vol_scouter Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 To clarify as to the HPV vaccine (Gardisil). It is not 70% effective against the viruses that it immunizes the patient against. It is rather good in that respect. It immunizes against the strains of the HPV that cause 70% of the cervical cancer. The drug is very effective. After the strains it immunizes against, there are many strains causing the other 30%. In comparison, the influenza virus is for only 3 strains each year with many tens of possibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Everything I know about science I learned from Star Trek. Remember in TNG when they started having problems with the fabric of space and determined it was caused by warp drive tearing it apart. In 2370, the Hekaran scientist Serova discovered that the use of conventional warp engines caused damage to the fabric of spacetime. The Federation Council imposed a speed limit of warp factor 5 on all Federation vessels in all but extreme emergency cases, such as medical emergencies. (TNG: "Force of Nature", "Eye of the Beholder") Just goes to prove, that some technologies have unintended consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Live long and prosper! Wanna bet Vulcan didn't have abortion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinkflame Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Precisely why the influenza vaccine, although promoted high and low, may be yet another hype. The strains are chosen sort of on the statistical probability that those will be the strains that will be out there making peole sick, but also based on which strain are available to make vaccine. There is ALWAYS the possiblity that a highly virulent strain will surface that hadn't even been under consideration or that was considered so low a probability that it wasn't included or present as a "new strain". So when people tell you they are protected ffom the flu because they got a flu shot, it is sort of not necessarily so and may provide false reassurance, just like a young woman thinking she is protected from HPV and cervical cancer because she got the HPV vaccine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BulldogBlitz Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 "For those who refuse to fund organizations that also provide abortion, the hypocrisy is often evident in that these same organizations supply non-abortive family planning information that could have the effect of LOWERING abortion rates." the non-abortive "family" planning is out there without these organizations - it is called self control - there's only been one case where a woman got pregnant without sex. it is completely unnecessary and incorrect to say that planned parenthood is "family" planning. a majority of those who use their services are unwed people looking to avoid having a surprise family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 pinkflame, that still doesn't justify NOT taking a vaccine that helps reduce the risk of cervical cancer. If there was a vaccine to reduce the chances of lung cancer, would you be opposed to it because people might think it makes smoking OK? I'd rather reduce the cancer rate, and if some people are too ignorant to understand that vaccines aren't perfect and never will be, that's really their own problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BulldogBlitz Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 "This whole argument is BS. The woman will always have the choice, the technology is not going to vanish - it's too simple...and eventually there will be biochemical ways to terminate pregnancies that are undetectable and private. The only thing in question is how much it will cost, its convenience, and its safety. None of that other stuff is going to change the fact that she will decide and that her decision will be based on how she weighs the factors in her life. Get over it." why bother with safety? the intent of the procedure is to kill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutldr Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Bulldog is right. The young folks probably don't realize it, but all you really need is a kitchen table and a coat hanger. Before Roe v Wade, many pregnant teens took this route and many died from perforation, hemorrhage and infection, or if they were lucky, merely became sterile. We eliminate legal medical abortion and they will return to this barbaric practice. Where there's a will there's a way, indeed. Preach all you want, but they will find a way to get it done. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but as a Public Health professional, I'm telling you the way it is in the trenches. Eternal life is low on their list of priorities when they're 14 and pregnant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 scoutldr, I'm writing only because I'm a bit confused about your last post. Were you agreeing with BulldogBlitz (BDB) or were you agreeing with the quote he took from one of my much earlier posts? I do agree with you that the technology is simple and it can be communicated very easily (not to mention nearly invisible in the case of RU486). BDB, I think, supports strong central government control and prohibition of personal freedom in this case. My point was that even if the pro-lifers got their laws (a record on which they have failed miserably) the laws cannot and will not eliminate the choice. Which I think is also your point. People can protest all they want but in our society women do have the choice. That's not going to change with a law, especially one that pro-lifers can't seem to get passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vol_scouter Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Gern's rip in space-time may occur as I agree with Merlyn. If young women are protected against the strains of HPV that cause 70% of the cervical cancer, it makes no sense not to get immunized. Even if the women are promiscuous, they are at least protected from 70% instead of 0%. That means that ~70% will not get HPV that would have. Not having the vaccine because it does not cover 100% is silly. As to the influenza vaccine, what is being left out is that the strains for which the public is immunized could have been an epidemic. That is probably more likely than the contrary. Since both experiments cannot be carried out, we cannot know the correct answer but I suspect that it is the former. Vaccines protect us from many diseases with high morbidity and or mortality. The reasons not to have the vaccines are irrational and not based on scientific understanding. It is a reflection of the poor science education that our citizens receive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Vaccines just make sense. Inject dead virus into the subject so the body builds resistance to the live virus without danger of infection. Every time I got a flu shot, I didn't get the flu that season. Every time I got the flu, I didn't get the flu shot that season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 vol_scouter, I agree with you to some extent with regard to science education. However, I also was impressed with what I observed on a video: http://www.learner.org/resources/series28.html The link is to an online video called, "A Private Universe", you have to register (for free) in order to view it online. From the web site, "This video brings into sharp focus the dilemma facing all educators: Why don't even the brightest students truly grasp basic science concepts? Interviews are held with high school students and Ivy League graduates asking them to explain what causes the seasons and the phases of the moon. Even the brightest students in the class have false ideas based on enduring misconceptions that traditional instructional methods cannot overcome." So while I can always support better science education, there are also other fundamental things that we need to address before the public is prepared for good decisions about things even as basic as vaccines against diseases. We seem so vulnerable to myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vol_scouter Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 packsaddle, With apologies for not watching the video yet, I do not doubt their findings. As our world gets more technological, fewer understand it because they are not taught how to think! Logic and clear thinking allows one to UNDERSTAND, not memorize, science and mathematics. Mathematics is the easiest course children study - few rules, totally logical, and few exceptions (especially if taught correctly). How many times did you hear a teacher say that a difficult math concept would be covered giving the student instant concerns for learning? That I heard often growing up but never heard about the difficult English lesson. English is full of illogical rules and exceptions. So students are not taught to think and analyze. Also, as a society we do not value learning. We value sports and money but not learning. On TV and radio, a discussion on a topic of science is led by a journalist interviewing actors and actresses who may have only a high school education. What does that teach our children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 vol_scouter, I tend to agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutldr Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Pack, I was agreeing with the quote. Sorry for the confusion. With regard to vaccines...in the Public Health world there is a concept called "herd immunity". It is not necessary to vaccinate every individual. I think the number is 20-30% is enough to prevent an epidemic. That was discussed in the preparations for the Pandemic Flu that has yet to materialize...there is no way we can produce enough vaccine in time should an epidemic start its way around the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now