Gardasil 9, pre or post puberty? (young niece)

[Arcadia]

My brother is asking because the doctors gave him a pamphlet on Gardasil 9 for his 9 year old daughter (birthday in April). It would cost almost US$500 for him (not in US).

Ignoring the cost because my parents would help pay, is the vaccine worth it as in any risk to be aware of? Drug allergies run in my family. 
 

Also would it be better to vaccinate pre or post puberty?

Its not compulsory for them. His wife is around 36, any benefit for her to be vaccinated?

[prairiewindmomma]

We vaccinated our sons and will vaccinate our daughter so that they will have completed those by age 13-14. You can start as early as age 9.

HPV affects both men and women.

[Storygirl]

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/hpv-vaccine.html

Our pediatrician recommended it for both boys and girls between the ages of 11 and 14. We waited until our kids were 14. There is a link on that CDC page to common side effects. My kids didn't experience any side effects, but they have not reacted to any vaccines.

I know that some people do not have their children get it in the US, but we decided that if we could protect our kids against HPV, it is worth it. Getting it by early adolescence is recommended by medical professionals, since some teens do become sexually active at an early age. Some people find the vaccine controversial, because it is related to a sexually transmitted infection.

I think age 9 is early. It can be given to people as young as 9, but for most people who are going to get it, I think they can wait until they are young teens.

https://www.mskcc.org/blog/think-you-re-too-old-get-hpv-vaccine-prevent-cancer-maybe-not Here is some info about women getting the vaccine. I haven't really heard of adult women choosing to get it, but there could be reasons for someone to consider it. Perhaps less likely for a married woman who is certain her partner is faithful, because she has no risk of any new exposure (just my personal opinion).

Edited June 4, 2020 by Storygirl

[Tanaqui]

Our kids were done at eleven, which is when it's recommended here. (I think? The doctor said "We recommend this at this age" and I said "Okay!")

Some people do pull out the "My kids aren't having sex, why should they get this vaccine?" line, but I'd wager that many sexually active teens have parents who have NO IDEA that their kids are having sex - and those parents, many of them, think they know everything their kid does! You should get the vaccine before your child becomes sexually active so that they're fully protected. There's no law requiring you tell your kid about every single vaccine they get, after all....

[prairiewindmomma]

I've never really understood the whole "no, because our children will be sexually pure" argument against the HPV vaccine.

Ages 12-34 are the high risk for sexual assault.  And, given the statistics on the frequency of that, I want to do what I can to protect my children.

Beyond that, even if our child remains "sexually pure", it is entirely possible that they will pick a spouse who is quite a lovely person with previous sexual experience (widow/widower, previously assaulted---however you want to twist the store to fit your moral imperative).  

FWIW, my kids have reacted to other vaccines, but did not react (so far, two kids in....to Gardasil).

[Junie]

 

3 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

I've never really understood the whole "no, because our children will be sexually pure" argument against the HPV vaccine.

Ages 12-34 are the high risk for sexual assault.  And, given the statistics on the frequency of that, I want to do what I can to protect my children.

Beyond that, even if our child remains "sexually pure", it is entirely possible that they will pick a spouse who is quite a lovely person with previous sexual experience (widow/widower, previously assaulted---however you want to twist the store to fit your moral imperative).  

FWIW, my kids have reacted to other vaccines, but did not react (so far, two kids in....to Gardasil).

Yes to all of this.

 

[maize]

22 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

Our kids were done at eleven, which is when it's recommended here. (I think? The doctor said "We recommend this at this age" and I said "Okay!")

Some people do pull out the "My kids aren't having sex, why should they get this vaccine?" line, but I'd wager that many sexually active teens have parents who have NO IDEA that their kids are having sex - and those parents, many of them, think they know everything their kid does! You should get the vaccine before your child becomes sexually active so that they're fully protected. There's no law requiring you tell your kid about every single vaccine they get, after all....

Last time I looked into this, there was some question regarding the effectiveness of the vaccine over time. Have they added later boosters? If not, 11 might not be ideal. 

My oldest had one shot at 11 but I decided to wait for the second shot (was it a series of 2 or 3?) I'd be fine with her finishing the series now that she is older.

My twelve year old hasn't had it yet, our Dr. didn't recommend it at that age.

I don't remember whether my 14 year old ds has had it or not--probably not? 

I'm fine with all of them getting it eventually but wouldn't do it at 9.

[Arcadia]

11 minutes ago, maize said:

 

My oldest had one shot at 11 but I decided to wait for the second shot (was it a series of 2 or 3?) I'd be fine with her finishing the series now that she is older.

3 shots was the option given to my brother.

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/gardasil-9-epar-product-information_en.pdf
“What other important information should you or your child know about Gardasil 9

The duration of protection is not yet known. Longer term follow-up studies are ongoing to determine whether a booster dose is needed.“

[Shoeless]

56 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

Our kids were done at eleven, which is when it's recommended here. (I think? The doctor said "We recommend this at this age" and I said "Okay!")

Some people do pull out the "My kids aren't having sex, why should they get this vaccine?" line, but I'd wager that many sexually active teens have parents who have NO IDEA that their kids are having sex - and those parents, many of them, think they know everything their kid does! You should get the vaccine before your child becomes sexually active so that they're fully protected. There's no law requiring you tell your kid about every single vaccine they get, after all....

 

Ok, but I KNOW that my 11 year old is not having sex.  This child does not go anywhere without me, lol.  Even if he had the desire, he has zero opportunity to fool around. And there's that whole pandemic thing right now, so we're not socializing with other people right now. 

We are a pro-vaccine family, but so far the only reason I've been given for why my 11 year old should get this shot right now is that other kids are sexually active and lying about it by 11, and I'm lying to myself if I don't think my kid is doing this, too.  That feels like a weird reason.

Edited June 5, 2020 by MissLemon

[Tap]

I prefer to wait till early teens, but probably no earlier than 11yo.  Once we started they cycle of shots for dd21 and ds26 as teens, they were done on the recommended intervals. DD13 is very, very, very needle phobic and I doubt she will get the vaccine.  It was a vaccine that I gave my older kids a choice in having. 

[Garga]

My sons both got it, but I don’t remember the ages.  The oldest one had to have 3 shots, so he must have gotten it when he was on the older side, probably 15, and the youngest only had to have 2 shots.  I think the youngest was about 14 when he got it.

Last year, my dad got tonsil cancer. The doctor explained to my parents that his cancer had been caused by HPV.  My parents didn’t know that HPV is a sexually transmitted disease and kept telling everyone that his cancer was caused by HPV. 

My dad was married at age 18 to a woman who later turned out to be cheating on him. Then he married my mother. Those were his only sexual encounters, in marriage, yet he still got HPV and ended up with cancer from it.  

So, I’m glad my boys got the vaccine. Unless a person lives locked away in a tower where they can’t be raped and also chooses a life of celibacy, there is no guarantee that a person won’t get an STD, no matter how much they try to control exposure.  It’s not always within our control.

As others have said, I thought that it wasn’t sure how long the effects lasted, so for us, 9 would have been too young.  I’d rather have them get it a bit later and have it last longer into the years where it’s needed.  

 

 

Edited June 5, 2020 by Garga

[wendyroo]

Our pediatrician said that she only gives it at 9 if she has reason to believe that 1) the child is or will be sexually active soon or 2) the child will only sporadically come in for well child visits in the future...then she wants to get the first dose in as soon as possible.  She did not give the vaccine to my son at 9 or 10, and I don't think she had it planned for 11 (his physical was postponed due to Covid).  I expect we will give it to him at 12 or 13.

[Tanaqui]

39 minutes ago, MissLemon said:

 

Ok, but I KNOW that my 11 year old is not having sex.  This child does not go anywhere without me, lol.  Even if he had the desire, he has zero opportunity to fool around. And there's that whole pandemic thing right now, so we're not socializing with other people right now. 

We are a pro-vaccine family, but so far the only reason I've been given for why my 11 year old should get this shot right now is that other kids are sexually active and lying about it by 11, and I'm lying to myself if I don't think my kid is doing this, too.  That feels like a weird reason.

 

That's not the reason I gave, nor is it the reason anybody else gave. The reason I am giving - and the reason everybody else gives! - is that you want them to get the shot BEFORE they are sexually active, whether or not they're going to tell you when they do start having sex. Eleven is almost certainly BEFORE anybody's child is sexually active, and certainly before there is consent.

However, tied in to this reason is a rebuttal of "well, my child isn't sexually active". That's not the point. The point is that you do it BEFORE they are sexually active, and also that there is a very good shot that if you think "my child doesn't have sex" is the best reason to avoid this vaccine that, should your child start to have sex before adulthood or marriage, you won't be looped in.

[Shoeless]

4 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

 

That's not the reason I gave, nor is it the reason anybody else gave. The reason I am giving - and the reason everybody else gives! - is that you want them to get the shot BEFORE they are sexually active, whether or not they're going to tell you when they do start having sex. Eleven is almost certainly BEFORE anybody's child is sexually active, and certainly before there is consent.

However, tied in to this reason is a rebuttal of "well, my child isn't sexually active". That's not the point. The point is that you do it BEFORE they are sexually active, and also that there is a very good shot that if you think "my child doesn't have sex" is the best reason to avoid this vaccine that, should your child start to have sex before adulthood or marriage, you won't be looped in.

This is exactly the reason I have gotten from the doctors and nurses at the pediatrician.  "Children are having sex at younger ages and they won't tell you they are doing it". 

I understand the value of getting it before they are sexually active. What I need to know is what is the improved value in getting this shot for a non-active 11 year old vs a non-active 12 or 13 year old. 

 

[Terabith]

1 hour ago, MissLemon said:

 

Ok, but I KNOW that my 11 year old is not having sex.  This child does not go anywhere without me, lol.  Even if he had the desire, he has zero opportunity to fool around. And there's that whole pandemic thing right now, so we're not socializing with other people right now. 

We are a pro-vaccine family, but so far the only reason I've been given for why my 11 year old should get this shot right now is that other kids are sexually active and lying about it by 11, and I'm lying to myself if I don't think my kid is doing this, too.  That feels like a weird reason.

Not all sexual contact is consensual.  So, an 11 or 12 year old might not be choosing to have sex but might be exposed anyway.  

[Janeway]

3 hours ago, Arcadia said:

My brother is asking because the doctors gave him a pamphlet on Gardasil 9 for his 9 year old daughter (birthday in April). It would cost almost US$500 for him (not in US).

Ignoring the cost because my parents would help pay, is the vaccine worth it as in any risk to be aware of? Drug allergies run in my family. 
 

Also would it be better to vaccinate pre or post puberty?

Its not compulsory for them. His wife is around 36, any benefit for her to be vaccinated?

If his wife is committed to him and him to her, as in, no cheating, there would be no point for her to get it. This illness is a sexually transmitted disease. I have always been of the notion that sexual health decisions should only be made by the receiver of the medical treatment and only with full disclosure. That girl should be taught about sexual intercourse and STDs and HIV and birth control and all. Then, she alone should get to choose any medical treatment she received from birth control to guardasil. It should never be hidden from her. 

[Janeway]

8 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Not all sexual contact is consensual.  So, an 11 or 12 year old might not be choosing to have sex but might be exposed anyway.  

Not only would that be extremely rare, but, if it did happen, then one should worry about pregnancy too and put the child on birth control. It makes no sense to do guardasil without birth control.

[Terabith]

1 minute ago, Janeway said:

Not only would that be extremely rare, but, if it did happen, then one should worry about pregnancy too and put the child on birth control. It makes no sense to do guardasil without birth control.

Not all sex results in pregnancy.  

And, also, gently......no.  It's not extremely rare.  It's like the opposite of extremely rare.  

[Janeway]

1 minute ago, Terabith said:

Not all sex results in pregnancy.  

And, also, gently......no.  It's not extremely rare.  It's like the opposite of extremely rare.  

And not all sex results in HPV. Again, same reasoning. 

[itsheresomewhere]

Our pediatrician does not recommend this shot before the age of 11 except for special circumstances.  
 

[Janeway]

1 minute ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

Oh, how I wish sex abuse was extremely rare.  

I work with young people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.  I have often heard parents say that their daughter does not need Gardasil because she won't be sexually active.  But I've seen statistics estimating that as many as 90% of women with IDD experience sexual abuse.  

As far as Gardasil vs birth control, I can't think of a form of birth control that would have as low of a side effect rate, as Gardasil.  Can you?

I have no desire to research the statistics for the general population right now. But I will say, I have never had side effects from birth control and I have never had anyone tell me they had any with any sort of consequences. I mean, being a little drier would not be a big deal. However, I do know a couple people whose daughter's got the guardasil who then had big problems. And I know when going for infertility treatments, guardasil is asked in the same way they wanted to know if someone was a DES baby. It has a potential effect on fertility. Since I have never had that shot, I did not dig further with the RE to find out what the effects were. 

[maize]

26 minutes ago, Janeway said:

I have no desire to research the statistics for the general population right now. But I will say, I have never had side effects from birth control and I have never had anyone tell me they had any with any sort of consequences. I mean, being a little drier would not be a big deal. However, I do know a couple people whose daughter's got the guardasil who then had big problems. And I know when going for infertility treatments, guardasil is asked in the same way they wanted to know if someone was a DES baby. It has a potential effect on fertility. Since I have never had that shot, I did not dig further with the RE to find out what the effects were. 

Here's a study showing no negative impact on fertility:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180821114430.htm

 

[maize]

This discussion has prompted me to revisit current information on the vaccine; looks like effectiveness holds for ten years or more even with just one dose, which is good.

Maybe one dose around 11-13 and finishing the sequence later in the teens would be best for kids who are not likely to be sexually active as teenagers, though that doesn't follow the most studied sequence.

[Tanaqui]

1 hour ago, MissLemon said:

This is exactly the reason I have gotten from the doctors and nurses at the pediatrician.  "Children are having sex at younger ages and they won't tell you they are doing it". 

I understand the value of getting it before they are sexually active. What I need to know is what is the improved value in getting this shot for a non-active 11 year old vs a non-active 12 or 13 year old.

 

If your pediatrician actually said that then your pediatrician needs to look up the stats, because in reality minors in America are less sexually active than in previous generations - I think the median age for first sexual experience is 18 right now - or, in other words, half of all teens are waiting until adulthood, and vanishingly few of them are sexually active before the age of 16. (There's a margin of error here, of course, because some people lie to pollsters, but I think we can safely assume that if you told a poll that you're not having sex then you also told your parents the same thing. If your child does start having sex as a minor, there is a very good chance you'll never know.)

In this case, the value for getting it at 11 instead of at 12 or 13 - given that your child is about as likely to be sexually active at any of those ages, which is to say, not likely at all - is that you're already in the doctor's office today, at the age of 11 (I assume, because your pediatricians are giving you speeches). You might not show up for an appointment next year or the year after, even though you ought to. The best time to give a child a shot is when that child is in the exam room.

This is a variation on the earlier reasoning, of course - just because your child probably won't be sexually active until adulthood (or until NEARLY adulthood) doesn't mean you should put off the shot until then, because at that point you won't be able to drag them in and make them get it. Even if you hint very nicely and they agree that they ought to get it, they might not prioritize making that visit.

Edited June 5, 2020 by Tanaqui

[RootAnn]

The last I looked, there was concern that a small percentage of females would get (experience?) ASIA [autoimmune/ inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants] & there might be some tie in to POTS. I assume that we will eventually be able to predict who will have a reaction.

[Shoeless]

29 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

 

If your pediatrician actually said that then your pediatrician needs to look up the stats, because in reality minors in America are less sexually active than in previous generations - I think the median age for first sexual experience is 18 right now - or, in other words, half of all teens are waiting until adulthood, and vanishingly few of them are sexually active before the age of 16. (There's a margin of error here, of course, because some people lie to pollsters, but I think we can safely assume that if you told a poll that you're not having sex then you also told your parents the same thing. If your child does start having sex as a minor, there is a very good chance you'll never know.)

In this case, the value for getting it at 11 instead of at 12 or 13 - given that your child is about as likely to be sexually active at any of those ages, which is to say, not likely at all - is that you're already in the doctor's office today, at the age of 11 (I assume, because your pediatricians are giving you speeches). You might not show up for an appointment next year or the year after, even though you ought to. The best time to give a child a shot is when that child is in the exam room.

This is a variation on the earlier reasoning, of course - just because your child probably won't be sexually active until adulthood (or until NEARLY adulthood) doesn't mean you should put off the shot until then, because at that point you won't be able to drag them in and make them get it. Even if you hint very nicely and they agree that they ought to get it, they might not prioritize making that visit.

 

I'm sure the doctor knows the relevant stats.  I suspect they get better results with scare tactics than trusting people to evaluate the data themselves, (current pandemic is an example of that). 

So it sounds like the rationale for early vs late is a patient compliance issue, and not something like "the immune system has a better response if we give the shots early vs late". 

I hear what you are saying about not delaying to early adulthood.  That is partially my concern with the vaccine.  At one point I was told that the effectiveness was only known to be about 10 years long.  Maybe that has changed? But that really concerned me because if I got him the shots at age 11, that means they'd be losing effectiveness right when he's more likely to be sexually active and also when I can't insist he gets a vaccine. So maybe waiting until 13 or 14 would be better, because it would carry him until 23 or 24? 

If I've given the impression that I'm anti-vaxx or trying to be difficult, I apologize. I really do want to understand the right time to give this vaccine series for this child because I want him to be protected. When I try to ask these questions of doctors or nurses, they get really defensive and I don't feel like I'm getting my questions answered.  I get why they may feel defensive...but I still need to have my questions answered, even if it really annoys them!  

[Arcadia]

1 hour ago, maize said:

 

Maybe one dose around 11-13 and finishing the sequence later in the teens would be best for kids who are not likely to be sexually active as teenagers, though that doesn't follow the most studied sequence.

My brother is thinking of waiting until she is 11. They have some vaccinations scheduled in 6th grade so it would be easy to get Gardisil done at the same time.

https://www.pennmedicine.org/updates/blogs/womens-health/2016/july/6-myths-about-the-hpv-vaccine
“

Myth: The HPV vaccine is ineffective

Fact: While it is true that individuals can still get HPV with the vaccine, this doesn’t mean that the shot is ineffective. The vaccine is effective for protecting girls and boys from approximately 90% of HPV-related warts and 70% of cervical cancers.

There are a few reasons why people who have had the vaccine can still get HPV:

• They were exposed to it before getting the vaccine
• They were exposed to it before completing the entire vaccination—3 separate shots given over the course of several months
• They are exposed to certain strains—there are more than 150 strains of HPV, and the vaccine protects against 9 of the most serious strains”

 

[HSmomof2]

1 hour ago, RootAnn said:

The last I looked, there was concern that a small percentage of females would get (experience?) ASIA [autoimmune/ inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants] & there might be some tie in to POTS. I assume that we will eventually be able to predict who will have a reaction.

I’ve heard this as well, which is why I’ve hesitated to have dd(15) get this one. We’re pro-vax but haven’t had her get this series yet. She has two autoimmune diseases currently that we’re just now trying to get under control after years of odd symptoms. She also has PCOS and will likely already have fertility problems. I can’t decide if the very small risk of this vaccine outweighs the benefit. 

[Sherry in OH]

My children's pediatrician recommends that his patients be vaccinated for HPV prior to age 15.  His reasoning is it is a two shot series for younger adolescents and a three shot series for those ages 15 and up.   

[Skippy]

The CDC considers it to be extremely rare, but I know a young friend in her twenties who is now infertile after the shot. She basically went through premature menopause when she was a teenager. It was extremely difficult for her.

[maize]

1 hour ago, Skippy said:

The CDC considers it to be extremely rare, but I know a young friend in her twenties who is now infertile after the shot. She basically went through premature menopause when she was a teenager. It was extremely difficult for her.

Grain of salt:

Correlation does not equal causation. Premature menopause/Premature Ovarian Insuffiency does occasionally happen. It can be caused by an autoimmune disorder. Autoimmune disorders often crop up for the first time during adolescence.

And we have no clear way of attributing a given case to a particular vaccine event. This is something that happened occasionally to teenage girls long before Gardasil was developed. It's normal to look for a proximate cause when something devastating happens but without evidence from broad population based studies there is zero reason to attribute a particular incidence to a vaccine.

Edited to add a link about premature menopause in teens:

https://www.daisynetwork.org/about-poi/teenage-diagnosis/

Edited June 5, 2020 by maize

[hippiemamato3]

My son finally had it at his 17 year physical. I probably shouldn't have waited so long. My daughter will not have it till 12 or 13 probably. 

[Tanaqui]

11 hours ago, MissLemon said:

 

I'm sure the doctor knows the relevant stats.  I suspect they get better results with scare tactics than trusting people to evaluate the data themselves, (current pandemic is an example of that). 

So it sounds like the rationale for early vs late is a patient compliance issue, and not something like "the immune system has a better response if we give the shots early vs late". 

I hear what you are saying about not delaying to early adulthood.  That is partially my concern with the vaccine.  At one point I was told that the effectiveness was only known to be about 10 years long.  Maybe that has changed? But that really concerned me because if I got him the shots at age 11, that means they'd be losing effectiveness right when he's more likely to be sexually active and also when I can't insist he gets a vaccine. So maybe waiting until 13 or 14 would be better, because it would carry him until 23 or 24? 

If I've given the impression that I'm anti-vaxx or trying to be difficult, I apologize. I really do want to understand the right time to give this vaccine series for this child because I want him to be protected. When I try to ask these questions of doctors or nurses, they get really defensive and I don't feel like I'm getting my questions answered.  I get why they may feel defensive...but I still need to have my questions answered, even if it really annoys them!  

 

Oh, no, I'm just really... it's a rough time for everybody, and I think all my nerves are frayed. I'm not always so polite in the best of times and I think now I'm being a little more me than usual.

[Tanaqui]

2 hours ago, Skippy said:

The CDC considers it to be extremely rare, but I know a young friend in her twenties who is now infertile after the shot. She basically went through premature menopause when she was a teenager. It was extremely difficult for her.

 

Some of those "extremely rare" correlations are things which probably aren't connected at all, the CDC just lists them out of an abundance of caution. Some random percentage of teens is going to go through early menopause no matter whether they get the shot or not, but if it starts soon after the shot people tend to think it was the shot that caused it.

Like - I once read this personal article by a doctor who had a patient in for their first round of MMR. They were a little delayed on the shots, but not much, and the kid appeared to be in the pink of health. The doctor went to get the vaccine, Mom was busy with the other child, and in the middle of this the kid had a massive seizure, right there on the table. And if the kid had happened to have that seizure just ten minutes later, the doctor wrote, everybody would've assumed it was the vaccine. He would've thought it was the vaccine! But it wasn't, and it would not have been - the kid was just going to have that seizure no matter what.

Which isn't to say that there is definitely no real causation here. I don't know that, and you don't know that. It's inherently unknowable.

[alisoncooks]

My youngest had the first dose at 10 or 11....but mainly because she was at the appointment with her sister (who was 12 or 13) so we just did them both. (Also because I'm not regular about getting them for checkups since they're up to date for most vaccines and generally healthy.) They'll go back next month for the second shot (at 12 & 14). 

[maize]

33 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

 

Some of those "extremely rare" correlations are things which probably aren't connected at all, the CDC just lists them out of an abundance of caution. Some random percentage of teens is going to go through early menopause no matter whether they get the shot or not, but if it starts soon after the shot people tend to think it was the shot that caused it.

Like - I once read this personal article by a doctor who had a patient in for their first round of MMR. They were a little delayed on the shots, but not much, and the kid appeared to be in the pink of health. The doctor went to get the vaccine, Mom was busy with the other child, and in the middle of this the kid had a massive seizure, right there on the table. And if the kid had happened to have that seizure just ten minutes later, the doctor wrote, everybody would've assumed it was the vaccine. He would've thought it was the vaccine! But it wasn't, and it would not have been - the kid was just going to have that seizure no matter what.

Which isn't to say that there is definitely no real causation here. I don't know that, and you don't know that. It's inherently unknowable.

The seizure could have also been triggered by stress or fear, even anticipation of the shot. Likely with an underlying predisposition but it's entirely possible that particular seizure wouldn't have happened if the child were at home. Not a vaccine caused injury but not entirely divorced from the circumstance of a vaccine visit.

I've seen people faint after a vaccination from what was probably a vasovagal syncope reaction to the stress of the vaccination, so triggered by the circumstance but not by the vaccine substance.

Emotions can be powerful physical triggers.

[SKL]

I have heard it has some significant side effects for some people.

We do not plan to get this vax, but if we did, it would be later rather than earlier.  The only reason I see to rush a vax is to manage risk that something would harm the child more if you waited.  HPV is not in that category.

Also I would rather wait until the child is old enough to make a mature decision on this vax, because there is no good reason to not wait for that.

[SKL]

12 hours ago, Sherry in OH said:

My children's pediatrician recommends that his patients be vaccinated for HPV prior to age 15.  His reasoning is it is a two shot series for younger adolescents and a three shot series for those ages 15 and up.   

Why the difference?  Anyone know?

[historically accurate]

20 hours ago, MissLemon said:

This is exactly the reason I have gotten from the doctors and nurses at the pediatrician.  "Children are having sex at younger ages and they won't tell you they are doing it". 

I understand the value of getting it before they are sexually active. What I need to know is what is the improved value in getting this shot for a non-active 11 year old vs a non-active 12 or 13 year old. 

 

Personal story removed for privacy. Just going to leave the following statement up.

I now wish I had gotten my dd the shot when she was 11.

Edited June 5, 2020 by beckyjo

[Kassia]

@beckyjo  I'm so sorry about your daughter.

[Arcadia]

14 hours ago, MissLemon said:

. I really do want to understand the right time to give this vaccine series for this child because I want him to be protected. When I try to ask these questions of doctors or nurses, they get really defensive and I don't feel like I'm getting my questions answered. 

Same here for my brother. He just wants to know if there is any benefit for having the shot at 9 versus waiting until 11/12. We know schoolmates who had abortions at 13 so it’s not like we have blinders on. I can’t find anything about the physiological effect of the vaccine which is why I ask. Gardisil 9 was approved by FDA in 2014 so while not that new, is not that old either. Me being the most sickly person across three generations of relatives is why I usually get asked to ask for information, since I have higher chance to ask a much wider variety of healthcare workers.

[Kassia]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

I have heard it has some significant side effects for some people.

We do not plan to get this vax, but if we did, it would be later rather than earlier.  The only reason I see to rush a vax is to manage risk that something would harm the child more if you waited.  HPV is not in that category.

Also I would rather wait until the child is old enough to make a mature decision on this vax, because there is no good reason to not wait for that.

 

This is us, too.  I'm usually pro-vax, but decided to wait on this.  I do have friends with daughters who had problems with the vaccine and couldn't complete the series.  My dd is 17 now and has been insistent that she does not want it at this time.

 

[klmama]

2 hours ago, Kassia said:

 

This is us, too.  I'm usually pro-vax, but decided to wait on this.  I do have friends with daughters who had problems with the vaccine and couldn't complete the series.  My dd is 17 now and has been insistent that she does not want it at this time.

 

What kinds of problems did your friends' dds have?  I've seen a lot of videos of people claiming motor disturbances.  

[hippiemamato3]

18 hours ago, Janeway said:

Not only would that be extremely rare, but, if it did happen, then one should worry about pregnancy too and put the child on birth control. It makes no sense to do guardasil without birth control.

Wait are you saying sexual abuse before age 11 is extremely rare? I'd beg to differ. And, statistically, that's inaccurate as well.

[Janeway]

23 minutes ago, hippiemamato3 said:

Wait are you saying sexual abuse before age 11 is extremely rare? I'd beg to differ. And, statistically, that's inaccurate as well.

I am saying rape is rare. Cite your source that says otherwise. And anything that is done that can cause HPV can also cause pregnancy. So why would a parent force a sexual health treatment, specifically a shot for HPV, on a girl, without informed consent, and then not also put her on birth control? I feel like we are in the times when parents would sterilize their daughters or abort their babies or give their babies up for adoption against their will when they are willing to give a shot, without informed consent, to a little girl. 

[Terabith]

Oral sex can cause hpv and not pregnancy.  
And no.  Rape and sexual abuse are NOT rare.  You REALLY need to get that out of your head.  

[Tanaqui]

Janeway, nearly 20% of women in America are raped at some point in their lives. Of those, about 40% are raped before the age of 18.... so... I'd say about 8% of American women  were raped as minors. The word "rare" is a bit of a moving target. How rare, exactly, did you think it was?

Quote

So why would a parent force a sexual health treatment, specifically a shot for HPV, on a girl, without informed consent, and then not also put her on birth control?

 

I think it's really weird to frame a vaccine as a "sexual health treatment" instead of, well, a routine vaccination no different from the one for chickenpox or polio. I didn't ask for consent from my kids before having them get those shots either.

Quote

I feel like we are in the times when parents would sterilize their daughters or abort their babies or give their babies up for adoption against their will when they are willing to give a shot, without informed consent, to a little girl. 

 

That's a really bizarre slippery slope you just jumped off. Seriously, we're not talking about forced sterilization or abortion, we're talking about a vaccine. My kids get shots every single year. This one isn't any different from all the others.

[Sherry in OH]

3 hours ago, Arcadia said:

Same here for my brother. He just wants to know if there is any benefit for having the shot at 9 versus waiting until 11/12. We know schoolmates who had abortions at 13 so it’s not like we have blinders on. I can’t find anything about the physiological effect of the vaccine which is why I ask. Gardisil 9 was approved by FDA in 2014 so while not that new, is not that old either. Me being the most sickly person across three generations of relatives is why I usually get asked to ask for information, since I have higher chance to ask a much wider variety of healthcare workers.

 

HPV can be transmitted through non-sexual skin to skin contact such as occur between playmates or between a caregiver and child.  There is evidence that children can be infected as early as conception.  Some studies also suggest that unsterilized reusable medical equipment can be a method of transmission. 

Per the vaccine information statement, the CDC recommends vaccination at age 11 or 12, but it can be given as early as age 9.  The fact sheet also indicates that although the vaccination can be given as late as age 45, there is no benefit for most people over the age of 26.  By that age, most adults have already been infected.  

In your initial post you state that your brother is not in the U.S.A.  The vaccination schedule in his country may differ from the in the U.S. for any number of reasons.

[Kassia]

1 hour ago, klmama said:

What kinds of problems did your friends' dds have?  I've seen a lot of videos of people claiming motor disturbances.  

 

I can't remember exactly, but anything as "mild" as fainting (with a child who never fainted from anything before) to migraines.  One girl has a serious medical condition (Neuromyelitis optica) and her mother is certain it came from the vaccine, but I don't know.  

ETA:  I just found this https://www.aao.org/editors-choice/neuromyelitis-optica-may-be-triggered-by-hpv-vacci

 

Edited June 5, 2020 by Kassia

[Sherry in OH]

53 minutes ago, Janeway said:

I am saying rape is rare. Cite your source that says otherwise. And anything that is done that can cause HPV can also cause pregnancy. So why would a parent force a sexual health treatment, specifically a shot for HPV, on a girl, without informed consent, and then not also put her on birth control? I feel like we are in the times when parents would sterilize their daughters or abort their babies or give their babies up for adoption against their will when they are willing to give a shot, without informed consent, to a little girl. 

 

HPV is not always sexually transmitted.  Even when sexually transmitted, fondling, sodomy, and oral sex do not cause pregnancy.   

Facts: 

• 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 6 boys are sexually assaulted before the age of 18 
• 29% of all forcible rapes involve a victim under the age of 11  
• Nearly half of all forcible fondling and sodomy victims are under the age of 12 
• 60% of girls who have sex before age 15 were coerced by males more than 6 years older
• Most child sexual abuse is never reported to authorities

Source: Statistics Child Sexual Abuse

• While females ages 12 to 34 are the highest risk years for rape and sexual assault, 34 percent of victims under the age of 18 are also under the age of 12
• In 2016 an estimated 57,329 children were victims of sexual assault

Source: Rainn