HPV Vaccine for Boys

..."of the 100 different types of HPV, only fifteen might someday develop into cancer, the vaccine targets only two; moreover, the relationship between infection with HPV at a young age and later development of cancer is unknown."

"Virginia is currently the only state requiring that all children be vaccinated with the HPV vaccine, and Virginia legislators have introduced a bill to repeal the HPV vaccine requirement—HB1112."

Read more http://www.anh-usa.org/have-the-pediatricians-lost-their-minds/

 

I thought it was recommended??? I didn't vaccinate my daughter, although the school recommended it. Did they recently require this?

 

It's a requirement with an "opt-out" provision and currently going through a repeal process.

Take action here https://secure3.convio.net/aahf/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1048

 

It amazes me that as a society we rail, moan, and beat our chests about the scourge of cancer on our lives. We have walks and races and bike rides and telethons and talk and talk of finding a cure.

In this case...we have one. Don't get HPV in the first place. If you don't, your risk of getting cervical cancer is reduced. Data about childhood infection progressing to cancer is a red herring. Data about certain genotypes of HPV, when present, progressing to cancer is proven.

For folks who have a general objection to vaccines for whatever reason, I'm okay with objecting to this one, too. I don't agree and I think the "anti-vaccine" science is junk, but if you're consistent in your objection, I respect that. Folks who only object to this one, I just don't understand. And the religious right's objection because they think their precious 12 year old daughters are never going to have sex is mind-boggling to me.

 

T8erGirl...Religious right???? Wow...you are ignorant

 

I think you just attacked me personally and I think that means you don't have anything significant to contribute. Thanks for chiming in.

 

I am not religious and I object to this vaccine being a requirement for school. It is a matter of freedom.

 

My core nature agrees with you. I actually don't love the idea that our government has to basically force us to get any vaccines as a requirement for school. You should get vaccinated because you have a brain in your head. Because doing so protects not only you, but your fellow humans. Problem is, a lot of folks don't. Not because they object to it, because they're lazy and they don't care or they're uneducated. And because that's a threat to public health, they've created these requirements.

I'm not talking here about the people who've constructed some overall belief system that all vaccines are bad. As I said in my earlier post, if you're consistent with your objection to vaccines, I totally respect that. My issue with this one vaccine is that the very fact that they now want boys to get it is because so many people on the religious right stirred up such a ruckus that enough girls did not get vaccinated to a degree to have there be "herd immunity" to the virus. Deciding to vaccinate boys came much later and as a result of that. I've read all the mumbo jumbo they say and it comes down to this....some people just can't get their heads out of the sand to acknowledge that some day their daughters will be sexual beings. EVERYONE is eventually. It was as if they thought that immunizing their girls would suddenly make them sexually active. As if their girls will be the only ones who never have unprotected sex.

 

I'm not saying that she'll never have sex (ugh), but to make the leap from Littlest Pet Shop toys to sex vaccines is a pretty big leap for me. Just sayin'. I've read that this only protects against 2 of the many kinds of cervical cancer and that the cons far outweigh the pros. I obviously haven't read enough stats yet to decide one way or the other. But if all the boys get vaccinated, that too will help eradicate it, right? SO MANY CHANGES too fast!!

 

Or maybe some of those who object are educated and have invested a lot of effort researching the topic and have decided that what is best for them is to refuse the vaccines. Take for example this study on the non-acceptance of the HBV virus.

"Higher maternal education was also associated with non-receipt of HBV (adjusted OR, master’s degree vs 8th grade or less, 1.67, 95% CI 1.49-1.86)."

http://idsa.confex.com/idsa/2010/webprogram/Paper3284.html

 

Vaccines or immunizations (injection of biological agents) are not always an effective deterent against disease. We're told it's for the "greater good", but is it really? Do we allow it because the government mandates it, claims it is safe although there are no long term studies to support it?

"If a child contracts childhood diseases naturally, it is estimated that up to a total of 7% of their immune system is taken up with responding to these diseases. However, a child who undergoes the routine course of vaccinations, risks having up to 70% of his/her immune system committed to these antigens and no longer available for other immune challenges. Current research suggests this reduced immune-response capacity is responsible for increased susceptibility to other infections, allergies, and auto-immune diseases. Other researchers argue that these attenuated forms of the viruses remain in the body causing continual antigenic stimulation of the immune system which also weakens it and leads to auto-immune diseases."

Should I Vaccinate My Child?
http://www.healingwell.com/library/health/thompson2.asp

 

Vaccines have saved so many lives ...... I suggest you go visit somewhere where vaccines aren't "mandated" and form your view....

 

If you were told your child needs a vaccine and there is a 50% chance the vaccine would cause irrepairable damage or cancer, would you comply because your blanket view is that it saves many lives?

If the dangers/side effects were concealed from you because the ISDA, CDC and Pharmaceutical companies believe the benefits outweigh the risks and they don't want to cause alarm or panic to the general public yet there is lingering doubt among scientists as to the vaccines efficacy, you would comply with the mandate?

As published on LifeGen.de http://www.naturalnews.com/025760.html, serious questions like this are being raised:

"Baxter International Inc. in Austria 'unintentionally contaminated samples with the bird flu virus that were used in laboratories in 3 neighbouring countries, raising concern about the potential spread of the deadly disease'. Austria, Germany, Slowenia and the Czech Republic - these are the countries in which labs were hit with dangerous viruses. Not by bioterrorist commandos, but by Baxter. In other words: One of the major global pharmaceutical players seems to have lost control over a virus which is considered by many virologists to be one of the components leading some day to a new pandemic."

And by sheer providence the vaccine was tested on Ferrets and they all died.

Personally, I think there needs to be a compromise. The public is grossly uninformed, whether intentional or not. We hear all the time about "taking personal responsibilty" for our lives yet we roll over when the government tells us it's for the sake of the common good.

Stay informed.

 

My opinions are based on what I feel is right for my family, as residents in a modernized society. We are lucky to have closed sewers, sanitation, and hygiene to protect us from infectious disease in this country. Infectious disease has been replaced by chronic disease. Chronic disease is what is killing us now and vaccines contribute to chronic disease by destroying our immune systems. If you think vaccines are good for you, take as many as you want. I don't make it my job to try to change anyone's views on vaccines and I certainly don't tell anyone not to use them. If you think they are good for you then use them. That's the only problem I have with this whole debate. It's not arguing over efficacy, safety, or history. I could be here all day arguing about that. The problem is you have one group of people that believes using vaccines is best and you have another group that believes avoiding them is best. One group should not have the power to impose their idea of what's best on the other group. That is the only reason I ever get involved in these debates. I don't care what you put into your body and what health choices you make for your family. That is your right. I want that same right. I have access to the same information as everyone else and when I do my research I come to the conclusion that an immune system is better off without vaccines. A healthy immune system is your best defense. You don't have to agree. Now I would like for all of the information to be made available to parents so that they can make an informed decision but that's another issue. If you really put some time into your research, it's there for you to find. If you somehow come to the conclusion that injecting monkey DNA, formaldehyde, aluminum, polysorbate 80, squalene or any of the other 36 possible foreign substances directly into a baby's bloodstream, bypassing all of the body's natural defenses 69 times while every system in their body is developing, have at it. I wish you the best of outcomes and the best of health. I will not be forced to do the same. You decide for your family and I'll decide for mine.

 

GeauxTigers, if there was a like button I would press it.

 

We can argue vaccinating vs. not vaccinating for years. However, I think we should take a look at history. Fortunately, in this country, we no longer have individuals dying of polio or small pox and this is directly related to vaccinations. There is no reason that a child should die of measles today because their parents chose not to vaccinate them.

 

I think the difference in todays vaccination development compared with vaccinations that developed 100+ years ago, such as polio and small pox, is the business aspect. Today a pharmaceutical company can create a "product", disguise risks, dangers, and side effects based on their own statistics, then they can lobby lawmakers to make their new "product" mandatory for anyone that wants to attend a public school.

Personally I don't think any vaccine or medication should be made mandatory until it has been in circulation for 20+ years, and even then I take issue with making it mandatory.

Not a vaccination story, but a few years back a doctor prescribed my wife Bextra and ensured us it was safe and the best on the market. (I later realized that there were all kinds of Pfizer notepads, pens, and squishy balls at the reception desk.) A week later Bextra was taken off the market due to concerns that included strokes, heart attacks, and death.

 

This is virus is not passed through casual contact. It is also not effective against the majority of HPV strains that cause cancer. It should be totally voluntary.

 

I was just trying to make a point that not all vaccinations are bad as some have alluded to in previous posts. Agreed that if a disease is not passed through casual contact then it should be an individual's choice and not mandated.

 

Sure let's look at history. Take polio for example. This is a disease which is spread via an feces/oral route. You contract the disease by coming into oral contact with the contaminated feces. At the peak of the polio outbreak there was a large campaign to encourage washing your hands after using the bathroom. Also note during the 50s is when modern sewage and public water systems were being introduced on a large scale. Also take a look at the polio incidence rates per year. In the early 50s it peaked at 35 cases per 100,000. By the end of '56, right before the vaccine was introduced, incidence rates were already down to about 10 cases per 100,000. In other words polio incidences in the US were already in steep decline before a vaccine was ever given. In '57 the polio vaccine was introduced. Within a few years the disease was eradicated. Was this the work of the vaccine? Or perhaps was this the work of the modern sanitation and push for better hygiene? I am not saying I know the answer but it certainly casts doubt that it was directly related to the vaccine. Now let's look at some third world countries where there have been yearly polio vaccination campaigns. These countries typically have poor sanitation and hygiene and still experience polio outbreaks despite the vaccinations. Perhaps all the money spent on vaccinations could be better put towards modern sewage and hygiene education? Again I am not saying with certainty that the vaccine didn't contribute but I am saying that there is certainly reason to have doubt that the vaccine eradicated the disease, at least enough doubt to question blindly accepting the possible risks of injecting oneself with the vaccine. I would also like to note that only 1% of those who contracted the disease actually ended up with paralysis.

Now let's take a look at measles. Before the vaccine this disease wasn't even considered all that serious. The death rates were something like 3 in 100,000. Measles also occurred mostly in school age children who are not a high risk group. Furthermore once you had the disease you were truly immune for life, preventing a more dangerous episode later in life as an adult. Since the vaccine there are clearly significantly fewer cases of measles however now it is considered a serious disease. Death rates are reported to be 3 in 1000. This is 100x the death rate from before the vaccine. How is this so? Did the vaccine inadvertently cause a stronger measles to evolve? Maybe the fact that since the vaccine there are a lot more infant and adult cases (age groups who are at higher risk) there are more deaths. Did the vaccine effectively shift the disease to a higher risk group? Also it is well documented that the vaccine doesn't provide full immunity. A vaccinated person can still contract the disease. If this happens later in life that person can be of much greater risk than if he had just contracted the disease as a child. From my view it's hard to say the vaccine has truly provided a benefit and quite possibly caused more problems than before the vaccine. And this doesn't even factor in possible unintended side effects from the vaccine itself which of course is a whole different debate.

Now lets look at smallpox. We have very little record of what happened here. This was in 1796 and there was no such thing as medical records. We have one complete record from a town in England and it shows that when mandatory smallpox vaccination was forced on parents there was a 160% increase in smallpox deaths and you were 5 times more likely to die from smallpox having received the inoculation. Smallpox mortality decreased after mandatory vaccination stopped and continued to decrease. So the role vaccination played in the eradication of smallpox is debatable.

In the 1800s people were also dropping like flies from typhoid, cholera, and yellow fever. Who do we thank for saving our children from those? The Spanish Flu killed something like 50 million people. We are no longer dying from that. No vaccine. Disease can weaken as it passes through the population. Sometimes it goes away, sometimes it changes, sometimes it sticks around.