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.
So exactly what did you tell your pre teens the vx was for. Did you go into the nitty gritty of oral sex, anal sex and "you are having sex with every partner your partner had". I'm no prude by any stretch of the imagination but no way am I bringing up oral or anal sex and even talking to them about "regular" sex makes them uncomfortable.... not me but it does them.
I've talked to them about the domino effects of sex and STDs but they are only 12 and I don't think they can comprehend. I would feel better if they had more of a say about this procedure. I know it is unrealistic to expect them to hold off till they are 21 but if they can hold off till they are at least 16 I would help them with research and making up their own minds.
We had the daughter of two friends (both physicians) get really sick after the shots. She had to withdraw her freshman year of college. the whole family was upended and the guilt the parents experienced was almost as bad as the illness the girl suffered. They very much regret getting her the shots.
Another young friend got sick as well. Both cases directly traced back to Gardasil.
My kids were older when the vax came out in 2006, 19 and 22. I didn't have to tell them anything! For an 11-12 year old, as Marlow said, you tell them it's to keep them from getting sick, or as I prefer (and this is what I tell kids [and their parents] in the office), "to keep you healthy".
As far as having your kids wait until 16, what really is the point? People on this board (not you, I realize) are outraged that kids can get Gardasil w/o consent (although I'd like to research that a little more), but then say let the kid decide? What kid is going to say, "I'd like to have 3 shots?" Kids, even at 16, don't always have the intellectual capacity to look at the big picture. One of our clerical people was trying to decide about Gardasil for her 12 year old, and a nurse with older daughters (not me) told her to do it now, b/c they get harder to convince as they get older. She's right.
I know this sounds mean, but I seriously do not believe your anecdotes. Our office has given literally thousands of doses since the vax came out 9 years ago, and I've never seen anything like that. Believe me, we have a clientele that would certainly let us know if there were a problem. I know there are outliers, but really? It's like with many other vaccines; parents see the temporal relationship between the vaccine and the illness and they blame the vaccine. That I've seen many times, in parents of babies who get a cold after getting immunizations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
1. Regular pap smears don't prevent HPV but they do prevent cervical cancer. They have been very effective in that regard. Nothing is 100%, not even the vaccine.
3. Comprehensive sex education certainly does prevent some things. It prevents some unintended pregnancies and some sexually transmitted disease. It does not prevent everything but to say that it doesn't prevent anything is false.
Just the like HPV vaccine does not prevent all cases of HPV or all cervical cancer.
1. Nothing is prevented by scraping cells of the cervix. It's a screening test. The cancer is either there or it's not. There is sometimes confusion over terminology, and many sources will say "get a pap to prevent cervical cancer", but that's not technically accurate.
2. Maybe you should read suzy_q2010's post. A gyn visit with pelvic would still be necessary.
3. Again, education never prevented anything. You can sit in a classroom and fill your head with information, but you have to act on it.
HPV vaccine immunity is close to 100%, and again, if you'd read suzy_q's post, you'd see that there's now a 9 virus formulation out.
1. Nothing is prevented by scraping cells of the cervix. It's a screening test. The cancer is either there or it's not. There is sometimes confusion over terminology, and many sources will say "get a pap to prevent cervical cancer", but that's not technically accurate.
Then maybe you should tell your daughters and patients that the pap test is worthless.
For the record though. They detect precancerous changes to the cervical cells which is treatable and in turn, prevents cervical cancer. I think it's really irresponsible to downplay the role of pap tests in the prevention of cervical cancer. They have proven to be very effective.
Quote:
2. Maybe you should read suzy_q2010's post. A gyn visit with pelvic would still be necessary.
No, I'm not going to go back and try to find what you it is you are referring to. You brought it up so feel free to explain what you are referring to.
Quote:
3. Again, education never prevented anything. You can sit in a classroom and fill your head with information, but you have to act on it.
Again, I think it is irresponsible to say that education is useless in preventing pregnancy and STD's.
Quote:
HPV vaccine immunity is close to 100%, and again, if you'd read suzy_q's post, you'd see that there's now a 9 virus formulation out.
The HPV vaccine does not prevent every strain of HPV, it is not 100% effective. Again, it is irresponsible to claim otherwise.
Last edited by MissTerri; 01-26-2015 at 09:45 AM..
Then maybe you should tell your daughters and patients that pap test are worthless.
For the record though. They detect precancerous changes to the cervical cells which is treatable and in turn, prevents cervical cancer. I think it's really irresponsible to downplay the role of pap tests in the prevention of cervical cancer. They have proven to be very effective.
No, I'm not going to go back and try to find what you it is you are referring to. You brought it up so feel free to explain what you are referring to.
Again, I think it irresponsible to say that education is useless is preventing pregnancy and STD's.
The HPV vaccine does not prevent every strain of HPV, it is not 100% effective. Again, it is irresponsible to claim otherwise.
Clearly, pap smears are important in the prevention of cervical cancer because they detect abnormal cells. But after abnormal cells are detected, the woman still needs to be treated. It might be cryosurgery, or "real surgery" or some other treatment, but the cells must be removed. Whatever the treatment, it involves discomfort, cost and time taken away from school or work. If Gardasil prevents some strains of HPV that lead to cervical cancer, how is that not better than waiting to see early signs of cancer and then treating it?
And the fact that it's not 100% effective does not mean it is worthless. Some protection is better than none.
Clearly, pap smears are important in the prevention of cervical cancer because they detect abnormal cells. But after abnormal cells are detected, the woman still needs to be treated. It might be cryosurgery, or "real surgery" or some other treatment, but the cells must be removed. Whatever the treatment, it involves discomfort, cost and time taken away from school or work.
All true.
Quote:
If Gardasil prevents some strains of HPV that lead to cervical cancer, how is that not better than waiting to see early signs of cancer and then treating it? And the fact that it's not 100% effective does not mean it is worthless. Some protection is better than none
I'm not trying to stop anyone from getting the vaccine. If they feel that it's worthwhile then they can choose to get it. I do not believe that the HPV vaccine is without risk. I choose not to get it. Like stan noted pages ago, it's a risk/reward decision.
I would NEVER get this vaccine for my daughter! Her doctor asks me at every visit and I tell him NO.
This is just another way for the pharmaceutical companies to make big bucks (using scare tactics to get parents to vaccinate their kids with it!). It's also a new drug and no one knows the long-term effects of it.
I'm not trying to stop anyone from getting the vaccine. If they feel that it's worthwhile then they can choose to get it. I do not believe that the HPV vaccine is without risk. I choose not to get it. Like stan noted pages ago, it's a risk/reward decision.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't see what the risks are. I have yet to see credible evidence (not anecdotal) of real risks associated with the vaccine.
Then maybe you should tell your daughters and patients that the pap test is worthless.
For the record though. They detect precancerous changes to the cervical cells which is treatable and in turn, prevents cervical cancer. I think it's really irresponsible to downplay the role of pap tests in the prevention of cervical cancer. They have proven to be very effective.
No, I'm not going to go back and try to find what you it is you are referring to. You brought it up so feel free to explain what you are referring to.
Again, I think it irresponsible to say that education is useless in preventing pregnancy and STD's.
The HPV vaccine does not prevent every strain of HPV, it is not 100% effective. Again, it is irresponsible to claim otherwise.
My daughters are adults. What they do is their business. They've never asked my opinion, and both have health care degrees, and work in modern health care facilities. As for our patients, we only see kids to age 18, so we don't usually get into discussions about paps. We generally send them to gyns/fps for birth control. If asked, I would advise to follow their gyn's recommendations.
That's too funny. I referred you to a post in this very thread! Your refusal to read it shows you are not interested in the facts. I don't know who first brought up paps, but your reliance on a fast-fading procedure is interesting.
Education is fine. I'm all for more of it. (Just ask the people on the ed forum; I'm the one always pushing for more education while some are pushing for less.) But you have to act on the education you receive.
The HPV is as close to 100% as humanly possible. It protects against the major strains of cancer-causing HPV, and a new one is now out that protects against 9 strains.
A new study has found the number of women diagnosed with cervical cancer under 35 has risen, while the number attending smear tests has fallen to an all time low.
Dr Kate Soldan, head of PHE’s HPV surveillance, said:
These data show that as expected the HPV immunisation programme in England is reducing HPV 16 and 18, and doing so very substantially. We observed a clear correlation between immunisation coverage and reduced type 16 and 18 HPV infections. This adds to our confidence that the programme will achieve its aim of reducing cervical cancer. This may be of interest to countries that have yet to implement a programme of their own.
And if I recall correctly, routine Paps and screenings don't start until age 21... which is several years later than the average teen is sexually active. That's a long time for HPV to go undetected.
Any sexually active woman should have a visit with a doctor to discuss contraception and timing of Pap smears. the interval can be individualized and may not necessarily be annually. As I said before, doctors are going to shift over to screening for high risk HPV directly rather than screening for dysplasia with a Pap smear. Cervical cancer is an HPV disease. No HPV, pretty much no cancer. Those with high risk HPV can then be monitored more closely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
How in the world did my generation ever survive "Make love not war"?
A lot of them didn't. I know one woman who had a mildly abnormal Pap, did not have the suggested six months follow-up (went three years without a Pap), and had cervical cancer at age 23. On average it takes 15 years for cancer to develop, but not always. She died despite treatment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
Regular pap smears starting earlier then the recommended age. Comprehensive and honest sex education.
How does one identify a partner who carries a high risk strain of HPV but does not know it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by no kudzu
We had the daughter of two friends (both physicians) get really sick after the shots. She had to withdraw her freshman year of college. the whole family was upended and the guilt the parents experienced was almost as bad as the illness the girl suffered. They very much regret getting her the shots.
Another young friend got sick as well. Both cases directly traced back to Gardasil.
What "sickness" did they have and how was it confirmed that it was related to the vaccine?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
1. Regular pap smears don't prevent HPV but they do prevent cervical cancer. They have been very effective in that regard. Nothing is 100%, not even the vaccine.
The vaccine is not 100%, but it is very close. Pap smears do not prevent HPV, but the vaccine does.
Women who are identified with one of the two most common high risk strains can be sent directly to testing for precancerous conditions with a procedure called colposcopy. I expect that other high risk strains will be added to the screen.
Quote:
3. Comprehensive sex education certainly does prevent some things. It prevents some unintended pregnancies and some sexually transmitted disease. It does not prevent everything but to say that it doesn't prevent anything is false.
Just the like HPV vaccine does not prevent all cases of HPV or all cervical cancer.
The newer vaccine will prevent 90% of high risk HPV types. That means 90% of women will never (the vaccine appears to provide durable protection so far; the need for boosters has not been determined yet because the vaccine is too new to know) have a positive HPV screening test. Saying the vaccine will not prevent all cervical cancer does not mean it is not effective. A 90% effective rate is stupendous.
HPV is so common that you will not be able to educate away the risk, and you cannot prevent it with a condom. Your children may participate in sexual activities you personally would not, and there is no way for them to know whether a partner has HPV unless the partner tells or the partner has warts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedZin
I'm neither of those things. Not that there would be anything wrong with being a lawyer or writing package inserts... though people in my field certainly do have input into what goes into package inserts, so take that however you like.
I am not telling you that Gardasil is terribly risky for each child... it's really up to each parent. I am simply telling you that, based on what I have read, I see absolutely no need to have it administered to my kids.
Does that whole risk/benefit thing make no sense in here?
You do what you like... I'll do what I like.
And, for the record? I know plenty of scientists who don't get their kids vaccinated with HPV vaccine.
Again, I'm sure it's the risk/benefit issue that makes them decide not to. People have to do what they think is most beneficial for their kids. I prefer to use the "wait and see" approach to this particular vaccine because I think that, over time, there will not be a huge benefit derived from it.
I feel like too many people assume that it vaccinates AGAINST cancer. It does not. It vaccinates against a limited number of types of HPV that MIGHT cause cancer.
Just because those types cause the bulk of cancers doesn't mean that they, if contracted, will cause cancer at all.
That's the thing about statistics. There are a good many ways to spin them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedZin
I'm not telling any of you what to do.
And we are all free to be mysterious in regard to our actual professions, employers, and other personally identifying information. I don't know any of you people. You could all be serial killers for all I know.
I'm not playing mind games. What in the world? I said that, based on what I'd read, I would not vaccinate my kids.
I never said there was some sort of conspiracy or that you should all choose not to vaccinate yours.
You can consider my opinion or not. I don't really care either way. The vaccine has approved by FDA, so go for it if you like.
It's not like your opinion on this medical topic is going to change my mind and I'm certain that if I had some info that indicated that these vaccines should NEVER be used, I would certainly have said so by now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedZin
I have nothing to offer YOU.
There's a difference. The info I've read on the topic and the scientists I've spoken to helped me make up my mind. And yes, they are indeed scientists who work in pharma. I don't owe strangers on the internet an explanation as to why I choose to avoid this specific vaccine. Naturally, if I felt the vaccine should be immediately banned, I'd become an activist, but I do not personally feel that we're at the point where people who might need the vaccine for whatever reason should be restricted from taking it. Plenty of drugs are a bit on the risky side, but are still beneficial to the appropriate patient population, no?
I said I worked in the industry and I wouldn't vaccinate mine. Those are all the the facts about me you need to know.
You said you work as a pediatric doctor's office RN and you have full faith in the vaccine.
Good for you. Carry on.
The fact that you do not understand how preventing HPV prevents cancer undermines your claim to specialized knowledge. Sorry, you cannot claim you read about some risk from the vaccine that has not been disclosed to the public and then say you will not share it, and your description of your "job" does not suggest you work in a lab if what you do is create written material for lay people to read.
The newer vaccine protects against the strains associated with 90% of HPV associated cancers. That is a hefty benefit. Maximizing that benefit requires vaccinating before the very first sexual experience of any kind.
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.
