H.P.V. Shots for young girls.

You're telling me. I've been pointing him out for a while, and you keep trying to tell me he's not there. But wait, let me guess, I'm sure it's just something wrong with my research methods class somehow. If you really can't find any actual data for your posts, and it's gotten to the point where your only counter is to try to insult me and my classes, I would just say to let it go, jillio.

What is it with you, lsfoster? If you don't want the HPV vaccine, then by all means, don't get one. But neither should you be attempting to convince people that it is either unsafe or ineffective when you have no evidence to back such claims up. You don't want women to take measures to improve their health? You don't want women to make informed decisions regarding cancer prevention? You don't want women, evidently, to have control over their own bodies and their own medical decisions.

You can take it as an insult if you so choose. It was simply meant to point out the fact that you are relying on a little knowledge to reach a generalized conclusion, and that, because there are gaps in your knowledge, there are gaps in your logic. Rather than taking it as an insult, one would expect a serious student to take it as a learning experience, but, hey...your choice.
 
What is it with you, lsfoster? If you don't want the HPV vaccine, then by all means, don't get one. But neither should you be attempting to convince people that it is either unsafe or ineffective when you have no evidence to back such claims up. You don't want women to take measures to improve their health? You don't want women to make informed decisions regarding cancer prevention? You don't want women, evidently, to have control over their own bodies and their own medical decisions.

You can take it as an insult if you so choose. It was simply meant to point out the fact that you are relying on a little knowledge to reach a generalized conclusion, and that, because there are gaps in your knowledge, there are gaps in your logic. Rather than taking it as an insult, one would expect a serious student to take it as a learning experience, but, hey...your choice.

I have way more evidence than you have provided. If it isn't important, then why are you trying to convince people that it is safe and effective based on what appears to be simply your opinion? I do want women to be able to make their own medical decisions, but I don't think they should be making that decision without knowing the actual information about their decision. In this case, most people clearly don't. They also don't seem to be able to understand the basic science behind any of it, or how that science can be distorted to say something else.

What I'm taking as an insult are all the unnecessary, sarcastic comments about my classes and education. You still have yet to explain how you are so qualified in this field, and based on your understanding of the studies and evidence I have provided, I think you're being a little presumptuous in your comments towards me.

I have posted study after study after study to explain where and how I am drawing my conclusions, and that is somehow a "little knowlege". You have presented made up numbers and what appears to be some imaginary page on the FDA site. I would be more worried about your logic than mine. Again, jillio, look into cognitive dissonance. I don't think it matters how many studies I show you, or how clearly I try to explain it to you. You seem to be simply unwilling to believe anything that hasn't come out of your own mouth. If that is the case, then hopefully other people will be more open to the vast amount of information out there, and draw their own conclusions in order to make their own decisions.
 
I don't believe that H.P.V. will help to prevent cervical cancer. I am more concerned IF, it will prevent young girls from gettin' pregnant in the future. Is H.P.V. tryin' to make the young girls sterlized ? :hmm:
 
I don't believe that H.P.V. will help to prevent cervical cancer. I am more concerned IF, it will prevent young girls from gettin' pregnant in the future. Is H.P.V. tryin' to make the young girls sterlized ? :hmm:

That's ridiculous.
 
I don't believe that H.P.V. will help to prevent cervical cancer. I am more concerned IF, it will prevent young girls from gettin' pregnant in the future. Is H.P.V. tryin' to make the young girls sterlized ? :hmm:

Maria.

You obviously have no clue what is being discussed here.

So best to educated yourself before spewing out nonsense.
 
I have way more evidence than you have provided. If it isn't important, then why are you trying to convince people that it is safe and effective based on what appears to be simply your opinion? I do want women to be able to make their own medical decisions, but I don't think they should be making that decision without knowing the actual information about their decision. In this case, most people clearly don't. They also don't seem to be able to understand the basic science behind any of it, or how that science can be distorted to say something else.

What I'm taking as an insult are all the unnecessary, sarcastic comments about my classes and education. You still have yet to explain how you are so qualified in this field, and based on your understanding of the studies and evidence I have provided, I think you're being a little presumptuous in your comments towards me.

I have posted study after study after study to explain where and how I am drawing my conclusions, and that is somehow a "little knowlege". You have presented made up numbers and what appears to be some imaginary page on the FDA site. I would be more worried about your logic than mine. Again, jillio, look into cognitive dissonance. I don't think it matters how many studies I show you, or how clearly I try to explain it to you. You seem to be simply unwilling to believe anything that hasn't come out of your own mouth. If that is the case, then hopefully other people will be more open to the vast amount of information out there, and draw their own conclusions in order to make their own decisions.

When you are able to differentiate between support as provided by the FDA, and opinion, we will resume this discussion.

Please, please, do offer me your explanation of "cognitive dissonance". I anxiously await your teaching me a concept that I have advanced training in.
 
I rather to know that my child is protected from the virus.

It is a dead viral vaccine to boost antibodies against HPV.

What and how will that harm someone!

Geez. :roll:

So if a person is against this vaccine needs to be against "ALL" vaccines

Because the ones claiming this vaccine is harmful and useless, doesn't understand, this is how "all" vaccines work.
 
I rather to know that my child is protected from the virus.

It is a dead viral vaccine to boost antibodies against HPV.

What and how will that harm someone!

Geez. :roll:

So if a person is against this vaccine needs to be against "ALL" vaccines

Because the ones claiming this vaccine is harmful and useless, doesn't understand, this is how "all" vaccines work.

There is also a big difference between an inoculation being made with a live virus and one being made with a dead virus. Live virus vaccines tend to have greater side effects.
 
I don't believe that H.P.V. will help to prevent cervical cancer. I am more concerned IF, it will prevent young girls from gettin' pregnant in the future. Is H.P.V. tryin' to make the young girls sterlized ? :hmm:

Huh?
 
When you are able to differentiate between support as provided by the FDA, and opinion, we will resume this discussion.

Please, please, do offer me your explanation of "cognitive dissonance". I anxiously await your teaching me a concept that I have advanced training in.

When you are able to provide support for any of your points, I'd certainly be willing to resume this discussion.

Cognitive dissonance would be why you seem unable to read, understand, or process any information that doesn't support what you already believe. It is mankind's ability to ignore "unpleasant" or "dissonant" facts, even when it requires a gap in logic to do so, to resist having to change one's mind or admit fault.

It is why anything that anyone else presents, no matter the source, is automatically relegated in your mind to "opinion".
 
pissing contest, i see.... c'mon girls... you can pee farther than that! <throwing money>
 
When you are able to provide support for any of your points, I'd certainly be willing to resume this discussion.

Cognitive dissonance would be why you seem unable to read, understand, or process any information that doesn't support what you already believe. It is mankind's ability to ignore "unpleasant" or "dissonant" facts, even when it requires a gap in logic to do so, to resist having to change one's mind or admit fault.

It is why anything that anyone else presents, no matter the source, is automatically relegated in your mind to "opinion".

Very, very superficial explanation of "cognitive dissonance." Obviously, you don't have an in depth understanding of the phenomenon. Just as I suspected.

Regarding processing, which is unrealted, by the way, I process on a far deeper and more fluid level than you yourself are obviously capable of. I wouldn't get into a pissing contest of either intelligence levels or educational levels with me if I were you.
 
exactly. my sister took her daugher to get this vaccine and explained that it was a cancer preventative. she never mentioned anything about sexual activity.

That was what I explained to my daughter when she got hers. She had no adverse reactions to it.
 
Very, very superficial explanation of "cognitive dissonance." Obviously, you don't have an in depth understanding of the phenomenon. Just as I suspected.

Regarding processing, which is unrealted, by the way, I process on a far deeper and more fluid level than you yourself are obviously capable of. I wouldn't get into a pissing contest of either intelligence levels or educational levels with me if I were you.

Wait, you mean once again you dismissed something I said and exerted your superiority without any proof or explanation? I'm shocked. :roll: It was three sentences, if you wanted a paper about it, you should have said that. I did also just go down and ask my roommate for her quick definition of it, and hers was, "When people understand the meaning or consequences of things, but choose to ignore them or believe they don't apply to themselves." Now she only has a doctorate in psychology, so I'm sure she'll just be thrown on your list of "suspect sources". (A list that is quickly starting to encompass everyone in the world but you, I might add).

And I have to say, jillio, so far I'm not that intimidated. Here's how the conversation has looked to me, so far.


If it prevents the virus, it most certainly prevents the mechanism by which the virus becomes cancerous.

Clearly a superficial understanding of that mechanism. The virus does not "become" cancerous

First of all, it does not prevent the virus. It is a vaccine against four specific strains of the virus. There are more than 100, and they are present in over 90% of sexually active people. Also, no it doesn't. The virus itself does not cause cancer. A persistent infection with the same strain of the virus can lead to "precancerous" conditions, meaning it makes it more likely that cancer will occur, not "causing" it.

Here is the closest way I can think of to explain this. Suppose someone said, "Hey, sunlight causes cancer. So I know how I will cure that, I'll never go in the sun again." Is that a smart idea? Sure, exposure to UV rays can cause damage to the DNA in your skin and lead to skin cancer. It doesn't "cause" cancer, but it can be a catalyst for the conditions that give rise to cancer.

...

This is extremely similar to what is happening here. You are confusing cause and effect. Saying that many women with cervical cancer have been found to have HPV and therefore HPV "causes" cancer is totally misleading. That's like saying, "Well, a lot of women with cervical cancer also have breasts, and this high correlation rate leads us to believe that breasts cause cervical cancer, so we're recommending mastectomies to reduce that risk". The majority of women have HPV, just like the majority of women have breasts. Certain strains of HPV, in specific situations, and when combined with other factors, can cause physiological responses which can increase the likelihood of cancer forming. HPV does not "become" cancer, and it does not "cause" cancer in the way that you seem to think it does.

And without the precancerous condition, cancer would not occur. Etiology can and is traced directly back to infection with the HPV.

I am not confusing cause and effect in the least. In fact, I am well aware of the fact that cause and effect can be determined on through one method, and under very specific and controlled conditions. Because conditions are uncontrolled prior to the development of the cancer, the best that anyone can come up with is a positive correlation. However, the positive correlation, when subject to rigourous statistical analysis, and usually at a p=.05, is strong enough to suggest that the presence of HPV and cervical cancer are very strongly related. In other words, without the HPV, the cancer would not have occurred in many of the cases examined. The HPV is the triggering factor for the predisposition. The predisposition has a very good chance of not becoming manifest as disease without the triggering factor of the HPV.

No evidence provided for any of those statements. You then questioned my post, though, so I provided this:

ScienceDirect - Preventive Medicine : Beneficial Effects of Sun Exposure on Cancer Mortality

First of all, the "presence of HPV" is probably about as high as the "presence of breasts". Over 90% of women have HPV. "According to the U.S. Cancer Statistics: 2004 Incidence and Mortality report, 11,892 women in the U.S. were told that they had cervical cancer in 2004, and 3,850 women died from the disease." (Cancer - Gynecologic Cancers - Cervical Cancer Statistics) Unless you are suggesting that these numbers represent all the women in the country, it is extremely hard to argue a "cause" that is present in more women that don't get cancer than those that do.

Providing sources for both my points.

If you are interested in how the statisitcal analysis was performed on the patient data available, I would suggest that you access the FDA's website.

Starting the "FDA" thread.

You said that based on rigorous analysis, "that the presence of HPV and cervical cancer are very strongly related." I said that this is a weak argument, since over 90% of women have HPV. How did I try to apply data from one population to another?

A question that was never answered.

It is not a weak argument. Over 90% of women have HPV. True statement. 100% of women diagnosed with a specific form of cervical cancer have HPV. Conclusion: while all women with HPV do not contract cervical cancer, those with cervical cancer all have contracted HPV. The presence of both disease processes, and the effects known of one on the other concludes that there is a strong correlation between HPV infection and later development of cervical cancer.

Again, no evidence or sources given for either statement.

Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies
Again, unless you are able to support your claims, I have to assume that you're just pulling numbers out of the air. Just under 74% of the women with cervical cancer were found to have HPV in that study.

And my sourced claim that your numbers were wrong.

One study does not a cummulative number make.

Likewise, in the post to which you are referring I used a hypothetical number only to act as a filler while I explained to you the process by which a strong correlation is reached.

Now, my favorite, one study is not enough in your eyes, apparently. You've already mentioned the mythical "FDA site" once by this point.

I didn't use hypothetical data, nor did I state that I used hypothetical data. I used one hypothetical number to illustrate a point. Data would be a collection of numbers.

As I've stated prior, my information comes from the FDA.

Are you saying that the FDA and the medical researchers do not use rigourous statistical analysis? I don't need a link to support the fact that rigorous statistical analysis is used to analyze data from medical research and clinical trials. It is a commonly known fact.

I'm not avoiding anything. I never claimed to be using "data". Check that research methods text book and look up the definition of "data". And again, the findings of the FDA support my posts. Just because you fail to acknowledge that I have stated just that on numerous occasions doesn't mean the statement hasn't been made.

When you are able to differentiate between support as provided by the FDA, and opinion, we will resume this discussion.

Five times total that you've mentioned that site without providing it, or any actual evidence from it. Despite your comment about one site not being enough, you haven't even provided the only site you mentioned. Meanwhile, you have continued to criticize me, anything I post, and all the sources I provide. You have yet to answer many of my questions, or disprove any of the evidence I have provided (other than by calling it "opinions), or provide any evidence of any of the statements you have made.

I was never trying to turn this into a "pissing contest", but if that's how you want to treat it, all I've seen you do so far is "talk the talk", and not even very well at that.
 
Wait, you mean once again you dismissed something I said and exerted your superiority without any proof or explanation? I'm shocked. :roll: It was three sentences, if you wanted a paper about it, you should have said that. I did also just go down and ask my roommate for her quick definition of it, and hers was, "When people understand the meaning or consequences of things, but choose to ignore them or believe they don't apply to themselves." Now she only has a doctorate in psychology, so I'm sure she'll just be thrown on your list of "suspect sources". (A list that is quickly starting to encompass everyone in the world but you, I might add).

And I have to say, jillio, so far I'm not that intimidated. Here's how the conversation has looked to me, so far.




Clearly a superficial understanding of that mechanism. The virus does not "become" cancerous





No evidence provided for any of those statements. You then questioned my post, though, so I provided this:



Providing sources for both my points.



Starting the "FDA" thread.



A question that was never answered.



Again, no evidence or sources given for either statement.



And my sourced claim that your numbers were wrong.



Now, my favorite, one study is not enough in your eyes, apparently. You've already mentioned the mythical "FDA site" once by this point.







Five times total that you've mentioned that site without providing it, or any actual evidence from it. Despite your comment about one site not being enough, you haven't even provided the only site you mentioned. Meanwhile, you have continued to criticize me, anything I post, and all the sources I provide. You have yet to answer many of my questions, or disprove any of the evidence I have provided (other than by calling it "opinions), or provide any evidence of any of the statements you have made.

I was never trying to turn this into a "pissing contest", but if that's how you want to treat it, all I've seen you do so far is "talk the talk", and not even very well at that.

Verbiosity does not a discussion win. You are beginning to go in circles. Doesn't do much for credibility.
 
* Human Papillomavirus (HPV) VaccineAll links below open in new window Vaccine Safety Monitoring and Human Papillomavirus VaccinationJuly 28, 2008 -- Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine safety has recently been mentioned in both the national and state news. Please refer to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website at: Vaccines: VPD-VAC/HPV/main page for additional information about the vaccine and the disease. The Department of Health, Bureau of Immunization provides the following summary points: Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination• The CDC continues to recommend HPV vaccination because of its importance for the health of women. The CDC maintains this is a safe and effective vaccine. However, as with all vaccines, we will continue to review the safety of this vaccine and take appropriate action if there are issues with the vaccine. The risk of any vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.• Parents and providers are encouraged to report any adverse events to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) vaers.hhs.gov (phone 1-800-822-7967).• Parents are encouraged to discuss HPV vaccination with their pre-teen’s doctor. The routine recommendation is to administer HPV vaccine at 11 and 12 years of age.• The recommendation allows for vaccination to begin at nine years of age. • Vaccination also is recommended for females 13 through 26 years of age who have not been previously vaccinated or who have not completed the full series of shots.• Syncope, or fainting, is a common event occurring with needle injections and vaccinations, especially in adolescents. CDC recommends that patients who receive HPV vaccine remain in the clinic for 15 minutes after vaccination to avoid potential injury from a fall.HPV Disease• HPV is a common virus. It is the major cause of cervical cancer in women. • HPV infection usually occurs in people in their teens and early 20s. • There are about 20 million people currently infected with HPV. • Each year in the U.S., about 11,000 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer, and 3,600 will die. • Women have an 80 percent chance of developing HPV by the time they are 50. • Because the vaccine is a preventative and not a cure, it is important that the vaccine be given prior to beginning sexual activity. HPV disease and vaccine information is available at: Vaccines: VPD-VAC/HPV/main page, Cancer - Gynecologic Cancers - Basic Information about Cervical Cancer, and www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/default.htm.HPV Vaccine in the United States• On June 8, 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) licensed the first vaccine (Gardasil®), developed to prevent cervical cancer and other diseases in females caused by certain types of genital human papillomavirus (HPV). The quadrivalent vaccine, Gardasil®, protects against four HPV types (6, 11, 16, and 18), which are responsible for 70 percent of cervical cancers and 90 percent of genital warts. See the FDA HPV fact sheet at: http://www.fda.gov/womens/getthefacts/pdfs/hpv.pdf.• On June 29, 2006, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted to recommend routine vaccination of females 11 and 12 years of age. Gardasil was tested in over 11,000 females (9 through 26 years of age) in many countries around the world, including the U.S. These studies found that the HPV vaccine was safe and caused no serious side effects. Adverse events were mainly injection site pain. This reaction was common but mild.• Since licensure, more than 12 million doses of Gardasil® vaccine have been distributed in the U.S. In 2006, a total of 2,151,000 doses were distributed, and in 2007, another 11,317,902. At this time, the U.S. does not have a national registry for immunization and vaccination, and therefore cannot report the total number of people who have received Gardasil.• The number of serious adverse events reported to VAERS following HPV vaccine is less than seven percent of the total number of reports received. In comparison, the overall average in VAERS for any serious adverse event ranges from 10 to 15 percent; thus, the percentage of serious reports for Gardasil® is less than the overall average.Vaccine Safety Monitoring: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting SystemVAERS is part of a larger system that helps to ensure vaccines are safe and work as intended. VAERS is managed by the CDC and the FDA. To ensure vaccines are safe, vaccines are developed in accordance with the highest standards of safety. The FDA requires extensive safety testing before a vaccine is licensed and distributed to the public. After licensing, VAERS is used to continually monitor vaccines for safety and efficacy.VAERS receives reports of many events that occur after immunization. Some of these events may occur coincidentally following vaccination, while others may truly be caused by vaccination. It is important to remember that many adverse events reported to VAERS may not be caused by vaccines. More indepth studies are usually required to investigate the association between a vaccine and an adverse event. Since 1990, most of the reported adverse events describe mild side effects, such as fever and rash. Through continued monitoring, VAERS helps to ensure that the benefits of vaccines are far greater than the risks. More information about VAERS can be found at http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaers.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Human Papillomavirus (HPV) PublicationsInformation for the Public: • Common Infection. Common Reality.™: http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/common-downloads.htm• Common Questions about HPV and Cervical Cancer -- For women who have HPV: http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/common-questions.htm• HPV and Men -- CDC Fact Sheet: http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV-and-men.htm• Facts for Parents of Pre-teen Girls about HPV and the HPV Vaccine: Vaccines: Spec-Grps/Preteens-Campaign Flyers Pre-teen Vaccine Campaign Posters -- Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Posters: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/spec-grps/preteens-adol/07gallery/posters.htmInformation for Clinicians:• HPV and HPV Vaccine: Information for Healthcare Providers: http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/hpv-vacc-hcp-3-pages.pdf [PDF 831 KB] • Human Papillomavirus: HPV Information for Clinicians: http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/hpv-clinicians-brochure.htm• QuickStats: Prevalence of HPV* Infection† Among Sexually Active Females Aged 14-59 Years, by Age Group --- National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, United States, 2003-2004: QuickStats: Prevalence of HPV* Infection<SUP>†</SUP> Among Sexually Active Females Aged 14--59 Years, by Age Group --- National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, United States, 2003--2004 LinksCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)HPV Vaccine - Questions & Answers:Vaccines: VPD-VAC/HPV/Vaccine FAQ Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Infection: http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/default.htmHPV Vaccine Questions and Answers: http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine.htmFast facts that address statements made in a press release by the National Vaccine Information Center on 08/15/07 regarding Gardasil and Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS): http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/hpv/downloads/hpv-gardasil-gbs.pdf [PDF 47 KB] U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationProduct Approval Information - Licensing Action: GARDASIL®; Questions and Answers: http://www.fda.gov/cber/products/hpvmer060806qa.htmAmerican Cancer SocietyFrequently Asked Questions About Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) Vaccines: ACS :: Error Cancer InstituteHPV (Human Papillomavirus) Vaccines for Cervical Cancer: Cancer.gov - Page Not Found Papillomaviruses and Cancer: Questions and Answers: Cancer.gov - Page Not Found Cervical Cancer CoalitionNCCC Section on the HPV Vaccine: http://www.nccc-online.org/hpv-vaccine.phpCancer Research and Prevention FoundationMake the Commitment: Make The Commitment American Social Health AssociationNational HPV & Cervical Cancer Prevention Resource Center: HPV Resource Center Henry J. Kaiser Family FoundationsDaily Women's Health Policy - National Politics & Policy | CDC Panel Recommends HPV Vaccine Gardasil for All Girls Ages 11, 12, Recommends Coverage by Federal Program: http://www.kaisernetwork.org/Daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=38231Merck: Gardasil.comHPV News Archive Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine RecommendationsThe Bureau of Immunization is pleased to announce the release of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) March 12, 2007, Volume 56, Early Release titled- Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine, Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).These recommendations represent the first statement by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on the use of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on June 8, 2006. This report summarizes the epidemiology of HPV and associated diseases, describes the licensed HPV vaccine, and provides recommendations for its use for vaccination among females aged 9-26 years in the United States. In June 2006, the quadrivalent HPV vaccine types 6, 11, 16, 18, under the trade name GARDASIL® (manufactured by Merck and Co.), was licensed for use among females aged 9-26 years for prevention of HPV-type-related cervical cancer, cervical cancer precursors, vaginal and vulvar cancer precursors, and anogenital warts. The vaccine is administered by intramuscular injection, and the recommended schedule is a 3-dose series, with the second and third doses administered 2 and 6 months after the first dose. The recommended age for vaccination of females is 11-12 years. Vaccine can be administered as young as age 9 years. Catch-up vaccination is recommended for females aged 13-26 years who have not been previously vaccinated. Vaccination is not a substitute for routine cervical cancer screening, and vaccinated females should have cervical cancer screening as recommended. Please note: The information detailed in the HPV Vaccine Update correspondence dated February 16, 2007, regarding provision of HPV vaccine to VFC-eligible females by County Health Departments, is still effective.Update to the Advisory Committee On Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations regarding HPV vaccine that were distributed on December 1, 2006: As recommended by the ACIP, the bureau encourages all providers to routinely target HPV vaccine to all 11- and 12-year old females. HPV vaccine should also be made available to all other eligible females.The MMWR can be viewed online at: Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Update on Vaccines for Children (VFC) Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine AvailabilityThe Bureau of Immunization is providing this important update to the Advisory Committee On Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations regarding HPV vaccine that were distributed on December 1, 2006. As recommended by the ACIP, the bureau encourages county health departments to target HPV vaccine to all 11- and 12-year old females. However, state-supplied HPV vaccine should also be made available to VFC-eligible females age 9-18 who request the vaccine. Note: in those instances where insurance does not cover the HPV vaccine, children can obtain VFC vaccine free of charge at Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). As we monitor early vaccine uptake and inventory, providers may receive fewer doses than ordered. Call the VFC Manager if you have questions regarding the VFC vaccine supply, and the Executive Community Health Nursing Director for questions regarding the vaccine recommendations at 850-245-4342. Revised HPV Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) The revised human papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) dated 2/2/07 has been released. On February 2, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) made a minor change to the interim VIS for HPV vaccine. Section 3 of the HPV VIS has been revised. Specifically, the VIS clarifies that the routine 3-dose schedule also applies to catch-up immunizations. The updated VIS is now available. Existing stocks of the previous (9/5/06) version may still be used. To access a ready-to-print (PDF) version of the updated (2/2/07) interim VIS, go to the CDC website at: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/vis/downloads/vis-hpv.pdf [PDF 46 KB] or the IAC website at: http://www.immunize.org/vis/hpv.pdf [PDF 48 KB]. Please widely distribute this VIS and vaccine information to colleagues, members, coalitions, and partners with an interest in the supply, distribution, management, and administration of human papillomavirus vaccine, and place this information on your website. Please call the Bureau of Immunization if you have questions regarding the HPV VIS statement at 850-245-4342.Provisional Recommendations for use of quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccineThe Bureau of Immunization is pleased to announce the release of the Provisional Recommendations for use of quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Immunization Program (NIP). Please ensure that the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) provisional recommendations are shared with colleagues, members, coalitions, and partners with an interest in the prevention of HPV infection and administration of HPV vaccine. The recommendations may be viewed at: http://www.cdc.gov/.The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices issued provisional recommendations that this vaccine be routinely administered to girls aged 11-12 years and used for catch-up immunization in females aged 13-26 years. Gardasil™, manufactured by Merck, is the first HPV vaccine approved by FDA to prevent cervical cancer. Gardasil is licensed as a 3-dose series, with dose number two given two months after dose number one, and dose number three given four months after dose number two. The minimum interval between doses number one and two is four weeks, and between doses number two and three is 12 weeks. The vaccine should be administered intramuscular (IM) in the deltoid. For more information on the use of HPV vaccine, see the recommendations. Clinicians should be prepared to discuss prevention of HPV infection with their adolescent patients. The interim HPV Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) dated 9/5/06 is attached and is found at: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/vis/default.htm.VISs are information sheets produced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that explain to vaccine recipients, their parents, or their legal representatives both the benefits and risks of a vaccine. Federal law requires that VISs be handed out (before each dose) whenever certain vaccinations are given.ACIP recommendations do not become official until they are published in CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), which is expected to occur later this year. While no MMWR has been issued as yet, providers can begin using HPV vaccine with the provisional ACIP recommendation. Providers should also observe indications and contraindications, as listed in the manufacturer's package insert. Important VFC InformationFlorida's Vaccines for Children (VFC) Program will provide HPV vaccine effective December 4, 2006. Due to limited vaccine supply, VFC HPV vaccine is presently available only to Florida VFC-eligible female clients who are 11-12 years of age. At this time, there are no federal or state funds available to provide HPV vaccine to non-VFC-eligible clients who do not meet these criteria. Please note: Vaccine supply is based on product availability. This may result in CHDs receiving fewer doses of HPV vaccine than originally requested. The updated order form will be posted on the internet in time for December 4, 2006 orders. Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Information Statement (VIS)The Bureau of Immunization is pleased to announce the release of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) dated 9/5/06. Once a VIS is available, it should be used, effective immediately. The VIS can be viewed online at: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/vis/downloads/vis-hpv.pdf [52K PDF] and http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/vis/default.htm.While 3 doses of HPV vaccine are routinely recommended for girls 11 through 12 years of age, the vaccine is licensed for vaccination of girls and women age 9 through 26. Please note: The vaccine is not presently available through the Florida Vaccines for Children (VFC) program. The VFC program will notify providers when the vaccine is available for order. There are no plans at this time to add HPV to the Florida school entry requirement. You may contact the VFC Coordinator if you have questions regarding the Human Papillomavirus VFC vaccine supply, and the Executive Community Health Nursing Director for questions regarding the vaccine recommendations at 850-245-4342. Vaccine TopicsTopics Home Hepatitis A Vaccine Hepatitis B Vaccine Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Meningococcal Vaccine Rotavirus Vaccine Shingles (Herpes Zoster) Vaccine Varicella (Chickenpox) VaccineCopyright© 2008 State of FloridaPrivacy Statement
 
The post above is what is in the link I provided before. From the DOH.

A lot of reliable sources.
 
Back
Top