Physicians, Surgeons, Parents form "Hands Off Our Kids" Coalition Against Mandatory Gardasil

[The Cleaner]

The Association of American Physicians (AAPS) and the American College of Environmental Medicine will release a coalition statement on Gov. Perry’s Executive Order RP 65 regarding the HPV vaccine.

Prompted by Texas Governor Perry’s executive order to mandate the HPV mandate, medical, civil liberties, parental rights and other groups have joined together to form a new national coalition.

Calling themselves the “Hands Off Our Kids Coalition,” the more than 60 signatories to the statement are: PROVE, Texas Legal Foundation, Texas Eagle Forum, Congressman Ron Paul, former Congressman Bob Barr, the National Vaccine Information Center, Citizens Against Government Waste, Frontiers of Freedom, the U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation, The Liberty Coalition, and numerous Texas physicians.

http://www.aapsonline.org/press/ma-02-10-07.php

To be completely fair even though Rick Perry here in TX made this vaccine mandatory, one can file an affadavit to opt-out. How easy it is to file this affadavit is unclear, but it's most certainly not like filling out a "yes-no" form and that's that. The State is not going to let people opt out that easily.

However the question becomes why does one have to go through the trouble of OPTING OUT when in reality it should be OPT IN.

Anyway this new group of doctors, parents, and activist groups opens a new front in the debate over mandatory HPV vaccine care of the merging of corporate (Merck) and State interests - which in my opinion is detrimental to the democratic process where the PEOPLE decide not State governors.

[bullimiami]

1. it should be covered by the same requirements as any other immunization.

and not just for girls.
it is not a 'cervical cancer' vaccine and anyone can get the virus and give it to others.

[The Cleaner]

2. Agreed.

Of course it would be good for boys to be immunized too, voluntarily just like any other vaccine. You don't hear much about boys getting HPV...maybe that should change. I mean, docs never test for HPV in boys. I surmise it's because boys don't generally get cancer from it, but girls have that higher risk. Anyone with more insight on this is welcome to respond...I'd like to learn more about it.

[Kixel]

8. There's no test for men for HPV n/t

[PLF]

3. Perry doesn't even want it discussed in the legislature

He and his Merck lobbyists want to sneak it in without even discussing it.

[The Cleaner]

9. Yes, this is precisely the problem.

It is anti-democratic. The people have no say. There's no vote, no debate. It's a dictatorial decision made by Perry in a bold move to assist Merck in dominating the market for this drug. And make no mistake, Merck is actively working with state governors across the country to do the same damn thing.

This is not to mention the several suspicious (and very convenient) ties Perry has to Merck including his former chief of staff, now lobbyist for Merck.

[antigop]

154. Yes, it is absolutely anti-democratic

And the fact that people are willing to subvert democratic principles to get what they want is absolutely outrageous.

So what is Perry's NEXT executive order going to be -- now that he's usurped power to dictate health policy?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

4. Link did not work for me. I have not heard of the AAPS.

[The Cleaner]

6. Try aapsonline.org.

I checked the link in the OP and it seems to be working okay otherwise.

[mondo joe]

10. You might as well go to FAUX news - another RW front organization.

[The Cleaner]

12. See my Post #11 below.

n/t

[mondo joe]

5. The AAPS also opposes abortion. Wrong side of Schiavo case too.

http://www.aapsonline.org/resolutions/2003-2.htm

http://www.aapsonline.org/newsletters/may05.htm

[rinsd]

7. The group is a RW front.

I wouldn't rely on them for anything.

[The Cleaner]

11. Interestingly enough, many Democrats oppose Perry on this as well

due to the anti-democratic nature of his executive order.

I don't see this as a partisan issue necessarily, in other words having a position against Perry on this is not at all considered "right wing" or whatever. It is so interesting to me that Dems and Repubs alike are coming out against it.

[Horse with no Name]

14. Can you name any? n/t

[The Cleaner]

16. Yeah, ME. And many others here on DU as well.

That shouldn't come as any surprise...

[antigop]

128. And ME!!!!!! It's a subversion of the democratic process.

Governors should not have a mandate to declare health policy -- NO GOVERNOR should.

Even with opt-out, a GOVERNOR DECLARED HEALTH POLICY WITH NO INPUT/DEBATE/VOTE FROM THE LEGISLATURE.

That should scare the hell out of everyone.

<EDIT> and people should be screaming about this.

[rinsd]

15. I am saying the group is rw not the action.

I assume you posted this to show that people in positions of authority are against this as a means of drafting further support. I wanted to point out that the groups cited were bascially made up on the fly of various rw organizations.

"
It is so interesting to me that Dems and Repubs alike are coming out against it. "

I'm not shocked at all that rwers are against it. They start with the premise that sex=death and then work their way backwards to find support for that theory.

[The Cleaner]

17. Various RW Organizations? HARDLY.

I can see your point but how do you know all the organizations listed in the OP are RW? That is simply not true, in fact, it's patently false. Again these groups are:

PROVE, Texas Legal Foundation, Texas Eagle Forum, Congressman Ron Paul, former Congressman Bob Barr, the National Vaccine Information Center, Citizens Against Government Waste, Frontiers of Freedom, the U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation, The Liberty Coalition, and numerous Texas physicians.

[rinsd]

22. chuckle

I love how someone disproves me by citing a single group out of a dozen signatories as non rw.

Even better is the one group they do cite seems to rely HEAVILY on RW sourcing for their articles and discussions. Look at the left hand panel. Its a who's who of rw media and front groups.

[Horse with no Name]

26. Nice list of RW'ers

Too numerous to debunk all at once...

[PLF]

36. Why does this "mandate" have to be snuck in without any debate or consideration?

I think we all know the anwer to that question.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Horse with no Name]

42. You'd have to come out of your mommy's basement first. n/t

[PLF]

49. spoken like a silly child

Perhaps it is you who are living with your mommy.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PLF]

56. I don't support executive actions like this, you do, and Bush uses them all the time

perhaps it is you who are in the wrong place.

[mondo joe]

65. Then your issue is with the division of powers.

Thank you.

[PLF]

69. If South Dakota and NH can make it available sans exec. order so can Texas.

The way Rick Perry and Merck are going about this stinks and the way some his supporters immediately want to go screaming in the night about how anybody who questions the wisdom of this executive order must "hate women" stinks even worse.

All they have to do is make it available and I just read about South Dakota making it available for free. So the whole "it must be mandated for insurance reasons" line is total bullshit.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lurking Dem]

48. Maybe the chickenshits

are the ones who refuse to vaccinate their children, relying on those of us who did to protect their kids from getting sick.

[PLF]

52. and maybe you have no clue at to what you are talking about

I have no problem with vaccines for children. What I do have a problem with is assholes who immediately go hide behind the "oh you just hate women" thread because they disagree with someone.
Only a chickenshit asshole would engage in such a tactic and they do it because they don't want to debate the issue.

Again why does Rick Perry and the Merck lobbyists feel the need to hide behind and executive order?

[mondo joe]

54. The executive order ensures access to the vaccine for all while maintaining

an opt out for those who don't want it, without having to deal with the women-hating sex-hating puritans.

[PLF]

58. There are other ways than dark of night executive orders a la Bushco.

I'm not opposed to the vaccine but I am opposed to the way Merck and Rick Perry are going about it.

Maybe you just hate democracy. And maybe you are just hung up on the sex thing, I don't know but your psychological issues are not of my concern.

[mondo joe]

158. Is he within his executive authority or not?

If he's not there is no issue.

If he is, you disagree with his legitimate decision, which is another matter.

And I wouldn't suggest others have psychological issues if I were a sock puppet.

[Bunny]

62. ***snort***

You're gonna kick some ass, right on the spot??? :rofl:

Whoa there Hoss, simmer down. We're all tremblin' in fear, here. :eyes:

[Junkdrawer]

45. Enlightened absolutism??????????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_absolutism

or it's modern cousin "Benevolent dictator"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator

[PLF]

55. Exactly, typical "we know what's best" elitism at its worst

I have yet seen an honest arguement as to why this issue can't be handled like every other important issue is usually dealt with in a democracy.

I for one don't oppose the vaccine or even Merck making money off of it.

What I am opposed to is the way it is being done. Sadly, the pro-Rick Perry crowd can't even debate that so they immediately start making crazy claims about how if you don't support a unitary executive you must "hate women". :eyes:

[Junkdrawer]

57. A positive advance in medicine can have a negative public health...

effect if:

1.) It's priced too high

and

2.) It's mandated

And that's my fear on Gardasil.

[Horse with no Name]

63. Actually New Hampsire and South Dakota have made it available

without mandating it. That is what Texas should do, but undoubtedly Perry is securing his legacy--and the financing of his retirement--from this business dealing.
However, Rick Perry aside, Planned Parenthood says this is a really good thing. I trust and believe them.
I will add the caveat that IF Perry made this mandatory without an opt-out clause, then I would absolutely object to the vaccine.
When all is said and done, it comes down to choice and minority women are impacted by this disease at a rate of at least double their Caucasian counterparts. The poverty statistics in Texas most certainly point out that IF this was not made available at no cost...the women that are the most risk would be negatively impacted. Being healthy shouldn't be about money and how much you can afford to pay. But it is. This is the most expensive vaccination EVER. Many women won't be able to plunk down $400 for it...as well as girls that are in a household that has many children.

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/Daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=42044

>>>snip
South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds (R) on Monday said the state will provide Merck's human papillomavirus vaccine Gardasil at no cost to girls and women ages 11 to 18, the AP/Yankton Daily Press & Dakotan reports (Brokaw, AP/Yankton Daily Press & Dakotan, 1/8). Gardasil in clinical trials has been shown to be 100% effective in preventing infection with HPV strains 16 and 18, which together cause about 70% of cervical cancer cases. FDA in July 2006 approved the vaccine for sale and marketing to girls and women ages nine to 26, and CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices later that month voted unanimously to recommend that girls ages 11 and 12 receive the vaccine (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report,1/9). The South Dakota Department of Health plans to purchase the vaccine using $1.7 million in state funds and $7.5 million in federal funds, state Health Secretary Doneen Hollingsworth said. State officials aim to provide Gardasil to physician offices and health department clinics by Jan. 22 for the roughly 44,000 girls in the state eligible to receive the vaccine, according to Hollingsworth. Physicians will be permitted to charge a fee for administering Gardasil but only to those who can afford it, the AP/Daily Press & Dakotan reports. Hollingsworth said the voluntary vaccination program likely will focus on girls ages 11 and 12 in future years, adding that South Dakota will be the second state, after New Hampshire, to make the vaccine available at no cost (AP/Yankton Daily Press & Dakotan, 1/8).

[PLF]

64. Perry's "executive order" may not even be legal:

Two legal experts have questioned the constitutional legality of Perry's executive order. In a Statesman opinion piece Wednesday, former Travis Co. District Judge Scott McCown said the state constitution authorizes the governor to administer the law, not make the law. "This principle is textbook civics," he wrote. "Making law is for the Legislature." McCown is now executive director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities. Similarly, Tuesday's Quorum Report quoted Austin attorney Buck Wood stating flatly: "There is no such thing as an executive order. It's made up."

On the financial front, Perry's flip-flop on the HPV vaccine effectively gets the ball rolling for Merck – currently the only drug company with FDA approval for the vaccine. The pharma giant's lobbyists and shareholders have been waiting to cash in on Merck's biggest blockbuster drug since … Vioxx. You remember Vioxx. It's the anti-inflammatory drug that the company took off the market in 2004, after years of denying it carried serious heart risks.

As it did with Vioxx, Merck is heavily hyping its pricey HPV vaccine, sold under the name Gardasil. This time, the ad campaign is targeting girls and young women even as the company is still conducting clinical trials to determine if the drug adversely affects pregnant women and nursing mothers or if it throws the whole reproductive system out of whack.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A444412

[Junkdrawer]

71. But what will the insurance companies do? Studies like this have me wondering...

...

Results

Vaccination only or adding vaccination to screening conducted every 3 and 5 years was not cost-effective. However, at more frequent screening intervals, strategies combining vaccination and screening were preferred. Vaccination plus biennial screening delayed until age 24 years had the most attractive cost-effectiveness ratio ($44 889) compared with screening only beginning at age 18 years and conducted every 3 years. However, the strategy of vaccination with annual screening beginning at age 18 years had the largest overall reduction in cancer incidence and mortality at a cost of $236 250 per life-year gained compared with vaccination and annual screening beginning at age 22 years. The cost-effectiveness of vaccination plus delayed screening was highly sensitive to age of vaccination, duration of vaccine efficacy, and cost of vaccination.


http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/290/6/781

Now, if I had a daughter, I'd pay for the vaccine out of pocket. But as a public policy issue, I'd like to see better price negotiation and a guarantee that insurance companies won't limit a woman's access to annual Pap smears.

[Horse with no Name]

73. I still say we should have a National Healthcare plan

and this wouldn't be an issue.
Some people just don't have that extra money lying around to pay, that is the problem.
Insurance companies are the problem. No doubt. I just don't have an answer around that one.:shrug:

[PLF]

77. South Dakota made it freely available sans "executive mandate"

Texas can as well.

[mondo joe]

82. Planned Parenthood -

"The most effective vaccination programs are either given to young children or are mandated for attending school," said Jeffrey Waldman, senior director for clinical affairs for Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060800865.html

[Justitia]

131. Hi friend, a few questions (you may not have the answers, I can't find them)...

It looks like SD is only going to provide enough supply for 11 & 12 yr old girls.
What about the older ones?
And what if a girl wants it, but her parents refuse permission?

Same questions apply to NH & WA - I can't find it anywhere.

I did notice that WA is only buying 143,000 doses IF their legislature approves it later this year, and they haven't said who that supply will be reserved for.

Like I said, you may not have the answers either, but these are some things that would be good to know, since they are going the non-mandatory route....

[Horse with no Name]

149. Any parent (even in Texas)

has the right to refuse any vaccine.
However, in Texas they have to fill out a paper to refuse. In the other states, there are no requirements--no records kept. If they don't want the shot, there is nothing else to be done.
As far as the 11 and 12 year olds...since the vaccine is expensive, this is the directed age group. It's a start.
Baby steps...

[Justitia]

150. Well, at least here in TX, women up to age 21 can get it & that's good news.

It looks like so far, in the states that may eventually decide to give it away for free, it will only be for those girls of a much younger age.

It will be a long time shaking out 'tho. I imagine we'll see many changes before any of it actually takes place.

Hey, aren't you tired of hanging around here, slugging it out over and over and over?
I know I am.

And I am soooooo behind on all my "real life" duties - ha!

:pals:

[Horse with no Name]

164. Real life?

I've sat here all day,lol. Tomorrow, I tackle laundry and the house.
Had a pretty tough weekend at work and came out of it exhausted.
Working 40 hours in 3 days gets to be tough when you start getting old like I am.
I find that the threads like these go on and on...and the informative ones drop like rocks.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x192319
Anyway...I guess if one person avoids the smoke-and-mirrors that keeps getting confused for facts, then we have done the right thing beating our head against the wall.:hug: my friend. Hang in there.

[iverglas]

60. what's sauce for Merck

is surely sauce for Merck's loud detractors, eh?

If it's bad because Merck wants it, how can it not be bad because the extreme right wing likes it??

Such a tangled web they weave.

[rinsd]

66. Again its not the action, its the actors being used to drum up support

The action against the vaccine is not in of itself rw, but continually posts of evidence and appeals to authority (in the form of doctors' groups) that are based on decidely rw sources hurt any action.

I would prefer non-rw sourced material.

[iverglas]

70. oh, I know *you're* reasonable

I was afraid I was being a bit too cryptic.

Just meaning that when people are saying they're going to deny their child this vaccine *because* it is being lobbied for by Merck (and at least one thread I've read was started with exactly that statement), and all the rest of us are shills for big pharma if we don't sign on, then they shouldn't really oughta be too surprised if the nature of the beasties *opposing* the vaccination programs is pointed out.

Like, they started it. ;)

[rinsd]

79. Oh you're bad!

"Like, they started it."

:spank:

[mondo joe]

18. MANY democrats? Cite them instead of a RW front, please.

[The Cleaner]

25. Maybe turn up your hearing...listen closely...THEY ARE ON THIS BOARD!!

Just look at any thread related to this issue. Do you want me to change my terminology to SOME Dems? Okay, fine, SOME Dems here are against Perry on this. You know that - I shouldn't have to explain it to you.

Some here on DU oppose it because it would make guinea pigs out of the poor and disadvantaged. That hardly represents Democratic ideals. That is just one view against Perry's decision.

[Horse with no Name]

27. And some "Dems" are Anti-choice

what does that little nugget prove?
Other than there are some Democrats who do not have progressive values?

[mondo joe]

28. But the only public figures you cite do not include any.

Sofine - you have a small handful of anonymous board who oppose it.

Woohoo.

[Horse with no Name]

13. ding ding ding

Everytime someone sources something in this debate AGAINST this vaccine...it is sourced from RW trash.
I don't even "wonder" anymore.

[The Cleaner]

19. Oh give me a break.

That is so not true. Stop framing this as RW, it is not. In fact those FOR the mandating of this vaccine are THEMSELVES siding with the RW, anti-democratic values, and what I believe is fascism in the making. Rick Perry of TX is no Democrat!!

What the hay is going on here? Have some people gone beserk and forgotten the democratic underpinnings of our society? You know, votes, the will of the PEOPLE, fair debate? Hell for some of you I fear if Bush ever mandated such a thing you'd fall at his feet!

I just don't get it.
:shrug:

[Horse with no Name]

20. If you don't "get it"

Then perhaps you should educate yourself.
I don't know much, but I do know that if I came down on the side of the Fundies and against the side of Planned Parenthood about ANYTHING BUT especially in the area of women's reproductive health...I would surely rethink my stance.

[mondo joe]

21. What do you expect when you use a bunch of right wingers as your support?

Ron Paul voted for H.R. 2587 that banned gay couples adopting children in the District of Columbia; he expressed support for the Federal Defense of Marriage Act and expressed his support for the Marriage Protection Act.

AAPS is anti-choice and on the WRONG side of the Schiavo case.

Citizens Against Government Waste was started by Peter Grace, chairman of the board of W.R. Grace and Company, a conglomerate that was a US$5+ billion-a-year operation at the time. CAGW is basically the outgrowth of a government-funded group, the President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control (a.k.a, The Grace Commission) that Ronald Reagan set up during his first term, and chose Peter Grace to head.

Frontiers of Freedom has petitioned the Internal Revenue Service to rescind nonprofit status for the San Francisco environmental group Rainforest Action Network (RAN).

[The Cleaner]

30. That is ABSOLUTE BULL CRAP and half-truths suited to your position.

Love the way you failed to mention those who are NOT RW.

But I'm getting tired of every time there's an issue somebody doesn't agree with it's automatically RW connected and look, the OP is citing RW sources. Get real.

Fact of the matter is, and honestly this is true, I had no idea this group was connected whatsoever with RW groups. I heard this story on Dallas local news last night and researched it. They said the group was just a bunch of doctors, activist groups, and parents. If that makes it RW then whoa, I'm sorry. But that's what I was going by, and when I checked out the AAPS website there was nothing there to indicate any kind of RW connection.

Before I get into a ridiculous debate that twists this Gardasil executive order issue into some kind of nefarious RW operation, it's see ya later and enjoy the discussion.

:hide:

[mondo joe]

32. Not at all. Name one left wing group from the list.

The fact that you "didn't know" is not relevant.

The AAPS is ANTI CHOICE and was on the FREAK SIDE of the Terri Schiavo case.

[PLF]

39. and yet you are anti-choice anti-debate when it comes to the crooks at Merck

hmmm... kinda strange.

Why can't this be another regular legislative action whereby the public is allowed input?

[mondo joe]

44. Nonsense. Families can opt out. That is CHOICE.

[PLF]

61. These are decision for the family and their doctor and are none of Perry's business

I have no problem with letting people get the vaccine if they want it but I don't support the way Rick Perry is going about this.

[mondo joe]

67. And it can be theirdecision to opt out. What the fuck more do you need?

[PLF]

75. For Rick Perry, Merck Lobbyists, and people like you to stay out of my family's business

Go get the vaccine right now if you want. I don't care. However, the idea that the govt. has a right to shoot up my child with a vaccine from a company that has a proven track record of tragedy unless we jump through the hoops they put in place is absurd.

Other states have made the vaccine freely available. Texas can do the same and we don't need an legally questionable "executive order" written by Merck lobbyists to do it.

[mondo joe]

80. You must have missed the fact that we already have mandatory vaccinations.

If you don't want this one, opt out.

[PLF]

84. For airborn viruses such as whooping cough.

If you want the vaccine go get it, but don't make me and my family jump through hoops just so rick perry and his minions can make a shitload of money.

9 year old kids don't pick up HPV in school and if they did somebody should be arrested.

[mondo joe]

86. So you ARE okay with mandated vaccinations.

Just not this one.

Got it.

So opt out.

[PLF]

91. I am against the way Perry and Merck are doing this

and it should be opt in not opt out.

This is not an airborn virus.

If you want one have at it. Hell, shoot your dog up too while your at it.

[The Cleaner]

68. But it ain't so easy. It's thru an AFFIDAVIT. What is the procedure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affidavit
An affidavit is a formal sworn statement of fact, signed by the declarant (who is called the affiant) and witnessed (as to the veracity of the affiant's signature) by a taker of oaths, such as a notary public. The name is Medieval Latin for he has declared upon oath.

Some people here have been under the false premise that you can opt-out online, and it's jolly easy and fun. That is FAR FAR from the truth.

And it doesn't do anything to explain why we should have to waste OUR time and effort to locate a notary public, draw up an affidavit, and send it on to the beaurocracy just to OPT OUT. It should be OPT IN.

[PLF]

72. thanks for the informed post

[mondo joe]

74. Or rather a non-informative post.

Saying what is in the realm of the possibly required does not say what actually is required.

[PLF]

76. yes, most of your posts have been just that.

[iverglas]

87. awwwww

You should have to waste your time filling out a piece of paper so that dog knows how many thousands of little girls can get protection against a horrible and eminently foreseeable fate that their parents would not otherwise have been able to provide for them ...

Sheeit. My heart bleeds for ya.

So, you've researched it. What is this affidavit swearing to the veracity of? The deponent's deeply held conviction that if Merck and Rick Perry want it, it's bad?

I'm truly curious. Maybe it's like an informed consent form: I swear that I know what I'm doing.


Well hey now -- now *I* have researched it too. I went to google and I said vaccine affidavit. Number four on the results hit parade:

http://www.neisd.net/health/documents/faq_exemption.pdf (Texas, as it happens)

Vaccine Exemption for Reasons of Conscience

Q. What information will be listed on the vaccine exemption affidavit form I receive?
A. Information on the form will include the child’s name; date of birth; a list of vaccines for
which exemptions may be requested; a statement for the requesting parent or guardian
to indicate their relationship to the child; and an acknowledgement that the parent or
guardian has read attached information entitled The Benefits and Risks of Vaccinations.
Parents or guardians will then have to sign the form in front of a notary public.

Yes, sigh, you have to request that form in writing, and have it delivered by mail. What a drag. And imagine the fee for having the signature commissioned. Imagine having to pay it for *three* children's forms. BIG sigh. Now imagine the cost to a parent who does want the vaccine, say for three children maybe, and doesn't have health insurance or a thousand bucks to throw around ...

Hmm. Let me contemplate the weights of those two things for a while.

[The Cleaner]

97. THANK YOU THANK YOU! It proved my point EXACTLY. Opting out is NOT EASY DAMMIT.

As opposed to so many who claim it is easy. Furthermore no evidence exists you can opt out online which has been misinformation posted here.

Those steps are actually more complex than I thought.

1) Request form in writing
2) Fill out form for each child
3) Have form notarized
4) Mail form back, probably receive a call back asking further questions. Probably wait a long time before receiving word back that you have legally opted out.

As for covering the poor, why not create a separate program to cover them? What's wrong with that? Why force this on everybody?

[PLF]

102. Other states are going "opt IN" and Texas could as well but some of these folks

don't want to hear that.


Hell South Dakota is making it FREE, and yet you get some of these people whining that an executive mandate is the only way to make it affordable. What a joke.

[iverglas]

115. ah, so we both missed post 89?

I was so busy ferreting away for myself I missed the easy part -- that there are press releases and stuff that should quite calm your nerves.

I figured they'd be on the governor's website. So I asked google for perry governor website. Yee hah; there it was:

http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/press/pressreleases/PressRelease.2007-02-02.0949

Parents may choose to opt out of mandatory vaccinations for reasons of conscience, including religious beliefs. The governor’s executive order directs DSHS to ease the opt out process by providing exemption request forms online.

Now you don't have to write away for the form. You request it on line. They you fill it out, have it commissioned and mail it back.

Those steps are actually more complex than I thought.

1) Request form in writing
- strike that one, unless you're still counting filling out some boxes on line
2) Fill out form for each child
- ooh, my fingers hurt just thinking about it
3) Have form notarized
- but what if you live somewhere that has no travel agencies in malls??
4) Mail form back,
- you mean, it's finally over?
probably receive a call back asking further questions. Probably wait a long time before receiving word back that you have legally opted out.
- ya think? based on ...?

Now, try these ones.

(a) find second (third, fourth) job in order to earn $1000 needed to vaccinate three children
(b) try to avoid spending $1000 on groceries, or overdue water bill, or the playstation thingy the kids really want
(c) oops -- have taxes deducted from that $1000; work a few more weeks -- and don't forget to pay the childminder
(d) figure out how to access the medical services needed for getting the vaccinations when you don't have a primary care physician

I'd keep going, but I know you must be weeping by now. Warm-hearted, decent, reasonable fella that you are.

As for covering the poor, why not create a separate program to cover them? What's wrong with that? Why force this on everybody?

Hey, why not create a universal healthcare plan?

On second thought, why not learn some economics? The two processes would probably take about as long, but I can help you with that second one.

The costs associated with income-tested programs of *any* kind tend to cancel out much of the savings made by denying benefits to people based on income. The quickest and most effective *and* cost-effective way to deliver any service to large numbers of people who need it is to deliver it to everyone.

Why not just make it free? I dunno. Why not just make the polio vaccine free?

Kids deserve protection. Making the lazy-parent option be protection rather than non-protection just makes sense, from the kids' point of view. Parents who are bound and bent to deny their children protection seem to be getting that option, if they can gather their wits and gird their loins and have a hearty breakfast and leave a number where they can be reached and make sure the refrigerator is well-stocked and go do battle with an internet site. Or write a letter. A lot of people still know how to do that, right? Or get one of their looneytune "pastors" to do it for them?

You are quite cute, you know.

I'm not sure whether anyone has actually said that opting out itself can be done on line; if so, you needn't eat your words.

[PLF]

31. You have obviously aligned yourself with Rick Perry and Merck so quit whining

about affiliation.

It is wrong to shove something down people's throats without a debate or anything.

[mondo joe]

33. I have aligned myself with Planned Parenthood.

Thank you.

[Junkdrawer]

35. As I said below, I'm undecided, BUT one does wonder why Perry...

did this thing without the Texas legislature - especially since it impacts citizens at such a personal level.

[Horse with no Name]

41. Perry undoubtedly did it to benefit himself

After all, he is a Republican's Republican.
However...this time, for once, his greed will benefit someone other than himself.
The only reason a vaccination has to be mandated is to fund it.
Anyone can opt out.
Texas is very backwards in some areas.
Even my "Democratic" congressman is publicly against this.
Perry did the legislature and the women of Texas a good service (for once) on this one.
Because of the sloped foreheaded, inbred folk in some sections of Texas...there is NO way this would ever pass the legislature because those Congressmen have to go home and indeed, the fundies and RW'ers would mobilize against ANYONE who voted for it.
It would be DOA.
However, it is necessary. Nobody HAS to take anything. But any woman that wants SHOULD be allowed to take it.

[antigop]

153. OMG! SINCE WHEN DO WE SUBVERT DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES!

SINCE WHEN?

It is absolutely unbelievable that ANYONE on DU would make the statement that "Perry did the legislature and the women of Texas a good service (for once) on this one."

Perry subverted the entire democratic process here. He mandated health policy with NO input/debate/vote from the legislature. Just because it wouldn't have passed the state lege, IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR PERRY to subvert the process.

Either we have democratic principles in this country or we don't. And the fact that people are willing to subvert the democratic process to achieve what they want is absolutely outrageous.

People bitch and moan about Bush's executive orders yet they give Perry a free pass when he does it. How hypocritical is that?

[antigop]

152. Perry did it because he grabbed power -- and people should be screaming about it n/t

[Horse with no Name]

37. Merck and Rick Perry

I could care less about either of them.
However...many women's groups are on board with this.
Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything they don't want to...but that isn't the message you came here to spread, is it?

[PLF]

46. You serve them well.

I am now wondering about your motivations in this whole debate.

[antigop]

151. It's a subversion of the democratic process

Governors should not be able to declare health policy -- NO GOVERNOR should.

Even with opt-out, a GOVERNOR DECLARED HEALTH POLICY WITH NO INPUT/DEBATE/VOTE FROM THE LEGISLATURE.

That should scare the hell out of everyone.

And people should be screaming about this.

[Junkdrawer]

24. FYI: Wiki on "Association of American Physicians and Surgeons"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons

And, for disclosure, I'm still waiting to read the cost/benefit analysis before I decide my position on Gardasil. I'm afraid that insurance companies will opt for a "bi-annual pap smears starting at age 24" instead of "yearly pap smears starting at 18" regimen and I want to see the differences in expected cancers for each.

[mhatrw]

140. All of these studies assume ZERO vaccination risks.

Please consider that when reading them.

In medical cost vs. benefit modeling (which strongly informs national medical public policy making and far too strongly informs the medical policies of HMOs), the most critical component is a value called "cost per life year gained."

If the cost per life year gained is under $50,000, that is generally considered a decent investment by US medical policy makers. If "cost per life year" gained is over $100,000, that is generally considered a wasteful medical policy because that money could surely be put to much better use elsewhere. Yes, this is cruel and heartless to some degree, but wide scale medical cost allocations do need to be made and, more relevantly, are continually made using these cost plus risk vs. benefit analyses. Think HMOs. Now consider why pap smears, blood tests and urine tests aren't recommended every month for everyone. Testing monthly could definitely save more than a few lives, and there is no measurable associated medical risk. But the cost would be astronomical versus the benefit over the entire US population when comparing these monthly tests to other therapies, procedures and medicines.

Now on to GARDASIL. By the time you pay doctors a small fee to inventory and deliver GARDASIL in three doses, you are talking about paying about $500 for this vaccine. And because even in the best case scenario GARDASIL can confer protection against only 70% of cervical cancer cases, GARDASIL cannot ever obsolete the HPV screening test that today is a major component of most US women's annually recommended pap smears. These tests screen for 36 nasty strains of HPV, while GARDASIL confers protection against just four strains of HPV.

Now let's consider GARDASIL's best case scenario at the moment -- about $500 per vaccine, 100% lifetime protection against all four HPV strains (we currently have no evidence for any protection over five years), and no risk of any medical complications for any subset of the population (Merck's GARADSIL studies were too small and short to make this determination for adults, these studies used potentially dangerous alum injections as their "placebo control" and GARDASIL was hardly even tested on little kids). Now, using these best case scenario assumptions for GARDASIL, let's compare the projected situation of a woman who gets a yearly HPV screening test starting at age 18 to a woman who gets a yearly HPV screening test starting at age 18 plus the three GARDASIL injections at age 11 to 12. Even if you include all of the potential medical cost savings from the projected reduction in genital wart and HPV dysplasia removal procedures and expensive cervical cancer procedures, medicines and therapies plus all of the indirect medical costs associated with all these ailments and net all of these savings against GARDASIL's costs, the best case numbers for these analyses come out to well over $200,000 per life year gained -- no matter how far the hopeful pro-GARDASIL assumptions that underpin these projections are tweaked in GARDASIL's favor.

Several studies have been done, and they have been published in several prestigious medical journals:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.290.6.781
http://tinyurl.com/2ovy95
http://tinyurl.com/2tbuma

None of these studies even so much as consider a strategy of GARDASIL plus a regimen of annual HPV screenings starting at age 18 to be worth mentioning (except to note how ridiculously expensive this would be compared to other currently recommended life extending procedures, medicines and therapies) because the cost per life year gained is simply far too high. What these studies instead show is that a regimen of GARDASIL plus delayed (to age 21, 22, 23, 25 or 27) biennial or triennial HPV screening tests may -- depending on what hopeful assumptions about GARDASIL's long term efficacy and risks are used -- hopefully result in a modest cost per life year savings compared to annual HPV screening tests starting at age 18.

If you don't believe me about this, just ask any responsible OB-GYN or medical model expert. Now, why do I think all of this is problematic?

1) Nobody is coming clean (except to the small segment of the US population that understands medical modeling) that the push for widespread mandatory HPV vaccination is based on assuming that we can use the partial protection against cervical cancer that these vaccines hopefully confer for hopefully a long, long time period to back off from recommending annual HPV screening tests starting at age 18 -- in order to save money, not lives.

2) Even in the best case scenario, the net effect is to give billions in tax dollars to Merck so HMOs and PPOs can save billions on HPV screening tests in the future.

3) These studies don't consider any potential costs associated with any potential GARDASIL risks. Even the slightest direct or indirect medical costs associated with any potential GARDASIL risks increase the cost per life year gained TREMENDOUSLY and can even easily change the entire analysis to cost per life year lost. Remember that unlike most medicines and therapies, vaccines are administered to a huge number of otherwise healthy people -- and, at least in this case, 99.99% of whom would never contract cervical cancer even without its protection.

4) These studies don't take in account the fact that better and more regular HPV screening tests have reduced the US cervical cancer rate by about 25% a decade over the last three decades and that there is no reason to believe that this trend would not continue in the future, especially if we used a small portion of the money we are planning on spending on GARDASIL to promote free annual HPV screening tests for all low income uninsured US women.

5) The studies assume that any constant cervical cancer death rate (rather than the downward trending cervical cancer death rate we have today) that results in a reduced cost per life year gained equates to sound medical public policy.

As I said before, if any of you don't believe me about this, please simply ask your OB-GYN how the $500 cost of GARDASIL can be justified on a cost per life year gained basis if we don't delay the onset of HPV screening tests and back off from annual HPV screening tests to biennial or triennial HPV screening tests.

The recommendations are already in: http://tinyurl.com/33p9q6

The USPSTF strongly recommends ... beginning screening within 3 years of onset of sexual activity or age 21 (whichever comes first) and screening at least every 3 years ...

[The2ndWheel]

23. Lindsay Bluth Funke not a signatory?

Would have made it funnier.

[mondo joe]

29. Hm, a bunch of far right whackos vs Planned Parenthood. I wonder

who has greater moral (and scientific) authority....?

[PLF]

34. hmmm, Rick Perry and a bunch of crooked lobbyists versus many people here at DU

So far I have yet to see a real argument coming from the Rick Perry pro-mandate Merck lobbyist crowd.

[mondo joe]

43. "Many people here at DU"

How many exactly?

[iverglas]

59. here's what the real question is

However the question becomes why does one have to go through the trouble of OPTING OUT when in reality it should be OPT IN.

Nope. The question is, and has been for some time now: why is anyone still asking this question when it has been answered several brazillian times right here in this forum?

BECAUSE IF IT IS NOT MADE "MANDATORY", i.e. required, with a provision for opting out, PRIVATE INSURANCE / GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE PROGRAMS WILL NOT COVER THE COST.

Apparently that's the way things work down there. (Where I'm at, if and when the govt decides to cover the cost, the vaccination will be called a "necessary medical service" by the feds, requiring the provincial health plans to cover it, or, if not, individual provincial health plans can simply decide to cover it.)

This seems like really, really, really simple stuff, even to a furriner like moi. And there just doesn't seem to be any excuse for somebody starting threads on this subject not knowing it ... or acting as if s/he didn't know it so that s/he can ask disingenuous questions ... I wouldn't know.

[Justitia]

78. They just keep posting the same BS, even 'tho we've answered OVER & OVER.

Never-ending stream of bullshit fed thru the backside of a table fan.

[Horse with no Name]

81. And invariably I let them suck me in

lol.:hi:

[Justitia]

85. I hear ya friend! I'm here too, aren't I? Same stuff, different day.

:hi:

[iverglas]

88. okay, so which one of you two

DIDN'T give me a heart?


edited -- I just figured this out. The right question would be: who gave me those hearts I gave youse guys??

Undoubtedly one of my fans in the gun dungeon ...

[Justitia]

90. hahaha

:spank:

[Horse with no Name]

93. HUGS!

;)And thank you!

[The Cleaner]

83. Why hello Justitia! Was wondering when you'd come around. Did you see my Post #68 re: Affidavit?

I researched it for you, and for an affidavit you have to 1) draw up a formal letter with bullet points stating your case, 2) have it notorized, and 3) send it on to the beaurocracy for them to call you back so you can state your case again. THEN maybe they will allow you to OPT OUT.

So much for your "it's easy, it's online" ditty! :)

[Justitia]

89. Did you read Perry's exec order where he makes the form available online? Guess not.

The form will be available online, which you can print off and mail in. Or fax, or hand deliver, etc.

But who cares, you're just pissed about the whole concept, so details don't really matter.

But, I'm not really up for going around and around in circles with you today.
I get your point - you hate the idea of the cancer vaccine and will yammer endlessly about that.

Is there anything "new" here?

[mondo joe]

92. Reading things is so much harder than making shit up!

Espercially when it doesn't support a lame argument!

[PLF]

96. I see you didn't read it either.

Just because you can request for an affadavit form to be sent to you, wether you make that request by phone or over the internet, doesn't mean it is still not an affadavit that you eventually have to work with.


Go read the damn exec. order.

[mondo joe]

105. Please state the process that will be required for this patricular affidavit.

See if you can do it without making shit up again.

[PLF]

108. Call Rick Perry, it's his executive order not mine.

:eyes:

And show me one place where I have made anything up.

[mondo joe]

112. So you don't know how easy or hard it will be at all?

[PLF]

122. We can only go with what is in the Exec. Order at this time, so nobody knows

not even you. The only thing we have to go on is the word affidavit but no process other than the request for one is in the executive order.

You are not getting anywhere with this.

[PLF]

95. Maybe you are the one that didn't actually read it

From the executive order:

Parents' Rights. The Department of State Health Services will, in order to protect the right of parents to be the final authority on their children's health care, modify the current process in order to allow parents to submit a request for a conscientious objection affidavit form via the Internet while maintaining privacy safeguards under current law.

read that one more time:

"allow parents to submit a request for a conscientious objection affidavit form"

So you can request to be sent an affadavit form over the internet. Big deal. The posters point stands.

[Justitia]

98. I've been saying the same thing for days.

But you've barely been here long enough to probably have read all that stuff.

And I see you are the kind that likes to make physical threats to other posters.

So, I'm not interested in debating back & forth with you at all.

[PLF]

106. By then.

[The Cleaner]

110. No, you've been screaming through threads yelling, "It's easy! It's online!"

And now you're back tracking. Lame.

Requesting an affadavit form to be SENT TO YOU IN THE POSTAL MAIL via the Internet is NOT the same thing as "filling out a form online" which you kept screaming out. And now you're caught in your own mistake and you're trying to weasel out of it. Now you must admit it's not as easy as you made it sound.

Not to mention that many poor people don't have a permanent address, thus they have no recourse, thus they are essentially used as guinea pigs. Get it?

Oh well, have a good day! :)

[Justitia]

113. Wrong 'bout that. Hyperbole is yours. But thanks anyway for the heart!

I knew you liked me.

:blush:

How's Plano? I used to live there. Still flat and barren?

[The Cleaner]

118. Yeah yeah yeah. Plano?

I'm in east plano, pretty much as you describe. Getting built up though. Not sure how long it's been since you've lived here but there's construction everywhere. I've got relatives in Amarillo though, talk about flat and barren. Bad water too.

[iverglas]

121. Plano! Plano! I've been there!

Twice! One wedding and a funeral! East Plano, west Plano, all around the town Plano! Not going back! Ever! And not just because I fell victim to a swarm of truly horrific fire ants.

I still haven't figured out how you actually tell when you're in Plano and when you're not ... but I figure that if I do ever find myself in the vicinity someday in future, it shouldn't be too hard to avoid actually being in it.

But hey. It kinda beat Moline, Illinois. I'll give it that.

[The Cleaner]

123. Haha!

Fire ants! Yep you gotta watch out for them. They make these big mounds particularly in the springtime and if you knock the mound or (god forbid) step on the mound literally THOUSANDS will instantly rush out and cover you and bite and sting you causing huge itchy welts. Most here know how nasty they are and avoid them which is easy once you know what their mounds look like. I like to drop a stick on the mound and watch it become instantly covered with the creepy crawlies.

Sorry you had a bad Plano experience - but remember there's tons of restaurants around here, the most per capita in the entire U.S.

I digress...

[Lurking Dem]

124. I graduated from Plano.

Of course, there was only one high school in Plano when I graduated. *sigh*

My fire ant experience, however, was in Rowlett. Swingin' place, that. :eyes:

[iverglas]

129. restaurants? in Plano??

You're counting Taco Bell, right? (Actually, my bad Taco Bell experience was in Alabama, so that's another story.)

We couldn't find a danged place to eat after 10 pm. Yes, we finally found a McDonalds. That was just before 1990. I may have eaten at a McDonalds since then, but not so's I'd need more than one appendage to count the number of times.

Now, I did find a not too bad non-chain Chinese restaurant, I gotta admit.

Just generally speaking, though, I'd be hard pressed to name a good restaurant I've eaten at in the US, outside of DC, where I have to agree I found one of my favourite all-time restaurants ever. Wasn't even impressed by New Orleans. Mind you, it's been 30 years since I was in NYC ... but that was fun. The serving staff where we went to have good big steaks, the day before my friend moved back to London from Toronto, decided to stage a brawl in the aisles. Local colour, I guess. And I've had good eats in Portland, Maine (when you don't eat seafood, you don't get to judge really). If only they'd all stop trying to persuade me that California white is actually drinkable. (No more is Ontario white, I hasten to add.)

Drove to Florida three years ago; compulsory trip. Took the opportunity to meet and visit net friends along the way -- Baltimore, DC, North Carolina x 2. The plan was to make them showcase their favourite local eating places, us expecting variations on southern. Well. Chain Chinese and Italian in North Carolina ... yuppie joints in DC and Baltimore ... where is the regional cuisine??? Gone all gone, it seems to me. Maybe one day I'll hunt up that tamale place on the road from Dallas to Austin again ...

Now, come visit me, and within three blocks in all directions we'll have several dozen pokey and flashy Chinese/Vietnamese places, a couple of Indian, a whole street of Italian with a Moroccan smack in the middle, the new Somali we gotta try, and of course the Harvey's and Quizno's. And a chip wagon if you want genuine Canadian cuisine. ;)



That's French-Canadian, of course. If you want English-Canadian:



damn I'm hungry.

Anyhow, the fire ants got me when I decided to go sit on a log at the bottom of an arroyo at the end of the out-laws' street to get away from the wedding crap. Wouldn't have mattered what I'd done; I appear to be one of the people they like to eat. My next attack was in the middle of a paved parking lot as I loaded food into the trunk ...

[The Cleaner]

103. Do you have a link to that online opt-out affidavit?

Neither do I. Because you have no proof of that. And when asked to back yourself up you refuse and throw it back on the other person. I have not been able to find that. If you see it please post it. :)

But the burning question: Many poor do not have access to online. Many don't have permanent addresses. How the hell are they supposed to opt out if they want to? ANSWER: They can't. They become guinea pigs of the state and of Merck. That's not very Democratic in my opinion. That's abusing the poor.

[Justitia]

107. The exec order states it will become available online before necessary.

But, would any answer be acceptable to you? NO, because you don't like this vaccine, I get it.

Any vaccine can be opted-out of in Texas by filing a piece of paper. This one they will make even easier. Does this refute the idea that people are going to hold your children down and vaccinate them? Of course, but that's not really your argument is it?

You just don't like this vaccine - we get it.

[PLF]

109. Wrong Again. Here's what the order actually states:

Parents' Rights. The Department of State Health Services will, in order to protect the right of parents to be the final authority on their children's health care, modify the current process in order to allow parents to submit a request for a conscientious objection affidavit form via the Internet while maintaining privacy safeguards under current law.


All you can do online is submit a REQUEST for an conscientious objection affidavit form.

[Justitia]

111. You've replied to the wrong poster.

Because I told you I don't debate people who physically threaten others.

Please direct your responses elsewhere.

[mhatrw]

94. Then HOW COME WASHINGTON STATE CAN DO IT OPT IN???

You are 100% wrong on this, and you people are so transparent:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4530059.html

The vaccine against the virus cited as the cause of most cervical cancer will be offered free to girls in Washington state, but there are no plans to make vaccination mandatory as in Texas, authorities said.

[Horse with no Name]

99. Duh

Because Texas won't pay for it? What's so hard to understand about that?
If you looked upthread, you find that South Dakota and New Hampshire will pay for it as well.
However, the issue of vaccination is a state issue. I know I've told you this before.:eyes:

[The Cleaner]

119. The poster is trying to say, if Washington State can pay for it, why can't Texas?

which would resolve the controversy.

Which also makes Perry look sketchy in his dealings with Merck. Which also makes guinea pigs out of the poor because many don't have access to the Internet, don't have permanent addresses, and don't know where to find a notary for the affidavit.

[mondo joe]

141. Different system, different economy, different laws.

Doesn't matter - it is what it is.

[rinsd]

100. Oh that's right Washington and Texas are the same state!

They share the same laws governing state health organizations and the covering of COST for vaccines.

We just keep them in different geogrpahical locations with different names to confuse anti-vaccine activists like Bob Barr and the Save Schiavo brigade!

:eyes:

[mhatrw]

125. If they don't share the same laws about this, they can change the law.

What exactly is stopping them?

[mondo joe]

126. Maybe they have a different view of their laws.

Or maybe they think think the mandate is a good idea.

[mhatrw]

130. Who? The legislature hasn't even voted on the mandate.

If the Texas legislature thought this was a good idea, why did Perry have to do his "end around" them?

[mondo joe]

135. So as to not deal with the whack job anti-sex crew.

Y'know.

[mhatrw]

137. Or the facts about GARDASIL.

Y'know:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=192377&mesg_id=192890

[mondo joe]

138. Don't confuse your made up numbers with facts.

Thank you.

[mhatrw]

159. Very scientific rebuttal.

Thank you.

[mondo joe]

162. Your fantasy numbers do not merit scientific rebuttal.

You'd have to post some real science first.

[mhatrw]

166. Here are the numbers. Here is the evidence.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.290.6.781
http://tinyurl.com/2ovy95
http://tinyurl.com/2tbuma

You can't touch ANYTHING I've said. Whenever I "make up numbers" (and I only "made up" one number in order to illustrate potential unknown and currently unknowable GARDASIL risks) I was perfectly explicit about it. You simply can't touch anything I asserted, so you resort to generalized accusations.

[PLF]

101. Because Iverglas deosn't want to acknowledge that

[iverglas]

117. oooo, it's another mind reader!

I understand what I understand on what appear to be fairly good sources, some of whom appear to have tried to explain it some more. I don't rightly know what it is that I'm not wanting to acknowledge, but I have no doubt that you have this from impeccable sources, so I wouldn't want to argue the point.

Me, I'm waiting for the Health Canada committee to decide on the protocol for administering the vaccine -- specifically, age at which to do it -- and then we'll see how the feds (which can essentially mandate the provision of particular medical services by calling them "necessary" and wielding its spending power to threaten withdrawal of funding from provinces that don't comply) and/or the provinces (which actually operate the health plans here) handle the situation.

Just not expecting a whole lot of pissing and moaning about it, hereabouts. If it's covered -- I will express discontent if it's not -- I don't expect to see many people refusing it.

I'd probably recommend that my 10-yr-old niece not receive it. She is being treated, badly, for Lyme disease. Compromised immune system and all that. Don't expect that an MD would want to administer it in the circumstances.

[mhatrw]

104. GARDASIL = Give billions to Merck to save billions on HPV screening tests!

GARDASIL is all about saving money, based on best case projections about its efficacy, period of efficacy and assumptions that it has no non-neglible long medical risks for either the adult women it was tested on or the pre-teen girls that it was not tested on. It is not about saving lives.

In medical cost vs. benefit modeling (which strongly informs national medical public policy making and far too strongly informs the medical policies of HMOs), the most critical component is a value called "cost per life year gained."

If the cost per life year gained is under $50,000, that is generally considered a decent investment by US medical policy makers. If "cost per life year" gained is over $100,000, that is generally considered a wasteful medical policy because that money could surely be put to much better use elsewhere. Yes, this is cruel and heartless to some degree, but wide scale medical cost allocations do need to be made and, more relevantly, are continually made using these cost plus risk vs. benefit analyses. Think HMOs. Now consider why pap smears, blood tests and urine tests aren't recommended every month for everyone. Testing monthly could definitely save more than a few lives, and there is no measurable associated medical risk. But the cost would be astronomical versus the benefit over the entire US population when comparing these monthly tests to other therapies, procedures and medicines.

Now on to GARDASIL. By the time you pay doctors a small fee to inventory and deliver GARDASIL in three doses, you are talking about paying about $500 for this vaccine. And because even in the best case scenario GARDASIL can confer protection against only 70% of cervical cancer cases, GARDASIL cannot ever obsolete the HPV screening test that today is a major component of most US women's annually recommended pap smears. These tests screen for 36 nasty strains of HPV, while GARDASIL confers protection against just four strains of HPV.

Now let's consider GARDASIL's best case scenario at the moment -- about $500 per vaccine, 100% lifetime protection against all four HPV strains (we currently have no evidence for any protection over five years), and no risk of any medical complications for any subset of the population (Merck's GARADSIL studies were too small and short to make this determination for adults, these studies used potentially dangerous alum injections as their "placebo control" and GARDASIL was hardly even tested on little kids). Now, using these best case scenario assumptions for GARDASIL, let's compare the projected situation of a woman who gets a yearly HPV screening test starting at age 18 to a woman who gets a yearly HPV screening test starting at age 18 plus the three GARDASIL injections at age 11 to 12. Even if you include all of the potential medical cost savings from the projected reduction in genital wart and HPV dysplasia removal procedures and expensive cervical cancer procedures, medicines and therapies plus all of the indirect medical costs associated with all these ailments and net all of these savings against GARDASIL's costs, the best case numbers for these analyses come out to well over $200,000 per life year gained -- no matter how far the hopeful pro-GARDASIL assumptions that underpin these projections are tweaked in GARDASIL's favor.

Several studies have been done, and they have been published in several prestigious medical journals:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.290.6.781
http://tinyurl.com/2ovy95
http://tinyurl.com/2tbuma

None of these studies even so much as consider a strategy of GARDASIL plus a regimen of annual HPV screenings starting at age 18 to be worth mentioning (except to note how ridiculously expensive this would be compared to other currently recommended life extending procedures, medicines and therapies) because the cost per life year gained is simply far too high. What these studies instead show is that a regimen of GARDASIL plus delayed (to age 21, 22, 23, 25 or 27) biennial or triennial HPV screening tests may -- depending on what hopeful assumptions about GARDASIL's long term efficacy and risks are used -- hopefully result in a modest cost per life year savings compared to annual HPV screening tests starting at age 18.

If you don't believe me about this, just ask any responsible OB-GYN or medical model expert. Now, why do I think all of this is problematic?

1) Nobody is coming clean (except to the small segment of the US population that understands medical modeling) that the push for widespread mandatory HPV vaccination is based on assuming that we can use the partial protection against cervical cancer that these vaccines hopefully confer for hopefully a long, long time period to back off from recommending annual HPV screening tests starting at age 18 -- in order to save money, not lives.

2) Even in the best case scenario, the net effect is to give billions in tax dollars to Merck so HMOs and PPOs can save billions on HPV screening tests in the future.

3) These studies don't consider any potential costs associated with any potential GARDASIL risks. Even the slightest direct or indirect medical costs associated with any potential GARDASIL risks increase the cost per life year gained TREMENDOUSLY and can even easily change the entire analysis to cost per life year lost. Remember that unlike most medicines and therapies, vaccines are administered to a huge number of otherwise healthy people -- and, at least in this case, 99.99% of whom would never contract cervical cancer even without its protection.

4) These studies don't take in account the fact that better and more regular HPV screening tests have reduced the US cervical cancer rate by about 25% a decade over the last three decades and that there is no reason to believe that this trend would not continue in the future, especially if we used a small portion of the money we are planning on spending on GARDASIL to promote free annual HPV screening tests for all low income uninsured US women.

5) The studies assume that any constant cervical cancer death rate (rather than the downward trending cervical cancer death rate we have today) that results in a reduced cost per life year gained equates to sound medical public policy.

As I said before, if any of you don't believe me about this, please simply ask your OB-GYN how the $500 cost of GARDASIL can be justified on a cost per life year gained basis if we don't delay the onset of HPV screening tests and back off from annual HPV screening tests to biennial or triennial HPV screening tests.

The recommendations are already in: http://tinyurl.com/33p9q6

The USPSTF strongly recommends ... beginning screening within 3 years of onset of sexual activity or age 21 (whichever comes first) and screening at least every 3 years ...

[mondo joe]

114. Didn't someone drop a house on you in your last women-hating made-up-shit

thread?

[Justitia]

116. OMG - ROFL!!!

[mhatrw]

133. Yes. A bunch of pro-mandatory-injections of an-unproven-vaccine for-all-preteens,

pro-Merck types tried to silence me with a groundswell of vicious personal attacks.

They even ended up getting one of my threads locked because it was so damaging to Merck's cause:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=164655

Thanks for noticing!

[mondo joe]

134. So far the only damage to your threads are your made up numbers and nasty

anti-sex spewing.

[walldude]

144. I've missed most of this fun but let me see if I have this straight,

Pro-Merck types on DU tried to silence you and got your thread locked. So you are saying that the pharmaceutical companies have trolls on Du who are trying to silence your opinion? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: You forgot your :tinfoilhat:

[mhatrw]

161. Just look at the evidence.

Judge for yourself who got this thread locked and why:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=164655

[iverglas]

120. the false dichotomy rears its ugly heads once again

hahahaha, I'm a laugh riot when I've been up all night.

GARDASIL is all about saving money ... . It is not about saving lives.

I'm still waiting. How many people died of polio every year before the vaccine was introduced, for instance?

Let's try these:

http://www.cispimmunize.org/fam/facts/Compare%20the%20Risks.pdf

Polio:
Polio Vaccine:
Before Vaccine: 13,000-20,000 cases of paralytic polio per year in US
Permanent paralysis: 2 in 100
Death: 1 in 20 children and 1 in 4 adults with paralytic
polio.

I dunno, let's say 20,000 cases, half and half children/adults.

1 in 4, for 10,000, is 2500
1 in 20, for 10,000, is 500

That's 3,000 deaths a year, and those are totally hokey numbers -- we know how you love that kind of numbers -- undoubtedly grossly overestimating adult disease/death numbers, and probably also what we could do with treating polio to prevent disability these days. Kinda like how we do with treating those dysplasias, y'know?

Now, the US population is of course much bigger than it was at the time of those figures. Let's double 'em: 6,000 deaths a year.

Huh. For that, you vaccinate millions upon millions of children. Surely keeping the kids out of swimming pools would be cheaper and safer and far easier.

Anyhow, back to the false dichotomy.

- spend money on the HPV vaccination program
or
- put up with a few thousand deaths

There's just something missing from that little hermetically sealed binary-choice thingy.

Most of us know, *and* acknowledge, that it's really

- spend money on the HPV vaccination program
or
- put up with a few thousand deaths, and quite a few more thousand women undergoing expensive, painful and frequently permanently debilitating treatments to prevent death

Okay, now it's your turn; change the subject. It isn't about money, it's about ... about ... aluminum.


... to back off from recommending annual HPV screening tests starting at age 18 -- in order to save money, not lives.

Huh. Another false dichotomy? Where I'm at:

http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/ohip/bulletins/4000/bul4317a.html
Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care

What does OHIP cover?

OHIP covers one normal Papanicolaou (or Pap) smear per year. When the results are not normal, follow-up Pap smears at more frequent intervals are also covered by OHIP. In addition, Pap smears that are included in the consultation or assessment fee will continue to be covered.

What is not covered?

Beginning on July 1, 1998, OHIP will no longer pay for repeated screening Pap smears within one year for healthy patients at low risk for cervical cancer. Only the first one will be reimbursed. Physicians sometimes include a Pap smear as part of a different billing, i.e., consultation or assessment, and that is not affected.

Why?

Pap smears are a screening test for cervical cancer. Like many other forms of cancer, annual screening is recommended for certain age groups because early detection and treatment are important.

Screening more frequently than once annually has not been shown to improve the rate of early detection, except for patients with a preceding abnormal smear or other risk factor. Repeated in-year normal pap smears are therefore not medically necessary.

While only a small percentage of women are receiving pap tests more often than necessary, in fact a large number of women do not receive adequate testing according to guidelines. Check with your doctor and make sure you are receiving this life-saving test at regular intervals.

And I assure you, I'd just love to see what would hit the fan if the gummint here decided to discontinue coverage of annual Pap smears for women who had been vaccinated against HPV ...


Even the slightest direct or indirect medical costs associated with any potential GARDASIL risks increase the cost per life year gained TREMENDOUSLY and can even easily change the entire analysis to cost per life year lost.

And if even ONE faerie sets up shop in my vegetable garden and starts chomping on the tomatoes, I'm going to be spending a bunch of dough at the grocery store ...

[mhatrw]

136. Polio was crippling thousands of little kids.

Plus, it's a contagious disease that can spread through a classroom simply via casual contact. And tell us, how many children were tested before the Salk vaccine was made mandatory?

Nice try though.

[mondo joe]

139. Your problem is that not enough women are dying of cervical cancer?

Nice.

[mhatrw]

160. My problem is that GARDASIL's risks & costs currently outweigh its benefits. n/t

[iverglas]

143. ya sure iz good at tellin other fokes to read

But ya don't read so good yrself?

Polio was crippling thousands of little kids.

Missed what was in my post? Didn't like it? Got something better?

Before Vaccine: 13,000-20,000 cases of paralytic polio per year in US
Permanent paralysis: 2 in 100
Death: 1 in 20 children and 1 in 4 adults with paralytic polio.

There are 200 100s in 20,000.

2x200 = 400

Not a thousand, and sure as hell not "thousands". Not per year, which seems to be what you like to talk about.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio#Paralytic_polio

In most cases, paralysis due to polio infection is temporary, and nearby surviving neurons sprout to reinnervate the denervated muscle, by growing "superclustered" axons, to replace those that have died. The usual recovery period is three to six months. The additional stress of recovery on the surviving motor neurons may precipitate the later developing symptoms of post-polio syndrome. Fifty percent of patients with paralytic polio recover fully, 40% recover only partially (of these 25% are left with temporary paralysis and 15% are left with permanent paralysis); 2%–5% of children, and up to 15%–30% of adults die. Any paralysis which remains after one year is likely to be permanent, but recoveries even after a decade have been known.

http://medicine.science-tips.org/health/diseases-and-conditions/polio.html

This killer disease can infect a person at any age but the great majority of victims, over 50 percent, occur in children between the ages of three and five.

It usually takes the poliovirus three to 35 days to incubate, from the time a person is first exposed to the virus until the first symptoms appear. Among the early symptoms of poliovirus infection are fatigue, fever, vomiting, headache and pain in the neck and extremities. Around 1% of unimmunized people develop paralytic complications, in some cases bulbar paralysis. Most infected people show no outward signs of the illness and, as such, are largely unaware that they have been infected. ...

Among polio sufferers, 90% show no or almost no symptoms or show symptoms that are indistinguishable from influenza; 9% have non-paralytic polio; 1% have spinal or bulbar polio, of which: 10% die, 50% recover fully and 40% are left with only partial recovery or permanent paralysis; 0.4% of polio patients who are left with permanent paralysis are afflicted in either or both lower limbs; quadriplegia or resipiratory paralysis occur on only 0.01% (1 in 10,000) of all polio patients.

Guess it's just lucky that vaccine's cheap, or you'd be telling us a few disabled and dead children really aren't worth bothering our heads about.



And tell us, when was the polio vaccine first made mandatory?

I don't really quite get this. Since the figures I cited were PRE mandatory vaccination, why would the answer to that question matter?

[mondo joe]

127. Does Texas mandate hepatitis B vaccine?

Anyone know?

[Justitia]

132. Yup, they sure do! So do 47 other states! Same deal, huh? -eom

[TZ]

142. Two words why this group is bad...

Bob Barr!! That guys a real right wing maniac!! Seriously, he makes Delay look like a moderate. I would have to oppose this group on that principle alone!!!

[xchrom]

145. more states looking to mandate vaccine...

The District, Virginia and Maryland are at the forefront of a growing nationwide effort to encourage or even require adolescent girls to receive the new cervical cancer vaccine -- the first vaccine ever developed specifically to prevent cancer.

In the seven months since the federal government approved the vaccine for human papillomavirus, or HPV, the virus that causes cervical cancer, half a dozen states have introduced legislation that would mandate immunization of students by the middle school grades. Several others are making doses, which cost $360 for the full regimen of three injections over six months, available at no charge.
The HPV Vaccine
The D.C. Council introduced a bill Monday that would require girls to be vaccinated before the start of sixth grade against a virus that can cause cervical cancer. Some background information:
What is the vaccine?
The vaccine, known as Gardasil, is designed to protect against human papillomavirus (HPV), a sexually transmitted virus that can cause genital warts and cervical cancer. The protection is said to work against four of the more than 100 strains of HPV, but they cause 70 percent of all cervical cancers.
How common is cervical cancer?
The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2006, cervical cancer was diagnosed in 9,700 women, and 3,700 died of the disease. The national incidence rate is 8.8 per 100,000 females; the District's rate is 13.5 per 100,000. African American women have the highest death rate of any group.
How is the vaccine administered?
The vaccine is given in three injections over six months. The second and third doses should be given two and six months after the first dose.
How much does it cost?
The vaccine costs about $360, or $120 a dose. Not all private insurance plans pay for the vaccine, although it is provided without charge through public programs for low-income, uninsured and under-insured children.
Why now?
In June, the Food and Drug Administration approved Gardasil for women and girls ages 9 to 26, making it the first vaccine marketed specifically to prevent a cancer. Because the vaccine is most effective when administered before an individual becomes sexually active, experts recommend that girls start getting it at 11 or 12.
SOURCES: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Cancer Society, Balm in Gilead


k

"It's red hot, coming fast," said former Maryland senator Gloria G. Lawlah, immediate past chairwoman of a national group of female state lawmakers who have pushed legislatures to increase public awareness of and testing for cervical cancer.

This week, the District became the latest jurisdiction to propose adding the vaccine to the list of shots girls would have to get before enrolling in the sixth grade. Yesterday, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) voiced his support, saying hearings to flesh out the program should satisfy parental concerns.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011101981.html

HPV Vaccine
The D.C. Council introduced a bill Monday that would require girls to be vaccinated before the start of sixth grade against a virus that can cause cervical cancer. Some background information:
What is the vaccine?
The vaccine, known as Gardasil, is designed to protect against human papillomavirus (HPV), a sexually transmitted virus that can cause genital warts and cervical cancer. The protection is said to work against four of the more than 100 strains of HPV, but they cause 70 percent of all cervical cancers.
How common is cervical cancer?
The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2006, cervical cancer was diagnosed in 9,700 women, and 3,700 died of the disease. The national incidence rate is 8.8 per 100,000 females; the District's rate is 13.5 per 100,000. African American women have the highest death rate of any group.
How is the vaccine administered?
The vaccine is given in three injections over six months. The second and third doses should be given two and six months after the first dose.
How much does it cost?
The vaccine costs about $360, or $120 a dose. Not all private insurance plans pay for the vaccine, although it is provided without charge through public programs for low-income, uninsured and under-insured children.
Why now?
In June, the Food and Drug Administration approved Gardasil for women and girls ages 9 to 26, making it the first vaccine marketed specifically to prevent a cancer. Because the vaccine is most effective when administered before an individual becomes sexually active, experts recommend that girls start getting it at 11 or 12.
SOURCES: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Cancer Society, Balm in Gilead

[xchrom]

146. boys WILL be getting the vaccine

HPV: favorable data for male vaccination; VFC action; CDC shift in research focus

A paper published in the November issue of the journal Pediatrics includes new data from Merck on some of their ongoing trials of Gardasil in different populations. It's a highly technical paper with an equally complex title: "Comparison of the Immunogenicity and Reactogenicity of a Prophylactic Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus (Types 6, 11, 16, and 18) L1 Virus-Like Particle Vaccine in Male and Female Adolescents and Young Adult Women." (free abstract; subscription required for full-text).
To summarize, the paper reports the results of trials examining whether the vaccine's response in 10-15 year olds mirrors what's been shown in older females (16-23 year-olds). The short answer is that it does generate a comparable ('noninferior,' in scientific jargon) immune response in younger populations. Good news. The most interesting finding from the perspective of potential ethical issues is the comparison of data between 10-15 year old boys versus girls. Boys had a nearly identical response to the vaccine as their female counterparts did as well as a virtually identical safety profile between genders. As the paper's authors (all of whom are employees or consultants of Merck, critics might note, despite that being an obvious result of a Merck trial) note:

"Our findings in boys lend support for implementation of gender-neutral immunization using this vaccine for the purpose of preventing the widespread morbidity and mortality from anogenital cancer, as well as dysplastic cervical and external genital lesions, in the general population."
Speaking of Gardasil, news earlier this week that the vaccine has officially been added to the federal government's Vaccines for Children program, ensuring its availability to uninsured children age 18 or under. Here's a brief story from UPI.
One final related item: a story from Wednesday's Washington Post, "CDC Shifts Vaccine-Data Focus," reports on the decision to refocus intensive data-collection activities on immunization in 22 major cities on teenagers rather than young children. The move is a result of multiple new vaccines recommended for adolescents, including vaccines against HPV, meningococcus, and tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis (Tdap).

Labels: CDC, Gardasil, HPV, Pediatrics (journal)

http://www.vaccineethics.org/labels/Gardasil.html

[xchrom]

147. just some of what vaccines have done for humanity.

http://blogs.cgdev.org/globalhealth/

January 22, 2007
Hundreds of Thousands Saved: A Measles Success Story

The numbers are in! The Measles Initiative, which set out to halve the global measles burden between 1999 and 2005, has surpassed its goal with a 60 percent reduction. A new Lancet study (subscription required) reports an estimated drop in measles deaths from 873,000 in 1999 to 345,000 in 2005 (based on a natural history model to evaluate mortality trends).

For related coverage, see The Economist, the Washington Post, the New York Times and elsewhere. But also be sure to check out CGD's Millions Saved for a detailed account of how measles was nearly eliminated in seven southern African countries in the late 1990s. The case study suggests some key ingredients for the intervention's success: the commitment of governments, the strengthening of surveillance systems, and the integration of measles vaccinations with other health services. Some of these reasons are echoed by WHO director Margaret Chan in an International Herald Tribune op-ed on the more recent Measles Initiative success. She said that "it took a new partnership - with commitment, caring and cash - to turn things around," and noted that the success in countries was aided by their ability to build on the strategies and infrastructure of existing health programs and services.

As usual in public health, this success implies more work to be done. In a good sign that past successes are being used to inform future aims, the Measles Initiative has already set a new goal of reducing measles mortality 90 percent by 2010. Margaret Chan is optimistic that the new measles target will be achieved; so am I.


http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/vaccinedevelopment/overview

Nowhere are the potential benefits greater than in the production and distribution of new vaccines to prevent the diseases that needlessly take lives and destroy livelihoods in developing countries.

In 2003 we established a Working Group, including economists, public health professionals, lawyers, experts in public policy and pharmaceutical and biotech experts, with the mandate to develop a practical approach to the vaccine challenge: to go from ideas to action. The result is this report.

My colleagues propose an elegant solution to enable the high income countries to work together to accelerate the development of vaccines for diseases of low-income countries to guarantee to pay for such vaccines if and when they are developed. The solution is simple and practical. It unleashes the same combination of market incentives and public investment that creates medicines for diseases that afflict us: arrangements that have been spectacularly effective in improving the health of the rich nations in the last century. It creates incentives for more private investment in these diseases. And it will ensure that, once a vaccine is developed, the funds will be there to get the vaccine to the people who need it.

Adequate investment in global public goods should be a cornerstone of foreign assistance. By definition, we all benefit from global public goods, and we share a responsibility to see that they are properly funded and available to everyone. These are investments with high returns and low risks of corruption and appropriation. Furthermore, this proposal ties funding directly to results: if the commitment does not succeed, there is no cost to the sponsors.

Every so often, an idea comes along that makes you ask: now why didn't I think of that? This is such an idea.
Nancy Birdsall
President


http://www.savekids.org/vaccines/v.html

the above site is comprehensive in recording both past achievements and current achievements for saving millions of lives through vaccinations.
truly a remarkable human achievement.

this describes an effort to save 5 MILLION CHILDREN through vaccination
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/news/files/pressreleases/iffi-bond.asp

The first step was taken today to raise funds for a mass immunisation programme for children in the developing world, at a ceremony in London attended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, Queen Rania Al-Abdullah of Jordan, and representatives of Britain’s faith groups.
The International Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm) will deliver 4 billion dollars over the next ten years to be spent on the immunisation of up to 500 million children in the world’s 70 poorest countries against preventable diseases like polio, measles and diphtheria. It is estimated this will save 5 million lives in the years up to 2015, and a further 5 million afterwards, and lead to the eradication of polio.
Speaking in advance of the launch, the Chancellor said:
"Millions of people campaigned to Make Poverty History last year, and now we can say to them all: we are delivering the promises we made, your hopes are becoming a reality, and millions of young children's lives will be saved as a result."
IFFIm uses long-term, binding commitments from donors as collateral against which to borrow money up front from institutional and private investors, which can be spent immediately on mass vaccination programmes. Commitments have so far been made by the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Brazil and South Africa, together with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The first step was taken today to raise funds for a mass immunisation programme for children in the developing world, at a ceremony in London attended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, Queen Rania Al-Abdullah of Jordan, and representatives of Britain’s faith groups.
The International Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm) will deliver 4 billion dollars over the next ten years to be spent on the immunisation of up to 500 million children in the world’s 70 poorest countries against preventable diseases like polio, measles and diphtheria. It is estimated this will save 5 million lives in the years up to 2015, and a further 5 million afterwards, and lead to the eradication of polio.
Speaking in advance of the launch, the Chancellor said:
"Millions of people campaigned to Make Poverty History last year, and now we can say to them all: we are delivering the promises we made, your hopes are becoming a reality, and millions of young children's lives will be saved as a result."
IFFIm uses long-term, binding commitments from donors as collateral against which to borrow money up front from institutional and private investors, which can be spent immediately on mass vaccination programmes. Commitments have so far been made by the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Brazil and South Africa, together with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.


''Vaccines have been one of the most important health gains in the past century. Infants and young children are particularly vulnerable to infectious diseases; that is why it is critical that they are protected through immunization. The benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks. Children who are not immunized increase the chance that others will get the disease. Since this effort 50 years ago, we can now protect children from more than 12 vaccine-preventable diseases, and disease rates have been reduced by 99% in the United States. Immunizations are extremely safe thanks to advancements in medical research and ongoing review by doctors, researchers, and public health officials; yet without diligent efforts to maintain immunization programs here and strengthen them worldwide, the diseases seen 50 years ago remain a threat to our children.''
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/events/polio-vacc-50th/

the above quote is from the cdc re: the fiftieth anniversary of the polio vaccine and takes in the scope of what vaccines have brought humanity -- millions have been saved -- and many millions more will be through hard work and determination.

[xchrom]

148. this vaccine WILL go global -- along with another vaccine

coming out shortly from glaxo-smith kline.

and by the way a french company partnered in creating this vaccine

HPV vaccines
Vaccines are being developed to prevent HPV infection.  There are many different HPV strains.  Some are known to be high risk for cervical cancer.  If we had effective vaccines against all these strains, we might be able to prevent cervical cancer altogether.  Several research trials have been testing vaccines as a way of preventing infection with HPV.
A trial testing Gardasil called FUTURE II reported its results in October 2005.  This phase 3 trial involved over 12,000 women aged between 16 and 26.  These women did not have HPV before the start of the trial.  The women were divided into two groups.  Half the women were given Gardasil and the other half had a dummy vaccine (placebo).  Both groups of women had 3 injections of either the vaccine or placebo over six months.  Over the following two years the women had regular checks to see if they had developed HPV, or had any precancerous changes to the cells of the cervix, which could develop into a cancer.  The group who had the vaccine showed no precancerous changes.  Of the 5,258 women who had the placebo, 21 had precancerous changes, which is 0.4%.  The researchers found that Gardasil protected against HPV types 6 and 11, as well as 16 and 18.  Gardasil was licensed for use within the European Union in September 2006.  
Two other phase 3 trials have tested the vaccine Cervarix.  The first was for women under 26 and closed in July 2005.  It involved over 18,000 women from all over the world, including the UK.  This study was called ‘PATRICIA’ (PApilloma TRIal to prevent Cervical cancer In young Adults).   The second was for women of 26 and over, and closed in August 2006.  The aim of the trial is to find out the effect of the Cervarix vaccine on long term HPV infection. So it will be some time before we know the results.
It is possible that these vaccines will be used in a national vaccination programme in the UK in the future.  The research suggests that they would dramatically lower the number of cases of cervical cancer.  They would also reduce the need for colposcopy.  At the moment, they are only available on private prescription.  There is more information about HPV vaccines and cervical cancer in the cervical cancer questions and answers section of CancerHelp UK.
http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default_printer_friend.asp?page=9596

merck is not the only company who developed this vaccine -- a french drug company was also the developer

Comparable strategies needed to evaluate human papillomavirus vaccine efficiency across Europe

K Soldan1 ([e-mail]), J Dillner2

1Health Protection Agency Centre for Infections, London, United Kingdom
2Dept of Medical Microbiology, MAS University Hospital, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden
A quadrivalent vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16, 18, 6 and 11, known as GardasilTM (or Silgard, see note) was granted a marketing license by the European Commission in September 2006 following the positive opinion of the European Medicines Agency’s (EMEA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use in July 2006 <1>.

HPV infection is the most frequent sexually transmitted infection in Europe. Certain HPV types have been established as causative agents of cervical cancer (and its precursor stages that are the target of cervical screening), as well as of some other rare cancers of the ano-genital tract and oral cavity. A meta-analysis of published studies found just over 70% of invasive cervical cancer cases in Europe to be positive for HPV types 16 or 18 <2>. Pre-cancerous stages of cervical disease are common and often resolve with time. However, their follow-up, including treatment, repeated screening and examination of the cervix (colposcopy), is associated with considerable costs and anxiety. HPV 6 and 11 are not causally linked to cervical cancer, but are associated with some low-grade cervical lesions, the vast majority of genital warts and the rare condition of recurrent respiratory papillomatosis <3>.

The Gardasil vaccine is composed of virus-like particles (VLP) generated by the synthesis and self-assembly of the major HPV capsid protein (L1) in yeast cells (Saccharomyces cerevisiae). Gardasil has been licensed for the prevention of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN grades 2 and 3), cervical cancer, high-grade vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN grades 2 and 3), and external genital warts (condyloma acuminata) causally associated with HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18 <1>. Trials have been undertaken to demonstrate the efficacy of the vaccine in women aged 16 to 26 years and immunogenicity in girls and boys aged 9 to 15 years. Protective efficacy in males has not been reported in the literature yet, but the results of more trials involving males are expected over the next few years.

Another vaccine composed of virus-like particles (VLP), a bivalent vaccine for HPV 16 and 18, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, is currently under evaluation by the EMEA. Both these prophylactic vaccines have been shown to have very high efficacy in uninfected women against infection, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and, by implication, against cervical cancer caused by the HPV types targeted by the vaccine <4>.

The availability of efficacious vaccines now means that vaccination strategies should be designed and evaluated to inform decisions on efficient control of HPV-related diseases. Several questions about HPV vaccination efficacy and effectiveness are still under consideration <5> For example, data on its efficacy against disease in males and in women aged over 26 years (of whom many could have been previously infected) are still awaited. A longer follow-up of vaccine programmes is needed to determine the duration of protection. The impact of vaccination on the epidemiology and disease burden of HPV types not covered by the vaccine is also uncertain. There are some data from trials which suggest cross-protection against HPV-types closely related to the vaccine types. The possibility of type-replacement with non-vaccine types emerging as the cause of more disease is also a concern to be evaluated further. It is likely that most European countries will first consider vaccination of girls who have not yet become sexually active
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ew/2006/061123.asp

regarding the stigma around hpv --
Social Stigma
 
"There is unfortunately a social stigma associated with cervical cancer because HPV is a direct cause in approximately 70% of cases," Dr. Makhija told Medscape. "People are under the impression that this means the patient slept around or was in some way more sexually active, but this is often not the case, and she may well have been with 1 person who had the infection."
 
HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the US. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that about 6.2 million Americans become infected with HPV every year and that over half of all sexually active men and women become infected at some time in their lives.
 
"Our expectation is that the far-right machine will gear up its disinformation and fearmongering tactics, all aimed at reducing availability of the vaccine by threatening funding and clouding the facts regarding the safety and the need for this vaccine," Ms. Julie Kay, an attorney for Legal Momentum, a New York City–based women's-rights organization, said in a statement to the press.
 
But Dr. Makhija said she has been pleasantly surprised by reaction so far. "I think people are realizing that this is not a political issue so much as a health issue." Based in Alabama, the investigator had worried about how difficult it might be to recruit women in the Deep South for the trial. "But we enjoyed an enormous response and had no trouble at all," she said. "People realized that this is something that could potentially protect their daughters, and the response has been excellent."
 
"Exciting Win Against Cancer"
 
Mr. Alan Kaye, from the National Cervical Cancer Coalition in Van Nuys, California, called the news "an exciting win against cancer." He is looking forward to what this could mean for public health.
 
But he is also glad from a personal perspective. Mr. Kaye founded the cancer coalition with his wife before she died of cancer. Today is the 5-year anniversary of her death. "It's wonderful to think that this amazing step forward has taken place on such an important day," he said. "My wife would be pleased."
 
http://www.brodstonehospital.org/your%20health.htm

other countries approve gardasil --
During an interview with Medscape, Jaime de la Garza, MD, from the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología in Tlapan, Mexico, agreed that the vaccines represent an important advance. He says they will be especially important for women in developing countries. "The incidence of cervical cancer is continuing to rise, and mortality rates are especially high in poor countries. If we can get vaccines such as these to patients, it will make a big difference."
 
Gardasil was approved last week for use in Mexico and is currently under review with regulatory agencies in the European Union, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, New Zealand, Singapore, and Taiwan.
http://www.brodstonehospital.org/your%20health.htm

this from an interview with dr tristram in the uk

Dr Tristram said, "This vaccine has to be given as a preventative, before there is any contact with the virus.


"If we are looking at the population and asking who should be vaccinated, we have to consider that one in four young people are sexually active before the age of 16, so we have to look at a younger age group.


"Another issue to consider is that, at around the time of puberty, if the cervix comes into contact with HPV, it is more likely to cause problems."

more --

Q Will the vaccine replace the need for regular smear tests?


A Dr Tristram said, "Cervical screening has been very successful in reducing the incidence of cervical cancer and this should not stop just because a vaccine has been introduced.


"There are lots of different types of HPV which can cause cervical cancer, not just 16 and 18, for which the current vaccine offers protection.


"The vaccine will reduce the incidence of cervical cancer further, but it will not get rid of it."

it also looks like some hpv related cancers are becoming MORE virulent and difficult to treat.

meps' in the uk supporting the use of gardasil

glynis wilmot is the labour mep for the west midlands

Cutting cancer deaths

I reported in the October edition that European Commission had licensed Gardasil, the first vaccine against HPV which can lead to cervical cancer. 

I am pressing the Commission on its plans to ensure that vaccination programmes are introduced in all member states, as well as a comprehensive programme of education to inform parents about the vaccine. Immunising every 12 year old girl could cut deaths from cervical cancer by more than 75%.

Latest information

http://www.gleniswillmott.labour.co.uk/ViewPage.cfm?Page=20338

planned parenthood's statement on gardasil

 Planned Parenthood Applauds FDA Approval of Gardasil
HPV Vaccine Is Crucial Step Forward for Women's Health  

New York, NY — Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) commended today's action by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which approved the first vaccine against two types of human papilloma virus (HPV) that cause about 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. 

"This is a huge step forward for women’s health.  Prevention is the key to good health, and this vaccine will give future generations the promise of health, safety and peace of mind," said PPFA President Cecile Richards.  “Now we must move forward to educate the public about the vaccine and ensure it is available to all Americans, regardless of their income level.” 

Planned Parenthood provides more than 1,000,000 women with cancer screenings each year.  This new vaccine will hopefully save lives. 

"The HPV vaccine is a public health breakthrough," said Richards.  "On behalf of the millions of women, men and teens Planned Parenthood serves every year, I thank the FDA for today's action." 

Worldwide, cervical cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among women.  Each year approximately 10,000 cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed in the United States, and 4,000 American women die from the disease.    

###
http://ww1.ppgi.org/includes/media/prjune_06_c.asp

canada approves gardasil{ but of course merck has subverted the entire world to it's sinister plans}
HPV VACCINE APPROVED

In July 2006, a new vaccine to prevent against four strains of the Human Papilloma Virus was approved for use in Canada by Health Canada. Gardasil will be available by the end of August 2006 through Canadian physicians and pharmacists, and is designed to prevent cervical, vulvar, and vaginal cancer as well as genital warts.

For more information, please visit: http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine.htm.
http://www.optionsforsexualhealth.org/

[antigop]

155. Twenty-six senators from both parties signed letter asking Perry to withdraw

http://www.news8austin.com/content/headlines/?ArID=178886&SecID=2

>
Twenty-six senators from both parties even signed a letter asking
Perry to withdraw the order.
>

WoW! It's a sad day when I have to root for the Texas lege to come through for us.

Subversion of democratic principles needs to be contested.

[antigop]

156. Go, Sen. Jane Nelson!

Senator Jane Nelson asks Perry to rescind vaccine order
http://www.news8austin.com/content/legislature_2007/stories/?SecID=561&ArID=178751

>
“This is not an emergency. It needs to be discussed and debated,'' Nelson said.
>

WOW!...Go, Jane! How pathetic is this that we have to depend upon a Republican to defend democratic principles?

[antigop]

157. Sen. Robert Duncan (R-Lubbock) questions governor's authority to issue exec order that changes law

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2007/feb/11/perry-move-draws-outrage/

>>
“There’s some question about the governor’s authority to issue an executive order that changes law and appropriates funds,” Duncan said last week. “That is constitutionally a legislative function.”
>>

WoW! Another Republican sticking up for democratic principles.

[antigop]

163. McCown: Governor's HPV order is unconstitutional

http://www.statesman.com/search/content/region/legislature/stories/02/07/7mccown_edit_rs.html

>>
The conservatives are right. He has. This is not the first time, though. Just a little more than a year ago, the governor issued an executive order requiring elected school boards to spend 65 percent of their budgets in the classroom. Then, conservatives applauded.

Both the vaccination order and the 65 percent order, however, violate the law in the same way. Under the state constitution, the governor administers the law; the governor doesn't make the law. This principle is textbook civics. Making law is for the Legislature.
>>

Here's the kicker:
>>
Having heard no cry of outrage from the Legislature over his 65 percent order, the governor has grown bolder, leading to his latest order to a state agency to adopt a rule regardless of legal review, public comments or agency judgment. We have no idea what he may decree next.
>>

WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HE MAY DECREE NEXT. Perry wasn't stopped on the 65 percent order, so it only emboldened him to think he could get by with the vaccine order. If he's not stopped on this, then WHAT WILL HIS NEXT ORDER BE?

Texans -- Scream about this! And keep screaming about it!

[antigop]

165. Lawyers say Perry had no authority to order vaccinations

http://www.statesman.com/search/content/shared/partners/Special_Edition/stories/2007/02/TEXAS_ORDERS_0208_COX.html

>>
Buck Wood, a lawyer whose career included time in Gov. John Connally's office in the 1960s, disagreed, saying: "This isn't even arguable. The governor doesn't have any power to dictate to any agency about what rules it makes."

Scott McCown, who served 14 years as a Democratic state district judge in Travis County, aired similar concerns. While state law permits governors to issue orders in emergencies, he said, Perry's desire to protect young women doesn't clear that hurdle.

"It's a judgment call," said McCown, who initially commented in a column in Wednesday's Austin American-Statesman. "But there is no way this is even close. There is no way this even qualifies" as an emergency.
>>