Will you get your sons HPV shot? (raising, drugs, older)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think I might be the only one who is saying "maybe" to this vaccine. I do not think that either one of my kids will be engaging in sexual activity anytime in the near future so I'm taking a wait and watch approach.
I would not want to vaccinate a low risk preteen/early teen now, only to find out that immunity wears off in 6 years - right around the time (college age) that they would be most likely to benefit from/need immunity from this virus.
I must confess that the oral sex/mouth cancer aspect of this virus concerns and grosses me out....
I'm sorry to ask a stupid question - but could a person get this virus from kissing a person with an infected mouth? I don't think that is possible, but.....
The reason for vaccinating at the age of 12 is that our kids often do things we would wish they did not do. You need to vaccinate while they all think the opposite sex has cooties --- to prevent them from catching real cooties when they are a little bit older.
Right now, there is no sign that immunity rapidly wanes with the HPV vaccines. If it turns out that a booster is needed, then at some point that may be recommended. They are still following the people in the original studies, and those show protection lasting at least eight years with no evidence that it is starting to wear off.
Vaccine recommendations do change. It looks like a booster of the meningitis vaccine at age 16 is a good idea, for example.
The schedules for vaccines sometimes change based on new information. That does not mean the old schedules were wrong and the vaccine should have never been given at all.
HPV is a virus. If someone who has HPV in the mouth and throat swaps spit with someone else, it is reasonable to expect that it could be transmitted that way.
That is not always the answer and sometimes you have to be the one who makes the right decision for your family and mine is to not support a brand new vaccine that may or may not have lasting effects, that may or may not cause long term damage, that may or may not cause short term damage, may or may not prevent cancer, may or may or may not ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING GOOD. Its not an anti-cancer vaccine, it merely fights a virus that contributes to cancerous cells. Its not a miracle cure. Its not an anti-breast cancer vaccine, but even if it was I wouldnt take it without some longitudinal studies to substantiate long term effects.
What has breast cancer got to do with it? And if breast cancer could be prevented with a vaccine you would not take it? Really?
What makes you think that there are no longitudinal studies with HPV vaccines? There are, you know. Those show the short term problems are soreness at the injection site and an increased risk of fainting. No serious long term effects have shown up although millions of doses have been given.
How long does a vaccine have to be around before it is not "brand new?"
Millions of people have been given HPV vaccines, and the controversy over them is manufactured and fueled primarily through the internet.
To me personally "new" has nothing to do with the amount of doses that have been administered. It is about the amount of time this vaccine has been studied in the general population. 6 years is hardly a long term study of the population. At this point they dont even know if it effective for an extended period of time. In another ten years, my son will be 14 it will have been studied in population for 16 years, new and improved versions will have come out and then I will possibly reconsider my stance. But as it stands, absolutely not.
The number of doses given is very relevant.
If you are concerned about potential serious complications, you can either follow a small number of people for a very long time or a very large number of people for a much shorter time. The more doses that are given, the greater the likelihood that serious problems will become apparent. We are not seeing those serious problems.
By the time your son is 12 (it seems he is only 4 now), there is a very good chance that we will see vaccines that include coverage for more types of HPV. Wait until he is 14 to give the vaccine and it may be too late, no matter how well you think you know him. Our kids sometime do stupid things, no matter how much we warn them not to.
We may also see different dose schedules --- maybe two doses rather than three. And the cost will assuredly come down.
Trying to scare people into getting a vaccine that has displayed no proof of preventing anything yet including adverse side effects is lame.
The vaccine has been shown to prevent infection with the strains of HPV in the vaccine and cervical dysplasia in women. It is incorrect to say it has shown "no proof of preventing anything yet."
Quote:
People aren't going to agree on being a test subject for the good of the cure.
I am not sure what you mean by this. Thousands of people have participated in studies of HPV vaccines. Some of the people in the studies got the vaccine. That means they benefited from being able to get it before the rest of the world did. Some people in the studies did not get the vaccine. They are the ones who actually did for the good of the rest of us. Since the vaccine is not a "cure", it's a preventative, no one did it for "the good of the cure." That does not make sense.
Quote:
It's a choice. Some don't want to risk it for something not proven to work. Some do. Scaring people into making decisions that might not be the best for them is dangerous.
Since the vaccines do work, it is not necessary to "scare" people into using them. What is happening is that people who do not know what they are talking about are trying to scare people into not using them.
Quote:
I could list pages and pages where taking a relatively new drug had horrible outcomes. Way more than the pages you could to prove that this vaccine actually works.
Do you have any pages showing the HPV vaccine does not prevent infection with the HPV strains in the vaccine? Please provide links.
Quote:
Heck, tylenol has been around 40 years and they just found out it causes liver damage, enough to place a new warning on the label. You can overdose on Tylenol easily, which for years they thought wasn't true but with time they found out that it is. You shouldn't drink alcohol with it, so now every drinker takes Advil.
Tylenol is off topic. Doctors have known for a long time that too much can cause liver damage. The problem is people who do not follow directions for taking it properly. That is the reason for the new labeling.
Quote:
It's just too early to know. You want to test it out for me, go for it. But that's what you're doing, testing it out. You don't know it works, or if it could actually increase your risk of the very cancers your trying to avoid. You have no idea yet, nobody does. Scaring them doesn't change this fact.
No, we do know it works. Other people have already tested it out for you. There is no evidence that it causes the cancers it is intended to prevent. And it seems you are the one trying to scare people by saying things that are not true.
Has anyone crunched the numbers to compare any risks associated with getting the vaccine to the risk of getting cancer, or even pre-cancer requiring treatment? That's really the only way to evaluate if the benefit is worth the risk. Anyone?
I don't think it's disputed that most HPV cases clear up on their own. So do most cases of the flu, chickenpox, smallpox, mumps etc. but you get the vaccine in case you're not part of the majority. No one is forcing you to get vaccinated, but you probably shouldn't be so flippant about a virus that can and has lead to cancer in women around the world.
I don't get the flu shot
Also, waking up each day can lead to dying, but I dont suggest the Government and pharmaceutical companies come up with a vaccine for that
I believe you got this answer from Zimbochick. If you have side effects in America and can possibly get any health official to collaborate with you on the cause then you report it.
Health care is a business here, profits are made just like anything else, that gives motives other than health care, there are lawsuits to worry about on both sides.
This is why I wait and see how many lawsuits and complaints come in first. It's really the only way. Then I make as informed a decision as I feel comfortable with. I'm still waiting on this one, it's difficult for me. I need a bit more time and I have it as my girls are not sexually active yet.
It was not necessary to wait for information on the prevention of cervical cancer in order to get HPV vaccines on the shelf because the studies quickly showed that it prevents the precancerous conditions. If you do not believe the science behind the HPV vaccine, then what you are saying is that you do not believe the science behind Pap smears.
Find precancerous conditions with Pap smears, treat them, prevent cervical cancers.
Prevent HPV infections with vaccines, prevent precancerous cervical conditions, do not get abnormal Pap smears or cervical cancer.
Prevent HPV infections of the penis, anus, and throat and you prevent those cancers, too.
The science is sound.
Anyone can report what they think is an adverse reaction to VAERS. That does not mean the vaccine caused the reported condition. When VAERS reports have been followed up, a correlation with the vaccine has not been found. Usually the only reason the report is made is because the adverse event occurred some time after the vacccine was given.
If you are concerned about potential serious complications, you can either follow a small number of people for a very long time or a very large number of people for a much shorter time. The more doses that are given, the greater the likelihood that serious problems will become apparent. We are not seeing those serious problems.
Of course the number of doses is relevant.
If 20 million people get vaccinated and we follow those 20 million for one year that gives a very comprehensive look at any potential short term effects, soreness, fainting, headaches, death, whatever. But following 20 million people for 1 year still doesnt tell me what happens in ten years. Upping the amount of people being observed does not speed up time. 20 million for 1 year is still only 1 year.
Also, waking up each day can lead to dying, but I dont suggest the Government and pharmaceutical companies come up with a vaccine for that
But you are glad they came up with one for Polio, and Smallpox? Probably be nice if there was one for HIV, even Herpes?
What's wrong with coming up with vaccines that make a huge difference in the health and quality of life of the population?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
