Conservapedia talk:HPV vaccine FAQ
- It will be here when you get back :). I will keep plugging away as best I can while you are way. tmtoulouse heckle 19:14, 23 February 2008 (EST)
- Hey, I changed the "RW" refs to say: ''RW ref'': before the linked text so they match the CP ones. And did some minor copyediting. Nice work! human 19:40, 23 February 2008 (EST)
When Schlafly tried to put a cost to the vaccine and implied that it wasn't worth it, it made me realize that this is one of the most hypocritical things he has ever written, and probably one of the most evil. He has effectively put a value on a woman's life, and it's not even $50,000. ThunderkatzHo! 21:03, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- There is a video on YouTube of Schlafly (Eagle Forum) on MSNBC in regards to the HPV vaccine that just spews boobery. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRAdWFZRcmc I'm embarassed for him. Speakerface 09:20, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
Death by HPV vaccine?
Regarding the claim that there are no credible reports of death by HPV vaccine, I remember watching a report on the ABC World News claiming that the Food & Drug Administration recorded 18 deaths from Gardasil; that was from the 20 August 2008 edition according to my search of ABCNews.com. Thus I request that this be noted.--AP 02:02, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
- I don't think you fully understand that these reports actually mean, there is no casual relation in these reports, this is just "someone got injected and then this happened." Causal effects are derived from proper experimental controls and double blind studies that have not shown significant side effects. There maybe a few issues, but compared to cervical cancer it is nothing we can be confident that the deaths are not due to the HPV vaccine based on the substantial scientific evidence to the contrary. tmtoulouse 02:12, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
- OK, thanks for your clarification - you can't just trust everything that the mainstream media says. The reporter should've asserted that the vaccine was not clearly known to be a cause of death. I also clarified Question 9 to clarify that WND and others are claiming death by the vaccine, not HPV disease itself (typo maybe??)--AP 20:51, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
In reference to Conservapedia's "Answer 1", I agree with what it says, though probably not the motivations they have for raising the argument.
In fact, there is no clinical data that Gardasil (which is the specific vaccine we're talking about here) has ever prevented a single case of cervical cancer, or that it logically must do so as a consequence of HPV vaccination.
While it is true that Gardasil vaccinates against precisely two strains of HPV which are known to cause cervical cancer, there are 16 other strains of HPV which are also believed to do this. It is perfectly possible that by reducing the incidence of the specific two that Gardasil targets, one or more of the other 16 will immediately take advantage of the sudden unfilled biological niche. All that can be said about Gardasil based on known clinical data is that it will positively reduce the incidence of two particular carcinogenic strains of HPV (and also two particular non-carcinogenic strains...) and will thus reduce the incidence of cervical cancer attributable to those strains, not necessarily overall.
Gardasil really is not ready for FDA approval, and Merck's safety and efficacy studies raise many questions. I am not philosophically committed to a position that requires me to "hate" Gardasil; I am not anti-vax in general, I am not against HPV vaccination, and I don't know what Conservapedia is on about. But I am an undergraduate who is going into medicine, and I have read the FDA license application review and Merck's own pharmacology data. Between them, and Merck's marketing campaign that Gardasil will positively prevent cancer (which it has never done, as a matter of scientific fact), something is amiss.
The question of the aluminum adjuvant is not a question of whether aluminum adjuvants are safe to use in vaccines. They positively are. It's a question of "did Merck fudge their safety ratio by using a 'placebo' that is not chemically inert". Unknown. For efficacy trials, using a sham treatment that contains all the vaccine ingredients except the vaccine itself is good science. For safety trials, it is not.
Merck's financial motives for producing this vaccine, their (largely successful) lobbying campaign for it to be compulsory in prepubescent (despite that we don't know how long it lasts) girls (but not boys?) can be called into question as well. The issue is not that "it implies that our daughters are whores" or whatever a Christian Agenda might claim, but rather that the peak age for HPV infection is 20-24, and the peak age for signs of cervical cancer (pre-cancerous lesions) leading to a diagnosis is around 35-45. So of what actual benefit is using this vaccine on girls aged 5-14? This is currently unknown and warrants further information before it is done.
Plus the price Merck is asking for the vaccine. It is the most expensive approved vaccine in history. There's a joke running around that the "HPV" means "Help Pay for Vioxx lawsuits", which occurred a few years ago and cost Merck untold billions of dollars both directly and due to stock depression. Do the math on it: $120+ per injection * 3 injections per vaccination * (uncertain number of repeat vaccination ordeals per lifetime). $360 even if it's permanent, which is improbable. The claim that "a booster shot will not need to be the full 3 series of shots, so the cost will be much less" is unverifiable at this point. Plus it doesn't replace regular Pap screenings, so it doesn't save money on anything. It is not an intervention intended to replace any other previous one. Poorer people are the ones most likely to have bad sanitary and health-promoting practices, and are thus the ones most likely to need vaccinations. There is a high correlation between income disparity in a society and greater levels of unhealthiness among those at the bottom of the disparity. They are the ones who both would most need this vaccine and also could least afford it at the MSRP.
The fact of the matter is that cervical cancer due to HPV infection (which is not the only way to get cervical cancer) is not a pressing or growing medical threat, and there is no justification for the imminency that Merck is implying to sell their product. There is plenty of time for more testing, but Merck is attemtping to create an environment where that testing is not done, or at least where Gardasil is adopted en masse before it is done, so they can get their fat sacks of cash money all the faster. This is shyster behavior.
In reference to Rationalwiki's "Answer 6", your math is wrong.
A study published February 28, 2007 in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)  disclosed that about 3% of women are infected in their lifetime by the particular types of HPV (Types 6, 11, 16, 18) targeted by the vaccine. If generalized to the American female population at large, this would be approximately 5 million women (the size of a large American city). If generalized to the highest-risk age groups of women, the number of affected American women is probably closer to 2 million. This is not a trivial number of infections to prevent.
HPV6 and 11 do not cause cervical cancer. They cause genital warts. HPV16 and 18, plus sixteen other strains that Gardasil does nothing for cause cervical cancer. 26, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 53, 56, 58, 59, 66, 68, 73, and 82. Of particular note is that Merck decided to make Gardasil effective against two carcinogenic and two non-carcinogenic strains of HPV instead of four carcinogenic strains. Conspicously lacking in the formula is efficacy against HPV31. While the two carcinogenic strains Gardasil does work on account for about 7 out of 10 HPV-related cervical cancer infections currently, it is possible that all the vaccine will do is give this distinction to some of the other strains. Viruses mutate so rapidly that it makes little medical or economic sense to extinguish these strains two by two.
Given that you are using data which is half-irrelevant, the supplied paragraph cannot be justified.
It is also likely that after the vaccine's patent expires, its cost will drop dramatically. Additionally there's the ethical issue with this objection: who decides when a life is too expensive?
The actual question is "what decides when a drug is too expensive?" since there's no evidence that Gardasil has ever saved a single human life, and this is emotional douchebaggery. Even doctors in private practice are often refusing to stock this vaccine because it is so monumentally expensive. It sounds to me more like you guys are trying to apologize for Merck than in addressing Conservapedia's claims, which are actually lined with real facts, making them all the more dangerous if being used for a pernicious agenda.
In reference to Conservapedia's "Answer 9", they are getting this information from VAERS, which is almost useless for epidemiological data. One noted physician once got an entry approved in it that said that an influenza vaccine cause him to turn into The Incredible Hulk. You might want to use this angle.
CP mainpage item about paralysis by vaccine
- The doctors think that was a coincidence. When millions of people get a vaccine there will be a few bad coincidences. Even if the two were related one single bad reaction to the vaccine would have to be weighed against the four hundred lives which the vaccine saves. This could start a scare that will stop girls getting a vaccine that is largely good. Naturally those behind Conservapedia want that. Proxima Centauri 02:40, 17 December 2008 (EST)
- Thanks, I found this from this week's WIGO item 913.--AP 23:47, 18 December 2008 (EST)
Another thing to note about the "girls pass out due to the vaccination" nonsense is that according to the CDC, teenagers are the group most likely to pass out from any vaccination, known as vasovagal response. I know because I'm a sufferer. Ironically enough, I didn't have any problem with Gardasil at all! Search "vasovagal response" or "syncope vaccine" or a similar phrase to find the sources on this. — Unsigned, by: 18.104.22.168 / talk / contribs 23:56, 10 March 2009