HPV/Gardasil vaccine?

[JElaineB]

Here's two studies that the say the vaccine was effective up to 5 and 6 years. So until they have some longer term efficiency studies, than no, I won't be vaxing my 11 year old with Gardasil.


Long-term follow-up observation of the safety, immunogenicity, and effectiveness of Gardasil in adult women.
Vaccination with qHPV vaccine provides generally safe and effective protection from HPV 6-, 11-, 16-, and 18-related genital warts and cervical dysplasia through 6 years following administration to 24-45 year-old women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24391768

Review of Gardasil
Gardasil offers protection against CIN 2+ lesions caused by HPV 16/18 and against genital warts caused by HPV 6/11 for at least 5 years.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690661/

I've seen this too and won't be getting DS (almost 12) vaxed anytime soon. He's physically not close to puberty at this point according to his physician. I may reconsider in a couple of years, but I am undecided.

[crayonblue]

I have a 10 year old daughter and I said no at her last visit. Mainly that was because she was already getting a HepA shot and I didn't want her to have another on the same day. I don't know...maybe?

[marymoo86]

Oh my gosh, no. That is false. That is just patently patently false. It's exactly like chicken pox if you are going to make that comparison from a viral presence perspective. It does NOT "clear up" and disappear from the body. It's forever, and even without active manifestation (I. E., warts), you can infect your partner. And nowhere did I say all infections lead to cancer. I haven't seen anyone say that.

I stated upthread I was wrong as the CDC website only mentioned that it clears naturally. My argument is that this vaccine is seemingly touted to do things that it has not been proven to do. That is all. If I am misreading then I apologize.

[marymoo86]

High amounts?

There is 225mcg of aluminum adjuvant in the vaccine. Safety estimates are 4mcg per kilo per day even lower if there any kidney issues.

[Fairy]

I stated upthread I was wrong as the CDC website only mentioned that it clears naturally. My argument is that this vaccine is seemingly touted to do things that it has not been proven to do. That is all. If I am misreading then I apologize.

I do see that you did that, I was reading and responding in order via phone, sorry about that.

I do think that the word "proof" is being relied on too heavily here. You can't prove alot of things to me, that doesn't mean it's not obviously so. It is a 100% FACT that the vaccine is almost definitely (near 100%) going to protect you from the strains that it says it protects you from. I am not completely sure if it's a 100% FACT that these strains lead to cancer, but I am completely positive that it's pretty obvious TO ME that they CAN and HAVE led to cervical cancer. Not that they always lead to cancer, but that potential is there from them, that potential is really high in my book, and so I'm not playing any Russian roulette.

ETA --> Jeez, that whole paragraph, while technically sound, reads like a whole lotta double talk. What I meant to say is usually if it walk like a duck and talks like a duck, then it's a duck.

[sste]

I am all for research but without even looking at it I must confess our decision was made based on personal experiences. I had a friend with a cancer related to this and also a close family member who has had procedures and is under intensive surveillance. I think HPV is some serious scary sh*te and I do not want to mess with that. We have enough family health issues in our background that we can't prevent so if there is something that can at least help on the prevention end I am all ears. Also, my impression for looking into this for my son is that there is starting to be thinking in the research communities (short of definitive proof) that cancers in men previously not thought to be related to HPV may be in a lot of cases (head, neck,throat). I have my eye on that.

[Kindra178]

There is 225mcg of aluminum adjuvant in the vaccine. Safety estimates are 4mcg per kilo per day even lower if there any kidney issues.

I think the math is still on my side.

[marymoo86]

I think the math is still on my side.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819810/
http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/hea...s/vaccine-faqs
http://m.lup.sagepub.com/content/21/2/118.full
Math matters little when it hasn't been studied for safety.

[HannaAddict]

Absolutely yes. I can't imagine having to explain to my adult daughter facing cervical cancer or warts why I didn't give her the vaccine. I pray that any boy that she will encounter will be vaccinated as well.

Yes. I can't imagine not vaccinating against a type of cancer, yes cancer, and it doesn't promote promiscuity and can't imagine why people who otherwise vaccinate wouldn't. I've had a close family member DIE of cervical cancer and she only had sex with the two men she had been married to and wasn't sexually active (divorced) so not getting regular paps and the symptoms mirror menopause so by the time you go in as something is wrong, it can be too late. This was before the link was actually established, our local hospitals and med school suspected and were working on it, but wasn't a done deal yet. So, yes, yes, my boys and girl will get it.

[calebsmama03]

I think the math is still on my side.

Depends on the size of your kid. My DD is almost 9.5 and only 50lb. In kilos that is 23. 23kilos times 4 micrograms is 92. One dose would be almost 2.5 times the toxic threshold for aluminum in her. Yes, she's a few months off from being "offered" this at her 10 yr (which is when it was "offered" to my DS) but unless she literally doubles her body weight in the next 6 months (or even 2 years!) she will be at a weight where her threshold for aluminum is much lower than what is being pumped into her in one massive dose. And that is assuming she gets zero exposure from other incidental everyday sources. So the math isn't really on your side and I will stand by my original post.

Regardless of the aluminum issue and what you chose to believe, it is clear that for SOME children vaccines set off a chain of reactions within their bodies that can cause serious, long-term effects. Instead of vilifying parents for asking reasonable questions about a vaccine which has not been around long enough to determine its safety and effectiveness over more than a few short years, wouldn't it make sense to start demanding research to determine what it is about the children who DO have reactions that causes them to react when most others are seemingly fine? No, vaccines do not cause serious issues in every child - that is obvious. But they do harm some- why? And how can we prevent that? It makes sense to me to attempt long term studies to try to determine what combinations of factors increase a persons risk of serious reactions so that infants and children can potentially be screened to know before and prevent reactions rather than chalk up the ones who are injured as "win some lose some/good of the many means sacrificing a few". But as long as vaccine makers aren't liable for any injuries they certainly aren't going to pony up the cash for such studies, so parents will continue to question - and for some of is, rightly so.