Opting Out Of The Hpv Vaccine?

[sinmantyx]

On my lj and on an earlier thread, I mentioned "purity balls". On my lj this led to someone mentioning the some parents citing religious reasons are deciding to opt-out of the HPV vaccine.

Beyond the reasonable issues of the vaccines "newness" and exactly HOW governments should proceed, I found the attitudes of some of the parents very frightening. Although many mainstream Christian groups are supporting the vaccine simply as a medical breakthrough, others are resisting because they believe that giving their girls the vaccine somehow promotes and condones premarital sex. (Apparently rape and sex inside marriage doesn't exist in their world, or is somehow magically unable to transmit a virus.)

I just realized how similiar this is to the concept of an honor killing. A family does not want their daughter to have sex, so they make choices that would increase her risk of death if she were to be sexually active.

This may seem to be a stretch, but in many ways STDs are being used as a threat of death to prevent sexual behavior. This is seen in extreme examples of abstinence based sex "education", where it is not unheard of to present premarital sex as a "death sentence". One quote I remember from such an "educator" was "Do you think you are ready to have sex? Then you better be ready to die." (This is an extreme example, but the basic threat is no uncommon.)

It's true that sexual activity has decline ALOT since the 80's, most likely due to the threat of HIV. I wonder if an HIV vaccine becomes available in the future, if these same parents would resist that as well? It seems that since they don't actually have to kill their children with their own hands, death due to sexual activity is considered acceptable to them. It's really quite horrifying.

[Shade Everdark]

This is a subject about which I find myself both emphatic, and reserved.

I am reserved because there have been accusations that the vaccine hasn't undergone rigorous enough testing, even though it has been approved by the FDA. I don't know, and I haven't really found any information regarding whether this vaccine has been tested more or less thoroughly than others released. I do know that when the polio vaccine came out, they almost couldn't make it fast enough for the public. For this aspect, I need more information, and thus am disinclined to render judgment.

On the other hand, I cannot but view the attempt to keep this from being part of the battery of vaccinations given to children as a mandatory prerequisite to entering public school as a certain kind of child abuse. Either through the parents' ignorance, or their complete inability to deal with anything surrounding sexual relationships rationally, they are condemning their daughters to cancer in 40 years. Would they be so disinclined to inoculate their girls if we were talking about smallpox? Smallpox is practically wiped off the planet, but for a few test samples, because of proper and mandatory vaccinations. This vaccine won't have quite that profound an effect, but damnit--what's so awful about ensuring that your daughter never gets cervical cancer?

[sinmantyx]

This is a subject about which I find myself both emphatic, and reserved.

I am reserved because there have been accusations that the vaccine hasn't undergone rigorous enough testing, even though it has been approved by the FDA. I don't know, and I haven't really found any information regarding whether this vaccine has been tested more or less thoroughly than others released. I do know that when the polio vaccine came out, they almost couldn't make it fast enough for the public. For this aspect, I need more information, and thus am disinclined to render judgment.

On the other hand, I cannot but view the attempt to keep this from being part of the battery of vaccinations given to children as a mandatory prerequisite to entering public school as a certain kind of child abuse. Either through the parents' ignorance, or their complete inability to deal with anything surrounding sexual relationships rationally, they are condemning their daughters to cancer in 40 years. Would they be so disinclined to inoculate their girls if we were talking about smallpox? Smallpox is practically wiped off the planet, but for a few test samples, because of proper and mandatory vaccinations. This vaccine won't have quite that profound an effect, but damnit--what's so awful about ensuring that your daughter never gets cervical cancer?

Exactly, if they are opting out because they don't believe the vaccine has been tested sufficiently, that is one thing. If their motivation is to promote Cervical Cancer as a deterrent to sexual activity....well....to be blunt, their priorities are fucked up.

[BrassFusion]

The world is a stupid place. Welcome.

[Marblez]

they are condemning their daughters to cancer in 40 years.

I know of at least 2 women who contracted cervical cancer in their 20's. My mother being one of them. I don't think this kind of cancer waits quite as long as others.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I was under the impression that the Government had no right to tell anyone what to do with thier own body.

I do beleive thats why you can opt out of ALL vacines.

I could be wrong though. Perhaps your right and the Government has the right, nay.. the duty, to tell us what we can and can not do with our bodys. I mean, they know better than we do whats good for us or what the best choice for us is.

Sarcasm aside...

WTF? How can any of you, who normally take the stance of individual rights over government control, condone the forcing of any medical procedure on anyone else? Do you really want to set this precidence? You really want the government to decide who gets what medical treatment? Is it the goernments business who gets an abortion? No, it's not.. so how can you say that this somehow is different?

[sinmantyx]

I was under the impression that the Government had no right to tell anyone what to do with thier own body.

I do beleive thats why you can opt out of ALL vacines.

I could be wrong though. Perhaps your right and the Government has the right, nay.. the duty, to tell us what we can and can not do with our bodys. I mean, they know better than we do whats good for us or what the best choice for us is.

Sarcasm aside...

WTF? How can any of you, who normally take the stance of individual rights over government control, condone the forcing of any medical procedure on anyone else? Do you really want to set this precidence? You really want the government to decide who gets what medical treatment? Is it the goernments business who gets an abortion? No, it's not.. so how can you say that this somehow is different?

I said no such thing. I personal think they should NOT opt out and that their reasons are fucked up. I never said that they should not have the RIGHT to opt out. I whole-heartedly believe they should have the RIGHT to opt out.

People opting out of vaccinations increases MY risk and my families' risk of contracting disease. That's the price we pay for liberty and I'm cool with that.

[sinmantyx]

I know of at least 2 women who contracted cervical cancer in their 20's. My mother being one of them. I don't think this kind of cancer waits quite as long as others.

For the longest time (according to my mother, who did work in health care for a while) the link between cervical cancer and sexual activity was not publicized in order to avoid the disease from going "underground". The idea was that people would be more apt to seek screening and treatment during that time, if it wasn't considered some sort of judgment for sexual activity.

I'm not a misinformationalist, but I wonder if doctors just said "a virus" causing 70% of cervical cancer instead of a "sexually transmitted" virus that causes 70% of cervical cancer, if there would be nearly as much controversy. *sigh* (...just to be very clear, I'm NOT condoning white-lying to the public "for their own good" that's what I meant by not being a "misinformationalist"...)

[Homicidalheathen]

I agree. They are too quick to use vaccines and drugs these days without enough testing. We are test subjects.

Even the flu vaccine scares me at times.

I figure, If I have safe sex and am choosy and careful, eat well and excersize....I will be ok.

Someone told me I need to get re vaccinated for everything since it has been since I was 5 that I had it done. Well, at that time they said it was for life....so who is right?

If you get vaccinated too much for something doesn't it give you the thing your getting vaccinated for?

I don't even know when my last tetanus shot was...but I would rather take my chances on not getting the vaccine for now.

This is a subject about which I find myself both emphatic, and reserved.

I am reserved because there have been accusations that the vaccine hasn't undergone rigorous enough testing, even though it has been approved by the FDA. I don't know, and I haven't really found any information regarding whether this vaccine has been tested more or less thoroughly than others released. I do know that when the polio vaccine came out, they almost couldn't make it fast enough for the public. For this aspect, I need more information, and thus am disinclined to render judgment.

On the other hand, I cannot but view the attempt to keep this from being part of the battery of vaccinations given to children as a mandatory prerequisite to entering public school as a certain kind of child abuse. Either through the parents' ignorance, or their complete inability to deal with anything surrounding sexual relationships rationally, they are condemning their daughters to cancer in 40 years. Would they be so disinclined to inoculate their girls if we were talking about smallpox? Smallpox is practically wiped off the planet, but for a few test samples, because of proper and mandatory vaccinations. This vaccine won't have quite that profound an effect, but damnit--what's so awful about ensuring that your daughter never gets cervical cancer?

[sinmantyx]

If you get vaccinated too much for something doesn't it give you the thing your getting vaccinated for?

I don't even know when my last tetanus shot was...but I would rather take my chances on not getting the vaccine for now.

No, it doesn't. There were some earlier vaccines where there were issues with contracting the disease for which you were getting vaccinated, but I don't believe there are any modern cases. It's definitely something you may want to look into more deeply before making your decision.

Back in the day, we used mercury to preserve vaccines and found out that was a very bad idea. I think those early goof-ups are what make many people worried about vaccines. That, and simply not understanding them. The most common serious problems with vaccines are much much less likely than getting the disease because you were never vaccinated. However, I think people worry more about the here and now than the might-be, so getting vaccinated is simply a bit intimidating.

Studies tend to be transparent, especially in the whole "information age"...there have been several studies with thousands of women participating with this particular vaccine. I think some worry might be the lack of a study over many many years (a longitudinal study) of those who have been vaccinated. However, if we waited for such studies for all vaccines, we wouldn't be getting this vaccine until another generation has passed. As it is however, the vaccine represents about 20 years of study and research.

The last vaccine I got was a flu shot. I usually don't get one. I only got one this year because I was pregnant and if I got the flu, it could seriously harm the fetus.

[pomba gira]

I agree. They are too quick to use vaccines and drugs these days without enough testing. We are test subjects.

Even the flu vaccine scares me at times.

I figure, If I have safe sex and am choosy and careful, eat well and excersize....I will be ok.

Someone told me I need to get re vaccinated for everything since it has been since I was 5 that I had it done. Well, at that time they said it was for life....so who is right?

If you get vaccinated too much for something doesn't it give you the thing your getting vaccinated for?

I don't even know when my last tetanus shot was...but I would rather take my chances on not getting the vaccine for now.

NO!!!! Even back in the old days when "live" versions of vaccines were used, it was not a matter of being "vaccinated too much", rather that there was a certain risk of contracting the illness, or a related one, rather than just gaining the antibodies. This isn't an issue with modern vaccines. The anti-vaccination camp is mostly concerned with the preservatives used in vaccines rather than the danger of contracting the disease.

I agree that you should inform yourself more before making a decision on getting your "childhood" vaccinations re-done. But you definitely need to keep up your tetanus shots. You can get tetanus thru any kind of wound (not just puncture wounds altho they are especially susceptible) even if it was done with a sterile implement... the organisms do not necessarily have to enter the wound on the object that causes it. I don't get flu vaccinations for a variety of reasons... although I do urge the elders in my family to do so. But I make damn sure my tetanus shots are current.

AFA whether there is adequate testing of vaccines, they are kind of damned if they do, damned if they don't. People want to be protected from dangerous illnesses, NOW, but they want that protection to be 100% safe... which nothing in this world is ever going to be. As sinmantyx pointed out, the risks from just about any vaccine I can think of are less than the risks from the illness it prevents. But people in western countries nowadays are able to ignore that fact because the past couple generations have not lived with the reality of those infectious diseases that used to kill or cripple large numbers of children (and plenty of adults for that matter)- and still do in places where vaccination is not available to everyone.

[Steven]

there is still a good degree of risk involved with ingesting ANY vaccine, and if you do a bit of research on whats in vaccines you's wonder in general if you want that stuff in your body at all. I know a tattoo artist in LA that had a freak reaction to a standard vaccine that resulted in a brain swelling and the end of her life. that shit does happen, and when you think about it how many ads do you see for legal representation against companeis that placed their product on the market after receiving FDA approval? Its my opinionthat the FDA is no safer than any other organization.

By the way ever school in AMerica gets a government stipend for each vaccinated child. they tell yo that you dont have to by law vaccinate yrou children, but then they force you into it.

an interesting research source: www.tetrahedron.org

that's dr. horowitz's website.

the man has some off beat ideas, but he's done his homework and has been pursued and hassled by the government for his published works, and they took his kids from him and put them in the system when he refused to have them immunized. Horowitz makes soem compelling arguments about the relaities versus the hype of vaccines versus the life cycles of certain epidemics.

[pomba gira]

there is still a good degree of risk involved with ingesting ANY vaccine, and if you do a bit of research on whats in vaccines you's wonder in general if you want that stuff in your body at all. I know a tattoo artist in LA that had a freak reaction to a standard vaccine that resulted in a brain swelling and the end of her life. that shit does happen, and when you think about it how many ads do you see for legal representation against companeis that placed their product on the market after receiving FDA approval? Its my opinionthat the FDA is no safer than any other organization.

Perfectly true. FDA approval doesn't mean that a medication is 100% safe and will never harm anyone. It means that, all things being equal, to the best of our ability to calculate, it will harm significantly fewer people than the illness it is intended to prevent or treat.

[sinmantyx]

Perfectly true. FDA approval doesn't mean that a medication is 100% safe and will never harm anyone. It means that, all things being equal, to the best of our ability to calculate, it will harm significantly fewer people than the illness it is intended to prevent or treat.

Being vaccinated is not risk-less and neither is walking across the street...both can kill you. I'm actually pretty sure more people die crossing the street.

[ZhukovCodeslinger]

Christian... ...are resisting because they believe that giving their girls the vaccine somehow promotes and condones premarital sex.

reason number xxx to avoid people who claim to speak on behalf of imaginary dieties who supposedly know whats best for you... and want you dead.

[ZhukovCodeslinger]

Being vaccinated is not risk-less and neither is walking across the street...both can kill you. I'm actually pretty sure more people die crossing the street.

actually cervical cancer is pretty common... so i would say that the vaccines danger is miniscule...

similar to the chances of being killed by wild tigers in michigan... in the winter... in a walmart bathroom... with Scott Baio standing there waiting his turn for the urinal (everyone knows Scott Baio waits for no man)