So let me get this straight...

[BVS]

Sounds good. I'll go ask the people who have died if they would have died had they not taken the vaccine.

Or if they properly screened, was it administrated correctly, etc...

Yeah, real research would be needed.

Right now, that hasn't happened. Just agenda driven "hysteria".

 

[yolland]

.

Death of six children not due to HPV

The Hindu, 17 April 2010

NEW DELHI -- Six children who were administered imported brands of the human papilloma vaccine (HPV) have died, the government told Parliament on Friday. While the causes of death have not been attributed to the vaccine in any of these cases, the States have been advised not to carry out any more vaccinations. The two imported brands Gardasil and Cervarix “were allowed to undergo clinical trial (Phase III) in India, before granting permission to import and market authorisation,” Minister of State for Health and Family Welfare S. Gandhiselvan told the Lok Sabha on Friday in a written response to a question. “For assessing the health services needs and preparedness for introducing [HPV] vaccines into the health services in the future, PATH, an international NGO, was given permission for a post-licensure observational study of HPV vaccination in Khammam district [Andhra Pradesh] and Vadodara district [Gujarat].”

Six deaths, four in Andhra Pradesh and two in Gujarat, have been reported from among the 24,705 children administered these vaccines, he said. The causes of the deaths were determined as “viral fever, drowning, suicide, severe anaemia with malaria and suspected snake bite.”

Reports of the death of four girls in Andhra Pradesh had initially sparked off complaints from civil society groups.

 

[anitram]

I for one am shocked.

 

[BVS]

Truth is freedom.

 

[VintagePunk]

But *gasp* what will this news do to family values people - those who want to deny good foresight and future sexual health (and life! this vaccine can be life saving!) to girls and young women??

Whoever called this thread disgusting earlier was putting it mildly. This poster has a history of twisting quotes and "statistics" to suit a conservative, anti-feminist agenda.

I guess the girls can stop being "sluts" and then depend on their future husbands to tell the truth that they're virgins too...because that always works, right??

Fucking unreal that we're even having this discussion.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

To be fair there have been plenty of anti-feminist posts in the history of fym-whether they used quotes or statistics or not. And plenty of such threads that I personally found to be disgusting because of the agenda I believed to be behind them-or it was just blatant.

So perhaps it's easy to assume he was doing that here- but I give him the benefit of the doubt until he answers that, if he cares to. I don't think womens health should be considered to be a feminist issue-it's a human issue. But I guess since sex is involved suddenly that changes.

 

[nathan1977]

Whoever called this thread disgusting earlier was putting it mildly. This poster has a history of twisting quotes and "statistics" to suit a conservative, anti-feminist agenda.

And FYM posters have a history of resorting to name calling when they're confronted with something outside their worldview. Or is it "disgusting" to ask questions now? Free your mind, indeed.

I didn't realize that raising questions about public health -- particularly in the face of a vaccine that is being manufactured and sold by a pharmaceutical company that was hit with the largest multi-state settlement ever, after being convicted of using deceptive marketing tactics to sell Vioxx -- made me anti-feminist.

Good old FYM.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think the problem started with the bias of the doctor involved and other issues. Honestly I can't remember any other thread you started that twisted things in any anti-feminist agenda-then again at this point so much of all of it is a blur for me. I didn't assume any motives or motivations on your part.

For some people it's an issue of conservative agendas meddling in the health of women-like I said, once sex is involved...so maybe when you look at it from that point of view it can create motives that aren't necessarily there. It becomes a very sensitive issue for women.

 

[deep]

And FYM posters have a history of resorting to name calling when they're confronted with something outside their worldview. Or is it "disgusting" to ask questions now? Free your mind, indeed.

I didn't realize that raising questions about public health -- particularly in the face of a vaccine that is being manufactured and sold by a pharmaceutical company that was hit with the largest multi-state settlement ever, after being convicted of using deceptive marketing tactics to sell Vioxx -- made me anti-feminist.

Good old FYM.

The first day you put this thread up, I did some googling and came to different conclusions than you. That happens often times in this forum and many other venues when people discuss certain topics.

I chose not to jump in and challenge your premises. I figured this thread might not get many replies and just slide off the first page.

I hoped not to see 'mean spirited' replies. I am sorry that some resort to rudeness, when posting a credible rebuttle would have been the better course.

We all have bias' and agendas. The only question is, are honest enough to identfy them.
Some of these bias are more popular within groups and tolerated more.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Some biases directly kill, for instance children who have died of measles because their parents chose not to immunize them.

The anti-vaccination lobby has a negative impact on public health and it shouldn't be understated

Measles cases in England and Wales rose by 36% in 2008, figures show.
Confirmed cases increased from 990 in 2007 to 1,348 last year - the highest figure since the monitoring scheme was introduced in 1995.
Health Protection Agency experts said most of the cases had been in children not fully vaccinated with combined MMR and so could have been prevented.
Immunisation expert Dr Mary Ramsay said the rise was "very worrying", adding measles "should not be taken lightly".
More than 600 of the 2008 measles cases occurred in London, where uptake of the vaccine for MMR - measles, mumps and rubella - is particularly low.
Public confidence in the triple MMR vaccine dipped following research - since discredited - which raised the possibility that the jab may be linked to an increased risk of autism.
It led to some parents opting to pay privately for single vaccines.
Across the UK, 84.5% of two year olds have been immunised with their first dose of MMR.
But by age five, when children are recommended to have a second dose, the latest uptake figures are 77.9%.

Since 2005, the number of cases of measles has been rising year on year.
There have also been sporadic outbreaks of mumps in recent years.
Last summer, England's Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, announced a catch-up programme for those who had not received one or more doses of MMR.
The Department of Health, which said the latest figures were concerning, has provided extra funding to PCTs and additional supplies of vaccine.

BBC NEWS | Health | Rise in measles 'very worrying'

 

[deep]

I agree, and good information is the treatment for bad information.

 

[nathan1977]

Honestly I can't remember any other thread you started that twisted things in any anti-feminist agenda-then again at this point so much of all of it is a blur for me. I didn't assume any motives or motivations on your part.

Thank you. I'm not sure what threads VP was referring to -- but we often have differences of opinions.

For some people it's an issue of conservative agendas meddling in the health of women-like I said, once sex is involved...so maybe when you look at it from that point of view it can create motives that aren't necessarily there. It becomes a very sensitive issue for women.

From another perspective, as the father of two little girls, if I'm going to consent to give them a vaccination that is said to protect them from cervical cancer, I'm going to make sure they don't die as a result of it. I don't think there's anything anti-feminist about that...

 

[AEON]

I agree, and good information is the treatment for bad information.

Nice point, Deep

 

[nathan1977]

The first day you put this thread up, I did some googling and came to different conclusions than you. That happens often times in this forum and many other venues when people discuss certain topics.

I chose not to jump in and challenge your premises. I figured this thread might not get many replies and just slide off the first page.

I hoped not to see 'mean spirited' replies. I am sorry that some resort to rudeness, when posting a credible rebuttle would have been the better course.

We all have bias' and agendas. The only question is, are honest enough to identfy them.
Some of these bias are more popular within groups and tolerated more.

Appreciate the gracious response, deep.

 

[AttnKleinkind]

Admittedly, I'm not very well-versed in the political issues surrounding the vaccine, such as the potential conservative agenda, but I don't think it should be called anti-feminist to question the vaccine, or its widespread use. Where I live, it's been marketed as something that every young girl should get, and if she's not, she's being irresponsible with her body. From what I've read though, cervical cancer (potentially caused by HPV) is actually the most treatable cancer there is, as long as one gets their yearly PAP. So portraying a vaccine that may not be fully researched as something that is necessary to save a girl from HPV and if we withhold it we are risking womens' lives isn't really the best way to represent the situation.

Also, HPV is pretty much the common cold of sex. If you have had sex with someone who has had sex with someone else then you can consider yourself exposed. So Gardasil actually seems like a kind of an unnecessary vaccine and considering the nature of HPV it would be unwise to unnecessarily inflict it if there's any question of it being unsafe, since it's just not necessary.

I don't know if this is too off-topic or not, but I just thought I'd throw this info out there. It seems more a matter of prudence to question the vaccine rather than something driven by a conservative agenda or anti-feminist motivations.

 

[anitram]

From what I've read though, cervical cancer (potentially caused by HPV) is actually the most treatable cancer there is, as long as one gets their yearly PAP.

Obviously this is all relative and obviously it is best not to get any type of cancer, but I don't even believe that cervical cancer is in the top 5 of cancer types by survival rates, and that is even with taking into account the reductions achieved by PAP smears.

Also, HPV is pretty much the common cold of sex. If you have had sex with someone who has had sex with someone else then you can consider yourself exposed. So Gardasil actually seems like a kind of an unnecessary vaccine and considering the nature of HPV it would be unwise to unnecessarily inflict it if there's any question of it being unsafe, since it's just not necessary.

Not to be rude, but this is a really silly statement. Unless you take the position that we women will all have a single sex partner in our life who will be a virgin at the time that we meet and will never cheat OR unless you assume that every single sexual partner that we have for the rest of our life (including our husband) will use a condom each and every time (how will you have children?), you will be exposed. If I am in a monogamous long-term relationship with a man who has slept with 20 women before me, my only option to avoid exposure of the multiple strains that he may have picked up is for him to wear a condom forever. Clearly this is neither a reasonable nor a realistic expectation.

 

[AttnKleinkind]

Not to be rude, but this is a really silly statement. Unless you take the position that we women will all have a single sex partner in our life who will be a virgin at the time that we meet and will never cheat OR unless you assume that every single sexual partner that we have for the rest of our life (including our husband) will use a condom each and every time (how will you have children?), you will be exposed. If I am in a monogamous long-term relationship with a man who has slept with 20 women before me, my only option to avoid exposure of the multiple strains that he may have picked up is for him to wear a condom forever. Clearly this is neither a reasonable nor a realistic expectation.

What I meant by viewing it as a common cold was to make the point that it is extremely common, and thus one doesn't need to take such ridiculous precautions, neither should it have any stigma. According to the
Guttmacher Institute "nearly three in four Americans between the ages of 15 and 49 have been infected with genital HPV at some point in their life." Just as you wouldn't wear a mask obsessively or sanitize your hands constantly to prevent getting a cold, you wouldn't take the precautions you mentioned to prevent getting HPV. Especially considering that "Studies have shown that 70% of new HPV infections clear within one year, as many as 91% clear within two years." according to the CDC 2004 Report to Congress on Prevention of HPV. HPV only leads to cancer in rare cases, and even then, cervical cancer is very preventable. Mortality rates are falling by 2% each year in the US, and most cases where cervical cancer develops are in women who have not had a pap smear in the preceeding 3-5 years. (this info found Here.

So all that to say, I was just trying to put the campaign for the vaccine ("it's risking girls' lives to prevent it!") in perspective, since HPV is so common, and the worse effects from it are so preventable.

 

[nathan1977]

I was just trying to put the campaign for the vaccine ("it's risking girls' lives to prevent it!") in perspective, since HPV is so common, and the worse effects from it are so preventable.

Tough to do when pharmaceutical companies are using deceptive marketing techniques to put the drugs on the market though. And when the government decides such companies are "too big to nail."

In addition to Merck, there's Pfizer.

Feds found Pfizer too big to nail - CNN.com

 

[BVS]

What do you think the deceptive marketing techniques are for this vaccine in particular?

 

[Liesje]

Where I live, it's been marketed as something that every young girl should get

[...]

Also, HPV is pretty much the common cold of sex.

Exactly, so why would anyone not get it? I would've gotten it if I'd qualified and I'm married (top of the age range and my insurance would not cover...a rant for another thread). You'd rather get cancer and treat that than get the vaccine?

 

[nathan1977]

What do you think the deceptive marketing techniques are for this vaccine in particular?

Merely following up on AttnKlein's point, and pointing out that the precedent exists for the two major pharmaceutical companies, and not insignificantly so.

 

[BVS]

So nothing in particular for THIS vaccine?

It just seems like manufactured rage, one that is masking another agenda.

 

[nathan1977]

So nothing in particular for THIS vaccine?

It just seems like manufactured rage, one that is masking another agenda.

I'll refer to an earlier post: "as the father of two little girls, if I'm going to consent to give them a vaccination that is said to protect them from cervical cancer, I'm going to make sure they don't die as a result of it."

As AttnKlein said: "Where I live, it's been marketed as something that every young girl should get, and if she's not, she's being irresponsible with her body."

If you're a company who's going to make such a marketing push, on behalf of THIS vaccine, which may be dubious, and you have a history of using deceptive marketing techniques, I'm going to be skeptical.

My agenda is keeping my little girls safe.

 

[BVS]

I'll refer to an earlier post: "as the father of two little girls, if I'm going to consent to give them a vaccination that is said to protect them from cervical cancer, I'm going to make sure they don't die as a result of it."

As AttnKlein said: "Where I live, it's been marketed as something that every young girl should get, and if she's not, she's being irresponsible with her body."

If you're a company who's going to make such a marketing push, on behalf of THIS vaccine, which may be dubious, and you have a history of using deceptive marketing techniques, I'm going to be skeptical.

My agenda is keeping my little girls safe.

But as you can see, the numbers have been fabricated...

And I haven't seen any advertising that says "she's being irresponsible with her body", have you?

 

[nathan1977]

But as you can see, the numbers have been fabricated...

Not by CNN and CBS.

YouTube - Gardasil WARNING! - CNN Report 8.11.8

YouTube - Is HPV Vaccine Safe?

 

[deep]

Nathan,

I watched all of the first video from August 2008.

Not much there, the young girl got an auto-immune disease 2 months after the vaccine?
Her doctor said there may be a possibility of it being related to the vaccine.

It also said there was a comprehensive study that would be concluded by October 2008.
What happened with that study?

When there is a real problem, and there have been with big phrama putting profits first, there is a more consistent pattern with recipients having the same bad reaction within a reasonable time frame. Where is that pattern?

 

[anitram]

My agenda is keeping my little girls safe.

Sure, it's just that I believe you're not actually doing that (statistically speaking) in this instance.

 

[nathan1977]

It also said there was a comprehensive study that would be concluded by October 2008.
What happened with that study?

A comprehensive study conducted by Merck, the company that produces and markets the drug.

I'm not exactly holding my breath...

 

[AttnKleinkind]

Exactly, so why would anyone not get it? I would've gotten it if I'd qualified and I'm married (top of the age range and my insurance would not cover...a rant for another thread). You'd rather get cancer and treat that than get the vaccine?

What I meant by likening HPV to the common cold was not only in the amount of people who are exposed to it, but also the ease of treatment in the large majority of cases. In the links I posted above, it says that most cases are cleared up by the body itself, and the cases that are more serious can usually be prevented from getting into something more serious. Kind of like a cold how sometimes it can lead to pneumonia or something more serious in certain cases, but I'm not going to go hugely out of my way to prevent getting a cold for this reason. In the case of HPV, the potential for cancer does not seem great enough to warrant me to go to have a new vaccine which no one knows the long-term effects of yet. If the risk for cancer was much greater, I'd definitely weigh the risks and possibly consider the vaccine, but right now, due to the nature of HPV and the low potential for cervical cancer, to me it's more of a risk to actually take the vaccine.

(sorry for the delayed response, I was working on a final paper for school!)

 

[AttnKleinkind]

And I haven't seen any advertising that says "she's being irresponsible with her body", have you?

I wouldn't call the marketing deceptive, although they do make out getting the vaccine to be sort of a no-brainer, and that anyone who cares about their body will take it. I've heard one on the radio that went like this:

[somehow topic of Gardasil is brought up]
Girl 1: "I don't think I'll get that, I'm SO afraid of needles"
Girl 2: "Yeah? Well I'm SO afraid of cancer."

Obviously they're marketing so they're trying to sell it, and they of course have the right to do that. They're not going to go into all the nuances of HPV and cervical cancer, but this does leave one with the impression that someone would be pretty irresponsible to not get it, and the only reason that someone would be for trivial reasons like being scared of needles.

I'm not trying say that the people marketing the drug have some sort of agenda, I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that it's a more complicated issue, and cervical cancer may not be such a pressing issue as it's made out to be.