so what happens to you if you get cervical cancer?

[xchrom]

while compiling data on the expense of cancer treatments -- uh -- they're really expensive but more on that another day -- i began to see information about the treatments for cervical cancer.

at first i ignored it -- i was focused on gardasil -- i'm for it -- and yes i'm for for mandates.

but really -- what was i ignoring?

i mean that's what this really boils down to if you are one of the 4,000 women each year who gets it -- or if your dysplasia is persistant enough to warrant an hysterectomy.

Cervical Cancer

Cervical cancer is a disease in which cancer cells develop in the lower, narrow portion of the uterus. The American Cancer Society estimates that there will be over 9,700 new cases of cervical cancer and 3,700 deaths from this disease in the United States in 2006. Most of these cancers develop over an extended period of time, as cells gradually begin to appear abnormal and then become malignant. The most common cause of cervical cancer is Human papillomavirus (HPV). Regular gynecologic examinations are important because early cervical cancer may cause no symptoms and PAP smears can help in the early detection and successful treatment of the disease. Cervical cancer that is more advanced may cause abnormal vaginal discharge or bleeding, pelvic pain or painful intercourse. These cancers can spread into the tissues surrounding the cervix, lymph nodes or other areas of the body.

The chance of successfully treating a cervical cancer is determined by the stage, size and type of cancer. Early cervical cancers are usually treated with surgery, but can also be treated effectively with radiotherapy. More advanced cervical cancer is usually treated with radiation therapy given at the same time as a low dose of chemotherapy to sensitize the cancer cells to the radiation.

Conventional radiation therapy uses high-energy x-rays to damage and kill cancer cells. These x-rays must travel through normal tissues and organs such as the bladder and rectum to reach the cervix. This radiation may cause damage to these normal tissues producing treatment side effects such as temporary or occasionally permanent urinary, gastrointestinal, or sexual dysfunction.

The two most common methods of delivering radiation are conventional external beam radiation therapy and internal radiation or brachytherapy. Both methods use X-rays as a source of radiation. X-rays are very lightweight packets of energy that pass through tissue creating damage along their paths. External beam radiation is delivered by a machine called a linear accelerator that gives a daily dose of radiation to the patient over several weeks.

Internal radiation, or brachytherapy, is done by placing holders for radiation sources into the uterus and upper vagina or by placing catheters to hold radiation seeds into the tissues around the cervix. This placement of holders is usually done in the operating room under anesthesia. The radioactive sources release their radiation into the cervix and surrounding tissues while they are in place, usually for two days or less. It is common to use more than one brachytherapy procedure in a course of treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer. The combination of external and internal radiation is effective at killing cancer cells and curing patients, but treatment side effects sometimes limit the dose needed for the best chance of cure.

http://www.ufscc.ufl.edu/Patient/content.aspx?section=ufscc&id=685

External Beam Radiation Therapy

External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for cervical cancer is administered on an outpatient basis, 5 days a week for several weeks. EBRT begins with a planning session, or simulation, where marks are placed on the body and measurements are taken in order to line up the radiation beam in the correct position for each treatment. A program of daily treatments is then begun where the patient lies on a couch and is treated with radiation from multiple directions to the pelvis. External beam radiation therapy for cervical cancer is administered on an outpatient basis for approximately 4 to 6 weeks.

A combination of external beam radiation therapy and implant radiation is used to increase the dose of radiation administered to the cancer. Implant or internal radiation is further described in the section below. When these two methods are combined, the external beam radiation therapy is given for 4-6 weeks, and the final "boost" of radiation to the cervix is given with the implant radiation.

Although patients do not feel anything while receiving radiation treatment, the effects of radiation gradually build up over time. Many patients become tired as treatment continues. It is also common for patients to experience loose stools or diarrhea. Urination may become more frequent or uncomfortable. Some patients may experience loss of pubic hair or irritation of the skin. After the radiation therapy is completed, the vagina can become narrower and less flexible. This can make sexual relations painful and make future pelvic examinations difficult. Patients are often taught how to use a dilator to maintain the pliability of the vagina. Finally, radiation therapy to the pelvis can stop the ovaries from functioning, thereby causing younger women to enter menopause early.

Implant Radiation Therapy

Implant radiation, sometimes referred to as brachytherapy, refers to treatment where radioactive material is placed directly into the cervix. Placing the radiation in this manner allows a high radiation dose to be delivered directly to the cancer, while reducing radiation to surrounding normal organs, such as the rectum and bladder. During a procedure in the operating room, a small device is placed into the cervix and vagina. This device is later "loaded" with the radiation capsules while the patient is in a lead-shielded hospital room. The radioactive material is left in place for 1-3 days. This procedure may be performed once or twice during the course of treatment. The patient is discharged from the hospital once the device is removed from the cervix.

Many centers are administering the implant radiation on an outpatient basis using a slightly different technique called "high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy." With this procedure, a device is inserted into the cervix and vagina in the radiation therapy department and the patient remains with the radiation for only 30 minutes to one hour. This procedure is generally repeated weekly, approximately 3 to 5 times during the course of treatment. HDR brachytherapy is a newer technique and is not yet widely available. The results from early experience demonstrate that HDR brachytherapy appears to be just as effective as traditional implant radiation, but avoids a hospital stay.

A less commonly used method of brachytherapy is interstitial (into the tissue) implant. With this method, the patient is placed under general anesthesia and fine tube like needles are placed into the cancer and immediate tissue around it in a manner to fit the shape of the cancer. The tube-like needles are later "loaded" with the radioactive seeds and the remaining steps are similar to what is done with implants.

In implant radiation therapy, the positioning of the device is critical to the effectiveness and safety of the treatment. Although the cervical cancer receives the highest radiation dose, the surrounding organs, such as the rectum and bladder, are also exposed to some radiation. Radiation injury to the rectum, bladder or bowel can occur and may cause pain or bleeding with urination or passage of stools. Less commonly, some patients will develop a fistula, which is an abnormal connection between the rectum or bladder and the vagina. At times, additional surgery may be necessary for repair of fistulas or other radiation injury.

http://www.ufscc.ufl.edu/Patient/cancernews.aspx?section=cancernews&id=35366
sexual side effects for stage 1 cervical cancer patient

Treatment with radiation therapy was associated with worse long-term sexual function:
* There was no difference between the radiation therapy group and the surgery group in level of sexual desire, but other measures of sexual function and the overall sexual function score were worse in women who had been treated with radiation therapy.
* Other factors that influenced sexual function were marital status (married women reported better sexual functioning) and menopausal symptom score (menopausal symptoms were associated with worse sexual functioning).
* The difference in sexual function between the radiation therapy group and the surgery group persisted even after accounting for tumor size, histology, and grade.
* There was no significant different in sexual functioning between the women treated with surgery and the women without cancer.

The researchers conclude that stage I cervical cancer patients who are treated with radiation therapy have more problems with sexual function than women treated with hysterectomy and lymph node dissection. Women treated with hysterectomy can expect to have long-term levels of sexual function that are similar to women who have not had cancer.

Reference: Frumovitz M, Sun CC, Schover LR et al. Quality of Life and Sexual Functioning in Cervical Cancer Survivors. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2005;23:7428-7436.

http://patient.cancerconsultants.com/CancerTips.aspx?DocumentId=38033

Given that cervical cancer screening (Pap tests) has greatly reduced the occurrence of the disease, why is the vaccine so important?

In addition to reducing the risk of cervical cancer, the vaccine will reduce the risk of precancerous changes to the cervix known as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). High-grade CIN requires treatment follow-up, which causes anxiety and expense. The vaccine will also have a large impact in parts of the world where cervical cancer screening and follow-up are less available.

i.e. irregularities make for greater emotional discomfort -- and THE COST GOES UP JUST TO KEEP AN EYE ON YOU.

http://patient.cancerconsultants.com/CancerTips.aspx?DocumentId=210

Radiation is a common form of therapy in the treatment of cervical cancer. The potential short-term side effects may cause varying degrees of discomfort that can be managed by you and your doctor. Potential long-term effects such as early induced menopause, infertility, vaginal stenosis and bowel problems are reportedly the most difficult for patients to deal with emotionally and physically. Support groups, family support or professional support may help patients cope with these side effects. To understand the specific kind of radiation you will receive and the expected side effects, ask questions and use sources including your medical team, books, the Internet and other people with your disease. Before undergoing any treatment you should understand your responsibility, your medical team’s role, explore treatment options and get a second opinion(s).

http://patient.cancerconsultants.com/CancerTips.aspx?DocumentId=38539

anorexia is a possible side affect when looking at combo radiation and chemotherapy

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061108154922.htm

there are some advances in radiation

"We found that by using extended-field IMRT and chemotherapy, we were able to effectively reduce the toxic effects of treatment," said Sushil Beriwal, M.D., principal investigator and assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and medical director of radiation oncology at Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC. "This is important because it means there are less treatment interruptions and more patients are able to complete the treatment within the prescribed time period. This, in turn, increases the efficacy of treatment, giving us encouraging evidence that these cervical cancer patients can benefit from IMRT."
Unlike standard radiation therapy, IMRT administers a radiation field that consists of several hundred small beams of varying intensities that pass through normal tissue without doing significant damage but converge to give a precise dose of radiation at the tumor site. IMRT can potentially limit the adverse side effects from radiation while increasing the intensity of doses that can be given to effectively destroy cancer cells.
Co-authors of the study include Greg Gan, Joseph L. Kelley, M.D., and Robert P. Edwards, M.D., all with the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

http://www.umm.edu/patiented/articles/what_specific_treatments_invasive_cervical_cancer_000046_12.htm

hysterectomies are also common with cervical cancers but they have side effects as well

A radical hysterectomy removes not only the uterus and the cervix but also the parametrium, the supporting ligaments, the upper vagina, and some or all of the local lymph nodes (a procedure called lymphadenectomy).

If the cancerous tumor recurs within the pelvis after primary treatment, a more extreme procedure may be performed called a pelvic exenteration, which combines radical hysterectomy with removal of the bladder and rectum. (In such cases, plastic surgery may be needed afterward to recreate an artificial vagina.) Patients undergoing this procedure are physically and psychologically screened in advance to determine whether it is an appropriate choice. The success rate for pelvic exenteration in halting the progression of the disease is approximately 25% to 45%.

Any form of hysterectomy is major surgery and requires at least a three to five day hospital stay. Although hysterectomy typically uses a wide abdominal incision, less invasive techniques that allow shorter recovery time may be possible for some women with early stage cancers if performed by experienced surgeons.

Side effects include difficulty emptying the bladder or bowels and a painful lower abdomen. Urinary tract infections are very common. Complications include fistulas (abnormal channels within the pelvis, which in this case are a result of surgery), bladder dysfunctions, and cysts.

Normal activity, including intercourse, can be resumed in about four to eight weeks. Once the uterus is removed, menstruation will cease. If the ovaries are removed, the symptoms of menopause will begin. These symptoms are likely to be more severe in surgical menopause than in the course of a natural passage to menopause. Hormone replacement therapy should be considered.

Trachelectomy. An experimental procedure called trachelectomy is being investigated for preserving fertility in certain women with early stage cancer, but it is highly controversial and appropriate in only about 5% of cervical cancer patients. In the procedure, only the cancerous portion of the cervix is removed, while the uterus and the rest of the cervix are left intact. The cervix is closed with a suture.

Small, early studies suggest this procedure may be effective for early stage 1 patients with no risk factors for aggressive cancer. In two small 1999 and 2000 studies, conception rates were between 27% and 37%, and survival rates after two years were more than 95%. The procedure is primarily performed outside the US, and few surgeons in this country are skilled in this surgery at this time. Throughout the world, in fact, only about a few hundred of these procedures have been performed to date. Women should also realize that conception rates are still lower than normal. And even if they can get pregnant, there is a very high risk for miscarriage because the cervix is weakened. Larger and longer-term studies are needed to confirm its long-term safety.



i have to post what happens in two parts --

but if you are concerned about what happens to girls and women -- this should bloody well concern you.

i've been through chemo -- and there simply is no describing how sick you will be --

now imagine that and radiation in your vagina, pelvis, maybe through to your rectum.

imagine having to pee with all that going on -- or combating leukemia and having diarhea?

[soothsayer]

1. i'm against gardasil. only protects a few, but will expose many to godnoze what (unknown side or

long term effects).

[AX10]

2. I believe that Gardasil should be made available free of charge...

to the patient. This is a voluntary program that I support! I stand firm!

[alarimer]

3. Yes, because cancer is much easier to deal with

I am so sick of this fucking bullshit. This vaccine has the potential to save the lives of over 3000 people annually and save countless others from the pain and suffering (not to mention the cost) of these cancer treatments.

If I were young enough I'd take my chances with the vaccine.

Anyone who prefers people get cancer to getting the vaccine is just sick in the head.

[Sadie4629]

8. What are the long-term effects of the vaccine?

No one knows, nor may they know for decades. Remember the Dalkon shield? Remember diethylstilbesterol? Both FDA approved, both true hazards to women's health. Strange how those life-threatening treatments were targetted at women also. I don't think women and young girls should be guinea pigs for Big Pharma.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. How many more years of testing should we have then?

And are you willing to have the blood of those dead women on your hands? The ones who will get cancer and die without the vaccine?

[Sadie4629]

19. Why would it be on my hands?

I just said I'm against mandates. I'm against forcing anyone to do anything against their will. If they choose to have the vaccine, fine. Or if their parents choose that for them, fine.

Don't you think we should know the long-term side effects of a drug before exposing people to something?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. That's why we do studies before releasing it to the public.

Gardasil is safe. And you're trying to allege that it's not. And that's why there'd be blood on your hands.

[Sadie4629]

28. Is that the royal "we"

or are you part of Big Pharma? And I'll bet the manufacturer of the Dalkon shield thought it was safe, too.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. Actually, I'm one of Satan's dark minions.

We provide vaccines to women, and free breakfast for inner city school children.

Booga booga booga!

[Sadie4629]

33. Eeek!!

Do you also force sterilizations on those less fit to reproduce?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. No.

You're thinking of eugenicists. Those are pseudoscientists. Like the anti-vaccine nuts.

[Sadie4629]

36. What other medical treatments

would you FORCE people to undergo?? Or is it only acceptable to force those poor dumb women, who really don't know what's in their own best interests?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

37. Who's saying anything about forcing?

Merck isn't asking anybody to be forced. Texas governor Perry isn't asking anybody to be forced.

The only argument about "forcing" is just another phony lie from the anti-vaccine people.

[Sadie4629]

39. I thought that was the whole point of this exchange

I didn't say I'm against the vaccine; I'm just against mandatory vaccination. Um, big difference.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

40. Uh huh.

[Bridget Burke]

141. Parents can always opt out of the vaccine.

Or--of any vaccine.

Odd, how few people remain ignorant of that simple fact.

[Sadie4629]

160. Not necessarily true

My son, in grad school, was told he HAD to have the Hep C vaccine. Sure, he could have opted not to have it, but then he wouldn't have been able to do grad school. Although that wasn't mandated by the government, it was still a requirement.

[Ms. Toad]

108. Read the law.

The Texas law is the standard mandatory vaccination law. It has a very limited opt out, which you have to certify under oath you qualify for.

[Liberal Veteran]

115. Which means essentially, you have to fill out a form....

...take it to be notarized (which is a service nearly every bank in the country performs), and mail it in.

Why, it's practically like the Bataan Death March to go through that.

[tammywammy]

117. Get it notorized!!!

That's freakin' impossible! And you have to have a 39 cent stamp and envelope to mail it with. Talk about jumping though hoops.

:sarcasm:

[Ms. Toad]

124. Getting it notarized is not a problem.

Did I even suggest that filling out a form and getting someone to witness it would be a problem?

What I did say is that the state only legally permits parents to opt out for one non-medical reason: a conscientious (religious) objection. It is not a matter of the mechanics of the process but about the legal basis for being permitted to go through the mechanics. My objection to vaccinating my daughter at this point is not based on reasons of conscience - and I don't believe a law should force parents to choose between (1) lying under oath about a health care decision and (2) forfeiting the right to a public education.

Just make the vaccine available without charge (force insurance companies and the public care alternatives) to cover it - or make it mandatory with a true opt out for any reason (with a witnessed form, if you want. The latter would at least require parents to make a conscious decision one way or another.

[Irreverend IX]

72. Studies over only two years with a very small population...

But it seems that the generous application of Merck lobbying dollars has prevented the FDA from objecting to the lack of long-term test data for the drug. What if Gardasil turns out to be the next Vioxx, with potentially lethal side effects? Are you prepared to have that blood on your hands?

[Sadie4629]

76. Some people see what they want to see

Apparently we aren't to ask reasonable questions about this one.

[rinsd]

79. Well for one thing Vioxx is a drug and Gardisil is a vaccine

So considering you made that boo boo I can hardly take your interpretation of the safety study very seriously.

[Irreverend IX]

127. Just because Gardasil is a vaccine...

Doesn't mean that it might not have negative effects in the long term. It contains aluminum, for one thing, which has been suspected of involvement with Alzheimer's disease and other illnesses. And no one has any idea how the weakened HPV strain injected into the body might affect patients a few years down the road because no one has bothered to find out.

There have been cases where vaccinated mothers passed viruses to infants through breast milk and thereby infected them with diseases. There might also be some women who for genetic or other reasons are not able to properly generate antibodies after receiving the vaccine and instead become infected with HPV. But no one knows, and Merck should have made the effort to find out before trying to foist this drug on the public through legislation.

[rinsd]

162. The vaccine has not shown harmful effects

"It contains aluminum, for one thing, which has been suspected of involvement with Alzheimer's disease and other illnesses"

In dangerous levels?

"And no one has any idea how the weakened HPV strain injected into the body might affect patients a few years down the road because no one has bothered to find out."

Would it be better for them to get a full strength strain? A vaccine isn't a silver bullet but its a big help in the fight against HPV and the causing of cervical cancer.

"There have been cases where vaccinated mothers passed viruses to infants through breast milk and thereby infected them with diseases. "

With HPV or are you speaking of other viruses?

"There might also be some women who for genetic or other reasons are not able to properly generate antibodies after receiving the vaccine and instead become infected with HPV."

Which is why the vaccine (and no vaccine really) is 100% effective. And it is also why the vaccine is not a replacement for visits to the GYN.

"But no one knows, and Merck should have made the effort to find out before trying to foist this drug on the public through legislation."

The Perry legislation is dead. The vaccine is being provided free of charge in some states and is beginning to be distributed thoughout the world under WHO.

[PVnRT]

133. Two years is standard for a Phase III trial

How long would you propose? Ten? Fifteen? Thirty? Fifty? How long is long enough to "prove" that absolutely no one will die from a particular medicine.

The deaths attributed to Vioxx occurred because of a potential misreporting and distortion of clinical trial results by Merck, not because they didn't test it long enough. The only way that any drug, or chemical for that matter, can have a very long-term chronic effect is if it builds up in your system, which is one thing that researchers do look for.

But, I suppose it's easier to believe that BIG PHARMA is pulling the strings behind massive conspiracies to dump bad drugs on the American market. Maybe if we all harmonize our heart chakras to the vibration of the Love Crystals we won't have to worry about disease!

[kestrel91316]

43. It's not a drug. It's a biological. They don't in general HAVE long-

term consequences.

I suppose you would prefer the decidedly long-term consequence of a hysterectomy for cervical cancer in a 25-yr-old woman. Or the long-term consequences of polio in its victims.

We KNOW what causes "long-term consequences", and it's not vaccines. It's DISEASES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sadie4629]

54. In general????

"We KNOW what causes "long-term consequences", and it's not vaccines. It's DISEASES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Diethylstilbesterol--drug that caused vaginal cancers in the daughters of women who took it to prevent miscarriage.

Dalkon shield--Birth control device that killed women.

Thalidomide--you know.

Look, I'm not a medical professional or a medical researcher or a scientist. I'm just someone who reads quite a bit, retains a lot of it, and feels that there are times that medical intervention causes unforeseen problems. Again--if someone wants the vaccine, great. I'm not sure I would have it, nor would I impose that choice on a daughter, if I had one.

Is it against the rules to have a contrary opinion on this issue?

[kestrel91316]

60. Your gross ignorance is really getting tiresome. A vaccine is NOT

a pharmaceutical, aka a drug.

Stop comparing apples to oranges. It makes you look foolish.

[kestrel91316]

62. It's not against the rules to tell MEDICAL LIES. But it sure as

hell should be.

YOUR LIES COULD GET SOMEONE KILLED.

[Sadie4629]

74. WHAT LIES ARE THOSE??????

[Morgana LaFey]

96. Well, here's some truth about VACCINES

pnwmom:
I remember the Swine Flu vaccine quite well, because my small town was one of the places where there were cases of severe paralysis, and I had JUST had the vaccine a few days before all the reports came out -- so I had to wait a couple of weeks before I knew I was in the clear.
Also, I remember the old DPT vaccine -- my baby sister died after she developed a known complication (encephalitis).
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=308046&mesg_id=308514

Vaccines are NOT automatically, inherently "safe," and AFAIC you're the one telling medical lies, tho you're not the only one, alas.

[AX10]

98. Morgana, may I add that my brother cannot walk..

because of the DPT vaccine. It was the "P" (Whooping Cough) vaccine that was flawed. Barbara Lowe Fisher has documented the "colorful" history that comes along with this vaccine. And another thing, many around here keep on insisting that I have no evidence that the DPT vaccine scared my brother. I got no sympathy. My story is "meaningless", yet MATCOM's story of his wife (who died from cervical cancer) recieved tons of sympathy.

Some "progressives" indeed! :argh:

[TZ]

120. I'm sorry you think we aren't sympathetic and I truly mean it..

We are. No one is saying we don't care. Nor are we saying vaccines are 100% safe. And many people have legitimate issues with some of these combo vaccines. No drug, no vaccine, no medical procedure is totally safe. Just going and getting novocaine can kill you in certain circumstances. The HPV vaccine is as safe as any vaccine. Its gone through safety trials in not only this country but in Europe and Australia as well. Cost and Risk benefit should be taken into account. Again I am very sorry for your brother and its very reasonable that you would be suspicious given your history, but can I try to respectfully point out something here. There are some very bad medical doctors who through malpractice and just damn insensitivity and in some cases greed have killed patients. So should nobody ever go to any doctor again because of a few bad apples? I would hope the answer is no. I would make sure I did my homework thoroughly on a particular doctor before I went. And maybe instead of just complaining about all doctors try to help improve the system. I think thats what most of us here at DU want really. I can't speak about your particular situation to tell you the truth. But can I say as someone who is involved personally in the field, the vast majority of people devote their lives to working on vaccines because they want to help people and give them good healthy lives. The thought that something we did might have backfired and actually harmed people is very upsetting. To anyone who feels that a vaccine has hurt or killed someone I am very sad for. Can you understand as well that its hurtful to people like me to be accused of deliberately and knowingly hurting people for profit or other motivation?:( :( :(

[AX10]

183. I am not anti-vaccine. I am not anti-medicine.

There are two sides to every story. Now I have not made any of these accusations against you personally. But there have been many around here who have claimed that there is no evidence that there are problems associated with vaccines. That is absurd to suggest they are 100% safe. I have had several vaccines in my life and will be getting more when they are needed. However, I am not going to buy into this vaccine just because it's there to be taken. The flu kills more people per year than cervical cancer, yet that vaccine is not mandated. Cervical cancer is not something anyone would want, but it's not anywhere near pandemic levels.
Thank you for you consideration.

[Bridget Burke]

143. Matcom's wife did not die. But she almost did.

Guess you should have read his message more closely.

[Liberal Veteran]

104. Peanut Butter isn't inherent safe either....

....but I don't see widespread fearmongering over the dangers of peanut allergies.

[Ms. Toad]

109. No one is talking about mandating

consumption of peanut butter.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

How about tetanus vaccines?

[Ms. Toad]

126. Interesting question.

I don't have the same health hesitations about the tetanus vaccine that I have about gardasil. It's been around for a long time, tested over time in a very diverse population, with lots of long term data.

The primary legal basis for making vaccinations mandatory is to create a herd immunity in order eradicate a disease which is spread by casual contact. That doesn't work with Tetanus (or HPV, at least until they start mandating vaccination for both genders). Tetanus can't be eradicated by vaccination at all (which is an argument against making it mandatory). On the other hand, tetanus is very directly and quickly deadly, and exposure to the tetanus bacteria is the sole cause of tetanus (an argument for making it mandatory). With HPV, there are measures one can take after exposure to minimize the risk of HPV progressing to cancer, and HPV only incrementally increases a pre-existing risk for cancer - from 1% to 2%.

If the question is whether my child would be immunized against the tetanus bacteria - absolutely (and she has been). I am ambivalent as to whether it should be mandatory - I don't have a particular problem with it being mandatory given the length of time it has been around, the extremely low risks associated with it, and the direct exclusive causal relationship between exposure to the bacteria which causes tetanus and the very lethal (25% death rate) consequences of contracting tetanus. I guess if I were writing the laws today, I would either make it mandatory or at least require parents to make an informed decision not to vaccinate (by making it difficult to opt out - perhaps by requiring some sort of education about tetanus prior to opting out).

On a related note, though, parents should have the option of splitting the DPT vaccine into its three component parts for separate (in time). I am not specifically aware of any concerns about giving this triple whammy inoculation, but exposure to mumps and measles close together in time has a correlation with a higher rate of IBD. (Doesn't necessarily mean there is a causal relation - but there might be, and there is no particular advantage, other than convenience, to giving them as a combined vaccine.)

[Bridget Burke]

144. Parents do have the option of "timing" vaccinations.

They don't need to have them all done on "schedule"--that's mostly set up to reduce the number of doctor visits. Look into it.

The State of Texas requires vaccinations be complete before admission to school--so the exact timing of the early vaccinations can vary. But parents may opt out of ANY vaccine--even the ones that you support.

[Ms. Toad]

163. Please go read the Texas vaccination law.

I have. The opt out is not like opting out of a mailing list where if you don't want to be on it you just opt out. Aside from medical opt outs, there is only one legally permitted basis for opting out: reasons of conscience (religious).

The basis most of use here who are choosing (or would choose) to delay vaccination for our children has to do with risk analysis with respect to our children. In a few years we will know more and may want to delay vaccination until our comfort level with the collected data about long term implications of the vaccination is sufficient to make vaccinating a less risky choice than not vaccinating. That balancing act has a lot of factors, so the tipping point will be different for us: More risk of exposure would likely lead to accepting more unknowns about vaccination, for example. That decision is not a decision that legally qualifies as a reason of conscience. (Think conscientious objection to war - the standard includes some sort of ethically or religiously based decision which is not situational (a typical question asked to disqualify potential conscientious objectors was whether the objection was to all wars or just the Vietnam war.)

I would not object to a true opt out provision for this vaccination, but no state law I have ever reviewed has an opt out provision that is legally available to anyone who wants it for any reason. That is a deliberate decision - there is no point in making it legally mandatory if it isn't really mandatory (and it does effectively create the herd immunity that wipes out vaccination if opting out is freely permitted).

[Bridget Burke]

166. So--it would be too much trouble for you to opt out.

Don't you think the Godless can have ethics?

[Ms. Toad]

180. Did I say anything to suggest that?

I said that:

(1) there is only one legally permitted basis to opt out (reasons of conscience, including religion).
(2) I don't qualify, because my basis for opting out has nothing to do with conscience (or ethics, or religion).
(3) I should not be forced to choose between lying under oath, forfeiting my daughter's right to a public education, or giving her what we have determined for the time being to be an inappropriate vaccine.

The law doesn't say that the "Godless can('t) have ethics." What is says is that reasons of conscience (or ethics, if you prefer) including religion are the only legally permitted reasons to opt out.

My objection has nothing to do with how much trouble it is.

If the law permitted me to opt out for any reason I chose to opt out I'd gladly run down to my local notary and affirm under penalties of perjury (the legal requirement for having the form notarized). What I won't do - and should not have to do - is affirm under penalties of perjury that I am opting out for reasons of conscience (including religion), because that has nothing to do with why I would choose to opt out.

(Note - the law has not yet been enacted in my state, but is being considered and currently mandatory vaccinations permit opting out only for similar reasons.)

As a general matter, it really would be a much more productive discussion if you would read the law and read what I have written without assuming there is some hidden ulterior motive (like I'm too lazy to go through the mechanics of having a form notarized, or think the "Godless can't have ethics").

Here's a link to the general Texas immunization law (including the opt out provisions quoted in the Texas opt out form): http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/ed.toc.htm Select Chapter 38, Section 38.001

[Liberal Veteran]

190. Are you saying not trusting the efficacy or safety of the vaccine...

....at this time is NOT a matter of conscience for you?

Conscience:

1. the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience.
2. the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual.
3. an inhibiting sense of what is prudent

In other words you would be perjuring yourself to state "I am not convinced of the long term safety of this vaccine and my conscience will not permit me to expose my child to what I see as a possible risk at this time given the short amount of time the vaccine has been approved by the FDA"?

Every single reason you have given is matter of conscience/ethics for you....so where is the perjury?

[Alexander]

118. LOL - Do your hysterical rantings never end?

Does "Swine flu vaccine" ring a bell? The vaccine killed more people than the flu itself.

Guess who helped to distribute the vaccine? A much younger Donald Rumsfeld.

Your ignorance won't get anyone killed but it sure does make you a laughingstock.

[Liberal Veteran]

129. You mean the vaccine that 40 million people got?

And 25 people died from?

There are more deaths every year from peanut allergies than there were deaths due to the swine flu vaccine.

The biggest debacle about the swine flu vaccine was that health officials were wrong in believing an epidemic of a particularly nasty strain of flu was imminent.

The actual harm done to people was relatively small being around 0.00125% of all people innoculated had a severe adverse reaction.

[TZ]

75. from bad good...

FYI after all the problems with Thalidomide it turns out through much study that it seems to be a very effective drug that can help treat cancer and cancer like chronic blood disorders and prevent people from having to go through dangerous and painful bone marrow transplants.
No one is saying that its wrong to have a contrary opinion. However there has been a lot of scientifically inaccurate arguments used to make the anti-gardasil case and it bothers a lot of people, like me. Once again I will reiterate that any vaccine put on the market has gone through YEARS of safety testing before being released. Even so called fast tracking. The FDA has built in rules for clinical testing that are DESIGNED to minimize the effects pushing for profit making has over safetty considerations. Even with certain erosions that Bush and buddies have made at the FDA they cannot eliminate the basic rules on testing on biologics which I guaruntee is far more strict than your day to day products approved by the FDA.Will mistakes be made by researchers and scientists and doctors. Absolutely. However in this day and age you hear more about the problems than the unheralded successes.
I just really really want people to make an informed decision on things like Gardasil. And I am in the medical research field although not a pHD.

[Sadie4629]

77. Thank you

I had no idea this was such an emotional issue for some people! Tempers really are flaring.

Don't know much about this vaccine. Just a gut feeling that I don't always trust medical intervention. Just an opinion, which I force on NO ONE.

[TZ]

83. I understand, I do. I understand your misgivings but

Its hard to see the same stuff that as a scientist I know is wrong and in my opinion can be considered dangerous. Some of us have had to make the same argument at least 10 times in the last few weeks. I have sadly lost my temper a few times too. Like I said I just don't want people to be blinded by the fear and mistrust that seems to be a sad result of Chimpy et al. I have definitely seen bad stuff in the field myself and have tried to fix it to my personal detriment on occasion. But there is a lot of good and positive stuff as well that saddens me seems to get lost in mandate vs. no mandate arguments. I happen to enjoy trying to explain a complicated and somewhat mysterious field to the general public so they can make a truly informed wise decision. My mom was a teacher for years and I guess I have some of that same drive as well.

[Morgana LaFey]

97. Oh, please, if you're trying to defend the FDA as our FRIEND

these days, not to mention Merck, well, you could do with a little research on the subject. Just a little.

April 24, 2005
Evidence in Vioxx Suits Shows Intervention by Merck Officials By ALEX BERENSON
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/business/24drug.html?pagewanted=print&position=

In 2000, amid rising concerns that its painkiller Vioxx posed heart risks, Merck overruled one of its own scientists after he suggested that a patient in a clinical trial had probably died of a heart attack.

In an e-mail exchange about Vioxx, the company's most important new drug at the time, a senior Merck scientist repeatedly urged the researcher to change his views about the death "so that we don't raise concerns." In later reports to the Food and Drug Administration and in a paper published in 2003, Merck listed the cause of death as "unknown" for the patient, a 73-year-old woman.

The discussion of the death is contained in several previously undisclosed Merck records, including e-mail messages from Dr. Edward M. Scolnick, Merck's top scientist from 1985 until 2002, and from Dr. Alise S. Reicin, a vice president for clinical research, that indicate Merck's concerns about data contradicting its view that Vioxx was safe.

In one e-mail message, Dr. Scolnick said the drug trial that included the woman's death had "put us in a terrible situation." In others, he fiercely criticized the F.D.A. and said he would personally pressure senior officials at the agency if it took action unfavorable to Vioxx. As lawsuits against Merck over Vioxx move toward trial, the documents could help plaintiffs paint a picture of the company that is at odds with Merck's public statements that it had no evidence of Vioxx's cardiac risks until last fall.

snip

Merck withdrew Vioxx in September after a different clinical trial found that the drug increased the risk of heart problems. More than 25 million Americans took Vioxx between 1999 and 2004, and at least 4,600 people or their survivors are suing Merck, claiming Vioxx caused their heart attacks or strokes. The first individual cases are scheduled for trial next month in Alabama and Texas, filed by the survivors of two men who the suits say died of heart attacks after taking the drug.

much more at link

[Liberal Veteran]

111. So how does the FDA play into the rest of the world where Gardasil is approved?

Has Merck bought off Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the EU?

And I notice that while everyone is quick to point out where Merck let the public down with Vioxx, no one mentions the wildly successful products that have been on the market from Merck for years such as Maxalt (for Migraines), Crixivan (for HIV), Cozaar, Hyzaar (for HTN), Fosamax (for osteoporosis), Proscar/Propecia (for BPH and hair loss), Zocor (for Cholesterol), Vytorin, Singulair (for asthma), Januvia (for diabetes), Cosopt (for glaucoma), vaccines for mumps, measles, rubella, varicella, rotavirus, herpes zoster, Emend (for nausea due to chemotherapy), etc....

And we are still arguing apples and oranges when it comes to vaccines and medications.

Thalidomide is only a problem if you take it during pregnancy.

Vioxx was used DAILY over a long term (unlike vaccines).

The actual product injected into your body is eliminated in a relatively short time.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

112. Well, you see...

IT'S A CONSPIRACY!

[Bridget Burke]

142. "I'm not a medical professional or a medical researcher or a scientist"

We'd already guessed that.

[Sadie4629]

154. Oh, aren't you cute when you're sarcastic!

The OP in this thread stated that he/she is for mandatory vaccination with this new vaccine. I stated a different opinion. If you want the vaccine, great. If you want to vaccinate your daughter, that's fine by me, too.

But it is not so very different to require vaccination (as the OP prefers)from requiring that women carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. I thought we believe in "choice." My body, my choice, right?

And is it so very bad to question pharmaceutical companies, doctors, medical researchers, or whatever when our health is at stake. I thought Democrats were about thinking critically.

[Bridget Burke]

168. So many newcomers to DU often tell us they "thought" Democrats were about.

Questioning anything is fine. But learning a bit about scientific & medical research might make your remarks a bit more worthwhile.

Parents have a choice about the vaccine, as they have about any vaccine. If you can't understand that simple statement, perhaps you shouldn't clutter your beautiful mind with all that "science" stuff.

[Sadie4629]

171. Unless YOU are an actual medical professional

(and I'm willing to bet that you are not,) I probably know and understand a lot more about health issues than you do. I also know that not all side effects are apparent in the short term. For some interesting reading, why don't you do some research into DES daughters. (That's diethylstilbesterol, FYI.)

[Bridget Burke]

174. I'm not a "professional" but I've worked for medical doctors & researchers for 20 years.

Not in a "faith based" institution.

[Sadie4629]

175. So glad you cleared that up

"I'm not a "professional" but I've worked for medical doctors & researchers for 20 years."

A medical education by osmosis. I'm impressed.

[Bridget Burke]

176. It's better than no education at all.

You said you work for a "faith based" group. Tell us more.

[Sadie4629]

177. Gladly

Right now our big project is paying utility bills for people within 200% of federal poverty guidelines. We have a government grant, and all that is required, beyond income guidelines, is that they have a shut-off notice, and that payment for fuel oil, or propane, or even firewood, will provide a minimum of 30 days of heat. We can also pay electric bills. We can pay back bills, as well. Each person can make such a request a maximum of 3 times, and for each request, we can pay up to $800.

In addition to this grant, we provide diapers, baby clothes, infant clothes, brand new cribs, coordinate food pantries, procure and deliver used furniture, get winter boots to kids, and fill in other gaps, wherever there is a need.

We run a parenting program which has been called by our local DHS "the best parenting program in the state."

Over the summer we ran two intense programs, funded through our local DHS, targetting families that had CPS referrals. A small group of families got twice per week classes and, as incentives, received $100 per week in grocery store certificates, and $60 per week in gas cards.

Since you seem to be interested in education, I have a B.S. in Education, magna cum laude, and my co-worker has a Master's in Family Education.

Any other questions??

[alarimer]

17. Who cares?

We are talking about cancer here. A cancer in which about 30% DIE. But I guess you don't care.

[Sadie4629]

22. There are things that are worse than cancer

Just ask someone whose mother took thalidomide.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. Tell it to the families of women dead from cancer.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. That's great.

Is that the new compassionate conservatism I've been hearing so much about?

[Sadie4629]

29. It's just a fact

[kestrel91316]

44. A MOST undemocratic attitude if I ever heard one, lol. Alerting.

[Sadie4629]

50. Did you read the whole sub-thread?

There are people who CHOOSE not to undergo what can be a very debilitating course of treatment. I respect their right to make that choice. Don't you? I know what I'm talking about, because I have had cancer--twenty years ago. There were lots of times that I wouldn't have been able to face another round of chemotherapy, if it hadn't been for my two little boys.

[PVnRT]

134. Which the FDA blocked, by the way

Wow. I guess the uber-pharmconspiracy wasn't working that time.

[kestrel91316]

42. Name a long-term adverse consequence of ANY vaccine in

humans that has proven to be worse than the population effects of the disease itself. Name any long-term adverse consequences (medically factual) of any human vaccine in use.

I'm waiting...............

(crickets chirping)

I thought so.

[Sadie4629]

57. Not a vaccine--

--but there have been plenty of instances of other drugs, medical devices, etc. See my other comments for further explanation.

[kestrel91316]

58. We're not talking about pharmaceuticals. We're talking about

a FRIGGIN' VACCINE.

Name ONE long-term adverse consequence of a human VACCINE.

You can't. Because there AREN'T ANY.

Stop fighting to DENY this lifesaving vaccine to women (and men) who want it. Your irrational fears about unrelated categories of medical substances are irrelevant.

[Sadie4629]

61. I am not "fighting to DENY" anyone this vaccine--

--I'm responding to someone talking about making it mandatory. There is a big, big, big difference.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. There's no such thing as mandatory.

If, for instance, it's more important to you to send a Jesus-laden "message" to your kids about refraining from premarital sex (even though something like 95% of the population doesn't) than it is to keep them alive, then you can opt out of the vaccine.

[Sadie4629]

67. Well --

It doesn't apply to me. No daughters. Two grown sons. And, believe it or not, I did speak to my sons about the effects, physical and emotional, of promiscuous sex.

And if it is going to be a requirement for going to public schools in Texas, then you might as well call it mandatory.

[tammywammy]

82. Well,

Parents can opt-out of the HPV vaccine, just like they can opt-out of all the other mandatory vaccines for children in public schools in Texas.

[Ms. Toad]

110. Read the law.

The opt out is a only available on a very limited basis, which you have to confirm under oath you are entitled to.

It is for religious reasons (or reasons of conscience). It is not available to me because, for the time being, I am opting not to have my child have the vaccine based on a analysis of reviewing her current risk of exposure, the risks of a new vaccine with little long term data to the target population, and the risks peculiar to her because of her abnormal immune system.

In the past I made different choices. My daughter has been on a medication now for 10 years that had little long term data - and was never tested on children. The risk, in that case, for not taking the medication was greater than similar concerns I had about the lack of long term data for a new drug not tested on children.

In both instances (and others) my decisions have been based on researching a variety of sources for the information available about the risks and benefits and making a decision that gives the best risk/benefit balance of two (or more) imperfect choices

That reasoned decision we made is not a religious or conscience based reason, so I am not eligible for the opt out (in Texas or elsewhere). Were I in Texas my choices would be to take my child out of public schools, give her a vaccination that I do not feel is appropriate at this time, or make a false affidavit (an act that could cost me two professional licenses).

[Bridget Burke]

148. Yeah, a Notary Public can really be a threat.

Deeply held convictions are surely as worthy as religious reasons.

[Ms. Toad]

179. The law requires the conviction be conscience based.

I didn't write the law - I am just tired of the repeated assertion that it isn't mandatory because anyone can opt out. That is not legally accurate.

My deeply held conviction - if were based on reasons of conscience (generally moral, ethical, or religious reasons) is a permitted legal basis to opt out.
My deeply held conviction that the vaccination is not an appropriate balancing of risks for my daughter at this time is not a permitted legal basis to opt out.
Nothing to do with being worthy - it has to do with the permitted basis for opting out.

If you want to ignore your legal obligations to be truthful in completing the form, fine. Just don't tell me a law isn't mandatory because some (or even many) people will choose to violate the law.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

182. So what's the problem?

If you don't want the shot, you can opt out. That's a conscience based conviction.

If you don't get the shot, because you're lazy, then that's not a good reason to opt out.

[Liberal Veteran]

184. Um, wouldn't that be an "ethical" opt-out then?

Your ethical principles say "I am not going risk my daughter until the vaccine has been used in the general public for a few decades to prove there are no problems".

I'm not seeing the legal dilemma in stating you wish to opt out for ethical reasons.

In fact, the reasons you are stating you wish to opt out is based SOLELY on your personal ethics in this case which would be a valid reason under the law.

Perhaps I am missing something?

[Ms. Toad]

185. The legal basis for the objection

is the same as that for obtaining conscientious objector status - reasons of conscience.

My decision is based on a balancing of risks. In a couple of years - perhaps even only a few of months (and almost certainly well before there is enough data for me to be comfortable that the vaccine is adequately tested) the balance may well change because of our family assessment of her risk of exposure. Our assessment is akin to potential soldiers who balanced the risks and decided that even if they believed that waging war is sometimes justified that this war was not (or that it the reasons for war did not outweigh the personal risks being a soldier would involve) - they certainly weren't entitled to conscientious objector status on the basis of conscience just because they balanced the risks and decided that the war was too risky

I doubt anyone will chase after parents who just go ahead and sign the opt out form, but my point is that it is a false argument to say that the law is not mandatory because anyone can opt out of it. That's like saying the draft is not mandatory because anyone can opt out of it.

I'm certainly willing to have a debate over whether the vaccination should be mandatory - but when I argue that it should not be mandatory and the counter is that the law isn't mandatory, that's a false argument (from a legal perspective). That's the point I've been trying to make.

[Liberal Veteran]

189. You are being inconsistent.

In a previous post, the objection to having fill out a form and have it notarized was essentially that parents shouldn't have to perjure themselves.

Then it was pointed out that an ethical or conscientious or medical reason is adequate to opt-out. And that effectively negated the perjury angle you were using as your point of contention.

So now that that line of reasoning has been effectively dispensed with, you want to bring up the draft? As if the difficulty of opting out of compulsory military service is equivalent to opting out of a vaccine?

That's not only inconsistent, but it's disingenuous. We all know that opting out the draft required considerably more work than simply filing an form and having it notarized.

And I never claimed it wasn't mandatory. What I DID claim was that relative ease in opting out certainly shouldn't present a problem.

Fill out a form, have a notary (again, found in any bank, Kinkos, UPS store, and a host of other places) witness and notarize your document, and mail it in.

That's hardly the equivalent of proving one is member of a specific religion, being interviewed by a psychologist, being interviewed by a chaplain, having a commanding officer appoint someone to investigate the claim, holding a hearing....etc.

Making it sound as if it there is some huge burden in opting out of this vaccination is simply over the top.

[Ms. Toad]

192. I'm not being inconsistent

And I have never said that the mechanics of opting out - for those who are eligible to opt out - are particularly burdensome. What I have said is that very few parents qualify - from a legal perspective - to take advantage of the relatively easy mechanical process of opting out.

With respect to the draft, again, the LEGAL standard is the same. The mechanics (going before a draft board and jumping through all sorts of hoops, as opposed to swearing under oath in front of a notary) may be different - but the LEGAL standard is the same. To avail oneself of the legally permitted opt out parents who do not have a conscience based objection to the immunization would need to perjure themselves (just as a person opposed to a particular war would need to perjure himself to obtain conscientious objector status). That it is easier to perjure oneself and get away with it with respect to the immunization program than the draft doesn't change the legal basis for opting out, or make either any less mandatory.

I have never said there is a huge burden in opting out IF one falls into the category that is legally permitted to opt out. What I have said, repeatedly, is that the legal basis for opting out is narrow (and it is the same legal basis for opting out of the draft). Providing a narrow legal basis for opting out means the it is a mandatory requirement - in the same way the draft (which permits the same narrow basis for opting out) is mandatory.

The law would be acceptable to me if there were LEGAL basis for opting out that is available to anyone who chooses to opt out. I don't even care if additional mechanical barriers are imposed - and it might even be a good thing to require parents review unbiased literature about the risks associated with HPV coupled with at least summary data of population on which the vaccine has been tested, the duration of the test follow up periods, the results, etc.)

What I have been consistently arguing against is the false assertion that the law as not mandatory because the mechanics of opting out (filling out a piece of paper) are relatively easy for those few who LEGALLY qualify for it and that it is easy for those who don't qualify to (illegally) pretend they do. A law that forces parents choosing to opt out to break the law in order to opt out is not the same thing as a law that freely permits all parents to choose to opt out. The latter is acceptable to me, and the former is not.

My argument is with the law - not the relative ease with which one can break the law. I'm willing to engage in a discussion about whether or not it is good public policy to have a mandatory law for this particular vaccine (I don't think it is). I'm not willing to debate the question of whether there should be a mandatory law against the false assertion that the Texas law is not mandatory (because people can relatively easily (illegally) get around it).

(It has been repeatedly asserted in these threads that no one is being forced, coerced, or required to have the vaccination and that it is not mandatory. I believe if you check my entry points into these threads, they are virtually always in response to someone asserting that the vaccine is not mandatory in Texas. Even though you may not have used those words, your assertion that it is relatively easy to opt out assumes that parents will be willing to break the law because it is relatively easy to do so.)

[Liberal Veteran]

193. I'm a bit perplexed by your answer.

What part of "I don't believe in immunization", "I don't have enough long term info about this vaccine to subject my child to it", "I am religiously opposed to immunization", or "I don't believe the benefits of this vaccine outweigh the risks" doesn't fall under a conscientious objection?

You keep talking about perjury, but you haven't given us any reason why perjury would be necessary to opt-out.

Do you even know what the word "conscientious" means?

Now in Iowa, where the only two reasons you can opt out of mandatory vaccination is religious and medical, I'd tend to agree with your point.

The state we have been talking about is Texas and the law specifically states one can opt out for philosophical reasons (which would include "I don't trust the efficacy or have enough information over the long term to trust this vaccine", or "It's against my religion", or "I don't believe in vaccination".

Or Ohio which allows one to opt out for religious, medical, or philosophical reasons.

So where is the need to perjure one's self to opt-out (unless your reason to opt-out is "I'm too busy" or "I'm too lazy" to get a vaccine)?

You are objecting to something based on the false assumption one must perjure themselves to opt-out.

[Ms. Toad]

194. I am religiously opposed to immunization does.

I don't believe in immunization may - depending on why. The others don't

The law in Texas does not permit opting out for philosophical reasons, nor does the law in Ohio. That is the basis for the point I have been trying to make (and I have quoted the law and in some instances recited the statute number). Here it is again: The language of the Texas law is "for reasons of conscience, including a religious belief." (§ 38.001) The language of the law in Ohio is "reasons of conscience, including religious convictions." ( § 3313.671) Iowa's is restricted to membership in a religion that prohibits vaccination, but all three states are the same nature of reason - conscience (ethical, moral, or religious). (all three do also permit opting out for medical reasons).

Remember, reasons of conscience is the same legal basis on which conscientious objection status is based. It is only the hoops the person claiming a conscientious objection to war/vaccination must jump through that are different (establishing to a draft board that the objection is based in conscience v. swearing out an affidavit that the objection is based in conscience).

Ask yourself if the reasons you suggested would have been sufficient to qualify for conscientious objector status: (I don't have enough (long term) information about this war to fight in it. I don't believe the benefits of this war outweigh the risks.) Those certainly would be philosophical reasons, if philosophical opposition was permitted, but the reasons are not reasons of conscience as that has been legally interpreted (or even its commonly understood meaning).

If they add philosophical to the statute, the statute would be fine with me. Philosophical is a pretty broad category, and has no particular established legal meaning to run afoul of. I am aware that many news articles, and even some immunization watch groups, list "philosophical" as being a permitted opt out basis - but when you read the statute, it just isn't there.

[Warren DeMontague]

87. What I have trouble believing is that it's more important to some people to preserve the illusion

that they're stopping other people from fucking, than it is to save lives.

[Morgana LaFey]

99. Boy, the anti-Gardisil posts I've seen at DU have NOTHING to do

with what you're asserting. You need to take your little whine on that subject to some freeper board or something 'cause those of us who are wanting to PROTECT our daughter's lives and reproductive health by not letting them and their vaginas and cervixes and uteruses (probably) be fresh road kill, er profits for Merck aren't talking about sex or sexuality at all. So stuff it. I'm sick of highly insulting strawmen like that.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

101. The things I've learned on DU:

Regarding HPV:

HPV is not a disease.

HPV is not infectious.

HPV does not cause cancer.

Women spontaneously reject HPV therefore they don't get it.

Regarding how not to get HPV:

Abstain from sex until marriage.

Do not have loose moral values.

Regarding women with cervical cancer:

Everybody's got to die sometime.

[tammywammy]

106. Exactly

I've seen those posts as well.

[Warren DeMontague]

114. I'll take my "little whine" wherever I damn well please, thank you very much.

If you had any reading comprehension abilities at all, you would see the post upthread directly referring to "values" around "sexual promiscuity". I'd be happy to dig up a good number of other posts -HERE- which link this vaccine issue to the same thing, if I thought responding to your screed was worth the effort. (believe it or not, there are plenty of people on "the left" who are repressed, anti-sex puritans and authoritarians, people who feel some kind of perverse need to tell other people what they may or may not do with their bodies, or lecture consenting adults about what they should be allowed to watch, or read,or what video games they shouldn't be allowed to play, etc. etc.... Ridiculous, I know.)

As it is, I'd suggest you go bark your orders at someone else.

[Bridget Burke]

147. So--"promiscuous" sex is the problem?

No, ANY sex could be a problem. Unless it's between two virgins--who never, ever have sex with anyone else.

[kestrel91316]

68. You're talking about how it could be so terribly harmful, ignoring

the millions of dollars and years of research that went into determining its safety and effectiveness.

Whether or not it's paid for by the state or insurance has nothing to do with whether or not it should have been approved. If you have factual information regarding its safety, or lack thereof, you need to provide a link. If it's unsafe or doesn't work, it shouldn't simply be off a "mandatory" list, lol, it should be pulled off the market altogether.

But I think you knew that.

Arguments about safety and effectiveness do not belong in a discussion of the politics of availability and who pays.

[Morgana LaFey]

102. Here it is again

A little bit about Merck's track record on safety issues and their fine, FINE testing -- actually, it's not that the testing isn't high quality enough, just that if they're not enamored with ALL the results, they'll just ignore those and not disclose them:




April 24, 2005
Evidence in Vioxx Suits Shows Intervention by Merck Officials By ALEX BERENSON
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/business/24drug.html?pagewanted=print&position=

In 2000, amid rising concerns that its painkiller Vioxx posed heart risks, Merck overruled one of its own scientists after he suggested that a patient in a clinical trial had probably died of a heart attack.

In an e-mail exchange about Vioxx, the company's most important new drug at the time, a senior Merck scientist repeatedly urged the researcher to change his views about the death "so that we don't raise concerns." In later reports to the Food and Drug Administration and in a paper published in 2003, Merck listed the cause of death as "unknown" for the patient, a 73-year-old woman.

The discussion of the death is contained in several previously undisclosed Merck records, including e-mail messages from Dr. Edward M. Scolnick, Merck's top scientist from 1985 until 2002, and from Dr. Alise S. Reicin, a vice president for clinical research, that indicate Merck's concerns about data contradicting its view that Vioxx was safe.

In one e-mail message, Dr. Scolnick said the drug trial that included the woman's death had "put us in a terrible situation." In others, he fiercely criticized the F.D.A. and said he would personally pressure senior officials at the agency if it took action unfavorable to Vioxx. As lawsuits against Merck over Vioxx move toward trial, the documents could help plaintiffs paint a picture of the company that is at odds with Merck's public statements that it had no evidence of Vioxx's cardiac risks until last fall.

snip

Merck withdrew Vioxx in September after a different clinical trial found that the drug increased the risk of heart problems. More than 25 million Americans took Vioxx between 1999 and 2004, and at least 4,600 people or their survivors are suing Merck, claiming Vioxx caused their heart attacks or strokes. The first individual cases are scheduled for trial next month in Alabama and Texas, filed by the survivors of two men who the suits say died of heart attacks after taking the drug.

much more at link

[Liberal Veteran]

113. And again, I'd like to point out that is one of about 100 products...

...that Merck has brought to market without any incidence whatsoever (and keep in mind, it wasn't just Merck....Bextra and Celebrex are also Cox-2 inhibitors and Celebrex is still on the market).

[Warren DeMontague]

125. All of which might be slightly relevant

if this thread was about Vioxx.

[Bridget Burke]

146. If you can OPT OUT, it's not truly MANDATORY.

Sorry for the upper case. I'm merely trying to communicate.

[Alexander]

121. The SWINE FLU VACCINE.

Killed hundreds. The actual swine flu itself killed maybe 50 people, tops. They discontinued the vaccine because it was killing so many people.

Do some reading and research before you go attacking people with hysterical rantings.

[Liberal Veteran]

123. More disinformation....of the 40 million people vaccinated...

There were approximately 500 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome believed to be caused by that with symptoms manifesting about 2 to 7 weeks after injection. Around 25 people died. Which translated roughly to a 0.00125% chance of a serious side effect from that vaccine.

And keep in mind, that was a very, very rushed vaccine (about 1 year to bring to market). As opposed to the over 4 years of phase III clinical trials done on Gardasil, and further time on development, phase I and phase II trials.

[Alexander]

128. The vaccine killed more people than the swine flu. You can't dispute that.

The FUTURE II phase III trials were done just last year. There is absolutely no way of knowing if there are any long-term health problems for the women they tested.

I think this should be available, but to make it mandatory is a bad idea. An idea some want to force through, like Governor Perry.

[Liberal Veteran]

130. So what? Health officials were convinced an epidemic of swine flu was imminent.

You are making a nonsensical argument. Essentially you are claiming that because the epidemic did not materialize, the vaccine was inherently unsafe.

It wasn't.

You can argue that it is tragic that a lot of people got vaccinated for a flu that didn't become epidemic, but 4000 women die from cervical cancer in the United States alone every year and the strains of HPV that are associated with cervical cancer and tens of thousands of women die worldwide every year from cervical cancer.

That's a fact. This is not a guess of some virulent new flu epidemic, it's a documented fact.

And I, for one, do not believe that sacrificing tens of thousands of women every year for the next 20 or 30 years while the tinfoil hat brigade wrings their hands over the vague conspiracy theories about the deadly dangers of vaccination is rational or moral.

Shit....if we had this level of mistrust of science and medicine a few decades back, we'd continue to live in fear of the yearly outbreaks of polio and smallpox.

[xchrom]

14. remember -- you don't even have to have cervical cancer to wind up

having to have an hysterectomy.

[alarimer]

20. yes

And if the person wanted to have kids they are out of luck. While a simple vaccine might prevent that from having to happen. The anti-vaccine nuts (anti science really) drive me nuts.

[tavalon]

30. Poor comprehension

The person didn't say the vaccine shouldn't be available. They said it shouldn't be mandatory so quickly after it's approved. It should be free and available to anyone who wants it. The person definitely didn't say that they prefer that people get cancer than get the vaccine. Read it again, mkay?

[Bridget Burke]

150. One Texas legislator who proposed a bill against Perry's mandate....

Has added a little rider to that bill. Gardasil can NEVER be mandated for Texas women.

("mkay" is so cute...)

[tavalon]

31. My comprehension is also off

I thought you were responding to the second post, not the first. Your response makes much more sense now. Mea culpa.

[kestrel91316]

41. Yeah, but what about the poor girls who FAINT when they get the

HPV vaccine???? WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?????? And the women who have A SORE ARM from it????????OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Better that we BAN it and let the women die of cervical cancer. They're just a bunch of whores anyway.

[rinsd]

46. 3000 lives just in this country

The US and some other developed nations have been able to reduce cervical cancer deaths thru PAP screening. What this will help with even more are the 500,000 women outside the US who get HPV then cervical cancer.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Jesus Christ, what next?

Cervical cancer is good for you?

[kestrel91316]

34. What side effects are you imagining???????

I have a better-than-most understanding of virology and immunology, and have tremendous confidence in the ability of researchers to produce a SAFE AND EFFECTIVE vaccine for HPV and damned near any other viral disease we need to prevent.

What specific known side effects concern you?
What imaginary side effects concern you? Please postulate a valid mechanism for the vaccine to CAUSE these hypothetical side effects. (Don't try to tell me the vaccine is horrible because it causes fainting, because I won't be able to stop ROFLMAO.)

[Liberal Veteran]

103. And you base this on what?

The handful of drugs out of hundreds that have made it to market that were found to have long term unforeseen effects (as if the medium in which the vaccine is in is somehow different from the same stuff used for decades?).

[Sadie4629]

4. I'm not for mandates

I really HATE being told I have to do anything!!!

I also have been through chemo, for Hodgkins Disease, in 1986. It was awful, but I believe there have been a lot of advances since then, in treating some of the side effects. I can tell you that

1-Cancer is curable.

2-Chemotherapy is not the worst thing a person ever has to go through.

Just my two cents.

[bleedingheart]

9. not all cancer is curable

many folks with certain types of cancer go into what i would call "maintenance mode"...

They have chemo, they go into remission, the cancer recurs and thus the cycle continues.

A little girl at one of our local schools was diagnosed with cancer and was dead in two months...

As for Chemo, my husband's grandfather elected to go without treatment because he suffered terribly. My coworker's brother died as a result of his cancer treatments, his heart gave out because the drug therapies were just too much for him.

So a vaccine to help prevent cancer is a great deal better than the "cure", it may not offer 100% protection but nothing does.

[Sadie4629]

13. Often it comes down to what you have to live for

If people voluntarily choose to forego potentially life-saving, or even just life-prolonging medical treatment, then that's their right. At the time I had my treatment I had a two-year old and a newborn and I would have undergone ANYTHING to enable me to be there for them for even a short time.

As for the vaccine, what are the long-term side effects? I don't believe anyone knows. As I pointed out up-thread, diethylstilbesterol was given to women to prevent miscarriage (I believe.) It was later found to cause vaginal cancers in the daughters of the women who took it. That was a side effect NO ONE could have foreseen.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. Riiiiiight.

People who survive cancer just wanted it more.

:eyes:

[Sadie4629]

25. Um . . . I don't think that's what I said

n/t

[kestrel91316]

48. You clearly do not comprehend the difference between a drug

(pharmaceutical) and a vaccine (biological).

Why does this not surprise me. I bet you can quote chapter and verse of the PNAC or the bible, though, right?

[tammywammy]

55. ...

:spank:

[Sadie4629]

63. Tell me where you got THAT idea

[kestrel91316]

140. By your continual, illogical insertion of problems with DRUGS into a

discussion of VACCINE safety. That's how.

Your basic logic mechanism seems to be broken. You need to get it fixed.

[Sadie4629]

155. Phew! Since all vaccines are so safe

I guess we can trust that there is no link between the DPT vaccine and autism, right?

[rinsd]

52. Let's see you're worried about a vaccine but were fine with chemo

I smell pants burning....

[Sadie4629]

65. I certainly wasn't 'fine' with it

but understood that I had no choice. I also have pointedly avoided looking up adriamycin or the other drugs in the ABVD cocktail I got once every three weeks. I was also not fine with the weeks of radiation, which took a lot more out of me than the chemo actually did, or with the splenectomy that was part of the staging laparotomy I had. As I said somewhere up-thread, it was an awful experience, but I would have done anything to be more than just a photo in an album to my two young children.

Pants burning?? I don't think so.

[rinsd]

69. Oh yeah pants are burning

Strange how you've hit all the various anti-Gardisil talking points even for subjects not raised here.

Luddite interpretation of science and strawmen all wrapped up in a sympathetic bow.

Shame on you.

[Sadie4629]

71. Ummm . . .

Just my opinion. I also was against the dentist putting sealants on my kids' teeth. Whatever.

[Lurking Dem]

73. She hasn't hit the

"sluts deserve what they get" yet, though. Unless I missed it. I admit to skipping a bunch of paralogisms.

[rinsd]

80. She knows her audience

That TP is best reserved for FR.

[Lurking Dem]

81. Well it HAS been argued here.

One does have to wonder.

[rinsd]

84. Someone used that argument?

You would think one would recognize it as a red flag to other members of the community.

[Lurking Dem]

86. It did not go unremarked.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

89. Several times.

By some of the most argumentative of the anti-vaccine people.

[TZ]

90. round and round for sure

but to be fair to the poster we are discussing I have made some points about the arguments and unlike some actually gave some courteous responses and has not made nasty insinuations about me. I think this person is just a little confused.

[Bridget Burke]

152. You missed her post--#67

"I did speak to my sons about the effects, physical and emotional, of promiscuous sex. "

[Sadie4629]

157. You know what I meant

By "promiscuous sex" I mean sex with multiple partners, or sex with consecutive partners, or sex with someone who has had more than one partner.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it Bridget?

[Bridget Burke]

164. Yes, I know exactly what you mean.

Your sons will not be "safe" from HPV unless they're remaining pure until their wedding night. Of course, their brides will be virgins. And they'll never, ever have sex with anyone else.

The father of the bride can prove his daughter's "worth" by displaying a bloody sheet on the morning after the wedding.

Your case will be a bit harder to prove.

[Sadie4629]

167. ???

In the first place, I said I warned them. They can make their own informed decisions about what they do.

In the second place, regardless of what I might have felt about the whole subject, the vaccine wasn't available until recently so I don't know what your whole point is in regard to my own children.

In the third place, who pissed in your cornflakes this morning? Or are you always so nasty?

[Bridget Burke]

169. There have been too many threads about HPV....

Some people want to delay their own children getting the vaccine. I can understand that; they should opt out.

But too many others are against any HPV vaccine--they think only the "promiscuous" should be concerned.

Then, there's the small group of anti-any-vaccine nutcases.

Have I not welcomed you to DU?

[Sadie4629]

173. Thank you for the welcome

--unless it was meant sarcastically! ;-)

[kestrel91316]

45. "Cancer is curable"............ Oh, really?????

Tell that to my beloved father, who DIED of cancer after suffering horribly for a year. There's STILL virtually no hope of early detection or a cure for his type of lung cancer.

You are a REALLY REALLY REALLY sick person.

LEAVE.

[Sadie4629]

59. You're right about lung cancer

As a cancer survivor myself, I hate the blanket statement that I've heard so often about "finding A cure for cancer." Cancer is not one disease, but many, and require many different treatments--surgical, medical, etc.

As my doctor told me when I was diagnosed, more than twenty years ago, I got one of the easily treatable kinds. Childhood leukemia is another. Testicular is another.

There were an awful lot of ignorant people who made stupid statements implying that I wouldn't be around to raise my kids. I hate that that happened, and so I ALWAYS make it a point to inform people that cancer is not necessarily the death sentence it was once perceived to be.

What's so sick about that????

[kestrel91316]

66. You really ought ro refrain from blanket statements about the curability

of cancer.

That's a medical LIE.

Some people get lucky. Many do not. While it is not an automatic death sentence, it never WAS. There are hundreds of types of cancer, and each is different from the other in its root causes and biological behavior.

I have lost a grandparent and a parent and MANY good clients to cancer.

And it's not always about money or quality of care, either. Sometimes it's just the nature of the beast.

[Sadie4629]

70. Maybe everyone ought to refrain from blanket statements

"And it's not always about money or quality of care, either. Sometimes it's just the nature of the beast."

Something we can agree on, at last. There are intangibles that can't be addressed medically. When I went through the whole experience, I also did psychotherapy. The therapist believed that there was an "emotional" aspect to healing, and whether that was true or not, I really benefitted from the psych support in a lot of ways.

And, for the record, my grandfather and only two paternal aunts died of very different forms of cancer, all in their 50's.

I'm 51 :-(

[Hell Hath No Fury]

149. Cervical cancer WAS a death sentance for...

a DUer a few years ago. I can't remember her screenname, but she talked about getting diagnosed in the Lounge. She went missing soon afetr that, and we heard much later that she had died from her cancer.

I wish she were still here to give us her opinion on the vaccine....

[kestrel91316]

47. Hey, Sherlock, NOBODY is forcing anyone to get the HPV vaccine.

We live in a free country.

If you have proof that anyone has received this against their wishes, post it here or STFU.

[Sadie4629]

131. The OP said he/she was "for mandates"

I said I'm not. It's called a difference of opinion, Sherlock.

[kestrel91316]

138. Name one person who has been forced to have the HPV vaccine against

their wishes.

I'm still waiting.

"Mandates" equals mandatory availability and funding. Name a state that has laws prohibiting anyone from opting out of vaccination.

I'm still waiting.

[Sadie4629]

156. Who says that's what "mandate" means

In the context of the OP it sure seemed that he/she was talking about mandatory vaccination.

Of course it should be available to anyone who wants it.

And anyone who doesn't want it should be able to refuse it. Choice, you know.

[rinsd]

49. Ok then....

Chemo preferrable to a vaccine?

Cancer is curable?

[Sadie4629]

78. Curable?

Yes, some forms of cancer are definitely curable.

[Bridget Burke]

151. Hodgkin's is one of the most treatable cancers.

Chemotherapy is just fine with you. So are radiation & surgery.

Welcome to DU!

[Sadie4629]

159. It's all about choice, Bridget

I felt I had none. And I would support your right to choose whatever option you wanted in that situation.

[Bridget Burke]

165. I'd choose treatment if I got cancer.

Although I'd seriously research my options.

But I don't think that cancer--or its treatment--should be considered a mere inconvenience. Preventing cancer is preferred, whenever possible.

[Sadie4629]

170. I don't think I said it was an inconvenience

Unless you've been through it, you have no idea what it is like. I made the choice--an informed choice, I might add--that was right for me and for my family.

Anyway, with mine I don't think there was anything that could have been done to prevent it. There has been some research concerning a link to a common virus, but for the life of me, I can't remember what that virus is at the moment.

[bleedingheart]

5. What about the MEN? I am pro vaccine, however I can't help thinking

that women are always the ones being told to get yearly check ups of their sex organs, yet given the infection rates there are clearly a lot of men out there who are infected and who continue to infect women putting those women at risk for cervical cancer and themselves at risk for something (not sure what..but I am sure that it isn't good for them either).


I am very much in favor of everyone getting a check-up every year!

[AngryAmish]

7. FDA not approved for men yet

Once that gets done then I'm getting the shot.

[bleedingheart]

12. but I really think that there should be more done to coax men to get

yearly physicals.

One of my best friends got HPV from a boyfriend who had no clue he had it and when she told him that he was the carrier, (he was her first..ain't that a kick in the head)..he was too embarrassed and he was then angry with her and broke up with her.

She called him back a few months later and asked if he had gotten treated and he told her that it was none of her business and he didn't have to do anything....and she told me she suspected that he was just too ashamed to seek treatment.

[rinsd]

53. HPV isn't curable. What treatment could he have sought out?

Aside from having the warts frozen off?

[bleedingheart]

136. How about warning his sex partners and keep from spreading

a cancer risk to women?

Unless of course he has no responsibility in this matter in your opinion.

[TZ]

85. PSA's on this subject

I have seen them several times with regards to men's health. Usually they are with regard to Prostate cancer but I have seen some general ones too. I believe that certain male oriented media outlets (like Spike TV) have been running them.

[kestrel91316]

51. THANK YOU. You are one of the few who GETS IT.

If I were to get HPV, it would be FROM A MAN. So men have a duty to get vaccinated, to serve as a protective barrier against the disease in women.

Just like why we vaccinate dogs and cats for rabies - so they won't spread it to PEOPLE.

[wicket]

145. Excellent

I will encourage all of the men I know to do the same. Unfortunately it is already too late for me (the cut off for women is age 26).

[uppityperson]

10. I know, but it is called being proactive for your own health, and not ok'd for men yet

It boils down to don't put anything into your vagina you wouldn't put into your

never mind.

Will it ever get ok'd for men or will it be another one of those things that has too severe side effects for men but for women the trade off (side effects of vaccine vs cervical cancer) works. I don't know.

[bleedingheart]

15. I completely agree, but this whole controversy has made me

realize how many men's health issues are ignored and how many men are diagnosed with stage 4 cancers because they never went for physicals until they were really ill.

[Hekate]

18. Um yeah. No one wants to say the vector is men, who seldom show symptoms or get cancer.

So I'll say it: Women get cancer from this. Men almost never do. So, even though lesbians can pass this to one another, mostly it's men who are the vector.

And those checkups for women? Expensive. I'm obsessive about mine, but then I have health insurance. If I didn't have health insurance I would be among the millions in this country who wouldn't know if their cholesterol was too high (mine was, and not diet-related) until they had a stroke, or wouldn't know if they had dysplasia (I did) until it turned into a cancer that couldn't be ignored.

If the government wants every girl to have this vaccine they should offer it for FREE, the same as the first offerings of the polio vaccine. My parents would have had to take out a loan to have the 4 of us vaccinated for polio -- and I'm sure they would have -- but as it was nearly every child in town was marched over to the school one day by their parents and received it free.

But then,the ravages of polio were something any fool could see with their own eyes and it wasn't (oh horrors) sexually transmitted.

Hekate

[bleedingheart]

23. I do believe the vaccine should be free

however I doubt that will happen.

You are right about polio, crippled kids and adults were evidence of polio, however a young mother dead from cervical cancer...well no one will talk about why she may have gotten it.

[xchrom]

38. kick

[Sapere aude]

56. If you want the vaccine take it, don't force others to take it!

What is so damned hard to understand here? Since when do we decide what is best for others and force them to conform?

[TZ]

91. not the case with this vaccine but....

sometime in the future its possible that in the case of a public health emergency like bird flu or heaven forbid small pox, mandatory vaccination will NEED to be done. What I am trying to do is inform not influence. Others are as well but sometimes some of us lose our patience and it comes out the wrong way (I have been guilty of that). We just want to make sure people are making responsible health care decisions whether its go with the flow or wait.

[AX10]

92. I would agree that such a choice would have to be made...

if there was a pandemic or worse. Cervical cancer is bad, but not an epidemic or pandemic, so there is no need to mandate this vaccine. More people die from the Flu each year, yet that vaccine is not mandated.

[TZ]

94. I believe in the vaccine BUT

Merck has just been incredibly stupid with this mandate thing. Its given the whole vaccine process/ industry a black eye. If they had any brains they would have done a public education campaign ONLY. Morons.:dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[AX10]

95. I agree that Merck has been absurd about his whole thing.

I am against the mandate though.

[Morgana LaFey]

107. Here's the difference

or I HOPE would be the difference in your scenario:

It would be PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIALS, not the company that stands to profit so fucking handsomely, pushing for mandatory vaccinations AND the vaccinations would be mandated for EVERYONE, not just little girls because it would be a DISEASE THAT EVERYONE WOULD BE VULNERABLE to, not just women who are infected by their partners BUT who can catch it with yearly pap smears which they're going to have to continue to get ANYway since this won't stop ALL cervical cancers, just those due to a couple of strains of HPV.

Get it??

[TZ]

116. Even Merck recommends pap smears

along with the vaccine. HPV is also incredibly common in the adult population and Merck (or another company) are working on a HPV vaccine for men as well. Pap smears are NOT 100% reliable. They have been known to have false positives and false negatives especially because of the potential for error as many results are read manually and therefore there is an ingrained subjectivity. But because until now Pap smears have been the ONLY way to detect early cervical cancer its done. The idea by vaccinating women (and its girls because of the commonality of the virus many adult women have it and therefore make the vaccine ineffective) while continuing pap smears is to give blanket protection. Mandating is another issue here and no doubt Merck's zealousness for money (and you know most people even at Merck do believe that a vaccine that MAY protect agaisnt cancer is a good thing) has played into that. My issue is that emotions and fears are clouding the scientific facts.

[Liberal Veteran]

119. Not to mention misunderstanding and misinformation.

Some of the responses from the anti-gardasil side have been decidedly.....bizarre. The most interesting one was "what if causes sterility?". That statement was among the most ludicrous I heard. As if Gardasil was injected directly into the uterus or somehow the effects of the vaccine were centered around the uterus. The vaccine works with your immune system to produce antibodies, but to read some of the statements, you'd think people were convinced that Gardasil travels to the uterus and forms an impenetrable physical barrier made out of some magical untried substance to prevent infection.

[TZ]

122. exactly

love your kitties btw!!

[Sadie4629]

132. Another question . . .

I believe it has been found that the efficacy of certain vaccines diminishes over time. The vaccination that was supposed to provide "lifetime immunity" to rubella when my kids were little needed to be readministered when they entered college. Under normal circumstances, rubella is a fairly mild childhood disease. The major problems with it occurred to the children of women exposed during pregnancy.

Now it has been found that the immunity diminishes when young people are in their peak childbearing years, thereby exposing a child in utero to the devastating consequences of rubella.

That was an unforeseen consequence of the rubella vaccine.

Many women who get HPV do not get cervical cancer. Probably the vast majority of them do not. Could there be unforeseen consequences to Gardisil which could be worse than HPV?

[TZ]

137. that does happen with some vaccines however

w I think that most people should understand that again Gardasil is not an end all protection but merely a way COMBINED with pap smears to give the most amount of protection. Anybody who thinks getting this vaccine is a license to have unprotected sex is sadly mistaken. Nothing in life is guaranteed Thats why I think that Merck should have started an public education campaign before making the vaccine available. And if it turns out that Gardasil loses efficacy over time then technically it HAS no long term effects so can't be worse than HPV which is an STD that cancer or no cancer should be avoided although technically treatable the way Herpes is. The vaccine really does serve two purposes here protection from a known STD that is pretty contagious and SOME protection from cervical cancer. In my mind if you combine the vaccine, pap smears, and responsible behavior you are well protected.

[Rainscents]

93. AMEN!!!

I am for FREEDOM of CHOICE!!! If someone wants to vaccine... go have at it and it's their CHOICE, however, don't make choice for others what THEY want!!! I will never, ever tell them what to do with their body and I expect same in return!

[Miss Chybil]

100. Agree. To get the vaccine, or not, is a personal decision.

I had pre-cancerous cells on my cervix and opted for a hysterectomy 17 years ago. I'm not sure I did the "right" thing, but it was right for me at the time. I don't mess around with cancer. If the vaccine were available when I was a teen, I would have liked to have had it. Perhaps I wouldn't have had to make the choice I did when I got my hysterectomy. I would never force anyone else to take it, though. It seems they mean to protect the individual with this vaccine, anyway, not eradicate the disease. If that were the case, men would be forced to take it as well.

[Sadie4629]

161. Why can everyone except me say the same thing? n/t

[PVnRT]

135. Because HPV doesn't care if you opt out or not

Get it?

The virus will infect those who have opted out because of whatever reason they decide to produce, and the virus will spread, and women will get cancer. What is so damned hard to understand here?

If there were an AIDS vaccine, would you be fighting that as well?

[xchrom]

88. kick

[sweetheart]

105. you die?

We all die from our toxic lives,
hopefully grasping something inbetween
worthy of the body's odometer lies,
about travels taken but truths unseen.

[matcom]

139. Kick

sorry I missed this yesterday

:hug:

[Bridget Burke]

153. Were some of the anti-Gardasil sock puppets tombstoned?

Certain names are missing from the "debate."

Have they been reborn?

[ContraBass Black]

188. Oh, were those all the same person?

[noonwitch]

158. Like any other cancer, the key is early detection

If they detect it when it is still just abnormal cells, they can remove the abnormal cells surgically, with a minimally invasive procedure.

I'm for educating people about Gardisil, but not for any government mandates that force people to get the vaccine. It's only the government's responsibility to ensure that kids are vaccinated from highly communicable diseases-measles, mumps, diptheria, etc. A sexually transmitted disease is a whole differrent matter.

[LeftishBrit]

172. As regards the 'mandating' issue...

the way I understand it, is that some states don't provide resources for free vaccinations unless they're mandatory.

I suspect that if America had a free health care system, this would cease to be a big issue. In the UK, vaccinations are free and strongly recommended by doctors, but there is no compulsion. Nonetheless, uptake for most vaccines is high.

I believe in free choice where possible unless there is a severe danger to the public. But free choice can only be free choice, if the vaccinations are universally available.

[AX10]

181. Are you saying that England does not have a...

vaccine mandate system? There is no "compulsion" as you say (unless there is a pandemic or something of that level)? Is that right?

[LeftishBrit]

186. Yes. Vaccinations are routinely given, strongly recommended, and free; but they are not legally

required under ordinary circumstances. Uptake is very high for most vaccines.

The HPV vaccine is not yet available on the NHS here, but is likely to be within the next year or two. I certainly plan to get it, and would encourage everyone to do so.

[McCamy Taylor]

178. Choice first. The RR wants women to suffer "the wages of sin" for sex, that means cancer and death.

They are fighting the HPV vaccine tooth and nail, because it takes away one of the scary consequences of sex. Never mind that a young girl who is raped by her HPV infected father can get the disease, develop cervical dysplasia and be forced to have a hysterectomy rendering her sterile before she ever has a chance to have a child. Her sad tale proves that she is a vessel of sin. Never mind that a young wife can get it from her husband, who then leaves her alone with a child, whom she struggles to support without health insurance so she does not catch her cervical cancer in time. Her death proves that she too was not among the Chosen. The Chosen are, of course, men, especially men with money and power.

If cervical cancer caused as much disability and disease for men as it does for women, the vaccine would be mandated. Indeed, a similar vaccine, Hepatitis B vaccine has been mandated for all children in many states. Hepatitis B is basically a sexually transmitted disease, that can also be passed through shared blood or needles. You do not see the religious right up in arms about the Hepatitis B vaccine giving their children an invitation to have sex, even though its purpose is to prevent the sexual transmission of Hep B, which can cause chronic disease and liver failure and death.

That is because Hep B kills men as well as women.

Anyone who says that the cervical disease caused by HPV is "easy" to cure is an idiot. Condyloma themselves are a nightmare even if they never lead to cancer. They are painful and disfiguring and the treatment can be even more painful than the disease. If they cause cervical dysplasia (pre-cancer), then repeated rounds of special Pap smears including biopsies, cryotherapy and surgeries are required to keep a woman from developing cancer. The follow up process can take years. This takes up time and money which not all women have. It interferes with her sexuality and her fertility. It uses up valuable health care resources. The number of cancer cases are as low as they are thanks to these treatments. They used to be much higher. If cancer develops despite this treatment or because the woman did not have access to health care, then there is a chance that she will lose her fertility--or her life.

All vaccines have side effects. The worst side effects are usually seen in infants and in the elderly. Teenagers and young adults are two groups which usually have the best results with vaccines. According to the CDC, the side effects from the HPV Vaccine are no worse or better than any other vaccines. There is always the possibility that new, unexpected side effects will be revealed. That is why every person who opts to get the vaccine will be given information so that she can give informed consent.

The real issue right now is who will pay for the vaccine. At close to $400 a series, many at risk young women will be unable to afford it. These are the middle school girls who are contemplating sexual activity. The other issue is how to encourage young women to consider the vaccine. Condoms are not 100% effective at preventing the transmission of HPV which could be found on their partner's scrotum. If asked, these girls are going to say "No, I do not need HPV protection." If asked, they would say "No, I do not need tetanus protection" too, but society makes sure that they get that. And Hepatitis B protection. And rubella protection to prevent birth defects.

Given the tremendous burden to individual women and the public health posed by HPV related cervical disease, including the HPV as a routine middle school vaccine to be fully paid for by the state with an option for young women to opt out if they choose is the most sensible way to introduce it to the public.

Choice comes first. Every young woman should be offered a choice about whether or not she wants the HPV vaccine. No young woman has really been offered a choice unless the state or federal government is willing to pay for it the same way that they pay for a DPT or MMR and unless she is informed about it by the same agencies that inform her about all other available immunizations.

[LeftishBrit]

187. ITA!

'No young woman has really been offered a choice unless the state or federal government is willing to pay for it... and unless she is informed about it.'

I fully agree! A medical choice that is only available to the well-off is no true choice.

[TZ]

191. Britian and biotech manufacturing- I am curious

Can you answer me a question? I know for a fact that many biotech companies that do any kind of manufacturing have been shipping their work to many places in Europe like Germany but a great deal in Great Britian.I have friends whom were laid off when the employer closed a 5 yr old facility that wasn't even fully built out yet and was designed to help make smallpox vaccine. The jobs were transferred to Scotland to save money. Why is it cheaper for these companies over there? I would really like to know.