Posted on 08/03/2016 8:11:38 AM PDT by Morgana
Cost of Goods Sold. Yes, the companies do actually pay for the shots. Until the customer/insurance company pays for it, the biotech companies are holding the bag. If they have found a way to reduce their costs, but still sell at the same price, then they've reduced their cost per shot, at the same time increasing gross profit per shot.
I'm not an anti-vaxxer, I just disagreed with what you said regarding cost, and who bears that cost.
And people tend to forget that a simple Pap test can detect cervical cancer and caught early can be treated.
And I can certainly see young girls think that now that they have the vaccine they are safe and don't need the pap tests.
Probably much more progress would be made against cervical cancer by routine pap tests than pushing for a largely untested vaccine to be used on girls in an age group who it was not tested for and nobody really knows the effectiveness of.
I don't trust big pharma and the government. If they are pushing it that hard, it certainly isn't out of any concern for the lives of the peons they are using it on.
I’m pretty sure that HPV is the last of peoples’ worries when they consider having sex, waaaaay behind pregnancy, HIV, herpes, crazed stalkers, etc.
“If they have found a way to reduce their costs, but still sell at the same price, then they’ve reduced their cost per shot, at the same time increasing gross profit per shot.”
Not if they are substituting some shoddy materials that will expose them to even greater liability, which is what the anti-vaxxers like to allege. They wouldn’t be saving any money at all, in the long run. Hence why we don’t see food companies substituting toxic chemicals in to lower their costs, because it makes no damn sense from a business perspective.
Annual Pap test and surgery as needed. That’s so much better than a vaccine.
Who gets sued and loses their entire business?
(and before you claim they’re shielded from those consequences by the vaccine courts, these are exactly the type of cases vaccine courts are designed to deal with)
You are the one that said only promiscuous women get cervical cancer with the obvious inference that the victim brought it on themselves.
Not only are you scientifically/medically ignorant but kind of a jerk with the victim blaming attitude.
The fact is, the HPV vaccine protects women from getting diseases from slutty men.
One of the big names pushing it is Terry Bradshaw.
“I don’t trust big pharma and the government. “
I don’t trust a site that:
1. Brings up a two year old death WITHOUT disclosing that it is two years old.
2. Does NOT give the ME’s cause of death.
“Explain why the entire population of young girls should be put at risk from side effects to possibly reduce that 4,100 cervical cancer death total. “
I’m with you.
Something is going to get all of us.
.
I didn’t exactly say only promiscuous women get HPV. I said or meant to say they are at greater risk.
I acknowledge that there is risk for other women.
But you too, apparently feel a need to personally insult to make a point.
I don’t understand the need for that. I’m a jerk??? Really???
When’s the last time a vaccine manufacturer was sued due to manufacturing a bad product and went out of business?
“The cervical cancer danger is in girls who are promiscuous.”
Yes, you did say that. It is both medically ignorant and victim blaming.
That is what jerks do, proclaim their ignorance while insulting victims of a disease.
I now know a person who is _at the top_ of the Gardasil product.
I mean, at the top top. Like, the creator.
This person believes in the vaccine and has their own kids vaccinated with it.
I’m NOT pro vaccine - I’m actually anti, but this person does disturb my stance. But I have to be honest and understand things that both support my viewpoints, and counter my viewpoints.
There are people around this person who think as I do and would never vaccinate their kids with it. So I’m not alone, and this person understands this.
Again, this person is VERY big in the Gardasil product. They use it and have it administered to their kids.
This vaccine would not have prevented 4100 deaths, even if given at the right time. The data I've read on Gardasil states that it only vaccinates against 4 (6, 11, 16, and 18) of the 40 known types of HPV. Of the four, 16 and 18 have been determined by the CDC to cause roughly 66% of cervical cancers in any given year (and 60% of all cancers related to HPV). There is a newer product, Gardasil 9, that adds HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 to the original 4. These additional 5 variants are determined to cause an additional 15% of cervical cancers, and 10% of other cancers - source - http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/hpv-gardasil-9-hcp-info.pdf.
CDC Information - http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/statistics/cases.htm
GARDASIL information - http://www.gardasil.com/hpv-and-your-child/what-is-hpv/.
That being said, it should be up to the parents/individuals on who gets the vaccine, not the government.
Not to mention the problem of false negatives (20-45% rate of missing abnormal cells) and the false positive rate (1-10%) that gets you more invasive testing or treatment for nothing.
So I’m really a jerk for having a certain perspective on a problem??? Really??? A perspective which is different from yours means I’m a jerk?
4100 death’s due hpv related cervical cancer/yr...”millions” what?
4100 a year is American women only. We are around 4% of the world population. Yes, inside of 5 years there probably are a million plus. Especially when you factor in medical care in a huge chunk of the world that isn’t America.
That’s the millions what.
Idiots and jerks calling other people idiots and jerks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.