SuicideGirls > Boards > Lifestyle > NEWS: No Brainer: Vaccinate for HPV

edith

France

April 2006

MAR 19, 2007 10:08 AM

davesharp said:
or of sudden infant death syndrome, which used to be unheard of.

heh? babies have always died for mysterious reasons while sleeping. as long as babies have been born.

Adair

I'm lost

January 2006

MAR 19, 2007 08:59 PM

I don't plan on getting the vaccine right now simply because it is just too new. I'm not about to jump headlong into a vaccine where there are no long term studies on.

Anyone remember Vioxx? Pill yes, but still a mistake, and Gardasil could be too.

Roethke

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

MAR 19, 2007 11:01 PM

davesharp said:
Ever hear of a pap smear? They're effective and non-invasive. And best of all, they don't contain manipulated DNA and live viruses.

Pap smears just screen for stuff, they don't cure anything. And only a someone who has never had a fucking pap smear would consider them non invasive. And as far as efficacy goes, they have a false negative rate of 15-35%.

Read something about what really goes into "vaccinations." Read about the frequency of autism over the last 20-30 years since the number of routine vaccinations has increased, or of sudden infant death syndrome, which used to be unheard of.

Today's vaccinations are part of a broader eugenics program.

This is just silliness. Vaccinations are not 100% effective, and don't make you superhuman in the face of disease. Are you saying that vaccines are poison? Or are you dumb enough to think that the rise in autism isn't attributable to the rise in knowledge and ability to diagnose it?

Tell me, what ingredient is in vaccines that you suggest we read up on that's responsible for the rise in autism?

You've got to be completely illiterate and stupid to believe that the infant mortality rate is high right now. In Victorian England, 15% of all upperclass babies died before 1. In lower classes, it was nearly 30%, and it was over 50% in the slums. (http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/content/dw2hr7q6hxx7j40w/)

The Eugenics Record Office was established in 1910 and was funded by the Carnegie Institute, later to receive funding from the Rockefeller Foundation (founded in 1913). The Rockefeller Foundation in turn funded Nazi Dr. Ernst Rudin's eugenics research at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin. That's right, the Rockefellers and the Nazis together thinking of ways to manipulate entire populations. How quaint. It's called "social planning," and it's done from the top down.

I've been under the impression that America's practices of eugenics before and after WWII were common knowledge. I don't think you're outing some major conspiracy here.

I'm iffy on this whole thing. I don't think that mandating vaccines with such a new drug is a good idea at all. I'd far prefer the testing stage was extended before droves of teen girls are poked with the stuff.

Jena

Tampa, FL

June 2003

MAR 19, 2007 11:22 PM

Roethke said:

davesharp said:
Ever hear of a pap smear? They're effective and non-invasive.

Pap smears just screen for stuff, they don't cure anything. And only someone who has never had a fucking pap smear would consider them non invasive.

I loved it!

Tritone

Saint Paul, MN

May 2004

MAR 20, 2007 01:36 AM

Roethke said:
This is just silliness. Vaccinations are not 100% effective, and don't make you superhuman in the face of disease. Are you saying that vaccines are poison? Or are you dumb enough to think that the rise in autism isn't attributable to the rise in knowledge and ability to diagnose it?

Tell me, what ingredient is in vaccines that you suggest we read up on that's responsible for the rise in autism?

Thimerosal was investigated for a causal relationship to autism. The FDA's take on it is spoilered below. (taken from http://www.fda.gov/CBER/vaccine/thimerosal.htm)

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

In its report of October 1, 2001, the IOM's Immunization Safety Review Committee concluded that the evidence is inadequate to either accept or reject a causal relationship between thimerosal exposure from childhood vaccines and the neurodevelopmental disorders of autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and speech or language delay. At that time the committee's conclusion was based on the fact that there were no published epidemiological studies examining the potential association between thimerosal containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders. The Committee did conclude that the hypothesis that exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines could be associated with neurodevelopmental disorders was biologically plausible. However, additional studies were needed to establish or reject a causal relationship.

The Committee believed that the effort to remove thimerosal from vaccines was "a prudent measure in support of the public health goal to reduce mercury exposure of infants and children as much as possible." Furthermore, in this regard, the Committee urged that "full consideration be given to removing thimerosal from any biological product to which infants, children, and pregnant women are exposed."

In 2004, the IOM's Immunization Safety Review Committee again examined the hypothesis that vaccines, specifically the MMR vaccines and thimerosal containing vaccines, are causally associated with autism. In this report, the committee incorporated new epidemiological evidence from the U.S., Denmark, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, and studies of biologic mechanisms related to vaccines and autism that had become available since its report in 2001. The committee concluded that this body of evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism, and that hypotheses generated to date concerning a biological mechanism for such causality are theoretical only. Further, the committee stated that the benefits of vaccination are proven and the hypothesis of susceptible populations is presently speculative, and that widespread rejection of vaccines would lead to increases in incidences of serious infectious diseases like measles, whooping cough and Hib bacterial meningitis.

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY

May 2003

MAR 20, 2007 06:33 AM

vaporeyes said:
The HPV Vaccine is a LIVE VIRUS.

Actually, the HPV vaccine is part of a live virus. But since plenty of other vaccines are "live viruses" that have been altered to be less potent, simply pointing that out isn't really all that terrifying.

vaporeyes said:
"There is no proof Gardasil will stop cervical cancer,"

Uh, no shit. Since HPV is only one cause of cervical cancer. You do know that the Gardasil commercials explicitly state that it doesn't protect against all causes of cervical cancer, nor does it do anything to help cure cervical cancer.

vaporeyes said:
Please don't get swept into the phony Moral debate about HPV and Promiscuity.

That is a by product of Mercks' slick PR campaign.

No, it's a by-product of "abstinence-only" sex education advocates who don't want to risk losing their biggest scare tactic, telling young girls that fucking before marriage can give them cancer.

Roethke

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

MAR 20, 2007 11:30 AM

Tritone said:

Roethke said:
This is just silliness. Vaccinations are not 100% effective, and don't make you superhuman in the face of disease. Are you saying that vaccines are poison? Or are you dumb enough to think that the rise in autism isn't attributable to the rise in knowledge and ability to diagnose it?

Tell me, what ingredient is in vaccines that you suggest we read up on that's responsible for the rise in autism?

Thimerosal was investigated for a causal relationship to autism. The FDA's take on it is spoilered below. (taken from http://www.fda.gov/CBER/vaccine/thimerosal.htm)

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

In its report of October 1, 2001, the IOM's Immunization Safety Review Committee concluded that the evidence is inadequate to either accept or reject a causal relationship between thimerosal exposure from childhood vaccines and the neurodevelopmental disorders of autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and speech or language delay. At that time the committee's conclusion was based on the fact that there were no published epidemiological studies examining the potential association between thimerosal containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders. The Committee did conclude that the hypothesis that exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines could be associated with neurodevelopmental disorders was biologically plausible. However, additional studies were needed to establish or reject a causal relationship.

The Committee believed that the effort to remove thimerosal from vaccines was "a prudent measure in support of the public health goal to reduce mercury exposure of infants and children as much as possible." Furthermore, in this regard, the Committee urged that "full consideration be given to removing thimerosal from any biological product to which infants, children, and pregnant women are exposed."

In 2004, the IOM's Immunization Safety Review Committee again examined the hypothesis that vaccines, specifically the MMR vaccines and thimerosal containing vaccines, are causally associated with autism. In this report, the committee incorporated new epidemiological evidence from the U.S., Denmark, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, and studies of biologic mechanisms related to vaccines and autism that had become available since its report in 2001. The committee concluded that this body of evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism, and that hypotheses generated to date concerning a biological mechanism for such causality are theoretical only. Further, the committee stated that the benefits of vaccination are proven and the hypothesis of susceptible populations is presently speculative, and that widespread rejection of vaccines would lead to increases in incidences of serious infectious diseases like measles, whooping cough and Hib bacterial meningitis.

Thanks for correcting me. You're quite right.

ASSH0LE

Las Vegas, NV

June 2003

MAR 20, 2007 01:19 PM

Signon said:
We've got a nasty, cancer-causing virus on one hand, and the unquantifiable risk of a new drug on the other. The parents should make the call here, not the state.

It's not a drug, it's a vaccine. Vaccines are basically dead versions of the virus, which the body can then develop anti-bodies for without actually being subjected to an active infection.

There have been studies done on this vaccine. It tested rather well, from what I've read.

Lily

SUICIDEGIRL

Quebec, Canada

MAR 20, 2007 01:21 PM

Bitch_PhD said:

Bitch_PhD suspects that if men got cervical cancer, HPV vaccination would be a lot less "controversial."

Indeed.

earthgodd3ss

Yachats, OR

December 2006

MAR 20, 2007 02:17 PM

geo35 said:
Oh, stop it. Not everyone who is opposed to MANDATORY vaccination is basing their opposition on "pseudo-scientific" or religious beliefs. You shouldn't need me to remind you to read up on Swine Flu vaccines, where more people died from the vaccine than from the flu, and 500 people were left with crippling nervous system disorders from the vaccine.

Smallpox is spread via the lungs and therefore can be transmitted through contaminated objects like clothing. Likewise for most of the other diseases you mentioned. There have been terrible outbreaks of these dangerous diseases in the general population throughout history. Vaccines have been highly effective and reports of side effects have been miniscule. The risk:reward is overwhelmingly in favor of the vaccination programs.

HPV on the other hand is a SEXUALLY transmitted disease. We don't know yet for certain just how effective the vaccines will be or what their side effects might be (gawd knows what sort of underhanded big pharma dealings are going on behind our backs.) Read the "official" data on the disease and what it says is, essentially, the more you whore around, the better the odds are you will get HPV.

So when you start telling people that their 6th grade daughters MUST be vaccinated, are you surprised that they would get angry at what you're implying!?!?! Come on, I mean REALLY. It ain't just a bunch of beef-heads from Texas that are going to oppose this.

We should use the educational system to insure that young girls & women are alerted to the dangers of HPV and the availability of the vaccine. They should be made aware that if they become sexually active, there are some choices they'll have to make. But to mandate to American families that their children must be involuntarily vaccinated against a disease that is ONLY caused by sexual activity (and usually by INDISCRIMINATE sexual activity) is just spoiling for a fight.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm

+11111111111111111

Signon

Austin, TX

June 2005

MAR 20, 2007 02:59 PM

ASSH0LE said:

Signon said:
We've got a nasty, cancer-causing virus on one hand, and the unquantifiable risk of a new drug on the other. The parents should make the call here, not the state.

It's not a drug, it's a vaccine. Vaccines are basically dead versions of the virus, which the body can then develop anti-bodies for without actually being subjected to an active infection.

ASSH0LE, don't get me wrong, I respect you, but federal law sees it differently.

There have been studies done on this vaccine. It tested rather well, from what I've read.

Oh, I quite agree. That said, we're dealing with much bigger numbers this time around, and frankly, I'd rather have volunteer adults do it than an entire state's children. That shit scares me inherently.

JunkyardAngel

San Gabriel, CA

February 2006

MAR 20, 2007 03:30 PM

Smallpox spreads without sexual contact.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think HPV is only passed on through intimate contact.

That being said, I think the vaccinations should be by choice. This is still a free country (for now), I think. . .well, mostly free - but I do not think that people should be forced to vaccinate against something that is only passed via making a personal decision (rape aside).

And I am not a Texan, nor a neo-con, nor am I ignorant. . .I just happen to have a different perpective.

(Requiriing college insurance to cover the HPV vacc., so that students can have it if they choose to do so---nowTHAT sounds important!)

ASSH0LE

Las Vegas, NV

June 2003

MAR 21, 2007 12:17 AM

K2photostudio said:
The whole thing smells of corporate corruption in politics - seeing how our Gov. Rick Perry and other lawmakers received thousands of dollars in campaign donations from Merck - the drug's manufacturer.

I would be concerned for my wife or daughter if she were required to get this because the long term health effects are unknown. Where is the long term testing before this gets rolled out as mandatory? Major drugs like Vioxx have gone through FDA approval only to learn years later that they do MAJOR damage to the takers.

It's not a drug. It's a vaccine. Dead form of the virus, read the previous reply to this effect.

HPV is something you get only from risk based behaviors - such as unprotected sex. Couldn't $20 in condoms do better than a $400 vaccine until further testing is done?

HPV can be caught through PROTECTED SEX. While condoms certainly don't hurt, they aren't nearly as effective against HPV as they are with HIV or pregnancy.

Odds are pretty good that you and your wife already have one form or another of HPV Most of us do. You probably do, the O.P. probably does, I probably do. Not all forms of HPV cause cancers, this vaccine targets some of the strains most likely to cause cancer.

The long term effect of your daughter not getting this is an increased risk of coochie cancer and an equally increased risk of her not being able to drop you any grandchildren. I mean, who gives a fuck? Grandchildren would just make you two look old right?

RudieCantFail

Intercourse, PA

January 2006

MAR 21, 2007 01:08 AM

ASSH0LE said:
It's not a drug. It's a vaccine. Dead form of the virus, read the previous reply to this effect.

Not all vaccines contain completely dead virus. Some are only weakened. The trade off is that while completely dead virus vaccines are safer in that they will not cause the person to actually contract the illness they are supposed to prevent, however it is more difficult to create an effective dead virus vaccine, because it is less likely to trigger the body's immune system to produce the anti-bodies which will fight off any future exposures to infection.
Weakened, but still live virus vaccines are more likely to get your immune system working, but they have a greater chance of actually infecting you.
My understanding is that this is a weakened, but still live virus vaccine.

Odds are pretty good that you and your wife already have one form or another of HPV Most of us do. You probably do, the O.P. probably does, I probably do. Not all forms of HPV cause cancers, this vaccine targets some of the strains most likely to cause cancer.

From the article you linked:

Human papillomavirus is a common sexually transmitted infection and its effects may range from no symptoms to genital warts to cervical cancer.

(Emphasis mine.)

If it's only transmitted through sexual activity, that's an action that someone is making a choice about (rape aside), with a good degree of ability to control. Believe or not, there are some people who choose to limit their sexual activity and/or number of partners (and not only religious zealots). So making this vaccine mandatory for pre-adolescents who haven't really considered how they want to conduct their sexual activity in the future, I think is drastic.

Now if HPV were something that could be passed from person to person via a handshake, or a sneeze, or handling currency; things that we don't have a reasonable amount of control over, then I think it would be justifiable to make it mandatory.

The long term effect of your daughter not getting this is an increased risk of coochie cancer and an equally increased risk of her not being able to drop you any grandchildren.

My understanding is that the increase in risk is marginal, certainly not enough that the vaccine's use should be mandated to children who have not yet formed a sexual identity.

It should be made available at little to no cost. It should be encouraged in people who are, or believe that they may soon become sexually active. It should not, however, be mandatory.

BOARDS:

TOPICS:

edith

France

April 2006

MAR 19, 2007 10:08 AM

I'm lost

January 2006

MAR 19, 2007 08:59 PM

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

MAR 19, 2007 11:01 PM

Tampa, FL

June 2003

MAR 19, 2007 11:22 PM

Saint Paul, MN

May 2004

MAR 20, 2007 01:36 AM

Brooklyn, NY

May 2003

MAR 20, 2007 06:33 AM

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

MAR 20, 2007 11:30 AM

Las Vegas, NV

June 2003

MAR 20, 2007 01:19 PM

SUICIDEGIRL

Quebec, Canada

MAR 20, 2007 01:21 PM

Yachats, OR

December 2006

MAR 20, 2007 02:17 PM

Austin, TX

June 2005

MAR 20, 2007 02:59 PM

San Gabriel, CA

February 2006

MAR 20, 2007 03:30 PM

Las Vegas, NV

June 2003

MAR 21, 2007 12:17 AM

Intercourse, PA

January 2006

MAR 21, 2007 01:08 AM