that some people are against the innoculation of under 16's with the vaccine against HPV, the virus that can cause cervical cancer?

and why can't we all have some??

> and why can't we all have some??

Because most of us have been in contact with the virus already.

yes but not all and maybe not the strains we can vaccinate against (i did rather mean that one flippantly anyway)

and actually not all of us, i had fully protected sex with all my ex boyfriends, as did my partner with his girlfriends so i doubt i have had contact with them. now hopefully it will never be an issue as i don;t plan on sleeping with anyone else ever, but just in case lol!

It is very difficult to know that you have been fully protected as you only need contact.  Without being too graffic on the board if you have a look at this information here you will see what I mean. But I don't think we should worry too much as we do have the screening programme which will be effective for most of us in heading off future problems.

But fully protected sex is never 100%  So you can't say you have never been in contact with. :)

true but i'm sure they have tests. anyway, that wasn;t the main issue, i'm actually quite happy having regular smears, what i'm wondering is why would any parent want to deny their daughter this protective measure? its a hideous and relatively silent form of cancer, the really scary kind cause its hard to spot.

Are there any side effects?

>what i'm wondering is why would any parent want to deny their daughter this protective measure?

Is there a titre test? (very tongue in cheek!)

not sure to be honest, only had a brief read of some info online

briliant idea :)

A lot of parents are against this vaccination because there's no real way to know how this will affect the health of our daughters in the future.  There's also the worry amongst some parents that it will give the young girls a false sense of security and they'll think they're unable to develop cervical cancer due to having this vaccine and may end up skipping smear tests (because lets be honest no-one goes for those because they enjoy them).  Then of course there's the worry of how often they'll have to be revaccinated - will there be a need for yearly 'boosters' or will one set of jabs provide a life times protection.

Personally my daughters will be getting the jabs when they're old enough - by then there should be more information on how the vaccine affects the growing adolescence and how long it lasts for.  They'll also be getting it drummed into them that it only cuts their chances of developing cervical cancer (the vaccine only protects from one virus that can develop into cancerous cells rather than preventing cancer) and that smear tests are a necessary evil.

> Are there any side effects?

irregular bleeding between periods or after intercourse, lower back pain, smelly discharge, tired, weight gain/ weight loss

Those are the side-effects of the vaccine?

(Ice Queen wasn't asking about the symptoms of cervical cancer!)

OOPs sorry.....:)

I think its really bad that children arent being allowed the jab by their parents (the one we get at schools I mean, its in 2 parts) :( I think its even worse that that scientist who started the whole scare mongering about the vaccine has now cause many children to become ill because of this and his findings were completely unproofed!

We were nearly taken out by measles and now we arent vaccinating against it by choice some of us, could be some dark tidings on the brink if we dont carry on vaccinating our children.

> its a hideous and relatively silent form of cancer, the really scary kind cause its hard to spot.

Not exactly, the cervical screening programme is designed to spot not cancer but cells that are abnormal and likely to change years before they do.  So not silent as long as you go for regular screening.

yes i know, but there are 5 years between screenings and a lot of women don't go for regular screens themselves. by silent i ment that it's symptoms do not directly point to cancer a lot of the time but can suggest other things and can go ignored by many till its to late, thats why its such a big killer

I think you are mixing it up with ovarian cancer which is generally refered to as silent.  Dexter has described the symptoms so you do have abnormal signs that you would act upon if you were sensible but then you would go for screening if you were sensible and avoid ever getting to that stage.  We are very fortunate to have the ability to screen before it develops so as someone else said I hope girls that have been vaccinated don't fail to take advantage of that.
I don't know why parents might refuse the vaccine.  Are many?

Agree Astarte,I have had cervical cancer, had all my smears they all came back clear, it developed in between the 5 year gap. I wouldn't want any woman to through what i have, my sister in-law doesn't want her daughter to have vaccine, i think all young girls should have it.

> it developed in between the 5 year gap.

I must admit I did feel more comfortable when it was 3 yearly.  I do wonder at your sister-in-law knowing your experience.  What is her reasoning, do you know?

Thank you Isabel for posting that link.
My daughter will be vaccinated this year and I keep thinking I must look this up and see what it's all about!
Well now I am a lot lot happier than I was, as it was I knew nothing and was wondering why girls were to be vaccinated against cervical cancer which, as awful as it is, is not that common. Now I see.

Karen ;)

no, thats the info i just read when looking into thsi vaccine and was defo about cervical cancer, though i understand ovarian is similar in that respect though it does not have that high a kill rate in comparison

> but then you would go for screening if you were sensible

there in lies the problem, how many folk are? i was asking my doc from the age of 16 when i should start getting screened but i grew up with a nurse who reinforsed how important they were. i know dozens of people my age who have not yet gone as its 'icky'- tried making the point of not as icky as cancer but to no avail...

the only reason i was concious of the need, the vital need, to screen was because of my mum who was very open and freely discussed everything to do with thos blasted nether regions of ours :) many girls simply don;t have that till the get a card saying go for a smeer- how many do you think do straight away? not many i know. i had my first one 2 years ago and i had to convince my other friends to go for theirs. its worrying.

i don;t think the vaccine would make it any less likely girls would go, i think it would stay about the same- those who are consious of the issues will go, those who cannot be bothered won't

> my sister in-law doesn't want her daughter to have vaccine, i think all young girls should have it.

thats really surprising that she would'nt want that after you had it, my best pals aunty did and she gets smears more frequently. i defo think the screen gap should be less.

hope your better now

about 1,500 cases a year, not that uncommon either :(

These girls are going to need 3 jabs between Autumn and Easter .

I think the reason parents are concerned is because this jab is new to us and no-one wants their child used as a guinea pig !!!

I am afraid that it is not quite that straightforward Isabel. I am afraid that many women die of cervical cancer each year, and that many of these have had regular smears. You are correct in so far as a smear test is designed to pick up pre cancerous changes, rather than cancer itself. However, the test does not claim 100% accuracy, and false negative results occur ( a rate of over 10 % of false negatives is quoted in medical papers). Therefore it is true to say that cervical screening does not pick up all changes in time to treat them.  As such the vaccination program is just a fantastic opportunity to eradicate this disease.

Also you have not quite interpreted the term "silent" accurately. Silent, in medical terms, means "without symptoms" for the person who has it. a symptom is something that the patient feels or sees, e.g. pain, bleeding, etc. Women can have both pre cancerous changes, and full blown cancer, before getting symptoms. So cervical cancer IS in most cases a "silent" disease.

> I do wonder at your sister-in-law knowing your experience. What is her reasoning, do you know?

I think it was when the vaccine first came about, there wasn't a lot of info on it, i have tried talking to her about it, i hoping her daughter will be sensible and decide to have anyway, i must admit it did very much upset me, but hey what can you do!! :(

Absolutley.......St. Domingo.
My sil died from this in her 30's leaving 5 children, so I understand only too well and still wonder.
The figure of 1500 deaths is bad, but how relative is this to other fatal diseases?
Devils advocate here.....as I wont stop my daughter having this.
Karen ;)

I also think that the number of lives this saves should be taken into account .
Obviously no-one wants to get cancer and even if only 1 life is saved that is good . However  i would be interested to know , for example , how many people die of TB each year compared to cervical cancer as the TB jab seems to have been dropped to make way for this .

> Also you have not quite interpreted the term "silent" accurately. Silent, in medical terms, means "without symptoms" for the person who has it. a symptom is something that the patient feels or sees, e.g. pain, bleeding, etc. Women can have both pre cancerous changes, and full blown cancer, before getting symptoms. So cervical cancer IS in most cases a "silent" disease.

thanks, thats what i was trying to say :)

its a scary scary disease, all cancers are of course, but i find myself more distressed by this one for some reason

Screening does not start until 25 Astarte.  I listened to a programme on the radio the other day about why people don't go and how they were tackling that.  One move was to no longer refer to "doing a smear" but to only refer to it as screening which seems sensible and of course it is no longer done by "smearing" using a nasty hard spatula but is now a much softer brush.  Hoorah! :-)

> though i understand ovarian is similar in that respect though it does not have that high a kill rate in comparison

Not sure which way round you are putting them in that sentance but cervical cancer has about twice the survival rate of ovarian.  It's something I have looked at lately as a very close chum has just had a very lucky escape in finding borderline changes in an ovarian cyst that was only detected when she was having a coil change.  We should probably all have more general well woman type check up than we do.

> The figure of 1500 deaths is bad, but how relative is this to other fatal diseases?
>

we don't have vaccines for them though! and you never know where this research may lead in future, it could help eliminate other things.

and i'm sorry abotu your sil

> Also you have not quite interpreted the term "silent" accurately. Silent, in medical terms, means "without symptoms" for the person who has it.

Yes, I should have made that clearer.  We are relying on the screening to "speak out" if you like but ovarian is the one that people generally label "silent" because it will so often advance to a stage when recovery becomes difficult.

> However, the test does not claim 100% accuracy, and false negative results occur ( a rate of over 10 % of false negatives is quoted in medical papers).

No, but it is a darn sight better than no screening :-) 

it starts at 21, believe me i remember it quite distinctly lol! a friend and i whos birthdays are quite close went together lol

the info i was reading said it was second in women only to breast (though i do wonder about that stat as surely skin is more??)

> No, but it is a darn sight better than no screening

no ones suggesting not screening, in fact if the NHS moved to scrap it i'd be arranging protests!

It used to,  Astarte but the NHS guidelines are now 25.  Actually, I suppose some PCTs might still do but I know mine doesn't

> no ones suggesting not screening

No, I know they are not.  I just think it's a good move to always encourage women to keep it up :-)

Yes it is the second most common cancer in woman under the age of 35.

I was very lucky as i was in late stages of being diagnosed, due to my symptoms being treating for other causes :( , let's just hope this vaccine wipes out this awful disease :)

that must have changed recently then as i'm only 23 and it does seem a bit old :(

i agree, i feel far more emphasis needs to be put on it actually, as i said were it not for my mum i probably wouldn't have realised how important it is. i don;t even remember having it mentioned at school.

here's hoping.

> how many people die of TB each year compared to cervical cancer as the TB jab seems to have been dropped to make way for this .

40 in 100000 are effected, not die. death only occurs in the severely immuno commpromised. its easy to treat though takes a long time to treat

My daughter hasn't been offered this jab yet but I'm unsure if I want her to have it. It's a relatively new drug and I've read some wildly conflicting advice and research. I'm not sure I'd let her have the jab until I know more about it and its effects.

We still have our screenings every 3 years over here, I hope they don't change that to 5 :-(

In my area , year 8 girls from September will be geting 3 jabs before Easter . Then they will try to catch up years 9 to 11 . I believe year 8 will get it every year from now on .
The trusts will have to see the up-take rates .
There is some info on NHS Direct - sorry , can't do links !!!

Ditto Dexter i had regular screening but developed cervical cancer and had a full hystorectomy before I was 40. If I had daughters I would have them vaccinated. My family has breast cancer rampant, both my mum & her siater had it and Mum died two years ago. So i have done 8 years IBIS trails. Part of the reason Im big is the drugs I take.
Its a bit like MMR I had my two boys vaccinated as soon as I could, but you will never convience everyone that it is "safe" because  for 100% os people it may not be.
I have friends and family that will not have smear tests as its "nasty" ignorance is the silent killer in my opinion.

Hi whistler i am sorry to hear about yourself and family must have been a very difficult time, i was 25 having a full hysterectomy followed by 2 recurrences leading to other treatment.

My Auntie (not blood related) also developed it, but hers was detected through a regular smear, she ended up having a full hysterectomy. Both her daughters will be having the vaccine.

> that will not have smear tests as its "nasty"

i don;t get that, its not that bad! a bit uncomfortable etc but i wasn't actually embarrased, it occured to me that the doctor had clearly seem loads before so why be bothered about mine lol also our family planning clinic have posters on the roof to distract you :)

> i was 25 having a full hysterectomy followed by 2 recurrences leading to other treatment.
>

that sounds awful, i'm very sorry.

i think its another reason the vaccine is a great idea, its not just the risk of death as its survivable as you guys have shown. but women are having kids older now- if you intended on having kids, really really wanted them, but later and this happened what a huge loss on top of the cancer

Thanks astarte, I am still here though yay :)

I think like most cancers if caught early they are very treatable, cervical cancer is definitely one of them.