| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/23 |
| 2005/11/1-4 [Health/Disease/General] UID:40371 Activity:moderate |
11/1 Stupidity watch: Religious groups opposing usage of 100% effective
vaccine against HPV. One of these people has been placed on the CDC
advisory board by Bush.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/10/31/MNG2LFGJFT1.DTL#story
\_ Not stupidity. Evil. Just call it what it is.
\_ How about evil stupidity? Fortunately most people can see
this for what it is: a Taliban level of desire to put
religion above the well being of people. It's truly
disgusting that this is even an issue in a supposedly
advanced country like the United States.
\_ How about evil stupidity? Fortunately most people can see this
for what it is: a Taliban level of desire to put religion above
the well being of people. It's truly disgusting that this is
even an issue in a supposedly advanced country like the United
States.
\_ we live in a fundamentalist Christian government. get used to it.
\_ uhm ok, i think im the only one here who RTFA. they oppose making
it mandatory for all kids, giving parents the choice about what goes
into their kid's drug stream. HPV isn't a plague upon the earth
killing millions of people every year. It isn't going to cause an
epidemic in school like typhoid. they aren't trying to ban the
shots from availability. when everything looks like a big deal,
nothing ends up looking like a big deal.
\_ Do you understand anything about public health?
Or for that matter HPV?
\_ Yes, what about it? Did you RTFA? Do you have something to
say about it? Glad to chat.
\_ not gonna eradicate a disease like that. If it can be eradicated
then people won't need it at all, in a decade or so. and really,
what the religious groups are doing will only hurt the lower class
who won't know any better. It's too bad they didn't know any
better when they voted in Pope Bush II.
\_ that's correct, allowing people to choose will not lead to
eradication. correct me if i'm wrong but isn't it the case
that we have yet to eradicate *any* disease despite having
active programs around the world and working vaccines for
decades for many things and a mandatory shot before entering
school? why is that so? once bush is out of office will all
these diseases suddenly become eradicated or is there some
other thing going on besides the bush boogey man?
\_ We are talking about the United States. Smallpox &
\_ We are talking about the United States. Smallpox, measles &
Polio seem to be pretty well under control here.
\_ You can't isolate a large population like 300m in the
US and claim you're eliminated a disease. We're talking
about the entire world. Giving mandatory shots to
American HS girls won't eradicate any diseases.
\_ Huh? When did we have control over other parts of
the world?
\_ We didn't and can't. Thus the concept of disease
eradication being the reason for mandatory shots
is silly. Glad you agree.
\_ But it has been eradicated HERE.
\_ Disease is world wide. And no, things we
once thought were eradicated HERE are
back and spreading again because they
were not eradicated world wide. Nothing
has been eradicated HERE for that reason.
\_ http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm
\_ god damn it... i thought we went through this 20 years ago...
The reason why conservatives doesn't want to make this vaccine
mandatory is because it actually has side effect of protecting
one from certain form of STD. Under that logic, we need to get
rid of condomns, and hepatitis vaccine as well, as Hepatitis
strictly speaking a STD too!
\_ And the reason for that is, according to the conservative and/or
extremist Christian brain, that if you cure STDs everyone will
sleep around nonstop and start having sex at age 8. Dying
from AIDS and suffering from STDs is preferable to that.
start sleeping around and having sex at age 8. Dying from AIDS
and suffering from STDs is a much better than that scenario.
\_ Some say that. Others say vaccines have caused other medical
problems and putting something in your body should be a choice.
You *are* pro-choice, aren't you?
\_ Parents should be allowed to opt-out. It's not easily
contagious.
contagious. It's STUPID because the downside is increasing
the chances your child will die from a cancer.
\_ Yes, it is truly stupid and I'd get my kids the shots
but I wouldn't *force* another parent to do so if they
didn't want to. It won't hurt my kid if their kid gets
cancer or HPV. Their kid can go get the shot themself
later as an adult (or probably younger than 18 frankly)
if their parents are that extreme. For something
contagious and nasty, yes, I believe enforced vaccination
is the right thing to do, but not HPV.
\_ Clearly you don't know much about HPV infection
statistics. You almost certainly have it already.
Vaccinating after you become sexually active is
pretty much useless.
\_ So I'm going to get cervical cancer? Uh oh....
HPV = STD. A kid who is having sex is going to
get a lot of things. Making a mandatory shot for
something you say I have and is doing nothing of
note to me is ridiculous. This isn't polio. This
isn't the plague. And mandatory shots are not
going to eradicate anything. Make it available,
make it free, whatever. Don't make it mandatory.
It has nothing to do with school, education, or
anything like that. It is not going to spread
at random by sneezing kids in the hallway. Again,
I ask, aren't you pro-choice? Shouldn't we have
the right to decide what does and does not go
into our bodies and what we do with them? That
is the underlying philosophy behind the right to
abortion, air pollution regulations and a bunch
of other things. Why are you forcing something
into some 9 year old's blood stream against her
parent's wishes?
\_ You're a blithering idiot. HPV might not
"do anything to you," but you can pass it on
to any female partner who can then contract
cervical cancer. Cervical cancer is one of
the leading causes of death in women. Condoms
can't really do jack shit to stop it. A women
could do the "right thing" and stay a virgin
until marriage, and still die because she
contracts the disease from her new husband (who
is very difficult to test for this virus and
likely has no idea that he has it). This is
a public health issue, not an issue of "choice."
Or do you just want anyone who ever has sex
to die?
\_ This made me laugh, thanks. "THE SKY IS
FALLING!" Yes, on my way to work I saw at
least 3 dozen women dying by the side of the
road of HPV induced cervical cancer. Again,
this is not a plague. It is not contagious
like many real killers. It is public
health issue in the way that drug use and
alcohol are. I'm glad you have such faith
in the pharmceutical establishment, but
they have a spotty record of selling us
things that turn out later to cause birth
defects, death, sterility, and pretty much
anything else you can think of. If an
entire generation of little girls finds out
they're sterile, you're going to say what?
"At least you're safe from HPV!"
\_ 250K deaths/year in the world isn't
nothing. And they are doing studies
on this first.
\_ Heh, so when I talked about the world,
I'm told we're talking about the US.
When I talked about the US, I'm told
we're talking about the world. I've
said my piece and don't feel like
playing catch-22 rhetorical games in
place of actual topic discussion. If
you have something to actually discuss
I'd be glad to continue. I'm not at
all interested in dormie-style point-
scoring intellectual dishonesty.
\_ You're talking to multiple people.
Deal with it.
\_ I already answered both the
US-only and World-wide people
with no real response. Nothing
to deal with. People who want
9 year olds to get mandatory
drug injections for diseases
that aren't spread in that
environment and aren't causing
polio-like problems are anti-
choice. If they're pro-choice
elsewhere they're inconsistent
and intellectually dishonest.
Dealt with. Done.
\_ So what should be done about
the measels/mumps/rubella
shots that are mandated now?
Are you working against those
because you're so pro-choice?
\_ There's a big difference
between the imposition of
being made to take a shot
and being made to give birth
against your will. The
difference is such that
calling someone who is for
mandatory immunizations
logically inconsistent
because they also support
abortion rights is totally
ridiculous. --PeterM |
| 5/23 |
|
| www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/10/31/MNG2LFGJFT1.DTL#story Email This Article Washington -- A new vaccine that protects against cervical cancer has set up a clash between health advocates who want to use the shots aggressiv ely to prevent thousands of malignancies and social conservatives who sa y immunizing teen-agers could encourage sexual activity. Although the vaccine will not become available until next year at the ear liest, activists on both sides have begun maneuvering to influence how w idely the immunizations will be employed. Groups working to reduce the toll of the cancer are eagerly awaiting the vaccine and want it to become part of the standard roster of shots that children, especially girls, receive just before puberty. Because the vaccine protects against a sexually transmitted virus, many c onservatives oppose making it mandatory, citing fears that it could send a subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage. Several lea ding groups that promote abstinence are meeting this week to formulate o fficial policies on the vaccine. Officials from the companies developing the shots -- Merck & Co. and Glax oSmithKline -- have been meeting with advocacy groups to try to assuage their concerns. The jockeying reflects the growing influence social conservatives, who ha d long felt overlooked by Washington, have gained on a broad spectrum of policy issues under the Bush administration. In this case, a former mem ber of the conservative group Focus on the Family serves on the federal panel that is playing a pivotal role in deciding how the vaccine is used . The vaccine protects women against strains of a ubiquitous germ called th e human papilloma virus. Although many strains of the virus are innocuou s, some can cause cancerous lesions on the cervix (the outer end of the uterus), making them the primary cause of this cancer in the United Stat es. Cervical cancer strikes more than 10,000 US women each year, killi ng more than 3,700. The vaccine appears to be virtually 100 percent effective against two of the most common cancer-causing HPV strains. Merck, whose vaccine is furt her along, plans to ask the Food and Drug Administration by the end of t he year for approval to sell the shots. Exactly how the vaccine is used will be largely determined by the Advisor y Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a panel of experts assembl ed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. The pan el issues widely followed guidelines, including recommendations for chil dhood vaccines that become the basis for vaccination requirements set by public schools. Officials of both companies noted that research indicates the best age to vaccinate would be just before puberty to make sure children are protec ted before they become sexually active. The vaccine would probably be ta rgeted primarily at girls but could also be used on boys to limit the sp read of the virus. "I would like to see it that if you don't have your HPV vaccine, you can' t start high school," said Juan Carlos Felix of the University of Southe rn California, who leads the National Cervical Cancer Coalition's medica l advisory panel. At the ACIP meeting last week, panel members heard presentations about th e pros and cons of vaccinating girls at various ages. A survey of 294 pe diatricians presented at the meeting found that more than half were worr ied that parents of female patients might refuse the vaccine, and 11 per cent of the doctors said they thought vaccinating against a sexually tra nsmitted disease "may encourage risky sexual behavior in my adolescent p atients." Conservative groups say they welcome the vaccine as an important public h ealth tool but oppose making it mandatory. "Some people have raised the issue of whether this vaccine may be sending an overall message to teen-agers that, 'We expect you to be sexually ac tive,' " said Reginald Finger, a doctor trained in public health who ser ved as a medical analyst for Focus on the Family before being appointed to the ACIP in 2003. "There are people who sense that it could cause people to feel like sexua l behaviors are safer if they are vaccinated and may lead to more sexual behavior because they feel safe," said Finger, emphasizing he does not endorse that position and is withholding judgment until the issue comes before the vaccine policy panel for a formal recommendation. Conservative medical groups have been fielding calls from concerned paren ts and organizations, officials said. "I've talked to some who have said, 'This is going to sabotage our abstin ence message,' " said Gene Rudd, associate executive director of the Chr istian Medical and Dental Associations. But Rudd said most people change their minds once they learn more, adding he would probably want his chi ldren immunized. Rudd, however, draws the line at making the vaccine man datory. There are those who would say, 'We can p rovide a better, healthier alternative than the vaccine, and that is to teach abstinence,' " Rudd said. The council plans to meet Wednesday to discuss the issue. On the same day , the Medical Institute for Sexual Health in Austin, Texas, which advise s conservative groups on sexuality and health issues, is convening a one -day meeting to develop a position statement. Alan Kaye, executive director of the National Cervical Cancer Coalition, likened the vaccine to wearing a seat belt. "Just because you wear a seat belt doesn't mean you're seeking out an acc ident," Kaye said. |
| www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm Genital HPV infection is a sexually transmitted disease (STD) that is cau sed by human papillomavirus (HPV). Human papillomavirus is the name of a group of viruses that includes more than 100 different strains or types . More than 30 of these viruses are sexually transmitted, and they can i nfect the genital area of men and women including the skin of the penis, vulva (area outside the vagina), or anus, and the linings of the vagina , cervix, or rectum. Most people who become infected with HPV will not h ave any symptoms and will clear the infection on their own. Some of these viruses are called "high-risk" types, and may cause abnorma l Pap tests. They may also lead to cancer of the cervix, vulva, vagina, anus, or penis. Others are called "low-risk" types, and they may cause m ild Pap test abnormalities or genital warts. Genital warts are single or multiple growths or bumps that appear in the genital area, and sometime s are cauliflower shaped. Approximately 20 million people are currently infected with HPV. At least 50 percent of sexually active men and women acquire genital HPV infecti on at some point in their lives. By age 50, at least 80 percent of women will have acquired genital HPV infection. About 62 million Americans g et a new genital HPV infection each year. The types of HPV that infect the genital area are spread primarily throug h genital contact. theref ore, most infected persons are unaware they are infected, yet they can t ransmit the virus to a sex partner. Rarely, a pregnant woman can pass HP V to her baby during vaginal delivery. A baby that is exposed to HPV ver y rarely develops warts in the throat or voice box. What are the signs and symptoms of genital HPV Most people who have a genital HPV infection do not know they are infecte d The virus lives in the skin or mucous membranes and usually causes no symptoms. Some people get visible genital warts, or have pre-cancerous changes in the cervix, vulva, anus, or penis. Very rarely, HPV infection results in anal or genital cancers. Genital warts usually appear as soft, moist, pink, or flesh-colored swell ings, usually in the genital area. They can be raised or flat, single or multiple, small or large, and sometimes cauliflower shaped. They can ap pear on the vulva, in or around the vagina or anus, on the cervix, and o n the penis, scrotum, groin, or thigh. After sexual contact with an infe cted person, warts may appear within weeks or months, or not at all. Visible genital warts c an be removed by medications the patient applies, or by treatments perfo rmed by a health care provider. Some individuals choose to forego treatm ent to see if the warts will disappear on their own. No treatment regime n for genital warts is better than another, and no one treatment regimen is ideal for all cases. Most women are diagnosed with HPV on the basis of abnormal Pap tests. A P ap test is the primary cancer-screening tool for cervical cancer or pre- cancerous changes in the cervix, many of which are related to HPV. Also, a specific test is available to detect HPV DNA in women. The test may b e used in women with mild Pap test abnormalities, or in women >30 years of age at the time of Pap testing. The results of HPV DNA testing can he lp health care providers decide if further tests or treatment are necess ary. There is no "cure" for HPV infection, although in most women the infectio n goes away on its own. The treatments provided are directed to the chan ges in the skin or mucous membrane caused by HPV infection, such as wart s and pre-cancerous changes in the cervix. What is the connection between HPV infection and cervical cancer? All types of HPV can cause mild Pap test abnormalities which do not have serious consequences. Approximately 10 of the 30 identified genital HPV types can lead, in rare cases, to development of cervical cancer. Resear ch has shown that for most women (90 percent), cervical HPV infection be comes undetectable within two years. Although only a small proportion of women have persistent infection, persistent infection with "high-risk" types of HPV is the main risk factor for cervical cancer. A Pap test can detect pre-cancerous and cancerous cells on the cervix. Re gular Pap testing and careful medical follow-up, with treatment if neces sary, can help ensure that pre-cancerous changes in the cervix caused by HPV infection do not develop into life threatening cervical cancer. The Pap test used in US cervical cancer screening programs is responsible for greatly reducing deaths from cervical cancer. For 2004, the America n Cancer Society estimates that about 10,520 women will develop invasive cervical cancer and about 3,900 women will die from this disease. Most women who develop invasive cervical cancer have not had regular cervical cancer screening. How can people reduce their risk for genital HPV The surest way to eliminate risk for genital HPV infection is to refrain from any genital contact with another individual. For those who choose to be sexually active, a long-term, mutually monogam ous relationship with an uninfected partner is the strategy most likely to prevent future genital HPV infections. However, it is difficult to de termine whether a partner who has been sexually active in the past is cu rrently infected. For those choosing to be sexually active and who are not in long-term mut ually monogamous relationships, reducing the number of sexual partners a nd choosing a partner less likely to be infected may reduce the risk of genital HPV infection. Partners less likely to be infected include those who have had no or few prior sex partners. HPV infection can occur in both male and female genital areas that are co vered or protected by a latex condom, as well as in areas that are not c overed. While the effect of condoms in preventing HPV infection is unkno wn, condom use has been associated with a lower rate of cervical cancer, an HPV-associated disease. Sexually Transmitted Dise ases Treatment Guidelines 2002. Natural history of cer vicovaginal papilloma virus infection in young women. Kiviat NB, Koutsky LA, Paavonen J Cervical neoplasia and other STD-relat ed genital tract neoplasias. Mathematical model for the natural history of human papillomavirus infection and cervical c arcinogenesis. Sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV infect ion in pregnancy. Weinstock H, Berman S, Cates W Sexually transmitted disease among Americ an youth: Incidence and prevalence estimates, 2000. |