home
RSS
February 27th, 2012
07:32 AM ET

Boys should get HPV vaccination too

Parents have been hearing a lot about the human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine. But what was once designed solely for girls and young women up to the age of 26 to protect them from different strains of the virus, is now also being strongly recommended for younger boys.

Following in the footsteps of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics is recommending females and males at 11 to 12 years of age have routine HPV vaccinations.

Doctors say the vaccine is most effective if administered before a child becomes sexually active, and responds better in the bodies of younger children, usually between the ages of 9 to 15.

HPV is known to be the root cause of cervical cancer in women, and HPV can lead to other health problems in both females and males, including genital warts and mouth and throat cancers.

Young men diagnosed with HPV have also developed penile cancer and even anal cancer. These viruses, found primarily in sexually active adolescents and young adults, are the most common sexually transmitted viruses in the United States.

It was also stressed in the AAP recommendations that young men having sex with other young men should be particularly careful and consider being vaccinated.

The policy paper recommended that men 20 to 26 years old who have not been vaccinated for HPV, or who have not completed their series of HPV shots (the vaccine is administered in three doses), should do so as soon as possible. That’s because the CDC estimates about 7,000 HPV associated cancers in the U.S. could be prevented in young men by the HPV vaccine each year.

The AAP made their decision based on data provided by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on vaccine efficacy, safety and cost effectiveness.

Although some parents have been reluctant to have their children inoculated with another vaccine because of possible side effects, such as weakness, fever, tingling, itching and hives, researchers say the benefits outweigh the risks.


soundoff (491 Responses)
  1. smokin1011

    Of course boys should get it. That way Merck will make twice as much money.

    February 27, 2012 at 08:00 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Chartreuxe

      Spoken by someone who has never had a cancer diagnosis in his life nor suffered through a single chemotherapy treatment.

      My son has been fully vaccinated against HPV because I want him protected against every disease he can avoid. If you want to put a price on that, feel free to do so. I paid for the vaccine out of my pocket and gladly did so. It cost you not a single copper penny.

      If in future we share the same insurance company, do not be grateful to me for paying for the vaccine that that protected my son from penile cancer, anal cancer and oral cancer. The hundreds of thousands of dollars in cancer treatments that will be saved are meaningless to you, of course, because we all know that you are incapable of looking at future rewards in this manner. That's not why we took this precaution. The HPV vaccine was taken to protect my son from preventable cancers. Future health care savings are a bonus of this vaccine.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:06 | Report abuse |
    • Alex

      Taken from the AAP site:

      "Doctors and health officials should make a special effort to immunize men up to age 26 who have sex with men, if they have not been immunized or completed the series of shots."

      Unless you know your son is gay, then you're probably putting him through it for nothing as a very INSIGNIFICANT amount of HPV infections, actually become cancer (believe the number is less than 5%). That means you need to contract the virus, and then be in the 5% of those who contracted it and DO NOTHING ABOUT IT for 1-2 years before it can manifest itself into a tumor.

      Also to note:

      "The vaccines currently available, like Merck’s Gardasil and Glaxo SmithKline’s Cervarix, have only been tested for their effectiveness against the viruses that lead to cervical, vulvar and anal cancers."

      AKA – There is NO GUARANTEE that this vaccine will prevent men from getting oral HPV cancer.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:34 | Report abuse |
    • DeeNYC

      Chartreuxe thank you for using your son as a guinea pig. I'll await the reports 10 years from now. Also there are many strains of HPV that this shot doesn't prevent.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:37 | Report abuse |
    • Ian Woo

      Umm, hello folks? We are talking about an infectious disease here. It doesn't matter if your son is gay or not, or that probably won't get cancer from it. I think inhibiting the spread of HPV and eventually eradicating it would be a worthy endeavor, particularly with how it's looking like it's possible and everything too.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:18 | Report abuse |
    • SEC parent

      Wow thanks so much for your insight. You clearly know a lot about vaccines, viruses, and carcinogenesis. Perhaps you have some sort of newsletter we all could subscribe to?

      February 27, 2012 at 14:24 | Report abuse |
    • Chartreuxe

      Thanks, Alex. I appreciate your input. Nevertheless, he read all the literature and the warnings as did I. He's straight and was a virgin when he was vaccinated. Since I suffered from cervical dysplasia, have survived ovarian cancer as well as 2 other cancer diagnoses, we decided that it would be a good idea for him to have the vaccine.

      The rest of you spineless lot who are so very grateful that my brave son has taken the vaccine, we did it for the sake of his future health. If eventually you and/or your children profit from it, that's a pleasant little side effect. You're entirely welcome.

      Those of you who believe I couldn't see your poorly veiled wishes that harm might come to him as a result of his vaccination, they're perfectly clear to me. You fear what you don't understand.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:25 | Report abuse |
    • Say what?

      Take it, dont take it...Doctors arent God, and theres nothing 100%. Do what you feel you must, but to me, this shot isnt worth it. Too much risk with little proof.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:47 | Report abuse |
    • Julian

      Chartreuxe, I'm not sure why you're attacking the comment about drug companies making money. Drug companies have no interest in helping people, they are simply trying to make as much money as possible. That is okay because that is what they are supposed to do (all companies are supposed to maximize profits). If they could get all their drugs recommended to be taken by everyone then they'd be really happy. I'm sorry you had cancer, but I think you should know then that it is easy to prey on the hope of seriously ill people. You'd probably have spent all your money on the latest drugs, right? Well that means that you were NOT in a position to judge the motives of the drug company (or even the doctors). In the case of HPV, I do think that it is an important vaccination and everyone should probably get it. But that doesn't mean that the drug companies aren't trying to push it in order to maximize profit, and you'd be wiser to question any drug suggested to be used by a wide number of people - there is no altruism at work here, it is all about money.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:55 | Report abuse |
    • Beaver

      @Alex- Or Alex if your son becomes a real man and decides to eat at the"Y" then he will be protected from throat and mouth cancer which effect more hetro men then gay or straight men or women....I am trying to protect my boys (2) in the future.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:04 | Report abuse |
    • truther

      I'm sorry to hear that Chartreuxe. You have quite possibly exposed your son to unthinkable harm. The government is on the vaccine move because they are seeking to depopulate. See Agenda 21. It has been publicly stated that intense vaccine programs will be used to effectuate the program. Besides, if you researched how vaccines are actually made, your stomach would turn. Vaccines are a for profit enterprise, and as such a lot of money is spent each year to convince people to take them. Money, not health is the goal. The truth is they are designed to kill, not to help. I'm sorry to hear you made the decision you did.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:10 | Report abuse |
    • I call BS

      Oh, for the love of Pete. Agenda 21?

      There is definitely fertile ground on here for a mental health professional. But you loons don't believe in them, either.

      One can only hope that you're all candidates for the Darwin awards.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:17 | Report abuse |
    • truther

      Yes – Agenda 21. Are you another one of those "I'm a lemming and I love it lot?" Global fodder. What makes you people so scary is that it's all out in the open – no conspiracy, no secrets. They count on folks like you – no degree, no common sense, and no worries except NFL football and the Oscars.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:33 | Report abuse |
    • Ummmmm

      Oh, brother. You're another kook just like Amy and Katie. Go sit on the loony bin bus with them, honey.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:54 | Report abuse |
    • I call BS

      You are not only crazy, you're stupid. I have two degrees, I don't like sports and I didn't give enough of a hoot about the Oscars to even tune in to see the show.

      So far, you're just doing splendidly at looking even more idiotic than you did originally, if that is even possible.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:56 | Report abuse |
  2. sue

    As a parent of young adults,aunt to several pre-teens and grandmother to 3 little ones I have no problem with Merck making a few bucks off the vaccine. If there's a vaccine that will grant my family some kind of protection from cacer, bring it on. Unless you've lived with or lost someone to cancer you wouldn't know how great it feels to have this sort of protection against such an insidious disease. Thank heavens for Merck and the other companies who are staying in the fight!

    February 27, 2012 at 08:20 | Report abuse | Reply
    • zach

      you do realize that most vaccinations that they give young kids cause sterility, just another scheme. There has been a cure for cancer, ever since they created cancer. Vaccinations are ridiculous, dont believe me, research yourself.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:33 | Report abuse |
    • I call BS

      zach, it must be painful to suffer from such delusions. My sympathies on your mental problems.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:35 | Report abuse |
    • zach

      lol like i said, research. I feel for your brainwashed head of yours.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:37 | Report abuse |
    • blah9999

      Wow zach...yeah. You have to make sure your aluminum hat is on right or you could hear the radio signals from government satellites

      February 27, 2012 at 13:45 | Report abuse |
    • zach

      ok well honestly i hate arguing with those who have been brainwashed by the msm, and have been watching tv their whole life. i want nothing to do with this "government" if you guys do not believe me i have said this three times now, do your research.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:56 | Report abuse |
    • blah9999

      Actually, Zach. I DO do the research. I work at a research facility that works on vaccines. Do YOUR research.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:02 | Report abuse |
    • zach

      if you did work there, then you wouldn't be posting on here. You take in what you are given to take in by the company you say you research for... I have done mine, you should probably look a little closer next time youre at work lol

      February 27, 2012 at 14:07 | Report abuse |
    • Patrick

      Zach gets the tin foil hat of idiocy for the day! Congratulations!

      February 27, 2012 at 14:12 | Report abuse |
    • awake

      Zach, don't waste your time with the FOXtards, they love the tranquility of servitude, they are useless to the real patriots like yourself. Prepare for what is coming thats all we can do now.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:16 | Report abuse |
    • Less Bias

      The problem with the type of "research" required to arrive at the conclusions zach has is that it requires sources that misconstrue (or intentionally misrepresent) anecdotal evidence as tested fact. It's this type of research that leads people to spend lots of money on "homeopathic" (placebo) treatments. Take oscillococcinum, for example... I'm sure zach's research on it will yield far different results than would mine.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:18 | Report abuse |
    • Patrick

      @ awake
      >don't waste your time with the FOXtards

      Reading the same CNN site you are. HAhahahahahahah

      February 27, 2012 at 14:18 | Report abuse |
    • SEC parent

      @ Zach, who previously replied: You clearly haven't done any 'research" yourself. There are different kinds of cancer just as there are different kinds of infections. HPV causes a variety of cancers and the vaccine addresses two subtypes that cause a large number of HPV-associated cancers.

      And contrary to your ridiculous assertion, plenty of cancers are cured all the time. Different treatments are used depending on what is recognized to work best.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:34 | Report abuse |
    • I call BS

      zach, dear, if you have any cites for sources of your "information", then post them. What sources do you have to back up your outlandish, silly claims?

      You can keep burping up "do your research", but I've been doing mine and you are full of it. Unless you can produce proof of your claims, you are lying.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:58 | Report abuse |
    • Bill the Cat

      HPV has NOT been proven to cause cervical cancer. Peter Duesberg and Jody Schwartz, molecular biologists at the University of California at Berkeley showed that "there was a lack of consistent HPV DNA sequences and consistent HPV gene expression in tumors that were HPV-positive". They concluded “rare spontaneous or chemically induced chromosome abnormalities which are consistently observed in HPV DNA-negative and positive cervical cancers induce cervical cancer.”

      Additionally, those already infected with the "suspect" strains of HPV will se no curative benefit from Gardasil. Gardasil is a prophylactic, preventative vaccine, not a cure.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:14 | Report abuse |
    • khronn

      zach is the reason I quit smoking pot.

      But seriously if your gonna throw around claims of "research", please understand that the internet and abovetopsecret.com don't count. Sit through a graduate course on biochem and do some actual hard research before you throw around useless comments. quit pounding tables and start pounding facts.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:17 | Report abuse |
    • really?

      Zach is a troll... when asked to put up or shut up he chose the latter. If "most" vaccinations caused sterility then "most" of the people that any of us know would have a hard time conceiving children. I know that is far from the case for myself.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:44 | Report abuse |
  3. Mike C

    Vaccines prevent illness, if you don't want to be sick, you get vaccined. Nobody complains that another movie is coming out "Oh, now we HAVE to go see it, it's another movie". It's a stupid arguement, especially since vaccines generally aren't mandatory (unless it threatens an entire population, like Polio). Besides, girls don't get HPV from a toilet seat, some boy gave it to them by having sex. That boy got it from some older girl that wasn't vaccined either. You can't stop teens from having sex, so the responsible thing to do is protect them.

    February 27, 2012 at 08:46 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Katie

      They do NOT prevent illnesses. Neither do they eliminate illnesses. Vaccines can and do delay the onset of childhood diseases, making them much more harmful to people. They are UP TO 100% effective in UP TO 80% of those vaccinated, and they MAY be UP TO 100% effective for UP TO 10 years. (20% of those vaccinated contract the illness anyway because they received no immunity.) It's important to understand that once you start the cycle of vaccinations, you MUST continue to receive booster shots. NO vaccine lasts forever. And the side-effects, which are widely dismissed by the medical community, and vastly under-reported to the CDC, can range from very mild (slight achiness/fever/irritibility) to death. Too many vaccines given in too short a time span, especially to a developing immune system (ie, babies) can lead to organ damage, the rise of auto-immune disorders such a juvenile diabetes, and even congestive heart failure. People with allergies or sensitivies to eggs or yeast should fully understand the consequences of having a vaccine grown in those media injected into their bodies before they agree to a vaccination.

      Bottom line: don't just swallow the pharmaceutical's glossy pamphlets that warn of the one child in Somalia (or Peru or Bangladesh) who died for lack of a vaccine. Do your homework on the vaccine and the side effects and make an informed decision.

      February 27, 2012 at 11:15 | Report abuse |
    • Ummmmm

      Katie, you're wrong. Vaccines do indeed prevent and eliminate illnesses. How do you explain the fact that smallpox isn't around any longer? How do you explain the fact that most people no longer get the measles-ever?

      Ignorance and misinformation like yours is the worst disease of all.

      February 27, 2012 at 12:25 | Report abuse |
    • Chartreuxe

      Katie, if you truly believe the drivel you've posted, then I suggest you and your children and/or relatives get injected on a reality show with the live polio virus as well as chicken pox and measles and, hey, rubella! I'd pay a great deal of money (and I have money, Katie) to see you put up or shut up.

      With the exception of polio I suffered through all these diseases as a child and I'm here to tell you that they are not pleasant. I had complications from rubella that affected my sight and made me legally blind for *years.* Only recently was that able to be corrected by surgery. Do you think it was fun to be blind? I can tell you that it was not enjoyable.

      Katie, your ideas are foolish and have been disproved by articles published in the JAMA and the Lancet. The physician who proposed them has lost his license to practice medicine in the UK. You lean on a broken reed.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:14 | Report abuse |
    • Vic

      Does anyone think about the link from overvaxination AND cancer (or other degenerative deseases)?

      February 27, 2012 at 13:25 | Report abuse |
    • I call BS

      WHAT link? There isn't one.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:36 | Report abuse |
    • DeeNYC

      Please explain why the bubonic plague is not longer with us, yet there is no vaccine for it!!!

      February 27, 2012 at 13:39 | Report abuse |
    • blah9999

      IKatie. I'm not even going to read your whole misguided post. When was the last time there's been a smallpox outbreak in the US? What about polio? Hm.....

      February 27, 2012 at 13:48 | Report abuse |
    • medschoolkid

      @deeNYC the bubonic plague never went away. It is caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis which is still around. It isn't a regular epidemic anymore because we live much differently than we did 500 years ago.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:06 | Report abuse |
    • Patrick

      @Katie
      Looks like we found Zach’s runner up.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:14 | Report abuse |
    • wonfish

      And how many people get tetanus and diptheria anymore? I don't care if you adults don't want to get vaccinated and clean up the human gene pool, but please protect your kids.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:14 | Report abuse |
    • Melissa

      Dee – bubonic plague is still around, although nowhere near as widespreading as it was in the middle ages due to our current living conditions and understanding of illness. There was a case in Oregon two years ago, and an outbreak in Peru in the 1990s. It's rare, but still around.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:22 | Report abuse |
    • Chartreuxe

      Vic, post evidence, please.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:29 | Report abuse |
    • Tom

      DeeNYC;
      The Bubonic Pague is still around. A Vaccine was never developed because of the avenue of transmission. It is transmitted by fleas found on rodents. Not person to person.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:33 | Report abuse |
    • hbt

      Although I do not fully agree Katie I think she has a point. I suspect we are over-protecting ourselves with vaccines especially with mild diseases such as chickenpox among children. In the old days, kids got chicken pox, they got natural immunity, their older siblings who had had it already got a boost, and so were their parents who had had chickenpox when they were kids. So in the end, a person got chicken pox once when he/she was a kid, which mostly has no complications. Nowadays we vaccine kids, so they are free from chicken pox, but then we adults now have shingles! Anybody has had shingles know it is extremely painful, with possible serious complications, especially among aged.

      So are we doing ourselves a favor or disfavor with chickenpox vaccine?

      February 27, 2012 at 14:37 | Report abuse |
    • I call BS

      "We vaccine kids"??

      Good grief.

      Here's a little nugget of truth for you: People get shingles after they've HAD chicken pox. My father had chicken pox as a kid-and he got shingles as an adult. What is it with you people? Do you not know how to read? Or are you simply to dim to figure out what is good information on the web and what is simply conspiracy theory and paranoia?

      February 27, 2012 at 14:55 | Report abuse |
    • Less Bias

      Actually, in order to get Shingles later in life, you had to have caught chickenpox first. So if everyone is vaccinated, and never gets chickenpox in the first place, it will eliminate shingles too. The increase in shingles cases is due to the fact that regular re-exposure to chickenpox reduces the likelihood of developing shingles. But, vaccinating the elderly for shingles would reduce that risk, and quickly eliminate *both* diseases from our society.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:16 | Report abuse |
    • Bill the Cat

      Waldemar Haffkine, a doctor who worked in Mumbai, India, was the first to invent and test a plague vaccine against bubonic plague in 1897.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:16 | Report abuse |
    • JNav

      I must agree with you Mike C. Research does indicate that men are the carriers for Human Papillomavirus (HPV). Even though cancers associated with HPV in males is low, vaccinating males will help in lowering the transmission to females which is referred to as "Herd Immunity". Yes, there are many strains of HPV, over 140 types, however, 4 strains (HPV strains 6, 11, 16, and 18) are those that cause most cases of genital warts and cervical cancer, other cancers, and precancers. I am very much in favor of vaccinating women and men with vaccines that can prevent cancer and ultimately death if not treated in time.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:36 | Report abuse |
    • Chartreuxe

      Well, Vic, had cancers not been discovered in Egyptian mummies your insane troll logic might have a leg to stand upon. In other words, how could cancer have been created now if it existed prior to pharmaceutical companies?

      Cancer was well known and described by Aristotle, Herodotus and Plato in Ancient Greece, thousands of years ago. Hippocrates knew of cancer (he was the father of medicine). In the 19th Century women were treated for breast cancer by surgical mastectomies. I could go on but that would be casting pearls before swine.

      There's a wealth of information available for no cost in public libraries. Perhaps you should garner some.

      February 27, 2012 at 18:34 | Report abuse |
  4. binky42

    Nice propaganda piece from the company that sells the HPV shot....which, by the way, Rick Perry has a huge stake in.

    February 27, 2012 at 09:04 | Report abuse | Reply
    • clearfog

      Conspiracy nut alert.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:11 | Report abuse |
  5. EDN116

    Do your homework people.
    The risk here is virtually zero when you have routine examines.

    It's called 'make a need..fill the need'. This vaccine is one of the biggest scams out there.
    It's all about the money, as always, and little to do with your peace of mind.

    February 27, 2012 at 09:09 | Report abuse | Reply
    • I call BS

      Morons who yap about the profits pharmaceutical companies make on vaccines need to be vaccinated against their own ignorance. Vaccines are an extremely low-profit product. Grow a friggin brain.

      February 27, 2012 at 09:39 | Report abuse |
    • Lauren

      You're the one who should be doing YOUR homework. Absolutely the risk of contracting a strain of HPV that can have detrimental effects is relatively low. However, if there is a vaccine available that is low-risk, and the positives far out-weigh the negatives, then this vaccine should be given. Since you are not offering any statistical evidence to support your claim, one can assume that this is only your ignorant and unfounded opinion because you saw too many unfounded claims against other vaccines like d-Tap and whooping cough. I would have been glad to have received the HPV vaccine when I was younger but my parents opted not to at the time because it was still fairly controversial. Now I have atypical uterine cells most from the HPV vaccine and have to get pap smears every 6 months to monitor their cell shape. So yeah, I'd have to say that this vaccine would benefit both men and women in our society.

      February 27, 2012 at 10:13 | Report abuse |
    • AC

      Virtually no risk with routine exams? Thanks, but I had annual paps my entire life and STILL received a cancer diagnosis. This virus is not as harmless as people make it out to be.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:19 | Report abuse |
    • Betty

      That is just stupid. Plain and simple.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:23 | Report abuse |
    • Chartreuxe

      1) There is NO test that detects HPV, EDN. There is no cure and there is no treatment, once you're infected you wait to learn whether warts or cancer develop.

      2) Oral cancer isn't always detected in time, nor does it always come with symptoms.

      3) Pap tests fail sometimes.

      4) Modern medicine is an art as well as a science. It's always a good idea to take advantage of everything that's offered for protection.

      5) You seem to have a great deal of faith in checkups, EDN. Have you never heard the story of Tim Russert? He passed his checkup with flying colours in April and died in June 2008 of a heart attack.

      February 27, 2012 at 18:46 | Report abuse |
  6. rick snyder

    i am a 57 strait married 30 years male with children and grand children. feb of 19 of last year i was diagnosed with cancer at the bottom of my toung. after testing they found out i had the hpv viris. the cancer doc said it was caused by the viris. luckly iwas treated and am cancer free now but by the expense of a lot of side effects and a ton of monet. i had a sore throut and a ear ache i couldn't get rid of which is a warning sigh of throut cancer. my grand children have or will be vacinated!!!!! my children are to old now.

    February 27, 2012 at 09:25 | Report abuse | Reply
    • czerendipity

      Sounds like your wife cheated on you.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:25 | Report abuse |
    • JNav

      czerendipity that is an awful thing to say! HPV is one of the most common viruses transmitted sexually. 1 in 2 sexually active people will have it sometime in their lifetime. Most people get rid of it (lucky them), however, some people like the one who posted can't get rid of it and it can turn into cancer. I wouldn't be surprised if you have the virus now or have had it sometime in your life.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:43 | Report abuse |
    • Chartreuxe

      Sorry to hear of your struggle with cancer, Mr Snyder. I hope your treatment will be successful and you will win your fight.

      Pay no attention to any of these fools who are trolling. The adults here know it's not your wife's fault nor is it your own. Your disease came from a virus.

      Report the trolls, people. Report their posts.

      February 27, 2012 at 18:51 | Report abuse |
  7. Cleopatra1981

    "Although some parents have been reluctant to have their children inoculated with another vaccine because of possible side effects, such as weakness, fever, tingling, itching and hives, researchers say the benefits outweigh the risks."

    They forgot to mention death.

    February 27, 2012 at 09:43 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Lauren

      That same argument of "death" can be applied to driving a car and walking across the street. But I bet you think that could never be more common than death from a vaccine.

      February 27, 2012 at 10:18 | Report abuse |
    • Katie

      Some things you have control over. Some things you don't. Choosing to possibly avoid cancer down the road by using a vaccine today (which may need a booster shot or two down the road, may not work on you, and may not avoid the cancer) or choosing to engage in a responsible sexual lifestyle is something people do have control over. This vaccine is NOT for everyone. Think who profits here. Hint: it's not parents or children.

      February 27, 2012 at 11:04 | Report abuse |
    • Amy

      Lauren, no one knowingly makes a decision to get into a car accident or get hit by a car walking across the street. Your comment makes no sense. Those are things that happen to someone that is out of their control. You can control whether or not you get an unneccesary vaccine that has killed many young girls. This vaccine supposedly prevents not even half of the current amount of strains of the HPV virus that MIGHT cause cancer. I'd rather make the conscious decision to abstain from unprotected sex, which is the only way you can get HPV by the way. Maybe abstainence and proper use of condoms should be taught more than getting a vaccine for an otherwise 100% preventable disease that MIGHT cause cancer. Use condoms, don't rely on a vaccine that doesn't even prevent half of the virus it's supposed to prevent. People, come on, use common sense.

      February 27, 2012 at 11:08 | Report abuse |
    • Lauren

      Katie, by your logic you're saying that you would rather encourage people hold off any prevention for certain types of cancers. Yes, it may not work for everyone but that argument can also be used for infinite amounts of other issues/arguments. And it does actually benefit parents and children. I believe that's the point of a vaccine; provide a prevention measure towards unwanted and potentially life-altering diseases. If you actually did any research you would find that there is not a significant profit made from vaccines. It's your choice not to get vaccinated but unfortunately, reasons for being against vaccines are typically unfounded and ignorant.

      February 27, 2012 at 11:14 | Report abuse |
    • Amy

      Lauren... I know you were addressing Katie with your last comment, but I have to say this. Using condoms or abstaining from risky sexual behavior are behaviors that will 100% prevent HPV. This vaccine does prevent HPV 100% of the time. Using condoms or not having unprotected sex at all is cheaper, more responsible, and much less risky than injecting a vaccine that has killed people.

      February 27, 2012 at 11:20 | Report abuse |
    • Lauren

      If you did your research you would find that condoms do not fully prevent HPV (check the CDC website as well as numerous others). I understand that not every strain of HPV is prevented with the vaccine but the ones that most commonly cause problems that can lead to genital warts and cervical cancer are. Having the vaccine combined with sexual education is a smarter move. It's not giving people a free pass to not being educated on safer sex practices or possible consequences.

      February 27, 2012 at 11:50 | Report abuse |
    • Amy

      Lauren, you are correct. Condoms are not 100% effective, but are pretty close. I jumped the gun with my comment and misspoke. I did know that. I think we can all agree that we all want to do what's best for our kids. Medicine is not an exact science, things do go wrong, and sometimes people end up hurt, ill, or worse... dead. For me personally, I will not let my kids get this vaccine. It is not required nor mandated currently. Even then, I still wouldn't do it. My children will be taught responsible sexual behavior when the time comes. If a mistake is made, there are early screening tools like pap smears and HPV tests, which can detect these problems. This vaccine is not 100% effective. If it does become 100% effective, maybe I'll change my mind. Young girls have died from this vaccine and I don't want to lose my children over a 100% preventable sexual disease that does not always cause cancer.

      February 27, 2012 at 12:55 | Report abuse |
    • Chartreuxe

      It may be possible that HPV is spread by French kissing. We don't know the answer to that as yet. The only defense against that form of transmission would be the vaccine, because condoms are no defense there. From the mouth it's then spread by oral sex to the penis and then to the cervix.

      Is kissing considered a risky behaviour? No one could possibly object to kissing, could they? The only defense is the HPV vaccine.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:21 | Report abuse |
  8. TW

    How about teaching your son to wear a condom or (gasp) be abstinent. Seems easier, cheaper, and less risky but that (another gasp) would involve personal responsibility and we can't have that.

    February 27, 2012 at 10:21 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Rbnlegend101

      Even nuns get tested for HPV, and even nuns die of cervical cancer. Teaching abstinence as a cure all is just a nice way of sticking your head in the sand and pretending your child isn't human, with human needs and desires. For my kid, I would hope that when she hits the right age, all aspects of her life are healthy and fullfilling, and I'm not so messed up that I have to pretend that she will only suffer through marital intimacy so that she can enjoy childbirth and parenthood herself.

      Condoms are a good idea, but as abstinence supporters are so fond of pointing out, condoms are not 100% effective.

      February 27, 2012 at 10:30 | Report abuse |
    • Missbeth

      So if your kid makes a mistake, like teens do, they should have the possibility of cancer YEARS down the road? Yes we should teach kids that sex comes with risks, but shouldn't we offer them some protection? Like putting a girl on birth-control, it won't protect 100%, but if is better than the alternative.

      February 27, 2012 at 10:33 | Report abuse |
    • Katie

      Exactly. As for nuns getting cervical cancer – how do you know they were virgin nuns? Alternatively how do you know their cancer was caused by HPV? In the first case, they should have used protection. In the second case, they might have had a genetic code that made them susceptible to cervical cancer. People who never smoked get lung cancer. People who have no family history of cancer or any other risk factor get breast cancer. Cancer happens.

      February 27, 2012 at 11:01 | Report abuse |
    • G

      Although condoms are effective in preventing many STIs, they are NOT effective in preventing the transmission of HPV. HPV infects skin cells (mucus cells like the ones found in the throat and genitals), where it multiplies and then is spread as dead skin cells are sloughed off. There have been several studies that showed that HPV could be transmitted by skin-to-skin contact (i.e., not just through sexual intercourse or oral sex), although the majority of new infections occur after sexual activity.

      As to the "nuns getting cervical cancer" example, many clinical studies have shown that over 99% of cases of cervical cancer are linked to high-risk HPV infections. Although it hasn't been proven, the theory is that in the other >1%, the body was able to "get rid" of the infection, at least to a level below detection, but not before it resulted in cervical cell changes that developed into cancer. There's no gene that makes one susceptible to cervical cancer without an HPV infection as well.

      The HPV vaccine is not 100% effective against all forms of HPV– there are over 100 strains, including ones that simply lead to developing genital warts (which do NOT cause cancer). The vaccine IS effective against types 16 and 18, which are linked to over 75% of cases of cervical cancer, among other genital and oral cancers, and against 8 and 11, which are responsible for about 90% of cases of genital warts.

      You can be a virgin and still have HPV. Regardless of whether or not you choose to vaccinate your children, please do the research first and make an informed decision–it's your job to protect them and act in their best interests. Please also keep in mind that by the time they are old enough to choose to be vaccinated, they may already have been exposed to the virus, in which case the vaccine will be more or less useless.

      February 27, 2012 at 12:00 | Report abuse |
    • Ummmmm

      So, Katie, if there were a vaccine that prevented breast cancer, would you object to that, too?

      "Cancer happens." What a stupid comment. Of course it does. So does diabetes. And epilepsy. Do you find any advances in medicine to prevent these illnesses from occurring to be suspect? Do you object to pharmaceutical companies making a profit? Why? Doesn't your employer pay you? Why don't you do your job for free?

      February 27, 2012 at 12:43 | Report abuse |
    • Betty

      HPV is not HIV, Condoms help reduce HIV spread because it has to be blood-blood transfer. HPV only has to be any sexual body fluit contating any opening. Condoms are not usually used on oral sex and condoms do not prevent a womans fluids from touching a man. All it takes is any fluids touching a receiving point and you got it.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:21 | Report abuse |
    • Chartreuxe

      Here we go again, someone claims abstinence as the be-all and the end-all cure for all sexual problems. IT NEVER WORKS. At the very least, people are going to kiss one another, and HPV can be transmitted via kissing.

      This is the 21st Century. Why look to the Stone Age for solutions to a disease we've discovered can be prevented?

      It's moronic and foolish as well as short-sighted. We have treatments and preventatives. Looking back has never been a solution for anything. Living in the now is always the better idea for all of us. When Jesus walked the earth, He made new wine from old. He didn't retread the same religion (Judaica) but He made it possible for all of us to start out new every day.

      When did Christians become so backward? In 2100 years change must occur.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:29 | Report abuse |
    • A scientist

      Why have your kid wear a seatbelt when you could just teach them to drive responsibly? The majority of teen car accidents are due to reckless driving. Nevertheless, while of course I teen my teenager to drive safely, I also encourage her to wear a seatbelt just in case.

      Likewise, I have encouraged abstinence in my teenage daughter, and taught her about condom use. Nevertheless, if there are things that I can do to make her safe in case she either makes a bad decision or something unexpected happens, why wouldn't I do it? About 1 in 10 women in the US have been a victim of sexual assault, so just like car accidents, my daughter could get HPV through no fault of her own. Also, even someone who is abstinent until marriage can be HPV from a spouse.

      In the case of boys, the direct risks of HPV are much smaller, but nonetheless still exist. Perhaps more importantly, vaccinating boys will further help contain the spread of HPV, reducing the risk of cancer in their future partner(s).

      February 27, 2012 at 14:24 | Report abuse |
    • Nah

      miss: "So if your kid makes a mistake, like teens do, they should have the possibility of cancer YEARS down the road? Yes we should teach kids that sex comes with risks, but shouldn't we offer them some protection? Like putting a girl on birth-control, it won't protect 100%, but if is better than the alternative."

      You completely mistake the criticism aimed at birth control, HPV vaccines, etc. for children. The fear (which isn't unjustified by any means) is that it's giving kids an implicit license to have sex. It's akin to saying "I don't want you driving my car or drinking alcohol, but here's the bottle and here are my keys in case you do."

      "In case you do" is acceptance of and acquiescence in your child's future misbehavior.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:28 | Report abuse |
    • I call BS

      How's that theory working for all of us thus far? How many women do you think are virgins on their wedding night?

      Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy also?

      February 27, 2012 at 15:31 | Report abuse |
    • Nah

      ascientist: "Why have your kid wear a seatbelt when you could just teach them to drive responsibly? The majority of teen car accidents are due to reckless driving."

      This is a false analogy because it relies on their superficial similarity.

      You're wearing seatbelts in case an accident happens. An accident is something unplanned and that you specifically did not seek out. In these cases, cancer and pregnancies are typically unplanned and not sought out. But that's where the analogy ends.

      Except the seatbelt is passive protection: it's in case an accident happens while you're doing what you otherwise should (i.e., driving safely). Condoms, etc. are not the same. They're "active" protection to use "while" you're engaged in dangerous or risky behavior (i.e., having teenage sex).

      The problem is precisely that sex itself is sought out while accidents through reckless driving are not. Giving a condom to your kid after telling them "I'd rather you not do this" is more equivalent to saying, "I don't want you racing your car, but if you do, here's a Lamborghini with a roll cage, full accident indemnity, insurance and a guarantee that you'll never go to jail."

      February 27, 2012 at 15:33 | Report abuse |
    • I call BS

      Yeah, and telling your kid not to have s3x works really well. You're an idiot, Nah.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:59 | Report abuse |
    • A scientist

      Nah: I have two issues with your comments:
      1. First, you say that a vaccine is different from a seatbelt because a seatbelt protects you "in case an accident happens while you're doing what you otherwise should" while the HPV vaccine protects you against risky behavior. However, as I pointed out in my previous comments, many people get HPV when they were doing nothing high-risk. About 1 in 10 women in the US has been sexually assaulted - that is a substantial number of people who were doing nothing wrong, yet were put at high risk for HPV. Likewise, many women get HPV from their spouses; again, relations with one's spouse seems to be "doing what you otherwise should." (And I know you're probably thinking that they would only get it if their men slept around, but people can get HPV infection from their mother at birth, so my daughter may marry a perfectly "pure" guy and still be at risk.)

      2. You argue that the vaccine is license for risky behavior. I just don't buy it. I have three kids, and have never had more than a superficial conversation about why they are getting any specific vaccine. When my kid asked about the HPV vaccine, I just said that it is a vaccine that protects against the human papillomavirus, that causes certain types of cancer. If they had asked for details, I would have explained what I said above - many people carry it without knowing, so there is the risk that when my kids get married, their partner will be a carrier. Unless you believe that fear of HPV is what is keeping kids from being sexuallly active, I have a hard time seeing how that would encourage risky behavior.

      February 27, 2012 at 16:17 | Report abuse |
    • Nah

      scientist: "Unless you believe that fear of HPV is what is keeping kids from being sexuallly active, I have a hard time seeing how that would encourage risky behavior."

      You changed the subject.

      We're not talking about the safety, use, or beneficial nature of a vaccine, we're talking about a parent teaching their kids not to have sex, but then capitulating and saying "If you do, here's a condom, a vaccine, and an implicit go ahead from me."

      February 27, 2012 at 18:37 | Report abuse |
    • A scientist

      Nah: I'm not changing the subject at all - you are just avoiding my point. While one source of HPV is risky behavior, you can get HPV without engaging in risky behavior. This is what your protecting against. Your condom analogy is a false one, because the only reason that you give a teen a condom is if you think that she/he might engage in sexual activity, so you could argue that you are tacitly endorsing it. Again, no matter how much you convince yourself that you can control HPV exposure, it is not true. 10% of women have been sexually assaulted; additionally, many men who have never been sexually active carry HPV (from their mothers), so even people who wait until marriage can get it from their spouses.

      In other words, you are saying that you would rather not protect your child against a common disease which they could get for reasons entirely beyond their control, solely because you are afraid that they may misinterpret this as an endorsement of sexual activity. It sounds like you need to work on your communication skills with your kids (if you have any). If my kid kept pushing for details about HPV, I would simply say, "it causes cancer, and many people can be infected at birth and have no idea; therefore, this will protect you in case your future husband is an unknowing carrier." How does that possibly endorse risky behavior?

      Again, you are not addressing the relatively simple seatbelt analogy. Just like HPV infection, most teen car accidents are due to risky behavior; however, a subset of car accidents are due to no fault of the teen (just like HPV). Telling your kid to wear a seatbelt is not tacitly endorsing reckless driving, it is protecting your kids against things that they can't control.

      February 27, 2012 at 23:40 | Report abuse |
  9. Katie

    Nobody should get this vaccine. It hasn't been around long enough to study. It's a yeast-based vaccine introduced into children right at their puberty growth spurt. It has the POSSIBILITY of MAYBE providing antibodies toward a FEW HPV viruses in SOME people.

    Teach your children about STDs and impress upon them how to be responsible. Ohh – sexual responsibility! Now there's a foreign concept.

    February 27, 2012 at 10:58 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Amy

      Haha, Katie! The last thing the federal government and big pharma want are for people to be personally responsible.

      February 27, 2012 at 11:12 | Report abuse |
    • Ummmmm

      Katie is a blockhead.

      February 27, 2012 at 12:23 | Report abuse |
    • Betty

      It protects agains the two high risk strains that are known to cause cervical cancer, and the two strains that casuse genital warts. Good enough for me.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:19 | Report abuse |
    • Chartreuxe

      Here's one for Katie the Blockhead: HPV vaccine protects against genital warts which infects newborns as they pass through the birth canal. HPV causes blindness and cause death in children because the warts grow on the vocal cords of the baby, choking them to death.

      How's that for a good reason to vaccinate against HPV?

      My friend adopted a newborn who was exposed to HPV in the birth canal and he required frequent laser surgery to keep his airway open. He was lucky enough to have escaped infection in his eyes. He had beautiful eyes. The laser surgery affected his voice. He was never able to sing a note, poor chap.

      Prior to laser surgery, the babies often died. There was no way of detecting them until they the infant struggled for air and surgical removed was not usually successful.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:39 | Report abuse |
    • medical student

      It's been in development since the 90's and has been past clinical testing and actual use for about 7 years now. How many years do you need? 30? 100?

      February 27, 2012 at 13:48 | Report abuse |
    • Hatixhe

      Hydrogenated oils, artificial flavors and colors, GMO foods, all approved as safe to use even though we are the most obese country in the World! All approved! We use more vaccines than everybody else and the cancer is the highest! The side effects are impacting our health and brains! We can't even think clearly anymore, we need a vaccine for everything in Earth! Our kid's autism and immune systems are getting messed up like never before, but we still believe that Big Pharma cares for our needs.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:52 | Report abuse |
    • Chartreuxe

      The cure for penile cancer is AMPUTATION. Is this a risk you want to take for your son?

      Look is up, Katie. They'll cut off your son's penis as far as the cancer has spread. Think about it. Is it worth the risk? Will he thank you for refusing him a vaccine that would have saved him from it had you given it him in his childhood?

      February 27, 2012 at 19:01 | Report abuse |
  10. ksmahoney

    If clinical trials have proven safe, and the vaccine does prevent not only cervical cancer, but penile cancer as well, why should we not offer it to boys?
    For those who deny the effectiveness of vaccines, I'd like to see the research to back up your claims.
    http://www.losingtogether.com

    February 27, 2012 at 11:23 | Report abuse | Reply
  11. Amy

    This vaccine is supposed to prevent the HPV disease, which sometimes causes cervical cancer and now supposedly penile and anal cancer. It does not prevent cancer itself. Don't confuse the two. This vaccine does not prevent all the strains of HPV. HPV is a sexually transmitted disease that can be 100% preventable when using condoms or not having unprotected sex at all. This vaccine has killed young girls. Many things cause cancer. HPV is just one of those things.

    February 27, 2012 at 11:33 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Amy

      This comment I made was meant to be a reply to ksmahoney

      February 27, 2012 at 11:35 | Report abuse |
    • Ummmmm

      Cite your source of information on the number of girls and the causes of death, Amy. You and Katie sound like crazy people.

      February 27, 2012 at 12:45 | Report abuse |
    • Amy

      Ummmm. all you have to do is do an internet search of death and gardasil vaccine and see what comes up. The first web page on the subject is from the CDC. And, you made a comment about what if there were a vaccine for breast cancer, would Katie object to that too? There are no vaccines for cancer. Gardasil is an HPV vaccine. Some HPV strains have been found to sometimes cause cancer.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:06 | Report abuse |
    • Matt

      It is absolutely false that condoms are effective against HPV. They help slow the spead, but skin-to-skin contact at the base of the penis is still an effective way to transmit the virus, and you can absolutely get HPV even with effective condom use.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:23 | Report abuse |
    • Ummmmm

      You and Katie are dolts, Amy. Did you miss the word "IF"? I don't see how you could have, considering you even used it in your own post, but then again, you're a dumbbell.

      Katie contends that cancer happens and that no vaccine that prevents it is useful or beneficial. Maybe YOU can answer: IF there were a vaccine for breast cancer, would you object to that, too?

      Yeah, bozos like you probably would.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:39 | Report abuse |
    • medical student

      false. 100% false. The vaccine hasn't killed anyone, and there are virtually no cases of cervical cancer without HPV as the cause.

      The vaccine prevents HPV which is the only mechanism by which cervical cancer develops.

      Uneducated fools like yourself are the same ones denying the 9/11 cleanup crews healthcare because you're saying they can't prove their mesothelioma is from asbestos even though asbestos is the only mechanism by which mesothelioma develops.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:40 | Report abuse |
    • medical student

      From the CDC website (your supposed source) regarding "deaths" from gardasil:

      "In the 34 reports confirmed, there was no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine and some reports indicated a cause of death unrelated to vaccination."

      so no there are no confirmed deaths due to gardasil. False again.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:42 | Report abuse |
    • Amy

      medical student, what about all the other web pages that come up with that search. The CDC was not the only one.

      Umm, if you want to play the semantics game. Play by yourself.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:02 | Report abuse |
    • mike

      • . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . ."~.,
      . . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
      . . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
      . . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
      . . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
      . . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
      . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
      . . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
      . . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
      . . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
      . . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
      . . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
      . . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
      . . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
      . . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
      . . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
      ,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
      . .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
      . . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>–

      February 27, 2012 at 14:23 | Report abuse |
    • A scientist

      The CDC is required to include in their vaccine data anyone who has an adverse medical condition shortly after their vaccine. If a kid with a heart defect gets the vaccine, and has a heart attack the next day, the CDC will include that kid in their data. This is why follow-up study is necessary.

      While 34 deaths after vaccination sound like a lot, the reality is that kids occasionally die (albeit very rarely). With millions of doses, you would expect that occasionally just by coincidence you will have some deaths in the weeks after vaccination. So far, there is no evidence that the vaccines were connected to any deaths - the 34 kids had a wide range of causes of death (if the vaccines caused the problems, you might expect to see common symptoms), and in many cases other causes of death were determined.

      Of course you can find other websites that will make other unsubstantiated claims, but believe it or not, not everything that you read on the internet is true.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:32 | Report abuse |
    • SEC parent

      Amy, your comment that the vaccine "doesn't prevent cancer itself" is nonsensical. Not all cancer is caused by HPV in the first place. The vaccine is not expected to prevent all cancers. (Note the "S" at the end of the word there.) HPV does not cause lung cancer in smokers, or melanoma of the eyeball, or colon cancer... and the list goes on. But certain strains of HPV can and do cause cervical cancer, anal cancer, oropharyngeal cancer and others. If the vaccine helps the body fight off the initial infection and avoid chronic infection, then the virus will not have the opportunity to cause cancer.

      Honestly, people like you who have so little understanding of cancer in general have no business offering your nitwit theories on health policy.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:41 | Report abuse |
    • Ummmmm

      There are no semantics involved, dimwit. I asked Katie a simple question, and now I'm asking you: If there were a vaccine that could prevent breast cancer, or even one or two types of breast cancer, would you object to that as well?

      I'll bet you won't answer, you cowardly little twit.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:43 | Report abuse |
    • cogitoergosum

      Please quote the studies you've read that support this statement, and hopefully, not a press conference of Michelle Bachman.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:01 | Report abuse |
  12. Taysha

    My children are up to date in all their vaccinations.

    Neither one will be receiving the HPV vaccine. Something that 'may' protect against FOUR out of SIXTEEN variants of HPV, for an unknown length of time, with significant possibilities for side effects is not really a worthwhile vaccine.

    Pap smears are not going out of style any time soon anyway.

    February 27, 2012 at 11:57 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Betty

      As someone who has a high risk type of HPV I can urgue you to at least reserch the vaccine. It vaccinates agains the two top types of HPV that have been shown to cause cervical cancer. It also protects against the two types that cause genital warts. For thoes two reasons alone as soon as our insurance carries it I will get my 13 year old vaccinated.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:17 | Report abuse |
    • Chartreuxe

      Pap smears do NOT detect HPV, Taysha. They detect cell dysplasia, or whether cells of the cervix are beginning to show changes which are cancerous. Once you have dysplasia, depending upon the degree it may be too late for you. My first husband gave it to me...I was able to keep my uterus for another 10 years after very painful treatments so I could have a child with my second husband.

      There is *no test* to detect whether you have been exposed to HPV. ALL you can do is vaccinate against it when you have never had sex before. That's all.

      Neither do Pap smears detect or diagnose ovarian cancer. Ovarian cancer has a 75% mortality rate. That means 3 out of 4 women diagnosed with ovarian cancer die of the disease.

      Ask your OB/Gyn about your risk factors and whether you should be concerned about this cancer. It's very important that you should know your body and all your options. The more you know, the better.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:49 | Report abuse |
    • Prevention vs. detection!

      The pap smear does nothing to prevent anything! If you are lucky, it will help you detect a cancer before it kills you, but you still have to deal with the diagnosis, treatment and all the associated problems! Preventing it makes a world of difference!

      February 27, 2012 at 15:03 | Report abuse |
  13. Garrett

    Everything causes cancer. The food you eat, with its preserivites or the ground where food grows was exposed to contamination from pesticides. The air your breathe, which will be pumped with billions of gallons of Co2 a day from our cars, factories, etc. Or the rivers and lakes in which you swim from all the chemicals that enter it from gasoline from boats and oil rigs, etc. Or the pools you swim in which you put the chemicals in yourself. Pretty much EVERYTHING causes cancer.. You may be able to take your false protection and get vaccinated, but all your doing is making your body lazy by exposing yourself to a weak or dead form of a virus or bacteria..

    February 27, 2012 at 12:11 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Ummmmm

      More misinformation and idiocy. Vaccines do not make your immune system weaker. But of course, anyone reading your post would know that you are ignorant-after all, you, like most of the other nuts, can't even figure out how to use apostrophes.

      February 27, 2012 at 12:27 | Report abuse |
    • Amy

      Ummm, all you are doing is going around and calling everyone you disagree with "crazy". Do you have anything to contribute, or are you just bored today?

      February 27, 2012 at 13:17 | Report abuse |
    • medical student

      false.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:27 | Report abuse |
    • medical student

      Hey Garrett tell me, how much immunology have you studied to draw this conclusion?

      None? That's what I thought.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:28 | Report abuse |
    • ThePreacherTheTeacher

      Dangerously false.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:28 | Report abuse |
    • Ummmmm

      I'm bored with morons who believe in conspiracy theories and post their tin-foil nonsense on the web every day. What's your excuse, dearie? Think you're actually helping anyone by spreading misinformation and fear?

      February 27, 2012 at 13:41 | Report abuse |
  14. Christina

    My mother, grandmother, and great grandmother all had hystorectomies (sp?) because of cervical cancer. We know my mother and grandmother's were both brought on by HPV. While the vaccine came out too late for me (too old for it, thankfully cancer free and HPV free), my daughter and son will BOTH get this vaccine, If I can prevent my daughter from getting cancer (or reduce her risk) and reduce the chances that my son might contract or pass on HPV then I will.

    February 27, 2012 at 12:40 | Report abuse | Reply
  15. ThePreacherTheTeacher

    We are witnessing Darwinian selection at work, right among the people commenting on this story. We haven't seen it yet because vaccines have not been around long enough, but in due time, the human population will shift toward the descendants of those who have been immunized, who will also choose to be immunized since behavior and mindset can be inherited or passed down culturally. I just feel sorry for those that suffer or die as a result of their parent's stupidity and paranoia.

    February 27, 2012 at 13:27 | Report abuse | Reply
  16. medical student

    Many cancers are caused by viruses. EBV can cause a B cell lymphoma for instance. HPV causes cervical, penile, throat and anal cancers. HCV can cause liver cancer.

    The bad news is these viruses are common and contribute significantly towards neoplastic disease development. The good news is many viruses are potentially preventable through vaccination. If we can continue to identify viruses similar to HPV which cause cancer, and develop vaccinations, we can essentially eliminate many types of cancer.

    If you doubt the validity of such a claim, go look it up yourself. Go to pubmed and look up some original research demonstrating the effectiveness of this approach. Go look up the mechanism by which viruses alter DNA and activate oncogenes or disable tumor suppressor genes. Go check rates of these cancers in populations unexposed to the virus in question vs populations who have been exposed.

    Most people aren't going to take the time to do that, but if you're going to just sit there and claim vaccines are all lies and deceit to make a quick buck for a pharmaceutical company you should be backing up your claim with real evidence (which none of you can since there is no evidence to support such a claim).

    I'm no fan of big pharma, and believe it or not most physicians aren't. But they're a necessary evil. As long as pharmaceuticals function in the realm of capitalism, they must be profitable or the will cease to exist, so yes pharmaceutical companies are going to want to make some of their money back after investing billions of dollars over a decade or more to produce 1 drug.

    February 27, 2012 at 13:37 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Amy

      I totally get what you are saying. I understand both sides of this argument, and to a certain degree, agree with the opposition. However, as a mother of two young kids and weighing the good and bad with this vaccine, I just can't justify it. I can justify Dtap, and some of the others, but not this one. As you know, HPV is 100% preventable. I think some people are getting confused and think that this vaccine directly prevents cancer. It does not. It prevents just a few of the many strains of the HPV virus that can cause certain cancers. HPV is just one of a bazillion risk factors for cancer. This vaccine is too new and too many girls have died from this vaccine for me to justify giving it to my kids. I'd rather have them fully equipped with the knowledge of how to prevent it without the vaccine.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:52 | Report abuse |
    • Chartreuxe

      Thanks for this.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:53 | Report abuse |
    • medical student

      @Amy I feel sorry for your children who are unfortunate to grow up with a mother making such poor decisions about their health.

      HPV is the ONLY cause of cervical cancer. The vaccine prevents MOST of the strains that could cause cervical cancer.

      It is therefore a cancer vaccine as there is no other cause of cervical cancer.

      also 0 people have ever died from the vaccine – another lie.

      I hope you don't lie to your chidlren as much as you lie to the public

      The CDC confirms your lie: "In the 34 reports confirmed, there was no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine and some reports indicated a cause of death unrelated to vaccination."

      February 27, 2012 at 13:54 | Report abuse |
    • medical student

      Also, too new!? are you insane!? It's been in development since the 80's and early 90's and has been past clinical testing for over 7 years, meaning it's been proven safe for about a decade.

      0 deaths from gardasil, thousands prevented. Go educate yourself, seriously.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:56 | Report abuse |
    • Amy

      Are you sure that the ONLY cause of cervical cancer is HPV?? This is the second time you have said this. HPV is the ONLY cause of cervical cancer?? And this vaccine will prevent ALL strains of HPV?? Yes, girls have died. Get your head out of the mainstream medical establishment textbooks and do YOUR research.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:10 | Report abuse |
    • Amy

      Or, maybe you need to go back and read Ob/gyn 101 again. Too much big pharma, big mainstream medical establishment propaganda has clouded your ability to use common sense.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:12 | Report abuse |
    • Biochemist

      Thank you for posting this. I am not medical but the science stands and it is sound.

      I think the chaptors on viruses, vaccination techniques, and immunochemistry need to be rigorously taught in high school as it seems people are forgetting the basics.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:31 | Report abuse |
    • Taysha

      http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110622/full/474427a.html

      Medicalstudent: 4 dead in the India trials.

      0 deaths, you said?

      February 27, 2012 at 14:39 | Report abuse |
    • A scientist

      Amy: HPV is 100% preventable? What if your daughters are among the 10% of US women who are sexually assaulted? What if your daughters future husbands are among the ~50% of men infected with HPV? Are you going to teach your daughters to be abstinent after marriage? HPV is only 100% preventable if you believe that you can forever prevent your daughters and their future spouses from making bad decisions, and you believe that you can protect your daughters from being assault victims.

      I understand your desire to protect your daughters, particularly given the anti-vaccine nonsense spread by a few prominent ill-informed people, but I suggest that you compare the rates of adverse reactions to the vaccine to the rates of cervical cancer before you make the decision to leave your daughter unprotected against a horrible disease.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:41 | Report abuse |
    • Biochemist

      @Taysha

      Please read the article again (it is a good one, thank you for mentioning it), but the 4 girls died of causes unrelated to the vaccine. Two deaths were due to poisoning (very common in india unfortunately), one by drowning, and the last by fever (many diseases in India have the symptom of fever).

      Thank you for the read it was a good one by Nature.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:06 | Report abuse |
    • ThePreacherTheTeacher

      @Taysha, those girls did not die from the vaccine; the term for what you are engaging in is "intellectual dishonesty". Please read that article.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:12 | Report abuse |
    • Rbnlegend101

      HPV is 100% preventable, Amy, however, as the parent of two children, you have opted not to make the choice that would protect you, 100% from that virus. Do you expect your children to take that option, or, do you want grandkids?

      February 27, 2012 at 15:55 | Report abuse |
    • Chartreuxe

      Amy, you're an idiot if you think that 'HPV is totally preventable.' Some children are exposed to it when they're born because their mothers have it. My first love gave it to me. I was always true to him but what did that get me? Cervical dysplasia and an early hysterectomy.

      Would I have taken an HPV vaccine had it been offered when I was a girl? Damned straight I would have done. The treatments I had to take for cervical dysplasia were horrifically painful but without them I would never had a child. I would have lost my uterus at age 22.

      You seem to be a loving if somewhat misguided mother. If any of your children is male, think of this: the treatment for penile cancer is amputation of the penis up to the point where the cancer is spread. How can you possibly imagine this future surgery on one of your children when it could be prevented by 3 simple injections?

      How angry will your son be in the future when he realises that you refused him this protection? Consider this well.

      February 27, 2012 at 19:13 | Report abuse |
  17. AI

    I just love to hear people say "my child is saving his or her virginity until marriage, so the vaccine is just a waste". First of all, in this day and age, I suspect that a significant number of people are not virgins when married. Secondly, even IF they were virgins when married, what about their new spouse? As the saying goes, "talk is cheap". The new wife or hubby may have had a brief encounter with the wrong person, in the past, and contracted the virus that they don't know they have. If there's a vaccine out there, administered to children, that can prevent a certain cancer when they reach adulthood, by all means, VACCINATE.

    February 27, 2012 at 13:39 | Report abuse | Reply
  18. Tyler

    This vaccine prevents you from getting genital warts ( 90%, at least). Genital warts CA NOT be cured..yet. So why someone would not get vaccinated against something that CAN NOT be cured it beyond me. I got it too. Just say you don't want to get it. Making crap up like who knows whats gonna happen in 30 years etc. is BS. This applies to 99% of the things you did today. Sat on the toilet? Well, who knows what kind of bacterias were on the seat and who knows what's gonna happen is 30 years.... same with food. You probably eat pesticides all the time because washing the apples etc. won't always do it. I could go on and on...

    February 27, 2012 at 13:41 | Report abuse | Reply
  19. Mrsb

    I am sitting in my 25-year-old daughter's hospital room. She just came out of surgery for a hysterectomy. Cervical cancer due to HPV. PLEASE get the vaccination for your children. It was very new when she was a teen, so she did not have it. Thank goodness she has a beautiful family since she will never have any more children. Repeat: she is 25 years old! Vaccinate your children please!!!!!

    February 27, 2012 at 13:42 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Kavinsky

      Some gold old fashioned parenting might have prevented that. You shouldn't rely on others to solve your problems.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:12 | Report abuse |
    • Ummmmm

      Kavinsky, go sit on the stupid bench with Amy and Katie.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:46 | Report abuse |
    • Michelle

      Kavinsky, you are a sick, sick person. PARENTING? Seriously? First of all, s.ex is not a bad thing, contrary to some peoples' backwards religions. Second, how do you know she wasn't responsible? HPV can get through a condom, you know. And finally, how do you know she didn't get it from her husband, who may very well be the only person she's ever had intercourse with? This young woman is recovering from major surgery for cancer, and all you can do is insult her parents?

      Yeah, I know people like you. Society is better off without your ilk.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:50 | Report abuse |
    • Nah

      michelle: "First of all, s.ex is not a bad thing, contrary to some peoples' backwards religions."

      Nice ad hominem and conclusory statement.

      Seems sex can be a "very" bad thing when it leads to fatal illnesses, diseases and cancer.

      Please stop justifying your own promiscuity by pretending that sex and free love are perfectly permissible.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:37 | Report abuse |
    • I call BS

      So the brilliant parent Nah tells HIS kids, "If you have s3x, you can get HPV and that might result in cancer. You could get pregnant. And I don't care enough about you that I'd rather you were protected from such results. I'd rather you suffered for your mistakes. If you do get pregnant or get an STD, well, I told you so and it would serve you right. So don't have s3x."

      Parents like you are abusive.

      February 27, 2012 at 16:03 | Report abuse |
  20. Your sex life will be ruined

    As a carrier of HPV... trust me!!! Your sex life will be destroyed if you develop one of the many sexual diseases that there is NO CURE against. Get Vaccinated! Anybody!

    February 27, 2012 at 13:45 | Report abuse | Reply
  21. Salvice

    For once, the burden of sexual responsibility isn't falling solely on females

    February 27, 2012 at 13:46 | Report abuse | Reply
    • angel611

      Yea, we will always have loose women who have no morals.

      February 27, 2012 at 13:47 | Report abuse |
    • Chartreuxe

      It's the 21st Century, 'Angel.' Your age is showing.

      February 27, 2012 at 19:17 | Report abuse |
  22. angel611

    Boys aren't born with this virus, they get it from girls.
    So vaccinate all the girls.
    Problem solved.
    Or better yet, use black booted police in helmets and riot gear to round up all the boys 11 and over, take them to a concentration camp, and force vaccinate them.
    I am so sick of everybody paying the price for one group or another that acts like barbarians.
    You know who and what I mean.
    Statistics and facts don't lie.

    February 27, 2012 at 13:46 | Report abuse | Reply
    • medical student

      and girls get it from boys

      ::facepalm::

      February 27, 2012 at 13:49 | Report abuse |
    • WilmaWonka

      You are seriously out of touch.

      Girls show symptoms of HPV and end up at the doctor. Boys usually don't have symptoms and therefor transmit continually to anyone they have intimate contact with. I think that makes boys more likely transmitters.

      BTW, Texas has decided to round up all the girls and require the vaccine so we are well on our way to your scenario.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:31 | Report abuse |
    • Ummmmm

      Why does it matter whether girls get it from boys or vice versa? What possible difference does it make who gives it to whom? It doesn't. It doesn't matter any more than who is likely to get the flu and infect someone else, you ninny. What's important is that this vaccine can help to prevent people from getting some cancers due to HPV!

      Good lord, you people are unbelievable stupid. Were you all dropped on your heads repeatedly?

      February 27, 2012 at 14:49 | Report abuse |
    • Chartreuxe

      Angel, you must be an old f@rt. Boys ARE born with this virus. I know one personally. He was lucky to survive his infancy and did so only due to laser surgery which allowed him to breathe. The laser surgery removed the genital warts which grew on his vocal cords and choked off his trachea.

      My, but you are stupid, uninformed and a true @$$. Did you go to colege for that or does it come naturally?

      February 27, 2012 at 19:21 | Report abuse |
  23. HH

    This vax is about money. Not everyone who has sexual contact will contract HPV. Not everyone who gets HPV will get cancer. There are hundreds of strains of HPV...and this vax does not protect against all of them. It's also unknown if this vax wears off over time.

    February 27, 2012 at 13:58 | Report abuse | Reply
    • medical student

      and not everyone who gets shot dies but getting shot is still likely to kill you

      what a silly uninformed, uneducated argument to make.

      Also the vaccine doesn't prevent against all strains, it prevents against MOST of the cancer causing HPV strains though. There is no way to get cervical cancer without HPV

      It's like saying "hey I'm going to let you shoot me without a bullet proof vest on because not everyone who gets shot dies so why would I need a vest"

      February 27, 2012 at 14:00 | Report abuse |
    • HH

      You labor under the mistaken impression that I am not educated or informed.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:04 | Report abuse |
    • I call BS

      Prove you are educated and intelligent.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:00 | Report abuse |
    • Chartreuxe

      Well, now, HH, you're fairly uninformed on this topic.

      These vaccines *do* protect against the strains of HPV that cause genital warts *and* cervical cancer, as well as oral and penile cancer. Do you know the treatment for penile cancer, HH? Do tell, please, I'd be fascinated to learn your answer. No fair looking it up.

      February 27, 2012 at 19:27 | Report abuse |
  24. Hatixhe

    Hydrogenated oils, artificial flavors and colors, GMO foods, all approved as safe to use even though we are the most obese country in the World! All approved! We use more vaccines than everybody else and the cancer is the highest! The side effects are impacting our health and brains! We can't even think clearly anymore, we need a vaccine for everything in Earth! Our kid's autism and immune systems are getting messed up like never before, but we still believe that Big Pharma cares for our needs.
    Got Vaccines?

    February 27, 2012 at 14:03 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Ummmmm

      Did you drop out of high school in 9th grade or 10th?

      February 27, 2012 at 14:50 | Report abuse |
  25. Kavinsky

    I hope no one mysteriously gets Autism.

    February 27, 2012 at 14:10 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Ummmmm

      Troll. You are obviously a sandwich shy of a picnic.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:51 | Report abuse |
    • Chartreuxe

      My son's a very high functioning Autistic, Jack@$$. Vaccines had nothing to do with his Autism, he was Autistic from birth. He was hyperactive in the NICU, I observed it and reported it to the nursing staff and it was recorded in his chart, thanks very much. He'd had no vaccines at the time.

      Why don't you go and troll in the ocean?

      February 27, 2012 at 19:30 | Report abuse |
  26. Chris

    Until the CDC publishes long term side effects for boys of that age group taking it, no, boys shouldn't be taking it.

    Far more work has been put into the measurement of efficacy and side effects with girls because of of the perceived "win" is for girls. Thing is, the side effects potentially effect anyone who takes the drug regardless of whether or not it is intended to benefit them.

    To date, I've heard extremely limited praise for the vaccine's ability to help boys with genital warts and cankers – but that isn't why the CDC is pushing it.

    Until the CDC and/or the drug manufacturer can create sufficiently broad and compelling evidence that it safe for boys, they should stay far away from it.

    February 27, 2012 at 14:11 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Voter

      You are making the right decision not to vaccinate your boys. Dr. Harper (who played a role in getting the vaccine approved) has talked about the vaccine and once you read what she says, you will most likely choose NOT to vaccinate, boys or girls

      February 27, 2012 at 14:46 | Report abuse |
    • I call BS

      Why should anyone listen to you, Voter? "You are making the right decision". How do you know? Because you've read one side of Diane Harper's views? You think you're qualified to tell someone else he/she is making the "right decision"? What arrogance!

      February 27, 2012 at 15:06 | Report abuse |
  27. CHeryl

    There have been severe side effects from the HPV shot – funny how you don't hear those stories. I wouldn't trust BIG PHARMA for anything.

    February 27, 2012 at 14:12 | Report abuse | Reply
    • WilmaWonka

      What sides effects and how frequent are the side effects?

      You can't make a statement like that and not support it with facts.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:26 | Report abuse |
    • Voter

      Yes, side effects are real, many girls have been disabled or died from the shot.

      Look up Dr. Diane Harper, a researcher who helped get Gardasil approved. After reading what she says, there is no doubt that the vaccine is NOT something you should allow your children to get!!

      February 27, 2012 at 14:42 | Report abuse |
    • I call BS

      How many? Where's your evidence? If all you can say is "Diane Harper", you're not being helpful at all.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:07 | Report abuse |
    • Chartreuxe

      NO GIRL HAS DIED, NO GIRL OR WOMAN HAS BEEN INJURED BY HPV VACCINE!

      You're either making them up or repeating Urban Legends. There hasn't been a single death or a girl disabled from one of these vaccines.

      Either post the CDC link to prove it or stop spreading lies on the internet. Yes, I'm saying it:

      PUT UP OR SHUT UP, ALL OF YOU! Stop spreading lies and misinformation, it's wrong and stupid.

      February 27, 2012 at 19:35 | Report abuse |
  28. jjb22

    Vaccines have one of the lowest profit margins of all drugs on the market. They're expensive to produce, but they often sell below market price since the federal government purchases them in bulk below market price. Pharmaceutical companies have little financial incentive to push vaccines on people. They have many more profitable areas to work on. That's one of the reasons why we experience vaccine shortages.

    One advantage of vaccinating boys against HPV is that they will then not be able to act as a carrier and spread the virus to female. Even though this vaccine doesn't protect against all strains of HPV, the ones it does protect against are still important.

    Most people do not experience adverse reactions against vaccines (except sometimes local soreness). Those with allergies to certain ingredients in the medium, such as eggs, can have allergic reactions.

    February 27, 2012 at 14:13 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Amy

      Yeah, well they more than make up for their "low profit margin" by how much they charge for their drugs.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:24 | Report abuse |
    • I call BS

      Amy blows her argument. Again.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:02 | Report abuse |
    • Amy

      I'm wrong that pharm. companies charge insane amounts for their drugs?? Pleeeaaasssseee prove me wrong.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:08 | Report abuse |
    • I call BS

      Why? You're nuts.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:20 | Report abuse |
    • I call BS

      Crazy people like you aren't worthy of any argument, Amy. The only remedy necessary is incessant and relentless ridicule and scorn, which is what you richly deserve and what I am here to provide. You have produced not an iota of fact or sources for any of you brainless claims and you won't. Because there is no evidence for your insane notions. None.

      You're just a lonely old bat who suffers from delusions, believes in conspiracy theories, distrusts authority and education of any kind and is mad because people with brains laugh you out of the room.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:27 | Report abuse |
  29. bfd007

    My son is now 26 and has never had a shot for anything ever, and has never been sick but the kids he went to school with were sick all the time. Some were out of school for days and weeks at a time, so it is not in the best interest of your kids to get any shots. And remember this is coming from a lie'in government that cares nothing of WE THE PEOPLE do you really think the government has your best interest in mind? I think not ! You are nothing but a slave to the government so the sonner you wake up the better off you will be. The government is a SCAM !

    February 27, 2012 at 14:14 | Report abuse | Reply
    • medschoolkid

      I hope you are exaggerating. I'm sure you won't be so sure of your anti-shot policy once your son steps on a nail and gets tetanus. You won't be nearly so confident if you have to watch your son have agonizing uncontrollable muscle spasms and potentially die.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:41 | Report abuse |
  30. Kavinsky

    I doubt anyone ever contracted HPV while practicing safe sex.

    February 27, 2012 at 14:15 | Report abuse | Reply
    • T

      I doubt anyone ever had a good idea based off of something coming out of your mouth, but hey, we're all human here.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:25 | Report abuse |
    • I call BS

      T-1 Kavinsky – 0

      February 27, 2012 at 15:09 | Report abuse |
    • HayerHay

      So... unbelievably... wrong... WOW! You clearly have no idea what HPV even is or how it spreads, this does NOT spread the same as other STDs. Please, please, please, do not post stuff like this without knowing what you're saying, people like yourself will actually believe it.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:16 | Report abuse |
    • Chartreuxe

      Happens all the time. HPV is spread via oral sex and kissing.

      February 27, 2012 at 19:37 | Report abuse |
    • Gaven

      VERY wrong. I've had to treat innumerable warts on men that used condoms. The condom does not always snuggly fit and can slip. Lots of guys get HPV on the base of their junk because the condom down not protect that area very well.

      February 27, 2012 at 21:17 | Report abuse |
  31. Gaven

    So why isn't this recommended for everyone that is sexually active regardless of age? I'd be down to get vaccinated if it is allowed. You can never be too safe!

    February 27, 2012 at 14:18 | Report abuse | Reply
    • ifyoureallywanttoknow

      Because chances are that folks over the age of 26 have already been exposed and so the vaccine would be wasted. HPV is very common, which is why cervical cancer rates are so high.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:03 | Report abuse |
    • Gaven

      That makes no sense. That's like saying the polio vaccination is no good for a 30-year old because 30-year olds might have already gotten exposed to it and just never got the full brunt of the disease. The vaccine protects against very specific strains of HPV. Just because a person has a strain of HPV that is not countered by the vaccine does it mean the vaccine can't protect against the strains it does affect.

      They have been pushing this vaccine on younger kids and adults, but not 30+ year old adults. I find that interesting and I must question it because older people are reeeeeeally starting to become sexually active again. In fact, I was just reading how senior citizens are one of the fastest growing groups of those being infected with STDs. If the vaccine is effective for anyone at any age over 9, given the person is not already infected with one of those specific strains already, then why not make it available to all?

      February 27, 2012 at 15:11 | Report abuse |
  32. T

    Idiots against vaccines and their mouths are a far bigger threat to public health than any vaccine.

    It's child abuse not to vaccinate your children.

    February 27, 2012 at 14:21 | Report abuse | Reply
  33. WilmaWonka

    Interesting that Texas requires the HPV vaccine be given to all girls while boys, the transmitters of HPV, have yet to get the requirement. Equality is still beyond the horizon.

    February 27, 2012 at 14:25 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Gaven

      Once you get one of the strains of HPV that the vaccination protects unaffected people with, the vaccination will have no effect nor will it cure those who have those strains. It prevents the virus, but only in those who are not already infected by those strains.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:37 | Report abuse |
  34. Henri

    90% of all sexually active adults will have contacted some strain of HPV within their lifetimes. It is the most common sexually transmitted disease...

    February 27, 2012 at 14:30 | Report abuse | Reply
  35. John

    Nothing wrong with being vaccinated. My daughter is safe now, thanks to this drug.

    I wish this had existed when I was young... it would have saved me.

    February 27, 2012 at 14:30 | Report abuse | Reply
  36. Voter

    Look up Dr. Diane Harper, a former paid consultant to Merck who took part in the research of the Gardasil (HPV) vaccine. After reading her comments, I wonder why anyone would want to vaccinate. Key points she makes:

    1) Not effective on boys
    2) Length of immunity not known to be beyond 5 years
    3) Side effects (which include death and neurological problems) are "small but real"
    4) key to prevention of cervical cancer is the pap test

    Look it up before you agree to this unnecessary vaccine.

    February 27, 2012 at 14:34 | Report abuse | Reply
    • I call BS

      Why don't you tell the other side of the Diane Harper story?

      February 27, 2012 at 15:03 | Report abuse |
  37. Voter

    "90% of all sexually active adults will have contacted some strain of HPV within their lifetimes. It is the most common sexually transmitted disease..."

    Yes, and Dr. Harper makes the point that most people (95%) will clear the virus on their own.

    The vaccine is NOT needed and can lead to serious side effects. Look up the cases of girls who died or were disabled after receiving the Gardasil shots.

    February 27, 2012 at 14:37 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Gaven

      You are looking up bogus information. There are no cases of people having any major adverse side effects from this vaccination as a result of the vaccination itself.

      The world does not need another conspiracy theorist. Find a new hobby.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:40 | Report abuse |
    • medschoolkid

      Look up the cases of girls who have died from or were disabled from cervical cancer. I assure you its exponentially more than any side effects of Gardasil. Dr. Harper fails to mention that there are 30 or 40 strains of HPV, most of which are harmless. But Gardasil protects againts the 4 strains that cause 70% of cervical cancer and 90% of genital warts. Please do some unbiased research.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:48 | Report abuse |
    • ifyoureallywanttoknow

      It is important to realize that it takes a human about 6 months to fight off HPV. For a small percentage of those with HPV, this period when they are fighting it off leads to changes in cells that will lead to cancer a decade or so later. HPV, the virus, does not kill you, or create toxins that will kill you will when you have an active infection. It is just that it alters the cells in a way that leads to cancer long after the virus used your cells to reproduce. The way this works is pretty well understood, and it is well worth reading about it in detail if you are interested in proto-oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:10 | Report abuse |
    • Voter

      "Dr. Harper fails to mention that there are 30 or 40 strains of HPV, most of which are harmless"

      She mentions that! She was a paid consultant to Merck, responsible for clinical trials for Gardasil and for getting the vaccine approved.

      The thing you forget is that this vaccine is very new, targets a certain age group, that most people infected with HPV clear the virus on their own.

      The CDC states that even prior to the vaccine, cervical cancer was reduced by 70% thanks to pap tests

      Get the vaccine if you want but do not spread misinformation: a woman is not protected against cervical cancer because she got the shot when she was 9!

      I will not allow any of my children to get this vaccine (and yes, they have all their other vaccines like polio, etc)

      February 27, 2012 at 15:35 | Report abuse |
    • Ummmmm

      The virus does not simply "clear on its own" and do no further harm, voter. And Harper is NOT the most reliable source of any information. Why would you trust her and discount the many others who disagree with her findings?

      You're the one spreading misinformation here.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:41 | Report abuse |
    • Voter

      http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500690_162-5253431.html

      "Dr. Diane Harper says young girls and their parents should receive more complete warnings before receiving the vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. Dr. Harper helped design and carry out the Phase II and Phase III safety and effectiveness studies to get Gardasil approved, and authored many of the published, scholarly papers about it. She has been a paid speaker and consultant to Merck. It's highly unusual for a researcher to publicly criticize a medicine or vaccine she helped get approved."

      February 27, 2012 at 23:58 | Report abuse |
  38. Pagan

    Call my cynical but I see absolutely no uproar from the religious nutjobs on this because it will protect boys. NOW, if it were ONLY that boys getting the vaccine would protect girls, then there would be an uproar. It seems that if women are not punished for eternity even for married sex, they just aren't happy. Hey idiots, your misogyny is coming through loud and clear.

    February 27, 2012 at 14:38 | Report abuse | Reply
  39. Rosemary Robinson

    My son recently got the vaccine (he is at college) after he and I discussed it and agreed it was best for his health and also for the health and well-being of a future girlfriend or wife (who would be protected for life against cervical cancer). Neither of us understands why some parents object to the vaccine when the benefits vastly outweigh the health risk. Also if not many young men are being vaccinated, all the more reason to get it for your daughters, as even if they are virgins when they marry, they may not know the sexual history of their partners.

    February 27, 2012 at 14:42 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Voter

      The vaccine will not protect his wife for life! Are you that naive?

      Read what Dr, Diane Harper, a researcher who helped get Gardasil approved had to say about the vaccine: it does not protect beyond a few years. How sad that you made your son have a shot that has had so many disabling side effects for so many

      Google Diane Harper and read what she has to say

      February 27, 2012 at 14:51 | Report abuse |
    • medschoolkid

      @Voter – What exactly does Dr. Harper say are these extremely common disabling side effects are? How do they compare to cervical cancer? Yes the current research cannot prove that the effects last longer than five years but it is expected to last much longer. So what if you need a booster shot? Are you also opposed to a tetanus vaccine every 10 years?

      February 27, 2012 at 14:58 | Report abuse |
    • Gaven

      @Voter – A man of one book cannot be trusted.

      The same goes for the information a person clings to when they only use one source, particularly a source that has an ulterior motive. You need to do a LOT more reading than what Dr. Harper puts out. Just in case you're not aware, there have been many doctors that have been wrong in their assessments. However, long-term clinical trials and studies prove your Dr. Harper quite wrong. Who are you going to believe, one doctor that goes against everything the studies have proven...or the studies done by NUMEROUS doctors that have years upon years of studies and data to prove the vaccine's safety? If you are a religious person, I am sure you will say the former...because only a religious person can put all of their faith into what one person says and actually believe it is 100% true while ignoring the blatant facts that are provable all around you.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:05 | Report abuse |
    • Voter

      "Dr. Harper joins a number of consumer watchdogs, vaccine safety advocates, and parents who question the vaccine's risk-versus-benefit profile. She says data available for Gardasil shows that it lasts five years; there is no data showing that it remains effective beyond five years. "

      http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500690_162-5253431.html

      February 28, 2012 at 00:01 | Report abuse |
    • Voter

      "Dr. Harper helped design and carry out the Phase II and Phase III safety and effectiveness studies to get Gardasil approved, and authored many of the published, scholarly papers about it. She has been a paid speaker and consultant to Merck. It's highly unusual for a researcher to publicly criticize a medicine or vaccine she helped get approved. "

      February 28, 2012 at 00:02 | Report abuse |
  40. Rosemary Robinson

    Oh and by the way, there is no test to find out whether men are carriers of HPV!

    February 27, 2012 at 14:46 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Gaven

      Actually, there is. It's a simple home test that involves water-diluted vinegar. Applied to the suspected area, the warts will turn white if they are not already visible. It's not 100%, as the virus can linger inside the body without any outward signs.

      February 27, 2012 at 14:53 | Report abuse |
    • cogitoergosum

      Gaven, where did you receive your medical training?

      February 27, 2012 at 15:10 | Report abuse |
    • Gaven

      The U.S military. And, I ran a wart clinic for two years. How about you?

      February 27, 2012 at 15:13 | Report abuse |
    • BigRed

      Nice one Gaven!!!!!!!

      February 27, 2012 at 15:19 | Report abuse |
    • Gaven

      Go look up "vinegar solution test". Then come back here and tell us all about your extensive medical background since you like to refute the experience others have. (Ten years of it, thank you very much.)

      Oh, and bring some humble pie to snack on. Thanks.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:21 | Report abuse |
    • Rbnlegend101

      Gaven,
      The strain that causes cancer, does not cause warts. The strain that causes warts, does not cause cancer. So, the vinegar test, assuming it works, won't help detect the strain of HPV that causes cancer. Try again.

      February 27, 2012 at 16:04 | Report abuse |
    • Gaven

      Rbnlegend101 – First, you are an idiot. Second, HPV is NOT 100% preventable. You can get it on the base of your junk even with a condom on. Trust me, I've burned off more warts from more dudes junk than you have had meals in your life. Third, I am quite aware of what the characteristics for HPV strains 6, 11, 16 and 18 are and what other strains characteristics are. I never said the vinegar solution test works for all strains, I said it is a test that can show HPV infection but that is not 100% effective as some viruses do not show any outward signs (strains 6, 11, 16 and 18, which can lead to cancer). How abut YOU try again and learn how to read while you are at it.

      February 27, 2012 at 21:12 | Report abuse |
  41. Bob

    Whoever wrote this article should be vaccinated.

    February 27, 2012 at 14:49 | Report abuse | Reply
  42. toadears

    Isn't it fun to watch the media lead the sheep to slaughter? Baaaaaaad IV shot, baaaaaaaaaaad side effects, baaaaaaaad medicine.

    February 27, 2012 at 14:50 | Report abuse | Reply
  43. Jeff

    Sure. Right after women start caring about the health, especially the sexual health, of men.

    February 27, 2012 at 14:56 | Report abuse | Reply
  44. lumpy

    I really am stumped by the objection to vaccines, and the response by those who object to vaccines to "do your research", most often pointing to URLs with questionable or non-existent credentials, or any evidence of a scientific approach to their objection. I just haven't come up with a convincing argument (since evidence doesn't seem to be convincing) – probably because the objection is irrational and based on fallacious thinking. It is the 'tragedy of the commons' being played out every day, in almost every way...worse, it is more poison in the well...as the scientist and medical student have posted, immunology is NOT a mystery or new (untested). We need to elevate science above theology and ideology again. Otherwise, the future will be even bleaker than it already appears to be!

    February 27, 2012 at 15:06 | Report abuse | Reply
  45. clearfog

    I'm sure the Catholic church and fundamentalist Protestants will want to say something about a vaccine encouraging premarital sex and promiscuity. I think everyone should rely upon Bronze Age thinking to make health decisions. Pray the virus away.

    February 27, 2012 at 15:07 | Report abuse | Reply
  46. cogitoergosum

    This debate is ridiculous. There should be no argument. The vaccine protects those who get it, and those who are associated with those who get it. Those that don't will be contributing to the problem, in another twenty or less years. The vaccine is available. Use it to your benefit! Those that complain it only protects in a limited way, are you aware that the flu vaccine only inoculates against the tree most prevalent viruses in a particular flue season, and is determined or selected months ahead of the upcoming flue season? And yet people have no reservation in getting that vaccine. The same anti-vaccine arguments could be made there. Take the sexual component out of this discussion and the question would be moot. Everyone would be racing to get it for their teens. But we have a country of backward, uneducated religious nuts that would rather see their kids suffer needlessly than admit that teens and adults have sexual relations. It's sad. Very sad.

    February 27, 2012 at 15:07 | Report abuse | Reply
  47. Alex

    How about us males DONT get a vacine for a disease that give us no symptoms and does not affect our health. I think ill skip the potential side effects.
    Now stay out of my health.

    February 27, 2012 at 15:09 | Report abuse | Reply
    • cogitoergosum

      No symptoms, until you are too sick to recover. And no symptoms, so when you are infected, you will infect others with whom you have sexual contact, without them knowing it. And as for staying out of your health, when you stay out of mine, I'd gladly oblige.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:12 | Report abuse |
    • Jeff

      Great point Alex.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:17 | Report abuse |
    • ifyoureallywanttoknow

      Just in case you write this because you think it only causes cervical cancer, and you, sadly, have no cervix. It is widely believed that HPV has a role in neck, throat, and head cancers as well, and it is linked with anal cancer. This virus puts a protein on the DNA of the cells it infects that keeps cells from becoming cancerous. It does not infect the whole organisms just the cell near the area where the virus was transmitted. It stands out as an infection that promotes cervical cancer, because without interference from this virus, cervical cancer doesn't seem to occur. This does not mean it does not have a role in cancer promotion in other types of cells. It almost certainly does because it causes cancer by impacting a gene that is responsible for stopping cancer in nearly all cells in the organism.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:20 | Report abuse |
    • Rbnlegend101

      hey Alex, next time you are getting intimate with a woman, try telling her, "Hey, I can't get sick from HPV, so I refuse to get vaccinated or checked for it, if you get it from me, that's your problem" and see if the intimacy continues. Good luck with that.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:26 | Report abuse |
    • lumpy

      @alex, i apologize for being misleading. i am motivated only by self-interest. it's not your health i'm worried about or interested in, trust me. people who don't get vaccinated put MY health at risk.

      February 27, 2012 at 15:32 | Report abuse |
  48. PR

    I've got tonsil cancer and my wife is wondering if my affinity for oral sex may have caused it. I like to do her, and have done other women prior to my marriage. Wish they had this years ago, might have prevented my cancer.

    February 27, 2012 at 15:10 | Report abuse | Reply
  49. BigRed

    OK, and now a voice from the Insane Right: Go ahead Mr Santorum. We need another quote for Steven Colbert to use.

    February 27, 2012 at 15:17 | Report abuse | Reply
  50. mthome

    So wait, where's all the controversy about how this will cause boys to become more promiscuous, get girls pregnant, contribute to single parent families and otherwise destroy our society by encouraging them to have sex?

    February 27, 2012 at 15:18 | Report abuse | Reply
1 2 3

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

Advertisement
About this blog

Get a behind-the-scenes look at the latest stories from CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen and the CNN Medical Unit producers. They'll share news and views on health and medical trends - info that will help you take better care of yourself and the people you love.