Some clarifications on support of Gardasil

[trotsky]

I don't pretend to speak for anyone but myself, but since some of the same mischaracterizations and misrepresentations keep appearing here, I thought a post explaining my personal stance might help.

1) Most importantly, I do not work for any pharmaceutical company. I do not sit on the board of any pharmaceutical company. I do not stand to gain financially from any pharmaceutical company's sales. Oh I suppose there are some kind of pharmaceutical stocks tucked away in one of the funds in my 401(k) but I have no idea and don't view that as relevant anyway. I am not motivated by money in this debate WHATSOEVER.

2) I do not trust any pharmaceutical company implicitly. (I don't know of anyone who does.) I do not believe they always have their patients' best interests at heart. Like ANY company (including supplement makers or homeopathic dealers), their primary motivation is PROFIT. However, at least in the context of pharmaceuticals, their products actually have to undergo controlled testing to show that they work.

3) I do not believe that Gardasil is 100% safe. I don't believe ANY vaccine is 100% safe. No one does! There are risks associated with ANY treatment, whether it be a vaccine, drugs, supplements, or even homeopathic water. However, the risks of Gardasil and other vaccines are far, far smaller than the risks presented by HPV infection or other diseases. Basic statistics bear this out.

4) I do not believe that Merck's actions w.r.t. the release and marketing of Gardasil were all that admirable. However, those actions are an entirely different issue than whether the vaccine is effective.

5) Just like surely Gardasil's opponents themselves believe, my primary motivation is women's health. But I view Gardasil as an important breakthrough in women's sexual and general health. I have a 7 year old daughter and will be getting her this vaccine as soon as she is eligible.

6) I lost one friend to cervical cancer, and a current friend is a cervical cancer survivor who DID get regular paps. I do not believe that screening alone is adequate to fight this disease.

7) I am eagerly looking forward to when this vaccine becomes available to boys. I also have a son, and would like to help make sure he reduces the risk of spreading HPV to his future partners. And considering HPV is linked to genital warts and penile cancer, he might just get some health benefits too.

8) I would like to see stats used appropriately. Using raw VAERS data to come to conclusions is inappropriate and wrong.

9) And finally, this nonsense of "but maw, they did it first" is getting nowhere. Like ANY charged debate on DU, emotions are high on both sides.

Please, for all future topics in the Health forum, consider the points above.

[Celebration]

1. here's what I think

Reasonable people can come down on different sides of this issue, and reasonable people can either choose to vaccinate their kids, or not choose to vaccinate their kids. It is all about risk/reward, and we don't have enough information yet to properly evaluate either the risk or the reward. That is why I would choose to wait to vaccinate any daughter of mine.

[trotsky]

3. The concern is of course if people are making that decision based on accurate and confirmed facts.

Using VAERS database results, for instance, meets neither requirement.

[Celebration]

7. with regard to the VAERS database

If using the VAERS database as part of the decision making process, one should be well aware that reports include many that are not related to the vaccine, and, in fact, it is impossible to prove that any particular report is due to the vaccine. These reports should be recognized as "anecdotal."

[chicagomd]

6. A more accurate statement

would be that you personally do not have enough information. The real question you should be asking yourself is how much information, or what information, would be sufficient for you to change your mind.

If you set an unreachable standard (100% safe, studies that if done would be prohibitively expensive, etc), then IMO you should excuse yourself from the debate.

Why argue something if there is no way for your mind to be changed?

[Celebration]

8. speaking personally

I can't act one way or another because I don't have a daughter that age. So, we are in the realm of the hypothetical anyway. My hypothetical standard would not be unreachable.

[chicagomd]

9. So what is it then?

Your standard...

[Celebration]

12. at the very least-

1. True testing with a pure saline solution as a placebo (risk)

2. Real data from studies which show a reduction in actual deaths from cervical cancer. (reward)

A lower cost might be third--or at least studies that show that boosters are not needed. I wouldn't want to saddle my child with the cost of boosters every five years, or risk a possible *increase* in cervical cancer risk sans the booster shot that might be required to avoid that. Not saying that would happen, but we don't really know, do we?

[chicagomd]

18. Interesting.

1) Why would a normal saline (I am not sure what pure saline is) placebo be more effective and establishing therapeutic effect than an injection that just simply did not contain the HPV antigens? The implication is you feel somehow the placebos used in the published papers evoked some type of protective effect despite the fact they had no HPV antigens in them. Normal saline could certainly be used as a placebo, but not using it does not diminish the significance of the research's stated study goals: To establish statistically significant clinical outcomes.

While I am not aware of any studies that have been designed to compare the risks of the HPV injection versus an injection of normal saline, I have no idea why such a study would be done. The decision is not to get a shot of normal saline OR the HPV vaccine, the decision is to get the HPV vaccine or not.


2) "Real data": What datum are you concerned about that is false?


"...or risk a possible *increase* in cervical cancer risk sans the booster shot that might be required to avoid that. Not saying that would happen, but we don't really know, do we?"

Blind speculation with some good old fashion fear mongering tossed in for good measure. And there I went thinking we could have a rational debate about this.

[Celebration]

21. these are my criteria

They may not be yours. You asked.

As to the first point--this would be the "risk" part of this--to see if there are a significant number of reactions to the vaccine (including the adjuvant) vs. a pure saline placebo.

I am not concerned about any data being false. I am concerned that the data that we do have has nothing to do with the risk of dying from cervical cancer.

Over and over again I read that nobody knows if people will need booster shots. If people need them every five years, that could possibly be unaffordable. I would want to know the risks of not having a needed booster shot. due to its unaffordability. That is entirely reasonable.

[chicagomd]

22. The "adjuvant"?

The aluminum thing again? Are you kidding me? How is that even mildly relevant to if the HPV vaccine should be given or not?

A study that compared the side effects of the HPV vaccine injection versus a normal saline injection (could you please define what you mean by "pure saline"?) would give no information on the reward side of things as you mentioned. In fact, since a normal saline injection has no measurable clinical effect, the reward for given the HPV vaccine is infinite when compared to normal saline because it does have a measurable protective clinical effect. It does not even address the risk, because again, if you are considering the HPV vaccine, you are not considering to get the vaccine or a shot of saline, you are considering getting a shot or nothing at all.

Your second point is well taken.

"...that could possibly be unaffordable. I would want to know the risks of not having a needed booster shot. due to its unaffordability. That is entirely reasonable" It is reasonable, and not even close to what you typed in your previous post, thank you for clarifying.

[Celebration]

24. yes

Guess I am just being a real scientific stickler. A placebo is just not aluminum to me. Call me a purist.

[chicagomd]

34. "A placebo is just not aluminum to me."

What it is to you is irrelevant unless you are the researcher or an expert in the field.

Unless you can provide us with some information that supports your implied claim that aluminum has clinically significant properties, or show you speak from a position of authority in this matter, it is completely extraneous to the discussion at hand.

A study design designates what is placebo and what is not. You are not being a scientific stickler: You are just being a stickler with an agenda, as usual.

Good day.

[Celebration]

129. it seems to me the burden of proof is not with me

Where is the proof that aluminum does not have an effect? It was the FDA that allowed the aluminum to be the placebo. For what purpose? Notwithstanding the fact that I should not have the burden of proof, I do have some evidence that it is not appropriate to use as a placebo.....

Lessons from macrophagic myofasciitis: towards definition of a vaccine adjuvant-related syndrome]

Gherardi RK.
Groupe Nerf-Muscle, Département de Pathologie, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil. [email protected]

Macrophagic myofasciitis is a condition first reported in 1998, which cause remained obscure until 2001. Over 200 definite cases have been identified in France, and isolated cases have been recorded in other countries. The condition manifests by diffuse myalgias and chronic fatigue, forming a syndrome that meets both Center for Disease Control and Oxford criteria for the so-called chronic fatigue syndrome in about half of patients. One third of patients develop an autoimmune disease, such as multiple sclerosis. Even in the absence of overt autoimmune disease they commonly show subtle signs of chronic immune stimulation, and most of them are of the HLADRB1*01 group, a phenotype at risk to develop polymyalgia rheumatica and rheumatoid arthritis. Macrophagic myofasciitis is characterized by a stereotyped and immunologically active lesion at deltoid muscle biopsy. Electron microscopy, microanalytical studies, experimental procedures, and an epidemiological study recently demonstrated that the lesion is due to persistence for years at site of injection of an aluminum adjuvant used in vaccines against hepatitis B virus, hepatitis A virus, and tetanus toxoid. Aluminum hydroxide is known to potently stimulate the immune system and to shift immune responses towards a Th-2 profile. It is plausible that persistent systemic immune activation that fails to switch off represents the pathophysiologic basis of chronic fatigue syndrome associated with macrophagic myofasciitis, similarly to what happens in patients with post-infectious chronic fatigue and possibly idiopathic chronic fatigue syndrome. Therefore, the WHO recommended an epidemiological survey, currently conducted by the French agency AFSSAPS, aimed at substantiating the possible link between the focal macrophagic myofasciitis lesion (or previous immunization with aluminium-containing vaccines) and systemic symptoms. Interestingly, special emphasis has been put on Th-2 biased immune responses as a possible explanation of chronic fatigue and associated manifestations known as the Gulf war syndrome. Results concerning macrophagic myofasciitis may well open new avenues for etiologic investigation of this syndrome. Indeed, both type and structure of symptoms are strikingly similar in Gulf war veterans and patients with macrophagic myofasciitis. Multiple vaccinations performed over a short period of time in the Persian gulf area have been recognized as the main risk factor for Gulf War syndrome. Moreover, the war vaccine against anthrax, which is administered in a 6-shot regimen and seems to be crucially involved, is adjuvanted by aluminium hydroxide and, possibly, squalene, another Th-2 adjuvant. If safety concerns about long-term effects of aluminium hydroxide are confirmed it will become mandatory to propose novel and alternative vaccine adjuvants to rescue vaccine-based strategies and the enormous benefit for public health they provide worldwide.

PMID: 12660567

Atypical presentation of macrophagic myofasciitis 10 years post vaccination.Ryan AM, Bermingham N, Harrington HJ, Keohane C.
Department of Neurology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland. [email protected]

Macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF) is an uncommon inflammatory disorder of muscle believed to be due to persistence of vaccine-derived aluminium hydroxide at the site of injection. The condition is characterised by diffuse myalgias, arthralgia and fatigue. We describe a patient with histologically confirmed MMF whose presentation was atypical with left chest and upper limb pain beginning more than 10 years post vaccination. Treatment with steroids led to symptomatic improvement. Although rare, clinicians should consider MMF in cases of atypical myalgia.

PMID: 17005400

Clin Rheumatol. 2008 May;27(5):667-9. Epub 2008 Jan 8. Links
Polyglandular autoimmunity with macrophagic myofasciitis.Theeler BJ, Simper NB, Ney JP.
Department of Neurology, Madigan Army Medical Center, 9040A Fitzsimmons Dr., Tacoma, WA 98431, USA. [email protected]

We report a man with chronic fatigue, multiple autoimmune disorders, and a muscle biopsy consistent with macrophagic myofasciitis. This rare and recently described muscle disorder is seen in patients exposed to vaccinations with aluminum hydroxide adjuvant. This case highlights the relationship between macrophagic myofasciitis and autoimmunity.

PMID: 18180978

Aluminum adjuvant linked to Gulf War illness induces motor neuron death in mice.Petrik MS, Wong MC, Tabata RC, Garry RF, Shaw CA.
Department of Ophthalmology and Program in Neuroscience, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. [email protected]

Gulf War illness (GWI) affects a significant percentage of veterans of the 1991 conflict, but its origin remains unknown. Associated with some cases of GWI are increased incidences of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and other neurological disorders. Whereas many environmental factors have been linked to GWI, the role of the anthrax vaccine has come under increasing scrutiny. Among the vaccine's potentially toxic components are the adjuvants aluminum hydroxide and squalene. To examine whether these compounds might contribute to neuronal deficits associated with GWI, an animal model for examining the potential neurological impact of aluminum hydroxide, squalene, or aluminum hydroxide combined with squalene was developed. Young, male colony CD-1 mice were injected with the adjuvants at doses equivalent to those given to US military service personnel. All mice were subjected to a battery of motor and cognitive-behavioral tests over a 6-mo period postinjections. Following sacrifice, central nervous system tissues were examined using immunohistochemistry for evidence of inflammation and cell death. Behavioral testing showed motor deficits in the aluminum treatment group that expressed as a progressive decrease in strength measured by the wire-mesh hang test (final deficit at 24 wk; about 50%). Significant cognitive deficits in water-maze learning were observed in the combined aluminum and squalene group (4.3 errors per trial) compared with the controls (0.2 errors per trial) after 20 wk. Apoptotic neurons were identified in aluminum-injected animals that showed significantly increased activated caspase-3 labeling in lumbar spinal cord (255%) and primary motor cortex (192%) compared with the controls. Aluminum-treated groups also showed significant motor neuron loss (35%) and increased numbers of astrocytes (350%) in the lumbar spinal cord. The findings suggest a possible role for the aluminum adjuvant in some neurological features associated with GWI and possibly an additional role for the combination of adjuvants.

PMID: 17114826

[beam me up scottie]

2. k&r

You speak for me. :)

[xchrom]

4. recommend

[cosmik debris]

5. If I had a Wayback Machine like Mr. Peabody

I would certainly have my daughter vaccinated.

But it is too late now.

I'm just glad I don't have to tell her that I could have but didn't.

Can you imagine how that would go over?

[dropkickpa]

10. I'll give my version

1) I do not work for any pharmaceutical company. My income and livelihood is in no way connected to a pharmaceutical company. I am the supervisor and advisor for a cancer research animal facility. The are NO satisfactory or useful animal models for cervical cancer related HPV (HUMAN papilloma virus) or cervical cancer itself. My income is derived from my employer, paid out of their funds that have no source in pharmaceuticals. I can trace my paycheck back to myself essentially because, ultimately and far down the line, it is taxes that pay for me. NONE of the investigators I am associated with have done or are doing work on cervical cancer or gardasil. I have spoken with one doctor who did work on clinical trials, but that was more a matter of me seeking her out and speaking with her ON MY OWN TIME. Hell, if I were willing to move I could get a MUCH MUCH better paying job at a pharmaceutical (at least double my current salary), but money isn't that important to me, I love where I live and think the work I do is valuable.

2) I (like trotsky) do not trust any pharmaceutical company implicitly. I read the actual studies on every drug before I use it or use it on my kid. I am lucky that, most often, I can understand exactly what it is I am reading. When I have questions, I ask those who know what they are talking about. I luckily have access to a lot of scientific professionals, from chemists to oncologists to surgeons etc. If I can't find an answer that way, I quiz my doctor. I introduced myself to him by saying "I will grill you and "trust me" is not an acceptable answer". He's a big geek and welcomes having a pain in the ass patient like me.

3) Nothing in life is a 100% safe, nothing ever will be. It's a risk/benefit analysis, and I include the benefit of the greater good in there. My morals don't allow me to take a "I got mine, fuck everyone else" stance in any part of my life.

4) My horse in this race? I HAD cervical cancer at age 26 due to HPV 16. My very good friend just completed her 2nd course of treatment for cervical cancer caused by HPV 16 (she was at a much more advanced stage than me). She's 30. I have a 7 1/2 year old daughter who I will do everything in my power to protect from ever having to hear "You have cervical cancer." People who've never had to hear that have NO IDEA how devastating it can be just to hear those 4 words.

5) I know for a certain fact that screening is not enough to prevent cervical cancer. I'm living proof of that. As if my good friend. As are many of the women I've met who've been diagnosed with cervical cancer (I know/knew two women are actually now dead proof of that).

6) And, honestly, I hate it when people act as an authority on a subject when they have little to no understanding of the science, statistics, and facts behind something and instead base their authority on scare tactics and misinterpretation of data.

7) I also hate the denial, callousness, and marginalization in posts here on this disease, its process, and victims. It's "only" 4,000 women who die yearly. Tell that to their families and friends. They're only their mothers. Their sisters. Their daughters. Their friends. Only is insulting and devaluing. The 11,000 women a year who get to hear the words "You have cancer". They don't die, but their pain, both physical and mental, is NOT insignificant. I can't imagine anyone telling a woman she "only" got breast cancer, that, as a survivor of it she doesn't matter because she didn't die. Maybe it's because our scars are all internal, seemingly normal from the outside, even when naked, that we can be so easily dismissed. This callousness REALLY gets my knickers in a twist.

[trotsky]

11. Thanks, dropkickpa.

Very well stated.

[Warpy]

14. Thank you. People seem to forget that early diagnosis

and treatment are not benign. The treatment can be prolonged and painful and involve surgical intervention. There can be lifelong health consequences of the treatment. Being able to survive something is not a criterion for avoiding prevention.

Prevention is better.

[varkam]

13. Off to the greatest page with you! Well said.

It is, I feel, sad that these things need to be stated outright.

[progressoid]

15. Hmmm...a sensible and well reasoned post.

I suppose that deserves a K&R. :)

[notadmblnd]

16. it was and will remain my argument that too much was still unknown

about this vaccine for it to be mandated. Even when I stated that the decision should be left to the individual/parents, I was ridiculed, made fun of and called names. I will not name names, but I do find my self wondering what epiphany it is that has recently occurred, that has caused these posters to suddenly change their tones?

[trotsky]

17. May I ask what your professional qualifications are...

for you to be able to declare "too much was still unknown"? Can you cite any particular flaws in the Gardasil studies? Methodology errors?

Also, I could be wrong, but I don't think there is currently any jurisdiction that mandates, or is planning to mandate, Gardasil. Texas was going to, but that got dropped.

I think you will find that if you refrain from ridiculing, making fun of, and calling names, you'll be treated in kind. This thread was an attempt of mine to start from scratch rather than launching another screeching attack on Gardasil and people who think it is a good preventive treatment.

On edit: removed double word

[notadmblnd]

19. when you tell me what your are.

[trotsky]

20. OK, let's go over how this works.

Current established medical consensus is that Gardasil is safe and effective.

You declare too much is unknown.

You're the one trying to overturn consensus, you need to A) state your qualifications for doing so, and B) state your case. You could gain quite a bit of prestige if you have definitive information showing why Gardasil is dangerous.

[notadmblnd]

26. you too can read my previous post in the health forum

and if you read the NY times article yesterday, you would notice that both side were presented fairly accurately. However, I did not interpret the article as coming to the consensus that it is perfectly safe.

[trotsky]

27. Current scientific consensus says that global warming is real and man-made.

Yes there are a fair number of scientists disputing it. Does that lend legitimacy to the armchair warriors who post comments to a CNN article saying that global warming is bunk?

A big clue on the consensus should be that most of the expert detractors don't dispute the vaccine's safety or effectiveness, their concern is over the marketing or mandating of it, or cost/benefit.

[notadmblnd]

28. Nor did I

and that takes us back to post #16. My other concerns were the long term effects and the lack of knowledge in regards to the lasting effectiveness. Even the experts acknowledge that those two issues are unknown.

[trotsky]

29. But if that isn't enough "unknown" for scientific consensus to be overturned,

we return to the question of what are your qualifications for making that determination?

[notadmblnd]

30. We could go in circles like this for weeks,

You have never discussed your qualifications for your argument, I see no reason to discuss mine.

[trotsky]

31. So you'd accept a poster on DU saying that global warming is a myth?

Simply because they don't think enough info is available?

That's the analog to this "impasse." You are opposing consensus just as the global warming denialist does.

[beam me up scottie]

32. "You are opposing consensus just as the global warming denialist does"

Bingo.

[notadmblnd]

47. I suppose I would ignore the poster as I'd have no chance of convincing him/her otherwise

and there is no consensus on the issues I pointed out as my reasons to rejecting this vaccine for my children. Now if you would care to provide some evidence on the long term effects or the effectiveness of the vaccine over time, I would be happy to look it over. However, that evidence doesn't exist, so we'll just have to disagree until it does.

[trotsky]

53. The parallels with global warming denialists continue.

They too bemoan the supposed lack of evidence, and/or the fact that we only have records for a short time and don't know about long term climate effects. That doesn't change the underlying science, however.

[chicagomd]

23. Actually,

since you are the one making the claim you either need to:

1) Provide evidence for that claim or
2) Prove that you are speaking from a position of authority.

Since your claim goes against the consensus, you really should do both, but at least one would be nice.

[notadmblnd]

25. actually, there is a lot of controversy

and you can read all of my previous posts in the health forum.

[cosmik debris]

33. I don't know your religion, but...

You just used the very same hook that the fundamentalist Christians used to get creationism into the schools.

Their point was that there was "a lot of controversy" so both sides should get equal consideration.

Of course, it failed.

[Hannah Bell]

41. Except in this case, there's controversy within the scientific community.

But I note the apparent attempt to link the poster with fundies.

[cosmik debris]

46. I was trying to link the poster with failed arguments

And I did that.

[notadmblnd]

48. So now we have another one implying at the very least that I'm a fundy

Comes very close to name calling. Well, I won't satisfy your curiosity for you. However, I fear the fundamentalists about as much a I fear you and I will not be bullied into changing my opinion in regards to this vaccine at this time.

[rexcat]

35. Point #2 (I do not trust any pharmaceutical company implicitly)...

I do work for the Pharma companies I can explicitly say that I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. That said, as long as the FDA is an effective regulatory agency we don't have much to fear. The rub here is the Bush administration has not been playing fair with any regulatory agencies within the US government and the FDA should be considered suspect at this time, just like the EPA, etc. There have been too many drugs of late needed to be pulled or have black box warnings added. IMO one drug pulled from the market because of safety issues is too many but that is also unrealistic. That dose not mean that I think all drugs approved in the past 8 years are suspect. There have been a lot of good drugs approved but all drugs carry some risks and it would be impossible to fully vet out all adverse reactions before approval. There will always be unknowns. The best we can do is minimize those unknowns and report them to the FDA as soon as the information becomes available.

Now before anyone gets their nickers in a bunch I agree with your entire post. Well stated! Also Pharma companies do good for humanity but sometimes their profit motive can get in the way.

on edit - accidentally posted before completing post

[mhatrw]

36. The issue is one of unknown risks and costs vs. unknown benefit.

Cervical cancer is not a big risk factor in the United States, and the number of women affected was being reduced at a rate of about 4% per year without Gardasil. This trend is of utmost importance considering that any protection Gardasil may confer against cervical cancer to the young girls getting vaccination will only manifest itself 30+ years in the future.

Gardasil's efficacy against cervical cancer has not been demonstrated and any benefit against cervical cancer -- already a low threat that was getting lower every year -- it may provide will only manifest itself 30+ years from now. Gardasil is being marketed to millions of relatively rich girls who have health insurance and get regular pap smears. For these women, the risk of cervical cancer is far less than than it is for the general US population. Gardasil advocates desire mass vaccinations of tens of millions of currently healthy young girls, 99%+ of whom would never contract cervical cancer without Gardasil. As such, for Gardasil's benefits to exceed its risks, it much be extremely safe. If Gardasil causes serious short and/or long term health effects in just 1 in 5,000 vaccinated women, its risks will almost certainly exceed its future benefits, benefits that are currently completely unproven. Such a low rate of risk cannot possibly be evaluated to a statistically significant level in clinical studies that include just 20,000 total subjects. Furthermore, Gardasil's long term risks are also currently completely unknown.

Gardasil's advocates are practicing faith-based medicine. They have faith that Gardasil is extremely safe, and they have faith that the protection Gardasil confers against HPV 16 & 18 will translate into significant protection against cervical cancer some 30+ years down the line. On the other hand, they have no faith that there will be advances in HPV testing or cervical cancer treatments over the next 30 years that will render Gardasil's at best partial protection against an ever reducing threat obsolete.

Primum non nocere.

[beam me up scottie]

37. Prove that "Gardasil's advocates have no faith that there will be advances in HPV testing ...

or cervical cancer treatments over the next 30 years that will render Gardasil's at best partial protection against an ever reducing threat obsolete."

A reminder:

Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, either positive or negative, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven (see negative proof).

Taken more generally, the standard of proof demanded to establish any particular conclusion varies with the subject under discussion. Just as there is a difference between the standard required for a criminal conviction and in a civil case, so there are different standards of proof applied in many other areas of life.

The less reasonable a statement seems, the more proof it requires. The scientific consensus on cold fusion is a good example. The majority believes this can not really work, because believing that it would do so would force the alteration of a great many other tested and generally accepted theories about nuclear physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

I'll wait.

[mhatrw]

38. Why would anyone want to give Gardasil to millions of girls today if the

the protection one assumes Gardasil will confer against cervical cancer some 30+ years from now will be rendered obsolete by future medical advances?

[beam me up scottie]

39. Show me exactly where I posted that, and then you can prove your first claim.

I'll wait.

[mhatrw]

40. Learn logic.

I'll wait.

[beam me up scottie]

42. Nice cop out, you made two claims, now it's time to PROVE THEM.

Put up or shut up.

[mhatrw]

43. Learn logic.

You are being foolish.

[beam me up scottie]

45. I am forced to conclude that you are completely unable to prove your claims and are now wimping out.

You really should get some new material, you know, that list of uninformed assumptions you've been posting on the internet for over a year is dated.

[mhatrw]

49. Nobody cares. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

50. How clever, you went back and edited your post so that you are no longer putting words in my mouth.

Lucky for you I have two browsers open and could find your original post:

mhatrw (1000+ posts) Thu Aug-21-08 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Why do you want to give Gardasil to millions of girls today if the
the protection you assume it will confer against cervical cancer some 30+ years from now will be rendered obsolete by future medical advances?

The fact that you could have just apologized and retracted your claim but instead decided to be dishonest about it says a lot about your character.

[mhatrw]

51. All I did was try to make the original meaning of the post more clear.

I was obviously using "you" as a colloquial for "one" in the first place. But since you obviously have trouble following the logic of even a simple discussion, I was trying to make this clear to help you realize how ridiculous you are being.

[beam me up scottie]

54. Did you forget that you're still responsible for proving your original claim?

"Gardasil's advocates are practicing faith-based medicine. They have faith that Gardasil is extremely safe, and they have faith that the protection Gardasil confers against HPV 16 & 18 will translate into significant protection against cervical cancer some 30+ years down the line. On the other hand, they have no faith that there will be advances in HPV testing or cervical cancer treatments over the next 30 years that will render Gardasil's at best partial protection against an ever reducing threat obsolete."

[mhatrw]

55. These claims are logically self-evident to everyone but you.

Your inability to understand basic logic is stunning albeit quite amusing.

[beam me up scottie]

65. There is no logic in your claims, just assumption. It's up to you to prove them.

And since you've been posting the same thing over and over and over again for more than a year, I find it hard to believe that you are capable of critical thought.

Most people would have at least corrected the most glaring errors before copying and pasting their assumptions repeatedly in this forum and others.

[mhatrw]

68. What is wrong with you? What is your IQ? n/t

[beam me up scottie]

72. Apparently you have reading comprehension issues. Google "burden of proof"

Or better yet, you can read about it http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=41500&mesg_id=41500">here.

[mhatrw]

84. Exactly what are you asking me to prove?

Are you actually contending that Gardasil advocates do not actually believe that Gardasil will effectively reduce cervical cancer rates? Because otherwise, you have no point whatsoever since that is all I claimed.

I realize that you are probably not the sharpest knife in the drawer, though, so I advise you to reread my original "claims" slowly and carefully before continuing your neverending quest to make yourself look stupid.

[beam me up scottie]

89. You must be joking. How many more times do I have to post your own words?

"Gardasil's advocates are practicing faith-based medicine. They have faith that Gardasil is extremely safe, and they have faith that the protection Gardasil confers against HPV 16 & 18 will translate into significant protection against cervical cancer some 30+ years down the line. On the other hand, they have no faith that there will be advances in HPV testing or cervical cancer treatments over the next 30 years that will render Gardasil's at best partial protection against an ever reducing threat obsolete."

Prove it.

[mhatrw]

99. If Gardasil advocates don't believe that Gardasil is extremely safe, then why are they

advocating Gardasil? Are they Satanists or something?

If Gardasil advocates don't believe that Gardasil will confer significant protection against HPV 16 & 18, why are they advocating Gardasil? Are they Satanists or something?

If Gardasil advocates believe that medical advances will obsolete Gardasil before it can confer any benefit against cervical cancer, why are they advocating Gardasil? Are they Satanists or something?

No, I cannot prove that Gardasil advocates are not Satatists who love to put young girls at risk of a useless, unsafe vaccine. That I admit. That is an assumption I am making. Are you questioning my assumption?

[beam me up scottie]

102. Quit obfuscating. You made the claims, can you back them up or not?

[mhatrw]

106. OK, you win. I was wrong. Many Gardasil advocates may in fact be Satanists

who want to put young women at risk of a useless, unsafe vaccine.

Who taught you sophistry, by the way? John Cleese?

[beam me up scottie]

108. Yes, you were wrong but I'll bet you'll keep posting that piece of dreck anyway.

Over and over and over...

[mhatrw]

111. Yes, I will.

Because it is obvious that there is no substantial argument against it.

[beam me up scottie]

116. There doesn't need to be, it's just your uninformed assumption.

If you ever did prove you claim it could be debated.

[mhatrw]

117. Your understanding of the issues here and the insights you offer are

stunning. Thank you for contributing so substantively to so many discussions on this forum.

[beam me up scottie]

119. Get back to me when you can prove your claims.

I've bookmarked them, btw, so expect me to ask for proof every time you cite your assumptions.

[mhatrw]

122. Is that a threat? n/t

[beam me up scottie]

123. Nope, you're not that special. I expect everyone to be able to prove their absurd claims.

Get back to me with that evidence when you find some, 'kay?

[mhatrw]

125. What evidence for what? n/t

[beam me up scottie]

126. Take your pick :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x41924#42051

Uninformed, faith based assumptions, you know, the same exact ones you've posted here and elsewhere dozens of times.

I can just cut and paste the same ones since you haven't changed a word.

[HamdenRice]

44. Great post! I was thinking about posting something about this!

I have generally not been involved in the vacs wars, but something did bother me a lot about the Gardasil debate after reading the vacs skeptics posts -- and that is that there has never been a statistical trial of Gardasil's effects on cervical cancer, nor a cost benefit analysis.

So far, the clinical trials on Gardasil show that it had an effect on reducing pre-cancerous tissue as a result of suppressing hpv infections. But because of the very, very long lag time between hpv infection and cervical cancer, there has not been, and could not possibly be, a statistical study of its effect on cervical cancer.

Of course, there is a logical case to be made that (1) because hpv is correlated with cervical cancer and (2) Gardasil reduces hpv infection, therefore (3) Gardasil reduces cervical cancer.

But there actually are no studies because the time lag is so long and Garadasil hasn't been around that long. A studay that statistically correlates Gardasil innoculation and reductions in cervical cancer would take many decades.

The problem is that there are many unknown statistical factors: how long does Garadasil innoculation last? Does Gardasil vacs cause changes in sexual behavior that counteract the hpv reducing action of the vaccine?

None of these questions have been answered, and therefore the cost benefit analysis cannot have been done.

In the past, vaccine programs of mass innoculation would not have been undertaken unless these variables were known.

[xchrom]

52. trials were done in both europe and the u.s. -- and over years.

involving many more people that what you will read from so called skeptics here.

the makers have already covered the issue of boosters -- another point you won't read from the so called skeptics.

gardasil really does work -- and the cost-beenfit comes fromt the women who actually get cancer.

imagine the expense of treating anyone for any cancer?

as a cancer survivor i can tell you it's incredible.

one cervical cance patient and their treatment would pay for many innoculations.

imagine the benefits to poor countries as gardasil and other cervical vaccines become readily available -- not to mention the lives saved.

[mhatrw]

56. The total number in ALL trials was 20,000 and 10,000 were control subjects.

No reduction in the incidence of cervical cancer has ever been demonstrated in any sub-population, so how can you say "gardasil really does work"?

[xchrom]

60. they all got gardasil, right?

meaning there was all the same people out there who didn't and we track incidences of cervical cancer in the general population

[HamdenRice]

62. NO

They did not track cervical cancer which takes a long time from hpv infection to cancer.

All the studies tracked Gardasil against hpv infection and pre-cancerous cells.

There has not been enough time to correlate Gardasil and cervical cancer.

[xchrom]

63. if we don't track cervical cancers -- then how do we know

the numbers of cervical and anal cancers in men and women every year?

is someone making those numbers up?

[mhatrw]

66. We track cervical cancers. What has not been shown is that Gardasil is

effective against cervical cancer vis a vis the control group. This has not been shown at all. Not even "one less."

[xchrom]

73. bullshit -- gardasil innoculates against those hpv

that are resposible for causing the majority of cancers -- and even more lesions than it was designed for.

we track those cervical cancer numbers very carefully because it's a transmissable disease.

it -- and any disease like it -- will always be a high priority for institutions like the cdc.

[mhatrw]

82. So what? Gardasil has never been shown to reduce even a single incidence

of cervical cancer. Not even "one less."

The control group was infected with cervical cancer at exactly the same rate as the Gardasil group. Do you understand this simple fact or not?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

131. You have admitted in other post that Gardasil will save lives from cervical cancer.

[mhatrw]

134. No, I said that Gardasil *MAY* save lives.

And it may. But that is currently unproven, and how many lives Gardasil MAY save is currently completely unknown. It MAY cost more lives than it saves.

[HamdenRice]

69. We know those numbers in general

we don't know them in connection with Gardasil. To do a proper vaccination study, we would have to do a double blind study of the effect of Gardasil on cervical cancer.

That has never been done. Gardasil hasn't been around long enough to track it's effect on cervical cancer given the etiology of cervical cancer caused by hpv.

So instead, when the vaccine was tested in double blind studies, it was tested for its effect on hpv infection, which can be studied in the short term.

In effect, we have absolutely no idea of what the effect of Gardasil on cervical cancer is.

We know what its effect on hpv infection and pre-cancerous cells is. Now, it is logical that hpv infection and pre-cancerous cells may be correlated to cervical cancer. It's logical to believe that. But we don't know. Other factors could be involved, such as virus's mutual inhibition or patient behavior.

[xchrom]

71. superstitious hogwash

hpv causes cervical cancer -- you wish it doesn't from here to kingdom come -- but asserting in any way that there is no causation between hpv and cancer is insane.

[HamdenRice]

75. Another strawman. Canada disagrees with you.

The Candadian government has not adopted Gardasil because no double blind studies have been done correlating Gardasil and cervical cancer.

It's not superstition. It's science.

[xchrom]

77. gardasil is available in canada.

just like it is here.

try again.

[HamdenRice]

78. Available. Not mandated. Try again.

[xchrom]

86. and people with money will get protected. but the real point is

that your post implied it wasn't available in canada.

it is.

try again.

[dropkickpa]

112. Not mandated here, either. Next?

[mhatrw]

94. Even if that is true, Gardasil doesn't stop HPV. At best, Gardasil protects against just

2 of 15+ high risk HPV strains associated with cervical cancer. It's like getting rid of 2 species of flies. Who is to say that other more pestilent species of flies won't simply take their place?

[xchrom]

113. prove that this isn't true

Gardasil Effectiveness: In clinical trials, Gardasil was 100% effective against HPV strains 16 and 18, which are responsible for 70% of cases of cervical cancer.
Gardasil was also 99% effective against HPV strains 6 and 11, which are responsible for 90% of cases of genital warts.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/risk/HPV-vaccine

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/risk/HPV-vaccine

What are human papillomaviruses?

Human papillomaviruses (HPV) are a group of more than 100 viruses. They are called papillomaviruses because certain types may cause warts, or papillomas, which are benign (noncancerous) tumors. The HPVs that cause the common warts that grow on hands and feet are different from those that cause growths in the throat or genital area. Some types of HPV are associated with certain types of cancer. These are called “high-risk” oncogenic or carcinogenic HPVs.

Of the more than 100 types of HPV, over 30 types can be passed from one person to another through sexual contact. Although HPVs are usually transmitted sexually, doctors cannot say for certain when infection occurred. About 6 million new genital HPV infections occur each year in the United States. Most HPV infections occur without any symptoms and go away without any treatment over the course of a few years. However, HPV infection sometimes persists for many years, with or without causing detectable cell abnormalities.
2. Do HPV infections cause cancer?

Infection with certain types of HPV is the major cause of cervical cancer. Almost all women will have HPV infections at some point, but very few will develop cervical cancer. The immune system of most women will usually suppress or eliminate HPV. Only HPV infections that are persistent (do not go away over many years) can lead to cervical cancer. In 2006, an estimated 10,000 women in the United States will be diagnosed with this type of cancer and nearly 4,000 will die from it. Cervical cancer strikes nearly half a million women each year worldwide, claiming more than a quarter of a million lives. Studies also suggest that HPVs may play a role in cancers of the anus, vulva, vagina, and some cancers of the oropharynx (the middle part of the throat that includes the soft palate, the base of the tongue, and the tonsils). Data from several studies also suggest that infection with HPV is a risk factor for cancer of the penis.
3. Can HPV infection be prevented?

The surest way to eliminate risk for genital HPV infection is to refrain from any genital contact with another individual.

For those who choose to be sexually active, a long-term, mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner is the strategy most likely to prevent genital HPV infection. However, it is difficult to determine whether a partner who has been sexually active in the past is currently infected.

It is not known how much protection condoms provide against HPV infection, because areas not covered by a condom can be infected by the virus. Although the effect of condoms in preventing HPV infection is unknown, condom use has been associated with a lower rate of cervical cancer, an HPV-associated disease.

Recently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a vaccine that is highly effective in preventing persistent infection with HPV types 16 and 18, two “high-risk” HPVs that cause most (70 percent) cervical cancers, and types 6 and 11, which cause virtually all (90 percent) genital warts (1).
4. What preventive HPV vaccines are available?

The FDA recently approved Gardasil™, a vaccine produced by Merck & Co., Inc. (Merck). It is called a quadrivalent vaccine because it protects against four HPV types: 6, 11, 16, and 18. Gardasil is given through a series of three injections into muscle tissue over a 6-month period.

Another promising vaccine, Cervarix™, is produced and is being tested by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), but is not yet approved by the FDA. This vaccine is called a bivalent vaccine because it targets two HPV types: 16 and 18. Early findings have shown that this vaccine also protects against persistent infection with these two types of HPV. It is also given in three doses over a 6-month period. Both vaccines are based on technology developed in part by National Cancer Institute (NCI) scientists. NCI licensed the technology to two pharmaceutical companies—Merck and GSK—to develop HPV vaccines for widespread distribution.

Neither of these HPV vaccines has been proven to provide complete protection against persistent infection with other HPV types, some of which cause cervical cancer. Therefore, about 30 percent of cervical cancers and 10 percent of genital warts will not be prevented by these vaccines. In addition, the vaccines do not prevent other sexually transmitted diseases, nor do they treat HPV infection or cervical cancer.

Because the vaccines will not protect against all infections that cause cervical cancer, it is important for vaccinated women to continue to undergo cervical cancer screening as is recommended for women who have not been vaccinated.
5. How do HPV vaccines work?

The HPV vaccines work like other immunizations that guard against viral infection. The investigators hypothesized that the HPV’s unique surface components might create an antibody response that is capable of protecting the body against infection, and these components could be used to form the basis of a vaccine. These surface components are virus-like particles (VLP) that are noninfectious and produce antibodies that can prevent the complete papillomavirus from infecting cells. They are thought to protect primarily by causing the production of antibodies that prevent infection and the development of those cervical cell changes seen on Pap tests that may lead to cancer (2). Although these vaccines prevent HPV infection, it is not known if they can eliminate existing cervical cell changes due to HPV.
6. How effective are the HPV vaccines?

Gardasil and Cervarix are highly effective in preventing infection with the types of HPV that they target. FDA-approved Gardasil prevented nearly 100 percent of the precancerous cervical cell changes caused by the types of HPV targeted by the vaccine for up to 4 years after vaccination.
7. Why are these vaccines important?

Widespread vaccination has the potential to reduce cervical cancer deaths around the world by as much as two-thirds, if all women were to take the vaccine and if protection turns out to be long-term. In addition, the vaccines can reduce the need for medical care, biopsies, and invasive procedures associated with the follow-up from abnormal Pap tests, thus helping to reduce health care costs and anxieties related to abnormal Pap tests and follow-up procedures (2).
8. How safe are the HPV vaccines?

Before any vaccine is licensed, the FDA must determine that it is both safe and effective. Both Gardasil and Cervarix have been tested in thousands of people in the United States and many other countries. Thus far, no serious side effects have been noted. The most common problem has been brief soreness at the site of injection and other local injection site symptoms commonly experienced with other vaccines.
9. How long do the vaccines protect against infection?

The duration of immunity is not yet known. Research is being conducted to find out how long protection will last. Studies thus far have shown that Gardasil can provide protection against HPV 16 for 4 years. Studies with Cervarix showed protection from infection with both HPV 16 and 18 for more than 4 years.
10. Will booster vaccinations be needed?

Studies are under way to determine whether booster vaccinations (supplementary doses of a vaccine, usually smaller than the first dose, that are given to maintain immunity) are necessary.
11. Who should get the HPV vaccines?

The vaccines are proven to be effective only if given before infection with HPV, so it is recommended that they be given before an individual is sexually active. The FDA’s licensing decision includes information about the age and sex for recipients of the vaccine. The FDA approved Gardasil for use in females 9 to 26 years of age.

After a vaccine is licensed by the FDA, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) makes additional recommendations to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on who should receive the vaccine, at what age, how often, the appropriate dose, and situations in which it should not be administered. ACIP is made up of 15 experts in fields associated with immunization. ACIP provides advice on the most effective ways to use vaccines to prevent diseases. ACIP recommends that Gardasil be given routinely to girls ages 11 to 12. The recommendations also allow for the vaccination of girls beginning at 9 years of age and the vaccination of girls and women ages 13 to 26. More information about the ACIP recommendations for vaccination against HPV can be found on the CDC Web site at http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r060629.htm on the Internet.

In addition, states can decide whether or not to require vaccinations prior to enrollment in schools or child care. Each state makes this decision individually. Information about specific state vaccine decisions is available from the National Network for Immunization Information (NNii) Web site at http://www.immunizationinfo.org/vaccineInfo/index.cfm#state on the Internet.
12. Should the vaccine be given to people who are already infected with HPV?

The preventive vaccines currently under study do not treat infections, although they have been found to be generally safe when given to women who are already infected with HPV. It is not feasible to prescreen all women to see who has been exposed to the HPV types in the vaccines. At present, there is no generally available test to tell whether an individual has been exposed to HPV. The currently approved test only shows whether a woman has a current HPV infection and identifies the HPV type. It does not provide information on past infections. The decision to vaccinate or not, based on likelihood of prior exposure to these HPV types, is being discussed by ACIP and other advisory groups.
13. Should women who already have cervical cell changes get the vaccine?

Gardasil appears to be safe in women who have cervical abnormalities, but it is not known if the vaccine would help clear the abnormality. Women should talk with their health care providers about treatment for abnormal cervical cell changes.
14. Do women who have been vaccinated still need to have Pap tests?

Because Gardasil does not protect against all HPV types, Pap tests to screen for cervical cancer continue to be essential to detect cervical cancers and precancerous changes. In addition, Pap tests are critically important for women who have not been vaccinated or are already infected with HPV.
15. How much will the vaccine cost, and will insurance pay for it?

The cost of the vaccine is not known at this time. However, a Merck company cost-effectiveness analysis assumed a cost of $300 to $500. Individual or group insurance plans are subject to state laws. These laws generally establish coverage based on recommendations from the ACIP. Medicaid coverage is in accordance with the ACIP standard, and immunizations are a mandatory service under Medicaid for eligible individuals under age 21. Medicaid also includes the Vaccines for Children Program (VFC). This program provides immunization services for children 18 and under who are Medicaid eligible, uninsured, underinsured, and receiving immunizations through a Federally Qualified Health Center or Rural Health Clinic, or are Native American or Alaska Native.
16. What research is being done with HPV?

Researchers at NCI and elsewhere are studying how HPVs cause precancerous changes in normal cells and how these changes can be prevented. For example, a study is under way to determine if a vaccine can prevent infection with HPV types other than those targeted by Gardasil and Cervarix and to better understand the way the vaccines work (see Question 5) and factors that predict duration of protection. NCI is conducting a large clinical trial of the HPV vaccine manufactured by GSK in Costa Rica, where cervical cancer rates are high. This study is designed to obtain information about the vaccine’s long-term safety and the extent and duration of protection. NCI is also collaborating with other researchers on therapeutic HPV vaccines that would prevent the development of cancer among women previously exposed to HPV. For use in the general population, the ideal vaccine strategy would combine a preventive and therapeutic vaccine.

Laboratory research has indicated that HPVs produce proteins known as E5, E6, and E7. These proteins interfere with the cell functions that normally prevent excessive growth. For example, HPV E6 interferes with the human protein p53, which is expressed by the p53 gene in all people and acts to keep tumors from growing. This research is being used to develop ways to interrupt the process by which HPV infection can lead to the growth of abnormal cells.

Researchers at the NCI and elsewhere are also studying what people know and understand about HPV and cervical cancer, the best way to communicate to the public about the latest research results, and how doctors are talking with their patients about HPV. This research will help to ensure that the public receives accurate information about HPV that is easily understood, and will facilitate access to appropriate tests for those who need them.
17. How can people learn more about HPV infection?

The following Federal Government agencies can provide more information about HPV infection:

The NCI’s Digest Page about Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccines for Cervical Cancer provides links to NCI materials about HPV vaccines as well as general information about HPV, cancer vaccines, and cervical cancer. This Web site can be found at http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/hpv-vaccines on the Internet.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) supports research on HPV infection and offers printed materials. NIAID can be contacted at:
Organization: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Address:
Office of Communications and Public Liaison
6610 Rockledge Drive, MSC 6612
Bethesda, MD 20892–6612
Telephone: [phone]
TTY: 1–800–877–8339
Internet Web site: http://www.niaid.nih.gov

[mhatrw]

130. Lots of words. Zero difference between the observed cervical cancer rates

of the control group and the Gardasil group. Even you can understand that.

[xchrom]

137. 100% effective. somebody isn't getting cancer that would have.

now i know you understand that -- so you know what that makes you.

[mhatrw]

138. Nobody got cancer in the control group. n/t

[xchrom]

141. prove that.

i've offered real evidence gardasil's effectiveness -- and this is across thousands from australia to denmark to the u.s. --

you need to start putting up or shutting up.

[mhatrw]

146. It's common knowledge to everyone but you.

Ask one of your friends here who actually understands the issue.

[xchrom]

148. i have shown UNEQUIVOCALLY

that gardasil does what it claims to do -- you need to either shut up or prove it isn't true RIGHT NOW.

[HamdenRice]

58. You are missing the point completely

ALL the Gardasil trials were about the effect of the vaccine on the hpv infection and the development of pre-cancerous cells.

NONE of the Gardasil trials were about the statistical correlation between vaccination and cervical cancer -- because none of the trials had enough time to simulate how long it takes between hpv infection and the development of cervical cancer in a population, which as the other poster pointed out would take up to 30 years.

That's not to say that Gardasil won't have a positive impact on cervical cancer rates; but to say that it has not been proven.

We also don't know the effect of Gardasil on human behavior -- for example, whether innoculation leads to riskier sexual behavior that offsets its protective effect on hpv infection.

We also don't know precisely how many (statistically) cervical cancer cases Gardasil prevents given routine screening.

And we don't know what to compare its positive benefits against, in terms of everything from long terms risks to lost days of work as a result of minor negative effects.

The governments of several countries, like Canada, have not endorsed Garadasil for precisely this reason. Until the effect of Gardasil vaccination on cancer (as opposed to hpv infection) is known, no cost benefit analysis can be done.

[xchrom]

59. and here is what i think the heart of the arguments are really about

'We also don't know the effect of Gardasil on human behavior -- for example, whether innoculation leads to riskier sexual behavior that offsets its protective effect on hpv infection. '

punishing girls and women for having sex.

since condoms don't prevent the transmission of hpv -- what kind of sick mind would even think of such a thing.

i expect you will opposes hiv vaccinations based on the same sicko logic.

and by the way spell check will help you where your logic fails.

[HamdenRice]

61. huh? Great strawman there

I am making a statistical point -- namely, we don't know what the effect is. That's what several governments have said, and it has nothing to do with punishing anyone. It has to do with measurable effects of false confidence on behavior.

It's called science.

[xchrom]

64. iraq has weapons of mass destruction -- we need a war -- hiv or hpv vaccination

will lead to more risky behavior.

fuckin sick logic -- both are lies.

[mhatrw]

67. Yes, it's sick logic, but nobody demonstrated it other than your strawman.

[xchrom]

70. ...

'We also don't know the effect of Gardasil on human behavior -- for example, whether innoculation leads to riskier sexual behavior that offsets its protective effect on hpv infection. '

[beam me up scottie]

74. SOMEONE ACTUALLY SAID THAT? HERE?

I gotta say, xchrom, you called that right, it is about sex and loathing women.

[xchrom]

76. indeed -- some on did.

and i know i'm right about this.

it's about misogyny, sex icks and all sorts of unsavory stuff.

[HamdenRice]

79. And some people don't understand what "behavior" is

Some are too obsessed with sex to understand the full range of what is encompassed in the word, "behavior."

From the Canadian Medical Association Journal:

"<W>e must be certain that spending an estimated $2 billion to vaccinate a population of girls and women in Canada who are already mostly well protected by their own immune systems, safer sex practices and existing screening programs will not perpetuate the existing gaps in care and leave the actual rate of deaths from cervical cancer unchanged."

"Misgivings are now common, and include its cost, its marketing as the solution to cancer of the cervix when at best it's expected to prevent about two-thirds of cases, the incorrect and dangerous perception that it might make Pap smears unnecessary, and the difficult question of the best age to give a vaccine whose effect might yet prove to wear off before many recipients even start having sex."

In other words, looking at the full range of human behavior, vaccinated individuals might not get paper smears as regularly. This is one example of potential unanticipated behavior changes the vaccine might induce.

The non sex obsessed might understand this.

[xchrom]

85. hey ronald reagan ignored the hiv epidemic based on crazy assertions like that.

it is INSANE on your part to think that merck or any one else is promoting fewer pap smears for girls and women.

we already have an 'epidemic' of the poor not getting the regular tests that they need to get as it is.

there is -- and whether you like it or not it's going to happen -- a movement through vaccinations to reduce cervical cancer across all populations.

there will be as many as three vaccines in the next year -- and people will use them -- right now because of sheer insanity of people like you --
it will only reach those who can afford it.

[mhatrw]

90. What crazy assertions "like that" cause Reagan to ignore the HIV epidemic?

Merck is promoting Gardasil as a cure against 70% of cervical cancer. Human nature will attest to the fact that some women who get Gardasil will be less inclined to get tested by their OB-GYN every year. How can anyone disagree with this?

The poor people not getting regular tests are also the same people not getting Gardasil. If you want to offer Gardasil free to anyone who wants it without any mandate or misleading ad campaign, that's fine with me.

[xchrom]

103. prove your assertion that the innoculation will cause women

and girls to get fewer pap smears -- prove it or shut up.

and prove it now.

numbers -- i want the numbers of girls who are getting the vaccine and getting fewer pap smears.

whip it out.

thousands around the globe have been vaccinated -- whip it out whip the numbers out now.

[mhatrw]

107. The recommended number of HPV tests is already down to one every three years for women over 30 only.

[xchrom]

115. and? -- what exactly does that have to do with gardasil? nt

[LeftishBrit]

140. If someone meant 'neglecting to get a Pap smear'...

why would they call it risky *sexual* behaviour? Pap smears, or their omission, are hardly a form of sexual behaviour!

[HamdenRice]

142. Again, you fail to understand the simple concept of behavior

especially unanticipated behavior and the concept of "cost/benefit analysis."

For example, one effect of polio epidemics was that many urban people seemed to be most scared of having their children go to public pools in the summer. After the polio vaccine, children went back to urban public pools. As a result there was some increase in drowning.

A cost benefit analysis would show, however, that the number of people drowned was less than the number of people killed or disabled by polio. But the tiny increase in public pool drowning was an unanticipated cost of the effectiveness of the polio vaccine.

Changing sexual behavior, submitting to pap smears, going to the doctor are all changes in behavior that may result from hpv vaccines. Behavior, in case you are impaired in terms of vocabulary, encompasses the full range of human activities. We don't know what impact the vaccine will have on human behavior, nor on the interaction of the viruses. The things I listed -- sex, seeking medical help, and submitting to routine screenings -- are all subsets of behavior. Why that is such a challenging concept for so many of you is puzzling. Sexual behavior is a subset of human behaviors. Health care seeking is a subset of human behaviors. Eating spinach is a subset of human behaviors.

There is no dispute in the public health community that the availability of anti retro viral drugs has had an effect on sexual behavior among hiv at-risk groups. But as a result of double blind studies, we know that the benefit of those drugs outweighs the cost of behavior.

At present, we don't know the cost of behavior changes that will be induced by a vaccine that has an undetermined prophylactic period.

Why is the concept of "human behavior" so beyond your mental grasp?

[LeftishBrit]

143. I know what human behaviour means, thanks; I'm a researcher in Psychology!

You seem not to have read the whole quote:

'We also don't know the effect of Gardasil on human behavior -- for example, whether innoculation leads to riskier sexual behavior that offsets its protective effect on hpv infection. '

It isn't the first line that we were talking about. It was the next bit: 'whether inoculation leads to riskier SEXUAL behavior'. The word 'sexual' is *there* - we didn't invent it. And 'riskier sexual behavior' doesn't mean 'forgetting to have a Pap smear'.

[LeftishBrit]

144. Moreover: if one wants to promote healthy behaviour (sexual or otherwise)...

surely the way to do so is to engage in health promotion campaigns; and make the healthier behaviours easier (e.g. free Pap smears for all; easy access to condoms; etc.); rather than to discourage measures that might prevent an illness that results from the unhealthy behaviour. Should we reject treatments for lung cancer or HIV in case it leads to more smoking or unsafe sex?

[beam me up scottie]

81. You're wasting your time with that one.

But thanks for putting it out there for others to see.

[xchrom]

88. i think you should cature that on --

you are the perfect person to use it.

[beam me up scottie]

91. argh,

I'll try to pick it up again tomorrow, I'm posting in between fantasy football picks, beloved boyfriend won't get his own puter...

[xchrom]

114. lol -- yay!!! fantasy football!

:woohoo:

[cosmik debris]

118. That makes me feel old.

I remember when guys had sex fantasies, not football fantasies.

I miss the good old days.

[beam me up scottie]

120. Me too...

:rofl:

[xchrom]

121. ...

i just made up a whole new fantasy football team...

[beam me up scottie]

124. Can I see???

BB would sure like it if I took an interest in football...

[xchrom]

127. oh you know jeff stryker quaterback

jenna james tight end -- eric ryker where ever -- that sort of thing.

throw is some natalie portman -- gwyneth paltrow and jake gyllenhall and brad pitt.

[beam me up scottie]

128. Now that has potential.

People would pay to play that game.:P

[mhatrw]

80. "Gardasil really does work." xchrom

You don't even realize that Gardasil has never been shown to reduce a single case of cervical cancer. Instead of informing yourself on the facts, you changed the subject to your supposed ability to divine the dastardly motives of your educators.

[xchrom]

87. if it prevents infection from the hpv that causes cancer

then it prevents that cancer.

and it does.

back to grade school with you.

[mhatrw]

92. Show me the data that proves that Gardasil has saved a single

women from cervical cancer.

[beam me up scottie]

93. ??? You can't prove any of your own assumptions.

What a hypocrite.

[mhatrw]

95. LOL. How many people have you on ignore? n/t

[beam me up scottie]

97. .

[cosmik debris]

100. One more wouldn't hurt! n/t

[mhatrw]

104. Is that the game? n/t

[trotsky]

83. That's definitely a keeper.

Good thing it's past the edit time.

[cosmik debris]

96. This thread was getting dull until

Our favorite clown showed up to entertain us.

[mhatrw]

101. And who would that be? n/t

[beam me up scottie]

105. Quit being nosy and get busy proving your claims.

Do you want me to post them again for you?



edit speeling and oversnarkification

[mhatrw]

109. Quit being obnoxious. n/t

[DemExpat]

57. Right on.

As a cervical cancer survivor myself I reject this vaccination for my children until many of these questions are cleared.

DemEx

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftishBrit]

110. Great post!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

132. Most of us feel the exact same way, excellent post.

[mhatrw]

133. Who is "us"?

:wtf:

[beam me up scottie]

135. We are legion.

We are everyone and we are no one.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

136. Fire department paramedics.

I took a poll.

[beam me up scottie]

139. kick

[kdmorris]

145. We should just rename this the Gardisil forum

What the hell happened while I was away on business???? Every other post is about this damned vaccine or vaccines, in general.

[mhatrw]

147. What would you rather talk about?

When the NEJM speaks, many people listen. How about you?

[kdmorris]

149. There are actually millions of other topics

that have to do with Health, which is the name of this forum. I know it's hard to see when you are on a crusade.

Maybe you could consolidate all of your Gardisil posts into ONE post.