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?
But they DO carry HPV, and pass it on — even if they re not symptomatic. Wouldn’t it be prudent to wipe out the reservoir of HPV virus in the male population, as well?
(We got him a tetanus booster and something else.)
I use posts like FL’s as “aversion therapy” for my teenage daughter on occasion:
“Males don’t care if they give you a potentially deadly disease. In fact, they don’t care about any negative consequences of sex for you. Consequently, you should tell them to go f’ themselves, unless they mention marriage in church before they mention sex.”
While giving the link? Your inference is silly and doesn't change the numbers.
You neglected the conclusions that the vaccine is safe and effective. Your chief complaint seems to be that it doesn’t protect against every HPV strain that may cause cancer.
Will you be satisfied if we add a second vaccine that protects against these and thus obtain full coverage? Somehow I think not.
On the other hand, a cautious approach may be warranted in light of important unanswered questions about overall vaccine effectiveness, duration of protection, and adverse effects that may emerge over time. HPV vaccination has the potential for profound public health benefit if the most optimistic scenario of effectiveness is realized.
Not at all. In fact, if you read my posts you’ll see repeatedly I’ve said we should track side effects of any medication or vaccine.
My position: The vaccine has the capacity to have great benefits. It’s been proven to be safe and ought to be available to the public. Do I think it should be required for school? I think that is premature, but in any case there are exemptions to these requirements for any whose parents object.
Your position: The vaccine is absolutely unsafe even though we don’t have evidence of this. Although it protects against the strains it was made to protect against, it is useless because it doesn’t protect against the strains it was not made to protect against. Because we don’t know how long it is effective for, we shouldn’t use it at all.
The subtext for the anti-Gardasil contingent: I’m really just scared that removing the threat of cervical cancer will encourage kids to be promiscuous, even though HPV never stopped one instance of premarital sex and those kiddos still have pregnancy, chlamydia, gonorrhea, herpes, hepatitis, syphilis, and HIV to worry about. I think my kid will keep her knickers on, but rather than helping all of the girls out there who have proven that they won’t, I’d rather make sure they aren’t protected because it will serve them right when they get cancer.
In others words it's only been tested for 3 years so let's give it to our children until we find out what it will do to them.
It’s been proven to be safe and ought to be available to the public.
NEJM disagrees with you. They said :a cautious approach may be warranted in light of important unanswered questions about overall vaccine effectiveness, duration of protection, and adverse effects that may emerge over time.
And:
HPV vaccination has the potential for profound public health benefit if the most optimistic scenario of effectiveness is realized.
Doesn't sound like a resounding recommendation to me.
Although it protects against the strains it was made to protect against,
20% and 17% isn't a screaming success. It said no efficacy was demonstrable for higher-grade disease in test 1 and no efficacy was demonstrable for grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ in test 2. It also said that the 20% reduction was largely attributable to a lower rate of grade 1 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in vaccinated women.
The rest of your post is silly assumptions.
That was a paraphrase of the anti-vaccine people. The author of this thread has not said that, although other people have implied it, and I’ve seen it said elsewhere on the web.
I completely misread the original and have asked the mod to remove this post.
Not a problem. :)
lol I'll bow to your superior knowledge of these.
NEJM disagrees with you.
Looks to me like they agree. How do they disagree?
Regarding the rest of your post, have you read the studies? The lower efficacy of the vaccine was due to it being used with women who already were infected with these strains at the time of vaccination. Vaccines are prophylactic measures--they prevent infection, they do not treat infection once it has already occurred. This is why people are interested in vaccinating girls before sexual activity. In women who are not infected, the vaccine is highly effective.
Good, I was afraid you’d been noticed. ;-)
I didn't know abstinence was so offensive. Imagine that.
I don't believe you are dense enough to have actually interpreted my words that way. But just in case, let me be as clear as I can: your husband's behavior, and his apparent belief that girls are or should be responsible for the behavior of boys, was offensive. Just as I should take responsibility for teaching my daughters proper morals, so should the parents of boys be responsible for teaching their children proper morals. To assert that it is up to my daughters to control those boys (who are likely bigger and stronger than my girls) and their sexual advances toward my girls--with no similar requirements made of the boys--is offensive. To shout such misogyny at a stranger in a WalMart is offensive. To defend such chauvinistic behavior is offensive.
To research, develop, and promote a vaccine that has the potential to help thousands of people is NOT offensive.
Clearer now?
I never have said the like.
How do they disagree?
By using words like "caution" and "potential".The title of the paper was "More Answers, More Questions".
This is why people are interested in vaccinating girls before sexual activity.
NEJM said: What can be inferred from these data about the potential effect of vaccination among girls 11 and 12 years of age? The FUTURE trials did not enroll subjects in this age group.
Yeah! Let's give it to the kids!
In women who are not infected, the vaccine is highly effective.
The clinical trials are only 3 years old. They rushed it to market for profit. See post 120
$4billion is a LOT of money.
And more statistics.
Cervical cancer once was the leading cause of cancer death for women in the United States. However, during the past 4 decades, incidence and mortality (the number of deaths each year) from cervical cancer have declined significantly, primarily because of the widespread use of the Papanicolaou (Pap) test to detect cervical abnormalities. 1 According to the U.S. Cancer Statistics: 2003 Incidence and Mortality report, 11,820 women were diagnosed with cervical cancer in 2003, and 3,919 women died from the disease that same year. 2 It is estimated that more than $2 billion per year is spent in the United States on the treatment of cervical cancer. 3
Oh please!
From NEJM: Given the rarity of incident cervical cancer,
From the CDC: during the past 4 decades, incidence and mortality (the number of deaths each year) from cervical cancer have declined significantly
You buy into the hype. I'll pass.
NEJM has come down heavily on the side of Gardasil.
Yeah! Let's give it to the kids!
Given it is safe in women 16 and over, what horrendous effects do you expect it to have in girls slightly younger?
The clinical trials are only 3 years old.
So?
They rushed it to market for profit.
We've already gone over this. For some reason capitalism is good except when it's a pharmaceutical company, then it's evil.
That only means in 3 years they haven't found anything that they reported. Do YOU know what affect it will have on prepubescent girls? Neither do they.
For some reason capitalism is good except when it's a pharmaceutical company, then it's evil.
Capitalism is great. Which is why they HAD to beat Smith-Glaxo-Kline to the market. Why were they pushing/lobbying states to make it mandatory before the competitors marketed theirs and BEFORE it was tested on the targeted age group? Money. Capitalism is one thing but greed is entirely different.
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 not an epidemic. But it is a moneymaker using scare tactics.
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.