HPV Vaccine - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 01-05-2007, 11:50 PM
Beginner
 
April's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,069
I haven't been around VB too much lately, and I was hoping to see some discussion regarding the HPV vaccine. I'm not sure what I think about it. Any insight?
April is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 01-06-2007, 12:39 AM
Banned
 
Jessica Alana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,081
I don't know how I feel about it. I thought it was pretty cool when I first heard about it. However I may be a tad biased because I had high-risk HPV for two years. It's been less than a year that I've finally started testing negative for it. Since I dealt with the cervical dysplasia (precancerous cells) and all the good stuff that goes along with getting the cells removed, and since I know how common HPV is (80% of sexually active people will acquire it in their lifetimes) I thought of it as a good thing.



It's just recently that I've been beginning to reconsider vaccines and things like that. So, I guess I'm not sure. I'd love to hear other people's POVs on it.
Jessica Alana is offline  
#3 Old 01-06-2007, 10:54 AM
Beginner
 
Thalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 6,902
I had a blood test which showed I have no "bad" strains of hpv (I don't think they tested for the kinds that don't cause problems- apparently most people who have sex get some sort or another eventually). So I am doing something right. I know nothing of the risks of the vaccine, but I do know right now it's recommended only for younger women (11-26). I don't know if that's because this group is at higher risk, or if the vaccine is more risky for "older" women.



Oh, I found my answer:

Quote:
Why is the HPV vaccine recommended for such young girls?

\t\t Ideally, females should get the vaccine before they are sexually active. \t\t This is because the vaccine is most effective in girls/women who have not \t\t yet acquired any of the four HPV types covered by the vaccine. Girls/women \t\t who have not been infected with any of those four HPV types will get the \t full benefits of the vaccine.

\t\t

Will sexually active females benefit from the vaccine?

\t\t Females who are sexually active may also benefit from the vaccine. \t\t But they may get less benefit from the vaccine since they may have already \t\t acquired one or more HPV type(s) covered by the vaccine. Few young women \t\t are infected with all four of these HPV types. So they would still get \t\t protection from those types they have not acquired. Currently, there is \t\t no test available to tell if a girl/woman has had any or all of these four \t HPV types.

\t\tWhy is the HPV vaccine only recommended for girls/women ages 9 to 26?

\t\t The vaccine has been widely tested in 9-to-26 year-old girls/women. \t\t But research on the vaccine’s safety and efficacy has only recently \t\t begun with women older than 26 years of age. The FDA will consider licensing \t\t the vaccine for these women when there is research to show that it is safe \t and effective for them.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine.htm
Thalia is offline  
#4 Old 01-06-2007, 10:04 PM
Beginner
 
zoebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,451
i think it's ridiculous.
zoebird is offline  
#5 Old 01-06-2007, 11:52 PM
Beginner
 
April's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,069
Why?
April is offline  
#6 Old 01-07-2007, 02:07 AM
Banned
 
Jessica Alana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thalia View Post

I had a blood test which showed I have no "bad" strains of hpv (I don't think they tested for the kinds that don't cause problems- apparently most people who have sex get some sort or another eventually). So I am doing something right. I know nothing of the risks of the vaccine, but I do know right now it's recommended only for younger women (11-26). I don't know if that's because this group is at higher risk, or if the vaccine is more risky for "older" women.







They don't care much about the low-risk strains, which cause genital warts; because they're harmless.

The high-risk strains are the ones that cause cervical dysplasia, and in turn, cancer.

HPV is spread even with condoms. Unless you're just abstinent, you're not doing anything right, you're just lucky. So far, anyway. Unless you have low-risk already, of course.
Jessica Alana is offline  
#7 Old 01-07-2007, 02:55 PM
Beginner
 
Trueveggie14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,112
When they say they have tested it on girls and women 9 - 26, it's not like they followed them for 20 or so years and found out ... okay this vaccine protected them from the time they got it and through all kinds of raunchy sex and bam... they never got cervical cancer.



I just don't see how they can really know anything about it yet.
Trueveggie14 is offline  
#8 Old 01-08-2007, 06:52 AM
Beginner
 
catswym's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,906
i'm kind of ambivalent about this. on the one hand great that it is a preventative for many forms of cervical cancer. on the other hand, it doesn't protect against all forms so women should still do their yearly paps. so...if women just do their yearly paps, things would be going good. back to the first hand, if it prevents 70% of cervical cancers that is that many fewer women dealing with cervical cancer.



i don't really see any risk with getting the vaccine so, why not?
catswym is offline  
#9 Old 01-08-2007, 07:32 AM
Beginner
 
cookingVeg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,202
I think it's a very good thing. I'm monogamous but I'd still like to have it.
cookingVeg is offline  
#10 Old 01-08-2007, 07:36 AM
Banned
 
Jessica Alana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by cookingVeg View Post

I think it's a very good thing. I'm monogamous but I'd still like to have it.



I was monogamous, too. His past apparently caught up with him, and in turn, me.
Jessica Alana is offline  
#11 Old 01-08-2007, 09:13 AM
Beginner
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
I also think it's ridiculous.
GhostUser is offline  
#12 Old 01-08-2007, 10:57 AM
Beginner
 
sushi8kat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 219
I don't think it's ridiculous at all. My sister, who is an OBGYN, works alongside the woman who helped create/patent it. Regardless of whether or not it protects against ALL forms of the virus, I think it's incredible that there is a vaccine that can prevent cervical cancer of any kind. Considering that it is such a serious issue in our society. I applaud any and all measures to prevent serious illnesses in our society. I think it is always good to debate any new medical discovery, but I'm extremely unsettled by seeing so many women on this board out right calling it ridiculous without being open to developing a better understanding of it. I do agree that it has a ways to go, and we need more studies on it, but I would hope that people would be more open-minded and encouraged about such a tremendous step in medicine..
sushi8kat is offline  
#13 Old 01-08-2007, 12:27 PM
Beginner
 
Cissy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,759
will those who say it's ridiculous explain why?
Cissy is offline  
#14 Old 01-08-2007, 05:44 PM
Beginner
 
Eclipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,186
I hope it works. I'd probably consider getting if and when being sexually active ever comes up in my life.



Did anyone else see the preserved cervix from someone who died from this illness at body world?.
Eclipse is offline  
#15 Old 01-09-2007, 12:35 PM
Beginner
 
zoebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,451
First, i think it's ridiculous to market this vaccine as an "anti cancer" vaccine.



to this and second, it's an anti- HPV vaccine, and only covers a few of the strains of the virus, which are commonly linked to cuasing cervical cancer.



further, and third, even with the vaccine, there is still the risk of cervical cancer from other causes (non HPV) AND from one of these strains of HPV or one of the other strains of HPV that can cause cervical cancer but is less likely to than these strains.



fourth, i think it's ridiculous to give this vaccine which causes very little coverage to young girls. It would make more sense to start vaccinating girls against hepititus C--a much more risky sexually transmitted disease. Although, there are movements to vaccinate babies against all strains of hepititus, even though they're unlikely to come into contact with the disease in question until after they've learned how to avoid it. but, i have an issue with vaccinating infants and young children, and that is related to why i have an issue with vaccinating young girls--before they get to choose their own sexual process--in regards to sexually transmitted diseases.



fifth, it provides so little coverage as to give a 'false sense of security' to young women and any woman who would utilize this vaccine. What is often not being communicated is that it only covers or protects against very few strains of HPV, it doesn't protect against cancer if you already have this strain of HPV or another strain that could cause cervical cancer, and it doesn't protect against those other strains of HPV anyway.



So it's essentially a useless medication since it's 'coverage' is so narrow.



without being open to developing a better understanding of it



this is a garbage statement. I have a very good understanding of the vaccine, it's history and the testing measures related to it, as well as the tests to date on this product (which are minimal at best--it seemed to me to be quite a 'rush job' in order to capitalize on the idea of being able to market an "anti-cancer vaccine" which this vaccine is not).
zoebird is offline  
#16 Old 01-09-2007, 12:41 PM
Beginner
 
zoebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,451
oh, and i forgot to mention that even those strains of HPV that are covered by the vaccine are "more likely" to cause cervical cancer, but also may not cause cervical cancer in any given woman. thus, the vaccine it only protecting those women who might get cervical cancer from these strains of HPV--many women who have these strains of HPV do not get cervical cancer from those strains, and/or do not get cervical cancer at all.



simply, these stains are "more likely" to cause it in some women, but not in all, further narrowing the 'band' of protection.
zoebird is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off