<p>If it is not required by college, what can you do? If it is required, nothing he can do except for NOT going to college.</p>
<p>The change in recommended age is because insurance companies don’t want to pay.</p>
<p>There are political implication - ACA - with the HPV vaccine.</p>
<p>If gardasil is recommended (or mandated with an opt out in the Texas case)then insurance will pay and medicaid or other basic health plans will pay. Otherwise it is an expensive, 3 stage out of pocket expense. I paid out of pocket for D because it was that important to me and it wasn’t covered for us at the time.</p>
<p>saintfan, I was referring to the comment above about shingle vaccine.</p>
<p>Just read on HP that gardasil is being voted out of coverage in SC, also.</p>
<p>As someone who recently came down with shingles, I sure wish I had been given access to the vaccine. I wouldn’t wish that experience on my worst enemy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It actually does prevent some of “the nastier” ones.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>got it - parent1986 
thx for clarification - I read that as well about SC - it was a free choice coverage program not a mandate and was passed with a bipartisan vote then vetoed by the gov. - reason, she wouldn’t want that for her 14yr old daughter.</p>
<p>*It actually does prevent some of “the nastier” ones.</p>
<p>Quote:
INFORMATION ABOUT GARDASIL</p>
<p>GARDASIL is the only human papillomavirus (HPV)
vaccine that helps protect against 4 types of HPV. In girls and young women ages 9 to 26, GARDASIL helps protect against 2 types of HPV that cause about 75% of cervical cancer cases, and 2 more types that cause 90% of genital warts cases. In boys and young men ages 9 to 26, GARDASIL helps protect against 90% of genital warts cases.</p>
<p>GARDASIL also helps protect girls and young women ages 9 to 26 against 70% of vaginal cancer cases and up to 50% of vulvar cancer cases. *</p>
<p>Yes, I understand and have researched this. I believe there are about 14 strains considered “high risk” and gardisil protects against 2 of those, but those 2 account for 75% of cervical cancer cases. It doesn’t protect against the other 12. I’m not saying that 75% isn’t significant - it is. I’m just saying that it’s not full coverage, and I imagine that future vaccines will cover more.</p>
<p>My doctor recommended that I get the shingles vaccine, even though I’m in my early 50s. I guess I may have to pay for it myself.</p>
<p>Just to add on Gardasil–it may protect against some of those other strains as well–it just hasn’t been shown to do so. I wouldn’t wait if there is any chance your kids will become sexually active anytime soon. And unless they are really young, there is a chance.</p>
<p>“Novardo??” calif where we would relocate part-time. Near the wine country?? Supposed to be really beautiful?Any of you Californian’s ever heard of it? "</p>
<p>Its Novato. I would not call it wine country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I hear all the time people saying that they won’t get this vaccine for their kid because of the “only” 75% coverage. That just makes zero sense to me.</p>
<p>Having a roommate years ago who got the genital warts from her cheating boyfriend, the high prevention rate for 90% of genital warts was in and of itself reason enough for me to get my girls signed up for this vaccine.</p>
<p>And let’s be perfectly frank. Most parents find out their kids are ready to become sexually active AFTER they already are. I think it’s taking a big chance to say one will delay the vaccine until the parent believes the kid is close to becoming sexually active. Delay for what purpose?</p>
<p>A few anecdotes (which I know are not data): </p>
<p>*Someone I work with just went through shingles. They are over 50, but said exactly as above “I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy.” She was in constant pain for weeks, and nothing really helped. </p>
<p>*Someone with a friend in a nearby middle school was telling me just the other day about 2 pregnant 14 year olds. If your child is even close to that age, there’s always the chance they’ll be sexually active soon.</p>
<p>*I was born to a mother who was exposed to Rubella when she was pregnant with me. I have hearing loss and needed open-heart surgery to repair a birth defect when I was 3. Another girl with the same problem did not survive surgery. </p>
<p>Vaccines can reduce the sometimes fatal risks of certain illnesses. The link to autism has been disproved. My kids are all completely vaccinated.</p>
<p>I don’t think there was ever a recommendation to get the shingles vaccine at 50. It was originally approved bt the FDA for people aged 60 and up, and recently the approval was changed to 50 and up. The CDC, a separate organization, recommended universal vaccination for adults at 60 and up, and I haven’t heard that they changed that recommendation. The rationale for vaccinating adults at 60 is that both the incidence of shingles and the severity, as well as the risk of persistent pain, go up as you age. And as for Gardasil, the reason the recommendation is to give it to kids at 12 or 13 is to prevent infection – you want to give it before there’s even a chance of kids being sexually active. I’m frankly skeptical of the idea that we will uncover long-term effects from the vaccine. It’s a brief exposure on 3 occasions, not a drug you take every day. The immune response from vaccines occurs shortly after exposure, not years later. It’s not a vaccine that contains live organisms. The only vaccine I can think of that may have a late effect is the chicken pox vaccine. Since it’s a live weakened version of the chicken pox virus, it behaves in the same way as chicken pox, setting up lifelong infection with a resulting risk of developing a mild case of shingles down the roaf. But lest people think that’s a good reason not to give kids e chicken pox vaccine, think again… Wild chicken pox has become much less common, which means that unvaccinated kids are not very likely to get the disease in childhood. The disease can be much more severe, and sometimes dangerous, in adults.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just want to be clear that the Texas mandate and opt out was repealed by the Texas legislature. You may know that, but I wasn’t completely sure based on the way your post was written.</p>
<p>Here in the bible belt, the thinking seems to be that the only acceptable approach to sexuality is abstinence until marriage. This despite the statistics. Furthermore, the thinking seems to be that the risks of STDs, some even life-threatening, are in some way a good thing, because the risk encourages young people to do the right thing. A parent wouldn’t want to reduce the risk of cervical cancer in case their daughter has sex, because their daughter isn’t supposed to have sex, and the risk is extra incentive for her to avoid it.</p>
<p>I heartily disagree and disapprove of this line of thinking (so please don’t tell me the arguments against it. I already agree with you.) However, I think that’s the thinking around here (Georgia) and the other southern states mentioned above.</p>
<p>Oops!</p>
<p>Its Novato. I would not call it wine country, but it is a very nice location. It is in Marin County, as opposed to Sonoma or Napa county.</p>
<p>*Hunt: Just to add on Gardasil–it may protect against some of those other strains as well–it just hasn’t been shown to do so. *</p>
<p>That is a good point.</p>
<p>*Nrdsb4: And let’s be perfectly frank. Most parents find out their kids are ready to become sexually active AFTER they already are. I think it’s taking a big chance to say one will delay the vaccine until the parent believes the kid is close to becoming sexually active. Delay for what purpose? *</p>
<p>Well, not sure if this is directed to me, but as I said previously, if I’m going to do it, I want better coverage if possible. Also, as time passes, we can gather more data on it. I’ve got a little more time to wait and see.</p>
<p>^^^^^^It wasn’t directed any particular person as I didn’t notice who said it and isn’t the first time I’ve read that here.</p>
<p>As to delaying until “better coverage-” with all due respect, that just doesn’t make sense to me. If they are exposed to one of the “75%” of cancer causing organisms, or one of the “90%” of genital warts organisms, there’s no going back. If they increase coverage in the future, you can arm them against those as well later. I have no idea how old your kids are, so this isn’t really a query directed at you specifically. I do reassert, however, that parents who believe their kids are not even close to being sexually active often find out to their horror that they are mistaken.</p>
<p>There is no vaccine which is 100% effective. Do we refuse all vaccines because they don’t have “total coverage?”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How long do you believe it would take a vaccine to get approved for use that would guard against those extra forms of HPV if it were both created and started undergoing clinical trials today?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, if you wait instead of doing it as soon as your kid reaches the high risk age range (puberty until s/he and someone else commit to a mutually monogamous relationship), then s/he may pick up the STD that the current vaccine may prevent while you are waiting for the better vaccine.</p>