It would appear they also want to subject young men to the dangers of the vaccine! While HPV is a serious health risk, I am not sure about the need for 9 and 10 year old kids taking it. I guess this will pass as our people just love to inject the populous.

I thought Gardasil was only made to provide immunity for a few (3-5) different types of HPV, the types that cause cervical cancer, which are not the same ones that cause genital warts.

And how can they tell if it will even have an effect on males, when they say you can't test men for HPV? From what I've read, the only way to know if a man has HPV is if they have one of the types that causes genital warts and they are showing the visible symptoms.

(I don't support the vaccine, even for girls.)

Edited to add: Oh yeah, I re-read the quote in the OP... Four types of HPV cause cervical cancer. I still don't get how they can study the vaccine effects (or efficacy) on males. Then again, they didn't test the vaccine much on women in the first place...

[edit on 9/9/2009 by eMachine]

Considering 50% of all sexually active adults in the United States have HPV (the percentage is significantly higher for younger adults!), it is understandable that the CDC would want to do something to reduce that figure. Although there is little to no risk to males, and only 1% of males with HPV ever become symptomatic, they are the most common transmitters of this STD and the ideal target to reduce the overall percentage of adults infected with HPV.

However, there are over 30 strains of HPV that are sexually transmitted (100 strains in all). Gardasil only prevents against the contraction and thus transmission of only 4 of those (strains 6, 11, 16, and 18). It is not going to make HPV go away. It is only going to reduce the commonality of those 4 strains and make the other 26 strains that are sexually transmitted more common.

One has to consider the risks involved and weigh those against the benefits.

The fact is that no direct correlation between HPV and Cervical Cancer (and Vulva, Vaginal, Anal, and Penal Cancers) has yet been established. These forms of Cancer affect roughly 1 in 100,000 in men and 1.9 in 100,000 in women. Roughly 70% women with invasive Cervical Cancer had HPV for at least 6 months - 1 year or longer...but whether this is a direct cause has yet to be established.

HPV is also not persistent. The majority of people who are infected with HPV test negative for it within 7 years.

The purpose and effect of HPV are yet unknown. The most current medical research shows that HPV may have acted as a precursor or carrier to another form of infection, possibly HIV, as it does not seem to do anything directly on it's own.

So, do you go with a 1 in 100,000 chance of Cancer that may or may not be caused by HPV, or do you take Gardasil to protect you from 4 of 30 sexually transmitted strains to further reduce that chance, at the risk of the side effects?

Minor Side Effects

Pain in the area of the injection -- 83.9%
Swelling in the area of the injection -- 25.4%
Redness in the area of the injection -- 24.6%
Fever -- 13%
Nausea -- 6.7%
Dizziness -- 4%
Diarrhea -- 3.6%

Other Minor Side Effects with 1% each

Vomiting
Cough
Toothache
General ill feeling
Joint pain
Trouble sleeping (insomnia)
Stuffy nose

(Those are the side-effects you can live with)

Serious Side Effects (6.2% total)

Allergic Reaction/Anaphylactic Shock
Gastroenteritis
Appendicitis
Asthma or bronchospasms (airway spasms).
Grand Mal Seizures
Grave's Disease
Guillain-Barré syndrome (1 in 105,000)
Loss of Consciousness
Paralysis
Pulmonary Embolism
Venous Thromboembolic Events
Coma
Death (0.1 per 100,000)

Serious Side Effects Males don't have to worry about

Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) and Infertility
Spontaneous Abortion (.23 in 100,000)

The good news is that with Gardasil you don't have to worry about Rectal Bleeding or Incontinence which are common side-effects with most pharmaceuticals!

[edit on 9-9-2009 by fraterormus]

Originally posted by fraterormus
HPV is also not persistent. The majority of people who are infected with HPV test negative for it within 7 years.

I know this to be true.

When I was 18, I was told I had HPV (type 18, I think). I had cervical dysplasia(?) and had to have abnormal cell growth removed.

I don't get regular check-ups (every 6 months), but I've been tested 3 or 4 times since then and not once has a doctor ever mentioned it to me. Not even so much as "you're positive for HPV, but you knew that already, it's in your records".

Apparently, my tests have since been normal.

(FYI, I've been in a monogamous relationship for 6 years. He was informed about it before we had sex. I don't intend to ever spread it to anyone else, if I do still have it and it just doesn't show up in tests.)

This shot sounds like it might be bad for the thyroid. In women, lack of a functioning thyroid leads to sterility or frail children. Likewise, in men hypothyroidism will cause a low sperm count. Decreased balance, cloudy thinking ,weight gain, mood swings (mistakenly labeled bipolar) also result from lack of a functioning thyroid. I have been suspicious of the motives of those pushing this shot from the beginning.

Those who have been forced against their wishes to recieve this shot need thyroid supplements. They should also read Mary Shomon's books on the thyroid diet and treatment.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by eradown]

I think we really need drug companies out of our government "advisory panels"... but of course, money talks.

People tend to think "the government approved it, so it must be okay"... but that's not the case. Business is too involved in our government.

I had to write an article about an Illinois vaccination committee meeting a couple months ago and I was sickened by how many big pharma representatives were listed in attendance.

Two or three people spoke to the committee about securing religious exemptions for nonvax students in Illinois schools... but with about a dozen different pharma reps there from 3 or 4 drug companies, they had no chance in hell to change anything...

Originally posted by fraterormus
The good news is that with Gardasil you don't have to worry about Rectal Bleeding or Incontinence which are common side-effects with most pharmaceuticals!

Now that'd increase my pulling power! Nice!

Excellent post, highly informative. You educated me, thank you.

Why we can't just teach kids (and adults for that matter) the benefits of good personal hygiene and condoms is beyond me.

gardasil for girls was infertility vaccine, many women had miscarriages, and the ones that got injected will have troubles conceiving

i don't know why they need to promote this for boys now - probable overstock as people stopped buying it after adverse effects



[edit on 10-9-2009 by angelx666]

Originally posted by shamhat
Why we can't just teach kids (and adults for that matter) the benefits of good personal hygiene and condoms is beyond me.

Well, that's the part that is the sticky widget about HPV. Condoms won't always protect against the transmission of HPV. Since HPV is transmitted by skin-to-skin contact with an infected person; no penetration is needed to contract the virus. When a condom is worn, only the penis is protected (or for women, the internal vaginal area). Other areas of the genitalia are left exposed and may come in contact with the vagina and labia during intercourse.

And, if the carrier isn't symptomatic (remember, only 1% of males carrying HPV are ever symptomatic) then the woman never would be able to tell if a man is infected or not, or whether condoms will protect them from potentially contracting HPV from skin-to-skin contact.

That isn't to say that they won't protect against HPV somewhat. Women who only had protected sex using Condoms were found to be 70% less likely to contract HPV (50% if they sometimes didn't use Condoms but used Condoms most of the time). So, some protection is better than no protection. (Although an argument could be made that that percentage also represented a more sexually cautious demographic too.)

Of course Condoms do prevent the transmission of other STDs as well as being an effective form of Birth Control, so they should always be used except in long-term monogamous relationships (and even then it might not be a bad idea).

But you are right, if we made "Safe" Sex more important we wouldn't have to resort to utilizing dangerous pharmaceuticals that could potentially be far more dangerous than what they are attempting to prevent. It certainly makes much more sense to be teaching either "Safe" Sex (or even Abstinence if you are still in denial that teenagers don't have sex) than to teach taking a Vaccine to encourage reckless sexual behavior.