E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA government panel wants young boys as well as girls to get the controversial HPV vaccine, in part to prevent them from spreading the sexually transmitted virus to girls.
Experts say the HPV vaccine could protect boys against genital warts and some kinds of cancers. But they also say vaccinating 11- and 12-year old boys could help prevent them from spreading the human papilloma virus to girls.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45031684/ns/health-mens_health/
Leave a Comment:
Wow... of all the thing pharma industry willing to do, this takes the cake. This is not a disease that can be spread by chance. Even if this conjecture is true (I doubt it is, go check the finances of all these advocates for big money from the industry) one has to be an active participant in sexual activity, which is always a choice no matter how you see it. Kids will just have to know there is a risk in their choices of behavior, and that applies to many things, not just sex. If they come to the conclusion they needed the vaccine to insure themselves then I'll oblige but I would not make it upon themselves to take what they never needed. This is not a public health threat by any means, though they will beg to differ for the amount of money they stand to make.
This sounds like one of those things that we'll see a commercial for from some law firm encouraging people to sue the drug company because the drug/vaccine has caused some kind of health problems (there seems to be a new one every week). The problem is they want to get the drug on the market with little or no testing and make as much money as they can and worry about the side effects later (they probably even set up a fund for the lawsuits).
I trust this panel about as much as I trust my federal government which isn't much. Just another profit making scheme by pharmaceutical lobbyists who have now taken the place of big tobacco in our government's lobby.
All this talk about a virus causing cancer is quite laughable considering that Otto Warburg won the Nobel Prize in 1931 for figuring out that cancer is a hypoxic condition! And yes, I do know that Royal Rife proclaimed that cancer was caused by a virus. However, Dr. Rife never won a Nobel Prize and was ridiculed the rest of his life for making such a claim. Everyone needs to do they own research and you'll find that their are better answers to curing cancer than the poision it, burn it or cut it out paradigms being offered by main stream medicine. If you doubt me statements then pay attention to the next drug commerical you see on TV and listen to all of the adverse side effect that go with these drugs. Remember this, their is NO Money in the cure because you can't patent oxygen!!!
I agree 10000000%
Actually Warburg won the Nobel prize for his work on cellular respiration. He used immortal cells in order to complete his research in metabolic enzymes, earning him the prize. Cancerous tumors can sometimes be exacerbated with hypoxia, but cancer is not cured with oxygen. On your logic, skin cancer shouldn't be so prevalent and deadly since those tumors are always exposed to oxygen.
It's difficult to get truths in science out there when people think they understand one or two concepts and suddenly they're experts in saving the world from... I actually don't know who they think they are saving the world from, and why.
Every cell in your body is constantly repairing damaged DNA....It is when that DNA is not repaired that it can lead to cancer....The HPV can and will, in certain types, prevent the DNA in a cell nucleus from repairing itself and can lead to significant pathological disease (CANCER)
Leave it to an anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist nut to try to use 80 year old research for their claim.... Let's just ignore what we've learned over the past several decades about DNA... THIS JUST IN! You can use these things called telephones for communication purposes. Who knew...
Bunch of dis-info agents in here. Its all in the books, remember the things called books? There are millions of books written by dead men and dead women from the past. Why don't some of you try to read/research the knowledge contained in these books. Some of these books have natural cancer curing remedies. And there are plenty of witnesses, and survivors of this dreaded cancer. Go look them up yourself if you disagree. And don't tell me I don't know, I lost both parents to this cancer and almost lost my sister to it also.
another thing people should be yelling about and i havent heard a peep about of the gov website(lol)
is gmo food
The next thing you know they'll be recommending prostate drugs for females or maybe feline leukemia shots for humans. When are people going to wise up to the fact pharmaceutical companies only care about profit!? The fact that doctors are recommending this is irrelevant. Over the years they've be brainwashed right along with the rest of us. This is just plain craziness!
"The next thing you know they'll be recommending prostate drugs for females or maybe feline leukemia shots for humans."
Incredibly stupid point. Men can carry the HPV virus and transmit it to women. Learn a little science before you spill your nonsense online.
Whatever2002: I've read some of your previous posts and realize that you must be profiting mightily from some interest in the pharmaceutical industry. You advocate for every kind of vaccine imaginable! If you think they're a good idea, then YOU go get the shots. All of them. Be a human guinea pig if you want, but don't try to sell me on the idea. Poison...pure and simple.
whatever 2002 is a gov troll.its on every site on here
whatever 2002 hates ron paul,so that means ron paul is good
Wake-Up: I'm up to date on my vaccinations. If I had a son, I'd have him get the HPV vaccine. I make no money from the pharma industry. I just understand the science behind vaccination. The simple science that has stood for decades.
If you don't want to get vaccinated, fine. No sweat off my back. If you want to think they're some big pharma conspiracy, fine. I don't care.
But vaccines are progress. Don't take my word for it. Go ask the vast majority of scientists and doctors out there.
There is a lot of misinformation and fear in the general public regarding science, particularly biotech science and genetics. This is the problem with allowing the general population the ability to make decisions based on something they truly do not understand.
Wakeup, HPV infects both males and females. It is not a virus that infects only female organs.
Calvn: "This is the problem with allowing the general population the ability to make decisions based on something they truly do not understand."
Part of me agrees with that sentiment. But another part of me worries that such a position just alienates people further. I think although a lot of this fear of science stems from anti-intellectualism, there is a strong undercurrent of anti-elitism driving it. So when we say "you're too ignorant to know what's good for you," I worry that feeds that anti-elitism and drives people to pseudoscience.
In the end, the single best solution to this problem is improving science education. If people had a stronger foundation in science, they'd be less likely to dismiss it later in life. Those are my two cents.
It is not an elitist statement to say that people don't understand the science- that is a fact. And if someone chooses NOT to educate themself on the issue solely because they don't like someone telling them they are ignorant, that's self-imposed alienation from an impudent child.
The public doesn't want info from the CDC, the pharmaceutical companies, or the scientists that tested the vaccine, they want sensationalistic fear-mongering from a random website. They already know what is good and what is bad, so how do you improve science education when the people thinks they know it all? It's like a parent talking to a teenager.
My point is not to make the decision for the public, it is to discourage the public on making a decision without knowing the facts. And if someone is offended I said they didn't know the science, they shouldn't be making a decision about their child's healthcare, particularly if that person refuses to believe that HPV can occur in males.
Calvn: All good points. I can't argue against them.
"The public doesn't want info from the CDC, the pharmaceutical companies, or the scientists that tested the vaccine, they want sensationalistic fear-mongering from a random website."
Do you think that's a new development or something that has always been true? And how do we get people to stop relying on psuedoscience blogs for their science news?
It's always been true, its just been magnified with the internet. People feel empowered when they rebel and feel superior if they refuse to do something that has been recently suggested to be harmful. I would hazard a guess that nearly every single fearful vaccine refuser does a harmful activity with serious consequences, like driving a car, smoking, drinking alcohol, being overweight, not exercising, etc. And I bet that most of them fear phantom causes of diseases (particularly cancer), like BPA, cleaning products, and GMOs.
It's become the activity du jour to refuse vaccines and rally against "The Man", whether he be the government or pharmaceutical companies. Unfortunately, their own grandchildren will be suffering with preventable disease.
For Calvn and Whatever. I've learned the hard way that certain people are simply far too dense or simpleminded to understand science. The public really shouldn't be making certain decisions because they've shown a propensity for making bad ones. They often make bad decisions because they're too arrogant to recognize they know nothing about the scientific field and are too lazy or stupid to learn something about it before making decisions.
People go to pseudoscience because it's easier to understand when compared to real science or it gives them an answer they like better or an answer that means less work for them. If you try to explain to someone how a virus can lead to cancer through changes in the cells DNA most people sit there confused and try to figure out what reality show DNA stands for. You might have their attention for the first sentence or two but after that they've already tuned you out and are thinking about what they're going to eat for dinner or what's on TV later. If someone else comes along and tells them this cancer is caused by cleaning products, that's simple and less effort for them to understand so they like it. They then think that by making these changes in cleaning products to one that says "CANCER FREE" they've side-stepped doing any real work in the area and are now protected without having to understand anything at all about how viruses can lead to cancers.
I'm just having a hard time believing that our government or any other government out there is all for living healthy lives along with saving lives. They're usually in the business of losing lives. So our children get the vaccine and then they are nice and healthy to go to war? Not sure thats ever going to add up for me. Now getting the shot and having the deaths and seizures is working more in the favor of the way things usually work with government, but how can they try to pull something like that off on the entire public? Most of the people aren't that uneducated to try something like that with their children.
the thing is, until vaccines have been used for decades, there is no way of knowing how effective they may or may not be. i don't have a problem with vaccines that have been in use for 30+ years, for example, but when something new like this comes out, i am not first in line to become a guinea pig.
all i know is whenever they come out with some "great" new drug to solve all our problems, we have to wade through pages of micro-sized print or listen to fast-talking disclaimers to find out what the actual side effects are. no thanks.
Seeing this really bothers me. My doctor pushed this on me and I gave in and got it, two weeks later I found out I was pregnant and with out checking how the baby was the doctors told me it wouldnt harm the growing baby. I went on with my pregnancy only to find out the baby had two very uncommon birth defects and there was no chance on he living past birth. I am a 19 year old never did drugs smoked or even drank. I am religious and 100% against using anything bad for me and that even goes as far as caffine. We had the babys chromosones tested and they were perfect. Also there is no signt of birth defects on either side of my husbands and my families.... Doctors tell me the shot didnt do it but i have felt it was the shot since day one and threw out the whole pregnancy I questioned if that shot would do damage to her or not.... Im 100% against this shot and I am not going to finish them or ever let anyone in my family get it! Look it up this shot has dont more damage then the cancers it "prevents"
Anastasia: I am sorry about what happened to you. But from what you describe there is no evidence to link the vaccine to your baby's defects. Just because two things happen close together in time doesn't mean the former caused the latter. Over the summer, I changed shampoos one weekend. A few days later I came down with shingles. Should I conclude that the shampoo causes shingles? No. I would need to do a more rigorous experiment to connect the shampoo to shingles.
Likewise, you need to do clinical safety studies on vaccines to link them to birth defects. Here is the CDC's page on the safety of the HPV vaccines: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/hpv/gardasil.html
Both vaccines are relatively safe and prevent the spread of a virus that does real harm.
a real news media will take statements like this above and do real research and see if any of theses cases ever been reported of they just dont take them because they are negetive towards there drug.but today our foreign runed news media just spits on the american public.and just reports what they are tolded to.iam very sorry anastasia for your loss
whatever 2002 is a disinfo troll
puppet: Provide peer-reviewed scientific evidence to refute the link I posted. Then we'll see who is the one spewing disinformation.
HLA1977 - I have HPV as well. I agree with you. As a woman, the procedures you go through to prevent it from turning into cancer are painful, unpleasant and apparently avoidable by taking this vaccine. Bernie - I can't speak for HLA1977, but I can tell you I have had to undergo several colposcopies in order to prevent my HPV from becoming cancer. So far, it seems to have worked. I haven't had an abnormal pap test in over 3 years. But for almost 2 years before that, it was pap tests every 3 months followed by a very painful colposcopy (if you really wanna know, they go in with a little pair if snippers and SNIP part of your cervix out) they do this with NO pain medication or anything to numb it. Also, if you have to have it done too many times, you run the risk of not being able to carry or deliver children, among other risks. I suggest you know what you are talking about before you start blasting someone that has been through it.
And, YES I plan to vaccinate my son AND daughter. I don't want my daughter to experience what I have experience and hopefully, vaccinating my son will prevent him from contracting and spreading the virus to anyone else.
wow -- it seems like this vaccine will rid me of having to teach my kids right from wrong. where can i get this miracle drug??? sad...
Miguel - If teaching right from wrong also includes never having sex in marriage your "lessons" will not protect your children. Why not protect their health AND teach them your values?
Both of my teenage granddaughters have been vaccainated. My pap smears have always been normal but in May I was diagnosed with cervical cancer Stage One. Being 56 yrs old there was no vaccine when I was growing up. I'am not promiscuious and my husband has been dead almost 7 yrs. I have been with noone. We were only married 21 months when my husband passed. I was told by my doctor this virus can lay dormate for years.
America the gullible.
if america believed 9-11 ,why not throw the kitchen sink at them
I am fine with CDC making recommendations, but not mandatory on this vaccine. The parents need to have "The Talk", with their children, and make an informed decision when and if to vaccinate.
I absolutely agree! Too many people outsource their health to the professionals, when in fact we all should be partners with our doctors and ultimately take responsibility for the health decisions we make.
I have no problem with people choosing to vaccinate, but they need to be informed of the risks as well as the benefits.
Anyone who argues that those of us who do not vaccinate are dangerous to society need to ask themselves what kind of burden those who vaccinate are putting on society with all of the side effects that children are going to have to live with. Not to mention brain damage like autism and alzheimers.
HLA1977 - I have HPV as well. I agree with you. As a woman, the procedures you go through to prevent it from turning into cancer are painful, unpleasant and apparently avoidable by taking this vaccine. Bernie - I can't speak for HLA1977, but I can tell you I have had to undergo several colposcopies in order to prevent my HPV from becoming cancer. So far, it seems to have worked. I haven't had an abnormal pap test in over 3 years. But for almost 2 years before that, it was pap tests every 3 months followed by a very painful colposcopy (if you really wanna know, they go in with a little pair if snippers and SNIP part of your cervix out) they do this with NO pain medication or anything to numb it. Also, if you have to have it done too many times, you run the risk of not being able to carry or deliver children, among other risks. I suggest you know what you are talking about before you start blasting someone that has been through it.
And, YES I plan to vaccinate my son AND daughter. I don't want my daughter to experience what I have experience and hopefully, vaccinating my son will prevent him from contracting and spreading the virus to anyone else.
copy and paste much?
"A government panel wants young boys as well as girls to get the controversial HPV vaccine…" Where is Federal judge Mary Scriven today (she blocked a Florida law that would require a person applying for welfare to be drug tested); wouldn't a mandatory inoculation violate the Constitution's Fourth Amendment as well; or do the profits of a pharmaceutical company supersede the 4th Amendment?
Let's see; it's not OK for Florida to test people for drugs while they receive welfare but it is OK to force an immunization on a person. Makes perfect sense to me...???
Mal'achi--The Florida testing of welfare recipients did happen and the results are nominal--roughly 2% tested positive for drugs which is much less than the general publics drug use. So, it was much ado about a problem that wasn't really there. Now, if everyone who receives government money (pell grants, subsidies, tax credits, bailouts) were held to the same standard and forced to pee in a cup then it might be a more fair policy. By the way, the Florida Gov. Rick Scott has a financial stake in the drug test kits that were being supplied--what a surprise! Just like Gov. Rick Perry with his HPV mandate, any legislator that has or will have a financial stake in a policy should not be thrown out until the "conflict of interest" is dealt with.
I don't have kids and am not sold one way or the other on the HPV vaccine (I had HPV 20years ago). However, as much as I trust government agencies like the CDC over corporate p.r. machines, I also know that sadly, the two have been intertwined for years. Those who claim we need "evidence" to support our suspicions just need to look at cases like Aspartame (Nutra Sweet) and the FDA. Aspartame was found by the FDA to have serious complications but through crony appointments and other shenanigan, the agency finally granted approval after 16 years of industry arm wrangling.
Or the Minerals Management Service that was supposed to regulate the oil industry but was planted with former executives and cronies which led to chummy dealings, lax regulation and bogus safety claims--hence, the BP spill resulted. Or that there are 2 lobbiests from the healthcare industry for every elected official, donating to their campaigns and influencing favorable policy. Or industry funded think tanks and research that tweaks to tell the story they want to tell. Or cororate consortiums like ALEC that have actually WRITTEN a surprising amount of favorable legislation. Our agencies are increasingly corrpupted through our dysfunctional political system by those who do not have society's best interest at hand. Google each one and you can see for yourself. (MSNBC doesn't let me link for some reason). That is my evidence that we may need to apply the Precautionary Principle, when it comes to some new Big Pharma manufactured crisis.
I do not wear a tin foil hat but as much as I want to beleive my government (and I do more than not) and I do beleive in science, I also am not naive enough to ignore the sickening infiltration of those with self interest that have actuaries that perform risk assement formulas playing the odds that the profit to be made is worth the "side effects" for the general public. These decisions go through an agencies filled with industry cronies that go back and forth between government "service" and their industry. Big Pharma is one of many.
The problem with our growing reliance on pills and miracle drugs is that we are ignoring basic health prevention and causing other problems down the road. Diet and responsible action must also not go by the wayside. Think about where all these drugs go--the residue is ending up in our water, affecting the eco system and wildlife. The viruses eventually become resistent creating super bugs, needing larger doses. All actions cause a reaction, folks!
I say educate your kids, do your own research, read the CDC and other reports, other countries governments views, check where the funding for reports come from and any self-interest motives from the funders, clinical trials, who is heading the government agency and their resume', and then, only then, proceed if you feel comfortable. Don't let those who accuse you of ignoring science make you feel irresponsible for not immunizing your kids. However, don't let your well-deserved, natural suspicion prevent you from common sense and paranoia either. The best defense is educating your kids on what the risks of being sexually active are. Ignorance is much more dangerous than either the shot or the HPV virus itself.
envirogal
Excellent (post) come back without the use of derogatory remarks. You get 5 starts in my book!
We can be adults and voice our opinions. That is how we grow and expand our views (or solidify them). Thanks for the stars!
Just another product being pushed to the slave population. Just as any product being pushed for profit, it is so wonderful knowing I am the one who decides not to buy any of the peddlers wares/snake oil.
Just as any product that some people crave and can not live without, no walking scientific encyclopedias can force feed anyone not willing to buy. Too funny......I am still not buying.
Maybe they also want my dog to get it. This all about money and nothing else.
absolutely! some boys and men are carriers of hpv and it can make the women they are with get it if both people have not been vaccinated for it. it is such a common thing that most people dont think a man has it but it is the complete opposite.
A must-read for all of those here today:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/19/cbsnews_investigates/main5253431.shtml
Excellent Post.
Did anyone else happen to notice that comments against vaccines are routinely "collapsed by the community"? How many big pharma trolls are working these sites when articles like this are published? Tell me, you mindless trolls, are you proud of the work you're doing? Pitiful!
Wake Up: Maybe it's because anti-vaxers are ignorant fools spewing disinformation.
whatever2002- maybe, just maybe the vaxers are being the sheep and can't think do research for themselves. Baaaaa Baaaaa. Go follow the flock now!
Right people who cite published peer-reviewed science are the sheeple. Makes total sense.