Saint Brockovich and Gardasil

[pipelineaudio]

Apparently unfulfilled after pushing magic fuel economy magnets, everyone's favorite cleavagewoo if taking aim at Gardasil

One sentence that stood out is this: "MERCK was even pushing to have this untried vaccine REQUIRED by states."

I thought it had been "tried" in many tests. Is this paper debunkable?

Edit: sorry, I forgot the link, not that my idiocy is new to anyone here

http://www.brockovichblog.com/2008/08/gardasil.html

[T.A.M.]

where is the link to the paper??

TAM:)

[pipelineaudio]

found this one too

http://www.legaltalknetwork.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=334

Where can I find some studies on any real side effects of Gardasil?

Here's a judicialwatch article http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2008/jun/judicial-watch-uncovers-new-fda-records-detailing-ten-new-deaths-140-serious-adverse-e

[a_unique_person]

I see what you mean about the cleavage.

Australia has actively pushed the use of Gardasil, and it is subsidised by the Government. Haven't seen any stories that indicate Brockovich is on to anything other than a means of making herself famous again. If you give millions of people an injection, 1 in a million may have a bad reaction, but a lot more won't get that form of cancer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil

[skeptigirl]

Not only has the vaccine been tested, but hypothetical benefits are being confirmed as well such as giving it to boys decreases the rate of infection in girls. Kind of a no brainer but medicine requires proof now of things which seem logical because assumptions are not good enough to base patient recommendations on.

We have a virus known to cause cancer that is prevalent in the majority of the population before they get out of college, and that is prevented by a vaccine.

We have a suspicious antivaxer crowd (I notice the Brokovich site is soliciting business BTW) who bristles at the word "mandatory vaccination".

We have drug companies who have destroyed the public trust by hiding negative research and choosing to make a few billion introducing a bad drug to the market because there is still big profits even if you pay a few lawsuits for killing people.

You can make a valid argument for mandatory vaccinations:
1) Society pays in the costs of treating cancers that fall to the public to pay.
2) People who the vaccine fails to work in cannot be protected unless others are vaccinated.

There will be more disease prevented by this vaccine than is likely to be caused. New vaccines must be carefully monitored (and they are) for side effects that didn't show up in the thousands tested but could show up when you expand that to millions vaccinated.


I hope they recommend it for boys before my son is exposed to the virus so our insurance will cover it. The benefit currently outweighs the risks.

[skeptigirl]

CDC recommendations and supporting research (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr56e312a1.htm)

Here is the kind of information the antivaxers misuse:Serious Adverse Events in All Safety Studies

Vaccine-related serious adverse events occurred in <0.1% of persons. The proportions of persons reporting a serious adverse event were similar in the vaccine and placebo groups, as were the types of serious adverse events reported. Seven persons had events that were determined to be possibly, probably, or definitely related to the vaccine or placebo. Five events occurred among quadrivalent HPV vaccine recipients and two among placebo recipients. The five in the quadrivalent HPV vaccine group included bronchospasm, gastroenteritis, headache/hypertension, vaginal hemorrhage, and injection site pain/movement impairment.

In the overall safety evaluation, 10 persons in the group that received quadrivalent HPV vaccine and seven persons in the placebo group died during the course of the trials. None of the deaths was considered to be vaccine related. Two deaths in the vaccine group and one death in the placebo group occurred within 15 days following vaccination. Seven deaths were attributed to motor-vehicle accidents (four in vaccine group and three in placebo group), three were caused by intentional overdose (nonstudy medications) or suicide (one in vaccine group and two in placebo group), two were attributed to pulmonary embolus or deep venous thrombosis (one each in vaccine and placebo group), two were attributed to sepsis, one case each attributed to cancer and arrhythmia (in vaccine group), and one case caused by asphyxia (placebo group).

Ten people died looks bad until you see none of the deaths were vaccine related. Unless you want to hypothesize the vaccine makes people suicidal or prone to car accidents. :rolleyes: But CDC compares even those deaths to the placebo groups. When you take a large enough population to study, some people are going to be in it that are destined to die. Simple probability.

[Capsid]

I was involved in a vaccine trial (pharma not volunteer) and one serious adverse event we had was a gunshot wound. Still had to report it as an event though.

[Beerina]

We have a suspicious antivaxer crowd (I notice the Brokovich site is soliciting business BTW) who bristles at the word "mandatory vaccination".

We have drug companies who have destroyed the public trust by hiding negative research and choosing to make a few billion introducing a bad drug to the market because there is still big profits even if you pay a few lawsuits for killing people.

With all due respect, it takes three to tango. It doesn't help to have high-profile power hungry politicians seeking to stir up a wave to surf to power on by loudly blathering about "the unconscionable profits of drug companies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_clinton)".

We want them making unconscionable profits -- that helps them create new drugs. The fraudulent choice offered by nationalized medicine is you can somehow have this just as fast but without the cost, a theory that flies in the face of the results of hundreds of large-scale economic "experiments" last century.

[Beerina]

CDC recommendations and supporting research (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr56e312a1.htm)

Here is the kind of information the antivaxers misuse:

Ten people died looks bad until you see none of the deaths were vaccine related. Unless you want to hypothesize the vaccine makes people suicidal or prone to car accidents. :rolleyes: But CDC compares even those deaths to the placebo groups. When you take a large enough population to study, some people are going to be in it that are destined to die. Simple probability.


That's exactly how we know silicone breast enhancement doesn't cause the problems ascribed to them by lawyers as that group had no difference from another group without enhancements.

Or how we know Olestra potato chips actually cause slightly less abdominal cramping than regular potato chips, much to the consternation of the lawyers and screeching anti-big business/environmental-problems-of-modern-life disasterbation crowd.

[BenBurch]

And note how her comments system ONLY allows comments she approves. So the comments will ONLY be made-up stories about how Gardasil killed people. I hate these people in my marrow.

[pipelineaudio]

Thank you guys :)

[skeptigirl]

With all due respect, it takes three to tango. It doesn't help to have high-profile power hungry politicians seeking to stir up a wave to surf to power on by loudly blathering about "the unconscionable profits of drug companies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_clinton)".

We want them making unconscionable profits -- that helps them create new drugs. The fraudulent choice offered by nationalized medicine is you can somehow have this just as fast but without the cost, a theory that flies in the face of the results of hundreds of large-scale economic "experiments" last century.This may need a thread split but well worth discussion. I was thinking about this recently given all the university research in cancer genes and using the immune response to treat tumors that I've heard lectures on.

One lecturer was asked the question, how do we go from all the incredible discoveries they are making to prescribeable tests and treatments? The answer was the final product gets developed in the private sector. So all that public money used to study all the underlying mechanisms in diagnosing and treating cancer results in a free handover to a company that then returns the investment to their own shareholders and not to the public that paid to produce all the groundwork.

Of course some research is funded by private company grants, but that is only a fraction of the research funds and it uses unpaid university students as well as other-funded salaried researchers to do the labor. Not to mention the labs themselves are constructed with public money.


Perhaps there is another side to the "unconscionable profits" you are failing to consider.

[fls]

This may need a thread split but well worth discussion.

Nope. This has already been pointed out ad nauseum to Beerina. She/he seems imprenetrable to information on this topic.

Linda

[skeptigirl]

Still, one can hope. :D

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Unless you want to hypothesize the vaccine makes people suicidal or prone to car accidents.
I once had a client who refused to have her cat neutered because her previous cat had been run over a week after it was neutered. I'm sure though if you had asked her if neutering caused road traffic accidents she would have said no. Magic thinking can be very powerful.

Yuri

[BenBurch]

...

Or how we know Olestra potato chips actually cause slightly less abdominal cramping than regular potato chips, much to the consternation of the lawyers and screeching anti-big business/environmental-problems-of-modern-life disasterbation crowd.

Ummm... Citation for that? I have a hard time believing this UNLESS the study was based on people consuming ONE SERVING (about 6 chips) of the "WOW" brand chips.

Because I used to eat large bags of chips over the course of an afternoon sometimes, and I wanted to see for myself if the WOW chips caused intestinal issues, so I ate a bag of those, same size as the bag I had been eating. For reference the ordinary bag was "Lays" brand.

In a word "WOW."

I was not off the can for more than twenty minutes for the next 20 hours.

Not only did I have cramping and liquid stools, but even after there was nothing to evacuate, I was still cramping in a excretory version of "the dry heaves."

I did not repeat the experiment to verify that it reliably had that effect.

No bag of chips of the normal sort ever did that to me, even when somewhat stale.

[T.A.M.]

Interesting discussion (sorry Ben, not referring to your Olestra Bowel dilemma;)).

1. The cost to fund drug trials is so astronomical, that, IMO, to keep a flow of new developments in said areas going, you must use the private sector. A profit must be made, to keep them doing what they are doing.

2. The media and certain "Interest" groups have sometimes gone too far, have provided only half the story, and in the end caused as much harm as good. For instance, look back at the big uproar over HRT and Breast Cancer. The news stations were blasting numbers about like, "HRT causes 26% increase in Breast Cancer, 40% increased risk of stroke". Women got terrified, lawyers got involved, and for the most part, almost no one even wants to consider HRT now, regardless of how severe their menopause is.

What the media and the other groups did not "plaster" all over the place, however, was that while the % increases were real (26%, and 41% I believe), the incidence of such events was so low, that even with these risks, your chances of developing said diseases was still minute. In simple terms it meant that for every 10,000 women using Estrogen and progesterone, 8-9 more would develop Breast Cancer than the placebo group, and about the same (8-9) more would have a stroke (than the placebo group).

Now am I saying that physicians and patients should forget the study, and carry on as per usual...no. What I am saying is that the media and other groups took some (on the surface) menacing looking figures, sensationalized them, and this resulted in a fear, a panic, that lead to a complete refusal to use a drug, a therapy, that for many women, made the years of menopause much, much more easier.

Just some thoughts.

TAM:)

[Eos of the Eons]

We live in an INSANE world. We have a vaccine that prevents, PREVENTS cancer. IT PREVENTS CANCER. It's a fraccin miracle. But since it is made by DRUG companies it is BAD. Frac frac frac frac!!!!

And the usual nitwit fraccing bad logic about some reactions? Well, ***** I'll take an allergic reaction over cancer any day TYVFM.

HOW the fsm is someone supposed to make these things and keep them coming and not make a profit?

And fraccing McCarthy was on Oprah again this week. Grand, how these idiot celebs get to keep spreading their idiocy around because they make a **** more money than ANY chump working for a drug company. Oprah profits MUCH more than any drug company ever has, but HER word is golden even though she has NO CLUE wtf "antibody" means.

I'm starting to think people are too stupid to live and they deserve the suffering they get. People should have to take a logic test before they even get a vaccine anymore. Let the morons suffer with their high and mighty "vaccines are bad cuz they ain't natural and cause what they are supposed to prevent" idiot rantings.

The stupid hurts, too bad it doesn't kill the source.

Yeah, I'm steamed. VERY. How can ya tell???

[SkeptiChick]

Yeah, I'm steamed. VERY. How can ya tell???Personally, I both agree what you've said, and sympathize with your frustration. I have my moments in dealing with some subjects where I feel that I'm the only person left on the planet who has even half a brain. Seems like this subject is one of those for you.

[pipelineaudio]

Can we possibly revisit her Hinkley stuff in light of this?

I know that she was propped pretty unskeptically by certain political factions back in the day, but in light of this anti-vaxxer nonsense, maybe its time for another look

[skeptigirl]

1. The cost to fund drug trials is so astronomical, that, IMO, to keep a flow of new developments in said areas going, you must use the private sector. A profit must be made, to keep them doing what they are doing.That's what the drug companies would have you believe anyway. I am a strong advocate we need the public funding. But I'm not convinced record pharmaceutical profits are required to get the discoveries to market. And a lot of investment is wasted developing copycat drugs with no better performance simply to take a share of a known market (statins, viagra, etc). We pay for the best marketing rather the best new drugs. Then to have the real new discoveries happen with public money just adds insult to injury. While it has its place, it is a myth that the free market is the best solution for everything, including being the only source of innovation.

2. The media and certain "Interest" groups have sometimes gone too far, have provided only half the story, and in the end caused as much harm as good. For instance, look back at the big uproar over HRT and Breast Cancer. The news stations were blasting numbers about like, "HRT causes 26% increase in Breast Cancer, 40% increased risk of stroke". Women got terrified, lawyers got involved, and for the most part, almost no one even wants to consider HRT now, regardless of how severe their menopause is.I'd say the 'free market' media is another example of not necessarily bringing the best product to the public. The news is a commodity instead of a source of information and you can see the result.


Just some thoughts. :)

Skeptigirl

[skeptigirl]

And I should add, lobbyists work to make sure public research does not compete with private profits. They lobby the government not to have any competition from public sources. My guess is there are laws preventing the universities carrying on the research from profiting from it. It may be warranted that a researcher using public research dollars shouldn't necessarily own a patent, but I bet the laws go further than that.

I'll look into it if I can find a bit of extra time.

[Mark A. Siefert]

But... but... she has to be right. Julia Roberts played her in a movie... you know, A MOVIE.

[Tomblvd]

I'd say the 'free market' media is another example of not necessarily bringing the best product to the public. The news is a commodity instead of a source of information and you can see the result.




Skeptigirl

Do you have any evidence for that statement?

[skeptigirl]

Jesus, you are talking a dissertation, Tomblvd. What do you think drives CNN to put Natalie Holloway and Cailee Anthony on 24 hour coverage for weeks on end? The public's need for information or a cheap product that sells advertising slots?

[T.A.M.]

Jesus, you are talking a dissertation, Tomblvd. What do you think drives CNN to put Natalie Holloway and Cailee Anthony on 24 hour coverage for weeks on end? The public's need for information or a cheap product that sells advertising slots?

I have to agree. That said, in the end it is the general public, who focus and obsess on the dribble that passes for news these days. The News Business, is a business, and each network is guilty of too much Paris, too much Cailee.

TAM:)

[skeptigirl]

I have to agree. That said, in the end it is the general public, who focus and obsess on the dribble that passes for news these days. The News Business, is a business, and each network is guilty of too much Paris, too much Cailee.

TAM:)This is not entirely true. The lack of diversity in the media ownership has a huge impact on limiting the competition.

In addition, why should news be a commodity instead of a source of information? The public would benefit from an investment in investigative reporting, for example, but the media owners, not so much.

We will benefit from paying attention to this problem and remaining vigilant to not let the kind of deterioration that occurred with print and broadcast media also occur with the Internet.

[T.A.M.]

This is not entirely true. The lack of diversity in the media ownership has a huge impact on limiting the competition.

Perhaps, but I am not quite as "Olbermannish" on this point, but I agree, to a degree.


In addition, why should news be a commodity instead of a source of information? The public would benefit from an investment in investigative reporting, for example, but the media owners, not so much.

I never said is SHOULD be a commodity, but it is. It is a business, and with the advent of cable news, it has become just that...


We will benefit from paying attention to this problem and remaining vigilant to not let the kind of deterioration that occurred with print and broadcast media also occur with the Internet.

I agree. However, as a society we also need to turn off the crap, such as "Paris gets out of jail", etc... Turn the sets off...what more can you do?

TAM:)

[skeptigirl]

... Turn the sets off...what more can you do?

TAM:)Teach/share/spread media literacy, and fight consolidation of the media & fight for Net Neutrality through political actions.

[T.A.M.]

Teach/share/spread media literacy, and fight consolidation of the media & fight for Net Neutrality through political actions.

Excellent points. Looks like a full time job. Perhaps tackling one or two of those as a start.

TAM;)