8 More Deaths Caused by Gardasil Bringing Total Number To 11

[Mrs. Tuberski]

I have only a few things to say on this, that is that this shot is not proven effective. I am surprised none of you have realized what age the target groups are and why. The are set so young because there is a larger % chance the said female hasnt had sex yet. To me i agree this proposed vaccien will promote unsafe sex practices. By the way im not excatly sure that most of you men dont realize that the females that are at risk for hpv have multiple sex partners and will continue to do so until they are married. Im not sure how most of u dont see that multiple sex partners is a bigger risk for cervical cancer then one partner infected with hpv.
This vaccine is as idiotic as the chicken pox vaccine. recieving doesnt mean ur immune to hpv in any way jus as the chicken pox vaccine doest insure immunity and u wont get the chicken pox.
On a last note the Hep B shot doesnt work for everyone either. there is 1 out of every 10 people given the vaccine that will never convert. I am one of those people and I have had 3 boosters since the original 3 shots.
To make it mandatory is a huge mistake, but available for those who want sure.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Where the **** did 15 percent come from?

There are some 30-40 strains of HPV which are contracted sexually. (And according to a previous post by BK, I haven't looked into it...) 4 of them are targetted by this vaccination.

That's where the 15% comes, and why I'm using the family analogy with the common cold and polio to show just how useless such an "effectiveness" rating is.

[Wezil]

I knew I shouldn't have gotten involved in a medical/science debate. I went away for a few hours only to return to over a page of intervening posts. My eyes glazed over trying to catch up.

I know "the other side" of the issue doesn't like my pregnancy analogy but quite frankly I have yet to see a convincing argument against. Both preg and HPV are "caused" by sex. Neither can be transmitted casually. Both can cause serious adverse effects to a teenagers life. Both can be prevented by "medication". Not surprisingly, both are voluntary whereas other vacs are mandatory. It's pretty obvious why.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Wezil

I know "the other side" of the issue doesn't like my pregnancy analogy but quite frankly I have yet to see a convincing argument against. Both preg and HPV are "caused" by sex. Neither can be transmitted casually. Both can cause serious adverse effects to a teenagers life. Both can be prevented by "medication". Not surprisingly, both are voluntary whereas other vacs are mandatory. It's pretty obvious why.

Your analogy is not nec. flawed in the general context of whether it should be mandatory (which is what you are saying now).

IT IS FLAWED in the context of the free rider problem, which is where you brought it up.

If you're to lazy to read everything posted since your last post, at least read the post where I replied to you, quoted and you and answered this already

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme

Why economic? What a one-dimensional analysis!
Side effects are a disincentive to taking a vaccine.
The time it takes also is one.

Etc.
In practice, there is always such a disincentive and so the free rider problem is always present.



I have to decide whether to take a vaccine, but I don't want side effects. Oh! Everybody else is taking it, the disease won't be as present, therefore I don't need to take it. Yeah!

I'm a free rider.

Either the side effects are minimal, and this problem does not exist; or they are substantial, and the government should not force people to take such risks.

I don't think the government should require me (or anyone) to do something that benefits (directly) only me, and my not doing it does not harm others (insomuch as they have the same choice to protect themselves). Everything has some free riders; this would not have a significant amount, and certainly less than, say, eating vegetables or somesuch.

Ultimately it comes down to - do I want to live in a state where the government tells me what to do in my private matters, or do I prefer to live in a state where the government protects my rights from others? Do I want the government to be my mommy, or not?

Some people choose the former; I choose the latter.

Kuci - as I feel you and lul have different issues here, as you've not in the past been a mommy state supporter - the 'free rider' problem is not big enough in my mind to be relevant; not many people will choose to take the vaccine if they're the only ones asked, but choose not to if the others in their community take it (the net free rider effect). Vaccines don't generally work that way; people don't really think "Oh, everyone else is taking it so I'm safe." Availability, cost, and safety are far more significant factors; if they offer it free at schools to every 6,7,8 grade girl, it will be taken by most, i suspect (so long as it is safe).

This problem is particularly negated by the fact that men won't take the vaccine; as they are carriers (and can be carriers for decades after the vaccine becomes available, even if 100% use rate), there is still a very significant chance of non-vaccinated people getting infected even if every other woman has the vaccine. Thus there is very little free-rider incentive.

[Ben Kenobi]

I know "the other side" of the issue doesn't like my pregnancy analogy but quite frankly I have yet to see a convincing argument against. Both preg and HPV are "caused" by sex.

Not always, you can get pregnant in other ways, but it is not common for teenagers because of the expense.

[Aeson]

It seems Gardasil helps protect against HPV Types 6, 11, 16, and 18.

From a multitude of sources: (all the articles I've looked at say the same thing just about word for word)

In clinical trials, Gardasil was 100% effective against HPV strains 16 and 18, which are responsible for 70% of cases of cervical cancer.

Gardasil was also 99% effective against HPV strains 6 and 11, which are responsible for 90% of cases of genital warts.

[Kuciwalker]

Either the side effects are minimal, and this problem does not exist; or they are substantial, and the government should not force people to take such risks.

1) It's finer-grained than that - the public perception of the risks can be different from the actual risks.

2) Even if the risks are significant it can be good public policy to make the vaccine mandatory.

Kuci - as I feel you and lul have different issues here, as you've not in the past been a mommy state supporter - the 'free rider' problem is not big enough in my mind to be relevant; not many people will choose to take the vaccine if they're the only ones asked, but choose not to if the others in their community take it (the net free rider effect).

It's not a question of a mommy state; it's a basic result of epidemiology that the state has to require vaccinations in order for them to be effective in reducing the spread of disease.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

The vaccine hasnt even been tested on men nor has it been addressed to penile or prostate cancers in men. If this vaccine was made available free for my daughter i for one would not jump at the chance to make her take it.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's not a question of a mommy state; it's a basic result of epidemiology that the state has to require vaccinations in order for them to be effective in reducing the spread of disease.

Very true.

But why doesn't the state make the flu shot mandatory Kuci?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme



You are getting mangled by definitions.

Aeson explained (at least twice at that), yet you keep repeating the same mistake.

Definitions and subject matter. Science and medicine I openly confess to know very little about. Like I say, I should have known better.

I'm obviously missing something here so I will defer to those that know what the hell they're talking about until I get a better grasp of this. I'll be seeing ORD this evening and he is always good for these sorts of explanations.

[Kuciwalker]

The vaccine hasnt even been tested on men nor has it been addressed to penile or prostate cancers in men. If this vaccine was made available free for my daughter

...

WTF.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Very true.

But why doesn't the state make the flu shot mandatory Kuci?

Because the flu changes every single year, rendering the previous immunity worthless, and it's not feasible or probably even possible to eliminate the flu entirely.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by snoopy369
The ONLY time that might not be the case is in the case of a virulent disease/strain that has a high cure rate with the vaccine, but also a high enough mutation rate to likely form a vaccine-resistant form if it is left out in the wild and not vaccinated against - ie, if there is a significant chance of vaccinated people being harmed by the existence of non-vaccinated people.

I don't think this is a very good argument either. Think polio again. AFAIK it's mutation is not a terrible risk to those who have been vaccinated... wiping it out as much as possible is just good for humanity.

I do think government has the right and responsibility to protect children against gross negligence by the parents. And that's how I'd categorize a parent who would deny their child a safe vaccination against harmful diseases.

The "safe" is really the only good argument against an effective vaccination.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because the flu changes ever single year, rendering the previous immunity worthless, and it's not feasible or probably even possible to eliminate the flu entirely.

Now, is it feasible to eliminate HPV entirely?