Cervical Cancer incidence drops 65% in women who benefited from HPV vaccine
nbcnews.com
nbcnews.com
The reason this didn't happen from the outset is that you can't vaccinate the boys to protect girls because that's not a direct benefit to the patient, the early data was specifically for cervical cancer and if you don't have a cervix that isn't a benefit.
In other words, at the time they knew the direct benefits for boys, but that wasn't a concern because girls had a higher rate of cancer from HPV. So they were prioritized.
Medical ethics doesn't allow a procedure which is good for society, but doesn't directly benefit the patient.
However, I think that is wrong. Elsewhere in society we frequently do that - for example we put people into prison, which is of very little benefit to the prisoner. We stand up to let an old person take a seat on a train, which is of no benefit to the person standing up. We send bailiffs, which is of little benefit to the debtor. We pay taxes, which is of little direct benefit to the taxpayer.
Why does the medical world have a stricter ethical standard when there are clearly benefits to society that cannot be realised because of the different approach?
While searching i found that this could apply to people in psychiatric wards to force them to take their medication (https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/drugs-and-treatm...).
Note that there are a few cases where these medical ethics are violated for historic reasons. For example, donating a kidney (no benefit to the donor). Another example: Taking a vaccine for an almost eradicated disease (at that point, you are taking the vaccine for the social purpose of eradicating the disease, not for the personal benefit of not contracting the disease).
These things are grandfathered into medical ethics, but would no longer be allowed if proposed today.
USA is very strange in this regard. Last summer, 4 out of 4 pharmacies refused to provide me a shingles vaccine, even if I paid them cash and had a doctor's prescription. They said that they would get into trouble. I am 49 years old. Had I been 50, any pharmacy would provide the vaccine.
This is simply retarded.
Elections matter.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...
"It shouldn't be this way"...
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7374580-frodo-it-s-a-pity-b...
Vaccine refusal is quantitatively antisocial behavior. It isn't a personal choice. It endangers everyone. This is scientific fact.
Everyone likes to privilege their ingroup's form of unseriousness, but that doesn't make the consequences vanish.
This is victim blaming. I do not mock or humiliate the uninformed, but we cannot meet in the middle to coddle malicious ignorance.
Do you state this as an objective fact regarding causality, or are you more so describing the norms of the (sub-)culture you were raised in, perhaps without serious scrutiny?
If the former, then I would expect there to be some sort of a widely agreed upon proof you could link to.
> Being right politically has always meant anti-intellectual.
Are you genuinely serious when you say this?
> This is victim blaming. I do not mock or humiliate the uninformed, but we cannot meet in the middle to coddle malicious ignorance.
You overlook nothing?
And if I happen to know you are overlooking something, does it follow that me being rude to you necessarily has no negative consequences?
To what degree should death be taken seriously? Seriously enough that everyone should question their faith, or only some people (coincidentally...)?
If someone can't follow the scientific method, it isn't on the person who can to validate the opposing parties broken worldview. Discussion should be science vs science, let the truth win. Not feelings, emotions and ungrounded theories vs science.
Your style might be better suited to a lesswrong forum.
The perspective I am taking is that while it is clearly sub-optimal that a non-trivial percentage of the population "has issues" with taking vaccines, it is also sub-optimal to not think strategically about how to act when one finds oneself trapped in an environment (Planet Earth) with such people. I don't disagree at all that something is "on" anti-vaxxers to educate themselves about vaccines, but understanding the metaphysics of how to respond to such people, and the consequences of one's response, is also "on" everyone. You may not like the emotions of the people in your outgroup, but don't forget that some people do not like your and your ingroups emotions either - like many things, it is a two way street, even though it seems otherwise.
> Discussion should be science vs science, let the truth win. unfortunately a 2 way street.
I am not a fan of artificially constraining methodologies, or relevant causal variables - generally speaking, science does not take phenomenology into consideration when considering vaccines, whereas (proper) philosophy would take science and everything else causally relevant into consideration. I strongly oppose those who insist on suboptimal thinking methodologies (as you strongly oppose those who you believe are acting suboptimally), especially when it is enforced.
> Your style might be better suited to a lesswrong forum.
It might also be more suited to optimizing interactions between not entirely rational humans of all psychological tribes. I think dialogue and (attempts at) understanding are more suited than presumption and antagonism. I can acknowledge that it is plausible that I am wrong on this, but I suspect I am not - as you say: "let the truth win".
Here is something that I believe is very interesting and relevant: I propose that if abstract instances of such topics come up (say, a psychology study on logical fallacies, interpersonal communication, etc), most commenters on HN tend to align more with my take here, but when controversial, object level instances arise, people tend to act otherwise.
Maybe in part, but there was a very large contingency that outright opposed it due to its perceived encouragement of "amoral" behavior. Exact same thing is happening now in the courts with Mifeprestone.
Teen pregnancy was the most vocal reason at the time.
In the section of the linked statistical report from the American Cancer Society that covers HPV there are seven citations, none of which appear to be papers funded by Merck.
I firmly believe this would have been 100% if they'd continued past 2 months.
A friend of mine had a positive pap test for high-risk HPV, and I sent her this study. She started on this combo of mushrooms and at her followup the next month she was clear.
I think they were concerned that various tree bark needed to grow the fungus could itself influence the outcome and wanted to "control" for any effects of the bark. Part IV says "LS grown on the same barks as TV or GL was chosen as a control since no anti-HPV property has yet been reported with this mycelium and because the influence of barks should be excluded."
Perhaps there are more studies out there with different "controls" that would add to this research to help rule out any influence from unknown properties of Laetiporus sulphureus.