The HPV Vaccine for girls

[Govangirl]

I have a 12 year-old daughter who, along with every other 11-12 year-old girl in the UK, is going to be given the new HPV vaccine to help to prevent cervical cancer. Now, I am a born worrier at the best of times but I have some concerns over it and there seems to be no discusson around this vaccination programme - the girls get sent home the barest of details and a consent form to be signed and returned.

Am I right to have concerns? I understand this is a killer that we need to prevent if we can but do we know enough about it? I was quite happy for my children to have the MMR vaccine but it was well-established. I'm mainly concerned that we all seem to accept Government's advice on 'what's best for us' and feel this MAY be just one big drug trial. I would welcome any efforts that protect our young people's health but why is there so much enthusiasm for a highly expensive vaccine whose long-term effects are unknown yet little effort seems to be made to fund sexual health services or make school sex education compulsory for all? I realise prevention is better than cure but am I right to question this programme or not? What do others think?

[ionnsaigh]

Of course you are - however I would say - that you have to weigh things up. Not easy when your dealing with an unknown factor.
Cervical cancer is a frick of a disease - go for it girl. The history of things shows a certain amount of trepidation.
Help rid the world of cancer.

[£3.73]

Govan,

This is something I've noticed & spoken about elsewhere, I wasn't really sure it was applicable to Kintyre Forum.

I think you will find, drug companies have adopted a new marketing approach.
With social networking etc, it's never been easier to create a "buzz" about new drugs.

The next big marketing angle in pharmacy appears to be "preventative drugs".

By highlighting an issue (ie. cervical cancer) and promoting a solution ... it is possible to encourage people to go along to their GP armed with a Brand name ..... ie. doctor, I am really worried that I may become a victim of (insert condition here) ... so I would really like to be prescribred (Insert Brand name here) !!!

Unfortunately, this is a reality. Another example of the Power of Nightmares.

[£3.73]

I might add that I used to work in a research lab in the Physiology & Pharmacology Dept of Strathclyde University. From my office in the Royal College I would constantly marvel at the daily protests in George Sq. (How many times have I seen Ionns lol)

Basically, the numbers in these things don't add up. There is perhaps a 1 in 10,000 chance you may go on to develop one of these conditions in adult life. You have to weigh this against the fact that there has never yet been a drug invented that doesn't have side-effects.

Moving from "reactive" to "pro-active" in a pharmacutical sense is very dangerous. Yes, I could develop leprosy, but it's a risk I'm willing to take.

[westport321]

My daughters, NO my Grandaughters,NO this is as has been said, a marketing ploy...... Look at how many women who dont get annual check ups get cervical cancer VS the women who do get checkups. This is another fearfactor lesson for us. Dont listen to them,bunch of hoooey.

[Dunc R]

Govangirl,

Take a look at this site, may give you a better idea of what the vaccine is all about.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV- ... tm#hpvvac1

[Govangirl]

Thanks Dunc, I've been doing a bit of research today and this is about all the info that's out there really. I know your site was American but I was quite shocked at the individual cost! It just seems that it cannot prevent all of cervical cancers and now I'm even more unsure.

And £3.73, I know I may be a wee bit slow here but are you saying NOT to get it?

[Coxy]

Cheers for bringing this up Govan Girl, my youngest daughter (16) had this vaccination 4 weeks ago, very little info given from school ( probably because number 2 daughter never passed on the info, "as they do" ) but trusting what we did read and heard we did not question the reasons for it. Now however i am not so sure of the benefits or future risks.

[Govangirl]

... my youngest daughter (16) had this vaccination 4 weeks ago...

Coxy, down here where I live, only the Year 8 girls, aged 11-12, are being given it. There is going to be the chance for older girls to get it in 2010. Most people I know here think I'm mad to be even questioning it and they want it for their daughters whatever their age. I find that really strange - I'm not saying I'm not going to let her have it but I want to find out as much as possible first. There has been very little coverage in the media about it too.
I'm finding it really, really interesting to find out others' views.

[Coxy]

Govangirl, my oldest daughter is at home and sitting here reading my posts, she is a nurse at the Southern General in Glasgow and says she would love to have been given the chance early on to have the vaccination. She seen herself during her training at the RAH how this devastating disease took the life of a young woman of 23 with 2 children. It could be said genetics had a part in this because it is unusual at this age.

As parents, it is very difficult sometimes to make decisions for the benefit of our kids and we can only hope we make the right ones based on the information we are given or find out for ourselves, sometimes we can read too much into things, but that's what we do, "WE'RE PARENTS".

[Govangirl]

Govangirl, my oldest daughter is at home and sitting here reading my posts, she is a nurse at the Southern General in Glasgow and says she would love to have been given the chance early on to have the vaccination. She seen herself during her training at the RAH how this devastating disease took the life of a young woman of 23 with 2 children.

That's really helpful, thank you. It makes you think. And you're right - sometimes this parenting business is hard work!

[Mary G]

Nothing in this world is risk-free, and our parents and grand-parents took what must have seemed like big gambles to immunise their children against diseases that are now very rare. But they also saw first hand the damage caused by diptheria, pneumonia, meningitis, polio etc. They were grateful for the chance to improve the life-chances of their children - unencumbered by that modern disease – cynicism. And I am concerned that such cynicism could diminsh the effectiveness of these successful immunisaiton programmes.

I do think that scepticism can be valuable ... it stops us getting conned in all walks of life. So doing a bit of research is no bad thing. But I do worry when the sense of inquiry and doubt becomes more akin to cynicism ... almost paranoia ... “they are all out to make us look stupid” sort of thing. The professional doom-monger often has the potential to look a bit street-wise and 'in the know'. Frankly, we need to sceptical of their motivations too.

The diseases that we are now fighting are inevitably more difficult to beat. Over the years science has - naturally - picked off the easier ones to vaccinate against, and that ones that were more prevalent. So the costs for each life saved may now look 'less favourable' when compared with the other diseases that were more common in the first place. I think that it is imperative that we continue to push forward with these attempts to prevent cancer.

This might help those with concerns, and who want to know more:
http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/defau ... page=16024

[£3.73]

Govan, there was a huge amount of coverage about it Stateside earlier this year.
I've embedded a few examples ... they aren't hard to find.

Like yourself, I do try and make balanced decisions, and couldn't ever just unquestioningly go along with the flock.

The main concerns would appear to be the speed at which new drugs are being brought to market (no longer term evaluation) & how they are being marketed. (ie. product placements in "Sex & The City" etc & social networking sites ... Bebo, Facebook etc)

Mary G, I agree totally that nothing is risk free, but I would urge caution. What are the risk-assement/benefits of innoculation, especially if the drug companies involved have to resort to subliminal sexy marketing to make me aware ? Unfortunately there are very little ethics when it comes to making money.

Professional doom mongering? I have one word to say about that ... THALIDOMIDE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide.
There is a perfect example of a drug that was marketed as one thing, and had very unfortunate side effects for some.
And NO, before anyone blatantly twists what I've said ... I AM NOT suggesting that HPV vaccines cause the same birth defects as thalidomide. What I am doing is raising awareness of the issues they don't tell you about in the advertising.

[ionnsaigh]

Hold that result - this is another thread - where I may have changed my original fools rush in approach.
£3.73 has made a strong case. Then again so has Mary and other. In my usual haste I was completely focussed on beating cancer full stop. Not once did I question the effectiveness of the vaccine. I merely took it for granted - that it worked.
Perhaps I'm the victim of government propaganda.
History tells us that the path is littered with success and mistake. Are you in any better a position refusing - knowing that if the drug used - has any major side effects - then you won't have them. Thalidomide being the prime example.
However what happens if one who refused gets cancer?.
The difficulty lies in that both options - have potentially adverse outcomes. The rock and the hard place type dilemma.
The drug companies appear to have massive influence - not only on us those who govern. The principle objective of these companies is to make profit - they won't let a little thing like - the lack of scientific evidence - get in the way of profit.
Our - that is the general public's health - is compromised by big business. ( case for nationalising ).
Getting back to the point - I feel that the education system has clearly failed - our 10 year old children - should be encouraged to think about the pro and con of the matter.
I can't help thinking that my original gut reaction was correct however. Yet who are we to gamble the health of our children based on a hunch. I really don't know.

[Mary G]

The most celebrated, recent case of disease mongering was of course the ‘discovery’ in the mid 1990s of the problems caused by penile erectile dysfunction. I don’t have the figures now, but the PR money Pfizer spent on defining, quantifying and publicising the ‘problem’ that needed a 'solution' was – allegedly - more than on the actual development of the drug to ‘cure’ it ... Viagra. Remember these Pele adverts? Now I don’t want to minimise a real problem, but my issue is with the way the whole Viagra story was swallowed by the gullible media – getting the drug exposure that was totally unachievable by normal advertising.

But knowledge of the fact that this wholly unethical practice goes on should not result in us writing off every medical advance as somehow unscrupulous and manipulative. That would be a travesty. I too have worked – professionally – with the science, medical and pharmaceutical community, and am well aware of what goes on. The good and bad. It would be wholly unjust to play the arch-cynic in relation to every step forward that is made in fighting killer diseases.

Be sceptical, be aware, be inquiring – absolutely. But don’t be a martyr to the myths and scare-stories.

If you are really worried Govangirl, go and talk to your GP. Personally, I am convinced that it is the right thing to do. And I would advise others merely to reach their own judgement - not to follow others - of whatever persuasion.