Why do they only include 2 viral types of the many that cause cancer and include 2 types that only cause warts. Likely they will come out with a complete vaccine that coincides with the date the current vaccine comes off patent. Thanks again Merck for leaving out the Vioxx data and lying to the public and Doctors.
Its important for all the chemistry posters to realize there are 4 viral types in the current vaccine 2 are for cancer and 2 are for warts. I am saying substitute cancer causing types for the wart types that are currently in the vaccine.
2007-02-16
06:29:10
·
5 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Health
➔ General Health Care
➔ Other - General Health Care
Dear wondering since you are clearly so knowledgable about this would you care to wager whether or not 7 or more valent vaccines will come out in the next 7-10 yrs?? Its fun to be a stooge for Merck but put your money where your mouth is. I know this is coming and would bet alot of money with anyone.
2007-02-16
11:41:11 ·
update #1
thanks michael for reposting your answer I reposted in the health section because I felt maybe that was a more accurate categorization for the question. As to your answer specifically: my issue is this if they put in the vaccine only certain virus types specifically the nonpathologic ones do you feel they are in some measure responsible for the cancers they could have prevented?
2007-02-16
11:45:09 ·
update #2
I guess if you want to double post the question, I could report it...or double post my answer. Here's my answer again:
A private company can market their products as they see fit. If there were no profits to make, there would be no drugs made.
Edit: "I like the posts we have because they explain to me why americans get what they deserve from drug companies." You're absolutely right. By giving drug companies exclusive patents over the compounds they discover and create, America is home to the greatest medical R&D departments in the world. Most of the greatest medical cures in the past century originate right here in the good ol' USofA. So, before you finish biting off the hand that feeds you, you might want to brush up on your understanding of economics...and while you're at it....thank a vet. Wouldn't hurt to buy some shares of Merck while you're at it.
2007-02-16 10:15:32
·
answer #1
·
answered by Michael E 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why do you think they are in business? Its not to help anyone get better, if that happened they would be out of business because un-sick people don't take medication. But its not just their fault. Blame an un informed, give me a fix now public and an FDA that only stands to gain financially when Merck does well. The FDA and the pharmaceutical companies are scratching each others back which means more sick people, more drugs and more money in their pockets. Its called sick care not health care, ruled by the all mighty dollar.
2007-02-16 06:40:59
·
answer #2
·
answered by backdoc 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
THis touches me for 2 different reasons, and I am extremely upset about it...
A) I dont believe in vaccinating at all, I have 3 children who are vaccine free....
B) I had a leep procedure done last year while I was pregnant because I had cervical cancer caused by HPV.
HPV affects an overwhelming amount of women, most of who never have any symptoms. It is something that is sexually trasmitted. You could have intercourse with 100 guys and not get it, or 1, and get it, depending on who the men are. Its not something you get because your sleezy, its because you are with someone who has been exposed to it.
I think the main thing is teens needing to wait untl they are married to have sex. This is something that very very few people do these days, but if I had, and my husband had, this would not be a issue in my life. Teens need to know the purpose of sex is NOT for feelings, it is for loving your husband and/or wife, and making children. That is the SOUL purpose of it!
Vaccinations in and of themselves are a bad idea. Giving children a "little" bit of a virus that they will more then likely never come in contact with to make them immune which is not even PROVEN to work, is just ludacris. I would keep that away from my daughter with a ten foot pool if I were parents.
If anyone has any questions about vaccinations, I could give alot of imformation that I cannot give here, but its interesting especially for new moms who have never heard anything about it!
Have a great day!
Erika
2007-02-16 06:44:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by Bl3ss3dw1thL1f3 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
I assume you are refering to Gardasil - currently the only vaccine against Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) on the market. Your information is incorrect, however -
Gardasil vaccination (when done according to protocol) provides significant protection against 4 different types of HPV viruses - specifically, types 6, 11,16, and 18.
HPV 16 and 18 are, together are associated with 70% of all cervical cancers. HPV 6 and 11 together cause about 12% of low-grade cervical cancers and about 80% of all genital warts. There are also HPV 45 and 31 - each of which accounts for about 5 % of cervical cancers.
It is expected (based upon numerous studies) that the quadrivalent vaccine mentioned above will prevent the majority of high-grade precancerous lesions and invasive cervical cancers.
Using mathematical models to calculate cost-effectiveness has shown (in one study): if we vaccinate all 12yr. old girls in the U.S., we would prevent > 200,000 HPV infections, 100,000 abnormal cervical pap smears (therefore no unneccessary biopsies/leeps/curetage), and 3300 cases of cervical cancer.
Since cervical cancer is the second most common malignant disease in women world-wide that sounds like a worthy effort.
So no, I'm not upset that Merck has produced an excellent product that, together with regular pap smears, will help to erradicate cervical cancer from our population.
And to a previous responder - you're right - your kids will likely never come into contact with the diseases you've chosen not to vaccinate them against - because the rest of us have received our vaccinations and are providing your children with herd protection. You're welcome.
2007-02-16 07:06:16
·
answer #4
·
answered by Wondering 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
a private business enterprise can industry their products as they see greater wholesome. If there have been no salary to make, there would be no drugs made. Edit: "i admire the posts we've because of the fact they clarify to me why individuals get what they deserve from drug companies." you're easily top. by ability of giving drug companies unique patents over the compounds they arrive across and create, u.s. is domicile to the appropriate scientific R&D departments in the international. a super sort of the appropriate scientific remedies in the previous century originate top right here in the sturdy ol' USofA. So, in the past you end biting off the hand that feeds you, that's incredibly helpful to sweep up on your wisdom of economics...and in case you're at it....thank a vet. does no longer harm to purchase some shares of Merck in case you're at it.
2016-11-23 13:27:01
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋