Texas Governor Orders Vaccine for Girls

[brooklynite]

AUSTIN, Texas — Gov. Rick Perry signed an order Friday making Texas the first state to require that schoolgirls be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

By issuing an executive order, Perry apparently sidesteps opposition in the Legislature from conservatives and parents' rights groups who fear such a requirement would condone premarital sex and interfere with the way parents raise their children.

Girls will have to get Gardasail, Merck & Co.'s new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV. But further details of the order were not immediately released.

Perry, a conservative Christian who opposes abortion and stem-cell research using embryonic cells, counts on the religious right for his political base. But he has said the cervical cancer vaccine is no different from the one that protects children against polio.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4521924.html

Good God! Doesn't he realize that these girls, now feeling protected from STD's, will immediately run out and start having unprotected sex? How could he be so anti-family?

[Taverner]

1. Wow...Rick Perry finally did something I respect!

Governor, you get my thumbs up on this one!

[MADem]

9. I think anyone who doesn't get the vaccine should be counselled, strongly

But damn, I dunno about forcing people to get it.

I really am torn on this issue. It's not like tuberculosis, unless students start fucking in the classrooms, there's no risk of transmission in the school environment....

My worry is that there's a slippery slope, here. What if some scientist creates a vaccine that is able to alter brain chemistry to produce a "desired" behavior, or eliminate an "undesirable" one? Do we allow states/school districts to mandate that?

I know it's a good vaccine. I'm just looking past it to other vaccines that might not be so swift...

[MidwestTransplant]

11. I agree. Gov't should only be able to force vaccinations for

passively transmitted diseases such as Polio for example.

[Taverner]

18. We all suffer if a child doesn't get this vaccination

Not only because of the health costs, etc. But also because they can then transmit this onto others.

[MADem]

30. That is why I say counselling should take place. But when you say child, you mean female child.

I see several problems with this--the biggest one being that they are singling out females. Does this vaccine prevent HPV in males, too? You obviously cannot transmit it if you don't HAVE it, so what about the males? I find it bothersome that they're mandating that all the females be herded into a corral and stuck, and they aren't doing anything about one half of the disease transmission equation. Was it tested on males? If not, WHY NOT?

I note also that I've seen damned little discussion of the methodology used to determine the safety of this vaccine. I watch a lot of news and commentary programs, and I've seen stories about the vaccine, but none about how much testing has been done, what safeguards were used, and so on.

I am also concerned about the enthusiasm of the manufacturer in lobbying states to make this happen. Merck has a vested interest in forcing these girls to have this vaccine. I always ask the "cui bono" question, and the one who is bono-ing is Merck, here.

Again, I am not saying that the vaccine is BAD, I am simply not convinced that people should be forced to take it or be tossed out of school, absent the implementation of a mandatory "Fucking 101" class in place of gym class. It's not so much THIS vaccine, testing concerns and gender exclusivity notwithstanding, it's the NEXT one....the "anti-gay" vaccine in kindergarten, perhaps, or the "hyperactivity cessation" vaccine in grade one to permanently "calm down" an excitable child...yeah, we laugh at the idea of these concepts now--pshaw, don't be silly, that will NEVER happen--but a few decades back no one thought there'd be a vaccine for cancer of any kind, at all...so anything's possible.

[Sgent]

39. Its being tested in males

and most likely will be required when its approved for them. HPV doesn't cause much cancer in males (penile and maybe anal -- both are relatively rare), and thousands of people are tested before a vaccine is approved for a specific purpose/population. The reason it would be required in males would be to prevent females from becoming infected.

[MADem]

53. In which case, it should be offered, and voluntary, for females UNTIL the male testing is completed

I have a problem with rounding up the wimmenfolk, I just do. Especially when it isn't a condition only carried by a single gender....like I said, counselling as to benefits should take place. But after that, the way it should work is that you have to opt IN, rather than having to opt out, at least until the vaccine isn't a single-gender thing.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why these bastards at Merck didn't double-track the trials. Why did they just do females, and not do males at the same time? Are the girls more "expendable?"
Heck, they could have availed themselves of economies of scale in terms of lab people, study managers, and so forth, if they did both sexes at the same time....

[Thor_MN]

64. It's the VIRUS that singles out women, not men, not drug companies.

You appear to be advocating that males be rounded up and vaccinated for a disease that does not present a danger to them. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against vacinating males, but looking at it objectively, your line of arguement is a fairly hypocritical. Females are not more "expendable", they are essentially the only ones negatively affected (affected, not infected) by HPV.

The goal of the vaccine is to prevent CERVICAL cancer. It's been a while since I took an anatomy class, but last time I checked, men don't have a cervix - making the ethical ice MUCH thinner in saying that Gardisil be required for men.

Unless the effort is made to wipe out HPV worldwide, vaccinating males is asking them to take on whatever perceived and real risks that exist with the vaccine for (with extremely rare exceptions) purely altruistic purposes. Women, on the other hand, have a purely selfish reason to take the vaccine. Put another way, the personal benefit of the vaccine for a male is exceedingly small. Not getting cervical cancer? Priceless.

My opinion, for what it worth, let's vaccinate everyone and make HPV extinct in a decade. It would cost less in money and lives than Bush's stupid little war and save millions of women.

I would also say that if one feels the need to make someone the villian in this, they should pick on the virus for only affecting females. Protesting an antifemale conspiracy regarding cervical cancer makes about as much sense as protesting menstruation.

[SharonAnn]

94. They are the ones who are spreading the disease. Vaccinate them.

Remember that we vaccinate children for three-day (German) measles though most of them have little consequence from having it. The primary reason is that if pregnant women catch it, it causes severe and profound damage to the fetus in the early months of pregnancy.

To eliminate the spread of disease, you need to attack the "vector". If the disease is spread through sex, then all those who will have sex should be vaccinated.

[Thor_MN]

117. So only males spread HPV? Round them up and execute them.

On a personal scale there are only benefits to women in vaccination. On a human race scale, vaccinating everyone has benefits (which I have already advocated.)

Railing against males in regards to HPV is ridiculous. It's on scale with saying that's it's unfair that women have to carry pregnancies. HPV causes cervical cancer, period.

A woman can choose to not have sex, find a virgin and be monogamous with them for life, get the vaccine, or face increased risk of cervical cancer.

Maybe we should take the conservative view and just make the vaccine go away, since it makes people think about sex, would that make all the ranters feel better? Sheesh, an advance in women's health and women are finding a way to complain about it...

[MADem]

115. And it's men who are doing half the spreading of it. That's a lousy reason to give females

a lightly tested vaccine. Why not give them CONDOMS, and EDUCATION, and keep testing this vaccine and make it OPTIONAL, rather than mandated in order to go to school? That would meet the goal of stopping not just cervical cancer, but HIV and all sorts of STDs, and give us time to ensure that this stuff doesn't become the DES of the next generation

Merck lost 58% of their annual profit as a result of VIOXX, which KILLED a shitload of people due to ...what? Why, INADEQUATE TESTING, and FAST TRACKING through the GOP FDA.

Yet we're willing to trust every girl in the country to these guys??? These guys, who have given money hand over fist to individual GOP candidates, a shitload of GOP PACs, and the RNC?????

Why not let parents opt IN, rather than have to opt out and hope the paperwork doesn't get lost? Why the PUSH to shove this down everyone's throat? I think the answer is $350+ x the young female population of the US = "We're RICH, I tell you...RICH!!!!"

FWIW, the virus can attack males. There's increasing evidence of linkage between HPV and the massive rise in prostate cancer. So that "girls only" argument doesn't wash with me, especially since prostate cancer seems to be on the rise:

http://menshealth.about.com/od/prostatehealth/a/promiscuity_can.htm
The link between prostate cancer & promiscuity
Young men who are sexually active with more than one person face an increased risk of prostate cancer in later life. Research to emerge from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm points to sexual promiscuity as a leading risk factor in contracting human papilloma virus (HPV). Already linked to cervical cancer in women, HPV may explain why there has been a recent upsurge in prostate cancer in men. If correct, the theory is that once young men are exposed to HPV it kick-starts a chain of genetic mutations that can eventually lead to cancer decades later.

[Thor_MN]

118. Do you protest your beasts as well? Maybe men should be forced to buy tampons.

Right here, right now, there is a personal beneift to women to get vaccinated against HPV. Your reference indicates that FURTHER research MAY, POSSIBLY prove that there could be benefits to men as well. I, personally, feel that a global effort should be made to wipe out HPV, whichs means vaccinating everyone. That would benefit the Human race as a whole. I feel the cost of the vaccine is ridiculous and Merck should be forced to reduce the price or face having the vaccine taken over by the government.

But Today, for the uninfected woman, there is the PERSONAL benefit of reducing the risk of cervical cancer. You seem to want to take that away. If the vaccine is optional, insurance companies will not pay for it.

I just don't get it, the drug companies finally do something for women and it's not good enough for you.

[MADem]

119. I don't understand what you are talking about. "Protest your beasts?" Tampons?

Are you hallucinating or something?

If you are suggesting that men should buy tampons when they don't need them, your analogy sucks. Men have an oar in this river. HPV causes PROSTATE CANCER. Women aren't the only ones affected by HPV.

Look, I agree that there should be a global effort to wipe out HPV, and HIV, and any kind of "V" that kills people. One more time, I take issue with this entire fiasco on TWO levels:

1. RUSH to market aided by a GOP FDA by a suspect Big Pharma outfit that has had serious losses due to another shitty venture (VIOXX) and is a huge GOP funder, with no independent multi-generational studies.

2. The MANDATORY nature of the vaccine; the fact taht parents must opt out, not be able to opt in, and their kids can get kicked off school sports teams if they don't submit to a vaccine that prevents the possible consequences of intimate conduct of the sort that isn't part of the school curriculum.

I say make it available, but make it optional. You're acting like I should be "grateful" to MERCK for doing what they do, their damned job--fuck them. They should have asked for independent studies from the get go AND developed a male vaccine concurrently. And you act like I should be grateful to these state gubmints for MANDATING this thing. Sorry, NO.

I am not saying that people should NOT take the vaccine. I think people ought to be told why it's good, be allowed to have their questions answered, and then make a CHOICE. Not be told that their kids can't have a full school experience if they don't go along with the program. How you translate that into my 'taking that away' from women, I have no earthly idea. It's NOT what I said. It's just what YOU are thinking, but you are projecting.

The next vaccine, or public health decision of ANY kind, might not be so "swell," with such "obvious benefits" and if people aren't offered a choice on this one, they might not be offered a choice on the next one. Let's sterilize people with imperfect DNA, eh? There's a public health decision! What constitutes imperfect DNA? How about we let the Republicans decide! Let's force people who have mental illnesses to take gene therapy so they don't babble on the corner, even if they don't WANT to do it? One little innocent "mandate" can lead to unintended consequences in future. It's what BushCo has been doing with the Executive Branch. He ignores the Congress, writes up signing statements anytime he doesn't like the laws, and does what he pleases. I don't like him or his stooges moving the public health bar to "You take the medical procedures WE tell you to take, or ELSE!!!" This is America, not 1930's Germany.

Talk about giving up freedom, not for security, but for the PROMISE of security--in one area of health, anyway....I am simply saying that people should NOT be led like sheep. Convince them, with good arguments, real, solid facts. Don't threaten them with negative consequences--that's the facist way.

[Thor_MN]

128. Wrong. Your own article cite says it isn't proven yet.

Men MAY have increased rate of prostate cancer due to HPV, but it is not yet proven. What IS proven is that women get cervical cancer from HPV.

So TODAY, a woman can gain a personal benefit from this vaccine. If studies prove that men get prostate cancer from HPV, they they too can gain a personal benefit, but that it not yet indicated. As soon as an HPV/prostate cancer link is proven, then arguements about requiring it for all make sense.

Here's the point that you seem to be missing, unless a GLOBAL effort is made to wipe out HPV, there is no benefit TODAY for men to take the vaccine. That may change with further studies on prostate cancer, but feelings about unfairness have no effect on facts.

The reason for making the vaccine required is to force insurance companies to cover it and doctors to stock it. If it is optional, it's going to be an out of pocket expense and/or not available. You are arguing for either denying it to most females, or forcing it on males who, as it stands today, gain no benefit. Who wants their daughter to be the last woman to die from preventable cervcal cancer to soothe your mistrust of the drug companies and sexism?

I suppose I could start moaning about that men pay the same medical insurance rates as females, yet the vaccine won't be available to them, but I'll pass because the vaccine is a good idea.

What I'm seeing is a boatload of whining why it's not fair that this vaccine is currently just for women. Makes no more sense than bemoaning who can urinate standing up.

[MADem]

148. And cervical cancer has been reduced by seventy four percent.

thanks to pap smears. This is NOT a "top" cancer by any stretch. So what's your point? That young girls have to line up and take it to please INSURANCE companies? And if they don't, well, then what? They're punished? Not covered? That's just a bullshit reason, frankly.

Again, if you read my posts, I am NOT against the vaccine. I am against FORCING people to take it. Especially since some reports say that this series of shots may only last for FOUR years, requiring boosters. So, if you start a kid at nine, the Merck "recommended" age, you'll be needing to BOOST them at thirteen or fourteen, and again at eighteen, 22 and so forth. Ka-fucking-ching. Add it up, at a hundred and change per shot.

Your attitude seems to be that asking questions is wrong. Any dissent is "whining." Salute smartly, and follow Captain Merck and his first Mate, Glaxo Kline.

You know, they did the same shit to service personnel with that damned anthrax series. And I know people who are STILL fucked up from that fiasco.

In Michigan, they've re-thought this "forced vaccination" business, after initially approving it, for the PRECISE reasons I've outlined. http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070202/OPINION01/702020301/1014/OPINION

The "whining" as you like to call it isn't because the vaccine isn't AVAILABLE to men, and if you read carefully you would see that. It's not about peeing standing up--that remark was just stupid--no way to sugarcoat that opinion--dumb, dumb, dumb. It's because men are half the carrying population, and there was no TESTING of a vaccine on them at all. No attempt to even develop a concurrent vaccine. Which makes you wonder--why not? Why NOT cover the bases? Maybe it's not as safe as we think?

You seem to oppose both patient autonomy and informed consent. You cheer the FORCED vaccination of children, because you think this is a high priority--and if they don't want to take it, they'll PAY for their insolence, by being kicked off sports teams.

That said, I like the "New Hampshire" approach, as explained in this article. It beats the hell out of the OR ELSE approach by King Goodhair of Texas:

All child vaccinations in New Hampshire are voluntary. The state doesn't kick girls out of school because they didn't get a vaccine. It understands that parents can become overwhelmed and need encouragement -- not just threats and kicks in the butt. And as a result, the state has one of the highest rates of child immunization in the nation.

"We know that there are parents who have expressed concern about children and childhood vaccines," Moore said. "Our program was designed with an emphasis on education and addressing whatever concerns parents might have."

Legislation mandating the HPV vaccine for pre-adolescent schoolgirls is pending in the District, Maryland and Virginia. Those who advocate it are quick to note that parents can opt out of the program. But few can say exactly how many bureaucratic hoops a parent will have to jump through to do that. Besides, why should the onus be on the parents to figure out how not to be in a government-mandated program? In New Hampshire, parents opt in -- and the burden is on the government to show how the vaccine can benefit their children.....So are New Hampshire residents somehow smarter and better able to develop effective public health programs? Are they more concerned about their children than the rest of us? Hardly. What they have that we do not is the right attitude. They take their state motto seriously: "Live Free or Die," while too many of us are content to live and die as slaves.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/23/AR2007012301502.html
Isn't it AMAZING that New Hampshire treats their citizens like thinking adults, and gets the results that they do?

Three thousand, seven hundred females die of cervical cancer every year. The number of deaths per year has plummented something like seventy five percent because more women get PAP smears and catch the disease. Now, that's not a tiny number. However, let's put that number IN PERSPECTIVE:

Results The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435 000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400 000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85 000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial agents (75 000), toxic agents (55 000), motor vehicle crashes (43 000), incidents involving firearms (29 000), sexual behaviors (20 000), and illicit use of drugs (17 000).

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/291/10/1238

So, we're going to vaccinate every child in the country, with a vaccine that might need BOOSTERS every four years, at that cost, for those results? Three hundred and sixty bucks PER KID, with possible hundred dollar boosters every four years, to spare fewer than four thousand people who may or may not have had pap smears?????

Why not take away cars from everyone, that way we'd avoid FORTY THREE THOUSAND deaths. Or outlaw smoking or drinking--that would keep over five hundred thousand people alive.

This is a money grab. Plain and simple. And you won't convince me otherwise.

UPDATE--the MERCK lobbyist who is pushing this used to be the Chief of Staff for Governor Perry. yes, the very governor who ordered this by EXECUTIVE DECREE. Rosie O'Donnell, who has impeccable lefty credentials, just announced it on THE VIEW. She smells a rat, too....so I guess I'm NOT alone!!!

[Thor_MN]

154. And if you read what I've been saying instead of knee-jerk reacting

You would see that I think the price is outrageous as well. You would also see that I haven't advocated vaccinating anyone, unless we vaccinate EVERYONE. I pointed out the reason for making it manditory and opt out is to get it funded, I never said that it should be done.

We agree on almost everything, except for the "It's all men's fault" theme that you seem to be pushing. Perhaps you meant something else by "Where's the boy version", "Are the girls more "expendable?", "these bastards at Merck", "They are the ones who are spreading the disease", "it's men who are doing half the spreading of it", "These guys, who have given money hand over fist to individual GOP", but it does read as if you have majpr problems with men in general.

I have been trying to point out that with current information, as it stands today, the vaccine is not indicated for males, because it is not yet proven to be a cause of any significant problems for males. Of course, thats all some sort of conspiracy created by male CEOs of drug companies, those bastards, wanting to test it on the "wimmenfolk". As you pointed out, it may someday be indicated for men, but TODAY, your anti-male rants are ridiculous and hypocritical.

Over-emmotional, "women are victims" attitudes gets one nowhere when studying disease. Public health decisions are made based on logic and what is best for the entire human race, not emmotion or what's best for an individual. Public health officials sometimes have to be cold hearted bastards in their work because the job calls for it. Protesting the inherent sexism in the treatment of a disease that only affects women (at this time) is just plain insane. One may as well say that it's unfair that dogs bark and cats can't. Sorry if I can't find an analogy that gets you beyond "men are assholes" but I give up.

[MADem]

159. I oppose MANDATORY vaccination. I don't think we should vaccinate everyone.

Why? Because right now, EVERYONE means females only.

I think there should be a vaccine for males. Where the fuck you get the 'men's fault' argument from that, I have NO idea. It just shows that you don't read for comprehension, apparently.

I just don't think females should be Merck guinea pigs. But if you read what I wrote, instead of ASSUMING, poorly, how I "feel" you would see that.

Men ARE responsible for HALF this problem--that doesn't make them FULLY responsible for it. And as for the BASTARDS at Merck, well, I could call them bitches and bastards, the term was intended "generically" as in "All men are created equal." But go on, pick a bone to death because you can't respond to the real points, and must distract in order to diffuse--lame as hell.

And then, what's this "women are victims" shit? Women aren't victims, they're GUINEA PIGS in this instance. MERCK guinea pigs, taking MANDATORY vaccinations in Texas, to line the pockets of Merck and GOP politicians. Go ahead, study disease all you want, but don't order every student -- every FEMALE student -- over the age of nine to get a vaccine that is:

1. Five brief years old. 2. Tested on a very tiny universe of HUNDREDS, not thousands. 3. Unproven as to long term efficacy, and may require boosters every four years. 4. Untested as to long-term effects. 5. Untested as to adverse reactions in large population samples. 6. "Reviewed" and "tested" and "studied" by MERCK and ONLY MERCK. 7. Pushed by REPUBLICANS who have benefitted from Merck largesse. 8. Lobbied for by a lobbyist who used to be Gov. Perry's (R) Chief of Staff.

How hard is it to add up those points and come to the conclusion that this stinks like five day old fish? Why are you so EAGER for a vaccine that you will suspend logical thought and believe in fairytales? What's wrong with making this vaccine OPTIONAL and continuing to study it? Why the RUSH to vaccinate nine year olds (because, if you do need boosters every four years,that gives the manufacturer an extra dose to give out to everyone, perhaps?).

And as for the disease only "affecting" women, well, that is bullshit. HPV is "linked" to cervical cancer, just as it is "linked" to prostate cancer. http://www.health-science-report.com/alotek/topics1/article41/

You should really look at your accusations and arguments. They're shameful. And they don't reflect what I said.

[Ilsa]

46. You and I are on the same side on this, and ITA.

And I don't believe for one second that Gov. Goodhair did this because it was "right". I think he likes handing millions of dollars over to Merck.

Yeah, give the shot to the boys too.

[MADem]

54. I believe Merck and the Big Pharma gave more than a few cents to his campaign

And we know how well they took care of the RNC in general.

[rainbow4321]

105. "Perry also received $6,000 from Merck's political action committee during his re-election campaign"

Yup.
And that's just what we know about...wonder what went on behind closed doors, who got who a job/contract/stock options.

[MADem]

113. Their RNC dough (and we know how that got moved around) was pretty impressive, too. NT

[mare]

66. Don't you think your fears

are a bit over the top? Some of Germany's Federal states have had a mandatory German Measels vaccination in schools for years. Yes, it does "single out" girls only. I got it almost 20 years ago myself. And still, Germany has not starting working on an anti-gay vaccine, we also don't give the children anti-hyperactivity vaccines or anything else like that. I find the notion a bit ridiculous.

[MADem]

116. It doesn't just single out girls. See the link between prostate cancer and HPV

HPV elsewhere in this thread. How would you feel if you found out it caused DES-like effects in your daughters as they matured?

This isn't FEAR. This is healthy skepticism of a shitty GOP FDA, the same outfit that fast-tracked VIOXX (and that was a real winner of a MERCK drug) and it is a recognition that these guys stand to make a fucking FORTUNE. Every girl in the US times three hundred fifty plus bucks...that will help the profit margin. Look at Merck's campaign contributions. Make the connection.

Was the vaccine you got MANDATORY? Were your folks told you had to have it to go to school? Were they allowed to "opt out" by playing a religious card, or having to explain themselves in another fashion? Would you have been dropped from a sports team if you didn't play along and get the shots? THAT's the bit that I found worrisome, and that you ignored completely in your response.

It's the MANDATORY nature of the vaccine that makes me worry about a slippery slope. The minute a country starts MANDATING vaccines for conditions that can't be transmitted by anything other than very intimate contact, well, what IS next? "Gay" isn't catching, either. Nor is ADHD. When the government owns your fiddly bits, in essence, the idea that they could own your damned brain is NOT ridiculous...it's just a few stops down the facist highway.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

73. I agree - boys too.

EVERYONE should be vaccinated if it keeps it from being contracted and then spread. But then you get the "MERCK IS MAKING TOO MUCH MONEY - they're giving it to boys when girls are the only ones who need it!"

And if they have the "anti-gay" or "anti-hyper" drugs, I'll opt out by not taking the kid to get them, then signing the applicable form. They don't give them the shot at school - you have to take the kid to the doctor or clinic yourself and bring the verification to the school. Easy to just go to the school (since you have to anyway) and sign the paperwork to opt out.

[eyesroll]

23. You can opt out for religious or personal objections. What this does, though, is

allow Medicaid, insurer and other funding for the vaccine. ("Optional" vaccines generally don't get such funding.)

So long as there's an opt-out mechanism, this is a good thing.

[MADem]

55. See, I am of the mind that you should be able to opt IN, not have to opt out

If you want it, sign the authorization slip, and there ya have it. If you don't want it, do nothing. And if optional medications don't get that funding, then Congress should vote to change that law.

I'm sorry, I am sick and tired of this crap where, if you aren't hypervigilant and constantly berating your kids' schools for information, or the postman misdelivers the notification, or your kid forgets to bring the notice home in his backback, that the schools can inject your kids with medicines of not-rock-solid utility. There should be an ACTIVE consent process, not an "opt out" option.

Yes, the stuff is promising, but you never know--it could have unintended consequences twenty years from now. We won't know until the stuff has been on the market for forty or fifty years, at least.

And like I said, what's good for the goose oughta be good for the gander!

[AX10]

56. We are on the same page here. One should have to...

"Opt In", not opt out. I am pissed as Governor Granholm for going the "opt out" route. I expect a little better from Democrats, but then again, the corporation has so much damn influence in our system.....

[Rufus T. Firefly]

69. In Texas, you have to take your kids to get vaccinated.

The schools don't do it - hell, the nurse can't even give the kid an Advil.

You have to provide shot records to the school. You can do the "opt out" instead of giving them that information. So it isn't a big deal to opt out.

[nodehopper]

107. should, could...we should all have universal single-payer healthcare

also everyone should boycott Walmart, there should be live-able minimum wage, we should be out of Iraq, and Al Gore should be in the Oval Office combatting the global warming.

unfortunately, none of those things are true, nor are they likely to change in the near future. as the poster above pointed out, any vaccination has an opt-out, and mandating it makes it federally funded. Otherwise, low-income girls are the ones who get screwed.

[mhatrw]

122. In lieu of all this, perhaps Merck could provide this vaccine using

a sliding scale in order to complete their follow up testing?

[Maat]

40. This retired social worker agrees - no one should be forced.

I have a ten-year-old daughter. Yes, the vaccine sounds promising. Yes, it seems as if women should receive this benefit; however, it has not been available to the masses on a large-scale for very long. I would prefer to see it distributed on a large scale for at least ten years or so before parents are coerced into giving it to their daughters.

Take a look at Vioxx. They did limited studies "demonstrating" it was "safe." Take a look at some of the antidepressants, many of which likely could be causing suicidality.

Let's wait and see for awhile before it is mandated.

On edit:
I could live with an 'opt-out' option.

[Ilsa]

44. "But damn, I dunno about forcing people to get it."

1. I swear, I wouldn't get it for a daughter if I had one, just because the school system said she had to get it in sixth grade. That is way too intrusive into our personal lives and health.

2. I wonder how long it lasts and if there are any problems getting it later instead of sooner?

3. I don't believe Gov Goodhair does anything because it's right. I smell money somewhere.

[54anickel]

10. Makes one question the motive though, doesn't it?

I'm just hoping Merck did their homework on this one. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the vaccination. It just seems strange coming from Perry, and lately I don't have as much trust as I once did in the big Pharma corps (or should I say in their proper regulation).

WI is considering the same...

http://wfrv.com/local/local_story_026173807.html

Wisconsin Lawmakers Consider Requiring HPV Vaccine
(AP) MADISON A proposal with bipartisan support would require all girls entering sixth grade in Wisconsin to be vaccinated for the human papillomavirus, a move recommended to prevent cervical cancer.

Similar bills have been introduced in at least a dozen other states, but some have met with opposition from groups that say government is reaching too far into girls' personal lives.

Supporters of a mandate say it makes sense to provide the vaccine as a way to fight a cancer that kills 3,700 American women every year. But opponents say states should not push a vaccine on the assumption that young girls are or about to be sexually active.

The Food and Drug Administration approved a vaccine in June and suggested it be given to females ages 9 to 26. The CDC advised that girls be vaccinated before they become sexually active, since HPV is contracted by sexual or even skin-to-skin contact.

While that means most doctors will give the vaccination, having a state law requiring it unless a parent opts out only increases the number of girls who will get it, said Sen. Lena Taylor, D-Milwaukee, who is sponsoring the Wisconsin bill along with Sen. Robert Wirch, D- Pleasant Prairie.

more...

[Taverner]

13. I don't care WHY he did it

Just that he did. If Merck makes $$$ off of it, than so be it. They found a prevention for Cancer - good. That's worth my $$$.

[54anickel]

I agree, I'm just saying, "I hope Merck did their homework on this one".

[Taverner]

36. Well yeah...remember the Monkey Virus in the Polio Vaccine in the 60's

Responsible for the soft tissue cancer rise shortly afterwards.

Still, better than Polio...

[MADem]

57. Remember DES...that's still affecting people, and they stopped giving it in 1971

And let's not forget VIOXX--Merck's stock dropped FIFTY EIGHT PERCENT after that mess.

Is it any wonder that they'd RUSH to VACCINATE, at three hundred and fifty plus bucks a pop, in the waning days of Republican rule????

I smell an agenda...I think this program should be voluntary, at least until multi-generational studies are done and a male vaccine is tested and approved.

[Xithras]

141. Only two years of study.

No preteens given this vaccine have been tracked into adulthood to determine long term effects. The people who support this vaccine really should read up on the methodology of the drug safety study. While it involved a lot of women, it was incredibly short, and there is no data whatsoever on its long term safety. Merck doesn't even know how long it will be effective for.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

71. Amen.

Some people say that it shouldn't be done because of Merck profits. Let's just avoid all prescription medicine, then. :eyes:

If he included a provision for negotiating the price like Bushco DIDN'T do with Medicare drug coverage, it would be different. He is repaying Merck, no doubt. And that kind of money is obscene.

HOWEVER, it'll save a lot of lives - of the girls who get the vaccine and women who will not contract it in the future from common partners.

If it weren't for manditory vaccinations we'd still have smallpox, polio, etc...

[NoPasaran]

31. I swear I just saw a pig fly by my window!

It was a little one---really just a piglet---but it was flying none the less!

[SharonAnn]

80. Now, vaccinate all the boys. They carry and spread the virus.

[AJ9000]

155. Bullshit. He bypassed the legislature and has ties to Merck who makes the vaccine.

This is no way to formulate public health policy. He should be forced to resign, or be removed for this, and I am a Texan.

[hippiechick]

2. I t hink FL did the same thing, and there's legislation in IN ...

... to make it mandatory, too.

I just wonder
a. are there any side effects (short or long term) to these vaccinations?
b. which pharma co is profitting from this legislation?


:shrug:

[hippiechick]

4. .. and here's the answer to my question !

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2709611&mesg_id=2709611

Surprise, surprise. :sarcasm:

[babylonsister]

28. Thanks for that link! nt

[More Than A Feeling]

3. In this case, I'm glad corporate profit was on the side of the right thing to do.

[diamidue]

60. yeah, right. n/t

[Amy6627]

5. My 1st reaction after seeing the words:

Gardasail, Merck & Co.'s new vaccine

Oh the pharm co. paid him off! No repuke cares about anyone's health issues! Especially this guy who is: a conservative Christian who opposes abortion and stem-cell research using embryonic cells, counts on the religious right for his political base. Money trumps EVERYTHING with a repuke!

[saigon68]

130. This AssClown is Scum and a Criminal

He would jump in a pond and screw fish if there were a $$$$$$$$ incentive to do it.

[babylonsister]

6. This sucks. I don't want the government mandating anything over my

daughter's body. I would decide if I think she needs it, NOT Perry! :grr: What's next?

[54anickel]

12. I'm pretty sure you can opt out on it. That's how it's been proposed in WI anyway.

[babylonsister]

20. The words 'orders' and 'requires' in the OP got my hackles up.

I hope you're right.

[eyesroll]

25. The article says parents can opt out. nt

[AzDar]

17. Exactly! It isn't 'communicable' like mumps or measles, so if a

student should choose not to get it, it isn't jeopardizing another student's health.

If Perry is genuinely concerned about the child's health, he should make it readily available, inexpensive, and OPTIONAL.

[kimmerspixelated]

26. Exactly!

KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE DOCTOR's OFFICE!! This reeks of Pharmas and gov blending together in future horrific ways! It's not about the sex promiscuous thing, folks, it's about control over our bodies!

[theoldman]

27. I hope you decide that she needs it. As a matter of fact why

don't you let her decide. It's her body not yours.

[Tight_rope]

59. Exactly...who the fuck does he think he is...God 2nd

[Bucky]

140. Are you SERIOUSLY opposed to mandatory childhood vaccinations?

My mind's aboggle. This executive order will save lives.

[rurallib]

7. Perry is no longer a Christianist!

[Fridays Child]

8. That argument will undoubtedly be advanced.

As much I despise Perry, I applaud his decision. And, actually, if the preening, interfering fundie men of America understood that HPV causes penis warts, they'd probably push to make sure that all females were vaccinated, at birth. :eyes:

[Dora]

24. Not just penis warts. An anecdote.

I had a friend who kept contracting HPV from her boyfriend, even though they'd done the vinegar/blacklight test and determined that his penis was in fact HPV wart free.

It turned out that he was carrying the virus on his hands.

[Fridays Child]

34. Ewwwww!

[knight_of_the_star]

14. Can he actually do that?

I thought the governor of Texas was mostly a figurehead.

[AJ9000]

156. The constitionality is being debated and the AG has been asked to give an opinion. nm

[fla nocount]

15. Executive Order..........Requiring?

$360.00 for 3 shot treatment? Intensive lobbying by Merck (lobbyist a former Perry staffer)? The OP's link is an interesting read. Anyone remember thalidomide?

[jeff30997]

16. Ass Hole

[Tempest]

19. Will this be America's Thalidomide?

How much is really known about the vaccine Merck is forcing down our daughter's throats?

[Skittles]

143. it all seems odd to me, Tempest

since when have politicians ever given a crap about girls? And now with this they are off and running - and the fact that it's a repuke certainly makes me question the motives even more......something is just not adding up here

[theoldman]

21. A little education needed here. The HPV virus is not a money

maker like Herpes. Generally HPV can be cured quickly and is gone forever especially in men. If you vaccinate all girls for HPV the pharmaceutical company makes a lot of money but it's a one shot deal. Herpes can never be cured and reoccurs for the rest of your life requiring many prescriptions keeping the pharmaceutical company in business.

[babylonsister]

32. It's a $360-one shot deal. Let me guess; you own stock in Merck? nt

[Ilsa]

48. I thought it was a series of shots. I guess I was misinformed. nt

[babylonsister]

52. I meant $360 per child, but yes, it's 3 shots:

The New Jersey-based drug company could generate billions in sales if Gardasil _ at $360 for the three-shot regimen _ were made mandatory across the country.

[Party Line]

61. Wrong...

...HPV is often times for life.

There is so much disinformation in this thread but I want this point to be particularly clear.

HPV is for life.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

76. If you have had sex, you're at risk.

It usually has no visible symptoms (sometimes warts & bumps), and by age 50, 80% of women will have it. 50% of sexually active Americans have it.

[mhatrw]

98. 99%+ of Americans who have it suffer no medical problems from it.

One question, Rufus. What is the difference in risk of cervical cancer mortality between someone who gets an annual pap smear and someone who gets an annual pap smear plus this vaccination?

The answer is that nobody knows except that this difference is infinitesimal when compared to other medical risk factors.

[nodehopper]

108. oh, I see you are pulling out your weird random numbers out here, too

so, where are you getting the 99%? I have thus far seen you offer no links/factual support for all the random numbers you cite in your posts.

[mhatrw]

124. Please feel free to refute my "weird numbers" with some evidence.

This should be good.

[nodehopper]

136. I just want to know where you got 99% from

did you read that number somewhere? did you get it from a research paper? A medical website? Where did this very specific figure--99%--come from?

[mhatrw]

138. Feel free to correct it when and if you find any contrary evidence.

It is well over 99% when you are talking about cervical cancer and well over 95% overall unless you include genital warts as a serious health complication in which case it is still well over 90%.

[mhatrw]

97. Are you kidding? $360 is more than twice the price of the next most

expensive vaccination.

The protection conferred by this vaccine is partial (not even a 50% reduction of HPV-related medical complications overall), and nobody has any clue how long the protective effects last.

[derby378]

22. I hate to admit it...

...but Perry did the right thing. Only question is, did he do it for the wrong reason?

[Captain Hilts]

29. Merck is making a TON [several] of money on this. nt

[Rufus T. Firefly]

75. I couldn't afford a $360 vaccine, so I'm glad the gov't is doing it.

[mhatrw]

99. So you're getting this vaccine?

Or just forcing it on your little girls?

[Vinca]

33. Two things bother me -

#1 it's governmental intrusion into our private lives (which has, by the way, been lobbied for by Merck) and, #2, what if in 10 years or 20 years it's found not to have been as beneficial as hoped or, worse yet, is considered to have been harmful. Treatments such as hormone replacement therapy come to mind. I think every family needs to become informed and make their own decision.

[54anickel]

35. Yep, won't know all the answers until it makes it out of the lab. Couple

of links to the studies thus far. I think the vaccine could be a great thing, but it seems the states are jumping on rather quickly. Could be some want to get a head start on the Dobson types. :shrug:

This one has a Q&A on the drug dosage (series of 3 shots) and side effects:
http://www.drugs.com/gardasil.html

Here's one on the study:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=22445

[qanda]

41. Those the exact same things that bother me

[alarimer]

37. But what about those without insurance?

It is not cheap. With other vaccines you can go to the county health department and it doesn't cost very much but this is almost $400. Great if you have insurance.

[dethl]

38. I'm sure it'll be subsidized....

No way in hell can you force someone to get something if they can't afford it. The costs will most likely be moved to the taxpayers as a whole.

[alarimer]

43. I don't mind that- it is well worth the cost

This is a disease that is preventable with the vaccine, although I have questions about relying too much on the vaccine and not enough on safe sex practices. In my opinion we ought to be teaching kids (and it should be part of the curriculum no matter what right-wingers say) honestly about sex and prevention of both pregnancy and disease. A frank, factual discussion in biology class is most appropriate I think. I mean, if you are discussing all other systems why would you leave out the reproductive system and how it works?

[mhatrw]

123. No, the disease in NOT preventable with the vaccine. Nor is there

any hard clinical evidence that the vaccine even so much as reduces the incidence of cervical cancer.

[Ilsa]

50. The county health dept will have to provide it if it is mandated

for public school. I'd rather see the state mandate insurance coverage for anyone who OPTS to take it, not require it.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

74. In order for it to be mandatorily covered by Insurace cos and Medicaid

It must be a medically required treatment. Otherwise, it can still be listed as not medically necessary since abstinance, while not realistic, is the much better option and medically effective. Therefore, no subsidized treatments for the poor or inurance payments for others.

[nodehopper]

109. if it's mandated, it has to be subsidized, which is why mandating it is a good thing

people who are opposed to it out of paranoia/magical thinking/whatever personal reasons can opt out. And in the meantime low-income families will have access to it that they wouldn't have to an optional vaccine.

[0.5.empty]

132. Subsidizing is the issue. The state government mandates . . .

but the county government has to find a way to pay for it.

[ima_sinnic]

42. Rick Perry does not have a selfless, humanitarian bone in his body

Therefore, there's something in it for him, there is some ulterior motive -- pretty easy to guess, eh? Corporate pharma lobbyist payola, eh?
And look at how lax they've gotten lately in pharmaceutical safety --every other day is a big lawsuit/settlement -- Vioxx, Zyprexa, there are many more, I see the solicitations DAILY on TV and in the newspaper by law firms looking for people who got sick from this or that drug --

This "requirement" does not sit well with me at all. This is not going to be trouble-free lala land.

[Ilsa]

47. ITA. I have mentioned this in several posts in this thread.

There is some sort of payoff coming to someone for handing over the $$$,$$$,$$$ to Merck.

[rodeodance]

45. Texas Gov. orders anti-cancer vaccine

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_on_he_me/cervical_cancer;_ylt=AjrjaBxh0q8oc5PBXVqtPoKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--


Texas Gov. orders anti-cancer vaccine

By LIZ AUSTIN PETERSON, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 57 minutes ago

AUSTIN, Texas - Bypassing the Legislature altogether, Republican Gov. Rick Perry issued an order Friday making Texas the first state to require that schoolgirls get vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

By employing an executive order, Perry sidestepped opposition in the Legislature from conservatives and parents' rights groups who fear such a requirement would condone premarital sex and interfere with the way Texans raise their children.

Beginning in September 2008, girls entering the sixth grade — meaning, generally, girls ages 11 and 12 — will have to receive Gardasil, Merck & Co.'s new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV.

Perry also directed state health authorities to make the vaccine available free to girls 9 to 18 who are uninsured or whose insurance does not cover vaccines. In addition, he ordered that Medicaid offer Gardasil to women ages 19 to 21.

[rodeodance]

49. he did it by executive ORDER---which i oppose

.....By employing an executive order, Perry sidestepped opposition in the Legislature from conservatives and parents' rights groups who fear such a requirement would condone premarital sex and interfere with the way Texans raise their children.

[Ilsa]

51. Perry also received $6,000 from Merck's political action committee during his re-election campaign.

This is only the one that's been reported. I wonder what else has been promised.

[0.5.empty]

133. Merck's Texas lobbyist is Mike Toomey, Rick Perry's former chief of staff.

There's that. There's also the rumor that he wants to be on the '08 VP ticket.

[Tight_rope]

58. Excuss me...but why are the boys not being Vaccine!

[depakid]

63. $$$

We only have limited public health funds and we have to target them toward where they'll do the most good.

When the money and the supply of vaccine becomes available, then boys will get it, too.

[nodehopper]

110. the vaccine is still in trial stages for boys now

Since the virus targets women, because it causes CERVICAL cancer, they are obviously the first target population.

[mhatrw]

62. The Facts On Merck's Gardasil Vaccine

(used with permission)

I've been watching all these ads on TV telling women to find out about GARDASIL. And then I read that Merck was lobbying for this vaccine to become mandatory. Then I saw that the Texas governor is making this vaccine mandatory in Texas for preteens. So I finally decided to look into it.

Here's the scoop:

1) GARDASIL is a vaccine for 4 strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV), two strains that are strongly associated (and probably cause) genital warts and two strains that are typically associated (and may cause) cervical cancer. About 90% of people with genital warts show exposure to one of the two HPV strains strongly suspected to cause genital warts. About 70% of women with cervical cancer show exposure to one of the other two HPV strains that the vaccine is designed to confer resistance to.

2) HPV is a sexually communicable (not an infectious) virus. When you consider all strains of HPV, over 70% of sexually active males and females have been exposed. A condom helps a lot (70% less likely to get it), but has not been shown to stop transmission in all cases (only one study of 82 college girls who self-reported about condom use has been done). For the vast majority of women, exposure to HPV strains (even the four "bad ones" protected for in GARDASIL) results in no known health complications of any kind.

3) Cervical cancer is not a deadly nor prevalent cancer in the US or any other first world nation. Cervical cancer rates have declined sharply over the last 30 years and are still declining. Cervical cancer accounts for less than 1% of of all female cancer cases and deaths in the US. Cervical cancer is typically very treatable and the prognosis for a healthy outcome is good. The typical exceptions to this case are old women, women who are already unhealthy and women who don't get pap smears until after the cancer has existed for many years.

4) Merck's clinical studies for GARDASIL were problematic in several ways. Only 20,541 women were used (half got the "placebo") and their health was followed up for only four years at maximum and typically 1-3 years only. More critically, only 1,121 of these subjects were less than 16. The younger subjects were only followed up for a maximum of 18 months. Furthermore, less than 10% of these subjects received true placebo injections. The others were given injections containing an aluminum salt adjuvant (vaccine enhancer) that is also a component of GARDASIL. This is scientifically preposterous, especially when you consider that similar alum adjuvants are suspected to be responsible for Gulf War disease and other possible vaccination related complications.

5) Both the "placebo" groups and the vaccination groups reported a myriad of short term and medium term health problems over the course of their evaluations. The majority of both groups reported minor health complications near the injection site or near the time of the injection. Among the vaccination group, reports of such complications were slightly higher. The small sample that was given a real placebo reported far fewer complications -- as in less than half. Furthermore, most if not all longer term complications were written off as not being potentially vaccine caused for all subjects.

6) Because the pool of subjects were so small and the rates of cervical cancer are so low, NOT A SINGLE CONTROL SUBJECT ACTUALLY CONTRACTED CERVICAL CANCER IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM -- MUCH LESS DIED OF IT. Instead, this vaccine's supposed efficacy is based on the fact that the vaccinated group ended up with far fewer cases (5 vs. about 200) of genital warts and "precancerous lesions" (dysplasias) than the alum injected "control" subjects.

7) Because the tests included just four years of follow up at most, the long term effects and efficacy of this vaccine are completely unknown for anyone. All but the shortest term effects are completely unknown for little girls. Considering the tiny size of youngster study, the data about the shortest terms side effects for girls are also dubious.

8) GARDASIL is the most expensive vaccine ever marketed. It requires three vaccinations at $120 a pop for a total price tag of $360. It is expected to be Merck's biggest cash cow of this and the next decade.

These are simply the facts of the situation as presented by Merck and the FDA. This vaccine was just approved in June, 2006. It was never tested on pre-teens except in a tiny trial run with at most 18 months of follow up. Even if we subscribe to the theory that HPV causes cervical cancer, there is ZERO hard data showing that this vaccine reduces cervical cancer rates or cervical cancer mortality rates, which are both already very low in the US and getting lower every year. Now Texas has already made this vaccine mandatory for middle school with all sorts of useful idiots and Big Pharma operatives clamoring for more states to make this vaccine COMPULSORY immediately.

Has everyone gotten the picture or should I continue?

[Maeve]

67. Thank you for that

Regular PAP tests are still required for those who receive the shots and the testing is the main cause of the dramatic drop in cervical cancer deaths since the 1950's. We now find it faster and while it's still curable (those of us at/past menopause need to keep getting Paps, too)

I'm afraid Texas girls just became experimental subjects.

[qanda]

83. Thank you

I will wait until my daughter is old enough to make her own decision.

[NashVegas]

88. I Think You're Looking At This Through the Wrong Angle

The *researchers* behind the vaccine appear to have nothing but good intent.

Over the long course, just because cervical abnormalities can be caught early through a pap smear (which, if you add up the cost on a year-to-year basis is MUCH higher than a vaccine) doesn't mean they can't do any damage in the meantime.

IMO, the real reason Merck is pushing this as a requirement is that they want their vaccine to get the government contract before their competitor, Glaxo, gets FDA approval.

[mhatrw]

95. I agree the researchers have good intent. I agree that this vaccine

shows some clinical promise against the HPV strains it targets.

I strongly disagree that anyone can reasonably state that they currently know with any degree of certainty that this vaccine's overall benefits outweigh its overall risks for young girls. HPV is not an infectious disease. It doesn't lead to cervical cancer in at least 99% of cases. And cervical cancer is almost always treatable. So the rush to make this vaccine mandatory is not being driven by altruistic medical considerations, IMHO.

[NashVegas]

104. Oh. Boy.

I have stated the doubt that the lobbying for a mandatory dose is purely altruistic.

That said, I think your post is unbelievably foolhardy to state that treating cervical cancer is preferable to avoiding it.

And where are you getting info that states HPV is not infectious?

[mhatrw]

121. It is communicable, not infectious. There is a difference.

Prolonged skin to skin contact is required at minimum.

My point is that this vaccine has not been proven effective against cervical cancer itself.

It's actually a vaccine against 4 (of about 30 nasty) strains of HPV, two that are related to cervical cancer and two that are related to genital warts. None of the control test subjects got cervical cancer, so it is a stretch to say it is effective against cervical cancer itself. The data are simply not in on this point at this time. What this vaccine did help protect against was genital warts and precancerous growths associated with the 4 strains of HPV it is designed to protect against.

Basically, the proven benefits are limited compared to annual pap smears and protected sex, the actual long term risks are unknown, even the short term risks for preteens are unknown, it delivers three more shots of aluminum adjuvants shown to cause neural death in mammals and it's twice as expensive as the next most expensive vaccine.

This does NOT make it a good candidate for compulsory vaccination among grammar school kids.

[NashVegas]

127. How Do You Define Infectious?

I'm serious. What literature are you reading the claims HPV is not infectious?

[mhatrw]

135. Infectious = You don't have to have prolonged skin to skin

contact to contract it in well over 99% of all cases.

This vaccine protects against HPV, which is a well recognized STD. HPV is associated with cervical cancer, but no causal mechanism has been proven.

HPV is NOT infectious. It is instead communicable through sexual contact. The idea that cervical cancer is infectious is ludicrous. It is at least one step (and almost certainly many more) removed from an STD. And that's just in most cases, and that's just a correlation.

[lonestarnot]

65. Optional isn't in the dictionary in Texas.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

68. Parents can opt out.

And it IS about money - the Chronicle article goes into Merck pusing it and spending a lot of money promoting the vaccine and pushing it to be mandatory.

However, I'm all for any vaccinations that save lives, especially one like this that has two benefits:

1) Saving girls from cervical cancer later in life, and
2) It REALLY pisses off the "Christian Right"

[lonestarnot]

70. Good opt out.

I had enough no option shots in the military. Merck experiments. Don't trust them.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

77. They don't inject the kids at school.

The parent takes the kid to the doctor and brings the shot record to the school.

[lonestarnot]

79. Hmmm.

Did I say that? :shrug:

[Rufus T. Firefly]

82. Oops.

Meant to respond to the post that you responded to, not to yours. Sorry. :blush:

[lonestarnot]

90. No need to blush Rufus T. Firefly.

I screw up daily. :hug:

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

72. Can't we all put hate of Repukes aside and see the bigger picture here

There is an opt out clause. The main purpose behind this measure is to get it off the Insurance Cos and Medicaid's voluntary/medically unnecessary list, which FORCES them to pony up for this preventitive measure if the family wants it for their daughter (and soon, sons). If they don't, then they can opt out. But those that do, especially those who can't pony up the $360 per course can get subsidized treatment.

Why do I suspect that if this was an HIV vaccine and it was not made mandatory, that the argument would be made that Perry was trying to keep it on the voluntary treatment list so that the drug cos could gouge people for more money or b/c he hated homosexuals/drug users/unsafe sex practitioners/poor and he wanted them to suffer if they couldn't pay for the treatment.

The fact that Merck is making money on this is of no concern to me, this is what Capitalism is supposed to do. This is one case where it worked exactly the way it was theorized to. Let them cash the checks, but those checks will be oming from insurance cos and Medicaid and less directly from the poor's pockets.

[bearfan454]

87. "Can't we all put hate of Repukes aside and see the bigger picture here"

No we can't. This is another small step to making people think the Government can tell you what you can and cannot do with your own body.

[mhatrw]

96. Big Picture = Tax Dollars -> Merck

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

101. What do you think would pay for Universal Healthcare?

N/T

[mhatrw]

120. Nobody would be paying $360 a pop if we had single payer.

And poor people could get this vaccine for their kids if they wanted it, instead of having it mandated for them.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

131. Not true at all.

Someone would be paying $360 a pop. The Universal HC provider i.e. govt i.e. taxpayer, i.e. you and me would; same as now for the subsidized.

There would still be a list of medically necessary items that would be paid for and those that would not. By your reasoning, Universal HC provided by the govt would allow you to get a facelift just like vaccines, heart bypass, etc, just b/c you have insurance.

Mandating it (with an opt out clause) simply puts it on the State Medicaid subsidized list as a required treatment and keeps insurance companies from decalring it not medically necessary therefore not covered.

Again, I suspect torches would be burning in the street led by people here if an HIV vaccine wasn't made mandatory so that Medicaid would HAVE to subsidize it.

[mhatrw]

134. This isn't HIV. How many young women who get yearly pap smears die of HPV?

The answer is none.

Furthermore, no nationalized health plan is paying $360 a pop for this vaccine. Americans are the only ones who pay that kind of outrageous price for ANY vaccine.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

137. Death rate of abstinent non IV drug users?

How many non IV drug users die of HIV if they are abstinent until they are in a monogamous committed relationship where both partners are tested prior to sex? The answer to that qestion also my friend is none. So your straw man doesn't hold up to a mild breeze.

As for the price tag of the vaccine, this is a vaccine that PREVENTS CANCER, I would suspect that women who have had cervical cancer traced to HPV would have paid any amount to be treated with this prior to their infection.

[mhatrw]

139. If you get HIV, you typically die.

If you get HPV, typically nothing happens. If something does, it is typically eminently treatable.

There is ZERO clinical evidence that this vaccine PREVENTS CANCER. Not a single person in the control group contracted cervical cancer vs. not a single person in the vaccinated group. How is that evidence for PREVENTING CANCER?

If you want to take this vaccine or want your kids to take it, please feel free. I am not trying to stop you.

[onecent]

78. Over my dead body would any of my girls have been allowed

to have this vaccine. Big brother telling us all what to do.

So far this week on TV I heard

Cell phones - danger
lettuce - danger
beef - danger
cars - (danger from cancer)
eggs - danger
trans fats - danger

When big govt begins telling us what meds we MUST put in our bodies, that's way over the top.

[leftyladyfrommo]

81. I Have to wonder if anyone has done long term tests on this

vaccine. Probably not.

It will be like hormones. Women took them for 20 years before anyone realized the dangers.

I don't trust the medical profession or the drug industry to do the right thing. This is a huge money maker.

And when there are huge profits you can be sure that we aren't getting all of the info that we should.

[mhatrw]

100. The answer is no. The longest time anyone was followed up in these

studies was four years, and the few hundred girls under 16 who were tested were followed up for 18 months maximum.

[leftyladyfrommo]

126. I wouldn't take it then. We keep hearing all these wonderful

things about these drugs and then find out the long term results can be devastating.

[bearfan454]

91. You got that right onecent !

Perry can go to HELL if he thinks he can make my granddaughter get a vaccine required by Big brother. This may be just floating a trial balloon to see if they can get people to take any vaccine they say is needed.

[AngryAmish]

106. Do you feel the same way about the whooping cough vaccine?

That is required also.

[nodehopper]

111. oh? what if your daughter(s) wanted to get it?

[Xithras]

142. I would explain to them...

"While this drug might be beneficial, it might also give you cancer, leave you barren, cause hormonal problems, or do all sorts of other nasty things. We really don't know, because no long term trials have been done on young girls and the vaccine hasn't been used long enough to establish its overall safety."

Then they would get a NO. If my daughter wants it when she's 18, that's her choice. Now? I'm her parent, and unless her health is in imminent danger, it's MY decision. I'm a very liberal parent, and I'm highly educated, but I will not permit my children to ingest ANY pharmaceutical that isn't yet proven safe. I don't care what it does.

[roody]

84. Geez, I thought I grew up in a free country. There must

be a very friendly relationship between Gardasail, Merck, and Gov. Perry.

[bearfan454]

85. This violates people's Constitutional rights.

The government cannot force a medical procedure on anyone. Plain and simple. Class action NOW !

[nodehopper]

112. does MMR vaccine violate constituional rights? what are you talking about?

[NashVegas]

86. I Wonder If Glaxo Will Sue to Stop This

Its rival, Cervarix by GlaxoSmithKline, produces the same protein, with the same power, in an insect virus grown in a broth of caterpillar ovary cells.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/29/health/29hpv.html

[Lone_Star_Dem]

89. Perry caught with his hand in the Merck cookie jar.?

"The emergency is in the board room of Merck, because they've seen this measure fail in three states, and they want to make sure that this thing doesn't go down the tubes," Richardson said.

They've been pushing to pass laws similar to this across the country. They've failed in Michigan, Maryland and Indiana. So how could they get a slam dunk in Texas?

Perry's former chief of staff is now a lobbyist for Merck, and his current chief of staff's mother-in-law is a state representative, involved in the group Women In Government. That group received money from Merck.
http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=6032477&nav=0s3d

I hope the religious zealot supporters of Perry are paying close attention.

[Nikki Stone1]

103. Ding, ding, ding!

...

[dkofos]

92. How much Merck stock does pErry own??

He never does anything unless he gains from it.
Politically, or monetarily

[Maine-ah]

93. .

Perry has several ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company's three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, Perry's former chief of staff. His current chief of staff's mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director for Women in Government.

Perry also received $6,000 from Merck's political action committee during his re-election campaign.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4521924.html

[UTUSN]

102. Whatever good the vaccine, it's a WINDFALL for Merck. Nothing good from Goodhair n/t

[DuaneBidoux]

114. There are a lot of cynics on Perry's motives and I understand. But it doesn't add up.

Perry will pay more of a political cost with the wingnuts in Texas and in the Texas Republican Party than he could ever hope to gain from Big Pharma.

If you even took one look at the Texas Republican platform (I live in Houston) you would see a platform that is reactionary beyond belief. Several examples: the platform declares that the United States is a "Christian" nation and makes explicit that teaching any sex ed that does not exclusively emphasize abstinence should be forbidden. Perry's stance is a long way from that and these wingnuts ARE his base.

There are a lot of issues in this that are important. For me it is not at all an easy call. I can see many perspectives on this issue and even within myself have contradictory feelings but, as far as Perry goes, he will pay a price for this.

[mhatrw]

125. And he will be rewarded handsomely by Merck when he retires for

whatever political price he pays now.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

129. Perry's in his last term

One he would not have won if not for the way they split the race among four candidates. This term he's in it for the money, and Merck will provide him with a larger nest egg for his retirement.

You should see the mansion he's having built in Horseshoe Bay on lobbyist money. He's got everything in place to step out and live the high life.

[MADem]

150. He's REWARDING his FRIEND--see post 149, below. NT

[Lone_Star_Dem]

152. Yes, I agree. See my post #89 above.

[MADem]

158. Jesus, that's a great link. Sums up the greed in a nutshell...

Pity more here can't see the con for what it is. They're so anxious for a cancer "win" that they can't see that the huckster is Big Pharma, the enabler and enforcer is the Governor of Texas, and there's a shitload of taxpayer money changing hands here. And at the end of the day, it could all be for snake oil.

[jsamuel]

144. my cat died from a vaccine he didn't need

It was for something he could only get if he was an outdoor cat or if he interacted with outdoor cats. He wasn't and he didn't. The shot killed him. He was perfectly healthy otherwise. Since then I have reevaluated the effectiveness of vaccines. I think for most people they are the right thing, but in some circumstances, the risks of taking the vaccine are far greater than the risk of getting the disease elsewhere.

I lost a cat from one. Do I want my daughter or wife to take something like this? I don't know. Both me and my wife are monogamous. At this point for her, there is a 0% chance of her getting the disease. Plus, how long has this vaccine been tested? What are the infection rates after failed vaccinations?

[Bridget Burke]

146. Do you "want" your daughter or wife to take something like this?

I think it's up to her, isn't it?

Perhaps you'll allow her to have a voice in your daughter's medical future.

[jsamuel]

147. Hey, I am allowed to care about my wife and kids enough to not "want" them to die.

That tone is insulting. Who are you talking to? You seem to be arguing with someone who isn't here.

Your comment doesn't seem to have anything to do with my post.

[laundry_queen]

153. Dogs have problems too.

When we were looking at getting a dog, one breed we researched was weimaraners. We found that a good deal of the breeders insist on a very different vaccine schedule for them, as that breed is prone to certain reactions. Most vets don't mention it though. It's the breeders, who are scrupulous about their dogs' health that noticed the reactions and banded together to act accordingly. Other breeds have similar concerns.
Sorry about your cat, what a shame.

[noonwitch]

145. I don't like the idea of the government forcing this on parents

I think given the choice, most parents will choose to vaccinate their daughters. Hell, parents don't have to tell the kid she got the vaccine, if they think that will keep her from sleeping around.

[MADem]

149. GOV PERRY had a RELATIONSHIP with the MERCK LOBBYIST

Cui fucking bono, indeed???
http://ahrp.blogspot.com/2007/02/merck-payola-pays-off-texas-governor.html

Noteworthy are the ties that bind the Governor to Merck and to Women in Government, the group that Merck paid to lobby for this mind-boggling order. The Associated Press reports that one of Merck's three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, Perry's former chief of staff. His current chief of staff's mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director for Women in Government. The governor also received $6,000 from Merck's political action committee during his re-election campaign.

Also noteworthy is that under then governor George W. Bush, TMAP, the pharmaceutical manufacturers' cash cow to mega-billion dollar cash transference from the public purse to Big Pharma, was launched. TMAP (Texas mediction algorithm project) is the vehicle that catapulted psychotropic drugs--in particular patent protected antidepressants and antipsychotics--to blockbuster status despite lack of scientific evidence that the drugs work to improve mental health, and despite evidence that these drugs wreak havoc on both the mental and physical health of consumers.

http://www.thejabberwock.org.nyud.net:8090/blog/merck.png

[Just-plain-Kathy]

151. Rosie was just talking about this on the View.

...the lobbyist for Merck is connected to the Texas Government.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

157. OTOH, as Al Franken calls them, the pro-cancer forces.

[mhatrw]

160. PLEASE READ THIS POST IF YOU ARE AT ALL INFORMED ON THIS ISSUE!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=145744&mesg_id=145744

[mhatrw]

161. The "cervical cancer" vaccine is NOT about saving lives. It's about scaling back pap smears!

See:

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