Did Andrew Wakefield Perpetrate an "Elaborate Fraud"?

[DevilYouKnow]

Things get a little trickier when you are deciding whether to inject your currently healthy children with an assumed preventative that has a small possibility of "unavoidable" permanent injury. A neurologically damaged cow sells for the same price as a neurologically healthy cow.

Just as with any other medical decision, the potential benefits must exceed the potential costs and risks. More and better studies are needed to better quantify both the benefits and risks.

The "rational" choice is to freeload on the herd immunity, in other words. You get the benefits, the others get the costs and risks.

[stickdog99]

It seems to me as if the only "rational" choice is to line up dutifully for everything they are selling at whatever intervals they currently recommend and never to question any specific vaccine or vaccine ingredient because vaccines save lives.

[compared2what?]

Wait. Now Gardasil is the fucking topic? And cervical cancer in the first world is no big thing? Which it actually isn't to most people, especially the ones without cervixes, but never mind?

Fine. If that meets the acceptable standard for reasoned debate, I say that Andrew Wakefield perpetrated an elaborate fraud.

Look. A child with smallpox.



Though needless to say, if you're more irrationally alarmed by medical issues that raise the specter of adolescent female sexuality than you are of highly infectious diseases with an 80 percent juvenile fatality rate, that is, of course, your right as an American/Canadian/whatever-you-are.

Which is a lucky thing, since there really wouldn't be a whole hell of that I could do about it even if it wasn't. Irrationality being what it is. So I hereby rest my fearmongering case.
_______________

That doesn't mean that I hereby rest my case, btw. It just means that I hereby rest my fear-mongering case. Reciprocity is not required, obviously. But it sure would be much appreciated.

[stickdog99]

"Dubious" isn't accurate, and the vaccine should "work" in theory. What you didn't mention is that the first round of HPV vaccine targeted *two* viruses (virii? viri?). There are something like 100 known HPV viruses and something like 15-20 are genital, with some of those being completely asymptomatic, and some causing cancer, and some of those cancer-causing strains being successfully cleared by some hosts' immune systems. Likewise most sexually active adults have "been exposed" to HPV. If I'm not mistaken the current version of Gardasil now targets four different virus. That's an improvement for sure.

You also neglected to mention that one "treatment" for cervical cancer is hysterectomy. Surgeries, even those that end in -tomy, don't count as "injuries", but you might want to consider that organ removal may be involved when weighing costs and benefit.

Hysterectomies are only indicated in the most advanced/aggressive cases of cervical cancer. The vast majority of women at risk for HPV associated cervical cancer can be effectively treated by simple biopsies of their pre-cancerous lesions. The trick is to get your annual check up so that these dysplasias are recognized before they become cancerous.

Gardasil confers proven protection against dysplasias and other growths associated with HPV 6, 11, 16 and 18. HPV 6 & 11 are two very common HPV strains associated with genital warts but not associated with cervical cancer. HPV 16 & 18 are two of the dozens of HPV strains associated with cervical cancer (the two most common cervical cancer associated strains). The reason I called Gardasil's benefits unproven is that it will take at least 30 years before we know the efficacy of Gardasil against cervical cancer itself. The reason I called Gardasil's benefits dubious is because we currently don't know whether infection with the relatively benign HPV 6 & HPV 11 strains interferes with the chances of a full blown infection with other, more dangerous HPV strains. If so, the protection Gardasil grants against genital warts (basically as a marketing ploy) could actually result in a net increase in cervical cancer rates.

Furthermore, cervical cancer rates in the USA have declined steadily for the last 40+ years:



With better testing methods, increased efforts to test the most vulnerable women aggressively and better treatments, cervical cancer risks could have been reduced to an infinitesimal level within the 30 years it will take to see if Gardasil has any measurable effect -- without 3 injections of aluminum-laced vaccines for every teen girl at the cost of $500 per regimen and who knows how many vaccine related injuries and/or long term effects.

[compared2what?]

It seems to me as if the only "rational" choice is to line up dutifully for everything they are selling at whatever intervals they currently recommend and never to question any specific vaccine or vaccine ingredient because vaccines save lives.

No, honey. You're confused. That would be the opposite of a rational choice. In that it would neither be reasoned nor chosen.

Happily, no one here is advocating it. It's just a strawman argument of your own invention.

Does that help clear things up at all? Let me know.

[Nordic]

A good friend of mine, male, almost died from getting cancer in his throat from HPV. He recently sent out a big e-mail urging everyone, men included, to get vaccinated against it. He went through some serious, serious hell with this, and in fact will never be quite the same because of it.

Got it from performing oral sex with a female carrier, he presumes.

[stickdog99]

Wait. Now Gardasil is the fucking topic? And cervical cancer in the first world is no big thing? Which it actually isn't to most people, especially the ones without cervixes, but never mind?

What?

Fine. If hat meets the acceptable standard for reasoned debate, I say that Andrew Wakefield perpetrated an elaborate fraud.

Why is discussing Gardasil as an example of a specific vaccine whose cost/benefit ratio might be questioned unreasonable?

Look. A child with smallpox.

What? No aborted fetuses?

Though needless to say, if you're more irrationally alarmed by medical issues that raise the specter of adolescent female sexuality than you are of highly infectious diseases with an 80 percent juvenile fatality rate, that is, of course, your right as an American/Canadian/whatever-you-are.

Yeah, my concerns about Gardasil's cost/benefit ratio are obviously rooted in my fear of female sexuality.

Look, if you don't want to discuss Gardasil as an example of a vaccine whose necessity can be questioned without unleashing the scourge of smallpox on the world, then please don't.

[stickdog99]

A good friend of mine, male, almost died from getting cancer in his throat from HPV. He recently sent out a big e-mail urging everyone, men included, to get vaccinated against it. He went through some serious, serious hell with this, and in fact will never be quite the same because of it.

Got it from performing oral sex with a female carrier, he presumes.

I have been looking for statistics on the US male incidence/mortality of HPV 16 & 18 related oral and anal cancer for some time but have found nothing other than anecdotes. Obviously, there are a number of annual cases of HPV related oral cancers and anal cancers affecting both males and females but I can't find any hard data on incidence/mortality/HPV strain relation anywhere.

[stickdog99]

It seems to me as if the only "rational" choice is to line up dutifully for everything they are selling at whatever intervals they currently recommend and never to question any specific vaccine or vaccine ingredient because vaccines save lives.

No, honey. You're confused. That would be the opposite of a rational choice. In that it would neither be reasoned nor chosen.

Happily, no one here is advocating it. It's just a strawman argument of your own invention.

Does that help clear things up at all? Let me know.

Glad to hear it. Is there any specific vaccine, vaccine ingredient, vaccine administration method or vaccine administration schedule that you question?

[compared2what?]

"Dubious" isn't accurate, and the vaccine should "work" in theory. What you didn't mention is that the first round of HPV vaccine targeted *two* viruses (virii? viri?). There are something like 100 known HPV viruses and something like 15-20 are genital, with some of those being completely asymptomatic, and some causing cancer, and some of those cancer-causing strains being successfully cleared by some hosts' immune systems. Likewise most sexually active adults have "been exposed" to HPV. If I'm not mistaken the current version of Gardasil now targets four different virus. That's an improvement for sure.

You also neglected to mention that one "treatment" for cervical cancer is hysterectomy. Surgeries, even those that end in -tomy, don't count as "injuries", but you might want to consider that organ removal may be involved when weighing costs and benefit.

Hysterectomies are only indicated in the most advanced/aggressive cases of cervical cancer. The vast majority of women at risk for HPV associated cervical cancer can be effectively treated by simple biopsies of their pre-cancerous lesions. The trick is to get your annual check up so that these dysplasias are recognized before they become cancerous.

Please do not tell me how simple my annual pre-cancerous-lesion-detecting biopsies are or are not. Because you have absolutely no way of knowing and don't appear to have given the question a moment's consideration. Nor have you made any very evident attempts to inform yourself about the real forces that govern the real access of real women to simple gynecological care. So just shut up. Thanks!

[stickdog99]

"Dubious" isn't accurate, and the vaccine should "work" in theory. What you didn't mention is that the first round of HPV vaccine targeted *two* viruses (virii? viri?). There are something like 100 known HPV viruses and something like 15-20 are genital, with some of those being completely asymptomatic, and some causing cancer, and some of those cancer-causing strains being successfully cleared by some hosts' immune systems. Likewise most sexually active adults have "been exposed" to HPV. If I'm not mistaken the current version of Gardasil now targets four different virus. That's an improvement for sure.

You also neglected to mention that one "treatment" for cervical cancer is hysterectomy. Surgeries, even those that end in -tomy, don't count as "injuries", but you might want to consider that organ removal may be involved when weighing costs and benefit.

Hysterectomies are only indicated in the most advanced/aggressive cases of cervical cancer. The vast majority of women at risk for HPV associated cervical cancer can be effectively treated by simple biopsies of their pre-cancerous lesions. The trick is to get your annual check up so that these dysplasias are recognized before they become cancerous.

Please do not tell me how simple my annual pre-cancerous-lesion-detecting biopsies are or are not. Because you have absolutely no way of knowing and don't appear to have given the question a moment's consideration. Nor have you made any very evident attempts to inform yourself about the real forces that govern the real access of real women to simple gynecological care. So just shut up. Thanks!

LOL

If you wish to argue that Gardasil may confer a significant medical benefit to those women without access to annual pap smears, I am in complete agreement. But those are not the women Gardasil has been aggressively marketed to.

In the future, you might find it prudent to save your transparent personal attacks and rank appeals to emotion for a less perceptive audience.

[compared2what?]

It seems to me as if the only "rational" choice is to line up dutifully for everything they are selling at whatever intervals they currently recommend and never to question any specific vaccine or vaccine ingredient because vaccines save lives.

No, honey. You're confused. That would be the opposite of a rational choice. In that it would neither be reasoned nor chosen.

Happily, no one here is advocating it. It's just a strawman argument of your own invention.

Does that help clear things up at all? Let me know.

Glad to hear it. Is there any specific vaccine, vaccine ingredient, vaccine administration method or vaccine administration schedule that you question?

Yes. I question all of them. To the best of my ability. And I don't stop there! I also question the terms on which they're questioned! Because I strongly prefer to determine what questions are worth asking my own self.

I think pretty much all those prefabricated questions that are raised (and answered) by people and/or interests who profit directly from that process are just about equally disgusting, to be honest with you. I've often wished that I didn't. But what can you do? There's no arguing about taste.

[compared2what?]

"Dubious" isn't accurate, and the vaccine should "work" in theory. What you didn't mention is that the first round of HPV vaccine targeted *two* viruses (virii? viri?). There are something like 100 known HPV viruses and something like 15-20 are genital, with some of those being completely asymptomatic, and some causing cancer, and some of those cancer-causing strains being successfully cleared by some hosts' immune systems. Likewise most sexually active adults have "been exposed" to HPV. If I'm not mistaken the current version of Gardasil now targets four different virus. That's an improvement for sure.

You also neglected to mention that one "treatment" for cervical cancer is hysterectomy. Surgeries, even those that end in -tomy, don't count as "injuries", but you might want to consider that organ removal may be involved when weighing costs and benefit.

Hysterectomies are only indicated in the most advanced/aggressive cases of cervical cancer. The vast majority of women at risk for HPV associated cervical cancer can be effectively treated by simple biopsies of their pre-cancerous lesions. The trick is to get your annual check up so that these dysplasias are recognized before they become cancerous.

Please do not tell me how simple my annual pre-cancerous-lesion-detecting biopsies are or are not. Because you have absolutely no way of knowing and don't appear to have given the question a moment's consideration. Nor have you made any very evident attempts to inform yourself about the real forces that govern the real access of real women to simple gynecological care. So just shut up. Thanks!

LOL

If you wish to argue that Gardasil may confer a significant medical benefit to those women without access to annual pap smears, I am in complete agreement. But those are not the women Gardasil has been aggressively marketed to.

In the future, you might find it prudent to save your transparent personal attacks and rank appeals to emotion for a less perceptive audience.

Please also do everyone a favor and retire that lame-ass I'm-rubber-you're-glue rhetorical strategy where you accuse me of doing what you're doing for twenty pages, then take a breather for twenty pages, then lather, rinse and repeat sooner rather than later. Because it's tedious. Thanks.

[stickdog99]

Please also do everyone a favor and retire that lame-ass I'm-rubber-you're-glue rhetorical strategy where you accuse me of doing what you're doing for twenty pages, then take a breather for twenty pages, then lather, rinse and repeat sooner rather than later. Because it's tedious. Thanks.

If you have nothing to post other than another bizarre, angry personal attack, do not post anything. Because it's tedious. Thanks.

[compared2what?]

And I'm out. Again.

This whole thread is an indecency, imo. As well as a moral indictment of the board and the world. I mean, you're arguing in
support of a man who....Oh, just forget it. Never mind. I'm too frankly horrified to feel much like talking about it anymore.

Thanks for the lively exchange. And goodbye.