What do you think about the HPV vaccination for children entering the seventh grade being mandatory?

Question

The HPV vaccine is being mandated for chidren in grade school, entering the seventh grade. This is a vaccine that can potentially prevent cervical cancer. It also protects against HPV which is an STD. What do you think about this requirement?

Answer 1

This vaccine should not be made mandatory *at this time.* The current vaccine falls short in effectiveness for several reasons:

1. There ore over 200 strains of the HPV virus. The vaccine works against 4 of them.
2. Those 4 strains are associated with 70% of cervical cancer cases. Would you evaluate birth control as effective if it worked only 70% of the time? I think not.
When they can show effectiveness 95% of the time, I will reconsider using it.
3. HPV is a VIRUS. Viruses mutate very rapidly. Anyone with a basic education in the biological sciences will tell you that the use of this vaccine is more likely to create mutations (perhaps more virulent than their predecessors) than it is to prevent disease.
4. Administering the vaccine only to females does not limit the transmission of it. Males are still carriers, and most males who carry HPV have NO SYMPTOMS, so the potential exists for them to pass on the virus (or some mutation of it) to numerous partners without even knowing it. Mandating a vaccine to only half the population is absurd. When the trials on males are completed and the vaccine comes to market, will the states be pushing as vigorously to mandate it for them? I tend to doubt it, since cervical cancer is a non-issue for the guys. You really have to be able to see the big picture to understand why it is imperative to vaccinate males against HPV. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MALE TRANSMISSION CANNOT BE OVERSTATED. Any attempt to control the virus without male vaccination will be ineffective.


I also want to point out that the manufacturer of Guardasil, MERCK, is recovering from a huge blitz of negative publicity regarding one of their other products, so this campaign is in their best interests to show the public a more positive image. And they are more than happy to take your money as you buy into their campaign.

You may notice I did not address sexual behavior in any part of my answer. Discussing sexual behavior of minors tends to polarize people, and divert their attention from the real reasons why this vaccine should not be mandatory. I believe that the evidence described above is more than sufficient to demonstrate the risks are greater than the benefits for this vaccine at this time.

Answer 2

As long as the vaccine is safe, then I see no harm in it. So many mothers are worried that this will cause their daughters to become sexually active. This is so not the case. The vaccine can be given to women until the age of 26, so if you can protect yourself, then why not your daughter? HPV is the number one cause of cervical cancer. Why not protect yourself if you can? My daughter will be 10 next month, but in my state they will look at requiring it for 11 year olds in a few years. By then, she'll have had her three vaccinations and on her way to being protected.

Answer 3

I don't think that all states are requiring it yet. I live in Missouri and have not heard that it will be mandatory. I have a problem any time the state takes it upon themelves to decide what is best for my child. Of course there are the common sense things like not beating my child, feeding her,and providing for her but really all other vaccines are at the parents discretion, you can always use religion as a reason if nothing else. I as a rule don't really trust any new medicines that the FDA comes out with. Their background is too tainted with mistakes. Some things take years for the effects to show then they are like Britney Spears....Oops I Did It Again! Lucky for me I have years before my cjild will enter 7th grade ( she is only 3) for the rest of you...Good luck!

Answer 4

I'm not sure that mandatory is a good idea. Certain time proven vaccinations are OK.

I am very cautious about HPV being used.

I would vote no....if I had a choice.

Maybe it's best that the 7th graders, and not the parents, make their own choice...and be provided with the best information available.

Answer 5

OK. I am currently one of the girls who's fate is being decided and I would like to give you my op pinon. First of All, if parents are afraid that their children will engage in premarital sex because the know they are protected from an STD it means they haven't instilled good values in their children and it also means they don't trust them. Steven Colbert said that after he got his tetanus shot he couldn't stop chewing on rusty nails. That's how ridiculous this idea of pre marital sex is. Of course there will be a misguided child or two who receives the shot and thinks yay sex! But for most well educated shot recipients, they will have sense enough to know that this will not protect them from all STDs. This vaccine is a great idea and I think the dicsision should be left to the girls in question because it is their body, not the government, not their parents, not their religions, theirs.

Answer 6

I would favor having my child vaccinated, and I am looking into it for myself as well.

Many people argue that children should not be getting exposed to it; the problem with that is that the virus doesn't care how old you are or why your were exposed to it.

Women and girls of all ages are being exposed to it, and now we have one way of preventing a risk for an increasingly common disease which is known to cause cancer.

My child was not likely to be exposed to polio, measels, mumps, rubella, or chicken pox but I had him vaccinated anyway, and when he was exposed to rubella as a teen he did not die, and he never had to suffer chicken pox like some of his peers.

Prevention is the best medicine!

Answer 7

For real? They are requiring this, really? I think that is completely wrong, in the first place, if you listen to the ad, it is for "some" who "may" be, or "might", I find the ad very misleading and feel it should be removed. It is full of potential this and that, but requiring it for my child, no way. I will decide that choice with my child, not the government.

Answer 8

Our state has an opt-out clause for parents who object on 'religious' grounds.

It is certainly not a cure or 100% preventative for cerv. cancer, and it may give a false sense of security to some 13-year old who thinks it is now OK to have sex (because she is ill-imformed that this shot prevents STDs and pregnancy -- which is doesn't).

I don't have any daughters so maybe I am not one to post an opinion (just those thoughts, above).

.

Answer 9

I think that a bunch of simple minded men decided they know what's best for women. It's a drug that hasn't even been out long enough for us to know any long term effects that could be damaging. It takes an average of twenty years to see the effects new drugs have on people. it's a stupid requirement and it could hurt our young girls more than help them

Answer 10

The has not been enough testing on this vaccination. I do not want my children to be required to have this vaccine.