Gardasil -- vaccinate or not?

[Alessandra]

Ds and dd have their check ups this week, and their pediatrician, whom I like and trust, recommended Gardasil.

 

I see that the CDC recommends Gardasil:

 

http://www.cdc.gov/v.../HPV/Index.html

 

American Academy of Pediatrics recommends it:

 

http://pediatrics.aa.../3/602.full.pdf

 

But here's an article that points out some problems:

 

Judicial Watch

announced it has received documents from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) revealing that its National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has awarded $5,877,710 dollars to 49 victims in claims made against the highly controversial HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccines. To date 200 claims have been filed with VICP, with barely half adjudicated.

 

http://communities.w...rdasil-victims/

 

And I see that there are LOTS more anti-Gardasil websites.

 

My gut reaction is 'no Gardasil,' but I'd like to hear what the Hive has to say.

[Mrs Mungo]

Like anything else, I say it depends upon risk factors. We have a history of breast cancer in my family. Breast and cervical cancers are genetically linked. My girls received the shot.

[Guest inoubliable]

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/454413-hpv-shot-for-teens-yes-no-why-or-why-not

[Orthodox6]

I will not authorize this vaccine for my daughter. Glad that the thread link was posted.

[Alessandra]

Like anything else, I say it depends upon risk factors. We have a history of breast cancer in my family. Breast and cervical cancers are genetically linked. My girls received the shot.

 

I am sorry about your family history -- I have an in-law relative who is suffering from the same. So far, in my related family, there is no history of those cancers. But I take your point -- it is a good one.

[Mergath]

Wasn't it Michael Douglas who was just in the news because his throat cancer was caused by HPV that he contracted through sexual contact? Every vaccine has its risks, but not getting them has risks too. My dd's going to get the vaccine when she's old enough. I think the risks of HPV and cervical cancer (or giving future partners HPV) outweigh the risks of the shot.

[Mommy22alyns]

We vax, but not that one.

[PeacefulChaos]

I'm on the fence on that one. Mainly because of how 'new' it is and how many horror stories I've heard about it. :/

I don't know what age it's recommended for. My oldest is 9, so I'm sure I still have at least a couple of years.

The thing is, I say I'm not sure because of how new it is... but all my kids have gotten the chicken pox vaccine, which I'm pretty sure is relatively new, too. Isn't it?

[TXBeth]

We also vax fully, but not Gardasil unless something changes by the time my DD hits her teen years. The aggressive (and I believe unethical) marketing, the fact that it was being pushed for young girls without proper trials being done, etc. lead to me strongly distrust the manufacturers. And I am not going to allow something to be injected into my child's body if I have serious reservations about the motivations of the manufacturer.

[Guest inoubliable]

Wasn't it Michael Douglas who was just in the news because his throat cancer was caused by HPV that he contracted through sexual contact? Every vaccine has its risks, but not getting them has risks too. My dd's going to get the vaccine when she's old enough. I think the risks of HPV and cervical cancer (or giving future partners HPV) outweigh the risks of the shot.

 

Yep.

 

DS12 got it, and the others will follow.

[Alessandra]

http://forums.welltr...-why-or-why-not

 

Thank you for the link -- and the links within the link.

 

I general, I agree with the people who vaccinate. Growing up, I knew someone who had had polio. I remember mumps, measles, and so on. I am glad there is a tetanus vaccine. I had my dc vaccinated against meningitis. But there is something about Gardasil that makes me very, very hesitant.

 

My pediatrician is NOT pressuring me at all -- she suggested that I consider it, but she seemed OK when I expressed some doubts.

 

Btw, my ds and dd are both 13.

[Alessandra]

I'm on the fence on that one. Mainly because of how 'new' it is and how many horror stories I've heard about it. :/

I don't know what age it's recommended for. My oldest is 9, so I'm sure I still have at least a couple of years.

The thing is, I say I'm not sure because of how new it is... but all my kids have gotten the chicken pox vaccine, which I'm pretty sure is relatively new, too. Isn't it?

 

Same here.

[Mergath]

Thank you for the link -- and the links within the link.

 

I general, I agree with the people who vaccinate. Growing up, I knew someone who had had polio. I remember mumps, measles, and so on. I am glad there is a tetanus vaccine. I had my dc vaccinated against meningitis. But there is something about Gardasil that makes me very, very hesitant.

 

My pediatrician is NOT pressuring me at all -- she suggested that I consider it, but she seemed OK when I expressed some doubts.

 

Btw, my ds and dd are both 13.

 

People are always scared of new vaccines. It's been that way throughout history.

 

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/brain-and-behavior/articles/2011/01/26/fear-of-vaccines-has-a-long-persistent-history

 

Of course, without vaccines, the world would be a much more dangerous and lethal place. And Gardisil isn't any more dangerous than other vaccines. Out of the first 23 million doses given, there were 772 "serious events." Which is 0.003%. I'll take a 0.003% risk to keep my dd safe from the most dangerous strains of HPV.

[Mrs Mungo]

Cervical cancer is just so hard to catch. It is often discovered in advanced stages. That is what I worry about. And no, it doesn't prevent every type of cervical cancer, but some protection from cancer is better than none.

[Guest inoubliable]

People are always scared of new vaccines. It's been that way throughout history.

 

 

 

Right. My parents were nervous about my kids getting the varicella vaccine. Wasn't available when I was a kid. Eh. I'm glad we did it. I had chicken pox. It sucked.

[Slartibartfast]

We will probably do the vaccine in a few years.

[Alessandra]

People are always scared of new vaccines. It's been that way throughout history.

 

http://health.usnews...sistent-history

 

Of course, without vaccines, the world would be a much more dangerous and lethal place. And Gardisil isn't any more dangerous than other vaccines. Out of the first 23 million doses given, there were 772 "serious events." Which is 0.003%. I'll take a 0.003% risk to keep my dd safe from the most dangerous strains of HPV.

 

That is an interesting article. Personally, up to now, I have vaccinated with everything available. I remember being thrilled that there was a meningitis vaccine.

 

Thank you for the statistics -- and I do know that an the true cause of a reported 'adverse event' is not always known.

[higginszoo]

Not yet. We generally vaccinate on schedule, but I don't see enough testing having been done on this one, and I'm not willing to offer my kids up as guinea pigs without better information so that I can make an intelligent decision on the risk/benefit ratio. As more data becomes available, we'll re-evaluate.

[nmoira]

My kids will be getting it. :)

[xixstar]

For my family, no.

 

My gut response when it was suggested for my older daughter (around age 12 I think) was such shock considering I was still seeing the medical research study ads for it all over campus (I was finishing my BA degree). I couldn't correlate how something was still in the medical study/testing stage could possibly be deemed safe enough to give my child. That led to future research and this is not one that my children will ever get.

[dakarimom5]

None of my children will be getting it. I just do not believe all the hype.

[mamajudy]

Like anything else, I say it depends upon risk factors. We have a history of breast cancer in my family. Breast and cervical cancers are genetically linked. My girls received the shot.

 

I'm not making the connection between the genetic link and the virus. Are you thinking that you want to reduce the risk of contracting the virus, since there is already a risk genetically, and thus avoiding a double risk?

[Mrs Mungo]

 

 

I'm not making the connection between the genetic link and the virus. Are you thinking that you want to reduce the risk of contracting the virus, since there is already a risk genetically, and thus avoiding a double risk?

 

Yes. The virus leads to cervical cancer. The more risk factors we can cut, the better.

[Unicorn.]

Nope. To new, too many red flags with this one. Too many deaths and nuero problems. In ten years, if the problems have gone away....maybe. By then, it will be their choice.

[Joker]

My dds have not received it and I had HPV. Our doctor has mentioned it once but doesn't really think it's a must have and neither do I.

[unsinkable]

Wasn't it Michael Douglas who was just in the news because his throat cancer was caused by HPV that he contracted through sexual contact? Every vaccine has its risks, but not getting them has risks too. My dd's going to get the vaccine when she's old enough. I think the risks of HPV and cervical cancer (or giving future partners HPV) outweigh the risks of the shot.

 

 

Funny story...I was just telling DH about Michael Douglas' cancer and the link to HPV and oral $ex.

 

And DH was throwing these panicked looks into the dining room...where our TEENAGERS were sitting. And I was LOLing, telling him they know about oral $ex. And he's like, "I still think they should be riding their Big Wheels."

 

And then there's this:👃

 

I think it's supposed to be a nose.

[Crimson Wife]

The vaccine only is effective for 3 to 5 years so to me it is ludicrous that the medical establishment is pushing it for pre-teens. Sure, let's vaccinate at 11 only to have it wear off some time in high school when girls are statistically far more likely to be active.

 

For white girls from intact families, the majority will still be virgins at 18 according to statistics. So it makes much more sense IMHO to wait until a girl is an older teen so that the vaccine won't wear off before she even needs protection from HPV.

[mommymilkies]

No, we will not. What they do at 18 is up to them, but as of right now, my children will not get it. I have concerns about the safety and the effectiveness. Here is one link, I'm too lazy to pull out all the data right now. It's been a long, horrible day.

 

http://www.decodedscience.com/hpv-vaccine-risks-benefits-dangers/19536

[KungFuPanda]

Right. My parents were nervous about my kids getting the varicella vaccine. Wasn't available when I was a kid. Eh. I'm glad we did it. I had chicken pox. It sucked.

 

 

I had the mumps when I was five. They almost lost me it was so bad. I remember getting them, and recovering at home, but nothing from the hospital. I had chicken pox in the 6th grade. It was AWFUL. My 6th grade teacher walked with an odd gait because of polio damage. I LOVE vaccines. I hope they make more of them!

[Trish]

We also vax fully, but not Gardasil unless something changes by the time my DD hits her teen years. The aggressive (and I believe unethical) marketing, the fact that it was being pushed for young girls without proper trials being done, etc. lead to me strongly distrust the manufacturers. And I am not going to allow something to be injected into my child's body if I have serious reservations about the motivations of the manufacturer.

 

I agree. One of the vaccine's developers has come out against it. There is a big enough downside risk that I think it's advisable to let girls make their own decision on this when they're 18. I especially don't like the rush to approve this vaccine, and then the heavy-handed push by the drug company and certain government entities to try to mandate it.

[Seasider]

The vaccine only is effective for 3 to 5 years so to me it is ludicrous that the medical establishment is pushing it for pre-teens. Sure, let's vaccinate at 11 only to have it wear off some time in high school when girls are statistically far more likely to be active.

 

For white girls from intact families, the majority will still be virgins at 18 according to statistics. So it makes much more sense IMHO to wait until a girl is an older teen so that the vaccine won't wear off before she even needs protection from HPV.

 

 

Wow, I've never heard that before. Wonder why that's not been shouted from the rooftops. Does that mean there needs to be a booster every few years?

 

My teens have been tasked with researching the pros and cons of this for themselves, for it to be their choice. The doctor goes over it at every annual checkup and continues to reassure us that the vaccine can be effectively administered up to age 26, as long as it precedes s e x u @ l activity. I don't see the reason to hurry. They can choose to get it at their own discretion, I will take them in if they say they have decided for it.

[kiwik]

seems like the ideal would be to keep them virgins until they are 16 plus then let them make up their own minds before they leave home. If they offer it to boys that is probably what we will do. Some countries (not NZ) are offering it to boys to protect their future sexual partners.

[LisaKinVA]

It has been offered to both my son and daughter now (started offering it at 11yo). We had a discussion about what it was for, and why I had reservations about this vaccine, and that should they feel they *need* the vaccine before they were 18, that we should talk about it. I am not against the vax, per-se...but there is no history of these cancers in our family (on either side), and I felt no need to jump the gun with my pre-teen daughter and 13yo son.

[mamajudy]

The vaccine only is effective for 3 to 5 years so to me it is ludicrous that the medical establishment is pushing it for pre-teens. Sure, let's vaccinate at 11 only to have it wear off some time in high school when girls are statistically far more likely to be active.

 

For white girls from intact families, the majority will still be virgins at 18 according to statistics. So it makes much more sense IMHO to wait until a girl is an older teen so that the vaccine won't wear off before she even needs protection from HPV.

 

Is this true?? Can you provide a reference? Wow!

[momofkhm]

No for mine. The vaccine is too new. They don't know what it is going to do to the fertility of the people who get it.

 

I have a friend who wanted lots of kids. She has one because of oddities to her uterus caused by something her mother was given while pregnant. She lost 3 babies, almost died while hemorrhaging with 1 of those. She ended up on bedrest for 5 months with the one she has. So no. Not until they know what long term lasting effects it has.

[Kim in Appalachia]

Yes, we vaccinate. My oldest had it, and my second dd will as well. I'm all for preventing any cancer that can be prevented. You dd could marry a guy who had just 1 "indescretion" or she could have just 1. Just 1, that's all it takes, and 20 years later she could have cancer.

[amo_mea_filiis.]

Dd had reactions to her last 2 vaccines, so I skipped the next 2- gardasil being one of them.

 

I thought cervical cancer could be caught early with Pap smears?

[flyingiguana]

We waited until the kids were older. That way there was a bit more time to see if the vaccine was going to cause problems (in other people), and they could be part of the decision process. But, barring a forced sexual encounter, I was pretty sure my kids weren't going to need it in their teens.

 

Our doctor did not push it -- until he saw how eager the young women in his office were to get the vaccine. He kept telling them to wait and be cautious for the first few years, but they didn't want to wait. They saw how valuable it would be. These are people who work in the health field. They know the risks of not getting the vaccine. Even four years of some protection against the virus is something.

 

But I suspect the 4 year window of effectiveness(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil) being given now is only because it hasn't been studied in a large enough population for longer than that.

 

It's interesting that there also seems to be some protection against non-targeted HPVs as well:

 

"The National Cancer Institute says, "Studies have shown that both Gardasil and Cervarix prevent nearly 100 percent of the precancerous cervical cell changes caused by the types of HPV targeted by the vaccine for up to 4 years after vaccination among women who were not infected at the time of vaccination."^[31]

Gardasil has been shown to be partially effective (approximately 38%) in preventing cervical cancer caused by ten other high-risk HPV types.^[32]

"

[Word Nerd]

Copying my post from the earlier thread:

 

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.

 

[Firefly]

We selectively vaccinate and no, they are not getting this one.

[Ottakee]

We vax on a semi normal schedule but are waiting on this one. At this point my girls are not at high risk and I wasn't going to do it at 11 or 12. We might consider it at 18 or older.

[Cera]

Cervical cancer is just so hard to catch. It is often discovered in advanced stages. That is what I worry about. And no, it doesn't prevent every type of cervical cancer, but some protection from cancer is better than none.

 

 

This is the opposite of what I have been told (my my gyn). Cervical cancer tends to be very slow to progress and is easily caught at the earliest stages through routine paps. In fact, the cell changes caused by the virus are generally caught before it even progresses to cancer and can be dealt with if needed though the vast majority repair themselves within 24 months and require nothing more than watchful waiting. (20-25% of people will be exposed to HPV in their lifetime)

 

Throat cancer can be difficult to diagnose which is worrisome but I still don't plan to get the vaccine for my girls unless something changes with it. I don't trust the way it has been marketed or how quickly it was made available. There are too many financial factors interfering with the truthful reporting of it's safety and effectiveness for me to give it to my girls.

[PrairieSong]

No for mine. The vaccine is too new. They don't know what it is going to do to the fertility of the people who get it.

 

I have a friend who wanted lots of kids. She has one because of oddities to her uterus caused by something her mother was given while pregnant. She lost 3 babies, almost died while hemorrhaging with 1 of those. She ended up on bedrest for 5 months with the one she has. So no. Not until they know what long term lasting effects it has.

 

 

I wonder if it was DES (diethylstilbestrol) that your friend's mother took. My mother also took it, in the hope that it would prevent miscarriage. My cervix is abnormal, but my OBGYN said I was very fortunate, because some DES daughters have misformed uteruses and cannot carry a baby to term. Also, DES raises the risk of breast cancer, which my mother had at age 42. I also have a slightly higher risk or certain types of cancer.

[delaney]

 

 

This is the opposite of what I have been told (my my gyn). Cervical cancer tends to be very slow to progress and is easily caught at the earliest stages through routine paps. In fact, the cell changes caused by the virus are generally caught before it even progresses to cancer and can be dealt with if needed though the vast majority repair themselves within 24 months and require nothing more than watchful waiting. (20-25% of people will be exposed to HPV in their lifetime)

 

Throat cancer can be difficult to diagnose which is worrisome but I still don't plan to get the vaccine for my girls unless something changes with it. I don't trust the way it has been marketed or how quickly it was made available. There are too many financial factors interfering with the truthful reporting of it's safety and effectiveness for me to give it to my girls.

 

I was under the same impression with cervical cancer. With annual paps I am not sure how it could go undetected for a lengthy time. I have a friend who had advanced cervical cancer...had not had a pap in 11 years. My sister had an irregular pap twice due to HPV and is screened every 6 months until she is 2 paps clean.

As for the need for a booster......hmmm.

[delaney]

I found this to be informative

http://www.gardasilhpv.com/2008/12/how-long-will-gardasils-3-shot-series.html

[Mergath]

seems like the ideal would be to keep them virgins until they are 16 plus then let them make up their own minds before they leave home. If they offer it to boys that is probably what we will do. Some countries (not NZ) are offering it to boys to protect their future sexual partners.

 

Keep them virgins? :p You must not remember being a teenager, lol.

[laundrycrisis]

No, no, and no again.

http://www.nvic.org/nvic-vaccine-news/july-2009/preventing-gardasil-vaccine-injuries-deaths.aspx

http://truthaboutgardasil.org/injuries/

[Alessandra]

The vaccine only is effective for 3 to 5 years so to me it is ludicrous that the medical establishment is pushing it for pre-teens. Sure, let's vaccinate at 11 only to have it wear off some time in high school when girls are statistically far more likely to be active.

 

For white girls from intact families, the majority will still be virgins at 18 according to statistics. So it makes much more sense IMHO to wait until a girl is an older teen so that the vaccine won't wear off before she even needs protection from HPV.

 

I had not heard that -- bad news. I kinda thought it lasted decades.

 

I agree. One of the vaccine's developers has come out against it. There is a big enough downside risk that I think it's advisable to let girls make their own decision on this when they're 18. I especially don't like the rush to approve this vaccine, and then the heavy-handed push by the drug company and certain government entities to try to mandate it.

 

I have to admit that what went on in Texas when the vaccine was first released created a very bad impression, one that I cannot forget.

 

Copying my post from the earlier thread:

 

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.

 

The clinical trials used a different ages group? Oh, my.... I am being persuaded to wait-and-see.

 

I found this to be informative

http://www.gardasilh...hot-series.html

 

Thanks. I bookmarked the site.

 

This is such good information. The idea of being able to protect from cancer is incredible, but I don't think my kids "need" the vaccine now, if you KWIM? I can reevaluate again at age 14.

[nmoira]

Keep them virgins? :p You must not remember being a teenager, lol.

 

There're devices for that, but Google tells me they're more for the fetish market.

[mamajudy]

None of my kids had this vaccine, but after the Michael Douglas throat cancer story, I began to wonder about it. Now, thanks to this thread and the links provided, I am glad that I didn't consent to the shots.