Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Transmission of HPV in general
Health Science Report ^

Posted on 09/13/2011 1:09:14 PM PDT by xzins

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

1 posted on 09/13/2011 1:09:17 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; wmfights; All; Cincinatus' Wife

Thought it would be nice to look at the info available in the time frame that Perry made his Gardasil decision, circa 2007/8


2 posted on 09/13/2011 1:11:11 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Witches often get it.

Warty lot, them witches.


3 posted on 09/13/2011 1:12:43 PM PDT by humblegunner (The kinder, gentler version...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
... The presence of genital HPV types in plucked pubic and perianal hair suggests that there is an endogenous reservoir for HPV which may play a role in the recurrences of genital warts."

If you don't want genital warts, stop having sex with toads. It's that simple.

4 posted on 09/13/2011 1:14:27 PM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

which witch?


5 posted on 09/13/2011 1:16:22 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Although I have no love for Merck, if this vaccine can help prevent yet ANOTHER sexually tranmitted disease, why would anyone NOT want their child protected. I agree it should not be forced on Children, but to withhold this vaccine because you don’t like the delivery system is just plain cruel.


6 posted on 09/13/2011 1:17:25 PM PDT by Marty62 (Marty60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“Condoms offer little protection against HPV since any skin-to-skin contact can result in transmission of the virus.”

You almost never hear or read this.


7 posted on 09/13/2011 1:20:43 PM PDT by utahagen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marty62

The vaccine is formulated for four strains of HPV. There are over 20 strains of HPV. Therefore, yearly paps are still required to catch HPV regardless of vaccination.


8 posted on 09/13/2011 1:22:03 PM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun

Ofcourse. Any woman that doesn’t have Pap’s is asking for trouble.


9 posted on 09/13/2011 1:25:07 PM PDT by Marty62 (Marty60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All

I tried to highlight it in asterisks, but the first two paragraphs are from CDC

The following “Transmission in General” is from that website.

They seemed to parallel each other even though the info in the CDC report was 2004.


10 posted on 09/13/2011 1:31:25 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Marty62
Gardasil cover HPV types 16 and 18 that cause 70% of cases of cervical cancer. Gardasil also covers HPV types 6 and 11 that cause genital warts. In order of decreasing frequency of observation in cervical cancer are HPV 16, 18, 45, 33, 31, 52, 58, and 35 accounting for 91% of cases.
11 posted on 09/13/2011 1:33:11 PM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Marty62
Ultimately, we decided to have our daughter vaccinated but there were/are some legitimate concerns about side effects (not mental illness, though, as Bachmann claimed). As with almost all vaccinations, there are risk-benefit calculations to be made.
12 posted on 09/13/2011 1:33:47 PM PDT by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xzins

From the report:

“Genital HPV infection also may be transmitted by non-sexual routes, but this is extremely uncommon.”


13 posted on 09/13/2011 1:35:53 PM PDT by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

HPV Vaccine: State Legislation and Statutes

Which states were or now currently persuing HPV Vaccination legislation.

14 posted on 09/13/2011 1:40:10 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: riverdawg

Exactly, that is why parents should inform themselves as to all the pros and cons.

At the very least you need to know the side effects. What if it is a life threatening se. I have problems with some meds. I have to monitor very closely side effects.
More than once I’ve called the Pharmacy to have them tell me stop taking the medication and call your Doc.

WHY would someone not take that same precaution with their own CHILD.


15 posted on 09/13/2011 1:49:14 PM PDT by Marty62 (Marty60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Gardisil is one of these 'new' meds. I would never take or use an unproven med or vaccine. Look at the commercials for attorneys doing class action lawsuits. It is always a 'new' med.

10 years ago my doctor wanted me on Avandia the latest.in diabetes treatment. Look at it now! Instead of muting the commercials for most prescription meds especially the new ones they have more side effects than curative.

I fear this vaccine may be to sterilize our children versus saving their lives.

16 posted on 09/13/2011 1:49:26 PM PDT by Rapunzel (Run SARAH run)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: riverdawg; P-Marlowe; wmfights; Cincinatus' Wife

Transmission from more to less frequent

common: Promiscuous sexual contact
common: monogamous sexual contact with unaware infected partner
less common: oral sexual contact
less common: birth transmission
very rare: hair follicle
possible but unproven: object contact

It strikes me as a Dad, that my daughters have a chance of getting HPV, even if she isn’t sexually promiscuous. This is especially true if she thinks her husband is uninfected but he doesn’t realize he is or has lied about his own promiscuity.

I would worry about my daughters.

In short, I’d accept the immunization and not pursue the opt-out were I a resident of Texas. As it is, I’d recommend the immunization to them.

Since they can be infected through no unethical sexual activity of their own, then they need to be protected.

This does not advocate sexual activity for girls. It advocates caution.

Therefore, both Bachmann and Santorum are wrong. (Palin, too, if she piled on....and her kids would be prime examples of those needing protection.)

Bachmann claims to speak for the “little girls”...well, I speak for my “little girls” and the cancer is worse than Bachmann’s being down in the polls.


17 posted on 09/13/2011 1:56:07 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Shouldn’t that be a decision made by you and your physician? Why should a state government or the federal government have any input?


18 posted on 09/13/2011 2:04:04 PM PDT by abigailsmybaby ("To understan' the livin', you gotta commune wit' da dead." Minerva)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: abigailsmybaby; P-Marlowe; Cincinatus' Wife
The way this becomes a government issue is by virtue of transmission by other means than sexual.

Therefore, that makes it unknowingly communicable.

It's not the same as the flu, but it sounds more communicable than syphilis which has long been a legitimate target of government control. Nonetheless, this does show that someone could make a mistake on this and have it be based on over-protectiveness and not on big-government advocacy.

19 posted on 09/13/2011 2:40:41 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I’m against this being a mandatory vaccine myself, but where was everybody when every state mandated hepatitis-b vaccines and then started giving them one day after birth?


20 posted on 09/13/2011 2:54:32 PM PDT by triumphant values
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: triumphant values
The fact that the sheep were asleep before is not a reason to go back to sleep once we've woken up.

I'll be the first to admit I didn't think too much about vaccines until recently, but government at all levels has lost my trust, and I will question everything it tries to compel me to do.

In the same way I will question the statist record of every candidate, and anyone who wants my vote will have to earn it.

I don't trust any of them, and I doubt I ever will again.

21 posted on 09/13/2011 2:59:53 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Information.

It’s always a good thing.

Bump!


22 posted on 09/13/2011 3:00:04 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun
The vaccine is formulated for four strains of HPV. There are over 20 strains of HPV. Therefore, yearly paps are still required to catch HPV regardless of vaccination.

There are over 100 strains of HPV, some of which cause warts and some cause dysplastic changes. Two of the strains the vaccine guards against are the most virulent with regards to causing cancer; other strains cause cancer, but not as quickly, and some of the dysplasias never develop into cancer. I do not know the cross-reactivity of the vaccine with other virus strains.

23 posted on 09/13/2011 3:13:16 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: deport; xzins; All
HPV test might be better predictor of cervical cancer than Pap smear
24 posted on 09/13/2011 3:14:01 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Fair enough, but a weak moment was shown.


25 posted on 09/13/2011 3:30:35 PM PDT by rsobin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xzins

The question obviously is whether you as the parent should be making that choice—or if it should be mandated by the state because the drug manufacturer purchased access to the right pols.

I can’t fault Bachmann or Palin for going with the former rather than the latter.

As to the question re: Perry, it’s relevance is both his governing philosophy is very authoritative. He basically says he’s for any mandate that might save lives. (That’s still very Democrat-like despite his having switched parties, IMO) A second question is whether the long-held belief in Texas is correct that he is an especially avid practitioner of crony capitalism—and his Gardasil executive order is an example of that.


26 posted on 09/13/2011 3:43:15 PM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Marty62

“why would anyone NOT want their child protected”

You mean because there is absolutely zero chance of side effects everyone should get this?

If only life were so simple. Unfortunately there are always decisions to be made about risk versus reward. There are side effects from this vaccine.


27 posted on 09/13/2011 3:46:20 PM PDT by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Rapunzel; xzins; blue-duncan; wmfights
Look at the commercials for attorneys doing class action lawsuits. It is always a 'new' med.

90% of those lawsuits are fraudulent with bogus claims. If someone comes down with any kind of symptom after taking a new medication it is blamed on the "new drug" and then the lawyers circle like vultures.

Is it any wonder new drugs cost so damn much?

Don't judge the safety of a drug by the lawyers who hawk their services on daytime TV.

And why are you watching daytime TV anyway?

28 posted on 09/13/2011 3:55:38 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Thank you.
29 posted on 09/13/2011 4:24:47 PM PDT by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Trailerpark Badass

You are a smart American! I salute you!


30 posted on 09/13/2011 5:40:50 PM PDT by mazz44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: triumphant values
‘________where was everybody______?’

WE WERE HERE, in our community.
But all we did was watch while our daughters’ families refused the hepatitis-b, after reading some information.

However, 1 grandson, now 14, was given the injection in the hospital, after birth.
His parents’ requests were registered, but somehow this got thru. My daughter was beside herself with anger, but ultimately did nothing about it, except to say ‘you weren't supposed to do this.’ And was vigilant after that.

31 posted on 09/13/2011 6:58:49 PM PDT by USARightSide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: webstersII

‘There are side effects from this vaccine.’

Right, but our objections are being drowned out, mostly. . .


32 posted on 09/13/2011 7:03:45 PM PDT by USARightSide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Actually, they may both be right. Some vaccines are for more dangerous than good. The government relationship with pharmaceutical companies are just a little too cozy. There are many research documents out that challenge what government agencies are spewing. One below is an archive and written by Dr. Blaylock. And, no he is not a quack!

I sure hope this site has just been inundated by left wing operatives. I trust true conservatives would not rationalize and respond with this tyoe of certainty regarding government involved agency and universities.

http://www.whale.to/a/blaylock.html


33 posted on 09/13/2011 7:39:05 PM PDT by mazz44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Rapunzel

good thing you didn’t go on avandia! My mother did and it gave her congestive heart failure. of course after her symptoms started and i researched her new meds and found that avandia had that as a side effect she told her doctor about it and they thought we were crazy, silly little internet freaks. she took herself off of it anyway.


34 posted on 09/13/2011 8:21:14 PM PDT by annelizly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Cervical cancer, which is caused by HPV, is one of the 8th most common cancers for women in the U.S. Thanks to increased cancer screening, fewer women are dying than in previous years. However, the reduction of cervical cancer through HPV vaccinations would be dramatic. I would prefer that both sexes were immunized from HPV infection nation wide before they engage in sexual contact.


35 posted on 09/14/2011 12:36:51 AM PDT by jonrick46 (2012 can't come soon enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46

And sometimes our young women get HPV without inappropriate intercourse. It’s sad when hpv infects anyone, but for those who’ve done it right and STILL get hpv, that’s a crying shame.

And that’s why a gardasil vaccination is not a bad thing.


36 posted on 09/14/2011 4:59:19 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: xzins
“It strikes me as a Dad, that my daughters have a chance of getting HPV, even if she isn’t sexually promiscuous. This is especially true if she thinks her husband is uninfected but he doesn’t realize he is or has lied about his own promiscuity.

I would worry about my daughters.

In short, I’d accept the immunization and not pursue the opt-out were I a resident of Texas. As it is, I’d recommend the immunization to them.”

This is the same conclusion we reached, but one can't focus exclusively on the “benefit” (reduced chance of HPV infection) side. There are real risks (side effects) to the HPV vaccination, and these must be weighed against the benefits. And I think we all agree that this is a calculation best made by parents and not the state.

37 posted on 09/14/2011 11:22:27 AM PDT by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: riverdawg

I support the “opt out” instead of the “opt in” for these reasons:

The opt out says - this is serious and you need to think about it.

The opt in says - this is so insignificant that you can take it or leave it.


38 posted on 09/14/2011 12:22:52 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: riverdawg; P-Marlowe; wmfights; Cincinatus' Wife

I support the “opt out” instead of the “opt in” for these reasons:

The opt out says - this is serious and you need to think about it.

The opt in says - this is so insignificant that you can take it or leave it.


39 posted on 09/14/2011 12:23:12 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: xzins

It certainly does.


40 posted on 09/14/2011 12:35:56 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“The opt out says - this is serious and you need to think about it.”

Isn’t this best (and more credibly) said to parents and daughters by the pediatrician/family doctor rather than by some political hack or government bureaucrat?


41 posted on 09/14/2011 12:39:47 PM PDT by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: riverdawg

a doctor doesn’t have that kind of authority


42 posted on 09/14/2011 1:01:37 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: xzins
The whole point of the conservative antipathy to Obamacare is the belief that individuals and their physicians are more knowledgeable than the government about what is best-practice health care for those individuals. HPV isn't remotely like the other contagious childhood diseases for which the state mandates vaccinations.
43 posted on 09/14/2011 2:20:39 PM PDT by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: riverdawg; P-Marlowe

According to the data above in this thread, there are a number of ways a young person could become infected with HPV and not have been sexually active at all.

That makes it a disease that the state should have a real interest in. However, fair disclosure, I also think the state should be involved in controlling syphilis and gonorhhea, diseases that are not as communicable as is hpv.

Levels of interest could be:

quarantine
forcible innoculation
required innoculation
required innoculation with opt out
innoculation with opt in
public service recommendation.

I would place the plague at the worst level, quarantine. I would place the common cold as a public service recommendation. I’d make hpv a required innoculation with opt out.


44 posted on 09/14/2011 3:05:05 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I think we should require that everybody get the flu shot, including children or they can't got to school or work. After all people, including children, die from the flu every year. While we're at it, everybody has to have the Pneumonia vaccine also. Lots of people die from that. Just think of the savings in health care costs. /s/

I never thought I'd see the day when FR motto became “I'm the government and I'm here to help”.

45 posted on 09/14/2011 3:14:27 PM PDT by beandog (You can't elevate Perry by tearing down Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Can I expect you to answer with the whole truth? Here is the question for those who defend Perry’s use of EO to mandate the vaccine.

How is Perry any different on this kind of issue than Mike Bloomberg? Mayor Bloomberg mandates no smoking anywhere in his city. Bloomberg mandates no salt on restaurant tables. Etc etc. Cite: http://www.amny.com/urbanite-1.812039/bloomberg-s-salt-shakeup-1.1882403

What is the limit of limits on liberty and the choice of free adults in a free society balanced against Public Health “needs”?

Specifically how was Governor Perry’s emergency EO restriction on parental liberty, different than Mayor Bloomberg’s many assaults on the liberty of free adults in restaurants?


46 posted on 09/14/2011 3:24:46 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bvw

The difference is that smoking is not a communicable disease.


47 posted on 09/14/2011 6:48:41 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: beandog

I think the government has long had a legitimate role in public health. Personally, I think the early AIDS patients should have been quarantined.

So far as the way the country deals with any disease, it is a matter of risk assessment. On the one hand you have the probability of the danger and on the other hand you have the lethality/criticality of the danger.

If you have a danger that is highly probably and highly lethal, then you must act.

If you have a danger that has a low probability of occurence and a very low criticality, then you do nothing.

Interestingly, the big issue is when there is a low probability but a high lethality. (HIV would fit this) You need to act, in my opinion.


48 posted on 09/14/2011 6:57:19 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Oh? How do you define communicable? Elite statists like Bloomerg argue that a smoker or fan of salty food communicates the habit of smoking or eating salty food to others.

Do you deny that we humans communicate both bad habits and bad disease vectors to each other?


49 posted on 09/14/2011 7:00:40 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Cervical cancer is NOT high probability. And it is only deadly in the late stages of the disease.

Nor is having warts (HPV) a sure sign one will get cervical cancer. Less than 1 in ten. And even less is one does not have many sexual partners even if one already has HPV. Why? Because a promiscuous life style with many sex partners causes a plethora of challenges to the immune system.


50 posted on 09/14/2011 7:06:35 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson