Gardasil: If You're Considering This Vaccination

[VeganCupcake]

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.

 

Most people are not generally rushing to the gynecologist for a pap smear, anyway. I think if people are lax about their well woman exams, they don't need Gardasil as a reason/motivator.

 

IMO, most women who would normally get annual exams will still do it, and women who would normally not will not; the numbers who would have gone previously but decide not to because of Gardasil are pretty small.

[Perry]

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.

 

When did these cases occur? They only started testing for HPV in the late 80s/90s. If it was before that, there is no way to know whether they had HPV or not.

Also, there are plenty of false negatives. There are lab errors, recording errors, communication errors, etc. No test is 100% accurate.

 

I have a lot more confidence in the science and data and studies that I read, than in the comments of patients who often don't quite have the facts straight.

[ma23peas]

I have never seen a case reported of cervical cancer not caused by HPV...my OB even confirmed it is less than 1% and usually related to rare syndromes...

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask359

 

I do not believe the statistics that 80% of women by 50 will contract it, that is crazy! We do not do vaccines like these.

[swellmomma]

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.

 

 

OT from the OP but the bolded rang so true to me. My dd4 had a severe adverse reaction to her 2 month shots, unlike you though I did report it and was told by the CDC nurse not to vax her again unless there was a dire need (so she got tetanus when she was attacked by a cat) etc

[athena1277]

Several of you mentioned a problem for people with auto-immune diseases getting Gardasil. I have never heard of this and my dd has an auto-immune disease. She is not immune-suppressed and has gotten all the other vaccines on schedule. I would appreciate a link or two to some reliable info about this. At this point I do not plan for her to get it, but do want to be fully informed in my decision.

[kalanamak]

Merck continues to NOT recommend Gardasil for women who are or will soon be pregnant and I think that's worrisome enough.

 

This should not be worrisome because EVERY company has this disclaimer about EVERY product. It is put there at the behest of the legal department.

Lawsuits involving malformed or lost newborns are very easy to lose. :)

[kalanamak]

That's interesting. I'm still on the fence. It's my understanding that men are even less likely to have problems with HPV causing cancer, but I do like the idea of them not passing anything on either.

 

 

I am going to be very interested in the long term studies involving head and neck cancers and this vac. These are often particularly horrible deaths.

[kalanamak]

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.

 

The exams aren't even annual any more. Once we get three A-okays, we drop to every third year.

[kalanamak]

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.

 

Sorry, this does not wash with me. "Oh, I got a vac and now I can indulge my wildest dreams, because HPV is the only STD in the whole wide world, and STDs are the only consequence of sleeping around."

Perhaps one rather odd person in the whole world uses this vac as an "excuse" to sleep around, but it is not a "great" excuse.

[kubiac]

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.

 

Your mad skillz in math and critical reading make me very happy. Thank you.

[kubiac]

I do not believe the statistics that 80% of women by 50 will contract it, that is crazy! We do not do vaccines like these.

 

FWIW, I find the Wikipedia article about HPV to be very extensively and credibly sourced (and at least one of the editors is/was a professional virologist).

 

Reading the article, I am struck by what a luxury this debate is. The choice to decline this vaccine is an option made possible by the wide availability in this country of health services and Pap smears for women of all incomes. Women and girls in other countries may not have the privilege to choose abstinence as a lifestyle nor access to disease-prevention services that could minimize HPV infection and/or growth of cervical cancer over many years. We are a blessed people.

[Perry]

FWIW, I find the Wikipedia article about HPV to be very extensively and credibly sourced (and at least one of the editors is/was a professional virologist).

 

Reading the article, I am struck by what a luxury this debate is. The choice to decline this vaccine is an option made possible by the wide availability in this country of health services and Pap smears for women of all incomes. Women and girls in other countries may not have the privilege to choose abstinence as a lifestyle nor access to disease-prevention services that could minimize HPV infection and/or growth of cervical cancer over many years. We are a blessed people.

Yes, and the real tragedy is that this

Cancer of the cervix is the second most common cancer in women worldwide, with about 500 000 new cases and 250 000 deaths each year. Almost 80% of cases occur in low-income countries, where cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in women. Virtually all cervical cancer cases (99%) are linked to genital infection with human papillomavirus (HPV), which is the most common viral infection of the reproductive tract.

 

 

could be almost completely prevented.

[Jpoy85]

we dont Vax, so its a no for us on this. :grouphug:

[KidsHappen]

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.

 

I don't want to unduly alarm you but that not precisely correct. Most cervical cancer is slow growing. I went from a completely normal pap to stage/grade (CIN) III between one pap smear and the next. Not only was it fast growing in was particularly resiliant form. They tried several different methods of treatment before resorting to a severe cone biopsy. It took three years to get a clear pap. I was told I probably couldn't conceive any longer and that even if I did I wouldn't be able to carry a pregnancy to term. This was between my second and third children. I did have problems with a friable cervix and some pretty serious bleeding during the next two pregnancies. Granted I seem to be the lightening rod of medical improbabilities but I am sure I am not the only one.

[dancer67]

I don't want to unduly alarm you but that not precisely correct. Most cervical cancer is slow growing. I went from a completely normal pap to stage/grade (CIN) III between one pap smear and the next. Not only was it fast growing in was particularly resiliant form. They tried several different methods of treatment before resorting to a severe cone biopsy. It took three years to get a clear pap. I was told I probably couldn't conceive any longer and that even if I did I wouldn't be able to carry a pregnancy to term. This was between my second and third children. I did have problems with a friable cervix and some pretty serious bleeding during the next two pregnancies. Granted I seem to be the lightening rod of medical improbabilities but I am sure I am not the only one.

 

 

You are right. I stand corrected. MOST cervical cancers are slowing growing. Sorry. I should have worded that better.

 

As with Colon Cancer. It is MOSTLY slow growing, but in some cases it is not. My BIL mother went in for a colonsoscopy in December of 1996. She got the all clear. In February she had rectal bleeding. She made an appt, saw her Dr in March. Had another colonoscopy in March. She had a cancerous polyp. It had spread and she was dead in November. She was only 52 BTW.

[Greta]

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.

 

There is still a potential need for the vax. No matter how determined our children might be to maintain purity, we cannot guarantee them that the person they end up marrying will have done the same, or will always honor the marriage vows. People do get STDs from cheating spouses. Now, whether or not that qualifies as a sufficient reason is up to the individual. But I don't think it's right to say that there's "no" reason to get it.

[Greta]

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've talked about this with a friend of mine who fits your description. She's very pro-vax, but won't be doing Gardasil, but she's not opposed to sex outside of marriage so that's not the reason. She basically said the vaccine is just too new and the way it was pushed so hard, so soon after being created really made her nervous. She's skeptical about the risks and side effects, and therefore has decided not to do it, at least not until there is more information.

 

Personally, I've decided not to decide. By the time my daughter would need this vaccine (there is no reason for her to get it right now), she will be old enough to make the decision herself. So I'm leaving it up to her.

[raceNzanesmom]

We're a no vax family, but if we did vax I wouldn't allow this one for the reason stated below.

 

...the vaccine is just too new and the way it was pushed so hard, so soon after being created really made her nervous. She's skeptical about the risks and side effects, and therefore has decided not to do it, at least not until there is more information...

 

Edited May 25, 2012 by raceNzanesmom

[raceNzanesmom]

There is still a potential need for the vax. No matter how determined our children might be to maintain purity, we cannot guarantee them that the person they end up marrying will have done the same, or will always honor the marriage vows. People do get STDs from cheating spouses. Now, whether or not that qualifies as a sufficient reason is up to the individual. But I don't think it's right to say that there's "no" reason to get it.

 

But that wouldn't cause our 9-13 y/o's to need it. I would much rather my child wait until they're old enough to make that decision for themself. .02

[Butter]

When did these cases occur? They only started testing for HPV in the late 80s/90s. If it was before that, there is no way to know whether they had HPV or not.

 

Some were in the last 20 years, so, yes, while they have testing for HPV.

[Butter]

The exams aren't even annual any more. Once we get three A-okays, we drop to every third year.

 

The guidelines as of 2009:

-begin paps at 21

-women 30+ should get paps every 3 years if they've had three good ones in a row

-women 65-70 should not get them at all if they've had no abnormal results in the previous 10 years

 

The reason for the change is because they say that pap smears too often can cause problems: They say precancerous growths, commonly found in young women with HPV, will go away if left alone. Those growths that are removed can lead to damage to the cervix and present problems later when a woman becomes pregnant. (from here: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/health&id=7129084)

[Greta]

But that wouldn't cause our 9-13 y/o's to need it. I would much rather my child wait until they're old enough to make that decision for themself. .02

 

Oh, yes, I absolutely agree with that. That's the reason my daughter hasn't received it.

[SKL]

The guidelines as of 2009:

-begin paps at 21

-women 30+ should get paps every 3 years if they've had three good ones in a row

-women 65-70 should not get them at all if they've had no abnormal results in the previous 10 years

 

The reason for the change is because they say that pap smears too often can cause problems: They say precancerous growths, commonly found in young women with HPV, will go away if left alone. Those growths that are removed can lead to damage to the cervix and present problems later when a woman becomes pregnant. (from here: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/health&id=7129084)

 

This (bolded) does not surprise me. I would also note that women who have not been sexually active do not need paps.

[EmilyK]

I'm not the OP, but I appreciate reading what everyone has said. I've followed the vax schedule recommended by the ped, but when my son got the first shot he had something of a bad reaction. As they predicted, he felt dizzy and had to lie down right afterwards.

 

Then, over the next few days he had swelling and hives on the arm that got the injection. He's due for his next installment next month and I'm seriously thinking of not doing it.

[Saddlemomma]

I am extremely careful about vaccines. When I was 21, I cut myself and had to update my Tetanus shot. The next morning, the area of the shot swelled to the size of a baseball and developed blisters. I still lived at home and told my mother, who was a nurse, that I didn't feel well either. She didn't think it was much to worry about. I stayed home on the couch watching TV. Eventually I noticed that one movie would be on, and then it seemed like a new movie was half over. That's when I realized I had been going in and out of consciousness.

 

I got up and went to sit outside on our steps to get some fresh air. THAT's when I realized I couldn't life my head off my chest! I couldn't support my neck at all! It was like my neck was broken. My mother rushed me into the ER, but there was nothing they could do but wait to see if the effects would lessen. Thankfully, over a day or so they did. Unfortunately, the doctor who gave me the shot didn't note which serum he gave me (horse or human) so I can never have another Tetanus shot.

 

The only thing the doctors can figure, is that the shot actually gave me a minor case of tetanus. No one would have ever figured I would have such a reaction. There was no history in my family for this.

 

My dd will NOT be getting this vaccine. We also don't get the flu vaccine and none of us have had the flu in years (in fact I can't even remember the last time one of us had it). However, it seems that my friends who get flu shots come down with a case every year....go figure.

 

I do, however, plan to get dd the chicken pox vaccine now that she's 10 and hasn't gotten them naturally. It becomes increasingly dangerous to get CP as you get older. I know because I got them at 16 and it was a 3-week nightmare! So she will be getting that with her next physical.

[NASDAQ]

Of course it could be coincidence that a person develops issues after having a vaccine. That's why we do large studies where we can compare populations of people who got the vaccine to people who didn't. These were done for Gardasil and they didn't find any such thing as "post-Gardasil syndrome." In fact, they found that while some people will always have reactions, the risk of the Gardasil shot is significantly smaller (for the recommended ages) than the risk of forgoing it.

[NASDAQ]

It also concerns me that everyone on this thread assumes that whatever sexual activity a young person engages in will be consensual.

[Pawz4me]

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?

 

 

We're pro-vax. Our boys have always had all recommended vaccinations right on schedule. We all get flu shots every year. But we won't be getting the Gardasil vaccine for either of the boys anytime soon, and maybe never. It's been pushed so hard I can't help but feel a wee bit suspicious, and especially for boys its use is just too new. I prefer to wait awhile and gather more information. I've presented the facts (in an unbiased fashion as much as possible) to 17 yo DS and he's also said he'd prefer to take a wait-and-see approach. Our decision has absolutely nothing to do with worrying that the vaccine would provide some kind of green light for sexual activity.

 

Assuming it was a colon cancer vaccine, was still so relatively new and all basic information and anecdotal reports were the same -- I'd probably hold off on it, too.

[Tree Frog]

spam reported.

[MFA323]

For us this vax is too risky b/c it's so new. I don't want to give this to my 3 DD and then learn about long-term side effects in 30 years. If it were to prevent certain death, sure. For cervical cancer, no. Cervical cancer grows slowly and can be treated in most cases. Instead I'll teach my daughters to be diligent about pap smears and gyn visits and that this is one more thing to worry about if they decide to have premarital sex.

[Sahamamama]

I'm just wondering, why is this thread HERE and not on the Chat Board? :confused1:

[K&Rs Mom]

I'm just wondering, why is this thread HERE and not on the Chat Board? :confused1:

 

 

Because it's really old, from before there was a chat board.

[Sahamamama]

 

Because it's really old, from before there was a chat board.

 

Ah, I get it now.

[Georgiana Daniels]

The guidelines as of 2009:

-begin paps at 21

-women 30+ should get paps every 3 years if they've had three good ones in a row

-women 65-70 should not get them at all if they've had no abnormal results in the previous 10 years

 

The reason for the change is because they say that pap smears too often can cause problems: They say precancerous growths, commonly found in young women with HPV, will go away if left alone. Those growths that are removed can lead to damage to the cervix and present problems later when a woman becomes pregnant. (from here: http://abclocal.go.c...alth&id=7129084)

 

 

I was pleasantly surprised when my gyno told me that this year. She said unless there's something unusual going on, I won't likely have more than a few more paps....ever!

[stripe]

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.

I thought the woman who was involved in the vaccine said that it wouldn't reduce the American rate much, because the American rate is already fairly low. That being said, since not everyone on this board is an American or has a child who will live in the US or have partners who do, I think it's a bit deceptive to say we are all in the same situation. For example, in many parts of the world, cervical cancer is a huge killer AND women have very poor access to routine (or any other sort of) gynecological care.

http://www.who.int/hpvcentre/statistics/en/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2012/dec/14/cervical-cancer-striking-women-down

[suzielou]

I was taken back when we got into our 12yr physical and the doctor was pushing it. My husband had already expressed his opinions on getting all vaccinations, so I went ahead and had them give the first shot in the series to my DS12. It turns out that he is allergic to something in the shot. His arm swoll up the size of a grapefruit and was welped up for over a week. Needless to say, he can't have the rest of the shots in the series.

[texasmama]

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.

This. My dd has not had it. She can make the decision for herself as an adult, though I will give her my opinion. Same with my boys and youngest dd. At one of my older dd's routine exams, I was given a pamphlet about it and asked if she would be getting it. I declined and was not pressured to change my mind.