HPV vaccine

[Dee123]

Um, yes and no.

Peope in the 1960’s tended to get married in their late teens or early 20’s whereas today most people don’t get married till their mid to late 20’s. So its hard to compare. Considering that the average age teens begin having sex is 17, it would seem that perhaps its just more tempting when there’s longer to wait.

Considering that 25% sexually active teens aren’t using contraception, I’m not exactly sure contraception is the sole reason they’re sexually active.

Yes and no? If people got married in their late teens or erly 20’s and didn’t have sex until AFTER marriage, then they weren’t promiscuous, were they? It’s either yes or no.

I think it’s more tempting because kids are learning too much at an early age and because of the 60’s push for free love, contraception, abortion and a total distorted view and lack of understanding of sexuality.

Has anyone here studied JPII’s Theology of the Body with Christopher West? Apparently, it’s like a time bomb waiting to go off in our culture and worldwide…It’s SOOOO what we need in this day and age…it’s even out there for teens (ie teen books/DVD’s).

 

[LilyM]

If you believe this, what then do you think about the pill and the condom…should all women be taking the birth control pill and should all people walk around with a condom? to protect from pregnancy and STD’s because the temptation was too strong?
I’m not saying we aren’t weak…but prior to the 60’s I’m sure there was way less promiscuity than there is today…why? contraceptives…I know this vaccine isn’t a contraceptive, but it’s protecting agains a small strain of cervical cancer and is being pushed around because “EVERYBODY KNOWS THEY’RE ALL GOING TO DO IT” is the attitude, isn’t it?

Have you not read my previous post where I went into detail about how using the pill or condoms is vastly different to getting a vaccine? Basically a vaccine in no way intereferes with the natural God-given reproductive cycle of a woman. It in no way interferes with her being ‘open to life’ which is the main objection to pills and condoms.

Quite the contary, it is a preventative measure taken to keep her reproductive system healthy and functioning properly. There are no ethical issues involved - no question of it being abortifiacient, no question of it being contraceptive or the like.

Let me ask you a question - if you left all your doors and windows on your house wide open and a thief broke in, would you not be at least partially to blame for failing to take adequate precautions against theft?

If I said to you ‘oh, but I live in a very nice neighbourhood where there are lots of policemen and hardly any thefts, so I don’t see any reason why I should protect myself by locking doors and windows’ would you turn around and say 'you know, you’re absolutely right, keep ‘em open!’ I should hope your answer would be no to the last quesiton. The same principle - protective precautions - applies to vaccines.

And the risk of a woman - any woman - getting cervical cancer is much higher than the risk of many of the things that you and I insure and protect ourselves against every day.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Yes and no? If people got married in their late teens or erly 20’s and didn’t have sex until AFTER marriage, then they weren’t promiscuous, were they? It’s either yes or no.

I think you missed the point. The average teen today begins having sex at 17. Thats not that far off from when people got married 40 years ago. So its hard to tell how people 40 years ago would have behaved if they weren’t expecting to get married for another 10 or more years.

I think it’s more tempting because kids are learning too much at an early age and because of the 60’s push for free love, contraception, abortion and a total distorted view and lack of understanding of sexuality.

The oversexualized culture has the most to do with it, I agree completely. However, there’s plenty of people having sex without contraception so it doesn’t appear contraception inandof itself is a huge contributor. A big part of the problem, yes, but not necessarily the main reason.

 

[Greg27]

I think this is a very delicate and intimate question best discussed with your pastor/confessor and regular doctor.

I think the risks of catching HPV and other STD’s is no doubt reduced to a very low level by being celibate and only having one monagamous sexual relationship for life (marriage). It is hard to dispute that. I am not an expert on HPV and how it is transmitted, however I think getting the vaccine may be a good idea even if you are celibate. One problem is that many people, Catholics included, are sexually active before marriage. Even if you never had sex before marriage, there is no guarantee your future husband has not had sexual relations outside of marriage at some time (even if he claims otherwise) and contracted HPV and other diseases. Also as another poster mentioned, sexual assault cannot be ruled out as a possibility (though somewhat remote).

 

[Cracker_Mom]

Huge differences. Massive ones. Coming from a medical family I am well aware of the moral and other ethical issues.

Pregnancy (the only thing which the pill prevents) is not a disease of any kind, first off. Unlike cervical cancer, which like all preventable disease should be prevented, by vaccination if this is required and available.

Secondly, the HPV vaccine doesn’t interfere with the natural proces of human fertility and reproduction. Unlike contraceptives.

Thirdly, unlike other condemned medical practices such as euthanasia, abortion, IVF and use of embryonic stem cells, the vaccine does not involve killing the unborn or the soon-to-die, nor the artificial creation of embryos that may end up being disposed of. Nor are any of the other objections to these practices relevant in the case of HPV vaccine.

Put simply, HPV vaccine is totally morally neutral, just like any other approved vaccine against any other disease. Yes it has side effects, yes people have died as a result of taking it. The same, or much the same, happens with all medications, vaccines and medical treatments. Especially in the early days of their use.

Like all approved medications, vaccines and medical treatments, the side effects have already been weighed up against the benefits in the approval process. And like them, further study and refinements will continue to be made into the future. It’s how all medications are used - they are refined and developed even after approval.

Yes, the company may have paid to have approval fast tracked - does that mean the research was done differently? It is unlikely to mean any more than that it was begun earlier but was otherwise just the same process.

In view of the fact that the vast majority of young women catch HPV - and a huge number develop cervical cancer as a result each year - the side effects and deaths, which I have no wish to dismiss at all, are nonetheless hugely outweighed by the lives that will be saved.

I have to agree but wish Merck-or whoever produces the vaccine-would be up front in it’s advertising & tell folks HPV is spread sexually.And then let people make their own decisions.Don’t use those cutsey mom/daughter ads.You don’t get HPV from playing girls’ basketball or riding horses or whatever other wholesome activities are portrayed in these ads. Come on…
And don’t pressure politicians to make it mandatory for school attendance either.It’s potentially a big money maker & doubly so if schools require the vaccine.It’s just silly.You can’t spread HPV at school unless you’re really breaking the rules.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

And the risk of a woman - any woman - getting cervical cancer is much higher than the risk of many of the things that you and I insure and protect ourselves against every day.

My problem with the vaccine is that it doesn’t really protect against getting cervical cancer–but that is how it is marketed. It protects–to a degree–against getting a certain STD that can cause some forms of cervical cancer. So even a woman who did receive this vaccine can still contract other forms of cervical cancer.

Yes, a chaste woman could be raped and her rapist could transmit this particular form of STD. However, that situation is going to be much, much less likely than one in which a sexual-active woman contracts this STD from her partner–even if she only has 3 or 4 over a lifetime.

All that said, I am also very leary of a vaccine that is marketed to school-girls (elementary aged) for something that is not a childhood disease. If the marketing had been directed from the start at a slightly older population (say even 16 and up), I would have felt more like they were really trying to help with a medical issue and less like the marketing department had stumbled upon a cash cow.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

My problem with the vaccine is that it doesn’t really protect against getting cervical cancer–but that is how it is marketed. It protects–to a degree–against getting a certain STD that can cause some forms of cervical cancer. So even a woman who did receive this vaccine can still contract other forms of cervical cancer.

Yes, a chaste woman could be raped and her rapist could transmit this particular form of STD. However, that situation is going to be much, much less likely than one in which a sexual-active woman contracts this STD from her partner–even if she only has 3 or 4 over a lifetime.

All that said, I am also very leary of a vaccine that is marketed to school-girls (elementary aged) for something that is not a childhood disease. If the marketing had been directed from the start at a slightly older population (say even 16 and up), I would have felt more like they were really trying to help with a medical issue and less like the marketing department had stumbled upon a cash cow.

It does only protect-assuming it works-to a certain degree.
I guess they’re trying to target girls before they;'re sexually active, hence not waiting til 16 or older to vaccinate.
It’s ironic that pharmaceutical companies produce something like this *and * oral contraceptives which lower the immune system so you’re more likely to become infected with HPV in the first place.

 

[Dee123]

I think you missed the point. The average teen today begins having sex at 17. Thats not that far off from when people got married 40 years ago. So its hard to tell how people 40 years ago would have behaved if they weren’t expecting to get married for another 10 or more years.

The oversexualized culture has the most to do with it, I agree completely. However, there’s plenty of people having sex without contraception so it doesn’t appear contraception inandof itself is a huge contributor. A big part of the problem, yes, but not necessarily the main reason.

Actually, I don’t think I missed the point…yes, people got married earlier, but I firmly believe, because our whole North American society and Europe are based on Judeo-Christian values, that practically everybody, or perhaps the majority of the population actually believed in waiting until marriage…
On the other hand, if you’ve ever heard Christopher West speak on JPII’s Theology of the Body, there was a very puritanistic attitude about sexuality back then, and it’s even been passed on to our generation is many ways. However, as he says, because taking the puritanistic attitude is not the truthful one, then there’s going to be a rebellion to the extreme—which is what we have today…

I’m not sure if you’re Catholic or not…not sure if you’re aware of Humanae Vitae and the prediction of the Pope about what will happen to society with the increased use of contraception and increasing access to abortion, but his comments are an exact portrayal of what the contraceptive attitude is all about…It all ties in to sexuality and how one sees themself and why we were created…what’s our body for and all that…
Have you heard about the Theology of the Body? Have you read the beginner’s book or the actualy text written by Pope John Paul II? Have you read Love and Responsibility by JPII?

I still firmly believe that there would be a more respectful attitude towards the human body/the other sex if there was less contraception…no legal abortion, etc. I also believe that if we as parents take the time to instill morals and values and a deep spirituality in our children, than more likely than not, there’ll be no need for an HPV vaccine…I’m not saying they’re not going to stray…if there’s no premarital sex, then there’s no need for an HPV vaccine…
And as to other comments such as you just never know if your future husband is lying to you about how many sexual encounters he’s had, etc. etc. How can you trust any guy then? Well, I guess, if the couple has the same values and morals and a very similar spirituality and mentality in regards to church teachings, sacraments, etc. then the guy is probably going to be very honest with you. If not, yes,they can lie and get away with it.
But I don’t believe in taking precautions for the worst case scenario…that’s my 2 bits for now…

 

[Dee123]

Have you not read my previous post where I went into detail about how using the pill or condoms is vastly different to getting a vaccine? Basically a vaccine in no way intereferes with the natural God-given reproductive cycle of a woman. It in no way interferes with her being ‘open to life’ which is the main objection to pills and condoms.

Quite the contary, it is a preventative measure taken to keep her reproductive system healthy and functioning properly. There are no ethical issues involved - no question of it being abortifiacient, no question of it being contraceptive or the like.

Let me ask you a question - if you left all your doors and windows on your house wide open and a thief broke in, would you not be at least partially to blame for failing to take adequate precautions against theft?

If I said to you ‘oh, but I live in a very nice neighbourhood where there are lots of policemen and hardly any thefts, so I don’t see any reason why I should protect myself by locking doors and windows’ would you turn around and say 'you know, you’re absolutely right, keep ‘em open!’ I should hope your answer would be no to the last quesiton. The same principle - protective precautions - applies to vaccines.

And the risk of a woman - any woman - getting cervical cancer is much higher than the risk of many of the things that you and I insure and protect ourselves against every day.

Do you really think they invented/marketed this vaccine for girls who “just might get raped”? NO!!! Because they believe girls (apparently as young as nine, yeah right) are going to be sexually active----most if not all of them—…

Re: rape…I don’t believe a woman should walk around trying to protect herself from the worst case scenario in life…Why should one prepare for the worst? Yes, it does happen. But don’t go walking alone down a dark alley at night, either…stay on lit streets only and don’t walk alone at night if you can help it. Hey, that kind of makes me think of walking with God at all times, for He is the light…If we walk with God at all times, fight the good fight, make use of frequenting the sacraments, then we’re not going to fall off the horse, so to speak…yes, we’ll fail in many ways, but if one takes their prayer life seriously and goes to communion and confession often, you are not very likely to fall into mortal sin…therefore, why would you need a vaccine that protects against an STD?

Guys, don’t you see???

And if you can’t trust the man you’re marrying because he might be lying to you about previous sexual encounters, then don’t marry him. And if you do marry him, you’re in for one difficult struggle after another…if there’s a constant fear of intimacy, if there’s no trust, there’s no relationship. That marriage is not healthy, should not be entered into, and won’t last long if it does take place…

I’m sorry, I’m not going to walk around preparing for the “worst of the worst”…

That’s my take…

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Actually, I don’t think I missed the point…yes, people got married earlier, but I firmly believe, because our whole North American society and Europe are based on Judeo-Christian values, that practically everybody, or perhaps the majority of the population actually believed in waiting until marriage…

Yes and no. “Group think” enters into such equations. When it appears that all of society says something, many people will go along with it. That doesn’t mean that they necessarily believe it, but they go along. And the fact that they generally didn’t wait all that long until marriage didn’t make it feel like a “hardship” to them.

On the other hand, if you’ve ever heard Christopher West speak on JPII’s Theology of the Body, there was a very puritanistic attitude about sexuality back then, and it’s even been passed on to our generation is many ways. However, as he says, because taking the puritanistic attitude is not the truthful one, then there’s going to be a rebellion to the extreme—which is what we have today…

Indeed.

I’m not sure if you’re Catholic or not…not sure if you’re aware of Humanae Vitae and the prediction of the Pope about what will happen to society with the increased use of contraception and increasing access to abortion, but his comments are an exact portrayal of what the contraceptive attitude is all about…It all ties in to sexuality and how one sees themself and why we were created…what’s our body for and all that…
Have you heard about the Theology of the Body? Have you read the beginner’s book or the actualy text written by Pope John Paul II? Have you read Love and Responsibility by JPII?

Yes, I am a Catholic (add a “t” to the end of my screen name).

I still firmly believe that there would be a more respectful attitude towards the human body/the other sex if there was less contraception…no legal abortion, etc.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Abortion isn’t readily available in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. and I don’t think anyone would hold them up as an example of respect for women.

I also believe that if we as parents take the time to instill morals and values and a deep spirituality in our children, than more likely than not, there’ll be no need for an HPV vaccine…I’m not saying they’re not going to stray…if there’s no premarital sex, then there’s no need for an HPV vaccine…

“More likely than not” is an awfully flimsy hook to hang your hat on when it comes to cancer.

And as to other comments such as you just never know if your future husband is lying to you about how many sexual encounters he’s had, etc. etc. How can you trust any guy then? Well, I guess, if the couple has the same values and morals and a very similar spirituality and mentality in regards to church teachings, sacraments, etc. then the guy is probably going to be very honest with you. If not, yes,they can lie and get away with it.

probably, but he also could be highly embarrassed about his “one night stand” many years ago and fail to mention it.

 

[dangel]

First of all - you do not intend to have sex at the moment, which is not to say you might not be raped.

It is also not to say that you will never have sex in the future, even the near future. We are all human, all capable of being tempted to sexual sin and succumbing to that temptation. To say otherwise is to sadly underestimate the devil’s capabilities.

Secondly - HPV (the virus which causes cervical cancer) can, if memory serves, be transferred by some non-sexual means as well.

Thirdly - we don’t immunise ourselves from polio or rubella or whooping cough ONLY when we are at direct and imminent risk of those diseases, do we? So why take the risk of leaving HPV vaccination till the latest possible moment?

We don’t know everything it contains? Of course we do - we know everything that all vaccines, and all other medications, contain.

Does it sometimes produce adverse reactions? Yes, but then so do all vaccinations - for that matter so do all medications.

You’re just as likely to be at risk from unknowingly having an allergy to some antibiotic and being given that as from any vaccination. The very slight risks all these things have of adverse effects are no reason not to take them, absent known allergies or previous bad reactions to other medications. Which I’m sure you’ve informed your doctor about if you have any!

As you’ve already had the first dose with no ill effect, you know there are no allergy problems. And having started it’s not a good idea not to complete the vaccinations.

I second this

 

[Dee123]

It feels like I’m on a secular forum here…no one else here sees the HPV vaccine as absolutely absurd?
It seems the general consensus here is that most girls, perhaps even 9 and 10 yr olds, will prob. have sex, so to protect them from cancer (which this vaccine may or may not actually do, and not all types, either if it does at all) lets give them a “shot”! Yikes! Morals, anybody?

 

[Dee123]

Yes and no. “Group think” enters into such equations. When it appears that all of society says something, many people will go along with it. That doesn’t mean that they necessarily believe it, but they go along. And the fact that they generally didn’t wait all that long until marriage didn’t make it feel like a “hardship” to them.

Indeed.

Yes, I am a Catholic (add a “t” to the end of my screen name).

Maybe yes, maybe no. Abortion isn’t readily available in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. and I don’t think anyone would hold them up as an example of respect for women.

“More likely than not” is an awfully flimsy hook to hang your hat on when it comes to cancer.

probably, but he also could be highly embarrassed about his “one night stand” many years ago and fail to mention it.

Are you saying you’re a Catholic priest?

 

[LilyM]

It feels like I’m on a secular forum here…no one else here sees the HPV vaccine as absolutely absurd?
It seems the general consensus here is that most girls, perhaps even 9 and 10 yr olds, will prob. have sex, so to protect them from cancer (which this vaccine may or may not actually do, and not all types, either if it does at all) lets give them a “shot”! Yikes! Morals, anybody?

Well yes, the vast majority of girls (and boys - I’d advocate vaccinating them too if it were at all possible) are going to be married, no? So yes, the vast majority of them are going to have sex at some stage.

And that’s leaving aside entirely the question of sexual sin - which Our Lady herself said at Fatima sends more souls to hell than any other sin (meaning that it’s relatively commonplace). Was she being immoral (or encouraging immorality) by pointing out its frequency? Heaven forbid. She was just acknowledging the sad reality exactly the same as I am doing.

Certainly there’s nothing immoral about vaccinating someone against any disease, be it whooping cough, polio, smallpox or cervical cancer, well before there is any immediate risk of their catching said disease.

And vaccinating 9 or 10 year olds isn’t the issue - this thread was started by a young lady who is obviously well over the age of consent and I think said she was actually engaged to be married. Hardly a 9 or 10 year old. For the record, I’ve never advocated vaccinating 9 or 10 year olds. I simply don’t know enough about how many of them may either be victims of sexual abuse or voluntarily sexually active to make that call.

 

[RazzsMom]

Do you really think they invented/marketed this vaccine for girls who “just might get raped”? NO!!! Because they believe girls (apparently as young as nine, yeah right) are going to be sexually active----most if not all of them—…

Re: rape…I don’t believe a woman should walk around trying to protect herself from the worst case scenario in life…Why should one prepare for the worst? Yes, it does happen. But don’t go walking alone down a dark alley at night, either…stay on lit streets only and don’t walk alone at night if you can help it. Hey, that kind of makes me think of walking with God at all times, for He is the light…If we walk with God at all times, fight the good fight, make use of frequenting the sacraments, then we’re not going to fall off the horse, so to speak…yes, we’ll fail in many ways, but if one takes their prayer life seriously and goes to communion and confession often, you are not very likely to fall into mortal sin…therefore, why would you need a vaccine that protects against an STD?

Guys, don’t you see???

And if you can’t trust the man you’re marrying because he might be lying to you about previous sexual encounters, then don’t marry him. And if you do marry him, you’re in for one difficult struggle after another…if there’s a constant fear of intimacy, if there’s no trust, there’s no relationship. That marriage is not healthy, should not be entered into, and won’t last long if it does take place…

I’m sorry, I’m not going to walk around preparing for the “worst of the worst”…

That’s my take…

First of all, the idea that a woman would only get raped if she were to walk in a dark alley somewhere is ridiculous. That statement smacks of “blaming the victim” - as it sounds like you are saying a female can protect herself against rape if she really wanted to. How about the rapes of young, trusting girls? How about the rapes of abducted females or victims of home invasions? How about acquaintance rape? And so on…

I also think you are being very facetious about choosing to marry a person who may not be “lying to you about previous sexual encounters”. You make it sound as if the male is an evil or bad person if he is not absolutely truthful about his sexual past. While that is the ideal (to be truthful), sometimes people do not tell others the truth because they are ashamed or afraid. He may be a wonderful man, but afraid to tell the woman he loves that he has had sexual partners in the past because he thinks she would leave him. (That is what you imply you would do!) And he is not necessarily going to be horrible marriage material for that reason, either. The Bible says we ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

And I do believe in being prepared for the worst. My children were taught self-defense along side of “love thy neighbor”. I have a emergency stash of items in my home in preparation for possible tornadoes or blizzards. I have a smoke alarm in my home. I have two trained Rottweilers. I put my money in the bank and not in my mattress.

As much as we try to instill in our children the idea of chastity and not walking in dark alleys, bad things can still happen to good girls. I would have had my daughter take the HPV vaccine had it been available when she was young.

 

[mini_me640]

With regard to a future spouse, everyone seems to be assuming that the man in question might have been sexually active & might not tell her. People make mistakes, and future hubby might be totally honest about it. Per the CDC, there is no way to test men for HPV, so even if she marries someone who has had sex before and is honest about it, there is no way to find out if he has HPV. So what’s wrong with a grown woman who plans to be married someday (which generally entails sex ) choosing to get vaccinated against HPV? It is not a license to be promiscuous, just a precaution against a very common disease that can lead to cancer & infertility.

 

[Catholic90]

But don’t go walking alone down a dark alley at night, either…stay on lit streets only and don’t walk alone at night if you can help it. Hey, that kind of makes me think of walking with God at all times, for He is the light…If we walk with God at all times, fight the good fight, make use of frequenting the sacraments, then we’re not going to fall off the horse, so to speak…yes, we’ll fail in many ways, but if one takes their prayer life seriously and goes to communion and confession often, you are not very likely to fall into mortal sin…therefore, why would you need a vaccine that protects against an STD?

You DO KNOW that women can get raped without walking down dark alleys, right? Ever hear of “date rape”? It can and sadly does happen, more often than you think. You know what? Even if a woman DID go walking down a dark alley alone at night, it is not her fault if she gets raped. Rape is NEVER a woman’s fault, so don’t even go hinting that it might be here.

And if you can’t trust the man you’re marrying because he might be lying to you about previous sexual encounters, then don’t marry him. And if you do marry him, you’re in for one difficult struggle after another…if there’s a constant fear of intimacy, if there’s no trust, there’s no relationship. That marriage is not healthy, should not be entered into, and won’t last long if it does take place…

Being prepared is always a good thing. Living in snow country, I am always “prepared for the worst” by having a blanket, shovel, and charged cell phone in my car in the winter. So why wouldn’t I equally arm my kids? I have vaccinated my kids against measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, polio, hepatitis A and B, and meningitis. I do not have a daughter, but if I did, I would probably vaccinate her for this as well.

 

[CLMCatholic]

Ok. I really feel I should weigh in on this one.

For the record-- I have a PhD in Molecular Genetics
I spent 3 years managing a Vaccine Research Lab
I myself was HPV-positive and had some pre-cancerous cervical cells (detected by routine PAP)
I have 3 daughters (ages 9 - 12)
And I will NOT be getting any of them vaccinated with the HPV vaccine (Gardasil).

A brief tutorial:

1. Gardasil does not prevent cervical cancer. It does prevent infection from about 70% of the HPV viruses thought to be involved in cervical cancer (the 4 most prevalent strains). About 75% of sexually active women will be infected with HPV “at some time in their lives”. But 91% of HPV infections are cleared by the person’s own immune system within 2 years of infection! It is persistent HPV infections that may, in some instances, progress to cervical cancer. So the actual statistics are that less than 10% of women infected with HPV ever develop persistent infections, and not all persistent infections progress towards cervical cancer - in fact, only a fraction of persistent infections ever go on to become cervical cancer. Last year the CDC reported that, “fewer than one-100th of 1% of the 108 million US women older than 18 (that’s 0.009%) get cervical cancer. And even fewer die from it.” And this was even before there was an available vaccine!!
2. Note – 91% of men who are infected with HPV will also clear it naturally (as above). So even if Littleflower or any other female marries a man who was not chaste before he met her (or she is raped), that man would have had to a) had relations with a woman who was HPV positive and b) been one of the 9% who does not clear the infection himself and then c) his new wife has to be one of the 9% who will not clear the infection that he passes to her. This makes it statistically unlikely that Littleflower needs to be paranoid about her future spouse. People who tend to have more partners (who themselves had more partners) are more at risk of HPV infection because of all of the multiplied statistics of all of the sexual partners. (This does not mean to imply that there have not been unlucky individuals who became HPV positive from few encounters. It just means this is not the norm)
3. Cervical cancer is not a contagious disease! And it is NOT an epidemic. (So why the rush to vaccinate thousands of schoolgirls? ) Merck likes to advertise that Gardasil is necessary since cervical cancer is the 2nd leading cause of deaths from cancer in women, world-wide. But it only ranks high when you include statistics from all the under-developed countries where women do not have access to regular PAP screening (so they are never detected or treated). In developed countries like the US, the CDC only ranks cervical cancer as 13th in prevalence for all cancers, and 12th in terms of cancer mortalities (2002). In fact, cervical cancer is NOT an epidemic in our country. Largely because we have highly effective screening programs, see #4…
4. Pap screening is highly effective in detecting cervical cancer. And cervical cancer itself tends to be slow to progress so detection is effective in allowing for the cancer to be treated. So the realistic numbers say that very few women will get an HPV infection that they cannot clear on their own, and a small percentage of these will progress to pre-cancerous stages, and the majority of these will be detected and treated by PAP screening and subsequent treatment, so the idea that women in developed countries are at great risk of developing cervical cancer is highly and overly inflated. I am not saying that some will not fall through the cracks – but this is not an epidemic that needs to see all of our young girls immunized…
5. Adverse side effects from vaccination should not be shrugged off lightly. They number more than 9000 reports to date, and include pain, fever, nausea, dizziness, itching, and even paralysis, Bell’s Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, seizures, miscarriages and DEATH. In fact, ONE DEATH PER MONTH is being attributed to the Gardasil vaccine (but not, of course, by Merck).
6. The FDA has published evidence that suggests that getting vaccinated with Gardasil, if you already have the HPV infection, may INCREASE your chances of developing high-grade precancerous lesions by almost 45% !!! This little fact does not seem to be well-advertised.
7. There is limited data to suggest how long the vaccine is effective, but predictions now are suggesting boosters every 5 years. Can’t you just see the $$ signs floating in the eyes of the Merck shareholders, Planned Parenthood, etc, etc? Especially if they can convince us to start the vaccination program on girls as early/young as possible.
8. At least in Canada, the push is to vaccinate girls at 9 years old. But the majority of the clinical trial data collected to assess the safety of the vaccine was done on young women, not children. (In at least 2 trials, the median age of the girls was 20, with NO girls under the age of 15 being assessed!!). Yet they are pushing the vaccine on prepubescent girls. I guess our daughters are meant to be the lab rats and Merck will wait to collate all of the data from them…

Besides all of these cold, hard facts, there is something decidedly fishy and underhanded about the way the Gardasil vaccine has been fast-tracked and bulldozered into our society. Gardasil has been rammed down our throats as a panacea. But since it only protects against 4 of the HPV strains, it is only expected to prevent up to 70% of relevant HPV viruses…so you STILL must have routine Pap tests. And some women are still going to get cervical cancer from the other, non-prevented HPV strains. And it may even be that since the “big-4” strains are vaccinated against, that the remaining strains of HPV (of which there are many) will be able to compete better and will start accounting for more and more infections, leading to more and more non-vaccine-preventable cancers.

Nope – the primary reason for the marketing of Gardasil is so that society does not have to change its present sexual behavior patterns.

My DH and I are in full agreement - our daughters will NOT be getting vaccinated.

Littleflower – your original post was in July but if you, indeed, did not get a follow-up vaccination, then my suggestion to you is that you do not get one. You have not sinned. Nor would it be a sin to continue with the vaccines. But it is unnecessary. It may even be medically unwise.
Your original intention to remain chaste and hold out for the Prayer Warrior that God has in mind for you is a wonderful, prayerful and intuitive idea! Good luck to you.
And God Bless you all!

CLM
<><

 

[CLMCatholic]

Please do not misunderstand.

I do not mean to sound as if I am judging anyone who has chosen to get themselves or their daughters vaccinated.

I only wanted to let you know that the issue has been blown out of proportion by the pharmaceutical companies. They have misrepresented and overblown the rates of cervical cancer, and tried to make every woman believe that she is in danger of getting cancer if/when/because she has had sex with a partner whose level of purity she cannot assess.

The vaccine is not fool-proof. There are medical complications to getting it. But contrary to post #42:

And the risk of a woman - any woman - getting cervical cancer is much higher than the risk of many of the things that you and I insure and protect ourselves against every day.

The risk of a woman, any woman, getting cervical cancer is substantially lower than most other things we routinely protect ourselves against. The media has been leading us to believe this is the case. But it is not so.

Women are NOT at great risk of cervical cancer. Women (and men), however, are at risk of getting an HPV infection - in fact, 75% of sexually active individuals will be infected with HPV at some time. And the vaccine helps to prevent most but not all (70%) of these infections. But if you read my above post, you will see that more than 90% of people naturally rid themselves of the virus. And even the 9% who don’t rid it naturally, only a small percentage will even start to get pre-cancerous.

So the risk of any woman - especially one who limits her sexual partners (preferably to one man, especially but not restricted to him being non-promiscuous himself) - the risk of any woman getting cervical cancer is not great. And it is not higher than those other things we routinely protect ourselves from.

If you chose the vaccine for yourselves or for your daughters, especially if you were lead to do so by “reputable or reliable” medical personnel whom you trust, then be at peace with your decision - you cannot change it or worry about it - nor do you need to. But without meaning to, you might not be serving others well in trying to convince them to pursue the same course of vaccination.

Peace to all and God Bless,
CLM
<><

 

[Dee123]

Thank you, thank you, thank you, CLM Catholic…I guess those with daughters understand the risks and precautions a bit more…I don’t have your medical background, but I’ve read enough to know that there’s something wrong with the promotion of this…I’m from Canada, so we up here are dealing with the fact that it’s being brought into elementary schools…weird…so we parents are wondering what’s up with that…it’s strange…

Also, on previous posts, I mentioned “don’t walk down dark alleys” and you won’t be raped…maybe I was being cynical, but I was also trying to make a point. I’m not saying that girls are at fault with getting raped. Men are the perpetrators in the end, right? Yes, I’m aware of date rape, and that most rapes happen by people a woman knows…I’m not naive…The point I was trying to make is that a woman, too, has to be careful how she dresses…a small bit of cleavage makes a man very aware that “there’s a woman here”. Modesty is what I’m trying to say. Women need to be careful about “where a guy takes them on a date”. But no, it’s not all her fault…In the end, if she says no. then the guy needs to take that seriously or else, yes, it’s an abuse of power…and the woman suffers greatly.

I guess I can say that I’m surprised that the majority of people in this particular forum have been so easily swayed by the media, by dr.'s, etc. for the promotion of this vaccine. We can’t just blindly trust the medical establishment… I’m also surprised that people haven’t heard that it doesn’t prevent many other types and only just a few. And it doesn’t even prevent the cancer, but what did you say, the virus or the infection? And I thank CLM Catholic for pointing this out! At least she has the credentials behind her name to be more trusted than me, who also has a valid point, but no credentials behind my name…

By the way, CLM Catholic, in your reading of medical journals/research about Gardasil, have you ever come across any information about the possibility of this vaccine causing or trying to cause infertility? (I read this once and have a hard time digesting it, and just don’t want to believe it’s true…but as we know from history and our present age, it seems that forced sterilization is not new—even in North America).