HPV vax

**Trillian** · February 14th, 2015, 07:02 PM

You're still missing the point though. Those statistics do sound great don't they? But what those statistics don't tell you is that only 840 women were expected to be diagnosed with cervical cancer last year. Even by 2020, that number is still only expected to be 915 women. So the reality of those statistics is that less than 500 women have been saved by the HPV vaccine from getting cancer. Which is great for those women, no mistake about that. But by the time my DD's and I are 85, we still have only a 1 in 155 chance of getting cervical cancer. Compare that to breast cancer, which has an incidence rate of 12,670 diagnoses a year. Statistically speaking I have a much greater chance of getting breast cancer with a 1 in 10 rate of getting it before I turn 85. I have a higher chance of getting skin cancer with a 1 in 24 chance. Considering that I spent most of my childhood getting a tan, I'm more worried about getting skin cancer than I am cervical cancer.

**Hetty** · February 14th, 2015, 07:11 PM

We aren't talking about different kinds of cancer that aren't preventable. Why not reduce the chances of one type? Those 500 women are glad they reduced their chances. I'm not missing the point. I know people die of different kinds of cancers. I never said they didn't. Can you please stop twisting my words?

Are you saying that we shouldn't immunise because only a small amount of people will be saved? That seems crazy to me. If the cost outweighs the benefits then sure, but does it? What is the cost of life to those 500 women? And that's when measuring life or death. What about all the women out there saved from colposcopies and biopsies and laser on their cervix? Because we know there's something so effective, why not treat it?

By your logic, because more women died of breast cancer (therefore those 500 women, in a statistical sense, are insignificant), does that mean we shouldn't treat diseases that don't kill many people? Hell, should we do away with treating people for cancer because more people die of starvation in Africa?

Actually, I give up. You've stopped calling me names but you're making up things I've said and not reading my posts properly. Which makes this whole thing rather redundant.

**Trillian** · February 14th, 2015, 07:24 PM

Are you for real? Breast cancer can be prevented by getting regular mammograms and self checking of breasts. Hell, the ultimate prevention is women having double mastectomies because they have a family history of it. Skin cancer/melanoma can be prevented by staying out of the sun and using sunscreen. Lung cancer can be prevented by not smoking. All cancers can be somewhat prevented by avoidance and screening programs. You speak as if this vaccine is the only prevention for cervical cancer. When it's not. It's a prevention of HPV, which has been found to be apparent in some cervical cancers. The main point I think you're missing is that those of us who choose not to vaccinate against HPV know these risks and we choose to reject it anyway. It's our right. I don't know why people get so worried about other people not vaccinating, especially something like this (though I can understand why people get upset over people not vaccinating their dirty disease carrying kids with their laser-beam eyes spreading illness and plague everywhere but that's a whole other discussion

). We've weighed up the pros and cons and decided that for our personal situations, we're not convinced it's the best thing. The vaccine is there for people to use if they want to have it - it's OK for people to choose not to want it. If you think that you and your children are better off having it, then that's OK, just as it's OK that I don't think we're better off and will just stick to pap smears.

**Hetty** · February 14th, 2015, 07:41 PM

Again, I'm done. This isn't about other types of cancers. You take one sentence of my post and ignore everything else I've said. This has NOTHING to do with lung cancer. But still, you ignore what I say and go off on an irrelevant tangent. Why do I even bother? You are completely missing the point.

**~clover~** · February 14th, 2015, 07:56 PM

Sorry Hetty. I didn't intend to twist your words, though I'm not sure where I did. And I can see that you've said a few times 'but why'. My answer above is part of the reason why.

There are parents out there who do believe the benefit outweighs the risks. They'll take the chance that they will be more careful during any out breaks, they use natural ways to boost their immune system rather than vaccinations. They know the decision they're making & know their risks.

I can guarantee that almost 100% of anti vaxxers will do a lot of research before they make that choice, yet most pro vaxxers don't do any at all. They just do as they are told because they are told it is best for their kids.

I can't tell you why each individual person makes the choice they make. Some are due to the belief that vax are linked to autism. Some truly believe that the body is born as it is & should remain as it is. Not filled with chemicals mixed with disease in the chance that they might come into contact with the disease. They also might not.

No one I've ever met takes the chance to not vaccinate lightly. I lived on the mid north coast of nsw. I know a lot of people who don't vaccinate.

I've listed my reasons. That's all I can give you, because that's all I have. That's the choice I've made, no one else. You don't have to believe my reasons. You can believe it's all conspiracy theories if that pleases you. The bottom line is exactly as trill said, it's my choice to make.

Lol, you'd have loved Lulu. A lot of 'tell it as it is' left the day we lost her. She'd have been up for a good discussion. Not sure what made her pop in right now, but I do miss her.

**Trillian** · February 14th, 2015, 08:36 PM

Again, I'm done. This isn't about other types of cancers. You take one sentence of my post and ignore everything else I've said. This has NOTHING to do with lung cancer. But still, you ignore what I say and go off on an irrelevant tangent. Why do I even bother? You are completely missing the point.

You brought up measles FFS. How's that relevant to the HPV vaccine and a sexually transmitted infection? I don't think I'm missing the point at all.
I think that to those women maybe yes, the vaccine has made a difference, but why should their choice to have it affect my choice to refuse it for myself and my daughters? that's the part you can't get your head around. I never said that cervical cancer should not be treated (so who's twisting words now?) but that in terms of MY OWN PERSONAL RISK of getting cancer, I have a higher chance of getting breast or skin cancer than I do cervical cancer. You are painting the HPV vaccine as something miraculous, and to some people it may be that, but science deals with statistics and the statistics say that I have a significantly higher risk of other cancers than I do of this one. So again, why treat a metaphorical scratch with amputation?

You can't seem to acknowledge that even with a vaccine that people would want to reject it. And because it doesn't seem to be getting through to you for whatever reason, I'll say it again - I do not care what you or other women choose to do. If you feel that having the vaccine will make you sleep better at night, then good for you. I'm glad you made a decision that you felt was right for you. However I expect that while I respect your decision to have it, that the same respect should be afforded my decision to not have it for myself or my children. It should not matter to you what I do, because my choice is my own and it does not matter if you don't understand it. You've come into this thread and not made a single attempt to truly understand why people choose differently to you. Every time I've told you that it's OK to choose differently you keep coming back. Why is that?

**Ca Plane Pour Moi** · February 14th, 2015, 09:06 PM

Wowzers. I should not sleep, I missed a great debate!

Fwiw, I have felt belittled in this thread but chose to take it as an interpretation of words without tone issue. I am a scientist so believing my research from medical and scientific journals is the same as trusting scientists. So my judgement isn't "better" than the scientists' research, it carries the same weight. Not enough proper studies have been done on this vaccine (as stated earlier), nor the long term effects of vaccines when pregnant, nor on all outcomes of antibiotics in labour (3 things I've researched in the last 6 months as examples, not to change the conversation) for me to feel I can make a full judgement. So I judge by worst case scenario for both options. In all 3, not blindly agreeing with the government line right now if the better option for me and my family. I do not knock scientists, I very much believe them. Don't tell me otherwise.

Btw, government doesn't get a say in what's in the Lancet or the BMJ, but does for the literature in the GP waiting room. Which sources do people use and trust? Up to you.

**~clover~** · February 14th, 2015, 11:22 PM

This answers it all

According to research (in the US), cervical cancer deaths are a lower risk than having an adverse reaction to the Gardasil vaccine.

There is another vaccine they use, called Cervarix. Gardasil vaccinates against 2 strains, Cervarix is 4 strains I think (I may have them mixed around, it's late), but this fact says a lot really...

**Hetty** · February 15th, 2015, 05:37 AM

Thank you Clover, I will read that research.

**peanutter** · February 15th, 2015, 07:30 PM

To answer the OP, we will be doing the MMR and varicella boosters, and we're still looking into the HPV.

While we only have sons, they can obviously get and share the virus, so we wouldn't opt out simply because they're boys. But equally, I would like to think they won't be sexually active anywhere near then, and so it would be premature. And while we would probably talk to our kids about it (year 8 is plenty old enough to be a part of the conversation) we take the attitude that we're still the parents, and decisions like that are still on us.

If however there was a reason they were going to be susceptible to it, at that age (ie: if research showed that you could getting from kissing, or through other forms of herpes like coldsores or something) then we'd probably opt in. To us, the side effects would not outweigh the benefit of reducing the risk of a very real disease, with links to a much worse one. Jury is still out as to whether it's still all just correlation and no causation, but again - on a risk reward scale, we'd probably decide in favour of the vax. But in the absence of there being a real risk of them getting it at that age, we're still discussing it. It's tricky, because it's not like your kids are going to come to you one day and say, "Hey mum, I'm considering going for a bit of oral sex tomorrow - are there any immunisations I should have first?" ... so yeah ... still being discussed.

As far as MMR, rubella and all those ones, we are more than satisfied that the best thing for our family is to get immunised, and we're happy that the risks of immunisation are smaller and less tragic than the risks of the diseases. Particularly as there are constantly people in our networks who aren't able to be immunised (new babies, etc).

But as for HPV, which is transmitted in quite a different way, we're still looking into it. We haven't decided.

As for whether it's crazy to do a blood test to check immunity first, no, I don't think that's crazy. I did that for myself before we started TTC so I could get my own updates.

**~clover~** · February 15th, 2015, 08:11 PM

They've been including boys in the vaccine for the past 2 years I think. I am inclined to think Peanutter, that as your boys are so young that there may be more conclusive answers before they get to the age where you'll be needing to make the decision.

DD is not sexually active. I like to think she won't be for a good few years yet, but I'm not completely silly

She is 13 soon - she doesn't even have her period yet...
She's not boy crazy like some of her friends. She seems quite sensible (so far). I know they've introduced it to girls at 12/13 because of the higher chance of it being effective prior to being sexually active. But I have & will talk to my daughter as well. I won't go all crazy & start bringing up oral sex & all the extra gross stuff she doesn't need to hear yet. I don't even know if she'd know what that is just yet, but now she's at high school it won't take long.

I did discuss safe sex with her. I did say that I didn't feel it necessary as long as she doesn't have unprotected sex. She's still 12, I think that's enough to bring the conversation to light, let her know I will talk about it & maybe even let her know that I can be approachable.

**peanutter** · February 15th, 2015, 09:04 PM

Absolutely - I wasn't presuming to comment on your DD's sexual activity

I was just explaining our thought process, and likelihood of sexual activity would obviously go into our decision making, when balancing of risks for the HPV vax.

And yes, I certainly hope there's more information available about how the drug is performing, both in terms of its success and also (as flagged by PPs) whether the data suggests kids are less likely to use other forms of protection and/or less likely to get regular PAP smears etc, potentially due to a misunderstanding of what the vax does and doesn't do ...

Good luck in making your decision

We all just want what is best for our kids.

**~clover~** · February 15th, 2015, 09:22 PM

no, but the lack of sexual activity did occur to me. And the fact that she hasn't begun AF yet. If they're introducing it at 12 (sometimes as young as 10), is it guaranteed to last until they're in their early 20's?

Just all things I've wondered...

**nothing2lose** · February 16th, 2015, 10:02 AM

P

This answers it all

According to research (in the US), cervical cancer deaths are a lower risk than having an adverse reaction to the Gardasil vaccine.

There is another vaccine they use, called Cervarix. Gardasil vaccinates against 2 strains, Cervarix is 4 strains I think (I may have them mixed around, it's late), but this fact says a lot really...

This is from 2009. I am pretty sure it has been debunked. I will find the research if I can and post it.

**~clover~** · February 16th, 2015, 10:10 AM

Ah. I've been trying to find newer stuff to read, but not winning.

**Ca Plane Pour Moi** · February 16th, 2015, 11:50 PM

PubMed is your friend. Although recentish titles have been about if it's worth vaccinating boys with HPV from an economic perspective, the fact that the vaccine is currently less than 90% effective when cervical growths are biopsied (90% the predicted maximum with boys and girls having an over 75% take up rate for the vaccine)... nothing on if HPV does actually cause cancer, nor on side effects that I can see.

But then I am not making this decision now so I'm not spending ages researching something that may have different findings in a few years when it is suggested for Liebs, if it ever is for boys where I live.

**little_O** · February 21st, 2015, 01:50 PM

On a slightly different tangent....

When I was first married and I have only had the one partner and he likewise.....My doctor has asked about Pap smears and I mentioned this to her and she said it wasn't really necessary for me to have one. When I go for my post pregnancy check ups they automatically do one now which is fine, but I was wondering if anyone knew anymore about this?

How is only having the one partner each make it less likely to get cervical cancer? She had mentioned that even if I had only one partner, if my husband had had other partners this would increase the chances and a Pap smear would be necessary.

I had chosen not to be vaccinated when the vaccine came out free because I didn't think my risk was that high....and I am a pro vaccinater for other things.

Would be interested in others thoughts

**~clover~** · February 21st, 2015, 05:01 PM

Pretty sure that once you become sexually active it doesn't matter how many partners you have, it's not testing you for STI's, it's testing the cells in your cervix to see if anything has changed prior to anything becoming cancerous. Having sex doesn't cause cancer. Changing cells in your body do & you're better off having them so you can know about any changed cells before it becomes serious. (Says me who doesn't have them done regularly)