Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: DREDIOCK on January 22, 2008, 07:49:14 PM
-
I dont know about you folks but every time I turn on the TV I see an advertisement for this vacination against cervical cancer. Or am hearing about it on one show or another
I see it and hear about itso often I got to thinking.
Is it really that much of a threat? or are the Drug companies just trying to scare women into throwing more money at them.
so I looked it up.
According to the "National Cervical Cancer Coalition (NCCC)"
" In the United States, About 10,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year"
http://www.nccc-online.org/ (http://www.nccc-online.org/)
sounds like alot doesnt it?
Then I looked up How many women there are in the USA
According to WIKI Answers
"depends on whether you count illegal aliens and tourists, and if they have to be over 18. A good estimate would be 150 million"
So thats 10 K out of 150 million
Someone else can work the odds and percentages out but.
Suddenly that 10K doesnt seem as big does it?
So is this a real significant threat to our women folk?
Or are the drug companies just playing terrorist to make a quick buck on our fears?
-
My mom was diagnosed with cervical cancer in '98. Quick outpatient prcedure and it was taken care of. You might be better off preventing than treating it, but its not like pancreatic or lung cancer that spells instant death sentance- its easily treatable.
-
Dred,
Because of the feminisation of our culture, any health risk to do with women is considered an epidemic even if the hard numbers shows it to be as expected for normal mortality.
The drug companies are evil if they do and evil if they don't. So they are pushing this along with the CDC the same way that the Vilolence against Women act got pushed through and now turns a father into a criminal through manditory orders of restraint without his knowlege and presume him guitly untill he either capitulates to the courts or has millions to fight back. Remember the constitution says innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers. The VaW bill created its on courts with its own judges and you only get to bring your lawyer if they allow you to.
So anytime more than one woman succumbs to anything, the media claims an incident of epidemic proportions and requires government intervention along with unlimited amounts of money FOR the WOMEN.
Where have you been for the last 20 years? Not watching television I hope....:)
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
So is this a real significant threat to our women folk?
Or are the drug companies just playing terrorist to make a quick buck on our fears?
I'm sure it's a very serious deal for those who have it in the way that any diagnosis of cancer is very serious. However, you have every right to be suspicious of drug companies...I know from personal experience.
It's a tough call as to what to make of advertising drugs like this. Doctors are perfectly aware of the treatments available for any serious illness, particularly if they are specialists. However, they may be under pressure from insurance companies to not prescribe certain drugs. In that case, it is the patients job to be an advocate for themselves. The only way Jane Q. Public would know about a drug that can prevent cervical cancer, is from an advertisement on the internet or TV.
I think it was the state of Texas that now requires vaccination...that is also a tough call. We get vaccinated against other preventable diseases, why not this? It's the link to transmission/multiple partners that makes this more controversial and should be a personal choice...not mandated by the nanny state, IMHO.
-
My wife was diagnosed with it-She had what is known as a 'coning' procedure, and then wound up having a complete hysterectomy. It's all internal medicine; It's not something you can see, like skin cancer.
However, after she had her hysterectomy, she still had problems-another doctor we saw, because of a change in our insurance, said that she had a cyst on her ovaries. She had those removed too, and later, when I got yet another insurance plan, and was able to have her see her original OB/GYN, He said that her Ovaries could have been treated without removal. So anymore, I wonder about the reality of medicine...
-
The odds of being diagnosed with this aren't too far from the chances of being killed in a car accident.
I choose to wear a seatbelt.
-
Originally posted by kamilyun
I'm sure it's a very serious deal for those who have it in the way that any diagnosis of cancer is very serious. However, you have every right to be suspicious of drug companies...I know from personal experience.
Oh I agree.
15 years ago I had Hodgkins disease. which is statistically the least diagnosed disease in the USA
The incidence or number of cases of Hodgkin's lymphoma (about 7880 cases, 4330 men and 3550 women in the United States this year)
And yea. for me it was a very serious deal. terrifying in fact. Even with its high cure rate.
But. The drug companies and media are on cervical so much one could easily be led to beleive it was a rampant epidemic.
The numbers just dont support the exitement and paranoia.
they make it sound as if its not an if a woman is going to get it. But "will" if she doesnt get the vacination.
Im not saying that cervical cancer isnt serious.
Its just not the epidemic we are being led to beleive.
Yes its more of a risk then Hodgkins.
But like hogkins it is very unlikely one will get it.
even without the vaccination
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
The odds of being diagnosed with this aren't too far from the chances of being killed in a car accident.
I choose to wear a seatbelt.
your comparing dyeing from lack of seatbelt to being diagnosed with cervical.
If we were to compare apples and apples
the women actually dying from cervical cancer is less then half of the chance of the ones getting it
Out of 10,000 women who will be diagnosed
3,700 women die in the USA each year from this disease.
3,700 out of 150 million
now re compute the risk.
If given a choice of one or the other. Wearing a seatbelt or getting vaccinated. considering the odds. which would you choose?
You actually have a greater risk of drowning
4000 per year in the USA
Do you wear a life jacket every time you go swimming?
I do understand your point. I agree with it to an extent as well.
what Im saying is it isnt the HUGE threat the drug companies and media are making it out to be
-
I have zero chance of getting cervical cancer.
I'm feeling pretty good about it too.
-
to put numbers in prespective, auto deaths 42,000, deaths from flu 36,000 a year.
36,000 a year from the flu?
-
Originally posted by john9001
36,000 a year from the flu?
Not surprising... infants and elderly mostly, I think.
-
Wifey had it... was never getting her tests.
It wasn't until she became pregnant with my Son in '98 that it was detected. She had a D&C after giving birth and 2 Months later had to have a full hyster. If it wasn't for her getting pregnant she would not be here today.
The threat is Real.
-
Yes the threat is real.
My wife was diagnosed with cervical cancer in May of 2005. She went through all kinds of procedures, Radiation treatments and chemotherapy. She was "cured" twice, so the doctors said. Unfortunatley I lost my wife on Dec. 25, 2006.
Cervical Cancer starts out as a virus. The shot they are advertising on tv is given so women do not get the virus which leads to cervical cancer.
I for one will be taking my daughter to the doctor to get this shot as soon as she gets old enough and I fully investigate the drug. She is only 11 years old, so I have a little time.
If nothing else maybe this post will save someone the pain of losing a loved one to cervical cancer.
-
ANY cancer is a major risk, to answer the topic question.
-
I asked my other 1/2 if she wanted to get it, she saidno.
Personally I'd like her to get it since she's already got one life threateneing condition already, and smokes quite a bit to boot, (which also doesn't help the aforementioned conditon, but it's her choice.:)
-
Another thing to think about.
Some high risk HPV (Human Papillomas Virus/genital warts) can cause Cervical cancer and you the man can be a carrier and have no idea you carry it and spread it around if you have unprotected sex.
So remember its a cancer that you can activly help someone develope.
Of course if untreated it could also spread into the lymph system and cause cancer to break out in other organs nearby, possibly causeing death from a different cancer? maybe then counting as a different stat?
So 1 woman may die, might be your mum or your sister thats only a little 1 on the statistics but the impacts to family life are tragic for alot more people.
Still very serious and its treatable, smear identify cancer and in some cases help diagnose HPV and stop the spread of the virus.
Here in uk woman are invited for smear tests every 6 months on the NHS
-
Well something else to think about.
Something like 70% of the population will be infected with HPV at some point in their lives by age 60.
So odds are about 3/4 of the population either is or will be infected with HPV.
Yet. only10 K of women will come down with cervical cancer.
As someone else pointed out
36,000 will die from the flu
Thats three times as many as will be diagnosed with cervical cancer and almost 30 times as many as will die from it.
yet while we hear about it. not every other TV show Nor every other commercial is dedicated to getting vaccinated.
Im not saying it isnt a real risk,
Anything reguardless of how small the statistic is a real risk.
As I mentioned before. I had Hogkins. so yea I know how "real" and serious it can be taken
the real question is, (perhaps I worded it wrong previously)
Is the risk as severe as its made out to be?
Hell I seem to remember a while back hearing about certain states requiring the vaccination of school children for it
Lets face it. Its made out to be, or we are being led to beleive. It an epidemic.
The numbers just simply do not bear this out.
CC is by and large pretty rare when looking at the overall numbers
Im not saying getting vaccinated is a bad thing. Nor am I saying its a bad idea to get vaccinated.
What I am questioning is the tactics the drug companies are using to boost profits.
Playing on peoples natural paranoia
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Playing on peoples natural paranoia
They played on people`s paranoia , as you put it, to reduce the death rate by 74% between `55 and `92 by promoting and getting warnings in the media concerning the Pap test.
The cervical cancer death rate declined by 74% between 1955 and 1992. The main reason for this change is the increased use of the Pap test. This screening procedure can find changes in the cervix before cancer develops. It can also find early cancer in its most curable stage. The death rate from cervical cancer continues to decline by nearly 4% a year.
-
Dredlock, you asked for an opinion, and it seems like you're really unhappy with the answers you're getting. You seem _really_ opposed to this vaccination despite your 'on the fence' language. How come?
-
Well something else to think about.
Something like 70% of the population will be infected with HPV at some point in their lives by age 60.
So odds are about 3/4 of the population either is or will be infected with HPV.
Yet. only10 K of women will come down with cervical cancer.
taking Stats from uk from for 2005-2006 for 3.3 million woman aged 25-64
93.8% negative = 3,095,400 are ok :)
Stage 1: 3.2% borderline changes
Stage 2: 1.8% showed mild Dyskaryosis
Stage 3: 0.5% showed moderate Dyskaryosis
Stage 4: 0.6% showed severe Dyskaryosis
Stage 5: 0.1% showed glandular neoplasia
i'll take all these as a positive test result.
So out of 3.3 million woman only 3300 showed glandular neoplasia but in total 204,600 woman have or have the potentional of cirvical cancer.
If all the above were caught early and treated successfully there would be 0 deaths for the year, but that doesn't mean its not there and we should become complacent its still a serious threat to your health.
(and yes pharmicutical Companies are buisnesses and out to make money I have no doubt)
As a footnote my sister was found to be at the severe Dyskaryosis stage and i would not wish what she went through on anyone.
Stats from:http://www.ic.nhs.uk/statistics-and-data-collections/screening/cervical-cancer/cervical-screening-programme-2005-06
-
As a pilot, I have to accept that each flight has a certain amount of unavoidable risk. After that, it's up to me as PIC to determine how much of the avoidable risk I'll be exposed to, because it's cumulative. I do my damndest to cut all of the avoidable risk because it's the part I can control.
You know the phrase "A dollar here, a dollar there, pretty soon you're talking real money"? The same thing applies to avoidable diseases. If it's practical to get a vaccination that cuts a realistic risk (and as the many posts here of "I know someone who got cervical cancer" attests, it's a realistic risk), then do it. If it's impractical because of cost or side effects, then don't, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
Getting up on a soap box to tell people _not_ to do it would seem to be just silly.
-
My wife will be having a full hysterectomy on the 7th of Feb. She was diagnosed several months back, had the cone biopsy and it's time to fix the problem.
My daughter is 12, as of this month. Both my wife and I are not comfortable with the vaccine. It's too new, it's being pushed way too hard and a little research on the political arena players who have a financial stake in the drug's financial success told quite a bit. An aggressive push to make this very new, experimental drug mandatory, gee that sent up red flags.
We'll give it more time to see what it really does, my wife is currently reaping the benefits (sarcasm) of a wonder drug she took as a child. Not interested in experimenting on my daughter.
-
I recall there were a few other things that were a risk but seemed to be handled by vaccination. Polio, diphtheria, tetanus all come to mind. TB was another issue that has all but disappeared from the US.
Yeah people die from the flu, but they still provide flu shots every year trying to reduce the death rates particularly among those most at risk. You could say doing that avoids natural selection but if it was you or your child at risk I'd bet you'd be interested.
-
Originally posted by ROC
We'll give it more time to see what it really does, my wife is currently reaping the benefits of a wonder drug she took as a child. Not interested in experimenting on my daughter.
Which childhood drug? What happened?
-
Some acne drug her mom just had to get her into, can't remember the name. I'll ask her tonight. Kids get acne, her mom thought this new prescription thing would be awesome.
Her cholesterol is out of control, teeth grow dark rings like a tree, health issues all directly related to that product being out and it never should have been.
All because a teen had acne. Same with this vaccine, and no I'm not comparing Acne to Cervical Cancer. Medicines need time to be fully studied for long term affects. Of course, this costs money and people are in a hurry, so they get stuffed out quicker than they should.
Here is my concern with anything Cancer related. This drug proposes to prevent cancer. There are Foods that claim to prevent cancer. There are foods and chemicals that claim to cause cancer. How can they know the Causes and the Preventions yet not be able to Cure it? It's speculation, they don't know, they are guessing, and often times they guess wrong only to come back 10 years down the line and change their minds.
I support whole heartedly the drive to cure, but they need to quit spewing forth guesses and claiming they are facts. There are plenty of people that will try this drug, and that's ok. I'm not saying they shouldn't. My charge against this vaccine was the attempt to make it a mandatory vaccination and I'll not allow anyone to force an experiment on mine :) We chose not to use it. Wife, with cervical cancer, and undergoing surgery says oh hell no. Speaks volumes to me.
Anyway, just one persons view is all.
-
Originally posted by kamilyun
I think it was the state of Texas that now requires vaccination...that is also a tough call. We get vaccinated against other preventable diseases, why not this? It's the link to transmission/multiple partners that makes this more controversial and should be a personal choice...not mandated by the nanny state, IMHO.
They tried. It was shot down. When they say on the commercial "I was so surprised to hear that I can actually get cancer from a virus [repeat 'virus' about 10 times by different women]" is this: Its a sexually transmitted disease. Don't sleep with every Tom Dick & Harry out there if you don't want the cancer causing STD.
It annoys me so badly that they portray that "virus" as if it's something like flu-germs passed by casual contact.
Our own knuckle-headed governor trying to require girls 6th grade & up to be vaccinated for a cancer causing STD is yet another example of encouraging a lack of personal responsibility or accountability on any individual level. It drives me up a wall to even think of it.
"Hey, these girls obviously can't be responsible enough to keep their damn legs closed... I got a good idea: Lets just require everyone 6th grade & up to get a vaccination to make sure they don't get this STD which could lead to cancer. Oh, it'll be a State run program ~ so lets use everyone's taxes to pay for it, too. Whadduya think?" Freaking retards.
-
I always enjoy reading TexasMom posts :)
I'll be teaching my daughter the flawless and 100% effective Aspirin method of birth control.
You know that one, hold an aspirin between your knees, and keep it there :)
-
Originally posted by ROC
I always enjoy reading TexasMom posts :)
I'll be teaching my daughter the flawless and 100% effective Aspirin method of birth control.
You know that one, hold an aspirin between your knees, and keep it there :)
*smile* I almost deleted that one. I'm terribly grouchy right now & thought it was mean.
Yeah, I grew up with the penny method (same as the aspirin method). Works. :lol
-
There is a "work around" to the aspirin / penny technique. :t
-
Thanks texasmom. I was hoping someone would come in here with what you said.
-
Originally posted by bustr
So anytime more than one woman succumbs to anything, the media claims an incident of epidemic proportions and requires government intervention along with unlimited amounts of money FOR the WOMEN.
Where have you been for the last 20 years? Not watching television I hope....:)
Yeah, because you never see any TV commercials by drug companies for men health problems ....
like erectile dysfunction.
-
Originally posted by ROC
It's too new, it's being pushed way too hard and a little research on the political arena players who have a financial stake in the drug's financial success told quite a bit. An aggressive push to make this very new, experimental drug mandatory, gee that sent up red flags.
That was Sarah's take on it too. She's very suspicious of new things anyway, and she's also rather paranoid of medical professionals which is probably related to bad experiences in her early teens.
-
if you boink a chick with one of those cancer casuing viruses then you get the virus.......every chick you ever boink will get the virus too. Its a STD that casues cervical cancer you know.......unless of course you use intergalactic prophylactics!
-
HPV is a nasty one, even condoms are not very effective since it tends to manifest itself more at the opening of the vagina and around the base of the noodle, these areas are usually still contacted by both parties even if a condom is used. The other thing is HPV does not need to have direct genital contact to be transmitted, dexterous manipulation and oral contact can also lead to transference.
If you were to do a search you'd find that there is an awfully high percentage of sexually active subjects that have been diagnosed as having HPV but the kicker is that due to its' nature there are probably more than double that number that have no clue they carry it since for most people it has no outward signs of it's existence.
Yeah you could be celibate until marriage, or you could just not do it at all and procreate by AI or wait until they perfect cloning (then zoozoo might actually get to have some friends!).
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Dredlock, you asked for an opinion, and it seems like you're really unhappy with the answers you're getting. You seem _really_ opposed to this vaccination despite your 'on the fence' language. How come?
Truth?
To Im just enjoying the discussion.
Its the entire reason I started the thread.
The board was getting dry IMO And we needed a good lively debate over somethiing that was debatable.
I saw the commercial on TV. Got to thinking about it and looked it up.
Thats what I found
Im not opposed to it at all
If you feel the need to get it. By all means do so.
What I AM saying though is that it isnt the great threat its made out to be.
In spite of several here who's significant other has contracted it.
Like My Hodgekins. its still a relitively rare occurance.
Those who got it. Like me with Hodgekins.
Just happened to be unlucky enough to contract their cancer.
there is a much higher instance of breast cancer. but we do not hear half the hub bub about that that we do with this.
Im thinking that the drug companies dont make alot of money off of breast exams. And inasmuch as women tend to be hypersensitive about cancer. this would make for a windfall for them.
I agree to a certain extent it makes sense to get the vaccination.
I dont agree that it is an occurance that is in epidemic proportions the way it seems they are making it out to be
-
Just never take TexasMom to Hooters... she doesn't like the Hot Wings.
:O
Mac
*sorry dear... just statin facts ma'am. tips hat*
-
Dred,
One major difference between this and breast cancer is this. There is no way to vacinate for breast cancer ...... yet. If there was I imagine the hubub would be there. If nothing else this one cancer may end up going the way of polio and TB.
-
Originally posted by texasmom
They tried. It was shot down. When they say on the commercial "I was so surprised to hear that I can actually get cancer from a virus [repeat 'virus' about 10 times by different women]" is this: Its a sexually transmitted disease. Don't sleep with every Tom Dick & Harry out there if you don't want the cancer causing STD.
It annoys me so badly that they portray that "virus" as if it's something like flu-germs passed by casual contact.
Our own knuckle-headed governor trying to require girls 6th grade & up to be vaccinated for a cancer causing STD is yet another example of encouraging a lack of personal responsibility or accountability on any individual level. It drives me up a wall to even think of it.
"Hey, these girls obviously can't be responsible enough to keep their damn legs closed... I got a good idea: Lets just require everyone 6th grade & up to get a vaccination to make sure they don't get this STD which could lead to cancer. Oh, it'll be a State run program ~ so lets use everyone's taxes to pay for it, too. Whadduya think?" Freaking retards.
I understand the sentiment, but I like to remind people (parents) that even if their daughter is a virgin when they get married, the knucklehead they marry may not be. I personally had my daughter get the vaccine just for that fact. Who knows what kind of idiot she'll end up marrying.
-
HPV 16 & 18, together account for about 70% of invasive cervical cancers. While 10,000 cervical cancers a year in the US may seem small compared to other causes of death, 10,000 people are a lot of people. Especially, now there is a vaccine that could prevent 7,000 or those cancers. There are about 4,000 deaths a year from cervical cancer at this time. At one time cervical cancer was the most common type of cancer among women and the leading cause of cancer death. This has dramatically changed with modern medical screening and treatment for non-invasive cervical cancer, or pre-malignant dysplasia. As a matter of fact, a significant amount of health care dollars goes to screening and treating conditions before the cancer develops. So yes, there are only 4K deaths and 10K cancers a year, there are thousands that never get invasive cancer due these efforts.
Bear in mind also there are complications to female fertility and ability to carry a pregnancy with some treatments. The biopsies to determine if a woman has cervical cancer are not pain free (physically or for the wallet book). The mental stress of having to follow-up with their doctors of these exams and biopsies every 3 months is costly in emotional and financial capital. And this is only to deal with the cervical cancer aspect.
HPV 6 & 11 also causes genital warts (together about 90% of the cases). Genital warts are embarrassing. They can grow to really impressive sizes. Removing them will not get rid of the potential for more to grow. On the other hand (so to speak) most genital warts are small and not noticed, easy to transmit if you don’t know you go it. Treatment requires multiple treatments and trips to the doctor. HPV 6 & 11 can also cause changes in cells on the cervix that might be considered precancerous and all the screening and treatments above may be needed.
The Gardasil vaccine is a vaccine against HPV 16, 18, 6, and 11. The vaccine was highly effective (>95% for cervical cancer, vulvar pre cancers, and genital warts) in clinical trials and if used on a national basis could indeed reduce over half of the invasive cervical cancers it would also reduced the health care cost that go into treating all the premalignant conditions (that never progress to cancer because of aggressive medical intervention). This will be the greatest impact of the vaccine. Keep in mind that the vaccine will also prevent about 90% of anogenital warts. The prevalence of genital warts is about 1% of the US population or some where around 3 million people.
-
HPV-16 has also been implicated in penile cancer.
Ponder, if you will, what treatment for that disease might involve and a vaccine might start to seem like a good idea.
-
Unfortunately from what I understand, the vaccine is only effective against HPV in women. :(
-
I think it is likely effective in men as well. I think there is an ongoing study on men now. Problem with HPV in men and getting a clinical trial done is there is no easy way to measure outcomes. This is easier in women. HPV is associated with male homosexual anogenital cancers and diseases as well. The benefit will likely go beyond women.
Additionally, the vaccine was tested in younger women 16-26 y/o. I am sure its as effective in older women (>26 y/o) as well but the study design was limited to a young age group 16-26 who had never gotten HPV before. The FDA only approved the vaccine for young women based on this study, but in reality it should work for a woman who is 35 and newly divorced and interested in entering into the dating scene again.
-
Originally posted by Scatcat
I think it is likely effective in men as well. I think there is an ongoing study on men now. Problem with HPV in men and getting a clinical trial done is there is no easy way to measure outcomes.
Vaccinate 50% of the men, don't vaccinate the other 50%. 10 years later, compare the total number of noodlees left in each group.