I'm sure most men would pay this without a second thought to protect themselves from these diseases. It's wrong to keep this from children when it's most effective at their age.
It's immoral to look at medicine in dollar's and cent's because people are real and money is a figment of our imagination.
Discussion on:
Top
Rated
Rated
it makes sense for merck
Posted by ishai abrams
28th Feb 2012
Just
In
In
Profiteering
Posted by NotSoTupeloHoney
28th Feb 2012
Show:
-3
Votes
$360
Posted by shaunehunter
27th Feb 2012
0
Votes
I really hope you are being facetious...
NT
Posted by Rodo1
27th Feb 2012
+2
Votes
it makes sense for merck
so it makes sense fror the doctors on their payroll
Posted by ishai abrams
28th Feb 2012
0
Votes
Profiteering
" Researchers link the virus to roughly 7,000 cases of cancer in men and 15,000 cases of cancer in women in the U.S. every year."
Firstly, the numbers are not correct. This is from the CDC website:
"In 2007 (the most recent year numbers are available)???
-12,280 women in the United States were diagnosed with cervical cancer.*2
-4,021 women in the United States died from cervical cancer"
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/statistics/
" . . . Dr. Diane Solomon of the National Cancer Institute. She adds that the benefits . . . don???t bring overall health care costs down enough to justify Gardasil???s price."
Secondly, the real numbers would suggest that .Dr Solomon's statement about the cost out-weighing the benefit for men, would apply to women also.
Thirdly, Gardasil does not protect against all types of HPV.
" However, since Gardasil, the only approved vaccine, protects against the two types of HPV that are responsible for 70% of cervical cancers and not against types of the virus responsible for the other 30% of cervical cancers, "reduction" rather than "eradication" is a more accurate goal. Given this fact, proposals to make the vaccine mandatory may not reflect the best use of public health funds at this time."
"There are over 100 types (strains) of HPV. About 35 types of HPV infect the genitals and reproductive organs. Within these 35, there are high-risk and low-risk types of HPV."
Gardasil protects against just two of these HPVs.
" However, research on safety and effectiveness conducted to date includes relatively few girls in the younger age category, so current safety data may not be applicable to them."
http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book/companion.asp?id=15&compID=117
Current safety data may not be applicable to boys, as well.
Shame on you, American Academy of Pediatrics .
Firstly, the numbers are not correct. This is from the CDC website:
"In 2007 (the most recent year numbers are available)???
-12,280 women in the United States were diagnosed with cervical cancer.*2
-4,021 women in the United States died from cervical cancer"
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/statistics/
" . . . Dr. Diane Solomon of the National Cancer Institute. She adds that the benefits . . . don???t bring overall health care costs down enough to justify Gardasil???s price."
Secondly, the real numbers would suggest that .Dr Solomon's statement about the cost out-weighing the benefit for men, would apply to women also.
Thirdly, Gardasil does not protect against all types of HPV.
" However, since Gardasil, the only approved vaccine, protects against the two types of HPV that are responsible for 70% of cervical cancers and not against types of the virus responsible for the other 30% of cervical cancers, "reduction" rather than "eradication" is a more accurate goal. Given this fact, proposals to make the vaccine mandatory may not reflect the best use of public health funds at this time."
"There are over 100 types (strains) of HPV. About 35 types of HPV infect the genitals and reproductive organs. Within these 35, there are high-risk and low-risk types of HPV."
Gardasil protects against just two of these HPVs.
" However, research on safety and effectiveness conducted to date includes relatively few girls in the younger age category, so current safety data may not be applicable to them."
http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book/companion.asp?id=15&compID=117
Current safety data may not be applicable to boys, as well.
Shame on you, American Academy of Pediatrics .
Posted by NotSoTupeloHoney
28th Feb 2012