While in college, Fr. Euteneuer participated in the Marine Corps Officer Candidate Program, attended boot camp at Quantico, Virginia and graduated at the top of his Company. After discerning that the Lord was calling him to the priesthood rather than the military, he entered the seminary. After his ordination in 1988, Fr. Euteneuer served as a parish priest in five parishes of the Diocese of Palm Beach, Florida, secretary to the diocesan bishop, director of vocations, and spiritual moderator for the diocesan Respect Life Office.
Culture-of-death ping!
"May"? This guy must be an optimist, there is no doubt this will be mandatory with jail time for parents who refuse.
So people will have more sex if they have the vaccine? I doubt it.
Boy the bull ate a lot of alfalfa yesterday.
Oh, please! This sounds like a worthy vaccine-- parents can take it or leave it. I am against mandatory anything, but I don't recall any of my daughter's vaccinations being mandatory-- it was always a choice.
(which of course is how it’s perceived because that is how it’s being promoted)
I don't know any more about this than what I've heard on the news. The perception I got was the truth -- it stops several strains of a sexually transmitted virus that are the main cause of cervical cancer.
Furthermore, the guy's an ignoramus who can't do simple research:
a name derived from Venus, the pagan goddess of sexual promiscuity
Venus was the goddess of love and beauty, not promiscuity. In fact, she was associated protection against vice (specifically, adultry and inchastity) and promotion of motherhood and domestic duties.
It just occurred to me to wonder...
Where are the vaccines against syphillis and gonorrhea? Have they gone away? Are they still infecting people?
Hmmmmm......
The two strains of HPV happen to be the two most commonly found to be oncogenic. The vaccine is aimed, not to prevent hpv per se, but to reduce the incidence of cervical cancer.
Secondly, even if a girl is chaste and is a virgin when she get married, there is no such guarantee for her husband. Men can carry HVP and show no symptoms, then pass it to their wives, who also show no symptoms. Then, 15 years later, this woman can get cervical cancer. The problem with this new immunization is that it must be given to girls before they become sexually active. If given to a woman who is infected with HVP, there is a significant risk that it may increase her chances of getting cervical cancer.
Another thing I've heard is that the immunization may eliminate the need for PAP smears for women.
1. What is Gardasil?
Gardasil is a vaccine that targets four strains of human papillomavirus (HPV). Those strains are called HPV-6, HPV-11, HPV-16, and HPV-18.
HPV-16 and HPV-18 account for about 70% of all cervical cancers. Cervical cancer is cancer of the cervix, which connects the vagina to the uterus.
HPV-6 and HPV-11 account for about 90% of genital warts.
The vaccine is also approved to help prevent vaginal and vulvar cancers, which can also be caused by HPV.
2. How does HPV spread?
HPV is spread through sex. HPV infection is common. About 20 million people in the U.S. are infected with HPV, and by age 50, at least 80% of women will have had an HPV infection, according to the CDC.
Most women with HPV infection don't develop cervical cancer.
3. Does Gardasil protect against all cervical cancers?
No. Though the vaccine protects against leading causes of cervical cancer, it doesn't ward off other causes of cervical cancer.
4. How effective is Gardasil?
Studies have shown 100% effectiveness in protecting against infection with HPV-16 and HPV-18 strains in people who had not been previously exposed to the virus.
5. How long does Gardasil last?
Tests show that the vaccine lasts at least four years. Long-term results aren't known yet.
6. Does the vaccine contain a live virus?
No. Gardasil contains a virus-like particle, but not the virus itself.
7. Who should get the vaccine?
The FDA approved Gardasil for girls and women aged 9-26. The FDA's decision doesn't automatically make the vaccine part of the CDC's recommended vaccine schedule. The company that makes Gardasil is continuing to research use of the vaccine in boys and men, as they can also become infected with HPV, which could lead to genital warts.
8. Is Gardasil safe?
Reports from clinical trials, to date, show Gardasil to be safe.
9. Will Gardasil protect women from cervical cancer who've already been exposed to HPV?
Gardasil is not designed to protect people who've already been exposed to HPV.
10. Will the new vaccine eliminate the need for cervical cancer screening?
No. Gardasil doesn't protect against all causes of cervical cancer, so screening (such as the Pap test) will still be needed. Screening is essential to detect cancer and precancerous lesions caused by other HPV types. Screening will also continue to be necessary for women who have not been vaccinated or are already infected with HPV.
11. Are there other cervical cancer vaccines?
Gardasil is the first cervical cancer vaccine to be approved. In fact, it's the first vaccine to protect against a risk factor for a cancer. Another cervical cancer vaccine, called Cervarix, is also in the works. It's expected to be submitted for approval by the end of 2006.
12. How many people get cervical cancer and die from the disease?
About 9,710 cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the U.S. in 2006, predicts the American Cancer Society.
About 3,700 U.S. women will die of cervical cancer in 2006, according to the American Cancer Society.
Worldwide, cervical cancer is a leading cause of cancer deaths for women. According to the FDA there are 470,000 new cases and 233,000 deaths each year.
If HPV gave men testicular cancer, the vaccine would have been mandatory yesterday.
Wacky-Luddites-Infiltrating-and-Destroying-FreeRepublic-by Marginalizing-the-Website-Just-Like-the-Creatiozoid/IDiac-Whackjobs Bump!
bunp for later read
I know that the National Cancer Institiute is NOT touting it as a cure for cervical cancer, although HPV-16 (one strain the vaccine fights) is present in more than 50 percent of cervical cancer cases. The NCI also notes all of the other limitations in this article.
Talk about junk science:
"....before the advent of the birth control pill and other forms of abortion-causing drugs, there were only three sexually transmitted diseases which at that time were known as venereal diseases, a name derived from Venus, the pagan goddess of sexual promiscuity. Because of the exponential increase in illicit sexual activity in the past four decades, the number of distinct sexually transmitted diseases has risen to over thirty, not to mention the multiple strains of the distinct diseases."
There is not now more sexually transmitted diseases than there was before. There is now better science and medical diagnosis that can identify more diseases and different strains of different diseases than was IDENTIFIED in the past - IDENTIFIED, not CREATED (other than HIV possibly).
As for the science of this new drug, it is my understanding that while this new treatment does nothing for some strains of HPV, it is effective on a few of the most frequently found strains of HPV. So, when is a drug more "effective" than less, when it treats a majority of strains of a disease or a majority of the occurances of a disease?
Again, as to the science, there is plenty of evidence that women who contract some strains of HPV (1)hardley ever know they have it for a very long time (many years) and (2)although they remain without identifiable symptoms, (3)it does appear that in time HPV infected cervical cells degenerate in their DNA reproduction and begin the process of creating cervical cancer.
The positive point of the drug is (1)neither the man or the woman, niether the carrier or the recipient have any awareness (symptoms, affects) from the HPV virus, and (2)not knowing, due to lack of symptoms, that any thing is amiss, the woman goes for years before, until (3)HPV eventually demonstrates a problem it has created. So, it's a bad thing to try to prevent this?
Particularly, when it remains almost totally asypmtomatic in men (carriers only apparently, totally unaware they have it) and remains unnoticed for many years in a woman until pre-cancerous conditions develope?
I don't follow this guy's reasoning no this. It's a good thing too, he seems to be a flaming idiot.
If men could get cancer from HPV, it would have been eradicated long ago.
The Human Papilloma Virus, for example, is just one sexually transmitted disease, but it has over 100 different strains! Only a small number of these strains actually lead to cancer and most of its victims don’t know they have it and cure themselves over time.
13 strains of HPV are cancer-causing agents, the remaining 87 are not.
Now, to put it into even clearer perspective: the much-touted HPV vaccine treats only two strains of HPV and two strains of genital warts. This is a tour-de-force against HPV isn’t it?
That depends greatly on your definition of "tour de force". The vaccine protects women against strains 16 and 18 of the HPV which account for 70% of the incidences of cervical cancer. In addition, the vaccine also targets strains 6 and 11 which are the most common cause of genital warts.
Friends, if I offered you a chance to protect your daughter from cervical cancer 70% of the time and eliminate the chance of your son or daughter getting genital warts, wouldn't you take it?
What I find odd is that the proponents of the vaccine feel the possible preventive cure is a worthy enough cause to discuss and promote YET discussion of preventing the method of transmission, abstinence, is not a worthy enough cause to promote?
Much like the message of HIV/AIDS safe sex crowd that promotes "safe" anal sex...
In the battle between people and disease, Mr Euteneuer has come down firmly on the side of the disease.