Topic: Drugs for every one.

[Cookie Parker]

Man, it gets cold when you start dealing in percentages.

"Worldwide, about 500,000 new cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed each year, resulting in 250,000 deaths."

Dude...that's a quarter of a million women dying of a preventable disease.

15-20 thousand people die every year in the US due to the flu. More than a million people worldwide die from the flu each year. Why isn't a flu shot mandated for a preventable disease?
No American drug company manufactures the flu virus - not enough ROI.

The vaccine doesn't even have a track record. It's what - 15 years old? At what age do woman risk cervical cancer? Where's the data to show it's at least 90% effective?

I'm not saying discontinue the vaccine - just don't make it mandated - it should be a matter of choice, not law.

I totally agree...there has not been enough research to even determine the side effects and nothing which says it keeps the cancer away....

Linkback: http://4seasonschat.com/index.php/topic,2997.msg50272.html#msg50272

[Dionysus]

Agreed. Make it available, not mandatory. Sure is odd the rightwingnuts don't want the government involved though.

Linkback: http://4seasonschat.com/index.php/topic,2997.msg50339.html#msg50339

[Bo D]

The vaccine doesn't even have a track record. It's what - 15 years old? At what age do woman risk cervical cancer? Where's the data to show it's at least 90% effective?

I'm not saying discontinue the vaccine - just don't make it mandated - it should be a matter of choice, not law.

dem-rep, sorry for any misunderstanding here, but I do not advocate mandatory vaccinations either. It’s just that I have heard rumblings from some that they did not want the vaccine to be available for anyone. Case in point - a quote from an earlier post - “you all can turn a whole generation of little girls into acting like nothing more than alley cats in heat.”

As for your questions, some of them are answered to a certain extent here....



“The study involved 2,392 women from 16 to 23 years in age. Participants were randomly assigned to receive three shots of either an HPV-16 vaccine or a placebo (a dummy substance). The study was double-blinded -- that is, neither the investigators nor the study participants knew who got the vaccine and who got the placebo. Participants were followed for an average of 17 months after getting the third shot.

Some women had HPV-16 infections or other cervical abnormalities when they enrolled in the study; others developed the infection before they received all three shots. These women (859 enrollees) were excluded when the researchers calculated the vaccine’s effectiveness.

Of the remaining 1,533 women, 41 developed HPV-16 infection -- all of these women were in the placebo group. Nine of the 41 women with HPV-16 infection went on to develop precancerous lesions (areas of abnormal tissue that may become cancerous). Twenty-two other women from the placebo group also developed precancerous lesions on their cervixes, but these were not associated with HPV-16.

By comparison, no one who got all three vaccine shots developed an HPV-16 infection. Twenty-two women receiving the vaccine did develop cervical abnormalities that can lead to cancer but these precancerous lesions were not associated with HPV-16.”



Linkback: http://4seasonschat.com/index.php/topic,2997.msg50506.html#msg50506

[dem..!..rep]

The vaccine doesn't even have a track record. It's what - 15 years old? At what age do woman risk cervical cancer? Where's the data to show it's at least 90% effective?

I'm not saying discontinue the vaccine - just don't make it mandated - it should be a matter of choice, not law.

dem-rep, sorry for any misunderstanding here, but I do not advocate mandatory vaccinations either. It’s just that I have heard rumblings from some that they did not want the vaccine to be available for anyone. Case in point - a quote from an earlier post - “you all can turn a whole generation of little girls into acting like nothing more than alley cats in heat.”

As for your questions, some of them are answered to a certain extent here....



“The study involved 2,392 women from 16 to 23 years in age. Participants were randomly assigned to receive three shots of either an HPV-16 vaccine or a placebo (a dummy substance). The study was double-blinded -- that is, neither the investigators nor the study participants knew who got the vaccine and who got the placebo. Participants were followed for an average of 17 months after getting the third shot.

Some women had HPV-16 infections or other cervical abnormalities when they enrolled in the study; others developed the infection before they received all three shots. These women (859 enrollees) were excluded when the researchers calculated the vaccine’s effectiveness.

Of the remaining 1,533 women, 41 developed HPV-16 infection -- all of these women were in the placebo group. Nine of the 41 women with HPV-16 infection went on to develop precancerous lesions (areas of abnormal tissue that may become cancerous). Twenty-two other women from the placebo group also developed precancerous lesions on their cervixes, but these were not associated with HPV-16.

By comparison, no one who got all three vaccine shots developed an HPV-16 infection. Twenty-two women receiving the vaccine did develop cervical abnormalities that can lead to cancer but these precancerous lesions were not associated with HPV-16.”

Thanks Bo. But of course, always more questions.

Who funded the research?

Is this the only data available?

If 0.01% of women in the US develop cervical cancer, how is it that such a high percentage of the women in the control group developed 'precancerous' ( for lack of a better term ) symptoms? ( about 2% by my calculations ).

And in the vaccine group about 1% got precancerous (not HPV-16, but still 100 times above the cancer rate of the population ) symptoms.

And I do understand the difference between precancerous and actually having cancer. So, what percentage of the general population develop precancerous symptoms without ever developing cancer?

Was this group as a whole more statistically prone to the disease in the first place?

Thanks for the above information. It is pretty enlightening, especially if it is repeatable.

Oh, one more - how long has the drug been studied? I mean, long term effects.

Linkback: http://4seasonschat.com/index.php/topic,2997.msg50657.html#msg50657

[Bo D]

Thanks Bo. But of course, always more questions.

Whoa...Dude!!!! You do have a lot of questions. And while they are all legitimate questions, I think we all tend to believe the research which validates our personal beliefs.

So with that....I will step down off of this particular soapbox if you don't mind!

But thanks for listening!

Linkback: http://4seasonschat.com/index.php/topic,2997.msg50782.html#msg50782

[dem..!..rep]

Thanks Bo. But of course, always more questions.

Whoa...Dude!!!! You do have a lot of questions. And while they are all legitimate questions, I think we all tend to believe the research which validates our personal beliefs.

So with that....I will step down off of this particular soapbox if you don't mind!

But thanks for listening!

Yeah, I thought I was gettin' a little long winded mysefl. I'll do the research if I really want to know.

Thanks for the replies ....

Linkback: http://4seasonschat.com/index.php/topic,2997.msg50890.html#msg50890

[Tags:]

Tags: