H.P.V. Shots for young girls.

Hear Again said:
reba,

everyone has to be a guinea pig at some point in order for pharmaceutical companies to determine a drug's effectiveness.
Click to expand...
Are you willing to risk your child's life for a drug company's profits?
 
Reba said:
Are you willing to risk your child's life for a drug company's profits?
Click to expand...

i don't have any children, so i can't answer that question.

however, if it were me and pharmaceutical companies for instance developed a potential cure for bipolar, i'd be willing to be a guinea pig.
 
Anyways these same vacinne would never exist, and all of the diseases would be still killing us. Testing and trial is what makes medication and vaccines possible.

HPV is no different.

CDC and FDA would never release it if the risk factor is too high.
 
Anyways these same vacinne would never exist, and all of the diseases would be still killing us. Testing and trial is what makes medication and vaccines possible.

HPV is no different.

CDC and FDA would never release it if the risk factor is too high.
 
First of all, the FDA has released plenty of drugs where the risk factor was too high, and then had to recall them. That is not the biggest issue that I have with this. Regardless of the fact that there has not been enough time to determine how safe the vaccine is, you're completely ignoring the science behind the idea. This drug will not prevent the mechanism by which HPV can lead to precancerous conditions, and might actually promote those same conditions.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
Nothing is 100% safe, but it's as safe as they can make it. Some kids are going to have a reaction. That's true for any vaccine. Personally, knowing what I know, I'd take my chances with the vaccine. If it means my neice won't ever have to worry about those cancers, it'd be worth it.
Click to expand...

Its also true for strawberries and peanut butter. If you are looking for 100%, you will spend your entire life looking. Its called a cost benefit anaylis.
 
lsfoster said:
First of all, the FDA has released plenty of drugs where the risk factor was too high, and then had to recall them. That is not the biggest issue that I have with this. Regardless of the fact that there has not been enough time to determine how safe the vaccine is, you're completely ignoring the science behind the idea. This drug will not prevent the mechanism by which HPV can lead to precancerous conditions, and might actually promote those same conditions.
Click to expand...

If it prevents the virus, it most certainly prevents the mechanism by which the virus becomes cancerous.
 
jillio said:
Its also true for strawberries and peanut butter. If you are looking for 100%, you will spend your entire life looking. Its called a cost benefit anaylis.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's also why we look at side effect profiles and make our decisions after talking with the doctor. I would NOT base a decion by reading things on the internet alone.
 
Babyblue said:
...CDC and FDA would never release it if the risk factor is too high.
Click to expand...
Not true. They have released medicines before that later were recalled because of the damage they caused. Many class action lawsuits resulted.
 
jillio said:
Its also true for strawberries and peanut butter. If you are looking for 100%, you will spend your entire life looking. Its called a cost benefit anaylis.
Click to expand...

Which is why I am not against the vaccination, nor all the other vaccines that do not work nearly 100% of the time.

I do, however, believe that it's worth waiting a few more years before getting the vaccination due to the relatively short period of time we've been getting information about it.

There's a huge stretch between believing that good caution might be important in this case, and going as far as saying 'vaccines that do not work 100% of the time should not be used'
 
Reba said:
Not true. They have released medicines before that later were recalled because of the damage they caused. Many class action lawsuits resulted.
Click to expand...

And how many of those class action lawsuits have been won? Just because a law firm sees an opportunity to turn a profit doesn't mean that the lawsuit turns out to be valid.

Likewise, many of the effects that have been seen after release are seen only in people whose health is compromised in other ways, and were not included in trials. Therefore, the numbers affected by adverse side effects are small compared to the number that have received benefit with no adverse side effects.
 
Aleser said:
Which is why I am not against the vaccination, nor all the other vaccines that do not work nearly 100% of the time.

I do, however, believe that it's worth waiting a few more years before getting the vaccination due to the relatively short period of time we've been getting information about it.

There's a huge stretch between believing that good caution might be important in this case, and going as far as saying 'vaccines that do not work 100% of the time should not be used'
Click to expand...

Agreed. Long term effects are not yet known, because, as is inherent in determining long term effects, time must pass.

I would exercise due caution, and make my decision based on the accurate scientific inforamtion available, as well as calculating my risk of possible long term effects against my risk of developing cervical cancer.
 
My point exactly. Many, many more lawsuits filed than were found valid. Likewise, you have no idea how many of these side effects were seen due to off lable prescibing, or interaction with other medications. Too many variables.
 
My point was proven that just because the FDA approves something doesn't mean it's safe to use.

There are also drugs that are recalled after they had received FDA approval. The recall is too late for people who have taken the drugs.
 
Reba said:
My point was proven that just because the FDA approves something doesn't mean it's safe to use.

There are also drugs that are recalled after they had received FDA approval. The recall is too late for people who have taken the drugs.
Click to expand...

There's also alot of torte lawyers out trying to drum up business for themselves too. That could acct for the law suits that are filed. Exactly how many of them are frivolous, who knows?

The thing is... Conservatives wouldn't give a flip if Gardisil was used to eradicate something else. But, because it's use will potentially eradicate cancers caused by an STD, conservatives are having a collective stroke over it.

You can't tell me that those opposed to it are just concerned about health implications. Most opposed feel it's giving a free pass to young girls to have sex and that's simply not true!
 
jillio said:
If it prevents the virus, it most certainly prevents the mechanism by which the virus becomes cancerous.
Click to expand...

First of all, it does not prevent the virus. It is a vaccine against four specific strains of the virus. There are more than 100, and they are present in over 90% of sexually active people. Also, no it doesn't. The virus itself does not cause cancer. A persistent infection with the same strain of the virus can lead to "precancerous" conditions, meaning it makes it more likely that cancer will occur, not "causing" it.

Here is the closest way I can think of to explain this. Suppose someone said, "Hey, sunlight causes cancer. So I know how I will cure that, I'll never go in the sun again." Is that a smart idea? Sure, exposure to UV rays can cause damage to the DNA in your skin and lead to skin cancer. It doesn't "cause" cancer, but it can be a catalyst for the conditions that give rise to cancer. But there is also scientific data showing that lack of sunlight would lead to Vitamin D deficiency. Vitamin D is known to interact with the immune system and fight tumors. There is also data showing that people who spend more time indoors are actually more likely to get skin cancer, since skin that is infrequently exposed to UV rays is more likely to be harmed by them. Then there is the fact that this is just one way that skin cancer can be caused, there are tons of other which have nothing to do with the sun at all.

This is extremely similar to what is happening here. You are confusing cause and effect. Saying that many women with cervical cancer have been found to have HPV and therefore HPV "causes" cancer is totally misleading. That's like saying, "Well, a lot of women with cervical cancer also have breasts, and this high correlation rate leads us to believe that breasts cause cervical cancer, so we're recommending mastectomies to reduce that risk". The majority of women have HPV, just like the majority of women have breasts. Certain strains of HPV, in specific situations, and when combined with other factors, can cause physiological responses which can increase the likelihood of cancer forming. HPV does not "become" cancer, and it does not "cause" cancer in the way that you seem to think it does.
 
Back
Top