[Closed] 13 yo daughter and deciding on the hpv vaccine.

I really can't believe that a few postings from some very poorly informed/ignorant people on here have stopped you giving your daughter a potentially lifesaving vaccination

As someone who's worked in cancer research for the last 15 plus years its really very depressing

we've taken the decision to withdraw the consent for now.
Inactivity is more comfortable that agreeing to it at the moment for all of us.
If need be, we shall do a lot more research and maybe speak to the GP.
Then let the GP administer it.

Please do proper research, not Google. Read scientific papers, and work out for yourself the risk you're taking.

Maybe the guy wants to take his time making a decision that one way or another will impact on his daughter's life.

Fair play to the OP for bringing the issue to STW in the first place and even more so for the recent update. I know I wouldn't have done that. My private life has **** all to do with anyone on STW.

Reading scientific papers and knowing you've looked at a balanced sample of papers and understood them appropriately is not necessarily a good idea without a reasonably good understanding of medicine, science and statistics.
There's an advert doing the rounds on Facebook that says "FACT- cancer is a fungus", and from reading the comments attached to it, I am horrified at the number of people who believe that to be true and when challenged they tell you they've "done a lot of research and are well informed".

As for "natural treatments" some of them are toxic, for example butterbur was banned because it causes liver toxicity. "Natural" does not necessarily mean 'safe and effective'. Also, many pharmaceuticals are based on natural substances, so distinguishing the 2 isn't so simple.

It's not put off...perhaps on hold until we satisfy ourselves more.
It was a bit last minute with not a great deal of notice from the school about their intentions.

I've finally got round to reading Bad Science, and just finished it yesterday.

You don't seriously think Ben Goldacre would bite the hand that feeds him?

Some European countries have banned it's use, and that's mostly because of environmental concerns after it's been used. In the meantime, there must be literally millions of people worldwide not dropping dead on a daily basis because of their fillings.

If you must, please please do some "informing of yourself" of the contributory agents of composite filling materials, their sensitivity issues, and their longevity, and check which ones your dentist uses.

Nick - this was obviously a tough decision to make but I've had 4 years of rubbish health. Many people with my (permanent) condition get better. Also, as I'm sure you know, it's a specialist job to remove them so have done my research. 🙂

A number of people on here are keasea and I claim multiple £5s!

Ben Goldacre actively hates the pharmaceutical industry, describing using terms such as "evil", to the point that I think he is clouding his own judgement. However, he does write very well on the merits of evidence from properly designed and conducted clinical trials.
I am not saying whether anyone should or should not have their child vaccinated, it's none of my business, but beware of people who claim to be informed when they may not actually be either appropriately informed or qualified.

Ben Goldacre is pretty wideranging in the hands he bites and is really happy to explain and justify his reasoning. I would trust him over the "truther girls" and the opinion piece in the new scientist linked above which was pretty comprehensively rebutted in the comments section .

OP you do need to be confident in your decision talk to your GP and read the NHS information .

*googles Ben Goldacre hating pharmaceutical industry*

Nope, can't find it. Can you post a link please? I see that he wants to fix the industry: [url= http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/bad-pharma-a-manifesto-to-fix-the-pharmaceutical-industry/ ]http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/bad-pharma-a-manifesto-to-fix-the-pharmaceutical-industry/[/url] and is positively anal about having data to back claims (that's why he is behind alltrials.org). But he hates people pulling things out of thin air such as anti-vaxxers and woo-merchants, though he would change his view if given hard evidence.

I have avoided flu jab but one of colleague is addicted to it so demands getting one every year. Coz it's free according to him ... 🙄

AdamW- I can certainly find you some quotes from Ben Goldacre relating to the pharma industry, when I get home later tonight.
I'm pretty sure they are in his book Bad Science. He has also make such comments on Facebook.

I can assure you, having just read Bad Pharma and Bad Science, that at no point in either does he profess to hate the pharma industry.

For a start Ben Golacre has written a book called "Bad Pharma: how drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients". I haven't read this one, but I do know that in Bad Science he has made sweeping statements that are not true across the board in the industry.

Ben Golacre has written a book called "Bad Pharma: how drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients". I haven't read this one

It's good; perhaps you should.

And, such as?

I have avoided flu jab but one of colleague is addicted to it so demands getting one every year. Coz it's free according to him

That's not a good reason. Avoiding ending up on ECMO, now [b]that's[/b] a good reason.

theflatboy - I have read large excerpts from that book and I have also read Bad Science twice. I am not defending the pharmaceutical industry, and I am sure that not all big pharma companies are totally inncocent of bad practice. However, what I cannot tolerate is people like Ben Goldacre making sweeping statements, giving the impression that everything he claims is fact and applies to all medicines developed in all pharmaceutical companies. Take Chapter 11 of Bad Science where he suggests that pharmaceutical companies are all out there manipulating their statistical analyses inappropriately to rig the results. I can't claim that has never happened any more than he can claim that it happens frequently, or most of the time.
I am unusual in experiencing particularly bad side effects from almost all medicines that I have ever been prescribed, but that doesn't mean I can't see that many medications make a big differece to people's lives and they haven't all been developed by evil people.

Vicky - all the more to be behind the 'alltrials.org' system where *all* trials, good and bad, all those dropped and left dangling are all registered and their data, good and bad is open for all to see. Full transparency is the key. The natural competitiveness of the industry will then keep everyone on their toes.

And hopefully if that happens the shyster Burzynski can be forced to give his 'results' for anti-neoplastons. 😀

Goldacre can point to evidence where falsifying clinical data has occurred, and you can never claim something didn't happen as it would be trying to prove a negative. Best get all data out.

I have a copy of Bad Science - which focuses on unscientific reportage in all areas of life - and I'll re-read Chapter 11. I find it hard to believe that he would state *all* companies would do that, as it is not very scientific and he's particularly anal about that stuff. More likely he would say 'many' or a similar phrase. You'll never get a true scientist to give a 100% guarantee of anything. But I'll re-read it as you may be correct (see? I'm a scientist by training too...)

Don't decide not to let your daughter have the HPV vaccine on the strength of what you found on Google. Or if you are swayed by Google then include this blog by a cancer surgeon who gets very angry the antivaccine conspiracy theorists (amongst others): http://scienceblogs.com/?s=Hpv

Because of the vaccine future cases of cervical cancer could be much reduced but not if people don't have it. Don't forget that it's vaccination that eradicated polio, diphtheria and has almost eradicated tetanus in the UK, amongst others, and it's a tragedy that a combination of anti-Western propaganda and Western anti-vaccination groups have prevented the WHO from achieving the aim of eradicating polio worldwide (it's endemic in Afghanistan, Nigeria and ****stan). We've forgotten how awful these communicable diseases are but if you need a reminder about polio you could do worse than listen to the samples here http://www.allmusic.com/album/the-body-blow-mw0000243699.

I would happily [s]take natural treatments.[/s] die

FTFY.

Don't decide not to let your daughter have the HPV vaccine on the strength of what you found on Google.

This.

I would happily take natural treatments.

Ah yes the natural treatments. Over the years I've picked up several people taking natural treatments and giving their kids natural treatment, "We don't believe in medicines" is the common phrase they use.

"Well I can make that severe pain you're in go away in seconds are you can suffer in pain, the choice is yours but I do have a duty of care to look after you which will it be?"

Funny they all decide to take the pain relief.

"I've tried homeopathic medicines but he's not got any better"

"Has he got worse or has his breathing been this bad for the last few days and have managed to control his temp?"

"No, he's got worse the last few hours and his temp has been getting higher"

"Well it's your child and your choice but I do have a duty of care for this child, I can make him well by given him a few simple meds or I can document you choice to refuse you sign it and we continue to leave him untreat"

"Oooh he is much better what did you say you gave him again"

"Calpol"

Drac. I hate it when people do this but I'll have to do it...genuine lol 🙂

vickypea - Member

that doesn't mean I can't see that many medications make a big differece to people's lives and they haven't all been developed by evil people.

That sentiment is basically continually flagged up through the entirety of Bad Pharma (and the relevant parts of Bad Science). You really should read it.

Just because some drug companies behave like rapacious capitalists, and that they limit access to information about the problems with their products doesn't mean all their products are bad or harmful.

It never ceases to amaze me:

1) How many people think "natural" is automatically good. Arsenic and shit are "natural". Everything non-natural is not part of a conspiracy.

2) How people would rather their child had a 1:10,000 chance of something really bad happening to them by taking [i]no [/i]action/having no vaccine than a 1:1,000,000 chance of something bad happening by taking a [i]decision [/i]to have a treatment/vaccine.

3) How people who believe in a "holistic" approach, rarely consider that their problems might be due to emotional or psychological issues. That their holism applies to treatments... not causes...

[b]OP [/b]- please think again. I have seen enough cervical cancer to know it isn't nice.

This is worth a watch
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01f51s5 - Pain Puss & Poison and the evolution of modern healthcare.

I do know that in Bad Science he has made sweeping statements that are not true across the board in the industry.

Interestingly, I've found a Ben Goldacre blog about the Express's reporting on cervical cancer vaccines -

http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/jabs-as-bad-as-the-cancer/#more-1374

And it seems to me that, while he is critical of the coverage (and explains why), he makes no sweeping statements about the medical industry as a whole. I must say (and not to labour the point) that I have read Bad Science, and I remember it as being very evidence-led and singularly lacking in sweeping statements. I'll give it another go, though - it's a good book.

He did making a sweeping statement about me and my wife in [i]Bad Science[/i] - he accurately lumped us in as "trendy MMR-dodging north London middle class humanities graduate couple with children", which luckily we didn't end up actually becoming (6 out of 7 isn't bad though... ok, 5 out of 7).

If I'd read [i]Bad Science[/i] while my wife was pregnant it would have been quite instructive in helping us pick out the wood from the trees a little earlier.

I am a cancer researcher and remember seeing the original HPV story unfold - you should see what it does to monkeys 8O.
A friend, and mother to three children the same age as ours, has just had major surgery to remove a cervical cancer that wasn't detected by regular screening. It's not something to take lightly.
No surprise then that my daughter will have it, and if possible, my son will as well.

Thalidamide is a strange example, the drug itself in one form works perfectly, it's Chiral opposite causes the problems.

Recently read Bad Science, and am in the middle of Bad Pharma. It seems to me that Ben Goldacre was fairly complimentary about the drugs companies that signed up to the trials register (GlaxoWellcome was one I think), and was disparaging when they pulled out after a merger with Smithkline. He's hugely in favour of open information on trials (positive and negative), and unimpressed with hidden trials and statistical manipulation.

Bad Science is a great book - should be a standard text for kids. Encourage them to look behind sensationalist headlines.

To the OP, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, my friend's wife was diagnosed with cervical cancer basically during the birth of their daughter, and died soon after. The HPV vaccine (had it been available then) may have prevented the cancer and my friend's daughter may have a mother now.

This is factually incorrect despite turning up in organic chemistry textbooks. The enantiomers of thalidomide interconvert rapidly at the pH of blood so you could never test anything other than a racemate.
Thanks for letting me get that off my chest...

"I've tried homeopathic medicines but he's not got any better"

Homeopathy works for some. Not for me. Acupuncture works for some. Not for me. Natural herbs work for some. Not for me.
Without my medication I would be unable to live a normal life, be unable to leave the house, end up in hospital (again) and possibly try to commit suicide (again).
Good luck to you guys with your natural medications. I'm sure they work but not for me.
My point is if something is clinically proven to help just bloody take it.

Homeopathy works for some. Not for me.

And don't use it to clean your loo either 😀

Homeopathy works for some.

Well, no. It's no better than placebo, as that's exactly what it is.

To be fair I think the rest of his post suggests that iolo actually meant:

Homeopathy [b]"[/b]works[b]"[/b] for some.

I think it works quite well for homeopaths.

To be fair I think the rest of his post suggests that iolo actually meant

Point taken, however acupuncture may work (though not for everyone, and not for me either), and herbal remedies (ie. St Johns' Wort) do have some effect.

Homeopathy, OTOH, is utter quackery, and doesn't work for anyone.

If a placebo makes someone feel better is it a bad thing? When mummy kisses her sons elbow and he stops crying is this a medical thing?
St. John's wort was the worst possible thing I ever took which sent me batshit crazy. Don't give it to a Bipolar sufferer.

No, of course placebo is no bad thing. My objection to homeopathy is that there is lots of robust evidence it doesn't work, little that it does work, and it's hugely expensive for what is distilled water. There is a disaster relief charity called Homepaths Without Borders, and this is beneath contempt.

St John's Wort has well-documented effects.

Anyway, me ranting about the evils of the distilled water peddlars is getting a bit off topic.

If a placebo makes someone feel better is it a bad thing?

That rather depends if it is [b]just[/b] making them [i]feel[/i] better whilst the underlying cause is still killing them.

Skint elbow is one thing. [url= http://www.badscience.net/2010/02/the-bbc-have-found-someone-whose-cancer-was-cured-by-homeopathy/ ]Cancer is another[/url].

I have had treatment twice for abnormal cells (CIN2) on my cervix and I have HPV.

Once you have it, it can stay dormant and never actually clear up. the body may get rid of it on its own, but it doesn't always.

I had very unpleasant treatment to remove the changed cervical cells, including a biopsy with no anaesthetic and then a LLETZ treatment which basically burns them off. My first abnormal smear was at 23, which is only 10 years older than the OPs daughter, and I was treated a year later. My second treatment at age 27 - I got infected afterwards and my cervix is scarred, and is now hypersensitive.

I now have to have smear tests every year, I bleed every time and it's very painful after the two treatments, not to mention that having a very sensitive cervix affects, ahem, other things. I dread having another abnormal one and having to go through it all again, but of course if it happens then that's what will have to be done in order to stop it turning cancerous.

Sorry for any squeamishness on the part of the men, but that's what women have to deal with when they have abnormal cells due to HPV infection and I would like that the OP is informed about this before he makes any final decision regarding whether his daughter is vaccinated or not. I sure as hell wish there had been one when I was that age.

I sometimes wonder if men don't want their daughters to have this vaccine because they can't handle the idea of them having sex, ever, so they WANT an excuse to say no to it and not have to deal with it. And of course, there is an association of HPV with promiscuity, even though you need only have one partner who has been infected to get it yourself, so some people think that the women who have to go through this probably deserve it because they are sluts anyway, if they've ended up with a sexually transmitted infection.

@graham, I never said anything about healing cancer with sugar pills.
My post was to take whatever medicine or vaccination to ensure the illness, whatever it might be, is either controlled or treated.