Immunizations and You ...

[mshheaddoc]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Assuming the vaccine works $360 on a vaccine is a lot less than treating cancer... both financially and psychologically!

I had a huge post typed out and lost it but this was one of my points I was going to add ...

 

[Jolie South]

Interestingly enough, if you get an HIV vaccine you can never donate blood in this country again as per FDA guidelines.

This is fairly obvious considering how they test you for HIV. The ELISA detects the presence of anti HIV antibodies in your system. Thus you would test positive even though you've never had HIV because the vaccine induced production of antibodies against the viral proteins.

It is used in combination with the Western blot, but I think that blood banks would use the ELISA only because it is less expensive and time consuming and it is sensitive (meaning that they would like to err on the side of false positives)

for epi folks out there, don't get on my arse about my def of sensitivity. i was just trying to figure out a basic definition without getting into the whole deal.

 

[ssquared]

Assuming the vaccine works $360 on a vaccine is a lot less than treating cancer... both financially and psychologically!

Well, naturally.

Isn't cervical cancer one of the deadliest forms of cancer?

 

[alwaysaangel]

Well, naturally.

Isn't cervical cancer one of the deadliest forms of cancer?

Apparently not deadly enough, I was told by my doctor at Kaiser that I couldn't have the HPV vaccine because it was only available to virgins. I later found out they just don't want to pay for it for you unless you're a virgin.

Talk about stupid...

 

[Gut Shot]

Um. Well this is my major so let's see if I can come up with something relatively intelligent about vericella.

Varicella.

 

[mshheaddoc]

Apparently not deadly enough, I was told by my doctor at Kaiser that I couldn't have the HPV vaccine because it was only available to virgins. I later found out they just don't want to pay for it for you unless you're a virgin.

Talk about stupid...

well it makes sense if you've already been sexually active b/c most likely you've already been exposed to it. I wonder if you could convince otherwise if you were both virgins and hadn't had any sexual contact previously.

 

[alwaysaangel]

well it makes sense if you've already been sexually active b/c most likely you've already been exposed to it. I wonder if you could convince otherwise if you were both virgins and hadn't had any sexual contact previously.

No it doesn't make sense. Most other doctors are giving it to sexually active people. First of all, yes a lot of people would be exposed to it, but certainly not all (something like 80% of Americans have one form or another). Secondly, even if you were already exposed to one of the strains it protects against, getting the vaccine could protect you against the other strains.

Thirdly, the NP lied to me saying it was UNAVAILABLE to non-virgins, when in reality Kaiser just doesn't want to pay for it for non-virgins. For almost a year I thought I was never going to be able to get it - which I thought was rather ridiculous. Since then I found out I have sexually active friends who have gotten it from their doctors and their insurances.

Lastly, I do fall into the category you described where I've had a single partner and we were both definitely clean. So they should have given it to me, but Kaiser doesn't care - they find any excuse not to pay for it - I find that irresponsible and morally reprehensible.

I see a lot of value in the vaccine for women and I think it should be offered to everyone and by all insurances. Instead most insurances (not just Kaiser) are finding any excuse to not pay for it. Do they really think it will be cheaper to treat us for cervical cancer?

Fortunately, now I'm back on school insurance and I will hopefully be getting it from my new doctor in a few weeks.

 

[kronickm]

This is fairly obvious considering how they test you for HIV. The ELISA detects the presence of anti HIV antibodies in your system. Thus you would test positive even though you've never had HIV because the vaccine induced production of antibodies against the viral proteins.

It is used in combination with the Western blot, but I think that blood banks would use the ELISA only because it is less expensive and time consuming and it is sensitive (meaning that they would like to err on the side of false positives)

for epi folks out there, don't get on my arse about my def of sensitivity. i was just trying to figure out a basic definition without getting into the whole deal.

First line test is a NAT (nucleic acid testing) followed up by a western blot I believe for confirmatory testing.

 

[mshheaddoc]

No it doesn't make sense. Most other doctors are giving it to sexually active people. First of all, yes a lot of people would be exposed to it, but certainly not all (something like 80% of Americans have one form or another). Secondly, even if you were already exposed to one of the strains it protects against, getting the vaccine could protect you against the other strains.

Thirdly, the NP lied to me saying it was UNAVAILABLE to non-virgins, when in reality Kaiser just doesn't want to pay for it for non-virgins. For almost a year I thought I was never going to be able to get it - which I thought was rather ridiculous. Since then I found out I have sexually active friends who have gotten it from their doctors and their insurances.

Lastly, I do fall into the category you described where I've had a single partner and we were both definitely clean. So they should have given it to me, but Kaiser doesn't care - they find any excuse not to pay for it - I find that irresponsible and morally reprehensible.

I see a lot of value in the vaccine for women and I think it should be offered to everyone and by all insurances. Instead most insurances (not just Kaiser) are finding any excuse to not pay for it. Do they really think it will be cheaper to treat us for cervical cancer?

Fortunately, now I'm back on school insurance and I will hopefully be getting it from my new doctor in a few weeks.

I meant it makes sense if someone has already had sex why some might be hesistant to put the money out. That does make sense since most everyone already has some form.

Sorry about your personal experience but as I mentioned my caveat, why make someoen shell out money if they are already exposed and it does no good. I understand your position on it and if you still want to pay for it, good for you but I'm just looking from a general non-biased standpoint.

I was at the cusp of the age groups tested and still considered trying to get it but gave up. I hope you get it 👍

 

[Jolie South]

First line test is a NAT (nucleic acid testing) followed up by a western blot I believe for confirmatory testing.

I stand corrected. My profs always told me that they do an ELISA to check for anti-HIV antibodies.

At the time, I guess that was the gold standard, maybe it has changed.

 

[mshheaddoc]

I stand corrected. My profs always told me that they do an ELISA to check for anti-HIV antibodies.

At the time, I guess that was the gold standard, maybe it has changed.

Interesting, that's what I was told as well. I'll look that up! Thanks for the info.

 

[Jolie South]

Interesting, that's what I was told as well. I'll look that up! Thanks for the info.

on Medline, run by the NIH, it does say that an ELISA screen is run and then confirmed by Western Blot.

 

[mshheaddoc]

Ok, here's what I found:

FDA's role in HIV/AIDS

FDA approved test kits

FDA guidelines on NAT for pooled blood samples

I'm going to take a guess that NAT and EIA's are both used but I'm wondering which is cheaper, I'm going to guess EIA's since that's what I've been told but I can't find anymore information about that since the RedCross doesn't openly explain how they test.


Ahhh, from what I'm reading NAT is for plasma donors, confirmed by the FDA test-kit product page.