H.P.V. Shots for young girls.

[Hear Again]

It also doesn't mean that a medication is always safe, even when used properly. People shouldn't blindly accept an FDA approval as a 100% guarantee of safety.

so i guess this means we should avoid all medications because of the *possibility* that they may be unsafe?

 

[Hear Again]

let's remember that people are also responsible for any negative consequences they may experience while taking meds. many people don't take meds as prescribed by their doctor (or on the label). that isn't the fault of the med itself -- it's the fault of the person taking it.

 

[jillio]

that's true. in fact, many people with bipolar are dually diagnosed because of self-medicating alcohol and/or drug use.

Absolutely. Dual diagnosis is so common as to almost be expected.

 

[lsfoster]

For any disease to occur, one must have a predispositon and a triggering factor. Unfortunately, predisposition is difficult to determine unless symptom of disease indicating that predisposition is present. Are you really suggesting that limiting sun exposure does not prevent skin cancers? If you are, you truly need to go back and check some reliable medical websites. Please provide a link that shows a positive correlation between time spent indoors and the presence of skin cancer.

I am not confusing cause and effect in the least. In fact, I am well aware of the fact that cause and effect can be determined on through one method, and under very specific and controlled conditions. Because conditions are uncontrolled prior to the development of the cancer, the best that anyone can come up with is a positive correlation. However, the positive correlation, when subject to rigourous statistical analysis, and usually at a p=.05, is strong enough to suggest that the presence of HPV and cervical cancer are very strongly related. In other words, without the HPV, the cancer would not have occurred in many of the cases examined. The HPV is the triggering factor for the predisposition. The predisposition has a very good chance of not becoming manifest as disease without the triggering factor of the HPV.

ScienceDirect - Preventive Medicine : Beneficial Effects of Sun Exposure on Cancer Mortality

First of all, the "presence of HPV" is probably about as high as the "presence of breasts". Over 90% of women have HPV. "According to the U.S. Cancer Statistics: 2004 Incidence and Mortality report, 11,892 women in the U.S. were told that they had cervical cancer in 2004, and 3,850 women died from the disease." (Cancer - Gynecologic Cancers - Cervical Cancer Statistics) Unless you are suggesting that these numbers represent all the women in the country, it is extremely hard to argue a "cause" that is present in more women that don't get cancer than those that do.

Secondly, I have provided my sources for everything I've said. I think it's only fair that if you claim that "rigorous analysis" has occurred without any information about what it was, how it was done, or what the actual results were, I'm allowed to call your data "suspect".

 

[jillio]

ScienceDirect - Preventive Medicine : Beneficial Effects of Sun Exposure on Cancer Mortality

First of all, the "presence of HPV" is probably about as high as the "presence of breasts". Over 90% of women have HPV. "According to the U.S. Cancer Statistics: 2004 Incidence and Mortality report, 11,892 women in the U.S. were told that they had cervical cancer in 2004, and 3,850 women died from the disease." (Cancer - Gynecologic Cancers - Cervical Cancer Statistics) Unless you are suggesting that these numbers represent all the women in the country, it is extremely hard to argue a "cause" that is present in more women that don't get cancer than those that do.

You are the one that is arguing cause, my dear. I am arguing predisposition and environmental and biological factors that are responsible for the manifestation of predisposition in disease.

Secondly, I have provided my sources for everything I've said. I think it's only fair that if you claim that "rigorous analysis" has occurred without any information about what it was, how it was done, or what the actual results were, I'm allowed to call your data "suspect".

If you are interested in how the statisitcal analysis was performed on the patient data available, I would suggest that you access the FDA's website.

 

[Babyblue]

ScienceDirect - Preventive Medicine : Beneficial Effects of Sun Exposure on Cancer Mortality

First of all, the "presence of HPV" is probably about as high as the "presence of breasts". Over 90% of women have HPV. "According to the U.S. Cancer Statistics: 2004 Incidence and Mortality report, 11,892 women in the U.S. were told that they had cervical cancer in 2004, and 3,850 women died from the disease." (Cancer - Gynecologic Cancers - Cervical Cancer Statistics) Unless you are suggesting that these numbers represent all the women in the country, it is extremely hard to argue a "cause" that is present in more women that don't get cancer than those that do.

Secondly, I have provided my sources for everything I've said. I think it's only fair that if you claim that "rigorous analysis" has occurred without any information about what it was, how it was done, or what the actual results were, I'm allowed to call your data "suspect".

Well I call your sources defective due it talks about 90% percent of GROWN Women that are already sexually active and did not take the vaccine. So that already puts them at high risk for cancer.

That is why we need to vaccinate young girls before they become women and or become sexually active.

 

[jillio]

Well I call your sources defective due it talks about 90% percent of GROWN Women that are already sexually active and did not take the vaccine. So that already puts them at high risk for cancer.

That is why we need to vaccinate young girls before they become women and or become sexually active.

Exactly. lsfoster is attempting to apply data gathered from one population to a completely different population.

 

[Babyblue]

Exactly. lsfoster is attempting to apply data gathered from one population to a completely different population.

Exactly!

That just proves that we need to take measures to prevent HPV so less than 90% of women will be dianosed with HPV in the future

 

[lsfoster]

If you are interested in how the statisitcal analysis was performed on the patient data available, I would suggest that you access the FDA's website.

I have accessed and cited the FDA many times in this thread. If you are unable to provide your sources, I just have to assume that the data is no good. When I present data, it is up to me to show that it is valid. I am simply holding you to the same standard.

Exactly. lsfoster is attempting to apply data gathered from one population to a completely different population.

How am I doing that exactly? You said that based on rigorous analysis, "that the presence of HPV and cervical cancer are very strongly related." I said that this is a weak argument, since over 90% of women have HPV. How did I try to apply data from one population to another?

 

[jillio]

Exactly!

That just proves that we need to take measures to prevent HPV so less than 90% of women will be dianosed with HPV in the future

Bingo! It has to be prevented in the population before the number of adult women who are infected goes down. When is the time for prevention? Prior to the onset of sexual activity. Simple logic.

 

[jillio]

I have accessed and cited the FDA many times in this thread. If you are unable to provide your sources, I just have to assume that the data is no good. When I present data, it is up to me to show that it is valid. I am simply holding you to the same standard.



How am I doing that exactly? You said that based on rigorous analysis, "that the presence of HPV and cervical cancer are very strongly related." I said that this is a weak argument, since over 90% of women have HPV. How did I try to apply data from one population to another?

It is not a weak argument. Over 90% of women have HPV. True statement. 100% of women diagnosed with a specific form of cervical cancer have HPV. Conclusion: while all women with HPV do not contract cervical cancer, those with cervical cancer all have contracted HPV. The presence of both disease processes, and the effects known of one on the other concludes that there is a strong correlation between HPV infection and later development of cervical cancer.

 

[lsfoster]

It is not a weak argument. Over 90% of women have HPV. True statement. 100% of women diagnosed with a specific form of cervical cancer have HPV. Conclusion: while all women with HPV do not contract cervical cancer, those with cervical cancer all have contracted HPV. The presence of both disease processes, and the effects known of one on the other concludes that there is a strong correlation between HPV infection and later development of cervical cancer.

Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies
Again, unless you are able to support your claims, I have to assume that you're just pulling numbers out of the air. Just under 74% of the women with cervical cancer were found to have HPV in that study. (I bet the number that had breasts was a higher percentage ).

 

[jillio]

Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies
Again, unless you are able to support your claims, I have to assume that you're just pulling numbers out of the air. Just under 74% of the women with cervical cancer were found to have HPV in that study. (I bet the number that had breasts was a higher percentage ).

One study does not a cummulative number make.

Likewise, in the post to which you are referring I used a hypothetical number only to act as a filler while I explained to you the process by which a strong correlation is reached.

 

[lsfoster]

One study does not a cummulative number make.

Likewise, in the post to which you are referring I used a hypothetical number only to act as a filler while I explained to you the process by which a strong correlation is reached.

Then I would love to see the multiple studies that support your "hypothetical" numbers.

 

[jillio]

Then I would love to see the multiple studies that support your "hypothetical" numbers.

Well, now you are just being silly. Hypothetical numbers are just that...hypothetical.

 

[lsfoster]

Well, now you are just being silly. Hypothetical numbers are just that...hypothetical.

Well then you're just being silly. "Hypothetical" data, is just that... I may have only provided one study to support my claims (and that's just for this specific one, not counting all the ones I posted before), but that's more than you have yet to provide.

 

[jillio]

Well then you're just being silly. "Hypothetical" data, is just that... I may have only provided one study to support my claims (and that's just for this specific one, not counting all the ones I posted before), but that's more than you have yet to provide.

I didn't use hypothetical data, nor did I state that I used hypothetical data. I used one hypothetical number to illustrate a point. Data would be a collection of numbers.

As I've stated prior, my information comes from the FDA.

 

[lsfoster]

And if it prevents those 4 strains from occurring in exposed individuals, it prevents those 4 strains of the virus. That is what a vaccination does, and why it is called "preventive medicine."

And without the precancerous condition, cancer would not occur. Etiology can and is traced directly back to infection with the HPV.

I am not confusing cause and effect in the least. In fact, I am well aware of the fact that cause and effect can be determined on through one method, and under very specific and controlled conditions. Because conditions are uncontrolled prior to the development of the cancer, the best that anyone can come up with is a positive correlation. However, the positive correlation, when subject to rigourous statistical analysis, and usually at a p=.05, is strong enough to suggest that the presence of HPV and cervical cancer are very strongly related. In other words, without the HPV, the cancer would not have occurred in many of the cases examined. The HPV is the triggering factor for the predisposition. The predisposition has a very good chance of not becoming manifest as disease without the triggering factor of the HPV.

I already showed clear documentation of cancer occuring almost 30% of the time without the "precondition" of HPV.

You then brought up this idea of "rigorous statistical analysis". I have yet to see any data, explanation, or source that would allow you to make that statement, and you used specific numbers in your argument.

If you are interested in how the statisitcal analysis was performed on the patient data available, I would suggest that you access the FDA's website.

This would be an example of avoiding the question. Instead of supporting your own statements, you try to shove the burden of proof onto me.

It is not a weak argument. Over 90% of women have HPV. True statement. 100% of women diagnosed with a specific form of cervical cancer have HPV. Conclusion: while all women with HPV do not contract cervical cancer, those with cervical cancer all have contracted HPV. The presence of both disease processes, and the effects known of one on the other concludes that there is a strong correlation between HPV infection and later development of cervical cancer.

You then draw a "conclusion" based on a made up and false number. Again without giving a source or any actual data...

One study does not a cummulative number make.

Likewise, in the post to which you are referring I used a hypothetical number only to act as a filler while I explained to you the process by which a strong correlation is reached.

Then admit that you were not using actually researched numbers for your statements...

Well, now you are just being silly. Hypothetical numbers are just that...hypothetical.

Admit that made up numbers aren't valid...

I didn't use hypothetical data, nor did I state that I used hypothetical data. I used one hypothetical number to illustrate a point. Data would be a collection of numbers.

As I've stated prior, my information comes from the FDA.

Then try to claim that you were just giving an example, and again avoid the issue of showing where your "data" came from, how it was obtained, how it was analyzed, or giving any support to your posts.

I have to say, I'm still not convinced.

 

[jillio]

I already showed clear documentation of cancer occuring almost 30% of the time without the "precondition" of HPV.

And you are failing to account for the fact that there are several types of carcinoma that can be found as manifest cervical cancer. Not all types have been traced back to HPV exposure. However, there are those types that have.
You then brought up this idea of "rigorous statistical analysis". I have yet to see any data, explanation, or source that would allow you to make that statement, and you used specific numbers in your argument.

Are you saying that the FDA and the medical researchers do not use rigourous statistical analysis? I don't need a link to support the fact that rigorous statistical analysis is used to analyze data from medical research and clinical trials. It is a commonly known fact.


This would be an example of avoiding the question. Instead of supporting your own statements, you try to shove the burden of proof onto me.

You are the one that is expressing skepticism of the findings. You have placed that burden of proof on yourself.


You then draw a "conclusion" based on a made up and false number. Again without giving a source or any actual data...

Again, I did not draw a conclusion. I simply explained a logical thought process used to determine correlation. Maybe after your next research methods course, you will understand the difference between drawing a conclusion and explaining a process.


Then admit that you were not using actually researched numbers for your statements...

Never claimed I was.


Admit that made up numbers aren't valid...

They don't need to be. They weren't used to draw a conclusion, but to explain a process.

Then try to claim that you were just giving an example, and again avoid the issue of showing where your "data" came from, how it was obtained, how it was analyzed, or giving any support to your posts.

I'm not avoiding anything. I never claimed to be using "data". Check that research methods text book and look up the definition of "data". And again, the findings of the FDA support my posts. Just because you fail to acknowledge that I have stated just that on numerous occasions doesn't mean the statement hasn't been made.

I have to say, I'm still not convinced.

Your choice. There are a lot of people that refuse to acknowledge the elephant in the middle of the room. Doesn't mean everyone else doesn't see it.

 

[lsfoster]

And you are failing to account for the fact that there are several types of carcinoma that can be found as manifest cervical cancer. Not all types have been traced back to HPV exposure. However, there are those types that have.

Doesn't match up with this statement, "And without the precancerous condition, cancer would not occur. Etiology can and is traced directly back to infection with the HPV." Or this one, "Conclusion: while all women with HPV do not contract cervical cancer, those with cervical cancer all have contracted HPV."

Are you saying that the FDA and the medical researchers do not use rigourous statistical analysis? I don't need a link to support the fact that rigorous statistical analysis is used to analyze data from medical research and clinical trials. It is a commonly known fact.

You are the one that is expressing skepticism of the findings. You have placed that burden of proof on yourself.

If the burden of proof is on me when I state something and you are skeptical, it's only fair that it's on you in the reverse situation. And I'm saying that you have yet to show anywhere on the FDA site where you got your information, or how this "rigorous statistical analysis" was performed. Simply saying it happened doesn't count. It is also a commonly known fact that both the FDA and Merck specifically have both ignored and misinterpreted data in the past. So yes, actually providing the information that you are using to support your point would be nice, and should be up to you.

Again, I did not draw a conclusion. I simply explained a logical thought process used to determine correlation. Maybe after your next research methods course, you will understand the difference between drawing a conclusion and explaining a process.

"Conclusion: while all women with HPV...", "...known of one on the other concludes that..." Silly me for thinking that there was a conclusion in there somewhere. And to explain correlation, you would need to actually provide the data and analysis that was done. Not just say "there is a strong correlation"... according to some possible study or "hypothetical" numbers. And you didn't explain a process at all. That would also require you to have provided scientifically documented studies and evidence of how they have determined the development of both HPV and cervical cancer. Read any recent studies, and you'll see that there is still a lot they don't know. Maybe the medical and scientific community just hasn't caught up to you yet.

Never claimed I was.

"However, the positive correlation, when subject to rigourous statistical analysis, and usually at a p=.05, is strong enough to suggest...", "If you are interested in how the statisitcal analysis was performed on the patient data available, I would suggest that you access the FDA's website." Sure sounds like you're trying to make those numbers seem valid to me.

They don't need to be. They weren't used to draw a conclusion, but to explain a process.

I think I've already covered the conclusion issue.

I'm not avoiding anything. I never claimed to be using "data". Check that research methods text book and look up the definition of "data". And again, the findings of the FDA support my posts. Just because you fail to acknowledge that I have stated just that on numerous occasions doesn't mean the statement hasn't been made.

Yes, maybe if you insult me enough it will somehow change all the quotes I've provided. And again, if you would simply provide the link, instead of just claiming it exists, then maybe I would be able to treat you arguments as anything but made up, hypothetical numbers.

Your choice. There are a lot of people that refuse to acknowledge the elephant in the middle of the room. Doesn't mean everyone else doesn't see it.

You're telling me. I've been pointing him out for a while, and you keep trying to tell me he's not there. But wait, let me guess, I'm sure it's just something wrong with my research methods class somehow. If you really can't find any actual data for your posts, and it's gotten to the point where your only counter is to try to insult me and my classes, I would just say to let it go, jillio.