Australia Set To 'Eliminate' Cervical Cancer By 2028 (cnn.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: Australia is set to be the first country to eliminate cervical cancer, aided by its national vaccination and screening programs, says a new study. The country is on track to meet the threshold of four or less new cases per 100,000 women each year, effectively eliminating the cancer by 2028, finds the new study published Wednesday. The cancer could be classified as "rare" as early as 2022, meeting a threshold of six new cases per 100,000 and deaths due to the diseases are expected to decline to one new case per 100,000 women by 2034. But this is all contingent on Australia's high vaccination coverage and screening being maintained, write the study authors.

An estimated 99.7% of cervical cancer cases are caused by infection with Human Papillomavirus (HPV), a group of viruses that spread though sexual intercourse and skin-to-skin contact around the genitals. In their new study, the researchers at Cancer Council NSW modeled data on HPV vaccination, natural history of the disease, and cervical screening to estimate the age-incidence of cervical cancer in Australia from 2015 to 2100. Currently, Australia reports seven cases of cervical cancer per 100,000 women, according to the study. As well as eliminating the disease within 20 years, the data showed that the annual incidence of cervical cancer will decrease and remain at fewer than one case per 100,000 women if screening for HPV every five years continues and as long as people have been offered the vaccine.

Comments

I eliminate cervical cance

[Anonymous Coward]

by fucking u in the ass

Re:I eliminate cervical cance

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you are proof people can get pregnant from anal sex

Re:I eliminate cervical cance

[IVomitFatCashews]

Hundreds if not thousands of CHILDREN have died because of Gardasil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JINYzaqtHw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pTUtP0K4E4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB2ZvCWXSY0

Another shove by the drug company. How DARE you refuse our profitable inoculations, traitor and danger to society?

Re:I eliminate cervical cance

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't work that way. A really simple solution is not inserting every object that has two legs.

Cervical cancer should be way, waaay down on the priority list as opposed to breast or prostate cancers. If you got it, chances are you were asking for it.

You must be a major jerk. Let's do some satire. Breast and prostate cancer should be waaay down on the priority list. For breast cancer, those idiots shouldn't have children, so they deserve it. For prostate cancer, they are so old, screw them. For those in abusive homes, they deserve it too.

Re:I eliminate cervical cance

[Anonymous Coward]

LAMO. youtube is your source of medical information? I read somewhere on slashdot that some poster said that Gardasil was good for you, so it must be true, since slashdot is my source of medical information.

Re:I eliminate cervical cance

[Anonymous Coward]

HPV isn't the cause of all cervical cancers for a start. But I get the feeling you're not too concerned with facts, being an Incel deadbeat.

Re:I eliminate cervical cance

[king neckbeard]

Why should it be way down the priority list? Because "sluts" or something? We're talking about a viral cancer that has a vaccine. Like other vaccination efforts, this is a sensible, efficient priority, and probably one of the best return rates for QALYs per AUD.

Re: I eliminate cervical cance

[Anonymous Coward]

Putin won't be happy until the rest of the world has lower life expectancy than Russia.

They are killing off all women ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just removing every cervix ?

Re:They are killing off all women ?

[BeauHD (5555555)]

Or just vaccine everyone. For it is far, far better to be safe than to be sorry.

Re: They are killing off all women ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not safe. Gulliene Barre syndrome is real and occurs dangerously often. Mandatory vaccines for airborne and contact spread diseases are reasonable, but almost every transfer of HPV is due to negligence. Those who aren't sexually active shouldn't be mandated to take the risk of the gardasil immunization. Those who engage in casual sex should Wrap it up.

Re: They are killing off all women ?

[jd]

Doubt it happens much, if at all.

Hyperactive autoimmune disorders do, and they're mostly caused by ultra-sterile conditions, unhealthy foods and unhealthy environments.

Fix those and vaccine "safety" will reach new levels.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Vaccine for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's make the vaccine available for anyone who walks into a clinic. Who are we to say what there sexual history may or may not be??

Re:Vaccine for everyone

[ShanghaiBill]

Let's make the vaccine available for anyone who walks into a clinic.

This is the solution. That vaccine should be free. Herd immunity benefits everyone.

My son had the HPV vaccine. It cost me $300. Why should I pay that, when the vaccine is of zero benefit to him because he has no cervix?

I paid for it, because I can afford it, and it is the right thing to do, but many people can not afford it.

Re:Vaccine for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

It cost me $300. Why should I pay that, when the vaccine is of zero benefit to him because he has no cervix? I paid for it, because I can afford it, and it is the right thing to do, but many people can not afford it.

Since it is not to his personal benefit, but for the benefit of society at large perhaps it should be publicly funded? You know ... the way it is in Australia? Or would that be socialism?

Re:Vaccine for everyone

[suutar]

not quite zero. Males can have issues caused by HPV as well.

Re:Vaccine for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

HPV is a STI.

Immunizing both boys and girls stops the spread .

Perhaps his personal benefit is working toward not seeing a partner, family member or friend die of cancer?

Re:Vaccine for everyone

[angel'o'sphere]

Because you prevent him infecting his next GF or wife.

Re:Vaccine for everyone

[Ocker3]

Exactly, 'for the greater good' is Actually a good argument (sometimes) for doing something. Especially when you can buy in bulk to drive down prices.

Re:Vaccine for everyone

[Capsaicin]

[T]he vaccine is of zero benefit to him because he has no cervix

Well ... perhaps not zero benefit. He does have a throat I take it.

Which is in no way to disagree with your actual point, that this, and imo many other vaccines, ought to be freely available, where your argument should be irresistible.

Re: Vaccine for everyone

[jd]

He does benefit. HPV can kill men, and men can spread the virus to women (I assume a living significant other is still regarded as a benefit).

Re:Vaccine for everyone

[serviscope_minor]

Why should I pay that, when the vaccine is of zero benefit to him because he has no cervix?

I paid for it, because I can afford it, and it is the right thing to do, but many people can not afford it.

Good for you. But in answer to your question:

Why? Because it's of benefit to your son both directly and indirectly. Directly, HPV causes cancer in men too. Indirectly it would suck if he transmitted HPV to a future partner and she got cancer.

Re:Vaccine for everyone

[jabuzz]

And it would suck even more if your son had children with said future partner, and he is now a single parent and your grandchildren are motherless at a young age. Looks like decent benefits to me.

Re:Vaccine for everyone

[dfghjk]

HPV also causes cancers in men including, potentially, your son. One can argue that vaccinating boys is even more important than girls since a penis plays a greater role in the spread of HPV than a cervix/vagina. Men absolutely benefit from the vaccine so you can take comfort in knowing that you only did what's really important---serve your own interests.

Perhaps you should not only pay for your son's but for those who "can not" afford it as well. You are not only ignorant but selfish as well.

Re: Vaccine for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem, well one of many, with you leftist types is you can not tell the difference between useful public goods and services worth paying for like roads and fire department that we all need and stealing/taxing from hard working people so you ca buy votes with your bullshit programs that benefit only you.

Or maybe you can and the roads-equals-socialism-therefore-all-Marxism-is-good line is just that, a bullshit line you spew to deflect and confuse from the true evils of your ugly and anti-humanitarian belief system.

Re:Vaccine for everyone

[dfghjk]

"not quite"? Men get cancers from HPV as well. Men also suffer when family members get cancer. The OP is a fool.

Re:Vaccine for everyone

[dfghjk]

...or BF or husband. Or preventing him from getting cancer from HPV given to him from his GF or wife...or BF or husband.

It should be obvious by now that this whole topic is rooted in sexism. The arguments for vaccinating boys are at least as strong as for girls.

Re: Vaccine for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

HPV also causes various mouth, penis and anal cancers. He benefits without a cervix.

Re:Vaccine for everyone

[squiggleslash]

Why? Because it's of benefit to your son both directly and indirectly. Directly, HPV causes cancer in men too. Indirectly it would suck if he transmitted HPV to a future partner and she got cancer.

If I'm reading SB correctly, he's not saying "Why should I pay for this in any way", he's saying "Why shouldn't this be subsidized, so it's free for all, which I'll pay for through my taxes. Why should people have to pay for it directly when they may feel that it's no benefit to themselves to do so?" The first line of the post you're responding to says "This is the solution. That vaccine should be free. Herd immunity benefits everyone."

Re: Vaccine for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

It also stops other Cancers.

They just can't say it because of FDA rules on testing. It's been shown to reduce penial, anal and oral Cancers

Re:Vaccine for everyone

[sexconker]

Those same strains of HPV are linked to other cancers that affect men. But a vaccine against ass cancer isn't marketable.

They only did a half hearted attempt to show it could benefit males after they faced opposition to the campaigns they were backing that would have required all school all girls to get the vaccine. One attack angle against these campaigns was going to be that the laws requiring girls to get vaccinated are sexist. So they said "Fuck it, vaccinate boys too here's a half-assed study also we knew about the potential benefits ages ago but didn't think it would sell.". They spent more time on political and media campaigns than they did on anything else. I can still hear the girls chanting "One less, one less. I'm gonna be one less." as they jump rope in an obnoxious commercial.

I don't know what became of the various efforts to require the vaccine for school kids in the US. I hope they failed. This was one of the most blatant and obvious attempts by the pharmaceutical industry to write their own profits into law.

Re:Vaccine for everyone

[sexconker]

The OP is a fool, a well known one here on Slashdot. But in this case it's not his fault. The vaccine was marketed only as helping females. Because that's what sells. They knew it could help males from many similar cancers caused by the same strains of HPV, but they barely explored it and sure as hell didn't market it.

They first ran ad campaigns yanking at people's heartstrings and accusing people of being bad parents if they didn't get their girls this one vaccine against certain strains of HPV which have been linked to higher rates of certain cervical cancers. Then they funded tons of efforts to require all school age girls to get the vaccine. Challengers stepped forward and were going to use, as one angle of attack, the fact that such laws would be sexist. Then they trotted out some basic info about the vaccine being safe for males, and switched their push to requiring all school age children, males and females, to be vaccinated.

Did they market the fact that they knew it had the same potential benefits for males? No, they marketed it as being the responsibility of boys to get vaccinated to protect girls.

Re:Vaccine for everyone

[sexconker]

Or, maybe he could not fuck people with HPV, never get HPV, and never spread HPV?

You can't win a moral crusade about STDs without addressing how they spread. We could wipe out nearly all STDs in a generation if people would just act responsibly. They can't do this for their OWN protection, how are you going to expect them to do it for the protection of others?

Re:Vaccine for everyone

[king neckbeard]

Yes, but unlike your fictional standards of responsibility, which incidentally, the religious authoritarians generally have the LEAST of, these vaccines exist in the real world. Humans are animals. Animals have sex. Get the fuck over it.

Re:Vaccine for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

HPV also causes penile cancer. Does your son have a penis by any chance?

Re:Vaccine for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

You *can not* know whether the person you're fucking has HPV. It's not detectable with a convenient blood test like HIV. The *only* way to be sure is to have that person vaccinated in their childhood before they became sexually active.

Re:Vaccine for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't win a moral crusade about STDs

The point is not to win a moral crusade, the point is to minimise or eradicate disease. You are not going to achieve that by relying on members of a species, who were created with the explicit program to "go forth and multiply," to "act responsibly" and stop having sex.

Abstinence programs are calculated (in the legal sense of that word) to increase the rates of teenage pregnancies and encourage the spread of STDs.

Re:Vaccine for everyone

[harlequinn]

I'm not super knowledgeable on this but...

Socially beneficial policies driven by a democratically elected government that taxes the income from the workers in the free market economy does not equal socialism. I.e. publicly funded health initiatives does not equal socialism.

It is so far away from socialism it's not even worth putting them in the same sentence.

It's not hard

[PopeRatzo]

We could do it in the US, but we've got evangelical so-called "christians" who refuse to give their kids the vaccine, because Jesus told them sex is bad, m'kay? These are the same people who will enthusiastically vote for child molesters and men who admit to committing sexual assault because their helmet-haired preachers have told them they are "chosen".

https://www.theguardian.com/us...

https://www.thetrumpprophecymo...

Re:It's not hard

[ChromeAeonuim]

You've got to be one stone cold prick to think that cancer is an appropriate punishment for having pre-marital sex. How can you be such a horrible person as to say 'Well honey, you made Jesus sad, so now you have to die miserably.' They're literally using disease as a cudgel to help enforce their views on sexuality. Congratulations, you've literally partnered with cancer, way to demonstrate your moral superiority.

Of all the evidence that the religious right is full of shit, this sure is some of it.

Re:It's not hard

[El Cubano]

We could do it in the US, but we've got evangelical so-called "christians" who refuse to give their kids the vaccine, because Jesus told them sex is bad, m'kay?

How come women (read: girls in high school) are allowed to choose to have an abortion but not allowed to choose to have or not have this vaccine? How does forcing them to get the vaccine support their control over their own bodies? Because, you know, there was a small court case about the government telling women what they could/could not do with their bodies (read: abortions). But, you might have missed it.

Still, since you probably missed that bit, it explains why you think it is OK for the government to force girls to get HPV vaccines.

These are the same people who will enthusiastically vote for child molesters and men who admit to committing sexual assault because their helmet-haired preachers have told them they are "chosen".

I know you must be upset about Senator Cory Booker, as am I, since it has come to light that he sexually assaulted a teenage girl when he was in high school (by his own written admission, no less). I trust that the 56% of New Jersians who voted for him will find someone suitable to replace him when his seat comes up in 2020. I also trust that his presidential prospects are dead in the water.

Re:It's not hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, spot the CHIP on your shoulder, mate! Like agnostics and atheists are all perfect and you hammer the one religious group, because you secretly fear them that they might be right on some things like the existence of God?

Re:It's not hard

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really don't understand the difference between an abortion and a vaccine, keep voting (R) and fade into obscurity with the rest of your worthless generation while the world progresses without you. Your come between the greatest generation and the generation that has to pay for your sins, and your only contributions to the world are leeching the little good that was left in it and charging your heirs for the privilege of living in the world that you ruined. You are a stain upon the earth, grandpa.

Re:It's not hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Gen Z is conservative as fuck, loser

Re:It's not hard

[Anonymous Coward]

The number of Christians who think Trump is a “choosen one”.

He was chosen by the RNC and the electoral college and that is all.

I’m a Christian and we are most definitely do vacatate ourselves (Hep B, Flu) and our children too.

If I could get this vaccine for our sons, we would (the inventor of the vaccine gave it to his own son).

Jenny McCarthy, Playboy model, is against vaccines. Can’t find any evidence she claims to be Christian.

You really should be against Playboy models, not Christians.

Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who faked a study and poured gasoline on the Anti-Vax fire is a disgraced doctor.

Should definitely be against disgraced doctors!

Re:It's not hard

[labnet]

I belong to a Christian community and am from Australia where the vaccine was invented and there is ZERO objection to it here.
The real problem is your screwed up healthcare system that throws poor people on the scrapheap of humanity.
Our vaccination rates are high, simply because it is given free of charge to all school girls during school hours. No need to drag your bigotry into the discussion.

Re:It's not hard

[Lothsahn]

As a Christian, I'd love to dispute your argument, but honestly, I agree with it. I think a lot of people have acted that way, consciously or otherwise. A lot of people have definitely gotten off the track and aren't reflecting Jesus at all. John 13:35, Matthew 7:1, etc.

Sorry for the pain they've caused you and others. The only thing I can say is the Jesus I know doesn't act like that, and there are many good Christians who actually reflect love, tolerance, and kindness--not judgement.

Re:It's not hard

[PopeRatzo]

I belong to a Christian community and am from Australia where the vaccine was invented and there is ZERO objection to it here.

The kind of evangelicalism I'm talking about is unique to the United States.

Our vaccination rates are high, simply because it is given free of charge to all school girls during school hours. No need to drag your bigotry into the discussion.

We've tried to have the HPV given to school children, but the evangelicals have blocked every single effort. We even had such a program going in Texas, if you can believe it, but the governor and lieutenant governor, one of whom used to be a radio host on an evangelical-owned network, made it their personal mission to stop the program.

Christians are fine people. But American evangelicals have nothing to do with christianity, I'm afraid.

Re:It's not hard

[sg_oneill]

Thats the thing though. These people are all about punishing women.

Think about all the arguments used for abortion. If someones not prepared to send a woman to death row for an abortion, one must conclude they don't *really* think its murder. And its not about health. And since the same people that want to ban abortion start hollering about communism when its suggested they might pay a little bit more tax to ensure a single mother has food to feed her child, its pretty clear they don't give a fuck about what to do with the child they forced on the woman.

Which really only leaves punishment. Banning abortion is to punish women for sex.

And so is opposing the HPV vaccine. And in this case, the stakes are even higher. Have sex, get cancer, that'll learn you for disobeying sky jesus.

Re:It's not hard

[nightfire-unique]

Cervical cancer is to the body what religion is to the mind. :(

Re:It's not hard

[Uberbah]

He was chosen by the RNC

You misspelled "Hillary".

https://www.politico.com/magaz...

Re:It's not hard

[Uberbah]

These people are all about punishing women. Think about all the arguments used for abortion.

People who want fathers (or even alleged fathers) to pay child support for children they didn't ask for, for 225+ months, use the exact same arguments and reasoning as those who want to force women to carry parental responsibilities they didn't want for 9 months.

Re:It's not hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, spot the CHIP on your shoulder, mate!

The chip's on your shoulder matey, that was a reflection you spotted in the mirror.

Nothing what OP wrote about "so called 'christians'" establishes whether or not he is, or is not, himself a Christian, or whether believes in the god called 'God' or any other god or gods. Your hyper-sensitivity is revealing.

Besides which, he's the Pope for Chrissakes! It's bloody obvious he a Catholic!

And speaking of reflections, what was that about a "secret fear" regarding the existence of God?

Re:It's not hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Cancer is part of God's plan. That's all the proof a believer needs. You understand nothing, heathen. #MAGA

Re: It's not hard

[jd]

Vaccines aren't about your body, they're about everybody.

And in most of the US, abortion is becoming de facto illegal, so your complaint isn't valid anyway.

Re:It's not hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Christians are fine people. But American evangelicals have nothing to do with christianity, I'm afraid.

Not unlike leftists, which is why they lost the last election and will lose in the coming one until they wake up and start acting as compassionate and liberal as they claim to be.

Re: It's not hard

[jd]

Why should I fear the possible existence of God?

The worst I face is purgatory for a thousand years, according to the Bible, although early Christian texts on which Matthew was based say Hell no longer exists.

If God does exist, it will be the Christian right who will be asked to explain themselves.

Re: It's not hard

[jd]

We might disagree on theology, but I respect your philosophy and your right to believe. I wish more were as tolerant as you.

Re: It's not hard

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm from Australia, I am an atheist and I pretty much object to this vaccine being mandatory.

Re:It's not hard

[sg_oneill]

Keep your junk in your pants if you don't want to pay child support. Its not your body thats going to have to carry the bloody thing.

Re: It's not hard

[Chuck Chunder]

It isnâ(TM)t mandatory you ignoramus.

Re:It's not hard

[Uberbah]

You just proved my point: those who want child support use the exact same arguments and reasoning as those who want to force women to carry parental responsibilities they didn't want for 9 months. In this case, the "keep your legs crossed" if you don't want the consequences canard, which applies to women as well as men.

Re:It's not hard

[Daralantan]

We could do it in the US, but we've got evangelical so-called "christians" who refuse to give their kids the vaccine, because Jesus told them sex is bad, m'kay?

Is there some kind of axe to grind with the Christians that all of them are the sole and only cause of anti-vaccers?

Re:It's not hard

[Daralantan]

If someones not prepared to send a woman to death row for an abortion, one must conclude they don't *really* think its murder.

What about the people that also are anti death penalty?

Re:It's not hard

[kenai_alpenglow]

You realize that there are also athiests, agnostics, buddhists, muslims, insert-religion-of-your-choice who do the same thing, for the same or different reasons? Claiming that all Christians do this, or that even a significant number, is just trolling.

Re:It's not hard

[kenai_alpenglow]

You kind of missed the whole point. If The Gov can tell you that you *MUST* take Vaccine X, then the same reasoning says you *MUST NOT* have an abortion. That's what the case was about. Disclaimer: I've had more vaccinations than I can count, and my children are also vaccinated.

Re: It's not hard

[kenai_alpenglow]

And there are a multitude of folks who would want to adopt those "unwanted children". So abortion also affects a people.

Re:It's not hard

[cascadingstylesheet]

Thats the thing though. These people are all about punishing women.

If that helps you live with your support for dismembering babies in the womb, so be it.

The human capacity for self deception is limitless.

Re:It's not hard

[dfghjk]

"These people are all about punishing women."

Not really. They are about only their own interests. They enthusiastically punish gay men even more than women and joyously persecute minorities. Women aren't special, they just aren't straight white men.

So sure, women suffer but they don't get lynched for having a vagina. The reason HPV vaccination was for girls only is the denial that gay men exist. HPV causes oral an anal cancers (in both sexes) as well but those were never discussed with the introduction of the vaccine because of the sensitivities of the audience---the belief that boys don't need it because they are the f*ckers, not the f*ckees. The opposition to the vaccination for girls is reprehensible but pales in comparison to opposition for boys which would do much more good.

Re:It's not hard

[dfghjk]

So you're claiming that the government asserts that not having an abortion serves the greater good just like vaccination serves the greater good? What "case" is this?

The argument that the government can mandate vaccination is clear. That argument is irrelevant to abortion.

Re: It's not hard

[dfghjk]

What a load of crap.

Re:It's not hard

[dfghjk]

"Claiming that all Christians do this, or that even a significant number, is just trolling."

And that is a straw man argument.

Opposition to HPV has its origin in religion, ignorance, sexism and misogyny, the later three justified by the former; that that could spill over into specific examples of other groups means nothing. There are no atheists organizing to oppose vaccination even if there are specific ones fooled by nonsense. Only the religious are organized by their very belief system to push such garbage on others.

Also, I am appalled at the assertion that "the kind of evangelicalism I'm talking about is unique to the United States." Sure, Protestant evangelicals are a major problem in the US, but the Catholic Church is a huge problem worldwide. This kind of comment represents massive ignorance of the issue.

Re:It's not hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Barnaby Joyce opposed it because apparently the vaccine encourages promiscuity.

Re:It's not hard

[null etc.]

If someones not prepared to send a woman to death row for an abortion, one must conclude they don't *really* think its murder.

Also consider that a ridiculously high number of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Getting pregnant is like taking a 1 in 5 chance that your body will kill a fetus. How do Christians reconcile that? More fetuses get sent to heaven as a result of God's will than abortion.

Re:It's not hard

[Anonymous Coward]

What a shame that the 'vaccine' is a scam and doesn't actually prevent HPV - but then, by the time this is found out ("HPV has mutated" will be the party line, or some other excuse) it will be DECADES down the line, and the vaccine fraudsters will have made their hundreds of millions of dollars for injecting filth into your daughters.

Re:It's not hard

[careysub]

Thats the thing though. These people are all about punishing women.

Think about all the arguments used for abortion.

You left out the most telling point. The people who are wish to ban abortion in all cases, are also overwhelmingly opposed to the availability of other forms of birth control, which if used - shall we say "religiously"? - would prevent said abortions from even being an issue. They are even opposed to accurate education about sex.

Re:It's not hard

[ChromeAeonuim]

Just to be clear here, I did not mean to imply that Christian = religious right. I'm not trying to take a dump on the religious, just the ones who callously put the health of their own children at risk over it.

Re:It's not hard

[PopeRatzo]

Is there some kind of axe to grind with the Christians that all of them are the sole and only cause of anti-vaccers?

It's not the anti-vaxxers that are driving the opposition to widespread use of the HPV vaccine in schools. It's the evangelicals.

And an argument can be made that evangelicals are not Christians and do not deserve to be included in that category. So no, I don't have any axe to grind with Christians.

Re:It's not hard

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole 'vaccine' thing is a scam:

https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/hpv-vaccination-cervical-cancer/

Re:It's not hard

[Dragonslicer]

You've got to be one stone cold prick to think that cancer is an appropriate punishment for having pre-marital sex. How can you be such a horrible person as to say 'Well honey, you made Jesus sad, so now you have to die miserably.' They're literally using disease as a cudgel to help enforce their views on sexuality. Congratulations, you've literally partnered with cancer, way to demonstrate your moral superiority.

It's a direct consequence of the belief that life isn't really important because the eternal afterlife is all that matters.

Also keep in mind that not all religions share this belief.

Re: It's not hard

[jd]

If they did, they'd have adopted kids already.

Those kids waiting... And waiting... And waiting... And ending up serially abused when they're 18, penniless and vulnerable suggests your list of adopters may be very short or seriously unethical.

Re: It's not hard

[jd]

Generally, evangelical Buddhists aren't much of an issue. Evangelical atheists tend not to care. Evangelical heathens will sacrifice a chicken to Woden before reading the entrails and declaring they don't give a damn.

Doesn't leave a whole lot of others.

Re: It's not hard

[jd]

Any Buddhist who objects isn't much of a Buddhist. They're certainly not Enlightened.

I tend not to worry about fictional people.

Except for The Doctor and Gandalf. Both of whom would be in favour.

Re:It's not hard

[sarren1901]

To be fair, if you only ever had sex as a virgin with a virgin spouse you just married, your chance at getting an STI is almost zero. I'm not saying that's practical or in the norm with how we live, but if you did live that way you would not need the vaccine in the first place.

Good for Australia for trying to get everyone vaccinated. People aren't meant to be monogamist and most aren't. Many are serial monogamist (one partner after another) but that's still not actual monogamy.

Re:It's not hard

[sarren1901]

Keep your legs shut if you don't want uninvited fetuses from showing up.

It goes both ways. Takes a sperm and an egg to make happen. One can't do this alone.

Re:It's not hard

[J. T. MacLeod]

I don't have the study to dispute particulars, but that doesn't pass the sniff test.

In the US, Protestants outnumber Catholics 2 to 1, and protestants opposed to birth control are so fringe as to not have any mainline denominational representation. Opinions on whether youth should have access to contraception may vary by individual, but that isn't what the summary implies is the stance.

And there's essentially no one who would prefer that youth who had pre-marital sex not use contraception.

Re:It's not hard

[J. T. MacLeod]

As a Christian who does not advocate pre-marital sex, I still find the benefits compelling.

However, I am nonetheless very bothered as a human being that we're using a vaccine to control risk that could be controlled by simple human behavior.

Re:It's not hard

[PopeRatzo]

However, I am nonetheless very bothered as a human being that we're using a vaccine to control risk that could be controlled by simple human behavior.

Now think about what you've said. Every communicable disease from the common cold to ebola could be controlled by "simple human behavior". You could simply never go outside or come into contact with other people.

And if you think that teenagers having sex is a behavior that can be simply controlled, you're ignoring all of human history. Hell, you're ignoring all history of mammalian life on Earth. If there's one thing for which we have copious evidence, from thousands of peer-reviewed studies right down to our own two eyes, it's that abstinence does not work.

Think of all the states where sex education, including contraception, have been replaced by evangelical politicians with abstinence-only programs. In every single instance - no exceptions - the rate of teen, unmarried pregnancies has gone up and the rate of sexually-transmitted disease has gone up.

Re:It's not hard

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be making the assumption that no-one is allowed to opt out of getting vaccine.
Why is that?

Re: It's not hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should I fear the possible existence of God?

It's a false equivalence fallacy: i.e. because he secretly fears the non-existence of God, atheists much have a matching opposite fear.

ELIMINATE RELIGION. WORSHIP THE STATE.

[Anonymous Coward]

Join JOin Join Join Join JOIN Join Join Join JoiN Join
Join JOin Join Join Join JOIN Join Join Join JoiN Join

l . . lnazina
l . . l . . .
l . . l . . .
lnazinazinazi
. . . l . . l
. . . l . . l
nazinal . . l

The The THe The The The THE The The The ThE
The The THe The The The THE The The The ThE

l . . lnazina
l . . l . . .
l . . l . . .
lnazinazinazi
. . . l . . l
. . . l . . l
nazinal . . l

NaZi Nazi Nazi nazi Nazi NaZi Nazi nazi Nazi Nazi
NaZi Nazi Nazi nazi Nazi NaZi Nazi nazi Nazi Nazi

l . . lnazina
l . . l . . .
l . . l . . .
lnazinazinazi
. . . l . . l
. . . l . . l
nazinal . . l

PaRTY! PARTY! PaRTY! PARtY! pARTY!
PaRTY! PARTY! PaRTY! PARtY! pARTY!

There's not a lot of those

[rsilvergun]

but there are a ton of folks who can't afford the vaccine. We don't have single payer so we've got millions without healthcare. The numbers are higher than that stats since we define healthcare access as "having insurance" but lots can't afford to use the insurance they have.

But, hey, who's gonna pay for it, amiright?

Re:There's not a lot of those

[PopeRatzo]

but there are a ton of folks who can't afford the vaccine.

Insurance will cover vaccines with at most a very minimal copay. And all of drug companies manufacturing the vaccine have patient assistance programs that will send you a coupon to get the vaccine for free or maybe $5.

And I'm sure school districts would happily offer vaccines for free, except it upsets the god-botherers. Fortunately, over the past 2 years a lot of people have opened their eyes to what the evangelicals are really all about, and it's not about worshipping God or serving Jesus.

https://youtu.be/aRcnJPQqY0c

Re:There's not a lot of those

[Joe_Dragon]

australia has an system that covers all.

Re:There's not a lot of those

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does it even matter what insurance covers? In what other first world nation is that a concern? Every single other first world country offers this and other vaccines to its citizens without them having to worry about a fucking copay.

Re:There's not a lot of those

[Lothsahn]

As an evangelical God worshipper, I fully support the HPV vaccine (and my children have been vaccinated for HPV and all other diseases as per the recommended schedule) and I don't support a lot of what Trump has done, nor did I vote for him.

I know, sample size of one and all, but we're not all anti-science.

You are also welcome on my lawn. Sorry some of my fellow Christians have behaved so poorly.

Re:There's not a lot of those

[PopeRatzo]

You are also welcome on my lawn. Sorry some of my fellow Christians have behaved so poorly.

Brother, you come to my house any time. I can't imagine what it's like to be a devout believe in a faith that is being so badly misused by horrible people.

Here is a famous photo of Donald Trump being "anointed" by a group of evangelical "leaders". There's a similar photo, taken right after inauguration, with Trump attorney Michael Cohen standing behind him. Cohen is the one who Trump had pay off the porn star and the playboy model.

https://goo.gl/images/ux8VE9

Re:There's not a lot of those

[angel'o'sphere]

The vaccine costs perhaps 5 cents ...
It is your fucked up country that prevents people from getting healthcare.

Re:There's not a lot of those

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like socialism, I'ld rather die young and free. #MAGA

Re:There's not a lot of those

[xpiotr]

Trump attorney Michael Cohen standing behind him. Cohen is the one who Trump had pay off the porn star and the playboy model.

Is your problem with her profession, or the fact that he paid her off?
I for one, as a christian, have no problem with her profession(s).

Re:There's not a lot of those

[mhotchin]

I don't think the parent was trying to say anything about the profession - it's the *evangelicals* who have the problem, but gave 45 a pass. I believe he is commenting on the hypocrisy.

Re:There's not a lot of those

[martinX]

$130 per dose in the US (in 2013) according to Wikipedia.

The article further states, "In the United States, the cost per quality-adjusted life year is greater than US$100,000 for vaccinating the male population, compared to the less than US$50,000 for vaccinating the female population. This assumes a 75% vaccination rate."

Re:There's not a lot of those

[cascadingstylesheet]

I for one, as a christian, have no problem with her profession(s).

That makes no sense. Jesus states flatly that He has a problem with it.

That's like saying "as a Democrat, I want to eliminate all social programs and completely close the border. No problem!"

Re:There's not a lot of those

[dfghjk]

Also, the fact that not all Christians are a problem does not mean that Christians aren't a problem. There are good and bad people, the religious are no different but they use special entitlement to impose their awfulness on others. That entitlement needs to go.

It's also not just Christians either, it's all religion. The failure of US politics is not recognizing that freedom of religion also requires freedom from religion. Separation of church and state must go both ways, religion must not grant immunity from compliance with rules that benefit society. Any reasoning that starts with "my faith" must be rejected with prejudice.

Re:There's not a lot of those

[dfghjk]

Why do you assume that the problem identified is with the woman or with the payment? Why not with the reason for the payment or with the hypocrisy of the evangelicals?

Again, why do individual Christians think that their personal positions are proof that no problem exists?

Re:There's not a lot of those

[angel'o'sphere]

That is not the cost, that is the price you pay.

Again: production cost of such a shot is most certainly a very low cent amount.

It is completely ridiculous that you allow a company to charge so much for a vaccine!

Re:There's not a lot of those

[PopeRatzo]

Is your problem with her profession, or the fact that he paid her off?
I for one, as a christian, have no problem with her profession(s).

No, my problem is that he was raw-dogging porn stars while his wife was home with his new baby, and lying about it to voters, and then violating US law in order to hide the fact.

Re: There's not a lot of those

[jd]

I can guarantee you'll die young and stupid. It is also not socialism. But one out of three ain't bad.

Re:There's not a lot of those

[Anonymous Coward]

Has no one told you to fuck off yet? Ok, I'll step up to the plate. Fuck you.

Re:There's not a lot of those

[Lothsahn]

Brother, you come to my house any time. I can't imagine what it's like to be a devout believe in a faith that is being so badly misused by horrible people.

It's not easy, but I've got it easy compared to some of my liberal Muslim co-workers.

The reality is that it's hard to balance loving others, but reject behavior. Yeshua (Jesus) showed us how to do this in John 8:1-11, but it's not natural. Humans are fundamentally tribal in nature (the recent political situation in the US exemplifies this perfectly). Humans want to categorize people into Good & Evil, Friend and Foe. But then God comes along and says: I want you to behave in this different way. I want you to simultaneously say "I don't condemn you" AND "change your ways--go and sin no more." So it's hard to simultaneously love and accept someone while rejecting their actions--because they're both Friend and Foe simultaneously. I think this is where people so often fail because it's a VERY difficult balance to maintain. Some give up and classify everyone as Friend (Unitarian Universalists). Others go the other way and classify everyone as Foe (Westboro Baptists).

A good example to Friend/Foe is what you linked above. If I were an evangelical leader, I would absolutely pray for and with Donald Trump during his inauguration. But I would do exactly the same for Obama or Clinton as well. One would argue that I should be MORE willing to pray over and with my foes, because they need the most help (Matthew 5:43-47).

But the real key to Christianity is judgement is reserved for the Lord. I'm not allowed to judge others, I'm only allowed to witness and tell the truth as I see it. If I find myself judging others, I'm doing it wrong (Matthew 7:1-5).

Re:There's not a lot of those

[demonlapin]

Some vaccines are very cheap, nearly free. Not all of them are. Hepatitis B and yellow fever, for example, which cost around $70 per injection at my county health clinic. Neither is covered by insurance because they are considered low-risk diseases in the US, although you generally have to get the hep B series to work as a doctor or nurse.

Re:There's not a lot of those

[apoc.famine]

The classic way to say that is, "What can be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence."

To have faith, you need to believe that something is true without having evidence for it being true. It's brutally unfair for someone to be allowed to make decisions that impact the lives of others when they base their decisions on something not grounded in reality nor evidence. Somehow in the US we've glamorized this and demonized the lack of it, and that, I believe, is the ultimate evil of the evangelical movement.

Re:There's not a lot of those

[sarren1901]

His sex life has absolutely no real baring on anything, now does it? If we weren't so puritanical in the US this would not be such a big deal. Heck, remember when the last French president was photoed riding a moped with his mistress? The biggest concern was for his safety as he didn't have any secret service with him. They barely even mentioned or cared that he had a side girl.

Here, we would completely go for character attack because god forbid someone have sex outside of marriage, or while married to someone else. Oh the humanity. The reason people lie about their sex life is because it is not your fucking business.

Fuck Trump and fuck Hillary.

Re:There's not a lot of those

[Xenna]

In my socialized medicine country, the government deems the HPV vaccine unnecessary for boys so I get to pay ~600 EUR for each of my boys...

Show me a country that's not fucked up in some way.

Re:There's not a lot of those

[Anonymous Coward]

How much did it cost the company to develop the vaccine? How much does the doctor's time cost? How much does the transport and storage of the drug cost?

It isn't the ingredients that are expensive.
The Gardasil-4 manufacturing facility cost Merck over $1 billion to build.
A Gardasil-4 is estimated to cost around $0.50 a dose to manufacture.

Merck sells Gardasil-4 to third world countries (through an NGA) for as little as $4.50 a dose - explicitly because of higher prices in first-world countries. If all countries paid the same price, it would be in excess of $75 a dose.

Re:There's not a lot of those

[Lothsahn]

I would disagree. My faith is based on evidence of Christianity. For instance, Isaiah 53, which was written far before the birth of Christ made a large number of predictions about the messiah. Reading it and knowing it was written hundreds of years before the New Testament is... eerie.

There are many other reasons I believe. I don't have faith based in zero evidence, but I also admit that there's no 100% proof that I'm right.

Re:There's not a lot of those

[apoc.famine]

To any rational reader, there is nothing resembling evidence in there. If you start from a position of confirming your biases, sure, it looks good. If that was prophetic, it would have actual details in it, and would point to a specific individual who could not be any other individual. It does not.

You have faith based on zero evidence. If you had evidence, you'd have a Nobel Prize. To date, nobody has produced evidence that god exists. If you can't do that, you don't have evidence for truth in religion.

Is this a transsexual thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they planning on eliminating cervical cancer by eliminating cervixes?

Re:Is this a transsexual thing?

[Bobrick]

Don't you dare read the summary or anything!

sweden on the way as well

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/smittskydd-beredskap/vaccinationer/vaccinationsprogram/uppfoljning-av-vaccinationsprogram/hpv-vaccinuppfoljning/ (swedish)
It been part of the public and free vaccine program since 2006 and older girls have been vaccinated as well.
50% of death by the form of cancer is bellived to be prevented by this.
No important side effects other than 93% protection against kondylom has been found.
So it's nothing like the shark virus against the swine flu that was truly a bad idea. At least the swedish vaccine has been tested on a massive scale for a decade.
And if your girls will be good ones not sleeping around, are you as sure about the douchebag they marry?

Does PENIS CANCER get your attention?

[surfcow]

HPV is a virus - that causes cancer.
A cancer virus.

Yes, HPV causes cancer of the cervix, vulva, and vagina.
But also cancers of the penis, throat, mouth, anus, prostate.
Men get HPV cancers too.
Penetrative sex is not required.

So HPV is a virus - that causes cancer - of the sex organs.

I wish they called it "Sex organ cancer virus."

Unlike ALL the other cancers, these cancers can be prevented with a single vaccine.

A cancer vaccine.

We are sexually active, and we both received the Gardasil-9 series.
Our insurance (KP) would NOT cover it. Said we were too old.
We went to Costco and paid out of pocket
3 shots in the series, about $220 each.

I hear cancer is expensive too.

Re:Does PENIS CANCER get your attention?

[thesupraman]

So why are they only vaccinating women?

Oh. Yes. I remember... Only the protected classes count.
Silly me.

Re:Does PENIS CANCER get your attention?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, you would be silly.

Australia vaccinates boys and girls:
The vaccine is provided free of charge for: 12- and 13-year-old males and females through schools on an ongoing basis
[http://www.hpvregister.org.au/health-professionals]

Re:Does PENIS CANCER get your attention?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, here in Australia both girls AND boys are given the vaccination at school free-of-charge in Year 7 (i.e. 12 - 13 years of age), unless their parents object.

Re:Does PENIS CANCER get your attention?

[martinX]

Initially it was given to only girls for free because of a bit of cost/benefit analysis. Following exposure, HPV causes cervical cancer at a higher rate than it causes penile cancer. Other cancers caused by HPV are even lower down on the list. The assumption was if you can knock it out in females then that will have a largely dampening effect on the already very small numbers of male cancers. The ideal was always known to be vaccinating boys, but someone has to pay for this.

Anyway, the argument is now moot here, since - as others have pointed out - it is freely available to boys now, too.

Re:Does PENIS CANCER get your attention?

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason boys get vaccinated is to protect girls. It's all about the impact on women. That's the reason HPV gets any attention at all: because of its effect on women. See the article for example.

According to the study boys got vaccinated 6 years later than girls. At best it's an afterthought, at worst merely collateral damage.

Re:Does PENIS CANCER get your attention?

[Anonymous Coward]

Both boys and girls are vaccinated - free of charge - in Australia.

100% coverage.

Because, Fuck cancer. Fuck to to obvlivion.

Re:Does PENIS CANCER get your attention?

[martinX]

From Wikipedia:
"Since penile and anal cancers are much less common than cervical cancer, HPV vaccination of young men is likely to be much less cost-effective than for young women. From a public health point of view, vaccinating men as well as women decreases the virus pool within the population, but is only cost-effective if the uptake in the female population is extremely low. In the United States, the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) is greater than US$100,000 for vaccinating the male population, compared to the less than US$50,000 for vaccinating the female population. This assumes a 75% vaccination rate."

A QALY of less than US$50 000 is generally used as the cut-off for the economic argument for carrying out a health program.

Re:Does PENIS CANCER get your attention?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does PENIS CANCER get your attention?

It would've had more of an effect before I heard about Assburger's Syndome.

lol

[Hugh Jorgen]

OK, let's dig up this time capsule of horseshit in 10 years. There is no moral or fiscal reason to cure or prevent cancer. Cancer treatments rarely improve quality of health and they typically costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Re:lol

[careysub]

... Cancer treatments rarely improve quality of health and they typically costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.

People who are live many years after successful cancer treatment would disagree about your dismissal of their years of life. In 1950 the 5 year survival rate of someone with a cancer diagnosis was 35%, now it is 70%. But you might have a bit of a point about the high cost of many cancer treatments.

There is no moral or fiscal reason to cure or prevent cancer.

Which is why your screed against preventing cancer is such a grotesque logical fail.

Re: lol

[jd]

The data shows otherwise.

Ultimately, if you stay otherwise healthy, you will die from either cancer or exhaustion of stem cells.

The latter occurs at age 120.

So eliminating cancer raises the average life expectancy to 100.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

What a sadass moron.

[Falconhell]

This costs next to nothing, and prevents a deadly form of cancer.
Sorry to burst your sad little troll bubble.

8-bit view of the world

[Anonymous Coward]

How come women (read: girls in high school) are allowed to choose to have an abortion but not allowed to choose to have or not have this vaccine?

Forcing women, even high school girls, to have abortions, or forcing them to go to term, is a far greater imposition on their bodily autonomy than a compulsory vaccine would be. As such the justification for your compulsory abortion/pregnancy scheme would need a far greater justification than that which might sustain a compulsory vaccination program. Since the elimination of a form of cancer might be achieved by compulsory vaccination you should need to provide a greater rationale for forced abortion/pregnancy before your comparison might be taken seriously.

I hasten to add that, in the present case, Australia achieved a 78.6% completion rate for all 3 doses among girls without coercion.

So is this the current scientific stance on HPV?

[Kokuyo]

When the first vaccines were brought to market, there seemed to be a lot of questions surrounding the topic. It wasn't all that sure whether the presence of the HP virus was circumstancial... you know correlation versus causation. AND the vaccines seemed to sometimes have dire side-effects.

Does anyone know where science is standing on this topic? And I don't mean pharma. I mean science ;).

USA cant do it. TOO HARD!

[Anonymous Coward]

USA IS NOT #1! USA IS NOT #1! USA IS NOT #1!
captcha:pathetic

Re: So is this the current scientific stance on HP

[jd]

There's no evidence of dire side effects from vaccines, hyperactive immune systems can cause problems

HPV does cause cancer, that's the latest from science.

Re:So is this the current scientific stance on HPV

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't heard confirmation either; however, I did hear that they've updated the vaccine since the early years so it covers all KNOWN strains that could cause cervical cancer. There are around 100 known strains of HPV if I recall correctly.

They still do not have a test for it that works on men. The other ones that may cause or increase risks of other cancers still don't seem to be making much progress... It would seem to me that their inability to test men and lack of widespread testing of women is why they are so slow in dealing with all the bad strains of the virus.

As far as people saying something is the cause, it's likely rounding again. For example, (from experience) they label lung cancers as being from smoking without expensive testing; if you are NOT a smoker, they assume it was radon and it gets written down as such. This can probably get into studies... They didn't seem interested in making sure after death either; it's just assumed that it's so strong that it is not worth confirming. So even after I die, they won't bother to figure it out; especially when I went and did a radon test at home. it failed. But before I said that, it was decided by the doc already. he's probably right but he didn't know... now if I did some job maybe that had some known connection... maybe something then. I wonder how good the data can be with the general medical records not being a great data source if they handle thigns like they are with me.

Re: So is this the current scientific stance on HP

[Kokuyo]

So were the young women being turned into vegetables mere media hype?

Re:So is this the current scientific stance on HPV

[Anonymous Coward]

Was on a few of the trials, standard vaccination disclosures, not more or less noticeable in general population. Oh but here is a bit those who cannot receive the vaccinations, (usually those who would react with severe side effects even with the polio or flu vaccine due to a known disease condition limiting their immune system), rely on herd immunity. Often this produces poor consequences for them when there is a drop in vaccination rates and they are still the ones with the more vulnerable immune system. Sure main side effects of injection site is your arm might feel a little sore but it is far less than a minor headache and far far less than a hangover. Many people in the country lining up for hangovers, not as many want to avoid deadly cancer that affects men and women. Even the side effects listed are not as bad as what most people willingly do to their bodies on weekends. The science has been settled. The vaccine has gone through multiple, multi country, multi test group phases all with peer review. You can google many of the results yourself if you want the boring task of collating 100s of studies outside of your research field & skill set.

This is australia so...

[Anonymous Coward]

All cervical cancer patients will be arrested and detained, pending deportation. Citizens will be awarded for informing on friends or relatives.

Re: So is this the current scientific stance on HP

[Anonymous Coward]

Here, we call them teenagers and lately hipsters!

Anti-socialist troll

[DrYak]

But, hey, who's gonna pay for it, amiright?

Indeed, you're right this mentality is problematic.
Cue in tons of citations from Margarett Tatcher about "running out of somebody's else monney".
Despite the fact that :
  - there are several European countries here around which managed to have successful public healthcare, without being an enconomic shit-hole.
  - the health domain is typically the situation where it will end up costing tons of money to these "somebody else"s in the long term if you don't spend a bit now in advance. (usually, prevention costs a lot less to the society than the actual handling of a disease. And that's at the society level. At the personal level it's even worse).

Re: Anti-socialist troll

[Anonymous Coward]

US math scores are poor, and because of that to many donâ(TM)t understand the economics of how insurance can & should work. Instead we use fear, lies and the word of ins companies lobbyists to enrage the masses in favor of believing itâ(TM)s better to let 750k a year of people go bankrupt due to illness and medical costs.

Re: So is this the current scientific stance on HP

[mvdwege]

Yes.

Want to sealion some more?

You're just trading risk for risk.

[Anonymous Coward]

A bunch of people have died from the vaccine tho...

https://www.nvic.org/vaccines-and-diseases/HPV.aspx

The odds say most of them wouldn't have gotten cancer either.

Re:You're just trading risk for risk.

[careysub]

Or to consult a site that actually discusses genuine epidemiology, you find that there is no evidence of an elevated risk of death from the vaccine at all. As in - not even a tiny bit.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesaf...

The anti-vax site the Coward links to simply cites raw reports. People die sometimes, lots of reasons. Lots of people get vaccinated. They also do lots of other things for the first time. Some of these people will later die, lots of reasons. That does not mean the vaccination, of any of the other first time things they did, contributed to their death. You do controlled studies to tell the difference.

Re: You're just trading risk for risk.

[jd]

Nobody has died from the vaccine.

Thousands have died from anti-vaxxer propaganda.

I want those responsible in court. Since they knew the effect and knew there was no risk from vaccines, second degree murder seems appropriate.

How does a 'vaccine' work?

[Anonymous Coward]

And how is a 'vaccine' PRODUCED? Isn't it strange how it's really hard to find any explanation of exactly HOW a 'vaccine' is made, on the internet.

Jenner was a fraudster, and there is no such thing as a 'vaccine'.

http://www.whale.to/v/hadwen1.html

Re:How does a 'vaccine' work?

[careysub]

You mean it is really strange how hard it is to type in "how is a vaccine made" in Google? I did and the first article listed described seven different methods in use for different types of vaccines. Google. Try it some time.

Re: How does a 'vaccine' work?

[jd]

Many ways to make vaccines.

The oldest was blood taken from people with related diseases.

Current methods use animals with similar immune systems, or deactivated pathogens.

Anti-vax

[sjbe]

We could do it in the US, but we've got evangelical so-called "christians" who refuse to give their kids the vaccine, because Jesus told them sex is bad, m'kay?

Correct but to be fair we also have the (mostly) granola munching anti-vax crowd who wrongly think that their kid will immediately become autistic if they vaccinate them. In both cases it is a result of individual freedom being foolishly prioritized over public and individual health.

Re:Anti-vax

[PopeRatzo]

Correct but to be fair we also have the (mostly) granola munching anti-vax crowd who wrongly think that their kid will immediately become autistic if they vaccinate them.

We elected an anti-vaxxer as president.

https://www.independent.co.uk/...

Re: Anti-vax

[jd]

They're generally right-wing Christian, the anti-vaxxers.

Poor children can get vaccines for free in USA

[sjbe]

but there are a ton of folks who can't afford the vaccine.

They don't need to be able to afford it. There are programs set up for exactly this issue. Cost is not an obstacle.

HPV is not the only cause of cervical cancer

[Luckyo]

Literally, topic. You cannot eliminate certain type of cancer by eliminating one of the risk factors. The claim is patently absurd.

Re:HPV is not the only cause of cervical cancer

[AmiMoJo]

According to Wikipeida around 85% of cervical cancer has this cause. Of course that's globally, in Australia it will be different due to different lifestyles. Other risk factors include smoking and multiple pregnancies, both declining in Aus. So their claim that at some point cervical cancer will be effectively eliminated (instances below some very low threshold) is credible.

Re:HPV is not the only cause of cervical cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

85% - based on what evidence? That people who get this cancer also have HPV? Correlation is not causation. What evidence is that those people had HPV at any time before they had cancer?
It's the usual LIES from the 'vaccination' scammers. How come they haven't got a 'vaccine' for the common cold or the 'flu? Because they keep 'mutating' - how convenient! How come smallpox doesn't 'mutate' then? Or chickenpox? etc.etc.

Re:HPV is not the only cause of cervical cancer

[Gilgaron]

Many viruses break the cell's replication controls so they can produce more virus. This turns the cells into "almost cancer". Then you're a hop skip and a jump from real cancer, should any of the remaining mechanisms break in the cell. Of course, any tissue can become cancerous via random mutation, but the viruses definitely get the ball rolling when they smash the regulatory pathways. Different viruses mutate at different rates, and different families are built very differently. Go look up the size difference between smallpox and flu (physical and genome) and see if you can figure out why vaccinating against the former is easier.

Re:HPV is not the only cause of cervical cancer

[Vicious Penguin]

According to Wikipeida around 85% of cervical cancer has this cause.

Well, kinda. Actually that number is the percentage where HPV dna is discovered in the specimen. But HPV is an ubiquitous virus, so the percentage as a causative agent may not really be that high (nuns in their 90s have tested positive - they can't all be having regular sex). We don't really know why some people get cancer and others don't. Clearly, there are other risk factors as well.

I'm all for vaccination (including this one), but as a public health discussion the HPV vaccine may not give the results that we are expecting. Remember, life is about trade-offs and the question is not whether something works at all, but rather about how well and at what cost. Money being a limited resource and all that. Think about the mammogram studies from 10-15 years ago.

Oddly enough, sometimes it is just cheaper to clean up the mess later (from a macro view - it still sucks for the individual).

I could go on and on, but hopefully I made the point.

Re:HPV is not the only cause of cervical cancer

[tkjtkj]

Additionally, I'm curious as to why NO mention was made of vaccinating males ... in that very macho '2 sixz-packs-of-Fosters for Breakfast' nation ... It's important cuz relatively few people know that males need the vaccination , too! Ya, I lived there for a while ... so im not 'talking thru my church-key' ...

Re:HPV is not the only cause of cervical cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

HPV E6 and E7 inactivate the tumor suppressors p53 and Rb by serving as adapters between the targets (p53 and Rb) and cellular E3 ubiquitin ligases. The resulting inactivation of p53 and Rb makes further steps toward transformation more likely because the proteins are involved in DNA damage checkpoints and cell cycle control. HPV strains that make E6 and E7 that do not target tumor suppressors do not increase cancer risk. The pathway is well worked out. The evidence is overwhelming. Your argument may have been reasonable 40 years ago. Not anymore.

Re:HPV is not the only cause of cervical cancer

[Luckyo]

Thank you for conceding the point for the OP.

The only thing to add is that while the pathway from HPV infection to cervical cancer is well understood, not even scientists behind it try to suggest that HPV is the sole factor even in 85% of cases where they found the virus in people with cancer.

Let me repeat that, since you clearly didn't read my actual statement. 85% is not the causal link. It's the correlation of people who have cervical cancer who were tested for HPV. And even if you were to make this assumption, and be correct, a claim that even activists driving this one don't make, there are still 15% of cases unaccounted for.

Now read my claim.

Re:HPV is not the only cause of cervical cancer

[Luckyo]

Like most vaccines, there are side effects for small portion of those vaccinated. It's a serious ethical concern to vaccinate people who do not benefit from vaccination in any tangible way, but still have to suffer the side effects.

In general, vaccination logic goes that benefits must be notably greater than potential side effects for treatment to be considered ethical. HPV is typically completely harmless in humans, and even when it does cause some harm, it's rapidly self-resolving. Cancers as a result of it are exceedingly rare compared to infection rates, so you'd have to crunch the math on whether potential cancer or potential side effects are worse in terms of likelihood. It appears there's recently emerged a consensus that in human females, there's a clear net benefit due to cervical cancer potential.

Same cannot be said for males who do not possess cervix.

I had squamous cell cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

The oncologist said it was caused by HPV, a virus most humans carry with us. Surgery & radiation treatments are not enjoyable! Get your kids, girls AND boys, vaccinated. Your kids are not going to be more likely to have sex because of it but it might just make their life better.

Rationality about science

[sjbe]

As an evangelical God worshipper, I fully support the HPV vaccine (and my children have been vaccinated for HPV and all other diseases as per the recommended schedule) and I don't support a lot of what Trump has done, nor did I vote for him.

As an atheist it's nice to see a religious person being rational about science.

I know, sample size of one and all, but we're not all anti-science.

We know that. It frustrates and confuses me why folks like yourself aren't as a group shouting down the crazy ones among you because I know you aren't alone. I genuinely don't care if an adult wants to worship privately and I'm fine with people having views that differ from my own. But when they start pretending that their fictional holy book should supersede empirical evidence or that their mythology has a place in the science classroom or in public health policy then we have a fight. I don't care what the bible says - it's not a basis for any rational discussion much less public policy about science.

You are also welcome on my lawn. Sorry some of my fellow Christians have behaved so poorly.

Likewise. What I'm puzzled by is how many self proclaimed "values voters" among the religious right shamelessly dumped any pretense at morality by voting for Trump. Trump is a guy who is a near embodiment of many of the sorts of values they claim to hate (lying, philandering, etc) and yet a shocking number of them are among his most enthusiastic supporters. I get that they didn't like Clinton but how Trump ever won the republican party nomination with the support of so many of these hypocrites will probably forever elude me.

Re:Rationality about science

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem confused - "values voters" don't vote for a candidate based on the candidates values. They vote based on the values of the policies the candidate is pushing.

Trump is a nasty person. However, he supports protecting religious practices.
Clinton was a nasty person, but less of one than Trump. However, she supported anti-religious polices.

The evangelicals simply chose to vote based on the policies, rather than the person.
You seem to think that if Mother Theresa was running on a campaign of enforced atheism and practical sex courses in school, evangelicals would vote for her.

Re:Rationality about science

[Lothsahn]

We know that. It frustrates and confuses me why folks like yourself aren't as a group shouting down the crazy ones among you because I know you aren't alone.

I think Evangelicals are not shouting him down as a group because as a group, evangelicals overwhelmingly support Trump's policies and ignore who he is as a person. The exit polling was something like 80-16%. In particular, policies most important to most evangelicals are likely abortion, religious freedom, support for Israel, and same-sex marriage. And if you look at those issues, Trump has moved in the direction they desire pretty much completely across the board.

If you assume that Americans feel we're in the middle of a culture war (certainly seems like the left and right think so), basic human conflict instinct kicks in. There are only allies and enemies. And Trump's policies are beneficial, so he becomes an ally, and allies must be defended and rallied around, despite their flaws. Don't underestimate the power of human group think--it's insanely powerful. Trump is nowhere near Hitler, and yet Hitler had millions of people rallied around him and cheering him on. One of my favorite quotes to a college class was "You realize that if this was Germany in 1939, nearly all of you would be Nazis?"

Here's an article that I think reflects reality pretty well.
https://www.al.com/living/inde...

But there is a growing movement of liberal evangelicals as well:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

The best course of action would be for us to all learn how to get along with each other. The left calling all Trump supporters racists, homophobes, and bigots isn't helping. The right's treatment of immigrants, immigrant children, homosexuals, and hispanics is infuriating. We need to stop declaring war on each other and learn to compromise and communicate. I personally refuse to "Foe" people on Slashdot to hide their comments, because I believe the Facebook isolation bubble effect is harmful. And while it's uncomfortable to read many posts declaring my faith as "fairy tale worship", it's important that I stay open and communicate with people of all backgrounds.

Not surprising at all

[sjbe]

You've got to be one stone cold prick to think that cancer is an appropriate punishment for having pre-marital sex.

Does this really surprise you? If you believe in the teachings of christianity you pretty much have to believe in the concepts of sins and punishments that result from it. They enthusiastically tell people that they are condemned in the afterlife if they don't tow the line on the (rather ill defined) biblical "teachings" during their life. What is really the difference between thinking someone is going to hell for their behavior versus thinking they deserve cancer for the same behavior? I don't see any difference at all. Either way they are wishing something bad to happen to you.

Not 9 months. 18 years of responsibility.

[sjbe]

You just proved my point: those who want child support use the exact same arguments and reasoning as those who want to force women to carry parental responsibilities they didn't want for 9 months. In this case, the "keep your legs crossed" if you don't want the consequences canard, which applies to women as well as men.

It isn't 9 months of responsibility. It's 18 YEARS of responsibility and mothers and fathers should share that equally since they were both required in the process. If the woman has to raise and deal with the kid (wanted or not) then so should the father in some capacity. If you don't think the father should have to support the child until it is grown then you are de-facto making an argument that women should be allow to abort the fetus to get away from the responsibility too.

If the child is the result of rape by a man then the father should be required to financially support the child but have no visitation rights without the consent of the mother.

Adoption

[sjbe]

And there are a multitude of folks who would want to adopt those "unwanted children". So abortion also affects a people.

Several problems with that argument.
1) The people who allegedly might adopt those children don't have to endure the pregnancy and risks that come with it
2) Very few people who are supposedly against abortion are actually willing to adopt a child to save it from an abortion
3) There are already no lack of children in need of adoption so it's hard to argue we should be making more children
4) A woman should have the right to control her reproductive systems just like any other part of her body at all times. Another person's desire to raise a child should not change that fact.

Re: So is this the current scientific stance on HP

[jd]

Yip. Total fabrication. And scientists have studied this, too.

You can make up your own mind, but you don't get to make up your own facts.

Iceland Model

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they gonna do like Iceland did with Down Syndrome and just kill everyone who has it?

Re:Iceland Model

[jfdavis668]

You mean they "iced" them?

Re:Not 9 months. 18 years of responsibility.

[Uberbah]

It isn't 9 months of responsibility. It's 18 YEARS of responsibility

Months. If the mother gives the child up for adoption, her responsibility is measured in months, and if she has an abortion it's measured in weeks. Both of which she can do without the father's knowledge or consent.

When it comes to unwanted children, women have rights and choices, but men only have responsibilities. And that's sexist AF.

It's the money

[Anonymous Coward]

He paid her off with money that was not his. THAT is the issue. If he had used his own paycheck you wouldn't be hearing me personally bitch about it. Using company money, charity contributions, or whatever other kind of "not your fucking money" exists is what eats my ass. My company doesn't pay for me to bang beautiful women so I ain't letting them pay for anyone else either, if I can help it.

fuck your sniff test

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck your sniff test. Use the reading test. Politicians vote on and pass legislation which EXACTLY supports Carey's claim. If you support and identify with those politicians, then you in some fucked up way believe it too.

Re:Not 9 months. 18 years of responsibility.

[sg_oneill]

When it comes to unwanted children, women have rights and choices, but men only have responsibilities. And that's sexist AF.

No. Its biology. Women carry children in their bodies, men do not. Cold hard science, folks.

HOWEVER!!!! Theres a way out! Take responsibility for your actions!

Re:Not 9 months. 18 years of responsibility.

[Uberbah]

No. Its biology. Women carry children in their bodies, men do not. Cold hard science, folks.

Which is a non-sequitur on the subject of child support and terminating parental rights.

HOWEVER!!!! Theres a way out! Take responsibility for your actions!

Which is the exact argument pro-life people make - congrats on going back to square one.