Checking out the thread on Reddit—it ties in perfectly with what we were saying about gynecologists. There’s a ton of personal stories over there, so you’ll definitely find the answers you're looking for...
So, my buddy sent me this movie a few days after that last post, but I just couldn't get around to watching it 😢.
And honestly, I still hadn't seen it until today. Finally made it over to the KIC to check it out and: OH MY GOD!!!!
1) What absolute psychos!!!!!! 2) What total freaking lunatics! 3) After everything they went through, they're actually heading back to the mountains? I could never do that—mountains aren't really my thing—but if something like that ever happened to me, I’d move somewhere totally FLAT, zero hills, just pure heat. Like the Sahara. The Sahara Center. -> Actually, wait, that's a bad idea. Dehydration risk!!! Maybe somewhere near an oasis 🙂
Great Movie, incredible story, just absolutely mind-blowing. They say if some screenwriter pitched this, nobody would believe them, but man, this was intense!
I just stumbled upon this awesome link: a slightly more scientific take.
Super interesting stuff...
It also breaks down why the price tag is so insane—it's all about those virus-like particles, which involve proteins and all sorts of complex tech. We're not talking about some basic, run-of-the-mill drug made from a single little molecule, so manufacturing is incredibly expensive... it's tough to see how they could ever make it cheaper...
I seriously need to stop hanging out with certain people on this forum.
They're basically trading their answers on this thread for a beer. I mean, give me a break... 🤣
Honestly...
Anyway, the vaccine doesn't cover every single strain (that’s the big difference between the two—from what I gather, Merck covers maybe 2 or 3 more strains, but the GSK one seems to last longer). Both of them protect against the types that are the most pathogenic, and more importantly, the ones most likely to cause cancer. So, at the end of the day, the goal is protecting women from getting cancer caused by HPV, not necessarily from the virus itself...
Jessica Wright said:this isn't really the point, but people don't seem to get how you even contract it—is it more important to understand how it spreads or should we just be having this hypothetical debate about the vaccine instead?
honestly, I'd much rather we just stick to discussing the vaccine hypothetically, but clearly that's not going to happen here...
Can we please, please just get back to talking about the HPV vaccine? I feel like we’re getting way too bogged down in these broad debates about how infection happens or how it spreads—that’s really not what this thread is meant for here...
I mean, if you compare it to how brutal cervical cancer can be—and I hate even having to say that, but seriously—it’s not exactly a high bar...
But that’s beside the point. Both companies designed their vaccines EXCLUSIVELY for women. We don't actually know what their reasoning is behind that, so we're just left guessing—unless someone here actually knows the real reason, please let us know
placidranger said:is that just for women? is that a dumb question?
It’s not a dumb question at all—from what I’ve gathered, it looks like they're only giving it to women. Don't ask me why, though... as far as I can tell, it's because women are the ones who can actually develop serious issues from HPV, whereas guys mostly just carry it around without much happening... 😁
there might be some other reason behind it too, I just don't know for sure...
Lately, there’s been a ton of talk about HPV vaccines—basically how they could seriously slash the risk of cervical cancer down the line.
Look, I totally see this as a massive win, especially with what two companies—GlaxoSmithKline with Cervarix and Merck & Co. with Gardasil—have pulled off so far (as far as I know, anyway)... but I also get why some people are feeling skeptical.
Anyway, here are the links: gardasil and cervarix
So, there are a few layers to this controversy:
1) Is giving out an HPV vaccine going to encourage risky, unprotected sex? Personally, I don't think so. 😎 I don't know anyone besides Megan Peterson87 who isn't already stressed out about HPV. Plus, in today's world, the fear of HIV is way more intense than the fear of HPV, so I doubt we'll see a huge spike in unprotected sex just because women have this protection against HPV. We really should be worrying more about the people who think "HIV only happens to other people" and wouldn't even know what HPV is if it hit them in the face...
2) Will the vaccine make people skip their Pap tests? Okay, now *that* actually scares me a little. Even though I don't doubt the scientists at GlaxoSmithKline or Merck & Co. ( 😁 ), shit happens—we have to be realistic. If a vaccine is 99% effective, there’s still that 1% where it just WON'T work. So, you go out, pay a fortune for the shot, they tell you it lasts five years, you skip your Pap test, end up with cervical cancer, and... well. If you had gone for the Pap, maybe it would've been caught early. How are we going to convince women who spent all that money on this vaccine (which leads to point 3) to still show up for their regular screenings? Of course, I realize you can get cancer without HPV too, and there are certain types of papillomavirus that neither of these vaccines covers, but it's still a real issue...
3) It’s going to be expensive. Like, outrageously expensive. I mean, Merck & Co. is looking at a price tag of $500-$900 per dose, which is insane... that means only a tiny fraction of people globally will actually be able to afford it. Don't hold your breath waiting for the government to pick up the tab, either—they won't. Maybe if the price dropped by a hundred times, but let's be real, that's not happening for at least another 20 or 30 years. Would you honestly drop that much cash on something that *might* reduce your chance of catching a nasty virus that *might* give you cancer—something you could potentially catch "in time" just by getting regular checkups?
Look, you can't just swap out your handle whenever you feel like it—you're stuck with whatever you picked at the start.
You could try hitting up the admin to see if they'll do it for you, but honestly... you’d better have a seriously good reason if you want them to actually listen.
From what I can gather, semi-soft lenses aren't actually a thing—they're just categorized as semi-rigid. That’s probably why they got lumped in with the semi-rigid lens discussion in the first place...
I’m trying so hard here—really giving it my all—but I just can't wrap my head around this.
So, let me get this straight... the OP thinks his son might have vision issues, but instead of just seeing a doctor, he wants to run some eye charts himself first? Like, he wants to play doctor to decide if the kid even needs a specialist or not? And he's already suspicious that there's a problem? Makes zero sense.
🤔
Am I really the only one who thinks this is beyond stupid? Just... pointless and honestly kind of sad.
Arslan and Rijecanka, this is seriously your final warning before I pull the yellow card!!!!
Arslan, honestly... making a post like that on a topic like this is basically ban-worthy on its own—but I'm feeling generous today, so consider this my most serious warning yet.
Rijecanka2, look, I get it—I really do. I respect that you feel the need to jump in and respond to every single little thing he says just to call him out, but if you're gonna play that game, you’ve gotta be ready to accept a multi-day ban from me too, alright?