61 replies to this topic

[eternaltraveler]

It's not like cervical cancer is contagious.

at least 97% of cervical cancer *is* contagious. As it's caused by a few strains of HPV. The causal link there is very strong.

[missminni]

It's not like cervical cancer is contagious.

at least 97% of cervical cancer *is* contagious. As it's caused by a few strains of HPV. The causal link there is very strong.

That "casual link" that you believe is very strong can be dealt with numerous other ways besides vaccination.
That's my point. With the healthcare industry, its their way or the highway. There are other ways to deal with these issues.
Also, it's contagious through sexual activity not casual contact. Let me add that AFAIC anything coming out of the pharmaceutical
industry as the gospel is self-serving and is suspect for that very reason alone.

ETA~and let me add that I think many diagnostic procedures are useless if not harmful.
The pap smear being high on my list. What's the correct detection rate of a pap smear? 50-50. Wow. we might as well use a ouija board.

link to paperDespite being a rather recalcitrant tool, the 'Pap smear' is today the major cancer screening technology in the world. This paper examines how and why heterogeneous actors chose to advocate the Pap smear as a screen for cervical cancer in the late 1940s, and to tinker both in and far beyond the diagnostic laboratory for over 50 years to make the Pap smear 'fit' as a screening and clinical technology. Tinkerings included gendering the division of labour, attempting to automate reading of smears, juggling costs, exploring alternative screening technologies, pushing for regulation of laboratories, and settling for locally-negotiated orders of clinical accuracy instead of global standardization, still elusive today.

Edited by missminni, 01 January 2008 - 07:22 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

elrond, so you disagree with the lead researcher who developed the vaccine?

disagree that the vaccine should be given before infection? No of course I don't disagree. Please don't attempt to obfuscate what I have stated.

Nor do I have any knowledge (other than second hand knowledge mostly from statements read here and elsewhere) regarding the marketing tactics regarding Merck. I've only examined research articles regarding the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing infection, and regarding the oncogenic characteristics of the HPV strains the vaccine guards against.

I also haven't done a detailed analysis on the cost effectiveness of the vaccine. As I've already stated I think it's expensive and may not be worth the cost in favor of expected upcoming competition.

[eternaltraveler]

it's contagious through sexual activity not casual contact.

so I suppose the solution is simply for people to stop having sex. [sfty]

[missminni]

it's contagious through sexual activity not casual contact.

so I suppose the solution is simply for people to stop having sex. [sfty]

I believe there are other options. Many.

[eternaltraveler]

You mean thinly disguised social Darwinism or belief in the utility of anarchy?

everything I've stated would be contrary to social darwinism. If I were plugging for social darwinism I would be making anti-vaccine propaganda videos.

[missminni]

link to article
A lead researcher who spent 20 years developing the vaccine for humanpapilloma virus says the HPV vaccine is not for younger girls, and that it is "silly" for states to be mandating it for them.

Not only that, she says it's not been tested for effectiveness in younger girls, and administering the vaccine to girls as young as 9 may not even protect them at all. And, in the worst-case scenario, instead of serving to reduce the numbers of cervical cancers within 25 years, such a vaccination crusade actually could cause the numbers to go up.

"Giving it to 11-year-olds is a great big public health experiment," said Diane M. Harper, who is a scientist, physician, professor and the director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth Medical School in New Hampshire.

"It is silly to mandate vaccination of 11- to 12-year-old girls There also is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue."

Internationally recognized as a pioneer in the field, Harper has been studying HPV and a possible vaccine for several of the more than 100 strains of HPV for 20 years - most of her adult life.

So far at least 26 states are reported to be considering some form of legislation requiring the new vaccine for younger girls. In February, Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry bypassed his legislature and mandated it for all 11- and 12-year-old girls in his state. Monday, The Associated Press reported that New Mexico's governor, Democratic presidential contender Bill Richardson, is set to sign a bill requiring sixth grade girls in his state to get the vaccine.

Using young unknowing females as an experiment lends itself to a very sinister view of those who
would support such a program. The fact that 26 states are proposing legislating mandated vaccinations for 11 year old girls is
absolutely terrifying. That the governor of Texas bypassed the legislature and mandated it for all 11 and 12 year olds in his state
should come under investigation. I'm not sure if it indicates ignorance or corruption or both.

Edited by missminni, 01 January 2008 - 08:58 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

Hmmm, go to google videos and search for Gardasil, take a look at the Merck ads and tell me they are meant to inform and not misinform and associate the vaccine as some great fear alleviating miracle. Now, take a look at Mike Adam's video again where he points out the data in FDA's own research that contradicts their own conclusions. Tell me what is propaganda in your eyes, need it be something that is meant to misinform and from big money, perhaps the biggest most funded ad and lobbying campaign in the history of drug marketing or is it the independent researcher who points out the contradictions in existing hard core data?

I guess in your eyes propaganda could not possibly come from vested interests.

I'm sure they both are. Thats why i prefer to rely on peer reviewed research. Not on anyone's propaganda.

[missminni]

Hmmm, go to google videos and search for Gardasil, take a look at the Merck ads and tell me they are meant to inform and not misinform and associate the vaccine as some great fear alleviating miracle. Now, take a look at Mike Adam's video again where he points out the data in FDA's own research that contradicts their own conclusions. Tell me what is propaganda in your eyes, need it be something that is meant to misinform and from big money, perhaps the biggest most funded ad and lobbying campaign in the history of drug marketing or is it the independent researcher who points out the contradictions in existing hard core data?

I guess in your eyes propaganda could not possibly come from vested interests.

I'm sure they both are. Thats why i prefer to rely on peer reviewed research. Not on anyone's propaganda.

Wouldn't a lead researcher who spent 20 years developing the vaccine for humanpapilloma virus, be considered a peer?
Diane M. Harper, who is a scientist, physician, professor and the director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth Medical School in New Hampshire.

Edited by missminni, 01 January 2008 - 09:03 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

i haven't said anything for or against Diane M. Harper's comments. I would need to know the context of such comments to be able to form any kind of judgment.

She's certainly not against the HPV vaccine even in the material Chip provided. She does favor it's use in a slightly older age group in that material (screening for HPV strain presence before administration). All the data I have seen supports giving it to a younger age group (presumably because this extra step of screening would not be required before sexual maturity).

Has she published anything in this vein in a scientific journal?

This is what I found in the peer reviewed press

American Cancer Society Guideline for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Use to Prevent Cervical Cancer and Its Precursors

full text free here http://caonline.amca...ent/full/57/1/7

This recommends routine vaccination for girls between 11 and 12 years of age. And significantly Diane M. Harper is an author of this paper.

[missminni]

i haven't said anything for or against Diane M. Harper's comments. I would need to know the context of such comments to be able to form any kind of judgment.

She's certainly not against the HPV vaccine even in the material Chip provided. She does favor it's use in a slightly older age group in that material (screening for HPV strain presence before administration). All the data I have seen supports giving it to a younger age group (presumably because this extra step of screening would not be required before sexual maturity).

Has she published anything in this vein in a scientific journal?

This is what I found in the peer reviewed press

American Cancer Society Guideline for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Use to Prevent Cervical Cancer and Its Precursors

full text free here http://caonline.amca...ent/full/57/1/7

This recommends routine vaccination for girls between 11 and 12 years of age. And significantly Diane M. Harper is an author of this paper.

Are you saying that you don't believe that she said this because it's not in a scientific journal? Notice her last sentence.
The article you linked had 17 contributing researchers of which she was but one. Maybe her thoughts on that matter were not included.

"This vaccine should not be mandated for 11-year-old girls," she reiterated. "It's not been tested in little girls for efficacy. At 11, these girls don't get cervical cancer - they won't know for 25 years if they will get cervical cancer.

"Also, the public needs to know that with vaccinated women and women who still get Pap smears (which test for abnormal cells that can lead to cancer), some of them will still get cervical cancer."

The reason, she said, is because the vaccine does not protect against all HPV viruses that cause cancer - it's only effective against two that cause about 70 percent of cervical cancers.

For months, Harper said, she's been trying to convince major television and print media to listen to her and tell the facts about the usefulness and effectiveness of this vaccine.

"But no one will print it," she said.

Edited by missminni, 01 January 2008 - 09:48 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

The article you linked had 17 contributing researchers of which she was but one. Maybe her thoughts on that matter were not included.

Nonetheless she still signed off on the basis for the official recommendations. If she were so adamant that these recommendations were wrong why would she do this?

And as you say that paper has 17 authors, and she is just one. If it pans out that she really is against the recommendations in that paper I presently would tend to side with the other 16 researchers on that paper.

[missminni]

The article you linked had 17 contributing researchers of which she was but one. Maybe her thoughts on that matter were not included.

Nonetheless she still signed off on the basis for the official recommendations. If she were so adamant that these recommendations were wrong why would she do this?

And as you say that paper has 17 authors, and she is just one. If it pans out that she really is against the recommendations in that paper I presently would tend to side with the other 16 researchers on that paper.

That article was in a publication by the American Cancer Society.
Who funds them? who funds the research? where do the bucks come from?
Nobody is impartial here. They all have their hands out. There are vested interests.
I also find it of great interest that they are not as vigorous in pursuing this vaccination for males. In fact
they mention that even if it shows high effectiveness in males, they feel it wouldn't be cost efficient since the females
are already vaccinated. Why didn't they try it with males first? They are the ones who spread the virus.

[krillin]

It truly looks as if that study you are pointing to is considering the studies on another vaccine to apply to the HPV vaccine.

Egad, it's been ages since I've encountered anyone this thick. Here, I'll walk you through it.

Based on an analysis of the hepatitis B virus vaccine, several factors have been shown to contribute to long-term protection, namely: specific lymphoproliferation, the in vivo humoral response, and immune memory.

In other words, experience with the HPB vaccine has shown that you can get long-term protection if the vaccine affects lymphoproliferation, the in vivo humoral response, and immune memory. The rest of the abstract deals with the data they have on HPV vaccine in vivo humoral response, like

Available data on the quadrivalent HPV vaccine demonstrated that long-term immune memory was induced, with anti-HPV geometric mean titers after 5 years remaining at or above those observed with natural infection.

and

Similarly the bivalent HPV vaccine has been shown to induce long-term immunity with >98% seropositivity maintained after 4.5 years of follow-up and geometric mean titres at this time point remaining substantially higher than those noted with naturally acquired infection.

Let's assume you're right and the vaccine only works for 5 years. Big deal. The tetanus shot needs to be taken every 10 years. The flu shot needs to be taken every year. I don't see the problem.

[eternaltraveler]

Why didn't they try it with males first? They are the ones who spread the virus.

Umm, last I checked males don't have a cervix. Females also tend to do a fairly decent job of spreading the virus.

I'm looking into getting it for myself. But I haven't been in the states long enough recently to schedule an appointment.

[missminni]

May I say that my issue is not with the vaccine itself, but with the idea that it would be mandated. Everybody is entitled to
use the medicine they believe in. To mandate something like this for 11 year old girls is medical fascism AFAIC and
morally wrong. Nobody is stopping those who want it from getting it based on the hype it is getting. That's their
choice. But to force it by law is unconscionable.

[missminni]

Why didn't they try it with males first? They are the ones who spread the virus.

Umm, last I checked males don't have a cervix. Females also tend to do a fairly decent job of spreading the virus.

I'm looking into getting it for myself. But I haven't been in the states long enough recently to schedule an appointment.

Ummm excuse me, but last I checked having a cervix didn't cause cancer. Catching the virus did

[eternaltraveler]

Ummm excuse me, but last I checked having a cervix didn't cause cancer. Catching the virus did

yes. Cervical cancer.

[eternaltraveler]

May I say that my issue is not with the vaccine itself, but with the idea that it would be mandated.

that I can respect. I hold similar feelings. However so far as i am aware anyone can opt out of these vaccination programs.

There are many other mandated vaccines that have been given for decades.

[missminni]

Ummm excuse me, but last I checked having a cervix didn't cause cancer. Catching the virus did

yes. Cervical cancer.

what difference does that make? They get the virus by having sex with men.
Having a cervix doesn't cause the cancer. What if it were testicular cancer caused by sexual intercourse? Who should get the vaccine then? The men
for having testicles or the female partner who passed it to them?

[missminni]

May I say that my issue is not with the vaccine itself, but with the idea that it would be mandated.

that I can respect. I hold similar feelings. However so far as i am aware anyone can opt out of these vaccination programs.

There are many other mandated vaccines that have been given for decades.

not true. it's already been mandated in Texas. The governor bypassed the legislature to do so.

[missminni]

HPV and Men

There is no general test for men or women to check one’s overall “HPV status.” But HPV usually goes away on its own, without causing health problems. So an HPV infection that is found today will most likely not be there a year or two from now.

Statistics for cervical cancer
The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2007, about 11,150 cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States.
About 3,670 women will die from cervical cancer in the United States during 2007.

11,150 cases of invasive cervical cancer out of a population of 150 million women.
3,670 deaths from cervical cancer out of a population of 150 million women.
Do these figures warrant the mandating of a vaccination?
It doesn't even warrant it on a voluntary basis.
This is such a small percentage of the population.
and then there is this:
adverse reactions to the vaccine

Kelley Dougherty of Merck tells IB News that paralysis is not one of the recognized side effects of Gardasil use and is not even on the warning label in the product insert.

What Christina Bell didn't know was the Gardasil has been linked to thousands of adverse reports including paralysis and 11 deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, (VAERS) a joint project of the CDC and FDA where raw data is gathered before it is vetted for accuracy by the CDC.

In August, the non-profit Washington, D.C. government watchdog group, Judicial Watch filed a request asking the FDA for all adverse events reports linked to Gardasil injections.

By September, Judicial Watch had an additional 1,800 reports of suspected reactions to Gardasil, bringing the adverse report total to 3,461 and 11 deaths.

Edited by missminni, 02 January 2008 - 07:13 AM.

[infundibulum]

Why didn't they try it with males first? They are the ones who spread the virus.

Because the clinical endpoint is cervical cancer?

[missminni]

Why didn't they try it with males first? They are the ones who spread the virus.

Because the clinical endpoint is cervical cancer?

I still can't figure out why, with the rate of cervical cancer being as low as it is, they would even
make a vaccine. At the estimated number of 11,000 cases and 3,000 deaths out of a population of more than 150 million women
it hardly seems like something that requires a vaccine.
However, since I asked that question regarding men, I've learned that they don't even have a test to detect HPV in men.

HPV in Men
Currently, there is no test designed to find HPV in men. But HPV is very common and most men with HPV will never develop health problems from it. Finding out if you have HPV is not as important as finding out if you have the diseases that it can cause.

[dr_chaos]

I still can't figure out why, with the rate of cervical cancer being as low as it is, they would even
make a vaccine.

If friendlyais link (http://endofmen.word...ine-gardasil-2/) is correct gardasil costs about 250000$ per life saved. That's pretty cheap compared to the cost of life saving efforts on other fields. Take at example car safety and compare its costs to gardasils:

http://www.nhtsa.dot...ate/809835.html
NHTSA Report Number DOT HS 809 835December 2004
Cost Per Life Saved By The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
Charles J. Kahane, Ph.D.

Abstract
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began to evaluate its Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) in 1975. By December 2004, NHTSA had evaluated the life-saving benefits as well as the consumer cost for a substantial "core" group of safety technologies for passenger cars and LTVs (pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles and vans).

In 2002, these technologies added an estimated $11,353,000,000 (in 2002 Dollars) to the cost of new cars and LTVs of that model year. They saved an estimated 20,851 lives in the cars and LTVs on the road during that calendar year. That amounts to $544,482 per life saved in 2002.

These technologies added a total of $189,842,000,000 to the consumer cost of new cars and LTVs over model years 1968-2002. They saved 252,989 lives in model year 1968 and later vehicles during calendar years 1968-2002. That amounts to $750,782 (in 2002 Dollars) per life saved in 1968-2002.

Why didn't they try it with males first? They are the ones who spread the virus.

Woman do, too. Otherwise hpv would only be a problem for the woman who have sex with bisexual man.

[missminni]

I still can't figure out why, with the rate of cervical cancer being as low as it is, they would even
make a vaccine.

If friendlyais link (http://endofmen.word...ine-gardasil-2/) is correct gardasil costs about 250000$ per life saved. That's pretty cheap compared to the cost of life saving efforts on other fields. Take at example car safety and compare its costs to gardasils:

http://www.nhtsa.dot...ate/809835.html
NHTSA Report Number DOT HS 809 835December 2004
Cost Per Life Saved By The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
Charles J. Kahane, Ph.D.

Abstract
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began to evaluate its Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) in 1975. By December 2004, NHTSA had evaluated the life-saving benefits as well as the consumer cost for a substantial "core" group of safety technologies for passenger cars and LTVs (pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles and vans).
In 2002, these technologies added an estimated $11,353,000,000 (in 2002 Dollars) to the cost of new cars and LTVs of that model year. They saved an estimated 20,851 lives in the cars and LTVs on the road during that calendar year. That amounts to $544,482 per life saved in 2002.

These technologies added a total of $189,842,000,000 to the consumer cost of new cars and LTVs over model years 1968-2002. They saved 252,989 lives in model year 1968 and later vehicles during calendar years 1968-2002. That amounts to $750,782 (in 2002 Dollars) per life saved in 1968-2002.

Why didn't they try it with males first? They are the ones who spread the virus.

Woman do, too. Otherwise hpv would only be a problem for the woman who have sex with bisexual man.

I'm not quite sure I am following your logic. But even if Guardasil is "cheap", (and I am not sure of that), having mandated vaccinations for the young female population would certainly put a lot of girls at unnecessary risk for whatever unknown long term effects might come from it, when their chance of even getting cervical cancer is so minimal and dying from it, even less. It's hardly worth the risk factor.
I understand that HPV is widespread and 50% of the population is likely to get it at one time or another, and I am sure it is quite unpleasant, but it is cervical cancer that they are giving the vaccine for, and that affects only a small fraction of the population. I have no problem with vaccines to prevent the spread of HPV. I do have a problem with them mandating it or even encouraging it for all women as a cervical cancer prevention vaccine without letting woman know the real statistics on cervical cancer, and the possibility of unknown side effects with death and paralysis being among them.
The transmission of HPV is shared by both sexes and so should the vaccination to prevent it. Why focus on girls, using cervical cancer as the impetus for taking it, when the chance of them getting cervical cancer is so rare. There is a high incidence of HPV related anal and penile cancer among the male bisexual and homosexual community. Higher than among heterosexual men.

link to report Gay and bisexual men are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than heterosexual men.
* Men with weak immune systems, including those who have human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), are more likely than other men to develop anal cancer. Men with HIV are also more likely to get severe cases of genital warts that are hard to treat.

Also, I would like to add that the mandate that Gov. Perry of Texas made has been modified to allow parents to refuse it, due to the deserved scrutiny he attracted by his outrageous action. I hope this will make other overzealous supporters re-consider their position.

ETA~If I were in the business of marketing vaccines, I would think offering Guardasil as an HPV vaccine for both sexes would make more
sense than as a vaccine for cervical cancer. It's a much larger market too. JMO

Edited by missminni, 02 January 2008 - 04:58 PM.