<p>FWIW: If they develop an ovarian cancer vaccine I would be in the front of the line and I would be hauling my D with me. This cancer is silent, attacks with stealth and has no reliable or regular screening technique and is often deadly when discovered. This type of disease profile would cause me to accept a higher risk profile with an associated vaccine.</p>
<p>dietz, my response to your post above is that treating early cervical cancer is one thing. Treating laryngeal/tonsilar cancer is another thing entirely. Laryngeal cancer is not always visible to a dentist. These kinds of exams are NOT part of a routine exam. I know a doctor who is undergoing this and it is hell, pure hell. WHY would you prefer to treat a cancer of this kind than prevent it? Risk/benefit here if we are talking tonsilar/laryngeal cancer lands soundly on the side of prevention, imo.</p>
<p>I understand not just blindly taking meds/getting vaccines. But we are talking CANCER, some forms involving some horrible treatment once it occurs. Once the horse is out of the barn (HPV infection), there is no going back.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, you can’t require visitors to produce certificates of wellness, and even if you could, that isn’t going to eliminate risk. It’s just not feasible. I think the hospitals recognize that they can only reduce, not eliminate risk. The variables they can effect are requiring their employees to be vaccinated. Floors can institute hand washing, wearing protective gowns and masks around immunosupressed, etc., but there is no way to completely eliminate risk. Human beings carry bacteria, they get illnesses which involve periods of time without symptoms even though they are contagious, etc. Many hospitals try very hard to reduce the risk. But that’s just never going to be a perfect or even close to perfect system.</p>
<p>Nrdsb4: No argument here that Laryngeal cancer is way beyond cervical cancer. I’m curious as to why Merck is not able to label their drug as effective for this area? Do you know if any studies are underway? </p>
<p>I’ve not looked into the other possible protective factors of this particular vaccine. Frankly, it never gets mentioned during any of D’s (or my) screenings. </p>
<p>I’m certainly not an anti vaccine freak. Ironically, I live in the extended aura of alternative/hippy ville and there are a large and vocal band of criers who will blame vaccines for anything from ADHD to world hunger. And of course these vaccines are administered via ChemTrails during the darkness of night by the powers that be…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>PLEASE don’t rely on routine Pap smears. A friend of mine died at age 42 from cervical cancer. She was a DES daughter and had been getting Pap smears twice a year since her cancer risk was higher. Turns out that her previous 12 labs had been misread and when her cancer was found, it was too late. </p>
<p>I read somewhere that Pap tests are not the most reliable and that we are told to get them every year for that reason (when they should be needed more like once every 3 years). I’m not sure what the rate of false positives and negatives are but if you’re particularly at risk, vary which labs you use to better protect yourself.</p>
<p>And if you’re not particularly at risk, get BOTH the HPV vaccine and routine Pap smears.</p>
<p>
Wouldn’t some of the fault be placed on to the one interpreting the PAP smear? Or are the readings of the PAP smear so unreliable that a correct interpretation couldn’t be made? What other lab should one get?</p>
<p>Yes, the lab was at fault and the case went to trial. The lab was associated with a particular hospital and university. In hindsight, she could have visited a different hospital/university in the same city just to get a second opinion. Or maybe she could have visited a national cancer center or research center. Hindsight is 20/20…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The average woman can certainly rely on routine pap smears. Your friend’s situation was way out of the normal, both in terms of having the bad luck to rely on a lab high on the incompetence ladder, and having been a DES child, which is not even remotely the typical situation. </p>
<p>For women already infected with HPV, pap smears are really the best tool as they cannot benefit from the vaccine. What alternative are you suggesting? Your friend’s situation probably would have been caught with her twice per year pap smears had not the lab been engaging in outrageously bad practices. Secondly, if your friend was at high risk for cervical cancer (and most women are not), she should have been being examined with a colposcopy in addition to pap smear. When I had two abnormal but not cancerous pap smears in a row, my gynecologist insisted upon routine colposcopy exams every six months, in addition to pap smears. This went on for years, until I had many normal consecutive pap smears.</p>
<p>My friend did have a cervical biopsy 3 years before her cancer had been found and it too was misread (by the same lab). And BTW, the university and hospital affiliated with this lab is very highly rated. </p>
<p>I’m not suggesting that women not undergo Pap tests, only that they don’t assume that Pap tests will find everything accurately and that therefore they don’t need the HPV vaccine. Pap smears are faulty. Not as faulty as routine prostate testing but faulty all the same.</p>
<p>^^^Point taken, but MANY women are not eligible for the HPV vaccine, and they must depend on pap smears and possibly colopscopy, which is not the same as cervical biopsy. Your friend should have been having a colopscopy exam EVERY single time she went to the doctor. And the fact that her biopsy was misread is just beyond the pale in terms of bad luck and repetitive exposure to incompetence.</p>
<p>I’m not sure what else she had done. She died more than 10 years ago, were colopscopies done then? I haven’t heard of them before this.</p>
<p>Health care workers absolutely have a right to refuse a flu shot. Just as their employers have a right to tell employees that if they won’t take such a basic and simple step to protect their patients, then their services are no longer required. We cannot eliminate risk. But we sure can reduce it. I don’t understand the resistance.</p>
<p>The procedure is a colposcopy and it involves the use of a special microscope (looks like binoculars) to inspect an area in great detail. This procedure has been around for a long time - certainly longer than 10 years.</p>
<p>Greenwitch, the story of your friend is terrifying and unbelievable. How a well known and respected facility could have a system which fails a patient 12 times is beyond understanding. Neither you nor the patient could have done anything else.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, absolutely they were. I was having abnormal pap smears 25 years ago, and my ob/gyn insisted that I come in every three months at first, then every six months for a colposcopy and pap smear. The colposcope gives them a microscopic view of the cervix, which will show them when subtle cell changes are occurring on the cervix. Every exam I had included this particular exam without fail. At the time, I was impressed with this doctor’s insistence on careful follow up of my pap smears and found comfort in the fact that this vigilance would find a potential problem early.</p>
<p>This year, for the first time, New York state is requiring all health care workers to either get a flu shot or wear a mask when ever they are in the presence of patients.</p>
<p>Here’s the CDC’s vaccine page. Lots of info there:</p>
<p>[Vaccines:</a> HOME page for Vaccines and Immunizations site](<a href=“http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/]Vaccines:”>Vaccines and Immunizations | CDC)</p>
<p>I’ve heard that the CDC web site has state-by-state compliance figures but I can’t easily find it. There’s a big box called “Vaccination Coverage and Surveillance” but it has a bewildering option of topics after you click on it. They need a few excellent graphic artists to make it all into charts and maps that the feeble minded (such as I) can understand quickly and easily.</p>
<p>My first coloposcopy was 20+ years ago. I had a bad pap - the day I found out I was pregnant with first child, the labs came back as pre-cancerous. </p>
<p>Was supposed to wait till cycle began normally before the colposcopy. Unfortunately, ended up pregnant with baby 2, which meant I had to wait nearly 2 years before having the colposcopy. </p>
<p>Came back fine. </p>
<p>We had some issues scheduling the Gardasil for D, and after the first two doses, nurse insisted we were off track and wanted to start whole series again. Interestingly enough, the doctor gave us the schedule at first visit and she understood timing dilemma as child going outnof state for college. Did some research about side effects, which made us decide not to pursue third dose. </p>
<p>I am all for vaccines, especially those that provide herd immunity. My opinions about Gardasil are mixed considering not only the cost, but also the anecdotal cases of deaths,seizures and other side effects. Daughter made an informed choice to not go for third shot. She may change her mind. If she does, I will be happy to pay for the boosters.</p>
<p>While i was waiting for the nurse to get that third dose approved by doc on call that day, they let us sit in waiting room for a couple hours. Long enough to do research on risks vs. benefits of Gardasil. </p>
<p>This article was the one that made us get up and leave the office. </p>
<p>[Gardasil</a> Researcher Speaks Out - CBS News](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500690_162-5253431.html]Gardasil”>http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500690_162-5253431.html)</p>
<p>If we didn’t have a history of blood clots in family, might have reconsidered.</p>
<p>Just a note regarding the shingles vaccine: At my oncological checkup I asked about having the shingles vaccine. (I got chicken pox at 13 and it was a bad case.) My doctor flipped and said absolutely not. In my case (and I’m not dealing with “only” breast cancer) my doctor flipped. In my case that vaccine could be very, very serious. Ask your doctor first.</p>
<p>I was at the pharmacy when they asked me if I wanted to have the vaccine. Thank God I was late to meet someone.</p>