If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Experts raise worries about HPV vaccine
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...801?hub=Health
Experts raise worries about HPV vaccine Updated Wed. Aug. 1 2007 6:44 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff A group of Canadian public health professionals says there remain a number of unanswered questions about the HPV vaccine and that a universal vaccination program in Canada "is premature and could have unintended negative consequences." Abby Lippman, a professor of epidemiology at McGill University, and colleagues, conducted a review of the current literature on the HPV the vaccine and summarize their conclusions in an editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. They found that while it appears that the vaccine is highly effective in preventing infection with HPV types 16 and 18 (currently thought to be the cause of about 70% of cervical cancer cases), it's still not clear whether reducing such infections will translate into fewer cervical cancer deaths in the long run. They note that rates of deaths from cervical cancer had been dropping in Canada for years anyway, because of the widespread availability of publicly-funded programs for Pap smear testing. They also note that there are many gaps in knowledge about the vaccine: a.. It's not clear for how long the vaccine will be effective; b.. or whether a booster shot will be needed in later years; c.. and there is also a lack of data, they say, on the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine when given at the same time as other immunizations. They also wonder whether a mass HPV vaccination program will lead to reductions in safer sex practices and Pap screening rates. And they note that relatively few girls aged 9 to 15 years were enrolled in the clinical trials of Gardasil and the youngest of whom were followed for only 18 months. Yet girls in this age group represent the priority target population for mass vaccination. And, they note, all of the reported HPV vaccine trials, whether of Gardasil or its potential competitor Cervarix, were funded in whole or in part by the vaccine's manufacturer. Noting that Gardasil is the most expensive childhood vaccine proposed for mass use (it currently costs $404 for the 3 required doses), the authors point out that there haven't been any cost-effectiveness analyses to determine whether the proposed vaccination programs will result in fewer cancer deaths. The authors provide some general recommendations for the development of a mass HPV vaccination program, including a call for government to educate the public about the realities of cervical cancer, HPV infection and HPV vaccinations, and to support unbiased research to collect the data now missing. "It is time to take a breath and reflect on what we know and what we don't know, and to develop a plan based on solid, reliable evidence that adds value for everyone," the authors write. "Individual girls and women, as well as policy-makers, can make truly informed decisions about vaccinations only when they have all the evidence, and today, there are more questions than answers." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Experts raise worries about HPV vaccine
On Aug 2, 5:26 am, "JOHN" wrote:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...70801/hpv_vacc... Noting that Gardasil is the most expensive childhood vaccine proposed for mass use (it currently costs $404 for the 3 required doses), the authors point out that there haven't been any cost-effectiveness analyses to determine whether the proposed vaccination programs will result in fewer cancer deaths. The most disturbing thing for me about the HPV vaccine is the 3 required doses. Based upon what I can decerne from the WEB, it takes 3 doses of an anti-fertility vaccine to make a female infertile. Is it possible that the medical moguls are trying to make so many females infertile? I would have to admit that this is better than WW3 or a nuclear war to reduce the population, but will they really pull this off? Will we really have to shoot the doctors to protect our daughters? DrCee |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Experts raise worries about HPV vaccine
wrote in message ps.com... Based upon what I can decerne from the WEB, it takes 3 doses of an anti-fertility vaccine to make a female infertile. Is it possible that the medical moguls are trying to make so many females infertile? I would have to admit that this is better than WW3 or a nuclear war to reduce the population, but will they really pull this off? Will we really have to shoot the doctors to protect our daughters? DrCee wouldn't put anything past them, they were caught doing that to third world women http://www.whale.to/m/sterile.html lets hope MMR goes down in flames soon and the rest follow |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Experts raise worries about HPV vaccine
On Aug 2, 5:26 am, "JOHN" wrote:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...70801/hpv_vacc... Experts raise worries about HPV vaccine Updated Wed. Aug. 1 2007 6:44 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff A group of Canadian public health professionals says there remain a number of unanswered questions about the HPV vaccine and that a universal vaccination program in Canada "is premature and could have unintended negative consequences." Abby Lippman, a professor of epidemiology at McGill University, and colleagues, conducted a review of the current literature on the HPV the vaccine and summarize their conclusions in an editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. They found that while it appears that the vaccine is highly effective in preventing infection with HPV types 16 and 18 (currently thought to be the cause of about 70% of cervical cancer cases), it's still not clear whether reducing such infections will translate into fewer cervical cancer deaths in the long run. They note that rates of deaths from cervical cancer had been dropping in Canada for years anyway, because of the widespread availability of publicly-funded programs for Pap smear testing. They also note that there are many gaps in knowledge about the vaccine: a.. It's not clear for how long the vaccine will be effective; b.. or whether a booster shot will be needed in later years; c.. and there is also a lack of data, they say, on the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine when given at the same time as other immunizations. They also wonder whether a mass HPV vaccination program will lead to reductions in safer sex practices and Pap screening rates. And they note that relatively few girls aged 9 to 15 years were enrolled in the clinical trials of Gardasil and the youngest of whom were followed for only 18 months. Yet girls in this age group represent the priority target population for mass vaccination. And, they note, all of the reported HPV vaccine trials, whether of Gardasil or its potential competitor Cervarix, were funded in whole or in part by the vaccine's manufacturer. Noting that Gardasil is the most expensive childhood vaccine proposed for mass use (it currently costs $404 for the 3 required doses), the authors point out that there haven't been any cost-effectiveness analyses to determine whether the proposed vaccination programs will result in fewer cancer deaths. The authors provide some general recommendations for the development of a mass HPV vaccination program, including a call for government to educate the public about the realities of cervical cancer, HPV infection and HPV vaccinations, and to support unbiased research to collect the data now missing. "It is time to take a breath and reflect on what we know and what we don't know, and to develop a plan based on solid, reliable evidence that adds value for everyone," the authors write. "Individual girls and women, as well as policy-makers, can make truly informed decisions about vaccinations only when they have all the evidence, and today, there are more questions than answers." As this agrees with the NEJM post on this Thanks for posting it Is it even possible that this could result in more cancer deaths.? Thanks Vince . |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Experts raise worries about HPV vaccine
On Aug 4, 8:24 am, bigvince wrote:
On Aug 2, 5:26 am, "JOHN" wrote: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...70801/hpv_vacc... Experts raise worries about HPV vaccine Updated Wed. Aug. 1 2007 6:44 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff A group of Canadian public health professionals says there remain a number of unanswered questions about the HPV vaccine and that a universal vaccination program in Canada "is premature and could have unintended negative consequences." Abby Lippman, a professor of epidemiology at McGill University, and colleagues, conducted a review of the current literature on the HPV the vaccine and summarize their conclusions in an editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. They found that while it appears that the vaccine is highly effective in preventing infection with HPV types 16 and 18 (currently thought to be the cause of about 70% of cervical cancer cases), it's still not clear whether reducing such infections will translate into fewer cervical cancer deaths in the long run. They note that rates of deaths from cervical cancer had been dropping in Canada for years anyway, because of the widespread availability of publicly-funded programs for Pap smear testing. They also note that there are many gaps in knowledge about the vaccine: a.. It's not clear for how long the vaccine will be effective; b.. or whether a booster shot will be needed in later years; c.. and there is also a lack of data, they say, on the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine when given at the same time as other immunizations. They also wonder whether a mass HPV vaccination program will lead to reductions in safer sex practices and Pap screening rates. And they note that relatively few girls aged 9 to 15 years were enrolled in the clinical trials of Gardasil and the youngest of whom were followed for only 18 months. Yet girls in this age group represent the priority target population for mass vaccination. And, they note, all of the reported HPV vaccine trials, whether of Gardasil or its potential competitor Cervarix, were funded in whole or in part by the vaccine's manufacturer. Noting that Gardasil is the most expensive childhood vaccine proposed for mass use (it currently costs $404 for the 3 required doses), the authors point out that there haven't been any cost-effectiveness analyses to determine whether the proposed vaccination programs will result in fewer cancer deaths. The authors provide some general recommendations for the development of a mass HPV vaccination program, including a call for government to educate the public about the realities of cervical cancer, HPV infection and HPV vaccinations, and to support unbiased research to collect the data now missing. "It is time to take a breath and reflect on what we know and what we don't know, and to develop a plan based on solid, reliable evidence that adds value for everyone," the authors write. "Individual girls and women, as well as policy-makers, can make truly informed decisions about vaccinations only when they have all the evidence, and today, there are more questions than answers." As this agrees with the NEJM post on this Thanks for posting it Is it even possible that this could result in more cancer deaths.? No, you whack-job, it won't. I prevents cervical cancer, something that infuriates scientific illiterates like you and Not_A_Dr_Cee. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hpv_vaccine The latest generation of preventive HPV vaccines are based on hollow virus-like particles (VLPs) assembled from recombinant HPV coat proteins. The vaccines target the two most common high-risk HPVs, types 16 and 18. Together, these two HPV types currently cause about 70 percent of all cervical cancer. Gardasil also targets HPV types 6 and 11, which together currently cause about 90 percent of all cases of genital warts.[3] Gardasil and Cervarix are designed to elicit virus-neutralizing antibody responses that prevent initial infection with the HPV types represented in the vaccine. The vaccines have been shown to offer 100 percent protection against the development of cervical pre-cancers and genital warts caused by the HPV types in the vaccine, with few or no side effects. The protective effects of the vaccine are expected to last a minimum of 4.5 years after the initial vaccination.[4] Thanks Vince .- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Experts raise worries about HPV vaccine
wrote in message ps.com... The most disturbing thing for me about the HPV vaccine is the 3 required doses. Based upon what I can decerne from the WEB, it takes 3 doses of an anti-fertility vaccine to make a female infertile. Is it possible that the medical moguls are trying to make so many females infertile? I would have to admit that this is better than WW3 or a nuclear war to reduce the population, but will they really pull this off? also Merck is the king of biowarfare dirty deeds "One CFR published policy objective is substantial worldwide depopulation including half of the current U.S. population being targeted. This population reduction program is largely funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Merck Fund, both financially and administratively linked to the Merck pharmaceutical company--the world's leading vaccine manufacturer........Records show the Merck pharmaceutical company received a major share of the Nazi "flight capital" at the close of World War II when its president, George W. Merck, was America's biological weapons industry director. These facts were revealed by Norman Covert, Army public relations director at Fort Detrick in Frederick, MD, and veteran news correspondent Paul Manning in his book "Martin Bormann: Nazi in Exile" (Lyle Stuart, Inc, 1981). "---Dr Horowitz |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Experts raise worries about HPV vaccine
In article ,
JOHN wrote: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...801?hub=Health Experts raise worries about HPV vaccine Updated Wed. Aug. 1 2007 6:44 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff A group of Canadian public health professionals says there remain a number of unanswered questions about the HPV vaccine and that a universal vaccination program in Canada "is premature and could have unintended negative consequences." Abby Lippman, a professor of epidemiology at McGill University, and colleagues, conducted a review of the current literature on the HPV the vaccine and summarize their conclusions in an editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. They found that while it appears that the vaccine is highly effective in preventing infection with HPV types 16 and 18 (currently thought to be the cause of about 70% of cervical cancer cases), it's still not clear whether reducing such infections will translate into fewer cervical cancer deaths in the long run. They note that rates of deaths from cervical cancer had been dropping in Canada for years anyway, because of the widespread availability of publicly-funded programs for Pap smear testing. They may be dropping. They have not gone to zero. In any event, prevention is better than cure. They also note that there are many gaps in knowledge about the vaccine: a.. It's not clear for how long the vaccine will be effective; b.. or whether a booster shot will be needed in later years; True. But so what? Even if it does turn out that a booster is needed, we already do that with, e.g., tetanus. c.. and there is also a lack of data, they say, on the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine when given at the same time as other immunizations. They also wonder whether a mass HPV vaccination program will lead to reductions in safer sex practices and Pap screening rates. They may "wonder" about that, but that's not a legitimate objection. I could "wonder" whether they are all insane, but that's not a legitimate objection to *their* work. However, the notion that the HPV vaccine is apt to reduce safe sex practices is stupid; nobody was practicing safe sex to avoid HPV, they were doing it to avoid AIDS or herpes. And they note that relatively few girls aged 9 to 15 years were enrolled in the clinical trials of Gardasil and the youngest of whom were followed for only 18 months. Yet girls in this age group represent the priority target population for mass vaccination. Quite rightly; you need to vaccinate the target population *before* it's exposed to HPV. And, they note, all of the reported HPV vaccine trials, whether of Gardasil or its potential competitor Cervarix, were funded in whole or in part by the vaccine's manufacturer. Oh, good, do let's introduce a nice conspiracy element to the discussion. Noting that Gardasil is the most expensive childhood vaccine proposed for mass use (it currently costs $404 for the 3 required doses), the authors point out that there haven't been any cost-effectiveness analyses to determine whether the proposed vaccination programs will result in fewer cancer deaths. What offsetting costs are we talking about? I admit that there is a point at which cost becomes prohibitive, but I want to know what their tradeoffs are. "It is time to take a breath and reflect on what we know and what we don't know, and to develop a plan based on solid, reliable evidence that adds value for everyone," the authors write. "Individual girls and women, as well as policy-makers, can make truly informed decisions about vaccinations only when they have all the evidence, and today, there are more questions than answers." There are always more questions than answers. You will never have "all the evidence," and a demand for it is merely saying "do nothing, forever." -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Only George Bush could start a war for oil and not get any." -- Bill Maher |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Experts raise worries about HPV vaccine
In article om,
wrote: On Aug 2, 5:26 am, "JOHN" wrote: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...70801/hpv_vacc... Noting that Gardasil is the most expensive childhood vaccine proposed for mass use (it currently costs $404 for the 3 required doses), the authors point out that there haven't been any cost-effectiveness analyses to determine whether the proposed vaccination programs will result in fewer cancer deaths. The most disturbing thing for me about the HPV vaccine is the 3 required doses. Based upon what I can decerne from the WEB, it takes 3 doses of an anti-fertility vaccine to make a female infertile. Is it possible that the medical moguls are trying to make so many females infertile? I would have to admit that this is better than WW3 or a nuclear war to reduce the population, but will they really pull this off? Will we really have to shoot the doctors to protect our daughters? This is so dopey. Totally unfounded speculation based on what *you* are able to learn (ha ha ha) from the web. So far you haven't even learned to do arithmetic, and you're now setting yourself up as an authority on vaccination? -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Only George Bush could start a war for oil and not get any." -- Bill Maher |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Experts raise worries about HPV vaccine
On Aug 4, 9:04 am, The One True Zhen Jue
wrote: On Aug 4, 8:24 am, bigvince wrote: On Aug 2, 5:26 am, "JOHN" wrote: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...70801/hpv_vacc... Experts raise worries about HPV vaccine Updated Wed. Aug. 1 2007 6:44 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff A group of Canadian public health professionals says there remain a number of unanswered questions about the HPV vaccine and that a universal vaccination program in Canada "is premature and could have unintended negative consequences." Abby Lippman, a professor of epidemiology at McGill University, and colleagues, conducted a review of the current literature on the HPV the vaccine and summarize their conclusions in an editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. They found that while it appears that the vaccine is highly effective in preventing infection with HPV types 16 and 18 (currently thought to be the cause of about 70% of cervical cancer cases), it's still not clear whether reducing such infections will translate into fewer cervical cancer deaths in the long run. They note that rates of deaths from cervical cancer had been dropping in Canada for years anyway, because of the widespread availability of publicly-funded programs for Pap smear testing. They also note that there are many gaps in knowledge about the vaccine: a.. It's not clear for how long the vaccine will be effective; b.. or whether a booster shot will be needed in later years; c.. and there is also a lack of data, they say, on the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine when given at the same time as other immunizations. They also wonder whether a mass HPV vaccination program will lead to reductions in safer sex practices and Pap screening rates. And they note that relatively few girls aged 9 to 15 years were enrolled in the clinical trials of Gardasil and the youngest of whom were followed for only 18 months. Yet girls in this age group represent the priority target population for mass vaccination. And, they note, all of the reported HPV vaccine trials, whether of Gardasil or its potential competitor Cervarix, were funded in whole or in part by the vaccine's manufacturer. Noting that Gardasil is the most expensive childhood vaccine proposed for mass use (it currently costs $404 for the 3 required doses), the authors point out that there haven't been any cost-effectiveness analyses to determine whether the proposed vaccination programs will result in fewer cancer deaths. The authors provide some general recommendations for the development of a mass HPV vaccination program, including a call for government to educate the public about the realities of cervical cancer, HPV infection and HPV vaccinations, and to support unbiased research to collect the data now missing. "It is time to take a breath and reflect on what we know and what we don't know, and to develop a plan based on solid, reliable evidence that adds value for everyone," the authors write. "Individual girls and women, as well as policy-makers, can make truly informed decisions about vaccinations only when they have all the evidence, and today, there are more questions than answers." As this agrees with the NEJM post on this Thanks for posting it Is it even possible that this could result in more cancer deaths.? No, you whack-job, it won't. I prevents cervical cancer, something that infuriates scientific illiterates like you and Not_A_Dr_Cee. "Abby Lippman, a professor of epidemiology at McGill University, and colleagues, conducted a review of the current literature on the HPV the vaccine and summarize their conclusions in an editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. They found that while it appears that the vaccine is highly effective in preventing infection with HPV types 16 and 18 (currently thought to be the cause of about 70% of cervical cancer cases), it's still not clear whether reducing such infections will translate into fewer cervical cancer deaths in the long run. " Who should I expect knows more Dr. LIppman who states " it's still not clear whether reducing such infections will translate into fewer cervical cancer deaths in the long run. " Or you? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Experts raise worries about HPV vaccine
On Aug 7, 8:43 am, bigvince wrote:
On Aug 4, 9:04 am, The One True Zhen Jue wrote: On Aug 4, 8:24 am, bigvince wrote: On Aug 2, 5:26 am, "JOHN" wrote: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...70801/hpv_vacc... Experts raise worries about HPV vaccine Updated Wed. Aug. 1 2007 6:44 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff A group of Canadian public health professionals says there remain a number of unanswered questions about the HPV vaccine and that a universal vaccination program in Canada "is premature and could have unintended negative consequences." Abby Lippman, a professor of epidemiology at McGill University, and colleagues, conducted a review of the current literature on the HPV the vaccine and summarize their conclusions in an editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. They found that while it appears that the vaccine is highly effective in preventing infection with HPV types 16 and 18 (currently thought to be the cause of about 70% of cervical cancer cases), it's still not clear whether reducing such infections will translate into fewer cervical cancer deaths in the long run. They note that rates of deaths from cervical cancer had been dropping in Canada for years anyway, because of the widespread availability of publicly-funded programs for Pap smear testing. They also note that there are many gaps in knowledge about the vaccine: a.. It's not clear for how long the vaccine will be effective; b.. or whether a booster shot will be needed in later years; c.. and there is also a lack of data, they say, on the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine when given at the same time as other immunizations. They also wonder whether a mass HPV vaccination program will lead to reductions in safer sex practices and Pap screening rates. And they note that relatively few girls aged 9 to 15 years were enrolled in the clinical trials of Gardasil and the youngest of whom were followed for only 18 months. Yet girls in this age group represent the priority target population for mass vaccination. And, they note, all of the reported HPV vaccine trials, whether of Gardasil or its potential competitor Cervarix, were funded in whole or in part by the vaccine's manufacturer. Noting that Gardasil is the most expensive childhood vaccine proposed for mass use (it currently costs $404 for the 3 required doses), the authors point out that there haven't been any cost-effectiveness analyses to determine whether the proposed vaccination programs will result in fewer cancer deaths. The authors provide some general recommendations for the development of a mass HPV vaccination program, including a call for government to educate the public about the realities of cervical cancer, HPV infection and HPV vaccinations, and to support unbiased research to collect the data now missing. "It is time to take a breath and reflect on what we know and what we don't know, and to develop a plan based on solid, reliable evidence that adds value for everyone," the authors write. "Individual girls and women, as well as policy-makers, can make truly informed decisions about vaccinations only when they have all the evidence, and today, there are more questions than answers." As this agrees with the NEJM post on this Thanks for posting it Is it even possible that this could result in more cancer deaths.? No, you whack-job, it won't. I prevents cervical cancer, something that infuriates scientific illiterates like you and Not_A_Dr_Cee. "Abby Lippman, a professor of epidemiology at McGill University, and colleagues, conducted a review of the current literature on the HPV the vaccine and summarize their conclusions in an editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. They found that while it appears that the vaccine is highly effective in preventing infection with HPV types 16 and 18 (currently thought to be the cause of about 70% of cervical cancer cases), it's still not clear whether reducing such infections will translate into fewer cervical cancer deaths in the long run. " Who should I expect knows more Dr. LIppman who states " it's still not clear whether reducing such infections will translate into fewer cervical cancer deaths in the long run. " Or you?- Hide quoted text - Its not about me, dumbass. And as for you, Vince, you are too stupid to have an informed opinion about anything. You just feel important when you find a fellow whack-job that hates children, women, and healthcare consumers in general as much as you do. The vaccine does prevent cervical cancers due HPV 16 & 18. They are the cause of 70% of all cervical cancer. You want to stop the prevention of those cancers because some jack-ass can't do the math. You also want to stop other forms of vaccination, such as MMR & DPT. That puts you square in the middle of anti-vac liar land. Enjoy hanging out with John Whaleto and the rest of your misanthropic ilk. - Show quoted text - |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What worries the rich ? | Bobby | Kids Health | 0 | June 7th 07 09:17 AM |
AGLOCO- this worries Google | [email protected] | Solutions | 0 | March 18th 07 07:51 PM |
AGLOCO- this worries Google | [email protected] | Solutions | 0 | March 11th 07 05:37 PM |
swaddling baby worries | Jen | General | 5 | January 24th 04 10:51 AM |
swaddling baby worries | Jen | Solutions | 4 | January 24th 04 10:51 AM |