Slashdot Mirror


HPV Vaccine Recommended For Boys

necro81 writes "An advisory committee to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will soon issue new recommendations that pre-adolescent boys be vaccinated against Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). The disease is sexually transmitted, endemic in the sexually active, can cause genital warts in both men and women, and is the primary cause of cervical cancer, which kills hundreds of thousands of women globally each year. The three-dose vaccination has been available for several years and is already recommended for pre-adolescent girls. Vaccinating boys should further reduce transmission."

569 comments

  1. How is this News for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Sorry, too easy.

    1. Re:How is this News for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was told to not bother with a hep vaccination by my doctor before I went off to college. He was right!

    2. Re:How is this News for Nerds? by mehemiah · · Score: 3, Funny

      from the article: "More than one in five boys and girls have had vaginal sex by the age of 15, surveys show." by 15! holy ....! im 23, where was I when this was happening? oh right, im a nerd :-( Its funny, when the doctor asks me if I'm sexually active sometimes I give a sad sigh when I answer "No", Now I just snicker the same answer. *forever alone face*

    3. Re:How is this News for Nerds? by arielCo · · Score: 1

      Umm, medicine, specifically epidemiology? Y'know, not every geek is exclusively interested in computing, electronics and astronomy.

      Recently there was a story on /. about an actress suing a company for revealing her age, on a website.

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    4. Re:How is this News for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoooosh! The joke was more about nerds not being sexually active than not interested in medicine.

    5. Re:How is this News for Nerds? by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

      from the article: "More than one in five boys and girls have had vaginal sex by the age of 15, surveys show." by 15! holy ....! im 23, where was I when this was happening?

      Well geez... that's why you're not getting laid.
      You read the articles!

    6. Re:How is this News for Nerds? by msobkow · · Score: 1

      +1 Funny

      Computer geeks aren't exactly notorious Romeos.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    7. Re:How is this News for Nerds? by tibit · · Score: 1

      Alas, considering some alternatives, you may be doing just fine :)

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    8. Re:How is this News for Nerds? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      It saddens me when I hear this. Especially when I think of my 8 year old son. He can't be getting so old that I need to start rehearsing my "birds and the bees" speech! It can't be! It's not possible! Noooooooooo!

      Luckily, he's a lot like me so that should buy me some additional time.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    9. Re:How is this News for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah damn. It WAS funny, but now that you explained it, it kind of lost its appeal. Either that or reading about the shots made me retarded.

    10. Re:How is this News for Nerds? by Eternauta3k · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but eventually you'll want grandkids...

      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
    11. Re:How is this News for Nerds? by Deus.1.01 · · Score: 1

      Its only relevant once they earn their first million.

      --
      My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
    12. Re:How is this News for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was 8 when I first had intercourse, so on that score you may already be too late. Technically I was just shy of 12 before contraception was actually required, but by the time my parent got around to trying to give me the birds and the bees spiel, I was 15 and I was able to correct her on certain aspects of sexuality. (The look when I started explaining what water sports meant was priceless) Statistically, your son probably had several years yet before he becomes sexually active, but with any kind of porn you can imagine just a google search away and the way kids swap fun sites they find, your son is HIGHLY likely to be beyond the modest terms and euphemisms of "The Birds and the Bees" any day now. Instead of saying "when a Mommy and Daddy love each other very much..." you'll need to say things like "yes, blowjobs count as sex too" or "it is stupid to expect girls you know to act like porn stars. If everybody acted like they do in porn, we wouldn't *need* porn..."

  2. Good by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is no surprise, but I am glad it's been approved. Once again science making the world safer.

    Science isn't about asking "why?", it's about asking "why not?". Cave Johnson, I'm done here.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not... create monkeys with five asses? When science asks "why not?" trouble usually results.

    2. Re:Good by droidsURlooking4 · · Score: 0

      Once again science making the world safer.

      Yeah.. Big pharma is all about 'science'.

    3. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whoosh

    4. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll be honest, we're throwing science at the walls here to see what sticks. No idea what it'll do.

    5. Re:Good by Zebraheaded · · Score: 1

      Would you prefer pharmaceutical companies (you realize the phrase 'Big Pharma' instantly saps your credibility) spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develope and commercialize non-profitable drugs so they all go out of busines and no pharmaceuticals are available at all?

      or

      They can spend the money only on what is profitable because our nation of "I'm right, not my doctor" self-diagnosing idiots, and "If you don't fix me even though Im not telling you all my symptoms, or I'll sue the pants off you" assholes make it necessary for FDA approval to cost so much that treatments that only "sort of work", have severe possible side effects, or aren't patentable never get released because really: who is going to take a $200million/8 year loss simply for the good of mankind? If you want that to happen, better start pumping WAY more funding into government funded research.

    6. Re:Good by angiasaa · · Score: 1

      Big Pharma yes, but perhaps the more likely reason being, policy makers trying to garner favour with their mindless vote-banks.

      --
      Geekism is your _only_ God!
    7. Re:Good by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      You're crazy! The five-assed monkey...that's impossible. It's reckless. It's pushing it too far. Four asses was a much as man was meant to do.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    8. Re:Good by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes, it s. Making a reasonable profit using science to improve are health.

      In 2006 the average net income for a Pharmaceutical company was about 27Billion. Net after expenses, 5.5 billion.

      The Pharmaceutical company hire the best scientists in the world....they also hire the best sales and marketing people.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why not? It's $130 a pop and the course requires 3 shots. According to the NYT article, some docs mark it up even further.

      Plus, parents (as a mass) tend to be uncomfortable with the idea of vaccinating their kids against STDs, especially when they're still 11 or 12. Doesn't matter that kids are having sex, parents still don't want to think about that. To be fair, who wants to think about their parents having sex either?

      I'm not saying people shouldn't get it, I got it, but considering how hard it is to get people to get the flu shot, I'm not amazed that they've had such a hard time selling Gardasil... People just aren't as receptive of vaccines as they once were. It's tragic but it also ties in with Darwin's Law pretty well too.

    10. Re:Good by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Or, you know, for peoples health?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:Good by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      To be fair, pharmaceutical companies foot less than half the R&D bill, and the perverse incentives of patents make more than half the money spent be spent on low priority me-too drugs. If we just left things up to government funding and universities, we could spend the same amount and get just as much or even more useful drugs.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    12. Re:Good by Medievalist · · Score: 1

      Oh my God! He only has one ass. He's of no use to me, I'll have to burn the room.

    13. Re:Good by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Yeah.. Big pharma is all about 'science'.

      My first thought: "Why? If the girls haven't got it then most of the boys won't get it either..."

      My second thought: "I guess somebody's getting a cut of the action..."

      --
      No sig today...
    14. Re:Good by causality · · Score: 1

      Would you prefer pharmaceutical companies (you realize the phrase 'Big Pharma' instantly saps your credibility) spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develope and commercialize non-profitable drugs so they all go out of busines and no pharmaceuticals are available at all? or They can spend the money only on what is profitable because our nation of "I'm right, not my doctor" self-diagnosing idiots, and "If you don't fix me even though Im not telling you all my symptoms, or I'll sue the pants off you" assholes make it necessary for FDA approval to cost so much that treatments that only "sort of work", have severe possible side effects, or aren't patentable never get released because really: who is going to take a $200million/8 year loss simply for the good of mankind? If you want that to happen, better start pumping WAY more funding into government funded research.

      So let us review. Recognizing that very large multibillion dollar industries generally have their own agendas which may not always serve the interests of those who are not members of said industries, and using a simple, succinct, well-understood term like "Big Pharma" to describe this situation destroys one's own credibility. But, suggesting that everyone suffering from a disease who seeks to remedy or treat that disease is a self-righteous idiot who works to sabotage the FDA's approval process does not damage one's credibility?

      You sound like the people who take a matter of taste, such as whether to write "MS" or "M$", and fixate on that to the total exclusion of any point that is being made. It is as though they feel desparate to say something, especially something that puts down another, but having nothing substantive to say, they obsess with some triviality and make a mountain of a molehill in order to feel like they are making some useful point. It's about as useful as saying "hah, you misspelled that word, therefore your logic is invalid and your theory is wrong and the evidence on which it was based is not legitimate". And then congratulating yourself.

      By the way, your tie doesn't match that shirt. Therefore, you're wrong.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    15. Re:Good by SETIGuy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Right now, 1 in 140 women will get cervical cancer due to HPV. Lets see which makes "Big Pharma" more money, 140 HPV vaccinations (3 doses each), or chemotherapy medicines for one person with cervical cancer (one round of 6 cycles)? Well, based on cost alone 420 doses of HPV vaccine is $163,800. One round of six cycles of chemo (meds alone) is about $150,000. So Pharma might make a small amount of money by preventing cervical cancer. That's only a real problem if you think that the value of a human life is less than about $13,800 (and if you don't count the cost of pap smears.)

      13,000 women a year get cervical cancer in the US, nearly all from HPV. And for all the men here snickering and saying that it's not our problem. There were about 1200 cases of penile cancer last year and about 300 of them were due to HPV infection.

    16. Re:Good by BlkRb0t · · Score: 1

      This is no surprise, but I am glad it's been approved. Once again science making the world safer.

      Science isn't about asking "why?", it's about asking "why not?". Cave Johnson, I'm done here.

      Isn't science about asking "why", and technology/engineering is about asking "why not?"?

    17. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. I have long maintained that boys should also be vaccinated against HPV.

    18. Re:Good by tibit · · Score: 1

      +1 informative! Thank you!

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    19. Re:Good by silverglade00 · · Score: 1

      To be fair, who wants to think about their parents having sex either?

      Be careful. Rule 34 lurks in even the most innocent looking places.

    20. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once again science making the world safer.

      For whom? Unless there are health complications to men from HPV then the risk/benefit calculation is strictly against vaccination. While vaccinations carry only the tiniest of risks it is not zero and the only beneficiaries are women who, for some reason, don't want to take the vaccination risk themselves.

    21. Re:Good by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Very nice assertions. I'm sure you have data to back them up, right?

      "If we just left things up to government funding and universities,..."

      Bwahahahahahahaha! Uh, no.

    22. Re:Good by compro01 · · Score: 2

      Unless there are health complications to men from HPV

      HPV is shown to cause throat, penile, rectal, and testicular cancer in men. They're rarer than cervical cancer in women, so you don't hear as much about them.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    23. Re:Good by Zebraheaded · · Score: 1

      So, wait a second, you want to demonize a company for focusing on things which allow it to make a profit? Does it serve my best interests that my local bookstore doesn't carry a copy of every Robert Heinlein novel? Nope. They must be evil!! Or, it's just not a profitable decision. Does it serve my best interests that the new car I bought last year wasn't available in the highest options package with a manual transmission? Nope. I wonder if they are evil, or were making a choice between profitability and the ability to satisfy everyone...

      Also, at no time did I suggest that "everyone" is a self-righteous idiot. Is everyone with health insurance a fucktard? No. Do we all have to pay way more than we should have to because of the few ones who are? Yes. Hyperbole: you shouldn't use it. Well, *you* shouldn't.

      Additionally, "Big Pharma" is not a simple, succinct, well-understood term. I hear that term and go "Oh, the person means the nebulous evil entitiy out to make them sicker and sicker while making them pay more and more." No one I've ever spoken to who has an in-depth knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry, whether they are against or in favor of how it operates, has used that term. Every person I've ever spoken to who uses that term has ended up basing very little of their argument on real facts and research. (no hyperbole here)

      Here is where I would normally make a comment about how instead of providing an actual argumentative response to a statement, you decided to take the "grammar Nazi" route and pick out a technicality...but you already tried that and failed, so I can't really do the same without looking petty, now can I?

    24. Re:Good by Zebraheaded · · Score: 1

      What mysterious person funds the other half of R&D? Because I would love to put my company in contact with them. Granted, companies will collaborate with non-profits sometimes when researching orphan drugs or other "not-so-profitable, but needed" treatments, but it's FAR from footing half the bill.

    25. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science isn't about asking "why?", it's about asking "why not?".

      Wrong. Science is about asking both "why?" and "why not?".

    26. Re:Good by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      In 2006, pharmaceutical research was 57 billion. NIH funding was 28.5 billion. That's half of the money there, and doesn't eveen count tax breaks for R&D, public funds that go to universities, or other government sources.

      And, from Against Intellectual Property: "The National Institutes of Health Care Management reveals that over the period 1989-2000, 54% of FDA- approved drug applications involved drugs that contained active ingredients already in the market. "

      "There is much evidence of redundant research on pharmaceuticals. The National Institutes of Health Care Management reveals that over the period 1989-2000, 54% of FDA- approved drug applications involved drugs that contained active ingredients already in the market. Hence, the novelty was in dosage form, route of administration, or combination with other ingredients. Of the new drug approvals, 35% were products with new active ingredients, but only a portion of these drugs were judged to have sufficient clinical improvements over existing treatments to be granted priority status. In fact, only 238 out of 1035 drugs approved by the FDA contained new active ingredients and were given priority ratings on the base of their clinical performances. In other words, about 77% percent of what the FDA approves is “redundant” from the strictly medical point of view. "

      More than half of the money comes from government funding, and more than half the money is wasted. The primary reason for wasting it on low priority drugs is that they are potentially highly profitable. A remotely sane government acting by itself isn't going to go all the way with Clarinex, and probably wouldn't even get started with it in the first place.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    27. Re:Good by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      The federal government. Primarily the NIH.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    28. Re:Good by Zebraheaded · · Score: 1

      You aren't using the data correctly.

      2010 NIH Research grants awarded totaled 21 billion.

      The VAST majority (16.2billion, 77%) went to higher education. 1.9 billion (9%) went to research institutes.

      How much went to for-profit organizations? 853 million. Less than 5%, or in other words, less than 2% of the pharmaceutical industry's research spending.

      You *could* be talking R&D contracts...but in 2010, that was only 1.5 billion for domestic for-profit. Still a far shade from half of 57 billion.

      see: http://report.nih.gov/funded_organizations/index.aspx

    29. Re:Good by Zebraheaded · · Score: 1

      Oh, an on "wasted" money.

      One drug I've worked on would qualify as "wasted" by your logic since its API was already on the market. However, in it's current form it requires daily injections in children from a large guage needle. My project changed it to a one-weekly injection with a smaller needle and no change in efficacy. Yeah, what a waste.

      Another drug was for people with certain gastrointestinal issues. In the "on the market" form, it required the people to eat about 40 pills during a meal, every few bites of food. Our version would have reduced it to one before, one during, and one after. Yeah, such a waste. Dumb of us to develop it.

      The view you're taking may be true sometimes, but it's far from being the whole truth. APIs are often repackaged so they work better or are more convenient for the patient.

    30. Re:Good by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      I don't think you are understanding it correctly. 57 billion isn't the private industry's R&D budget. It's the total budget for all pharmaceutical research. I'm saying NIH expenditures were half of the total budget, not half of the budget for pharmaceutical companies. Who the NIH money goes directly to doesn't matter all that much when a pharmaceutical company contributes a minority portion and gets the lion's share of the benefit.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    31. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: why not marry safe science if you love it so much. In fact, why not invent a special safety door that won't hit you in the butt on the way out, because you are fired.

    32. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is no surprise, but I am glad it's been approved. Once again science making the world safer.

      Science isn't about asking "why?", it's about asking "why not?". Cave Johnson, I'm done here.

      very funny.... "why not?".

      Well because it might be dangerous...

    33. Re:Good by causality · · Score: 1
      At no point did I suggest they be demonized. To me, "Big Pharma" means they're "big" and they're into "pharmaceuticals". If others wish to read a meaning into that, let them. I will neither do that myself, nor assume without basis that the mere conjunction of these two words indicates some kind of ideology.

      What I did say is that they have business interests that may at times conflict with the more humanitarian goals of relieving suffering by curing and treating as many diseases as possible. This is so obvious and recognizable and is found in so many other industries that to fail to understand its significance, or worse to be in denial by crying "demonizer" to anyone who works with this reality, is foolishness.

      Every person I've ever spoken to who uses that term has ended up basing very little of their argument on real facts and research. (no hyperbole here)

      And thus you climb up on your high horse and you feel justified when you pigeonhole everyone who uses a term without knowing what they really think. That kind of group identification by pigeonholing is how a narrow mind remains that way. I mean really, look at the defensive tone of your entire post there. If the term "big pharma" is so terribly offensive to you, make that statement by not using it yourself and trusting in your "superior understanding" to enlighten others like a secure person who is confident in what they believe.

      You can write off everyone who uses diction you happen not to like if you think that will enhance your understanding or enrich your life, or otherwise serve any constructive purpose whatsoever, but I see it for what it is: an excuse to justify the putting down and belittling of others that you felt a need to do long before a story was posted about pharmaceutical companies. I know that petty little game. It is not good enough that you have a useful contribution to make; someone else must also be wrong. How much joy is that bringing to you?

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    34. Re:Good by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      You think every dollar of NIH spending is on drug candidates?

    35. Re:Good by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the rise in cases of oral cancers caused by HPV due to the normalization of oral sex.

    36. Re:Good by castle · · Score: 1

      It's good that you reveal that your vested interest is in saving your place saving the world for your pharmaceutical corporate employer, keep up the rent seeking. It's good that you're honest about it.

      You probably are doing some good, but you are a part of a machine that isn't all good. Just look at your lobbyists, and your public relations expenditures.

    37. Re:Good by droidsURlooking4 · · Score: 1
      Once again, with a vague comment I have created a thread that has given scores of people tons of mod points,..

      only to have my karma reduced to neutral. :|

  3. Vaccinating carriers... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What a sensible idea.(Incidentally, males aren't strictly carriers; but penile cancer is much less common than cervical for some reason)

    1. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by fwice · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not just penile cancer. Also, depending on how transferred, HPV can cause rectal and oral (throat) cancers.

      I also ready today (here) that HPV may lead to future heart trouble.

    2. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      I am not a doctor. My guess is that urine keeps the penis cleaner than the cervix. Are there any doctors who can comment on my guess?

    3. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HPV can cause plenty of unpleasant things for males, too. My gut feeling is that it causes a lot of problems for boys/men that aren't quite as obvious as cervical cancer. I seriously doubt we're just carriers.

    4. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Informative

      I am not a doctor. My guess is that urine keeps the penis cleaner than the cervix. Are there any doctors who can comment on my guess?

      I will avoid making snarky comments about your elimination habits (although it is rather tempting).....

      The Standard Model of cervical cancer (I made the term up, we don't call it that) goes like this:

      The cervix has two different types of epithelial (skin) cells. The area where these two types intersect (called the 'transitional zone) is a region of high cell turnover - cells are dying and being replaced, lots of chemical and genetic activity. This makes it an ideal place for the HPV virus to switch cell growth from normal to abnormal. So even though you can get HPV infections in other parts of the cervix / vagina / anus / penis it is the activity in the transitional zone that cause problems.

      Males don't have a cervix (no, don't go there, this is a quality, family oriented web site), no transition zone. LESS (not zero) cancers.

      Most HPV induced cancers in males are found in the anal regions where again, cell division and turnover are relatively high. HPV associated cancers in the mouth and throat are rarer still, but they do happen.

      The major thrust (so to speak) for immunizing males is that they are typically 50% of the sexually active couple (more or less) and decreasing the amount of viral load will lead to a decrease in infections which will lead to a decrease in HPV associated disease.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't be a surprise that nonvirgins are more likely to have heart trouble than virgins ;).

    6. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

      That's because relationships with the opposite sex has a tendency to put stress on your heart.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    7. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      I appreciate that response. That is very informative. Can you say whether the cell turnover on the cervix is definitely greater than the cell turnover in the male urethra?

      Also, you didn't say so explicitly, but you used the word "we", which implies that you are a doctor. You can convert your post from +5 Interesting to +5 Informative if you can say that you are actually a doctor.

    8. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a sensible idea.(Incidentally, males aren't strictly carriers; but penile cancer is much less common than cervical for some reason)

      You had me at penile cancer

    9. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, who would have ever thought something like herd immunity would be sensible...

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    10. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by dissy · · Score: 1

      That's because relationships with the opposite sex has a tendency to put stress on your heart.

      This

      Though I would imagine a relationship with a same sex partner would likely be equally stressful as well.

      Guess it depends if you want heart failure to be brought on by stress or loneliness, but you're damned either way.

    11. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      I'd also wager that men are a lot quicker to find symptoms of cancer (lumps, etc.) on their penis than a woman would find a cervical problem. This would lead to earlier treatments / higher success rates for the cases that do come up.

    12. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't have to be a doctor to read and understand the literature. In fact, it helps. By and large med students don't care about anything not on the test, and doctors get most of their continuing education from pharmaceutical companies. Anyone with college level chemistry and biology, and an actual interest in science, is better prepared to interpret the literature than most doctors are.

      What would actually improve the post a lot is a link to a peer reviewed article.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    13. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      It's also about common warts: plantar warts and warts on the hands and face.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    14. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by jdoverholt · · Score: 1

      I am also not a doctor, but I'd point out that you're comparing apples and oranges -- or more accurately: urethrae and cervices. The high cell turnover is a property of the cervix, which men do not have. Women's urethrae are just like men's urethrae, neither of which have the duality of epithelial cells.

    15. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by jdcope · · Score: 0

      Of course, anything to scare parents into getting their kids vaccinated before the drug is available generic.

    16. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      The circumcision claim is disputed. There was a study on it some time ago, but it had some serious flaws - it didn't run long enough, so it's likely that the pain of a not-yet-healed scar would have reduced sexual activity during part of the trial. The researchers responsible ended the tests early claiming they felt obliged to circumcise everyone, hardly standard scientific practice.

    17. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Penile cancer. Anal, throat or tongue cancers also a possibility, depending on route of infection. But rarer... HPV is best suited to infect the cells of the cervix, and that's where it's the most damaging.

      Penile cancer can mean amputation, so it probably scares some men more than the possibility of death.

    18. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Well, okay, but I'm comparing cervix skin to urethra skin. (Is it called skin when it's on the inside? Whatever.) Lots of skin turns over quickly, so it's not clear to me, as a layperson, whether the skin replenishment rate is the thing that makes cervix cancer different than penis cancer. It's certainly very plausible that the cervix cell churn rate is the reason for increased cervix cancer, but it's also plausible that it could be something else. For now, you all have made quite a convincing argument, and I'm happy to go with it, because I ain't got nothin' better.

    19. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One good example of this is HIV actually. The cells it likes to infect are found in high numbers in foreskin, and circumcision leads to a 50% decrease in infection risk. Of course condoms lead to a >90% reduction in infection risk so do that instead.

      [citation needed, please]

    20. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, here is a thought for GP.. Its known that the USA has a very high circumcision rate (what?), and Europe has a pretty low circumcision rate.. So what are the respective HIV infection rates in USA and Europe? Is there any correlation? If GP is correct, HIV infection rates in the USA would be minimal..

    21. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Well, woman also have a urethra, but the point of attack with the virus seems to be the cervix. So, even in woman, the urethra cells seems to be less susceptible.

    22. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      I was told in some training in undergrad that the reason is that women have to deal with more, well, trauma than men do, leading to microabrasions. Now, I don't know if HPV can be passed from blemish-free skin-to-skin contact, but if it's like most STDs and requires some sort of fluid contact, a woman has a higher likelihood of having such contact than a man. So, we get off a little lucky in the evolutionary department, and so does the STD - I'm sure not going to pop out a free host in 9 months.

    23. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say it makes more sense to require it for girls than boys, and here's why.

      Say you've got a colony of 50 male and 50 female stray cats, and you want to eliminate the influx of new kittens to this stray cat colony, but only have the resources to target a single gender for sterilization. If you decide to target the males, miss just one, and that one can impregnate all 50 females for 50 new litters. But, if you target the females, should you miss a few, the maximum number of new litters cannot exceed the number of fertile females.

      Same thing applies here. Vaccinate the girls, and the maximum number of girls that can get this disease is the same* as the number of girls that didn't get vaccinated. Vaccinate the boys, and you are no longer limited in such a way. The few boys who for whatever reason weren't vaccinated would be capable of passing on the disease to any number of girls.

      *In before "vaccines do not work that way", "herd immunity", blah blah blah. It's overly simplified, but the concept (if you're only going to target a single gender, then it makes more sense to target girls instead of boys) is sound.

    24. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Males don't have a cervix

      Don't you oppress me!

    25. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're saying is... males are better than females. :-) We're at less risk.

    26. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      So you just want to let people die (or take my tax money to pay for their expensive cancer treatments), instead of getting vaccinated now, just because a company is making a profit?!

    27. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just penile cancer. Also, depending on how transferred, HPV can cause rectal and oral (throat) cancers.

      I also ready today (here) that HPV may lead to future heart trouble.

      What? What! I don't want to know how you managed to put it that far in.

    28. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      No, I want a cost-benefit analysis of sinking copious free health resources into the profits of a company that
      appears to be making a mountain out of a mole hill (low mortality cancer, low-effectiveness/variant-coverage
      vaccine) versus other matters like accessible dental care, produce subsidies what have you....

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    29. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought you meant nerd immunity...

    30. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except it is extremely unlikely the HPV vaccine would protect against those. There are hundreds of HPV viruses; the vaccines only protect against a few of them which cause around 90% of related cancers. Each HPV virus has distinctive characteristics and only around 40 of them are associated with genital warts.

    31. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      For roughly the reasons you give, the initial vaccination recommendation was aimed at female patients(younger preferred, since the vaccine is preventative, rather than curative, for the strains that it covers). My understanding is that it has never been contraindicated for male patients; but that an explicit recommendation was much later in coming; because the direct health effects of HPV infection in males are, on average, less serious.

      The safety record, so far, has been quite good, so if the cost would come down a bit I'd expect it to become a routine childhood vaccination(outside of "I won't have my child injected with the sex devil virus!" regions, where there has been some downright ghoulish opposition to the idea that the wages of sin don't actually have to be cancer, with a little bit of applied science...)

    32. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by chooks · · Score: 1

      FYI - skin is an organ (as the liver, brain, etc... are organs) so you don't really say that cervix or urethra has skin. For these areas you would talk about their mucosa or alternatively epithelia. The cervix has (in part) non-keratinizing stratified squamous (skin has keratinizing stratified squamous epithelium). The urethra is lined by a different kind of epithelium -- namely urothelium (or transitional epithelium, both terms are used).

      HPV infects keratinocytes -- the cells that make up the squamous epithelium. For the record, HPV likes keratinocytes everywhere on the body -- skin, throat, cervix, etc... and you get HPV infections in all these areas (on the hands, you would just call them warts or verruca vulgaris, if you want to sound fancy). Different strains of HPV are linked to cancer -- common warts (HPV types 4, 6, 8) are not known to cause cancer while other types (HPV 11, 16, 31, 33, etc...) are. The vaccine targets these high risk types.

      The mechanism for oncogenesis is very interesting and has to do with the viral inclusion into the genome that interferes with tumor suppressor genes expression, ubiquitin mediated proteolysis, and disruption in cell cycle (the Nobel prize in chemistry a while back was given to research into ubuiqitin mediated proteolytic pathways and is quite a fascinating subject). These disruptions lead to squamous cell carcinomas.

      As far as the difference between penile and cervical cancer, if they are both squamous cell carcinomas (which is what HPV causes -- but you can get different kinds of non-HPV cancer in both places) then it doesn't make much sense to talk about the differences between the two cancers, in and of themselves. Treatments, prognosis, morbidity, and mortality may of course vary due to the different sites of the tumor.

      --
      -- The Genesis project? What's that?
    33. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Free health resources? I never said this should be free, it is simply preventing a specific cancer, and is a factor in other major health problems, from the other recent research.

      Making it mandatory (e.g. to attend school, like other vaccines), wouldn't make it free.

    34. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      Free as in unallocated or available, not free as in beer; which the "copious" modifier works better with.

      Yes, it has been linked to other issues besides esoteric and/or relatively curable cancers,
      but that still is not enough to suggest that it is a worthwhile place to assign scarce resources...
      be that as a requirement or a recommendation for others to consider in allocation of their own.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    35. Re:Vaccinating carriers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If school is mandatory and the shot is mandatory for school, yes, the shot will be free for anyone who can't afford to pay for it, because they have the "right" to attend public school.

  4. pushed-by-big-pharma-and-not-a-cure-all dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would rather that they make the discoveries and sell vaccines than the alternative.

    Yes, they should make some money as a reward for their good research (and luck).

  5. transmission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This seems more like a recommendation to reduce the drama than to reduce transmission.

  6. Throat cancer. by MrQuacker · · Score: 1

    Wasn't there a story on /. a while back how this vaccine also protects from throat cancer in males?

    1. Re:Throat cancer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't there a story on /. a while back how this vaccine also protects from throat cancer in males?

      Insert joke about male selfish lovers

    2. Re:Throat cancer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't there a story on /. a while back how this vaccine also protects from throat cancer in males?

      Insert joke about male selfish lovers

      Insert joke about how you suck dicks

    3. Re:Throat cancer. by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      Don't know about that (the males part), but the German tabloids have been circulating "Oral sex causes cancer!" every few months for a while now... unfortunately nobody seems to understand that it's actually HPV that *might* be causing an increase in mouth/throat cancers through oral sex, because HPV is only mentioned on the side... I guess blow jobs causing cancer is just a better headline...

  7. Re:How's about this... by MrQuacker · · Score: 1

    Because it doesn't work anymore.

  8. Cue conservative wailing by DynamoJoe · · Score: 0

    in 3....2....1....

    --
    bah.
    1. Re:Cue conservative wailing by Bovius · · Score: 1

      They're not giving that vaccine to *my* sweet, innocent, raging hormonal teenage boy!

    2. Re:Cue conservative wailing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, it seems a liberal beat them to it with the countdown....

    3. Re:Cue conservative wailing by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      My boy don't need no vaccines. I'll pray the diseases away.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:Cue conservative wailing by egamma · · Score: 1

      Cue conservative wailing in 3....2....1....

      You mean like Perry?

      Oh wait, he's the one who mandated the vaccine for girls.

      How's your world-view now?

    5. Re:Cue conservative wailing by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      Sure, there's a lot of FUD out there about vaccines. You've got everything from the folks still convinced something in the vaccines causes Autism (despite lots of recent research trying to find such a link and failing to do so), to people convinced getting vaccinated for anything means exposing oneself to risk of mercury poisoning.

      But I wouldn't be so quick to brush off accusations that the HPV vaccines out here have potential serious risks, either. It's one thing to vaccinate against childhood diseases known to be highly contagious killers of millions, and another to vaccinate against an STD that many people will contract at some point in their lives and never even realize they have it, and practically nobody contracts at all for as long as they abstain from having sex. I'm not saying such a thing is a BAD idea, but I'm saying it rightfully deserves a higher barrier to acceptance than a vaccine proven to help wipe out a major killer of small children through no fault of their own.

      Just do a random Google search on the brand-name of one of these vaccines, Guardasil, and look how many pages come up discussing the risk of death, paralysis and other issues.

      For example, here's a recent article on it in "Natural News", a certainly biased source, but one that uses results of legitimately run studies and other facts to form their conclusions: http://www.naturalnews.com/031454_Gardasil_risks.html

    6. Re:Cue conservative wailing by borcharc · · Score: 1

      Saying anyone who questions this vaccination is a moron without studying the facts is stupid. Many vaccines are important, others carry untold risks. The discussion of this issue has been beaten back by people worshiping at the church or big pharma and various political and media forces, but never addressing the research. It is important to understand the issue and not just read what talking heads and politicians have to say.

      The vaccine in question is primarily used prevent a virus that can cause rare cancers 70% of the time [1]. The death rate of cervical cancer is quite low, 4,021 (0.1660% of total deaths) in 2007 [2]. The risks of death from the cancers in question are are similar dying of gallbladder disorders [2]. As for the laundry list of other rare cancers it is linked to preventing, they are dramatically rarer then cervical cancer, data is to support this is readily found for those that are curious.

      The CDC data [3] shows some serious concerns, 20,096 reaction reports including 71 verified deaths over 40 million doses. Of the 20,096 reports, 1,607 (8%) are considered serious. A serious reaction is defines by the CDC as a "report that indicated hospitalization, permanent disability, life-threatening illness, congenital anomaly or death". There is no way to determine that these reactions are not linked to the vaccine without much more study.

      I am not convinced that they are being honest about the risks and benefit of this drug. The number of lives it is supposed to save, 2,815 per year (70% of cervical cancer deaths are linked to viruses the vaccine prevents [1]), does not appear to outweigh the risks of a serious reaction. The benefit looks in the margin of error. Stop believing talking heads and politicians, do your own research, we are nerds after all. I have far more faith in medicine to treat me for a condition in the future then to take a risky medication to prevent a virus I will never get because I made it to the the age of 26 without it [1]. Never expect the talking heads or even your doctor to actually understand the research, few doctors are trained in research, they are practitioners fueled by money and boredom.

      I may be completely wrong and totally misunderstand the data I see published, this will not stop me from actually performing my own review of the research in an effort to actually understand the issues rather then accept biased claims from everyone.

      [1] http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2008/ucm116945.htm
      [2] http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/hpv/gardasil.html
      [3] http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf, Table 10

    7. Re:Cue conservative wailing by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      The CDC data [3] shows some serious concerns, 20,096 reaction reports including 71 verified deaths over 40 million doses. Of the 20,096 reports, 1,607 (8%) are considered serious.

      That's a 0.05% rate of reported reactions per dose, 0.004% of which are considered serious, compared to your 0.16% total mortality in the population. Such a risk, taken by itself, is comparable to the risk of injury or death taking the stairs to the second floor of your house, versus taking a safer elevator.

      You also need to consider the morbidity numbers for cervical cancer, surgical and post-operative complications, and deaths from other cancers secondary to cervical cancer. You have also left out other cancers caused by HPV, including oral, throat, and anal cancers in men and women -- a man giving oral sex to one woman (just one, in his entire life) doubles his chances of contracting HPV, and a man with more than five partners is 8.6x more likely.

      I'm too old, like most of the people here, including you, to get an HPV vaccine, so I'm really not trying to justify any decision on my behalf, but I can run numbers like anyone else.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    8. Re:Cue conservative wailing by borcharc · · Score: 1

      Those deaths are not age adjusted, in 2007 the death rate for females aged 5-25 is 0.0511% not 0.16%. So you have a similar risk of an adverse reaction as age adjusted death. That being said, I am far more concerned about the rest of the story. The serious reactions need far more study before this should be compulsorily. Dismissing serious adverse reactions and assuming that the question is solved and undisputable sets a poor stage for from a public health and drug safety perspective. There is far to much SEX, MONEY and POLITICS in this issue and not enough SCIENCE, hu, sounds familiar.

    9. Re:Cue conservative wailing by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I wish people would mod you up. While vaccines are good for thing like polio and smallpox, we need to seriously consider the risk vs. benefit. Valid risk/cost/benefit analysis seems to be seriously lacking in the medical field. I am currently pregnant and I was asked by my doctor if I wanted them to perform a test that is only 60% accurate to look for an extremely rare chromosome disorder for which I have no risk factors. Doctors like to scare patients, either intentionally or unintentionally, in the name of "providing options" and "giving information" and we need to stop it. We need to start teaching doctors about dealing with people. There have been numerous cases in the past where we have discovered 20 years too late that a drug had unintended side effects such as infertility either in the person it was administered to or their children.

      This vaccine doesn't even protect against all forms of HPV or all forms of cervical cancer and there is starting to be data that indicates it isn't entirely effective.

    10. Re:Cue conservative wailing by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      There is no way to determine that these reactions are not linked to the vaccine without much more study.

      There's also no way to determine that these reactions are linked to the vaccine without much more study. The rate of serious reaction for this vaccine is not significantly larger than for any other vaccine (or the rate of serious reaction to no vaccine). Yes "verified deaths" sounds scary, but that means that it's been verified that someone died. It hasn't been verified that the vaccine is the cause. If you get 40 million people between the ages of 9 and 26 together and give them an injection of saline solution, within 24 hours, more than 100 of them will be dead. Of course that would have happened without the injection, too.

      The CDC window for serious vaccine reactions is 72 hours for onset of symptoms with death potentially being weeks later. In 72 hours, you've got more than 300 kids in body bags. Most will be accidents. Did he fall off the ladder because the shot made him dizzy? Did he lose consciousness while driving? Better submit a VAERS report so his Mom can ask for compensation. But some will just be asthma attacks. Or wasp stings. Or auto-erotic asphyxiation. Sudden cardiac arrest. Heart attack. Aneurism. Some will be pneumonia. Some will be other infections. Unidentified viral and bacterial infections aren't all that uncommon. And autopsies are typically not done unless foul play is suspected. Vaccine related? There's no way to tell. If the rate of reported deaths is about the same as the rate of unexpected death for the same population in the same window (as it is in this case) there's a good chance it's not the vaccine.

      And even if it were the vaccine, you're trading a 71 in 40 million (0.0002%) change of dying from the vaccine with a 0.2% chance of dying from the disease. That is, of course, assuming the prevalence of HPV doesn't change. Chances are it will, and children of whiners like yourself will get the benefit of the immunity that the children of people who don't fear shadows will acquire.

    11. Re:Cue conservative wailing by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      You mean like Perry?

      Oh wait, he's the one who mandated the vaccine for girls.

      ...and Michelle Bachmann was against it (the requirement). I can't believe someone doesn't give a response along the lines of "so you're pro-cancer then?"

      (BTW, I'm not saying I'm for government _paying_ for it, but having it be a requirement, like whooping cough, etc., is reasonable.)

    12. Re:Cue conservative wailing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So hopefully everyone can agree that further study would be appropriate. This vaccine was fast-tracked to get the moneyball rolling. The VAERS system is voluntary - it is possible that many (potential) victims are not reporting or being counted. The reason for counting the number of people who drop dead within days of receiving any particular vaccine (VAERS) is so that IF any particular relationship exists, it might be detected.

      Of interest, in only a few years since this vaccine became available, the number of gardasil-related VAERS reports quickly outnumbered all other reports.

      If even one person dies, or is merely paralyzed for life, because of a risk inherent with HPV vaccination, that seems very expensive: assuming that YOU are related to that person. Merck explicitly does not claim the vaccine prevents cancer, only that it prevents several strains of HPV. And without further study, even that has yet to be proven. No one is tested for HPV before receiving the vaccine, and if you are found to have it later, then ... guess what? You MUST have already had the virus before vaccination. Convenient proof, no? Or another way of saying it is "you will never be able to prove the vaccine failed to innoculate" - forget about determining whether the vaccine is a hazard. Its effectiveness can't even be demonstrated.

      Only time will tell... it is entirely conceivable that the vaccine will seriously injure more people than the cervical cancer it is supposed to discourage. Fortunately for everyone, it is the manufacturer who funds the vast majority of research being performed on their product. I already feel much safer.

    13. Re:Cue conservative wailing by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      Anti-vaxxers are all the same. I'm sure you don't believe that the reduction in communicable diseases like polio, smallpox, measles, mumps, diptheria, etc is an accident. Or do you? Some anti-vaxxers are that looney.

      There is no evidence of harm due to HPV vaccines, and the VAERS reports of gardasil problems increased following bogus media reports of problems caused by gardasil. Real problems would have increased if the innoculation rate increased. Bad things happen, and it's great to have a vaccination to blame them on, even when they are unrelated.

      Your stuff about "if you are found to have it later, then ... guess what? You MUST have already had the virus before vaccination" is just a lie. And it's proof you have no understanding of how science or medicine work. Whoever told you that was lying, and you believed them because you wanted to. No vaccination is 100% effective. No doctor with a brain has ever said they were. But you can measure is the infection rate in the vaccinated and vaccinated populations to find the difference even if you did not test before the vaccine was administered. Statistics are what's important.

  9. Get rid of the celebrities... by HockeyPuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If we had celebrities coming out and saying "I think the vaccine could have more side effects than the disease..."

    We'd still have polio...

    measles...
    mumps..
    Rubella...
    Tuberculosis
    Whooping Cough...

    and a bunch of other nasty diseases flying around like the common cold. I think many parents (atleast around here in Northern California, think you need 200 years of concrete data, or Oprah to claim a vaccine is needed).

    1. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by tool462 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And thanks in part to the anti-vaccination folks, some of those are making a bit of a comeback. Whooping cough and measles are the ones our pediatrician mentioned.

    2. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by Vellmont · · Score: 2

      The problem isn't the celebrities, it's a public more willing to listen to celebrities than scientists about an issue that's almost entirely scientific. We have an endemic fear culture that embraces worry over knowledge. People only listen to the celebrities because they're spreading a message that the public is primed to receive. We have to eliminate the culture that embraces this message of ignorance and fear, and anti-intellectualism. The celebrities are merely a symptom of our broken culture.

      --
      AccountKiller
    3. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by afidel · · Score: 3

      Dude, where have you been TB is still here and is scarier than ever because most cases are now resilient to all but a cocktail of the most infrequently used antibiotics with the most severe side effects.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    4. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whooping Cough...

      Last I was in the U.S. it seems you did still have Whooping Cough. At least, there was an ad on TV promoting some adult pertussis vaccin thing.

      Although the only thing I seem to remember from that is the actress. Whooping cough or not, she's hot.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvcWMcfKmhc (Yes, it's the Spanish version - doesn't matter, just makes her caliente).

    5. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think we can get rid of celebrities, but I still hold onto the hope that we can get rid of Scientology.

    6. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but Jenny McCarthy and Charley Sheen are not exactly typical celebrities. Holding up Queen Bimbo and King Himbo as typical is an insult to Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, and everyone else who's ever been in a Kevin Smith movie (with the possible exception of Jason Mewes).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    7. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by geekoid · · Score: 2

      It's the media. They show the debate in a light of 'everyone's an experts'. So Dr Oz gets the same credit as an doctor whose specialty is immunology.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by need4mospd · · Score: 1

      If there was a vaccination that prevented your child from becoming a celebrity, this would all take care of itself in a couple decades.

    9. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      I agree with your sentiment 100%, but I can't stop my self from correcting your list. Tubercolosis is very much still around. The infection rate may be as high as 1/3 the world population, but that is heavily skewed to the developing world. Not to mention measles is coming back thanks to those same idiot celebrities that think it's better for their children to contract horrible diseases than for them to have to care for a child with a developmental disorder that is NOT linked to the vaccines at all.

    10. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by Arlet · · Score: 1

      Dr Oz even gets more credit, because they think the specialist is getting paid by big pharma.

    11. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      The media is part of the problem, but they're still only able to operate because we have a culture that accepts this sort of crap.

      --
      AccountKiller
    12. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, Kevin Smith movies are also an insult to anyone who's ever been in a Kevin Smith movie (with the possible exception of Jason Mewes). Did you see Red State? Cop Out? Kevin Smith should have quit when he was ahead. . .after Clerks.

    13. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

      Yes, the few instances of adverse reactions versus the thousands or millions falling I'll and spreading the disease sounds far better. It's easier to be told what to think rather than think for yourself. Some people think they cannot e held accountable when they're told what to think.

      --
      Chewbacon
      The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    14. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by sconeu · · Score: 1

      I was vaccinated as a kid back in the '60s and '70s, but mine wore off, and I got a case of whooping cough.

      I had a hell of a time convincing the HMO doctor to give me the test. His reaction "Have you been vaccinated? You don't have it". Even though the pediatrician in the same HMO group had diagnosed my daughter with it (and yes, she'd been vaccinated, too).

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    15. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the entire celebrity thing started because of a crooked doctor faked a study to make it look like there was a link.

    16. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      At least Dr. Oz has a "doctor" in front of his name so I can see people mistakenly trusting him over Dr. Noname the immunologist. Bad reasoning still, yes, but at least somewhat understandable. But trusting Jenny McCarthy? She's never held any advanced medical degree to my knowledge. How could you trust her with medical advice? If I need advice on how to strip for a magazine, I'll consult Jenny. If I need advice on medical issues, I'll ask a doctor.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    17. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, we still have Polio, only because some Islamic leaders claim(ed?) the vaccine is a western conspiracy to reduce Islamic fertility.
      Thus, their followers refused to take it, and it is being spread around again in the Haj pilgrimage to Mecca.

    18. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, polio was vaccinated for in about 90% of the population... of about three countries. And yet it disappeared around the world, even in the places where the vaccinations weren't common. Care to explain how the vaccine alone stopped it, even where it wasn't really deployed?

    19. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by TheRedSeven · · Score: 0

      So... you're saying that you were vaccinated, and your daughter was vaccinated, but you both still got Pertussis.

      But we're all supposed to get vaccinations because that will protect us from getting Pertussis.

      Questions:
      A) How likely is it to contract Pertussis in a population of completely unvaccinated people?
      B) What are the risks (side effects) and probabilities of those risks to that population if 100% of the population is vaccinated?
      C) By what amount is the risk of contracting pertussis lowered if 100% of people get vaccinated against that disease?

      If C > B, then vaccinate 'em all. If B > C, then the cure is worse than the disease. If there's some balance that makes sense for at-risk sub-groups within the population, then tailor the recommendation to those sub-groups.

      If you haven't done the studies, then shut up.

    20. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      alchemists if you excuse the term... can turn copper into silver and gold (zinc plating for silver then tempering for gold) which is why they used to bite gold coins. which is why the us banned ownership of gold for a while (and we may see a return to that policy as the cycle repeats itself)
      vaccines are against the so called environmentalists, who would rather see all sorts of critters and vermin. but also it is a form of control. get this injection or you can't go to school, get this injection or you can't have this job. take this drug or we will inject you with it. drink this beer, or we won't let you socialize with the other gender. its all about control.
      the vaccine doesn't even end the risk of HPV it attacks the four leading strains or 85% of hpv viruses. how long till vaccine resistant strains are the only strains left?
      but that doesn't matter because it is about control. to go to college you need to take hpv vaccine.

    21. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by Sollord · · Score: 1

      No vaccine is 100% effective ever heard of herd immunity that is what makes vaccines effective. You eliminate the issue in 98% of the population and it protects the 2% that the vaccine isn't effective on. It's retarded nut-jobs who refuse a vaccine that endangers everyone else

    22. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey, I was vaxxed against measles and still got them a year later. Those others you mentioned don't have a proven track record either. Why, exactly, would somebody go through the jab when it hasn't been shown to be effective or safe?

    23. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point. But TB is not viral.

    24. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Since when were Matt Damon & Ben Affleck widely spouting medical myths that have been disproven many times over?

    25. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which brings up another point when it comes to poor understanding of health and science. If people had a decent understanding of evolution by natural selection they'd understand the importance of basic things like: A) if you're on antibiotics, yes, you should continue taking them to the end of your treatment even if you're "feeling better", B) you shouldn't be using antibiotics like a damn fool in every ordinary household product or feed them generally to animals on farms unless you want to breed more antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and C) yes, despite the expense we should treat all those prisoners, drug addicts, homeless people, and other neglected parts of society with contagious diseases, because otherwise the diseases will evolve there to be resistant (if the human compassion isn't good enough reason on its own, it may save your own skin someday).

    26. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember an interview with Salk in the 1980s when he was complaining that the ONLY cases of polio in the western world at that time were caused by the live vaccine still in use. Due to its easy of being taken orally it was still used because the dead virus required 2 shots (down from 3 previously).

      It is not as cut and dried as you make it out to be.

    27. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 1

      No one has ever been able to successfully clarify for my how right wing groups in the US can oppose government mandated injection of vaccines as being "government interference in private affairs", and yet be 100% in favour of government mandated injections of a lethal potassium solution. I know which one I would rather have.

    28. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't sound better to the person who gets the adverse reaction.

    29. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Muppets get diseases too.

    30. Re:Get rid of the celebrities... by lapagecp · · Score: 1

      Not all vaccinations are 100% efficacious and vaccinations do not contribute to antibiotic resistance. Dude where have you been?

  10. Merc lobbying pays off by sasparillascott · · Score: 0

    Lobbying by Merc has paid off again - shares should be up on this.

    1. Re:Merc lobbying pays off by hedwards · · Score: 1

      It's not a matter of lobbying, vaccinating only girls doesn't have the same benefits that vaccinating everybody does. The main question was whether any possible health risks for men would offset the health benefits for them.

      Vaccinating just specific groups is a bit of a warning that there's probably something going wrong. That's usually only done when supplies of vaccines are short, hedging this way without shortages is always going to be suspicious.

  11. Re:How's about this... by slapout · · Score: 1

    Really? What changed?

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  12. swingers? by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

    What about male swingers in their mid-30s? Not saying this is me, but. . . If these people are possibly spreading disease, wouldn't it make sense to vax them too?

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    1. Re:swingers? by iceperson · · Score: 2

      I think the argument is most of the adult population already has HPV so it's too late for them.

    2. Re:swingers? by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      From what I understand of it, the argument is that once you've become sexually active there's little point as you've probably already been exposed.

    3. Re:swingers? by fwice · · Score: 5, Informative

      I got the HPV vaccine last year as a male at the age of 26. There is the overall thought that if you are sexually active (ie, not a non-infected virgin with another non-infected virgin), you will have obtained some strain of HPV (there are more than 150, most are relatively benign). Your body can "clear" most of these, and they will never be an issue. I thought it was still appropriate for me to get the vaccine, as there are some benefits:

      • if you aren't infected with certain strains, you are vaccinated from 2 high-risk (HPV 16&18, cancer causing) and 2 high-trauma (HPV 6&11, wart causing) strains of HPV. These strains account for ~70% of HPV-related cancers and ~90% of warts, if I recall the numbers correctly.
      • if you are infected with HPV 6/11/16/18, the vaccine may help your body to clear and infection if it lingers, and may reduce (or eliminate) outbreaks of warts

      Vaccination was uncovered by my insurance (gee, thanks!) but I figured it was worth the $510, to protect myself and any partners (should I be a carrier).

    4. Re:swingers? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Is there not a test for HPV- for those HPV negative- they could be vaccinated.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    5. Re:swingers? by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      I think you need to read the other response to my question.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    6. Re:swingers? by ClioCJS · · Score: 2

      Thanks. That's PRECISELY the type of answer I was looking for. Very informative. They really oughtta cover those for males then. Glad to see the medical community is finally accepting what needs to be done, but what's in it for the insurance companies?

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    7. Re:swingers? by fwice · · Score: 1

      what's in it for the insurance companies?

      Less infections requiring procedures would mean less money spent on treatments, and would reduce the amount of money they would have to pay out for treatment.

      Oh wait, that's probably not what they want, since that means less money passing through their hands for them to skim off of.

    8. Re:swingers? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Right, at present I don't believe there's much evidence to support any benefit for people already infected, however if you're only infected with one of the strains that is included, there would likely still be some benefit.

      But, as others have said, it's not just sex, these strains do sometimes cause throat cancer as well as penile, cervical and anal cancers so, hypothetically there should be some risk just from kissing.

    9. Re:swingers? by DanTheStone · · Score: 0

      That's not necessarily true. My girlfriend, 24, tested negative, so they gave her the vaccine.

    10. Re:swingers? by afidel · · Score: 2

      Was $510 the cost of just the shot(s) or did that also include the doctors office visits?

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    11. Re:swingers? by geekoid · · Score: 0

      Get tested, if negative get the vaccine.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:swingers? by Insightfill · · Score: 1

      Was $510 the cost of just the shot(s) or did that also include the doctors office visits?

      My daughter just got the second of the three shot series. The first visit is a 'doctor visit', while the last two shots are 'nurse visit' and somewhat cheaper.

      $510 sounds like well under the cost of three such short 'checkup' visits. Also: wiki says that all three shots 'retail/list' for $360.

    13. Re:swingers? by Altus · · Score: 1

      given that there are hundreds of strains of HPV and the 2 vaccines cover something like 16 strains between them it is quite possible for this vaccine to be useful even to someone who has been exposed. Many men could be carrying very common strains of HPV but not be carrying one of the most dangerous strains (some of which are targeted by these vaccines).

      Of course the problem isn't that you can't get the vaccine, you can, but your insurance won't pay for it. What it comes down to is its not financially beneficial enough to vaccinate you (an older male) especially when the person most likely to end up with a problem from your HPV infection is a woman who is not necessarily even with the same insurance company.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    14. Re:swingers? by fwice · · Score: 1

      $510 was what it cost me to get the three injections (Gardisil is spread out via 3 injections over 6 months) at PPLM.

      With the exception of the first injection, the only reason I went into the office for the other two was to receive the shot. No wellness check otherwise.

      I got the first injection as part of a quarterly checkup -- I drop in every three months to have a full STI examination taken. Gives me a nice feeling when I can tell people I am d/d free and be sure of it :]

      In any case, each injection was listed on the invoice as a $170 fee. I'm sure that is for the cost of the vaccine and the time it took the RN to inject me.

    15. Re:swingers? by rthille · · Score: 2

      According to the CDC website, no there is no test to say whether an individual is HPV infected or not.
      Interestingly though it also seems to indicate that the HPV infection can go away of its own accord in time.
      http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm
      "There is no general test for men or women to check one’s overall "HPV status," nor is there an approved HPV test to find HPV on the genitals or in the mouth or throat."

      and from http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv-and-men.htm
      "There is no test for men to check one’s overall “HPV status.” But HPV usually goes away on its own, without causing health problems. So an HPV infection that is found today will most likely not be there a year or two from now."

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    16. Re:swingers? by Insightfill · · Score: 1

      Glad to see the medical community is finally accepting what needs to be done, but what's in it for the insurance companies?

      In the case of this shot, the down-side to the insurance company is that the person receiving the shot is young enough that when they finally DO get infected, they're likely young adults and have already moved on to another insurance company.

      It's not in their financial interest to protect you in such a way that your NEXT insurance company will benefit. Actual pap smears and cervical screening are recommended 3-5 years after first sexual activity or starting at age 21-25.

    17. Re:swingers? by pclminion · · Score: 1

      There is no test for HPV, yet they claim to have a vaccine which prevents infection? I wonder how they determine whether their vaccine works or not.

    18. Re:swingers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to my doc, adult males can benefit from the vaccine (there are two, but one is better, the one that protects against more strains). She highly recommends it, though you have to pay for it out of pocket, and claims the men she treats for warts would not have them had they had the vaccine. I don't know if there's any caveats to the treatment (there's 100s of strains of HPV, some of the most common, symptom producing ones are innoculated against in the vaccine - so having some form of HPV may not disqualify you for the vaccine).

    19. Re:swingers? by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

      There is no test for HPV, yet they claim to have a vaccine which prevents infection? I wonder how they determine whether their vaccine works or not.

      Great question! The cynic in me answers that the vaccine works if there's a noticeable increase in the profits of the company that is lobbying the CDC.

      Of course, if the "cynic in me" has HPV, then he probably gave it to me.

    20. Re:swingers? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Less infections requiring procedures would mean less money spent on treatments, and would reduce the amount of money they would have to pay out for treatment.

      Oh wait, that's probably not what they want, since that means less money passing through their hands for them to skim off of.

      I don't think you really understand how medical insurance works...

      Insurance companies would deny coverage of the vaccines solely for short term profits at the expense of long term profits.

      They absolutely do not make money by intentionally making their customers sick. To the contrary, most will give you some sort of incentive for preventative medicine or exercise programs.

    21. Re:swingers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is exactly like cancer and PET scans. If everyone got a full body PET scan every 5 years, cancer would usually be caught in time to fix it. This would save money per individual who got cancer. However, PET scans cost $6000 each (or so). The cost of the pet scans outweighs the cost of treating the 50% of men and 33% of women who will get cancer, a large percentage of whom will discover it too late (stage 3 or worse) to be saved.

      I'm betting the total preventative cost of the vaccine outweighs the cost of treating people that get cervical cancer and warts, never mind the fact that everyone would be better off... Insurance companies are in business to make money, not pro-actively treat people effectively and keep them healthy. That's a secondary goal.

    22. Re:swingers? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      I doubt very much there's NO test. Most likely there is no cheap, easy test that could be given casually.

    23. Re:swingers? by afidel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thanks for the information, seems awfully expensive. In fact Merck only spent $250M on research of HPV but sold $365M in vaccine in the first quarter after introduction. It's the most expensive vaccine in the world, and for something which frankly isn't anywhere near the top of the deadly transmittable diseases. I think I'd rather give the $510 to an organization that will distribute the new Malaria vaccine where I know it will actually save many lives and also help to reduce world population growth.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    24. Re:swingers? by NiteShaed · · Score: 2

      In the case of this shot, the down-side to the insurance company is that the person receiving the shot is young enough that when they finally DO get infected, they're likely young adults and have already moved on to another insurance company.

      But the insurance companies are also aware for every subscriber they lose to "growing up", they'll gain another one who just grew-up. It's in their interest to do this kind of preventative treatment across the board because eventually most of these kids will become adult customers of *an* insurance company. These folks don't exist in a vacuum, insurance company execs from different companies meet to discuss "industry" concerns all the time, and these are the kinds of issues that come up.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    25. Re:swingers? by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      This is Slashdot, much of the adult population here probably hasn't experienced the likely vector for spreading HPV, so the question stands...

    26. Re:swingers? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Even better- how do we know HPV even exists is there are no tests to detect it.

      I think I have a business plan.

      1) Warn the public about a new undetectable disease: Human Unicorniagitis.
      2) Wait 6 months.
      3) Offer a vaccine.

      I'll be rich in no time.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    27. Re:swingers? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      You can test for it in a limited fashion in women with a simple cervical swab. No similar test exists for men.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    28. Re:swingers? by rthille · · Score: 1

      Read the site. They can test the cells in the cervix for HPV because they are localized: "An HPV DNA test, which can find HPV on a woman's cervix, may also be used with a Pap test in certain cases."

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    29. Re:swingers? by pclminion · · Score: 1

      I'll clarify my question then. How do they know the vaccine works IN MEN? The article is about using the vaccine on men.

    30. Re:swingers? by wetpainter · · Score: 1

      Here in Australia, since 2007, the series of three injections are given to all teen females at High School (unless permission is refused by parents) by nurses for FREE. There are currently discussions about doing the same for male students. I think it is also available free for women aged up to 26 from their GP. You may find this interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Frazer

    31. Re:swingers? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Yes, and your government has spent $400M providing it which is far from free.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    32. Re:swingers? by wetpainter · · Score: 1

      Correct. That is about $20 per citizen. Good value compared to the price in the US.

    33. Re:swingers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Admirable, but please, keep using a condom.

    34. Re:swingers? by rthille · · Score: 1

      From a little googling, there are tests which can identify HPV, but they aren't FDA approved. Something about how to collect the skin cells from a man's penis? I suggest medical grade sand paper... :-)

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  13. Re:How's about this... by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 2

    The whole reason why HPV is so wide spread in the first place is because discouraging sexual activity doesn't actually prohibit or actually lessen it, it just makes people more ignorant to it. The only thing that actually works to curb sexual activity is education and the only thing that curbs the spread of disease is to prepare your children to be cautious and safe. You are suggesting ignoring the mice that are already there instead of buying the cats or even the traps to deal with them in the first place.

    --
    I got here through a series of tubes
  14. New transmission method. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Can we invent vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases that get transmitted sexually? Imagine the distribution efficacy and cost benefits we could realize with STVs!

    1. Re:New transmission method. by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Hell, if that starts up I may go into the vaccination racket, preferably at an all women's college.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:New transmission method. by Xiver · · Score: 1

      There is no money to be made by selling a cure.

      --
      10: PRINT "Everything old is new again."
      20: GOTO 10
    3. Re:New transmission method. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's difficult to sell a product when there is no demand. My current analysis of the market says there is little demand for your particular service.

      I base this on the proven science of assuming you are a sexless geek posting on slashdot. Your attempt at posturing as an alpha male with vast sexual experience is not very convincing, and only further supports my case.

      Also, we all know that all women's colleges are full of lesbians.

    4. Re:New transmission method. by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      That's one worn out Nurse...

      --
      -
  15. It might also protect men from throat cancer by iceperson · · Score: 1
    1. Re:It might also protect men from throat cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just stop the cock sucking. Problem solved! Or do we need to teach that this behavior is ok too for our children? Bunch of sick fucks!

  16. Re:How's about this... by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

    Societal morals, media and the status of children. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but there are consequences such as increased levels of sexual activity at an early age.

  17. Re:How's about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It never worked in the first place.
    Do you really think teenage kids are having more sex recently than in previous decades, or any other period in history.

    The answer to that is no. We're just able to talk about it now. And study it. And make rational decisions like using a vaccine to increase heard immunity to improve the quality of life of the entire population.

    There would be no controversy if this disease affected something besides your naughty bits and was spread by anything but penis-insertion.

    Grow up.

  18. great, but... by alienzed · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't a cure be all around better than a preventative vaccine? It seems like economies of scale make any sort of vaccine cocktail impractical as the number of available vaccines grow. I mean, in 100 years are we going to be pumping our babies full of drugs so that they MIGHT avoid some kind of disease?

    --
    Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
    1. Re:great, but... by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      As though they are mutually exclusive. 100% vaccination means you don't need to cure it, and prevention is far preferable (and usually cheaper) than trying to fix it after it goes badly.

      It's not like cancer is one disease that we can just cure. It's a symptom of huge array of diseases and mutations, HPV vaccine goes after one of the causes.

    2. Re:great, but... by feedayeen · · Score: 1

      Vaccines are better than cures. A 'cure' requires that the individual get sick first, this directly means that whatever microbe infecting the person has already multiplied and could potentially spread to another host continuing on the cycle. Vaccines are preventative on this account which removed the possibility of further transmission. Once the vaccination rate is high enough, the disease simply has no were to run to and once it's out of hosts, it dies and it is effectively cured for everyone and all time and the vaccination program ends.

    3. Re:great, but... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "n 100 years are we going to be pumping our babies full of drugs so that they MIGHT avoid some kind of disease?"

      SO much wrong with that statement.
      First, what is might? Is 90% chance 'might'? 50%? 5%?

      And what would be wrong with giving vaccines to able to keep the healthy; whether it's 1 of 100?

      And a cure is NOT better in this case.
      A) TO cure someone it mean they have it. It means they need to know they have it, and it means they have probably spread it.

      A vaccine means that the are very unlikely to get and spread it at all.

      Think of polio: If they had a cure, they means people would still die, and be in pain until cured.
      Also, in the case of a mutation, a vaccine can be modified quickly.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:great, but... by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      point out a "cure" for a single virus. Any of them. You don't think people are working on that? I mean, even just a cure for the flu would many millions of lives...

    5. Re:great, but... by Hatta · · Score: 2

      Your immune system IS the cure all. Your baby is already swarming with pathogens he is developing immunity to. A vaccine is just a drop in the bucket.

      If you're really worried, keep your baby in a sterile room and make sure it never puts anything in its mouth. A decade later, you'll have one hell of a sickly kid.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:great, but... by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Vaccines teach the human body how to kill a disease, instead of having to pump it full of chemicals once the disease is in full bloom and it might already be too late to do something about it...that's the whole point.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  19. If you're not going to learn the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    between the words "herd" and "heard", please be wrong instead of right. Good causes do not deserve your idiocy.

  20. Re:How's about this... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

    Nothing, it never worked. Some percentage of teenagers were always sexually active. Actually, teen pregnancy is much lower than it was in the past and people are marrying later.

  21. testing? by Taibhsear · · Score: 2

    Last I heard they didn't have a way to test men for HPV. Men are almost, if not always, asymptomatic and wouldn't have enough viral material accessible to test for it. Have they refined this? How much testing has been done to show the effectiveness of this on boys? I'm all for this vaccine and I'd get it myself if I'm not already a carrier, but it's expensive and unless they can effectively test for this it's possibly just a cash grab.

    1. Re:testing? by Microlith · · Score: 2

      This is why they have an age limit on the vaccine. The goal is to get boys and girls vaccinated before they become sexually active and are exposed to the virus. The assumption being that after a certain age, the likelihood of exposure approaches one and by then it's too late (combined with the difficulty in testing for the virus.)

    2. Re:testing? by fwice · · Score: 1

      testing for males is very difficult, as an asymptomatic male will show no signs of being infected, and, if I recall properly, the FDA does not have any approved tests for HPV in men. I believe the effectiveness in this comes from "Herd Immunity".

    3. Re:testing? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      But should still be of value to persons who have not been sexually active, yes? regardless of age.

      And I'd been wondering why they didn't vaccinate males; after all, carriers are half the equation.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    4. Re:testing? by Talennor · · Score: 1

      How much testing has been done to show the effectiveness of this on boys?

      Since your immune system is the same as a female's, I'm going to say a lot of testing has been done.

      --

      //TODO: signature
    5. Re:testing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My brain isn't the same as a female's. My hormonal balance isn't the same as a female's. Just for instance, I'm much less sensitive to testosterone than a female, but I also have a lot more of it than a female.

      Oh, and another thing. My immune system will never have to deal with another human developing inside me which has a different blood type as mine and incompatible antibodies in its immune system, but which my immune system needs to not kill for the 9 months I carry it. Never gonna happen.

      So I'm going to say citation needed on "your immune system is the same as a female's".

    6. Re:testing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-AI-01-005.html

      The precise reasons for the sex-based differences seen in immune responses are unclear. The increased incidence of many autoimmune diseases after puberty, as well as the effect of pregnancy on the course of disease, suggest a role for sex hormones in these illnesses.

      As a trans person, I find this intriguing. My brain, supposedly, is the same as a female's (sounds like a plausible theory, and it'll have to remain a plausible theory until I become independently wealthy enough to order an MRI and PET scan just for the lulz). My hormonal balance is the same as a female's because of my meds (I used to be able to tell you even what part of the menstrual cycle, but I don't care anymore, it's the one without the bitchyness, just because why try to be something I never can be because of stupid biology and you did NOT want to be around me when I was cycling and it was that time). My level of testosterone is below the normal female level. Immune system? Well, give this a read which seems to indicate that immune system differences are based on hormone levels: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090511180740.htm

      There are some differences between male and female that are entirely genetic. For example, about half of females (don't remember where I read that) are pseudo-tetrachromats because one copy of X encodes for a different frequency of light to be absorbed by the green cone than the other copy of X. Everyone else writes stories about a guy who turns into a girl somehow and it's a wild sex adventure, and I want to write a story about a guy who turns into a girl and suddenly sees a new dimension of color he hadn't been able to perceive with a boy's genetics.

      Now, here's the thing. Your chest is the same as a female's chest, but it hasn't been exposed to a sufficient estrogen level at the correct age range.

      The way I see it, GP is basically correct although you get a cigar for correctly guessing that there may be some differences somehow.

      I used to have bad allergies when I used to have to suffer through the level of testosterone my body produces naturally, not to mention bad headaches all the time. My parents figured I was possessed by a demon or just lazy and faking the headaches, but my doctor had a better idea. I got some meds and magically both problems went away. I really didn't expect estrogen would make my allergies go away.

    7. Re:testing? by cundare · · Score: 1

      Pap smears work for men as well as women. HPV is a serious issue for the gay community, where rates of anal cancer are much higher than they are for the general population. This recommendation is long overdue and would likely have been issued years ago, were it not for the anti-vaccination folks.

  22. Balance the benefits. by fermion · · Score: 4, Interesting
    On one hand it will prevent many caners in future generations, thus decreasing suffering and medical expenses.

    OTOH, SEX!

    On one hand it will allow many couples to have children that may not have otherwise due to cancer, which most agree is a good thing

    OTOH, SEX!

    And really isn't that what is all about? Preventing anyone from having sex outside a state defined and mandated relationship. We can't have people going around enjoying themselves without the approval of the feds, can we?

    I was amazed at the opposition to HPV for vaccines. Do people really think that kids alone in the backyard are going to limit themselves to mutual handjobs because they are afraid they might give each other cancer? Do they really think that kids are going to be more likely to want to see what all the fuss is about because they have the vaccine? Sure I understand the implicit idea is that the vaccine assumes multiple partners over a life time, but isn't that the status quo that is modeled? Newt Gingrich has slept with at least three women. If marriage is between one man and one women, and we promise god that we will be faithful untile death do us part, isn't any number more than one kind of morally equivalent.

    One hesitates to suggest that if this was a vaccine against prostate cancer there would not be so much discussion.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:Balance the benefits. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You have excellently described a huge public psychological problem on this issue.

      I'd rather let my children have sex than kill them with preventable cancer to try and keep them celibate.

    2. Re:Balance the benefits. by vlm · · Score: 0

      I was amazed at the opposition to HPV for vaccines.

      The odds of corruption and payoffs being involved approach 100%, as seen w/ governor Katie Perry of Texas and his little scandal.

      There is a possibility, maybe even a good possibility, that there are accidentally medical benefits as a side effect of profits.

      Then again, there is a long tradition of govts doing truly horrific and unethical things WRT medical care and especially STDs, always explained away each time as "we're more ethical now". I'm sure they are, I'm sure they are.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:Balance the benefits. by costy41 · · Score: 1

      i agree with you

    4. Re:Balance the benefits. by shmeeps · · Score: 1

      That's the biggest problem I have with any opposition to any sexually-transmitted disease vaccination. It's like the parents think their children are suddenly NOT going to have sex since they could get something, which is not true regardless of your upbringing. I would MUCH rather my child be safe, just in case, rather than take the chance they might get something, which is also the exact same philosophy my parents used.

    5. Re:Balance the benefits. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Yes, we likely would. 99% of the people fall into one of three categories. "Not getting every vaccine makes you an ignorant murderer!", "Getting any vaccine is the same as injecting 'differently abledness' into your child", and "I don't know, I just do whatever the pediatrician tells me."

      The percentage of the population that looks at a vaccine and judges whether the risk outweighs the reward for that particular vaccine is tiny.

    6. Re:Balance the benefits. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I read that opening clause right. No, wrong. No, right.

      Damn that blasted typo fairy.

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

    7. Re:Balance the benefits. by Deb-fanboy · · Score: 1

      I was amazed at the opposition to HPV for vaccines.

      Yes especially when there is a vaccine with obvious benefit.

      Here in Scotland we have taken to a mass vaccination scheme for girls with a good take up see scotland archive for more info.

      What I find most interesting is that the parents are all asked for permission for their 12 year old daughters to have the vaccinations, and there is about a 90% takeup. So happily not a lot of opposition to the vaccine here.

    8. Re:Balance the benefits. by 14erCleaner · · Score: 1

      One hesitates to suggest that if this was a vaccine against prostate cancer there would not be so much discussion.

      CDC estimates that about 7,500 US males get cancer from HPV every year. This includes 400 cases of penile cancer. That should get their attention. :)

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
    9. Re:Balance the benefits. by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I view this the same way as I do birth control. If my daughter decides to be sexually active I expect her to be proactive about ,getting on the pill, having her tubes tied or making sure her partners are actively preventing. It's up to her and I'm not going to insist that she be vaccinated as a small child because I'm afraid she might be promiscous later in life. Her choices and her risks.

    10. Re:Balance the benefits. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just amazed the anti-vacciner's live such a rigid life, so fully devoted to these ideas, that they live in houses without bedrooms.

    11. Re:Balance the benefits. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're aware that HPV isn't just spread by the promiscuous, right? It's one of those rare viruses that's pretty hardy outside of the human body. You can literally contract it from a public toilet seat. Nuns have died from cervical cancer. I don't understand why anyone is letting media hysteria fool them into thinking the HPV vaccine is inherently sexual, and not just another disease to protect your child from just because you can.

    12. Re:Balance the benefits. by jamesh · · Score: 1

      The only opposition I have heard is that vaccine might not be as effective as the manufacturer of the drug makes out, and in addition to the potential health benefits, they also get double the $$$ if boys are vaccinated too. Now it could be that the religious nuts are pushing the opposition while carefully not mentioning the S word... who knows.

      I always wondered why they didn't vaccinate boys against german measles too. Maybe that's a long term strategy by the manufacturer of the drug? If everyone got vaccinated and the disease got eradicated there would be no more market for it. By only vaccinating the girls they ensure that the disease remains common enough to be a threat and they have a market for life, or at least until the patents run out. That theory runs contrary to the first paragraph though, but since when did a conspiracy have to make sense or be consistent with any other conspiracy? ;)

    13. Re:Balance the benefits. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever run/walked or supported a runner/walker, or been asked to support one for breast cancer fund raising run/walk? Do you wonder why NFL coaches, players and referees are wearing little pink thingys on their uniforms? Have you ever been asked to support or run/walk in a prostate cancer fund raising run/walk? Ever heard of a prostate cancer fund raising run/walk or other "community" activity? Neither have I. Breast cancer is a Women's Health Issue. Cervical cancer is a Women't Health Issue. Prostate cancer is not a Women's Health Issue. That's why there are no nation-wide fund raising campaigns for prostate cancer but there are for breast cancer. That's why the vaccine went through about a decade of trials and tests before it was recommended for just women without a thought for men who must be transmitting it to women, and catching it from women.

    14. Re:Balance the benefits. by gillbates · · Score: 1

      Yes, but would you object to paying for a vaccine for a disease that:

      • You'll likely never get in the first place, and
      • Is effective in only the most unlikely of circumstances?

      Really. People here can't understand why someone would object to this? One need not have any religious or pragmatic objections to teenage promiscuity to understand that these vaccinations are more about making big pharma rich than public health.

      --
      The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    15. Re:Balance the benefits. by shmeeps · · Score: 1

      This is not only spread by being promiscuous. I know of at least two couples where both of the partners where each other only sex partner (ONLY partner, not only at the time), where the woman contracted HPV. One of them developed cervical cancer as a result and had to have part of her cervix removed, and is not advised against ever having children. If she were to ever do so, it would be considered a high-risk pregnancy through the full term. I would much rather give my children a small infection then to have that happen to one of them, or whoever they are with, regardless of if it is promiscuous or not.

    16. Re:Balance the benefits. by xiando · · Score: 1

      People also die from the very dangerous HPV vaccine. The parents of some of the HPV vaccines victims have put up web pages in memory of their dead children. Taking the HPV vaccine is a very bad idea, giving it to boys is an even worse idea.

  23. Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 2

    Recommendation is one thing. Mandate is another altogether. I don't have a problem with somebody recommending something. I have a problem with somebody taking over your decisions about your body and your health (and yes, I think an individual rights are more important than the society, because individual is the smallest minority).

    1. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So then I should be allowed to spread disease if I want?

      What if I want to infect myself with TB and walk around infecting others?

      I think you should be allowed to opt out of the vaccine, then you should of course be legally responsible for anything that happens because of it. Including an insurance company refusing to pay for your cancer.

    2. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by halivar · · Score: 2

      If you choose to put a chink in the armor of herd immunity, I agree it should be your right. Somewhere else. Maybe we can make an island for people who like smallpox and polio, too.

      I jest, but you're coming at this from the angle of a person who has already benefited from government-mandated vaccinations given to your parents and grandparents; vaccinations which may have saved your life.

    3. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to agree. I can see smallpox or mumps vaccines being mandated; they are essentially unavoidable. However, if I don't want my kids to get an STD vaccine, why would the government make me? HPV is 100% avoidable... it's like herpes... it isn't something that just happens. You could be walking around a mall and get the flu or any number of other airborne viruses, but I don't see flu shots being mandatory.

      I know this will get flamed to death from left-wing nut-jobs (even though I'm extremely left-wing on basically everything), but I really don't think the government should have any say in this specific example; I will teach my kids about safe sex and if they choose to get the HPV vaccine, that's fine, but no one should be able to force them to get it. As a mandate, it just looks like big pharma gets paid off again and there are more lawmakers getting kick-backs on their prudent investment.

    4. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The insurance company in that scenario already accepted his money, thus any attempt on their part to back out of providing the service he paid for is fraud. If they want to charge him higher premiums due to his not being vaccinated, that's another matter.

    5. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congrats! You've won the most ignorant response of the day!

    6. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Nail · · Score: 1

      No, all of your choices should be taken away. Simply because you equate "refusing vaccination" with "intentionally spreading disease". :-)

      --
      ...yellow number five, yellow number five, yellow number five...
    7. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Zironic · · Score: 1

      For highly contagious diseases the two things are basically the same. For highly deadly diseases (We don't have many left though, because of *drumroll* vaccine) you've basically committed manslaughter if you refused the vaccine and got someone else infected.

    8. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then the companies that create the vaccine should be legally responsible for adverse side effects as well?

    9. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Irrelevant. Completely irrelevant argument based on convenience and not on the fact that society exists for individuals, not the other way around.

      I will never condone society that imposes itself upon individual right to his own body this way.

      If an individual causes disease to spread, that's between him and those who can be affected, but nothing more than that. There is no society if the individual in it has no choice regarding his/her own body. Society like that is irrelevant and deserves to be destroyed because it destroys individual. At the end of the day, we are all individuals, we are born and we die alone, it's not a group experience, so to individuals the only real question about society is: is it promoting more individual liberties (which is the correct society), or is it destroying the individual for some weird perverted notion of some form of 'higher collective good', which is pure nonsense.

      One person is as important as every one single other person, but society is nothing at all, and only should serve the individuals, not destroy them.

    10. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by geekoid · · Score: 0

      "I think an individual rights are more important than the society,"
      You are wrong.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Who is saying that individuals cannot be held personally responsible for spreading disease to other individuals?

      I don't see a reason why this is an impossible idea, in fact it's perfectly fine to say that no individual has the right to cause harm to other individual, it's right there, in the criminal code.

    12. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by halivar · · Score: 1

      You can teach your child to remain abstinent until marriage, and they'll still get HPV on their wedding night.

    13. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Good answer.
      Don't forget the people who get the disease suing the person not getting the vaccine; unless the person is allergic to the vaccine.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    14. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Informative

      "I think an individual rights are more important than the society,"
      You are wrong.

      I am right.

    15. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Arlet · · Score: 1

      It's not the individual vs "society", but the individual vs a bunch of other individuals.

    16. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by fwice · · Score: 4, Insightful

      HPV is 100% avoidable... it's like herpes... it isn't something that just happens.

      HPV and HSV are 100% avoidable if you abstain from physical contact with others. Not just sexual contact, _all_ contact. HSV has been transferred from parents to children by kissing. You can acquire it just by making out with someone, which I assume most people would refer to as a "safer" activity.

      In addition to transfer via fluid, HPV can be active under the fingernails. If an infected person with an active outbreak touches you where you have broken skin (or digitally penetrates you without a barrier) you can be infected. Essentially, skin-to-skin transfer with an infected person _can_ give you HPV. Touching, mutual masturbation, frotting, making out.

      Then, of course, you have things like this, where children are being infected out of no cause of their own.

      Or the fact that you can do everything right (and have "safe" sex, using condoms and dental damns and finger cots and not-brushing-your-teeth-before-oral-sex and discussing histories with your partner, and still get infected, because many people can carry these infections without having an outbreak or being aware that they are a carrier.

      your ignorance is rampant, you're turning this into The Scarlet Letter for the present time.

    17. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      If it's individual vs a bunch of other individuals, then they can resolve it in court.

      If it's individual vs society, then the rules are imposed by default and there is very little an individual can do.

      BTW., everybody who is PRO-CHOICE should vote for Ron Paul, because he is against one monopoly system - federal gov't, from imposing one set of rules upon everybody.

      Sure, some States can be pro-life but some will definitely be pro-choice. If you have ONE system that imposes that rule upon you, then you may lose that right, it only takes one Supreme Court decision that goes against what you stand for and you'll have that decision for the entire country.

      It's like LA and weed and the federal war on drugs. Need I continue?

    18. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      Some parents might get it into their heads that seat belts are dangerous and choose to not strap their children in. Do we allow it? No.

      With vaccines it's even more important that we force the issue and mandate vaccinations because of the risk to the rest of the population that is caused by idiots who "exercise their right to choose" to expose themselves and the rest of society to these diseases.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    19. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Arlet · · Score: 1

      If it's individual vs a bunch of other individuals, then they can resolve it in court.

      And the court decides based on laws, so there's little difference. In the end it comes down to a majority of people making a decision that will then be enforced on the minority. Yes, It's a lousy system, but the alternatives are worse.

    20. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by fwice · · Score: 1

      (and yes, I think an individual rights are more important than the society, because individual is the smallest minority).

      "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

      Spock
      Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

    21. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So where did their spouse get it? We may be a minority, but there are still a lot of us.

    22. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      Some parents might get it into their heads that seat belts are dangerous and choose to not strap their children in. Do we allow it? No.

      - even in this case it should be up to the individual and not the society. Whether you take the individual to court if there is an accident and the child is hurt is another matter, enforcing a rule of this type also goes against the rights of individual and I oppose this.

      With vaccines it's even more important that we force the issue and mandate vaccinations because of the risk to the rest of the population that is caused by idiots who "exercise their right to choose" to expose themselves and the rest of society to these diseases.

      - and as I said, the individual is more important than the society. If this notion is lost, then the society is not worth anything, it's garbage and should (and will) be destroyed. Trampling over individual rights by the means of force upon the decisions they make about their own bodies (and their children, by the way), is a good enough cause to destroy that society.

      There is no point in supporting a system that takes away your liberties.

      Now, I am not saying that people shouldn't use seat belts. I am not saying that people should not do vaccinations. I am saying it is as important a personal choice as any other personal choice, for example choice of abortion.

    23. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Actually no, in representative democracy, which is Republic, the majority is not supposed to be trampling the rights of a minority.

    24. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      You shouldn't take advice from fictional characters in real life, you know?

      Also - that ideology is morally bankrupt. Needs of many do not outweigh needs of few, they don't even outweigh needs of one.

      If your so called 'society' kills one person to supposedly ensure the safety of many, then it's a morally bankrupt society.

      I know that USA is morally bankrupt.

    25. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this one isn't like the others.

      It is not possible that I am currently a carrier. It is astronomically unlikely that I become a carrier. And even so, it is astronomically unlikely that I ever pass it on.

      The well tested vaccine still carries more risk to me than the disease.

    26. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Arlet · · Score: 1

      These "rights" of which you speak are an artificial concept. If the majority votes against these "rights", then you no longer have them.

    27. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      No, the rights cannot be taken away. Rights are NOT granted to you by anybody, your gov't or anybody around you. Your rights are inalienable and that's that.

      Your rights can be trampled and not protected and you may have to structure your gov't in a way that it is set to protect them rather than to step all over them, but the gov't steps all over them, then you truly do not have rights, because rights are not about your relationship with private people around you and you, it's about your relationship with the collective - the government.

      If the gov't is taking your rights away, there is NO POINT to that gov't, there is no reason for it to exist, it's a moral imperative that you remove that gov't from power.

    28. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Rather than wasting my time refuting this drooler. I'll simply point out to any readers the links in the sig of the "person" above are about how great Ron Paul is.

    29. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to infect yourself with TB and walk around infecting others, then you have the type of problem there is no vaccination for yet, and you should be treated accordingly.

      That does not mean everyone should tax up for something everyone is forced to take.

      People are not guilty until proven innocent.

    30. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I have serious problem with people who think it is OK to spread disease around!

    31. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      that's fine, take it up with whoever you think it is.

    32. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >No, the rights cannot be taken away.

      Sure they can. If you're found guilty of a felony in the USA, you lose your right to own firearms, a 2nd Amendment right, and a right that doesn't even exist for many people in other countries all over the world. If rights are truly inalienable as you say, why do different societies differ so greatly on what rights exist at all? Whose version is the correct one? USA? Great Britain? Germany? Venezuela? India? China? Saudi Arabia? The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights? If you look around the world, and throughout history, I think you'll find that individuals have exactly the rights they are capable of demanding, claiming, and defending for themselves. Hardly inalienable.

    33. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I said - your rights cannot be taken away, but they can be violated by gov't.

      If the system allows violation of personal rights for ANY other reason, than you have violated personal rights of others, then the system is out of balance. Also just because in many societies rights are stepped all over by governments, doesn't mean that the rights do not exist, it only means that governments are dictatorial and corrupt and need to be removed.

      The USA had it correct - you have all the rights, and the Constitution was there to restrict the ability of government to exercise any sort of power. The gov't was there to protect your rights and liberties, ensure contract and criminal law and provide border security. That was a very concise, good system. It is now destroyed as the gov't has been usurped by all sorts of powers and the gov't is now very authoritative near totalitarian in nature, as it even allows itself to execute people without a trial.

    34. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      Nothing like trying the false dichotomy excuse to reveal that you really don't have an effective argument for the facts.

    35. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      Right, so if a self important idiot like you infects and kills a few thousand people then what? Maybe when you grow up you'll learn that some things cant be fixed once they are broken.

    36. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      And how are your victims supposed to resolve tings in court when they have already been killed? You are, without a doubt, one of the most self important, parasitic excuses of a human being that I've had the misfortune of having to suffer in a long time.

    37. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we are born and we die alone

      what about twins? they aren't born alone...

    38. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      As I said in this thread, once the gov't steps over individual rights, the gov't loses its mandate, it's legitimacy. There is no purpose for a gov't that destroys the individual's rights. Individuals can deal with individuals separately from gov't imposing itself for the 'good of society', there are courts for that, even criminal law can actually be applied if somebody knowingly hurts others in this kind of way.

      Having gov't force people into choices that they are not willing to make about their own bodies turns that gov't from a protector of liberty to a dictatorial power, and this should not be tolerated by people, who care about their liberties.

    39. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      If I have an unvaccinated (due to being too young for the vaccination) baby which comes down to whooping cough, how do I track down the unvaccinated individual who gave my baby the disease? In the normal course of a day, I could come into contact with the germs from thousands of people. Just one trip into a Target, Walmart, or similar store could do the trick. Whooping Cough Infectee coughs into hand and picks up laundry detergent. Thinks again and puts it back. I come along, pick up same detergent bottle and then hug my baby. Baby is now infected and I never even saw the Infectee.

      You have rights, but your rights don't include the right to cause serious harm/death to a huge group of individuals just because you don't want to get a shot. If we took the "it's the individual's choice" approach, polio and smallpox would still be around killing and maiming people today.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    40. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I see your comments in this thread, you don't have to 'suffer' anything, you are free to leave your comments or to leave at any moment for other threads. Nobody can force you to stay (and nobody is interested in forcing you either.)

      From your perspective idea of having liberties is equivalent of being 'parasitic', which shows your mindset, that is completely broken. The society doesn't exist so that individuals serve it, it exists to serve the individuals, and individuals deal with other individuals all the time, even if it's not them, who deals, even when somebody gets killed on purpose, there is a criminal system for that.

      You want totalitarian control over other people's bodies, no less, if you don't get what you want, you call the people 'parasites'. I think it is you, who is a parasite on every individual's rights out there.

      Everybody must be able to make their own choices regarding a few things in their lives, these include the choices about their bodies, their business and incomes and their dealings with other people. It's individual choices, and if individuals are forced by the society into choices they are not interested in, then it's in their best interest to make sure that a society like that is replaced with a better society, that serves the individuals.

    41. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You can't walk over the rights of individuals for your convenience. By the way, I am not saying everybody should stop using vaccines. I am saying it should be up to individual choices and it is obviously your choice too, and you choose for your child regarding the vaccines and regarding the places he/she visits with you.

    42. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what makes the US Constitution & Amendments *the* document to enumerate all of the rights that are somehow inalienable? Why not France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, say, or the UN's Universal Declaration? If a person's rights are so fundamental as to be axiomatic, then why is there such a variety among their various enumerations?

    43. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by halivar · · Score: 1

      Your child is not responsible for, nor can they be 100% cognizant of, the actions their spouse took prior to marrying them.

    44. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      So what makes the US Constitution & Amendments *the* document to enumerate all of the rights that are somehow inalienable? - nothing.

      Nothing, because US Constitution does not enumerate all of the rights that are inalienable. You have all the rights, and things that you can be punished for are in criminal code. Things that gov't has rights to is in Constitution.

      You need to step back and think about what you understand on this matter before asking more questions that only make it more apparent how uninformed you are.

    45. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by halivar · · Score: 0

      You are obligate by social contract to society as a whole. This idea that all of society exists for you in contrary to the founding fathers' intent. It is your social contract with society that guarantees your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In guaranteeing those rights for others, you are occasionally obligated (by that same social contract) to such things as:
      - Voting
      - Paying your taxes
      - Going to war during a draft
      - Getting an education
      - Not robbing people
      - Getting government-mandated vaccinations

      There are countless circumscriptions to your rights to "do whatever you want." Your absolutist view is out of line with mainstream American philosophy since its very inception.

    46. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      No, you are still alone when you are born, you open your eyes and see the light outside, that's the first light that enters your eyes anyway. But the point is that your mind is only within you, you are not sharing that with your twin.

    47. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > So then I should be allowed to spread disease if I want?

      You'd only be spreading disease to the unvaccinated, wouldn't you?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    48. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then please, help me understand. Where can I go to learn about "all of the rights that are inalienable"? Who maintains this list?

    49. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I jest, but you're coming at this from the angle of a person who has already benefited from government-mandated vaccinations given to your parents and grandparents; vaccinations which may have saved your life.

      True, vaccines have been PART of the reason we have much less disease these days, but it is FAR from the only reason (and possibly not the most important). Sanitation, drinking water cleanliness, food handling are all FAR better than they were even 50 years ago, and probably make up a significant part of the reason for our good health. Vaccines contributed some to that, but despite what many seem to believe vaccines do not make everyone immune to the intended pathogen, and they have little to no effect on a significant percentage of the population. And "herd immunity" of vaccines is questionable at best, the concept has never been thoroughly explored from both a good (more resistance to a pathogen in the general population = better overall health) and a bad (more somewhat sick people up and about instead of home in bed).

    50. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      You are obligate by social contract to society as a whole

      - nonsense. Just because you are born into a system doesn't mean you signed any contracts.

      In fact these so called 'social contracts' are very one sided, where the past generations get to impose their views and choices, worse - their debts upon the young. The eventual conclusion will be that the young will leave (and the rest will have no economy and no jobs due to the choices that the previous generations made) and the old will have nobody to satisfy their desire for this social contract fulfillment.

      Why are these social contracts always seem so one-sided, where the old impose their will on the young? Don't forget, the young will grow up and they may pay back in a manner different than what you expected from this so called 'contract' that the young didn't sign.

      As to voting - this is not actually an obligation. It's a choice and we don't even want to have too many people vote, we prefer to have those who are much more informed, those who already worked in the system for some time to appreciate all of the "niceties" there.

      As to paying taxes - this is not a moral obligation, it's only a legal one and it can and should be disputed all the time. AFAIC it is the MORAL obligation to pay as little taxes to the gov't as possible specifically because gov't destroys the economy and because its power is based upon the choices that you did not make.

      Going to war - again, with the corrupt gov't this cannot be called a 'moral' obligation. In fact AFAIC it is IMMORAL to go to war, to any war especially now, that wars haven't been declared since the WWII and their objectives have nothing to do with anything gov't was authorized to do (protection of liberties/borders).

      Getting an education - this is NOT a moral obligation in any sense of the word, in fact the gov't again has overstepped its boundaries that it forces the young to go through this corrupt and worthless "education system".

      Not robbing people - this is great, keep it up mixing it with other stuff. If you asked me about one thing that didn't belong in your list, it's this one.

      Getting gov't-mandated vaccinations - not a chance in hell. This is a personal matter, you may choose it, you may skip it, if gov't forces you, you should fight against that gov't.

    51. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rather than waste time refuting this dumbass, I'll simply point out to any readers that he uses ad hominem logical fallacies to try and make points.

      He also fails to use correct punctuation. Therefore he is stupid and should be ignored.

    52. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You have all the rights, all of them.

      If you do something that hurts others, then you are overstepping your rights. The specifics of what you cannot do you can find in the criminal law (and criminal laws can and often are different from location to location). So you can't murder somebody without expecting a retribution.

      Your rights are not enumerated, because there is no reason to enumerate them. You have a right to do whatever, unless it violates somebody else's right in a way, that it is mandated that you are punished for this in criminal law.

      That's all there is to it.

      As to contract law - this is not about your rights, this is about a mutual agreement and penalties for not following the agreement between private parties. You can go to court over this, but it's not a criminal matter and has nothing to do with rights at all.

    53. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      How do you balance individual choices which put large numbers of individuals (perhaps including themselves or perhaps not) at risk? Do you let the individual make those choices and shrug your shoulders at their victims? Aren't the victims being denied their own choice? (In this care of whether or not they want to be exposed to the virus. Remember, some individuals can't get the vaccine due to age or medical issues. These individuals are at the mercy of the choices others make.)

      People do not have absolute rights. I can't start a blog slandering people and showing them in photoshopped pornographic photos and then claim it's my choice to do this. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. If someone chooses not to be vaccinated for whooping cough (or chooses not to have their kids vaccinated), they aren't just putting themselves/their kids in harm's way. If that was it, I'd agree with you. However, they are putting everyone they come into contact with, even in the most trivial fashion, into harms way. What right does an individual have to go Typhoid Mary on people?

      you choose for your child regarding the vaccines and regarding the places he/she visits with you

      The problem is, *any* place could be an exposure zone. Walking past an infected person on the sidewalk could cause an infection. Should all parents and their kids be quarantined until the child is old enough to have gotten all of his/her shots? After all, taking your kid out anywhere could expose them. The parent going out and bringing something in could bring in germs.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    54. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      The balance between rights of individuals is decided between the individual in courts.

      There is NO BALANCE when it's so called 'society' imposing it's mandates upon individuals and call it 'balance'.

      People do not have absolute rights. I can't start a blog slandering people and showing them in photoshopped pornographic photos and then claim it's my choice to do this.

      - sure you can. In fact this is not even 'slandering' unless you are also implying those are real pictures.

      What right does an individual have to go Typhoid Mary on people?

      - well, if the individual is doing something that hurts others, that's what criminal code is for (and civil court as well).

      The problem is, *any* place could be an exposure zone. Walking past an infected person on the sidewalk could cause an infection. Should all parents and their kids be quarantined until the child is old enough to have gotten all of his/her shots? After all, taking your kid out anywhere could expose them. The parent going out and bringing something in could bring in germs.

      - I am not interested in any of this 'think of the children' nonsense. I really don't care how you ensure that your children specifically do not get infected, but it's your responsibility to ensure it.

      Of-course if somebody is knowingly exposes people to threat of some bad disease, they are liable under criminal and civil law for punishment and damages.

      Beyond that, imposing your will via gov't mandates upon individual choices of how to treat their own bodies should be met with violent resistance (and it is.)

    55. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree. I fear a government so powerful that it can take away the essential freedom that one has over own body and health care and put those decisions in the hands of some politician. No thank you. I will fight to keep my rights and freedoms. Had I been forced to take the smallpox vaccine as a child, I would have likely ended up with the disease due to a rare alergy based skin condition. As it was, my parents opted out of the smallpox vaccine. When I was older and joined the Army, my skin condition was cleared up and I was able to receive the shot. I am a vaccine supporter but I would no more mandate any vaccine on anyone than I would force someone to undergo any medical procedure.

    56. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by tibit · · Score: 1

      Since you can get infected with skin warts by contact, about the only alternative explanation would be that it's not HPV that's causing those warts. Anyone who knows the answer?

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    57. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Because suing Typhoid Mary for a couple of billions is completely pointless and does nothing to roll back the epidemic, or even remotely put a dent in its cost. People who lived through the major polio, typhoid, flu and other assorted epidemics understand that the cost of required vaccinations is zero when compared to the cost of trying to stop the epidemic after it started.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    58. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by tibit · · Score: 1

      So it answers my question. Thank you!

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    59. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by tibit · · Score: 1

      The problem is about costs to the society. Why should the insurance pool that I pay into cover the costs of someone getting severely injured due to not wearing seat belts?

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    60. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Asmodae · · Score: 1

      A) many diseases aren't vaccinated against so hardly the point

      B) Vaccines don't have 100% efficacy, and there is some small portion of the population which can't get vaccinated (not to mention children and pregnant women) who compose the high risk group. This is is why herd immunity is important.

    61. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am arguing from a position that does not take as axiomatic that rights exist; yours clearly does. So let me ask you: where do these rights come from?

    62. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I am an atheist, but I am with the Constitutionalists on this one (though the document that says it is Declaration of Independence actually): your creator, whatever you take it to be, and it's not your government and it's not your parents. AFAIC it's just a given.

    63. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Irrelevant point, made for convenience.

      AFAIC nobody is preventing you from getting a vaccine. I am all for people making their choices, once the gov't gets into this picture, making choices for people and forcing them into those so called 'choices', then the point of that society is lost. People fought wars and died for freedoms and liberties, they didn't run away from those fights, and many were killed. People get killed by disease and they may choose to get vaccinated simply based on the fact that their survival rate will be higher. However once this 'society' steps all over the right of the individual to make their own choices about their body, that society is dead already.

    64. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      The problem is about costs to the society. Why should the insurance pool that I pay into cover the costs of someone getting severely injured due to not wearing seat belts?

      - well that's an excellent point against compulsory public insurance / health care system, isn't it?

      Yes, I am against public health care as well, I have good reasons (and I am against SS also, just in case you wonder).

    65. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by compro01 · · Score: 1

      It is astronomically unlikely that I become a carrier. And even so, it is astronomically unlikely that I ever pass it on.

      You must live in a very small cosmos to think that 1 in 7 is "astronomical". Approximately 15.2%* of US women are infected with one of the high-risk types of HPV.

      *Prevalence of HPV Infection Among Females in the United States, February 28, 2007, Dunne et al. Journal of the American Medical Association.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    66. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Herd immunity is important for actual communicable diseases, not the ones you choose to get by having sex with a non-virgin!

    67. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      No, the rights cannot be taken away. Rights are NOT granted to you by anybody, your gov't or anybody around you. Your rights are inalienable and that's that.

      No, someone has to first define those rights, and to then declare them to be "inalienable", which is to say grant them. Throughout history rights have changed and evolved, rights that were once thought to be unarguable are now thought to be barbaric. Women were treated as property, as it was a husband's right to treat her as such. Slave-owners had the right to own other human beings, either by virtue of those slaves being on the losing side of a war, or being of the "wrong" ethnic type. Here whites once felt they had the right to restrict access to public facilities and deny their use to minorities, while now that sort of "right" is considered backwards and wrongheaded. Even now, there are places where it's considered a husband's right to kill his wife if she commits adultery. In all of those cases, someone lost what they felt was "their rights" when their behavior was deemed unacceptable.

      The rights you hold as "inalienable" exist because we, collectively, agree they exist. The government is intended, among other things, to be an instrument to enforce the recognition of those rights. And yes, sometimes the "minority" is suppressed by the the majority; a minority of people believe they should be able to rob, rape or kill, and the majority suppresses them through the rule of law. And if a minority of people believe that they have the "right" to spread disease to others, they may find that the majority will attempt to restrict their ability to do so.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    68. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by halivar · · Score: 0

      Not robbing people - this is great, keep it up mixing it with other stuff. If you asked me about one thing that didn't belong in your list, it's this one.

      It absolutely belongs. It sets the precedent that the government has the authority to mandate your behavior. If you accept this much, then we merely argue about where the extent of that authority is.

      I prefer minimal interference from the government, in line with America's founding fathers' philosophy (and not today's micromanaging, bureaucratic autocracy). Your theory of governance, however, reminds me more of Somalia than early US.

    69. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      The abbreviation you're looking for is AFAICT or AFAIK.

      The point is that vaccines only work adequately if everyone is vaccinated. Remove a few people from the vaccination, and everyone's infection risk goes up far more than by just the percentage of people not being vaccinated. The cost that a single unvaccinated individual imposes on the other individuals around him or her far exceeds the cost to the individual of getting the vaccination.

      There's also the difference between government and society that you're missing. The benefits that you accrue from living inside a specific society are expected to be repaid by making sacrifices of the approximate value that you receive, or by reciprocating the sacrifices that people around you make to live in that society. Otherwise, it's not a society, but a bunch of lone wolves meeting for mating season. This behavior is enforced by other individuals in that society, and punishment is generally exile. That's just the standard basis of any human society, regardless of what government structure exists on top of it.

      Finally, you can build any internally consistent social theory that you want. In order to turn it into a reality, you have to choices: convince others that your theory provides them with more benefits than the current model, or live out an example life based on your theory that others wish to emulate.

      So far, you seem to be failing at either.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    70. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      No, someone has to first define those rights, and to then declare them to be "inalienable", which is to say grant them.

      - not what the declaration says

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. â" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, â" That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

      ....

      And if a minority of people believe that they have the "right" to spread disease to others, they may find that the majority will attempt to restrict their ability to do so.

      - plenty of straw went into this sentence.

      In fact I never said that people have a RIGHT to spread disease to others.

      So you need to go back and reread this thread, because it's quite a statement you are making there.

    71. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      It absolutely belongs. It sets the precedent that the government has the authority to mandate your behavior. If you accept this much, then we merely argue about where the extent of that authority is.

      - no it doesn't. None of the rights to property, pursuit of happiness, life, liberty and all other inalienable rights belong in that list together with all that other completely unauthorized to the gov't nonsense that you put there in the list.

    72. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your claiming to be an atheist makes me all the more curious. The idea that "it's just a given" has never sat well with me, as I feel it puts essence before existence. But maybe I've read too much Sartre. Do you believe that rights are a phenomenon that naturally follow from the structure of our DNA, or perhaps some other concrete process? You mention a creator, but beyond my parents' copulating, and the countless cycles of reproduction that begat them, and their parents before them...and so on, I don't believe in the existence of a creator. And in the absence of an Invisible Bearded Spaceman, to hand down writs from on high, I don't see any reason that rights have to be taken as read.

    73. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You can't even understand my abbreviations, why are you trying to impose your views upon me?

      AFAIC - As Far As I'm Concerned. It's not 'as far as I can tell' or 'as far as I know'.

      ---

      The point is that vaccines only work adequately if everyone is vaccinated. etc.etc.

      - again, you are making a point of convenience. Yeah, it would be convenient if many or most people got vaccinated. No, you shouldn't be able to force people into this, it's not your body to vaccinate, it's a human, separate from you, an individual, who you have no claim upon.

      You don't get the right to take dead people's organs to save other people. You don't get a right to decide whether a woman gets an abortion, it's her choice.

      You do not get a right to tell a person what he or she should eat or drink and what medications they should use.

      If you think you get a right to that, then you want a society that many other individuals are not interested in. You want a totalitarian, dictatorial, authoritative command economy type of a society, and I think you do, based on your other comments, but you and I are going to be at odds on this.

      Do you agree? I am not going to change my mind on this, it's impossible for you to change my mind on ideas that concern individual liberties and choices. I hope more people see it my way, that's all I can say.

      As to convincing people that it is in their best interest to have more individuality, less government in their lives - the best thing that happened so far was government itself, convincing the people in this very fact.

      It's not going to have to be me convincing people, it's going to be government itself convincing people on this. With every failure that it causes, with economic and societal failures, with failure to promote peaceful coexistence and not war.

      You believe my ideas are similar to "not a society, but a bunch of lone wolves meeting for mating season", I believe that what you consider to be a society is in reality a soul crashing (coming from an atheist, btw), individuality destroying machine, that is design to enslave the individual for the benefit of a few people, who stand to gain from this personally, and they are using the ignorance of the masses to their advantage.

      I actually thing the Internet is a good tool to promote the views like mine - of individuals who do not fall in line the way you prefer.

    74. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      The rights are only a meaningful concept when talking about a relationship between individual and the collective - the government. All this means is that the government by the force of majority shouldn't be stepping over the individual. No DNA, no natural forces of any kind, purely the fact that people are created equal (even if it's not really equal from POV of DNA, upbringing, environment or education). The real test is in the desire to fight for this equality, and many people have fought for it in wars and died, so unless we admit that all of the sacrifice is for absolutely nothing and unless we are forever again unwilling to do the same, then we have to admit that there is a good idea there, that the gov't shouldn't be stepping over our rights. Gov't should be only allowed some enumerated powers and only in order to enforce protection of these very rights.

    75. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      - not what the declaration says

      Read what you just wrote. Where did the declaration come from? The founders wrote it. It didn't fall out of the sky, it's not magically engraved into every molecule in existence, a group of men, when deciding what our society and government would be, told everyone. Further, the irony is thick enough to cut with a knife, some of these men owned slaves, and yet still penned the phrase about the inalienable nature of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

      In fact I never said that people have a RIGHT to spread disease to others.

      You certainly did. Refusing to take basic steps, like vaccination, to reduce the possibility that you will become a carrier for an infectious disease is tantamount to claiming you have the right to spread disease. It's no different than claiming you have a right to fire a weapon randomly because it's not your fault if someone happens to be standing in the path of your bullet, after all, you weren't aiming for them.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    76. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm very aware that it is impossible to change your mind. Anyone espousing views like yours lives in a world completely unreachable by reality. That said, it's an interesting exercise to consider your arguments. At the very least, it makes me look at things that I thought were self-evident. And writing thoughts down forces me to structure my thoughts in a way that merely thinking them doesn't.

      You don't get the right to take dead people's organs to save other people.

      Interesting comment, as it doesn't follow at all from your position of individual responsibility. A dead person is dead and has no say on what happens to them. Control at that point would revert to people designated as caretakers by social custom or rule of law. On the contrary, if the only enforcement that exist is for contracts between consenting adults or to rectify aggression against an individual, then a corpse is the equivalent of a rock - a mere object subject to property law. It has no inherent rights.

      If you think you get a right to that, then you want a society that many other individuals are not interested in.

      Just judging from the comment history here, your value of "many" is dwarfed by the number of people who are not interested in your society. That has no bearing on right or wrong, but it is a useful metric for judging potential success of implementation.

      You want a totalitarian, dictatorial, authoritative command economy type of a society, and I think you do, based on your other comments, but you and I are going to be at odds on this.

      I'm very well aware that we are at odds on this statement, because your definitions of totalitarian, dictatorial and authoritative are completely at odds with mine. It makes it impossible to come to an agreement.

      It's not going to have to be me convincing people, it's going to be government itself convincing people on this. With every failure that it causes, with economic and societal failures, with failure to promote peaceful coexistence and not war.

      True to some extent. Judgment on failure or success is done by individuals, whose opinion is influenced by other individuals. That makes the actual activities of government merely the starting point of the judgment process.

      I actually thing the Internet is a good tool to promote the views like mine - of individuals who do not fall in line the way you prefer.

      I disagree. The Internet is an amazing tool to promote views like yours - or anybody's. And as much as I consider debating you the equivalent of a trip on the merry-go-round (fun and doesn't really go anywhere), I would never had had the opportunity to do so without it.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    77. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, your dickhead decision to not vaccinate hurts other who for various reasons cant vaccinate and thence you need to be slapped. Fucking. HARD.

    78. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by pipedwho · · Score: 1

      > So then I should be allowed to spread disease if I want?

      You'd only be spreading disease to the unvaccinated, wouldn't you?

      Like my 3 week old son?

    79. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Further, the irony is thick enough to cut with a knife, some of these men owned slaves, and yet still penned the phrase about the inalienable nature of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

      - sure, some of them owned slaves. Some of them beat their wives too, doesn't mean they can't write a correct document about the inalienable rights of people. Maybe some of them behaved in a way that even showed hypocrisy, but this only underlines how self evident the truths are, that even hypocrites can understand and agree on what is right (even if their actions contradict this).

      You certainly did. Refusing to take basic steps, like vaccination, to reduce the possibility that you will become a carrier for an infectious disease is tantamount to claiming you have the right to spread disease.

      - nonsense.

      In fact it is important to understand that the principle of individual rights to be able to do with ones body as one sees fit, rather than having this 'society' impose its will upon the individual, that this principle does not prevent individuals from getting their vaccinations.

      However whether the individuals get their vaccines or not, does not in any way give them the right to spread disease and others can definitely argue that people without vaccines shouldn't be entering some private property.

      If one gets a disease and spreads it, he can be held accountable (and people often are) criminally and in civil court. The right to ones own body does not imply a right to do harm to others, which you are implying.

      Again: people's bodies belong to them and nobody else, and if you want to impose this kind of gov't upon others, I believe there will be violence directed against your attempts, fully justified violence.

    80. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      he individual is more important than the society. If this notion is lost, then the society is not worth anything

      How meaningless. Utterly utterly meaningless.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    81. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Make sure he doesn't get close to h4rr4r.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    82. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >people are created equal (even if it's not really equal from POV of DNA, upbringing, environment or education)

      You've said it yourself; people really aren't created equal. But we as a society mutually agree (for the most part) to treat one another as such under the law, because it makes our society a better place for all of us. But that comes from our social contract, and as such is hardly innate. There are presently, as well as throughout history, a variety of interpretations of just what it means to treat everyone equally under the law. Given the disparity of interpretations the world over--even between some otherwise rather similar societies--I find it hard to accept an argument that rights are somehow innate.

      As for the idea that "the real test is in the desire to fight for this equality, and many people have fought for it in wars and died, so unless we admit that all of the sacrifice is for absolutely nothing...", I have no problem with that at all. There have been some just wars, but plenty too where people fought and died for bullshit reasons, even as they believed wholeheartedly that they were fighting to further the cause of freedom, or justice, or righteousness, or godliness, or whatever the elites of the time convinced them was a good idea to risk their lives.

    83. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by izomiac · · Score: 1

      Living in society is a choice, and it has a few requirements such as not hurting other people. Spreading communicable diseases is a danger to those around you. If you endanger people in other ways (e.g. shooting a gun in a crowded suburb) then you will be incarcerated and removed from society. I see no distinction, except that refusing vaccines is almost invariably out of ignorance, and being vaccinated doesn't impair your civil liberties in any way (unless you think you have a right to catch measles).

    84. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You may be right that if a person is sick he can then be incarcerated under the law, whatever, I already wrote about the criminal and civil consequences that can follow.

      But this does not mean that individuals must be forced by society to give up their rights to their own lives, liberty, pursuit of happiness, property, etc., based on society's wrong idea that it can dictate to individuals what they must do with their bodies.

    85. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      No, it's the society that is meaningless if it oversteps the rights of an individual and it is the society that must suffer the consequences of individuals restructuring it, taking it apart and fixing it, making sure society is there to protect individual rights, not to trample them.

    86. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by zzyzyx · · Score: 1

      This is wholly irresponsible. You refuse vaccination yet rely on others being vaccinated for the overall health of the society and indirectly your own health.
      This is not a matter of individual liberties. Diseases like measles require a 97% vaccination rate of the population to stop spreading. By refusing to get vaccinated you endanger the whole population. Individualism has its limits.

    87. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      1. It is a matter of individual liberties.
      2. Where did I promote people not getting vaccinated? I am against a force of gov't used against liberties of individuals, not against people getting vaccinated. However an individual must have the liberty not to be subjected to gov't force in such matters.

      3. There is no point in having any society and any humanity if the humanity decides that it is above the individual and loses sight of what is important - separate live, not a 'hive' or a herd.

    88. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that a lot of people don't understand how vaccines work. Vaccines give benefit not only to people who are vaccinated but to the rest of the population as well. They have a "social network" effect. You might not realize that but the vaccinated person is protecting you. Disease can't get to you through your immune "social network".

      The reason you can afford to be non-vaccinated is that most of the people are. Once everyone would start thinking about individual rights aka become"selfish", that protection is gone and you will get sick and infect everyone you know.

    89. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is a big difference between smallpox and hpv. you can contract smallpox from someone without being physically intimate with that person. not so wtih hpv.

    90. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      The problem is that people don't understand that individual liberties are more important than societies. Once they lose this understanding, then there is no longer a society worth having.

      But my post is not promoting people not getting vaccinations, my point is that gov't force must not be used to do this.

    91. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      That's the thing, you wouldn't. You would also increase the chance that someone who has been vaccinated gets the disease as well. Vaccination doesn't guarantee immunity, it merely dramatically increases the chance that you don't get sick from the disease.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    92. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't your insurance have a caveat in there about coverage for accidents where the driver wasn't wearing seatbelts? You need to be very careful where you invoke the "costs to society" argument because *everything* can fall under some ludicrous rules. After all, why should the insurance pool that I pay into cover the costs of somebody getting severely injured to to driving on the freeway? Why should the insurance pool that I pay into cover the costs of somebody who rides a motorcycle? Why should the insurance pool that I pay into cover the costs of some lardass who spends all day on his computer eating cheetos and giving himself heart disease?

      --
      +1 Disagree
    93. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by tibit · · Score: 1

      I don't think that varying premium based on seatbelt use is a ludicrous rule. The biomechanics of it are fairly well understood. Smokers do pay higher insurance rates, and nobody scoffs at that. As for lardasses eating cheetos: good life insurance will have a huge health questionnaire, and belive me, they will slap you with higher premiums if you're a lardass. If you lie to them, you can be jailed for it, and for a good reason IMHO.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    94. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by tibit · · Score: 1

      Compulsory insurance should be there for another reason: so that the coverage cannot be denied on the argument that people will buy insurance, get a procedure done, then drop it.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    95. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by izomiac · · Score: 1

      Restricting an individual's ability to use their body to harm others is one of the major attributes of "society"...

      Other stipulations for what you must do to your body include clothing it, excreting waste in designated areas, not loitering in essentially any area that you do not own, paying for goods and services via labor, and you hardly get a choice about which industrial pollutants your body is exposed to. Your body is not a sanctuary free from legislation. Personally, I think that's unnatural (hence my own libertarian/conservative/anarchist leanings), but you can't deny reality. And so long as we cram as many humans into as small an area as possible, we need those laws to prevent a plethora of natural population density control measures.

    96. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shipping them off is a bit drastic. I just think people who want to make that stupid choice (as is their right) should be required to wear in public a clear indication that unlike the majority of people in our society they are potential carriers for a variety of dangerous and contagious preventable diseases.

      Don't want your kids to get vaccinated for measles? Fine. Just put these little tags on the outside of their clothes so that everyone else knows they can transmit the disease. Don't like that idea? TOO FRICKING BAD. With freedom comes responsibility.

      I sincerely believe that people have the right to make what I consider a stupid choice about their health for whatever reason they like. But they should be obliged to let the rest of society know about their risky health choice if it will affect the rest of us.

    97. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      doesn't mean they can't write a correct document about the inalienable rights of people

      We believe it's correct because it's what we've grown up to believe, and because it suits us. Plenty of people believed the monarchy was correct, because it was what they grew up with, just like the bulk of a billion Chinese believe that an authoritarian government is correct because it's what they grew up with and are comfortable with. Rights are what we define for ourselves, and give ourselves. There is no magical universal concept of "rights".

      In fact it is important to understand that the principle of individual rights to be able to do with ones body as one sees fit, rather than having this 'society' impose its will upon the individual, that this principle does not prevent individuals from getting their vaccinations.

      So you want the benefits of being part of a society without the responsibilities. Got it.

      However whether the individuals get their vaccines or not, does not in any way give them the right to spread disease and others can definitely argue that people without vaccines shouldn't be entering some private property.

      I'm more concerned with public spaces. You want to start your own private leper colony and have a party with a bunch of infection-ridden corpses-to-be, have at it. You want to sit next to me on the bus while you're incubating a nice case of otherwise avoidable mumps though, thanks for that.

      If one gets a disease and spreads it, he can be held accountable (and people often are) criminally and in civil court. The right to ones own body does not imply a right to do harm to others, which you are implying.

      Bullshit. It'd be virtually impossible to find the person responsible for spreading something like Pertussis, and completely impossible to prove that that particular person was responsible for fatally infecting an infant when they coughed 15 feet away at the grocery store.

      Again: people's bodies belong to them and nobody else, and if you want to impose this kind of gov't upon others, I believe there will be violence directed against your attempts, fully justified violence

      Again, if you want to benefit from being part of society, you should live up to the responsibility of being part of that society. What you describe though makes you a parasite, not a citizen. If you think you can "go it alone" and be completely self-sufficient, go off and live in the mountains away from the rest of us. As for the "justified violence", good luck with that. Either you'll end up in prison where your "inalienable rights" will be somewhat curtailed, or you'll be successful and build a new society where the rights you have are whatever rights you can demand from behind the barrel of a gun. Grow up.
       

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    98. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The problem with your argument is that in this case (as in a few other cases) your choice doesn't ONLY impact you, but it also impacts public health.

      Suppose everybody gets the vaccine except people who are allergic to a component of the vaccine. The unvaccinated benefit from herd immunity and are very unlikely to get infected.

      Now, suppose lots of people choose to opt out. Now the person with an allergy is at a much higher risk of an infection, and they don't have any choice in the matter. Which is the greater wrong - to take away your right to choose to opt out of a vaccine that has been demonstrated to be very safe, or to subject somebody else to a much greater risk of harm because they can't benefit from your immunity.

      Otherwise I'm generally a fan of not protecting people from themselves. If it were up to me I'd make all drugs except antibiotics over-the-counter. Antibiotics are also one of those things where abuse can put the public at risk.

    99. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Screw that twin. Who cares if he dies of whooping cough because someone preferred to express their "individuality" instead of getting a damn vaccine?

    100. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      "...(and yes, I think an individual rights are more important than the society, because individual is the smallest minority)"

      This is short, simple, and incredibly naive. Statements like this is why I hold a pessimistic view of the future of humanity.

      --
      ~X~
    101. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      So then I should be allowed to spread disease if I want?

      You are making an unwarranted logical leap from not getting vaccinated to having the disease.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    102. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a terrible human being.

    103. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      I don't think varying premiums based on use is ludicrous, but I do think mandating their use is. I find plenty of times on road trips where I'd prefer to unclick, lay down, and take a nap (not when I'm driving...). I spent many road trips as a kid playing in the back of the van while we traveled somewhere. Yes there is additional risk, and yes I should certainly be responsible for that additional risk. But no, you should not have the right to tell me what level of risk I feel is acceptable.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    104. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      I think you have bigger problems if your 3 week old son is sexually active. :)

    105. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by pipedwho · · Score: 1

      Tuberculosis?

    106. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Ah, I missed that TB was mentioned in the original post. My mistake.

    107. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      No, citizens have rights and responsibilities which both go hand in hand. The libertarian point of view (which seems to be so fashionable on /. for some reason) is that rights are all that matters and responsibilities (or any attempt to enforce them) must be discarded.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    108. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by tibit · · Score: 1

      If everyone had insurance, I'd agree with you. With so many uninsured that the insured have to pay for -- I'm bothered. Perhaps a middle ground would be that you can drive without seat belts if you have health insurance that's not subsidized more than say 50% by some level of government.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    109. Re:Recommendation vs mandate by hawkfish · · Score: 1

      If an individual causes disease to spread, that's between him and those who can be affected, but nothing more than that.

      That would be... everybody! (Well except for a tiny number who are naturally immune.)

      So since there are so many of us, and since we want to do this efficiently, we are going to freely associate and agree on a common course of action and delegate members of the group to police our wishes:

        * None of us will allow you to come on our property with such a dangerous biohazard in your body. We will shoot you if you do. This is called "self- defense."

        * If you carry this biohazard along a public street near any of us or our families, we will sue you for reckless endangerment. Your only defense will be to prove that this highly transmissible biohazard could not reasonably travel onto our property or into any public space that we might have a right to use without let or hindrance.

        * None of us will agree to use any private service that you are allowed to use. The likely response of such private entities will be to set down rules similar to the ones here and exclude you. Most likely, to save them time and trouble, they will join us. You wouldn't want to infringe on the rights of private organizations or free association, now would you?

      I fail to see how this web of contracts is in any way practically different from the mandate you abhor aside from the usual inefficiencies of distributed systems.

      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
  24. Our health insurance will go up to help fund it. by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

    Sorry, too easy.

  25. Social conservatives amaze me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You get the idea some of them really would like to be there in 20 years dancing around saying "ha ha you got cancer because you couldn't keep your pants on when you were a teenager. Guess you should have listened to my imaginary friend, huh?"

    1. Re:Social conservatives amaze me... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Hmm...well, the warts are bad that's true (natures "speed bumps").

      But hey, it doesn't kill men.....I dunno if we should mandate it on men. Then again, I don't think it should be mandated for women either, at least not without parental consent to opt in.

      Geez, it was so much easier growing up prior to the early 80's. YOu could fuck anything that walked and all you had to worry about was pregnancy, or having to get a shot to clear up the 'clap' or something similar.

      Nowdays...you fuck...you die??

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Social conservatives amaze me... by rthille · · Score: 2

      It does kill men. Just fewer. It can cause penile, oral and anal cancers in men.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    3. Re:Social conservatives amaze me... by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      The only thing that's changed since the 80's is the rise of the HIV virus. HPV didn't just start causing cervical cancer, but it wasn't until after the 80's that the link was determined. We now have a hepatitis vaccine, this HPV vaccine, and a much healthier concern for the risk of unprotected sex.

      Besides, I hardly think that "all you had to worry about was pregnancy" is a small concern, or the things that weren't cleared up by a shot even back then. Don't get too nostalgic.

      Coming back to the present, I'm not going to say this should be mandated for anybody, but I do think it's a good idea. Most young people wouldn't give a care about this vaccine until it was too late for them. We have the technology to stop people from catching this virus, so why wouldn't we try to eliminate another negative human pathogen?

    4. Re:Social conservatives amaze me... by NiteShaed · · Score: 2

      But hey, it doesn't kill men.....I dunno if we should mandate it on men.

      Yeah, just because men are the carriers that, in most cases, give it to women doesn't mean we should actually *do* anything about it. Fuck'em, why should we go through the terrible agony of a simple injection to help protect them from cervical cancer. Wait though....something is nagging at me here....

      But hey, it doesn't kill men.....

      Oh yeah, it's this. SHIT! IT KILLS MEN TOO! WE MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!

      Then again, I don't think it should be mandated for women either, at least not without parental consent to opt in.

      Yeah, that makes sense. "Sorry lady, but due to the fact that your parents had some kind of reservation about giving you this vaccine, you get to die of cancer now that otherwise was easily preventable. I know, I know, it's rough, but your parents were afraid you'd be a slut if you got the vaccine". Great.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    5. Re:Social conservatives amaze me... by Altus · · Score: 1

      Actually there seems to be evidence that it might be linked to throat cancer and possibly prostate cancer. Plus if men are vaccinated they cannot pass on these varieties of HPV to unvaccinated partners so that helps too.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    6. Re:Social conservatives amaze me... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      I think it if killed more men, there wouldn't be as much opposition. There seems to be a stronger desire for the conservatives to protect their pure, virginal daughters and denial than dealing what has been commonplace for teenagers for ages.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    7. Re:Social conservatives amaze me... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      What about the part that men as well as women are inectious and can spread it? I would think that the health ramifications of 50% of a population having a disease would be a concern.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    8. Re:Social conservatives amaze me... by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      Even if we were to assume for the sake of argument that it doesn't kill men (it does, just in drastically lower numbers), it is still a good idea to vaccinate men. You see, even if it is mandated for women, not every woman on the planet will get the vaccination. Some will forget or opt-out, while others may not be able to for various health reasons. If men have to get it as well, it creates a herd immunity, offering a degree of protection even to un-vaccinated women. I mean, come on guys, is it really that big of a deal?

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    9. Re:Social conservatives amaze me... by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1

      > I dunno if we should mandate it on men. Then again, I don't think it should be mandated for women either, at least not without parental consent to opt in.

      The problem with that approach is that the anti-vaccination kooks don't just make themselves and each other sick, they incubate diseases that affect everyone.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_controversy
      http://www.skepdic.com/antivaccination.html

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    10. Re:Social conservatives amaze me... by cayenne8 · · Score: 0

      It does kill men. Just fewer. It can cause penile, oral and anal cancers in men.

      So, if a guy isn't sucking dicks or getting slammed in the ass...he really doesn't seem to have much to worry about then, eh?

      Kinda tells ya something, doesn't it?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    11. Re:Social conservatives amaze me... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      The problem with that approach is that the anti-vaccination kooks don't just make themselves and each other sick, they incubate diseases that affect everyone.

      Well, it is still their body, and not the govt's.

      Until that case is changed...even if it is bad behavior, I don't think you can mandate someone undergo something invasive like this without their full consent.

      Just make sure and don't fuck them....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    12. Re:Social conservatives amaze me... by rthille · · Score: 1

      Or performing oral sex on women, or having penile-vaginal sex with women?

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    13. Re:Social conservatives amaze me... by chikanamakalaka · · Score: 1
  26. Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had never even heard of HPV until they came out with a cure for it. And now everybody in the world has HPV.

    Is this like Mothers Day? The industry inventing something that will consume their product?

    Wellman

    1. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know HPV was not discussed specifically in the 80s, but side effects such as genital warts were, i.e. genital warts were their own disease and had no relation to cervical cancer. I don't recall hearing about HPV until the late 90s or early 00s. Estimates vary between 50% and 90% of the non-virgin population has been exposed at one time. What I have not seen conclusively is whether you body can successfully destroy all traces of the virus or if your body is forcing the virus to become dormant until the immune system is weakened at some later date.

  27. Re:How's about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing it never worked. Worse tested with the same success/failure criteria as modern contraception[*] it comes out flat worse than any other widely accepted method of contraception or STD prevention.

    [*] For it to be a fair test you must include people who fail to use properly as among the failure rate. For contraception this includes those who buy but do not uses as well as those who do not use properly. For abstinence you include all those people who make pledges or other othes of chastity *not* only those who keep their pledge, the fact that people break them is part of the risk of reeling on them after all.

  28. Re:How's about this... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    Do you really think teenage kids are having more sex recently than in previous decades, or any other period in history.

    YES.

    I know as I was growing up, I had a LOT more sex than my parents did...and have talked to them about this now that I'm very much an adult.

    I've spoken with younger people today, and parents..and even "I" get a bit shocked to hear what kids are doing today, and how much younger they start than we do.

    Younger people are MUCH more loose when it comes to sex....I almost wish I could go back a few years in age but be around in this day in time...'cause you don't really even have to try that hard with women today. Young women today are MUCH more open to a casual 'hookup'....

    Girls didn't dress nearly as provocatively and have as much overt sexual behavior as they have today....

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  29. Re:How's about this... by koan · · Score: 2

    Yes, they are having more sex at a younger age, don't kid yourself that is what TV programming got us.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  30. Re:How's about this... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    They are just more willing to talk about it.

  31. Re:How's about this... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    Why don't you do like we did in olden-days? Discourage sexual activity until they're more likely to be an adult about things, hm? This strikes me as buying a dogs to deal with the cats that you brought in to deal with the mice...

    Why?

    Why not get rid of computers to prevent the spread of computer viruses?
    Why not get rid of cars so we never have a flat tyre?
    Why not kill everyone so they never get a cold?

    I agree discouraging certain activities from pre-teens and teens is best- but these kids will grow up to be adults- and let adults have fun in an adult way!

    Sure they should protect themselves properly- but I bet the vast majority won't at least once because of the heat of the moment... and from what I recall HPV cannot be prevented by the latex sleave anyway- so it's useless for the virus in question.

    If your religion or morals state you shouldn't until marriage- that is your choice.

    Most people do not consider it immoral these days - just as most christians don't consider it imoral to have christmas trees or clothes with blended fibres anymore. Times change and I'll be damned if anyone shoves their religion down my throat or that of my kids.

    You are welcome to stay a virgin if that is your perogative and morale compass... but it isn't mine- and I refuse to live by someone elses religious dogma.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  32. Re:How's about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was comparing kids these days to himself. He doesn't need to be "willing to talk about it" to get a valid comparison.

  33. Why should I care ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see no reason to take a (very) small risk just so women have less chance of catching cervix cancer.

    1. Re:Why should I care ? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      It also nets you the benefit of avoiding penile and testicular cancer.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  34. Re:News? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

    Your mind has obviously been infected with the Slashdot Paranoid Meme Virus, but this raises an interesting point. The HPV vaccine is the most expensive one made. It is a complicated vaccine to make, took some time to create (20 years) but apparently the manufacturer had a different metric for determining price:

    Gardasil took more than 20 years to develop, is complex to manufacture, and must be constantly refrigerated, but that’s not why it’s so expensive. Instead, Merck calculated the price based on the money the vaccine will save the entire health-care system—and the CDC approved the price, as it does with other vaccines. “We based the price on a number of factors, most importantly the value Gardasil brings to individuals and society,” says Jennifer Allen, a spokesperson for Merck. “HPV-related diseases cost the U.S. health-care system about $5 billion every year, and we took that into consideration.” Although Merck would not make sales projections, population data show that the vaccine would gross more than $11 billion if all women 11 to 26 in the United States were vaccinated per the CDC recommendation.

    THIS to me, tells me that the system is broken. Merk (and the rest of big Pharma) has long jumped the ethical shark. Research should be brought back into the government fold (along with the patents) and manufacturers should be limited to manufacturing the drugs with reasonable, but not outrageous, profit margins.

    ****** insert exited Libertarian rants here *******

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  35. Re:News? by Psychophrenes · · Score: 1

    Wow, modded -1, troll for asking a legitimate question, albeit maybe a tad too sarcastically.
    You do realize studies have proven that this vaccine causes more cases of severe secondary effects than there are actual cases of cancer caused by the virus it aims to cure?

  36. Re:How's about this... by halivar · · Score: 1

    Your virgin daughter can still get HPV on her wedding night, and die of cervical cancer.

  37. Warning by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Vaccination can lead to retardation in mothers, up to voting for Michele Bachmann.

    --
    Fandroids hate facts.
    1. Re:Warning by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      So you agree with Rick Perry than. Good to know.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:Warning by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Have you heard Harry Reid? He makes Michele look like a freakin genius. And his peers elected him to the Senate Leader Position. Talk about the Peter Principle.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:Warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His peers elected him to the "Senate Leader Position" because he raised enough money.

      http://www.washingtonspectator.org/articles/20111015postedprices.cfm

      That's all our corrupt system amounts to. And before the conservatives jump in pointing fingers, don't act like your side is any better. As for Michele Bachmann, she couldn't be any dumber if you lobotomized her with a rusty coat hanger. The Republicans needed to field a token woman, and by that point Sarah Palin had gotten a bit too full of herself to reliably toe the party line.

    4. Re:Warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah look, this post is another example of the loony left making fun of the retarded right.

    5. Re:Warning by halivar · · Score: 1

      I heard Tardisil gives 12-year-old girls autism. A weeping mother told me one time. And I know, because you can always trust a weeping mother.

    6. Re:Warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And boredom in voting or Barack Obama.

    7. Re:Warning by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I'm not a (R). Haven't been since Reagan.

      I'm Libertarian, and both (D) and (R) are pretty stupid. And as I said, Harry Reid makes Bachmann look like a genius. And if all you liberals need is money to whore out your votes to the stupid people, you deserve to get what you get.

      Soros, Gietner and Solyndra funding is who/what you should be protesting, but since they are all "liberals" and/or giving you money, you ignore the criminals (convicted), and focus on .. nebulous "1%" and "the Jews".

      Let me know when OWS targets GE directly for not paying taxes. Let me know when MSNBC runs that expose. And you all complain about Faux News and Murdock ...

      *yawn* liberals are nothing but hypocrites, just like those you hate. Take a look in the mirror and clean out your own before you clean out the other side.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    8. Re:Warning by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      I trust you you mother

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  38. Took long enough by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

    It took long enough. Everyone screaming about the uterine cancer that girls can get, but nobody gives a damn about the penile cancer that boys can get.

    God damn sexist media.

  39. Been tried before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the same vaccine that Rick Perry mandated for young girls in Texas before the legislature overrode his authority. He was bought by the vaccine company. Now it appears the company has bought somebody new.

  40. Re:How's about this... by DrgnDancer · · Score: 2

    Your parents were prudes?I'm not trying to be an asshole here, but as has often been stated, the plural of anecdote is not data. I happen to know, both because I was born when my mom way 17 years old, and because the term TMI has no apparently meaning to my parents; that both my parents were sexually active as teenagers. Maybe my parents were sluts? Possible, but my data point is no more useful than yours. Historical analysis shows that while it wasn't talked about or studied, teenage rates of promiscuity probably haven't changed much since the Roman Empire (probably since before then, but the Romans were the first real great record keepers of western history). It's all based on statistical analysis and isn't an exact science, but most studies seem to indicate that (shockingly) teenagers have always been raging little balls of hormones with questionable self control.

    --
    I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
  41. Re:How's about this... by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Back in *my* day, we all had chastity belts and if anyone had sex we burned them as a consort of Lucifer. And you know what, we were happier and WE LIKED IT!

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  42. Re:How's about this... by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

    Really? What changed?

    Nothing - it never worked. We're just more public about the repercussions now.

    --
    "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
  43. My kids will be getting it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Regardless of the moral implications (which I think are ridiculous, despite my family being a church-attending family every week), my children will be getting the shot. Why? Too many people have become carriers of this virus (and will continue to spread it through sexual activity of various kinds). The last thing my kids need is to get cancer or at the very least be rendered sterile by HPV because they fell in love with someone that didn't make good choices.

    The sad part is that the anti-vaccine extremists will spread enough half truths and fearmongering to keep enough people from reaching herd immunity levels and stop HPV's spread.

    1. Re:My kids will be getting it by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "The last thing my kids need is to get cancer or at the very least be rendered sterile by HPV because they fell in love with someone that didn't make good choices. "

      Bottom line, even if you trust your offspring, trusting EVERYONE ELSE is a bit of a stretch.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:My kids will be getting it by tibit · · Score: 1

      Heck, per a post above, HPV is not exclusively an STD. You can get it via fairly innocuous contact. To prevent spread of HPV, you have the alternatives of vaccination and no physical contact at all. So worry about sexual activity here is like limiting yourself to worry about burns when you're in a fire -- ignoring asphyxiation, risk of being crushed by falling structure, etc.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  44. Ignorance by koan · · Score: 1

    Pretty soon there will be a "vaccine" for bad attitudes.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  45. Wish we had it for other HPV strains by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    I'm tired of getting warts frozen off the bottoms of my feet. Now that I work in a lab with access to liquid N2 I might just start freezing the bastards off my self.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Wish we had it for other HPV strains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try Duck/duct tape over the affected area. Reapply daily for a couple of weeks and it seems to make the wart disappear, and not reappear close by as they seem to do in cycles.
      No one has come up with an explanation for why it works, but it permanently (so far) removed two on my fingers.

  46. Re:News? by Psychophrenes · · Score: 2

    My views on pharmaceutical labs were already pretty low, and I wasn't even aware of this...
    Very interesting quote you just made.

    For reference, I found the article from which the quote originates here:
    http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/hpv

  47. Re:How's about this... by rthille · · Score: 1

    How would that help? Ignoring the fact that the evolutionary drive to have sex is way stronger than your discouraging 'tut tut', it'd just delay the day when they got HPV infected and started spreading cancer causing viruses.

    --
    Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  48. Re:How's about this... by wintercolby · · Score: 1

    Wow! I've never once thought people between the ages of 11 and 21 would say "Uh oh, I don't want to get HPV, so I'm abstaining." I had a girlfriend or two who said they were waiting for marriage, then I swore off Christian girls. My generation had the specter of HIV looming, and it didn't change much of our behavior. Society is completely blind if they think HPV, HIV or any other STD actually stops people from having pre-marital sex.

    --
    Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
  49. Re:How's about this... by Altus · · Score: 1

    Because it never actually worked.

    --

    "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  50. Re:News? by Reziac · · Score: 1

    I read somewhere that British pharma are guaranteed a flat-rate of profit by law, to both ensure that it's worth their while and to prevent gouging. Anyone know how this works, or how well?

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  51. boys and girls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it's okay now that it's for boys and girls. Thats a big point of the aversion to it i think that previously there was only a version for girls.

  52. Serious problems with the vaccine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    NVIC Vaccine Risk Report Reveals More Serious Reaction Reports After Gardasil

    Comparing serious adverse event reports to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) following Gardasil (HPV) and another vaccine for meningococcal (Menactra), the National Vaccine Information Center found that there are three to 30 times more serious health problems and deaths reported to VAERS after Gardasil vaccination.

    And more information on when Perry tried this:

    Perry: "I didn't do my research" on mandate for HPV vaccine

    When Perry became the only governor in the U.S. to order all girls between 11 and 12 be injected with Gardasil -- a three-shot regiment at $360 total -- his administrationâ(TM)s ties to Merck immediately came under scrutiny.

    It soon became public knowledge that Mike Toomy, Perry's former chief of staff, had gone to work for Merck as a lobbyist. Rep. Dianne White Delisi, then head of the House public health committee, also led a group called Women in Government, which Merck used to generate support for Gardasil among lawmakers -- and her son-in-law was a high-ranking Perry aide. Merck also donated about $6,000 to Perry's reelection campaign.

  53. Re:How's about this... by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

    Why don't you do like we did in olden-days? Discourage sexual activity until they're more likely to be an adult about things, hm?

    It didn't work then. (Your grandma is such a liar.) It doesn't work now. The diseases prevalent in the real (pre-antibiotic) "olden-days" tended to be diseases that killed quickly or marked the infected in more obvious ways than modern retroviral diseases, so they were somewhat easier to avoid. Of course herpes was still around, but I'm not sure it had even been identified as an STD at that point.

    But as far as being a bad deal, an injection at age 12 with a very remote chance of side effects versus the possibility that you will eventually find a woman to love only to give her a disease that kills her. I would have gotten in line for that shot. I somehow managed to negotiate the maze of adolescent and young adult sex without contracting HPV, but it certainly could have been a different story.

  54. The Economics of Public Health by stating_the_obvious · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In 2000, there were approximately 40 million people in the US between the ages of 10 and 24 (censusscope.org). The 3 dose Gardacil cycles costs approx $360 (cervicalcancer.about.com). Total cost of HPV public health vaccinations: 14Billion in the first year, and maybe $1Bn per year in each subsequent year.

    There are approximately 12000 cases per year and 4300 deaths per year from cervical cancer (cancer.gov).

    If Gardacil prevents 90% of those cases (it's a very effective vaccine), then vaccination has an effective cost of approximately $157,000 per case (assuming we amortize the initial 14Bn hit over 20 years).

    I understand there are other public health benefits than simply prevention of cervical cancer, but let's hope we get a biosimilar quickly to drive the cost of vaccination down significantly.

    1. Re:The Economics of Public Health by stating_the_obvious · · Score: 1

      CORRECTION: NYTimes states HPV causes 22,000 cancer cases per year, so vaccination cost is about $86,000 per case. Same point -- need a biosimilar / generic option.

    2. Re:The Economics of Public Health by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      I suspect loss of people to cancer alone has a productivity cost of greater than $157,000/person, not to mention the money saved in treatment of cancer through surgery and radiation/chemotherapy.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    3. Re:The Economics of Public Health by sphealey · · Score: 1

      > If Gardacil prevents 90% of those cases (it's a very effective vaccine), then vaccination
      > has an effective cost of approximately $157,000 per case (assuming we amortize the initial
      > 14Bn hit over 20 years).
      >
      > I understand there are other public health benefits than simply prevention of cervical cancer,
      > but let's hope we get a biosimilar quickly to drive the cost of vaccination down significantly.

      Even on a pure cost/benefit basis the key is that cervical cancer hits women around the 20-25 age range, which means their value-of-life is in the $3 million range. Very much a win by public policy analysis alone (not to say a human suffering analysis given the young age at death).

      sPh

    4. Re:The Economics of Public Health by stating_the_obvious · · Score: 1

      Cervical cancer occurs at an average age of 54; however, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (or CIN), the precursor lesion to cervical cancer, most often occurs in much younger women. For a woman with CIN, her likelihood of survival is almost 100 percent with timely and appropriate treatment. (HHS.gov)

      I'm not advocating against the vaccine, but I think the economics of public health are pretty fascinating.

    5. Re:The Economics of Public Health by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      You'd have to factor in any reduction in quality of life with later treatment, and also the risk of not detecting it early enough.

      Usually costs are worked out in terms of quality-adjusted years of life. Well, cancer treatments prolong life but usually with a big hit on quality. Vaccines are very effective because they prevent disease entirely, which means that potential victims live their full lives at a full quality of life. Of course you need to take into account people with rare reactions to the drug as well, etc.

      While vaccines are considered controversial in some circles (not unlike the round earth) the medical profession almost universally supports them. That is because they're almost always a no-brainer when you look at the numbers.

    6. Re:The Economics of Public Health by ZigMonty · · Score: 1

      Human life is worth more than $157,000. Hell, many professionals earn that in 1-3 years. The total amount of money invested in someone in their 20s is a *lot* higher than that.

    7. Re:The Economics of Public Health by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just cervical cancer. HPV is also associated with a growing incidence of throat cancer where traditionally the primary concern has been tobacco and alcohol. The cost of treatment for that is on the order of $250,000.

      So, on the one hand you've left out an entire class of potential cancer patients that could have their cancers prevented thus driving down the cost per case and you've not addressed the issue that it's cheaper to prevent the cancer to begin with at $157,000 per case than it is to treat it at $250,000 (personal experience on cost, ymmv).

      4 years ago when I had throat cancer (non-drinker, non-smoker) they did not test for HPV in the cancer biopsies. Now, the incidence rate has grown to the point that they routinely test throat cancers to determine whether they are HPV induced.

      For you guys that engage in oral sex you may have just bought yourself an introduction to the wonderful world of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy of your cancer along with the associated fun of major weight loss, constant vomiting, liquid diets through a feeding tube, cognitive impairment (chemo brain), destruction of your salivary glands from radiation therapy (ie, constant dry mouth - no spit) and a lifetime of frequent visits to the dentist's office because the radiation therapy substantially weakens the structure of your teeth. Loads of fun.

      Gardacil for boys and men - it's a great insurance policy even if you have to pay for it out of pocket.

    8. Re:The Economics of Public Health by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm... Those are the numbers, _but_

      1. We have no evidence, technically that gardasil prevents cancer. We have evidence that gardasil-treated individuals have good response against the serotypes that we vaccinate for, but we don't explicitly have a study that shows outcome against cervical cancer.
      2. Cervical cancer mean age of diagnosis is in the patient's 60s. We're not going to know if gardasil actually does work, with genuine outcome data for another 50-60 years. That's a lot of vaccines and a lot of money on a hunch.
      3. Not only that, we don't have data for the duration of action of gardasil. We have one study that shows up to 4 years of protection against the vaccinated-against serotypes, but nothing beyond that. We don't know if that will persist, or whether a booster is required, or whether other serotypes will become dominant and be carcinogenic.
      4. Technically, we don't know that HPV causes cervical cancer. It fits our pathophysiology at this point, but we _find_ HPV colonization in the majority of patients, but some cervical cancer does exist in non-infected individuals, and may represent a change to the micro-environment that makes colonization more likely. Correlation does not imply causation (although is very likely in this case).
      5. Uptake of gardasil among girls has been poor (17% nationwide), and the manufacturer has been pushing for boys to be vaccinated in order to extract more profit from an expensive product, and to cover their very extensive marketing to consumers. It is not approved by the FDA against penile cancer or oro-pharyngeal cancers. In boys, we are treating against warts (which are cleared on their own) and for carrier status, which is the big thrust of this movement by the manufacturer and the CDC. It pushes the limits of the principle of equity to ask one group to take and pay for a very expensive vaccine for little personal benefit, but to protect a different population group that has shown limited interest in protecting itself.
      6. Pap smears are our single most effective tool against cervical cancer. We're going to keep doing them, even in people who have a gardasil series. Get your friends and family to have their paps and not avoid them, and you'll really be doing something positive to reduce that cervical cancer rate. Remember that most of those deaths were in people who didn't keep up with their paps!

      All things being equal, and with this vaccine carrying a low risk of side effects, the same as most vaccines, if the patient can afford it, I certainly offer it to girls. I do emphasize that we still need to do regular pap smears and that this will not prevent all cervical cancer - at best, we're changing the odds in our favor. For boys (not my patient population, I admit), I would have significant reservations in requiring it as part of the standard vaccine protocol.

    9. Re:The Economics of Public Health by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much do you think it costs to treat a cancer patient from diagnosis to death?

    10. Re:The Economics of Public Health by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I completely agree, I don't understand how they can charge so much for a vaccine that offers to drastically reduce deaths. I live in Brazil, and the same vaccine costs R$1250 (~$750). Worse yet, the spread as this disease, as with most sexually transmitted, takes place in lower income population, that have no way of paying that kind of money for a vaccine. Quite sad, and hoping for that biosimilar vaccine just as quickly.

  55. Re:How's about this... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    What's your point? Or did you just reply to the wrong guy?

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  56. Re:HEY! by halivar · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I don't think you want this established as precedent.

    Polio? Smallpox?

  57. Do they PREVENT cancer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has there been any evidence or studies that these vaccines actually PREVENT cancer?

  58. Re:News? by fwice · · Score: 1

    Can you link to any of these studies?

  59. Re:How's about this... by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

    One: It never worked. People still fucked even when the priests all said not to.

    Two: Average age of puberty has fallen quite a bit. In the 1840s, depending on the country the average age of first period was around 15-18. It is now considerably less than that: 9-13.

    Because puberty is when sexual maturity happens, wouldn't it make sense that a population that is now sexually mature at a younger age would also be having sex at younger ages? This of course assumes that the average age of loss of virginity has in fact fallen (I wouldn't doubt it).

    --
    SSC
  60. Re:How's about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    then I swore off Christian girls

    Yeah, but when they get drunk they'll do *anything* short of intercourse. Some of the best blowjobs I've ever gotten were from Christian girls.

    And remember guys - don't be selfish! She deserves an orgasm or three, also!

  61. Re:How's about this... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    Condoms. And the Pill.

    Then: "If you have sex, you WILL almost certainly end up with a baby you must take care of for eighteen years."
    Now: "If you have sex you... well, you may end up with an STI, but it's unlikely, and even if you do the common ones are treatable."

  62. for great justice! by xeno · · Score: 1

    I had my two preteen boys vaccinated last year.
    Why?
    Because somewhere out there are probably at least two girls who will will be safer for it in future years.

    Sure, there are lots of other reasons for them, but HPV vaccinations for boys are more about doing the greater good.
    The anti-vaccine protesters are kooks who can't count.
    And the anti-promiscuity hand-wavers... are also kooks who can't count (and have no grasp of history).
    Even the most basic grasp of statistics makes vaccination a clear and positive decision.

    --
    I think not...(*poof*)
    1. Re:for great justice! by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      if it is not a big money grab by Big Pharma that are grossly overcharging for the vaccine. Take the money component out then you can call people kooks.

    2. Re:for great justice! by xeno · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. $120 avg per shot is not cheap, but it's by no means gouging or a "money grab." That fee has to cover back R&D costs of development -- averaging $250 million -- and Guardisil is a first-to-succeed research effort that took about twice as long as average (about 20 yrs) to develop. That means Merck started out in the hole for somewhere south of 1/2 Billion dollars. They don't even recoup dev costs (plus two decades of investors' interest losses) until they sell ~3.5 million doses, and that doesn't even address the "last mile" costs of refrigerated transport and storage, compliance with legal regs, medical recordkeeping, and a few bucks for the overscheduled intern to swab you with an alcohol wipe and stick the needle in you. Three times. Each time for less than the cost of a good tire on your car.

      How exactly did you arrive at the firm belief that this is a gouging "money grab"? Show me the math.

      --
      I think not...(*poof*)
    3. Re:for great justice! by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      I had my two preteen boys vaccinated last year.
      Why?
      Because somewhere out there are probably at least two girls who will will be safer for it in future years.

      Uhh... I think you're making some assumptions about your sons that may be inaccurate.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    4. Re:for great justice! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      7 billion x 3 x $120 = $2.52 trillion (US). 'nuff said.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  63. Because it's not just about sex by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    Because really it's not only about sex.

    HPV is a whole family of nearly two hundred known viruses, affecting various types of cells. HPV can cause warts or lesions just as well in the mouth, or on the skin, or ass, or really wherever the virus can get. Some types (e.g., 6 and 11) can even cause respiratory infections.

    And all infections raise your risk of cancer. To actually get cancer you need at least two well aimed mutations, one that takes the brakes off cell division, and one which activates one of the two mechanisms which regenerate telomeres (maximum division counters) on the affected cells. HPV gives you the first one for free, as part of its viral payload AND deactivates two genes that normally try to kill tumor cells. (Cells dividing out of control also replicate the virus more.) So now you're only one mutation away from cancer, which is more vulnerable than it sounds.

    So now if you have a compromised piece of skin, it's that much easier for UV to turn it into melanoma. If you have an infection in the mouth, well, smoking just became much more likely to give you mouth cancer. Etc.

    So, really, while cervix cancer gets all the attention, HPV is involved in about 25% of the cancers of the mouth and upper throat for example. And since we're talking about vaccinating boys, actually men are at a higher risk of oral HPV infections than women, for whatever reason. And don't even think "hur hur hur, VD in the mouth, Beavis" as simple open mouth kissing is enough to get it too.

    Plus there are enough cases where it's transmitted from an infected mother to the baby, whose immune system is pretty much crap at the time. There is no amount of discouraging teen sex that will make it an ok tradeoff to have babies pre-infected with something that will leave them susceptible to cancer.

    Really, while cervix cancer is horrible, the focus on it as if it were the only problem is actually unfortunate, because it lets idiot self-righteous moralists to turn it into just an aspect of their delusional war on sex. In reality even if you managed to discourage sex (and good luck with that), your kid can still get throat cancer if he just made out with an infected girl. (Especially if he also takes up smoking, but non-smokers have enough such cases too.)

    Keep trying to discourage sex if that floats your boat, but in the meantime if we can vaccinate against a virus that causes over 5% of all cancers, then we really should do it.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Because it's not just about sex by Skinkie · · Score: 1

      You are WAY too optimistic about this vaccin. It doesn't protect against all forms of HPV. That is just an illusion.

      --
      Support Eachother, Copy Dutch Property!
    2. Re:Because it's not just about sex by tibit · · Score: 1

      Please mod +1 informative. Thanks M! Keep those polar bears coming.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  64. Re:How's about this... by wintercolby · · Score: 1

    Sorry, my point is that HPV isn't scaring kids away from sexual activity, so the vaccine (and being protected from HPV) doesn't exactly encourage it. It's a head in the sand attitude to decide that people shouldn't be vaccinated against an STD just because they think people will be less likely to abstain. People who are likely to abstain do so for reasons other than disease. You may as well vaccinate them in case they get married to someone who didn't abstain so much.

    --
    Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
  65. Re:How's about this... by couchslug · · Score: 1

    That didn't work then, either. It was pretended that it worked.

    Also, even if you trust YOUR boy never to fuck until marriage, do you trust every girl, or HER parents?

    We all know trust is pretty stupid, and utterly stupid when applied to sex.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  66. Why so much sensationalization? by u19925 · · Score: 2

    "The disease is sexually transmitted, endemic in the sexually active, can cause genital warts in both men and women, and is the primary cause of cervical cancer, which kills hundreds of thousands of women globally each year."

    Let us look at the figures at wiki. 4800 women died in US of cervical cancer. 70% of these are caused by HPV and the vaccines are 90% effective. It means that if everyone is vaccinated, it will prevent about 3000 deaths. Remember CDC is recommending for US men and women and has no effect on global deaths which is around 250k/yr of which 70% are due to HPV, which is about 175k. That figure does not qualify as "hundreds of thousands".

    Also, with the cost ranging in the region of $100-200 and effectiveness of 4-6 years, this is one of the most expensive preventive medicines ever.

    1. Re:Why so much sensationalization? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's certainly one way of looking at it.

      Did you also calculate the costs of medical care for 3000 women with cervical cancer? My research gives me about $6,000 per person per year to treat cancer (that's just for the treatments and not including extended hospital stays).

      Also, you're only stating deaths regarding cervical cancer. How many women got cervical cancer and did not die (cancer went into remission, and the sort)? That statistic isn't so easily found.

      The only way to fair judge the actual cost of preventative medicine is to compare the total lifetime costs of not having the medication against the total lifetime costs of having the medication. My gut feeling is the cost is close to the same, but without the women having to go through horrific treatments to remove a malignant tumor.

    2. Re:Why so much sensationalization? by pinkocommie · · Score: 1

      Um, isn't 175k more then a 100k = hundreds of thousands not tens of thousands?

    3. Re:Why so much sensationalization? by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Not sure what they teach anymore but when I was in school anything over 1 whole unit of something was then pluralized. I have 1 apple. I have 1 1/2 apples. Hence any number > 100,000 can be pluralized as hundreds of thousands.

    4. Re:Why so much sensationalization? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget quality of life - many people survive cancer but their lives are cut significantly short and often the quality of those years is much lower than it would otherwise be. Vaccines prevent disease entirely (when they are effective), so they are very effective.

      I can't say that I've run the numbers, but insurers wouldn't be happy to pay for the vaccine if the numbers weren't there. They can pay for the treatment, or they can pay for the cure, and obviously they've figured out which is cheaper.

    5. Re:Why so much sensationalization? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which makes me wonder: which pharmaceutical corporation/lobby sponsored this recommendation?

    6. Re:Why so much sensationalization? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may be a bit sensationalist, but so is your down-playing, conveniently skipping the direct and indirect cost of all the cancer survivors

    7. Re:Why so much sensationalization? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the effects of herd immunity. If everyone is vaccinated, even if the vaccination is only effective 90% of the time, the effect will seriously retard the spread of the virus, which is likely to save some of those for whom the vaccine didn't work from getting infected.

      It does seem expensive, but I'm sure those funding the program have done the numbers and worked out it will be cheaper in the long term.

  67. Re:HEY! by bcmm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's pretty clear that Guarasil kills people,

    No it isn't, and your source kind of sucks.

    "I know it was the Gardasil," Tarsell said, although the official cause of death was undetermined.

    This reads like the autism fraud news stories.

    Here is the CDC's page on the whole issue. Excerpt (my emphasis):

    Concerns have been raised about reports of deaths occurring in individuals after receiving Gardasil. As of June 30, 2008, 20 deaths had been reported to VAERS. There was not a common pattern to the deaths that would suggest they were caused by the vaccine. In cases where autopsy, death certificate and medical records were available, the cause of death was explained by factors other than the vaccine.

    People get vaccinated and die. People brush their teeth and die too. Statistics.

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  68. Re:How's about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe you did, I found it hard to get a second date after they all burned.

  69. Re:News? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    Oops. Thanks for the providing the link. I really did have it in my comment but Slashdot ate it (actually, I must have misformed the linked but it's more fun to blame Slashcode).

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  70. Re:News? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    I read somewhere that British pharma are guaranteed a flat-rate of profit by law, to both ensure that it's worth their while and to prevent gouging. Anyone know how this works, or how well?

    Likely better than than the system we have in the US.

    It's scary but the US is really turning into a third-world (or third rate anyway) country. All except our military. We can flatten any two bit dictator in a desert country and don't you forget it.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  71. Um.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this story 'news for nerds', or even remotely relevant or useful to slashdot readers?

  72. HPV = throat cancer also, moslty in men (so far) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cunnilingus might mean throat cancer, so there is at least one selfish reason for men to take the vaccine:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-03/oral-sex-may-cause-virus-linked-throat-cancer-in-men-study.html

  73. Re:HEY! by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1
    If you want to be selective about your information:

    As of June 1, 2009, the CDC reported that over 25 million doses of Gardasil, which is recommended for women between ages 9-26, have been distributed in the U.S. and there was an average of 53.9 VAERS reports per 100,000 vaccine doses. Of these, 40 percent occurred on the day of vaccination, and 6.2 percent were serious, including 32 reports of death.

    My math says 32 deaths per 25 million != "vaccine kills people". Yes there are complications, and yes there have been deaths. Like all medications, there is risk but way to blow something out of proportion.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  74. SIGN ME UP! by Sebastopol · · Score: 1

    There's still no test, but I'll definitely fight my way to the front lines for this vaccination.

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    1. Re:SIGN ME UP! by Sebastopol · · Score: 1

      Oh, crap, I'm not pre-adolescent anymore. Hmpf.

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  75. so is merck providing it at cost by Dan667 · · Score: 1

    or is this more shilling by the government for Big Pharma for a very expensive vaccine with limited benefit?

    1. Re:so is merck providing it at cost by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Obviously they aren't going to provide it at cost. What incentive would there be to develop a drug for ZERO profit?

      And then when you get to costs, there are a lot of ways of measuring that. Marginal cost is relevant when you're copying somebody else's drug, but if you have to invent new drugs then the cost that matters is the sunk cost times the inverse of the success rate. So, if your drugs cost $50M to develop, and 1% of them are successful, then you need to recoup $5B per successful drug to break even. Now, the numbers aren't that easy since drugs can fail at different levels of investment, but the companies know how much they're spending.

      Of course, lots of money gets spent on marketing, and I'm all for reigning that in within reason. However, I don't see anybody complaining about how much of the cost of an iPhone goes into "I'm a Mac" ads or whatever. My personal feelings are that drug advertisement should be somewhere in-between the current an-ad-in-every-commercial-break level and the "just take what your doctor thinks is good for you and like it" level that some propose.

      Whether funded by the public or by private R&D, the fact is that drugs don't get discovered without a lot of money being spent. I think the issue with drug prices is the way the costs are borne, compared to other forms of R&D that are more progressive.

  76. Re:News? by jspayne · · Score: 1
    Sorry friend - you lost your Libertarian cred here.

    What they are talking about are the market relevant forces: Insurance companies will pay for prevention if and only if it is cheaper than paying for the treatment/cure. Since 9 times in 10 the vaccine will be paid for by an insurance company (as opposed to the consumer), Merck is charging what the market will bear.

    You also seem to forget that drug companies have to research dozens of drugs before they ever get one to market - that $11bn gross looks impressive until you factor in what they paid to get there, and what they'll have to pay before their next big marketable drug.

  77. I am all for vaccinations but not this one. by blueseraph · · Score: 1

    As I understand it vaccines are typically a weakened form of a virus so the body gets exposed to the virus with our catching it. But from what i have seen with flu vaccines about half the people get a mild flu and about 5% get a full blown flu. HPV is a virus the causes cancer and it is being injected into kids. That in its self is scary. A friend of mine's 13 yo niece was given the HPV vaccine over a year and a half ago. Later she stared having severe abdominal pains. Doctors found dozens of tumors. The biopsy showed that it is a type of cancer that normally presents in a different part of the body and there is genetic damage to 2 chromosomes. This cancer is presenting very a-typical, the doctors have never seen anything like it. The family has done a lot of research about the vaccine and the type of cancer she has and are far more informed than I am. They all strongly suspect that the cancer was caused by the vaccine. I recommend that anyone thinking about getting this vaccine think twice about it. Even if there is a 1% chance that you kid will get cancer that is higher then the chances that they will get infected with HPV and get cancer from the HPV.

    1. Re:I am all for vaccinations but not this one. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      No vaccine today uses any live virus. Typically, they contain killed viruses or just fragments of the virus. It is impossible to get the flu (even a mild case) from the flu vaccine. However, the flu vaccine takes time to become effective. During this time, you could be infected with the flu. (Alternatively, you could be infected before your shot but only have symptoms come out after it.) This is due to the coincidence of your infection and shot's timings, not due to the vaccine giving you the flu. People detect patterns, though, and start thinking that the vaccine gave them the flu.

      According to Wikipedia: "The latest generation of preventive HPV vaccines is based on hollow virus-like particles (VLPs) assembled from recombinant HPV coat proteins." This means that being injected with the HPV vaccine doesn't mean that HPV viruses are now coursing through your body. Instead, some proteins from an HPV virus are. These proteins, by themselves, can't do anything to you. Your immune system, however, picks up on them and "fights them off" as if they were really HPV. Once done, your immune system will remember the fake HPV fight. When you are then really infected with HPV, your immune system will be ready to fight it off. (This is a bit of a simplification, but accurate enough.) There is a 0% chance that the HPV vaccine will infect you with HPV and then cause cancer.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:I am all for vaccinations but not this one. by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      Firstly, this is impossible for all the reasons specified by my posts sibling.

      Secondly, if, somehow this actually were possible, it'd be obvious that the tumors were HPV related. Cancer caused by HPV carries traces of HPV that can be identified. This is why they know that HPV causes mouth and throat cancer as well as cervical, they find traces of the virus in the cancer. The biopsies of the tumors would have pointed directly to HPV as the likely cause, but, among other things, I don't think HPV can actually survive long enough in the abdominal cavity to cause cancer (I could of course be wrong there).

      This is most likely a case of something unbelievably horrible happening to a child, and the family looking for a reason to make sense of it. I know first hand, when something like this happens, it's better to have someone or something to blame, to focus on, to hate for doing this to your loved one. The sad fact is though, sometimes that "something" just isn't there. Sometimes the answer is "We don't know how or why it happened", and those that are left are robbed of even the small satisfaction of having somewhere to direct their anger.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    3. Re:I am all for vaccinations but not this one. by bigg_nate · · Score: 1

      No vaccine today uses any live virus.

      Yellow fever

    4. Re:I am all for vaccinations but not this one. by tibit · · Score: 1

      As I understand it vaccines are typically a weakened form of a virus so the body gets exposed to the virus with our catching it. But from what i have seen with flu vaccines about half the people get a mild flu and about 5% get a full blown flu.

      That's the silliest thing in this whole thread. I've had a "full blown flu" once, and it's not something one forgets easily. If 5% of people who get vaccinated got flu due to being vaccinated, there'd be a huge public outcry. You've got your orders of magnitude messed up, at best.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    5. Re:I am all for vaccinations but not this one. by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      Flu symptoms are the response of a functioning immune system. If you get a vaccine, you are training your immune system to fight a specific microorganism. When your immune system is getting trained, it is going to be fairly active in response. This response takes the shape of mild symptoms.

      In other words, a flu shot will make you feel like you have a mild case of the flu, even though you might never actually get infected. It's the same principle as how allergies work.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    6. Re:I am all for vaccinations but not this one. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      With every flu shot I've gotten, I've never had anything more than a sore arm (and sometimes not even that). You can get a low grade fever and mild aches as well, but these only last 1 - 2 days. (Much less than the week-long flu.) The poster I was replying to was saying that 5% of people who get the flu shot get the full blown flu from it. This is completely false. Some people might get the low fever and ache for a day and think that was the flu. Some people might be infected with the flu prior to the vaccine taking effect and coincidentally have the symptoms appear after the shot. However, it is impossible to get full blown flu from the flu shot.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    7. Re:I am all for vaccinations but not this one. by blueseraph · · Score: 1

      Just speaking from my experiences. My last job provided flue shots for everyone. Over a 3 year period I notices about half the people who got the shot got mildly sick but never to the point of not being able to come to work or to the point that they would say they had the flu. My wife on the other hand who has had chicken pox 6 times, 4 times as an adult, got a full blown flu both times she got the shot. True, she is an atypical case but if you get a flu shot then days later your sick as a dog with the flu and this happened 2 out of 2 times... (insert your assumption here). We get the shot at the pharmacy in the grocery store we visit every week. So I am sure she is not being infected by the environment. ie Going to the hospital and being infected with the flu from being in hospital.

    8. Re:I am all for vaccinations but not this one. by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      The "full-blown flu" symptoms aren't the flu at all; they're just the body's response to it, trying to kill it and making you very uncomfortable in the process.

      If your body overreacts to the flu vaccine, it could be exactly like having the "full-blown flu", but you don't have the flu. You're not contagious.

    9. Re:I am all for vaccinations but not this one. by tibit · · Score: 1

      +1 informative.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  78. Re:How's about this... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    Every major religion, and almost every minor one, makes premarital sex a serious offense and adultery one of the most serious of all. Most of them threaten some form of ultimate punishment for it, in this life or the next. If telling people not to have sex could stop STIs, those pathogens would have been obsolete a millenia ago.

  79. You know what I really hate about this "discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know what I really hate about this "discussion"?

    BOTH sides don't THINK! Look at the idiots:
    - I AM AGAINST IT! OOGA-BOOGA!
    - I AM FOT IT! BOOGA-OOGA!

    No arguments. No whys. No nothing. Just bold and loud "you either have my opinion or I'm gonna punch you in the face" screaming and insults.

    The fact that there seem to be no shades in-between should tell you all you need to know about the massive FAIL that this is.
    And I'm sorry guys, but this is so typical for the USA. Everything is either black or white on TV and "the media".
    For example:
    PROTIP: Obama is NOT black. AND not white! He. is. BOTH. He's in-between.
    See? That's how far the "public opinion / media" (same thing actually) are from reality.

    Come on guys, you're better than this! Much better! Let me start:

    - While a working vaccine is a really great thing, since it means immunity ... which nobody will doubt is a good thing ... unless you really want to get the disease,
    - there are well-known cases of either the vaccine not doing anything at all (Example: The EHEC one was found to be no different from a placebo.), which makes it likely that there was just a scare to make money, which itself fits well with things like Elsevier making a dozen fake journals for doctors with fake studies to tell Eli Lilyâ(TM)s stuff to doctors and of harmful,
    - and of additives having been polluted or dangerous because of improper methods which were used to make more money (=greed).

    So, like everything, it has its good and its bad sides. And you have to weigh them against each other like a grown human being.
    The problem is, to find a good and trustworthy company. Which sadly has a chance of nearly 0% nowadays. (There are a couple of good ones I know of. But they are usually small. Like Innotek, Frosta. Or the good leader figure died, like with Matsushita.)
    And that's what the decision depends on.

    I simply have a experience of deceived and duped with nearly every company I enter a contract with nowadays. And I even read the T&C. But they are written in a way that lets you interpret the hell out of them, and in my experience they ALWAYS interpret them in the way that *you* get fucked over. If you have such experiences often enough, with practically no exceptions, you start to form a theory and make it an assumption. Because it's more efficient. Which is what I did.

    So while I have no idea why I wouldn't take a good free vaccination, (Hey, free security update for my immune system? Why the hell would I not want that?)
    I don't trust any of these fuckers a single tiny bit.

    I've seen them give "free" hard drugs (like Adderall or Prozac) to children in school, until the police had to come. And I wouldn't even blink of surprise when I would be told that they'd rape and cut little children into pieces and then eat their hearts for the quick buck.

    Show me a nice "mom and pop" type group of scientists who found a vaccine in their lab, and are willing to explain how it works to me, and I'd take it and thank them personally, no doubt about it.

  80. Re:How's about this... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    And there is always the possibility of rape. My standard response to the religious types relies on this: "You may trust your daughter, but do you trust her future husband and all of his previous relationships?"

    This is why the religious objection has now shifted from purely moral to the quack defence. They joined forces with the anti-vaxers to claim that the vaccines now cause every condition known to modern medicine, and a few that aren't.

  81. Re:How's about this... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    One night with Venus, a lifetime with Mercury. I'm sure that expression didn't originate recently.

  82. Re:HEY! by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 2, Informative

    I went and looked up the actual report on Gardasil's adverse reactions. Here's the straight dope:

    Potential Autoimmune Disorder | Gardasil (11,813) | Placebo (9701)
    Juvenile Arthritis | 1 | 0
    Rheumatoid Arthritis | 2 | 0
    Systemic lupus erythematosis | 0 | 1
    Arthritis | 5 | 2
    Reactive Arthritis | 1 | 0

    So, at worst, the rate of such diseases was ~0.076% with Gardasil and ~0.031% without it. But these numbers are so low that the difference could easily be due to chance. There's no real evidence that Gardasil had anything to do with those cases. Saying otherwise is just scare tactics.

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
  83. Re:HPV = throat cancer also, moslty in men (so far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the cost of being Gay. Toodles.

  84. Herd Immunity by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Here, hip yourself about herd immunity.

    Not everyone will be vaccinated, and not everyone who does get vaccinated will develop immunity. But if enough people are vaccinated, then the disease can't reach enough susceptibles to spread and even the people who aren't immune are protected, too.

    There's a kid in my son's first grade class with a liver transplant, and is hence on immunosupressive drugs. Vaccinating my kids helps protect that kid's life. Same principle with all vaccines.

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
  85. Good idea... by syncrotic · · Score: 1

    If you think about it, this makes a lot more sense than vaccinating girls... ... mainly because American christian hypocrisy is much more comfortable with the idea of boys having sex than with girls doing the same. Vaccinating our good old boys against crotch-rot is more politically acceptable than vaccinating little Suzie against the risks of the sex she's not supposed to have.

    1. Re:Good idea... by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Crotch-rot is my new favorite term. You my friend have lightened my day.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    2. Re:Good idea... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      FWIW there is a higher percentage of late teen female virgins than male. It's not just hypocrisy, it's fact. It's the result of females risking pregnancy and being more likely to follow orders.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  86. You forgot to add by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    How many hundred thousand dollars in contributions he received for mandating this. If you are going to try to pretend that conservatives give a damn about children they you'll have to pick a better straw-man than an ignorant corrupt excuse of a man like Perry.

    1. Re:You forgot to add by egamma · · Score: 1

      How many hundred thousand dollars in contributions he received for mandating this. If you are going to try to pretend that conservatives give a damn about children they you'll have to pick a better straw-man than an ignorant corrupt excuse of a man like Perry.

      My point is, it's not conservatives that oppose vaccines--it's nutjobs.

  87. Re:HEY! by jythie · · Score: 1

    Hrm... according to my math, 3.2 per 2.5x10^8 is a better deal then 3x10^5.

  88. Re:HEY! by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

    You're absolutely right. The US death rate is about 800/100k per year. That's about 2.2/100k per day. Multiply by 25m/100k and get a statistical expected death count of 500 the day of vaccination. The reason so few people died is the age range has a lower than average death rate. If anything it appears the vaccine prevents death.

    --
    Man, you really need that seminar!
  89. Re:News? by Reziac · · Score: 1

    Well, from what I've read, drug shortages are just as bad elsewhere, tho maybe not the same ones. Or at least, people in public healthcare can't get them in a timely manner.

    Methinks a lot of the U.S. problem is that the industry has become overregulated in the wrong ways, such as the push for NDAs on old proven medications, which aren't sufficiently profitable to spend millions re-proving, and are subsequently taken off the market. Then some company willing to do the partial NDA gets monopoly control over the market and we're back where we were when the drug was newfangled and still under patent.

    And it's not just human meds, it's happened with a lot of animal products as well.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  90. Cancers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's actually a mini-explosion of cancers in straight men who are picking up HPV via oral sex with women. I say "mini" because overall numbers of are still small but the year-over-year growth as percentage is really high.

    Many oral cancers require surgery which removes parts of your face/jaw (in addition to being potentially fatal).

    Get the $#@%#% vaccine. You are not immune from HPV cancers just because you're male.

  91. Worldview is just fine, thanks by DynamoJoe · · Score: 1

    Perry got bought. He wouldn't have done it otherwise. This doesn't challenge my worldview, it reinforces it. (better luck next time)

    --
    bah.
    1. Re:Worldview is just fine, thanks by egamma · · Score: 1

      Perry got bought. He wouldn't have done it otherwise. This doesn't challenge my worldview, it reinforces it. (better luck next time)

      I suspect there is nothing that would change your worldview. Still, my point is that conservatives are not against vaccines--it's nutjobs that are against vaccines.

    2. Re:Worldview is just fine, thanks by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Exactly, and if it was Obama it *clearly* would have been because it's the sensible thing to do.

      God I love partisan politics!

      --
      +1 Disagree
    3. Re:Worldview is just fine, thanks by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      In parts of the world you have cash-for-(parliamentary) questions, in the US its cash for vaccines.
      Good job exposing the cash trail.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  92. Re:How's about this... by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

    My point exactly.

    --
    I got here through a series of tubes
  93. Re:How's about this... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    The original prohibitions against premarital sex were directed at women, and the crime of adultery is a
    property crime (despoiling another man's property - his wife). God, Allah, Buddha, whoever hating sex didn't enter into it. Well, maybe a bit for some of the eastern religions in a self-discipline sense.

    But no, those rules, in any form, have never worked.

  94. So what you are saying is by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    that there are no legitimate reasons, but a lot of tin-foil hat nuttery from the ignorant, uninformed rabble of society.

    1. Re:So what you are saying is by Whorhay · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Are you kidding me? Try reading up on the Tuskeegee experiment. I think it was Siphilus they told the people they were being vaccinated against, in reality they were deliberately infecting them to see how it would spread and affect the community.

    2. Re:So what you are saying is by vlm · · Score: 1

      And every time they get caught thruout history doing something horrifying its always the same "we're more ethical now and we'll never do that again" followed by, you guessed it, doing that again.

      I will admit that this is almost certainly just a money grab, with a side effect of possibly accidental medical benefits, but...

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  95. This won't last long by babboo65 · · Score: 1

    When the "vaccine" for HPV was released it was quickly passed through FDA approval and put out with a spate of Government fanfare and PSAs. Then came Perry's famous executive order in TX forcing all girls 12 and older to have this "vaccine". Shortly after came parents bringing their daughters in to their doctors because of joint pains, flu-like symptoms, and other chronic arthritic-like symptoms.

    They were ignored until several studies later showed a correlation to several issues in young girls who had received the full vaccine series and the on-set of these joint-pain issues. The Government passed these off as unrelated or small cases of side-effects.

    My bet is that when young males begin developing these or other symptoms the "vaccine" will be pulled from the market immediately. Remember the "mail birth control" that started causing cysts and other issues similar to what women face when taking birth-control pills and patches and IUDs? The male birth-control was immediately yanked off the market. If it affects women the media, the government, and the public are quick to be dismissive - when it affects our males then it's full speed ahead with finding an immediate solution or pulling the product.

    Talk about a double standard.

  96. Re:How's about this... by chrb · · Score: 1

    I know one woman who is intensely religious, trained to be a minister, has two evangelical missionary parents, and who absolutely insists that premarital sex is fine in Christianity, and, contrary to popular belief, is not banned anywhere in the Bible. I've also been told by Christians studying Christian theology that, whilst they would probably not personally encourage premarital sex, they would also not forbid or condemn it, since it is not banned in the Bible.

    I also know one Orthodox Christian who has told me that premarital sex is banned in the Bible, because it is classified as committing adultery on your future wife/husband. It's a bit of a stretch... most Christians would reject the idea that sleeping with your girlfriend is cheating on someone you've not even met yet.

  97. Re:HEY! by tibit · · Score: 2

    Agreed:

    * death rate due to adverse reactions to this particular vaccine: 32/25E6 = 1.3E-6
    * death rate due to HPV: 3/100,000 = 3E-5

    I'd take the death rate due to adverse reactions allrighty -- gives you chances that are an order of magnitude better.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  98. Re:How's about this... by halivar · · Score: 1

    It's a good response, and one I use with my conservative religious friends. For anti-vaxer's I have nothing; they simply can't be reasoned with on the issue.

  99. No... by publiclurker · · Score: 0

    You are a self important idiot who doesn't care who they hurt as long as they can gain the advantage.

    1. Re:No... by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      No, you are a self important idiot, who thinks you have the right to walk over everybody's individual rights for your convenience.

  100. I seem to recall that there is by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    Funny thing is that its made by a pharmacy that contributes lots of money to Bachmann.

  101. This is troubling.... by Dripdry · · Score: 1

    Here is some info from a recently put up. That the CDC is recommending Gardasil for such an incredibly low risk virus is... troubling. It smacks more of profits for big pharma than actually protecting the populace. THE SUMMARY ON THE ARTICLE! ARGH! It reads like all the other HPV articles coming out over the last year (which makes it doubly suspicious) "Hundreds of thousands!" It's all scare tactics......
    Here's some real information gleaned from a top ar/nose/throat doctor.

    What is the relative risk for mouth cancers in reference to HPV?
    30-40K (thousand) people per year are predicted to get head & neck cancer.
    Throat/tongue AND passageway are included there.
    Let's be conservative on the top end and say 40K new cases per year right now.

    Roughly 20% of that number are throat/tongue/passageway (hereafter TTP) where HPV can develop. He told me that 40-50% of those are NOT from smoking. Let's call it 50%, the percentage of cases we will concern ourselves with.

    So, 50% of all head/neck cancer is 20,000. About 20% of that is correlated TTP, about 4,000 people.

    Next,
    The majority (detailed below) in TTP cancer category is actually tongue cancer. As for HPV, there has never been a case of HPV-related cancer on the front of the tongue, so that eliminates a significant percentage (no numbers were available from him).
    Majority = ~50% conservatively, half the tongue is excluded from HPV, so let's be prudent and eliminate a little less than half of that 50%, call it 20% is excluded from HPV cancer.

    So, 80% of 4,000, and each year ~3,200 cases of TTP cancer CAN BE BUT ARE NOT NECESSARILY HPV related.

    So,if Head/Neck cancer represents ~ 12% of ALL new cancers in the U.S. each year.... about 290K new cases of cancer (my projection from 12%) arise each year and so we conclude that about 1.1% of that COULD be HPV related.

    Population of the U.S. is about 300 Million, so... .096 (repeating of course) Percent (yes my decimals are right) of the CURRENT POPULATION (we would need to do some advanced math to get statistical chances, and even then the risk would only apply as a Large Numbers Theory kind of thing, so actually wouldn't apply to YOU individually, message me if you want to talk about why this is the case) are likely to get some type cancer that MIGHT be HPV related.

    For the geeks, roll dice with a LOT of sides, and crit on that bitch. Them's the numbers.

    OKAY....

    Is there a test? Not if you don't already have tissue which has HPV. The HPV must "express itself" in men or women in order to test for it.
    Since HPV doesn't express itself in men unless they at least have paplomas or warts, there is NO WAY to know if men have it. IF SOMEONE TELLS YOU THEY HAVE A TEST (the doc told me), and there are medical facilities who have claimed they have an oral/brush test, it has not been tested and is likely to be an expensive waste of money, proven medical advances notwithstanding of course.

    They're working on tests, but nothing definite has come to light.

    As for women the only test is the FDA-approved cervix one. Ouch.

    Is there a vaccine? Sort of...There is NO CDC recommendation (though this has clearly begun to change) on Gardasil. They're partly guessing when it comes down to it, but one hopes more data comes to light.
    The longer HPV remains dormant, the less likely it is to ever express itself
    This could be one reason they tell people to get a vaccine at a younger age. If HPV hasn't expressed itself by the time you're mid-20s then perhaps it's not likely to ever express itself, is the hope. Also, you've probably already got it, so one can't be vaccinated against something already contracted, even if the vaccine actually works.

    ======
    ok slashdot, I know your forte isn't sex, but sometimes science gets its hands a little dirty. I hope this post informs and help you make a decision for your kids. Personally? I feel like it's a cash grab, but let's discuss.

    --
    -
    1. Re:This is troubling.... by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      Oh, and those numbers are for the United States. Sorry.

      Also... vaccines only last 5-10 years. It's not for a lifetime from what I get from a med student. So.... we're exposed to HPV all the time, many of us have one form or another of it and can get it at any point in our lives. The whole recommendation from the CDC just feels... weird.

      --
      -
  102. Feell free to leave any time by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    Of course there won't be any one for such a self important idiot to leach off of wherever you go, but society has more important things to deal with than some poorly raised excuse of a human being who thinks that his delusions of adequacy allow him to screw over everyone else.

    1. Re:Feell free to leave any time by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I see you like my comments so much, you are leaving a response to every one of them. Is it because you think I am a 'self important idiot', that you have to do that, what is the fascination?

      Also, it's you, who are a self important idiot, who thinks you have the right to walk over everybody's individual rights for your convenience.

  103. Or Vaccines On Condoms by jdev · · Score: 2

    Can we invent vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases that get transmitted sexually?

    Someone should invent a vaccine that could go on condoms. Could call them White Hats.

    1. Re:Or Vaccines On Condoms by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 1

      Can we invent vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases that get transmitted sexually?

      Someone should invent a vaccine that could go on condoms. Could call them White Hats.

      Problem: The people most in need of the vaccine are the ones that don't bother with condoms.

    2. Re:Or Vaccines On Condoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should totally patent this.

  104. Re:How's about this... by tibit · · Score: 1

    Or, contrary to what is claimed, there's a whole lot of undercover atheists out there ;)

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  105. Sauce for the gander? by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 1

    "Since its approval, Merck has claimed that Gardasil is practically side effect free with pain at the injection site being the most common complaint. However, a 2007 Judicial Watch analysis of the FDA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has revealed that Gardasil has not been as side effect free as claimed. Oddly, Judicial Watch was only able to obtain the FDA’s reports on Gardasil after a Freedom of Information Act request with the agency.

    Since its approval, there have been at least 3,461 filed complaints of adverse reactions to the Gardasil vaccine. According to the "Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System," as of January 31, 2010, there have been 49 U.S. reports of death among females who have received Gardasil. According to Judicial Watch, several instances of blood clots were reported to have occurred after the administration of Gardasil.

    Other side effects including paralysis, Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and seizures were also reported." [http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/gardasil_side_effects]

    I'd be interested to know how the numbers cited above compare to other mandated vaccination programs, particularly DPT and OPV, as both pertussis and polio have high morbidity rates.

    --
    Some days it's just not worth
    chewing through my restraints.
  106. Re:How's about this... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

    Because it doesn't work anymore.

    When did it work? And I mean in general, not for you specifically.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  107. Re:How's about this... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

    Condoms. And the Pill.

    And just when do you think the condom was invented? Or other contraceptives for that matter. The answer may surprise you.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  108. Re:HPV = throat cancer also, moslty in men (so far by compro01 · · Score: 1

    Cunnilingus is performed by gay men? Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary.

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  109. Re:HEY! by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

    keep in mind, the survival rate for Cevical cancer is something like 92%. So fate nearly as bad as death is more like 40 per 100k. But to achieve that every woman over 40 without the vaccination has to go through several invasive doctor screenings to get treatment in time.
    If we man up now, and wipe out HPV, for every person who gets the shot now, you should save a hundreds from having to worry about it ever. So vaccinate all now you may get a few hundred deaths. You will save a few hundred deaths per year, and save a thousand almost as bad as deaths per year. And a few million tests to prevent the above per year.

  110. I'm very, very sceptical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well I'm very sceptical since the circus we had here in Europe with the H1N1-influensa. We got no epidemy but now there are several kids suffering narcolepsy provoked by the vaccination. So I have a *strong* feeling that's just a was for laboratories to maximize there income. Gardacil isn't effective against all HPV viruses, but only against a few of them, which mean girls and women need to be tested anyway...

  111. Booster Shots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this provide life long immunity in boys and girls? Will they need booster shots in 5-10 years? Last I read they have no idea how long the vaccine will work.

  112. Re:How's about this... by Whorhay · · Score: 1

    I pretty much agree with what you've said but to me it means that I shouldn't be forcing my children to receive a vaccination which bears it's own set of risks, for something that is likely only to affect them dependant on their own decisions. Yes, they can get it through non-sexual contact but it's much less contagious and deadly than many of the other things that we vaccinate for.

  113. Re:How's about this... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    It could be, that I'm a decent bit older than you are?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  114. Re:How's about this... by mewshi_nya · · Score: 1

    Exactly. A man having sex outside marriage was never punished, but a woman who was even *suspected* of not being a virgin on her wedding night was to be put to death. And let's not forget the LOVELY requirement than women marry their rapists. That, right there, is enough proof for me that basically everything in the old testament should not be used as the sole basis for something in modern society.

  115. Re:HEY! by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

    I haven't learned very much about Guardasil, but I did a bit of reading. All of it has been a little vague. The "vaccine" isn't a vaccine at all, it's just like the flu shot, where a dead HPV is injected into your body so your immune system can recognize it, build up antibodies, and attack it quickly if live HPV is ever introduced. I would imagine it makes someone a carrier, not immune...which then makes the infected be asymptomatic, and a carrier. Wonderful...so now the virus will transmutate into something our bodies will probably never be able to fight off, and Merck gets to sell $billions worth of shots. Which, if they ever get their way, will be mandatory to attend public school.

  116. "Typhoid Mary" by westlake · · Score: 1

    I don't have a problem with somebody recommending something. I have a problem with somebody taking over your decisions about your body and your health (and yes, I think an individual rights are more important than the society, because individual is the smallest minority).

    You could and should spend some time reading about Typhoid Mary:

    The Case Of The Disappearing Cook

    The Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918:

    In the last week of October, 1918, 2,700 Americans died "over there" in battle against the kaiser's army. The same week 21,000 Americans died of influenza in the United States.

    In Washington a public-health doctor noted that the only way he could assure room in his emergency hospital in an F Street storefront was to station undertakers at the door to remove the dead promptly. Health Commissioner Brownlow, at home with his sick wife, received a desperate call from a young woman. Of her three roommates two were already dead and the third was dying. Brownlow called the police and asked them to investigate. He soon received a sergeant's terse report: "Four girls dead" at that address.

    The acting health commissioner of Buffalo, New York, announced that his city would begin the manufacture of coffins. "They will not be $1,000 caskets or even $100 caskets," he said. "They will be plain, with plain handles, and respectable. ... The casket business," he added irritably, "is a worse trust than oil." In Pittsburgh stacked coffins lined the street for a city block. They were all used.

    Philadelphia was staggered. The early record of 289 deaths in one day was easily surpassed. On October 10, while firemen hosed down the streets all day and people faithfully wore their face masks outside, 528 Philadelphians perished from influenza. The fury of this mortality rate can perhaps be better imagined in terms of 528 Philadelphians dying in a single day in traffic accidents or in a fire rather than, prosaically, in bed.

    In the United States the final reckoning was 548,452 lives lost. Nearly ten times as many Americans died in those few weeks of pestilence as had been killed in eighteen months of war.

    Modern vital statistics provide an illuminating comparison. In 1978, for every 100,000 persons in the population, 167 died of cancer and 494 of heart-related disease. In 1918 the comparable figure for those dying of influenza and related pneumonia was 588, a mortality rate for this country never approached before or since.

    The Greats Swine Flu Epidemic Of 1918

    This is what happens in an unprotected population --- and if you think tou have any freedom in such a world, think again.

    You will be burnt or buried, walled in or walled out. You will not be allowed to infect others.

    1. Re:"Typhoid Mary" by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      Your argument has nothing to do with my argument.

      My argument is that you are the only one who has the right to decide over your own vaccination (and your child's).

      Your argument is that other people have the right to protect themselves from you, if you are sick.

      ---

    2. Re:"Typhoid Mary" by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Interesting argument. It is not ok for others to mandate that you be vaccinated, but they can wall you in to protect themselves from you? I don't think you're gonna find many takers for that proposition.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    3. Re:"Typhoid Mary" by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      As I said, you don't understand my arguments. It's about vaccination, it's about individuals having rights to their own lives, freedoms and liberties and property.

      You take it as an argument against vaccination.

    4. Re:"Typhoid Mary" by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm perfectly clear where you stand on the question of "should people be told what to do by others". I'm curious though what you think individuals should do when in the presence of a known or suspected typhoid carrier - or worse, influenza in 1918. Faced with the possibility that merely being in the presence of a particular person will kill them, what should these individuals do? Would they have legitimate cause to kill someone they have identified as being the carrier of the flu?

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    5. Re:"Typhoid Mary" by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Kill? If they do so, they should be tried for murder.

      Gov't can't kill anybody either, not without a law that allows death penalty and not without a law that requires it.

      However I don't see why a sick person cannot be treated the way we treat sick people without criminalizing them, no matter how much you want that.

    6. Re:"Typhoid Mary" by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      However I don't see why a sick person cannot be treated the way we treat sick people without criminalizing them, no matter how much you want that.

      So what is the consequence to someone who did not get vaccinated, got sick and spread the disease? How should they repay the millions, if not billions of dollars in damage they might have caused? And is your answer the one that will lead to the most efficient and prosperous society? Show your work.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    7. Re:"Typhoid Mary" by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Society does not matter if individual rights are trampled over. Society only means anything if liberties of individuals in it are preserved.

      Society is only an attribute of a collection of individuals, individuals are the only parts of society that matter. Without individuals there is no society. Without individual rights there is no society that is worth any preservation, in fact without individual rights the society loses its right to exist, because it tramples over the only rights that do matter.

      What are the consequences of somebody spreading a deadly disease? The person is likely dead. If he/she is not, then it is up to the criminal code to prove that this person was spreading the disease on purpose. Then there is civil court.

      As to how a sick individual should be treated - he should have his medical insurance and he should be treated by a private hospital that knows how to deal with infectious diseases.

      AGAIN: there is no meaning in a society if the individual lose their right in it. A society that destroys individuals should suffer the same fate and be destroyed. Our lives only matter to us and people we know, the rest is irrelevant. We are born and die alone in ourselves, and before a person is born and after he dies to him the society only matters while he is alive. If during his life the society takes away his rights, there is no point in that society. One individual without rights means all (almost all) individuals without rights, and just like life without liberties means nothing, society that destroys liberties of individuals means nothing.

    8. Re:"Typhoid Mary" by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the chuckle. Apparently, I can do whatever I want, as long as either a) I don't interfere with your rights, or b) kill you. I would really like to see how you would react if you were ever to live in your mythical society. It would be a riot. Hey, maybe there's a thought for a sitcom....

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    9. Re:"Typhoid Mary" by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      If you murder somebody, that's what criminal code is for (and relatives in some cases, especially if they care.)

    10. Re:"Typhoid Mary" by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Next up, on "Roman Mir: The Libertarian Age": will he survive the trip to the court house to sue the person he thinks infected him with the Typhus bacterium? Watch as he dodges potential disease carriers, teenage drivers playing chicken with him and a lawyer who is counter-suing him for infecting his client!

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    11. Re:"Typhoid Mary" by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      If you are willing to forgo your liberties for the sake of convenience you won't have any liberties.

      You don't like this position, I wonder what your position on abortion is.

    12. Re:"Typhoid Mary" by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Ah, nothing like a false dichotomy based on semantics and a misunderstanding of how individuals prosper.

      And round and round we go.....

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    13. Re:"Typhoid Mary" by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      What does it matter how individuals prosper at all if they have no liberties protected and instead they have gov't using violence to enslave them, which is especially sinister when it is done under the guise of 'helping the society'?

      Again and again, society absolutely does not matter if it destroys the rights of individuals. Prosperity follows the individual rights, into the garbage. There can be no prosperity, especially in a longer than the short run, when individual rights are destroyed.

      There can be no tolerance for any amount of individual rights being destroyed.

      Once the society takes it upon itself to remove one liberty, the other liberties will follow, and it's not clear at all that liberty of having control over one's own body is actually less important than private property. Once one liberty goes, all of them are in line to be taken over.

      This is happening right now, this has been going on since early last century, it's been almost 100 years and nearly all liberties have been wiped out.

      But don't bother, I am going to sleep, it's really late night, and I have done what I needed to do for today.

  117. Re:How's about this... by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

    LOL! I had somehow missed that one.

  118. Re:How's about this... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    Affordable, reliable, convenient condoms.

  119. Re:How's about this... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    I troll a religious forum where the operators believe that masturbation is cheating on your future wife/husband. Never underestimate the strangeness of religion.

  120. Re:How's about this... by budgenator · · Score: 1

    They only say that vaccinations against STDs will decrease abstinence, what they really think is that STD's are Punishment from God for promiscuous fornication and a vaccine would therefore be interference with The Wrath of God. That's why they had apoplexy when Pastor Rob Bell said there is no Hell, no burning lake of sulfur and brimstone for unrepentant sinners; and therefore no wrathfulness to God today.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  121. Too expansive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too expansive; give every boy a free WoW account, they won't get any STD.

  122. Re:How's about this... by budgenator · · Score: 1

    The curious thing about Abrahamic religions is that most of what is believed isn't in the Tanakh, Bible or Qur'an.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  123. All this vaccine shit by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

    from one guy's paper who later refuted his own findings and was repudiated by everyone before that.

    But hey, we always have the celebrities....

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  124. Don't believe the hype! by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    This is a false problem. The thing only treats most of the HPV strains not all of them. The cancer they may cause IF you get the virus, someday kills too few women per year to make this into a big issue; however, it makes a TON OF PROFITS if we start giving all teens a shot for a bunch of cash for a problem that wasn't really on the radar before the hype.

    The odds for reactions short and long term are higher than the odds for the cancer!!! Plus this is MERCK we are dealing with-- you could die 5 years later and your family could spend a decade in court only to get gift certificate, no admission of wrong doing. Plus AFTER the "vaccine" is proven too harmful; as in, so bad that it takes years before real action happens, MERCK will stall or illegally sell the drug until it runs out of inventory not necessarily even bothering to just dump it on another country; which is also done.

    I bet more people die from plastic bag suffocation than HPV... we'll solve that one when Merck finds a vaccine for that "problem".

  125. Re:HEY! by BeaverCleaver · · Score: 2

    Actually, that's _exactly_ what a vaccine is. Lots of vaccines, especially the early ones, were made from dead cultures of the disease they were supposed to prevent. Later on, scientists learned to isolate the unique antigens presented on infected cells, and made vaccines consisting of just these compounds. But all vaccination relies on "priming" the immune system with either a non-threatening verion of the pathogen, or some other non-threatening compound that, to the immune system, "looks" like the pathogen.

  126. Re:News? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    Now don't go calling me a Libertarian. Where I come from that's a pretty base insult. Big Pharmacy spent 11 billion on research and something like 27 billion on marketing. Furthermore, they didn't get much out from all that money in large part because they focus on 'me-to' drugs - ones similar(and often no better) than current drugs.

    With the heavy marketing and few really improved products and the relentless pressure to make more money, ethical issues like 'how do we best treat a given disease' are not high priorities.

    From a societal standpoint, it's hard to argue that the current method of drug / vaccine research and production resembles anything like an optimal solution.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  127. Re:HEY! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1, Informative

    "The FDA adverse event reports on the HPV vaccine read like a catalog of horrors. Any state or local government now beset by Merckâ(TM)s lobbying campaigns to mandate this HPV vaccine for young girls ought to take a look at these adverse health reports."
    -Tom Fitton

    On June 8, 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the drug Gardasil. Gardasil is a vaccine against certain types of human papillomavirus (HPV) which is the primary cause of cervical cancer in women.

    • Several state and local governments have proposed requiring the vaccine for school girls entering the 6th grade.
    • Gardasil is approved for girls as young as nine years old, despite the fact that the youngest girls participating in clinical trials were 11-12 years old.
    • A recent study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, also questioned the general effectiveness of Gardasil. Additionally, there has not been a chance to study long term side effects of the vaccine.

    Judicial Watch, concerned about the rush to market and mandate a drug with possible serious adverse effects, filed its first Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on May 9, 2007, and received 1,637 adverse event reports on May 15, 2007. These reports are submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and used by the FDA to monitor the safety of vaccines.

    On August 20, 2007 Judicial Watch filed a request for updated adverse event reports and received 1,824 reports on September, 13 2007. Judicial Watch then filed a complaint against the FDA on October 3, 2007 for failing to fully respond to the May 9, 2007 FOIA request.

    Judicial Watch has posted links to the adverse event reports below and continues to monitor VAERS reports submitted to the FDA in relation to Gardasil.

    The case was closed in April 2010.

    Special Reports

    Documents Uncovered

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  128. SOURCE: CBS News (Dammned eco-commies!) by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/19/cbsnews_investigates/main5253431.shtml

    (CBS News) Amid questions about the safety of the HPV vaccine Gardasil one of the lead researchers for the Merck drug is speaking out about its risks, benefits and aggressive marketing.

    Dr. Diane Harper says young girls and their parents should receive more complete warnings before receiving the vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. Dr. Harper helped design and carry out the Phase II and Phase III safety and effectiveness studies to get Gardasil approved, and authored many of the published, scholarly papers about it. She has been a paid speaker and consultant to Merck. It's highly unusual for a researcher to publicly criticize a medicine or vaccine she helped get approved.

    Dr. Harper joins a number of consumer watchdogs, vaccine safety advocates, and parents who question the vaccine's risk-versus-benefit profile. She says data available for Gardasil shows that it lasts five years; there is no data showing that it remains effective beyond five years.

    This raises questions about the CDC's recommendation that the series of shots be given to girls as young as 11-years old. "If we vaccinate 11 year olds and the protection doesn't last... we've put them at harm from side effects, small but real, for no benefit," says Dr. Harper. "The benefit to public health is nothing, there is no reduction in cervical cancers, they are just postponed, unless the protection lasts for at least 15 years, and over 70% of all sexually active females of all ages are vaccinated." She also says that enough serious side effects have been reported after Gardasil use that the vaccine could prove riskier than the cervical cancer it purports to prevent. Cervical cancer is usually entirely curable when detected early through normal Pap screenings.

    Dr. Scott Ratner and his wife, who's also a physician, expressed similar concerns as Dr. Harper in an interview with CBS News last year. One of their teenage daughters became severely ill after her first dose of Gardasil. Dr. Ratner says she'd have been better off getting cervical cancer than the vaccination. "My daughter went from a varsity lacrosse player at Choate to a chronically ill, steroid-dependent patient with autoimmune myofasciitis. I've had to ask myself why I let my eldest of three daughters get an unproven vaccine against a few strains of a nonlethal virus that can be dealt with in more effective ways."

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:SOURCE: CBS News (Dammned eco-commies!) by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Unproven? It's been researched for years, long before any "agressive marketing" in a country on the other side of the world from where it was developed, so the credibility of somebody that phrases their attack in such a way plummets to zero instantly. We need more than two worried parents who are not looking at this objectively (doctors or not) before derailing a worthwhile project. Looking into it is one thing and is probably worthwhile, but remember that the choice of doing nothing has a known and high cost in lives which has to be paid if the vaccination program is halted.
      It's a bit sad when "agressive marketing" is mistakenly seen as a aspect of pushing the product of taxpayer funded research. It was done and dusted before the first batch was sold commercially. I know you are just quoting the article but turn on your bullshit detector and look at it again.

  129. Re:How's about this... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

    Affordable, reliable, convenient condoms.

    TL;DR?

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  130. Re:How's about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in *my* day, we all had chastity belts and if anyone had sex we burned them as a consort of Lucifer. And you know what, we were happier and WE LIKED IT!

    Wow, I'd have thought you'd have a lower Slashdot ID, Methuselah.

  131. Bad by locopuyo · · Score: 1

    Do a web search for HPV vaccine deaths. You probably have a better chance of getting cancer from the vaccine than you do from HPV.

    1. Re:Bad by eam · · Score: 1
      From http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/hpv/gardasil.html:

      DEATHS

      As of September 15, 2011, there have been a total 71 VAERS reports of death among those who have received Gardasil®. There were 57 reports among females, 3 were among males, and 11 were reports of unknown gender. Thirty four of the total death reports have been confirmed and 37 remain unconfirmed due to no identifiable patient information in the report such as a name and contact information to confirm the report. A death report is confirmed (verified) after a medical doctor reviews the report and any associated records. In the 34 reports confirmed, there was no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine and some reports indicated a cause of death unrelated to vaccination.

  132. Not good, very bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The HPV vaccine has killed dozens, caused hundreds of permanently debilitating severe reactions, and thousands of adverse reactions. In India the vaccine trials were stopped after 6 girls died from adverse reactions. In Britain 33 of 77 pregant women receiving the vaccine had reactions from spontaneous abortions to fetal abnormalities.

    Here's direct proof from the CDC (which many suspect is downplaying the actual number of incidents): http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/hpv/gardasil.html

    And more proof that Judicial Watch sued to get: http://www.betterhealthnews.com/2008/01/29/hpv-vaccines-dark-side/

  133. Re:You know what I really hate about this "discuss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    First, you need to learn how to express your thoughts in a coherent fashion.

    Second:

    Show me a nice "mom and pop" type group of scientists who found a vaccine in their lab, and are willing to explain how it works to me, and I'd take it and thank them personally, no doubt about it.

    Let me explain to you how all vaccines work, in principle. (Caveat: I am not a doctor, this is a layman's understanding of the topic and it is incomplete, probably wrong in details, etc. -- I can only give you a very rough overview.)

    There are many pieces to the immune system, but the bit we're concerned with works by identifying foreign objects or infected human cells and eliminating them. The ID phase uses chemical tags to figure out if something needs to be attacked. Elimination involves manufacturing a response (often this takes the form of bone marrow mass producing "killer" T-cells tailored to attack things with the chemical tags the ID phase found).

    The key observation behind vaccines is that if your immune system has ever fought a given disease before, it remembers it and can move from ID to full scale combat much faster if it ever encounters it again. Basically, practice makes perfect. For many diseases, a fast response is the difference between a tiny infection you never notice because your immune system killed it before it got anywhere, and a serious infection which spread too far before your immune system could begin to deal with it.

    Vaccines are nothing more than a way of priming your immune system for a fast response by giving it a taste of the chemical tags it needs to identify and fight a disease. The method used to manufacture the taste varies by disease. For example, viruses are a protein sheath surrounding genetic code. The genes are the active part which actually infects your cells, but the immune system might target the sheath. For such viruses, it's sometimes possible to breed the virus in the lab, treat it to destroy or inactivate the genetic payload without altering the "taste" of the sheath, and then package the result as a vaccine. There are many other methods, but they all boil down to giving your immune system a chance to train against a disease without actually fighting it.

    - and of additives having been polluted or dangerous because of improper methods which were used to make more money (=greed).

    This is mostly a myth spread by anti-vaccination fanatics, who want you to believe that vaccines contain all kinds of crazy "additives" and "toxins" and blah blah blah. Vaccines typically consist of saline solution, the active material used to train your immune system (such as a neutered virus sample), and some preservative to prevent it from spoiling.

    Can there be mistakes made in manufacturing them? Yes, of course. Welcome to everything ever done by humans. That's the only reason I said "mostly", as there have been some rare incidents of improper manufacturing.

    Also, you've undoubtedly heard about adverse reactions to vaccines. These are real, but they actually follow from the way the immune system works, not from vaccines being full of horrible things. The identification-and-combat system I outlined above isn't the only immune response you have. Other immune responses give you a fever (kills some bugs which don't like high temperature), cause swelling (can reduce blood supply to infected tissue, slowing down the infection), make your muscles ache, cause you to cough (helps get rid of virus particles in the lungs), and so on.

    The thing about the immune system is that sometimes it overreacts. Too much fever or swelling or coughing can be harmful, even life threatening. When you inject someone with a vaccine, their immune system is going to respond to it just like it's a real infection. Vaccine doses are sized with the intent of being small enough to avoid most people experiencing significant symptoms of sickness, but they also have to be large enough to achieve the desired result

  134. Re:HEY! by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

    How do you get to this point without knowing what a vaccine is or how it work? Christ, go look up on the first vaccine for smallpox. It was cowpox.

    Or did you feel you were thoroughly informed to speculate on the method of action of this vaccine now that you read something about what one specific vaccine contains, without any apparent further information on how vaccines work at all?

    What did you think a vaccine was before this?

  135. Re:How's about this... by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

    Probably more to the point: before the condom was affordable, reliable or convenient people still went out of their way to fabricate unreliable, expensive and inconvenient condoms so they could have sex...rather then just not have sex at all.

    There's probably a lesson here.

  136. Re:How's about this... by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

    Also the side-issue that, even if we assume teenagers don't have sex - adults do. Adults divorce and re-marry, have affairs etc. It's not like all the promiscuous sex in the world is only happening amongst teenagers, and it's certainly not like all the adultery in the world is only amongst some small core of adulterers etc.

  137. Re:How's about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't you do like we did in olden-days? Discourage sexual activity until they're more likely to be an adult about things, hm?

    Hm, what? My recollection of the "olden days" was that teenagers fooled around until somebody got pregnant, then they got married.

    My grandmother and grandfather were 15 and 17, respectively, when they got married in 1935. My dad was born 4 months later.

    The saying in those days went something like, "A cow or a countess might need 9 months, but an eager young bride can do the job in half the time."

  138. You first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does innoculating myself with the virus actually make me immune? Remember that the reason children spread these illnesses is because of government-forced association with communal property and lack of morality.

    We should all be living in Stillsuits by now, rather than force everyone to endure the 5% to 25% side-effect statistics. Just because 66.6% of the population has enjoined to science as a modicum to alleviate the stresses of their bad lifestyle doesn't mean it's reasonable to force others to endure the same. Then again, that's called voting by collective fascism. You know the fealing of enduring someone else's bad decisions foisted upon yourself, and you only spread enough propoganda so that one day someone like yourself will enact your opinions on others around you.

    These virus don't go away when they are still compatible to accessible hosts: go with a Stillsuit, and try removing all of government coercion in your life ranging from schools to fiat paper currency and maybe even CB Radio and you'll see all the ills of societies around disappear shortly.

  139. Re:How's about this... by JosKarith · · Score: 1

    Well, it's not so much deserves as that's the best way to get her coming back for more.
    And the benefits if you can convince her that an4l is a viable option...

    --
    'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
  140. Re:How's about this... by JosKarith · · Score: 1

    ^^ This. I've been hanging with the same couple of university societies for the past 20-odd years and students now are DEFINATELY more open to casual hook-ups and the like.
    And yes, I know - Dirty Old Bastard. But look at it this way - I'm heading towards 40 and get to take home cute girls half my age on a fairly regular basis without having Hugh Hefner's pocketbook. If you could, you would.

    --
    'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
  141. Germ Warfare. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you haven't forgotten, US Army was mentioned in a book called Lab 257 where among it's experiments was to improvise delivery of pox for warfare purposes and this stemmed with removing similar strains of pox from the wild by a massive vaccine campaign so that everyone outside will have lost their societally-imposed immunities for the mil-grade Germ Warfare to be more effective internationally.

    Much of vaccination is that way: the most awesome undetectable weapons have been all around us, and by a massive vaccination of the cultures will remove that illness from the people, and follwed by a massive non-vaccination will allow the military to use that illness on all the people after a generation or two has yielded to no-longer vaccinate for illnesses that have been suposedly eradicated from the wild.

    Chicken Pox was handled this way. If you do your research, then you'll discover that H5N1 was a Germ Warfare agent enriched by Baxter Laboratories and mishandled in Ukraine to a massive media cover-up because it would've spread panic. H5N1 was conquered by Ukrainians whom ate lots of garlic, but for those that were too late all died with accelerated symptoms in 20 hours that were identical to Marburg Virus (aka Ebola Virus).

    Vaccination is more likely known as "innoculation" but because it's so-political we have spokespersons advocating for these therapies like silver-bullet remedies when all you need to fight these illnesses is a strong immune system from diet and lifestyle yet that isn't possible with all the injection side-effects. Just look at the side-effects of vaccines that were unconditionally tested upon US Army recruits in their barracks: it's heinous mistreatment of indentured servants.

  142. Re:How's about this... by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

    Possible, but unlikely. I'm 37 which tend to be toward the older end of the Slashdot crowd. There are definitely people a decade or more older than me around, but most are my age or younger. It's still fairly immaterial. Our two data points are of no statistical value at all. My parents came of age during the 60s, which were of course notorious as the "free love" decade; but historical analysis of teen pregnancies, what abortion records we have, and other techniques indicate that the 50's were no less randy. They just didn't (and mostly still don't) talk about it.

    One very large difference from around the late 50's on is that easy access too/knowledge of birth control meant that you could have sex with more partners before it caught up with you. Before that time, you were fairly lucky to have sex with more than one or two partners without winding up married because you got pregnant. After the 60's it became more and more common for women to have years, even decades, before they were tied down by pregnancy, and often even then it was by choice. This means they have more time and inclination for multiple partners before marriage. You might argue that this means they are having "more sex", but in reality it's more that they have more time for sex.

    --
    I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
  143. Re:How's about this... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    I don't think that anyone will be forced.

    I don't think they currently force ANYONE to have any vaccine. Parents can get their kids out of it if they chose.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  144. Virtue as escape from consequences? by clorkster · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that this will have the effect to convince at least a subset of roughly high school aged children that they should accept no responsibility for their actions, especially as they relate to sex. I understand and agree with preventing disease, suffering, and death. To that end, no doubt this vaccine will be effective. I just wonder what you teach your child about virtue as a world where freedom from consequence whether natural or societal becomes more and more the highest good.

  145. Re:HEY! by skapaft · · Score: 1

    The "vaccine" isn't a vaccine at all, it's just like the flu shot, where a dead HPV is injected into your body so your immune system can recognize it, build up antibodies, and attack it quickly if live HPV is ever introduced.

    How is that not a vaccine? That's exactly how most vaccines are made.

  146. Re:HEY! by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

    Several state and local governments have proposed requiring the vaccine for school girls entering the 6th grade.
    Gardasil is approved for girls as young as nine years old, despite the fact that the youngest girls participating in clinical trials were 11-12 years old.

    And how is this related to efficacy or danger of the vaccine?

    A recent study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, also questioned the general effectiveness of Gardasil. Additionally, there has not been a chance to study long term side effects of the vaccine.

    There has been one study questioning the effectiveness. Can you elaborate? Does that study question the reported effectiveness or the general effectiveness like it should be 92% instead of 95%.

    Special Reports . . .

    Wow do you actually read any of the information you linked or are you trying to make your point by overwhelming people with a lot of data and hoping they don't actually read any of it. If you actually went through your data, most of the cases were listed as NOT SERIOUS. In most of the serious cases, Gardasil was present however there was no definite link that the symptoms were caused by Gardasil. By law, Merck must report anything to the FDA that involves the drug.

    But you never answered the general question: 1800+ cases of reported symptoms in 25 million doses. Even if all the symptoms were related to Gardasil, that is 0.0073% chance of having a symptom compared to the 0.0030% chance of death due to HPV. That's a lot of ifs.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  147. Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While it's good that this is recommended:

    Sad:
    1. People are worried they can get autism and brain diseases from Vaccines
    2. Sucks that we have these diseases around and that people have cancer.
    3. Depressing: You can count on one hand the # of ./ readers that this really affects.

  148. get the shot...or have your kids get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've got HPV. It's manifested itself as warts on my vocal cords. Three surgeries over the past two years, but in the last year I've been able to just get laser treatments in Dr.'s office instead of surgery. No indication that it'll turn into cancer, but surgeries and just not having a voice aren't much fun either. I got it from oral sex with a woman. Do yourself, your kids, your spouse a favor and get the shots.

  149. Man, talk about delusions of adequacy... by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    Slashdot informs people of posts, you are obviously too full of yourself to actually do any of the checking yourself, so I'm not surprised that you wouldn't know that. And, being an adult it is my responsibility to correct spoiled brat children before they get too annoying for everyone.

    1. Re:Man, talk about delusions of adequacy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adults do not behave as you do.

    2. Re:Man, talk about delusions of adequacy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No True Scotsman.

    3. Re:Man, talk about delusions of adequacy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False.

    4. Re:Man, talk about delusions of adequacy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feel free to try to explain why it's not. I could use another laugh.

    5. Re:Man, talk about delusions of adequacy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have to explain how it isn't. You have to explain how it is.

    6. Re:Man, talk about delusions of adequacy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a matter of fact it's such a good example of NTS that I'd be hard-pressed to find a better one.

      The term was coined by Antony Flew, who gave an example of a Scotsman who sees a newspaper article about a series of sex crimes taking place in Brighton, and responds that "no Scotsman would do such a thing".

      NOTE the absence of the word "true". You don't have to say "true" to make it NTS. It is implied.

      His statement was patently false.

      Similarly, you saw a post about an adult and stated "adults do not behave as you do". Your statement was exactly the equivalent of "no adult would behave as you do". Your statement was patently false. And despite not using the word "true", it was NTS.

      When confronted with the evidence (Scotsmen do commit crimes of such heinous nature, and adults do in fact behave as you claimed they don't), you defined "adult" in such a way that your statement becomes a tautology. Adults do not behave like that because you've defined "adult" to include the requirement of being someone who doesn't behave like that. Now for the last caveat to NTS:

      Broadly speaking, the fallacy does not apply if there is a clear and well-understood definition of what membership in a group requires and it is that definition which is broken

      There is no clear and well-understood definition that, in order to be an adult, you are required to act like one (whatever that may be). Thus, your claim doesn't meet that exclusionary condition, and is a fallacy.

      Now you're trying to muddy the waters by saying "but it's possible the post|newspaper was mistaken (or an outright lie) and he's not really an adult|Scotsman" and/or "but one cannot be a true adult|Scotsman and behave like that (and here's my special definition of adult|Scotsman)", both of which are attempts to weasel your way out of NTS and both are perfectly in line with what I'd expect from someone who's used NTS and been called out on it.

  150. HPV Vaccine Recommended for Boys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All we have to do is get the GD "SEX" part out of our minds, this taboo subject always gets people's panties in a bunch darn it! -- You are being vaccinated against a "VIRUS" period that causes cancer, you don't want that?
    Your so hung up on the sexually transmitted part, regardless of how or what sex.
    Get it though your head people, no one, no one, wants cancer from a virus period!

  151. False by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, I don't have to explain how "despite the fact that you're an adult, true adults do not behave as you do" is a No True Scotsman fallacy.

    1. Re:False by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was no "despite the fact that you're an adult". You inserted that first part yourself. Strawman argument, in other words.

    2. Re:False by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was implied. Unless you usually just make false statements for the heck of it.

      He is an adult. "Adults do not behave as you do" is either a No True Scotsman, or a patently false and trollish statement.

    3. Re:False by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was not implied, nor do you believe that it was.

      publicklurker is not an adult. My statement was neither false nor NTS.

    4. Re:False by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off, and don't tell me what I believe. I'll believe what I want.

      And here, I'll quote the relevant part of publiclurker's post:

      And, being an adult it is my responsibility to correct spoiled brat children before they get too annoying for everyone

      He stated that he's an adult. So now we have 3 possibilities: NTS, your statement was false, or you're a sanctimonious cunt who just likes calling people liars when they describe themselves.

      P.S. My money's on the sanctimonious cunt, but that doesn't rule out the other two.

    5. Re:False by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off, and don't tell me what I believe. I'll believe what I want.

      I can and will tell you what you believe on this matter, and I will be absolutely correct. The fact that you made up something and attributed it to me is indisputable proof that you concsiously chose to ignore what I really said, and that you therefore believe that your "implication" is false despite what you may have told yourself. The excuses you make up to justify your fabrication will only serve to further prove that. You already, however unwittingly, told me what you believe before you thought you did.

      He stated that he's an adult. So now we have 3 possibilities: NTS, your statement was false, or you're a sanctimonious cunt who just likes calling people liars when they describe themselves.

      False. There are two additional possiblities:

      1. publiclurker incorrectly believes himself to be an adult
      2. publiclurker is not an adult, and knows it, but wishes to appear to be one in an attempt to lend weight to his argument

      You thought of those possibilities yourself, but deliberately chose to ignore them because you know that they are far more likely to be true (especially given your abject refusal to even attempt to support the others; itself a confession that they are lies), and that either of them completely destroy the position in which you have become so emotionally invested.

      The fact is, publiclurker is not an adult, whatever his chronological age may be. His posting history shows a consistent pattern of adolescent behavior. Therefore, my original statement is correct. And you know it.

    6. Re:False by V.+P.+Winterbuttocks · · Score: 1

      I can and will tell you what you believe on this matter, and I will be absolutely correct. The fact that you made up something and attributed it to me is indisputable proof that you concsiously chose to ignore what I really said, and that you therefore believe that your "implication" is false despite what you may have told yourself. The excuses you make up to justify your fabrication will only serve to further prove that. You already, however unwittingly, told me what you believe before you thought you did.

      You pulled that meaningless piece of gibberish straight out of you-know-where.

      I've seen other posts made by you in the past and you manage to be a trolling idiot even when you're right.

      --
      I'm the real Vorokrytin P. Winterbuttocks.
    7. Re:False by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      publiclurker is not an adult, whatever his chronological age may be

      I think you're the one who doesn't know what an "adult" is. It's directly related to chronological age. Here, I'll get a dictionary for you.

      "one that is adult; especially : a human being after an age (as 21) specified by law"

      That is not the "adult", adjective. That is the "adult", noun. You used the word in its noun form, and that's its definition. There is no noun form of the word "adult" which means "people who act like I think adults should act". You don't get to redefine the word to make your fallacious statement correct. NTS.

      His posting history

      Tell me, which of these posts implies to you that he's not an adult?

      I worked for a company once where a contractor provided module required 3rd party drivers
      It was my electronics classes in high school that taught me not to blindly grab at falling objects, a trait that has helped me quite a bit in the kitchen.
      I'm actually in the class that we are talking about [rich] (but not by much, I'll admit)
      I actually work and have a life
      We use Microsoft's current online offering, and we've had both a 25% and a 50% refund in the last year and a half. the refund doesn't even begin to make up for the sales losses and confusion when our dealers can't get their orders through to us.
      I was working on a phone line under a desk once when it rang. I don't know what hurt worse, the shock or my head hitting the desk.

      a consistent pattern of adolescent behavior

      Oh, right, what you really meant was that 99% of the time he's a childish ass. I agree. So are you. Pot, kettle.

      Therefore, my original statement is correct

      No, you still don't get to change my dictionary because you think the noun "adult" should mean the same thing as the adjective. And the fact that what you meant was true doesn't make what you said any truer.

    8. Re:False by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adulthood can be defined in terms of physiology, psychological adult development, law, personal character, or social status.

      If you consistently act like a child, you are still a child. Age is a requisite for adulthood, but not sufficient to establish it.

      There is no noun form of the word "adult" which means "people who act like I think adults should act". You don't get to redefine the word to make your fallacious statement correct. NTS.

      Nothing I said implies that I was working from anything like that definition, nor did you get that impression. It's another strawman. Even if it wasn't, there is still no NTS, because that would require that I accept the premise that publiclurker is "actually" an adult as you stated in your previous fabrication regarding what I said. This contradiction is the defining aspect of the No True Scotsman fallacy. As I have never said anything that suggests such a thing, no NTS is possible.

      Oh, right, what you really meant was that 99% of the time he's a childish ass. I agree. So are you. Pot, kettle.

      At no point have I acted in this manner. You have, through childish insults and fumbling attempts to project a false confidence you do not actually feel. If publiclurker is the kettle in this metaphor, then you are the pot, and I am the wedding dress.

      No, you still don't get to change my dictionary because you think the noun "adult" should mean the same thing as the adjective. And the fact that what you meant was true doesn't make what you said any truer.

      What I said and what I meant are identical. The definition of adulthood I have been using is widely understood and objectively correct. You already knew this when you began replying to me, and as such, your No True Scotsman accusation and all of the rationalizations you made in attempts to support it have been lies.

    9. Re:False by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adulthood can be defined in terms of physiology, psychological adult development, law, personal character, or social status. [wikipedia.org]

      Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. Webster's dictionary is. You still fail.

      If you consistently act like a child, you are still a child. Age is a requisite for adulthood, but not sufficient to establish it.

      Real citation needed.

      that would require that I accept the premise that publiclurker is "actually" an adult

      IOW "he's a liar". Yes, I covered that possibility. You're a douche.

      At no point have I acted in this manner.

      I checked your post history, roman_mir. 99% of the time you're a troll.

      You have, through childish insults and fumbling attempts to project a false confidence you do not actually feel

      I'll insult people who live in their own little reality where words mean what they want them to mean. And don't presume to know how I actually feel, or I'll call you a sanctimonious cunt. Or is that the second time I've called you that? Well it's certainly not the first time you presumed to tell me what I actually believe or how I actually feel. You're an idiot, and you're a troll.

      The definition of adulthood I have been using is widely understood and objectively correct.

      The definition of adulthood you have been using is widely used because NTS is widely used. Because the definition you have been using is an incorrect definition that was created by the application of NTS and "what true adults should behave like".

      "Act your age" is ALWAYS No True Scotsman. You cannot definitively determine someone's age by their behavior. Correlation is not causation: any correlation you see between age and behavior is not a causative relation that you can use to determine their age by observing their behavior.