Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rare in proportion to the population and not all of the population is at the same level of risk. If your link is newer, don’t you find it strange that the rates are going up even though more people are getting the vaccine????
The population is going up. Diagnostics are getting better. People are smoking less, so fewer get smoking related head and neck cancers.
Pap smears detect precancerous changes in the cervical cells. When detected early, this is highly treatable. Hence the reason Pap smears have been so successful in majorly dropping the rate of cervical cancer. There have been a few campaigns to encourage screenings, but nothing on the level that we’ve seen via Merk’s commercials which even held spots in the prime advertising time, the Super Bowl.
Paps prevent nothing, although they do screen. Instead of blaming suzy for the lack of a pap smear promotion commercial during the Super Bowl, get busy on developing one.
Nope. It’s about education, choice and risk.
Educational programs go so far. You are promoting a Utopia.
Right, HPV is definitely not the only factor in HPV associated cancers. Other factors such as smoking, drinking, etc. increase the risk dramatically. 90% of the population will clear HPV from their bodies via their immune systems.
I just posted a link showing smoking and alcohol to be unrelated to some head and neck HPV cancers.
The media campaign used fear and guilt. There have been attempts, at least one successful making HPV vaccines mandatory for school aged kids. Considering you can’t catch HPV inside of the school, it seems hysterical and market driven rather then health driven. Hysteria.
Are your kids in high school yet? Do you remember your own high school years? It's not as far-fetched as you think. And these kids are doing plenty of social activities, some school sponsored, that lend themselves to getting HPV.
I think it’s wise to both test for HPV and continue with regular paps but time will tell if this new method of only screening for HPV will be successful.
The health experts seem to disagree with you.
Clearly you haven’t been reading what I’ve been writing. HPV is a real virus but the hysteria over it didn’t start until the vaccine was close to market. Yes, people talked about safe sex and pap screening in regards to all STI’s but not even close to the level things have gotten once the vaccine was ready for sale. The ads are all about fear mongering as are the attempts, both failed and successfull, to make this vaccine a part of the schedule for being able to attend school are indicators that the mass fear of the illness came after the drug, not the other way around.
I don't see any hysteria about HPV disease and I worked in health care. "Safe sex" has been a mantra for decades to prevent other STDs. The ads are not about fear mongering. However, the antivaccine efforts are fear-mongering, with one of the latest suggesting ill effects on fertility from the vaccine.
Cancer is a blanket term for many illnesses. Of course they seek cures.
I’ve never heard or read about a FUNCTIONAL cure for HIV or AIDS.
My mom passed of cancer two years ago she had several types of cancer though out her life. Finally it reached her brain at 70. IMO, it would be self defeating to find a cure for cancer and anything else. As I said before there is no money in finding a cure for it. Again that’s my opinion and you know what they say about opinions.
Let’s say your right and there is a cure for something like cancer, I’m willing to bet that most people can’t afford it.
You quoted and rebutted no less than 9 other posts. Seek Help.
If it wasn’t so funny it would be sad. She (apparently) sits on CD all day and, literally, googles constantly to find quick retorts to nearly EVERY health thread. She reads the content then spews it back at us until she exhausts a thread - claiming victory over all when, actually, we have just grown tired of her game...kinda like a kid who can’t stop playing monopoly even though everyone’s left the table.
If it wasn’t so funny it would be sad. She (apparently) sits on CD all day and, literally, googles constantly to find quick retorts to nearly EVERY health thread. She reads the content then spews it back at us until she exhausts a thread - claiming victory over all when, actually, we have just grown tired of her game...kinda like a kid who can’t stop playing monopoly even though everyone’s left the table.
It makes one wonder if pharmaceutical companies pay people to promote and defend their products online. I would actually be surprised if they didn’t. It’s a fairly cheap and easy way of reaching people.
Not saying that anyone here is a paid poster, just generally speaking about this since it is related to the topic of the thread which has everything to do with marketing and disease mongering.
It makes one wonder if pharmaceutical companies pay people to promote and defend their products online. I would actually be surprised if they didn’t. It’s a fairly cheap and easy way of reaching people.
Not saying that anyone here is a paid poster, just generally speaking about this since it is related to the topic of the thread which has everything to do with marketing and disease mongering.
This thread is evidence that people are more than willing to volunteer their time online promoting complete nonsense, as if any were needed.
Rare in proportion to the population and not all of the population is at the same level of risk. If your link is newer, don’t you find it strange that the rates are going up even though more people are getting the vaccine????
The figures in the links are for overlapping time intervals. They do not tell anything about trends in incidence. One of the previous links I gave you showed the incidence of HPV infections is already going down. That means the cancers associated with HPV will go down, too. It will take a few years to be reflected in the incidence numbers because cervical cancer takes years to happen.
Thirty to forty thousand new cases per year is not rare. You can try to minimize the severity of the problem all you want to. That does not change the facts.
Quote:
Pap smears detect precancerous changes in the cervical cells. When detected early, this is highly treatable. Hence the reason Pap smears have been so successful in majorly dropping the rate of cervical cancer. There have been a few campaigns to encourage screenings, but nothing on the level that we’ve seen via Merk’s commercials which even held spots in the prime advertising time, the Super Bowl.
How do Pap smears reduce cancers in men? How do they diagnose throat cancer?
Quote:
Nope. It’s about education, choice and risk.
Your Utopia will never exist. People will have multiple sex partners and engage in activities that spread HPV to body sites other than the female cervix.
Quote:
Right, HPV is definitely not the only factor in HPV associated cancers. Other factors such as smoking, drinking, etc. increase the risk dramatically. 90% of the population will clear HPV from their bodies via their immune systems.
HPV infection is necessary (though probably not sufficient) for HPV associated cancers to happen. By definition, if there is no HPV there, it is not HPV associated.
The very reason for the vaccine is that not everyone will clear the virus, and there is no way to tell who will and who will not.
Quote:
The media campaign used fear and guilt. There have been attempts, at least one successful making HPV vaccines mandatory for school aged kids. Considering you can’t catch HPV inside of the school, it seems hysterical and market driven rather then health driven. Hysteria.
The reason for giving the vaccine in the age bracket for which it is recommended is to ensure the child is protected before the very first sexual experience. It does not work after infection is established. You are very naive if you do not think school children are sexually active.
"In 2011–2013, about 13% of never-married females aged 15–19 and 18% of never-married males in that age-group had had sex before age 15, compared with 19% and 21%, respectively, in 1995."
A small percentage of kids have had sex well before age 15. That is why the vaccine is recommended as early as age 9
Quote:
I think it’s wise to both test for HPV and continue with regular paps but time will tell if this new method of only screening for HPV will be successful.
It would not be done if there were not evidence to support it.
"On April 24, 2014, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of one HPV DNA test (cobas HPV test, Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.) as a first-line primary screening test for use alone for women age 25 and older ... The new approval was based on long-term findings from the ATHENA trial, a clinical trial that included more than 47,000 women. The results showed that the HPV test used in the study performed better than the Pap test at identifying women at risk of developing severe cervical cell abnormalities.
The greater assurance against future cervical cancer risk with HPV testing has also been demonstrated by a cohort study of more than a million women, which found that, after 3 years, women who tested negative on the HPV test had an extremely low risk of developing cervical cancer—about half the already low risk of women who tested negative on the Pap test."
Quote:
Clearly you haven’t been reading what I’ve been writing. HPV is a real virus but the hysteria over it didn’t start until the vaccine was close to market. Yes, people talked about safe sex and pap screening in regards to all STI’s but not even close to the level things have gotten once the vaccine was ready for sale. The ads are all about fear mongering as are the attempts, both failed and successfull, to make this vaccine a part of the schedule for being able to attend school are indicators that the mass fear of the illness came after the drug, not the other way around.
So now your motive becomes clear. It does not matter to you that there is now a safe an effective way to prevent a viral infection that can cause 30,000 to 40,000 cancers per year (choose whichever number you want to use). You just do not want it to be included in school mandates. Gotcha.
The vaccine was not developed just to sell the vaccine. It was invented to prevent infection with a cancer causing virus, and the advertising was to make the public aware that it is available.
It makes one wonder if pharmaceutical companies pay people to promote and defend their products online. I would actually be surprised if they didn’t. It’s a fairly cheap and easy way of reaching people.
Not saying that anyone here is a paid poster, just generally speaking about this since it is related to the topic of the thread which has everything to do with marketing and disease mongering.
Many of us have wondered the same thing - especially when someone, apparently, spends a good portion of their day and night posting non-stop. We’ve even seen posts that were entered in the middle of the night when we’re all sleeping - just to try and have the final word...
The figures in the links are for overlapping time intervals. They do not tell anything about trends in incidence. One of the previous links I gave you showed the incidence of HPV infections is already going down. That means the cancers associated with HPV will go down, too. It will take a few years to be reflected in the incidence numbers because cervical cancer takes years to happen.
Thirty to forty thousand new cases per year is not rare. You can try to minimize the severity of the problem all you want to. That does not change the facts.
How do Pap smears reduce cancers in men? How do they diagnose throat cancer?
Your Utopia will never exist. People will have multiple sex partners and engage in activities that spread HPV to body sites other than the female cervix.
HPV infection is necessary (though probably not sufficient) for HPV associated cancers to happen. By definition, if there is no HPV there, it is not HPV associated.
The very reason for the vaccine is that not everyone will clear the virus, and there is no way to tell who will and who will not.
The reason for giving the vaccine in the age bracket for which it is recommended is to ensure the child is protected before the very first sexual experience. It does not work after infection is established. You are very naive if you do not think school children are sexually active.
"In 2011–2013, about 13% of never-married females aged 15–19 and 18% of never-married males in that age-group had had sex before age 15, compared with 19% and 21%, respectively, in 1995."
A small percentage of kids have had sex well before age 15. That is why the vaccine is recommended as early as age 9
It would not be done if there were not evidence to support it.
"On April 24, 2014, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of one HPV DNA test (cobas HPV test, Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.) as a first-line primary screening test for use alone for women age 25 and older ... The new approval was based on long-term findings from the ATHENA trial, a clinical trial that included more than 47,000 women. The results showed that the HPV test used in the study performed better than the Pap test at identifying women at risk of developing severe cervical cell abnormalities.
The greater assurance against future cervical cancer risk with HPV testing has also been demonstrated by a cohort study of more than a million women, which found that, after 3 years, women who tested negative on the HPV test had an extremely low risk of developing cervical cancer—about half the already low risk of women who tested negative on the Pap test."
So now your motive becomes clear. It does not matter to you that there is now a safe an effective way to prevent a viral infection that can cause 30,000 to 40,000 cancers per year (choose whichever number you want to use). You just do not want it to be included in school mandates. Gotcha.
The vaccine was not developed just to sell the vaccine. It was invented to prevent infection with a cancer causing virus, and the advertising was to make the public aware that it is available.
OMG Suzy you are seriously in need of help. This is getting downright OCD!!!��
It makes one wonder if pharmaceutical companies pay people to promote and defend their products online. I would actually be surprised if they didn’t. It’s a fairly cheap and easy way of reaching people.
Not saying that anyone here is a paid poster, just generally speaking about this since it is related to the topic of the thread which has everything to do with marketing and disease mongering.
They do. the government does it also. It's a real job where all you do is scan boards to post whatever agenda you are being paid to post.
And I have no doubts that yes, there is one in the CD health boards, who worships at the alter of big pharma as I have never ever ever seen a post that wasn't: Aren't drugs awesome? They are 100% safe, no one ever has any side effects, and everyone needs to take them. Oh, and doctors and hospitals never make mistakes. The patients cause all their own health problems. Anyone else would've left the boards by now. But day after day post after post after post, yep. $$$ to post.
Suzy and Katarina, I’m trying to stick to the topic. This is not a vaccine debate. It has to do with the way the disease (HPV) has been marketed now that a drug, in this case, a vaccine became available. My only motive is to discuss the topic at hand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
