There is a new vaccination in trial stages for a strain of HPV that is associated with cervical cancer. Here's some information, including background. To summarize, HVP 16 is present in about 50% of cases of cervical cancer, and cervical cancer is either the second or third most common cancer in women, depending on who you ask.
Here's the rub -- to be most effective, people should be vaccinated before they become sexually active. There is apparently already a controversy about encouraging vaccination for pre-teens, because it could be seen as encouraging non-marital sexual activity. And it does not protect against pregnancy, obviously, or any other STD except for this one specific strain of HPV. Since there's no reason to get it if you're not going to have sex, some parents see it as implicitly telling their children they figure they're going to have sex anyway, so they might as well be covered.
I have heard that around 85% of sexually active adults will be exposed to one strain or another of HPV in their lifetime. I do not know if those numbers include adults who have only ever had one sexual partner, if they do, than the percentage among the rest of us is even higher. HPV is spread by skin-to-skin contact, so it can be spread without having actual fluid exchange, and can be spread between people who think they are "just fooling around" and not "going all the way." Other strains of HPV range from apparently harmless to being the cause of genital warts.
I'd like to know what y'all think about this, particularly the people who believe that non-marital sex is wrong, and plan on raising their children that way. Would you want your daughter vaccinated anyway, so if she grows up and decides not to live by the values you tried to instill in her she is at least partially protected against this form of cancer? Or, for that matter, if she marries someone who has not always shared the same values, or is not faithful to her. Or do you think the potential damage to the abstinance message outweighs those possibilities? What about having your child vaccinated when she is younger, and won't ask pesky questions about what it's about? (The vaccination requires three shots over a period of time.) Also, would you have your son vaccinated to mitigate the possibility of him spreading the virus to those he is intimate with?
For the purposes of this discussion, please assume that the studies conclude with no harmful side-effects found, please.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Would you want your daughter vaccinated anyway, so if she grows up and decides not to live by the values you tried to instill in her she is at least partially protected against this form of cancer?
Yes. (also using your assumption that no side-effects are found for getting the vaccination).
Cancer of the female organs seems to be a pre-disposition of my family. Any preventative would be a plus, and I don't feel it would be encouraging my child to try sex.
FG
[ February 06, 2007, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by etphonehome (Member # 999) on :
Unless the vaccine somehow becomes useless without sexual activity within a certain time period, I don't think vaccinating a girl early should be seen as encouragement or permission to have sex early. It's just something any good parent should do, so that when their daughter does have sex (and they hopefully wish she gets to have that experience eventually), she'll have one less thing to worry about.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Would you want your daughter vaccinated anyway, so if she grows up and decides not to live by the values you tried to instill in her she is at least partially protected against this form of cancer?
Hmmm. Probably not. There's no history of cervical cancer (and very little of other cancers) in my family. Jeff's, too. And because I expect her to not have sex until she's married and then be monogamous, most likely with a man who will also be a virgin when married, I probably would wait until she was 16 or so and talk to her about it. I would, though, make sure she had the information that it was available and most effective if given before she was sexually active, and would remind her of this before she moved out and after she moved out. Just to make sure she knows that if she is going to have sex, this is something she should do as well as using other forms of protection.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I would. Vaccines are vaccines. Besides, what if she has sex against her will? Which is an awful thing, but beyond her control, and at least the vaccine will give her protection from HPV.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm with et on this one. Assuming no side effects are found, I'm in favor of vaccination (for both boys and girls). Not because I think they will be practicing behaviors that put them at risk, but because I see no reason not to decrease the risk, however small.
I would prefer to vaccinate them young. For ElJay's reason among others.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
That's true, mac. Hadn't thought of that.
But I would prefer to wait until I know no side effects exist.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I think it'd be a good idea, definitely. I'm all for vaccinations. The idea of any kind of potential infection severely creeps me out. *has ocd fit* And I'd want to do anything to protect those I love as much as I could.
Also, out of curiosity, is the herpes virus the same as HPV? Because I thought that was the cause of genital warts. Like, one was herpes simplex I, and the other was herpes simplex II, and one caused cold sores on your mouth, while the other caused genital warts.
-pH
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes, if there were no side effects. If there were a vaccination for AIDS, I would get that and have my children get it too, and I don't want myself or they doing anything that puts us in the risk group.
If there were physical side effects to the vaccination, then no, but it would be included in The Talk. I think it's important to know about birth control and STDs and all of that, even if greatly don't them to use the knowledge. It doesn't change the reasons I would hope they would refrain.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I would leave that decision to my kids.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
quote:Originally posted by mackillian: I would. Vaccines are vaccines. Besides, what if she has sex against her will? Which is an awful thing, but beyond her control, and at least the vaccine will give her protection from HPV.
Hmm. But where would you draw the line? Would you put your daughter on the pill so that just in case she were raped she couldn't get pregnant?
I'm not trying to score a point off of you, just curious. I think I would treat this as any new vaccine that guards against a preventable disease: wait and see if there are any side effects first, then assess the risks and benefits.
I don't think that having teenagers receive the vaccine would be encouraging them to have non-marital sex. It's not like it protects against all the other possible consequences, and most of those are worse than HPV. HPV isn't exactly the one to worry about most.
--Mel
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I'd get it, I'd have my kids get it, if it were safe, and lasted quite a while (like if they have to get the vaccination every year, I don't know I'd be as excited). But I'm not totally apposed to premarital sex, so i may not be the oppinion you wanted.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
HPV might not be as worrisome (though, cervical cancer sucks) as other STDs, but if there's a vaccine, then it's one less worry.
And pregnancy isn't a virus. I also know that the chance of conception via rape is relatively low (feel free to look up actual numbers to back that up) and I'd wonder how that compared to HPV transmission rates.
*shrug* We get shots for tetanus, right? Does that mean we have to step on a rusty nail? Well, no. But it's nice that the vaccine is already in us to protect us from it, you know?
And no, I wouldn't make my daughter go on the pill just in case she got raped and could possibly get pregnant. But pregnancy isn't a virus. I would rather be safe than sorry. But if my daughter had irregular periods, cramps, or other things, the pill would be a welcome treatment option for it.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I wanted all opinions.
pH, I believe genital warts and herpes are different, but I'm not 100% sure.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I just looked up gential warts on webmd and found a picture.
Now I am too scarred to continue my search for information.
-pH
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Ew.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Yeah, I'm not going to be doing that. *shudder*
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote:But pregnancy isn't a virus.
Exactly. It also shouldn't kill you.
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
I don't see how anyone can argue against the idea of giving this vaccine to their daughter (or son), regardless of moral standing or how you raise your kids. For instance, if the flu virus was primarily spread by, I dunno, kissing - and you expect your child not to be kissing anyone - would you discourage him/her from getting a vaccine? Expectations and reality are not always the same - and teenagers can be extremely deceitful to mothers who think they know everything about their children and their behavior (I speak from experience.) I'm not accusing anyone's child of being sneaky or dishonest, I'm merely saying...just in case, don't you want to prevent any harm from coming to your child for any reason? IMHO, this is not at all suggesting to kids that it's ok to have premarital sex or anything like that. It's just being safe.
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
Herpes (herpes simplex virus) and HPV are two totally different things. A simple Google search will tell you the difference. Stay away from images unless you're prepared.
quote:At least 50 percent of sexually active men and women acquire genital HPV infection at some point in their lives. By age 50, at least 80 percent of women will have acquired genital HPV infection. About 6.2 million Americans get a new genital HPV infection each year.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I quoted 85% in my first post. I've heard a lot of different numbers.
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
ElJay, you said that 85% of sexually active people will be exposed, my quote says 80% of women will actually have the virus.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
No, it says that 80% will have been infected. Once the infection runs its course I assume that they no longer have the virus, otherwise more than 20 million people would be infected. From your link:
quote:Approximately 20 million people are currently infected with HPV.
... About 6.2 million Americans get a new genital HPV infection each year.
So it can't last forever. That would suck if it did.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
What's great is, now we have a test we can do along with the pap smear (done with the smear itself) to detect HPV and to determine whether that HPV is the high risk kind or low risk kind. The patient can then have a better idea of their risks.
I think that quote of 80% of all women having HPV seems AWFULLY high. In fact, I don't believe it. That's probably an extrapolation and I don't think it would be very accurate.
(Edit: I meant cervical strains of HPV. Missed a word. Warts on fingers and toes etc are forms of HPV also.)
[ November 09, 2005, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: Theaca ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Actually twinky, I thought HPV was one of those viruses that tends to go dormant (enter the lysogenic cycle). Yup. Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
to Twinky:
But according to my lacking health classes, if you've had HPV you are more susceptible to Cervical Cancer, so it still sucks.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
If HPV is the same as warts, the kind you get on your hands (in the same family, I mean) then I think it DOES stick around.
-pH
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: What's great is, now we have a test we can do along with the pap smear (done with the smear itself) to detect HPV and to determine whether that HPV is the high risk kind or low risk kind. The patient can then have a better idea of their risks.
*nod* I had this done with my pap the other week. I think it's great that we can do this.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:But according to my lacking health classes, if you've had HPV you are more susceptible to Cervical Cancer, so it still sucks.
Absolutely. Never said it didn't suck.
quote:Actually twinky, I thought HPV was one of those viruses that tends to go dormant (enter the lysogenic cycle).
Pardon my lack of understanding in this area, but does that mean that once you've got it, you've got it forever? I'd like to settle that particular question...
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I don't think you can settle that question, at least not right now. Some people tend to have the virus present for years and years. Some only have it a short while. The person may or may not have warts visible during this time. The person may or may not have any abnormal pap smears during this this time.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Hmmmmmm. Okay. That's too bad. Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I would leave it to my children, also.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
jeniwern and romany, at what age would you tell them about the vaccine and give them that choice? Same age you do basic sex ed?
(I'm not baiting, I'm just curious. That's an option I didn't have really think about.)
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Y'know, a lot of girls come in to the clinics before freshman year college starts, to get their meningitis shot, and sometimes for vaccination records etc etc. That might be a good time to routinely offer it. I realize it might be a bit late, but I think many pediatricians might have trouble recommending it to the 14-18 year olds unless they are requesting birth control from their doctor. So taking it along with the pre-college type vaccines, tests, etc would be easy. I suppose a lot of parents would still be offended/worried about it and if parents pay the bills they might see the shot listed by name.
Be interesting to see how this works out over the next few years.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
That's a good idea, but since it needs three shots, the one visit wouldn't be enough.
As a sexually active adult, I intend to get it myself once it becomes available, provided the risk/benefit ratio seems reasonable. Satistically there's a good chance I've already been exposed, but since I've never had a problem and the article I linked above said that repeated infections bear higher risk, it seems likely that it would still be worth it. I will, of course, discuss that with my doctor after the vaccine is released. Posted by tmservo (Member # 8552) on :
I strongly favor a vaccine for HPV. We should remember, and you can check this, that there are those who are exposed to HPV through non-sexual means. While people think of HPV as an exclusively sexual disease, some studies indicate that's not true. Sexually Transmitted Infections 1999 Oct;75(5):317-9, points out that those who are HPV carriers may transmit HPV to those by simple skin-to-skin contact, especially those who have lowered immunity (especially true of younger children).
In the end, a vaccine is a good thing, it's the right thing. It helps those who may be exposed against their will (rape/incest/molestation), those with lower immunity otherwise, etc.
I'd strongly favor my kids get treated if it were tested & safe.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
100 years from now, maybe we won't have to do those silly pap smears anymore! *happy tears*
BTW, just because the series takes three shots now doesn't mean it takes three shots to develope immunity.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
This thread is reminding me that I need to make a doctor's appointment. My doctor has, again, left the practice. I've had I think 5 primary care providers in 6 years. I don't want to go meet another new doctor/CNP. *sigh*
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm in the camp that thinks getting a vaccination does not equal encouraging sexual activity. It can merely be a way of protecting her health, because her future husband may have been exposed. If it helps to prevent cancer and the vaccine is found to be safe and effective through trials, then I wouldn't have a problem having my daughter vaccinated.
Like theaca mentioned, the shots and vaccinations for college are a good time to do it, IMO.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Like theaca mentioned, the shots and vaccinations for college are a good time to do it, IMO.
Now THAT I would not have a problem with. I don't know why, but talking about it and letting them have it at age 17 or so just seems more reasonable to me than doing it at age 12 or 14.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Assuming successful conclusion to the tests, low risk of side effects, immunity is long lasting, etc, I’d do it while they’re getting their other pre-kindergarten vaccinations. Separate it completely from the idea of sexual activity and take care of it right along with measles, etc.
Especially if it turns out, as one of those links indicated, there's the possibility it can be transmitted non-sexually and even among small children.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I agree with dkw, IF this becomes a standard type immunization, then all kids should just get it as little kids. No guilt over promoting sexual activity that way. After all, we do hepatitis B shots for kids now, right? However if it is considered a choice thing then a lot of kids will get missed and then I'd rescreen all teens prior to college. Sexually active kids and adults coming in for paps/STDs of course would get screened too.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
What ages is the vaccine approved for right now?
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Well, it's still experimental. Apparently approved for human trials, most likely adults only.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:I don't see how anyone can argue against the idea of giving this vaccine to their daughter (or son), regardless of moral standing or how you raise your kids. For instance, if the flu virus was primarily spread by, I dunno, kissing - and you expect your child not to be kissing anyone - would you discourage him/her from getting a vaccine? Expectations and reality are not always the same - and teenagers can be extremely deceitful to mothers who think they know everything about their children and their behavior (I speak from experience.) I'm not accusing anyone's child of being sneaky or dishonest, I'm merely saying...just in case, don't you want to prevent any harm from coming to your child for any reason? IMHO, this is not at all suggesting to kids that it's ok to have premarital sex or anything like that. It's just being safe.
My issue is not a sexual morality one, but that I'm very nervous about vaccines (most medicines for that matter) and I would need to believe a true risk existed, rather than believing it's safe and getting it "just in case".
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I would need to believe a true risk existed, rather than believing it's safe and getting it "just in case".
I hear that. I know that many people believe very strongly in the link between more vaccinations and higher allergy and asthma rates. And that's a BIG issue in my family.
Posted by Kettricken (Member # 8436) on :
A disclaimer here, I do not have children and am not opposed to sex before marriage.
I think if it does prove to be safe and effective parents should be encouraged to allow their children (boys as well as girls, would you want your son to marry a girl then pass the virus on to her and end up loosing her to a preventable cancer) to have the vaccine.
If parents are teaching abstinence until marriage a vaccine that protects against one form of one virus that might lead to a disease is not going to undermine the message you are giving. There are still moral issues, pregnancy and STDs to back up your position.
One thing that has been mentioned in this thread is that HPV can be spread by touch. Many young people who are not ready to have sex will do more than holding hands before they are ready for sex. You may wish your son or daughter doesn’t do this, but even if they are committed to not having sex until they are married to someone who has not had sex with anyone else their boundaries may be in a different place.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
quote:IF this becomes a standard type immunization, then all kids should just get it as little kids.
My worry with making it required is that none of the justifications for forcing vaccination before entry into school exist here. The other diseases can all be transmitted at school. Is there any indication that cervical-cancer-related HPV can be so spread?
Now, practically speaking, that's when I would have it done for my kids (if medically feasible). I have no problem with the exam at all. But I'm leery of forcing anyone to receive particular medical care, and without the public transmission potential, I'm not sure I can bring myself to make it coercive.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: [QB]The other diseases can all be transmitted at school. Is there any indication that cervical-cancer-related HPV can be so spread?
You definitely didn't go to my high school.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Or the middle school my mom teaches at, in the lunchroom.
I'm glad this thread has been bumped, and that the vaccine is being approved, as a 20 year old, not sexually active woman.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: [QB]The other diseases can all be transmitted at school. Is there any indication that cervical-cancer-related HPV can be so spread?
You definitely didn't go to my high school.
OK, let me rephrase: the other diseases can all be transmitted by performing only the actions sponsored by or allowed by the school.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Doctor: This injection will protect you against a certain type of cancer.
Mom: Thank you doctor.
Daughter: Mom, do I have to get a shot?
Mom: No, not if you want Cancer.
....
Why even tell them how it prevents cancer? I mean, if they had a shot that protected you from bone cancer would you inquire how or would you just take the shot?
I think most people would just take the shot.
Pix
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: [QB]The other diseases can all be transmitted at school. Is there any indication that cervical-cancer-related HPV can be so spread?
You definitely didn't go to my high school.
OK, let me rephrase: the other diseases can all be transmitted by performing only the actions sponsored by or allowed by the school.
I don't know what kind of school you went to, but my school didn't say we couldn't fool around, as long as we didn't do it on campus.
-pH
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: ....
Why even tell them how it prevents cancer? I mean, if they had a shot that protected you from bone cancer would you inquire how or would you just take the shot?
I think most people would just take the shot.
Pix
Hmmm-no, I would want to know how first. Now would I have my kids gievn a shot unless I was willing to explain what it does, and how.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
pH, I think he's saying things that are actually allowed to happen in school, which you just said your school didn't.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I remember getting all my childhood vaccinations, and all I cared about was being frightened of getting a shot, and getting an ice cream cone after. I didn't care what the shots were for, how they prevented what, or any of that stuff.
I think most kids are kind of worried about disease in general, and don't like being sick.
I've honestly never believed that helping a child be safe has ever encouraged them to do anything dangerous. Kids will break rules or not based on a lot of things, but I don't think that safety measures count for much.
My parents taught me to never play with fire, and it didn't make me a pyromaniac. They taught me how to safely use power tools, and I never used them unsupervised specifically because I knew how dangerous they can be.
I think knowledge is power. The more you trust your children and give them the knowledge and protection to make good choices, I think the better off they are.
Children do lots of things they're not supposed to, regardless of their parent's wishes. Better that they be protected, I would say.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
Actually, I'm a child out of four total, and We have had no shots and vaccinations. We're homeschooled, and, the last time we checked, most vaccines were either highly unlikely needed, because we wouldn't run into someone with that disease (In other words, it was about as usefull as a smallpox vaccine), or it had bad side-effects. We knew somebody who went deaf after a DPT shot.
I've recently got into a government funded arts program, and get to go to college for three weeks, so I have a menengitus shot, as well as the required tetanus. But we are under no legal obligation to get these shots (Even if you go to public schools, you don't have to. You'll be bothered with a bunch of paperwork, but, if filled, it will keep your child from getting vaccinated)
Anyway, I wouldn't give my child that shot, as I probably won't give him any other shot (Using shot interchangebly with vaccine).
Doctors love us. They think we're wackos who just read one article on the internet and think that the vaccines poison and all the doctors work for the government. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I never believed the vaccines are poison rumors. Yes, some people react badly, but how many hundreds of thousands of people have no adverse reactions to vaccination, compared to the few who do?
Bunches of people who don't get vaccinated are a great way for new epidemics to start. A bunch of people get Measles, and health care centers are swamped, wasting energy, money, staff, time on people who shouldn't be sick in the first place.
Worse, these diseases, which should be essentially unknown in America, can get a foothold and have an opportunity to infect a significant number of people that a suitable resistant mutation takes hold, and then everybody's at risk.
Sorry Nathan2006, but I tend to agree with the doctors.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
We recently had a small polio outbreak in Minesota, in a Mennonite community where most people don't get vaccines. The community elders made announcements that the religion was not against vaccinations, and that it was probably a good thing to do, but left it up to everyone to make up their own mind, of course. But still. . . Polio? Who would have thought there was even any carriers left around for someone to get it from?
So, Nathan2006, I wish you luck in never running into anyone who's been exposed to any of the childhood diseases that are a lot more serious as an adult.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
My school (university) is now requiring measles shots because of recent outbreaks. One thing you have to consider, Nathan2006, is that while the risk of getting certain diseases is low in America, its not that low elsewhere in the world and college brings together many people from many different countries.
Yes, vaccines pose a small risk of complications but there are far greater risks to society as a whole and to your child in particular if you don't get them, IMO.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
A friend of mine got whooping cough at work (from someone who was originally from another country, and therefore probably not vaccinated) upon her return from maternity leave, and her 2-month-old daughter caught it (was just before she would have gotten vaccinated. The baby ended up in the hospital, cost the parents thousands of dollars, but was okay in the end. My kids get their shots. This is protection for them and for other people.
Since this is a new vaccination, I would research it, then set up an appointment to get my kids vaccinated. I think, as many have mentioned, that it isn't free license to have sex, just protection from cancer. So, I don't have a problem with that aspect of it. BTW, my daughters are 12 and 10.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Also, Nathan, you'll have to review the entire issue when you have kids, especially if you don't homeschool. The risks/benefits will probably look quite different by then.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Nathan- I homeschool and my kids are unvaccinated, except for the oldest. I live in the Seattle area, though, and have many friends who do not vax their public or private schooled children. They have never had a problem, here, you just check a box on the vaccination form, and don't know of anyone whose gotten so much as a comment. If you someday decide to put your non vaccinated kids in school, this is a great place to live. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
There is a slight risk to many vaccinations, it's true, but that risk is much, much smaller than the risk of catching some really horrible illnesses if the population as a whole is not vaccinated. When people living amongst a population that vaccinates as a matter of course opt out, they are essentially banking on other people assuming risk so that they won't have to, it seems to me. Furthermore, if there are enough of them in an area they become potential resoviors for illness, it seems to me. I find both of these things troubling. Is my thinking in this regard off? I'm open to being wrong about this. I'd be interested in hearing more about the opinions of people who have chosen not to vaccinate their children and their motivations for not doing so.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Yes, I think there is an inherent selfishness, Noemon. "You vaccinate your kids so my kids don't have to be."
And yes, you're banking on others doing what you yourself choose not to do. There certainly could be reservoirs of certain illnesses and outbreaks because of people opting out of vaccinations. Like I said, red measles hasn't been in the picture in Alabama for years, but it's now coming back and every college student has to be vaccinated for it.
I've read all the literature on vaccinations and consider them an acceptable risk. They aren't risk free, but few things in life are.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: pH, I think he's saying things that are actually allowed to happen in school, which you just said your school didn't.
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: pH, I think he's saying things that are actually allowed to happen in school, which you just said your school didn't.
And those places which require the Hepatitis B vaccine - not all do, and none at all did when I was in school - are acting as improperly as any schools which attempt to require HPV vaccines in the future.
My point is that when mere presence can cause transmission of disease, the justification for use of the coercive power of the state is greater than in situations where mere presence is insufficient to cause transmission.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
Note: I only read this thread for the first time today, so I'm replying to a very old post
quote:Originally posted by pH: I just looked up gential warts on webmd and found a picture.
Now I am too scarred to continue my search for information.
-pH
On the subject of images when you are searching online - Google sometimes puts images at the top of the page when you use the toolbar. In one case, I was researching hemophilia (to help Amanda with a school project). As a sidebar, I told her about the Russian royal family and Rasputin. I Googled Rasputin, and images came up - including a surviving body part that is in a museum in Russia. Let the faint of heart be warned - it's not a pretty sight. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I really, honestly do not understand the arguments AGAINST vaccinating one's children, unless there are serious health concerns. I don't understand. Why does it matter if it's a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease? I was vaccinated for Hep B when I was ten, and I hadn't the slightest idea how it was spread, only that it was a liver disease.
I certainly didn't take it as license to go out and shoot heroin.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: I really, honestly do not understand the arguments AGAINST vaccinating one's children, unless there are serious health concerns. I don't understand. Why does it matter if it's a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease? I was vaccinated for Hep B when I was ten, and I hadn't the slightest idea how it was spread, only that it was a liver disease.
I certainly didn't take it as license to go out and shoot heroin.
-pH
I'm not against vaccinating. I'm against certain vaccines being mandatory. Anytime the government compels us to do something we should consider it a big deal.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Which vaccines ARE mandatory nowadays? I went to private school.
-pH
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Doctor: This injection will protect you against a certain type of cancer.
Mom: Thank you doctor.
Daughter: Mom, do I have to get a shot?
Mom: No, not if you want Cancer.
....
Why even tell them how it prevents cancer? I mean, if they had a shot that protected you from bone cancer would you inquire how or would you just take the shot?
I think most people would just take the shot.
Pix
I think the danger in just saying "It prevents cervical cancer" without saying how is that you might end up with people who think they are completely immune to the disease, when really they are just immune to one specific way of getting it.
As far as the Hep B shots go, I didn't know that any schools actually required them. Mine offered them free at the health center in middle school for those whose parents wanted them to get vaccinated, and I received the shots, but it was something that your parents had to specifically sign you up for.
I'm with those who say a vaccine is a vaccine. I'm not really against sex before marriage, I think everyone has to keep with what they individually believe is right. But I am certainly considering getting this vaccine, just because you never know what can happen. According to the article linked on the first page, it is also effective against two other types of cancer (vulvar and vaginal) caused by those same strands of HPV. Personally, I'd rather be safe than sorry. I would also have no problem with my (future) kids getting it. Depending on who it gets approved for (I don't think it's approved for young kids yet) I would probably give them the option some time in high school, definitely making sure they know it's available before they go off to college. At that point they probably have some idea of whether they are going to retain the same values you've tried to instill in them. It isn't likely to change their minds about whether or not they are going to have sex, but if they do decide they want to there isn't much you can do to stop them once the majority of their time isn't spent under your roof (and often not much you can do before that). I'd rather keep them, and their future partner(s) protected.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
My school started requiring Hep B vaccines shortly after I got mine, but as I said, I also went to private school. I think my university required them as well...but I also go to a private university.
-pH
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Yes, I think there is an inherent selfishness, Noemon. "You vaccinate your kids so my kids don't have to be."
And yes, you're banking on others doing what you yourself choose not to do. There certainly could be reservoirs of certain illnesses and outbreaks because of people opting out of vaccinations.
I find this a very erroneous view of how people who chose not to vaccinate. It's more accurate to say we have a different paradigm. We are unlikely to fully trust CDC reports on vaccine reactions and therefore see them as more prevalent than reported. (My eldest son had a moderate vaccine reaction to the measles only vaccine, which the dr's office refused to report as such, so I have personal experience with that.) I hope thet helps answer your question, Noemon. I really think it would only be selfish if I were counting on herd immunity- but I'm not. I live in an area with a higher tha usual unvaxed population, so I would be fooling myself if that were my strategy. What I'm banking on is healthy food, and plenty of exercise and frsh air will help make my children healthy enough to either not catch these diseases in the first place and if they do, have a milder case with no permanent damage. For example, in my little hippie freak subcommunity, I have seen about a dozen cases of pertussis, which my kids have never caught, and which none of the kids who did had lasting effects from. What I have seen of vaccinatable ( I know that's not a rrom) diseases versus what I have seen of vaccine effects, has convinced me to not vaccinate.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:What I have seen of vaccinatable ( I know that's not a rrom) diseases versus what I have seen of vaccine effects, has convinced me to not vaccinate.
Does that include polio?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I live in an area with a higher tha usual unvaxed population, so I would be fooling myself if that were my strategy.
Regardless of your conscious motivation, you and your family still benefit tremendously from herd immunity. Before measles and pertussis vaccinations, nearly everyone contracted each disease. Measles has an infection rate of close to 90% from exposure among the non-immune (without vaccination or previous infection).
Essentially, your strategy would not be possible if 99% of people in the U.S. didn't get the vaccine. You might still decide to risk the deaths caused by those diseases, but the fact that almost everyone else been vaccinated has taken two orders of magnitude off the chance of dying from those diseases.
Meanwhile, those who cannot be vaccinated - more likely to suffer severe effects if infected - have a higher chance of catching the diseases as the number of those who choose not to be vaccinated rises.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by romanylass: [QB] It's more accurate to say we have a different paradigm. We are unlikely to fully trust CDC reports on vaccine reactions and therefore see them as more prevalent than reported. (My eldest son had a moderate vaccine reaction to the measles only vaccine, which the dr's office refused to report as such, so I have personal experience with that.) I hope thet helps answer your question, Noemon.
It does to some degree, romany. I know you and respect you, so I felt pretty confident that you weren't taking an unconsciously selfish approach to things, and I figured that it was also pretty unlikely that it wasn't something that you'd just not thought about.
I'm not convinced that you're right, though (or at least not across the board). I wouldn't just blindly give my child every vaccine that became available--I would be reluctant to vaccinate a child of mine against chicken pox, for example, becasue I would be worry about the protection from the vaccine wearing off later in life and leaving them to face it as a very serious adult illness. Better to just get them infected with it when they're small, when it won't be a big deal (yes, I know, some people don't develop lifetime immunity from having had chicken pox. They're a tiny minority though).
That said, there are a lot of diseases that are responsible for the deaths and maiming of tens of thousands of children (probably more, but I'm feeling too lazy to dig up the exact figures)--things like polio, whooping cough, scarlet fever, and so forth, and those I would vaccinate my child against in a heartbeat, both to protect them and to do my part to stamp out those diseases.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I've had reactions to vaccinations (headaches, nausea, mild fevers), but they only lasted for maybe a handful of days. And really, I'd rather have a stomach upset for a couple of days than die because my brain swelled up inside my skull.
-pH
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Noemon- so far, only my oldest hasd been vaxxed about polio, and that is the one I worry about. Measles and pertussis would be ones however, where I just don't worry. Not that they won't catch it-those are the most two common for area outbreaks-but that these are healthy kids that would come out OK. Actually, of all the vaccines, the only one our ped has urged us to get is the Td(tetanus) ( since the kids run around barefoot all the time), and I did give Matthew that at 8. Livvie will probably get it at her next check up.
(BTW< i respect the hell out of you too.) But whatever we choose, something may go wrong and I'd feel gulity no matter what, so I do my research and decide from there.
Dagonee, you may be right, but I'd have to live in a different time or place to know, eh?
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
quote:Originally posted by romanylass: What I'm banking on is healthy food, and plenty of exercise and frsh air will help make my children healthy enough to either not catch these diseases in the first place and if they do, have a milder case with no permanent damage.
If that is your reasoning, I hope you are lucky. It doesn't sound plausible to me. I haven't seen any studies suggesting that healthy kids, or kids who eat organic foods, or kids who get fresh air, will have milder illnesses. Dagonee is right--you are depending on herd immunity a lot more than you think you are. That's by far the most likely reason your kids won't get sick. Unless you homeschool--I think Nathan had a point, he's less likely to get sick. But that only lasts till he goes to college.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
You don't think akid who eats, healthy, whole grain food gets sick less often than kids who eat fast food and kraparoni and cheese? I'm not a doctor, but I have worked child care for almost 20 years, and kids who eat healthy are healthier.
I don't mind people disagreeing with my choices- when you'e as far out of the mainstream as I am, it comes with the territory- but it bugs me when people think they more about why I do things than I do. My personal feelings about widespread vaccination ABSOLUTELY preclude the concept that I'm "relying on herd immunity".
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
You don't think akid who eats, healthy, whole grain food gets sick less often than kids who eat fast food and kraparoni and cheese? I'm not a doctor, but I have worked child care for almost 20 years, and kids who eat healthy are healthier.
I don't mind people disagreeing with my choices- when you'e as far out of the mainstream as I am, it comes with the territory- but it bugs me when people think they more about why I do things than I do. My personal feelings about widespread vaccination ABSOLUTELY preclude the concept that I'm "relying on herd immunity".
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
You don't think akid who eats, healthy, whole grain food gets sick less often than kids who eat fast food and kraparoni and cheese? I'm not a doctor, but I have worked child care for almost 20 years, and kids who eat healthy are healthier.
I don't mind people disagreeing with my choices- when you'e as far out of the mainstream as I am, it comes with the territory- but it bugs me when people think they more about why I do things than I do. My personal feelings about widespread vaccination ABSOLUTELY preclude the concept that I'm "relying on herd immunity".
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
You don't think akid who eats, healthy, whole grain food gets sick less often than kids who eat fast food and kraparoni and cheese? I'm not a doctor, but I have worked child care for almost 20 years, and kids who eat healthy are healthier.
I don't mind people disagreeing with my choices- when you'e as far out of the mainstream as I am, it comes with the territory- but it bugs me when people think they more about why I do things than I do. My personal feelings about widespread vaccination ABSOLUTELY preclude the concept that I'm "relying on herd immunity".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You don't think akid who eats, healthy, whole grain food gets sick less often than kids who eat fast food and kraparoni and cheese?
And yet, absent immunizations, nearly everyone got measles and pertussis at some point in their life.
quote:I don't mind people disagreeing with my choices- when you'e as far out of the mainstream as I am, it comes with the territory- but it bugs me when people think they more about why I do things than I do. My personal feelings about widespread vaccination ABSOLUTELY preclude the concept that I'm "relying on herd immunity"
Neither Theca nor I have said anything about your "personal feelings about widespread vaccination." Both Theca and I made it clear that weren't speaking of your state of mind in this regard. (Me: "Regardless of your conscious motivation, you and your family still benefit tremendously from herd immunity." Theca: "you are depending on herd immunity a lot more than you think you are.")
Both of us have made almost the exact same point: your children benefit enormously from herd immunity. That's pretty much a fact. You live in a society where non-immunized people are unlikely to catch measles precisely because of herd immunity generated through widespread vaccination.
Were you to live in a society with no immunizations, your children would face roughly a 3 in 1000 chance of dying of measles, assuming our health care system was otherwise the same.
Neither of us has claimed to know more about why you do things that you do. We have made particular claims about why your chosen course of action is far less risky thanks to herd immunity than it otherwise would be.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by romanylass: You don't think akid who eats, healthy, whole grain food gets sick less often than kids who eat fast food and kraparoni and cheese? I'm not a doctor, but I have worked child care for almost 20 years, and kids who eat healthy are healthier.
Of course they're healthier in general. I bet they have less risk of childhood obesity, less chance of developing heart disease and high blood pressure later in life, and all sorts of other health benefits based on eating well. What Theca said is that none of those things necessarily mean they'll have a milder case of the measles than a different kid. Or rather, that she hasn't seen any studies indicating as much. So you're going on your gut and faith. And that's fine. Chances are pretty good that you'll never have to find out if you're right or not, because most other parents vaccinate. I'm not saying that you're wrong not to. But it definitely makes your choice much safer than it would be otherwise.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'm interested in what makes the non-vaccinating people so afraid of vaccination? What statistics are you looking at? What studies?
I just find it difficult to believe that vaccinations are worse than the diseases they're preventing in almost all cases.
I am also pretty sure that heating healthy doesn't prevent any diseases.
Posted by GodSpoken (Member # 9358) on :
quote: It's not like it protects against all the other possible consequences, and most of those are worse than HPV. HPV isn't exactly the one to worry about most.
Actually, for women it is only the second worst. HIV of course being the big one. As to morals, medicine, religion and sociology, this is a story of a patient we dealt with today.
Patient became pregnant very young. This is in conflict with her family upbringing. After having been rejected by her family, she moved in with her boyfriend. She refused birth control in deference to her parents beliefs, and had several more babies quickly.
In further complication she is now HIV positive and has high risk HPV that has progressed from benign to non-invasive cancer in under a year.
Her family continues to neither acknowlege her nor her babies. She has been monogamous toughing out a bad situation because she thinks her parents would want that, though they still will not acknowlege her.
She is afraid and confused, with no adult relative to help her. What was supposed to have been a protective and right-minded upbringing went horribly wrong because of one unprepared and unforgiveable night when mom and dad were not in the back seat with their lesson of the day.
Ironically, it is her HPV that will likely kill her (yes, she can have a hysterectomy, but the virus is in her vaginal epithelium as well, and she has no immune system to help her recover) not her HIV.
In a nutshell--high risk HPV results in more significant negative life changes than any other STD outside of HIV. Treatment often results in incontinent cervix (can't retain a pregnancy) or hysterectomy. Not always, but often enough. Failure to treat-cancer.
[ June 13, 2006, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: GodSpoken ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
GodSpoken, while I understand why you are upset at this situation, I hope you will consider severely editing your post. You have a lot of personal information about this woman in there, and while I'm sure it seems like since you're not using your real name no one will connect you with your real town and hospital, and hence her identity, stranger things have happened on this forum. You are potentially seriously violating this person's privacy.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Remember, HIV doesn't kill people until the CD4 count drops down low. She may still have plenty of immune system left to recover from a hysterectomy which would take care of most of the HPV risk and then she could live many years with HIV if she is compliant with medication.
That's why we recommend paps yearly on high risk people.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I may well have asymptomatic HPV. From my wife.
If the vaccine became available and rigorous testing had suggested it was safe, I would happily vaccinate my daughter.
Posted by GodSpoken (Member # 9358) on :
ElJay--I appreciate your concern for her privacy, and I am highly sensitive to that on a personal level, and to HIPAA regulations on a professional one. There is very little information here that could lead to her identification, and she is one of a large number of teens with similar situations in this part of the country. I have edited my post, however, since unease was not my aim.
My point is, tragedy can result from the best meant teachings and protection, and from underestimating what is trivial and what young people NEED to know - regardless of whether or not their religious convictions SHOULD keep them risk free.
I find it hard to believe that frightened parents would believe their children would selectively believe the morals they teach them except in the presence of clinical information regarding sex, birth control or STD's.
Why would a teen with firm religious or moral convictions suddenly change values from simply having knowlege about these issues?
It is not the information that changes the beliefs or the behavior. But it could prevent the tragedy from whatever DID make them act.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Dag and Theaca, I aopligise if I'm taking your posts the wrong way.
MightyCow I will get some links later, but the sire I usually access is down.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
One of the nice things about many of these viral diseases is they can be eliminated if vaccination is widespread enough. Measles and mumps are almost unheard of in the States these days, for example.
Noemon, what about the risk of shingles later in life? I admit that I somewhat regret being born too late for the chicken pox vaccine, though there may be better treatments for shingles before it becomes a major concern for me.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Honestly, Shigosei, I don't know enough about shingles to be able to say. What is the relationship between shingles and chicken pox?
Also, what do you mean when you say that you were born too late for the chicken pox vaccine?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I meant born too early. I got chickenpox before the vaccine came out.
After an infection, chickenpox virus lies dormant in nerve cells near the spinal cord. The immune system keeps it in check, but (generally in older people), the virus can reactivate itself and spread down the nerve cells to the skin. That's what shingles is, and it's why I'll have my hypothetical children vaccinated.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Shingles can be very serious - my husband carries a series of scars on his torso from shingles. And he was considered to have a relatively mild case. I also know someone who was scarred on the face pretty badly by it. It's a nasty disease. Caused by the same virus as chicken pox, as Shigosei said.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Interesting. Thanks for the information. Preventing that sounds like the first good argument I've heard for the vaccine. I still don't know whether I'd vaccinate my kids against chicken pox, though. It would depend on the severity of the potential side effects vs the potential severity of shingles, and then factor in what percent of vaccine recipients develop the side effects vs the percentage of people who develop shingles.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Just remember that while most people have a mild case of chicken pox, even kids who get it don't always have such a mild case.
My niece got it when she was 18 months old. (Warning -the next sentence or so may be graphic and disturbing)
Her outbreak was extremely severe - she had pox all over her body including inside the vagina. She was in a lot of pain, and ran a very high fever. It was an ordeal that my sister in law can tell you she would not wish on any parent.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Belle, the girl I got chicken pox from had them that bad, the places you mentioned plus under an eyelid. I got three, total. I was 4 or five, she was younger but not much younger.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
romany, I'm just curious, how severe did you feel your son's reaction was? The CDC data says that 1/6 people is going to have a mild reaction.
I also don't know that they are even required to report mild reactions, as the statistics are normally taken from a representative population sample, and are not necessarily ongoing contantly.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Interesting... you can report the reaction yourself if you feel it was significant...
Human Papilloma virus vaccine approved by the FDA will reportedly protect against 4 types of the virus - 6 & 11 which are responsible for 90% of the genital warts (not the hi-risk cervical cancer kind) and types 16&18 which are responsible for about 70% of the cervical cancer. This is not 100% protection, however. (Very little is 100% in medicine) Even with the vaccine you can still catch these strains plus the other 25 or so genital strains so you will still have to have Pap smears.
If both partners enter a marriage as virgins and remain completely faithful during the whole marriage, then neither one will get genital HPV. And therefore won't get cervical cancer. The problem is that you can never be sure your partner is telling the truth, so even Apostle's wives should get regular Pap smears.
And for those who feel the need to tell about their family history of cervical cancer, I would suggest not mentioning this in public in the future as you are telling us that either grandpa or grandma had sex with someone else sometime in their lives. I can't tell you how uncomfortable it is to hear someone in a testimony meeting in church tell about their relative's (or worse, their own)cervical cancer. Please stop, although I do hear an occasional snicker from doctor's in the congregation when someone announces this over the pulpit that livens up what might be an otherwise boring meeting. Luckily cervical cancer is getting to be rare since Pap smears detect pre-cancerous changes of the cervix and HPV and pre-cancerous changes are easily treated.
And yes 80% of sexually active American women (meaning had sex at least once in their life) are infected with this sexually transmitted disease sometime in their lives. Most clear the infection in a matter of years, but they are infectious during that time, and some never clear the infection.
You won't catch genital HPV at school as long as you keep your clothes on and your hands out of your and other people's pants. The HPV that causes hand and foot warts are other types.
The vaccine appears to be safe and seems to be a good idea for women. (Penile cancer is rare and easily seen and treated. Vaccinated men would be much less likely to be carriers but would not be directly impacted by the disease nearly as much a women)
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has suggested routine vaccines for 11 & 12 year-olds. While they don't have the final say in what is "officially" recommended, the federal health officials normally accepts their recs.
It also looks like most insurance companies will be covering these vaccinations, once it gets through all the proper channels. It's also recommended that females up to the age of 26 get "catch-up" vaccinations once they become available.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:If both partners enter a marriage as virgins and remain completely faithful during the whole marriage, then neither one will get genital HPV. And therefore won't get cervical cancer. The problem is that you can never be sure your partner is telling the truth, so even Apostle's wives should get regular Pap smears.
I believe that HPV is not necessarily the ONLY cause of the cancer, though I might be wrong. And women get exams for reasons beyond detecting HPV, besides.
Not only that, but he did it by completely bypassing the normal law-making procedures and made it an executive order. I'm all for the vaccination, and it may just be an over sensative paranoid-conspiracy-theory nerve, but I gotta wonder if this has anything to do with the $1000+ dollars Merck will be getting from every insured sixth grade girl. Sounds like Kickback City to me, but then again, it could be innocent, I don't know.
What do y'all think?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: And for those who feel the need to tell about their family history of cervical cancer, I would suggest not mentioning this in public in the future as you are telling us that either grandpa or grandma had sex with someone else sometime in their lives. I can't tell you how uncomfortable it is to hear someone in a testimony meeting in church tell about their relative's (or worse, their own)cervical cancer. Please stop, although I do hear an occasional snicker from doctor's in the congregation when someone announces this over the pulpit that livens up what might be an otherwise boring meeting.
*shakes head*
Words fail me.
O.K., actually, they don't, but I'm just not interested in getting into what will probably be a fight with the board.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I don't find significant moral implications in the vaccine; we often do things to lessen the consequence of unfortunate acts (like, say, putting covers on the electric outlets, even though Junior was told not to stick his finger in there). However, that's *my* decision, not the governor's.
The moral implications of the governor using force to make parents override their consciences -- that's pretty awful.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Well, if the parents have a religious or philisophical argument against the vaccination, they can submit it in writing and their child will be exempt. I don't think it should be on the parent to prevent the vaccine, it should be on the parent to get it in the fist place.
I think everyone that can should get the vaccination, but I agree with you that the gov't shouldn't force everyone to get it. They just should. (IMO)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:O.K., actually, they don't, but I'm just not interested in getting into what will probably be a fight with the board.
Depending on what you said, I'd bet most of the board would agree with you. Almost certainly most of the board will not agree with the quoted take on mentioning cervical cancer in public.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Mentioning your or your family's cancer in church and getting snickered at by someone in the back pew...not a real classy response.
I am also wondering if pH is not right. I could swear that cervical cancer was not alone caused by HPV, but was a mitigating factor.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
What worries me most about the vaccine is the fact that its so new.
I've been seeing my doctor alot recently for mystery pain. We decided that since my health has been so odd lately, that I should get the shot to prevent any complications later in life.
So I went for my first round last month. I don't like needles and it did hurt more than the average flu shot, but I'd been in the hospital a month before and nothing could compare to all those injections and IVs. The worst part was that on my way back to the waiting room, I passed out. Dropped hard straight to the ground. My parents had to come and bring me home especially since my arm was in too much pain to drive. My doctor and the nurses were completely stunned and now my chart says I have to wait atleast half an hour before leaving after the next two rounds of shots.
I went and did my research on medalerts and found that "loss of consciousness" is a commonly reported side-effect. There was even the story of one girl who pitched right off the exam table. Other side-effects included intense pain at the injection site, allergic reactions and rashes, slurred speech, disorientation, and seizure.
Personally, I'm still alittle nervous about getting shot twice more. But with a classmate recently diagnosed and my mother's own case (it lay dormant for decades), I figure it worth a few minutes of unconsciousness. My reproductive organs have enough ways to self-destruct before I get married and have kids and anything that removes one of those possibilities is very wanted.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:O.K., actually, they don't, but I'm just not interested in getting into what will probably be a fight with the board.
Depending on what you said, I'd bet most of the board would agree with you. Almost certainly most of the board will not agree with the quoted take on mentioning cervical cancer in public.
I whole-heartedly agree. In fact, I almost said something myself, but after three drafts nothing could come close to expressing my feeling on the topic.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:I am also wondering if pH is not right. I could swear that cervical cancer was not alone caused by HPV, but was a mitigating factor.
In the Gardisil commercial they say that while HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer, it is not the only cause, so it is still important to get regular screenings.
Edit: and WebMD confirms it. link Apparently there are several potential causes of cervical cancer, though I believe most of them are only "part of the complex interactions that cause cervical cancer."
[ February 06, 2007, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: vonk ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Back when this thread first started, using ElJay's hypotheticals, I said I would recommend this for my daughter.
However, that certainly doesn't mean I agree with a government MANDATE on it (glad to see they are giving an opt-out option). I think this should be between family & doctor.
That said, I probably still won't ask my daughter to get it yet -- it is just too new -- and I don't trust those things -- after years of us having things that would turn up 20 years later to have caused serious long-term problems. How can we know what this does to a girl long term yet, or if there are negatives?
FG
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
I definitely plan to get it at some point, but I'm not sure when that will be. My doctor's office isn't planning to get it until sometime this year, but I go to school out of state and will be out of the country for most of the summer so I don't know that I will be able to get the three shots in six months. The website for our campus health center doesn't list it under their vaccination list, though I should probably try the page for their women's clinic.
I don't think there should be a government mandate quite yet, though I don't know that I disagree with one once the vaccine has been out long enough to know what the side effects and whatnot are.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I don't think there should be a government mandate quite yet, though I don't know that I disagree with one once the vaccine has been out long enough to know what the side effects and whatnot are.
That's basically my position as well; it seems to me that widespread distribution of a vaccine is key to its success. I think that's particularly true in this specific case, since the relevant strains of HPV can be carried undetectably by 50% of the population (that is, males).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:If both partners enter a marriage as virgins and remain completely faithful during the whole marriage, then neither one will get genital HPV. And therefore won't get cervical cancer. The problem is that you can never be sure your partner is telling the truth, so even Apostle's wives should get regular Pap smears.
I believe that HPV is not necessarily the ONLY cause of the cancer, though I might be wrong. And women get exams for reasons beyond detecting HPV, besides.
-pH
Read an article about this and the virus is responsible for the vast majority of cervical cancer cases, something in the ball park of at the most 90%.
I do not think making it a requirement is warranted in this case. The government should in this instance not try to tell us how to take care of our children. In this instance the vaccination helps one person who is not a liability to others, thus its not like getting a small pox vaccination.
I really feel Merc (the developer of the vaccination) is pushing for making the vaccination mandatory as the entire vaccination is around $350. They stand to make a HUGE chunk of money if every child was required to get this shot.
I am all for using this vaccination as I feel its important to do all I reasonably can do to prepare my children for life. If people want to take a step towards prevention give them the option, don't make them take it.
This is not some sort of landmark decision if it is made either way, but a decision to require children to get this vaccination is a sizeable chip at personal freedoms, and its government treading in territory it should not be treading in.
Oddly enough, in many instances I am partial to big government and intervention, but this is not one of them.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Ok. I am the father of four girls (ages 3-10). All of them will go get them when they are 12. Looking at their future, I want them to have the best chances of fighting cancer.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I'm just going to play devil's advocate for a while. Honestly, I haven't made up my mind on the mandate. (Although I think if I have a girl, she will get the vaccine.)
Theoretically, if ALL girls are vaccinated, then much like with polio, we can practically wipe out these strains of HPV. Once again in theory, there is no forced communication of this disease from person to person, however in reality, it is a common and widespread virus. Some form of HPV is present in something like 85% of women. It doesn't exactly take a ton of promiscuity to get this disease. Yeah, if we only ever have sex with our sopuse who is also a virgin, we shouldn't get the virus, but this, too is not a representation of reality. The average American has 6 sexual partners in his/her lifetime.
Anyway...just some thoughts to throw out there. I haven't read this entire thread, but it does seem that no one is considering the opposition so I thought I'd give it a shot.
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
One of the reasons I think this vaccine is important is that I'm pretty sure I read (probably in a link from this thread the first time around) is that HPV and still be transferred if the couple uses protection. Since most people have multiple partners at some point, and many people do not bother to get tested beforehand, it's really easy for this to get spread even if everyone is being as careful and responsible as possible.
(I realize that there are people on the board who view any sex outside of marriage as irresponsible or wrong, but if you fall in love with someone who has had sex before, are you going to not marry them simply because of that?)
I can understand people who don't want the government involved no matter what side it ends up on, but unless the vaccine ends up having some serious side effects I see no reason for it not to become standard for everyone. Whether this should be done by mandate or just by recommendation from doctors I'm not sure.
Posted by jlt (Member # 10088) on :
Speaking as a non-sexually active teen, I would still get the shot. For one thing, it is supposed to be effective in younger women (I think) to protect them against future infection. Also, for other girls my age not having sex before marriage seems laughable and so this shot would be especially beneficial for them, even if others feel that their choices are not morally correct. As for not allowing the vaccination until age 17 or whatever, seems questionable to tell kids, we won't protect you from getting a disease and maybe cancer because we don't want you to have sex yet, in reality, it won't stop younger teens and just puts them at risk.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I had the ability to do all sorts of "bad" things while I was a teen: drugs, sex, drinking, crime, etc. I didn't do those things, because my parents brought me up to be a good person, and make thoughtful choices.
Giving a shot to teenagers to protect them from cancer won't make them have sex any more than putting airbags in a car makes people crash into highway medians.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:I don't think there should be a government mandate quite yet, though I don't know that I disagree with one once the vaccine has been out long enough to know what the side effects and whatnot are.
That's basically my position as well; it seems to me that widespread distribution of a vaccine is key to its success.
Agreed. While I think making it one of the required vaccines should happen, I disagree with doing it so quickly after it became available. It was what, 2? 4? years after the chickenpox vaccine became available here before it became mandatory (and I think it may still not be in some states?)
While I do plan to (most likely, depending on insurance coverage and the pediatrician's recommendation) have my almost-13-year-old get the shot next time we're in, making it mandatory strikes me as premature. And I dislike the executive end-run around established legislative practice.
I suspect it is a question of money, although not the way several other posters have meant that. I wonder if it would be possible to require Medicare and Texas' state equivalent to cover the cost for the uninsured if it were not a required vaccine? My guess (based on when equivalent coverage became available for other vaccines -- only after they became mandatory) is probably not.
Still should have gone through the state legislature though. Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
I suspect it is a question of money, although not the way several other posters have meant that. I wonder if it would be possible to require Medicare and Texas' state equivalent to cover the cost for the uninsured if it were not a required vaccine? My guess (based on when equivalent coverage became available for other vaccines -- only after they became mandatory) is probably not.
Still should have gone through the state legislature though.
That's a really good point. I had wondered about insurance coverage, and it probably is a whole lot easier to get companies (particularly government funded health plans) to provide something if it's mandatory for people to get it.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I had the ability to do all sorts of "bad" things while I was a teen: drugs, sex, drinking, crime, etc. I didn't do those things, because my parents brought me up to be a good person, and make thoughtful choices.
Giving a shot to teenagers to protect them from cancer won't make them have sex any more than putting airbags in a car makes people crash into highway medians.
I know there was many a time when I was about to have sex with some strange person in an alley in exchange for Little Friskies when I stopped myself for fear of getting HPV.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Re: passing out
Shanna, did you mean that this is a common side effect (i.e., occurs commonly), or that among side effects for the HPV vaccination, this is one is one of the more common ones?
----
Edited to add:
From the CDC insert, it looks like the most common side effects are:
1. 80% get pain at the injection site 2. 25% get redness or swelling at the injection site 3. 10% get a mildly elevated body temperature (100°F) 4. 3% get itching at the injection site 5. 1.5% get a fever (102°F)
[ February 07, 2007, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'll pick that (potential) fight, Storm Saxon.
baxter999,
quote:I can't tell you how uncomfortable it is to hear someone in a testimony meeting in church tell about their relative's (or worse, their own)cervical cancer.
Yes, Baxter999, because church definitely isn't about sharing one's heartache and suffering-as well as joy and happiness-amongst the community, drawing support and lending it from that same community. Rather, it's about repressing the more impolite infirmities, sharing only that which is appropriately sterilized and proper.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
This reminds me of the time someone told me they didn't think I should share that I had colon cancer. It was too embarrassing, she said though she wasn't clear as to whether she was embarrassed or thought I should be.
I told her that I wanted people to know that colon cancer wasn't just something that happened to people over 50, and that screening is important to detect what could be a fatal disease, and that early detection is life-saving in this instance. Apparently, she believed that because talking about it required an acknowledgement that yes, people do have bodies that must remove waste, it was a subject better not discussed. Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote: Shanna, did you mean that this is a common side effect (i.e., occurs commonly), or that among side effects for the HPV vaccination, this is one is one of the more common ones?
Sorry for not making that more clear. I think my brain was still scrambled.
My intent was to say that "passing out," though not listed on the CDC warning, seems to be a common report from doctors now administering the vaccine. My office had thought my reaction to be a freak response, but through medalerts I saw that it was a side-effect I had in common with others who had difficulty with the vaccine.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Very few people have stated that they oppose this because it encourages sex, or empowers teenagers to have sex without repercussions.
I really feel the more important aspect is the federal government making this mandatory when cervical cancer is not polio or small pox by any stretch of the imagination.
If we follow this line of logic, if I invent a vaccine that can prevent ALL disease from ever occurring and the vaccine costs 25,000 dollars how can we draw a line as to "this is how far the price may go but no further" when it comes to preventing disease and the governments right to make its population take steps to do so?
This really sounds like a state affair that local and state governments should be allowed to consider and implement/ignore. We don't even have universal health care in the states, so why are we instituting "Required Health Care?" I'd like the house to be built before I am told to move into it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna:
quote: Shanna, did you mean that this is a common side effect (i.e., occurs commonly), or that among side effects for the HPV vaccination, this is one is one of the more common ones?
Sorry for not making that more clear. I think my brain was still scrambled.
My intent was to say that "passing out," though not listed on the CDC warning, seems to be a common report from doctors now administering the vaccine. My office had thought my reaction to be a freak response, but through medalerts I saw that it was a side-effect I had in common with others who had difficulty with the vaccine.
Do you mean the VAERS (vaccine adverse event reporting service) -- the system the CDC uses to track vaccine reactions?
When I look through VAERS, I don't see more syncopal episodes reported than I would expect to see. (Some people will faint when they have the pain of an injection, but this isn't common.) I also don't see it listed on any of the typical medical sites as a common concern.
I don't know what "MedAlerts" is. Is it a medical site? I wonder if it might be a non-medical site that isn't interpreting the population data reliably.
Regardless, I hope it never happens to you again. I imagine it was pretty scary. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If we follow this line of logic, if I invent a vaccine that can prevent ALL disease from ever occurring and the vaccine costs 25,000 dollars how can we draw a line as to "this is how far the price may go but no further" when it comes to preventing disease and the governments right to make its population take steps to do so?
That vaccine would be a spectacular bargain. Long-term health care costs are staggering, which is why an ounce of prevention is quite literally worth a pound of cure.
Also, "we don't have universal health care, so we shouldn't vaccinate people" strikes me as a non sequitur.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Thank you, Rakeesh and Belle.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Sexually transmitted infections can be transmitted by contact that was voluntary or involuntary. They can be transmitted on occasions that are remembered fondly or with regret.
When I hear about an STI, I generally have no idea what the circumstances were surrounding its transmission. That seems to be true for most of us, so I think it's safest not to assume the details.
A separate issue is whether or not to mock or think less of someone else for not having specific medical information for themselves (such as if one were to mock a woman for publically mentioning a condition which may be connected to other information she might not have voluntarily disclosed). I don't do that, either.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I really feel the more important aspect is the federal government making this mandatory when cervical cancer is not polio or small pox by any stretch of the imagination.
I'm not clear on what exact differences make it ok to mandate vaccinating against polio and small pox but not against cervical cancer.
quote: If we follow this line of logic, if I invent a vaccine that can prevent ALL disease from ever occurring and the vaccine costs 25,000 dollars how can we draw a line as to "this is how far the price may go but no further" when it comes to preventing disease and the governments right to make its population take steps to do so?
I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at here.
quote:This really sounds like a state affair that local and state governments should be allowed to consider and implement/ignore. We don't even have universal health care in the states, so why are we instituting "Required Health Care?" I'd like the house to be built before I am told to move into it.
I'm not sure what universal health care has to do with anything. If this is a just thing to *require* citizens to do (and I'm not sure it is), then the reasoning behind it is that if all citizens are vaccinated, we can wipe this virus out of existence. We've nearly done that with other diseases, including small pox and polio. Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Everyone realizes that the post everyone is angry about is the only post baxter ever made here and it was made over six months ago, right? I don't think he's still around to argue with you.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Shanna:
quote: Shanna, did you mean that this is a common side effect (i.e., occurs commonly), or that among side effects for the HPV vaccination, this is one is one of the more common ones?
Sorry for not making that more clear. I think my brain was still scrambled.
My intent was to say that "passing out," though not listed on the CDC warning, seems to be a common report from doctors now administering the vaccine. My office had thought my reaction to be a freak response, but through medalerts I saw that it was a side-effect I had in common with others who had difficulty with the vaccine.
Do you mean the VAERS (vaccine adverse event reporting service) -- the system the CDC uses to track vaccine reactions?
When I look through VAERS, I don't see more syncopal episodes reported than I would expect to see. (Some people will faint when they have the pain of an injection, but this isn't common.) I also don't see it listed on any of the typical medical sites as a common concern.
I don't know what "MedAlerts" is. Is it a medical site? I wonder if it might be a non-medical site that isn't interpreting the population data reliably.
Regardless, I hope it never happens to you again. I imagine it was pretty scary.
Yeah, it looks like VAERS and medalerts are related. Medalerts is the online search engine for VAERS.
To get numbers for those interested, there are 294 reports of side-effects for "HPV4" (I looked and didn't see one for me. ) From that number, 49 reported fainted or loss of consciousness. So, 1 out of 6 reports.
I'm just thankful I didn't hit anything hard on the way down or passed out while driving, and was able to be woken up (my younger brother takes hours to come out of a fainting episode). It just bothers me that because the drug is so new, none of the nurses were expecting it. I was warned about the possibility of pain, though nobody said anything about my arm being incapacitated for the rest of the day. And I'm not a fainting person having already dealt with foot-long needles injecting steroids into my knee.
Maybe its just the nature of doctor offices to stab and go. Course that opens up a whole new debate though about whether research of a drug/treatment falls on a patient or a doctor. To what extent do a person rely on their doctor to inform them of potential risks, medical debate, etc.
I know there's been controversy regarding how the vaccine can INCREASE the risk of cancer in a woman who is already infected. And yet, its possible to be infected without causing abnormal test results. Abnormal test results themselves are not uncommon and minor abnormalities caused by HPV. Re-tests do not immediately follow and specific tests for HPV are ordered at the doctor's discretion. So far, it doesn't seem like the CDC is requiring intial general or specific HPV tests to be done prior to receiving the vaccine.
So perhaps its safer to vaccinate young girls as soon as possible. I was just reading an article about a girl with a perfectly normal exam and test results in December who had developed a massive tumor on her cervix by the following May. Here it is for anyone who wants a really depressing read: http://www.janemag.com/magazine/articles/2006/03/20/HPV Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: Yeah, it looks like VAERS and medalerts are related. Medalerts is the online search engine for VAERS.
Hmmm. VAERS has a direct search engine. I Googled some of the terms, and I think you may be going through the National Vaccine Information Center, which -- although it looks official -- isn't really affiliated with VAERS or the CDC in general. It looks like a private non-profit group which is generally not in favor of vaccinations.
Doesn't mean that what they say is wrong, of course, but there may be bias in how it was reported that you were not aware of.
quote:To get numbers for those interested, there are 294 reports of side-effects for "HPV4" (I looked and didn't see one for me. ) From that number, 49 reported fainted or loss of consciousness. So, 1 out of 6 reports.
What I'm wondering is what the denominator is there; e.g., in the 100,000s?
---
The big thing is that you are okay. I was just taken aback because I work with this patient population and hadn't heard about this as a "common" effect at all. If it is, I need to know. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
That doesn't seem wise, and I wonder if it might be prohibited. I will check into this.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
Dr Drew supports this vaccine, and anything he supports cannot be bad. Therefore I also support this vaccine.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: I'm not clear on what exact differences make it ok to mandate vaccinating against polio and small pox but not against cervical cancer.
Small pox and Polio IMO (and I could be wrong) cause far more injury and death then HPV. A child with small pox is a danger to me and my own children, and so it makes sense for the government to step in and protect the population by immunizing us all.
quote: I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at here.
I can perform miracle A, but it costs $B, I am going to lobby the government to coerce you into allowing me to perform miracle A on you at cost $B to you.
I do not view that scenario as ethical, the government can endorse programs that perform miracle A even make insurance companies cover it (in some instances). But the government stepping in and requiring me to vaccinate my children from this virus is a step towards the government running my family instead of me.
If it's such a danger, why can't the government require adults who are not vaccinated to stop having sex until they do so as a health precaution? It might sound too extreme but it follows the same logic. (I admit I may not understand how HPV is spread, and I am going to read up on it right now.)
quote: I'm not sure what universal health care has to do with anything. If this is a just thing to *require* citizens to do (and I'm not sure it is), then the reasoning behind it is that if all citizens are vaccinated, we can wipe this virus out of existence. We've nearly done that with other diseases, including small pox and polio.
Eradicating a disease in of itself is not sufficient cause for the government to make me purchase a vaccination. Why doesn't the government force the population to get flu shots every autumn? People die from it every year.
quote: Also, "we don't have universal health care, so we shouldn't vaccinate people" strikes me as a non sequitur.
I don't think it is. My house analogy makes it perfectly clear. Health care in the US is underdeveloped IMO, it needs to be more available, not more specifically mandatory.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Eradicating a disease in of itself is not sufficient cause for the government to make me purchase a vaccination. Why doesn't the government force the population to get flu shots every autumn? People die from it every year.
I'm still thinking about the rest of what you had to say, but I can easily answer this. The flu is different every year, and each year the flu shot protects against last year's flu. It is one of the most adaptable viruses we have and so it absolutely would not eliminate the flu to have everyone vaccinated against it. The best you can say about the flu shot is that it lowers your risk a bit. It's really a very uninspiring vaccine to me and this is largely the reason that I chose not to get it for my son, even though the insurance company agreed to pay for it.
Oh, and one other thing I can mention...this vaccine is not one that should be given to adults once they have become sexually active because if you have already contracted the virus it makes it even more likely that you will get cervical cancer. So vaccinating adults is really not an option.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: HPV is a virus with hundreds of strains, explained Mineral Wells family practice physician Dr. Patrick Hisel.
Hisel said that, “Calling HPV a sexually transmitted disease is debatable because it’s the same virus that causes warts on our fingers. It’s ubiquitous. It’s so incredibly common that I would hate for the stigmata of an STD to prevent people getting the vaccine that could prevent major problems down the road.”
That was from this article Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:Oh, and one other thing I can mention...this vaccine is not one that should be given to adults once they have become sexually active because if you have already contracted the virus it makes it even more likely that you will get cervical cancer. So vaccinating adults is really not an option.
I'd really like to see more studies done regarding adults, especially younger adults with limited sexual encounters.
Even if a woman has had sex (or any variation of genital to genital contact with or without a condom) she may not have contracted HPV or atleast may not have contracted one of the strands the vaccine guards against. Without adequate methods of testing, its like playing Russian Roulette. The same thing that could save them, could harm them down the road. Which chance do you take?
I'd like the CDC to require the DNA tests for HPV for sexually-active adults. Even then, that's an imperfect test and it would be better if more precise tests could be developed.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Eradicating a disease in of itself is not sufficient cause for the government to make me purchase a vaccination. Why doesn't the government force the population to get flu shots every autumn? People die from it every year.
I'm still thinking about the rest of what you had to say, but I can easily answer this. The flu is different every year, and each year the flu shot protects against last year's flu. It is one of the most adaptable viruses we have and so it absolutely would not eliminate the flu to have everyone vaccinated against it. The best you can say about the flu shot is that it lowers your risk a bit. It's really a very uninspiring vaccine to me and this is largely the reason that I chose not to get it for my son, even though the insurance company agreed to pay for it.
Thanks for that response.
Then why isn't the government simply requiring us to get flu shots annually, like filing our taxes every year?
If that is unconvincing then substitute Flu Shots then for Hepatitis A or B vaccination shots. Or if a vaccination for C existed, use that.
What if there was a separate vaccination for every single type of cancer? Wouldn't the government be justified in requiring us to get vaccinated for at least the most common kinds? Or the types with the highest mortality rate?
I just do not think the government should require its citizens to take costly steps towards their health in this instance. The government should be providing for its citizens health, not dictating how they ought to take care of themselves.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Because there's also evidence getting flu shots helps spur the flu to become harder to combat.
Cancer would only justify government intervention if it were transmittable. Its the health risk to others that makes mandatory vaccinations justifiable; the externality that makes it more beneficial to people as a whole than to any one person individually, that is very hard to create a right that handles. Of course, a better way might be to quantify the (average) value to everyone of each person's vaccination, then pay everyone who gets vaccinated that amount. There are problems with that, too, but it avoids the coercion dilemma.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
To elaborate:
Essentially, there's a weighing between the damage to society by not requiring vaccinations and the damage to society by requiring vaccines. Some people believe that requiring something is always more damaging (yet are generally willing to countenance at least minimal taxation for defense and basic law enforcement, so they apparently mean always more damaging than being invaded, murder, and theft; at that point it becomes a question of where to draw the line, not if there's a line to be drawn, though), but most people reject this view.
Some things probably aren't virulent enough to justify the harm of required vaccinations. Some probably are. I know you've already touched on this somewhat, but it really does become a question of where you draw the line; if you've already accepted that some things can reasonably be required vaccinations, then its necessary to evaluate the specific criteria that they meet, and determine if other diseases do or do not meet similar specific criteria.
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Eradicating a disease in of itself is not sufficient cause for the government to make me purchase a vaccination. Why doesn't the government force the population to get flu shots every autumn? People die from it every year.
I'm still thinking about the rest of what you had to say, but I can easily answer this. The flu is different every year, and each year the flu shot protects against last year's flu. It is one of the most adaptable viruses we have and so it absolutely would not eliminate the flu to have everyone vaccinated against it. The best you can say about the flu shot is that it lowers your risk a bit. It's really a very uninspiring vaccine to me and this is largely the reason that I chose not to get it for my son, even though the insurance company agreed to pay for it.
Thanks for that response.
Then why isn't the government simply requiring us to get flu shots annually, like filing our taxes every year?
If that is unconvincing then substitute Flu Shots then for Hepatitis A or B vaccination shots. Or if a vaccination for C existed, use that.
It's not mandatory, but my middle school health center offered free Hep B vaccines every year. Maybe that would be the best approach. They sent things out to parents telling them when the vaccines would be and how to sign their kid up. The shots were during school so there were no issues with transportation or anything like that. Maybe the HPV vaccine should be handled the same way. The problem is that not all school systems can do that.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I'm fairly certain that my district required the HepB vaccine in in middle school, among others.
--j_k
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
So does California, IIRC. Actually, I believe most states require HepB vaccine. Also DTP, varicella (chicken pox) and a slew of others -- exactly which ones are required and at what ages varies from state to state.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: To elaborate:
Essentially, there's a weighing between the damage to society by not requiring vaccinations and the damage to society by requiring vaccines. Some people believe that requiring something is always more damaging (yet are generally willing to countenance at least minimal taxation for defense and basic law enforcement, so they apparently mean always more damaging than being invaded, murder, and theft; at that point it becomes a question of where to draw the line, not if there's a line to be drawn, though), but most people reject this view.
Some things probably aren't virulent enough to justify the harm of required vaccinations. Some probably are. I know you've already touched on this somewhat, but it really does become a question of where you draw the line; if you've already accepted that some things can reasonably be required vaccinations, then its necessary to evaluate the specific criteria that they meet, and determine if other diseases do or do not meet similar specific criteria.
This is a very good way of putting it.
I haven't personally decided which side of the line the cervical cancer vaccine is on. I guess that's what I'm trying to gleam from this discussion -- what is the criteria from determining whether a vaccine is justifiable and does the cervical cancer vaccine meet the criteria?
I don't know right now. I do know that I believe making some vaccines mandatory is justifiable.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Also, "we don't have universal health care, so we shouldn't vaccinate people" strikes me as a non sequitur.
I don't think it is. My house analogy makes it perfectly clear. Health care in the US is underdeveloped IMO, it needs to be more available, not more specifically mandatory.
There's no reason both things can't be done at once. You need a roof over your head even if your house isn't built yet.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
See?
It is Things Like This that make me so wary of any government mandate of new vaccines.
This vaccine was approved in early 2006, 3.5 million doses were given, now suddenly the FDA says there might be a fatal problem....
FG
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Farmgirl, I think that is actually an old report. The rotavirus vaccine (I assume it's the same one [actually, this is the new one -- see edit below]) was pulled for intussusception concerns extremely quickly -- it was pulled, reviewed, and the scuttlebutt*** is that it's being cleared and will be reintroduced soon. It looks like this was a false alarm.
***(I trained under one of the top vaccination experts in the country who was working on this, and he kept me updated while I was in residency in the US. He is the vaccine expert on the AAP Redbook (the pediatric infectious diseases "bible"). According to him, this is a case that shows how well the vaccine surveillance and vetting process works: they monitored aggressively for possible problems and pulled it early for thorough review (even if not a real problem).
---
Edited to add: Ah, I think I see what is happening. It's still reassuring.
There were concerns raised about the rotavirus vaccine released in 1998, and it was pulled quickly. The concerns proved unfounded. A new version was introduced in the US last year (not in Canada, though, as far as I know). Now the FDA has put out feelers to see if there are reasons for concerns this go around -- but they are not "warning" people about a new concern.
Actually, the rate of intussusception are lower than would be anticipated as a background rate. That is to say, over millions of times when the vaccine is being given, you would expect to see a certain number of cases of intussusception coincidentally with the vaccination -- not caused by it, but just associated temporally with it because the vaccine is being given to kids at ages when they will be getting intussusception anyway.
However, the surveillance system isn't picking up as many coincidental cases as they expected! So the FDA is going hunting, just to see if the surveillnace system is working.
From the article you linked:
quote:The rotavirus is thought of as the leading cause of early childhood diarrhea. The dangerous condition, called intussusception, is the same that led to the withdrawal of the first rotavirus vaccine, RotaShield by Wyeth, eight years ago. However, FDA says the 28 new cases of the disease are not high enough to exceed the so-called background rate.
The background rate is the incidence expected naturally. "It looks like this is the natural background rate that we are seeing," also said Dr. Michelle Goveia, medical director for pediatric medical affairs at the vaccine's manufacturer, Merck & Co. Inc. Dr. Goveia also said RotaTeq was tested in trials involving 70,000 infants, and that little difference in cases of intussusception were seen in those given the vaccine and those given placebos.
"We believe we designed the study rigorously and we didn't see a ... relationship," she said (six cases were seen in RotaTeq recipients vs. five in placebo recipients).
"It's a known serious, life-threatening adverse event that is being seen at an expected level postmarketing. But because it is so serious, we asked the company to change the label," FDA spokeswoman Karen Riley said. A warning was also posted on FDA's website.
Dr. Paul Offit, the vaccine's co-inventor, suspects the FDA wants basically to "shake the tree" for more reports about the vaccine's adverse effects.
"I am actually encouraged by those data: 28 cases, when you would have expected at least 500 cases, that is really reassuring," said Offit, of the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. "I don't see how those numbers suggest something's awry. If anything, they suggest nothing's awry." [emphasis added]
[ February 14, 2007, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
CT: I'm glad to see you post that. I heard something about this on NBC news a few days ago but they were spinning it for drama to make it sound like the FDA was concerned. I remembered thinking, "28 kids get sick out of millions and they're concerned?!?" I'm glad to see my instinct about the story was correct. I wish journalists would be more responsible in reporting stories, though, as most people don't think like me. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Bizarre or sensationalistic spin on news stories seems par for the course, unfortunately. It doesn't make the very difficult job of making sense of complicated medical stuff any easier. *shakes fist
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Now the FDA has put out feelers to see if there are reasons for concerns this go around -- but they are not "warning" people about a new concern.
Yeah -- then the news agencies that ran that as a "new" thing (got it off Google News) yesterday and made it sound like the FDA was concerned (via their headlines) - those agencies should be called on the carpet.
FG
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
It makes me so mad that very smart, involved and concerned people who are trying to take active roles in their (and their families') own medical care have to fight an uphill battle against some of the mass media. It's just wrong to make that harder, you know?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:It makes me so mad that very smart, involved and concerned people who are trying to take active roles in their (and their families') own medical care have to fight an uphill battle against some of the mass media.
It's one reason why I urge that everyone needs to be medically literate. They don't need to know everything a doctor or nurse does, but they need a good handle on the most common terminology, they need to know where to go to find out information (I personally recommend everyone own a good prescription drug guide - The Davis Drug Guide for nurses is my fav) and they need to know what questions to ask.
For example, my mother in law would frustrate me to no end when she'd call my husband and ask him what the drugs she was prescribed would do. She wouldn't ask the doctor, because she was too intimidated. But no one should take a prescription without knowing what it is, how to spell it, what the common side effects are, what potential interactions there are, and exactly how and when to take it and for how long. Too many people don't ask, don't take responsibility for their own health care. We have wonderfully talented, intelligent, and gifted medical personnel in this country but no one is more invested in your health than you are.
The mass media problem you mention here, CT, is part of it. People should be educated on how to wade through all that. No one should graduate high school without a rudimentary knowledge of how statistics work. They should be taught to look deeper, and not just accept what the 20 second soundbite says. I guess that really falls under some type of training in media citizenship. I don't know. Soapbox issue for me, I guess.
For instance, I had a woman yell at me because her husband was given the same chemo drug I was and he experienced the side effect of cold sensitivity. She was angry because the nurses, she said, had not warned her it could happen. Well, I had the audacity (according to her) to suggest, politely, that one thing she should make sure always to do is look up drugs and their side effects whenever she or her husband is given one. That's what I did, and I was forewarned about the side effects (plus the nurses did tell me, and I suspect told either her or her husband too but when one is parsing the information that they have cancer, sometimes the memory of those conversations isn't good due to the emotional shock.) She yelled at me and said no one should ever have to look things up, the nurses and doctors should be responsible. As I said before, I do believe most medical professionals are excellent at their jobs, but they still haven't the investment in my health that I do and I'm going to go look up that info for myself. *shrug* I suppose not everyone feels the way I do, though.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Belle, excellent post!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Indeed! Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
This is just somebody's opinions, but are they accurate?
Her claim is that the vaccine is expensive, will not be generally effective, and has side effects worth worrying about.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I agree that the commercials are misleading (or at least misleadingly incomplete) by not noting the association with sexual activity. I also think some of her claims are misleading.
A lot of this is already covered earlier in this thread.
quote:First of all, it’s not going to “wipe out” cervical cancer, no matter how many women are vaccinated. It offers protection against only four of the 100 strains of HPV – not to mention offering zero protection against non-HPV relaed cervical cancer.
2 of those 4 strains cause 70% of all cervical cancers, and the other 2 cause 90% of genital warts. And if there are non-HPV-related cervical cancers, they are so vanishingly rare as to be indetectible.
quote:So even if all women everywhere were immunized and the vaccine were 100% effective, women would still die of cervical cancer.
I don't understand the point. There is virtually nothing in medicine that is 100% effective, and yet we can still reduce the burden of morbidity and mortality by a tremendous amount for many diseases. This doesn't matter because it isn't 100%? That doesn't make sense.
quote:None of which I would have a problem with if I could see some enormous medical benefit. But I don’t.
quote:First of all, there are the side effects. According to Vicky Debold of the National Vaccination Information Center, "Young girls are experiencing severe headaches, dizziness, temporary loss of vision and some girls have lost consciousness during what appear to be seizures."
This is a notoriously biased site. Despite what they name may imply, it is a private (non-government-affiliated) website that gathers data geared toward discouraging vaccination, and they illegitimately repost data copyrighted*** by the CDC without including the necessary information the CDC requires you to read (for context to interpret the data) before you can freely access that information on the CDC site.
[This is important because the information above does not compare to how many young women report those symptoms who did not receive the vaccine, or who received a different sort of shot. Those reported side effects are not directly attributable to the material of the vaccine. This is misleadingly reported, and such error could be avoided by not reposting the (copyrighted***) information without the appropriate disclaimers.]
I agree that there are many problems with the vaccine and good questions to ask about it being mandated for young women. I'd like to see those questions raised in a way that isn't misleading and relies on the best primary sources with the most accurate information available.
------
Edited to add:
***This use of "copyright" is inaccurate. "Illegitimate" is accurate, though. Please see Dagonee's post below. (Thanks, Dagonee.)
[ May 13, 2007, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Thanks.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
CT, thanks for your commentary on this. The anti-vaccine advocates have been jumping all over this lately, and I'm glad there's credible people responding.
One quick note about works "copyrighted by the CDC": nothing produced by the CDC can be copyrighted, because U.S. government works are not eligible for copyright.
That's not to say that I think it's right to remove the work from the necessary context. Unfortunately, though, there's no way to prevent it via copyright law, and the other laws that might apply - consumer protection, fraud, etc. - have much higher thresholds before they can be invoked.
Some things that were produced by private entities funded in part by CDC money can be copyrighted, and the CDC may publish those works on the web site with the permission of the copyright owners.
quote: I'd like to see those questions raised in a way that isn't misleading and relies on the best primary sources with the most accurate information available.
This is incredibly important. The people who overstate the dangers of vaccines make it much harder for anyone to adequately evaluate the situation. The danger goes in both directions: legitimate concerns can be diluted or dismissed by lumping them in with crackpot concerns, and people who would benefit from the vaccines can be discouraged from taking them.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Thanks for the clarification [and outright correction], Dagonee. I knew the documents were lifted from the CDC website, checked to make sure that wasn't authorized, and made sure the webmaster of the CDC knew. I assumed that the same "you don't have to establish copyright except by writing it, because that establishes it in and of itself" mantra extended to that organization.
Maybe that's why the NVIC seems to be able to get away with it without repercussions.
Anyway, thanks. I can't stand to be incorrect. I will slip a disclaimer in above with thanks to you.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: ... legitimate concerns can be diluted or dismissed by lumping them in with crackpot concerns...
For sure. That is a definite real problem.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Well this is no longer just a discussion point, for me and my family. Today I took my 14 year old to the doctor because she needed a tetanus booster in order to enter high school. The doctor said that Gardisil was available and did I want to give it to her.
I said I'd done the research, we talked about it with my daughter and the doctor and decided to go ahead and do it. So my daughter has now had the shot.
I will sit back and anxiously await her turning into a wanton hussy who sleeps with every boy she meets.
Seriously, though - I don't have a moral problem with this whatsoever. My question is will this potentially help protect my daughter, and is that protection worth the potential side effects that may arise? If I do a risk benefit analysis and it comes out in favor of the shot, I'm going to say Okay. We also got a meningitis vaccine which was not required for high school but I know some colleges require them now, and again, I weighed potential side effects against the potential benefits and decided to do it.
By the way, my daughter said it hurts. The leg she got the Gardisil in is much, much sorer than the leg which received the other two shots. So, she's not looking forward to getting the next two doses.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Gardisil is in the leg? Oh, crap. I was going to get it from the school clinic...was hoping to go tomorrow morning. Nevermind.
-pH
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
My 13 year old, OTOH, has not had the new shot yet. She had to get several other shots (two, I think) and a TB test at her checkup, so I told her she could decide if she wanted the new shot this year or next year. Since she's not scheduled for anything but the TB nest next year, she opted to wait. (Big shock.)
I guess she can be a "control" for Belle's daughter. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I guess she can be a "control" for Belle's daughter.
Yes! Science!
*gets his white lab coat and some test tubes*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*narrowed eyes*
And what exactly do you think you're going to do with those?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: *narrowed eyes*
And what exactly do you think you're going to do with those?
Test tubes make the most sublime noise when struck upon piano strings. Unfortunately they can make that noise but once.
I am sure he is getting them for to "test" them with Possibly as some sort of binocular devise.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: *narrowed eyes*
And what exactly do you think you're going to do with those?
Place a lock of each girl's hair in a tube and...um...do science-y things! With lots of color changing liquids and foaming!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*skeptical* I suppose we can spare a lock of her hair.
At least it's not as weird as the last time I gave a Hatracker a clump of hair.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
I remember that! I can't tell you what she says she does with it, though. I had to promise.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Gardisil is in the leg? Oh, crap. I was going to get it from the school clinic...was hoping to go tomorrow morning. Nevermind.
It's an IM shot. My daughter chose to get it in her leg instead of her arm because she has color guard practice tomorrow and didn't want to have her arms too sore. I'm sure you could request it in the arm or hip, whichever you prefer if you don't want it in your leg.
And, if it matters, my daughter said just before bed that it had stopped hurting and she couldn't feel it anymore.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
So that's what, 10 hours? Less?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
pH, also consider taking Tylenol or Advil a couple of hours in advance, if you have no contraindications. It can help more than you'd think.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:So that's what, 10 hours? Less?
Around eight hours. She did take some Tylenol when we got home. I had told her to take it in advance, but she forgot.
CT is right (well, duh, of course she's right on a medical topic) about it helping more than it might seem to. I always took an OTC painkiller before I went in for my chemo treatments and I do think it helped with the numerous sticks and jabs I endured there.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Huh. That's useful. I'll keep that in mind. I'm glad your daughter's not hurting anymore. If Gardasil hurt worse than a tetanus shot for an extended period of time, I think I might be disinclined to get it.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
My wife took my step daughter for a physical for sports last week. The doctor talked my wife into it by assuring her it was covered by the insurance, and that it would prevent cancer. No instruction or warning of the side effects. No discussion about the implications. Just "You should have this done."
And of course, now the insurance won't cover it, we now owe $300 and have to get her two more $300 shots if we want the thing to work, and my wife is worried to death the kid is going to be paralyzed.
I love doctors.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: My wife took my step daughter for a physical for sports last week. The doctor talked my wife into it by assuring her it was covered by the insurance, and that it would prevent cancer. No instruction or warning of the side effects. No discussion about the implications. Just "You should have this done."
And of course, now the insurance won't cover it, we now owe $300 and have to get her two more $300 shots if we want the thing to work, and my wife is worried to death the kid is going to be paralyzed.
I love doctors.
I know the way the school clinic does it, the doctor just writes you a prescription for the shot, and you pick it up from the drugstore and bring it to the clinic nurse, who gives you the injection. It only costs (hah, "only") $110 a shot. Is there a way you can do something similar?
-pH
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: And of course, now the insurance won't cover it, we now owe $300 and have to get her two more $300 shots if we want the thing to work, and my wife is worried to death the kid is going to be paralyzed.
I love doctors.
Have you spoken to the doctor's office again? [That's not right.]
Why does your wife think she'll be paralyzed? *interested
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:If Gardasil hurt worse than a tetanus shot for an extended period of time, I think I might be disinclined to get it.
I don't want to pick on you, but this is a really odd statement to me. Even if it did hurt for an "extended" period of time (and what are we talking about, a day?) I don't see how that could possibly dissuade someone from getting something that might protect them from cancer.
Trust me, I've had cancer. If I could have taken a shot to prevent it and it made me sore for a month I'd still have done it.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I got my first shot this morning.
WAY better than a tetanus shot. Although my hip is a little sore. They made me stay in the clinic for a while afterwards to make sure I didn't have an allergic reaction, I guess?
But yeah. Not that bad at ALL. And I'm a complete wuss with shots.
-pH
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
The shot is now free in Australia for all women aged between 16 and 26.
I'm going to get it, but I've got to check out potential issues with trying to get pregnant.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I know it's been nearly a year since this thread; but I wanted to point out that this is why I wanted to take a "wait and see" approach when they first started pushing for it:
The article says that there's no direct link, though. Additionally, we don't know how any of the women died.
Belle, I notice I didn't respond to your comment. Of course it would be worth getting if I thought it were going to make a difference in my cancer risk. However, at this time I'm not particularly at risk for HPV, and it seems worthwhile to wait a bit and see if they at least come out with something less painful, more effective, cheaper, etc.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: The article says that there's no direct link, though. Additionally, we don't know how any of the women died.
Yup. The link is about as substantial as noting that there are secondhand (or even third-hand) reports of some men having had heart attacks within a few days of eating hunter-killed deer.
---
Edited to add: In the FOX-News story linked, the occurrence of 28 miscarriages after the women were given the vaccination is noted. This number is meaningless unless it is directly compared to the number of miscarriages coincidentally related to this event that you would **expect** to have seen anyway (with no shot, nothing out of the ordinary) -- which might well be just that number, given the large number of women who've had the vaccination.
I shouldn't say "meaningless," actually. It does establish that the vaccination isn't 100% effective against preventing miscarriages.
(And, similarly, the Gardasil vaccination isn't 100% effective at preventing death, either. But neither is drinking water, eating the deer shot by your brother on his latest hunting trip, or doing Pilates. People have died within days of doing all of these. Sometimes at exactly the same time! But unless you compare that number to how many people you would have expected to die then (or in that timeframe) regardless, it's impossible to tell whether that number is worrying, reassuring, or apparently irrelevant.
I am not trying to be facetious -- epidemiology and statistics are easily misleading, and it helps (I think) to reframe the presentation in terms of equivalent and non-politically charged items. Sometimes the logic of it can become more clear that way.)
[ January 26, 2008, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
As my husband has said before, NASCAR kills people, because whenever he's worked the race at Talladega, at least two or three people have died.
Then again, given that over 100,000 people spend the weekened at Talladega, wouldn't it be odd if no one in a crowd that large died over that period of time? (especially when you throw in heat and alcohol)
So, statistics like the ones in that article do not concern me. My daughter suffered no ill effects from the vaccine and while I don't believe that she will now never get cervical cancer, I do feel relieved that she has some measure of protection she didn't before.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And I'm still planning to have my daughter get the vaccine when she has her appointment next month.
So stop cutting off locks of her hair! Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Autobiography of Mark Twain
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
This thread just reminded me that I'm due for my last shot! Thanks, Hatrack.
-pH
Posted by Kettricken (Member # 8436) on :
I'll add that the source Fox news quotes is the Daily Mail - a paper known for whipping people up into a frenzy of fear (usually about immigration) without any facts to back it up.
"Daily Mail Readers" is a common term of contempt used when people are spouting unfounded rubbish.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I wasn't saying these girls died, for a fact, from the vaccine. Obviously they may NEVER know exact cause. If I was the parent of one of the girls, however, I would wonder if there were a connection.
But that certainly doesn't mean I think the vaccine is bad.
Penicillin has been used for years to save lots and lots of lives. However, for people who are allergic to it, it can be fatal. I'm just saying there is no one silver bullet that works for everyone universally.
That is the only reason I took the "wait and see" approach -- see how common and adverse the very worse reactions can be, then decide.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
(The vaccination requires three shots over a period of time.) Also, would you have your son vaccinated to mitigate the possibility of him spreading the virus to those he is intimate with?![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
*has ocd fit* And I'd want to do anything to protect those I love as much as I could.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
*shakes fist![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Possibly as some sort of binocular devise.
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)