As a scientist, I agree that good scientific research needs to be done before giving this drug out to the people. The problem that I have is with the arguement that this vaccine will encourage teens to have sex. That is the dumbest, most twisted piece of logic for being against this drug I have ever heard! Teens are going to have sex. I did as a teen, most of us on this board did as a teen and we didn’t need the availability of a vaccine to “encourage” us. We had and have sex because it is fun and it feels good. I hate stupid people!
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
As a scientist, I agree that good scientific research needs to be done before giving this drug out to the people. The problem that I have is with the arguement that this vaccine will encourage teens to have sex. That is the dumbest, most twisted piece of logic for being against this drug I have ever heard! Teens are going to have sex. I did as a teen, most of us on this board did as a teen and we didn’t need the availability of a vaccine to “encourage” us. We had and have sex because it is fun and it feels good. I hate stupid people![/quote]
My favorite is the “giving kids condoms will encourage the to have sex” one.
I could have owned the Trojan factory in high school and still not have gotten any. It might have been the mullet.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
So, there are people who would rather that people die of cancer rather than have sex? What the fuck? This is how you know that religion in the wrong hands kills…much like “a little” knowledge.[/quote]
They sure do. They insisted on a president who doesn’t get a blowjob and they happily accept the 2000 deaths that go with him.
It’s all in the bible man, at least in their version. “make war, not love”
[quote]Nate Green wrote:
The kids are going to do it anyway…
…might as well be as safe as possible.
-Nate[/quote]
Sorry Nate, but that is an asinine argument. Duhhh, “they’re going to do it anyway” so I might as well have the boys just come over to my house and line up outside my daughter’s window for a shot at her. Duhhh, at least I know she will be boning in a safe place!
Duhh, criminals are going to commit crimes anyway, maybe we should just drop all those stupid laws because they aren’t going to follow them! Duhhh!
Don’t get me wrong, I think that the vaccine should be given to all. A teens behavior is a separate issue that should be addressed by the parents. But the stupid statement that teens are going to have sex anyway is the mantra of those week-ass parents who want the government to raise their kids for them because they are either too stupid or too lazy to do it themselves.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Professor X wrote:
So, there are people who would rather that people die of cancer rather than have sex? What the fuck? This is how you know that religion in the wrong hands kills…much like “a little” knowledge.
They sure do. They insisted on a president who doesn’t get a blowjob and they happily accept the 2000 deaths that go with him.
It’s all in the bible man, at least in their version. “make war, not love”
[/quote]
Right, and we will just keep the fact that Sadam killed almost a million of his own people a secret, as those lives don’t really count anyway!
Sure, I would much rather have a president that, instead of trying to protect people and instill democracy around the world, just spent all his time in the oval orifice getting helmet washes. That’s much more productive!
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Professor X wrote:
So, there are people who would rather that people die of cancer rather than have sex? What the fuck? This is how you know that religion in the wrong hands kills…much like “a little” knowledge.
They sure do. They insisted on a president who doesn’t get a blowjob and they happily accept the 2000 deaths that go with him.
It’s all in the bible man, at least in their version. “make war, not love”
Right, and we will just keep the fact that Sadam killed almost a million of his own people a secret, as those lives don’t really count anyway!
Sure, I would much rather have a president that, instead of trying to protect people and instill democracy around the world, just spent all his time in the oval orifice getting helmet washes. That’s much more productive!
[/quote]
Hey, could you refresh my memory on who sold Saddam the weapons he killed a million of his own people with?
[quote]AZMojo wrote:
Alex,
Maybe, before attacking me you should check the dictionary.
Obviously the VIRUS in inert, but the vaccine isn’t. It’s designed to stimulate an immune response, right? Therefore, the vaccine itself is not inert.
What is the long-term effect of having the additional immunogens in your system? Do you know? Since the phase III trials have only been going on for about a year, I doubt anybody does.
What about the “inactive” ingredients(preservatives and such)? What else is in it? What long-term or side effect do those have? Who knows? Do you?
Again, if it works, great. I’m not pro-cancer or anything. I’m just a bit sceptical when being spoon-fed information from the pharmaceutical companies. They’ll always sell you the bright side. Remember Phen-Fen? Vioxx? Baycol? Lotrinex? and so on…
Let’s see some long-term studies.
[/quote]
Irrespective of what the dictionary mentions about what inert means, I have to read a text with the rest of your post in mind. I say irrespective of what the dictionary says considering that basically nothing that touches the human body is ‘‘inert’’ in the strict sense. Besides, in immunology you could have an inert substance (that doesn’t not react in anyway in the human body)which would be a rather rare affair or you have an inert substance which is devoid of its activity.
So when talking of vaccines, we will refer to an inert or inactivated substance. Once in a while you see people use it to imply placebo-like vaccines, as opposed to immunogenic vaccines when in an RCT setting.
Even the inactive ingredients aren’t inert. Therefore I have to hypothesize one of two things. Either you are stating something so obvious as rendering the statement fully pointless or you don’t understand how vaccines work.
It’s still a foreign substance in the bloodstream. It’s obviously not inert, or it wouldn’t work. What other effects does it have on the system that either aren’t known, or aren’t publicized? The article in question certainly doesn’t address that.
The way you phrase your paragraph, following It’s still a foreign substance in the bloodstream, implies the later
And of course, the rest of that post and the one following with the question about the additional immunogens ensures me that you have little understanding on this particular issue.
Cause you see, breathing must be a bitch for you considering the thousands of potential immunogens you breath in oh so many times a day.
Also, unless I’ve missed it, we don’t know if the vaccine contains an inactivated, an attenuated or a broken up virus
Besides…the whole notion of longterm side effects can only be seen with Phase IV studies with wide and large populational exposure to a substance. So your longterm study will begin with the first people who ??buy?? it.
Therefore, the notion for which you are arguing is inherently unfeasible by simple statistics, warranting a study group of tens of thousands to be followed for what? What is long term? 5, 10, 25 years? Which basically means we might still be trying to eradicate polio. Or smallpox.
At which point we will have incurred the health effects and costs that are by far worse than the probable (probable being the important word)side-effects.
Once in a while a crappy thing comes out like Phen-fen which was used for simple weight-loss, for which the side effects are clearly to important to compare to the benefit side. Still, even the Phen-fen incident was due to use beyond what it had been tested for. And its at all clear to what extent Phen-fen was really implicated at causality level. Just like ephedrine was the cause of se many suicides…
As for the issue of Cox-2 inhibitors, there is possibly a small increased risk of heart disease with long-term use 18+ months, it is clearly not Evil Incarnate, just as HRT isn’t going to kill you from the first dose.
The thing is, its all well and good to ask for long-term studies, there is however a just middle between what is economically feasible, what is the actual human cost of not putting the medicine on the market and potential side effects evaluated by the toxicological tests and Phase I, II and III trials.
Frankly, simply asking for long-term effects is a big ol’ cope-out. And its not like cervical cancer was a walk in the park thing.
In the US: In the United States, 12,800 new cases of invasive cervical cancer are diagnosed each year, in addition to more than 50,000 cases of carcinoma in situ.
Internationally: Internationally, 500,000 new cases are diagnosed each year.
Mortality/Morbidity: Of the 12,800 patients, 4800 (37.5%) will die from their disease each year in the United States. This represents 2% of all cancer deaths and 18% of deaths from gynecological cancers.
To me, should the vaccine work at preventing HPV infections, that means that each year we wait a significant number of deaths could have potentially prevented in the coming years.
Now, the exact number of years we should continue on studying the effects will depend on various governing bodies, but the idea remains that drugs will be implemented before we know all the potential impacts. Hell, drugs we’ve been using for 50 years are still only partly understood on the level of their side effects.
As for the vaccine per say, abstinence is all well and good, but the simple argument would be : Are you KIDDING me?
And has for condoms, well you should always put one on, but HPV can spread even with a condom (from none latex covered regions).
Again, with sexually transmissible disease we are already facing awareness issues when you consider that many teens now believe that HIV is not such a big thing, it can be cured right? Therefore the answer is probably not to not do it, but to remember the risk, use protection and if you can be vaccinated, all the better.
If there were an HIV vaccine would they pull the same shit on us? Cause HIV-AIDS is probably one of the scariest shit out there for people. And even then, it doesn’t stop people from screwing around without protection.
Would it be the same if we found a vaccine that reduced atherosclerosis by some 90%…then you’d have nutritionists all over!!! STOP! STOP! If you do that its a message for people to eat at McDonald’s…Riiiiiiiight.
One excuse I like is : Well, she looked clean…
(So you have a colposcope and Pap smear equipment at home?)
or he didn’t seem like that type of guy.
Anyway, you guys should all buy Pfizer and Merk stocks, that way you can all celebrate when a new drug comes out instead of looking for conspiracy theories because new drugs are going to come out and pharma cie will be making money.
AlexH
[quote]harris447 wrote:
…
Hey, could you refresh my memory on who sold Saddam the weapons he killed a million of his own people with?
[/quote]
Bullshit. The overwhelming majority of Saddams weapons came from the Soviet Union and Europe.
The US did sell weapons to Saddam for a few years in the mistaken belief in the theory that the enemy of my enemy must be my friend.
We also did it as an attempt to normalize relationships and try to bring him into the world community.
Unfortunately Saddam is like a rabid dog and our attempts failed.
The blame lays with Saddam, not us.
If you want to start laying more blame look at the Soviets and French next.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
harris447 wrote:
…
Hey, could you refresh my memory on who sold Saddam the weapons he killed a million of his own people with?
Bullshit. The overwhelming majority of Saddams weapons came from the Soviet Union and Europe.
The US did sell weapons to Saddam for a few years in the mistaken belief in the theory that the enemy of my enemy must be my friend.
We also did it as an attempt to normalize relationships and try to bring him into the world community.
Unfortunately Saddam is like a rabid dog and our attempts failed.
The blame lays with Saddam, not us.
If you want to start laying more blame look at the Soviets and French next.[/quote]
Zap, I’m sorry but you just contradicted yourself. You say that the majority of the weapons came from Russia and Europe, but then admit that the US sold him weapons as well. Your post doesn’t make sense. If we sold him weapons, then he used them as well as the ones we didn’t sell him. This doesn’t excuse what he did, but the fact remains that we did have a part in what he used to do it with.
Is there anything that doesn’t encourage teens to have sex?
If there was, we should make that stuff mandatory.
How is it that a post about a HPV vaccine has turned into a thread about Saddam Hussein? Never ceases to amaze me.
[quote]Kuz wrote:
How is it that a post about a HPV vaccine has turned into a thread about Saddam Hussein? Never ceases to amaze me.[/quote]
Hey, you’re right! I didn’t even notice that myself. I just fell into the normal routine around here of discussing topics and didn’t even realize it. Thanks for pointing that out.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
harris447 wrote:
…
Hey, could you refresh my memory on who sold Saddam the weapons he killed a million of his own people with?
Bullshit. The overwhelming majority of Saddams weapons came from the Soviet Union and Europe.
The US did sell weapons to Saddam for a few years in the mistaken belief in the theory that the enemy of my enemy must be my friend.
We also did it as an attempt to normalize relationships and try to bring him into the world community.
Unfortunately Saddam is like a rabid dog and our attempts failed.
The blame lays with Saddam, not us.
If you want to start laying more blame look at the Soviets and French next.
Zap, I’m sorry but you just contradicted yourself. You say that the majority of the weapons came from Russia and Europe, but then admit that the US sold him weapons as well. Your post doesn’t make sense. If we sold him weapons, then he used them as well as the ones we didn’t sell him. This doesn’t excuse what he did, but the fact remains that we did have a part in what he used to do it with.[/quote]
My post makes perfect sense.
Blame Saddam for his own atrocities.
If you want to blame those that armed him the Soviets followed by the Europeans deserve most of the blame.
The US tried to get Saddam to rejoin the international community and stop his nonsense. Selling him a compartively small amount of weaponry was one of our policies. Our policies didn’t work.
I suppose you can blame us for being silly enough to try to reason with a maniac, but that is about it.
[quote]Kuz wrote:
How is it that a post about a HPV vaccine has turned into a thread about Saddam Hussein? Never ceases to amaze me.[/quote]
They all seem to don’t they?
I was just responding to the false insinuation that the US was responsible for his atrocities merely because we sold him a relatively small quantity of weapons.
I don’t know why someone was trying to associate that with the real topic of this thread.