A lot of us will get cancer with or without vaccination. If some one says vaccine cause cancer then there is no proof. Someone can always say that one he/she heard of contract cancer after vaccination just like I tell my friend one of my cousin was cured by a witch doctor for her stage 4 cervical cancer. Use one case to prove something is never scientific. I am a clinician scientist with an impressive experience from my cousin but I still received surgery for my cancer without consulting the same witch doctor. But it does not matter if you are already determined that the vaccination is not going to help. Science or not science all depends on what you believe in.

What sources have you read that verify that the HPV vaccine causes cancer?

What I have learned about HPV and this vaccine I can suggest to give it....it will probably protect from  HPV and as Ru-Jeng Teng sad no there are REAL evidences about vaccine causing cancer!

I believe we have a genetic predisposition to most cancer depending from one individual to another. Which means regardless of what happens in your life you might already be at risk of certain cancers - nowadays you can get that tested (this might be a good idea for your sister if you'd like.) Vaccine for HPV - to prevent the harmful effects/onset of HPV related disease certainly outweighs the "possibility" of developing cancer. Of which there exist little to none genuine evidence that a specific vaccine cause a specific cancer. Medical intervention is there for a reason, to not make use of it because of speculation would be a waste of so much research being done to ensure safety of drugs. Thank you.   

Thank you all for your Help and advices.

The sources which found my mom was on a Facebook group were people was not sure what they think about it. In a czech group on Facebook said 60 people no and 5 german friends said yes and a woman from Mexico said yes too.

So I looked here for help from people which are more into this topics.

I would be glad if someone others will tell the thinking about this.

Thanks

No , it will help prevent infection by the strains of HPV virus that can cause cancer, plus help prevent other forms as well. From Harrison's Guide to Internal Medicine: "Currently approved vaccines include the recombinant proteins to the late proteins, L1 and L2 of HPV-16 and -18. Vaccination of women before the initiation of sexual activity dramatically reduces the rate of HPV-16 and -18 infection and subsequent dysplasia. There is also partial protection against other HPV types, although vaccinated women are still at risk for HPV infection and still require standard Pap smear screening. Although no randomized trial data demonstrate the utility of Pap smears, the dramatic drop in cervical cancer incidence and death in developed countries employing wide-scale screening provides strong evidence for its effectiveness."  Also prevents genital warts: "Condyloma acuminatum, commonly know as genital warts, are caused by HPV. It is estimated that approximately 50% of sexually active people are infected with HPV, and a high percentage of persons are unaware of their infection. HPV encompasses a large group of viruses, more than 30 strains of which have been shown to be sexually transmitted. The most serious consequence of HPV is cervical cancer.13 Approximately 90% of all cervical cancers are associated with HPV infection. In June 2006, the FDA approved the HPV vaccine Gardasil for use in females 9 to 26 years of age. The vaccine is protective against four of the most common strains of HPV which together account for more than 90% of cases of genital warts."

Do you like the social media? If there is a group of people strongly believe on thing then the opinion can easily go to one end even without evidence (especially true in election compaign). I agree that the vaccine needs to cover the most common strains that are associated with cervical cancer. We know there is a big difference between African American group and non-AA group in the HPV strains. Ideally there should be different cocktails for different groups.

Hi Petr.

     In my experience you have opened a can of worms here, but since I have recently been looking at the same question I will share my observations. I assume that the anti-HPV is not compulsary in your country, in which case the question is the same as for any elective treatment - do the risks outweigh the benefits? Consider the question from each side, taking into account what we know and what we don't know.

The risks

     (1) All vaccinations have a risk. Just as for any other pharmaceutical, there exists the possibility of an adverse reaction. If you wish to examine the risks associated with the various anti-HPV vaccines (basically two), the VAERS (vaers.hhs.gov) site run by the Center for Disease Control in the U.S.A has a great deal of information on the subject. Be warned, it is not very user friendly. Vaccination has a low (generally a few cases per 100,000 vaccinations) association with severe or fatal side effects. Unfortunately, the anti-HPV vaccines are amongst the worst for severe side-effects, including cervical cancer. Bear in mind that this is correlational data, not causal.

     (2) There is a question of moral hazard. Studies have shown that people who have received the HPV vaccine are more likely to engage in high risk sexual behaviour than those who have not. HPV is the most prevalent sexually transmitted disease (STD), but not the only one and the protection provided by the vaccine is partial - especially as it is directed against only 4 of the 116 (last time I checked) serotypes. The vaccine appears to provide at least some protection against other serotypes, but the evidence suggests that most of the strains are capable of producing the same effect as the serotypes used in the vaccines.

     (3) Finally, these vaccines have been given given fast-track approval by the FDA, not full approval. This means that they have not been subject to the rigorous evaluation of either their safety or efficacy that other vaccines are required to go through.

The benefits

     (1) Cervical (and anal and throat) cancer is not the only condition caused by HPV. Horribly disfiguring genital warts, as pointed out by William Johnson above, are also a potential consequence of infection, although the occurence of this condition is most common in homosexual men (substantially less common in women and heterosexual men).

     (2) HPV is the most common reported STD and barrier methods have only partial if any effect.

     (3) While HPV infection is neither necessary nor sufficient for the development of cervical cancer, 90% of cases test do positive for the presence of HPV and the vaccine is clearly effective at reducing the infection rate (of the 16 and 18 serotypes and at least some others).

The doubts

     (1) HPV is transmitted mostly, if not exclusively, by sexual contact. The duration of the efficacy of the vaccine is not known, but is quoted as 5 years (although this may have changed now). Vaccinating many years before the initiation of sexual activity is of dubious value.

     (2) The 16 and 18 serotypes appear to have been selected for being the most common amongst Caucasian females in the U.S.A. It is known that these are not the most common serotypes amongst, for example, African Americans. The usefulness of the vaccine might depend very much on which serotypes are most prevalent in your environment (Czech Republic?).

     (3) The development of cervical cancer goes through stages, with the vast majority resolving spontaneously in the early stages (1-2 of 4). Most of the later stages are picked up by pap-smears and it is amongst the most treatable of cancers if it is caught before it advances. It has been argued that pap-smears after initiating sexual activity make the vaccination unneccesary in developed countries where compliance with regular check-ups is high.

In summary, the risk-benefit analysis depends very much on your own situation. It is tightly linked to very personal questions regarding sexual behaviour and the age at which it starts. There is no general answer, but I would ask any doctor that recommended vaccinating a 12 year old for a STD precisely why?