Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Cancer vaccine

by Rick S / November 4, 2004 10:51 PM PST
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/thrive/2004/nov/02/110200409.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - Efforts to develop the world's first vaccine to prevent cervical cancer took a key step forward Monday with test results suggesting that it can provide long-lasting protection.

Four years after getting the vaccine, 94 percent of women were protected from infection with the virus that causes most cervical cancers and none had developed worrisome precancerous conditions, a study showed.
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Cancer vaccine
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Cancer vaccine
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Re: Cancer vaccine
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / November 5, 2004 2:33 AM PST
In reply to: Cancer vaccine

Hi, Rick.

Just watch the bluenoses object to giving it to kids (when it's most effective) because the virus is an STD. "Abstinence means you don't need it before marriage," they'll say! And, of course, it won't be covered by insurance for the same reason -- "it's a lifestyle drug!"

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
sigh!
by netsky / November 5, 2004 3:14 AM PST
In reply to: Re: Cancer vaccine

Who else here has lost family or friend to cervical cancer?

My maternal grandmother, once again- i make her die for your eyes. Olive Ferne Wolfe Welch, the grandmother taken from her grandchildren too young.

That last summer; the summer of '64 we three "knew" she was ill. In weekend turns of one child at a time, we spend that summer's weekends in sleepovers at her house, with her.

Lemons rolled under the palm, sliced in half, a peppermint stick for a straw.

Scrapbook tours of a girlhood grown old from the catchings from the crawdad ponds in distant Cedar Rapids.

Coins, gift-baked in our birthday cakes.

Helping seal the preserves. Pour the GulfWax molten on top, intall the Mason seal and turn down the lid.

One weekday i heard my mom on the phone from another room: we don't expect her to outlast the summer.

Then i knew. But i could not ask my parents.

Next weekend: Baga (our babys' name for her), when will you get well?

Oh, i think by the end of this summer i'll be just fine again.

Cervical cancer. Olive green of my youth gone brown and dead September 2, 1964

I pour the warm, white wax on top this jar, place on the Mason seal and turn tight the lid.

+

Collapse -
Nonsense ... and offensive at that ...
by Bill Osler / November 5, 2004 10:46 AM PST
In reply to: Re: Cancer vaccine

I understand that you have a real problem thinking logically about theological conservatives, and a nasty attitude toward anything conservative, but posts like this make you look frankly delusional. Although I'm sure that there are social conservatives who are filled with ill will toward various demographic groups (there are liberals like that also), they are not the norm. Aspiring to high theological and moral standards is not the same as working counter to the common welfare.

In point of fact, social conservatives simply do not have that much political power. Some of them wish they did, but that is another matter.

Furthermore, I doubt that many of the social conservatives would fight to prevent administration of the vaccine. Fighting over who pays for the vaccine might happen but the reasons for that would be far more complex than "simple" religious beliefs. Fighting over whether the vaccine should be required might happen for a variety of reasons as well. Some of us believe (based on purely secular arguments) that the government is already using too much of its coercive power to dictate childhood immunizations.

By your logic, the religious right would have already moved to eliminate neonatal Hepatitis B immunizations. After all, the primary impetus behind hepatitis immunization in infants is the desire to prevent consequences of undesirable adolescent behavior (promiscuous sex and IV drugs). HBV can be spread by other routes, but they are not the primary problem in the US.

Most of us look forward to an increasing ability to prevent disease. I fail to see why you have to let your bitterness so poison your mind that you have to turn every conceivable topic into a political hatefest.

Collapse -
it was clearly a bitter and biting satire
by netsky / November 5, 2004 11:45 AM PST

not to be taken quite so hard and literal as you presumed.

i think you would not have replied at all if DK had spoken in soft and cooing words like i did in killing off my grandmother again = which is what essaying an old memory into print is exactly like for me. That hurt me to write but it was a catharsis to make a grave marker for her on the internet.

Did i just digress? No- you've just made YOUR catharsis, excising with razored logic the -inciteful-
tumor of DK's well-plumped sarcasm.


IF he had not angered you this way i don't expect you would have inputted to this vitally interesting topic at all.

After all, you are a rather reserved and cautious intellect and have less-than-average need or attention drawn onto you in this printed page.

But here you are now. I strip out the angry parts and I gain some solid, real info.

I could not elicit that from you, in my own gentle guise earlier today.

But DK did. And so, his method of manipulation (we ALL do manipulate) DID indeed make it's mark. Kudos to DK for trolling you out of your insularity.

And there you are.

Here and now.

Please carry on because YOU have a unique gift of medical and conservative knowlege to spread and share with us all.

I have just manipulated you, too. But i have not -used- you, sir. I would not do -that-..


(humorous knock now on myself)...
say doc, i got this little bump on my nose and its growing and i wonder if you might have a little look at it, seeing that you're here and it's probably nuttin...

silly me- can't stay serious or angry or scared or spiritual for too long at any one time, ever.

Collapse -
On the contrary ...
by Bill Osler / November 5, 2004 9:59 PM PST

DK has a long record of using every conceivable opportunity, legitimate or otherwise, to ridicule those with a conservative theological bent. Not to mention his long standing disdain for every position ever held by a political conservative. In that regard, he is almost as predictable as Mr. O'Daniel is regarding liberals.

I usually try to ignore blind prejudice and blatant partisanship, but in this case it was so gratuitous that ignoring it seemed unreasonable.

Collapse -
Then why.
by netsky / November 6, 2004 12:47 AM PST
In reply to: On the contrary ...

"On the contrary ...

DK has a long record of using every conceivable opportunity, legitimate or otherwise, to ridicule those with a conservative theological bent. Not to mention his long standing disdain for every position ever held by a political conservative. In that regard, he is almost as predictable as Mr. O'Daniel is regarding liberals.

I usually try to ignore blind prejudice and blatant partisanship, but in this case it was so gratuitous that ignoring it seemed unreasonable."
=====

"Mr. O'Daniel", you say, is even more predictable and gratuitously partisan than DK.

Then why do you never (?) skewer Mr. O'Daniel in turn?

For instance- +THIS+ liberal critcises Dan, Josh, me-self and CL on regular enough basis to demonstrate himself somewhat holier than thou on this point.

Me, holier -not- than your screen name namesake... just holier than thou are here, towards your present focus of indignation.

You have much unique knowledge to offer the forum. USE the full measure of your mentor's illustrious personality- not just his first and last initials.

That's a tease and an insult and a tiny commupance from an ill-educated, ill-behaved little boy writing back to a -presumably- bigger man.

Collapse -
Oh he has skewered Ed a'plenty.
by Evie / November 6, 2004 1:50 AM PST
In reply to: Then why.

DK is consistent in wanting to have it both ways in regards to Christianity and government. He also demonstrates a frothing hatred of any Christian that doesn't subscribe to his own a la carte version of Catholicism. His response to this vaccine was extremely offensive as he projects that anyone that might object to it being covered 100% by insurance and mandated for all children must be a right-wing idealogue with no logical reasoning. Not true.

Collapse -
i disagree
by netsky / November 6, 2004 4:09 AM PST

i see DK there as sharp and pungent

i see in your saying "frothing hatred", as like a bottle of Pilsner, yourself, with coke bottle wais,t warmly foaming from your mouth, and the table cloth is wetted.

so much i'v vetted

t--his is mean of me, even tho clever. An incontinence of our words, BOTH of us.

But you spur me to make this mutual, light hearted jabbing at YOU and i.

At me, too, because one can't call the other dully frothing without becoming a bit rabid-looking himself!

Have a nice enough day. I am enjoying you very much in our loyal and ugly opponentry.

Collapse -
Re: Nonsense ... and offensive at that ...
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / November 5, 2004 12:23 PM PST

Dr. Bill, what's the difference between what I posit and the attitude of many so-called Christians (including the Catholic Church, sadly) towards distribution of condems to prevent AIDS? As for "so-called," "Christian" means "follower of Chrst," and my answer to WWJD in these instances is entirely different than theirs -- I do not believe that the God of love condemns to death for human weakness.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
There are huge differences ...
by Bill Osler / November 5, 2004 10:42 PM PST

Surely you jest. Even a casual reflection shows that the difference is huge.

Distribution of condoms in schools (or other venues) may have some value in prevention of disease and prevention of pregnancy, but it also implicitly condones promiscuity. You can debate and/or research whether condom distribution programs by themselves are effective, and you can debate/research which message predominates when the condoms are distributed, but you cannot get around the fact that distribution of condoms frequently puts health workers in the position of enabling behavior that they should be discouraging. Some of us try to avoid being enablers.

A vaccine to prevent cervical cancer would not involve that kind of enabling behavior. Teenagers and others may alter sexual behavior because of STD risk or pregnancy risk, but a lot of patients do not even accept the notion that promiscuity raises cancer risk. I have yet to talk to a patient who altered her behavior because of cervical cancer risk.

There are other differences as well. Most of the condom debate centers around publicly funded condom programs. Many social conservatives do not want to see their tax dollars at work funding behavior that they regard as immoral. How did you react when your tax dollars were used to support right wing dictatorships in "banana republics"? Didn't you work to prevent that?

Scripture offers ample evidence that, unlike most theological liberals, Jesus was concerned about both social justice AND personal morality. He did not die for society's sins, and he did not encourage licentiousness. What would Jesus do about HIV? I don't pretend to have a comprehensive answer, but I'm quite sure he would not have encouraged promiscuity.

Finally, if Christians are those who follow Christ then they do well to heed his instructions to "love you enemies". I find it curious that you manage to spew so much hatred toward "so-called Christians" while simultaneously claiming to serve "the God of love." Verbal consistency does not seem to be one of your strong points right now.

Collapse -
Re: There are huge differences ...
by netsky / November 6, 2004 12:58 AM PST

I see DK writing now from pure ego, and reasonable ego at that.

and then i see you with great points occluded and weakened by ego -pride- insulted by the very notion of these other Christians who appear in your squinted monocle as some kind of social evil.

Which, they are NOT. They keep you literalists honest.

The essay ends with a sputer that "Verbal consistency does not seem to be one of your strong points right now."

And like mine, here and herein, that is a sarcasm which does not mantle well upon your shoulders.

But i do it to show that all of us do this and in MOST cases of person-to-person sarcasm, the result is zippo except to incite the other guy to greater excess.

I don't know DK so well but I know he does not RISE to sarcasm. Not to mine and not to yours. He may reason back but he won't peel off your pasties, or anything so rude, as i may do in my own, childish phases of petulance.

a silly assay this one of mine.

Collapse -
Re: Cancer vaccine
by Evie / November 6, 2004 1:58 AM PST
In reply to: Re: Cancer vaccine

Why should it be covered by "insurance"? It would be a reasonably priced one-time (or occasionally required) shot that could be budgeted for by those women that desire the protection.

It would make more sense to educate teens as to ALL the STD's they subject themselves too (that condoms are only minimally effective at preventing the transmission of), and encourage any that become sexually active to get the vaccine along with birth control. If Planned Parenthood were truly interested in reproductive HEALTH, this would be a good mission for them right? It's a funny thing though about PP, when they go about educating on the other possible risks of sexual behavior such as chlamydia, AIDS, herpes and HPV, with all the "glory" of their cures, etc., they reduce their potential market for their moneymaking services.

Children would not need this to be added to the list of vaccines as there is very little risk of them ever being infected until they become sexually active. Same goes for the herpes virus. If a booster was required after 10 years or so, it would be useless to give yet another shot to a population not at risk.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Re: Cancer vaccine
by netsky / November 6, 2004 3:58 AM PST
In reply to: Re: Cancer vaccine

"Children would not need this to be added to the list of vaccines as there is very little risk of them ever being infected until they become sexually active. Same goes for the herpes virus. If a booster was required after 10 years or so, it would be useless to give yet another shot to a population not at risk."


Perhaps neither of us really understands the virus at hand?

What is it called? Is is spread by males into females?

Is that how it gets there, in residence, to promote a cancer perhaps decades later?

If this virus is ubiquitous- if it existed even way back at the "crawdad ponds" of cedar rapids of a century ago...

...it is -possible- that even children would benefit from proposed new vaccine?

I don't know a darned thing here. But why worry about hepatitis B early vaccinations if that is a usually an ST virus?

Oh, because it is so often assymptomatic, like that cervical-cancer causative virus must be in men?

Something like that?

This post is not address at EVIE, it is only questions inspired by Evie's seeming pronouncement extracted from her certainly-shallow underderstanding of medicine.

So is mine shallow. So i ask more questions before dropping any hammers.

Collapse -
My understanding is far from shallow.
by Evie / November 6, 2004 4:11 AM PST
In reply to: Re: Cancer vaccine

Speak for yourself.

You can educate yourself by doing a google search or searching the CDC site for HPV.

I would note that there were 7 active infections out of 750 women followed for 4 years. No cancers out of the seven is indeed good news, but the 1% failure rate of the vaccine is not all that great when you think about it. A promiscuous person subjects themselves to the possibility of infection more frequently, the greater the number of partners a person has, the greater the chances of coming in contact with an infected person. Vaccines giving a false sense of security is another problem. Look at the rise in promiscuous behavior in high HIV-risk populations now that the "cocktails" are available. They aren't even a cure, and yet since it is less of a death sentence, the "new abstinence" trend seen only a few years before has reversed itself. There is also never knowing when the next strain of HPV comes along -- immune to the vaccine, but deadly nonetheless.

Collapse -
Re: My understanding is far from shallow.
by netsky / November 6, 2004 6:02 AM PST

Ah, so it is all about venereal warts.

thank you for the better expostion of them all

i learn from you, too

Collapse -
Re: Cancer vaccine
by Cindi Haynes / November 6, 2004 4:47 AM PST
In reply to: Re: Cancer vaccine

Hi netsky,

Genital warts (Human Papilloma Virus) is the only STD I can think of that can cause cervical cancer in women (or at least pre-cancerous changes).

--Cindi
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email the mods

Collapse -
thanks
by netsky / November 6, 2004 6:04 AM PST
In reply to: Re: Cancer vaccine

Thanks. I stumbled over Evie first and so replied but i must compliment you for

your unemotional and informational response.

medicine made more palatable thereby.

thanks!

Collapse -
Oh BS Netsky ...
by Evie / November 6, 2004 6:16 AM PST
In reply to: thanks

... next time inform yourself before you declare others to share your ignorance.

Collapse -
Miss Pride keepeth trippingeth over her prior falls
by netsky / November 6, 2004 6:25 AM PST
In reply to: Oh BS Netsky ...

a gushing Niagara Falls is heard in your distant future!

(grin)

Will you be ready to take wing and FLY to heaven when your corpulence approachesthat precipice?

+Or+ do you even now build-eth a barrel of insulating bobbing-ness,

all lined with spikes,

like inside some few Iron Maidens?

=

This poetical, mixed allusion allegory is meant to give laughs to the readers and pause to you.

==

in shortest of netsky-forms i close now.

=stop- that is all=

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

The Samsung RF23M8090SG

One of the best French door fridges we've tested

A good-looking fridge with useful features like an auto-filling water pitcher and a temperature-adjustable "FlexZone" drawer. It was a near-flawless performer in our cooling tests.