Thalidamide was well tested. It was just Lepid0ptera: Theaetetus: Cancer is not contagious, despite popular belief.


Diseases that cause some cancers are contagious though. For example, HPV.

Dododado:
Stiletto, so she has to let the vaccine harm her child because YOU are willing to risk her child's safety??

I'm not saying I agree 100% with the logic. But that's the world we're living in.

Dododado:

Whoopty Whoo?

Shaggy_C: If you have had sex with 7 people between the age of 16 and 25 (condom or not) you have a 100% chance of having HPV. Sucks.

True. I now have the big C and only the fratboy that drugged me to thank for it. This debate over the vaccination is stupid. Fark clichés are always saying "Still no cure for cancer" but yet there IS a cure for cancer and people are falling over themselves to prevent people from getting it. WTF?? I gotta pay for the rest of my life for something that someone else did. Tell me how that's fair.

mmm... pancake

You do know to get the vacination (or any UK schools vacination)the parents have to sign a consent form. If they don't kid doesn't get it.

Needless to say the "we don't believe in vacinations" hippies and the "my kids health is mine and gods problem" crowd kids got potentially lethal diseases a lot more often than I did.

Cliffietheman: (b) In our country, about 4,000 women will die every year from cervical cancer. That's alot. Not as much as it used to be, though ... those rates have been declining for decades - without the vaccine. (Citation)

...mainly due to Pap smears and early detection of precancerous cells.

Let's not worry about the big killers, though. We've got to make sure people can have as much sex as they want first. And I'm not suggesting that getting this vaccine is going to make a girl go crazy, but you know the best way to prevent HPV? It's not a vaccine ... monogamy. Ta-da. That's asking too much.

It's just funny how so many of the things that kill people are so preventable. Like, stop smoking. Stop shooting up heroin. Stop driving your car drunk. Stop letting all sorts of people stick their weiners in ya, or vice versa, (or versa vice for the dudes that swing that way - anal HPV gets ya, too). HPV is not carried by a mosquito. It's not something that you get from your genes. You have to do something to get it. Stop doing that, and you don't need to get vaccinated at 11.

Except that monogamy is NOT the norm in America anymore. Do you think that people deserve to die because they weren't sexually monogamous? What if a girl is a virgin until she's married, but her husband isn't? And he gives it to her? What if she's raped? What if she just wants to have sex and doesn't care what her parents say? Death is not an appropriate punishment for not being chaste. Especially when there is virtually no reason not to take the preventative step of getting the vaccine. Face it - "morality" is not going to prevent all cases of this disease. Ever. Why NOT give your kid the vaccine at 11 AND tell them not to sleep around?

Just so we're clear: Gardasil is not a cancer vaccine. It is an STD vaccine. Without the vaccine your slutty daughter will get HPV so get her the shots already.

/I ♥ slutty daughters

You know how most people hate to read fine print and usually never do it? I think it has been enforced by the countless "agreements" that we check YES on software installs, also without ever reading. It's made us all the more impatient (and semi trusting or at least willfully gullible).

To keep it nice and short for the MTV-generation-attention-spanners, here are just FOUR (4!!!) quick things from the "Precautions" section for the drug mentioned in the article from rxlist dot com (new window):

GARDASIL has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity.

...it is not known whether GARDASIL can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or if it can affect reproductive capacity.

The effect of GARDASIL on male fertility has not been studied.

It is not known whether vaccine antigens or antibodies induced by the vaccine are excreted in human milk.

WOW. Just WOW. "Quick, inject that mostly tested substance into my kid ASAP!!! So I can still get in on the future class action!!! Woohoo!!"

You know, I honestly am starting to believe that scientists and doctors are literally a secular priesthood. So many people certainly seem to blindly trust and obey them. As much, if not more, than many religious people trust their pastor/rabbi/imam.

Okay, I'm gonna be sanctimonious...

I am an infectious diseases physician. I am not getting a kick out of these replies.

I have an idea of the amount of investigation and research that goes into every new drug or vaccine.

1.Safety - Companies are afraid of getting sued. Life-saving vaccines (rotavirus, for one) have been withdrawn for literally one-in-100,000 cases of side effects which may or may not have been due to the vaccine.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5610a3.htm
Plenty of people with no vested interest (e.g. me, who doesn't give the vaccine, and couldn't make money off it) have reviewed the data and like the results. These CDC types get paid the same (low) salary regardless of what they find.

Someone please look at the recommendations to vaccinate, with a summary of the trials:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5602a1.htm

No stats, just good info
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/hpv/default.htm#disease

2.Profit incentive - remember, every single beneficial pill or vaccine is made by someone who, surprise surprise, wants to get paid. I have no particular sympathy for big pharma, but they do spend a lot of $ on R&D that goes nowhere.

3.Personal freedom - "Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose." HPV is communicable. Doesn't matter how, it's communicable, like TB, HIV, or the common cold. That makes it a public health risk, and means that someone can get infected from someone else unknowingly. Polio, diphtheria, MMR are victories for humanity.
I'm not personally interested in *forcing* vaccination for such an indolent disease (something that won't become epidemic over weeks to months the way the flu can), but I think it's an excellent idea, and will get my future kids vaccinated for pretty much everything available.

4.Long-term effects - We have a growing understanding of immunological responses to vaccines. We have done a lot of short-term safety studies with good results. The risk of adverse effects over, say 10 years is admittedly unknown, but given prior decades of experience with vaccinations, very very small. (I won't get into a debate about "vaccination made my baby autistic" because that's a separate flamewar and an assertion that can't be disproven, the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.)
The ethics of withholding a lifesaving vaccine versus the (likely) tiny risk of adverse effects weighs heavily in favor of the vaccine. This isn't thalidomide, it's a mix of virus-like particles made in baker's yeast, without DNA. We have a solid understanding of how the body reacts to that.

A lot of you people seem to think the medical community consists of a bunch of cowboys. Actually, IMO, there's a tendency to *not* embrace the latest/greatest thing, be leery of new antibiotics, question the efficacy of new vaccines.

Many of you have no idea of the work that goes into generating a good clinical trial, the ethical safegurards, the safety monitoring process. The very, very stringent statistical studies that have to be done to demonstrate benefit.
Look at the CDC link above to the recommendation for the HPV vaccine: Table 3 summarizes comparisons of >9000 people receiving placebo versus control. Protecting against warts, CIN (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, pre-cancerous lesions)

Whoever would like to contradict the santicmonious ass with the qualifications (i.e. me) go ahead. Just show me your statistics.

Mnemia

I guess I'm going to be responding to your ineptitudes all day.

But this vaccine has been quite well tested.

And, I quote:

"The data Merck presented to the FDA were based on some 21,000 test subjects between ages 16 and 26, half of whom received Gardasil and half a placebo."

Well tested? So, they essentially tested it on 10,500 girls, 16 to 26. Well I admit 10,500 is a big number, I'm just curious on how many 11 year old fit between the ages of 16 and 26. I mean, that's what this is all about ... the 11 year olds.

If you're an adult, you can do whatever you want. You want the vaccine, go for it. But the question is whether or not this should become a mandatory thing for grade school girls. Why should we start injecting our 11 year olds full of stuff that was never tested for 11 year olds?

Coincidentally, through my job, I know a little bit about this vaccine and the debate surrounding it. The best solution to the debate: follow the money. Merck, developer of Gardisal, won't make much money from Gardisal if its left up to an individual to decide. Look at the number of people who don't get flu vaccines every year ... people aren't going to voluntarily get Gardisal out of the blue. But, if it becomes mandatory for 11 year old girls at school, like it almost did in Texas, Merck makes out like a bandit. And why does Merck need so much money? Voixx. Follow the money.

I'm no conspiracy theorist or anything. I just look at it how it is. Like I said in my last post, the easiest way to not get HPV is not a vaccine, but to prevent the skin-to-skin contact in the naughty bits.

Mnemia: Death is not an appropriate punishment for not being chaste.

I agree with you. But I don't think "mother nature" necessarily does.

mmm... pancake
Medical care should be between the parents, the child and the doctor. I don't see where the Government should have any control or influence there.

The problem becomes when parents, due to the technical nature of the situation, are unable to make an informed decision.

Most people aren't virologists. Your average person off the street can't even explain what a virus is or how a vaccine works, they certainly aren't qualified to interpret clinical trial data and make an informed choice based on that. Further, lacking knowledge about how Gardasil in particular is manufactured, and what it actually is, one can't understand the inherent safety of the technique.

So you're asking parents to make decisions when they can't even understand the information they need to actually make the choice.

Dododado
Please link to medical tests. Where did you get that info? Saying "well tested" is not enough!

Their clinical trial data has all been published. Lancet. 2007 Jun 2;369(9576):1861-8 Effect of prophylactic human papillomavirus L1 virus-like-particle vaccine on risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2, grade 3, and adenocarcinoma in situ: a combined analysis of four randomised clinical trials is a good place to start, it is a summary of all their trials, and has citations to all the clinical trials.

Their Phase III trial is published in New England Journal of Medicine. 2007 May 10;356(19):1915-27. Quadrivalent vaccine against human papillomavirus to prevent high-grade cervical lesions.

(You probably need subscriptions to Lancet/NEJM for the links to show full text, but you should be able to read the abstracts anyhow.)

Right_Drumstick_Wacko: You know how most people hate to read fine print and usually never do it? I think it has been enforced by the countless "agreements" that we check YES on software installs, also without ever reading. It's made us all the more impatient (and semi trusting or at least willfully gullible).

To keep it nice and short for the MTV-generation-attention-spanners, here are just FOUR (4!!!) quick things from the "Precautions" section for the drug mentioned in the article from rxlist dot com (new window):

GARDASIL has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity.

...it is not known whether GARDASIL can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or if it can affect reproductive capacity.

The effect of GARDASIL on male fertility has not been studied.

It is not known whether vaccine antigens or antibodies induced by the vaccine are excreted in human milk.

WOW. Just WOW. "Quick, inject that mostly tested substance into my kid ASAP!!! So I can still get in on the future class action!!! Woohoo!!"

You know, I honestly am starting to believe that scientists and doctors are literally a secular priesthood. So many people certainly seem to blindly trust and obey them. As much, if not more, than many religious people trust their pastor/rabbi/imam.


Sorry, they didn't have time to study *everything*.

They didn't study it yet. They also haven't studied the effect of brussels sprouts on fertility, either. You can't assume it will be harmful just because they didn't study it yet. On the other hand, the benefit is clear.

The educated guess is that the benefits will outweigh the risks, even the ones that haven't been poorly studied. And by educated, I'm referring to people who study vaccines for a living, who have looked back at prior research. Who learn from past mistakes.

What makes you competent to second-guess these people? Why does everyone feel comfortable telling a bunch of MDs and PhDs how to do their jobs? I'm not competent to tell a plumber, accountant, or deejay how to do their jobs.

(in my best British accent)

One can only hope so, subby.

FilmBELOH20 2007-10-26 10:29:57 AM
If I had a daughter, she'd be getting this vaccine after I did enough research about it and talked to MDs about it. If it were being forced, I'd fight it tooth and nail.

I simply don't trust big pharma to have thought this cunning plan all the way through. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with me being some kind of head in the sand fundie. It has everything to do with Vioxx being a wonder drug until they found out 6 years or so later that it could kill you. Anybody really believe that the people who want to push this as mandatory are not the same people who stand to make a shiatload of money off of it?

QFT

/damn straight
//has a daughter...

Oh, and just an FYI to the 'STD crowd':

It's been shown that oral sex can cause an oral HPV infection. Preliminary data suggests this infection is linked to many or most cases of oral cancer of non-tobacco users. And it is known that saliva has a viral load comparable to that of reproductive fluids.

All this together suggests that HPV may be transmissible via oral contact (e.g. kissing) without any sexual contact at all, and that this can cause cancer.

Honestly. All you farkers out there 20 something or below, think back to school. How man kids did you know? ALL of them were vaccinated multiple times. Every friend you've ever HAD has been vaccinated for probably 10+ things in their life if they weren't home schooled, and chances are reasonable they were anyway if they were home schooled. All their parents were vaccinated and lived rich long lives, and they were getting polio vaccines and smallpox as a matter of course, something we don't even do today.

Ever know anyone to get a flu shot and die? I've got news for you they make that crap new and to order every year. It's built on a proven base, but it's rarely the same stuff. Think real carefully now.

1.) Tens of millions of Americans (old people with depressed immune systems that need to be shored up no less) get those things shot into them every year.

2.) Our media LOVES to try and scare the shiat out of you with "ZOMG SARS."

Now, from these two facts can we just infer that a healthy, functioning human does not face any sort of appreciable risk from vaccines and call it a day? If CNN or Fox News or whoever you like can't bootstrap it into a half hour piece that revolves every hour, and it's something that would scare you, it can't possibly be worth worrying about.

Cliffietheman
Well tested? So, they essentially tested it on 10,500 girls, 16 to 26. Well I admit 10,500 is a big number, I'm just curious on how many 11 year old fit between the ages of 16 and 26. I mean, that's what this is all about ... the 11 year olds.

If you're an adult, you can do whatever you want. You want the vaccine, go for it. But the question is whether or not this should become a mandatory thing for grade school girls. Why should we start injecting our 11 year olds full of stuff that was never tested for 11 year olds?

11 year olds have the same immune system as 16-26 year olds. They chose that age to do the trials because part of testing if it's effective means that a substantial part of the trial population needs to have unprotected sex during the trial and be exposed to HPV. The results found that those people who had been infected before the vaccine (rather predictably) had no benefit, but those vaccinated before exposure had a 100% immunity to infection.

Thus, they target it at 11 year olds because the strong majority are not yet sexually active.

Mnemia

Except that monogamy is NOT the norm in America anymore.

Not my fault. Screwing everyone and being fat - the new American way. Can't wait till they have to come out with an obesity vaccine. Oh, wait.

Do you think that people deserve to die because they weren't sexually monogamous?

I think that people should be held responsible for their choices. If they contract an STD because they couldn't just jerk off and that STD goes off and kills them, I don't think I have a problem with it.

Just like smokers. Just like drunk drivers. I don't feel bad when a 50 year smoker dies of lung cancer. His/her fault. I don't feel bad when some drunk crashes their car into a tree and dies. His/her fault.

What if she's raped?

Then there's probably more than HPV to worry about, right?

What if she just wants to have sex and doesn't care what her parents say?

Exactly the problem.

Why NOT give your kid the vaccine at 11 AND tell them not to sleep around?

And I quote, "The protective effects of the vaccine are expected to last a minimum of 4.5 years."

I wasn't particularly interested in sex until I was out of high school (I graduated at 15). Furthermore, my parents never really allow for a situation to occur where I could have done that anyway. Rules were followed. So, if I gave my 11 year old a vaccine, and operated business the same way it was operated for me, the vaccine would be passed its "effective" date when opportunities to throw her legs up in the air would show up. Hmmm. So again, why bother injecting my 11 year old with something that wasn't tested for 11 year olds?

Super_pope

Yeah, it's very amusing the people who are against Gardasil but for the flu vaccine.

The flu vaccine is actually far more dangerous. It uses a living (but attenuated) viral strain, which does infect you with a (ideally very weak) case of the flu. Each year's flu vaccine receives very little testing, as you can't really do five year trials when the disease changes yearly.

By contrast, Gardasil has no viral content -- the injection is the protein coat of the virus without viral DNA inside, so there is no viral infection, just a protein that the immune system can identify and mount a primary immune response upon. And it has five year followup data from clinical trials.

Fark U: If this is really an "hpv vaccine" then why do only 12 year old girls get it? This is bullshiat, and i don't see why no one is scrutinizing this.

Anyone? I'm dying for an answer here. hpv causes more than just cervical cancer, so let's get down to the brass tacks about what this "really" is.

Not only 12 year olds get it. It is the suggested age. Immunity is at its peak during puberty, due to the make up of the thymus being at its peak (that's where T-cells mature, they fight most viruses). Vaccinations require a B or T-cell that recognizes the viral antigen to come in contact with that antigen, more naive (not activated by antigen) b and t cells present and being produced during puberty means a greater chance that the antigen will be recognized and the body will produce memory cells to fight a later infection.

Right_Drumstick_Wacko: I agree with you. But I don't think "mother nature" necessarily does.

If we let "nature" decide what killed us off, few of us would live past 40. By that logic, we shouldn't give vaccines against anything, because it's natural for the weak to be killed off by infectious disease. I just don't understand the different logic people have for an STD vs. any other disease. They're both communicable diseases that people catch by doing things that are perfectly natural and normal behavior.

Cliffietheman: So, if I gave my 11 year old a vaccine, and operated business the same way it was operated for me, the vaccine would be passed its "effective" date when opportunities to throw her legs up in the air would show up.

Did you miss the "minimum" part of your own quote? Good god.

Fark U
If this is really an "hpv vaccine" then why do only 12 year old girls get it? This is bullshiat, and i don't see why no one is scrutinizing this.

Anyone? I'm dying for an answer here. hpv causes more than just cervical cancer, so let's get down to the brass tacks about what this "really" is.

You can get the vaccination at any age, just go and ask for it.

12 years is the optimal time because the virus isn't effective after you're exposed to HPV. So the ideal is to be vaccinated initially before any sexual contact, and then keep the booster regimen up for your whole life, giving you lifelong immunity.

But yes, there's no reason not to get it as an adult as well, and you're fully able to. Go and ask your doctor.

lake_huron: I am an infectious diseases physician. I am not getting a kick out of these replies.

I aspire to be a medical student, and got a kick out of your post.

Seriously, I've been thinking about specializing in ID one day and would like to know how you like it. EIP.

Cliffietheman:
I think that people should be held responsible for their choices. If they contract an STD because they couldn't just jerk off and that STD goes off and kills them, I don't think I have a problem with it.

I have taken care of of AIDS patients who would have a problem with that statement. Especially the ones unknowingly infected by their unfaithful partners.


And I quote, "The protective effects of the vaccine are expected to last a minimum of 4.5 years."

Doesn't mean it won't be longer, just hasn't been studied longer. Perhaps a new revaccination protocol will be out by them. Plus, some degree of protection usually remains long-term, even if attenuated by time, due to the immune system's anamnestic response.

So, if I gave my 11 year old a vaccine, and operated business the same way it was operated for me, the vaccine would be passed its "effective" date when opportunities to throw her legs up in the air would show up. Hmmm. So again, why bother injecting my 11 year old with something that wasn't tested for 11 year olds?

I see. Set up a straw man -- a very specific scenario for your snowflake, assuming she doesn't have sex at 14 likely so many others (safely within the 4.5 year window) -- and knock it down.

Cliffietheman

You also realize that even just kissing a boy who has oral HPV could potentially give your daughter oral cancer? Or so preliminary data suggests.

And every vaccine needs booster shots to continue to provide benefit, this is no different than anything else.

The bottom line is, for optimal success, any vaccination needs to happen well before the patient is likely to be exposed to the pathogen. People are injecting 11-12 year olds precisely because they're unlikely to be sexually active yet.

Sum Dum Gai

11 year olds have the same immune system as 16-26 year olds.

Odd. If that's the case, how come 11 year olds can't get certain Flu vaccines? Or Hep vaccines? Good for the goose is good for the gander ... except not always.

The results found that those people who had been infected before the vaccine (rather predictably) had no benefit, but those vaccinated before exposure had a 100% immunity to infection.

How did they know they'd been exposed to HPV? They can't say, "Go have sex with this man, he has HPV," because dudes can't be tested for HPV. So they did this study and made some assumptions, right?

Cliffietheman: Not my fault. Screwing everyone and being fat - the new American way. Can't wait till they have to come out with an obesity vaccine. Oh, wait.

So you basically choose to stick your head in the sand about REALITY because you don't like the lifestyle choices that the majority of people are making? "If only the world was the way I wish it was, there wouldn't be a problem."

I think that people should be held responsible for their choices. If they contract an STD because they couldn't just jerk off and that STD goes off and kills them, I don't think I have a problem with it.

Just like smokers. Just like drunk drivers. I don't feel bad when a 50 year smoker dies of lung cancer. His/her fault. I don't feel bad when some drunk crashes their car into a tree and dies. His/her fault.

Except that it's totally preventable, at basically no cost. And there is nothing wrong with someone having sex, even outside of marriage. You have no clue or right to know what the circumstances that other people are having sex under are. As I tried to demonstrate, there are plenty of ways that someone could get HPV that would not be prevented by your sick form of "morality". By saying that "I think that people should be held responsible for their choices" you are basically agreeing that people should die if they have sex with the wrong person, even if they have no reason to suspect that they will get HPV from that person. You are saying that you think there has to be a penalty for having sex and that you're pissed off that science is taking away the consequences. Not only is this logically faulty (since there are plenty of other reasons that promiscuous sex is dangerous), it's flatly amoral and akin to a twisted form of moralizing sadism.

And I quote, "The protective effects of the vaccine are expected to last a minimum of 4.5 years."

MINIMUM. Not "maximum". Yes, they still need to determine how long the immunity will last. It may well last longer. If it doesn't, they will recommend booster shots.

This is a HUGE thread for no pics of british sluts;

This is Unacceptable.







There, was that so hard?

Dr._Love: There, was that so hard?

no, but now it is.

hurr hurr.

lake_huron

I have taken care of of AIDS patients who would have a problem with that statement. Especially the ones unknowingly infected by their unfaithful partners.

That doesn't exactly fit what I said, now does it? The patients who were "unknowningly infected by their unfaithful partners" are like the people the drunk driver hits on his way home. I don't feel bad for the drunk driver, but I do for his victims.

However, being "unknowingly infected" by some random dude you just hooked up with is a different story.

Sum Dum Gai

You also realize that even just kissing a boy who has oral HPV could potentially give your daughter oral cancer? Or so preliminary data suggests.

I also know that a piece of falling space debris could clonk her on the head and kill her. Or an elephant could escape from the zoo and trample her on her way home from school. Or she could get food poisoning from McDonald's. And? You're suggesting I should have her vaccinated against an STD from something non-sexual. Nice.

Cliffietheman: That doesn't exactly fit what I said, now does it? The patients who were "unknowningly infected by their unfaithful partners" are like the people the drunk driver hits on his way home. I don't feel bad for the drunk driver, but I do for his victims.

Well since they are just innocent victims, why shouldn't they be vaccinated to protect themselves against this happening through no fault of their own?

However, being "unknowingly infected" by some random dude you just hooked up with is a different story.

Why? I really doubt that anyone intends to get infected with an STD. What is different about this situation, exactly?

I also know that a piece of falling space debris could clonk her on the head and kill her. Or an elephant could escape from the zoo and trample her on her way home from school. Or she could get food poisoning from McDonald's. And? You're suggesting I should have her vaccinated against an STD from something non-sexual. Nice.

Why NOT is the question? You could potentially prevent her from getting a deadly disease. You can't prevent everything, but you can protect against THIS risk. Why not do it?

Pocket Ninja FTW!!

England to begin HPV vaccinations in all school girls starting at age 12. Of course, we in the U.S. know that this will result in a generation of sluts

You're telling me, Subby. I used to hate that back when I was in high school. "Hey, wanna go have sex?" Same answer every time. "No, I'm afraid of contracting Human Papilloma Virus."

Mnemia

So you basically choose to stick your head in the sand about REALITY because you don't like the lifestyle choices that the majority of people are making? "If only the world was the way I wish it was, there wouldn't be a problem."

That's your response for me saying people have to be responsible for their actions? LOL. If you want to go stick your wiener in an electric socket, feel free - that's YOUR lifestyle choice. Just don't expect me to feel bad when you get fried. If you want to wrestle alligators, feel free - that's YOUR lifestyle choice. Just don't expect me to feel bad when the gator takes your arm.

Except that it's totally preventable, at basically no cost.

#1 - That was your response when I said drunk drivers and smokers created their own problems? Uh, aren't lung cancer and dying by driving your car into a tree preventable?

#2 - HPV vaccine at "basically no cost?" When they were considering forcing this on all 11, 12-year old girls in Texas, the amount that was going to be footed by tax-payers - about $75 million. Plus, regular doctors are charging about $300 and up, according to the interwebs. Remember what I said about follow the money? Most regular women aren't going to run into their doctor to pay that kind of money. Merck will only make money off of this if it is made mandatory for school aged girls. Duh.

And there is nothing wrong with someone having sex, even outside of marriage.

That's your opinion. Others are entitled to their own.

You have no clue or right to know what the circumstances that other people are having sex under are.

Never claimed to even care. Again, read the words I write: DO WHATEVER YOU WANT, JUST DON'T EXPECT ME TO FEEL BAD ABOUT IT.

By saying that "I think that people should be held responsible for their choices" you are basically agreeing that people should die if they have sex with the wrong person, even if they have no reason to suspect that they will get HPV from that person.

There is no "basically agreeing." My words are pretty clear. You don't need to try to interpret them. They say what I mean. I think that people should be held responsible for their choices.

You are saying that you think there has to be a penalty for having sex and that you're pissed off that science is taking away the consequences.

Man, you're reading into what I said way more than you had to. I wish you'd just read my words. How many times am I going to have to write them?

I'm not "pissed that science is taking away the consequences." I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU DO. Lol. I just think it's funny that people need science to fix things.

Not only is this logically faulty (since there are plenty of other reasons that promiscuous sex is dangerous), it's flatly amoral and akin to a twisted form of moralizing sadism.

Doing whatever you want, regardless of the consequences: okay.
Not caring about people who have to face the consequences of their actions: amoral.

LOL.

I came here for the "sluts" pics... and Dr_Love, you came through. Thank you Sir.

lake_huron
I'm not competent to tell a plumber, accountant, or deejay how to do their jobs.

Then how in the hell did you make it through med school?

/you might want to warn your patients

Mnemia

Cliffietheman: That doesn't exactly fit what I said, now does it? The patients who were "unknowningly infected by their unfaithful partners" are like the people the drunk driver hits on his way home. I don't feel bad for the drunk driver, but I do for his victims.

Well since they are just innocent victims, why shouldn't they be vaccinated to protect themselves against this happening through no fault of their own?

Goddamn, you're stupid. At any point in any of my posts, have I said anything about any random adult getting the vaccine if they wanted? Nope. I'm talking about 11 year olds being forced to get it.

I highly doubt my 11 or 12 year old will be in a situation where she is having sex with a regular partner with whom she plans to spend the rest of her life, only to be cheated on by him and given a STD. If that is ever the case, I will log on here and personally apologize for being wrong.

However, being "unknowingly infected" by some random dude you just hooked up with is a different story.

Why? I really doubt that anyone intends to get infected with an STD. What is different about this situation, exactly?

From MxPx:

Responsibility, what's that?
Responsibility, not quite yet
Responsibility, what's that?
I don't want to think about it
We'd be better off without it

If you go out and randomly hook up with someone, and you get an STD, I fail to see how that is NOT your own fault. Even if its HPV! If you're an adult, DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. GET THE HPV VACCINE IF YOU WANT TO. This whole thing is about 11 YEAR OLDS.

Why NOT is the question? You could potentially prevent her from getting a deadly disease. You can't prevent everything, but you can protect against THIS risk. Why not do it?

I could send her to school in a bubble, with a helmet and bullet proof vest on, surrounded by body guards and a tank. But that wouldn't make any sense. Neither would it make sense for the government to tell me that my 11 year old is going to get exposed to HPV.

wyltoknow
Cliffietheman: So, if I gave my 11 year old a vaccine, and operated business the same way it was operated for me, the vaccine would be passed its "effective" date when opportunities to throw her legs up in the air would show up.

Did you miss the "minimum" part of your own quote? Good god.

I don't eat yogurt passed it's sell by date, either. Call me careful.

Eh, what else new?

Cliffietheman: If you go out and randomly hook up with someone, and you get an STD, I fail to see how that is NOT your own fault. Even if its HPV! If you're an adult, DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. GET THE HPV VACCINE IF YOU WANT TO. This whole thing is about 11 YEAR OLDS.

1) HPV transmission does not require sexual contact. See above.
2) In any case, not all sex is consensual.

I highly doubt my 11 or 12 year old will be in a situation where she is having sex with a regular partner with whom she plans to spend the rest of her life, only to be cheated on by him and given a STD. If that is ever the case, I will log on here and personally apologize for being wrong.

3) Your 11-to-17 year old daughter will be doing a lot of things her naive parents will not be aware of.
4) Your apology will not cure her potential HPV. Gardasil would have prevented it.
5) Gardasil would have also protected any of her other contacts that she didn't tell you about. This is why it's not a personal responsibility. Google: Herd immunity.

Cliffietheman: Goddamn, you're stupid. At any point in any of my posts, have I said anything about any random adult getting the vaccine if they wanted? Nope. I'm talking about 11 year olds being forced to get it.

I highly doubt my 11 or 12 year old will be in a situation where she is having sex with a regular partner with whom she plans to spend the rest of her life, only to be cheated on by him and given a STD. If that is ever the case, I will log on here and personally apologize for being wrong.

If they don't have sex, there is no harm done by getting them vaccinated. If they do have sex, there is potentially a lot of harm done if you didn't. That's my only point. It seems pretty callous that you seem to not care what happens to them if they should have sex against your wishes.

You also might well be wrong about your kids having sex earlier than you think. Lots of parents think that, but statistics prove that lots of parents are wrong.

If you go out and randomly hook up with someone, and you get an STD, I fail to see how that is NOT your own fault. Even if its HPV! If you're an adult, DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. GET THE HPV VACCINE IF YOU WANT TO. This whole thing is about 11 YEAR OLDS.

It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is. All that I'm concerned with is protecting people, not assigning blame. I don't care how they got exposed to it. You, on the other hand, do seem to care. That's why I am questioning your motives and "reading into" your statements. It seems that you are more concerned about your morality than about protecting people from HPV.

I could send her to school in a bubble, with a helmet and bullet proof vest on, surrounded by body guards and a tank. But that wouldn't make any sense. Neither would it make sense for the government to tell me that my 11 year old is going to get exposed to HPV.

It makes a lot of sense, because of the statistics about youth sexual activity. You may think your kid is different, and you may be right. But policy has to be made based on the majority case. And that is a poor analogy anyway because getting an HPV shot does not impact your kid's life even if they don't have sex. The things you just said would.

ar_gyrion

That's hot.

mdeesnuts: ar_gyrion

That's hot.

2nded

Can't wait until someone make an AIDS vaccine and all the people against the HPV vaccine suddenly change their minds about vaccines dealing with STDs.

Lake Huron: This isn't thalidomide, it's a mix of virus-like particles made in baker's yeast, without DNA. We have a solid understanding of how the body reacts to that.

One of the reasons people are fearful of the long term fx- it isn't simply a mix of particles and benign yeast. I have seen claims that vaccines have in them, as a short list:
aluminum, formaldehyde, antibiotics (not penicillin), antifreeze, phenol, methenol, MSG, glutaraldehyde, borax, proteins from the various animal tissue cultures, etc etc.

Is any of this true? How do we find out what exactly is in there, and what fx they can have on kids?

Cliffietheman: Sum Dum Gai

11 year olds have the same immune system as 16-26 year olds.

Odd. If that's the case, how come 11 year olds can't get certain Flu vaccines? Or Hep vaccines? Good for the goose is good for the gander ... except not always.

Well, sometimes they may be different. Often it's because the disease is a disease of old people, or maybe the vaccine was never tested in kids. Or the disease is rare enough that vaccinating once, having immunity wane, and getting revaccinated isn't worth it. Surprise surprise, different vaccines are different, children and adults are different.

How did they know they'd been exposed to HPV? They can't say, "Go have sex with this man, he has HPV," because dudes can't be tested for HPV. So they did this study and made some assumptions, right?

Okay, that's it, asshat, you have just proven your ignorance by baldly stating an untruth. I have next to me the 15 October 2007 issue of Journal of Infectious Diseases, which has the following articles in it:

-Genital Human Papillomavirus Infection in Men: Incidence and Risk Factors in a Cohort of University Students
-Risk Factors for Anogenital Human Papillomavirus Infection in Men
-The Optimal Anatomic Sites for Sampling Heterosexual Men for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Detection: The HPV Detection in Men Study

If you are a rational human being, you will admit that you made up the "dudes can't be tested for HPV" statement, or guessed that. Or alternatively, state your source.

Your "they deserve their STD for randomly hooking up" rant is pointless and in ignorance of the real ways by which my patients get STDs, including HIV. Have you ever seen a 12-year-old breathe a sigh of relief when you told her that her pregnancy test was negative?

Sum Dum Gai (Bioscientist? Doc? Extremely cool person? Anyway, hi.) has it right.

/big syringe full of FAIL

beelzabubba: Lake Huron: This isn't thalidomide, it's a mix of virus-like particles made in baker's yeast, without DNA. We have a solid understanding of how the body reacts to that.

One of the reasons people are fearful of the long term fx- it isn't simply a mix of particles and benign yeast. I have seen claims that vaccines have in them, as a short list:
aluminum, formaldehyde, antibiotics (not penicillin), antifreeze, phenol, methenol, MSG, glutaraldehyde, borax, proteins from the various animal tissue cultures, etc etc.

Is any of this true? How do we find out what exactly is in there, and what fx they can have on kids?

Look at the CDC link in one of my earlier posts. Contains a list of ingredients. Probably Google will show you, too.
Generally, all of the components for any vaccine or med are listed on the side of the vial, the box, the prescribing info, and the internet. Pick a product and look for it.
You know, they did test these on humans, y'know.
Have you read the ingredients on your Twinkies?