“Cancer Vaccine”?
— Posted by John (February 15, 2007 at 2:35 pm)
Last Sunday, an article appeared in the Chicago Tribune that referred to Gardasil as a “cancer vaccine”.
Yesterday, the Tribune printed my letter to the editor criticizing their inaccurate terminology:
This is regarding “Cost, insurance issues limit use of cancer vaccine” (News, Feb. 4). This headline implies that Gardasil is an inoculation again cervical cancer itself. It is not. Indeed a sidebar alongside the article reports that developer Merck & Co. claims that “Gardasil prevents 99 percent of infections by two HPV strains that cause about 70 percent of cervical cancer.”
What about infections that cause the other 30 percent? Gardasil provides no protection against these. It is both inaccurate and irresponsible for the Tribune to refer to Gardasil as a “cancer vaccine.”
John Jansen
Co-director
Generations for Life
Chicago
I knew that short letters have the best chance of being printed, so I didn’t talk about what I personally believe about whether or not it’s a good idea to give your nine-year old daughter the HPV vaccine, whether or not states should make it mandatory, etc.
Instead, I decided to keep the letter as brief as possible — and also to keep it objective: In this letter, all I wanted to do was to point out why it is incorrect to refer to Gardasil as a “cancer vaccine”.
That said, be sure to check out the comments on my letter on the Tribune site.
One commenter, named Dienne, said, “I’m still waiting for you people to declare your opposition to seat belts…”
Keep waiting, Dienne. Or better yet, don’t.
A commenter named Rob advises me not to “nitpick” and tells me, “Get over yourself.”
Regarding Generations for Life, a commenter named Jon asks:
Ever get the feeling these guys have taken another page from radical Islam?
He then gives me this bit of advice:
…I suggest you pull your head out of the dirt long enough to put on a burka just like your facist [sic] Islamic breatheren [sic].
I can’t help but wonder: Is Jon aware that a burqa is a woman’s garment?
And finally, a commenter who goes by the name Karen Up North has this to say about me:
He’s no more pro-life than a murderer on death row. And no more Christian than the devil himself.
And to think these comments were brought on by a letter about a newspaper’s use of incorrect terminology!
Some people sure are testy.
Related
This entry is filed under Health Issues. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Rosie says:
And what about the horrible side effects that these girls have had as a result of getting this “vaccine”? It amazes me what people are willing to ignore.
Comment posted February 15th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
mary kay says:
Once again I am struck by the anger that comes from “the other side”…
I will never understand how these people expect to be taken seriously when they only know how to berate, belittle, and batter.
Do they not hear themselves? Just once I would like a reasonable, compassionate, or hey how about just civil response to something we say…I get so tired of their immature knee jerk reactions…
But like I’ve said, oh maybe a hundred times on here, the world has gone nuts.
MK
Rosie,
where have you heard about side effects?
Comment posted February 15th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Rosie says:
I was listening to Relevant Radio months ago and they were talking about it.
Check this site out also…
http://www.washingtontimes.com/business/20070202-100152-9747r.htm
Comment posted February 15th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Nikolia says:
OK, side effects aside (ha…ha…), they completely missed the point of your letter, which had nothing to do with actually giving the vaccine. I commented on the page. Did they even READ it?
Comment posted February 15th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
mary kay says:
Does anybody else see the irony in this:
A woman has the right to choose what she will do with her own body. NOBODY has the right to tell any woman what she can or cannot do to her own body. Get your rosaries off my ovaries. CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All girls (woman?) have no choice. They MUST get this vaccine or they cannot go to school. Huh?
MK
Comment posted February 16th, 2007 at 5:30 am
Rosie says:
The last sentence of the article I posted sums it up.
“Merck revenue from Gardasil reached $155 million for the fourth quarter of 2006 and $255 million for the entire year.” If it makes them millions of dollars who cares if there are horrible side effects, right?
Comment posted February 16th, 2007 at 9:08 am
Joe says:
“They MUST get this vaccine or they cannot go to school. Huh?”
I wonder if God allows this to happen to make it plain to the faithful that we shouldn’t be sending our children to school. We must remember to be thankful that we have other options.
Joe
Comment posted February 16th, 2007 at 9:08 am
John says:
Nikolia said: “OK, side effects aside (ha…ha…), they completely missed the point of your letter, which had nothing to do with actually giving the vaccine.”
Yep.
The reactions to the letter reminded me of the reactions we often get when we do a Face the Truth Tour.
The Face the Truth concept is very simple: It consists of showing pictures of aborted babies. Most of the signs we use on Truth Tours have very few words on them, and the few words that do appear on the signs convey basic factual information (how far along the baby was when he was aborted, where she is buried, etc.).
The most popular of our signs, the “Malachi” sign, simply says “Abortion”, and says, in small print at the bottom, “21 weeks preborn”.
Yet seeing these signs, people will often come up to us during a Truth Tour, irate, and shout something to the effect of, “How dare you tell women what to do!” even though there is no message on our signs that tells anybody to do anything.
Comment posted February 16th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Quinn says:
The wicked are irrational and unwilling to spend the time thinking through things.
Reading such comments to that editorial makes me realize how lucky I am to live in NE Indiana.
Comment posted February 18th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Hal says:
the Vaccine seems like a good idea to me and I will have my daugthers vaccinated. It IS a cancer vaccine if it reduces the chance of cancer even if it doesn’t eliminate it. People were irrate about your letter because it was wrong and showed your extreme views.
Comment posted February 19th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
mary kay says:
Sorry Hal,
You lose. It wasn’t wrong. You just don’t like that fact. It is a vaccine that protects against sexually transmitted diseases. These diseases CAN lead to cancer. You are free to get your girls vaccinated if you want. That would be your choice. But as your group is so fonding of saying…
It should be MY CHOICE!!! not to get them vaccinated. No one is telling you that you CAN’T vaccinate your daughters. (You’ll have to revaccinate them again in 5 years by the way, so I think it’s kind of scary that you are expecting your 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th grader to be sexually active…but whatever…)
We’re just saying that all you people who are so gung ho on free choice, should understand that we don’t want to get them vaccinated. We would much prefer to know where our children are and who they are with than vaccinate them and let them roam the streets like wild dogs in heat.
But do what you feel is right…
Not that you’ll ever see this. I’m sure you had your speak and are long gone by now…
MK
Comment posted February 19th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
mary kay says:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The term cancer vaccine is often used to describe a process whereby a person’s immune system is coaxed into recognizing and destroying malignant cells without harming normal cells. A cancer vaccine is generally considered an immunotherapy, because, unlike prophylactic vaccines against diseases such as polio, influenza, and tuberculosis, a cancer vaccine is not preventive and must be administered after cancerous cells develop. Note that the HPV vaccine is not a cancer vaccine as described above. It works by preventing infection by the HPV thereby reducing the occurrence of cervical cancer, not by coaxing the body into recognizing and destroying malignant cells.
Contents
Comment posted February 19th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Quinn says:
Hal probably doesn’t have any daughters. Those who promote making the vaccine mandatory I have seen do not typically have daughters because they realize that if they did they would be telling the public “I might raise my daughter to be a skank by the time she reaches 6th grade!”
I am thankful that this is getting so much publicity because it gives parents one more reason to take their children out of the Godless and destructive public school system.
Comment posted February 20th, 2007 at 1:05 am
Nikolia says:
Totally got offered this vaccine today…and all I wanted was to make sure I don’t get sick in Guatemala (Hepatitis A).
Here’s a question though…people say that it’s a good idea because what if you’re raped and have to live with those consequences and it’s not your fault? Is that just another of those things that we have to say God works in mysterious ways and suffering is one of those ways? How does one answer this question?
Comment posted February 20th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
mary kay says:
I think the bottom line is that the decision should be yours to make. The odds of my 5th grade daughter getting raped by a man who has the pappiloma (spelling) virus are awfully slim. But in different circumstances (my nieghborhood, my daughters personality) I might opt for the vaccine. I think my contention is the fact that she MUST have it or not enter school. (if it comes to that). I just really hate the hypocrisy of pro-choice people taking away my choice…and then screaming that no one has the right to tell a person what they can or cannot do with their own body…kind of like they gave us the weapon but can’t understand why we are pointing it at them.
mk
Comment posted February 21st, 2007 at 5:32 am
John says:
Nikolia said: “Here’s a question though…people say that it’s a good idea because what if you’re raped and have to live with those consequences and it’s not your fault?”
Nikolia,
A similar argument could be made that once a girl reaches childbearing age, she should be put on birth control. (Believe it or not, I’ve actually met people who seriously believe that this is a good idea.)
Last summer I got into an exchange in the comments section on another pro-life blog about Gardasil shortly after it was approved by the FDA.
One commenter who argued that the vaccine should be given to girls at a young age noted that she had a friend who was given HPV by her uncle when she was a child.
What happened to this commenter’s friend is clearly unspeakable.
But in the context of the debate over the HPV vaccine, there is
another side to the coin.
Untold numbers of child molesters (and would-be child molesters) currently have HPV, whether they know it or not.
It’s not entirely unreasonable to predict that a ubiquitous population of girls who have been vaccinated against HPV could actually increase the incidence of child sexual abuse.
Pro-lifers have been warning for years about the dangers of selling the morning-after pill over the counter, insofar as it would provide sexual abusers the means to cover the evidence of their crimes.
I don’t think it’s too far of a stretch to surmise that widespread HPV vaccination could likewise serve to enable child molesters in that it would eliminate the possibility that their victims could acquire a common STD that, if discovered, would lead to the perpetrators’ evil deeds being exposed.
Let me clear: I’m not saying this necessarily will happen, but I am saying it’s at least plausible.
Comment posted February 21st, 2007 at 9:59 am
John says:
Nikolia said: “Totally got offered this vaccine today…and all I wanted was to make sure I don’t get sick in Guatemala (Hepatitis A).”
Nikolia,
Did you get the Hep A vaccine yesterday, or are you planning to do so some time soon?
If you haven’t gotten it yet — and if you’ll forgive me for offering you totally unsolicited advice — you might want to reconsider. (Unless the U. S. government actually requires you to get it, in which case you have no choice.)
Seven years ago, my wife and I went on a school-sponsored trip to El Salvador. At the time, the federal government officially “recommended” (“strongly recommended”?) that U. S. citizens traveling to El Salvador receive two inoculations: one for TB, one for hepatitis — at least I’m relatively certain the other one was hepatitis.
Unfortunately, our student health care plans didn’t cover the vaccines, so we had to pay for them out of pocket — well over $100 for each of us, as I recall.
When we arrived, our American-born host, who had lived in El Salvador for almost twenty years, asked us if we’d gotten the vaccines, and then chuckled. He then told us that they were totally unnecessary, as the risk of contracting either disease in ES was no greater than it was anywhere else.
Comment posted February 21st, 2007 at 10:13 am
Young Christian Woman says:
How long before a “pregnancy vaccine” is required too?
Comment posted February 23rd, 2007 at 9:17 am