Author Topic: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]  (Read 69549 times)

Offline mamaketler

  • Adept
  • Posts: 100
  • Jumping on the bed is fun!
Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« on: October 08, 2006, 05:23:26 PM »
Reply-To:
WWW.TheHedgeAcademy@yahoogroups.com
 
This is very long. BUT IT IS WORTH THE READ! Very concerning!!


 

Just some informed consent for Moms considering this vaccine.
If you read below it will explain what actually happened in the
clinical trials that did not get reported.
This vaccine is approved in the US for middle school girls.

HPV – Cervical Cancer Vaccine

15 September 2006

By Suzanne Nelson
Honesthuman.com

Next month the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization is set to
determine whether pre-adolescent girls in the U.K. will receive a vaccine
for a sexually transmitted disease at primary school.

The vaccine, Gardasil, marketed by Sanofi Pasteur MSD, was approved
for use
in women by British authorities in July, and by the end of the year
GlaxoSmithKline's version, Cervarix, is likely to be available. Both
target
human papillomavirus (HPV), a virus transmitted exclusively by sexual
contact that in rare cases leads to cervical cancer.

Paralleling a similar debate in the United States, much of the controversy
about putting the vaccine on the childhood schedule has been about whether
doing so will give youngsters a false sense of safety and lure them into
promiscuous sex.

Yet in the process of engaging that discussion, we're not talking about
whether giving the vaccine to pre-adolescent girls makes sense in terms of
their overall health, the long-term safety of the vaccine or whether it
should be given in school -- all subjects much more controversial than
news
coverage would have you believe.

HPV is not a virus a kid catches by sitting next to someone at school. It
is not spread by sharing juice boxes or trading germs on the bus.

That makes this vaccine completely different from the 10 others on the
U.K.'s childhood vaccination schedule.

This vaccine aims to protect people from a virus that is basically only
transmitted when a person engages in what amounts to optional behaviour.
HPV is not a public health threat in the same way, say, polio or measles
are. And that gives governments much less of a compelling interest to
mandate that children be vaccinated for it.

Let's put aside for the purposes of discussion the bizarrely controversial
notion that parents should be able to decide what enters their children's
body via injection, especially when that shot carries the risk of harm or
death.

HPV does not lurk in the air, in swimming pools or on playground
equipment.
That makes the vaccine's public health credentials dubious at best.

Yes, 3,000 women in the U.K. contract cervical cancer every year, and a
third of them die. But just having HPV doesn't mean you're going to get
cancer. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said as much in its press
release announcing the approval of Gardasil: "For most women, the body's
own defense system will clear the virus and infected women do not develop
related health problems."

Estimates of the number of people with HPV vary wildly, but perhaps up to
80 percent of women in the United States, for example, are infected with
HPV at one time or another before they are 50. Yet given that high
incidence, the number of women who develop cervical cancer in the U.S. is
pretty low, about 10,000 cases each year. Pap smears usually catch
abnormal
cells before cancer has progressed, when women are treated with
extraordinarily high rates of success.

The greatest risk factor for cervical cancer is not being screened or
being
screened at intervals greater than 5 years.

That's not to say that it's not painful or tragic for thousands of women,
but it's nonetheless relatively rare. There's a reason that just about
every prediction about a reduction in cervical cancer due to the HPV
vaccine is reported as a worldwide statistic. The numbers in the U.K. are
just not that high as a percentage of the population. The same is true in
the U.S., where cervical cancer is listed as a rare disease by the
National
Institutes of Health.

Most women who develop invasive cervical cancer have not had regular pap
smears. So to say that because 1,000 women in the U.K. die of cervical
cancer every year, and there is thus an urgent public-health need to
vaccinate every adolescent girl -- without mentioning that many if not
most
of those women did not have regular screenings -- is somewhat
disingenuous.

But even if the vaccine proves to be successful at reducing overall HPV
infection, and the reduced number of HPV infections lead to a correlating
decline in cervical cancer cases -- both still huge assumptions at this
point, as the vaccine hasn't been studied nearly long enough to determine
that -- some parents still may not want to give it to their daughters.

For starters, it could cause harm. All vaccines carry the risk of
injury or
death. During trials, nine individuals developed arthritis after receiving
the vaccine versus three for the placebo, out of approximately 21,000
individuals in that trial. Nine kids with arthritis after receiving the
vaccine might not seem like a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
After
all, arthritis is better than cancer, right? That depends.

Given the fact that cervical cancer is relatively rare, highly preventable
and most often successfully treated early on, maybe the risk of arthritis
-- a painful and often debilitating disease -- isn't a worthwhile
trade-off.

And maybe we won't know the true incidence of harmful effects until the
vaccine is given to millions, rather than thousands, of children and young
adults.

Moreover, the whole concept of a placebo was turned on its head during the
trials, preventing any valid comparison between those who were given a
placebo and those who received the vaccine.

In order to learn the truth about an unknown, honest science dictates that
we have to compare it to a known. When most people think about a vaccine
placebo, they are probably thinking about saline. But that's not what was
used during trials.

The "placebo" in this case was an aluminium-containing shot. The vaccine
itself also contains aluminium.

Aluminium hydroxide is what's known as an adjuvant — it stimulates immune
response. Studies in both animals and humans have found that aluminium
adjuvants can cause death of brain cells. Similar studies have also shown
that aluminium adjuvants in vaccines can cross the blood-brain barrier, as
well as cause injection-site inflammation leading to chronic joint and
muscle pain and fatigue.

Aluminium adjuvants have never been subjected to clinical trials for
safety. Read that again: Although the metal has been used in vaccines for
decades, it has never been rigorously studied for long-term safety.

So perhaps the 1 case of lupus and 2 cases of arthritis out of 9,701
participants who received the "placebo" were not just statistical
anomalies. Maybe it was the aluminium. Perhaps that would also explain the
1 case of juvenile arthritis, 2 cases of rheumatoid arthritis, 5 cases of
arthritis and 1 case of reactive arthritis in 11,813 Gardasil recipients.
We'll never know. (Some of the trial participants did, in fact, receive
straight saline but there's no way to tell from the data released which
cases are which.)

More importantly, a reactive placebo artificially decreases the appearance
of danger of an experimental vaccine in a clinical trial because the drug
company only has to prove that adverse events weren't statistically
significant in the vaccine group versus the placebo group. So using
aluminium-containing placebos falsely inflates the adverse-event data of
the "placebo" group, making the vaccine look relatively safe by
comparison.

Gardasil contains 225 mcg of aluminium. Neither Merck nor the U.S. FDA
would answer my questions as to how much aluminium was used in the
placebo.
(Sanofi Pasteur MSD is marketing the vaccine in Europe and is a joint
venture of French company Sanofi Pasteur and U.S. pharmaceutical company
Merck.)

Clinical trial investigators dismissed most of the 102 serious adverse
events including 17 deaths that occurred in the clinical trials as
unrelated to the study. But given the reactivity profile of aluminium, can
we really say that for sure?

Nearly 90 percent of all Gardasil recipients and 85 percent of those who
received the "placebo" reported one or more adverse events within 15 days
of vaccination. Pain and swelling at the site of injection affected
approximately 83 percent of Gardasil recipients and 73 percent of
those who
received the aluminium placebo. About 60 percent of those who received
either the vaccine or the placebo had systemic adverse events including
headache, fever, nausea, dizziness, vomiting, diarrhoea and myalgia. Those
who received the vaccine reported even more serious adverse events such as
gastroenteritis, appendicitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, asthma,
bronchospasm and arthritis.

In a never before done study, scientists recently found a link between
aluminium in vaccines and symptoms associated with Parkinson's,
amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis (ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease) and Alzheimer's.

"This is suspicious," neuroscientist Chris Shaw told the Georgia Straight,
Canada's largest urban weekly. "Either this [link] is known by
industry and
it was never made public, or industry was never made to do these
studies by
Health Canada. I'm not sure which is scarier."

Shaw said there could be 10,000 studies showing aluminium hydroxide is
safe
to be injected, but that he hasn't been able to find one study that looked
beyond the first few weeks of injection. The reason this is significant,
according to Shaw, is that neurological damage can take years to
manifest.

Indeed, this is what we see time and again in vaccine studies. Either the
placebo itself contains aluminium, which doesn't much allow us to
learn the
reactivity profile of the experimental vaccine, or the participants are
only monitored for safety issues for a small frame of time, or, as in the
case of Gardasil, both.

What Shaw and his colleagues found was neuron death. That's no small
thing,
as it's implicated in hundreds of medical conditions. If someone has a
controlled, long-term study that shows aluminium hydroxide is safe, he
said, please "put it on the table. That's how you do science."

Participants in the Gardasil studies were monitored for, at most, four
years and many for a considerably shorter time frame. The largest trial is
scheduled to be ended early and the people who were given a placebo now
will be given the vaccine, meaning it's no longer possible to study
long-term differences in health between those who received the vaccine and
those who received the placebo.

In terms of long-term safety, one sentence in the FDA's insert is
particularly revealing. "Gardasil has not been evaluated for the potential
to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity," according to the insert. Yes,
carcinogenicity means the ability to cause cancer. It's also not known
whether the vaccine can cause chromosomal damage. We don't know because
researchers didn't look. The trials were not set up to examine that
question.

The vaccine is approved for use in girls as young as nine. The rationale
for doing so is that the vaccine is only effective prior to exposure
to HPV
and actually leads to increased risk of precursors to cervical cancer in
those previously infected, so it's best to catch girls as early as
possible. Yet only 100 9-year-olds received Gardasil in trials, adding to
the unknowns about administering a vaccine on still developing bodies.
Those children have only been followed for 18 months.

If this vaccine turns out to have safety issues are we even going to know?
Or will it remain on the childhood vaccinations schedule long after many
girls suffer serious side effects or worse?

Even more terrifying is the idea -- being put forth by some HPV vaccine
proponents -- of giving the vaccine to toddlers so as to weaken the
possible connection between a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease
and "promiscuous" behaviour by youngsters.

Dr. Anne Szarewski, a consultant for Cancer Research UK who worked on the
vaccine trials, told The Telegraph that giving the shot to young children
was a good idea, provided that its efficacy could be proved to last into
adulthood.

"There is an argument to giving it to toddlers, because you get away from
any links between sexual activity and the whole ethical question that it
poses," Szarewski said.

Even entertaining the idea of giving the vaccine to 2- and 4-year-olds is
ludicrous at this stage give that the trials have thus far lasted well
short of a decade, and we have no idea how a toddler's immune system would
cope.

We do know generally that vaccines stimulate qualitatively inferior
immunity than natural exposure, and for this reason most vaccines are
"boosted" periodically during childhood or adolescence. Naturally acquired
immunity lasts much longer, perhaps even a lifetime. The vast, vast
majority of people who contract HPV pass the virus without symptoms.

Even if we're talking about vaccinating 9- to 12-year-olds, we still have
no reason to believe at this point that the duration of immunity would
last
that long or until their first sexual encounter.

Dr. Clayton Young, a board-certified obstetrician gynaecologist in Texas,
outlined his objections this way: "Vaccinating these children against HPV
with a vaccine that is of unknown duration of efficacy will only postpone
their exposure to an age which they are less likely [to] clear the
infection on their own and be subject to more severe disease.

"The study of the vaccine in children and adolescents is limited to only
measuring the development of antibodies to the HPV subtypes in the
vaccine," Young continued. "There is absolutely no evidence that the
vaccine prevents anything when administered at this young age. Merck
expects you to extrapolate their adult data to the immune response in
children. If they were really interested in vaccine efficacy in children,
should it not be studied properly in children?"

Sanofi Pasteur and Merck have an enormous amount at stake in the universal
administration of the shots. A place on the childhood vaccination schedule
means a steady and exponentially larger revenue stream. Financial analysts
predict Gardasil could be Merck's most important pipeline contributor to
top-line growth, with peak sales of at least $2 billion -- revenue Merck
badly needs after the Vioxx scandals. That revenue figure assumes that
Gardasil will be required for school admittance.

"It's a stockholders dream," said Barbara Loe Fisher, president of the
NVIC, a U.S. non-profit organisation that promotes the right to informed
consent on vaccine decisions. Fisher sat on the FDA's committee that
reviews vaccines in 2001, when the vaccine underwent early reviews.

Fisher went on to explain that Merck did not reveal in public documents
exactly how many 9- to 15-year-old girls were in the clinical trials and
how many of them had serious adverse events after being injected with
Gardasil or the aluminium-containing placebo. "For example, if there were
fewer than 1,000 little girls actually injected with three doses of
Gardasil, it is important to know how many had serious adverse events and
how long they were followed for chronic health problems, such as juvenile
arthritis.

"This has nothing to do with kids and whether they are going to have sex,"
Fisher added. "It has to do with whether they are going to be set up for
chronic inflammatory disease" from yet another vaccine being added to the
litany of those they already receive. "I would want more data on long-term
effects of autoimmunity on certain genotypes," she said in an interview,
"and whether this vaccine is going to harm far more girls than it is going
to protect."

Dr. Jacqueline Laing, a specialist in medical ethics at London
Metropolitan
University, was equally as critical: "Diseases associated with promiscuity
will never be eradicated by universal state vaccination," she told The
Telegraph. "The interests of the vaccine manufacturers should not take
precedence over the rights and safety of children."

Suzanne Nelson is a freelance journalist and writer living in New Orleans.
She spent five years covering the U.S. Congress for Roll Call Newspaper in
Washington, D.C., and now focuses on subjects pertaining to health. She
also maintains a health blog at honesthuman.com.
Did you know that I am SUPER MOM?

Offline Simply Kristen

  • My weekly podcast that explores all aspects of healthy living.
  • Master
  • Posts: 1851
    • SimplyKristen Blog
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #1 on: October 08, 2006, 05:30:20 PM »
Right now phrm companies are trying to get all girls ages 15-19 vaccinated for this.  In the US!

Actually, it may have already passed.

Just thought you liked to know! I read about it a few months ago in the Wall Street Journal. 

Offline WithLoveAndJoy

  • Master
  • Posts: 881
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #2 on: October 08, 2006, 05:38:21 PM »
This disturbed me.  The funny thing is, it seems the drug companies are now beginning to develop vaccines that will help take away the consequences of our various actions.  I am all for keeping our kids disease free, but why would I want my 13 year old to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted disease?  To me that would almost be encouraging sexual behavior without consequences.....at least that is the way it seems to me.
Visit my blog and see my deals for the week :)

http://homemakersresource.blogspot.com/

Offline lewisquiverfull

  • Adept
  • Posts: 346
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #3 on: October 08, 2006, 05:40:17 PM »
Very good research! Sad, but very informative. Money, money, money, that's all they pharmacuticle (?) companies are after. They don't care about people, as long as they get more money.  :-[   >:(

Offline mamaketler

  • Adept
  • Posts: 100
  • Jumping on the bed is fun!
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #4 on: October 08, 2006, 05:50:03 PM »
 Do you think  they will  try to make the hpv vacc.  mandatory vacc. for girls to have before entering school?? WOW! :-X
 I am going to shoot... and say it is a way of getting the babies sterile before there old enough to have a period!
 Not that this is in the study just a guess on my part. OR my $.02.
Did you know that I am SUPER MOM?

Offline 4myhoonie

  • Guru
  • Posts: 2163
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2006, 05:59:11 PM »
wow!  thank you for posting this!  very informative.  and sickening.   :P   :'(
"Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle."

Offline mamaketler

  • Adept
  • Posts: 100
  • Jumping on the bed is fun!
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2006, 06:25:58 PM »
bump
Did you know that I am SUPER MOM?

Offline healthyinOhio

  • Guru
  • Posts: 4024
  • Happily Married for 12 years and proud mama of 2.
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #7 on: October 09, 2006, 02:29:41 AM »
Yes, I believe that the companies have an "alternative" ambition to this type of vaccine.  I think the sterility is a good connection to it. 
You won't get HPV if you are not sleeping around, so if you have a daughter who is abstinent, then why get the vaccine?
I was diagnosed with HPV while pregnant with my daughter, as a single mom.  I found out I was pregnant on Aug. 10, 1997 and two days later I got saved. Unfortunately, I had made my "rounds" as an unsaved female, but the blood of the Lamb has cleansed me from all my sin.  I have had regular pap tests and they have always came back negative.  It is possible to be diagnosed with it and have it in "remission" to the point that you will never get cancer.  Or, you can get saved and have the opportunity for the Lord to heal you like he did to me.  Just my thoughts.

Offline Kati*did

  • Master
  • Posts: 1136
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #8 on: October 09, 2006, 03:51:31 AM »
Do you think  they will  try to make the hpv vacc.  mandatory vacc. for girls to have before entering school?? WOW! :-X

Just to let all the Michigan people know -- I think this is in the works right now in this state.  I don't know if they've voted yet, but they want to make this shot mandatory for all 6th grade girls.  I don't know if they'd try to include homeschooled kids.  Anyway, I'm trying to find out exactly who is deciding this in MI so that I can write or call.  I'll let you know when I get more info.  I heard it on Robert Scott Bell.
"...plain Kate, and bonny Kate, and sometimes Kate the curst..."

Offline Kati*did

  • Master
  • Posts: 1136
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #9 on: October 09, 2006, 04:13:24 AM »
Ok...here's a little bit about the MI legislation for HPV to 6th grade girls:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/09/13/hpv.vaccine.ap/index.html
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=9896

I don't know if it's in any other states, yet. 
"...plain Kate, and bonny Kate, and sometimes Kate the curst..."

Offline dara

  • Master
  • Posts: 996
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #10 on: October 09, 2006, 06:13:34 AM »
So what can we DO? If you get any info on how/whom to write on this, Katie, let us know! I will do what I can!
"Write your hurts in the sand
and grave your blessings in stone."

Offline LoveSunflowers

  • Master
  • Posts: 778
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #11 on: October 09, 2006, 06:32:37 AM »
Katie-
I will pass this on to the people in my church as we live in the great state of MI! 
:-\ Not a large church but we have a large family, please pass on any more info you get.
Thanks!
Jessica

Offline Kati*did

  • Master
  • Posts: 1136
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #12 on: October 09, 2006, 06:40:59 AM »
So what can we DO? If you get any info on how/whom to write on this, Katie, let us know! I will do what I can!

Yeah...that's what I'm trying to find out.  :-\  I don't really know what we can do at this point, but I'll let you know if I find anything.
"...plain Kate, and bonny Kate, and sometimes Kate the curst..."

Offline Julia

  • Master
  • Posts: 799
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #13 on: October 09, 2006, 09:06:54 AM »
You know, I was appalled when I first read about a required vaccination for an STD. Then I realized that the current required vaccinations already have one included for an STD - Hepatitis B!!! Kids get the first of the 3 shots for Hep B when they are brand new babies - before they even leave the hospital. I asked our pediatrician about it and why my baby daughter should be expected to get it. She responded, with only a slight typical-eye-roll-that-silly-parents-who-ask-questions-about-vaccinations-get, that it's for when they become sexually active as teenagers. Many Christians get insulted by this, but really I think doctors are just doing their job when they assume teenagers are going to be sexually active. The fact is, most people are not virgins when they get married, and the chances that both a husband and wife are going to be virgins when they get married are pretty slim. And how is a doctor to know which parents are going to raise their children to be sexually pure and succeed? They want to prevent the disease and they can't expect people to just go get it as soon as they become sexually active. So she said that they first tried to give the shots to middle school girls, but they weren't getting it. So they kept lowering the age until it became part of the baby and toddler shots. And it's required before they can enter kindergarten.

I wonder about the "required" thing. Even if kids homeschool all 12 years and manage to get out of the shots that way, there's still college. I remember in college not being able to register for classes till I got my MMR shot. There's probably another thread on this so I'll quit writing about it.

Mamaketler, what is the address for the article you posted?


Offline Clementine

  • Adept
  • Posts: 408
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #14 on: October 09, 2006, 11:24:48 AM »
I have a comment about the Hepatitis B vaccine that was just brought up. While Hep B can definitely be transmitted sexually, it is also very easy transmitted by blood and body fluids.  I will not hesitate to have my child vaccinated against this one.  I have been as well since I am a health care worker. Hep B can remain alive in a small amount of dried blood for several days.  It's not just transmitted from sexual contact.  Your child can be exposed on the playground, public bathrooms, really anywhere where people are.  It can be contracted completely innocently, not from any choice your child makes.  That being said, I am appalled about this new HPV vaccine.  HPV can be completely avoided by remaining abstinent until marriage.  Unfortunately, your marriage partner, unless sexaully pure (never had relations) can expose a married woman. 
"I waited patiently on the Lord; and he inclined unto me, and heard my cry." Psalm 40:1

Offline WithLoveAndJoy

  • Master
  • Posts: 881
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #15 on: October 09, 2006, 11:27:36 AM »
The nice thing about that is that before marriage it is possible to have any not virgin partners get a test for STDs and only deal with the items which are relevant.
Visit my blog and see my deals for the week :)

http://homemakersresource.blogspot.com/

Offline Kati*did

  • Master
  • Posts: 1136
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #16 on: October 09, 2006, 11:40:23 AM »
Many Christians get insulted by this, but really I think doctors are just doing their job when they assume teenagers are going to be sexually active.

I guess my main grievances with this legislation are, 1.) What about my right to choose not to have a vaccine for no other reason than that I don't want it?  2.)  Why does the government get to decide what is best for my child?  3.)  Why is it ok to promote sexual activity and not abstinence?  Granted...this is the secular arena, and I think some people involved in this vaccine are probably sincerely wanting to help.  However, I think there are others who are more interested in an agenda.  I think it is worth fighting it (agenda)  because too often that agenda makes it's way to the Christian/homeschool doorstep, attempting to be in charge of decisions there, also.  Just my thoughts.
"...plain Kate, and bonny Kate, and sometimes Kate the curst..."

Offline Clementine

  • Adept
  • Posts: 408
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #17 on: October 09, 2006, 03:15:44 PM »
Many Christians get insulted by this, but really I think doctors are just doing their job when they assume teenagers are going to be sexually active.

I guess my main grievances with this legislation are, 1.) What about my right to choose not to have a vaccine for no other reason than that I don't want it?  2.)  Why does the government get to decide what is best for my child?  3.)  Why is it ok to promote sexual activity and not abstinence?  Granted...this is the secular arena, and I think some people involved in this vaccine are probably sincerely wanting to help.  However, I think there are others who are more interested in an agenda.  I think it is worth fighting it (agenda)  because too often that agenda makes it's way to the Christian/homeschool doorstep, attempting to be in charge of decisions there, also.  Just my thoughts.

Well said Kati*did.  I agree wholeheartedly. 
"I waited patiently on the Lord; and he inclined unto me, and heard my cry." Psalm 40:1

Offline miff aka Missi

  • Adept
  • Posts: 601
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #18 on: October 09, 2006, 04:56:58 PM »
The nice thing about that is that before marriage it is possible to have any not virgin partners get a test for STDs and only deal with the items which are relevant.
Joyfullyhis,
Are you talking about a non virgin getting tested specifically for HPV before marriage?  Women can be tested for HPV, but men cannot.  They don't have a test for that, even though they can have the virus and pass it on. 

Missi 

Offline ShabbyChic

  • Master
  • Posts: 1696
  • Wife, mom, motorcycle enthusiast, and chocoholic.
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #19 on: October 09, 2006, 05:06:36 PM »
Bump
That's Shabby SHEIK not Shabby CHICK.  Hee-hee.

Offline WithLoveAndJoy

  • Master
  • Posts: 881
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #20 on: October 10, 2006, 02:09:02 AM »
The nice thing about that is that before marriage it is possible to have any not virgin partners get a test for STDs and only deal with the items which are relevant.
Joyfullyhis,
Are you talking about a non virgin getting tested specifically for HPV before marriage? Women can be tested for HPV, but men cannot. They don't have a test for that, even though they can have the virus and pass it on.

Missi

I must have had some bad information.  For some reason I thought that men could also be tested for HPV.  Perhaps in such a case it would be prudent for a woman marrying a man who was already sexually active to consider having the vaccine at that point?  But most people don't realize that just having HPV does not guarantee that a person will get cervical cancer.  It just raises the risk.
Visit my blog and see my deals for the week :)

http://homemakersresource.blogspot.com/

Offline healthyinOhio

  • Guru
  • Posts: 4024
  • Happily Married for 12 years and proud mama of 2.
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #21 on: October 10, 2006, 02:11:11 AM »
  Women can be tested for HPV, but men cannot.  They don't have a test for that, even though they can have the virus and pass it on. 

Missi 

No, I am sure that they can.  That is how I found out that I had it before I was tested.  One of my past boyfriends had tested positive and told me.  Then, six months later I was tested and it came back positive.  So, I don't know what is going on if they cannot be tested.  ???

Offline 4myhoonie

  • Guru
  • Posts: 2163
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #22 on: October 10, 2006, 02:42:20 AM »
The nice thing about that is that before marriage it is possible to have any not virgin partners get a test for STDs and only deal with the items which are relevant.
Joyfullyhis,
Are you talking about a non virgin getting tested specifically for HPV before marriage? Women can be tested for HPV, but men cannot. They don't have a test for that, even though they can have the virus and pass it on.

Missi

I must have had some bad information.  For some reason I thought that men could also be tested for HPV.  Perhaps in such a case it would be prudent for a woman marrying a man who was already sexually active to consider having the vaccine at that point?  But most people don't realize that just having HPV does not guarantee that a person will get cervical cancer.  It just raises the risk.

certain dr.'s and midwives would like to make you think you WILL get it.  i don't see the point in scaring someone who already has had it.  especially a married person.   ???
"Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle."

Offline mamaketler

  • Adept
  • Posts: 100
  • Jumping on the bed is fun!
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #23 on: October 11, 2006, 06:25:01 PM »

Mamaketler, what is the address for the article you posted?


Quote
WWW.TheHedgeAcademy@yahoogroups.com
 This article was sent to my via a firend. All I have is this. Hope this helps. Sorry it has taken me so long to respond.
Did you know that I am SUPER MOM?

Offline miff aka Missi

  • Adept
  • Posts: 601
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #24 on: October 11, 2006, 06:49:47 PM »
  Women can be tested for HPV, but men cannot.  They don't have a test for that, even though they can have the virus and pass it on. 

Missi 

No, I am sure that they can.  That is how I found out that I had it before I was tested.  One of my past boyfriends had tested positive and told me.  Then, six months later I was tested and it came back positive.  So, I don't know what is going on if they cannot be tested.  ???
My doctor told me that they can't be tested.  I see her again Nov.  I'll have to get into this with her.  I'll be quite upset if she misinformed me before.  I'm thinking she said they can look to see if a man has the wart causing kinds (they can actually see the warts), but not the cancer causing types.  hmmm...  I'll let you know what she says.  I'm going to do a little research on my own too. 

Offline miff aka Missi

  • Adept
  • Posts: 601
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #25 on: October 11, 2006, 07:27:59 PM »
No, I am sure that they can.  That is how I found out that I had it before I was tested.  One of my past boyfriends had tested positive and told me.  Then, six months later I was tested and it came back positive.  So, I don't know what is going on if they cannot be tested.  ???
My doctor told me that they can't be tested.  I see her again Nov.  I'll have to get into this with her.  I'll be quite upset if she misinformed me before.  I'm thinking she said they can look to see if a man has the wart causing kinds (they can actually see the warts), but not the cancer causing types.  hmmm...  I'll let you know what she says.  I'm going to do a little research on my own too. 
Here are a couple of web sites that I found concerning testing men. I looked up "HPV"+"men"+"testing".   
www.webmd.com/hw/uterine_cervical_cancer/tu6451.asp
www.herpesonline.org/std/index.php/archives/hpv-testing
« Last Edit: October 11, 2006, 07:40:35 PM by miff »

Offline mamaketler

  • Adept
  • Posts: 100
  • Jumping on the bed is fun!
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #26 on: October 13, 2006, 04:25:51 AM »
bump I think this is very important :D ;D ::)
Did you know that I am SUPER MOM?

Offline Clementine

  • Adept
  • Posts: 408
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #27 on: October 14, 2006, 06:07:21 PM »
  Women can be tested for HPV, but men cannot.  They don't have a test for that, even though they can have the virus and pass it on. 

Missi 

No, I am sure that they can.  That is how I found out that I had it before I was tested.  One of my past boyfriends had tested positive and told me.  Then, six months later I was tested and it came back positive.  So, I don't know what is going on if they cannot be tested.  ???

I am wondering, if a man said he tested positive for HPV, perhaps he meant that he had an outbreak of genital warts and therefore was told he was positive for the virus since it causes them.  That is the only reason I can think of that a man would know he had it. Oftentimes, a man will have no symptoms of anything at all, but is a carrier. 
"I waited patiently on the Lord; and he inclined unto me, and heard my cry." Psalm 40:1

Offline healthyinOhio

  • Guru
  • Posts: 4024
  • Happily Married for 12 years and proud mama of 2.
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #28 on: October 15, 2006, 03:13:58 AM »




I am wondering, if a man said he tested positive for HPV, perhaps he meant that he had an outbreak of genital warts and therefore was told he was positive for the virus since it causes them. 

No, I know for sure he was actually "tested" with no genital warts visable.  They test men in a very painful way.  They stick something down the urethra and it is a very painful test.  That is all that I know about it.

Offline Clementine

  • Adept
  • Posts: 408
Re: Human Papillomavirus [HPV] & GARDASIL [Cervical Cancer Vaccine]
« Reply #29 on: October 15, 2006, 04:48:41 PM »




I am wondering, if a man said he tested positive for HPV, perhaps he meant that he had an outbreak of genital warts and therefore was told he was positive for the virus since it causes them. 

No, I know for sure he was actually "tested" with no genital warts visable.  They test men in a very painful way.  They stick something down the urethra and it is a very painful test.  That is all that I know about it.

That's interesting, because it isn't a common test for men.  It was just a thought that came to me.  I was tested for this once after some very irregular pap smears.  Praise to God, because it came back negative, and I was healed, as they have now been normal for a while.  I have mixed feelings about this vaccine.  I think it is good if it actually works, and a woman wants it.  But in no way am I supportive of this as being a requirement for anyone, especially young girls.  It's scary that it could become one of the standard vaccines.
"I waited patiently on the Lord; and he inclined unto me, and heard my cry." Psalm 40:1