8 More Deaths Caused by Gardasil Bringing Total Number To 11

[Kuciwalker]

Eliminate or dramatically reduce the risk of specific strains? Yes.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Now, is it feasible to eliminate HPV entirely?

HPV 16 and 18 it would seem... yes. Even HPV 6 and HPV 11 would likely be feasible.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Aeson


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.

If mutations don't affect the vaccinated, then yay vaccination ... but it should be a choice. This is not polio, or smallpox.

I think HPV vaccination falls far short of necessity of governmental intervention to "protect children from stupid parents". You are making a value judgement here, that you consider the value of the vaccine greater than the risks; every parent can and should make that decision for themselves, unless and until they are shown unfit to be a parent. I do not think this matter is enough by itself to show that, and it is certainly not gross negligence. You are grossly overstating the dangers of HPV here.

I don't want to live in a nanny state. I can make my own decisions, thank you very much.

[Kuciwalker]

The "individual value" thing is pointless, since the value of a vaccination isn't individual, it's based on what proportion of people have it. Your decision has significant externalities.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by snoopy369
If mutations don't affect the vaccinated, then yay vaccination ... but it should be a choice. This is not polio, or smallpox.

So you admit you support "nanny state" in the case of polio and smallpox.

I think HPV vaccination falls far short of necessity of governmental intervention to "protect children from stupid parents".

Please use accurate terms. Gardasil is what you are referencing here isn't it?

Or are you saying you wouldn't support any mandatory HPV related vaccination, even if hypothetically it was a perfect vaccine with no side effects?

You are making a value judgement here, that you consider the value of the vaccine greater than the risks; every parent can and should make that decision for themselves, unless and until they are shown unfit to be a parent. I do not think this matter is enough by itself to show that, and it is certainly not gross negligence. You are grossly overstating the dangers of HPV here.

I said the only good argument would be one of safety. I stated outright that I hadn't looked into the risks involved enough to come to a conclusion about Gardasil specifically.

How in the hell do you read that and pretend that I have said I support mandatory Gardasil vaccinations?

You need to pay more attention to terms used. Both yours and mine.

I don't want to live in a nanny state. I can make my own decisions, thank you very much.

You've already said you want to live in a nanny state.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The "individual value" thing is pointless, since the value of a vaccination isn't individual, it's based on what proportion of people have it. Your decision has significant externalities.

The value of the vaccine to the individual is quite high. It prevents the individual from getting the disease.

I don't consider the "eliminate HPV from the planet" argument, because a) it is not likely to happen and b) HPV is not a superbug like smallpox.

Aeson, if there is a disease that is killing half the people of Africa and Central America, and wiping it out will save their lives, then I'd support making it mandatory. Eliminating HPV in the US would not do that, and HPV is not killing quite on those levels I would suggest

Nanny state = telling people how to run their lives when it affects them only. Keeping other people from hurting me = good government.

Until there is reasonable evidence that HPV qualifies as the above, absolutely not (mandatory).

[Aeson]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Aeson, if there is a disease that is killing half the people of Africa and Central America, and wiping it out will save their lives, then I'd support making it mandatory.

Only then?

Eliminating HPV in the US would not do that, and HPV is not killing quite on those levels I would suggest

Yah, it's only killing a ~3k a year in the US (~4600 deaths attributed to cervical cancer, 70% of which are due to HPV 16 and HPV 18). No biggie. Just let em die...

Nanny state = telling people how to run their lives when it affects them only. Keeping other people from hurting me = good government.

"I don't want to live in a nanny state. I can make my own decisions, thank you very much."

In that statement you were very clear as to what you mean by "nanny state". If the state makes the decisions for you, it's a nanny state. If you make the decisions for you, it's not. The state makes decisions for you, some of which you support, so you support a nanny state given your previous usage.

Now you want to redefine your usage. Fine. So you support mandatory Gardasil with the notion that government should protect us from the acts of others. Someone infected with HPV 16 or HPV 18 can rape someone else and spread the disease without their consent. (Not to mention the various ways a person can unknowingly contract the disease.) In the case of a minor, the parent is the one to choose whether the child is protected from the transmission of the disease or not. The government thus is not a "nanny state" to protect the child from the harm of the HPV 16 or HPV 18 transmission.

Until there is reasonable evidence that HPV qualifies as the above, absolutely not (mandatory).

Please use accurate terms. What do you mean by HPV? Because there's a rather large qualitative difference between plantir warts and cervical cancer. But both are caused by different types of HPV. And both are contracted in rather different ways...

To illustrate the importance of being specific... if we were to drop specifics and just deal with HPV and it's effects... you'd have cancer spreading through locker room floors and shaking hands as well as sexual contact. Ah... the joys of intellectual dishonesty...

----------------------------

You keep choosing failing arguments. The valid argument is whether or not the vaccination is safe.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Last tiem i checked HPV wasnt the only thing that caused cervical cancer!!! it is only a small percent that is getting it from hpv. second i have already gave one main risk for cervical cancer and none of u have even bothered to address that issue but rather insist on proving a non proven fact!! I can support many proven causes of cervical cancer and only 3 % or less is from hpv. Family history multiple child birth mutliple sexual partners who had multiple sex partners, smoking the list goes on .... I dont get why one insists on aruging a less the 3 % risk of getting this.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

for those interested in easy reading

There is currently no cure or treatment for HPV infection. Many women will have HPV but very few will ever develop cervical cancer. Usually the infection disappears without any treatment, because the woman’s immune system has been successful in the process.

[Ben Kenobi]

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_2X_What_are_the_risk_factors_for_cervical_cancer_8.asp

I was checking out that 3 percent figure, since you had me curious.

Here's what I found.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Wezil
Pregegnany can kill teens. It can also severely srew up their lives. Let's prevent this by prescribing the pill to all females over say what? 12?

No pregnancy is not contagious but neither is HPV without sex. I can catch the flu from the person standing next to me. Not HPV.

You try to make this vac mandatory and the public outcry will be HUGE.

You can't catch tetanus from the person standing next to you either. Nor Hepatitis B. Nor Hepatitis A. Nor Polio. Yet these vaccinations are mandatory.

[thesilentone]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
Last tiem i checked HPV wasnt the only thing that caused cervical cancer!!! it is only a small percent that is getting it from hpv. second i have already gave one main risk for cervical cancer and none of u have even bothered to address that issue but rather insist on proving a non proven fact!! I can support many proven causes of cervical cancer and only 3 % or less is from hpv. Family history multiple child birth mutliple sexual partners who had multiple sex partners, smoking the list goes on .... I dont get why one insists on aruging a less the 3 % risk of getting this.

I don't understand why you think having multiple sex partners is a cause on it's own, surely it's the fact that if you have multiple partners you have a higher likelihood of catching HPV.

(and your typo's make you look like you're drunk)

[Aeson]

There are other risk factors for cervical cancer, but apparently they only factor in if HPV is present.

From BK's link:

Human papillomavirus infection: The most important risk factor for cervical cancer is infection by the human papillomavirus (HPV). Doctors believe that women must have been infected by this virus before they will develop cervical cancer. HPVs are a group of more than 100 types of viruses called papillomaviruses because some of them can also cause warts, or papillomas, which are non-cancerous (benign) tumors. Certain types, however, cause cancer of the cervix. These are called "high-risk" types of HPV and include HPV 16, HPV 18, HPV 31, HPV 33, and HPV 45, as well as some others. About two thirds of all cervical cancers are caused by HPV 16 and 18.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by snoopy369
The value of the vaccine to the individual is quite high. It prevents the individual from getting the disease.

The value of the vaccine to society is even higher, it's that the individual won't give the disease to anyone.

I don't consider the "eliminate HPV from the planet" argument, because a) it is not likely to happen and b) HPV is not a superbug like smallpox.

So only in the most extreme case is any intervention justified?

Nanny state = telling people how to run their lives when it affects them only. Keeping other people from hurting me = good government.

It doesn't only effect them, it effects everyone who they spread the disease to.

[Apocalypse]

It's funny, but you can get HPV from a toilet seat.