Std vaccinations?

[psyche23]

Ok, so I went to the doctor to day for my annual physical and she said that if I wanted to ever get the vaccination for HPV I have to get it before I’m 26 because that’s the cut off date. She was completely understanding of my faith and suggested I look into it before I decide.

Problem is, I turn 26 in August, so whether she’s pressuring me or not, there’s pressure there.

In terms of vaccinations in general, I have no problems. And I’m not really sure why I feel differently about this one. I’m not sexually active and I don’t plan on being until I’m married, but that’s no guarantee my future husband (whoever he is) will feel the same or might slip up. I just want to get some answers from devout Catholics, so if you aren’t Catholic, I’ll politely ask you to hold your comments for another thread please.

Are there any ethical/moral problems with me getting the vaccine???

 

[Sure]

No problem with getting the vaccine…there is also no problem with refraining from being vaccinated.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Supposedly, the vaccine has caused some problems… young women have reported stinging even after the injection, and some have fainted after the injection. It’s a risk, either way you go.

 

[1ke]

I do not see any ethical problems with obtaining the vaccine.

However, I do see other reasons that I would give weight to: many instances of adverse reaction have been reported-- and even several deaths. So, really, I see it as a real risk to your health with very little need-- too many “what ifs” that may never come to pass. Your future spouse may not have been sexually active, and even if they were they may not have HPV. And, even if they have HPV… which one?.. the vaccine only decreases your chances of contracting 4 strains. And, the vaccine makers are quick to disclaim regarding the many other strains that it does not prevent.

If you were to marry someone who had been sexually active, it is very easy for them to get screened for STDs before marriage and treated if necessary-- which is the course I would pursue rather than a vaccine that could have so many unknown long-term consequences.

Of course, I am not a medical professional, so I’m only giving my personal opinion on what I would do. Ultimately only you can decide, so do your research!

 

[Benedictus]

However, I do see other reasons that I would give weight to: many instances of adverse reaction have been reported-- and even several deaths.

We have discussed the alleged deaths from the vaccine before. Suffice it to say that she isn’t going to die from the vaccine.

If you were to marry someone who had been sexually active, it is very easy for them to get screened for STDs before marriage and treated if necessary-- which is the course I would pursue rather than a vaccine that could have so many unknown long-term consequences.

Actually it’s not very easy to screen for HPV at all. Most men who have it will show no symptoms, and there is no approved test for men.

Please stop spreading FUD about the vaccine.

 

[steveandersen]

…

Are there any ethical/moral problems with me getting the vaccine???

I don’t see how protecting yourself is an ethical/moral problem, it is just a hygiene issue.
Unless you treat it a Carte Blanc to do whatever…

IIRC the prevalence of HPV ranges from 60 to 100% of the population

Every vaccine has risk factors associated with it
You just need to deicide how comfortable you are with the risks

 

[Jennifer123]

Are there any ethical/moral problems with me getting the vaccine???

I don’t think in your case there would be any adverse moral implications taking the vaccine, being that you are of a mature age, but you should know that it only protects against a small percentage of cervical cancers and is not the panacea the secular culture wants us to believe.
Basically that is the reason I have a problem with the promotion of this vaccine and other means of assuring “safe sex”, it creates a false perception of security and promotes the dangerous lifestyles and behaviors that create societal decay. :twocents:

 

[buffalo]

MERCK’S GARDASIL VACCINE NOT PROVEN SAFE

…“Merck and the FDA have not been completely honest with the people about the pre-licensure clinical trials,” said NVIC president Barbara Loe Fisher. “Merck’s pre and post-licensure marketing strategy has positioned mass use of this vaccine by pre-teens as a morality play in order to avoid talking about the flawed science they used to get it licensed. This is not just about teenagers having sex, it is also about whether Gardasil has been proven safe and effective for little girls.”

 

[Dale_M]

buffalo:

MERCK’S GARDASIL VACCINE NOT PROVEN SAFE

I dunno about the quality of that article. It is simply an opinion piece by a advocacy/pressure group, and it is an old article at that.

Prior to its release, the vaccine was tested on 11,000 girls and women (ages 9-26). The CDC and the FDA pledged to continue monitoring the safety of the vaccine after its release. cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine.htm#hpvvac3

Gardasil has been on the market for a 1.5 years… if there were any safety issues they should have been reported by now.

Now, as far as moral or ethical issues I don’t believe there is any reason to reject the vaccine on such grounds. The vaccine is protection, sort of like carrying Mace or pepper spray. You aren’t going to put it to the test, but its sure nice to have if you need it.

 

[Phemie]

Supposedly, the vaccine has caused some problems… young women have reported stinging even after the injection, and some have fainted after the injection. It’s a risk, either way you go.

If stinging at the site of the injection is a contra-indication we’ll have to avoid a great percentage of vaccines and medications. Any injection can sting and cause a local reaction. I’ve had typhoid and typhus vaccines and my arm felt as though it was going to fall off.

Fainting after getting an injection is not unheard and often has everything to do with ‘needles’ and nothing to do with what was in the syringe.

 

[Jea9]

Although I am not in any way saying that people should rush out and get this vaccine, I think that there should be A LOT of research, I just want to make one observation. I have not received the vaccine, and when I had this discussion with my doctor, it was not available; but, HPV is transferred VERY easily. I’m not talking about sex either, if you are in a dorm and you use the toilets without putting the paper guard (and possibly even if you do ) there is a possibility of getting HPV. I think that it is something that needs to be weighed extensively with your doctor. If you are not in a position where you are high risk, then I don’t think it’s necessary. I have also heard (as a PP mentioned) that it only guards against a few strains of cervical cancer caused by HPV and there are several. IMHO, there are always risks to vaccinations, you just have to decide if the risks out weigh the benefits.

 

[psyche23]

I’m certainly not high risk. But I don’t know if my future husband will be or not since I haven’t met him yet. Someone mentioned a good point to me, that insurance will more likely cover cervical canver if I’ve done everything preventitive for it. I know it’s a lose lose situation either way I go. I’m still not sure what to do, but I’m really glad for the advice. At first I didn’t think people were interested enough to respond.

 

[hasikelee]

If you feel comfortable with the philosophy of vaccination and also the amount of research that’s been completed on this particular vaccine, then there is no issue with getting it.

STDs are definitely breaking the mold. As they become harder to kill with antibiotics and also as they mutate, it will be a huge public policy issue. I see no reason to treat the issue of STDs as a shameful “in the dark” topic; it’s something for everyone to be concerned about now.

On the particular STD in this thread, the virus and the vaccine seem to be neck and neck for which one is riskier.

On the one hand, although HPV is said by the medical community to have no or little symptoms and even though in the majority of cases it clears up on its own, it has also been shown to cause abnormal pap smears.

Furthermore, some strains have been identified as being carcinogenic.

Unfortunately, the vaccine has its own pitfalls, such as the basic risk of a vaccine (especially if you already have reactions to other vaccines) and also the lack of large, unbiased, empirical studies.

For example, the vaccine was first touted as effective. Then, more studies showed that it remains effective for only a period of time and the user must obtain booster shots.

There is also the question of long term effects, especially when considering the reason HPV is a concern has to do with the changing to the endo layer of the female reproductive system. In other words, there is a question as to whether or not the vaccine will cause similar damage, ultimately causing the same of similar issues of cancer.

 

[dulcissima]

I am divorced. I have never been with anyone other than my ex-husband, and he had told me that he was a virgin. Later I found out that probably wasn’t true (a previous girlfriend claimed that he had gotten her pregnant and she had an abortion) and later in the marriage I found some things that made me doubt that he had been faithful. I’ve had the full gamut of STD tests, and all came back negative. Still, with some symptoms that I have had lately my doctor told me today that she wants me to come in for an endometrial byopsy. That means I get to have the great joy of having my cervix dilated and my uterus scraped, all the while feeling like I have had no way of protecting myself from the actions of someone else. I’ve got to say if I had a do over and there was an HPV vaccination available to me, I would definitely have it. Of course, I think maybe listening to my gut in choosing a husband would have been better protection, but I would still do what I could.

 

[Jennifer123]

On the particular STD in this thread, the virus and the vaccine seem to be neck and neck for which one is riskier.

On the one hand, although HPV is said by the medical community to have no or little symptoms and even though in the majority of cases it clears up on its own, it has also been shown to cause abnormal pap smears.

Furthermore, some strains have been identified as being carcinogenic.

Unfortunately, the vaccine has its own pitfalls, such as the basic risk of a vaccine (especially if you already have reactions to other vaccines) and also the lack of large, unbiased, empirical studies.

For example, the vaccine was first touted as effective. Then, more studies showed that it remains effective for only a period of time and the user must obtain booster shots.

There is also the question of long term effects, especially when considering the reason HPV is a concern has to do with the changing to the endo layer of the female reproductive system. In other words, there is a question as to whether or not the vaccine will cause similar damage, ultimately causing the same of similar issues of cancer.

Just my opinion, seems par for the course in the case of “women’s health”.
Sorry to sound cynical but so much of what secular society does to promote women’s health is actually dangerous poison that harms women physically, emotionally and spiritually. :twocents:

 

[ALLGIRLS]

Just my opinion, seems par for the course in the case of “women’s health”.
Sorry to sound cynical but so much of what secular society does to promote women’s health is actually dangerous poison that harms women physically, emotionally and spiritually. :twocents:

What kills me about this is, well, first of all, that the commercials are practically portraying it as a “cervical cancer” vaccine, when it’s an STD vaccine. I don’t think they even say “HPV” in the commerical, they use the euphamism “the virus that causes cervical cancer”, (oh, and what virus would that be and how do you get it? The commerical never tells you that!).

Second, as pp’s have mentioned, it doesn’t even protect from all the hpv’s that can cause cervical cancer (not to mention the fact that you can get cervical cancer w/o ever having hpv). Third, although I know that any death is one too many, cervical cancer is highly treatable due to screening procedures (pap smears), and only account for about 4000 deaths a year in the U.S. Compare that to the number of deaths from breast cancer, yet the secular medical establishment REFUSES to admit that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, and continually protrays abortion as part of "good reproductive health care , sickening! Yeah, there REALLY concerned about women’s health No, don’t be fooled, they’re just out to make money (why else is Merck trying to get the vaccine mandated in the schools? HPV is nothing like polio, measles, mumps, rubella, or any of the other diseases that you can catch sitting next to a person and cause widespread epidemics).

I’m not really concerned that the vaccine will cause kids to be sexually active, the media does that well enough on it’s own . I just really don’t like the tactics Merck has employed to try and force it on us (and I would be TOTALLY p*ssed off if an insurance company refused to cover cervical cancer treatment b/c someone didn’t get the vaccine, but it wouldn’t surprise me ).

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[Jennifer123]

What kills me about this is, well, first of all, that the commercials are practically portraying it as a “cervical cancer” vaccine, when it’s an STD vaccine. I don’t think they even say “HPV” in the commerical, they use the euphamism “the virus that causes cervical cancer”, (oh, and what virus would that be and how do you get it? The commerical never tells you that!).

Second, as pp’s have mentioned, it doesn’t even protect from all the hpv’s that can cause cervical cancer (not to mention the fact that you can get cervical cancer w/o ever having hpv). Third, although I know that any death is one too many, cervical cancer is highly treatable due to screening procedures (pap smears), and only account for about 4000 deaths a year in the U.S. Compare that to the number of deaths from breast cancer, yet the secular medical establishment REFUSES to admit that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, and continually protrays abortion as part of "good reproductive health care , sickening! Yeah, there REALLY concerned about women’s health No, don’t be fooled, they’re just out to make money (why else is Merck trying to get the vaccine mandated in the schools? HPV is nothing like polio, measles, mumps, rubella, or any of the other diseases that you can catch sitting next to a person and cause widespread epidemics).

I’m not really concerned that the vaccine will cause kids to be sexually active, the media does that well enough on it’s own . I just really don’t like the tactics Merck has employed to try and force it on us (and I would be TOTALLY p*ssed off if an insurance company refused to cover cervical cancer treatment b/c someone didn’t get the vaccine, but it wouldn’t surprise me ).

In Christ,

Ellen

I totally understand your frustration, however, it is important to acknowledge that HPV does cause a large majority of cervical cancers. It is an important medical finding.

However, we must realize that this knowledge has been around for quite a long time, and that transmittal is caused not by sex per say, but by even touching exposed skin from the chest to the knees. So even unchaste activity, minus promiscuity, can lead to the transmittal of the virus.

What did the medical establishment do with this information? They sided with the “Culture of Death” in keeping it quiet as to not create a panic, as they believe that people, teenagers primarily, can not control their own sexual urges. Meanwhile thousands of teenage girls contracted cervical cancer and died, my friend’s sister included at 19 years old. This was in the early 90’s before the establishment decided to give women this information. It may have changed the behavior of many teenagers towards being chaste and practicing chastity. But we can’t teach that in the public schools, right?

 

[hasikelee]

I totally understand your frustration, however, it is important to acknowledge that HPV does cause a large majority of cervical cancers. It is an important medical finding.

However, we must realize that this knowledge has been around for quite a long time, and that transmittal is caused not by sex per say, but by even touching exposed skin from the chest to the knees. So even unchaste activity, minus promiscuity, can lead to the transmittal of the virus.

What did the medical establishment do with this information? They sided with the “Culture of Death” in keeping it quiet as to not create a panic, as they believe that people, teenagers primarily, can not control their own sexual urges. Meanwhile thousands of teenage girls contracted cervical cancer and died, my friend’s sister included at 19 years old. This was in the early 90’s before the establishment decided to give women this information. It may have changed the behavior of many teenagers towards being chaste and practicing chastity. But we can’t teach that in the public schools, right?

It’s all in the statistics. A specific strain of HPV has been shown to lead to cervical cancer in the majority of cases. In a nation where the HPV infected rate stands around 60%, saying that HPV therefore is the major cause of cervical cancer is not entirely accurate.

I completely agree with you on the public health and awareness issue. STDs have been hidden almost as well as places such as India. Meanwhile I see growing panic in the upper echelons of society (e.g. medical/science communities) as they know what’s coming.

Take, for example, India. Their widespread belief in several erroneous ideas, such as showering after intercourse cleanses you of HIV, has lead to a country about to hit the “no going back” level of infection.

We definitely need to learn a lesson from them.

 

[Benedictus]

It’s all in the statistics. A specific strain of HPV has been shown to lead to cervical cancer in the majority of cases. In a nation where the HPV infected rate stands around 60%, saying that HPV therefore is the major cause of cervical cancer is not entirely accurate.

I’m not sure I entirely understand what you’re saying here. According to the American Cancer Society and many others, nearly all cases of cervical cancer are associated with HPV.

On the other hand, of the many strains of HPV, only a few are considered high-risk for cervical cancer. The vaccines protect against the two most common (strains 16 and 18) that are believed to account for 70% of cervical cancer cases.

The Gardasil vaccine (unlike Cervarix) also includes strains 6 and 11, which account for 90% of cases of genital warts.

 

[Benedictus]

On the particular STD in this thread, the virus and the vaccine seem to be neck and neck for which one is riskier.

What facts form the basis of your conclusion here?

For example, the vaccine was first touted as effective. Then, more studies showed that it remains effective for only a period of time and the user must obtain booster shots.

That’s common for vaccines. A vaccine is introduced. After a little while, we realize that a booster is sometimes needed. No problem, just give people the booster and it usually works. We (should) get tetanus boosters every 10 years and nobody blames the vaccine for being ineffective.

There is also the question of long term effects, especially when considering the reason HPV is a concern has to do with the changing to the endo layer of the female reproductive system. In other words, there is a question as to whether or not the vaccine will cause similar damage, ultimately causing the same of similar issues of cancer.

The vaccine only contains hallow “virus-like particles”, which are just some of the proteins that form the coat of the actual virus. Unlike the virus, there is no DNA (HPV being a dsDNA virus). No DNA means no infection. The chances of the proteins in the vaccine causing the problems you mention that the HPV causes is about the same as the moon falling out if its orbit tonight.