Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

10 Things You Might Not Know About Gardasil

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Health Donate to DU
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 12:51 PM
Original message
10 Things You Might Not Know About Gardasil
Blogger "EvilSlutopia" writes about the Gardasil vaccine after checking out the Merck website and elsewhere.
Below are the "10 Things You Might Not Know About Gardasil", and if you visit her blog, you can read more detail after each item.


1. The vaccine only decreases your chances of getting cervical cancer, it doesnt eliminate the risk.

2. Even without the vaccine, the number of cervical cancer cases is trending downward and has been for years.

3. Gardasil is one of the most expensive vaccines ever, at about $360 for the series of three shots, plus the cost of doctor visits.

4. While we're on the subject of liability, lawsuits, and profits, there's another angle to consider.

5. There have been no long-term studies done on the effect of the vaccine after 5-10 or more years, and testing on young girls has been extremely limited.

6. It is unknown how long the immunity provided by Gardasil actually lasts.

7. The studies done on Gardasil were not set up to investigate whether the vaccine itself has the potential to cause cancer.

8. Gardasil is one of many vaccines containing aluminum, and there is increasing evidence suggesting that aluminum-based vaccines can have harmful effects.

9. Gardasil is only for women.

10. The bottom line: Don't get this vaccine just because your doctor/mom/sister/friend/a perky TV commercial told you to.
http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com/2007/01/gardasil.html



EvilSlutopia concludes:


"Its your health, your decision. Do your own research and accept no guilt trips. My own mom wanted me to consider getting the vaccine (it is also being recommended for sexually active young women, even though it will probably do uswell, do evil slutty me anywayno good), but she encouraged me to research it first, so I did. When I told her what I had found out, she agreed with my decision not to get it."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. 1 Thing I Don't Know About Gardasil ...
those 3 shots they give, where are they given? Not THERE is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Hell no! In the arm just like a flu shot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Good, that's what I thought ...
thanks. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peace13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Too funny!
That reminds me of the time a male friend of mine asked what the adhesive strip on a maxi pad stuck to! Peace, Kim
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. BWAH-HAHAHAHA!!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
4. 
ages 14 to 59 are infected with at least one type of HPV, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"After being diagnosed with cervical cancer at age 35, Cheryl Swope Lieck underwent chemotherapy, radiation and eventually had a hysterectomy.....Lieck, who is now 40, cancer free and planning to get her two daughters, ages 8 and 11, vaccinated.

As a medical oncologist, Dr. Maurie Markman sees women with cervical cancer that has spread. He said his advice to friends and colleagues who ask about the vaccine for their daughters is simple: "Get them vaccinated. There is no other advice I can give. This is a profoundly effective cancer prevention strategy."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/4603237.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
23. Only 4% of women have one of the strains of HPV that Gardasil protects
against.

So the 25% estimate for all types of HPV is completely IRRELEVANT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
6. And the luddites continue to scour the net for like minded fools (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Neither Political Party Immune to Big Pharma Dollars
When short on facts, or losing an argument - call people names like luddite.

I am used to it, I've been called a Luddite for opposing paperless electronic voting machines too.

IT is wise IMHO to excercize caution about a new vaccine which may harm far more people than it may ever help.

Merck and its front groups have funded an enormous lobbying heavy with appeals to fear and guilt.

Neither political party is immune to big pharma dollars:


Big Pharma has few rivals along the Potomac when it comes to raw influence. Much of that power comes from the drug industry's vital role as a source of campaign contributions and lobbying money. Between 1998 and 2006, drug companies spent more than any other industry cajoling and wining and dining politicians and their staffers. All told, they shelled out over $1 billion during the eight-year period, more than any other U.S. industry, according to Washington watchdog group, the Center for Responsive Politics. And in the most recent election, Big Pharma was among the top industries, contributing $17.8 million to political candidates and political action committees. Some 68 percent of contributions went to Republicans; 31 percent to Democrats.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/06/news/economy/pluggedin_...


I question the rush to push this vaccine onto little girls so quickly.

I question the process to examine it for safety.

I question the effectiveness of this vaccine.

I question its value compared to the millions that could definitely be used to
save 10 - 100 times more lives.

This vaccine, if it never harmed anyone (Merck admits to unexplained deaths) would save
about 200 lives in my state.

That same amount of money spent could save thousands of lives in my state.

I would rather see schools provide sex education and provide free health clinic services to girls and boys than rush into this thing with our eyes and ears closed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. The insult is applicable
I had argued ad naseum with your BS talking points.

"This vaccine, if it never harmed anyone (Merck admits to unexplained deaths) would save
about 200 lives in my state."

Source? Even stickdog hasn;t made that bogus claim.

"I would rather see schools provide sex education and provide free health clinic services to girls and boys than rush into this thing with our eyes and ears closed."

And I would rather STD and cancer did not exist.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. how many women will get cancer of the cervix ?
My previous numbers were based on 2006. 2007 cervical cancer deaths are trending
down due to increase of Pap tests.

FROM THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY WEBSITE:


How Many Women Get Cancer of the Cervix?

The American Cancer Society predicts that there will be about 11,150 new cases of invasive cervical cancer in the United States in 2007. About 3,670 women will die from this disease that same year

...Cervical cancer was once one of the most common causes of cancer death for American women. But since 1955 the number of deaths from cervical cancer has declined a lot. The main reason for this change is the use of the Pap test to find cervical cancer early.
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_2_1X_Ho...


Take 3,670 and divide it by 50 and you get an an average 73-74 deaths per year per state.

Adverse Reactions - something requiring more answers -


On July 14th the first report of a serious reaction to the vaccine was filed with the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
A 16-year-old Illinois girl was vaccinated July 7th and 13 days later developed symptoms eventually diagnosed as Guillian-Barre Syndrome. A 14-year-old girl in the District of Columbia was vaccinated on July 11th and complained of severe pain immediately following the injection, fell off the examining table and experienced a 10 to 15 second fainting spell ending up in the emergency room with a headache and speech problems..

Although these reports did not detail what happened to the individuals experiencing these syncopal episodes, other reports did. The 14-year-old DC girl mentioned earlier experienced a syncopal episode combined with amblyopia (poor vision in one eye), abnormal speech, vomiting, and headache. Also experiencing vision problems, a 17-year-old New York girl reported feeling dizzy and her vision went "black for a few seconds" and she turned pale and lips turned purple and she also had fever and chills. Similar to the DC girl, on July 18th immediately after being vaccinated, a 22-year-old Kentucky woman experienced slurred speech accompanied by pallor and shock. On August 29th, two hours after being vaccinated, a 15-year-old New York girl who had a history of asthma and was on four asthma medications experienced difficulty swallowing prompting a visit to the emergency room. On August 17th, 15 minutes after being vaccinated, a 14-year-old Pennsylvania girl passed out in the car on the way home.

Most of the reports do not describe what happened as a result of the syncopal episode but a few do. One 11-year-old Florida girl fell from the examining table and two Washington girls fell - a 16-year-old girl fell and hit her head on a carpeted concrete surface and a 14-year-old girl fell down and broke her nose.
http://www.909shot.com/Diseases/HPV/HPVrpt.htm


How serious is Guillain-Barre Syndrome?


What is Guillain-Barre Syndrome?
Guillain-Barr (ghee-yan bah-ray) syndrome is a disorder in which the body's immune system attacks part of the peripheral nervous system. The first symptoms of this disorder include varying degrees of weakness or tingling sensations in the legs. In many instances, the weakness and abnormal sensations spread to the arms and upper body. These symptoms can increase in intensity until the muscles cannot be used at all and the patient is almost totally paralyzed. In these cases, the disorder is life-threatening and is considered a medical emergency. The patient is often put on a respirator to assist with breathing. Most patients, however, recover from even the most severe cases of Guillain-Barr syndrome, although some continue to have some degree of weakness.Guillain-Barr syndrome is rare. Usually Guillain-Barr occurs a few days or weeks after the patient has had symptoms of a respiratory or gastrointestinal viral infection. Occasionally, surgery or vaccinations will trigger the syndrome.
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/gbs/gbs.htm


Yes, I have questions that need answering before I will trust this vaccine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. In other words, no unexplained deaths. You were wrong or lying
"2007 cervical cancer deaths are trending down due to increase of Pap tests."

First off those are projections.

2nd, 2007 is trending down with Pap tests? They were just introduced last year? There has been a downward trend for sometime and Pap tests would be important irregardless of vaccination.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_1X_Wh...

"Cervical cancer was once one of the most common causes of cancer death for American women. Between 1955 and 1992, the number of cervical cancer deaths in the United States dropped by 74%. The main reason for this change is the increased use of the Pap test. This screening procedure can find changes in the cervix before cancer develops. It can also find early cancer in its most curable stage. The death rate from cervical cancer continues to decline by nearly 4% a year."

And this says nothing of the 250,000 women a year worldwide who die from cervical cancer.

What is more likely to have an impact there? Pap tests in areas with virtually no medical care or vaccination?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. no accounts for 7 deaths out of 17 subjects who died
About 3/5 of way down page at link:


IVAC's concerns about Human Papilomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Types 6, 11, 16, 18 from vaccine package insert

lack of safety studies on the ingredients singly, combined, cumulative, synergistically with other vaccines' ingredients;

aluminum as an ingredient and in placebo;
unknown ingredients in culture medium;
lack of identity of trial subjects: country, race;
clinical trials population approximated general population of American women;
only 4 yr follow up;
no accounts for 7 deaths out of 17 subjects who died;
confusion re injection into pregnant women:
http://www.vaccineawareness.org/concerns.htm#09
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Let's see the whackjob anti-vaccine website provides no documentation
Again, way to go with your sourcing!

Do you type in anti-vaccine in Google ans just cut and paste results?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #15
42. have you had the vaccine? your relatives? friends?
why don't you become an actual real expert, and go get the vaccine?

Tell us how it goes, and report back to us in 5 years.

Oh, and be sure to get a test for HPV BEFORE getting the vaccine,
wouldn't want Gardasil to GIVE you cancer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #42
65. So why post lies and not acknowledge them?
Why the subject change?

"Oh, and be sure to get a test for HPV BEFORE getting the vaccine,
wouldn't want Gardasil to GIVE you cancer."

Nice wishing cancer on someone. Typical.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. You can always tell an alarmist site...
when they take raw VAERS data and draw conclusions based on it.

VAERS is intended to be a vast collection of POTENTIAL vaccine-related events. Reports submitted to it are not verified.

From the VAERS site itself (http://vaers.hhs.gov/info.htm ):

When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause and effect relationship has been established. VAERS is interested in all potential associations between vaccines and adverse events. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.

...

While some events reported to VAERS are truly caused by vaccines, others may be related to an underlying disease or condition, to drugs being taken concurrently, or may occur by chance shortly after a vaccine was administered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Well in defense of NVIC they actually cite VAERS
Other alarmist websites just spout scary data out of context with no linkage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. That is true.
They are the closest to legitimate of the anti-vax sites, I'd have to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #21
76. They also present info on the diseases in question.
I find them to be the most balanced place on the internet when it comes to vaccination.

http://www.909shot.com/Diseases/mmr.htm

However, a severe case of measles can include secondary infections such as otitis media (inner ear infections), strep, bronchitis, pneumonia, hepatitis and Haemophilus influenza. Occasionally, extremely high fevers, brain inflammation and convulsions can be followed by permanent brain damage, transverse myelitis, subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, deafness, blindness, paralysis, and death. Complications are more common in adults, in immune compromised or chronically ill children and in babies under one year old.

An atypical, severe form of measles has been seen in some persons who have been vaccinated with inactivated measles vaccine (not currently used in the U.S.). Symptoms begin with a fever, headache and stomach pain for several days and then a rash appears on the hands and feet and progresses towards the head - just the opposite progression that is seen in natural measles. The rash is especially noticeable on the legs and in body creases. Severe pneumonia is a common complication. Live virus measles vaccine, which is licensed for use in the U.S. today, can sometimes cause vaccine strain measles virus infection, which is very severe and can end in death.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. rush in by all means, but don't expect others to blindly follow
The alarmist site is there for a reason - and their conclusions are
based on Merck's own product sheet on Gardasil.

The deaths are there.

http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasi...

Excuse me if I don't rush in.

Merck already harmed one of my family members, and its too soon to trust this vaccine.

Right now the FDA is run by big Pharma, and Big Pharma is one of the largest donors
to politicians on both sides of the fence.

Skepticism is a good thing.

Fools rush in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. And look the Alarmist website was lying. Here's the actual section of the report
Edited on Wed Mar-07-07 04:24 PM by rinsd
"Across the clinical studies, 17 deaths were reported in 21,464 male and female subjects. The events
reported were consistent with events expected in healthy adolescent and adult populations. The most
common cause of death was motor vehicle accident (4 subjects who received GARDASIL and 3 placebo
subjects), followed by overdose/suicide (1 subject who received GARDASIL and 2 subjects who received
placebo), and pulmonary embolus/deep vein thrombosis (1 subject who received GARDASIL and 1
placebo subject). In addition, there were 2 cases of sepsis, 1 case of pancreatic cancer, and 1 case of
arrhythmia in the group that received GARDASIL, and 1 case of asphyxia in the placebo group.
Systemic Autoimmune Disorders"

Where are the unexplained deaths?

Just for shits and giggles let;s look at how the lying alarmist cite did it

"
...17 deaths were reported in 21,464 male and female subjects. (4: motor vehicle accidents, 1: overdose/suicide, 1: pulmonary embolus/deep vein thrombosis); additionally: 2: infection, 1: pancreatic cancer, 1: abnormal heartbeat rhythm;"

Hmmm looks like they simply discounted deaths on the placebo.

Shocking to see such an outright deception by the luddites

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Nice catch. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. The misinformation is staggering (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #29
39. Targeting the wrong age
Article says this targets the wrong age:


But cancer data show that lawmakers looking to force pre-teen girls to take Gardasil, the lone vaccine on the market, are targeting the wrong age group.
Middle-school girls inoculated with the breakthrough vaccine will be no older than 18 when they pass Gardasil's five-year window of proven effectiveness -- more than a decade before the typical cancer patient contracts HPV, The Washington Times reported last week.
Infectious disease specialists and cancer pathologists say the incubation period for HPV becoming cancer is 10 to 15 years -- meaning the average cervical cancer patient, who is 47, contracted the virus in her 30s and would not be protected by Gardasil taken as a teen.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/business/20070226-115014...


But anyone who wants the vaccine, please get it, and provide feedback now and throughout the years.

I hope it works out for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #39
56. Moonie Times? Keep dredging the sewers for your sources (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #26
48. Jaw Dropping Alarmism-Merck Braces for Flood of Fosamax Lawsuits
Why don't these darn alarmists trust Merck???

Here's some "jaw dropping" alarmism:


Osteoporosis Medication Can Destroy Patients' Jawbones

Necrosis
The connection of Fosamax to necrosis began to surface about five years ago
when oral surgeons and dentists began noticing a higher than expected incidence of jaw decay in those taking Fosamax.

Initially it was thought that the drug posed a risk only to cancer patients. But more recently, oral surgeons have become convinced that Fosamax and similar drugs can cause the painful and dangerous jawbone death for other patients when taken over a long period of time.

The American Association of Endondontists recently issued a statement recommending that dental surgeons should check on whether patients take Fosamax prior to working on their teeth...

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/02/fosamax.h...


Oh, there's the alarmists at the Mayo Clinic too:







Primary Surgical Therapy for Osteonecrosis of the Jaw Secondary to Bisphosphonate Therapy
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/inside.asp?AID=412...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #48
58. Awwww what's a matter get nailed so bad you needed to change the subject?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #58
72. MISTER rinsd, have you been vaccinated yet?
or do you just want women to take all of the risks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. Undeclared WillYourVoteBeCounted, do you feel shame?
A silly question I know given your behavior but I was curious.

Do you feel shame?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #22
31. So are you going to reply now that you got nailed or what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. enjoy your vaccine, but I will pass
go ahead and be the guinea pig for Merck, after all, they need
to make billions in order to overcome their big VIOXX disaster.

That was a Merck/miracle drug that passed FDA testing too.

Certainly, if you trust Merck, if you trust Big Pharma, and you don't mind
being a guinea pig, go ahead.

Not everyone is so trusting of the big corporations, and for good reason.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #33
46. Do you have the tiniest knowledge...
of how drugs and vaccines are different?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #46
51. are you going to get the vaccine MR Trotsky?
or do you just want to mandate a vaccine that might affect a few of dozens of
strains of HPV that cause less than 6-7000 deaths in the country?

At least 3,300 adults could be signed up for one year of medicaid coverage for the minimum of the cost of the vaccine in our state for a disease that kills less than 120 people per state.


Mr. Trotsky, DO YOU KNOW WHAT ITS LIKE TO HAVE STUPID MEN MANDATE
MEDICINES OR VACCINES FOR YOUR BODY?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #51
53. LOL
If it is recommended for me, I will! I'm a married man in a monogamous relationship, though. My wife and I have already shared all the cooties we're going to, I'm sure.

But I'll line up my daughter and my son to get this vaccine.

Now if you have any rational arguments left, please present them. But since it appears you have nothing but an appeal to emotion, I assume this is done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #53
74. put up or shut up. you want it so much, you get it.
I don't need a patronizing male to direct me on my health care.

As for the "cooties" (what a childish description) you may
have HPV and not know it.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #74
75. I certainly might have it.
But I'm not spreading it to anyone else. If I were to have a new sexual partner, I'd ask my doctor if it was recommended for me.

I'm sorry that you have no rational responses anymore and instead have to resort to such petty attacks. Pretty much sums up the arguments against this vaccine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #18
38. CDC doctor opposes law for vaccine
Those who want to be vaccinated with Gardasil, more power to you.
Enjoy your vaccine. Let us know how it works out.



CDC doctor opposes law for vaccine


By Gregory Lopes
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 27, 2007


The chairman of the federal panel that recommended the new cervical-cancer vaccine for pre-teen girls says lawmakers should not make the inoculation mandatory, as the District and more than 20 states, including Virginia, are considering.

Dr. Jon Abramson, chairman of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's advisory committee on immunization practices (ACIP), also said he and panel members told Merck & Co., the drug Gardasil's maker, not to lobby state lawmakers to require the vaccine for school attendance.

"I told Merck my personal opinion that it shouldn't be mandated," Dr. Abramson told The Washington Times. "And they heard it from other committee members."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/business/20070226-115014...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #38
45. Ooh, goodie!
I hope you agree with everything else Dr. Abramson says. You do, right? You're not just cherry-picking a response even though his reasoning is different than yours?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #18
40. alarmist = unpatriotic

Alarmist = UnPatriotic


skeptical of rush to mandate vaccine made by big pharma, big pharma who has been caught deliberately
deceiving the public and endangering public health = alarmist

questioning the rush to war by present administration,an administration that has been caught deliberately deceiving the public and endangering public sercurity = un-patriotic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #40
44. Um, riiiiight.
Okey dokey then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #40
57. Alarmist = lying pieces of shit
As in what I easily demostrated earlier about their "unexplained" deaths.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #14
25. So much for downward trending
The projection for 2006 was 3,700 deaths

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-42...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #10
35. And I would rather the states pay the $30 annual cost of a pap
smear for every woman who can't afford one.

It is because of pap smears that cervical cancer represents less than 1% of all cancer deaths -- and the number of cases are still dropping. And an expensive vaccine that covers 4 out of more than 100 strains of HPV won't obviate the need for pap smears.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. Gardasil to be mandated, pap smears won't even be funded
after states spend $360 each to innoculate medicaid children.

There are 770,000 children in my state on medicaid, and if just 1/10 get the vaccine,
this will be an expense of over $27 Million extra to the already strained medicaid budget.

Families will have to be cut from medicaid, and surely there will be less pap smears funded.

Our state has already said that medicaid will pay for the Gardasil, but not everyone
who needs medicaid can get it right now.

And 1 out of 5 people in my state have NO medical coverage AT ALL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #41
43. Gardasil certainly doesn't seem to be a cost-effective
measure. I'd hate to see the medicaid rolls cut because of a vaccine that isn't yet proven to be safe OR effective beyond a few years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #6
17. girls s/b tested for HPV BEFORE getting vaccine
Any girls getting this vaccine should be tested for HPV first.

If a girl already has the HPV infection before vaccination, the vaccine will increase likelihood
of getting cervical cancer:


Medical News Today also reports that in a May 18, 2006 report, the FDA staff stated that Merck clinical trial data indicated a potential for Gardasil to enhance cervical disease in subjects who had evidence of persistent infection with relevant HPV types prior to vaccination. Young girls and women now receiving the vaccine are not tested for active HPV infection before vaccination thereby leaving them vulnerable to the vaccine actually causing them to develop cancer
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-42...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. Which is why they want to vaccinate before becoming sexually active.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #24
36. But the long term effectiveness is unknown. According to Merck,
the effectiveness is only KNOWN to last for five years. So a 9 year old that gets it may be susceptible again (to those 4 strains of HPV) before she is even sexually active.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #36
63. Hey, no problem! Merck just gets a mandate for boosters! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #24
77. The vaccine is approved for women up to age 26.
And little clinical testing was done in girls. Further, and again, it's not known how long any immune response will last.

Just givin ya the other side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theoldman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
7. Who said that the vaccine is only for women?
BTW, no vaccine is 100% safe. If you prefer cancer, go for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. The people opposing this vaccine have.
I guess they figure if they repeat it often enough, it'll be true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Oddly enough, the vaccine wasn't recommended for males at first
precisely because the risk/benefit/cost ratios didn't justify it. Although men can spread HOV, they only rarely develop cancers from it. The anticipated savings to society of avoiding cervical cancers in women justified the cost of vaccinating them. Every man in the world could have HPV and it wouldn't make much of a difference to bottom line health care costs to society as long as women are protected.

Can anyone explain to me why money hungry Big Pharm willingly dropped the male half of the potential market if their only motivation if profit? I'm not saying their motivation doesn't include profit, just that there may be additional reasons for pushing this vaccine.

I've heard that other companies have similar vaccines in the pipeline. Merck will make money by getting into the market first, but who wants to go unprotected another year just to stick it to Merck?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Damn, I never even thought of that.
Can anyone explain to me why money hungry Big Pharm willingly dropped the male half of the potential market if their only motivation if profit?

That is one brilliant question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #12
30. Heile Scheiz! What a find!
"Can anyone explain to me why money hungry Big Pharm willingly dropped the male half of the potential market if their only motivation if profit? I'm not saying their motivation doesn't include profit, just that there may be additional reasons for pushing this vaccine."

You would think if it were to pay off Vioxx they would go for the largest pool available.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #12
34. They haven't dropped men, formal studies are underway.
However, they launched their faux feminist campaign to roll out the jab, so I'd chalk it up to marketing? ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #12
37. Ahhh, just found the answer:
If everything works as planned, Wall Street analysts predict sales of Gardasil could surpass $4 billion by 2010 -- and thats just if Merck peddles the vaccine to girls. The company had originally hoped to get the vaccine approved for boys, too. But, The New York Times reports, although women have routinely allowed swabs to be taken of their vaginal cells, the company found that men rebelled against the use of emery boards to collect cells from their penises.

:rofl: Sorry, that's kinda funny. http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=V...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #37
47. That's not an answer.
mzmolly, if Merck is guided by the overreaching profit motive, they would have shoved this vaccine out the door for boys and lobbied for it to be mandated for them too - RIGHT NOW.

The fact that they haven't is a big honkin' HOLE in the whole anti-Merck, anti-vaccine panic... that none of the Gardasil opponents have been able to answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #47
49. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #50
52. "The company had originally hoped to get the vaccine approved for boys, too"
Edited on Thu Mar-08-07 10:59 AM by mzmolly
Researchers eventually discovered that jeweler's-grade emery paper effectively removed cells without alarming men and were able to complete their studies.

You just assisted me in the point I was making. I'd have to ask what part of this is confusing? "Merck had originally hoped to get the vaccine approved for use in boys." You can't get approval without SOME clinical data.

My apologies for the sarcasm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #52
54. WTF?
Read that sentence again. They completed the studies. The data is there. But they haven't lobbied to mandate it for boys yet - which used to be a supposed argument against the vaccine, but now appears to be the total opposite. Face it, you can't spin this away. If Merck were THAT profit-hungry, it would be "forced" on boys right now too.

I don't view what you said as sarcasm but an insult. You've already alluded to how you believe yourself to be smarter (using your brain) than those of us who support vaccination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #54
55. They have the method to complete studies,
Why is the vaccine only recommended for girls/women ages 9-26?

The vaccine has been extensively tested in 9-26 year-old females so information is only available about vaccine safety and protection for girls/women of this age group. However, studies on the vaccine are now being done in boys/men, as well as in women older than 26 years of age. The FDA will consider licensing the vaccine for these other groups when there is research to show that it is safe and effective in these groups.


http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vaccine/hpv/hpv-faqs.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #55
59. So let me get this straight.
Merck is evil for rushing this vaccine out the door without testing it enough.

But they aren't rushing it out the door because they don't feel they have tested it enough.

Got it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. The FDA is responsible for approval, not Merck.
Merck is responsible for gathering clinical data in which to provide the FDA.

Let's stick to one subject at a time Trotsky.

Bottom line, Merck wanted to have the vaccine available to all, however they had trouble gathering willing male participants for clinical studies, so they limited initial studies in order to get the jab on the market quick like. Remember there is competition via Cerarvix?

http://www.pharmaceutical-business-review.com/article_n...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. But the FDA is evil too!
Haha, this is too funny. The example of men & the HPV vaccine pretty much knocks out 90% of the anti-vaccine argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Again nice try.
The FDA has to go through the motions Trotsky. I'll be glad to discuss the FDA in the context of a discussion about the FDA. This one is about Merck and the lack of marketing to boys/men at this time. Let's stick to the subject matter.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. You DID give it a nice try.
Sorry, but you're trying to have it both ways. You have displayed that perfectly. When you come up with a consistent argument, just let me know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. When you can comment on the original subject matter let me know Trotsky.
Again, we've been over this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. What original subject?
Your personal opinion, totally unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, that Merck "limited initial studies in order to get the jab on the market quick like"?

You have a weird way of bowing out of a discussion, mzmolly. Assert an opinion as if it were fact, and then complain when others don't accept that as the new subject?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. No the subject of Merck not selling the vax to men and boys because they're not motivated by money.
I have a way of sticking to the subject, sorry if that troubles you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. OK, so say something factual that actually addresses that subject.
Instead of your personal speculation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. I've done so above.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-08-07 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. Alrighty.
If you're content with the thread above, so am I.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
20. It's only been approved for females. It's only been mandated
in Texas for females.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
32. It's currently approved only for use in women,
though some are using it off label.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul 19th 2019, 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Health Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC