Dr. Hive -- Talk to me about HPV vaccine

[Terabith]

Okay, I'll preface this by saying we're not anti-vaxers, but I was cautious, and I did spread out the kids' vaccines, because if they had a reaction, I wanted to know what they were reacting to.  So one shot the first time, and when no reaction, two shots the second time (one new and one old).  So never more than two, but never more than one new to them shot.  We have family history of some extreme reactions to shots, so if they did react, I didn't want to have to guess what it was to.  It required some extra dr visits, but dr was fine with it.  I believe strongly in vaccines; I think they're a miracle of modern medicine, etc.  But I'm cautious by nature.  

The HPV vaccine has given me pause.  It seems to be one of the more reactive shots, and we have personally known a couple families with kids who had life altering reactions to the HPV vaccine.  They went from normal, active kids to more or less wheelchair bound.  So, between that and that it's in response to a disease that is not particularly contagious from casual contact, I felt okay about waiting on it.  Dr was fine with either way.  Now, my oldest is 14.5, and if they haven't started the series by 15, they have to do three shots versus two.  So I kinda feel like I need to make a decision sooner rather than later.  

So, talk to me about this particular vaccine.  What are the REAL risks?  It feels riskier than other shots, due to knowing two different families with severe reactions to it (versus knowing nobody in real life who had more than minor reaction to any other vaccine).  But I guess that could just be a statistical weirdness.  What are the actual numbers?  What do you guys think?

[marbel]

Just so you know, and maybe someone will find and link it, but there was a thread on this recently which might be helpful.  I can't link it while on my phone.

I've never looked up risks and statistics so I can't answer your actual question, but I just wanted to address one part of your post:

 it's in response to a disease that is not particularly contagious from casual contact,

A lot of people I knew used this as a reason not to have their kids get the vaccine, assuming their kids would be celibate till marriage and thus safe.  That is my hope for my kids. But, realistically, it may not work out that way.  Kids who are raised to be chaste till marriage often don't actually do that.  Or, a person can remain chaste till marriage, but may marry someone who didn't, and who has HPV without knowing. My husband and I had both been married before we got together. I'm glad he didn't reject me (and vice versa) because we'd had previous partners and might have had HPV, kwim?  There are lots of variables! 

I think asking questions about the vaccine and giving careful thought is wise and I'm not promoting the vaccine. But I wouldn't have the quoted bit on my radar for making the decision.  

[Terabith]

Oh, yeah, I know that while I hope for chastity, I know stuff happens.  Including sexual assault.  That's honestly part of my calculus in weighing the risks versus benefits.  I don't assume that my kids will be chaste, as much as I hope for that, and even knowing that both my husband and I were.  Stuff happens.  But it does seem like a different set up than measles or something that's airborne and very contagious.  Even if a person does contract HPV, my understanding is the risks are fairly minimal as long as you do regular gynecological exams and such, since it tends to be fairly slow growing.  Not always, of course, but when we're weighing risks versus benefits, I don't feel the same moral burden of providing hive immunity that I do with, for example, the MMR.  

[Lori D.]

Here are some statistics on HPV and cancer.

ETA: And while I'm not finding an article with similar data about HPV vaccine use and side effects, it looks like the general thought right now is that there is a slightly elevated risk of Gullian-Barre Syndrome of about 2 cases per 100,000 vaccines (French study). And that it is confusing to sort out how much/how little the vaccine might be triggering autoimmune and similar ailments since the age at which these frequently occur in tween/early teen girls is also the same age at which the girls receive the vaccine (Snopes article), as some of the ailments, such as Lyme and POTS, are not well-understood to begin with.

ETA again: Not that this means a thing, but in case you're wondering what others have done (lol): The vaccine was just coming into use when our DSs were teens, and because the vaccine was new, and because I tend towards caution due to a tendency of the medical field to over-prescribe pills as some sort of quick-fix for all problems (among other issues that do not always give me a ton of confidence about the medical profession), and because there is no cancer in our immediate family lines or extended family, we opted to not to go with the HPV vaccine. We did all the other typical childhood vaccinations as DSs were growing up.

[marbel]

Ah, OK.  I hope you don't think I was condescending to you.  Because like I said, I have heard that argument before, though not put the way you did in your followup post.  

[Terabith]

No, it didn't feel condescending!  I totally get it!  My kids are at a Catholic school, and the school sent out a statement about the vaccine and how chastity can prevent it and such, and I do think that is both a bit naive and unaware, both of the realities of teen/ young adult rates of premarital sex and of the reality that sexual contact might not be a choice.  

[Farrar]

Both my father and step-father died of an HPV related cancer. It just seemed like a no brainer to me.

When I've looked for discussion of side effects and reactions in reputable literature, it's all been relatively mild or rare. I feel like  I see online people saying things like you're saying, "I know of..." families with permanent disabilities, but I don't know how to address that when it's not in the literature.

[Terabith]

It's just hard when you saw a kid doing competitive gymnastics, got a shot, and within 24 hours started having symptoms and is now mostly in a wheelchair.  And I do wonder about it getting in the literature, because while I absolutely believe vaccines are one of the greatest advances in medical science, the way the VAERS board is, I think sometimes even clear cut vaccine injuries don't make it into the literature.  And I keep saying, "Well, my suspicions may be cued because of a personal relationship."  That's not scientifically valid.  But I get paranoid about the political implications and such, and I just start second guessing.  It just doesn't feel like the no brainer that the DPT or MMR were, in terms of risks versus benefits.

 

[Pawz4me]

I don’t know about statistics. Our very much trusted pediatrician highly recommended it. He has six boys of his own and said he had all of them get it. I trust him, so that was enough for me. FWIW, he’s a very popular pediatrician here with tons of patients. I didn’t think he would have given it to all his own kids or recommended it for mine if he suspected or was seeing a significant number of serious side effects. And he’s not vaccine happy. He’s never been a huge fan of the influenza vaccine for healthy kids, for example.

[SKL]

According to the posted link re statistics, there are a significant number of serious side effects that the CDC acknowledges, and it's still a pretty new vaccine as far as knowing long-term side effects.

The other thing is that since the vax does not prevent substantially all cases of cancer in those body parts, it is still recommended that people get cancer screenings whether they get the vax or not.  If people are going to get screened anyway, the risk from these relatively rare diseases is mitigated.  I realize that is not a perfect solution, but IMO it affects the weighing of the pros and cons.

[SKL]

Does anyone know why people would need 3 shots if they get the series later vs. 2 if they get it earlier?

[Farrar]

I know that the numbers of cases on VAERS is high compared to other vaccines, but the CDC says that about 3% of those VAERS numbers have actually been deemed serious side effects. Even of those, the number of ones that are going to be long term and life altering should be lower because not all serious side effects are long term like that.

There are definitely more risks than with some other vaccines, but the risks are still very, very low as I understand it. And the risk of cancer is very real. These are cancers that are very common, like ovarian cancers, or steeply on the rise like neck and throat cancers. These cancers are pretty serious. And you have to make this choice for them now, when they're young. When you know that 9 in 10 Americans probably have some form of HPV, I think it's clear that "abstinence" is not a great solution for avoiding it. Like, if you don't get the vaccine, there's not some other decent way to prevent getting HPV and taking on those risks.

[SKL]

Also the vaccine supposedly wears off (even with a 3 or 2 shot series) long before the peak ages of diagnosis of these cancers.

[Terabith]

23 minutes ago, SKL said:

Also the vaccine supposedly wears off (even with a 3 or 2 shot series) long before the peak ages of diagnosis of these cancers.

Where are you seeing this?  That seems odd.  Suspicious.  I can't imagine doctors would be recommending it if that was the case?  

[Farrar]

They don't know for sure how long it will last in a large sample. But so far, the "ten year" claim seems to be wrong. That was a claim given early on in the vaccine's administration that is still being repeated. But is looking increasingly untrue.

https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/what-if-the-hpv-vaccine-only-lasts-for-10-years/

[SKL]

29 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Where are you seeing this?  That seems odd.  Suspicious.  I can't imagine doctors would be recommending it if that was the case?  

I've seen it in many places, even some pro-vax articles.  I would really want to understand this considering that this is a relatively risky vaccine.

[SKL]

26 minutes ago, Farrar said:

They don't know for sure how long it will last in a large sample. But so far, the "ten year" claim seems to be wrong. That was a claim given early on in the vaccine's administration that is still being repeated. But is looking increasingly untrue.

https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/what-if-the-hpv-vaccine-only-lasts-for-10-years/

The linked article seems to assume that the cancer cases that happen later in life are caused by HPV infections that happen early in life.  Do they know that for a fact?  Could it be that getting HPV later in life is more likely to lead to cancer because your ageing body is not as good at killing the HPV on its own?  And the flip side of that is, earlier in life, the body is really good at clearing HPV on its own?

[Farrar]

51 minutes ago, SKL said:

The linked article seems to assume that the cancer cases that happen later in life are caused by HPV infections that happen early in life.  Do they know that for a fact?  Could it be that getting HPV later in life is more likely to lead to cancer because your ageing body is not as good at killing the HPV on its own?  And the flip side of that is, earlier in life, the body is really good at clearing HPV on its own?

I don’t think it’s assuming that - we know HPV causes these cancers and we know infection at an early age can lead to cancer at an older age. The peak infection time is still covered, and if you delay infection, then for women it’s less likely to cause fertility issues. But also, as far as testing can tell, the vaccine is still providing plenty of protection.

[solascriptura]

5 hours ago, marbel said:

Just so you know, and maybe someone will find and link it, but there was a thread on this recently which might be helpful.  I can't link it while on my phone.

I've never looked up risks and statistics so I can't answer your actual question, but I just wanted to address one part of your post:

 

 

A lot of people I knew used this as a reason not to have their kids get the vaccine, assuming their kids would be celibate till marriage and thus safe.  That is my hope for my kids. But, realistically, it may not work out that way.  Kids who are raised to be chaste till marriage often don't actually do that.  Or, a person can remain chaste till marriage, but may marry someone who didn't, and who has HPV without knowing. My husband and I had both been married before we got together. I'm glad he didn't reject me (and vice versa) because we'd had previous partners and might have had HPV, kwim?  There are lots of variables! 

I think asking questions about the vaccine and giving careful thought is wise and I'm not promoting the vaccine. But I wouldn't have the quoted bit on my radar for making the decision.  

This is absolutely true.  A dear friend of mine waited until marriage and then met a guy.  He passed on HPV to her and she had abnormal paps.  She's okay now, but it turns out that now he has cancer in that area.  

At first, I didn't want to give my kids the vaccine because I associated it with risky behaviors, but my friend did everything the right way and is still suffering the ramifications of her husband's past.  

[mom@shiloh]

Interesting thread.  I'm learning.

A bit of a rabbit trail though -- have you seen those advertisements for the vaccine?  The ones where they show a kid in various stages of growing up, imply that the kid gets HPV at some point, and the caption says, "Mom, Dad, did you know?" As if, it's the parent's fault. As if getting the vaccine for your kid is the only right and responsible and caring thing to do.  Like there's not enough for parents to feel guilty about.  Let's dump this one on them too.  

[SKL]

Just now, mom@shiloh said:

Interesting thread.  I'm learning.

A bit of a rabbit trail though -- have you seen those advertisements for the vaccine?  The ones where they show a kid in various stages of growing up, imply that the kid gets HPV at some point, and the caption says, "Mom, Dad, did you know?" As if, it's the parent's fault. As if getting the vaccine for your kid is the only right and responsible and caring thing to do.  Like there's not enough for parents to feel guilty about.  Let's dump this one on them too.  

I hate that commercial.  But it makes me think of kids in the iron lungs who caught polio from a vaccine that people were scared into without enough research.  "Mom, Dad, did you know?"

[Terabith]

Funny story, but my father got the polio vaccine in Jonas Salk's kitchen.  Apparently his mother worked as a housecleaner for him.

[mamaraby]

12 hours ago, Farrar said:

They don't know for sure how long it will last in a large sample. But so far, the "ten year" claim seems to be wrong. That was a claim given early on in the vaccine's administration that is still being repeated. But is looking increasingly untrue.

https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/what-if-the-hpv-vaccine-only-lasts-for-10-years/

And as this post points out, waning immunity is not unique for vaccinations as a whole. I was immune to rubella when pregnant with my oldest and was not the next time I was pregnant. It’s also not as if waning immunity means we can’t do anything about it. They’re monitoring things so if it looks like a booster is needed in the series, they’ll add one.

I don’t share the moralizing over abstinence so expecting my kids remain “chaste” until marriage is not in the decision matrix for me. I also don’t think any parent should go in to this decision with that assumption.

To me, it was a no brainer. Ds had it starting at 12. Dd isn’t 12 yet, but she will get it then too. Same for my youngest.

[Farrar]

10 hours ago, SKL said:

I hate that commercial.  But it makes me think of kids in the iron lungs who caught polio from a vaccine that people were scared into without enough research.  "Mom, Dad, did you know?"

That's a real mischaracterization of the polio vaccine though. There is such a thing as vaccine induced polio, absolutely. However, after the polio vaccine was introduced, the number of children who got polio went down dramatically. The number of vaccine induced polio cases is miniscule compared to the number of cases of children who contracted the virus through their environment. It's not a case of parents scared into a vaccine that wasn't researched enough. It's a case of the vaccine doing exactly what it was supposed to do - dramatically lower the risk of polio. It did that. The risk of taking the vaccine was much, much lower than the risk of getting polio through other means. It was a statistically better risk by a whole lot.

In terms of that ad, I think it's true. If parents choose not to get the HPV vax for their kids, then they're taking a greater statistical risk on behalf of their kids in terms of getting HPV. In this case, it's a lot more complex than polio - many people get HPV with almost no symptoms and consequences. Others have dramatic ones. It's not as straight a line as polio, which is crippling or deadly if you get it in nearly every case.

If you choose not to get the vaccine for your kids, that's your right in the case of HPV in most places. I understand why it's scarier to get the medicine now than the vague future risk of an STD that might or might not cause big problems decades from now. Luckily kids can decide to get it themselves up through age 26. I know several young adults who did that.

[Scarlett]

10 hours ago, mom@shiloh said:

Interesting thread.  I'm learning.

A bit of a rabbit trail though -- have you seen those advertisements for the vaccine?  The ones where they show a kid in various stages of growing up, imply that the kid gets HPV at some point, and the caption says, "Mom, Dad, did you know?" As if, it's the parent's fault. As if getting the vaccine for your kid is the only right and responsible and caring thing to do.  Like there's not enough for parents to feel guilty about.  Let's dump this one on them too.  

I hate those commercials with a purple passion .

[Scarlett]

16 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

I don’t know about statistics. Our very much trusted pediatrician highly recommended it. He has six boys of his own and said he had all of them get it. I trust him, so that was enough for me. FWIW, he’s a very popular pediatrician here with tons of patients. I didn’t think he would have given it to all his own kids or recommended it for mine if he suspected or was seeing a significant number of serious side effects. And he’s not vaccine happy. He’s never been a huge fan of the influenza vaccine for healthy kids, for example.

My very trusted gynecologist wrote an article about the vaccine when it was first being discussed.  He was definitely not 100% for it.  

[ktgrok]

16 hours ago, Farrar said:

I know that the numbers of cases on VAERS is high compared to other vaccines, but the CDC says that about 3% of those VAERS numbers have actually been deemed serious side effects. Even of those, the number of ones that are going to be long term and life altering should be lower because not all serious side effects are long term like that.

There are definitely more risks than with some other vaccines, but the risks are still very, very low as I understand it. And the risk of cancer is very real. These are cancers that are very common, like ovarian cancers, or steeply on the rise like neck and throat cancers. These cancers are pretty serious. And you have to make this choice for them now, when they're young. When you know that 9 in 10 Americans probably have some form of HPV, I think it's clear that "abstinence" is not a great solution for avoiding it. Like, if you don't get the vaccine, there's not some other decent way to prevent getting HPV and taking on those risks.

My son has the vaccine, and t is because of neck and throat cancer. There is no pap smear for throat cancer, and it can be fairly advanced when caught. And doing surgery to remove it can be life altering or disfiguring or there is a risk of death. They used to think HPV could only be spread with genital to genital contact, but now they think it can be spread via not only genital to oral contact but possibly oral to oral contact. That raises the risk factor a LOT (and explains why it is so freaking prevalent) and that, combined with the horribleness of throat cancer and the thought of my son going though that some day was enough to push me over to doing it. 

Now, had he had vaccine reactions in the past I would probably have had a different conclusion. But he's always done fine (we also space them out and do one at a time, like you). 

Oh, and I've had HPV, and precancerous cells found on a PAP smear because of it. I ended up clearing the infection, but it was still a scary process of having to have biopsies, etc. And some of the procedures to treat it can cause fertility/miscarriage issues down the road, something I would want to spare my children. So yes, you can catch cervical cancer early on, but even then it can have life long impacts on fertility, and there is no such test for throat cancer, etc. A dentist would hopefully catch cancer in the mouth, but not all young adults are good about dental check ups either, lol. 

And I've never known anyone to have a reaction and neither did my pediatrician, so that helped. 

oh, the doctor's office did say they tend to see fainting a bit more, so had him wait a bit after getting it before leaving the office. But my guess is that is more about the age bracket....it was mostly given to teen girls in the beginning and teen girls tend to faint more in my experience....

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Farrar said:

That's a real mischaracterization of the polio vaccine though. There is such a thing as vaccine induced polio, absolutely. However, after the polio vaccine was introduced, the number of children who got polio went down dramatically. The number of vaccine induced polio cases is miniscule compared to the number of cases of children who contracted the virus through their environment. It's not a case of parents scared into a vaccine that wasn't researched enough. It's a case of the vaccine doing exactly what it was supposed to do - dramatically lower the risk of polio. It did that. The risk of taking the vaccine was much, much lower than the risk of getting polio through other means. It was a statistically better risk by a whole lot.

In terms of that ad, I think it's true. If parents choose not to get the HPV vax for their kids, then they're taking a greater statistical risk on behalf of their kids in terms of getting HPV. In this case, it's a lot more complex than polio - many people get HPV with almost no symptoms and consequences. Others have dramatic ones. It's not as straight a line as polio, which is crippling or deadly if you get it in nearly every case.

If you choose not to get the vaccine for your kids, that's your right in the case of HPV in most places. I understand why it's scarier to get the medicine now than the vague future risk of an STD that might or might not cause big problems decades from now. Luckily kids can decide to get it themselves up through age 26. I know several young adults who did that.

Actually most cases of polio did not have serious, long-term, or deadly results.  We think that now because the worst cases are the ones we now hear about.  But that is a separate topic.

I agree that it's every parent's right and duty to make this decision.  They should be given as many facts as possible to make it.  In my opinion, the answer is not clear-cut.  People may or may not get HPV.  HPV may or may not resolve itself.  If it doesn't, it may or may not progress to cancer.  If it does, it may or may not be detected in time to treat it with minimal long-term effects.  The recommendation to do cancer screenings is the same whether or not the person has gotten the HPV vax.  The vax has known serious side effects on a significant (to me) number of people.  The long-term results of the vax are unknown.  The idea that parents are deliberately injuring their kids if they don't get the vax is kind of outrageous.  Likewise the kids who are severely injured by this vax could say "Mom, did you know?"  You can take your pick on the emotional blackmail side, but the decision needs to be rational based on what is known today.

[6packofun]

Research the NUMBER of cervical cancer cases and deaths from the year before the vaccine hit the market up through now.  Decide if you think the vaccine should have had a major impact by now and if it has.  Look at your family history. Decide.

We did not do the vaccine and I'm happy with my choice.

[Terabith]

While I want to make decisions solely based on science and risk, I know there's an element of.....if I give my kid the vaccine and they have a severe reaction, that's something I've done TO them.  It feels like it's my fault at an emotional level.  I worried about the MMR, because despite what I know about the literature, we also knew people whose kids had regressions and developed autism seemingly right after the MMR.  (How we wind up in social circles with so many people with bizarre vaccine reactions is another topic in itself.  I honestly don't know.  It's weird.)  So, while I believed in the MMR, I was so scared of that feeling of personal responsibility, that since they weren't in day care or anything, I waited till they turned three, since I figured the risk was lower.  And one of my kids is sorta borderline ASD anyway.  I wanted to be past the age where that kind of regression is normal.  I KNOW intellectually that correlation does not equal causation.  But if you do something and a few days later a regression starts, how do you not think in part of your mind that one caused the other?  

So it feels sorta like that calculus.  On the one hand, it's not caught from casual contact.  They might or might not contract it; if they did, they might or might not clear it on their own, might or might not develop cancer, etc.  It's that emotional, irrational belief that I'm afraid of feeling guilt for causing problems if problems develop, over a whole lot of mights.  It's not like we're in the midst of a polio epidemic, when you become a lot more willing to take that risk because the risk from the disease is so high. 

Arg.  I just don't know.  

[TravelingChris]

We didn't do it though I would not have a problem if my youngest decided to get it.  For my middle, one of the side effects was blood clots and since she has a much higher risk of blood clots, we decided that was not worth it.  She is married now and both her and her husband were tested for things like HPV before the marriage and neither had it.  My oldest, a male, was an adult by the time they decided to recommend to males.  I worried much more about the deadlier disease of depression with him than HPV. There was zero reason to do it before they were adults anyway.  They were like their parents= late into serious relationships.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

 

 

Mom, Dad, did you know? 

Yep I knew it came with (rare) risks.

But cancer sucks a$$.  So we went with some cancer prevention. 

 

HPV article in Forbes 

Skeptical Raptor post about HPV vaccine with further links.

Recent BBC article about HPV vaccine

 

[Paige]

4 hours ago, 6packofun said:

Research the NUMBER of cervical cancer cases and deaths from the year before the vaccine hit the market up through now.  Decide if you think the vaccine should have had a major impact by now and if it has.  Look at your family history. Decide.

We did not do the vaccine and I'm happy with my choice.

Has the vaccine been around long enough for us to really see a difference yet? I thought we were vaccinating young people for a disease that mostly hits middle aged or older people, so you'd have a lag of maybe 20-30 years before we'd see the expected impact.

FWIW my DDs just received their 2nd HPV today and other kids had other shots. I do know the risks for all of the vaccines and it gives me pause and I pray that my kids won't be one of the ones with a vaccine injury, but I know it can happen. It's all math and I'm playing the odds. I think the risk for a vaccine injury is much lower than the risks of the diseases we are vaccinating against. 

[Joker]

I let ds decide for himself after he turned 18. Ds had his first shot last month. Dd just had to get a vaccine and the doc asked about it again so I told dd it was her decision and she opted not to at this time but knows she can if she wants it. She's 16. 

I had HPV when I was pregnant with ds but every PAP since delivery has been normal, so 18 years now. 

[samba]

We have always vaccinated. My dd followed a typical schedule. With my ds we spread out the vaccinations because he has Down syndrome and I was concerned about a possible overload. We have chosen not to do HPV because both kids have or are predisposed to autoimmune conditions. We don't need any exacerbating situations. My dd is 18 now and I decided that she is informed enough to make that decision for herself. So far she is not interested in getting it.

 

[Ravin]

9 hours ago, Farrar said:

That's a real mischaracterization of the polio vaccine though. There is such a thing as vaccine induced polio, absolutely. However, after the polio vaccine was introduced, the number of children who got polio went down dramatically. The number of vaccine induced polio cases is miniscule compared to the number of cases of children who contracted the virus through their environment. It's not a case of parents scared into a vaccine that wasn't researched enough. It's a case of the vaccine doing exactly what it was supposed to do - dramatically lower the risk of polio. It did that. The risk of taking the vaccine was much, much lower than the risk of getting polio through other means. It was a statistically better risk by a whole lot.

In terms of that ad, I think it's true. If parents choose not to get the HPV vax for their kids, then they're taking a greater statistical risk on behalf of their kids in terms of getting HPV. In this case, it's a lot more complex than polio - many people get HPV with almost no symptoms and consequences. Others have dramatic ones. It's not as straight a line as polio, which is crippling or deadly if you get it in nearly every case.

If you choose not to get the vaccine for your kids, that's your right in the case of HPV in most places. I understand why it's scarier to get the medicine now than the vague future risk of an STD that might or might not cause big problems decades from now. Luckily kids can decide to get it themselves up through age 26. I know several young adults who did that.

Actually, it is not true that polio was crippling or deadly in nearly every case. About 72% of polio infections show no symptoms. About 1 in 4 people infected with polio get flulike symptoms, and only a small percentage experience the crippling and potentially deadly complication of polio myelitis.

https://www.cdc.gov/polio/about/

[StillStanding]

Both my daughters and my son have been vaccinated. I don't expect them to sleep around, but as I don't know what their futures partners will have done the benefits far outweigh the risks in my opinion.

My family vaccinates for everything.

[Amber in SJ]

I also despise those commercials:

Mom, Dad?  Did you know?

Yes, dear, which is why we had very frank and sometimes uncomfortable discussions about this and other STDs, about wearing condoms or other protections during sexual contact, whether it is genital to genital or oral to genital.  This is also why we discussed choosing your sexual partners carefully, limiting your sexual partners and having an honest conversation with a possible sexual partner about your & his/ her sexual past.  This is also why I discussed with you openly why I chose not to have it done when you were 11, but you may choose it for yourself once you are an adult or when you think you are ready to become sexually active if it is before you are an adult (something I don't recommend, but am not naive about.)

Because we have had a history of adverse reactions, but no permanent damage to vaccines, I have chosen to vaccinate slowly, and I choose which vaccines carefully.  With each one I think to myself, "Is this going to be the one that causes permanent damage?  No?  Just a scary seizure?  OK."  I think vaccinations are one of the miracles of modern medicine and as a person whose grandmother who had polio as a teenager I am thankful for all the vaccines that save lives.  

Amber in SJ

[Bluegoat]

I have a cousin who is likely infertile due to HPV and a procedure she needed to have. It's rather sad as it happened just when she was getting into a relationship where having kids was a possibility.   also have n uncle who has had multiple surgeries to remove tutors from his nose.  Luckily he knew they were there in time. I see the consequences as pretty serious.

Ultimatly, most people get it, chances are any partner you have who was previously sexually active has it at some point.  I don't see the side effects as particularly risky.

TBH, I think a lot of cases where there is a shot, and that week they have something happen like end up in a wheelchair, it is unrelated to the vaccine.

[Terabith]

So I talked to my husband about this, and his response was, "They're old enough to hear about the risks and benefits and decide for themselves about something about which you are ambivalent."  So I asked them, and they both agreed that they thought the vaccine was a good idea.  Between that and my friend who is a doctor saying that she is going to have her kids vaccinated against it, I'll go ahead and make appointments.  Thanks!

[Lady Florida.]

OP, I know you already made a decision but there might be others reading this thread who are still on the fence. So...

The HPV vaccine is safe. Cancer is not. I think it's bizarre that people for years wished we had a way to prevent cancer, perhaps a vaccine, and now that we can at least prevent one type of cancer they turn their backs on it. My son had his when he was a teen. 

These articles aren't sound bites. There isn't emotional information here. No anecdotes. They are long. And full of science-y stuff.  And worth reading. 

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/hpv-vaccine-safety-and-acceptance/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/hpv-vaccine-for-boys/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/gardasil-safety-revisited/

From the third link (bolding mine)

Notice, however, that the rates of major events of concern, namely Guillain-Barre syndrome, autoimmune disorders, transverse myelitis, and death, were all exceedingly rare, and not above what one would expect to occur in the normal unvaccinated population.  In spite of the clear limitations inherent in the use of the VAERSdatabase, this study should strongly reinforce the confidence of physicians and parents regarding the safety of HPV vaccination.

[SebastianCat]

I lost an aunt last year to cancer caused by the HPV virus.  My kids have gotten the vaccine.  

[Katy]

I let my kids decide this for themselves. My main concern was reports of premature ovarian failure after the vaccine that has not been properly studied. Or at least it hadn't the last time I looked it up, which was many months ago.

[Junie]

My dh and I each lost a grandmother (before we were born) to a cancer that can be caused by HPV, so my kids have family history on both sides of the family.  We are in the process of having them vaccinated.

His grandmother was only 46 when she died.  Mine was only 31.  Both died way too young.  :(

[Bluegoat]

Does family history actually play a role in susceptibility to HPV related cancers?

[ktgrok]

14 hours ago, Katy said:

I let my kids decide this for themselves. My main concern was reports of premature ovarian failure after the vaccine that has not been properly studied. Or at least it hadn't the last time I looked it up, which was many months ago.

I'm not finding any reliable information about reports actually linked to HPV at all. Just some stuff saying maybe it is on the rise, and hey, maybe it's from HPV vaccine although we have nothing to actually indicate any connection, anymore than we can connect it to smart phones or skinny jeans or anything else. 

[Junie]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

Does family history actually play a role in susceptibility to HPV related cancers?

I don't know.   But I don't want researchers to say 20 years from now that it is and that my kids are too old to be vaccinated or whatever.  

[mommyoffive]

22 hours ago, texasmom33 said:

Just sort of an aside here— people having discussions with their kids on this should also let teens/kids know that condoms do not offer full protection against HPV (or HSV, or several other STIs for that matter) which is a big misconception a lot of people have. You can use a condom or a dental dam and you’re still at risk because it’s skin based contact. Latex Condoms work well against HIV. Other stuff is a little iffier. I think that’s a big missing piece of info out there still these days, so thought I’d mention.

Coming from public health during the days when HIV was a death sentence,  I will tell you that we were so adamant to get people to wear them at all, that no one was going to yell the things they didn’t work for from the rooftops. But the facts are, the don’t work for many other diseases as well as they do for HIV, and in this day with drug resistant everything out and new research daily of how many other long term implications STIs have, its only fair I believe to let people know condoms are not the infallible shield many believe them to be. Better than nothing, but not a magic shield, and that might play into people’s decisions on this vaccine as well. 

 

I didn't know that.  Thanks you for stating it.  

[Lady Florida.]

1 hour ago, texasmom33 said:

But there is a sometimes a political sort of undercurrent in research (as in getting grants) that seems to hold against attributing cancer or other morbidity to sex. It’s weird. But it’s there. 

This is a big reason why some (not all) people who would normally vaccinate hesitate to get the HPV vaccine for their kids. They don't like to think of them as possibly having sex. 

56 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

I'm not finding any reliable information about reports actually linked to HPV at all. Just some stuff saying maybe it is on the rise, and hey, maybe it's from HPV vaccine although we have nothing to actually indicate any connection, anymore than we can connect it to smart phones or skinny jeans or anything else. 

This post has reliable information. The website is my go-to for reliable science based information about health issues. Most of the reporting about the link to the vaccine comes from the American College of Pediatrics, which is most definitely not reliable.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-claim-that-gardasil-causes-premature-ovarian-failure-ideology-not-science/

[Bluegoat]

50 minutes ago, Junie said:

I don't know.   But I don't want researchers to say 20 years from now that it is and that my kids are too old to be vaccinated or whatever.  

 

My concern is more that people who don't see a family history might conclude they don't need to bother, if family history makes no difference.

 

OK - I my googling seems to suggest that it can, but it seems complex.