Posted on 01/28/2008 4:41:18 PM PST by wagglebee
IOW, it is NOT casually transmitted. What is the incidence of transmission through nonsexual contact?
The problem with this whole thing is that cervical cancer is not that common to begin with. Only a portion of cervical cancer is believed to be connected to certain strains of HPV. While it appears that the vaccine is capable of immunizing against those specific strains, it is not yet shown that it does indeed prevent cervical cancer from developing. It is inferred that the vaccine should help reduce the incidence of HPV *caused* cancers, but since cervical cancer takes so long to develop, there’s no evidence that it actually does what it’s intended to do. The vaccine has not been around long enough.
Not to mention that cervical cancer can be picked up easily with a simple, quick routine PAP smear.
One of the problems with this vaccine is that it is going to give women a false sense of security. This will not prevent the spread of other sexually transmitted diseases and will not eliminate the need for PAP tests to detect the other types of cervical cancer. Lest you think that that kind of mindset is not going to happen, it already has as evidenced by a female politician who had her daughter vaccinated and proudly proclaimed that now she doesn’t have to worry about her daughter dying from cervical cancer.
************************************************************
Pol has plan to nix cervical cancer
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1782347/posts
“”This is a revolutionary opportunity to eradicate a disease that kills many, many women. As a mom, I’m grateful my daughter will not have to fear having cervical cancer,” said Paulin, whose 18-year-old daughter just received her first shot.”
************************************************************
The other issue is that this vaccine is supposed to prevent unnecessary deaths from cervical cancer. Every unnecessary death from the vaccine nullifies one death from the cancer.
This disease can have serious consequences no doubt, BUT it is not an epidemic that is easily transmitted and so requires, or justifies,the drastic steps taken so far in implementing the vaccine.
It’s mandated here, but I do have to give Gov Eyebrow some credit, as much as that galls me, in that he amended it so the opt-out is much easier than the REPUBLICANS attached to it.
Needless to say, Jax won’t be getting it in the summer of ‘09 heading into 6th grade.
Pol has plan to nix cervical cancer
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1782347/posts
“”This is a revolutionary opportunity to eradicate a disease that kills many, many women. As a mom, I’m grateful my daughter will not have to fear having cervical cancer,” said Paulin, whose 18-year-old daughter just received her first shot.”
*************************************************************
This lady is wrong on so many counts that it’s not funny. It’s not going to eradicate any disease if only half the population is getting it, and likely the ones most likely to need the vaccine (the promiscuous) are going to be least likely to get it.
Her daughter still does have to fear getting cervical cancer as the vaccine doesn’t cover all the causes; it’s not an *anti-cancer* vaccine as it’s touted to be.
The other thing that’s alarming is that people that ignorant of what’s going on are the ones making the laws requiring US (the unwashed masses) to get the vaccine. I don’t want someone that out of touch making my health care decisions for me, thank-you.
Jeez, 6th grade. Sound of one hand clapping for your governor!
Jax should get a letter shortly, if she hasn’t already. I forget when I got it out the mailbox! We were huddling indoors for several days last week :-).
99.3% of all cervical cancer in women is caused directly by HPV infection. OB-Gyns are looking at dis-continuing the PAP smear screen if HPV is NOT present. Many low income healthcare clinics have already moved in that direction.
My daughters have had the vacine. It will save many lives.
I’ve heard there’s kinds of cancers you don’t even want to know about that they can get from HPV, also.
So just why is everyone so hot to push this vaccine and use it on women? Why not men? Is there something the makers of the vaccine don’t want us to know about? Are they watching and waiting to see what side effects occur in the women first? Using them as guinea pigs, like they want to by mandating in for use on age groups that it wasn’t tested on?
Have you seen any black helicopters lately? :)
Yup. 6th grade. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against the availability of this vaccine, I just don’t want it mandated, especially for age groups for which there has not been proper study.
She got the letter, and I have been on her that she has really fallen down on her side of the pen-pal issue :) (of course, mom has not exactly been up to snuff lately on correspondence, but she needs not know that :^)
Um...yes. Merck is working on exactly this angle as we speak. I don't suppose that will comfort you. It doesn't me.
It's just marketing. It's an easier sell for women with the immediacy of HPV for women. Have no fear, Merck will no doubt try to get an indication for males as well.
If you make it voluntary, no doubt a lot of people will get it. If they get it, then that will reduce the incidence of the disease in the population as a whole. I’m in favor of the vaccine, just not the idea of making it mandatory. I say let’s see what can be done first by simply making it available. Then if it turns out to be the godsend that some claim, we can decide whether it should be mandatory, like the polio vaccine was.
It does no good to overstate a good argument.
That doesn’t fit with information posted in links on other HPV vaccine threads.
So you have data to support your statement that that high of a percentage of cervical cancer is directly *caused* by HPV?
IIRC, it’s only certain strains that the vaccine works against.
Eliminating PAP smears is a mistake. They’ll find that out when the lawsuits start coming in.
I think you have to be careful with numbers and Gardasil. First, it only protects against 4 strains of HPV, which are estimated to cause 70% of cervical cancer cases. While that is still quite a few, it is also important to note that there are only about 10,000 cases of cervical cancer per year in the U.S. Of course, if you or a loved one are affected, numbers don’t matter. But exposing millions to a relatively untested vaccine, just to avoid a small chance of cervical cancer seems a bit extreme. Luckily for me my daughter is young enough that there will be much more data available when I need to make this decision.
MM, you bring up some EXTREMELY pertinent questions, which no one seems to want to answer.
I realize we have different positions in regard to smoking, but it ticks me off to no end that the anti-smoker cartel continues to insist exposure to someone else’s tobacco smoke causes cervical cancer -— even though they know over 95% of cervical cancer is caused by HPV.
I hadn’t heard that about the accusation about second hand smoke and cervical cancer, but that sure seems like a stretch to me.
I really doubt that second hand smoke has much more effect on people that the immediate one of causing asthma attacks and breathing problems in some people. But then, it isn’t just cigarette smoke that does that, any kind of smoke would do that to people who are smoke sensitive.
I totally agree with you that it is a stretch, and I’ve been saying it for nearly 10 years.
I’m not trying to hi-jack this thread on that implausibility, but I was once actually told by an anti-smoker the reason smoking and SHS exposure causes cervical cancer is that people that hang out in smoke-filled places (i.e. bars) are generally promiscuous.
I have no problem with this vaccine being available, I just do not want it mandated in the same way that casual contact contagious disease vaccines are, such as polio and measles.
Thanks for the pings, you two. :)
The government has no right to “mandate” something that can’t be passed to someone else by sitting next to them in a classroom.
It also has no right “mandating” something that will severely injure and kill a percentage of those getting the shot.
I'm still trying to figure that one out.
It didn't perhaps occur to that person that it might have been the promiscuity and not the SHS? Matter of fact, I think that's what the person said whether or not he realized it.
Maybe.....
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.