HPV Vaccine

It seems as though as many as 20 states in the United States are looking at enacting laws that would require all girls in their states, roughly age 11 to 13, to be vaccinated against the HPV Virus. Which is the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus that can cause cervical cancer.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed an executive order earlier this month mandating the vaccination in his state and Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine is considering weather or not to sign legislation which would be the first in the country to require all sixth-grade girls to be vaccinated against HPV.

In Virginia students can opt out of vaccinations with medical or religious exemptions; the HPV vaccine also would come with a proposed exemption for philosophical reasons.

As a mom, even though i am normally as non-political as they come, i am watching this very closely...

What are some thoughts that others have about this? Any other countries doing this? Just curious... thanks!

The idea of medication being mandatory scares me silly. I can see the 'greater good' type argument which is now doubt used, but this makes my spine creep.

cariad

I think it's another .gov intrusion that has not had the proper amount of testing much less being forced into being by the money based drug industry.
making it mandatory is only good for them and the political kickbacks what's next that we mandatorily wear condoms 24/7 or vaginal cups?

Yeah, not so crazy on this. How much testing have they actually DONE for this vaccine? 20 years down the road what effects will it have? How do we know that this won't cause MORE cases of the disease to break out? I'm all for preventative (NOT MANDATORY) treatments for cancer and other serious diseases, but I'd like to see extensive studies released first. I also do not believe that the government has any right to say what we should or shouldn't be vaccinated against. I know that children now are already given the MMR shots before they're allowed to enter school. As a (hypothetical) parent, shouldn't I be given the choice to have my child vaccinated?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfscout

I think it's another .gov intrusion that has not had the proper amount of testing much less being forced into being by the money based drug industry.
making it mandatory is only good for them and the political kickbacks what's next that we mandatory wear condoms 24/7 or vaginal cups?

---

Why not just go for mandatory chemical castration, unless you can prove that you are in a suitable relationship, financially secure, no physical or psychological illnesses and above average IQ.

cariad

edit: Thinks basic understanding and appreciation of history should be compulsory for everyone in positions of power.

Australia was considering something similar to this recently I believe. While I think that the general idea is a good thing (prevention of the disease, that is) I would definately want to see extensive studies done on it first before any government considered making it mandatory. Its invasive and morally unacceptable.

The medication may be part of the answer but to make it manditory is also scary to me, when you make anything manditory, it tends to scare the public, the goverment should simply expalin it benenfits it's downside if any and let the ultimate decison to take the medication up the parents of the girls involved,

simply put, more governement INFORMATION but les intrusion into it's actualy use, let it be afamly decision not a goverment mandate, i believe most parent in this country (United States) are intelligent enough to make the right decvsion on their child takingtihs medication withoutthe government ordering or forcing them to, i believe it is reffferd to "Freedom Of Choice"?? you rmember that concept don't you

Part of the arguments that have been used in VA (where i live) is that the vaccine promotes promiscuity. i do NOT believe for a moment that having my daughters vaccinated against HPV promotes promiscuity. i believe as a parent it is my job to educate my daughter enough to make that decision based on ALL the facts, etc. So, to me... that argument isn't a valid.

It has also been stated that instead of having an "opt out" option the legislation should be written so that it has an "opt in" option. Therefore not making it mandatory but working to educate the public on it and then allowing them the option... this is more preferably but i still see problems, on both sides, of this.

And the one thing i don't understand... if i can "opt out" based on philosophical reasons WHY even make it mandatory? And who is the one that is going to determine that my "philosophical" reasons are valid?

Cancer has touched my family in several ways and i am the first to advocate for prevention, etc. on most health topics. But, as sheepish said, this has not been extensively tested (six years total i think)... so how safe is it really?

Anyhow... any other opinions? Is there anyone for it?

as outrageous as this may sound i wonder if this is a government/pharacutical compay effort to simply make money, the xcrrent adminstration loves working with with companies as they will not allow medicare D medication prices to be negotiate for lower prices, i am on medicare D and have been told the compies providing me are now asking that i pay more out of pocke for the meds i need, which defeats the puprose of Meidcare D.
I frimyl believe the MANDITORY idea is simply a play with the companies and our goverment allowing BIG BUSINES dictate what "MUST" be taken i agree with just_annie, who is to determine philosopgical believes of a family,this is a private family matter, what they believe in and do not believe it let families decide this not the governemnt or pharacutiacl companies and testing in just 6 years. most medication they test and talk about in the news they say if approved it could be 10 years before all tests are complete and the FDA makes a decsuon, why only 6 on this??
I remember recently about a year ago they were talking about a pndemic or bird flu, th gornment rushed to make sure all medication was needed, suddely this "scare" dissapeared, i have not heard anything recently about a pademic ofthe bird flu either.
Cancer has touched me a well, i lost my bestfriend to cancer 1 years ago on March 2, but the docotors also told me nothing could have saved them as there are so many caners around and no i do not believe tking the edication or not taking it will lead to promiscuity, either couples wll sleep together or they will not, the medication will not have any effect on anyones sexual behavior, the AIDS threat never did, yes epole are a bit more cautious but nodoby i know of has given up sex in fear of contrating AIDS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cariad<U_E>

Why not just go for mandatory chemical castration, unless you can prove that you are in a suitable relationship, financially secure, no physical or psychological illnesses and above average IQ.

cariad

edit: Thinks basic understanding and appreciation of history should be compulsory for everyone in positions of power.

---

yeah why not make breast removal mandatory.. or hell go ahead with mandatory histerectomy at , oh hell, guess and say 22?

small smile. :evil:

I'm not a big believer in mandatory anything. I do not like the way the American government tries to legislate my right to choose what I do with my body (or the bodies of my children, if I had daughters).

That said, nearly all vaccines have side effects. Since I know the discovery of the linkage between HPV and cervical cancer are relatively recent, and thus, so is the HPV vaccine, it's long term effects and consquences cannot be predicted.

Also having said that, does anyone want to discuss the consquences of not having the vaccine? Treatment for cervical cancer is not inexpensive. In terms of costs (to you, the consumer and to your insurance provider, which is ultimately passed on to you), the vaccine is cheaper than treating the cancer. Right now, having done minimal online research into it, the side effects of the vaccine appear to be minimal. The side effects of HPV and potentially cervical cancer can be serious.

I'm taking the shot, folks. Plain and simple. True, the long term consequences are unknown. But heck, I could be hit by a bus tomorrow, too. But that is my choice. Everyone is entitled to make their own--or at least they should be.

Just my 2 cents.

^firefly^ , Are you going to be tested for the virus first since they also say 1 in 4 have it already >??

AS much as I disagree with it being mandatory, and, boys and girls, that is quite alot, I'm thinking of getting the shot. In no way does this mean I am promiscuous, as I am still a Virgin for all intents and purposes. But there may come a day when I desire to be sexually active. And when said day arives, I would like to remain disease free.

I think the government has its best intrests at heart with this motion, namely, its checkbook. Our best intrests would be served by long term intensive studies. that being said, if this vaccine has the potential to wipe out this particular form of cancer, is it worth the wait? I think we find our selves in somewhat of a catch 22 situation.

Mandatory things are frightening, and its definately worth research before giving oneself over to medication, of any sort. But, like I said earlier, given the option, I would probably take the shot.

not sure about the validity of this, but i had heard that HPV can also causes penile/anal cancer and genital warts in men. so why aren't they wanting to vaccinate boys/men as well?

i don't believe it should be mandatory, but once my daughter is old enough...and we've discussed it thoroughly with her doctor, i would consider having her vaccinated.

i probably would get vaccinated too if i weren't already too old to get the vaccine. but just because i would get it and get it for my daughter doesn't mean it should be a mandatory vaccination. ~shrugs~ just my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by just_annie

Part of the arguments that have been used in VA (where i live) is that the vaccine promotes promiscuity. i do NOT believe for a moment that having my daughters vaccinated against HPV promotes promiscuity. i believe as a parent it is my job to educate my daughter enough to make that decision based on ALL the facts, etc. So, to me... that argument isn't a valid.

---

i agree...no way in hell does getting vaccinated against HPV promote promiscuity. that has to be the stupidest concept i've ever heard. helloo?????? there are still TONS of other STDs out there that you CAN'T get vaccinated from! it's not like some girl is going to be all like "oh! i can't get cervical cancer now? ok lemme see what i can do about drumming up a few STDs instead...herpes? aids?" i mean seriously. ~shaking my head~

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baby girl(W)

not sure about the validity of this, but i had heard that HPV can also causes penile/anal cancer and genital warts in men. so why aren't they wanting to vaccinate boys/men as well?

---

It's not known if the vaccine is effective for males. There are ongoing studies to see if it will be helpful for them as well. Hopefully, it will. A vaccine that can ward off a certain type cancer? Who wouldn't want that for their child.

Wolfscout,

You actually posed a really good question, and since I wasn't sure, off the top of my head, I checked with my doctor. According to her office, they only do a HPV test if you have an abnormal PAP test. If your last PAP screen was normal, they you are highly unlikely to have HPV. The nurse also told me something I didn't know--I'm not eligible for the vaccine. Currently, it is only indicated for women/girls ages 9-26. She also indicated that you must have a normal PAP test or take the HPV DNA test (which I think is a blood test, but I may have misunderstood).

In reading up on it online, it seems further studies are being done to push the approval age for the vaccine out to 45, but the FDA has not approved expanded limit, yet. I also found the following statistic frightening:

"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. About 9,710 cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the U.S. [and] [a]bout 3,700 U.S. women will die of cervical cancer in 2006, according to the American Cancer Society."*

However, the following was a bit more comforting:

"Most women with HPV infection don't develop cervical cancer. Reports from clinical trials, to date, show Gardasil to be safe."*

I also found out:

"[The drug company that makes the vaccine] is also 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."*

and

"The FDA's decision doesn't automatically make the vaccine part of the CDC's recommended vaccine schedule."*

Anyway, I'm up to 4 cents, now.
(* according to WebMD)

[QUOTE=tessa;250354]

Quote:

---

It's not known if the vaccine is effective for males. There are ongoing studies to see if it will be helpful for them as well. Hopefully, it will. A vaccine that can ward off a certain type cancer? Who wouldn't want that for their child.

---

Honestly at this point Tessa, i wouldn't. i don't feel there are enough answers between the pro's and the con's. It may ward off that one certain type of cancer but there is not enough research (from my current understanding) to determine what the long term effect would be. So, while it may prevent cervical cancer it may increase their risks for something worse...

i realize that the same concept could be applied to several different examples, etc. and i fully understand that the world is not preplanned or fool proof... but if i have my choices between the two i would rather deal with the one that i have more information on (at least at this point) and that would be the cancer...

By the time my daughters get old enough for the vaccine, another 4 to 6 years, my opinion may have changed. i may have more information and the "long term" worry may be put to rest. But, if i had to decide in the next hour, i wouldn't do it for them...

That might be an incorrect parenting decision down the road but once more that gets us back to the "nothing is preplanned or fool proof" concept....

I hate when government intrudes in our private lives. They do so much of it already, we don't need more.

Well . . . . . you all probably know by now my take on rules and authority so I won't belabor that point of this conversation.

No one ever said that government was good for the people. Government tends to be good to the group currently in power which is usually less than representative of the general population.

Is it a money making scheme? All I can say is that the maker of the vaccine spent an obscene amount of money lobbying the legislature in Texas to keep the governors mandate in place. All, of course, in the name of good citizenship and public health.

Is it intrusive. OF course it is. REmember, that the only control a government has over the people it governs is the ability to make each person a criminal. Until there are enough rules, laws, codes and mandates so that a normal everyday individual cannot function without becoming a criminal, the government still doesn't have control.

Consider that the groups that left England and Europe to come to this continent were running from laws and regulations that made it impossible for them to live, do business or even worship without interference from what was considered at the time to be a liberal and forward thinking government. Where the hell are we gonna go this time???

Ok...here's my two cents worth.

I had HPV. I developed cervical dysplasia, one stage before full blown cervical cancer. I had a total hysterectomy when I was 34, to save my life so that I could be around for my kids when they grew up. I was lucky, because they found it before it was too late, before it was full blown cancer, before it had spread.

If they had a vaccine when I was younger, I would have had it. As it stands now, I am having my daughter vaccinated for it when she is old enough. And if, somewhere down the line, they develop a vaccine for males, my son will be vaccinated as well. I do not want my children to have to go through that fear of losing their own lives over something they can prevent.

Now, this is not to say that I won't teach them about other STDs, that I won't encourage them to use safe sex methods to prevent STDs. I won't let the thought of "Oh, my kid's vaccinated, she's safe" enter into the picture, because I am not a fool. Nothing is ever fool-proof, nothing is ever guaranteed. But by all that is holy, I will do what is in my power to keep my kids safer than they would otherwise be.

And as for mandatory vaccination - it is mandatory for all school-aged children to be completely immunized before entering school, barring exceptions of allergy to the vaccine or religious grounds. We don't bat an eyelash at that...what makes this any different? Is it because of the fact it falls under the purview of sex that we raise a fuss?

Perhaps I'm choosing to ignore the government stepping in on this issue, and maybe that's a little naive of me. But...I would rather look at the overall issue - the issue of health, rather than the idea of Big Brother watching over me.

In my humble opinion, I think it's silly to reject the vaccine out of hand, just because someone else says it should be done. Maybe it's because of my experience that I have this opinion. But, as I said, it's just my two cents worth.

....end rant....

I keep seeing everyone use the word "mandatory" regarding this vaccine. However, Gov. Perry's order provides for a very simple opt-out procedure for parents who don't want their girls to get the vaccine. To me, that means the government is not infering unduly - the government is sending parents a strong message "we believe this vaccine is likely to benefit your daughter's health, so unless you believe otherwise, she should get this vaccine." For parents who aren't informed or don't care, the opt out procedure uses the government's judgment. For parents who object to the vaccine, the parent's judgment is followed. This makes sense to me and seems to be the proper role for government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by riverwindsong

Ok...here's my two cents worth.

And as for mandatory vaccination - it is mandatory for all school-aged children to be completely immunized before entering school, barring exceptions of allergy to the vaccine or religious grounds. We don't bat an eyelash at that...what makes this any different? Is it because of the fact it falls under the purview of sex that we raise a fuss?

---

The one difference with the other vaccines is that i DID research them before my children received them. They had all been around a fairly long time, and had extensive testing on them.... i was educated, knew what the potential side effects were, etc.

For me it isn't an issue of it falling under the purview of sex.... it isn't even so much the government regulation of it. Not sure i can explain it... but it feels wrong/dangerous to every parental instinct i have. This doesn't happen often but when it does i will do whatever i have to to protect my children from anything that produce those feelings in me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDeSade

Consider that the groups that left England and Europe to come to this continent were running from laws and regulations that made it impossible for them to live, do business or even worship without interference from what was considered at the time to be a liberal and forward thinking government. Where the hell are we gonna go this time???

---

Actually.. i've got plans to stowaway on the first offplanet spacial flight after 2012. lmao. looking hard for Niburu. grins.

Wolf,
That is about the only option left. . . I keep waiting for some off the wall billionaire to announce plans for an interstellar project . . . Im gonna sign up

Ok guys...I don't know how many of you know, but I'm the person in charge of the immunizations clinic at my clinic. I routinely give, and have received 2 doses of the HPV Vaccine. I will post two links towards the end of my post that will give you official information on the vaccine itself.
Here is what I know. HPV affects about 80% of sexually active women, myself included. I was lucky in the respect that the cervical changes that HPV caused were caught before they could move into cancerous changes. I went through the necessary procedures to have it removed, and have been ok ever since. HPV is incurable. It is a virus that has many many (i think like 30+) different forms, some that cause cervical cancer, some that cause genital warts. There is not a type that does both. The vaccine (Gardasil is the trade name) protects against 4 different strains of the disease that cause cervical cancer. It does not protect against types of the vaccine that causes genital warts. The vaccine has been in research for 10+ years, and in human testing for around 6 years. The vaccine can not, i repeat can not, give you the virus. The vaccine does not contain the actual virus, but, from what i've been told, contains only the viral capsule that encases the virus. This enables your body to form antibodies against the disease without actually being exposed to it.
Now the obvious question is why would I get the vaccine if I've already had the virus? Because the likelihood of me being exposed to all four strains is slim to none. So, I may be carrying one strain (it goes dormant, but never truly goes away completely) but not the other three, so the vaccine would be effective for the other three. The only side effect that I've experienced from the vaccine is that it made my arm sore and a small knot formed under the skin where it was given for about 2-3 days. This is a normal side effect of any vaccine, not just Gardasil.
Anyway, I'm going to shut up now. Here are a few reliable links that you can use to find out more information about both the disease and the vaccine. Also feel free to PM/IM me anytime if you have ?'s. If I don't have the answer, I will find it for you.

Here is the link to the vaccine information statement for the vaccine itself...which i just saw that two of the hpv types cause both warts and cervical changes...my mistake.
http://www.immunize.org/vis/hpv.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vaccine/hpv/hpv-faqs.htm

http://www.fda.gov/womens/getthefacts/pdfs/hpv.pdf

http://www.immunize.org/hpv/

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/stdhpv.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by usafmedic22

Ok guys...I don't know how many of you know, but I'm the person in charge of the immunizations clinic at my clinic. I routinely give, and have received 2 doses of the HPV Vaccine. I will post two links towards the end of my post that will give you official information on the vaccine itself.
Here is what I know. HPV affects about 80% of sexually active women, myself included. I was lucky in the respect that the cervical changes that HPV caused were caught before they could move into cancerous changes. I went through the necessary procedures to have it removed, and have been ok ever since. HPV is incurable. It is a virus that has many many (i think like 30+) different forms, some that cause cervical cancer, some that cause genital warts. There is not a type that does both. The vaccine (Gardasil is the trade name) protects against 4 different strains of the disease that cause cervical cancer. It does not protect against types of the vaccine that causes genital warts. The vaccine has been in research for 10+ years, and in human testing for around 6 years. The vaccine can not, i repeat can not, give you the virus. The vaccine does not contain the actual virus, but, from what i've been told, contains only the viral capsule that encases the virus. This enables your body to form antibodies against the disease without actually being exposed to it.
Now the obvious question is why would I get the vaccine if I've already had the virus? Because the likelihood of me being exposed to all four strains is slim to none. So, I may be carrying one strain (it goes dormant, but never truly goes away completely) but not the other three, so the vaccine would be effective for the other three. The only side effect that I've experienced from the vaccine is that it made my arm sore and a small knot formed under the skin where it was given for about 2-3 days. This is a normal side effect of any vaccine, not just Gardasil.
Anyway, I'm going to shut up now. Here are a few reliable links that you can use to find out more information about both the disease and the vaccine. Also feel free to PM/IM me anytime if you have ?'s. If I don't have the answer, I will find it for you.

Here is the link to the vaccine information statement for the vaccine itself...which i just saw that two of the hpv types cause both warts and cervical changes...my mistake.
http://www.immunize.org/vis/hpv.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vaccine/hpv/hpv-faqs.htm

http://www.fda.gov/womens/getthefacts/pdfs/hpv.pdf

http://www.immunize.org/hpv/

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/stdhpv.htm

---

No, I believe the whoe issue here is simply where the vacination should be manditory or left as to family matter, I believe everyone knows how serious a situation it is, but what I believe we aredebating is whether the government should make the vacine a manditory shot or whther the decsiob to vacinate should be elft up the the family and their doctor, I do notbelieve anyone doubts how serious the illnes can be and is, but as stated des the governemnt or everyoneto take the vacine or does the government left familes decide thisi ssue

How is a mandatory HPV vaccine any different from an MMR vaccine? Which none of you seem to mind.

Quote:

---

Why not just go for mandatory chemical castration, unless you can prove that you are in a suitable relationship, financially secure, no physical or psychological illnesses and above average IQ.

---

Why bother. People tend to marry those of similar IQ/education level anyway.

i think it's a fantastic idea if it saves lives, and anyone who objects to it (as some pundits have) on the grounds that it might encourage promiscuity, i refute this with a) who ever refused to have sex because they were worried about HPV? It's not going to make more people fuck and b) is it really better than women die just because they enjoyed sex? The misogyny in that is just incredibly disgusting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~*crimson_flower*~

i think it's a fantastic idea if it saves lives, and anyone who objects to it (as some pundits have) on the grounds that it might encourage promiscuity, i refute this with a) who ever refused to have sex because they were worried about HPV? It's not going to make more people fuck and b) is it really better than women die just because they enjoyed sex? The misogyny in that is just incredibly disgusting.

---

Lol, just imagining in the moment of heat, while tearing each other's clothes of, the guy pauses and asks her - "Do you have HPV?"

They make other vaccinations requirements for school children. So why not this one? Who knows maybe someday they will find that it can be passed some other way besides sexual contact and even if not who would want their sisters, daughters or mothers to die from this awful disease? Take it from me, losing your mother when she is only 36 is a painful experience.
P.S. or at any age I'm sure.

I see where you are coming from, and actually, I'm not opposed to them vaccinating the way you say.

I have actually been diagnosed with HPV, the simple fact that the person who gave it to me didn't know (because males have no way of being tested) is a scary thought for most women --and men, I'm sure.

Luckily, it is high risk, and a very small amount of women actually end up with the cancer. In most cases, it ends up dying off....

HPV, per se, is not an STD. Most of humanity carries it... and, unfortunately, if introduced into the vagina, it can trigger cervical cancer. I say it's not an STD... no more than influenza is an STD... which can also be introduced into the vagina via sexual contact. (That's not to say the medicos, or more likely the politicians, won't reclassify it as such...)

We all carry millions of viruses that do no harm... or the incidence of harm is so low that they've never correlated the virus to any serious condition.

However, there is now so much computational power available that many otherwise tenusous relationships are being observed... but some are so slight that it will be many years before they can be clinically 'tested' to determine their validity.

None-the-less, when we do get information that even a low risk association has been made, then why not do something that could ensure your long term health. In general, I'm pro-vaccines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

HPV, per se, is not an STD. Most of humanity carries it... and, unfortunately, if introduced into the vagina, it can trigger cervical cancer. I say it's not an STD... no more than influenza is an STD... which can also be introduced into the vagina via sexual contact. (That's not to say the medicos, or more likely the politicians, won't reclassify it as such...)

We all carry millions of viruses that do no harm... or the incidence of harm is so low that they've never correlated the virus to any serious condition.

However, there is now so much computational power available that many otherwise tenusous relationships are being observed... but some are so slight that it will be many years before they can be clinically 'tested' to determine their validity.

None-the-less, when we do get information that even a low risk association has been made, then why not do something that could ensure your long term health. In general, I'm pro-vaccines.

---

I must say, I like your approach better on this topic. Although to me it's really just another label or something that I could potentially pass on to any of my partners... Or receive again in the future after ridding myself of it....