Latest HPV vaccine info (little girl forced vaccine)

[PLOlover]

Heard on talk radio by head of some group -

Vaccine only works on 4 strains of HPV, I would guess the main and majority strains.

However, there are over 100 strains of HPV.

Also mentioned that while the 4 strains may be the most common in Texas or America, this may not necessarily be the case in say, Mexico.

Interesting.

Just decided to post this to show it is not a black and white issue.

[Phil153]

Do you have a link to the story?

While I think the anti vaccination people are dangerous kooks, I also don't think anyone should be forced to have vaccinations for minor problems like herpes. I can definitely see drug company in a corrupt country like the US pushing unnecessary and/or ineffective vaccines.

[PLOlover]

I heard it on the Alex Jones radio show, he might have a story about it on infowars.com

[PLOlover]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/17/health/17vaccine.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


Gardasil protects against two strains of H.P.V. that cause about 70 percent of the cases of cervical cancer as well as two other strains that cause genital warts. In approving the vaccine last June, the Food and Drug Administration said that in the United States each year there were an average of 9,710 new cases of cervical cancer and 3,700 deaths attributed to it.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have a link to the story?

While I think the anti vaccination people are dangerous kooks, I also don't think anyone should be forced to have vaccinations for minor problems like herpes. I can definitely see drug company in a corrupt country like the US pushing unnecessary and/or ineffective vaccines.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know if this was a mistake or if you meant to be talking about something else, but HPV>>>>>>herpes.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont know if this was a mistake or if you meant to be talking about something else, but HPV>>>>>>herpes.

[/ QUOTE ]

The interesting thing is that you make the point here. Herpes would be way worse than HPV, except for the fact that HPV can cause cancer in women.

Now, here is the point! The vaccine will not prevent cancer causing HPV, because it only works (supposedly) on about 4% of the strains of HPV!

Also the 4 strains are about 70% of the HPV right now according to the article, but if everyone was vaccinated then it's realistic to think that the other strains would just gain the niche.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont know if this was a mistake or if you meant to be talking about something else, but HPV>>>>>>herpes.

[/ QUOTE ]

The interesting thing is that you make the point here. Herpes would be way worse than HPV, except for the fact that HPV can cause cancer in women.

Now, here is the point! The vaccine will not prevent cancer causing HPV, because it only works (supposedly) on about 4% of the strains of HPV!

Also the 4 strains are about 70% of the HPV right now according to the article, but if everyone was vaccinated then it's realistic to think that the other strains would just gain the niche.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it. Herpes would be worse except for the horrible fatal cancer that HPV causes? Yeah, of course. Dandruff would be worse than ebola except for the violent hemorrhaging and dying that ebola causes.

Your point about the other strains gaining the niche is well taken, but of course, if its only currently possible to develop a vaccine that prevents 70% of HPV cases, why would we be against that? Hopefully when another 4 strains expand into the niche and make up 70% (of the now reduced number of cases) we can develop a vaccine for that.

I don't get why you say this will not prevent cancer-causing HPV. You said earlier that that is exactly what it does, it prevents the common strains that cause all the cancer. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get why you say this will not prevent cancer-causing HPV. You said earlier that that is exactly what it does, it prevents the common strains that cause all the cancer.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they all cause cancer. My point is the vaccine will not prevent women from getting HPV. It will prevent them from getting 4 strains of HPV, assuming it works 100%. So women can get the shots and still get HPV.

Also the 70% may not be accurate, and is not claimed for say Mexico, where the vaccine may be only 10% effective.

Interestingly the manufacturer makes no claims as to cancer prevention of the vaccine.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't get why you say this will not prevent cancer-causing HPV. You said earlier that that is exactly what it does, it prevents the common strains that cause all the cancer.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they all cause cancer. My point is the vaccine will not prevent women from getting HPV. It will prevent them from getting 4 strains of HPV, assuming it works 100%. So women can get the shots and still get HPV.

Also the 70% may not be accurate, and is not claimed for say Mexico, where the vaccine may be only 10% effective.

Interestingly the manufacturer makes no claims as to cancer prevention of the vaccine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, boo flu shots? I am confused as to the issue here. Of course it won't prevent all strains, at least not currently. So?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, boo flu shots? I am confused as to the issue here. Of course it won't prevent all strains, at least not currently. So?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the big draw of the HPV vaccine is that it will prevent cervical cancer so we better give it to young girls so they don't get cancer,

doesn't it bother you that it doesn't prevent HPV and doesn't prevent cervical cancer?

I mean if you wanna go pay an indian raindancer to do a rain dance so you have good weather, go right ahead, but don't try to coerce or force me into doing the same.

[PLOlover]

Also this 3 part HPV vaccine is the most expensive vaccine to date. Not sure if you have to pay for it or whether school/feds do or what.

[PLOlover]

Now a lawyer is on talking about how the same company as brought us vioxx is bringing this HPV, trust issues.

[PLOlover]

Lawyer's conclusion -

"when you start talking about fears, people should have fears."

lol I really hate lawyers although he's probably right.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, boo flu shots? I am confused as to the issue here. Of course it won't prevent all strains, at least not currently. So?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the big draw of the HPV vaccine is that it will prevent cervical cancer so we better give it to young girls so they don't get cancer,

doesn't it bother you that it doesn't prevent HPV and doesn't prevent cervical cancer?

I mean if you wanna go pay an indian raindancer to do a rain dance so you have good weather, go right ahead, but don't try to coerce or force me into doing the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except it DOES prevent the majority of cases of HPV. Let me ask you this question:

If we were able to knock out 90% of all cases of any sexually transmitted disease, today, randomly chosen from people who were infected, do you think that those people would EVER be replaced? What percentage of the population must be infected in order for an epidemic to spread?

If they were replaced, how long would it take? Decades? Longer?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Except it DOES prevent the majority of cases of HPV. Let me ask you this question:

If we were able to knock out 90% of all cases of any sexually transmitted disease, today, randomly chosen from people who were infected, do you think that those people would EVER be replaced? What percentage of the population must be infected in order for an epidemic to spread?

If they were replaced, how long would it take? Decades? Longer?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have hard facts, but from listening to loveline 10 years ago with that dr. guy I think maybe 1/3 of sexually active people (maybe age ranged 20-30) have HPV. It's very common.

So using their own figures, .3 * .33 = 10% of sexually active population have vaccine resistant HPV.

And that is on a closed population. People are coming in in droves from mexico / latin america where the vaccine may be no good at all.

My point though is that the propaganda is that girls must be forcibly vaccinated before puberty so that they will enjoy lifelong protection from cervical cancer. The truth is that this argument is simply false. It's just false.

How much vaccine you think they would sell if they said , hey , spend 1000 dollars and cut your daughters risk of genital warts by 2/3? I mean, I totally see why they lobbied the texas governor to make it quasi-mandatory. How else would they be able to sell it?

[almostbusto]

this issue is one of the classic cases of the people backing the wrong side for good reasons and the right side for the awful reasons.

the government has no business in the std business. end of story.

however, the reasoning conservative christian's often use to attack this policy is total [censored]. and the mainstream's reasoning for being in favor of the policy is well meaning (it helps people) but misguided (it grossly misappropriates funds and limits choice for individuals).

[PLOlover]

True, but I'm just amazed by all the lies.

I mean, back a week or two ago when there was the thread on here about it if I had posted that I didn't believe the vaccine would prevent cancer everybody would have said I was nuts.

I mean it was touted that if you given prepubescent girls this vaccine then they wouldn't have to worry about getting HPV and cervical cancer.

It turns out it was all a lie!

Whether they get the vaccine or not, they still need to get yearly pap smears once they are sexually active. End of story.

Also btw, I wouldn't doubt if everyone who is infected with HPV has multiple strains of the virus. I mean think about it. And if this is true, THEN THE VACCINE WILL HAVE NO EFFECT. And the more prevalent multistrain infection is, then the less effective the vaccine will be. My guess is that that 70% figure goes down to 20% in the real world. Unreal.

[ChrisV]

You're making some pretty big leaps here on what is very shaky information - what you heard some guy say on talk radio.

It's true that there are over 100 known types of HPV, but only 37 are known to be spread through sexual contact. Of these, only 19 lead to the development of cervical and other cancers.

[ QUOTE ]
Also the 4 strains are about 70% of the HPV right now according to the article, but if everyone was vaccinated then it's realistic to think that the other strains would just gain the niche.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? You're thinking about this in very strange terms. It's not like people's bodies are hotels, with only enough beds for a certain number of viruses at one time. People are perfectly capable of carrying around multiple HPV strains. If certain strains are dominant then it's either because they're more virulent, or because less people get exposed to other strains. In either case, vaccination is a good idea. It's not like Mexico came into existence yesterday. The epidemiology of HPV strains is not going to change overnight.

[ QUOTE ]
Also btw, I wouldn't doubt if everyone who is infected with HPV has multiple strains of the virus. I mean think about it. And if this is true, THEN THE VACCINE WILL HAVE NO EFFECT. And the more prevalent multistrain infection is, then the less effective the vaccine will be. My guess is that that 70% figure goes down to 20% in the real world. Unreal.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is ridiculous. The claim isn't that 70% of people who get cervical cancers merely carry two strains of HPV, it's that those strains ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR 70% of cancers, which is a stronger claim. If this claim is correct, then in the real world cancers will drop by almost 70%.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
This is ridiculous. The claim isn't that 70% of people who get cervical cancers merely carry two strains of HPV, it's that those strains ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR 70% of cancers, which is a stronger claim. If this claim is correct, then in the real world cancers will drop by almost 70%.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may be right. However, it wouldn't surprise me if they simply took women with cervical cancer and tested them for these two strains of HPV and 70% of the women tested positive or something. I mean think about it, do you really think they are gonna do 100 tests?

But the bottom line is this was sold as a vaccine to ensure the girls didn't get cervical cancer. It wasn't sold as a vaccine that would decrease their risk by 2/3. Think about it. If it's so great why all the propaganda? Is this what informed consent has come to in america?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is ridiculous. The claim isn't that 70% of people who get cervical cancers merely carry two strains of HPV, it's that those strains ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR 70% of cancers, which is a stronger claim. If this claim is correct, then in the real world cancers will drop by almost 70%.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may be right. However, it wouldn't surprise me if they simply took women with cervical cancer and tested them for these two strains of HPV and 70% of the women tested positive or something. I mean think about it, do you really think they are gonna do 100 tests?

But the bottom line is this was sold as a vaccine to ensure the girls didn't get cervical cancer. It wasn't sold as a vaccine that would decrease their risk by 2/3. Think about it. If it's so great why all the propaganda? Is this what informed consent has come to in america?

[/ QUOTE ]

All vaccines have a failure rate. And since there are causes of cervical cancer besides HPV, its ignorant to think that ANYONE thought this vaccine would eradicate cervical cancer.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
You're making some pretty big leaps here on what is very shaky information - what you heard some guy say on talk radio.

It's true that there are over 100 known types of HPV, but only 37 are known to be spread through sexual contact. Of these, only 19 lead to the development of cervical and other cancers.

[ QUOTE ]
Also the 4 strains are about 70% of the HPV right now according to the article, but if everyone was vaccinated then it's realistic to think that the other strains would just gain the niche.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? You're thinking about this in very strange terms. It's not like people's bodies are hotels, with only enough beds for a certain number of viruses at one time. People are perfectly capable of carrying around multiple HPV strains. If certain strains are dominant then it's either because they're more virulent, or because less people get exposed to other strains. In either case, vaccination is a good idea. It's not like Mexico came into existence yesterday. The epidemiology of HPV strains is not going to change overnight.

[ QUOTE ]
Also btw, I wouldn't doubt if everyone who is infected with HPV has multiple strains of the virus. I mean think about it. And if this is true, THEN THE VACCINE WILL HAVE NO EFFECT. And the more prevalent multistrain infection is, then the less effective the vaccine will be. My guess is that that 70% figure goes down to 20% in the real world. Unreal.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is ridiculous. The claim isn't that 70% of people who get cervical cancers merely carry two strains of HPV, it's that those strains ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR 70% of cancers, which is a stronger claim. If this claim is correct, then in the real world cancers will drop by almost 70%.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks for pointing this out....i was starting to get annoyed with the thread /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]

the government has no business in the std business. end of story.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure that I agree with that...
Certainly, the government should be involved in vaccinations as much, or more, than many other things. Should they be involved in flouridation? Social programs? Drug regulation?

Transmittable diseases have consequences for society at large, not just the individuals who contract them, and the nature of many diseases is such that you can't partially eliminate them.

I admit that HPV is a relatively minor problem, and I have no idea if the vaccine is cost effective, etc. But that just means that we need a public debate on its merits, not that the government has no business being involved.

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

the government has no business in the std business. end of story.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure that I agree with that...
Certainly, the government should be involved in vaccinations as much, or more, than many other things. Should they be involved in flouridation? Social programs? Drug regulation?


[/ QUOTE ]

no, no, and no. private sector would do much much better at all of those.
[ QUOTE ]

Transmittable diseases have consequences for society at large, not just the individuals who contract them, and the nature of many diseases is such that you can't partially eliminate them.

[/ QUOTE ] these disease aren't transmittable unless you voluntarily allow them to. as such there is no:
A) market failure
B) negative externalities

there is no grounds for government involvement.

for flu vaccines, that argument can be made. not so such much in this case. and even if you could make a case, you still shouldn't enact the policy, since there are so many other externalities that are so much more important that this money could be working on (opportunity cost is too high).

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

the government has no business in the std business. end of story.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure that I agree with that...
Certainly, the government should be involved in vaccinations as much, or more, than many other things. Should they be involved in flouridation? Social programs? Drug regulation?


[/ QUOTE ]

no, no, and no. private sector would do much much better at all of those.
[ QUOTE ]

Transmittable diseases have consequences for society at large, not just the individuals who contract them, and the nature of many diseases is such that you can't partially eliminate them.

[/ QUOTE ] these disease aren't transmittable unless you voluntarily allow them to. as such there is no:
A) market failure
B) negative externalities

there is no grounds for government involvement.

for flu vaccines, that argument can be made. not so such much in this case. and even if you could make a case, you still shouldn't enact the policy, since there are so many other externalities that are so much more important that this money could be working on (opportunity cost is too high).

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, as long as the government is in the Health Care industry, there are negative externalities.

[kevin017]

wow there's a lot of people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about in this thread.

zomg you're trying to stop girls from getting cervical cancer? not on my watch!

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

the government has no business in the std business. end of story.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure that I agree with that...
Certainly, the government should be involved in vaccinations as much, or more, than many other things. Should they be involved in flouridation? Social programs? Drug regulation?


[/ QUOTE ]

no, no, and no. private sector would do much much better at all of those.


[/ QUOTE ]
That's patently ridiculous.
[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]

Transmittable diseases have consequences for society at large, not just the individuals who contract them, and the nature of many diseases is such that you can't partially eliminate them.

[/ QUOTE ] these disease aren't transmittable unless you voluntarily allow them to. as such there is no:
A) market failure
B) negative externalities

there is no grounds for government involvement.


[/ QUOTE ]
There are clearly negative externalities....if YOU get sick, I am more likely to get sick. And if you want to make the 'voluntarily allow' argument, then the negative externality is that there are now fewer girls I can [censored].

[ezratei]

I think some of you guys are a little confused as to the etiology of cervical cancer;

Certain strains of HPV lead to DNA damage which causes cervical cancer; this temporal causality has been extensively proven in large scale clinical studies.

Of the many strains of HPV, relatively few cause cervical cancer. HPV 16 and 18, are the cause of 50% and 20% of cancers respectively. I think this is where people are getting the "70%" figure. HPV 35 and 41 both cause ~5% of cancers.

As a result of this, a quadrivalent vaccine which protects women against these 4 strains would effectively reduce the incidence of cervical cancer by 80%.

As to "forcing" girls to get this vaccine, I think the fact that HPV is sexually transmitted is besides the point. The fact that preventing a large portion of such a horrible disease is within our grasp is reason enough. If you are cruel enough to blame a 25 year old girl who is dying of cancer for having unprotected sex when she was 15, you need to reexamine your own values.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
As a result of this, a quadrivalent vaccine which protects women against these 4 strains would effectively reduce the incidence of cervical cancer by 80%.

[/ QUOTE ]

And virtually all cancer related to HPV, virtually eliminating the most common STD.

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]
I think some of you guys are a little confused as to the etiology of cervical cancer;

Certain strains of HPV lead to DNA damage which causes cervical cancer; this temporal causality has been extensively proven in large scale clinical studies.

Of the many strains of HPV, relatively few cause cervical cancer. HPV 16 and 18, are the cause of 50% and 20% of cancers respectively. I think this is where people are getting the "70%" figure. HPV 35 and 41 both cause ~5% of cancers.

As a result of this, a quadrivalent vaccine which protects women against these 4 strains would effectively reduce the incidence of cervical cancer by 80%.

As to "forcing" girls to get this vaccine, I think the fact that HPV is sexually transmitted is besides the point. The fact that preventing a large portion of such a horrible disease is within our grasp is reason enough. If you are cruel enough to blame a 25 year old girl who is dying of cancer for having unprotected sex when she was 15, you need to reexamine your own values.

[/ QUOTE ]

its not just forcing people to get a vaccine, its forcing people to pay for people to get a vaccine

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]

There are clearly negative externalities....if YOU get sick, I am more likely to get sick. And if you want to make the 'voluntarily allow' argument, then the negative externality is that there are now fewer girls I can [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

cervical cancer is not contagious. either you didn't read my posts or you don't have a basic understanding of market failure and externalities. based on your last sentence, i would say the latter is true at the very least.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There are clearly negative externalities....if YOU get sick, I am more likely to get sick. And if you want to make the 'voluntarily allow' argument, then the negative externality is that there are now fewer girls I can [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

cervical cancer is not contagious. either you didn't read my posts or you don't have a basic understanding of market failure and externalities. based on your last sentence, i would say the latter is true at the very least.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on...now you are just objecting to the facts in order to make your point.

First - cervical cancer is effectively contagious to the extent it is viral in origin. There is no rationale for distinguishing between the cancer itself and the virus in this case.

Second - A negative externality is a cost incurred by someone outside the transaction. The transaction in this case is a vaccination. The refusal of a girl to be vaccinated increases the prevalence of a disease. The increased prevalence of the disease increases my odds of contracting it. I know you understand this. You don't really think that vaccinations don't have any value beyond the recipient, do you?

If you still need help, google "vaccine externality".

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
First - cervical cancer is effectively contagious to the extent it is viral in origin. There is no rationale for distinguishing between the cancer itself and the virus in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. You're assuming a lot of things that aren't true. First, that all cases of the cancer are caused by HPV, second, that the relevant HPV strains always result in cancer, third that there is no useful general distinction between the virus and the cancer it eventually causes (should we not distinguish between HIV and AIDS, either?), and finally that treatment doesn't differ between the cancer and the virus.

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]

Come on...now you are just objecting to the facts in order to make your point.

First - cervical cancer is effectively contagious to the extent it is viral in origin. There is no rationale for distinguishing between the cancer itself and the virus in this case.

Second - A negative externality is a cost incurred by someone outside the transaction. The transaction in this case is a vaccination. The refusal of a girl to be vaccinated increases the prevalence of a disease. The increased prevalence of the disease increases my odds of contracting it. I know you understand this. You don't really think that vaccinations don't have any value beyond the recipient, do you?

If you still need help, google "vaccine externality".

[/ QUOTE ]

don't tell me to google about externalities when i said in my original post that flu vaccines are an example of good that creates positive externalities because it eliminates the flu which carries negative externalities with it.

HPV IS NOT THE FLU. the only way to get HPV is via a VOLUNTARY TRANSACTION (omitting the irrelevant, and it is irrelevant for this argument, case of rape). If the costs are only carried by individuals who voluntarily engage in the transaction it is BY DEFINITION not an external cost.

PWNED.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Come on...now you are just objecting to the facts in order to make your point.

First - cervical cancer is effectively contagious to the extent it is viral in origin. There is no rationale for distinguishing between the cancer itself and the virus in this case.

Second - A negative externality is a cost incurred by someone outside the transaction. The transaction in this case is a vaccination. The refusal of a girl to be vaccinated increases the prevalence of a disease. The increased prevalence of the disease increases my odds of contracting it. I know you understand this. You don't really think that vaccinations don't have any value beyond the recipient, do you?

If you still need help, google "vaccine externality".

[/ QUOTE ]

don't tell me to google about externalities when i said in my original post that flu vaccines are an example of good that creates positive externalities because it eliminates the flu which carries negative externalities with it.

HPV IS NOT THE FLU. the only way to get HPV is via a VOLUNTARY TRANSACTION (omitting the irrelevant, and it is irrelevant for this argument, case of rape). If the costs are only carried by individuals who voluntarily engage in the transaction it is BY DEFINITION not an external cost.

PWNED.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think thats quite the pwning you think it is. How is 'going out of your house' not voluntarily engaging in a transaction? You aren't going to be getting the flu if you don't leave your house.

Is it just because you think lots of sex is dirtier or immoral or somehow lower, and therefore we don't have to treat STDs are communicable diseases but instead as social diseases for degenerates?

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think thats quite the pwning you think it is. How is 'going out of your house' not voluntarily engaging in a transaction? You aren't going to be getting the flu if you don't leave your house.

Is it just because you think lots of sex is dirtier or immoral or somehow lower, and therefore we don't have to treat STDs are communicable diseases but instead as social diseases for degenerates?

[/ QUOTE ]

ZOMGWTF?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First - cervical cancer is effectively contagious to the extent it is viral in origin. There is no rationale for distinguishing between the cancer itself and the virus in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. You're assuming a lot of things that aren't true. First, that all cases of the cancer are caused by HPV, second, that the relevant HPV strains always result in cancer, third that there is no useful general distinction between the virus and the cancer it eventually causes (should we not distinguish between HIV and AIDS, either?), and finally that treatment doesn't differ between the cancer and the virus.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't assume any of those things. "effectively" and "to the extent" encompass your caveats. For the purpose of this analysis, we can treat some subset of cervical cancers as contagious, and preventable by the vaccine. The distinctions you make are just about the numbers that go into the cost benefit analysis. Obviously your caveats are all true.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't think thats quite the pwning you think it is. How is 'going out of your house' not voluntarily engaging in a transaction? You aren't going to be getting the flu if you don't leave your house.

Is it just because you think lots of sex is dirtier or immoral or somehow lower, and therefore we don't have to treat STDs are communicable diseases but instead as social diseases for degenerates?

[/ QUOTE ]

ZOMGWTF?

[/ QUOTE ]

You only get the flu by voluntarily interacting with others. You only get HPV by voluntarily having sex with others. This isn't as significant of a difference as you seem to be making it out to be.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Of the many strains of HPV, relatively few cause cervical cancer. HPV 16 and 18, are the cause of 50% and 20% of cancers respectively. I think this is where people are getting the "70%" figure. HPV 35 and 41 both cause ~5% of cancers.

As a result of this, a quadrivalent vaccine which protects women against these 4 strains would effectively reduce the incidence of cervical cancer by 80%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the nature of statistics and their manipulation, I'll have to check on that. If anyone else would like to post on this feel free.

[PLOlover]

Btw, this is new genetically altered stuff. Things have gone wrong in the past with much simpler stuff.

http://www.sv40foundation.org/

So it's not inconceivable that the HPV shot may increase cancer rates. Just food for thought.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Btw, this is new genetically altered stuff. Things have gone wrong in the past with much simpler stuff.

http://www.sv40foundation.org/

So it's not inconceivable that the HPV shot may increase cancer rates. Just food for thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not inconceivable that HPV vaccine may cause me to develop x-ray vision and allow me to turn water into wine. Can you give me a single example of a vaccine that actually increased the incidence of its disease? Certainly, some people who got the polio vaccine got polio from their vaccine. But the overall rate of polio still went way down. And the way they make vaccines these days, genetcially modified rather than simply attenuated chemically, makes them far, far safer than they used to be.

[27offsuit]

When in doubt, follow the money. (http://keyetv.com/topstories/topstories_story_053053516.html)

This just makes my blood boil.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Its not inconceivable that HPV vaccine may cause me to develop x-ray vision and allow me to turn water into wine. Can you give me a single example of a vaccine that actually increased the incidence of its disease? Certainly, some people who got the polio vaccine got polio from their vaccine. But the overall rate of polio still went way down. And the way they make vaccines these days, genetcially modified rather than simply attenuated chemically, makes them far, far safer than they used to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a documented fact that the polio and mmr vaccines and probably others were contaminated with sv40 virus, a cancer causing virus.

So those who took those vaccines , some of them went on to develope cancer later in life from the sv40.

It's just a fact.

There has never been any xray vision from vaccines, there has been cancer caused by vaccines.