H.P.V. Shots for young girls.

[Jiro]

The truth is not being bent. It is being phrased in a manner that the majority of the public will understand. Most people do not have an advanced degree in chemistry or microbiology, and therefore, the pamphlets have been explained in a way that the majority of people will easily understand. It is much the same as a doctor telling you "Your gall bladder is bad." Instead of "You have cholisistitis." Both mean the same thing, but one is technical, and one is phrased so that the average person can understand.

lol I just had a funny thought.

Doctor: You have a cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 caused by human papillomavirus.
Patient: uh........... so..........
Doctor: <ahem> You are fucked.
Patient:

 

[jillio]

And this is why I don't like their marketing. Here are a few quotes directly from the flier provided before.

"There is no treatment for HPV infection, but the conditions it causes can be treated."
"HPV vaccine can prevent most genital warts and most cases of cervical cancer."

Combine that with their "one less" campaign, and I find their methods misleading.

There is absolutely nothing about those statements that are misleading. You are using a semantical argument that in no way affects the bottom line of the treatment.

 

[jillio]

lol I just had a funny thought.

Doctor: You have a cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 caused by human papillomavirus.
Patient: uh........... so..........
Doctor: <ahem> You are fucked.
Patient:

Exactly! Excellent example.

 

[Babyblue]

I'm not sure you understand what I'm trying to say at all. First of all, there is a lot of sales and marketing still happening. Have you seen the "One less" commercials? The whole pitch is, "Get the Gardasil vaccine, and be one less woman who has to battle cervical cancer". They very gingerly address the fact that it can't actually prevent cervical cancer, and then obviously any side effects, like in any commercial.

I know fear is a major setback. But so is complacency. The fact is, however good Gardasil is, it can't actually claim to prevent cervical cancer, because they still don't understand all the causes or factors that lead to cancer. But making people think it can will take the emphasis off of future studies and research, and make it harder for people to get funding for those studies. That worries me.

I'm not saying I'm against modern medicine, and I'm not sure where you would get that from any of my posts. What I'm saying is that one new development should not make it seem like they've "solved" an entire problem when they haven't. Have they done something? Yes. But there is still more to be done, and it's hard for people to see that when all they're being shown is "the cure for cervical cancer".

I don't see where you get the idea of guardisal is portraying "the cure for cervical cancer". It clearly states it prevent 4 types of HPV virus. It helps to prevent cancer and warts. That are caused by the virus.

 

[jillio]

I don't see where you get the idea of guardisal is portraying "the cure for cervical cancer". It clearly states it prevent 4 types of HPV virus. It helps to prevent cancer and warts. That are caused by the virus.

Exactly. Just like the rubella vaccine. It does not prevent deafness. However, it does prevent rubella infection, and thereby prevents any deafness that is linked to a rubella etiology. If you are not infected with rubella, you, nor any offspring you may be carrying, will suffer the consequences of rubella deafness.

The mumps vaccine does not prevent sterility in men. However, it does prevent infection of the virus causing mumps, which in adult men, can localize in the testes and cause sterility.

People are confusing the prevention of the primary disease with a claim of prevention of secondary consequences.

 

[lsfoster]

There is absolutely nothing about those statements that are misleading. You are using a semantical argument that in no way affects the bottom line of the treatment.

Let's compare:

Here's where your confusion lies, Maria. Gardisil is not a vaccine to protect against "cervical cancer".
Flier's version: "HPV vaccine can prevent most genital warts and most cases of cervical cancer."

It is a vaccine to protect against HPV.
Flier's version: "There is no treatment for HPV infection, but the conditions it causes can be treated."
HPV is a sexually transmitted disease, the consequence of which can be, for some, mutation into cervical cancer.

I think you're simplifying what "semantics" actually is. Here's an example: "The study of semantics includes the study of how meaning is constructed, interpreted, clarified, obscured, illustrated, simplified, negotiated, contradicted and paraphrased." So yes, it is "semantics", but it's not as innocent as you're making it sound. They are obscuring the meaning of their statements by specific word choices.

You seemed to have a big problem with "manipulative" or "selective" sites in another thread, I'm not sure why you're defending it here...

 

[jillio]

Let's compare:



I think you're simplifying what "semantics" actually is. Here's an example: "The study of semantics includes the study of how meaning is constructed, interpreted, clarified, obscured, illustrated, simplified, negotiated, contradicted and paraphrased." So yes, it is "semantics", but it's not as innocent as you're making it sound. They are obscuring the meaning of their statements by specific word choices.

You seemed to have a big problem with "manipulative" or "selective" sites in another thread, I'm not sure why you're defending it here...

Please see my above post regarding prevention of primary disease, and thus prevention of secondary consequences of the primary disease. It is really quite simple. If the primary disease is prevented, one does not suffer the secondary consequences of having contracted the primary disease.

 

[lsfoster]

I don't see where you get the idea of guardisal is portraying "the cure for cervical cancer". It clearly states it prevent 4 types of HPV virus. It helps to prevent cancer and warts. That are caused by the virus.

Their marketing campaign: "I'm going to be one less woman with cervical cancer!" Does that sound like, "I'm going to be one less woman with 4 strains of HPV, which might possibly protect me from some forms of cancer and genital warts!" to anyone?


(Another small reason their ads bother me. You can't hold up signs with "One less!", it should be "One fewer".)

 

[jillio]

Their marketing campaign: "I'm going to be one less woman with cervical cancer!" Does that sound like, "I'm going to be one less woman with 4 strains of HPV, which might possibly protect me from some forms of cancer and genital warts!" to anyone?


(Another small reason their ads bother me. You can't hold up signs with "One less!", it should be "One fewer".)

Oh, please, lsfoster. Now you are just being silly.

 

[lsfoster]

Please see my above post regarding prevention of primary disease, and thus prevention of secondary consequences of the primary disease. It is really quite simple. If the primary disease is prevented, one does not suffer the secondary consequences of having contracted the primary disease.

We've been over this point already.

You're still not addressing the topic at hand. If a flier against Gardasil took the same liberties, you would be attacking them so fast their head would spin. It is hypocritical of you not to consider their information to be manipulative just because you happen to agree with them.

 

[lsfoster]

Oh, please, lsfoster. Now you are just being silly.

How is that silly? I was asked where I got the idea that they were advertising a "cure for cervical cancer", and presented a direct quote from their own ad campaign that showed where. What I think is that you are just once again being defensive and disagreeable without any real counter-argument or evidence against what I said.

 

[jillio]

We've been over this point already.

You're still not addressing the topic at hand. If a flier against Gardasil took the same liberties, you would be attacking them so fast their head would spin. It is hypocritical of you not to consider their information to be manipulative just because you happen to agree with them.

I have addressed the topic at hand ad nasuem. The fact of the matter is, if a woman does not contract any of the 4 strains of HPV (primary disease) that have been shown to be a predisposing condition for certain types of cervical cancer, she will not contract the cervical cancer that is the result of having been infected by one of the 4 recognized strains of HPV (secondary consequence).

Just like one who has been immunized against mumps will not contract mumps related sterility, and one who has been immunized against rubella will not contract rubella related deafness, and one who has been immunized against polio will not contract polio related mobility issues.

 

[jillio]

How is that silly? I was asked where I got the idea that they were advertising a "cure for cervical cancer", and presented a direct quote from their own ad campaign that showed where. What I think is that you are just once again being defensive and disagreeable without any real counter-argument or evidence against what I said.

No dear, I am not being defensive and disagreeable. You are simply being silly.

It is not being promoted as a "cure" for cancer. Cancer can only be "cured" once it has been contracted, and no where do they say that the vaccine will "cure" any disease that has been contracted. The statement is that it prevents, and that statement is valid, in that it prevents the predisposing condition from ocurring, meaning that the disease is not contracted. Therefore, it has absolutely nothing to do with a "cure".

 

[lsfoster]

I have addressed the topic at hand ad nasuem. The fact of the matter is, if a woman does not contract any of the 4 strains of HPV (primary disease) that have been shown to be a predisposing condition for certain types of cervical cancer, she will not contract the cervical cancer that is the result of having been infected by one of the 4 recognized strains of HPV (secondary consequence).

Just like one who has been immunized against mumps will not contract mumps related sterility, and one who has been immunized against rubella will not contract rubella related deafness, and one who has been immunized against polio will not contract polio related mobility issues.

First of all, the topic at hand is their manipulative distribution of information.

Secondly, I already presented data showing that cancer does result without the precondition of HPV. They do not know of a clear mechanism between HPV and cancer. Without understanding the actual process and all the other factors involved, you cannot say that it will "prevent cervical cancer". Yes, it might protect them from having cancer that could have been caused by one of those four strands, but that does not address all the other mechanisms and factors that can still cause cancer.

 

[jillio]

First of all, the topic at hand is their manipulative distribution of information.

Secondly, I already presented data showing that cancer does result without the precondition of HPV. They do not know of a clear mechanism between HPV and cancer. Without understanding the actual process and all the other factors involved, you cannot say that it will "prevent cervical cancer". Yes, it might protect them from having cancer that could have been caused by one of those four strands, but that does not address all the other mechanisms and factors that can still cause cancer.

Your fatal error is that you are confusing preventive medicine with curative medicine. A condom doesn't cure STDs, but it prevents the transmission of such. Brushing your teeth with flouride toothpaste doesn't cure cavities, it prevents them. Guardisil doesn't cure cancer or HPV, it prevents the transmission of an STD that has been linked to cervical cancer as a secondary consequence.

 

[lsfoster]

No dear, I am not being defensive and disagreeable. You are simply being silly.

It is not being promoted as a "cure" for cancer. Cancer can only be "cured" once it has been contracted, and no where do they say that the vaccine will "cure" any disease that has been contracted. The statement is that it prevents, and that statement is valid, in that it prevents the predisposing condition from ocurring, meaning that the disease is not contracted. Therefore, it has absolutely nothing to do with a "cure".

You seemed to consider yourself an expert at "manipulation" in our other discussion, so I really shouldn't need to explain how, "I'm choosing to be one less woman with cervical cancer thanks to the Gardasil vaccine" is a manipulative statement.

 

[jillio]

You seemed to consider yourself an expert at "manipulation" in our other discussion, so I really shouldn't need to explain how, "I'm choosing to be one less woman with cervical cancer thanks to the Gardasil vaccine" is a manipulative statement.

No, you really do need to explain how that is manipulative. If you prevent the infection, it is a choice you have made to also prevent the secondary consequences of that infection.

 

[lsfoster]

Your fatal error is that you are confusing preventive medicine with curative medicine. A condom doesn't cure STDs, but it prevents the transmission of such. Brushing your teeth with flouride toothpaste doesn't cure cavities, it prevents them. Guardisil doesn't cure cancer or HPV, it prevents the transmission of an STD that has been linked to cervical cancer as a secondary consequence.

Now you're the one arguing "semantics". My point is that their ad campaign is manipulative. All of my statements have been about preventing cervical cancer, except for the one sarcastic one that Babyblue responded to. I have said many times that claiming they can prevent cervical cancer is misleading. Is that better? I know they're not saying they can "cure" cancer, but they are making it sound like they can stop it from occurring, which is not true.

 

[jillio]

Now you're the one arguing "semantics". My point is that their ad campaign is manipulative. All of my statements have been about preventing cervical cancer, except for the one sarcastic one that Babyblue responded to. I have said many times that claiming they can prevent cervical cancer is misleading. Is that better? I know they're not saying they can "cure" cancer, but they are making it sound like they can stop it from occurring, which is not true.

No dear, I am not arguing over semantics, you are. You are attempting to use a semantic argument. How is claiming that they can prevent cervical cancer misleading? If you don't get infected with the HPV known to be connected to cervical cancer, you have prevented secondary effects by preventing the primary disease. You simply cannot get around that fact, no matter how hard you try. Again, stop confusing curative with preventive.

 

[lsfoster]

No, you really do need to explain how that is manipulative. If you prevent the infection, it is a choice you have made to also prevent the secondary consequences of that infection.

Because you're not choosing to prevent cervical cancer. You're choosing to be immunized against four strains of HPV. And the latter does not necessarily imply the former. This shouldn't be that hard to understand.