• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How could the HPV Vacine issue be a debate at all?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Wow, so the religious people are that insecure that they believe a simple shot is going to corrupt the moral values that they've instilled in their children?!
Click to expand...

I think in a lot of cases, this is more about personal freedom - some of the people protesting the requirement may choose to have it done anyway, they just don't want to be compelled. The whole freedom thing, y'know? And again, there's always the concern over long term safety. It's not unheard of for something "safe" to suddenly be found unsafe, such as a few of the arthritis drugs that recently were pulled off the market.

Personally, I think the whole thing is a conspiracy to kill off all the women from Texas. 😉
 
The personal freedom argument is bullshit. Right now, today, parents CAN opt out of ANY mandatory vaccination. The rules are in place.

Vaccines as a whole are extremely safe. As a group they are probably the safest exogenous substances used in people for a therapeutic effect. They work nothing like active medications you generally think of that have a direct physiological effect on cell receptors, like the COX drug just mentioned.

Most vaccines now are surface markers of the virus that are produced through recombinate DNA technology by yeasts and such. They are kind of like simple sugars. They are injected into your body, and your immune system then makes antibodies to them. It's kinda like giving your immune system a mugshot of a virus so that if you do come into contact with it, your immune system immediately recognizes the threat and eliminates it.
 
I live in Texas and our Gov. recently made this vaccine mandatory for 12-13 year old females.

Here are some concerns I've had.

1. This vaccine was only approved by the FDA June of 2006. Is it too new to be forced on all young women in Texas? USA if other governors follow suit.
2. The company Merck makes many vaccines and medications. One of which is Rofecoxib. Rofecoxib, also known as Vioxx, was approved by the FDA in May of 1999. Just under 5 years later it was pulled from the market.

Now I realize that Rofecoxib was pulled for risk associated with over dosage. However the point remains.


Undiscovered risks.



I think it is just to early to make this a mandatory vaccine. Surely though I'm happy to see a product on the market with such great uses. Hopefully it is one of many which will play a large role in curving our societies sexually transmitted disease problems.
 
Originally posted by: tranceport
I live in Texas...
Click to expand...

Read my post above yours because it basically countered everything you offered before you even posted it.

Associating danger with this vaccine because it's made by a company that pulled a totally unrelated drug is a ridiculous argument.
Rofecoxib = aka Vioxx was pulled voluntarily by merck. There are still drugs on the market of the same class that do the same thing. They are used sparingly in cases where the benefits outweigh the risks. It wasn't pulled because of risk associated with overdoses. If that were the case you may as well stop the use of all drugs. The issue was long-term high dose therapy.
 
Originally posted by: getbush
Originally posted by: tranceport
I live in Texas...
Click to expand...

Read my post above yours because it basically countered everything you offered before you even posted it.

Associating danger with this vaccine because it's made by a company that pulled a totally unrelated drug is a ridiculous argument.
Rofecoxib = aka Vioxx was pulled voluntarily by merck. There are still drugs on the market of the same class that do the same thing. They are used sparingly in cases where the benefits outweigh the risks. It wasn't pulled because of risk associated with overdoses. If that were the case you may as well stop the use of all drugs. The issue was long-term high dose therapy.
Click to expand...

The point isn't that these two drugs are made by the same company, it's that it's possible for FDA approved drugs to have long term impact that may or may not be known, and that it is reasonable for parents to want to have the freedom to choose medical treatment for their children with that in mind.
 
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Originally posted by: drinkmorejava
How about, if the kid isn't having sex they shouldn't be forced to have it. Not to mention, if you don't have health insurance, 300 dollars isn't exactly cheap. Also, as sucky as it is to get the top layer of your cervix burned off, you're not doomed to death if you do get HPV--and the majority of people "self cure" regardless of treatment. Furthermore, if you've looked into the topic beyond what you see on the news, there are a handful of promising, stage 2/3 drugs that actually provide a cure. One them which I have a connection too and thus, it wouldn't be kosher for me to start listing them. It would probably be a good idea to get the vaccine, but there are plenty of reasons supporting the discretionary use of it.
Click to expand...

Since you have some connection to this stuff, I'm sure you know HPV isn't just a virus - it increases the chance of cervical cancer. Once you develop cancer, even if you're "cured" you have a very high chance of developing it again. And I'm gonna guess your stage 2/3 drugs will end up costing more for the patient that a simple vaccination now.

There's no reason not to get this unless you can't afford it, or are a religious fanatic.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what you mean by it ?isn't just a virus?, as that's exactly it is, and no one would care about them if they didn?t significant side-effects. However, I should have been more clear; the significance of the drugs is that the patient's risk of acquiring HPV induced cervical cancer is reduced to almost pre-infection levels. A vaccine should almost always be chosen over dealing with the treatment, but the OP's question pertains to mandatory vaccination, which is completely over the line.

Also, in case you haven't noticed, there is a large percentage of the American population that will not be able to afford it.

 
Originally posted by: drinkmorejava
Also, in case you haven't noticed, there is a large percentage of the American population that will not be able to afford it.
Click to expand...

Looks like it will be essentially free in Texas for minors.
 
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Wow, so the religious people are that insecure that they believe a simple shot is going to corrupt the moral values that they've instilled in their children?!
Click to expand...

Yes, it does question the depth of belief if it can be destroyed by such a shallow threat.
 
I'm dating a girl who has HPV now, and has had the cancer scraped..I can guarantee that she wishes she had been vaccinated. I've looked into getting into a trial for Gardasil for men but there aren't any in my area..just tryin to be safe
 
Originally posted by: Locut0s
For those who don't know they have recently released the first viable vaccine against HPV (Human Papiloma Virus) which causes the majority of Cervical cancers in Women. Doctors are urging parents to get their kids vaccinated against the virus at a young age, prepubescent, because it is a sexually transmitted disease. They have also come close to making the vaccine a mandatory vaccination like many childhood vaccines. Many parents however are up in arms over the idea that their children should be vaccinated against this threat without their say. How could this be an issue? I guess many parents would rather their children die of a preventable cancer than admit that their little precious is and or will be a sexual being.
Click to expand...
possibly parents are cautious because this vaccine is new, and frankly it's still uncharted waters even if they've done "trials".
 
The main point for me is that I don't like putting things into my body unless they are known to be good for me or I feel it is necessary. Vaccines, especially new ones, are not known to be safe in the long run. Unfortunately the culture in western society has gotten to the point of believing in drugs and doctors without question. The vaccine is a great idea, but it's still very new and I wouldn't be one to rush into it.

Vaccines a long time ago had mercury in them. They were believed safe until a connection was made to rising levels of autism and mercury in vaccinations. That issue has been fixed. What other issues may exist?
 
Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Why have mandatory vaccinations for something that you can easily avoid?
Click to expand...

Not everybody is a loser computer geek virgin. And condoms are not even 100% at birth control, let alone HPV etc...
 
Originally posted by: DAGTA
The main point for me is that I don't like putting things into my body unless they are known to be good for me or I feel it is necessary. Vaccines, especially new ones, are not known to be safe in the long run. Unfortunately the culture in western society has gotten to the point of believing in drugs and doctors without question. The vaccine is a great idea, but it's still very new and I wouldn't be one to rush into it.

Vaccines a long time ago had mercury in them. They were believed safe until a connection was made to rising levels of autism and mercury in vaccinations. That issue has been fixed. What other issues may exist?
Click to expand...


And what connection was that? Even the CDC says "No harmful effects have been reported from thimerosal at doses used in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site."

Stop spreading FUD

http://www.cdc.gov/od/science/iso/concerns/thimerosal.htm
 
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Why have mandatory vaccinations for something that you can easily avoid?
Click to expand...

Not everybody is a loser computer geek virgin. And condoms are not even 100% at birth control, let alone HPV etc...
Click to expand...

Note: being a virgin does not correlate with being a computer geek. Not being a virgin does not make you more of a "man" either. It's more manly to respect the women you know by committing yourself to her before all the rest happens - as a benefit, this way, there is no need for birth control, anti-STD measures, and all the rest either.
 
Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Why have mandatory vaccinations for something that you can easily avoid?
Click to expand...

Not everybody is a loser computer geek virgin. And condoms are not even 100% at birth control, let alone HPV etc...
Click to expand...

Note: being a virgin does not correlate with being a computer geek. Not being a virgin does not make you more of a "man" either. It's more manly to respect the women you know by committing yourself to her before all the rest happens - as a benefit, this way, there is no need for birth control, anti-STD measures, and all the rest either.
Click to expand...

So you have a girlfriend?
 
Originally posted by: HotChic
As a female who potentially qualifies for this immunization, I am damned well not happy with the idea it could be required, because I don't necessarily feel that the government's standards for long term safety testing match my standards.

As a Christian, I don't buy into the idea that this is going to encourage promiscuity.
Click to expand...

Agreed, on both points.

This vaccine is so blazing new -- there is no adequate, long-term safety information at this time IMO.

 
Originally posted by: Marlin1975

And what connection was that? Even the CDC says "No harmful effects have been reported from thimerosal at doses used in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site."
Click to expand...

And no govt agency has ever lied about or covered up anything....

Now where's my tinfoil hat. :shocked:


 
Originally posted by: HotChic
Originally posted by: child of wonder
As long as the vaccine is safe it should be a normal vaccination for kids.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But there is a difference between "normal" and "required".
Click to expand...

Assuming the vaccine is safe, what possible negative repercussions could come of it?

Despite their religious or moral misgivings, I don't think any of those people would still be against this vaccine if one of their children died of cervical cancer because of HPV.
 
Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Why have mandatory vaccinations for something that you can easily avoid?
Click to expand...

Not everybody is a loser computer geek virgin. And condoms are not even 100% at birth control, let alone HPV etc...
Click to expand...

Note: being a virgin does not correlate with being a computer geek. Not being a virgin does not make you more of a "man" either. It's more manly to respect the women you know by committing yourself to her before all the rest happens - as a benefit, this way, there is no need for birth control, anti-STD measures, and all the rest either.
Click to expand...


Umm, if it is based on skin contact, you don't need to actually have sex to get hpv...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top