Will you vaccinate your daughter against HPV, the virus that causes cervical cancer?

I should get to vote twice! (Once for each kiddo!) I'm having both girls get the vaccine this summer when DD12 has to get boosters (MMR and Tetanus) for middle school, anyways. DD16 and I need tetanus boosters, too, (before our trip to the Grand Canyon!)and I'll have them start the HPV series then.

Me too - I think this is a great option for girls. We really don't know what the future holds for our daughters and why would we choose not to protect them from this?

This vaccine has only been tested for short term effects and has not been around long enough to prove it is safe. Merck is currently embroiled in many lawsuits over their drug Voixx and its dangers. This does not give me any confidence in Merck's testing methods or honesty about their product safety.

I will not allow my daughter to be their guinea pig.

My daughter is 12 and I would much rather she get regular pap smears, learn safe sex and use that, then get some drug that may or may not work over the long term, and may have serious side effects.

Given that early detected cervicel cancer is quite treatable, I think vaccine is an expensive scam. At $120 a single shot and 3 shots are required, I doubt much of it will end up in third world countries where it would make the greatest impact, because medical treatment in general is hard to get there.

Which leads me to suspect that Merck is simply trying to make more money on a largely unessisary vaccine and to heck with the harm it may do to teen girls.

Here is some more info on why one may want to be cautious, or totally avoid this vaccine.

http://www.mothering.com/articles/growing_child/vaccines/gardasil.html

I guess I would have to say that I am uncertain about any NEW vaccine. I don't think the vaccine has been around long enough for me to feel comfortable regarding safety. (if I had a daughter under 21) Now that my daughter is 22 she is making her own health care decisions. She comes to me of course for advice, and I guess I will have to read up on this more before I counsel her on this one, but it does offer a possibility of a new level of protection that will be welcome for women.
But the idea that somehow our daughters will be more "promiscous" by recieving a vaccine...is crazy thinking. Wise and seasoned parents of teens know that, there are many factors that play into a teens decision to become sexually active. I think that too many parents "think" they have "control" over thier teens, when in actuality they only have INFLUENCE...big difference... just my 2 cents
We as parents can only guide our teens without fear based ingnorance, support and love them and then launch our teens into an ever changing world and pray....

I don't think a vaccine would make my daughters want to run out and have sex, either.

However, I'm unsure of getting the vaccine at this point. It's new, and I like to wait and see if it sticks around and is worth all it's hype. both my girls have had all their required vaccinations and aren't due back until they are 14. I will probably discuss with their dr. if they need anything else at that time.

FWIW, I also do not get flu vaccinations. I get the state required vaccines, especially since my kids are in public schools. But I just don't go out and get any vaccination just because it's out there.

Which reminds me, I need to get my puppy to the vet for his rabies vaccine.

Just read that Texas is the first state to require the vaccine. It will start in 2008 with 6th grade girls. If New Mexico follows suit, then I have a year and a half for my oldest to get it. Man, she shouldn't be that old yet!
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20070202/D8N1QMJ80.html

I'm with you, Kay.

Sounds like Merck is lining some pockets at the FDA as usual...

If you knew what they put in vaccines, you would not want ANY of them.

It is just another way for the government to stick it noses in our business where it does not belong. We have the right to make our own choices, and that is the way it should be.

Kathy

I am religiously opposed to all vaccines to begin with. We were created perfectly, and our immune systems were, too.

On the scientific side, this vaccine was "proven safe" only by comparing it to aluminum, which we already know is toxic. Just because someone doesn't get more sick on the vaccine than on aluminum doesn't make the vaccine safe.

The vaccine is intended to prevent cervical cancer, which affects (I believe) less than 4000 women a year. The vast majority of those are over the age 70. (I am writing these numbers based solely on my memory of what I was reading a couple months ago, so I may be off a little, but the point remains the same). I think it was 80% of women catch the HPV virus. Of those, 90% get over it without ever knowing they had it. Then, the remaining tiny percent that do get sick from it, only a few of them get cancer from it. The cancer is only deadly if it goes undetected, and isn't that why we get pap smears?

I have one child who already has emotional control issues due to vaccines. I will not risk any more of my children becoming ill due to vaccine, when I can instead strengthen their immune systems with good nutrition to help fight off any virus they may catch, HPV or not.

Sorry, this is my soapbox. For more info on all kinds of vaccines, visit www.thinktwice.com

Judy

I'm sorry. I did have my numbers mixed up a bit. It looks like it was 3000 cases in the UK. I was reading a UK paper on it. Here is the paper: http://www.honesthuman.com/?p=135 I did see that cervical cancer is listed on the NIH's rare disease site. A disease is listed as rare on that site if it affects 200,000 individuals or less. There are already 615 reports on the VAERS website from the HPV4 vaccine http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?PAGENO=1&PERPAGE=10&VAX=H... . 5-year survival rates (after which, I understand, one is considered cured) in the US are 67.4% according to www.wrongdiagnosis.com www.cancer.org says this, "The 5-year relative survival rate for the earliest stage of invasive cervical cancer is 92%. The overall (all stages combined) 5-year survival rate for cervical cancer is about 72%." After a paragraph explaining what 5-year survival rate means, it says, "Keep in mind that 5-year survival rates are based on patients diagnosed and initially treated more than 5 years ago. Improvements in treatment often result in a more favorable outlook for recently diagnosed patients."

This site http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/cervix/mortality/ (again UK, but closest I could find) says, "Cervical cancer mortality rates generally increase with age, with the highest number of deaths occurring in women over 75 (see Figure 1.1). Less than 6% of cervical cancer deaths occur in women under 35."

I didn't mean to cause trouble, I was just trying to explain why I choose not to have my daughters receive this vaccine.

Parents should be serious to take their children to get vaccinated. The vaccine experiment is based on those young
women as inital trial, who have not had sex activity and have not get HPV. The study shows it is 100 pretection against the virus. The mandatory vaccine will not casue the high sex activity but just protect them from hpv that may casue cervical cancer or genital warts.

http://www.positivesingles.com/blog/mala_11

Why on earth would I even consider such a thing. It's flat out shocking.

So far, there is still debate on the safety of this vaccine, so I will wait a bit longer. Plus, she's 2, I have time to decide. As for our immune systems being created perfectly...yes! Exactly, and that is why vaccines are great, they allow the body to create the antibodies to the disease by introducing the disease to the body in a form that is safer than catching it from another human being. While there are risks involved, eradication of deadly diseases is a wonderful thing! I have many friends who don't vaccinate at all--note I said friends, so no hard feelings to those who choose not to on this board; however, think for a moment...if NOBODY vaccinated, those diseases would come back. The reason you have a choice on whether or not to vaccinate (and your child not dying from the decision) is because the majority still does vaccinate, so the chances of your child coming in contact with the deadly diseases is lower.

as of yesterday I believe that our members of parliament have announced that girls WILL be vaccinated. One could opt out I suppose. There are still plenty of other reasons to teach my kids (both boy and girl) about safe sex. The safety issue is still open for discussion I guess. Not sure what age and how it will work. My DD is 11 so I'm sure she will be in the right age group unless it doesn't come in for a few more years. Not sure how I feel about it yet.

Kerri.

I have young granddaughters and I wonder about them. I think that most of this audience is too young to remember the devastating effects of polio before the vaccine. Maybe because it was more visible or because I belong to that generation of young mothers, when the polio vaccine was available I was one the the first one to get it for my children. Considering that I had a mild case of polio when the epidemic was in full swing and two cousins with severe cases, I didn't have any doubts that I wanted the vaccine for my children.
Yes, God created us perfect in His/Her image and Likeness, but also gave us a brain and the tools to discern. I will talk to my granddaughters mothers and see how they feel about this new vaccine.

The sad fact of the matter is that woman in this world still get sexually assaulted. I do not condone pre-marital sex, but I will vaccinate my 3 daughters because I know that rape is still out there. Do you really feel comfortable taking chances with your child's life? If one, heaven forbid, is raped, will you take comfort in in knowing they weren't vaccinated?