H.P.V. Shots for young girls.

Oceanbreeze said:
There's also alot of torte lawyers out trying to drum up business for themselves too. That could acct for the law suits that are filed. Exactly how many of them are frivolous, who knows?

The thing is... Conservatives wouldn't give a flip if Gardisil was used to eradicate something else. But, because it's use will potentially eradicate cancers caused by an STD, conservatives are having a collective stroke over it.

You can't tell me that those opposed to it are just concerned about health implications. Most opposed feel it's giving a free pass to young girls to have sex and that's simply not true!
Click to expand...

:gpost:
 
Oceanbreeze said:
There's also alot of torte lawyers out trying to drum up business for themselves too. That could acct for the law suits that are filed. Exactly how many of them are frivolous, who knows?

The thing is... Conservatives wouldn't give a flip if Gardisil was used to eradicate something else. But, because it's use will potentially eradicate cancers caused by an STD, conservatives are having a collective stroke over it.

You can't tell me that those opposed to it are just concerned about health implications. Most opposed feel it's giving a free pass to young girls to have sex and that's simply not true!
Click to expand...

All I can tell you is that I am not worried for that reason, and neither is anyone I know who is skeptical about this drug. I hadn't even heard that point until this thread. I'm sure there are a lot of people who are forming conclusions based on that thinking, and I agree that it is a poor way to make decisions.
 
lsfoster said:
All I can tell you is that I am not worried for that reason, and neither is anyone I know who is skeptical about this drug. I hadn't even heard that point until this thread. I'm sure there are a lot of people who are forming conclusions based on that thinking, and I agree that it is a poor way to make decisions.
Click to expand...

I may disagree with you, but at least, you seem to be basing your decision on whatever health issues you are concerned about. I applaud you for that!
 
lsfoster said:
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. But there is also scientific data showing that lack of sunlight would lead to Vitamin D deficiency. Vitamin D is known to interact with the immune system and fight tumors. There is also data showing that people who spend more time indoors are actually more likely to get skin cancer, since skin that is infrequently exposed to UV rays is more likely to be harmed by them. Then there is the fact that this is just one way that skin cancer can be caused, there are tons of other which have nothing to do with the sun at all.

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.
Click to expand...


Not all strains of HPV causes cancer. The four that does cause it are the ones needed to be vaccinated against. One strain causes warts the other three causes cancer.

Now HPV vaccine does not causes or increase the chance of cancer! It PREVENTS it.

The vaccine is a dead viral vaccine. So it can not and will not cause or increase the chance of getting cancer.
 
Babyblue said:
Not all strains of HPV causes cancer. The four that does cause it are the ones needed to be vaccinated against. One strain causes warts the other three causes cancer.

Now HPV vaccine does not causes or increase the chance of cancer! It PREVENTS it.

The vaccine is a dead viral vaccine. So it can not and will not cause or increase the chance of getting cancer.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Why anyone would oppose this is beyond me. It comes back to choice. If you oppose the vaccine, don't allow your daughter/grandaugher/niece to get it. If you think it will be of benefit, allow it. But, we have people filing law suits and losing their minds over this. It makes NO SENSE to me.
 
Reba said:
My point was proven that just because the FDA approves something doesn't mean it's safe to use.

There are also drugs that are recalled after they had received FDA approval. The recall is too late for people who have taken the drugs.
Click to expand...

The FDA approves it for specific uses and under specific circumstances. If it is not used only in those situations, then we do not know what effects may be seen in off label prescribing, comorbid conditions, or other medication interactions. That doesn't mean that the FDA has approved an unsafe medication.
 
lsfoster said:
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.

And if it prevents those 4 strains from occurring in exposed individuals, it prevents those 4 strains of the virus. That is what a vaccination does, and why it is called "preventive medicine."

And without the precancerous condition, cancer would not occur. Etiology can and is traced directly back to infection with the HPV.
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. But there is also scientific data showing that lack of sunlight would lead to Vitamin D deficiency. Vitamin D is known to interact with the immune system and fight tumors. There is also data showing that people who spend more time indoors are actually more likely to get skin cancer, since skin that is infrequently exposed to UV rays is more likely to be harmed by them. Then there is the fact that this is just one way that skin cancer can be caused, there are tons of other which have nothing to do with the sun at all.

For any disease to occur, one must have a predispositon and a triggering factor. Unfortunately, predisposition is difficult to determine unless symptom of disease indicating that predisposition is present. Are you really suggesting that limiting sun exposure does not prevent skin cancers? If you are, you truly need to go back and check some reliable medical websites. Please provide a link that shows a positive correlation between time spent indoors and the presence of skin 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Hear Again said:
i don't have any children, so i can't answer that question.

however, if it were me and pharmaceutical companies for instance developed a potential cure for bipolar, i'd be willing to be a guinea pig.
Click to expand...

I can understand how you feel. It would be a good thing to be cured from a mental health problem. I know having mental health issues myself.

However, things can get worse. Things can go badly wrong and you could loose your life. If it was me I'd wait 10 years to see if the drug was safe first.
 
dreama said:
I can understand how you feel. It would be a good thing to be cured from a mental health problem. I know having mental health issues myself.

However, things can get worse. Things can go badly wrong and you could loose your life. If it was me I'd wait 10 years to see if the drug was safe first.
Click to expand...

Ten years would be too late to have my child vaccinated.

She would prolly be sexually active by that time and contracted HPV.

The flu shot given annually is always a new vaccine for a different strain of the virus. Yet no one fears those annually never been used vaccine.
 
dreama said:
I can understand how you feel. It would be a good thing to be cured from a mental health problem. I know having mental health issues myself.

However, things can get worse. Things can go badly wrong and you could loose your life. If it was me I'd wait 10 years to see if the drug was safe first.
Click to expand...

i hate to sound so morbid, but i'd probably end up losing my life to bipolar anyways even if i didn't opt for the research study since the suicidal rate for people with bipolar is quite high (especially in those who are unmedicated). fortunately though, i don't have to worry about that since the mood stabilizer, antipsychotic and antidepressant i'm on do a relatively good job of keeping me stable.
 
Babyblue said:
Ten years would be too late to have my child vaccinated.

She would prolly be sexually active by that time and contracted HPV.

The flu shot given annually is always a new vaccine for a different strain of the virus. Yet no one fears those annually never been used vaccine.
Click to expand...

good point, babyblue.
 
jillio said:
...That doesn't mean that the FDA has approved an unsafe medication.
Click to expand...
It also doesn't mean that a medication is always safe, even when used properly. People shouldn't blindly accept an FDA approval as a 100% guarantee of safety.
 
Babyblue said:
...The flu shot given annually is always a new vaccine for a different strain of the virus. Yet no one fears those annually never been used vaccine.
Click to expand...
There are many people who refuse to get an annual flu shot because they don't trust the vaccine.
 
Hear Again said:
i hate to sound so morbid, but i'd probably end up losing my life to bipolar anyways even if i didn't opt for the research study since the suicidal rate for people with bipolar is quite high (especially in those who are unmedicated). fortunately though, i don't have to worry about that since the mood stabilizer, antipsychotic and antidepressant i'm on do a relatively good job of keeping me stable.
Click to expand...

It may be morbid, but it is the reality of living with Bi-polar. In 10 years time, the risk of suicide for unmedicated patients, or the risk of accidental death due to self medication or high risk behaviors is far too great.
 
Reba said:
It also doesn't mean that a medication is always safe, even when used properly. People shouldn't blindly accept an FDA approval as a 100% guarantee of safety.
Click to expand...

If anyone accepts anything as a 100% guarantee in this life, they are naive, indeed. There is no such thing as 100% guarantee. The food you eat is not guaranteed not to kill you, but you choose to eat on a daily basis to prevent serious health problems and death.
 
jillio said:
It may be morbid, but it is the reality of living with Bi-polar. In 10 years time, the risk of suicide for unmedicated patients, or the risk of accidental death due to self medication or high risk behaviors is far too great.
Click to expand...

that's true. in fact, many people with bipolar are dually diagnosed because of self-medicating alcohol and/or drug use.
 
Reba said:
There are many people who refuse to get an annual flu shot because they don't trust the vaccine.
Click to expand...

...despite the fact that flu shots have not been proven to actually cause the flu (following vaccination).
 
what i don't understand are people who refuse to get a flu shot yet engage in behaviors that are detrimental to one's health. talk about contradictory.
 
Back
Top