or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Are Americans Giving Up Health Freedoms?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are Americans Giving Up Health Freedoms? - Page 2

post #41 of 95
i don't care for the arguments against this. i will protect my two daughters, when they reach the appropriate age they will be vaccinated....parents should protect their children i will do so.
simple

they will also take a defensive driving 3 day course, wear their seat belt, follow AAA teenage driving restictions, a "teen driving contract" have bluetooth phones and car kits, not be allowed to drive with more than one other teen to reduce distractions, restrict night driving, and have a job just like me to maintain that car. etc. cars kill many teens each year.

we need to focus on the "preventable" nature of this and other diseases, including hep B vaccines, no one seems to argue about this....do they, same thing.

oh yes get a mac and iphone when it comes down in price, about the same time when they will get the "shot" 8)
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #42 of 95
Having read through the thread here, there are a number of issues to consider in this matter.

First the number of people affected, as Fellowship pointed out, it is 3,700 nationwide. As for how many of those are from Texas, I'm not sure but it is certainly a decent number because Texas is a rather populous state. It would probably be very fair to estimate the total number of cases at say 10% of all cases. So a total of 370 women in Texas, could be less.

Fellowship's various analogies are simply asking people to consider a risk to return ratio. Texas has a population of 30 million+ and or course some percentage of those are going to be girls 12 and under. For some rough numbers we could halve the 30 million and then say since 12 years is 15% of life expectancy give them 15% of the 15 million. I suspect the number is higher, but we need something for the discussion.

So as an estimate, approximately 2.3 million women will be required, from this point on the receive this vaccine. They are alive now and are currently under the law passed.

It should also be noted that the vaccine only protects against 70% of HPV viruses. So given the 3700 number, even with 100% coverage, 1110 women will still get cervical cancer. So the number helped is really 2590 women. It should also be noted that although HPV infection is the major cause of infection, it is not the only cause so the number helped could be even lower. In Texas it would be 260 women helped using our 370 number.

So far there have been no serious side effects shown, however the numbers there were obviously not as large as these.

When you take the ratio of those helped to those put at risk or at a minimum having their choices reduced, you end up a a tenth of one percent helped.

Fellowship in his various analogies is simply attempting to point out instances where the percentage helped would be much higher than a tenth of one percent yet we do not forgo the choices there because we value freedom and choose to face the risk rather than forgo the freedom.

Others have mentioned that we do require vaccinations for diseases that are can quickly affect large population segments because they are easily communicable.

Fellowship also bring up that though the manner causes some to be dismissive, that whenever you deal with large numbers and statistics you get some outliers. He mentions regular vaccinations and autism. It is easy for many to dismiss because the views of those parents, their claims are outliers. They don't meet the norm. However if we opened this treatment up to millions there will be some percentage that claim serious side effects. Perhaps they will just be outliers, say a tenth of one percent but they will exist because they always do when dealing with large numbers. Some percentage will have something serious happen to them. They will attribute it to this vaccine and the cause, because the number affect is so small will probably not be able to be assigned to this vaccine because you are looking for a causation rate that is higher than normal and that would be hard to prove with statistical outliers. This is why these things are dismissed as conspiracy theories. Is it possible that 260 out of 2.3 million would claim serious side effects? I think it quite possible. The number helped is so small that they are practically outliers themselves.

When we add to this the fact that cervical cancer does not just instantly arrive and can be detected and treated in a precancerous state and it sounds more money would be saved by simply increasing public awareness regarding pap smears.

Let's take a look at some of the biases alleged against the parties here. First religious kooks who don't want their kids to have sex. That is a nice means to dismiss someone but the parties doing it have a bias and a fear of their own they are covering up. Sex education was originally put forward to lower the illegitimacy rate. It has obviously failed at that as the rate has instead, exploded. We can talk about how the goal posts have been moved and what sex education is about now, but stopping illegitimacy cannot be honestly argued.

Then we have the very real fact that the HPV's that cause these cancers CANNOT be stopped with a condom and you have a very real concern about the direction of sex education in this country. If women are not required to have this vaccination then the only way to reduce your risk of HPV becomes delaying sex, limiting partners and screening out partners who have had multiple partners. Sounds like the free love posing as limiting illegitimacy squad takes a couple solid uppercuts to the chin if that happens.

All this said, Fellowship is right. The number helped is so small, the number risked is so great and the loss of choice on top of it just compounds it as unacceptable. If we were talking infections of tens of thousands or millions, that would be different. The virus does not prevent the STD and does not rid the body of it, it simply stops it from creating cervical cancer in the seventy hundredths of one percent of women who end up developing it.

So there you have it. No analogies, no religious associations, just numbers.

That and the fact that I get to grin as I watch ShawnJ defend a Republican governor from Texas.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #43 of 95
The "risk to return ratio" you speak of is an efficiency argument in economic terms. You're saying cervical cancer causes an efficient number of deaths as opposed to the cost of mandating a vaccine. It's cheaper to let them die than to vaccinate everyone, as it goes. I don't think I buy that argument for two reasons.

(1) Is it really efficient? The cost of inoculating millions of women is high, but the cost of cancer treatment for the 12,000/yr newly diagnosed women is astronomical. I don't know the figures and neither does anyone else here, but it's not much of a tradeoff, especially when the cost of the vaccine goes down as more producers arrive. Not to mention the externalities of all those women who die. You don't lose just their lives, although that's a pretty good argument for mandatory vaccination by itself. You also lose the value of their labor on the marketplace over time. That's the true cost of letting these women die because you don't want to spend money on pre-adolescent vaccinations.

(2) It's an equitable public health policy. We can save lives from a horrible cancer with a simple series of shots before adolescence. Let's do it.
post #44 of 95
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Having read through the thread here, there are a number of issues to consider in this matter.



All this said, Fellowship is right. The number helped is so small, the number risked is so great and the loss of choice on top of it just compounds it as unacceptable. If we were talking infections of tens of thousands or millions, that would be different. The virus does not prevent the STD and does not rid the body of it, it simply stops it from creating cervical cancer in the seventy hundredths of one percent of women who end up developing it.

So there you have it. No analogies, no religious associations, just numbers.

That and the fact that I get to grin as I watch ShawnJ defend a Republican governor from Texas.

Nick

Nick I really have to hand it to you.

Thanks for doing a better job of explaining these issues much better than a new dad with little sleep

You kept things clear and organized.

Respectfully

Dale
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #45 of 95
Thread Starter 
What is the true driving force in my humble view?

Merck is bankrolling efforts to pass laws in state legislatures across the country mandating it Gardasil vaccine for girls as young as 11 or 12. It doubled its lobbying budget in Texas and has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators around the country.

Details of the order were not immediately available, but the governor's office confirmed to The Associated Press that he was signing the order and he would comment Friday afternoon.

Perry has several ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company's three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, his former chief of staff. His current chief of staff's mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director for Women in Government.

Toomey was expected to be able to woo conservative legislators concerned about the requirement stepping on parent's rights and about signaling tacit approval of sexual activity to young girls. Delisi, as head of the House public health committee, which likely would have considered legislation filed by a Democratic member, also would have helped ease conservative opposition.

Perry also received $6,000 from Merck's political action committee during his re-election campaign.

The New Jersey-based drug company could generate billions in sales if Gardasil _ at $360 for the three-shot regimen _ were made mandatory across the country.

Merck spokeswoman Janet Skidmore would not say how much the company is spending on lobbyists or how much it has donated to Women in Government. Susan Crosby, the group's president, also declined to specify how much the drug company gave.

A top official from Merck's vaccine division sits on Women in Government's business council, and many of the bills around the country have been introduced by members of Women in Government.


And people are completely blind to this?

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #46 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

The "risk to return ratio" you speak of is an efficiency argument in economic terms. You're saying cervical cancer causes an efficient number of deaths as opposed to the cost of mandating a vaccine. It's cheaper to let them die than to vaccinate everyone, as it goes. I don't think I buy that argument for two reasons.

You don't buy it because that wasn't the argument I was making. This vaccine does promise a return to most, but not all, of the future parties who could possible end up with cervical cancer. The risk is not the cost, it is the possible serious side effects, and also loss of choice for 2.3 million(in Texas and more in the future) people to benefit 260.

The argument in those terms isn't economic at all.

Quote:
(1) Is it really efficient? The cost of inoculating millions of women is high, but the cost of cancer treatment for the 12,000/yr newly diagnosed women is astronomical. I don't know the figures and neither does anyone else here, but it's not much of a tradeoff, especially when the cost of the vaccine goes down as more producers arrive. Not to mention the externalities of all those women who die. You don't lose just their lives, although that's a pretty good argument for mandatory vaccination by itself. You also lose the value of their labor on the marketplace over time. That's the true cost of letting these women die because you don't want to spend money on pre-adolescent vaccinations.

This page lists the other risk factors in causing cervical cancer.

* Giving birth to many children.
* Having many sexual partners.
* Having first sexual intercourse at a young age.
* Smoking cigarettes.
* Oral contraceptive use ("the Pill").
* Weakened immune system.


Are you willing pass laws that limit the number of children a woman can have? Do you likewise advocate laws limiting the number of sexual partners a woman can have? Do you desire to make it unlawful for teens to have sex? Are you willing to ban cigarettes outright? Would you be willing to ban the pill?

All of those examples, as with the vaccine require millions undertake actions to forestall the possibility of something happening to a couple hundred people.(In Texas, a few thousand overall) This isn't about dollars and cents. It is about others imposing on you to prevent a statistical lighting strike. In this case the lightening strike can even be detected early with a pap smear and treated.

Quote:
(2) It's an equitable public health policy. We can save lives from a horrible cancer with a simple series of shots before adolescence. Let's do it.

It is only equitable in that it imposes on everyone. We can save some lives but that is only assuming that out of the millions of possible outcomes out there that haven't been tested yet, that some minute percentage does not encounter some sort of negative serious side effect. As I mentioned previously the percentages helped are 70/100ths of one percent. It is statistically as possible that the same percentage could encounter some sort of serious side effect. Does that mean it is going to happen? No. However until the percentage helped is greater or the benefits are better you don't force millions to undergo a risk.

This article notes that with pap smears virtually all deaths are preventable.

No one is arguing this on dollars and cents because as far as I know, no one has said deny someone a pap smear.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #47 of 95
Nick, everything I've read says that no serious side effects have ever been found (e.g., look at the CDC's info on it). If that's the case, how does that impact your argument?
post #48 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Nick, everything I've read says that no serious side effects have ever been found (e.g., look at the CDC's info on it). If that's the case, how does that impact your argument?

The most obvious point would be to note that 11,000 is not the same as 2.3 million (more as time progresses) and that since the percentage helped is so small that in the event of any sort of serious side effect were uncovered with continued monitoring, the decision would look even more disastrous.

I mean if you are saving millions and a couple hundred people happened to have had a negative effect you justify it with the same sort of risk analysis I mentioned earlier. In that instance the benefit to the millions was worth the risk of a couple hundred possible statistical outliers.

Yet in this instance the number helped is so low that any sort of sin of omission with regard to medical understanding becomes as large as the number helped. Getting cervical cancer is practically a statistical outlier so the return is very small.

That to me is just not an acceptable return on the risk to force the entire population to have no choice regarding it. That doesn't mean I oppose private insurance or government coverage of the vaccine. That doesn't mean I oppose parents choosing to vaccinate their own children. We are talking about something being mandatory.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #49 of 95
Nick-- the drug passed all FDA tests (studies have shown no serious side effects) and anyone who can't get the vaccine because of medical complications can opt out.

This "risk of side effects" argument is completely fabricated.
post #50 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Nick-- the drug passed all FDA tests...

Is this the same FDA that approved Vioxx so it could be prescribed to me?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #51 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Is this the same FDA that approved Vioxx so it could be prescribed to me?

That whole class of drugs comes with serious side-effects.
post #52 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Is this the same FDA that approved Vioxx so it could be prescribed to me?

Hahahahaha....you illustrate the point perfectly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Nick-- the drug passed all FDA tests (studies have shown no serious side effects) and anyone who can't get the vaccine because of medical complications can opt out.

This "risk of side effects" argument is completely fabricated.

Trials and tests are definitely what we use to try to predict possible drug outcomes both positive and negative. However that doesn't mean something cannot occur outside the predictions. I properly described these as outliers. I'm not fabricating or attempting to mislead in any fashion. I didn't hysterically claim thousands or millions harmed. I simply noted that the number helped was so small that one outlier where a couple hundred people are affected by an unforeseen and unpredictable interaction of some sort would be a very bad thing since the vaccinations are mandatory.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #53 of 95
I simply don't find the argument credible that we should not rely on FDA drug safety tests.

This is just another example of conservatives getting post-modern in the face of actual evidence.
post #54 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

I simply don't find the argument credible that we should not rely on FDA drug safety tests.

This is just another example of conservatives getting post-modern in the face of actual evidence.

I never said we couldn't rely on FDA drug tests. We are talking about making it a mandatory vaccination. When you are an adult you can weigh the risks, benefits and possible side effects and make a decision that is best for you or your daughters. However we aren't talking about something airborne or something that could just strike them out of the blue. Out of the blue is exactly what could happen with a bad interaction and serious side effect from this vaccine. You are literally asking someone to forgo a medical choice regarding their own (or their offspring's) bodies. Additionally you are forcing them to accept a vaccine against a possible risk, which by lifestyle choice they may not even encounter, so their risk there is absolutely zero and undertake a risk, however obscure or miniscule for no reason at all.

BTW, you never addressed the other risk factors I noted. No one here has said that the vaccine shouldn't be available or even that the government or private party insurance ought to cover it. The issue is over it being mandatory.

Do you really think that we ought to force you and your body into actions to mitigate risk for 70/100ths of one percent of the population Shawn? Do you think that is worth losing your freedoms and choice over?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #55 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I never said we couldn't rely on FDA drug tests.

That's exactly what you're saying.

That we can't rely on FDA drug tests because a vaccine that was unanimously voted safe *might* become unsafe at some point. Again, the FDA said it was safe. You, Nick, internet citizen, dispute those expert findings by saying there's some sort of "risk" remaining.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Out of the blue is exactly what could happen with a bad interaction and serious side effect from this vaccine.

No-- there are *no* known serious side effects with this vaccine.

And anyone with a potential complication can opt out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You are literally asking someone to forgo a medical choice regarding their own (or their offspring's) bodies.

Vaccination against disease is an easy one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Additionally you are forcing them to accept a vaccine against a possible risk, which by lifestyle choice they may not even encounter, so their risk there is absolutely zero and undertake a risk, however obscure or miniscule for no reason at all.

There is *no* "risk" for the 5,000,000 time if you accept the FDA findings.

The fact that cervical cancer can be avoided through abstinence has no practical bearing on the 12,000 women who get the cancer every year but could have avoided it with the vaccine. We're talking about public health policy-- things that work-- not idealistic moralizing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Do you really think that we ought to force you and your body into actions to mitigate risk for 70/100ths of one percent of the population Shawn? Do you think that is worth losing your freedoms and choice over?

Women who die of cervical cancer are not expendable-- especially when we have the cure and the power to disperse it to every young woman.
post #56 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

That's exactly what you're saying.

That we can't rely on FDA drug tests because a vaccine that was unanimously voted safe *might* become unsafe at some point. Again, the FDA said it was safe. You, Nick, internet citizen, dispute those expert findings by saying there's some sort of "risk" remaining.

Sorry, but twisting won't win this one for you. Let me help you understand using your own words.

Quote:
No-- there are *no* known serious side effects with this vaccine.

Note the key word...known. The clinical trials do attempt to determine safety but there can be factors that they did not account for and thus remain unknown.

So stop being a jackass about and stop attempting to spin the fact that an outlier can occur, some sort of unknown variable that might affect two or three hundred out of two or three million girls and turn it into some general condemnation of the FDA and science in general.

You are being anti-science yourself if you deny the general nature of statistics we collect on humans and their interactions. Abortion for example which is both safe and legal still has a death rate of 1 per 100,000. That is all Fellowship was putting forward. You run huge numbers of people through some sort of interaction, driving a car, getting of their shower, talking on their cell phone, and what amounts to a rounding error is actual a few hundred people hurt by that interaction. Yet we don't ban bathtubs (yes 341 people will fall and die in their own bathtub this year) even though your lifetime odds of 1 in 10,499 sound pretty high. Six hundred fifty people will die this year falling out of beds. Do you want the government to mandate the height and style of bed you can purchase?

You run huge numbers (say the entire female population of the United States) you are going to get some number that die from something like cervical cancer. The female population of the United States is likely over 150 million and the number of deaths is 3700.

Quote:
Vaccination against disease is an easy one.

I guess it is when your reasoning is that some minuscule number is grounds for removing choice for everyone.

Quote:
There is *no* "risk" for the 5,000,000 time if you accept the FDA findings.

There is no KNOWN risk. The number helped is so small and the risk of contracting cervical cancer is also so small that people should have the right to determine if they desire to shoulder that risk themselves and still control their body. When you add to this the fact that pap smears can detect and allow treatment to save those lives, there is no reason to impose on a person.

Quote:
The fact that cervical cancer can be avoided through abstinence has no practical bearing on the 12,000 women who get the cancer every year but could have avoided it with the vaccine. We're talking about public health policy-- things that work-- not idealistic moralizing.

Sorry but in dismissing that "idealistic" moralizing you seem to forget that the vaccine is only 70% effective. 3600 women will still get the cancer even with the vaccine. Also again, Mr. Slippery-slope who said that abstinence was the answer? I have asked you repeated about whether you would endorse legislation mandating behaviors with the other risk factors. You have conveniently ignored the questions.

You also ignore that with early detection via pap smears that likely none of the women who contract cervical cancer have to die.

Quote:
Women who die of cervical cancer are not expendable-- especially when we have the cure and the power to disperse it to every young woman.

You make this sound like a 100% solution when clearly it is not. Pap smears are already a 100% solution and even they do not put an end to but merely reduce the rate of death by cervical cancer. There is no vaccination that ends up putting an end to whatever it treats. There are for example still a certain number of cases of measles and even deaths from measles every year in the United States. There are still cases even among those immunized. Nothing is perfect and when you move beyond trials and into the general population those sorts of small numbers appear. To deny them is to be unscientific.

There is no perfect society, no nirvana, no ultimate solution that ends all misery for everyone forever.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #57 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Note the key word...known. The clinical trials do attempt to determine safety but there can be factors that they did not account for and thus remain unknown.

That's what litigation is for.

If the regulation process somehow fails to foresee some sort of presently unknown side effect, then adversely affected women can sue Merck to recover damages. Justice will provide some sort of equitable remedy-- provided the Republicans don't retake Congress and shield pharmaceuticals from class-actions. In the meantime, the best bet is on the FDA vaccine safety test, which, again, shows absolutely *no* serious side effects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So stop being a jackass about and stop attempting to spin the fact that an outlier can occur, some sort of unknown variable that might affect two or three hundred out of two or three million girls and turn it into some general condemnation of the FDA and science in general.

See above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You are being anti-science yourself if you deny the general nature of statistics we collect on humans and their interactions. Abortion for example which is both safe and legal still has a death rate of 1 per 100,000. That is all Fellowship was putting forward. You run huge numbers of people through some sort of interaction, driving a car, getting of their shower, talking on their cell phone, and what amounts to a rounding error is actual a few hundred people hurt by that interaction. Yet we don't ban bathtubs (yes 341 people will fall and die in their own bathtub this year) even though your lifetime odds of 1 in 10,499 sound pretty high. Six hundred fifty people will die this year falling out of beds. Do you want the government to mandate the height and style of bed you can purchase?

Why is it that a few shots in the arm turns into banning fast-food restaurants and otherwise extreme measures? We're not talking about measures with wide-ranging consequences-- we're talking about a doctor or clinic visit or two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You run huge numbers (say the entire female population of the United States) you are going to get some number that die from something like cervical cancer. The female population of the United States is likely over 150 million and the number of deaths is 3700.

3700 women who don't have to die because we have a cure!

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I guess it is when your reasoning is that some minuscule number is grounds for removing choice for everyone.

Now you're showing your true contempt for, as Rocky Balboa would say, these "women-cancer" victims.

The number isn't "miniscule"-- 3700 is completely unconscionable when we have the cure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

There is no KNOWN risk. The number helped is so small and the risk of contracting cervical cancer is also so small that people should have the right to determine if they desire to shoulder that risk themselves and still control their body.

They don't have the ability to choose anyway.

Rich women are going to get this vaccine because they can afford it.

Poor women cannot, because it's not the type their bare-bones insurance typically covers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Sorry but in dismissing that "idealistic" moralizing you seem to forget that the vaccine is only 70% effective. 3600 women will still get the cancer even with the vaccine. Also again, Mr. Slippery-slope who said that abstinence was the answer? I have asked you repeated about whether you would endorse legislation mandating behaviors with the other risk factors. You have conveniently ignored the questions.

You'll have to restate the question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You also ignore that with early detection via pap smears that likely none of the women who contract cervical cancer have to die.

Pap-smears helped lower cervical cancer from the second-deadliest cancer for women to somewhere in the top ten most deadliest. This vaccine will largely do the rest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You make this sound like a 100% solution when clearly it is not. Pap smears are already a 100% solution and even they do not put an end to but merely reduce the rate of death by cervical cancer.

Pap-smears are a 100% effective solution when 3700 women die each year in this country from the cancer? I must remind you that we're talking about public health policy-- things that work. Pap-smears can help detect the cancer resulting from the remaining HPV strains the vaccine does not protect against, but it should be used in conjunction with the vaccine. 10,000 women must undergo radiation therapy or some other invasive cancer treatment when they don't have to!

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

There is no vaccination that ends up putting an end to whatever it treats. There are for example still a certain number of cases of measles and even deaths from measles every year in the United States. There are still cases even among those immunized. Nothing is perfect and when you move beyond trials and into the general population those sorts of small numbers appear. To deny them is to be unscientific.

There is no perfect society, no nirvana, no ultimate solution that ends all misery for everyone forever.

Nick

We're close with this vaccine.
post #58 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The most obvious point would be to note that 11,000 is not the same as 2.3 million (more as time progresses) and that since the percentage helped is so small that in the event of any sort of serious side effect were uncovered with continued monitoring, the decision would look even more disastrous.

I mean if you are saving millions and a couple hundred people happened to have had a negative effect you justify it with the same sort of risk analysis I mentioned earlier. In that instance the benefit to the millions was worth the risk of a couple hundred possible statistical outliers.

Yet in this instance the number helped is so low that any sort of sin of omission with regard to medical understanding becomes as large as the number helped. Getting cervical cancer is practically a statistical outlier so the return is very small.

That to me is just not an acceptable return on the risk to force the entire population to have no choice regarding it. That doesn't mean I oppose private insurance or government coverage of the vaccine. That doesn't mean I oppose parents choosing to vaccinate their own children. We are talking about something being mandatory.

Nick

Here's how I see it.

Sure thing: 10,000 cases of cervical cancer and 1 million cases of genital warts. Several thousand of those will die, and many of the others will experience illness and serious discomfort.

Current evidence: The vaccine is 100% effective in protecting against the HPV virus. There are no serious side effects.

Nick's guess: There may be side effects.

And given this state of affairs, you think the risks outweigh the benefits?
post #59 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

That's what litigation is for.

If the regulation process somehow fails to foresee some sort of presently unknown side effect, then adversely affected women can sue Merck to recover damages. Justice will provide some sort of equitable remedy-- provided the Republicans don't retake Congress and shield pharmaceuticals from class-actions. In the meantime, the best bet is on the FDA vaccine safety test, which, again, shows absolutely *no* serious side effects.

Boy you really love to have your cake and eat it too. Merck submits the drug to the FDA who declares it to be "absolutely" safe. The government then mandates the vaccine be given to the general populace. You even use this "absolute" safety as a shield for your arguments of mandating it. If it ends up not absolutely safe, well we should sue the company.

Your view is hilarious. The government deems it safe. The government mandates it. However by your reasoning, the government isn't a party in the lawsuit.

I think your biases and the extremeness of them are showing.

Quote:
Why is it that a few shots in the arm turns into banning fast-food restaurants and otherwise extreme measures? We're not talking about measures with wide-ranging consequences-- we're talking about a doctor or clinic visit or two.

Perhaps your view is limited, but I consider the entire present and future female population to be a rather wide-ranging group.

Quote:
3700 women who don't have to die because we have a cure!

A cure that is 70% effective in clinical trials. You again, make it sound like a 100% solution.

Quote:
Now you're showing your true contempt for, as Rocky Balboa would say, these "women-cancer" victims.

The number isn't "miniscule"-- 3700 is completely unconscionable when we have the cure.

I see. You resort to intentions again when reasoning fails you. Let me return the favor. You are showing true contempt for ALL women that you do not trust to make a decision with their own bodies. Many, probably most will choose the vaccine because they will read the same information we have all compared here and decide it is the best choice for them. However you would deny them the ability to choose because obviously you hold them in contempt and do not trust them to make the best decisions for themselves.

Quote:
They don't have the ability to choose anyway.

Rich women are going to get this vaccine because they can afford it.

Poor women cannot, because it's not the type their bare-bones insurance typically covers.

Who or what are you arguing against? Has anyone in this thread argued against private insurers or government plans offering this vaccine? Has anyone here declared any problem with the government giving it away for free from any and all street corners?

You always do this when the facts don't fit your view. It is so sad to see you knee jerking back to some strange perception you have about the person you are discussing items with instead of dealing with what is typed. So far you've tossed class wars and sexism against someone who has said give it out for free but given women a choice over their own bodies. Pathetic.

Quote:
You'll have to restate the question.

This page lists the other risk factors in causing cervical cancer.

* Giving birth to many children.
* Having many sexual partners.
* Having first sexual intercourse at a young age.
* Smoking cigarettes.
* Oral contraceptive use ("the Pill").
* Weakened immune system.

Are you willing pass laws that limit the number of children a woman can have? Do you likewise advocate laws limiting the number of sexual partners a woman can have? Do you desire to make it unlawful for teens to have sex? Are you willing to ban cigarettes outright? Would you be willing to ban the pill?

Quote:
Pap-smears helped lower cervical cancer from the second-deadliest cancer for women to somewhere in the top ten most deadliest. This vaccine will largely do the rest.

So you would rather mandate a solution since this solution hasn't reached 100% effectiveness yet. What are you going to do when the vaccine, which is only 70% effective doesn't put an end to it? Are you going to advocate that people be unable to opt out? Demand that they report in for mandatory pap smears? Let them sue their doctors into oblivion due to the world being imperfect?

Quote:
Pap-smears are a 100% effective solution when 3700 women die each year in this country from the cancer?

They are when done according to the guidelines, not everyone follows those guidelines. It is funny how life is imperfect that way. It is even more hilarious when you understand that the "moralizing" is "idealistic" when discussing human actions with sexual activity, but not with their own health care.

Quote:
I must remind you that we're talking about public health policy-- things that work. Pap-smears can help detect the cancer resulting from the remaining HPV strains the vaccine does not protect against, but it should be used in conjunction with the vaccine. 10,000 women must undergo radiation therapy or some other invasive cancer treatment when they don't have to!

There is not a single recommendation with regards to pap smears that changes as a result of having had this vaccine. Pap smears cannot work if they are not utilized. This is true with no vaccine. It will also be true with a 70% effective vaccine. As a result some women will always die because they do not seek preventative treatment.

Also you make it sound like the numbers won't drop with the vaccine being widely available as a choice instead of mandated. You make it a choice between no vaccine or mandatory vaccination. That distinction is not true. Large numbers of women will choose to be vaccinated. The numbers you cite will go lower. However they should have a choice about their own bodies.

Quote:
We're close with this vaccine.

We can be just as close without mandating the vaccine and trusting women to do what is right with their own bodies.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #60 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Here's how I see it.

Sure thing: 10,000 cases of cervical cancer and 1 million cases of genital warts. Several thousand of those will die, and many of the others will experience illness and serious discomfort.

Current evidence: The vaccine is 100% effective in protecting against the HPV virus. There are no serious side effects.

Nick's guess: There may be side effects.

And given this state of affairs, you think the risks outweigh the benefits?

Do I think personally the risks outweigh the benefits? No. However we aren't discussing whether the vaccine should be available at all. We are discussing whether it should be mandatory.

If you are a woman and you believe the risks outweigh the benefits, shouldn't you have that choice with your own body?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #61 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Boy you really love to have your cake and eat it too. Merck submits the drug to the FDA who declares it to be "absolutely" safe. The government then mandates the vaccine be given to the general populace. You even use this "absolute" safety as a shield for your arguments of mandating it. If it ends up not absolutely safe, well we should sue the company.

Your view is hilarious. The government deems it safe. The government mandates it. However by your reasoning, the government isn't a party in the lawsuit.

I think your biases and the extremeness of them are showing.

I don't know what that paragraph means.

And please try to show a little more respect than "your view is hilarious."

But yes, there are remedies available to take care of your concerns about some remote, unknown future risk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Perhaps your view is limited, but I consider the entire present and future female population to be a rather wide-ranging group.

Of course.

But what's involved is only a visit or two to the doctor or clinic.

You were comparing mandatory vaccinations to shutting down Burger King.

Huge difference in what's involved.


Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

A cure that is 70% effective in clinical trials. You again, make it sound like a 100% solution.

it's 100% effective against the strains of HPV that cause 70% of cervical cancer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I see. You resort to intentions again when reasoning fails you. Let me return the favor. You are showing true contempt for ALL women that you do not trust to make a decision with their own bodies. Many, probably most will choose the vaccine because they will read the same information we have all compared here and decide it is the best choice for them. However you would deny them the ability to choose because obviously you hold them in contempt and do not trust them to make the best decisions for themselves.

It's an access issue.

As I've said before, without making the vaccine mandatory, it won't be available to a good swath of the population because insurance won't cover it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Who or what are you arguing against? Has anyone in this thread argued against private insurers or government plans offering this vaccine? Has anyone here declared any problem with the government giving it away for free from any and all street corners?

You always do this when the facts don't fit your view. It is so sad to see you knee jerking back to some strange perception you have about the person you are discussing items with instead of dealing with what is typed. So far you've tossed class wars and sexism against someone who has said give it out for free but given women a choice over their own bodies. Pathetic.

Don't lash out when you're frustrated.

I have not done the same.

it's an admirable position to take-- to give away vaccines for free-- but I don't think that would nearly reach the number of women a mandatory vaccine would.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

This page lists the other risk factors in causing cervical cancer.

* Giving birth to many children.
* Having many sexual partners.
* Having first sexual intercourse at a young age.
* Smoking cigarettes.
* Oral contraceptive use ("the Pill").
* Weakened immune system.

Are you willing pass laws that limit the number of children a woman can have? Do you likewise advocate laws limiting the number of sexual partners a woman can have? Do you desire to make it unlawful for teens to have sex? Are you willing to ban cigarettes outright? Would you be willing to ban the pill?

Of course not-- each of those factors aren't nearly as simple as vaccination.

We're talking about a few visits to the doctor or clinic here. That's it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So you would rather mandate a solution since this solution hasn't reached 100% effectiveness yet. What are you going to do when the vaccine, which is only 70% effective doesn't put an end to it? Are you going to advocate that people be unable to opt out? Demand that they report in for mandatory pap smears? Let them sue their doctors into oblivion due to the world being imperfect?

I'm going to advocate more research into the remaining HPV strands.

Why does requiring a vaccine suddenly provoke wild fears of banning cars and fast-food restaurants? It's a little crazy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

There is not a single recommendation with regards to pap smears that changes as a result of having had this vaccine. Pap smears cannot work if they are not utilized. This is true with no vaccine. It will also be true with a 70% effective vaccine. As a result some women will always die because they do not seek preventative treatment.

But the argument that pap-smears are somehow a holy grail is not good.

They can detect most cervical cancer, but you still need cancer treatment!

Just inoculate them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Also you make it sound like the numbers won't drop with the vaccine being widely available as a choice instead of mandated. You make it a choice between no vaccine or mandatory vaccination. That distinction is not true. Large numbers of women will choose to be vaccinated. The numbers you cite will go lower. However they should have a choice about their own bodies.

That's the reality for most poorer women.

It *is* a choice between vaccination and no vaccination if it isn't mandatory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

We can be just as close without mandating the vaccine and trusting women to do what is right with their own bodies.

That's just not true.

Only richer women will!
post #62 of 95
Shawn,

Before I hit the rest of the post, I'm going to ask for you to support your main contention that without mandating women take the vaccine, that the government cannot mandate coverage of and access to the vaccine. You seem to be intentionally obscuring this point in order to avoid explain why you are denying women the right to control their own bodies.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #63 of 95
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

That whole class of drugs comes with serious side-effects.

And I could educate you as to why.

The body has more than one inflamation pathway and the drug vioxx had no plan for several pathways of inflamation in the body. So to keep things simple... It worked with one pathway of inflamation but not three others which did matter a great deal in certain applications.

When AA or Arachidonic acid is formed or ingested (e.g. red meat and egg yolk) it undergoes metabolism by the cyclo-oxygenase (COX) and lipo-oxygenase (LOX) enzymes. A vast part of the biotech industry has been dedicated to the development of COX inhibitors ranging from non-specific drugs like aspirin to ibuprofen to more selective COX 2 inhibitors like Celebrex and Vioxx. We can naturally shift the eicosanoid pathways away from AA production by dietary maneuvers that avoid excessive carbohydrate intake and the resulting insulin stimulation. Referring to Figure 2 and focusing on the pathway between DGLA and AA (shown in green), we can direct our attention to dietary and pharmacologic approaches that prevent overproduction of AA or inhibit AA production. If we neglect this pathway, overproduction of AA occurs. AA is an omega-6 fatty acid that generates free radicals that cause cell injury. Specific metabolic products of AA such as PGE2 and 5-HETE are created through the actions of the enzymes COX-2 (cyclo-oxygenase 2), 5-LOX (5-Lipoxygenase), 12-LOX, and 15-LOX. These metabolites are examples of bad eicosanoids and have been implicated in PC Prostate Cancer growth and metastasis.27,28 In a study of human PC where 5-LOX and its metabolite 5-HETE were evaluated in malignant versus benign prostate tissue within the same patient, both 5-LOX and 5-HETE were significantly over-expressed in the PC tissue.29 In other words, specific eicosanoids are modulators of tumor cell interactions with certain host components within the context of cancer growth, invasion and spread. What the layperson can do to inhibit AA is to reduce insulin-stimulating carbohydrate ingestion and to use a high quality of EPA/DHA to inhibit the AA pathway.



For this blunder not to get caught by drug actions review and no less the FDA is shamefull.

Then you have the doctors who do not even so much as read the PDR on this drug before prescrbing it.

But hey all drugs are safe and effective if the FDA says so!

I am not against the FDA I just advocate education and people doing their own research as well.

A more integrative approach to this problem, however, would be to also reduce levels of arachidonic acid, which is the precursor of 5-HETE and leukotriene B4. In fact, if we focus on the metabolic pathways involved in arachidonic acid production and metabolism, we can understand why selective inhibitors of only the COX-2 enzyme, such as Vioxx® and Celebrex®, may be associated with an increased risk of heart attack and stroke. The fault lies not within the specific drug (Vioxx®, for example), but rather in a misguided approach that involves blocking only one of the pathways leading from arachidonic acid metabolism (the COX-2 pathway), while ignoring the three other enzymatic pathways (COX-1, 5-LOX, 12-15 LOX) through which arachidonic acid can be metabolized.

Vioxx® primarily blocks the COX-2 metabolic pathway of arachidonic acid, yet Americans taking this class of drug continued to overindulge in foods rich in arachidonic acid, which resulted in excess production of toxic 5-HETE, 12-15-HETE, and hydroxylated fatty acids. A focus on decreasing consumption of arachidonic acid—as well as inhibiting arachidonic acid production by means of fish oil and reducing consumption of insulin-stimulating carbohydrates—was completely ignored by the physicians who prescribed these drugs.

While Merck, the manufacturer of Vioxx®, is now being sued, Vioxx® was not the sole cause of the side effects seen in patients taking this drug. The primary culprit was the failure of scientists and physicians to take into account the basic biochemistry of omega-6 fatty acid and arachidonic acid metabolism. If patients prescribed COX-2 inhibitors were (1) advised to decrease their intake of omega-6 fats and arachidonic acid, (2) shown how to block arachidonic production by increasing their fish oil consumption and decreasing their carbohydrate intake, and (3) advised to take steps to inhibit the COX-1 and 5-LOX pathways, the side effects attributed to Vioxx® may never have occurred.

Fellowship

And by the way to affect Prostaglandin E2 via COX-2 curcumin or (Turmeric), resveratrol and green tea work better than RX scripts. What do I mean when I say "work better"? No fatal side effects.

Also and not least of which 5-Lipoxygenase is inhibited by curcumin (Turmeric) affecting Leukotriene B4 and 5- HETE better than RX scripts as well. No fatal side effects.

But you know, why be a thinking person who does their own research...

I mean after all the "Doctor" depending on who they are may or may not poke fun at Fish oil as "Snake oil" ignoring the anti-inflamitory nature of the omega 3 fatty acids DHA Docosahexaenoic acid and EPA Eicosapentaenoic acid

As well the so-called "Doctor" may or may not poke fun at Turmeric and Green Tea as well...

Does that Stop me from being a thinking person? You decide...

Just sucks that the Big Pharma folks can't patent and monopolize the profits of these things found in nature... Just sort of ruins the whole economic model when people can go to their local health food store and support their health in healthful ways.

DAMN that must SUCK..

who knows Big Pharma may even come up with a pill to help with that sad reality and just maybe get a Texas Governor to hand them out to the public
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #64 of 95
I'll get to Nick later. If anyone wants to pipe in, be my guest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

For this blunder not to get caught by drug actions review and no less the FDA is shamefull.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

But hey all drugs are safe and effective if the FDA says so!

I don't think it's helpful to get into a discussion of that here, unless you doubt the ability of the FDA to make accurate drug safety recommendations.
post #65 of 95
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

I'll get to Nick later. If anyone wants to pipe in, be my guest.



I don't think it's helpful to get into a discussion of that here, unless you doubt the ability of the FDA to make accurate drug safety recommendations.

Shawn did you even read my last post?

This part:

"Vioxx® primarily blocks the COX-2 metabolic pathway of arachidonic acid, yet Americans taking this class of drug continued to overindulge in foods rich in arachidonic acid, which resulted in excess production of toxic 5-HETE, 12-15-HETE, and hydroxylated fatty acids. A focus on decreasing consumption of arachidonic acid—as well as inhibiting arachidonic acid production by means of fish oil and reducing consumption of insulin-stimulating carbohydrates—was completely ignored by the physicians who prescribed these drugs.

While Merck, the manufacturer of Vioxx®, is now being sued, Vioxx® was not the sole cause of the side effects seen in patients taking this drug. The primary culprit was the failure of scientists and physicians to take into account the basic biochemistry of omega-6 fatty acid and arachidonic acid metabolism. If patients prescribed COX-2 inhibitors were (1) advised to decrease their intake of omega-6 fats and arachidonic acid, (2) shown how to block arachidonic production by increasing their fish oil consumption and decreasing their carbohydrate intake, and (3) advised to take steps to inhibit the COX-1 and 5-LOX pathways, the side effects attributed to Vioxx® may never have occurred."


What good does it do for the public if the FDA says a drug is safe and effective if the doctors do not advise their patients properly?

Please let me know what good that does... will ya?

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #66 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

What good does it do for the public if the FDA says a drug is safe and effective if the doctors do not advise their patients properly?

That doesn't have anything to do with a discussion about the HPV vaccine.

You'll have to explain to me how it does.
post #67 of 95
Ehem....
Before I hit the rest of the post, I'm going to ask for you to support your main contention that without mandating women take the vaccine, that the government cannot mandate coverage of and access to the vaccine. You seem to be intentionally obscuring this point in order to avoid explain why you are denying women the right to control their own bodies.


Let's not be coy.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #68 of 95
Fellows - as pervayor of all things healthy and beneficial I thought you might be interested in the following article.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125631.500
post #69 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Before I hit the rest of the post, I'm going to ask for you to support your main contention that without mandating women take the vaccine, that the government cannot mandate coverage of and access to the vaccine. You seem to be intentionally obscuring this point in order to avoid explain why you are denying women the right to control their own bodies.

That'd be great-- something I'd support in the absence of a mandate.

But I think the public health policy ground of eradicating cervical cancer wins-out over any countervailing issues like that vague "right to control your body" rationale. Abortion-rights activists use that language because pregnancy is far more encompassing than a series of shots. Also, we already require immunizations for a variety of things. I see no reason not to extend that trend to another transmittable virus that, in this case, causes cervical cancer. There are more than enough reasons.
post #70 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

That'd be great-- something I'd support in the absence of a mandate.

Your language is confusing here. You make it sound like it will be impossible for women to get this vaccine unless it is mandated that they get it. You appear to be using a class warfare argument to obscure the fact that you are forcing women to take this vaccine.

Quote:
But I think the public health policy ground of eradicating cervical cancer wins-out over any countervailing issues like that vague "right to control your body" rationale. Abortion-rights activists use that language because pregnancy is far more encompassing than a series of shots. Also, we already require immunizations for a variety of things. I see no reason not to extend that trend to another transmittable virus that, in this case, causes cervical cancer. There are more than enough reasons.

I think your authoritarian streak is raising its head again. While cervical cancer is certainly a concern, it is not anything like a public health epidemic. Your co-worker isn't going to cough in your direction and give you the STD that could lead to cancer. This would be true if you were a woman as well. This would be very true if we were talking any of the other vaccines that are required. Are you really unable to comprehend that all the other required vaccines are airborne contagions and the STD that could cause cervical cancer is not?

Now back to the larger post.

Quote:
I don't know what that paragraph means.

And please try to show a little more respect than "your view is hilarious."

But yes, there are remedies available to take care of your concerns about some remote, unknown future risk.

I'm sorry you didn't comprehend. I was simply pointing out your bias here. You want the government to test and declare safety. You want the government to mandate. You then want the company sued if any of the actions of the government lead to women being harmed. I suppose you'll want the government to file suit for the parties injured by the government mandated actions against the company as well.

Why is every party not responsible for their own actions except the company? Why is the person who should have the freedom to consent instead mandated since you believe them unable to assume responsibilities for their own bodies? Why is the government unable to assume responsibility for a product it deemed safe and then mandated? Why would only the company be a party to the suit?

Quote:
Of course.

But what's involved is only a visit or two to the doctor or clinic.

You were comparing mandatory vaccinations to shutting down Burger King.

Huge difference in what's involved.

The scales are similar. You are talking about a vaccine that requires three visits across six months and that costs almost $400 per person. When you include all parties, which is ALL women, Using Texas as an example we would be discussing almost 7 million clinic visits for innoculation at a cost of 2.8 billion.

Those sound like big business numbers to me. Seven million clients and 2.8 billion worth of sales is a large scale, even if you care to dismiss it.

Quote:
it's 100% effective against the strains of HPV that cause 70% of cervical cancer.

Correct, it is not a 100% solution to ending cervical cancer. So please do not use justifications of "ending cervical cancer" as a means of taking away choice. It simply shifts the already slim odds you will get it a bit lower.

Quote:
It's an access issue.

As I've said before, without making the vaccine mandatory, it won't be available to a good swath of the population because insurance won't cover it.

This is what I asked you to address above. I hope you comprehended it. We can mandate insurance coverage and allow government programs to offer it without mandating women take the vaccine.

Quote:
Don't lash out when you're frustrated.

I have not done the same.

it's an admirable position to take-- to give away vaccines for free-- but I don't think that would nearly reach the number of women a mandatory vaccine would.

I'm not lashing out, just pointing out the desperation of your arguments. You resort to claiming hatred of women to deny them choice with the bodies and responsibility for their own health and welfare. That is a desperate position and you have to attack a person to attempt to overcome the weak position. You "not thinking it will reach nearly the number of women" isn't a reasonable rationale to deny them choices regarding their own bodies.

Quote:
Of course not-- each of those factors aren't nearly as simple as vaccination.

We're talking about a few visits to the doctor or clinic here. That's it.

Each one of those actions raise the risk of getting cervical cancer and put a stop to your stated desire to eradicate it. Why would you mandate the vaccine and then allow smoking which is a much larger health concern than cervical cancer?

Also if a woman can't be responsible enough to make this choice regarding her own body, how can you expect her to remember and show up to an appointment six months out for the third dose of this vaccine? I mean if you can't trust them with the decision, how can you trust them to show up for the appointment?

Quote:
I'm going to advocate more research into the remaining HPV strands.

Why does requiring a vaccine suddenly provoke wild fears of banning cars and fast-food restaurants? It's a little crazy.

You have very strange number-sense. It seems 3700 people nationwide is an epidemic to you when that is actually a very small number. The millions that you mandate receive the vaccine, their multiple visits and the billions in costs, well that is just a small matter to you.

Also you fail to see the principle you endorse and people are showing you that principle applied to other areas. In this instance you really do advocate the needs of the very few driving the demands on everyone else. If this vaccine were to go nationwide you would be placing demands upon 22.5 million women to eliminate the possible outcome to 3700. Those are huge numbers to diminish an already very small risk.

Quote:
But the argument that pap-smears are somehow a holy grail is not good.

They can detect most cervical cancer, but you still need cancer treatment!

Just inoculate them.

Pap-smears are the holy grail and not a single recommendation about the need for them or the frequency at which they should occur changes because of this vaccination.

Your reasoning shows how the fight against this must ultimately be about a woman and her desire to control and be responsible for her own body. It is likely that the rate for the remaining rates of cervical cancer will probably raise if this vaccine is mandates. Some women will ignorantly assume they are now inoculated and not seek pap smears until it is too late or until more expensive treatment is required. As always these things are "complicated." One decision in one direction does have outcomes intended and unintended in other areas.

We know your position though. You'll not trust the women and make the pap smears mandatory as well. I mean it is just a simply little matter of tens of millions of of women making billions of dollars worth of visits and tests. It really isn't any sort of big deal.

Quote:
That's the reality for most poorer women.

It *is* a choice between vaccination and no vaccination if it isn't mandatory.

That is nonsense. It is a false dichotomy you have created to deny women the right to control their own bodies.

Quote:
That's just not true.

Only richer women will!

And this is just a continuation of that false dichotomy.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #71 of 95
It's covered by the Vaccines for Children program now-- so poor people can get it for free.

But one *strong* analogy in favor of mandatory HPV vaccinations is that we already require mandatory Hepatitis B vaccinations. Both are sexually transmitted viruses. It's not like advocates here are greatly expanding the scope of required immunizations. States already require immunization of a similarly transmitted virus.
post #72 of 95
Shawn,

#1. I cannot tell from reading your posts above, if you are that much of an asshole, but that's because your head is obscuring my vision.

The issue at hand, is not just mandatory HPV vaccinations {as Trumptman has repeatedly pointed out}, but that non-conformity to those vaccinations will remove the option of a public education for the young females of Texas. To do so would be insane and illogical.

Are we to assume that you are subversively attempting to create a cadre of un or undereducated women in Texas to then go about attempting to spread HPV? I doubt it, but refer to sentence #1, above.

"It's covered by the Vaccines for Children program now-- so poor people can get it for free."

Well, if you had any brains you could have suggested that Texas provide this free of charge way earlier in this thread. You could have suggested that a GOOD THING be mandated without restorting the the threat of kicking innocent young ladies out of the school system.

Are your Jack Boots fitting too tightly? What is your real intention here? In no way do I or others understand what you are really attempting to sell us, or should we make a collection, and buy you a Banana Republic so that you can just be dictator??

Paz y Amor
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem to lightly...it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Thomas Paine
Reply
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem to lightly...it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Thomas Paine
Reply
post #73 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by rufusswan View Post

Shawn,

#1. I cannot tell from reading your posts above, if you are that much of an asshole, but that's because your head is obscuring my vision.

Well, if you had any brains

Are your Jack Boots fitting too tightly?

or should we make a collection, and buy you a Banana Republic so that you can just be dictator??

Lashing out like that is not appropriate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rufusswan View Post

The issue at hand, is not just mandatory HPV vaccinations {as Trumptman has repeatedly pointed out}, but that non-conformity to those vaccinations will remove the option of a public education for the young females of Texas.

We're familiar with the main issue.

And I've already discussed how states give too much leniency to people who want to opt out

Quote:
Originally Posted by rufusswan View Post

To do so would be insane and illogical.

Oh really? That kinda begs the question why, don't you think?

And I've already demonstrated how requiring an HPV immunization is analogous to another immunization we currently require, so if you're going to talk about logic, you should probably do more than strident, conclusory statements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rufusswan View Post

TAre we to assume that you are subversively attempting to create a cadre of un or undereducated women in Texas to then go about attempting to spread HPV? I doubt it, but refer to sentence #1, above.

You're assuming mass-expulsions of women would result in states that require HPV vaccinations. There's no evidence that compulsory vaccinations present such a problem. In fact, the evidence suggests overwhelmingly that is does not, if past mandatory vaccination requirements are any indication.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rufusswan View Post

"It's covered by the Vaccines for Children program now-- so poor people can get it for free."

you could have suggested that Texas provide this free of charge way earlier in this thread. You could have suggested that a GOOD THING be mandated without restorting the the threat of kicking innocent young ladies out of the school system.

I do think it should be free (for those who can't afford it)

I do think it should be mandatory for public school entrance.

The two are not the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rufusswan View Post

What is your real intention here?

Time after time-- I've said to help eradicate cervical cancer (and also other HPV related problems, to add to that). You strike me as the type of pot-stirrer to come into a thread without reading the whole thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rufusswan View Post

In no way do I or others understand what you are really attempting to sell us,

You, trumptman, and fellowship aren't exactly representative of anything.

And positions advocating mandatory vaccination aren't exactly extreme.

Your treating it as such is puzzling.
post #74 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

It's covered by the Vaccines for Children program now-- so poor people can get it for free.

But one *strong* analogy in favor of mandatory HPV vaccinations is that we already require mandatory Hepatitis B vaccinations. Both are sexually transmitted viruses. It's not like advocates here are greatly expanding the scope of required immunizations. States already require immunization of a similarly transmitted virus.

Whil Hepatitis B can be transmitted sexually, it is not the only form of transmission. There are documented health epidemics involving it.

Try again, or better still explain your false dichotomies, explain how you justify removing freedom from millions to help hundreds, and stop ignoring the rest of the items brought up as well.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #75 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Lashing out like that is not appropriate.

You have to forgive the man. Not everyone has the patience of a school teacher, especially when you refuse to explain yourself, misrepresent the opposing view, etc.

Quote:
We're familiar with the main issue.

And I've already discussed how states give too much leniency to people who want to opt out

Actually you've refused to address this when confronted about it in a dozen different ways. The total number helped is minuscule compared to the demands on the general population. You have REFUSED to explain in any fashion why millions should be mandated because a couple hundred end up failing to get regular pap smears and end up with untreatable cervical cancer which leads to death.

You've never explained why you would deny choice to millions, not once.

Quote:
And I've already demonstrated how requiring an HPV immunization is analogous to another immunization we currently require, so if you're going to talk about logic, you should probably do more than strident, conclusory statements.

Except it isn't analogous. So your logic doesn't stand up.

Quote:
I do think it should be mandatory for public school entrance.

I'm glad to have on record that you would prefer women be uneducated if they refuse to subject their bodies to your demands. I can't think of a single thought that screams sexism more.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #76 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Whil Hepatitis B can be transmitted sexually, it is not the only form of transmission. There are documented health epidemics involving it.

True-- in terms of other possible ways to contract Hepatitis B, that's a smart distinction you're making. But that distinction is not dispositive for me. Here's why: In low-risk countries like the U.S., Hepatitis B is primarily transmitted through sexual contact, just like how HPV is transmitted through sexual conduct. So requiring HPV vaccinations is very similar to how states already require Hepatitis B vaccinations.

But I would argue that even if that weren't true or if you come up with a really good distinction, expanding the scope of the types of viruses schools require inoculation against to include HPV is worthwhile.
post #77 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You have to forgive the man. Not everyone has the patience of a school teacher, especially when you refuse to explain yourself, misrepresent the opposing view, etc.

Ha.

I'm a patient guy. Gotta be to sit through Civil Procedure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Actually you've refused to address this when confronted about it in a dozen different ways. The total number helped is minuscule compared to the demands on the general population. You have REFUSED to explain in any fashion why millions should be mandated because a couple hundred end up failing to get regular pap smears and end up with untreatable cervical cancer which leads to death.

3700+ die each year.

12,000+ are diagnosed with cervical cancer and have to begin costly and invasive therapy.

I don't think a series of shots for every woman in this country is that much of a burden to save 70% of those lives-- especially since we require all sorts of shots, some similar in ways to the HPV vaccine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You've never explained why you would deny choice to millions, not once.

Because I don't believe anyone should choose to subject their daughters to the risk of developing cervical cancer from one of the strains we have a cure for. It's a public health issue that the states will decide for themselves. I'm just one advocate in Pennsylvania.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'm glad to have on record that you would prefer women be uneducated if they refuse to subject their bodies to your demands. I can't think of a single thought that screams sexism more.

That's a little bit too much, don't you think?

Again, "you're assuming mass-expulsions of women would result in states that require HPV vaccinations. There's no evidence that compulsory vaccinations present such a problem. In fact, the evidence suggests overwhelmingly that is does not, if past mandatory vaccination requirements are any indication."
post #78 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

True-- in terms of other possible ways to contract Hepatitis B, that's a smart distinction you're making. But that distinction is not dispositive for me. Here's why: In low-risk countries like the U.S., Hepatitis B is primarily transmitted through sexual contact, just like how HPV is transmitted through sexual conduct. So requiring HPV vaccinations is very similar to how states already require Hepatitis B vaccinations.

But I would argue that even if that weren't true or if you come up with a really good distinction, expanding the scope of the types of viruses schools require inoculation against to include HPV is worthwhile.

Look, we understand that in the U.S. it is primarily transmitted through sexual conduct, but the reality remains that it can be transmitted through other methods, has caused health epidemics and as such can be justified for having mandatory vaccination. I'm sure people could use some of this criteria to argue against making HepB a non-mandatory vaccine, but it doesn't make it more acceptable to mandate the HPV vaccine.

Can you point out a single incidence, anywhere worldwide where cervical cancer has become a health epidemic causing harm among reasonable large segments of the population say 3-6% as mentioned in the Wiki link? I don't think people would argue against something being mandatory when it is helping large numbers of people. Also the HepB vaccine is a 100% solution. You get vaccinated, the risk is gone.

So to summarize. Larger percentages affected, 3-6% versus a thousandth percent, a 100% versus a 70% solution, health epidemic versus small number of cases that could have been detected and treated via pap smears.

They are not the same. Also no one has argued that expanding the scope of vaccinations available is not worthwhile, just that it shouldn't be mandatory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Ha.

I'm a patient guy. Gotta be to sit through Civil Procedure.

Don't worry when your patience is being billed out at $250-300 an hour, I'm sure you'll feel it is worth it.

Quote:
3700+ die each year.

Out of 150 million+ women in the United States.

Also, we don't have to condemn someone for sexual activity, like starting young or even having multiple partners. You enjoy quoting Wikipedia so let me hit it a bit for you.

HPV

First regarding pap smears...

Since these screening tools have been developed there has been a 70% decrease in cervical cancer deaths over the last 50 years (Richman, 2005).

It is very effective. The fault isn't the pap smears, it is the woman refusing to get them.

Also...

Because the process of transforming normal cervical cells into cancerous ones is slow, cancer occurs in people who have been infected with HPV for a long time, usually over a decade or more (Greenblatt, 2005; Sinal and Woods, 2005).

So they have to refuse to not only get a pap smear, they have to do so for an extended period of time because this doesn't happen overnight.

Finally it mentions risky sexual behavior again.

The fact that prostitutes have much higher rates of cervical cancer than nuns was a key early observation leading researchers to speculate about a causal link between sexually transmitted HPVs and cervical cancer (zur Hausen 1994). It remains clear that people with greater numbers of sexual partners are at increased risk of developing genital HPV-related diseases. Co-infection with other sexually transmitted pathogens, such as HIV, may also increase the risk of developing HPV-related diseases.

Not to be rude, but the number suggest that this cancer often arises as a result of very risky behaviors and general health neglect for not just a period of time, but most often a lifetime. Even then they just have to be dealt some bad luck and be part of the 1% who will develop the full-blown cancer and this is after ignoring pap smears for likely a decade.

Quote:
12,000+ are diagnosed with cervical cancer and have to begin costly and invasive therapy.

Correct, they do this after having ignored getting pap smears that would have allowed the targeted removal of precancerous lesions.

Quote:
I don't think a series of shots for every woman in this country is that much of a burden to save 70% of those lives-- especially since we require all sorts of shots, some similar in ways to the HPV vaccine.

I hate to break this to you, but it isn't your body. Considering the number of high risk and generally neglectful lifetime behaviors a woman must adopt to end up with the cancer, all women should have a choice regarding this vaccine. I'm sure many if not most will still choose it. However choice should always be the default option with only an very compelling public interest overriding it.

Some might think they are being good male "feminists" in declaring that any woman dying from a non-natural cause is wrong and might even be willing to override a woman's choice in order to protect and coddle her from her own decisions and actions. However I won't do that. You shouldn't either. You don't need to subject 99.9% of women to a mandatory action because of the actions of .1%, especially when that .1% have to undertake their decisions for a period of years to suffer harm from them.

Quote:
Because I don't believe anyone should choose to subject their daughters to the risk of developing cervical cancer from one of the strains we have a cure for. It's a public health issue that the states will decide for themselves. I'm just one advocate in Pennsylvania.

This is a strange statement. No one is being asked to subject their daughters to the risk. They are asking for a choice in assuming the risk themselves. If they don't want to assume the risk, they simply take the vaccine. No one is being asked to take on the risk, quite the opposite.

Quote:
That's a little bit too much, don't you think?

No I don't. Part of equalizing women is realizing that they must not be coddled or protected against their own interests and choice. Freedom of choice includes the right to make bad ones.

Quote:
Again, "you're assuming mass-expulsions of women would result in states that require HPV vaccinations. There's no evidence that compulsory vaccinations present such a problem. In fact, the evidence suggests overwhelmingly that is does not, if past mandatory vaccination requirements are any indication."

I'm not assuming anything.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #79 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Look, we understand that in the U.S. it is primarily transmitted through sexual conduct, but the reality remains that it can be transmitted through other methods, has caused health epidemics and as such can be justified for having mandatory vaccination. I'm sure people could use some of this criteria to argue against making HepB a non-mandatory vaccine, but it doesn't make it more acceptable to mandate the HPV vaccine.

Can you point out a single incidence, anywhere worldwide where cervical cancer has become a health epidemic causing harm among reasonable large segments of the population say 3-6% as mentioned in the Wiki link? I don't think people would argue against something being mandatory when it is helping large numbers of people. Also the HepB vaccine is a 100% solution. You get vaccinated, the risk is gone.

So to summarize. Larger percentages affected, 3-6% versus a thousandth percent, a 100% versus a 70% solution, health epidemic versus small number of cases that could have been detected and treated via pap smears.

Good distinctions-- not going to get into all of them-- but there are arguments on both sides.

It'd be more persuasive for my argument if there were a virus transmitted exactly like HPV that we require inoculation against. It'd be better for your argument if there weren't similarities between transmitting HPV and Hep B. It's not conclusive either way-- but really the only reason I'm making that argument is to show how we're not really expanding the scope of the kinds of viruses we require vaccination against. You disagree, and put up some good distinctions on how we are actually expanding the scope.

I think it's worthwhile regardless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Out of 150 million+ women in the United States.

Also, we don't have to condemn someone for sexual activity, like starting young or even having multiple partners. You enjoy quoting Wikipedia so let me hit it a bit for you.

HPV

First regarding pap smears...

Since these screening tools have been developed there has been a 70% decrease in cervical cancer deaths over the last 50 years (Richman, 2005).

It is very effective. The fault isn't the pap smears, it is the woman refusing to get them.

Because the process of transforming normal cervical cells into cancerous ones is slow, cancer occurs in people who have been infected with HPV for a long time, usually over a decade or more (Greenblatt, 2005; Sinal and Woods, 2005).

So they have to refuse to not only get a pap smear, they have to do so for an extended period of time because this doesn't happen overnight.

Finally it mentions risky sexual behavior again.

The fact that prostitutes have much higher rates of cervical cancer than nuns was a key early observation leading researchers to speculate about a causal link between sexually transmitted HPVs and cervical cancer (zur Hausen 1994). It remains clear that people with greater numbers of sexual partners are at increased risk of developing genital HPV-related diseases. Co-infection with other sexually transmitted pathogens, such as HIV, may also increase the risk of developing HPV-related diseases.

Not to be rude, but the number suggest that this cancer often arises as a result of very risky behaviors and general health neglect for not just a period of time, but most often a lifetime. Even then they just have to be dealt some bad luck and be part of the 1% who will develop the full-blown cancer and this is after ignoring pap smears for likely a decade.

Correct, they do this after having ignored getting pap smears that would have allowed the targeted removal of precancerous lesions.

Prevention here is key.

Pap smears are very effective at only detecting cell abnormalities that lead to cancer. Women still need all kinds of treatment to deal with those problems that could have been prevented with a simple series of shots when they were younger. Let's prevent all this unnecessary treatment in the first place (as best we can) with the vaccine!

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


I hate to break this to you, but it isn't your body. Considering the number of high risk and generally neglectful lifetime behaviors a woman must adopt to end up with the cancer, all women should have a choice regarding this vaccine. I'm sure many if not most will still choose it. However choice should always be the default option with only an very compelling public interest overriding it.

Some might think they are being good male "feminists" in declaring that any woman dying from a non-natural cause is wrong and might even be willing to override a woman's choice in order to protect and coddle her from her own decisions and actions. However I won't do that. You shouldn't either. You don't need to subject 99.9% of women to a mandatory action because of the actions of .1%, especially when that .1% have to undertake their decisions for a period of years to suffer harm from them.

Blaming the victims of cervical cancer is a low-road to take.

Especially since 50% of adults have some form of HPV! Odds are that either you or me have it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

This is a strange statement. No one is being asked to subject their daughters to the risk. They are asking for a choice in assuming the risk themselves. If they don't want to assume the risk, they simply take the vaccine. No one is being asked to take on the risk, quite the opposite.

From a public policy standpoint, if you don't vaccinate women against HPV, you assume a much greater risk of their developing cervical cancer or requiring early treatment for cell abnormalities. Whether or not the state has a strong enough interest in requiring HPV vaccinations the people will determine. I think it does, from the standpoints of public health policy, economic policy, and general fairness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

No I don't. Part of equalizing women is realizing that they must not be coddled or protected against their own interests and choice. Freedom of choice includes the right to make bad ones.

"Freedom of choice" is lazy sloganeering for two reasons:
  • We already require all sorts of vaccinations for public school attendance. Requiring one more vaccination does not impact your autonomy very much in light of that.
  • It has even less of an impact on your autonomy because of the various exceptions probably allowed

And this isn't about the equality of women at all-- this is about public health policy mainly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'm not assuming anything.

Well you're saying I'd "prefer" a choice between uneducated women and HPV-vaccinated women. That won't happen if the vaccine becomes mandatory for the reasons I discussed. So I'm advocating this policy knowing the consequences of it will result in hardly any expulsions at all.
post #80 of 95
Saw this today.
It lays out why conservatives feel that this has less to do with health, and more to do with a sneaky corporate bailout.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Are Americans Giving Up Health Freedoms?