RE: HPV

RE: HPV (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Health and Safety

Message

TheFireWithinMe -> RE: HPV (10/23/2011 5:59:51 PM)
quote: It looks like pretty good sized sample to me, maybe half the entire cervix. Maybe you aren't as educated in medical matters as you seem to think you are. No it looks like a fairly thick sample covering most of the circumference of the cervix. Nonetheless, as I said before it very much varies. When mine was done it was a much smaller sample as it was for diagnostic purposes. It DEPENDS on the purpose of the conization. Interesting how I've managed to state my case while you need to use personal attacks. Somehow, TO ME it makes your argument weaker.

DeviantlyD -> RE: HPV (10/23/2011 6:00:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct Ishtarr et al I had to do a little digging on topic a couple of months ago... A few points- There are some differences in the two vaccines currently available, although more are in development. Cervarix a bivalent vaccine (protects against 2 strains), uses a more sophisticated adjuvant (an adjuvant is a compound that helps alert the immune system that it should be engaged) that is less likely to cause irritation and will allow the vaccine to stay active longer. Gardasil is a tetravalent vaccine and protects against 4 strains (including 16 and 18 IIRC which are the two strains that Cervarix protects against) but the vaccine may not last as long. Caution-the vaccine does NOT work for life- it's probable that boosters may be needed after some years. The advantage of Gardasil is that the additional strains it targets lead to genital warts in men- hence the push to immunize young men and women with this vaccine. There is a geographical linkage to the various stains of HPV-IIRC, in Thailand, the strains that are most commonly linked to cervical cancer are NOT 16 and 18. (maybe 54?) Some docs are saying that since there are a lot of strains of HPV- and you only get infected with one strain at a time- the vaccine will protect you from infection with additional strains. and that the idea that vaccination should be limited to people with no sexual history is in error. YMMV. Sam I'm not sure in which context you are using the bolded part, but I'll take a shot. ;) I don't think it's the idea of not having any sexual history exactly, it's the idea that if you vaccinate before any sexual involvement, you will prevent those particular infections when that person is sexually active. If it's given after sexual activity is already partaken by the recipient of the vaccine, it might end up being a situation of putting the cart before the horse. There is the potential for that person already being infected by the vaccine they are taking to prevent being infected. I don't think anyone in the medical community is saying "you can't have this because you're sexually active now". Did I misunderstand you here? Also, a person can get infected with as many strains of HPV and or STD's as their partner is carrying. They may or may not get infected with all or any, but it's certainly possible to get multiple infections at one go.

Hisprettybaby -> RE: HPV (10/23/2011 6:13:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheFireWithinMe quote: It looks like pretty good sized sample to me, maybe half the entire cervix. Maybe you aren't as educated in medical matters as you seem to think you are. No it looks like a fairly thick sample covering most of the circumference of the cervix. Nonetheless, as I said before it very much varies. When mine was done it was a much smaller sample as it was for diagnostic purposes. It DEPENDS on the purpose of the conization. Interesting how I've managed to state my case while you need to use personal attacks. Somehow, TO ME it makes your argument weaker. I think you are confusing Conization of the Cervix with punch biopsies of the cervix. Did you have a conization or punch biopsies? The picture I referenced was not my own, it was from a medical site on the internet. You are doing the same thing you accused me of....touting your personal experience as medical fact. Excuse me, that's like the pot calling the kettle black. Again, I don't think you know as much as you seem to think you do. I'm backing up what I say with references and links to medical sites. What are you backing up your statements with?

TheFireWithinMe -> RE: HPV (10/23/2011 6:18:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hisprettybaby quote: ORIGINAL: TheFireWithinMe quote: It looks like pretty good sized sample to me, maybe half the entire cervix. Maybe you aren't as educated in medical matters as you seem to think you are. No it looks like a fairly thick sample covering most of the circumference of the cervix. Nonetheless, as I said before it very much varies. When mine was done it was a much smaller sample as it was for diagnostic purposes. It DEPENDS on the purpose of the conization. Interesting how I've managed to state my case while you need to use personal attacks. Somehow, TO ME it makes your argument weaker. I think you are confusing Conization of the Cervix with punch biopsies of the cervix. Did you have a conization or punch biopsies? The picture I referenced was not my own, it was from a medical site on the internet. You are doing the same thing you accused me of....touting your personal experience as medical fact. Excuse me, that's like the pot calling the kettle black. Again, I don't think you know as much as you seem to think you do. I'm backing up what I say with references and links to medical sites. What are you backing up your statements with? No it was conization. I know it wasn't yours it was part of the article you linked. I'm not accusing you of anything, I just simply remarked that it's interesting that you need to make personal attacks rather than simply stating your case. Okay, you want me to back what I'm saying with links okay cool, here you go. http://www.webmd.com/cancer/cervical-cancer/cone-biopsy-conization-for-abnormal-cervical-cell-changes Specifically this: Remove a thin or a thick cone of tissue from the cervix, depending on how much tissue needs to be examined.

Hisprettybaby -> RE: HPV (10/23/2011 6:29:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheFireWithinMe I'm not accusing you of anything, I just simply remarked that it's interesting that you need to make personal attacks rather than simply stating your case. Okay, you want me to back what I'm saying with links okay cool, here you go. http://www.webmd.com/cancer/cervical-cancer/cone-biopsy-conization-for-abnormal-cervical-cell-changes Specifically this: Remove a thin or a thick cone of tissue from the cervix, depending on how much tissue needs to be examined. It's about time you started backing up statements you tout as fact. The thing is, I did not attack you. I simply posted about my personal experience and then you jumped on me about what I posted. When I posted links to back up what I said, complete with a picture from the link, then you continued to accuse me of being wrong and misleading. I'm not saying a thinner sample can't be taken, the picture just happened to show a thicker one. As a matter of fact, I've been present at multiple cervical conizations and held the excised tissue in my gloved hands.

TheFireWithinMe -> RE: HPV (10/23/2011 6:38:19 PM)
Dramatic much? "jumped on"? "accused you of being misleading"? I corrected a statement you made which might have mislead people to think it's always a "good size" of the cervix that is taken, and simply threw your own word back at you.

Hisprettybaby -> RE: HPV (10/23/2011 6:51:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheFireWithinMe Dramatic much? "jumped on"? "accused you of being misleading"? I corrected a statement you made which might have mislead people to think it's always a "good size" of the cervix that is taken, and simply threw your own word back at you. So you make a big deal about my post possibly being misleading by posting information that definitely is? quote: ORIGINAL: TheFireWithinMe BTW Hpb, conization is the removal of a cone-shaped sample of the uterus, most commonly for biopsy purposes but also as a treatment. So just how did your blatantly misleading information enlighten anyone? Apparently it's okay for you to jump on me for my post, but not okay for someone else to correct you regarding your misleading post? quote: ORIGINAL: TheFireWithinMe quote: TheFireWithinMe is providing some misleading and incorrect information here. Watch your words, that implies what I did is deliberate. At worst I provided a partial definition. Yeah I thought and pictured cervix and typed uterus, it wasn't to be misleading but rather that my brain ain't working. I've got news for you. I was not deliberately trying to mislead anyone. So what makes it okay for you to do something unintentionally, but not okay for anyone else? What makes you so special??

MstrDennynSlave -> RE: HPV (10/23/2011 6:52:24 PM)
I read Hisprettybaby's first post. I understood that she was talking about a good sized portion of the cervix being taken from her. I did not read it to mean that it is always a good portion. I have no medical training of any kind, but even I understood that it varies from person to person. And that it was just her experience, not the norm for everyone. Get down off your soapbox TheFireWithinMe.

Hisprettybaby -> RE: HPV (10/23/2011 6:53:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MstrDennynSlave I read Hisprettybaby's first post. I understood that she was talking about a good sized portion of the cervix being taken from her. I did not read it to mean that it is always a good portion. I have no medical training of any kind, but even I understood that it varies from person to person. And that it was just her experience, not the norm for everyone. Get down off your soapbox TheFireWithinMe. Thank You!!!!!!!!!!!!

TheFireWithinMe -> RE: HPV (10/23/2011 7:00:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MstrDennynSlave I read Hisprettybaby's first post. I understood that she was talking about a good sized portion of the cervix being taken from her. I did not read it to mean that it is always a good portion. I have no medical training of any kind, but even I understood that it varies from person to person. And that it was just her experience, not the norm for everyone. Get down off your soapbox TheFireWithinMe. That you saw it that way is fine but I saw it differently which leaves room for the possibility that others could see it that way. I am no more on a soapbox than she or anyone else posting here is. I simply corrected a post which could have people think that the sample taken is always large.

Hisprettybaby -> RE: HPV (10/23/2011 7:03:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheFireWithinMe I simply corrected a post which could have people think that the sample taken is always large. And in so doing, you posted blatantly misleading information of your own, so how does that make you any better or more right than the person you corrected?

TheFireWithinMe -> RE: HPV (10/23/2011 7:07:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hisprettybaby quote: ORIGINAL: TheFireWithinMe I simply corrected a post which could have people think that the sample taken is always large. And in so doing, you posted blatantly misleading information of your own, so how does that make you any better or more right than the person you corrected? And admitted I wrote the wrong word. It doesn't change the fact that sample size varies. Whereas until I posted that link you continued to state that sample size is always large.

Hisprettybaby -> RE: HPV (10/23/2011 7:11:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheFireWithinMe quote: ORIGINAL: Hisprettybaby quote: ORIGINAL: TheFireWithinMe I simply corrected a post which could have people think that the sample taken is always large. And in so doing, you posted blatantly misleading information of your own, so how does that make you any better or more right than the person you corrected? And admitted I wrote the wrong word. It doesn't change the fact that sample size varies. Whereas until I posted that link you continued to state that sample size is always large. quote: ORIGINAL: Hisprettybaby I'm not saying a thinner sample can't be taken, the picture just happened to show a thicker one. AND, I also have said it doesn't always have to be a large sample. So...what's your frickin' point here?

hausboy -> RE: HPV (10/23/2011 8:56:51 PM)
I posted this link on the other HPV thread... This is the same source that your healthcare providers use for guidance in the treatment, diagnosis and prevention of HPV. http://www.cdc.gov/hpv/

samboct -> RE: HPV (10/24/2011 6:22:04 AM)
DeviantlyD There is a push to vaccinate young people before they can get infected with various strains of HPV, since as once you've been infected, with the strain found in the vaccine- the vaccine doesn't do a whole lot of good. So your clarification is helpful- mea culpa for writing something potentially confusing. The vaccine costs several hundred dollars so there's an economic reason to deny access to the vaccine, which is why it's being pushed for youngsters where it's certainly going to do some good. Due to the economics, some physicians may be reluctant to prescribe the vaccine for women who have been sexually active. I think its unusual (unknown?) for HPV to infect with multiple strains at the same time. Yes, you can get different viruses at the same time, but I'm pretty sure that its quite unlikely to get infected with say HPV strain 16 at the same time as HPV strain 54. If I understand this correctly, you can have multiple antibodies for various viral strains which is how science shows you've been infected, but the infections have to occur sequentially for HPV. Note- I'm not a virologist, so this is something I need to check on, but I know for diseases like dengue- you get one strain at a time, and the second dengue infection is highly problematic. There are viruses such as HCMV where it is possible to get a mixed infection of several strains simultaneously. There's also another issue here- and one that's been a political hot potato. HPV infection doesn't automatically lead to cervical cancer, although some form of HPV infection is found in most (possibly all?) cases of cervical cancer. However, it's been known for decades that sex with multiple partners increases the risk of cervical cancer. There's probably been some racial overtones here as well, with women of a lower socio-economic class (i.e. poor) engaging in sex with multiple partners more frequently than women from higher socio-economic levels. It's NOT just sexual frequency- they did the control study with single partners. Somehow sex with multiple partners depresses the immune system so that HPV infection progresses to cancer. This is where the politics comes in- why should youngsters who may have few sexual partners in their life get treated with a vaccine for a disease that they're very unlikely to get? Women with a stronger immune system clear HPV infection with no need for a vaccine most of the time. The Pap smear is one of the few success stories in cancer diagnostics- the problem with it is that it needs a well trained individual using a microscope to determine whether or not the cells are progressing towards cancer. These vaccines make more sense in developing world countries, but they're unaffordable. Sam

poise -> RE: HPV (10/24/2011 6:56:50 AM)
== Fast Reply == The majority of this thread makes me feel that, if I were to ever have cervical cancer, than heaven forbid I better have it the ONE TWUE WAY, or else! Geez. For those that provided informative links, thank you.

kalikshama -> RE: HPV (10/24/2011 11:10:28 AM)
Sam, I read: The federal government's Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has received over 9,000 reports of problems since the vaccine's introduction in 2006, which include at least 28 spontaneous abortions, and 27 deaths. and like to give primary sources of data but am unfamiliar with http://vaers.hhs.gov/index. Do you know how to get stats on adverse events from VAERS? Thanks, KK

kalikshama -> RE: HPV (10/24/2011 11:18:27 AM)
I went to http://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html, selected HPV4 (HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS (TYPES 6, 11, 16, 18) RECOMBINANT VACCINE) and HPV (HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS VACCINE) left the rest as default and got 20,272 Events Reported (this is current as of Sept 14, 2011; my link above was from Oct 2008) If anyone has specific Qs I can drill down. Caveats: Some items may have more than 1 occurrence in any single event report, such as Symptoms, Vaccine Products, Manufacturers and Event Categories. If data are grouped by any of these items, then the number in the Events Reported column may exceed the total number of unique events. If percentages are shown, then the associated percentage of total unique event reports will exceed 100% in such cases. For example, the number of Symptoms mentioned is likely to exceed the number of events reported, because many reports include more than 1 Symptom. When more then 1 Symptom occurs in a single report, then the percentage of Symptoms to unique events is more than 100%. More information. Data contains VAERS reports processed as of 09/14/2011. The VAERS data in WONDER are updated monthly, yet the VAERS system receives continuous updates including revisions and new reports for preceding time periods. More information.

samboct -> RE: HPV (10/24/2011 11:30:56 AM)
Hi KK The high level stuff I saw on these vaccines was that they were considered quite safe. Most of the issues involved soreness at the site of injection which is due to the adjuvant. There was a big hullabaloo in India about the vaccine having caused fatalities, but AFAIK, those were coincidental. When you give vaccines to millions of people, you're going to have some cases where somebody drops dead in a week. Sam

kalikshama -> RE: HPV (10/24/2011 11:40:48 AM)
Thanks! I only got 39 results for 10022078 (INJECTION SITE INFLAMMATION) 10022079 (INJECTION SITE IRRITATION) 10049262 (INJECTION SITE JOINT WARMTH) so am going to have to play with the csv file or get a life.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625