Why Get the HPV Vaccine For Your Children?

[Modern School]

The following is from the Scienceline blog http://scienceline.org/2011/11/to-vaccinate-or-not-to-vaccinate/ and the Science Based Medicine blog http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/hpv-vaccine-for-boys/

Human papillomavirus (HPV) can cause cervical, anal, penile, vulvar, vaginal, mouth and throat cancer and can affect both boys and girls. Thus the CDC is now recommending that boys and young men, as well as girls, be vaccinated against HPV.
HPV is the only known cause of cervical cancer, which kills roughly 300,000 women annually, one of the highest causes of cancer death for women globally.
HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the world, infecting half of all sexually active men and women in their lifetimes. One estimate suggests that between 75 and 80% of all Americans will be infected at some point in their lives
The majority of those infected never know it, which means they may unknowingly be transmitting it to their partners, but that it is persisting in their bodies where it could be contributing to the development of tumors
The vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, are 70% effective at preventing cervical cancer and 90% effective at stopping genital warts
Clinical trials show that the vaccine has no serious side effects. While there have been claims of vaccine-related deaths, none have been verified and no causal links between the vaccine and fatalities have been proven
The vaccines are much more effective when administered to young teens than when given to older teens and adults
It won’t make them sexually promiscuous (either they will be or they won’t be, depending in part on how their parents talk to them and support them). The only drugs that might promote promiscuity are those that lower their inhibitions, like alcohol
It won’t make them mentally retarded, contrary to Michelle Bachman’s claims. In fact, there is no credible evidence that anyone has become retarded because of the vaccine.


Modern School
http://modeducation.blogspot.com/2011/11/why-get-hpv-vaccine-for-your-children.html

[SixthSense]

1. question for you

If a person got a vaccine for every disease where the incidence in the population is equal to or higher than that of cancers attributable to HPV, how many shots would they have to take?

[pnwmom]

2. Good question. And at what ages would they have to get them.

We're already giving babies in their first two years a couple dozen doses of vaccines -- many more than in Europe. It seems that we're adding vaccines to the schedule without prioritizing them. If a baby's mother doesn't have hep B, for example, then her baby wouldn't be likely to get it, since it's spread the same way HIV is. And yet we give the vaccine to infants instead of waiting till they're closer to an age where they might have sexual activity (such as age 10 or so.)

[trotsky]

10. Could you please document this claim:

"We're already giving babies in their first two years a couple dozen doses of vaccines -- many more than in Europe."

Such documentation will include accurate US recommended vaccination schedules as well as the schedules from multiple countries in Europe for a fair comparison.

Thanks very much! :hi:

[pnwmom]

29. Sure. But you'll have to do a little reading.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19756336

Or if you don't like that source, you can look at this one. What you'll find is that the recommendations made in the U.S. are anything but universal. For some reason, our babies need more vaccines than babies in many other first world countries.

http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/en/globalsummary/DiseaseSelect.cfm

And yet, despite all those vaccines, the U.S. has a higher childhood mortality rate than many other countries.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/24/nation/la-na-child-mortality-20100524

"But as much of the world makes strides in reducing child mortality, the U.S. is increasingly lagging and ranks 42nd globally, behind much of Europe as well as the United Arab Emirates, Cuba and Chile.

SNIP

Even many countries that already had low child mortality rates, such as Sweden and France, were able to cut their rates more rapidly than the U.S. over the last two decades.

SNIP

"We certainly have outstanding medical science and centers of excellence that rival the best in the world," said Cathy Schoen, an expert on global health systems at the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund. "But many other countries have been putting many more resources into thinking about how they can improve. … They have been far more strategic."

SNIP


Other countries with slow rates of decline include Britain, New Zealand and South Korea, which have all fallen in the international rankings since 1990. All three are still ahead of the U.S.

[trotsky]

32. It's not my job to back up your claims.

Post the schedules. Let's see the data.

Your non sequitur is irrelevant and you know it - there are many other variables at play including US poverty rates, access to health insurance, etc. Let's stay on topic and deal with the subject honestly, shall we?

[pnwmom]

33. I posted the links. It's your job to read them.

Sorry if you think that's too hard.

I also added a link showing the higher childhood mortality rates we have in the U.S.

Edit to add:

If you know how to scroll down the page, here's one that is super easy to follow -- comparing the dosage schedule of the U.S. and Britain.

It shows that babies 2 and under are recommended 26 doses of vaccines in the U.S. (including one flu shot), and only 17 in Britain -- that is, U.S. babies are recommended to have 50% more vaccine doses than British babies.

It appears that rather than having good health care for all children, we try to make up for that by inoculating the heck out of them; but we still have higher childhood mortality rates.

[trotsky]

34. Your insults will not make me do your work.

You made a claim. Now back it up. I'm not digging through links to refute your claim, you have to present the data that you think backs it up. Or you can just fling more insults. Your call.

[HuckleB]

35. +1

[pnwmom]

36. Sorry, but if you want a term paper you'll have to go elsewhere.

I gave you the link for finding any country's immunization schedule; and a link showing two charts clearly comparing the recommended vaccine schedules for Britain and the U.S.

Have fun proving me wrong.

[trotsky]

37. Don't need a term paper.

Just wanted precise documentation of your claim - not a couple of links and a "go find it" comment.

The record shall state that your claim remains unsubstantiated.

[pnwmom]

38. Have you ever heard of copyright laws? There was a lawsuit against DU.

So I'm not going to copy out the vaccine charts from the links. "The record shall show" that I've provided you with the links. If you're too lazy to look at them yourself, that's not my problem.

[trotsky]

39. Weak sauce. Government vaccination schedules are not copyrighted.

You failed to document your claim. Your continuing insults only further illustrate your terribly weak position.

[pnwmom]

40. You clearly don't understand copyright law,

even though you think you know everything. A particular arrangement of data IS copyrighted. I don't know what the status of the data is on the WHO site, so I'm going to make the safer assumption and not copy it directly. And the information from the article at the NIH entitled, "Childhood vaccination schedules in Europe vary widely. Is this a problem?" is clearly copyrighted.

But just looking at that title should be enough for you: childhood vaccination schedules in Europe vary widely. And, as you know, the U.S. has the highest vaccination rate in the world. Why should we assume that the vaccination schedule adopted in the U.S. is better than anywhere else in the world? It's not like we're leaders in child health.

FYI: an Internet board isn't a term paper. Documenting a claim by including a link is a commonly accepted convention.

[trotsky]

46. One of us doesn't understand it, that's for sure.

But I am amazed at the amount of work you have done now in telling me you don't have to back up your claim. You could have spent a fraction of this effort and just posted the numbers that prove it - no copyright issues at all - yet you have refused. Strange. I think I know what that means, though. Better luck next time!

[HuckleB]

41. Well...

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/vaccination-are-we-number-1/

You know that whole reality thing is just not something that fits when you're against vaccines.

[pnwmom]

42. I'm not against vaccines.

I'm for safe vaccines and prudent vaccine schedules. My children are all fully vaccinated, except for the one vaccine that gave my son seizures and killed my sister. After my son had the seizures and another cousin developed a temp over 105, all the cousins' pediatricians decided to stop that vaccine -- the old DTP vaccine that was eventually removed from the market and replaced by a safer vaccine.

And recently, I encouraged all three of my young adults to get their flu vaccines. It's ridiculous to say that I'm against vaccines.

Your article, about the number of vaccines in children by the age of 5, had nothing to do with my point, which is how many vaccines are given to BABIES under the age of 2. As I said in another post in this thread, In Britain there are 17 recommended vaccine doses for children under 2; in the U.S., there are 26. I see no reason why U.S. babies need 50% more vaccine doses than British babies. Maybe you can enlighten me.

[HuckleB]

43. You keep pushing that line of BS.

The evidence, via your long posting history, shows otherwise. And, no, I'm not going to waste my time replicating what has been shown repeatedly. Oddly, you refuse to acknowledge it, which tends to show the truth of your stance.

[pnwmom]

44. Right back at you. n/t

[HuckleB]

45. .

:rofl:

Hey, that invitation to join the real world. It's still good.

[ehrnst]

17. Hep B is very often transmitted in hospitals, and is more contagious than HIV.

Health care workers who are changing diapers and bedpans can spread the disease without sexual contact.

It can be spread by sharing personal care items such as toothbrushes, razors, or nail clippers, not just by sexual contact.

Same with daycare settings. This is one reason that there are some daycare facilities that do not accept children that are not potty trained.

The HPV vaccine is not being recommended for infants, but pre-teens.

[pnwmom]

31. When the Hep B vaccine first became available it was only given to newborns, not older children.

There wasn't enough vaccine available for all children at first. My doctor explained to me that it wasn't really necessary for my older children until they were closer to the age of sexual activity -- and that it was being given to newborns initially out of convenience -- it was easier to get parents' cooperation when they were already in the hospital.

This is the reason for much of the timing of the schedule: compliance and convenience, rather than the best interest of individual babies.

[ehrnst]

18. Here is a source where you can check what vaccines are recommended in all countries.

http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/en/globalsummary/DiseaseSelect.cfm


I think you will find that you can't really say that "Europe" is all on the same page about this.

[pnwmom]

30. Correct. Europe isn't all on the same page. There isn't one "correct" schedule

and there's no reason to think that we're the only ones who have determined it.

[trotsky]

47. It's a good thing, then, that no one made either of those claims.

What straw man are you arguing against, then? Can you please state clearly what your position is? Do you believe that the US vaccination schedule is harmful?

[ehrnst]

16. HPV is contagious, unlike other cancers. This means that one person vaccinated could prevent

Many instances of cancer in others. Condoms do not prevent it's spread, and that's why the Abstinence Only sex ed crowd is freaking out at having their favorite boogeyman potentially taken away.

If there was a vaccine that prevented AIDS, I would hope that we could vaccinate as many kids as possible, even if the incidence in the population wouldn't merit it.

To say that some conditions merit recommending standard vaccinations is not the same as saying "Vaccinate everyone against everything else that anyone could get - even if it's just the common cold!!!"

I am very glad I never got Polio or TB, due to a generation of kids that were vaccinated. I suffered through chicken pox, and am glad my son won't have to.

I have HPV, and have had several expensive procedures to manage precancerous conditions that she attributes to the HPV. My GYN says that a hysterectomy is likely if it returns aggressively.

Perhaps that makes me more sensitive (or just more aware) of the "incidence in the population" that is affected by cancers attributable to HPV.

If I, or the man that gave HPV to me had access to that vaccine, I could have avoided a lot of other medical treatment. I likely passed it to another partner, who passed it to another partner - and I have no idea if someone got cervical cancer, became infertile or even died because of HPV.

So, yes, I'll say that this vaccine merits widespread access.

My 8 year old son will get it, if there are still no negative effects found in the vaccine at that time.

[SixthSense]

21. as a point of fact

HPV itself is not a cancer and the incidence of cancer from HPV is very low. There is no such thing as a contagious cancer.

Looking into the Perry/Gardasil scandal a few months back, I did the math to find that we're talking less than 4,000 people total per year are getting HPV derived cancers.

The reason I asked the original question is that I already knew the answer. If you jab someone with a vaccine for every disease as common or more common than HPV-based cancers they will look like a porcupine, and going that route is a better deal for executive bonuses at a big pharma corp than it is for the health of the people on the business end of the needles.

[ehrnst]

22. I'm not sure where you got the 4000 figure from, but the National Cancer Institute says

it's much higher than that.

Perhaps you have misread the figures - 4000 DEATHS have occured from HPV related cervical cancers, not 4000 instances of Cancer from HPV.

"Persistent HPV infections are now recognized as the cause of essentially all cervical cancers, as well as most cases of anal cancer. In 2011, more than 12,000 women in the United States are expected to be diagnosed with cervical cancer and more than 4,000 are expected to die from it (2). Cervical cancer is diagnosed in nearly half a million women each year worldwide, claiming a quarter of a million lives annually."

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/risk/HPV

This is not taking into account oral or anal cancers, or deaths from those.

So, now you have the correct numbers, does that change your mind about preventing a virus that could cause cancer?

Me and my sister (and other women that I know) have dealt with expensive and invasive treatments for HPV related cervical dysplasia. We didn't get all the way to full blown cancer, so we're not included in that cancer statistic. My Gyn tells me that a hysterectomy might be in my future if it flares up again more aggressively. So - one does not need to be included in cancer statistics to be profoundly affected by HPV.


And no, recommending a vaccine against a virus that is very, very widespread is not the same as turning people into porcupines. There is a continuum.

[SixthSense]

25. I'm aware of those numbers

Still, do the math. Even using the 12,000/year figure (that's a national figure, so it's among ~150M females) Perry and his friends from Merck forced this vaccine on a million girls when statistically 80 of them will end up with cancer due to HPV.

A million vaccines for something that will affect 80 people? Keep in mind this is a brand new, barely tested vaccine, not a long established and safe vaccine like the one for polio. The risk/reward ratio is way too high for this to be an advisable course of action, and even if the risk were zero, the cost/benefit is also too low to justify jabbing everyone with it.

By the way, when Perry & Co. were called out on the extremely low incidence they then turned around and demanded it be given to boys for the even-rarer penile cancer.

We must be extremely wary about these things especially since the people who make them are proven to be extremely corrupt and untrustworthy. They will relentlessly hide all the negatives of their products while inflating the positives far beyond what the facts justify.

[ehrnst]

26. I did the math. As a point of fact - it's way more than 4000 instances of cancer you claimed..

And does not include even more not quite cancerous, but still devastating health consequences. I suggest that your math needs some review, and well as educating yourself on what severe cervical dysplasia can do to a woman's health and life.

And that does not include oral or anal cancer.

I don't see what Perry's motives/actions were or weren't have to do with the efficacy of the drug. I don't think what a politician does or says is an advisable way to determine if a vaccine is or isn't warranted.

What reason do you have to think that the American Pediatric Association and the CDC would be less than wary about this recommendation? They have the qualifications to determine what is and is not an acceptable risk/reward ratio. What do you know that they and the CDC don't? And they're not 'forcing' it on anyone. They're recommending it.

I have reason to trust their judgment. And yes, I'll keep up with developments. And no, that doesn't mean I'm a sheep. I do my math, and I double check the numbers.

What is your deal with this vaccine? You seem to combat any and all data with "Perry did this" and "You can just jab EVERYONE for EVERYTHING."

[SixthSense]

27. Those aren't my numbers

but they are correct numbers

note they were supplied by someone taking a differing opinion, and he/she from an authoritative source

if your numbers are different, show your math and let's discuss

The Perry connection is not essential to the basic argument that skepticism is warranted when dealing with the products of the pharmaceutical industry.

Does every person who one day will get such a cancer have the right to demand that 24,999 people who won't also must take the medicine?

[ehrnst]

28. OK. Again...

I'm not clear on what you're saying about the numbers, since this post has your name on it I believe.

"Looking into the Perry/Gardasil scandal a few months back, I did the math to find that we're talking less than 4,000 people total per year are getting HPV derived cancers."

Anyhoo.

To listen to the recommendations of the American Pediatric Association and the CDC is in no way = to lack of skepticism or judgement concerning pharmacuetical products.

Rick Perry is not qualified to make medical recommendations - let alone - mandates that are not supported by the health policy community or the medical community. What he did was out of line, and likely very self serving, and in no way compares to a medical association making recommendations on vaccinations. Are you clear on that now?

The CDC and the APA **are** indeed qualified to make recommendations. Do you see the difference in just buying what Merk sells, and listening to a pediatric association on what could help protect our children's health? Because your posts indicate that you equivocate the two.

If you simply reject any new approved drug or treatment out of hand because a pharmacuetical company developed it, I think that you're not making sound judgements. AGAIN - The CDC and APA are recommending this - not mandating it.

I don't lack healthy skepticism of big pharma.

I don't use HRT, even though some physicians recommend it to prevent osteoporosis. I don't think the risks/benefit ratio is worth it for me. Does that mean I rail against those that take it, or those that recommend it? No. I gave my son only breast milk until he was 6 months old, based on recommendations, reading and my personal ability to do so - do I criticize those that use formula? No. I may yet develop cancer from HPV. Do I think that I have a right to 'demand that everyone take the medicine?' No, despite what your implications.

A recommendation opens the door to having the vaccine covered by insurance - be it private or medicaid. That means that more people who CHOOSE to have their children vaccinated can.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.23764/full

"On the basis of these observations, we draw the following conclusions.

1) In countries with effective cervical cancer screening programs, HPV-associated noncervical cancers may represent a relatively high proportion of the total number of HPV-positive cancers. Given that there are no effective and widely applied screening programs for HPV-associated noncervical cancers and that the incidence for several of these cancers is currently increasing in the US, the HPV vaccines intended primarily for prevention of cervical cancers may possess great potential to affect the US public health by preventing noncervical cancers. This implication is, of course, dependent on the efficacy of the HPV vaccines against anal and oropharyngeal infections being similar to their efficacy against cervical, vaginal, and vulvar infections.

2) Vaccination strategies to reduce the incidence of cancer attributable to HPV infection in the US should probably take into account that a substantial proportion (about 25%) of cancers caused by HPV infection arise in men. As nonmandatory vaccination of adolescents in the US has traditionally led to vaccination of a minority of eligible individuals, it is unlikely that nonmandatory vaccination would lead to a significant degree of herd immunity. Under these circumstances, vaccination of boys and girls would theoretically provide the greatest impact of the HPV vaccines on cancer incidence in the US, although cost effectiveness would need to be considered.

3) The burden of HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancers is second only to cervical cancers in the US, and, therefore, the efficacy of the HPV vaccines in preventing oral infection by HPV16 and 18 warrants evaluation.

4) Future generation vaccines that include high-risk types other than HPV16 and 18 may provide limited additional benefit in the US against the widely recognized HPV-associated noncervical cancers, although new generation vaccines could protect against a higher proportion of cervical cancers and may affect cervical cancer screening algorithms."

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ehrnst]

23. 12,000 cases of cervical cancer, 4000 deaths from cervical cancer

not including oral and anal cancers attributed to HPV, in addition to other pre-cancerous conditions arising from HPV exposure, including infertility.


http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/risk/HPV

"Persistent HPV infections are now recognized as the cause of essentially all cervical cancers, as well as most cases of anal cancer. In 2011, more than 12,000 women in the United States are expected to be diagnosed with cervical cancer and more than 4,000 are expected to die from it (2). Cervical cancer is diagnosed in nearly half a million women each year worldwide, claiming a quarter of a million lives annually.

Although anal cancer is uncommon, more than 5,000 men and women in the United States are expected to be diagnosed with the disease in 2011, and 770 people are expected die from it (2).

Genital HPV infection also causes some cancers of the vulva, vagina, and penis. In addition, oral HPV infection causes some cancers of the oropharynx (the middle part of the throat, including the soft palate, the base of the tongue, and the tonsils)"

Yes, I would say that's statistically significant enough to merit recommending a vaccine to prevent transmission.

[lbrtbell]

3. That BS sounds as if it were written by Big Pharma - n/t

[Riftaxe]

6. Any specifics you wish to share with an audience

of non determinable education?

I will start, i have a few degrees from somewhere i can dig up.


What the fuck do you think you are talking about?

Have you ever seen what pelvic cancer *is*?

[TheWraith]

7. Right, because all that "science" stuff about saving lives is a crock of shit.

We should go back to the days of leeching, cause leeches are free! :eyes:

[ehrnst]

13. So, if it dovetails with what benefits Big Pharma, it's bad?

By that logic, helping someone pay their electric bill so they don't freeze is BS written by Big Coal.

Just because big pharma benefits, doesn't mean it's bad, or fake.

Also - I assume that you have some data to support your claim that the OP is "BS"?

[ehrnst]

15. Your post might just as well sound like RW Abstinence Only sex ed BS

Just sayin'.

[housewolf]

4. I urge you to make sure your teen gets this vaccine - here's why

Personal experience of what can happen without it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=332910

[Riftaxe]

5. +100

[MedicalAdmin]

9. Oh yes! Thank you for that anecdotal evidence.

It so proves the science. Take that anti vaxxers. Woooooooo woooooooooo.

[HuckleB]

24. Suddenly, anecdotes are a problem for you?

:rofl:

Oh, the hypocrisy is funny.

[AllyCat]

8. Wow HW. I had no idea. Thanks for sharing your story.

I have been on the fence about this vaccine. When I heard they wanted to give it to boys, I balked. Really? The "cervical cancer virus"? I am unaware of any studies done in boys and would like to see more data before I have my kids vaccinated. However, this really adds something to my discussion of the disease and vaccine. Peace to you.

[ehrnst]

14. Where do you think that women get the virus? Men carry it.

It is spread via sexual contact - and is asymptomatic in men.

Because of the nature of the virus, it isn't necessarily prevented by condom use.

The Abstinence Only crowd has used HPV as the big boogeyman - the STD you can't protect yourself from with condoms, and they are freaked out about this vaccine.

[AllyCat]

19. I know that ehrnst. However, the vaccine was never tested or proven in anyway

to stop the virus in boys/men.

[ehrnst]

20. Actually testing on men began in 2008.

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2008/02/7723/hpv-vaccine-men

and results came in February:
http://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/736792

The study was funded by Merk - but in cooperation with NIH.

If you can't read the Medscape abstact - here's another link:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/02/02/hpv.vaccine.men.health/index.html

"In the study, which included more than 4,000 sexually active males between the ages of 16 and 26, roughly 0.5 percent of the boys and men who received all three shots developed genital warts during the subsequent 2 to 3 years. By contrast, about 2.8 percent of the study participants who received a placebo vaccine developed warts."

I think that CDC would have not recommended it in October for boys if they did not have the data:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/health/policy/26vaccine.html?_r=1

And the American Academy of Pediatrics wouldn't just jump on the bandwagon without some serious data:
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/01/routine-hpv-vaccine-for-boys-urged/

[trotsky]

11. Thank you for sharing this.

I am sorry to hear about what you've gone through but clearly you have turned it into a positive thing to help others. You should be very proud.

[ehrnst]

12. My son will get it when he is 11, whether or not insurance covers it.

He's 8. If no negative side effects are discovered, he will get it.

My HPV nearly rendered me unable to conceive him.

I don't want him to get it or pass it on.

[xchrom]

48. excellent. nt

[mzmolly]

50. And how long will he be considered

protected?