The HPV Vaccine - is it a good idea ?

[MrShed]

I for one agree with My Real Name.

Most vaccines have side effects, yes. But in ALL cases(and I do mean all) the benefits of having the vaccines far outweigh the risks, and the risks of not having the vaccine affects all.

We can clearly have an opinion. However, it has to be said, that compared to the EXPERT opinion, our opinions are quite clearly not as valid as the years of research, and the consensus of opinion, from the experts in the field.

Speaking as someone who (unwittingly) allowed their partner to have exposure to HPV, I only wish the vaccine had been around 10 years ago.

[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.

[MrShed]

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.

[MrShed]

The problem with vaccines is that there is much more publicity given to their side effects than their successes. There are a number of reasons for this, not least of which is that it is human nature to seek out flaws in things. However, there is also the fact that there is no story behind the success. In 40 years time, headline "HPV vaccine - does what it said it would" is not really a story. But be rest assured, behind every "scaremonger" story about some child who has become ill or died(tragic as this is), or has developed some form of side effect, there will be many stories of people who die of WHOLLY PREVENTABLE cancer, due to them missing the vaccine - we just dont hear about these people as it is classed as "natural causes".

[PriorityOne]

Originally Posted by MrShed

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.

[MrShed]

At the end of the day, clearly your decision

Just bear in mind, that the decision to not have it, COULD have longer term(but more serious) consequences than the short term "scare factor" of having it.

Needless to say, I am a staunch believe of routine vaccination for all - could you tell?

[Conniff]

I am with Mr S on this one. At sometime in your life you are going to have to put some trust in someone.

If your daughter, god fobid, gets stricken, will you ever forgive yourself, will you be able to live life not thinking that it was your fault because you said no.

On another note, how come an 18 year old needs permission anyway?

[My Real Name]

Originally Posted by PriorityOne

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.

So long as you are also mindful that the vaccine is administered at 12 - 13 in order for it to have the maximum benefit when the child starts to engage in sexual activity.

The information from which to make an informed choice is already available - I'm still not sure what additional information you are after.

[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...

[My Real Name]

Originally Posted by 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 must have missed the bit about her being 18 - my bad.

Originally Posted by PriorityOne

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.

At what point do you trust a well regulated system, grounded in humanitarian values, as opposed to mistrust on the basis of extrapolation from any number of personal bad experiences.

Originally Posted by PriorityOne

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...

The vaccine would still be effective, and offers lifelong protection against the viral infection that gives rise to 70% of cervical cancers.

The reasons for not administering in wholesale to older children is down to the cost / benefit of mass immunisation.

Considering here age, education must also play a great part in prevention. Prophylaxis, of the latex kind, would offer protection from many more HPV strains, although there would still be a risk of contact infection. Still, given the insignificant downside of the vaccine, I'm still confused as to what further information you, or your daughter, might need in order to make an informed decision.

[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.

[My Real Name]

Originally Posted by 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.

As is your wont. I prefer to live with known facts and figures.

Originally Posted by PriorityOne

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 are correct, in that the vaccine has not been around to demonstrate unequivocally that lifelong protection has been achieved. The 100% protection that it has offered against HPV 16 & 18 for the eight years that it has been trialled is a good indicator, however.

But what if it only offered 50% protection. Would that not be better that 0%?

You have also referred to the cost/benefit of mass immunisatin in older children... and the benefit to her as an 18 year old non-virgin was the basis of my argument.

Then there is a greater probability that she has already been exposed to the virus, although that would be dependent on a multitude of factors (number of partners, their number of partners, use of protection etc.). Given that, the expected benefit is less (for every 100 of your daugters, vaccination may be to late for 30 of them), but it still outweighs the cost. The cost is negligible in either case.

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

[Edit]

Just to answer your original question - Yes, it is still probably a good idea, and yes, it is worth it.

You should still seek independent medical advice - The internet is no substitute for a GP or MD.

If it helps your trust issue, you might consider that a GP stands to gain nothing from whether your daughter is immunised or not.

[PriorityOne]

Originally Posted by My Real Name

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.

[My Real Name]

Originally Posted by PriorityOne

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

I have read the thread, and cannot make out what your specific argument is. I would be grateful if you could state what it is.[/quote]

Originally Posted by PriorityOne

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.

The vaccine prevents the pre-cancerous changes in the first place. This is for HPV types 16 and 18, which account for 70% - 80% of cervical cancers.

Originally Posted by PriorityOne

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

The vaccine is not a substitute for screening. It is in addition to screening. This was pointed out very early on in this thread. If anyone is informing you that the vaccination is a replacement for screening, they are wrong.

Originally Posted by PriorityOne

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....

Extrapolation from ones own experience is a fallacious measure and irrational in the face of valid research.

Originally Posted by PriorityOne

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.

The vaccine will be of benefit to your daughter, so there is a point. What is you measure of significant? Within 1, 2, 3 standard deviations of the mean? 5%, 10%, 25% reduction in risk? At what point do you consider it not to be worth it?

[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...

[My Real Name]

Originally Posted by 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.

You were not asked for results

Originally Posted by PriorityOne

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

What reduction in risk would be enough for you to consider the vaccine to be worthwhile? 5% 10%, 25% reduction?

Originally Posted by PriorityOne

I've explained my reservations about the vaccine throughout the thread already.....

You have expressed your reservatins about the medical profession. May I infer, in that case, that you reservations extend to anything that the medical profession stands for, in the widest sense, including the pharmaceutical and pharmalogical industries, where the research and testing for this vaccine originated.

Originally Posted by PriorityOne

I also didn't say that the vaccine would replace screening, but that screening would still need to be carried out.

You implied that it had been stated elsewhere.

Originally Posted by PriorityOne

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

I quite agree. I stated, however, that extrapolating from them, in the face of valid contradictory evidence was fallacious, not that the experiences themselves were irrational.

[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.

[My Real Name]

Originally Posted by 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.

That's not what I am asking.

You stated, unequivocally, that you did not consider the benefit from the vaccine to be worth it.

I asked you, in response, and again unequivocally, at what level of benefit would you consider the vaccine to be worth it.

You have yet to answer that question. Can you please answer that question, as it would server to validate your point of view.

Your original post was are "there are any real benefits to her having it at her age"? The answer being yes. You then suggested that the benefit was not enough, to which i asked - when is the benefit enough.

Originally Posted by PriorityOne

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.

I am approaching this from a principled standpoint, independently of any claim to authority or appeal to emotion.

Originally Posted by PriorityOne

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.

That adds a remarkably sexist slant, does it not? Irrespectively, I do not know of any research that shows the correlation between number of sexual partners, and the prevalence of the HPV virus.

Originally Posted by PriorityOne

As my daughter has already been sexually active with 2 partners (to my knowledge).....

Is she likely to have more?

Originally Posted by PriorityOne

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...

The benefit is that there is a reduced risk of contracting HPV 16 and 18 infections, the viruses that can give rise to cervical cancer. For every 100 girls in the same position as your daughter, the vaccine prevents occurrence of HPV infection in a up to 40 of them, based on at least one study. What is there not to see?

Originally Posted by PriorityOne

and would still need Pap screening like everyone else....

I believe that we have already covered that.

Originally Posted by PriorityOne

which would detect any abnormalities at a later date, if there were any.

The vaccine would prevent the occurence of abnormalities in the first place. Belt and braces. Less risk is less risk is less risk.

[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.

[My Real Name]

Originally Posted by PriorityOne

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one for the time being....

I find it hard to couch this in terms that don't appear confrontational, but, with due consieration and respect, that's a cop out. Agreeing to disagree is tantamount to stating that you don't care what I have said, and you will make your own mind up in any case, which makes me question why you saw fit to ask about the HPV vaccine in the first place.

Originally Posted by PriorityOne

it's starting to feel like an inquisition.....

I'm genually sorry that you feel that way. I feel that I have merely been representing a question that goes to the heart of your uncertainty, which you have consistently ignored.

Originally Posted by PriorityOne

and your posts appear to be a tad on the arrogant side.

And with that comment, your's become obnoxious and rude. Please don't mistake robustness for arrogance.

Originally Posted by PriorityOne

Thanks for your input anyway.

I'm happy to provide it. I don't mean to be overly assertive, although I am aware it may come across as such. neither do I expect to change your mind. If you genuinely are considering the risks and benefit of the vacination, and if I have provided you with pause for thought, then I consider that we have both benefitted from the discussion.

[Edit]

Originally Posted by PriorityOne

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

As I stated, I am not looking to change the mind that you had obviously made up before you disingenuously started this thread.

The overwhelming evidence is that your daughter, by not having the vaccine, has an increased risk of HPV infection which can cause cervical cancers.

Living with that is your prerogative, but I'm sure that you would rationalise it, should the worst happen.

Originally Posted by PriorityOne

or you having the last word, if you prefer.

The irony is overwhelming.

Originally Posted by PriorityOne

but I have no more to add at this point.

That became apparent when you failed to answer a simple question.