Posted on 03/23/2009 7:21:08 AM PDT by BGHater
Particularly when we have an enemedia culture pushing the notion that people are no different from Tom Cats and anyone who behaves differently is abnormal.
But there was a time in the not so distant past when what my wife and I did was perfectly normal. And, so far, we're batting 1.000 with our three daughters and one son-in-law, the youngest of whom turns 20 next month.
Last week I saw an ad for it. I wanted to throw something at the TV. Not a single mention of the fact that HPV is an STD, just that some HPVs can cause cervical cancer.
so a cervix isn’t a prerequisite, i assume?
I believe this has something to do with the cell types lining the cervical area...which is easier for the tumor cell to take hold. 90% of cervical cancers are squamous cell carcinomas, which are slow growing malignant tumors found in lungs and skin, and also occuring in the anus, cervix, larynx, nose, and bladder. Apparently the disease does not hit the men’s pelvic area the same way it does ours, to cause cancer.
I am also a mother of a 14 year old daughter. I took her to get the vaccine last year. I was worried that even if she did abstain, her eventual marriage partner might not.
CJ is a physician, which is why i pinged him to answer the question as to whether the vaccine would be effective in males. I am the mother of 14 and 20 yo females. my 20 yo turned it down on her own, at the gynecologist, as we had fully discussed it. i declined it on behalf of my 14 yo. we are not ignorant, my husband and i are both lawyers, we are informed.
I'm saying that the danger posed by cervical cancer is perhaps not large enough to justify the risk taken by getting the vaccine. I have no daughters and people need to make their own risk assessment.
Perhaps we'd be better off spending the money on defensive driving courses for our teens, or on looking for safer alternatives to aspirin.
Thanks for your response. I too got informed, and weighed it out. I gave my daughter the option to decline, while informing her of the skyrocketting cervical cancer rates.
I let her make the decision and she had my full support. I pray every day, that it was the right decision, on both our parts.
It takes good parents to stay informed, and too keep their kids informed.
Kudos!
as gabz pointed out, the only real problem with this is the mandatory road they want to go down. it should be up people to make informed decisions on these sorts of things. by the time my daughters are ready to become sexually active, perhaps there will have been progress made in vaccinating male carriers of the organism, as well.
It’s only approved in females ages 11-26. It’s in Phase III trials in boys. The consequences of HPV infection are much more severe in women - cervical or vulvar cancers. Uncircumcised males can develop squamous cell cancer of the penis, but much later in life than women develop cervical cancer. Squamous cell cancer of the anus can occur in both men and women, but more commonly in HIV-infected individuals.
Someone mentioned oral-pharyngeal cancer earlier. That can occur in both males and females regardless of smoking or dipping history, or HIV status.
I think you may have this backwards. It is Girls who only have sex with male virgins and/or males who only have had sex with virgins and/or have only had sex with vaccinated girls have no need to get it.
The rates for new cervical cancer cases (incidence) have decreased steadily across multiple racial and ethnic groups, as follows:
3.6% decrease per year from 1996 to 2005 among all women.
3.5% decrease per year from 1996 to 2005 among white women.
5.0% decrease per year from 1996 to 2005 among African-American women.
5.3% decrease per year from 1996 to 2005 among Asian/Pacific Islander women.
4.2% decrease per year from 1996 to 2005 among Hispanic women.
And that is exactly the point. There was talk here in Arkansas soon after this vaccination was introduced, about adding it to the required vaccinations for students in school (female, of course). There was a good bit of outrage at even suggesting it.
I, for one, am also adamantly against mandating this shot, and while I can understand the stated purpose of vaccinating teen girls, I look at this as just another case of "give 'em condoms - cause they are gonna DO IT anyway" mentality.
I find it so interesting that you rarely hear exactly what kind of bug this vaccination is designed to prevent... it is a virus that is transmitted nearly completely by... drum roll please.... sexual contact with an infected partner.
While I do not wish death or serious illness on ANYONE, we also need to remember that there is a cost to every decision we make, regardless of that age.
Since childbirth is also a danger to a teen girl's health, we might as well start mandating regular dosing of RU-482 as well... would sure cut down the teen pregnancy rate, thus saving lives, preventing unwanted and "unnecessary" pregnancies, and would save $billions in taxes.
And while we are on the subject of government-mandated health issues. How about we immediately begin weighing school children. Those who are judged to be in danger of obesity, or are obese - lets put them on a regimented diet plan. If they fail to shed the extra pounds, then take them from their families and put them in fat schools where the children will live, exercise, and get their indoctrin....uh.... education. When the child gets down to the government determined "normal" weight, they will get supervised home visits with their families. Only after it is determined that the parents are not likely to fatten the children back up can they move back in. But agents.....errr.... social workers will closely monitor the child for any sudden weight gain.
And then we can take the next logical step. We should go ahead and separate the "special" students into their own environment. Those who show that they can still perform some form of menial productive task for society will be trained to do those specific jobs. Those who are ruled to be unable to contribute to society - will be euthan.....errrr.... taken care of in a special facility. Because all who consume must contribute to the collective...errr......ummm.... should contribute cheerfully to the well-being of society.
Obviously this post is full of hyperbolic sarcastic idiocy (to put it nicely) - yet why is it that some are so willing to jump on every government suggested bandwagon for the "good of the children"? I can't help but think that Adolf Hitler used similar ideas to get the people to swallow his "perfect master race" scheme. He didn't just one day say - OK - death to all Jews and any others we deem inferior, death to mentally handicapped, mandatory testing before you can have children. Those with superior characteristics will be expected to have many children - all for the good of Mother Germany. NO - just like any psychopathic plan that should otherwise outrage an even moderately reasonable human - it is implemented in chunks, bits, and pieces. All with a seemingly reasonable goal or purpose stated.
How about the government go away and let parents raise their children. Hold people to high expectations, and hold them responsible for their decisions. If a parent chooses to have their daughter given this injection - then that parent should also be aware of the consequences of that decision.
According to Gardasil's own web-site, it prevents only 2 of the 30-40 varieties of HPV that cause cancer. And those 2 constitute 70% of cancer-causing HPV. There is still another 30% of cancer-causing HPV that goes unprotected, and I guarantee that with increasing pressure to get this vaccine that percentage will increase as viruses mutate (as all living things do) because they want to survive.
The other 2 that it protects against cause genital warts, and while I admit having genital warts is not a pleasant circumstance it hardly compares to the life-threatening specter of cancer. Oh, and by the way, this is a vaccine (which acts by stimulating the body to produce antibodies to a particular virus). Therefore, if a girl has already been sexually active and has acquired the virus, Gardasil is useless. Which, to be fair, is clearly stated in their TV advertisements if anyone cares to pay close enough attention.
So, in all likelihood we will end up with the same unintended consequences of most liberal theories, and that is a false sense of security and an increase in the risky behavior. I fear we will never learn.
This is interesting because I was told this past Oct by both my medical insurance and a dr. of gynecolgy/oncology that cervical cancer is still on the rise....the conversations with these individuals had nothing to do with the vaccine however.
Thanks for the info.
I suspect those pushing this government program to see all girls vaccinated are pushing this as a “woman’s issue” to stifle debate. Men can get cancer from HPV too (testicular cancer, throat cancer) and can be carriers of HPV which would then infect non-vaccinated women.
I’m sorry if I come across harshly to you.
Last time I suggested that not everyone is a virgin before marraige (indicating the husband if not the wife) a Freeper told me I must be raising whores. I mean that word specifically.
So I apologize to you.
Yes only young men want sex. The hormones are running wild on both sides in the teenage years.
The incidence of HPV seems to be on the rise. The incidence of PRE-cancer may be on the rise (no one says). But cervical cancer is declining because doctors are doing a better job catching pre-cancerous changes through pap smears.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.