The "Cervical Cancer" Vaccine: Good For Merck, Bad For US Women!

[mhatrw]

Even if you take the two most currently prevalent cervical cancer disease vectors (HPV 16 & 18) out of the human population -- which is the best case scenario for GARDASIL vis a vis cervical cancer -- there is no guarantee that other high risk strains (31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, and 68) won't fill the void. Even assuming a causal and not contributing link between high risk HPV strains and cervical cancer (and I'm not disputing that this is a very good guess), cervical cancer is a severe imbalance in a human/virus ecosystem that potentially includes a myriad of currently unknown factors. Even if we confer total protection against HPV 16 and 18 among this high risk population, how can we reliably predict the resulting prevalence and virulence of the other high risk HPV strains 20 to 60 years down the line? And how can we reliably predict how all of this will affect cervical cancer contraction and mortality rates?

Yes, almost 3,700 US women died of cervical cancer last year. But that's less than 2.5 US women out of every 100,000. If current trends continue (you know, if US women don't start to blow off their annual pap smears due to a false sense of security), that mortality rate will be reduced to about 1 in 100,000 (via more and better pap smear screening and more prompt treatment) by the time that GARDASIL could possibly have ANY measurable effect on cervical cancer mortality rates! That's 1 out of 100,000 without GARDASIL. Now consider that it would cost about $50 million (including doctors fees) to vaccinate that population -- ostensibly to protect them against this "killer." Suppose GARDASIL works as intended and reduces that rate by half. That's $100 million per life saved!

Of the 3,700 US cervical cancer deaths last year, less than 50% received "regular pap smears" according to the CDC. And I highly doubt that "regular" means annual. So let's look at the numbers: .5 (the number that got regular pap smears) multiplied by .7 (the cervical cancer cases that could be prevented by GARDASIL in the BEST case scenario) multiplied by 3700 (the number of cervical cancer deaths in the US last year) = 1295. So in the BEST case scenario -- assuming that cervical cancer rates will remain as high as they are today even though they have been steadily decreasing by about 25% per decade for the last three decades without GARDASIL, assuming that 100% of the US population is injected with three shots of GARDASIL and that these vaccinations confer 100% lifetime resistance against HPV 16 & 18, assuming that no other high risk HPV strains become more prevalent or deadly over the next 20 to 60 years, assuming that all the old and sick US women who die of cervical cancer would otherwise live through the year AND assuming that a "regular pap smear" as defined by the CDC means an annual pap smear -- we are talking about 1300 lives a year that could be saved by GARDASIL vs. 1850 lives a year that could be saved by making sure every US woman gets an annual pap smear.

And the cost for all of this GARDASIL "cancer prevention"? Assuming that Merck somehow doesn't get all of its bought and sold politicians and health care "experts" to make this vaccine mandatory for little boys as well as little girls, we are talking about 50 BILLION DOLLARS per every 100 million US females vaccinated. To save (at most, in the best case scenario) a total of 1300 lives a year, many of whom would probably die soon of other causes. Can any of you think of ANY better way $50+ billion could be spent on medical research and/or disease prevention?

To include vaccination RISKS in this analysis, consider that ALL of the studies on GARDASIL completed so far included less than 22,000 woman combined. If just one woman in these studies were to die every five years years because of complications related to the three injection GARDASIL vaccine plus alum adjuvant regimen (a number which is of course currently impossible to know), that would translate to an annual death rate DUE TO THIS VACCINE of nearly 1400 women annually over the entire US female population -- which is more women than this vaccine would save from dying of cervical cancer in the best possible scenario!

[China_cat]

1. How many more times are you going to cut and paste this

same thing?

Here's how it sounds...'Geez, it's just 1300 women a year that wouldn't die of cervical cancer and they'd probably just die of something else anyway so why should anyone bother with the vaccine?' Just another dump on anything that might actually help women live longer, better lives.

Well, at least you took out the implication that women who get cervical cancer are whores who deserve it.

[mhatrw]

2. Cute. Now read it again.

I would like someone to address my points with some actual discussion of their actual merits. Is that really too much to ask?

[China_cat]

3. I've read it 3 times now.

What it still comes down to is 'it's just women, let them die instead of paying for the vaccine'.

[mhatrw]

5. Yeah, sure!

Now read the last paragraph again.

[Tiggeroshii]

327. I don't think that's what he's saying

It looks a lot like he's saying that the pap smears would save more lives than the drug if it were required every woman get a pap smear. Pap smears have always been available, but since the drug has come out they are suddenly requiring it for everybody. It seems like a valid point that pap smears have never been mandatory, but thhe vaccine now is(which will be even less effective than pap smears).

[Recursion]

402. It's like AIDS drugs in Africa

For about 2 decades, hundreds of thousands of people have been dying every year in Africa from treatable diseases, essentially because the industrialized world is trying to remake Africa in its own image and whenever that happens quickly, a lot of people die (cf. USSR in the 1930s).

The people dying need access to nutritious food, clean water, and basic medical care. They still don't have that. But their governments found that if they talked about how many of those same people had AIDS, they could get a lot of money for drugs. But every cent that goes to enrich Eli Lily while giving antiretrovirals to someone in subsaharan Africa is a cent that isn't going to giving 10 people clean water and food. Pharma found a way to make money, but its way kills twice as many people as the right way. And, it screws up the data in a vicious circle, since every clinic counts every death from TB or malaria as AIDS because it helps wring pennies out of stingy G8 governments, and "they probably had AIDS anyways"*

Now, let me draw this analogy with HPV. Women need access to reproductive health facilities, screening, education, economic empowerment, and vaccination -- and I think we need to fund it in that order because otherwise we're doing a partial (and we don't even know yet if it will be effective) patch whose only purpose is to make money for Merck. If this saves lives, great, though I don't think it will because I've never yet been sold on the viral hypothesis of carcinogenesis. But all this money that needs to be going into clinics and education programs is instead going into Merck stocks, which will mean tens of thousands of women will die.

And I'm sick sick sick of being labelled a misogynist for pointing this out.

* something I heard at a clinic I translated at in Tanzania

[iverglas]

404. nope, no analogy

Women need access to reproductive health facilities, screening, education, economic empowerment, and vaccination

The drugs distributed for AIDS are to TREAT the problem.

SCREENING only DETECTS problems. It does not TREAT them.

Information, counselling, education and empowerment all help to provide women with ways of avoiding HPV transmission, but they do not protect against transmission, and they are ineffective for women who are very vulnerable right NOW.

I had access to reproductive health facilities (free of charge, this being Canada, and easily, me being a university student and then a professional), but I was not a candidate for education because no one knew, at the time I contracted HPV, that it could lead to cervical cancer. I had regular screening. It detected dysplasia. Then I had treatment: excision of the inside of my cervix. Trust me; I would have preferred a vaccination. First.

There are all sorts of reasons why women need to be economically empowered, etc. etc. This is one of them. But the most educated, sophisticated, economically empowered woman can be sexually assaulted -- in fact, a very large proportion of women are at one time or another a victim of coerced sex, and that might in fact be how I contracted the virus -- and HPV can be spread via sexual assault just as easily as via any other kind of sex. (It sure would be nice if we could educate men not to sexually assault women, too, eh? Maybe some day; it just isn't the way of the world we live in right now.) And that includes sex with the husband who is one's first and only partner, if he had even one previous partner, who transmitted the virus -- since most monogamous couples throw away the condoms at some point.

Huge numbers of women in developing countries simply don't have access to any of the tools they need in order to avoid HPV transmission, and they just are not about to get them in any near future. For all of the many reasons why they need those tools, yup, we need to take action to promote access to them. Because they don't have them now, we need to think about them as individual persons, and promote action that will actually protect those individual persons right now from a preventable disease that is likely to kill them.


If this saves lives, great, though I don't think it will because I've never yet been sold on the viral hypothesis of carcinogenesis.

Oh, well. There ya go. You've pretty much just ruled yourself out of this discussion, eh?

How are you on the "hypothesis" of evolution?

[Recursion]

406. Umm... that's an ignorant comparison

How are you on the "hypothesis" of evolution?

Throw a rock and you can find a medical researcher who thinks the viral model of carcinogenesis is wrong. Throw a rock and you can't find a biology professor who thinks the model of common descent through adaptive variation is fundamentally wrong. So don't even pull the creationism card out because it's not at all comparable.

Huge numbers of women in developing countries simply don't have access to any of the tools they need in order to avoid HPV transmission, and they just are not about to get them in any near future. For all of the many reasons why they need those tools, yup, we need to take action to promote access to them. Because they don't have them now, we need to think about them as individual persons, and promote action that will actually protect those individual persons right now from a preventable disease that is likely to kill them.

As I've said elsewhere in this thread, the data will show who's right in a few decades years. If we see the drop in lifetime cervical cancer rates, great. I just doubt we will if we keep focusing on single pathogens here.

And please keep in mind I haven't suggested anyone not get vaccinated. I've expressed doubt that the vaccine will do much good for cervical cancer, and I've tried to fight the losing battle here on DU of standing up for medical choice and autonomy and against corporate-influenced mandatory treatments of any kind.

[iverglas]

409. ah, medical choice

As one of the standard-bearers for it, you're aware, I assume, that there are no plans to compel anyone in the USofA to receive the vaccination, and of what "mandatory" actually MEANS in this context?

As for your doubt that we will see a drop in lifetime cervical cancer rates if we focus on vaccination against HPV ... well, I'll preserve your words so that we may feast on them in our old age, if you like.

If only there were any real basis for such doubt, and not just this Throw a rock and you can find a medical researcher who thinks the viral model of carcinogenesis is wrong. Can you hit one who says this about *HPV* and *cervical cancer*?

[Recursion]

410. I can think of 4 I've worked with off the top of my head

Can you hit one who says this about *HPV* and *cervical cancer*?

Yes; most of the oncologists I know are very dubious. Most of the virologists I know aren't. That probably says a lot about who goes into which field.

As for your doubt that we will see a drop in lifetime cervical cancer rates if we focus on vaccination against HPV ... well, I'll preserve your words so that we may feast on them in our old age, if you like.

I'd love to be wrong, and for there to be some kind of pill or shot that can drastically reduce cervical cancer. I just don't think I am.

[iverglas]

412. well, that sure was helpful

Can you hit one who says this about *HPV* and *cervical cancer*?
Yes; most of the oncologists I know are very dubious.

I was kinda looking for a reference to some published material or some such. But hey, if you tell me you know 'em, and you say they're "dubious", that's good enough for me, eh?


html fixed

[The Backlash Cometh]

122. Everything about this debate seems...weird.

First, we were pissed off because the Christian Right didn't want it available at all because it would make whores of the kids; and now that we have it, we don't want it mandated to every girl.

I think the answer is that these are two extremes. Definitely, this should be a vaccination of choice; maybe make the information available for school age kids, but certainly push it for any young girl who comes in for birth control pills because she wants to start having sex.

[mhatrw]

141. You know what's weird. That almost everyone here hates the OP, but

NOT ONE PERSON has disputed it using facts, evidence or logic.

Pretty weird, wouldn't you say?

[The Backlash Cometh]

145. We're talking about public policy. What does facts or evidence have to do with it?

:spank:

(Self-flagellating myself for that indulgence.)

[mhatrw]

169. Spoken like a successful politician!

;)

[China_cat]

218. This particular objection...that it shouldn't be given

because Merck will make money on it...seems to be a stealth fundy argument. If you can't convince people that you're right on religious grounds, appeal to their corporate anger. Either way, the idea is the same; keep the vaccine from being given because it takes away from the female population one punishment for having sex.

[AikidoSoul]

223. Your argument leaves out a very important fact-that this industry can't be trusted to tell the truth

about its products.

It has been prosecuted regularly over many years for corrupt practices-- and it's getting worse not better.

And look at the politics.

Texas is a state that provides fewer health services than any other state.

Then you have a Texas governor with $$$$$$$$$$$$financial ties to Merck--$$$$$$$$$$$ who thinks its a good idea to vaccinate all young girls.

Doesn't that make you wonder--- just a little bit?

[AikidoSoul]

220. You're leaving out the fact that when these vaccines are "tested" that the testing is

inadequate, and that toxicants are used, which adds to the body-burden.

This vaccine was tested on a small population that did not include girls of the age that are targeted (in Texas) for the mandated vaccinations.

Mandated.

[Recursion]

398. You really want people telling you what to inject into your body against your will?

I never stop being amazed at how respect for liberty and autonomy seems to stop on this board once somebody with a lab coat and stethoscope appears on TV

[originalpckelly]

198. More people die in car accidents than die of cervical cancer...

more people are murdered, than die of it as well.

Merck is charging an arm and a leg for this, don't you think they want to have it mandated?

[Katherine Brengle]

308. If it's mandated, insurance companies will be required to pay for it --

which means more people will be able to get it - if it's not mandated, poor women will disproportionately be unprotected.

And just because more people die of other things, doesn't mean we shouldn't make every possible effort to stop them from dying of THIS.

[originalpckelly]

310. Dee, dee, dee: Who do you think will pay the insurance company?

:crazy:

[Katherine Brengle]

320. You missed the point --

the fact is, poor women will not get this vaccine if insurance doesn't cover it. I'm not even "poor" and I wouldn't be able to afford it if insurance didn't cover it.

[phylny]

332. Was there a vaccine available for car accidents or murder?

Honestly.

[AikidoSoul]

208. That's a specious argument

Nobody suggested women are whores who get this terrible disease.

You are not looking at facts, you are pushing an illogical, specious position.

[China_cat]

216. The OP did with this same piece in another thread.

This one is just missing the 'only women with suppressed immune systems who have had many, many sex partners get this disease'

Now it's 'they're probably old and dying anyway so what's the difference'

[AikidoSoul]

226. Your argument is so sad and paltry. You make it seem like we're all BAD people if we argue against

the widespread use of this vaccine. You make too many assumptions about the safety and validity of Merck's and the FDA's claims. These partners are not worthy of our trust.

PAP smears can provide a lot of good information that is valuable, and women who occasionally get a few bad cells in the smear-- can monitor themselves more closely.

Putting vaccines in the body, along with its adjuvants, is too risky given the poor record of this industry. It is well known for suppression of scientific information that threatens its bottom line.

[Tsiyu]

380. Another either/or argument on DU

How refreshing, huh?

Since the buildup to invading Iraq, people seem so much less willing to look at all aspects of an issue. "Yer wif us er aginst us" is the motto of the day.

Both effective vaccines and regular PAP smears can save women's lives. As a society, we can do both. But we have to be sure we are providing the best vaccines, not just the most profitable ones, and we have to make women's health care a priority so that even the poorest woman can receive regular check-ups.

Federally funded women's health programs should be the pride of a nation; instead we used that money to bomb another nation's buildings. And TPTB view disease as a market share to be exploited. We are backwards in our regard for human life.

I appreciate those of you who made this thread so long...

[AikidoSoul]

325. Women who have more sex partners are in fact more vulnerable to cervical cancer, and a wide array of

health problems that can be tranmitted through sexual intimacy.

As long as I'm not married to one of them --- I have nothing against men or women who've had many partners -- that's their business.

But the fact remains -- multiple partners = increased risk.

I worry about those who see that statement and think that it's a judgment.

[iverglas]

350. that's really an interesting one

But the fact remains -- multiple partners = increased risk

Problem is, if a woman has sex with only partner in her life, and he's infected, bingo. No multiple partners, risk materialized anyhow: she has HPV.

Risk is funny thing, it is. I can't always get my head around it.

I had multiple sex partners (I feel I must reiterate: starting many years before anyone had ever even heard of HPV, which had not yet been discovered), and I had cervical dysplasia and had to have a major kinda biopsy, like the one that takes out the whole inside of your cervix. Can I be sure I didn't get HPV from the first partner? If so, did *my* risk *really* go up with each succeeding partner? Wouldn't the rest of 'em be just kinda superfluous and irrelevant then?

In this case, the risk rises with the number of partners because the chance of hitting an infected partner rises the more partners one has, I guess, but that may be completely irrelevant to any individual woman. If she gets it the first time out (which, of course, may not even have been consensual), none of that risk stuff means a thing to her.

Hey ... isn't that kinda just exactly like the argument the vaccinophobes use against this vaccine? The risk of any adverse unintended effect may be minuscule, but if you're the one for whom it materializes, you're shit out of luck?

Now, if only we knew of any risk of any adverse unintended effect from this vaccine ...

[LuckyLib]

356. Research on HPV was going on in 1970, the usual plodding, quiet

research that takes years to build.

[iverglas]

383. well then in 1971

an 18-yr-old university student really wasn't likely to know about the risk -- and certainly we were not told about it when obtaining contraception from doctors, e.g. Not long after, information did start circulating about the correlation between multiple partners and cervical cancer (and you can imagine how young women still subject to discrimination in every area of our lives, and the pressures of the "morality" we had rejected in the 60s, reacted to being told this; remember "Reefer Madness"? -- science in the service of "the system" ...), followed by hypotheses about the virus, but that was in all likelihood too late for me and many of my friends.

Quite true that research on papilloma viruses had been going on for a few decades by then, but the health risks of infection, and certainly the connection to cervical cancer, simply weren't known, let alone among the general public or 18-yr-olds.

http://www.haverford.edu/biology/edwards/disease/viral_essays/BeckD.html
(a 1999 student essay; I haven't found a primary source)

In one study at the University of Washington, researchers determined that 20% of female college students contracted HPV after their first sexual encounter and more than 90% of those infected women contracted another strain of HPV within two years.

http://bmc.ub.uni-potsdam.de/1472-6874-4-S1-S26/
(citations can be read at the link)

Sexual Behaviours

Although STI rates had been declining since the beginning of the HIV epidemic - possibly as a result of prevention and screening programs, changes in sexual behaviour in response to the HIV epidemic, and the availability of single-dose treatment for some STIs - the decline. was reversed in 1997. Increases in high-risk sexual behaviour in men who have sex with men were reported after the introduction of potent, antiretroviral HIV suppressive therapy, but behavioural changes in women await further research.

Girls and boys are socialized into different gender roles, affected by culture, peer and parental influences. Males tend to have an earlier sexual debut and a higher rate of partner changes. Females are more likely than males to have been forced into their first sexual encounter. Men have more control than women over condom use. Women are uncomfortable about insisting on condom use for fear of the reactions of their male partners regarding trust and commitment issues. The power differential and potential for domestic violence create barriers that may prevent women from protecting themselves. Therefore, prevention programs for women need to target safer sex negotiation skills and female-controlled methods.

Prevention

In a U.S. survey of 1,000 females, only 11% were aware of the fact that STIs are more harmful to females than to males; those with less knowledge were less likely to practise safer sex. Preventive information is necessary for behaviour to change, but it is not sufficient. Most prevention programs have been proven to fail. Issues specific to gender and culture must be incorporated. Women benefit from prevention strategies that address gender roles, the power differential between the sexes, financial dependence on men, fulfillment in their intimate relationships, and bonding with other women. Two randomized controlled trials incorporating these elements showed a significant reduction in rates of STIs.

While we're waiting for the brave new world in which girls and women all have perfect knowledge and are all able to exercise full control over their sexual experiences ...

[foo_bar]

388. refresher logic

Women who have more sex partners are in fact more vulnerable to cervical cancer, and a wide array of health problems that can be tranmitted through sexual intimacy.

Your statement is generally correct (although women with more sex partners who use condoms appear to be at lower risk than women with fewer partners who don't, "Women whose male sex partners use condoms consistently -- and correctly -- cut their risk of HPV infection by 70%, according to the study by University of Washington researchers Rachel L. Winer, PhD, and colleagues." source), but the converse is not:

Most cervical cancer victims have an otherwise compromised immune system as well as a history of many, many sex partners.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x145744

There's no body of evidence to suggest that "most" HPV sufferers had "many, many" (repeating an adjective for emphasis isn't considered scientific nor precise) sex partners. For instance:

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is associated with a range of adverse physical health outcomes, including chronic and infectious diseases. An emerging literature suggests that partner violence and specifically sexual violence may be associated with an increased risk of cervical neoplasia.
(...)
Women with cervical cancer reported being in violent relationships longer and experiencing more frequent physical and sexual assaults and more IPV-associated injuries than did controls. This exploratory study suggests that IPV may increase a woman's risk of cervical neoplasia.

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/15246090050200051?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jwh

[AikidoSoul]

397. All of what you've posted here is excellent documentation for the range of variables that contribute

to the environment where higher incidences of cervical cancer are found.

Add to that co-factors such as vitamin deficiency, other chronic illnesses, immune system suppression, exposure to toxicants, extreme stress (which lowers the immune system), tuberculosis, parasites (like hookworm), unsanitary conditions, unclean water -- etc. There are others. Women who live in these conditions are more likely to suffer from cervical cancer.

Thanks for the good post! :hi:

[rodeodance]

4. I have seen women-cared for them --with cervical cancer!--It is a mean

cancer----fistulas into the colon. Painful and physically and mentally devistating to the woman!!

[mhatrw]

7. Yes, it is.

What does that have to do with any of the points made in the OP?

[hedgehog]

272. The OP did not consider the cost, financial, physical, emotional,

of treating cervical cancer. You have to take into account both morbidity and mortality!

[Trillo]

6. Thanks.

Infinite greed is what keeps our so-called enlightened society in business and war.

If I could I'd rec the post again.

[xchrom]

8. your expertise is?

Your qualifications?

this is not evidence -- this is some made up crap by you.

[mhatrw]

9. What are your qualifications to question my original post?

More importantly, where is your evidence?

[xchrom]

12. you made the op -- it's up to you to back it up.

you're presenting brother's grimm fairy tales as ''facts''.

[mhatrw]

13. LOL.

You have NOTHING. You can't dispute a single fact or assertion I made. If you can, step to the plate. If not, leave this to the professionals.

[PVnRT]

16. If you're a professional, show your credentials

Otherwise, go back to the kiddie table. Your only noticeable objection to this vaccine, like so many other knee-jerk moronic reactions to it around here, is that it's made by OMG BIG PHARMA so it must be a scam and therefore evil in every way.

Vaccines always are developed to fight a particular strain, it's how they work. You can mix different ones together, but each genetically different germ needs its own vaccine formula to stimulate the body to react to it.

Are you honestly saying that preventing over a third of the current deaths from cervical cancer is bad? Or that all we have to do is detect and react? You should work for health insurance companies, who think that preventive medicine is a waste of money too.

[mhatrw]

23. More hot air. Address the OP with contrary facts or evidence or go away. n/t

[PVnRT]

25. As soon as you want to start bringing some facts to the table, I'll be happy to.

n/t

[ProfessorGAC]

91. Why Won't You Answer That Question?

What is your area of professional expertise? I think it germane to the conversation. Better yet, i don't see how it isn't relevant.

The Professor

[mhatrw]

125. I teach at a medical school. Where do you teach, Prof? n/t

[ProfessorGAC]

Yeah, Like I Believe That

A med school prof makes up data. What school? I'd like to know which future doctors to avoid.
The Professor

[hlthe2b]

134. Perhaps it shares campus with Falwell's Liberty "Law" School?

LOL

[mhatrw]

137. Where do you teach, Prof?

What do you teach? Sophistry?

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

171. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[salvorhardin]

130. Now that's just frightening

Of course I suppose this clinic follows the advanced scientific medicine of Deepak Chopra or some such altie quack.

[Richard Steele]

133. Now I know you're lying. Ridiculous.

[Horse with no Name]

173. Yeah and I am a nuclear physicist. What do you want to be today?

:eyes:

[Richard Steele]

181. I'd like to be an 'Abnormal Psychologist" so I could discover what this shithead's problem is.

I can't believe the mods haven't put a lock
on this infantile flame-fest of his yet.

[Horse with no Name]

188. Me either.

It is definitely one for the record books.
Come in here and assert fiction and then flame everyone for not buying it.

[AikidoSoul]

341. You still haven't cited the "fiction" or the "facts"

You and your friends are lowering the debate to insults

[donco6]

Oh PLEASE, tell me where.

I need to check my doc's credentials to make sure he didn't come from anywhere near there.

[Richard Steele]

197. Under a bridge in fantasyland, obviously. What a joke!

[donco6]

203. Snort!

Now THAT was funny.

You know, she sounds like these people you read on the Freep boards who have some axe to grind with (insert cause here). They just regurgitate the same crap over and over and over, then set up this rhetorical fallacy (prove me wrong!) that they proceed to run into the ground. It's so childish and dopey - and - like this one - they always end up attacking the people on the board.

[Richard Steele]

212. I have no DOUBT left to give this OP the benefit of.

The OP consistently displays an utter & deliberate contempt for fact and reason.
And it is clearly not the variety of contempt which is bred by FAMILIARITY.

[AikidoSoul]

344. I've seen no facts from you or your team mates. None of you seem to have a real argument

I feel sorry for the OP, and everyone else on this thread that has to read your posts.

Please.. if you have some particular point to make... some fact... some argument. Present it. Enough of the flaming and ugly language.

It's sick.

And sad.

[Richard Steele]

348. None so blind as those who REFUSE to see. Except perhaps their transparent SOCK PUPPETS.

[AikidoSoul]

423. As transparent as ad hominem attacks? You slime the word "intelligent"

by such tactics

[xchrom]

28. i see a peddler of fairy tales

not a professional.

[mhatrw]

31. So far, I see a lot of nothing from ALL of my detractors.

When is SOMEONE, ANYONE going to actually address anything in the OP?

[xchrom]

36. i did.

sell some real facts.

[mhatrw]

51. What? What did you address? What did you dispute?

It's now clear to me that I really on to something here. I'm sorry for spoiling your plan, but you can't stop the facts about this from getting out with these infantile tactics. You have no idea who you are dealing with.

[xchrom]

174. i'm dealing with a fabulist.

i've provided link after link for you -- one even that points even WITH increased numbers of women getting pap smears -- there are thousands who will BENEFIT from gardasil

but you want death -- death for those women who you proclaim to already immunocompromised and somehow by your fantastical criteria -- having too much sex.

you provide asshattery and simply expect people to worship your fantasies.

[mhatrw]

176. LOL. n/t

[donco6]

196. You have an odd sense of humor.

Because there isn't anything funny in it.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

105. self delete. I am too angry to post.

[originalpckelly]

202. Actually, 16 & 18 are the strains most likely to cause cervical cancer...

so it does make sense that Merck would produce a vaccine targeting them. However, right now the vaccine is being bumped up in price. Parents might consider waiting to vaccinate their children until a little older, when the price of the vaccine begins to come down. Thankfully in about 16 odd years it will come off patent and a generic vaccine can be made A LOT cheaper.

[Recursion]

411. Not to beat a dead horse...

The DNA from all strains has been found in tumors; 16 and 18 most prevalently.

We don't have a model of carcinogenesis from these viruses.
We don't know why some cancers have the viral DNA in them and some don't.
We don't know why some people who never have HPV get cervical cancer.
We don't know why most people who do have HPV never get cervical cancer.
We don't know why there seems to be no relationship between time of contraction of HPV and time of onset of cervical cancer.
We have no idea if it matters when or how you get HPV.
We don't know if eliminating the HPV will eliminate the cancers in the population that has HPV, or if they will simply be like the other women who have no HPV but do develop cervical cancer.

We simply don't know, and we're spending so much money finding a cure we've neglected to spend any really examining the cause.

The last I read (last year some time), an HPV-negative woman's lifetime risk of cervical cancer was something like 1% while an HPV-positive woman's lifetime risk was something like 2%. That's not exactly compelling data for a single pathogen, is it? And we still don't know if those 2% of HPV-positive women will still get cancer if we prevent or remove the HPV. We'll see in a few decades, I guess.

[aquart]

10. "If" they "would" die of complications.

So you're saying you want wider tests until women die of complications. Which means none of them HAVE died of complications? But you are ASSUMING they WILL die of complications because....?

[mhatrw]

15. Because new vaccines historically have risks.

And because alum adjuvants were just shown to cause neural death in mice:

http://www.straight.com/article/vaccines-show-sinister-side
http://tinyurl.com/3xhtdz

What evidence do you have to prove that this brand new virus-like particle vaccine is perfectly safe?

More critically, what is your opinion on my cost vs. most optimistic possible benefit analysis?

[PVnRT]

18. There's no such thing as a "perfectly safe" drug

It's a mythology created by knee-jerk Luddites to decry anything that the FDA approves and find something to whine about. If you want to question Merck's ability to accurately (and truthfully) report clinical trial results, that's another matter, but that's apparently not your argument today.

[mhatrw]

21. Lots of sound and fury signifying nothing.

My argument today is in the OP and my last post. Your "counter argument" is nothing but ad hominem hot air.

[PVnRT]

24. Yes, "sound and fury" applies to your "argument" quite well

Perhaps you could outline what the FDA requirements should be so we can get "perfectly safe" drugs.

[mhatrw]

32. Is this your idea of a discussion?

If you dispute anything in the OP, explain why and offer some contrary evidence. This isn't a Monty Python skit.

[rinsd]

Coming from someone playing with numbers, that's hilarious.

You try to make a math argument will slipping in huge assumptions.

[rinsd]

227. Coming from someone playing with numbers, that's hilarious.

You try to make a math argument will slipping in huge assumptions.

[mopinko]

148. man, are you full of shit.

you back up your rant with some website that is talking about a study that has not even been published, let alone peer reviewed. then you expect people to believe you teach at a med school?
and you can't even do simple math>>Now consider that it would cost about $50 million (including doctors fees) to vaccinate that population -- ostensibly to protect them against this "killer." Suppose GARDASIL works as intended and reduces that rate by half. That's $100 million per life saved!
>>
huh? each life saved costs twice the total cost of all vaccinations?

go home.

[mhatrw]

175. Click on the next link right under the article link. The study is now published

in a peer reviewed journal. Or didn't you notice that through your frothing?

[EST]

11. There are no points in this bit of Fallwell reasoning worth

serious debate.
People are not just numbers, humped around by specious reasoning and ill considered flacking for some unspecified interest.

The only assumption that seems reasonable is that the author of this hit piece works either for a competing drup company or for Idiot Inhoffe.

[mhatrw]

17. That's right. You disagree with it, so it must be wrong.

No reasons or arguments necessary. YOU ARE THE DECIDER. YOU DECIDE THINGS.

[macllyr]

14. another reason to vaccine

Well, there is a high degree of suspicion that latent viruses (the ones you keep
more or less dormant in your body for all your life after you get infected) are connected
with immunosenescence (aging of the immune system).

Viruses belonging to the herpesviridae group (Herpes 1, 2, (6) & 8, cytomegalovirus,
Epstein-barr virus and the Herpes zoster/chickenpox virus) are currently the proposed culprits.

There is a vaccine only for the H. zoster virus.

The case of HPVs is different because the infection they cause is mostly local (mucosal). Nevertheless, a persistant, decades-long infection, is probably not good, both because you are at risk to develop cervical and anal cancer, but also because there is chronic stimulation of the immune system.

I think that anything that protects the immune system from continuous stimulation
by viruses is probably good in terms of delayed immunosenescence and healthy aging...

Mac L'lyr

[mhatrw]

19. What?

Please explain what this has to do with a cost (plus risk) vs. benefit analysis of vaccinating the US female population with GARDASIL.

[hlthe2b]

20. HPV 16 and 18 account for 70% of all cervical cancer..

Perfect vaccine? No. I am also pissed that they did not concurrently complete the efficacy trials on boys against HPV 6 and 11, a prime cause of genital warts and against HPV-induced penile cancer. These trials are ongoing as we speak. This vaccine would have been far less controversial, imo, if it had been focused on adolescents (both males and females--which will undoubtedly be the case in the future).

This cut and past article does not hold water. Merck's policies piss me off too, but one can't throw out the good WITH the bad.

[mhatrw]

22. All of that is accounted for in the original OP.

Say something that impinges on the cost + risk vs. analysis in the OP or hold your peace.

[hlthe2b]

26. "Say something... or hold your peace?" Give me a break

YOur rudeness and defensiveness makes it totally not worth the time..

[mhatrw]

33. If you dispute ANYTHING in the OP, explain why and offer some

contrary evidence. Otherwise, why are you here?

[hlthe2b]

44. Facts? You present ridiculous pre-packaged rhetoric...

Take it elsewhere... Most well educated DUers aren't biting.

[mhatrw]

46. LOL. n/t

[xchrom]

27. ... some other facts

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ccvaccine2.htm

Cervical cancer:

This form of cancer is the second most common cancer killer of women.

In the U.S.: According to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services:
13,000 women in the U.S. will be diagnosed with cervical cancer during 2006. 1
During 2004, 3,500 women died from cervical cancer in the U.S. 1

In Canada:
About 400,000 women have abnormal (precancerous) cervical cells. 2
About 1,400 Canadian women are diagnosed with cervical cancer annually. 3
About 390 women die from the disease each year. 4
99.7% of all cervical cancers are caused by HPV. 2

Worldwide:
"Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women and kills 250,000 women a year, the World Health Organization (WHO) said. About 500,000 cases of the disease are reported every year, 80 percent of them in developing countries, the Geneva-based agency said. The vaccines could have a 'major impact' on that toll, the WHO said." 5

 The Gardasil® vaccine

Two new vaccines have been developed "... to prevent cervical cancer and other diseases in females caused by certain types of genital human papillomavirus (HPV)." It was:


"... developed over a ten-year period by Merck. Gardasil is shown in clinical trials to have 100% efficacy in fighting the dominant strains of the virus that causes cervical cancer. Creators of the Merck vaccine ... and a rival vaccine from GlaxoSmithKline say it will save lives as well as billions of dollars in healthcare costs every year." 6


The vaccine protects against four HPV types, which together cause 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts. 7 It is administered via three injections over a six-month period.

According to the Washington Post:


"Officials of both companies noted that research indicates the best age to vaccinate would be just before puberty to make sure children are protected before they become sexually active. The vaccine would probably be given primarily to girls but could also be used on boys to limit the spread of the virus. 8


Polls indicate that the most common age at which teens become sexually active is 16, while they are in high school.

MedPage Today reported that:


"The HPV vaccine Gardasil was approved in June 2006 for females ages nine to 26 for the prevention of cervical cancer, pre-cancerous genital lesions, and genital warts due to HPV types 6, 11, 16 and 18." 8

for more about the religious rights version of the truth -- which parallels yours, btw -- read on.

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1065&id=1406292006
the article from the scotsmen is enlightening because it talks about the deaths from cervical cancer IN SPITE of a successful screening campaign.

this from the washington post
"This vaccine is a significant advance in the protection of women's health in that it strikes at the infections that are the root cause of many cervical cancers," said FDA Acting Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach.

He predicted that the vaccine -- the first ever designed specifically to prevent a cancer -- will have a "dramatic effect" on the health of women worldwide.

The vaccine, called Gardisil and developed by Merck & Co., was approved for girls and women ages 9 and 26. It is most useful if given to younger girls, because the vaccine is ineffective once the virus -- which is very common among sexually active people -- is already present.

The CDC estimates that about 6.2 million Americans become infected with genital HPV each year and that more than half of all sexually active men and women become infected in their lives. More than 9,700 new cases of cervical cancer and 3,700 deaths are attributed to the virus yearly in the United States. Worldwide, cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in women, with 470,000 new cases annually and 233,000 deaths.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060800865.html?nav=hcmodule

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/07/health/07vaccine.html?ex=1286337600&en=a485da6a0c140796&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Gardasil protects against HPV 16 and 18, which together cause 70 percent of cervical cancers. It is also designed to prevent infection with two other virus types, 6 and 11, which cause 90 percent of cases of genital warts. The four virus types can cause non-cancerous cervical growths that lead to nerve-racking false alarms on Pap tests, and the vaccine is expected to spare many women the abnormal test results.

Merck scientists were scheduled to present the results of the two-year study today at an infectious disease conference in San Francisco.

Their test group included more than 12,000 women, ages 16 to 26, from 13 countries. Half got Gardasil and half placebos.

Among the women who received all three doses of vaccine and did not have HPV infection when they started the study, the researchers found no precancerous cells or early cervical cancers associated with HPV 16 or 18. But among those who got placebos, there were 21 cases.

The findings mean the vaccine was 100 percent effective at preventing the cancers caused by types 16 and 18. But some women in the vaccinated group did develop precancerous cells caused by other HPV types; the company did not disclose how many.


this from kaiser

HPV Screening, Vaccination Efforts Should Be Unified, Women's Health Advocates Say


      Screening and vaccination efforts against the human papillomavirus should become unified in light of FDA's approval of Merck's HPV vaccine Gardasil, women's health advocates said earlier this month at the second annual HPV and Cervical Cancer Summit held in Washington, D.C., United Press International reports (Dell'Amore, United Press International, 11/17). FDA in July approved Gardasil for sale and marketing to girls and women ages nine to 26. According to Merck, the vaccine in clinical trials has been shown to be 100% effective in preventing HPV infection with strains 16 and 18, which together cause about 70% of cervical cancer cases, in women who do not already have the virus, and about 99% effective in preventing HPV strains 6 and 11, which together with strains 16 and 18 cause about 90% of genital wart cases. Gardasil also protects against vaginal and vulvar cancers, two other gynecological cancers that are linked to HPV, according to a study presented in June at a meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Atlanta (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 11/2). The summit -- hosted by Women In Government, a not-for-profit association for women in state government -- included state legislators, medical clinicians and researchers, women's health advocates, representatives from federal health agencies and public health officials from about 40 states, according to a Women In Government release. "The availability of an effective HPV vaccine is a medical triumph" but "t the same time, it is critical that women who get vaccinated do not become complacent about screening," Marie Savard, an internist and women's health expert who participated in the meeting, said, adding, "Screening will still be necessary to protect against cervical cancer caused by HPV types not covered by the vaccine, for women already exposed to HPV and for women who do not receive the vaccine" (Women In Government release, 11/21). Mark DeFrancesco -- chief medical officer of Connecticut Women's Health who also spoke at the summit, said -- "There's a great, tremendous, long-term benefit from vaccination," but "e can't ignore the importance of screening." He added that combining the Pap test with an HPV test would detect nearly all abnormal cells, giving women "100% assurance."
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/Daily_reports/rep_repro_recent_reports.cfm?dr_cat=2&show=yes&dr_DateTime=11-27-06#41243

[mhatrw]

37. I used an even higher death rate of 3700 in the OP.

How does anything you just posted affect my cost + risk vs. benefit analysis?

But thanks, I'll use your numbers from now on. They make my argument that much stronger.

[xchrom]

39. if you could read -- you would see the savings

far outweighs any thing you're making up.

and that's the problem -- you're asserting AIR.

[mhatrw]

41. LOL. n/t

[xchrom]

43. hysterical, crazy lol from a crazy hysterical op.

the first time you've made sense.

[greyl]

187. Squint your eyes and look closer. 250,000. nt

[youngdem]

29. So I guess you don't wear your seatbelt either because of fear of drowning?

And you walk in the street because a car could jump the curb?
And you eschew emergency room care because of the potential for doctor errors?

Of course not, you take reasonable risks based on potential reward.

This line of reasoning rejecting this vaccine is STUPID.

NOTHING is perfect, but this vaccine is HUGE, HUGE news for women's health.

50-70% of cervical cancer cases are caused by the strains that this vaccine is 100% (yes, 100% in clinical trials) effective.

So, I don't know what you are wanting, but this to me deserves Nobel consideration. HPV is a SILENT PLAGUE.

Everything has risks. But NOT taking this if you are a sexually active woman is pure ignorance.

You don't want to take it? Fine. Darwin at work. I just hope you don't have a daughter that gets to suffer because of your myopia.

[xchrom]

30. it's more important to sell hysteria and fear of fucking, donchya know?

This is some crazy crap the op is selling.

[hlthe2b]

34. two identical posts within minutes of each other in GD...

from the same author
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x145744

Hmmm, wonder if this was intentional spam with a desire to disrupt? Just wondering... :eyes:

[xchrom]

38. spam without real facts.

the worst kind of spam there is.

[mhatrw]

45. So that negates the analysis, right?

I'll post it 100 times everywhere in the world if I have to. Give it up. You guys can't win.

[hlthe2b]

48. ROFL...

So it is YOU against all of "us guys"

Me thinks you have unmasked yourself. :rofl:

Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, is that you? :rofl:

[Richard Steele]

53. I'd say the ABSENCE of analysis negates the analysis.

[Olney Blue]

201. This post has been going on for several days now.

[mhatrw]

42. What exactly is crazy about it?

Please explain.

[xchrom]

50. let me refer you to this post from youngdem

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=145926&mesg_id=146071

that says it really well.

[mhatrw]

57. That says nothing about anything.

But it was a lot better try than anything you've come up with.

[xchrom]

166. you prefer death to living for those women

you single out.

[bettyellen]

210. crazy is the anti woman anti sex angle you have hidden, stupid is how your math does not add up

seriously, why are you hiding all your opinions about women being dirty whores who are going to be punished by illness anyway?
stop hiding your true self!

[mhatrw]

40. How do any of these questions negate anything I said in the OP?

Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, wonderful spam, marvelous spam!

[Tsiyu]

382. I thought you said this wasn't a Monty Python skit?

Whatever your cost/analysis, we need vaccines combined with PAP smears. breaking it all down to dollars is what's wrong, not where to spend those dollars.

What part about that is hard to get?

[iverglas]

385. heh; you've heard about the truck driver who wouldn't wear his seat belt

because he drove a tanker full of a flammable substance and was afraid of being burned alive if he was trapped by his seatbelt?

He was in an accident and was thrown through the windshield and killed.

At least he *knew* what proven risk of serious harm was involved in both courses of action and made a relatively informed choice, for himself.

To choose a known risk of serious harm for someone else -- one's child -- over a completely unproven risk is just pretty weird.

[latebloomer]

35. kicked and recommended

Thank you for posting this.

The potential risks of a vaccine like this, as compared to the benefits, have yet to be proved.

We are a nation of guinea pigs. The number and variety of vaccines our children are currently fed is alarming. I am surprised at how many on this forum seem to accept the "need' for this.

More info here-

http://www.909shot.com/Diseases/HPV/HPVHOME.htm

[donheld]

54. Link, link, link, read this link!!!!1!!!

Read the link http://www.909shot.com/PressReleases/pr020107HPV.htm Then say she's making it up.

[Junkdrawer]

47. Coming to this debate fresh, I did an online search to see if others were concerned....

From what I can see:

1.) The medical community seems pretty united for the vaccine...

2.) Much of the research does seem to come from the drug companies...

3.) The only opponents I find are those religiously opposed to the vaccine...

4.) There was no adverse reactions to the vaccine in the trials...

5.) There is a positive cost/benefit analysis, but I haven't read it...


So, only 2.) and 5.) have me skeptical, and the latter is only because I haven't seen the analysis.

[mhatrw]

52. Read the OP carefully, JD. Then recommend the thread.

I'm counting on you. I've read your posts for years. You of all people should know better.

[donheld]

56. Why is this attack "mhatrw" day?

:shrug:

[hlthe2b]

96. perhaps because...

most can see through intentional disinformation campaigns and misogyny "masking" as data...:shrug:

It will sway some because we have reason to be distrustful and because many do not have the time to research such an issue in sufficient detail to ensure they aren't getting propaganda from ANY side or direction.

[Junkdrawer]

76. In my mind, it all hangs on the cost/benefit analysis....

and some of the factors of that analysis (how many will stop getting pap smears because of a false sense of security?, how many negative reactions in a large population?) are unknowns.

From what I'm reading, I'm cautiously FOR the vaccines. If you're arguing to STOP the vaccine, I think you're wrong. If you're arguing for a slower roll-out, you may have some valid arguments.

[leftchick]

92. read my post 83 for that

The US would be better off with a Pap Smear program for the poor and uninsured. And better education for women about getting pap smears. This vaccine is nothing but another money making scheme for Merck.

[Junkdrawer]

98. Like I said, a slower roll-out, perhaps in the highest risk groups...

is probably more reasonable. And I would like to see a Waxman-type scrutiny of the costs/Big Pharma profits.

[mhatrw]

106. What is the cost vs. benefit?

Can't you understand that we would have to vaccinate every US woman at a cost of over $75 billion in order for GARDASIL to save AT MOST 1225 lives a year many decades downstream? What is so difficult about that to comprehend? It's simple math. Nobody on this entire thread has disputed it!

This vaccine is great for countries where they don't screen for 36 HPV strains on your annual pap smear. But it's not so great here unless you plan on never (or hardly ever) getting a pap smear. How do you propose that we deliver it to that select population? Because its risks and costs far outweigh its rewards for all other US populations.

[ShaneGR]

179. 1225 lives a year

Or 10,000 lives every 8 years. I think the investment is worth it.

[hedgehog]

279. Highest risk group being?

Let's see, what group of girls is most likely to be exposed to HPV? Good luck with that.

[AikidoSoul]

367. Now you are actually making some sense here

And it wouldn't be subjecting everyone, especially vulnerable populations, to this new vaccine.

:hi:

[AngryAmish]

191. Pap smears prevent nothing

These shots do.

Cancer sucks. Even if you live. Invasive and expensive tests the rest of your life. Pain, disability and the mutilation of having parts of your body removed.

Don't only look at deaths. I have not had to live with someone with cervical cancer but I have had to live with someone with other cancers. It is like dropping a bomb into a family.

This is a great advance.

[leftchick]

206. it prevents HPV not cancer...

HPV is one cause of cervical cancer. I believe people are being horribly misinformed and are not aware that having this vaccine would not prevent them from getting cervical cancer. In fact the Guardacil insert advises that the patient get annual Pap Smears. I wonder how many getting the vaccine are advised of that? I also wonder how many believe getting this vaccine means they are immune from cancer for life? The insert also stats the long term effectivness of the vaccine is unknown. It is also about three times as expensive as advertized.



<snip>

One important fact about the cervical cancer vaccine is that it is not designed to prevent cervical cancer. There is no medical study or information that will refute this point. What this vaccine prevents in Human PapillomaVirus (HPV) or genital warts. It just so happens that HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer.

Saying this vaccine prevents cervical cancer is like saying prohibition prevented car accidents. Sure, fewer people got drunk and before driving cars, but that's not quite the point. The vaccine does not attack cervical cancer directly.

Typically medical treatments are described by the condition they are directly treating. A polio vaccine prevents polio. The measles vaccine prevents measles. The question is why this HPV vaccine is being described as a cervical cancer vaccine.

HPV is a sexually transmitted disease, one that isn't effectively prevented from being spread by condoms or other birth control methods. As a result, tens of millions of people in the United States alone are carriers of the virus. This disease is in pandemic proportions. Instead of taming sexual behavior to deal with the risk of this disease, the medical community invents a vaccine so promiscuity can continue without consequences.

In an attempt to downplay the significance of HPV and the rates people have been infected by it, the medical community refuses to describe this vaccine by what it actually does. What is even more disquieting is the attempt to have this vaccine administered to young girls as a requirement to attend school even before it has been established that there are no harmful effects that this vaccine will cause to girls of that age.

http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=830441#i

[Justitia]

207. And what is the cause of cervical cancer?? HPV! -eom

[leftchick]

230. one cause

why does Merck strongly recommend continued Pap smears even after vaccination?

[Justitia]

236. You still need Pap smears to detect those strains of HPV not in the vaccine.

Cervical cancer is caused by HPV. But don't take my word for it, ask the National Cancer Institute:

Is HPV infection required for cervical cancer to develop?

Dr. Lowy: Yes. If you don't have HPV infection, you don't get cervical cancer.

www.cancer.gov

[leftchick]

249. hmmm, the CDC says HPV causes 70% of cervical cancers

<snip>

In June 2006, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted to recommend the first vaccine developed to prevent cervical cancer and other diseases in females caused by certain types of genital human papillomavirus (HPV). The vaccine, Gardasil®, protects against four HPV types, which together cause 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts.

... and it does not protect against all hpv types, there are 40 of them.

<snip>

How long does vaccine protection last? Will a booster shot be needed?

The length of vaccine protection (immunity) is usually not known when a vaccine is first introduced. So far, studies have followed women for five years and found that women are still protected. More research is being done to find out how long protection will last, and if a booster vaccine is needed years later.

What does the vaccine not protect against?

Because the vaccine does not protect against all types of HPV, II WILL NOT PREVENT ALL CASES OF CERVICAL CANCER (DID YOU READ THAT?) or genital warts. About 30% of cervical cancers will not be prevented by the vaccine, so it will be important for women to continue getting screened for cervical cancer (regular Pap tests). Also, the vaccine does not prevent about 10% of genital warts—nor will it prevent other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). So it will still be important for sexually active adults to reduce exposure to HPV and other STIs.

Will girls/women be protected against HPV and related diseases, even if they don’t get all three doses?

It is not yet known how much protection girls/women would get from receiving only one or two doses of the vaccine. For this reason, it is very important that girls/women get all three doses of the vaccine.


http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine.htm

Notice it is called the HPV vaccine and not "The Cervical Cancer Vaccine" as it is being played up in the media. It ain't the holy grail of cervical cancer but it will make Merck a TON of $$$.

[Justitia]

254. NO. You do not get cervical cancer w/out HPV. This PARTICULAR vaccine covers 70 - 80% of all HPVs

It's NOT that HPV causes 70% of all cancers, to state correctly, this vaccine prevents 70% of all cancers.

You can keep pushing that this is not a vaccine against cancer - but you are WRONG.

No HPV, no cancer - just like I linked you to earlier at the National Cancer Institute www.cancer.gov

Now, not all strains of HPV are included in this vaccine, but the vaccine has been shown to be effective against MOST of the strains that cause cancer and nearly ALL the strains that cause genital warts.

And that is better than ZERO being prevented without the vaccine. Duh.

[leftchick]

273. duh!

Is that all you have because your argument is baseless. It is not a cancer vaccine no matter how hard you want it to be. The CDC says so, but believe what you want if it makes you happy. :eyes:


Duh! :rofl:

[Justitia]

277. What?!?! You are delusional. I give up. Yeah, it's all bullshit.

You either have a reading comprehension problem or you are trying to play semantics.

Hey, I gotta virus free, cancer free cervix (to the best of my knowledge).

It's your funeral.

[AngryAmish]

213. With respect, that is a terrible argument you make

The polio virus does not kill by itself. Suffocation is the primary killer. The polio virus does not prevent suffocation. Therefore, following your reasoning, the polio virus does not prevent death.



"Instead of taming sexual behavior to deal with the risk of this disease, the medical community invents a vaccine so promiscuity can continue without consequences."
Does one also want to ban condoms for the unmarried because the sexual behavior remains untamed?

People are flawed. People like sex. Preventing suffering is a good thing.

[mondo joe]

359. What a vile, disgusting post.

"Instead of taming sexual behavior to deal with the risk of this disease, the medical community invents a vaccine so promiscuity can continue without consequences."

You're opposed to treatment for STDs?

Fuck you.

[mhatrw]

101. Read the OP more carefully then.

Maybe you just need a primer on this. I still have 100% faith in you.

The Facts About GARDASIL

1) GARDASIL is a vaccine for 4 strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV), two strains that are strongly associated (and probably cause) genital warts and two strains that are typically associated (and may cause) cervical cancer. About 90% of people with genital warts show exposure to one of the two HPV strains strongly suspected to cause genital warts. About 70% of women with cervical cancer show exposure to one of the other two HPV strains that the vaccine is designed to confer resistance to.

2) HPV is a sexually communicable (not an infectious) virus. When you consider all strains of HPV, over 70% of sexually active males and females have been exposed. A condom helps a lot (70% less likely to get it), but has not been shown to stop transmission in all cases (only one study of 82 college girls who self-reported about condom use has been done). For the vast majority of women, exposure to HPV strains (even the four “bad ones” protected for in GARDASIL) results in no known health complications of any kind.

3) Cervical cancer is not a deadly nor prevalent cancer in the US or any other first world nation. Cervical cancer rates have declined sharply over the last 30 years and are still declining. Cervical cancer accounts for less than 1% of of all female cancer cases and deaths in the US. Cervical cancer is typically very treatable and the prognosis for a healthy outcome is good. The typical exceptions to this case are old women, women who are already unhealthy and women who don’t get pap smears until after the cancer has existed for many years.

4) Merck’s clinical studies for GARDASIL were problematic in several ways. Only 20,541 women were used (half got the “placebo”) and their health was followed up for only four years at maximum and typically 1-3 years only. More critically, only 1,121 of these subjects were less than 16. The younger subjects were only followed up for a maximum of 18 months. Furthermore, less than 10% of these subjects received true placebo injections. The others were given injections containing an aluminum salt adjuvant (vaccine enhancer) that is also a component of GARDASIL. This is scientifically preposterous, especially when you consider that similar alum adjuvants are suspected to be responsible for Gulf War disease and other possible vaccination related complications.

5) Both the “placebo” groups and the vaccination groups reported a myriad of short term and medium term health problems over the course of their evaluations. The majority of both groups reported minor health complications near the injection site or near the time of the injection. Among the vaccination group, reports of such complications were slightly higher. The small sample that was given a real placebo reported far fewer complications — as in less than half. Furthermore, most if not all longer term complications were written off as not being potentially vaccine caused for all subjects.

6) Because the pool of test subjects was so small and the rates of cervical cancer are so low, NOT A SINGLE CONTROL SUBJECT ACTUALLY CONTRACTED CERVICAL CANCER IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM — MUCH LESS DIED OF IT. Instead, this vaccine’s supposed efficacy is based on the fact that the vaccinated group ended up with far fewer cases (5 vs. about 200) of genital warts and “precancerous lesions” (dysplasias) than the alum injected “control” subjects.

7) Because the tests included just four years of follow up at most, the long term effects and efficacy of this vaccine are completely unknown for anyone. All but the shortest term effects are completely unknown for little girls. Considering the tiny size of youngster study, the data about the shortest terms side effects for girls are also dubious.

8) GARDASIL is the most expensive vaccine ever marketed. It requires three vaccinations at $120 a pop for a total price tag of $360. It is expected to be Merck’s biggest cash cow of this and the next decade.

These are simply the facts of the situation as presented by Merck and the FDA.

[Junkdrawer]

107. I have a busy day. I'll beg off until later for now, but, as I said...

for me, the anti arguments tend to call for a slower roll-out, not a halt.

[mhatrw]

120. Just look at the (non)reactions I'm getting here!

It's as obvious as an atomic bomb, JD.

Every joker on DU is spamming this thread, but nobody has so much has touched the OP with a single disputing fact or figure. How obvious does this need to be for you?

[Horse with no Name]

163. You're the only JOKER I see n/t

[hedgehog]

281. Cervical cancer rates have fallen or the death rate from cervical cancer

has fallen? How much of the rate change has emerged from treatment for pre-cancerous conditions? What is the treatment and what is the cost of treatment?

[latebloomer]

69. Do a little more research

Check posts 35 and 54. Not only religious fundies are opposing this.

[leftchick]

83. check this out

I wonder why this is not being reported on the TV? :sarcasm:


Vaccine Safety Group Finds Serious Reactions, High Costs

http://www.drugnewswire.com/12489/

VIENNA, Va., Feb. 1 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), the nation's leading vaccine safety and informed consent advocacy organization, is urging state legislatures to investigate the safety and cost of mandating Merck's HPV vaccine (GARDASIL) for all pre- adolescent girls before introducing legislation amending state vaccine laws. In an analysis of reports made to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) since the CDC's July 2006 universal use recommendation for all young girls, NVIC found reports of loss of consciousness, seizures, joint pain and Guillain-Barre Syndrome. In a separate evaluation of costs for young girls being vaccinated in private pediatrician offices, NVIC discovered that parents living in the Washington, D.C. area will be paying between $500 and $900 to have their daughters receive three doses of GARDASIL.


"GARDASIL safety appears to have been studied in fewer than 2,000 girls aged 9 to 15 years pre-licensure clinical trials and it is unclear how long they were followed up. VAERS is now receiving reports of loss of consciousness, seizures, arthritis and other neurological problems in young girls who have received the shot," said NVIC President Barbara Loe Fisher. "At the same time, parents who take their daughters to private pediatricians are going to be shocked to find that they will be paying two to three times the widely publicized $360 cost for the three-dose series. The cost is going to break the pocketbooks of parents and break the banks of both insurance companies and taxpayers, when the reality is that almost all cases of HPV- associated cervical cancer can be prevented with annual pap screening of girls who are sexually active."


<snip>


"The most frequent serious health events after GARDASIL shots are neurological symptoms," said NVIC Health Policy Analyst Vicky Debold, RN, Ph.D. "These young girls are experiencing severe headaches, dizziness, temporary loss of vision, slurred speech, fainting, involuntary contraction of limbs (seizures), muscle weakness, tingling and numbness in the hands and feet and joint pain. Some of the girls have lost consciousness during what appears to be seizures." Debold added "The manufacturer product insert should include mention of syncopal episodes, seizures and Guillain-Barre Syndrome so doctors and parents are aware these vaccine adverse responses have been associated with the vaccine."


VAERS reports also indicate the doctors are administering GARDASIL to girls and women at the same with Tdap, DT, meningococcal (Menactra), hepatitis A, and other vaccines, even though the Merck product insert states that, with the exception of hepatitis B vaccine, "Co-administration of GARDASIL with other vaccines has not been studied." There is no publicly available information about how many of the 9 to 15 year old girls in Merck's pre- licensure clinical trials received GARDASIL simultaneously with hepatitis B vaccine.

[hlthe2b]

114. You do know that despite its officious name, NVIC is NOT

a governmental or academically-based site. It is a private anti-vaccine website and like many thinktanks, especially those we are familiar with on the RW, some of what it puts out has elements of truth. These intermittent tidbits of truth reel many in, only to unquestioningly accept the remaining blatant propaganda.


No drug, no vaccine is 100% safe. No medical professional, no public health expert will argue that. But starting with THAT premise, they (NVIC)do everything possible to essentially argue that all vaccines are unacceptable..

Sadly, statistics can be manipulated.

[AikidoSoul]

396. Well at least NVIC is independent from medical industrial complex influence and control

which cannot be said of the CDC, FDA, EPA and most universities, which are unduly influenced (and funded) by the chemical / pharmaceutical industry. There is an epidemic of corruption by this industry that has no shame in creating "checkbook science" wherever it can.

I don't trust all private groups that work on med / sci issues, but there are some really excellent ones that are doing a much better job at protecting our interests than government is.

An excellent example of a private organization that does excellent research based work is Birth Defects Research for Children. It has been around for more than a decade and has more true facts, figures, and hard research on birth defects -- than ANY government agency that looks at birth defects... and it does it all for a tiny fraction of the money (private donations).

Somewhere in this thread is a partial (although long) list of articles and investigations I posted on how chem/pharm has thoroughly corrupted medical / science. Please don't denigrate a private org if it's not directly under the auspices of a gov or educational institution. Many of these private groups are able to tap into considerable expertise of researchers, investigative journalists, scientists, etc. --many who actually do work for these institutions, but who donate their time and expertise because they are disgusted with the bogus information coming from more official sources.

But DUers shouldn't have a hard time understanding this! I think all of us can see what the corrupting influence of money has done to this country.

Do some in this group need to get edumacated on this topic? :think:

[salvorhardin]

49. Your death rate is meaningless

Your death rate due to this vaccine is pure crap based on nothing more substantial than pulling a number out of your ass. It's meaningless and can be summarily dismissed.

As for the cost of the vaccine, you are talking about a one-time cost and as far as I can tell you are pulling the $50 million number out of your ass too. But let's say it's true. Your math is suspect as well. $50,000,000 / 3,700 lives saved = $13,514 per life saved. That's a far cry from your asinine $100 million per life saved statistic.

And what are 3,700 lives worth? What is the earning potential of those lives over 10,20,30,40,50 or more years? What are they worth in terms of productivity? Who knows if one of those 3,700 lives might go on to find the cure for cancer, solve the energy problem, or broker peace in the Middle East.

Stop spewing lies.

[mhatrw]

55. Your post is full of crap.

My cervical cancer death rate comes from the CDC and is too high of anything.

There is no way on God's green earth that GARDASIL can save 3,700 lives by vaccinating 100,000 Americans. Only 3,500 women died of cervical cancer in the entire US in 2004. That's a rate of less than 2.5 per 100,000.

[salvorhardin]

60. Your death rate due to the vaccine is crap

You pulled that number out of your ass.

[mhatrw]

62. Yes, I did. But there ARE unknown risks, and I was just trying to

point out how slight they would have to be to completely outweigh the optimal benefits.

[salvorhardin]

67. The complications in trial have been nonexistent

You have no evidence to suggest that there will be any complications from this vaccine and are again just pulling numbers out of your ass.

[mhatrw]

94. The trials used a potentially dangerous shot of aluminum as the

"placebo control." Several people died. Several more got serious diseases like childhood arthritis that have been linked with vaccinations.

http://www.nvic.org/Diseases/HPV/HPVrpt.htm

A 16-year-old Illinois girl was vaccinated July 7th and 13 days later developed symptoms eventually diagnosed as Guillian-Barre Syndrome. A 14-year-old girl in the District of Columbia was vaccinated on July 11th and complained of severe pain immediately following the injection, fell off the examining table and experienced a 10 to 15 second fainting spell ending up in the emergency room with a headache and speech problems.

[trotsky]

109. Wow. You just admitted to making up numbers to bolster your case.

And you STILL expect to be taken seriously. Now that's cause for :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

118. If you think fictional numbers are going to help,

then it's not us who are pathetic.

[hlthe2b]

149. I'd say that statement says it all re: your motivations...

which appear to go way beyond a simple debate on an issue. :eyes:

Your own words "I (sic) you think this kind of nonsense is going to stop me. Think again."

[mhatrw]

161. Because this is suddenly all about me.

You can't touch my facts, math or logic so you keep attacking me personally instead. Very nice.

[hlthe2b]

172. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that you have NO FACTS

You have made up statistics and propaganda talking points. You have been repeatedly countered by those of us on this site that have the background and knowledge you profess to have. I do understand why Professor GAC (and others) dropped out of discussion with you, however. It becomes rapidly boring to talk to a brick wall--especially one that admits to having a personal agenda and thus "can not be stopped."

[greyl]

192. You jinxed yourself by falsifying data.

Pathetic.

[iverglas]

384. "there ARE unknown risks"???

Interesting assertion.

If you'd chosen to say It is unknown whether there are risks then disagreement would be difficult; the future is generally unknown.

But There ARE unknown risks? That's where you need to provide some substantiation.

[druidity33]

77. you make sense here...

Despite the other posters replies. I am naturally suspicious of any new "wonder drug". I think if we got the population to eat lots more fresh Organic green leafy veggies (brassicas especially) we could probably cut the rate of cancer down by the same amount as this new vaccine.

What's the embodied energy cost of this drug? Is it purely chemical or does it take 10,000 yams to make one dose?

Though that being said, i think the vaccine should be available at a MODEST cost to parents and young adults if they CHOOSE to use it.

[mhatrw]

86. Exactly. This vaccine DOES have promise!

It has promise against genital warts and HPV dysplasias. Any parent or young woman who thinks these benefits outweigh the risks should be able to get this vaccine. If they can't afford it, it should be offered to them by Merck on a sliding scale.

But it won't prevent US cancer deaths in any meaningful cost + risk vs. benefit analysis.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

58. I wonder why the OP only offers up the numbers in the U.S. when the death rate from cervical cancer

is much higher in countries throughout the world. The vaccine could prevent 10's of thousands of deaths globally, but it's just women, according to the OP. MKJ

[mhatrw]

61. Because I'm talking about US policy on a US political party message board.

I realize that this vaccine's cost & risk vs. benefit profile is completely different for other countries.

Now, can you dispute anything in my analysis other than the fact that I limited its scope to the United States?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

64. Compelling response. I'll get back to you.

:eyes: MKJ

[mhatrw]

66. I'll take that as a "no."

Join the club. It's getting bigger by the minute.

[salvorhardin]

63. Women with "many, many sex partners"

Apparently the OP thinks that only sexually promiscuous women get cervical cancer and therefore it's OK if they die.

The OP's meaningless numbers add up to nothing more than good old fashioned misogyny and social darwinism.

[mhatrw]

68. Where is that in the OP? n/t

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

74. From your previous OP, let's see if I can find a link, oh, here it is!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=145744

That's where. MKJ

[mhatrw]

80. But it's not in this OP. Now is it?

Your straws exceed your grasp.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

93. Nope, you edited your misogyny out of this OP. Anyone interested in what the OP thinks of women

Can check out this link.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=145744
MKJ

[salvorhardin]

75. From your previous OP

Most cervical cancer victims have an otherwise compromised immune system as well as a history of many, many sex partners.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=145744

The fact of the matter remains that your opposition to this vaccine amounts to nothing more than misogynism.

[mhatrw]

79. LOL.

You are so predictable.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

81. Your LOL is predictable. We pointed out your "women with many, many sexual partners" statement now

you just laugh instead of owning up to it. No accountability for your made up numbers or misogynistic statements. MKJ

[salvorhardin]

84. So women dying are funny to you?

This vaccine saves lives and prevents the spread of an STD.

[bettyellen]

211. and you spout some seriously fucked up woman hate and laugh. why would a woman listen to your BS

after seeing what you really are?
:puke:

[Bridget Burke]

85. No, but it's in one of the many, many other OP's.

Even if a woman is has only one sex partner--how many partners has he had. And how many partners ahve each of them had.

Ad infinitum.

[alarimer]

59. You are totally pulling those numbers out of your ass

Do you have actual, peer-reviewed studies to back up your claim? How many scientific papers have you published in reputable scientifi journals?

It prevents cancer, yes, but more importantly it prevents the transmission of a sexually transmitted disease.

[mhatrw]

65. Exactly what numbers are you questioning?

Be specific.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

70. This is the one statement in the OP I agree with. "a number which is of course currently impossible

to know" and of course that imaginary number is used in the equation to boost his/her hypothesis.

Imaginary numbers, kind of like the sqare root of 1, which can also be plugged into equations for fun. MKJ

[mhatrw]

72. And the cost vs. benefit analysis?

Please explain exactly what your problem is with that.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

78. Your admission to using entirely made up numbers negates your analysis. KInd of like Bush's budget.

MKJ

[mhatrw]

90. LOL.

You people are hilarious!

[ProfessorGAC]

100. That Is Getting Old

You admit you made up some numbers and you think it's funny that people don't believe you. They don't believe you BECAUSE YOU SAID YOU MADE THE NUMBERS UP!

You are the one who is laughably foolish.
GAC

[NotGivingUp]

71. many people here who refuse to use their critical thinking skills

thank you, mhatrw, for trying to make people see the light on this subject. it's plain to see why this country is in the shape it's in if so many are so trusting of the corporations and the government agencies that are screwing us.

[mhatrw]

73. Ain't that the truth. n/t

[latebloomer]

82. Amen!

Very strange phenomenon here.

:shrug:

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

89. It is not my trust of corporations that calls BS on this cost/benefit analysis with admittedly

fabricated numbers, not to mention taking into consideration the high global rates of death by cervical cancer and the OP's previous assertion that women with "many, many sexual partners" are the only ones at risk.

I approach anything Big Pharma trumpets as the latest and greatest with great skepticism. And, I don't shed that skepticism ust because someone is critical of them, if that criticism is unsubstantiated or utterly made up. MKJ

[mhatrw]

99. Yes, we all know you disagree. Now please explain what exactly you

disagree with in the OP and why.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

108. See posts 58, 70, 74 and 104, all with your brilliant riposte of "LOL" . n/t

MKJ

[mhatrw]

143. What else am I supposed to say? Address the OP using facts, evidence

and/or logic.







I'm still waiting ...

[Bridget Burke]

87. And all those soldiers who've died in Iraq.....

Might have died anyway if they'd stayed here.

Numbers pulled out of someone's ass just don't smell right.

[mhatrw]

112. People who just keep posting and posting without addressing any of the

actual points made in the OP just don't smell right.

[Bridget Burke]

152. Give us the references for every point in your OP.

Then we'll talk.

[mhatrw]

164. Dispute something in the OP for God's sake!

The OP speaks for itself.

The facts are well-known to every OB-GYN in the entire nation.

If you have access to a medical library, see Dunne EF, Markowitz LE. Genital Human Papillomavirus Infection. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 43:624�9

[TZ]

88. good for Merck and bad for HPV

Okay look even as far back as the late 80's people knew there was a link between HPV and cancer and that it was an STD that we needed to worry about. Don't forget that HPV also causes other symptoms as well. I am all for vaccinating agaisnt any transmissible disease. Maybe not mandatory but I think that since its gone through CLINICAL trials and pretty much proved its not going to kill any body (side effects possibly- all vaccines have that potential- the last tetanus vaccine I had hurt like hell for days but I still know its necessary). Anything that can prevent not only the spread of STD's but can even PREVENT ONE CASE OF CANCER is in my mind worth it. I don't have cancer but I have a condition that requires mild chemo from time to time. Thats bad enough. A shot that might make you ill for a day or two is much better. Trust me here.
And actually since its a vaccine with alum adjuvants( which increases antibody activity) its probably a very effective vaccine as well. This is vaccine is the first of many more to come using this kind of technology. Pap smears are notorious for false positives and false negatives as well.

[NotGivingUp]

113. alum adjuvants are toxic and implicated to cause alzheimers

Please read the following very carefully.
No matter what any of you believe, you have NO RIGHT
to dictate to anybody else that they follow what YOU believe.
I thought that it was just the right-wing that were dictators,
but I'm sure finding out differently.

from PubMed. Here's link: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1335899

Would decreased aluminum ingestion reduce the incidence of Alzheimer's disease?

D R McLachlan, T P Kruck, W J Lukiw, and S S Krishnan
Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ont.

Abstract

Although the cause of Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains unknown there is mounting evidence that implicates aluminum as a toxic environmental factor of considerable importance. Four independent lines of evidence--laboratory studies of the effects of intracerebral aluminum on the cognitive and memory performance of animals, biochemical studies, epidemiologic studies and the slowing of the progress of the disease with the use of an agent that removes aluminum from the body--now support the concept that aluminum is one of the pathogenic factors in AD. The evidence warrants serious consideration of reducing human exposure to aluminum. We hypothesize that a public health effort to restrict human ingestion of aluminum would reduce the incidence of this common chronic illness in the elderly.

[TZ]

127. alum adjuvants are not the same as aluminum

alum adjuvents are small molecules that attach small protein sequences to make vaccines more effective. The amounts used are so small that its not a problem. The phD I know who was working with vaccines and alum adjuvents in malaria vaccines is one of the most brilliant scientists I know and trust me he would not be doing this work if he thought alum (not aluminum) was dangerous. You won't find many MEDICAL doctors who know more about biochemistry than this guy. Also bear in mind that anthing in larger amounts can be dangerous- zinc in small amounts is necessary for the human body but large amounts are poisonous

[mhatrw]

138. Read this.

http://www.straight.com/article/vaccines-show-sinister-side
http://tinyurl.com/3xhtdz

Now, tell me where I can find any studies showing that alum adjuvants are 100% safe. I'd love to see them.

[TZ]

214. not impressed, seems like fear mongering

When he publishes his "data" in Science, Nature, Procedings at the National Academy of Sciences let me know. I know the formulations they are using for alum adjuvents are slightly different then what they used to be and also some new adjuvents are also now being used that aren't aluminum hydoxide. The vaccine he was testing is a BAD vaccine for many, many reasons. That vaccine he tested (anthrax) has ALL sorts of safety and efficacy issues and was put on the market before saftey testing was complete. If he truly want's to link alum adjuvents he should be using more established vaccines like Hep A or Hep B (both of which I have had). Screaming bloody murder with vaccines seems common these days. I found a blog which swears the influenza pandemic of 1918 was caused by a vaccine. The first vaccine was Jonas Salk's polio vaccines in the 1950's. Vaccines by nature all have some risk of side effects, but usually that has to do with some immunological problem. I find it hard to link a brain biochemistry issue to a small bound molecule that is attached to white blood cells. I work in vaccine development. There is the potential for problems if not treated right but overall the vaccine has way more positive than negative. Smallpox is a nasty vaccine, difficult to take and dangerous, but the disease is way way worse. I have no issue with people not wanted the vaccine forced on them. But I do object to unsubstantiated fear mongering which seems to happen a lot these days.:rant:

[NotGivingUp]

139. the search terms i used were alum adjuvants alzheimers...not aluminum

that was just one of 9 that came up. you can run your own search with those terms to see the other studies that came up.

[donco6]

95. Typical antivaccination crap.

Get your tinfoil out, folks.

[mhatrw]

116. Brilliant scientific analysis!

Join the ever growing club of posters who express their disgust for the OP without ever mentioning what they disagree with or why they disagree with it!

[donco6]

128. Thanks!

All I hear is the sound of a record skipping, honey. Over and over and over . . .

[Pooka Fey]

97. Thanks for posting this, Mhatrw

I am naturally suspicious of new vaccines, and I appreciate your analysis of this. I must say that I shocked at the level of hostility directed at your OP, and I find the accusations of misogyny and whatever else was thrown at you (I don't care to scan back and find the exact slur) absurd, sad and an indictment of the victim mentality so prevalent in the US culture. K&R I think I'll just continue to get my annual pap exams, (thank you anyway, Merck Pharma Corporation) until much more research has been done.

[ProfessorGAC]

103. There's No Analysis There, Pooka

The OP admitted the numbers are made up. It's not an analysis. It's just a screed.

Be as suspicious as you want to be. Just don't do it because of this "analysis".
The Professor

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProfessorGAC]

115. Fail

You have an analysis, that you admit employs fabricated data. You do not list the assumptions upon which your analysis is based. You do not develop a set of dimensions that include the extrinsic influences you mention. Then the entire "risk analysis" is based, conveniently, ONLY on the 2 dimensions you've chosen.

This is an analysis any statistics expert would give a big, red F.

I'm objecting to the fact that the work is HORRIBLE! The specifics are irrelevant. The work is shoddy and the conclusions are unsupportable.

I'm the one who's full of shit? Puhleaze!


The Professor

[mhatrw]

121. I'm still waiting for SOMEONE, ANYONE to actually dispute ANYTHING

I said with some facts, evidence or analysis.

But I realize that you aren't up to the job.

[ProfessorGAC]

I Just Did

If you're too obtuse to realize i just did, you are a lost cause. I told you EVERYTHING that was wrong with your analysis.

I gave you a list! What is the matter with you? You keep saying you want facts, evidence or analysis.

You MADE UP THE NUMBERS! And i gave you an analysis of what was wrong with your work.

If you are too immature to admit you screwed up, that doesn't mean i'm not up to it. It means you are incapable of accepting someone else's superiority in the field.

Grow up! When you actually learn how to do a risk analysis, and learn something about how to properly apply statistics to one, get back to me. In the meantime, buh-bye.

GAC

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Richard Steele]

329. Waiting for someone to move a few hundredweight of diarrhea with a pitchfork.

[iverglas]

386. if you like hokey numbers, you'll love this

http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/1999_Sept_Oct/article_10.html

Excerpts:

In summary, because all medical interventions are included together under categories for complications of all kinds, it is impossible to know just what share of these deaths is attributable to abortion. In Statistics Canada’s Causes of Death publication for 1995, under those categories in which medical coders have admitted to tabulating abortion-related deaths, there are 1,026 deaths of women between the ages of 10 to 50. The categories given by coders include misadventures during surgical and medical care; accidental cut, puncture, perforation or haemorrhage; accidental poisoning by urea, saline solution, prostaglandins, anti-infectives, sedatives and anaesthetics; postoperative shock; postoperative haemorrhage; postoperative infection; convulsions; injuries to abdominal organs/blood vessels; and late and adverse effects of the above.

... If all of the 1,026 deaths of women in 1995, as stated by Statistics Canada, were abortion related, then the mortality rate for legal abortion would be close to 1% (1,026 out of 106,458 abortions performed in Canada in 1995). That would make legal abortion no less than 25 times more dangerous than illegal abortion, which, "in developed countries such as the United States or Canada, has an estimated mortality rate of 40 deaths per 100,000 illegal abortions" (0.04%) (Morgentaler, Dr. Henry. Abortion and Contraception, p. 130).

"If all of the 1,026 deaths of women in 1995 were abortion related, then ..."

Well, if cows could jump over the moon, then we could mine all that green cheese to feed the starving masses.

A while back I played with those numbers and figured out how many Canadian women could plan on dying of an abortion-related cause, if there were 1,000 abortion-related deaths in Canada a year. It wasn't quite all of us, but it was pretty near.

The author of that bit of tripe is Isabelle Bégin, "Independent Health Researcher". I looked her up. Actually, she's a translator.

Any of this sounding familiar? ;)

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

104. Here's the statement in exactly the same OP, except removed this statement.

"Most cervical cancer victims have an otherwise compromised immune system as well as a history of many, many sex partners."

This is patently untrue. The OP has also admitted completely making up numbers for his/her analysis.

I remember the intususseption which was a complication of the roto virus vaccine in 2000. All vaccines require monitoring and I have not yet come to my own conclusions about the efficacy vs. risk. BS posts like this one do not add any value to the debate. MKJ

[hlthe2b]

102. Like a trojan horse...

some may be mislead in thinking the "enemy (critic) of my enemy must be my friend."

We don't trust big Pharma, we certainly have reason not to trust some governmental agencies, so we must believe all pre-packaged information and talking points that counters big Pharma, public health, the medical and scientific communities? Beware of trojan horses and the alliances stemming from seemingly unrelated motives.

[NotGivingUp]

117. I thought it was just the right-wing that were dictators

I'm sure finding out differently.
No matter what any of you believe, you have NO RIGHT
to dictate to anybody else that they follow what YOU believe.

[madrchsod]

119. ask my sister.....

i guess that women who,like my sister,would`t need this drug because she did`t die. so it`s ok for women to suffer their worst fears this disease because not enough of them die?
sorry--- you can`t ask my sister because they did`t get all the cells and she died later because the cells migrated to her lungs.
she does`t count in your figures

[mhatrw]

123. I'm sorry about your sister. I just lost my father.

Would you care to substantially dispute anything in my original post?

[Horse with no Name]

124. You come in here and take a big stinky shit

Refuse to source your editorial comment...then get mad because nobody wants to discuss what YOU perceive as fact?

To start with...I quit reading when I hit this ignorant nugget you inserted:
"To save (at most, in the best case scenario) a total of 1300 lives a year, many of whom would probably die soon of other causes."

That is the absolute most illogical, uniformed and ridiculous statement I believe I have ever read.

Your drivel isn't worthy of debate.

[mhatrw]

129. Can you dispute anything I wrote with any facts, evidence or logic?

Didn't think so. Join the growing club.

[ProfessorGAC]

132. Several Have. You Are Too Immature To Accept It

.

[mhatrw]

150. Nobody has so much as laid a finger on my original post.

Can't you see that this is just encouraging me?

I really hit a nerve with this one. Why is this vaccine so important that the clear facts about it are met with this sort of nonsense?

[donco6]

131. Amen. n/t

[bleedingheart]

126. Why save anyone then from disease?

If you are going to use the logic that 1300 lives per year here in the US is just a drop in the bucket and those women are not worthwhile because they might just die from a car accident anyways...well then why not apply that logic to other diseases as well.

Why give a shit about lung cancer research? If a majority of lung cancer victims are smokers, and they did it to themselves..why not by your logic just give up on them and save that money?

WHy give a shit about liver disorders? If a majority of liver disease patients were found to be alcoholics or perhaps acetaminophen addicts...then why waste that money?

[donco6]

135. Hodkin's Lymphoma - 1,400 deaths per year.

Guess we should ignore that one, too. Even though we've made great advances in it. With her logic, there would have been no point.

[mhatrw]

136. The point is that the costs and RISKS of GARDASIL outweigh the benefit.

Vaccines have risks and costs. They need to be weighed against their optimal potential benefits. When it comes to the US population, GARDASIL fails this test miserably.

GARDASIL offers protection against genital warts and HPV dysplasias which are painful to treat. If you want GARDASIL for yourself or your kids, I'm not trying to stop you. I'm just trying to educate you about the costs plus risks vs. benefits of vaccinating the entire nation vis a vis cervical cancer mortality rates.

[bleedingheart]

142. every cure has risks...even walking out of your home has a risk

staying in your home has risks....

The first time someone takes an antibiotic, there is a risk of being allergic to the drug....

[mhatrw]

147. Suppose the risks & costs outweigh the benefits?

What then? Still go ahead? Because why?

[bleedingheart]

159. tell that to the parents at St. Jude's hospital...

I want you to walk into the room of a child who has neuroblastoma (only about 500 cases found per year)...and I want you to tell the parents...The costs of curing this child outweight the benefits to humanity because that money could be used to prevent hunger or perhaps pave a few roads.

Okay God...you tell me who gets to live and die and who is worthy.....

[Horse with no Name]

146. I'm quite educated on this subject actually

and know the figures very well from reputable sources that don't include pulling them out of my ass.
To top that off, I am a healthcare professional and if you think for one minute that saving 1200 lives is a small feat, then you are simply nuts.
But, just to insert a thought here. The first year, it might only "save" 1200 lives.
But, it might also stop HALF of the 11,000 women that are expected to get the disease this year alone. The benefits of this drug will be exponential. IF we can prevent 5500 (and from the literature I have read, that is a far generous number than I should assign since estimates are actually 70%), but if we can PREVENT 5500 women from getting cervical cancer--that is a wonderful accomplishment. If someone isn't familiar with the advanced stages of cervical cancer--it is basically like rotting from the inside out with about the same smell.
You might also understand, that as a healthcare professional, I can tell you that there ARE worse things than dying. Like having your insides removed and ablated. Or having toxins put in your body to stop the reproduction of cancerous cells. The nausea, the hair falling out...lots of other goodies. How about the women that survive? How about the husbands who leave them because they simply cannot deal with it? Are those lives not worthy of a chance to stop this disease?
How about the mentality of the children who are fearful that their mother might die?
I'm sorry--you spout these statistics like they are simply nothing. That is offensive.

[mhatrw]

155. Your post is full of shit up and down. You know nothing about this subject.

To top that off, I am a healthcare professional and if you think for one minute that saving 1200 lives is a small feat, then you are simply nuts.

I didn't say that. I said that the costs and risks outweighed the best possible potential benefits.

But, just to insert a thought here. The first year, it might only "save" 1200 lives.

In the FIRST YEAR?????? How in the hell will GARDASIL save a single life in the first year? Do you have any idea how long it typically takes to go from initial HPV exposure to death from cervical cancer? Any idea whatsoever? What is your name and state of residence? You need to have you medical license revoked!

But, it might also stop HALF of the 11,000 women that are expected to get the disease this year alone.

How??? How in the hell could it possibly do that? Explain yourself.

[Horse with no Name]

158. I was using your figures sweety.

Checkmate.

[mhatrw]

180. Without any comprehension or background knowledge. n/t

[Horse with no Name]

183. Exactly my point. That is what is wrong with your OP.

Do you need another checkmate?

[Evoman]

336. You, my dear, are my new favourite poster.

Good job.

[NotGivingUp]

160. you have been educated by big pharma and the medical system that has had a stranglehold

on this country and has fought to silence anybody who disagrees. they threaten reputations and licenses of anybody who dares to speak out.

you or anybody else have no right to mandate this crap to anybody else.

[Horse with no Name]

165. Let me begin by saying

I have no right to mandate anything. I am a poster on a message board.
Would you like your reality check now or later?
Obviously you have no idea WHY this drug needs to be mandated--nobody is being FORCED to take anything.
You simply do not know the process.

[NotGivingUp]

177. yes, i do know the process. hopefully, you will get your reality check sooner.

[donco6]

193. Who's mandating it? n/t

[dogday]

140. I think the vaccine will be a great thing eventually, but

I don't think today is that day.... Gov Perry's mandate will start in September 2008.. That is a little longer to research this vaccine, but perhaps not long enough...

Half of Pharma's problems is their failure to do long-term studies on their drugs... That is why so many have been recalled, and take off the shelf, but only after people die... I am not willing to take that chance on my child....

[Horse with no Name]

186. I would be comfortable with him just making the vaccination

available for EVERYONE that wants it regardless of if their insurance would pay.
That is what South Dakota and New Hampshire did and that would be fine with me. I think the point that needs to be made is that anyone can opt out...but I understand that mandating freaks people out.
However, I believe in Planned Parenthood and their goals and motives 100%. They fought for this vaccine. As much as they do for women's health...I cannot in my wildest dreams believe they would advocate harm to women.
Anyway...here is the South Dakota proposal. I could easily get behind something like this in Texas.
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/Daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=42044

[NotGivingUp]

153. Vaccine Safety Group Finds Serious Reactions, High Costs

HPV Vaccine Mandates Risky and Expensive
Vaccine Safety Group Finds Serious Reactions, High Costs

Vienna, Virginia - The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), the nation's leading vaccine safety and informed consent advocacy organization, is urging state legislatures to investigate the safety and cost of mandating Merck's HPV vaccine (GARDASIL) for all pre-adolescent girls before introducing legislation amending state vaccine laws. In an analysis of reports made to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) since the CDC's July 2006 universal use recommendation for all young girls, NVIC found reports of loss of consciousness, seizures, joint pain and Guillain-Barre Syndrome. In a separate evaluation of costs for young girls being vaccinated in private pediatrician offices, NVIC discovered that parents living in the Washington, D.C. area will be paying between $500 and $900 to have their daughters receive three doses of GARDASIL.

"GARDASIL safety appears to have been studied in fewer than 2,000 girls aged 9 to 15 years and it is unclear how long they were followed up. <1> VAERS is now receiving reports of loss of consciousness, seizures, arthritis and other neurological problems in young girls who have received the shot," said NVIC President Barbara Loe Fisher. "At the same time, parents who take their daughters to private pediatricians are going to be shocked to find that they will be paying two to three times the widely publicized $360 cost for the three-dose series. The cost is going to break the pocketbooks of parents and break the banks of both insurance companies and taxpayers, when the reality is that almost all cases of HPV-associated cervical cancer can be prevented with annual pap screening of girls who are sexually active."

Between July 2006 and January 2007, there have been 82 reports of adverse events filed with VAERS following receipt of GARDASIL by girls and boys ranging in age from 11 to 27 years. Reaction reports have come from 21 states, including Virginia and the District of Columbia. All but three of the reports were for adverse events which occurred within one week of vaccination and more than 60 percent occurred within 24 hours of vaccination.

"The most frequent serious health events after GARDASIL shots are neurological symptoms," said NVIC Health Policy Analyst Vicky Debold, RN, Ph.D. "These young girls are experiencing severe headaches, dizziness, temporary loss of vision, slurred speech, fainting, involuntary contraction of limbs (seizures), muscle weakness, tingling and numbness in the hands and feet and joint pain. Some of the girls have lost consciousness during what appears to be seizures." Debold added "The manufacturer product insert should include mention of syncopal episodes, seizures and Guillain-Barre Syndrome so doctors and parents are aware these vaccine adverse responses have been associated with the vaccine."

http://www.909shot.com/PressReleases/pr020107HPV.htm

[Justitia]

154. This anti-vaccine website has been discussed at length before. -eom

[mhatrw]

157. Yes. It is definitely un-AMERCKAN. n/t

[hlthe2b]

156. You do know that despite its officious name, the NVIC is NOT

a governmental or academically-based site. It is a private anti-vaccine website and like many think tanks, especially those we are familiar with on the RW, some of what it puts out has elements of truth. These intermittent tidbits of truth reel many in, only to unquestioningly accept the remaining blatant propaganda.


No drug, no vaccine is 100% safe. No medical professional, no public health expert will argue that. But starting with THAT premise, they (NVIC)do everything possible to essentially argue that all vaccines are unacceptable..

Sadly, statistics can be manipulated.

[NotGivingUp]

162. yes, i do know. and i do NOT blindly trust gov't agencies and big pharma schools

[hlthe2b]

182. NGU, I'm not advocating that...

only that you realize that there are those who wish to manipulate information on both sides...Thus, it is important to use your skepticism on all presented to you, regardless of source.. :shrug:

[NotGivingUp]

189. I absolutely agree. n/t

[mhatrw]

168. It's completely un-AMERCKAN! n/t

[Beelzebud]

185. As the old saying goes: Numbers don't lie, but liars love to use numbers.

[fed-up]

167. will girls/women not get pap tests if they get the vaccine?

http://www.despereshospital.com/CWSContent/despereshospital/aboutUs/newsAndArticles/Understanding+Cervical+Cancer.htm

Understanding Cervical Cancer

Victor Rivera, M.D. December, 2003
Let’s play “Good News, Bad News.” We’ll start with the bad news. In 2003, the American Cancer Society (ACS) estimates that there will be about 12,200 new cases of cervical cancer, and about 4,100 women will end up dying from it. Now the good news. According to the ACS, cervical cancer used to be one of the most common causes of cancer death in women in the United States. But now, mostly due to the use of new screening tests, the number of deaths from cervical cancer has drastically reduced. In fact, the ACS states that between 1955 and 1992 the number of deaths from cervical cancer decreased by 74 percent. When detected early, cervical cancer can be treated.

Cervical cancer is cancer of the cervix, the opening to the lower portion of the uterus. Cervical cancer typically takes time to develop. Over the course of several years, cells may change from normal to pre-cancerous, and then to cancerous.


http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6X_Cervical_Cancer_Prevention_and_Early_Detection_8.asp?sitearea=&level=

Cancer of the cervix may be prevented or detected early by regular Pap tests. If it is detected early, cervical cancer is one of the most successfully treatable cancers. In the United States, the cervical cancer death rate declined by 74% between 1955 and 1992, in large part due to the effectiveness of Pap smear screening. The death rate continues to decline each year.

Despite the recognized benefits of Pap test screening, not all American women take advantage of it. As of the year 2000, slightly over 80% of women had had a Pap test in the previous 3 years. Asian-American women, recent immigrants, women without health insurance, and women with fewer years of education were less likely to have had regular Pap tests.

Between 60% and 80% of American women with newly diagnosed invasive cervical cancer have not had a Pap smear in the past 5 years, and many of these women have never had a Pap test.

Cervical cancer deaths are higher in populations around the world where women do not have routine Pap tests. In fact, cervical cancer is the major cause of cancer deaths in women in many developing countries. These cases are usually diagnosed at an invasive late stage, rather than as pre-cancers or early cancers.


snip

Although scientists believe that it is necessary to have had HPV for cervical cancer to develop, most women with this virus do not develop cancer. Doctors think that other factors must come into play for cancer to develop. Some of these known factors are listed below.

[Horse with no Name]

170. Yes. Pap smears are still recommended.

But there is a pretty large segment of population that doesn't have access to preventative care and with the number of uninsured Americans, there is a likelihood that that number could increase.

[xchrom]

190. my links above talked about this very situation.

great britain finds great promise in gardasil -- because EVEN WITH a successful campaign of increased pap smears -- they find the number women dying from cervical cancer to be troubling.

and gardasil a new and very effective weapon against it.

[mhatrw]

178. They had better keep getting pap smears because of reasons pointed out in the OP.

Even if GARDASIL confers 100% resistance on the four HPV strains it protects against for a lifetime (highly unlikely, and completely unproven), there are 32 other nasty HPV strains out there.

[AikidoSoul]

368. You make sense here. And the costs are far, far lower than the huge

outlays being proposed by this vaccine, which is not properly tested on the targeted population (pre-menarche girls).

Thanks for this! :hi:

[Little Wing]

184. You're clearly anti-drug company than you are pro-medicine

and your attitude stinks

[AikidoSoul]

366. Great cartoon! And yes, I don't have any love for the chem/pharm industry

My attitude? Now you could be right about that too. It does suffer from time to time and I can be testy when I get upset.

I'll try to work on being much nicer. :hi:

[AikidoSoul]

369. Oh, now I see you were responding to the OP when you complained

about "attitude".

Your post was right next to mine and I thought you were criticizing me. Sorry for the confusion! I'm still getting used to how DU is setup and it's taking a while to figure it out.

[Olney Blue]

194. Why don't you provide a link to this post you keep making? I want to

know where you are getting your numbers. At least you didn't say it was "FDA" this time.

[salvorhardin]

195. He's not getting his numbers from anywhere

Unless one counts his ass as an authoritative source.

[area51]

199. "blow off their annual pap smears due to a false sense of security"

Hmm, I think they're more likely to "blow off their annual pap smears" due to the lack of affordable healthcare in the U.S.

[AikidoSoul]

200. Wow! Too many DUers trust the Chem / Pharm industry --as if it really deserves that trust

It's therefore likely that DUers don't yet realize that Chem/ Pharm is repeatedly caught corrupting the medical / science community at every level. Why anyone in this group would unquestioningly put trust in its vaccines --is worrisome.

Especially this vaccine --- one that has barely been tested on the population it's designed to "protect".

Testing and approving?! The FDA has an extremely corrupted relationship with Chem/ Pharm. FDA's process of reviewing and approving drugs and vaccines that has become notorious for speed and greed.

Top FDA officials have actually colluded with Chem/ Pharm to HIDE problems with its products.

Top officials at FDA go to work for Chem/ Pharm after they leave FDA. It's a slippery revolving door with big paychecks on the Chem /Pharm side of that door.

And our U.S. tax dollars should fund this -- to the tune of over $350 per female?!

This would cost US tax payers over 50 BILLION!

Wow -- talk about corporate welfare!

It costs only a few dollars to get annual PAP tests.

Yikes! Just think about this for a minute. :think:

[Horse with no Name]

204. I think you are correct!

There isn't any GOOD reason we should spend money on women. I hate that fucking corporate welfare.:sarcasm:

And, by the way, curious as to how much YOUR last Pap Smear was?
Mine was over $100. I guess that is just a "few" bucks to you.

[Justitia]

205. Pap Smears do not prevent cancer. And they cost more than a "few dollars" -nt

[laundry_queen]

219. They can.

If a pap test comes back with abnormal cells, which might be 'pre-cancerous' those cells are generally removed before it becomes cancer, so in a sense pap spears do prevent some cervical cancer.

[Justitia]

221. No, Pap Smears DO NOT prevent cancer, they are a screening tool only.

Another, completely independent procedure would be required to actually TREAT cancer.
Until this vaccine, there has been no way to medicinally PREVENT cancer.

Let's use medically correct terminology.

[laundry_queen]

306. Oh stop.

By picking up PRE-cancerous cells on a pap smear and then treating the problem with a LEEP or other procedure, you are, in effect, preventing the cancer. No, the pap smear itself doesn't not get rid of the pre-cancerous cells, but let's not split hairs, it leads to the treatments that DO prevent cancer.

[Justitia]

319. Sorry, I don't like to mislead people. Most pap smear appts do not include the pap, diagnosis &

treatment all at the same time. At least not in our country, but I suspect they don't in your country either.

To lead people on that somehow Pap smears magically mean screening, diagnosis & cancer treatment all rolled into one is a lie.
And here in the United States our insurance companies have very specific guidelines as to treatment protocols they allow.

I'm not going to conflate serious procedures like that.

Additionally - those procedures DO NOT "prevent" cancer, as you put it, they TREAT it - huge difference.

Ignorance is dangerous.

[AikidoSoul]

392. Nobody said the treatm'nt, screening, diagnosis, are "rolled into one"

Nobody said that. The truth is that screening with PAP is not horribly expensive and is usually part of a woman's annual exam, along with other tests. For many women who get PAP results showing iffy cells, there are steps that can be quickly taken that can reverse the problem.

Remember too that this vaccine is not a 100% prevention for all of the cervical cancer virus strains. What happens to women who get cervical cancer from the other strains? Are they going to stop getting PAP smears because they become too confident?

It's a really good question, and of real concern here.

[AikidoSoul]

234. It costs ZERO $$$$ for the poor young girls of childbearing age in many states because pap smears

performed under the Family Planning program. Otherwise it's charged on a sliding scale.

We're taking about government funded health services right?

The Texas program is a government funded program, and since part of the argument here is the fact that state governments are looking to make the vaccine part of their "system" of health care -- I was comparing the costs with what these programs provide, compared to the cost of the vaccine.

In Florida young girls pay nothing for pap smears if they can't afford it. They get the pap smears done at the FL Health Dept.

Older women, especially those who can no longer have children -- pay more -- IF THEY CAN AFFORD IT. They are charged on a sliding scale according to their income. They can be charged as much as $125 if they are in upper income brackets -- that includes the examination (again the FL Health Dept). For older women who are in lower income brackets -- the cost goes down to as low as $40.00. It includes an exam.

I doubt if the gov provides pap smear services in all states.... but you get the picture right? The context we're talking about was gov funded programs, not the private sector.

The mandated vaccine program in Texas is targeted at young girls.

$365 per person for the vaccine in a state that doesn't normally provide health services for its populations.... by a governor with FINANCIAL $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$INTEREST IN MERCK.

There is no reliable info out yet on whether the vaccine has to be given again in a booster over the years, and therefore future costs are not factored into this picture.

[Justitia]

241. Pap smears DO NOT PREVENT CANCER, this vaccine DOES.

Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?

Pap smears are only a SCREENING TOOL, they don't even diagnose cervical cancer!

This vaccine PREVENTS cancer in the first place!!!!!

[ContraBass Black]

209. Citation, please. n/t

[AikidoSoul]

215. 22,000 women -- there's something really wrong with this "testing" on this population

The first sentence in the last paragraph in the mhatrw post that started this thread was this:

"To include vaccination RISKS in this analysis, consider that ALL of the studies on GARDASIL completed so far included less than 22,000 woman combined."

This is a TINY number -- and it did NOT include sufficient numbers of girls of the ages of the targeted population. The fact that this is being given to girls who as a group have not yet reached menarche -- is a stupendous mistake, as there is NO WAY that Merck can predict what will happen to this population unless tested.

Or wait -- maybe the mandate in Texas IS the test

One thing for sure, whatever the logic, this mandate will be highly profitable to Merck.

Maybe Merck will make back all that money it lost when it had to take VIOXX off the market after it killed untold numbers of people.

[Lurking Dem]

222. That's actually a huge cohort.

That's one of the largest I have ever seen.


The study population needs to be big enough to randomize and have adequate power (probability that your research study will successfully detect a difference).

[Nikki Stone1]

217. Some answers to your questions, despite your convoluted writing style and incorrect math

1. Even if we confer total protection against HPV 16 and 18 among this high risk population, how can we reliably predict the resulting prevalence and virulence of the other high risk HPV strains 20 to 60 years down the line? And how can we reliably predict how all of this will affect cervical cancer contraction and mortality rates?

We can't. But does that mean we decide not to fight the strains we can?

2. "Yes, almost 3,700 US women died of cervical cancer last year. But that's less than 2.5 US women out of every 100,000. If current trends continue (you know, if US women don't start to blow off their annual pap smears due to a false sense of security), that mortality rate will be reduced to about 1 in 100,000 (via more and better pap smear screening and more prompt treatment) by the time that GARDASIL could possibly have ANY measurable effect on cervical cancer mortality rates!"

What current trend are you referring to here? The parenthetical information implies that it has something to do with women getting pap smears, but that information may be merely gratuitous, and the trend might be something else entirely. What is the referent for "this" trend? It is important that you answer this question because the rest of your argument against Gardisil relies on cancer rates dropping without it and these dropping rates have to have a cause.

3. "Of the 3,700 US cervical cancer deaths last year, less than 50% received "regular pap smears" according to the CDC. And I highly doubt that "regular" means annual. "

Did you actually look up the numbers for this one? What is the CDC's definition of regular? (And yes, this does matter. Most scientific or technical speech is quite specific, even when using everyday terms. The CDC would not be vague about "regular"; they'd have a specific number or range of numbers in mind.


4. "So let's look at the numbers: .5 (the number that got regular pap smears) multiplied by .7 (the cervical cancer cases that could be prevented by GARDASIL in the BEST case scenario) multiplied by 3700 (the number of cervical cancer deaths in the US last year) = 1295."

So at very least, 1295 lives could have been saved with Gardesil. That's not chicken feed.


5. "So in the BEST case scenario --
assuming that cervical cancer rates will remain as high as they are today even though they have been steadily decreasing by about 25% per decade for the last three decades without GARDASIL, "

And why are these rates decreasing? (This relates to question 2 above)


6. assuming that 100% of the US population is injected with three shots of GARDASIL

There goes your (.5) factor, dear. Your .5 multiplication is based on the 50% of the 3700 victims who had pap smears regularly. If Gardisil is given to 100% of the population, it's given to 100% of the population--everybody--pap smear or no pap smear. The pap smear ceases to be a factor completely and the .5 needs to be taken out of your calculations. We end up with .7 multiplied by 3700 which is 2590 women saved by the drug.



7. "and that these vaccinations confer 100% lifetime resistance against HPV 16 & 18, assuming that no other high risk HPV strains become more prevalent or deadly over the next 20 to 60 years"

That remains to be seen. Once a vaccine begins to be used, it begins also to be updated. One could see different vaccines used as different strains become prevalent.


8. "assuming that all the old and sick US women who die of cervical cancer would otherwise live through the year"

No, it's assuming that they all would get Gardesil BEFORE contracting cancer.


9. AND assuming that a "regular pap smear" as defined by the CDC means an annual pap smear

Look it up and make sure. Of course, if 100% of the population is reached, then the pap smear ceases to be a factor as I have already pointed out.


10. -- we are talking about 1300 lives a year that could be saved by GARDASIL vs. 1850 lives a year that could be saved by making sure every US woman gets an annual pap smear.

No, we are talking about 2590 (70% of 3700) that could be saved vs. whatever number of women could have been saved by regular pap smears. Your figure of 1850 women is half of 3700, (the victims defined as not getting regular pap smears). The fallacy here is that these women could have been saved any better than they other half who died, even though they DID have regular pap smears. We simply do not know this and there is no way to predict this. Afterall, that other 50% did everything they should have done in terms of pap smears and they died too.

[Horse with no Name]

228. Bravo.

Great work.

[Nikki Stone1]

342. This person doesn't understand math

His/her scenario actually favors Gardesil.

[mondo joe]

264. Good job Nikki!

:thumbsup:

[Nikki Stone1]

343. Thanks, Mondo Joe.

:) There more. See below.

But once the math is wrong, I'm gone.

[mhatrw]

303. FINALLY!!!!!!!

We can't. But does that mean we decide not to fight the strains we can?

Sure. If the benefits outweigh the costs and risks.

What current trend are you referring to here?

The trend of the US cervical cancer contraction and mortality rate being reduced by about 75% since 1960.

The parenthetical information implies that it has something to do with women getting pap smears, but that information may be merely gratuitous, and the trend might be something else entirely.

If not HPV screening, to what do you attribute this trend?

What is the referent for "this" trend?

http://acogjnl.highwire.org/cgi/content/full/102/4/765

It is important that you answer this question because the rest of your argument against Gardisil relies on cancer rates dropping without it and these dropping rates have to have a cause.

The rest of my argument does not depend on cervical cancer rates dropping. Even if the mortality rate stays the exact same as it is today we are talking spending over 40 million on vaccinations and exposing over 80,000 girls (FOUR TIMES MERCK'S ENTIRE POOL OF TEST SUBJECTS) to the risks of of a three injections vaccination regime!

3. "Of the 3,700 US cervical cancer deaths last year, less than 50% received "regular pap smears" according to the CDC. And I highly doubt that "regular" means annual. "

See: If you have access to a medical library, see Dunne EF, Markowitz LE. Genital Human Papillomavirus Infection. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 43:624�9

It's the best data I could find on the subject and it says "regular." Once again, exactly what regular means is not critical to my analysis. If "regular" also includes victims who got pap smears biannual (as I suspect), it just makes my argument that much stronger.

So at very least, 1295 lives could have been saved with Gardesil. That's not chicken feed.

Neither are the costs and risks.

And why are these rates decreasing? (This relates to question 2 above)

Does it really matter. They ARE decreasing and have been for over 30 years now. Do you have any evidence that they suddenly will start increasing? Because that's the only thing that could change my analysis?

There goes your (.5) factor, dear. Your .5 multiplication is based on the 50% of the 3700 victims who had pap smears regularly. If Gardisil is given to 100% of the population, it's given to 100% of the population--everybody--pap smear or no pap smear. The pap smear ceases to be a factor completely and the .5 needs to be taken out of your calculations. We end up with .7 multiplied by 3700 which is 2590 women saved by the drug.

Good point. Thanks. I get what you are saying. But every other assumption already favors GARDASIL in every possible way. So we must do the same for annual pap smear if we want the number to be comparatively meaningful.

That remains to be seen. Once a vaccine begins to be used, it begins also to be updated. One could see different vaccines used as different strains become prevalent.

So now you are bringing OTHER vaccines into GARDASIL's cost & risk vs. benefit analysis? Nice trick! In the same vein, Bush ain't so bad if you consider Clinton's two terms!

No, it's assuming that they all would get Gardesil BEFORE contracting cancer.

It's assuming BOTH and more!

Look it up and make sure. Of course, if 100% of the population is reached, then the pap smear ceases to be a factor as I have already pointed out.

How can pap smears cease to be a factor? The best case scenario for GARDASIL is protection against only 70% of potential cervical cancers. And I have looked it up with the best data I could find so far. If you know of any better, please direct me to it.

No, we are talking about 2590 (70% of 3700) that could be saved vs. whatever number of women could have been saved by regular pap smears. Your figure of 1850 women is half of 3700, (the victims defined as not getting regular pap smears). The fallacy here is that these women could have been saved any better than they other half who died, even though they DID have regular pap smears. We simply do not know this and there is no way to predict this. After all, that other 50% did everything they should have done in terms of pap smears and they died too.

That's a flawed comparison. It assumes that GARDASIL saves 100% of everybody possible in the entire population that it could possibly save -- including those who could have been saved by annual pap smears while annual pap smears save only a portion of those who couldn't be saved by GARDASIL. Using this logic annual pap smears can save all 3700 because we can't be sure that regular always means annual.

However, I do see your point. Putting every assumption possible -- including every quibble you have -- in GARDASIL's favor does give GARDASIL the opportunity to save 70% of any overall lost lives. But we then have to do the same for pap smears if we want the number to be comparatively meaningful. That number would then include the 1850 who were not receiving regular pap smears plus any of the other 1850 whose "regular" pap smears were less than annual.

Thank you for being the first person on this thread to actually discuss what I wrote. I truly appreciate it.

[Nikki Stone1]

340. Some answers--again

Mhatrw:

Here we go.

1. Cancer rates are not really dropping, just plateauing

Your claim is that ovarian cancer rates are dropping due to increased screening, ie pap smears and that if more women would get annual pap smears, the rate of cervical cancer would drop further.

The article you liked to in your post, http://acogjnl.highwire.org/cgi/content/full/102/4/765 does not support our opinion, especially for young women (18-30). The article also acknowledges its limitations in this age group (which I am sure you have read. Small sample numbers tend to skew data and lead to inconclusive results.) What is interesting to me is the following:

"In our analysis, incidence rates of squamous cell carcinoma in women younger than 30 years declined since 1985. With regard to cervical adenocarcinoma, some researchers have previously documented national increases in rates among women of all ages,24,29 whereas others have found isolated increased rates only in younger age groups, without similar trends in older women.17,18 Our results show that although the incidence of adenocarcinoma in women less than 30 years old has been increasing over the 27-year observation period as a whole, the rates for these young women have been stable since 1990."

In women under 30, cervical cancer rates have gone down since 1985, but they have stablized since 1990 according this paragraph above. This means that the strong downward trend goes from 1985-1990, but from 1990-present, the rates have actually been plateauing, not moving anywhere. The study is kind of at a loss to explain why the downward trend has evened out. Their carefully hedged explanation is this:

"If we assume that our findings are valid, we can only pose hypotheses that might account for these observations. The less dramatic decline in incidence rates for squamous cell carcinoma in younger women compared with that in older women might be because of the following: First, invasive cancer in women less than 30 years old might be a rapidly progressive subset of neoplasias.30 Perhaps the screening interval in this population allows for missed preinvasive lesions, leading to a limited effectiveness in reducing cancer incidence in this age group. On the other hand, aggressive screening of this population might in fact be mitigating an otherwise rising number of cases secondary to the increased prevalence of several risk factors for cervical squamous cell carcinoma, including more risky sexual behavior,31 oral contraceptive use,32 and cigarette smoking.33 This balancing between effective screening and increasing risk factors might result in a stable trend over time. Finally, this is a rare disease in this age group, and perhaps the lack of a more marked decline in incidence is due to the difficulty in accurately assessing trends."

The reasons they give in plain English are: 1. The cancer strain in younger women may be different, more rapidly progressing and not as easily stopped by screening; 2. The upward trend in cigarette and oral contraceptive use and risky sexual behavior might actually be causing an increase in the cancer rate which is being stopped by better screening. The study's authors are actually assuming that cervical cancer rates are really on the rise (not declining at all) due to new and more prevalent risk factors (stronger disease strain, cigarettes, oral contraceptives and risky sexual behavior). This rise, however, is being checked (or mitigated) by better and better screening techniques. Hence the plateau effect.

In other words, the study you gave me actually contradicts your argument. The researchers are assuming better and better screening. more and more pap smears. The real lesson, it would seem, is that if women wish to avoid cervical cancer, they should decrease risk factors, like smoking, contraceptives, etc in addition to their current (high) level of screening. However, this is just a hypothesis on the part of the researchers and would need to be tested to see if this were really the case. As it is, the researchers could only observe the plateauing trend but not give a definitive answer for it.

So you're argument, "if women would just get annual pap smears, we wouldn't need Gardisil," is completely unsupported by the study you gave me to read, at least for younger women.


2. You said: "The rest of my argument does not depend on cervical cancer rates dropping. Even if the mortality rate stays the exact same as it is today we are talking spending over 40 million on vaccinations and exposing over 80,000 girls (FOUR TIMES MERCK'S ENTIRE POOL OF TEST SUBJECTS) to the risks of of a three injections vaccination regime!"

Yes, it actually does. Your original argument was that we don't need Gardisil because cervical cancer rates are dropping and that screening is the reason for this drop. Therefore, increased screening would lead to an increased drop in cancer rates. The study above (see question #1) actually shows that rates are plateauing DESPITE increased screening. And, if the cervical cancer rates are actually staying the same, Gardisil actually gives a better survival rate than increasing screening, especially assuming-- as the scientists in the link you gave me do--that screening rates are actually very high.

Your comments, "we are talking about spending over 40 million..." have nothing to do with the logic of your original argument. Even if the vaccine only cost $4 million (or less), this cost has nothing to do with cancer rates either rising, dropping or plateauing.




3. You said: "It's the best data I could find on the subject and it says "regular." Once again, exactly what regular means is not critical to my analysis. If "regular" also includes victims who got pap smears biannual (as I suspect), it just makes my argument that much stronger."

Regular should have a specific meaning. For the CDC, "regular" certainly implies "adequate" or why use it?

However, let's assume that "regular" means "biannually". Even if 50% of the victims only had biannual screenings (and died of the cancer), this does not mean that the greater screening interval was to blame, unless we know the number of NON-victims whose screenings were also biannual. You are assuming something is a factor without any data to that effect. I'd like to know how many women who do NOT contract cervical cancer have biannual (or even triannual) screenings. One we know how the screening data falls, then we can make a definitive statement on this. Until then, there's nothing to assume that screening plays a role equal to or greater than risk factors like smoking, oral contraceptives, etc. In fact, I'll refer you again to the study you gave me. They assume higher screenings overall.


]4. "So at very least, 1295 lives could have been saved with Gardesil. That's not chicken feed."

You said: "Neither are the costs and risks."

This is a value judgement, not an assessment of lives saved. You would need to show me how many lives are at risk from the vaccine with real data in order to compare risks. (Cost level is a public policy judgement, and while important to the government and citizens, it is irrelevant to an assessment of how many lives can actually be saved with a vaccine compared to increased screening.)


5. "And why are these rates decreasing? (This relates to question 2 above)"

You said: "Does it really matter. They ARE decreasing and have been for over 30 years now. Do you have any evidence that they suddenly will start increasing? Because that's the only thing that could change my analysis?"


Not only does it matter, it's crucial. And from the study you have given me, the overall rates for women 18-30 are plateauing, not falling. There are other risk factors involved besides screening--smoking, oral contraceptives, etc. and any one of these factors could affect rising or falling cancer rates. If we suddenly had a generation of women who reduced their consumption of cigarettes, and the cancer rates dropped, then there would be an argument for providing smoking cessation treatment as opposed to a vaccine, if quitting smoking were found to be a much stronger deterrent against cervical cancer than the a vaccine. In science, the cause of a phenomenon is CRUCIAL. In rhetorical debate, the cause is not important in and of itself, and any cause is ok if it results in your winning the argument. From your attitude, it is clear that winning is far more important than actual science. You "analysis" is not really an analysis, but a diatribe with some numbers to bolster an strong opinion. The facts don't bear you out, but you still want to win, so you say "Does it really matter?"


6. AND HERE'S THE BIGGIE

'There goes your (.5) factor, dear. Your .5 multiplication is based on the 50% of the 3700 victims who had pap smears regularly. If Gardisil is given to 100% of the population, it's given to 100% of the population--everybody--pap smear or no pap smear. The pap smear ceases to be a factor completely and the .5 needs to be taken out of your calculations. We end up with .7 multiplied by 3700 which is 2590 women saved by the drug.

Good point. Thanks. I get what you are saying. But every other assumption already favors GARDASIL in every possible way. So we must do the same for annual pap smear if we want the number to be comparatively meaningful."


YOUR MATH WAS WRONG. Period.

You were building a best case scenario for Gardesil. The object of a "best case" scenario is to say, "See, even if we have 100% compliance (the ideal), Gardesil still doesn't give you better numbers than increased screenings." That was your aim, but unfortunately, the numbers did not bear you out. In fact, the numbers contradicted your argument.

At this point, the intellectually honest thing to say is that, ACCORDING TO THE MATH, a best case scenario for Gardesil would have the drug actually saving more lives. However, your answer to the math issue, which was by far the most crucial issue, was to ignore the math completely and to say that since everything else favors Gardesil, "So we must do the same for annual pap smear if we want the number to be comparatively meaningful." What "same" are we doing here? Fudging the numbers? Forcing a false result by adding a .5 to our equation? This .5 equals one half. What you are doing by factoring in a .5 is halving the total. Numerically, you are changing your best case scenario for Gardesil (100% of people on the vaccine) to 50%. And 50% is certainly not a "best case scenario".

If you mess with the numbers, your "analysis" means nothing. And your argument crumbles.



7. "That remains to be seen. Once a vaccine begins to be used, it begins also to be updated. One could see different vaccines used as different strains become prevalent."

You said: "So now you are bringing OTHER vaccines into GARDASIL's cost & risk vs. benefit analysis? Nice trick! In the same vein, Bush ain't so bad if you consider Clinton's two terms!"

I am bringing in the normal evolution of vaccines. The smallpox vaccine we had in the 1950s is not the same as we have now. Research improves things. However, you may disregard improvements or better vaccines if you like. It's not crucial to your best case scenario.


8. "No, it's assuming that they all would get Gardesil BEFORE contracting cancer."

You said: "It's assuming BOTH and more!"

"Both" what? We assume that the population in the scenario is given the vaccine before the signs of any cervical cancer. There is no reason to give the vaccine to those who have already contracted cervical cancer.


9. "Look it up and make sure. Of course, if 100% of the population is reached, then the pap smear ceases to be a factor as I have already pointed out."

You said: "How can pap smears cease to be a factor? The best case scenario for GARDASIL is protection against only 70% of potential cervical cancers. And I have looked it up with the best data I could find so far. If you know of any better, please direct me to it."


Let's go through the logic again. You created a best case scenario to bolster your argument. The best case scenario is an extreme example used to illustrate a point. Your point was that even if 100% of the female population were to be vaccinated with Gardesil, the cervical cancer rate would not go down as much as if women who were not getting pap smears (annual screenings) got them. You set this argument up, I didn't. In the scenario, if 100% of the female population had been vaccinated with Gardesil, then 70% of the victims who died from cervical cancer last year would not have died. That's the best case scenario. The vaccine will work independently of pap smears, screenings. So in your scenario, the pap smear ceases to be a factor because we have already vaccinated 100% of the women.

In the real world, we may not get to 100% of the women, and certainly, since Gardesil is only 70% effective, women should continue to get their pap smears. But you weren't bolstering your argument with the real world--you were creating a particular scenario and I was following the logic of your scenario.


10.
"No, we are talking about 2590 (70% of 3700) that could be saved vs. whatever number of women could have been saved by regular pap smears. Your figure of 1850 women is half of 3700, (the victims defined as not getting regular pap smears). The fallacy here is that these women could have been saved any better than they other half who died, even though they DID have regular pap smears. We simply do not know this and there is no way to predict this. After all, that other 50% did everything they should have done in terms of pap smears and they died too."

You said: "That's a flawed comparison. It assumes that GARDASIL saves 100% of everybody possible in the entire population that it could possibly save -- including those who could have been saved by annual pap smears while annual pap smears save only a portion of those who couldn't be saved by GARDASIL. "

It is not flawed at all. It follows the logic of your best case scenario. Your best case scenario assumes that Gardesil reaches 100% of the population and that its success rate is 70%; therefore, if Gardesil is given to 100% of the population, 70% of that population will not get cervical cancer. In your scenario, Gardesil is set up to save all of the people it can possibly save (your 100% of everybody possible that Gardesil could save, which equals 70% of the population). You set up the scenario. I am following its logic.


You said: "Using this logic annual pap smears can save all 3700 because we can't be sure that regular always means annual."

No, using the logic of your best case scenario, 70% of the 3700 will be saved by Gardesil. We don't know how screening will affect the rest because you have no figures--real ones--for the percentage of women saved by screening. In fact, in your sample of victims, 1850 got screened and died anyway. And until you know what the CDC means by regular screening, you cannot assume that these women died because they had too few screenings. This information is crucial. Without it, we have to assume that the CDC means regular as in "annual" because the CDC and other scientific bodies are fairly precise when they use these kinds of words. The words "overweight" and "obese" for example have precise medical meanings, even though society uses these words interchangeably. "Regular" should have the same kind of meaning.




11.
You said: "However, I do see your point. Putting every assumption possible -- including every quibble you have -- in GARDASIL's favor does give GARDASIL the opportunity to save 70% of any overall lost lives. But we then have to do the same for pap smears if we want the number to be comparatively meaningful. That number would then include the 1850 who were not receiving regular pap smears plus any of the other 1850 whose "regular" pap smears were less than annual. "

You really don't understand the mechanics of your own scenario. Nor do you understand the mathematics behind it.


My suggestion to you is to take some basic courses in mathematics, logic, and essay writing & argumentation, if you really want to help your cause. Otherwise, you look like you are passionate but not terribly logical, and in scientific debates, the latter will get you into big trouble.

[AikidoSoul]

413. CDC: cervical cancer "...declined significantly, primarily because of widespread use of the...PAP

Just taking your first point -- the CDC seems to confirm your statement that incident "trends" are declining.

This is taken from

The Department of Health and Human Services / Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/statistics/

Statistics

Cervical cancer once was the leading cause of death for women in the United States. However, during the past 4 decades, incidence and mortality (the number of deaths each year) from cervical cancer have declined significantly, primarily because of the widespread use of the Papanicolaou (Pap) test to detect cervical abnormalities. 1 According to the U.S. Cancer Statistics: 2002 Incidence and Mortality Report, more than 12,000 women were diagnosed with cervical cancer in 2002, and nearly 4,000 women died from the disease that same year. 2 It is estimated that more than $2 billion per year is spent in the United States on the treatment of cervical cancer. 3

Recent trends suggest that cervical cancer incidence and mortality continue to decrease significantly overall, and for women in every racial and ethnic population. However, rates are considerably higher among Hispanic and African-American women. 2

Cervical Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates and Trends
Incidence in 2002

12,085 women in the United States were diagnosed with cervical cancer.
1,930 African-American women in the United States were diagnosed with cervical cancer.
451 Asian/Pacific Islander women in the United States were diagnosed with cervical cancer.
63 American Indian/Alaska Native women in the United States were diagnosed with cervical cancer.
1,813 Hispanic women in the United States were diagnosed with cervical cancer.
Mortality in 2002

3,952 women in the United States died of cervical cancer.
829 African-American women in the United States died of cervical cancer.
122 Asian/Pacific Islander women in the United States died of cervical cancer.
122 American Indian/Alaska Native women in the United States died of cervical cancer.
388 Hispanic women in the United States died of cervical cancer.
Incidence Trends

Incidence of cervical cancer has decreased significantly by 4.5% per year in the United States during the past 5 years (1997–2002).
Incidence of cervical cancer has decreased significantly by 3.7% per year during the past 27 years (1975–2002), among African-American women in the United States.
Incidence of cervical cancer has decreased significantly by 4.9% per year during the past 10 years (1992–2002), among Asian/Pacific Islander women in the United States.
Incidence of cervical cancer has decreased significantly by 6.9% per year during the past 10 years (1992–2002), among American Indian/Alaska Native women in the United States.
Incidence of cervical cancer has decreased significantly by 3.3% per year during the past 10 years, among Hispanic women in the United States.
Mortality Trends

Deaths from cervical cancer have decreased significantly by 3.8% per year during the past 4 years (1996–2002), among women in the United States.
Deaths from cervical cancer have decreased significantly by 4.8% per year during the past 9 years (1993–2002), among African-American women in the United States
Deaths from cervical cancer have decreased significantly by 3.3% per year during the past 10 years (1992–2002), among Asian/Pacific Islander women in the United States.
Deaths from cervical cancer have decreased significantly by 4.7% per year during the past 10 years (1992–2002), among American Indian/Alaska Native women in the United States.
Deaths from cervical cancer have decreased significantly by 3.0% per year during the past 10 years (1992–2002), among Hispanic women in the United States.
For more information, view 2002 Cancers grouped by geographic area or National Cancer Institute—State Cancer Profiles.

References
Cervical Cancer. NIH Consensus Statement. April 1–3 1996;14(1):1–38.



U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2002 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report. Atlanta:, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute; 2005.



Brown ML, Lipscomb J, Snyder C. The burden of illness of cancer: economic cost and quality of life. Annual Review of Public Health 2001;22:91–113.
**(Note: The cost estimates were originally presented in 1996 U.S. dollars, which were updated to 2000 U.S. dollars using the Medical Care Component of the Consumer Price Index .)
Date last reviewed: 09/26/2006
Content source: Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion

********

This document is a public document and is not copyrighted.

[mhatrw]

420. As this thread has become unwieldy and because I value your input

despite that rude way you have treated me IMHO, I cordially invite you to continue this discussion here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=164655&mesg_id=164655

[redqueen]

224. Gardasil May Protect Against More Cervical Cancer Causing Viruses

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=51156

"New research presented the 23rd International Papillomavirus Conference and Clinical Workshop, Prague, Czech Republic, indicates that Gardasil may also protect against strains 31 and 45. Strains 16 and 18 are responsible for 75% of all cervical cancers, while strains 31 and 45 are responsible for 8% or 9%."

Just FYI...

[TZ]

225. No vaccine is without side effects or 100% safe but

what in life is? Come on here. If they were holding back this vaccine a bunch of people on this site would scream bloody murder, they don't want to help women, ect ect...I am not saying we should just give this vaccine to everyone without a second glance. I guess I would say that I would not recommend mandatory vaccinations at this point although I would hope we could find a way to offer it at to anyone who wanted it regardless of money. I agree that safety testing should continue. However even if this vaccine was fasttracked to approval, clinical studies usually do find many many of the potential safety issues that need to be dealt with. As someone who is admittedly biased (yes my career is now in vaccine development)I do feel that vaccine's save far more people than they ever hurt. My best example is smallpox. That vaccine is a very potent and potentially dangerous vaccine for some. Yet it has wiped out one of the world's worst diseases. I feel very proud to be in this field. Yes, their is a dark side and I have seen it. And I hope that me and other people in the field can correct some of this, but on the whole I think vaccines are important and that no matter how much "profit" someone makes of it or not, we should take them with a grain of salt but take them, nonetheless. Sorry for the rant but I just feel a need to get on my soapbox about something I care a great deal about personally.:rant:

[AikidoSoul]

229. Now I understand the need for the BLOCK function! Pathetic, disgusting replies from too many DUers

This thread has some of the most infantile, destructive, pathetic, irrational arguments I've seen yet at DU.

Are there a lot of people here who have stock in Merck?

Work for Merck?

It's the only thing that would explain the irrational posts I'm seeing here.

Are these posts meant to pollute this discussion so nothing constructive can occur here?

Or to drag the discussion to the intellectual level of jellyfish?

[Justitia]

231. Maybe they just disagree w/you. Maybe you're just wrong on this.

That is not the same thing as all the other posters being "irrational".

[AikidoSoul]

235. I suggest you go back and READ them. There's a lot of childish, irrational

words here -- filled with emotion and insults.

Discussions are distinctly different.

[Horse with no Name]

246. I'm thinking something here.....

The argument styles are very similar?

[Justitia]

248. Bwwwaaaaa! I needed that, thanks! -eom

[Richard Steele]

252. Word choices, phrasing, the 'rhythm' of the sentence structures....

[hlthe2b]

232. throw out the baby with the bathwater, eh...

I doubt you'd find one DUer who is a big fan of big Pharma, nor specifically Merck. But unlike the other side of the political spectrum (i.e., RW) that only sees issues in black and white, most of us recognize that not everything Big Pharma, nor Merck, nor any other drug/vaccination manufacturer does is bad, evil, malicious.

Big Pharma needs to be reigned in. FDA needs to be strengthened in terms of its regulatory efficacy and authority. We need to be skeptical in this day and age--that's just fact. But, are we to paint EVERY physician and health provider, EVERY public health official and epidemiologist, EVERY academian and statistician, EVERY informed member of the public as part of the BIG PHARMA conspiracy? REALLY?

[AikidoSoul]

244. There is no way we can separate the truth from the lies because FDA is in bed with this industry

and that problem is getting worse every day. It's not just true of the FDA, it's also true of the EPA and other federal agencies that have ABANDONED their mission of protecting public health. The industry now depends very comfortably on this comfortable relationship.

This is a very serious problem that's getting much worse.

I'm not willing to trust anyone in my family to this industry's products.

This industry's products have caused serious chronic illness for many people I know, including me and my spouse.

We have suffered enormously and have researched these issues for years.

This industry destroys the lives and careers of anyone who works to show links between its products and serious health problems.

There have been many, many, many articles written on this huge corruption problem.

[TZ]

255. Yes there is corruption!

But there are alot of very good people in this industry (including me!) who are working very hard to try to help people. I've seen the corruption myself at NIH (posted awhile back). But threads like this demean the rest of us who are trying to do good meaningful work! I agree bad things happen in this industry and I have done my best to stand up when I see it and do what a can do about it. But don't throw everything out because of some bad worms in the apple. I spent a lot of time in the last few months emotionally traumatized by some of the things I have experienced. But even at NIH there are some really really incredible people who are working very hard to help people. The same in the pharma industry. I have seen companies that are all about profit but I have seen a lot of companies that are trying to do really quality work. Some of the things I hear and say on a daily basis are just amazing!! Even at the FDA there are good people. Alot of them hamstrung by the Bush admin no doubt but some good people none the less. Some of what I read on this thread has almost made me cry because my work is my passion and the ignorance and fear (some of it is justified I admit) are just awful to me.:-(

[AikidoSoul]

403. I don't doubt your sincerity. You one of the many who work in the industry who are trying hard to

make the world a better place for all of us.

Thank you for the post -- and please know that I know the dilemma that many are in these days who work in this field.

I know many like you who work in research, or in the federal and state agencies, or in the private sector -- who are torn apart by the corruption they are seeing. Some have left their profession, or if they've spoken out, have been harassed, fired and/or targeted for career destruction. If you tried to speak out where you are working -- you know it can put you on tenuous ground.

The corruption in this industry is huge and growing. It is real and it is dangerous.

This post and anything I say about chem/ pharm's corruption is not a personal accusation to anyone who works in this field. I admire those who try to do the best they can, given the world and circumstances that we live in. Most of us have to work for a living -- and I understand that you are doing your job.



:)

[Horse with no Name]

253. Not to mention the #1 protector of Women's Health and Rights

Planned Parenthood.

[hlthe2b]

257. Absolutely...

:toast:

[AikidoSoul]

405. "EVERY" is your word. The corruption is at the top, and trickles down like a cancer on those below

who must adhere to the methods and policies of their "superiors". You know-- it's kind of like workers in the federal government. But that's not saying that "EVERY" person in the federal government is evil... or in the chem/pharm industry.

The industry as a whole however, is down the tubes regarding corruption -- and that's undeniable.

[Lurking Dem]

233. Jellyfish

The only people dragging this discussion down to jellyfish level are the ones pulling numbers out of their ass and not understanding medical statistical analysis or scientific method.

[hlthe2b]

238. Ignorance breeds fear... Fear breeds irrationality...

Closed minds feed the cycle-- unfortunately...


It is ironic that some of the same people who recognize this trait in Freepers and its use as manipulation by the Bush* administration on issues such as going to war, are adopting the same response to fight a public health intervention that they do not understand and therefore, fear. Particularly ironic, since that puts them on the same side as the nutsy "religious" RW, who are content to let women die, if protecting them means they might engage in SEX!!!!:shrug:

[TZ]

240. absolutely

as I posted upstream their seems to be a lot of this-I found a blog claiming that vaccines started the pandemic of 1918 when the first vaccine wasn't developed until Salk's polio vaccine in the 50's. Being in this field professionally these threads really really upset me. I really wish people would try to be rational and not so judgemental here:(

[hlthe2b]

250. Me too...

It is especially hard to see coming from otherwise like-minded progressive/liberals... It only underscores how much damage is being done by governmental policies that destroy the public's trust, a problem that has risen to extreme levels with this administration.

I understand the lack of trust. I can not understand the unwillingness to examine an issue from all sides, but rather to assume that the public health, academic and private and public health care communities have somehow bought into the corruption or been bamboozled across the board, 100%...

Do they really believe the lunch that Merck may have purchased for their primary care provider's staff is sufficient to have their doc sign off on what they purport to be akin to a Nazi immunization experiment? My God...:shrug:

[TZ]

283. You are right. I think we can blame * for all this mistrust..

but the ignorance here is shocking. Just downthread a person referred to vaccines as a "chemical". Oy Vei. I don't even know where to start with that one.
Its really hard to see people just trash something that I feel so strongly about. And I went through hell at NIH recently trying to deal with a bunch of corruption and yet I saw there are some truly wonderful people with innovative ideas (see the science post I put up about herd immunity last week). So this thread has truly hit a sore spot for me. I know I should just let it be, but (as was the case with my NIH experience) I just care so much about this topic, I really want to try to enlighten and inform people. At least no one has accused me (yet) of being a sell out or a dupe. That WOULD really get to me.:(

[Lurking Dem]

290. In all my years as a medical journalist

I never found a group of people more filled with passion, devotion, insane amounts of energy, and desire to help people than the folks at NIH.

They were my favorite interviews - more than Senators, people in entertainment, anything.

[TZ]

291. word for word describes my former boss..

and just out of curiosity I don't suppose you know anyone from the Malaria Vaccine Development group do you?

[Lurking Dem]

302. Sorry, no.

I spent the vast majority of my time with NIDDK.

[AikidoSoul]

407. You make a good point. The Repug right has used that argument to keep girls

from getting the vaccine -- and so that is a fear-based argument pushing fear based decisions. Their "fear" is that the vaccine will somehow encourage girls to have sex!

But the rest of what you say assumes that those who choose the vaccine have more understanding than those who do not choose it. Your words are that they "...fight a public health intervention that they do not understand and therefore, fear."

You leave out the possibility that they may indeed have a great deal of understanding -- and that maybe it's understanding that you might not have. It could even be that their fears are justified from other experiences. Or that they don't want the vaccines because they choose other methods to keep their bodies healthy and boost their immune systems.

I don't argue with anyone's right to choose any intervention or medical procedure. What I do argue about is mandated vaccination paid for by tax dollars to the tune of billions, and the bogus, linear arguments that bolster that end.

And I see no reason to believe the stats as they are presented, as I have too much experience in seeing the data from chem/ pharm skewed, distorted, and falsified.

We may not agree on all of these points, but that's o.k. We all come from different backgrounds and different personal / professional experiences and are still trying to grasp how to make sense of the choices we have. :-)

[TZ]

237. I don't work for Merck but if I did

you would then just dismiss everything I said because of that? I don't find that particularly rational. I would actually like to work for Merck. They are considered a great employer in my field. Yeah big Pharma likes their profits but the people who work for them the techs and scientists are real science people who like most of us here want to improve the human condition. Again they are not perfect but most of the people who work there (in labs and R+D) are honest researchers. I have been in this field long enough to know that. Please don't suggest that just because the corporate part of big companies can be very cold and money grubbing (I have seen that too) that good work is not being done. Dismissing any argument that way is just wrong and to quote you irrational.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

239. It more has to do with logic and rationality

Believe it or not, the vast majority of Democrats are appalled by the anti-science bent of the Bush administration. So they're not particularly keen to see an anti-science screed in the D.U.

Neither are any of the aspersions you cast particularly informative or persuasive. We irrational, Merck stock owning, infantile, pathetic, destructive, DUers with the intellectual level of jellyfish, may not be up to your exalted status, but we do know one thing.

Vaccines prevent disease. That's good.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s. I doubt your post, AikidoSoul, is really in keeping with the spirit of O'Sensei. You have a lot of work to do in growing your spirit.

[AikidoSoul]

301. At least your post is stated in a way that while insulting, is still showing

some attempt at an argument.

I was criticizing posts that neglected to do that.

And my soul is just fine thank you -- and very much in the spirit of Aikido. ;-)

I do vehemently disagree with the notion that vaccines are entirely good -- I think our own immune systems should be allowed to do their work. Immune systems are much more complex and able to deal with illnesses than the chem/pharm industry wants us to believe.

That is especially true if children are given good, basic nutrition, a roof over their heads, and a life relieved of hurtful stress like violence and death -- all of which suppress the immune system.

Too many people have become chronically ill after being vacccinated.

I don't believe that the industry, the CDC, the FDA -- or any of the regulating agencies, have been honest with the public about vaccine data.

[laundry_queen]

309. I'll just put this here.

Since I'm not sure where else to put it.
People do get ill from vaccines. And the problem is that shutting down the discussion does a disservice to those who actually do want the vaccines. There is nothing wrong with some criticism of vaccines, unfortunately those in the medical field/industry act like questioning vaccines is like critiquing god himself.
There is nothing wrong with a good, healthy debate about the pros and cons of vaccines. And each vaccine SHOULD be scrutinized. It leads to improvements and perhaps avoidance of some dangers that might pop up. I'm not sure why there seems to be such vehemence on the part of some people here, as if me questioning guardasil somehow is going to sentence thousands of women to death every year. :shrug:

[Richard Steele]

242. Where to begin? The fact that the OP admitted to MAKING UP figures?

The FACT that even his own FICTIONAL figures simply don't add up?

The FACT that the OP thinks women DESERVE to get this horrible disease?

The FACT that the OP shot his credibility in the ass with his utterly
RIDICULOUS claim that he is a Professor of Medicine?

The fact that the OP has done NOTHING on this fetid, reeking SHIT STAIN
of a thread but taunt and antagonize DUers in the most childish fashion
I have seen here in a very long time?

And you now claim that EVERYONE who disapproves of these facts must work for big pharma.

Please. You do yourself no credit.

No credit at all.

[AikidoSoul]

271. I didn't say "EVERYONE" -- those are your words. If you accuse others of being inaccurate, you

need to start with yourself.

[Richard Steele]

292. You said "that's the ONLY reason", did you not?

Oh, wait, you didn't actually use the SPECIFIC word "everyone", didja?

Yeah, ya got me there, Einstein.
Yell upstairs to yer momma and brag about it.

[Bridget Burke]

267. This thread is one reason the Block function was a bad idea.

And I'm glad that DU was smart enough to jettison it.

The intellectual level was set by the OP, with an unsourced screed. Please feel free to provide data backed up by peer reviewed journals.

[mondo joe]

304. Do you think Planned Parenthood worksfor Merck?

Planned Parenthood has advocated for widespread vaccination. According to the Washington Post coverage - "The most effective vaccination programs are either given to young children or are mandated for attending school," said Jeffrey Waldman, senior director for clinical affairs for Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

372. The OP's first post included a very telling statement that he/she edited out of this OP.

It was completely untrue with the clear implication that those women who are affected by cervical cancer are bringing it upon themselves.

"Most cervical cancer victims have an otherwise compromised immune system as well as a history of many, many sex partners."

I guess he/she decided that this exposed their true agenda, so it was edited out of this current OP.

That tainted the rest of his/her argument, in which he/she further admitted including completely fabricated numbers. And, as we Americans have the regrettable tendency to do, he/she did not address the GLOBAL health crisis of cervical cancer nor include those trends in his/her the calculations using those same fabricated numbers.

So, I sincerely question the agenda and motives behind the OP. As I've said, I personally remember the Roto Virus vaccine debacle of a few years ago, so I haven't completely made up my mind about this vaccine. Other posters in the thread have provided excellent, attributable and non judgemental information that add value to this debate. But the OP threw away his/her credibility and then aggresively demanded we believe everything he/she posted and when faced with honest critiques of the his/her manifesto subsequently became derisive, mocking and threatening.

When looking at an OP with those glaring flaws (false, judgemental information about the women who contract this cancer combined with admittedly false numbers) it becomes difficult to take seriously the postulate he/she advances.

The debate's been pretty informative, though.
MKJ

[qanda]

378. I thought I was alone

The discussion on this subject is as scary as anything I've ever seen on DU. Mean, nasty and far too trusting of Merck and the FDA.

[scisyhp1]

243. How is that $100 mil per life saved

if at a total cost of $50 mil it would save 1300 lives? My math tells me it's
about $38,500 per life. Not a bad investment by any measure, even if one
considers only economic contributions from those saved. If you add the costs of
treating the cervical cancer, which would include many more women than die of it,
that becomes a no brainer.

[AikidoSoul]

258. I think there's something wrong with your math. Maybe you can put the figures

out there for us to see.

Remember, it costs around $365 per person to get this vaccine. This does not include any boosters that may be needed in the years to come.

It is estimated that it would cost $$$ 50 BILLION $$$ to vaccinate all women and young girls countrywide.

There are approximately 3,700 women who die of cervical cancer every year.

Multiply that by 60 years and you get the number 222,000 women dying of cervical cancer over a period of 60 years.

Let's be generous -- let's round it off the number of women dead from cervical cancer to 300,000 to account for undiagnosed deaths ---

Divide 300,000 into 50 BILLION $$$ and what does it end up costing each of us? And we're talking about calculating the costs JUST FOR THE SHORT PERIOD FOR THE FIRST THREE VACCINE SHOTS -- and NOT for any boosters required in the future.

My figures show a cost at $166,666.666 spent on Merck's vaccine with our tax dollars to prevent each potentially deceased person from getting sick. In other words, this is money our tax dollars would spend on each of those potentially "saved" persons -- IF THE VACCINE ACTUALLY WORKS --and does not harm the immune system..... IF this actually keeps these women from getting cervical cancer in the future.

Wow... look at all those "ifs"!! And... look at all those 666s!!! :evilgrin:

And this vaccine has not even been proven to be safe!

[mondo joe]

260. Why are you counting only the women who die of cervical cancer?

What about those who are diagnosed but survive?

What about the cost of their treatment, to say nothing of the personal cost to them?

[Horse with no Name]

261. There are worse things than dying

as I said.
Cancer treatment is one of those things.

[Bridget Burke]

268. Well, Molly didn't agree with you.

She fought the disease as long as possible. And she gained a few years--years when it was important for all of us to hear her voice.

[Horse with no Name]

270. Not what I meant Bridget

the cancer treatment is more painful than dying.
Nobody would go through it unless they had a will to live.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Bridget Burke]

276. I'm sorry. I didn't catch on to your meaning.

So much insanity on this thread--it's hard to recognize sanity!

Molly died from inflammatory breast cancer--a rather rare form of the disease. I'm sure some people would say it's not worth fighting.

Not you. Not I.

[Horse with no Name]

280. Not at all.

That is what my best friend died of as well.
It excites me that there is a preventative medication for women's health. I WISH there was one for breast cancer, but something tells me if this vaccine prevented breast cancer we would still be having the same discussion.

[AikidoSoul]

321. You can analyze it any way you want -- I looked at the $$$$ and the picture is good... for Merck!

If you want to do numbers you can do them several ways, depending on the context or perspective you want. I used the death figures because they were readily available and I wanted to see how many people died every year and measure the $ costs against that figure alone.

Then to extend it over a long period, I multiplied the deaths by 60 years to see how many people would be projected to die over that period---which would be valid if our immune systems continue along present trends. Again this was to project $$ costs only, but realizing there are unknown factors such as the cost of booster shots in the future.

If you want to look at it another way we can do that. These figures are from the CDC:

"Cervical cancer once was the leading cause of death for women in the United States. However, during the past 4 decades, incidence and mortality (the number of deaths each year) from cervical cancer have declined significantly, primarily because of the widespread use of the Papanicolaou (Pap) test to detect cervical abnormalities. 1 According to the U.S. Cancer Statistics: 2002 Incidence and Mortality Report, more than 12,000 women were diagnosed with cervical cancer in 2002, and nearly 4,000 women died from the disease that same year. 2 It is estimated that more than $2 billion per year is spent in the United States on the treatment of cervical cancer. 3"


http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/statistics/

O.K. Lets look at money again because that's where we started. We were trying to figure out what it will cost us as a nation to give women these vaccines. Let's figure what it would cost to give about 1/3 of the female population in this country a series of vaccine shots.

Let's measure that against the historical costs of treating the disease: CDC says that re money spent per year to treat cervical cancer costs 2 billion $$ annually

So, what does it cost us to prevent this annual 2Billion $ cost from occurring by doling out vaccines (if they even work).

Estimated cost of giving 1/3 of the population -- say 100 million women the vaccine at a cost of $365 each = $36,000,000,000

That's 36 billion dollars up front -- and that's just for the short period within which the vaccines are administered. The increased $$ benefit, if there is one, will not be realized for at least 18 years.

But that excludes the costs of booster shots. We aren't even told whether booster shots are necessary.

The OP projected a cost of 50 billion dollars as the real cost of doling out this vaccine which is probably closer to the real figure. I've only discussed what the shots themselves cost, not the % of costs of programs and personnel for administering them. I also only included 1/3 of the US population-- because not every woman will want this vaccine, no matter what the hype is, and no matter who mandates it.

We are all going to die Joe. I'm truly sorry for anyone who dies badly from cervical cancer or from any other disease. I know personally those who have died, and who now have preventable chronic illnesses due to products manufactured by the chemical pharmaceutical company. I'm one of them, my spouse too. My brother committed suicide from Prozac. I've been participating in chemical injury groups for years with thousands of people who are chronically ill from drugs and chemicals put out by this industry. I talk to many parents whose children were fine until they were administered vaccines.

I've also done a lot of research on how this industry gets away with criminal behavior.

It's about money. Lots of it. Chem / Pharm has over 1,291 lobbyists in Congress. It controls Congress.. along with the FDA and EPA. It spent over 800 MILLION $$ over 7 years in lobbying money.

See figs for lobbying and $$ here:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=27125

[mondo joe]

347. Are you cracked? It's cheaper to let people bve treated than to prevent

the disease?

What a fucking whack job.

I'll stick with Planned Parenthood, thanks.

[Richard Steele]

266. .....

[Justitia]

245. I feel like some people do not know this: Pap smears DO NOT prevent, diagnose OR treat cancer.

I have a strong feeling some people do not understand that clearly.

They are a SCREENING TOOL ONLY

Other, totally independent procedures are required to diagnose and treat cancer.

This vaccine is the only thing that will medicinally PREVENT CANCER.

You cannot compare a screening tool to a vaccine! It's like comparing a urine test to chemotherapy.

Whew. Thanks!

[Richard Steele]

247. They are a tool to DISCOVER cancer (and pre-cancerous conditions).

No more, no less. Even I know that.
And I'm pretty goddamn ignorant
of many things.

[Justitia]

251. Ya know, I'm getting the sneaking suspicion that some really don't know that???

I keep hearing the use of the Pap smear as an alternative to the vaccine.....

Maybe this really will be educational for somebody????

[Richard Steele]

256. We can indeed HOPE that someone has learned that.

That's about the only POSITIVE hope I have left for this thread,
so I shall HOPE it as hard as I can.

[TZ]

262. you have to want to learn

Seriously, I am very depressed after reading a lot of this. Nearly in tears. Need to concentrate so I can go back to my work testing botulism vaccine potentcy, or do I mean making more money for big Pharma as a sell out..:cry:

[Justitia]

269. I got all kinds of new forehead wrinkles today maybe you could help me out with? LOL -nt

[TZ]

278. Very good!

I need a chuckle!!!:)

[Richard Steele]

297. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Don't let them get ya down. :hug:

[TZ]

298. Thank you

Its just crazy on this thread.:hi:

[Horse with no Name]

259. Just because it is so true

[Justitia]

265. By the end of the day we will all know more about genital warts than we ever dreamed!!!! ha, ha

God, I hope scales are falling from eyes, but damn, some people just don't wanna know! :banghead:

[Katherine Brengle]

307. Great post - a Pap is like a physical, it doesn't *cure* anything or *prevent* anything -

it just gives you better odds of *finding out* before it kills you.

And the follow-up tests can be excruciating, even if nothing turns out to be wrong. I'd rather take my odds with the vaccine...

[cgrindley]

263. if it's either/or buy Flu Vaccine for everyone

it'll cost less money, save 20 times the lives, and benefit men and women equally.

[hlthe2b]

274. You need to understand this vaccine can benefit males...

They (Merck) completed the efficacy testing on females first, but safety trials are already completed in adolescent boys and efficacy trials are ongoing. The vaccine is beneficial to males--not only from the standpoint that they could transmit HPV 16 and 18 to women, the viral cause for 70% of all cervical cancer--but also because it is highly effective in protecting against HPV 6 and 11, the leading cause of genital warts AND implicated in some penile and other urogenital cancers in MALES.

IT IS SO DAMNED unfortunate, that MERCK did not complete both studies simultaneously so that ACIP could consider recommendation for both Male and FEMALE adolescents. But, it will be revisited when those studies are complete.

[cgrindley]

285. It's too expensive

Nationalize the patent. Then it would be worthwhile. But right now, if I had to choose, I'd sooner save the 50k people per year who die of the flu than the 3700 who die of cervical cancer.

Of course, that's a fallacy of choice.

[hlthe2b]

288. The reason why states are including it in school enrollment policies

is because they can then provide at no or low cost through the Federal Vaccine for Children Program, as we do other vaccines to low and middle income children. By ACIP's making the recommendation, it leads to Medicaid and private insurers covering as well. That's why it makes such a difference as to whether or not we adopt it as a part of the school immunization policies in each state. Parents have always had the ability to opt out, either for religious, medical (or in some states, philosophical) concerns. This vaccine will be no different. But cost is not the primary issue at this point...

[Horse with no Name]

293. Not sure what your objection is

1. The cost
2. Because it seemingly only benefits women.

[Rainscents]

275. PHARMA is CORRUPT and I do NOT trust them!!!

I would much take my chance getting virus vs getting chemical injected in me.

[TZ]

284. smallpox..

If someone used smallpox as bioweapon would you want the vaccine? Look at the pictures of the disease and you might change your mind..

[Rainscents]

287. I would NEVER receive another vaccine ever again!

My last one was 18 years ago and I got Mercury poison. It took 6 years to get the crap out of my system. You can preach all you want, it's NOT going to change my mind! My health is more important and I'll take my chance by not getting chemical injection.

[TZ]

294. well that's your perogative I suppose..

but I have had oodles of vaccines in the last 10 years (tetanus, smallpox, Hep A, Hep B) with no issues whatsoever. Thimersol which most likely made you sick is no longer in vaccines. Vaccines really are much safer (for the most part) and more effective than they used to be.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

286. So you'd rather risk having CANCER

freaking cervical cancer? As a female who was diagnosed with level III squamous cervical cells (precursors to possible cancer), I would hope that you too will one day love sitting in a cold room with your legs on stirrups and your woo-hoo for all to see, while you are getting yet another cervical biopsy which, by the way, hurts like hell.

I don't deny big pharma is evil, for sure. But in this case I'd take Gardasil in a heartbeat.

[Rainscents]

289. You bet... I do!

At least, I am NOT poisoning my body. God gave us natural remedies for preventions and cure, not the man made chemicals!

[TZ]

295. PS vaccines are not chemicals

they are actually modified antibodies of a sort or modified particles from viruses designed to stimulate the immune system. What is more natural than getting your body to do (on a modified level) what it was designed to do anyway?

[Rainscents]

296. Do you know that for FACT???

Just because Pharma say so?

[TZ]

299. I am about to go read the results of my tests on my

potency study for a botulism vaccine my company is working on. So yes. I know what are in vaccines. I work with them everyday.

[Name removed]

323. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

324. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AikidoSoul]

337. I asked you if you're working for chem / pharm as a lobbyist

or other position that promotes this industry.

It's a legitimate question given some of the comments you're making... including the one that asks me if I'm a troll. Who would I be trolling for? The chemically injured? That's what I do -- is advocate for them.

[Lurking Dem]

339. Actually you asked somebody else.

No I do not work in the industry or in promotion of the industry.


You seem to have an agenda based on disseminating potentially dangerous misinformation and I have to wonder why that may be.

[hlthe2b]

331. Wow... how incredibly offensive...

Does your physician get paid? If yes, then he/she couldn't possibly have your best interests at heart, right? Problems with managed care aside, do you not hold out at least some trust that your physician can make decisions for YOU, regardless of outside pressures or influences?

Can you not imagine that researchers working in vaccine production or R&D might also have the public's greater good as an objective?

[Justitia]

282. HOLY MOTHER OF GOD, WHAT LEVEL OF HELL IS THIS??? I give up!

[Richard Steele]

300. Well, in Buddhism, this would be the last and deepest level.

Specifically reserved for TWO types of people:
People who murdered their own parents,
and people who deliberately spread hatred and discontent.

[Lurking Dem]

305. I look at it more as

Darwin in action. It's slow. But eventually...............

[Odin2005]

311. mhatrw matchs the kook stereotype so perfectly it's hilarious.

[hlthe2b]

312. OP seems to have disappeared now...

Damage done, BS disseminated, so their work is complete? :eyes:

[TZ]

313. maybe they ran out of

bs to come back at us with. (like the member who asked me if I really knew what was in vaccines he seems to have gone too..):-)

[Lurking Dem]

314. Maybe Mom needed the computer.

[TZ]

315. probably

:rofl:

[hlthe2b]

316. Snarf!

Why does that bring to mind the S.California Freeper who sent the "anthrax" powder letters to KO and others... Just a misguided young man, living a life of solitude with his MOM, while he bombarded LW websites from her computer and mailed off his little terrorist packages using her letter-writing supplies and kitchen condiments....:eyes:

[Recursion]

400. Ah, I love the smell of smugness in the morning

People who distrust pharmaceutical companies are not all hemp-wearing, parents'-basement-dwelling, art-history-major hippies. Some of us even work in biotech.

[Richard Steele]

318. OP leaves just before "Aikido Soul" picks up the baton for Team Provacateur....

[AikidoSoul]

328. I speak as a defender of the chemically injured -- for those who have been injured

by the Chemical / Pharmaceutical companies. My position is based on experience. It is based on association with the chemically injured. It is based on research. It is based on love of Democracy....and the hope that I will be able to express my knowledge in a way that is understandable and acceptable to many people. It's a very frustrating job because we are living in a very brainwashed society regarding health issues... and especially drugs and chemicals. There's more propaganda than anything else when it comes to the "benefits" of drugs and many synthetic chemicals.

When I say that I'm worried about the possibility that there are people on this forum that work for chem/pharm -- it is based on what is the norm these days on other list-serves.

Many medical / scientific list-serves that work on chemical injury issues are actively undermined by chem/ pharm employees whose job it is to disrupt the flow and exchange of information. More than that, they continually insult the participants and bring the level of the debate to a very low level... making the higher level scientists and researchers want to quit in disgust.

It's a tactic.

The OP speculated aloud in the original post and was clearly doing so. For the OP to be attacked as viciously as was done here is not normal for DU posts.

Something is up here. This has not been a fair exchange of data and ideas.

[hlthe2b]

333. I'm sure I can appreciate your concerns and skepticism

But, despite the harm done to you, the fact is that there are many many many dedicated professionals working in local, state, and Federal public health agencies and reserach centers, as private care providers, and in commercial medical/drug research.

Despite my understanding of your cynism, (that most of us share to some extent), it is seemingly all consuming for you and thus impacts your assumptions... I am hoping that you can find some balance in your perspective, as to fail to do so can result in making medical decisions every much as damaging as those which you believe caused you the original harm.

I have no desire to offend and hope that you do not take my comments as such. :shrug:

[AikidoSoul]

361. Many of the people I interact with everyday are doctors, scientists, researchers and federal agency

employees that are increasingly horrified at the suppression of science at the expense of the public.

A special concern is the suppression of chemical injury science.

These are not just a few folks who have lost their way either, but are people with integrity who see that the system has become horribly corrupted.

Many of those people have suffered greatly for speaking out.

Thank you truly for your concerns. Maybe I can do some good here at DU.. and I hope so. I hope we can all learn from one another.

Thank you for your note.

[Recursion]

401. There are plenty of well-meaning scientists and technicians in the field

The problem is not the scientists or researchers (mostly), the problem is a broken and frankly unfixable funding system that has the money for funding and publishing the science coming from the very people who have an interest in the study turning out one way or another. Even the best scientists can't fix that.

Lately this problem has been aggravated by an approval and regulation system that, like everywhere else in government, outsourced guarding the chicken coop to the foxes.

[Name removed]

334. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Evoman]

338. Um....I think the reason the OP was attacked was because

his numbers are made up, and his post is bullshit. Anyone with any sort of scientific training can catch this bullshit from a mile away. You don't just make up numbers, for gods sake.

And what DU have you been to? Attacking OP viciously for bad ideas and thinly veiled misogyny is par for course. Lol..honestly, you think that the people here are shills for the pharmaceutical industry? Like big pharma is going to waste money hiring people to go into the dark corners of the internet to argue with anti-vacciners?

And before you accuse me of the same thing...I am a scientist. But only a grad student, and not in chemistry or drug science...the pharmaceutical companies haven't hired me yet :rofl:

[AikidoSoul]

349. Laugh away. Chem / pharm does hire shills to work list-serves

but they don't get paid as much as lobbyists.

Nobody has pointed to any specific "bad ideas" or even where the numbers "are made up".
I read this entire post, and cannot find any succinct argument, nor any pointing out of specific errors in the OP's numbers.

I also found zero comment in the OP that suggested anything that can be called "thinly veiled misogyny".

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

373. The statement he/she edited out of this OP, about women with "many, many sexual partners"

I guess it was little too revealing. I've got the link to that OP, which was word for word exactly the same. Except that one telling statement was gone. :shrug:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=145744

First paragraph...looks like he/she wanted that in there to support a postulate that these women lives aren't worth the risk/benefit or cost/benefit, seeing as they already have compromised immune systems or have had "many,many" sexual partners.

MKJ

[insane_cratic_gal]

317. Your Argument assumes that women have access

to routine OBGYN care.

Your argument only holds water if a women have health care/insurance as a means to "treat and prevent" cervical cancer with yearly examines.

You are aware of course of the health care crisis in this country?

How many kids/women/men go uncovered because they can't afford health care plans? I work at a hospital I see it every day, it's a bit more desperate when they come in for care. If they aren't coming in for the near/serious stuff like shortness of breath and chest pain without first becoming unconscious or dragged in by family and friends; I can assure you they aren't coming in for annual examines for pap smear testing for HPV and cervical cancer.

[AikidoSoul]

346. Women have more options than you might think

But most states have health screening programs at state health departments for cervical cancer, using the PAP smear. Here in Florida the test is done for free under the Family Planning program for very young girls from age 12 who cannot afford to pay. Older women of higher income do have to pay on a sliding scale. The most anyone would have to pay for a PAP and an exam is $125.00 -- but, most pay much less than that according to FL Dept of Health officials

[ArbustoBuster]

322. mhatrw claims to be a teacher at a medical school, but refuses to give references.

When challenged, the OP started taunting people, and making the same kinds of foolish replies ("prove I'm wrong!") that hoaxers always use instead of making valid arguments. At that point, I stopped bothering to read the replies. Either this is quackery, or it's someone trying to spread misinformation. I call BS on this whole thing.

I wish there were some way to anti-recommend a thread, although that would almost certainly be misused by the usual imbeciles who come here from Freeperland.

Edited to add: By "references," I mean references to documentation that backs up this specious argument, which is something any good teacher would do.

[hlthe2b]

326. There is a dilemma, (dare I mention) on these threads...

On other issues, I think this thread would have been locked, given the many alerts that had to have resulted...

However, I think there is sufficient sensitivity or uncertainty about this topic among some of the mods that they elected to let it go... The knowledgeable here could clearly spot the elements of an intentional disinformation campaign and we worry about the damage done... I guess it boils down to "buyer (aka, READER) beware."

[Tiggeroshii]

330. I think what you are saying is valid, but

I don't think that it is a valid argument to stop giving them vaccinations. It's clear that the vaccines can help a lot of people(as would pap smears), but it's also clear that there should be some investigations put into place into the relationship between Perry and Merck.

I don't think that the corporate ties between them -because that's how this requirement became in place, should be a reason to stop the vaccines all together simply because it is clear enough people will benefit from it. I do think that a combination of mandatory pap smears and vaccines can all but eliminate these deaths of cervical cancer. And I think that whatever we can do that gets the closest to curing cervical cancer should be done.

[AikidoSoul]

365. I don't think it's "clear" at all.

You are of course assuming that the costs justify the benefits. In all due respect, I don't think you've spent enough time looking into this issue, which is much more complicated that the superficial hype that is being promulgated by industry, the FDA and others.

It's not just the Texas gov that has financial links to Merck.

The costs and risks are significant.

[AikidoSoul]

335. Warning -- Gardasil contains aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate

Here's a warning to pregnant mothers to not take the vaccine:

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/womenshealth/hpv.htm

"Because Gardasil contains aluminum (aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate), the vaccine is not recommended for women who are pregnant or may become pregnant."

Good -- that warning is a start, but one detail left out is the fact that anyone exposed to aluminum is adding to their body burden of heavy metals, and that can be potentially more problematic if you're also taking in fluoride contained in drinking water, green tea, drugs, and other sources. Several studies suggest that a combination of fluroide and aluminum increases the uptake of aluminum into the brain.


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_261/ai_n13648126/pg_4

Some like to argue that this is such a "small amount" and "the dose makes the poison" -- but those arguments are chem / pharm arguments built on the notion that we only have to be concerned about acute poisoning. What's happening to our society is that it's being poisoned slowly, in small amounts over time. It's chronic, low level poisoning -- and it's affecting the health and well-being of every living creature on this planet.

[Justitia]

351. To digress from vaccines for a moment, what about drugs that people need to live?

And medical processes that they need to extend their lives?

If all the chemicals / pharmaceuticals are poison, what about those who need them to survive?

I'm really curious as to how far you cleave to this position.

[AikidoSoul]

355. People should make the decisions that are right for them based on the knowledge they have available

at the time. Of course.

That would include drugs for some people.

Most people don't wait for their bodies to heal themselves....even for simple things like little fevers or infections. That's the time we live in. People don't trust their bodies to do the job they were designed to do.

And it's getting worse because the times, they are a chang'in.

Most people would be healthy if it weren't for the co-factors that contribute to chronic illness such as toxic chemicals that weaken the body, contaminate the brain, fat, blood and every cell in the body--that are found in every newborn's umbilical cord that is born today. There are so many synthetic chemicals now -- over 80,000 of them -- that are not tested prior to marketing, that it will be impossible to determine which of them are causing the damage that we're seeing today.

What are we seeing? We see an epidemic of immune system problems. We know that there are many, many chemicals that are damaging the brains of young children. The brain controls every process in the body. It is the main microprocessor. Every body system is affected by neurotoxicants... which are brain poisons.

Chem/ Pharm has managed to make the world a very toxic place. It's not just vaccines and drugs it manufactures, but every type of chemical imaginable.

Our country does not require that these chemicals be tested for chronic exposures and human health prior to marketing.

Vaccines and drugs are tested --albeit oftentimes inadequately -- but other chemicals are not required to undergo health testing.

Decades pass before the data accumulates -- most often from independently funded researchers, and from other countries that more diligently monitor the toxicants linked to chronic illnesses in their populations.

That's why Europe has decided to require Chem/ Pharm to NOW TEST CHEMICALS AND PROVE THEY ARE SAFE BEFORE THEY ARE MARKETED.

The U.S. did EVERYTHING it could to block this effort, but it failed.

There is a very , very big battle being waged behind the scenes here in the U.S. to prevent anything like that from happening here.

I object to the use of drugs to continually "manage" diseases that can be prevented -- or which can be mitigated by controlling environment (toxicants), lifestyle choices, and other factors.

There are many strategies that can be used to prevent disease -- but the current policies include only "strategies" that include drugs.

This is stupid and dangerous....but very profitable to chem/ pharm.

OBJECTIONS:

I especially object to the chronic illnesses that are caused by the toxic chemicals that are manufactured by the chemical / pharmaceutical industry -- that cause enormous damage to ourselves, our children, our animals and the environment. This industry profits on all sides of the picture. It profits from the poisonous chemicals that it manages to imbed in almost every product that we come into contact with, and then again when we become chronically ill. It then profits when it sells us its drugs, imaging technology, cancer therapies, and a multitude of medical products.

I object to the lies which are continuously promulgated by this industry.

I object to the fact that it has stifled reporting of medical / scientific news by buying huge amounts of advertising on major TV networks, and threatening to pull advertising if chem injury reports are done, and destroying the careers of researchers and scientists who focus on chemical injury.

I object to the money it spends to make Congress do its bidding.

I object to the fact that there are more chem/ pharm lobbyists in the Congress of the United States than any other type of lobbyist.

I object to the fact that chem/ pharm has spent over $$$$$$ 800 MILLION $$$$$ on Lobbying Over 7 Years

I object to the fact that chem / pharm hires front organizations to create bogus "science"

I object to the fact that chem/ pharm has corrupted medical / scientific journals with its money and influence.

I object to the fact that chem/ pharm hires flaks to continually haunt chemical injury list serves where scientists and researchers are exchanging critical information about serious, debilitation chronic illnesses that are increasingly linked to petrochemicals, drugs, and other toxicants.

That's for starters.

Don't know what you meant by asking about the Sam Rayburn quote. What's that all about? The quote was "We are Democrats without prefix, without suffix, and without apology.") and I guess you want to know whether I subscribe to that phrase.

Please don't take offense -- I don't really know what that phrase means to you, and I don't understand why you asked the question. I also don't understand how it relates to the topic at hand.

Other than that, I'm happy to reply. And thank you for the other questions that were stated in a civil manner.

[Justitia]

357. The Rayburn quote is simply my regular sig line. I asked you about your feelings on

traditional medicine because some people really do need medical intervention / drugs to live.

There are lots of diseases, even autoimmune inspired ones, that must be attended to medically - or die.

I assume you would agree with that. Kidney dialysis, as an example.

[AikidoSoul]

363. I'm glad you used kidney dialysis as an example. I know several people who have renal failure who

have it because of chemical injury.

Again... I look first at causes. Then I see who profits from the drugs and "therapies".

It's the same industry that produces the toxic chemicals in the first place.

People with renal failure can no longer handle the toxic load. It's natural for most of them to be scared to death and succumb to pressures from the current medical model reps who tell them to deal with it using "modern methods". But meanwhile they are devastated, their finances destroyed, and their lives ruined.

One of them though is an exception. She's real fighter and different than most because she thinks for herself. I mention her name because she is a public person and describes herself and her medical conditions publicly.

Barb Wilkie (of the Environmental Health Network) is a woman who refuses to succumb to the scary warnings of her doctor, and does medicine her own way. Her doctor cannot understand why and how she is doing so incredibly well despite avoidance of ALL synthetic meds, and by avoiding all household and workplace toxicants (synthetic chemicals, fragrances, aerosols, pesticides, solvents, etc). She only eats organic foods, vitamins, minerals and herbs. She has done a lot of research on what works best for kidney failure and has provided physicians with some insight into how it's possible to do very well --despite her official frightening prognosis.

She is also very, very careful to avoid aluminum... which dialysis patients have a very difficult time excreting.

Her docs think she should be dead.

But of course that's only one woman who is stubborn and refuses to give in to the medical cartel's version of health.

No, I am not Barb Wilkie.. but I love and respect her for being one of the most wonderful, loving human beings I've ever had the privilege of meeting. She is also highly knowlegeable about how toxic chemicals and drugs are ruining the lives of millions of people.

So you're hearing this from me -- but you won't hear it from the mainstream news. Maybe it's because most of the commercials are about chem / pharm's products.

[Justitia]

370. I used it because my son has End Stage Renal Disease & is on hemodialysis

three times a week, 4 hours each session. He would quite literally die without dialysis, and we've come close a few times.

He is on dialysis because he has severe kidney disease. It is an uncommon, genetic, autoimmune form that he was born with. As a result of his disease he has malignant hypertension and takes 14 pills a day. If he doesn't take the 14 pills, he will have (another) stroke or (another) seizure or a heart attack. He's severely anemic.

I'm only throwing all this out there because I think we really have to balance being skeptical about traditional medicine with embracing what traditional medicine can actually do for us. My son's medical team are truly living saints. I've never met more dedicated people in my life - thank God for them. And the docs & techs that work w/dialysis patients really make nothing compared to their commitment. They call these patients "trainwrecks" for a reason. I always joke with my son's nephrologist - "What, didn't Dermatology look good to you?" He just smiles. Once he told me very solemnly that this was the oath he took and that oath meant a lot to him.

I just don't want people to avoid seeking medical help out of an irrational fear.
My son actually delayed going to the ER before suffering a stroke because he didn't have health insurance at the time. He ended up having a stroke which caused permanent brain damage.

Medicine can really help sometimes and there are some incredible medical professionals who would just about go to the end of the earth for you out of nothing more than dedication.

Best wishes.

[Lurking Dem]

381. HUGS!

I can't even imagine.

I am very ill myself and have multiple specialty doctors and 9 prescription meds all of which help keep me alive and more or less functional.

I have been pissed off and complained about Big Pharma for years regarding everything from pricing to efficacy to apparent stock manipulation. I have personally lobbied on the Hill for research funds, cost controls, and insurance coverage for those devastated by chronic illnesses.

Through the host of doctors I have had in my life, most of them have been caring, concerned, and gone out of their way to get information on ways to treat my illnesses and disease complications. A couple have cried with me.

In addition to my western med docs, I have a Chinese doctor who treats me with herbs and acupuncture. My western docs have never once questioned my reliance on her and the only issue that has ever even come up was whether or not herbs I was taking would interfere with other meds. Everybody works together, no one's nose is out of joint, and all they care about is making sure I am comfortable and as healthy as the course of my diseases will allow.

Every researcher I have ever met wanted nothing more than to alleviate suffering. Most of them had personal experience with whatever disease they were researching which is what led them into the field. Yet there are groups who fund various research efforts that I feel do not have patient's best interests at heart and are more interested in money making treatment protocols than cure oriented research. Some researchers have had to fight very hard to get funds for the path they wished to pursue.

This vaccine (and vaccines in general) represents the best of medical research initiatives. To find something that actually prevents a disease is a glorious and momentous thing.

The baby shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater. And arguments that detecting cancer is more important than preventing it, or that women shouldn't have so many sexual partners is not only facile, it is dangerous.

[Justitia]

387. Real life experience (versus philosophical theorizing) is an effective teacher.

I guess it's up to those of us who have to live with these things to not give up.
Peoples very lives depend on it.
Thanks for your post!

:pals:

[AikidoSoul]

416. Justitia, I completely sympathize with what you must do to save your son from certain death and of

course you are right to follow whatever path you think is right for him. My sympathies are with you for all you must suffer, and for all he must suffer as well. I hope sincerely that he will live as comfortably as possible, and that you will continue to have him in your life to love. :hug:

Again... my main complaint is the fact that these companies manufacture woefully inadequately tested toxic chemicals that are impregnated into every imaginable product -- which continually off-gas and get into our bodies -- which are causing chronic illnesses that then require us to buy drugs, get therapies, and all kinds of medical services.

I despise chem/ pharm for working so hard to suppress data on the toxic effects of so many of its products -- and then make HUGE profits from the misery and illnesses that result. At this point, every newborn baby born has synthetic chemicals in his/her umbilical cord. These tiny babies come into the world with a body-burden of chemicals from the mom.

Like many people I learned the hard way -- although we did not use many types of toxic chemicals just because we knew they were inherently dangerous. But controlling your own environment goes only so far --- my spouse and I became chronically ill from toxic chemicals that were used in an adjoining building. Now we're paying a huge price.

Like all pesticides, those chems were untested for how they affect the brain and central nervous system. Synthetic chemicals are permitted to be widely marketed despite huge data gaps. This turns everyone who comes into contact with them into guinea pigs.... that means every living thing on the planet! We've spent more than a decade trying to recover some health, while working to understand what has happened to the medical system in this country.

Of course you already realize that there are many forms of medicine. What I believe is that we should have ability to make informed choices without having those choices forced on us. Petrochemical drugs have only been around since the 1930s. Other types of medicine have been around for much longer, along with herbs and vitamins.

Until chem/ pharm changes its behavior, I will continue to mistrust it.

That doesn't mean that all people who work for these companies are bad... just those whose greed has driven them to lie, cheat, injure and steal. Unfortunately, that seems to be the norm with these companies and I don't see any real change coming anytime soon.

[mtnester]

345. Dear God, this cursed thread is still here and open?

I will then say...IBTL

I thought the thread slamming Molly Ivins was a pustule...this one? Surpasses.

To make my position clear, if the vaccine was recommended for those of us over 40, I would get it...even though I am in a loving and nearly ancient (by modern terms) monogamous marriage.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

353. Me too, I can't believe the spamming misinformation is still floating on the greatest.

And, I have told my young adult :-) daughter to hold off. We've talked often of brand new therapies, whatever modality, that require perusing.

But, this OP chock full of made up crap is allowed to hijack our website. At least two cut and pastes.

After removing the words "women with many, many sexual partners", the OP flung it out again and then this thread just grew. Even though he/she was called on the multitudes of misinformation and fabrication. And, he/she even admitted they PULLED THE NUMBERS OUT OF THEIR ASS.


MKJ

[AikidoSoul]

362. Please tell me what "cut and pastes" you're talking about, and what

were the "multitudes of misinformation and fabrication" that you spoke of?

And what numbers were made up?

Yours isn't the first post to trash the OP, but I've read that post several times now and have done the numbers.

I showed it to my math-head spouse as well, and both of us think it's perfectly logical, fairly stated, and clear.

What numbers do you have that are better?

Where was it "copied and pasted" from?

I went to GOOGLE and pasted in several statements on the OP's orig post and could find nothing on GOOGLE about it... so where was it copied from?

Would you just say these things and not be willing to substantiate your claims?

I sure hope not.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

377. The OP has been cut and pasted at least once. And, one line removed from the OP atop this thread.

"Most cervical cancer victims have an otherwise compromised immune system as well as a history of many, many sex partners."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=145744

So, I question why this was posted twice, cut and paste style, one OP with this claim, one without.

The OP admitted fabricating numbers...the "impossible to know" numbers of deaths without the vaccine. The numbers he/she admitted to making up.

Those are the two concerns I have, as well as his/her insistence on not including the global numbers of cervical cancer deaths, which are second only to breast cancer in causing death for women worldwide. The cost/benefit analysis would change significantly, of course, in favor of the vaccine, which I suspect is why they were ignored.

I'm still making my own decision about the vaccine's efficacy and potential risks. If the OP hadn't edited out the "women with many, many sexual partners" statement and hadn't entirely made up the anticipated numbers of deaths of U.S. women due to the vaccine, I'd have much more of an inclination to take the OP seriously. The final blow to his/her credibility was rather than debate, to immediately attack and deride anyone who ventured to suggest any flaw to his/her argument.

Oh, and he/she took zero accountability for previously posting the "many, many sexual partners" statement. Just laughed, and shrugged it off. I don't find it quite as funny or trivial. MKJ

[AikidoSoul]

379. RE: Your comments about "copy & paste", "....many sexual partners" etc

Thanks very much for replying, BleedingHeartPatriot.

First about the "many sexual partners" statement. It's a fact that cervical cancer is higher in those who have many sexual partners. This problem is listed on many government and other information sites and is offered simply as an unemotional fact. Since AIDS and other diseases are also more transmissible with many sex partners, it's normally perceived as risky behavior. But these are things you already know. What's worrisome is that the OP's mention of this was seen as misogynist -- which doesn't make sense to me because, well... it's just information.

If you know the OP personally and know of behavioral pattern that suggests misogynist attitudes -- well maybe you have some reason to be upset --but if not, then perhaps you can agree that the information is valid on its own merit.

The global numbers for any disease always greatly inflate the numbers for a simple reason --most of the world lives in poor conditions, with poor nutrition -- which all contribute to population's vulnerability to a wide range of diseases. So when global numbers are used it actually distorts the reality of what we would expect to see here in the U.S. --unless the global facts and conditions are offered alongside it and explained -- which it RARELY is. It angers me when I hear public health officials use global figures because they most often do so without that explanation-- which can ignite fear.

Using fear is a tactic that I loathe. Here's an egregious example of this behavior:

Lisa Conti is the State of FL head veterinarian, who along with other state officials was called upon to make statements to the press during the West Nile Virus outbreak in FL. --a time when emotions and fear were already running at fever levels. As the state vet -- she was considered the spokesperson for the problem.

At a packed public meeting in a county courthouse, where many persons were in a high state of agitation and fear, people were yelling at public officials to "do something" -- one citizen was weeping loudly and seemed hysterical. Despite this atmosphere, when weeping woman asked "what percentage of people die from being bitten by a mosquito with WNV..." Conti answered "15%"!!!! This caused caused the crowd to go into an uproar and the woman to cry out loudly.

Conti made NO effort to clarify her statement. What she left out was: (1) the 15% figure of deaths is a worldwide figure which includes deep poverty countries where WNV is deeply embedded. (2) She could have further allayed fears by stating that people with normal immune systems and decent nutrition, can handle the virus very well. She might have added that this 15% figure is for people with full blown WNV who have compromised immune systems; (3) She could have added too that most people with antibodies of WNV in their blood never get symptoms at all! She could have shown the literature from the NY City Health Department showing how they did broad based blood testing and found that most people with the antibodies said they had no symptoms at all,and most that did-- said their symptoms were very mild. (4) Conti could have mentioned too that the 7 persons who did die of WNV in NY City, had severely compromised immune systems, i.e. had AIDS, were on chemo, and one was a heart transplant patient on immunosuppressive drugs.

I confronted her outside the meeting during a break and told her I was going to ask her to clarify her statement when we went back into the meeting. When I did so she simply said, "I stand behind my statement."

This fanning the flames of fear was done by most health officials in the state of FL during that period, and their budgets grew exponentially -- along with the highly toxic pesticide spraying programs. Ironically of course, the pesticides suppress the immune systems of those who need their immune systems to remain intact to avoid WNV. The state went crazy -- spraying DIBROM aerially, killing off all the natural predators such as dragonflies in N.FL (1 dragonfly can eat 600 insects a day and prefer mosquitoes).

I was asked to be the "other voice" on panels with state health officials in on NPR, and was able to document all of the distortions-- but fear is bigger than reason and facts --and the press beat the fear drum. The result is that now we have huge, unnecessary spraying programs that are killing off large populations of small critters. Now during the summers, even on ponds in N. FL where life would normally be noisy with critter chatter at night, the nights now sound like January. And, more and more people report symptoms and illness from the spraying. When the air reaches its dew point here now, the air becomes toxic because the chems start to drop down into the lower atmosphere. It's very noticeable now.

I've already stated that the same companies that manufacture pesticides and other toxicants, also manufacture drugs and own patents on a wide range of medical devices, therapies, technologies, etc. My main fury is that these powerful companies have taken control of the health system and are profiting from the damage that they cause by these toxicants.

RE your point that "The OP admitted fabricating numbers...the "impossible to know" numbers of deaths without the vaccine..." This surprises me greatly that there was such an attack on the OP for doing what is a very normal practice in many places, but probably most often in academia -- where I think the OP works. It's normal for people to try to get a picture of the numbers or stats, despite the impossibility of getting the numbers exactly right. Almost nobody expects the numbers to be perfect.
You must know logically that getting the numbers perfect is impossible. You probably also logically realize that this fact shouldn't stop anyone from making a good effort to put numbers together and try to get close to something valid. I did the same thing in two of my posts when I looked at costs. I played with figures a few different ways, and invited input.

To be fair -- nobody can get these figures exactly right, but that shouldn't stop us from trying. The place where you'll find really contorted numbers are usually with the manufacturers and lobbyists for the products being pushed.

Thanks again very much for your post.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

415. Re: "women with many, many sexual partners", why was it removed from the current cut and paste?

:shrug:

BTW, I'm sorry to hear about your experiences in Florida. The "fear drum" is a powerful one. MKJ

edited to add: That statement reflects "promiscuity" exclusively on the woman, rather than the "promiscuity" of the man who can then infect a monogamous partner. And she gets to have the cervical cancer, as well. And, no offense, but I am done with this f***ing thread and BTW, this is as tag team a situation as I've ever seen, as if you guys don't know each other.

Hopefully, the OP gleefully snark attacking DU'ers who didn't agree and who were possessed of accurate, timely information is a one time thing, if you guys happen to chat.

[AikidoSoul]

352. Nobody has had the courage and decency to answer the OP's request to read and reply to the last

paragraph in her original post, which was intended to fairly analyze the REAL risks and benefits of this costly "prevention" program:

"To include vaccination RISKS in this analysis, consider that ALL of the studies on GARDASIL completed so far included less than 22,000 woman combined. If just one woman in these studies were to die every five years years because of complications related to the three injection GARDASIL vaccine plus alum adjuvant regimen (a number which is of course currently impossible to know), that would translate to an annual death rate DUE TO THIS VACCINE of nearly 1400 women annually over the entire US female population -- which is more women than this vaccine would save from dying of cervical cancer in the best possible scenario!"

This is a succinct analysis of a glaring omission in promotions seen thus far on alleged benefits of the vaccine. The problem is fairly simple -- and that is that there is NO analysis of the real benefits because there have been no estimates or projections done of the negative effects that typically occur with many vaccines and medications.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

354. How do you know the OP's gender? The profile says "undeclared". At least until I posted this.

Sheesh. :eyes: MKJ

[AikidoSoul]

358. I DON'T know the OP's gender. I don't even know the OP, but I thought the poster is a she, but I

haven't a clue why I did it. I guess I'm just used to writing "he" and "she" when I write about what they say and do. I'm just getting used to not doing it, but this time I made a mistake. I think.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

364. So you made a mistake about someone's gender. I'm sure that happens all the time for you. It's OK.

:hi: MKJ

[Nikki Stone1]

374. You're wrong AkidoSoul. I have read every damned word and analyzed it--see my posts #217 and #340

The OP's MATH is wrong. As is its logic.

There maybe some good arguments against Gardesil in other places, but this OP does not contain them.

[AikidoSoul]

418. I appreciate your response to the OP. You were the first person

Dear Nikki Stone1,

I appreciate your response to the OP. You were the first person to address her points
with any degree of care and detail.

Please allow me to respectfully point out what I see as flaws in almost all of these analyses, including mine, whenever we get trapped into trying to calculate the correct figures or percentages that have to do with determining the potential benefit of a medical intervention over time. Especially when we're trying to project outcomes into an unknown future.

Let's please realize that Merck, you, me, the OP mhatrw -- and anyone for that matter, would be presumptuous to think that we can accurately predict outcomes for this vaccine over say --ten years, for example.

The main problems are that we are dealing with extremely complex and changeable environments, along with changing
biological systems that react to changed conditions, diet, etc.

Environmental factors play a large role in promoting this disease as has been shown by several well conducted studies. We now know there are much higher incidences of cervical cancer in other countries due to poverty, nutritional deficits, chronic disease, infection with parasites (especially hookworm), stress, violence (especially sexual violence, drug use, and other factors. We also know that cervical cancer is more prevalent among the poor here in the U.S., and among blacks and Hispanics.

What I see us trapped into doing, is aligning our thinking in a linear, mostly reductionist way -- and we then produce figures based on linear thinking.

With biology -- linear goes out the window. There is no way for you, me or the OP to predict all of the variables. Even with all the data put out by the CDC about declining incidences of cervical cancer -- etc... we can't know how this vaccine is going to help or hinder the incidences of cancer -- or whether the vaccine itself will produce other chronic conditions, yet to be identified.

One point that the OP made got me thinking that maybe she / he is a biologist, maybe more of a lateral thinker, and probably not a math-head statistician -- (which is o.k. with me). Your arguments suggest that you are a stats / logic / math person (and I respect that too) -- but you probably think differently from the OP.

Here are the OP's words that made me suspect she's more of a lateral thinker, and more of a biology, total systems person: "......cervical cancer is a severe imbalance in a human/virus ecosystem that potentially includes a myriad of currently unknown factors."

I interpret this basically like this: Our bodies have millions of viruses and bacteria in them that form an extremely complex ecology. Many of the viruses and bacteria actually perform tasks that are helpful to the human organism. There are also many bad bacteria and viruses. When we are healthy, our bodies' ecologies are in a kind of balance with all of these organisms, most of which play roles that we do not yet understand.

We are generally not educated to consider these ecologies when we think about health and medicine. This ecology in a woman's body -- the mix and balance of good and bad viruses and bacteria being only one element-- are rarely considered in the body's scenario when drugs and vaccines are introduced.

I would add too that many conditions in our lives and environments contribute to our vulnerabilities to a wide range of viruses, bacteria and toxins. I see that as a kind of circle... with you or me in it, and it extend outwards into the upper atmosphere and all around the planet. The elements present there interact with our well-being and influence it all the time.

There is NO WAY TO PREDICT how these environmental influences will change our bodies and our world, even with the most stringent controls that we ourselves may bring into being in our immediate environments. Our environments extend far from where we sit, eat and drink, and contribute to many changes in our bodies, even at the cellular level--from the air we breathe to the emotional stress we feel, to the food we eat that contains all kinds of things that affect our health. There is no way to predict how the bad stuff, like the toxins, and biological / psychological stresses will increase, and how our bodies' ecologies will change over time to either combat this illness, become more vulnerable to it, or remain the same.

And currently there is another deficit. There is no robust discussion on how other drugs and medical interventions "interact" to either increase or decrease incidences of cervical cancer.

To use one example: vaginal spermicides for birth control: Spermicides can cause allergic reactions, sores, irritation, and increase the risk of urinary tract infections. They have also been shown to cause stripping of the vaginal and/or rectal lining. This last tendency is likely the main reason why spermicides have been found to increase a person’s risk of contracting certain sexually transmitted diseases.

Do NOT depend on the chem / pharm industry to take this fact into consideration... and say, take these products off the market, or change them significantly so they don't do such damage.

Violent intercourse has also been shown to increase the incidence of cervical cancer.

I was uncomfortable with the back and forth on the stats from different sources. The study you cited from the OP was, entitled "Changes in Cervical Cancer Incidence After Three Decades of Screening US Women Less Than 30 Years Old". You concluded that the study determined that the incidence of cervical cancer has reached a "plateau" -- I believe the study addressed that when discussing adenocarcinoma.

Yet,CDC says:

"Cervical cancer once was the leading cause of death for women in the United States. However, during the past 4 decades, incidence and mortality (the number of deaths each year) from cervical cancer have declined significantly, primarily because of the widespread use of the Papanicolaou (Pap) test to detect cervical abnormalities. 1 According to the U.S. Cancer Statistics: 2002 Incidence and Mortality Report, more than 12,000 women were diagnosed with cervical cancer in 2002, and nearly 4,000 women died from the disease that same year. 2 It is estimated that more than $2 billion per year is spent in the United States on the treatment of cervical cancer. 3

Recent trends suggest that cervical cancer incidence and mortality continue to decrease significantly overall, and for women in every racial and ethnic population. However, rates are considerably higher among Hispanic and African-American women. 2" (end of CDC quote)

link here: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/statistics/

I will encourage the women in my life to create the conditions whereby they can greatly reduce their chances of cervical cancer. The conditions that promote this dreaded disease are listed above -- so we can assume that excellent nutrition, loving and gentle relationships, sanitation, yearly PAP smears, immediate treatment for hookworm, avoidance of spermicides (condoms should be o.k.), gentle sex, good air, avoidance of toxicants, and anything in general that would disrupt the ancient and wise balance of our miraculous bodies.

There is little doubt that poorer women who live in poor conditions will continue to be more prone to this disease. With annual PAP smears that are currently provided by many state health departments for free -- under the auspices of the Family Planning program, we may be able to reduce the incidence of this disease over time. I would encourage the expansion of such testing, along with education about how to reduce the other factors that contribute to this dreaded, although rare, disease.

Though I think that most people, including you were a little harsh with the OP, I thank you for posting your thoughtful reply! :-)

[AikidoSoul]

360. The vaccine's aluminum creates an additional body burden

There is not enough study given to chronic heavy metal poisoning, but we do know that
many people have difficulty excreting aluminum... especially those with kidney
disease. Children have undeveloped detoxification systems, and also have
less efficiency excreting aluminum.

And not all detoxification systems are equal in adults either. Many who have side
effects from drugs, are more prone to difficulty excreting various toxicants (synthetic chemicals)
and heavy metals.

And then there's the population with kidney disease.

http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?id=2599

Patients with chronic renal failure or those receiving dialysis also have impaired excretion of absorbed aluminum.

This Canadian Medical Association article title is: Would decreased aluminum ingestion reduce the incidence of Alzheimer's disease?

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/abstract/145/7/793

Excerpt from the article:

"Although the cause of Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains unknown there is mounting evidence that implicates aluminum as a toxic environmental factor of considerable importance. Four independent lines of evidence--laboratory studies of the effects of intracerebral aluminum on the cognitive and memory performance of animals, biochemical studies, epidemiologic studies and the slowing of the progress of the disease with the use of an agent that removes aluminum from the body--now support the concept that aluminum is one of the pathogenic factors in AD. The evidence warrants serious consideration of reducing human exposure to aluminum. We hypothesize that a public health effort to restrict human ingestion of aluminum would reduce the incidence of this common chronic illness in the elderly."

INCREASED UPTAKE OF ALUMINUM INTO THE BRAIN:

Another problem is that aluminum and fluoride together are suspected of increasing the uptake of aluminum in the brain. Fluoride is extremely common today. It's found in 60% of treated water in the U.S. It's also found in many toothpaste products, mouthwash, green tea and a wide range of other products).

[JCMach1]

371. Gee, almost NO ONE diest of any number of vaccine diseases in the States

This 'anti-vaccine' mentality is one of the more idiotic and I do dare say stupid trends I have seen in my lifetime.

Can we count the millions that have been saved by simple vaccines?

Of course, one should always weigh the risk. I for for one, in a few years, will make sure my daughters are protected.

[bedazzled]

375. thanks for the excellent post. does anybody remember VIOXX?

my husband worked at merck several years ago as a consultant
in an IT capacity. he told me endless horror stories about the
quality and knowledge base of their employees.

at the time they had NO important drugs in their pipeline.
all of a sudden they have this great "breakthrough," and 1/2 of
our population is going mandated to have it BY LAW. because
merck SAYS SO?

i'm sorry people die from cancer. if we had a health care system
where regular testing was available and affordable for the entire
population, it would have an impact on cancer and the other
afflictions we are dealing with now. it would probably cost as much
as the money merck will get for their new "miracle drug."

if you want your kid to have it, go for it. i'd rather not have
my son be a guinea pig for big pharma. thanks anyway.

[Nikki Stone1]

376. The OP is incorrect logically and mathmatically. Are there better supported arguments

against Gardesil by real scientists? I would be interested to read some real research in this area because I am trusting the FDA less and less during this corrupt administration.

[AikidoSoul]

390. CHEM / PHARM is a CRIMINAL enterprise. Too many DUers are brainwashed by the fear mongering PR put

out by that industry.

I would have thought DUers would be pre-disposed to shun fear tactics of any corporation or political leader who habitually lies. Maybe I shouldn't hold it against any DUer because like most corporate and political criminal activities, the mainstream press is NOT doing it's job. In the case of Chem / Pharm, that's at least due to the $$$$huge$$$$ spent on advertising for their toxic chemicals and drugs. Also of GREAT concern, is the big gifts the Congress regularly gives to chem/ pharm...including great limits on liability.

Chem/ Pharm has now thoroughly corrupted the medical / science community at every level. Why anyone in this group would unquestioningly put trust in its vaccines --is worrisome.

The FDA has an extremely corrupted relationship with Chem/ Pharm. FDA's process of reviewing and approving drugs and vaccines that has become notorious for speed and greed.

Top FDA officials have actually colluded with Chem/ Pharm to HIDE problems with its products.

Top officials at FDA go to work for Chem/ Pharm after they leave FDA. It's a slippery revolving door with big paychecks on the Chem /Pharm side of that door.

And our U.S. tax dollars should fund this -- to the tune of over $350 per female?!

Here's a partial list of the documentation of corruption in this industry -- with its long tentacles in every area of science, politics and medicine.

The titles of the articles and reports are highly searchable by title and can be found in major medical / science journals, the Wall St. Journal, Alliance for Human Research Protection, The Lancet, and others:


Conflict of Interest: Profits vs Safety Congressional Investigations -- http://www.ahrp.org/ethical/CongInvestigat...

US Senators Pharmaceutical industry holdings, 2004: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/...

Oct 12: How Did the Vioxx Debacle Happen? USA Today / Lancet -- http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/10/12.php

Oct 4: Op Ed: Psychiatry on the Ropes--WP / Evidence-based Psychiatry -- http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/10/04.php

Oct 3: BBC PANORAMA TONIGHT - Taken on Trust - 13 years-Medical Deception -- http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/10/03.php

Sep 30: GSK Sales Reps told NOT to Divulge Paxil Data / Merck Withdraws Vioxx -- http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/09/30.php

Sep 28: SEC Focusing on Drug Makers Disclosure_ Continuing Medical Ed Changes

Sep 16: Black Box Warnings for Antidepressants - What's Next?

Sep 16: Tell the Truth About Antidepressants On Drug Labels & in Medical Journals

Sep 14: AHRP Press Briefing Re: Antidepressant Drug Risks

Sep 8: FDA Forced Wyeth to REMOVE Suicide Warning from Effexor Label

Sep 2: Antipsychotic Drug Use Doubled since 1996 in Tennessee Children - Why?

Aug 13: Time for a Drug Test Registry_Marcia Angell_Why NIH is Not Up to the Task

Aug 13: Bradshaw cancels appearance after SSRI-Citizen Press Release Announced Protest

Aug 5: Spitzer Expands drug Probe: Johnson & Johnson / New FDA analysis Confirms SSRI Risks to Kids - WSJ

Aug 4: FDA Approves Lilly's Cymbalta for Depression Despite Risk of Suicide

Aug 3: Drug safety Hearings-Sept-Congress/ FDA - Lilly Plans to Disclose Data

Jul 27: Bill Moyers: the Real Show...Congressional hearing was abruptly cancelled

Jul 26: Mosholder Suppressed Report Posted/ Bush Moves to Block Medical Suits - NYT

Jul 22: Concealed Drug Trial Results Mislead Doctors & Put Children's Lives at Risk - NYT

Jul 21: Cong Greenwood's version

Jul 21: Hearing on Antidepressants Canceled - Washington Post

Jul 20: Corruption of Cong by Pharma: Greenwood offered job / drops Pharma hearing

Jul 19: Clinical Trials Controversy Spotlights Flawed System - Psychiatric News

Jul 14: Statin-Cholesterol Guidelines--Industry influenced?

Jul 9: FDA Squelches an Article Raising Doubts on Safety Of Device to Repair Artery - WSJ

Jul 9: Paxil for Children: Safety, Efficacy Aren't Established - Letter WSJ

July 7: Pharma Influence: Penn Psychiatrist Files Whistleblower Lawsuit - Investigtion Confirms Medicare Chief Lied to Congress

Jul 6: FDA Failed to Enforce Law Requiring Drugmakers to Disclose Test Data - WashPost

June 30,2004: NYS AG Expands Pharmaceutical probe - Forest Labs

June 30, 2004: Response to Washington Post Editorial "Missing Drug Data"

Jun 28. 2004: Scientists Decode Secret of Getting NIH Grants - WSJ

Jun 27, 04: NIH Under Fire: Longtime Favorite of Congress - Wash Post / WSJ

Jun 26: Forest Labs Admits Concealment of data - Congressional Probe Expands

Jun 23: AHRP: Published NIMH Funded Prozac Trial Report Concealed Suicide Attempts by Teens

Jun 21: Antidepressants - USA Today Editorial / AHRP OpEd/ WSJ Editorial Bashes Spitzer

Jun 20: HMO physician applauds Spitzer's focus on information bias / NYT blind spot

Jun 7: Paxil induced suicides in US quantified - Glaxo Faces criminal action in UK over "suicide"
pills - Times

Jun 6, 2004: NY Times Editorial Gets it Right: When Drug Companies Hide Data

Jun 5: "Black Hole" of medical research--Negative Results Don't get Published - JAMA, WSJ

Jun 2, 2004: NYS Attorney General files suit against GlaxoSmithKline

Jun 2: NY Times Does it Again - Drug Advertisers Get Front Page Coverage to Boost SSRI Market

May 25, 2004: FDA role in suppressing damaging data - WSJ

May 24, 2004: More than 100 top regulatory officials represented industry as lobbyists, lawyers - Denver Post

May 18, 2004: Lawmakers accused leaders of the NIH of encouraging "the option of corruption."

May 17, 2004: Paxil Sales Plummet in UK (372K PDF)

May 16: Pfizer Admits Guilt in Promotion of Neurontin--Agrees to Pay $430 Million

May 7, 2004: NIH Panel Recommendations Fail to Resolve Conflicts of Interest

May 6, 2004: Interview with Shannon Brownlee (NPR)

Apr 13: Doctors Without Borders: Why you can't trust medical journals anymore

Mar 25: Antidepressant Controversy: Media Conflicts of Interest - New York Times

Mar 2, 2004: Ethics Policy Announced for NIH Officials - LAT

Jan 29, 2004: Antidepressant Makers Withhold Data on Children - Washington Post

Jan 25, 2004: ACNP Summary Report Criticized as "Junk Science"

Jan 21: ACNP - a pharmaceutical industry funded association of psychiatrists - claims SSRI Antidepressants don't increase suicidal behavior

Jan 7, 2004: FDA Sham Conflicts of Interest Policy

Dec 7, 2003: Stealth Merger: Drug Companies and Medical Research at NIH - LAT

Aug 15, 2003: Almost 1/2 of faculty on IRBs have ties to industry - Harvard Partners

Aug 3, 2003: Psychiatrist's Undisclosed Financial Ties Prompt Reproval - NYT

June 20, 2003: Time to put drug giants on trial - Scotsman (UK)

April 5, 2003: AHRP Comments: DHHS COI Guidance for Human Subject Protection

March 30, 2003: CNN: Drug Argument Embroils Psychiatrists, Pharma Companies

March 19, 2003: Conflicts of Interest Taint UK Gov panel investigating SSRI

November 22, 2002: Tonight PBS Is Science for Sale?

September 30: Ritalin Outrage: Congress_ Big Media Under the Influence of Big Drugs

August 25, 2002: Integrity in Scientific Research : Peer review ineffective - Institute of Medicine / Lancet / Science

August 1, 2002: Randomized Controlled Trials: Evidence Biased Psychiatry, an original article by David Healy MD, MRCPsych in which he challenges the scientific assumptions about the value of evidence obtained from randomized controlled clinical trials.
July 15, 2002: The Emperor's New Drugs: An Analysis of Antidepressant Medication Data Submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. By Irving Kirsch, Thomas J. Moore, and Alan Scoboria and Sarah S. Nicholls.

A meta-analysis of efficacy data submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval of the six most widely prescribed antidepressants approved between 1987 and 1999. They report that, although the difference in drug versus placebo response was statistically significant, approximately 80% of the medication response was duplicated in the placebo control. The accompanying expert commentaries reflect the broad range of reactions that such findings provoke. http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5...

Response to the commentaries Antidepressants and Placebos: Secrets, Revelations, and Unanswered Questions http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5...

July 15, 2002: Short Drug Tests, Fatal Flaws. Thomas J. Moore. Op Ed. Boston Globe

July 14, 2002: Corporate influence on medicine, budgets & investors

June 13, 2002: When Money Corrupts Medicine - Deaths Occur

June 13, 2002: In 1984 the NEJ M became the first of the major medical journals to require authors of original research articles to disclose any financial ties with companies that make products discussed in papers. In accordance with the NEJM policy, editorial reviewers could have no financial ties to the companies. In 2002, Dr. Jeffrey Drazen, the journal's new editor, abandoned the Journal's policy of containing conflicts of interest, claiming "it is becoming tough to find doctors to write such articles." The change, Drazen wrote in the June 13, 2002 issue of the Journal, is designed "to enhance the depth and breadth of the journal's content while ensuring that the articles we publish are not influenced by financial interests.'' The Boston Herald indicated that Drazen claimed: "We're strengthening the journal.'' But Dr. Jerome Kassirer, former editor of the NEJM, blasted the new policy.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_reg...

June 8, 2002: Fraudulent Conduct that Takes Lives: Why Criminal Prosecution of Medical Researchers with Financial Conflicts, Who Fabricate Safety Data, has Become an Essential Component of Regaining the Integrity of Device and Drug Research in the United States
By James J. Neal, Copyright 2002

"Giant corporations are locked in a life and death struggle to provide one of a kind instrumentation with which a given operation 'must' be done." Editor, Michael Baggish M.D., Journal of Gynecologic Surgery.

"Rare is the disinterested researcher. It is a phenomenon found in every medical treatment using devices." "If you can't trust the studies, what happens to the profession and what happens to patients." John Wasson, M.D., Dartmouth, New York Times.

"We've lost our way. We've terribly, terribly lost our way. Science has been lost in the rush for money." Steven Nissen, M.D., Cleveland Clinic, New York Times.

"Organs punctured include bile ducts, bowel, small intestine, liver and arteries and veins. Data shows high morbidity." Pennsylvania Medical Society, comments on "hi tech" surgical devices.

Summary: In recent years, surgical instrument companies working through surgeons with concealed equity interests in devices, have created new procedures, to promote the sale of equipment. Corporations have created demand for new surgical procedures "through massive advertising campaigns to convince the public of necessity." Rutkow, IRA,

The Socioeconomic Tyranny of Surgical Technology. Archives of Surgery. Leading surgical researchers, with equity interests have fabricated surgical research to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of new procedures with device costs of $2,000-$5,000 per operation. One sales rep described his companies' philosophy as "dollars per procedure." Although the device industry has generated tens of billions of dollars in revenue using these tactics, serious surgical morbidity from many new device dependent operations has multiplied. Treating MD's and patients need law enforcement's assistance in deterring fabricated research data published by research surgeons with concealed equity interests in expensive medical devices, and new drugs. The question raised in this analysis is whether fraudulent medical research is taking lives, and if so, how many. For complete article go to:
http://www.redflagsweekly.com/new_frontier...

June 5, 2002: APA Under the Influence of PhaRma

June 13, 2002: Vermont to Require Drug Makers to Disclose Payments to Doctors
By MELODY PETERSEN The New York Times. Vermont follows Minnesota in its efforts to contain the cost of medicine by requiring public disclosure of conflicts of interest. A law will require drug companies to disclose the gifts and cash payments they make to doctors. We have not heard of similar moves by states that have major medical centers such as: New York, Massachusetts, Maryland or California.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/13/business...

May 30, 2002: Bitter Medicine: Pills, Profit & the Public Health - ABC News

May 23, 2002: FDA -Conflicts of Interest to be expanded - Washington Post

May 21, 2002: Bitter Pill for David Healy: academia under pharma influence

May 6, 2002: "Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Trials", a presentation by Vera Hassner Sharav before the U.S. Army Medical Department and Henry M. Jackson Foundation for Advancement of Military Medicine on Conflicts of Interest in Medical Research.

September 24, 2001: The American Prospect.
Pharma Buys a Conscience By Carl Elliott, MD, PhD

The issue of corporate money has become something of an embarrassment within the bioethics community. Bioethicists have written for years about conflicts of interest in scientific research or patient care yet have paid little attention to the ones that might compromise bioethics itself. Arthur Caplan, the director of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics, counsels doctors against accepting gifts from the drug industry. "The more you yield to economics," Caplan said last January, "the more you're falling to a business model that undercuts arguments for professionalism." Yet Caplan himself consults for the drug and biotech industries, recently coauthored an article with scientists for Advanced Cell Technology, and heads a bioethics center supported by Monsanto, de Code Genetics, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Geron Corporation, Pfizer, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Human Genome Sciences, and the Schering-Plough Corporation.

By no means does Caplan's center stand alone in its coziness with industry. The University of Toronto houses the Sun Life Chair in Bioethics; the Stanford University Center for Biomedical Ethics has a program in genetics funded by a $1-million gift from SmithKline Beecham Corporation; the Merck Company Foundation has financed a string of international ethics centers in cities from Ankara, Turkey, to Pretoria, South Africa. Last year the Midwest Bioethics Center announced a new $587,870 initiative funded by the Aventis Pharmaceuticals Foundation. That endeavor is titled, apparently without irony, the Research Integrity Project.

Bioethics appears set to borrow a funding model popular in the realm of business ethics. This model embraces partnership and collaboration with corporate sponsors as long as outright conflicts of interest can be managed. It is the model that allows the nonprofit Ethics Resource Center in Washington, D.C., to sponsor ethics and leadership programs funded by such weapons manufacturers as General Dynamics, United Technologies Corporation, and Raytheon. It also permits the former president of Princeton University, Harold Shapiro, to draw an annual director's salary from Dow Chemical Company while serving as chair of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Dow, of course, has been the defendant in a highly publicized lawsuit over the Dow Corning silicone breast implants as well as in numerous legal actions involving disposal of hazardous waste.

Part of the problem is aesthetic. It is unseemly for ethicists to share in the profits of arms dealers, industrial polluters, or multinationals that exploit the developing world. But credibility also is an issue. How can bioethicists continue to be taken seriously if they are on the payroll of the very corporations whose practices they are expected to assess?

Read complete article (free): http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/17/ellio...

May 18, 2000. The New England Journal of Medicine. Is Academic Medicine for Sale?

By Marcia Angell, MD - Vol. 342, No. 20

Finding an editorialist to write about the article presented another problem. Our conflict-of-interest policy for editorialists, established in 1990, ( ) is stricter than that for authors of original research papers. Since editorialists do not provide data, but instead selectively review the literature and offer their judgments, we require that they have no important financial ties to companies that make products related to the issues they discuss. We do not believe disclosure is enough to deal with the problem of possible bias. This policy is analogous to the requirement that judges recuse themselves from hearing cases if they have financial ties to a litigant. Just as a judge's disclosure would not be sufficiently reassuring to the other side in a court case, so we believe that a policy of caveat emptor is not enough for readers who depend on the opinion of editorialists.

In this editorial, Angell discusses the extent to which academic medicine has become intertwined with the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, and the benefits and risks of this state of affairs. Bodenheimer, in his Health Policy Report elsewhere in this issue of the Journal, provides a detailed view of an overlapping issue -- the relations between clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry.

The ties between clinical researchers and industry include not only grant support, but also a host of other financial arrangements. Researchers serve as consultants to companies whose products they are studying, join advisory boards and speakers' bureaus, enter into patent and royalty arrangements, agree to be the listed authors of articles ghostwritten by interested companies, promote drugs and devices at company-sponsored symposiums, and allow themselves to be plied with expensive gifts and trips to luxurious settings. Many also have equity interest in the companies.

Read complete article (for pay) : http://www.nejm.org/content/2000/0342/0020...

May 18, 2000. The New England Journal of Medicine.
"Uneasy Alliance -- Clinical Investigators and the Pharmaceutical Industry"
By Thomas Bodenheimer, MD, MPH. Vol. 342, No. 20

How much influence does industry have over the work and products of the research community? Can practicing physicians trust the information they receive about the medications they are prescribing? Does the shift from the academic to the commercial research sector give industry too much control over clinical drug trials?

In this report, I discuss some of the problems raised by pharmaceutical-industry funding of drug trials, problems that may deepen as trials are increasingly conducted by commercial organizations. I interviewed 39 participants in the process: 6 pharmaceutical executives, 12 clinical investigators, 9 people from university research offices, 2 physicians with CROs, 8 people who have studied the process of clinical drug trials, and 2 professional medical writers. Each interview consisted of standard questions plus an opportunity for the interviewees to discuss the industry-investigator relationship in a general way. Several interviewees preferred not to allow the use of their names in the article.
Read complete article (for pay): http://www.nejm.org/content/2000/0342/0020...

May 22, 1999: This smashing NY Times editorial (below) should awaken the public and its elected policy makers to the need for reform our Federal human subject protection regulations so that patients don't become unwitting commodities.

THE NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL May 22, 1999 Patients for Hire, Doctors for Sale
People go to doctors because they assume the doctor will tell them what they need to do to stay healthy or get well. But in articles published in The Times on Sunday and Monday, the reporters Kurt Eichenwald and Gina Kolata have opened the door on a practice of medicine that few of us knew existed - a warped world in which patients have become commodities, lured into research projects for the profit of their doctors.

In pushing to create a supermarket of new pills, the pharmaceutical industry has created a frantic competition for patients on whom new drugs must be tested before they can be approved. A bounty system has evolved in which doctors are paid by drug companies to enroll research subjects with certain kinds of problems: $1,200 from Bayer for a patient with vaginitis; $2,955 from Merck for one with hypertension; $4,410 from SmithKline Beecham for a willing diabetic.

The devil's bargain is that the doctor knows that enrolling the patient is worth money, but the patient does not. It is a recruiting system with the potential to corrupt either the drug companies, because they are forced to outbid each other for patients, or the doctors, because they are tempted to enroll patients who may not be medically appropriate.

The articles reveal a whole research universe slipping out of control. A review by The Times of more than 300 recent drug studies, and more than 200,000 government research request files, found hundreds of thousands of patients involved and indications that some doctors make $500,000 to $1 million a year in recruitment bounties.

One Southern California doctor now in prison forged his patients' medical records and test results on a massive scale to boost his income.

In the past, most clinical trials of drugs were conducted by doctors at medical research institutions. But that system proved too slow at recruiting patients, so the drug companies and their contractors turned to doctors in private practice, tripling their number since 1990.
Meanwhile, the monitoring systems to protect patient welfare, already under fire for past performance, have shown no interest in the ethical conflict of doctors being paid to recruit their own patients.

Dr. Nancy Dickey, president of the American Medical Association, says that the bounty system is unethical by A.M.A. standards and that the organization will work with Federal regulators to try to end the practice.

They need to act expeditiously. The patient search has now begun to tap the poor populations of South America, threatening to corrupt the practice of medicine even more widely.

[foo_bar]

395. if lobbyists lobbied for oxygen, would you hold your breath?

Cathie Adams, president of the conservative watchdog group Texas Eagle Forum, said the relationship between Merck and Women in Government is too cozy.

"What it does is benefit the pharmaceutical companies, and I don't want pharmaceutical companies taking precedence over the authorities of parents," she said.
(...)
Even with such opt-out provisions, mandates take away parents' rights to make medical decisions for their children, said Linda Klepacki of the Colorado-based evangelical organization Focus on the Family. The group contends the vaccine should be available for parents who want it, but not forced on those who don't.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,248781,00.html

Coming from Focus on the Family and "conservative watchdog" groups, it does sound like a reactionary argument. Not that you should do the opposite of what FotF says, which is a different flavor of reactionary, but it turns out the right wing "pro-life" lobbies are actually lobbying against the vaccine, which presents a dilemma if you're defending the non-thesis strictly in terms of which lobbies to oppose.

[Bridget Burke]

408. I can understand Texas parents choosing to opt out....

At least until the vaccine has stood the test of time. (How odd that so many don't realize they have that choice.)

But some posters here have used the same arguments that the Right Wing Religious Nuts have put forward. And others totally reject 100% of modern medicine. (Until they get sick--at which time they'll forget their complaints.)

[AikidoSoul]

414. I wouldn't agree with FoF's positon on many things in general, but the statements

you excerpted from that group seem valid at first glance. This issue is more complex that suggested in those statements of course, but the underlying truth of what is stated makes sense to me.

:-)

[NotGivingUp]

417. EXCELLENT POST!

[AngryOldDem]

389. The true bottom line in all of this

If this were a vaccine for some strains of lung cancer, colon cancer -- hell, even prostate cancer -- it would be hailed as the medical breakthrough of the decade. I can't believe all the stuff I have read counseling young women not to get this vaccine. There are risks with any kind of vaccine. But I would take that risk rather than the risk of getting cancer at any stage, of any form.

My daughter, 16, got the first of her Gardasil shots yesterday. I'm glad she did, and I'm glad that my girls are living in an age where such vaccines are possible.

Again -- what is it with people and this vaccine that helps women? Don't answer that -- it's a rhetorical question.

[mainer]

391. Girls who later get cervical cancer know whom to blame

Their parents. For not protecting their daughter.

As soon as the Hepatitis B vaccine became available, we made sure our kids got it. Our kids were among the first to get vaccinated against meningitis. If we had young daughters, we'd vaccinate them against HPV as well. I consider it on a par with getting a tetanus shot -- it's irresponsible not to protect your kids.

When you're talking about fatal diseases, I don't want to be the parent who says "if only I'd done it."

[AngryOldDem]

393. Exactly

I also look at it this way: All the people who think that this vaccine will lead to promiscuity on the part of young women tend to forget the fact that, while YOU may make the decision to stay abstinent until marriage, that is NO guarantee that your partner has made that same commitment. Why take an unnecessary risk?

Preventing some kinds of HPV is better than no prevention at all, and I feel morally obligated to have my children get this shot. I was half-expecting some hassles at the pediatrician's office about this, but I was pleasantly surprised. If they were to have balked, though, my next call would have been to my OB/GYN.

And while I think it's an imperfect analogy, making the inference that the vaccine will promote promiscuity is a little like assuming that once you get that tetanus shot, you'll be out walking barefoot through a bed of rusted nails. Both are preposterous leaps of logic.

[cynatnite]

394. 125,000 women die from cervical cancer every year worldwide...

HPVs are now recognized as the major cause of cervical cancer. In 2006, an estimated 10,000 women in the United States will be diagnosed with this type of cancer and nearly 4,000 will die from it. Cervical cancer strikes nearly half a million women each year worldwide, claiming a quarter of a million lives.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV

on a side note: If it was your daughter, what would you do?

[Recursion]

399. We'll know in 10 to 20 years I guess

If cervical cancers plummet in vaccinated populations, that will confirm the causality of the HPV strains with cervical cancer. My own guess is they will not, but that's just a guess.

It's kind of useless fighting Merck anyways.

[mhatrw]

419. A love note to my legion detractors.

Time to eat some reality:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=164655&mesg_id=164655

[Lurking Dem]

421. Wow.

How could I have been so blind?

Your citations in that post really swayed me. And that whole cost per life argument is forceful!


:sarcasm:

[mhatrw]

422. Here are the studies.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.290.6.781

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15100338&dopt=Abstract

Do you think it's a sign of maturity to sarcastically dismiss what you don't understand?