and there families
I also dont need to scoff at them when they make them or imply they dont care about their children if they dont see things my way.

Forgive me, Willow -- and let me mention again that personalities have nothing to do with this for me. And the name change was because I was bored.

I just have to ask again -- what possible difference could the age of the recipient of the vaccine make to the effect it would have??

What do hormones and puberty have to do with it? Again, this is a *virus*. Nothing to do with hormones any more than the measles virus has!

Please don't let the dishonest religious fundamentalists distract you in this debate. The virus is transmitted by sexual contact. It happens to infect the genital tract and is closely correlated with a particular cancer there. It and the vaccine have nothing to do with hormones or fertility.


As an aside, I have to say that I think that if this were a virus that was known to lead to testicular cancer, men would be taking their sons to the clinic in droves.

Request review
Today at 14:38
Willow -- "it seems that they have no idea what possible future complications there could be for a pre-pubescent girl. "

Again -- *what* "future complications" could there be??

This is a vaccination against a virus. Not the implantation of a microchip.

I'll bet I sound scornful. But come on, people.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Im sorry that I care about my daughter, and feel the need to carefully consider every element of her health. So the "But come on, people" feels a bit insulting.

As the trials have only lasted 6 years on girls between the ages of 16 - 24 how can they know the effect that this vaccination will have on 12 year olds?

Dont you remember my name Kathryn? you found several cousins of mine in Canada. Why the name change?

Thanks Julia. It seems their father probably has it too ... and one of their school friends ... and her grandmother ...

I'm suspicious of strange diseases with unpredictable symptoms ... but when two little kids get that sick, well, they're just not old enough to be hypochondriacs.

Unfortunately in Canada there is still huge resistance to diagnosing the disease. My sister's herculean effort at advocating for them resulted in the sick children's hospital threatening to report her to children's services as a suspected case of Munchausen by proxy if she didn't formally recant, at one point. Your son was very lucky.

Not to hijack the thread. ;)

I should add -- there *are* reasons for some children not to get vaccinations sometimes.

My two nieces are slowly recovering from Lyme disease -- a long long time, many courses of antibiotics, and long periods of being really very sick. They're in the age group for which the vaccine is being distributed in Ontario, but I would not be surprised if my sister decides against it *at this time*.

Those are the kinds of considerations that apply to any vaccinations -- best not administered to sickish kids!

Janey you have made some very interesting, valid and heartfelt points, dont spoil it by turning this into a bun fight.

Jeanette I would be interested in seeing your sources as i would like to read more about what you say

i believe that the vaccine is a good thing, it has it flaws like only protecting against 2 strands of the virus, but remember when the HIB meningitis imm came out that was only one strand of meningitis we could protect our children against, i still took them up on their offer though. As time has gone by more vaccines for more strains have been developed and i suspect this will be the case for the HPV too.

Ok Kathryn I'll get back to you with some sources and we'll have a good ole debate.....but my daughter's still not having it yet ;-)))))

Well, Jeannette, that answered my questions! No, no, seriously -- I'll wait til your time allows.

I don't actually care about anyone's opinion about me, I might need to reiterate. And I don't value the opinions of *anyone* who won't offer up the reasons for holding the opinions for discussion, and discuss those reasons. That is just by way of general explanation, I hasten to add. It's the opinions, and the basis for them, not the people who hold or state them, that concern me.

And of course I'm concerned about people who might be swayed by opinions for which no reasonable basis is offered.


Ex-lawyer. ;)

And the other guy wasn't actually all that much more exciting ...

... well, not any more excited, anyhow.