About this HPV vaccine...

[Wilber]

I don't see any problem with providing incentives to have their kids vaccinated but I don't think anyone should be forced to have them vaccinated against their will. The fact that the vaccine is not 100% effective is no reason not to use it. Flue vaccines target only a few strains each year but save thousands of lives. Its limited lifetime is also no reason not to use it. Hepatitis vaccines among others also have limited life spans but are very effective in preventing Hep A and B. Anyone who travels to foreign countries a lot should get them.

The only logical reason not to use the vaccine is possible side effects. Vaccines seem to be less troublesome than drugs when it comes to complications. Real killers such as smallpox, polio and measles have been largely eradicated by mass inoculation of populations. Not a simple call for a parent. Glad there will be a few more miles on this thing before it becomes an issue for my grand daughters.

[gc1765]

My biggest concern is the mandatory vaccination of these girls. Although I don't think it is mandatory yet in Canada - correct me if I'm wrong - the fact that it had become mandatory in some of the States next door could mean that eventually that would be the way it is here.

Betsy,

Immunization is not mandatory in Canada. And as far as I understand it will never become mandatory in Canada thanks to...the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. By the way, are you just as concerned that kids are vaccinated against diphtheria, measles, mumps, poliomyelitis, rubella and tetanus?

[myata]

The difference is clear. Only a liberal can't see. The liberal tries to control everybody - not just their own sheep. The liberal flock is being controlled without them even realizing it.

Before somebody else jumps on the bandwagon without a having slightest clue - and as somebody already mentioned and not once - vaccination is not mandatory in this country (I've little idea about south of the border but I suspect it won't be imposed against the will of parent there either). Parents always have the right to refuse - all vaccinations. And too many do - which led to resurgence of some infections which were all but eradicated.

The Christian flock - for I know this is aimed again at Christianity - not only realizes that God is in control, but wants it that way. They have the choice. Nobody is getting dragged into church to be baptized whether they like it or not.

That of course thanks to the fact that it (i.e. Church) lost the power to do so. Before this situation came about, things were'nt quite the same. Just mentioning that one may not be in total and perpetual fascination with the almighty could get them in deep trouble. Which eventually necessitated the emergence of the liberal state. So that at least, people have a choice - to go to the mass or not; to vaccinate or not; to use protection and so on. I really like it that way and forgive it many a scandal/mismanagement and so on just for this small liberty.

[betsy]

That of course thanks to the fact that it (i.e. Church) lost the power to do so. Before this situation came about, things were'nt quite the same. Just mentioning that one may not be in total and perpetual fascination with the almighty could get them in deep trouble. Which eventually necessitated the emergence of the liberal state. So that at least, people have a choice - to go to the mass or not; to vaccinate or not; to use protection and so on. I really like it that way and forgive it many a scandal/mismanagement and so on just for this small liberty.

The emergence of the liberal state was a true liberal philosophy where-in independent thought and control of one's own destiny was the concern. For example: capitalism, democratic government, land/property ownership....not the modern liberal state that insists on regulating and controlling its subject.

The liberal state when it emerged as you say would make our right-wing conservatives (God bless them) look like looney-left radical socialist NDP tooners.

You don't know what liberalism really means. You only know what your gods like Pierre Trudeau have shown you - Marxist Socialism - with the pretense of democracy and independent thought. Who else could imagine what John Lenon, addled in drugs, could imagine?

Shake your head.

Edited September 23, 2007 by betsy

[myata]

And as I said before, I'll take it any time against having a clique of pseudo saints declaring eternal rules for everybody to follow. Rephrasing Chirchill, simply the matter of lesser evil.

[Guest coot]

Shake your head.

What the hell are you talking about? Everything you're saying seems to be premised on the mistaken notion that vaccines are mandatory in a free country. They are not. It is currently not mandatory to vaccinate your child for anything, including measles, diptheria, etc., despite the fact that parents who refuse are horribly negligent.

[geoffrey]

My biggest concern is the mandatory vaccination of these girls. Although I don't think it is mandatory yet in Canada - correct me if I'm wrong - the fact that it had become mandatory in some of the States next door could mean that eventually that would be the way it is here.

Which States is it mandatory in?

What the hell are you talking about? Everything you're saying seems to be premised on the mistaken notion that vaccines are mandatory in a free country. They are not. It is currently not mandatory to vaccinate your child for anything, including measles, diptheria, etc., despite the fact that parents who refuse are horribly negligent.

Horribly negligent to whom? There kids? Nah. That's just the beginning of it. People that refuse vaccinations not only open their kids up to disease, but negatively affect public health as a whole. Polio would not have been eliminated without the cooperation of nearly everyone. I respect individual choice to refuse a vaccination, but it's profoundly ridiculous to do so.

[sharkman]

That's just the beginning of it. People that refuse vaccinations not only open their kids up to disease, but negatively affect public health as a whole. Polio would not have been eliminated without the cooperation of nearly everyone. I respect individual choice to refuse a vaccination, but it's profoundly ridiculous to do so.

I think you missed the part where it's shown that this vaccine only protects against 2 to 4 of the many strains of this virus. In other words, it doesn't protect at all. To compare it to actual vaccines like the polio one is getting way ahead of things. When the medical community actually produces a vaccine that protects against ALL forms of HPV, as they have done for Polio and others, then we can throw around arrogant phrases like profoundly ridiculous.

Edited September 23, 2007 by sharkman

[gc1765]

I think you missed the part where it's shown that this vaccine only protects against 2 to 4 of the many strains of this virus. In other words, it doesn't protect at all.

You failed to note that those strains are responsible for 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of warts. That's a lot better than nothing, don't you think?

link

[sharkman]

Point taken, but any corporation selling a drug with that kind of performance would be sued into oblivion.

[Wilber]

Point taken, but any corporation selling a drug with that kind of performance would be sued into oblivion.

Nonsense, tons of drugs don't perform that well including just about any cancer drug you can name.

[sharkman]

Yes, and those drugs are not advertised as a vaccine for cancer.

[betsy]

Which States is it mandatory in?

Mandatory HPV Vaccination

Public Health vs Private Wealth

Lawrence O. Gostin, JD, LLD; Catherine D. DeAngelis, MD, MPH

JAMA. 2007;297:1921-1923.

Earlier this year, Texas (by executive order) and Virginia made quadrivalent HPV vaccine mandatory for girls entering sixth grade. However, the Texas legislature recently voted to overturn the governor's order and Virginia granted parents generous "opt-out" provisions.12 Nearly 20 additional states are considering similar legislation,13 and some medical experts in Europe are calling for mandatory HPV vaccination.14 Routine use of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine undoubtedly is beneficial to the public's health, as it is likely to reduce the incidence of cervical cancers. However, the rush to make HPV vaccination mandatory in school-aged girls presents ethical concerns and is likely to be counterproductive.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/17/1921

[betsy]

By the way, are you just as concerned that kids are vaccinated against diphtheria, measles, mumps, poliomyelitis, rubella and tetanus?

Let me just show you how long it took to do the research on polio vaccine.

How a Vaccine Was Discovered

Vaccine developments for polio had begun in the early 1900's.

However, early attempts failed, partly because researchers did not know there was more than one virus. We now know that polio is caused by three strains of quite stable viruses that are a part of the enterovirus family, which have RNA as their genetic material. These viruses can remain infectious for long periods of time in water and foods. To be effective, a vaccine has to confer immunity against all three strains.

Ironically, before the 1900's, immunity was acquired primarily during infancy because sanitation conditions were poor and efforts at sewage and water treatment were primitive. Babies were frequently exposed to polioviruses. These infants did not contract the disease because their mothers¹ antibodies were passed on to them through breast feeding. The babies then developed their own antibodies to the virus.

Paradoxically, when sanitation improved, infants were no longer exposed at an age when they were protected, so they did not develop antibodies to the viruses. Consequently, when they were exposed to the virus in later childhood and adulthood, they were at risk to contract polio.

This understanding about the nature of polio grew through painstaking research over the first half of the twentieth century, much of it funded by the March of Dimes, a grassroots organization founded with the help of President Roosevelt. The organization decided to enlist the services of a respected researcher who was certain he could find a safe vaccination.

Jonas Salk, developer of first successful vaccine.

Photo by March of Dimes

Birth Defects Foundation, 1996.

Dr. Jonas Salk had begun his medical research career studying immunology. In 1947, while at the University of Pittsburgh, he began his research on poliovirus. His research was greatly helped in 1949, when a method of growing poliovirus in cell culture, instead of having to use primarily monkeys for research, was discovered. Salk needed to find a way to process the viruses so that they were less infectious, before using them in a vaccine. In 1952, Salk was the first to develop a successful vaccine using a mixture of the three types of virus, grown in monkey kidney cultures. He developed a process using formalin, a chemical that inactivated the whole virus.

What followed was massive testing of the vaccine in clinical trials in the United States and parts of Canada, begun in 1954. The scope of the trials was unprecedented in medical history. The results were dramatic. Cases of polio fell spectacularly in the vaccinated test groups. In 1955, the government quickly granted permission for the vaccine to be distributed to the children of our country.

Child being administered the polio vaccine.

Photo by March of Dimes

Birth Defects Foundation, 1996.

But, there was a problem with the original Salk vaccine. The vaccine actually induced 260 cases of poliomyelitis, including 10 deaths. The problem was traced to incomplete inactivation of some virus particles, which was soon corrected. Since then the vaccine has been highly effective, with a 70 - 90% protection rate.

In 1957, in an effort to improve upon the killed Salk vaccine, Albert Bruce Sabin began testing a live, oral form of vaccine in which the infectious part of the virus was inactivated (attenuated). This vaccine became available for use in 1963.

[betsy]

I understand that parents would want their children to be safe from contracting hpv virus. The mentality frame of the parents in this situation is that they want their children immuned NOW! I emphatize with the desire - it's only normal. And frankly, it's a reflection of the kind of society we have now that clamors for instant gratification!

It is negligent on our part to let ourselves get caught up in a hype and push our daughters into something that's not been researched thoroughly!

And it's not only negligent on our part if we embrace this vaccines just because some religious group or conservatives are rejecting it!

The knee-jerk reaction dominating better judgement.

Perhaps it's the next generation who will benefit from these vaccines when there will be enough data and findings to sufficiently - if not confidently - conclude that yes, there will be no side-effects at all....not even to your daughter's own children!

History had given us some dire consequences. The thalidomide that was administered to pregnant women that led to deformed babies, as an example.

I'd say that we need to wait and learn more about this vaccine. That parents should not be pressured and driven by hyped information.

Edited September 23, 2007 by betsy

[gc1765]

Let me just show you how long it took to do the research on polio vaccine.

Now, I can't really comment much on the safety of this HPV vaccine, but using the time it took to do the research makes no sense, especially when we are comparing the early 20th century with the early 21st century. That is like comparing the technological advances of the early 1900's with the technological advances of the 21st century.

[Wilber]

Yes, and those drugs are not advertised as a vaccine for cancer.

That's because they are not vaccines for cancer. What's your point?

[betsy]

Now, I can't really comment much on the safety of this HPV vaccine, but using the time it took to do the research makes no sense, especially when we are comparing the early 20th century with the early 21st century. That is like comparing the technological advances of the early 1900's with the technological advances of the 21st century.

The doctor interviewed was proud to announce that they did a 5 year research on hpv vaccine.

I would like to use a 9-year old girl as an example. They want to vaccinate girls as young as 9 years old. Did they do a study specifically focused on 9 year olds? Girls go through complex changes during puberty and beyond.

What could be the consequences giving vaccine to a girl as young as 9 compared to a 16 year old?

Did any of these 9 year olds that were studied ever gotten pregnant and had given births - keeping in mind that this was only a 5-year research?

If they do not know the answer as to the preventive capability of this drug after a few years...and that they admitted studies are still on-going.....then how could they know such details pertaining to the effect this vaccine might have on these girls depending on the various ages and stages they were in when they were vaccinated?

yes we have advanced technologically therefore it shouldn't take half a century to find out about results in most cases. However just because technology had advanced, it doesn't mean our biological system had dramatically changed as well.

Modern technology or not...this is a substance you're going to put into a human!

Edited September 23, 2007 by betsy

[M.Dancer]

They're talking of doing this in school.

Would you have your 9 year old daughter vaccinated?

Yes absolutely.

[M.Dancer]

It seems oral sex is not as safe as advertised.

I find that a little hard to swallow.

[geoffrey]

The big issue here doesn't seem to be the saftey of the vaccine. If this was a new one for mumps or chickenpox, no one would question it.

Essientially, the medical establishment is calling everyone's little girls sluts and people don't like to hear that. Unfortunately, that's today's society. So go medical establishment, and get these kids protected.

[M.Dancer]

Essientially, the medical establishment is calling everyone's little girls sluts .......

Don't be absurd. Every parent should ask themselves, realistically, what are the chances of their daughter having more than 4 sexual partners in their lives. If the answer is greater than 1% they should get the vaccine.

[jdobbin]

Don't be absurd. Every parent should ask themselves, realistically, what are the chances of their daughter having more than 4 sexual partners in their lives. If the answer is greater than 1% they should get the vaccine.

A woman who only has one partner and marries that partner can still get HPV from that partner.

[M.Dancer]

A woman who only has one partner and marries that partner can still get HPV from that partner.

Good point

[geoffrey]

Don't be absurd. Every parent should ask themselves, realistically, what are the chances of their daughter having more than 4 sexual partners in their lives. If the answer is greater than 1% they should get the vaccine.

My friend, that was exactly my point. Re-read my post.