MOMania

By Jeff

March 19, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this

Again I point out the fallacy of the question.

It is not that MOMS should make the decision.

It is that parents TOGETHER (both Mom AND Dad) should make the decision.

If the parents cannot agree, the child can wait until s/he is 18 and out of the house and make the decision for themselves as responsible adults.

By Joyce

March 19, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this

My initial reaction was “no”. After reading the article, I’m still not convinced that there’s enough of a benefit to warrant the risk of a vaccine that is so new and relatively untested in the general population. I mean, how do we know that there aren’t any long-term effects?

By DB

March 19, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this

Interesting … I have to admit, the thought never crossed my mind that my son would/could take the vaccine — it wasn’t even mentioned at the doctor’s office, and I was focusing on the “cervical cancer” part of the equation. Seems like a no-brainer, when you think about it. But since my son is 19 at this point, that’s going to be up to him — but it will probably be a casual topic of discussion.

By John

March 19, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this

If the vaccine is safe get it done when their 13/14 years old. I had sex with a few “sweet, innocent” daughters when I was a teenager. It’s just something that happens.

By momof1

March 19, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this

Jeff have you seen the name of this blog??? MOMania…so it is primarily directed to the MOM of the parental pair. Please for peace sake get the chip off your shoulder, your manhood/roll in your family is not being threatened. You say really great things sometimes but when you throw a comment out like that…you lose points. Sorry! And as for my son, I will have to learn more about this before I will consider it for him. Lucky for me I have a long time before it will be of issue.

By Theresa

March 19, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this

Jeff — i wrote moms at like 1 a.m. last night but I agree wiht you (and I think most moms would) that dads should be in on the discussion and in fact I would think dads would actually be more in favor of it than moms because they know how they were when they were teenagers (trying to get some)

DB - did you notice the comment on page 2 that doctors hope for a future where partners ask each other if they’ve had the vaccine like how they did (and do I guess) with AIDS testing — I also thought one of the last quotes was interesting about looking at as stopping the spread of a communicable disease

Off topic for this week but on for last week —— By the way I took the baby to get her 1 year vaccines on MOnday and frustrated the heck out of our poor pediatrician —- I’ve been really nervous since reading that story about the Athens family two weeks ago — AFter discussing it with the doctor, the nurses and hten calling my husband on my cell phone to confer (for Jeff) — I only got the prevnar vaccine that she has already had three times with no problems — I skipped for now the chicken pox vaccine — I always wait on the MMR until my babies are walking and talking and you know they are A-OK and I was just freaked out — so for now I am also waiting on Chicken pox — we’re supposed to get two more in 3 months — Hep A and the MMR — so I guess I’ll have to keep thinking and investigating

By Jeff

March 19, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this

momof1:

I just get REALLY p*ssed off when moms start thinking that the child is THEIRS and only THEY can make decisions regarding it.

The Dad is ALSO a parent of the child, and has JUST as much say as the mom as to decisions that affect the kid.

A better-phrased question would have been:

Parents of boys — will you vaccinate your boys to help protect the girls?

or even

Moms of boys — will you (and your son’s father) vaccinate your boys to help protect the girls?

By Jeff

March 19, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this

Theresa:

I do apologize. I happen to have in-laws that are very much of the belief that I try to guard against here, that I mentioned in my last just a second ago.

And all of them are going to be at my house this weekend….

Those that pray, PLEASE remember me! It could get VERY interesting, and probably NOT in good ways! (Only ‘good’ thing is that there is a new guy in the picture (SIL’s boyfriend), and this is the first family gathering with him. MAYBE the attacks on me will slacken, but with the current push to have me and T have the first grandkids… not likely.)

By Theresa

March 19, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this

Guys - One other off topic item I’d like to qickly point out — Do you guys remember Keith STill who filled in for me while I was on maternity leave and who helps me out by blogging when I am in a jam — well she got a a few months back her own blog on ajc.com (I should have mentioned sooner!!)— She’s writing a travel blog about traveling around the South East. New topics show up every Wednesday so be sure to check her out. The title of the blog is Still Traveling and today’s topic is visiting Nashville.

By Jeff

March 19, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this

On topic:

Theresa:

As for the dads being more favorable, I don’t think I would be.

I would see it as an unneccessary risk, though I WOULD inform my son of it and leave it up to him after he is 18 and out of my house.

But you’ve also got to understand that I don’t like drugs in general. To the tune that I typically only take TYLENOL when I feel like I’m literally on death’s bed.

Are some drugs worth the cost in side effects? Most certainly. (Morphine when you’ve just survived a double T-bone car wreck is NICE!) But personally I don’t see this as necessary at all, and since the side effects are unknown in large populations, I take a more ‘wait and see’ approach and am open to letting the kid make his own decision once he is legally old enough.

BTW: Back to the daughter side of the equation, I would say the exact same thing.

By arh

March 19, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this

All this hand ringing over a vaccination that has the potential to prevent genital warts (in the case of boys) and prevent a possibly deadly form of cancer in girls! Would we be having this conversation if sex weren’t involved? What about if it were a vaccination that could prevent lung cancer in the event that they ever defied your wishes and smoked? Guess what, people have sex. That is how we all got here and how our children got here. The likelihood that they are going to grow up and become adults, marry as a virgin to a virgin and then remain with that one partner in a monogamous relationship until they die is small, to say the least. Our job as parents is to provide them with the best information and protection to send them into the world to make their own decisions. Conversations about what is expected of them regarding sex need to take place often and start early. If one shot (or a series) is going to overshadow the moral foundation that you have already established with your child-then guess what, the foundation wasn’t there to begin with. Children defy their parents at times and at other times (unfortunately) the decision to have sex is not made voluntarily. To knowingly expose your child to something as dangerous as CANCER when it can be prevented because it offends your fundamental sensibilities about sex is a disservice to the adult with a will of her own that you are creating. But then again, why don’t you try the “just keep your legs closed” approach to sex education with your child- I have heard it works wonders.

By Kat

March 19, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this

I know this is an individual decision, but I can’t help but be glad that the parents who had young children when the polio & smallpox vaccines were first approved weren’t as hesitant as today’s parents.

By Jeff

March 19, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

Kat:

Difference with those being that the diseases in question were ACTUAL threats.

With this one, the disease is a POSSIBLE threat, and the chances of developing the main threat this is supposed to avoid - cancer - is even MORE remote.

Getting this vaccine to prevent cancer is like taking an umbrella to the Sahara. Is it POSSIBLE that you may need it? SURE! Is it anywhere NEAR likely? NO WAY JOSE!

By Kat

March 19, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

You know, the more I think about it, the more annoyed I get. There are lots of people who decide not to get their children vaccinated because of the risks of the vaccine seem high compared to odds of catching the disease. Let’s take mumps, for example. You can still get mumps, but hardly anybody ever does, right? So since the chances of getting mumps are so small, and the risk of adverse effects from the vaccine is scary, it’s safe to postpone or delay the vaccine. What’s missing in this logic is that the very reason the chances of catching mumps is so small is because THE REST OF US ARE VACCINATING OUR CHILDREN ON TIME! Essentially, you are coasting on my child’s immunity, counting on the immunity of “the herd”, as the article put it, to protect your child. If more and more parents make the same decision, to delay or avoid vaccines, the “wild population” of these viruses will make a huge rebound, and where will the unimmunized children be then? It’s my child’s vaccines that are providing your child with a safety net.

By Kat

March 19, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this

Jeff, I disagree with you, but then I nearly always do. Your logic is almost too convoluted to try to untangle, but I’ll try. Did everyone in the old days die of smallpox, or polio, or even measles? No. Did everyone contract those diseases? No. Therefore they also were only POSSIBLE threats.

Cervical cancer is the fifth deadliest cancer in women worldwide. About 10,000 American women are diagnosed with it each year, and about 4,000 of them DIE. If that’s not a real threat, I don’t know what is.

By the way, “arh”, you rock!

By Kat

March 19, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this

Jeff, I disagree with you, but then I nearly always do. Your logic is almost too convoluted to try to untangle, but I’ll try. Did everyone in the old days die of smallpox, or polio, or even measles? No. Did everyone contract those diseases? No. Therefore they also were only POSSIBLE threats.

Cervical cancer is the fifth deadliest cancer in women worldwide. About 10,000 American women are diagnosed with it each year, and about 4,000 of them DIE. If that’s not a real threat, I don’t know what is.

PS, I’d use the umbrella to keep the sun off of my head.

By the way, “arh”, you rock!

By DDT

March 19, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this

I wouldn’t let my girl touch this stuff. There’s no evidence that this aluminum / mercury filled shot does anything except cause Guillian Barr syndrome in some cases. There’s no evidence that HPV causes anything. People whose bodies can’t kick HPV have terrible immune systems and are more likely to get cancer because of it. HPV lesions are a correlation of a poor immune system, not a cause of cervical cancer. How is attacking poor immune systems with aluminum and mercury going to help the overall risk of cancer and death? And if the virus is really the threat, then why wouldn’t the virus mutate from its original form put in the vaccine. And how long would the vaccine positive effects, if any last? There’s no evidence of long term effectiveness and more evidence of long term negative side effects of accumulated aluminum from unnecessary shots. Vaccines have turned into an unquestionable belief system where if you say anything against them, your committing blasphemy. “Immunization” with Guardasil is based on such weak, flimsy, incomplete science and strong propaganda.

By Jeff

March 19, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this

Kat:

10,000 WOMEN.

OK….

Accorcind to factfinder.census.gov, there are more than 303 MILLION PEOPLE in the US right now. Assuming equal distribution of the sexes, you’ve got 151.5 MILLION women.

10,000 / 151,000,000 = 0.00006 ~ 0.001%

And you’re asking me to risk my CHILD for such a REMOTE possibility???????

(BTW: Seeing the numbers now, my Sahara example was flawed. You’re about 10,000 times more likely to see rain in the Sahara than you are to have cervical cancer.)

By Morrigan

March 19, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this

See that, girls? You can be “sweet and innocent” or you can have sex. One or the other, but not both. How come boys don’t have the same restrictive option?

By Tamika

March 19, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this

I think all boys should have the new AIDS vaccine— to protect us women form all the disease men have!!

By Tamika

March 19, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this

God made Ave from Adam’s Rib cage. That is probably where Herpes came from! Who wants to be made from a rib cage — that just sounds weird.

By Tamika

March 19, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this

If A vaccine will save one girl then i think we should vaccine the all men!! NOW

By Tamika

March 19, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this

The poolio vaccine worked well!

By Doc

March 19, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this

Here’s a way to pitch it to boys and their parents: while not as common as cervical cancer, HPV also causes penile cancer - in fact it is the most common cause of this cancer. And if you show boys and their parents pictures of a penis and perineal region covered with venereal warts - you can bet they will get the shots.

By joshua

March 19, 2008 2:25 PM | Link to this

we are just starting to learn the magnitude of HPV-associated malignancies. penile cancer, while rare, has been clearly linked to HPV. more recently, a large crop of young men with oropharyngeal cancers have been shown to have HPV as a likely cause. the vaccine is only approved for cervical cancer now but likely prevents multiple other malignancies and should be offered to everyone. merck mis-marketed the vaccine.

By Daddy-O

March 19, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this

Tamika - I don’t know whether to laugh with you - or at you.

By Tamika

March 19, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this

Oh My Gosh— HPV is PP warts. That is so gross. I would never look at a PP with warts on it. !! Yes, Boys need to hat the shots ASAP!!

By WakeUpAmerica

March 19, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this

DDT, you’re right on the money. Gardasil (like most vaccines) is virtual poison (containing a live cancer virus). Big Pharma is all about using marketing ploys & mass propaganda to deceive the sheeple into drugging themselves senseless. Crooked TX Governor Rick Perry tried to sign a mandatory EO requiring TX schoolgirls to take Gardasil…right after he received a huge campaign contribution from Merck! Wake up folks & do your own research (beyond Big Pharma’s propaganda) on vaccines!

http://www.infowars.com/?p=441

By arh

March 19, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this

Jeff, Until you actually are a parent and are not using parenting blogs to espouse your, as of yet, untested parenting wisdom, let me help you look at those 10,000 women another way. Those are 10,000 daughters and with a 40% mortality rate, 4,000 of which have parents that will NEVER live a life without mourning the loss of their child every moment of every day. Clever Saharan analogies mean nothing to those parents, all of whom, I guarantee would trade their life in an instant for their daughter to have been protected against this disease. While we are talking numbers, how many children in the US die each year from immunizations?

By Tamika

March 19, 2008 2:37 PM | Link to this

Will this vaccine get rid of Lip Herpes?

By Jeff

March 19, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this

arh:

The question doesn’t deal with THOSE parents.

It asks ME what I would do.

And I choose to deal with ACTUAL risks, not theoretical ones.

And with such an ULTRA, ULTRA LOW chance of it happening and a very REAL risk of the vaccine having many adverse side effects, taking the vaccine becomes MUCH more of a risk than not.

Another analogy:

What if we find out tomorrow that 10,000 bullets were fired at humans last year in the US, and that the proposed solution is to confine our kids to buildings with 3’ thick concrete walls 24/7? Does our fear of the 10,000 bullets outweigh the benefits of a) not living in fear and b) allowing our kid to enjoy life????

What if we find out (as I suspect is the actual case) that the number of bullets fired is actually closer to 100X that number? Do we still live in fear that our kid could be shot?

By Tamika

March 19, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this

They need to come up with a Vaccine to get rid of fat peoples booties. Those are gross too!

By Daddy-O

March 19, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this

No - but it might help the Green Giant get rid of Lesueurpes.

By Tamika

March 19, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this

Will the Vaccination get rid of warts that are showing up? Can you get these HPV warts on and in your mouth? This is the yuckiest disease i have ever heard about. I will be exatra lookingful with the PP’s i see!!

By Tamika

March 19, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this

We have nothing to fear but fearful people with HPV

By Tamika

March 19, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this

I heard McDinalds puts HPV on their french fries.

By arh

March 19, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this

Jeff, Talk to me when you are an actual parent-not a theoretical one! As to your 10,000 bullet scenario… really, really reaching. Again, in actual numbers, how many children have died from immunizations in the past year (or 5) in the US?

By Mark

March 19, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this

I’m a parent with a daughter(21) an a son(18). My daughter got the vaccine as soon as it was approved, and my son will, too. According to studies, the risk of a daughter or son getting HPV is as high as 50%. In other words, probably half of the people you see everyday (of all ages) have the virus. I agree with Arh, who said:

Would we be having this conversation if sex weren’t involved?

We probably wouldn’t. But, as cancer survivors, my wife and I both agree that this vaccine is a good thing. I don’t wish ANY kind of cancer on anyone, especially my kids, and if this will help prevent it, or help prvent the spread of the virus, count me in.

By DB

March 19, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this

Jeff, your stats analysis are just a bit off. Consider that one year, 10,000 women develop cervical cancer. The next year, ANOTHER 10,000 women develop it, the year after that, another 10,000 — in your population (assuming a general steadiness of population with deaths and births), you’re talking about 30,000 women over the course of 3 years. Still a small number, relatively speaking, but an epidemic is declared at a point where the number of affected are approximately 1 out of every 10,000. In this case, out of 151 million, you’re talking about 15,000 being conservatively considered an epidemic. 10,000 is not that far behind, especially looking to the future with the increase in incidence of HPV virus.

I was one of those children on the cusp of childhood vaccines. I had whooping cough, chicken pox, german measles and red measles. The red measles had me out of school for three weeks straight and did permanent damage to my vision. Kat had it right — those of you congratulating yourselves for not getting various diseases are riding the herd that has been vaccinated. WHO has estimated that populations, to be fully protected, should be at 96% vaccination. In many areas of the country, that percentage has dropped to 80% or less, with parents taking a “wait and see” attitude, who are therefore more vulnerable to diseases carried her from countries with an even lower vaccination rate.

On the other hand, there have been some interesting studies that correlate SIDS with peaks at the 2, 4 and 6 months of age, right after a series of vaccinations.

Who knows? We’re doing our best out here, trying to weigh the pros and cons.

By Tray

March 19, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this

With 1 in 5 teen girls having an STD, yeah, I’d get him the shots. There may be long term effects, but that’s what most STD’s are -lifelong burning!!

By Jakki

March 19, 2008 5:56 PM | Link to this

Will the persn closest to her strangle Tamika?

By Jen

March 19, 2008 5:58 PM | Link to this

So much misinformation and so little time.

First of all, as posted in the last blog…the rate of HPV is HIGH. Also, HPV is the BIGGEST known cause of cervical cancer.

OK, here’s the deal. You’re a man. You have HPV. Chances of it causing you cancer are low. But, you WILL transmit it your wife, who has a much higher chance of getting cancer. And after she dies and you marry again…you will give HPV to her, too. And perhaps, she, too, will get cancer.

Because men often never know they have HPV. Women, either. Not until they get cancer.

Please educate yourselves on ACTUAL risk of men and women contracting HPV (hey, even the non-STD types). Educate yourselves on how it can cause cervical cancer.

By vaccinating both boys and girls against HPV you reduce the incidence of cervical cancer because the girls can’t get it from their husband and the boy won’t give it to each one of his wives….

Jeff, if you had sex before marriage to one or more people who had sex with someone else than you then there’s actually a good chance you already have HPV. And then you’re putting your wife at risk.

THAT’S how rampant that virus is…

By Jen

March 19, 2008 6:01 PM | Link to this

OK, from CDC:

HPV infection. * Approximately 20 million Americans are currently infected with HPV, and another 6.2 million people become newly infected each year. At least 50% of sexually active men and women acquire genital HPV infection at some point in their lives.*

By henry

March 20, 2008 6:54 AM | Link to this

Yes, there should be a vaccine for boys. Perhaps it would help them not give HPV to girls/women later and if the boy groups up to be gay it might prevent him from getting anal warts which can cause problems

By Booyah

March 20, 2008 7:50 AM | Link to this

The vaccine is not as effective in males.

This is because the point of infection in the male (the penis) is not bathed in antibodies-carrying fluid the way a vagina is. So it’s not going to be as effective at preventing males from catching the disease. Once the HPV virus gets into the neural ganglia, you can’t get rid of it even with a vaccine. It’s a cousin of herpes, so it comes back on occasion.

Given this, I tend to think that the risk to reward ratio for everyone is far better when the female takes the vaccine and the male does not. A female taking the vaccine will actually prevent transmission to the female (and to her future partners since she didn’t catch the disease). I’m skeptical that giving the vaccine to males will actually benefit anyone.

By JJ

March 20, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this

I can guarantee if there was a vaccine to prevent prostate cancer, it would be available over the counter.

By wadams

March 20, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this

As someone with HPV, I have dealt with the fear, pain, and simple inconvenience of the STD. How I wish the vaccine had been around when I was in my teens! I would take it in a heartbeat and my future daughters (and maybe sons) will definetely be taking advantage of this vaccine.

It is a small price to pay to know that you will be protected. Unfortunately there are so many different strains of HPV but this vaccine focuses on the ones that do eventually develop into cancer.

Thankfully, with close attention from my gyn. I have not had to worry about the cancer side yet, although I do have one of those srtains (not warts), but all of the other symptoms are enough to drive you crazy! It is no fun at all and I can only imagine how much worse it can be!

So mothers & fathers, to save your daughters from a lot of pain and heartache when they become sexually active (and they will!) please think seriously about giving them this vaccine!

By Been There

March 21, 2008 12:24 PM | Link to this

Quote from arh:

“…because it offends your fundamental sensibilities about sex is a disservice to the adult with a will of her own that you are creating.”

I think this is the thing so many parents miss — your job is to make your child a self-sufficient adult. Imagine yourself decades in the future explaining to your adult daughter or daughter-in-law that you could have chosen to prevent her cancer, but didn’t. Maybe you can live with that…

I also have to admit, though, that I’m glad I have a few years before my children reach the age.

By Joe

May 20, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this

It should not be up to either parent to decide if its “okay” or “moral” to give the child a vaccination that will alleviate human suffering and the further spread of disease. It is your responsibility as a moral individual to protect your child from cancer. Otherwise just go and sacrifice them to god now and get it over with, you kook.