Still Hating America. - Page 31

Hank Chinaski · 02-07-2007, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I just wonder why he didn't include himself in the question.

The answer, inevitably, for most people here will be "far fewer than Penske's".

Translation: I am making a PB post that doesn't even mention Spanky or implicate him. Maybe it will make him notice me from being jealous?

notcasesensitive · 02-07-2007, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Back then - unlike now - my posts weren't tripe.

uh, I've read some of your "greatest hits" from back in the day, you know. (I might have even been a lurker when they were originally made.)

ltl/fb · 02-07-2007, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Well, HPV is contagious. Not in the same way that polio is, but it's certainly a very easily sexually transmitted disease.

I'm glad I STP'ed because I was going to say this. The whole thing with vaccination is that it's most effective when almost everyone is vaccinated -- then the disease is wiped out (like smallpox) or nearly so (like polio/mumps/whooping cough). G3, HPV can be transmitted even if condoms are used. I think you would have to have a full genital area barrier to keep it from being transmitted. And it's become really, really prevalent. RT may have statistics on the proportion of young(ish) people who have it. Hell, you may have it -- I'm not sure they test for it in men ever, except on request, and a woman who has been married for years probably wouldn't be tested as a routine matter. The virus wouldn't show up on a pap.

If this vaccine is effective enough on HPV, and not just effective against some strains of HPV but there are lots more out there (a la the flu virus) then it makes sense to me to require vaccination because the disease, a cause of a cancer that is (I think) pretty deadly, will be wiped out. If it's more like a flu vaccine, then it makes more sense to me for people to choose whether or not to get it, since it only decreases somewhat the chances of getting a form of HPV that causes cervical cancer.

ETA Requirements for this vaccine should be put in place however requirements for other vaccines are put into place. Executive order or law or regulation -- whatever applies.

Hank Chinaski · 02-07-2007, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I'm glad I STP'ed because I was going to say this. The whole thing with vaccination is that it's most effective when almost everyone is vaccinated -- then the disease is wiped out (like smallpox) or nearly so (like polio/mumps/whooping cough). G3, HPV can be transmitted even if condoms are used. I think you would have to have a full genital area barrier to keep it from being transmitted. And it's become really, really prevalent. RT may have statistics on the proportion of young(ish) people who have it. Hell, you may have it -- I'm not sure they test for it in men ever, except on request, and a woman who has been married for years probably wouldn't be tested as a routine matter. The virus wouldn't show up on a pap.

If this vaccine is effective enough on HPV, and not just effective against some strains of HPV but there are lots more out there (a la the flu virus) then it makes sense to me to require vaccination because the disease, a cause of a cancer that is (I think) pretty deadly, will be wiped out. If it's more like a flu vaccine, then it makes more sense to me for people to choose whether or not to get it, since it only decreases somewhat the chances of getting a form of HPV that causes cervical cancer.

ETA Requirements for this vaccine should be put in place however requirements for other vaccines are put into place. Executive order or law or regulation -- whatever applies.

The vaccines I've heard of are for some strains.

ltl/fb · 02-07-2007, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
OK now you are scaring me. Isn't HPV visible? Could I have it but just not be able to see it? How do you find out if you have it?

There are many different strains, some of which sometimes have visible symptoms and many of which never do. The kinds that have been shown to cause cervical cancer either never or very rarely have visible symptoms.

You find out if you have it by asking your doctor to test you.

ltl/fb · 02-07-2007, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The vaccines I've heard of are for some strains.

I know they have focused on the strains that cause cancer, but I don't know whether they have hit all/nearly all the cancer-causing strains, or just some of them. There are lots of strains, many of which don't cause cancer.

sebastian_dangerfield · 02-07-2007, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Back then - unlike now - my posts weren't tripe.

So we can assume you had a handsome fraud rate. Good for you.

Replaced_Texan · 02-07-2007, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm not saying it's a bad expenditure of money. The question is whether it should be mandatory.

Well, that's why I'm saying I have a dilemma. I generally support the idea, but without debate and a real look at the budget in the context of the rest of the legislative session (which just got started) I'm not sure it's the best use of state dollars in the world, all other things considered.

sebastian_dangerfield · 02-07-2007, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
OK now you are scaring me. Isn't HPV visible? Could I have it but just not be able to see it? How do you find out if you have it?

They theorize some strains can screw with men in a sort of low grade Epstein Barr-ish fashion. But generally, I don't think it'll do much to you, unless you've got cell turnover in your lady parts.

Hank Chinaski · 02-07-2007, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
So we can assume you had a handsome fraud rate. Good for you.

I heard slave wrote some sweet posts back in the day. could charm the pants right off a sock, I heard- can't remember who told me that.

Hank Chinaski · 02-07-2007, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Well, that's why I'm saying I have a dilemma. I generally support the idea, but without debate and a real look at the budget in the context of the rest of the legislative session (which just got started) I'm not sure it's the best use of state dollars in the world, all other things considered.

isn't your govenor crazy conservative? it would seem to me he would be making chastitiy mandatory, not a shot to make sexual contact less dangerous.

Adder · 02-07-2007, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Well, that's why I'm saying I have a dilemma. I generally support the idea, but without debate and a real look at the budget in the context of the rest of the legislative session (which just got started) I'm not sure it's the best use of state dollars in the world, all other things considered.

Really? 300 bucks per treatment to prevent X number of future cancer cases (that might cost big bucks to treat)?

Would the legislature pass it?

ETA: Although I guess one could wonder why it shouldn't be given to boys too, if the goals is to do away with HPV.

robustpuppy · 02-07-2007, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
They theorize some strains can screw with men in a sort of low grade Epstein Barr-ish fashion. But generally, I don't think it'll do much to you, unless you've got cell turnover in your lady parts.

You are presuming that Spanky doesn't care that he might transmit it to someone else.

SlaveNoMore · 02-07-2007, 05:39 PM

Quote:

sebastian_dangerfield
So we can assume you had a handsome fraud rate. Good for you.

I'm sure we all have some skeletons in the closet, Dr. Leary.

Sidd Finch · 02-07-2007, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
So I have this problem.

The Republican governor of our state went ahead last week and issued an executive order mandating that girls going into sixth grade be innoculated from HPV.

This order happens to be a cash cow for Merck, since the vaccine goes for about $300 a pop.

Merck and the governor are tight enough, though I don't think that the $6,000 in Merck gave last year is enough to sway this sort of decision, to raise eyebrows on the issue.

Republicans are pissed. Pissed, I tell you. There are angry letters being written as I speak. You see, vaccination will promote promiscuity* and if girls get the vaccine then they'll think that it's ok to go out and have sex 24/7, because they're now protected from a sexually trasmitted disease that causes 70% of cervical cancers. The governor says that parents can opt out for health, moral or religious reasons, so if there's a chastity belt already in place, then no worries.

This is where I start to squirm, though. Because, though I firmly believe that this is a good idea and the Republican pro-cancer legislators' points aren't valid, I'm a little irritated that the legislative process wasn't really brought into play. And the Republican legislators have a point there.** This is a policy decision that needs to be tweaked a little before being implemented, especially if public dollars are going to be spent on the project.

Damn my belief in governement and process getting the way in a result I want!

*Motherfucking assholes. I'm sure I didn't need to say it, but I needed to say it.

**'course, none of them bitched a few years go when the Governor issued an executive order regarding the 65% rule on money in the classroom. But kids weren't having sex then.

Translation: Wait six years and then go visit Texas. Young (though legal) pussy will abound!