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."
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
What a sensible idea.(Incidentally, males aren't strictly carriers; but penile cancer is much less common than cervical for some reason)
Wasn't there a story on /. a while back how this vaccine also protects from throat cancer in males?
Because it doesn't work anymore.
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).
Really? What changed?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
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
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
Can we invent vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases that get transmitted sexually? Imagine the distribution efficacy and cost benefits we could realize with STVs!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-03/oral-sex-may-cause-virus-linked-throat-cancer-in-men-study.html
They're not giving that vaccine to *my* sweet, innocent, raging hormonal teenage boy!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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).
You can't handle the truth.
Sorry, too easy.
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.........
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."
They are just more willing to talk about it.
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.........
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.
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
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!
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?
Your virgin daughter can still get HPV on her wedding night, and die of cervical cancer.
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*
Vaccination can lead to retardation in mothers, up to voting for Michele Bachmann.
Fandroids hate facts.
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.
Technoli
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.
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.
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.
Really? What changed?
Nothing - it never worked. We're just more public about the repercussions now.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Pretty soon there will be a "vaccine" for bad attitudes.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
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.
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
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/
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
Because it never actually worked.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
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/
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?
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....
Oh yeah, it's this. SHIT! IT KILLS MEN TOO! WE MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!
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.
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.
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
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?
NVIC Vaccine Risk Report Reveals More Serious Reaction Reports After Gardasil
And more information on when Perry tried this:
Perry: "I didn't do my research" on mandate for HPV vaccine
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.
Support SETI@home
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.
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...
Polio? Smallpox?
Can you link to any of these studies?
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
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."
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*)
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.
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
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?
Battlemaster--Game with friends in medival realms
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
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."
"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.
No it isn't, and your source kind of sucks.
This reads like the autism fraud news stories.
Here is the CDC's page on the whole issue. Excerpt (my emphasis):
People get vaccinated and die. People brush their teeth and die too. Statistics.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
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!
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!
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.
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
or is this more shilling by the government for Big Pharma for a very expensive vaccine with limited benefit?
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
+1 Funny
Computer geeks aren't exactly notorious Romeos.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
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.
One night with Venus, a lifetime with Mercury. I'm sure that expression didn't originate recently.
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
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!
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!
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.
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.
Hrm... according to my math, 3.2 per 2.5x10^8 is a better deal then 3x10^5.
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!
"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."
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?
Perry got bought. He wouldn't have done it otherwise. This doesn't challenge my worldview, it reinforces it. (better luck next time)
bah.
My point exactly.
I got here through a series of tubes
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.
Alas, considering some alternatives, you may be doing just fine :)
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
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.
that there are no legitimate reasons, but a lot of tin-foil hat nuttery from the ignorant, uninformed rabble of society.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Funny thing is that its made by a pharmacy that contributes lots of money to Bachmann.
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.
-
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.
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.
> 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
No, you are a self important idiot, who thinks you have the right to walk over everybody's individual rights for your convenience.
You can't handle the truth.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Because it doesn't work anymore.
When did it work? And I mean in general, not for you specifically.
I am not a crackpot.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Support SETI@home
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
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.
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.
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.........
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.
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.........
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/
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.
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.
LOL! I had somehow missed that one.
Support SETI@home
Affordable, reliable, convenient condoms.
I troll a religious forum where the operators believe that masturbation is cheating on your future wife/husband. Never underestimate the strangeness of religion.
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
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
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.
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".
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
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.
sustainable living
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!
"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.
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..."
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..."
Actually, Men can get throat cancer from this. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-03/oral-sex-may-cause-virus-linked-throat-cancer-in-men-study.html
Affordable, reliable, convenient condoms.
TL;DR?
I am not a crackpot.
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.
The Official Site of 1337 Pwnage
(BTW, I'm not saying I'm for government _paying_ for it, but having it be a requirement, like whooping cough, etc., is reasonable.)
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
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?
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.
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.
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.'
^^ 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.'
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.
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
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.
How is that not a vaccine? That's exactly how most vaccines are made.
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.
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.
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.
Support SETI@home
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.