View Full Version : STD's and innoculation
j4bberw0ck
25-Jun-07, 17:05
The Christian wing is up in arms over news that it's planned to innoculate 12 year-old girls against Human Papilloma Virus, which causes cervical cancer. It will encourage sexual promiscuity, it'll give these young women free rein to get out and spread it around a bit, apparently, without a care in the world. Gawd knows what the Muslims'll make of it if their daughters are to be innoculated too :lol: .
Given that cervical cancer can fairly be classed as a sexually-transmitted disease, should girls be innoculated?
[quote=j4bberw0ck;235578]The Christian wing is up in arms over news that it's planned to innoculate 12 year-old girls against Human Papilloma Virus, which causes cervical cancer. It will encourage sexual promiscuity, it'll give these young women free rein to get out and spread it around a bit, apparently, without a care in the world. Gawd knows what the Muslims'll make of it if their daughters are to be innoculated too :lol: .
Given that cervical cancer can fairly be classed as a sexually-transmitted disease, should girls be innoculated?[/quote
I have 7 girls and if they can have something that could help prevent them from contracting cervical cancer then yes they should be allowed to have it. As for encourageing young girls to have sex early, that i believe is down to the parents to be honest with their kids and explain what can happen,,,,,As for your remarks about given these young women a free rein, what is it different for men then.....free rein to sleep with who they like as long as they dont catch any std.....
Of course they should be innoculated.
I can't believe that it would make the slightest difference to girls' behaviour.
If this innoculation had been available when my daughters were that age, I would been delighted -I fail to understand why any reasonable parent would want to deny this to their daughters. :confused
Thing about HPV is though, alot of people have it, but it is dorment.
It would not surprise me that when condoms first came onto the general market they said it would encourage people to be more promiscuous.
at the end of the day, if it helps people and stops dying/cancer etc.. why not give it! if people want to have sex, let them! (not that i encourage sleeping around)
you get what i mean
Absolutely, the inocculation should be part of the regular program of jabs.
It's complete nonsense to suggest this jab will make our young ladies more promiscuous - I think it's an incredible advancement in the fight against cancer, and would hope it's available without "judgement" when my girls are of an age.
Tubthumper
25-Jun-07, 20:49
Regarding this inoculation
Creating Christian sex frustration
Let’s just give consideration
To result of fornication
If disease means destination
Sickness and then termination
Then I say give vaccination
To young female population!
HPV and variation
Leads to cancer operation
Radiotherapy desperation
Loud is parent's consternation
I don’t think this fine religion
Is against the implementation
Of some in-depth education
Which results in disease prevention
Accidental copulation
or even youthful experimentation
Without some prophylactication
Can result in lamentation
But Britain is a caring nation
Cure’s not better than prevention
No fundamentalist agitation
Give the lassies vaccination!
thirsaloon
25-Jun-07, 21:00
Regarding this inoculation
Creating Christian sex frustration
Let’s just give consideration
To result of fornication
If disease means destination
Sickness and then termination
Then I say give vaccination
To young female population!
HPV and variation
Leads to cancer operation
Radiotherapy desperation
Loud is parent's lamentation
I don’t think this fine religion
Is against the implementation
Of some in-depth education
Which results in disease prevention
Accidental copulation
or even youthful experimentation
Without some prophylactication
Can result in lamentation
But Britain is a caring nation
Cure’s not better than prevention
No fundamentalist agitation
Give the lassies vaccination!
Jeepers! Well done tubthumper!!!
:D
j4bberw0ck
25-Jun-07, 21:25
As for your remarks about given these young women a free rein, what is it different for men then.....free rein to sleep with who they like as long as they dont catch any std.....
Not my remarks, Justine; the remarks of the Christian extremists and not-so-extremists, and generally those anti the innoculations. I considered including a question about whether boys (and men) should have this injection too but thought (a) it would take the edge off the debate by opening it out too much and (b) I have no idea if giving it to men would be of any use at all, given that cervical cancer is unknown in men......... :roll:.
But I'm not a doctor (as Jaws will be pleased to note) :lol: . What would be good, though, is some serious work around prostate cancer, which is almost as common as, and far less talked about, than breast cancer.
i def agree... wish i could have it.. but as you need to get it before you become sexually active....
at any rate. my cousins girls have got it and they are 13 and 14.. their 17 year old sister is planning on having the jag.
i dont see how they think that by allowing them to have the jag it will promote promiscuity.
it dosent stop other STD's dosent stop preg. it stops a form of CANCER!!!
and anyone.. (which most of us have) who has experianced or watched someone suffer with the horrors of cancer can tell you.. anyone would be absolutley ignorant to turn down something that could save their daughters life.
lets face it.. even girls who never even participate in pre-marital sex.. one day when they marry.. will have sex!
its just not for young girls who are going to become sexually active at a young age.. for for young girls that will one day become women, and mothers and grandmothers.. let' sgive them that chance.
how many young women have left behind grieving husbands and young children because of cervical cancer?
we have a way to prevent it.. darn it their should be no reason for this horrible disease now that their is a vaccine!
Jeemag_USA
25-Jun-07, 22:05
Regarding this inoculation
Creating Christian sex frustration
Let’s just give consideration
To result of fornication
If disease means destination
Sickness and then termination
Then I say give vaccination
To young female population!
HPV and variation
Leads to cancer operation
Radiotherapy desperation
Loud is parent's consternation
I don’t think this fine religion
Is against the implementation
Of some in-depth education
Which results in disease prevention
Accidental copulation
or even youthful experimentation
Without some prophylactication
Can result in lamentation
But Britain is a caring nation
Cure’s not better than prevention
No fundamentalist agitation
Give the lassies vaccination!
This is a Reggae song isn't it [lol]
I have no idea if giving it to men would be of any use at all, given that cervical cancer is unknown in men.........
But I'm not a doctor (as Jaws will be pleased to note) . What would be good, though, is some serious work around prostate cancer, which is almost as common as, and far less talked about, than breast cancer.
Well no, it would be anatomically difficult for men to contract cervical cancer :eek:
I agree with you about prostate cancer, although I think we do hear more about it now. Which isn't the same as saying there's enough research being done.
Don't you think part of the reason is that men, overall, tend to be much more reticent about discussing health problems, and more reluctant to visit their doctors? Women, especially if they're in the habit of having regular check-ups for contraception, during pregancy, during the menopause, usually have more routine contact with health services.
Some GPs can be less than helpful about ALL prostate problems though (no, I obviously don't speak from my own experience, but from the experiences of a few men I know). Btw, my Mum's two brothers had prostate cancer. :(
Jeemag_USA
25-Jun-07, 22:13
What would be good, though, is some serious work around prostate cancer, which is almost as common as, and far less talked about, than breast cancer.
And Testicular Cancer too, don't forget, another one men don't like to talk aboot!
George Brims
25-Jun-07, 22:15
There is at least a suspicion that HPV may be associated with prostate cancer also. *And* with throat cancer (I am not going to risk getting kicked off here for saying how that may come about, you can work it out for yourselves...).
You can get this virus if you have only one partner if he has it. You dont need to be running around seducing a million men a month to get it. Wherever there is a vaccination against something that causes cancer it should be made available to all those who need it. This isnt a religious or moral issue its a health issue and to try to make it something other than a health issue is irresponsible and ridiculous
I agree totally that all young girls should recieve the vaccine. I would hate to think how id feel if my daughter developed cervical cancer in the future & id refused to give her the vaccine. if it could save lifes it should be compulsary!
They can find the money to fund this defence from a STD but deny sufferers of other diseases, such as Alzneimers or other forms of cancer, the right to the drugs which can relieve their suffering.
I just wish that this government would make treatment for any disease available irrespective of cost or where you live...............[disgust]
NickInTheNorth
26-Jun-07, 10:38
I agree totally that all young girls should recieve the vaccine. I would hate to think how id feel if my daughter developed cervical cancer in the future & id refused to give her the vaccine. if it could save lifes it should be compulsary!
I totally agree with the first part of your statement, that it should be given to all young girls.
However I do not believe any medication should be compulsory.
There may be legitimate reasons why people might not wish to take advantage of such a vaccine (for example how safe is it in the long term?).
Do we really want to criminalise people for not giving their child a vaccine (for what other sanction is there?) And if we do would it not be far better to start off with a vaccine which should be given to ALL children regardless of gender - the much maligned MMR - the poor uptake of which means that the very real killer that is measles is now making a comeback when it should really have gone the way of smallpox.
Lolabelle
26-Jun-07, 13:09
Being able to be innoculated against cervical cancer is wonderful. Why any Christian would see this as an invitation to be promiscuous is in my opinion ridiculous. I am a christian and don't think I would hesitate to have my daughters done, (if I had one that is). I think it's morally irresponsible to not have your daughters cared for in this way. And as Fluff said, the same was said about condoms. If people are going to be promiscuious, then they are, and having had a needle to prevent cancer is not going to change that, only education and hopefully a good family relationship that teaches children the benefits of good morals and being choosy about life decisions. Of course, children and teens make mistakes and also can be victims of abuse, so it is not always about people being promiscuious. So why should they not be able to save themselves a lot of grief and pain via cancer if possible.
The Christian wing is up in arms over news that it's planned to innoculate 12 year-old girls against Human Papilloma Virus, which causes cervical cancer. It will encourage sexual promiscuity, it'll give these young women free rein to get out and spread it around a bit, apparently, without a care in the world. Gawd knows what the Muslims'll make of it if their daughters are to be innoculated too :lol: .
Given that cervical cancer can fairly be classed as a sexually-transmitted disease, should girls be innoculated?
With all the STDs on the market I doubt that having immunity to one will seriously increase promiscuity.
Margaret M.
04-Jul-07, 04:00
May 2007
Judicial Watch Uncovers Three Deaths Relating to HPV Vaccine
Event Reports Obtained from FDA Detail 1,637 Adverse Reactions to Gardasil
(Washington, DC) -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released documents obtained from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, detailing 1,637 reports of adverse reactions to the vaccination for human papillomavirus (HPV), Gardasil. Three deaths were related to the vaccine. One physician’s assistant reported that a female patient “died of a blood clot three hours after getting the Gardasil vaccine.” Two other reports, on girls 12 and 19, reported deaths relating to heart problems and/or blood clotting.
As of May 11, 2007, the 1,637 adverse vaccination reactions reported to the FDA via the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) included 371 serious reactions. Of the 42 women who received the vaccine while pregnant, 18 experienced side effects ranging from spontaneous abortion to fetal abnormities.
Side effects published by Merck & Co. warn the public about potential pain, fever, nausea, dizziness and itching after receiving the vaccine. Indeed, 77% of the adverse reactions reported are typical side effects to vaccinations. But other more serious side effects reported include paralysis, Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and seizures.
“The FDA adverse event reports on the HPV vaccine read like a catalog of horrors,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Any state or local government now beset by Merck’s lobbying campaigns to mandate this HPV vaccine for young girls ought to take a look at these adverse health reports. It looks as if an unproven vaccine with dangerous side effects is being pushed as a miracle drug.”
Judicial Watch filed its request on May 9, 2007, and received the adverse event reports from the FDA on May 15, 2007. Judicial Watch has posted the adverse event reports below.
(A recent study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, also questioned the general effectiveness of Gardasil.)
http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_6299.shtml
Bobinovich
04-Jul-07, 12:34
While the poll results give (an unheard of) 100% in favour this last post is very worrying. Although there have been 1637 adverse reactions, what is this as a percentage of vaccinations given to that date? Is there a 'normal' percentage of adverse reactions to vaccines against which to compare the figure?
cuddlepop
04-Jul-07, 17:07
Yes I would have my daughters innoculated.
As I myself have had two scares in the past ten years there very keen to prevent the worry I've had.:eek:
Margaret M.
05-Jul-07, 00:35
Personally, I would give any vaccine that has caused death, particularly so soon after being introduced, a wide berth. 18 out of 42 pregnant women who received the vaccine suffered miscarriages or fetal abnormalities -- that is frightening. No long term testing has been done. It targets just 2 of the 20 strains that cause cervical cancer and 4 out of 100 of the HPV strains. There are questions on how long it is good for and whether or not boosters are required. There are many concerns and unanswered questions surrounding this vaccine and the only thing we know for sure is that the drug companies will make billions. The fact that the FDA has approved it means nothing -- not when Merck spread so much money around Washington DC.
From National Women's Health Network:
By May 2007, legislation to make the HPV vaccine a mandated school entry requirement for girls had been introduced in almost half the states, an unusually fast policy response to the introduction of a new health technology. One explanation for this speed is that Merck funded lobbying efforts to advance the policy initiatives. Anticipating that its competitor would be on the market soon, the company had a strong financial incentive to establish its market without delay.
June 20, 2006, Yarmouth, Maine — Women to Women, whose website is one of the most prominent women’s health sites on the internet, posted a warning today about the recent “hype” over a newly developed vaccine for HPV, the human papilloma virus, which affects millions of women.
“The drug company behind the vaccine is already promoting it as a cure-all solution. The ad campaign, titled ‘Tell Someone,’ has created false hope among women that this new vaccine will make the HPV problem go away,” says Marcy Holmes, a practitioner at Women to Women.
“What the commercials don’t make clear is that the vaccine is meant for very young women who have had no prior sexual contact. What’s worse, while over 20 strains of HPV are considered high-risk, the vaccine only targets 2–4 of them — hardly a true preventative,” says Marcelle Pick, a founder of the Women to Women clinic.
Holmes adds, “Many vaccines can have negative effects on health and this new vaccine has not been studied in sufficient depth or over sufficient time to ascertain its long-term safety. The truth is we just do not know enough yet to be generating this kind of hype,” says Holmes.
Responding to reports that the vaccine may even be mandated, Pick comments, “Talk of mandating such a vaccine for young women is very premature. We simply do not have enough information to warrant such an extreme step. Little is known at this point about the vaccine’s long-term side effects or its interaction with other drugs. In addition, many of the test study details — information such as whether any recipients were immune suppressed and other possible drug interactions — are still unknown.”
“The public relations campaign behind the new vaccine may be good marketing — or even good shareholder relations — but it isn’t responsible medicine,” adds Holmes. “I would call this a promising advance that may one day yield an effective therapy — one we could recommend to our patients. But not yet.”
Marcelle Pick adds, “My concern is that this kind of public relations campaign also promotes the idea that there can be a kind of magic pill to solve the HPV problem. The reality is that HPV infection is a net result of exposure plus a weakened immune system. There are ways to reduce the risk of exposure and to enhance immune function, but reliance on a vaccine for HPV may lead women to ignore the underlying causes.”
I don't know about the safety of the drug but I am certain of one thing. The risk of the possibility of developing Cervical Cancer is definitely not going to be the first thing which springs to a young girl's mind when she is deciding if she should become sexually active.
In fact, on a list of reasons I would think it would be lucky if it made the top fifty!
[quote=Margaret M.;238322]Personally, I would give any vaccine that has caused death, particularly so soon after being introduced, a wide berth. 18 out of 42 pregnant women who received the vaccine suffered miscarriages or fetal abnormalities -- that is frightening.
What is scary is the fact that the drug was given to pregnant women...when it is supposed to be given in advance of sexual activity. Seems a pointless exercise.
No drug can ever be 100% safe and if I had girls I would make damn sure they got the jag. If there was an alternative for male type cancers then my boys would get that without a doubt. The old adage, prevention is better than cure is very true.:confused
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.