just don
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 1129
posted
No this isnt about "ME"
I have daughters and I have grand daughters and I dont know too much about this,,,but I wish them NOT to have a preventable cancer or other diseases.
They keep saying they should be vaccinated before they become sexually active. Good plan!! I agree, for best results. "IS" there some benifit IF they are active?? IF they havent gotten the said virus YET. Or do you test them reliably to see if they do,then vaccinate?? Or just get the shot and hope???Anyway even IF active???
Or once active,,,always too late?? I can not see why that would be the case, dunno, I guess I dont fully understand. Anybody care to help me here???
I would strongly lobby for the shot,,,dont think it will make them any different(willing to HAVE sex) than otherwise,,,like all the contoversay. I personally think it SHOULD be mandated like some states have done,,,otherwise too many people will NOT do it and wait till too late!!! The 'poor' people will suffer,,,again!!!
Ask somebody that lost a loved one to cancer,,,they would have given anything to have that person back,and risked more!!!
Not looking to stir controversay here,,,just looking for a proper education,,,educate me please,remaining --just don--
-------------------- just don Posts: 4548 | From Middle of midwest | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not buy the idea that such a shot will cause girls to become promiscuous. People who advance this argument against the shot seem to be pretty primitive when it comes to sex. They say the same thing about sex education, condoms, anything at all that pertains to sex. The problem is that even with this vaccine, there are still a lot of STDs to be worried about. Like AIDS for instance and syphilis.
My problem is with mandating it. I think the govt should only mandate treatment of diseases in certain circumstances, namely that it will prevent epidemics in more easily contagious diseases. Also, it is my understanding that several shots are needed and it costs hundreds of dollars. That is going to hit the poor people pretty hard, not to mention the uninsured.
The other thing is that we don't know what kind of adverse events will occur when the vaccine is used in millions of people, not just in thousands in clinical trials. Look at the lyme vaccine. The trials were not very good scientifically, then adverse events showed up when it went to a larger group.
This is why it is a good idea to avoid being first in line for new things. May still be a lot of bugs to be worried about, things to fix before it is as good as it should be.
Posts: 8430 | From Not available | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
just don
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 1129
posted
Lou,
That was my exact thoughts also.
Guess where a number of us would be today without that magic sugar cube from years ago,,,when polio vaccine was first out.
Then again my next thought was the lyme vaccine,,,they thought was good,,,and was worse than nothing!!! How do we KNOW which is which???
I guess I can wait for my granddaughter as she isnt quite that old.. BUT my primary concern would be daughters, who have started their lives,,,just wondering IF its too late for them to gain protection from the cancer,,,or it 'might' help them if NOT already exposed to the virus??? just a dad trying to figure out what helps my kids!!!being--just don--
-------------------- just don Posts: 4548 | From Middle of midwest | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that is a good question to ask the experts. Will it do any good after a woman is sexually active? Lots of people will want to know the answer to this one! Saw a guy interviewed on TV last night who suggested it wouldn't be much use for these women.
And another good question you asked: how do we tell when a new thing has problems and when it doesn't?
The first polio vaccine administered failed. It had only one strain covered, when the one that finally worked had three strains (if I am remembering right). And as you probably know, there is still an argument about whether live or killed viruses are better for vaccines. Thus the squabble between Sabin and Salk.
Posts: 8430 | From Not available | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is the scoop on other women and this vaccine:
"Why are just females ages 9 to 26 approved for vaccinations? What about men, babies and older women?
Merck and Co.'s first wave of research trials for Gardasil involved women ages 9 to 26. So, when the FDA approved the vaccine, it stuck with this target demographic. The good news is that Merck is currently working to expand Gardasil's audience. The company is now testing the drug's efficacy, safety and immune response in women ages 26 to 45 and in males ages 9 to 26. All of these trials are in the latter stages of research, according to Wambold. When, and if, the science proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Gardasil is safe for these populations, new FDA approvals will follow.
Vaccinating newborns is an entirely different story. Here, the most important question is n't, ``Is the vaccine safe and effective?'' but ``How long will Gardasil's immunity last?''
Because the HPV vaccine is relatively new, scientists are still uncertain if Gardasil's immunity will last a lifetime or if booster shots will be required. Because of this uncertainty, there's a chance that vaccinating a newborn could result in a loss of HPV immunity by the time the child reaches an age of sexual activity. This scenario is possible, but unlikely, according to preclinical trials (Merck is currently testing the drug's staying power). As a result, scientists at the CDC have recommended that parents wait until their daughters reach age 11 or 12 before being immunized. "
bejoy
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 11129
posted
So I got my little girl the chicken pox vaccine when it first came out. Now I find out that its only good for ten years or so, leaving her vulnerable as an adult when it's more problematic. Is there a dark underbelly of this new life-saving vaccine?
-------------------- bejoy!
"Do not go where the path may lead; go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." -Ralph Waldo Emerson Posts: 1918 | From Alive and Well! | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
there should be a national campaign to stop this violation of rights. what's more invasive than having cooties and toxins injected into your bloodstream? you should have a free choice.
mo
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a grandmother of six granddaughters, ages 2 to 12 - my vote is NO! An emphatic NO! And I am a cancer survivor.
They are wanting to mandate that 12-year old girls be given this vaccine. This cancer is caused by a virus. Most 12-year-olds are not sexually active and are barely developing!
What will this vaccine do to their development? How will it affect their ability to conceive later on down the road?
Luckily, the State of Indiana is not mandating that young girls have to have this vaccine. It is still being debated whether or not to mandate that parents be given the information.
And I think that is great! A parent should be able to decide if their child be given this vaccine.
Why did they not come up with a vaccine to prevent or cure the virus? A girl does not have to be promiscuous to get this virus. It only takes one time with a partner who has the virus.
So why not find a vaccine that prevents the spread of the virus?
A vaccine to prevent contagious, communicable diseases, such as measles, mumps, polio, etc., that prevents wide-spread outbreaks is one thing. My mom had polio. I did not. I did have measles. I did not have mumps.
And there are many children who have had awful consequences to having had children's vaccines.
I just have a hard time believing that enough research has been done on 12-year-olds! My daughter and son and daughter-in-law also feel this way.
I think the better thing to do is to spend money on teaching abstinence and ensuring that all women can afford to have pap smears.
I just have a hard time with drug companies putting out drugs and vaccines only to have to recall them later. They have already made enough money that lawsuits do not put them out of business, although lives have been destroyed or taken.
This virus is not something that can be spread quickly throughout the community by a cough or a sneeze or a fever.
-------------------- here's hoping today is better than yesterday and tomorrow is even better! Posts: 239 | From Evansville, IN | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
TerryK
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 8552
posted
quote: Forgive me if I'm indelicate here, but isn't this the same virus you get if you are exceedingly promiscuous??
She clearly knows when she got it and from whom. It just takes once with someone who has it for it to be passed on. Doesn't mean for sure you will get it but you certainly can get it and fairly quickly.
According to my ob/gyn, the new recommendations are that testing be done as a matter of routine for HPV. I recently had the test and I don't have HPV. I don't really know how reliable the test is but I don't have any symptoms. I don't know if one can be asymptomatic with the infection. The symptoms are awful from what I hear, not to mention the possibility of cervical cancer.
I think first checking to see if one has it or not is wise before having a vaccine.
BTW - my understanding is that once you have it, it can re-activate at any time. There is no cure. Terry
Posts: 6286 | From Oregon | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I already have the virus and possibly cancer of the uterus so maybe you need another point of view. It should be just like a vaccination for the other diseases, mandatory.
Posts: 33 | From newenglandusa | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
TerryK
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 8552
posted
Thanks Meg, I didn't think you were directing that at me or my daughter. I agree that the more partners you have, the more likely you are to get a partner who has it but again I want to make the point that one does not need to be exceedingly promiscuous to contract HPV. It is prevalent and one need only make contact once with someone who has it in order to get it.
I didn't know this disease was so stigmatized. I think it's a mistake to stigmatize any disease, whether it's sexually transmitted or not. I suspect this is partly why some illnesses don't get the attention they should, people are too embarrassed to talk about them or advocate for them. Terry
Posts: 6286 | From Oregon | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
heiwalove
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6467
posted
just a quick fact - over 80 percent of sexually active people have some form of HPV. most forms are asymptomatic, but you can still spread HPV even if you don't have symptoms. HPV is extremely sexually contagious (as the statistic suggests), and condoms and other safer sex barriers don't necessarily protect against its spread.
that said, most HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer - only 'high-risk' strains, most (or all? not sure) of which are asymptomatic; ie, don't cause genital warts.
i, too, am skeptical of vaccines. i definitely think the vaccine should be made available, parents and girls and women should be educated about it and a lot more research should go into it. but yikes, it definitely should NOT be mandatory.
yearly pap smears for sexually active girls and young women are a must, and in my opinion the most effective way to prevent cervical cancer (along with STD prevention and safer sex education, of course).
savebabe
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9847
posted
Once you get a positive pap it is to late, you may have hpv. The problem is that men do not have any symptoms from this disease and carry it without knowing it. I know two women that have this disease and they both wish the vaccine was available when they were younger.
Posts: 1603 | From ny | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic