Australia Set To 'Eliminate' Cervical Cancer By 2028 (cnn.com) 181
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: Australia is set to be the first country to eliminate cervical cancer, aided by its national vaccination and screening programs, says a new study. The country is on track to meet the threshold of four or less new cases per 100,000 women each year, effectively eliminating the cancer by 2028, finds the new study published Wednesday. The cancer could be classified as "rare" as early as 2022, meeting a threshold of six new cases per 100,000 and deaths due to the diseases are expected to decline to one new case per 100,000 women by 2034. But this is all contingent on Australia's high vaccination coverage and screening being maintained, write the study authors.
An estimated 99.7% of cervical cancer cases are caused by infection with Human Papillomavirus (HPV), a group of viruses that spread though sexual intercourse and skin-to-skin contact around the genitals. In their new study, the researchers at Cancer Council NSW modeled data on HPV vaccination, natural history of the disease, and cervical screening to estimate the age-incidence of cervical cancer in Australia from 2015 to 2100. Currently, Australia reports seven cases of cervical cancer per 100,000 women, according to the study. As well as eliminating the disease within 20 years, the data showed that the annual incidence of cervical cancer will decrease and remain at fewer than one case per 100,000 women if screening for HPV every five years continues and as long as people have been offered the vaccine.
An estimated 99.7% of cervical cancer cases are caused by infection with Human Papillomavirus (HPV), a group of viruses that spread though sexual intercourse and skin-to-skin contact around the genitals. In their new study, the researchers at Cancer Council NSW modeled data on HPV vaccination, natural history of the disease, and cervical screening to estimate the age-incidence of cervical cancer in Australia from 2015 to 2100. Currently, Australia reports seven cases of cervical cancer per 100,000 women, according to the study. As well as eliminating the disease within 20 years, the data showed that the annual incidence of cervical cancer will decrease and remain at fewer than one case per 100,000 women if screening for HPV every five years continues and as long as people have been offered the vaccine.
Does PENIS CANCER get your attention? (Score:3)
HPV is a virus - that causes cancer.
A cancer virus.
Yes, HPV causes cancer of the cervix, vulva, and vagina.
But also cancers of the penis, throat, mouth, anus, prostate.
Men get HPV cancers too.
Penetrative sex is not required.
So HPV is a virus - that causes cancer - of the sex organs.
I wish they called it "Sex organ cancer virus."
Unlike ALL the other cancers, these cancers can be prevented with a single vaccine.
A cancer vaccine.
We are sexually active, and we both received the Gardasil-9 series.
Our insurance (KP) would NOT cover it. Said we were too old.
We went to Costco and paid out of pocket
3 shots in the series, about $220 each.
I hear cancer is expensive too.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Agreed, you would be silly.
Australia vaccinates boys and girls:
The vaccine is provided free of charge for: 12- and 13-year-old males and females through schools on an ongoing basis
[http://www.hpvregister.org.au/health-professionals]
Re: (Score:2)
From Wikipedia:
"Since penile and anal cancers are much less common than cervical cancer, HPV vaccination of young men is likely to be much less cost-effective than for young women. From a public health point of view, vaccinating men as well as women decreases the virus pool within the population, but is only cost-effective if the uptake in the female population is extremely low. In the United States, the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) is greater than US$100,000 for vaccinating the male populatio
Re:Does PENIS CANCER get your attention? (Score:4, Informative)
Initially it was given to only girls for free because of a bit of cost/benefit analysis. Following exposure, HPV causes cervical cancer at a higher rate than it causes penile cancer. Other cancers caused by HPV are even lower down on the list. The assumption was if you can knock it out in females then that will have a largely dampening effect on the already very small numbers of male cancers. The ideal was always known to be vaccinating boys, but someone has to pay for this.
Anyway, the argument is now moot here, since - as others have pointed out - it is freely available to boys now, too.
So is this the current scientific stance on HPV? (Score:2)
When the first vaccines were brought to market, there seemed to be a lot of questions surrounding the topic. It wasn't all that sure whether the presence of the HP virus was circumstancial... you know correlation versus causation. AND the vaccines seemed to sometimes have dire side-effects.
Does anyone know where science is standing on this topic? And I don't mean pharma. I mean science ;).
Re: So is this the current scientific stance on HP (Score:3)
There's no evidence of dire side effects from vaccines, hyperactive immune systems can cause problems
HPV does cause cancer, that's the latest from science.
Re: (Score:2)
So were the young women being turned into vegetables mere media hype?
Re: (Score:2)
Yip. Total fabrication. And scientists have studied this, too.
You can make up your own mind, but you don't get to make up your own facts.
HPV is not the only cause of cervical cancer (Score:4, Insightful)
Literally, topic. You cannot eliminate certain type of cancer by eliminating one of the risk factors. The claim is patently absurd.
Re:HPV is not the only cause of cervical cancer (Score:4, Informative)
According to Wikipeida around 85% of cervical cancer has this cause. Of course that's globally, in Australia it will be different due to different lifestyles. Other risk factors include smoking and multiple pregnancies, both declining in Aus. So their claim that at some point cervical cancer will be effectively eliminated (instances below some very low threshold) is credible.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for conceding the point for the OP.
The only thing to add is that while the pathway from HPV infection to cervical cancer is well understood, not even scientists behind it try to suggest that HPV is the sole factor even in 85% of cases where they found the virus in people with cancer.
Let me repeat that, since you clearly didn't read my actual statement. 85% is not the causal link. It's the correlation of people who have cervical cancer who were tested for HPV. And even if you were to make this assu
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Like most vaccines, there are side effects for small portion of those vaccinated. It's a serious ethical concern to vaccinate people who do not benefit from vaccination in any tangible way, but still have to suffer the side effects.
In general, vaccination logic goes that benefits must be notably greater than potential side effects for treatment to be considered ethical. HPV is typically completely harmless in humans, and even when it does cause some harm, it's rapidly self-resolving. Cancers as a result of
There's not a lot of those (Score:3)
But, hey, who's gonna pay for it, amiright?
Re: (Score:3)
australia has an system that covers all.
Re: (Score:3)
The vaccine costs perhaps 5 cents ...
It is your fucked up country that prevents people from getting healthcare.
Re: (Score:3)
$130 per dose in the US (in 2013) according to Wikipedia.
The article further states, "In the United States, the cost per quality-adjusted life year is greater than US$100,000 for vaccinating the male population, compared to the less than US$50,000 for vaccinating the female population. This assumes a 75% vaccination rate."
Re: (Score:3)
That is not the cost, that is the price you pay.
Again: production cost of such a shot is most certainly a very low cent amount.
It is completely ridiculous that you allow a company to charge so much for a vaccine!
Re: (Score:2)
In my socialized medicine country, the government deems the HPV vaccine unnecessary for boys so I get to pay ~600 EUR for each of my boys...
Show me a country that's not fucked up in some way.
Anti-socialist troll (Score:3)
But, hey, who's gonna pay for it, amiright?
Indeed, you're right this mentality is problematic. :
Cue in tons of citations from Margarett Tatcher about "running out of somebody's else monney" [snopes.com].
Despite the fact that
- there are several European countries here around which managed to have successful public healthcare, without being an enconomic shit-hole.
- the health domain is typically the situation where it will end up costing tons of money to these "somebody else"s in the long term if you don't spend a bit now in advance. (usually, prev
Poor children can get vaccines for free in USA (Score:2)
but there are a ton of folks who can't afford the vaccine.
They don't need to be able to afford it. There are programs [cdc.gov] set up for exactly this issue. Cost is not an obstacle.
Re:There's not a lot of those (Score:5, Interesting)
I know, sample size of one and all, but we're not all anti-science.
You are also welcome on my lawn. Sorry some of my fellow Christians have behaved so poorly.
Re:There's not a lot of those (Score:5, Interesting)
Brother, you come to my house any time. I can't imagine what it's like to be a devout believe in a faith that is being so badly misused by horrible people.
Here is a famous photo of Donald Trump being "anointed" by a group of evangelical "leaders". There's a similar photo, taken right after inauguration, with Trump attorney Michael Cohen standing behind him. Cohen is the one who Trump had pay off the porn star and the playboy model.
https://goo.gl/images/ux8VE9 [goo.gl]
Re: (Score:3)
Is your problem with her profession, or the fact that he paid her off?
I for one, as a christian, have no problem with her profession(s).
Re:There's not a lot of those (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think the parent was trying to say anything about the profession - it's the *evangelicals* who have the problem, but gave 45 a pass. I believe he is commenting on the hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:2)
I for one, as a christian, have no problem with her profession(s).
That makes no sense. Jesus states flatly that He has a problem with it.
That's like saying "as a Democrat, I want to eliminate all social programs and completely close the border. No problem!"
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you assume that the problem identified is with the woman or with the payment? Why not with the reason for the payment or with the hypocrisy of the evangelicals?
Again, why do individual Christians think that their personal positions are proof that no problem exists?
Re: (Score:2)
No, my problem is that he was raw-dogging porn stars while his wife was home with his new baby, and lying about it to voters, and then violating US law in order to hide the fact.
Re: (Score:3)
Brother, you come to my house any time. I can't imagine what it's like to be a devout believe in a faith that is being so badly misused by horrible people.
It's not easy, but I've got it easy compared to some of my liberal Muslim co-workers.
The reality is that it's hard to balance loving others, but reject behavior. Yeshua (Jesus) showed us how to do this in John 8:1-11, but it's not natural. Humans are fundamentally tribal in nature (the recent political situation in the US exemplifies this perfectly). Humans want to categorize people into Good & Evil, Friend and Foe. But then God comes along and says: I want you to behave in this different way.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, the fact that not all Christians are a problem does not mean that Christians aren't a problem. There are good and bad people, the religious are no different but they use special entitlement to impose their awfulness on others. That entitlement needs to go.
It's also not just Christians either, it's all religion. The failure of US politics is not recognizing that freedom of religion also requires freedom from religion. Separation of church and state must go both ways, religion must not grant immunity
Re: (Score:2)
The classic way to say that is, "What can be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence."
To have faith, you need to believe that something is true without having evidence for it being true. It's brutally unfair for someone to be allowed to make decisions that impact the lives of others when they base their decisions on something not grounded in reality nor evidence. Somehow in the US we've glamorized this and demonized the lack of it, and that, I believe, is the ultimate evil of the evangel
Re: (Score:2)
There are many other reasons I believe. I don't have faith based in zero evidence, but I also admit that there's no 100% proof that I'm right.
Re: (Score:2)
To any rational reader, there is nothing resembling evidence in there. If you start from a position of confirming your biases, sure, it looks good. If that was prophetic, it would have actual details in it, and would point to a specific individual who could not be any other individual. It does not.
You have faith based on zero evidence. If you had evidence, you'd have a Nobel Prize. To date, nobody has produced evidence that god exists. If you can't do that, you don't have evidence for truth in religion.
Rationality about science (Score:3)
As an evangelical God worshipper, I fully support the HPV vaccine (and my children have been vaccinated for HPV and all other diseases as per the recommended schedule) and I don't support a lot of what Trump has done, nor did I vote for him.
As an atheist it's nice to see a religious person being rational about science.
I know, sample size of one and all, but we're not all anti-science.
We know that. It frustrates and confuses me why folks like yourself aren't as a group shouting down the crazy ones among you because I know you aren't alone. I genuinely don't care if an adult wants to worship privately and I'm fine with people having views that differ from my own. But when they start pretending that their fictional holy book should supersede empirical evidence or that their mythology has a place in the scienc
Re: (Score:2)
We know that. It frustrates and confuses me why folks like yourself aren't as a group shouting down the crazy ones among you because I know you aren't alone.
I think Evangelicals are not shouting him down as a group because as a group, evangelicals overwhelmingly support Trump's policies and ignore who he is as a person. The exit polling was something like 80-16%. In particular, policies most important to most evangelicals are likely abortion, religious freedom, support for Israel, and same-sex marriage. And if you look at those issues, Trump has moved in the direction they desire pretty much completely across the board.
If you assume that Americans feel w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: There's not a lot of those (Score:2)
I can guarantee you'll die young and stupid. It is also not socialism. But one out of three ain't bad.
Re:It's not hard (Score:5, Informative)
Of all the evidence that the religious right is full of shit, this sure is some of it.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry for the pain they've caused you and others. The only thing I can say is the Jesus I know doesn't act like that, and there are many good Christians who actually reflect love, tolerance, and kindness--not judgement.
Re: It's not hard (Score:4)
We might disagree on theology, but I respect your philosophy and your right to believe. I wish more were as tolerant as you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats the thing though. These people are all about punishing women.
Think about all the arguments used for abortion. If someones not prepared to send a woman to death row for an abortion, one must conclude they don't *really* think its murder. And its not about health. And since the same people that want to ban abortion start hollering about communism when its suggested they might pay a little bit more tax to ensure a single mother has food to feed her child, its pretty clear they don't give a fuck about wha
Re:It's not hard (Score:4, Interesting)
People who want fathers (or even alleged fathers) to pay child support for children they didn't ask for, for 225+ months, use the exact same arguments and reasoning as those who want to force women to carry parental responsibilities they didn't want for 9 months.
Re: (Score:2)
You just proved my point: those who want child support use the exact same arguments and reasoning as those who want to force women to carry parental responsibilities they didn't want for 9 months. In this case, the "keep your legs crossed" if you don't want the consequences canard, which applies to women as well as men.
Not 9 months. 18 years of responsibility. (Score:2)
You just proved my point: those who want child support use the exact same arguments and reasoning as those who want to force women to carry parental responsibilities they didn't want for 9 months. In this case, the "keep your legs crossed" if you don't want the consequences canard, which applies to women as well as men.
It isn't 9 months of responsibility. It's 18 YEARS of responsibility and mothers and fathers should share that equally since they were both required in the process. If the woman has to raise and deal with the kid (wanted or not) then so should the father in some capacity. If you don't think the father should have to support the child until it is grown then you are de-facto making an argument that women should be allow to abort the fetus to get away from the responsibility too.
If the child is the result o
Re: (Score:2)
Months. If the mother gives the child up for adoption, her responsibility is measured in months, and if she has an abortion it's measured in weeks. Both of which she can do without the father's knowledge or consent.
When it comes to unwanted children, women have rights and choices, but men only have responsibilities. And that's sexist AF.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Its biology. Women carry children in their bodies, men do not. Cold hard science, folks.
HOWEVER!!!! Theres a way out! Take responsibility for your actions!
Re: (Score:2)
Thats the thing though. These people are all about punishing women.
If that helps you live with your support for dismembering babies in the womb, so be it.
The human capacity for self deception is limitless.
Re: (Score:2)
If someones not prepared to send a woman to death row for an abortion, one must conclude they don't *really* think its murder.
Also consider that a ridiculously high number of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Getting pregnant is like taking a 1 in 5 chance that your body will kill a fetus. How do Christians reconcile that? More fetuses get sent to heaven as a result of God's will than abortion.
Re:It's not hard (Score:4, Informative)
Thats the thing though. These people are all about punishing women.
Think about all the arguments used for abortion.
You left out the most telling point. The people who are wish to ban abortion in all cases, are also overwhelmingly opposed to the availability of other forms of birth control [nih.gov], which if used - shall we say "religiously"? - would prevent said abortions from even being an issue. They are even opposed to accurate education about sex.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have the study to dispute particulars, but that doesn't pass the sniff test.
In the US, Protestants outnumber Catholics 2 to 1, and protestants opposed to birth control are so fringe as to not have any mainline denominational representation. Opinions on whether youth should have access to contraception may vary by individual, but that isn't what the summary implies is the stance.
And there's essentially no one who would prefer that youth who had pre-marital sex not use contraception.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You've got to be one stone cold prick to think that cancer is an appropriate punishment for having pre-marital sex. How can you be such a horrible person as to say 'Well honey, you made Jesus sad, so now you have to die miserably.' They're literally using disease as a cudgel to help enforce their views on sexuality. Congratulations, you've literally partnered with cancer, way to demonstrate your moral superiority.
It's a direct consequence of the belief that life isn't really important because the eternal afterlife is all that matters.
Also keep in mind that not all religions share this belief.
Re:It's not hard (Score:5, Insightful)
I belong to a Christian community and am from Australia where the vaccine was invented and there is ZERO objection to it here.
The real problem is your screwed up healthcare system that throws poor people on the scrapheap of humanity.
Our vaccination rates are high, simply because it is given free of charge to all school girls during school hours. No need to drag your bigotry into the discussion.
Re:It's not hard (Score:5, Interesting)
The kind of evangelicalism I'm talking about is unique to the United States.
We've tried to have the HPV given to school children, but the evangelicals have blocked every single effort. We even had such a program going in Texas, if you can believe it, but the governor and lieutenant governor, one of whom used to be a radio host on an evangelical-owned network, made it their personal mission to stop the program.
Christians are fine people. But American evangelicals have nothing to do with christianity, I'm afraid.
Re: It's not hard (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Claiming that all Christians do this, or that even a significant number, is just trolling."
And that is a straw man argument.
Opposition to HPV has its origin in religion, ignorance, sexism and misogyny, the later three justified by the former; that that could spill over into specific examples of other groups means nothing. There are no atheists organizing to oppose vaccination even if there are specific ones fooled by nonsense. Only the religious are organized by their very belief system to push such garba
Re: It's not hard (Score:2)
Any Buddhist who objects isn't much of a Buddhist. They're certainly not Enlightened.
I tend not to worry about fictional people.
Except for The Doctor and Gandalf. Both of whom would be in favour.
Anti-vax (Score:2)
We could do it in the US, but we've got evangelical so-called "christians" who refuse to give their kids the vaccine, because Jesus told them sex is bad, m'kay?
Correct but to be fair we also have the (mostly) granola munching anti-vax crowd who wrongly think that their kid will immediately become autistic if they vaccinate them. In both cases it is a result of individual freedom being foolishly prioritized over public and individual health.
Re: (Score:2)
We elected an anti-vaxxer as president.
https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]
Re: Anti-vax (Score:2)
They're generally right-wing Christian, the anti-vaxxers.
Re: (Score:2)
As a Christian who does not advocate pre-marital sex, I still find the benefits compelling.
However, I am nonetheless very bothered as a human being that we're using a vaccine to control risk that could be controlled by simple human behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Now think about what you've said. Every communicable disease from the common cold to ebola could be controlled by "simple human behavior". You could simply never go outside or come into contact with other people.
And if you think that teenagers having sex is a behavior that can be simply controlled, you're ignoring all of human history. Hell, you're ignorin
Re: (Score:2)
You misspelled "Hillary".
https://www.politico.com/magaz... [politico.com]
Re: It's not hard (Score:2)
Vaccines aren't about your body, they're about everybody.
And in most of the US, abortion is becoming de facto illegal, so your complaint isn't valid anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What a load of crap.
Adoption (Score:3)
And there are a multitude of folks who would want to adopt those "unwanted children". So abortion also affects a people.
Several problems with that argument.
1) The people who allegedly might adopt those children don't have to endure the pregnancy and risks that come with it
2) Very few people who are supposedly against abortion are actually willing to adopt a child to save it from an abortion
3) There are already no lack of children in need of adoption so it's hard to argue we should be making more children
4) A woman should have the right to control her reproductive systems just like any other part of her body at all times. An
Re: It's not hard (Score:2)
If they did, they'd have adopted kids already.
Those kids waiting... And waiting... And waiting... And ending up serially abused when they're 18, penniless and vulnerable suggests your list of adopters may be very short or seriously unethical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're claiming that the government asserts that not having an abortion serves the greater good just like vaccination serves the greater good? What "case" is this?
The argument that the government can mandate vaccination is clear. That argument is irrelevant to abortion.
Re: It's not hard (Score:2)
Why should I fear the possible existence of God?
The worst I face is purgatory for a thousand years, according to the Bible, although early Christian texts on which Matthew was based say Hell no longer exists.
If God does exist, it will be the Christian right who will be asked to explain themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the anti-vaxxers that are driving the opposition to widespread use of the HPV vaccine in schools. It's the evangelicals.
And an argument can be made that evangelicals are not Christians and do not deserve to be included in that category. So no, I don't have any axe to grind with Christians.
Re: It's not hard (Score:2)
Generally, evangelical Buddhists aren't much of an issue. Evangelical atheists tend not to care. Evangelical heathens will sacrifice a chicken to Woden before reading the entrails and declaring they don't give a damn.
Doesn't leave a whole lot of others.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It cost me $300. Why should I pay that, when the vaccine is of zero benefit to him because he has no cervix? I paid for it, because I can afford it, and it is the right thing to do, but many people can not afford it.
Since it is not to his personal benefit, but for the benefit of society at large perhaps it should be publicly funded? You know ... the way it is in Australia? Or would that be socialism?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
not quite zero. Males can have issues caused by HPV as well.
Re: (Score:3)
"not quite"? Men get cancers from HPV as well. Men also suffer when family members get cancer. The OP is a fool.
Re: (Score:2)
The OP is a fool, a well known one here on Slashdot. But in this case it's not his fault. The vaccine was marketed only as helping females. Because that's what sells. They knew it could help males from many similar cancers caused by the same strains of HPV, but they barely explored it and sure as hell didn't market it.
They first ran ad campaigns yanking at people's heartstrings and accusing people of being bad parents if they didn't get their girls this one vaccine against certain strains of HPV which h
Re: (Score:3)
Because you prevent him infecting his next GF or wife.
Re: (Score:3)
...or BF or husband. Or preventing him from getting cancer from HPV given to him from his GF or wife...or BF or husband.
It should be obvious by now that this whole topic is rooted in sexism. The arguments for vaccinating boys are at least as strong as for girls.
Re:Vaccine for everyone (Score:4, Informative)
[T]he vaccine is of zero benefit to him because he has no cervix
Well ... perhaps not zero benefit. He does have a throat [cdc.gov] I take it.
Which is in no way to disagree with your actual point, that this, and imo many other vaccines, ought to be freely available, where your argument should be irresistible.
Re: Vaccine for everyone (Score:2)
He does benefit. HPV can kill men, and men can spread the virus to women (I assume a living significant other is still regarded as a benefit).
Re: (Score:3)
HPV also causes cancers in men including, potentially, your son. One can argue that vaccinating boys is even more important than girls since a penis plays a greater role in the spread of HPV than a cervix/vagina. Men absolutely benefit from the vaccine so you can take comfort in knowing that you only did what's really important---serve your own interests.
Perhaps you should not only pay for your son's but for those who "can not" afford it as well. You are not only ignorant but selfish as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Those same strains of HPV are linked to other cancers that affect men. But a vaccine against ass cancer isn't marketable.
They only did a half hearted attempt to show it could benefit males after they faced opposition to the campaigns they were backing that would have required all school all girls to get the vaccine. One attack angle against these campaigns was going to be that the laws requiring girls to get vaccinated are sexist. So they said "Fuck it, vaccinate boys too here's a half-assed study also w
Re: (Score:2)
And it would suck even more if your son had children with said future partner, and he is now a single parent and your grandchildren are motherless at a young age. Looks like decent benefits to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, maybe he could not fuck people with HPV, never get HPV, and never spread HPV?
You can't win a moral crusade about STDs without addressing how they spread. We could wipe out nearly all STDs in a generation if people would just act responsibly. They can't do this for their OWN protection, how are you going to expect them to do it for the protection of others?
Re: (Score:2)
What a sadass moron. (Score:2)
This costs next to nothing, and prevents a deadly form of cancer.
Sorry to burst your sad little troll bubble.
Re: (Score:2)
... Cancer treatments rarely improve quality of health and they typically costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.
People who are live many years after successful cancer treatment would disagree about your dismissal of their years of life. In 1950 the 5 year survival rate of someone with a cancer diagnosis was 35%, now it is 70%. But you might have a bit of a point about the high cost of many cancer treatments.
There is no moral or fiscal reason to cure or prevent cancer.
Which is why your screed against preventing cancer is such a grotesque logical fail.
Re: lol (Score:2)
The data shows otherwise.
Ultimately, if you stay otherwise healthy, you will die from either cancer or exhaustion of stem cells.
The latter occurs at age 120.
So eliminating cancer raises the average life expectancy to 100.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Or to consult a site that actually discusses genuine epidemiology, you find that there is no evidence of an elevated risk of death from the vaccine at all. As in - not even a tiny bit.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesaf... [cdc.gov]
The anti-vax site the Coward links to simply cites raw reports. People die sometimes, lots of reasons. Lots of people get vaccinated. They also do lots of other things for the first time. Some of these people will later die, lots of reasons. That does not mean the vaccination, of any of the
Re: You're just trading risk for risk. (Score:2)
Nobody has died from the vaccine.
Thousands have died from anti-vaxxer propaganda.
I want those responsible in court. Since they knew the effect and knew there was no risk from vaccines, second degree murder seems appropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean it is really strange how hard it is to type in "how is a vaccine made" in Google? I did and the first article listed described seven different methods in use for different types of vaccines. Google. Try it some time.
Re: How does a 'vaccine' work? (Score:2)
Many ways to make vaccines.
The oldest was blood taken from people with related diseases.
Current methods use animals with similar immune systems, or deactivated pathogens.
Re: They are killing off all women ? (Score:2)
Doubt it happens much, if at all.
Hyperactive autoimmune disorders do, and they're mostly caused by ultra-sterile conditions, unhealthy foods and unhealthy environments.
Fix those and vaccine "safety" will reach new levels.
Re: (Score:2)