Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gardasil has booth in WalMart
Self | June 23, 2007 | DJMacWoW

Posted on 06/23/2007 11:27:29 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW

Hubby went to WalMart in Pennsylvania today. At the main entrance is a Gardasil booth handing out pamphlets. There was a line of parents so Hubby started a rant. He asked the woman why not just teach your daughters to keep their knickers on? Her answer was because they won't. Hubby responded that our daughter is in her 20's and still a virgin. She responded that daughters lie. He offered to let our "female tiger" talk to her.

At that point the woman asked if he was on his cellphone. He said "Yes" And how about this not being tested on 9 to 11 yr olds, your target group" She responded that it's been tested on 12 year olds. He said "You have no idea what the longterm affects of this drug are on reproduction"

At that point she didn't want to spar anymore and said "It's safe". But by then Hubby had already planted doubts and the parents in line had heard it all. I LOVE Hubby.

Anyone else need to visit a WalMart today?


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: gardasil; hpv; hpvvaccine; humanpapillomavirus; merck; moralabsolutes; vaccinations; walmart
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-296 next last
To: DJ MacWoW

Some of them probably do.


241 posted on 06/26/2007 8:06:33 AM PDT by darkangel82 (Socialism is NOT an American value.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: ahayes
From Zechariah_8_13s link, the first page:

http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/2004HPV%20Report.pdf

Most infections cause no clinical problems and go away on their own.

Cervical cancer is an uncommon consequence of HPV in women, especially if they are screened for cancer regularly with Pap tests and have appropriate followup of abnormalities.

Try reading the CDCs report to Congress.

242 posted on 06/26/2007 8:13:02 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Once again, people do die from cervical cancer. Additionally, HPV causes other anogenital cancers and has been linked to oral cancers as well. The people who suffer from these cancers do not find themselves negligible. HPV vaccines have the capacity to save thousands of lives a year. Is there some numerical limit that has to be reached before you consider a tragedy worthy of intervention? Was 9/11 inconsequential because only a few thousand died? I think any of us would have prevented that if we could, and now we have the opportunity to prevent similar death tolls every year and people are acting as if it’s not important enough. ??


243 posted on 06/26/2007 8:20:47 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: darkangel82
LOL I don't doubt it.

And the CDC report says: Because genital HPV infection is most common in men and women who have had multiple sex partners, abstaining from sexual activity is the surest way to prevent infection.

LOL

244 posted on 06/26/2007 8:20:58 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
I did a search on clinical tests on Gardasil and that's what came up.

You did a search on Gardasil at NEJM? Strange, because when I do that the two studies I sent you links to show up, and additional articles as well. I guess I just assumed you had done your search there since that is where all of the relevant research has been published.

But the rest of us have info at our disposal

Could have fooled me. You didn't read the studies. I doubt anyone else here read the studies.

245 posted on 06/26/2007 8:22:59 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: ahayes
There is no reason to vaccinate every female in the US. Half of the women who die have NEVER had a Pap. Do you REALLY think they'd get a SERIES of vaccinations? Not likely.

From the CDC report in post 228.

Cervical cancer is an uncommon consequence of HPV in women, especially if they are screened for cancer regularly with Pap tests and have appropriate followup of abnormalities

Because genital HPV infection is most common in men and women who have had multiple sex partners, abstaining from sexual activity is the surest way to prevent infection.

Most infections cause no clinical problems and go away on their own.


246 posted on 06/26/2007 8:29:55 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: ahayes
I used Google.

Could have fooled me. You didn't read the studies. I doubt anyone else here read the studies.

I'm reading the statistics which say that the scare tactics used to push this vaccine are a lie.

247 posted on 06/26/2007 8:32:46 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

What’s your beef? I think the vaccine should be available for women to use if they like. You think it should not be available because of apparent fear of the unknown (it might turn them green/make their hair fall out/cause their noses to swell—it’s just too soon!!) no matter what others might want.

Your pointing out repeatedly that cervical cancer, like most cancers, is rare is not going to convince me that the vaccine should not be available when it definitely has the capacity to save lives, and save people lots of worry and money as well.


248 posted on 06/26/2007 8:34:42 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
You're twisting the findings to serve your own purposes. The low efficacy rates you keep trumpeting are for women who already have HPV. Since vaccines are preventative, pointing out they don't work so well when someone is already sick is rather anticlimactic. On the other hand, you seem to purposefully ignore the fact that this vaccine is highly effective for women who do not have HPV.
249 posted on 06/26/2007 8:36:28 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Wondering—would you be so vehemently opposed to a vaccine to prevent brain cancer or skin cancer, which cause approximately as many deaths annually as cervical cancer?


250 posted on 06/26/2007 8:44:28 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: ahayes
You think it should not be available because of apparent fear of the unknown

Where did I say that? It should NOT be pushed on children. And they should NOT be using scare tactics to make a buck.

Why aren't they trying to cure this instead? There are more victims of this than cervical cancer.

Endometriosis

Endometriosis is a common health problem in women.

This "misplaced" tissue can cause pain, infertility (not being able to get pregnant), and very heavy periods.

Pain is one of the most common symptoms of endometriosis.

About five million women in the United States have endometriosis. This makes it one of the most common health problems for women.

There is no cure for endometriosis,

I'll tell you why they aren't feverishly working on a cure..........only 5 million women would need the drug as opposed to 144 million being scared into using Gardasil. It's called PROFIT.

251 posted on 06/26/2007 8:50:05 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: ahayes
On the other hand, you seem to purposefully ignore the fact that this vaccine is highly effective for women who do not have HPV.

I'm not the one ignoring facts.

From the CDC :Cervical cancer is an uncommon consequence of HPV in women

252 posted on 06/26/2007 8:52:18 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: ahayes

I’m opposed to getting the “shuck and jive”. Why isn’t Merck giving statistics? Because their vaccine won’t sell. I’m opposed to giving it to children when clinical trials are not over and longterm results are unknown.


253 posted on 06/26/2007 8:54:46 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
It should NOT be pushed on children.

I already said I do not think it should be a mandatory vaccine, but in any case parents can easily be exempted from vaccinating their children.

I reject the assertion that it should not be given to children at all because the evidence is that it is safe and that it is most effective when administered prior to infection by HPV.

With any vaccination the parent is required to sign a release form saying they have been informed of the possible side effects of vaccination. If a parent doesn't want to risk these for their child, they can refuse the vaccine.

Why aren't they trying to cure this instead?

Wow, so you're bashing one effective preventative because it doesn't treat a completely different disease. Why didn't they make a vaccine for malaria? Why not a vaccine for HIV? Why not a vaccine for athlete's foot? There are thousands of other possible diseases you could point to and ask, "Why not this one?" when the real question is "Why this one?" So "Why this one?" Because they had a starting point to tackle it from. Research is ongoing into other diseases, and treatments and cures will be made as progress allows--and no doubt you will fling your arms in the air and say "The sky is falling!" because they don't sit on the cure for 20 years making sure it has absolutely no side effects.

I'll tell you why they aren't feverishly working on a cure..........only 5 million women would need the drug as opposed to 144 million being scared into using Gardasil. It's called PROFIT.

That's part of the reason, and as I already pointed out, the profits from Gardasil will help subsidize R&D for less profitable drugs.

254 posted on 06/26/2007 9:00:03 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
Why isn’t Merck giving statistics? Because their vaccine won’t sell.

What, the 95% effective statistics?

255 posted on 06/26/2007 9:00:50 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: ahayes
but in any case parents can easily be exempted from vaccinating their children.

THAT shouldn't even be necessary! This is NOT an epidemic disease.

I reject the assertion that it should not be given to children at all because the evidence is that it is safe

What evidence? The studies that I read in Feb and March were on 16 to 25 yr olds. A study on 9 to 12 yr olds was to start in Japan in Jan 2007.

Wow, so you're bashing one effective preventative because it doesn't treat a completely different disease.

No. I'm "bashing" because they're making a vaccine for a RARE disease that will make them more money.

That's part of the reason, and as I already pointed out, the profits from Gardasil will help subsidize R&D for less profitable drugs.

BUNK.

Orphan drug

Orphan Drug

A designation of the FDA to indicate a therapy developed to treat a rare disease (one which afflicts a U.S. population of less than 200,000 people). Because there are few financial incentives for drug companies to develop therapies for diseases that afflict so few people, the U.S. government offers additional incentives to drug companies (i.e. tax advantages and extended marketing exclusivity) that develop these drugs.

Do you know why this vaccine isn't classed an orphan drug? Because Merck can tell women "Get the vaccination because you could "catch" cancer". It is marketable to more than 200,000 women on a "maybe".

256 posted on 06/26/2007 9:14:49 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: ahayes
What, the 95% effective statistics?

Of COURSE it's 95% effective. Less than 1% get cervical cancer and Cervical cancer is an uncommon consequence of HPV in women.

257 posted on 06/26/2007 9:17:02 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
What evidence? The studies that I read in Feb and March were on 16 to 25 yr olds. A study on 9 to 12 yr olds was to start in Japan in Jan 2007.

What mechanism do you propose to magically make it fatal for 9-12 year olds when 16-25 year olds experience nothing significant?

No. I'm "bashing" because they're making a vaccine for a RARE disease that will make them more money.

?? Are you mad that they're attempting to save thousands of lives, or that they might make some money doing it?

BUNK.

Not bunk. Most drugs manufactured do not turn a profit, their production is subsidized by drugs such as Gardasil.

258 posted on 06/26/2007 9:18:25 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Well, I’m glad we finally agree that the vaccine is effective, since your starting position was that it wasn’t! :-D


259 posted on 06/26/2007 9:19:20 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: ahayes
What mechanism do you propose to magically make it fatal for 9-12 year olds when 16-25 year olds experience nothing significant?

The human body changes between the age of 9 and 25. A LOT.

Are you mad that they're attempting to save thousands of lives, or that they might make some money doing it?

They are fooling a great many women that they NEED this vaccine because they could contract a RARE disease.

Most drugs manufactured do not turn a profit, their production is subsidized by drugs such as Gardasil.

They sell a drug that will benefit less than 1%, to many who won't need it, to subsidize research? Yeah. That's honest. Why'd they rush it to market and lobby so hard to make it mandatory? Because GlaxoSmithKline and Roche have vaccines too but are testing them longer. Less MONEY for Merck if they beat Merck to market.

260 posted on 06/26/2007 9:25:29 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-296 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson