Well. Point proven, I’d say!
Kobal2,
I certainly believe that vaccinating against HPV is a good idea but overselling it is not.
Of those 4 out of 5 who get HPV for at at least some period of time, very few get cervical cancer. The overall rate of cervical cancer in the United States is about 8/100K, and of those most are detected early, consequently the death rate is less than a third of that. The overall trend for the last 30+ years has been for decreasing amounts of cervical cancer and less mortality. The vaccine does not protect against 30% of the strains that can cause cervical cancer.
Yes, for my daughter I think lowering her risk of cervical cancer from 8 to less than 3 per 100K is worth three somewhat uncomfortable shots and the inconvenience of coming in. And it compares well with other healthcare interventions on a cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years saved (QALY) basis. I personally think it is worth it to have my sons vaccinated as well. But those who do not vaccinate are simply not subjecting my daughter to a level of risk that warrants eliminating their right to make what I consider a less than best choice.
Kevbo the immunity has so far been lasting. So far it has been followed out 8 years with no evidence of losing protective levels. Most experts reasonably expect that protection will last at least 15 to 20 years. It is true to state that we will not know for sure until we are 15 to 20 years out.
An anti vaxxer asserted to me that during the trials, two hundred teenage girls died and was covered up as a result.
Uh-huh.
This prompted a search several years ago to discover what made this vaccine so “dangerous”.
The vaccine, as I understand it, uses the shell of the HPV virus. The shell is populated with HPV viral surface proteins (various “types” of HPV exist, for the vaccine they replicate the two that are most likely to cause cervical cancer). The inside has no “guts” to speak of (DNA, RNA) so it can’t reproduce. AFAIK, this a far safer method than using killed or weaken viruses.
Needless to say, there was no point in talking with the anti vaxxer; I figured she accuse me of being sucked into the conspiracy.
What the CDC says about VAERS and the HPV vaccine:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/hpv/gardasil.html
The data from VAERS can also be easily manipulated.
Here’s one such study explaining how the rise in reports of autism and vaccines can be correlated with the Wakefield report. Reports rose after his claims and fell after he was discredited.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/117/2/387.full
Orac (aka Dr. David Gorski) explains what that study means:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/01/how_vaccine_litigation_distorts_the_vaer.php
I never bought that these things sends such a message, I think more of the message is ‘sex happens’ sometimes unexpectedly, sometimes overriding a persons ‘moral code’.
I think that is the message that some people are really afraid of and don’t want to acknowledge, it represents a aspect that they can not be in control of.
In the case of a parent/child it means that the child will have their own life and it’s beyond the parents control to stop it, which again frightens many parents to the point that they don’t even want to have to think of it.
So it’s a control issue, where the actual issue is the breaking of the control of the child by the parents as the child grows beyond the limits that the parents can dictate.
The doctor who is cited as the “con” side is not quoting the data accurately.
This study from two years ago demonstrated protection to over 6 years and at levels that
Last year they published another year out, over seven years, and still
Again, it is possible that there will be a sudden drop in protection levels in year ten or so, but based on past experience the levels lasting this long makes such highly unlikely. No cite available and individuals vary but my WAG is that the peak of sexual variety in life for most Americans is late teen through mid twenties. The odds that this vaccine won’t cover at least through those years is very very small; smaller than odds of exposure if the vaccine is delayed too many years.
How about your daughter’s daughter ?
Now, I admit that when I wrote that little rant of mine, I had no idea that a) the vaccine cost 300 schmuckers and b) it was on the citizen’s dime even when mandated by the State, which is… more than a little bit fucked up. And by that I mean that US health care is ridiculous.
Doesn’t really change my argument, though. If there’s a chance to eradicate a disease at the cost of three pinpricks, then yeah, I don’t think “buuut it hurts, and going to the doctor thrice is so inconvenient for meee” is reason enough not to.
One thing that has always puzzled me about the “it will encourage young girls to have sex!” argument is why anyone with this concern would tell their daughter the shot was to protect against an STD in the first place. I think by age 12 kids have the right to know why they’re getting a shot, but if I sincerely believed that the truth would cause my (imaginary) daughter to become the town tramp then I’d rather mislead her about the nature of the vaccine than skip it and leave her vulnerable to HPV.
For a breakdown:
The problem with the vaccine is that it’s a marginal benefit. There are people to whom the benefit if clearly worthwhile. There are those to whom the benefit is clearly not worth it.
It’s not the sex aspect which complicates this, but asking people to cough up the money (which no matter how you tax it, they do) is rather dubious when it can be controlled via behavior. And you must also consider the risk to the (hopefuly few) who will have a bad reaction to the vaccine
Now the practical aspects may still suggest it’s wort it. I have few opinions on the matter. But it’s definitely a troubling problem. This is a “selfish vaccine,” - vaccination protects you, not others. It doesn’t really rely on mass herd immunity against truly terrible scourges like polio or even measles. Thus, it should be self-evidently harder to justify.
My daughter has just had her last shot. I am very thankful that it’s free in this country (NZ).
Parents had to sign a permission form before the girls were given the first of the series of shots. Those who refused were asked (not required) to attend a meeting to discuss their concerns.
I figured it wouldn’t just protect her, but all her potential partners (argh, NONE!! At least until she’s 20) from contracting HPV.
I lobbied for an absence only policy back in grade school, but my parents wouldn’t listen. Curse their oily hides!
Absence-only education doesn’t work! The studies proved that!
Absence is actually a very effective means of birth control. “Honey?! Hello?! Where are you?!”
However, for some reason, it is curiously ineffective in preventing STDs.
Aren’t 80% of Americans infected with HPV? I guess it could be controlled if we all went in to total abstinence. But it’s not possible to “control” it without most of the country completely centering their sexuality around it.
No, 80% of Americans will be, are of have been infected at some point in their lives (infection and symptoms typically only last a couple years, after that we don’t know whether the immune system eliminates the virus entirely, or merely drops it to levels we can’t track).
But not 80% at once. That would be ewww gross.
[QUOTE=EvilTOJ]
Absence-only education doesn’t work! The studies proved that!
[/QUOTE]
Did they ? I wasn’t there for the press release 
Did you know that, at any given time, you have about ten times as many individual bacteria living in your body as you have cells of your own flesh?
Okay, that’s ewww gross. :eek:
Wrong! I can top it!
And you do have our heartfelt gratitude, Sir! 