H.P.V. Shots for young girls.

Vaccines against a lot of illnesses were done the same way.

The same vaccines that children get today!!

What makes this one different?
 
Babyblue said:
OB

The school that my daughter attends are aware of the possible side effects.


To all others.

I'm going to jump this thread by basing this on animal testing and the HPV shot.

This antiviral shot was tested on animals and it was proven to prevent cancer on animals.

Humans have been tested.

Even males that have received this shot have been proven to prevent rectal cancer and throat cancer.

It also been proven to prevent gental warts.

Why are so many people against it?
Click to expand...

Babyblue said:
Vaccines against a lot of illnesses were done the same way.

The same vaccines that children get today!!

What makes this one different?
Click to expand...

Politics, my dear. Its all about politics. People are trying to attach sex ed to this freakin' thing when it's actually a health issue. Those opposed to the shot think that by allowing young girls to get it, you're giving them a free pass to have sex. This is nonsense, but it's how some people think.

I'd say this...

Every woman should research this vaccine for themselves and decide if vaccinating their young daughter, granddaughter, neice, ect., is worth it. For me personally, I'd give my support to having my neice vaccinated when she's old enough. Afterall, it's said that this shot is best effective BEFORE a girl is sexually active. If that means vaccinating my niece at the age of 9, so be it. I'd rather see her vaccinated then not vaccinated.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
Politics, my dear. Its all about politics. People are trying to attach sex ed to this freakin' thing when it's actually a health issue. Those opposed to the shot think that by allowing young girls to get it, you're giving them a free pass to have sex. This is nonsense, but it's how some people think.

I'd say this...

Every woman should research this vaccine for themselves and decide if vaccinating their young daughter, granddaughter, neice, ect., is worth it. For me personally, I'd give my support to having my neice vaccinated when she's old enough. Afterall, it's said that this shot is best effective BEFORE a girl is sexually active. If that means vaccinating my niece at the age of 9, so be it. I'd rather see her vaccinated then not vaccinated.
Click to expand...

Yup. I totally agree. The religious and political facts have a factor in a lot of peoples decisions.

It is all about preventing cancer.

Even though H.P.V. Is sexually transmitted.

It can be transmitted after one is married.
 
Babyblue said:
Yup. I totally agree. The religious and political facts have a factor in a lot of peoples decisions.

It is all about preventing cancer.

Even though H.P.V. Is sexually transmitted.

It can be transmitted after one is married.
Click to expand...

Shoot. Most of us (I don't know the stats) are probably already infected with HPV before we even get married.
 
I'm not sure what exactly you consider old or outdated. I went to some of the links on that site, and the things there are very interesting, and especially easy to find. In about a half hour, I have found some things which would seriously make me question the numbers that are thrown about indicating that Gardasil is some sort of godsend.

Download the pdf that is on that link and take a look through it. Here are some of the parts I found most important.
"Based on new scientific information
published in the past 15 years, it is now generally agreed that identifying and typing HPV
infection does not bear a direct relationship to stratification of the risk for cervical cancer . Most
acute infections caused by HPV are self-limiting [1, 4-7]. It is the persistent HPV infection that
may act as a tumor promoter in cancer induction [8-11]. Identifying and typing HPV is an
important tool for following patients with persistent HPV infection. Repeated sequential transient
HPV infections, even when caused by "high-risk" HPVs, are characteristically not associated
with high risk of developing squamous intraepithelial lesions, a precursor of cervical cancer. "

" PCR-based HPV detection device with provision for accurate HPV genotyping is more
urgently needed now because vaccination with GardasilTM of the women who are already
sero-positive and PCR-positive for vaccine-relevant genotypes of HPV has been found to
increase the risk of developing high-grade precancerous lesions by 44.6%, according to
an FDA VRBPAC Background Document: GardasilTM HPV Quadrivalent Vaccine. May
18, 2006 VRBPAC Meeting. www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-4222B3
[14]. "

Note, if you go to that link, it doesn't connect, but go here:
2006 FDA Advisory Coomittees Meeting Documents by Center
And all the information is under the May 18, 2006 meeting. There is a transcript, and slides that were presented. (In the transcript, I would skip to somewhere around page 100 if you're interested).

"However, it is now recognized that
persistent infection of a "high-risk" HPV, not the HPV virus itself, is the pivotal promoter in
causing cervical precancerous lesions and cancer [7-10]. Most of HPV infections, even caused
by "high-risk" genotypes, are transient with normal Pap cytology in sexually active young
women [1, 3-6]. In 93% of the initially infected women, the same viral type is not detected upon
re-examination four menstrual cycles later [20]."


Just because you don't want to take the time to actually research anything you read doesn't mean that it isn't reliable. They cited their sources, and I don't see how you can get any more reliable than the government transcripts of the meetings where the drug was presented.
 
lsfoster said:
I'm not sure what exactly you consider old or outdated. I went to some of the links on that site, and the things there are very interesting, and especially easy to find. In about a half hour, I have found some things which would seriously make me question the numbers that are thrown about indicating that Gardasil is some sort of godsend.

Download the pdf that is on that link and take a look through it. Here are some of the parts I found most important.
"Based on new scientific information
published in the past 15 years, it is now generally agreed that identifying and typing HPV
infection does not bear a direct relationship to stratification of the risk for cervical cancer . Most
acute infections caused by HPV are self-limiting [1, 4-7]. It is the persistent HPV infection that
may act as a tumor promoter in cancer induction [8-11]. Identifying and typing HPV is an
important tool for following patients with persistent HPV infection. Repeated sequential transient
HPV infections, even when caused by "high-risk" HPVs, are characteristically not associated
with high risk of developing squamous intraepithelial lesions, a precursor of cervical cancer. "

" PCR-based HPV detection device with provision for accurate HPV genotyping is more
urgently needed now because vaccination with GardasilTM of the women who are already
sero-positive and PCR-positive for vaccine-relevant genotypes of HPV has been found to
increase the risk of developing high-grade precancerous lesions by 44.6%, according to
an FDA VRBPAC Background Document: GardasilTM HPV Quadrivalent Vaccine. May
18, 2006 VRBPAC Meeting. www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-4222B3
[14]. "

Note, if you go to that link, it doesn't connect, but go here:
2006 FDA Advisory Coomittees Meeting Documents by Center
And all the information is under the May 18, 2006 meeting. There is a transcript, and slides that were presented. (In the transcript, I would skip to somewhere around page 100 if you're interested).

"However, it is now recognized that
persistent infection of a "high-risk" HPV, not the HPV virus itself, is the pivotal promoter in
causing cervical precancerous lesions and cancer [7-10]. Most of HPV infections, even caused
by "high-risk" genotypes, are transient with normal Pap cytology in sexually active young
women [1, 3-6]. In 93% of the initially infected women, the same viral type is not detected upon
re-examination four menstrual cycles later [20]."


Just because you don't want to take the time to actually research anything you read doesn't mean that it isn't reliable. They cited their sources, and I don't see how you can get any more reliable than the government transcripts of the meetings where the drug was presented.
Click to expand...

Does it matter? You're basically trying to persuade someone who's already made up her mind to allow her daughter to get the shot. Personally, I support getting the shot myself. That being said, I think people who oppose the shot, won't get it; while those of us who support vaccination will.

In the end, it becomes pointless because nobody changes anybody's mind.

I also suggest talking to your gyn about Gardisil instead of relying strictly on internet information which can be biased information.
 
Does it matter that people might be making decisions based on incorrect information? Yes, that usually matters to me. Even if she's made up her mind, maybe someone else will read it and draw their own conclusions. Also, the fact that some states are considering requiring the shot does not match up with your statement that those who oppose the shot won't get it. I find it worrisome when the government wants to enforce a "possible treatment", when they haven't even been able to test the effects for more than a few years.

Saying that nobody will ever change their minds to me means that you have given up on the idea that people can be smart or rational. New knowledge can, and should, make people rethink some things they believe.

And I have talked to my doctor. She said that she would not recommend the shot for me since I have never had sex with men and neither has my girlfriend, but even if that were not the case, I don't think I would get it simply because there has not been enough research on the long-term effects, or on the actual relationship between Gardasil, HPV, and cancer.

My mother was diagnosed with cervical cancer and had a hysterectomy last year. This is not an issue that I'm just taking lightly and throwing around. As a scientist, I don't believe that it is a valid argument to say that something that is present in almost every sexually active woman on the earth can "cause" cancer, since not every woman has cancer. Read the links I posted, HPV itself is not known to be harmful at all. Persistent infections with the same strand can promote pathologies that can lead to cancer. Until there is some better evidence, I'll remain unconvinced. The burden of proof is on them, as far as I'm concerned.
 
Information from CDC and FDA on the Safety of Gardasil Vaccine Consumers, parents, health care professionals and others have raised questions regarding the safety of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, Gardasil. FDA and CDC take all concerns about vaccine safety seriously, and have been closely monitoring the safety of Gardasil.Below is a summary of Gardasil vaccine safety monitoring activities and findings. Based on ongoing assessments of vaccine safety information, FDA and CDC continue to find that Gardasil is a safe and effective vaccine. FDA and CDC continue to monitor the safety of this vaccine, with the public's health and safety our top priority. GARDASIL BACKGROUND FDA approved Gardasil vaccine on June 8, 2006 for use in girls and women 9 through 26 years of age. This vaccine prevents infection with the types of HPV that cause most cases of cervical cancer and genital warts. CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended routine 3-dose vaccination of girls aged 11 and 12 years. The vaccine is also recommended for girls and women ages 13 through 26 years who have not yet been vaccinated or who have not received all 3 doses. Gardasil was tested in over 11,000 girls and women in the United States and around the world, and found to be safe and effective in preventing serious HPV-related diseases. These studies showed that in women who have never been infected by HPV types 6, 11, 16 or 18, the vaccine is highly effective, both in preventing precancerous lesions that often develop into cancer of the cervix, vagina and vulva, and in preventing genital warts caused by these HPV types. This vaccine is an important cervical cancer prevention tool that will potentially benefit the health of millions of women. Every year, about 12,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer and almost 4,000 die from this disease in the United States. Worldwide, cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in women, causing an estimated 470,000 new cases and 233,000 deaths per year. MONITORING THE SAFETY OF GARDASILVaccine Safety OverviewFDA and CDC closely monitor the safety of all vaccines through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS receives unconfirmed reports of possible side effects following the use of Gardasil and all vaccines licensed in the U.S. VAERS reports are regularly reviewed for safety concerns or trends of adverse events (possible side effects). Vaccines are manufactured in batches called lots. All vaccine lots are routinely tested and must pass all tests before they can be used, and vaccine manufacturers must comply with strict manufacturing standards. FDA also analyzes adverse events (possible side effects) associated with individual lots to look for any unusual patterns. No such patterns have been observed in FDA's review of HPV vaccine lots since the vaccine was licensed. In addition to VAERS, CDC has two other systems in place to monitor the safety of all licensed vaccines. The Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) Project is a collaborative effort between CDC and eight managed care organizations that monitors vaccine safety and addresses the gaps in scientific knowledge about rare and serious side effects following immunization. The Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Network is a collaboration with six academic centers in the United States to conduct clinical research on vaccine-associated adverse events. Adverse Event Reports following GardasilTo date, the manufacturer, Merck and Co., has distributed over 16 million doses of Gardasil in the United States. Given the large number of doses distributed, it is expected that, by chance alone, serious adverse events and some deaths will be reported in this large population during the time period following vaccinations. Our monitoring and analysis of reports, including in-depth medical review, are designed to detect serious events that occur at rates greater than expected, compared to what would be expected by chance alone. VAERS receives reports of many events that occur following immunization. Some of these events may occur coincidentally during the time period following vaccination, while others may actually be caused by vaccination. In our analysis of VAERS data, we look for patterns of adverse events that may be plausibly linked to a vaccine. Such patterns of adverse events may require further study. As of June 30, 2008, there have been 9,749 VAERS reports of adverse events following Gardasil vaccination. Of these, 94% were classified as reports of non-serious events, and 6% as serious events. Non-Serious Reports (94% of total reports)Since Gardasil was approved, the great majority (94%) of adverse events reported to VAERS after receiving this vaccine have not been serious. These reports include syncope (fainting), pain at the injection site, headache, nausea and fever. Fainting is common after injections and vaccinations, especially in adolescents. Falls after syncope may sometimes cause serious injuries, such as head injuries, which can be prevented with simple steps, such as keeping the vaccinated person seated for up to 15 minutes after vaccination. FDA and CDC have taken steps to remind immunization providers about the recommendation that individuals be watched carefully for 15 minutes after vaccination to avoid potential injury from a fall. The vaccine's prescribing information was changed to include this information. Serious Reports (6% of total reports)Concerns have been raised about reports of deaths occurring in individuals after receiving Gardasil. As of June 30, 2008, 20 deaths had been reported to VAERS. There was not a common pattern to the deaths that would suggest they were caused by the vaccine. In cases where autopsy, death certificate and medical records were available, the cause of death was explained by factors other than the vaccine. Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) has also been reported in individuals following vaccination with Gardasil. GBS is a rare neurological disorder that causes muscle weakness. It occurs spontaneously in unvaccinated individuals after a variety of specific infections. FDA and CDC have reviewed the reports of GBS that have been submitted to VAERS. To date, there is no evidence that Gardasil has increased the rate of GBS above that expected in the population. While we continue to carefully analyze all reports of GBS submitted to VAERS, the data do not currently suggest an association between Gardasil and GBS. Thromboembolic disorders (blood clots) have been reported to VAERS in people who have received Gardasil. Most of these individuals had risk factors for blood clots such as use of oral contraceptives which are known to increase the risk of clotting. Thromboembolic disorders as well as other medical events are being studied through the VSD in previously planned controlled studies. The manufacturer has also committed to conduct a large postmarketing study to further assess the vaccine's safety. SUMMARYBased on the review of available information by FDA and CDC, Gardasil continues to be safe and effective, and its benefits continue to outweigh its risks. CDC has not changed its recommendations for use of Gardasil. FDA has not made any changes to the prescribing information for how the vaccine is used or to the vaccine's Precautions. In addition, FDA routinely reviews manufacturing information, and has not identified any issues affecting the safety, purity and potency of Gardasil. Public health and safety are priorities for FDA and CDC. As with all licensed vaccines, we will continue to closely monitor the safety of Gardasil. FDA and CDC continue to find that Gardasil is a safe and effective vaccine that will potentially benefit the health of millions of women by providing protection against the types of HPV that cause the majority of cervical cancer, genital warts, and other HPV-related diseases.


Todays, sources that I looked up by just typing in. FDA.

Not by some odd site link.
 
If you want to trust reports from the FDA (who have been extremely wrong about a lot of other drugs), on a drug that has a few years of testing, then that is up to you. Hopefully people will go through both sides and make their own decisions.
 
lsfoster said:
If you want to trust reports from the FDA (who have been extremely wrong about a lot of other drugs), on a drug that has a few years of testing, then that is up to you. Hopefully people will go through both sides and make their own decisions.
Click to expand...



Now you are contradicting yourself.

Look at the links you provided. :roll:
 
Babyblue said:
Now you are contradicting yourself.

Look at the links you provided. :roll:
Click to expand...

I'm not contradicting myself at all. You don't see any discrepancies between the information given in the links I gave, and the one you gave? The FDA has shown again and again that it will continue to put drugs on the market that it knows are unsafe. Them "approving" something, when their own site has data that doesn't firmly support it's use or even the science behind their theory, doesn't make me feel secure in how safe it is.
 
jillio said:
They are now considering offering the HPV vaccine to men, as well, as HPV has been linked to oral, throat, anal, and penile cancers.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Since I have first posted this thread more and more researches have been done.
 
Mrs Bucket said:
My only concern about this HPV vaccine is that it creates a false sense of security when parents should really advocate abstinence. Abstinence is really the way to go because we have far too young children experimenting and infecting themselves with STDs.
Click to expand...

This shot is not advertising parents to refrain from teaching their children from abstinence. It is to prevent cancer!
 
dreama said:
I'd wait.

I don't know if it was Voxx, but I had a friend who died from the drug that she was given for her Arthitis. It was very sad. She'd only just got a CI the year before that and seemed to like it. She was also planning to go to college.
Click to expand...

Sorry about your friend :(

But we are talking about a totally different thing.
 
Mrs Bucket said:
My only concern about this HPV vaccine is that it creates a false sense of security when parents should really advocate abstinence. Abstinence is really the way to go because we have far too young children experimenting and infecting themselves with STDs.
Click to expand...

I honestly can't see this as anything other than a health issue. A young girl of 11 yrs old may not equate it with sex. All she would have to know is that the vaccine will protect her from cancer. Sex doesn't have to enter into it. It can at a later time, but it doesn't have to at the time the shot is given.
 
lsfoster said:
I'm not contradicting myself at all. You don't see any discrepancies between the information given in the links I gave, and the one you gave? The FDA has shown again and again that it will continue to put drugs on the market that it knows are unsafe. Them "approving" something, when their own site has data that doesn't firmly support it's use or even the science behind their theory, doesn't make me feel secure in how safe it is.
Click to expand...
As if.. all childhood vaccine is 100% safe.:roll:

This link is from CDC.

http://nov1.m.yahoo.net/nov0/lgyLWA...h/www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine.htm

Read on!
 
Back
Top