Quote:
Originally Posted by freedomdove
Where in my post did I say that they were? Nutritional deficiencies can and usually do play a big part in the development of malignant cancer, but only having a deficiency or two isn't going to cause it by itself. There are usually multiple factors all at once.
|
With HPV associated cancer the biggest risk factor is HPV. It may not be sufficient on its own, but for 90% of the cancers it causes it is necessary. Don't catch the strains of HPV in the vaccine and you cut the risk of HPV associated cancers by 90%.
Quote:
|
Again, where did I say this?
|
You said:
Quote:
|
Someone with HPV simply needs to take measures against cancer in multiple ways--make sure they are nutritionally sufficient, avoid daily toxins as much as possible, take care of pathogens, and make sure their hormones are in balance.
|
Someone with HPV can be totally "nutritionally sufficient" and still get cancer from it.
Quote:
|
Huh? There are so many toxins in our world today that it's no wonder so many people get sick. They range from direct toxins to endocrine disruptors (that's where the hormone imbalance fits in). There's a *lot* that people can do to rid their lives of many toxins, and it would reduce their chances of cancer proliferation.
|
There is no evidence that "direct toxins" or "endocrine disruptors" have anything to do with causing the cancers associated with HPV.
Quote:
|
Not so much. Read over that again carefully and notice how many times they say "probable" or "it's thought to cause". They're estimating. The researchers used cancer registries to form their estimations--and those registries don't even report whether HPV was in the cancer tissue. These are not concrete stats.
|
You do not read many scientific articles do you? Unlike anti-vax articles, which are always unequivocal and insist that vaccines cause whatever the disease of the day is, scientists may use qualifiers.
When it is looked for, almost all cervical cancers have HPV in them. Cancer registries have nothing to do with determining causality. They basically collect statistics.
Quote:
|
At any rate, it's quite possible that HPV doesn't really cause cancer. There are many unanswered questions, and I think people should look into this vaccine extensively before they have their children inoculated with it (any of them).
|
The causality of HPV and cancer has been established:
The causal relation between human papillomavirus and cervical cancer
"The causal role of human papillomavirus infections in cervical cancer has been documented beyond reasonable doubt. The association is present in virtually all cervical cancer cases worldwide."
Quote:
|
LOL! Using a vaccine is NOT taking care of the pathogen. There are over a hundred strains of HPV, for one thing. And you know what else prevents infection? Abstinence and safe sex.
|
Vaccines certainly do "take care of the pathogen" by priming the immune system to fight it off. Not all strains of HPV cause cancer. Gardasil 9 covers the strains associated with 90% of HPV associated cancers, though. This is a typical Nirvana fallacy: if it does not cover all strains the vaccine is no good.
Do you propose that no one ever have sex? Condoms do not work very well for HPV because it infects skin areas not protected by the condom.
Quote:
|
Where's the evidence that the shot is 100% effective? There are reports at VAERS of people contracting HPV after inoculation.
|
Use of 9-Valent Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine: Updated HPV Vaccination Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices
"Two immunobridging trials were conducted. One compared 9vHPV in approximately 2,400 females and males aged 9 through 15 years with approximately 400 females aged 16 through 26 years. Over 99% seroconverted to all nine HPV vaccine types; GMTs were significantly higher in adolescents aged 9 through 15 years compared with females aged 16 through 26 years. In a comparison of 4vHPV with 9vHPV in approximately 600 adolescent females aged 9 through 15 years, 100% seroconverted to HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18 in both groups ..."
You cannot get HPV from the vaccine itself. It does not contain any live virus. You can get strains not covered by the vaccine, though it prevents 90% of the bad ones.
Quote:
|
The claim that nobody has had a serious reaction is patently false. There have been over 100 deaths attributed to the vaccine, and many injuries. Additionally, you're not supposed to get the shot if you already have an HPV infection, but how many doctors are *actually* checking for that before they vaccinate their patients? It might not even be possible if there aren't tests for all strains. Even the ACP has safety questions.
|
In actual studies of real patients with actual medical records who have been followed up after getting HPV vaccines there have been no serious adverse events except some allergic reactions, none of which have been fatal. The most common adverse events are a sore arm and fainting. The sore arms get better, and the fainting can be prevented by simply having the patient lie down for a while after the shot.
The vaccine is not contraindicated in people who have HPV already. It will not do anything to get rid of the strain that is already present, but it can prevent acquisition of new strains covered by the vaccine. To maximize effectiveness it needs to be given before any sexual activity has been experienced and the risk of infection is essentially nil.
The "ACP" is a right wing group of anti-gay, antivax doctors. It is not the same as the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Here is what the American
Academy of Pediatrics says about HPV vaccines:
https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-...No+local+token
"The AAP recommends routine HPV vaccination of males and females at 11-12 years of age. The vaccine is most effective if administered before the onset of sexual activity, and antibody responses to the vaccine are highest at ages 9 through 15 years. Immunization of children against HPV infection will help prevent cancers and genital warts caused by HPV."
VAERS reports are not proof of causality. Those reports have been reviewed and no deaths can be linked to the vaccine.
Quote:
|
I'm going to guess that not all doctors are so dutiful, especially considering how little time they have with each patient...
|
That would be a "guess" and not worth much. As much controversy as the anti-vax folks have ginned up out of thin air over HPV vaccines a better bet would be that docs are very careful to discuss it thoroughly first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freedomdove
I think anyone considering getting their child vaccinated for HPV should do a lot of research--and not just at the CDC. There are many concerns about these shots, and there are questions of whether they're even necessary. I personally won't be vaccinating my kid with any of them after studying the topic for a few years. I just urge people to do their homework and not automatically listen to the "authorities".
|
The only people with concerns are those swayed by anti-vax ignorance. The experts - the ones with years of training and experience - agree that HPV vaccine is safe and effective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
Time will tell. It's still a very effective way to prevent cervical cancer. If you want the vaccine, get one. Other people can decide for themselves how they can best prevent cervical cancer. They can decide for themselves if they'd like to take measures to decrease their risk or not. If they don't, that is also their choice.
|
The measures you mentioned do not work well with HPV because it is not blood borne. It's transferred by simple skin to skin contact. Pap smears do nothing to help diagnose cancers other than cervical, and they do not prevent pre-cancer in the cervix. They just diagnose it after it has already happened. Evaluating abnormal Pap smears requires tests and treatment that can be painful and have a risk of serious adverse effects. It is really strange that you continue to insist on just doing Pap smears, when the vaccine will prevent 90% of abnormal Paps from ever happening. You also offer no option for preventing the HPV cancers except dental dams and condoms - and there is no equivalent of the pap smear for those.
Prevention will always be superior to treatment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
http://www.womenshealth.gov/publicat...t/pap-test.pdf
I know you are not over 65, Miss Terri, but I suppose it reaches a point in age where if you haven't gotten something like cervical cancer, you probably aren't going to get it.
Why don't they give the HPV vax to over 26 year olds? Probably the same reason, although the pro vaccine people on here would give any and all vaccines to the entire population to be "safe".
|
About 15% of cervical cancer happens in women over 65. Some low risk women can stop having Paps at 65; each woman needs to ask her doctor whether there are any factors in her history that would make it advisable to continue to be screened, for example, a new partner.
The HPV vaccine works in women over 26 years old. The problem is that the majority of women in that age group have already become sexually active and have HPV infections. lder women who have not had sex and plan to can take the vaccine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freedomdove
I don't feel like she was trying to be a dictator. What she stated is basic sex education that all parents and teachers should relay to young people.
|
You can educate out the wazoo. If you think teenagers who have oral sex are going to use condoms or dental dams you are very naive.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
