cervical cancer vaccination?

[Mom to Brandon and 2 cats]

Anybody's ped doing this? Mine is talking about maybe in a few years also vaccinating the boys!

Any thoughts?

[AnnieW625]

I will be doing it for DDs when it's time. We have Kaiser so I am sure the peds are well versed in things like this. Here in CA there are ads on tv for vaccinating boys too and they say it helps oys wth STDs.

[pinkmomagain]

Well my oldest dd get the vaccine. My ped recommended it and said he vaccinated his own dd...I do trust him so went ahead with it. I anticipate doing it for the other two at the appropriate age.

[egoldber]

When are most peds doing this? I am wondering if I should start doing research before older DD's 9 year check up.

[SunCB]

Not doing it to myself so I certainly would not have it done to my children. Now, if my kids research and discuss with me when they are older at that time s/he may have it done or they can wait until they are 18 and get it on their own.

[Moneypenny]

When are most peds doing this? I am wondering if I should start doing research before older DD's 9 year check up.

My ped said they will do it at 11 (which gives me 5 years to figure out if I will do it or not, lol!).

[SnuggleBuggles]

I don't really want to be part of the 1st generation to be doing it. I just don't feel comfortable about it all.

Beth

[Melaine]

I agree with Beth, don't want to get any new vaccines that haven't been around for long. We didn't get H1N1 shots either.
But I'm also in the conservative Christian group that won't be giving my children vaccines for something that can be avoided through abstinence.

[JBaxter]

My boys will not be getting it. Just like any vaccine there are some CRAZY side affects being reported like Guillain–Barré syndrome

[sste]

I can see waiting until 6th grade or so if you want more info on the vaccine/safety/etc. But, personally I will vaccinate everyone in our house who can be vaccinated for this - - I have been meaning to ask my OB about vaccinating myself.

I can't tell you the number of friends and relatives we have whose health, fertility etc has been affected by hpv. And those are only the people who know they have it AND decided to tell me.

As I understand it, you can contract hpv WITHOUT sexual intercourse. So, even if you believe your children will follow a policy of abstinence (and I note here that retrospective studies of the PURITANS show an incredibly high out of wedlock birth rate), they can still contract hpv!!

[AngelaS]

My oldest is 12 and we're not planning to get it.

[himom]

As I understand it, you can contract hpv WITHOUT sexual intercourse. So, even if you believe your children will follow a policy of abstinence (and I note here that retrospective studies of the PURITANS show an incredibly high out of wedlock birth rate), they can still contract hpv!!

Per the CDC:

How do people get HPV?

HPV is passed on through genital contact, most often during vaginal and anal sex. HPV may also be passed on during oral sex and genital-to-genital contact. HPV can be passed on between straight and same-sex partners—even when the infected partner has no signs or symptoms.

A person can have HPV even if years have passed since he or she had sexual contact with an infected person. Most infected persons do not realize they are infected or that they are passing the virus on to a sex partner. It is also possible to get more than one type of HPV.

Very rarely, a pregnant woman with genital HPV can pass HPV to her baby during delivery. In these cases, the child can develop Juvenile-Onset Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis (JORRP).

Lots of other good info on this site. cdc.gov/hpv

And, on another note -- I'm not sure anyone here is a Puritan and thus wouldn't fall into that particular data group. :bouncy:

[megs4413]

well we're delayed/selective vaxers so, yeah...

I won't be getting it for my kids automatically. if either of them expresses interest (when they get to be the age to be making some of their health care choices themselves), then we will weight out the risk/benefit ratio at that point.

for me, the risks of this particular vaccine outweight the supposed "benefits". HPV can be prevented by less risky means such as abstinence and practicing safe sex...and even if it is not avoided, complications like cervical cancer are rare, deaths from cervical caner are even rarer when appropriate screenings are done...so...yeah...i don't really get the "need" for the vax that carries real, documented risks.

[daisymommy]

Yeah, it only protects against 4 of the 130 different strains of HPV...and all 4 of them are the STD variety. That's the only way you're going to get them.

I watched a documentary type show with that famous sex Dr. you've probably seen on oprah, and even she said that if she had daughters she would NOT give it to them. She said it just had too many side effects, was too new and untested, and it wasn't worth the risk for the measly 4 strains that it protects against. Her stance was it is much better to teach our daughters to insist upon their partners using a condom. Hopefully if you're married you don't have to worry about getting the vaccine...

[Kindra178]

My boys are too little, but when they are old enough . . . absolutely. Condoms do not protect against hpv (or herpes) because you get it from contact, not intercourse. So there are many virgins that have hpv.

[shawnandangel]

I agree with Beth, don't want to get any new vaccines that haven't been around for long. . . . But I'm also in the conservative Christian group that won't be giving my children vaccines for something that can be avoided through abstinence.

:yeahthat: Don't have more to add really, Melaine said it all.

[Krisrich]

The problem is that condoms are only about 70% effective at preventing transmission of HPV, at best. So, even if one practices safe sex all the time, you can contract HPV- one of the most common STDs out there. And while it is true that it is rare for an American woman to die of cervical cancer, thanks to the advent of the pap smear, many women do suffer through procedures to remove part of their cervix to prevent the spread of the cancer. This greatly increases the chance of premature birth.

[wellyes]

Yeah, it only protects against 4 of the 130 different strains of HPV...and all 4 of them are the STD variety. That's the only way you're going to get them.

The purpose is not to protect against HPV. The purpose is to move towards a world without cervical cancer. Two of the strains it protects against are responsible for 70% of cervical cancers.

I absolutely plan on getting it for DD when she's older. I plan to teach her to be responsible, but if I fail at that - or she does - the consequence shouldn't be preventable cancer risk.

[DrSally]

I'm very cautious about vaccines, and DD is on a delayed schedule. That said, one of my fellow grad students in her 20's had a horrible, recurring case of cervical cancer--devastating. From what I understand, *so* many people carry sexually transmitted varieties of HPV, and many don't even know it. I think given modern life, it would be very easy to get it, even being conservative and careful, since so many people have it. IDK, I will struggle with this for DD.

[egoldber]

Well, I don't assume that my DDs will be abstinent until marriage. And even then, they can contract HPV from their partner if they have it.

I do worry about the safety, which is why I want to do research.

[noodle]

Our ped will do it at 11, too. We were offered the vaccine for DS last month, but decided to wait a couple of years.

[StantonHyde]

I will vax both kids. I am an outreach speaker for PLanned Parenthood. Cervical Cancer is a horrible disease and if there is something that can help prevent it, then I am all for it!! HPV hangs around for years--you never know what someone did years ago. I will do whatever I can to give my kids a safety back up plan!!

[Tracey]

I'll revisit this question when DD is 11 or 12. I am leaning towards yes, but am worried about side effects. It is my understanding that skin to skin contact (like third base) and possibly even open mouthed kissing can transmit HPV. Even if my DD were a virgin when she marries, I do hope she as been kissed. I don't believe that giving the vax condones promiscuity, so my concerns are on the health side of the argument. Hopefully there will be more information down the road and we can weight the risks and benefits with our ped.

[purpleeyes]

The purpose is not to protect against HPV. The purpose is to move towards a world without cervical cancer. Two of the strains it protects against are responsible for 70% of cervical cancers.

I absolutely plan on getting it for DD when she's older. I plan to teach her to be responsible, but if I fail at that - or she does - the consequence shouldn't be preventable cancer risk.

:yeahthat:!! Well said.

[spanannie]

I agree with Beth, don't want to get any new vaccines that haven't been around for long. We didn't get H1N1 shots either.
But I'm also in the conservative Christian group that won't be giving my children vaccines for something that can be avoided through abstinence.

Not sure if/when I'll get the vax for my kids, but just because your child is abstinent doesn't mean that their future partner also saved themselves for marriage. HPV doesn't necessarily present symptoms in men, so one could potentially get it from their one and only partner/husband, without them even knowing they had the virus. Just another way of looking at it . . .

[bubbaray]

Leaning towards the vax, will see how it goes. Its on the schedule for Grade 6 here, but lots of controversy. If my dr recommends it then, we'll do it. They have all their other vaxs. I will probably do Menactra too, but that's a different issue.

[AshleyAnn]

DD will be getting it when she's old enough. I don't know current stats around me as I don't have friends with middle school age kids but its quite popular with my single adult friends. Considering my area I doubt its a shot given to most middle schoolers or even high schoolers unless the girls themselves request it.

[gatorsmom]

Well, I'm pretty conservative and only had one sexual partner before I met my now DH. But DH had it and passed it on to me. So the abstinence thing to prevent HPV is a great plan IF both partners are practicing the same plan and have been abstinent their whole life!

I do plan on talking to DD about it and maybe even DSs (didn't know the boys could get the vax so I didnt give it much thought) when they get older. I think it's a great idea, though. I woudlnt' do it now because like pps I'm a little concerned about the first generation vaxes. But, hopefully in 10 years any wrinkles will be ironed out.

[Fairy]

Most definitely DS will get it when he's whatever age he's supposed to get it, eleven, I suppose. I don't have any delusions that I'll be able to keep my child abstinent or even at the strict practice of holding hands. All I can do is educate him as to what his choices are and why some are better while others are downright dangerous. Not just physically, but emotionally. He's a smart cookie, my DS, and I know he's going to understand what these choices are going to mean, there's no question about that. But he's also very clever and knows what he wants, so I also know that I can't count on him weighing his risks and moving on forward. Ya know, I hope not, but I don't know. And worse, I can't control whom with. So gay or straight, virginal or not, whatever the case may be, I want him protected (and thus protecting others). He'll get the vax.

[Melaine]

Not sure if/when I'll get the vax for my kids, but just because your child is abstinent doesn't mean that their future partner also saved themselves for marriage. HPV doesn't necessarily present symptoms in men, so one could potentially get it from their one and only partner/husband, without them even knowing they had the virus. Just another way of looking at it . . .

Sure, they can get it when they turn 18 if they choose to. No problem.

[WolfpackMom]

[QUOTE=wellyes;2771717]The purpose is not to protect against HPV. The purpose is to move towards a world without cervical cancer. Two of the strains it protects against are responsible for 70% of cervical cancers.
[QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Fairy;2772125]Most definitely DS will get it when he's whatever age he's supposed to get it, eleven, I suppose. I don't have any delusions that I'll be able to keep my child abstinent or even at the strict practice of holding hands. All I can do is educate him as to what his choices are and why some are better while others are downright dangerous. Not just physically, but emotionally.[QUOTE]

:yeahthat: DS and any future DCs will definitely get the vaccine. I know more than a few friends affected by HPV and its worth doing what one can to prevent it. The vast majority of individuals with HPV don't even know they have it.

[lizzywednesday]

Yeah, it only protects against 4 of the 130 different strains of HPV...and all 4 of them are the STD variety. That's the only way you're going to get them.

I watched a documentary type show with that famous sex Dr. you've probably seen on oprah, and even she said that if she had daughters she would NOT give it to them. She said it just had too many side effects, was too new and untested, and it wasn't worth the risk for the measly 4 strains that it protects against. Her stance was it is much better to teach our daughters to insist upon their partners using a condom. Hopefully if you're married you don't have to worry about getting the vaccine...

Who? Dr. Ruth? I love her.

To the part of your post I bolded, well, there's actually an "age window" for getting the vax. The idea is to catch kids before they start experimenting with risk behaviors. It's not like you "need" the vax, and if you're over a certain age your insurance actually won't pay for it. Also, if you've tested positive for HPV, you cannot be vaccinated as the vax will exacerbate your HPV.

Vaxing boys has been discussed.

I am on the fence about the vax primarily because I don't like the idea that it's only going to girls. IMO, that's gender discrimination!!!

The fact that it carries with it several serious risks also terrifies me. I think I'll wait for either proof of effectiveness or school admission (and not permitting philosophical/religious objection; my SIL told me that the chicken pox vax can't be skipped on religious/philosophical grounds and I think that's ridiculous) requirements.

[daisymommy]

Dr. Laura Berman
http://www.drlauraberman.com/public/index.aspx

What I meant about hopefully not needing the vax., I was implying that if you're married, *hopefully* you know if your DH has the STD, and if he doesn't, then why would you need to be protected from it, being that you are in a monogamous relationship?

Yes, we are in the end trying to eradicate cervical cancer, but through the means of avoiding the STD of HPV. If you don't get STD, then you don't get the cervical cancer that we are trying to avoid.

And that is not true that you can't avoid the chicken pox vax. based on religious or philosophical exemption. I know this from personal experience, and our family's vax. status. It covers ALL vaccines, not just some.

[egoldber]

I think the problem with HPV is that you can be a carrier without having symptoms and can pass the virus to someone even if you don't know you have it. So a wife can get it from her husband and he may not know he has it. As gatorsmom mentioned above.


How do people get HPV?

HPV is passed on through genital contact, most often during vaginal and anal sex. HPV may also be passed on during oral sex and genital-to-genital contact. HPV can be passed on between straight and same-sex partners—even when the infected partner has no signs or symptoms.

But it isn't a risk free vax. None are of course, but perhaps this one more than most. But knowing what even middle school kids are doing these days really gives me pause about waiting on it.

[KrisM]

The fact that it carries with it several serious risks also terrifies me. I think I'll wait for either proof of effectiveness or school admission (and not permitting philosophical/religious objection; my SIL told me that the chicken pox vax can't be skipped on religious/philosophical grounds and I think that's ridiculous) requirements.

I'm not in NJ, but I don't think your SIL is right. In Michigan, our form allows for an exemption from any of the vax for either religious or personal reasons. I think all 50 states have a religious exemption for all vax.

[lizzywednesday]

I'm not in NJ, but I don't think your SIL is right. In Michigan, our form allows for an exemption from any of the vax for either religious or personal reasons. I think all 50 states have a religious exemption for all vax.

I'm inclined to agree, but NJ is getting weird.

[boolady]

It doesn't look like NJ has excluded the varicella vaccine from its religious exemption policy:

http://www.state.nj.us/health/cd/chap14.htm

[egoldber]

They may not allow a philosophical exemption, but they have to have a religious one. They may make it non-obvious or hard to get.

[o_mom]

I'm not in NJ, but I don't think your SIL is right. In Michigan, our form allows for an exemption from any of the vax for either religious or personal reasons. I think all 50 states have a religious exemption for all vax.

West Virginia and Mississippi do not allow any religious or phil. exemptions. Only medical.

[KrisM]

West Virginia and Mississippi do not allow any religious or phil. exemptions. Only medical.

I didn't know that.

[noodle]

Vaxing boys has been discussed.

I am on the fence about the vax primarily because I don't like the idea that it's only going to girls. IMO, that's gender discrimination!!!



Our ped offered it to my DS at 11. We opted to wait until 12 as he was getting another vaccine at that appointment, and we try to do them one at a time.

[JBaxter]

Im only sharing this because a friend just posted it on her facebook page. I just found it interesting because I was just reading this thread

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/691557/gardasil_vaccine_injuries.html?cat=5

Based on VAERS, (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System), as of March 28, 2008, there were 7,379 reported adverse incidents, 124 disabled, and 13 deaths. Here is the scary part, it is estimated that only 1% to 10% of medical professionals report these incents to VAERS for numerous reasons. Many feel Gardasil vaccine injury is psychosematic reactions, many say the reactions are normal and not to be worried about, and the majority deny that the incident had anything to do with the vaccines. For instance, many girls have died from blood clotting within hours of receiving this vaccine, but they are dismissed as coincidental. If every doctor reported every reaction as they are supposed to, then we could get real figures, and girls all dying shortly after a vaccine with blood clotting or heart failure, suddenly would not appear so coincidental. Many of the reported reactions include paralysis, Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and seizures.

[wellyes]

Don't trust Associated Content - DH's 22 year old cousin worked for them - they publish anyone, absolutely no fact checking of any kind, including utterly made up stuff - the more salacious the better. AC's only purpose is to get it's articles high up on search engine results for profit.

[swissair81]

Not planning on it.

[MontrealMum]

What I meant about hopefully not needing the vax., I was implying that if you're married, *hopefully* you know if your DH has the STD, and if he doesn't, then why would you need to be protected from it, being that you are in a monogamous relationship?



I'm like Lisa (Gatorsmom). I've only ever had one partner, and I have HPV. I got it from my husband who never had any idea that he had it. Whatismore, we never had unprotected sex until we started trying to conceive - so yes, I got it while using a condom.

I worry over every Pap test. There's a reason they call cervical cancer the "silent killer". It's one of the few cancers that doesn't cause noticible symptoms until it's quite advanced.

I don't know if we'll give the vax to DS yet or not. AFAIK it's not being offered to boys in QC at this point, but I'll certainly be watching. The idea of side effects worry me, but I also have some hope that things will be more ironed out by the time DS is closer to the age to receive it.

[daisymommy]

You can go straight to the VAERS website (which is set up by the CDC) and read it for yourself. It's all there.

http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index

And Lisa and MontrealMom, I'm sorry. I hadn't thought of scenarios like that playing out. I'm amazed that someone could carry it and not know, and pass it on to their spouse. That truely is sad. I would SO TICKED! (to say the least).

[gatorsmom]

You can go straight to the VAERS website (which is set up by the CDC) and read it for yourself. It's all there.

http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index

And Lisa and MontrealMom, I'm sorry. I hadn't thought of scenarios like that playing out. I'm amazed that someone could carry it and not know, and pass it on to their spouse. That truely is sad. I would SO TICKED! (to say the least).

Yeah, he was my second and we were engaged. He had no idea until I had an abnormal pap smear. The thing is, even if we HAD known before we became sexually active that he had it, would we have then started using condoms for everytime we had sex to prevent getting the HPV? Would I just not marry him? And even if we did use condoms, how then do I get pregnant and not get HPV? This is why I think the vax is so important. If the issues and problems with the vax can be fixed so that it is safe, I think it could really help reduce that type of cancer. Trust me, there is nothing scarier than hearing you have an abnormal pap smear that needs to be biopsied at the age of 26.

[MontrealMum]

If the issues and problems with the vax can be fixed so that it is safe, I think it could really help reduce that type of cancer. Trust me, there is nothing scarier than hearing you have an abnormal pap smear that needs to be biopsied at the age of 26.

:yeahthat: I'm with Lisa on this one. When I was diagnosed, also at 26, I was told that 75% of the American population had HPV. That's a huge number. Many never show any outward symptoms. I never have. I thought I was protecting myself from STDs (by asking my partner, and by using a condom) - and I still got one.

It's not like asking people if they've been tested for AIDS before having sex, lots of people just don't know, and that's one of the reasons it's spreading. There is no cure, so as Lisa points out, if you want to get pregnant, and your partner has it, you're then exposing yourself to it. I just think that if a vax that's safer can be formulated, there's no need for this to keep spreading.

[♥ms.pacman♥]

The purpose is not to protect against HPV. The purpose is to move towards a world without cervical cancer. Two of the strains it protects against are responsible for 70% of cervical cancers.

I absolutely plan on getting it for DD when she's older. I plan to teach her to be responsible, but if I fail at that - or she does - the consequence shouldn't be preventable cancer risk.

:yeahthat:

i don't have a daughter but if i did, i probably get the vaccine if i felt it was safe and it would prevent her getting the disease. only reason i wouldn't do it is if there was high risk of serious side effects. i dont believe that taking steps to protect her against a serious STD will make her all the sudden feel like she has a license to be promiscuous or something. i'm Catholic but for me, having a daughter who ends up having sex in her teen years is a much more acceptable consequence for me that having her contract a deadly disease that could have been easily prevented.

[Fairy]

:yeahthat: I'm with Lisa on this one. When I was diagnosed, also at 26, I was told that 75% of the American population had HPV. That's a huge number. Many never show any outward symptoms. I never have. I thought I was protecting myself from STDs (by asking my partner, and by using a condom) - and I still got one.

It's not like asking people if they've been tested for AIDS before having sex, lots of people just don't know, and that's one of the reasons it's spreading. There is no cure, so as Lisa points out, if you want to get pregnant, and your partner has it, you're then exposing yourself to it. I just think that if a vax that's safer can be formulated, there's no need for this to keep spreading.

I'll :yeahthat: to that, too. Also, I think in many cases, there's really no one to be ticked at. Condoms aren't effective at preventing HPV, and so even the most careful of couples can contract it, and/or spread it to future careful couplings. It's just something that is not preventable right now, even if you're a virgin. Whcih is why this vax is terribly important.

I also don't trust Associated Content.

[essnce629]

We don't vax so, no, I wouldn't be getting this for my kids.

But, two of the concerns I have with this vax and that Merk has as well and will be following over the next 14 years (says in the package insert) is (1) the long-term effectiveness of the vaccine and (2) whether administration of the vax will result in replacement of these diseases due to vaccine HPV types with diseases due to non-vaccine HPV types. #2 has already happened with previous vaccines, most notably the Prevnar vaccine. The first Prevnar vaccine decreased pneumococcal disease caused by the 7 bacteria that the vaccine covered, but once those bacteria were wiped out, other bacteria, not covered by the vaccine, took their place and continued to cause pneumococcal disease. Therefore they had to create a new vaccine-- Prevnar 13-- which included an additional 6 bacteria strains that had become prevalent. And what happens when other bacteria fill the niche that the vaccine has wiped out? Prevnar 22? This is the concern with Gardasil as well. Yes, it may decrease the rate of infection by the two HPV strains that cause cervical cancer, but when those two strains are no longer around, what if another two strains take their place and start causing cervical cancer as well? In this case, infections with the HPV viruses included in the vaccine would decrease, but the rate of cervical cancer would stay the same. This is a big problem.

And hasn't it already been said that the Gardisal vaccine isn't very effective long term? I've read in several places that they are learning that it is only effective for 5 years. So you get your 11 year old kids the vax and by the time they are 16 years old (the average age kids start becoming sexually active), it's already worn off, leaving them vunerable. So would they need booster shots every 5 years? And what risks would that entail?


The length of vaccine protection (immunity) is unknown; so far, vaccinated persons are protected for five years. Research is ongoing to determine the length of immunity and if a booster dose will be needed..... Consistent condom use is an important component in the prevention of HPV and other sexually transmitted infections. A recent study demonstrated a 70% reduction in HPV infection among participants who used condoms consistently.
http://uhs.berkeley.edu/home/healthtopics/hpv.shtml


Middle-school girls inoculated with the breakthrough vaccine will be no older than 18 when they pass Gardasil's five-year window of proven effectiveness -- more than a decade before the typical cancer patient contracts the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV). Infectious disease specialists and cancer pathologists say the incubation period for HPV becoming cancer is 10 to 15 years -- meaning the average cervical cancer patient, who is 47, contracted the virus in her 30s and would not be protected by Gardasil taken as a teen

Dr. Mona Saraiya, a medical epidemiologist in the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control at the CDC, says nearly all sexually active woman are exposed to HPV. "However, only a few will get an infection that stays and won't go away, and only a portion of those will get a precancerous lesion. At that point, only a few will eventually develop cervical cancer," Dr. Saraiya said. Fewer than one-hundredth of 1 percent of the 108 million U.S. women older than 18 (0.009 percent) get cervical cancer and even fewer die from it. There were an estimated 9,700 new cervical cancer cases and 3,700 fatalities in 2006, according to the American Cancer Society.

Dr. Clayton Young, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Texas, is concerned that Gardasil will actually strengthen cancer-causing strains of HPV. "My concern is that we are pushing ourselves into something worse than we already have," Dr. Young said. "Vaccinating for only two strains may lead to an increase in infection with other and possibly more aggressive strains."

"The number one problem with the vaccine is that it has not been tested adequately on the group that is recommended to get it," said Dr. Joseph DeSoto, a fellow in the American Institute of Chemists and a physician-scientist at the National Institutes of Health. Because most 9-year-old girls are not sexually active, it is not possible to test the effectiveness of Gardasil against cervical cancer, Mr. Haupt said. Instead, the clinical trials measured antibody responses against HPV as a proxy for cervical cancer.
Merck conducted two clinical trials that involved 1,121 girls ages 9 to 15, according to Merck's labeling documents for Gardasil. "The clinical trials tested younger girls, but they only looked at immune response to the vaccine, not whether it prevented cervical cancer," Dr. Young said. "It has not been studied long enough to know that it prevents cervical cancer."
http://www.cogforlife.org/hpvwrongage.htm


So those are my issues with this vaccine that need to be addressed, but will take several years to do so.

[gatorsmom]

We don't vax so, no, I wouldn't be getting this for my kids.

But, two of the concerns I have with this vax and that Merk has as well and will be following over the next 14 years (says in the package insert) is (1) the long-term effectiveness of the vaccine and (2) whether administration of the vax will result in replacement of these diseases due to vaccine HPV types with diseases due to non-vaccine HPV types. #2 has already happened with previous vaccines, most notably the Prevnar vaccine. The first Prevnar vaccine decreased pneumococcal disease caused by the 7 bacteria that the vaccine covered, but once those bacteria were wiped out, other bacteria, not covered by the vaccine, took their place and continued to cause pneumococcal disease. Therefore they had to create a new vaccine-- Prevnar 13-- which included an additional 6 bacteria strains that had become prevalent. And what happens when other bacteria fill the niche that the vaccine has wiped out? Prevnar 22? This is the concern with Gardasil as well. Yes, it may decrease the rate of infection by the two HPV strains that cause cervical cancer, but when those two strains are no longer around, what if another two strains take their place and start causing cervical cancer as well? In this case, infections with the HPV viruses included in the vaccine would decrease, but the rate of cervical cancer would stay the same. This is a big problem.

And hasn't it already been said that the Gardisal vaccine isn't very effective long term? I've read in several places that they are learning that it is only effective for 5 years. So you get your 11 year old kids the vax and by the time they are 16 years old (the average age kids start becoming sexually active), it's already worn off, leaving them vunerable. So would they need booster shots every 5 years? And what risks would that entail?


The length of vaccine protection (immunity) is unknown; so far, vaccinated persons are protected for five years. Research is ongoing to determine the length of immunity and if a booster dose will be needed..... Consistent condom use is an important component in the prevention of HPV and other sexually transmitted infections. A recent study demonstrated a 70% reduction in HPV infection among participants who used condoms consistently.
http://uhs.berkeley.edu/home/healthtopics/hpv.shtml


Middle-school girls inoculated with the breakthrough vaccine will be no older than 18 when they pass Gardasil's five-year window of proven effectiveness -- more than a decade before the typical cancer patient contracts the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV). Infectious disease specialists and cancer pathologists say the incubation period for HPV becoming cancer is 10 to 15 years -- meaning the average cervical cancer patient, who is 47, contracted the virus in her 30s and would not be protected by Gardasil taken as a teen

Dr. Mona Saraiya, a medical epidemiologist in the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control at the CDC, says nearly all sexually active woman are exposed to HPV. "However, only a few will get an infection that stays and won't go away, and only a portion of those will get a precancerous lesion. At that point, only a few will eventually develop cervical cancer," Dr. Saraiya said. Fewer than one-hundredth of 1 percent of the 108 million U.S. women older than 18 (0.009 percent) get cervical cancer and even fewer die from it. There were an estimated 9,700 new cervical cancer cases and 3,700 fatalities in 2006, according to the American Cancer Society.

Dr. Clayton Young, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Texas, is concerned that Gardasil will actually strengthen cancer-causing strains of HPV. "My concern is that we are pushing ourselves into something worse than we already have," Dr. Young said. "Vaccinating for only two strains may lead to an increase in infection with other and possibly more aggressive strains."

"The number one problem with the vaccine is that it has not been tested adequately on the group that is recommended to get it," said Dr. Joseph DeSoto, a fellow in the American Institute of Chemists and a physician-scientist at the National Institutes of Health. Because most 9-year-old girls are not sexually active, it is not possible to test the effectiveness of Gardasil against cervical cancer, Mr. Haupt said. Instead, the clinical trials measured antibody responses against HPV as a proxy for cervical cancer.
Merck conducted two clinical trials that involved 1,121 girls ages 9 to 15, according to Merck's labeling documents for Gardasil. "The clinical trials tested younger girls, but they only looked at immune response to the vaccine, not whether it prevented cervical cancer," Dr. Young said. "It has not been studied long enough to know that it prevents cervical cancer."
http://www.cogforlife.org/hpvwrongage.htm


So those are my issues with this vaccine that need to be addressed, but will take several years to do so.

This is good stuff to know and exactly the kinds of concerns that would prevent me from giving a hearty thumbs up this vaccine. If the vaccine is safe I'M ALL FOR IT. But I'm not going to give my kids an unsafe medication.

[Fairy]

Here's a graphic reason why I will absolutely without question be vaxing and would hope to God that any girl DS ends up marrying is equally vaxed, including if that means boosters, as many vaxes require now and are just part of the deal.

Imagine going thru the rest of your life as a relatively young person in your 50's with no vagina, no anus, peeing and pooping thru your belly, and no chance at sex. Ever. That's what HPV did to a member of my immediate family. HPV Anal cancer (like Farah's) required substantial chemo and radiation that didn't prevent recurrence, cervical, and radiation burning a hole the size of paris in her vaginal wall. Now she looks like a barbie doll, literally, no orifice to speak of below her belly button other than a colostomy bag where her urethra has also been routed, and her entire life is never going to be the same. She got it from her husband. Who had no clue.

Nothing is perfect in this whole world. Vaxes aren't perfect. We're all gonna die of soemthin' if a bus doesn't hit us first. But vaxing DS now (boostering him later, if that's even accurate, whatever is needed) will prevent him from contracting HPV and spreading it to his wife, who will then not contract cervical cancer and die leaving him with kids as a single father. Extreme? Sure. But I am thinking long haul here. There's a REASON we don't have smallpox or polio anymore. There's a REASON whooping cough happens in outbreaks.

I'm vaxing DS.

[wellyes]

I didn't see anything in that post indicating the vaccine was unsafe. Possibly not as effective long term as hoped; and widespread use could theoretically have the unintended consequence of encouraging new disease strains. True of any relatively new med. To me and to the CDC its promise outweighs those concerns.

[essnce629]

"The clinical trials tested younger girls, but they only looked at immune response to the vaccine, not whether it prevented cervical cancer," Dr. Young said. "It has not been studied long enough to know that it prevents cervical cancer." [/i]
http://www.cogforlife.org/hpvwrongage.htm

But if the point of the vaccine is to prevent cervical cancer, wouldn't you want to know that the vaccine actually does this before getting the vax for your kids? As of right now, it seems like there haven't actually been any studies yet to see if it actually prevents cervical cancer, just that it creates an immune response.

[Fairy]

But if the point of the vaccine is to prevent cervical cancer, wouldn't you want to know that the vaccine actually does this before getting the vax for your kids? As of right now, it seems like there haven't actually been any studies yet to see if it actually prevents cervical cancer, just that it creates an immune response.

Respectfully, you got this from the Washington Times, and I don't trust really anything printed in that publication. It's also a three and a half year-old article.

Also, you say it seems like there haven't actually been any studies yet to see if it actually prevents cervical cancer, just that it creates an immune response. For me, this is splitting hairs. If you're body's reaction is immunity to HPV's cervical cancer, then it prevents HPV cervical cancer.

The point of Guardasil is not to begin prevention during the time girls start sexual activity, which happens to often be alot younger than we care to think about. If that means a booster thru our lifetimes, if that's even necessary, which isn't at all clearly indicated in this old article, then for me? So be it.

[bubbaray]

I know this is an unpopular position, but I actually *do* trust the gov't here to make educated decisions about what vax's to put on the schedule here. They have a vested financial interest in only putting on vax's with proven efficacy (ie., why would they pay for children to receive a free vax if it doesn't work). This is JMHO, but I put zero stock in what the anti-vax camp says about vaxes in general. I am definitely in the pro-vax camp and unscientific publications will do nothing to sway me from that. Everyone makes their own choices as a parent and this is one I feel strongly about.

At this point, we plan on doing all scheduled vax's for the girls, including this one. My only hesitation is if the schedule is changed for some reason, would I pay OOP for it? Not sure. Like I said earlier, I have no problem paying OOP for Menactra and likely would for this too.

[essnce629]

There's a REASON whooping cough happens in outbreaks.


Pertussis/whooping cough is a cyclical disease that peaks every 3-5 years. The "epidemic" in California right now is actually just a natural peak as it's been 5 years since the last pertussis peak. The reason pertussis is on the rise, despite high vaccination rates in children, is that teenagers and adults (whose DTaP vaccine has worn off most likely) are passing pertussis on to children, unknowingly, since pertussis in teens and adults is usually rather mild and most don't know they have it. Most teenagers and adults are not getting pertussis boosters and even though the pertussis vaccine is available for this age group, it is not known if it actually prevents transmission. So even though they themselves are not getting sick, the teens and adults who do get the vaccine, may still be able to pass pertussis on to those around them. You can still be a carrier of the bacteria, you will just be asymptomatic. This makes eradicating pertussis highly unlikely, unlike something like Polio or Smallpox.


It is becoming clear that B. pertussis bacteria are capable of infecting and proliferating in a large proportion of vaccinated individuals. In one study, 33% of the exposed individuals receiving the highly effective five-component acellular pertussis vaccine had evidence of infection and 24% coughed for 21 days or more. In the same study, 82% of individuals receiving a licensed whole-cell vaccine had evidence of infection and 65% coughed for 21 days or more
http://iai.asm.org/cgi/content/full/68/12/7152


The effects of whole-cell pertussis vaccine wane after 5 to 10 years, and infection in a vaccinated person causes nonspecific symptoms (3-7). Vaccinated adolescents and adults may serve as reservoirs for silent infection and become potential transmitters to unprotected infants (3-11). The whole-cell vaccine for pertussis is protective only against clinical disease, not against infection (15-17). Therefore, even young, recently vaccinated children may serve as reservoirs and potential transmitters of infection.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol6no5/srugo.htm


Thus going around and vaccinating adults for pertussis isn't going to stop them from carrying the bacteria and transmitting it to babies. The vaccine doesn't work that way. The point of the vaccine is to be "immune" to the toxin the bacteria release that irritates the lungs (thus making you cough), so that you cough less severely and for 5-10 days less than an unvaccinated person.

[arivecchi]

I know this is an unpopular position, but I actually *do* trust the gov't here to make educated decisions about what vax's to put on the schedule here. They have a vested financial interest in only putting on vax's with proven efficacy (ie., why would they pay for children to receive a free vax if it doesn't work). This is JMHO, but I put zero stock in what the anti-vax camp says about vaxes in general. I am definitely in the pro-vax camp and unscientific publications will do nothing to sway me from that. Everyone makes their own choices as a parent and this is one I feel strongly about. ITA.

I'm sorry that people like MontrealMum and gatorsmom have to suffer through this when there is now a way to prevent it.

[JBaxter]

Pertussis/whooping cough is a cyclical disease that peaks every 3-5 years. The "epidemic" in California right now is actually just a natural peak as it's been 5 years since the last pertussis peak. The reason pertussis is on the rise, despite high vaccination rates in children, is that teenagers and adults (whose DTaP vaccine has worn off most likely) are passing pertussis on to children, unknowingly, since pertussis in teens and adults is usually rather mild and most don't know they have it. Most teenagers and adults are not getting pertussis boosters and even though the pertussis vaccine is available for this age group, it is not known if it actually prevents transmission. So even though they themselves are not getting sick, the teens and adults who do get the vaccine, may still be able to pass pertussis on to those around them. You can still be a carrier of the bacteria, you will just be asymptomatic. This makes eradicating pertussis highly unlikely, unlike something like Polio or Smallpox.


It is becoming clear that B. pertussis bacteria are capable of infecting and proliferating in a large proportion of vaccinated individuals. In one study, 33% of the exposed individuals receiving the highly effective five-component acellular pertussis vaccine had evidence of infection and 24% coughed for 21 days or more. In the same study, 82% of individuals receiving a licensed whole-cell vaccine had evidence of infection and 65% coughed for 21 days or more
http://iai.asm.org/cgi/content/full/68/12/7152


The effects of whole-cell pertussis vaccine wane after 5 to 10 years, and infection in a vaccinated person causes nonspecific symptoms (3-7). Vaccinated adolescents and adults may serve as reservoirs for silent infection and become potential transmitters to unprotected infants (3-11). The whole-cell vaccine for pertussis is protective only against clinical disease, not against infection (15-17). Therefore, even young, recently vaccinated children may serve as reservoirs and potential transmitters of infection.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol6no5/srugo.htm


Thus going around and vaccinating adults for pertussis isn't going to stop them from carrying the bacteria and transmitting it to babies. The vaccine doesn't work that way. The point of the vaccine is to be "immune" to the toxin the bacteria release that irritates the lungs (thus making you cough), so that you cough less severely and for 5-10 days less than an unvaccinated person.

Yup Yup Yup
the vaccine does not prevent transmission

[stillplayswithbarbies]

so what do you all think about adults getting a pertussis booster? I am due for tetanus and my doctor wants to give me the adult dtap with diptheria and pertussis boosters too. I told him I would have to research it too.

and what about all those posters that tell you to get vaccinated for adult pertussis to protect your baby? I guess they are wrong?

[Fairy]

Pertussis/whooping cough is a cyclical disease that peaks every 3-5 years. The "epidemic" in California right now is actually just a natural peak as it's been 5 years since the last pertussis peak.

Never heard of Pertussis "peaking." You do need a booster, and that "peak" may be in line with the DTaP wearing off and being in need of another whooping cough booster.


The reason pertussis is on the rise, despite high vaccination rates in children, is that teenagers and adults (whose DTaP vaccine has worn off most likely) are passing pertussis on to children ... So even though they themselves are not getting sick, the teens and adults who do get the vaccine, may still be able to pass pertussis on to those around them."

Kind of ... if the children around them were vaxed and up to date on their booster, they'd not contract it. BTW, there is now an adult Pertussis vax. whcih I know very little about. But it's the unvaxed children who are contracting whooping cough, not the vaxed people exposed to people with whooping cough.


It is becoming clear that B. pertussis bacteria are capable of infecting and proliferating in a large proportion of vaccinated individuals...
http://iai.asm.org/cgi/content/full/68/12/7152

You realize this is a ten-year-old study, right? There's no context to this study, either. Certainly interesting, however, and something to consider.


The effects of whole-cell pertussis vaccine wane after 5 to 10 years, and infection in a vaccinated person causes nonspecific symptoms (3-7). Vaccinated adolescents and adults may serve as reservoirs for silent infection and become potential transmitters to unprotected infants (3-11). The whole-cell vaccine for pertussis is protective only against clinical disease, not against infection (15-17). Therefore, even young, recently vaccinated children may serve as reservoirs and potential transmitters of infection.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol6no5/srugo.htm

The key there was the word unprotected.


Thus going around and vaccinating adults for pertussis isn't going to stop them from carrying the bacteria and transmitting it to babies. The vaccine doesn't work that way.


No, it doesn't. The way it works is that when you're innoculated, you are then immune. That's why pre-vaxed babies are at risk, and if everyone is protected all the time, no whooping cough will be out there -- very little of it will be out there -- to pass on to the babies in the short time prior to their vax. Sure, it's gonna wear off when they become adults or don't booster. That's why I'm interestd in this adult vax.

Something ridiculous like 150k deaths occured from Pertussis at the turn of the century, and like 5k in 2000. Or maybe 15k ... something with a 5 in it! My numbers are off the top of my head remembering them, as I just had this argument with someone the other day and whipped out my Baby 411 book. So, I could be off, but they're in that vicinity. That's the vaccination herd talking there.

I feel the same way about HPV.

ETA --> Let's be clear. I'm not splitting hairs here when I say "none will be out there" and "immunity," I mean infection and manifestation of the disease.

[Fairy]

Yup Yup Yup
the vaccine does not prevent transmission

This is misleading. We all carry alot of stuff. Doesn't mean we're going to manifest it as an infection. So, if you're the one vaccinated, you're protected.

[Fairy]

so what do you all think about adults getting a pertussis booster? I am due for tetanus and my doctor wants to give me the adult dtap with diptheria and pertussis boosters too. I told him I would have to research it too.

and what about all those posters that tell you to get vaccinated for adult pertussis to protect your baby? I guess they are wrong?

I want the booster. I DO want to research it, as it's brand spanking new. But I'm full of confidence in it long-term. I do plan to get it. Maybe not this year, but certainly assuming nothing goes wonky, I want to get it. Just cuz I'm pro-vax doesn't mean I don't want to do a little research, anyway ;)

[mommylamb]

I'm in the pro-vax camp. I'll be talking to my ped about what makes sense for DS in a couple years (he's only 3 now, so I'm not going to worry just yet about gardisil) but I imagine I'll get him vaxed.

[JBaxter]

I have declined the DTaP for the past few years. I had a nasty reaction to one 10 yrs ago and will NEVER let my arm swell and ache like that again.

Yes Pertussis cycles it always has. The vax keeps most people from getting the whoop but you can still transmit the disease. Alot of Doctors dont recognize pertussis but I read the CDC estimates 600,000+ cases per year in the US and alot are diagnosed as broncitis.

My cousins baby ended up with it at 4 1/2 months. The ER doctor had know idea what was wrong with him and said it couldnt be pertussis because he had had vaccines. My Aunt who had pertussis as a kid argued with him and made him call in another doctor and an older nurse who both confirmed it.

[essnce629]

Never heard of Pertussis "peaking."

I've always heard that pertussis peaks every few years.


Since the early 1980s, pertussis incidence has cyclically increased, with peaks occurring every 2-5 years.1 Most cases occur between June and September. Neither acquisition of the disease nor vaccination provides complete or lifelong immunity. Protection against typical disease wanes 3-5 years after vaccination and is not measurable after 12 years.

From 1980-2005, the reported incidence of pertussis in the United States dramatically increased across all age groups. Although the largest increase in pertussis cases has been among adolescents and adults, the annual reported incidence remained highest among infants younger than one year, at 55.2 cases per 100,000 population.
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/967268-overview


Pertussis is an endemic illness. In the United States epidemics occur every 3-5 years. The most recent epidemic occurred in 2005 (25,616 reported cases). Overall increase in cases since 1990, with disproportionate increase in adolescents and adults.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/pertussis_t.htm

[egoldber]

For people who are interested I found the following with a little Googling.

CDC summary on Gardasil and its side effects: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/HPV/gardasil.html

On that page is a link to a JAMA article on the side effects published in August 2009.

Summary of article: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/HPV/jama.html

Article abstract: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/7/750

Full text of actual article: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/302/7/750

There do seem to be a higher than normal incidence of some side effects, including syncope (fainting) and blood clots.

ETA: That issue of JAMA had several articles about the HPV vaccine.

[essnce629]

This is misleading. We all carry alot of stuff. Doesn't mean we're going to manifest it as an infection. So, if you're the one vaccinated, you're protected.

Yes, but the supposed reason behind giving the pertussis vaccine/booster to teens and adults is to prevent the transmission to babies who are most susceptible. That's what they say in all the commercials and print ads for the Adacel vaccine. "Do it for your baby" right? Not "protect yourself."

[Fairy]

I have declined the DTaP for the past few years. I had a nasty reaction to one 10 yrs ago and will NEVER let my arm swell and ache like that again.

Yes Pertussis cycles it always has. The vax keeps most people from getting the whoop but you can still transmit the disease. Alot of Doctors dont recognize pertussis but I read the CDC estimates 600,000+ cases per year in the US and alot are diagnosed as broncitis.

My cousins baby ended up with it at 4 1/2 months. The ER doctor had know idea what was wrong with him and said it couldnt be pertussis because he had had vaccines. My Aunt who had pertussis as a kid argued with him and made him call in another doctor and an older nurse who both confirmed it.

Well, of course, the baby still got it at age 4.5 months, he hadn't finished the vaccine course yet, which is 2, 4, 6, 8, and 15 months, give or take a month in there. That's exactly why babies are SO at risk and why herd immunity is positively vital.

Forget peaking and cycling, it's all pointless to the fact that you cannot manifest whooping cough -- meaning you cannot get sick with it -- if you are up to date on all your vaxes on schedule. Period. The baby in your example had not yet had their full vax yet.

[Fairy]

Yes, but the supposed reason behind giving the pertussis vaccine/booster to teens and adults is to prevent the transmission to babies who are most susceptible. That's what they say in all the commercials and print ads for the Adacel vaccine. "Do it for your baby" right? Not "protect yourself."

It's not a perfect world. But at least if I am vaccinated and am not carrying it, then I'm not going going to be giving it to my baby now, am I? Herd immunity is not pretend.

[JBaxter]

Getting immunized does not make you immune to the bacteria. Its a toxoid vaccine. It makes you immune to the toxin the bacteria produces. The toxin is an irritant and it makes you cough.

You can still be a carrier of the bacteria, you will just be asymptomatic. If you are asymtomatic you wont be coughing so you wont be spreading it as much, but its still present in your secretions and you can still spread it that way.

[Fairy]

Getting immunized does not make you immune to the bacteria. Its a toxoid vaccine. It makes you immune to the toxin the bacteria produces. The toxin is an irritant and it makes you cough.

You can still be a carrier of the bacteria, you will just be asymptomatic. If you are asymtomatic you wont be coughing so you wont be spreading it as much, but its still present in your secretions and you can still spread it that way.

Not if you are immunized with the vax.

[JBaxter]

never mind...

[Fairy]

yes if your immunized. The pertussis vaccine has been around for 45 years???( now sure) and Pertussis still cycles.
THATS how that portion of the vaccine works.

Yes, pertussis still happens From 150k deaths pre-vaccine to 5k deaths (I relooked it up) post. Thanks to the vaccine.

[JBaxter]

Prevaccine.. you mean 50 years ago? Yea lots of people are saved by better nutrition , sanitation, hospitalization IV fluids etc. You cant really compare mortality rates 50 - 75 years ago to today.

[Ceepa]

Prevaccine.. you mean 50 years ago? Yea lots of people are saved by better nutrition , sanitation, hospitalization IV fluids etc. You cant really compare mortality rates 50 - 75 years ago to today.

Although I agree that these factors contribute to lower mortality rates I think the radical drop from 150K to 5K deaths is significantly linked to the vaccine.

[Fairy]

Prevaccine.. you mean 50 years ago? Yea lots of people are saved by better nutrition , sanitation, hospitalization IV fluids etc. You cant really compare mortality rates 50 - 75 years ago to today.

Whooping cough decline due to better nutrition, sanitation, and handwashing in hospitals? No. The black plague, perhaps :hysterical:, but not whooping cough.

[Fairy]

Hey, getting back to Guardasil (so sorry, OP!!!! :bag), herd immunity is, like, YEEEAAARRRS away on that, unfortunately. But in my mind, we have to start somewhere. Unless soemthing egregious is up with the side effects, etc., I'm on board, boosters and all. Of course, we also have at least six or seven years before I need to consider it for my guy. But I'm paying close attn here. Hoping we have a really good herd going by the time he grows up and has kids of his own.

[bubbaray]

Prevaccine.. you mean 50 years ago? Yea lots of people are saved by better nutrition , sanitation, hospitalization IV fluids etc. You cant really compare mortality rates 50 - 75 years ago to today.


http://cpha100.ca/12-great-achievements/april-vaccination

One hundred years ago, infectious diseases were the leading cause of death worldwide. In Canada, they now cause less than 5% of all deaths—thanks to immunization programs. Immunization has probably saved more lives in Canada in the last 50 years than any other health intervention.


IIRC, the stats are virtually identical in the US.

Sure, better hygeine and medical care have helped reduced mortality rates. Vax's have prevented outbreaks in the first place, though.

[MaiseyDog]

If you are asymtomatic you wont be coughing so you wont be spreading it as much, but its still present in your secretions and you can still spread it that way.

Sorry to revisit the pertussis issue, but I think what you said above (bolding is mine) sums up exactly why adults need get the booster. Yes, I agree, that you can still pass along pertussis even if you are up to date with the booster, but the likelihood is much less for the exact reason you listed. Pertussis is spread through respiratory secretions. If an individual is not coughing, less respiratory secretions are being spread around to infect others. With a highly vulnerable population, such as newborns, I would rather reduce the risk as much as possible.

As for Gardisil, both DDs will be vaccinated when they are of age. DH and I have also offered to pay for our nieces to get it as well. I hope to raise DDs to wait until they are married to have sex (and yes, I understand that even that does not protect them from HPV) but I also remember what it was like to be a teenager and make a bad choice so I want to protect them in anyway I can.

[essnce629]

Forget peaking and cycling, it's all pointless to the fact that you cannot manifest whooping cough -- meaning you cannot get sick with it -- if you are up to date on all your vaxes on schedule. Period. The baby in your example had not yet had their full vax yet.

I'm sorry, but how can you say this? It is completely wrong. This would only be true if the vax was 100% effective and no vax is. You can definately be fully up to date on your vaccines and still get pertussis.

It says right here that the effectiveness after mass immunization was 78.0% and 85.4%.
Vaccine effectiveness in the first large-scale use of adolescent pertussis vaccine in Australia was evaluated by the screening method. Vaccine effectiveness was 78.0% (95% CI: 60.7-87.6%) for all study cases (n = 167), increasing to 85.4% (95% CI: 83.0-87.5%) for laboratory-confirmed cases (n = 155). Effectiveness should be comparable in settings with similar programs, such as the United States and Canada.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19106780

And other studies have found similar findings.
The effectiveness of the complete vaccination series was 80%
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11740314

The actual package insert of the Daptacel brand of DTaP vaccine says the same thing.
The protective efficacy of DAPTACEL vaccine against pertussis after 3 doses using the World Health Organization (WHO) case definition (21 consecutive days of paroxysmal cough with culture or serologic confirmation or epidemiologic link to a confirmed case) was 84.9%. The protective efficacy of DAPTACEL vaccine against mildpertussis (1 day of cough with laboratory confirmation) was 77.9%.

In separate US and Canadian studies in which children received DAPTACEL vaccine at 2, 4 and 6 months of age, with a fourth dose at either 17-20 months (Canadian study) or 15-16 months (random subset from US study) of age, antibody responses to each pertussis antigen following the fourth dose were at least as high as those seen in the Swedish infants after 3 doses. While a serologic correlate of protection for pertussis has not been established, the antibody response to all antigens in North American infants after 4 doses of DAPTACEL vaccine at 2, 4, 6 and 15-20 months of age was comparable to that achieved in Swedish infants in whom efficacy was demonstrated after 3 doses of DAPTACEL vaccine at 2, 4 and 6 months of age.
https://www.vaccineshoppe.com/image.cfm?image_type=product_pdf&pi=286-10


In other words, even if every single person in the U.S. was fully vaccinated against pertussis we'd still have pertussis infections and outbreaks. If the vax is only 78-85% effective after the full series of shots, that means that a whole 15-22% of the fully vaxed population is still at risk of getting pertussis. Am I correct? And how do we know who's a part of that 15-22%?

[bubbaray]

In other words, even if every single person in the U.S. was fully vaccinated against pertussis we'd still have pertussis infections and outbreaks. If the vax is only 78-85% effective after the full series of shots, that means that a whole 15-22% of the fully vaxed population is still at risk of getting pertussis. Am I correct? And how do we know who's a part of that 15-22%?


But you make the argument for herd immunity. If you vaccinate enough of the population, then even those who are medically unable to get the vax or those in whom the vax d/n work for whatever reason will be protected as part of the "herd".

We don't know who the 15-22% is, that is why everyone who is medically able should be vax'd. JMHO.

[essnce629]

But you make the argument for herd immunity. If you vaccinate enough of the population, then even those who are medically unable to get the vax or those in whom the vax d/n work for whatever reason will be protected as part of the "herd".

We don't know who the 15-22% is, that is why everyone who is medically able should be vax'd. JMHO.

I've never said no one should get the vax. But for my family it's not for us. My grandmother is deathly allergic to the tetanus component of the DTaP vaccine and has been told to never get any vaccine with tetanus in it again. DS1 also reacted to his one and only DTaP vaccine at 8 months. We also have a huge family history of allergies (food and drug) as well as autoimmune diseases. For my family, based on our family history and other issues I have with the vax, this vaccine was not a good idea for us. I was a selective/delayed vaxer before eventually becoming anti-vax (for my family).

[Cam&Clay]

Back to the original post about HPV, I'd like to add something.

I am 40 years old. I have a graduate degree and live in a wealthy suburb. I have a good job, two kids, and a great husband. My friends are just like me. We each had a handful of sexual partners when we were young. And guess what? Almost all of us have HPV. Me included. What a shocker that was. I didn't have unprotected sex until I tried to have a baby. But I have it. We all have it. My gynecologist told me almost every woman has it...more than 80% of those in her practice. I've had the scares of abnormal pap smears--even while pg with DS2. It sucks. Trust me, none of my girlfriends were slutty and running around sleeping with everyone.

So, if there is anything I can do to prevent my children and others from having this, you better believe we will be vaxing the boys.