.
Feedback

Moms Talk: The Vaccination Hesitation

Some vaccines are more painful to parents than kids.

 

If I have any strengths as a parent, which I often doubt, one of my favorites is my near constant attempts to see all sides of a debate. Even if I disagree with a position, I try to understand any reasonable arguments for the other side. I do this partly to know how to counter their points, but mostly so that I can explain controversial things to my daughter without always giving away what I think.

It’s a lot like when she was younger, and we would try to not wince when we ate foods we didn’t like in front of her, so that she didn’t pick up our culinary prejudices.

We always want her to make up her own mind, and it’s easier for us to find out what she thinks when she doesn’t know what we think. Depending on her , that might mean an automatic embrace of or rejection of our position, just to please or annoy us.

So we try to present a blank slate to her on a lot of topics. And I’ve come, right or wrong, to think of myself as pretty moderate because of that. When you spend a lot of time listening to the craziness on the fringes of any impassioned issue, you can start to feel pretty sensible.

This is why I am so appalled to have an instant, unthinking, knee jerk reaction to the HPV vaccine controversy.

For those parents who think this is an old issue, the recent FDA approval of Truvada as an HIV prevention drug seems to have started this topic up again in many mommy circles. And for those of you who don’t know about this issue, there are two relatively new vaccines—Gardasil and Cervarix—that prevent human papillomavirus (HPV), which can cause cervical cancer. The vaccines are recommended for girls at about age 11, in order to assure that they receive full protection long before they become sexually active.

There seem to be three main positions against the vaccine. That it is inappropriate to mandate it, as it is related to sex, and thus is a more sensitive and moral issue than other vaccines. That it might be dangerous; there are stories of kids dying after they got the vaccine. And that it’s icky to think about 11-year-old girls and sex at the same time.

My instinctive response to each of these is to immaturely say “Bah!” and wave my hands.

I want to be a grown up about this, so I will try to express actual reasons why I disagree with these positions.

I do understand that many people have different beliefs about sexuality than I do. For people for whom sex before marriage is the most horrible thing imaginable, I suppose that vaccinating against an STD can seem like giving their kid swim lessons. Yes, it makes her less likely to drown, but it certainly does make it more likely that she’ll go swimming. This is the belief system that makes the Truvada news less than wonderful to some people.

I can’t argue with this position logically, because I don’t think it’s about logic. The Jiminy Cricket on their shoulder will nag them for life if their kid has sex without a ring. Mine will sob if my kid gets cancer that I could have prevented. It’s not a right or wrong issue. It’s a values issue.  What makes your Jiminy go nuts is very personal.

But even where the vaccine is mandated, it has the same possibility of exemption that every vaccination has. You have to vaccinate for an awful lot of things in order to put your kid in public school. Unless you don’t want to. Then you fill out a form and you don’t.  It’s pretty straightforward. So the “freedom to uphold my values” argument fails for me.

The “It’s maybe dangerous” argument falls prey to science. The Institute of Medicine and the CDC have both independently looked into the reported deaths and found absolutely no cause and effect connection with the vaccines.

I know this is not convincing to some people. But I have a hard time hold back my hand-waving when clinical evidence is dismissed. It’s a personal failing.

The “ick factor” argument is the hardest to argue against. Who wants to look at our innocent little preteen girls and think about them doing the kinds of things that would give them HPV? Surely they could be safely vaccinated at 16. Or 25. Or as part of the wedding ceremony. That’s early enough for my little angel, right?

The thing is, being a parent means thinking about sex before your kids do. And we don’t know for sure when that first thought will happen, or that first act occur, whether by intent or—heaven forbid—by abuse. If we want to prevent something bad coming from sex, we have to act before the sex, and the most straightforward way of doing that is to aim it early. Very early. Ridiculously early. And that means before puberty, which means talking about prepubescent girls and sex in the same breath.

It’s not the same as talking about them having sex right now, but I very much understand how it can feel that way.

There are no easy answers. There are many other things to discuss. Some dislike how strong the drug company’s voices have been in the FDA process.  Some are confused as to why boys are excluded when they can get HPV as well. Some note that the vast majority of women with HPV do not get cervical cancer, so thinking of it as a cancer vaccine is misleading.

All good points. Ones I hope to think about more deeply. But unless the data changes dramatically, my daughter will get her vaccine on her 11th birthday, or whenever her pediatrician tells us to. My Jiminy says so. I only hope that if people ask me why we did it, I will have a better response than just “Bah!”

----

About this column: Moms Talk is an interactive initiative on Redmond Patch that is intended to serve as a conversation starter among local parents. Do you have an idea for a future column? Please let me know by sending an email to caitlin.moran@patch.com.

Twyla July 22, 2012 at 11:47 pm
I wonder whether you have read this interview with Diane Harper, who is an HPV researcher:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-g-yerman/an-interview-with-dr-dian_b_405472.html She outlines very well some of the reasons for concern about Gardasil. In addition, see this very informative write-up from Sane-Vax: http://sanevax.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/03.27.11-HPV-Vaccine-Fact-Sheet121.pdf
Twyla July 22, 2012 at 11:54 pm
I have no problem talking about sex with a pre-teen. But, one of the problems is that this vaccine may only be effective for 3 to 5 years. So, if you vaccinate an 11-year-old the immunity (if any) may wear off by the time she is 16. In addition, per Diane Harper's interview above, the vaccine has hardly been studied in young girls.
On the other hand, if you vaccinate after the girl has been exposed to HPV, the vaccine may actually increase the risk of cancer, per the govt's own study (cited in the sanevax paper linked to above). People aren't routinely tested for HPV before being vaccinated, and I wonder how many have actually been exposed, such as via sex without the parents' knowledge.
Twyla July 23, 2012 at 12:26 am
You say, "The Institute of Medicine and the CDC have both independently looked into the reported deaths and found absolutely no cause and effect connection with the vaccines… I have a hard time hold back my hand-waving when clinical evidence is dismissed."
I used to have that kind of faith in the CDC. When my son was born twenty years ago, his pediatrician said, "The CDC is now recommending a vaccine for Hepatitis B on the day of birth," and I said, "Sure!" I later realized that this vaccination was completely unnecessary for him, and that at the time it contained mercury. Since then I've learned a lot about the interconnectedness of our govt agencies and pharmaceutical companies. For example, Julie Gerberding was the head of the CDC from 2002 to 2009 and then began working as the head of Merck's vaccine division. http://www.naturalnews.com/027789_Dr_Julie_Gerberding_Merck.html In addition, the CDC has an inherent conflict of interest because the CDC is responsible for both promoting vaccines and monitoring them for safety. You can't really say that the CDC "independently" looked into the safety of Gardasil, because the CDC has a track record of being extremely reluctant to acknowledge vaccine injuries, understandably because the CDC's reputation is on the line. They are not independent; they have a lot vested in the success of vaccines.
Twyla July 23, 2012 at 12:32 am
As for the IOM, they are the same agency that said, PRIOR TO reviewing studies relating to vaccines and autism, "we are not ever going to come down that [autism] is a true side effect".
http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/chapter6.html And there really isn't "clinical evidence". The CDC and IOM did a superficial review of files and a bit of number crunching and then announced that there was no evidence of a link, since a lot of people have health problems who didn't get the vaccine, and a lot of people who got the vaccine didn't have health problems. Vaccine recipients who suffered severe reactions, and their parents, have said that they could not get the CDC interested in studying them/their daughters to figure out why this happened, how this can be prevented, who is susceptible, and how these serious conditions can be treated. The typical response to reports of vaccine reactions: "No evidence, you can't prove it, just a coincidence." As Barbara Loe Fisher said, "NVIC has been calling for basic science research into the biological mechanisms of vaccine injury and death for more than two decades. Without understanding how and why vaccines can cause brain and immune system dysfunction, there will be no way to develop pathological profiles to help scientifically confirm whether or not an individual has been injured or died from vaccination." http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/November-2008/Thursday,-November-20,-2008-Vaccine-Injury-Compens.aspx
Twyla July 23, 2012 at 12:44 am
Here are some of the accounts of very serious adverse reactions to HPV vaccines:
http://truthaboutgardasil.org/ http://www.gardasilandunexplaineddeaths.com/ Report Concerning Survey of Adverse Events Following Inoculations with Gardasil http://home.comcast.net/%7Etarsell/report0526.pdf http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-uncovers-fda-gardasil-records-detailing-26-new-reported-deaths/ In spite of this, I truly have no idea what is the best choice for any individual. Perhaps your daughter would tolerate this vaccine fine and benefit from some protection. But, do be aware that this is not a simple issue. And, if you and your daughter decide to go ahead with this, I would suggest that you watch how/whether she reacts to each vaccine before deciding whether to continue with the whole series of three. Maybe by the time she is old enough there will be clearer answers than there are now. Have you seen the movie the Greater Good? http://www.greatergoodmovie.org/home
Twyla July 23, 2012 at 12:59 am
Last post, I promise -
a 5 minute video narrated by Emily Tarsell, mother of Christina Tarsell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB2ZvCWXSY0
Thoughtful Parent August 4, 2012 at 11:55 am
The “It’s maybe dangerous” argument falls prey to science. The Institute of Medicine and the CDC have both independently looked into the reported deaths and found absolutely no cause and effect connection with the vaccines.
------------- 1) There's science, and there's pseudo-science. What we are exposed to in the mainstream media is the latter, which is incomplete at best, and outright lies at worst. 2) Regarding danger, there's a whole spectrum of risk associated with the vaccines, ranging from safe on one end to death at the other end, with a number of other serious effects in between. Even Merck admits to the risk of serious effects. When Gardasil would only be effective on my 11-year-old until she is 16, possibly wearing off before she ever becomes sexually active, the question my Jiminy asks is whether it is worth the risk of other serious side effects, let alone death. Especially when Pap screening is an effective AND safe means of preventing cervical cancer, my Jiminy does not think the potential benefit from the vaccine is worth the very real risks. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "But unless the data changes dramatically, ..." --------------------- See #1 above. I can only imagine the "data" you are referring to are the pseudo-scientitific, incomplete, journalistic "reports" about this issue.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Kirkland Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Kevin June 14, 2013 at 06:34 am
In the City of Kirkland you need a City-issued business license to do Door-to-door solicitation. IRead More am willing to bet they did not have the license. Call the police next time.
Buddies at an exercise run!
Heather Stark June 17, 2013 at 01:36 am
This lady has a real way with dogs! Kind, soft spoken, yet authoritative with the dogs, you canRead More tell your pet will be in good hands. She's helped me with my Newfoundland and a friend's Clumber Spaniel. I highly recommend her.
Aging well seminar June 4th, 12th
Jeanne Gustafson (Editor) May 30, 2013 at 05:58 am
Hi Paul, I don't see the attached flyer. Could you try again to upload it to your announcement? I'mRead More sure a lot of people would love to have more details about the seminar.