giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,152
|
Post by giramomma on Feb 13, 2015 12:24:41 GMT -5
Again, if you are not sexually active, you do not get HPV. The point is to try to get the kids vaccinated BEFORE they become sexually active. I think you are giving a circular argument, Oped. If you are not sexually active, then you don't have HPV and being tested is not necessary. This is what they are trying to do, get the kids before they are sexually active. If you ARE sexually active, you may or may not have missed the boat with regards to HPV. You might be lucky and not be infected. But the longer you are sexually active, the more likely you are to pick up the virus. And as some have posted, they have been infected by their first partner. The goal is to try to avoid this altogether. After reading this thread..indeed I feel lucky. It also makes me wonder what they are going to do with older people engaging in sexually risky behavior because pregnancy is no longer an issue. With the boomers aging, one would think that they'd start testing to see if the vaccine works on older people that aren't infected. Who wants to get a cancer-causing ST-whatever at 70? Or does it not matter, because by then folks are old?
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,100
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Feb 13, 2015 12:25:06 GMT -5
Okay so it had nothing to do with your decision. Then what was the reason for brining up that kids don't always tell their parents they are having sex? What does that have to do with whether or not to approve Gardasil?
While I am in charge of my kids I'll approve it. Yes I know there is the chance they are already active by the time I have them get it, BUT I'd rather get it than assume there is no point since they probably DTD already and the benefits of being vaccinated have decreased.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Feb 13, 2015 12:28:37 GMT -5
Hell, I'm not THAT old and I honestly don't care at this point if I get an std as long as I don't hurt or die from it. Not like I'm promiscuous to spread the joy around. I'm sure I've got all kinds of crud I don't even know I have. Ignorance is bliss. However, if I were just starting out my sexual career, I'd do everything possible to protect my hoo hah from cooties!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 16:52:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 12:30:52 GMT -5
This isn't recommendations though. It's FDA APPROVAL.
I'm just having no luck finding dicumwntatuon on different approval ages?
I have a 16 yr old boy. I guarantee he will be asking the question.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 16:52:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 12:31:40 GMT -5
My kids will make their own decisions about it.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,100
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Feb 13, 2015 12:33:08 GMT -5
I recall reading several articles about how chlamydia and gonorrhea are quite rampant in nursing homes. I wouldn't be surprised if HPV is as well.
Who knew? Must be all that Viagra and Cialis.
It'd be nice if at some point work on the vaccine lead to something that would eliminate it once you've contracted it. Right now once you got it, you got it for life. That's why they want you to vaccinate ideally before your kid is active.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Feb 13, 2015 12:35:02 GMT -5
DH told me his Aunt lived in THE VILLAGES and when I picked myself off the floor from laughing hysterically, I told him why I was laughing. Highest std rate among seniors there.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 16:52:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 12:36:21 GMT -5
Do you ever worry that we are inspiring mutations with all our preventative measures?
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,100
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Feb 13, 2015 12:36:29 GMT -5
This isn't recommendations though. It's FDA APPROVAL
FDA approval can only be granted in instances where it has been proven whatever drug it is we're talking about has been studied and shown effective.
My guess would be that due to time and expense the makers of Gardasil targeted the groups that would most benefit from getting the vaccination since the whole point is to get it BEFORE you're active.
That's where you get the most benefit.
Now it's been extended to getting it even after exposure because they know it'll provide limited benefits in the event of exposure to strains you don't already have.
Approval for use in boys is still fairly new, it's been studied longer in girls since it was originally targeted as being for women. It makes sense that for boys there is not enough information yet to know if it would be useful to extend the age where the vaccination is approved for use.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,100
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Feb 13, 2015 12:41:00 GMT -5
Do you ever worry that we are inspiring mutations with all our preventative measures
In what exactly?
Viruses mutate regardless if you are vaccinated or not. There is the chance of a 'super virus" arising out of all our preventative measures.
At the same time though if there are enough people who aren't vaccinated against something the wild type is going to potentially wipe them out b/c there is nobody around who has any kind of immunity. Look at the Native Americans. Part of why they think the plague disappeared when it did is because all that was left in Europe were people who'd already had it and survived, so the virus became milder over time.
So it's a trade-off. Do we vaccinate to protect the population or let the population naturally take care of itself?
Do I think we're turning ourselves into X-men or doing some type of long term damage to ourselves? No but that's because I have never seen any evidence suggesting this is the case.
Could it be possibly, of course it can. ANYTHING is possible, you cannot prove something will never happen. Do I think it's likely? No.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 16:52:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 12:58:39 GMT -5
so what I'm getting is that 100% of vaccines are 100% safe 100% of the time and any parent that doesn't get their child any of the vaccines available to them is negligent.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Feb 13, 2015 13:03:47 GMT -5
I don't think anyone has asserted that at all.
My takeaway is the risk of serious complications from the vaccine is far, far, less than the risk of serious complications from the disease.
I know a few folks who had polio (and are crippled for life). I'll take the vaccines.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,152
|
Post by giramomma on Feb 13, 2015 13:05:17 GMT -5
Hell, I'm not THAT old and I honestly don't care at this point if I get an std as long as I don't hurt or die from it. Yes, but the strains being discussed here are cancer causing. So, again, that begs the question, do we care if old people contract HPV and get cancer.Or is it just youth, because they have more years ahead of them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 16:52:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 13:06:22 GMT -5
I don't think anyone has asserted that at all. My takeaway is the risk of serious complications from the vaccine is far, far, less than the risk of serious complications from the disease. I know a few folks who had polio (and are crippled for life). I'll take the vaccines. well if that's not the assertion, why are parents raked over the coals if they choose to not get their child a vaccine? I seem to remember when rotovirus came out that there were a significant number of kids having problems. so a parent who didn't get that for their child was good or bad? and the risk of serious complications may be small but what if it's YOUR child that has the serious complication?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 16:52:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 13:08:28 GMT -5
Hell, I'm not THAT old and I honestly don't care at this point if I get an std as long as I don't hurt or die from it. Yes, but the strains being discussed here are cancer causing. So, again, that begs the question, do we care if old people contract HPV and get cancer.Or is it just youth, because they have more years ahead of them. just because you get one of the cancer causing strains doesn't mean you WILL get cancer.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,100
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Feb 13, 2015 13:09:28 GMT -5
so what I'm getting is that 100% of vaccines are 100% safe 100% of the time and any parent that doesn't get their child any of the vaccines available to them is negligent
Would anybody be able to convince you otherwise?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 16:52:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 13:13:15 GMT -5
so what I'm getting is that 100% of vaccines are 100% safe 100% of the time and any parent that doesn't get their child any of the vaccines available to them is negligent
Would anybody be able to convince you otherwise? convince me of what?
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,370
|
Post by imawino on Feb 13, 2015 14:32:21 GMT -5
so what I'm getting is that 100% of vaccines are 100% safe 100% of the time and any parent that doesn't get their child any of the vaccines available to them is negligent. What?!?! No! I don't believe it. It's so unlike you to react that way........
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,370
|
Post by imawino on Feb 13, 2015 14:35:45 GMT -5
I don't think anyone has asserted that at all. My takeaway is the risk of serious complications from the vaccine is far, far, less than the risk of serious complications from the disease. I know a few folks who had polio (and are crippled for life). I'll take the vaccines. well if that's not the assertion, why are parents raked over the coals if they choose to not get their child a vaccine? I seem to remember when rotovirus came out that there were a significant number of kids having problems. so a parent who didn't get that for their child was good or bad? and the risk of serious complications may be small but what if it's YOUR child that has the serious complication?then it would suck. Just like it would suck if your kid was the one that died of a preventable disease.
No one raked you over the coals. You reacted overly defensively to being asked if you had a reason for making a decision.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,100
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Feb 13, 2015 14:42:06 GMT -5
and the risk of serious complications may be small but what if it's YOUR child that has the serious complication?
I'd experience some guilt, but I made the decision based on the information I had at the time. Unfortunately I cannot control every outcome in life.
You can turn it the other way too. What if your daughter ended up with cervical cancer, what if your kid ended up with measles complications.
We could go round and round in circles for days.
I've been pretty lucky and not developed cancer, but my luck may not last forever. From a personal standpoint I'll vaccinate because of my experience. Just as my grandmother said that after seeing people/children/babies die from a lot of the diseases we now vaccinate against there was no question on getting my father vaccinations.
From a scientific standpoint vaccinations are some of the most independently studied drugs on the market. I go with the 25+ years of data on the older vaccines. I go with the stack of evidence saying Gardasil is safe. Could that all change in the future? Of course it can, science is not static and there is no proof in science. There is either stack of data for or against. I don't consider the stack against big enough to give me pause. You may disagree.
I haven't seen anyone say that vaccines are 100% safe, I also haven't seen anyone say you're a negligent parent. I've seen a fairly civil debate on this thread considering how this debate sometimes goes.
But you see what you want to see and nobody will convince you otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 13, 2015 14:56:01 GMT -5
Hell, I'm not THAT old and I honestly don't care at this point if I get an std as long as I don't hurt or die from it. Yes, but the strains being discussed here are cancer causing. So, again, that begs the question, do we care if old people contract HPV and get cancer.Or is it just youth, because they have more years ahead of them. Old people very likely ALREADY have the virus. Greater than 75% of the population already harbors it. So this is a moot point, the point is to try to prevent people from picking the virus up in the first place. For those that do have the virus, the best you can do is continual monitoring via regular pap smears.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 13, 2015 15:06:52 GMT -5
Yes, but the strains being discussed here are cancer causing. So, again, that begs the question, do we care if old people contract HPV and get cancer.Or is it just youth, because they have more years ahead of them. just because you get one of the cancer causing strains doesn't mean you WILL get cancer. But it increases your risk. 70% of all cervical cancer is caused by those 2 strains. The likelihood pre-vaccine of getting cervical cancer is 1:134 people. If getting the vaccine means that it decreases your risk to 1:500, does that make it better? 1:1340? What is your tolerance of risk?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Feb 13, 2015 15:50:02 GMT -5
As long as you and your kid don't infect me or mine, you can risk your health and that of your child all you want. It's when you decide to put others health at risk, I draw the line in the sand.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 16:52:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 16:02:59 GMT -5
As long as you and your kid don't infect me or mine, you can risk your health and that of your child all you want. It's when you decide to put others health at risk, I draw the line in the sand. and I said that I think polio, MMR and Tdap (or however the letters go) should be mandatory unless medically contraindicated. I think anything else should be a left up to individual parents to decide.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 16:52:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 16:26:16 GMT -5
Cervical cancer is preventable. If it was the only complication of HPV I would NOT recommend my kids get it. It wouldn't be worth risking mutating a bug for which we already have a prevention protocol that is highly effective.
Its the other complications that make me consider it.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by teen persuasion on Feb 13, 2015 16:46:53 GMT -5
Again, if you are not sexually active, you do not get HPV. The point is to try to get the kids vaccinated BEFORE they become sexually active. I think you are giving a circular argument, Oped. If you are not sexually active, then you don't have HPV and being tested is not necessary. This is what they are trying to do, get the kids before they are sexually active. If you ARE sexually active, you may or may not have missed the boat with regards to HPV. You might be lucky and not be infected. But the longer you are sexually active, the more likely you are to pick up the virus. And as some have posted, they have been infected by their first partner. The goal is to try to avoid this altogether. and how many teens, sitting there with their parent, are going to say they're sexually active? Once the kids were about the age of puberty, our pediatrician would examine and talk to the kids w/o the parent in the room first, then discuss things with both of us afterwards. There was a nurse also present, the kid wasn't alone with the ped. This was specifically so the kids could say anything without being influenced by me or embarrassment.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Feb 13, 2015 16:58:50 GMT -5
My not professional scientist mind doubts that vaccines increase mutations of viruses. We've had a lot of these vaccines for decades with millions of people getting them but the only big retool was to take the mercury out of them. No one is having to research new versions of the old vaccine because polio is coming back with a mutated strain.
Now, let's take the staph bacteria. We've had antibiotics that fight it for decades and we've continuously had to create new antibiotics as it mutates to render the drugs ineffective. We have a particularly nasty strand of it that is immune to almost all antibiotics. And this is without a vaccine to stop people from getting staph.
I'm sure I'm missing something, like how viruses and bacteria differ to cause this difference that won't make the differences that much. I don't know, but the layman me hears way more about bacteria mutating than viruses we have vaccines for.
|
|
GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl
Senior Associate
"How you win matters." Ender, Ender's Game
Joined: Jan 2, 2011 13:33:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,291
|
Post by GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl on Feb 13, 2015 17:03:30 GMT -5
Does it matter anymore that my OP was about knee surgery and not vaccinations and not STDs?? Talk about going off on a tangent! Man, you people take every opportunity to turn something benign and mundane into something…else, don't you?
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 13, 2015 17:18:32 GMT -5
I'm sure I'm missing something, like how viruses and bacteria differ to cause this difference that won't make the differences that much. I don't know, but the layman me hears way more about bacteria mutating than viruses we have vaccines for.
It has a lot to do with structure of the microbe. Viruses contain DNA or RNA and a protein coat. That's it, they do not contain any sort of machinery to be an independent entity. They cannot exist without another living organism, nor can they divide. So in essence, this makes them the simplest and most efficient of them all - and also the most complicated because everything they do to cause disease is coded in their nucleic acid. Viruses replicate by getting into either a bacteria or a cell, hijacking that cell's machinery and using it for their own good at the expense of the cell. Viruses CAN mutate, but they have limited parts that they can mutate to evade immune defenses. Flu viruses are a good example of this, but even then they have limited capability as to how far that they can mutate.
Bacteria, on the other hand, can live easily as long as they have the nutrients/conditions to survive. Because they are more complicated (and simpler in a strange sort of way), it allows them to mutate easier in order to do things like survive in places where they normally would not, or to change their cell wall or outer proteins in order to evade detection from either the immune system or antibiotics. Many antibiotics work by doing something that disrupts the cell wall or membrane, making it difficult for the bacteria to survive. The bacteria changes a few side groups on a carbohydrate, and the antibiotic no longer recognizes it and destroys it.
Staph is NEVER going to go away. It is part of your normal flora and everyone harbors it. It is when it gets where it's not supposed to be that it causes so many problems, or you get a strain of it that is particularly nasty. My medical year from hell was caused by Staph, a very common strain but it just managed to get itself to a place that it shouldn't be.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 13, 2015 17:19:35 GMT -5
Does it matter anymore that my OP was about knee surgery and not vaccinations and not STDs?? Talk about going off on a tangent! Man, you people take every opportunity to turn something benign and mundane into something…else, don't you? Did you expect anything less? If not, then you've not been around long enough!!
|
|