HPV Vaccination

[Triple 6]

My step-daughter who is 11, is scheduled for vaccinations this Nov (through school) her Mom and I are unsure of the HPV vaccination. Research on the net shows the good, the bad and the ugly. Our family Doctor tells us it's a personal choice. What are your thoughts? Would you do it for your daughter? Yourself if it was available? I don't know enough to say no, but we don't know enough to say yes.

What is the HPV Vaccine?
The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine used in the BC grade 6 program protects girls against 2 types of HPV that cause most cervical cancers. It also protects girls against 2 types of HPV that cause most genital warts.

What is HPV and who can get it?
HPV is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Three out of four sexually active women will get HPV at some point.

Anyone who has any kind of sexual activity involving oral or genital contact can get HPV. Sexual intercourse is not necessary to get infected.

Every year in B.C.:

150 women will get cervical cancer.
40 women will die from the disease.
6,000 women will develop high risk changes to the cervix which are precancerous.
10,000 invasive procedures will be done to stop cancer of the cervix from developing.
Girls and women are best protected when they get the HPV vaccine before they become sexually active.

In women who have never been infected with HPV, the vaccine:

Prevents 7 out of 10 cases of cancer of the cervix.
Prevents 9 out of 10 cases of genital warts.





Below is a link to the grade 6 immunizations

http://www.healthlinkbc.ca/healthfiles/hfile50f.stm

[Fancy]

My step-daughter who is 11, is scheduled for vaccinations this Nov (through school) her Mom and I are unsure of the HPV vaccination. Research on the net shows the good, the bad and the ugly. Our family Doctor tells us it's a personal choice. What are your thoughts? Would you do it for your daughter? Yourself if it was available? I don't know enough to say no, but we don't know enough to say yes.

I'd get it and would advise any female to get it. Any preventative treatment against cancer is worth it.

[Imagination]

I think the jury is still out on the safety of that vaccine. She's only 11. I bet she has a year or two at least before she probably has to even worry about it and that just might be the kind of time they need to see what is really going on with these shots. Yet again, someone is bent on using scare tactics it seems to sell something when there isn't enough info for people.

There were some very upset parents last year who had girls succumb to some horrible side effects like now being faced with a lifetime of pain and disability (they were on a few news stories), so you might want to see if you can wait and truly get the score on this before agreeing to anything. There is no shame in deciding not to decide until more information is available unless you think this girl is high risk for some reason. There are no do overs with this kind of thing so I would really want to be feeling comfortable that they are being up front and have really researched the risks etc.

The other side of this is HPV is not a death sentence. There are pap tests and early detection for people who are carrying the virus. It's not like you get the virus and you get cancer.
Some people may develop cancer, but they have never claimed all do. You have the normal tests that check for abnormal cells and can deal with them before they go too far in most cases.

Look at the stats you found. 3 of 4 (sexually active) women supposedly have HPV. So 75% of those who are sexually active, and yet there are only 6,000 women who will show some pre-cancer cells (meaning abnormal, not cancer necessarily at all) during a check. I assume the 10,000 proceedures they are talking about are the biopsies they take when they find abnormal cells in PAP tests... not a huge deal for those who have been through it as it's about the same as a PAP for time and trouble), follow up biopsies (done annually usually for 5 years), and other procedures done when they have to go further.

So just going with the numbers you have, are we saying that there are only 8,000 sexually active women in BC who get regular tests or fess up to being active (and 75% of those would = 6,000)? If a stat I found of 70% of cervical cancer being linked to HPV is accurate, that would mean 105 women in BC (70% of the 150 who actually got cancer) may have had the virus. 30 would have died from it.

Now I don't know about you, but that's 30 of the population of sexually active women in BC (no way I believe there are only 8,000 in the whole province even in my sheltered life, so I suspect those stats they are quoting are not quite right (or maybe I am misinterpreting them). Even if we accept their numbers (the 8000 women who are messing around in BC), that is a 1:267 chance of dieing of cancer if you are in the number who get HPV. Imagine what they might be if we had the right population number....which according to Stats Can 2004, says BC female pop was 2,116,900. Now taking Stats Can % for age distribution in Canadaa and applying it to BC, I calculated 15 - 54 yrs olds would be 1,217,218 females. Using no scientific formula other than a wild guess, I took 30% as sexually active which when you take 75% of those (the ones who probably have HPV), you have a 1:45 chance of being one of the 6,000 who might have abnormal cells at some point. That same 75% when divided by those 30 deaths, now comes to a 1:9,129 chance of dieing from cervical cancer caused by HPV . That makes more sense to me than scaring people with the kind of numbers you had there which implies everyone is pretty much going to get cancer from HPV (if they are sexually active).

If it were me mulling this decision over, I would want to compare the odds for and against (and I would suggest actually finding numbers that make sense to you since I did guess on the % of those who might be active) with any I could find on the side effects of the shots to see how they compared and then decide which was a risk I would be willing to take. Until I was comfortable, I don't think I'd be guessing or going with any 'trust me' attitudes. The stakes are too high when you hear one of the risks is a compromised immune system and that is something no one wants to have to deal with because then you are really open to a lifetime of trouble.

[Triple 6]

Thank You Imagination for the informative post. It looks like we're leaning towards waiting.... She is only 11 now, not sexually active, and both her Mom & I have a great relationship with her. She would come to us about anything. When she is 13 we will take another look @ the sitaution.

The information you provided, with info I have gotten from the net and Interior Health, the stats just don't add up. As another friend said to me "It's just to new."

[strwbrrydvl]

Thank You Imagination for the informative post. It looks like we're leaning towards waiting.... She is only 11 now, not sexually active, and both her Mom & I have a great relationship with her. She would come to us about anything. When she is 13 we will take another look @ the sitaution.

I'd say get it done now and not wait until she is 13 or so. As it says "Girls and women are best protected when they get the HPV vaccine before they become sexually active."

[Scadam]

Info from the net can be highly suspect; we chose to allow the vaccine for our daughter last year. The public health people have access to all the same information and studies and rumours, and the fact that their conclusion is positive tells me a lot more than going down the rabbit hole myself and second-guesing them.

[strwbrrydvl]

Info from the net can be highly suspect; we chose to allow the vaccine for our daughter last year. The public health people have access to all the same information and studies and rumours, and the fact that their conclusion is positive tells me a lot more than going down the rabbit hole myself and second-guesing them.

Yes, this is not like the H1N1 vaccine that has been fast-tracked without sufficient studies. HPV vaccine had been in the making for years and tested for safety all along. It may be 'new' but has been on the market in Canada since 2006(?) without any cause for concern.

[Imagination]

No cause for concern? Gee the news stories that were out last year on what some girls experienced was very much cause for concern. With all the drugs and such that have been released under the umbrella of being safe and are then recalled a couple of years later, I am just not so sure you can count on what manufacturers are saying. You really have to check reputations, what data they have, etc. to know if they are really being straight or not because the not so straight ones have lead us astray.

The one nice thing about the Internet is you can often find out if there are people out there with other experiences so it's worth researching when you are unsure and see if any red flags are surfacing anywhere.

[strwbrrydvl]

The one nice thing about the Internet is you can often find out if there are people out there with other experiences so it's worth researching when you are unsure and see if any red flags are surfacing anywhere.

The thing is that if you look for negative side-effects for anything you will find it one the internet. The primary side effects with guardisil are the same common things that can occur after any vaccination and the extreme things that are cause for concern are extremely rare (as with any other vaccine, medication etc.)

[Imagination]

Although that may be true, caution and experience shows it's often worth investigating. After all, who is it that is making the claims that this vaccine is safe? Why are their stats so skewed towards using fear tactics when their numbers really don't indicate this is as big a problem as they would lead us to believe? When you see news stories (not gossip on the web) showing a perfectly healthy young teen now basically crippled with pain which is supposedly due to an auto-immune response to the vaccine is it not worth seeking more info? It's all risk vs benefit with this kind of thing vs just blindly accepting what comes along. If side effect risks of a vaccine are lifetime and serious and say 1:10,000 (just a number I am making up since I don't know the actual number) vs the risk of catching what it is supposed to be preventing (in this case 1:9,129 chance of dieing from cervical cancer caused by HPV) why shouldn't people know that before volunteering their children (remember, we are talking kids who can't make the decision for themselves in this case)? At least if they have some very real numbers and knowledge of risks on both sides, they can make an informed decision vs being given the impression they will probably eventually die of a disease when the numbers don't back it up.

I don't know about other folks, but I am so tired and leery of doctors, vets, etc. all trying to push things on us when they may not be necessary and can have lasting negative effects. There is just not that trust there any longer because you can bet someone is making a lot of money on this stuff and may be the only ones offering test data.

Do you realize that after giving our pets rabies shots every year for over 4 decades, it's only now they are actually testing it? People/vets were told it was safe only by the manufacturers, no big side effects, and never questioned it much until word got out via media like the Internet of all the bad reactions/deaths and then we discover it's never actually been tested? Now how does that happen and why on earth should we trust there aren't similar stories out there in our health system? Certainly there are already enough on record to show us we can't just take the manufacturers or the medical community's word until we see some real information we can trust.

There can also be hundreds of people suffering side effects that are never reported by doctors or pharmacists. Just try and report a bad side effect and see what happens. So no way for us to know very much about certain things until someone sues or word gets out and the powers that be are forced to pay attention. Blind faith can be very costly sometimes.

[Glacier]

About 8 or 9 years ago my wife told me that most cervical cancer cases stem from an STD whose spread cannot be stopped by condoms. My first reaction was to question the truth of her statement since I had learned about all the STDs and how to prevent them in sex ed class, with nary a mention of HPV - a disease that 75% of Canadians acquire in their lifetime.

The most likely reason being that before the invention of the vaccine, the powers-that-be either did not feel that the threat of cervical cancer was high enough to bother informing the public. Or was it would give an edge to abstinence campaigns?

Either way, most cases of HPV clear up, and the cases of cervical cancer is extremely low. 380 women die from cervical cancer in Canada each year compared to 9,200 for lung cancer (90% of which are preventable).

The interesting thing about Gardasil is that it is the first genetically modified vaccine on the market in addition to being the most expensive vaccine ever made. Is it any wonder that Merck has spent so much money marketing it?

The speedy adoption of the HPV vaccination project is testimony to the symbiotic relationship between the pharmaceutical industry, the medical establishment, and government. Merck even lobbied state lawmakers in the USA with the proposal that Gardasil vaccination be made mandatory.

Here in Canada, the major promoter of the HPV vaccine has been the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who has been promoting this vaccine ever since they received a $1.5 million grant from Merck to educate the public about HPV. They used this money to get the message out through media outlets across canada, which, conveniently for Merck, gets around the direct consumer advertising restrictions.

How many ways can you say cha-ching?

I am not saying you shouldn't get the vaccine, but the one question I have is, if the risk of cervical cancer from HPV was too low to mention it in sex ed class before Merck's invention, what has changed that we need to rush out and injecting our 9 year olds with a genetically modified agent?

[Imagination]

How many ways can you say cha-ching?

I am not saying you shouldn't get the vaccine, but the one question I have is, if the risk of cervical cancer from HPV was too low to mention it in sex ed class before Merck's invention, what has changed that we need to rush out and injecting our 9 year olds with a genetically modified agent?

Oh nothing has changed. It's Marketing 101 at it's finest and should be a shining example to Forbes, Business Week, and every business college around. Got a product you spent a lot of R&D developing but not enough market to warrant it? Why just add fear, children, cancer and find some really good talkers to write some cheques to the powers that be to sell your product for you to not only anyone who needs it, but make sure they add in those who don't. Classic...no existing high need, create one.

Really, marketing through schools is brilliant. It'll grab kids and their parents that would never have had a notion about it and scare them silly.

Now the real tell. A cure for a cancer that is backed by the traditional medical community has to be advertised? Go figure. They sure didn't need to do that when the vaccine for polio came out. No one needed to be convinced. No one needed to be sold on it's value or given stats. The media was on it, free of charge. Parents lined up with kids in tow anywhere that had the vaccine the second it was available. The manufacturers couldn't produce it fast enough and the most efficient distribution routes were used - the schools (but so was any other place the public could get to). No media campaign necessary. No convincing the powers that be by flashing cash. No shocking brochures. The need already existed and was ready and waiting.

What boggles my mind is if 75% of the population have the HPV virus, how is it no one is really talking about it (prevention in particular)? That is a lot of people, probably more than those who are incontinent, need viagra, have acne, or a lot of other sort of embarrassing problems...and this one is linked to 70% of one type of cancer too. Where is the media, health shows, and just general conversation that would indicate this is that big a problem?

It is nice if they do have a vaccine that can save some people some grief. The problem (in my mind) are the tactics they are using leaves it suspect that something is not quite right and the public safety/health is not the priority. If they are running this thing like they did last year, there is that extra push of it being basically free if you (well those in the age group they have selected, anyone else can go hang) get it now, but costing a lot of money if you wait. Seems funny to put such limits on something so important. Why the extra incentive being thrown in there if this is such a fantastic discovery?

[Bpeep]

We told our daughter that its her choice. She asked our opinion, we advised against it, she can always get it in the future. The majority of the worlds population has HPV, and read the stats on cervical cancer. I would rather her hang tight a few years, they didnt complete any long term testing on this vaccine...... cha ching.... I dont trust anything that they use as an adjuvant in vaccines anymore either.....

[Scadam]

Man I don't envy the medical community, especially public health. They're going to be demonized no matter how they try to battle back against the last decade of vaccine misinformation. There's no way to spread information without it being seen as capitalistic or malicious by their target audience.

[Lady tehMa]

We opted out of it, partly from what Glacier touched on, but also because we don't believe there is enough information/history on the vaccine. We spoke about the issues with our daughter, and she agreed.