<p>The vaccine for infants that was removed was for Rotavirus. </p>
<p>Weigh in: ped oncologist here. My D received the vaccine pre-college. Although women may think they will “wait” until they are married to have sex, there is absolutely NO guarantee that their future husbands will have- and they will not have had the vaccine and can carry the virus.</p>
<p>From the above referenced article:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, did all your kids’ pediatricians give you all this information? (and were they paid 4500 a talk like some were to give just the facts which Merck liked?)</p>
<p>Anyway, I’ll just take off my tinfoil hat now and crawl back under my rock. :)</p>
<p>Thanks WWB,</p>
<p>A couple of points - personally, I’m not worried about my D abandoning her values, I’m concerned about the values and honesty of her partner. Also, any virus that is present in 70% of people of a given age - 20-30, roughly, is a little different than syphilis and gonorrhea. That is why there was so much reluctance for so many years to really emphasize the sexually transmitted nature of this. HPV is much more easily transmitted than even other viruses, sometimes you don’t even have to have “true intercourse” - why get into those hair splitting.
Also, I strongly agree that the vaccine should be given at a younger age, the younger the better, and boys should not be exempt. I thought that the age and sex recommendations were related to the amount of vaccine available and the desire to get as many young women protected as possible, and that the age would decrease as more girls are vaccinated. Men certainly can get HPV related diseases and they rarely can be life threatening, they should be vaccinated, but should we wait for increased vaccine supply and let young women die who could have been vaccinated.</p>
<p>As for “experimenting”, I don’t know any hard data about that topic one way or the other, but I didn’t think we ever truly knew how long a vaccine would remain effective until a cohort of vaccinees was 10 plus years out?? I thought all vaccines were testsed by “experiment” in that sense?</p>
<p>Just to be a gadfly, wasn’t the original Lyme disease vaccine for humans found to be ineffective? Aren’t they still working on a new one? Didn’t the chicken pox vaccine later turn out to need a booster? NewMassDad, I am still smarting, and I am not wrong. Just because a vaccine is approved doesn’t mean it is per se good. These are things that should continue to be discussed (even during post approval use)until it is clear what value the vaccine or medicine has.</p>
<p>I read an article in last month’s Reader’s Digest about a man that developed throat cancer that was caused by the same virus that Gardasil protects against. He is a young father and almost died. I would expect that in a few years boys will be getting this vaccine for their own protection.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, cervical cancer may be treatable, but my 31 year old family member had a hysterectomy to “treat” her cancer. She lost the ability to have children and faces a lifetime of hormone treatment. And yes, she had regular pap smears and gyn exams.</p>
<p>Back again. I would not advocate absolute safety on any drug or vaccine prior to use for humans. An aspirin, given to the wrong person can be lethal, or it could save a life by lowering a fever that is too high. All medicine is risk versus benefit. For some the vaccine now may be a lifesaver, but not necessarily for everyone.</p>
<p>“All medicine is risk versus benefit. For some the vaccine now may be a lifesaver, but not necessarily for everyone.”</p>
<p>This is true, but the fallacy is in thinking that you–or your daughter–are the one person who doesn’t have the risk. Rather, each person shares in the collective risk and the collective benefit. As with any vaccine, some people will have negative side effects, but it’s often impossible to predict who they will be. I think, however, that when some people think that Gardasil is “not for them,” they aren’t really making a reasoned risk-benefit analysis.</p>
<p>Believe me, protect her from her partner.
Absolutely.</p>
<p>I think there is a huge difference between a 9 year old and an 18 year old. Apparently the approval for the vaccine begins at age 9. IF this is a vaccine that turns out to need for a booster after lets say 5 years, most 9 year olds will be up to the booster prior to the commencement of sexual relations. Unless you are telling me that most 14 year olds are already sexually active. </p>
<p>I never assume that I or anyone else is the person who doesn’t have the risk. It is a question of timing. Yes, it is possible for a young girl to rashly decide to become sexually active on a moment’s notice, with many unhappy possibilities to follow. As parents we must all be aware of this. I do not think it is like failing to get a polio vaccine or tetanus shot. Some others may think it is. Keep talking, I like hearing other people’s thoughts.</p>
<p>Hmm. I think a significant percentage of 14 year old girls are sexually active–either willingly or unwillingly. Again, if I see evidence of significan side effects from the vaccine I will reconsider my plans to have my daughters immunized, but I would not discount a real risk-- (HPV) out of fear of a hypothetical one-(future vaccine side effects).</p>
<p>Does anyone know, if a young girl or young woman is raped and has not had the vaccine, if the vaccine is administered as part of the medical care following the assault, would the vaccine be effective? just wondering.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t believe you can say this. This has nothing to do with whether your TEENAGER has sex. This serves as protection whether your teenager is the neighborhood skank, or whether she saves herself for the One True Love and marries at age 30 to a man who might have had relationships with as few as one other girl before her. This has nothing to do with teenage sexuality whatsoever.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Young adults Bob and Sue have a serious, multi-year relationship with one another which includes intimacy. Young adults Joe and Cathy have a serious multi-year relationship with one another which includes intimacy. They all break up, and then Bob and Cathy get together, date for a year or two, become intimate and announce their engagement. Are you suggesting that Bob’s and Cathy’s parents didn’t raise them with “good values”? Because I see zero linkage between intimacy in committed relationships among adults and “good values.” Screwing the football team is another story, of course.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you expecting that I should be discussing the virginal / non-virginal status of any partners my young adult daughter might be dating or considering intimacy with? Because I don’t know what you mean by “doubts.” I might have doubts that the guy is a nice guy, for example. I don’t anticipate having “doubts” about his sexual history, because why would his sexual history be any of my business? I can think of few things grosser than my hypothetical college-age or young adult daughter confiding in me that she is going to sleep with her new boyfriend Bob, and/or informing me that Bob is / is not a virgin. Oh wait, I can think of something grosser – my young adult daughter having cervical cancer and potential serious health problems because I couldn’t be bothered ensuring she got a vaccine.</p>
<p>“The last aspect of the Gardasil recommendation that bothers me is that it makes the grand assumption that our daughter is going to have sex with someone (who isn’t a virgin) who previously had sex with someone else (who wasn’t a virgin); thereby, causing our daughter to contract HPV.” </p>
<p>No, it does not make a grand assumption at all. It makes the very likely assumption that your daughter will eventually have sex with someone who is probably not a virgin, thereby causing the POSSIBILITY that your daughter COULD contract HPV.</p>
<p>“This recommendation makes an assumption about what values you brought your daughter up with;” </p>
<p>It makes no such assumption about the values with which you brought up your daughter! How does the possibility of a future sex partner giving your daughter HPV reflect on any of your values? She could be a virgin marrying a non-virgin who proceeds to infect her. She could have parroted your values like a robot and still end up infected if her future husband has had sex even one time prior to his marriage.</p>
<p>“it assumes that you don’t have an open and candid relationship with your daughter; and it assumes that she will do whatever she wants regardless of what you recommend.”</p>
<p>This is so beyond naive. I don’t care how candid we believe our relationships with our children are, children rarely share ANY (much less all) of the details of their sex lives with their parents. Anyone who believes their child tells them “everything” is not thinking very realistically. Did you tell your parents all about your first sexual experience? Did you tell your parents about any of your sexual experiences? Probably not. Being candid and open with one’s parents often means one thing to the parent and quite another thing altogether for the child.</p>
<p>“Because, let’s face it, if the previous assumptions are not true, then there is no reason for you to worry about your daughter contracting a sexually transmitted disease – unless you gave her reason that it is ok to have sex as a teenager.”</p>
<p>I find it interesting that we all admit that most young adults are sexually active, yet we cling so tight to the notion that our own children will somehow remain untouched until their wedding nights if we insist that it is not okay to have sex before a given time. How many of us were virgins of the marriage bed? Some surely are, but they are in a very very small minority in our society. This refusal of parents to plan for the possible contributes to sad realities of unplanned pregnancies and std’s.</p>
<p>When it comes to sex, our children usually do end up doing what they want whether it is what you as a parent would “recommend.” It’ called making their own choices (and mistakes), not utter adherence to “recommendations” from parents who probably didn’t follow all of the recommendations of their own parents either. </p>
<p>I find it interesting that when it comes to protecting our children from disease,many of us will do anything at all to protect them, unless it has something to do with sex, and then the blinders come on.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl–Although I agree with all of your fundamental points-- I don’t think the characterization of “couldn’t be bothered ensuring she got a vaccine” is fair. I think many parents have a fear that providing information about birth control or protection against pregnancy or disease is a tacit “approval” of sexual activity.<br>
I think this notion is misguided, both because information doesn’t equal aproval, that is – (putting on a seat belt doesn’t mean I aprove of automobile accidents) and because I am unaware of any child on the planet who doesn not, at least occassionally, go against parental recommendations and values to make decisions that the parents don’t aprove of.</p>
<p>I spoke with a friend who is a gynecological oncologist with a major teaching hospital in one of the world’s largest medical centers, with two teenagers… a boy and a girl. She tried to get them both in on the trials for this vaccine, but couldn’t because they weren’t of age.</p>
<p>She said that one of her tasks this summer was to get BOTH kids started on the vaccine. She is adamant that boys must be given this vaccine, too. I agree completely and wonder if the issue is not necessarily a production problem that there isn’t enough of it out there to offer both genders at this point. I do know that when I scheduled my daughters for it, the doctor’s office needed a few days notice to order it, as it’s in very high demand.</p>
<p>My 14 year old daughter got it last year. A series of 3 shots. Absolutely no side affects. Most insurance companies pay for it.</p>
<p>Very interesting discussion and timely for me and my D who will be going off to college in the next two weeks. We just visited the gynecologist today and she recommended the vaccine for my D, aged 18, who is not sexually active. She gave a pamphlet of information but did not really describe any pros or cons of the vaccine. She presented it as an absolutely wonderful medical breakthrough with no major risks- as she put it, this vaccine will ultimately eradicate cervical cancer. From what I’m reading here, that overstates it somewhat. </p>
<p>Discussion of the vaccine with the doctor was helpful, however, because it led the doctor to discuss various STD’s and their means of transmission- information I previously reviewed with my D, but which took on even greater import when delivered by an MD.</p>