Quote:
Originally Posted by AKA_Monet
Girls and young women have generally under the age of 26 have rapidly replacing cervical cells.
HPV rapidly infects cells that are constantly dividing. Cervical cells generally do not divide that much as a woman ages.
The thing about HPV is that it's a gateway virus for other more virulent STI's, such as Herpes and HIV.
HPV vaccination may only cover 4-5 strains but it is a first line of defense for those girls and young women to never develop a horrific illness starting in their 30's or 40's or later.
Even though cervical cancer rates are not as high as breast cancer rates, the treatment efficacy is poor with the current chemotherapeutics.
The issue is that determined horny kids will have sex. And more than likely without any condoms or birth control pills...
What is more unfortunate is the number of poor and minority girls and women who have barely any control of their bodies due to piss poor livelihoods and barely concern for their future.
So somehow, maybe this would be safer for these kinds of women or it is a massive sterilization mechanism...
Only time will tell.
|
Yep. For those of you who are wondering why they're not recommending the vaccine for women over 26, there are some reasons for that...
The younger women are, the more likely they are to have unprotected sex.
Unprotected sex is the leading cause of HPV.
HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer.
So, you see the connection? Older women just don't get HPV at the same rate as younger (and poorer) girls/women. And, as with most cancers, the younger you are, the more serious/advanced your cancer is likely to be.
Regarding the comments about cervical cancer being easy to treat - it's not. As AKA Monet said, cervical cancer does not have the same targeted cancer treatments available as in, say, breast cancer. Chemotherapy is literally poisoning the body...it has massive consequences along with the benefits, especially for women of reproductive age. Imagine your 18 or 19-year old daughter getting a hysterectomy or becoming infertile as a result of getting cervical cancer. She may live, but she will have lost a big part of what she may have wanted for her life.
As someone who used to work with a major biotech company that developed cancer treatments, I would encourage parents to seriously consider the vaccine. But, I think Texas has overstepped by mandating the vaccination. The only reason i say this is because the vaccine was only approved very recently. Merck will continue to do research on the vaccine for several years, will track side effects/safety over time, and will likely continue to announce data/side-effects/benefits, etc. as they come up. I do not think it's a good idea to mandate this vaccine for every girl in the state until more time has gone by.
Regarding the educational Web site someone mentioned here, those are quite common. The reason they exist is because the FDA heavily regulates marketing to consumers...there are a lot of rules about how they can advertise. But, one of the other reasons these Web sites and educational campaigns exist is because often these drugs are treating complicated disorders/diseases that can't be explained in a 30-second commercial. Also, doctors do not always know about all the newer treatments, so most cancer centers/organizations/companies will tell you that it's a good idea to keep yourself informed so that you can have a dialogue with your doctor and ask questions, not just wait for him/her to tell you what to do. Contrary to what many people believe, my experience has been that biotech and pharma companies generally work very hard to ensure the safety of their treatments and to make sure their products reach the people they will help. The "cover ups" that make the news are only half of the story and they're certainly the exception more than the rule.
Hybrid Mode
