HPV vaccine

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by nbs2, Feb 12, 2007.

  1. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #1
    Only because I know the people on these boards well enough, I'm putting this here to begin with.

    Just wondering how people feel about the proposed mandatory HPV vaccination law fever that is starting to sweep the country. It is interesting that a lot of folks on both sides of the aisle are for or against - position doesn't seem to correlate to party membership.

    It is a serious dilemma, and I'm concerned about it for obvious reasons, but glad I won't be a guinea pig parent in this mess.
     
  2. MongoTheGeek macrumors 68040

    MongoTheGeek

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Location:
    Its not so much where you are as when you are.
    #2
    I was thinking that it might make sense to give it boys as well, at least non circumcised ones. (HPV also causes penile cancer in uncircumcised men.)

    As for politics I am downright reactionary.
     
  3. Sdashiki macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
    #3
    60+ varieties of HPV in the human population.

    only a couple of which cause external symptoms, like warts.

    all cause an increased risk of cervical/penile cancer.

    if you have had sex, unprotected, you probably have HPV.

    should you care even if you are a girl?

    probably not.
     
  4. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #4
    Why not?
     
  5. janey macrumors 603

    janey

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Location:
    sunny los angeles
    #5
    Cervical cancer may be one of the lesser most common cancers for women in this country, but it is mostly because of increased awareness of the cancer in general, of pap smears and other preemptive tests, and increased coverage in the media (like for gardasil). Mandatory vaccination just adds to that - what's the harm in lessening the number of fatalities caused by this cancer (which is still in the thousands per year in the US alone)?

    However, the only reasons why I am supporting mandatory vaccination is because:
    1. if you hate it so much, don't want your daughter to be a guineapig, don't want to explain sex or even imply that this vaccine might mean that sex is okay, you can opt out, like with any other vaccine.
    2. it lowers cost because of government funding and raises awareness because it is mandatory - when the whole series takes 1 year and $360 at full cost, and is only advertised by Merck at certain target audiences at this moment (which is most certainly not your average very-lower-class family that stands to benefit most from gardasil), those two matter a LOT.

    If you see http://planning.cancer.gov/disease/Cervical-Snapshot.pdf it has a few choice sentences about the ethnicities of the women affected...they happen to be ones that may most benefit from this vaccine being affordable and available.

    Anyway on a sidenote, even if it turns out that this vaccine only works for a few years...it's still worth it to me and I'm planning on starting the series the next time I visit my dr. Merck with the FDA and many other groups has worked to get this vaccine reviewed in every way possible at this moment - now all there's there to wait for is testing for longevity and any nasty long-term side effects. When all they could come up with is a miniscule 0.03% increased rate of arthritis and 17 deaths not caused by Gardasil after years and tens if not hundreds of thousands of people already...well then.

    I'm already sexually active (and under 18, and well, all the dates floating around right now - most common seems to be 6th grade -...lots of teens are already sexually active by then and so the earlier the better), I already am quite informed, and I'll just add this as one more way towards safer sex - not saying or implying that this means no barriers or unprotected sex with someone already with HPV, just saying that I'll feel safer than not if the condom breaks or something knowing that gardasil can help. Nothing's 100% (condoms at 80%...nuvaring at 99%...plan b for an additional teeny bit), so I'm not going to assume I won't have HPV if I am ever in that situation, but I'd feel better knowing that the chances are low. And I'd get tested. But still.
     
  6. Sdashiki macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
    #6
    because you probably already have HPV, and didnt even know it.

    which means it matters not, because without symptoms, there is nothing you can do, nor will it change anything about you. perhaps maybe you may get cervical cancer, but it can be argued you would get that anyway, regardless of HPV status.

    that is just so wrong. condoms are 99.8% effective when used properly. 80% is like a slap in the face of any safe sex advocate who tries to get teens to use condoms. your age shows with your lack of knowledge in this field.

    dont worry about HPV, youll get it most likely in your lifetime and have NOTHING happen to you.
     
  7. deputy_doofy macrumors 65816

    deputy_doofy

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2002
    #7
    With all due respect to the religious people who disagree with pushing this vaccine, please keep your religion away from me. As corrupt as it may be at times, medical science actually helps. Religion does nothing. Abstinence doesn't work. And God only cures you one way - death. When you're dead, all your ailments are gone.
    YOU rely on God. I'll rely on medical science. We'll see who wins.
     
  8. Sdashiki macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
    #8
    wait, what?

    this has something to do with religion? why? because of premarital sex or something?

    you cant be serious, cuz if people are, i dont even want to hear from them.

    condoms dont have sex, people do.
     
  9. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #9
    Haven't you heard? Everything has to do with religion! Apparently.
     
  10. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
  11. janey macrumors 603

    janey

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Location:
    sunny los angeles
    #11
    That's pretty rude. When used properly, yes, but **** happens, and one needs to take that into consideration. I never disputed the 99.x% figure of perfect condom usage.

    As much as proper condom usage has been hammered into my head for the past few years, there's plenty of room for mistakes and accidents. Condoms break, condoms slip off (and I had a partner who preferred polyurethane condoms which slipped off pretty often). You can't expect everyone to be able to use condoms perfectly and effectively every single time.
     
  12. spork183 macrumors 6502a

    spork183

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    #12
    The Vaccination is a good thing. The creepy thing was Merck (?right manufacturer?) trying to use 3rd parties to push a mandatory vaccination through. I'm sure it was all for the good of the nation and had nothing to do with their bottom line.

    I want my daughter to get the vaccination. There is simply to much risk to not get it. Funny thing though, I never heard anything about its use for boys until this thread. Should work on them too. Heck, just mandate it for everyone. I'll be back after I buy my pharmaceutical stock...
     
  13. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #13
    i can see the medical arguments and the economical arguments,
    but the religious/sexual argument?!?

    it's a frigging vaccination!

    what is wrong with this people?

    do they want to abolish tylenol as well?
     
  14. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #14
    Well, we all know kids aren't having sex because they're afraid of HPV. It only stands to reason that if they offered a vaccine, more kids would have sex. Sex is bad, so those who get STDs/HPV deserve it.

    Obviously I'm kidding, but there are people out there who actually believe that.
     
  15. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #15
    This is the typical "damned if you do"/"damned if you don't" argument.

    If a school mandates the vaccination, parents are going to bitch.

    If they succeed in getting it abolished, who is going to sue when the child gets cancer?

    Likely that same damned parent, and that child's family (her husband and kids), for NOT preventing a preventable form of cancer.

    This will play out like the Ford airbag suits have been playing out -- Ford offered them as an option and got sued because people died who didn't get them, and got sued by people who suffered injuries when Ford put them in all the vehicles.

    So there will likely be lawsuits by people who don't get vaccinated, and those that get vaccinated and have complications.
     
  16. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #16
    It is kinda like that isn't it. You can opt out, just like any other vaccination, or school program. Believe it or not, Sex-Ed isn't mandatory at all either. What's nice is, those who choose to opt out, to not let their kid get the vaccination or take the class, also have to sign something releasing the schools' liability. If something goes wrong, the school can blame the doctor and/or the company that made the vaccine because they had the right to opt out.

    Win/win for the school.
     
  17. sushi Moderator emeritus

    sushi

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    キャンプスワ&#
    #17
    This reminds me...

    For our younger members, remember that you only have one body for your entire life. Something that seems innocent or unimportant now can adversely affect your future lifestyle. So try to take care of your body! :)
     
  18. Sdashiki macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
    #18
    gimme a break. not literally though :D

    to claim 80% for condom's effectiveness against STD is just begging for a rebuttal. YES sh** happens, but that doesnt drop the effectiveness of the device by almost 20%. What it does is prove IMPROPER use of a condom.

    Breakage, slips off, etc, are all IMPROPER usage. No ifs, ands or buts. Well, maybe a few butts....BIG ONES! (Cable Guy)

    Anyway, honestly, other than abstinence, you could do no better than a condom.
     
  19. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #19
    well the other thread is old, but i'm conflicted on this one.

    1. if continued studies prove this drug to be successful at its goal, it should be readily available and lots of info should be provided about it.

    2. the florida version of the vaccine requirement (still being written, but i heard an interview with the state congressman working on it there) does NOT mandate it. there is an opt out thing where the parents can sign a form saying they received the info and don't want their kids getting it, and that's that. according to a doctor on the same show (NPR yesterday... to the point maybe?), opt out programs end up getting the vaccine to something like 90% of people, whereas opt in programs are more like 25%. with stats like that, it's a no brainer.

    3. don't know enough about the specifics of the TX case to comment, but i'd hope that if it is finalized, there will be an opt out, just based on a persons' rights..

    4. i don't trust merck and don't like the idea of them having the only control over this drug. and we all know that money makes politicians move, so it's kidding ourselves to say that gov't makes decisions, not the drug company. now, i'm not saying that the gov't wouldn't make this decision anyways, on its own, but just noting the conflict i have with this particular good vs. bad.

    5. 5 things in a list is better than 4
     
  20. janey macrumors 603

    janey

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Location:
    sunny los angeles
    #20
    so shoot me for not being more clear :p

    i've already ****ed up a couple of times, but these things are clear, and this is what i meant:
    1. 99% give or take up to 1% effectiveness in preventing pregnancy is with perfect usage
    2. Typical use (which includes improper usage like having it slip off, someone purposefully poking holes in it, the condom breaking, putting on the condom incorrectly) drops that number 10-20%, which would give you something around 80-90% in preventing pregnancies.
    3. Nobody is perfect, so short of being some complete nazi and never having accidents happen to you ever, the figure from #2 is more applicable than the figure from #1, this is no matter what you're trying to accomplish by using a condom.

    A lot of that is thrown out the window when you're talking about STDs and as this thread is related to a certain STD rather than pregnancy... So technically my 80% figure wasn't far off from the mark. For HIV/AIDS the figure is around 85% and that's probably the most accurate figure around, and for HPV nobody can find any increased protection due to use of a condom but there haven't been many studies about it. Which shows that I'm semi uninformed about STD protection with condoms as I had no idea rates were this low for some of them, but..

    Of course, my resource (http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/research/topics/STI/pdf/condomreport.pdf) happens to be almost 6 years old, so...maybe things might have changed a bit.

    GlaxoSmithKline is working on their own HPV vaccine (only 2 strains vs. Merck's 4) and they're seeking FDA approval this year.
    The difference between the two strains is that Gardasil protects against the two strains causing the majority of hpv-related (wait thats like almost all of them) cervical cancer in addition to the ones that protect against genital warts, while GSK's only protects against the same two strains in Gardasil that have to do with cervical cancer.

    I'm not happy about Merck's involvement with this, but something has to be done to offer this vaccine to low-income families with daughters.

    That being said, I got my first Gardasil shot a couple days ago :D :D :cool:
     
  21. Sdashiki macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
    #21
    Condoms are 99.9% effective at preventing pregnancy and STDs (most).

    you have not stated anything to change that other than improper usage.

    why you want to belittle its effectiveness, I dont understand
     
  22. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #22
    why you want to argue semantics, i don't understand.

    janey made it pretty clear what she is basing her numbers on, and acknowledged the higher % with proper us.

    to ignore the reality of a decent amount of people not using them properly doesn't change that reality.
     
  23. Sdashiki macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
    #23
    not using them properly does not reduce the effectiveness of the product.

    it reduces it thru YOUR use of it. the product was 99.99% out of the box.

    seriously, im not trying to argue but I find it really disenchating when someone underage is already giving a bunch of reasons why "condoms arent 100% effective" when in REALITY, they are.
     
  24. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #24
    wow. in reality, they are not. if only because you just now claimed 100% vs. "99.99%"... are you pulling your statistics through a broken condom or what?
     
  25. Sdashiki macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
    #25
    fine whatever. im not going to argue the finer points of condom use.

    use em, dont abuse em.

    nit pickin my posts instead of actually continuing this discussion gets us nowhere.

    stay abstinent. id hate to have to teach YOUR kids.
     

Share This Page