lsfoster

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.

__________________
"Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux."

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

jillio

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

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

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.

__________________
"Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux."

jillio

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

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.

__________________
"Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux."

jillio

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

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.

__________________
"Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux."

jillio

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

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.

__________________
"Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux."

lsfoster

I clearly said that the one time I mentioned the word "cure" was a sarcastic comment and that I am discussing the idea of "prevention". You still didn't address my point, "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."

__________________
"Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux."

jillio

Which means by default, you are choosing to prevent the possible secondary consequences of HPV.

Perhaps you use a condom to prevent STDs. By default, you are also choosing to prevent pregnancy.

Perhaps you choose to stop smoking. By default, you also choose to prevent the secondary disease processes related to smoking.

Perhaps you choose to vaccinated against mumps. By default, you also choose to prevent the secondary male sterility associated with mumps.

Perhaps you choose to be vaccinated against Pertussis. You also choose to prevent the secondary consequences of the disease.

In short, you do not experience the secondary consequences of the disease process if you prevent infection to begin with.

lsfoster

Well I was going to come up with my own good example of why you're wrong, but you did it for me. Tell the bolded one to my parents.

You don't automatically prevent the "secondary" consequence if it can happen without the "primary" consequence. (Or in the condom case, if it can happen anyways). Say that a car accident was the leading cause of a broken leg (I'm totally making this up, just to be clear). It would not be accurate for me to say that by choosing to never get into a car, I'm choosing never to break my leg. There are a million other ways that can happen. Same with this.

__________________
"Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux."

Maria

Isfoster, I really enjoy readin' all of your posts. They are very interestin' to read. I am so glad that you share what you have learned in college.

May I ask you a question, if you don't mind ? I would like to know why there's sooo many vaccine shots for a baby from the age of 3 months old ? Why makes vaccine shots " mandatory " for new babies ? I mean, isn't that too much for them to have all that ? How many are the vaccine shots per month at 3 months old baby ?

FYI, when I see a nurse gives a baby those vaccine shots - it makes my stomache knots, thinkin' at the same time that it's all bs to me - I mean, that baby is soo perfectly healthy with all its immune system in her/his body. I feel that vaccine shots itself screw immune system up from its own nature.

Vaccine shots ( I believe they are livin' viruses ) and nature don't mix.

Aleser

Ok, my ability to be polite only extends so far. Vaccines are given in childhood as soon as is reasonably possible because they SAVE YOUR CHILD'S LIFE.

You give vaccines to perfectly healthy children with perfectly healthy immune systems so they develop perfectly healthy antibodies that prevent them from contracting tragic illnesses which their perfectly healthy immune systems may or may not be able to fight. Highlights on the 'may not' where in, without the antibodies that prevent the child from contracting the illness, they might (and in some cases, stand a good chance to) die.

Right, it's much better to be spared the sight of your child getting a vaccination and then end up living with whatever the vaccine prevents again. Surely, ending up paralyzed or dead from polio is much better than dealing with one needlestick- I'm sure any childhood polio victim would tell you that being physically disabled is so worth it. Like wise, diphtheria and the resulting heart failure are considerably easier to cope with than the -mild rash- you might get from a vaccine! Lets not forget the hep b vaccine- by golly, you need three shots for that. Much better to get liver cancer than deal with THREE shots.

This is stuff that used to kill or seriously disable people before vaccination came about. It's stuff that still does so in places in the world that don't have access to the vaccines. I'm sorry, but as much as I believe in a parent's right to make EDUCATED judgements regarding vaccines (yours most certainly are not) I think you are simply saying extremely stupid things of the sort that put other people's lives at risk.

__________________
"She thinks... she can make people do what she wants or needs, what is right, by the sheer force of her own talent, not by forcing them... she can teach them and persuade them... that they'll catch it from her. This is still faith in their rationality, in the omnipotence of reason. The mistake? Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them."

Maria

Hello Aleser ? I am writin' just for Isfoster with HER handle name in my post. I am askin' her some questions since she has some degree in chemistry. I am impressed with her bein' educated in chemistry. I am not chemistrist. Please, respect.

lsfoster

I'm going to have to agree with Aleser, although I don't think it's necessary to get that angry. Simply answering the question is enough, and it's an easy enough answer that I don't think anyone needs to get upset about it.

The vaccines that are given to infants and children are given precisely because even with a healthy immune system, they haven't been exposed to many things. Most vaccines, especially older ones, like the ones that are considered necessary for children, are simply killed or inactive viruses. They are totally harmless, but are still able to produce the immune response that releases antibodies against that virus. This means that if the child is ever exposed to that virus (a live version), they will already have the antibodies to fight it off. They have a healthy immune system, yes, but they don't naturally have antibodies for things they haven't been exposed to yet. The idea behind vaccines is to trigger the immune response without the threat of a live virus.

It is the same reason that they warn people to be very careful if they aren't breastfeeding. Certain antibodies and other things are passed through breast milk. If you aren't breastfeeding, your child isn't getting those things, and could be at a greater risk.

There are a lot of differences between the pretty "standard" vaccines, and new vaccines that are being released now. They are made in different ways, and people are trying to use them for different things. But I don't think you need to worry about the vaccines they give babies. All they will do is allow their healthy but immature immune system to safely develop antibodies for sicknesses and diseases they might encounter later.

__________________
"Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux."

Aleser

I try not to consider it 'that angry' and rather, 'very passionate.'

__________________
"She thinks... she can make people do what she wants or needs, what is right, by the sheer force of her own talent, not by forcing them... she can teach them and persuade them... that they'll catch it from her. This is still faith in their rationality, in the omnipotence of reason. The mistake? Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them."

lsfoster

And I can totally understand why you would be passionate about it. I just think that we'll be more likely to get a point across calmly than passionately. People tend to get defensive toward passionate responses like that. They can come across as kind of hostile. Hopefully a simple explanation will be enough to explain to Maria why those vaccines are important.

__________________
"Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux."

dreama

I've heard some people don't like Vaccines. I don't have kids so I don't really know. I have heard though that some of these Vaccines can cause Autism. That doesn't sound very good. I think Maria has a valid point.

__________________
I speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.
http://www.fightfoca.com/

dreama

I think you missunderstood me a little. I'm not against NECCESSARY medicine.

What I'm against is when doctors start handing them out like sweets without other things like therapy. I was on far more drugs in the past but now only take thyroxine which I have needed since 8 months because of under active thyroid.

If you NEED something. If it will make you ill if you stop taking it well of course you need to carry on taking it but one should be wary about taking anything that isn't stictly neccessary.

__________________
I speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.
http://www.fightfoca.com/

lsfoster

Nobody has yet been able to say anything conclusive about the correlation between vaccines and autism. Both sides keep going back and forth with proving and disproving each other's research. The argument about autism, however, tends to revolve around the MMR vaccine, which contains thimerosal. (Although I think they're also trying to phase that out of the vaccine). I don't think that a totally unclear argument about one vaccine is a good enough reason not to have your child get the recommended vaccines. The vaccines that are given to infants are for some pretty serious and devastating diseases, and almost all of them have been shown to be very safe.

__________________
"Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux."

Babyblue

Childhood vaccinations were given out the same way guardisal is now. No one knew the actual results til years later.

Something to ponder.

Babyblue

Also now we have more medical technology now than we did in the past. By saying that "research" animal testing. Lab testing that we did not have in the past.

We are more aware of the vaccinations of now than we were of the past vaccines

lsfoster

Yes, vaccinations were given out after testing, all drugs are, but there are some really important differences that you're completely ignoring. First of all, the vaccines that were developed and are now given to children are for devastating or deadly diseases. On the level of the virus being treated, you can't really compare something like HPV to the things we get vaccinated against as a child. The reason that those vaccinations were given, even without the years of testing that have since shown them to be safe, was that the benefits far outweighed the risks. Gardasil is a vaccine against something that the majority of the population has with generally no major side effects (or even symptoms, in most cases). And before you even start on the whole "preventing cancer" argument, it doesn't prevent cancer. You can still get cervical cancer, even if you get the Gardasil vaccine. It may reduce your chances of getting cancer from one particular mechanism, but the vaccine itself is for something that is, on the whole, pretty harmless.

Also, yes, we have better medical technology now than we used to, but this also means that we don't make vaccines the same way we used to. Instead of just creating dead or inactive viruses, which they've used, and tested, and know are really safe, they now go and do all sorts of weird things to make their vaccines. Conjugate vaccines, DNA alteration, or subunit vaccines (like Gardasil), are being used more and more, but that doesn't mean that we understand them as well as the old kinds, or that they are somehow safer because our technology has improved. If anything, making something like a subunit could be so much more dangerous, because you don't know how that particular aspect of the virus interacts with other things independently. It comes back to the old argument of, "just because you can do something, does it mean you should".

You really can't compare Gardasil to childhood vaccines. They're made in totally different ways, operate differently, and have different levels of understanding and testing behind them.

__________________
"Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux."

SFShawn13

I realize parents get this vaccine for their daughters because they love them and care about their health.

I am not anti-vaccines. However, I will not get this for my future daughter (if I have one). She will not be big pharma's experiment.

Babyblue

My daughter completed her series of her HPV vaccination a while back... Now they are recomending it and approving it for boys.

My son got his first HPV vaccine last Monday.

DeafCaroline

Someone I know very well contracted HPV about 2 years ago even though he was only 18 at the time. It's a miserable condition to live with and he has to see the doctor about every six weeks to have warts removed. It's highly highly contagious and in fact, and not even condoms can protect you against it for it's the entire genital area that gets infectious. Specifically because of this - I got my sons vaccinated.

Look up images of HPV and you may want to re-consider your stance. HPV causes up to 70% of cervical cancer.

Beowulf

Are there any solid statistics for pro and con? Just wondering.

__________________
.

DeafCaroline

Pros and cons for what? HPV vaccinations?