Gardasil

[trailmix 77]

Okay what I don't get though is we are talking and treating HPV like a cancer that any one can get, instead of an STD that can possibly grow into a cancer.

If you get tested for HPV yearly and you don't have it, and you are getting married to someone who you should know has an STD or doesn't have an STD, then why would you optionally get the vaccine? That seems so silly to me, of course, in my personal opinion only.

Yeah this is exactly my point.

The only way the shot would be beneficial is if one day your hubby comes home and tells you that he has been sleeping around. Otherwise, you wouldn't need to be protected against the STD if you are in a marriage and you are both faithful.

Yeah, this does make sense.

But who knows really. Maybe someone could be raped by someone who's known to be a carrier of STDs.

It's hard to say, really.

I don't think that this ever crossed anyone elses mind - regarding the rape scenario - including those who thought up this requirement.

[Rhiannercakes 14]

Okay what I don't get though is we are talking and treating HPV like a cancer that any one can get, instead of an STD that can possibly grow into a cancer.

If you get tested for HPV yearly and you don't have it, and you are getting married to someone who you should know has an STD or doesn't have an STD, then why would you optionally get the vaccine? That seems so silly to me, of course, in my personal opinion only.

Yeah this is exactly my point.

The only way the shot would be beneficial is if one day your hubby comes home and tells you that he has been sleeping around. Otherwise, you wouldn't need to be protected against the STD if you are in a marriage and you are both faithful.

Yeah, this does make sense.

But who knows really. Maybe someone could be raped by someone who's known to be a carrier of STDs.

It's hard to say, really.

I don't think that this ever crossed anyone elses mind - regarding the rape scenario - including those who thought up this requirement.

Oh I'm sure it hasn't.

I just brought it up since it could happen.

God forbid it does though.

I don't think what thetreble said crossed their minds either, though.

Edited August 22, 2009 by Rhiann

[Danu 19]

Okay what I don't get though is we are talking and treating HPV like a cancer that any one can get, instead of an STD that can possibly grow into a cancer.

If you get tested for HPV yearly and you don't have it, and you are getting married to someone who you should know has an STD or doesn't have an STD, then why would you optionally get the vaccine? That seems so silly to me, of course, in my personal opinion only.

Yeah this is exactly my point.

The only way the shot would be beneficial is if one day your hubby comes home and tells you that he has been sleeping around. Otherwise, you wouldn't need to be protected against the STD if you are in a marriage and you are both faithful.

Yeah, this does make sense.

But who knows really. Maybe someone could be raped by someone who's known to be a carrier of STDs.

It's hard to say, really.

I don't think that this ever crossed anyone elses mind - regarding the rape scenario - including those who thought up this requirement.

The thing is they didn't think this up as a requirement. That law they put in in 1992 means that any vaccine they recommend for their own citizens (recommend, not require) automatically gets added to our needed list. The people who recommended it didn't realize that would happen, so now they are trying to find a way to fix that issue in the law without having to un-recommend the vaccine.

[trailmix 77]

Okay what I don't get though is we are talking and treating HPV like a cancer that any one can get, instead of an STD that can possibly grow into a cancer.

If you get tested for HPV yearly and you don't have it, and you are getting married to someone who you should know has an STD or doesn't have an STD, then why would you optionally get the vaccine? That seems so silly to me, of course, in my personal opinion only.

Yeah this is exactly my point.

The only way the shot would be beneficial is if one day your hubby comes home and tells you that he has been sleeping around. Otherwise, you wouldn't need to be protected against the STD if you are in a marriage and you are both faithful.

Yeah, this does make sense.

But who knows really. Maybe someone could be raped by someone who's known to be a carrier of STDs.

It's hard to say, really.

I don't think that this ever crossed anyone elses mind - regarding the rape scenario - including those who thought up this requirement.

The thing is they didn't think this up as a requirement. That law they put in in 1992 means that any vaccine they recommend for their own citizens (recommend, not require) automatically gets added to our needed list. The people who recommended it didn't realize that would happen, so now they are trying to find a way to fix that issue in the law without having to un-recommend the vaccine.

Ok, the people who thought up this recommendation then

I'm not arguing the right or wrong of the vaccination - or the recommendation, my point was about the theoretical rape scenario.

[Krikit 1,163]

Good luck on your waiver, Amanda. I hope you come back and let us know how it went.

[Rhiannercakes 14]

Okay what I don't get though is we are talking and treating HPV like a cancer that any one can get, instead of an STD that can possibly grow into a cancer.

If you get tested for HPV yearly and you don't have it, and you are getting married to someone who you should know has an STD or doesn't have an STD, then why would you optionally get the vaccine? That seems so silly to me, of course, in my personal opinion only.

Yeah this is exactly my point.

The only way the shot would be beneficial is if one day your hubby comes home and tells you that he has been sleeping around. Otherwise, you wouldn't need to be protected against the STD if you are in a marriage and you are both faithful.

Yeah, this does make sense.

But who knows really. Maybe someone could be raped by someone who's known to be a carrier of STDs.

It's hard to say, really.

I don't think that this ever crossed anyone elses mind - regarding the rape scenario - including those who thought up this requirement.

The thing is they didn't think this up as a requirement. That law they put in in 1992 means that any vaccine they recommend for their own citizens (recommend, not require) automatically gets added to our needed list. The people who recommended it didn't realize that would happen, so now they are trying to find a way to fix that issue in the law without having to un-recommend the vaccine.

Ok, the people who thought up this recommendation then

I'm not arguing the right or wrong of the vaccination - or the recommendation, my point was about the theoretical rape scenario.

I always seem to add on things that are such a bad case scenario, don't mind me sometimes

[Baltar 0]

I'm confused though -

They say 26 years is the cutoff date, but does that mean the 26th birthday is the cutoff date or the 27th birthday (as in after 26 years old)

My wife turned 26 last month does that mean they will force this on her?

[Peachey 10]

She will have to get it if she is under the age of 27 and not pregnant.

You can always apply for a waiver, but that takes a long time and it's not guaranteed.

[Baltar 0]

She will have to get it if she is under the age of 27 and not pregnant.

You can always apply for a waiver, but that takes a long time and it's not guaranteed.

or maybee hope the indian doctors ran out of gardasil that day ;P

[The Dude 206]

The word fraud comes to mind

[svirac 0]

It seems I can't win. When I don't disclose what we did, people complain and ask me to speak up. When I do disclose it, people make fraud accusations. I only posted it because I was getting PMed frequently to please share the info - people asking me to do so as this comes up quite often in these forums.

In any case, I'll keep it out there for a while. If it's deemed inappropriate or if people complain more, I'll ask the moderators to remove the post on my behalf. I apologize for whatever problems any other users may have. I was just trying to help.

[The Dude 206]

Accused of fraud? You admitted as such. You were right to keep it private in the first place. Advocating fraud on this website is a violation of the TOS.....

[SapphireDreams 71]

Accused of fraud? You admitted as such. You were right to keep it private in the first place. Advocating fraud on this website is a violation of the TOS.....

He's not advocating fraud. He's just sharing his experience since so many people were asking him what he did.

I kind of figured that's what happened. It was pretty obvious from his inital posts that it wasn't exactly the most moral thing to do.

[The Dude 206]

If you outline how to commit fraud in a public forum, you are advocating it, whether that is your intended purpose or not.

[trailmix 77]

It seems I can't win. When I don't disclose what we did, people complain and ask me to speak up. When I do disclose it, people make fraud accusations. I only posted it because I was getting PMed frequently to please share the info - people asking me to do so as this comes up quite often in these forums.

In any case, I'll keep it out there for a while. If it's deemed inappropriate or if people complain more, I'll ask the moderators to remove the post on my behalf. I apologize for whatever problems any other users may have. I was just trying to help.

I hear you svirac - people were asking and asking that you post what you did, then you do and you get accused of fraud. Well it truly is a no-win situation for you here.

I would hope we could cut svirac a little slack - while it may not be a choice that some of us would make, he is just telling his story.