HPV Vaccine - Why is this even controversial?

I wonder if the "average lifespan" would have climbed and continue to climb as it has without vaccines. I don't think so. Originally Posted by Glenn Quagmire

That is the GOP plan to save SS....do everything in their power to see that you die sooner!

The operation was a success WTF, you don't have to constantly show off your brainectomy.

If the Republicans wanted you to die sooner, they'd install death panels.

So from your article:
============================== ============================== ======
About 79 million Americans, most in their late teens and early 20s, are infected with HPV. Each year, about 14 million people become newly infected, the CDC says. About 56 million doses of HPV vaccine have been administered in the U.S. since 2006, Frieden noted.
About 19,000 cancers caused by HPV infections occur in women in the U.S. each year, according to the CDC, with cervical cancers being the most common. About 8,000 cancers caused by HPV occur each year in U.S. men; throat cancers are most common.
============================== ============================== =====

Given that.

How'd you come up with the 90% of people have the HPV virus? Originally Posted by gnadfly

I read it in an article. I answered you before in Post #72:

-----------------------------
"I think I first read the 90% number from a Brit paper reporting on Michael Douglas. But that might have been for England or a certain age range or both. The link above says that a survey of oral cancer patients found that 55% of them had HPV. But those are mostly older people (50s and 60s) who were relatively less sexually active when younger than young people today. Because of today's hook-up culture and kids having sex younger than ever (including "technical" virgins having oral sex), the HPV rates for people 20-40 are much higher. So the rate is somewhat age dependent. But it is HIGH in all age groups."
----------------------------------

I think the 79 million number bears out the high rate for young people. If we have 300 people, teens and early 20s are probably no more than 10-15% of that number (45 million max?). So if MOST of the 79 million are in that cohort, the infection rate has to be on the order of 90%.

Obviously the rate is 0% for small children and young teens (not sexually active yet). And probably very low for folks in their 80s and 90s, because they were not as sexually active when they were teens in the mid 1900s.

Even among the cancers patients mentioned above, the rate was 55% and those were mostly middle aged folks.

In the absence of the vaccine, the rates for all age groups will rise to 90% as the people who are now in their teens and early 20s age and move into their 40, 50s and 60s and the folks already in their 40s, 50s and 60s die off.

If the Republicans wanted you to die sooner, they'd install death panels. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Ryan tried with his voucher bs!

I read it in an article. I answered you before in Post #72:

-----------------------------
"I think I first read the 90% number from a Brit paper reporting on Michael Douglas. But that might have been for England or a certain age range or both. The link above says that a survey of oral cancer patients found that 55% of them had HPV. But those are mostly older people (50s and 60s) who were relatively less sexually active when younger than young people today. Because of today's hook-up culture and kids having sex younger than ever (including "technical" virgins having oral sex), the HPV rates for people 20-40 are much higher. So the rate is somewhat age dependent. But it is HIGH in all age groups."
----------------------------------

I think the 79 million number bears out the high rate for young people. If we have 300 people, teens and early 20s are probably no more than 10-15% of that number (45 million max?). So if MOST of the 79 million are in that cohort, the infection rate has to be on the order of 90%.

Obviously the rate is 0% for small children and young teens (not sexually active yet). And probably very low for folks in their 80s and 90s, because they were not as sexually active when they were teens in the mid 1900s.

Even among the cancers patients mentioned above, the rate was 55% and those were mostly middle aged folks.

In the absence of the vaccine, the rates for all age groups will rise to 90% as the people who are now in their teens and early 20s age and move into their 40, 50s and 60s and the folks already in their 40s, 50s and 60s die off. Originally Posted by ExNYer

The article is poorly written, especially the first paragraph. Evidently 90% of Americans have HPV, depending on how "you" want to define 90%. I think my percentage of 25% is more accurate but less scary. But let me ask you another question, even given 25% why isn't the rate of cancers much, much higher? Here's a more informative and less scary article from the CDC itself: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/statistics/.

Again, I think the vaccine is a good thing, just the numbers are overblown. Even the above article uses estimated numbers.

Ryan tried with his voucher bs! Originally Posted by WTF

This from the idiot who wanted Grandma to die because she didn't pay into Medicare! Your operation was an ASStounding success WTF!

This from the idiot who wanted Grandma to die because she didn't pay into Medicare! Your operation was an ASStounding success WTF! Originally Posted by gnadfly

If you had a choice to give life saving medical care to your grandmother or your child, which would you choose?

My grandmother would want me to give it to our youth seeing how she has lived a full life. You Tea Turds grandma's are selfish bitch's that want to live another month at the expense of their great grandchildren....and idiots like you agree with granny for political reasons.

But let me ask you another question, even given 25% why isn't the rate of cancers much, much higher? Originally Posted by gnadfly

I don't know, but I would imagine it is because not everyone who has HPV will get the cancer. Just like some people who smoke don't get lung cancer - although that percentage is lower.

It is a risk factor. Exposure to the risk factor increases your chance of getting a cancer, but does not guarantee it.

Obviously the increased risk from HPV is not as great as the increased risk from smoking 2 packs a day for 20 years.

But, if the vaccine prevents 40K cancers per year (in another 30 or so years) won't the vaccine pretty much pay for itself? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I'm sure Michael Douglass's cancer treatments were quite expensive.

Given that, plus that fact that there are NO studies that indicate the vaccine has any harmful side affects, what it case against vaccination? Other than letting sinners suffer like the fundamentalists want.

There is no real case against vaccination. The case is against GOVERNMENT FORCED vaccination. I'd encourage anyone to get vaccinated. I wouldn't FORCE them too.

The issue is not whether vaccination is a good idea, the issue is whether the government should FORCE someone to do something government THINKS is a good idea.

Lots of things are good ideas. Should the government FORCE us to do all of them?

There is no real case against vaccination. The case is against GOVERNMENT FORCED vaccination. I'd encourage anyone to get vaccinated. I wouldn't FORCE them too.

The issue is not whether vaccination is a good idea, the issue is whether the government should FORCE someone to do something government THINKS is a good idea.

Lots of things are good ideas. Should the government FORCE us to do all of them? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Straw man argument. No one is saying that.

Communicable diseases are in a class by themselves. Nothing else is like that.

In the present example, I see no credible argument against vaccination.

All I see are religious fundamentalists opposing the vaccinations because they want sinners to suffer, even if it is their own children.

Or I see libertarian dilettantes making abstract arguments about a person controlling his or her own body - which isn't really at issue.

While it is all well and good for adults to choose for themselves, the issue here is NOT adults - although you keep trying to push adults into the argument.

The issue is the vaccination of 12-14 year old children, who are forced to do things ALL THE TIME - either by government or their parents. Someone else ALWAYS makes the decision for children.

The real libertarian argument would be to let a 12 year old make her own decision. That isn't going to happen. Children will just cave to pressure from their parents.

The majority of parents will get their kids vaccinated. But some Bible thumpers and some Jenny McCarthy types will not allow their kids to be vaccinated. And 30 years from now, the now-adult children will pay the price for their parents stupidity.

And many, maybe most, of those grown-up children will not share their parents beliefs. Nonetheless, those beliefs will be imposed on them in a PERMANENT manner by the HPV virus. How is that for religious freedom?

There is no real case against vaccination. The case is against GOVERNMENT FORCED vaccination. I'd encourage anyone to get vaccinated. I wouldn't FORCE them too.

The issue is not whether vaccination is a good idea, the issue is whether the government should FORCE someone to do something government THINKS is a good idea.

Lots of things are good ideas. Should the government FORCE us to do all of them? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

We force children to go to school...is that a bad thing? To get shots to prevent spreadable diseases? Is that a bad thing?

As exNYer stated, this is not for adults but for kids to try and eradicate a harmful disease. There are times when common good supersedes individual liberty. I believe this is one of those times. Just like smallpox was/is.

So who should decide for the children: Government or parents? I support parents much more than government. And no, I don't support forcing children into the substandard, indoctrination of government controlled schools. And I don't support having the government forcing parents to vaccinate their children against the parents' will.

When will you clowns realize that government NEVER does anything FOR you. They do what they do to CONTROL you. Mindless idiots.

It is either government or anarchy.

You are just debating the degree of government.

That is called politics my friend, not liberty or tranquility or freedom.

Yes, some government is necessary. Let's ask an expert on how much is necessary.

"You're an asshole Whiny ..."

-- Everybody

You mean Thomas Jefferson is an asshole, don't you, Assup? Figures.

I guess CS Lewis is an asshole, too.