Gardasil?

[EeyoresButerfly]

I thought HPV needed genital to genital contact to spread, and IMO, if you are engaging in that and consider yourself not to be having “sex” then you are splitting hairs. Does it not need this kind of contact to spread?

 

[msugeotech]

Correct - however, it can also be spread by oral sex as well.

I thought HPV needed genital to genital contact to spread, and IMO, if you are engaging in that and consider yourself not to be having “sex” then you are splitting hairs. Does it not need this kind of contact to spread?

 

[EeyoresButerfly]

Correct - however, it can also be spread by oral sex as well.

Which is still sex in my book (and his as well). If a person does not engage in any kind of sexual acts then they shouldn’t be able to catch it right?

 

[Island_Oak]

From what I understand, genital contact isn’t necessary in order to contract this disease. Condoms apparently don’t even protect against it, from what I have read. Any skin contact (even petting) can spread it.

My daughter will be getting vaccinated against it, because it is so easily contracted and so easily avoided with this vaccine. Since it is so common (75% of the adult population have HPV), it is better to err on the side of vaccination. I do have the strain of HPV that causes cancer (because not all spouses are faithful, as it turns out), and it is something I will have to watch out for as long as I live. I figure my daughter will face enough other health issues in her lifetime. Surely, she shouldn’t have to worry about one that can be stopped from spreading.

Well stated… and part of the reason both of my teenage daughters have received the HPV vaccine. As much as we guide, instruct, pray…we can’t “control” the decison making of anyone else–particularly our teenage children. As parents, to the extent we can minimize damages arising from missteps in judgment, I believe we have an affirmative duty to pull our heads out of the sand and do so. My children are not immune from making mistakes, nor are their potential partners. I don’t think any of them deserve a death sentence for a moment of youthful indiscretion.

Which is still sex in my book (and his as well). If a person does not engage in any kind of sexual acts then they shouldn’t be able to catch it right?

Sounds as if you’re due for a thorough conversation with your physician about the nature of risk factors to which you may be exposed now and in the future. If you have a narrow window to vaccinate and are not yet married, I would not make the mistake of assuming your current partner will be your spouse. Reducing your risk of contracting HPV does not require that you let your guard down as to your conduct. But it does help in the event you or a future partner are not as diligent as you are currently.

 

[Jea9]

I thought HPV needed genital to genital contact to spread, and IMO, if you are engaging in that and consider yourself not to be having “sex” then you are splitting hairs. Does it not need this kind of contact to spread?

Actually, from what I’ve read and studied on it…it’s a HIGHLY contagious disease and some of the strains can live for a while on other surfaces. So…this means toilet seats. I am actually not an advocate of this vaccine for many of the same reasons other posters have mentioned. But, just wanted to point out that there are other ‘high risk’ behaviors people don’t think about. Public restrooms can have a host of disgusting things…and think about restrooms in places like bars and dorms. Places where people ARE engaging in other standard high risk behavior. If your only reasoning for not getting it is because you’re a virgin and your future husband is as well…this is something to delve a little deeper on.

(note: this is based on things I’ve read and heard, I have no sources…and will be glad to look into it if others have information that contradicts this. )

 

[tampagrl]

… Since it is so common (75% of the adult population have HPV), it is better to err on the side of vaccination. .

With all due respect, who’s statistic is that? The makers of Gardasil? Additionally, IF that’s an accurate statistic, and I highly doubt it is, then why aren’t all these people dying? I mean, 75%?! That’s a heck of a lot of the population.

Just think about the increase in commercials for prescription medication these days. A healthy dose of fear sells drugs. If a manufacturer can say, “4 out of 5 doctors recommend it” then everyone runs out in a slight panic to get whatever it is “the doctors” are recommending. No one wants cancer!
I’m not saying they’re necessarily lying in commercials, but think about it, did they literally only ask 5 doctors in order to come up with that statistic? Clearly that’s not representative of a majority of doctors. Well, a majority of the 5 they asked, I guess. Would you allow a drug to be injected into your daughter or yourself if only 5 doctors were asked about it’s effectiveness? It’s side effects? All one has to do is google Gardasil and a whole mess of websites come up detailing all the horrible side effects, including blood clots and death that have been reported. I suggest that if there really is such an increase risk in cervical cancer it has more to do w/other things - like the pill.

I do have the strain of HPV that causes cancer (because not all spouses are faithful, as it turns out), and it is something I will have to watch out for as long as I live.

But thank God you don’t have cancer. We all have to watch out for all kinds of things for the rest of our lives.
Just too risky if you ask me.

 

[daeve]

With all due respect, who’s statistic is that? The makers of Gardasil? Additionally, IF that’s an accurate statistic, and I highly doubt it is, then why aren’t all these people dying? I mean, 75%?! That’s a heck of a lot of the population.

Just think about the increase in commercials for prescription medication these days. A healthy dose of fear sells drugs. If a manufacturer can say, “4 out of 5 doctors recommend it” then everyone runs out in a slight panic to get whatever it is “the doctors” are recommending. No one wants cancer!
I’m not saying they’re necessarily lying in commercials, but think about it, did they literally only ask 5 doctors in order to come up with that statistic? Clearly that’s not representative of a majority of doctors. Well, a majority of the 5 they asked, I guess. Would you allow a drug to be injected into your daughter or yourself if only 5 doctors were asked about it’s effectiveness? It’s side effects? All one has to do is google Gardasil and a whole mess of websites come up detailing all the horrible side effects, including blood clots and death that have been reported. I suggest that if there really is such an increase risk in cervical cancer it has more to do w/other things - like the pill.

I do have the strain of HPV that causes cancer (because not all spouses are faithful, as it turns out), and it is something I will have to watch out for as long as I live.

But thank God you don’t have cancer. We all have to watch out for all kinds of things for the rest of our lives.
Just too risky if you ask me.

I may be misunderstanding you, but when they say 4 out of 5 doctors, they don’t mean they asked 5 doctors. They’re saying 80% of the doctors they polled said it, and they may have polled 500 or 5,000,000.

I think that if I was of the age, I would want to get it, but would also be concerned about the future ramifications too. I guess only you can decide if the risk outweighs the benefit.

One last thought…I’m not trying to cast any aspersions on your fella, but you only really know what you’re doing, and what he tells you he’s doing.

 

[CB_Catholic]

This topic hits a sore nerve with me because I have just watched my dear 37 year old neice suffer terribly through radiation and chemotherapy for a fairly advanced state of cervical cancer which was inoperable. We still don’t know if the cancer will recur, although she is clean now, but her last treatment was only about 6 months ago.

Had the vaccine been available during her younger years, she might have been spared this. Even with the controversy over possible side effects, which probably are fairly rare, she certainly suffers from a “side effect” of HPV–cervical cancer-- which may still take her young life. And chemotherapy and radiation are not benign treatments–these treatments alone nearly cost her her life, and she was hospitalized many weeks for the side effects from them, both during and after the treatments were completed because of the effects on her immune system and her body. I won’t go into the details. I am just grateful she got to see another Mother’s Day with her two boys, as she is.

I used to advise my daughter not to get my grandchildren vaccinated when they become of age for it. I had a vague “feeling” that there was something “immoral” about vaccinating young girls against a possible STD, like it would encourage them to be sexually active or something. I don’t feel that way anymore, not after this. We can raise our children as carefully as we can, raise them in the Faith, educate them and promote abstinence to the best of our ability, but they are human beings and just may disappoint us in that area. So I will no longer advise my daughter against it. I will keep my mouth shut and let her make her own informed decision, which I am sure will be made with a lot of research on her part, knowing her.

And please say a prayer for my neice.

 

[tampagrl]

I do have the strain of HPV that causes cancer (because not all spouses are faithful, as it turns out), and it is something I will have to watch out for as long as I live.

But thank God you don’t have cancer. We all have to watch out for all kinds of things for the rest of our lives.
Just too risky if you ask me.

I may be misunderstanding you, but when they say 4 out of 5 doctors, they don’t mean they asked 5 doctors. They’re saying 80% of the doctors they polled said it, and they may have polled 500 or 5,000,000.

I think that if I was of the age, I would want to get it, but would also be concerned about the future ramifications too. I guess only you can decide if the risk outweighs the benefit.

One last thought…I’m not trying to cast any aspersions on your fella, but you only really know what you’re doing, and what he tells you he’s doing.

---

Well, it’s not me that’s asking about using it, but I can understand w/all the “quoting” going on, it could get confusing…lol… My point to the poster that I quoted (but also not the original poster of this thread) was that statistics can be easily manipulated to fit someone’s purpose. What’s that expression? 99% of statistics are made up on the spot? I mean, honestly, sometimes I wonder if that’s true.

And actually, you *did *understand me, but my point was how do we really know they didn’t literally just ask 5 doctors in order to tout whatever statistic they’re using to sell their product? Let me be clear, I’m not saying Merk & Co, the makers of Gardasil. are using that “4 out of 5 doctors” bit, but how many times have you heard that on a tv commerical for other medications? Me? Lots. To put it another way, and to use your example, if the numbers were so great in supporting a certain medication, wouldn’t the makers just say, “5,000,000 doctors say to use ‘xyz’ product?” See my point?

Another, perhaps better example that comes to mind was theThalidomide babies. That’s before my time, but Google’s a beautiful thing.
Thalidomide was taken for something as simple as morning sickness. And I found this, “Pulled from the market in 1961, thalidomide caused approximately 10,000 children to be born with deformed limbs, brain defects, or other developmental deformities”

blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/05/12/solving-a-50-year-mystery-how-thalidomide-causes-birth-defects/

If you read the whole article, it talks about how the drug has been so hard to study b/c (and I paraphrase) it had to be metabolically activated in the liver, where it became more than 100 different compounds! Scary. But more to the point? This research has taken** 50 years **to figure out!

I’m just say’n, what are they going to find in 50 yrs after Garadsil?

I’m over the age so it doesn’t apply to me, but I do have a daughter who won’t be getting that vaccine. Hopefully, by the time she’s that age, more will be known about it.

I’m not trying to come off as argumentative…just trying to give more perspective…and I apologize b/c I’m obviously “forum challenged” when it comes to quoting a quote, especially when the quotes are from two different people.

 

[tampagrl]

…Had the vaccine been available during her younger years, she might have been spared this. Even with the controversy over possible side effects, which probably are fairly rare…

I’m obviously very sorry to hear this but with all due respect, why do you just assume the side effects are “probably fairly rare”?

I have said a prayer for your niece. She clearly has a horrible cross to bear. I pray for God’s healing for her and her family.

 

[Miserissima]

I thought HPV needed genital to genital contact to spread, and IMO, if you are engaging in that and consider yourself not to be having “sex” then you are splitting hairs. Does it not need this kind of contact to spread?

No. I should have written that neither I nor the girl who stayed with us were involved in any sexual behavior. Jea answered this perfectly:

Actually, from what I’ve read and studied on it…it’s a HIGHLY contagious disease and some of the strains can live for a while on other surfaces. So…this means toilet seats. I am actually not an advocate of this vaccine for many of the same reasons other posters have mentioned. But, just wanted to point out that there are other ‘high risk’ behaviors people don’t think about. Public restrooms can have a host of disgusting things…

From womenshealthlondon.org.uk/leaflets/hpvwarts/hpvwarts.html:

In rare cases, HPV may be spread without direct sexual contact. It may be possible, for example, to pick up the virus if you use a towel to wipe your genitals after it has been used by someone who has HPV or genital warts.

My source is from an OB/Gyn to whom I took my best friend. It bugs me to no end when people insist it’s only spread through sexual contact.

 

[sanctamaria17]

I got it.

I will take shots for as many things as I can. Why?

1. The field I’m going into requires me to live in developing countries. I’m going to have to take shots for many things, even if I think it’s a waste of time. You just never know the day your immune system needs a break.
2. I’m a virgin but what if my future husband is not? And what if he didn’t know he had it? Guys don’t know!
3. My aunt has HPV and was seriously worried about passing it on to her first child when she got pregnant. She also has to worry about cervical cancer. I don’t want to be in that position.
4. God forbid-What if I get raped?

No side effects here Healthy, happy, and one less disease I have to worry about. God knows I’ll see enough of those.

 

[LilyM]

But thank God you don’t have cancer. We all have to watch out for all kinds of things for the rest of our lives.

Just too risky if you ask me.

 

[daeve]

But thank God you don’t have cancer. We all have to watch out for all kinds of things for the rest of our lives.
Just too risky if you ask me.

I may be misunderstanding you, but when they say 4 out of 5 doctors, they don’t mean they asked 5 doctors. They’re saying 80% of the doctors they polled said it, and they may have polled 500 or 5,000,000.

I think that if I was of the age, I would want to get it, but would also be concerned about the future ramifications too. I guess only you can decide if the risk outweighs the benefit.

One last thought…I’m not trying to cast any aspersions on your fella, but you only really know what you’re doing, and what he tells you he’s doing.

---

Well, it’s not me that’s asking about using it, but I can understand w/all the “quoting” going on, it could get confusing…lol… My point to the poster that I quoted (but also not the original poster of this thread) was that statistics can be easily manipulated to fit someone’s purpose. What’s that expression? 99% of statistics are made up on the spot? I mean, honestly, sometimes I wonder if that’s true.

And actually, you *did *understand me, but my point was how do we really know they didn’t literally just ask 5 doctors in order to tout whatever statistic they’re using to sell their product? Let me be clear, I’m not saying Merk & Co, the makers of Gardasil. are using that “4 out of 5 doctors” bit, but how many times have you heard that on a tv commerical for other medications? Me? Lots. To put it another way, and to use your example, if the numbers were so great in supporting a certain medication, wouldn’t the makers just say, “5,000,000 doctors say to use ‘xyz’ product?” See my point?

Another, perhaps better example that comes to mind was theThalidomide babies. That’s before my time, but Google’s a beautiful thing.
Thalidomide was taken for something as simple as morning sickness. And I found this, “Pulled from the market in 1961, thalidomide caused approximately 10,000 children to be born with deformed limbs, brain defects, or other developmental deformities”

blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/05/12/solving-a-50-year-mystery-how-thalidomide-causes-birth-defects/

If you read the whole article, it talks about how the drug has been so hard to study b/c (and I paraphrase) it had to be metabolically activated in the liver, where it became more than 100 different compounds! Scary. But more to the point? This research has taken** 50 years **to figure out!

I’m just say’n, what are they going to find in 50 yrs after Garadsil?

I’m over the age so it doesn’t apply to me, but I do have a daughter who won’t be getting that vaccine. Hopefully, by the time she’s that age, more will be known about it.

I’m not trying to come off as argumentative…just trying to give more perspective…and I apologize b/c I’m obviously “forum challenged” when it comes to quoting a quote, especially when the quotes are from two different people.

I must have tried to reply in the middle of what I was quoting. The part that has my name on it wasn’t my post. I have no idea how to quote more than one person, but I’m pretty sure I’m the one who messed up here.

There are risks on both sides of any medical treatment. If you’re menopausal, you can take the hormones (which made me insane) and risk blood blots and what ever else, or you can risk the bone loss, or…or…or… You have to weigh the two things. I knew kids who were damaged by Thalidomide, and my own sister has had terrible effects from my mother taking DES during that pregnancy. But it was the seventh pregnancy with only two kids to show for them all, so they decided it was worth the risk. My sister managed to hang on to her parts long enough to have a couple kids, but they’re gone now. You have to weigh the risks against the benefits and make your own decision.

Every day you hear about something else that isn’t good for you, or something you thought wasn’t good for that is. I’m just hoping that they tell me steak and ice cream are health foods someday.

 

[EeyoresButerfly]

This is the first time I have ever heard these sensationalist claims that it is spread through anything other than skin to skin contact. I have tried the CDC and a variet of other medical websites (ones that I know to be accurate) and this is the only place in which I’ve heard of getting it from toilet seats or it being a HIGHLY contagious disease.

I’m not saying that you are lying that you rniece did not engage in any of the risky behaviors linked to it, but it sounds like her case in extroardinarily rare. If it were that easy to transmit, I think the CDC would have it on their information page or any of these other medical websites.

 

[sharmin]

Which is still sex in my book (and his as well). If a person does not engage in any kind of sexual acts then they shouldn’t be able to catch it right?

Unless they marry a man who has ever participated in premarital “petting”.

 

[tampagrl]

… I’m just hoping that they tell me steak and ice cream are health foods someday.