Latest HPV vaccine info (little girl forced vaccine)

[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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[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.