Japan Stops Cancer Vaccines (Gardasil, Cervarix) Against HPV

[Gwendolen]

What concerns me about this vaccine is no one seems to know how long the immunity lasts. According to the CDC, over half of teenage girls (15-19) have never had sex.

So let’s say, even taking our religious views of chastity out of the equation, that we immunize girls at say 12. Maybe she doesn’t actually have sex until 21-22, which is entirely possible. According to CDC stats, sexual activity among teens may actually be on the decline. By the time a young lady becomes sexually active, she thinks she is protected, but is not.

 

[PhiloMed]

Considering that you are so knowledgeable and assuming that the nurse was informed too, is there any other way for a boy to a a significant risk of anal cancer because of the virus beside the medium of anal sex? If there is another form of significant risk then the nurse might have not hinted to anything but if there is not then the previous poster is absolutely correct because the nurse talked only about the boy health.

And if you read my response you will see I said that both the nurse and the poster were incorrect.

You made my point exactly.

 

[PhiloMed]

I sought to focus on the essential elements of the discussion, not a detail about whether a nurse who said something, quoted here by someone else, spoke accurately or not. And I freely admit I’m not up to speed on the means of acquiring anal cancer, but must add that such is a third order issue here.

Exactly. This whole conversation about the nurse is really a big distraction from the greater issue here.

 

[Cristiano]

And if you read my response you will see I said that both the nurse and the poster were incorrect.

You made my point exactly.

You are correct, I did not grasp completely your short post, my fault.

 

[pensmama87]

Let us say that a man marries a woman who is infected with a sexually-transmitted virus. They are married; of course they have genital contact. If he is vaccinated against the virus, the chances are very much reduced that he will contract the virus. Let us say, though, that he is not vaccinated and he does contract it, quite without his knowledge or hers.

Their attempt at marriage is not valid. They divorce and are declared free to marry. Do we all see that if he had the foresight to be vaccinated, he will have tremendously reduced the likelihood that he will transmit the virus to his new wife when he does remarry?

As a parent of boys, I saw this as an issue of the health of my future daughters-in-law, if nothing else, and that holds even if my sons do not violate moral law with regards to sex. I’m not advocating in favor of every new treatment that comes down the pike, but the statistics are that these vaccines (when properly administered) offer some measure of protection against a very prevalent and potentially life-threatening virus.

As a parent of boys, of course we teach them that there is no way that science is ever going to immunize them against all of the many things that can be transmitted via sexual contact–not just sexual intercourse, but any contact where bodily fluids might be exchanged. Getting them vaccinated against viruses that are as prevalent as HPV only makes sense. It is not an excuse to commit a mortal sin, and with proper catechesis, a young person won’t take it that way.

Thanks for this post, EasterJoy. I had not planned on my boys being vaccinated for HPV because I didn’t see how it would be necessary. This has given me some food for thought.

 

[EasterJoy]

Thanks for this post, EasterJoy. I had not planned on my boys being vaccinated for HPV because I didn’t see how it would be necessary. This has given me some food for thought.

Viruses do not respect persons or personal histories, and are sometimes spread in unforeseen ways. I’m married and have no plan to re-marry if I’m widowed, but if there were an HIV vaccine for someone in my age group with as few side effects as Gardasil, I’d get it. The chances of infection are very small, but the consequences of infection are horrific. That meets my standard (personal), for Just Do It.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

Viruses do not respect persons or personal histories, and are sometimes spread in unforeseen ways. I’m married and have no plan to re-marry if I’m widowed, but if there were an HIV vaccine for someone in my age group with as few side effects as Gardasil, I’d get it. The chances of infection are very small, but the consequences of infection are horrific. That meets my standard (personal), for Just Do It.

I totally agree!

 

[7armyrugrats]

I am so glad that this thread was started and has continued in a very well thought out and respectful manner. It has helped me make a decision about this vaccine. We will be vaccinating our kids as well. Teaching them morals and virtues is not enough to protect them entirely.

 

[PhiloMed]

Teaching them morals and virtues is not enough to protect them entirely.

This is so true.

My practice is almost exclusively HIV patients. If values and morals taught in childhood were enough, I would be out of business.

 

[OurLadyPray4US]

It’s a risks-and-benefits decision to either take or not take these anti-HPV vaccines.

What are the risks of the vaccine itself - can these vaccines kill or maim people? (answer - yes - see quote below)

What are the benefits - are they proven to prevent cervical, anal etc. cancers in women? Are they proven to prevent head and neck cancers, penile, anal etc cancers in men? (answer - no, not proven yet)

IMHO it is reckless to aggressively push these dangerous vaccines of unproven efficacy on low-risk people (people who are at low risk of HPV infection of mucous membranes - vagina and vulva, penis, anus, oral cavity - since they are sexually abstinent or monogamous). Why not wait and see how it plays out when high-risk people (sexually promiscuous homosexuals and heterosexuals who are at high risk of infection with the types of HPV that spread through sexual contact and may cause cancers of cervix, vagina, vulva, penis, anus, head and neck).

I’m a sexually abstinent single male and I will NOT take Gardasil or Cervarix. I’m in a low-risk group and this is my decision. However, obviously, it’s a personal decision, and everybody is in a different situation. Everybody should decide for him/herself and for their own children. Thanks God, our nosy and pushy government is not trying to compel and force us what to do regarding anti-HPV vaccination (at least, not yet).

From communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/stress-and-health-dr-lind/2013/apr/10/us-court-pays-6-million-gardasil-victims/ :

US court pays $6 million to Gardasil victims

April 10, 2013 - Gardasil, the vaccine for HPV (human papillomavirus), may not be as safe as backers claim.
Judicial Watch announced it has received documents from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) revealing that its National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has awarded $5,877,710 dollars to 49 victims in claims made against the highly controversial HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccines. To date 200 claims have been filed with VICP, with barely half adjudicated.
“This new information from the government shows that the serious safety concerns about the use of Gardasil have been well-founded. Public health officials should stop pushing Gardasil on children.” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

The adverse reaction reports detail 26 new deaths reported between September 1, 2010 and September 15, 2011 as well as incidents of seizures, paralysis, blindness, pancreatitis, speech problems, short term memory loss and Guillain-Barré Syndrome. The documents come from the FDA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) which is used by the FDA to monitor the safety of vaccines.
That’s 26 reported deaths of young, previously healthy, girls after Gardasil vaccination in just one year.

Neurologist Dr. Ian Sutton reported negative neurological side effects from Gardasil. He reported five cases of multiple sclerosis-like symptoms emerging shortly after women received the Gardasil vaccine, noting:
“We report five patients who presented with multifocal or atypical demyelinating syndromes within 21 days of immunization with the quadrivalent human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine, Gardasil. Although the target population for vaccination, young females, has an inherently high risk for MS, the temporal association with demyelinating events in these cases may be explained by the potent immuno-stimulatory properties of HPV virus-like particles which comprise the vaccine.”
From its inception, the use of HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases has been hotly disputed. According to the Annals of Medicine: “At present there are no significant data showing that either Gardasil or Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline) can prevent any type of cervical cancer since the testing period employed was too short to evaluate long-term benefits of HPV vaccination.”

 

[EasterJoy]

Why you don’t wait it out is because the virus is so prevalent among the sexually active, because most people who have it do not know it, and because so many people who have been sexually active choose to lie about it.

I don’t know about the 26 reported deaths or 200 legal claims that resulted from the millions of doses of HPV vaccine, but according to the CDC, cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in women worldwide. In 2010, 3,939 women in the United States alone died from cervical cancer and 11,818 women were diagnosed with cervical cancer. (The treatment for cervical cancer can include surgical removal of some or all of the reproductive organs as well as the lower colon, rectum, and bladder.) It is estimated that about 17,000 women and 9,000 men affected in the U.S. annually by HPV-related cancers.

Any young person who would feel “safe” because they’d had an HPV vaccine would have to be very ignorant or a little nuts. Not only do HPV vaccines only target a limited number of viruses, but there isn’t any vaccine for most sexually-transmitted diseases, including HIV. The goal behind HPV vaccination is to slow the spread of an insidious disease that most carriers do not know they have, not to give carte blanche to unchastity.

 

[pensmama87]

Viruses do not respect persons or personal histories, and are sometimes spread in unforeseen ways. I’m married and have no plan to re-marry if I’m widowed, but if there were an HIV vaccine for someone in my age group with as few side effects as Gardasil, I’d get it. The chances of infection are very small, but the consequences of infection are horrific. That meets my standard (personal), for Just Do It.

I did not get it, although I could have (I’ve just aged out of the recommended age group). My (former) gynecologist pushed it very heavily, just as she pushed contraception. Her entire reasoning was that I couldn’t possibly be expected to only have sex with one person.

If she had taken the time to make a case like you have, instead of insisting that it would be impossible for me to remain monogamous, maybe I would have gotten it. But then again, she’s my former gynecologist for a LOT of reasons…

 

[OurLadyPray4US]

Btw, Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, did something despicable - it lobbied state governments in the USA to make Gardasil vaccination mandatory.

See here:

reuters.com/article/2007/02/21/us-merck-gardasil-idUSN2022501520070221

forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/04/04/americas-gardasil-problem-how-politics-poisons-public-health/3/

They pushed to make mandatory a vaccine which has not been proven to prevent cervical cancer, or any other cancer for that matter. And, unfortunately, now there are serious concerns regarding the safety of Gardasil, and many girls died or became seriously incapacitated (paralyzed) after Gardasil shots. Also, we don’t know yet about possible long-term negative effects (e.g. could it be carcinogenic?) of Gardasil. Yet, Merck wanted to make their drug mandatory. This is about money, and money was more important to Merck than a conservative, safety-minded approach on a drug that hasn’t been around long enough for it’s side-effects and dangers to be sufficiently evaluated.

Meanwhile, secular big pharma and medicine are still falling short - they are practicing bad science and bad medicine - they fail to differentiate between people at low risk of HPV infection (sexually abstinent and monogamous folks) vs. high-risk people (sexually promiscuous people at high risk of HPV infection). Somebody please explain me, why should we lump together a girl who wants to stay virgin and become a cloistered nun, with a sexually active and promiscuous lesbian? Why treat a boy who wants to become a sexually abstinent priest or monk, the same as another male who has one-night stands regularly with women and/or men?

Rather unbelievable, but Merck conducted an aggressive campaign to convince state legislatures in the USA to make HPV vaccination mandatory for schoolgirls. Had they obtained that goal, they probably would have pushed for making their vaccine mandatory for boys as well.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Somebody please explain me, why should we lump together a girl who wants to stay virgin and become a cloistered nun, with a sexually active and promiscuous lesbian? Why treat a boy who wants to become a sexually abstinent priest or monk, the same as another male who has one-night stands regularly with women and/or men?

Because once the choice is made it’s too late. It’s a vaccine, not a treatment. It should be given before the patient is sexually active.

You have no idea how any given child is going to grow up, regardless of upbringing, environment, or the child’s current personality. And just because an 11 year old says they won’t have sex until they’re married…

Let’s use me as an example. I was raised in a good Christian home where god was mentioned often and we always went to church. If you had asked me before puberty, I would have promised you that I wouldn’t have sex until I was married, much less when I was in high school. Of course, puberty happened, I grew up and changed (everyone does to some extent) and it didn’t work out that way.