Men going Down

[random]

ok thanks for clearing that up. Pretty sure you can get blood tests anyway to find out if you carry the virus and subsequently reassure your partner(s) etc

[Torsten]

Meeka - HPV is a set of about 100 different but related viruses. Some cause cancer others cause warts.

The vaccine covers just two of the cancer causing strains, but they are the most common [~80%] and two of the wart causing strains [~90%].

Tripsis - The vaccine is highly effective if used before any infection, ie before any sexual contact. The vaccine is only 4 years old and has not shown any sign of dropping immunity which means that boosters will probably not be needed. The rate of minor adverse effects [headache etc] is about 0.2%. The rate of serious adverse effects is just over 0.001% [ie 1 in about 100,000]. These adverse effects are not causally linked. They merely happen at around the same time as the vaccination. In the USA an investigation into the 25 confirmed deaths has shown that none of the deaths were caused by the vaccine.

1% of the female population is diagnosed with cervical cancer each year. Of these about 40% will die from the cancer. ie the chance of dying from cervical cancer in the developed world is about 0.4% [it is much higher in the developing world!]. In contrast even if we assumed that all of the adverse reactions were deaths, and assuming that all the deaths were actually caused by the vaccine as some conspiracy theorists would like us to believe, then the chance of dying from the vaccine is 0.001. This means even for the most paranoid perspective, you are 400 times more likely to die from cervical cancer than from the vaccine.

synchro, the research is quite clear on what the vaccine protects from and what it doesn't protect from. The australian version protects from HPV 16 + 18 as well as 6 + 11. The american vaccine does not protet from 6 + 11.

[tripsis]

Thanks for doing the maths Torsten, I really had not looked into it that much. If those figures are correct, then getting the vaccine would undoubtedly be a good idea. At least one of my female friends has chosen not to get the vaccine, not out of ignorance (she just got first class honours), but after researching into it and deciding it was not all it is cracked up to be. Not sure where she got her information from though, or whether she broke it down into figures as you have done. I suppose part of the reason she might not have got it, is due to the fact that she has had sex before the vaccine came out, thus reducing the efficacy of it.

Edit: typos

[synchromesh]

In the USA an investigation into the 25 confirmed deaths has shown that none of the deaths were caused by the vaccine.

 

Who did the investigation? The manufacturers of the vaccine I'm guessing...

[bℓσωηG]

im not even going there sychromesh , man vaccines eya gtrae ideo

[synchromesh]

Gardasil vaccination: Evaluating the risks versus benefits

Merck promoted Gardasil primarily as a vaccine against cervical cancer, rather than promoting it as a vaccine against HPV infection or sexually transmitted diseases.

According to recent reports published in two highly respected scientific journals, Nature Biotechnology and Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA):

"Most genital infections are asymptomatic and resolve spontaneously, but the virus can persist and cause precancerous lesions that can become malignant over the subsequent 20-30 years." (Nature Biotechnology, 2007 2)

"So how should a parent, physician, politician, or anyone else decide whether it is a good thing to give young girls a vaccine that partly prevents infection caused by a sexually transmitted disease (HPV infection), an infection that in a few cases will cause cancer 20 to 40 years from now? (JAMA, 2009 3).

The fact is that malignant cervical cancer takes decades to develop and yet the longest clinical trial on Gardasil was only four years in duration. In other words, Gardasil was never shown to prevent cervical cancer [emphasis added]. Furthermore, in all clinical trials conducted by Merck the cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2/3 precancerous lesion was used as the efficacy endpoint for evaluating the Gardasil. What is the problem with using the CIN 2/3 lesion as the standard for efficacy? First, if the marketing claim for Gardasil is that the vaccine "protects against cervical cancer" then cervical cancer should have been used as the endpoint for efficacy, not a surrogate marker such as a CIN 2/3 precancerous lesion [emphasis added]. Second, in the natural course of cervical cancer, only a small fraction of the CIN 2 lesions will progress to CIN 3 lesions and only a small fraction of CIN 3 lesions will eventually progress to cervical cancer. Furthermore, even CIN 3 lesions are heterogeneous (there are early small lesions and old advanced lesions and we do not know what proportion of the small lesions, which serve as clinical endpoints in current studies, would persist to become large, advanced CIN3 lesions). Therefore, in any female population (and that includes those who have undergone Gardasil clinical trials) there are many more CIN 2 lesions than a combination of CIN 3 lesions and cervical cancers. As a result, the vast majority of the "CIN 2/3 or worse" cases used for evaluation of efficacy, and listed in Merck's report to FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC Background Document on Gardasil HPV Quadrivalent Vaccine 8), must have been CIN 2 lesions.

In a review of the literature from 1950-1992, it was noted that 60 percent of CIN 1 lesions regressed, 30% persisted, 10 percent progressed to CIN 3, and only 1 percent progressed to invasive cancer. The corresponding approximations for CIN 2 were 40 percent, 40 percent, 20 percent, and 5 percent, respectively. The likelihood of CIN 3 regressing was 33 percent and that of progressing to invasive cancer was greater than 12 percent.

[bℓσωηG]

im with ya man... just cant be f'bothered finding the links in my current state of mind

[synchromesh]

No problem guy.

Former head of CDC lands lucrative job as president of Merck vaccine division (opinion)

(NaturalNews) You've heard it before, how the pharmaceutical industry has a giant "revolving door" through which corporations and government agencies frequently exchange key employees. That reality was driven home in a huge way today when news broke that Dr. Julie Gerberding, who headed the CDC from 2002 through 2009, landed a top job with Merck, one of the largest drug companies in the world. Her job there? She's the new president of the vaccine division.

How convenient. That means the former head of the CDC was very likely cultivating a relationship with Merck all these years, and now comes the big payoff: Heading up a $5 billion division that sells cervical cancer vaccines (like Gardasil), chickenpox vaccines and of course H1N1 swine flu vaccines, too.

So what's the problem with all this? The problem is that private industry and government health offices such as the CDC or FDA should never be so cozy. When they are, it creates an environment of collusion between Big Government and Big Pharma. We've already seen this with the government-led push for swine flu vaccines that are manufactured (and sold) by drug companies like Merck.

You might even say that the CDC already functions as the marketing division of the pharmaceutical industry. It was the CDC that pushed so hard for swine flu vaccines, even amid the obvious realization that swine flu was no more dangerous than seasonal flu. To this day, the CDC still hasn't bothered to recommend vitamin D for the prevention of either seasonal flu or swine flu. It remains heavily invested in the lucrative vaccine approach -- an approach that just happens to financially benefit the very corporations that are hiring ex-CDC employees like Dr. Gerberding.

[Torsten]

I think about all that can be shown by your posts is a causal relationship between ethnobotany and paranoia

Plenty of info out there for everyone to make up their own minds. I am just relying on darwin's principle of natural selection to hopefully make the next generation a little less paranoid.

[tripsis]

"Most genital infections are asymptomatic and resolve spontaneously, but the virus can persist and cause precancerous lesions that can become malignant over the subsequent 20-30 years." (Nature Biotechnology, 2007 2)

"So how should a parent, physician, politician, or anyone else decide whether it is a good thing to give young girls a vaccine that partly prevents infection caused by a sexually transmitted disease (HPV infection), an infection that in a few cases will cause cancer 20 to 40 years from now? (JAMA, 2009 3).

These are very good points.

[incognito]

serves you dirty bastards that have sex right!

[Sheather]

Yeah we're damned for our disgusting acts. Golly that sex, should go with the catholic approach. The only safe sex is no sex

[ThunderIdeal]

I think about all that can be shown by your posts is a causal relationship between ethnobotany and paranoia

 

i thought it was just the internet.

they transmit fear-inducing bits of code that make your computer hum at satanic frequencies.....

jokes aside, thank god for the internet.

[Torsten]

These are very good points.

 

why? the issue isn't infection or warts. the issue is cervical cancer and CIN. CIN is much more prevalent than cervical cancer so should also be taken into consideration.

If we assume for a moment that the official line is truthful [which I don't btw], then the argument is about taking a amall risk for minor side effects vs potential miserable death in 20-40 years.

Preventative treatments are never going to be popular with people who don't understand statitics. And while I am definitely not a fan of the pharma controlled vaccine industry, I think the shortsightedness that antivaccine proponents display is nauseating.

[synchromesh]

I think about all that can be shown by your posts is a causal relationship between ethnobotany and paranoia

“You’re mind is working at its best when you’re being paranoid. You explore every avenue and possibility of your situation at high speed with total clarity.”

— Banksy (Banging Your Head Against a Brick Wall)

Plenty of info out there for everyone to make up their own minds.

Indeed. Here's some more of it:

Top researcher who worked on cervical cancer vaccine warns about its dangers

("The vaccine will not decrease cervical cancer rates at all.")

NHS Trust suspends cervical cancer vaccinations after girl, 14, dies within hours of jab

Judicial Watch Uncovers FDA Records Detailing 16 New Deaths Tied to Gardasil

NZ’s Immunisation Advisory Centre Claims Gardasil Deaths Mainly “Motor Vehicle Accidents”

Serious Adverse Reactions To Gardasil Swept Under Carpet By Dr Nikki Turner of NZ’s Immunization Advisory Centre

THE NZ MINISTRY OF HEALTH IGNORED THE WARNINGS OF ITS OWN DIRECTOR OF GARDASIL CLINICAL TRIALS

Cancer jab linked to pancreas disease

 

 

Latest research links autism to vaccines

Flu scare fails as public opposes new mega h1n1-loaded vaccine

The Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex: A Deadly Fairy Tale

I am just relying on darwin's principle of natural selection to hopefully make the next generation a little less paranoid.

Because there's nothing paranoid about getting a vaccination for something you're highly unlikely to get... No, what's paranoid is keeping your immune system strong, in order to prevent disease in a way that's actually natural... now that is really paranoid!

[Razor]

Just a bit of a spin out i thought to be in our local news paper its not like i have eaten my fair share plus some hehe i always go by the motto you give you get and definitely worth the risk but men seem to be risking more than women so i think they should be more apprciative of our willingness to sacrifice our selves in the persuite of pleasure

Question: how can you save a mouse if you don't eat a pussy?

[synchromesh]

why? the issue isn't infection or warts. the issue is cervical cancer and CIN. CIN is much more prevalent than cervical cancer so should also be taken into consideration.

If we assume for a moment that the official line is truthful [which I don't btw], then the argument is about taking a amall risk for minor side effects vs potential miserable death in 20-40 years.

First of all, things like paraplegia and death aren't minor side-effects. And secondly, anybody could have a miserable death in the next 20-40 years. It just comes down to the luck of the draw (so to speak).

Preventative treatments are never going to be popular with people who don't understand statitics. And while I am definitely not a fan of the pharma controlled vaccine industry, I think the shortsightedness that antivaccine proponents display is nauseating.

 

You understand the statistics I posted then? Because you haven't made any comment on them...

[synchromesh]

Just a bit of a spin out i thought to be in our local news paper its not like i have eaten my fair share plus some hehe i always go by the motto you give you get and definitely worth the risk but men seem to be risking more than women so i think they should be more apprciative of our willingness to sacrifice our selves in the persuite of pleasure

 

How did you come to this conclusion?

[TommyChesnutt]

oh darn... tsk, guess i'm screwed.

[random]

Razor - men aren't risking more than women considering the amount of mouth n tongue action that goes on during sex, im sure one could easily transfer the virus through kissing if they had any fluid left in their mouth after oral sex, hence women are twice at risk - of both cervical cancer and mouth cancer. So I think you'll find that you should be grateful to your partner for taking a double risk.

[tripsis]

why? the issue isn't infection or warts. the issue is cervical cancer and CIN. CIN is much more prevalent than cervical cancer so should also be taken into consideration.

If we assume for a moment that the official line is truthful [which I don't btw], then the argument is about taking a amall risk for minor side effects vs potential miserable death in 20-40 years.

Because as that quote pointed out, the vaccine could not have possibly proven that it is actually effective against cervical cancer, due to the fact that it's only been studied over a 4 year period, not a 40 year period. If they were only targetting CIN, then perhaps there would be no question as to the efficacy of the vaccine, but as it is aimed as cancer, then it needs to be questioned as to whether it truly is effective or not, the answer to which we may not known for another four decades.

[Amazonian]

What started out as an amusing thread to me , has become quite educational. I will be faced with the decision of getting 'Miss 9" the Cervical Cancer Vaccine in not too many years to come. I was against doing this but after reading here, i am now leaning toward the idea. I just don't know. Ahh , the trials and tribulations of being a parent.

Edit: i might add that my mum died of cevical cancer, and have a string of deaths on my mothers side due to cancer.

[Torsten]

Because as that quote pointed out, the vaccine could not have possibly proven that it is actually effective against cervical cancer, due to the fact that it's only been studied over a 4 year period, not a 40 year period. If they were only targetting CIN, then perhaps there would be no question as to the efficacy of the vaccine, but as it is aimed as cancer, then it needs to be questioned as to whether it truly is effective or not, the answer to which we may not known for another four decades.

 

But you can't get the 80% of cervical cancers without being infected with one of those two strains, so why do you need to have cancer numbers to show that the vaccine works? That would be like saying we need to have HIV deaths numbers to know whether a HIV vaccine works [obviously you only need to know the infection rate to know if the vaccine works].

synchromesh - if you post some respectable references I'll bother reading them. I couldn't be arsed with conspiracy site refs.

And as for your paranoia quote, it is an incorrect assumption. The human brain will work efficiently under high adrenaline load for only a very short period of time. After this it becomes ineffective, illogical and erratic.

[tripsis]

Ah yes, point well taken.

[Slybacon]

Why are you spreading such misinformation, Torsten? I mean, no offense, but don't you have any idea how dangerous that is?

 

He wasn't stating HIS opinion, he was stating what he suspects the articles agenda was.