Latest HPV vaccine info (little girl forced vaccine) - Page 2

PLOlover · #11 02-20-2007, 10:38 PM

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 · #12 02-20-2007, 10:41 PM

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

PLOlover · #13 02-20-2007, 10:53 PM

Lawyer's conclusion -

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

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

vhawk01 · #14 02-20-2007, 10:55 PM

[ 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 · #15 02-20-2007, 11:11 PM

[ 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 · #16 02-20-2007, 11:24 PM

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 · #17 02-20-2007, 11:36 PM

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 · #18 02-21-2007, 12:44 AM

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 · #19 02-21-2007, 01:12 AM

[ 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 · #20 02-21-2007, 02:21 AM

[ 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.