Replies

Cervical cancer is not caused solely by HPV.

I never said it was. Why object to solving PART of the problem effectively?

Cervical cancer has EXCELLENT outcomes with early detection.

Yes, but not as good as with prevention. And there can be a big IF involved with detection. Again, why object to prevention?

Of the 4000 women who die from it each year, over 50% of them have NEVER had a Pap smear. Of the remaining percent, there's no data... so we don't know if it's been 2 years, 4 years, 20 years since their last test.

OK, so those women who didn't get a PAP smear should just be left to die? What's your point?

The mortality from this disease gets lower and lower each year.

AGAIN, why object to prevention? Why impede something that PREVENTS the disease instead of just improving the survival?

Fully 85% of women contract HPV asymptomatically and clear it from their bodies with no intervention.

True, but those aren't the ones we're talking about, are they? This is meaningless information.

...a vaccine that is poorly tested,

Poorly tested, according to whom? That's quite an accusation. How SHOULD Gardasil have been tested?

...has serious side effects...

Serious, compared to what, exactly?

Any medication CAN have serious side-effects. It depends on the person. Your statement by itself is meaningless.

Out of over 16 MILLION doses distributed, there have been less than 10,000 (that's less than 1/10th of 1%) reported problems of ANY KIND. Of those reported problems, 6% were serious (that's 0.004% rate of serious problems overall) and there were 20 deaths.

16 MILLION doses since 2006, fewer than 10,000 problems, fewer than 600 serious problems, 20 deaths.

...is not tested for carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reproductive effects...

Is there any indication that such testing is warranted? There have been no indications that there are problems in those areas.

...has short-lived and somewhat dubious efficacy...

Evidence? There is NO evidence to support this claim. You're just making stuff up now.

Tests have shown NO decrease in efficacy over time so far. None.

... for a VERY remote chance of a very treatable cancer?

Define "very remote". The chance of contracting the cancer is much higher than the chance of an adverse effect from the vaccine. That's the comparison that really matters.

And why the preference for treatment over prevention???

Do you really intend to tell your daughter and mine that you'd rather they contract the cancer since it's "very treatable"?

I prefer prevention over treatment.

The seatbelt analogy is poor. Does a seatbelt inject you with toxins, adjuvants, and animal DNA? Does putting on a seatbelt cause seizures, fainting, birth defects, and cancer?

Oh stop the absurd scare tactics already! You sound like a liberal malpractice lawyer.

My comparison with seatbelts is quite applicable.

You have a greater chance of being struck by lightning than for your daughter to be harmed by this vaccine. Paranoid "what ifs" lead to poor decisions.