H.P.V. Shots for young girls.

[Babyblue]

MMR vaccinations are from a live virus.

Go figure.

Does that stop you from getting your child immunizations.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

They didn't manipulate it. But it's close enough that they get away with saying it. This is exactly my point. I really don't get why people keep thinking I don't understand how vaccines work.

All I'm trying to say is that there are ways for them to bend the truth. A lot of ways. And they do.

This still isn't going to stop me from encouraging my sister to have my neice vaccinated when she's old enough.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

MMR vaccinations are from a live virus.

Go figure.

Does that stop you from getting your child immunizations.

good point.

 

[lsfoster]

MMR vaccinations are from a live virus.

Go figure.

Does that stop you from getting your child immunizations.

This has nothing to do with the virus. This is about the fact that they are clearly bending the truth on their fliers. If they can do it with something as basic as what the vaccine even is, do you really feel confident that they won't with anything else? If you think that Merck is more concerned with being completely honest with the public than selling their product, then that's your choice. Personally, there is a lot about this that seems a little rushed and the way it's being marketed worries me.

 

[Babyblue]

Guardisal been out since 2006.

It will be soon 3 years.

Many have been vaccinated already!


We have people against children's immunizations. So of course we will have people against the HPV vaccinations.

Fear of moving ahead to prevent diseases.

Side effects or religious reason or just wanting nature to take its course. Or just simply ignorance.

But to me those same people should not resort to ANY medications of Any kind. It is their rights. As an adult.

For children that are involved. If they do that chances are they would be in a legal turmoil.

Once they mandate HPV as one of the childhood immunization. What will happen?

 

[Oceanbreeze]

This has nothing to do with the virus. This is about the fact that they are clearly bending the truth on their fliers. If they can do it with something as basic as what the vaccine even is, do you really feel confident that they won't with anything else? If you think that Merck is more concerned with being completely honest with the public than selling their product, then that's your choice. Personally, there is a lot about this that seems a little rushed and the way it's being marketed worries me.

You really sound paranoid.

 

[lsfoster]

You really sound paranoid.

Which is strange, because I'm not at all. I'm getting a Ph.D in chemistry, and intend to go into research in industry. That means that my top job market is going to be large drug companies. I don't think you're understanding the point of my posts. If people want to get the vaccine, fine. I would still like there to be more studies on long-term effects of it, but I can't really speed up time.

What worries me is that all they have to do is come out and say, "Look, we can prevent cervical cancer!" and suddenly nothing else matters. Nobody seems to care how much testing has been done, or that they can only claim to maybe prevent some cases (which if they can, is great, I'm not saying it isn't), or that they suddenly don't seem interested in how HPV - which is present in the majority of the population - relates to other factors, since it obviously can't "cause" cancer on it's own, or just about everyone would have it. Nobody seems to be worried about other ways that cervical cancer could develop, or what effect the vaccines could have on someone who already has one of those strains of HPV.

Like I keep saying, I think that there's a false sense of security, and that worries me.

I'm also worried that people don't seem to be able to understand pretty simple information about this, and that their immediate response when anything is brought up is to just reject and deny it. If that is how people react, I don't see how they can be making educated decisions.

 

[shel90]

Which is strange, because I'm not at all. I'm getting a Ph.D in chemistry, and intend to go into research in industry. That means that my top job market is going to be large drug companies. I don't think you're understanding the point of my posts. If people want to get the vaccine, fine. I would still like there to be more studies on long-term effects of it, but I can't really speed up time.

What worries me is that all they have to do is come out and say, "Look, we can prevent cervical cancer!" and suddenly nothing else matters. Nobody seems to care how much testing has been done, or that they can only claim to maybe prevent some cases (which if they can, is great, I'm not saying it isn't), or that they suddenly don't seem interested in how HPV - which is present in the majority of the population - relates to other factors, since it obviously can't "cause" cancer on it's own, or just about everyone would have it. Nobody seems to be worried about other ways that cervical cancer could develop, or what effect the vaccines could have on someone who already has one of those strains of HPV.

Like I keep saying, I think that there's a false sense of security, and that worries me.

I'm also worried that people don't seem to be able to understand pretty simple information about this, and that their immediate response when anything is brought up is to just reject and deny it. If that is how people react, I don't see how they can be making educated decisions.

Suppose you get a job with a major pharmatucal company doing lab research and your employer discovers a drug that could cure something or prevent it but has adverse side effects and pressures the FDA to approve of it by lobbying or whatever. Would you keep quiet about it or blow the whistle?

 

[Jiro]

Which is strange, because I'm not at all. I'm getting a Ph.D in chemistry, and intend to go into research in industry. That means that my top job market is going to be large drug companies. I don't think you're understanding the point of my posts. If people want to get the vaccine, fine. I would still like there to be more studies on long-term effects of it, but I can't really speed up time.

What worries me is that all they have to do is come out and say, "Look, we can prevent cervical cancer!" and suddenly nothing else matters. Nobody seems to care how much testing has been done, or that they can only claim to maybe prevent some cases (which if they can, is great, I'm not saying it isn't), or that they suddenly don't seem interested in how HPV - which is present in the majority of the population - relates to other factors, since it obviously can't "cause" cancer on it's own, or just about everyone would have it. Nobody seems to be worried about other ways that cervical cancer could develop, or what effect the vaccines could have on someone who already has one of those strains of HPV.

Like I keep saying, I think that there's a false sense of security, and that worries me.

I'm also worried that people don't seem to be able to understand pretty simple information about this, and that their immediate response when anything is brought up is to just reject and deny it. If that is how people react, I don't see how they can be making educated decisions.

I know what you're saying. But then... when's drug ever a guarantee? I have to ask - since you're getting ph.d in chemistry... what year are you?

 

[Jolie77]

This has nothing to do with the virus. This is about the fact that they are clearly bending the truth on their fliers. If they can do it with something as basic as what the vaccine even is, do you really feel confident that they won't with anything else? If you think that Merck is more concerned with being completely honest with the public than selling their product, then that's your choice. Personally, there is a lot about this that seems a little rushed and the way it's being marketed worries me.

I've been reading this thread for a while now and I find some valid arguments that are quite interesting.

I wanted to clear this up to find the surface underneath all this. If they are clearly bending the truth on the fliers then why would they bend the truth only to jeopardize the welfare of other's health when it comes to the vaccines?

While I can understand the importance of marketing but certainly, when it comes to marketing; Shouldn't the health come first before they impede the propaganda of the marketing aspects in order to make sure it is ensured?

 

[Babyblue]

Which is strange, because I'm not at all. I'm getting a Ph.D in chemistry, and intend to go into research in industry. That means that my top job market is going to be large drug companies. I don't think you're understanding the point of my posts. If people want to get the vaccine, fine. I would still like there to be more studies on long-term effects of it, but I can't really speed up time.

What worries me is that all they have to do is come out and say, "Look, we can prevent cervical cancer!" and suddenly nothing else matters. Nobody seems to care how much testing has been done, or that they can only claim to maybe prevent some cases (which if they can, is great, I'm not saying it isn't), or that they suddenly don't seem interested in how HPV - which is present in the majority of the population - relates to other factors, since it obviously can't "cause" cancer on it's own, or just about everyone would have it. Nobody seems to be worried about other ways that cervical cancer could develop, or what effect the vaccines could have on someone who already has one of those strains of HPV.

Like I keep saying, I think that there's a false sense of security, and that worries me.

I'm also worried that people don't seem to be able to understand pretty simple information about this, and that their immediate response when anything is brought up is to just reject and deny it. If that is how people react, I don't see how they can be making educated decisions.

Please don't get me wrong. I applaud you with the goals you have.

But just because you are getting a Ph.D. Doesn't mean you qualify.

Would the issue "look we can prevent AIDS" be the same issue?

"look we can prevent small pox"

"look we can prevent MMR"

"look we can prevent polio"

"look we can prevent DTP"

You get my point?

It is about prevention. And they ALL have risk.

You can use your qualifications all you want but their is always someone more qualified than you are. People that studied for years and years to even come up with the vaccination.

I'm moving forward.

With the studies done by more people that are more qualified than you.

 

[lsfoster]

Suppose you get a job with a major pharmatucal company doing lab research and your employer discovers a drug that could cure something or prevent it but has adverse side effects and pressures the FDA to approve of it by lobbying or whatever. Would you keep quiet about it or blow the whistle?

Odds are I would never be aware of it. I do computational chemistry, so everything I do is theoretical. My side is more to study and weed out good ideas from bad ones, or do theoretical studies of mechanisms that would be impossible to study experimentally. And if they pressure the FDA at all, they'd have way bigger problems than just me.

I know what you're saying. But then... when's drug ever a guarantee? I have to ask - since you're getting ph.d in chemistry... what year are you?

First year at B.U.

I've been reading this thread for a while now and I find some valid arguments that are quite interesting.

I wanted to clear this up to find the surface underneath all this. If they are clearly bending the truth on the fliers then why would they bend the truth only to jeopardize the welfare of other's health when it comes to the vaccines?

While I can understand the importance of marketing but certainly, when it comes to marketing; Shouldn't the health come first before they impede the propaganda of the marketing aspects in order to make sure it is ensured?

I'm not saying they are necessarily putting people's health at risk. There are always side effects, for anything, and at some point you have to decide that the benefits are greater. That's not really what worries me. What worries me is that people really seem to think that this is some sort of "cure" for cervical cancer, because it is being marketed in a way that would lead to that conclusion. I don't think that is going to help anyone in the long run.

Also, Merck doesn't have the best track record. The fact is, drug companies to sometimes get overzealous with their products. If you know anything about patent laws, you'll understand how hard it is to profit from them, and how important it is to get things on the market as soon as possible. When you have something like this, where the target is children who will not have been exposed to HPV yet, and they are considering mandatory vaccinations with a drug that has a few years of testing, that does worry me.

Please don't get me wrong. I applaud you with the goals you have.

But just because you are getting a Ph.D. Doesn't mean you qualify.

Would the issue "look we can prevent AIDS" be the same issue?
It is about prevention. And they ALL have risk.

You can use your qualifications all you want but their is always someone more qualified than you are. People that studied for years and years to even come up with the vaccination.

I'm moving forward.

With the studies done by more people that are more qualified than you.

I'm not saying I'm more qualified than anyone. I mentioned it only to say that I'm not some paranoid, anti-drug company nut. I know they have risks, I just think that luring people into a false sense of security is dangerous. The thing is, when they came up with a vaccine for small-pox, they managed to completely eradicate the virus. And that was their goal. This isn't the same situation. HPV is a widely common virus that a huge amount of people have and have no complications from. They do not have a vaccine for all 100 or so strains of it, nor do they really know how exactly it leads to precancerous conditions, or what other factors are necessary. It's dangerous to say "We can prevent cervical cancer!" when it's not really true. They can prevent 4 strains of something that might be related to cervical cancer, but that's not what people hear. And that takes an emphasis off future studies and funding to keep working on this problem.

 

[Jiro]

First year at B.U.

first year? oh.... well.... it's ok

beside that - B.U. is nice but $$$$$$$$$. I've been there a few times. Boston is my 2nd favorite city. I go up there sometimes to visit my old friends at MIT. we should meet up if I go up there again!

 

[shel90]

Odds are I would never be aware of it. I do computational chemistry, so everything I do is theoretical. My side is more to study and weed out good ideas from bad ones, or do theoretical studies of mechanisms that would be impossible to study experimentally. And if they pressure the FDA at all, they'd have way bigger problems than just me.



First year at B.U.



I'm not saying they are necessarily putting people's health at risk. There are always side effects, for anything, and at some point you have to decide that the benefits are greater. That's not really what worries me. What worries me is that people really seem to think that this is some sort of "cure" for cervical cancer, because it is being marketed in a way that would lead to that conclusion. I don't think that is going to help anyone in the long run.

Also, Merck doesn't have the best track record. The fact is, drug companies to sometimes get overzealous with their products. If you know anything about patent laws, you'll understand how hard it is to profit from them, and how important it is to get things on the market as soon as possible. When you have something like this, where the target is children who will not have been exposed to HPV yet, and they are considering mandatory vaccinations with a drug that has a few years of testing, that does worry me.



I'm not saying I'm more qualified than anyone. I mentioned it only to say that I'm not some paranoid, anti-drug company nut. I know they have risks, I just think that luring people into a false sense of security is dangerous. The thing is, when they came up with a vaccine for small-pox, they managed to completely eradicate the virus. And that was their goal. This isn't the same situation. HPV is a widely common virus that a huge amount of people have and have no complications from. They do not have a vaccine for all 100 or so strains of it, nor do they really know how exactly it leads to precancerous conditions, or what other factors are necessary. It's dangerous to say "We can prevent cervical cancer!" when it's not really true. They can prevent 4 strains of something that might be related to cervical cancer, but that's not what people hear. And that takes an emphasis off future studies and funding to keep working on this problem.

Of course, by stating that, it makes the company stock go up, doesnt it? It seems like that's the goal of these major pharmaticual companies sometimes.

 

[shel90]

first year? oh.... well.... it's ok

beside that - B.U. is nice but $$$$$$$$$. I've been there a few times. Boston is my 2nd favorite city. I go up there sometimes to visit my old friends at MIT. we should meet up if I go up there again!

More $$$ if one is in a PhD program!

 

[lsfoster]

first year? oh.... well.... it's ok

beside that - B.U. is nice but $$$$$$$$$. I've been there a few times. Boston is my 2nd favorite city. I go up there sometimes to visit my old friends at MIT. we should meet up if I go up there again!

Yeah, BU is nice, but I'm not really a city person, so I'm still getting used to Boston. But yeah, we should definitely meet up if you're ever up here. Just let me know.

More $$$ if one is in a PhD program!

Actually, chemistry is one of those cool subjects where the school pays for my tuition and I get a yearly stipend. Plus it defers all my undergraduate loans. It's a pretty sweet deal.

 

[Jiro]

Yeah, BU is nice, but I'm not really a city person, so I'm still getting used to Boston. But yeah, we should definitely meet up if you're ever up here. Just let me know.

Actually, chemistry is one of those cool subjects where the school pays for my tuition and I get a yearly stipend. Plus it defers all my undergraduate loans. It's a pretty sweet deal.

:-o btw - i'm incredibly dumb when it comes to chemistry.

 

[Babyblue]

Ifoster.

Indeed....?? Shall we should stop the HPV vaccinations?
Due to you think it is a complete failure?

As for someone going into research after they get their PH.D.

Surely you would be the first to reject anything medically promising.??

 

[lsfoster]

Ifoster.

Indeed....?? Shall we should stop the HPV vaccinations?
Due to you think it is a complete failure?

As for someone going into research after they get their PH.D.

Surely you would be the first to reject anything medically promising.??

I'm not sure where you think I said any of that. I never said to stop them, and I never said they were a failure. I think they are being marketed as more than they are, and I think most people will not know enough to realize that this isn't going to just stop cervical cancer. It's much more complicated than that. I think it's easier for people to just take what is being thrown at them by advertisements than to actually educate themselves on the topic, and I think that if there is less public awareness of how much still needs to be done, it will be harder for the research that still needs to happen to get funding and be done.

 

[Jolie77]

I'm not saying they are necessarily putting people's health at risk. There are always side effects, for anything, and at some point you have to decide that the benefits are greater. That's not really what worries me. What worries me is that people really seem to think that this is some sort of "cure" for cervical cancer, because it is being marketed in a way that would lead to that conclusion. I don't think that is going to help anyone in the long run.

Also, Merck doesn't have the best track record. The fact is, drug companies to sometimes get overzealous with their products. If you know anything about patent laws, you'll understand how hard it is to profit from them, and how important it is to get things on the market as soon as possible. When you have something like this, where the target is children who will not have been exposed to HPV yet, and they are considering mandatory vaccinations with a drug that has a few years of testing, that does worry me.

I understand where you're coming from. With that said, It also does worry me too when there are limited information that are based on from the research alone to consider mandatory vaccinations. As for the patent laws, One has to show that it is refuted which makes it harder for them to be able to profit the pharmaceutical stuffs.

I think, When it comes to being overzealous about marketing thier products; They only are trying to 'register' the automatic thoughts in our head to assume that it is safe when some of the time it always is not the case.