Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls

[thispego]

I am supposed to believe some bogus website that claims HPV is not linked to cervical cancer. Not worthy of a response.

I think I'd give more street cred to a panel of doctors over Rick Perry and Merck, but that's just my opinion.

I wont believe anything the refutes what I've already accepted as truth.

[ploto]

You might want to check your reading comprehension. MOST HPV infections are short-lived and not associated with cancer-- BUT SOME ARE! That is not the same thing as saying that HPV is not linked to cervical cancer. Certain strains of HPV are clearly linked to cervical cancer.

As to the other article from the physicians it says not to use the vaccine to treat those who already have HPV. DUH? It's a vaccine, not a treatment.

It is EXTREMELY dangerous to tell women that HPV and cervical cancer are nt linked because they ARE. Whether you think that should make the vaccine be required is a different issue but to take the statment that many HPV sufferers never get cancer to say the same thing as there is no link is dangerous. Many smokers never get lung cancer but that does not mean that they are not linked. They are.

This medical issue is not about Rick Perry and pharmaceutical companies- the medical issue is accepted fact. The issue of the vaccine is separate. Trying to promite mis-truths to support a stance against the vaccine is faulty at best and dangerous at worst.

From the CDC:
Genital HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States; an estimated 6.2 million persons are newly infected every year. Although the majority of infections cause no clinical symptoms and are self-limited, persistent infection with oncogenic types can cause cervical cancer in women. HPV infection also is the cause of genital warts and is associated with other anogenital cancers. Cervical cancer rates have decreased in the United States because of widespread use of Papanicolaou testing, which can detect precancerous lesions of the cervix before they develop into cancer; nevertheless, during 2007, an estimated 11,100 new cases will be diagnosed and approximately 3,700 women will die from cervical cancer. In certain countries where cervical cancer screening is not routine, cervical cancer is a common cancer in women.


Approximately 100 HPV types have been identified, over 40 of which infect the genital area. Genital HPV types are categorized according to their epidemiologic association with cervical cancer. Infections with low-risk types (e.g., types 6 and 11) can cause benign or low-grade cervical cell changes, genital warts, and recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. High-risk HPV types act as carcinogens in the development of cervical cancer and other anogenital cancers. High-risk types, including types 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 68, 69, 73, and 82, can cause low-grade cervical cell abnormalities, high-grade cervical cell abnormalities that are precursors to cancer, and anogenital cancers. High-risk HPV types are detected in 99% of cervical cancers; approximately 70% of cervical cancers worldwide are caused by types 16 and 18.



So whether you want the vaccine or not for a disease that you may feel will never affect your family, that is your viewpoint, but do not say there is not a link to any woman who knows someone who has dealt with it.

[CavsSuperFan]

This is a spirited debate...On the one side we have research scientist, medical doctors and concerned informed women praising the benefits of the Gardasil vaccine...

On the other side we have ignorant men “who are not at risk” saying that the Gardasil vaccine is not needed...

Too Close to call...

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

It is EXTREMELY dangerous to tell women that HPV and cervical cancer are nt linked because they ARE.

More dangerous than trying to mandate a vaccine on a group of women of whom you've never tested the vaccine on?

I'd call it a push.

[2Blonde]

You might want to check your reading comprehension. MOST HPV infections are short-lived and not associated with cancer-- BUT SOME ARE! That is not the same thing as saying that HPV is not linked to cervical cancer. Certain strains of HPV are clearly linked to cervical cancer.

As to the other article from the physicians it says not to use the vaccine to treat those who already have HPV. DUH? It's a vaccine, not a treatment.

It is EXTREMELY dangerous to tell women that HPV and cervical cancer are nt linked because they ARE. Whether you think that should make the vaccine be required is a different issue but to take the statment that many HPV sufferers never get cancer to say the same thing as there is no link is dangerous. Many smokers never get lung cancer but that does not mean that they are not linked. They are.

This medical issue is not about Rick Perry and pharmaceutical companies- the medical issue is accepted fact. The issue of the vaccine is separate. Trying to promite mis-truths to support a stance against the vaccine is faulty at best and dangerous at worst.

From the CDC:
Genital HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States; an estimated 6.2 million persons are newly infected every year. Although the majority of infections cause no clinical symptoms and are self-limited, persistent infection with oncogenic types can cause cervical cancer in women. HPV infection also is the cause of genital warts and is associated with other anogenital cancers. Cervical cancer rates have decreased in the United States because of widespread use of Papanicolaou testing, which can detect precancerous lesions of the cervix before they develop into cancer; nevertheless, during 2007, an estimated 11,100 new cases will be diagnosed and approximately 3,700 women will die from cervical cancer. In certain countries where cervical cancer screening is not routine, cervical cancer is a common cancer in women.


Approximately 100 HPV types have been identified, over 40 of which infect the genital area. Genital HPV types are categorized according to their epidemiologic association with cervical cancer. Infections with low-risk types (e.g., types 6 and 11) can cause benign or low-grade cervical cell changes, genital warts, and recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. High-risk HPV types act as carcinogens in the development of cervical cancer and other anogenital cancers. High-risk types, including types 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 68, 69, 73, and 82, can cause low-grade cervical cell abnormalities, high-grade cervical cell abnormalities that are precursors to cancer, and anogenital cancers. High-risk HPV types are detected in 99% of cervical cancers; approximately 70% of cervical cancers worldwide are caused by types 16 and 18.



So whether you want the vaccine or not for a disease that you may feel will never affect your family, that is your viewpoint, but do not say there is not a link to any woman who knows someone who has dealt with it.

[2Blonde]

it's just funny to me how people try to argue for mandating the hpv vaccine

the same people who think the hpv vaccine should be mandatory are the exact same people who are going to get their girls vaccinated anyway, regardless of mandate

but there's this big jump in thinking from, i like the hpv vaccine and want my daughter to get it so she will have a lesser chance of developing cancer
to
i like the hpv vaccine and everyone else's daughter should get it too

Well I liked the vaccine and had my daughter get it when it first became available... and I don't think it has to be mandatory. I have seen the effects of HPV turning into cervical cancer with someone I knew and I don't want my daughter to experience that. Even if the chances are only 10% ( whatever the number is ) that HPV could turn cancerous then I would rather do all I could to stem those chances.

I think the reason the Governor and others want to make it mandatory was because then public funding would help pay for those who can't afford it's price tag. I get that and have no problem with it but that doesn't mean I'm advocating it for everyone.

[boutons_]

The (mandatory), expensive vaccine IS the issue.

For whatever damage the vaccine does (and it does cause damage, including death), do its benefits offset that damage?

And what are those benefits in terms of preventing cancer?

How many people actualy get get cancer from HPV, as opposed to "associated with"?

And then vaccinate 1000s of people, and then wait years to see if HPV really caused cancer.

And then are there any other ways to prevent/minimize/clear HPV infection, or is the expensive vaccine?

Merck's own gardisil.com opens with the headline:

"GARDASIL is the only vaccine that may help guard against diseases that are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) Types 6, 11, 16, and 18."
Merck doesn't say DOES or WILL, but MAY. I'm sure Merck's lawyers were involved in that weasal-y CYA headline. GMAFB. Does it work? or doesn't it?

Let yourself be scared by Merck's marketing, plop down your $100s, get your vaccine, MAYbe the vaccine won't make your sick or kill you, and MAYbe if an HPV vector actually arrives in your vagina, MAYbe Gardisil will prevent HPV and MAYbe cancer.

===========

btw, here's the kind illegal, ripoff, s bag crimes BigPharma commits to inflate their cartel-ish, FDA-protected excessive profits, and this is just an example of the ones caught, not all of the culprits:

Judge Rules U.S. Drug Companies Defrauded Medicare with Price Fixing Scheme

by David Gutierrez

(NewsTarget) A federal judge has ruled that three pharmaceutical companies artificially marked up their prices in order to defraud Medicare and encourage doctors to prescribe their drugs over those of compe ors.

The decision came in a class-action lawsuit against AstraZeneca, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson and Warwick Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Schering-Plough Corp. U.S. District Judge Patti Saris ruled against AstraZeneca, Bristol-Meyers Squibb and Warwick, while clearing Johnson & Johnson of "egregious misconduct."

However, she described even Johnson & Johnson's actions as "troubling."

Saris agreed with the plaintiffs' complaint that the drug companies deliberately inflated their average wholesale prices in 2003, when those prices were still used to determine Medicare reimbursements. This created a gap between the prices Medicare was paying and the (lower) prices charged to doctors and pharmacies. This meant that doctors would actually be reimbursed more than they had paid for the drugs, creating a profit incentive for doctors to prescribe certain products.

The judge ruled that AstraZeneca had overcharged for its prostate cancer drug Zoladex and ordered the company to pay nearly $4.5 million to one of the two groups of plaintiffs. Likewise, she found that Bristol-Meyers Squibb had overcharged for cancer drugs Blenoxane, Cytoxan, Rubex, Taxol and Vepesid, and ordered the company to pay $183,454. Saris requested more information to set damages amounts for the other group of plaintiffs.

While Saris did not decide on the damages the company must pay, she ruled that Warrick had overcharged for the generic asthma medication albuterol sulfate (the same medicine sold by GlaxoSmithKline under the brand name Ventolin).

One of the plaintiffs' lawyers, Steve Berman, said that his clients were very happy with the ruling.

"We are also grateful that she found [that] the biggest victims were the patients who had to pay these outrageous prices out of pocket as a result of the defendants' wrongful conduct," he said.

================

The penalties are weak wrist-slaps, not really punitive, not disuasive.

[Sportcamper]

In Cali the vaccine is not required so insurance pays nothing….The 3 shots run approximately 500 dollars…Yet Viagra is covered by medical insurance…Even if the guy is in his 20’s….

There is something seriously wrong with the system….

[thispego]

"Is the drug ready... or not??"

[LaMarcus Bryant]

pimpo laying down the law

ploto, you come correct about not automatically believing the original news link boutons posted, but if you clicked on the FDA do ents linked within, to see where the news page grabbed their own opinion from you'd realize what we're talking about here

You're right about cervical cancer meaning HPV is most likely the root cause
but you're wrong in assuming that means HPV means cancer will develop

the word "can" was in your little quote from the CDC, you realize that right

that, combined with the mandatory nature of the vaccination equals pure bull

noone in here is procancer, you realize that right

[timvp]

I do have to agree that this thread was the shining moment of the Mookie Crew's history. When elpimpo or thispego or whoever it was pulled out the mandatory preggo test card, that was some hardcore internets ownage.

That said, since a member of the Mookie Crew is always ready with a contrarian viewpoint in every thread in existence on SpursTalk, this thread seems more and more like the outlier. You throw a contrarian take at every thread, one is bound to stick.

The Mookie Crew's New Years resolution should be to up their contrarian to success ratio.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

dude i agree with like 99% of everything you say in the spurs forum whatchyou smokin (yes i realize this is also a contrarian viewpoint)

you're like 1997 master p and I'm like 1995 silkk the shocker
always putting me down and refusing to accept my greatness

[LaMarcus Bryant]

oh, that's right, timvp only listens to RADIO master p

[timvp]

LaMarcus has one of the lower contrarian to post ratios of the Mookie Crew. Him and Cannot_be_faded have low ratios.

But there are more than two corsos in this pregame show . . .

[ploto]

You're right about cervical cancer meaning HPV is most likely the root cause
but you're wrong in assuming that means HPV means cancer will develop

Might want to check that reading comprehension again. Nowhere did I ever say HPV means cancer will develop. Nowhere. I clearly stated that in many cases it does not. But in some cases it does-- it causes cancer and kills women.

It was added to the list because the vaccine is recommended by the ACIP of the CDC, ACOG, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and American Cancer Society

I can assure all the men in here that I know a whlole uva lot more about what happens with my body than you do.

Hate the mandaory vaccine but do not lie about the disease.

[thispego]

Maybe you need to check your reading comprehension. Not one person here has said that HPV is not linked to cervical cancer. Everyone knows that, why are you trying to convince us? If you would read the whole thread you'd see this started with mandating the vaccine. But whether it's mandated or not the fact remains that Gardasil is WAY undertested. Yet so many want to be the first to get injected because it helps prevent what you believe to be a very real and likely illness. That line of reasoning is understandable because "if they created a vaccine for it and it's getting all this national attention, cervical cancer must be a huge threat and I must protect myself and my children!!!!!."

Merck has you right where they want you.

In 2006, in Texas, the only state I know to have mandated this drug there were
13,150 new cases of breast cancer,
9,510 new cases of colo/rectal cancer,
3,930 new cases of melanomas of the skin,
3,340 new cases of Non-Hodgkins Lymphomas,
2,350 new cases of Ovarian/Endo cancer,
2,250 new cases of Leukemia,
and a whopping 920 new cases of cervical cancer.
In fact, cervical cancer has the lowest incidence rate of all cancers in EVERY state.

Yes HPV causes Cancer
Yes Gardasil was found to prevent genital warts caused by HPV types 6 and 11 and prevent pre-cancer cervix cell changes caused by types 16 and 18.

BUT...

The vaccine protects against only 70% of cervical cancers and doesn't protect against all cancer-causing types of HPV, so even in women who have been vaccinated, cervical cancer is still possible.

Not to mention it is under tested, it can be extremely harmful if taken while pregnant, and is rendered ineffective if already infected with HPV.

[ploto]

Not one person here has said that HPV is not linked to cervical cancer. Everyone knows that, why are you trying to convince us?

A NewsTarget investigation has revealed that the FDA knew as early as 2003 that Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) was not linked to cervical cancer.

Try again.

Yet so many want to be the first to get injected because it helps prevent what you believe to be a very real and likely illness. That line of reasoning is understandable because "if they created a vaccine for it and it's getting all this national attention, cervical cancer must be a huge threat and I must protect myself and my children!!!!!."

Merck has you right where they want you.

I am sick and tired of a bunch of condescending men in this thread who act as if I do not know my facts. I know all about the incidence of cervical cancer; I know all about the research on the disease; I have not been scared by Merck's campaign. I did not even get the vaccine but somehow you assume I have. I make informed and wise choices about what I do with my body and what I do for my child. Men in here have told me that somehow I am too stupid to understand the articles, but they are the ones who are clueless. You hate vaccines. We get it. You hate pharmaceutical companes, We get it. You hate the government telling you that you have to vaccinate your child. We get it (although you really don't have to). But do not patronize me nor talk down to me when I am a very intelligent and informed woman about healthcare and my body.

[thispego]

Try again..

boutons may or may not believe that HPV is linked to cervical cancer, i dont now because he constantly edits his posts. But regardless of what he believes, you're just qouting a qoute that he qouted. So no, still, no one here believes there is not a link between HPV and cervical cancer. Especially the people who you suggest should brush up on their reading comprehension.

I am sick and tired of a bunch of condescending men in this thread who act as if I do not know my facts. I know all about the incidence of cervical cancer; I know all about the research on the disease; I have not been scared by Merck's campaign. I did not even get the vaccine but somehow you assume I have. I make informed and wise choices about what I do with my body and what I do for my child. Men in here have told me that somehow I am too stupid to understand the articles, but they are the ones who are clueless. You hate vaccines. We get it. You hate pharmaceutical companes, We get it. You hate the government telling you that you have to vaccinate your child. We get it (although you really don't have to). But do not patronize me nor talk down to me when I am a very intelligent and informed woman about healthcare and my body.

I never said you didnt understand an article, I said you missed the point of the thread. and yay for you for making informed and intelligent decisions with your female body . seriously

[SpursWoman]

boutons may or may not believe that HPV is linked to cervical cancer, i dont now because he constantly edits his posts. But regardless of what he believes, you're just qouting a qoute that he qouted. So no, still, no one here believes there is not a link between HPV and cervical cancer. Especially the people who you suggest should brush up on their reading comprehension.

He bolded that part and tripled the font size.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=419

[medstudent]

Just cause you aren't protected 100% doesn't mean you shouldn't get the vaccine. Pertussis vaccine is 85% affected, Pneumococcal is 90% for the serotypes it covers, and any vaccine you look at is going to have a failure rate to a certain degree.

The rub lies in that if everyone gets vaccinated, the 10-30% that aren't immunized are protected by herd immunity. This is true for HPV as well. People will still get cervical cancer, but over time the incidence will fall precipitously.

[thispego]

He bolded that part and tripled the font size.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=419

after several edits. the font size got bigger each time...

and again, I dont know if bouton's actually believes that or if he's just pointing out a new finding to fire this debate up again. I'll let bouton's speak for himself and if he actually believes HPV does not have anything to do with cervical cancer then i will stand corrected.

[thispego]

Just cause you aren't protected 100% doesn't mean you shouldn't get the vaccine. Pertussis vaccine is 85% affected, Pneumococcal is 90% for the serotypes it covers, and any vaccine you look at is going to have a failure rate to a certain degree.

The rub lies in that if everyone gets vaccinated, the 10-30% that aren't immunized are protected by herd immunity. This is true for HPV as well. People will still get cervical cancer, but over time the incidence will fall precipitously.

the incidence rates were already falling before the mandate was issued.
they would have continued to fall while Gardasil spent a few more years in the testing phase, but that, Merck was hemmorhaging money from Vioxx lawsuits, they need to make money NOW!

[LaMarcus Bryant]

this guy knows what he's talking about.
i like the cut of his gib.

[thispego]

its my right to ascertain things!!

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Is it SANchez?