Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Adulteress Story

2008-01-16T01:42:30Z

Midnus:

Very interesting exegisis. However, once you open the door to historical scholarship of authorship of the various books of the bible, i dont think you will be pleased with the results. It is, however, a wonderful, vibrant field of scholarship.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:I too have followed this trend, you speak of. However, I do question the wisdom of deconstructing ancient texts, merely to remove the scholarly foundations for modern day Liberal babble. The parable attributed to Jesus is a valuable one, a logical argument for man not to talk out of both sides of his mouth, eh?--~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Official Bible translations already recognize that the passage is not authentic. Yet why is it increasingly taught anyway? Because it has an unmistakable liberal spin to it. Let's point out the obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*Indeed! But please don't mistake the musings of someone in advanced middle-age for dissent, but merely waxing nostalgic for the time I remember when it was never considered acceptable (or tolerated, for that matter) to bastardize the teachings of the Bible and especially Jesus Christ, to further contemporary political agendas on the part of the Left. I was made to remember having that trend pointed out to me by Norvel Young, when he was still Chancellor at Pepperdine, as something to be vigilant about....--~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:06, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I fear my ignorance prevents me from fully understandcing Terry. Be that as it may, Andy, I understand your point, but if we are to "purge" the" bible of so-called non-original material, it should be done EVERYWHERE, which means some may have a result you like, some may not. Another big "however" is that the parable depends on interpretation, as all parables do. So, you could interpret it as a liberal allegory against the death penalty (although if it was added to the bible, it was done very long ago, before the debate was relevant), or one could see it as a simple plea for Christian Mercy and the recognition of sin present in us all. It does not say anywhere never to kill anyone...that is preserved for the Ten Commandments (and even that wording is subject to interpretation). There is nothing inherent in the parable against the death penalty, simply a recognition that the judgement of man is inherently flawed, especially when measured againg the judgement of the Lord. It does make for an interesting sermon, though.
Really it comes down to how you define Biblical literalism. Is the Bible word-for-word true? Which Bible? Which translation? The Apocrypha? The Gnostic Gospels? I don't know the answer. In Judaism, for instance, ancient scholars essentially recognized that Man's understanding is non-divine, therefore flawed, and they spent centuries trying to fully understand the word of God as layed out in the Tanakh (the Jewish portions of the Bible). Christianity has certainly had millenia of interpreters.
The biggest problem, though, is that stated above. Canon was set down long ago. What is included in the Bible has been there for a long time. If you wish to created a new Canon, terrific...it's a huge and interesting task. Be careful, however, about reading modern motivations into ancient voices, such as this (perhaps later-included) parable. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 00:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 23:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't necessarily think that this has a "liberal bent", particularly because I've always interpreted this passage (not knowing the controversy over its inclusion in the Bible) as I've thought that Jesus let the woman go because the men were not interested in the woman, but only trying to trap Jesus (notice they never tried to do anything with the man that was presumably also involved in the adultery). [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

The title misspells Adulteress. The text has a correct spelling. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

The essay says "This story is not found anywhere else, and its claim of Jesus bending down "to write on the ground with his finger" is found nowhere else." Without the other claims to its inauthenticity, this is a weak one. There are many things that are found in one gospel but not in others.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:16, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

John's Gospel was essentially a "cutting and pasting" of other works, careful reading will show that there are several literary seams. Besides, many parts of the New testament were added later or are by pseudonymous authors calling themselves Paul. Are you suggesting that several epistles be removed, including most of the resurrection story at the end of Mark. This "research" is "I reject your reality and substitute my own." Besides, it's scripture and officially recognized as canon and sacred and you yourself cannot decide what does and does not belong based on interpretations of it. [[User:Midnus|Midnus]]

Gardasil

2008-01-11T00:26:27Z

Midnus:

'''Gardasil''' is a [[vaccine]] that protects girls and women from [[HPV]] infection. Campaigns to inoculate schoolgirls with the vaccine have attracted an immense outcry of criticism, particularly from conservatives.

Gardasil is a controversial [[vaccine]], recently made available by [[Merck]] to prevent infection with the human papillomavirus (HPV) in girls and women ages 9 to 26.<ref>[http://www.gardasil.com/who-should-receive-gardasil.html Who should recieve Gardasil?], Merck official website.</ref> <ref>The vaccine is designed to protect against types 6, 11, 16 and 18 of HPV.</ref>

The major point of contention surrounds whether to make the vaccine mandatory.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1206813,00.html</ref>

Proponents praise it as the first vaccine against cancer. Opponents say it will lead to sexual [[disinhibition]].<ref>The New Scientist in Britain quoted the [[Family Research Council]]'s Bridget Maher warning that "giving the [[HPV vaccine]] to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in [[premarital sex]]." [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1206813,00.html Defusing the War Over the "Promiscuity" Vaccine - TIME]</ref>

These strains of HPV are [[sexually transmitted diseases]] that are endemic among [[promiscuity|promiscuous]] people and have been associated with 70% of cervical cancer cases. They may also play a role in the development of other types of cancer <ref>[http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV]</ref>. In June 2006, the U.S. [[Food and Drug Administration]] approved the first HPV vaccine without reviewing any epidemiological studies and monitoring for only a brief period the elevated [[antibody]] levels in recipients of the vaccine.<ref> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5602a1.htm</ref>
The HPV vaccine does not protect against other sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., [[chlamydia]], herpes, [[hepatitis]], trichomoniasis, [[gonorrhea]], [[syphilis]], [[HIV]], [[AIDS]], etc.). The vaccine is not recommended for use in pregnant women or girls.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

The long-term consequences of the HPV vaccine are unknown as there have not been any long-term studies. Children in the 9-year-old age group have been monitored for 18 months, and there have been no studies of possible longer-term risks of the vaccine. Between July 2006 and January 2007, there were 82 reports of adverse events filed with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System ([[VAERS]]) following the receipt of the vaccine.

A study published February 28, 2007 in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) <ref>JAMA 297(8):813-819, February 28, 2007</ref> disclosed that about 3% of women are infected in their lifetime by the particular types of HPV (Types 6, 11, 16, 18) targeted by the vaccine.<ref>"HPV vaccine types 6 and 11 (low-risk types) and 16 and 18 (high-risk types) were detected in 3.4% of female participants." [http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/8/813]</ref>
Merck manufactures the HPV vaccine ("Gardasil") and sells it for $360 ($120 per shot in a three-shot series). Its package insert explains the limitations of the vaccine and describes its testing for safety and efficacy.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

The cost for buying and administering the three-dose vaccine is about $500 per child. Accordingly, the cost of vaccinating 100 children will be about $50,000, but only 3 out of that 100 will ever be exposed to the HPV types targeted by the vaccine.{{fact}} The average age of diagnosis of cervical cancer is 48 years old. Accordingly, the cost is $15,000 to $50,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer over 30 years in the future. There is not yet a clear plan in place for funding this vaccine. Despite the high cost and low prevalance, many states have pending legislation that would require schoolgirls to receive the vaccine.<ref>http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/HPVvaccine.htm</ref>

Alternative means of protection against cervical cancer include abstinence (most effective), and early detection via pap smear (effective if done regularly, but only ''detects'' infection or precancerous changes. It does not ''prevent'' infection, but can prevent progression from infection to cancer).<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm#cancer</ref> The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], the Texas Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics do not support making this vaccine mandatory.

Dr. Jon Abramson, a member of the [[CDC]]'s advisory committee on immunization practices, said in a report published in the Washington Times that "I told Merck my personal opinion that it shouldn't be mandated. And they heard it from other committee members."

Many girls who receive the shot say that it is the most painful of all injections they get, and that the vaccine itself burns, unlike the "other shots [that] tend to hurt only at the moment of the needle stick, and not after the vaccine plunges in." Many girls have been known to pass out as indicated in the vaccination's package insert.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22492557/</ref><ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

A list of pending statutes in NJ for the HPV vaccine is [[HPV vaccine NJ|here]].

----
<references/>

[[category:pharmaceuticals]]

Gardasil

2008-01-11T00:25:18Z

Midnus:

'''Gardasil''' is a [[vaccine]] that protects girls and women from [[HPV]] infection. Campaigns to inoculate schoolgirls with the vaccine have attracted an immense outcry of criticism, particularly from conservatives.

Gardasil is a controversial [[vaccine]], recently made available by [[Merck]] to prevent infection with the human papillomavirus (HPV) in girls and women ages 9 to 26.<ref>[http://www.gardasil.com/who-should-receive-gardasil.html Who should recieve Gardasil?], Merck official website.</ref> <ref>The vaccine is designed to protect against types 6, 11, 16 and 18 of HPV.</ref>

The major point of contention surrounds whether to make the vaccine mandatory.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1206813,00.html</ref>

Proponents praise it as the first vaccine against cancer. Opponents say it will lead to sexual [[disinhibition]].<ref>The New Scientist in Britain quoted the [[Family Research Council]]'s Bridget Maher warning that "giving the [[HPV vaccine]] to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in [[premarital sex]]." [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1206813,00.html Defusing the War Over the "Promiscuity" Vaccine - TIME]</ref>

These strains of HPV are [[sexually transmitted diseases]] that are endemic among [[promiscuity|promiscuous]] people and have been associated with 70% of cervical cancer cases. They may also play a role in the development of other types of cancer <ref>[http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV]</ref>. In June 2006, the U.S. [[Food and Drug Administration]] approved the first HPV vaccine without reviewing any epidemiological studies and monitoring for only a brief period the elevated [[antibody]] levels in recipients of the vaccine.<ref> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5602a1.htm</ref>
The HPV vaccine does not protect against other sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., [[chlamydia]], herpes, [[hepatitis]], trichomoniasis, [[gonorrhea]], [[syphilis]], [[HIV]], [[AIDS]], etc.). The vaccine is not recommended for use in pregnant women or girls.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

The long-term consequences of the HPV vaccine are unknown as there have not been any long-term studies. Children in the 9-year-old age group have been monitored for 18 months, and there have been no studies of possible longer-term risks of the vaccine. Between July 2006 and January 2007, there were 82 reports of adverse events filed with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System ([[VAERS]]) following the receipt of the vaccine.

A study published February 28, 2007 in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) <ref>JAMA 297(8):813-819, February 28, 2007</ref> disclosed that about 3% of women are infected in their lifetime by the particular types of HPV (Types 6, 11, 16, 18) targeted by the vaccine.<ref>"HPV vaccine types 6 and 11 (low-risk types) and 16 and 18 (high-risk types) were detected in 3.4% of female participants." [http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/8/813]</ref>
Merck manufactures the HPV vaccine ("Gardasil") and sells it for $360 ($120 per shot in a three-shot series). Its package insert explains the limitations of the vaccine and describes its testing for safety and efficacy.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

The cost for buying and administering the three-dose vaccine is about $500 per child. Accordingly, the cost of vaccinating 100 children will be about $50,000, but only 3 out of that 100 will ever be exposed to the HPV types targeted by the vaccine.{{fact}} The average age of diagnosis of cervical cancer is 48 years old. Accordingly, the cost is $15,000 to $50,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer over 30 years in the future. There is not yet a clear plan in place for funding this vaccine. Despite the high cost and low prevalance, many states have pending legislation that would require schoolgirls to receive the vaccine.<ref>http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/HPVvaccine.htm</ref>

Alternative means of protection against cervical cancer include abstinence (most effective), and early detection via pap smear (effective if done regularly, but only ''detects'' infection or precancerous changes. It does not ''prevent'' infection, but can prevent progression from infection to cancer) <ref>http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm#cancer</ref>. The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], the Texas Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics do not support making this vaccine mandatory.

Dr. Jon Abramson, a member of the [[CDC]]'s advisory committee on immunization practices, said in a report published in the Washington Times that "I told Merck my personal opinion that it shouldn't be mandated. And they heard it from other committee members."

Many girls who receive the shot say that it is the most painful of all injections they get, and that the vaccine itself burns, unlike the "other shots [that] tend to hurt only at the moment of the needle stick, and not after the vaccine plunges in." Many girls have been known to pass out as indicated in the vaccination's package insert.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22492557/</ref><ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

A list of pending statutes in NJ for the HPV vaccine is [[HPV vaccine NJ|here]].

----
<references/>

[[category:pharmaceuticals]]

Gardasil

2008-01-11T00:24:23Z

Midnus:

'''Gardasil''' is a [[vaccine]] that protects girls and women from [[HPV]] infection. Campaigns to inoculate schoolgirls with the vaccine have attracted an immense outcry of criticism, particularly from conservatives.

Gardasil is a controversial [[vaccine]], recently made available by [[Merck]] to prevent infection with the human papillomavirus (HPV) in girls and women ages 9 to 26.<ref>[http://www.gardasil.com/who-should-receive-gardasil.html Who should recieve Gardasil?], Merck official website.</ref> <ref>The vaccine is designed to protect against types 6, 11, 16 and 18 of HPV.</ref>

The major point of contention surrounds whether to make the vaccine mandatory.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1206813,00.html</ref>

Proponents praise it as the first vaccine against cancer. Opponents say it will lead to sexual [[disinhibition]].<ref>The New Scientist in Britain quoted the [[Family Research Council]]'s Bridget Maher warning that "giving the [[HPV vaccine]] to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in [[premarital sex]]." [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1206813,00.html Defusing the War Over the "Promiscuity" Vaccine - TIME]</ref>

These strains of HPV are [[sexually transmitted diseases]] that are endemic among [[promiscuity|promiscuous]] people and have been associated with 70% of cervical cancer cases. They may also play a role in the development of other types of cancer <ref>[http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV]</ref>. In June 2006, the U.S. [[Food and Drug Administration]] approved the first HPV vaccine without reviewing any epidemiological studies and monitoring for only a brief period the elevated [[antibody]] levels in recipients of the vaccine.<ref> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5602a1.htm</ref>
The HPV vaccine does not protect against other sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., [[chlamydia]], herpes, [[hepatitis]], trichomoniasis, [[gonorrhea]], [[syphilis]], [[HIV]], [[AIDS]], etc.). The vaccine is not recommended for use in pregnant women or girls.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

The long-term consequences of the HPV vaccine are unknown as there have not been any long-term studies. Children in the 9-year-old age group have been monitored for 18 months, and there have been no studies of possible longer-term risks of the vaccine. Between July 2006 and January 2007, there were 82 reports of adverse events filed with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System ([[VAERS]]) following the receipt of the vaccine.

A study published February 28, 2007 in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) <ref>JAMA 297(8):813-819, February 28, 2007</ref> disclosed that about 3% of women are infected in their lifetime by the particular types of HPV (Types 6, 11, 16, 18) targeted by the vaccine.<ref>"HPV vaccine types 6 and 11 (low-risk types) and 16 and 18 (high-risk types) were detected in 3.4% of female participants." [http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/8/813]</ref>
Merck manufactures the HPV vaccine ("Gardasil") and sells it for $360 ($120 per shot in a three-shot series). Its package insert explains the limitations of the vaccine and describes its testing for safety and efficacy.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

The cost for buying and administering the three-dose vaccine is about $500 per child. Accordingly, the cost of vaccinating 100 children will be about $50,000, but only 3 out of that 100 will ever be exposed to the HPV types targeted by the vaccine.{{fact}} The average age of diagnosis of cervical cancer is 48 years old. Accordingly, the cost is $15,000 to $50,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer over 30 years in the future. There is not yet a clear plan in place for funding this vaccine. Despite the high cost and low prevalance, many states have pending legislation that would require schoolgirls to receive the vaccine.<ref>http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/HPVvaccine.htm</ref>

Alternative means of protection against cervical cancer include abstinence (most effective), and early detection via pap smear (effective if done regularly, but only ''detects'' infection or precancerous changes. It does not ''prevent'' infection, but can prevent progression from infection to cancer). <ref>http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm#cancer</ref>. The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], the Texas Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics do not support making this vaccine mandatory.

Dr. Jon Abramson, a member of the [[CDC]]'s advisory committee on immunization practices, said in a report published in the Washington Times that "I told Merck my personal opinion that it shouldn't be mandated. And they heard it from other committee members."

Many girls who receive the shot say that it is the most painful of all injections they get, and that the vaccine itself burns, unlike the "other shots [that] tend to hurt only at the moment of the needle stick, and not after the vaccine plunges in." Many girls have been known to pass out as indicated in the vaccination's package insert.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22492557/</ref><ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

A list of pending statutes in NJ for the HPV vaccine is [[HPV vaccine NJ|here]].

----
<references/>

[[category:pharmaceuticals]]

Talk:Gardasil

2008-01-06T02:10:37Z

Midnus:

[[/draft]]

Favorite soundbite from televised debates 2/4-2/5: "This is about corporate welfare for Merck and making guinea pigs of Texas school girls."

The proposed HPV vaccine mandate uses 11-year-old school girls as guinea pigs for Merck. “HPV” really means “Help Pay for Vioxx,” since Merck is seeking state laws to give it billions of dollars in new revenue. Drug-industry analyst Steve Brozak of W.B.B. Securities projected sales of this vaccine to be billions if states require it. “I could not think of a bigger boost” to Merck, he said.

But this vaccine is a loser. Michigan recently rejected Merck’s attempt for a state mandate there. Indiana rebuffed Merck’s attempt there. Maryland refused to mandate this vaccine. The Texas legislature opposes imposing this vaccine by mandate. Only after Merck hired Texas Governor Rick Perry’s former chief-of-staff, and funded the “Women in Government” group to advance Merck’s agenda, did the Texas Governor bypass the legislature in a move of dubious legality. Follow the money.

This new vaccine hs not been shown to prevent a single case of cancer. Merck, in its own package insert, does not claim that this vaccine lasts more than a few years. The average age of cervical cancer is 48. There is no evidence giving this vaccine to an 11-year-old will protect against a condition 37 years later. Not even Merck makes that claim.

Merck wants the states to require purchase of its vaccine, and kids can feel free to have sex. Only in the fine print do we learn that no long term benefits or risks of this vaccine have even been tested. Merck did not even test if this vaccine causes cancer.

Don’t be fooled by this drug company chicanery. Follow the money and see that this vaccine is great for Merck and bad for the rest of us. It costs $360 for the shots alone, and up to $1000 when administrative fees and follow-up office visits are included, particularly when there is an adverse reaction.

This controversial vaccine was approved only about eight months ago, based on testing of perhaps only a few hundred young girls. Do not make guinea pigs out of all our children. Parents who want to give this to their children can already do so. This vaccine does not prevent any diseases contagious at school and should not be used as a condition of entering school. It should not be forced on our children.

:Well, honestly. The vaccine only serves to protect. A good Christian girl will stick to her morals and won't go out having sex because of this vaccine, and a girl who had already planned on having sex would benefit from this, because it protects them. Do you feel inclined to step on a rusty nail after you get a tetanis booster? --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 18:38, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::please see the discussion in ASchafly's thread between him and me. I have in good faith attempted to contribute valuable, moral information here, but he is questioning my credentials in bad faith. I hope he reads up a little and stops the attacks. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:20, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

: Palmd0001, your recent edit was unsupported and false. See [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/01/16/DI2007011600929.html here].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::My edits are, of course, completely supported, not false, cited, and written by an expert (me) which is more than I can say for much else here after my little discussion with you [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Question][[http://www.example.com link title]] Any fair and balanced observer will see that you have no interest in the truth. I had really hoped otherwise.
Your potential friend, Peter [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Dave, thank you for the NEJM citation. It will probably not last.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:46, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No problem. I am anticipating the inevitable edit followed by "The New England Journal of Medicine is not a valid source" statement.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 21:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Condom effectiveness==

: Have kept condom statement and also cited conflicting report.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::The way it's currently written is nonsensical, as in the NEJM study condoms clearly reduced HPV transmission. Unfortunately the conflicting report you cited isn't a link so I can't compare the 2 sources.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:42, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Murray, Google search the whole cite. The first link you see should be the report.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Austin, just how much of your "conflicting" report did you read. A lot of the report talks about the effectiveness of condoms. Also, the NEJM report came out two years ''after'' your cited report. So any discussion about testing methodology is moot since it couldn't apply to the NEJM report.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:43, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: From my link "All published epidemiologic studies of HPV have methodologic limitations that make the effect of condoms in the prevention of HPV infection unknown. While a few studies on genital HPV and condom use showed a protective effect, most studies on genital HPV infection and condom use did not show a protective effect." Surely you can't be arguing that one article in a academic journal is a better citation than a report to Congress.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Austin, also from your link:

::"As described above, available clinical and epidemiologic data indicate that genital HPV infection is transmitted by contact with infected skin or mucosa. Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of HPV (125;126). Studies of HPV infection in men demonstrate that most HPV infections (both HPV DNA and HPV-associated lesions) are located on parts of the p*nis that would be covered by a
condom (48;54-57;63;127-129).

::Published studies that have assessed the effectiveness of male condoms to prevent HPV infection or any STD other than HIV are limited by multiple methodologic issues (117;118). In general, these limitations are likely to underestimate condom effectiveness (130-132)."

::Again, Austin, the biggest problem is that the NEJM report is from 2006 and the report to Congress is from 2004. How can you use it to discredit a newer study using improved methodology?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

The effectiveness of condoms, in general, is a controversial issue. Does anyone know the standards of this project for treating controversial matters?

Pending a clear statement otherwise from management, I would say we ought to describe each side in the controversy '''accurately'''. We should not, for example, claim an advocate is on one side when it's on the other. We should not 'torture the meaning' of a source to make it support one side, either.

All agree? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:58, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought the way I had it before was pretty clear. It stated evidence for condoms, which is VAST, and also pointed out that they are SECOND most effective. THIS IS NOT AN AREA OF SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY. Adding a moralistic statement about them in the PROPER place is fine, but really, this was quite clear as of yesterday. If anyone else wants to present an expert with credentials that equal or surpass mine on the subject, please do.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 12:05, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:It was entirely clear as of yesterday. I don't know that there are 2 sides to this. Bottom line is that condoms have been shown to reduce transmission, and the current version of the article is flatly false. Nobody is saying that condom use will ''prevent'' transmission altogether, becauce the NEJM study makes clear that isn't the case. But to describe them as "ineffectual" makes no sense.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:*Among 27 estimates from 20 studies, there was no consistent evidence that condom use reduces the risk of becoming HPV DNA-positive. [http://www.stdjournal.com/pt/re/std/abstract.00007435-200211000-00018.htm;jsessionid=GJLPFHnbKqghK8hXPwCFmJ7ZVMTZWj4dJq12GHNfFyz21yvM62jF!721371455!-949856145!8091!-1]

:I'm just a layman but it took me only one google hit to find this link to the Journal of the American Sexually Transmitted Disease Association. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:54, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I respect your skills and intelligence, but google is not an appropriate search engine for medical studies. You should try PubMed. Also, your combination of evidence is, in essence, a meta-analysis, which cannot be done as simply as you have. The general consensus in the medical literature is that condoms significanlty reduce the risk of all STDs, including HPV (the the NEJM article), but of course, abstinence, meaning NO CONTACT AT ALL, is most effective. I wont revert, but you should reconsider your back-of-the-envelope meta-analysis. Also, the cited meta analysis is old (2002), and the type of study in NEJM was designed to be more accurate. [[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 14:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm well aware that the general view is "that condoms significantly reduce the risk". But that is not the question our young Christian friend has brought up. Moreover, there's a huge public battle about strategies to reduce the incidence of VD and unwanted pregnancy. The claim that "condoms are the best way" is related to questions about their effectiveness. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed, all my edits here and in STDs clearly stated that abstinence is the best and only certain method. Condoms are a very effective second best, and Ive always clearly stated that. In the world of medical literature, 5 years old is OLD for a study, and meta-analyses are considered the second weakest form of study. [[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 14:26, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ed, no one here claimed they are the best way. The cite said that condoms are the SECOND best way to avoid HPV. The first, obviously, being abstinence. I can't believe that this is a controversial statement. It's common sense.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:27, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::As PalMD said, that article is 5 years old. There's plenty of evidence from the last 2 years. Try some of these: [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T80-4HMV7J6-2&_user=4429&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000059602&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4429&md5=24c5f1dc80356bed16618f8390c08c01 - 1] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16223580&dopt=Citation - 2][http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JID/journal/issues/v194n8/36645/36645.html - 3] [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:28, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't want to debate the issue. I want to work with you to find a way to '''present''' the issue in the article.

Austin has brought up the effectiveness issue. If some medical authority calls the [[male condom]] "second-best", you can come up with a citation for that and place it in the article. Just don't do it in an argumentative way. Try this:

*Abstinence is the most effective way to prevent its transmission. (Blank) recommends use of the [[male condom]], calling it "second best".

Oh, but this entails the argument that "some people won't be abstinent, so we better tell everyone to use condoms". Maybe that's why Schlafly reverted before.

We can't sweep the "best strategy" issue under the rug, and it involves more than just "what recent studies" say. There are moral aspects, too. And also the way you phrase something has an effect on behavior (see [[Pygmalion effect]]). Telling people '''if you are going to have extramarital sex, do (blank)''' is tantamount to egging them on to do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, Ok, first, we do have the reference that Dave put in. It is simply MEDICAL FACT. It is not currently in dispute in the medical world. As to the moral implications, I would hope that those reading this would have a good moral foundation. If they are planning on remaining abstinent, wonderful. If not, they should know what to do next, or they will spread disease. This is not a pygmalion thing...it is public health. I thought that the way I originally presented it was fairly good. Check it out. If we are to add a section on morals, I think it takes away from the encyclopedic/factual nature of the article. A link to an article about morals should be sufficient.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 14:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, you're losing me: what is a medical fact?
::#That the most effective method of VD prevention is abstinence?
::#That the "second-best" method is condom use?
::#That UNAIDS is right when the advocate several methods '''other than abstinence''' as "effective"?
::#That PR campaigns which tell people, "if you can't be abstinent before marriage or faithful within marriage, try (blank)" are effective in preventing VD?
::It's a complex problem. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ed, "if you are going to have extramarital sex, do (blank) is tantamount to egging them on to do it." is not a good assumption. I myself was given a talk by my high school teacher that mentioned that if we do have sex we should use protection but made question whether we were really ready for the consequences of illness and unplanned pregnancy at our age. [[User:Midnus|Midnus]]

==Abstinence==
There is a problem, at the least, with the phrasing regarding abstinence. People abstaining from sex do not have sexual partners. This should be fixed or removed. [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 14:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Before making major revisions..==
Consider discussing here...even if you are the boss.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 16:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Or,on the other hand, make unilateral controversial changes. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 16:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==The HPV vaccine does not protect against other sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., chlamydia, herpes, hepatitis, trichomoniasis, gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, AIDS, etc.)==

This seems like a slightly bizarre comment. Yes, I suppose it is accurate as far as it goes, but what's the point? Why stop there? Why not also add that it does not protect against the common cold, pneumonia, leukaemia, ingrowing toenails and being run over by a bus? It's a vaccine against HPV, not all STDs. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 17:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Because that doesn't assist the ideological bent of said statement.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:33, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

The reason is that they do not want to think that it is a vaccine that prevents all STDs and should use whatever protection they choose to use. It's saying that it does not guarantee "safe sex." [[User:Midnus|Midnus]]

== Article Title ==

This article should be moved to "Gardasil," since most of it refers specifically to that vaccine. Gardasil and HPV Vaccine might be synonymous now, but they won't be when/if Cervarix is approved.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Reverted Liberal Bias ==

Liberal bias and some uncritical repetitions of vaccine manufacturer claims were reverted. Abstinence protects against this disease at no cost, and there is no reason to believe the self-interested claims by the manufacturer about safety and efficacy of the vaccine, particularly when researchers themselves have expressed criticisms of attempts to make it mandatory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:19, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:Is it reasonable to expect that all teenagers will abstain from sex until marriage? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:22, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore, the researchers criticized making it mandatory, they didn't criticize any of the other claims. At minimum, those claims should be acknowledged. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:25, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:The claims about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine aren't being made exclusively by the manufacturer. They're being made by the CDC, New England Journal of Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Association. These are peer-reviewed publications, and can't just be hand-waved away as "liberal bias." It seems to me, Andy, that anything you disagree with automatically becomes liberal bias. There is only one link to information directly from the manufacturer in the article, and that is to point to the manufacturer's packaging insert. It is not used to back up any of the claims about efficacy or safety. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 01:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::If we are going to change ''In June 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first HPV vaccine based on observance of elevated [[antibody]] levels in a double blind clinical trial involving over 20,000 subjects.'' <ref>CDC - Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5602a1.htm]</ref> to ''In June 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first HPV vaccine based on observance of elevated [[antibody]] levels in a few thousand patients who had received the vaccine (including perhaps only a few hundred or less young girls).'', then we need a reference for the latter. I don't yet have any opinion one way or another on which statement is more accurate, I just want to be able to read the sources.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:56, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

The term "sexually active" is [[liberal]] bias. Sexual activity within marriage is at ZERO risk of contracting disease; sexual activity outside of marriage is at high risk.

Also, the 20,000 figure is meaningless because the monitoring was so brief.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:50, 4 January 2008 (EST)

SSchultz, you're pushing your limits here. You deleted important info (like the lack of epidemological studies and lack of protection against other STDs) and inserted numbers that lack any significance due to the brief monitoring. Go to Wikipedia with the liberal bias, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:59, 4 January 2008 (EST)

I explicitly stated that the monitoring period wasn't long enough to detect cervical cancer, but what about the fact that the vaccine prevented precancerous lesions? That is important information. I'll leave out the 20,000 number, though. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:04, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Andy, I kept everything in that you asked, and merely added information about the prevention of precancerous lesions. What's the story here? It's as if you want this article to claim that the vaccine is ineffective. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:13, 5 January 2008 (EST)

: We can pick this up more tomorrow. The entry should remain factual without misleading claims. The vaccine's effect may be short-lived, for example, as monitoring seems to have been intentionally brief. Also, it appeared to me that you kept deleting the reference to a lack of epidemiological studies. See you tomorrow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:22, 5 January 2008 (EST)

::Schultz, I love ya but you have to remember that CP is not Wikipedia. We don't tolerate suppression of information merely on the grounds that it "advances a POV". Please work with us - not against us - to present both sides of the [[HPV vaccine controversy]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:07, 5 January 2008 (EST)

== References ==

<references/>

==Article quality==

This article is so bad that I'm wondering whether to delete it.

Or maybe we could tuck it away somewhere and work on it for a week until it's ready. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:20, 5 January 2008 (EST)

The MSNBC source contradicts the line that says the pain causes fainting, MSNBC says "it’s not clear whether the pain of the cervical cancer vaccine was the reason for the reaction [fainting]." [[User:Midnus|Midnus]]

==Dubious claims from liberal newsmagazine==

''Time'' says one thing, but they are liberal and they often mix news and editorials together. We need an article on the most prevalent [[venereal diseases]]: broken down perhaps by America vs. rest of the world. I had also heard that [[chlamydia]] was the most common. Who says it's [[HPV]]? Time, or Atlanta CDC? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:11, 5 January 2008 (EST)
:Speaking of that, there is an article [http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WEEN-5NG4JQ here] that notes that "eighty per cent of the 466,000 cases diagnosed globally each year occur in developing countries where it is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women." So HPV is ''much'' less prevalant in the U.S. and [[First World]] countries than the [[liberal hysteria]] of the media would have us believe. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 12:18, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Gardasil

2008-01-06T02:09:24Z

Midnus:

[[/draft]]

Favorite soundbite from televised debates 2/4-2/5: "This is about corporate welfare for Merck and making guinea pigs of Texas school girls."

The proposed HPV vaccine mandate uses 11-year-old school girls as guinea pigs for Merck. “HPV” really means “Help Pay for Vioxx,” since Merck is seeking state laws to give it billions of dollars in new revenue. Drug-industry analyst Steve Brozak of W.B.B. Securities projected sales of this vaccine to be billions if states require it. “I could not think of a bigger boost” to Merck, he said.

But this vaccine is a loser. Michigan recently rejected Merck’s attempt for a state mandate there. Indiana rebuffed Merck’s attempt there. Maryland refused to mandate this vaccine. The Texas legislature opposes imposing this vaccine by mandate. Only after Merck hired Texas Governor Rick Perry’s former chief-of-staff, and funded the “Women in Government” group to advance Merck’s agenda, did the Texas Governor bypass the legislature in a move of dubious legality. Follow the money.

This new vaccine hs not been shown to prevent a single case of cancer. Merck, in its own package insert, does not claim that this vaccine lasts more than a few years. The average age of cervical cancer is 48. There is no evidence giving this vaccine to an 11-year-old will protect against a condition 37 years later. Not even Merck makes that claim.

Merck wants the states to require purchase of its vaccine, and kids can feel free to have sex. Only in the fine print do we learn that no long term benefits or risks of this vaccine have even been tested. Merck did not even test if this vaccine causes cancer.

Don’t be fooled by this drug company chicanery. Follow the money and see that this vaccine is great for Merck and bad for the rest of us. It costs $360 for the shots alone, and up to $1000 when administrative fees and follow-up office visits are included, particularly when there is an adverse reaction.

This controversial vaccine was approved only about eight months ago, based on testing of perhaps only a few hundred young girls. Do not make guinea pigs out of all our children. Parents who want to give this to their children can already do so. This vaccine does not prevent any diseases contagious at school and should not be used as a condition of entering school. It should not be forced on our children.

:Well, honestly. The vaccine only serves to protect. A good Christian girl will stick to her morals and won't go out having sex because of this vaccine, and a girl who had already planned on having sex would benefit from this, because it protects them. Do you feel inclined to step on a rusty nail after you get a tetanis booster? --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 18:38, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::please see the discussion in ASchafly's thread between him and me. I have in good faith attempted to contribute valuable, moral information here, but he is questioning my credentials in bad faith. I hope he reads up a little and stops the attacks. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:20, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

: Palmd0001, your recent edit was unsupported and false. See [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/01/16/DI2007011600929.html here].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::My edits are, of course, completely supported, not false, cited, and written by an expert (me) which is more than I can say for much else here after my little discussion with you [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Question][[http://www.example.com link title]] Any fair and balanced observer will see that you have no interest in the truth. I had really hoped otherwise.
Your potential friend, Peter [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Dave, thank you for the NEJM citation. It will probably not last.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:46, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No problem. I am anticipating the inevitable edit followed by "The New England Journal of Medicine is not a valid source" statement.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 21:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Condom effectiveness==

: Have kept condom statement and also cited conflicting report.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::The way it's currently written is nonsensical, as in the NEJM study condoms clearly reduced HPV transmission. Unfortunately the conflicting report you cited isn't a link so I can't compare the 2 sources.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:42, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Murray, Google search the whole cite. The first link you see should be the report.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Austin, just how much of your "conflicting" report did you read. A lot of the report talks about the effectiveness of condoms. Also, the NEJM report came out two years ''after'' your cited report. So any discussion about testing methodology is moot since it couldn't apply to the NEJM report.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:43, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: From my link "All published epidemiologic studies of HPV have methodologic limitations that make the effect of condoms in the prevention of HPV infection unknown. While a few studies on genital HPV and condom use showed a protective effect, most studies on genital HPV infection and condom use did not show a protective effect." Surely you can't be arguing that one article in a academic journal is a better citation than a report to Congress.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Austin, also from your link:

::"As described above, available clinical and epidemiologic data indicate that genital HPV infection is transmitted by contact with infected skin or mucosa. Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of HPV (125;126). Studies of HPV infection in men demonstrate that most HPV infections (both HPV DNA and HPV-associated lesions) are located on parts of the p*nis that would be covered by a
condom (48;54-57;63;127-129).

::Published studies that have assessed the effectiveness of male condoms to prevent HPV infection or any STD other than HIV are limited by multiple methodologic issues (117;118). In general, these limitations are likely to underestimate condom effectiveness (130-132)."

::Again, Austin, the biggest problem is that the NEJM report is from 2006 and the report to Congress is from 2004. How can you use it to discredit a newer study using improved methodology?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

The effectiveness of condoms, in general, is a controversial issue. Does anyone know the standards of this project for treating controversial matters?

Pending a clear statement otherwise from management, I would say we ought to describe each side in the controversy '''accurately'''. We should not, for example, claim an advocate is on one side when it's on the other. We should not 'torture the meaning' of a source to make it support one side, either.

All agree? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:58, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought the way I had it before was pretty clear. It stated evidence for condoms, which is VAST, and also pointed out that they are SECOND most effective. THIS IS NOT AN AREA OF SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY. Adding a moralistic statement about them in the PROPER place is fine, but really, this was quite clear as of yesterday. If anyone else wants to present an expert with credentials that equal or surpass mine on the subject, please do.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 12:05, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:It was entirely clear as of yesterday. I don't know that there are 2 sides to this. Bottom line is that condoms have been shown to reduce transmission, and the current version of the article is flatly false. Nobody is saying that condom use will ''prevent'' transmission altogether, becauce the NEJM study makes clear that isn't the case. But to describe them as "ineffectual" makes no sense.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:*Among 27 estimates from 20 studies, there was no consistent evidence that condom use reduces the risk of becoming HPV DNA-positive. [http://www.stdjournal.com/pt/re/std/abstract.00007435-200211000-00018.htm;jsessionid=GJLPFHnbKqghK8hXPwCFmJ7ZVMTZWj4dJq12GHNfFyz21yvM62jF!721371455!-949856145!8091!-1]

:I'm just a layman but it took me only one google hit to find this link to the Journal of the American Sexually Transmitted Disease Association. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:54, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I respect your skills and intelligence, but google is not an appropriate search engine for medical studies. You should try PubMed. Also, your combination of evidence is, in essence, a meta-analysis, which cannot be done as simply as you have. The general consensus in the medical literature is that condoms significanlty reduce the risk of all STDs, including HPV (the the NEJM article), but of course, abstinence, meaning NO CONTACT AT ALL, is most effective. I wont revert, but you should reconsider your back-of-the-envelope meta-analysis. Also, the cited meta analysis is old (2002), and the type of study in NEJM was designed to be more accurate. [[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 14:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm well aware that the general view is "that condoms significantly reduce the risk". But that is not the question our young Christian friend has brought up. Moreover, there's a huge public battle about strategies to reduce the incidence of VD and unwanted pregnancy. The claim that "condoms are the best way" is related to questions about their effectiveness. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed, all my edits here and in STDs clearly stated that abstinence is the best and only certain method. Condoms are a very effective second best, and Ive always clearly stated that. In the world of medical literature, 5 years old is OLD for a study, and meta-analyses are considered the second weakest form of study. [[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 14:26, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ed, no one here claimed they are the best way. The cite said that condoms are the SECOND best way to avoid HPV. The first, obviously, being abstinence. I can't believe that this is a controversial statement. It's common sense.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:27, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::As PalMD said, that article is 5 years old. There's plenty of evidence from the last 2 years. Try some of these: [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T80-4HMV7J6-2&_user=4429&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000059602&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4429&md5=24c5f1dc80356bed16618f8390c08c01 - 1] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16223580&dopt=Citation - 2][http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JID/journal/issues/v194n8/36645/36645.html - 3] [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:28, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't want to debate the issue. I want to work with you to find a way to '''present''' the issue in the article.

Austin has brought up the effectiveness issue. If some medical authority calls the [[male condom]] "second-best", you can come up with a citation for that and place it in the article. Just don't do it in an argumentative way. Try this:

*Abstinence is the most effective way to prevent its transmission. (Blank) recommends use of the [[male condom]], calling it "second best".

Oh, but this entails the argument that "some people won't be abstinent, so we better tell everyone to use condoms". Maybe that's why Schlafly reverted before.

We can't sweep the "best strategy" issue under the rug, and it involves more than just "what recent studies" say. There are moral aspects, too. And also the way you phrase something has an effect on behavior (see [[Pygmalion effect]]). Telling people '''if you are going to have extramarital sex, do (blank)''' is tantamount to egging them on to do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, Ok, first, we do have the reference that Dave put in. It is simply MEDICAL FACT. It is not currently in dispute in the medical world. As to the moral implications, I would hope that those reading this would have a good moral foundation. If they are planning on remaining abstinent, wonderful. If not, they should know what to do next, or they will spread disease. This is not a pygmalion thing...it is public health. I thought that the way I originally presented it was fairly good. Check it out. If we are to add a section on morals, I think it takes away from the encyclopedic/factual nature of the article. A link to an article about morals should be sufficient.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 14:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, you're losing me: what is a medical fact?
::#That the most effective method of VD prevention is abstinence?
::#That the "second-best" method is condom use?
::#That UNAIDS is right when the advocate several methods '''other than abstinence''' as "effective"?
::#That PR campaigns which tell people, "if you can't be abstinent before marriage or faithful within marriage, try (blank)" are effective in preventing VD?
::It's a complex problem. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ed, "if you are going to have extramarital sex, do (blank) is tantamount to egging them on to do it." is not a good assumption, I myself was given a talk by my high school teacher that mentioned that if we do have sex we should use protection but made question whether we were really ready for the consequences of illness and unplanned pregnancy at our age. [[User:Midnus|Midnus]]

==Abstinence==
There is a problem, at the least, with the phrasing regarding abstinence. People abstaining from sex do not have sexual partners. This should be fixed or removed. [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 14:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Before making major revisions..==
Consider discussing here...even if you are the boss.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 16:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Or,on the other hand, make unilateral controversial changes. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 16:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==The HPV vaccine does not protect against other sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., chlamydia, herpes, hepatitis, trichomoniasis, gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, AIDS, etc.)==

This seems like a slightly bizarre comment. Yes, I suppose it is accurate as far as it goes, but what's the point? Why stop there? Why not also add that it does not protect against the common cold, pneumonia, leukaemia, ingrowing toenails and being run over by a bus? It's a vaccine against HPV, not all STDs. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 17:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Because that doesn't assist the ideological bent of said statement.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:33, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

The reason is that they do not want to think that it is a vaccine that prevents all STDs and should use whatever protection they choose to use. It's saying that it does not guarantee "safe sex." [[User:Midnus|Midnus]]

== Article Title ==

This article should be moved to "Gardasil," since most of it refers specifically to that vaccine. Gardasil and HPV Vaccine might be synonymous now, but they won't be when/if Cervarix is approved.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Reverted Liberal Bias ==

Liberal bias and some uncritical repetitions of vaccine manufacturer claims were reverted. Abstinence protects against this disease at no cost, and there is no reason to believe the self-interested claims by the manufacturer about safety and efficacy of the vaccine, particularly when researchers themselves have expressed criticisms of attempts to make it mandatory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:19, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:Is it reasonable to expect that all teenagers will abstain from sex until marriage? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:22, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore, the researchers criticized making it mandatory, they didn't criticize any of the other claims. At minimum, those claims should be acknowledged. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:25, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:The claims about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine aren't being made exclusively by the manufacturer. They're being made by the CDC, New England Journal of Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Association. These are peer-reviewed publications, and can't just be hand-waved away as "liberal bias." It seems to me, Andy, that anything you disagree with automatically becomes liberal bias. There is only one link to information directly from the manufacturer in the article, and that is to point to the manufacturer's packaging insert. It is not used to back up any of the claims about efficacy or safety. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 01:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::If we are going to change ''In June 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first HPV vaccine based on observance of elevated [[antibody]] levels in a double blind clinical trial involving over 20,000 subjects.'' <ref>CDC - Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5602a1.htm]</ref> to ''In June 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first HPV vaccine based on observance of elevated [[antibody]] levels in a few thousand patients who had received the vaccine (including perhaps only a few hundred or less young girls).'', then we need a reference for the latter. I don't yet have any opinion one way or another on which statement is more accurate, I just want to be able to read the sources.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:56, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

The term "sexually active" is [[liberal]] bias. Sexual activity within marriage is at ZERO risk of contracting disease; sexual activity outside of marriage is at high risk.

Also, the 20,000 figure is meaningless because the monitoring was so brief.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:50, 4 January 2008 (EST)

SSchultz, you're pushing your limits here. You deleted important info (like the lack of epidemological studies and lack of protection against other STDs) and inserted numbers that lack any significance due to the brief monitoring. Go to Wikipedia with the liberal bias, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:59, 4 January 2008 (EST)

I explicitly stated that the monitoring period wasn't long enough to detect cervical cancer, but what about the fact that the vaccine prevented precancerous lesions? That is important information. I'll leave out the 20,000 number, though. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:04, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Andy, I kept everything in that you asked, and merely added information about the prevention of precancerous lesions. What's the story here? It's as if you want this article to claim that the vaccine is ineffective. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:13, 5 January 2008 (EST)

: We can pick this up more tomorrow. The entry should remain factual without misleading claims. The vaccine's effect may be short-lived, for example, as monitoring seems to have been intentionally brief. Also, it appeared to me that you kept deleting the reference to a lack of epidemiological studies. See you tomorrow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:22, 5 January 2008 (EST)

::Schultz, I love ya but you have to remember that CP is not Wikipedia. We don't tolerate suppression of information merely on the grounds that it "advances a POV". Please work with us - not against us - to present both sides of the [[HPV vaccine controversy]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:07, 5 January 2008 (EST)

== References ==

<references/>

==Article quality==

This article is so bad that I'm wondering whether to delete it.

Or maybe we could tuck it away somewhere and work on it for a week until it's ready. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:20, 5 January 2008 (EST)

The MSNBC source contradicts the line that says the pain causes fainting, MSNBC says "it’s not clear whether the pain of the cervical cancer vaccine was the reason for the reaction [fainting]." [[User:Midnus|Midnus]]

==Dubious claims from liberal newsmagazine==

''Time'' says one thing, but they are liberal and they often mix news and editorials together. We need an article on the most prevalent [[venereal diseases]]: broken down perhaps by America vs. rest of the world. I had also heard that [[chlamydia]] was the most common. Who says it's [[HPV]]? Time, or Atlanta CDC? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:11, 5 January 2008 (EST)
:Speaking of that, there is an article [http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WEEN-5NG4JQ here] that notes that "eighty per cent of the 466,000 cases diagnosed globally each year occur in developing countries where it is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women." So HPV is ''much'' less prevalant in the U.S. and [[First World]] countries than the [[liberal hysteria]] of the media would have us believe. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 12:18, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Gardasil

2008-01-06T02:03:45Z

Midnus:

[[/draft]]

Favorite soundbite from televised debates 2/4-2/5: "This is about corporate welfare for Merck and making guinea pigs of Texas school girls."

The proposed HPV vaccine mandate uses 11-year-old school girls as guinea pigs for Merck. “HPV” really means “Help Pay for Vioxx,” since Merck is seeking state laws to give it billions of dollars in new revenue. Drug-industry analyst Steve Brozak of W.B.B. Securities projected sales of this vaccine to be billions if states require it. “I could not think of a bigger boost” to Merck, he said.

But this vaccine is a loser. Michigan recently rejected Merck’s attempt for a state mandate there. Indiana rebuffed Merck’s attempt there. Maryland refused to mandate this vaccine. The Texas legislature opposes imposing this vaccine by mandate. Only after Merck hired Texas Governor Rick Perry’s former chief-of-staff, and funded the “Women in Government” group to advance Merck’s agenda, did the Texas Governor bypass the legislature in a move of dubious legality. Follow the money.

This new vaccine hs not been shown to prevent a single case of cancer. Merck, in its own package insert, does not claim that this vaccine lasts more than a few years. The average age of cervical cancer is 48. There is no evidence giving this vaccine to an 11-year-old will protect against a condition 37 years later. Not even Merck makes that claim.

Merck wants the states to require purchase of its vaccine, and kids can feel free to have sex. Only in the fine print do we learn that no long term benefits or risks of this vaccine have even been tested. Merck did not even test if this vaccine causes cancer.

Don’t be fooled by this drug company chicanery. Follow the money and see that this vaccine is great for Merck and bad for the rest of us. It costs $360 for the shots alone, and up to $1000 when administrative fees and follow-up office visits are included, particularly when there is an adverse reaction.

This controversial vaccine was approved only about eight months ago, based on testing of perhaps only a few hundred young girls. Do not make guinea pigs out of all our children. Parents who want to give this to their children can already do so. This vaccine does not prevent any diseases contagious at school and should not be used as a condition of entering school. It should not be forced on our children.

:Well, honestly. The vaccine only serves to protect. A good Christian girl will stick to her morals and won't go out having sex because of this vaccine, and a girl who had already planned on having sex would benefit from this, because it protects them. Do you feel inclined to step on a rusty nail after you get a tetanis booster? --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 18:38, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::please see the discussion in ASchafly's thread between him and me. I have in good faith attempted to contribute valuable, moral information here, but he is questioning my credentials in bad faith. I hope he reads up a little and stops the attacks. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:20, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

: Palmd0001, your recent edit was unsupported and false. See [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/01/16/DI2007011600929.html here].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::My edits are, of course, completely supported, not false, cited, and written by an expert (me) which is more than I can say for much else here after my little discussion with you [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Question][[http://www.example.com link title]] Any fair and balanced observer will see that you have no interest in the truth. I had really hoped otherwise.
Your potential friend, Peter [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Dave, thank you for the NEJM citation. It will probably not last.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:46, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No problem. I am anticipating the inevitable edit followed by "The New England Journal of Medicine is not a valid source" statement.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 21:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Condom effectiveness==

: Have kept condom statement and also cited conflicting report.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::The way it's currently written is nonsensical, as in the NEJM study condoms clearly reduced HPV transmission. Unfortunately the conflicting report you cited isn't a link so I can't compare the 2 sources.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:42, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Murray, Google search the whole cite. The first link you see should be the report.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Austin, just how much of your "conflicting" report did you read. A lot of the report talks about the effectiveness of condoms. Also, the NEJM report came out two years ''after'' your cited report. So any discussion about testing methodology is moot since it couldn't apply to the NEJM report.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:43, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: From my link "All published epidemiologic studies of HPV have methodologic limitations that make the effect of condoms in the prevention of HPV infection unknown. While a few studies on genital HPV and condom use showed a protective effect, most studies on genital HPV infection and condom use did not show a protective effect." Surely you can't be arguing that one article in a academic journal is a better citation than a report to Congress.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Austin, also from your link:

::"As described above, available clinical and epidemiologic data indicate that genital HPV infection is transmitted by contact with infected skin or mucosa. Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of HPV (125;126). Studies of HPV infection in men demonstrate that most HPV infections (both HPV DNA and HPV-associated lesions) are located on parts of the p*nis that would be covered by a
condom (48;54-57;63;127-129).

::Published studies that have assessed the effectiveness of male condoms to prevent HPV infection or any STD other than HIV are limited by multiple methodologic issues (117;118). In general, these limitations are likely to underestimate condom effectiveness (130-132)."

::Again, Austin, the biggest problem is that the NEJM report is from 2006 and the report to Congress is from 2004. How can you use it to discredit a newer study using improved methodology?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

The effectiveness of condoms, in general, is a controversial issue. Does anyone know the standards of this project for treating controversial matters?

Pending a clear statement otherwise from management, I would say we ought to describe each side in the controversy '''accurately'''. We should not, for example, claim an advocate is on one side when it's on the other. We should not 'torture the meaning' of a source to make it support one side, either.

All agree? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:58, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought the way I had it before was pretty clear. It stated evidence for condoms, which is VAST, and also pointed out that they are SECOND most effective. THIS IS NOT AN AREA OF SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY. Adding a moralistic statement about them in the PROPER place is fine, but really, this was quite clear as of yesterday. If anyone else wants to present an expert with credentials that equal or surpass mine on the subject, please do.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 12:05, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:It was entirely clear as of yesterday. I don't know that there are 2 sides to this. Bottom line is that condoms have been shown to reduce transmission, and the current version of the article is flatly false. Nobody is saying that condom use will ''prevent'' transmission altogether, becauce the NEJM study makes clear that isn't the case. But to describe them as "ineffectual" makes no sense.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:*Among 27 estimates from 20 studies, there was no consistent evidence that condom use reduces the risk of becoming HPV DNA-positive. [http://www.stdjournal.com/pt/re/std/abstract.00007435-200211000-00018.htm;jsessionid=GJLPFHnbKqghK8hXPwCFmJ7ZVMTZWj4dJq12GHNfFyz21yvM62jF!721371455!-949856145!8091!-1]

:I'm just a layman but it took me only one google hit to find this link to the Journal of the American Sexually Transmitted Disease Association. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:54, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I respect your skills and intelligence, but google is not an appropriate search engine for medical studies. You should try PubMed. Also, your combination of evidence is, in essence, a meta-analysis, which cannot be done as simply as you have. The general consensus in the medical literature is that condoms significanlty reduce the risk of all STDs, including HPV (the the NEJM article), but of course, abstinence, meaning NO CONTACT AT ALL, is most effective. I wont revert, but you should reconsider your back-of-the-envelope meta-analysis. Also, the cited meta analysis is old (2002), and the type of study in NEJM was designed to be more accurate. [[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 14:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm well aware that the general view is "that condoms significantly reduce the risk". But that is not the question our young Christian friend has brought up. Moreover, there's a huge public battle about strategies to reduce the incidence of VD and unwanted pregnancy. The claim that "condoms are the best way" is related to questions about their effectiveness. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed, all my edits here and in STDs clearly stated that abstinence is the best and only certain method. Condoms are a very effective second best, and Ive always clearly stated that. In the world of medical literature, 5 years old is OLD for a study, and meta-analyses are considered the second weakest form of study. [[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 14:26, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ed, no one here claimed they are the best way. The cite said that condoms are the SECOND best way to avoid HPV. The first, obviously, being abstinence. I can't believe that this is a controversial statement. It's common sense.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:27, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::As PalMD said, that article is 5 years old. There's plenty of evidence from the last 2 years. Try some of these: [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T80-4HMV7J6-2&_user=4429&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000059602&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4429&md5=24c5f1dc80356bed16618f8390c08c01 - 1] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16223580&dopt=Citation - 2][http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JID/journal/issues/v194n8/36645/36645.html - 3] [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:28, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't want to debate the issue. I want to work with you to find a way to '''present''' the issue in the article.

Austin has brought up the effectiveness issue. If some medical authority calls the [[male condom]] "second-best", you can come up with a citation for that and place it in the article. Just don't do it in an argumentative way. Try this:

*Abstinence is the most effective way to prevent its transmission. (Blank) recommends use of the [[male condom]], calling it "second best".

Oh, but this entails the argument that "some people won't be abstinent, so we better tell everyone to use condoms". Maybe that's why Schlafly reverted before.

We can't sweep the "best strategy" issue under the rug, and it involves more than just "what recent studies" say. There are moral aspects, too. And also the way you phrase something has an effect on behavior (see [[Pygmalion effect]]). Telling people '''if you are going to have extramarital sex, do (blank)''' is tantamount to egging them on to do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, Ok, first, we do have the reference that Dave put in. It is simply MEDICAL FACT. It is not currently in dispute in the medical world. As to the moral implications, I would hope that those reading this would have a good moral foundation. If they are planning on remaining abstinent, wonderful. If not, they should know what to do next, or they will spread disease. This is not a pygmalion thing...it is public health. I thought that the way I originally presented it was fairly good. Check it out. If we are to add a section on morals, I think it takes away from the encyclopedic/factual nature of the article. A link to an article about morals should be sufficient.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 14:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, you're losing me: what is a medical fact?
::#That the most effective method of VD prevention is abstinence?
::#That the "second-best" method is condom use?
::#That UNAIDS is right when the advocate several methods '''other than abstinence''' as "effective"?
::#That PR campaigns which tell people, "if you can't be abstinent before marriage or faithful within marriage, try (blank)" are effective in preventing VD?
::It's a complex problem. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Abstinence==
There is a problem, at the least, with the phrasing regarding abstinence. People abstaining from sex do not have sexual partners. This should be fixed or removed. [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 14:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Before making major revisions..==
Consider discussing here...even if you are the boss.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 16:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Or,on the other hand, make unilateral controversial changes. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 16:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==The HPV vaccine does not protect against other sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., chlamydia, herpes, hepatitis, trichomoniasis, gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, AIDS, etc.)==

This seems like a slightly bizarre comment. Yes, I suppose it is accurate as far as it goes, but what's the point? Why stop there? Why not also add that it does not protect against the common cold, pneumonia, leukaemia, ingrowing toenails and being run over by a bus? It's a vaccine against HPV, not all STDs. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 17:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Because that doesn't assist the ideological bent of said statement.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:33, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

The reason is that they do not want to think that it is a vaccine that prevents all STDs and should use whatever protection they choose to use. It's saying that it does not guarantee "safe sex." [[User:Midnus|Midnus]]

== Article Title ==

This article should be moved to "Gardasil," since most of it refers specifically to that vaccine. Gardasil and HPV Vaccine might be synonymous now, but they won't be when/if Cervarix is approved.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Reverted Liberal Bias ==

Liberal bias and some uncritical repetitions of vaccine manufacturer claims were reverted. Abstinence protects against this disease at no cost, and there is no reason to believe the self-interested claims by the manufacturer about safety and efficacy of the vaccine, particularly when researchers themselves have expressed criticisms of attempts to make it mandatory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:19, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:Is it reasonable to expect that all teenagers will abstain from sex until marriage? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:22, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore, the researchers criticized making it mandatory, they didn't criticize any of the other claims. At minimum, those claims should be acknowledged. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:25, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:The claims about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine aren't being made exclusively by the manufacturer. They're being made by the CDC, New England Journal of Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Association. These are peer-reviewed publications, and can't just be hand-waved away as "liberal bias." It seems to me, Andy, that anything you disagree with automatically becomes liberal bias. There is only one link to information directly from the manufacturer in the article, and that is to point to the manufacturer's packaging insert. It is not used to back up any of the claims about efficacy or safety. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 01:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::If we are going to change ''In June 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first HPV vaccine based on observance of elevated [[antibody]] levels in a double blind clinical trial involving over 20,000 subjects.'' <ref>CDC - Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5602a1.htm]</ref> to ''In June 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first HPV vaccine based on observance of elevated [[antibody]] levels in a few thousand patients who had received the vaccine (including perhaps only a few hundred or less young girls).'', then we need a reference for the latter. I don't yet have any opinion one way or another on which statement is more accurate, I just want to be able to read the sources.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:56, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

The term "sexually active" is [[liberal]] bias. Sexual activity within marriage is at ZERO risk of contracting disease; sexual activity outside of marriage is at high risk.

Also, the 20,000 figure is meaningless because the monitoring was so brief.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:50, 4 January 2008 (EST)

SSchultz, you're pushing your limits here. You deleted important info (like the lack of epidemological studies and lack of protection against other STDs) and inserted numbers that lack any significance due to the brief monitoring. Go to Wikipedia with the liberal bias, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:59, 4 January 2008 (EST)

I explicitly stated that the monitoring period wasn't long enough to detect cervical cancer, but what about the fact that the vaccine prevented precancerous lesions? That is important information. I'll leave out the 20,000 number, though. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:04, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Andy, I kept everything in that you asked, and merely added information about the prevention of precancerous lesions. What's the story here? It's as if you want this article to claim that the vaccine is ineffective. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:13, 5 January 2008 (EST)

: We can pick this up more tomorrow. The entry should remain factual without misleading claims. The vaccine's effect may be short-lived, for example, as monitoring seems to have been intentionally brief. Also, it appeared to me that you kept deleting the reference to a lack of epidemiological studies. See you tomorrow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:22, 5 January 2008 (EST)

::Schultz, I love ya but you have to remember that CP is not Wikipedia. We don't tolerate suppression of information merely on the grounds that it "advances a POV". Please work with us - not against us - to present both sides of the [[HPV vaccine controversy]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:07, 5 January 2008 (EST)

== References ==

<references/>

==Article quality==

This article is so bad that I'm wondering whether to delete it.

Or maybe we could tuck it away somewhere and work on it for a week until it's ready. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:20, 5 January 2008 (EST)

The MSNBC source contradicts the line that says the pain causes fainting, MSNBC says "it’s not clear whether the pain of the cervical cancer vaccine was the reason for the reaction [fainting]." [[User:Midnus|Midnus]]

==Dubious claims from liberal newsmagazine==

''Time'' says one thing, but they are liberal and they often mix news and editorials together. We need an article on the most prevalent [[venereal diseases]]: broken down perhaps by America vs. rest of the world. I had also heard that [[chlamydia]] was the most common. Who says it's [[HPV]]? Time, or Atlanta CDC? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:11, 5 January 2008 (EST)
:Speaking of that, there is an article [http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WEEN-5NG4JQ here] that notes that "eighty per cent of the 466,000 cases diagnosed globally each year occur in developing countries where it is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women." So HPV is ''much'' less prevalant in the U.S. and [[First World]] countries than the [[liberal hysteria]] of the media would have us believe. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 12:18, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Gardasil

2008-01-06T02:00:49Z

Midnus:

[[/draft]]

Favorite soundbite from televised debates 2/4-2/5: "This is about corporate welfare for Merck and making guinea pigs of Texas school girls."

The proposed HPV vaccine mandate uses 11-year-old school girls as guinea pigs for Merck. “HPV” really means “Help Pay for Vioxx,” since Merck is seeking state laws to give it billions of dollars in new revenue. Drug-industry analyst Steve Brozak of W.B.B. Securities projected sales of this vaccine to be billions if states require it. “I could not think of a bigger boost” to Merck, he said.

But this vaccine is a loser. Michigan recently rejected Merck’s attempt for a state mandate there. Indiana rebuffed Merck’s attempt there. Maryland refused to mandate this vaccine. The Texas legislature opposes imposing this vaccine by mandate. Only after Merck hired Texas Governor Rick Perry’s former chief-of-staff, and funded the “Women in Government” group to advance Merck’s agenda, did the Texas Governor bypass the legislature in a move of dubious legality. Follow the money.

This new vaccine hs not been shown to prevent a single case of cancer. Merck, in its own package insert, does not claim that this vaccine lasts more than a few years. The average age of cervical cancer is 48. There is no evidence giving this vaccine to an 11-year-old will protect against a condition 37 years later. Not even Merck makes that claim.

Merck wants the states to require purchase of its vaccine, and kids can feel free to have sex. Only in the fine print do we learn that no long term benefits or risks of this vaccine have even been tested. Merck did not even test if this vaccine causes cancer.

Don’t be fooled by this drug company chicanery. Follow the money and see that this vaccine is great for Merck and bad for the rest of us. It costs $360 for the shots alone, and up to $1000 when administrative fees and follow-up office visits are included, particularly when there is an adverse reaction.

This controversial vaccine was approved only about eight months ago, based on testing of perhaps only a few hundred young girls. Do not make guinea pigs out of all our children. Parents who want to give this to their children can already do so. This vaccine does not prevent any diseases contagious at school and should not be used as a condition of entering school. It should not be forced on our children.

:Well, honestly. The vaccine only serves to protect. A good Christian girl will stick to her morals and won't go out having sex because of this vaccine, and a girl who had already planned on having sex would benefit from this, because it protects them. Do you feel inclined to step on a rusty nail after you get a tetanis booster? --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 18:38, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::please see the discussion in ASchafly's thread between him and me. I have in good faith attempted to contribute valuable, moral information here, but he is questioning my credentials in bad faith. I hope he reads up a little and stops the attacks. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:20, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

: Palmd0001, your recent edit was unsupported and false. See [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/01/16/DI2007011600929.html here].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::My edits are, of course, completely supported, not false, cited, and written by an expert (me) which is more than I can say for much else here after my little discussion with you [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Question][[http://www.example.com link title]] Any fair and balanced observer will see that you have no interest in the truth. I had really hoped otherwise.
Your potential friend, Peter [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Dave, thank you for the NEJM citation. It will probably not last.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:46, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No problem. I am anticipating the inevitable edit followed by "The New England Journal of Medicine is not a valid source" statement.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 21:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Condom effectiveness==

: Have kept condom statement and also cited conflicting report.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::The way it's currently written is nonsensical, as in the NEJM study condoms clearly reduced HPV transmission. Unfortunately the conflicting report you cited isn't a link so I can't compare the 2 sources.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:42, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Murray, Google search the whole cite. The first link you see should be the report.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Austin, just how much of your "conflicting" report did you read. A lot of the report talks about the effectiveness of condoms. Also, the NEJM report came out two years ''after'' your cited report. So any discussion about testing methodology is moot since it couldn't apply to the NEJM report.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:43, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: From my link "All published epidemiologic studies of HPV have methodologic limitations that make the effect of condoms in the prevention of HPV infection unknown. While a few studies on genital HPV and condom use showed a protective effect, most studies on genital HPV infection and condom use did not show a protective effect." Surely you can't be arguing that one article in a academic journal is a better citation than a report to Congress.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Austin, also from your link:

::"As described above, available clinical and epidemiologic data indicate that genital HPV infection is transmitted by contact with infected skin or mucosa. Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of HPV (125;126). Studies of HPV infection in men demonstrate that most HPV infections (both HPV DNA and HPV-associated lesions) are located on parts of the p*nis that would be covered by a
condom (48;54-57;63;127-129).

::Published studies that have assessed the effectiveness of male condoms to prevent HPV infection or any STD other than HIV are limited by multiple methodologic issues (117;118). In general, these limitations are likely to underestimate condom effectiveness (130-132)."

::Again, Austin, the biggest problem is that the NEJM report is from 2006 and the report to Congress is from 2004. How can you use it to discredit a newer study using improved methodology?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

The effectiveness of condoms, in general, is a controversial issue. Does anyone know the standards of this project for treating controversial matters?

Pending a clear statement otherwise from management, I would say we ought to describe each side in the controversy '''accurately'''. We should not, for example, claim an advocate is on one side when it's on the other. We should not 'torture the meaning' of a source to make it support one side, either.

All agree? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:58, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought the way I had it before was pretty clear. It stated evidence for condoms, which is VAST, and also pointed out that they are SECOND most effective. THIS IS NOT AN AREA OF SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY. Adding a moralistic statement about them in the PROPER place is fine, but really, this was quite clear as of yesterday. If anyone else wants to present an expert with credentials that equal or surpass mine on the subject, please do.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 12:05, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:It was entirely clear as of yesterday. I don't know that there are 2 sides to this. Bottom line is that condoms have been shown to reduce transmission, and the current version of the article is flatly false. Nobody is saying that condom use will ''prevent'' transmission altogether, becauce the NEJM study makes clear that isn't the case. But to describe them as "ineffectual" makes no sense.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:*Among 27 estimates from 20 studies, there was no consistent evidence that condom use reduces the risk of becoming HPV DNA-positive. [http://www.stdjournal.com/pt/re/std/abstract.00007435-200211000-00018.htm;jsessionid=GJLPFHnbKqghK8hXPwCFmJ7ZVMTZWj4dJq12GHNfFyz21yvM62jF!721371455!-949856145!8091!-1]

:I'm just a layman but it took me only one google hit to find this link to the Journal of the American Sexually Transmitted Disease Association. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:54, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I respect your skills and intelligence, but google is not an appropriate search engine for medical studies. You should try PubMed. Also, your combination of evidence is, in essence, a meta-analysis, which cannot be done as simply as you have. The general consensus in the medical literature is that condoms significanlty reduce the risk of all STDs, including HPV (the the NEJM article), but of course, abstinence, meaning NO CONTACT AT ALL, is most effective. I wont revert, but you should reconsider your back-of-the-envelope meta-analysis. Also, the cited meta analysis is old (2002), and the type of study in NEJM was designed to be more accurate. [[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 14:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm well aware that the general view is "that condoms significantly reduce the risk". But that is not the question our young Christian friend has brought up. Moreover, there's a huge public battle about strategies to reduce the incidence of VD and unwanted pregnancy. The claim that "condoms are the best way" is related to questions about their effectiveness. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed, all my edits here and in STDs clearly stated that abstinence is the best and only certain method. Condoms are a very effective second best, and Ive always clearly stated that. In the world of medical literature, 5 years old is OLD for a study, and meta-analyses are considered the second weakest form of study. [[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 14:26, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ed, no one here claimed they are the best way. The cite said that condoms are the SECOND best way to avoid HPV. The first, obviously, being abstinence. I can't believe that this is a controversial statement. It's common sense.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:27, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::As PalMD said, that article is 5 years old. There's plenty of evidence from the last 2 years. Try some of these: [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T80-4HMV7J6-2&_user=4429&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000059602&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4429&md5=24c5f1dc80356bed16618f8390c08c01 - 1] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16223580&dopt=Citation - 2][http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JID/journal/issues/v194n8/36645/36645.html - 3] [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:28, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't want to debate the issue. I want to work with you to find a way to '''present''' the issue in the article.

Austin has brought up the effectiveness issue. If some medical authority calls the [[male condom]] "second-best", you can come up with a citation for that and place it in the article. Just don't do it in an argumentative way. Try this:

*Abstinence is the most effective way to prevent its transmission. (Blank) recommends use of the [[male condom]], calling it "second best".

Oh, but this entails the argument that "some people won't be abstinent, so we better tell everyone to use condoms". Maybe that's why Schlafly reverted before.

We can't sweep the "best strategy" issue under the rug, and it involves more than just "what recent studies" say. There are moral aspects, too. And also the way you phrase something has an effect on behavior (see [[Pygmalion effect]]). Telling people '''if you are going to have extramarital sex, do (blank)''' is tantamount to egging them on to do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, Ok, first, we do have the reference that Dave put in. It is simply MEDICAL FACT. It is not currently in dispute in the medical world. As to the moral implications, I would hope that those reading this would have a good moral foundation. If they are planning on remaining abstinent, wonderful. If not, they should know what to do next, or they will spread disease. This is not a pygmalion thing...it is public health. I thought that the way I originally presented it was fairly good. Check it out. If we are to add a section on morals, I think it takes away from the encyclopedic/factual nature of the article. A link to an article about morals should be sufficient.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 14:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, you're losing me: what is a medical fact?
::#That the most effective method of VD prevention is abstinence?
::#That the "second-best" method is condom use?
::#That UNAIDS is right when the advocate several methods '''other than abstinence''' as "effective"?
::#That PR campaigns which tell people, "if you can't be abstinent before marriage or faithful within marriage, try (blank)" are effective in preventing VD?
::It's a complex problem. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Abstinence==
There is a problem, at the least, with the phrasing regarding abstinence. People abstaining from sex do not have sexual partners. This should be fixed or removed. [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 14:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Before making major revisions..==
Consider discussing here...even if you are the boss.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 16:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Or,on the other hand, make unilateral controversial changes. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 16:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==The HPV vaccine does not protect against other sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., chlamydia, herpes, hepatitis, trichomoniasis, gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, AIDS, etc.)==

This seems like a slightly bizarre comment. Yes, I suppose it is accurate as far as it goes, but what's the point? Why stop there? Why not also add that it does not protect against the common cold, pneumonia, leukaemia, ingrowing toenails and being run over by a bus? It's a vaccine against HPV, not all STDs. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 17:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Because that doesn't assist the ideological bent of said statement.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:33, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

The reason is that they do not want to think that it is a vaccine that prevents all STDs and should use whatever protection they choose to use. It's saying that it does not guarantee "safe sex."[[User:Midnus|Midnus]]

== Article Title ==

This article should be moved to "Gardasil," since most of it refers specifically to that vaccine. Gardasil and HPV Vaccine might be synonymous now, but they won't be when/if Cervarix is approved.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Reverted Liberal Bias ==

Liberal bias and some uncritical repetitions of vaccine manufacturer claims were reverted. Abstinence protects against this disease at no cost, and there is no reason to believe the self-interested claims by the manufacturer about safety and efficacy of the vaccine, particularly when researchers themselves have expressed criticisms of attempts to make it mandatory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:19, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:Is it reasonable to expect that all teenagers will abstain from sex until marriage? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:22, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore, the researchers criticized making it mandatory, they didn't criticize any of the other claims. At minimum, those claims should be acknowledged. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:25, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:The claims about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine aren't being made exclusively by the manufacturer. They're being made by the CDC, New England Journal of Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Association. These are peer-reviewed publications, and can't just be hand-waved away as "liberal bias." It seems to me, Andy, that anything you disagree with automatically becomes liberal bias. There is only one link to information directly from the manufacturer in the article, and that is to point to the manufacturer's packaging insert. It is not used to back up any of the claims about efficacy or safety. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 01:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::If we are going to change ''In June 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first HPV vaccine based on observance of elevated [[antibody]] levels in a double blind clinical trial involving over 20,000 subjects.'' <ref>CDC - Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5602a1.htm]</ref> to ''In June 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first HPV vaccine based on observance of elevated [[antibody]] levels in a few thousand patients who had received the vaccine (including perhaps only a few hundred or less young girls).'', then we need a reference for the latter. I don't yet have any opinion one way or another on which statement is more accurate, I just want to be able to read the sources.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:56, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

The term "sexually active" is [[liberal]] bias. Sexual activity within marriage is at ZERO risk of contracting disease; sexual activity outside of marriage is at high risk.

Also, the 20,000 figure is meaningless because the monitoring was so brief.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:50, 4 January 2008 (EST)

SSchultz, you're pushing your limits here. You deleted important info (like the lack of epidemological studies and lack of protection against other STDs) and inserted numbers that lack any significance due to the brief monitoring. Go to Wikipedia with the liberal bias, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:59, 4 January 2008 (EST)

I explicitly stated that the monitoring period wasn't long enough to detect cervical cancer, but what about the fact that the vaccine prevented precancerous lesions? That is important information. I'll leave out the 20,000 number, though. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:04, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Andy, I kept everything in that you asked, and merely added information about the prevention of precancerous lesions. What's the story here? It's as if you want this article to claim that the vaccine is ineffective. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:13, 5 January 2008 (EST)

: We can pick this up more tomorrow. The entry should remain factual without misleading claims. The vaccine's effect may be short-lived, for example, as monitoring seems to have been intentionally brief. Also, it appeared to me that you kept deleting the reference to a lack of epidemiological studies. See you tomorrow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:22, 5 January 2008 (EST)

::Schultz, I love ya but you have to remember that CP is not Wikipedia. We don't tolerate suppression of information merely on the grounds that it "advances a POV". Please work with us - not against us - to present both sides of the [[HPV vaccine controversy]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:07, 5 January 2008 (EST)

== References ==

<references/>

==Article quality==

This article is so bad that I'm wondering whether to delete it.

Or maybe we could tuck it away somewhere and work on it for a week until it's ready. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:20, 5 January 2008 (EST)

The MSNBC source contradicts the line that says the pain causes fainting, MSNBC says "it’s not clear whether the pain of the cervical cancer vaccine was the reason for the reaction [fainting]." [[User:Midnus|Midnus]]

==Dubious claims from liberal newsmagazine==

''Time'' says one thing, but they are liberal and they often mix news and editorials together. We need an article on the most prevalent [[venereal diseases]]: broken down perhaps by America vs. rest of the world. I had also heard that [[chlamydia]] was the most common. Who says it's [[HPV]]? Time, or Atlanta CDC? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:11, 5 January 2008 (EST)
:Speaking of that, there is an article [http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WEEN-5NG4JQ here] that notes that "eighty per cent of the 466,000 cases diagnosed globally each year occur in developing countries where it is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women." So HPV is ''much'' less prevalant in the U.S. and [[First World]] countries than the [[liberal hysteria]] of the media would have us believe. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 12:18, 5 January 2008 (EST)