Forum Miss Bimbo, fashion community / How do you feel about the Gardasil Vaccine? Please explain. - Gardisil is the HPV/cervical cancer vaccine.

I clicked for girls over 16. Personally I don't do vaccinations at all (I'm allergic to several things, and don't want to take the risk.)

The reason I chose over 16, is because 16 is the age of sexual consent. Any younger than that, and it is tantamount to accepting underage sex, and even encouraging it, by perceiving it as normal

BerryMaxwell wrote:

I clicked for girls over 16. Personally I don't do vaccinations at all (I'm allergic to several things, and don't want to take the risk.)

The reason I chose over 16, is because 16 is the age of sexual consent. Any younger than that, and it is tantamount to accepting underage sex, and even encouraging it, by perceiving it as normal

I agree. But I also think there should not be any obligation to have it but it should be optional.

I know I won't let my kid have it unless she was 18 and an adult and she wanted to and I would have no business in her having it.

numba1bimbx wrote:

I agree. But I also think there should not be any obligation to have it but it should be optional.

I know I won't let my kid have it unless she was 18 and an adult and she wanted to and I would have no business in her having it.

Oh I absolutely agree. There should be no obligation at any age to have it. A woman's body is her own.

The vaccine should definitely be optional, but heavily endorsed, and if there is a way to give the girl the option of having it for free or reduced cost, it should be done.

If I had a girl, I would give her the vaccine as soon as I was able.  The only reason I have not gotten it myself (despite the fact that I have only ever had one partner, and he had never had a partner before me) is because I can not afford it right now.  It is, after all, $300 in my area per dose, and there are 3 doses.

I do not in any way think that the vaccine encourages sex.  If anything, it opens the doors to good communication between parents and their daughters *ABOUT* sex, and this usually encourages girls to have smarter sex and later sex.  To think that it encourages sex is sort of silly, and so what?  Sex is not a bad thing, very few girls are going to want to have sex before 16 anyway.  Besides, lots of people think circumsizing a baby boy helps him fight off STDs later, and I certainly don't think babies want to have sex.

The outcry against this vaccine just shows the typical societal double standard--sex is OK for men, but women can't POSSIBLY have it (which reminds me, who on earth are men having sex with?)

Wouldn't the aluminum base be so that they could check to make sure it wasn't, for some reason, the aluminum doing the preventing?  Or maybe they already knew the exact chance a patient has of showing a reaction to the aluminum (say, 5% of all patients will do x or y) and wanted to see how many MORE patients would be felled by the vaccine.  In which case, having an aluminum control would make more sense than a saline control, as the numbers of those-being-hurt-by-the-other-stuff-in-the-vaccine would seem inflated (when compared to those being hurt by the aluminum).  Perhaps for good measure they should have had a second control group (just saline)-- I don't know enough about medical testing to know what is best, but I think I understand what they were *trying* to do.  Then again I'm not premed or bio, so!

Just a few more points:  yes, Gardasil only prevents against 4 types of HPV.  However, those are the "big four."  And for someone who has cancer running very strongly in her family (ie: me), a reaction to a vaccine is preferable to fearing that some horrible sexual mistake I make later in life will lead me to years and years of chemo.  I'm pretty sure I'm dying of diabetes or cancer anyway, so I'll take any defenses I can get.

BTW--great points, I just wanted to share my thoughts! 

Last edited by Nemaine (08-21-2008 02:06)

let me add: there is a journal that says that HPV may be the source behind all cervical cancers.  HOWEVER, as far as current medicine is concerned (and i know, i just finished my neoplasia course), there are only 3 types of HPV strains that may cause cervical cancer (16, 18, 31), with a fourth (strain 45) currently being theorized.  the HPV types quoted in this study include many other strains, which have not been proven to cause cervical cancer.

while SOME HPV types predispose a woman to cervical cancer, there is no medically accepted theory that ALL cases stem from HPV, and in fact some sexually transmitted HPV have been proven NOT to affect a woman's chances of cervical cancer.  HPV causes regular old warts too... we probably ALL have been exposed to HPV at one time or another!

Last edited by Umai (08-21-2008 02:38)

Rossey--I think part of why lots of people want girls to get it BEFORE they turn 18 is because prior to that, they are generally covered by their parents' insurance.

After you turn 18, it can take you up till you are 26 (or longer!) to land a job that provides reliable insurance.  Since the vaccine is currently not given to those above 26 (it having being tested on the younger girls instead), and since the 26 year old has probably had sex between the ages of 18 and 26 and may have already caught one of the 3 evil HPV strains....

Well I think you see where I'm going with this.

Parents will want to give it to their girls to help them in advance of their flying away from the nest.

EDIT:  Umai, always with the good advice!  I swear, you should be a special Doctor Mod for Missbimbo.  XD

Last edited by Nemaine (08-21-2008 04:06)

Nemaine wrote:

Wouldn't the aluminum base be so that they could check to make sure it wasn't, for some reason, the aluminum doing the preventing?  Or maybe they already knew the exact chance a patient has of showing a reaction to the aluminum (say, 5% of all patients will do x or y) and wanted to see how many MORE patients would be felled by the vaccine.  In which case, having an aluminum control would make more sense than a saline control, as the numbers of those-being-hurt-by-the-other-stuff-in-the-vaccine would seem inflated (when compared to those being hurt by the aluminum).  Perhaps for good measure they should have had a second control group (just saline)-- I don't know enough about medical testing to know what is best, but I think I understand what they were *trying* to do.  Then again I'm not premed or bio, so!

Just a few more points:  yes, Gardasil only prevents against 4 types of HPV.  However, those are the "big four."  And for someone who has cancer running very strongly in her family (ie: me), a reaction to a vaccine is preferable to fearing that some horrible sexual mistake I make later in life will lead me to years and years of chemo.  I'm pretty sure I'm dying of diabetes or cancer anyway, so I'll take any defenses I can get.

BTW--great points, I just wanted to share my thoughts! 

Your reasoning about the aluminum is sound.  Whenever drug testing is done, the placebo has to consist of the same components as the vaccine except the viral particles itself to ensure, like you said, that the viral particles themselves are doing what they are supposed to in the immune system.  I have not read up on Gardasil, but for the vaccine to be approved and this heavily publicized, it seems extremely unlikely that they wouldn't have done extensive safety testing of each component of the vaccine.

Minabelle wrote:

Your reasoning about the aluminum is sound.  Whenever drug testing is done, the placebo has to consist of the same components as the vaccine except the viral particles itself to ensure, like you said, that the viral particles themselves are doing what they are supposed to in the immune system.  I have not read up on Gardasil, but for the vaccine to be approved and this heavily publicized, it seems extremely unlikely that they wouldn't have done extensive safety testing of each component of the vaccine.

I'm on the fence about the vaccine at this point. It's a good idea in theory, but I'm wary of the way drug testing is done.

Believe me when I say that not all drugs are well-tested prior to hitting the market, and with this one being given to girls of a younger age, I'm sure extensive, long-term testing has yet to be seen. Drugs like Bextra (Valdecoxib), Celebrex (Celeba in some countries -- Celecoxib), and Vioxx (Rofecoxib), were marketed like crazy as the best possible new arthritis medication on the market. These drugs were later found to have serious side effects, Bextra (I'm not sure about Celebrex) and Vioxx were even pulled from the market because of the highly increased potential for heart attack and stroke with long-term use. Vioxx was so commonly accepted by physicians that around 80 million people held a prescription.

I myself was on Bextra for acute tendentious and was informed by my doctor that I needed to stop taking it immediately because of these risks. I was taking it at least three times a week, sometimes more. It wasn't a potential risk for just the elderly either because I was a teenager at the time.

Nemaine: thanks!   not quite there yet though, there's still a TON left i've got to learn. i'll keep posting my medically-backed preachiness on the topics I'm familiar with though!  also, your post is right on the money:  most sexually active people ALREADY HAVE a strain or two of the virus.  most men and women show ZERO symptoms, and we don't even have a way to TEST guys for it, so... that sucks.

Liberti:  also a great post!  it's important to note that sexual contact ALONE is enough to spread/contract HPV, and condoms have NOT been proven effective as a means of preventing spread.

remember though: just because you HAVE HPV (even if it's a genital strain) doesn't mean you WILL get cancer.  your doc can take a biopsy to know for sure if you're at risk for cancer, and will take the appropriate action.  i have mixed feelings about this vaccine, and certainly do NOT believe it should be required (it causes pain at the injection site, and giving any injection, painful or not, against the will of the patient it actually considered battery).  however, if you have OTHER risk factors (multiple partners, or a family history of cancer) the vaccine can reduce (though not eliminate!!) your risk from contracting HPV and developing cervical cancer as a result.  MORE IMPORTANTLY, see your doc for regular PAP smears!  PAP smears DRASTICALLY reduced the morbidity/mortality of cervical caner--take advantage of it!

you go my body-conscious bimbos!  spread the word, and stay healthy

I see nothing wrong with preventative medicine. 

How come when it's something for women and girls it's controversially bad but if it was something for guys it would be hailed as the most awesome thing in the whole world?  (i'm eyeballing you cialis and Viagra!)

First of all, let me apologize for creating this post and then abandoning it yesterday. Sometimes real life gets in the way of Miss Bimbo! Second, I will admit that I was formerly employed by Planned Parenthood, and have spent the last couple years working in a doctors office where I am bombarded with biased information from drug reps (including MERCK). Third, I am NOT a medical professional, so I cannot claim that anything that I say is a known fact. I never have studied medicine.

Oleanders: I did not know that there is aluminum in the vaccine. Do you have any links regarding the effects (affects? I hate that word) so that I may read up on that?

Umai: Thank you for correcting me. I will edit my post when I am done with this one.

Unfortunately, education may not prevent women from getting HPV. They may remain a virgin until they are married, and get the virus from their husband. There is also the possiblity of rape.

For those who want it, but are over 18 and can't afford it - contact your doctor's office. The office I work for was given a grant by the local rotary club to provide free Gardasil vaccinations to women over 18. In Washington state, ALL vaccines (including Gardasil) are provided free of charge for all persons aged 19 and under.

And, thanks for all the well written opinions!

Last edited by Mary Jayne (08-21-2008 19:09)