HPV shot for teens. Yes? No? Why or Why not?

[Pod's mum]

I don't necessarilily support this particular vaccine, however the whole point of giving it early is that the full course of vaccines is complete and fully effective BEFORE first s#xual activity.

We all know good kids who have been involved in relationships or activities before their parents thought this would be occuring.

How many of you could have decided several months before....that this would be the time to start vaccines?

I know that is the ideal, but the ideal is not always the case. Blood can suddenly heat up. It happens.

[Ipsey]

A friend of mine was raped and contracted HPV when she was a junior in college.

I held her hand as she had her cervix "burned" with a super freezing metal rod to kill the lesions at the student health center.

 

Another friend got HPV from a boyfriend.

 

My mother's best friend had cervical cancer as a young woman. They adopted children since she and her husband were unable to have children after treatment.

 

I'll vaccinate.

[Pawz4me]

We're pro-vaccine and our boys have always been vaccinated right on schedule. But not this one.

[butterflymommy]

My MIL died of cervical cancer but I don't think I will suggest this vaccine to my daughters. I will leave it up to them though. As far as I know it's not understood how the body will react if you already have a strain of HPV,plus there are other unknowns.

 

I recently had an irregular pap test-- which turned out to be a lab error-- but before my retest results came back, i read obsessively about abnormal paps online. I can't tell you how many stories I read of young women struggling with cervical dysplasia and high risk HPV strains even though they'd been vaccinated.

 

Also, the body will clear out most strains of HPV on its own, even the high risk strains. While most cervical cancers are caused by high risk HPV, only a tiny fraction of high risk HPV will develop into cervical cancer.

 

The only time I might suggest the vaccine is if I knew a woman would not have access to pap smears, and/or they engaged in very high risk activity (like sex industry work or many partners).

[Word Nerd]

My kids are fully vaxed on schedule, but we're not doing Gardisil. Merck rushed it to market, and only 5% of those in the clinical trial were in the target pre-teen age range. Soon after the drug was approved, they also aggressively lobbied to have states make it compulsory. The long-term effectiveness is not known either. I initially took a wait-and-see approach, and I haven't seen any compelling evidence since then that has made me change my position.

[nmoira]

 

wow. are you one of those who think putting a big smilie after calling everyone who doens't agree with you an extremely divisive name means everything is good, ala no harm no foul?

 

 

Holy assumptions Batman. Where did the poster say *everyone* who disagreed was a hater? Methinks you're reading too much into a tongue-in-cheek comment that I read as being nothing more than a nod to the contentious nature of the vaccine issue. :D (I couldn't resist.)

[Lisbeth]

We are vaccinating. We are pro-vaccines in general. When I worked I watched the 20 somethings around me have bout after bout, scare after scare, with HPV. I know two women who fought cervical cancer. One lost.

 

I am very suspicious of the anti-vax crowd, so I am probably especially apt to not believe vaccine "scares."

[CupOCoffee]

Holy assumptions Batman. Where did the poster say *everyone* who disagreed was a hater? Methinks you're reading too much into a tongue-in-cheek comment that I read as being nothing more than a nod to the contentious nature of the vaccine issue. :D (I couldn't resist.)

 

 

Perhaps you read it that way because you are in agreement with the OP on this vaccine? When you end a sentence with "flame away haters" after enthusiastically supporting a controversial vaccine, yes, you *are* challenging anyone who dare to post a differing opinion as being a hater.

 

And as Tibby said above, it's the same concept as calling me a hater if I disagree with you on what constitutes marriage, what political opinions I have or any number of things people in general disagree about. Hater is way to easily thrown around, and is waaaaay out of line in most instances. Disagreement with an opinion does not a hater make!

[gardenmom5]

Holy assumptions Batman. Where did the poster say *everyone* who disagreed was a hater? Methinks you're reading too much into a tongue-in-cheek comment that I read as being nothing more than a nod to the contentious nature of the vaccine issue. :D (I couldn't resist.)

 

oh - how about how strongly she stated her opinion and then made the comment of "flame away haters". she's freely entitled to her opinion, and if she'd left that last bit off, I'd have had no problem with what she said. she's her children's parent, just like I'm my children's parent.

 

but *she* is the one who threw down the red flag at everyone who doesn't hold her opinion. and put a smilie on the end? seriously? does that make it all better?

eta: it might be reminded that is a term that has taken on the mien of a particularly political insult and has NO place on these boards.

[Butter]

Nope. For many of the reasons already spelled out. I'm really not comfortable with it and our doctor *strongly* suggested we not get it anyway.

[Catwoman]

No. My ds will not be vaccinated.

[Twinmom]

No, we are not vaccinating with Gardasil. My doctor is pushing it, but we are resisting. Our reasoning is partly the rush to market and scary news reports, partly the fact that my daughter has an anxiety disorder and is terrified of needles. Even our doc admits she doesn't need to be forced through this one at this time. I declined for my son as well. I want them both to be older and the vaccine to be around longer before I would consider it.

 

I have a close relative who did get cervical cancer from HPV, and no, this does not change my opinion. The vaccine is simply too new. Otherwise, we do fully vaccinate, pretty much on schedule.

[phathui5]

I will prob get it for my boys.

 

Is there any way that it would benefit them directly?

[Element]

I don't know yet. Ds, yes. Definitely. He's as healthy as a moose (current flu situation notwithstanding.) Dd is so tiny and has reactions to everything. Hopefully she will either have bulked up a little by the time she is supposed to receive this or we can delay it for a bit. I wouldn't mind if it was just 1 shot or if the 3 shots were spaced out a little more, but 3 shots within 6 months seems like a lot for such a little body. Fortunately, I have a few years until that time comes.

[Joyofsixreboot]

Nope. At 18 they can get it if they want. That is the stance I took with circ too. Just to stir the pot:-)

[Tita Gidge]

Cervical cancer has affected three women in my family. All three women share a primary doctor, who has been the family doctor for generations.

 

This doctor still sees a number of our relatives, and is vabidly pro-vaccination; she has reservations about this vaccine, and advises against it - even for our kids, with the family history. Of course, she stresses that this is contingent upon regular doctor visits and a more keen eye on our health situations (given the family history, especially).

 

So, no. This vaccine is not for us.

[nmoira]

 

oh - how about how strongly she stated her opinion and then made the comment of "flame away haters". she's freely entitled to her opinion, and if she'd left that last bit off, I'd have had no problem with what she said. she's her children's parent, just like I'm my children's parent.

 

but *she* is the one who threw down the red flag at everyone who doesn't hold her opinion. and put a smilie on the end? seriously? does that make it all better?

eta: it might be reminded that is a term that has taken on the mien of a particularly political insult and has NO place on these boards.

 

 

But was her comment in reference to everyone who who holds a different opinion, or those who might attack it? I assumed the latter, while you seemed to have assumed the former. I dunno. I've been attacked (I don't *think* here, but my memory would be fuzzy) for merely staying my views on the issue, couched in "this is what our family does" language, so that could be what's forming the basis of my assumption.

[nmoira]

Nope. At 18 they can get it if they want. That is the stance I took with circ too. Just to stir the pot:-)

 

 

Bill hasn't been around, so we should be ok on that front.

[Catwoman]

Bill hasn't been around, so we should be ok on that front.

 

 

:D :D :D :D

[gardenmom5]

But was her comment in reference to everyone who who holds a different opinion, or those who might attack it? I assumed the latter, while you seemed to have assumed the former. I dunno. I've been attacked (I don't *think* here, but my memory would be fuzzy) for merely staying my views on the issue, couched in "this is what our family does" language, so that could be what's forming the basis of my assumption.

 

she threw down a guantlet - or used extremely poor judgment (naive?) word choice *at best*. considering those words, in exactly that context, have been all over the internet as deliberatly inflamitory in political circles towards anyone who so much as dares to have the effrontery to hold, let alone state, a contrary opinion, they should never have been uttered here.

[Joker]

Nope, and I've had HPV.

[nmoira]

 

she threw down a guantlet - or used extremely poor judgment (naive?) word choice at best. considering those words, in exactly that context, have been all over the internet as deliberatly inflamitory in political circles, they should never have been uttered here.

 

Wow.

 

Given that the issue crosses political lines, I'm not sure the comparison is apt. The Haters Gonna Hate meme certainly exists outside political circles (first time I heard it was in relation to someone like Justin Beiber). Why not just give the benefit of the doubt? Did she come back to fan the flames? Argue back and forth with another poster? Speak as to the motives of another poster?

[Trish]

I've read enough bad side effects to it (of the bad to horrific variety) to think it would be a good idea to allow a child to reach 18 and make his/her own decision. I also have a cousin whose daughter developed a funky condition so soon after receiving her shots that she strongly suspects a connection, and has sworn none of her other girls will receive the shots as a result. I'm also not completely convinced that this is such a necessary thing since most people who have HPV do NOT get cancer. Also one of the developers of the vaccine has come out against it for a variety of reasons.

 

But you could google it and see what you think. There's a lot of stuff on both sides, but just because a doctor "strongly recommends" doesn't mean it's a great idea. I'm thinking of things like thalidomide and certain types of hormone therapy for post menopausal women, among other things.

[gardenmom5]

Wow.

 

Given that the issue crosses political lines, I'm not sure the comparison is apt. The Haters Gonna Hate meme certainly exists outside political circles (first time I heard it was in relation to someone like Justin Beiber). Why not just give the benefit of the doubt? Did she come back to fan the flames? Argue back and forth with another poster? Speak as to the motives of another poster?

 

You're the one keeping it alive dear.

 

she also isn't here defending herself that she "meant no offense" or was "taken out of context". why is that?

[kiwik]

Funny it never occurred to me that my sons being vaccinated was an issue. Here (in NZ) it is offered to girls at 12 but not boys

[nd293]

We vaccinate. My kids will be getting it when the time comes. The sources I looked at show it to be safe. I believe vaccination to be one of the greatest scientific advancements in history, saving millions of lives.

 

As above.

 

In Australia boys will be getting the vaccination for the first time this year. Dd would have been getting it through school this year (Year 7) but will instead get it next year due to the roll out of the boys' programme.

[ktgrok]

Wanted to add that I've had a high risk strain of HPV, and cervical biopsy for precancerous changes to my cervix. Turns out my body fought off the HPV and healed the precancerous cells between the pap smear appointment and the biopsy appointment. Later I found out that that almost always happens. That for a while they actually didn't advise young women be tested for HPV as it would just freak them out, (something like 80 percent of women have it at some point). Now, because I had cervical changes I did need the biopsy, or I could have just done some follow up Paps. But despite all that I am NOT in favor of the vaccine. Not because I googled it and read silly stories. Because the facts are it has a much higher chance of side effects. That is coming from the Sears Vaccine Book, which is PRO vaccine. All to prevent a cancer that is extremely slow growing, that can be prevented with pap smears.

[delaney]

No and my sister had HPV but I am not going to get into my view on her willingness to um.......give it up so to speak. My Dr does not push it and if it were a big deal to him he would. My friend and her DH are nurse/doctor and they aren't even doing it. I do all other vacs on schedule but we skip the flu. I am too skeptical of big money/pharmaceutical.

[Cindy in FL.]

I've had HPV and had to have laser treatment twice. I will not be getting my boys vaxed. They are vaccinated otherwise.

[kewb]

No.

• Cervical cancer is rare.
  
• The strains protected by this shot are even more rare.
  
• Deaths from said strains are still more rare.
  
• If you already have HPV when you get the shot, the shot increases your risk of cancer. The drug's own marketer admits this. Their recommendation is to test for HPV before giving the shot, but do doctors do that? I've never heard of them doing it.
  
• HPV and its effects can be prevented by means other than the vax.
  
• The vax side effects are too significant to just blow off. They might be worth it if all of the above were not true, but not for a very rare condition caused by an otherwise preventable STD.
  

ETA: I would prefer to have a test for HPV that is accessible, and if you have HPV, then monitor more closely than otherwise (PAP or whatever).

 

Exactly my thoughts. Plus, an annual pap smear is the greater preventative measure. The vaccine does not replace it and I fear many people will rely on it and forgo screening.

 

And it drives me nuts that it is marketed as a cancer vaccine. It is not. It is an HPV vaccine.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No. No. No.

 

It has not been tested long enough to satisfy me. People have died from it, for crying out loud.

 

As usual you seem to be a bit allergic to the truth.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/HPV/Index.html

 

"Concerns have been raised about reports of deaths occurring in individuals after receiving Gardasil. As of June 30, 2008, 20 deaths had been reported to VAERS. There was not a common pattern to the deaths that would suggest they were caused by the vaccine. In cases where autopsy, death certificate and medical records were available, the cause of death was explained by factors other than the vaccine."

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

[kewb]

Allow me to clarify-a pap smear as a screening tool is the greater preventative measure for cevical cancer. I realize it will not prevent hpv. Thanks for letting me see I was not clear in what I originally posted.

 

I am sorry you had to go through a procedure you are not sure was necessary.

 

I am still not on board with this vaccine. After all of my research including the fact that 90% of hpv clears up on its own within 2 years has convinced me to pass on this one. To me the risks outweigh the benefits on this one.

[ktgrok]

 

Pap smears don't prevent HPV. I understand your argument, but really I would prefer to actively prevent getting it if there is a safe option. I did test positive for HPV (which by the way is never tested for unless one has an abnormal pap smear). I had a procedure to lop of a large portion of my cervix. I'm not even sure I believe that was warranted or if it was a doctor who just loved making money on procedures. Anyhow, I would have preferred to not get HPV in the first place.

 

Some said here HPV is preventable. Not easily. If such a huge percentage of the population has HPV and screening isn't all that routine, you won't easily know who has it or who doesn't. Condoms are not 100% effective in preventing it.

 

 

Actually, doctors in my area test for HPV at every pap now. But even if they don't, as long as you get the pap, you will pick up changes before they are a problem.

[Mergath]

If your child is NOT sxually active, I can't see any logical reason why they'd need it. if you're honest with yourself, you should have an idea if your child is truly living your standards or just paying lip service.

 

Whatever one's thoughts on the vaccine, I find this a very poor argument against it. Sadly, kids don't always get to choose when they become sexually active.

[bettyandbob]

 

 

Actually, doctors in my area test for HPV at every pap now. But even if they don't, as long as you get the pap, you will pick up changes before they are a problem.

 

Nope, regular pap does not always pick up changes. The woman whose funeral I attended last month hadn't missed an annual exam in years.

[Word Nerd]

We are vaccinating. We are pro-vaccines in general. When I worked I watched the 20 somethings around me have bout after bout, scare after scare, with HPV. I know two women who fought cervical cancer. One lost.

 

I am very suspicious of the anti-vax crowd, so I am probably especially apt to not believe vaccine "scares."

 

 

I am pro-vaccine as well, but that doesn't mean I will automatically sign on the dotted line for any new one that is released without question. My conclusions about this vaccine were not reached by consulting anti-vax sources, nor were they a response to any vaccine scare. IMHO, the more emotionally manipulative arguments in this debate have come from the Merck/pro-Gardisil side.

[ktgrok]

 

Nope, regular pap does not always pick up changes. The woman whose funeral I attended last month hadn't missed an annual exam in years.

 

 

 

wow! Everything I read said how slow growing it is, at least in general. I guess I'm lucky/glad my doctor's office does do the HPV test too now.

[msrift]

We are still undecided about the vaccine, but there is growing evidence that HPV is a factor in oral cancer. So in theory, it would provide protection against both cervical and oral cancer. (I don't need to explain how HPV would be transmitted to the oral cavity, do I? :001_rolleyes: ) This is one way that the vaccine would benefit boys as well as girls. Plus, if you add in the fact that lots of kids consider do not consider themselves to be sexually active since they haven't 'gone all the way' but are still engaging in some sexual behaviors (and at earlier and earlier ages)...well, I can see benefits to the vaccine.

[Wildcat]

We haven't, but that doesn't mean we won't. The news stories have scared me into thinking "no", but I'm a "never say never" sort of person.

I agree with others who said that it's still too new.

Vaccines have their place, for sure. This one.... I'm still on the fence about.

[NorthwestMom]

You're the one keeping it alive dear.

 

she also isn't here defending herself that she "meant no offense" or was "taken out of context". why is that?

 

I went skiing yesterday afternoon. No service on the mountain.

 

nmoira was completely correct when she guessed, "Holy assumptions Batman. Where did the poster say *everyone* who disagreed was a hater? Methinks you're reading too much into a tongue-in-cheek comment that I read as being nothing more than a nod to the contentious nature of the vaccine issue." I used a smilie on the end to signal I was joking.

 

Sorry your feelings were so hurt, gardenmom5.

[PachiSusan]

We are pro-VAX and Mel has been fully VAXED and on schedule, but we skip the Flu vaccine and we will skip this one.

[bettyandbob]

 

Although from what I understand actual cancer is not slow at all. The cell changes or "pre-cancer" stuff they talk about is slow.

 

The timeline I know on the woman whose funeral I just attended goes like this.

She had her annual in January, as she did every year, because she was very orderly about scheduling all health maintenance stuff on one day a year and taking that day off work. That was also when she had a dental exam and something else. Her reports were "normal."

In February she began to feel quite unwell and her GP said she had a UTI. She physically got worse while doctors kept insisting on a UTI.

In April her mom said the situation was ridiculous and accompanied her to the ER and demanded they do an MRI of her abdomen. Sometimes , even when you are successful attorney over the age of 30 you just need mom to advocate for you because you are too sick to advocate for yourself. All kinds of tumors found.

Lots of treatment pursued.

December doctors said they could do no more.

 

The symptoms of this disease looks like other stuff, growths can go awhile and not be found by a standard exam. Early detection is difficult and that is what makes it deadly.

[Mommy22alyns]

I'm a vaxer, but the girls will NOT be getting this one. It's too new and too pushed and too much negative info out there.

[bettyandbob]

no way. too many problems reported. I think the only reason they started pushing it on boys was becasue they weren't getting enough girls to do the shot. the market is aimed at teens, not twenty-somethings.

If your child is NOT sxually active, I can't see any logical reason why they'd need it. if you're honest with yourself, you should have an idea if your child is truly living your standards or just paying lip service.

 

1. The vaccine is being given to boys because they can get HPV without knowing it. They are not at risk for cervical cancer for obvious reasons, but they can get warts from HPV (that doesn't sound like fun, but it is treatable). More importantly if they have HPV and don't have symptoms they can give it to someone else unknowingly. You can be symptom free for years so you can get it when "you weren't living up to standards" and years later be living a "good life" and give it to your spouse. I guess the previous "not living up to standards" is unforgivable and it doesn't matter whether the spouse always "lived up to standards"--guilt by association.

 

2. The whole statement about "living up to standards" sounds to me like the child getting HPV it is a deserved punished for not living the way you want. That is truly bizarre to me.

 

You can disagree or agree on the side effects and effectiveness of the vaccine and make your decision on those grounds, but making a decision based on your "lifestyle standards" makes no sense to me. What if the child is r--d? Hopefully a rare possibility, but what if? Do you think someone who "lives up to standards" is protected from exposure to disease in cases of r---?

 

Are you saying giving the child the vaccine is permission for the child enter into immoral activity?

 

Anyway, I hope most people make a decision about this based on their own scientific analysis--whatever direction they choose to go.

[Joanne]

she threw down a guantlet - or used extremely poor judgment (naive?) word choice *at best*. considering those words, in exactly that context, have been all over the internet as deliberatly inflamitory in political circles towards anyone who so much as dares to have the effrontery to hold, let alone state, a contrary opinion, they should never have been uttered here.

 

 

FWIW, I didn't react to her post with the same perspective. I saw the post quite eloquently put, and the "haters" comment to be fun and playful.

 

That was just MY take on the tone; I don't bring the same assumptions to the "hater" moniker. We use "don't be a hater" a lot here in verbal play, so that likely colors my response.

[SKL]

The timeline I know on the woman whose funeral I just attended goes like this.

She had her annual in January, as she did every year, because she was very orderly about scheduling all health maintenance stuff on one day a year and taking that day off work. That was also when she had a dental exam and something else. Her reports were "normal."

In February she began to feel quite unwell and her GP said she had a UTI. She physically got worse while doctors kept insisting on a UTI.

In April her mom said the situation was ridiculous and accompanied her to the ER and demanded they do an MRI of her abdomen. Sometimes , even when you are successful attorney over the age of 30 you just need mom to advocate for you because you are too sick to advocate for yourself. All kinds of tumors found.

Lots of treatment pursued.

December doctors said they could do no more.

 

The symptoms of this disease looks like other stuff, growths can go awhile and not be found by a standard exam. Early detection is difficult and that is what makes it deadly.

 

 

Lots of tumors? Did she only have cervical cancer or also some other cancer? Is it known that HPV was behind it?

 

Cancer runs in my family. My younger sister had that procedure where precancerous cells are removed from the cervix. Still I do not consider this a big risk because of the availability of early detection. If HPV is really behind so many deadly cancers, why in the world do they not always screen for it as part of the PAP test? Especially given the fact that Gardasil is not elected by most, and that it is not recommended past a fairly young age? Also, why don't we hear about work on a cure for HPV if it's so deadly? I never even heard of HPV until Gardasil came out.

 

Also, if early detection of cervical cancer is difficult as you say, why the big push to do PAP tests?

 

The cynic in me has always wondered whether the frequent PAP tests actually increase the potential for benign HPV to become a problem.

[bettyandbob]

Also, if early detection of cervical cancer is difficult as you say, why the big push to do PAP tests?

 

The cynic in me has always wondered whether the frequent PAP tests actually increase the potential for benign HPV to become a problem.

 

 

It's been in the last couple years that providers have been following new guidelines to not test frequently. Before providers were advised to test every year. Perhaps they realized that testing yearly did not help with detection. This woman was only following her provider's request for her to get tested yearly and it did not help her.

 

I have no idea if frequent testing actually increases risk. I'm sure the guidelines have changed because it was found that frequent testing did nothing to reduce the risk of developing cancer.

[TravelingChris]

We are vaccinators here for everything, except this vaccine. We get flu shots each year and none of us have ever had the flu, so we do believe vaccines can work effectively. Why aren;t we vaccinating against these HPV strains? Well I did examine the data and the risk sheet. There is a higher risk for blood clots and since one of my dd's has Factor V Leiden which also puts her at risk of blood clots, we don't let her use anything that increases risk of blood clots. The younger one doesn't have the same risk factor, however, for a few reasons, I think we may have an additional, as yet undiscovered, risk of blood clots and that one she may very well have. Along with the fact that she already had one very rare disease and also a very rare allergic reaction to an insect bite (verified delayed anaphalctic reaction of about 24 hours), I think she has enough abnormalities to not risk this.

 

Oh and I am one of those women who had an abnormal pap smear several times and do not have HPV.

[TranquilMind]

Wanted to add that I've had a high risk strain of HPV, and cervical biopsy for precancerous changes to my cervix. Turns out my body fought off the HPV and healed the precancerous cells between the pap smear appointment and the biopsy appointment. Later I found out that that almost always happens. That for a while they actually didn't advise young women be tested for HPV as it would just freak them out, (something like 80 percent of women have it at some point). Now, because I had cervical changes I did need the biopsy, or I could have just done some follow up Paps. But despite all that I am NOT in favor of the vaccine. Not because I googled it and read silly stories. Because the facts are it has a much higher chance of side effects. That is coming from the Sears Vaccine Book, which is PRO vaccine. All to prevent a cancer that is extremely slow growing, that can be prevented with pap smears.

 

 

Totally with you here. I've also read that bodies will heal this on their own a large percentage of the time.

 

The documented side effects are not pretty and not worth it.

[Sandsam]

No. I have turned down the vaccination twice for now-14 dd, and will turn it down again at age 15.

 

The vaccine is too new, too controversial, and as a poster above mentioned, too pushed by the drug companies. To note - My kids have had all the main vaccines, including the flu. I am not vaccine-adverse.

 

I've learned alot more about the HPV vaccine on this post which has affirmed my decision not to vaccinate. Thank you.