What do you think: HPV vaccination requirement

The Indiana Legislature is debating whether or not the HPV vaccine should be required for 11 and 12 year old girls in the state. Since HPV is passed only through sexual activity, it seems strange to me to require girls to undergo a medical procedure that their families have not deemed necessary. Any thoughts? I'll see if I can find a story to post or something with more information....
"Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate, but that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that frightens us."
-Marianne Williamson
Since I know someone who got cervical cancer at 16 from HPV, and one time having an HPV scare of my own, I'm going to have to go with yes.

Supposedly 85% of the population carries HPV, why not do what we can to reduce that number.

I've also heard that the vaccine only works on young girls who are not yet sexually active. Honestly I just see it like any other vaccine.
Have several allergies and sensitivities.
Current products
Low Poo/Cowash: Rio Grande Herb Co Negrita and Amole Deep Treatment Concentrate, Magick Botanicals (MB) Shampoo (diluted)
Rinse out/Leave in: MB with apricot kernel and jojoba oils added
Protein Treatment: MB Conditioner for Thinning Hair, IAgirl's protien treatment
Style: MB Gel mixed with LOTD Aloe Vera Gelly


2b-c, need lots of moisture, likes protein in moderation.
I say yes. Parents can always choose to opt out of vaccinating their kids, or out of certain vaccinations, so that won't change. But if it means that the majority of girls will have a significantly lower risk of cervical cancer in the future, I'm all for it.

Yes. You never know what can happen. And I don't think something like that would give girls *carte blanche* to have sex. When I was younger I wasn't even thinking about HPV. What worried me about sex was 1) the emotional reprocussions and 2) pregnancy.
2C/3A -- wurly!
Hepatitis B is mainly transmitted sexually, and yet we require that infants be vaccinated against it.
There should be no debate. If parents want to opt out, they can. But it should be available and recommended. This vaccine does not mean that the 11 year old girls will be having sex now. But they are likely to be having sex at some point in the future and the vaccine will protect them.

IMO the only reason there is any debate about this is that the anti-birth-control forces have seized on HPV and the fact that condoms do not protect from it 100% as a way to discredit birth control, sex education and anyting except their abstinence only agenda. If the vaccine greatly reduces the risk of HPV then they lose their little propaganda point.
To Trenell, MizKerri and geeky:
I pray none of you ever has to live in a communist state.

Geeky is my hero. She's the true badass. The badass who doesn't even need to be a badass. There aren't enough O's in cool to describe her.
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 943
Since I know someone who got cervical cancer at 16 from HPV, and one time having an HPV scare of my own, I'm going to have to go with yes.

Supposedly 85% of the population carries HPV, why not do what we can to reduce that number.

I've also heard that the vaccine only works on young girls who are not yet sexually active. Honestly I just see it like any other vaccine.
Originally Posted by riotkitty
I don't think that's true since they gave me some information about Guardisil at my Pap smear appt. - they say that they're targeting women in their 20's especially. I'm 25 and not a virgin. I'm not sure about it though since I don't know how much it costs or if my health insurance would cover it, but I'm thinking about it.
ITA with everything Geeky said.
Minneapolis, MN
Girls are sexually active at 11 or 12(though not as common). It would be nice if the vaccine was offered at an earlier age.
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 943
Also, it's not really a medical procedure. It's only a series of shots, right? I hate needles, though, and it does have risk of side effects like nausea. Is anyone here of the age to get it. From the commercials, it seems to be geared toward 11 and 12 year olds like the OP said. I don't see a problem in young girls getting it - it's one less thing to worry about in the future. But it only prevents one type of cancer, and HPV is not responsible for all cases of cervical cancer. You can get it and not even be sexually active.

Since I've already had sex, wouldn't I likely been exposed to HPV (though I've only had one partner and he hadn't slept w/anyone else in a long time (over 2 years) when we got together). I wonder if it's something that stays in your body forever and can be transmitted even after several years of contracting it. Hmm, I don't know now if it's worth it or not to get this. I would get it if I were 11 or 12, though. I've heard that getting it young will prevent you from having to go to PAP smears every year, but I don't get that since PAPs screen for other things too right?
Also, it's not really a medical procedure. It's only a series of shots, right? I hate needles, though, and it does have risk of side effects like nausea. Is anyone here of the age to get it. From the commercials, it seems to be geared toward 11 and 12 year olds like the OP said. I don't see a problem in young girls getting it - it's one less thing to worry about in the future. But it only prevents one type of cancer, and HPV is not responsible for all cases of cervical cancer. You can get it and not even be sexually active.

Since I've already had sex, wouldn't I likely been exposed to HPV (though I've only had one partner and he hadn't slept w/anyone else in a long time (over 2 years) when we got together). I wonder if it's something that stays in your body forever and can be transmitted even after several years of contracting it. Hmm, I don't know now if it's worth it or not to get this. I would get it if I were 11 or 12, though. I've heard that getting it young will prevent you from having to go to PAP smears every year, but I don't get that since PAPs screen for other things too right?
Originally Posted by CurlyMireya
The vaccine protects against 4 different types of HPV which together account for 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital wart cases, according to the vaccine's maker. So while yes, you could still get a form of HPV and even cervical cancer, it reduces the risk from exposure to the most common forms.

They also say you should still get your annual pap. I believe the pap itself is only to test for cervical cancer, although some docs will check for other things while they're in there (like chlamydia), and an annual exam is important even if you aren't getting a pap.

I'm 22 and the commercials definitely seem to be targeting women my age too.

Banned
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 943
I'm 22 and the commercials definitely seem to be targeting women my age too.

Really, because those jump rope commercials with mostly young girls and teens in them don't really seem geared toward 20 somethings. I don't think I've seen a woman that looks over 20 in those ads. Those are the only types commercials I've seen for it. That's why I assumed it's for younger people, though on one I looked closely and they did show something that said "ages 8-26."
I completely agree with what Geeky wrote, particularly that second paragraph.

And it IS just a vaccine. Parents can opt out of this vaccine just like some parents opt out of other vaccines.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Rock on with your bad self.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Be excellent to each other. ~ Abraham Lincoln

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Also, it's not really a medical procedure. It's only a series of shots, right? I hate needles, though, and it does have risk of side effects like nausea. Is anyone here of the age to get it. From the commercials, it seems to be geared toward 11 and 12 year olds like the OP said. I don't see a problem in young girls getting it - it's one less thing to worry about in the future. But it only prevents one type of cancer, and HPV is not responsible for all cases of cervical cancer. You can get it and not even be sexually active.

Since I've already had sex, wouldn't I likely been exposed to HPV (though I've only had one partner and he hadn't slept w/anyone else in a long time (over 2 years) when we got together). I wonder if it's something that stays in your body forever and can be transmitted even after several years of contracting it. Hmm, I don't know now if it's worth it or not to get this. I would get it if I were 11 or 12, though. I've heard that getting it young will prevent you from having to go to PAP smears every year, but I don't get that since PAPs screen for other things too right?
Originally Posted by CurlyMireya
To the bolded, yes, HPV stays in your body much like herpes does. Once you have it, you always have it.
I'm 22 and the commercials definitely seem to be targeting women my age too.

Really, because those jump rope commercials with mostly young girls and teens in them don't really seem geared toward 20 somethings. I don't think I've seen a woman that looks over 20 in those ads. Those are the only types commercials I've seen for it. That's why I assumed it's for younger people, though on one I looked closely and they did show something that said "ages 8-26."
Originally Posted by CurlyMireya
There are other commercials with young women. I see them a lot. There's one that has a bunch of women saying things like "A cancer caused by a virus? I didn't know that....tell someone you love" and "Gardasil--be one less woman with cervical cancer"

I've read that most women's immune systems will eventually clear out HPV. The problem is that unless you have wart outbreaks, you might never know you have it, and you transmit it to others, and if your body doesn't clear it out, it can lead to cancer.

I think it's ridiculously hypocritical how we tout "mandatory vaccines" for the good of our children but how many adults not in the medical health industry (and due to their jobs) get boosters for Hep B, chicken box, MMR, etc. regularly?

I'm a non vaxer because I believe that there are a lot of additives in vaccines (BESIDES mercury) which do a lot more harm than the vaccine does good. I won't put those additives in my healthy child's body whether female or male. Specifically with the HPV vaccine the efficacy of this vaccine has yet to be thoroughly proven, at the moment though it only protects against SOME strains of HPV. There are still women that would get HPV despite having the vaccine. Also a small percentage of women would still get non-HPV related cervical cancer.

I find it interesting that when the ACOG is recommending reducing the frequency of pap smears to 2 years instead of yearly they want to then alarm women with a new "cancer vaccine". Also what would be the booster schedule after that initial dose, how long into adulthood would it protet the woman and I also see a slippery slope as some will want to vaccinate boys.

I also find it ridiculous to vaccinate infants against HepB.

I find it interesting that when the ACOG is recommending reducing the frequency of pap smears to 2 years instead of yearly they want to then alarm women with a new "cancer vaccine".
Originally Posted by marielle448
yes, ACOG does a lot of interesting things...

But I don't think there's anything wrong with recommending a vaccine that can prevent cancer. No, it won't prevent all cervical cancer or protect against all strains of HPV. But it will against some, and if a woman wants the vaccine, it's good that it's out there. If someone chooses not to get it, or not to have her children get it, that's fine too.

also if HPV is such a concern why is there no regular screening for it in the targeted age group? Apparently it's only a concern when someone stands to make a profit (until there was a vaccine there was no hubub over this).

From another board so I won't take credit for this but interesting:

hpv isn't tested for yet eight of ten women get it AND NEVER KNOW IT. No dire consequences , these women go about their lives as normal and the HPV goes away. Most hpv goes away on it's own. The woman never even knew she had it. and she has no ill effects. No medication necessary , no diagnosis , no knowledge of even having it.

Just three weeks after it's approval by the FDA , the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (acip) said it should be routinely given to 11-12yr old girls. (because that's when they go in for their other vax boosters...no other specific reason behind the age).

Merck also says “Vaccinating men could be the best way to prevent the spread of the cancer-causing virus among women”. By "men" they mean boys as well. As young as 11 or 12...there was some talk on a few websites about giving the vax to boys at a younger age because boys engage in sex sooner than girls do. But they couldn't figure out how to get the boys in , so 11-12 stuck.



Less than 10% of those in the placebo group got a true placebo.The trial conclusions are mis-stated: The effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing cervical cancer is said to be 100%. However, there were ZERO cases of cervical cancer in both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated groups. That is ZERO PERCENT effectiveness.

I found this tidbit interesting: FDA staff also asked that the committee examine five cases where children with birth defects were born to women who had received the vaccine around the time of conception.

The cost will be $500 for three injections over a six month period.


Quote
Cervical cancer rates have been dropping for several years.The cervical cancer death rate declined 45 percent between the periods 1972-74 and 1992-94 and the overall incidence of the disease has decreased steadily from 14.2 per 100,000 in 1973 to 7.4 per 100,000 in 1995. Source: http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t990316b.html

Quote
Claims for effectiveness in preventing cancer are based on indirect efficacy measurements. The number of subjects, the age of the subjects (9-26) and the duration of the trials was such that no cases of cancer were recorded in either the Placebo or Gardasil groups. In other words, there is no proof that even one case of cervical cancer has been prevented to date by this vaccine.(source: vax insert)

from the insert also..the ingredients:

Quote
The purified VLPs are adsorbed on preformed aluminum-containing adjuvant (amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate). The quadrivalent HPV VLP vaccine is a sterile liquid suspension that is prepared by combining the adsorbed VLPs of each HPV type and additional amounts of the aluminum- containing adjuvant and the final purification buffer."

"Virus-like particles of HPV Types 6, 11, 16 and 18. Each 0.5-mL dose of the vaccine contains approximately 225 mcg of aluminum (as amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate adjuvant),
9.56 mg of sodium chloride,
0.78 mg of L-histidine,
50 mcg of polysorbate 80,
35 mcg of sodium borate,
and water for injection.
The product does not contain a preservative or antibiotics."

concerns the FDA has (reported by the AP news)
Quote
The first concern is that Gardasil may result in an increased number of cases of a cancer precursor among patients who are already infected by one of the four targeted HPV types when they're given the vaccine; and whose immune systems haven't eliminated the virus from their bodies
and no...as of now there is to be NO hpv screening before recieving the vaccine.

I find it interesting that when the ACOG is recommending reducing the frequency of pap smears to 2 years instead of yearly they want to then alarm women with a new "cancer vaccine".
Originally Posted by marielle448
yes, ACOG does a lot of interesting things...

But I don't think there's anything wrong with recommending a vaccine that can prevent cancer. No, it won't prevent all cervical cancer or protect against all strains of HPV. But it will against some, and if a woman wants the vaccine, it's good that it's out there. If someone chooses not to get it, or not to have her children get it, that's fine too.
Originally Posted by iris427
Since we have many intelligent posters on this board let get's the terminology right (and that's not meant in a snarky way). This vaccine is intended to prevent SOME strains of HPV. It is not a cancer preventer. A regular yearly pap smear will also prevent cervical cancer or catch it early enough to get effective treatment. Also will pap smears be gone after the vaccine? No, so why add what will serve as a false sense of security when education and true preventative measures are currently available?
also if HPV is such a concern why is there no regular screening for it in the targeted age group? Apparently it's only a concern when someone stands to make a profit (until there was a vaccine there was no hubub over this).
Originally Posted by marielle448
Actually, this is in the works:

New York Times

If the vast majority of cervical cancer cases are caused by two strains of HPV against which this vaccine can protect women, then yes, it can prevent cancer. If HPV didn't cause so many cases of cervical cancer, then this vaccine wouldn't have been developed in the first place and we wouldn't be letting our doctors stick cold metal speculums and Q-tips up our "hoo-has"

iris it's in the works but only with a vaccine in the horizon. Why not include it in the workup for a yearly gyno checkup before the vaccine? I'm calling $$$$$.

Trending Topics


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com