Boys and HPV vaccine?

[Bluegoat]

Eliminating 70% of cervical cancer is pretty huge.  If someone said one shot could prevent 70% of breast cancer people would jump at it in an instant.

 

HPV is also responsible for 95% of anal cancers, and most oral cancers.

[Paige]

 

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.  

 

 

That's because doctors were finding a substantial number of people from your day were no longer immune to what they were vaccinated for as children and were able to catch and/or spread disease. Whooping cough is an excellent example of something people thought they were immune for life to but has started to make a comeback as the immunity in the first generations vaccinated against it waned. Now, we can do better and try to make immunity really last a lifetime or at least get revaccinated before immunity wears off. 

 

Whooping cough vaccine was introduced in the late 1940s; MMR in the 1960s, measles in the 1960s, chicken pox only in 1995; it takes some time to learn long term success or failure. Of course, that's the same argument for avoiding new vaccines like HPV, but I think it's great that we now know that 1 shot is not always effective and how to make vaccines work better and last longer. And I think tetanus, at least, has always needed boosters- or at least as long as I've been around.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Paige

[Spy Car]

Eliminating 70% of cervical cancer is pretty huge.  If someone said one shot could prevent 70% of breast cancer people would jump at it in an instant.

 

 

Yeah, no kidding.

 

Bill

[redsquirrel]

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. 

 

I'm saying that I am not convinced this is a huge thing to worry about. This is not something that every teen is going to run into. Historically, there are usually a few steps between engaging in consensual sex of any kind with a boyfriend or girlfriend and deciding to attend a 'rainbow party.'

 

And that first article was 10 years old...so I am sure the degenerate youth of your nightmares have moved on to other things. They all have snapchat now, so no reason to even meet in person.

 

And I am pretty sure our great grandmother and their friends were not the chaste, swooning ingenues that some would like us to think they were.  I know mine wasn't. She was married and having babies when she was a teenager and died in childbirth before she was 30, leaving behind 10 children.  Maybe if she had more control over her own health she could have lived to raise my grandfather.

[TranquilMind]

That's because doctors were finding a substantial number of people from your day were no longer immune to what they were vaccinated for as children and were able to catch and/or spread disease. Whooping cough is an excellent example of something people thought they were immune for life to but has started to make a comeback as the immunity in the first generations vaccinated against it waned. Now, we can do better and try to make immunity really last a lifetime or at least get revaccinated before immunity wears off.

 

Whooping cough vaccine was introduced in the late 1940s; MMR in the 1960s, measles in the 1960s, chicken pox only in 1995; it takes some time to learn long term success or failure. Of course, that's the same argument for avoiding new vaccines like HPV, but I think it's great that we now know that 1 shot is not always effective and how to make vaccines work better and last longer. And I think tetanus, at least, has always needed boosters- or at least as long as I've been around.

This makes no sense. If this were the case, massive numbers of boomers would be coming down with measles and rubella and mumps, polio etc. Please show me these huge numbers of boomers coming down with these disease and spreading them around en masse. This just isn't happening. They are immune to most of those for life. The whooping cough vaccine recommendation to everyone now is focused on protecting babies, not older adults.

 

"Repeat something every 5 years" because it is ineffective does not seem like an overwhelming endorsement of effective protection.

 

My mother's generation got like one vaccine. Maybe 2 (can't remember when smallpox started). That generation is now dying off in their 90's and early hundreds'.

 

No one has convinced me that if something doesn't remain effective, take it more and more often.

Edited October 24, 2016 by TranquilMind

[TranquilMind]

I'm saying that I am not convinced this is a huge thing to worry about. This is not something that every teen is going to run into. Historically, there are usually a few steps between engaging in consensual sex of any kind with a boyfriend or girlfriend and deciding to attend a 'rainbow party.'

 

And that first article was 10 years old...so I am sure the degenerate youth of your nightmares have moved on to other things. They all have snapchat now, so no reason to even meet in person.

 

And I am pretty sure our great grandmother and their friends were not the chaste, swooning ingenues that some would like us to think they were.  I know mine wasn't. She was married and having babies when she was a teenager and died in childbirth before she was 30, leaving behind 10 children.  Maybe if she had more control over her own health she could have lived to raise my grandfather.

 

Well, there is something to be said about that, that they often don't meet in person as teens.

 

But Tinder and the like sure are overwhelmingly popular among college age and early adult age people.    And it isn't exactly a chaste meeting place, I'm told. 

 

Edited October 24, 2016 by TranquilMind

[Bluegoat]

This makes no sense.  If this were the case, massive numbers of boomers would be coming down with measles and rubella and mumps, polio etc.  And they aren't.  They are immune to more of those for life.   The whooping cough vaccine recommendation to everyone now is focused on protecting babies, not older adults. 

 

"Repeat something every 5 years" because it is ineffective does not seem like an overwhelming endorsement of effective protection. 

 

My mother's generation got like one vaccine.  Maybe 2 (can't remember when smallpox started).  That generation is now dying off in their 90's and early hundreds'. 

 

No one has convinced me that if something doesn't remain effective, take it more and more often. 

 

 

 

 

Many boomers didn't get these vaccinations, they got measels and mumps.

 

And the reason they discovered that the vaccinations weren't effective long term is that people did start to see outbreaks.  Even then, the fact that achunck of the population is immune was wy they weren't worse,

[TranquilMind]

Many boomers didn't get these vaccinations, they got measels and mumps.

 

And the reason they discovered that the vaccinations weren't effective long term is that people did start to see outbreaks.  Even then, the fact that achunck of the population is immune was wy they weren't worse,

Right.  They got measles and mumps and lifetime immunity. 

Now they don't get this lifetime immunity.  So we have outbreaks. 

 

Those who are immune aren't causing the outbreaks or coming down with the illness again.  So there is something wrong on the other end. 

[Tanaqui]

TM, I'm pretty sure nobody is having rainbow parties today. It's an urban legend. Researchers have found no evidence that they actually exist - or, if they do, only a tiny minority of teens go to them. Mostly, it's something people are sure they heard a friend say that some OTHER person does - nobody they know personally, of course.

 

Kids today are actually less sexually active than in the previous few decades. They're also somewhat more likely to use contraceptives.

 

So really, the HPV vaccine is only an extra measure of protection. Of course, your son might be raped (yes, it does happen) or the person he first has sex with might turn out to be infected. That happens too. The question is, will your child be harmed by this vaccine? If your kid only has one partner in their life, and that partner isn't infected, then it doesn't matter. But if they are, they're protected. So it's a 0 on what you see as an ideal situation and a +10 on a subpar situation. I'm not seeing a downside anywhere.

 

(And of course, you don't really have to tell your child what the vaccine is for. I didn't tell my kid until she was done! And I was right not to - she immediately argued with me that she didn't need to have it, she plans to die a virgin. Well, people do that too, but when she's grown she'll forgive me for thinking she might change her mind sometime between age 11 and death by old age.)

[FaithManor]

I'm saying that I am not convinced this is a huge thing to worry about. This is not something that every teen is going to run into. Historically, there are usually a few steps between engaging in consensual sex of any kind with a boyfriend or girlfriend and deciding to attend a 'rainbow party.'

 

And that first article was 10 years old...so I am sure the degenerate youth of your nightmares have moved on to other things. They all have snapchat now, so no reason to even meet in person.

 

And I am pretty sure our great grandmother and their friends were not the chaste, swooning ingenues that some would like us to think they were.  I know mine wasn't. She was married and having babies when she was a teenager and died in childbirth before she was 30, leaving behind 10 children.  Maybe if she had more control over her own health she could have lived to raise my grandfather.

Completely agree. There was a time when it was taboo to talk of such things, and the elder generations acted like of course they were the most chaste people who ever lived. Ha Ha. At my mom's 10 year high school reunion, she was shocked to discover that a huge percentage of her friends got married because they were pregnant. (Side note, not the best plan, the divorce rate among them was nearly 100% so maybe not the best foundation for wedded bliss.)

 

In my parents' ultra conservative church, the big scandal a few years ago among the elders was that more than half of them had lied about how long they'd been married to cover up for the fact that the age of their eldest child did not correspond with their wedding + full term baby.

 

My grandmother never let on a thing but the utmost happy chastity to her own kids when they were growing up, but when she got old and loosened up, told some startling stories of what she and her christian church friends had been up to before finally settling down. 

 

And OP your great grandmother had 10 kids by the age of 30???? Holy cow. That woman must have been a saint. I tell ya along about kid number five, I'd have been polishing the machete for an old fashioned castration of Pa!

[Tanaqui]

Also, I have to say, I personally know somebody who got measles three times. Even getting the disease does not actually guarantee lifetime immunity... and there's a much greater risk of death or permanent disability form the disease than the vaccine.

 

We think the reason immunity lasted longer in the past is because people were more exposed to those diseases for the simple reason that fewer people were actually immune. If you're constantly bumping into people who are shedding live measles or mumps viruses, your body goes "oh, hey, better renew my immunity!" but if you don't it might say "geez, what's this old baggage?" (Source: Some article I read somewhere. I'll go look it up, but it might be a while - I have to run out to do a thing in Brooklyn.)

 

That doesn't mean the vaccines don't work. Failing immunity is actually a result of their success rate.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Tanaqui

[catz]

Both my son and daughter will be receiving this.  I delayed son long enough to do both kids at the same time since it's a series of 3 shots and I really struggle with keeping on top of appointments.  But for him in particular, I thought delaying is fine and we would have made it happen sooner if necessary.  I talk to my kids about all their immunizations now that they're older. 

Edited October 24, 2016 by WoolySocks

[redsquirrel]

Well, there is something to be said about that, that they often don't meet in person as teens.

 

But Tinder and the like sure are overwhelmingly popular among college age and early adult age people.    And it isn't exactly a chaste meeting place, I'm told. 

 

 

yes, finding new and better ways to meet in order to have sex is very popular among young adults and not so young adults. It has always been so. They used to have to go to a 'country dances' or village pubs or village fairs or even prayer meetings to meet. Now it's easier to reach more people without leaving your house, but the goal is the same.

 

All the more reason to make sure our kids are protected from cervical and other cancers.

[Mergath]

This makes no sense.  If this were the case, massive numbers of boomers would be coming down with measles and rubella and mumps, polio etc.  Please show me these huge numbers of boomers coming down with these disease and spreading them around en masse.  This just isn't happening.  They are immune to more of those for life.   The whooping cough vaccine recommendation to everyone now is focused on protecting babies, not older adults. 

 

"Repeat something every 5 years" because it is ineffective does not seem like an overwhelming endorsement of effective protection. 

 

My mother's generation got like one vaccine.  Maybe 2 (can't remember when smallpox started).  That generation is now dying off in their 90's and early hundreds'. 

 

No one has convinced me that if something doesn't remain effective, take it more and more often. 

 

 

 

 

If I have to choose between getting vaccines every five to ten years and remaining healthy or getting potentially dangerous illnesses with possible long-term effects, I'll take the vaccines. It's not that difficult to go in and get a shot. It's a lot less of a hassle than, say, dying. Or ending up deaf. Or having brain damage. I manage to go in every year for a flu shot and somehow the world keeps turning.

 

Just out of curiosity though, what amount of dead children is an acceptable trade-off in your eyes for lifetime immunity? Because that's what we're talking about here. We end vaccines, kids once again start getting measles and rubella and all that fun stuff, a percentage die and the rest have long-term immunity.

 

[redsquirrel]

Completely agree. There was a time when it was taboo to talk of such things, and the elder generations acted like of course they were the most chaste people who ever lived. Ha Ha. At my mom's 10 year high school reunion, she was shocked to discover that a huge percentage of her friends got married because they were pregnant. (Side note, not the best plan, the divorce rate among them was nearly 100% so maybe not the best foundation for wedded bliss.)

 

In my parents' ultra conservative church, the big scandal a few years ago among the elders was that more than half of them had lied about how long they'd been married to cover up for the fact that the age of their eldest child did not correspond with their wedding + full term baby.

 

My grandmother never let on a thing but the utmost happy chastity to her own kids when they were growing up, but when she got old and loosened up, told some startling stories of what she and her christian church friends had been up to before finally settling down. 

 

And OP your great grandmother had 10 kids by the age of 30???? Holy cow. That woman must have been a saint. I tell ya along about kid number five, I'd have been polishing the machete for an old fashioned castration of Pa!

 

The last two were a set of twins and that is what killed her.  She did deliver them, but died soon after, at least that is what I have been told. As for how many she had, I am sure she didn't have much say in the matter. The eldest daughter raised the children and never got married herself.  A fairly typical story.

 

And my grandmother and my grandfather didn't get married until they were almost 30.  My grandmother had been a flapper and was supporting herself before she got married...scandalous! I don't think anyone had any illusions about the two of them when they got married, lol.

[Bluegoat]

Right.  They got measles and mumps and lifetime immunity. 

Now they don't get this lifetime immunity.  So we have outbreaks. 

 

Those who are immune aren't causing the outbreaks or coming down with the illness again.  So there is something wrong on the other end. 

 

Measles, mumps, whooping cough, etc. are a serious diseases, some people got a lot more than lifetime immunity.  Infertility, brain damage, and death are not things to play around with because it is too much of a pain to get your vaccinations.  Measles kills about 1 to 2 people for every 1000 it infects.  That is a lot.

 

But my point was that boomers not getting these diseases suddenly does not show us that it is stupid to say people need booster shots.  It's not that significant since many didn't get vaccinated at all.

 

There is not some mysterious thing wrong on the other end, it's pretty simple - some vaccinations need to be redone several times over a lifetime, perhaps especially if there is not much of the disease around any more to keep immunity active.  Which is a sign that the vaccination program is actually working.  Additionally in some cases outbreaks are related to low vaccination levels due to people not vaccinating their kids. 

 

Once vaccination levels in a population go below a certain point, outbreaks begin to be much more common.  It isn't the same for every disease, but for at least some it's around 80%.  Fewer than that and the disease will be around enough that tose who aren't immune can easily come in contact with it.

 

It's not odd to discover that something can be done in a more effective way, it isn't a sign of something terribly arwy. 

[Bluegoat]

I'm not sure it's fair to claim there haven't been chages over time to people's attitudes to sex and what they do about it.  If you look back over the whole of human history, yes, you can find most things, but particular ages and places do have different ways of thinking about it.  And a lot of people will tend to think according to the norms of their culture.

 

The fact that some, or even a fair number, of people don't always do what is supposed to be socially acceptable at any given time doesn't really negate that.  My Catholic grandmother also became pregnant at 17 before getting married, and yes, that wasn't unusual.  But her attitudes about that were also still very much in line with her upbringing, especially once she saw what the outcome of that pregnancy turned out to be. And getting married was pretty much the inevitable result. 

 

Even from my high-school/university time, to what seems to be the practice with university students at the moment here, there are some significant differences around the idea of really casual sex.  Not for all kids, but it's a lot more accepted among some groups.  Certainly no one is pushing the pregnant 17 year olds to marry. 

[Pen]

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. 

 

 

I was trying to get toward answers that were relevant to the OP's question of whether to get her 11YO ds immunized. Even if you didn't follow my 1st paragraphs, thanks for the reply.

 

I think if I were in the OP's situation, I probably would *not* go for the immunization at this time, since it sounds like her ds is probably going to be sexually active toward the later side of average--though, of course, rape and so on is always a possibility as some of the posts remind us.  

 

What you posted about length of time titer is likely to remain high at least seems like relevant info for OP to think about as she makes her own decision.

[Pen]

For people who feel that having their boys get the vaccine to protect a future wife/partner getting cancer, I'm wondering about how that works in terms of other STDs? Do the boys end up feeling like they are now "safe" and can freely engage in sexual activities since they've been vaccinated, without fear of passing on any STD?  Or do they understand that other STDs are still transmissible?  And if they are taking precautions not to get or pass on other STDs, might that not also apply to the HPV? 

 

Then too, how do we know that the HPV vaccine actually will prevent a future partner/spouse from getting cancer?

 

One thing I looked at seemed to indicate that the HPV vaccine had an association (not necessarily causation) with less chance of getting cervical cancer as caused by certain strains of HPV, but did nothing for other forms of cervical cancer,  and might even be associated with an increase in ovarian cancer (this was for girls, not boys), and also possibly associated with premature shut down of the ovaries.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Pen

[MEmama]

For people who feel that having their boys get the vaccine to protect a future wife/partner, I'm wondering about how that works in terms of other STDs? Do the boys end up feeling like they are now "safe" and can freely engage in sexual activities since they've been vaccinated, without fear of passing on any STD? Or do they understand that other STDs are still transmissible? And if they are taking precautions not to get or pass on other STDs, might that not also apply to the HPV?

 

Then too, how do we know that the HPV vaccine actually will prevent a future partner/spouse from getting cancer?

 

One thing I looked at seemed to indicate that the HPV vaccine had an association (not necessarily causation) with less chance of getting cervical cancer as caused by certain strains of HPV, but did nothing for other forms of cervical cancer, and might even be associated with an increase in ovarian cancer (this was for girls, not boys), and also possibly associated with premature shut down of the ovaries.

DS decided to get it because he and we believe in vaccines. We believe in science and we believe in making good choices.

 

This will in no way make him feel invincible or more likely to take sexual risks, any more than getting a tetanus booster makes him want to walk on rusty nails.

[Katy]

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.

 

I agree with you.  I don't expect children to not have sex before marriage.  But many people here do have that expectation, and among that set, a fair amount of them don't believe in kissing before marriage either because of Joshua Harris's I Kissed Dating Goodbye courtship model that has been widespread among Christian fundamentalists ever since.  I wasn't making this argument for you or I.  I was making it because even people who don't believe in kissing before marriage have heard of instances where a girl was grabbed and kissed without permission.

 

 

TM, I'm pretty sure nobody is having rainbow parties today. It's an urban legend. Researchers have found no evidence that they actually exist - or, if they do, only a tiny minority of teens go to them. Mostly, it's something people are sure they heard a friend say that some OTHER person does - nobody they know personally, of course.

 

Kids today are actually less sexually active than in the previous few decades. They're also somewhat more likely to use contraceptives.

 

So really, the HPV vaccine is only an extra measure of protection. Of course, your son might be raped (yes, it does happen) or the person he first has sex with might turn out to be infected. That happens too. The question is, will your child be harmed by this vaccine? If your kid only has one partner in their life, and that partner isn't infected, then it doesn't matter. But if they are, they're protected. So it's a 0 on what you see as an ideal situation and a +10 on a subpar situation. I'm not seeing a downside anywhere.

 

(And of course, you don't really have to tell your child what the vaccine is for. I didn't tell my kid until she was done! And I was right not to - she immediately argued with me that she didn't need to have it, she plans to die a virgin. Well, people do that too, but when she's grown she'll forgive me for thinking she might change her mind sometime between age 11 and death by old age.)

 

Rainbow parties are not an urban legend.  I personally know many people who have been involved in them.  I will grant, however, that this happened among mainly upper or upper middle class kids with older, permissive parents who don't tend to supervise them much. They are not something we are likely to find widespread even among most high school kids, let alone among homeschoolers.  I'll grant you that they might be less common than they were in the 90's, but they are not mythological.

[SebastianCat]

I have an aunt who has been battling anal cancer for 8+ years that developed from HPV.   Watching from a distance, she's endured multiple rounds of chemo, radiation, and scans (original tumor is non-operable), and has even had a lobe of a lung removed when it spread there.   It will eventually spread to a point where it will kill her, unless a miracle cure is found.

 

My kids have both started the HPV vaccine series.   DS has had 2 shots and DD has had 1 so far.   Regardless of their sexual decisions down the road, if this vaccine can prevent the suffering I've watched my aunt go through, I'll choose the vaccine.

[SparklyUnicorn]

For people who feel that having their boys get the vaccine to protect a future wife/partner getting cancer, I'm wondering about how that works in terms of other STDs? Do the boys end up feeling like they are now "safe" and can freely engage in sexual activities since they've been vaccinated, without fear of passing on any STD?  Or do they understand that other STDs are still transmissible?  And if they are taking precautions not to get or pass on other STDs, might that not also apply to the HPV? 

 

Then too, how do we know that the HPV vaccine actually will prevent a future partner/spouse from getting cancer?

 

One thing I looked at seemed to indicate that the HPV vaccine had an association (not necessarily causation) with less chance of getting cervical cancer as caused by certain strains of HPV, but did nothing for other forms of cervical cancer,  and might even be associated with an increase in ovarian cancer (this was for girls, not boys), and also possibly associated with premature shut down of the ovaries.

 

No why would they.  That's not a fact and I would never tell them that.

 

What other forms of cervical cancer? 

[EKS]

I let my older son decide once he turned 18.  He decided to get it but then never went back to get the second dose.

 

I am going to have my younger son get it the next time we're at the doctor.

[TranquilMind]

yes, finding new and better ways to meet in order to have sex is very popular among young adults and not so young adults. It has always been so. They used to have to go to a 'country dances' or village pubs or village fairs or even prayer meetings to meet. Now it's easier to reach more people without leaving your house, but the goal is the same.

 

All the more reason to make sure our kids are protected from cervical and other cancers.

If you want to call rainbow parties "new and better", well I don't know what to say about that.

 

I want kids protected too. I hope mine have more sense than to do this stuff randomly in group settings. So far, so good anyway.

[whitestavern]

HPV is fairly common, and in many cases the infection clears itself.

 

http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/hpv-genital-warts/hpv-treatment-is-there-hpv-cure#1

[maize]

The whooping cough vaccine recommendation to everyone now is focused on protecting babies, not older adults.

 

 

Just wanted to comment on this.

 

Pertussis boosters are recommended because immunity does wear off after a few years. Adults then get pertussis. Which they pass on to folks around them including babies who are much more likely to get extremely ill and develop complications. So yes, avoiding spreading the disease to infants and immune compromised individuals is a big motivator for giving everyone boosters but the boosters are necessary because immunity from the vaccine is not life long and adults who have not had a booster in recent years are in fact susceptible to the disease.

Edited October 24, 2016 by maize

[TranquilMind]

If I have to choose between getting vaccines every five to ten years and remaining healthy or getting potentially dangerous illnesses with possible long-term effects, I'll take the vaccines. It's not that difficult to go in and get a shot. It's a lot less of a hassle than, say, dying. Or ending up deaf. Or having brain damage. I manage to go in every year for a flu shot and somehow the world keeps turning.

 

Just out of curiosity though, what amount of dead children is an acceptable trade-off in your eyes for lifetime immunity? Because that's what we're talking about here. We end vaccines, kids once again start getting measles and rubella and all that fun stuff, a percentage die and the rest have long-term immunity.

Well, of course, if those are indeed your choices. But no one knows. No one has any idea of what impact 10 of these vaccines

will have or 20 of them over time. No one is questioning the 5 minutes it takes to do, but how many are too many? How effective are they really? What long term side effects can occur? We don't know.

 

There are variables so it isn't this cut and dried.

 

It is not a simple formula like you are suggesting

 

Every vaccine = healthy

 

Declining some or all = sick

 

It just doesn't work this way. This thread is about HPV. A lot of girls were permanently damaged during or right after this vaccine series. Of course we are always told that unlike every other medicine out there, all vaccines are always deemed safe for all people of any size and any problem is either very minor, like a sore arm, or otherwise it could not be a vaccine reaction. It's just a coincidence.

 

I am not convinced that there have been zero effects from this one. That's all.

[Pen]

DS decided to get it because he and we believe in vaccines. We believe in science and we believe in making good choices.

 

This will in no way make him feel invincible or more likely to take sexual risks, any more than getting a tetanus booster makes him want to walk on rusty nails.

 

 

My impression is that sexual risks are more taken if people think they have pregnancy prevention in place. I don't know if that applies at all to having STD vaccinations.

 

We live in an area with rusty nails--and I think that feeling protected against tetanus results not in wanting to walk on rusty nails since it is painful to have a nail go into a foot, but less caution than might exist otherwise, perhaps less extensive wound irrigation.  When I was a child, a suspected flu was grounds for being sent home from school--now it seems like it is expected that flu shots should take care of the problem, so there seems to be less caution in some ways even with that.  

 

Sex is more likely to be pleasant and something that draws a young man to it much more than walking on rusty nails would, so I don't think that your analogy is valid.  

 

I did not think that having an HPV vaccine would cause sex drive to exist.

[maize]

Of course we are always told that unlike every other medicine out there, all vaccines are always deemed safe for all people of any size and any problem is either very minor, like a sore arm, or otherwise it could not be a vaccine reaction. It's just a coincidence.

 

I am not convinced that there have been zero effects from this one. That's all.

No one claims that vaccines are 100% safe and have zero negative effects. Negative reactions to vaccines do happen, they are tracked and recorded.

 

Most reactions are very minor, the overall health cost of vaccination is orders of magnitude smaller than that of the diseases they prevent.

[FaithManor]

For people who feel that having their boys get the vaccine to protect a future wife/partner getting cancer, I'm wondering about how that works in terms of other STDs? Do the boys end up feeling like they are now "safe" and can freely engage in sexual activities since they've been vaccinated, without fear of passing on any STD? Or do they understand that other STDs are still transmissible? And if they are taking precautions not to get or pass on other STDs, might that not also apply to the HPV?

 

Then too, how do we know that the HPV vaccine actually will prevent a future partner/spouse from getting cancer?

 

One thing I looked at seemed to indicate that the HPV vaccine had an association (not necessarily causation) with less chance of getting cervical cancer as caused by certain strains of HPV, but did nothing for other forms of cervical cancer, and might even be associated with an increase in ovarian cancer (this was for girls, not boys), and also possibly associated with premature shut down of the ovaries.

No. My nearly 20 year old has a very open relationship with me. He is stilk not sexually active by choice as he is not looking for entanglements thst distract from him graduating college on time. He is pretty level headed. He also knows thst ultimately he needs to use protection and birth control to prevent other std's and unwanted pregnancy. Getting the vaccine did not gove him a false sense of security. There is nothing about the vaccine that equals more sex drive.

[TranquilMind]

 

Measles, mumps, whooping cough, etc. are a serious diseases, some people got a lot more than lifetime immunity. Infertility, brain damage, and death are not things to play around with because it is too much of a pain to get your vaccinations. Measles kills about 1 to 2 people for every 1000 it infects. That is a lot.

 

But my point was that boomers not getting these diseases suddenly does not show us that it is stupid to say people need booster shots. It's not that significant since many didn't get vaccinated at all.

 

There is not some mysterious thing wrong on the other end, it's pretty simple - some vaccinations need to be redone several times over a lifetime, perhaps especially if there is not much of the disease around any more to keep immunity active. Which is a sign that the vaccination program is actually working. Additionally in some cases outbreaks are related to low vaccination levels due to people not vaccinating their kids.

 

Once vaccination levels in a population go below a certain point, outbreaks begin to be much more common. It isn't the same for every disease, but for at least some it's around 80%. Fewer than that and the disease will be around enough that tose who aren't immune can easily come in contact with it.

 

It's not odd to discover that something can be done in a more effective way, it isn't a sign of something terribly arwy. [/quote

 

 

How are repeated boosters more effective than lifelong immunity for those diseases?

 

What is the cumulative effect of repeated boosters?

 

I'm sure glad I had lifelong immunity when my kids got the chicken pox from some kid at church when they were really little. I was well over 40. Now they have lifelong immunity too.

[redsquirrel]

I'm not sure it's fair to claim there haven't been chages over time to people's attitudes to sex and what they do about it.  If you look back over the whole of human history, yes, you can find most things, but particular ages and places do have different ways of thinking about it.  And a lot of people will tend to think according to the norms of their culture.

 

The fact that some, or even a fair number, of people don't always do what is supposed to be socially acceptable at any given time doesn't really negate that.  My Catholic grandmother also became pregnant at 17 before getting married, and yes, that wasn't unusual.  But her attitudes about that were also still very much in line with her upbringing, especially once she saw what the outcome of that pregnancy turned out to be. And getting married was pretty much the inevitable result. 

 

Even from my high-school/university time, to what seems to be the practice with university students at the moment here, there are some significant differences around the idea of really casual sex.  Not for all kids, but it's a lot more accepted among some groups.  Certainly no one is pushing the pregnant 17 year olds to marry. 

 

It's a reality check on the lie of 'back in the good old days people never had sex before they got married and when they got married they stayed faithful for life."  Nope, just no.  It's just not true and it's silly and potentially dangerous to mythologize that idea.  It causes people to shut down questions or to think there is something 'wrong' with them if they can't live up to some unreachable ideal. It encourages judgemental attitudes towards others, hypocrisy and lying.

 

[Guest]

I am not anti-vax, but I still will not get this series for any of my kids, regardless of sex. They can decide for themselves when they're hitting high school, I'll support their informed decision at that point either way.

[redsquirrel]

If you want to call rainbow parties "new and better", well I don't know what to say about that.

 

I want kids protected too. I hope mine have more sense than to do this stuff randomly in group settings. So far, so good anyway.

 

I was responding to your mentioning of Tinder etc, but wow, you're like really into these these so called 'rainbow parties' aren't you?

 

I'm not sure there is any proof that they actually exist outside of some fevered mind. It's apparently an urban legend, but I am guessing you know someone whose cousin went to one, right?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_party_(sexuality)

[Liz CA]

Shot 2 (out of 3) in the series. Son, who has a high pain threshold, said it hurts a little.

 

He is on board, as he'd never want to be the reason a future partner/wife got cancer.

 

I'm kind of ashamed reading some of the post in this thread.

 

What happened to the Golden Rule?

 

Bill

 

Bill, I don't think anyone here is nonchalant about the potential of contracting or transmitting HPV and possibly causing cancer but with fairly new vaccines (and other newer procedures) there has not been much time to evaluate what kind of side effect one may experience years from now. Being cautious does not equal being callous.

[MEmama]

My impression is that sexual risks are more taken if people think they have pregnancy prevention in place. I don't know if that applies at all to having STD vaccinations.

 

We live in an area with rusty nails--and I think that feeling protected against tetanus results not in wanting to walk on rusty nails since it is painful to have a nail go into a foot, but less caution than might exist otherwise, perhaps less extensive wound irrigation. When I was a child, a suspected flu was grounds for being sent home from school--now it seems like it is expected that flu shots should take care of the problem, so there seems to be less caution in some ways even with that.

 

Sex is more likely to be pleasant and something that draws a young man to it much more than walking on rusty nails would, so I don't think that your analogy is valid.

 

I did not think that having an HPV vaccine would cause sex drive to exist.

Okay, maybe not the best analogy, but my point remains the same.

 

We don't falsify what vaccines do and cannot do. He knows they aren't fail safe; it's one component of several that helps protect us.

 

It would never occur to me that a vaccine might encourage risky behaviour in some people.

 

Eta: if I'm understanding your question correctly, wouldn't it be akin to driving recklessly because you're wearing a seat belt? It seems to me that most people understand that a seatbelt can't prevent all injury or even death, but it certainly does prevent a lot and certainly is worth doing.

Edited October 25, 2016 by MEmama

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Bill, I don't think anyone here is nonchalant about the potential of contracting or transmitting HPV and possibly causing cancer but with fairly new vaccines (and other newer procedures) there has not been much time to evaluate what kind of side effect one may experience years from now. Being cautious does not equal being callous.

Except side effects down the road are rarely an issue with vaccines.

[maize]

Except side effects down the road are rarely an issue with vaccines.

Though down-the-road side effects are much harder to track than immediate side effects.

 

It is entirely possible that our vaccination program has unintended, possibly cumulative consequences. If so we will hopefully understand them and learn to minimize them some day.

 

In the meantime the best we can do is make thoughtful, considered decisions based on current data.

 

Science is messy, medical science is far from being a fixed, settled field.

Edited October 25, 2016 by maize

[MSNative]

Except side effects down the road are rarely an issue with vaccines.

Yes but when you are one of the families with those side effects from vaccines the snarky and condescending comments about not caring and not believing in science aren't helpful. My family has severe reactions to vaccines. My good friends infant had seizures after a vaccine and was advised to not get any of her children vaccinated. My family has to weigh potential hospitalization from the vaccine with potential deadly disease down the road. Not an easy choice.

 

I appreciate that others vaccinate their kids and themselves. That helps those of us who may not be able to get all the vaccines. But I will not judge someone who has reservations or chooses not to. There are risks with vaccines- rare but they can be serious. I think people should take the time to learn about vaccines and make informed choices.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Though down-the-road side effects are much harder to track than immediate side effects.

 

It is entirely possible that our vaccination program has unintended, possibly cumulative consequences. If so we will hopefully understand them and learn to minimize them some day.

 

In the meantime the best we can do is make thoughtful, considered decisions based on current data.

 

Science is messy, medical science is far from being a fixed, settled field.

 

True, but the way vaccines work makes long-term side effects unlikely.  Generally medicines that show effects over time are those that are taken on an ongoing/routine basis.

[Crimson Wife]

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. 

 

If someone is mature enough to be having sex, then he/she should be mature enough to take responsibility for things like contraception and STD prevention. It's not my responsibility to accompany my adult offspring to a job interview either.

 

If you choose to take on adult roles (including lover), you need to act like an adult when it comes to preparing yourself for that role.

[Spy Car]

Though down-the-road side effects are much harder to track than immediate side effects.

 

It is entirely possible that our vaccination program has unintended, possibly cumulative consequences. If so we will hopefully understand them and learn to minimize them some day.

 

In the meantime the best we can do is make thoughtful, considered decisions based on current data.

 

Science is messy, medical science is far from being a fixed, settled field.

 

The current data shows that vaccines have saved millions of lives.

 

The attack on vaccines springs from anti-scientific thinking that puts people at risk.

 

Bill

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Yes but when you are one of the families with those side effects from vaccines the snarky and condescending comments about not caring and not believing in science aren't helpful. My family has severe reactions to vaccines. My good friends infant had seizures after a vaccine and was advised to not get any of her children vaccinated. My family has to weigh potential hospitalization from the vaccine with potential deadly disease down the road. Not an easy choice.

 

I appreciate that others vaccinate their kids and themselves. That helps those of us who may not be able to get all the vaccines. But I will not judge someone who has reservations or chooses not to. There are risks with vaccines- rare but they can be serious. I think people should take the time to learn about vaccines and make informed choices.

 

To the first bolded, that is why others who can get the vaccines should.

 

To the second bolded, when the reason is based on woo or "mommy instincts"  I will judge.

 

[Spy Car]

If someone is mature enough to be having sex, then he/she should be mature enough to take responsibility for things like contraception and STD prevention. It's not my responsibility to accompany my adult offspring to a job interview either.

 

If you choose to take on adult roles (including lover), you need to act like an adult when it comes to preparing yourself for that role.

 

And if they are irresponsible enough to get AIDs or contract HPV then it is their own damn fault? 

 

Is that what you're saying?

 

Bill

[whitestavern]

The condescension in this thread is appalling.

[Guest]

The condescension in this thread is appalling.

Agreed.

[maize]

The current data shows that vaccines have saved millions of lives.

 

 

Oh, I don't disagree at all; I am very much a proponent of vaccines and have an exceptionally long vaccine record of my own (including stuff not normally given in the US).

 

I was just giving a nod to the many, many unknowns in medical science. I'm grateful for the progress we've made, but I think really we've barely scratched the surface of what there is to learn.

 

Autoimmune disorders run rampant in my family, the complexity of the immune system is definitely one of those fields of knowledge where we still have a lot to learn.

Edited October 25, 2016 by maize

[Crimson Wife]

And if they are irresponsible enough to get AIDs or contract HPV then it is their own damn fault? 

 

Is that what you're saying?

 

Bill

 

You're putting words into my mouth. There are people who contract STD's through absolutely no fault of their own when their spouse is unfaithful. :(

 

People who choose to be sexually active should be aware of the risks stemming from that choice and their options for reducing that risk (including Gardasil).

 

[slterry]

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.

 

 

Whoa, a lot of passion there. Two things- we are not only second generation homeschoolers, but I'm also a second generation registered nurse. I've been a nurse since I was still a teenager (19). I have seen a LOT of things in my practice. I very, very strongly believe in appropriate sexual education. Why are you insinuating that the vaccine and education regarding sexual education are mutually exclusive? That is ridiculous. Yes, I will be teaching my kids how to get and use birth control properly should they need it. I HAVE SEEN WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DON'T. Pastor's daughters, innocent homeschool girls that nobody would have thought would have had sex before marriage... cervical cancer, STIs, pregnancy. Countless numbers of them as I grew up as a homeschooled teenager. I will not be blind to the realities of being a teenager because it feels better to ignore the fact that many teens are sexually active. My children are worth more than that. 

And to give the shot at 12/14 and NOT to think that there may be a "good chance" that they will be sexually active within four years is naive. As fun as it would be to live in a fairy tale, I've seen the reality of the aftermath of living in that innocent fairy tale and it is MUCH harsher than offering preventative education and care. 

Edited October 25, 2016 by slterry