Cervical Cancer Vaccine [Archive]

rivercrow

19 May 2006, 01:06 AM

I heard the suggestion that both sexes should receive this vaccination in their teens.

I think this is great news. Yeah, conservatives will think this is going to make more kids have sex. Conservatives are lucky to get sex. They want everyone to suffer sexless lives. Or DIE.

And get all those postmenopausal women on Premarin ASAP so they can stop being such moody b**ches.

rantmode=off

(I missed the NOW meeting this week.)

meshou

19 May 2006, 01:20 AM

It's an HPV vaccine, not a cancer vaccine. HPV, an STI which 80% of women and a similar number of men have by the age of 50, is THE cause of cervical cancer. You can't avoid it by being "faithful." Some people are probably BORN with it, it's so common.

This is being sold as a cancer vaccine because of the stigma associated with STIs, and because of how it might as well be a cure for it. This won't help at all with any other type of cancer.

attila_the_hunny

19 May 2006, 01:22 AM

This won't help at all with any other type of cancer.

And here I was worried the bald bandana look was going to be no more.

meshou

19 May 2006, 01:25 AM

And here I was worried the bald bandana look was going to be no more.Also, the pale flaky look?

I don't like how they're selling it, as it does give false hope to people who DO want to give up that look.

songbird36

19 May 2006, 01:43 AM

You'd have to vaccinate people before they become sexually active. As Meshou says, HPV is the cause, and like Herpes is incurable once you have it.

attila_the_hunny

19 May 2006, 01:50 AM

You'd have to vaccinate people before they become sexually active. As Meshou says, HPV is the cause, and like Herpes is incurable once you have it.

Which is why they want to give it to 12 year old girls.

rivercrow

19 May 2006, 01:58 AM

Which is why they want to give it to 12 year old girls.

And boys. Both sexes.

cafe

19 May 2006, 02:05 AM

Hmmm . . I'm a conservative and I really hope that all of my kids will marry before they have sex. Ideally, they would all marry virgins, too. But what are the odds? I certainly don't think my daughters or future daughters-in-law should have to suffer cancer and fertility problems over a mistake or the mistake of a partner, even if the mistake was sexual in nature. Don and I waited, but I remember how very hard it was.

I can't speak for all conservatives, but most of my conservative lady friends like sex a lot. I was always taught that it was a gift from God meant to be enjoyed. But of course, only with one's husband or wife.

I don't see why we wouldn't just add the HPV vaccine to all the other shots we give kids. It's not like we don't smear irritating stuff in their eyes the moment they are born on the assumption that their mother has gonorrhea.

Ivy

19 May 2006, 02:07 AM

I don't see why we wouldn't just add the HPV vaccine to all the other shots we give kids. It's not like we don't smear irritating stuff in their eyes the moment they are born on the assumption that their mother has gonorrhea.

And they get the Hepatitis B vaccine as babies, even though it's a blood-borne illness passed mainly through sexual intercourse. I don't really see why this is any different, except there's no illusion that you COULD get it some other way.

songbird36

19 May 2006, 02:10 AM

And they get the Hepatitis B vaccine as babies, even though it's a blood-borne illness passed mainly through sexual intercourse. I don't really see why this is any different, except there's no illusion that you COULD get it some other way.

Yes and the argument that vaccination gives girls (or boys) a green light to go out and be promiscuous at an early age is, frankly, ridiculous. Hep B is transmissible through bodily fluids isn't it? I thought that Hep C was the one that is solely blood borne..

attila_the_hunny

19 May 2006, 02:13 AM

And boys. Both sexes.

It's all about protecting the freshness seal, which is why young girls are the focal point.

attila_the_hunny

19 May 2006, 02:16 AM

Hmmm . . I'm a conservative and I really hope that all of my kids will marry before they have sex. Ideally, they would all marry virgins, too.

I seriously thought this was sarcasm until I read the rest.

cafe

19 May 2006, 02:17 AM

I seriously thought this was sarcasm until I read the rest.
For some reason that doesn't surprise me.

meshou

19 May 2006, 02:33 AM

For some reason that doesn't surprise me.Because your statement was ridiculious?

What are her chances? Twenty percent she won't get it, regardless of background. Bettert than a flip a coin chance YOU have it now.

You can get it from holding hands, using a toilet and being born, and being a virign does not protect you in the slightest. This is a HUMAN disease, not a sex disease, and wanting your precious to wait till marriage is no garauntee YOU didn't give it to her while changing her diaper, or her future husband didn't get it from his mom.

Ivy

19 May 2006, 02:39 AM

Yes and the argument that vaccination gives girls (or boys) a green light to go out and be promiscuous at an early age is, frankly, ridiculous. Hep B is transmissible through bodily fluids isn't it? I thought that Hep C was the one that is solely blood borne..

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/b/faqb.htm

How is HBV spread?
HBV is spread when blood from an infected person enters the body of a person who is not infected. For example, HBV is spread through having sex with an infected person without using a condom (the efficacy of latex condoms in preventing infection with HBV is unknown, but their proper use might reduce transmission), by sharing drugs, needles, or "works" when "shooting" drugs, through needlesticks or sharps exposures on the job, or from an infected mother to her baby during birth.

Hepatitis B is not spread through food or water, sharing eating utensils, breastfeeding, hugging, kissing, coughing, sneezing or by casual contact.

cafe

19 May 2006, 02:42 AM

Because your statement was ridiculious?

What are her chances? Twenty percent she won't get it, regardless of background. Bettert than a flip a coin chance YOU have it now.

You can get it from holding hands, using a toilet and being born, and being a virign does not protect you in the slightest. This is a HUMAN disease, not a sex disease, and wanting your precious to wait till marriage is no garauntee YOU didn't give it to her while changing her diaper, or her future husband didn't get it from his mom.

If that were the case the vaccine would be no good for the person receiving it. It would only be of any help for the woman's offspring. Is that what it is going to be for?

I *know* I've had at least one form of it because I had plantar's warts on my feet as a kid. Are there more details on what forms of the virus the vaccine will protect against? Everything I'm reading links the cervical cancer causing strain with sexual transmission. Maybe that's not the case. I'd be glad for some more in-depth links.

Besides. I said I thought all kids *should* have the vaccine.

meshou

19 May 2006, 02:50 AM

If that were the case the vaccine would be no good for the person receiving it. It would only be of any help for the woman's offspring. Is that what it is going to be for?It would only be for the next generation.

Say we have infected baby X who grows up into a good Christian woman, has a husband, then dies. Widower is vaccinated, and his non-vaccinated wife is safe.

Or, husband Y fooled around as a young man, but repented etc. If he was vaccinated, he didn't pick it up and give it to his wife, or if he was not, his vaccinated wife won't get it.

I'm glad you do think kids should get it. I'm appauled at parents who appently think that their babies ought to die if they don't make choices the parents like.

Ivy

19 May 2006, 02:51 AM

What are her chances? Twenty percent she won't get it, regardless of background. Better than a flip a coin chance YOU have it now.

I thought the pap test was for this. Pap = papilloma, right? If one regularly gets clean pap smears, isn't that basically a negative on there being HPV in one's cooter?

cafe

19 May 2006, 02:55 AM

It would only be for the next generation.

Say we have infected baby X who grows up into a good Christian woman, has a husband, then dies. Widower is vaccinated, and his non-vaccinated wife is safe.

Or, husband Y fooled around as a young man, but repented etc. If he was vaccinated, he didn't pick it up and give it to his wife, or if he was not, his vaccinated wife won't get it.

I'm glad you do think kids should get it. I'm appauled at parents who appently think that their babies ought to die if they don't make choices the parents like.
Exactly.

rivercrow

19 May 2006, 02:55 AM

songbird36

19 May 2006, 03:01 AM

Hey, cafeaulaitinfj--

Sorry about the conservative rant.

I just have a lot of troglodytes working with me. Some of these conservatives I work with think Bush is too left-wing. They're against sex ed in any form and support abstinance-only stuff. It's just frustrating.

:dont:

I saw a doco on towns in the US where the churches promote abstinence pledges. Apparently these towns have way above average rates of both STDs and pregnancies amongst teens. Funny that.

meshou

19 May 2006, 03:01 AM

I thought the pap test was for this. Pap = papilloma, right? If one regularly gets clean pap smears, isn't that basically a negative on there being HPV in one's cooter?A pap smear looks for signs you have or soon will have cancer. A positive pretty much means you DO have HPV (but since cervical cancer has atrocious survival rates, you worry about other things) , but a negative is no indication you don't.

I'm not sure they test for HPV. It'd be redundant to test a sexually active woman for it routinely.

lexiphanic

19 May 2006, 03:04 AM

I saw a doco on towns in the US where the churches promote abstinence pledges. Apparently these towns have way above average rates of both STDs and pregnancies amongst teens. Funny that.

Chicken or the egg.

Ivy

19 May 2006, 03:07 AM

A pap smear looks for signs you have or soon will have cancer. A positive pretty much means you DO have HPV, but a negative is no indication you don't.

I'm not sure they test for HPV. It's be redundant to test a sexually active woman for it.

I just looked it up. There's a test for HPV DNA in women, but currently no way to test for it in men, if I understand correctly. And the pap tests for abnormal cells which are the result of HPV, but don't always occur, so ye olde cooter could still be HPVized with normal paps. I think they only give the HPV DNA test if you get an abnormal pap test result.

rivercrow

19 May 2006, 03:09 AM

I thought the pap test was for this. Pap = papilloma, right? If one regularly gets clean pap smears, isn't that basically a negative on there being HPV in one's cooter?

A pap smear looks for signs you have or soon will have cancer. A positive pretty much means you DO have HPV (but since cervical cancer has atrocious survival rates, you worry about other things) , but a negative is no indication you don't.

I'm not sure they test for HPV. It'd be redundant to test a sexually active woman for it routinely.

Besides, wouldn't it be better to be able to avoid infection and sidestep the cancer dart than play chicken with the infection?

Ivy

19 May 2006, 03:15 AM

Besides, wouldn't it be better to be able to avoid infection and sidestep the cancer dart than play chicken with the infection?

Well, yes. I'm in favor of the vaccine. I just was under the (mistaken) impression that a clear pap result meant you didn't have HPV.

rivercrow

19 May 2006, 03:23 AM

Besides, wouldn't it be better to be able to avoid infection and sidestep the cancer dart than play chicken with the infection?
There must be an award for the most mangled cliches in one sentence. <_<

Nemesis

19 May 2006, 03:30 AM

Chicken or the egg.
Ah, when kids constantly have abstinence shoved down their throat and are NEVER taught about any protection whatsoever, I think it's rather obvious.

How about this? The US is ranked 12th in the world for percentage of underage teenagers having sex. Norway is 1st with a whopping 97%.

Guess which country has the highest rate of underaged pregnancy and STD's? Yep. The United States, by leaps and bounds. It's been narrowed down to the "Bible Belt," in which kids constantly have abstinence shoved down their throat, and are taught that contraception is evil.

rivercrow

19 May 2006, 12:50 PM

Guess which country has the highest rate of underaged pregnancy and STD's? Yep. The United States, by leaps and bounds. It's been narrowed down to the "Bible Belt," in which kids constantly have abstinence shoved down their throat, and are taught that contraception is evil.

With the rise and spread of Evangelical Christianity and the legitimacy of same embodied by Our Man Bush, I suspect the Bible Belt has widened a bit.

Nemesis, You're up in New Jersey, right? Not a State I associate with the Bible Belt. What's your school teaching you about sex ed?

cafe

19 May 2006, 01:06 PM

Hey, cafeaulaitinfj--

Sorry about the conservative rant.

I just have a lot of troglodytes working with me. Some of these conservatives I work with think Bush is too left-wing. They're against sex ed in any form and support abstinance-only stuff. It's just frustrating.

:dont:
No worries. I imagine that would get to me, too. Seems to me there ought to be a happy medium between the "ideal" and the possibility of contracting a life-threatening illness, but people are strange.

Ivy

19 May 2006, 01:08 PM

No worries. I imagine that would get to me, too. Seems to me there ought to be a happy medium between the "ideal" and the possibility of contracting a life-threatening illness, but people are strange.

Yes they are. This seems to me like the modern equivalent of stoning the adulterous woman, and we all know how Jesus felt about that, don't we?

Architectonic

19 May 2006, 02:35 PM

The health effects are not yet cut and dried. Long term testing on a much large population group is required. This would also allow for rarer immunological reactions to show up, although whether they will be linked to the vaccine is uncertain.

From the information that we know now, widespread vaccination may not necessarily be a good idea for health reasons, let alone economic reasons. (at least in western countries, poorer countries may be different...)

Btw, what is the incidence rate for women with HPV16-related infections, developing cancer that has a significant impact on their health/life.

[1] (http://www.greenjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/107/1/18)

Pooja

19 May 2006, 03:40 PM

booyalab

19 May 2006, 03:58 PM

Guess which country has the highest rate of underaged pregnancy and STD's? Yep. The United States, by leaps and bounds. It's been narrowed down to the "Bible Belt," in which kids constantly have abstinence shoved down their throat, and are taught that contraception is evil.
this is ridiculous. there is an OBVIOUS correlation between lower sexual standards and STDs as evidenced by the 50s and 60s.

Nemesis

19 May 2006, 05:36 PM

With the rise and spread of Evangelical Christianity and the legitimacy of same embodied by Our Man Bush, I suspect the Bible Belt has widened a bit.

Nemesis, You're up in New Jersey, right? Not a State I associate with the Bible Belt. What's your school teaching you about sex ed?
They teach us about means of contraception that I've never even heard of before, like that IUD, which basically looks like a spiked jellyfish that hangs out in the uterus.

We're taught that sex is going to happen. We're taught that they know that it's going to happen and they want us to be safe about it. At the end of the day the lesson is, if you're going to have sex, that's fine, just be safe, and know that the best way to prevent pregnancy and STD's will always be abstinence.

Are we scared of sex at our age? Hell no, but we are terrified of unprotected sex.

Nemesis

19 May 2006, 05:39 PM

this is ridiculous. there is an OBVIOUS correlation between lower sexual standards and STDs as evidenced by the 50s and 60s.
Which is why we're taught to have high standards for sexual safety. However, if you think that teaching abstinence is the best way to prevent teenage pregnancy and STD's, I don't have to argue with you, the statistics will do that for me.

EmmaPeel

19 May 2006, 05:48 PM

For some reason that doesn't surprise me.

Can you be a little more specific than the "Midwest"?

Nemesis

19 May 2006, 06:23 PM

Can you be a little more specific than the "Midwest"?
Who?

cafe

19 May 2006, 06:24 PM

Can you be a little more specific than the "Midwest"?
Why?

EmmaPeel

19 May 2006, 06:25 PM

Why?

I'm sorry. Nevermind. It does not matter.

Ivy

19 May 2006, 07:21 PM

I had my first PAP smear 2 days ago. It was an extremely painful experience. I'm sure, that this vaccination will lead a LOT of women to avoid their routine PAPs...or even their first.
edit: this would be a problem, b/c even with the vaccine, the PAP is still neccesary (according to the doctor on CNN). I'm not sure why though.

I'm guessing it's still necessary because you can be exposed to HPV in the birth canal, and the vaccine won't cure an existing case. So those women who already had it when they were vaccinated could still have abnormal paps and need further treatment.

An abnormal pap isn't a death sentence or a sign you're definitely going to get cervical cancer, by the way. It means you have abnormal cells on your cervix and if left untreated the could lead to cancer. Cervical dysplasia, I think it's called-- I've never had an abnormal pap, but I've had dysplasia in moles on other parts of my body so now I'm at greater risk for skin cancer. It doesn't mean I'm destined to get skin cancer, it just means I need to be watched more carefully. I see a dermatologist twice a year to have anything suspicious removed.

Architectonic

21 May 2006, 06:40 AM

I'm not sure why though.

Because we still don't know how well the vaccine works in the long term.

However, the most significant impact of the vaccine would still be in the poorer countries which obviously don't have regular checkups...