Last week, Orac reported on Medscape's execrable article regarding Gardasil. As a reminder, the article spouted every antivaccination lie imaginable. The link subsequently disappeared, although a poll later appeared that parroted the article's misinformation.
Well, today Medscape has a new Gardasil article. It's definitely an improvement, but still has some problems...
The article appears with the following note:
Editor's note: This article replaces "HPV Vaccine Adverse Events Worrisome Says Key Investigator," which was posted on July 26, 2008, and was removed after editorial review.
Not all that informative, eh? Well, if you read all the good blogs, you're in the loop.
Medscape is aimed primarily at physicians, so I would expect a certain type of writing. For example, jargon is more acceptable, given that the audience is medically knowledgeable. First, the article is very clear at the beginning---the title is "HPV Vaccine Deemed Safe and Effective, Despite Reports of Adverse Events".
But it suffers from "both side-ism", that is, the tendency among some journalists to think that every issue has "two sides". In my field, for example, journalists sometimes feel the need to present "both sides" of the vaccine issue, as if there were actually two sides. In fact, there is only one side---the truth. The rest is just noise. It's almost like presenting "both sides" of the "syphilis issue". Presenting a settled scientific issue as a simple dichotomy both legitimizes fringe beliefs and buries real avenues of inquiry. We shouldn't be asking if vaccines cause autism---it's already settled. We should be asking how we can make better vaccines for more diseases.
In the course of presenting "the other side", this article cites the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), and crank infectious disease promotion organization (or so I like to call it).
The NVIC, self-billed as "America's Vaccine Safety Watchdog," has also accessed VAERS reports and made them available in a searchable database on its Web site. These data show that during 2008, reports about Gardasil have accounted for 20% to 25% of all VAERS reports on all vaccines, Ms. Fisher said.
This is an extremely deceptive statement. Reports of serious reactions via the VAERS system are significantly lower for Gardasil than for other vaccines (although whether VAERS data actually means anything in this context is debatable).Via the CDC:
Among the U.S. reports, more than 94% were reported as non-serious adverse events such as brief soreness at the injection site and headache. Less than 6% were reports of serious adverse events, about half of the average for vaccines overall.
Perhaps the reporter could have done a little more homework, you know, like verifying the source data. "All reports" vs. "serious reports" is a rather important distinction. Then there is the plausibility factor:
In addition, the NVIC has been running its own private vaccine reaction registry for the past 26 years, and it currently has about 140 reports on Gardasil, Ms. Fisher said. "These include reports of injury and death, and we are seeing a pattern of what we have termed 'atypical collapse,' " she commented. "These include cases where a girl suddenly passes into unconsciousness either immediately or within 24 hours of vaccination and then revives feeling weak and unable to speak properly or exhibiting other neurological signs. What we are concerned about is that girls are not aware of this possibility and could be crossing the road or driving a car and suddenly pass out."
Any "data" collected by an infectious disease promotion group is pure bunk. "Atypical collapse" is an invention of the anti-vax folks. There is no physiologic reason to think that a vaccine can cause fainting, except a vaso-vagal response ("swooning") upon seeing a needle enter the skin. Any fainting that occurs later is very hard to justify as "caused by" the vaccine.
I'm glad Medscape pulled the original article, but on close inspection, this one isn't much better. Rather than being a blatant anti-vaccination screed, it is a poor piece of health reporting that still gives the impression of a scientific (rather than social) controversy where none exists.
- Log in to post comments
Why is this so hard? I fail to understand why something that has been demonstrated to be helpful (like vaccinations) can be so contentious).
Oh, well my daughter has now had the full Gardasil series and is covered...
Same here, BowserTheCat. My daughter has had all three shots.
Apparently, Medscape editors have not learned "once burned, twice shy."
They quoted Barbara Loe Fisher?
Barbara Loe Fisher?
Frickin' Barbara Loe Fisher?
Arrrrrgggh! (Sound of head exploding.)
Why get a vaccine that only effects 8/1000 of a percent of the US population (CDC web site for numbers) if you do not engage in high risk activities that would expose you to HPV? Common sense dictates if you need this vaccine or not.
Aaaah! (light bulb suddenly switched on...)
Now I understand why I kept getting irritated...the density of "both side-ism" has become rather insulting to the intelligence.
I've kept quite a few old articles since Medscape inception. (The digital packrat syndrome) Digging into those, I realized that what is going on with Medscape since a couple of years, is that more and more article writers had scientific credentials that are, err, shall we say "softer", whereas at the beginning, said credentials were quite robust.
But hey! That is good for the corporate bottom line. What's not to like?
Chuck, the lifetime incidence of cervical cancer is 0.69% of women. Put another way, that is one of every 145 women. It is an individual choice whether reducing that risk is worth getting the vaccine.
However, that is not to say that only one out of every 145 women are affected by HSV. Cervical atypia affects 4 to 6 percent of women in the US, per year. Most of those women will not get cancer, but they will have to deal with anxiety, inconvenience, expense, and additional procedures.
Josephj7uy5,
CDC says 20 Million are affected by HPV. Only 2 of the 30-40 genital types cause cancer. I cannot assume that all types have the same distribution. However the CDC did give averages for all the different types of cancers caused by HPV. Take that number divide by 300 million and get my answer for the number of cases of unvaccinated individuals. You have better odds of having an adverse reaction to vaccines then getting one of those cancers.
Chuck,
I know that those seem like long odds to you, but unless you have had an "abnormal pap" result, you have no idea. Not every woman who has a run-in with HPV gets cerv
ical cancer, because their "pre-cancer" cells are removed. In addition to a round of painful intimate procedures just to find the extent of the problem, the grand finale is (or was in my case) having a grounding pad taped to my thigh, wired to the machine, which was wired to the electrified loop device the nice doctor will use to cut/burn away the "pre-cancer" cells. Before that, they insert a thick plastic speculum (torture in itself) and then give several numbing shots directly into the cervix.
I was unlucky, in that they missed the target area when numbing, so I briefly felt the full force of burning electricity deep within my body. I screamed, and they managed to numb the correct spot and continue. I walked out of the hospital in a daze, and probably should have been treated for shock, but I was too out of it to communicate that.
But hey, its all about playing the odds, right? HPV didn't give me "cancer," so it was just some mild inconvenience. Nevermind the absolute terror that hit my gut and kept rolling from the first call from my doctor. Forget that it still terrifies me, every year, that it might come back.
There is no reason to keep what happened to me from happening to your daughter, right?
Right.
My daughter has also had the three shot series starting last fall. Next month she starts high school, and she is presently filling out a form to volunteer at the library.
Just a few minutes ago we were trying to spot falling stars during the Perseids meteor shower. All is good.
"Take that number divide by 300 million and get my answer for the number of cases of unvaccinated individuals."
So you think there are 300 million women in the U.S., Chuck?
Sorry Chuck, my mistake, cervical cancer isn't the only cancer caused by HPV. However, it still seems you are generalising to take the averages for all the cancers caused by HPV, divide that by 300 million and use that as the percentage of women for whom Gardasil could be of benefit.
Tj,
What happened to you is called medical incompetence. It has happened to everyone in my family as well. There is no vaccine to protect you from it. I wish there was.
3sigma,
Gardisil is suggested for both men and women. I listed all the cancers the vaccine is "suppose" to guard against according to Gardisil. 300 million is the last estimated population of men and women in the US. If the number is incorrect, please let me know. If you like you can use 16/1000 of 1% unless you know the current ratio of males to females in the US.
Oh Chuck...
Gardasil is not used in men...yet. I think it's a great idea, but it's not an approved use at this point.
Then you will have to cut down the 20 million number that I gave for HPV. That was from CDC information for both men and women. Also the averages for the cancers will need to be reduced. If the cases of cancers hold the same male/female ratio as the general population, then the final fractional percentage will be no different.
"Why get a vaccine that only effects 8/1000 of a percent of the US population (CDC web site for numbers) if you do not engage in high risk activities that would expose you to HPV? Common sense dictates if you need this vaccine or not."
All it takes is having 1 partner who is harboring the HPV virus and transmits it to his female partner. Do you consider 1 partner high risk???
Actually Chuck, what happened to her was a colposcopy. It is not a pleasant procedure. For every cancer diagnosis or death, there are probably hundreds of biopsies, dozens of colposcopies etc. They are not pleasant procedures.
You also fail to recognize that the "adverse events" associated with vaccination pale in comparison to being subjected to surgery and cancer diagnosis. There is no credible data linking this vaccine to serious adverse events at a rate higher than one would expect for the general population. You can't use VAERS as epidemiologic data or even a reliable information source.
I did not "fail to recognize that the adverse events associated with vaccination" as you claim since I never directly referenced them or VAERS as you did in this post. I have only referenced the necessity of even needing the vaccine and none of the "adverse events" associated with it. That topic has been covered in other posts. Just because a medical procedure is possible and available, doesnt mean that it is necessary, does it?
I did not "fail to recognize that the adverse events associated with vaccination" as you claim since I never directly referenced them or VAERS as you did in this post. I have only referenced the necessity of even needing the vaccine and none of the "adverse events" associated with it. That topic has been covered in other posts. Just because a medical procedure is possible and available, doesnt mean that it is necessary, does it?
Didn't mean to double post or post anon. Thought I hit preview and must have hit post. My apologies.
"Do you consider 1 partner high risk???"
If you have more then 0 partners who are harboring the HPV virus, then it is high risk for getting HPV. I cannot scientifically argue with that. Same holds true for all STDs does it not?
Playing the odds with something like this is just stupid Chuck. STDs are not stagnant and some "forms" can be worse than others. Tomorrow some mutation in on strain of HPV could turn it into the next fracking AIDS, and your, "Its such a small number!", BS would mean jack at that point. Besides which, the other problem is that they "assumed" that it only caused cervical cancer, then later found out it could be causing throat cancer in some people. It **may** turn out to be causing some cases of some male cancers. We just don't know at this point, and finding that it is causing more than one in the first place is very worrying. And, even stupider, if half the people around you are engaging in high risk, their odds of getting it might be 50-50, so your odds, if you engage in "low risk" with one of them, even once, is potentially higher than the numbers would seem to imply. That is the problem with such statistics, they only work if everyone has the same risk, and you **know** when you are crossing the line into the "high risk" category with a partner.
Except that HPV is by far the most prevalent STD in the US, you chances of contracting it from even a single partner are high. Also there is absolutely no test to determine whether your partner has HPV, women only find out when they have an abnormal pap smear. Therefore even if you wait until marriage and only have one partner ever in your life, you still have a good chance of getting HPV if your partner even had one other partner.
By the way I'm with the 94% of reactions in that those shots were the most painful vaccines I can remember getting, even more so than the tetanus vaccine which was my previous most painful. I came home with a quarter sized bruise on my arm for each of the 3 injections. Worth it in my opinion. By the way, Gardasil is recommended for women up to 26 years old, so not just for young girls. Older teens and women in their early 20s should consider it.
Getting any medical procedure that isnt necessary is stupid, Kagehi. Tomorrow some mutation in on strain of HPV could kill the prevalence of that strain and my, "Its such a small number!", BS would mean even more. Stop the hyperbole.
These are the cancers the CDC assumes HPV effects and I referenced:
Cervical cancer, vulvar cancer, vaginal and other female genital cancers, men diagnosed with penile and other male genital cancers, men and women diagnosed with anal cancer.
Noadi,
If there is absolutely no test to determine whether you have HPV, then your statement Except that HPV is by far the most prevalent STD in the US is opinion or are you trying to create a conspiracy?
Heh... anyone know if there's maternal-fetal transfer of HPV?
Here's the dealio, as far as I see it. You can avoid cancer (you know, the big "C-word" CANCER) by getting this shot. There is no credible evidence the shot hurts you. Why is this so complicated?
Oh right. Sex is bad. Of course it's so bad, that somehow if you are a perfectly moral person, but your husband cheats, then you deserve to get cancer. Right.
@Chuck: I seem to remember that there was a paper that monitored a group of sexually active college women very frequently for maybe several months for HPV, I think with the genetic test. (I can't pull up the paper now; any clarifications on this would be helpful.) Nearly every women was at some point infected with HPV, although most cleared it very quickly. It's very common.
Also, the risk of actually getting cervical cancer is pretty low in the US because nearly every woman gets regular pap smears. A pap smear can detect cellular irregularities before they turn into cancer, and these irregularities can be removed. Nevertheless, the procedures to remove the pre-cancerous cells are painful, and whenever you undergo a medical procedure there are risks. (I was under general anesthesia when my cervix was zotted; there are definitely risks to that. By the way, at that point I had only ever had one sexual partner.) So, the incidence of actual cervical cancer greatly underestimates the number of women affected by HPV.
Katie,
anyone know if there's maternal-fetal transfer of HPV
CDC Very rarely, a pregnant woman with genital HPV can pass HPV It is estimated that less than 2,000 children get RRP every year.
You can also avoid cancer by having a monogamous relation with a perfectly moral person and avoid the worry and the vaccine.
synapse,
I did differentiate between the more likely occurrence of HPV (20 million male & female) and less likely occurrence of the cancers in my calculations.
Apparently, "perfectly moral person" = "virgin until I met you." As that describes virtually no one in the US, we must be swimming in a sea of sin. It's a wonder we're not all being struck by thunderbolts by an angry God at any given moment.
I believe the statistic of relevance is that about 80% of women contract HPV at some point in their lives.
Not that this will matter to Perfectly Moral Chuck, but IIRC, gay men have a five times greater chance of developing an anal cancer than a woman has of developing cervical cancer.
Everyone can back and forth with me until hell freezes over. I dont care. Where did I get my information? The CDC and the vaccine manufacturer. If you dont like what I am saying, go talk to them or lets have at it, it is your choice.
"It's a wonder we're not all being struck by thunderbolts by an angry God at any given moment."
Isn't that the definition of STDs?
@Chuck-"Getting any medical procedure that isn't necessary is stupid"
Depends on your definition of necessary. If I'm not sick, then why should I go to the doctor for a checkup? I suppose you're also against getting the polio vaccine since the likelihood of getting polio is less than the likelihood of getting HPV. Oh, and the idea that someone could have married, divorced, and remarried probably is against your morality also. All I know is, I don't want my daughter to ever have to strap her legs to a table while they burn off part of her cervix. I consider that to be unnecessary when she can get a vaccine to prevent it.
All of you individuals who want to take the moral low ground as justification have fun doing so. You only live once. I did cover that very topic in my very first post on this thread:
"Common sense dictates if you need this vaccine or not."
If common sense is beyond your grasp, please continue to flame away.
Chuck = troll.
I say we stop feeding him. He's fat enough as it is.
Chuck, you're an ass. A misogynistic ass. I want to know what kind of moral high ground you would take when explaining to a woman who was a virgin on her wedding night that she has cervical cancer. In many parts of the world (and including here), virtuous women get HPV from their husbands. Why the hell do you think she deserves to be punished for someone else's misdeeds?!? We know what you are now. You're one of those jerks who thinks every woman who gets cervical cancer (11,000 in the US each year!!!) deserved her lot.
As for the estimated prevalence of HPV, there are cross-sectional studies done in research settings that have used penile scrapings to detect HPV DNA. This is not a widely-available clinical test, hence it is simpler to say that the test is not available to men. Apply the data from these cross-sectional studies, and you cna estimate the prevalence of HPV in the population. Estimates peg HPV at 70-80% prevalence in adults, with 4 million new cases every year. But I don't think you understand just how stats are done, and you'll just question the estimates. I don't expect much out of someone who thinks people deserve to die of cervical cancer.
I got my shots. Just barely made the age cut-off. And I agree with Noadi: that injection hurt! Felt like I got a hard punch to the arm. Worth it, though. Never had an abnormal Pap.
From http://www.pprsr.org/rapecrisis/statistics.cfm :
15% of victims are under age 12
29% are age 12-17
44% are under age 18
and from http://www.rainn.org/statistics ... "College age women are 4 times more likely to be sexually assaulted."
Please explain clearly why these victims should not be protected with the HPV, or deserve any other STD.
no, it is not.
this has been another installment of simple answers to obvious questions. if you really can't see why an all-knowing, all-powerful deity ought not punish people for the "sins" of other people they had sex with, you need to go back to kindergarten and relearn basic ethics. seriously, it's just that obvious.
"Apply the data from these cross-sectional studies, and you cna estimate the prevalence of HPV in the population. Estimates peg HPV at 70-80% prevalence in adults, with 4 million new cases every year. But I don't think you understand just how stats are done, and you'll just question the estimates. "
I don't need to understand or agree with your statement. The CDC does and they don't agree with your numbers. Go talk to them.
I do disagree with you on one point. "I don't expect much out of someone who thinks people deserve to die of cervical cancer."
You said that, I did not. I don't expect much out of anyone who even says thing like that.
"Please explain clearly why these victims should not be protected with the HPV, or deserve any other STD."
They should be protected from everything that puts them in harm's way. They should be trained more so then men. I have trained many teens and young women to defend themselves and analyze their actions and environment to minimize or eliminate their risks. Following that logic
"Common sense dictates if you need this vaccine or not."
Chuck said "I have trained many teens and young women to defend themselves"
Even 12 year olds? I guess you think victims of date rape (like many of the college age women) brought on to themselves.
How much of the bull surrounding this vaccine stems from the fact that it was originally offered only to girls?
After all, if you accept that the purpose of a vaccine is to protect a population, then the girl-only administration seems to only stamp out the disease among lesbians.
Not that there's anything wrong with protecting lesbians, but I suspect opposition would have been significantly less touchy if you just gave it to all 12 year olds.
I did. Here's what the CDC says:
Approximately 20 million Americans are currently infected with HPV, and another 6.2 million people become newly infected each year. At least 50% of sexually active men and women acquire genital HPV infection at some point in their lives.
Narc,
Glad to see you found my source of information. Scroll down that page and sum all the cancer numbers. 22,060? Divided by 300 Million equals 8/1000 of 1% I'm a real ass to be quoting CDC information.
Only counting the cancers...
23,060 (actually) are expected to be diagnosed with those cancers in 2008.
Just in 2008.
Mm, I also had the atypical pap, in my 20s. Took two surgeries to cut away all the abnormal cells, and the fear and discomfort were...considerable, even with having been properly "numbed". (My mind boggles, and not in a good way, at how it would feel without the numbing.) My fiance at the time also got to get checked for hpv, which involved them sticking a long metal swab up his urethra; feel free to ask how he felt about that. And that was infinitely better than if it had progressed....
I volunteered to be a guinea pig for the testing of the vaccine here in the UK, not because I feel myself in any danger from hpv any more (15+ years of clean paps and a monogamous marriage), but I figured they needed as wide a population as possible to look for side effects in. Unfortunately I was knocked back as a poor candidate, due to my age and gynecological history. That should tell you how I feel about it, though.
Chuck, I notice you are carefully ignoring the line directly after the statistic of 20,000,000 currently affected Americans; you know, the one that says At least 50% of sexually active men and women acquire genital HPV infection at some point in their lives.
Chuck does actually have a valid point but doesn't go far enough. Studies of the "perfectly moral" individuals that he mentions show that, while they may abstain from vaginal intercourse, they do frequently engage in other sexual activities that are known to transmit the virus (touching, oral sex etc) thus it is perfectly plausible to be a virgin and still get infected.
The only way to avoid it completely is to abstain from all sexual contact from individuals who you are certain are virus free - which basically means living a life of celibacy.
As for his point "Common sense dictates if you need this vaccine or not." I have no problem with that. Any low risk measure that has a significant preventative effect on the chances of catching this virus is pretty much common sense in my book.
Stop feeding the troll. He doesn't understand statistics, he doesn't understand medicine, he's just an amoral twit and a troll.
To straighten the record. Currently, HPV prevalence is thought to be about 50% in the high risk under 25 population. Lifetime prevalence of infection is likely even higher as the PCR screening test, which can only be done on women, only shows current infection and not cleared infection which does happen a certain portion of the time.
The number of cancers that result from HPV represents a small number of the total harm that HPV does. The Pap smear, invented by Dr. Papiniculou over a century ago has been one of the greatest medical screening tests ever developed. The relatively small number of people that actually die from the cancer are the tip of the iceberg compared to the large number of women that have to have precancerous lesions treated as a result of detection by pap. This usually results in colposcopies and minor surgery in an area women would prefer not to have poked, prodded and zapped.
Finally sigmund brings up a good point. Digital penetration is known to transmit HPV as well, as it frequently is on more than just genital surfaces. Oral sex transmits it too. Sometime like 10% of abstinent females in college have HPV detectable from cervical swabs. Ultimately the argument being made is not only stupid, unrealistic, small-minded, and ignorant of the realities of HPV caused disease. It's also indicative of a prudish and mean-spirited attitude about sex that those who have it should perish for sin, and further, we can tell who will end up being a dirty dirty slut at age 12 (surely my daughter will never have sex, she's a good girl). Having sex is not immoral. Get lost you disgusting little troll.
Your kid had the Gardasil shot? Guess you didn't know that these warts can be transmitted non-sexually, and that most folks just get over them. Proof? The rate of fatal cervical cancer is about one in half a million. But your kid got a dose of aluminum (vaccine adjuvant) that will last forever, even after Alzheimer's may have helped her forget she ever got a shot. Thanks for helping Big Pharma!
My wife and I are both perfectly happy and healthy without Gardsail and thank you for the wonderful compliment. Keep up the good work Mark.
I'd like to point out that this is true only in the developed world. In many less wealthy countries, cervical cancer is still one of the top three or top five cancers diagnosed.
Oh, and i see the vaccines have TOXINS!!1! crowd has arrived.
If all the teen age and prepubescent boys are the sex craved bastards that every one here is rather blatantly saying, then why doesnt the CDC and the makers of Gardisail marketing the vaccine to everyone before they become sexually active. Maybe Merck is just a bunch of male chauvinists pigs?
I dont expect a answer.
I'm not aware of anyone here saying that prepubescent boys are sex craved bastards. I don't think anyone suggested anyone was a sex craved bastard. This just doesn't seem really complicated to me:
not a virgin on your wedding night != sex craved bastard
OK, here's one answer: the efficacy of Gardasil in men has not yet been demonstrated. That alone is reason enough not to recommend it.
It seems obvious to me as a non-doctor that the primary purpose of any vaccination is to protect its recipient. Women get cervical cancer. Men do not. Therefore, it seems patently obvious that Gardasil be initially tested and given to women.
Boy, you really are dense, Chuckles. It's called puberty. Hormones? Remember? Teenage boys really *are* sex-crazed bastards. I remember getting hard in a stiff breeze. Boys don't need a reason to have sex... they need a partner. Or not.
Sheesh. They would love to have the vaccine available to everyone. They do in Canada. Unfortunately the FDA has not yet approved Gardasil for use in males. Yet.
Drop the facade of actual curiosity and face the truth. You are a sex-obsessed prude who is desperately afraid that someone, somewhere is having sex.
No, actually I am afraid that someone somewhere is having unprotected, unwanted, unconsensual, or unhealthy sex. If you can have sex that doesnt meet that description, then keep up the good work.
Did I say that?
Yes, I did.
Chuck is the last person one should use as a moral compass:
http://www.autismvox.com/the-vaccine-autism-urban-myth/#comment-396856
I agree with MarkH.
HCN is right,
Go ahead guys have unprotected, unwanted, unconsensual, or unhealthy sex. Knock your socks off guy. I don't know what the hell I am talking about.
Finally! Some honesty from Chuckles!!!
"The CDC and the vaccine manufacturer. If you dont like what I am saying, go talk to them or lets have at it, it is your choice."
Aw gee, thanks for narrowing it down for us. *rolleyes*
This is the "snipe hunt" method of shifting the burden of proof.
What my father always use to tell me:
[katie] fat
[MarkH] ignorant
and
[Chuck] happy
Is a great way to go through life!
[LanceR] Finally! Some honesty from Chuckles!!!
Umm, Chuckles? Calling MarkH "ignorant" really exposes you for the idiot you are. A PhD in physiology pretty much cancels any suggestion of ignorance.
Or are you calling yourself fat, dumb and happy? If that's how you want to go through life... but don't expect us to cater to your ignorance.
I just wanted to chime in about the painfulness of the Gardasil shot, the second of which I got on Monday. Holy Crapazoid. My whole arm was sore in moments, and I couldn't lift it for an hour. The first one didn't hurt, I used to get Depo every three months, and I did my run of the military vaccination line like a champ, just so you know I'm not shot wimp.
Yesterday, I had a headache, body ache, and fever, which I slept off for 12 hours. This happens to me often with vaccines, so I wasn't worried.
Was the discomfort worth not getting cancer? Not being afraid of getting cancer? Not getting your tender regions electrocuted? Not passing on the pain and fear of those procedures to another undeserving woman?
Well Duh.
Also, about my experience being a result of medical incompetency. Except for the missed numbing incident, the military medical personnel who treated me were amazing. They came in on a Sunday to do an extra colposcopy when the previous one showed more abnormalities than they expected. The pain they caused was medically necessary. That's the point: Gardasil can make it unnecessary for so many women.
Dear Chucky: I'm assuming you don't have a cervix or a medical degree, therefore our opinion is worth shit.
"Dear Chucky: I'm assuming you don't have a cervix or a medical degree, therefore our opinion is worth shit."
Our opinions are what we choose to make of them. The only way that your opinion is worth shit is if that is the value that you give it.
I hold very firmly on my promises, commitments, and opinions.
LanceR,
You are the second person to call me "Chuckles". I had a coach when I was between 6 and 8 that called me that. He was the second oldest of eight children. He was the best friend anyone could have and had a beautiful fiancé. He took a gun to his head and ended his life a week before the wedding. Hearing that name again brought back many fond memories of him and what he did for me. Thank you.
Chuck,
You're a good driver right?
So common sense dictates you don't need to wear a seat belt.
I can control who I have sex with. I can't control their choices about sex.
If you have daughters and their common sense differed from yours and they got vaccinated (and were silly enough to tell you) what would you do?
"So common sense dictates you don't need to wear a seat belt."
I have been in 1 accident in my life. The car was totaled. The airbags did not deploy. No one was injured in either car. Just because you have something to protect you doesn't mean it always works.
"I can't control their choices about sex."
You're a good person, right?
Good people talk before they have sex. You can talk about your sexual history and decide if you want to have sex after that discussion.
"If you have daughters and their common sense differed from yours and they got vaccinated (and were silly enough to tell you) what would you do?"
My wife and I have many discussions with our daughter concerning her health and sex. When it comes to health and sex our daughters common sense is very good. She abhors vaccines because she has had many fail causing her years of pain and suffering that hasnt stopped to this day. She knows that she needs to take care of herself and keep herself out of harm's way. You're hypothetical will not happen here.
Pretty soon we'll be vaccinated against everything and see all the dug company ads for these remedies every time we turn on the television. But don't worry, it's all "for the common good" and one should never question it. Whatever the AAP says, doctors shall follow.
This seems the only way to practice modern medicine these days: you come in for a few minutes and get a shot or prescription. Sad, but true. God forbid that doctors would actually learn something useful about diet and nutrition as a means for preventing illness.
Ahh, Bronze Dog is going to have to make this one of his examples of Doggerel.
Doctors do learn about diet and nutrition for preventing illness. I am constantly being taught nutrition, I'm just not being taught bullshit about wheat grass and "superfoods" or whatever stupid fad is being sold by the latest crook who has realized how much money you can make by telling people what they want to hear rather than the truth.
We also learn that despite perfect behavior, good diet, exercise and doing everything right, people will still get sick and die. There is this magical belief among the alties that they have some received wisdom about nutrition (usually they have in mind some specific fad diet which undoubtedly was just pulled from some quack's ass) that will protect them from disease. There is no question, healthy living will make disease less likely, but it will not truly prevent it. In the end, we all get sick, and we all die.
Amen.
A person can follow all the best nutrition/lifestyle advice in the world and they will, surprisingly, not become immortal.
...hmmm..hold that thought...new post coming on...
Mark H., What kind of nutrition are you learning about? The politically correct high carb, low fat USDA Food Pyramid? That's working great for kids these days.
So anyone who sells health food is a crook, but big pharma only has our best interest in mind, right? I love seeing their ads every time I turn on the television. Statin drugs have a great safety record, too, don't they?
For me personally, I go to an MD who also has a more integrative approach to medicine. It works just fine. My skin and stomach troubles are under control and I don't take any prescription drugs. I also get sick much less than I used to.
My uncle could've gone the standard chemotherapy route (he did this before when he had colon cancer prior to that), but decided to do something different. The combination of lasers to shrink the tumors and a radically different apporach to diet helped him live. He's now a survivor of stage IV liver cancer. I'd be more than happy to send forth documentation verifying this.
Um, Matt, in case you hadn't notice, things have changed.
Wow, um, oh btw, yes, statins have an excellent safety record.
I'd definitely be interested in seeing more.
PALMD,
I'm still not impressed with the pyramid. Fat is unfairly villified (low fat food is garbage) in America. Instead, the USDA needs to focus on people avoiding processed carbohydrates, sugar and trans fats. If you look at kids' snacks these days, they're all carbs and sugar--far from healthy. The way we got to this whole "fat and choesterol" is evil paradigm is an interesting story in and of itself. Read Gary Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories" for more information.
My uncle, John Reiner, originally had colon cancer and went the standard route with chemotherapy. Unfortunately, the doctor didn't get it all, and it spread to his liver. My uncle then opted to go a different approach. Part of it involved lasers to shrink the tumors http://members.forbes.com/forbes/2006/1016/095.html, while the other involved a radical new approach to nutrition. He basically cut out all sugar and processed foods and used his strong faith as well. Today, he remains cancer-free and occasionally speaks about his experience. http://www.wellnesscolumbus.org/groupsprograms.html
John also wrote an excellent paper, but I don't have it with me at the moment. If I find it, I'll send/post whatever I can.
Thanks for your time.
Matt
p.s. As far as statin drugs go, my mother still suffers from pains in her legs. Shouldn't her doctor have told her to take CoQ10 while on this medication?
your link to forbes is borked
coq10 is not yet proved
There's a comma tacked onto the end of the Forbes link. The article's about radio-frequency ablation, not lasers.
CoQ10 is not yet proved for what? Don't statins deplete this? All I know is that my mother still suffers from pain in one of her legs since taking these wonderful drugs.
Relating back to my earlier post about nutrition, why do hospitals serve such unhealthy food to patients? My wife's first meal after giving birth last weekend: fried chicken fingers and french fries. Also, the juice she was given with her meals had HFCS as one of its main ingredients.
I stand corrected on the method used to treat my uncle's tumors.
@Chuck: I seem to remember that there was a paper that monitored a group of sexually active college women very frequently for maybe several months for HPV, I think with the genetic test. (I can't pull up the paper now; any clarifications on this would be helpful.) Nearly every women was at some point infected with HPV, although most cleared it very quickly. It's very common.Library App