Posted on 06/23/2007 11:27:29 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW
Hubby went to WalMart in Pennsylvania today. At the main entrance is a Gardasil booth handing out pamphlets. There was a line of parents so Hubby started a rant. He asked the woman why not just teach your daughters to keep their knickers on? Her answer was because they won't. Hubby responded that our daughter is in her 20's and still a virgin. She responded that daughters lie. He offered to let our "female tiger" talk to her.
At that point the woman asked if he was on his cellphone. He said "Yes" And how about this not being tested on 9 to 11 yr olds, your target group" She responded that it's been tested on 12 year olds. He said "You have no idea what the longterm affects of this drug are on reproduction"
At that point she didn't want to spar anymore and said "It's safe". But by then Hubby had already planted doubts and the parents in line had heard it all. I LOVE Hubby.
Anyone else need to visit a WalMart today?
Give me a break!
There is absolutely no comparison between HPV and polio. Except in cases of rape, people CHOOSE who to have sex with. Before the polio vaccine, people were afraid to go to the beach. Children died and had their lives ruined; even if cervical cancer develops, it is generally treatable.
Thanks for your insight, oakcon—you don’t want to know how many years it’s been since I was in high school!
Women and Men in the United States: March 2002
In 2002, the population of women in the US was 144 million
CDC Cervical Cancer Statistics
11,820 women were diagnosed with cervical cancer in 2003
3,919 women died from the disease that same year.
Dividing 11820 cases by 144 million women comes out to 0.0008208 or 0.08208%.
This is less than 1% of the population that contracts cervical cancer. Merck is encouraging females to be vaccinated for a disses that is now called rare by NEJM and in a significant decline by the CDC. The rate also varies by ethnicity.
Comparing Cervical Cancer by Race and Ethnicity
My second problem is that they want to give it to prepubescent females when the first clinical trials started in January of this year on only 100 Japanese girls 9 to 12. The clinical trial hasn't even concluded yet. All other trials were on 16 to 25 yr olds.
I doubt we can post excerpts from this rag, but it's an interesting read if you can stomach it. It's all about how concerned they are with their own agenda, but not a word of concern for their intended victims.
Yup. It was a discourse on "how to fool them next time" and "how we're fooling them in Utah, New Hampshire, South Dakota, and Washington now".
http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/2004HPV%20Report.pdf
“Cervical cancer is an uncommon consequence of HPV infection in women, especially if they are screened for cancer regularly with Pap tests and have appropriate follow-up of abnormalities.”
*************
http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm
“Most women who develop invasive cervical cancer have not had regular cervical cancer screening.”
*************
http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/HPVProviderSurveyExecSum.pdf
“Fortunately, most genital HPV infections are transient, do not produce recognizable signs, and do not result in clinically recognizable or clinically important conditions. Moreover, most HPV infections clear without any medical intervention within two years of infection.”
*************
From the American Cancer Society:
“Cervical cancer was once one of the most common causes of cancer death for American women. Between 1955 and 1992, the number of cervical cancer deaths in the United States dropped by 74%. The main reason for this change is the increased use of the Pap test. “
Thank you. Good stuff but the “chicken littles” will ignore most facts. It doesn’t fit with what they heard on TV. *sigh* Nonetheless, I appreciate the added info.
I’m glad to be of service.
Here’s some very interesting info:
http://www.drerika.com/blog?action=viewBlog&blogID=-548099865551059475
Great blog!
God bless your husband and you as parents. Sounds as though you are an outstanding example for all to follow.
May God continue to bless you!
Is that the best you can do? That’s baseless fear-mongering.
I keep seeing this. What is the esoteric link between this vaccine and the reproductive tract? It seems so obvious to so many people on this thread, yet I see no reason to suppose such a link.
It's recommended for young girls because the vaccine is 95% effective when administered before a woman catches HPV, but once infection occurs the effectiveness drops (since vaccines are preventative measures, not treatments for a disease).
How did you find the other article in NEJM you were hyping so much? I guess someone gave you a link and you never bothered to search for yourself??
In this ongoing study, subjects were followed for an average of 3 years after the administration of the first dose of vaccine or placebo. In the per-protocol susceptible population, which included 10,565 of 12,167 women who underwent randomization (87%), the vaccine prevented 98% of HPV-16/18–related high-grade cervical lesions (Table 3). In this population, 1 woman in the vaccine group and 42 women in the placebo group received the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 or cervical adenocarcinoma in situ associated with HPV-16, HPV-18, or both. The single subject whose disease was counted as a case (defined as a consensus diagnosis) of HPV-16–positive cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 in the vaccine group was positive for HPV-52 at baseline as well as in five histologic specimens collected at the time of diagnosis and treatment. HPV-16 DNA was detected in one histologic specimen but at no other time points.Study 2A total of 11,508 of 12,167 women who underwent randomization (95%) were included in the analysis of the unrestricted susceptible population. Vaccine efficacy remained high at 95% (Table 3). Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 or adenocarcinoma in situ developed in 3 subjects in the vaccine group and in 62 in the placebo group. Of note, more than 99% of subjects in this population eventually received the full three-dose regimen.
Subjects in this ongoing trial were followed for an average of 3 years after administration of the first dose of vaccine or placebo. At least 83% of those who underwent randomization were included in one or more of the type-specific, per-protocol susceptible populations for external anogenital or vaginal lesions (2261 subjects in the vaccine group and 2279 in the placebo group). The HPV vaccine was 100% effective (95% CI, 94 to 100; 0 cases in the vaccine group vs. 60 cases in the placebo group) in preventing vaginal, vulvar, perineal, and perianal intraepithelial lesions or warts in association with vaccine-type HPV. In the type-specific, per-protocol susceptible populations, in the analysis for cervical end points, among 2241 subjects in the vaccine group and 2258 in the placebo group, the vaccine was 100% effective (95% CI, 94 to 100; 0 vs. 65 cases, respectively) in preventing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grades 1 to 3 or adenocarcinoma in situ in association with vaccine-type HPV (Table 3). The estimates of vaccine efficacy made on the basis of the diagnoses at the central laboratory were similar to the estimates made by the pathology panel (data not shown).More than 95% of the subjects who underwent randomization were included in one or more of the type-specific, unrestricted susceptible populations. The vaccine efficacy was 95% when all grades of external anogenital or vaginal lesions were combined (4 cases in the vaccine group vs. 81 cases in the placebo group), 98% when all grades of cervical lesions were combined (2 vs. 89 cases, respectively), with an efficacy of 91% for high-grade vulvar or vaginal lesions (1 vs. 11 cases, respectively), and 100% for adenocarcinoma in situ (0 vs. 6 cases, respectively) (Table 3). Overall, more than 95% of the subjects received the complete regimen of three doses of vaccine or placebo.
Quite a bit different than the image you're trying to sell.
Did you know when you posted this that it would bring out so many trolls?
WHAT is your problem?! I did a search on clinical tests on Gardasil and that's what came up.
THREE YEARS? What are the long term effects? Do you know? Does Merck? Why are they trying to push it on kids? Do you realise that if less than 1% of women get cervical cancer, the test results will be positive for Gardasil because they wouldn't have gotten the disease to begin with?! Do you realise the CDC says most women clear the virus on their own?! Check out Zechariah_8_13s links in post 228
This is a SPECIALTY drug that targets LESS than 1% of the female population. Try doing a search on cervical cancer. It is now rare.
If you want to take unnecessary drugs go right ahead.If you want to feed them to every female that you know, be my guest. But the rest of us have info at our disposal and we aren't buying the "You're all gonna DIE!" line.
No. And I'm shocked. By the reaction, you'd think some of these people work for Merck.
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.