HPV vaccine and your child's life

[Mark of Zorro]

I don't like to be up front and forward with my topics, and a big reason is because as soon as I do that, many lose the point in a flood of memories, extraneous information, and previously installed propaganda. On the other hand, when I am not up front, some people seem to think I am trying to pull a fast one.
Oh well, this time I will be up front, even if as long winded as ever.
Recently Michael Douglas stated the cancer he had a few years ago (cured BTW, but with a strong possibility of coming back) was caused by HPV which he claims he got from oral sex. (Cue low brow uninformed comments...or not).
Well, that announcement led to a lot of talk. A few points: correct me if I am wrong, but it is as yet unknown whether certain types of HPV actually cause cancer. Some HPV is linked to cancer, but its not the same. Next, more than half of the U.S. population has some form of HPV, and further, most have no symptoms and don't even know.
Now, the big thing that came up was HPV vaccines to prevent these types of HPV linked cancers. Okay. The first logical thing to say is, considering what I have already stated, that it is UNKNOWN if HPV causes cancer. And even if it did, how can anyone be sure that it will prevent HPV cancers since these cancers will not form until a person is around the age of Michael Douglas, who was about 65 when he got cancer? Was the time machine invented while I was not paying attention?
Okay, all that aside, I read a report on Guardasil, an HPV vaccine. It was a few years old. And what it said was that every month, 1 person dies from this vaccine, 1 suffers a debilitating disease from it (talking paralysis here) and 2.7 suffer life threatening symptoms.
Since the FDA recommends this sort of vaccine for before sexual activity begins, its a whole lot of prepubescents getting this shot.
Now, consider, this is not small pox we are talking about where huge numbers of children were dying already. There is just no comparison. To give your child this shot is not to save them from fairly high odds of death within the next ten years, but rather to try and save them from a most likely curable cancer some 60 years hence. And so it sounds TOTALLY INSANE to me to give a child or teen this type of shot. Can you even imagine burying your child before he or she has even had a chance to live, all because of an attempt to prevent a disease that would have come, if at all, at the end of their life??? Its just plain madness!
But people don't see it that way. It seems to me they actually think big pharma is trying to do them and their kids a favor.
Well, what do you think?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

What is really scary is that there were actually bill put forth to state legislatures requiring that girls be vaccinated to attend school. Most failed, but one passed in Virginia and is in effect.

Come on now...its not like one girl is going to casually infect people...this is not head lice we are talking about.

 

[BrianLewis]

I would have to agree with you on this one. I did read something about this quite a few years ago, and if memory serves me correct, there are specific types of cancer that are only obtainable through having intercourse with multiple partners. The cancer you are talking about seems more like the result of an STD infection. I can't say if it's the same or not.

Personally, I would not vaccinate my child over a disease that can be avoided in the first place. That aside, there have been so many findings about "approved" vaccines, inoculations and drug therapy programs that have caused far worse problems for the patient than the disease, or the chance of disease, itself. I would not be surprised if they found 5-10 years from now that this vaccine itself would increase chances for cancer more than the chance of contracting HPV from someone else.

There are certain infections that remain dormant for long periods of time, or infections that only cause cancer after prolonged exposure. One, which I can't recall the name right now, infects the intestine and consumes the glucose from the matter moving through the intestine. After many years of the organism being attached to the intestinal wall, the tissue becomes damaged and is more prone to becoming cancerous. It's not because they are guessing about the origin, it's likely they just find the virus associated with the type of cancer. I suppose that is how they know the vaccine works as well, considering that it takes so many years to develop into cancer. They would just test to see if it killed the associated virus or not.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Over all, a good post BrianLewis, but I have to point some things out:

there are specific types of cancer that are only obtainable through having intercourse with multiple partners.

One need only have intercourse with someone who had one other partner that had it. Your statement is a bit misleading. One could have intercourse with 100 people, and if none of them had it, neither would you.

And I also think you are getting at support for monogamy. And while I don't have anything against monogamy, you cannot enforce it, so its often peeing into the wind. You can preach it and preach it until you are blue in the face and people have for centuries. But that dog won't hunt. We can never know who has broken the code, so best not to count on it. And trying to enforce it is a cure that is worse than the disease. Mostly I cannot even see the point of talking about it.

That said, I do preach one partner at a time, or even two, point being to be in control and know what is going on. No way I am going to be faithful to my wife cause she does not want to do it, and I am not really interested in her either. That said, I am not out of control picking up random women in a bars with beer goggles on. But my wife and I may go for a second child.

Personally, I would not vaccinate my child over a disease that can be avoided in the first place.

The situation being what it is, I don't think HPV is actually avoidable. So many people are going to crack for trying, and wind up making big mistakes. For me the point is that the disease (cancer) may simply not come. It is quite likely to die of something else in one's old age before it has a chance. And it won't come until old.

I

would not be surprised if they found 5-10 years from now that this vaccine itself would increase chances for cancer more than the chance of contracting HPV from someone else.

That reminds me. I also read the vaccine wears off after 15 years or so. Useless!

They would just test to see if it killed the associated virus or not.

Yup. Its the limit of their actual knowledge.

 

[BrianLewis]

I don't really feel like pushing monogamy on others. It's their choice how they want to live and all. My only point is the disease has to spread for people to get it, and that would be impossible if 2 individuals have never been with another partner. We would be neglecting a key aspect of the discussion if it were not brought up at all.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I don't really feel like pushing monogamy on others. It's their choice how they want to live and all.

Okay. Sorry, I think my choice of words and the tone of the rest of my post mislead you. I meant pushing as in suggesting, advising, selling, etc, not pushing on others. The rest of my post concerning that was just an exploration of the depth it can all be taken too, and how its rather hopeless, as far as this topic is concerned, to even bring it up.

So anyway, I did not mean to suggest you were pushing it on others, but I do take it that you suggest it as a standard of living, correct me if I am wrong.

My only point is the disease has to spread for people to get it, and that would be impossible if 2 individuals have never been with another partner.

Hmmmm....I think it would be unlikely but not impossible. For example, I think it is possible for a mother to spread HPV to her children just by kissing, and from there they can give it to a partner through oral sex. Again, correct me if I am wrong. There is a lot of information I find to be confusing about HPV (and for good reason. It seems this disease has been fear mongered and blown out of proportion to reality. Get to that in a second).

We would be neglecting a key aspect of the discussion if it were not brought up at all.

I think its a bit short of being key, but I don't mind bringing it up. Point being that the pointlessness aspect needs mentioning. Its an unrealistic expectation for starters, and those who make the effort are pretty much wasting their time, their humanity and their spirit, and doing the same by not sharing to others and society at large. Not accusing you, but a lot of people who preach monogamy then turn around and decry the results of the sexual desperation their idea created, such as pornography, prostitution and teen pregnancy. By no means do I believe in a sexual utopia, but only in a more sexually open, fluid and regular society can real stability be achieved on sexual matters.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

From the wiki on herpes about the disease mongering.

Herpes simplex was not always stigmatised. It was merely a cold sore in an unusual place until the 1970s. As late as 1975, a study of "Psychological morbidity in a clinic for sexually transmitted disease" does not mention herpes simplex because at that time, there was no significant morbidity problem (i.e. mental anxiety or illness) associated with the virus.[90]

Pedro Cuatrecasas states, "during the R&D of acyclovir (Zovirax), marketing [department of Burroughs Wellcome] insisted that there were 'no markets' for this compound. Most had hardly heard of genital herpes..." Thus marketing the medical condition – separating the 'normal cold sore' from the 'stigmatized genital infection' was to become the key to marketing the drug, a process now known as 'disease mongering'.[91][92]

Since the creation of the herpes hype, some people experience negative feelings related to the condition following diagnosis, in particular if they have acquired the genital form of the disease. Feelings can include depression, fear of rejection, feelings of isolation, fear of being found out, and self-destructive feelings.[93] These feelings usually lessen over time. Much of the hysteria and stigma surrounding herpes stems from a media campaign beginning in the late 1970s and peaking in the early 1980s. There were multiple articles worded in fear-mongering and anxiety-provoking terminology, such as the now ubiquitous "attacks," "outbreaks," "victims," and "sufferers." At one point the term "herpetic" even entered the popular lexicon. The articles were published by Reader's Digest, U.S. News, and Time magazine, among others. A made-for-TV movie was named Intimate Agony. The peak was when Time magazine had 'Herpes: The New Scarlet Letter' on the cover in August 1982, forever stigmatizing the word in the public mind.[73] Herpes support groups have been formed in the United States and the UK, providing information about herpes and running message forums and dating websites for sufferers. People with the herpes virus are often hesitant to divulge to other people, including friends and family, that they are infected. This is especially true of new or potential sexual partners whom they consider casual.[94]

 

[Tamayo]

I was vaccinated (I forget for what, really) a couple times when I was young, but I've since convinced my mother that it has the potential to cause a lot more problems than it solves, so my brothers are vaccine-free. What really bothers me is that we get so much discouragement and even attitude from doctors when we reject the vaccine -- Not only are most vaccines' effectiveness theoretical, they try and tell us that most people are vaccinated and that we're a threat to others.

It's funny, you'd think that if vaccines were effective and most people were vaccinated, I wouldn't be sent on a guilt trip for "endangering" people who have the immune system for it. Anyhow, I've about had it with cancerous and experimental medicine. It seems to me that people only eat up vaccines the way they do because of all of the obfuscation enveloping disease as a whole. I remember when the whole Swine Flu thing happened -- I'm not saying that it wasn't a risk, but I could count the people who died on one hand, and most of America decided that was reason enough to rush out and get their vaccine.

Not to mention, the risk we're talking about here is a choice. Screw the vaccines.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

It's funny, you'd think that if vaccines were effective and most people were vaccinated, I wouldn't be sent on a guilt trip for "endangering" people who have the immune system for it.

I really enjoy seeing illogical, conflicting statements exposed. Thank you!

I remember when the whole Swine Flu thing happened -- I'm not saying that it wasn't a risk, but I could count the people who died on one hand, and most of America decided that was reason enough to rush out and get their vaccine.

I don't remember anything about the swine flu, but this is pretty much what I was thinking with avian flu and SARS, and all those people wearing those damned gauze masks over their mouth and nose. Ship of fools.

Disease mongering...I think its a term we should all remember.

 

[Tamayo]

I don't remember anything about the swine flu, but this is pretty much what I was thinking with avian flu and SARS, and all those people wearing those damned gauze masks over their mouth and nose. Ship of fools.

Disease mongering...I think its a term we should all remember.

I'm bothered by the fact that people just won't learn, no matter how many times it happens. Every time we discover a new virus or disease, we need to stop the Earth's rotation and tilt it's axis to take preventative measures even though there isn't any evidence to suggest that it's a big deal in the first place, or that the "fix" has any solvency. And hell, it's not even just with disease. Look at Y2K, the ozone layer, Global Warming, etc.

I'm not really one for pointing fingers in directions I don't have facts for, but I could only imagine that this kind of crap is the same tactic that cheap magazines use to make a buck at the front of grocery stores -- Threats, lies, gossip and conspiracy for personal gain. After all, the vaccines do have to be paid for, and people do feel the need to tune into some news source to feel reassured that everyone won't be dead tomorrow. It's like a stupid, annoying trend, but it's embedded in our DNA. Bleh.

 

[FrustratedDave]

So , it is the general opinion that , saving the small percentage that either die from the vaccine or have serious side effects is far better than the possible lives the vaccine can save?

I had a similar debate about airbags. Airbags can kill or mame people, but they have saved far more than they have killed. So does this mean we should get rid of airbags? Are they considered life savers or takers....

 

[Mark of Zorro]

So , it is the general opinion that

3 of us Dave. Just 3.

saving the small percentage that either die from the vaccine or have serious side effects is far better than the possible lives the vaccine can save?

You can save one ten year old per month today, or, lets say 300 70 year olds per month 60 years from now, most of whom are about to die anyway from other causes. A further 700 per month will get HPV linked cancer and be cured. I will save the ten year old. Can't really see the point of trading him for hundreds on the brink of death.

I had a similar debate about airbags. Airbags can kill or mame people, but they have saved far more than they have killed. So does this mean we should get rid of airbags? Are they considered life savers or takers....

Its apples and automobiles. Completely different debate.

 

[Tamayo]

So , it is the general opinion that , saving the small percentage that either die from the vaccine or have serious side effects is far better than the possible lives the vaccine can save?

I had a similar debate about airbags. Airbags can kill or mame people, but they have saved far more than they have killed. So does this mean we should get rid of airbags? Are they considered life savers or takers....

The issue here is solvency. Most of the time, vaccines are created in mass amounts and sent out to the general public without there first being significant harm in the status quo, or any reason to believe that the vaccines will actually be of more help than cost. The same goes for experimental drugs. I'm not against all vaccines ever, but I AM against pumping children with potentially cancerous (or generally dangerous in any other way) concoctions when we're not totally sure that it's necessary.

That isn't to say that I don't think that preventative measures are important to have available to us, but the people who produce these vaccines have proven time and time again that most of these "potential epidemics" were just unnecessary scares. This is why I brought up all of the stupid "End of the World" scares that we've had in the past -- People let their imaginations get to them and they jump to radical conclusions because of all the glittering generalities used when describing the issue in the media.

 

[BrianLewis]

So , it is the general opinion that , saving the small percentage that either die from the vaccine or have serious side effects is far better than the possible lives the vaccine can save?

I had a similar debate about airbags. Airbags can kill or mame people, but they have saved far more than they have killed. So does this mean we should get rid of airbags? Are they considered life savers or takers....

Well, the difference being that studying the effects that medicine has on a human body takes a vastly longer time to study than statistics over airbags. I am not concerned with the side effects that they know of now, I am saying that I have little faith that they are aware of all of the side effects.