As soon as I heard about this vaccine I figured I would make sure my daughter got it before she "needs" it. Ideally, I'd prefer to wait for a couple years to see how it pans out long term though. I can confidently say she's not having sex yet because she's very open with me right now about that stuff.

However, I am opposed to the government requiring that she have it to attend school. I agree that it makes sense with highly infectious diseases such as the MMR, etc., but I think this one should be a parent's decision, not the government's. It's a matter of principle, not related to this particular vaccine.

If it's going to cost parents up to $900 to get the series, then that brings up a whole different problem because that's a hefty chunk of change for the government to require us to pay. Only the rich and well insured get to go to school then? It seems too similar to other government requirements.. they put the requirements in place, but don't fund it.

Regarding the cost. Our health dept. is offering the shots for 21 dollars total. 7 dollars per shot. I cannot imagine that a city of 100,000 is offering it at a ridiculous discount. Don't go to your doctor for vaccinations if you're going to have to pay for them out of pocket. My Dr. recommended me to the health dept. for my meningitis vaccine so I wouldnt' pay crazy amounts for it.

Oh and don't go to biased websites for your information either... talk to your doctor about it.

I don't think I agree with the HPV vaccination being mandatory to attend school, but on the other hand, I think that when people are told it's "optional" they'll think it's just not something they should bother with. Even with all the attention this shot has been getting lately, a lot women I know still think it's no big deal--it's just like everything else, they think they won't get HPV because they don't "sleep around" or "they're careful." Well, guess what...HPV is very, very common. Actually getting cervical cancer from an HPV infection is rare, yes, but how do they know they won't be in that small but unlucky percentage? They don't. And you don't actually have to have sex sex with someone to contract HPV, so they may think they're "safe" when they're actually not. It really sucks that Gardisil is so damn expensive, because obviously the cost is going to deter a lot of people who can't afford it or don't have insurance, and that's really unfortunate. This is a chance to possibly avoid getting cancer, for crying out loud, not to mention all the unpleasant stuff that goes along with treating problems caused by HPV. It ain't a picnic, believe me. I honestly feel that the decision on whether or not to get the vaccine should be left up to the parents and/or young ladies themselves instead of mandated by the government, but I also wish there was a way to impress on people just how important this is so they'll take it seriously.

Best statement so far made on this thread.

Last I read, the texas requirement was due to many pediatricians not giving the injection due to the costs they incur by giving it, storing it, etc. While insurance companies are paying for it, doctors are only receiving $5-10 more than the cost of the vaccine to them (ie insurance is paying 130$ but the injection costs the doctor $125 to purchase).

As for BlueAngels assertions

1)Yes, technically it won't cover everyone who receives it. That's a fact of medicine, not a reason to not get vaccinated. It does "reduce the risk" to such a degree that the benefits far outweigh the risks of getting the injection. That's the aim. Further, there's this thing called "herd immunity". Get enough people vaccinated so that infection cannot spread rapidly, and you end up nearly eradicating the disease. Typically, depending on the disease, herd immunity starts to take effect when between 75-90% of the population has been vaccinated. The public health benefits of required vaccination cannot be ignored.

2)It only protects against 4 types because those 4 types are responsible for the overwhelming majority of illness and cancer. 16 and 18 are responsible for nearly 90% of invasive cervical cancers, and some studies have found them in as many as 80% of non-invasive cancers as well. If you have to pick a strategy for preventing a cancer with a vaccine it only makes sense to pick the serotypes most commonly responsible particularly when they are THAT involved. It's just like with newborn screening for metabolic disorders, they only check for the 6 most common types of Cystic Fibrosis mutations, because those 6 mutations account for more than 90% of all CF cases. It's simply not cost-effective to look for or create immunity to every possible form of a disease.

3)I'd consider exposure to one of the serotypes Gardisil protects against to be significant, especially when one of the complications is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in women worldwide.

Girls and young women have generally under the age of 26 have rapidly replacing cervical cells.

HPV rapidly infects cells that are constantly dividing. Cervical cells generally do not divide that much as a woman ages.

The thing about HPV is that it's a gateway virus for other more virulent STI's, such as Herpes and HIV.

HPV vaccination may only cover 4-5 strains but it is a first line of defense for those girls and young women to never develop a horrific illness starting in their 30's or 40's or later.

Even though cervical cancer rates are not as high as breast cancer rates, the treatment efficacy is poor with the current chemotherapeutics.

The issue is that determined horny kids will have sex. And more than likely without any condoms or birth control pills...

What is more unfortunate is the number of poor and minority girls and women who have barely any control of their bodies due to piss poor livelihoods and barely concern for their future.

So somehow, maybe this would be safer for these kinds of women or it is a massive sterilization mechanism...

Only time will tell.

Thank you kindly. Seriously, if you have a good rapport with your doctor, you will find they aren't "on the take" with drug companies and really do tend to give a damn.


As for requiring it, I'd like to see it approved for men and women to really curb the spread of HPV. Or at least these strains of it. No vaccine is 100% but this does not mean that we should stop vaccinating for dangerous diseases.

I don't see requiring it as giving a child permission to have sex. A 9 year old does not need to know that it's preventing an STD, just a virus. And if you've so poorly educated your child that they think that HPV is their only barrier to unprotected, promiscuous sex... well then you have other issues.

I have to see about getting this for myself, and seeing if there's a way to ensure that I haven't already contracted the virus before getting a shot. My odds are very very low but better safe than sorry. I'd rather get the vaccine even if I really don't need it.

Yep. For those of you who are wondering why they're not recommending the vaccine for women over 26, there are some reasons for that...

The younger women are, the more likely they are to have unprotected sex.

Unprotected sex is the leading cause of HPV.

HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer.

So, you see the connection? Older women just don't get HPV at the same rate as younger (and poorer) girls/women. And, as with most cancers, the younger you are, the more serious/advanced your cancer is likely to be.

Regarding the comments about cervical cancer being easy to treat - it's not. As AKA Monet said, cervical cancer does not have the same targeted cancer treatments available as in, say, breast cancer. Chemotherapy is literally poisoning the body...it has massive consequences along with the benefits, especially for women of reproductive age. Imagine your 18 or 19-year old daughter getting a hysterectomy or becoming infertile as a result of getting cervical cancer. She may live, but she will have lost a big part of what she may have wanted for her life.

As someone who used to work with a major biotech company that developed cancer treatments, I would encourage parents to seriously consider the vaccine. But, I think Texas has overstepped by mandating the vaccination. The only reason i say this is because the vaccine was only approved very recently. Merck will continue to do research on the vaccine for several years, will track side effects/safety over time, and will likely continue to announce data/side-effects/benefits, etc. as they come up. I do not think it's a good idea to mandate this vaccine for every girl in the state until more time has gone by.

Regarding the educational Web site someone mentioned here, those are quite common. The reason they exist is because the FDA heavily regulates marketing to consumers...there are a lot of rules about how they can advertise. But, one of the other reasons these Web sites and educational campaigns exist is because often these drugs are treating complicated disorders/diseases that can't be explained in a 30-second commercial. Also, doctors do not always know about all the newer treatments, so most cancer centers/organizations/companies will tell you that it's a good idea to keep yourself informed so that you can have a dialogue with your doctor and ask questions, not just wait for him/her to tell you what to do. Contrary to what many people believe, my experience has been that biotech and pharma companies generally work very hard to ensure the safety of their treatments and to make sure their products reach the people they will help. The "cover ups" that make the news are only half of the story and they're certainly the exception more than the rule.

You don't even need to have sex in order to get HPV. The people who do "everything but" sex are just as able to get HPV. You don't need actual intercourse to transmit HPV.

What is also scary is that there's no real testing available for men, so men don't even know that they're carrying it.

I was just going to mention the bolded.

As for the "kids will have sex if the get the shot" logic...That has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. They are going to do it no matter how much you try to keep your kids in a vacuum, so at least let them armed with information and ways to stay safe and responsible.

And doctors aren't biased? Have you seen the junkets and incentives given to doctors by the drug companies?

The best thing to do is research for yourself and to read, read, read and then read some more.

Exactly. And it's terrible to think about it happening to you or your children, but rape, molestation, etc. all happen. Even if HPV is the least of your worries in that situation, it's at least one thing you don't have to worry about.

The only reason I'd want this to be mandatory is that I'm afraid a lot of parents are taking the "my kids will have sex" tact... and avoid getting their kids this shot. My guess is that statistically these parents are the ones that kids are NOT going to openly talk about sex with and thus will not get the shot when they're ready to be sexually active. I do agree that it's probably too early in this medicine's life to require it.

I didn't say sex was the only way to get HPV, I said it is the leading cause. It is.

I just saw on the Today show that parents in Texas will be able to opt out of the vaccinations if they have reason. Religious beliefs and "parental beliefs" were two examples cited.

If they can opt out due to "parental beliefs", then to me, it's pretty much "highly suggested" not "mandatory".

But the thing is, the parents have to submit something and have it approved. Many parents are too lazy to do this. There are already parents who opt out of other kinds of vaccines because they (they personally, not their religion) don't believe in it and they're still considered mandatory.

If they're really concerned about the vaccine and/or its effect on the promiscuity of their children, etc. wouldn't they go through that trouble? Again, I tend to agree that this was a little early to require it, but if parents are doing their jobs they have the opportunity to say no.

<sarcasm>And if parents aren't doing their jobs, the kids should probably be vaccinated for anything and everything anyway. </sarcasm>