231–240 of 393 posts
It is shocking that there are still places in the world where this is controversial. You can tell a lot about the qualities of a society by the way they care for their own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"unsafe" is a loaded term in your fish analogy, you eat mecury directly, but wont eat fish that might have mercury. the communicable disease is itself quite dangerous
I think you missed the point. Granted the disease is dangerous, but what if the cure is worse ? If we don't know this is true, we ought to assume the risk outweighs the benefits until PROVEN otherwise- that is the precautionary principle. As an analogy take Vioxx, a headache remedy that caused thousands of heart attacks. Merck the manufacturer started an advertising campaign for the drug AFTER the learned it was kill…
Edit: To all the pro-Pfizer downvoters, feel free to take some Zantac. You have learned nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Information from the CDC [1], indicates Adverse Reactions are similar to administration of a placebo, which is not zero. Any vaccine administration has potential for negative adverse reactions, it's reasonable not to get a vaccine if you judge the upside is not worth the downside, even if the downside is small. The CDC says: > Like all medical interventions, vaccines can have some side effects. [1] https://www.cdc.go…
If it's similar to placebo, doesn't that imply that it's pretty much non-existent?
> A temperature of 100°F during the 15 days after vaccination was reported in 10% to 13% of HPV vaccine recipients. A similar proportion of placebo recipients reported an elevated temperature.
If you take some research subjects, do nothing to them, and then ask how they did 15 days after, I would be surprised if 10-13% reported a 100F fever during that time. But, that's a reasonable result from a saline or hpv injection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you actually ask your doctor and receive that guidance, or is this purely a hypothetical?
Multiple times. I’ve specifically asked about this vaccine again and again. I’ve had a few GPs in the past 20 years. They’re consistent. I admit it’s weird. And ideologically I feel like a bit of a laggard. But I’ve had both the conversation with my doctor, and the conversation with online “smart people who know better than my doctor” many times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be blunt: Cost-effectiveness.
In the US, recommendations come from the United States Preventive Services Task Force. They explicitly do not consider cost in their decisions. They look at harm vs benefit, usually with a focus on mortality reduction. Most insurance companies will base their coverage on the USPSTF. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/hpv/hcp/recommendations.htm...
It's a level of evidence that's generated (usually) prior to ACIP, and it is presented to them, while there is not necessarily a bright line threshold.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any way to test for previous exposure? I'd be pretty surprised if I didn't already have antibodies. I suppose it doesn't matter though.
Note that the modern vaccine covers 9 different strains.
Definitely ensure you're requesting the 9 strain version.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if you suspect that the cdc has been captured by big pharma, "and we don't care about cost of these recommended drugs" should pretty much seal the deal for you :)
Oh wow how the conspiracy theories change. There used to be fears of "death panels" controlling access to medical care when Clinton tried to propose universal health care. The CDC and FDA are about safety, not cost management. And they get significant complaints about how much they regulate pharma and are impediments to pharma for that! Now the conspiracy theorists of the other side seem to be having their day in the…
That was, for example, why boys were originally not part of the recommendation for the HPV vaccine. It would double to cost, while doing very little to prevent cervical cancer via indirect protection. Once the evidence accumulated that it was associated with other cancers, that stopped being true.
Similar logic applied to older women and men.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a sense no, hence the choice to vaccinate younger children who will mostly not be sexually active yet. But because the modern versions of these vaccines cover many strains (initial vaccines were two, Denmark chose a 4 way vaccine, now a nine way) it's very possible that you get a meaningful benefit by being protected from say six strains your body has never seen, even though the three it has already seen wouldn't…
It should be noted that the decision to vaccinate younger children is a combination of disease prevention and cost, not just vaccine effectiveness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HPV tests are of low value (as an adult, if ever sexually active, you likely have it but can do nothing about it); a new biomarker test that can detect the cancers is being developed [1]. Ongoing cancer surveillance is all you can do once exposed without having been vaccinated (and if cancer occurs, immunotherapy). As pm90 wrote, I strongly recommend getting vaccinated [2] unless a doctor tells you otherwise, even if…
> previous potential exposure. Isn't that basically everyone who's had sex with someone who had sex before the vaccine was common? I was denied when I asked my last doctor, on that logic. I'll ask my current doctor.