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

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: 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 ]

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