Posted on 06/23/2007 11:27:29 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW
It’s only effective because less than half of 1% will ever need it’s protection. Too bad Merck isn’t being honest. A vaccine for a blue rash would be just as effective since we’ll never get a blue rash. 100% effective!
It's up to the individual to decide. I think people have the capacity to reach their own decisions. Since the claims made are accurate (the vaccine is 95% effective at preventing lesions from the types of HPV it targets, and these types of HPV do cause 70% of cases of cervical cancer) I see no reason to find fault with them. Do you think women are too stupid to evaluate for themselves whether they should get the vaccine?
They sell a drug that will benefit less than 1%, to many who won't need it, to subsidize research? Yeah. That's honest.
They sell it to consumers who choose to buy it. What is dishonest about that?
Less MONEY for Merck if they beat Merck to market.
So? Companies are in business to make money. The question is whether adequate studies were done, everyone in the field of medicine agrees that they were.
When they are NOT being told the truth?
They sell it to consumers who choose to buy it. What is dishonest about that?
Is Merck telling them cervical cancer is rare?
So? Companies are in business to make money. The question is whether adequate studies were done, everyone in the field of medicine agrees that they were.
When it wasn't tested on the targeted age group?
Do you work for Merck?
So you think they're too stupid to evaluate the data for themselves? The studies are freely available at NEJM.
Is Merck telling them cervical cancer is rare?
Most cancers are rare. Do you think women are too stupid to determine for themselves whether they should get this vaccine? The information provided is accurate.
When it wasn't tested on the targeted age group?
Initial tests were done on older women because the vaccine will be used in this population as well and because it's preferable to put adults in harm's way first!
Interestingly you are wrong. A study of a thousand children show that the vaccine is safe in children and provokes a comparable immune response.
Do you work for Merck?
Unfortunately, no. Are you familiar with the logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well"?
You're going to have to provide a link to some reliable source in order for me to buy that (And that source should include definitions of what is meant by HPV. We all know we aren't talking about chicken pox.) As I stated before, everything I've read indicates that it is spread through some sort of sexual contact, e.g. genital to genital or mouth to genital.
Fortunately, being raped by someone, having that someone have HPV, and having that HPV be spread to the victim, would be a very rare occurrence. No reason to force vaccinations on all 9 - 12 year old girls across the U.S.
If women follow the guidelines I posted earlier (Follow your head, not your heart; get him tested, etc.) then this isn't an issue.
I never suggesting “forcing” vaccines on anyone.
wow ya lasted a long time before found out.
Do you actually think most women are going to research this? They'll buy into the cutsie little commercial and never question the necessity of the vaccination.
Do you think women are too stupid to determine for themselves whether they should get this vaccine? The information provided is accurate.
You are putting the onus on the user. Cute trick but doesn't work. It is up to the provider to tell the truth and not create fear to sell a product.
A study of a thousand children show that the vaccine is safe in children and provokes a comparable immune response.
Not quite true, is it.
We enrolled 506 girls and 510 boys (10–15 years of age) and 513 females (16–23 years of age)
506 girls age 10 to 15 is not "a thousand" children. And this article is from Nov, 2006. What are the longterm effects of giving children a live virus?
But easy for boys to GIVE cervical cancer (HPV) to girls.
Not really. The CDC says: Cervical cancer is an uncommon consequence of HPV in women.
You know what I see in this sentence. Paternalism. This is the same reasoning that the nanny-staters use--The people are too dumb to know what's good for them, so we'll make sure they've only got the options we want them to have! You want to prevent the vaccine from being marketed because you think women are too dumb to look at the facts and make up their own mind.
You are putting the onus on the user. Cute trick but doesn't work.
Yes it does, it's called "personal responsibility" and "not being a lazy bum".
It is up to the provider to tell the truth and not create fear to sell a product.
You haven't pointed out one lie.
506 girls age 10 to 15 is not "a thousand" children.
506 girls + 510 boys = 1016 children
What are the longterm effects of giving children a live virus?
Would you please demonstrate to me a single vaccine that has had such a successful track record as this one that was later pulled for delayed effects? You are the fear-mongerer.
Then why the big push to vaccinate little girls against it?
~3000 lives a year.
Are all those 3000 the result of HPV?
No. I want FACTS to be given, not hype.
Yes it does, it's called "personal responsibility" and "not being a lazy bum".
Merck is NOT giving all the facts. I want complete and honest disclosure.
You haven't pointed out one lie.
It is being marketed as a CANCER VACCINE. The CDC says: Cervical cancer is an uncommon consequence of HPV in women. Merck is lying.
506 girls + 510 boys = 1016 children
Boys are not yet part of the marketing target. Just girls. Although that may change if Merck can't sucker enough females.
Would you please demonstrate to me a single vaccine that has had such a successful track record as this one that was later pulled for delayed effects? You are the fear-mongerer.
Merck is the fear-mongerer. They are marketing a live virus vaccine that has NOT passed the 7 year test that will only benefit less than 1% of the female population.
Money is all they care about, to h-ll with anyone’s safety. People like that have something very wrong with them.
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.