Cancer vaccine being forced on girls

[ScreamingEagle]

Maybe every double-super-sized-cheeseburger and cigarette pack should come with the same contract? Hmmm.... this idea has legs!

A contract to eat a hamburger? You just want to take the crazy legal crap to new heights?

How about just leaving the responsibility for health care on the individual. Or on the parents in the case of their kids. Why do you keep thinking the government needs to get involved?

 

[BATMAN]

Silly opponents of this vaccine seem completely oblivious that Hepatits B (for which we have been vaccinating kids against for about two decades) is also a sexually transmitted disease.

Where's the outrage over it?

Some info jasendorf:

Hepatitis B can be transmitted through any contact of contaminated blood or body fluids with breaks in the skin or mucous membrane of an uninfected person. Hepatitis B is primarily transmitted through sexual contact and needle sharing — much like HIV transmission — or through blood transfusion. In some areas of the world, Hepatitis B is endemic and may be transmitted to offspring who become chronic asymptomatic carriers. If you were born in a high-risk area, you need to be evaluated to determine if you are a Hep B carrier.
SOURCE

I'd say that makes it a tad different.

 

[jillian]

Massachusetts - of all places - has a plan that doesn't involve coercion. What's wrong with a little rational discussion on the topic, that doesn't careen into raging, anti-Christian paranoia?

I was neither raging or paranoid. Rational discussion? I think it's irrational, not to mention immoral, to NOT give our daughters this vaccine.

If this vaccine prevented prostate cancer, no one would be having this discussion.

We have all kinds of vaccines that are required. And you still haven't addressed the point. Other than the abstinence only proponents, what type of argument can be made against vaccinating our girls?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I was neither raging or paranoid. Rational discussion? I think it's irrational, not to mention immoral, to NOT give our daughters this vaccine.

If this vaccine prevented prostate cancer, no one would be having this discussion.

We have all kinds of vaccines that are required. And you still haven't addressed the point. Other than the abstinence only proponents, what type of argument can be made against vaccinating our girls?

One very good reason: It is new and unproven and has not yet been accepted by the general public. Why force school children en masse to be guinea pigs?

 

[musicman]

I was neither raging or paranoid. Rational discussion? I think it's irrational, not to mention immoral, to NOT give our daughters this vaccine.

An interesting opinion, to which you're certainly entitled.

If this vaccine prevented prostate cancer, no one would be having this discussion.

Oh, goody - angry gender politics, my favorite. Only problem is, speculation and projection are useless here; the situation is entirely different.

We have all kinds of vaccines that are required. And you still haven't addressed the point. Other than the abstinence only proponents, what type of argument can be made against vaccinating our girls?

"Our girls"? Who is this, "we" - the village it takes to raise a child, again? I haven't actually come down on one side or the other of this question yet, but I think parental rights vs. government intrusion carries some definite weight here. One of our other members posted what I thought was a pretty good question:

Quote:
Originally Posted by boedicca View Post
Why shouldn't parents decide if their daughters should be vaccinated for something which is not contagious via casual contact?

...and I don't think it's been seriously addressed yet. What say you, jillian?

 

[wiggles]

If this vaccine prevented prostate cancer, no one would be having this discussion.

What causes cancer of the penis?

A virus that can be sexually transmitted called human papillomavirus (HPV), particularly HPV 16, has been connected to the development of cervical cancer. Since antibodies against HPV 16 are present in over 60% of patients with cancer of the penis, HPV 16 appears to play a role also in causing cancer of the penis.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/cupp1/



I remember having polio vaccines forced on me. The horror. The horror!

 

[wiggles]

1 in 4 U.S. women infected with HPV (some of those infected may have even abstained from sex until marriage!)

Posted 2/27/2007 4:01 PM ET
By Lindsey Tanner, Associated Press

CHICAGO — One in four U.S. women ages 14 to 59 is infected with the sexually transmitted virus that in some forms can cause cervical cancer, according to the first broad national estimate.

The figure is mostly in line with previous assessments. The highest prevalence — nearly 45% — was found in young women within the age range recommended for a new virus-fighting vaccine, according to a report from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Researchers have estimated that 20 million Americans have some form of HPV. The study concluded that 26.8% of U.S. women are infected, a figure that is comparable to earlier estimates using smaller groups.

"We expected the prevalence of any HPV infection would be high and that's what we found," said CDC researcher Dr. Eileen Dunne, the study's lead author.

Just 3.4% of the women studied had infections with one of the four HPV strains that the new vaccine protects against. But that doesn't mean the vaccine should be written off, said Dr. Yvonne Collins, an assistant professor of gynecologic cancer at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

For one thing, Collins said, that relatively small percentage corresponds with a lot of women — about 3 million, according to the report. And it does not include those with past infections that have cleared up.

The number of women with HPV strains targeted by the vaccine was lower than in some previous, less comprehensive estimates. And the overall HPV prevalence among the youngest women studied, 14- to-24-year-olds, was substantially higher than in previous estimates, 7.5 million versus 4.6 million.

Dunne attributed those variations to different study populations and different HPV detection methods. She said the results should not be interpreted to mean infection prevalence has changed in recent years.

The new nationally representative report is based on vaginal swab specimens from 1,921 women tested in 2003-04.

The report appears in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association.

There are dozens of strains of HPV. Low-risk forms can cause genital warts and non-cancerous changes in cells in the cervix, and often clear without treatment. Several high-risk forms have been linked with cervical cancer.

Dunne said HPV prevalence is thought to be high in men as well, but none were studied.

An estimated 11,150 U.S. women will be diagnosed this year with cervical cancer, and about 3,670 will die from it. Numbers are much higher worldwide, especially in developing countries where Pap tests to detect cervical cancer are not routine.

The new vaccine, Merck's Gardasil, was approved last June for girls and women aged 9 to 26. It protects against two HPV strains believed responsible for about 70% of cervical cancer cases, and two other strains that cause 90% of genital wart cases.

Other vaccines are in the works to protect against other HPV strains, Collins said.

Women aged 20 to 24 had the highest overall HPV prevalence in the study, 44.8%. Prevalence increased each year from ages 14 to 24, then dropped off gradually, confirming that young, sexually active women face the greatest risk of infection.

The study underscores the need for young women to get vaccinated, and to get routine Pap tests, said Dr. Howard Jones, a gynecologic cancer specialist at Vanderbilt University.

Dr. Richard Haupt, medical affairs director in Merck's vaccine division, said the study "reinforces the idea that Gardasil would have great benefit" for young women.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

[musicman]

1 in 4 U.S. women infected with HPV (some of those infected may have even abstained from sex until marriage!)

The bolded portion is YOUR emphasis, correct?

 

[wiggles]

yes. that's why that's not part of the link to the article, where you can see the original headline.

 

[jillian]

An interesting opinion, to which you're certainly entitled.

Thanks. I think.

Oh, goody - angry gender politics, my favorite. Only problem is, speculation and projection are useless here; the situation is entirely different.

Again, no anger. But it IS about gender politics. Same as fighting drive-through mastectomies. The fact is that this cancer only affects women. And the only reason that the religious right doesn't want it is because of some warped idea that if a girl can't get cervical cancer, that's going to somehow give her carte blanche for promiscuity.

I've yet to hear a legimate reason NOt to give this vaccine. Yet, I've heard so many "family values" types arguing that it shouldn't be given at all.... to any girl. (you know, the same folk who don't believe in morning after pills).

"Our girls"? Who is this, "we" - the village it takes to raise a child, again? I haven't actually come down on one side or the other of this question yet, but I think parental rights vs. government intrusion carries some definite weight here. One of our other members posted what I thought was a pretty good question:

No such objections to government "intrusion" arise from other types of vaccines. Again, the sole objection to this is from the abstinence only crowd. You have yet to address that point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boedicca View Post
Why shouldn't parents decide if their daughters should be vaccinated for something which is not contagious via casual contact?

...and I don't think it's been seriously addressed yet. What say you, jillian?

I think if it can keep girls from getting cervical cancer, I think it's puritanical to deny them the vaccine. I have no problem with it being made mandatory and I'm sorry if it offends certain sensibilities. The fact of the matter is that girls are going to have sex anyway. Not giving them the shot will only keep them from avoiding HPV. If they wait until after they're sexually active to get the vaccine, at the time they can make their own decisions, it will be too late. Then you can ask a young woman whose cervix has been cut out because of cancer if she thought that her parents should have given her the vaccine.

 

[musicman]

yes. that's why that's not part of the link to the article, where you can see the original headline.

Thank you. I just wanted to be very clear on that, as I didn't see abstinence or monogamy mentioned in the article proper at all.

 

[wiggles]

Yeah I thought it was worth mentioning. I mean for 25% of girls and women between the ages of 14 and 59 to have HPV surely some of those are nice Christian girls.

How about that link to penile cancer, btw?

 

[musicman]

Yeah I thought it was worth mentioning. I mean for 25% of girls and women between the ages of 14 and 59 to have HPV surely some of those are nice Christian girls.

Right - but I saw nothing in the article that addressed behavior, one way or the other. Some of the infections clear up by themselves; others cause cancer. What effect do have promiscuity/abstinence-monogamy have on the equation? We're not given to know - not in this article, anyway.

How about that link to penile cancer, btw?

It's entirely possible that neither gender is built for promiscuity - or, as the humorist P.J. O'Rourke observed, "The sexual revolution is over, and the microbes won".

 

[wiggles]

HPV infections don't "clear up by themselves." It's a virus. Viruses stay with you forever. And in this case, usually without symptoms.

BTW, it isn't all or nothing - abstinence vs promiscuity. Lots of people who aren't total whores have more than one sexual partner in their lifetime.

 

[musicman]

HPV infections don't "clear up by themselves." It's a virus. Viruses stay with you forever. And in this case, usually without symptoms.

From your link: There are dozens of strains of HPV. Low-risk forms can cause genital warts and non-cancerous changes in cells in the cervix, and often clear without treatment. Several high-risk forms have been linked with cervical cancer.

BTW, it isn't all or nothing - abstinence vs promiscuity. Lots of people who aren't total whores have more than one sexual partner in their lifetime.

Right, but - again, from your link - the highest degree of prevalence occurs in women 20-24. It is certainly possible that multiple sexual partners IN THAT SHORT SPAN could have an effect - a measurable one, taken side by side with monogamous girls of that age. Again, we're not given to know - not in this particular article, at any rate.

 

[dilloduck]

Let the parents decide.

 

[musicman]

Let the parents decide.

Exactly. I don't see anything that convinces me the government should be able to compel parents to vaccinate their daughters for something that is not - as boedicca said - "contagious via casual contact".

What I DO see is a pharmaceutical company that can't wait to bury its snout in the public trough.

 

[jasendorf]

Some info jasendorf:
I'd say that makes it a tad different.

In most parts of the world, the primary transmission of Hep B is through sexual contact. It isn't in the U.S. because we have things like sex education and widespread condom use and, oh yeah, A VACCINE!

 

[dilloduck]

Exactly. I don't see anything that convinces me the government should be able to compel parents to vaccinate their daughters for something that is not - as boedicca said - "contagious via casual contact".

What I DO see is a pharmaceutical company that can't wait to bury its snout in the public trough.

and if it bombs then I assume the government will assume the financial liability for whatever unknown side -effect somes along?

 

[musicman]

The fact of the matter is that girls are going to have sex anyway.

THAT'S what I was waiting for!

Suppose the ones with the "backward Puritannical attitudes" have it right after all. Suppose the best way to minimize the risk is to practice abstinence-monogamy - particularly during the age span of the highest prevalence. I haven't seen any hard proof to the contrary - have you? Suppose young girls are given good, sensible information, by parents who love them, and have not been stripped of their right to raise them as they see fit. The old "they're going to do it anyway" copout might not be such a foregone conclusion, then.