Boys and HPV vaccine?

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

 

It prevents some cancers males can get too. It's not just preventing cervical cancer.

[Spy Car]

American College of Pediatricians, not Pediatrics.  

And the AACP has indeed been around longer and has more members, being the longtime organization that offers the required continuing medical education that a doctor needs to stay in practice.  So you take your CME where you can get it. 

This does not invalidate other points of view.  

 

So I looked around and it did not take long to discover why this particular group is actively and vehemently discredited:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alvin-mcewen/researchers-and-physician_b_589751.html

 

But we can't discuss politics on this forum, so I have nothing further to say about that here.  

 

 

Give us a break.

 

The AACP is a far-right wingnut group that the Southern Poverty Law Center includes on its list of hate groups.

 

More alt-right nonsense from you.

 

Bill

[Alice]

American College of Pediatricians, not Pediatrics.  

And the AACP has indeed been around longer and has more members, being the longtime organization that offers the required continuing medical education that a doctor needs to stay in practice.  So you take your CME where you can get it. 

This does not invalidate other points of view.  

 

So I looked around and it did not take long to discover why this particular group is actively and vehemently discredited:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alvin-mcewen/researchers-and-physician_b_589751.html

 

But we can't discuss politics on this forum, so I have nothing further to say about that here.  

 

 

This is not true. The American College of Pediatricians was founded in 2002 and is socially conservative. It was founded by a past president of the AAP as a reaction to the more liberal policies of the AAP. 

 

I think you are thinking about the American Board of Pediatrics, which is what doctors have to go through to be official "boarded" in pediatrics. That is the organization that administers/organizes the continuing credentialing we have to do, including the exam we take every 7 years. They do offer some CME, although most CME is actually offered elsewhere. 

 

The American Academy of Pediatrics is the mainstream professional society for pediatricians. 

 

As for the shot....my almost 13 year old just got the first one. He said it wasn't that bad. I think the reasons for why I give it and had him get it have been thoroughly explained elsewhere in the thread. 

 

On the younger age issue, I'm not sure the evidence is compelling enough yet for me to tell parents that there is a strong recommendation to get it at a younger age. I tell them that there is new evidence suggesting that it is better under the age of 15, but that they can still get it after that. However, it becomes less effective once someone is sexually active so I recommend getting it before that is an issue. 

[TranquilMind]

Give us a break.

 

The AACP is a far-right wingnut group that the Southern Poverty Law Center includes on its list of hate groups.

 

More alt-right nonsense from you.

 

Bill

As I said, it is political and I will not discuss it here.  Someone asked about a physical condition and I responded that I had read something about that condition, and linked a source. 

 

Don't like the source?  Fine with me. 

 

The SPLC has its own dubious history.  Counterpunch and a few other left-of-center sources have a few things to say. 

 

Anyway, you give us a break and stop trying to make it political.    I will be happy to discuss it further with you elsewhere, in great detail if you like.  But not here. 

 

 

 

 

[Spy Car]

As I said, it is political and I will not discuss it here.  Someone asked about a physical condition and I responded that I had read something about that condition, and linked a source. 

 

Don't like the source?  Fine with me. 

 

The SPLC has its own dubious history.  Counterpunch and a few other left-of-center sources have a few things to say. 

 

Anyway, you give us a break and stop trying to make it political.    I will be happy to discuss it further with you elsewhere, in great detail if you like.  But not here. 

 

 

Oh sure. Cite alt-right sources, then pretend it ain't political. Because that's what you do.

 

Bill

[TranquilMind]

This is not true. The American College of Pediatricians was founded in 2002 and is socially conservative. It was founded by a past president of the AAP as a reaction to the more liberal policies of the AAP. 

 

I think you are thinking about the American Board of Pediatrics, which is what doctors have to go through to be official "boarded" in pediatrics. That is the organization that administers/organizes the continuing credentialing we have to do, including the exam we take every 7 years. They do offer some CME, although most CME is actually offered elsewhere. 

 

The American Academy of Pediatrics is the mainstream professional society for pediatricians. 

 

As for the shot....my almost 13 year old just got the first one. He said it wasn't that bad. I think the reasons for why I give it and had him get it have been thoroughly explained elsewhere in the thread. 

 

On the younger age issue, I'm not sure the evidence is compelling enough yet for me to tell parents that there is a strong recommendation to get it at a younger age. I tell them that there is new evidence suggesting that it is better under the age of 15, but that they can still get it after that. However, it becomes less effective once someone is sexually active so I recommend getting it before that is an issue. 

 

What is not true?  The American Academy of Pediatrics does not offer CME?    I thought it did. https://www.aap.org/en-us/continuing-medical-education/Pages/Continuing-Medical-Education.aspx?nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR:+No+local+token

 

Yes, I understand that the American College for Pediatricians is a reaction to the more liberal policies of the AAP. 

 

No, I wasn't discussing the Board of Pediatrics but maybe someone else was. 

 

Anyway my mistake if someone else actually offers it.    I was simply addressing someone who mentioned a condition and I remembered the article. 

 

 

[Pen]

 

 

On the younger age issue, I'm not sure the evidence is compelling enough yet for me to tell parents that there is a strong recommendation to get it at a younger age. I tell them that there is new evidence suggesting that it is better under the age of 15, but that they can still get it after that. However, it becomes less effective once someone is sexually active so I recommend getting it before that is an issue. 

 

 

Could you (or someone) please explain this and how this was determined scientifically? Or provide a link to the studies that proved it?

 

I am trying to imagine a double blind study in which they take a group of children at age 11-12 who are not sexually active and give some of them (statistically significant numbers) the real vaccine and a control group an injection of just sterile saline.  Then for each of these groups they swab the genitals of half of each group with a known amount of HPV and the other half with, say, sterile saline again.

 

Then they do the same thing for groups of children who are sexually active with suitably large (for statistics purposes) groups who do and do not receive the actual vaccine and with suitable groups who do, and with half of each group whose genitals are swabbed with HPV and half swabbed with something of no danger.

 

And then compare numbers who do and do not get HPV.

 

And also do a study for the same double blind comparatives for an older cohort.  With the details being the same as for the 11-12 group other than the age so that a valid and useful comparison could come from the study.

 

Otherwise--failing such a study, which seems like it would be unethical-- it sounds a bit like a meaningless tautology: if children are sexually inactive, then they have a very small chance of getting HPV--whether or not they were vaccinated. Once/if they become sexually active, then their chances of getting HPV rise.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I get being concerned about the fact it's a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease, but I don't quite get the reasoning behind not feeling any sense of responsibility towards your child's sexual health.  Sex is a normal biological process and we are talking about health concerns and not condonation of specific sexual practices (like age of sex, types of relationships, types of sex). 

 

 

[Alice]

What is not true?  The American Academy of Pediatrics does not offer CME?    I thought it did. https://www.aap.org/en-us/continuing-medical-education/Pages/Continuing-Medical-Education.aspx?nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR:+No+local+token

 

Yes, I understand that the American College for Pediatricians is a reaction to the more liberal policies of the AAP. 

 

No, I wasn't discussing the Board of Pediatrics but maybe someone else was. 

 

Anyway my mistake if someone else actually offers it.    I was simply addressing someone who mentioned a condition and I remembered the article. 

 

Yes, the AAP does offer CME, although many other places offer it also. You do not have to be a member of the AAP in order to be a practicing pediatrician. You can get your CME elsewhere. The ABP is the organization that does the credentialing and if you want to be a board-certified pediatrician you must go through them.

 

 Your original post said that the AACP had been around "longer and had more members". I thought you were referring to the American College of Pediatrics offering CME and saying that it was an older organization than the AAP. That is what I was saying it not true. 

 

Could you (or someone) please explain this and how this was determined scientifically? Or provide a link to the studies that proved it?

 

I am trying to imagine a double blind study in which they take a group of children at age 11-12 who are not sexually active and give some of them (statistically significant numbers) the real vaccine and a control group an injection of just sterile saline.  Then for each of these groups they swab the genitals of half of each group with a known amount of HPV and the other half with, say, sterile saline again.

 

Then they do the same thing for groups of children who are sexually active with suitably large (for statistics purposes) groups who do and do not receive the actual vaccine and with suitable groups who do, and with half of each group whose genitals are swabbed with HPV and half swabbed with something of no danger.

 

And then compare numbers who do and do not get HPV.

 

And also do a study for the same double blind comparatives for an older cohort.  With the details being the same as for the 11-12 group other than the age so that a valid and useful comparison could come from the study.

 

Otherwise--failing such a study, which seems like it would be unethical-- it sounds a bit like a meaningless tautology: if children are sexually inactive, then they have a very small chance of getting HPV--whether or not they were vaccinated. Once/if they become sexually active, then their chances of getting HPV rise.

 

 

For the studies on younger teens vs. older teens/adults they looked at immune titers. It's imperfect but the best way to get an idea of immune response and standard in vaccine research. Those studies weren't looking to see if the vaccine prevented HPV, which has already been looked at in other studies. They were looking to see if the response to the vaccine would be different with 2 doses vs. 3 doses. Basically, knowing that it's difficult for patients to come back for 3 doses and that it's a barrier to getting people to do the shot, the question was whether a 2 dose series was sufficient. However, as mentioned earlier they didn't completely compare apples to apples. They looked at 2 doses in younger preteens vs. three doses in older teens. The 2 dose series was deemed to be adequate (although the US recommendation is still for the 3 dose series as these studies are new and in small groups). 

 

With the original studies they look at immune titers and also incidence of the disease in a population. For obvious ethical reasons, there is no double blind study infecting some kids with HPV. 

[umsami]

We'll be getting it for all of our boys (and DD).  I had both a colposcopy and a LEEP procedure.  Wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

 

Our religion is stricter than most in terms of casual sex...heck, most Muslims don't even date, they just get engaged if they want to spend time with a girl....but.....reality can be quite different. 

 

The way I look at it is this was the dream....a vaccine that prevents cancer.  This can help prevent esophogeal, mouth, anal, and cervical cancer.  That's pretty darn good. I am satisfied with its safety profile and risks based on the peer-reviewed journal articles I've read.

[TranquilMind]

Yes, the AAP does offer CME, although many other places offer it also. You do not have to be a member of the AAP in order to be a practicing pediatrician. You can get your CME elsewhere. The ABP is the organization that does the credentialing and if you want to be a board-certified pediatrician you must go through them.

 

 Your original post said that the AACP had been around "longer and had more members". I thought you were referring to the American College of Pediatrics offering CME and saying that it was an older organization than the AAP. That is what I was saying it not true. 

 

 

 

For the studies on younger teens vs. older teens/adults they looked at immune titers. It's imperfect but the best way to get an idea of immune response and standard in vaccine research. Those studies weren't looking to see if the vaccine prevented HPV, which has already been looked at in other studies. They were looking to see if the response to the vaccine would be different with 2 doses vs. 3 doses. Basically, knowing that it's difficult for patients to come back for 3 doses and that it's a barrier to getting people to do the shot, the question was whether a 2 dose series was sufficient. However, as mentioned earlier they didn't completely compare apples to apples. They looked at 2 doses in younger preteens vs. three doses in older teens. The 2 dose series was deemed to be adequate (although the US recommendation is still for the 3 dose series as these studies are new and in small groups). 

 

With the original studies they look at immune titers and also incidence of the disease in a population. For obvious ethical reasons, there is no double blind study infecting some kids with HPV. 

 

Sorry for the lack of clarity on that. 

 

[MedicMom]

Good luck with that.

 

Bill

I am 35. I was a teenager right in the middle of "I kissed Dating goodbye." I was homeschooled, conservative, religious and so was my peer group. Everyone's parents were very strongly pro abstinence only till marriage. Everyone I know took purity pledges.

 

By everyone I mean between 25-30 teenagers, also homeschooled/religious/etc.

Do you know how many of these were virgins on their wedding day? Almost none--I know of 2.

Most of them had not been virgins for a long time.

And I'm pretty sure none of the parents knew.

[Penguin]

nm

 

Edited October 24, 2016 by Penguin

[FaithManor]

I am 35. I was a teenager right in the middle of "I kissed Dating goodbye." I was homeschooled, conservative, religious and so was my peer group. Everyone's parents were very strongly pro abstinence only till marriage. Everyone I know took purity pledges.

 

By everyone I mean between 25-30 teenagers, also homeschooled/religious/etc.

Do you know how many of these were virgins on their wedding day? Almost none--I know of 2.

Most of them had not been virgins for a long time.

And I'm pretty sure none of the parents knew.

Yup! I was not homeschooled but lived in a generally conservative, church going community for my teen years and to be frank, virgin on wedding day was NOT the norm for most. Oh, mummy and daddy believed it to be true, but I was a bridesmaid a gazillion times over and for the friends for whom I did not serve in the bridal party, often did all of the music coordinating and the truth was shared among confidants. Reality has a way of intruding on idealism.

 

So ya, even with religious community, there is the ideal and then the truth of the matter.

 

I have had concerns about this vaccine for sure. But, when our kids hit 14 we presented a LOT of information to them and then let them decide. Four years out from being a legal adult in charge of their own healthcare, I am no fan of forcing something like this on them. Two chose to get it, two chose not to, and I am comfortable with both  choices. Thankfully though, they have been easy kids to deal with on issues like this. If we had said, "We want you to have this vaccine, made the appointment, you will get it!", they would have done it. It was just that I had some qualms leading up to it so did not have it done sooner, and we don't choose to parent like that in high school unless it is something way more serious and imminent.

[SKL]

My reasoning is that it doesn't pass my risk/reward analysis for vaccinations.  Regardless of the STD aspect of it.

[Bluegoat]

I would like to have it for my son.  As of now it isn't covered for boys, but it may be by the time he is old enough. If not, we might well pay for it.

 

I just don't consider this to be anything but a basic health issue.  HPV is so common in the population it's rarer for someone NOT to have it.  And it isn't just an issue for women.

 

I have a male family member who had a small growth in his nose and when he went to the ENT he was told it was actually HPV, and it really had to be removed because that was where most of the oral cancers the doctor saw came from.  In fact there has been a three-fold increase in oral cancers from HPV in recent years.  Oral cancer isn't better than cervical cancer IMO and in any case, having stuff burned out of your nose is awful even if there is no other risk.  Plus, chances are even being pretty sexually conservative, a future spouse might well carry it.

[SKL]

In fact there has been a three-fold increase in oral cancers from HPV in recent years.

 

Any idea why?

 

[HSmomof2]

Yup! I was not homeschooled but lived in a generally conservative, church going community for my teen years and to be frank, virgin on wedding day was NOT the norm for most. Oh, mummy and daddy believed it to be true, but I was a bridesmaid a gazillion times over and for the friends for whom I did not serve in the bridal party, often did all of the music coordinating and the truth was shared among confidants. Reality has a way of intruding on idealism.

 

So ya, even with religious community, there is the ideal and then the truth of the matter.

 

I have had concerns about this vaccine for sure. But, when our kids hit 14 we presented a LOT of information to them and then let them decide. Four years out from being a legal adult in charge of their own healthcare, I am no fan of forcing something like this on them. Two chose to get it, two chose not to, and I am comfortable with both choices. Thankfully though, they have been easy kids to deal with on issues like this. If we had said, "We want you to have this vaccine, made the appointment, you will get it!", they would have done it. It was just that I had some qualms leading up to it so did not have it done sooner, and we don't choose to parent like that in high school unless it is something way more serious and imminent.

ITA^^This is how we're handling this vaccine, and what our pediatrician has done with his own teens as well. Ds will be 14 next year, he's been given all the information about it from us and his dr. and has decided to get the vaccine at his next check-up. Will do the same with dd. My hope is also that by delaying the vaccine a couple years(14, rather than 11), it will last longer through the years they are most at risk.

[redsquirrel]

Good for you.  Yes, he may well transgress what he was taught, but I'm told he will always hear your voice in his head and it will give him pause. 

 

I bet your second recommendation isn't considered unacceptable.  

 

Yes, to both.  But sure, they know where the drugstore is if they are going to do it anyway.  Condoms are cheap and accessible everywhere.  Probably don't even need to make an effort to find them. 

 

I really, really hope my children don't 'hear my voice' in their heads when they chose to engage with sex with another person. That is gross to even think about.  Talk about setting up a person for a lifetime of issues.....

 

 

And not everyone goes through life lucky enough to only engage in consensual sex. Having been an advocate for many, many sexual assault evidence collection procedure aka 'rape kit' for teenagers and children, and seen how many tests they have to do to check for STIs...and seen how many shots of antibiotics are given during the collection procedure, and knowing how often those tests come back positive... why would you not want to give your kid and their future partner one tiny bit of protection?

 

And those rape kits aren't only done on girls and women.

[Butter]

Any idea why?

 

 

At least part of the reason is likely that a terrifyingly high number of teens do not count oral sex as actual sex and so will do that even if they won't have actual intercourse.

[J-rap]

 Plus, chances are even being pretty sexually conservative, a future spouse might well carry it.

 

Yes, this is my thought as well.  

[SKL]

It bears noting that all these risky behaviors are still risky even if a teen has had the HPV shot.  HPV is actually a really small part of the danger.  It's important to talk to our kids about these behaviors.  IMO that is more important than the shot, but others may disagree.

Edited October 24, 2016 by SKL

[Kathryn]

Yup! I was not homeschooled but lived in a generally conservative, church going community for my teen years and to be frank, virgin on wedding day was NOT the norm for most. Oh, mummy and daddy believed it to be true, but I was a bridesmaid a gazillion times over and for the friends for whom I did not serve in the bridal party, often did all of the music coordinating and the truth was shared among confidants. Reality has a way of intruding on idealism.

 

So ya, even with religious community, there is the ideal and then the truth of the matter.

 

I have had concerns about this vaccine for sure. But, when our kids hit 14 we presented a LOT of information to them and then let them decide. Four years out from being a legal adult in charge of their own healthcare, I am no fan of forcing something like this on them. Two chose to get it, two chose not to, and I am comfortable with both choices. Thankfully though, they have been easy kids to deal with on issues like this. If we had said, "We want you to have this vaccine, made the appointment, you will get it!", they would have done it. It was just that I had some qualms leading up to it so did not have it done sooner, and we don't choose to parent like that in high school unless it is something way more serious and imminent.

This is what I was leaning towards. He's 11, high-functioning autistic, and doesn't leave my sight. I'm not seeing it needed anytime soon. I don't know what the deal is with people claiming auto-immune effects, but there is a history of auto-immune issues in my family and so that gives me pause. I also worry about how long the effectiveness lasts.

[TranquilMind]

I really, really hope my children don't 'hear my voice' in their heads when they chose to engage with sex with another person. That is gross to even think about.  Talk about setting up a person for a lifetime of issues.....

 

 

And not everyone goes through life lucky enough to only engage in consensual sex. Having been an advocate for many, many sexual assault evidence collection procedure aka 'rape kit' for teenagers and children, and seen how many tests they have to do to check for STIs...and seen how many shots of antibiotics are given during the collection procedure, and knowing how often those tests come back positive... why would you not want to give your kid and their future partner one tiny bit of protection?

 

And those rape kits aren't only done on girls and women.

 

Heh, well hopefully, they hear your voice before getting into the moment, while still considering whether to proceed.  ;)

 

Sex crimes is certainly a factor to consider when making a decision. 

 

 

[Bluegoat]

Any idea why?

 

 

What Butter said in part, but actually it isn't just about teens.  It reflects changes in what sexual behaviors are seen as normal or expected, and indulged in, regularly.  People have a lot more oral sex than they used to.  Not surprising really when you consider how many lacked much privacy in the past and how often they washed.

[TranquilMind]

At least part of the reason is likely that a terrifyingly high number of teens do not count oral sex as actual sex and so will do that even if they won't have actual intercourse.

 

This is terrifying.  I can't imagine how this became a totally recreational thing (Edited to add) for adolescents. 

 

Even a group thing, from what I read (shudder - and no, I'm not linking). 

 

Edited October 24, 2016 by TranquilMind

[Paige]

My DS is 15 and is in the middle of the shot series. My understanding is that it is less effective with older populations because older teens are more likely to already have been exposed to HPV. I have no concerns that my DS is sexually involved with anyone and I decided to delay the shot for various personal and practical reasons. It was partly just convenience and I didn't want to pile on the shots with the MMR booster they get at 12 which is painful. 

 

I want DS protected from penile and anal cancers. I want his future partners protected and possibly by the time I have granddaughters and great granddaughters, the herd immunity from HPV may make ovarian cancer as rare as measles. I don't think that my DS and his wife are protected by "safe living." Rape of both sexes is real and so are remarriages and mistakes. I was unsure about the risks when it first came out, but I'm comfortable with them now. 

[Kathryn]

What Butter said in part, but actually it isn't just about teens. It reflects changes in what sexual behaviors are seen as normal or expected, and indulged in, regularly. People have a lot more oral sex than they used to. Not surprising really when you consider how many lacked much privacy in the past and how often they washed.

Oh ick! I need a brain bleach for that mental picture.

[Bluegoat]

It bears noting that all these risky behaviors are still risky even if a teen has had the HPV shot.  HPV is actually a really small part of the danger.  It's important to talk to our kids about these behaviors.  IMO that is more important than the shot, but others may disagree.

 

Yeah, I think this is very true.  If you had to choose, I think talking would be more important in most cases.  I really worry about antibiotic resistant STIs.

 

OTOH, some kids are the kind that learn by doing things and screwing up, and no matter what you say they likely won't change that part of their personality.

[Mergath]

It bears noting that all these risky behaviors are still risky even if a teen has had the HPV shot.  HPV is actually a really small part of the danger.  It's important to talk to our kids about these behaviors.  IMO that is more important than the shot, but others may disagree.

 

I see no reason why a parent can't do both. It's not like you have to choose one or the other.

[Mergath]

This is terrifying.  I can't imagine how this became a totally recreational thing.  Even a group thing, from what I read (shudder - and no, I'm not linking). 

 

 

I'm pretty sure oral sex has always been a recreational thing.

[TranquilMind]

I'm pretty sure oral sex has always been a recreational thing.

 

Well, you know what I mean. At least once it was reserved for someone with whom one was in relationship.  Now, it's frequently not the case, from what I hear and read. 

 

[Pawz4me]

It bears noting that all these risky behaviors are still risky even if a teen has had the HPV shot.  HPV is actually a really small part of the danger.  It's important to talk to our kids about these behaviors.  IMO that is more important than the shot, but others may disagree.

 

From where I'm sitting the best approach seems to be to do both. They aren't mutually exclusive at all.

[Pen]

 

 

With the original studies they look at immune titers and also incidence of the disease in a population. For obvious ethical reasons, there is no double blind study infecting some kids with HPV. 

 

 

Are there are studies showing that immune titers of children who have had sex before getting the HPV vaccine are lower than immune titers of children of the same age and demographics who have had the HPV vaccine before having sex?

 

The incidence of disease in the two situations being higher for children who had sex prior to vaccination seems like it might simply have to do with the vaccine not being able to cure a case that is already contracted--if not also the situation of children who have not had sex having very low risk for HPV.

 

But, and even assuming that benefits outweigh the risks overall,  that would not tell the parent of an 11 year old whose son might not become sexually active until 17 what to do.  Do the immune titers stay high for 6 to 10 years? And are the immune titers for 17-year-old boys who were vaccinated at 11-12 higher than for 17-year-old boys who were vaccinated at 15-16, assuming in each case that they do not have their first sexual encounter till 17?

[FaithManor]

ITA^^This is how we're handling this vaccine, and what our pediatrician has done with his own teens as well. Ds will be 14 next year, he's been given all the information about it from us and his dr. and has decided to get the vaccine at his next check-up. Will do the same with dd. My hope is also that by delaying the vaccine a couple years(14, rather than 11), it will last longer through the years they are most at risk.

I do view this as one opportunity to help them learn how to make medical decisions at a time when it isn't something imminent. They have time to educate themselves, read, think, and if they choose not, then it isn't such a scary deal. It is also easily rectified if they change their minds in the future. It just seemed like one of those things we could use for teaching about adult responsibilities without having such high personal consequences as other things.

[Katy]

It is now thought that some forms of oral & throat cancer are linked to HPV.  Generally the cancer causing strains do not cause symptoms such as warts.

 

Because it is SO common and generally cancer only shows up decades later, we don't know a lot about this virus.  For example, if a child is sexually abused by  someone with HPV, and there is oral contact, can the strains without symptoms be transmitted by kissing?  Since oral-genital contact can transmit the virus, the answer is probably yes.

 

What if your son is absolutely totally chaste until after the wedding at age 17, but marries someone who was sexually abused - or even simply grabbed and kissed in an unwanted way by someone who had been, and who had HPV in his mouth and gave it to his pure bride, either or both of them could end up with cancer later.

 

For that reason, and because the scary stories about this vaccine are fraudulent, all of my kids are getting the vaccine around age 11.   And I don't do flu shots and delay MMR.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I found this on the CDC website:

 

However, HPV can infect areas that are not covered by a condom, so condoms may not give full protection against getting HPV.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv-and-men.htm

 

 

[Reefgazer]

I am as suspicious of pharmaceutical companies' actions in the name of making a buck as anyone, but there are so many holes in this article, it could be mistaken for Swiss cheese (starting with the *huge* flaw of not looking at ovarian reserve prior to recording POF). 

I remembered reading something about that this year.

https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/health-issues/new-concerns-about-the-human-papillomavirus-vaccine

 

[redsquirrel]

Well, you know what I mean. At least once it was reserved for someone with whom one was in relationship.  Now, it's frequently not the case, from what I hear and read. 

 

 

when was this magical time when people did not have recreational sex?  Or when has sex ever only been reserved for the confines of Christian marriage? The fact is that as a species we have NEVER been particularly good with monogamy and certainly haven't been as hung up on sex only in marriage as we are now.  Jeepers, this countries founding fathers AND mothers were all sleeping around, lol.  And they didn't invent that behaviour.

 

There is nothing new under the sun...well... there is less control over women's sexuality and I think that is a good thing. But as for what men have been doing, with women and with other men.... nothing new is going on here. Some of the most explicit and, frankly pornographic, books you can imagine were written hundreds of years ago. Didn't someone just post on this board that they found a particular version of 1,001 nights that was more of a direct translation and not appropriate for children? Popes have fathered children, for pete's sake, lol.

 

It's nice to imagine that we are currently living in some new sort of Babylon, but it's just not true. As a species we are a pretty lusty and creative lot.

[zoobie]

Males can get HPV anally and orally. We are delaying the vax series but will get them.

[Janeway]

But it's not just for that. Even if your child stays "pure" until marriage, it is possible that their spouse has not. It is also, God forbid, possible for teenagers to be raped. Considering the 80% infection rate of sexually active adults, how can we consider this only for "sexually active" teens?

(And making a disclaimer that obviously, it is every parent's right to choose which vaccines their child does and does not get- I just don't understand the thought that this is only for teens and adults who are sexually active).

 

Adding- I became sexually active at 14. I had very involved parents, but I promise you that they had no idea. I was lucky that I didn't get pregnant or contract an STI, because my husband was not sexually active before we were married, and how much would that suck if he'd waited and I had an STI?

So you plan to put your child on birth control at the same time? Because if you think there is enough chance that your child will have sex but not talk to you or seek out their own care, or get raped, that you would give your child the HPV shot, then your child needs to be on birth control, to have condoms available, and to be taught to appropriate way to use a condom. If you feel the chances of them being raped or having sex anyway are too low for proper birth control, then your child should not have the shot. If you think your child is too young and innocent to have intercourse, stds, HIV, and pregnancy discussed with him or her, then your child is too young and innocent to have the shot. Giving the shot says you think there is enough chance your child will have sex within the next 4 years to take the risks associated with the shots. It is extremely irresponsible to give this sex without the proper discussions on sex and the consequences of it. And the child should have the right to make the decision, to just say no, after receiving the full information.

[TranquilMind]

when was this magical time when people did not have recreational sex?  Or when has sex ever only been reserved for the confines of Christian marriage? The fact is that as a species we have NEVER been particularly good with monogamy and certainly haven't been as hung up on sex only in marriage as we are now.  Jeepers, this countries founding fathers AND mothers were all sleeping around, lol.  And they didn't invent that behaviour.

 

There is nothing new under the sun...well... there is less control over women's sexuality and I think that is a good thing. But as for what men have been doing, with women and with other men.... nothing new is going on here. Some of the most explicit and, frankly pornographic, books you can imagine were written hundreds of years ago. Didn't someone just post on this board that they found a particular version of 1,001 nights that was more of a direct translation and not appropriate for children? Popes have fathered children, for pete's sake, lol.

 

It's nice to imagine that we are currently living in some new sort of Babylon, but it's just not true. As a species we are a pretty lusty and creative lot.

Well, I'll tell you what, while there is no argument that sex among consenting adults always occurred, this is a fairly recent phenomenon, and definitely a thing amongst youngish teens and younger.  

 

The "new spin the bottle", according to an article of a few years ago.  

 

 

Here is a serious planning article about how to conduct such a party:  http://www.theweddingspecialists.net/lipstick-rainbow-parties.html

 

At least the above article is addressed to adults, to the writer's credit, I suppose.

 

And someone wrote a book about it, directed at young teens.  Summary here:  http://michellemalkin.com/2005/05/25/mommy-whats-a-rainbow-party/

Here's the book - you can buy in on Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/Rainbow-Party-Paul-Ruditis/dp/141690235X

 

 

 I certainly know I would feel behind the times if my young teens weren't well acquainted with all the ins and outs of this group event  (gag- no pun intended). 

 

 

 

Edited October 24, 2016 by TranquilMind

[Janeway]

Here is what the child has the right to know....

 

The only way to catch HPV is through intercourse. You won't get it through sharing a cup, drinking fountain, touching the same shopping cart, or even toilet seat. If you have intercourse, you risk many things, including HIV and pregnancy. This shot does not protect against cancer. It protects against four strains of HPV out of many strains today. Many strains have been associated with cervical cancer. The shot only protects against two of those. 50% of sexually actively adult women test positive for HPV when all strains are included. 70% of the women with cervical cancer test positive for HPV of any number of strands. This means 30% of women with cervical cancer do not have any sort of HPV at all.

[redsquirrel]

Well, I'll tell you what, while there is no argument that sex among consenting adults always occurred, this is a fairly recent phenomenon, and definitely a thing amongst youngish teens and younger.  

 

The "new spin the bottle", according to an article of a few years ago.  

 

 

Here is a serious planning article about how to conduct such a party:  http://www.theweddingspecialists.net/lipstick-rainbow-parties.html

 

At least the above article is addressed to adults, to the writer's credit, I suppose.

 

And someone wrote a book about it, directed at young teens.  Summary here:  http://michellemalkin.com/2005/05/25/mommy-whats-a-rainbow-party/

Here's the book - you can buy in on Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/Rainbow-Party-Paul-Ruditis/dp/141690235X

 

 

 I certainly know I would feel behind the times if my young teens weren't well acquainted with all the ins and outs of this group event  (gag- no pun intended). 

 

 As for it being the 'new thing' among teens...yeah, Reddit and Michelle Malkin are not my go to sources lol.  That reads a whole lot more like something to sell advertising time on radio shows, garner speaking fees and get people to clutch their pearls.

 

But, group sex and parties to engage in group sex are absolutely not new.  The Romans had their orgies after all.  And I am sure they did not invent the idea

 

[MEmama]

Here is what the child has the right to know....

 

The only way to catch HPV is through intercourse. You won't get it through sharing a cup, drinking fountain, touching the same shopping cart, or even toilet seat. If you have intercourse, you risk many things, including HIV and pregnancy. This shot does not protect against cancer. It protects against four strains of HPV out of many strains today. Many strains have been associated with cervical cancer. The shot only protects against two of those. 50% of sexually actively adult women test positive for HPV when all strains are included. 70% of the women with cervical cancer test positive for HPV of any number of strands. This means 30% of women with cervical cancer do not have any sort of HPV at all.

No, no, no! ANY kind of sexual contact can spread HPV. Many young people are told that as long as it's not intercourse it's not sex, and therefore they are safe. But it's totally false information, akin to the "you can't get pregnant the first time" kind of things we were told growing up. And that means more kids, apparently, are having oral and anal sex, believing themselves to be safe and smart.

 

Look, telling kids to abstain doesn't work. Keeping them safe means arming them with knowledge and providing them with safeguards like condoms and yes, a vaccine that can help prevent serious disease.

[Bluegoat]

It is now thought that some forms of oral & throat cancer are linked to HPV.  Generally the cancer causing strains do not cause symptoms such as warts.

 

Because it is SO common and generally cancer only shows up decades later, we don't know a lot about this virus.  For example, if a child is sexually abused by  someone with HPV, and there is oral contact, can the strains without symptoms be transmitted by kissing?  Since oral-genital contact can transmit the virus, the answer is probably yes.

 

What if your son is absolutely totally chaste until after the wedding at age 17, but marries someone who was sexually abused - or even simply grabbed and kissed in an unwanted way by someone who had been, and who had HPV in his mouth and gave it to his pure bride, either or both of them could end up with cancer later.

 

For that reason, and because the scary stories about this vaccine are fraudulent, all of my kids are getting the vaccine around age 11.   And I don't do flu shots and delay MMR.

 

There really is no need to envision abuse for this to be a question.  If it can be transmitted by kissing, you are now saying to kids "don't kiss anyone" as well as "don't have sex" and that is a rather far out expectation.

[TranquilMind]

Are there are studies showing that immune titers of children who have had sex before getting the HPV vaccine are lower than immune titers of children of the same age and demographics who have had the HPV vaccine before having sex?

 

The incidence of disease in the two situations being higher for children who had sex prior to vaccination seems like it might simply have to do with the vaccine not being able to cure a case that is already contracted--if not also the situation of children who have not had sex having very low risk for HPV.

 

But, and even assuming that benefits outweigh the risks overall,  that would not tell the parent of an 11 year old whose son might not become sexually active until 17 what to do.  Do the immune titers stay high for 6 to 10 years? And are the immune titers for 17-year-old boys who were vaccinated at 11-12 higher than for 17-year-old boys who were vaccinated at 15-16, assuming in each case that they do not have their first sexual encounter till 17?

 

Good questions.  What is the actual benefit and how do they control the factors to determine this?  How long will any protection conferred last?  

Very important to know.  We are now told that vaccines like mmr "wear off"  have to be routinely repeated. This is new.  

 

In my day, you got them once in childhood (either the disease and/or a vaccine) and done.    None of this every 5 or 10 years stuff.  

 

[zoobie]

Here is what the child has the right to know....

 

The only way to catch HPV is through intercourse. You won't get it through sharing a cup, drinking fountain, touching the same shopping cart, or even toilet seat. If you have intercourse, you risk many things, including HIV and pregnancy. This shot does not protect against cancer. It protects against four strains of HPV out of many strains today. Many strains have been associated with cervical cancer. The shot only protects against two of those. 50% of sexually actively adult women test positive for HPV when all strains are included. 70% of the women with cervical cancer test positive for HPV of any number of strands. This means 30% of women with cervical cancer do not have any sort of HPV at all.

 

The two strains that all of the vaccines protect against cause 70% of cervical cancers. The newer shots cover more strains. I think the newest covers 9, including some that cause genital warts. 

 

You can get HPV from oral sex and anal sex as well as vaginal intercourse.

[Alice]

Are there are studies showing that immune titers of children who have had sex before getting the HPV vaccine are lower than immune titers of children of the same age and demographics who have had the HPV vaccine before having sex?

 

The incidence of disease in the two situations being higher for children who had sex prior to vaccination seems like it might simply have to do with the vaccine not being able to cure a case that is already contracted--if not also the situation of children who have not had sex having very low risk for HPV.

 

But, and even assuming that benefits outweigh the risks overall,  that would not tell the parent of an 11 year old whose son might not become sexually active until 17 what to do.  Do the immune titers stay high for 6 to 10 years? And are the immune titers for 17-year-old boys who were vaccinated at 11-12 higher than for 17-year-old boys who were vaccinated at 15-16, assuming in each case that they do not have their first sexual encounter till 17?

 

 

I don't follow your first two paragraphs. 

 

When they look at immune titers, they are looking at a rise in immune titers after the shot. I admit to not having fully read every article on HPV but usually titers are drawn at some point pre-vaccine and then post and what is looked for is the rise in titers. A rise in titer is assumed to mean immunity. 

 

Yes, the vaccine does not protect against HPV contracted before it is given. 

 

No, we don't have a crystal ball that predicts exactly how long a vaccine will last. Current studies show that titers are persistent with HPV for 8-9 years. As with other vaccines, if titers seem to wear off after a time it may be suggested to get a booster at some age. 

 

If a boy gets vaccinated at 11 or 12, the vaccine should be effective until 19 or 20 or possibly longer. The average age of first time sexual intercourse is 17. Clearly, some families may choose to vaccinate later, but when we look at making population based recommendations we do so based on what is average for the population. Getting the vaccine at 11 or 12 should mean that most kids are protected at 17. Another reason the recommendation was made to do it at 11 is that is when most kids have to go in for a TdaP shot for school. Many people only go back to the doctor when a shot is required so getting the HPV (and Menactra) then makes sense rather than having them come back at 12 or 13 or 14 when it is likely equally effective, but not as likely that they will be in the office. Again, that's a population based recommendation. When I have a patient in my office who comes every year for a physical say that they want to wait until 12 or 13 for the vaccine, that's fine. My own son didn't want to do it with his TdaP at 11 as he doesn't like doing multiple shots at once. I was fine with that. 

[TranquilMind]

 As for it being the 'new thing' among teens...yeah, Reddit and Michelle Malkin are not my go to sources lol.  That reads a whole lot more like something to sell advertising time on radio shows, garner speaking fees and get people to clutch their pearls.

 

But, group sex and parties to engage in group sex are absolutely not new.  The Romans had their orgies after all.  And I am sure they did not invent the idea

 

They are certainly new in the context of the barely adolescent age range in this country.  Seriously?  There are other sources.  I linked several but if you don't like them, you can find exactly the same ideas clothed in a site you do like.  Is Amazon, the seller of the book about rainbow parties amongst adolescents, biased too?

 

You cannot tell me that great grandma's adolescent friends were having rainbow parties. 

Edited October 24, 2016 by TranquilMind