Gardasil Cleared of Anti-Vax Nonsense (slate.com)

New submitter Zane C. writes: A new study once again shows vaccines have no link with yet another batch of medical disorders. The vaccine in question is a relatively new HPV vaccine called Gardasil, mainly targeting preteens to reduce infection. Phil Plait has more on this, debunking anti-vax claims and explaining why you should receive the vaccine: "It’s another typical anti-vax call to arms due to a complete and gross misunderstanding of how reality works. To them, if something happens after something else, it was caused by that first thing. This is the classic post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. But the Universe doesn’t work that way. And this kind of bad thinking has consequences. In the U.S. alone, 79 million people are infected with HPV. That’s more than a quarter of the entire population. Fourteen million new cases crop up every year. Gardasil can substantially cut those numbers back—it’s working, and working well, in the U.S. and Australia—but not if the fearmongering falsehoods by anti-vaxxers get traction."

Comments

The herd's moving

[wkwilley2]

If you take a former playmate's advice on vaccinations, maybe the herd could do without you.

Re:The herd's moving

[gstoddart]

Well, the problem with this is that the idiots refusing vaccines aren't just putting themselves at risk.

If it was just they and their offspring would become ill? Hey, run wild. You've taken yourselves out of the gene pool and we don't care. That's your damned problem for a choice you made.

But that isn't what happens. Someone else gets sick.

Which means if you refuse to get vaccinated and then help to spread disease you should be liable for that. Like criminally liable.

If it was as simple as the herd doing without the ones who wouldn't get vaccinated, it would be an easy choice. What they really end up doing is endangering other people.

Which means they aren't solely the ones in danger by their own stupidity, and they should be refused access to places like schools and jobs so they don't make others ill due to their own stupid.

Re:The herd's moving

[Ambassador Kosh]

It is even worse than that. If you provide a host population for a virus it will mutate over time. It could mutate around the vaccine the others have taken and become generally infectious again.

One of the things many in medicine are worried about is that anti-vax people are going to provide a host population and something like measles will mutate and go back to killing millions of people. It is unlikely that we will come up with a new vaccine very quickly and even if the government makes this a crash project and devotes insane resources to it progress could still be slow.

For many of these diseases that we can vaccinate against we have nothing else. The diseases are still deadly and we don't really have a way to treat them.

The worst problem is that this outcome is inevitable if you have a host population. Anti-vax people put EVERYONE else at risk and it is just a matter of time until it happens.

This is why vaccines should be 100% mandatory unless there is a valid medical reason. I don't care what your religion, personal beliefs etc are. If you are going to live around other people you have to be vacinated.

Re:The herd's moving

[Dog-Cow]

Which is ridiculous. Which teenager needs encouragement? :-P

Re:The herd's moving

[DarkOx]

Yes but this is an STD. I mean you don't get HPV just being in the same room with someone. So by your logic everyone having monogamous unprotected sex is: helping to spread disease and ought to be held criminally liable.

Actually doing so would probably go a lot farther to stopping the spread of disease more than forcing people to inject things into their bodies. If you are not going to regulate the bedroom than there is no compelling reason to force vaccination for STDs. Other than your own twisted moral reasoning some of us do not share.

Personal I think the only ethical system is, "your health is your problem" if you don't get some horrible disease for which a vaccine exists get the vaccine for it yourself. Mind your own damn business and don't worry about what the rest of us are or are not doing. If you can't get vaccinated for whatever reason than you have to take alternative steps to protect yourself like partial isolation; to fucking bad we all play the hand we are dealt.

Re:The herd's moving

[FlyHelicopters]

Or here's a more general objection: should adults also be required to be vaccinated against HPV?

Another point is, lets say he says the answer is yes...

Any time you say something is "required", you then also have to answer the question, "or else what?"

Lets say you decree that I must be vaccinated. Ok, now I refuse, so now what?

Do you suggest that government teams go around person to person and hold people down against a table and inject them against their will?

I don't know about you, but frankly, that is worse than anything nature might throw my way, that is evil, pure and simple.

Re:The herd's moving

[FlyHelicopters]

I don't have much of a problem with, say, the compulsory smallpox vaccinations that used to occur, since willingly unvaccinated individuals would be putting me in huge danger simply by breathing the same air.

Your right to not be in danger does not remove my right to be secure in my body and self against forced government injections.

In other words, while I understand your concern, you don't get to harm me to keep yourself safe.

---

Here is the thing. Do I think the smallpox vacieene is effective? Yes, of course, it was amazingly effective.

However, do I think that people have the right to refuse it? Yes, they do.

Let me put this another way. If you think you have the right to force an injection into me, then I have the right to shoot you in self-defense.

---

Second point: Public Schools. I completely understand the concerns over public schools and vaccines. That being said, since my tax dollars support public schools, you can't just exclude my children because of your fears without compensating me.

However, that problem actually is easy to solve. Simply provide school vouchers, so that parents can send their kids to the school of their choice, using the tax dollars already set aside for them. If public schools want to ban kids who aren't vaccinated, fair enough, there will be private schools as options, and they can accept the vouchers

Re:The herd's moving

[david_thornley]

If we still had smallpox circulating, an unvaccinated person is a threat. At any time, he or she may contract smallpox and transmit it. If we don't run you out of town immediately, but wait until you develop smallpox, it's too late. You've already had the chance to infect people who may not have been vaccinated, either for a legitimate medical condition or because they're too young. If you infect a baby who dies because you're an asshole, you're a murderer.

Wiping out smallpox involved inoculating everyone we could get a needle into. If enough people had refused to keep a population active, it would still be a threat.

We provide free public education for children, but we can put reasonable limits on it. We don't have to let people in who are biohazards by choice, for example.

Anti-cancer

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Let's also not forget that HPV causes a number of different cancers - cervical, penile, throat, etc. This vaccine dramatically reduces your chances of HPV-caused cancer. The press most often focuses on cervical cancer when they talk about it, which is why the vaccine has been more targeted to women, but boys and men also get a direct benefit, as well as all the indirect benefits through herd immunity.

You know? Something here is disturbing...

[Penguinisto]

Note this up front: Vaccines are good for you. I have zero problems with vaccination as it is beneficial to humanity individually and overall.

Now - about this article: Way the hell too much sensationalism, too much flamebait imputed, and IMHO way too much of this attitude: '...this study is right so I am right and therefore fuck you! Get right with us or else you are not worthy of life you troglodyte!' Seriously... is this what Salon has fallen to? Well, okay, I know they've always been a bit partisan (okay, quite partisan), but TFA and summary alike are indicative of what's wrong these days - too much sturm un drang, not enough persuasion.

Interestingly enough, Slate leans a bit to the left... and most anti-vaxxers lean very much to the left, so why was the bile necessary? You'd think that instead of turning it into a contest that hardens opinions (on both sides), that they'd try to at least be a little persuasive about it. ...or has science degraded into an echo-chamber shouting match these days?

Re:You know? Something here is disturbing...

[Tanktalus]

In my experience, anti-vaxxers lean both left and right, often for different reasons. Basically, it all boils down to a distrust of the establishment, whether that's government, or scientists, or whatever. These aren't always the most politically active people, so their leanings are a bit less well defended, and I've found them to often espouse causes on both sides of the spectrum, sometimes on the same subject. For example, I find they're more likely to ask the government to get out of their own lives (right-wing on small-government) but to increase environmental regulation (left-wing on ecology), so when saying whether they're left or right, one must take a balance of all their views to see which way they lean predominantly (abortion, gay marriage, etc.).

Re:You know? Something here is disturbing...

[Dog-Cow]

Then you need to prove the herd effect is very useful.

Not that you were batting anywhere close to a 1000, but this just totally ruins it. 1) You should have written that the herd effect needs to be proven to exist; it's obviously beneficial. 2) It has been proven, empirically, hundreds, if not thousands, of times. It does not need to be proven for each and every vaccine individually.

Re:You know? Something here is disturbing...

[Ranbot]

Note this up front: Vaccines are good for you. I have zero problems with vaccination as it is beneficial to humanity individually and overall.

Glad we can agree!

Now - about this article: Way the hell too much sensationalism, too much flamebait imputed, and IMHO way too much of this attitude: '...this study is right so I am right and therefore fuck you! Get right with us or else you are not worthy of life you troglodyte!' Seriously... but TFA and summary alike are indicative of what's wrong these days - too much sturm un drang, not enough persuasion.

Interestingly enough, Slate leans a bit to the left... and most anti-vaxxers lean very much to the left, so why was the bile necessary? You'd think that instead of turning it into a contest that hardens opinions (on both sides), that they'd try to at least be a little persuasive about it. ...or has science degraded into an echo-chamber shouting match these days?

Two things:
1) I like a good public discourse on many subjects, but vaccination is public health issue and treating these sides like equal positions has the potential to do more harm to the public health than good. The proven science of vaccinations is not of equal validity as the fear-based lies spun by anti-vaxxers, and our public discourse should reflect those truths. Sure there could be less insults and flamebaiting, but there's no need to give the anti-vaxxer position any more respect or fair treatment than we would give to any other patently false ideas, like flat-earth theory, cold fusion, phrenology, etc.
2) As for the political leanings of anti-vaxxers being liberal...that may be true in your area or experiences, but the ones I've encountered are usually conservative types (sometimes libertarian) who distrust the government, science, and anything that could be perceived as meddling in their lives.

Re:You know? Something here is disturbing...

[mspohr]

The whole article is an ad hominen .
The piece tries to sell vaccines by calling anyone against _this_ particular vaccine an Anti-Vaxxer, and saying that rejecting this vaccine is is Anti-Vax nonsense.

It's not nonsense. Vaccines can be very risky. The first thing you have to do is doubt them.

Then they need to be proven safe. They can be sold then.

Then they need to be proven effective. You might want to use them then.

Then they need to be proven beneficial to the people as a whole, as opposed to the same money used on the next best. Then you can have governments pay for it.

Then you need to prove the herd effect is very useful. Then you can have the government ask everybody to use it.

All of these things about Gardisil have been proven safe and effective using this thing called "science".
If you don't believe in the science then your are an "anti-vaxxer".

Re:You know? Something here is disturbing...

[FlyHelicopters]

I like a good public discourse on many subjects, but vaccination is public health issue and treating these sides like equal positions has the potential to do more harm to the public health than good.

That is a fair point... but it doesn't matter... you miss the key point...

My body, my right...

Do I think vaccines cause autism? No, that has clearly been debunked.

Do I have the right to refuse them anyway, because I don't want them? Yes, I do.

This isn't a debate (or shouldn't be) about the effects of vaccines, it is about what rights do you have as a human being.

Re:You know? Something here is disturbing...

[FlyHelicopters]

2) The "my body, my right" tugs at our feelings of freedom and individualism, but it's really not as secure a stance as it seems, because there are numerous examples where the greater good of society trumps an individuals rights (like traffic laws, selective service enrollment, voting laws, drugs, firearms, etc.). For vaccinations specifically real public health benefits are the herd immunity effect and I already touched on the slippery slope with children. Don't be shocked if someday society (i.e. government) decides vaccination benefits outweigh individual rights.

Driving is not a right, so traffic laws are perfectly reasonable.

Selective service (the draft) is evil and I'm glad it is gone. Any government that tells me "you have to serve or else" is one to fight against, not for.

Most drug laws are stupid. If I were President tomorrow, I'd pardon every single non-violent drug offender in prison. Going to jail because you smoke weed or snort cocaine is the dumbest idea of the century. You need treatment, not prison.

Most firearm laws are evil. Law abiding citizens don't commit crimes with guns, criminals don't care about gun laws. Just go to Chicago and ask the gangs there if they care about all the harsh gun laws they have. Then come to Texas and ask us why we don't have the gun violence problem Chicago does, yet we have far more liberal gun laws.

Don't be shocked if someday society (i.e. government) decides vaccination benefits outweigh individual rights.

I say this with all seriousness and without any snark.

If that day comes, it'll be time for another revolution. The day the government decides that it has the right to strap me to a table and inject whatever it wants into me because it deems it best, is the day to remove that government by force.

Re:This story...

[gstoddart]

This is part of the problem.

Big pharma are greedy, lying bastards who would climb over us to make a buck and not think twice.

The anti-vaxxers are a bunch of loonies who can't look at scientific evidence or recognize the initial claims were fabrications by a discredited scientist.

Both of them aren't trustworthy entities ... one lies about its science and the other doesn't understand it.

I fear as long as we can still point to how the pharmacy companies have lied or manipulated their findings, people will be willing to believe they're just evil corporations out to make a buck. But then you just let a bunch of drooling idiots take over the conversation.

Re: "other people"

[TsuruchiBrian]

Vaccines are not 100% effective. There are some people who do not develop the proper immunity even after taking a vaccine. There are also people who are allergic to vaccines. These people benefit from the herd immunity. There are also children not in a position to make the decision for themselves.

So yeah in a black and white world where the only people effected by negative consequences were adults who made bad choices, then the system you talk about would be more viable.

And as far as I know nobody is forcing anyone (even kids) to be vaccinated. The only measures I've heard being proposed is removing the personal belief exemption for allowing unvaccinated kids from attending public schools (while keeping the medical exemption), and forcing healthcare workers who don't want to get flu shots to wear masks. I have never heard of a mentally competent adult literally being forced to get a medical procedure they didn't want.

And while it's true that modern medicine is not perfect, comparing the knowledge of modern medicine to the knowledge of the people in the anti-vax community is like comparing modern chemists to alchemists of the middle ages.

I think a healthy skepticism of "expert opinions" is a good thing, but this skepticism in the anti-vax community is gone well into unhealthy territory.

That it - vacinate everyone to save 4000 people

[NoPhD]

Yah, that sounds like a great idea. Spend lots of money to vaccinate everyone to save 4000 people from dying in the United States from a problem they could have saved themselves by curbing their own actions. That is why healthcare is so expensive.

Re: "other people"

[number6x]

No, at least not all of them.

Some people are immuno-comprimised. This would be people like infants, the elderly, children with diseases like leukaemia, adults undergoing cancer treatment, or people who have received life saving organ transplants and must take drugs that suppress their immune systems (for the rest of their lives). These people's lives depend on the rest of us doing the right thing and getting vaccinated so deadly diseases cannot take hold in the population and then find a path to the chronically ill.

I just think that it is amazing that we have developed a vaccine that can prevent a type of cancer! It's really unclear how many lives can be saved by gardisil because cervical cancer is kind of a secondary effect of long term HPV infection, but just think about it. In the future, what other cancers be preventable with a few shots in childhood? Prevention is such a better option than treatment. Both of my children have been vaccinated against HPV (male and female). We have a chance to strike a blow against a troublesome disease, HPV, and a secondary deadly disease, cervical cancer. This is truly like the fight against polio, or mercury exposure. It can make a much better life for future generations.

Re:Legal Immunity

[thegarbz]

I'll start using vaccines when they are able to actually take responsibilities of their own products.

I hope you contract a disease we had all but eradicated 20 years ago.

It's one thing to claim with a completely unscientific basis that a vaccine is dangerous because you don't understand scientists, but quite another to consider it dangerous because your government has some law regarding who is liable for side affects and reactions which will statistically occur in a very very small percentage of a population. It's one of the fewer sane laws in a country which sues for millions of dollars when someone so much as hurts someone else's feelings. That kind of law is the reason that these drugs can be afforded in the first place.

On behalf of civilised society, from all of us I extend a hearty FUCK YOU.

Re:Yet another blatantly biased submission.

[PvtVoid]

I believe that the "all lives are sacred" thinking is religious based, and not supported by science. A certain amount of predatory culling leads to fewer regressive genes being propagated, which I believe is good for the species long term. And as long as who gets a vaccine and who doesn't is largely based on what society you grow up in, vaccination seems to me to be a form of eugenics, where the rich get to decide who gets to live and who doesn't. I don't like the taste of that at all.

Wow, you really don't understand evolution at all, do you?

Things like vaccines, insulin, or even eyeglasses or handwashing are beneficial evolutionary adaptations. These are precisely the things that have made our species more successful than our competitors. Caring for our sick and infirm is an adaptation that has made us more successful than our competitors. Cooperation has made us more successful than our competitors, although we are not unique in that trait. Civilization (and the wealth that accompanies it), far from being a form of eugenics, is a beneficial evolutionary adaptation. The list goes on.

Where do you draw the line? What health care do we deny people to ensure that a proper "culling" takes place? Do we not do C-sections? Do we not set broken bones? Do we not rescue drowning people? Seems to me that it smack much more of eugenics to forbid medical treatments because they prevent "culling".