Posted on 01/16/2007 7:46:58 AM PST by Thywillnotmine
WORRIED parents have blocked government plans to vaccinate girls as young as nine against a sexually-transmitted virus that can cause cervical cancer.
Health chiefs have abandoned proposals to offer the jab against human papilloma virus (HPV) to primary school children after parents complained that it was inappropriate for girls of such a young age.
Scotland on Sunday revealed last summer that ministers were considering offering the jab to children in a desperate attempt to stop the "epidemic" in cervical cancer. The proposals for a nationwide scheme followed successful trials of a new vaccine in Glasgow.
But ministers have now been forced to concentrate on plans for the treatment on girls of at least 12 - itself a hugely controversial move.
The government U-turn came after medical experts who make the final recommendations on the baseline defences against HPV were warned of parents' opposition. The experts also threw out proposals to vaccinate boys against HPV, despite evidence that they can transmit the virus through sexual contact.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.scotsman.com ...
Said with stunning clarity
You really are full of crap.
I don't have a problem with them working on it, either. It may even lead to more cures for viruses in the future. I do have a problem with the government mandating it so that the taxpayers end up paying for it, and I have a problem with the overwrought insinuations of some here on this forum that not giving this vaccine to our daughters is tantamount to a death sentence.
What a wonderfully selfish attitude. You actually think your daughter's risk of cancer is somehow about ~you~. Perhaps many years from now she will agree with your decision. What a shame if not.
Your pride is showing. Comfortable illusions are funny that way.
80% of American women will be infected with HPV by their 50th birthday. I suppose that 80% is just the bad girls...
Sorry, that's the definition of endemic in my book.
Can you post some more links supporting this post (64)? As far as I know the Merck vaccine is the first one for HPV anywhere.
On another note, HRT used to be considered the bees knees and now we know more about that.
And the 1st Rotavirus vaccine used to be also hailed as very beneficial, until they had to pull it from the shelves because of the deaths related to it.
HPV causes well over 90% of cervical cancer cases (different studies give different numbers, but the difference is minor). Unfortunately, there are many different strains of HPV. The vaccine doesn't protect against all of them -- instead, it targets only the two most common HPV strains. Those two strains are themselves responsible for about 70% of cervical cancer cases.
That's my opinion to be sure, yours may be different, but cancer doesn't really care about opinions, it only cares about opportunity.
You're right, I'm wrong. The HPV vaccine has been studied extensively, but it has not been on the market for "years." There are actually two vaccines -- Merck's and GlaxoSmithKline's -- but only Merck's has been approved in the US (approval for Glaxo's drug is likely forthcoming).
This kind of clear-headed reasoning must NOT be tolerated! I am going to contact my congressman and ask him to introduce legislation prohibiting the thinking and expressing of clear-headed, rational, thought!
Your own CDC link says that about 20 million people are infected. Assuming they are just talking about the USA, that's only 15% of the total population, and a good fraction of those would be men.
My assistant's daughter has it - caught it from her husband. She was a virgin when she married. He was not.
I mean to say, that's only about 7% of the population, or one in every 15.
What are the statistics for adverse reaction to the vaccine?
With 150,000,000 women in the USA it would have to be less than 0.00267 percent of the people receiving the vaccine.
That's a really low number!
I can see both sides of this issue. Pretty much.
It's nice to get vaccinated against things that can cause problems.
OTOH, why be forced unless it's a clear public-health/safety issue? Influenza in 1918 would've been a clear issue, spread by mere touch and breathing and running rampant and killing people within WEEKS.
Never mind that apparently HPV is spread mostly by 1 not-so-casual every-day kind of touch, but it is not something that shows a great chance of ever being something serious.
I have reflux disease. I cannot resolve it (unlike HPV). There is ~0.2% chance I could get gullet cancer from it. Very small.
This seems even smaller chance, and the HPV can be resolved if found.
People may also be concerned about the long-term effects of this vaccination. I don't know if I personally would be very scared, but it IS better to "let others be the guinea pigs" on a brand-new process and see if it really works out over time without causing its own horrors.
Top it off, if it is to be administered to older children after they've had all their other mandatory shots, parents might be a bit squeemish about possibly having to explain why they need it. No need to open the door to the unwanted activity. Better for later that it is included for regular shots in little children who only know those 15 serums are to "protect from disease" generally.
Define "adverse reaction". The FDA approved studies reported zero major adverse reactions. Minor adverse reactions (mainly itching and redness at the site of injection) are common.
The vaccine doesn't have to be given at 9 years old. 18 or later would work just fine. (Or earlier, if you're worried about your child's behavior...)
There's also money to be made from decades of HPV detection, cancer screening, and occasional cancer treatment, both curative and palliative. Choose the best way to spend your money.
When you ask me to define adverse reactions you mqke a point for me.
What if women stop being promiscuous and at the same time have regular Pap smears? This would also lower the incidence to a very low level.
The behavior which propagates HPV also carries other major health risks!
Maybe we as a society should really look at PREVENTATIVE measures as opposed to bandaids.
That's a good point about the age. My two girls are 16 and 19 and I'll be setting them up soon for it, well before any sexual activity has happened.
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.