Boys and HPV vaccine?

[Spy Car]

The condescension in this thread is appalling.

 

Something is appalling.

 

Bill

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The condescension in this thread is appalling.

 

After years of reading posts from people who consider reading Mercola and whale.to as research, I have come to the conclusion that some level of condescension can be an inadvertent byproduct, although I haven't seen any in this thread.

[Guest]

The condescension in this thread is appalling.

Yes it is, and also not unexpected or surprising.

[jewellsmommy]

Here is what the child has the right to know....

 

The only way to catch HPV is through intercourse. You won't get it through sharing a cup, drinking fountain, touching the same shopping cart, or even toilet seat. If you have intercourse, you risk many things, including HIV and pregnancy. This shot does not protect against cancer. It protects against four strains of HPV out of many strains today. Many strains have been associated with cervical cancer. The shot only protects against two of those. 50% of sexually actively adult women test positive for HPV when all strains are included. 70% of the women with cervical cancer test positive for HPV of any number of strands. This means 30% of women with cervical cancer do not have any sort of HPV at all.

 

 

NOT TRUE!!  The saliva of HPV positive persons tests positive for the virus. They are still doing research as to the likelihood of its spread through kissing. Dd's pediatrician specifically mentioned how little we really know about the rate of oral transmission.

 

We are Christians and this shot is definitely not a popular choice in our circles. But, it is not 'permission' to have sexual contact. It will not change the likeliness or not-likeliness of dd's choices to prematurely engage. I hope she waits til marriage, but what if she marries someone who didn't wait? What if she just kisses the 'wrong' person? And there is always the fear of assault. Each of these put her at risk even if she makes all the 'right' decisions.

 

Dd has had 2 of the 3 in the series. We did wait til 14 to start because I wanted to fully look into it, and give it more time to be in use.

 

Ds will also start the shots this year.

[MSNative]

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

 

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

  

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

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

  

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

 

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

 

Bill

  

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

 

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

 

  

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

 

Is that what you're saying?

 

Bill

  

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

 

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

 

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

 

What happened to the Golden Rule?

 

Bill

  

After years of reading posts from people who consider reading Mercola and whale.to as research, I have come to the conclusion that some level of condescension can be an inadvertent byproduct, although I haven't seen any in this thread.

Here are just a few examples to help you find the condescension and mocking.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

            

Here are just a few examples to help you find the condescension and mocking.

 

My post wasn't even a little condescending.  I have specifically been given "mommy instincts" as a reason on mothering.com, and calling Mercola and others "woo" is being relatively polite.  And honest.

[MSNative]

My post wasn't even a little condescending. I have specifically been given "mommy instincts" as a reason on mothering.com, and calling Mercola and others "woo" is being relatively polite. And honest.

I quoted yours because I was responding to it. Look at the others.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I quoted yours because I was responding to it. Look at the others.

 

I read the others.  I believe you are confusing strong opinions with condescension.

[MSNative]

I read the others. I believe you are confusing strong opinions with condescension.

Nope. Those comments are condescending and in some cases offensive. Those of us who do not automatically jump to give our kids vaccines are not anti-scientific, callous or wanting dead kids. You do not know everyone's medical history. You are not in a position to judge nor should you.

 

I am pro-vaccines. Vaccines have helped stop many serious deadly and debilitating diseases. But that does not mean that parents should mindlessly get their kids vaccinated. They need to know their family history as much as possibly. They need to read the risks and be aware. Then they shoudl make informed decisions- without being mocked or told that they are just lazy people who are ok with dead kids.

Edited October 25, 2016 by MSNative

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Nope. Those comments are condescending and in some cases offensive. Those of us who do not automatically jump to give our kids vaccines are not anti-scientific, callous or wanting dead kids. You do not know everyone's medical history. You are not in a position to judge nor should you.

 

I am pro-vaccines. Vaccines have helped stop many serious deadly and debilitating diseases. But that does not mean that parents should mindlessly get their kids vaccinated. They need to know their family history as much as possibly. They need to read the risks and be aware. Then they shoudl make informed decisions- without being mocked or told that they are just lazy people who are ok with dead kids.

 

Nope.  Several are direct responses and taken in context are in no way condescending.

 

I guess you missed the part where I said those who can vaccine need to do so to protect those who can't.

 

[Guest]

I haven't had a chance to read the other responses, but wanted to post- I worked in STI/STD and HIV research and behavioral prevention for most of my career. 

 

HPV is THE cause of cervical cancer. That's is. It's not up for debate what the cause of cervical cancer is. HPV is the one and ONLY cause of cervical cancer. It also causes anal cancer, throat cancer and penile cancer. It is not woman specific. Boys do not miss out on the joy of repercussions from it. The byproducts of male infection are simply less publicized and people don't talk about men having anal cancer or penile cancer in the same way women talk about pap smears. Apparetly it was news to people that oral s*x could spread it when that fact has been well known in the medical community for years. It is spread through all forms of intercourse, including oral. No one is immune from catching it. It is roulette as to what strain you may contract.

 

I have been out of research and "retired" for a little over five years. When I left the statistics were that 90%of adults over the age of 30 had previous HPV infection. That number might have shifted some, I'm not sure. Most clear it, some don't. Some contract the strains that cause warts. Some contract the strains that cause cancer. I was in research when the vaccine was being developed. I happily took it. I will happily have all of my children take it and take peace in knowing that I can hopefully save them the agony of either dealing with cancer or unwittingly spreading a cancer causing virus to someone else. I was part of enough studies and watched enough people die long painful deaths.

 

People have sex before marriage. People are widowed. People divorce. People are raped. People get drunk and make mistakes. There are a million situations that can lead to a person having multiple sex partners. As a parent it is not my job to try and intuit what type of relationships my children will involve themselves in. I have not seen any risks or adverse reactions with sufficient data behind them to cause me for one moment to question whether it is worth skipping the shot, or worth saving them the agony of a potential cancer diagnosis in a decade or two. 

 

Another thing to consider is the survivability rates of the cancers I mentioned, the treatment costs, and the strain on marital relationships when dealing with both STIs and/or cancer. 

 

Anyway, I'm sure someone else mentioned all of the above, but I did want to chime in as someone with a Master's in infections disease and author of multiple publications on the topic, as well as a former pharma researcher and above all a mother. Please be informed if you are wavering. Talk to your MD. And if you're still unsure, talk to another MD. But get the information of risk rates of the actual virus as well as the risk of the vaccination. Don't be blinded by the vaccination risk form where every potential thing on earth is listed. 

 

I think this is one of the most important vaccinations to come out. Ever. So, for that reason, I had to post without reading others responses due to limited time, for which I apologize. 

[Mergath]

Nope. Those comments are condescending and in some cases offensive. Those of us who do not automatically jump to give our kids vaccines are not anti-scientific, callous or wanting dead kids. You do not know everyone's medical history. You are not in a position to judge nor should you.

 

I am pro-vaccines. Vaccines have helped stop many serious deadly and debilitating diseases. But that does not mean that parents should mindlessly get their kids vaccinated. They need to know their family history as much as possibly. They need to read the risks and be aware. Then they shoudl make informed decisions- without being mocked or told that they are just lazy people who are ok with dead kids.

 

I don't think anyone here has a problem with those who have a family history of vaccine injuries and choose not to vaccinate. Imo, that's a perfectly valid reason not to vax.

 

My problem is with people who think we should go back to the good old days before vaccines. As if kids now are just too coddled to handle measles or polio or whatever. :001_rolleyes:  If someone thinks we should get rid of vaccines altogether because "natural immunity" is somehow preferable then yes, I'm going to have some very strong opinions about that.

Edited October 25, 2016 by Mergath

[TranquilMind]

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

 

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

Lots of people "believe in science" and yet understand that every medicine, vaccine, treatment etc offered is not right for every single person.

[TranquilMind]

I don't think anyone here has a problem with those who have a family history of vaccine injuries and choose not to vaccinate. Imo, that's a perfectly valid reason not to vax.

 

My problem is with people who think we should go back to the good old days before vaccines. As if kids now are just too coddled to handle measles or polio or whatever. :001_rolleyes: If someone thinks we should get rid of vaccines altogether because "natural immunity" is somehow preferable then yes, I'm going to have some very strong opinions about that.

Does anyone advocate that we eliminate all vaccines? I don't. I do recognize that I am grateful to have had lifelong chicken pox immunity when I needed it though.

[Shellydon]

Does anyone advocate that we eliminate all vaccines? I don't. I do recognize that I am grateful to have had lifelong chicken pox immunity when I needed it though.

 

LOTS of people advocate that we eliminate all vaccines. 

[Lady Florida.]

People - Why can't they find a way to prevent cancer?

 

Medical science - Here you are people. Here's a way to prevent several types of cancer.

 

People - But...but....SEX! NO!

Edited October 25, 2016 by Lady Florida.

[TranquilMind]

LOTS of people advocate that we eliminate all vaccines.

Interesting. I've seen a lot more of the live-and-let-live sort of sentiment than the hardline "no vaccines for anyone".

[Reefgazer]

I sympathize with your position in maintaining a conservative home environment; I do the same.  However, the bolded is false, and is dangerous to teach children. 

 

 Also, many years ago and in another life before I became  SAHM, I worked in the lab that developed the first HPV test.  To say the shot only protects against 2 kinds of HPV is to ignore the fact that those two strains, 16 and 18, are associated with the vast majority of cervical cancers.  Most HPV (11, 35, etc...) are nearly always benign strains. 

Here is what the child has the right to know....

The only way to catch HPV is through intercourse. You won't get it through sharing a cup, drinking fountain, touching the same shopping cart, or even toilet seat. If you have intercourse, you risk many things, including HIV and pregnancy. This shot does not protect against cancer. It protects against four strains of HPV out of many strains today. Many strains have been associated with cervical cancer. The shot only protects against two of those. 50% of sexually actively adult women test positive for HPV when all strains are included. 70% of the women with cervical cancer test positive for HPV of any number of strands. This means 30% of women with cervical cancer do not have any sort of HPV at all.

 

[SKL]

HPV only very rarely leads to cancer, especially in males, but also in females.

 

Pap tests are still supposed to be done every year by all women, in order to catch any problems that the HPV vax did not catch (since it does not prevent a significant % of what causes cervical cancer).

 

Condoms are still supposed to be worn to prevent other STDs and pregnancy and whatever else.

 

Condoms + annual pap tests + low cancer incidence even without prevention mean the marginal benefit of the HPV vax is tiny.

 

Meanwhile there have been significant side effects and injuries.  I'm not sure why nobody wants to talk about that.  It's also still new and many questions about it are still up in the air.

 

Just because some vaccinations have saved a lot of lives does not mean we should all go get every vax that is developed without weighing the pros and cons.

 

For those who have studied it and decided it is right for their family, more power to you.  For those who have studied it and decided to wait or skip it in favor of other methods of prevention, more power to you.

[mom2samlibby]

They changed this just recently to two shots.  It was in our paper last week about the change.

 

My kids won't be getting it.  I've read about way too many health issues caused by this shot.  

 

But, I do find it interesting that they lowered the age recommendation for this shot now and changed it from 3 to 2 in the series.  The article in our paper said the change was made because not enough were getting the shot because it was just too hard to get the 3 shots done.  So, now it's two shots spaced out over a year, so it will hit their yearly physical.  http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/p1020-hpv-shots.html

 

 

[Mergath]

HPV only very rarely leads to cancer, especially in males, but also in females.

 

Pap tests are still supposed to be done every year by all women, in order to catch any problems that the HPV vax did not catch (since it does not prevent a significant % of what causes cervical cancer).

 

Condoms are still supposed to be worn to prevent other STDs and pregnancy and whatever else.

 

Condoms + annual pap tests + low cancer incidence even without prevention mean the marginal benefit of the HPV vax is tiny.

 

Meanwhile there have been significant side effects and injuries. I'm not sure why nobody wants to talk about that. It's also still new and many questions about it are still up in the air.

 

Just because some vaccinations have saved a lot of lives does not mean we should all go get every vax that is developed without weighing the pros and cons.

 

For those who have studied it and decided it is right for their family, more power to you. For those who have studied it and decided to wait or skip it in favor of other methods of prevention, more power to you.

And do you have any sources for this, or are you just making it up as you go?

[Tanaqui]

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

 

If your child has had an adequate education, then this shouldn't be a problem.

 

If not, you may wish to educate them. If for some reason that's not an option, you can choose to get them the vaccine without clueing them in to what it protects against. Frankly, that's not ideal - a good education is much better - but I can't make your choices for you.

 

It is extremely irresponsible to give this sex without the proper discussions on sex and the consequences of it. And the child should have the right to make the decision, to just say no, after receiving the full information.

 

No more "irresponsible" than giving the vaccine against tetanus or rotavirus. Janeway, if you believe that the child should have full rights to opt in to all vaccines, then that's your problem, but I certainly don't think that, and I don't think most of us do.

 

If you think your child is too young and innocent to have intercourse, stds, HIV, and pregnancy discussed with him or her, then your child is too young and innocent to have the shot.

 

We've been discussing these things since preschool, thanks. This is basic knowledge. It doesn't do them any harm to have it, no more than it harms them to be vaccinated against HPV, or measles, or chickenpox.

 

(And yes, there is a non-zero chance that the girls will go on birth control before graduating high school. We've already discussed that with them as well, and explained that they can get it without even telling us if they prefer. There are many reasons a girl might want to use birth control, and not all of them are for contraceptive purposes, though I certainly don't object if that IS the reason.)

 

Edited October 25, 2016 by Tanaqui

[TranquilMind]

The condescension in this thread is appalling.

It really is.

[Junie]

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

 

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

 

For a moment there I thought that we might be related.

 

My grandmother died of cervical cancer when she was in her early 30s.  She had 5 children; the last two were twins -- my father was one of them.

 

She died when he was just a baby.

 

Yes, a typical story indeed.

[ErinE]

I think this is one of the most important vaccinations to come out. Ever. So, for that reason, I had to post without reading others responses due to limited time, for which I apologize. 

 

Your entire post was important and powerful. Thank you.

[MEmama]

Lots of people "believe in science" and yet understand that every medicine, vaccine, treatment etc offered is not right for every single person.

You are totally putting words in my mouth. I was responding to a question regarding boys getting the vaccine to protect their partners (though the reality is it protects him as well). It's true we believe in science and that's why why we vaccinate, and a lack of scientific belief is absolutely a reason many people do not vaccinate. That's not condescending; I read it here all the time. I answered the question in an honest, personal tone. Please don't read something that isn't there.

 

Of course there are other reasons people choose not to vaccinate, and I would never question that. Health issues are deeply personal and varied. There are reasons I take exception to, but I'm not going there on this thread.

[TranquilMind]

People - Why can't they find a way to prevent cancer?

 

Medical science - Here you are people. Here's a way to prevent several types of cancer.

 

People - But...but....SEX! NO!

 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23016780

[Mergath]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23016780

 

You realize the author of this is a notorious anti-vaccine nut who only publishes in relatively crappy medical journals, right? Apparently she's an ophthalmologist who now gets paid to publish anti-science quackery.

[debinindy]

Your entire post was important and powerful. Thank you.

 

 

I agree... it was a helpful, informational, and respectful post.

[Joules]

You realize the author of this is a notorious anti-vaccine nut who only publishes in relatively crappy medical journals, right? Apparently she's an ophthalmologist who now gets paid to publish anti-science quackery.

 

Here's some information from WHO that explains the flaws in her studies:

http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/reports/Jun_2012/en/

[TranquilMind]

Here's some information from WHO that explains the flaws in her studies:

http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/reports/Jun_2012/en/

Where? This is a long article about general safety issues with vaccines. Adjuvants, Mercury, safety in pregnancy, etc.

[Bluegoat]

 

 

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

 

What is the cumulative effect of repeated boosters?

 

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

 

Boosters are more effective at preventing actually getting the disease and the consequences of that.

 

To get that lifelong immunity you need to actually contract the disease.  At which point there is a real risk of very serious complications, including death.  The chances of serious complications with the vaccination are much less.

 

That is the whole point of getting vaccinated, to avoid the serious effects of the disease.

 

It seems like you don't have a sense of the numbers involved, the difference between how many people have real complications in each scenario.

 

A few years ago I went to our local history museum, and they had a display about some of the old families in our part of the city.  It included family trees.  There was one family of ten kids, that had only three survive to adulthood.  The rest died from what is now a vaccinated illness.  Four in one summer, and three others the next summer.  All under 10 years old.

 

If people still saw that around them I think it would be much more clear why vaccination is preferable to the "lifelong immunity" they get from actually having the disease.

[Laura Corin]

Yep, same. I had no idea it was a risk. If my son can do his part to ensure that doesn't happen to any of his future partners, I'm all for it. Just seems responsible to me.

 

Yes.  I had the LEEP too.  And my doctor was subsequently concerned that this might lead to 'incompetent cervix' and late miscarriage.  Not good.

 

[Bluegoat]

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

 

 

But it's just as much a myth to say that everything was the same, people's behaviors at a population level were the same, people had the same values and attitudes.  It seems to be a myth that justifies an idea that how we think about or conceptualise behavior makes no difference so there is no point trying to think or teach about it or maybe even change our own behavior. 

 

I don't see how anyone can look at history and say there aren't different types of behaviors around sex and many other things in different times and places.  And it's especially not surprising that people would behave differently when the typical results were so much different - without antibiotics, effective pregnancy control, and lack of methods for spreading STIs, there was really significant reason for people to make choices differently than many modern day persons do.

 

I don't see the point in replacing one generalization with another falsity.

[Bluegoat]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Well, there is some evidence that safety devices in cars do lead to more risky driving behavior like increased speeds.  And not, as I understand it, as a really conscious decision, but just an effect of the way people feel about risk.  So it's not impossible that it could apply to other things.  Which isn't to say it does in this case. 

[Bluegoat]

Yes.  I had the LEEP too.  And my doctor was subsequently concerned that this might lead to 'incompetent cervix' and late miscarriage.  Not good.

 

 

They've changed the reccomendation for LEEPS here.  They don't do them in women under a certain age - it might be 20 or maybe 23, IIRC.  They found doing them didn't have more positive outcomes and did have these downsides that were especially a problem for younger women.

[TranquilMind]

Boosters are more effective at preventing actually getting the disease and the consequences of that.

 

To get that lifelong immunity you need to actually contract the disease. At which point there is a real risk of very serious complications, including death. The chances of serious complications with the vaccination are much less.

 

That is the whole point of getting vaccinated, to avoid the serious effects of the disease.

 

It seems like you don't have a sense of the numbers involved, the difference between how many people have real complications in each scenario.

 

A few years ago I went to our local history museum, and they had a display about some of the old families in our part of the city. It included family trees. There was one family of ten kids, that had only three survive to adulthood. The rest died from what is now a vaccinated illness. Four in one summer, and three others the next summer. All under 10 years old.

 

If people still saw that around them I think it would be much more clear why vaccination is preferable to the "lifelong immunity" they get from actually having the disease.

They died from which vaccinated illness?

 

I do know that measles, for example, were widely unreported officially, since you can't do much about it but simply get through it.

 

From 2020. Science. http://2020science.org/2015/02/03/risk-dying-catch-measles/

 

"The CDC dataset that Orenstein, Perry and Halsey used specifically refers to reported cases of measles. The derived mortality rate is for cases that are serious enough to have been flagged and logged by the agency. The question then becomes, how many cases occurred that weren’t reported, and how (if at all) do these alter the estimated mortality rate?

 

In a 2004 review entitled “Measles Eradication in the United States†(an optimistic title, in the light of current events), Orenstein, Papania and Warton make the point that not every case of measles in the US is reported, or at least it wasn’t, when the disease was more common.

 

According to their paper, from 1956 to 1960, there were an average of 450 measles-related deaths reported each year in the US, or approximately 1 death per 1000 reported cases. At the time though, it was estimated that more than 90% of Americans had been infected by measles by the age of 15 – equivalent to roughly 4 million children and teens per year. (Langmuir, A.D. (1962), Medical Importance of Measles. Am J Dis Child 103(3):224-226.)"

 

If 1 out of 1000 of the most serious and sickest reported cases die, but only a small percentage were ever reported in the first place, then the risk is not as represented. If 4 million had the disease that time period and 1 out of a thousand supposedly die, that means 10 times as many should have died. But 90% of cases were unreported.

 

Do whatever you find most reasonable, as we all still have the freedom to do. My objection is to fear tactics, ridicule, such as is predominant in this thread, and misinformation.

.

Edited October 25, 2016 by TranquilMind

[Bluegoat]

They died from which vaccinated illness?

 

I do know that measles, for example, were widely unreported officially, since you can't do much about it but simply get through it.

 

From 2020. Science. http://2020science.org/2015/02/03/risk-dying-catch-measles/

 

"The CDC dataset that Orenstein, Perry and Halsey used specifically refers to reported cases of measles. The derived mortality rate is for cases that are serious enough to have been flagged and logged by the agency. The question then becomes, how many cases occurred that weren’t reported, and how (if at all) do these alter the estimated mortality rate?

 

In a 2004 review entitled “Measles Eradication in the United States†(an optimistic title, in the light of current events), Orenstein, Papania and Warton make the point that not every case of measles in the US is reported, or at least it wasn’t, when the disease was more common.

 

According to their paper, from 1956 to 1960, there were an average of 450 measles-related deaths reported each year in the US, or approximately 1 death per 1000 reported cases. At the time though, it was estimated that more than 90% of Americans had been infected by measles by the age of 15 – equivalent to roughly 4 million children and teens per year. (Langmuir, A.D. (1962), Medical Importance of Measles. Am J Dis Child 103(3):224-226.)"

 

If 1 out of 1000 of the most serious and sickest reported cases die, but only a small percentage were ever reported in the first place, then the risk is not as represented. If 4 million had the disease that time period and 1 out of a thousand supposedly die, that means 10 times as many should have died. But 90% of cases were unreported.

 

.

 

I think it was chickenpox.

 

I am just not sure what to say if you are so set on thinking that measles was a mild disease.  My parents both had it, luckily with no lasting effect though it was truly miserable.  But they also both know people that had serious complications like infertility and blindness.   There is a reason people were so happy to get another option.

[SparklyUnicorn]

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

 

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

 

But you have taken steps to prepare your kid for a job interview.  Things like manners, talking to people, social skills, etc.  It's about preparing for the future, not going to their job interview with them or into a bedroom with them. 

[SKL]

Well, there is some evidence that safety devices in cars do lead to more risky driving behavior like increased speeds.  And not, as I understand it, as a really conscious decision, but just an effect of the way people feel about risk.  So it's not impossible that it could apply to other things.  Which isn't to say it does in this case. 

 

In another thread, someone on this board mentioned that STD was up and that was attributed to the fact that AIDS is now treatable/curable.  Apparently we put so much emphasis on AIDS (and now HPV) that some folks don't realize the others can have serious lifelong consequences as well.

[Laura Corin]

They've changed the reccomendation for LEEPS here. They don't do them in women under a certain age - it might be 20 or maybe 23, IIRC. They found doing them didn't have more positive outcomes and did have these downsides that were especially a problem for younger women.

I had one in California when I was 29

[SparklyUnicorn]

I had one in California when I was 29

 

I was 29 too.

[MEmama]

Well, there is some evidence that safety devices in cars do lead to more risky driving behavior like increased speeds. And not, as I understand it, as a really conscious decision, but just an effect of the way people feel about risk. So it's not impossible that it could apply to other things. Which isn't to say it does in this case.

I would guess that's due to personality and not the direct result of taking safety precautions.

 

No reasonable person dismisses that seat belts save lives. Analogies are rarely perfect anyway. It's pretty clear what I'm trying to say in the context of the question being asked.

Edited October 25, 2016 by MEmama

[SparklyUnicorn]

I would guess that's due to personality and not the direct result of taking safety precautions.

 

No reasonable person dismisses that seat belts save lives. Analogies are rarely perfect anyway. It's pretty clear what I'm trying to say in the context of the question being asked.

 

And honestly I don't know how exactly they'd separate the fact a lot of people drive like @$$es from they are driving like bigger @$$es because of safety devices. 

 

Although from my own anecdotal evidence I think people with certain types of vehicles take more risks when driving in snow.  No, it turns out you CAN flip a 4 wheel drive SUV in snow/ice.  And that no you should not necessarily drive fast on snow and ice just because you have certain types of vehicles. 

 

But then I tend to be extremely cautious probably in an insane direction so maybe my POV is off.  LOL

Edited October 25, 2016 by SparklyUnicorn

[TranquilMind]

And honestly I don't know how exactly they'd separate the fact a lot of people drive like @$$es from they are driving like bigger @$$es because of safety devices. 

 

Although from my own anecdotal evidence I think people with certain types of vehicles take more risks when driving in snow.  No, it turns out you CAN flip a 4 wheel SUV in snow/ice.  And that no you should not necessarily drive fast on snow and ice just because you have certain types of vehicles. 

 

But then I tend to be extremely cautious probably in an insane direction so maybe my POV is off.  LOL

 

Extremely cautious driver here too.  I was driving my SUV on just a wet road a week ago and had a scary moment just going around a roundabout.  I was praying it would not flip.  I was driving slowly, but apparently, the height of the vehicle and the force of the curve is much different than my van. 

 

You can bet I'm not going to go any faster on snow.  I really don't get how people drive.  Every time I get on the highway, it seems like 80% are tailgating, probably the most dangerous thing, other than handling/reading your cell phone, that one can do while driving.  I wish I handed out the driver's licenses.  Those would both be autorejects. 

 

Edited October 25, 2016 by TranquilMind

[zoobie]

But you have taken steps to prepare your kid for a job interview. Things like manners, talking to people, social skills, etc. It's about preparing for the future, not going to their job interview with them or into a bedroom with them.

Exactly. I believe she called it preparing to "get them out of her wallet" in another thread.

[zoobie]

Well, there is some evidence that safety devices in cars do lead to more risky driving behavior like increased speeds. And not, as I understand it, as a really conscious decision, but just an effect of the way people feel about risk. So it's not impossible that it could apply to other things. Which isn't to say it does in this case.

There's still a gracious plenty to deter risky behavior: pregnancy, HIV, herpes, gonorrhea, syphilis... And individual moral codes of behavior. I am one of thos ecrazy atheists who doesn't go around murdering people despite not fearing vengeance from a higher being. I'm having a hard time imagining a teen who would base his/her decision to have sex on having had an HPV shot.

Edited October 25, 2016 by zoobie

[SparklyUnicorn]

HPV only very rarely leads to cancer, especially in males, but also in females.

 

Pap tests are still supposed to be done every year by all women, in order to catch any problems that the HPV vax did not catch (since it does not prevent a significant % of what causes cervical cancer).

 

Condoms are still supposed to be worn to prevent other STDs and pregnancy and whatever else.

 

Condoms + annual pap tests + low cancer incidence even without prevention mean the marginal benefit of the HPV vax is tiny.

 

Meanwhile there have been significant side effects and injuries.  I'm not sure why nobody wants to talk about that.  It's also still new and many questions about it are still up in the air.

 

Just because some vaccinations have saved a lot of lives does not mean we should all go get every vax that is developed without weighing the pros and cons.

 

For those who have studied it and decided it is right for their family, more power to you.  For those who have studied it and decided to wait or skip it in favor of other methods of prevention, more power to you.

 

Ok so let's suppose Sally always makes sure her partner wears a condom and then Sally meets "the one"  and even insists that "the one" gets tested for stuff.  Since HPV is found in nearly 100% of the population of those people who have had sex, he will probably test positive.  I don't know if they can then identify the pesky and worrisome types (I really don't know if they do that).  So then what?  She rejects to be with him?  They wear a condom always and forever?  I can't imagine this.  And there is NO treatment for HPV.  Nothing as of yet kills it.  When it causes a problem the only way to deal is to cut and freeze body parts. 

 

And being blunt, condoms suck.  Sure I'd rather deal with the issues caused by condoms than die from a crazy disease, but they suck and a lot of people have issues with them.  They also break.  They aren't this perfect awesome 100% protective thing.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Oh not to mention I already posted this, but condoms do not 100% protect against HPV even if used correctly every time.  The virus can be on nearby parts and can be spread. 

 

[maize]

Boosters are more effective at preventing actually getting the disease and the consequences of that.

 

To get that lifelong immunity you need to actually contract the disease. At which point there is a real risk of very serious complications, including death. The chances of serious complications with the vaccination are much less.

 

That is the whole point of getting vaccinated, to avoid the serious effects of the disease.

 

It seems like you don't have a sense of the numbers involved, the difference between how many people have real complications in each scenario.

 

A few years ago I went to our local history museum, and they had a display about some of the old families in our part of the city. It included family trees. There was one family of ten kids, that had only three survive to adulthood. The rest died from what is now a vaccinated illness. Four in one summer, and three others the next summer. All under 10 years old.

 

If people still saw that around them I think it would be much more clear why vaccination is preferable to the "lifelong immunity" they get from actually having the disease.

My church has for years poured resources into measles vaccination programs in Africa. An aquaintance of mine got all up in arms about this once--she'd bought into the anti-vaccine rhetoric 100% and was convinced we were doing terrible harm to those children.

 

I felt sick just listening. It is one thing to decide not to vaccinate one's children when they are safely embedded in a community where almost everyone is vaccinated and herd immunity is in effect (though that protection is lost when too many choose not to vaccinate). It doesn't take much digging though to uncover statistics about measles death rates in many areas of Africa. The rhetoric claiming that these are just harmless childhood illnesses and kids are better off getting them than receiving the vaccine holds water about as well as the proverbial seive.

Edited October 25, 2016 by maize