Posted on 06/23/2007 11:27:29 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW
Some of them probably do.
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.
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. ??
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
I'm not the one ignoring facts.
From the CDC :Cervical cancer is an uncommon consequence of HPV in women
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.
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.
What, the 95% effective statistics?
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
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".
Of COURSE it's 95% effective. Less than 1% get cervical cancer and Cervical cancer is an uncommon consequence of HPV in women.
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.
Well, I’m glad we finally agree that the vaccine is effective, since your starting position was that it wasn’t! :-D
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.
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.