Gardasil: If You're Considering This Vaccination

[Trish]

I'm posting this due to some discussion I saw on Facebook today. Someone I knew has a daughter who developed a number of health problems (because of? coincidental to? who knows?) after getting the Gardasil Vaccine shots. Many doctors are recommending the vaccine because it prevents HPV (a virus that causes cervical cancer in women).

 

Anyway, as many of you know Gardasil has certain side effects, most of which are not terribly serious, but some of which are. I guess there's something called Post-Gardasil Syndrome, as well as some other serious side effects (and VERY rarely, deaths) that have occurred.

 

My point is, I was a little surprised that there are parents who have not heard of the controversy. I'm not suggesting that people do or do not get this vaccine for their kids, but I would hope they would at least inform themselves of the risks (however slight) so they know what they're potentially dealing with.

 

In particular, families with a history of autoimmune diseases may want to inform themselves further. It may be a case where you allow your daughters to get a little older and make the vaccination decision for themselves when they're adults.

 

I know a lot of you are probably familiar with this, but I guess there are still plenty of people who haven't heard of it. Since this seems to be something that is "pushed" at girls of a certain age (by doctors, schools, or whomever) I think people should be informed.

 

I'm not posting any links because I'm not out to influence opinions, just to suggest people read up on it and decide for themselves, or let their daughters do the same.

[jewellsmommy]

Thank you for being willing to post on such a controversial subject. :001_smile: It is always best to know all sides before making decisions of such magnitude.

[dsmith]

It is also being pushed for boys. Our new doctor wanted ds to get it. I didn't feel it was necessary.

 

 

 

I know a lot of you are probably familiar with this, but I guess there are still plenty of people who haven't heard of it. Since this seems to be something that is "pushed" at girls of a certain age (by doctors, schools, or whomever) I think people should be informed.

 

I'm not posting any links because I'm not out to influence opinions, just to suggest people read up on it and decide for themselves, or let their daughters do the same.

[TranquilMind]

I'm posting this due to some discussion I saw on Facebook today. Someone I knew has a daughter who developed a number of health problems (because of? coincidental to? who knows?) after getting the Gardasil Vaccine shots. Many doctors are recommending the vaccine because it prevents HPV (a virus that causes cervical cancer in women).

 

Anyway, as many of you know Gardasil has certain side effects, most of which are not terribly serious, but some of which are. I guess there's something called Post-Gardasil Syndrome, as well as some other serious side effects (and VERY rarely, deaths) that have occurred.

 

My point is, I was a little surprised that there are parents who have not heard of the controversy. I'm not suggesting that people do or do not get this vaccine for their kids, but I would hope they would at least inform themselves of the risks (however slight) so they know what they're potentially dealing with.

 

In particular, families with a history of autoimmune diseases may want to inform themselves further. It may be a case where you allow your daughters to get a little older and make the vaccination decision for themselves when they're adults.

 

I know a lot of you are probably familiar with this, but I guess there are still plenty of people who haven't heard of it. Since this seems to be something that is "pushed" at girls of a certain age (by doctors, schools, or whomever) I think people should be informed.

 

I'm not posting any links because I'm not out to influence opinions, just to suggest people read up on it and decide for themselves, or let their daughters do the same.

 

It is unbelievable to me that people just do whatever the doctors tell them without researching it for themselves.

 

In California, wackadoodle state that it is (on some laws), parental consent has been removed from the equation for this vaccine; a child can consent for herself, no matter how young and immature(assuming 12, at least) and no matter how little she knows about anything. They are encouraged to do so in order to be rid of those pesky parents who question things. God forbid that same child bring an Advil to school for cramps; she will be removed for possessing "drugs" on campus. But a vaccine with far greater potential adverse side effects....sure! No problem!

 

Appalling.

 

Big fat NO on this one.

Edited May 24, 2012 by TranquilMind

[PrairieSong]

A girl in our church has had many, many health problems since receiving the Gardasil vaccination. (I'm not sure how many she received but I believe it is usually given in a series of three shots.) She has suffered with fibromyalgia with debilitating pain, headaches, etc. She has been to many specialists and ended up missing a ton of school because of all of this.

 

The docs didn't, maybe couldn't, come right out and say, "We know Gardasil caused this", but the grandma of this girl told me they would give knowing looks and nod, and say yes, we've seen this before, when the parents mentioned Gardasil.

 

My kids won't be getting this one!

[swellmomma]

DD12 got the first 2 shots and then I started reading about more and more girls having a severe reaction to the 3rd shot. We opted to not do the 3rd shot at this time. Perhaps once there is more long term studies etc. I had her getting it because my gramma died from cervical cancer so it seemed like the right thing to do to protect her. She had no reactions to the first 2 at all, and if I had not been speaking to many that had been harmed byt he vax i would have blindly taken her for the 3rd. It is a weird vax in that all of those I have spoken to had zero reaction to the first 2 shots, it was always the 3rd when trouble started. It made me wonder if there is a threshold being reached and crossed with that 3rd shot. DD now has some protection but as the actual amount who knows. I had always planned on making sure she knew safe sex practices etc, but that didn't save my gramma (she only ever had 2 partners in life, her 2 husbands, but when still with the first he had a girl in every port back in the day and it is believed he gave her HPV) so I had wanted dd protected, but her over all health isn't worth the risk for the chance that her future partner is a cheater kwim.

[EmilyK]

I would appreciate getting more information. I am pro-vax (not looking to debate that part) and all I had heard of the controversy was related to the folks who felt offended by it because of the sexually active connotation.

 

I would really appreciate thoughts from someone who has done all the other recommended vaccinations, and is making the decision not to do this vax solely because of the side effects and not for any reason relating to giving permission for their child to be sexually active, not thinking their child willl be having sex soon, or similar. In other words, if this were a vax for colon cancer, would you do it?

[readinmom]

Actually, a child as young as 9 can get the vaccine. Informed consent law... If you go on youtube and search this, it is frightening. Two brothers are producing an awareness movie after their sister became disabled due to the vaccine.

 

I informed dh that after research, dd is not getting the vaccine. I can't justify something where long term health risks have not been studied. Some of the stories are just heartbreaking.

[AuntieM]

In our situation, and for many of you, there's no *imminent* need for the vaccine. Families (such as but not limited to many home schoolers) that have very close relationships know the amount of s@xual activity in which their dds are likely to participate, or are aware of the potential onset. So it's not necessary before that becomes an issue.

 

Also, every year at the annual checkup I ask the doctor the same questions. Every year she tells us that dd can wait up until she's about 25 and the vaccine would still have the same efficacy as if administered now. So we have time.

 

I have been very square with my teen; she has read all the paperwork/info about the vaccine, we have discussed the potential for wanting such a vaccine prior to becoming sexually active, and the possibility of her dh bringing an std into her life via a promiscuous past (even if he's now reformed).

 

It's good to examine all the available info. And it's good to know we have time in which to do so. There's no need for all girls to have received this by age 12, despite how it's strenuously offered beginning at that age or even younger.

[WagsWife]

I would appreciate getting more information. I am pro-vax (not looking to debate that part) and all I had heard of the controversy was related to the folks who felt offended by it because of the sexually active connotation.

 

I would really appreciate thoughts from someone who has done all the other recommended vaccinations, and is making the decision not to do this vax solely because of the side effects and not for any reason relating to giving permission for their child to be sexually active, not thinking their child willl be having sex soon, or similar. In other words, if this were a vax for colon cancer, would you do it?

 

For our family (conservative Christian) whether to have the vac or not--does not have anything to do with what it is for. While we are teaching our girls to safe sex for marriage...we also know that they may not subscribe to our point of view when they are older. We also know that we can't control what their future husbands are doing right now. I fully plan on my girls having the vac--when they are older--and when I feel like studies show it is perfectly safe. So far, I am not convinced. So, in answer to your question--yes I would want them to have the vac if it were for colon cancer--after I felt like it was safe.

[SKL]

There is info on the CDC site that shows (studies by the vax manufacturer) the vax greatly increases the chances of getting cancer if the individual already has HPV when she gets the vax.

 

As far as I know, docs don't check for HPV before they administer the vax.

 

This could be why they are pushing the vax so young, but it is possible for even a young girl to have HPV. It really bothers me that the increased risk is not even mentioned though it's clearly documented. The mfr even recommends that a negative HPV test be confirmed before giving the vax.

 

It's a no for my family. Cervical cancer is a rare disease and the vax only protects against some strains. There are other ways to manage the risk. Now if I had a reason to think my children were at high risk of cervical cancer, AND they tested negative for HPV, I might consider it. But more likely, I'd just make sure they were getting PAP tests frequently enough.

[momofkhm]

I informed dh that after research, dd is not getting the vaccine. I can't justify something where long term health risks have not been studied. Some of the stories are just heartbreaking.

 

At some point, tell your dd as well. Around here, they hit some magic age and the girls are taken back for exams without mom or dad. They say it's for privacy. What seems to be happening is the girls are asked questions about sex and then offered the vac.

 

I've told my girls and my dh and my mom (she asked). But I do see that your dd is 9 so you may want to wait a couple years.

[momofkhm]

I would appreciate getting more information. I am pro-vax (not looking to debate that part) and all I had heard of the controversy was related to the folks who felt offended by it because of the sexually active connotation.

 

I would really appreciate thoughts from someone who has done all the other recommended vaccinations, and is making the decision not to do this vax solely because of the side effects and not for any reason relating to giving permission for their child to be sexually active, not thinking their child willl be having sex soon, or similar. In other words, if this were a vax for colon cancer, would you do it?

 

For me it is the side effects a bit. It's not the sexually active part. I'm teaching my girls that sex is for marriage. For me it's also the vax hasn't been around that long. Certainly not long enough for people who have gotten it to have kids and then those kids to have kids. I'm talking long term effects.

 

I have a friend who had lots of problems keeping a pregnancy. It turns out her mom was given an anti-morning sickness medication while mom was pg with friend. This med caused issues not in mom but in my friend's reproductive organs.

 

Any med that is given for this specific part of the body, I want to know without any doubt that it will not effect fertility down the road. This vax is just not old enough to know that yet.

[delaney]

I'm on the fence with it. My sister had HPV and had to have a bit of precancer addressed. Do I believe in waiting til marriage-no. Oddly I am do not and I am honest with my kids about my own history. Does the shot mean you intend to have premarital sex? no You have no idea where your partner has been. You know the old saying is that you sleep with everyone that person's partners have even slept with, right? You just never know who carries it. I would like to be safer but I want this vaccine to be a bit older and studied before I let my kids have it.

[Joules]

There is info on the CDC site that shows (studies by the vax manufacturer) the vax greatly increases the chances of getting cancer if the individual already has HPV when she gets the vax.

 

 

I'm having trouble finding this study. All I'm finding on the CDC site is the canned information. Could you provide a link or the study name?

[Joules]

I can't find it either. And honestly, I wonder how the conclusion could have been drawn without testing it. How can they know for certain that the vaccine in and of itself increased the risk of cancer in people who already have HPV. If HPV can cause cancer, again, how would we know without setting up a scientific test that the cause was the drug and not the HPV itself?

 

I don't believe in forcing people to be vaccinated irregardless of their reasoning, but I don't believe in screaming doom without some real evidence to back it up. All vaccines cause risk including death. Nobody denies that. So where is the evidence that this vaccine is worse than what is already out there?

 

I found it. I was looking on the CDC site. It's on the FDA. It's actually a pretty significant increase, though just one study. It's something to consider for women who are already sexually active.

 

From the FDA document at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/07p0210/07p-0210-ccp0001-01-vol1.pdf

The recent introduction of type-specific HPV vaccines into the populace may require

genotype monitoring of the HPV infection before and after immunization to develop

prevention strategy for the individual patients when concurrent infection by a vaccinerelevant

HPV is suspected prior to vaccination . According to the VRBPAC Backgroun d

~ Document on GardasilT"', the HPV Quadrivalent Vaccine, presented to the FDA by

Merck & Co., Inc. at the May 18, 2006 VRBPAC Meeting [14], the vaccine may cause

more harm than placebo when it is administered to subjects who have already

contracted the infection by HPV-6,-11,-16 or -18 . In a subset of clinical trial data, among

the 156 subjects who were seropositive and PCR-positive for these so-called vaccine

relevant HPV types, 31 subjects developed grade 2/3 or worse CIN lesions after

receiving the vaccine while only 19 of the 137 subjects in the same subgroup developed

~ such precancerous lesions after receiving placebo . In other words, the vaccine may

increase the risk of developing high-grade dysplasia by 44 .6% in a patient if she has

concurrent infection by one of the four HPV types contained in the vaccine .

[kubiac]

For the record, I don't see online that "post-Gardasil syndrome" is a medically recognized term. It may be in use colloquially, but I don't see it used on reputable public health research sites.

[Joules]

Thanks for posting this.

 

Hm..interesting.

 

I'm still on the fence. I have 2 boys.

 

Same here, with one teen boy. Honestly, I'll probably provide him with all of the information and let him decide when the time is appropriate (or I guess just before the time is appropriate!)

[Guest inoubliable]

I have three boys. Oldest son (12 this Sept) has already gotten dose 1 and dose 2. We felt that the benefits outweighed the risks involved. We talked to his pediatrician at a checkup, and involved DS in the conversation. DS asked some questions (what exactly would it be preventing, and was there any other ways to prevent HPV) and the pediatrician was very open and honest with us. We asked if he would have his four boys get the vaccine and he said, "Without any hesitation. My oldest is 14 and is coming in next month for his first dose." He gave us some literature to take home and we spent a few days looking at news articles and the CDC site. When the first appointment came up a few days later, we had no reservations and we will be going back to have the other two boys vaccinated, as well.

 

I will add, though, that our pediatrician said that Gardasil was supposed to be safe for boys as young as 9 year old. His office will not provide the vaccine to a child younger than 11 years.

[Joules]

I had HPV and precancerous cells (had to have that lopped off). My sister did as well (when she was 11 and I don't know if she had sex at that point...I'm inclined to think not, but I've never asked her). I didn't have unprotected sex until I was married. Sorry if this is all TMI. But my point in mentioning it is I don't think it's possible to protect against it unless maybe if one never has any sex ever (although I've read about cases of nuns who were supposedly celibate who contracted HPV) . A lot of people have HPV. So I was pretty happy to hear about a vaccine.

 

I've read the studies about the nuns also and have really wondered if there are other modes of transmission. It seems that doctors pretty readily accept that everyone gets it at some point. And it seems that if a person has it and claims to have had no activity, the assumption of the doctors is that she is lying (instead of researching other transmission routes.)

 

We have a strong family history of auto-immune diseases, even some males, so any vaccination has significant risk and is a major decision.

[ReneTL]

In other words, if this were a vax for colon cancer, would you do it?

 

No, I would not; however, I completely support someone's decision to do it. All vaccines carry risks and each person needs to balance the risk of the disease with the risk of the vaccine. Colon cancer can be largely prevented through lifestyle and regular screening. The same is true for cervical cancer. Can they be eliminated? Probably not, but so what. FWIW, I vaccinate for the "biggies" and my father just died from cancer that first appeared as colon cancer.

[jenangelcat]

There were a bunch of news stories when it was first released concerning girls and paralysis after the vaccine. A year or so later a woman who was involved in the making or marketing of it came out saying it wasn't safe and shouldn't be routinely given.

 

The problem with vaccine reactions is that they are hardly ever reported. A patient's symptoms are fobbed off as being coincidental.

[Rhonda in TX]

We've decided that this is a decision DD will make for herself when she's an adult. It hasn't been around long enough for me to feel comfortable with the long term consequences. I do not feel any sense of urgency about getting this vaccine for her.

[itsheresomewhere]

I had HPV and precancerous cells (had to have that lopped off). My sister did as well (when she was 11 and I don't know if she had sex at that point...I'm inclined to think not, but I've never asked her). I didn't have unprotected sex until I was married. Sorry if this is all TMI. But my point in mentioning it is I don't think it's possible to protect against it unless maybe if one never has any sex ever (although I've read about cases of nuns who were supposedly celibate who contracted HPV) . A lot of people have HPV. So I was pretty happy to hear about a vaccine.

 

I've read the studies about the nuns also and have really wondered if there are other modes of transmission. It seems that doctors pretty readily accept that everyone gets it at some point. And it seems that if a person has it and claims to have had no activity, the assumption of the doctors is that she is lying (instead of researching other transmission routes.)

 

We have a strong family history of auto-immune diseases, even some males, so any vaccination has significant risk and is a major decision.

 

Don't ask me what country as I seem to suffer from can't remember crap lately but I know someone is doing a long term study that is seeing if people whose family has a history of certain autoimmune diseases/disorders can pass a possible form of HPV. The researcher believes that HPV may be able to be passed through genetics. I have had cervical cancer issues and my children will never have the vaccine. I have friends in vaccine research and they will not give it to their kids either. I would love to see a study down the road to see if it affects fertility in anyone who receives it.

[Wheres Toto]

I would really appreciate thoughts from someone who has done all the other recommended vaccinations, and is making the decision not to do this vax solely because of the side effects and not for any reason relating to giving permission for their child to be sexually active, not thinking their child willl be having sex soon, or similar. In other words, if this were a vax for colon cancer, would you do it?

 

My kids are all fully vaccinated on the typical schedule. We do everything except flu shots and my oldest has not gotten Guardisil.

 

It's a no for my family. Cervical cancer is a rare disease and the vax only protects against some strains. There are other ways to manage the risk. Now if I had a reason to think my children were at high risk of cervical cancer, AND they tested negative for HPV, I might consider it. But more likely, I'd just make sure they were getting PAP tests frequently enough.

 

This is mainly my reason combined with the newness of the vaccine and the side effects being reported. My oldest won't get it at all but by the time my younger two are the right age we may revisit if there is more information available.

 

At some point, tell your dd as well. Around here, they hit some magic age and the girls are taken back for exams without mom or dad. They say it's for privacy. What seems to be happening is the girls are asked questions about sex and then offered the vac.

 

My 18 year old still has me come back with her at doctors appointments including a recent gyn appointment. The doctors have never suggested otherwise as long as its clear she wants me there.

 

I have a friend who had lots of problems keeping a pregnancy. It turns out her mom was given an anti-morning sickness medication while mom was pg with friend. This med caused issues not in mom but in my friend's reproductive organs.

 

My mother took a similar medication. I've been hearing since I was 15 that it could cause problems. Other than being sure I keep up with screening tests, I haven't had any problems getting or staying pregnant. Evidently I was one of the lucky ones.

[EKS]

So far I haven't gotten pressure from my sons' doctor for them to get this vaccine, though I understand that some doctors in our area are pressuring boys to get it, telling them that they will get warts on their private parts if they don't and that sort of thing.

 

I am normally extremely pro-vaccination, but I'm going to let my boys decide about this one when they're adults. And I would do the same if they were girls.

[lllll]

.....

[Wheres Toto]

About the immunizations. Thought some might like to be aware ....

 

When a couple of our dc applied to colleges recently the HPV was only "highly recommended", 3 doses. (Hep A was also recommended, but not required, for some schools.) We opted out.

 

They also had a string of shots that were "required" (DPT in some form, polio, MMR, Hep B, Meningococcal, chicken pox ...), unless you've had the diseases. Then, if you've had the disease, some of them required "titers indicating positive immunity".

 

Sometimes the shots dc had when they were preschoolers were accepted (polio, for example). Sometimes not.

 

Yet another thing to keep in mind as your dc get older and start thinking about colleges. Probably better to spread out those shots when you have the time vs having to rush to cram all of them in a few months before they start school.

 

:iagree: We just did this for my oldest. NJ also requires the meningococcal vaccine for anyone who lives on campus. That was the only one she needed, all her other childhood vaccines were acceptable. Chicken pox and Guardisil weren't required.

[Melissa in NC]

Even if you have the shot, you still must get your annual exams. The vaccine MAY prevent some types of HPV but it is not a blanket protection. The BEST way to prevent cervial cancer death is annual exams.

 

Most people who contract HPV will fight it off with no medical intervention other than monitoring the progress.

 

I passed on the shot. Instead I am education my girls on safe sex and check ups for life.

[Butter]

Our doctor (who is constantly reading and researching - honestly I don't know how the man has the time... he must never sleep) said it is up to us, but he does not recommend Gardasil. He doesn't like the looks of the reactions and feels strongly that Gardasil is motivated by money rather than trying to prevent anything.

 

Gardasil only protects against the 4 most commonly sexually transmitted HPV strains. Two of those strains cause 70% of cervical cancers. The other two cause 90% of genital warts cases. There are likely other modes of HPV transmission (non-sexual), but those strains are not nearly as likely to cause cancer. That can account for some stories you hear of young, never had sex, girls having pre-cancerous cells or nuns getting HPV.

 

Also, cervical cancer can occur in the absence of HPV. This is particularly true of those cervical cancers that run in families. Gardasil will do nothing to protect against a family history of cervical cancer (seems obvious since it's for HPV and not for the cancer itself, but a friend of mine's doctor, not long after the vaccine came out, insisted that Gardasil would protect her girls against ALL cervical cancers and since they had a family history of it, they would not get cervical cancer if they got Gardasil because it absolutely was NOT to protect against sexually transmitted diseases... my friend was pretty irritated when she learned the truth).

[6packofun]

THIS. In a study (done by Merck, of course) to evaluate pregnancy outcomes after women conceived within 30 days or after 30 days of a dose of Gardasil, it showed that "congenital anomalies" or "adverse outcomes" were about the same as those receiving placebo. There is no distinction about the kinds of "anomalies" or "outcomes" that I can find, though, even though they refer to those outcomes as "consistent with those generally observed in pregnancies in women aged 16-26 years". Merck continues to NOT recommend Gardasil for women who are or will soon be pregnant and I think that's worrisome enough. We just do not know the range of effects yet.

 

Yeah, I'll wait for more outside, independent, well-controlled studies, thank you.

[SKL]

I found it. I was looking on the CDC site. It's on the FDA. It's actually a pretty significant increase, though just one study. It's something to consider for women who are already sexually active.

 

From the FDA document at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/07p0210/07p-0210-ccp0001-01-vol1.pdf

 

Thank you. I'm sorry that I mixed up the site where the info is found. I should know better, but I was short on sleep.

 

To me it is significant that the study cited was done by the manufacturer, not some anti-vax fanatic. A 44+% increased risk is huge to me, especially given the prevalence of HPV in young people. Yet it seems to be the industry's best-kept secret.

[dancer67]

I would appreciate getting more information. I am pro-vax (not looking to debate that part) and all I had heard of the controversy was related to the folks who felt offended by it because of the sexually active connotation.

 

I would really appreciate thoughts from someone who has done all the other recommended vaccinations, and is making the decision not to do this vax solely because of the side effects and not for any reason relating to giving permission for their child to be sexually active, not thinking their child willl be having sex soon, or similar. In other words, if this were a vax for colon cancer, would you do it?

 

 

I am pro-vax. When the chicken pox vax came out, I waited a long time before I made the decision to give it.

 

My oldest dd is 19. Before she was of legal age, I said no way. I also said no way for my 13 yo. My 19 yo still will not get the shot. She agrees there are to many risks.

 

Also, cervical cancer is slow growing. If you are a person who sees your GYN on a regular basis, chances are they would catch it early.

 

Gardisal has a history of horrible side effects.

 

I cannot answer the colon cancer question because there is no vax for it(even though I believe there is a cure for cancer, but that is a whole other subject). But, even if there were, I would still opt out until it has been on the market for quite a while. I never, ever take any new medications or vaccines unless they have been on the market 10 years or longer.

[Perry]

I found it. I was looking on the CDC site. It's on the FDA. It's actually a pretty significant increase, though just one study. It's something to consider for women who are already sexually active.

 

From the FDA document at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/07p0210/07p-0210-ccp0001-01-vol1.pdf

 

That isn't the original article. The original has been removed frrom the FDA site, but Natural News :angry: has a copy here.

 

Using their numbers, I did a significance test, and that is NOT a significant difference between the 2 groups. (Someone feel free to check my math. I know we have some statisticians here. :) I did a Chi square test of proportions using the data in Table 17). Furthermore, Table 18 shows that those 2 groups aren't comparable anyway, since the Gardasil group had more risk factors (smoking, etc.)

 

It's probably something that should be studied further, but just looking at those numbers, there is absolutely no reason to think the vaccine increases risk of dysplasia.

 

I suspect this is the reason it's not on the FDA website any longer. The information is incorrect.

[Parrothead]

In other words, if this were a vax for colon cancer, would you do it?

No.

 

Our POV is that we don't vax but not because we are anti-vax. We believe that when dd is able to make the decisions about her body she can decide which (if any) vax's she wants. Last year she decided to have a tetanus shot due to the possible risks of not having the shot and going barefooted outside. Luckily she had the shot about a month prior to stepping on something (I don't remember what) that would have required the shot anyway.

 

All that said, if/when it comes time for her to decide about this vax, I will point blank tell her no. Too many horror stories. Too many doctors who have said they wouldn't give this vax to their own kids. If she decides to have it she can decide when she is 18.

[mommymilkies]

It's a very safe vaccine. None of the FACTs support the controversy which leads me to believe the campaign against it is largely anti woman and sex negative.

 

What? All of the people I know who are foregoing the Gardasil vax (our family included) are not doing it because of any sex aspects but because it has not been researched for long term effects and there have already been many terrible side effects and deaths from it. Read the manufacturer's pamphlet if you doubt what I say.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

What? All of the people I know who are foregoing the Gardasil vax (our family included) are not doing it because of any sex aspects but because it has not been researched for long term effects and there have already been many terrible side effects and deaths from it. Read the manufacturer's pamphlet if you doubt what I say.

 

The number of instances of side effects seem kind of small relative to the number of doses.

From the CDC web site:

"As of September 15, 2011, approximately 40 million doses of Gardasil® were distributed in the U.S. and VAERS received a total of 20,096 reports of adverse events following Gardasil® vaccination: 19,075 reports among females and 569 reports for males, of which 504 reports were received after the vaccine was licensed for males in October 2009. VAERS received 452 reports of unknown gender. Of the total number of VAERS reports following Gardasil®, 92% were considered to be non-serious, and 8% were considered serious."

 

20,000 out of 40,000,000 is really small, and 92% of those were non-serious. I don't see the vaccine as a big deal one way or the other, but some of what I have read from those against it seem to misrepresent the possible dangers.

[intp4yhwh]

Don't know if this has already been mentioned (I didn't read all 5 pgs. of posts), so if it has, sorry.

 

Many doctors are recommending the vaccine because it prevents HPV (a virus that causes cervical cancer in women).

 

The particular virus that this vaccine prevents is an STD virus. If you have girls (and boys) who are determined to stay sexually pure (on their own accord), there's no need for this vaccine at all. Frankly, the vaccine is a great excuse for promiscuity, because now people can get this vaccine and sleep around without having to worry about contracting the particular STDs this vaccine guards against.

 

 

That can account for some stories you hear of young, never had sex, girls having pre-cancerous cells or nuns getting HPV.

The stories of those young girls ... were their pre-cancerous cells caused by the HPV virus? It's possible they weren't. As for nuns - their image is not necessarily reality. :glare: Some, sure, but definitely not all.

 

Also, cervical cancer can occur in the absence of HPV. This is particularly true of those cervical cancers that run in families. Gardasil will do nothing to protect against a family history of cervical cancer (seems obvious since it's for HPV and not for the cancer itself, but a friend of mine's doctor, not long after the vaccine came out, insisted that Gardasil would protect her girls against ALL cervical cancers and since they had a family history of it, they would not get cervical cancer if they got Gardasil because it absolutely was NOT to protect against sexually transmitted diseases... my friend was pretty irritated when she learned the truth).

Yep - what she said! :001_smile:

[Tarreymere]

We've always given all recommended vaccines but just not on the recommended schedule. We tend to have them given a bit later (in some cases like Hep B a LOT later) and we don't get more than one at a time. I have no problem with this particular vaccine but I don't see any reason why it's my decision to make since I wouldn't want to even consider it until my daughter was sexually active or about to become sexually active. I just figure that once my daughter is old enough to make a decision to be sexually active she can consider the vaccine herself.

 

I just wanted to add that as a potential recipient I wouldn't want to get this vaccine myself. If any of my dd feel it might be helpful to them I wouldn't argue with them.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Rainefox

[SKL]

The number of instances of side effects seem kind of small relative to the number of doses.

From the CDC web site:

"As of September 15, 2011, approximately 40 million doses of Gardasil® were distributed in the U.S. and VAERS received a total of 20,096 reports of adverse events following Gardasil® vaccination: 19,075 reports among females and 569 reports for males, of which 504 reports were received after the vaccine was licensed for males in October 2009. VAERS received 452 reports of unknown gender. Of the total number of VAERS reports following Gardasil®, 92% were considered to be non-serious, and 8% were considered serious."

 

20,000 out of 40,000,000 is really small, and 92% of those were non-serious. I don't see the vaccine as a big deal one way or the other, but some of what I have read from those against it seem to misrepresent the possible dangers.

 

A couple points on the above.

 

- 40M doses were distributed, but how many were administered? (If 40M out of a total US population of 300M, that is way too high, considering that many in the population have already had HPV and the vax greatly increases their cancer risk.) If only half of those distributed were administered, that doubles your risk figures. Also, it is generally accepted that vax injuries/reactions are underreported.

 

- 8% x 20K = 1,600 serious reactions, which is way too high considering the total number of cases of cervical cancer are less than 5,000 per year, only some of which are prevented by this vax, and only about half of which are fatal.

 

Obviously if everyone shrugged off these risks, the number of serious adverse reactions would increase, possibly to the point where it exceeded the incidence of the serious cancer situations it can prevent.

 

That's not even getting into how many cancer cases the vax would actually cause if given to people who have already had HPV.

[SKL]

 

I just wanted to add that as a potential recipient I wouldn't want to get this vaccine myself.

 

I thought people over 25 were not eligible for this vaccine.

[WishboneDawn]

What? All of the people I know who are foregoing the Gardasil vax (our family included) are not doing it because of any sex aspects but because it has not been researched for long term effects and there have already been many terrible side effects and deaths from it. Read the manufacturer's pamphlet if you doubt what I say.

 

Read the pamphlets that come with any medication. There likely aren't many, if there are any at all, that don't have a risk of some potentially serious and horrible side effects. That's the trade off for having an effective medication - in some people the properties that make it an effective med for most people can be harmful or deadly.

 

That's why you don't dismiss meds because of risk but rather weigh them against their benefits and take a long and understanding look at the numbers behind the risks. I often suspect there's a basic issue with innumeracy in discussions of this kind.

 

My daughter has had the vaccine. I was very comfortable that the risks did not outweigh potential risks. Other people might review the information and choose differently.

[Perry]

 

Also, cervical cancer can occur in the absence of HPV. This is particularly true of those cervical cancers that run in families. Gardasil will do nothing to protect against a family history of cervical cancer (seems obvious since it's for HPV and not for the cancer itself, but a friend of mine's doctor, not long after the vaccine came out, insisted that Gardasil would protect her girls against ALL cervical cancers and since they had a family history of it, they would not get cervical cancer if they got Gardasil because it absolutely was NOT to protect against sexually transmitted diseases... my friend was pretty irritated when she learned the truth).

 

Do you have anything to back this up?:confused:

 

Over 99% of cervical cancers have been demonstrated to contain HPV. There is no such thing as cervical cancer that runs in families. Your risk may be elevated if you have family members with cervical cancer, but that has to do with a general increased susceptibility, not something that actually runs in the family.

[Perry]

A couple points on the above.

 

- 40M doses were distributed, but how many were administered? (If 40M out of a total US population of 300M, that is way too high, considering that many in the population have already had HPV and the vax greatly increases their cancer risk.) If only half of those distributed were administered, that doubles your risk figures. Also, it is generally accepted that vax injuries/reactions are underreported.

 

- 8% x 20K = 1,600 serious reactions, which is way too high considering the total number of cases of cervical cancer are less than 5,000 per year, only some of which are prevented by this vax, and only about half of which are fatal.

 

Obviously if everyone shrugged off these risks, the number of serious adverse reactions would increase, possibly to the point where it exceeded the incidence of the serious cancer situations it can prevent.

 

That's not even getting into how many cancer cases the vax would actually cause if given to people who have already had HPV.

It's a 3 dose course, so that's not 40 million people, it's ~13.3 million people if they all received a full course.

 

Anyone can report *anything* to VAERS; it doesn't have to have anything to do with Gardasil. People report things like death from car accident a week after receiving a vaccine. If you look at the actual cases of serious reactions, most have nothing to do with the vaccine. The great majority of deaths are due to blood clots and pulmonary embolism, most of which occur in girls on the pill, which is a known risk factor for those things. When the numbers are crunched, it turns out those deaths are no higher than expected for that group. In other words, the same number of girls that DON'T receive Gardasil die from embolism at the same rate as those who DID receive Gardasil. It's the pill, not the vaccine, causing it.

 

There have been a few serious injuries, and I think deaths, from girls passing out and hitting their head after receiving the vaccine. They should make the patient stick around for awhile after to make sure they aren't dizzy.

[Perry]

There are a handful of cases of girls who have developed an ALS type illness after receiving the vaccine. This is the only thing that gives me pause, and I am curious to see what comes of it. The numbers are vanishingly small, though, and it didn't keep us from having dd vaccinated.

[SKL]

It's a 3 dose course, so that's not 40 million people, it's ~13.3 million people if they all received a full course.

 

Anyone can report *anything* to VAERS; it doesn't have to have anything to do with Gardasil. People report things like death from car accident a week after receiving a vaccine. If you look at the actual cases of serious reactions, most have nothing to do with the vaccine. The great majority of deaths are due to blood clots and pulmonary embolism, most of which occur in girls on the pill, which is a known risk factor for those things. When the numbers are crunched, it turns out those deaths are no higher than expected for that group. In other words, the same number of girls that DON'T receive Gardasil die from embolism at the same rate as those who DID receive Gardasil. It's the pill, not the vaccine, causing it.

 

There have been a few serious injuries, and I think deaths, from girls passing out and hitting their head after receiving the vaccine. They should make the patient stick around for awhile after to make sure they aren't dizzy.

 

Good point about the 13.3M doses - if all administered - because that means you're talking about 20,000 incidences among 13.3M people, a higher percentage than 20K/40M. It's still way too high considering the rarity of the problem it's designed to prevent, especially given that there are other, safer ways to prevent.

 

I seriously doubt that all those reported cases were unrelated to the vax, and it also doesn't stand up to logic that 20K/40M is a normal expected incident rate for that time frame in that age group of girls healthy enough to vaccinate.

Edited May 24, 2012 by SKL

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Good point about the 13.3M doses - if all administered - because that means you're talking about 20,000 incidences among 13.3M people, a higher percentage than 20K/40M. It's still way too high considering the rarity of the problem it's designed to prevent, especially given that there are other, safer ways to prevent.

 

I seriously doubt that all those reported cases were unrelated to the vax, and it also doesn't stand up to logic that 20K/40M is a normal expected death rate for that time frame in that age group of girls healthy enough to vaccinate.

 

Here's the link so you read it yourself.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/HPV/gardasil.html

 

BTW, the 20,000 figure was ALL reactions, only 8% of which were considered serious and that certainly isn't the death rate for the Gardasil vax. The non-serious reactions included pain, swelling, dizziness, nausea, etc..

 

The total deaths reported during that time frame was 71. 37 were unconfirmed due to lack of identifiable information to follow up on the report. Of the 34 confirmed, "there was no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine and some reports indicated a cause of death unrelated to vaccination."

[SKL]

Here's the link so you read it yourself.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/HPV/gardasil.html

 

BTW, the 20,000 figure was ALL reactions, only 8% of which were considered serious and that certainly isn't the death rate for the Gardasil vax. The non-serious reactions included pain, swelling, dizziness, nausea, etc..

 

The total deaths reported during that time frame was 71. 37 were unconfirmed due to lack of identifiable information to follow up on the report. Of the 34 confirmed, "there was no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine and some reports indicated a cause of death unrelated to vaccination."

 

I agree that the 20,000 "death rate" I mentioned was in error. I was distracted and got half of one thought mixed with half of another.

 

Still, the serious reactions are too high under the circs, in my opinion, as mentioned before. If this were an epidemic, we'd be having a different discussion.

[Butter]

Do you have anything to back this up?:confused:

 

Over 99% of cervical cancers have been demonstrated to contain HPV. There is no such thing as cervical cancer that runs in families. Your risk may be elevated if you have family members with cervical cancer, but that has to do with a general increased susceptibility, not something that actually runs in the family.

 

Over 99% does not mean all. The friend I mentioned has had several family members with cervical cancer. NONE had HPV. The doctors, therefore, have stated it "runs in [her] family." Perhaps they are simplifying a general increased susceptibility down to saying cervical cancer runs in their family.

 

Something to think about when weighing risk of vaccine reaction vs. risk of getting cervical cancer, 30% of cases of cervical cancer are due to other reasons than the HPV strains contained in Gardasil. If 5,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer a year (don't know if that's accurate, but someone posted it earlier in the thread and it's a nice round number), then 1,500 of them would, statistically, not be caused by something Gardasil protects against.

 

I will say, as someone who had a child almost die due to a vaccine reaction (that we chose, with the doctor, not to report since she had 3 or 4 vaccines that day and, while we suspect strongly it was the DTaP, we can't be totally sure), it doesn't matter what the risk of an adverse event is if it's your kid. Then it's 100% (to you). We still vax, but we're a lot more careful now and never more than one at a time.

 

One of my big concerns with Gardasil becoming more prevalent is that people will figure they are covered and become lax with getting pap smears done. It's rather unusual that a cervical cancer is fast growing and so regular paps would catch it before it turned into something more. Even with Gardasil, they could still get a different strain of HPV and end up getting cervical cancer anyway.

[SKL]

This is what the National Cancer Institute site says, but it conflicts with what I have read before (I've seen a much smaller figure):

 

Estimated new cases and deaths from cervical (uterine cervix) cancer in the United States in 2012:

New cases: 12,170

Deaths: 4,220