Cerviacl cancer vaccine

[Leap]

Cervical cancer is a devistating condition that affects aproxamtly 1000 women in the UK alone every year. It is most common in over 50s but can strike women of any age. Cervical cancer is caused by a strain of the human papilloma virus (HPV) a sexually transmitted disease, a diffrent strain of which also causes genital warts. A vaccine has been created and an immunisation program is set to get under way in the UK within the next two years.

As HPV is a sexually transmitted disease the vaccine against it is most effective when given to girls before they come in contact with it (ie, before they become sexually active). Because of this the vaccination program will start with every girl who is 12 years old and then eventually with older teenage girls where the vaccine will be less effective, but will still bring benefits to those who are immunised. This program will of course be voluntary so every parent (and girl over the age of 16 when the program gets round to them) will have the option to opt out.

Sadly some Christain groups have been complaing that by giving girs the vaccines at the age of 12 it would encourage them to have pre-marital sex. I find this preprosterous, By the same logic you shoud refrain from wearing a seat belt because it would raise your chances of being in a road accident, or fitting a burgler alarm on your house because it would encourage any oppertunist thief.

If I had the chance to debate with somebody who holds this view I would like to ask them the following questions:

1) Do you really believe that preteen girls would associate having a needle stuck in their arm with permition to start having sex?

2 )What is so wrong with pre-marital sex anyway?

3) What buisness is it of yours what somebody else does with their life?

I would like to leave you with a quote by Jay (as in Jay and Silent Bob) of all people. He's not talking about this exact subject, but i do think it's relevent.

That's the problem with the climate of consciousness on this plane today! Everybody gives too much of a shit about who fucks what! The moral majority has to wake up and realise that it's better to have two guys stink-dicking or two chicks gargling clit than it is to have four complete fucking lunatics nine millimeting random people from a rooftop because they're not allowed to "unpack their bags" in whatever "hotel rooms" they want , so to speak!

And by that token I should be able to scream --- if I so desired --- from the bathrooms of the busses that traverse the unending roasds of this great country , to the bathrooms of the public parks and rest stops that dot the landscape like a thousand points of light...

I'M HERE! I'M QUEER! GET USED TO IT!

www.newscientist.com

BBC news

Ladies and gentelmen, your opinions please.

[HighlyIllogical]

1. This thread is too intelligent for NG, lawl.

2. All fundamentalists have "issues."

3. I am all in favor of this vaccination. Preventing cancer is an inherently good thing...

[SolInvictus]

hey, i already had a thread about this!

Highlyillogical is right, it's too intelligent for ngs. mine quickly sank to the depts of the ng's politics forum.

[SolInvictus]

depths*.

son of a whore; why can't i spell anymore?

[SolInvictus]

At 6/23/07 01:17 AM, SevenSeize wrote: Here is the link to your thread.... but there were a couple before yours as well. :D

wow, it's still around? i thought it had found its way to Fulpey Jone's locker.

does the oblivion beyond the forum have a name?

[LadyGrace]

At 6/22/07 10:57 PM, Leap wrote: 1) Do you really believe that preteen girls would associate having a needle stuck in their arm with permition to start having sex?

Because HPV which causes cervical cancer is also known as Genital Warts, an STD.

2 )What is so wrong with pre-marital sex anyway?

What's wrong with morons perpetually breeding, emotional trauma, and the fact that currently 1 out of 4 people have herpes?

3) What buisness is it of yours what somebody else does with their life?

I agree with that, but when someone gets pregnant, or an STD and then blames their partner for negligence or ensnares them to take care of their children and support them for 18 years, that's bullshit. It becomes someone else's business when people refuse to take responsibility for themselves.

Personally, I don't really trust this vaccine. It hasn't been tested enough. Just like a couple years ago they said estrogen treatment therapy for women with menopause was good, and then recently discovered it's unhealthy. Secondly, it's only to protect that type of cervical cancer that is caused by an STD, which means that if you're sexually active, and you get genital warts, that's the only time the vaccine comes in useful. So, in essence, it is contributing to the sexual activity of young women (stupid ones, that is, of course... the stupid ones are the most sexually active anyway).

So, essentially, I agree with the points they're trying to make. It's logical. The way they're going about it is wrong though. I don't agree with fundamentalists of any faith. But sometimes they have a point.

[LadyGrace]

P.S. I feel I need to clarify something:

I do not believe this vaccine should be banned. Though I, personally, wouldn't be ready to use it, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be available to anyone who would want it. And it's actually a very positive thing for those who are sexually active.

But I do believe that vaccinating a 12 year old girl is a statement by the parents that they have low expectations for their teen's life choices. And, thereby, an unconscious encouragement saying "it's ok that you have sex with people whose sexual history is unknown to you."

[SolInvictus]

At 6/23/07 01:57 AM, LadyGrace wrote:

2 )What is so wrong with pre-marital sex anyway?

What's wrong with morons perpetually breeding, emotional trauma, and the fact that currently 1 out of 4 people have herpes?

if only sex after marriage were actually a safeguard against morons breeding.

oh please, emotional trauma.

[LadyGrace]

At 6/23/07 02:53 AM, SolInvictus wrote: if only sex after marriage were actually a safeguard against morons breeding.

oh please, emotional trauma.

Hahaha... indeed. :(

[Ravariel]

At 6/23/07 01:06 AM, SolInvictus wrote: hey, i already had a thread about this!

Highlyillogical is right, it's too intelligent for ngs. mine quickly sank to the depts of the ng's politics forum.

Me, too. Lasted about a page and a half then disappeared.

At 6/23/07 01:57 AM, LadyGrace wrote: Because HPV which causes cervical cancer is also known as Genital Warts, an STD.

You should note that this vaccine only protects against 4 (I believe) of the OVER 100 different strains of HPV (only 30 of which are sexually transmitted), and that taking the vaccine doesn't mean you won't get HPV... it just means you won't get the strains that'll give you cancer.

What's wrong with morons perpetually breeding, emotional trauma, and the fact that currently 1 out of 4 people have herpes?

Chicken Pox is a form of herpes... that statistic is blown out of proportion for propaganda reasons.

Secondly, it's only to protect that type of cervical cancer that is caused by an STD, which means that if you're sexually active, and you get genital warts, that's the only time the vaccine comes in useful. So, in essence, it is contributing to the sexual activity of young women (stupid ones, that is, of course... the stupid ones are the most sexually active anyway).

Sigh... you have to take vaccines BEFORE you get the disease for them to work. They're preventative, not curative. Also, it being encouragement is pure bullshit. BULLSHIT. It doesn't prevent all strains of HPV, only the ones that cause cancer. It is 90% of the time IMPOSSIBLE to tell if someone is HPV positive. Something like 50% of the adult population, promiscuous or not, will have a strain of HPV in their lifetime. Nearly 10% of the population is currently infected with an estimated 6.2 MILLION new cases ocurring each year. But hey, if you want to "protect" your daughter from that ebil sex by not giving her the vaccine, then I pity her her cancer and laugh at your anguish when it happens and you realize you could have prevented it.

So, essentially, I agree with the points they're trying to make. It's logical. The way they're going about it is wrong though. I don't agree with fundamentalists of any faith. But sometimes they have a point.

Not on this, they don't.

At 6/23/07 02:18 AM, LadyGrace wrote: I do not believe this vaccine should be banned. Though I, personally, wouldn't be ready to use it, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be available to anyone who would want it. And it's actually a very positive thing for those who are sexually active.

Preventative, not curative. Preventative, not curative. Preventative! Not curative!

Taking it once you're sexually active doesn't work. It doesn't cure HPV, it only prevents a few strains of it. Thinking it prevents all HPV is retarded and ignorant. And shit, if AIDS, Gonorrhea, Sypphilis, etc aren't enough to keep people from being careful about their sexual partners, a relatively harmless virus that might give you warts or cancer isn't going to.

But I do believe that vaccinating a 12 year old girl is a statement by the parents that they have low expectations for their teen's life choices. And, thereby, an unconscious encouragement saying "it's ok that you have sex with people whose sexual history is unknown to you."

10% of the population has HPV. 50% WILL have it during their lifetime. The ONLY symptom is the warts, and that's only for a small fraction of the virus. Assuming anyone would even KNOW they have it is naive. Thinking it says "sure, go have sex with everyone, you're perfectly safe now" is, quite frankly, FUCKING RETARDED. And you would be so if you transmitted that message to your daughter.

I think this link is something you (all) need to read.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm

[LadyGrace]

At 6/23/07 04:00 PM, Ravariel wrote: Preventative, not curative. Preventative, not curative. Preventative! Not curative!

When did I say it was anything other than that? It's not even part of the issue. I UNDERSTAND IT'S PREVENTATIVE, you fuckhead. When people have the decision to become sexually active, they can have the shot before then. It's not like deciding to have sex just springs on you. So, don't you dare talk down to me.

[Ravariel]

At 6/23/07 04:58 PM, LadyGrace wrote:

At 6/23/07 04:00 PM, Ravariel wrote: Preventative, not curative. Preventative, not curative. Preventative! Not curative!

When did I say it was anything other than that?

Ahem:

At 6/23/07 01:57 AM, LadyGrace wrote: Secondly, it's only to protect that type of cervical cancer that is caused by an STD, which means that if you're sexually active, and you get genital warts, that's the only time the vaccine comes in useful.

It's not even part of the issue. I UNDERSTAND IT'S PREVENTATIVE, you fuckhead. When people have the decision to become sexually active, they can have the shot before then. It's not like deciding to have sex just springs on you. So, don't you dare talk down to me.

I'll talk down because for someone who claims to be 23 you're awfully naive. There's a reason that the CDC recommends it be given at age 12. Because the average age of the first sexual experience for men and women is 16... and when looked at over time, that age is steadily declining. Also, because that age is while the person is still a dependant, it will be up to the parents to get her the vaccine. Now, if you're not a virgin yourself, and you lost it while still at home, did you tell your parents about it? Was the guy a virgin as well? If he wasn't, then did you know if he was clean?

All of that if because of this: There's a 1-in10 chance that your FIRST sexual encounter will be with an HPV positive individual. That chance increases immensely when you add partners (especially those who have had other partners). 14% of Girls age 15 have had sex, that jumps to 67% by age 18. Most of them either don't know of, or wouldn't know how to get, the vaccine. Since it is up to the parents in most cases, not getting the vaccine is retarded. Period.

Waiting only increases the risk to the child. Giving them the vaccine has ZERO risks attatched. Not doing it is stupid.

[LadyGrace]

At 6/23/07 05:57 PM, Ravariel wrote: Ahem:

At 6/23/07 01:57 AM, LadyGrace wrote: Secondly, it's only to protect that type of cervical cancer that is caused by an STD, which means that if you're sexually active, and you get genital warts, that's the only time the vaccine comes in useful.

It's not even part of the issue. I UNDERSTAND IT'S PREVENTATIVE, you fuckhead. When people have the decision to become sexually active, they can have the shot before then. It's not like deciding to have sex just springs on you. So, don't you dare talk down to me.

Where in this did I say it was curative? And when did I say that the vaccine isn't supposed to be taken before? Once again, pulling shit out of your ass.

I'll talk down because for someone who claims to be 23 you're awfully naive. There's a reason that the CDC recommends it be given at age 12. Because the average age of the first sexual experience for men and women is 16... and when looked at over time, that age is steadily declining. Also, because that age is while the person is still a dependant, it will be up to the parents to get her the vaccine. Now, if you're not a virgin yourself, and you lost it while still at home, did you tell your parents about it? Was the guy a virgin as well? If he wasn't, then did you know if he was clean?

Yes, hence the age of concent in America being 18 and 16 in England. Furthermore, my personal life is of no consequence to this argument. However, every sexual encounter I've had I've actually known their sexual history. It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY! The fact that STDs are so widespread is because of the fact that people are ill educated and don't take responsibility for themselves.

All of that if because of this: There's a 1-in10 chance that your FIRST sexual encounter will be with an HPV positive individual. That chance increases immensely when you add partners (especially those who have had other partners). 14% of Girls age 15 have had sex, that jumps to 67% by age 18. Most of them either don't know of, or wouldn't know how to get, the vaccine. Since it is up to the parents in most cases, not getting the vaccine is retarded. Period.

So basically, you're proving my point. People are irresponsible and ignorant. This shot is, in essence, part of the western ideal that instead of going to the root of the problem and trying to raise awareness "a pill can fix it" is just as good.

Waiting only increases the risk to the child. Giving them the vaccine has ZERO risks attatched. Not doing it is stupid.

Zero risks, that we are aware of. But medical history for drugs such as these have a HUGE file of things that were "beneficial" and have been later proved to be detrimental to someone's health. Remember birth control in the 50's? Those pills were proven to cause cancer and subsequently taken off the market. A few vaccines now have been linked to the increase in Autism in children. There's no proof that there are zero risks, the research hasn't been that thorough yet, especially seeing as how this new treatment came out in only the past year.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 6/23/07 02:53 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 6/23/07 01:57 AM, LadyGrace wrote:

2 )What is so wrong with pre-marital sex anyway?

What's wrong with morons perpetually breeding, emotional trauma, and the fact that currently 1 out of 4 people have herpes?

if only sex after marriage were actually a safeguard against morons breeding.

I second that motion!

[HighlyIllogical]

Support is different from in favor of the idea.

The idea of preventing cancer is a good one. At this point, mandating the vaccine would be quite silly, but once there are positive empirical studies, then, hey, it sounds good to me.

[Leap]

At 6/23/07 02:18 AM, LadyGrace wrote: P.S. I feel I need to clarify something:

I do not believe this vaccine should be banned. Though I, personally, wouldn't be ready to use it, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be available to anyone who would want it. And it's actually a very positive thing for those who are sexually active.

OK, a quick hypothetical: If this vaccine was to be submitted to say... 5 years of intensive testing and found to work in 99% of cases with little or no side effects
, would have your daughter take it (assuming you have one by that time)

But I do believe that vaccinating a 12 year old girl is a statement by the parents that they have low expectations for their teen's life choices. And, thereby, an unconscious encouragement saying "it's ok that you have sex with people whose sexual history is unknown to you."

Is choosing to have sex in your teens is a bad life choice? I agree that too much too young can be a very negative thing indeed , but how do you define that time. Most people have their "sexual awakening" at that time, the simple fact of the matter is that teens quite often want to have sex. I lost my virginity at 19 but god know I would have lost it earlier than that if I could have.

[Memorize]

If women get it due to their inability to control their own body's sexual urges, then I couldn't honestly give a shit what happens to them.

Oh well, their deaths = greater progress.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 6/23/07 10:17 PM, Memorize wrote: Oh well, their deaths = greater progress.

Right...Ok.

The deaths of individuals is a good thing, now, memorize?

You've got to be kidding.....

[SolInvictus]

At 6/23/07 08:43 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

if only sex after marriage were actually a safeguard against morons breeding.

I second that motion!

woah now; theres no motion here! abstinence would limit my currently non-existant fun.

[Memorize]

At 6/23/07 10:23 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

The deaths of individuals is a good thing, now, memorize?

Hitler's Death = Good
Saddam's death = Good
Osama's death would = Good

Yeah.

[SolInvictus]

you know you don't have to be a whore to get HPV or any other STD for that matter.

[Memorize]

At 6/23/07 10:59 PM, SolInvictus wrote: you know you don't have to be a whore to get HPV or any other STD for that matter.

Define "whore".

[HighlyIllogical]

Don't moralize.

Having sex with anyone – hell, the first time you have coitus with a spouse – can give you HPV or another STD...You just don't get it, do you!?

[SolInvictus]

i'm almost certain Memorize is just playing us all.

gets his jollies from tormenting us.

[Memorize]

At 6/23/07 11:09 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

gets his jollies from tormenting us.

And right now my jollies are big enough to cover an entire documentary on playboy.

[SolInvictus]

i'm not sure "jollies" can be a certain size but the point is clear.

[LadyGrace]

At 6/23/07 11:04 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Don't moralize.

Having sex with anyone – hell, the first time you have coitus with a spouse – can give you HPV or another STD...You just don't get it, do you!?

Yes, but it's a general policy to get a blood test before you get married. True, it's not law. But most pastors, rabbis, etc. encourage it.

[tony4moroney]

I got an idea
Outlaw Christianity

On the grounds of;

- We believe that Christianity is responsible for forcing people to interpret its moral views as laws and consequentially becoming an inhibitor of Scientific Development that may lead to the betterment for many libes.

- Christianity was responsible in past for persecuting people for thoughts contradictory to their own.

- Christianity is the primary party responsible for infringing upon Human Rights in the case of homosexuality

and the best one:

- If you do not see any of the above reasons fit then this should be settling.
Ban Christianity on no grounds at all. Just because we believe its moral and on totally unfounded evidence. we wish to ban christianity just because we think its wrong. - That'll teach them to eat their own medicine. I'd like to see the hypocritical outcry of the Christian community.

Of course I wouldn't want this to happen for real I'd just fundamentalist leaders and their zealous maggots shut up and realise that they have no right to impose rules on others for the above said reasons and much more.

Hopefully cervical cancer vaccine is funded and administered to teen girls and soon, because this is secondary murder in my opinion. "Lets let people die. Giving people a vaccine condones sex."

[snap61]

Couldn't the girl have it once they are sexualyactive?

[Leap]

At 6/24/07 06:30 AM, snap61 wrote: Couldn't the girl have it once they are sexualyactive?

No, apprantly the vaccine is most effective against HPV before the girl could come in to contact with it, before they become suxually active.