Slashdot Mirror
Merck To Halt Lobbying For Vaccine
theodp writes "Reacting to a furor from some parents, advocacy groups, and public health experts, Merck said yesterday that it would stop lobbying state legislatures to require the use of its new cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil, which acts against strains of the sexually-transmitted human papilloma virus. The $400, 3-shot regimen was approved by the FDA in June. Later that month, a federal advisory panel recommended that females 11-26 years old be vaccinated. The governor of Texas has already signed an executive order making its use mandatory for schoolgirls."
To put it in perspective Rick Perry had $24 million in contributions the same year Merck gave him $6,000. If you really think he was motivated by such a small donation you haven't seen what it takes to get things done in government.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
Seriously, what goes through the minds of these people? That the risk of getting HPV and cervical cancer is currently stopping teenage girls from having sex? How stupidly selfish do you have to be to not want more women to be vaccinated against HPV?
LOAD "SIG",8,1
I have to plug the Yellow Umbrella Tour for promoting awareness of these issues. Great people, great music: Kaki King, Duncan Sheik, David Poe, Sarah Bettens, Ben Folds, etc. There should be another this summer/fall.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
These companies shouldn't even be allowed to contribute $1. As a matter of fact, government figures shouldn't be allowed to receive any money from any businesses. The sole reason that a business would contribute money to a politician is to get some favors. That is the bottom line. This story stinks and stinks real bad.
gasmonso http://religousfreaks.com/I spend the latter half of my teen years living at a Christian Retreat center. From those years I've come to the conclusion that Christian's can tend to overreact. No matter how much family values you try to teach your children, the peer pressure will be there. If everyone one around these children is having sex with their boyfriends, there will be pressure put on them from their boyfriends to have sex. And if their parents ask them, most likely they'll just tell their parents their not having sex. I found it ludicrous to not want a vaccination because "it promotes having premarital sex". C'mon now. If you're gonna be against mandatory vaccinations make it because side effects or process that it is given or something logical and possibly detrimental.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
It's not a cervical cancer vaccine. It's an HPV vaccine. Notably, it protects men from contracting and spreading HPV -- so calling it a cancer vaccine is more than passively dishonest, it's actively evil if it fools men into thinking that the vaccine is just for women.
I'm all for vaccinating everyone with this. But the campaign to fool the public by calling it a cervical cancer vaccine deserved to fail. And shame on all the newspapers and news organizations that went along with it. (I'm talking about you, New York Times.)
The solution to this problem is simple: Keep your children under control.
Any good parent will be able to prevent his daughter from being exposed to HPV.
It is NOT the government's responsibility to protect sluts from themselves.
(And I say this as a staunch Libertarian and Atheist.)
And the information on the 10 things you might know is wrong.
1. The blog states the vaccine only decreases the chance--that's wrong. If you have not been previously infected with HPV then there is a 100% effective rate.
2. In 2007 the incidence of cervical cancer went up.
3. Yep, it is the most expensive, however it is the ONLY vaccine which prevent cancer and DEATH. (And yeah it made $70 million, chump change for a company which made $22 billion in 2006).
4. Wrong. Gardasil is already a part of this program. Having a mandate will not change liability at all.
5. There is 5 year data now with another 3 1/2 year data prior to the launch of the drug; that's 8 1/2 years of data now.
6. This is true, however, in the current data there has been no wane in the immunity; and vaccines typically never need booster shots due to the way vaccines work.
7. Yes, neither was any other drug on the market.
8. Pure speculation. There has been no proof that aluminum is harmful. Gardasil was tested with Hepatitis B because it has the same aluminum compound and has been on the market for 19 years.
9. There are currently studies going on with boys and safety data is already available for boys in the label. Also, the EU and Australia are already using on boys.
10. It's ironic that the blog ends with making an uninformed decision when all the facts are wrong on the site.
Yeah, this seems like a shrill for Gardasil but I have personal knowledge of this drug and sometimes setting the facts straight on a drug which is saving lives need some truth out there among the free range blogs which aren't providing accurate information.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
It's only approved for women. There's not even a test for HPV for men.
This is not just about morality, sex, and saving people from cancer.
It's also (mostly) about forcing people to receive drugs.
If they can force you to take drugs that might save you from cancer you might catch from sex you might have, where are the limits to what they can force you to take?
Sorry. It isn't licensed for men, and isn't particularly effective on them. The skin of the penis doesn't have the protective immune mucus that the interior of the vagina does. It does help prevent anal warts if you're gay.
It's always easy to say that a new product or technology is going to improve our lives. There will always be studies stating that the "insert new thing here" is safe and will fix what ails us. Science and medicine are not perfect. New developments frequently come about which contradict previous scientific dogma. It is quite possible that some lasting damage will be done to these girls that did not show up earlier. I'm not saying that we should listen to the religious right. But we shouldn't use a vaccine on millions of girls just to spite them.
It would be much better to allow parents to opt in. A parent can make the decision for their child, not the government. The vaccination cost can be paid for by the state or federal government. When a girl becomes 18, she can then decide to be vaccinated at that point. With fewer girls being vaccinated, it mitigates the consequences of unintended side effects.
I suspect the vaccine is a good idea (it's still pretty new and we've seen new drugs withdrawn), but the government has no business mandating it's use. States/schools require certain vaccines to prevent outbreaks of contagious illness in schools and this vaccine does not qualify under that criteria. This is "thinkofthechildren" nanny state BS.
That said, if I had a daughter in that age range I'd seriously consider getting her the vaccine because it has to be administered early to be effective. And I really don't think it needs to be discussed with the kids any more than a measles vaccine does - it's just another shot they'd be getting.
1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
Dude, practice a little more before you troll again. Do you really expect me to believe that you're both a jesus freak and you use words like "fucking"?
You know anyone can just opt out from receiving the vaccination right? It's in the executive order that you can opt out at any time. Just like all the other required vaccines...
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
First of all I have no "morality issue" with this vaccine. If I had a daughter, I'd give it to her in a heartbeat. I'd also teach her about abstinence (preferred) and condoms and how sex is way to spread certain diseases. No problem there.
But when the government requires it, and is heavily lobbied by a drug company, that kinda rubs me the wrong way. Shouldn't these decisions be left up to the parents and doctors?
Whatever the case, it doesn't keep me up at night. As long as the fundies don't OUTLAW vaccines like this, I'm cool.
Merck produces a vaccine. Merck tells the Government that this is a patented drug that other companies should not be allowed to produce because they thought of it first. Furthermore, they demand that every single female should be forced to buy and use their product at whatever price they set.
Which brings me to my point: FUCK OFF MERCK.
You jackasses think that you should have the exclusive right to manufacture a product and force it on everyone via bribed government officials? That is sick,immoral, and anti-capitalistic.
On the plus side of this, it sounds like an attempt for a pharmaceutical company to get a legislated kickback was thwarted. Imagine how much money Merck would charge for that vaccine once everyone was required to get it...
On the minus side, it really shows how far we've slipped into rule by religious nuts. I'm not one for religion, but I don't have a problem with those who are. Religion provides comfort for people who can't deal with the world as-is. The problem is when it starts intruding on public life. When common-sense decisions are struck down because a group of people think a behavior is morally wrong, hedonistic or evil, there's a problem.
The FDA's lack of approval is silly. And Merck has studies in men going right now which will soon remedy that.
I think you just answered your own question, or at least responded to your own argument, there.
There's probably no FDA approval for men, because Merck didn't submit any data for men, which they didn't do, because they didn't do studies on men. They didn't do studies on men, because it wasn't as cost-effective, because there are more straight women in the world than there are gay men.
I don't think there's any active anti-homosexual agenda there, it's just economics. Straight or otherwise 'majority' people are going to get drugs for themselves approved first, because if you're a drug company, it's most profitable to get your drug out to the biggest market first. Once you've got the big market served, then it makes sense to go after the niches. It sounds like that's exactly what Merck is doing.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Do you think for a minute that only "schoolgirls" get HPV? What about schoolboys? Schoolgirls would not contract a transmitted disease unless it is first transmitted. How about we give the vaccine to all the school boys instead, or in addition to, as the boys should share in some of the "responsibility" of the problem shouldn't they? Just because they don't contract the cancer from HPV does not mean they should not help the prevention of it. After all they do share at least 50% of the responsibility for the problem.
... because HPV vaccination prevents AIDS and pregnancy.
http://outcampaign.org/
Yes ... lets do it! Lets vaccinate everybody...and then once its done, we will vaccinate them again, against the diseases that come forth from the previous vaccination (which of course wouldn't have happened otherwise). I mean the long-term effects.
It is well known that any so-called cure of something like cancer or such a disease (or for that reason any unnatural medicine) has side-effects. Some small, some large. For example, radiation to cure cancer actually increases the probability of some other cancers, introduces problems in progenies (or the possibility thereof).
Lets pollute the bodies of young people with medicines most of them may never need!
Bravo!!
Life is about being a Phoenix!
I do not trust these guys. These guys spend hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby lawmakers. It only covers 4 of the 127 strains of HPV and you need a booster every five years. At over $350 a shot, that's over $100 million a year in Texas alone. I wonder how much of that will find it's way back to Gov. Perry. This stinks to high heaven.
/. reader purchase a minimum of 1 PC a year from me. What a sweet deal that would be!
I wish I could have the government mandate that every
The vaccine got approved for girls first. There is already safety data for boys in the drug's label; the boys will be vaccinated as well as soon as it is approved.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
It's interesting that this perfectly reasonable objection seems to only be used as a rationalization for other, borderline-bizarre, "moral" objections. I could almost get behind this one, but most of the people questioning the safety of the drug really aren't interested in its safety per se, and wouldn't ever be satisfied by any amount of evidence as to its efficacy, because they're just using it as a sham argument.
I'm not saying you are, but as I've been following the progress of this issue, it's seemed to progress something like this:
1) Religious-right insists that anything which might make sex 'safer' is a tool of Satan, and has no purpose besides corrupting their little darlings.
2) Basically everyone else raises eyebrows, questions their sanity.
3) Religious-right folks have a powwow, try to think up rational justification for #1. Failing that, they find a totally different, seemingly rational justification for their position, but which has nothing to do with their actual motives.
4) Everyone else spends a whole lot of time and effort responding to the seemingly rational objection from #3, but are just wasting their time, because the real objection is not rational or practical. It's entirely religious (and somewhat Freudian).
So, in short, you have a good point, but it's going to be an uphill battle to get anyone to take it seriously.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Actually, what this country really needs is a bunch of whole teenagers fucking -- WITHOUT consequences.
Now wouldn't that get your puritanical knickers all tied up in a knot?
So yea, only women get cervical cancer, but HPV sucks for both genders. It isn't just an amusement for men. Shouldn't we want to stop the disease wherever possible?
As it is now, a guy who wanted to get the shots would probably have trouble getting the protection for various social reasons (poorly educated clinic workers who think the treatment is gender specific etc). Heck, since it has been marketed as a "girl thing" a lot of guys probably wouldn't even think to ask.
It's great to stop the cancer, but stopping the STD is just as important.
Besides if you can inoculate all sexually active people with health insurance then you would reduce the exposure of those who don't (etc).
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
My understanding (and granted, I'm not a virologist) is that there are many strains of HPV, including many that have nothing to do with sex, or cervical cancer. Some are your basic skin infections / cold sores, others cause genital warts, etc. And there are sexually-transmitted strains that aren't linked to cancer.
The vaccine doesn't target all these strains, it goes after several specific ones that have been empirically linked to cervical cancer and abnormal pap smears / precancerous cellular growth.
So getting the Guardisil injections won't help stop you from picking up cold sores, or genital warts. It's targeted specifically at cervical cancer-causing strains of the virus.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
There are issues aside from Merck doing this and that--it's all the usual influence peddling which would be expected in the insipidly broken system that is US health care. Merck is not the target here. One target is the FDA that is utterly incompetent and immorally charged to make life or death decisions with approvals and expensive bureaucracies. Once the FDA required proof for efficacy (instead of just safety as they had been doing for 60 years prior) is probably the single most important milestone on the downward spiral.
Given the cost of drug development, I'm surprised it's only $400. Vaccines are a one-time profit for Merck until their patent runs out. Given the alternative costs of therapies (guaranteed revenue), there's a good chance Merck just might not be as evil as they are made to be. $400 doesn't get you much in the medical world these days--not even an hour with a specialist at my doctor's office. Again, this is symptomatic of a broken system where someone else always ends up paying the cost of medical treatment or you never knowing until the bill bites you. We should be so lucky that the established price is at the forefront of the discussion.
Besides, it works against a virus, a communicable disease that can be conceivably arrested and perhaps eradicated, for far less than the cost of the effective treatment for the cancer it causes. Treat it forever or squash it now. Shouldn't something this simple be prioritized? How is this different from everything else we get shots for if people who don't have health insurance can get it, and those that don't want it won't have it forced down their throat?
"[T]he single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." -- Barry Goldwater
You'll probably never actually encounter whooping cough or polio either, but you were probably vaccinated against them. To say "vaccinations are bad because other diseases might arise" is about the most abjectly retarded thing I've ever heard.
I live in deep south TX and when I heard this order had been passed I was (see subject line) shocked and apalled. The argument has been made before, required vaccines are generally reserved for highly contagious infectious diseases. In cases like measles, mumps, rubella, and the polio vaccine I'm sure almost all of us have had, having more than a vanishingly small percentage of school children not vaccinated can undermine the whole effort. The reason being that the say 10% that hasn't been vaccinated likely has had no exposure whatsoever to the virus or similar viruses, and what may have been serious but non life threatening a couple generations ago could then have a significantly higher case fatality rate. This is completely different. HPV is something most people posting here already have (insert "slashdotters can't get laid" joke here). 80% infection rate among adults in the US. Only thing I know that comes close is oral herpes simplex 1. The danger from HPV is relatively small when you put that number in perspective, a couple 100 million americans have it, and I don't see them dropping like flies. Furthermore, to make the HSV1 comparison, Herpes Encephilitis is often fatal... quite rare but dangerous. Similar numbers of americans are infected. If there were a vaccine for herpes 1 would you want to make it a requirement for entry into kindergarten? Look up the CDC recommendatiosn on some of these diseases some time... they are a lot less alarmist than the drug companies. Last I checked the CDC said something along the lines that HPV was more or less harmless, and so wide spread that you almost certainly have it, so don't worry, be happy, and don't even bother getting tested unless you have some specific cause for concern.
By mandating in Texas it allows low-income families to get the vaccine without insurance. And by mandating the vaccine it forces insurance companies to pay for it so your out of pocket cost is now lower.
And if someone doesn't want to get vaccinated they can opt out.
p.s. The large sum of money was $6,000 out of the $24 "million" of his campaign contributions. And there is bills in 20 other states which are going to require girls to get the vaccine. And if his brother worked for Merck why isn't is printed in all the news articles? That would be great at selling more papers.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
HPV causes two specific types of cervical cancer. This is fact and why this vaccine works.
By taking the vaccine you prevent the person from getting the certain types of HPV (#6, 11, 16 and 18) which cause cervical cancer. These types cause cancer. By preventing someone from getting these types you are preventing them from getting the cancer. It is DIRECT cause and effect.
There are many types of HPV (there are over 100 types) and not all types are harmful. But the ones which cause cancer are stopped cold when the vaccine is taken.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
In any case, neither vaccines nor sex are dangerous. Just a little prick!
They gave $6,000 dollars, not hundreds of millions. And there is no booster shot. The vaccine requires three shots taken over six months.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Candidates for office should only be permitted to receive campaign money from registered voters in the district where the candidate is running. This ensures the politician is answerable to the voters that elect him. It would probably increase voter turnout since voters would feel they have more power.
This would keep corporations, unions and other special interests(NRA,Greenpeace,religions,mpaa,etc) from owning politicians.
I'm encouraged by the tone of this discussion. There seem to be a lot of people here who will see that their daughters are vaccinated if/when they have daughters. It hasn't been that long ago that the PAP test itself wasn't covered by most insurance plans because cervical cancer was limited to only one sex. Yes, that was the reason commonly given. Public outcry and the obvious benefits of the test caused insurance companies to re-think that one.
The problem here is that the religious right is being its usual shrill self and is drowning out any potentially legitimate reasons there might be for parents not to get the immunization for their daughters. One such reason might be a desire to wait and be certain the vaccine is actually safe and effective. We've seen a lot of drugs taken off the market recently because of unforeseen dangers and side effects. (Anti-arthritic drugs come to mind.) However there are enough lunatics around who equate the HPV vaccine with enabling their teenage daughters to have sex without fear. I can imagine that conversation: Don't have sex, you can get cancer from it. It's to be hoped that these idiots don't drown out the voices of reason. It's interesting that they either (a) haven't succeeded in convincing their daughters of their message, or (b) want to control the morals of other peoples' daughters.
At this point, mandatory immunizations for school seem to cover what used to be thought of as infectious "childhood diseases" such as measles, mumps, diphtheria, polio, and all the others. Those caused massive epidemics in the past. The difference here is that cervical cancer won't run through the schools like wildfire endangering everyone who breathes the common air.
On balance, I suppose I'd rather see the vaccine made mandatory than to see it become a privilege of those who can afford it.
"Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
Enough of the 'stupid religious people preventing disease control!'. What about the civil safety rights? I highly object against mandatory vaccination. Vaccination has a lot of controversy to it, and risks that it carries. Autism, Immune Dysfunction, among other things, have been linked to vaccines and vaccine preservatives (Thimerosal). This is definetly an issue of civil rights. I believe I should have the right to choose whether or not I have to be vaccinated. From the information I've read, I believe the risks often outweigh the benefits in vaccination. Considering the track record of previous vaccines, and especially since the HPV vaccine is new, I will remain skeptical and outraged at the mandatory injections of them.r oversies
h tm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine#Vaccine_Cont
http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/
http://www.autismwebsite.com/ARI/vaccine/vaccine.
Your Momma's so fat she makes emacs look like nano!
To hell with half of these arguments. I'll tell you why I think the idea of making this vaccine mandatory is absurd, and it's not some neo-conservative, religious, or otherwise belief. I disagree with the vaccine because, unlike other vaccines that protect you against things that you can merely catch by chance, the government would be forcing kids to get a vaccine because they ASSUME that since most people sleep with everything that moves, that you're also going to go sleep around. I don't want the government to start getting in the habit of requiring everyone to do something based on the assumption that that person will do an action simply because the majority of people do that action.
To me, it's no different than racial profiling. "Oh, he's black, so he has a higher chance to commit a crime," "Oh, she's a teenager, she's going to sleep around and get an STD," -- both are profiling, both are assuming, and in both cases, there are many millions of people that would be discriminated against simply because people ASSUME that they're going to do something.
I think the argument is that it's far easier to get the vaccine to all school-aged girls and young women, than it is to get the under-served women in to clinics for pap smears once they've left the public education system. Setting up the sort of health infrastructure that you'd need for the latter path, would probably far exceed the public cost of giving the vaccine to all girls in school, since the vaccine uses the existing school system and requires little in the way of additional infrastructure. (And because the cost of the vaccine for many girls would be borne by their parents; assumedly only those who couldn't afford it would qualify for some sort of taxpayer-funded discount.)
That those women are underserved is a structural problem within the U.S., and is (to put it mildly) non-trivial. You could probably give $400 shot to every school girl in the U.S. for the cost of the Congressional hearings to draw up the rules for the subcommittee that would produce a report investigating whether it would be feasible to begin thinking about implementing a system to serve underserved post-school-aged women. And it would take 15 years. And it probably wouldn't ever happen anyway, because you'd undoubtedly have to touch the abortion issue at some point, and nobody's going to go near that, as if "healthcare" generally wasn't politically toxic enough.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
It seems as though the real issue here is personal choice. The problem is that neither the state, nor parents, nor the person being vaccinated is the proper person to ask for their choice. The person that should be asked their choice is the person that is to be vaccinated, but 10 years in the future.
"The people" have been infected with HPV for a long while now. In fact, the CDC says 80% of women will be infected by age 50.
That's an epidemic.
We have a chance to stop this disease, or at least cut it down by quite a bit. Why the hell is this an issue?
When the polio vaccine came out were we all wanting to go out and get infected with polio? Of course not! People celebrated the end of a debilitating disease. Why can't we see it like that now?
Oh yeah, that's right. Polio didn't involve sex. And God knows anyone who has sex without procreation in mind is just plain wrong.
Guys, it's the 21st century. Shouldn't we be past this shit?
Let's get real. This is life, not religion. If religion cured warts I'd be all for it.
"This food is problematic."
You're going to have to shoot me first before I'll accept any vaccine. Fuck you and your reasoning. The state doesn't have any right to mandate injections. I don't believe any vaccine works. I think it's all bullshit. They pump you full of toxins (mercury and shit), compromise your immune system, make you sick, make you get the diseases they're supposed to protect you against. At best it's worthless, at worst it could kill you. Don't inject me with any of your shit and if your try I will die fighting. Fuck the pharmaceuticals and the government. I'm not taking shit unless I want to and I evaluate the info and decide I want it. I don't think this specific instance has anything to do with me. But it starts here, and then the slippery slope.
No thanks. I'm in charge of my own body and the moment you try to "force" anything onto me you are going to have a fight on your hands.
The whole "force" thing is a red herring; the government isn't really forcing anyone to do anything. You can opt out of any of the vaccines, including the HPV one. So people who are hell-bent on not getting their kids vaccinated can still do so.
Really, the purpose of making the vaccine required, rather than optional, is to require the huge 'silent majority' of people who don't have a strong opinion either way, and will just do whatever is easiest and requires the least amount of effort from them, to get their kids vaccinated. Without a requirement to do so, they won't bother, regardless of the long-term benefits. They just want to get the kid off to school; they'll schedule a doctor's appointment and cough up the cash if that's what it takes, but otherwise they never will.
Basically, the purpose of the requirement is to make sure girls whose parents are too stupid, ignorant, or lazy to have an opinion either way, don't get punished later on. Parents with a strong opinion in favor of vaccination aren't really affected, because their daughters would have gotten it anyway, and parents who are strongly opposed can always opt out along with the Christian Scientists.
This isn't really a policy that's aimed at the extreme ends of the spectrum, it's aimed at the middle, but as usual it's really being argued on by people who really have the least at stake.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
They've co-opted a catchy phrase to get a free pass on an ideology that is largely anti-life, or at least anti-this-life. Maybe he's pushing it for everyone, even for girls whose parents would object, because he knows there are many of Texans who would rather their daughter get cancer than have premarital sex with no negative consequences. Even if his decisions seem extreme, I'll side with him against those who consider "not condoning sin" to be more important than preventing cancer. And that means the Religious Right.
Of course all of the above assumes that you're a really stupid, ignorant, vicious moron who wants children to suffer so you personally feel like you're walking with Jesus or something along those lines. I can only hope I've misjudged you and underestimated your intelligence and decency. I'd much rather be wrong about you than right about you, because if I'm right about you then you owe other Christians an apology, because you're the reason people like Richard Dawkins think they're stupid and crazy.
"Abstinence is the only way to save both your soul and your life. "
And has no bearing on whether her _husband_ carries HPV from previous encounters.
DIAF, you nutjob.
--
BMO
Ok, I am a pathologist, which means I ACTUALLY SEE CERVICAL CANCERS and unlike you armchair epidemiologists know what we are dealing with here. Cervical cancer is rare these days, but the more pertinent issue is that THIS IS THE FIRST VACCINE AVAILABLE THAT CAN ACTUALLY PREVENT CANCER! Do you understand that, no? well argue your stupid little points about safety and how many it will protect. Do you want to actually improve the health of people? If yes, then you need to favor this vaccine, no matter what your primitive superstitions say. Or your evidence-lacking vaccine fears are.
I guess if you have never seen a pelvic exenteration specimen you may not feel as strongly as I might. Hell, I am putting people in my line of work OUT OF WORK, but it isn't about job security, it is about people's lives. Also, it is about the reduced cost to society in pap smears, colposcopy, and everything else involved in cervical cancer surveillance. I don't think any of you, especially the males understand the enormity of impact this vaccine could have. We are talking billions of dollars and hundreds of lives each year.
Get out of your armchair and learn something before proclaiming.
Any attempt to challenge your claims will result in a biased response. One can not have a reasoned discussion with you when they do not understand where your comments are coming from. Fess up. What is motivating you to push for mandatory vaccination?
The government should not be entangled in health issues at all. This simply results in higher prices because a company knows that since it is mandatory they can charge whatever they can get away with; this is evident in many areas in which the government has intervened. As for vaccine safety issues, I suppose those who say vaccines are 100% safe either forget or are unaware of the introduction of the warm polio vaccine which could actually cause polio in certain circumstances because it was not a totally "dead" vaccine -few people who took the vaccine were aware of this.
I don't approve of fundamentalists who try to mandate or abolish this or that on either side of the fence. The best way that preserves the freedom of individuals is to educate and inform them and to let them make their own decisions regarding their health, except in circumstances where they are unable to.
The schizophrenia of government is no substitute for wisdom and responsibility; they cannot operate with everyone's best interests at heart. The same clever machinations on their behalf which could potentially preserve your life are just as easily twisted towards the opposite end; or simply ignored in lieu of the greater reverence towards profit.
Make a few bad jokes on
The vaccine was developed in Australia with the help of a lot of Australian governement money. This company has paid for a licence to use it and I don't know how much that is - but that is what they are paying and not the cost of development. Production costs are not entirely trivial with a lot of vaccines, but there may be a sizable profit in there.
It could be a loud born again "Jesus freak" - and that is the sort in extremes that can infect their partners with the STDs from their wild days due to their aversion to contraceptives. It's sobering that the rate of sexually transmitted diseases among those that took "the pledge" is no less than that of the general population - since far less of them are supposedly at it those that do carry on must be doing the infection for those that are not. There's also other circumstances beyond the control of the sufferer - a doctor friend treated a two year old girl for a sexually transmitted disease, there is no way even the most unthinking fundamentalist can say that girl was asking for it or leading the man on.
10- You are a guy that has no female relatives. ..." is heresy.
9- You are afraid of needles.
8- You hate doctors.
7- You cannot find it in the 10 commandments.
6- You believe that saying "vaccin saves
5- Your cleric/mullah said so.
4- You like to do what ever the government forbids.
3- You hate corporate America.
2- You believe that Alchemy is better than Chemistry.
And, the No.1 reason for you to stand against cervical cancer vaccin:
1- You want to declare, in a "one million men march" that getting diagnosed with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cervical_cancer/ is 'kwel'.
. . . (if you did not laugh, this is not meant to do so. If you did; well, the worst problem is the one that makes you laugh)
It is well known that any so-called cure...
...or for that reason any unnatural medicine...
...radiation to cure cancer actually increases the probability of some other cancers, introduces problems in progenies...
First of all: this is not a cancer cure. No vaccine is a cure for anything. On a related note: naturopaths and chiropractors and the like emphasize preventative medicine (let me adjust your spine to prevent problems in the future; take this supplement to stave off cancer in the future), but then turn around and reject _vaccination,_ which is perhaps one of the most effective forms of preventative medication known to man?
Your opposition to scientific medicine is irrational. There are _many_ examples of "natural" cures that have devastating side effects--herbs are not pefectly safe just because they are natural. To name two, poke and comfrey can be quite dangerous depending on the amount taken. Radon gas is a natural (radiation) phenomenon that is known to cause lung cancer. Furthermore, any worthwhile therapeutic drug potent enough to do something useful is going to be potent enough to potentially cause side effects.
Unless whole-body, fetal, or genital irradiation takes place, there should be no effect upon future generations of exposure of ancestry to radiation. Furthermore, although there is some chance that radiation damage can cause cancers later on in life, that must be weighed against the risk of _not curing the current cancer._ All use of ionizing radiation has a risk, but the benefits from dosing a patient (extension of life, relief of pain, etc.) can in many cases be shown to easily outweigh the risks. As you've just said, currently no scientific studies have found any effective cancer therapy that doesn't carry the risk of side-effects, but we _know_ the side effects of non-treatment or worthless treatment: morbidity and death.
You're right to be concerned about potential long-term effects of this kind of vaccine, especially in a case like this where recommendations are being made to vaccinate a large segment of the population. However, your good message is being lost in a deluge of paranoia and irrational distrust of medicine, and so reasonable people are going to be disinclined to listen to your valid points. I'd suggest you keep your pen dipped in ink rather than 100% natural sulfuic acid, and you'll attract more positive attention.
When going unvaccinated effects the populaiton as a whole with deadly disease it is a societal choice, not an indiviuals.
Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. This goes for diseasesas well.
You find a way to not pass on a serious life threatening disease without a vaccine, thats fine.
In the mean time stop putting other people at risk.
If we left it up to choice Polio would still run rampent. As would small pox and many other diseases.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Before you dismiss his argument based on your personal belief in the "System", you should take the opportunity to see if his claim is valid. For example, you might read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controvers y
Mercury is present in most vaccine formulations, in at least "trace amounts". It seems that some people are able to process this without an issue, but there is suspicion that many of the vaccine-related issues that have been correlated to vaccinations may be a result of a lesser ability, or worse luck, in processing the mercury content. While this may end up being a red herring, considering that the FDA has recommended removing all but trace amounts of Thiomersal, I don't think we should ignore it.
It is certainly admirable to want to reduce the suffering of people through vaccination. At the same time, vaccinations should never be considered "safe". Just as with Tylenol, or Sudafed, the risks should always be conveyed to the potential recipient. They should be allowed, without fear of repercussion (some rumors floating about that public education will be denied for those who refuse it) to evaluate the risks and benefits and decide for themselves. Despite all of the drug company propaganda, you will be hard pressed to find someone who won't take a vaccine for a serious issue that they are at risk of injury from.
While you are at it, think about the fact that despite "8 1/2 years of research", no long term studies have been performed to rate the efficacy of this vaccine over time for the strains it is supposed to prevent. Most of the people arguing that the vaccine should be mandatory are also using straw-man arguments against "religious, anti-sex freaks". For them, it is a crusade against what they perceive to be ignorance. Maybe some people who object to the vaccine are ignorant. But blindly supporting it is just as ignorant, even if you can quote the drug company's research. Meanwhile, those of us who take a cautious route to medicating ourselves and our children will be railroaded for the sake of community immunity of a few strains of HPV, infection by which a very small percentage of people will develop cervical cancer. Very, very small.
Speaking of cautious, this is just another reason to look at increasing cleanliness in public restrooms. Not that any amount of cleanliness would convince me to sit down in one. Even if it is just a Gary Larson-esque "Didn't wash hands!" flashing light outside of the bathrooms (classic!).
The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
The link is tenious at best, and measle mumps issue has been widely discredited.
Polio, Small Pox are just two thing prettu mush erradicated because of vaccines.
You do not have the right to spread disease. Don't like it? Go live in an iron lung for a while.
Yeah it's an issue of Civil rights, namely Civil rights to not walk around as a human fucking incubater and spread disease that kill people.
No, you keep going to your web sites filled with people who couldn't so freshman science if a gun was pointed at their heads.
Hey, also the govenment faked the moon landing, UFO's are full of aliens looking to probe you, Floridating the water is bad, and the boggy man lives under your bed.
Fucking moron.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
A few more interesting tidbits:
-- At least 80% of women will have been infected by at least one strain of genital HPV by the time they reach 50 years of age.
-- Condoms are only about 70% effective at preventing HPV transmission
-- In 2007, approximately 11,150 cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States, and about 3,670 women will die from the disease. For comparison, seatbelts saved 13,274 lives in 2001 in the US.
-- Somewhere near 10% of people have had visible genital warts. These people may still be able to transmit the virus after the warts are gone.
-- HPV can be transmitted from a mother to baby during birth, so it is even possible to get HPV from a virgin.
-- The HPV vaccine does not contain thimerosal/mercury.
Here in Germany the vaccination is paid by your health insurance (everybody has one). The vaccination is not mandatory, but every woman can afford it.
[--- PGP key and more on http://www.root42.de ---]
I work at a Telecom in a lowly sales desk position. Recently my telecome started offering porn on cell phones. We then got a slew of people calling in (who often didn't have service with us) complaining about this because some article in a right wing paper mentioned it. I'd bring up things like porn being available on our major competators TV service. The internet being over run with it. And the fact that you had to jump through so many hoops to get it that it's more secure then your TV service (a friend of my tried to get it on a lark. She was denied because she hadn't provided a ID with a birthday on her account and had no valid credit cards).
This siutation is similiar, the religious get their panties all in a knot over nothing and will often be hippocrites and fools about a subject. They simply borrow the opinion of those who evangelize to them. Often without knowing it makes appear foolish and act like hippocrites.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
... because HPV vaccination prevents AIDS and pregnancy.
No, but the condoms you gave her and the instructions on how to use them generally do. As does the pill.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
I bet you went and stabbed yourself with a rusty nail right after you got your tetanus shot, didn't you?
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
"are you concerned about the cost of the program"
l
Yes. $400/female. Is that the best use of health dollars? Let's do a little math:
population of texas:
22,859,968
Percent Under 18:
28%: 6,332,212
Percent Female:
50%: 3,178,770
Total Cost of Program:
$1,271,507,996
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.htm
Ongoing costs would be about 1/18th of that per year.
Is that the best use of that money for public health? In other words, if Texas spent $1.2B could they achieve better results in some other area of public health?
"or the risk of the vaccination process"
Of course. Since this hasn't been implemented very widely, we're not sure what will happen. It's terrific the vaccine will save lives. But if it kills your daughter because of an adverse reaction, are you going to shrug and say "the good of the many..."?
"the fact that your daughter will have sex"
I hope she does, or else I won't be a grandparent.
"or that you're simply being forced to do something, regardless of the advantages or disadvantages to your family"
If the advantage is so overwhelming, why not give people the option? If you have to coerce people to get the vaccine, then people don't see the wonderful benefits you do. Maybe they really aren't there?
I'm not saying the vaccine is bad. But look at what's happened. A big drug company lobbies hard in Texas and then the state passes a law that every eligible citizen must take this drug. What's next? Nike lobbies Texas to force everyone to get running shoes because it will force everyone to get into shape?
The vaccine looks like a good idea, but the way it's being pushed it stinks. If I lived in Texas, I'd be outraged.
Also, science and medicine are never, and were never, presented as "perfect." Cars aren't perfect, planes aren't perfect, medicines aren't, and neither are vaccinations. All activity involves risk, and it's intelligent to take the known benefit over the hypothetical harm, particularly when millions of dollars and almost a decade of have gone into looking for that harm and yet still failed to find it. What you're doing is rejecting a vaccine that has been studied for 9 years, that is known to prevent cancer and save lives, and your objection is that it may not, in the long run, be perfect. Either you're trying to be clever but missing the obvious, or your objection is actually rooted in the same ideology that fuels the Religious Right.
"You do not have the right to spread disease."
What does that mean? That's such a nonsensical thing to say that it's hard to take you seriously.
You don't have the right to be happy.
You don't have the right to be sad.
You don't have the right to look at aeroplanes.
You don't have the right to green grass.
You don't have the right to think wrong thoughts.
You don't have the right to an opinion that offend others.
I mean, you want to make fun of Christian fundamentalist, great. But at least those guys don't make illogical, nonsensical arguments their central points of thesis.
If you're a an example of why we should get vaccinated, then Merck better run for the hills now, cause they ain't got a chance with your oddball "arguments".
In twenty or thirty years, what are the parents who refuse the vaccination going to say to their kids, when they're denied health insurance coverage on their cancer, since they refused a preventative procedure?
God forbid teenagers have sex. Cause, y'know teens never had sex before this godless liberal last thirty years or so.
Having a daughter...is a punishment from god because the woman enjoyed herself at the time of conception. Godforbid she might even have had an orgasm!
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Make an $18 Generic Version, from India - and Don't Make it required until you know you are not causing birth defects, infertility, or cancer. Toss the patent laws out the window.
Oh, and if everybody gets the shots, the original virus will just come back in mutated form.
Disease evolution knows no road blocks, only speed bumps.
Will this be a component of this product's preservative also? What other insidious chemicals are included with this delivery. Have Merck senior executives innoculated all of their children with it? If so, great. Let's then wait for several years to see the results. Somehow I doubt they will be giving this to THEIR children.
And yes, frankly, donations and aggressive lobbying do constitute a problem, given especially the timing of both in this issue.
No thanks. I'll be making my own decisions for my children, not the government or anyone else, no matter how well meaning. My children went through childhood and early adulthood without vaccinations. My grandchildren will be home schooled as well to avoid being forced against our well-researched reasons to inject them with the, what's it up to now. 40+ shots now demanded by our 'elected' and well greased 'leaders.
I'll pass on yet another glass of koolaid, thank you.
This is exactly what it appears to be.
If you only vaccinate half of the population, you are sure to never wipe out the virus. So there will always be demand for this $400 shot until the patent expires and Merck patents a vaccine that covers those 4 virusses and 4 new ones.
I wonder if this is what Merck intended when they were lobbying for it. It wouold be much more cost effective if a) the vaccine was sold at the true marginal cost and b) the gouvernment would vaccinate everybody under 40. The coverage woould be so much wider that those few percent religio-fanatics that object to it would not matter too much.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
I would like to know where you get your numbers...but at the same time you are vindicating the use of the vaccine by the numbers you are giving. Yeah, there are hundreds of serotypes of the human papilloma virus, and there are more than the four that cause cancer, but the fact that this vaccine covers the four serotypes that most commonly cause cervical cancer (90%) is a great boon to society. HPV is the most common STD. The serotypes that do not cause cancer can be treated and are usually no more problematic than cosmesis. There are 15 serotypes that cause cancer (HPV 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 68, 73, and 82). But just because the vaccine does not have the other 11 does not mean one should not vaccinate. Furthermore, cervical cancer is LINKED to HPV infection-there are women who get cervical cancer without HPV infection (there are rare reports of women, such as nuns, who get cervical cancer with no history of sexual contact and the HPV DNA probes are negative). So the argument "it only covers four and not the rest means no vaccination does not stand up." Fortunately, cervical cancer in the US is not a big killer because of preventitive medicine (pap smears) and it can be cured easily if caught early. HOWEVER, the greatest reason why this vaccine needs good US marketing is because of places like Africa, where cervical cancer is one of the biggest killers of women due to lack of adequate preventitive medicine. If the vaccine is not used in the US, many of the nations of Africa will think that it is not useful (the whole "if not good enough for the US not good enough for us prinicple"). The root of the argument in the US is religious fundamentalism-that the vaccine will promote promiscuity-that is a load of crap! What is going to happen when (and I am being hopeful by saying when not if) a cure and/or vaccine is found for HIV-will it never reach the market because it will promote promiscuity? Promiscuity cannot be controlled by anyone but the person who is promiscuous and the fact that things like HPV infection and the risk of cervical cancer and potentially fatal diseases such as HIV (a true misnomer because people do not die from HIV, they die from opportunistic infections due to waning immune system) have not curbed promiscuity, how is the lack of those diseases going to change that-in other words I think people will be no less promiscuous than they are now.
When you take the big picture...thinking about what OTHER things this country blows money on...I'm having a hard time buying your argument.
Then again, when I go out to shop and hear the people around me conversing, I am convinced that they would accept a 50% increase in cancer rates if only the price of gas and ring-dings would drop 50%!
Blar.
want to believe that if we don't pass out condoms, then kids won't have sex. I hate these religious idiots.
Let's see, guy with a medical degree who studies cancer for a living, or paranoid, ranting conspiracy theorist (that's you in case you were wondering).
I'm going to be up all night trying to decide which one is more credible here.
but I see no problem with use of this vaccine being encouraged.
Lets just hope this isn't yet another Flu vaccine.
>I don't think any of you, especially the males understand the enormity of impact this vaccine could have
I was excited to hear about this vaccine. I'm a guy, and after learning about HPV (and how common it is), I got scared -- first, because I might carry a disease for which there is no (male) test -- and second, because I could easily and unwittingly give someone cancer. Try thinking that thought!
(Ideologies battle it out in my head. It was around that time that 'Biological Realism' met 'Sexual Positivism' and landed an uppercut.)
My question then is -- what about this vaccine makes it good for women but not for men? HPV also causes testicular cancer -- and, most generally, the more people you have vaccinated, epedemiologically, the fewer unvaccinated people you expect to get the disease. Am I missing something? Is there some risk-benefit equation for taking this vaccine that comes out positive for women but negative for men?
Unlike many other issues which are unimportant but are trumpeted as essential for the safety of the public, mandatory vaccination is not one of them. Even when there are side-effects, e.g., the smallpox vaccine (whose side effects include death), the amount of suffering and death that a vaccination campaign can prevent makes it worth the cost. Civil rights do not apply here. If my white neighbor marries a black person, and I don't like it, while I may have the right to hold that [retarded] opinion, the matter doesn't really affect me, and I can piss off anyway. That is the purpose of civil rights. But if my neighbor contracts smallpox because he refused to accept vaccination, that *is* a problem for me. That is a matter of public health.
When a half-dozen legitimately evil people use our aviation infrastructure as a weapon, people go completely ape-shit and will accept any draconian measure put against them. But when we have a drug that has 8 1/2 years of safety trials behind it, that can prevent CANCER, people are opposed to "mandatory" vaccination that you can OPT-OUT of! Let me ask you-- which does more harm: subjecting everybody who passes through an airport, bus terminal, and even some schools to X-ray screening, or a vaccination that prevents cancer? Have you done the epidemiology? This isn't some purported threat that your power-hungry congressperson thought up-- we have data that shows this will improve the quality of people's lives.
A few more interesting tidbits:
-- At least 80% of women will have been infected by at least one strain of genital HPV by the time they reach 50 years of age.
-- Condoms are only about 70% effective at preventing HPV transmission
-- In 2007, approximately 11,150 cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States, and about 3,670 women will die from the disease. For comparison, seatbelts saved 13,274 lives in 2001 in the US.
-- Somewhere near 10% of people have had visible genital warts. These people may still be able to transmit the virus after the warts are gone.
-- HPV can be transmitted from a mother to her baby during birth, so it is even possible to get HPV from a virgin.
-- The HPV vaccine does not contain thimerosal/mercury.
It's actually not clear if widespread Gardisil administration will decrease costs from both screening for and treating cervical cancer. Remember, that in the US (and most other developed countries) we have a pretty good screening test for cervical cancer. It's call the pap smear and is in fact the poster child for useful cancer screening programs. Further, recall that Gardisil covers only 4 of the more than 100 known strains of HPV. So it's not at all clear that you will be able to drop your screening program and save money (not to mention the endless annoyance of pelvic exams for those of the female persuasion).
Treat it forever or squash it now.
Nice idea, wrong disease. By mandating vaccination of school age females in the US, you will do absolutely nothing to decrease the reservoir of disease in the herd (the world population of humans). Google around for the problems of eradicating ANY communicable disease. Half assed measures like this one don't even come close. It's not what they are trying to do.
Shouldn't something this simple be prioritized?
See above, it's a poor way to spend a lot of money. Now if Merck, in their infinite compassion, decided to make vast quantities of the vaccine available for little cost to the entire world, then come back and we can re evaluate cost / benefit ratios again. At $400 a pop, it's not simple nor a high priority.
How is this different from everything else we get shots for if people who don't have health insurance can get it, and those that don't want it won't have it forced down their throat?
It's different because Merck is trying to bypass the usual protocol (and time lag) to get a vaccine considered mandatory. This process is anything but easy - both mechanistically and morally. To have it fast tracked by the one player that stands to make a lot of money in the process seems, well, a bit unseemly.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
No, the pertinent issue is legally mandating medical practice for the profit of a private company
If the government was really interested in protecting the population from cancer, they'd have outlawed tobacco long ago.
People have a right to make the decision for themselves, especially where the long term effects (or even short term effects to small segments of the population) have not yet been proven.
And while the vaccine seems to be highly effective, even the 70% drop in cervical cancer rates will not _and should not_ affect the societal cost of cancer screenings. This is not an elimination of the disease, just a reduction in occurrances.
I'd want to see figures on that.
Cold sores are caused by one or other of the herpes group. Basic skin infections suggest bacteria - Staph Aureus and some Streptococci - to me rather than viruses. But yes, of the conditions caused by various HPVs, this immunisation only offers to stop those caused by the strains of HPV it lists, which lead to most cervical cancer. It seems worthwhile, and arguments against it on cost remind me of the trouble that Ford got into with the fuel tank on one of their cars a few years back.
Think of the children (spreading HPV)!
:P
Sorry for the flamebait, but this is just insane! I guess cervical cancer is part of G-d's Intelligent Design.
-Rich
I'd prefer that the vaccine was available, not mandatory. Then, when the little girls of right wing whackos die from cervical cancer because their parents thought it could act as some kind of chastity belt, and it fails, because fear of cervical cancer isn't very likely to stop sexual conduct among teenagers, we will have a natural thinning of the species to the more sensible and reasonable of those among us.
Let the right wing nutjobs kill themselves off; fuck, let them refuse all medicine. That just means we will have fewer to deal with in the future, and next time around they'll be less likely to contest the power evolution, having experienced it first hand.
So the real cause of sexual education programs is to scare people into not having sex at all because of viruses that cause cancer? I could imagine religious sects to think that those are a sign from God.
Unfurtunately, genital herpes, HIV, CMV, EBR, hepatitis and myriad of nasty bacterial infections still exist to scare teenagers.
We can spend money all day and night and it doesn't matter. How else could the President pay for the Iraq war?
Blar.
Sorry, but my medical relatives have all been expressing concern about a massive, compulsory immunization program when the disease is relatively rare and the vaccine is relatively unproven.
If nothing else, we're still dealing with the whole "MMR vaccine causes autism" fiasco - anything that further entrenches an anti-vaccine attitude in the public is problematic.
Clear, Dark Skies
Get a FUCKING CLUE you goddamned prudish religious freaks.
Um, what was that line about physician heal thyself? Allow me to impart the clue. Here's what the flamewar that you decided to pile onto consisted of:
WebHostingGuy pointed out that the financial donations were quite small in the large scheme of things.
Dr. Spork claimed that the vaccine was likely to be a 100% cure for cervical cancer, which if you are a doctor, you know if false. There were some other statements about cancer being bad and so on.
Jhon disagreed with the 100% statement, pointing out that the vaccine only covers the dominant strains of HPV and noting that there are non-HPV related cervical cancers.
WebHostingGuy claimed that eliminating the Merck covered strains would be 100% effective.
Jhon once again noted that there are many strains of HPV, but concludes with, "You're statement that "only those few types of HPV cause cervical cancer" is untrue. There are many. It would, however, be true to say that most hpv-linked cancers are casued by 4 different strains of HPV."
AC ("I'm a pathologist!!1!") goes off on a straw man, claiming that because Jhon pointed out that the vaccine won't stop all cervical cancer that he obviously wants people to have cancer, and then proceeds to go with an specious ad homimem attack claiming that Jhon follows primitive superstitions.
You then add your "clue" by ranting about how unpleasant cancer is, concluding with your contribution to the specious religion attack. Thanks so much for adding your wisdom. Perhaps you should read for context first next time?
Anyone can opt out of any "mandatory" vaccination program due to civil rights protections--specifically the right of freedom of religion. All you have to do is sign a piece of paper saying that you object to vaccination and your child is opted out.
The point of making it "mandatory" is that doing so triggers a wide variety of social safety nets that make it affordable for people who might otherwise not be able to afford a $400 vaccine treatment, even if they want it. Just like when a governor designates certain areas "disaster areas"--the point is not to put a dramatic label on it, but to trigger certain legal and government aid processes that require that certain designation. Think of it like an access code.
The other reason is to force people to confront the issue and make a conscious choice, rather than just read an article and forget about it. This is important because the decision will not just affect them, it will affect their kids for the rest of their lives, and likely numerous other people as well. It's not one of those isolated parenting decisions like whether Johnny will go to a Baptist or Lutheran church. We limit parents' decisions on all sorts of public safety issues, like how fast they're allowed to drive, what they're allowed to feed their kids, how physical they can be when punishing, etc.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
One of the tenets of Christianity is that after one has become Born Again, his or her past is gone and forgotten. What if the young man alluded to above was a gay slut before he converted, but has ever since been celibate? Is he likely to be "revealing" his sordid past to the Pastor's daughter he's about to marry? Or are we to expect that by simply donating a few Dollars to Creflo A Dollar he'll be disinfected and "made whole, restored to his intended pre-fall perfection"?
And what about my son? He claims to be intent to remain celibate till marriage (he's 14, let's see if he still has this attitude in 5 years time...). Isn't he at risk if the girl he falls for has anything other than a "perfect" past?
It seems to me that not only is there loud shouts of "only celibacy really works" (and yes. celibacy DOES work, but it's totally realistic to expect everyone to do that, or more precisely not do it...), but this whole argument from the religious right and from the "Women's movement" smacks of "all evil is born of woman". Seriously, immunising little girls against a STD will turn them into little 2-bob tunnel-cunted gutter sluts that will screw anyone that moves?
The fact is that such am immunisation will probably not drive a kid towards sexual activity in any way. The real drivers are surely that effectiveness of parents and teachers in giving these kids self-respect and in them gaining a real appreciation for the real issues of STDs and the emotional costs of sexual behaviour.
I find this whole debate rather ridiculous, except for the implications for human and women's rights. Why do you Americans let the wacko right dictate so much rubbish?
DISCLAIMER:
I am a practising Christian. I am a Socialist and active supporter of our Political Left. I am not an American.
There is a trail of costs attached, not just the cervical cytology (we have moved on from the Papanicolou technique to a more reliable - therefore cheaper because of fewer failures and repeats - liquid-based cytology.
The population is all women, not low-risk women.
With UK costs not usually lower than US ones for clinical and laboratory procedures, $20 is surprisingly cheap - several years ago the lab fee alone in London was £13-70p.
Really, I don't like the way that Merck is pushing to get their product out the door.
I think such vaccinations should not be pushed upon the people, especially if only one company sells it. It would give them a monopoly on this vaccine, a government funded monopoly for that.
I think we should first test it out further before getting the whole population vaccined. Once it's a generic product, then we should maybe recommend it highly to everybody. I hate to have a government forced vaccination, kinda like Hitler had the Jews, gays and certain religious groups tagged.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Kids are already vaccinated for Measles, Polio, Mumps, Rubella and other nasties. Why shouldn't we add this new vaccine to the same program and have girls vaccinated against these strains of cervical cancer. Just because it doesn't stop every form of the cancer doesn't mean we shouldn't use it. I am 100% behind giving people any vaccine that will prevent them from getting sick (no matter what, prevention is always better than cure)
My understanding of the vaccine in question is that it works by attacking HPV *not* the cancer itself. To call the vaccine a 'cervical cancer vaccine' is simply misleading. It may be that tying it to the word 'cancer' will get better coverage in the media and therefore awareness in the general community, however I think it will also create confusion and ignorance. Also, it may send out a message that 'so long as you've got the vaccine, you're OK!'. The reality is that you can contract HPV and not develop cervical cancer, and vice versa - develop cervical cancer without contracting HPV!
How is this relevant and why does it matter?
The controversy is about whether to make the vaccine mandatory or not. If people are going to make an educated decision on whether they want the vaccine to be mandatory or not, there needs to be no ambiguity about the fact that this is a HPV vaccine. HPV is the horse that pulls the cart (in most cases) - that's what should be focused on here.
I suspect that some proponents of mandatory vaccination would like to blur the distinction between the following questions:
1) Am I at *any* risk of developing cervical cancer?. Answer: Always yes - regardless of lifestyle choices.
2) Am I at *any* risk of contracting HPV?. Answer: Sometimes yes, often no - based directly on lifestyle choices.
Did you even read your source? YOUR source said that there were 88 less deaths per year in the entire US. That is 88 people out of 300,000,000. When someone says that you have a 1 in a million chance, they are talking about this. That 1 in a million is even including those who are severely ill with other things, the elderly, those with compromised immune systems, and whatnot. The reason there was a 92% drop in childhood deaths is because a child dying of chicken pox is so rare that 1 less death shows up as a huge percentage. Using percentages with such low numbers is the "desperate" argument. Here are some death numbers to ponder before claiming that the chicken pox vaccine is even worthy of notice:
Estimated deaths due to no chicken pox vaccine: 88
Deaths due to lightning strike: 82
Alzheimer's: 60,000
Assault: 17,500
Driving: 40,000
Flying: 200
High School Football: 30
Traveling to and from school: 800
The numbers of possible lives saved by this vaccine is so low as to be under the radar. You could get almost half as good results by just banning high school football. Heck, you could get just as good results by having 10% of the current school kids moving to home schooling. Using risk of death by chicken pox as an excuse for the vaccine is simply FUD, so that the parents who don't want to take a week off work can feel good about their decision. It is also entirely possible that the numbers of deaths due to chicken pox has actually been increased dramatically, but pushed off for 20 years. Ask your pediatrician. They will tell you that the vaccine might not last into adulthood, and we all know how much worse that will be.
So, if you are really interested in reducing the risk of death for your child, you would take your kid to a pox party, and start home schooling immediately. Heck, just not letting your kid play football is better protection than the chick pox vaccine.
then have the licenese cost at the production rate.
The people involved got paid, investors haven't lost much and society gains so much more.
If health is the reason why this is being pushed, then there should be no problem.
Whether you choose to buy a new television set is pretty much a matter for you and your family alone. It might affect your neighbours if you turn the volume up too high, and of course the retailer and manufacturer benefit slightly, but other than that it has hardly any effect on those around you. So it's reasonably to leave that decision up to you.
However, whether or not you get immunised doesn't just affect you; it affects all those whom you go on to infect when you get infected (or become a carrier), because you chose against immunisation. It's a network effect.
Here in the UK, there's been quite a bit of (hysterical, unfounded, and irrational) public outcry against the combined MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine routinely given to young children. As a result, some parents are choosing instead to have their children given separate vaccines, or none at all. And so the rate of measles immunity in the population has fallen, causing health professionals to fear a measles epidemic, which would cause far far more harm than even the worst claims of the hysterics. Harm which wouldn't only apply to those who decided against the vaccine, or even their children; harm which would also come to a few of those who were vaccinated but caught the disease anyway.
So, given that the public as a whole are affected, isn't it reasonable for them to have some input to your decision?
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
But in this case, when the disease can only be spread through sexual contact, has a low rate of transmittion, and when infection with the disease only turns to cancer in a tiny percentage of cases... It just isn't a public health issue. With immunization, or without, this will have a negligable effect on the overall lifespan and general health of the population (unlike polio, or measels, or other immunizations). So, given that the public as a whole are affected, isn't it reasonable for them to have some input to your decision? If your kid gets immunized, your kid is immune, so the public isn't really effected by the decision. Even in the case of highly contagious diseases, those who are immunized are immune. The only people at risk are the people who choose not to recieve the immunization, and the assumption is that most people will choose to recieve the immunizations.
If you are talking that when someone else is sick, that has social costs for society... well, in that case there is virtually nothing that the government couldn't regulate - as virtually all actions have some sort of social cost. It gives the government carte blanche for a totalitarian state.
I mean, the more sex partners a woman has, the more likely she is to get an infection that leads to cirvical cancer (the immunizations only work for some types of infections). There is a far greater risk from having lots of sex partners, than from not recieving the immunizations (I am not even including the risk of other STDs like HIV or Hepititus). Should we require woman to register with the government for each sex partner she has, and to implement a strict limit on sex partners a woman has? No, I believe not, because a person's body is their property, and they should be allowed to do whatever they want with it... I am using this situation as an extreme example of the whole nanny state thing being taken too far, but already there is a growing number of people who are suggesting just that (coming from the same ideological background as the people who support manditory immunizations). No doubt, in 5 or 10 years, many governments will institute sex-partner registration and rationing schemes, under the pretense of public health. Once we accept the logic of the nannie state (the government must force people to do things for their own good), then there is really no end to just how crazy the government policies will get.
It's really interesting to me to see how many men weighed in on the issue of this vaccine. I'm very happy to see how many people care about what could be seen as a "women's issue."
First, a little background. I've received the first two shots in the Gardasil series and am two months away from the third.
Why did I choose to get this vaccine? Not only am I a sexually active woman who fears cancer (my mother died of breast cancer at 37), I'm also concerned because of the pain and suffering I've seen in women who have had genital warts.
Two close friends had to have abnormal cells burned off their cervixes. That's a panful procedure. And in this country, with public health care, the costs of those procedures comes out of the taxpayers' wallets.
And yes, I'm also concerned about the men I've dated and will date in the future. I don't want to be the cause of the pain, suffering, and embarrassment that men endure when they have visible warts on their genitals.
Finally, I don't want to be a burden on an already overburdened health system. Because, when you have a publicly funded health care system, it really is your responsibility to think about the greater good.
So why doesn't everyone get this vaccine? It's $700 Canadian for all three shots. Luckily (even though I make less money than the average man in my city) I have health coverage that covers part of it. Unfortunately, my sister's health plan does not. Will she be able to afford it? Probably not, sad to say.
So, should it be publicly funded? Should it be mandated? Should it be delivered via an opt-out system? Is it reprehensible that it costs so much? I don't have the answers. But it would be nice if it wasn't out of the price range of so many women. At least giving the average person the choice seems like the humane thing to do.
1. It doesn't CURE cancer of any kind including cervical. It keeps you from catching 4 strains of HPV, granted the most common, but only 4. You still have to go get up in the stirrups for your regular exam just in case you catch it from one of the other 78 strains out there, or from something completely unrelated.
2. Vioxx anyone? Merck lost quite a bit of money on that little screw up and noone finds it suspicious that the company is trying to push through and mandate a vaccine that costs $360 dollars for a series of shots? I have heard cases of some women being charged quit a bit more.
3. Here's your options: a vaccine that may or may not have long term health effects, which we wouldn't know because of substandard testing, while STILL having all gyno appointments and still risking getting cervical cancer from another strain of HPV or outside cause OR, just the gyno appointmnents and no vaccine risk and still the risk of getting cervical cancer from another yadda yadda yadda.
4. HPV commonly clears up itself. I was one of the few who actually got a strain that didn't and moved on into cancer. It took me one inpatient regularly scheduled gyno appoint to catch it (I had no idea I had it), a second quick visit to remove it, and a 3rd visit to be sure we got it, plus we watch all my paps since to be certain. Cervical cancer affects a very small portion of women, it's dropping every year WITHOUT the vaccine, and if you die of it it's because you are old, unhealthy, or weren't keeping up with those gyno appointments.
I have an 11 year old daughter, she will not be attending school next year if this is still mandated in Texas. My child is NOONE's test subject. It is LESS risk to not get the vaccine than to get it. Please, use a little common sense. Take it or don't, but don't just assume because some company says "yay it's good for you" that you absolutely MUST have it.
I'll be enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it