Concerns about HPV Vaccine Safety

[GreatEscapist]

My mom won't let me get the new HPV vaccine, but I wanted to. Sounded like a good idea. She said that later down the road (She's an RN) they'll find that the *stuff* in it will hurt us.

So what is she talking about? Or hinting at? Is there something to be worried about, or is this another I'm-afraid-of-vaccines thing?

 

[skybluskyblue]

There are many groups on the internet that are anti-vaccine and the spread silly rumors with no proof so watch out for them!

Here is what I could find on a website that I trust:

Gardasil

* The most prominent argument against the HPV vaccine Gardasil is that it has been linked to 43 deaths (as of June 2009). These reports were made to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Of these, 26 reported deaths were confirmed to have occurred, but no causal link to the vaccine was found after investigation. Based on the evidence available, therefore, it does not appear that the vaccine causes death.
* A post-market surveillance study by the CDC found that the rate of reported deaths (including anaphylaxis) was 0.1 per 100,000 doses distributed. Their conclusion was that reported adverse events did not differ significantly from vaccines in general.
* Further arguments against Gardasil mention fainting after immunization. This is a known possible side effect of some vaccines and is included in the package insert. The insert also includes recommendations to observe the patient for at least 15 minutes after injection to ensure the patient does not fall or suffer injury.

...
Vaccines in General

* Anti-vaxers want vaccines that are 100% safe. This is never going to happen, as all medicines carry some risk. However, the relative risk of injury from vaccines is significantly lower than the risk of injury from getting the disease naturally. Prometheus, at Photon In the Darkness, explains how to calculate the risk of injury from the disease and the risk of injury from the vaccine. He also describes common errors that anti-vaxers make when determining the risk of injury from diseases and vaccines. For more information, see the CDC website.
* Reduced vaccination rates lead to higher incidents of infection. This has been illustrated in the U.K. following Wakefield’s bogus study, in Germany in 2006 (including two deaths in unvaccinated children), in California, in MN (where an unvaccinated child died from hemophilus influenza type b).
* Anti-vaxers claim that “Big Pharma” and physicians alike make lots of money from vaccines. If vaccination rates dropped, however, there would be an increase in preventable illnesses, many of which have high rates of complications resulting in hospitalization and expensive treatment. See the link about Germany above for information on costs associated with the measles outbreak there. The money to be made from the diseases far outweighs any money to be made from vaccines. Add to that fact an article from Sept. 11, 2009 showing that some doctors cannot afford to give vaccines due to lack of reimbursement from insurance companies.
* Anti-vaxers claim that better hygiene has led to a decrease in disease, rather than vaccines. However, many of the diseases prevented by vaccines are airborne, and are not greatly impacted by improved sanitation or hygiene.
* Anti-vaxers claim that too many antigens (the parts that make the vaccines work) are given at once, ignoring that infants and children are exposed to thousands of antigens every day by touching things and putting their hands or the object in their mouth, through absorption or by inhaling.
* They claim that combination shots should be avoided, and that parents should break up the vaccinations into individual vaccines and spread them out. However, this increases the total number of shots received, as well as exposure to those various “toxins” they hate so much.
* Some in the anti-vax movement say that an alternate, spaced-out schedule is better, yet they have no scientific studies to support such a protocol. They also claim that the schedule recommended by the CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics is not backed up by science. This is not true. Each year, the schedule is reviewed in the light of the latest scientific studies on vaccines and revised as necessary, with the newest recommendations being published each January.
* Another claim made by anti-vaxers is that so-called "natural" immunity (i.e., immunity gained by infection with the disease) is better or lasts longer than immunity gained by a vaccine. This is not necessarily true. For example, natural immunity to pertussis, similarly to the vaccine, wears off after about 10-11 years. Therefore, even if an individual had pertussis as a child, they may still become infected as an adult, suffering the full effects and passing it on to others.
* Some anti-vaxers will ask "why worry" whether they immunize their child or not, if you and your child(ren) have been immunized? There are a number of reasons. First, not everyone is able to be immunized, due to a variety of medical reasons (e.g., egg allergies, age, etc.). Second, vaccines are not 100% effective, though most are very close. This means that in order to prevent an outbreak, a high number of individuals needs to be immunized so that a virus or bacteria does not have enough potential hosts to sustain itself. There is a small possibility that even with vaccination, you will not gain immunity. Finally, there are some individuals (the elderly, AIDS patients, transplant recipients, some cancer patients, etc.) for whom vaccines just will not work or not work as well, because their immune system does not, or cannot, mount a full response to it. These individuals are also unlikely to gain immunity from infection, either. For all of these reasons, it is very important to keep vaccination rates up, so that those who do not or cannot benefit from vaccines are protected by herd immunity.
* There have been no properly controlled studies establishing a causal link between vaccines and autism.
* There have been numerous properly controlled studies sponsored and run by various people and organizations around the world that have shown no link between vaccines and autism.

http://antiantivax.flurf.net/#Gardasil

Go to that website if you have more questions.
I recently got the H1N1 vaccine and my tetanus shot -- I had no side effects --I recommend that you get the vaccine because the risks are tiny and the benefits are great! To be protected from some types of cancer and from certain types of warts is a big upside!

Please make your decision based on SCIENCE not on urban legends!

 

[lisab]

My mom won't let me get the new HPV vaccine, but I wanted to. Sounded like a good idea. She said that later down the road (She's an RN) they'll find that the *stuff* in it will hurt us.

So what is she talking about? Or hinting at? Is there something to be worried about, or is this another I'm-afraid-of-vaccines thing?

Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest maybe there's something else going on here. Perhaps it's the idea of mom's little girl being sexually active that's an issue?

I would hope that a health professional would know better than to have a negative reaction to vaccines, without giving reasons for it.

 

[Moonbear]

I think it is really unfortunate that an RN would have such an anti-vaccine view (especially since future RNs are among the students I teach).

Vaccines just kick your immune system into responding to a virus before you get infected with it. This is a good thing as long as you don't have any allergies to anything within the immunization (a lot of these are generated in eggs, so if someone has an allergy to eggs, many immunizations are contra-indicated).

I suspect it may be more of what lisab is suggesting, a fear of one's daughter becoming sexually active. So, my suggestion to you is that if you are still living under mom's roof, avoid activities that would put you at risk for contracting HPV (I'm sure you know what they are...and if you aren't, they are the things your mom would be horrified to learn you were doing). When you are no longer living under mom's roof, and are considering activities that might put you at risk of contracting HPV, then save your pennies and get vaccinated...and use a condom too, in case the vaccine doesn't work for you.

 

[daniel6874]

There are many groups on the internet that are anti-vaccine and the spread silly rumors with no proof so watch out for them!

There is nothing silly about a conservative approach to new vaccines, especially when you consider the money at stake. There is every incentive to hype the benefits and minimize the risks. I think a thoughtful person would do a cost-benefit analysis as with any product and make her own mind up.

There are some silly paranoid sites out there. But one thing is certain: whenever someone tells you it's a no-brainer or that it's "dangerous" to even suggest people consider the matter carefully for themselves, it's about money.

 

[GreatEscapist]

Wait, wait. You don't necessarily have to be sexually active to get the vaccine. Doesn't it still do good if one isn't?

Right? Cause I'm not. :P

 

[lisab]

Wait, wait. You don't necessarily have to be sexually active to get the vaccine. Doesn't it still do good if one isn't?

Right? Cause I'm not. :P

The vaccine works whether you're sexually active or not.

HPV is a sexually transmitted disease. So I was making a leap of logic when I linked the vaccine to being sexually active.

But ideally, a young person (I've read they give it to males now, too) would get the vaccine before becoming sexually active, to fully protect themselves and their future partners.

 

[GreatEscapist]

Ah, I can see the connection now.

Well, I'll still try with her. Thanks. ;)

 

[daniel6874]

"But ideally, a young person (I've read they give it to males now, too) would get the vaccine before becoming sexually active, to fully protect themselves and their future partners."
______________

With all respect, suppose it is the case (and it probably is) that there are thousands of viruses that could cause serious illness in some portion of the population. Suppose we could develop a vaccine that is at least marginally effective against each and every one of them.

Would you seriously advocate taking every shot? Where do you draw the line? What is the cumulative effect of a lifetime of "jolts to the immune system?" Are there any studies?

 

[GreatEscapist]

Would I get a shot for a cold? Nope. Other petty viruses? Nah. Something that could do serious damage to my system? Duh.

If there weren't studies done it wouldn't be on the shelves.

 

[daniel6874]

You didn't answer the question I asked.

If HPV is our threshold for a serious health threat, we could end up with hundreds of different recommended vaccinations. The American Cancer Institute says about 4000 women die of cervical cancer each year. No one dies of a cold (by definition) so that was not a question. And my question about studies related to longterm cumulative effect of multiple vaccines. Why bother to answer my question if you can't cite a study of the kind I asked about?

If they're on the shelf the studies must have been done? You are an ideal vaccine customer! Even the insurance companies aren't persuaded the vaccine is worth underwriting--and they are the ones dealing with the treatment costs of cancer down the road.

 

[zomgwtf]

You didn't answer the question I asked.

If HPV is our threshold for a serious health threat, we could end up with hundreds of different recommended vaccinations. The American Cancer Institute says about 4000 women die of cervical cancer each year. No one dies of a cold (by definition) so that was not a question. And my question about studies related to longterm cumulative effect of multiple vaccines. Why bother to answer my question if you can't cite a study of the kind I asked about?

If they're on the shelf the studies must have been done? You are an ideal vaccine customer! Even the insurance companies aren't persuaded the vaccine is worth underwriting--and they are the ones dealing with the treatment costs of cancer down the road.

I don't think HPV is our 'threshold'... this is an isolated case. Just because this mother doesn't want their daughter to get the shot doesn't indicate in anyway that the rest of the population feels that they can stop at HPV vaccines.

In my opinion I think that this young girl should consult her family doctor about the matter. There is absolutely 'nothing' wrong with getting the HPV vaccine regardless if you are sexually active or planning on being sexually active or not. I feel that the only person that should be giving medical advice to this person is her family doctor. Her mother shouldn't be telling her daughter from her position as a RN these things about vaccines... I don't believe in that at all. It's called indoctrination.

 

[daniel6874]

"In my opinion I think that this young girl should consult her family doctor about the matter. There is absolutely 'nothing' wrong with getting the HPV vaccine regardless if you are sexually active or planning on being sexually active or not. I feel that the only person that should be giving medical advice to this person is her family doctor. Her mother shouldn't be telling her daughter from her position as a RN these things about vaccines... I don't believe in that at all. It's called indoctrination."
______________________________________________

Putting aside the HPV question for a moment, there are plenty of questions about which doctors disagree (with each other). What do you do then? Toss a coin? I thought this was a science forum. You are saying that someone must be correct because of his putative expertise? If you're planning to become a doctor's secretary that's fine. If you're planning to study biology it is an odd way to think. There are PhDs who don't believe in evolution. Do we accept it because of their expertise?

Whether it's a secretary or a doctor or a nuclear physicist, the expertise means they have a working knowledge of the basic work in their field. You have a right and in some cases an obligation to ask for the basis of an opinion and check it out for yourself.

 

[russ_watters]

With all respect, suppose it is the case (and it probably is) that there are thousands of viruses that could cause serious illness in some portion of the population. Suppose we could develop a vaccine that is at least marginally effective against each and every one of them.

Would you seriously advocate taking every shot? Where do you draw the line? What is the cumulative effect of a lifetime of "jolts to the immune system?" Are there any studies?

Well your initial premise is faulty. If there were 1000 viruses equally as deadly as HPV, they would together kill 4 million people a year in the US, which is higher than the 2.5 million who actually die - and of course, only a small fraction die from diseases treatable with vaccines.

But if we change it to, say, dozens, then yes, I'd get vaccinated for dozens of things that each have a 0.1% of killing me over the course of my life if the vaccines were available. And it isn't just death we're protecting agains. Diseases like chicken pox and measles don't kill all that many people infected (0.3% for measles), but since they affect a lot of people, that's a lot of minor misery spread around. Measles, before vaccinations started, killed on the order of 1500 people a year in the US, but infected hundreds of thousands. Now, it is almost eraticated.

And that's another potential possibility: a vaccine might be required for 50 years or so, then get dropped because the disease is eradicated. Ie, smallpox.

Where do you draw the line?

Dunno. I do agree that HPV is probably relatively near that limit. But I'll vaccinate my kids for chicken pox (if I ever have any) and that has a death rate of only 0.0023%.

What is the cumulative effect of a lifetime of "jolts to the immune system?" Are there any studies?

I'm not sure there is even a hypothesis in there to test. What basis do you have for believing these "jolts to the immune system" might have a cumulative effect??

[edit] Remember, there are already a lot of people who get dozens of immunizations, as the flu vaccine is administered yearly. I don't yet get it regularly, but when I get to an age where my risk factor becomes significant, I will.

 

[russ_watters]

Putting aside the HPV question for a moment, there are plenty of questions about which doctors disagree (with each other). What do you do then? Toss a coin?

You're moving the goalposts: this isn't one of those cases. This one is clear-cut: the woman is supporting a crackpot position.

I thought this was a science forum. You are saying that someone must be correct because of his putative expertise? If you're planning to become a doctor's secretary that's fine. If you're planning to study biology it is an odd way to think. There are PhDs who don't believe in evolution. Do we accept it because of their expertise?

No, you got it backwards. We're saying we shouldn't believe this woman just because of her position - that's why what this woman is doing is so bad! She's using her resume to forward a crackpot idea.

 

[daniel6874]

"You're moving the goalposts: this isn't one of those cases. This one is clear-cut: the woman is supporting a crackpot position... No, you got it backwards. We're saying we shouldn't believe this woman just because of her position - that's why what this woman is doing is so bad! She's using her resume to forward a crackpot idea."
_____________________________________________

I think you are being disingenuous here. Questioning of "expertise" includes that of doctors, and that was my intent. The OP's mother is an RN and not a virologist. She is making a commonsense observation that longterm effects of a vaccine are seldom studied. Well, she has a point. You said it yourself--HPV is probably near the threshold of a sensible vaccine protocol. It can't be near the threshold and be clear-cut at the same time.
_______________________

"I'm not sure there is even a hypothesis in there to test. What basis do you have for believing these "jolts to the immune system" might have a cumulative effect??"
___________

The problem is not forming a hypothesis but finding anyone with the means and incentive to do the study. Here is the idea. Make a list of diseases that can be prevented or helped by vaccines in order of seriousness. Find populations that have had subsets of the vaccines (and no vaccines).

What basis do I have for believing there is a cumulative negative impact of vaccines? Vaccines are invasive and do in fact affect the immune system for better or worse. I think the onus is on those who want to vaccinate even beyond your (I think reasonable) threshold to show there is no such effect.

 

[zomgwtf]

Well first of all daniel if you could use the quote function on the forum it'd be a lot easier to read your posts.

I think you are being disingenuous here. Questioning of "expertise" includes that of doctors, and that was my intent. The OP's mother is an RN and not a virologist. She is making a commonsense observation that longterm effects of a vaccine are seldom studied. Well, she has a point. You said it yourself--HPV is probably near the threshold of a sensible vaccine protocol. It can't be near the threshold and be clear-cut at the same time.

Do you want to contract HPV? You might not die from it but it definitely WILL effect your way of life and will change your sex-life forever. Have you ever seen a case of genital warts?
'long term studies' Here in Canada at least vaccines under go EXTENSIVE testing just within the nation. Testing on vaccines also occurs at an international level and any adverse effects that are brought up by any other organizations are looked at very seriously and studied in depth. It is NOT common sense to be against vaccines prior to looking up the required information to make an INFORMED decision.
This person, in my opinion, is in a position of 'medical knowledge' and she is also in a position which people may rely on her for medical advice. She is not giving medical advice she is giving a personal advice from a medical position. Not right at all, especially since it's her daughter. She should present to her daughter available information on the HPV vaccine and probably set her up to meet with a person who is qualified to give medical advice to her daughter. I.e. family doctor.

The problem is not forming a hypothesis but finding anyone with the means and incentive to do the study. Here is the idea. Make a list of diseases that can be prevented or helped by vaccines in order of seriousness. Find populations that have had subsets of the vaccines (and no vaccines). My hypothesis would be that we would find strong benefits associated with a certain subset of vaccines (smallpox, etc.), decreasing benefit as we get more inclusive, and negative picture associated with those whose who took all recommended vaccines.

What do you mean by 'benefits' Do you mean not dying younger? Or do you mean not contracting the disease. If it's the latter case the benefits will obviously all fall under the people with all the vaccines. Regardless of how serious the disease is. Is it worth the costs? Well that's a different question far removed from a benefit analysis between vaccine and non-vaccine persons.

I would find it hard to believe that any person who has contracted HPV would like to say that they do not believe that in their life they would have benefitted from spending the money to get the HPV vaccine. Regardless if they die or not... it has nothing to do. Vaccines are not designed to lengthen life or protect against specifically deadly diseases. They are designed to prevent major outbreaks hitting the population and protecting the population from whatever effects that disease may have.

Now, this is testable and I could be proven wrong. What basis do I have for believing there is a cumulative negative impact of vaccines? Vaccines are invasive and do in fact affect the immune system for better or worse. I think the onus is on those who want to vaccinate even beyond your (I think reasonable) threshold to show there is no such effect.

You can head over to your national medical advisory body and they will show to you the facts. They have always been there, the onus has always been fullfilled. People don't accept that so they onus is now on THEM to prove it otherwise. Which, in my opinion, has failed miserably.

Getting vaccinated is a personal choice. IF a person does not want to contract HPV and that person would like to seek out a vaccination for HPV then it is entirely up to that person to seek out a medical professional who has the proper qualifications to help the person make an informed decision about the vaccination.

 

[Evo]

"You're moving the goalposts: this isn't one of those cases. This one is clear-cut: the woman is supporting a crackpot position... No, you got it backwards. We're saying we shouldn't believe this woman just because of her position - that's why what this woman is doing is so bad! She's using her resume to forward a crackpot idea."
_____________________________________________

I think you are being disingenuous here. Questioning of "expertise" includes that of doctors, and that was my intent. The OP's mother is an RN and not a virologist. She is making a commonsense observation that longterm effects of a vaccine are seldom studied. Well, she has a point. You said it yourself--HPV is probably near the threshold of a sensible vaccine protocol. It can't be near the threshold and be clear-cut at the same time.
_______________________

"I'm not sure there is even a hypothesis in there to test. What basis do you have for believing these "jolts to the immune system" might have a cumulative effect??"
___________

The problem is not forming a hypothesis but finding anyone with the means and incentive to do the study. Here is the idea. Make a list of diseases that can be prevented or helped by vaccines in order of seriousness. Find populations that have had subsets of the vaccines (and no vaccines). My hypothesis would be that we would find strong benefits associated with a certain subset of vaccines (smallpox, etc.), decreasing benefit as we get more inclusive, and negative picture associated with those whose who took all recommended vaccines.

Now, this is testable and I could be proven wrong. What basis do I have for believing there is a cumulative negative impact of vaccines? Vaccines are invasive and do in fact affect the immune system for better or worse. I think the onus is on those who want to vaccinate even beyond your (I think reasonable) threshold to show there is no such effect.

Please learn how to use the "quote" button.

You could have easily done a quick search to find studies. I'm afraid that you do need to back up any statements of fact that you make.

Vaccines are released when the overall benefit far outweighs any isolated problems such as allergies.

Here is a link.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12444178?dopt=Abstract

 

[Monique]

Note that there are multiple studies on the long-term safety of vaccines and that researchers are conducting long-term safety studies on the HPV vaccine. It should be clear that speculative posts are not allowed and that controversial claims must be supported by valid sources.

Edit: since the thread ran off-topic fast, it has been cleaned up. Please let's keep the discussion on the topic of risks associated with the HPV vaccine.

 

[GreatEscapist]

*jumps back on the on-topic bandwagon*

Is there any way I can figure out if I am more prone to get the side effects? Or is this more of a take-a-risk type of thing?

 

[zomgwtf]

*jumps back on the on-topic bandwagon*

Is there any way I can figure out if I am more prone to get the side effects? Or is this more of a take-a-risk type of thing?

It's a 'discuss this with your doctor' thing . Really this isn't the place to be getting medical advice. While some of the people here would certainly be qualified to give you the advice it needs to be someone who first hand knows the situation. Knows all your medical records, everything.

So I stand by my original statement that you should go in and discuss this with your family doctor.

 

[GreatEscapist]

:P

Okay. I'll work on that.

 

[ViewsofMars]

I had to do a little research on this topic. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons issued a Statement on Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine on Feb 5, 2007.

AAPS makes the following observations about HPV vaccine:

1. The vaccine is claimed to prevent cancer—of the cervix. Pap smears have already made advanced cervical cancer rare in the United States. Money spent on this very expensive vaccine could likely prevent more cancer if spent on screening clinics and colposcopy clinics for women unable to afford vaccine, Pap smears, or treatment.

2. At best, the vaccine is only partly effective; vaccinated women still need Pap smears. A MedLine search of the medical literature shows that no study has actually shown cancer prevention yet, only a reduction in abnormal Pap smears. This is called a “surrogate endpoint” (a substitute for the real thing), in the words of Dr. Kenneth Hatch of the University of Arizona, in a presentation to hospital medical staff about the vaccine. Such findings may resolve on their own, or may progress to cancer, over a period of years. The longest follow-up period in published vaccine studies is about 5 years; it usually takes decades for cervical cancer to develop. By 2020, there may be proof of efficacy against cancer (carcinoma in situ) in an ongoing Finnish study, which has enrolled 2,404 of 24,046 women invited to receive vaccine (Intl J STD & AIDS 2006;17:512-521). The vaccine only protects against 70 percent of the strains associated with invasive cancers, according to the Gardasil package insert.

3. Vaccine protection may only last a few years. Boosters may be needed every 10 years (Clin Obstet Gynecol 2005;48:226-240), or perhaps every 5.

4. There is no public-health purpose for mandating HPV vaccine for schoolchildren. HPV is a sexually transmitted disease.

5. Proof of safety is unconvincing to many. The vaccine is claimed to be safe and “well-tolerated,” but studies have involved fewer than 20,000 women, most of them over 16 years of age, for less than 5 years. According to the package insert, “arthritic symptoms” occurred three times as often in subjects who got the vaccine, compared to subjects who only got the “adjuvant” components of the vaccine (aluminum-containing compounds to increase effectiveness). And side effects from the “placebo” containing adjuvant were far more frequent than with a saline placebo, as shown in the package insert. An increased risk of juvenile rheumatoid arthritis—a deforming, devastating, lifelong disease—is being watched for, stated Dr. Hatch. Many people would not trade even a 1 in 1,000 or 1 in 10,000 increased risk of JRA for partial protection against warts, which are usually the only effect of HPV. Risk of autoimmune diseases may be greater with boosters.

6. Mandates are medically unethical. AAPS believes that all medical procedures, including vaccines, require informed consent, with very rare exceptions. Concerning HPV vaccine, which it believes can be “recommended,” the Department of Family Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, concluded: “[G]iven concerns for autonomy, justice, as not all persons are at risk, and non-maleficence, HPV vaccine should not be mandated for school entry” (Vaccine 2006;24:4812-4820).
http://www.aapsonline.org/vaccines/hpv-statement.php

I hope at least some of the above statement by the AAPS is of help to this topic. Mandating HPV vaccine for schoolchildren is absolutely absurd! That is unethical. Apparently, there was a time when it was considered. Honestly, I don't know if I should cry or be mad. Deep breath, I think I'll do a little of both.

 

[russ_watters]

What's a "schoolchild"?

 

[Evo]

I have someone very close to me that has just had an abnormal pap smear and they are now doing further tests and it might be HPV. If caught in the early stages, cryosurgery is effective, but I wish they'd have had the vaccine.

 

[zomgwtf]

I had to do a little research on this topic. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons issued a Statement on Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine on Feb 5, 2007.




I hope at least some of the above statement by the AAPS is of help to this topic. Mandating HPV vaccine for schoolchildren is absolutely absurd! That is unethical. Apparently, there was a time when it was considered. Honestly, I don't know if I should cry or be mad. Deep breath, I think I'll do a little of both.

Hmm I don't think anyone is discussing about mandating any HPV vaccine for schoolchildren. I stand by saying this person should consult her family physician about the vaccine and get their input, maybe even have multiple doctors give input. In the end it's HER choice. Not her doctors, not her mothers, not the APSS, not mine and not yours

As well it doesn't surprise me that you might have to get booster shots every now and then. But I would be surprised if it was every 5 years. 10 years even sounds too often, recent research has shown that booster shots in most cases is unnecessary as protection given by vaccines lasts a VERY long time. However people still go and get booster shots all the time.

 

[ViewsofMars]

What's a "schoolchild"?

Russ, good question! As far I understand it where I live, a 'schoolchild" is considered a minor. A case in point would be a parent or guardian must be notified if a child is injured at school or wishes to leave the premises of the school during school hours without prior written consent from a parent or guardian. If any free vaccines (ex. Flu shot) are offered at a school, a parent or guardian is notified and must give written consent or be present.

Hmm I don't think anyone is discussing about mandating any HPV vaccine for schoolchildren. I stand by saying this person should consult her family physician about the vaccine and get their input, maybe even have multiple doctors give input. In the end it's HER choice. Not her doctors, not her mothers, not the APSS, not mine and not yours

Zomgwtf, if the individual is a minor then a parent or guardian will be involved.

I didn’t say there was a current mandate for a vaccine for schoolchildren. I was showing some examples outlined in the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Statement on Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine on Feb 5, 2007 which pertains to the topic “Risks with HPV vaccine.” How people react to the statement made by the AAPS is out of my control. I do wholeheartedly agree with the AAPS in regards to a Pap smear.

Evo, I hope that someone very close to you fairs well. A dear friend of mine had cervical cancer. Her doctor told her that she waited too long to get a Pap smear. She had surgery. Her husband is very happy that she is alive today to see two of their children grow into adults and the remaining two still in high school.

 

[GreatEscapist]

Zomgwtf, if the individual is a minor then a parent or guardian will be involved.

I didn’t say there was a current mandate for a vaccine for schoolchildren. I was showing some examples outlined in the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Statement on Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine on Feb 5, 2007 which pertains to the topic “Risks with HPV vaccine.” How people react to the statement made by the AAPS is out of my control. I do wholeheartedly agree with the AAPS in regards to a Pap smear.

Well, I'm *almost* not a minor. Almost. But that doesn't count in anything, except horseshoes and grenades.

Hmmm. I didn't know that the AAPS thought that way about the shot...

And Evo, I'm very sorry about your friend. That really sucks. If it's early, then she should be okay. :) My sister didn't catch hers fast enough. I guess there's a lesson learned.

 

[gengen]

Last week, I got shot gardasil vaccine, then today I saw a small like wart in my genital. Am I too late for a hpv vaccine? any suggestions?

thank you.

 

[GreatEscapist]

Last week, I got shot gardasil vaccine, then today I saw a small like wart in my genital. Am I too late for a hpv vaccine? any suggestions?

thank you.

I'm very, very, very sorry. Wow. That sucks.

And yes, I think that that would mean you are- go see a doctor...