Posted on 08/01/2007 11:01:53 AM PDT by mngran
Probably the same way it got from her ... to his fingernails.
That aside, the finding suggests sexual activity may be but one vector and that other non-sexual vectors may exist
holy crap, someone has found the miracle risk-free drug? No need for a package insert, it is risk free??? Hey tax-chick, does H&R Doc back that up with a muney back guarantee? Surely you jest.
Everyone should have the CHOICE to get the vaccine, but I'll wait to get my daughter the shot until I'm confident Merck and the FDA have actually done their homework.
Shirley I does.
Sorry about the confusion; I had to feed my stock of Sarcasm Tags to the lizards after the PetsMart ran out of crickets. They were starving! I'm on my way to Wal-mart to replenish as soon as the baby wakes up.
:) Whew, I’m glad the sky is still blue ... you had me worried there for a minute. Hope all is well with you and yours.
We’re fine (except for the lizards) and I hope you are the same.
My point was that, if the poster felt all girls and women should get the vaccine, he must believe the risks to them are negligible. Therefore, he should have no problem with boys’ being given it as well.
Virologists first began the study of cervical cancer (CC) in the early 1900’s when an Italian doctor conducted a survey and discovered that CC was more often found among married women than among nuns.
Eager to make a scientific connection between the results of the survey and the disease they quickly postulated that sexual activity was the primary risk factor. Although many sexually transmitted bacteria and protozoans were proposed as causative factors in the disease, it wasn’t until 1966, when virologists, following the isolation of the Epstein-Barr virus
(a strain of the ubiquitous herpes virus), suggested, based on a laboratory study, that a higher percentage of CC patients had previously been infected by the herpes virus than had women without the tumor.
This revelation was quickly followed by the elucidation of both the herpes simplex type 1 virus which causes sores around the mouth; and type 2 which causes sores in the genital area - including the cervix. Virologists quickly proposed that type 2 was the cause of CC,... a supposition that was eventually proven wrong.
Yet this conjecture led to the concept of a “latent” virus which eventually became the key support for the theory that HPV caused CC.
In order to explain how a cervical tumor would appear years after exposure to the herpes simplex type 2 virus, scientists constructed a “new” hypothesis: that is to say that during the primary infection when millions of cells were killed an occasional virus would mistakenly mix with a cell’s DNA (thereby becoming
impotent in the process) mutating the genetic code of a few surviving cells which would eventually grow into a tumor years later.
Unfortunately, for the proponents of this theory, further research demonstrated that approximately 85 % of all American adults have been infected by the herpes virus, many without any outward symptoms,
including millions of women without any hint of CC. Additionally, many women with CC were found to mhave never been infected by the herpes virus.
Even in those women with CC and a history of herpes, the viral fragments left over in the tumor cells were different and inactive indicating that NO particular part of the herpes virus was or could be responsible.
Virologists, however, never allowed these facts to discourage them. In 1983 they proposed a NEW hypothesis; that is to say that the herpes virus was a “hit-and-run” virus which briefly infected the cervix, then mysteriously
vanished never to be seen again. The hypothesis, although ridiculous, actually lasted into the early 1990’s when they quietly retreated from the herpes virus hypothesis altogether.
In 1977, a German herpes virologist, Harald zur Hausen, proposed another virus as the causative factor in the development of CC, the human papilloma virus. He based this on the observation that cervical warts
could occasionally turn into full-fledged cancers.
Utilizing new laboratory techniques in the early 1980’s
zur Hausen was able to isolate small broken left-over pieces of the papilloma virus in the tumor cells of some patients.
However, zur Hausen and his virology colleagues soon discovered that more than one-half of the American adult population (therefore, half of the adult women) had been infected by the virus, but only a very few ever
developed CC. zur Hausen’s theory appeared to violate Koch’s first postulate (Koch’s Laws of Infectious Disease) since at least one-third of all
women with cervical cancer never developed CC. The remaining two-thirds are infected with over a dozen different strains of HPV.
The human papilloma virus tends to infect younger, more sexually active women with an average age of approximately 20 years. CC on the other hand is a disease afflicting older women usually detected between
the ages of 40-70 years. Based on these observations zur Hausen calculated a highly improbable “latency” period of between 20 to 50 years. Additionally, the HPV virus does not reactivate when a tumor appears.
zur Hausen postulated that HPV caused a genetic mutation which eventually produced the tumor. But each leftover piece of the virus caused different irrelevant mutations. In addition, cervical cancer grows from one
single cell which begs the question of why millions of other infected cervical cells never develop into tumors.
HPV causes papillomas (genital warts) on young, sexually active adults. The warts are not malignant and may appear or disappear almost overnight. They typically disappear spontaneously as a result of antiviral immunity.
But cancers, especially solid tumors, usually develop more slowly over time. CC begins as a benign hyperplasia. Most hyperplasias regress and disappear, but occasionally one may develop into a dysplasia, or a larger growth of
abnormal cells. In certain instances a dysplasia may develop into a neoplasia, or cancer. A small percentage of these neoplasias will become malignant and develop into cervical cancer.
It has been proposed that dysplasias may actually encourage the growth of HPV. It is interesting to note that equal numbers of men and women have genital warts, yet penile cancer in men is exceedingly rare.
A cancer virus that infects both men and women equally should produce equal numbers of tumors.
It is thought that the rampant use of oral hormonal contraceptives by females, as well as the documented increase in female smokers, may be factors influencing the development of CC. Oral contraceptives contain
powerful sex steroids that have direct effects upon the function of cervical cells, and may explain the superficial “correlation between CC and the number of sexual contacts a woman has had. Since men do NOT use oral contraceptives it may explain the rarity of penile cancer. Finally, CC is
not contagious.
The study by Merck & Co., Inc., evaluated women between the ages of 9-26 years. Although it is not unheard of that a young woman is diagnosed with CC, it is rare. One would not expect to find women in this age
population developing CC. I am not aware of any valid study which proves conclusively that HPV causes CC.
So, as a parent, if you are worried about your daughter developing genital warts, by all means get the shots. I would not, however, make the assumption at this time that the vaccine will prevent her from eventually developing CC.
Does this mean that it IS mandatory for all atheists?
Last I heard, testing on 9 to 12 yr old girls only began at the end of 2006. (in Japan) Merck reps were pushing this stuff in 2005.
“I think all young boys and men should be vaccinated immediately”
And have at least a bi-weekly manicure.
The men would get HPV, the women would be immune to the effects. For now. Until it mutates. If both men and women were vaccinated, both sexes would be immune and it would cease to be passed along.
This seems lost on you.
We could start with Merck's antibiotic contributions to WWII that saved countless lives; their development of steroids including a ten year search for DECADRON - a subject I'm sure an expert on.
Anti-Hypertensive medications, anti-rheumatics including INDOCIN, the most powerful NSAID ever developed. Childhood vaccines that kept you from measles, rubella, chickenpox, mumps; hepatitis A and B vaccines, treatments for African river blindness; cholesterol lowering agents, anti-migraine agents, DIURIL and HYDRODIURIL diuretics, black-widow anti-venin to save lives and on and on and on.
You have some nerve for a no-nothing a-hole to criticize one of the greatest scientifics companies to ever exist! Get lost stupid!
You madam, are a moron! I hope you never have to rely any Merck product to save your miserable life!
If our Gov was really concerned about preventing disease, theywould close the friggin borders and discontinue shipment of products from China, Mexico and India (to start with.)
Take it easy, friend.
“Why would anyone not want their daughters and mothers and sisters to be protected as best they can from cancer?”
Go swathe them all in bubble wrap and keep them imprisoned at home.
Meanwhile, feed them every drug that comes down the pike to “protect” them.
By all means, keep the pharmaceutical industry healthy and happy.
You and your NOW buddies are a bunch of kooks!
I get a little agitated when it comes to public health.
I agree that at this time you should have the choice with this immunization. There is still more to learn.
If the facts show that this is a safe vaccine and there is a significant public health need, (vacinating your child will not only protect her but other girls from cancer) there may be sufficient cause for manditory vaccination.
The more I consider the vaccine, the less sure I am that is should be mandatory under the current guidelines.
I agree that it should be given prior to menarche, especially is it can live under the nails. It would be a shame for girls to become infected prior to vaccination.
I think that if it is to be mandatory, it should be given to both girls and boys. To make it truely a public health project, the goal should be eradication of the more carcinogenic variations of the virus. As I was ruminating in my prior posts, it became more clear to me that even though you may be protecting 90% of the vaccinated girls from cancer, you are not protecting the unvaccinated girls and the nonresponding girls. To get herd immunity, it would require manditory vaccination of both boys and girls.
The question is, which better serves the public good, letting a few 10,000’s women a year die and treating a few hundred thousands a year(a rough estimate, mortality was decreasing the last time I checked) or vaccinating all children.
The arguments for this disease are a little different from some of the other diseases that require manditory vaccination. An outbreak of some diseases can cause huge disruption of civil operations. It is very easy to show harm to the public is greater that harm to the individual. With this vaccination, the outcome is years later and causes more individual harm.
I may just walk away from this thread. This issue is a little to close to my heart. You seem to be thoughful, and I’m sure that you will make the right choice for your daughter.
One final thought, remember that an individual CHOICE will always affect more than the individual.
OK, I guess I’m not ready to walk away from the thread just yet. I have spent years in public health and I am very glad that there are laws regarding public hygeine and vaccinations. In a world where there are people wanting to take my choice away in how I worship, how I protect my family, how I can use my land while on the other hand justifying the deaths of 10’s of millions of babies based on the right to choice, things get very confusing. What I know was prior to the public hygiene movement, the average lifespan in the US was about 40, after public health laws and vaccinations were instituted, the average life span increased to about 65. This is prior to allopathic medicine developing antibiotics, blood pressure medicine or any of the technology we assume has blessed us with long relatively healthy lives. I would hate to see us lose that because of the same arguments that gave us abortion on demand.
If you made it through that diatribe bless you, and forgive me.
There is no such thing as a vaccine that works on women that won't work on men.
...as far as I know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.