Cervical Cancer Vaccine - Girl Dies - Another MMR?
- Thread starter FabricLiveBaby!
- Start date
One caller even said that the only kids that hadn't had the jab were in the "medical profession".
im amazed how you come to this conclusion without knowing anything about my health care and medical qualifications and knowledge*
i am adequately educated in healthcare, medicines and vaccinations to make a decision on whether to proceed with a certain type of vaccine (5-10 years ago with the "smoke" if not "fire" of the time) or not for MY children.. not yours or thiers.. but mine
*and no i am not disclosing them as i have made it clear these are my personal opinions
Well - 1 in 1.4 million.
And actually I think they were referring to number of doses administered, and each person gets three doses over time.
So over the course of treatment (assuming everyone has had the full course), there is a 1 in 460,000 chance of death (IF that was the cause of death).
Which doesn't sound as impressive as 1 in a million.
But - compare to deaths on the road. approx 3000 per year in amongst a population of approx 60 million.
That's 1 in 20,000.It's a wonder anyone drives a car!
Incidentally, it appears (although most of the sources quoting it seem a bit biased) that there have already been a number of confirmed deaths as a result of the vaccine in the states, where it has been in use for a few years. But again we're talking tiny numbers in the grand scheme.
nice stats
and the incidence of death from cervical cancer is approx 1000 per year (population of 35 million females) give or takethe most likely cause of death from vaccination (of any kind) is anaphylaxis
the HPV vaccine has a rather high incidence of this event compared to other vaccines
read it for yourself
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Well as I said, you made a decision not to use the triplevax on the basis of badly done research and media stories in Japen and the US. This, to me, doesn't qualify as 'the right information, critically analysed' ( to paraphrase).
To be perfectly frank, your healthcare quals don't really concern me - I work in the NHS, and there are plenty of qualified clinicians who know very, very little of anything outside their own field of expertise (and in some cases even that knowledge is questionable).
vaccinations and anaphylaxis management is within my sphere of expertise. as are many other aspects of health, not all, but a fair few
there's plenty of secretaries working in the NHS
it wasnt media stories it was governmental papers, i suspect in the states there was a concern of litigation if parents not able to make the choice
japan was done on the basis (at the time) of smoke and fire and parental choice
in the uk we didnt have that choice. i wonder how many others would've exercised that choice if given
as a NHS employee, you should know all about the patients charter a treatment choices, no?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Yes I do, and quite honestly, like the rest of the patients charter, it's going to be a legal minefield over the next 10 years or so and should never have been written.
Also, I'm surprised that you would be linking to stories about Gardasil and the incidence of anaphylaxis in Australia knowing that in the UK Cervarix is being used, for which there is nothing, beyond the current MHRA data on ADRs to vaccines as a whole.
Also, I'm surprised that you would be linking to stories about Gardasil and the incidence of anaphylaxis in Australia knowing that in the UK Cervarix is being used, for which there is nothing, beyond the current MHRA data on ADRs to vaccines as a whole.
the ADR system can only report on ADRs during the lifetime of the product
cervarix has less than 18 months of use in the uk based on a human trial of around 20k women no incidents of anaphylaxis specifically mentioned with 1.4 million administrations since license granted
gardasil has several studies albeit with smaller numbers with no incidents of anaphylaxis specifically mentioned
(both from SPC on EMC)
however, since the trials of gardasil there have been incidences. its been in use for a few years with over 13 million doses administered
there is a 1 in 1000000 occurrence of anaphylaxis
the incidence of anaphylaxis is far from known yet with cervarix
IF this case is linked to anaphylaxis (which i doubt as that should be fairly obvious, but the one media report has little details) then this would fit statically as we are yet to get to the next due dose of 2 million (purely statistically, im sure we both agree that ADR's don't come round like clockwork)
it may be the excipients are removed enough to not have any relation, or the fact that cervarix only acts as a prophylaxis against just 2 strains of the virus rather than the 4 (maybe supporting my (personal) concerns about multivax) that would make for less ADR
the truth is. 1.4 million doses is too tiny to know anything conclusively yet
but, as i said, i am just glad my daughter is not yet at the age to be put forward on this programme, so the dilemma isnt mine
E2A, patients charter is great.. as we the public own the NHS we should have more choice in how, when and where we recieve treatment. i would've thought a member of this site would be all in favour of empowering the populace?
Can we all at least agree, preferably before the inimitable J***z appears on this thread to puke his own special blend of lumpy diced-carrot-and-tomato-skins lunacy all over it, that even if this death does turn out to be vaccine-related, we are talking about infinitesimal levels of risk compared with the risk of contracting cervical cancer?
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
That's a sizeable claim, have you looked for a study in the medical literature or taken the internet's silence as proof of absence?
Even if it is only an assumption you'll have to agree that it's a sensible assumption.
The motion is seconded.
compared to risk of cervical cancer yes
the risk to a child of 13 from cervical cancer is likely less than the risk from the vaccine however. need to bear in mind that the vast majority of those women who die from CC do so in their 70's. this is likely to drop further without the use of a vaccine as screening uptake increase due to generational changes (ie all child bearing age women now have been screened since 25 yo.. the same cannot be said for those women in their 70's
the biggest reducer in CC rates is to do with sexual behaviours and general sexual health (as i think has been allured to in this thread)
as people have increased the numbers of sexual partners and also undertaken higher risk behaviours, the incidence has grown in relation to the drops due to screening and better treatments
is the risk (whether to be realised or non existent) from the vaccine, compared to the cost compared to the risk of the disease worth it on balance...... i don't know. im not a health economist
i do know that as much as we would like to, we cannot sanitise every part of our existence through medical intervention
the £100 million spent on this programme will mean it isnt spent somewhere elase in the NHS. was the programme driven by actual health/economic sense? or by a media campaign when we where all pouring our hearts out over ms goody
again, i don't know
just posing the question
and im not going to argue it either
Thora
Differently Ethical
There's definitely some things to think about in terms of the risk of the vaccine vs the risk of cervical cancer. On balance I would still choose to give a child of mine the vaccine. My doctor told me recently that they see more women with HPV than without after their first smear test now.
should that be addressed with a potentially risky and maybe non cost effective vaccination programme of children
or by adults having safer sex?
i suspect the celibate among us do not get HPV
been speaking with me wife... from the brief convo, we are agreed that we too probably would go for the vaccine on balance, but not in year 8 (12-13yo) but rather educate and support our daughter to make a safer choice of not having sex at that age.. providing condoms and the confidence/skills to use them in case she does have sex (HPV is far from the worst STI you can get) and then involving her in a discussion about whether to have it or not at 14/15 an age where she will have a better ability (than she will at 12) to weigh up the pros/cons for herself with our support (well probably just with my wife as i dont want to even entertain the idea that any boy will get near my little girl!
)
Thora
Differently Ethical
I suspect adults are probably having safer sex than teenagers - which is the point of vaccinating children before they become sexually active.
indeed, i meant adults in the sense they are sexually active rather than >18years
my bad
sorry not quite sure what you are saying?
but to answer in part.. the tripvax is made up of the same individual live strains as the singles are. so efficacy has to be the same. the only significant difference is excipients
on an aside with MMR, its of note the the SPC states that 28 days must elapse between this vaccine and other live vaccines
yet there is no evidence in the literature to suggest that any live vaccines (other than yellow fever and cholera) should interact/reduce efficacy
so even though no reason to have a delay, they advise it, yet its not advised (by virtue they are in the same vial) to leave 28 days between administration of M, M and R
although it was 28 days and 3 months delays for my kids.. think it was 28 days between the M and R and then 3 months before the Mumps.. cant recall now.. so long ago
Why do you say this? Is it a hunch, or is it on the basis of some knowledge that others aren't party to?
i hope that's trolling as their is absolutely no reason why this vaccine should have any effect on fertility or be teratogenic
spanglechick
High Empress of Dressing Up
upchuck is aggressively, defensively thick.
anyway i was talking to a girl today in my year 11 'flexible learners' group (kids below the ability level of GCSE). This girl is mardy, angry and mostly monosyllabic. But she was really irritated that she could see something happening as a result of this death, to stop her getting the next two jabs. 'My jabs' - a real feeling of ownership and frustration and indignation that she could see bloody stupid adults, be they her parents or the general fuss leading to policy changes. this girl could not be expected to get a grade G in Maths GCSE, but she told me that the chances of her dying cervical cancer if she didn't have the jab were higher than her chances of dying as a result of it.
it's that fucking simple.
anyway i was talking to a girl today in my year 11 'flexible learners' group (kids below the ability level of GCSE). This girl is mardy, angry and mostly monosyllabic. But she was really irritated that she could see something happening as a result of this death, to stop her getting the next two jabs. 'My jabs' - a real feeling of ownership and frustration and indignation that she could see bloody stupid adults, be they her parents or the general fuss leading to policy changes. this girl could not be expected to get a grade G in Maths GCSE, but she told me that the chances of her dying cervical cancer if she didn't have the jab were higher than her chances of dying as a result of it.
it's that fucking simple.
it's that fucking simple.
oh the joy of being 11 eh? the world really is that fucking simple
at 40, with 3 kids, responsibility on your shoulders for every decision you make that will effect them forever, for the rest of their lives.....
oh to be 11..........
Spangles said Year 11, not age 11.
I missed that, first time. I work in bloody education, and I still can't get my head around this "Year x" business - I have to convert it into "1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th form"
spanglechick
High Empress of Dressing Up
Spangles said Year 11, not age 11.
thanks honey
yes - she is 16. I, however, am 35, and it's me that said it's that simple. Because it is the simplicity of comparing the risk of death through one course of action vs the other.
Spangles said Year 11, not age 11.
I missed that, first time. I work in bloody education, and I still can't get my head around this "Year x" business - I have to convert it into "1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th form"
yep likewise!
indeed
Ooops. Thought that was a tobacco crumb on the screen
Times said:
That's the Times, which appears to have egg on its face, so to speak - but will doubtless carry on, having calculated that potential Times readers are more scared of their daughters having sex than of them dying
But - compare to deaths on the road. approx 3000 per year in amongst a population of approx 60 million.
That's 1 in 20,000.
Indeed...
rikwakefield
Born to be Mild
Heard on the news that she had a "serious underlying condition".
Similar threads
