Printable View
Ouch. I think that was a bit inflammatory, don't you? Never mind them? Well, back to pap smears and education I guess. 20 years, that's a lot of time to implement other changes. Hell, it's a lot of time for someone to discover this vaccine is crap and dangerous...or, that with a few tweaks, it's fabulous. Geez, I'll be 41 in 20 years time ;) Anything is possible. I fully expect flying cars by then.
:rolleyes: What Rockin fails to mention here, is that only 6% of cervical cancer deaths occur in women under 35 (so over 20 years approximately 84,000 or 4200 a year world wide). Seeing that the vaccine, IF it does what it says it does (and that's a big IF), at most only protects against 70%, so at least 25,200 would occur anyway. The other thing he fails to mention is that 75% of ALL cervical cancer deaths occur within the age bracket from 70 years +. The human body is producing cancer cells ALL the time but the immune system, when working correctly, will destroy them so that it doesn't grow. It's a well known fact that as people get older, their immune systems become less efficient, putting them at risk to ALL cancers, ALL diseases etc. etc. It's simply part of life. To suggest that this vaccine will stop this age bracket from dying from cancer is ridiculous, and flinging around numbers without context is simply fear mongering.:
Talking about figures. I don't think the families of these girls that have died would find your dismissal of "some of them including car accidents" well thought out. This simplistic statement ignores the fact that they had the car accident because they fainted at the wheel within 2 hours of having the vaccine. Of course these deaths can't be PROVED, they're just a heck of a lot of coincidences. 1 adverse effect is a coincidence. 10 adverse effects may be a coincidence. When you start getting up to 50, 100, 1000, they stop being coincidences and start becoming patterns. There's a terrible double standard that a pattern (i.e. so many of the control group given aluminium placebo ~ if that's not an oxymoron ~ get lesions) proves that the vaccine protects, but similar patterns of adverse effects and even deaths are just coincidences.
Yet another incidence of changing the criteria and the ruler with which things are measured to achieve a certain bias.
I didn't mean to be inflammatory but it is a valid argument.
Your right to have concerns but considering the progression of the science it's very very unlikely that the vaccine won't work or will be dangerous.
The deaths were a coincidence because out of 50 million vaccinations, less than 50 died within 6 months. What's the natural mortality of women from that age? In the US?
How do you think the coroner or legal system feels about unknown deaths? That person died, oh well we don't know how she died. That's ok, don't worry about it!
What's the relevance of the age stats? Old women die of cancer anyhow? I don't follow you?
For me, for my family, it's an unnecessary vaccine. I'm not anti-vax. I will vaccinate my children...to a point. Some vaccines I find to be a waste of time, and make me uncomfortable. This is one of them. I know I cannot implement any big changes in educating people world wide as a prevention to cervical cancer, but for my own children, I feel confident I can. I'm certainly not using sweeping statements or declaring that everyone should think like me; but it's my own personal reasoning, and I'm sticking to it :) Happy to hear other views (as always) but I'm certainly not going to run around in circles trying to justify why I think this vaccine is unnecessary, I've made my points. They're definitely not going to be applicable to everyone.
(stupid comment)
Oh come on, we're all grown ups here. Can we attack the issue and not the person? I dont want to end up closing all the vax threads because people feel the need to gain a sense of significance by tearing down others to make them less significant. Feel significant within youself and your choices and we'll be able to have more interesting, less moderated discussions.
I've got it! Are you really the CEO of a pharmaceutical company posing as a nurse? ;)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk so forgive spelling mistakes :)
They're important because you're flinging around numbers without context. Firstly, the bulk of women who die from cervical cancer are women who are much, much older than the women this vaccine is marketed to. The bulk of women who die are those nearing the end of their lives, where their bodies are slowing down and are more susceptible to ANY disease. If their bodies are creating the right environment to not fight off HPV and allow it to cause cancer, then that same body is creating the right environment for other pathogens as well. A vaccine that requires the avenue of the immune system to work isn't going to do much good if their immune system in general is starting to slow and fail. It would be the equivalent of trying to push back the tide with a broom. There's no vaccine to stop us from getting old, and when we become old we're more vulnerable to ANY disease - cervical cancer included. So, the point is that only 6%-25% of those cervical cancer deaths occur in age groups who are young enough to theoretically be able to fight off those diseases better but aren't. It's certainly not the numbers you're stating.:
Sorry, it was a stupid thing to say and I can admit when I'm wrong (and stupid)!
Just remember PZ, no one means to get a disease and there are high risk groups but they're not only risk groups. All kinds of people from all walks get exposed. I'm no trying to scare you to my point of view or anything like that but life happens.
Well, that isn't a choice anyway, is it. HPV shot does not protect against all cervical cancers or all STDs. Their lives are still at risk for both with or without the shot. I won't be injecting a false sense of security into my daughters arm.:
Yeddi: Old people still don't deserve to die of cancer and I know that's no what you mean but it's a relevant point.
I previously sent you a study showing how the flu vax can reduce flu in the elderly, their immune systems are declining but not shot! There's also a study showing effectiveness of HPV vaccine in over 40s.
Still that's a lot of young women your talking about.
No vaccine is a magic trick, people still die. What you've said is cold comfort to people with cervical cancer that could've been curable. I don't mean to be inflammatory but it is the truth.:
A vaccine will never be a replacement for common sense but I work in EDs enough to see a lot of intelligent people who should've known better.
That's like saying old people don't deserve to die at all, but they do - it's called life. You can't stop people from eventually dying, it's one of the only sure things in life, and when we get to a certain age it does simply become a what more than a when.:
Regardless, this vaccine still involves a lot of assumption, and the trails have been fudged using aluminium placebo to give the figures that suit the agenda.
The word is not curable, it is preventable. Gardasil doesn't work if you are already infected with HPV.:
A shot in the arm is not the only method of prevention.
I know that RSAHD. But we're just talking about HPV atm. And getting HPV doesn't necessarily mean getting cancer. If you get HPV at all.
That paper was in the Lancet which is a big deal as you know. If your right and can prove it your name might be on the front page of all the major papers around the world.:
Prove what? That they used an alum placebo for 90% of the control group and this would have changed the findings in comparison to having used saline placebo for all the control group?:
I don't have to prove it, it's right there on Gardasil's own flippin' study. Check out page 11, and the difference in reactions between the saline placebo, the alum placebo and the vax. Dodgy!
http://www.gardasil.com/downloads/gardasil_pi.pdf
It is very obvious that the stats between the control group and the vaccine would have been very different if the control group had mostly used a saline placebo.
Placebo definition - an inactive substance. In other words, something that requires nothing from the body, it goes in and makes no difference. At the very least, aluminium would need to be excreted, requiring the immune system, enzymes etc. to work. That is NOT a placebo. Aluminium placebo = oxymoron.