Posted on 09/28/2007 3:13:52 PM PDT by wagglebee
And you fully trust the clinical trials that Merck has conducted after the Vioxx debacle?
Maybe everybody in your family, but not mine. Your inclusion of "everybody else" is disturbing as well.
I still want my Bextra and Vioxx back.
Vioxx, Advil, all the Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory medications carry cardiac risks.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/544517
A big problem with this vaccine is it does not protect against all forms of HPV , only a few strains of it. There are dozens of strains of HPV, some what they call “virulent”. HPV is way beyond epidemic proportions among sexually active (with more than one partner per lifetime, so that’s most adults one would imagine) people. This vaccine’s advertising creates an illusion that a girl can have sex and be exposed to HPV (which she almost is guaranteed to be unless her partner is a virgin), and she is protected against cervical cancer later on. That is a complete misrepresentation. She would still need to have pap smears and all the usual preventive measures against cervical dysplasia, etc.
The larger problem here really is that sexual promiscuity has caused an epidemic that is out of control. Gardisal targets only a small aspect of it. The only 100 percent guarantee against HPV infection is to remain a virgin until married, and marry a virgin. Given that, it’s easy to see why people leap at these grand promises of so-called cancer prevention, which is greatly exaggerated.
No, but apparently HPV is so widespread and asymptomatic that even in a marriage or monogamous relationship, (in which condoms won’t always be used), it is possible to contract it, according to another link I posted.
anyway, after reading about it, I have no interest in getting the vaccine.
No offense, but the medical establishment also thought treating menopause like a disease was a great idea, too. HRT, anyone?
There’s new evidence that the 4 strain vaccine in fact gives partial immunity to about 8 more strains.
http://www.lifeethics.org/www.lifeethics.org/2007/09/gardisil-protects-against-other-hpv.html
Pneumonia Vaccine Spurs 'Superbug' Infecting Children
Could something similar happen with strains of HPV?
Of course, it was the medical establishment that was handing antibiotics out like candy for every little sniffle, that resulted in the super-resistant strains and now this with immunizations.
And we should all rush to get a vaccine that they don’t even know if it’s effective in the long term because.........?????
Well, if someone wants to get it, as long as there’s full disclosure and it’s a choice (when it’s not a matter of a life-threatening communicable disease), fine by me. I’m just not signing up to be a guinea pig :)
That’s another one of the overblown stories.
The problem with hormone therapy was that we were giving it to women because they were at risk for heart disease - not to treat the symptoms of menopause and not just to prevent osteoporosis.
It turns out that some women with certain types of heart disease got worse on a combination of estrogen and progesterone that was taken every day, Prempro. The ones who didn’t have heart problems in the first few years and the women who had had a hysterectomy and so could be given only estrogen didn’t have more heart attacks than the population that didn’t take the hormones.
http://www.medem.com/medlb/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZO87VGF0F&sub_cat=0
There’s also an increase in the first few years of hormone sensitive breast cancer (probably because cells that are there are stimulated) and some increase in blood clots and strokes, but less colon cancer a fewer hip fractures.
However, for most women, HRT was and is no problem. And we’re finding out that there’s some benefit for some women.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_55237.html
In the meantime, women go out and spend tons of money buying soy products, black cohosh, yam creams or evening primrose oil, without knowing the actual concentration of the active ingredient in the product they’re buying. This isn’t a criticism, but an observation - I use a few of the better researched and better formulated supplements - it’s just not “okay” because it’s “natural.” If it has an “effect” it’s bound to have side effects.
http://www.medem.com/medlb/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZSPYZT5FD&sub_cat=2002
The US Government's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database indicates that there have been 7 deaths associated with administration of Gardasil. Age is listed for four of the girls who died at: 11, 12, 15 and 19.
VAERS lists 3,137 reported adverse effects stemming from Gardasil. The database is voluntary and thus is unlikely to include all adverse effects from the vaccine.
The database, placed online by the National Vaccine Information Center, also indicates 44 adverse effects associated with the vaccine's administration were considered "life threatening." In 94 cases, vaccine recipients required hospitalization.
And what's the horrifying risk and complication level associated with PAP smears that makes you think this is a better deal?
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/563089 (I'm afraid this one's subscription only - but don't know for sure)
Some have hypothesized that preventing infection from these dominant strains of HPV might open up an ecological niche for other strains to expand. Dr. Brown expressed skepticism: "When one looks at situations where there has been replacement or niche filling, these have been pathogens in which mutation is frequent and likely to occur, for example, streptococcus," he said. "In contrast, HPV has a very stable genome and replicates at about the same rate as the human genome."Secondly, we would expect that if fill-in would occur, we might see competition between HPV virus types. But we see just the opposite; we see cooperation. If you are infected with 16, you are more likely to be infected with additional oncogenic types."
Dr. Brown said it would be 5 to 10 years before we get a solid sense as to which of the opposing theories of niche filling could be documented with epidemiologic studies.
“If it prevents one or two cases of newborn transmission and the lung and throat disease in these children, that will be a wonderful thing.”
Even if it kills many more young children and young women in the process of vaccinating the population?
American Cancer Society Report Finds Breast Cancer Death Rate Continues To Drop
Check out the bits on HRT.
When the medical profession manages to repeal the Law of Unintended Consequences, I'll be first in line for this stuff :)
You willing to guarantee that'll never happen? 'Cuz if you are seems to me you're bucking for Supreme Being status.
Hmmmm..... early detection? Like in PAP tests?
see #79 and 80 above about how to sift information.
It’s not that I’ve “got excuses.”
I’ve said that I’m not an early adopter of medicines or treatments for my patients, but that the evidence for safety and efficacy is strong for this vaccine.
It’s not quite as reliable as the sun coming up in the morning - more like the reliability of the brakes on your car. You can usually tell whether they’re working well, but when the road is slick or they start to feel funny, you pump them to check them out.
In medicine, there are some things that are fairly reliable. The test of time is one of them. The other is finding information from reliable sources and from multiple labs.
Early detection is good. Prevention’s even better. Guiding principle of medicine is first, do no harm. Wish more in the profession would keep that in mind.
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.