Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

HPV Vaccination programme

2»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,128 ✭✭✭cynder


    I was called in to get my daughter after the vaccination, she was hot and faint, they had mats on the floor for girls who felt faint or fainted, 30 girls out of 160 were sent home. Everyone was fine the next day.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81 ✭✭SandyRamp


    I have done some research into this vaccine as part of my degree back in 2007, and I have to say it isn't the wonder cure that it's made out to be. Yes, it helps protect against certain strains but not all of them. As well as this, a number of studies found that the % of cases of HPV it prevented were in or around the same % prevented by having regular smear tests. So getting the vaccine is as effective as having regular smear tests.

    Saying that, I think it is better to be safe than sorry. My daughter is only 6 but I will be getting her vaccinated when she is eligible.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    SandyRamp wrote: »
    I have done some research into this vaccine as part of my degree back in 2007, and I have to say it isn't the wonder cure that it's made out to be. Yes, it helps protect against certain strains but not all of them. As well as this, a number of studies found that the % of cases of HPV it prevented were in or around the same % prevented by having regular smear tests. So getting the vaccine is as effective as having regular smear tests.

    Saying that, I think it is better to be safe than sorry. My daughter is only 6 but I will be getting her vaccinated when she is eligible.

    This is a load of utter nonsense. Please post the 'research' and source of your information and claims ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81 ✭✭SandyRamp


    Piliger wrote: »
    This is a load of utter nonsense. Please post the 'research' and source of your information and claims ?

    Whoa there! I am merely sharing my experiences and opinion, you don't have to agree with it!

    There is plenty of information related to what I said on JSTOR if you want to check it out, I consulted a number of articles from it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,252 ✭✭✭echo beach


    SandyRamp wrote: »
    I have done some research into this vaccine as part of my degree back in 2007, and I have to say it isn't the wonder cure that it's made out to be. Yes, it helps protect against certain strains but not all of them.
    Nobody is claiming that this is a wonder cure. It is a huge advance but it is far from the complete solution. As you say it doesn't protect against all strains so regular smears are still vital.
    As well as this, a number of studies found that the % of cases of HPV it prevented were in or around the same % prevented by having regular smear tests. So getting the vaccine is as effective as having regular smear tests.
    A smear test is not for prevention, it is for detection. It isn't an either/or choice. You can and should have both, but Ireland's record on doing smears is poor and it is only in the last couple of years that all women in the relevant age groups have had access to free and convenient smear testing. The women most at risk are also those least likely to go for smears and so have most to gain from vaccination.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81 ✭✭SandyRamp


    echo beach wrote: »


    A smear test is not for prevention, it is for detection. It isn't an either/or choice. You can and should have both, but Ireland's record on doing smears is poor and it is only in the last couple of years that all women in the relevant age groups have had access to free and convenient smear testing. The women most at risk are also those least likely to go for smears and so have most to gain from vaccination.

    You are right about the prevention, I probably should have explained myself better! From what I can recall I read that the number of cases of cervical cancer in women who had the vaccine and the number of cases of cancer in women who had regular smears were in or around the same. Most likely suggesting that in the cases where the women had regular smears, things like early cell changes etc. were picked up on and treated early, thus leading to the similar rates.

    I wholeheartedly agree that women should have both the vaccine and regular smears, it is always better to be protected.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    SandyRamp wrote: »
    Whoa there! I am merely sharing my experiences and opinion, you don't have to agree with it!

    There is plenty of information related to what I said on JSTOR if you want to check it out, I consulted a number of articles from it.

    Wrong.

    You are suggesting that this vaccine is being touted as a wonder-cure. This is patent nonsense. It has never been so. And by creating that impression and then countering it you create the impression that this vaccine is in some way flawed.

    You state that it helps protect against certain strains but not all of them - yes this has always been the case. It has never been touted to protect against every strain - only the ones that cause almost all of the dangerous infections.

    And your statement about smears is comical. A smear is a method of detecting already established infection. A vaccine is a method of preventing infection.

    So much for your standards of research.

    You may consider posting 'personal' research a bit of fun - but it affects the decisions of real people, often people who are not as able to make these decisions as you and who are easily influenced in a negative way by such inaccurate and misleading comments.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81 ✭✭SandyRamp


    Piliger wrote: »
    Wrong.


    And your statement about smears is comical. A smear is a method of detecting already established infection. A vaccine is a method of preventing infection.

    So much for your standards of research.

    You may consider posting 'personal' research a bit of fun - but it affects the decisions of real people, often people who are not as able to make these decisions as you and who are easily influenced in a negative way by such inaccurate and misleading comments.
    Please read my second post regarding the smear issue.


Advertisement