February 27, 2007

HPV Infects One Quarter of US Women
— Ace

Sexual restraint isn't going to protect you when 25% of the population carries a bug. It only takes one time. Or one marriage, for that matter.

More than a quarter of U.S. girls and women ages 14 to 59 are infected with the sexually transmitted human wart virus, which causes most cases of cervical cancer, U.S. health officials estimated on Tuesday.

That means human papillomavirus or HPV infection is more common than previously thought, particularly among younger age groups, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers said. Its prevalence was highest among those 20 to 24, with 44.8 percent infected, and nearly a quarter of teenagers aged 14 to 19.
...

Using data from a nationally representative group of 1,921 girls and women ages 14 to 49 who provided vaginal swabs in 2003 and 2004, researchers led by the CDC's Dr. Eileen Dunne found that 26.8 percent were infected with any type of this virus.

...

HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States. High-risk HPV types can cause cervical, anal, penile and other genital cancers.

...

HPV infects about half of sexually active adults at some time, but usually is harmless. About 90 percent of infections clear within two years.

But the virus can cause abnormal cells in the cervix lining that can turn cancerous. Cancer of the cervix kills about 300,000 women worldwide annually, including about 4,000 in the United States.

Penile cancers too. Terrific. Since I fear vaginas, the cervical cancer stuff of course bothers me little (the enemy of my enemy is my friend), but now we're talking about my junk.

"Behavior has consequences," some say. So it does. But shouldn't the behavior of the US medical/pharmacological establishment -- working diligently to mostly eliminate a cancer caused by a common virus -- have consequences, too?

If God granted humans dominion over the animals, for us to hunt and eat, wouldn't He also be in favor of hunting down potentially lethal diseases?

Not to engage in cheap shots, but allow me one. It's not meant as a cheap shot, really. Just an analogy.

Why is it that some chuckle over the idea of reducing human happiness to save the snail darter, but there's a gut-level reluctance out there to wipe out a murderous virus?

I know the argument usually isn't put in that way, that is, affirmatively protecting the natural wetlands habitat of the human papillloma virus, but rather in terms of personal choice and parental authority.

Still, I guess I'm still not sure what the real "choice" is here -- choosing between eliminating a cancer risk, or choosing to keep that risk alive? Is that really a choice?

I just don't see the easy way out here. One can't say that simply abstaining until marriage will protect one from the risks of HPV (as well as the risks, if any, from the vaccine), given that a quarter of the population carries the virus. The only real non-medical protection isn't sexual restraint, but nearly absolute celibacy -- with testing prior to marriage to determine if either party's been infected, and, I suppose, calling off the marriage if turns out, as is likely, that one party's infected. And then back to the dating circuit hoping for a non-infected lifemate.


It Ain't HIV: I think some people don't accept these figures because they're analogizing it to HIV. HIV only infects a small fraction of the population; HIV is a sexually transmitted virus; as HPV is also a sexually transmitted virus, ergo it also must only infect a tiny fraction of the population.

That assumes that a virus is fairly difficult to spread -- as HIV is -- simply because it's chiefly transmitted through sex. Not necessarily so. A lot of viruses are extremely easy to catch -- anyone doubt they've been exposed to countless viruses in the past?

HIV isn't the "rule." It's an exception. We got, comparatively, lucky on that one -- it's lethal but, thankfully, also rather difficult to transmit. It was also, at least in its breakout period, self-limiting to a degree because it was so lethal -- it incapacitated its hosts with sickness, and then killed them, too quickly for it to spread further.

People shouldn't assume that all viruses are similarly courteous enough to be difficult to spread if they're potentially deadly.


Posted by: Ace at 03:39 PM | Comments (293)
Post contains 737 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Oh no...here we go again.

I, for one, have become a reluctant believer in the vacine after your unending important action alets and vicious rants. BUT...I think the vacine represents a turning point were more and more medical prcedures will be semi-mandatory for your own good. It does seem like a no brainer to wipe this disease out. But what about say...eliminating the gene for adiction, before you are born? What about a vacine that eliminated the virus that that may contribute on a tiny level to increased weight gain? At some point, things will become much less clear cut.

Posted by: Max Power at February 27, 2007 03:49 PM (q177U)

2 well... okay, yes, we may have to become selective about that.

Still... disease is different, especially one that causes cancer.

I actually think your hypothetical may come true -- I think schizophrenia, and perhaps a whole host of lunacies and personality defects, are caused by viruses.

We've got these little alien nanomachines taking over our cells.  We have no idea what kind of ill effects they're wreaking.


Posted by: ace at February 27, 2007 03:52 PM (+u1X0)

3 Ah... no, that stat sounds like crap to me.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 27, 2007 03:57 PM (wmgz8)

4 Oh, please.  Can I ask you what evidence you have the stat is crank apart from the political convenience of it being such?

Suppose it's inflated -- what is most it could be inflated by, in your opinion?  Doubled?  That seems to be the highest conceivable amount of inflation to me (and even that seems pushing it).

So, there you go:  Only one-eighth, not one-quarter, of the population's been exposed.  Feel safe?


Posted by: ace at February 27, 2007 04:01 PM (+u1X0)

5 perhaps a whole host of lunacies and personality defects, are caused by viruses.

Including homosexuality?

If yes, I totally agree.

On with the vaccines!

Posted by: Timmy in the well at February 27, 2007 04:01 PM (CQZcX)

6 HPV is extremely common. It's usually a harmless kind that typically goes way after awhile.

I say we at least wait for the vaccine that is suppossed to come out later this year that stops more of the potentially cancer-causing strains of HPV. I feel like reading some of these debates that the affects of the current one are being stretched a bit.

Posted by: corn at February 27, 2007 04:06 PM (yHvEo)

7 The CDC numbers aren't very encouraging.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm#common

What's the point of arguing that this isn't a serious issue? By age 50, 80% of women in America will have HPV. This isn't serious?

Posted by: JackStraw at February 27, 2007 04:08 PM (t+mja)

8 human pamploma virus

That's a bad one. When those bulls come running out with absolutely no warning during intercourse it can be frightening.

You've convinced me, by the way, not that I ever really disagreed that much.

Posted by: See-Dubya at February 27, 2007 04:08 PM (9fCxw)

9 Ace: ...human pamploma virus...

AY CARUMBA!!!!

Posted by: Some Spaniard at February 27, 2007 04:10 PM (oHd6r)

10 Since I fear vaginas...

Lol - that one still cracks me up.

Er, I should change that.

Posted by: at February 27, 2007 04:13 PM (dpudc)

11 Aww, myself, not this shit again...

Posted by: Jesus at February 27, 2007 04:13 PM (oHd6r)

12 The last time this came up, I think there were like 250 or something comments. This time I am going to take the over. Anyone want a piece of that action?





Posted by: Drew at February 27, 2007 04:15 PM (gNyUT)

13 The chair began to give way as Sophie Neveau and Robert Langdon squeezed through the window and into a nearby alley.

"Why are they chasing us?"  Neveau asked, frowning.  "Don't they know that I'm the only person on the force that can solve anagrams and ridiculously complicated puzzles?"

Langdon grinned.  "I've explained this to you.  They're not trying to put you in jail for any crime.  The act of placing you in a cell is their attempt to subjegate the power of the sacred feminine they sense in you."

Neveau thought about this as the pair broke into a car, hotwired it and drove past the police still looking for them.  As the police lights grew distant in the rearview mirror, she asked another question.

"What about sexually transmitted diseases?  If sexuality is an expression of divinity, why did the higher power allow worship to be affected by the weakness of flesh?"

Langdon grinned.  "That's a great question.  Think about it, though.  Who has the most to gain from spreading stories about how sex is bad and can kill you?"

Neveau frowned as she thought about it.  "The church, again?"

Langdon's grin grew wider.  "Absolutely.  Most people think the Council of Nicea was a meeting to decide what books went into the Bible.  That was only part of the agenda.  What is not often discussed is what happened on the second day, in the afternoon."

Neveau gave a curious look.  "Really, how can they know what happened so far in the past?"

"Well, most of the records were destroyed, but the gnostic gospels contain the minutes as recorded by Thelonious the Monk.  In those minutes, Monk talks about how the church needed to make sex undesirable and they decided the best way to do that was to start rumors about bad things that happened to you if you had sex outside of the Church's teaching."

Neveau looked shocked.  "You mean...?"

Langdon grinned.  "That's right," he said.  "Sexually transmitted diseases don't really exist."

Posted by: Dan Brown at February 27, 2007 04:23 PM (JrEqJ)

14 Still... disease is different, especially one that causes cancer.

Why? If I don't want the vaccine, why should I have to take it when it's not contagious outside of sexual interaction?

Yes I know _I_ am not a girl. But the point is still the same.

The only real non-medical protection isn't sexual restraint, but nearly absolute celibacy -- with testing prior to marriage

GASP! Horror!

Nearly absolute celibacy is nearly actual celibacy, instead of, you know, something that is not celibacy but you call it celibacy anyway.

So, you know, those people who said "you can prevent this virus by being celibant" ACTUALLY meant it literally!

Posted by: Entropy at February 27, 2007 04:25 PM (Uh5fR)

15 Thelonious the Monk

Posted by: Max Power at February 27, 2007 04:30 PM (q177U)

16 So those people that are practicing celibacy - all, what? five?- can get together and not worry about HPV.

The rest of us chose to live in the real world.

Posted by: Maureen at February 27, 2007 04:33 PM (+Yj3l)

17 My concern is that it hasn't been on the market that long and they already want to make it mandatory. I want to know about it's long term affects. HPV doesn't necessarily cause cancer, it could, but not always.

Posted by: pajama momma at February 27, 2007 04:34 PM (Pzdiv)

18 Penile cancers too.

So, ace, did you schedule an appointment to get the vaccine? No? If not, why not?

Posted by: at February 27, 2007 04:36 PM (zjWeF)

19 Is Entropy a celibant? What is a celibant?

Does the celibant understand that people, even celibants sometimes get raped? Does the celibant understand that husbands cheat on wives and bring them home diseases and vice versa.

Does he?

Posted by: seattle slough at February 27, 2007 04:38 PM (H5l9d)

20 So those people that are practicing celibacy - all, what? five?- can get together and not worry about HPV.

The rest of us chose to live in the real world.

So CHOOSE to take the goddamn vaccine.

I am not one of those 5 people. But why should those 5 people be forced to take this vaccine?

Posted by: Entropy at February 27, 2007 04:38 PM (Uh5fR)

21 An old ex of mine had cervix cancer. She told me they treated it by freezing it, but i don't remember how the freezing was done. She also said her doctor told her she most likely got it because a previous boyfriend of hers was uncircumcised. To this day i don't see what circumcision has to do with cancer, but that's probably why i'm not a doctor.

Posted by: forged rite at February 27, 2007 04:39 PM (AlciO)

22 Oh, and Entropy, show me where anyone is forced to take any vaccine. They aren't. You can opt out of all vaccines. You might not be allowed in public schools or the military or be able to work in a hospital, but that is the trade off you make when you are an a-hole freerider who benefits from the vaccines the rest of us take for the good of the species.

Posted by: seattle slough at February 27, 2007 04:41 PM (H5l9d)

23 Does the celibant understand that people, even celibants sometimes get raped? Does the celibant understand that husbands cheat on wives and bring them home diseases and vice versa.

No, I am not celibate.

But I am a fucking adult capable of understanding risks (and children have parents who are adults capable of understanding risks and have the legal right to make decisions for them).

None of this shit is remotely CLOSE to argument why anyone should be forced to take the vaccine.

All good arguments why you SHOULD take the vaccine, but not even a remote shred of argument why you should be forced.

You think anything you should do, is something the government ought to be able to force you to do for your own good????

Wasn't it Ace who previously mentioned that thing about "zero value" and how people allways want to outlaw what has zero value to them, but that the whole thing is entirely subjective?

Posted by: Entropy at February 27, 2007 04:41 PM (Uh5fR)

24 You might not be allowed in public schools or the military or be able to work in a hospital

That makes a whole friggin WORLD of sense considering how it is illegal for most public school students to have sex with each other.

It probably also violates some military laws and certainly company policies.

What does working in a hospital have to do with an STD? Are you going to have sex with your patients?

Posted by: Entropy at February 27, 2007 04:43 PM (Uh5fR)

25

 You might not be allowed in public schools or the military or be able to work in a hospital


Actually as far a public shcool in concerned you can have a waiver not to be vaccinated.


Posted by: pajama momma at February 27, 2007 04:45 PM (Pzdiv)

26 If you had a little child, and could immunize that child against getting Herpes, AIDS, and a host of other STDs, but the immunization was safe only while they were under the age of five, would you do it?

Posted by: lauraw at February 27, 2007 04:45 PM (DbybK)

27 The issues with the vaccine are that giving it to 12 year old girls could pose significant risks to a certain amount of the recipients.

Immune systems are not as well developed as when older, and the vaccine is merely the (hopefully) dead virus. I can see obvious risks over a large population of 12 year old girls.

Mainly, your daughter might not have an immune system able to handle the "mostly dead" virus at age 12 and could get the virus and possibly develop cancer and die.

So that's the risk.

On the other hand, reducing HPV dramatically can be done through inoculation later in life with more robust immune systems, and a public health effort to limit sex partners.

A gallon of Ben and Jerry's plus WoW repeated as necessary ought to do it :>

Posted by: Jim Rockford at February 27, 2007 04:45 PM (4878o)

28 God, make it stop!!! *headdesk*

Posted by: Sinistar at February 27, 2007 04:47 PM (oHd6r)

29 The argument that preaching celibacy to our kids is useless because so many people already have this virus...is just stupid. Sorry, but that is the way I see it.

We can teach future generations (you know the ones who are like 12 and 13 now) that THIS is just another example of the risks we take when we engage in sex before marriage.

It may be too late for you ace, but not for future couples. We are simply reaping what we sow folks.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 27, 2007 04:48 PM (gZ/8m)

30 If you had a little child, and could immunize that child against getting Herpes, AIDS, and a host of other STDs, but the immunization was safe only while they were under the age of five, would you do it?

Me? Yes. Probably. Especially under the age of 5. At the age of 15 (and it only worked up to 20), it would be a more difficult choice to be certain.

Others have different opinions. This isn't about me. Or you. People are allowed to make their own choices.

And you don't go giving your 11 year old the keys to the car but telling him not to drive it. You know,

"Johnny, DONT DRIVE THE CAR, but if you DO drive the car, I don't want you to electrocute yourself trying to hotwire it, so here are the keys in case you decide to drive it, I want you to drive it safely. BUT DON'T DRIVE IT! Just keep the keys but don't use them."

Posted by: Entropy at February 27, 2007 04:49 PM (Uh5fR)

31 I'm just a movie geek, can't really work this one out. It seems like those pushing the vaccine are taking at face value the claims made by the guys who are going to profit from it. Some of which seem to be completely unproven.

If those claims are 100% true, what to make of the claims that the vaccine is more effective when administered early and also needs to be boosted throughout life? Are we going to mandate those as well?

If we mandate this, will we be subjecting ourselves to another version of The Constant Gardener? 'cause cancer might be preferable.

Sorry. Had to add a little movie-based snark to stay in character.

Posted by: moviegique at February 27, 2007 04:49 PM (HScxl)

32 This thread reminds me of why I hate libertarians. So wiping out a form of cancer is government intrusion in your lives?

Libertarianism -- the comfortable, well-lit prison of a single idea.

Posted by: Hullaboloser at February 27, 2007 04:51 PM (CJ9vq)

33 Entropy,

My comment was concerning someone who opted out of all vaccines which is often the only way to opt out of any. (some places don't let you pick and choose). So it would be of great concern to the Military or a Hospital if someone didn't have a chicken pox or measles vaccine or immunity.

Obviously.

Posted by: seattle slough at February 27, 2007 04:51 PM (H5l9d)

34 Btw, our governor here in Texas, Rick Perry, just got in alot of hot water for REQUIRING this vaccine for all girls entering 6th grade.

Posted by: rightwingsparkle at February 27, 2007 04:51 PM (gZ/8m)

35 Of all things, the government does have the resources and easy ability to make certain diseases obsolete (see smallpox and polio) for children born within its borders.

Let us not hinder the one of maybe only four or five things the government can do competently. Please?

Posted by: lauraw at February 27, 2007 04:52 PM (DbybK)

36 RWS,

Perhaps we can improve matters by actively cultivating and spreading STD's.

If the current crop of STD's is good, then more of them should be better.

Posted by: ace at February 27, 2007 04:52 PM (+u1X0)

37 Entropy, who said anything about forcing you?

Now, if what you meant was that I was implying those that choose not to be immunized aren't too smart, then you might be on to something.

Posted by: Maureen at February 27, 2007 04:53 PM (+Yj3l)

38 I think we should just forgo the whole vaccine thing and go with the abstinence for all policy. Cause that has worked so well. In fact, let's tell kids not to do anything we don't want them to do but they really, really, really want to. I'm sure it will work. What could go wrong?

Posted by: JackStraw at February 27, 2007 04:55 PM (t+mja)

39 Me? Yes. Probably. Especially under the age of 5. At the age of 15 (and it only worked up to 20), it would be a more difficult choice to be certain.

Why would the difference in age of the child matter?

Posted by: lauraw at February 27, 2007 04:56 PM (DbybK)

40 However, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that more than half of American men will get HPV at some point in their lives.

Posted by: at February 27, 2007 04:59 PM (zjWeF)

41 My comment was concerning someone who opted out of all vaccines which is often the only way to opt out of any. (some places don't let you pick and choose).

That is precisely the point. There is big difference between this an malaria and are not properly distinguishing that.

You catch malaria because you were not vacinated, and any mosquito that bites you has it, and then when it bites me, I have it. In fact, I can get it (it is airborn, right?) just from being in the same room as you are. Or touching the same door handle.

To spread this disease, I have to have sex with you.

What if there was an AIDs vaccine that had a .005% chance of giving you AIDs and killing you? Should that be mandatory for someone who has only had sex with 1 person in their life and had them tested beforehand?

How bout a fuckin NUN? Should nuns be forced to take the .005% risk to be vaccinated in order to "eliminate the AIDs virus"?

If you're asking me if _I_ would take the vaccine, that is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT then asking me if I would try to force other people to take it.

Posted by: Entropy at February 27, 2007 05:00 PM (Uh5fR)

42 >>>
Libertarianism -- the comfortable, well-lit prison of a single idea.

Love it.

Posted by: ace at February 27, 2007 05:01 PM (+u1X0)

43 You go into the cage?

Cage goes into the water?

/shakes head/

STD's arrrrr in the water.

Posted by: Quint at February 27, 2007 05:01 PM (13Lea)

44 Ace,

Maybe we can cultivate some moral behavior instead? Why is the answer always a pill or a cure? How about not participating in behavior that spreads the disease in the first place?? Oh, then we can't do what we want, when we want sexually. Awww....

This isn't hard to understand or to remedy. In the 1950's there were FIVE known STD's. FIVE. Today there are over 50. FIFTY. What could possibly be the difference??? I wonder...

The number being so low in the 50's wasn't because of pills or vaccines. It was because WE DIDN'T SLEEP WITH EVERYONE WHO TOOK OUR FANCY.


Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 27, 2007 05:01 PM (gZ/8m)

45 I've heard anti-war types argue against weapons development, even the weapons that limit collateral damage (smart bombs, concrete anti-tank missiles, etc.). And they argue that the US shouldn't develop those weapons because it'll just make it easier for the government to start wars. I can't help but see a similarity in some of the arguments.

Posted by: dorkafork at February 27, 2007 05:02 PM (ksDNy)

46 There you go again, Ace.

Posted by: doc at February 27, 2007 05:04 PM (fZJcQ)

47 Entropy, who said anything about forcing you?

What other context has this even been mentioned in??? I never heard of this shit before people started talking about why it should be mandatory.

IE Texas.

I'm all for people choosing to take the vaccine in order to protect themselves.

I am not all for people being arm wrestled into taking it against their desire, either directly or indirectly by telling them they will be kicked out of school which has the same effect.

When you tell a mother, who cannot home school and cannot afford private school, that her child may not go to public school unless she's vaccinated, and she has to send her child to school in order to KEEP her child, what choice does she have?

Either she vaccinates the child, or the foster family that DCFS awards the child to does after it's taken away because the mother couldn't send it to school.

Posted by: Entropy at February 27, 2007 05:05 PM (Uh5fR)

48 dorkafork: Your dick is not a WMD.

Posted by: at February 27, 2007 05:06 PM (zjWeF)

49 Sheesh Ace, if you only read what I emailed to you last week, you would have had the facts on the infection rates of HPV that much sooner from the American Cancer Society.

I'm never looking out for you again, no matter how many times you tell me I'm handsome over tapas.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at February 27, 2007 05:07 PM (kc9zT)

50 >>>
To spread this disease, I have to have sex with you.

No.  The virus is spread PRIMARILY by sex.  Please stop redefining "primarily" as "exclusively."


>>>What if there was an AIDs vaccine that had a .005% chance of giving you
AIDs and killing you? Should that be mandatory for someone who has only
had sex with 1 person in their life and had them tested beforehand?


No.  I don't think "death" is on the list of this vaccine's side effects, though.  Stuff like fever -- same as every other vaccine.

Quite frankly, I give up.

Fine, you guys don't want your kids to have this vaccine, whatever.  I'll let you worry about your children.  If you're comfortable with retaining an unncessary risk of cancer for them, I guess it's impossible to change minds.

You can continue believing that because you're good parents your kids will inevitably be celibate until their wedding night when they have sex with someone who's also celibate, because, well, that's just the way it works.  No one's kids ever rebel or anything. 

I'm actually changing my position. Seriously.  if you want your kids exposed to the full panoply of STDs to enforce their chastity via an apparently Biblically-approved army of pathogens, fine. 

And if a daughter contracts cervical cancer, you can always call it God's will, though it was, of course, your own.



Posted by: ace at February 27, 2007 05:07 PM (+u1X0)

51 And if a daughter contracts cervical cancer, you can always call it God's will, though it was, of course, your own.

Fuck, that's harsh. You really weren't held enough as a child, were you?

Still, I won't argue with it.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at February 27, 2007 05:09 PM (kc9zT)

52 RWS,

Why cultivate internal moral restraints?  You seem to think the answer is more deadly disease.

So let's cultivate some pathogens in petri dishes, and then unleash them, so that we kill people who aren't chaste.

Because that's what God wanted.  Not behaving in a certain fashion  to show one's love of Him, but behaving that way out of a pragmatic, amoral fear of diseases.



Posted by: ace at February 27, 2007 05:09 PM (+u1X0)

53 Calm down Entropy, no one wants you to get the vaccine.   And the nuns aren't having sex with you, so that's not a problem.

People against this vaccine, preaching abstinence are being willfully ignorant to what actually goes on in the real world.  Like you and your malaria comparison.  Women marries someone she thinks is wonderful and will NEVER cheat on her.  Guess what?  Crappy partners happen.  And because she wasn't immunized when she was younger, now she has cancer. 

Posted by: Maureen at February 27, 2007 05:10 PM (+Yj3l)

54 Who cares if their pooters are seething cesspools of virulent desease and pestilence, these girls are EMPOWERED!

Posted by: Kasper Hausers. at February 27, 2007 05:12 PM (7Avsq)

55 Can anyone tell me why this vaccine only works on children?

Posted by: Entropy at February 27, 2007 05:12 PM (Uh5fR)

56 Entropy,

Are you saying all sexual acts are voluntary? Because, last I checked, people get raped. Or didn't you hear about that?

I've heard statistics that guess that one out of about every four women get raped at some point in their lives. I don't know. Do you?

Posted by: seattle slough at February 27, 2007 05:13 PM (H5l9d)

57 I really had no idea God approved of hunting deer and birds of the field, but considered viruses to be sancrosanct and therefore off-limits to human poaching.

Now I know better.

It's a strange God, I guess.  One can't know his mind and all that.  Deer we can kill, trees we can kill, poisonous serpents we can kill.

But sexually transmitted viruses are special.  He created those, you see, *for a reason.* 

Posted by: ace at February 27, 2007 05:14 PM (+u1X0)

58 Ace,

First of all, I do not think "the answer is more deadly disease." Which is as ridiculous as the rest of your statement. I have not mentioned God in this. Why bring Him up in such a sarcastic way? You are making assumptions about me that are inaccurate and make you look silly. You are arguing with a figment of your imagination because I never made the argument with God in mind. I made it with NATURE in mind. Nature is what makes us reap what we sow. Whether it be in the earth or in our behavior.

And you don't have to believe in God to understand that.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 27, 2007 05:16 PM (gZ/8m)

59 I can't take this argument anymore...

Posted by: Sinistar at February 27, 2007 05:17 PM (oHd6r)

60 Ace,

And while you rant on about "God." I will point out that I never said I wouldn't use the vaccine on my daughter or that it shouldn't be used.

I was just pointing out the obvious way of humans avoiding having this particular virus to begin with.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 27, 2007 05:18 PM (gZ/8m)

61 I understand if a guy gets a really bad case of them, he can still convince the ladies to have sex with him. The trick is to say you are wearing a french tickler.

Posted by: at February 27, 2007 05:23 PM (H826O)

62 Was it OK to virtually eradicate smallpox only because it wasn't sexually transmitted?

Posted by: lauraw at February 27, 2007 05:24 PM (DbybK)

63 Nature is what makes us reap what we sow.

Do you make your kids wear seatbelts in the car?

Posted by: lauraw at February 27, 2007 05:26 PM (DbybK)

64 This God's will idea seems selectively applied.

We used to have a high rate of infant mortality.  Now we have a relatively low one.

Have we violated God's will? 

How do the God's Will followers know when God's will is that we let diseases continue infecting people, and when his will is that we use the intelligence, igenuity, and industry he gifted us with to eliminate them?

No one seems to miss chicken pox. Or measels, or rubella.  Or smallpox, or polio.

But now I'm informed that *this* virus is part of his plan.

Okay.  Not sure where it says that in the Bible, but if that's what you believe, I can't convince you otherwise.  You can't reason someone out of a position they were never reasoned into.


Posted by: ace at February 27, 2007 05:26 PM (+u1X0)

65 ok, now that we have some dissension, i'll go ahead and take the over on the post number

Posted by: corn at February 27, 2007 05:27 PM (yHvEo)

66 Celibacy isn't all that incredibly difficult or impossible. Even if it makes you feel better to say that it is. Which political leaning likes to make the truth out to be something that makes them feel good about themselves again?

The real world says that you get to be responsible for your actions. All of them. You are not an animal.

Posted by: JosephD at February 27, 2007 05:30 PM (HAyPN)

67 lauraw,

I'm not arguing against the vaccine at all. I think it is well and good to have this vaccine for people. Just because I ask why do we always have to have a pill for something, doesn't mean I don't think we should have the pill.

You and Ace are trying to argue with me about something I have no problem with. I just don't see why we can't do both. Have a vaccine AND teach our children the risks they take when they engage in certain behaviors.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 27, 2007 05:31 PM (gZ/8m)

68 I'm sorry, but if my dick is in trouble (theoretically) because one quarter of women out there have rotten tacos, then ladies, you're just going to have to take one for the team.

I'd do it for you...

Posted by: Mark V. at February 27, 2007 05:31 PM (X5HHU)

69 > I'll let you worry about your children.

That's mighty big of you!

Posted by: Guy T. at February 27, 2007 05:33 PM (KB6nn)

70 >>>You are arguing with a figment of your imagination because I never made
the argument with God in mind. I made it with NATURE in mind. Nature is
what makes us reap what we sow.

Please.  You don't have polio, do you?  Does anyone you know have polio?

Gee, why is that?

Is that because man eliminated a scourge of NATURE?

Was that a bad thing, RWS?

Your selective belief in "Nature" -- that "nature" should continue to rule our lives and damage our health, *even when we are capable of changing it* -- is selectively invoked only when we're talking about diseases that you see as proper punishment for bad behavior.

You're right now using electricity, taking advantage of artificial light, communicating with strangers hundreds of miles away at the speed of light (or at least at the speed of electrons in fiber optic cables, which is close enough). 

You have no beef with mankind using his God-granted abilities to adapt NATURE to better fit him, *except* in this particular context.

If you were only talking about NATURE, you wouldn't be dicking around with me right now on a computer, well past the time that the NATURAL clock of biology & the sun's progression dictates you should be asleep.

You're talking about NATURE only when you see it as vindicating/enforcing God's will.


Posted by: ace at February 27, 2007 05:34 PM (+u1X0)

71 The stats in the article don't make sense to me. First they say that 26% have the virus, and then say this translates into 25 million girls and women being infected. Uhh, last time I checked this country had a population of 300 million, and even allowing for those under age 14, there would be not less than 100 million infected if the rate were 26%.

That being said, even if only 25M are infected, if 4K die per year, that's less than a 1 in 6000 per year chance of dying of HPV. That's a damn site better odds than even run-of-the-mill influenza will give you.

Posted by: mike at February 27, 2007 05:34 PM (qCOW1)

72 What I don't get is why only the girls are being targeted for vaccination, seeing how they get it from guys. If it's a real public health issue, why shouldn't everyone get vaccinated?

It's quite tiresome, anyway -- these vaccines are far more expensive than the other vaccines out there, vaccinate against only a couple HPV strains (you could still get the other HPV strains and still have to go for annual pap smears and can still end up with cervical cancer), and is not something that you can spread around just by going to school.

Remember school vaccinations are required because little kiddies are great at spreading things like measles and flu -- there have been studies that vaccinating kids for the flu would reduce the flu mortality of =old= people. It would be a far better use of healthcare $$ to require annual flu shots for kids. Kids rarely die from the flu, but Grandma and Granddad can end up with fatal pneumonia from a schoolkid visit.

Heck, it would probably be better if the kids were being given cholesterol and glucose checks, as heart disease and/or diabetes is much more likely to kill them in the long run.

Posted by: meep at February 27, 2007 05:34 PM (UJPBc)

73 1 out of 4 women have warts?

Does that mean either Laura, Seattle Slough, Nice Deb or Mrs. Pell has genital warts?

Posted by: at February 27, 2007 05:36 PM (/InkS)

74 I'd like to further note that heart disease, lung cancer, and diabetes probably kill far, far more people than this does. That in mind, should we completely outlaw cheeseburgers, cigarettes, and candy while we're at it? How about booze, since that seems to be a pretty damn prevalent cause of death.

Let the twits self-select their way into extinction.

Posted by: JosephD at February 27, 2007 05:36 PM (HAyPN)

75 >>>Have a vaccine AND teach our children the risks they take when they engage in certain behaviors.

PLEASE!! No one has suggested otherwise!!! This is a late in the game claim, isn't it? 

Now you're saying that we've been arguing there SHOULD NOT be such a talk?

Give me a break.  I'm about 75% on board with the social cons' desire for greater sexual restraint, and I support most of the steps you do to achieve that.

Where I depart from you is this insistence that sometimes God needs a helping hand in enforcing his morality from his little microscopic handmaindens of virtue, diseases.


Posted by: ace at February 27, 2007 05:37 PM (+u1X0)

76 "Celibacy isn't all that incredibly difficult or impossible."

Of course not, it's ridiculously easy! Just get married.

Posted by: at February 27, 2007 05:37 PM (H826O)

77 It's funny to see the Libertarians get all huffy and play the part of moralist.

It's also funny to see Ace's Wacky anti-Religious Translator running at full tilt.

No matter what RWS types, it translates as: God hates whores. God hates fags. God punishes sinners.

Can we move on to a purely ethical, moral, and long-term discussion, and leave out the Christian bashing?
Good. I have a question.

Let's say that we created a vaccine for death. (Not a vaccine that could make one immortal, but a vaccine that could revitalize a person after being dead from a GSW within 12 hours of death).

Okay. So, the vaccine can be used on a person who has been stabbed a hundred times. The doctors made all the repairs, replenished the blood supply, and then administered the drug, thus bringing the victim back to life.

Clearly, the person was murdered. And the perpetrator was caught and charged with murder. But now we have a crafty lawyer person who will argue that his client, the defendant, is not guilty of murder and proves his case by pointing at the victim who is alive and well.

What's the result? (Bear with me; I have a point).

Well, for one, the charges will probably be lowered to a crime less than murder; perhaps assault with a deadly weapon.

But what really just happened? Our entire system of justice and value of human life was drastically altered. Murder is no longer murder. So, I ask what are the ramifications, really, of this wonder drug that can bring victims back to life? Are we better or worse off for it?

Posted by: Bart at February 27, 2007 05:38 PM (lEN/z)

78 Ace,

You are either not reading my comments or you are just being obtuse.

You have no beef with mankind using his God-granted abilities to adapt NATURE to better fit him, *except* in this particular context.

I will say this slowly for you. I have no "beef" with mankind using his God granted abilities to adapt EVEN IN THIS PARTICULAR CONTEXT.

I have no problem with this vaccine. Just as I have no problem with any medicine that helps man, no matter what or how he got a disease. Sexually or otherwise.

You are projecting here. I'm not disagreeing with you about the vaccine, so stop being an a**hole about it.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 27, 2007 05:41 PM (gZ/8m)

79 But sexually transmitted viruses are special. He created those, you see, *for a reason.*

If you're so worried about your dick falling off, wear a condom or volunteer to receive the vaccine.

Posted by: at February 27, 2007 05:41 PM (zjWeF)

80 Bart,

What if dolphins all started talking in fluent human speech, but it turned out they only wanted to talk about eating hot dogs and "getting some ass"?  And they just would never shut up?

Again, our whole worldview would be turned upside down.


Posted by: ace at February 27, 2007 05:42 PM (+u1X0)

81 >>>No matter what RWS types, it translates as: God hates whores. God hates fags. God punishes sinners.

"NATURE has consequences" would seem to be saying that, at least the last part.

Further, as you have yourself explicitly endorsed such a notion, I find it rather strange to hear you claiming that "no one believes such a ridiculous idea."

Posted by: ace at February 27, 2007 05:44 PM (+u1X0)

82 You're talking about NATURE only when you see it as vindicating/enforcing God's will.


Where I depart from you is this insistence that sometimes God needs a helping hand in enforcing his morality from his little microscopic handmaindens of virtue, diseases.

In both these statements you are just talking out of your a**. I never made any such assertions, NOR do I believe God works that way.

We are our own worst enemies, my dear, God need not intervene for that to be true.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 27, 2007 05:45 PM (gZ/8m)

83 What I don't get is why only the girls are being targeted for vaccination, seeing how they get it from guys. If it's a real public health issue, why shouldn't everyone get vaccinated?

Because they haven't done any studies on guys though 50% of men get it. I hear Ace is going to volunteer to be a guinea pig, though.

Posted by: at February 27, 2007 05:45 PM (zjWeF)

84 Doesn't human papillomavirus concern you?

Because human papillomavirus should concern us all.

Posted by: David Caruso at February 27, 2007 05:45 PM (2gclm)

85 "they only wanted to talk about eating hot dogs and "getting some ass"?  And they just would never shut up?"

Holy shit. My freshman year roommate was a talking dolphin?  Who knew?



Posted by: Drew at February 27, 2007 05:46 PM (gNyUT)

86 Way to elevate the discussion.

Seriously, are you hopped up on goofballs?

Posted by: Bart at February 27, 2007 05:46 PM (lEN/z)

87 RWS, then I don't understand your frequent laments that "NATURE" dictates that "behaviors have consequences."

The NATURE of man is to eradicate diseases, and his behaviors along these lines have consequences, too.



Posted by: ace at February 27, 2007 05:46 PM (+u1X0)

88 Christ, ace, sometimes you're a bigger pussy than Glenn Greewald Sullivan. People don't agree with you? Stomp off with your marbles. Maybe fart in their lunchbag with they're not looking. So have you gone to get the vaccine yet? Protect your junk!

I'll probably vaccinate my girl. That's the choice I make as a parent. It'll probably be a part of a dozen other vaccinations, so the problem of telling her what's she's being given likely won't come up. As she gets older, she'll ask, and I'll tell her, and I trust that I'll have done my job well enough that she won't go out and powerhump every baloney pony out there.

It's not the place of the government to mandate it, though, as it's not anywhere near the level of an epidemic like polio.

Posted by: rho at February 27, 2007 05:47 PM (aLDBr)

89 "If the current crop of STD's is good, then more of them should be better."

Top Ten new and improved STD's coming to your cha-cha:

10) Frilly Scrotum

9) Penis weasels

Vagina-flytrap

7) Rocky Rectum

6) Testicular Fission

5) Buttery Crust

4) Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Clap

3) Carbonated Semen

2) Vulvan Deathgrip

1) Cheneyism

Posted by: rinseandspit at February 27, 2007 05:48 PM (AOEPL)

90 Libertarians, Death vaccines and talking dolphins...aren't conversations like that supposed to end with"man I'm sooo baked right now"?

Posted by: Sinistar at February 27, 2007 05:48 PM (oHd6r)

91 Bart,

With all due respect, you're talking about some fucking Star Trek hypothetical. 

Do you really think your Resurrection Vaccine is an interesting topic of debate?

Who's hopped up on goofballs here?

PS:

What If the Resurrection Vaccine was used on Bruce Wayne's parents?  Would he stop being Batman?  Or would he just stop being such a dick?

Posted by: ace at February 27, 2007 05:49 PM (+u1X0)

92 THE ANDROMIDA STRAIN RRAWWKK RRRAAWWKK WILDFIRE WILDFIRE THERES BEEN A FIRE RRAAWWKKK RRAWWKK THERE ARE NOW 5 MINUTE TO SELF DISTRUCT

Posted by: spurwing plover at February 27, 2007 05:50 PM (0Wk0b)

93
Of course not, it's ridiculously easy! Just get married.

Yeah, tell that to my friend, who just found out her "loving" husband of 10 years was cheating on her, and everyone else who found out similar things about their spouse/partner.

Posted by: Maureen at February 27, 2007 05:51 PM (+Yj3l)

94 I agree with spurwing...

Posted by: Sinistar at February 27, 2007 05:52 PM (oHd6r)

95 I think spurwing nailed it on this one.

Posted by: corn at February 27, 2007 05:53 PM (yHvEo)

96 No matter what RWS types, it translates as: God hates whores. God hates fags. God punishes sinners.

So true Bart.

And he gave a perfect example next comment:

"NATURE has consequences" would seem to be saying that, at least the last part.

That is NOT what I am saying at all. If I didn't believe in God, I would still believe in nature and how the world works. It's the physical world that we all "believe" in. If you accidently drop a bowling ball from a 6th story window on someone in the street below and they die, there are two things that made that happen. Your stupidity for dropping the ball and GRAVITY. You know, nature, the physical world.

Remember the big oil spill in Alaska several years ago? Oh, how the environmentalists said that the area would never recover. But it did and has. That's nature. And that's what I'm talking about. Nature reacts. And with STD's, it's reacting in humans.

Posted by: at February 27, 2007 05:53 PM (gZ/8m)

97 >>>Christ, ace, sometimes you're a bigger pussy than Glenn Greewald
Sullivan. People don't agree with you? Stomp off with your marbles.
Maybe fart in their lunchbag with they're not looking. So have you gone
to get the vaccine yet? Protect your junk!

Well I'm not banning anyone.  I'm not stomping off and saying the hell with the lot of you, or whining that you've all deserted me, etc.

But yeah, I'm annoyed.

And you know what?  If people I know to be religious are going to sit here and tell me that there reluctance about this particular vaccine is in NO WAY influenced by their desire for Godly behavior (even if such behavior is actually compelled by ungodly concerns, such as fear of disease), I'm going to have to say stop pissing on me and telling me it's raining.

"Behavior has consequences" and "NATURE imposes these penalties" are just dishonest ways to talk about this.



Posted by: ace at February 27, 2007 05:53 PM (+u1X0)

98 The 10:53 comment was me.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 27, 2007 05:55 PM (gZ/8m)

99 >>Celibacy isn't all that incredibly difficult or impossible. Even if it makes you feel better to say that it is.

This could be the most rediculous statement in the entire thread. Only the history of man disagrees with it.

Celibacy for an individual may be easy. Celibacy for a population of a couple hundred million is impossible. It doesn't matter if you don't like it. It's just a simple fact. It doesn't even work in a population that chooses celibacy like, well we all know what.

Humans ARE animals and they will have sex. Even in the 50's.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 27, 2007 05:56 PM (t+mja)

100 Does that mean either Laura, Seattle Slough, Nice Deb or Mrs. Pell has genital warts?

I'm guessing Seattle.

No one listened to me when I said this last time, but I'll say it again: When I had this argument with Feisty about six-eight months ago, she made a lot of excellent points and changed my mind. I had originally felt I wouldn't administer the vaccine to a daughter if I had one, but as she pointed out, the daughter could make all the "right" choices and still contract HPV easily, if her partner has had just one other partner. So, after thinking about that, I changed my mind. I am in favor of the vaccine being added to the roster along with MMR and so forth.

All I am saying is: this particular vaccine has been on the market for seven months. There's good reason to believe Merck is pushing it so aggressively because they want to recoup their losses from Vioxx. Is there just a tiny, wee, little chance that perhaps this vaccine was a bit rushed to market? If there is such a chance, could we perhaps wait six months or a year before we add it to the roster of mandatory vaccines?

Posted by: Mrs. Peel at February 27, 2007 05:57 PM (njtAn)

101 Anonymous One:

Yes, and when a vaccine comes along to *change* "NATURE," at least as nature imposes penalties for sex, suddenly the claim isn't merely that "NATURE has consequences" but that "NATURE has these consequences, and it's wrong to change NATURE, because, hey, these consequences are part of NATURE."

That's the point of this vaccine.  Or any other technological or medical advance -- *changing "NATURE."* 

And yet there's no squawking about it when the change is not somehow related to human sexuality.

But like I said, have a party, do what you want.  I'm not your kids' protectors. 

In honesty, I always did buy the libertarian complaint here -- that this was government coercion.  And it is.  And I saw that as desirable because I just know there are going to be a lot of parents who decide their kids should suffer through life with a risk of cancer that should be avoided.  And while I believe in parental authority to a large degree, I don't know if I think parents have the right to inflict cancer on their kids, just for shits and grins.

But I'm actually retracting my support for a more coercive immunization regime.

Because you know what?  Nature has consequences.  So does ignorance.

Let the consequences flow from each.

Posted by: ace at February 27, 2007 05:58 PM (+u1X0)

102

 Is there just a tiny, wee, little chance that perhaps this vaccine was a bit rushed to market?


That's exactly the concern I have.


Posted by: pajama momma at February 27, 2007 06:02 PM (Pzdiv)

103 See?

See what global warmening has wrought?

Sigh. I tried to warn you.

Posted by: Al Gore at February 27, 2007 06:03 PM (odS+4)

104 >>>All I am saying is: this particular vaccine has been on the market for
seven months. There's good reason to believe Merck is pushing it so
aggressively because they want to recoup their losses from Vioxx. Is
there just a tiny, wee, little chance that perhaps this vaccine was a
bit rushed to market? If there is such a chance, could we perhaps wait
six months or a year before we add it to the roster of mandatory
vaccines?

It is possible. 

I would ask in turn -- how much more testing do you want, for how many years?

Six months or one year?  Well, that's not long.  then again, if there are the sort of long-term side effects some fear, one year is hardly going to reveal them.

And do you imagine the risks of vaccinating exceed the risks flowing from the vaccination?  Bear in mind the vaccination only works *before* becoming infected, as most vaccines do.

Your concerns are rational, and no one can forget Thalidomide. 

But then, one has to balance likelihoods.   I really don't know of any vaccines that have gone badly wrong.  Does anyone know of a case of this, and how often this happens?



Posted by: ace at February 27, 2007 06:03 PM (+u1X0)

105 Well Ace, since I never made the argument that I wouldn't want my daughter or others to have this vaccine I guess that makes your assumptions about religous people wrong.

I think most people's argument against this is that it has to be required. Which I think as a libertarian you might be against as well. I know people who homeschool and don't get ANY of the vaccines because they feel they are dangerous. And those vaccines have nothing to do with behavior. So stop sterotyping.


And you usually are wrong about religious people. You put words in my mouth because of YOUR PREJUDICES. You ASSUME I believe a certain way because you have put all Christians in a box, just like the liberals do. I can almost guarentee that on most things of what you THINK I believe, you would be wrong. Just like you were on my position on divorce in Pres. candidates.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 27, 2007 06:04 PM (gZ/8m)

106 >>>>Because you know what? Nature has consequences. So does ignorance.
Let the consequences flow from each.


FINISH HER!!!


FATALITY!!!!! DARWIN WINS!!!

Posted by: Sinistar at February 27, 2007 06:07 PM (oHd6r)

107 Bear with me; I have a point.

Bart, still waiting for a point.

Posted by: Hullabaloser at February 27, 2007 06:07 PM (CJ9vq)

108 Ace, I'm curious as to what criteria you use when you decide in what scienctific evidence to believe.

You're more than skeptical, and rightly so, about clinate change theory. Yet you seem to be in full-panic mode about this HPV alert.

Posted by: Bart at February 27, 2007 06:07 PM (lEN/z)

109 Let the twits self-select their way into extinction.

Umm, my Mom has had cervical cancer. As far as I know, she has had two husbands and that many sexual partners. Not a party girl, my old ma.

But even if I knew her to be promiscuous, I'd still want her around. Go fuck yourself with a pineapple.

My best girlfriend has also had it. Again, not one who passes herself around. Please feel free to suck Satan's barbed cock.

The fact is, a woman can get this even when she does absolutely nothing wrong. And even if she does do something wrong, don't we still want to protect her, if she's your kid?

Sincerely; was it a big matter of freedom and choice when smallpox was the target for elimination?

Posted by: lauraw at February 27, 2007 06:08 PM (DbybK)

110 RWS,

I'm not a libertarian, and I say so just about every week.  You and Bart seem to think that any conservative who isn't a full-on social or religious con is a "libertarian." 

Not so.  I'm a moderate social con with some minor libertarian leanings.  I'm actually more social con than I am libertarian.


Posted by: ace at February 27, 2007 06:08 PM (+u1X0)

111 Hey, when we're done here, let's start a thread on floridated water!!!

Posted by: Hullabaloser at February 27, 2007 06:08 PM (CJ9vq)

112 Yes, and when a vaccine comes along to *change* "NATURE," at least as nature imposes penalties for sex, suddenly the claim isn't merely that "NATURE has consequences" but that "NATURE has these consequences, and it's wrong to change NATURE, because, hey, these consequences are part of NATURE

You are talking out of your a** AGAIN. And you are making assumptions based on YOUR IGNORANCE. I never said we should just let nature take it's course and for this disease to be spread. In fact I said the opposite.

Go take a anti-a**hole pill and come back when you actually read my comments in full before answering them.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 27, 2007 06:09 PM (gZ/8m)

113 Stupid vs. Natural Selection/Survival of the Species

Guess who wins?

Posted by: Maureen at February 27, 2007 06:10 PM (+Yj3l)

114 Ace, you're being a hysterical ninny on this.

Is there some huge epidemic of cervical cancer that we can't afford to wait two years? In two years, the vaccine will have been tested and refined, with far fewer bad reactions, and another company will have a chance at lowering the price.

How much is it going to cost to vaccinate every schoolgirl in America at $600 a pop? Whose taxes do we raise?

Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at February 27, 2007 06:10 PM (7oczY)

115 >>>And you usually are wrong about religious people. You put words in my
mouth because of YOUR PREJUDICES. You ASSUME I believe a certain way
because you have put all Christians in a box, just like the liberals
do.

No, I don't put all Christians in a box.  But if a Christian, such as yourself, keeps repeating NATURE HAS CONSEQUENCES and objects to a vaccine that can eliminate these consequences, and those consequences just happen to occur due to sex...

Well, I don't need an advanced degree to do the math.



Posted by: ace at February 27, 2007 06:11 PM (+u1X0)

116 Whew! The sexuial tension on this thread tonight is just delicious!

Posted by: Kasper Hauser at February 27, 2007 06:11 PM (7Avsq)

117 >>>
Is there some huge epidemic of cervical cancer that we can't afford to wait two years?

4000 cases per year in the US.  Is that an "epidemic"?  I don't think it's an "epidemic," but it does seem like a nontrivial number.

I'm sure each of the 4000 women suffering from cervical cancer per year consider it nontrivial as well.


Posted by: ace at February 27, 2007 06:12 PM (+u1X0)

118 I'm a moderate social con with some minor libertarian leanings. I'm actually more social con than I am libertarian.

Well, tonight you are just being a moderate jerk with some minor bigoted leanings.

You are not the only one who gets ticked off you know.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 27, 2007 06:13 PM (gZ/8m)

119 Damn, this subject just gets everyone's juices flowing.

Posted by: Slublog at February 27, 2007 06:15 PM (JrEqJ)

120 If the current crop of STD's is good, then more of them should be better."

gashtric reflux

butt or nut squash

willy wonka

Posted by: dr. no at February 27, 2007 06:15 PM (hew5Z)

121 Forced/semi-mandatory vaccine = pure profit for Merck, and about the only way they'll make back the investment on the vaccine.

Things worth knowing about HPV for those of you who've never had the joy of finding out you've been exposed:

Had two or more partners? You've very likely been exposed. Condoms are inadequate protection as the virus may be shedding in areas not covered by one, or from areas that aren't protected against by one. The can also be passed mother to child during birth, so any moral judgment on the infected is suspect at best.

Are you male? You'll likely never have any clue you carry the virus, and you cannot even be tested without a warty outbreak, which isn't the same strain that causes cancer (though they often travel together).

Are you a female smoker? Bad news, you are most likely to have a symptom. Likely to be one bad PAP, ever. In the unlikely event that you have two bad PAPs, you'll be recommended a colposcopy to check out the squamous cells. A really bad colp means you'll be recommended freezing or lasers to treat the precancerous lesions. A not so bad colp and you can likely quit smoking and take good care of yourself and it'll clear up.

Most importantly, HPV infection, when it has symptoms at all, is almost negligible in effect, and most people can eventually fight off the virus with no major symptoms. It's a chronic, localized infection, meaning taking good care of yourself and maintaining a strong immune system will usually be plenty to beat the virus.

The viruses in the HPV family are almost all innocuous (there are like 100+ strains, only 4 of which ever have symptoms) , and even those that do cause symptoms are rarely of significant impact. This is part and parcel of why they are so widespread.

Oh, and the huge warts you may have seen pictures of? The ones that look like broccoli? Those are usually due to a damaged immune system unable to fight off the virus. Even the warty strains of HPV usually don't result in visible warts for most people.

/PSA

Posted by: leoncaruthers at February 27, 2007 06:15 PM (wSoj/)

122 >>>How much is it going to cost to vaccinate every schoolgirl in America at $600 a pop? Whose taxes do we raise?

I don't know that the schools are buying the vaccines themselves, same as they don't vaccinate for MMR themselves.  They just require it.

So most people will be covered by their insurance, right?  It may even be the case that calling this a "mandatory" vaccine helps people get it covered under their insurance programs.  That's just a complete make-'em-up, though. 

The rest will be subsidized, as most health care for the poor is.

You're going to wind up paying for a poor person's cervical cancer anyway; this would seem to be getting money *back*.

As for how long we should test this... admittedly, more testing is better.  Sort of.  You can test a cure forever and wind up never actually administering it, in which case it's not a cure.




Posted by: ace at February 27, 2007 06:16 PM (+u1X0)

123 No, I don't put all Christians in a box. But if a Christian, such as yourself, keeps repeating NATURE HAS CONSEQUENCES and objects to a vaccine that can eliminate these consequences, and those consequences just happen to occur due to sex...

Well, I don't need an advanced degree to do the math.


No, but maybe you need a degree IN READING. Go back and read my comments. Seriously. It is really ticking me off that you aren't reading them.

I will repeat...I DO NOT OBJECT TO THIS VACCINE!

Saying that actions have consequences doesn't mean that we can't do something about the consequences. Which I said before...

Geeze.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 27, 2007 06:16 PM (gZ/8m)

124 I'm not against flouridated water, per se. I'm just against the goverment forcing me and my family to use flouridated water.

People have to understand that the lack of oral hygene has consequences. Flouridated water will give us and our children a license to forgo flossing. Besides, if we wait, scientists may come up with better, less expensive flouride

Posted by: Hullabaloser at February 27, 2007 06:19 PM (CJ9vq)

125

How many of you little nail biters ever got a wart on your thumb?  Huh?  I thought so.  You've been exposed to a form of HPV.


The majority of cervical abnormalities are from HPV, but the majority of HPVs don't cause genital warts.  Ruminate on that a bit.


There's a shit load of viruses out that that have already infected you and are waiting for some kind of external trigger to turn on and go ape-shit. 


Some have even speculated that common cold viruses are always present in us and all it takes is a 2 degree drop in core body temperature to turn the little fuckers on.  Your grandma was right...don't go out with wet hair.  And wear a hat, you ingrate.


Posted by: monica at February 27, 2007 06:20 PM (rFLG5)

126 How much is it going to cost to vaccinate every schoolgirl in America at $600 a pop? Whose taxes do we raise?

Oy. First, it's $360 total not $600. And as I said the other day, Rick Perry was on the tube on Sunday talking about this. If this had gone through in Texas, the estimated cost to the state was app $35 million. Big money.

The cost to the state today to treat women with cervical cancer is $320 million. Really big money. So even if this is purely a money issue, it's a good deal.

Carry on.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 27, 2007 06:20 PM (t+mja)

127 4000 cases per year in the US. Is that an "epidemic"? I don't think it's an "epidemic," but it does seem like a nontrivial number.

Not to be hearless, but at $360 a shot, it’s the most expensive vaccine ever created.

There are 29,715,872 girls under 14 in the US. That’s $10,697,713,920, or 2.6 million spent for each case of cervical cancer. I believe I heard that the vaccine will only save a percentage of that, maybe 70%, so we’re talking about 2800 women.

Then, you've got to wonder how many adverse vaccine reactions you expect out of 29 million girls?

Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at February 27, 2007 06:22 PM (7oczY)

128 lauraw,

Your point is exactly the reason for this vaccine and the one that those against it can't seem to understand.  I haven't had a friend or family member with cervical cancer, but I have had a sister and and several friends with the "precancerous" scares.  Not the same thing at all, but enough to scare them shitless. 

I second the suggestion that they suck the barbed cock.  And I hope their junk shrivels up and falls off.

Posted by: Maureen at February 27, 2007 06:23 PM (+Yj3l)

129 Why aren't men targeted for the vaccine?  Well, part of it has to do with the fact that there is no test for men.  If they have no visible warts, then men are asymptomatic for the virus, and there is no blood/semen test for it.

I'd never heard of a strain that causes penile cancer, but I'm guessing the vaccine doesn't prevent that strain.  It only targets a small fraction of the number of strains.

Overall, I don't know why men aren't targeted.  I guess if we were getting cancer over it, people might make more of a fuss.

Posted by: Hal at February 27, 2007 06:23 PM (XRFpM)

130 What doe this human pappilary viral thing look like anyway?

Cause I've go this ugly thin on my...you know...and I don't know what it it.

It looks like Bette Midler.

Posted by: Kasper Hauser at February 27, 2007 06:25 PM (7Avsq)

131 Besides, you bunch of little wussy nail biters, many people will not get cavities even if we don't flouridate the water. Moreover, cavities aren't that bad, they're pretty easily treated.

Ruminate on this -- most cavites are caused by not brushing, but most people that brush get cavities.

Now that's deep, if I do say so myself.

Posted by: Hullabaloser at February 27, 2007 06:25 PM (CJ9vq)

132 I said "six months to a year" because there's going to be another vaccine out within that time (or so I have heard from commenters here). Right now, Merck's the only game in town, so if they can bribe governors like Rick F'n Perry into making it mandatory, they can make a huge profit. Once another vaccine is on the market, the rules of the game change; Merck now has to prove their vaccine is better (safer/more effective) than the other one.

I just think with all these market pressures in favor of Merck getting the vaccine out and administered to as many people as possible as soon as possible, it's reasonable to be a little cautious.

Posted by: Mrs. Peel at February 27, 2007 06:26 PM (njtAn)

133 Nevermind everybody!

Turns out it actually was Bette Midler.

Posted by: Kasper Hauser at February 27, 2007 06:27 PM (7Avsq)

134 adolfo-

Go read the numbers I posted. These numbers were quoted by the Gov of Texas for his state. If this is only a dollars and cents proposition, then you would be foolish to be against it.

Unless they fuck like bunnies in Texas and nowhere else.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 27, 2007 06:28 PM (t+mja)

135 If this had gone through in Texas, the estimated cost to the state was app $35 million. Big money.

So, how many will be illegal aliens? Why should we pay for their vaccine? We shouldn't be paying for their cervical cancer treatment.

Posted by: at February 27, 2007 06:30 PM (zjWeF)

136 >>>I'm not against flouridated water, per se. I'm just against the goverment forcing me and my family to use flouridated water. People have to understand that the lack of oral hygene has consequences. Flouridated water will give us and our children a license to forgo flossing. Besides, if we wait, scientists may come up with better, less expensive flouride


I agree, mate! *grins*

Posted by: Some Limey With Bad Teeth at February 27, 2007 06:32 PM (oHd6r)

137 JackStraw, you made a similar comment the other day. I forgot to ask you since when you do believe the government is efficient at implementing any type of service.

What's most perplexing is that people like us ususally prefer that the private sector do more and the government do less. Maybe that's why the references to Libetarian and Liberal are coming up in this discussion. It's against our grain to want the government to take a role such as this, and more part and parcel for the Progressives to demand that the government do 'what's best' for everyone.

Posted by: Bart at February 27, 2007 06:33 PM (lEN/z)

138 Well....I think I'm funny.

Posted by: Kasper Hauser at February 27, 2007 06:34 PM (7Avsq)

139 Posted by JackStraw at February 27, 2007 11:28 PM

I'm going by Ace's number of 4000 cases of cervical cancer a year nationwide. I'd like to see the numbers that the governor took to arrive at 350 million for his state's share of treatment.

All I'm saying is that in one to two years, the vaccine price will have dropped, maybe by half. Also, a second or third generation vaccine can be developed with fewer adverse reactions. Adverse reactions for vaccines are real, and sometimes kill.

To borrow a page from the hysteria book, how many schoolgirls are you willing to murder for Merck's brilliant marketing strategy?

Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at February 27, 2007 06:35 PM (7oczY)

140 It was funny Kasper, but people have a major bug up their ass about this thing. Looks like nothing is gonna derail it.

Posted by: Sinistar at February 27, 2007 06:36 PM (oHd6r)

141 Well, if there's some *better* vaccine coming along, that's interesting, but should we not immunize people with what we have now until then?



Posted by: ace at February 27, 2007 06:37 PM (+u1X0)

142 To borrow a page from the hysteria book, . . .

Good one.

Posted by: at February 27, 2007 06:37 PM (zjWeF)

143 by the way, cdc's page answers some questions brought up here (like why aren't men getting it, why 12-year-olds, etc.).

Posted by: Mrs. Peel at February 27, 2007 06:40 PM (njtAn)

144 Sinistar

people have a major bug up their ass

Yeah? Well they should have had the damn vaccine then!

Posted by: Kasper Hauser at February 27, 2007 06:40 PM (7Avsq)

145 You know, the CDC is not a liberal thinktank. They have a pretty good track record.

meep:
What I don't get is why only the girls are being targeted for vaccination, seeing how they get it from guys.

Because the CDC, whose agenda is to destroy this disease worldwide, has decided that this is the cheapest way to do it.

anon:
1 out of 4 women have warts?

No. Not all HPV strains cause warts.

RWS:
You are not the only one who gets ticked off you know.

You know I love you, but it's rather out of character for you to repeatedly call somebody an a**hole just for disagreeing with you or misunderstanding your not very clear from the get-go point.

Posted by: sandy burger at February 27, 2007 06:40 PM (cOUw0)

146 And Kasper, how the hell did you not notice Bette Midler on your prick?

Posted by: Sinistar at February 27, 2007 06:41 PM (oHd6r)

147 How many schoolgirs are you willing to murder for Merck's brilliant marketing strategy?

Okay, this thread has become annoyingly stupid. I'm going back to porn. You know, where I can see all those whores that deserve to get cancer and/or should be murdered by Merck -- take your pick.

Posted by: Hullabaloser at February 27, 2007 06:42 PM (CJ9vq)

148 Adverse reactions:

Because Merck only studied GARDASIL in fewer than 1200 girls under age 16 in pre-licensure trials, it is critical that doctors and parents be made aware of the nature of the initial adverse event reports coming into VAERS and that they report serious health problems after vaccination when they occur,” said NVIC President Barbara Loe Fisher. “There are twice as many children collapsing and four times as many children experiencing tingling, numbness and loss of sensation after getting a GARDASIL vaccination compared to those getting a Tdap (tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis) vaccination. There have been reports of facial paralysis and Guillain-Barre Syndrome. And doctors who give GARDASIL in combination with other vaccines are basically conducting an experiment on their young patients because Merck has not published any safety data for simultaneous vaccination with any vaccine except hepatitis B vaccine.

If I had a daughter, I'd wait for more testing.

Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at February 27, 2007 06:42 PM (7oczY)

149 I forgot to ask you since when you do believe the government is efficient at implementing any type of service.

Seen any smallpox victims lately?

Posted by: sandy burger at February 27, 2007 06:42 PM (cOUw0)

150 >>>Yeah? Well they should have had the damn vaccine then!


Heh.

Posted by: Sinistar at February 27, 2007 06:43 PM (oHd6r)

151 Guys,

Haven't you all, at one time or another, had a girlfriend who argued with you for what she "thought" you meant? Right? She would say "You tell me all the time I don't look pretty!" And you would say, "What???? I have never said that!" But that is what she "thought" you felt and maybe once you told her that red looked better on her than blue, and from that she forever believed that you didn't think she looked pretty.

That is how it is with me arguing with Ace. If you go back and read his comments to me you would think I had written a religious document calling for God's punishment on mankind.

Of course I never mentioned God. And the ironic thing is that I don't disagree with this vaccine at all and said so. But why let facts get in the way of Ace ridiculing Christian belief?

Just like the annoying girlfriend who gets mad at you for what she THINKS you think, so it is with Ace. He gets mad at me for what he believes I believe, not what I actually believe.

Ugh.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 27, 2007 06:45 PM (gZ/8m)

152 Off-topic:

So, what do you guys think about that Terri Schiavo case?

Posted by: sandy burger at February 27, 2007 06:45 PM (cOUw0)

153 Because the CDC, whose agenda is to destroy this disease worldwide, has decided that this is the cheapest way to do it.

Where does it say that the cheapest way to irridicate the disease is to target women? And cheapest doesn't automatically transalate into the soundest way.

Posted by: at February 27, 2007 06:47 PM (zjWeF)

154 how the hell did you not notice Bette Midler on your prick?

Oh, I noticed. It just took me alot of time to work up the courage to talk about it.

This is hard to "announce" to the public. I sure there are lots of other AoS'ers that have experienced this, but are too embarassed to talk about it!

Posted by: at February 27, 2007 06:47 PM (7Avsq)

155 sandy, you bastage, you know what I meant.

A little bit of a stretch to compare this non-epidemic to small pox, no?

Posted by: Bart at February 27, 2007 06:47 PM (lEN/z)

156 You know I love you, but it's rather out of character for you to repeatedly call somebody an a**hole just for disagreeing with you or misunderstanding your not very clear from the get-go point.

I love you too sandy, but I was not calling him an a**hole for disagreeing with me or for "misunderstanding."

He was purposefully putting words in my mouth and then ridiculing them (and my faith btw)! And on top of that he was obviously not reading my comments where I said I didn't disagree with the use of this vaccine and continued to berate me for not wanting the vaccine to be used!!!!

You know me, I don't use the term a**hole freely. You have to really be going out of your way to be for me to call you on it.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 27, 2007 06:49 PM (gZ/8m)

157 And the ironic thing is that I don't disagree with this vaccine at all and said so.

You said it repeatedly. Time to bitch slap ace and that little poofer burger.

Posted by: at February 27, 2007 06:50 PM (zjWeF)

158 Bart-

For my its simple logic and math.

1) The gov't will NEVER do away with health care for the poor. I'm not even sure I agree that it should. Not because of my beneficent nature, although I am not totally hard hearted, but because I think it would eventually ruin our society to do otherwise. A society of complete haves and have nots will not stand. And disease knows no social or economic boundary. It will spread.

2) It is always, and I do mean always, cheaper to prevent than to treat. From a pure fiscal policy, I would rather pay up front a little than pay huge dollars for years and years. Once a patient goes in a hospital, no treatment will be spared to try and cure them. The cost can be astornomical.

3) Much to the chagrin of some, I differ from the conservative mantra when it comes to "everyman for himself" on some issues. Health care is one of those. Left to its own, health care is not one area I want the private sector to be able to have a free hand. We all have our own personal reasons for agreeing or disagreeing on this one.

I would argue that I am being much more fiscally prudent than those who say that the gov't has no place in health care. The fact that it allows me to pretend I am bigger hearted is just a bonus.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 27, 2007 06:51 PM (t+mja)

159 Laura,
Since we're pulling what if's out of our butts... What if we had a vaccine to prevent all of the STDs you mentioned but a possible side effect was sterilization?

Posted by: burnitup at February 27, 2007 06:51 PM (a+UN9)

160 If I had a daughter, I'd wait for more testing.

Me, too. And I wouldn't have her vaccinated without her knowledge and permission.

Posted by: at February 27, 2007 06:52 PM (zjWeF)

161 FYI Sparkle:

If you say "why does there always have to be a pill or a cure?" the normal person would interpret that as a criticism of the cure.

Every thread we seem to run into this problem with RWS where the statements don't apparently match her later-declared sentiments.

I'm sick of it.

Anyone who stands on a moral soap box in this case needs to go to their confessional and confess their sin of wishing people to suffer needlessly, especially, perhaps, their own children. I can respect others' opinions in most cases, but not in this case.

Posted by: Feisty at February 27, 2007 06:52 PM (NhAcM)

162 RWS,

Go easy on Ace. He did that double post on young girls and sex just trying to get laid and he didn't even snag a hand job out of it!

I mean, I offered one, but he had all of these "personal prefernces' and turned it down!

Go figure,,,

Posted by: Kasper Hauser at February 27, 2007 06:53 PM (7Avsq)

163 Ok, I finally caught up with the thread.  Ace.  Sober up and reread the comments.  You jumped down RWS's throat for no reason.  She didn't ever say she was against the vaccine.  She helpfully pointed out that we should encourage responsible behavior in addition to the vaccine. (making the point that in the last half century, STD's went from 5 to 50) and if we don't change behavior, this kind of thing will keep cropping up because of nature...

at least that's how I would paraphrase her position.  Quit being an ass to her and insulting religious folks everywhere.

Posted by: slackmac at February 27, 2007 06:55 PM (3bFaP)

164 How about spreading the Christianist bashing around to other religions? Throw some jabs at the Joos; they're all pious and shit, too, ya know.
And the Hindus, with their uppity Far East hoity-toity bullshit.

Posted by: Bart at February 27, 2007 06:55 PM (lEN/z)

165 Wow. I get home from singing "Let's Do An Opera, Kids"  to find two respected bloggers going at it hammer and tongs. Out of character for both of you, I'd say, and no Muirgeo to cause it.

Adolfo, I think I'm with you on this one- $600 for a vaccine with some interesting side effects. It probably needs a couple of years of R&D before it's readily usable. All the same, I'd feel a hell of a lot better in the long run if my wife were to get it sometime down the road... cancer has been a very unpleasant scourge for my family and friends, and I rather enjoy my wife's company.

I can see, down the road, it becoming part of basic children's vaccination protocols, just because it makes sense to me to protect our kids against a potential cause of cancer- and the number of my female friends that have been raped gives me a pretty healthy feeling of underscoring my point.

In the meantime, let's try to keep our cool, folks- I don't think anyone here argues that it would be nice to educate our kids on all methods of staying sexually healthy, including abstinence... but until we clean out the NEA lobby, that is going to continue to be less and less of the education protocol. Perhaps we should turn our efforts to that.

I'm off to bed- good night. And how the hell do you Yankees put up with all this goddamn snow? (I'm currently in Saratoga Springs, NY)

tmi3rd

Posted by: tmi3rd at February 27, 2007 06:55 PM (QzsVu)

166 If you say "why does there always have to be a pill or a cure?" the normal person would interpret that as a criticism of the cure.

True. And if I hadn't clarified a few times I would agree with you. But I did and he continued to argue as if I was against the vaccine.

I don't respect your opinon either, so we're even there.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 27, 2007 06:57 PM (gZ/8m)

167 It is always, and I do mean always, cheaper to prevent than to treat.
Posted by JackStraw at February 27, 2007 11:51 PM



The numbers may back you up in this case, but it is not always cheaper to prevent.

Again, we're talking about a $360 vaccine for over 26 million schoolgirls that will only help 60% of a few thousand women. I'd like to see someone run the actual numbers (not the governor of Texas's say so), before I commit to paying my share of the 10.7 billion this is going to cost, not to mention possible adverse reaction costs.

Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at February 27, 2007 06:58 PM (7oczY)

168 *sigh*

I'll say this one more time and then I give up.

I AM FOR THE VACCINE. I want it to be among the vaccines that any future daughters of mine will receive.

That being said: The fact is that this is a capitalist economy, and Merck is (rightly) out to make money just like any other company. The market forces right now are not entirely salubrious. They'll be better when Merck has a competitor.

adolfo, to be fair, that article suggests Gardasil shouldn't be given in combination with other vaccines, not that it shouldn't be given at all. Seems reasonable to me that some vaccines could react badly with each other, and should therefore be given some time apart.

Posted by: Mrs. Peel at February 27, 2007 06:58 PM (njtAn)

169 You guys are right, this is out of character for me. I apologize to Ace for calling him a a**hole.

Putting words in my mouth is a BIG pet peeve of mine and jumping on my faith for no reason just made me mad. But I shouldn't have called him names.

Sorry Ace, I still love you.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 27, 2007 07:00 PM (gZ/8m)

170 I have new socks on!


And I already think i said what I had to say the other night on a similar thread.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 27, 2007 07:00 PM (W5xJB)

171 "I'd wait for more testing."--->Tell me what we're testing in this case, people who want to wait for more testing. For the 6 bajillionth time, vaccines stimulate the body's natural immunological responses. You want to be assured that people actually have immune systems? Is this something that needs to be tested? You want us to make sure that, what, the deadened HPV virus that simulates the REAL HPV viruses won't spontaneously come alive and eat people like the true enemy that it is?

Posted by: Feisty at February 27, 2007 07:01 PM (NhAcM)

172 Ace is a moody girlfriend, but the makeup sex makes it all worthwhile. And he isn't Christian-bashing. On the contrary. He's bashing people who he thinks use Christianity to justify something bad. RWS says this is unfair to her personally since it misrepresents her views, but it's not a slam against Christianity in general.

So... what do you guys think about teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools?

Posted by: sandy burger at February 27, 2007 07:03 PM (cOUw0)

173 adolfo, to be fair, that article suggests Gardasil shouldn't be given in combination with other vaccines, not that it shouldn't be given at all.

I never meant that it shouldn't be given. Anyone who wants to take it is fine.

The hysterical rush to make it mandatory bothers me, however, because cervical cancer is not an epidemic.

Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at February 27, 2007 07:05 PM (7oczY)

174 You guys are right, this is out of character for me. I apologize to Ace for calling him a a**hole.

Nice. But, I don't see ace or Igor (feisty) apologizing for being dickwads to you.

Posted by: at February 27, 2007 07:06 PM (zjWeF)

175 RWS, keeping it real...the reason people seem to put words solely in your mouth rather than all other mouths is because the way you express your opinion is either very unclear or it changes from statement to statement.

I'd have said something like, "I'm for the vaccine, but I still want people to realize there isn't always a cure for the consequences of immoral behavior and parents should be sure to tell that to their kids." Simple. Clear. Unable to be misinterpreted.

We are lazy. We are not going to ask for clarification before the oratorical beating, so it's imperative to be clear from the get-go.

Posted by: Feisty at February 27, 2007 07:06 PM (NhAcM)

176 Creationism is a myth. The Bible is a fable.

Much like the Koran, as luck would have it...

Posted by: Mark V. at February 27, 2007 07:07 PM (X5HHU)

177

Lord, it's starting to feel like global warming.

Posted by: at February 27, 2007 07:07 PM (zjWeF)

178 "I'd wait for more testing."--->Tell me what we're testing in this case, people who want to wait for more testing.

Every vaccine has adverse reactions, worst case is death for a tiny percentage of the takers. As time goes on, vaccines are refined, and reactions are worked out.

It's too big a risk to force this on our entire population of school aged girls until we've had a year or so to test.

I don't know why this doesn't sound reasonable to some people. Here's the whole article on reactions in this particular vaccine.

Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at February 27, 2007 07:09 PM (7oczY)

179 Igor (feisty)

Wait, what?! I thought Igor was LauraW.

As for apologies: Bart, I forgive you.

Posted by: sandy burger at February 27, 2007 07:10 PM (cOUw0)

180 Feisty, go fuck yourself. I hope that was clear enough for you. Ace misunderstood. RWS clarified God knows how many times. Get your nose out of Ace's ass. No one is impressed.

Posted by: at February 27, 2007 07:11 PM (zjWeF)

181 RWS said she didnt' respect my opinion either. I'll withhold my apology.

Posted by: Feisty at February 27, 2007 07:11 PM (NhAcM)

182 I've been following the oratorical action of RWS across many threads on many sites for awhile now and I can say unequivocally that among all posters across all threads across all sites, RWS's opinions are the most difficult to interpret and almost always included backtracking, apologies, "that's not what I meant", etc. All I'm asking for is an effort to state one's opinion clearly from the onset. Big deal.

"Go fuck yourself" is a little strong...I'd have to pay myself and I'm fresh outta cash.

Posted by: Feisty at February 27, 2007 07:15 PM (NhAcM)

183 Feisty,

My statement did not change. I made my first statement at 9:48 and when I saw that Ace was taking it the wrong way I clarified that I was not against the vaccine at 10:18. Yet Ace kept arguing, so I clarified it again at 10:31. Yet Ace kept arguing.

It wasn't me that wasn't clear.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 27, 2007 07:18 PM (gZ/8m)

184 Feisty, did you read my 10:57? Just wondering if you caught my mention of you.

Posted by: Mrs. Peel at February 27, 2007 07:20 PM (njtAn)

185 adolfo-

I'll see your article and raise you the release from the FDA. That would be 21,000 women not 1200. And no side affects. Testing on men is starting.

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01385.html

Again, the cost of the vaccine is $360 not $600 and it is covered by most insurance carriers. Why? Well let's assume most insurance companies aren't in the business of giving money away. Prevention less than treatment.

Here is Perry's transcipt. My numbers were a little off but not the scale. Now he may be lying but he would be pretty stupid to do that on national TV when an ambitious reporter could just look at the public budgets and call him a liar. So far, nobody has. From MTP last Sunday.


PERRY: Well, there's two reasons. One's a compassionate reason. I can't look a young lady in the eye and tell her that I had the ability to prevent a cancer that's going to kill her and I didn't do it. I didn't have the courage to do that.

The second reason's a good Republican fiscal reason. We spend about $350 million every two years, our buy-in and budgets, on Medicaid costs to deal with cervical cancer. This vaccine will cost us $35 million every two years. So there's a real fiscal reason. There's a real compassionate reason.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 27, 2007 07:21 PM (t+mja)

186 Feisty, she may not respect your opinion on this, but she'll still respect you in the morning.

You wanna know my favorite thing about this topic? Well, after that porn thread, where Bart, RWS, and I were a trio against the rest of you morons, finding myself arguing against them again is like having my upside down world turned right side up again. Order is resored. Human papillomavirus: is there anything it can't do?

Posted by: sandy burger at February 27, 2007 07:22 PM (cOUw0)

187 Thanks, sandy.

Hey, wait a minute. Why you...you scamp, you.

Posted by: Bart at February 27, 2007 07:23 PM (lEN/z)

188 Entropy, Are you saying all sexual acts are voluntary?

Seattle, are you saying that all penguins are gay?

Posted by: Entropy at February 27, 2007 07:24 PM (Uh5fR)

189 You know the funny thing sandy? I don't think you and Bart and I are anything alike. (not that I would want us to be) But my point is that three people can be very different in beliefs, in passions, in a way of life, and still agree on something that most wouldn't think we would.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 27, 2007 07:27 PM (gZ/8m)

190 I took a flu shot this year.

Last year.


whatever

Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 27, 2007 07:28 PM (W5xJB)

191 Feisty, did you read my 10:57? Just wondering if you caught my mention of you.

Not in that particular instance, but I saw somewhere else how I 'changed your opinion'.

Posted by: Feisty at February 27, 2007 07:29 PM (NhAcM)

192 >>>>So... what do you guys think about teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools?

---
What I would do...

Option 1
Dismantle the public school system and start over. Yeah I know, conservative-libertarian dream scenario, never happen, but man it would feel good to smash the NEA and the liberal indocrination machine once and for all. Everyone gets the ed they want in a private school or at home.

Option 2
Local referendum, let people decide when they vote, they're paying for a service, so they should have a say in determining the course of the ed system. If they choose Creation, tell the ACLU to FOADIAF, and ditto to the religious if they pull the same shit if they pick evo.

Option 3
Let the schoolbaord decide, you'll elect people you want and who'll support your position. Keep the ACLU and larger religious groups out of it

Option 4
Let the feds or the courts to decide, I don't want this...

Option 5
Let the NEA decide...DO NOT WANT.

I don't really follow creation, I'm Catholic so evolutions cool for me, we didn't even get creation in science class at catholic school.

Anyway, I think it should be locally dealt with, and if you have what I can "the one whiny bitch" problem, they need to be told to FOAD. Ditto the ACLU, radical seperation people like Barry Lynn. The Creation activists are annoying, but not the bullies that the militant secular vermin are.

Posted by: Sinistar at February 27, 2007 07:30 PM (oHd6r)

193 Feisty, she may not respect your opinion on this, but she'll still respect you in the morning.

Since I'm blabbering on about how I can't understand RWS, I'm inconclusive on what exactly RWS disagrees with me on.

There are several candidates:
1) Vaccine for cancer=Good
2) RWS is hard to understand/easy to misinterpret in a debate situation
3) This statement: Anyone who stands on a moral soap box in this case needs to go to their confessional and confess their sin of wishing people to suffer needlessly, especially, perhaps, their own children.

Now, henceforth, we shall get RWS's inevitable clarification on the subject.

Posted by: Feisty at February 27, 2007 07:33 PM (NhAcM)

194 Oh, and #4: "everything I have said and will say in the future". I originally thought she meant #4 since she said "I don't respect your opinon either, so we're even there."

So, ya know, I'm of the opinion currently that RWS has never and will never respect my opinion since the statement was not clear.

Posted by: Feisty at February 27, 2007 07:37 PM (NhAcM)

195 Will somebody please spank me?

Posted by: The Cat at February 27, 2007 07:38 PM (2gclm)

196 Do I really need to point out that I in no way ever even suggested that anyone "suffer needlessly.?"

Anyone who knows me well knows that I have spent much of my life trying to help people who suffer. I don't ask or care if they brought it upon themselves. I am not one who thinks anyone "deserves" their fate. What we all deserve is for someone to love us.

I don't know what your problem with me is Fiesty and I really don't care, but I am done discussing this with you.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 27, 2007 07:41 PM (gZ/8m)

197 It's against our grain to want the government to
take a role such as this, and more part and parcel for the Progressives
to demand that the government do 'what's best' for everyone.


Posted by: Bart at February 27, 2007 11:33 PM (lEN/z) 

Bart,
Thank you for commenting on what has to be the most upside down thread I've ever read on AoS. I thought maybe I'd slipped thru a worm hole into an alternate universe where Ace was big-government liberal all for mandating any and all methods of ensuring everyone's continued well-being.

If we're so hellbent on ensuring the continuing existence of ~4,000 women per year by government mandate, then let's outlaw smoking and save 600,000 per year. Let's go all the f-in way with the almighty mandate of the government. This mandate was brought to you by your friends at Merck.





Posted by: burnitup at February 27, 2007 07:41 PM (a+UN9)

198 Here's a clear statement for you: You're a real bitch tonight. And I've followed you through many threads: You never say anything without first asking yourself, What would Ace do? Once again, get your nose out of his ass.

Posted by: at February 27, 2007 07:45 PM (zjWeF)

199 Yeah, burnitup, it's so backwards that at this point I'm expecting myslef to put a bumper sticker on my car saying:

Govt: Keep your hands off my Cervix!

Posted by: Bart at February 27, 2007 07:48 PM (lEN/z)

200 I'd ask about the scare quotation marks, but I have to get some sleep. Hope you have a good night, Feisty.

burnitup and Bart, the difference (as I was reluctantly forced to acknowledge) is that smoking is a choice. Being exposed to HPV is not necessarily a choice. Permit me to illustrate:

I'm 24 and unmarried. I'm waiting for marriage. As I get older, it's going to get harder and harder for me to find a man to marry who is also a virgin (most of them got snapped up already). So, if I choose to marry someone who has had previous partners, chances are good that one of those partners had HPV, which I could then contract. And then there's infidelity. (I'm not particularly worried about that, because I have very high confidence in my ability to gauge character; but it does happen.) Thus, I could easily contract HPV through no fault of my own. There's no test for it unless the man actually has warts, which is extremely rare.

ok, time for bed. night all.

Posted by: Mrs. Peel at February 27, 2007 07:56 PM (njtAn)

201 The second reason's a good Republican fiscal reason. We spend about $350 million every two years, our buy-in and budgets, on Medicaid costs to deal with cervical cancer.
Posted by JackStraw at February 28, 2007 12:21 AM


Despite the Texas numbers, can you find fault with my number of 10.7 billion dollars for the nationwide cost of the vaccine when you multiply $360 by 29 million schoolgirls?

That aside, the article I linked about side effects mentions that other forms of HPV may take the place of the two we eradicate, as has happened with a previous vaccine.

Also, you can't lay the entire cost of cervical cancer on these two forms of HPV. It's only one of many causes of cervical cancer.

Finally, it is taxpayers and insurance rate payers who pay all of the bills, not insurance cos. I want to shop around before I buy into this 10.7 billion dollar question mark.

Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at February 27, 2007 07:57 PM (/6tgR)

202 Mr. Pussy-Anonymous: I'm a *little* bitchy tonight because some fuck-up stole my identity (second time this has happened in the last 6 months, dammit) and charged some shit on my Paypal account, but everything I say, I stand by 100%. Snuggles and I agree on many things because we're both defense and fiscal conservatives who aren't religious. A true fiscal conservative would opt to prevent a problem before it starts, by, for instance, keeping people from becoming poor in the first place by preserving jobs by not raising business taxes. I would always opt to prevent a disease even before it has a chance to start by eliminating its cause in 70% of people. This is if I didn't have a heart. If I did, I'd say the same thing and add: And cancer really sucks, and treatment of precancerous cervical lesions suck (cryotherapy anyone?) so keeping someone from even having to experience any form of this illness is worth a government-backed vaccine campaign.

Posted by: Feisty at February 27, 2007 08:04 PM (NhAcM)

203 It would be a far better use of healthcare $$ to require annual flu shots for kids.Because, of course, they're mutually exclusive.Forced/semi-mandatory vaccine = pure profit for Merck, and about the only way they'll make back the investment on the vaccine.OH NOES! Then they might be encouraged to *develop more vaccines*! The horror.

Posted by: someone at February 27, 2007 08:07 PM (I/t4f)

204 I'm a *little* bitchy tonight because some fuck-up stole my identity (second time this has happened in the last 6 months, dammit) and charged some shit on my Paypal account, but everything I say, I stand by 100%.

No, you're a big bitch, bitch. RWS didn't steal your identity.

Posted by: at February 27, 2007 08:11 PM (zjWeF)

205 BTW, I really have this overwhelming desire to get Mrs. Peel drunk and take her to one of the many fine examples of house parties I attend.

Posted by: Feisty at February 27, 2007 08:12 PM (NhAcM)

206 Who's the colon?

Posted by: someone at February 27, 2007 08:15 PM (I/t4f)

207 OH NOES! Then they might be encouraged to *develop more vaccines*! The horror.

Hey man, I'm no lefty, profits are fine by me. Forcing me to add digits to a company's bottom line ain't kosher, though. If they developed the vaccine with the expectation of using government force to create a market (and thus a profit), shame on them.

I'm pretty sure a herpes vaccine would be a goldmine, though, no gubmint force required.

Posted by: leoncaruthers at February 27, 2007 08:16 PM (wSoj/)

208 Jackstraw, read your own article before you say there were no side effects:

Most adverse experiences in study participants who received Gardasil included mild or moderate local reactions, such as pain or tenderness at the site of injection. The manufacturer has agreed to conduct several studies following licensure, including additional studies to further evaluate general safety and long-term effectiveness.

Most side effects were harmless. That's not the same as saying there were none, especially when we're talking about 29 million people, all getting a vaccine that is still undergoing testing. Here, I'll raise you a new article:

http://www.inciid.org/article.php?cat=infertility101&id=433

Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at February 27, 2007 08:21 PM (/6tgR)

209 Most adverse experiences in study participants who received Gardasil included mild or moderate local reactions, such as pain or tenderness at the site of injection.

Well, shit, I'd take that over a radioactive pooter.

Posted by: Mark V. at February 27, 2007 08:30 PM (X5HHU)

210 Eh, screw it, I'm going to bed.

I'm not a schoolgirl, nor do I have any daughters.

If I could just find a vaccine that would protect my wallet from the constant threat of paying for every damn project dreamed up by every pandering politician, I'd be set.

Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at February 27, 2007 08:30 PM (/6tgR)

211 Remember, adolfo..the vaccine goes into a muscle and "local soreness and pain" is an expected reaction from getting a needle into one's muscle. This is the same side effect for all intramuscular vaccines or intramuscular shots in general to some degree. The soreness and pain is less than the pain with metastatic cervical cancer.

Posted by: Feisty at February 27, 2007 08:30 PM (NhAcM)

212 Dude, do you guys even read my links?

I'm not concerned about local tenderness and pain. I'm concerned about permanent neurological effects from aluminum based vaccines, as well as possible paralysis, possible HPV infection, etc.

It's all there, if you just read the articles I linked.

Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at February 27, 2007 08:32 PM (/6tgR)

213 I'm concerned about permanent neurological effects from aluminum based vaccines, as well as possible paralysis, possible HPV infection, etc.

My point stands.

Posted by: Mark V. at February 27, 2007 08:34 PM (X5HHU)

214 That word "possible" just kinda kills the argument when you're talking about "actual" cancer.

Posted by: Feisty at February 27, 2007 08:39 PM (NhAcM)

215 Seriously Feisty, is it going to kill you to wait a year or so till the vaccine gets better?

Cervical cancer is not sweeping across the land so fast that these girls can't wait till their 13 instead of 12 just to get the vaccine.

Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at February 27, 2007 08:48 PM (/6tgR)

216 We'll all be dead in two years from Global Warming. So I suggest you get vaccinated now rather than waiting.

Posted by: Algore at February 27, 2007 09:08 PM (D3QgL)

217 Just ran the numbers. By CDC count, there are 11.4 adverse reactions per 100,000 vaccine takers (with the most common vaccines).

A total of 14.2% of all reports of adverse effects described serious adverse events, which by regulatory definition include death, life-threatening illness, hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization, or permanent disability.

Divide 29,715,872 girls under the age of 14 in the US by the rate of adverse reaction and you have 3387 girls with some pretty messed up shit. Many would still decide to vaccinate, considering that 4000 women die a year and 60-70% of them might be saved by the vaccine.

Just some numbers to think about before we jump on that 10.7 billion dollar bandwagon.

Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at February 27, 2007 09:12 PM (/6tgR)

218 Go take a anti-a**hole pill and come back when you actually read my comments in full before answering them.

But that would be interfering with nature... there are supposed to be consequences for being an a**hole!!!

Posted by: Watcher at February 27, 2007 09:16 PM (bPXvA)

219 Damn, my math is wrong. I was told there would be no math on this blog.

Well, anyway, I'm against super-expensive mandatory vaccines for everyone when the death rate for cervical cancer is, frankly, not that big.

If someone wants it, that's fine - I just don't want to pay for it.

I guess Feisty the Republican Whore and I will just have to agree to disagree when it comes to pooter related issues.

Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at February 27, 2007 09:30 PM (ukhGQ)

220 FOR THE LOVE OF FUCKING GOD!!!!!

I've been saying this since I was a junior in highschool, the year after a female friend of mine committed suicide because her boyfriend (her first and only at the time) called her a whore because she asked him if she gave him genital warts.

HPV IS A HUMAN VIRUS!!!! IT IS COMMON! NOT JUST AMONG WOMEN, BUT AMONG MEN!

EVERY FUCKING WART you have ever seen is HPV, or a papiloma virus, that is interactive with human genetic makeup.

HPV is a DISGUSTING SCARE TACTIC used on both sides, to force actions of one sort or another based on the concept of genital warts.

ALL FUCKING WARTS ARE HPV!!!

FUCK! I knew this in 90.

link

WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK!!!

for the most part the vaccine will have no effect because of the large percentage of people who share it with their children at birth.

But I see no reason to minimize it.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 27, 2007 09:33 PM (QTv8u)

221 I love staying out of this type of thread.

Posted by: mesablue at February 27, 2007 09:36 PM (DzeyU)

222 Related but not the same.

Herpes type II can become genital herpes, if you have a cold sore while sucking cock, or tonguing your ladies gash.

The most significant differentiation is the location, and the way in which that particular initial area of infection reacts to the infection.

So You can have cold sores, but the chick you just cunny'd up, will have herpes.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 27, 2007 09:36 PM (QTv8u)

223 I wouldn't have taken part Mesa if it wasn't for all of the alarmism leading to the death of a young girl, who was a friend when I was a young man.

THANK YOU SEX ED/"health and safety" class.

Which is made up exclusively of ways in which to hate yourself or others for having sex.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 27, 2007 09:38 PM (QTv8u)

224 WP,

We need to talk Ace into letting you have the keys to this place for one night, between midnight and 6:00 a.m.

You pretty much run the place between those hours anyway. It would be fun to see what you would do on the front page.

Posted by: mesablue at February 27, 2007 09:44 PM (DzeyU)

225 It would be like bowhunters standing on a pig run.

Not pretty, very loud and disturbing and ultimately you never want to go there again.

(thank my uncle for that analogy, he backed out of a boar hunt, after seeing how it was done. Both terrifyingly dangerous, and more than a little bit disgusting)

Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 27, 2007 09:47 PM (QTv8u)

226 I think some people don't accept these figures because they're analogizing it to HIV

ACTUALLY

I think most people who passed health and safety class as a sophomore in highschool know that it isn't even HPV that we are talking about.

We are talking about CERVICAL CANCER, which is MOST common in women who have HPV possitives.

I had a wart on my hand (an expression of HPV) when I was 9 years old, should I register with the fucking local health directorate?

Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 27, 2007 09:53 PM (QTv8u)

227 If somehow I ended up with cervical cancer, it would be because I had sex, nevermind the fact that I don't have a fucking cervix.

HPV IS NOT WHAT PEOPLE THINK IT IS!!!!

HPV is NOT Cervical cancer, related? maybe, probably, almost definately, but if there was a 100% accurate test for hpv, much more than 1/4 of all humans would have it.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 27, 2007 09:56 PM (QTv8u)

228 Quiz?

Anyone else ever have a wart?

I had one on the webbing of my left thumb and forefinger when I was 9 years old, (it's why I developed a finger out grip for my baseball glove)

I also had one on the right side of my second nuckle of my middle finger on my right hand, (part of why I have a four finger throw, because I didn't use my middle finger for throwing a ball)

I had a GIGUNDUS mofaku on the inside of my right knee when I was in my twenties, and I still have some in my armpits.

Am I a walking talking carcinagin because I'm JAM PACKED with HPV?

OH! but it AIN'T ON MY DICK!!!!!! so it's okay!


JESUS FUCKING CRIST!

Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 27, 2007 10:00 PM (QTv8u)

229 ANYTHING! EVERY-FUCKING THING!

With "human" in it's title on a medical level is called that, not because it is EXCLUSIVE in humans, nor does everything that has "virus" in it's title on a medical level a "disease" of direct transmission, or contact transmission.

We are born with, live with interact with, and absorbe a LOT OF SHIT! that isn't caused by our own actions (in fact, most "human blah blah" virus's are actually COMMON in humans, because those virus's interact BEST with humans) and most of the conclusions assumed are based on VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY did I include enough fucking very's? small mutation, or genetic predisposition or other individual situation that allows those HUMAN VIRI to embedd themselves in a way that is harmfull.

50 ninja's in the open desert are so many targets for 10 target shooters from manhattan.

(how do I take my own insanely serious comment, and make a sad and pathetic AOSHQish joke out if?)

Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 27, 2007 10:06 PM (QTv8u)

230 Hey,

Boar hunting is fun. I use a .357 just to make it fair.

I can climb pretty fast, though.

Roast boar is yummy.

Posted by: mesablue at February 27, 2007 10:26 PM (DzeyU)

231 My point.

Viri are viri.

The exist basicaly as nothing more than self propogating virus engines. No matter the "closely related virus" it isn't impossible or at all unlikely, that upon genetic/darwinian experimentation, that even a thumb wart might eventually become a variation that decides that they can better propogate on the cervix.

There has NOT been a specific DNA or clear genetic breakdown of Cervical cancer in comparisson to other HPV's.

What is the specific genetic variations? what is the cause of those variations? what is the DNA offsett?

Or are YOU ENGAGING IN SCARE TACTICTS TELLING KIDS TO NOT FUCK OR TO FUCK ONLY WITH CONDOMS!!!!!!

A couple months ago, wasn't there an HIV researcher who made the same point?

You know what the most common cause of death among "victims" of HIV? (this stat comes from SINCE "HIV" was the method of identifying the cause of "AIDS?") LIVER FAILURE, you know what number two is? KINDNEY FAILURE? oh, but it's not from aids, or immunodeficiency.

people with HIV aren't dying from aids, we can't even prove that people with HIV will get aids, since most don't demonstrate any immunodeficiencies until their organs start to fail. People with HIV are dying from the drugs forced upon them by the UN, and other government subsidies. The Drugs that are "saving their lives" though they are leading perfectly normal lives to begin with, are fucking killing them more rapidly than the disease that hasn't once manifested itself?

WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK!??!?!?!?

I'm denying a relationship of HIV to AIDS, but it is FUCKING CLEAR! that HIV is not the exclusive indicator of AIDS, as some of the researchers are starting to admit, in a very very very small way.

Remember, HUMAN! means that it is advantageous to exist in a human body, that means, that it has existed in human, or human like bodies for a long enough time to create that evolutionary exclusion, and it only appeared 30 years ago, and became THAT fucking deadly THAT fucking fast?

The theory of evolution says that that is bullshit. In fact, it would be just the opposite. things want to live, you don't kill what allows you to live, I'm just say'n.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 27, 2007 10:28 PM (QTv8u)

232 'HPV Infects One Quarter of US Women'
ya. only cos' they're sluts.

Posted by: Ray Negro at February 27, 2007 10:29 PM (hpgZl)

233 HPV is NOT Cervical cancer

True, it's a "pre-cancerous lesion". Enough to scare any woman half to death and submit to a conal biopsy.

Posted by: mesablue at February 27, 2007 10:29 PM (DzeyU)

234 BOW! hunting Mesa.

BOW hunting a boar, I guess the technique is to draw a boar into a gully or a "run" and you basicaly shoot the bow horizontal, into the chest of the boar as it charges you, then you run like a bitch, wating for it to die from either a punctured heart or liver, or until it turns on you, in which case your friend shoots the boar with one of the various hardball magnums as many as times as possible before the boar gores you to death.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 27, 2007 10:31 PM (QTv8u)

235 The exist basicaly as nothing more than self propogating virus engines.

I like to think of them as self-propagating interesting proteins. If we could make them safe, we could end world hunger.

Posted by: mesablue at February 27, 2007 10:32 PM (DzeyU)

236 I support the "HPV" vaccine.

But the idea that HPV, or genital warts, or warts, or cervical cancer is an indication of promiscuity is FUCKING BULLSHIT!

Like I said, my passion is built on a young woman (she was fucking stupid, but nice) who killed herself thinking that she would always be a slut, because she tried to warn her boyfriend (if only he had killed himself)

Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 27, 2007 10:33 PM (QTv8u)

237 BOW! hunting Mesa.

Not. That. Stupid.

Enough of the shots that I've fired at them bounce off their skulls. Then they get mean.

I want to eat them, not play with them.

Posted by: mesablue at February 27, 2007 10:34 PM (DzeyU)

238 I like to think of them as self-propagating interesting proteins.

DOWN WITH FRANKENFOOD!!!!

Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 27, 2007 10:35 PM (QTv8u)

239 Thats why my uncle passed on the experience.

He said there was blood everywhere, and there were 2 "experienced guides" running around avoiding the same shit the guided guys were running from, only they had big guns.

That story made it clear to me, that I'm not much a one for hunting.

When the NORM! for a successfull bow hunt of a boar consists of running around like a bitch with her beaver coated in napalm, you know that it's not a good fucking idea.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 27, 2007 10:37 PM (QTv8u)

240 But, think about it.

You could get injected and then be fed from the inside -- right in your bloodstream.

Mainlined pizza.

Posted by: mesablue at February 27, 2007 10:38 PM (DzeyU)

241 Bedtime, I've actually been relatively responsible for the last few weeks.

I gotta get some books, and some "nice" candies for the lady's in my life (people I don't know, but hey, chicks like candy) then I have to fight my way through my lack of practice to prove the fact that my resume' is actually factual.

Catchya mesa.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 27, 2007 10:41 PM (QTv8u)

242 I don't hunt Bambi or ducks or other such stuff because I would take no joy in killing them.

Every boar hunt I have been on has been clean and the boars had more than an even chance. They are very smart, very mean and will make you pay if you screw up.

They were also nuisance animals in every place that I've hunted them.

Did I also say that they taste really good?

Posted by: mesablue at February 27, 2007 10:41 PM (DzeyU)

243 Vayo con Dios

Posted by: mesablue at February 27, 2007 10:43 PM (DzeyU)

244 Me loves gamy meat, and I bet boar is fucking NUMMY compared to ham.

Specially if you take the time to hier someone to cure and smoke it.

My first experience with venisson was a "pastrami" treated venisson leg.

FUCKING DELISCIOUS!

Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 27, 2007 10:44 PM (QTv8u)

245 I can just imagine what a well treated game boar tastes like.

catchya on the morrow boss.

btw, Daley won, whodathunk?

Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 27, 2007 10:45 PM (QTv8u)

246 Wickedp, "More than 100 different types of HPV exist, most of which are harmless. About 30 types are spread through sexual contact and are classified as either low risk or high risk."

Only the ones that are causing the cervical cancer and genital warts are real problems. The wart you had on your thumb is not in the same class.

Posted by: at February 28, 2007 02:16 AM (H826O)

247
WSJ reports a U.S. study suggests that the prevalence of a sexually transmitted virus that can cause cervical cancer is greater than previous ests had suggested. The data also indicate that the prevalence of the two main cancer-causing strains of the virus, for which there is a new vaccine made by Merck, appears to be relatively low. The second finding could play into a debate over Merck's vaccine, Gardasil, which protects against the human papillomavirus, the virus that causes most cervical-cancer cases. The drug maker had aggressively lobbied states to pass laws requiring preteen girls to be vaccinated against cervical cancer, though it recently ended that effort. Still, bills being drafted in about 20 U.S. states would make Gardasil mandatory for preteen girls. Many parents, consumer advocates and conservative Christian groups oppose the idea. The study appearing today in the Journal of the American Medical Association looked at U.S. females aged 14 to 59. The combined prevalence of two high-risk strains of HPV, types 16 and 18, was about 2% in that population, which the paper called "relatively low," compared with other ests. But it noted that those two strains are responsible for about 70% of cervical cancers worldwide, and Gardasil protects against both.

Posted by: abe at February 28, 2007 03:26 AM (UNxlq)

248 By a show of hands, who here never even knew about HPV until the vaccine came out and made such a stir? How can the fear of contracting HPV keep people from having sex if nobody's ever heard of it before? If a girl is vaccinated against a virus that she knows nothing about, how will that cause her to change her behavior?

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at February 28, 2007 04:19 AM (oC8nQ)

249 Thanks for that article abe. It led me to finding this:

Merck & Co. will stop lobbying state officials to require that girls receive the company's Gardasil cervical cancer vaccine before they can attend school. Merck made the decision after groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics said there wasn't enough state funding to pay for the $360 vaccine or public acceptance, said Rick Haupt, director of medical affairs for Merck's vaccine division, in a telephone interview today.

Merck has admitted that it was trying to boost sales and that they went about it the wrong way. That's the end of my main objection.

Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at February 28, 2007 04:23 AM (a1o6X)

250 Dolly Madison had the biggest freaking genital warts you've ever seen. I wouldn't have touched that with Sam Adam's d***!

Posted by: Benjamin Franklin at February 28, 2007 05:04 AM (KeOQp)

251 I love staying out of this type of thread.

Wish I had. Can't believe the stuff I say sometimes.

Posted by: lauraw at February 28, 2007 05:20 AM (b6B1T)

252 I love staying out of this type of thread.

Me too. I'm not normally that sensible.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 28, 2007 05:44 AM (pzen5)

253 I think they need to develop a pill to give children that would make them loose control of their bowels for the rest of their lives if they smoked a cigarette. That would save a lot of lives lost to lung cancer.

But just to make it interesting, it'd be kind of fun if it intensified orgasms at the same time your bowels were exploding.

Posted by: kurt at February 28, 2007 05:49 AM (mquKs)

254

 have not mentioned God in this. Why bring Him up in such a sarcastic way?


Because his position is silly and illogical.


Posted by: Jay at February 28, 2007 06:32 AM (VZ0Yh)

255

No, I don't put all Christians in a box.  But if a Christian, such as yourself, keeps repeating NATURE HAS CONSEQUENCES and objects to a vaccine that can eliminate these consequences, and those consequences just happen to occur due to sex...


Haha, this silly meltdown is fun to watch.


He's literally frothing at the mouth about this...


Posted by: Jay at February 28, 2007 06:38 AM (VZ0Yh)

256 NOW is it safe to stop promoting "safe sex" without recommending abstinence?

A big, fat "Thank You" to Gloria Steinem and all the Sexual Revolutionaries out there. Mission accomplished. Yahtzee. Check, please.

Posted by: red speck at February 28, 2007 06:44 AM (Lc9rf)

257 Can anyone tell me why this vaccine only works on children? Posted by Entropy at February 27, 2007 10:12 PM

It only works on those not already exposed to the virus. Forcing girls as young as age 9 is offensive.

Posted by: at February 28, 2007 07:01 AM (zjWeF)

258 ladies, you're just going to have to take one for the team. I'd do it for you... Posted by Mark V. at February 27, 2007 10:31 PM

Then put a cap on it.

Posted by: at February 28, 2007 07:04 AM (zjWeF)

259 Since RWS apologized to me, I'd like to apologize to her for my hot tone (and anyone else put off by it).

I accept that she's not pro-suffering or anti-vaccine.  I guess I'd just say that, to a avoid confusion, it probably would be best not to make statements that could be read, perhaps incorrectly, as finding a  positive value in disease (like "behavior has consequences" in the context of a discussion about a vaccine that eliminates on consequence; it does read like a desire to keep those consequences around).

And I'm not "libertarian" on young girls having sex.  They shouldn't, and I've said so.  And I'm in favor of abstinence education and the like.  I don't think that's very effective, but telling kids not to do drugs may not be terribly effective either, and yet we should still do it.  There is a value just in sending the right message.  Even if, alas, few will listen (at least, few who weren't already anti-promiscuity or anti-drug, and for those kids, the message didn't even need to be communicated; I, for example, didn't need to hear too much anti-drug stuff, as I was pretty hardcore anti-drug, and was because I 1) hated filthy hippies and 2) all of my friends were anti-drug).

I believe in moral restraint and the dreaded social restraint (judgmentalism, etc.) to reduce promiscuity among kids.  While fear of disease certainly may help reduce it as well, I can't accept disease as something we should allow to fester simply for its sexually-inhibiting qualities.  A disease is simply too high a price to pay.  And I personally liken it to female genital mutilation -- yes, it probably "works" to a degree, but in an unacceptably barbaric fashion.


Posted by: ace at February 28, 2007 07:47 AM (+u1X0)

260 Dear Ace. I believe in God. I believe that this vaccine shouldn't be enforced. I believe that because I believe that the government has not right to mandate such thing. It has nothing to do with religious beliefs.

I'd give the vaccine to a daughter of mine in a heartbeat. I don't have any kids yet, but when I do, I'll make sure they get whatever vaccines work well. BUT - I'm not everyone, and I'm not willing to tell people how to live, even if I think I know a better way than they do. The moment we start placing the job of telling us how to live healthy lives in the hands of our government, we introduce a serious problem.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - CS Lewis

If your leg smells like pee, I've got nothing to do with it. The wetness you're feeling would be the torrential downpour overhead. Look up sometime, you might notice it.

Posted by: JosephD at February 28, 2007 07:49 AM (q1iOs)

261 >>>I like to think of them as self-propagating interesting proteins.

They're really not "self" propagating, though.  They can't reproduce themselves, as you know; they have to hijack the machinery of a living cell for that.



Posted by: ace at February 28, 2007 07:50 AM (+u1X0)

262 yep, it broke 250. good call on the over/under

Posted by: monitor at February 28, 2007 07:51 AM (ZkY4t)

263 251 I love staying out of this type of thread.

Wish I had. Can't believe the stuff I say sometimes.

Posted by: lauraw at February 28, 2007 10:20 AM (b6B1T)


It's called passion and it's ok.


Posted by: pajama momma at February 28, 2007 08:03 AM (Pzdiv)

264 RWS told you many times what she meant. And you are still trying to blame her for your assholishness. I hate these half ass apologies.

Posted by: at February 28, 2007 08:12 AM (zjWeF)

265 >>>Merck has admitted that it was trying to boost sales and that they went
about it the wrong way. That's the end of my main objection.

Huh?  Of course someone with a hot product is going to advertise to sell as much as possible -- and lobbying is a kind of advertising.

Further, I don't see why very, very young girls -- ages five, six -- shouldn't get the vax (except to the extent we worry about the effect of the vax on the very young, whom we presumably haven't tested it on). 

I think going young actually would have reduced the vaccine = greater promiscuity thing a lot of people are seeing.  The now-proposed age for the vax -- 11-12 years old -- clumsily coincides with parents' worst nightmares about their daughters having sex in sixth grade.



Posted by: ace at February 28, 2007 08:13 AM (+u1X0)

266 Anonymous:

Get a fucking monicker.

I have accepted her statement as to what she meant.  If you can't see how "behavior has consequences" repeated as a mantra in a debate over whether a disease should be eliminated by vaccine can be read as a suggestion that "diseases have beneficial consequences," you're either very dumb or simply a liar.



Posted by: ace at February 28, 2007 08:15 AM (+u1X0)

267 I love how interspersed between the more passionate posts were some of the funniest one liners I've read.

F'n hilarious. Especially Kasper Hauser.

Posted by: Warden at February 28, 2007 08:44 AM (rZ5uY)

268 Huh? Of course someone with a hot product is going to advertise to sell as much as possible -- and lobbying is a kind of advertising.

I have no problem with profit.

I have a problem with a business using legislation to force us to pay $10.7 billion when that money could save more lives elsewhere, like breast cancer prevention or doctor and pharmacy training.

Cervical cancer kills 4,000 a year. Breast cancer kills 40,000. Medical errors kill 195,000. Which one deserves our $10.7 billion, especially when the price of the vaccine is going to drop when Merck gets some competition?

Not every argument is about sex.

Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at February 28, 2007 09:01 AM (SD/MW)

269 Adolfo,

But breast cancer can't be prevented in the way cervical cancer can, can it?

Don't you have to weigh in the efficacy and impact of the vax?



Posted by: ace at February 28, 2007 09:03 AM (+u1X0)

270 If breast cancer's not your thing, I'm sure I can find some better way to spend that much money.

How about mandatory bathtub helmets? Do you know how many people die every year in the bathtub? Plus, bathtub helmets are cheap. With the money we save, we could buy the generic vaccine in two years, and save all those bathtub victims at the same time.

Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at February 28, 2007 09:06 AM (SD/MW)

271 The government in this state mandates a blood test before marriage in case one carries syphyillis. This test being made a mandate is ridiculous. Parents actually can talk to their children and keep them out of harm's way. Booze is probably the biggest reason for crazed sex. If you can keep your kid away from booze then most likely they will not have sex. I work on keeping my kids away from the drugs and booze. I eyeball to eyeball every kid, everyday. I really don't want my daughter to have this vaccine, in twenty years it may be the cause of some other cancer.

Posted by: tessa at February 28, 2007 09:19 AM (UNxlq)

272 Ace is a mean man.

Posted by: kurt at February 28, 2007 09:37 AM (mquKs)

273 No one on Earth is as nice as they used to be.

And it's usually Bart's fault.

Posted by: lauraw at February 28, 2007 10:19 AM (lnd+E)

274 No one on Earth is as nice as they used to be.

Even Nice Deb, though she's still plenty nice.

Posted by: geoff at February 28, 2007 10:23 AM (GJTEc)

275 I'm as nice as I used to be. I was never very nice.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 28, 2007 10:25 AM (t+mja)

276 By the way, I don't know why Bart got so angry at me.

He posted a sci-fi hypothetical and I goofed on him for it.  Hardly the meeeeeannest thing I could have written.

I just thought the hypo was, what's the word?, goofy.  Goofy and so speculative as to make it uninteresting.  Like many of the "moral quandries" on ST:TNG, where we're asked to actually give a shit about such ethical dilemmas as "if a murderer's brain-matrix is transferred  completely into the brain of another man, who's not guilty of any crimes, should the body-innocent, mind-guilty new fusion being stand trial for murder?"

That's the kind of crap that makes me hate ST:TNG.  The dilemmas on the Original Series tended to be a lot more down-to-earth and tangible.


Posted by: ace at February 28, 2007 10:50 AM (+u1X0)

277 It's not just about the number of deaths this year. It's all of the deaths and suffering in the future that can be prevented if this disease is eradicated, as smallpox was (and polio almost was).

Posted by: sandy burger at February 28, 2007 11:09 AM (Cpse7)

278 Texas waived the blood test thing a number of years ago.

I don't recall the number. I know it was less than 24.

Darnit.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 28, 2007 11:19 AM (pzen5)

279 Oh, please. Can I ask you what evidence you have the stat is crank apart from the political convenience of it being such?


I don't care if its politically convenient or not, no virus is infecting am eighth of the population of the nation, I don't care what virus it is. Please.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 28, 2007 12:25 PM (wmgz8)

280 Really?

You don't think the flu has infected at least an eighth of the entire nation?

I'd say it's closer to 100%.


Posted by: ace at February 28, 2007 01:16 PM (+u1X0)

281 "Still, I guess I'm still not sure what the real "choice" is here -- choosing between eliminating a cancer risk, or choosing to keep that risk alive? Is that really a choice?"

I think you're missing the point of most people's objections. Of course there's the crazy handful that say screw those happy screwers; but those handful aren't representative of the majority of the objections. There's essentially two core, reasonable objections that I've seen: practical, scientific problems with this particular vaccine (the rush from approval to mandate, lack of testing in the targeted demographic, economic wisdom of the vaccine as a mandated policy, cost/benefits to waiting for another company to have a competitive product), and general anti-governmental concerns.

The latter argument is kind of weak, I think. I support vaccines in principle, and I think that this principle is strongly supported in our historical experience with public health. I also oppose government action in general, excepting issues that cannot be effectively dealt with on a private, voluntary basis (public goods, etc.) I think that this vaccine, when evaluating the cost per person, effectiveness of treatment, and risk of non-treatment, is probably best kept on an opt-in basis, at least until there's better performance, lowered costs, or at least testing on the target demographic.

Practical concerns:
1. It hasn't been studied AT ALL that I've seen on 10-11 year-olds, the targeted age group for the mandate. Those are some pretty hectic years, biologically speaking, and I don't think it's safe to just assume they'll react the same way as 15-25 year-olds.
2. It's been less than a year since it was approved, and no vaccine (even for much nastier diseases) has jumped from approval to mandate in such a short period of time. Again, it's risky to assume that we know everything there is to know about this vaccine. There is a big jump from "This is safe enough to sell to people." to "This is safe enough to require people to take it."
3. The trials have lasted no more than five years, and the youngest (I believe they were 14) were monitored less than 2. You have the least data about the group at greatest risk, and you want to require that group to have it?
4. The cold, hard economics: This is not a cheap vaccine - I've seen numbers vary from $345 to $400. This is also not a common disease - roughly 4000 deaths per year, and that has been falling for the past decade. Is there a better way to save lives with this money (especially if it's going to be done with taxpayer's money)?
5. Is the vaccination permanent? Again, we have no idea because we have NO LONG-TERM DATA.

In my mind, I'm not seeing the ideological issue. I'm seeing a push to shortcut standard scientific procedure against the recommendations of professional organizations (see the APA's response) and rush a govt. program into place.

Some people argue that more delay means more lives lost; history teaches us that skipping scientific trial and data collection results in assumptions killing people.

Let's play a game: assume that there's only a .05% chance of the vaccine giving people cancer (keep in mind that studies so far haven't gotten the numbers of subjects in order to detect such a low percentage with any degree of certainty). Assume that the vaccine has ZERO other side effects (no freak allergic reactions, etc.). Assume 20 million girls get the shot. That's 10,000 cancers right there (~11,000 are diagnosed each year in the US population). Add in the fact that the vaccine prevents only 70% of the cancers, and now you've got 18,700 new cancers a year.

I don't gamble because I'm tight with my money. I pay for insurance because I'm conservative with risks. Would I risk taking this vaccine myself? Probably. Would I take it upon myself to demand that everyone else take this risk? Hell no.

Posted by: corporal obvious at February 28, 2007 01:18 PM (WRJZi)

282 There were 3 global influenza pandemics in the 20th century, infecting at least 1/3 of the world's population. 1918, 1957 and 1968.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 28, 2007 01:20 PM (pzen5)

283 You don't think the flu has infected at least an eighth of the entire nation?


I don't think an eighth of the nation has the flu or any other virus at this very moment Ace, and neither do you.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 28, 2007 02:48 PM (wmgz8)

284 Hi,
You perhaps remember a drug called Thalidimide, or maybe not.

Posted by: cryinginthewilderness at March 01, 2007 12:51 PM (BOU3f)

285 Hi Christopher Taylor,

Your ignorance is amazing. More people than not carry a virus at any given time. I am older than most of the morons on this blog but everyone got childhood diseases in my day. I carry what people used to term Herpes Zoster (I know that it has a new name but I do not recall it). I remember a South Park episode about it. What is great fun is that it can nail you again later as shingles. Neither chickenpox or shingles is more than annoying (chickenpox is dangerous for older folk though).

It irritates me that the vaccine for HPV is touted as a cure for cancer. It certainly is not! As I understand it protects against the 4 strains of HPV most associated with cervical cancer which are transmitted by sexual activity (and no, condoms are not too helpful since it is not passed in fluids). There are about 30 strains transmitted sexually and about 100 total. Most are as innocuous as most viruses (annoying but not fatal). It can't be a cure for cancer since some people who get cervical cancer do not have HPV.

I recall in the last thread that some moron thought that there was no difference between correlation and causation. That really is moronic, but not in that good Ace way! I will guarantee you that there is a high correlation between carrot consumption and almost any cancer! Maybe eating carrots does cause cancer but I seriously doubt it (I certainly hope not since I eat a lot of carrots!). Causation is a very tough thing in complex systems such as man, so they largely do not even try to figure it out. That is why they talk of risk factors. I have never heard anyone claim that they knew exactly how any cancer develops. It is like a crazy person except with cells. When a person goes crazy you always see their neighbors and friends say they did not see it coming. Abusing cells with various infections and trauma certainly gives cells more reason to go nuts, but they can go nuts on their own.

It also irritated me in the last thread's comments that someone said that HPV (about 100 strains worth!) is not contagious. I read a government article that said that the best estimate was that 50% of people have one of the 30 sexually transmitted HPV strains. I believe that was only a pool of sexually active people, since it is hard to get data. It is not easy to test for HPV. They have to do a DNA test. I can't imagine that is cheap and common. There really is no point anyway since it can't be cured. When abnormal cervical cells are detected they try to treat those. How can HPV be so prevalent and not be contagious? And to leave you with an appropriate AOS feel, Ace is right; HPV is associated with penis cancer (I had not even heard of such a thing, but have a nice day you morons!).

Mike

P.S. HSV-2 is approaching a prevalence of 25% so all of you morons have that going for you also!

Posted by: Mike at March 02, 2007 12:58 AM (Dpdif)

286 (_._)

Posted by: Marcos at April 23, 2008 01:11 PM (g8pUw)

287 ^.|.^

Posted by: Leonardo at April 23, 2008 01:52 PM (DCYZy)

288 This is a very informative site.

Posted by: Jackie at May 09, 2008 07:15 PM (18FVn)

289 (%_%)

Posted by: Alyssa at May 10, 2008 10:49 PM (g8pUw)

290 (>_<)

Posted by: Kristopher at May 16, 2008 09:07 PM (g8pUw)

Posted by: steven at December 04, 2008 04:44 PM (qLkGn)

Posted by: the north face jacket at October 14, 2010 10:11 PM (1Bvbk)

Posted by: the north face jacket at October 14, 2010 10:12 PM (1Bvbk)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
257kb generated in CPU 0.34, elapsed 1.4342 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.2431 seconds, 529 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.