Posted on 01/31/2007 4:01:47 AM PST by XR7
How about mandatory bullet proof vests in California?
Boys transmit the virus to women.
The good news is, that A cancer can be prevented with a vaccine.
Suppose this virus, or any virus, came to be identified as the cause of prostate cancer?
Would you then be for male vaccination ?
Its a moot point since studies on males will need to be completed to test for results.
The vaccine may prevent genital warts which transmit the virus to females.
I wonder how unvaccinated females will feel when they grow up and find out that Mom or Dad wouldn't permit the vaccination when they were young.
Males like females can lie about their sexual history and transmit the disease to a chaste wife. Women do get raped, I hear.
Just something to think about.
"Significance" in this case is in the eye of the beholder - that's around 6 times the number killed in general aviation accidents in an average year, and roughly same number number killed in the WTC attacks.
That's it? and it's approved for mass distribution based on that?
This company is just begging for a law suit.
VIOX all over again.
Caption the pic :
"There you go sweetie! Now you don't have to worry about those pesky warts like I have"
I don't see anything on the graph that refers to "breast cancer caused by the pill."
Well you have to ask yourself how many women stop in think just before penetration "Oh no I'm no going to do this because I might get cervical cancer" I'd guess mighty few. So I'd say it isn't going to encourage disease. Frankly the concept of using the threat of disease to prevent immoral behavior is pretty immoral itself. Id rather see all of the diseases eliminated.
I think you misunderstand how the vaccine works, by preventing infection it prevents the formation of precancerous changes which can eventually lead to cancer.
Yes.
And look at those trusting eyes looking at the good doctor.
And, you can almost hear the doctor going, "Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck," like Curly.
Actually, Merck is giving the stuff away all over the country.
The cost of vaccine development is so high, that although they may make a huge profit they generally barely make back their investment. It is done by us Evil pharm researchers because it is the right thing to do.
Vaccine research is done on the backs of the profits from the drug industry. It also teaches us more about biologics than any average person can appreciate.
Now there's an important point!
Those specific HPV warts develop in women inside the uterus. They aren't the same as other genital warts. You need to get your information sorted out.
Even the arguments about FREEDOM? It's not the vaccination that sticks in my craw, but is the MANDATORY side of it.
You don't know what happens to boys as a result of carrying the disease. That research is going on now.
I forgot more about vaccine development than you will ever know.
I am responding to the question as to why not vaccinate men.
There are all kinds of avenues that such research takes us down.
Just like the search for an aids vaccine is bringing all kinds of new knowledge to the surface.
You are stuck on a single peace of info, you need to move on to the bigger picture.
Developing warts inside my uterus isn't something that I grew up yearning for.
Sorry, I think things are getting confused as a result of multiple posts and replies.
The evidence for significantly increased risk of breast cancer is related to HRT(Hormone Replacement Therapy), not birth control:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/genetics/breast-and-ovarian/healthprofessional#Section_340
The former is a real issue, the latter a dead horse.
About 40% of that 40,000 on that chart. Try looking it up, google is easy to use.
40% is a conservative number.
And just what do you think birth control pills mess with? it's hormone therapy. My wife is going through memopause. There was a time docs would use a low dose birth control pill to regulate estrogen, the won't do it these days.
Nothing in that article claims that the pill "causes" breast cancer.
In 1981, Pike et al [138], found that women who took OCPs before their first term pregnancy had a 2.4 fold increased risk of developing breast cancer before age 32. This startled the research world and led to additional studies, including a very large American trial called the CASH study (Cancer And Steroid Hormone study). In 1993, the CASH study showed that women under 44 years of age had a 40% increased risk in breast cancer, which was statistically significant in the 35-44 age group [6].
Later, in England, Chilvers et al [8] published the results of another large study called the United Kingdom National Study. She showed that young women under the age of 36 who had used oral contraceptives for at least 4 years before their first term pregnancy had at least a 44% increased risk in breast cancer. The last large study was performed in 1995 by Brinton et al [1]. It showed a 41% increased (raw relative) risk for women who used OCPs for more than 6 months prior to full term pregnancy.
This "vaccine" doesn't prevent or cervical cancer. It "protects" against certain forms of HPV (human papilloma virus) which causes genital warts and has been found to cause most cervical cancer.
This medication will not eliminate the disease of cervical cancer although it might be somewhat effective in preventing some future cases of HPV and cervical cancer. On the other hand, there has not been enough study to determine what the impact of this vaccine will be in terms of mutating virullent superstrains of the HPV virus and whether or not that will cause even more aggressive forms of both the virus and cancers that it spawns.
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.