Psssst...Wanna Know Why Merck Was Bold Enough to Fast-Track and Make Gardasil Mandatory? >>

[The Cleaner]

In January 2006, the FDA announced the Bush administration's latest gift to Big Pharma in a statement that said people who believe they have been injured by drugs approved by the FDA should not be allowed to sue drug companies in state courts...

In an earlier gift delivered to Big Pharma in December 2005, Republican leaders, and specifically Senator Bill Frist (R-TN), attached protective provisions to a Department of Defense appropriations report that gave the industry “unprecedented immunity," according to Democratic lawmakers who described the underhanded move as follows:

"Republican leaders added provisions to the conference report after cutting a back-room deal in the middle of the night. The conference report grants sweeping immunity to drug companies for injuries caused by vaccines and drugs and for the administration of those vaccines and drugs, even if they are made with flagrant disregard for basic safety precautions.

"Moreover, the compensation program is a sham, leaving people who become injured from a drug or vaccine without recourse.”

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_evelyn_p_060513_bush_uses_fda_to_shi.htm

And there you have it. You see, the argument against making Gardasil mandatory was never a right-wing or conservative cause. It was a stinging rebuke and warning against corrupt Republican politics. And now, thanks to the Republicans, the major drug companies can fast-track their drugs and vaccines WITHOUT proper clinical trials all the while knowing if the product they come out with is dangerous - killing people and making them sick - THEY CAN NEVER BE SUED. This is why Merck was so bold in working with state governors to fast-track Gardasil and make it mandatory via executive order.

Prove me wrong.

[Dora]

1. Oh, my.

:popcorn:

[Taverner]

2. I agree with you but even still...

I do think this vaccine should be mandatory. Just like the Polio vaccines should have been pushed in the 60's and 70's to eradicate polio, even though it turned out they had live cancer-causing monkey virus in them.

Why? HPV is a deadly disease and needs to be eliminated.

Of course, part of this "fast track" should involve a living QA process to make the vaccine safer.

[valerief]

3. Mandatory for boys, too, since they also carry and spread the disease. nt

[The Cleaner]

9. HPV is NOT a "deadly disease."

Do your research. HPV is a virus that is relatively harmless in boys, but may cause cervical cancer in girls. Gardasil claims 2 strains of HPV cause 70% of all cervical cancer cases, and that the vaccine protects against these two strains.

But in and of itself, HPV is simply a virus with no ill health effects. People who have HPV generally don't konw it. That's why pap smears are important for women - detection can prevent cervical cancer.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. HPV kills thousands of women every year.

That's like saying HIV isn't a deadly disease.

[The Cleaner]

14. HPV is a VIRUS. In and of itself it is not CERVICAL CANCER.

Do your research! In this case HPV is a virus that in boys is relatively harmless, but in girls may lead to cervical cancer. Many boys, and many girls, have HPV but never know it, and never have any symptoms. In fact, according to the National Institutes of Health, they said that most cases of HPV clear up on their own and never cause cervical cancer. That's from the NIH!!

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/stdhpv.htm
Most HPV infections do not progress to cervical cancer.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. Unvaccinated people are the vectors.

HPV is the disease which kills thousands of women every year.

It's a shame, considering that there's now a vaccine and future deaths could be prevented.

[The Cleaner]

19. You're right about "vectors"

and I changed that wording.

Now, I fear we are going round and round and you aren't listening to a word I'm saying. HPV is not deadly. It is a virus that is relatively harmless in boys. Are you saying if a boy gets HPV he dies from it? Because that is simply not true at all.

Girls on the other hand may get cervical cancer as a result of HPV infection. But in my NIH quote above, read it - carefully - most cases of HPV do not cause cervical cancer. That is from NIH.

There are some 100 strains of HPV. Merck says 2 particular strains of HPV are known to cause 70% of cervical cancer cases. What of the other 98 strains then? Answer: they are harmless. They are not deadly.

Do some research before jumping to your conclusions. You obviously know nothing about HPV.

Are you listening? Do you hear that? Or have you fallen prey to the misinformation that Merck so wants people to believe?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. HPV is deadly.

For the same reason HIV is deadly.

[The Cleaner]

25. OK I get it. "I can't hear you, la-la-la..."

Way to present your side of the argument. :eyes:

HIV and HPV are two completely different viruses and act in totally different ways. But what do you know. You're just regurgitating the talking points and refuse to consider anything I say, let alone doing your own research, which I have even provided FOR YOU, directly from the National Institutes of Health.

You are making a total blanket statement without any consideration of the complexities of HPV and its multiple strains.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. Yes, HIV and HPV are different viruses.

Congratulations.

However, they're both infectious. They're both public health emergencies. They both kill people. And there's a vaccine for HPV. God willing there'll be a vaccine for HIV soon. Are you going to be against that one too?

"You're just regurgitating the talking points and refuse to consider anything I say, let alone doing your own research, which I have even provided FOR YOU, directly from the National Institutes of Health."

The NIH is recommending the vaccine, silly.

[Recursion]

41. Totally incomparable

Contracting HIV changes your risk of developing AIDS from 0% to something like 99%.

Contracting HPV changes your risk of developing cervical cancer from 1% to 2%.

About 0.5% of sexually active American adults carry HIV; without treatment most will be dead within 5 years.

About 75% of sexually active adults carry HPV; the women among them have a 1% higher chance of developing cervical cancer sometime over the next 50 years

They're simply not comparable infections.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. Tell it to somebody with cervical cancer.

[Recursion]

52. You mean like my mom, who didn't have HPV?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. No.

One of the majority of cervical cancer victims who do have HPV.

Btw, how do you know your mom didn't have HPV?

[Recursion]

55. Because they have tests for these things.

One of the majority of cervical cancer victims who do have HPV.

The majority of people with cervical cancer carry HPV.

The majority of people without cervical cancer carry HPV, too.

[treestar]

120. We're talking about a broad policy here

You're trying to shame us out of it with guilt because we are doing that rather than consider the feelings of one human being we don't know to require a vaccine for an entire population. And the correlation isn't there either. You're in effect saying Mom died because she didn't have the vaccine, which is probably impossible to prove. Of course public -policy is going to be based on statistics, and even the rarity will have someone with personal experience.

In essence, it is the like when someone tries to shame and guilt someone into supporting the war in Iraq because "my son is over there."

[trotsky]

193. I would imagine that the same gang would be against an HIV vaccine.

After all, since you can avoid HIV by "just saying no," it's your own damn fault if you slept around and contracted it. :sarcasm:

[trotsky]

192. HPV can cause penile cancer in men.

So yes, men can die as a result of HPV infection too. Which is why boys will soon be vaccinated against it too.

[freefall]

21. No it is not. Cervical cancer kills thousands of women each year not

HPV. Please do your research.

Peace,

freefall

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. That's utterly disingenuous.

That's like saying cervical cancer never kills anybody, liver cancer caused by metastitized cervical cancer kills people.

:crazy:

HPV causes cervical cancer.

HPV kills people.

[PLF]

29. No it is not, please stick to facts

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. I am sticking to the fact.

HPV kills people.

Deal with it.

[KittyWampus]

48. You know nothing. 70-90% young women with HPV spontaeously rid themselves of it

And young women (pre-teens) are the ones this vaccine was/is marketed for. And the older women MAY, in part, have highter rates of abnormal cells simply due to their age. The older you are, the more likely you are to have pre-cancerous or abnormal cells in your genital area. This is the same for men and prostrate cancer. Almost ALL mature men have abnormal cells in their prostates.


NEW York -- There is no need to be overly aggressive with surgical or medical interventions for adolescent girls and young adults with cervical human papillomavirus infections, Dr. Liane Deligdisch said.

Dr. Deligdisch, professor of pathology at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, conducted a comparative study of cytologic samples from HPV-positive teens as well as women older than 35 years. While the younger patients had very distinct and definitely abnormal cytology because these abnormalities are largely transient, they did not warrant aggressive intervention.

"In adolescence, HPV has a much more benign nature than previously thought. Most cases are transient and do not need to be overtreated," she said at a conference on pediatric, adolescent, and young adult gynecology sponsored by Mount Sinai.

Dr. Deligdisch and her colleagues made exhaustive analyses of specimens taken from 100 HPV-positive patients seen at Mount Sinai's adolescent colposcopy clinic. This included a group of 14- to 20-year-olds with low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) and a second group of teens with high-grade intraepithelial lesions (HSIL). These were compared with samples taken from women aged 35-64 years, who had LSIL and HSIL.

snip
Dr. Deligdisch said it is estimated that in adolescents, 90% of low-risk HPV infections and 70% of high-risk infections will regress spontaneously For older women, the spontaneous regression rate is far lower, and may be as low as 50%.

She said the findings from her group are "somewhat prophetic" in light of the recent Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Women With Cervical Cytological Abnormalities issued by the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (JAMA 287<16>:2120-29, 2002). The new guidelines reflect a definite shift away from aggressive intervention, especially for younger women with HPV.

Dr. J. Thomas Cox, who is the executive director of the National HPV and Cervical Cancer Prevention Center, agreed with Dr. Deligdisch's assessment and with the current general movement away from the colposcopic search-and-destroy mentality that has characterized HPV/cervical cancer management in the past.

"If you balance the risk of damage due to overtreating young women versus the risk of missing a lesion that might become cancerous later on, it weighs in favor of doing less," Dr. Cox said during a live video transmission from his office at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

The guidelines state that for young women with biopsy-confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grades 2-3, observation with colposcopy and repeat cytology for 4-6 months is acceptable for up to 1 year. If the lesion progresses to HSIL or if an HSIL lesion persists for a year or more, only then should one proceed to a diagnostic and/or excisional procedure.

HPV infection alone is not grounds for surgical intervention, especially in teens and young women.

Dr. Cox, an author of the new ASCCP guidelines, cited a 1998 study from Rutgers University assessing the rate of HPV infection in college-aged women seeking oral contraceptives. While 26% of all patients were HPV positive by polymerase chain reaction, the infections cleared in 70% of these patients within 12 months, and only 9% of them remained positive at 24 months (N. Engl. J. Med. 338<7>:423-28, 1998).

Risk of cervical cancer appears to be correlated with HPV type. Therefore, it is important to test women at risk for specific HPV types. "The majority of low-grade lesions will regress over time, and the patients will become HPV negative," he said.

There is a very long time frame for the development of cervical cancer following infection with a high-risk HPV type. The majority of women who get cervical cancer are infected in their 20s, and the median age for diagnosis of CIN is 29 years. The median age for diagnosis of invasive cervical cancer is in the late 40s.

[Atman]

96. Oh, please...you and your damned FACTS!

This is the Bush era. There is no room for "facts" in this debate.

I hope I don't need this, but... :sarcasm:

.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

102. Yet over 50% of all US women have HPV.

How do you explain that?

[Morgana LaFey]

147. Isn't the stat even higher for men?

HPV can be transmitted by a handshake, or not even that much, can't it?

What's to explain? Not everyone who has HPV gets cervical cancer AND some cervical cancers have nothing to do with HPV.

[KittyWampus]

37. HPV has has not been SCIENTIFCIALLY proven to cause cancer. It's an assumption at this point

Coincidence doesn't mean causation.

And that Gardasil prevents HPV and consequently cervical cancer has not been proven either. Not even close.

The only way Gardasil would be proven to prevent HPV and then supposedly prevent cervical cancer would be research following people who have taken the vaccine and then been exposed to HPV.

That has not happened.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. Yes, it has.

HPV causes cervical cancer.

It's been scientifically proven.

But then, you're a Creationist, so...

[Recursion]

44. No, it hasn't, and stop pretending you know stuff you don't

There is no model of carcinogenesis from HPV infection; there is simply an observable elevated risk of cervical cancer (2% with HPV 16/18 vs. 1% without).

Similarly, there is an elevated risk of emphysema associated with yellow fingernails. But a drug that prevented yellow fingernails would not stop emphysema (though God knows Merck would try to sell it as that).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. Are you, dmesg...

going to argue that HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer?

I mean I expected that sort of thing from Cryingshame, do you really want to go there?

[Recursion]

49. I think I was pretty clear on the subject

We cannot say that HPV causes cervical cancer. It is one of many elevated risk markers.

To continue my emphysema example, HPV could be the yellow fingernails, or it could be the smoking. That is, HPV could (and, in fact, we know it does) share common risk factors with cervical cancer -- to the extent that it does, the association is a marker from common causation.

The facts are pretty plain: a woman who does not carry HPV 16 or 18 has a 1% lifetime risk of developing cervical cancer. A woman who does carry one of those strains has a 2% lifetime risk. That is all we know about the association. There are no studies showing an actual model of carcinogenesis.

Moreover, we know the two conditions share at least one common risk factor: early sexual activity. That means at least some, and possibly all, of that elevated risk is from common causality, not pathogenicity.

Curing yellow fingernails will not stop emphysema.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

57. Actually, HPV is a cause of severe cervical dysplasia

... which may lead to cervical cancer. However, the presence of HPV in the cervix does not imply that women will develop severe cervical dysplasia, and cervical dysplasia does not mean that a woman will develop cervical cancer.

I think these facts confuse many people.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

59. ...

"However, the presence of HPV in the cervix does not imply that women will develop severe cervical dysplasia, and cervical dysplasia does not mean that a woman will develop cervical cancer."

I don't see anybody confused about that either.

Some people infected with HIV will never develop AIDS. That doesn't mean it's not a public health issue.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

69. You're correct about HIV and AIDS

However I won't give you that I find the comparison to to HPV and cervical cancer to be the same as HIV and AIDS. HPV is a probable cause of a possible precursor to cancer. Unlike HIV which is the direct cause of AIDS.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

70. Would you agree...

that HPV is a public health issue?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

80. Yes, of course.

I wasn't denying that. I was simply attempting to clarify a few facts.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

82. Alright.

The HIV analogy was only drawn up in an argument that HPV was not a public health problem.

[JackBeck]

85. When you say "some people" when talking about HIV/AIDS

do you have a number for that?

[Recursion]

89. It's a few hundred IIRC

There are a few hundred people known to have carried HIV for over two decades now with no immune system collapse and no AIDS-defining diseases. There are also a few dozen people who have had immune system collapses and AIDS defining diseases in the absence of HIV. Neither occur frequently enough to realistically challenge the model of HIV as the neccessary and sufficient cause of AIDS, although both sets of patients may yet yield important insights.

[JackBeck]

90. You're talking about long term non-progressors.

99% of HIV-positive people will receive an AIDS diagnosis in left untreated. I guess I was feeling the OP was stretching his "some" argument. But that's neither here nor there becuase it's OT.

[Recursion]

93. Yeah; that was what I was getting at

I just meant there are some fringe cases on both ends of the spectrum (ie, HIV without AIDS and "AIDS" or something very much like it without HIV).

I'm interested in Washington DC's plan to test all residents for HIV -- if it goes through, it will be the first large scale screening of an entire population; it will be interesting to see if we actually have more long term non-progressors than we think we do.

[JackBeck]

95. Interesting that you brought that up.

An AIDS diagnosis doesn't mean you are really sick. One of three things must occur in order to get an AIDS diagnosis, and an AIDS-diagnosis is done for 2 reasons; 1) tracking and 2) benefits.

I was listening to Randi Rhodes yesterday and a caller said his brother came back from Iraq with non-viral AIDS. First time I had heard that. He basically said that his brother's immune system was severely compromised.

[Recursion]

97. Hmm... last I heard "non viral AIDS" is not a diagnosis

But I know there's some motion on this. Last I heard it's "idiopathic immunodeficiency disorder" or "idiopathic lymphocytopemia" or whatever it is this week.

HIV/AIDS is, to me, an illustrative example for this topic because the role of HIV in the onset of AIDS is much, much stronger and more clear than the putative role of HPV in the development of cervical cancer. That said, there are some interesting "border" cases involving HIV and AIDS, both those who carry the virus for long periods of time -- perhaps indefinitely? -- without developing the diagnostic criteria of AIDS, and those who develop the diagnostic criteria of AIDS without carrying HIV.

Both classes were until recently thought to be vanishingly rare, but both turned out to be numerous enough to merit distinct diagnostic instruments. Again, that's why I'm so interested in DC's plan to test all its residents for HIV -- we don't really have solid data on the actual rate of HIV infection in the overall population, and this would tell us whether the long-term non-developing carriers are as rare as we think or not.

[JackBeck]

99. When it comes to health literacy, many times, people hear one thing

and repeat it differently. I'm an HIV/HCV health literacy educator. And boy could I share some stories...

Oh, has anyone mentioned that there are over 100 strains of HPV, and only a few cause genital warts that can lead to cervical dysplasia, which CAN lead to cancer in some women?

[Recursion]

61. again, yellow fingernails

The dysplasiae may cause cancer or may mark carcinogenic conditions. We just don't know.

We've been looking, for decades now, for viral carcinogens and they keep not panning out. I mean, I know Duesberg went kind of apeshit crazy over HIV but he was right about cancer: it's simply not viral; it's aneuploidic.

Too bad there's not much money in looking for environmental and lifestyle carcinogens...

[Lone_Star_Dem]

77. I think you and I are in agreement regarding cervical dysplasia

I may not have made it clear in my post but I do agree with what you said.

For the record: cervical dysplasia is a possible precursor to cervical cancer, not a known one. In fact around 70% of all dysplasia return to normal tissue on their own.

[Liberal Veteran]

103. You may want to look into HHV-8.

It is strongly associated with the development of KS and lymphoma in people with compromised immune systems.

[foo_bar]

177. so aneuploidic mitosis can't have a viral etiology?

I mean, I know Duesberg went kind of apeshit crazy over HIV but he was right about cancer: it's simply not viral; it's aneuploidic.

Aside from being the "theory" behind the HIV-doesn't-cause-AIDS conspiracy, isn't that like saying "guns don't kill people, bullets do"? What do you consider retroviruses, a hoax planted by God like the fossils?

DEFINITION OF AN ONCOGENE: AN ONCOGENE IS A GENE THAT CODES FOR A PROTEIN THAT POTENTIALLY CAN TRANSFORM A NORMAL CELL INTO A MALIGNANT CELL. IT MAY BE TRANSMITTED BY A VIRUS IN WHICH CASE WE REFER TO IT AS A VIRAL ONCOGENE.
(...)
Papilloma viruses are wart-causing viruses that also certainly cause human neoplasms and cause natural cancers in animals.
(...)
ADENOVIRUSES

These viruses are highly oncogenic in animals and only a portion of the virus is integrated into the host genome.
(...)
Human Herpes Virus-8 (HHV-8, Kaposi's Sarcoma Herpes Virus)

HHV-8 infects lymphocytes and epithelial/endothelial cells and is the causative agent of Kaposi's sarcoma. It has also been associated with hematologic malignancies, including primary effusion lymphoma, multicentric Castleman's (also Castelman's) disease (MCD), MCD-related immunoblastic/plasmablastic lymphoma and various atypical lymphoproliferative disorders.

VIROLOGY - CHAPTER SIX, "ONCOGENIC VIRUSES" (USC School of Medicine)

[alarimer]

182. It CAUSES cancer

It is well worth eliminated this STD for that reason alone. Think of all the pain and suffering people who get this kind of cancer have to go through. This vaccine will prevent thousands of needless deaths. Eliminating cancer is always, always a good thing. I don't give a flying fuck who made the vaccine or how much money they will make off of it. Only heartless people want people to get cancer instead of making them get a simple vaccine that will save their lives. But, hell, thy are only women, right? Obviously only sluts get cervical cancer.

[dropkickpa]

126. Gardasil does not claim that

the overwhelming amount of research worldwide concludes that. You need to read the research. I have.

And HPV DOES cause ill health effects. I got HPV 16 and, in one year, progressed to cancer. 1 year. I had a completely normal (thin-prep, the more sensitve) PAP (actually had 6 in two years after having a kid and then participating in a study), at my next regular yearly appt after completing the study *whammo* you have abnormalities, let's do a biopsy *whammo* you need a bigger biopsy *whammo* it's cancer (the lesion had grown in the month between biopsies). Cervical cancer is the #2 cause of cancer death in women worldwide. #2. Breast is #1. A PAP is just a diagnostic tool, with highly variable effectiveness, and only useful for those who can afford to have it done on a regular basis (many many many women, in the US alone, cannot).

The constant statements of "HPV isn't dangerous/doesn't cause cancer" consistantly sounds in my ears like "fuck the sluts, they deserve to die, their cancer doesn't matter." Is this because it is tied to an STD? Seriously, I want to know why people are so willing to accept inconclusive evidence that mercury may exacerbate autism but categorically refuse to accept the REAMS of conclusive data that show HPV causes cervical cancer?

[northzax]

141. i think you will find

that the same people who will accept Mercury-vaccines as a cause of Autism will be arguing that more testing needs to be done. some peopel are simply afraid of vaccines in general.

Personally, I do not think that the vaccine should be mandatory. It should be encouraged, it should be part of the general battery of innoculations everyone gets, but the risk level of cervical cancer is so comparatively low (3700 deaths a year in the US, and dropping anyway) and the form of transmission is not connected to being in groups (like other communicable diseases) that it doesn't, to me, justify the elevation of the vaccine to mandatory status.

That said. If I had a daughter, I would give it to her. If I had a son, when the final battery of studies comes in for that, I would give it to him. but it has to be a decision that people make for their own families and themselves, it's simply not a big enough incidence, and a big enough transmission risk among the vaccinated population, to rise to the level of mandatory; however horrific any individual case is. (and that horror is why I would give the vaccine to my children, and encourage others to)

[dropkickpa]

144. I'm not hot on a mandate

but, it will catch those at risk who would otherwise not get the vaccine (no daughter of mine is getting that shot! She'll go out and fuck the football team :sarcasm:). These are the kids are less likely to have adequate sex ed, less likely to go to a doctor for bc/paps/etc, and less likely to tell their parents when they've begun to have sex. And, by 18 when they can go get it themselves without mum and dad knowing, a lot of girls (if they've had sex) may have already been exposed to HPV and it would possibly be too late for the vaccine to be effective.

On the one hand, I see the mandate as a semi-shady action, but on the other, it will help protect girls who would otherwise be unprotected. I'm torn. And aren't there opt-outs available for those who oppose vaccines in general? Would those opt-outs be available for this particular vaccine?

And Dropkid will be getting vaccinated the minute she turns 9. I will NOT have her face what I had to. I am not blind enough to think that there is no chance of her having sex before 18 (I hope I instill enough self respect, knowledge, and common sense into her that it won't be a decision she just jumps into as a lot of girls do).

[alarimer]

183. I think it's a good ides to try to eliminate ANY STD

no matter the ill effects of the disease. So this vaccine is a hell of a good thing.

[SharonAnn]

194. Can lead to cervical, rectal and penile cancer. Those are "pretty deadly".

[mzmolly]

56. I presume this is satire?

;)

[Pretty_in_CodePink]

181. Why should it be mandatory?

My understanding is the vaccine works against a handful of HPV of which there are hundreds of strains. The number of women contracting cervical cancer yearly is 12,000 with 4,000 cases being fatal. In the scope of risks I think this is small and early detection plays an important role. No way will my daughter get this vaccine. I will educate her about safe sex and yearly pap smears.

[Betsy Ross]

4. Why shouldn't men be vacinated with Gardasil?

If all men were vacinated would women be exposed to the virus? I understand it is transmitted through sexual intercourse. So vacinate all men and leave the women alone. Just a thought

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Do you really want an answer?

It's because the vaccine hasn't finished testing in men yet.

Furthermore, they're not the ones who have to worry about cervical cancer.

[SharonAnn]

24. They can get penile and rectal cancer from it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. I don't get it.

Why would immunity given a year ago lead "big pharma" to drop a push for the vaccine now? Or at all?

Seems counterintuitive.

[CountAllVotes]

8. maybe someone died

eh Merck?

:kick:

[The Cleaner]

10. Public outcry and exposure of their motives...that's why.

Bad public image cuts into any company's profits. Just look at WalMart.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. What's that got to do with your OP?

:shrug:

[The Cleaner]

16. "exposure of their motives"

mainly.

Collusion with Republicans...dirty politics...making Gardasil mandatory when in fact it is clear from the South Dakota model it can be made opt-in, free, and available to all...big money buying influence...major conflicts of interest...

That sort of thing. The OP outlines how Bush and the Repubs basically gave drug companies carte blanche permission to wreak havoc on people's healths with no recourse. To me that is unacceptable, and explains why Merck was so confident they could come in and sidestep the democratic process of votes in the Legislature.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Ah.

Working the tinfoil angle.

OK.

[Liberal Veteran]

7. Fast-Tracked status does not in any way mean incomplete clinical trials

It is a status of priority for reviewing the RESULTS of clinical trials and deciding whether or not the drug CAN continue it's current trials or move on to the next phase.

Basically it just means the results of the clinical trials are given priority over drugs where there is already a met medical need (e.g. a review of a new SSRI where there are about a dozen will get lower priority for review than a drug that treats multi-drug resistant HIV).

[The Cleaner]

13. But why fast-track Gardasil?

It's important, and cervical cancer is important, but typically aren't drugs and vaccines that are fast-tracked done so because of a public health emergency such as flu outbreak?

It just doesn't add up.

Furthermore the point of the OP is to reiterate the fact that the major drug companies no longer have to care about the quality of their products. A couple thousand drop dead because of their incompetence? Ah, what's a human life, they are now shielded from any prosecution. As long as they uphold the bottom line and keep raking in the big bucks and donating those bucks into Republican coffers, that's all they care about, and the Republicans worked side by side with them to ensure it.

[Katherine Brengle]

18. For the 9,000,000,000,000th time -- HPV IS A PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS

It is epidemic in this country. Maybe it clears on its own in many people, but many others (male and female, though female moreso) and up suffering from genital warts and cervical cancer.

In those whose bodies do NOT clear the infection, THERE IS NO CURE. So if you body doesn't clear it, you are stuck with it FOREVER.

Better to prevent anyone from getting the most vile strains before they have an incurable disease.

[mhatrw]

32. HPV doesn't have any symptoms at all in the vast majority of people.

http://www.wdxcyber.com/nvulva04.htm

The important concept with HPV is not to become overly concerned about having manifestations of the virus. There is no way that a reasonable person in this day and age should have a cervical cancer develop. They just need to have periodic Pap smears and pelvic exams. Because you have just found out you have HPV cervical changes does not mean your partner has been unfaithful. You could have contracted the virus at any time you ever had sexual relations or so could your partner before meeting you. You or your partner may even have been part of the 3% of people who were positive for HPV from childhood. Try not to despair and panic about this. There are hundreds, if not more, of "incurable" viruses you have been exposed to during your life up to this point and more yet to come. So just be careful and vigilant.

[The Cleaner]

36. Simply amazing misinformation today!

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/stdhpv.htm
Most HPV infections do not progress to cervical cancer.

Would you like to argue your point with the National Institutes of Health? They say HPV is NOT a "public health crisis." They say it is NOT "epidemic." That is nothing more than hysteria!

READ THE NIH FACT SHEET ABOVE. Please! I BEG YOU!! And then read this factoid from the National Cancer Institute at NIH:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV
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.

Does that sound like a public health crisis to you?

Now first off, no, of course I don't want any woman to contract HPV, God forbid die from it. It is serious and I am not demeaning it. I'm not saying let's throw out this vaccine, but I am trying to clear the record here. Let's follow the South Dakota model of opt-in, free, universal access to Gardasil.

[malaise]

50. It may be but what if the vaccine

which has not had a long enough trial run turns out to be even worse for all these young women's health. Suppose their children have birth defects? What then? This marriage between the Rethugs and corporations is an abomination.

[Liberal Veteran]

86. That brings me right to my problem with the hysteria over this.

As far as I know birth defects caused by medications are drugs that are being taken when someone is pregnant.

I have never heard of a teterogenic drug that continues to cause abnormalities after cessation of the drug for a length of time.

Same thing with those wondering if it might cause sterility. How? The site of action is the immune system, not the reproductive organs.

[malaise]

150. All I know is that we don't know

and I don't think kids should be guineapigs for pharma companies.

[Liberal Veteran]

171. And how long will it take for you to be satisfied?

In my view, the guinea pigs were the 12000 young women who chose to be part of the clinical trials.

So how long do you want a phase IV trial (post approval follow-up) to continue to satisfy your peace of mind?

10 years? 20 years? 50 years?

How many women will be infected with HPV and put at a much higher risk for cervical cancer in the meantime?

And what will it take for you to be satisfied?

I understand healthy questioning, but from a rational viewpoint, we've been vaccinating against various viruses for decades now and the science and methodology behind it is sound.

I understand given the way everyone seizes on the failures, but for every Vioxx, there are literally hundreds of drugs that make it to market and perform exactly as they did in clinical trials.

[KittyWampus]

60. 70-90% Young Women Who Get HPV Spontaneously rid themselves of it.

[sandnsea]

72. Our daughters won't die

Sometimes you just have to shake your head and move on.

[Caoimhe]

23. *warning graphic* Would you rather your daughter/wife/sister/self

Have one of these?




or one of these, growing on her/your cervix?

[The Cleaner]

27. Of course nobody here wants anybody to get cervical cancer.

But you are presenting a false choice: either we say "yes" to Gardasil being forced on everyone or we are "in favor of" cervical cancer.

I'd rather do it the South Dakota way - opt-in, optional, and FREE. No mandates; available to ALL. That is the way it should be. It's the DEMOCRATIC way.

[PLF]

30. Anybody who is against the mandate is a cancer lover, read the memo!

I know this because the Merck lobby told me!!!!
:crazy:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. Well, you did call people "merck lovers" yesterday.

Seems a bit like calling people "cancer lovers."

Dish it out, but can't take it, eh?

[TZ]

46. hehe n/t

[PLF]

51. When you are defending the Merck lobby and Rick Perry.

There is a song by Jimmy Cliff and it goes like this "Actions speak louder than words"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. I'm defending the Merck lobby and Rick Perry?

Does that mean you want little girls to get cancer?

[Bridget Burke]

161. He does that all the time.

It's one of his favorite one-line responses.

[rman]

175. And the only alternative is mandatory medicine by executive order?

I don't think so.

[foo_bar]

26. "the argument against making Gardasil mandatory was never a right-wing or conservative cause."

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54296
http://www.dallasblog.com/dallas-blogs/2007/2/4/social-conservatives-critical-of-perrys-vaccine-order.html
http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/aggregator.php?entry=360765
http://www.lifeissues.org/breakingnews.html
http://www.buckscountyprolife.com/commentary_detail.asp?id=714
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_15697.shtml
http://cathmedweek.blogspot.com/2007/01/hpv-vaccine.html
http://freerepublic.info/focus/f-news/1778223/posts

In the course of the past few months, one by one, conservative groups began to come out in favor of the vaccine. But their new message feels like a well-worn page from the Bush playbook: Say you're for it but work furtively against it. Focus on the Family hailed the vaccine as "a tremendous breakthrough in science that will likely save millions of women's lives around the world," but said it would oppose mandatory HPV vaccinations. Likewise, The Family Research Council may now "support the widespread distribution of vaccines against HPV," but "would oppose any measures to legally require vaccination." Women's health proponents expect the Religious Right will battle the HPV vaccine state-by-state.

According to Dr. Gregory Zimet, chair of the vaccine committee at the Society for Adolescent Medicine, this is the Right's attempt to repackage its original agenda. "The softening of their position came, at least in part, from the recognition that being labeled as pro-cancer didn't really fit well with their attempt to present themselves as pro-life," said Zimet. "Many of them are now saying, 'We've never been opposed to it,' even though I looked at their websites a year and a half ago and they were. What they've done is said, 'Of course we're not opposed to this vaccine that can save the lives of our daughters, our wives and our mothers — but we just don't think it should be forced on people.' So, I think partly is cover and partly it may be a warning — as they say, a shot across the bow." It will be up to the states to decide whether the HPV vaccine is, like inoculations against polio and diphtheria, required for a child to proceed through school. "As states begin to consider the potential for mandating a vaccine like this," says Zimet, "They are forewarned that these groups will put resources to fight it."

http://www.nerve.com/dispatches/cpage/virginvaccine/

Just like condoms in Africa and emergency contraception in the U.S., Ornstein continued, "you've got people that are just blind to the notion that there are tradeoffs here." By ignoring "the real trade offs" in order to "promote a greater morality," he argued, "tens of thousands of people die."

http://www.affbrainwash.com/archives/021162.php

[mhatrw]

28. The Facts About Gardasil

1. GARDASIL is a vaccine for 4 strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV), two strains that are strongly associated (and probably cause) genital warts and two strains that are typically associated (and may cause) cervical cancer. About 90% of people with genital warts show exposure to one of the two HPV strains strongly suspected to cause genital warts. About 70% of women with cervical cancer show exposure to one of the other two HPV strains that the vaccine is designed to confer resistance to.

2. HPV is a sexually communicable virus. It is not contagious without prolonged skin to skin contact. When you consider all strains of HPV, over 70% of sexually active males and females have been exposed. A condom helps a lot (70% less likely to get it), but has not been shown to stop transmission in all cases (only one study of 82 college girls who self-reported about condom use has been done). For the vast majority of women, exposure to HPV strains (even the four "bad ones" protected for in GARDASIL) results in no known health complications of any kind.

3. Cervical cancer is not a deadly nor prevalent cancer in the US or any other first world nation. Cervical cancer rates have declined sharply over the last 30 years and are still declining. Cervical cancer accounts for less than 1% of of all female cancer cases and deaths in the US. Cervical cancer is typically very treatable and the prognosis for a healthy outcome is good. The typical exceptions to this case are old women, women who are already unhealthy and women who don't get pap smears until after the cancer has existed for many years.

4. Merck's clinical studies for GARDASIL were problematic in several ways. Only 20,541 women were used (half got the "placebo") and their health was followed up for only four years at maximum and typically 1-3 years only. More critically, only 1,121 of these subjects were less than 16. The younger subjects were only followed up for a maximum of 18 months. Furthermore, less than 10% of these subjects received true placebo injections. The others were given injections containing an aluminum salt adjuvant (vaccine enhancer) that is also a component of GARDASIL. This is scientifically preposterous, especially when you consider that similar alum adjuvants are suspected to be responsible for Gulf War disease and other possible vaccination related complications.

5. Both the "placebo" groups and the vaccination groups reported a myriad of short term and medium term health problems over the course of their evaluations. The majority of both groups reported minor health complications near the injection site or near the time of the injection. Among the vaccination group, reports of such complications were slightly higher. The small sample that was given a real placebo reported far fewer complications -- as in less than half. Furthermore, most if not all longer term complications were written off as not being potentially vaccine caused for all subjects.

6. Because the pool of test subjects was so small and the rates of cervical cancer are so low, NOT A SINGLE CONTROL SUBJECT ACTUALLY CONTRACTED CERVICAL CANCER IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM -- MUCH LESS DIED OF IT. Instead, this vaccine's supposed efficacy is based on the fact that the vaccinated group ended up with far fewer cases (5 vs. about 200) of genital warts and "precancerous lesions" (dysplasias) than the alum injected "control" subjects.

7. Because the tests included just four years of follow up at most, the long term effects and efficacy of this vaccine are completely unknown for anyone. All but the shortest term effects are completely unknown for little girls. Considering the tiny size of youngster study, the data about the shortest terms side effects for girls are also dubious.

8. GARDASIL is the most expensive vaccine ever marketed. It requires three vaccinations at $120 a pop for a total price tag of $360. It is expected to be Merck's biggest cash cow of this and the next decade.

These are simply the facts of the situation as presented by Merck and the FDA.

Sources -

Merck and the FDA: http://www.fda.gov/cber/label/hpvmer060806LB.htm

NY Times: http://tinyurl.com/2cyzsj

News article about alum injections causing neural death in mice: http://www.straight.com/article/vaccines-show-sinister-side

Published, peer reviewed medical paper about alum injections causing neural death in mice: http://tinyurl.com/3xhtdz

[foo_bar]

31. I noticed you've been spamming this on right wing boards

"Stop the ACLU":
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/02/07/anti-std-drug-may-become-mandatory-in-florida/

"New England Republican":
http://www.nerepublican.com/index.php/2007/02/13/when-is-the-cost-too-high/

[mhatrw]

34. Funny, I got it off a feminist board.

I contacted the author, and he said I could "spam it" wherever I wanted.

I can't help but notice that you are attacking the arguer rather than the argument.

[foo_bar]

47. so you didn't write it?

I'm addressing the OP's sentence in emphasis ("You see, the argument against making Gardasil mandatory was never a right-wing or conservative cause."); your off-topic spam has been thoroughly debunked, for lack of footnotes or any medical/economic evidence except blind links to abstracts of studies (that come to the opposite conclusion as your own, hence the absence of footnotes). If you didn't write it, a wingnut named "stickdog" seems to take credit:

Yes, you are correct. Most strains of HPV are completely harmless and many more are relatively harmless.

For a full discussion about the facts about GARDASIL click on my name.

http://rightasusual.blogspot.com/2007/02/can-someone-help-me-out-with-numbers.html

Clicking on stickdog's name brings you to a board (that shall not be named) with your 8 point conspiracy theory, which was itself incorporated into another rightwing blog.

[mhatrw]

62. You love to attack the messenger. Don't you?

Please address the points raised. Attacking the messenger and then simply pointing to another giant thread and claiming that a bunch of facts were "debunked" are old tricks of a debater whose case is otherwise bankrupt.

Every fact in "The Facts About GARDASIL" is directly supported by the sources listed. The one and only "debunked" statement (a semantical quibble about a parenthetical claim that HPV not "infectious") has been removed from the posting.

[foo_bar]

68. so pointing to (an abstract to) a giant study and claiming that it agrees with you isn't bankrupt?

That's why anything approaching a scientific explanation demands footnotes, citations, and peer review. Hence this is published on rightwing blogs instead of journals, and all of your posts appear as "stickdog's" opinions elsewhere on the web (word for word, including the tinyurl "references").

[mhatrw]

76. What is funny is that you cannot touch any fact posted.

Either you realize that everything I posted is true and still want to demean me personally for some reason or you are simply ignorant on this subject. If you wish to question any fact about GARDASIL that I have posted, please do so specifically, and I will be more than happy to point you directly to the source material.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

79. Are you familiar with the term "half truth"

Because that list that you posted it filled with half truths.

Now, are you familiar with that old Yiddish proverb about half truths?

[mhatrw]

83. Yeah, that's the ticket!

You can't dispute a single fact I posted because they are all 51% true and I have controlling interest (or something)! :sarcasm:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

105. What's to dispute?

You points are technically true, yet none of them make a point against opt-out public vaccination programs.

The Yiddish proverb, by the way, goes, "half a truth is a full lie."

[foo_bar]

91. you haven't posted any facts yet, hence the problem

You've reposted an opinion (originally bereft of references), then tried to claim that studies retroactively confirmed your opinion. Instead of adding footnotes that would demonstrate which opinions correspond to which studies, you've shut out criticism, claimed to teach at a medical school, and two posts ago said you didn't write the 8 point plan in the first place.

Can you tell me the name of the feminist blog where you "found" this tract? It's nothing personal; you're just another disembodied voice on the internet, albeit one that quotes a purportedly different poster word for word and link for link.

[foo_bar]

116. speaking of messengers, spam, and plagiarism...

8. GARDASIL is the most expensive vaccine ever marketed. It requires three vaccinations at $120 a pop for a total price tag of $360. It is expected to be Merck's biggest cash cow of this and the next decade.

These are simply the facts of the situation as presented by Merck and the FDA.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x192377#192890 "mhatrw"

8) GARDASIL is the most expensive vaccine ever marketed. It requires three vaccinations at $120 a pop for a total price tag of $360. It is expected to be Merck’s biggest cash cow of this and the next decade.

These are simply the facts of the situation as presented by Merck and the FDA.

http://stickdog.gnn.tv/blogs/21435/The_Facts_On_GARDASIL_Is_It_Safe_Does_It_Prevent_Cervical_Cancer "stickdog"

8) GARDASIL is the most expensive vaccine ever marketed. It requires three vaccinations at $120 a pop for a total price tag of $360. It is expected to be Merck’s biggest cash cow of this and the next decade.

These are simply the facts of the situation as presented by Merck and the FDA.

http://whale.to/vaccines/lobato.html "stickdog"

In the comments to my post about vaccination strategies, I attracted some sort of push-spammer (who came by after looking up Gardasil on Technorati) who left me a nice, organized, bulleted list about the "dangers" of Gardasil that actually left me feeling a little more secure about Gardasil to begin with. I imagine that "stickdog" has been spreading this list all over the blogosphere, so I'll go ahead and address the points one by one, just to have it on the record.

http://f-words.blogspot.com/search/label/contraception

The problem here is you claim to have authored the post:

What I meant to say in the original post was that the HPV screening component of pap smears rather than pap smears themselves will be changing from annual to biennial or triennal in order to save money on HPV screening tests to offset the incredibly high cost of the vaccine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x164655#170570

Edit to add the OP in question:

3) These studies don't consider any potential costs associated with any potential GARDASIL risks. Even the slightest direct or indirect medical costs associated with any potential GARDASIL risks increase the cost per life year gained TREMENDOUSLY and can even easily change the entire analysis to cost per life year lost.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x164655#170570 "mhatrw"

3) These studies don't consider any potential costs associated with any potential GARDASIL risks. Even the slightest direct or indirect medical costs associated with any potential GARDASIL risks increase the cost per life year gained TREMENDOUSLY and can even easily change the entire analysis to cost per life year lost.

http://toaaw.typepad.com/toaaw/2007/02/texas_gov_perry.html "stickdog"

[mhatrw]

158. Cute. You are really burned up about having those lobbying $'s

cut off, aren't you?

[foo_bar]

176. when caught in a lie... tell a bigger whopper?

From the Field Guide to GD:

1) Initial poster presents opinion, usually stated as fact, if not Absolute Truth.

2) Followup poster expresses skepticism, ranging from mild to severe.

3) Initial poster, upset and uncomprehending why the post was not greeted with acclaim, responds with the same argument phrased differently.

4) Skeptic requests clarification and/or additional information.

5) Initial poster posts long list of googled links and/or quotes, often with only tangential connection to the original topic.

6) Skeptic, baffled as to what the list has to do with anything, requests clarification again.

7) Repeat steps 3-6 for at least an hour of real-time.

8) Initial poster begins lambasting skeptic with veiled personal insults.

9) Skeptic, beginning to get tired of the runaround, responds with sarcasm.

10) Initial poster reacts to sarcasm, declares skeptic to be a paid agent and/or close, personal friend of Karl Rove.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=43868

On the other hand, astroturfing the web with a manifesto that you alternately take credit for then disavow, just might come across as "lobbying" in a different sense of the word:

http://www.coloradoconfidential.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1453
http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/008770.html
http://vaccineawakening.blogspot.com/2007/01/legislation-mandating-hpv-vaccine-for.html
http://plush-life.blogspot.com/2007/02/artifact.html
http://moldypeaches.blogspot.com/2007/02/texas-2-step.html
http://prorev.com/2007/02/drug-firm-behind-effort-to-require.htm
http://guarino.typepad.com/guarino/2007/02/republican_gove.html
http://buzz.smm.org/buzz/blog/bursts/texas_requires_cancer_vaccine_for_girls ("stickdog says: I'm not trying to get in a discussion with you so much as educate you about all the issues concerning this vaccine.")
http://www.pissd.com/2007/02/post.html
http://groups.msn.com/aidsmythexposed/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=26944 ("AIDS Myth Exposed")
http://dizzydayz.blogspot.com/2007/02/forced-vaccinations-for-sake-of.html
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/02/texas_governor_.html
http://ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070201110820AA5yWZo
http://www.dallasblog.com/guest-viewpoints-2/2007/2/5/governor-perry-tramples-on-rights-of-texas-parents.html

I couldn't find any feminist blogs making this case, but it's somewhat academic since you've already backed down from the claim, and the "teaching at medical school" one, along with the having written the post in the first place one (not to mention saying you contacted the author, but couldn't remember much less credit the source beyond "feminist board").

[The Cleaner]

63. Irregardless - speaking to that quote, NIH supports it.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/stdhpv.htm
Most HPV infections do not progress to cervical cancer.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV
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.

Now given this information why would cervical cancer caused by 2 strains of HPV become a "public emergency" and an "epidemic?" Could it be that Merck has promoted a huge disinformation campaign in order to scare the public so they can make Gardasil mandatory in most states beginning with Texas?

Once again I will reiterate that any cancer is very serious and I do not demean it. I am for the South Dakota model of opt-in, free access for ALL WOMEN. I am absolutely against mandatory vaccination in this case.

[foo_bar]

66. irregardless isn't a word, but I agree about the South Dakota model

"Most HPV infections do not progress to cervical cancer."

The same can be said of most if not all precancerous conditions; most leukoplakia don't progress into oral cancer, most Barrett's esophagus sufferers don't get adenocarcinoma. Does that mean they aren't public health risks?

[The Cleaner]

73. Define "public health risk."

Under that broad definition the flu could be considered as such.

As for "irregardless," it is in fact a word, although it's non-standard:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irregardless

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

75. The flu is indeed a public health risk.

Which is why the CDC recommends the young and the elderly get annual flu vaccinations.

[Recursion]

94. The flu kills more Americans than AIDS

Something the two of us agree on, at last...

[foo_bar]

98. it's a word in the sense that 'screwn' and 'dignitude' are words

A "word," strictly defined, is anything that can be spoken. By that definition, "goobijoobijoo" is a word. I can pronounce it, I can use it in a sentence if I want to, so it's a word. If you stick with the strict definition of things, you can while away the hours needling fellow liberal arts students. Or, rather, you can while away six years.

http://www.greatsociety.org/fpm/content/view/76/2/

We can agree to disagree on "irregardless", pursuant to dialectal license, but cervical cancer and the flu are "public health risks" by virtue of risking public health; what you're arguing against is the severity of the risk (relative to other risks).

[Bridget Burke]

162. Which Feminist board?

Let us know. Please.

[BlackVelvet04]

33. Thank you for this information.....

". Because the tests included just four years of follow up at most, the long term effects and efficacy of this vaccine are completely unknown for anyone. All but the shortest term effects are completely unknown for little girls. Considering the tiny size of youngster study, the data about the shortest terms side effects for girls are also dubious."

And thus my disagreement with making the vaccine mandatory.

[rexcat]

64. May I ask what is your academic background?

You appear to be an expert on vaccines so I think full disclosure of your credentials would be appropriate at this time. I find your allegations in your post to be exaggerations and fear mongering at best.

May I remind you that all drugs and vaccines have risks. I would hope that you don't use any pharmaceuticals or vaccines for any reason because the big bad Pharma companies are out to get you, either through your pocketbook or to make you sicker than you already are. Do you think that the vaccine for Bordetella pertussis (whooping cough) should be used for infants? Do the benefits out way the risks for this vaccine. Does a 20% death rate in infants infected with Bordetella pertussis or the 50% rate of brain damage worth the risk for not vaccinating the infant? This vaccine also as aluminum phosphate at 1.5 mg total weight or 330 micrograms of pure aluminum as does the HPV vaccine. I state in a previous thread one absorbs a lot more aluminum in their food than what one receives in a vaccine injection or for that matter multiple vaccine injections. And by the way the aluminum is absorbed from the gut into the blood intact and the body reacts to it the same (injected or absorbed). If the aluminum is absorbed in the gut or an injection in the muscle, there is no difference, it is still aluminum. I had to say this becasue you posted a response to one of my posts in another thread and made it out that injected aluminum was somehow different from absorbed aluminum. Again, I must say your lack of medical and physiological knowledge is staggering.

Also "natural" products have similar risks as those drugs tested and manufactured by the Pharma companies, if not more because the dosing and quality is suspect at best and the testing is usually non-existent or sloppy. The active ingredients in "natural" products also have pharmacological affects on the human body (for good or bad) as do the products manufacutured by the Pharma companies.

[mhatrw]

81. Lots of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Is there a single fact I have posted on this thread that you question? If so, please cite that specific fact and I will provide the exact source material that backs it up.

[rexcat]

92. You need to back up the information you posted or should I say..

plagiarized.

I have also asked for your academic credentials because you are coming across as an expert. If you are not an expert on the topic and you are using someone else's information your have no credibility and need to be exposed.

[mhatrw]

143. Once again, you can't touch a single a fact I posted.

Please question a specific fact or just admit that everything I posted is true. Your sophistic games are tiresome.

[rexcat]

148. Lets start with #4

You stated or who ever wrote this (I still think it is plagiarism on your part since you did not credit the individual who actually wrote this and in science there is nothing lower than someone who plagiarizes):
"4. Merck's clinical studies for GARDASIL were problematic in several ways. Only 20,541 women were used (half got the "placebo") and their health was followed up for only four years at maximum and typically 1-3 years only. More critically, only 1,121 of these subjects were less than 16. The younger subjects were only followed up for a maximum of 18 months. Furthermore, less than 10% of these subjects received true placebo injections. The others were given injections containing an aluminum salt adjuvant (vaccine enhancer) that is also a component of GARDASIL. This is scientifically preposterous, especially when you consider that similar alum adjuvants are suspected to be responsible for Gulf War disease and other possible vaccination related complications."

The trial is not problematic. Having 20,541 subjects enrolled in any clinical trial is impressive. Since you did not site the statistical analysis as a problem for the study the FDA and the Merck reviewed the statistical analysis and computed the number of subjects to be enrolled to keep the power of the analysis within p=0.05 or at the 95% confidence interval. Therefore for the hypothesis of the clinical trial to be true and for the FDA to approve the vaccine Merck would have had to have the statistical analysis of the data fit within p=0.05 confidence interval or it would not have been approved. I saw nothing in your post that the statistical analysis failed.

Typically half of the subjects in a vaccine trial will get placebo and half will get the active vaccine. Lets make it clear that the group that got the alum and not the viral antigen are still considered placebo. This is standard practice in vaccine trials of which I have been involved with. This is also mandated by the FDA and all of their years of experience working with vaccines.

To follow-up with this number of subjects over a 3-4 year period is a colossal undertaking. I worked on a cohort much smaller and we lost a large number of the subjects to follow-up. They moved and didn't leave a forwarding address, they quit coming to the clinics for one reason or another, etc. I would say the clinical sites did a good job to keep as many of the subject in follow-up as they did. The subjects are not compelled to stay in the trial.

For a pediatric component of 1,121 subjects is remarkable. If half received the active vaccine and most were in that group showed antibody response I would consider that a success.

All I can say about your comment "similar alum adjuvants are suspected to be responsible for Gulf War disease and other possible vaccination related complications." Bullshit, show me peer reviewed articles showing a correlation. You won't!

[mhatrw]

159. More sound & fury signifying nothing.

The trial is not problematic. Having 20,541 subjects enrolled in any clinical trial is impressive. Since you did not site the statistical analysis as a problem for the study the FDA and the Merck reviewed the statistical analysis and computed the number of subjects to be enrolled to keep the power of the analysis within p=0.05 or at the 95% confidence interval. Therefore for the hypothesis of the clinical trial to be true and for the FDA to approve the vaccine Merck would have had to have the statistical analysis of the data fit within p=0.05 confidence interval or it would not have been approved. I saw nothing in your post that the statistical analysis failed.

What statistical analysis are you talking about? There were enough subjects to prove that GARDASIL offered significant protection against HPV strains 6, 11, 16 and 18 versus the "control placebo" group. However, there were not enough subjects and that studies didn't last long enough for us to make any statements about how this protection (which lasts for an unknown period of time) will bear out in terms reduced overall cervical cancer contraction and mortality rates.

In terms of any statistical evaluation of short term side effects, the "control placebo" was generally a highly pharmacologically active aluminum adjuvant that causes a large number of short term side effects itself, so no decent statistical comparison is possible. In terms of long term risks, the maximum follow up period was only four years and only a small portion of the subjects were followed up for this long, so no decent statistical comparison is possible.

Typically half of the subjects in a vaccine trial will get placebo and half will get the active vaccine. Lets make it clear that the group that got the alum and not the viral antigen are still considered placebo. This is standard practice in vaccine trials of which I have been involved with. This is also mandated by the FDA and all of their years of experience working with vaccines.

Please show us where the FDA "mandates" that clinical medical studies use a highly pharmacologically active substance as their "placebo control."

To follow-up with this number of subjects over a 3-4 year period is a colossal undertaking. I worked on a cohort much smaller and we lost a large number of the subjects to follow-up. They moved and didn't leave a forwarding address, they quit coming to the clinics for one reason or another, etc. I would say the clinical sites did a good job to keep as many of the subject in follow-up as they did. The subjects are not compelled to stay in the trial.

Less than 2,000 women in this study were followed up for as long as three years and half of these were in the "control" group. (See: http://www.fda.gov/cber/label/hpvmer060806LB.htm )

For a pediatric component of 1,121 subjects is remarkable. If half received the active vaccine and most were in that group showed antibody response I would consider that a success.

Merck won't release the data except to say that they tested 1,121 subjects under 16 in total. Once again, half of these were given the "placebo control." How many of the test subjects receiving GARDASIL were under 13? A couple hundred at most? So you think it is just dandy to push for mandatory vaccination of little girls when you have only injected a couple hundred little girls with the vaccine with a follow up period of only 18 months? I realize that this surpasses FDA minimum standards for approving a vaccine. But we are not talking about approving a vaccine. We are talking about making a new vaccine MANDATORY for school attendance.

Furthermore, cervical cancer simply isn't a legitimate health concern among the targeted population (little girls in the US). Annual cervical cancer death rates in the US are less than 2.5 out of every 100,000 women, and cervical cancer typically develops only decades after HPV exposure. Almost none of the girls in the targeted population are at any risk whatsoever of developing cervical cancer before age 35 (and not at all if they are getting annual HPV screenings as part of their annual pap smears) and we don't even know if GARDASIL offers a whit of protection against HPV 16 and 18 for more than five years. So this becomes a problem of risks & costs vs. benefits. The benefits are largely unknown but minimal at best among the US female population -- especially among the population of US females who are getting annual HPV screening tests as part of their annual pap smears. Meanwhile, the long term risks completely unknown, the short term risks are confounded by the use of a highly pharmacologically active and potentially dangerous substance as the "placebo control" and the cost is ridiculously high.

All I can say about your comment "similar alum adjuvants are suspected to be responsible for Gulf War disease and other possible vaccination related complications." Bullshit, show me peer reviewed articles showing a correlation. You won't!

Here is a peer reviewed toxicity study showing that an alum adjuvant causes neural death in mice: http://tinyurl.com/3xhtdz

Here is a news article about this study that came out before the study was published: http://www.straight.com/article/vaccines-show-sinister-side

[foo_bar]

178. I believe this is a manifestation of "projection" (re: quoting Macbeth)

Out, damned spot!

In terms of any statistical evaluation of short term side effects, the "control placebo" was generally a highly pharmacologically active aluminum adjuvant that causes a large number of short term side effects itself, so no decent statistical comparison is possible.

Did you mention which med school you teach at? (Club Med?) If you think the placebo was "highly pharmacologically active", I have an antacid to sell you (over the counter).

We are talking about making a new vaccine MANDATORY for school attendance.

I thought we were talking about making insurance mandatory, not calling an opt-out procedure "mandatory".

The benefits are largely unknown but minimal at best among the US female population

Says who? A pseudonymous stick figure on the internet? Saving 10,000s of lives isn't "minimal" unless your priorities are severely medieval (sort of like stating that "most" HPV victims had "many, many sex partners" as medical fact).

All I can say about your comment "similar alum adjuvants are suspected to be responsible for Gulf War disease and other possible vaccination related complications." Bullshit, show me peer reviewed articles showing a correlation. You won't!

Here is a peer reviewed toxicity study showing that an alum adjuvant causes neural death in mice

Try a little higher up on the evolutionary chain, if you're trying to make a point with respect to "Gulf War Syndrome".

Study: Mice Do Not Like Cheese
(...)
They say a real mouse would turn its nose up at something as strong in smell and rich in taste as cheese.

http://www.wayodd.com/study-mice-do-not-like-cheese/v/4047/

Yet another difference between rodent neurology and Tom & Jerry.

The total number of neurons in the central nervous system ranges from under 300 for small free-living metazoans such as rotifers and nematodes (e.g., Martini 1912), 30–100 million for the common octopus and small mammals such as shrews and mice (Young 1971, Campbell & Ryzen 1953, Williams 2000), to well over 200 billion for whales and elephants. Estimates for the human brain range between 10 billion and 1 trillion.
(...)
For example, the ratio between granule cells and Purkinje cells rises from less than 200 to 1 in mice to 3000 to 1 in humans (Wetts & Herrup 1982, Lange 1975).

http://www.nervenet.org/papers/NUMBER_REV_1988.html

Since one study constitutes a response to "peer reviewed articles":

BACKGROUND: Aluminium hydroxide (alum) is a commonly used adjuvant for specific immunotherapy of allergic diseases. While alum is traditionally associated with murine Th2 sensitization, little is known about its effects on secondary allergic responses in humans. METHODS: We investigated the in vitro effects of alum on peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) from atopic donors. PBMC from 18 grass pollen-sensitive rhinitic subjects were stimulated with Phleum pratense (Phl p) in the presence or absence of alum. After 6 days culture, cytokine production was measured by ELISA and T cell proliferation by radiolabelled thymidine incorporation. The effect of alum on the expression of human leucocyte antigen and CD80/CD86 on cultured antigen-presenting cells was assessed by flow cytometry. RESULTS: PBMC cultured with Phl p and alum showed a significant decrease in both IL-5 and IL-13 production compared with allergen alone (P<0.005 and P<0.001, respectively), but no change in IFN-gamma or IL-12 production or proliferative responses. These alum-induced changes in T helper (Th)2 cytokine production were unaffected by the addition of neutralizing antibodies to IL-4 or IL-12. Culture of PBMC with alum induced increased expression of CD86 (P=0.004) and HLA (P=0.01) on monocytes while the expression of CD80 was decreased (P=0.02). SUMMARY: Alum down-regulates allergen-driven Th2 cytokine responses while Th1 cytokines are unaffected. These data confirm that alum is a useful adjuvant for inclusion in allergen immunotherapy vaccines.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15347369&dopt=Abstract

Okay, one more:

RESULTS: 4783 injections were evaluated in 108 subjects with allergic rhinitis (44%), asthma (40%), allergic asthma, and rhinitis (16%). Frequency of immediate systemic reaction was 0.13%. Frequency of immediate local reactions were: hyperemia and induration less than 5 cm 3%, greater than 5 cm 0.16%, local itching 0.15%, and local pain 0.2%. There was no significant difference in systemic and local reactions between calcium- and aluminum-adsorbed vaccines. Immediate local reactions were more frequent during maintenance therapy compared to buildup. Subjects were more likely to have local reactions during maintenance therapy if they had allergic rhinitis (p < 0.05) or were receiving grass pollen vaccine (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Immediate adverse reactions were uncommon when given to children with asthma and allergic rhinitis. Aluminium- and calcium-adsorbed allergen vaccines showed similar rates of systemic and local reactions.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14635467&dopt=Abstract

[mhatrw]

185. Wow. An actual response. Thanks.

If you think the placebo was "highly pharmacologically active", I have an antacid to sell you (over the counter).

Gardasil's own test results proved as much (http://www.fda.gov/cber/label/hpvmer060806LB.htm, see Table 6). The side effects for the large group getting the aluminum adjuvant "control placebo" (3470 subjects) were observed at about twice the rate as those for the small group (320 subjects) that got inert placebo injections. If alum adjuvants are not highly pharmacologically active, what exactly caused all these side effects?

Saving 10,000s of lives isn't "minimal" unless your priorities are severely medieval.

The annual US death rate due to cervical cancer is 3,400 women and falling. Less than 2.5 out of every 100,000 US women dies of cervical cancer each year. In the best case scenario, GARDASIL can protect against just 70% of these cervical cancer deaths (which is about the same amount of protection women could get from using condoms or receiving HPV screenings as part of their annual pap smears).

How many little girls would we have to inject with GARDASIL three times at $500 per girl in order to save "10,000s of lives"? How many booster shots at what further cost would we have to give them? How long would we have to wait to determine if all these injections had saved a single life? Since the contraction and mortality rates of cervical cancer have been falling by about 4% a year for the last 30 years without GARDASIL (because of more and better HPV screening tests), how would we ever know if any putative long term future reductions in US cervical cancer rates were due to GARDASIL? Remember that nobody in the entire "control placebo" group of all of GARDASIL's clinical tests combined was ever diagnosed with cervical cancer, and therefore there is no clinical evidence that GARDASIL will actually reduce cervical cancer contraction or mortality rates.

And to obtain these unquantifiable potential future "benefits", we would be mandating 3 more injections with an unknown period of efficacy for millions of preteen girls -- incurring a currently unknown risk of potential long term negative health effects.

Concerning the recently demonstrated neural toxicity of alum adjuvants in mammals, do you know the difference between a toxicity study and a clinic medical study?

[foo_bar]

187. wish I could say the same

The side effects for the large group getting the aluminum adjuvant "control placebo" (3470 subjects) were observed at about twice the rate as those for the small group (320 subjects) that got inert placebo injections. If alum adjuvants are not highly pharmacologically active, what exactly caused all these side effects?

If swelling at the injection site means "highly pharmacologically active", I also have a fascinating pamphlet to sell (it's called Coping with Munchausen Syndrome). You originally thought it was "pharmalogically active" until a DUer explained it to you, so perhaps you should come clean about the med school tenure or the name of the feminist board from which these pseudomedical factoids emanate.

How many little girls would we have to inject with GARDASIL three times at $500 per girl in order to save "10,000s of lives"?

Let me see if I have this straight: 3 times 120 equals 500? Are you a math professor too?

How long would we have to wait to determine if all these injections had saved a single life?

Vaccinations being prophylactic in nature, no one ever knows when it saves "a single life"; what's known is the nearly extinct incidence rate of diseases such as polio and rabies compared to earlier generations or unvaccinated populations.

oncerning the recently demonstrated neural toxicity of alum adjuvants in mammals, do you know the difference between a toxicity study and a clinic medical study?

Indeed, there's no such thing as a "clinic medical study", unless the expression is preceded by "Mayo". Last time it was "clinical medical study", which is also redundant, but at least employs the first adjective correctly (perhaps you should try "clinically medical study" for authoritative sounding emphasis to the laity).

[mhatrw]

189. Cute. You sure are mad about losing all those lobbying $'s, aren't you?

Respond with something slightly meaningful again and I will as well. Until then, have fun!

[foo_bar]

191. as delusions go, a conspiracy of unpaid lobbyists is hard to top

But I suppose it's a natural defense mechanism when your hand's caught in the cookie jar. Speaking of which:

mhatrw Says:
February 10th, 2007 at 10:50 am

In medical cost vs. benefit modeling (which strongly informs national medical public policy making and far too strongly informs the medical policies of HMOs), the most critical component is a value called “cost per life year gained.” <snip spam>

# Stickdog Says:
February 10th, 2007 at 11:41 am

thanx for the info. you gave on here bout the scoop on Guardisal. I had an abnormal pap ’cause of HPV & will now speak to my doctor bout that vaccine & how it is not needed. Thanx!

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:UM0OFMe9su0J:open.newmatilda.com/crosswire/%3Fp%3D83

(edit to fix :-o smiley in google link)

[mhatrw]

197. What is that supposed to mean?

What is the subject of this thread again? Just wondering ...

[foo_bar]

179. I think I found the origin of your conspiracy theory

A typical case is a Golden Age article that quoted a Cleveland Plain Dealer story about a three and a seven year old who died from a "mysterious poisoning," and a third child also became ill. The Golden Age then wrote to the father and learned that this happened shortly after they ate beef and cabbage boiled in an aluminum kettle. The Watchtower then made the totally unwarranted conclusion that the cause of the poisoning was the aluminum cookery, asking "how many fathers and mothers made ill; how many babies slain before the government takes a hand in this thing and prevent this unnecessary slaughter" (Woodworth 1929: 275).

The official cause of death was not given and the actual cause could be due to any number of things from botulism to rancid food--the family was extremely poor, and quite possibly the cause was unsafe food. Concluding that an aluminum kettle was the problem was wholly unwarranted--if the family became ill the first time it was used, one might be more inclined to suspect aluminum cookware. Conversely, they had probably been using this cookware for years and it evidently never caused them any problems before. From the information given, aluminum was likely not the cause, yet the Watchtower irresponsibly titled this article "two more aluminum sacrifices."
(...)
The Watchtower claimed that scores of symptoms and illnesses were caused by aluminum, including head pain, gas, heart and lung cancer, brown spots, stomach trouble, ulcers, cerebrospinal meningitis, anaphylactic shock, vomiting, dizziness, headache, heart attacks (even by children) blindness, kidney trouble, sores, tumors, tonsillitis, carbuncles, boils, paralysis, fainting spells, exhaustion, skin eruptions, asthma, hay fever, insanity, anemia, and "all manner of unhealth" (White 1931 p. 374; Woodworth 1935 p. 143; Maereker 1931 p. 243; Bowers 1931 p. 558; Woodworth 1932 p. 537; Archer 1932 p. 126-127; Woodworth 1934 p. 771-779, 803-811, and 1936 p. 304).

http://www.premier1.net/~raines/aluminum.html

Many are aware that the Watchtower Society campaigned against vaccinations for decades. They claimed it was "a direct violation of the everlasting covenant" and Witnesses were expected not to have one. Vaccines were said to cause all kinds of disease:

Thinking people would rather have smallpox than vaccination, because the latter sows the seed of syphilis, cancers, escema, erysipelas, scrofula, consumption, even leprosy and many other loathsome affections. Hence the practice of vaccination is a crime, an outrage and a delusion. <5>
(...)
Vaccination has never saved a human life. It does not prevent smallpox. <6>

In addition to diseases, vaccinations were responsible for the spread of "demonism" and sexual immorality! <7 > In short, vaccination was a "cruel hoax" on mankind by Satan himself. <8> They carried on their crusade for decades after the medical community demonstrated the value of vaccinations in preventing certain contagious diseases. No one knows what effect this ban on vaccinations had on JWs, but one assumes many lives were at least put unnecessarily at risk.

http://www.premier1.net/~raines/quackery.html

Another reason the Watchtower pushed the aluminum scare was because it was part of their anti-establishment health crusade. They adopted a series of anti-establishment positions including the view that vaccinations are evil and do more harm than good, and that food grown by non-natural fertilizer and pesticides is harmful. As Young notes "aluminum was a particular bugaboo, a scare doctrine at least a half a century old. Hohensee had propagated this theory for years. He also denounced the hazard of peeling vegetables with metal knifes. Like many other fringe operators, he has his own 'safe' tenderizer and Leucite knives to sell." (Young 1967 p. 352). Hohensee was according to many a charlatan, in trouble with the law much of his life. He barely started high school and was evidently in the health food movement more to make money than help people.

http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=405&Itemid=8&limit=1&limitstart=8

[Lurking Dem]

180. Whoa.

That would explain a lot.

I had previously been leaning toward "Merck competitor" and briefly flirted with "Scientology". Mostly in order to avoid thinking "rampant stupidity" or "right wing agenda".

Are those tautologies?

[foo_bar]

195. I'd go with the second to last tautology

Stubbornness isn't evidence of employment or evangelical cred, although the astroturf is flung far and wide. But the phraseology does have a certain Je ne sais quoi:

But why is it OK for the "nanny state" to tell you what unproven an untested vaccines you need to inject in your kid?

http://toaaw.typepad.com/toaaw/2007/02/out_of_hand_the.html

# Rhod Says:
February 5th, 2007 at 11:29 am

What happened to stickdog’s post?
# mhatrw Says:
February 14th, 2007 at 6:30 pm

In medical cost vs. benefit modeling <...>

http://www.nerepublican.com/index.php/2007/02/02/is-this-more-nanny-state/ "NE Republican: Is this more nanny state"

Most cervical cancer victims have an otherwise compromised immune system as well as a history of many, many sex partners. Even if we confer total protection against HPV 16 and 18 among this high risk population <...>

To save (at most, in the best case scenario) a total of 1300 lives a year, many of whom would probably die soon of other causes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x145744

[foo_bar]

151. "I posted" or "I reposted"?

I teach at a medical school.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x145926#146605

Funny, I got it off a feminist board.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x259803#260806

[bedazzled]

40. these folks are so ANXIOUS to use their kids as guinea pigs

you'll never talk them out of it.

i don't trust that either the government or merck have MY
best interests at heart, so i will not give the vaccine
to my son.

if you want your kid to be part of one of the biggest
drug trials in history, help yourself.

[rexcat]

78. Every time your child is prescribed a medication by your peditrician...

your child becomes an uncontrolled experiment. Almost all of the drugs on the market have not been formally tested in the pediatric population. By the way your pediatrician does this without your informed consent as does every other physician who prescribes drugs to children.

There is now a mandate that all drugs and vaccines be tested in the pediatric population or FDA approval will not be granted unless the disease in question is not found in the pediatric population. I for one am not comfortable to have my children experimented on in an uncontrolled, non-regulated environment by their pediatrician. I would rather have them use the drug in question in a clinical trial that is well monitored and in scientifically sound manner.

I have found the poster whom you responded to irresponsible in the way she has presented the information she has posted. Also the information is not hers but from someone else without acknowledgment as to who that person is which simply put is plagiarism in the worst sense of the word.

[bedazzled]

153. merck "clinically tested" vioxx and folks were dropping dead left and right

if you feel that you trust that merck has done a well-monitored
and scientifically sound clinical trial on this drug, go for it!
i have no problem with it, as long as you're not forcing me to
give it to my kid.

as for pediatricians prescribing drugs, i carefully investigate
what my kid's taking. with the state of our healthcare system,
you have to look after yourself.

between the doctors and the drug companies, their main objective
seems to be having everyone on two or three different drugs. i
am capable of reading a package insert. my concern is what doesn't
MAKE IT to the package insert.

i wish i was more trusting, but having worked for a drug company
for ten years, i know how expert they are at keeping things out
of the package insert...and my experience was when FDA had teeth.
they're subsidiaries of the drug companies at this point.

i know this is subject is a sore spot for who have suffered terrible
losses from cancer - myself included. i guess i trust the drug
companies as much as i trust our government, and that's not much.

it seems like there are no longer any easy decisions, you know?

peace...

[mzmolly]

58. I am so thankful that some of my fellow DUers are bold enough to "question."

Off to read your link. :hi: Recommended.

[Recursion]

65. It strikes me that if I wore a lab coat ...

... about 80% of DU would believe whatever I had to say.

The irony being I actually *am* wearing a lab coat today...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

67. Don't worry, dmesg.

I don't believe you even though you're wearing a lab coat.

[trotsky]

71. Whatever the percentage is,

the rest would evidently trust something simply because it appears on a website.

[Pithlet]

74. Those 80% of DUers know that a lab coat doesn't mean a thing.

Sadly, I wonder if it is even 80%. It isn't the lab coat. It's the science we respect. Logic. Reason. Evidence. *Science* A lab coat isn't needed for those things. The smear campaign against this vaccine is based on fear, mistrust, and misinformation. All three of these things initially came from very questionable sources with seriously questionable agendas, and people have grabbed it, run with it, and it has snowballed, fueled by the fear and mistrust, and I think that people who may have initially questioned those sources have been caught in that snowball. All reason has flown out the window. There is absolutely no evidence this vaccine wasn't tested thoroughly. There is no evidence that it has serious side effects. There is all the evidence in the world that HPV causes cervical cancer and that this vaccine protects women from many of the strains that cause that cancer.

Much of the fear and mistrust is understandable, because I know that pharmaceutical companies aren't innocent of wrongdoing. But they have successfully developed lifesaving medicines. This is a huge case of distorting the risk benefit analysis. Most people fretting about this vaccine drive cars. They probably don't even think about the risks they are taking whenever they do so. Yet some of the same people are afraid to fly in airplanes, even though statistically they are safer. The risk of this vaccine, which is no more or less than any other typical developed vaccine, has been inflated by the misinformation campaign. The fact that so many sources that have been quoted in these threads are very questionable right wing sources has been all but completely ignored by those who insist - without evidence - that this vaccine isn't safe, or hasn't been tested enough. There are people in this thread who are claiming that HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer. We aren't pro-Merck. We don't blindly listen to just anyone. We just want actual evidence. I will gladly change my tune whenever actual evidence come forth that this wasn't tested properly, or actual evidence that this is harmful. Until then, I'm not going to stand in the way of women being saved any more than I stopped driving when a friend was killed in a car accident.

[Recursion]

88. The irony is killing me

You inspire me by starting out with this:

It's the science we respect. Logic. Reason. Evidence. *Science*

But then you go on to say:

There is all the evidence in the world that HPV causes cervical cancer

which is simply not true. There is evidence that women who carry two strains of HPV have a 1% higher lifetime risk of developing cervical cancer.

Why do you think that there is all the evidence in the world that HPV causes cervical cancer? Which journal was that in?

Do you know the difference in the E6 and E7 oncogenes and how they may act together to achieve carcinogenesis (Shia, et al: Canc Res)? Christ, that came out 2 weeks ago, isn't fully reviewed yet, it's a long way from actually establishing oncogenesis even if it withstands review, and it's the best case there is so far for establishing HPV as "the cause" of cervical cancer, which isn't saying much. It's literally the only carcinogenic model, and it still has several flaws (to wit: what are the cofactors that account for expression in only 2% of cases? why does it only express under estrogen levels orders of magnitude higher than found in people? why do those same estrogen levels also produce cancer in uninfected cells, albeit at a slightly lower rate?)

There is a possibility that the DNA from these two strains of HPV adversely interacts with particular genes in cervical tissue -- the study I just cited shows that two genes themselves may have statistically significant oncogenetic properties when combined with abnormally high amounts of estrogen. Now, this is a big lead and if it pans out I'll jump on the "HPV causes cervical cancer" bandwagon but let me just remind you this is the bleeding edge here and it's simply not established yet. And about every six months now for the past several years somebody has come up with a "breakthrough" like this only to have it go nowhere.

Meanwhile, environmental causes are also being investigated (this is where I'd put my money if I were a betting man). In particular, toxins that induce production of estrogen (which could conceivably tie this in with Shia above) were recently shown to be oncogenetic (Au, et al: IJHEH) at rates comparable to Shia's findings.

I love this stuff. I do it for a living. I ask again, what convinced you that "there is all the evidence in the world that HPV causes cervical cancer"?

[Pithlet]

100. I'm sorry.

I don't mean to call you a liar. But, I'm not going to go against the evidence I have seen from credible sources, based on posts in these threads. Anyone who claims that HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer raises big red flags for me. I can't link to my own Ob/Gyn who told me that there are strains of HPV that cause cancer, but I can link to the National Cancer Institute http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV

The Mayo clinic http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cervical-cancer/AN00386

World Health Orginization http://www.who.int/vaccine_research/diseases/hpv/en/

http://www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/Content/cv-hpv/$File/hpv.pdf

Someone who may or may not wear a lab coat http://www.reproline.jhu.edu/english/3cc/3refman/cxca_hpv1.htm

Speaking of journals, how about the JAMA? http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/283/1/87

Of course, anyone can play the link game, and I could add countless more, all from verifiable, reputable sources. No one in this debate has been able to point me to anything credible that states that this vaccine is unsafe for general consumption, that this vaccine wasn't tested properly, and that the link between strains of HPV and cancer haven't been substantiated.

[Recursion]

101. Woah there!!!!!!

and that the link between strains of HPV and cancer haven't been substantiated.

Of course there's a link. That's indisputable. But earlier you said...

Anyone who claims that HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer

Big big big big big difference. Yellow fingernails and emphysema are linked; one does not cause the other. We're working on models of cause but we don't have them yet. If someone could somehow come up with a drug that prevented yellow fingernails it wouldn't prevent emphysema (though, again, God knows Merck would try to sell it as that...)

HPV infection and cervical cancer share some common risk factors already, in particular: sexual activity at a young age, unprotected sex in general, drug use, and some others. To the extent that they have common risk factors, HPV is just a marker for increased cancer risk, not the thing causing the cancer.

(edit: typo; edit again: add the last sentence)

[Horse with no Name]

104. What an ignorant thing to say

BTW...your example of yellow fingernails and emphysema is downright moronic.

Yellow fingernails do NOT cause emphysema. HPV can cause cervical cancer.
However...the nicotine/tobacco that causes the yellow fingernails can cause emphysema.
I surely hope that you are wearing that lab coat selling sunglasses because if you are any kind of researcher...science is in deep trouble.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

106. What do you expect?

It's like arguing with somebody who thinks HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

It's pointless.

[Horse with no Name]

109. It truly is

and I always wondered where the pharmacists come from that deny women contraceptives. Undoubtedly from this same school of thought.

[Recursion]

111. again, completely incomparable

It's like arguing with somebody who thinks HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

100% (or practically so) of people with AIDS have HIV
100% (or practically so) of people with HIV develop AIDS (absent treatment)

70% (or so) of women with cervical cancer carry HPV
2% (or so) of women with HPV develop cervical cancer

yeah... I see what you're saying 100%/100% is just like 70%/2%...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

113. Completely comparable.

They're both flawed, and pseudoscientific.

[Recursion]

115. *shrug*

I'm on an NSF grant here (though only peripherally related to HPV); if they decide it's pseudoscientific they can yank the project funding I guess.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

117. That's great.

There was a thread here the other day about a guy with a PhD in geology who thinks that there were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark.

:shrug:

[Recursion]

122. Yeah, well, I could give a rat's ass, honestly

I do data modelling and simulation programming. I'm not a researcher, but we talk a lot. This lab is split about 33/33/33 on whether HPV is a significant cause, a minor cause, or a marker of a shared cause for cervical cancer. This isn't frigging creationism, this is Merck running way ahead of the science and people like you buying their ad campaign hook line and sinker.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

127. "This isn't frigging creationism"

No, bad it's damn close. I tried to warn you when you were agreeing with the Creationist upthread, but hey. No skin off my back.

"This isn't frigging creationism, this is Merck running way ahead of the science and people like you buying their ad campaign hook line and sinker."

Ah, now it's back to the Merck conspiracy stuff. Right on schedule.

[Recursion]

132. Let's just leave it at that disagreement, then

Since I don't think this will get us anywhere. I have my professional reasons for distrusting Merck, you have your reasons for not distrusting them. C'est la vie.

[Horse with no Name]

134. Cue the dancing monkeys

He just turned tail and left...:rofl:

[Bridget Burke]

163. In cyberspace, nobody knows you're a dog!

Me, I'm the Queen of Roumania!

[The Cleaner]

128. And that's the problem, isn't it? Too many people fail to realize

that medical science is not foolproof. There may be a relationship but causation is difficult to prove. People tend to want to believe a certain drug company, or one medical study...but actually it is much more complex than that.

Does smoking truly cause lung cancer? I believe it is a major factor, but I have also known some people who've smoked a pack a day for thirty or forty years and nothing ever happens to them (except maybe for emphacema).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

129. ...

:spray:

:rofl:

[Bridget Burke]

166. Emphysema is a pretty nasty way to die.

In fact, it takes longer than lung cancer.

Of course, "emphacema" may be something else entirely.

[Horse with no Name]

119. I call bullshit on that

But I can be anything I want to be on a message board too.

[The Cleaner]

125. Why? Because they know what they're talking about and you don't?

Jealous are you?

Yes, they DO know what they are talking about. You don't.

[Horse with no Name]

131. Jealous of a bunch of screaming meemie creationists

that can't understand science?
Hardly.

[The Cleaner]

135. Oh how I just LOVE irrationality, immaturity, and name-calling in this debate.

:eyes: :eyes:

And so now we're creationists? What does that have to do with anything? How is it even relevant?

And whoah -WHO doesn't understand science? I tend to listen to those who are (caugh) REAL SCIENTISTS. Not some hype based on nothing, and certainly not from the drug companies and Republican governors.

A perfect pot calling the kettle black moment.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

136. Well, you would.

Given post #9.

:rofl:

[The Cleaner]

138. It is clear to me you are here only to provoke with nonsensical arguments.

You consider none of what we're trying to say and it all goes round and round in circles for you. If you have anything scientific or reasonable to say, say it. You're just sitting behind that keyboard snickering, causing trouble, making no sense whatsoever, and refusing to enter into a mature, scientific discussion.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

139. I've considered everything you've had to say.

It's all a lot of bunk.

[Horse with no Name]

137. I've given you ample time to prove that you weren't one of the "loo-loo's"

Now off you go to the ignore pile with the rest of the histrionic cut-and-pasters.

[Horse with no Name]

114. Let me clue you in Sherman

Nobody (except whacked out idiots) disputes the causative relationship between HPV and cervical cancer.

And just so you know...that 100% of people with HIV certainly do NOT develop AIDS...even without treatment.

[JackBeck]

184. You're right. It's actually 99%.

[OilemFirchen]

145. Strange refutation

Your stats have nothing to do with causal relationships. And they're misleading as well.

BTW, if you wanna get really nit-picky, HIV doesn't "cause" AIDS. Rather, it causes a cellular mutation which results in AIDS. Of course no one in their right mind would bother with the distinction, as it's a semantical argument wholly unrelated to scientific methodology.

Enough accepted research exists establishing a causal relationship between several strains of HPV and cervical cancer. To suggest otherwise is either chicanery, ignorance, or intentional obfuscation (all of which are in evidence on this thread).

[dropkickpa]

154. WRONG WRONG WRONG

70% of women with cervical cancer carry HPV 16 or 18. 99.7% of invasive cervical cancers test positive for one of the high risk strains, of which there are 18 (16, 18, 26, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 53,56, 58, 59, 66, 68, 73, and 82 are the types considered high risk). 16 and 18 are responsible for 70% of cervical cancers worldwide. Combined, 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 45, 52, and 58 are resposible for 95%. All of them combined have been found present in 99.7% of invasive cervical cancers worldwide. You keep homing in on that 70% without understanding what it represents. The 70% means that 70% of cervical cancers were caused by 16 and/or 18. The other 30% were caused by another strain.

Every human being in the world (there may be a couple of exceptions) gets exposed to the sun. We know that exposure to harmful UV rays from the sun causes skin cancer. Because 100% of people exposed to the sun do not develop skin cancer, do we discount the fact that the sun causes it? No, that would be incredibly stupid. So why the blind spot when it comes to HPV? Worldwide it is estimated that 80% of women will be exposed to HPV at some point in their lives. It is those whom the infection persists in that are at highest risk of developing cervical cancer. Do we tell those women to fuck off because you are unable to grasp the numbers?

let's see world population 6,540,283,000 skin cancer each year 3,132,000 (as per WHO website) means only 0.047% of people who are potentially at risk will get skin cancer.

Fuck the sunblock companies! Hawaiian Tropic is in cahoots with the WHO, and they're trying to dupe us into buying their product by scaring us about the risk of skin cancer!!

World female population 3,253,801,000 those exposed to HPV (80%) 2,603,040,800. Percentage with persistant infection (20%) 520,608,160 Cancer (2%) 10,412,163

so At risk population 2,603,040,800 cancer 10,412,163 means 0.399% will get cervical cancer

What do these numbers tell you?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=10451482&dopt=Citation

A recent report that 93 per cent of invasive cervical cancers worldwide contain human papillomavirus (HPV) may be an underestimate, due to sample inadequacy or integration events affecting the HPV L1 gene, which is the target of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based test which was used. The formerly HPV-negative cases from this study have therefore been reanalyzed for HPV serum antibodies and HPV DNA.

<snip>

Combining the data from this and the previous study and excluding inadequate specimens, the worldwide HPV prevalence in cervical carcinomas is 99.7 per cent. The presence of HPV in virtually all cervical cancers implies the highest worldwide attributable fraction so far reported for a specific cause of any major human cancer. The extreme rarity of HPV-negative cancers reinforces the rationale for HPV testing in addition to, or even instead of, cervical cytology in routine cervical screening. Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.worldwide HPV prevalence in cervical carcinomas is 99.7 per cent.

And it's not that bad of a cancer people say

http://www.jco.org/cgi/content/full/19/7/1906

APPROXIMATELY 12,800 women were diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer in the United States during 2000, and more than 4,500 died from this disease.1 Stage-specific survival of cervical cancer patients has not improved since the 1960s. As a result, the 5-year survival rate for the average cervical cancer patient in the United States is only 67%.2 The average cervical cancer patient who dies loses approximately 25 years of life, more years than are lost in all other cancers occurring in women, with the exception of Hodgkin’s disease.

[Lurking Dem]

169. You will find that rational discourse

with fact based citations will do you little good in this argument.

Just sayin'.







*sigh*

[dropkickpa]

172. I know

Forehead, meet wall. :banghead: But, The facts need to be stated. Many of the people debating this have not bothered to truly educate themselves, they are culling information from blogs, newspapers, and their own twisted interpretations of what they read, and passing it along as fact. The facts need to at least be put out there and, if they continue to ignore them, then I can tell myself they are delusional and irrational with a clear conscience.

And if one person who genuinely (not willfully) was unaware of the facts learns them, then I've done a good thing.

People are trying to tie the science to a political objection, the science doesn't agree with their objection, so, instead of divorcing the political objections (which may be valid) from the science, they are trying to also reject and twist the science behind it to suit their political argument. Bad idea folks, makes ya look dumb, and it makes you seem like some sort of fundie. A lot more people would take your concerns about a mandate seriously if you would stop this silly and erroneous "HPV doesn't cause cancer/isn't dangerous" bullshit."

Science has proven the world is round, yet some fundies, to suit their views, persist in believing it is flat, and try to tell us that all of the photos from space, the scientific data gathered through the years, everything else is just false. It just LOOKS round in the "doctored" photos put out by NASA. Can you NOT see what the two situations have in common???

[Lurking Dem]

173. I feel your pain.

My favorites are the "you work for Merk/big pharma lobbiest/payroll of Governor Goodhair accusations.

I have fought for most of my life against "big pharma"'s hold on American politics, their seeming penchant for care over cure research, patent monopolies, and the ridiculous (and dangerous) tv advertisements.

I have been a "victim" of off label use of drugs from neurontin to vioxx. I got tetanus from a frigging tetanus booster.

I have had type 1 diabetes for over 30 years and have complications. I have systemic lupus and Sjogren's which are seeing the first drugs come on the market to treat in OVER 40 YEARS!

But science is science. Peer reviewed, randomized, repeatable science. It isn't opinion or some kind of Family Feud survey.

The Australian man who discovered this is lauded as a hero in his home country, and rightly so. Sadly, I think the anti-intellectualism trend we often decry in this country is spreading so that the scientists, researchers, reviewers, and translators who I once considered true "heroes" are now being looked upon as the "enemy".

[dropkickpa]

186. I understand you completely

This country is so innundated with people who have a patholigical fear of anything coming from a scientists mouth, but they'll believe the crap spewing out of the National Vaccine Information Center, which uses scare tactics to convert people to their anti-vax view, and they present their press releases regarding the danger of vaccines as "Vaccine Safety Group Releases GARDASIL Reaction Report" neglecting to mention that it is their OWN report in the title. Their website is FILLED with incomplete facts, leaving out anything that might go against their agenda. Not giving all of the information is dangerously negligent, in my opinion. And, as we can see on this site, most people are getting their information, directly or second hand, from that website. I have seen their news releases quoted (but not cited) repeatedly. The wording in their releases is deliberately inflammatory and fear inciting. But they claim to be impartial.

BTW, my ex SIL (a good friend) suffers from lupus nephritis, and it is horrible what it does. It's so encouraging that there are finally some strides being made in lupus treatment, beyond symptomatic).

[Lurking Dem]

190. Sorry to hear about the lupus nephritis.

So far, we've been able to keep it out of my kidneys. The diabetes will destroy them before the lupus does.

Here's an article about the new drugs coming up.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-te.bz.lupus13feb13,1,3433318.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

And here's one on the Genentech lawsuit which denied their patent for the process which produces monoclonal antibodies. (Good news for all of us suffering.)

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-bz.genentech22feb22,0,7875974.story

[tomp]

188. for the record, there are many reputable scientists....

...who do not think hiv causes aids.

[Recursion]

108. Umm... that's my point, dude

You have three sentences here.

Yellow fingernails do NOT cause emphysema.

No shit, Sherlock. That's my point. Factors can be associated without being causal.

HPV can cause cervical cancer.

Citation, please? HPV is associated with cervical cancer. Cause is a whole nother kettle of fish.

However...the nicotine/tobacco that causes the yellow fingernails can cause emphysema.

Similarly, the early sexual activity, unprotected sex, and drug use that increase one's risk for HPV infection also can cause cervical cancer. Get it? There's just as much research going on in this direction as in looking at HPV as the cause.

[Horse with no Name]

110. Your science is flawed DUDE

the CORRECT analogy for your misnomer is:

Sex causes cancer in the same way that yellow fingernails cause emphysema.

Both schools of thought are just plain stupid--->your argument doesn't hold water.
Sell it to a faith-based board because the folks that BELIEVE in science aint buying what you're selling.

[Recursion]

112. Seriously I hope you do know that early sexual activity is a risk factor for cervical cancer

Prepubescant vaginal intercourse is generally traumatic to the cervix and very very strongly associated with cervical cancer (more so, in fact, than HPV).

I do hope you know that.

[Horse with no Name]

118. Link please

Because you are so full of shit. You are casually speaking of RAPE and INCEST in the majority of these girls so we aren't speaking of INTERCOURSE...we are speaking of sexual abuse which generally isn't a onetime deal.

[Recursion]

121. Jesus... you honestly don't know cervical trauma is a risk factor for cervical cancer?

http://www.path.org/files/RH_fs_risk_factors.pdf
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/130/3/486
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2763994&dopt=Abstract

There's three from the top o' google.

You are casually speaking of RAPE and INCEST in the majority of these girls so we aren't speaking of INTERCOURSE

Huh? I'm pointing out that one addition horrible side effect of those despicable acts is that the victim's risk of cervical cancer is increased.

[Horse with no Name]

123. I know it is

I want to see that it is MORE PREVALENT than HPV.

[Recursion]

130. I didn't say "more prevalant"

I said "more strongly associated". The incidence of traumatic early sexual abuse is (thank God) very rare compared to the incidence of HPV.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8911242 (Hubbell, et al: AIM) puts the lifetime cervical cancer risk of victims of early vaginal/cervical trauma at 3%, which is higher than the lifetime risk of those carrying HPV 16 or 18 (though in fairness, the context of that study was differing risk factors by ethnicity, and there may be genetic or environmental factors hidden in those numbers).

[Horse with no Name]

133. Backtrack much?

You said...."Prepubescant vaginal intercourse is generally traumatic to the cervix and very very strongly associated with cervical cancer (more so, in fact, than HPV)".

By the way...you are using information that is ELEVEN years old about Pap Smear beliefs. Have there been no recent studies? Or don't they back up your fallacies? And...your link doesn't support what you said.

Try again...it isn't even close. Either that or post the source. The link you sent me to doesn't even have what you pasted.

[Recursion]

149. Look at the three I posted first

Parity > 4 has a fourfold increase in risk
Sexual contact at age < 12 has a fivefold increase in risk
Use of oral contraceptives for 8 or more years has a fourfold increase in risk
Carrying HPV strains 16 or 18 has a twofold increase in risk

I'm still not sure what you mean by "prevalent" in this sense (because you don't seem to be using that word how it's normally used), but those are three risk factors that are more closely associated with cervical cancer than carrying HPV. They're less "prevalent" as that word is usually used (again, not sure what you mean by it) because HPV is found in such a high percent of the population, but they're more closely associated.

[dropkickpa]

160. It is the cause, and they DO say so in papers

read this one, it has been cited by just about every paper on HPV since it's been written, and has been exhaustively reviewed, the consensus of the entire scientific community worldwide being that HPV is the necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?Db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=10451482&dopt=Citation

[Bridget Burke]

167. Ah: If "early sexual activity, unprotected sex, and drug use" cause cervical cancer....

Then we shouldn't worry about the little sluts.

The GOOD women can decide at 18 whether they want the vaccine. Since their fathers have protected their virginity.

www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/proof_of_virginity/dt22_15-17.html

[Recursion]

168. WHEN THE HELL did I say anything like that you jerk?

When the hell did I say anything like that you deceitful, manipulative jerk? Why you insist on projecting your prejudices onto me is beyond me, but I would request that you stop.

[Bridget Burke]

174. OK. I'll stop. n/t

[Celebration]

124. I think the point is this

First thing I learned in statistics

Correlation is not causation.

Correlation is much easier to prove than causation. About the only way to prove causation is to do a trial, giving some people the HPV virus and compare that with a placebo group. Well, maybe we could do that with animals.

Correlation is not (necessarily) causation.

Correlation is not (necessarily) causation.

However, it may be (necessarily) causation.

If I had to "guess", based on what I have read, I am "guessing" there is causation, in the sense that certain strains double the very small risk of getting cervical cancer. However, it would be presumptious of anyone to say that HPV strains definitively cause this increased risk. We may surmise it, but, definitely we do not scientifically know it.

[dropkickpa]

165. Yes it is the cause

since 1999 it has been accepted worlwide by the scientific community that yes, Virginia, HPV is the cause of cervical cancer. I am sick and tired of people denying this, simply refusing to accept the overwhelming evidence. Why are people unable to accept this? WHAT does someone have to do to prove it to them further? Set up camp in some poor woman's cooter and wait for HPV to cause cancer in her? Seriously, the more people deny that HPV is the cause, the sillier and more fanatically ignorant they look, and I am just unable to take them seriously.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=10451482&dopt=Citation

The information is out there and available, READ IT PEOPLE! The above paper has been challenged, and every challenge was proven wrong. It has been cited in 100's of papers on HPV and cervical cancer since, exaustivly reviewed. It's as close to scientific fact as we can get.

It says it in the title "Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide." That's 99.7% folks.

[WindRavenX]

84. ok folks, you can hate the vaccine. But it is simple flat out wrong to say HPV is a non causitive...

...virus for cervical cancer. It is now estimated that 95-96% (figures courtesy of my virology textbook, which came out NEWLY updated last year) cases of cervical cancer is caused by mainly 4 highly oncological strains of HPV.

There are literally 5,000 peer reviewed papers right here on pubmed, available to anyone free of charge:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Search&db=pubmed&term=hpv+cervical+cancer&tool=fuzzy&ot=HPVcervical+cancer

If you're against the vaccine, fine. I'm not going to change your mind. But it's flat out wrong to say there HPV is not a cancerous virus.

And now I'm off to my ethology lab.

[The Cleaner]

87. Well if 4 strains of HPV are considered "high risk" for cancer, all the more reason to question Merc

Because Merck claims only 2 strains of HPV, Type 16 and Type 18, are "high risk," causing 70% of cervical cancer cases. Gardasil offers protection only to these two strains. What of the other two strains then?

And the wording - the wording is typically not that it "causes" cervical cancer, but that HPV Types 16 and 18 are "high risk" for the development of cancer. There's a difference - a HUGE difference.

Let's go with the South Dakota model of opt-in, free, available to all Gardasil vaccinations. You want it, you can get it, no problems, no concerns. But let's also look at the realities and see beyond the pro-mandatory hype.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

107. Why would that be a reason to question Merck?

That's like saying you should take the vaccine for virus A because it doesn't also protect against virus B.

Doesn't make sense.

[Horse with no Name]

140. The thing is

For a long time, Hepatitis C wasn't classified. It was called non A-non B.
They developed a vaccine for Type B, and nobody questioned the fact that it didn't kill Type A or Type non A-non B.
Why is it sooo difficult to understand that the properties of viruses are different even within the same disease classification so that by identifying the virus pattern, they can develop vaccines for them?
Ergo we now have vaccines for Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C. They are not interchangeable.
We now have a vaccine for a certain type of HPV that prevents the majority of HPV-associated cervical cancer. Hopefully vaccines for the remaining ones are on the horizon.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

142. Well, yeah, it was a rhetorical question.

We've reached the "grasping at straws" stage.

[WindRavenX]

146. the other strains are still more cancerous than other strains of HPV

NT

[lizerdbits]

152. More info

Viral proteins E6 and E7 bind to p53 and Rb (tumor suppressors) respectively.
http://www.nature.com/modpathol/journal/v16/n7/full/3880826a.html

I'd also like to note that HPV makes up 2 chapters in a book called "Human Tumor Viruses" from 1998, so it's not like this is news. When we have the mode of action of the viral proteins we've moved beyond "association." Of course not all HPVs cause cell transformation and not every woman infected with the high risk types will get cancer, it just increases the chance.

[Iris]

155. My thread on this got locked and called "flame bait". Although, it's just fine and

dandy to call someone a "woman-hater" simply because that a person might be skeptical. I swear, if I wanted to be around conservatives who get angry whenever someone suggests the way they see things is not the only way to look at them, I need only step outside my door.

[BeHereNow]

156. You'll get no argument from me...

I agree completely.
BHN

[antigop]

157. So, Cleaner -- who proved you wrong? You started with "Prove me wrong". n/t

[antigop]

170. Well???? n/t

[lonestarnot]

164. And for anyone who hasn't seen it, watch the movie The Constant Gardener.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

196. That is an Excellent Suggestion! Thank you for bringing it up! eom