| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/02/2007 11:58:53 PM · #51 |
OKAY, I usually will keep quiet about this kind of thing but for all of you who think this vaccine is wrong, I urge you to please READ:
I was diagnosed with HPV about a year and a half ago. I was pregnant with my daughter at the time. Pregnancy was very very painful and most of the time, I could not even get out of bed. One of the main reasons my little dog became so important to me is, he comforted me in times of severe pain.
At the beginning of last year, 4 months after my daughter was born, they did a biopsy. I had extremely fast spreading pre-cancer. They immediately did a cone biopsy to remove what of it they could. Cone biopsies HURT. They burn your insides with a laser. Again, I was sick and in pain for about 4 months.
When the tests came back, they were inconclusive. They weren't sure they got it all. So, last August, I had to have a hysterectomy. Again, I was in pain for a long time. Now, I can no longer bear children. I have pain every month. I have to worry about scar tissue and any cells they may have missed when they did the last surgery. A vaccine would have prevented ALL of this.
HOW did I get it? HOW did I not know I had it? Those are good questions!
My first husband had it when we got married. (See? Abstinence does not prevent this disease! You NEVER know.) Surprise! (Just so you are aware, condoms MAY or MAY NOT prevent the spread of this disease. There are no definitive results one way or the other.) Neither of us EVER had ANY symptoms. From what I learned on Web MD, there is no test for men for this disease and in women (personal experience) if the doctors aren't looking for HPV, they rarely find it.
HPV worked on me for 10 years.... I had MANY paps during that time and not ONE came back abnormal. I was lucky to have carried my daughter to two weeks from term.
NO woman should EVER have to go through this and the plain and simple fact is, wouldn't you rather give your daughter the protection she deserves than take the CHANCE that she could contract this horrible disease? I guarantee you, it is HORRIBLE. Another year (mine spread fast once it started to take good hold) and I would have had to have radiation therapy or I might have died. I was LUCKY. I don't have it now, but look what I lost in the process.
I'm here to tell you, my daughter will get that vaccine as SOON as she becomes old enough (I believe it is 11yrs). A vaccine that prevents CANCER?? How could you not want to protect her from a malicious virus with a simple stick in the arm?
If any of you would like to know more about this disease, I urge you to read this:
WEB MD HPV
I lived on this site reading every day until I knew exactly what my doctors were telling me and what to expect. It was not a good feeling.
Just a personal story for relation. I usually do not share this kind of personal information with the world but I felt it needed to be said after reading this thread.
Jojo
One more thing, If what I read on that site is correct, if men have it and are not treated, they can develop prostate cancer.
Message edited by author 2007-02-03 00:02:07. |
|
|
|
02/02/2007 11:59:13 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
[...] MMR and its alleged connection to autism [...] |
I'm not aware of reputable medical evidence to support this, only anectodes. However, there are highly reputable studies which argue against a link (refer to NEJM article here) |
|
|
|
02/03/2007 12:20:29 AM · #53 |
My first husband had it when we got married. (See? Abstinence does not prevent this disease! You NEVER know.) Surprise! (Just so you are aware, condoms MAY or MAY NOT prevent the spread of this disease. There are no definitive results one way or the other.)
I certainly don't mean any disrespect for your experience, but my wife knew that I was abstinent before we got married. Abstinence is the ONLY 100% prevention, but just like any part of a relationship between two people, it takes both sides, not just one.
Unfortunately, you are not alone in your experience, and health care providers really need to keep that in mind. People will even stretch this argument into the "what if your daughter is raped in college" situation (which I'm surprised hasn't come up yet that I've seen in this discussion), similar to the abortion debate, and there we go...the firestorm of impaired judgement due to alcohol and/or drugs at parties and violent crime and abortion, etc, etc.
So now it is...what an instigator I'm being :) I love the debate and discussion!
|
|
|
|
02/03/2007 12:33:11 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
[...] Therefore, I accept only empirical proofs, based on my own criteria, and not the FDA's or any other countries equivalent for that matter. [...] |
I don't know of any higher set of standards than that of the FDA. Large-scale drug studies can never be perfect, and much second-guessing can take place afterwards, but the FDA requires very well conducted studies documenting both the safety and efficacy of a treatment before giving approval. Many argue that the FDA standards are too high and thus prevent potentially important therapies from being available sooner, or at all. Which all leaves me wondering what constitutes empirical proof? |
|
|
|
02/03/2007 12:33:17 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by asimchoudhri:
Originally posted by srdanz:
[...] MMR and its alleged connection to autism [...] |
I'm not aware of reputable medical evidence to support this, only anectodes. However, there are highly reputable studies which argue against a link (refer to NEJM article here) |
I wrote "alleged". I did not prove, nor it is my intention to prove this. I have suspicion, and that's good enough for me. Any further discussion on this topic in the forums will not prove or disprove the validity and functionality of the vaccine. Also, pointing to journals of medicine that are written here means nothing to me. Give me a cross-section of articles written on the subject in the UK, Australia, France, Russia, Romania, China, Indonesia, etc. over the past 10 years on the topic, and I'll listen. And I still reserve the right to draw my own conclusions.
Someone suggested that this vaccine prevents cancer. Excuse me, but that's reaching. I do not believe that you can point to any study or document (even from Merck) that claims this. Reduces the chance, yes, prevents, hell no. Nobody wants to put their name behind such claim.
Then why did I make this post the way I did it - I was interested in other people's opinions on the subject, and I am happy to see the responses and draw conclusions from them, learn about my (virtual) environment. |
|
|
|
02/03/2007 12:36:02 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
I wrote "alleged". I did not prove, nor it is my intention to prove this. I have suspicion, and that's good enough for me. Any further discussion on this topic in the forums will not prove or disprove the validity and functionality of the vaccine. Also, pointing to journals of medicine that are written here means nothing to me. Give me a cross-section of articles written on the subject in the UK, Australia, France, Russia, Romania, China, Indonesia, etc. over the past 10 years on the topic, and I'll listen. And I still reserve the right to draw my own conclusions. |
I'm curious why you even bothered to post this in the forums for discussion if you aren't willing to listen to anything anyone has to say about it.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2007 12:46:35 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
[...] Someone suggested that this vaccine prevents cancer. Excuse me, but that's reaching. I do not believe that you can point to any study or document (even from Merck) that claims this. Reduces the chance, yes, prevents, hell no. Nobody wants to put their name behind such claim. [...] |
I agree with this 100%. I also would agree about the inaccuracy of statements that this vaccine "will prevent" or "would have prevented" unfortunate outcomes. The terms "may prevent," "could prevent," "could have prevented," or "could have reduced the chances of" are probably more accurate.
Vaccines (and all therapies) are about chances. The HPV vaccine is predicted to, on a population basis, reduce the overall number of cancer cases, and is given to asymptomatic patients. Thus, they have a high standard to prove of benefit versus risk, since it does no one any good to introduce complications into a person who had no problem to begin with. However, chemotherapy drugs for patients with active cancer are highly toxic medications with lots of side effects. They still have to achieve a high standard of benefit versus risk, but the comparisons are different since this patient is not asymptomatic, and no treatment may mean death, so severe nausea and hair loss may be considered acceptable in this case. |
|
|
|
02/03/2007 12:48:15 AM · #58 |
On the FDA...
maybe there isn't a better administration in the world than the US FDA. However, that does not make it perfect. Google search for "FDA" and "failure" returns 1,270,000 hits, each describing some kind of omission.
Example: US is so 'advanced' that it is OK to sell things in stores that only resemble food. I'm talking about genetically modified crops. Sure, it's been tested. And you can trust it with your life (you are, implicitly, by buying such products in the stores). However, the true effect of consumption of such food will not be known for another generation. (It is obvious right now if you look at the people around you, I'm talking about the realization that the genetic engineering is behind it that will come in 10 years or so.)
And now we are faced with not being able to go to the store and look at the labels to determine whether the meat comes from the cloned, genetically engineered animal or from a natural one. I guess in 5-10 years it won't matter because the latter will be extinct.
What was the reasoning behind genetically engineered food? America wasn't in danger of not being able to produce enough food. It was the matter of ROI, and that was the primary area of research.
And again, this is my opinion, not provable by going to some link of some society, and I still foolishly go to Whole Foods and buy those organic, natural, etc. products for 10x the cost of good ol' 99c burger patties... and I'll keep doing that until I can afford to do it. I do not have plans to force anyone to follow me, just posting my opinion in a public forum.
Good luck to us all in the future. May we all be healthy and never see the need for a pharmaceutical product.
Message edited by author 2007-02-03 00:53:42. |
|
|
|
02/03/2007 12:55:55 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I'm curious why you even bothered to post this in the forums for discussion if you aren't willing to listen to anything anyone has to say about it. |
John,
I am listening (reading) all posts, and as I said, I'm curious to get the feel about the society that surrounds me. That helps me position myself when I need to officially react on issues like this one. I made up my mind, given the information offered to me. It may be a stupid decision, only time will tell.
And DPC forums (and all other internet forums) are for entertainment only, I did not expect to get medical advice here. Photography-related things - definitively, I want to think that I take better pictures because of DPC, but I will not let such discussions sway my opinion on the subject. I did not ask for advice on what should I do. I hoped for (and I've got) other people's opinion on the matter. I just used a little bit of controversy and the political background that exists in everything we discuss these days to entice the responses.
I hope that this answers your question. |
|
|
|
02/03/2007 01:04:34 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
On the FDA...
maybe there isn't a better administration in the world than the US FDA. However, that does not make it perfect. Google search for "FDA" and "failure" returns 1,270,000 hits, each describing some kind of omission.
[...] |
While 1.27 million sounds impressive, keep in mind that this google search includes statements such as:
- Drug A was not approved by the FDA because it was shown to cause renal failure
- Drug B was approved by the FDA for treatment of X. A reduced dose is recommended for patients with renal failure
- Drug C was approved by the FDA for treatment of congestive heart failure
- Drug D is under review by the FDA to treat rejection in transplant patients with graft failure
- Company E's pacemaker was not approved by the FDA due to unacceptable rates of battery failure
- Clinical trials on drug F were stopped due to a failure to show improved survival in cancer patients, and applications for FDA approval were withdrawn |
|
|
|
02/03/2007 01:08:01 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I'm curious why you even bothered to post this in the forums for discussion if you aren't willing to listen to anything anyone has to say about it. |
John,
I am listening (reading) all posts, and as I said, I'm curious to get the feel about the society that surrounds me. That helps me position myself when I need to officially react on issues like this one. I made up my mind, given the information offered to me. It may be a stupid decision, only time will tell.
And DPC forums (and all other internet forums) are for entertainment only, I did not expect to get medical advice here. Photography-related things - definitively, I want to think that I take better pictures because of DPC, but I will not let such discussions sway my opinion on the subject. I did not ask for advice on what should I do. I hoped for (and I've got) other people's opinion on the matter. I just used a little bit of controversy and the political background that exists in everything we discuss these days to entice the responses.
I hope that this answers your question. |
Vaccines are something I have studied in detail lately in my Anatomy & Physiology class. All I can tell is that vaccines have a phenomenal track record of doing more good than harm. As someone posted earlier, a vaccine is not a synthetically produced 'drug' of any kind. They are weakened forms of the virus they are designed to prevent. They give your body the opportunity to create antibodies against the virus before the actual virus infects you. Vaccines are not 100% effective. Certain people will contract a disease they have been vaccinated against. It's rare, but it does happen. Some vaccines also require boosters over time. Contrary to popular belief, vaccines do not make you sick when you get them. The 'risk' associated with receiving a vaccine almost non-existent.
//www.cdc.gov/nip/vaccine/recalls/default.htm#recalls
Here is a list of recently recalled vaccines from the CDC. If you look through these, most of them are recalled because they might have either been stored improperly, or the dosage may be too low to be effective. In either case, receiving that vaccine would not be harmful to the recipient.
Cancers kill people. Vaccines do not.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2007 01:21:48 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Some vaccines also require boosters over time. |
Yes, this is actually one of those. It has an effectiveness of about 4.5 years.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2007 01:28:11 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I simply don't follow the logic of NOT getting the vaccine. How is vaccinating against a disease with potentially lethal effects a bad thing?
What if your daughter were raped and got HPV that way? As if the trauma of being raped, along with all of the possibilities for other venereal diseases, including AIDS, you would also have the specter of HPV and cervical cancer hang over her head. I just don't understand how you could NOT protect your daughter from that possibility. |
Maybe I'm wrong. I'm ready to live with the consequences as long as I make decisions about my underage children.
|
For her sake, I hope you're right.
I still think it's unconscionable to take that kind of risk with the life of another person, especially your own child, when the consequences are so bad.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2007 01:39:03 AM · #64 |
I am not even going to speak what I thought of in the first place because it has been said over and over. Cause and Effect, Pro's & Con's. Coming from a long line of women who have had hysterectomy's before 30. I tend to say hell ya if I could have offered myself for this shot I would.
If I can possibly protect my child from a nasty cancer yeah I will do it.
Just like if they make a West Nile Vacine you bet your life on it, I would jump on it in a heart beat.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2007 01:40:29 AM · #65 |
From: //www.uihealthcare.com/news/currents/vol2issue2/hpv.html
HPV infection is the most common sexually transmitted disease (STD) in the U.S.: for example, more than one-third of the estimated 15.3 million new cases of STD in 1996 were attributable to HPV infection. Improved detection techniques now help identify a larger number of the predominantly asymptomatic HPV cases than before. In spite of this high incidence of HPV infection, nearly 70% of Americans have never heard of it, and about 89% have never discussed HPV infection with their physician. Even more alarming is that, among physicians, the awareness of the high incidence of HPV infection as an STD is disproportionately low.
There is a lot of talk in here about the prevention of cancer. Don't get me wrong here...I am involved with *thousands* of cancer survivors and victims through my work the the ACS's Relay For Life and the benefits we are talking about here are amazing...but some of us who are 'abstaining' from the vaccine are missing the point.
5 MILLION new cases of STDs in 1996 were atrributed to HPV!!!!
Forget for a moment that it may prevent cancer. Go do a search on Genital Warts. Go do a search on HPV and what it can do to your body. Then imagine for a moment that in many many people (men and women) that this disease can HIDE and not be noticed for years.
Imagine having a partner who refused to use prophylactic protection but KNEW that they had the disease and hid that fact from their partner out of embarrasment!
Yes I agree that this appears political. Yes I agree that we often, often have the awful discovery that side-effects years from the beginning of use have cropped up. Yes some people may actually contact this disease despite a vaccination.
Don't shut your eyes to the possibility of contraction of this disease because you are so damn sure that your partner is pure or that your child will make it past their 12th birthday without being convinced by some other kid that experimenting is OK. Look at the clinical studies and then suppose, *just suppose* that Merck might have been the only one in the game to have the money and the wherewithal to actually pull off the realization of a vaccine that can do what it says.
Women cannot afford to take the chance.
Men, you can't afford to not know what contracting this disease CAN do to you too.
Don't be fooled into thinking that this is just about women or promiscuity. The numbers are staggering.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2007 01:50:53 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
If you don't know Rick Perry now, you probably will soon. He's on the short list of possible VP candidates for the GOP in the next presidential election.
Just my 2 cents. |
Uh after this one, I think it will be a long time before you see another republican president from Texas. One could only hope so anyway.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2007 02:03:36 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
But I'm not changing my mind until I see the proof that I can accept. |
That is going to be pretty tough (seeing proof you can accept) when you have already closed off info from about every source mentioned here or availalbe anywhere. Your admission is that your opinion is based on your world knowledge, even that which has been proven not factual by most reasoable people.
Scary to be be so sure of yourself and have others health and maybe life dependent on those beliefs.
Good luck with your choices. |
|
|
|
02/03/2007 02:04:48 AM · #68 |
Sometimes I feel like some of you consider me a caveman that does not understand the concept of vaccination.
I really do. I understand the concept of immunoglobulin (whatever this is in English) and how the immunity is built.
Among other things, I was vaccinated against smallpox and TBC, which is not something that is required here. OK, smallpox is considered rare, but TBC really surprises me. That's one vaccine that I've seen work all over the world, and the refusal to administer it here is surprising. I guess there is no real money in something as established as BCG.
It is exactly the negligence such as vaccine storage etc. that is worrying me with these vaccines, and the non-zero probability of the adverse reaction human body can have when the vaccine is administered.
Again, thank you for providing the information to the contrary of what I believe in. I am reading it, and digesting it, but it does not eliminate my worries, as it is just one big game of numbers. And I'll limit my number games to the likes of Vegas and stock market:-)
I'm off to vote now on a free study (some marvelous work there) and enjoy the true beauty of DPC, and then I'll check on this thread later. |
|
|
|
02/03/2007 02:05:17 AM · #69 |
If the drug company were to "give" the shots away in order to help the health of the population, that would be one thing. This is clearly a stab at making billions of dollars.
Re-frakin' diculous
I like what the governer says "Disease costs us lots of money, it makes fiscal sense" - Since when has the government been paying health care costs of anybody but illegals?
I am getting tired of all this forcing people to do things. The Government acts like it is "their" children. It is not their children, it is our children. This sort of ticks me off. |
|
|
|
02/03/2007 02:31:36 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by boomtap:
If the drug company were to "give" the shots away in order to help the health of the population, that would be one thing. This is clearly a stab at making billions of dollars.
Re-frakin' diculous
I like what the governer says "Disease costs us lots of money, it makes fiscal sense" - Since when has the government been paying health care costs of anybody but illegals?
I am getting tired of all this forcing people to do things. The Government acts like it is "their" children. It is not their children, it is our children. This sort of ticks me off. |
How much do you think it costs the companies to research and produce a vaccine? This vaccine alone has been under study for years. How much do you think the average scientist gets paid? Yes, they do have to make a profit... possibly just to break even.
Disease does cost the government money... ever been to a free clinic? I have and I know a lot of other people that have too. If you have never had to use it, that's great. But there are people besides illegals that use the resources available to them.
Not arguing, just giving something else to consider.
. |
|
|
|
02/03/2007 02:51:50 AM · #71 |
boomtap & tcguru, your comments are appreciated, but have potential to dangerously sidetrack the conversation into unwanted waters of political background. This unfortunately is probably inevitable... in the meantime, here is a link to a blog that has some interesting impressions by someone that did some reading on the topic. Again, not the whole truth, but just a nibble.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2007 02:52:38 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by TCGuru:
But there are people besides illegals that use the resources available to them.
|
Yes, such as seniors and the handicap.
Besides, profit from the HPV vaccine is being used for other drug research, such as an HIV vaccine and certain therapeutic vaccines that can treat cancer.
The science behind this "new" vaccine is not new. Merck just happened to be the company that isolated the proteins that would evoke a response from the immune system. Similar VLP vaccines have been widely tested.
Message edited by author 2007-02-03 02:53:29.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2007 03:02:50 AM · #73 |
Srdan, I do understand your suspicions about the drug industry. They do tend to push drugs nowadays. It seems odd to me that everyone has ADHD, now that there is a drug for it. LOL
But, I hope this is not a politically based decision on your part.
Believe me, I think all lobbyists should be tried and hung for treason, but some things aren't worth "rebelling against".
Message edited by author 2007-02-03 03:04:34.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2007 03:10:35 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
[...] Among other things, I was vaccinated against smallpox and TBC, which is not something that is required here. OK, smallpox is considered rare, but TBC really surprises me. That's one vaccine that I've seen work all over the world, and the refusal to administer it here is surprising. I guess there is no real money in something as established as BCG. [...] |
I don't think the BCG vaccine decision has to do with money. The efforts to control TB in the US is very large and well organized. With the BCG vaccine, it becomes difficult to detect cases of latent TB and track the spread of the disease. In countries where there is a higher rate of active TB, BCG is given and efforts are made at treating cases of active TB and surveillance of latent cases is not seen as a fruitful effort.
The risks of exposure to TB in the general population in the US are low, and the risks and trade-offs of BCG are not considered worthwhile. By limiting the ability to successfully detect and treat cases of latent TB, BCG could be said to have a negative public health impact in an low-prevalence environment (independent of costs).
I have spent a large amount of time in direct exposure to patients with active TB, and I personally would not want the BCG vaccine. If I was given the BCG vaccine, which reduces but does not prevent infection with TB, I would be placing myself at higher risk since I would not be able to detect (and treat) a latent infection. It's more complex than that, but this is probably enough of an explanation for now. The science and statistics behind vaccines, public health, screening, and things like this are EXTREMELY complex. However, BCG vaccine likely does not have a role in the United States or other environments where the exposure risk to the general population is low. In countries where treating active cases takes all the available resources, and it is not seen as effective to screen for latent cases, then BCG would have a role. |
|
|
|
02/03/2007 03:32:30 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
But, I hope this is not a politically based decision on your part.
Believe me, I think all lobbyists should be tried and hung for treason, but some things aren't worth "rebelling against". |
No, Leroy, it is not politically motivated. Nor religiously, but I think that I've explained my dissatisfaction with the research done up to date in my other posts. Among other things, the research has not been done on the same age group the treatment is recommended for (very few girls were used in research). I'm just afraid that we do not know the effects yet.
And before you crucify me for ruining my daughter's life, I should mention that in reality, I have almost a decade before my kid grows up to the age the vaccination is recommended to first occur. (Unless our conservative governor decides that kids are sexually active at age 6, in which case I'll have to reconcile things earlier.) Asim, I appreciate your objective and professional input. Thanks for your explanation of BCG non-use here. |
|
