I hope this is struck down in court.

[~Di]

Fair enough. Just to make sure we're clear though, only 10,000 women in the United States are diagnosed with it each year. So the level of effectiveness of the Texas initiative declines immensely.

 

I am not in favor of the Texas law. In fact, I am very much against it. However, I am against the law because I do not believe government should mandate medical matters, not because I consider cervical cancer to be "rare"... it isn't rare at all, dispite the fact that you continually refer to it as such. Precancerous lesions, which are incredibly common , are not included in that number. Frankly you appear to be trying to dismiss the disease by stressing the lowest possible statistical denominators to boster your position, but if not for the blessing of the pap test, those figures would be considerably higher since cervical cancer was a leading cause of death in women not so many decades ago. I believe that most gynocologists, and physicians in general, would agree. Yes, 10,000 women a year are currently diagnosed with it... and even with our modern treatments, 40% of them will die. This vaccine, however, is not just for women in the USA. It's for women globally. At least, I hope it will be available globally.

 

Who said that they were against the vaccine being available?

Not so much that you didn't want the vaccine available as the impression that you would rather have the money used for this vaccine, which you have spent considerable time and effort as portraying to be not properly tested and basically useless except for a very few "rare" cases of cervical cancer annually, on other research which would benefit more people. In other words, I felt as if you were saying you wished it hadn't been researched and developed because other things were more important.

 

...But even then, lets say 1 in 10 women will actually get cervical cancer, then the cost goes to $3000 to cure someone. If it's 1 in 100, then the cost goes to $30000, 1 in 1000 becomes $300,000 to save a life, because fortunately, the vast majority of women will not have to worry about being unable to fight off HPV naturally.

 

I'd much, much, much, much, much, much rather they spend millions of dollars on this which explores using DCA as a potential cure for cancer, but will not be receiving any funding from pharmaceutical companies because it involves a compound which is not patented, and therefore will not be able to recoup the heavy costs of clinical trials. I'd see this as being more useful allocation of government funds than spending millions of dollars (and making a pharmaceutical company that doesn't want to fund something that may be more widely useful and would compete with their own, limited scope project) to save a small amount of lives. ...

As I've said, I may have misunderstood you. But upon rereading those passages several times, I really don't think I did.

 

Don't play that card. I'd say the same thing if it was addressing a condition that may lead to prostate cancer.

 

That's fine. I asked the question... because this particular topic IS gender related... and you answered. You could have done so without the selective indignant condescention, however. First, men do not get cervical cancer so of course this entire discussion is gender related. What concerned me was that the discussion was also centered around the sexually-transmitted nature of the HPV virus, and many seemed to feel that if women just used safe sex and didn't sleep around she wouldn't have to worry about cervical cancer. You seemed to think this as well, unless I'm misinterpreting the following statements... which of course, I very well may be:

 

...For a virus that, when I read up on it at a variet of places, was suggested that is typically cured by the body on its own, why would it remain with their husbands (whom I shall assume are being faithful) indefnitely? In fact, the Center for Disease Control comments that "for those who choose to be sexually active, a long-term, mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner is the strategy most likely to prevent future genital HPV infections."...

...According to the National Cancer Institute, that even "the majority of high-risk HPV infections go away on their own and do not cause cancer." It also echoes the statements made by the center of disease control regarding monogamous relationships. ...

 

...Interesting things that I see are that the study was done on 16-26 year old women. Combined with sexual activity being required, leads me to believe that mandatory vaccination may not be necessary. Particularly at the grade school level. I'm more comfortable with 16-26 year old women being capable of making their own decisions to receive a vaccination. In my not so unbiased opinion, I don't see the need to perform a vaccination for a rare sexually transmitted disease for kids still in elementary school...

As I've already stated, you were not the only person to whom I was speaking, since others have also been involved in this conversation. The concept that this is a sexually transmitted virus, with the implication that it could be avoided if the woman simply had safe sex and didn't sleep around, appeared to be on the minds of several folks inside this thread. Of course, men could avoid transmitting the virus by the same means, but men don't have a cervix. So I'm sure you'll agree that the discussion IS gender related.

 

There's one big problem with that number though. HPV has many, many different types. Only a few of which cause cancer. So no, those numbers in particularly are not as significant as you'd think. Given the vaccine only target 4 specific types, I doubt you'll see these numbers you posted change at all.

 

Furthermore, the trials done were only done to show a reduction in symptoms at precancerous stages. The trial did not go on long enough (as stated by the FDA) to see if it actually prevented the cancer (though I suspect it probably will. I'm not a biologist nor a Medical Doctor). There have been no studies done to see how it reacts to women that are unknowingly pregnant....Unless other cancers are caused by a virus similar to HPV, I wouldn't hold my breath that this is a huge breakthrough for the future of other cancer vaccines. It may be a breakthrough for fighting cancer because it prevents the causation of cancer by a particular disease, I don't know how helpful it will be for other cancer research or other cancer vaccinations.

 

 

Okay, okay. I call Uncle! Seriously, LOL, I am now beginning to realize that nothing about HPV or cervical cancer or a vaccine that can prevent either strikes you as significant. You've made that quite clear. However, we will have to agree to disagree at this point. The fact that 80% of all women over 50 have had an HPV infection in their lifetimes... and one can infer that a reasonably similar percentage of males have also had an HPV infection... IS significant despite the fact that some of those infections may have been the type of HPV that hasn't so far been linked to cancer. The mere fact that cervical cancer, prior to the blessing of a pap test and early detection of precancerous lesions (which are not included in the number actually diagnosed with cancer, but which would probably increase that statistic tenfold or a hundredfold or more) was a leading cause of death in women makes it significant.

 

Medical science has actually done two wonderful things here, in my personal opinion: (A) It has discovered that one form of cancer is caused by a virus, and has isolated that virus. And (B) it has created a vaccine which, when taken before exposure to the virus, can prevent a female from ever contracting that particular type of cancer. To you that may not be significant. To me it's a miracle... then again, my daughter had a hysterectomy due to pre-cancerous lesions (before she became a statistic), and my mother-in-law nearly died from her bout of cervical cancer.

 

But as thrilled as I am by this medical step forward, I still do not believe the government has a right to force it upon unwilling people. So you see, we do agree on one thing, though perhaps not for the same reasons!

[alanschu]

Not so much that you didn't want the vaccine available as the impression that you would rather have the money used for this vaccine, which you have spent considerable time and effort as portraying to be not properly tested and basically useless except for a very few "rare" cases of cervical cancer annually, on other research which would benefit more people. In other words, I felt as if you were saying you wished it hadn't been researched and developed because other things were more important.

I was reading your post, until I came up to this. I never once said that the vaccine was basically useless.

 

How you were able to come to this conclusion:

In other words, I felt as if you were saying you wished it hadn't been researched and developed because other things were more important.

when I stated straight up in this very thread that I have zero issues with pharmaceutical companies making drugs and vaccines and making money off them. Merck and Co., Inc. can do whatever the heck they want to do.

 

Furthermore, coming to the conclusion that I feel the vaccine is "basically useless" is equally absurd. The funny thing is that, the reason why I spout off all of these other reasons, stems from the fact that it's utilizing public funds in doing so. And when I say stuff like HPV induced cervical cancer is rare, it's because places like the National Cancer Institute and Center for Disease Control say so. I've seen you pull stuff like this out in other arguments before, and I will not be bothered to respond anymore to someone that either chooses to not read what I type, or is incapable of understanding it.

 

Have a nice life.

Edited February 11, 2007 by metadigital
user request

[Walsingham]

Steady on!