HPV Vaccine Texas Tyranny (comic)

[louis-t]

http://www.newstarget.com/021571.html

On Friday, Feb. 2, Texas governor Rick Perry issued an executive order that bypassed the will of the people and the entire Texas legislature, mandating the vaccination of young girls with the HPV vaccine sold by Merck -- the same drug company that reportedly gave thousands to Perry's campaign efforts. The vaccine is absolutely worthless as a medical treatment according to top docs in the alternative health field, and in my opinion, the so-called "science" supporting the vaccine as the only prevention for cervical cancer is an outright fraud.

snip>

What's happening in Texas right now is a form of medical tyranny, and it's only the beginning of what may prove to be a monumental battle between personal freedoms vs. the corporate-controlled State.

[Caoimhe]

1. I have no problem with eradicating a type of cancer n/t

[Recursion]

6. Sigh

If it does that.
And if it does it safely.

Are you confident that this vaccine works and does so safely? Why? Have you looked on PubMed? Did you follow the approval process?

[Stuckinthebush]

30. Have you?

Have you looked at the peer reviewed articles? Did you check the experimental design? Are you comfortable enough with the effect size?

[Recursion]

39. Yes, yes, and no, in that order

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17270106&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

Try that one, for starters. Since no reference is given for the causal status of the association between HPV and cervical cancer onset I can't really critique that either way (I have yet to find a good study on that; if you know any let me know).

To the extent that I have problems with the experimental procedure it is that safety trials have been done on pubescent rather than prepubescent girls, and it's being recommended for prepubescents. But vaccine safety isn't my concern personally; I just don't see anything suggesting that the 1.5% increase in cervical cancer rates associated with contraction of 2 strains of HPV is actually caused by the HPV.

[foo_bar]

2. interesting website

Nor are they necessary. Cervical cancer is prevented in a hundred other ways, including adequate sunlight exposure and vitamin D consumption, supplementation with probiotics, adequate intake of selenium and zinc, increased consumption of trace minerals and iodine, regular physical exercise and many other safe, natural, non-patented strategies.

http://www.newstarget.com/021571.html

[uppityperson]

7. Do I have to expose my cervix to the sun? That'd be odd to see.

Yes, general healthiness helps all sorts of things. However, there is a role for both traditional western medicine and complimentary/alternative/ perhaps eastern focused health care in health care. While I distrust major drug companies, after all they are in the primary business of making money, there is no 1 right thing, 1 right way. Both sides have things to add. Don't eat crap, treat your body poorly but take vitamins and think you are doing fine. Don't ignore the positive things about vaccines because they are made by evil drug companies.

[foo_bar]

10. possibly, but you'd be at higher risk of cervical melanoma

The decline in incidence rates for cervical, melanoma and lung cancer suggests that young Canadians are increasingly heeding three main prevention recommendations – having regular Pap tests, minimizing sun exposure and avoiding smoking. However, the report stresses smoking rates are still unacceptably high, especially in adolescent girls.

http://www.cancercare.on.ca/OntarioCancerNewsArchives/200609/index_print.html

The alterna-medicine seems to be working at cross purposes with the medical literature in this case, although I agree the potential exists for complementary systems of medicine.

[uppityperson]

13. suddenly sales of clear speculums skyrocket!

lower stress, eat healthy, excercise regularly, decrease risk factors. All help. However, a vaccine like this, if it works, would be great.

[Avalux]

3. Great comic - and very true.

I posted the other day about this vaccine; it's an effective vaccine. The argument is not whether or not it works; the argument is what sort of shady dealings occurred to 1) have the vaccine approved so quickly by the FDA before sufficient safety studies could be done on the 9-16 age group and 2) have Gov. Perry mandate (with an opt-out clause) the vaccine for millions of girls.

Big pharma runs the government.

[Junkdrawer]

12. I think it's possible to debate Gardasil costs and sweetheart deals...

without being "anti-vaccine".

Thus far, all debate on this subject has been side-tracked to a vaccine good/bad debate which only serves to obscure any likely corruption.

[Avalux]

23. I agree.

My main concern is safety; and I'm not convinced there's adequate safety data to start inoculating millions of girls. This issue is completely separate from whether or not the vaccine does as claimed. My preference is to make it available but not mandate yet until it's been in the population for awhile.

[Junkdrawer]

27. "Anti-vaccine" is the latest cover for all manner of corruption...

Frist pushes through a "Eli Lilly Protection Act" that shields all drug companies from Thimerosal lawsuits. Decry that as corrupt and you're labeled "anti-vaccine".

Gov. Perry bypasses the Texas legislature with a sweetheart deal for Merck. Suggest that this is a bad precedent and, you guessed it, you're "anti-vaccine".

Look, vaccines are generally good. But putting mercury in vaccines to cut costs is bad.

Vaccines are good, but mandating their use without proper debate and proper price negotiation is bad.

This is important because there's a whole host of breakthrough vaccines in the pipeline and we need an informed debate on if and when they should be mandated, and what measures should and should not be used to cut costs. I don't think Big Pharma should write our national health policy without oversight.

[Warren DeMontague]

26. So you agree that it should be called an "anti-sex vaccine"?

Sorry, that comic smacks of religious right bullshit.

[depakid]

4. Your "personal freedom" to expose your daughter and others

to preventable disease will indeed be limited by the government- as well it should be.

These threads only underscore the necessity for using state power to ensure that.

[Recursion]

5. Drink the big pharma kool aid much?

Remind me how many long-term safety studies have been done on this? What are the side effects of giving this to teenagers and preteens? WE DON'T KNOW, because this was sent through the approval process like a bat out of hell.

[depakid]

8. I just do the science

Which is something that is lost on many Americans.

BTW: You have NO IDEA what you're talking about with respect to the approval process.

This is why we need such laws- to protect our daughters from the completely clueless and their conspiracy theories.

[Recursion]

11. Apparently you have no idea what I do or don't have an idea about

But, doing a lot of computer modelling for biotech, I meet koolaiders all the time. I don't take anything these companies say at face value anymore and try to stick to strictly-NIH-funded data.

[depakid]

17. Whatever you profess your credentials to be

It's plain to see that you have no idea at all what you're talking about.

Do you even know the slightest thing about the history of this vaccine?

Hint: It's not some pharmaceutical conspiracy, it's largely the life's work of the man mentioned here:

UQ Australian of the Year will continue fight for women’s health

Professor Ian Frazer will use his profile as Australian of the Year to help ensure his cancer vaccine reaches those who need it most – women and girls living in poverty.

Professor Frazer, of The University of Queensland, is a humble recipient of the nation's top honour.

“It's a marvellous honour, especially as I follow in the footsteps of distinguished medical scientists who are recent Australians of the Year, including Professor Peter Doherty, Sir Gus Nossal and Professor Fiona Wood,” Professor Frazer said.

“Gus, Fiona and I all chose to be Australians and to make this country the cradle of research that aims to improve the lives of millions of people.

http://www.uq.edu.au/news/index.html?article=8853

[Recursion]

18. I know a whole lot about the history of this vaccine, actually

And I've been keeping up with the developments since about the time he (Zhou, not Frazier) died; and his own work is based on research going back well into the '80s. None of which changes the fact that the fundamental hypothesis of a viral carcenogenesis on which the claim that this is a "cancer vaccine" is based remains rather contentious and unproven -- but it's university labs doubting it against pharma labs asserting it (and I know you have seen that fight played out, if you're in the field) and pharma has been winning of late.

[depakid]

21. Ozzies tend to fight big pharma

In this case, Merck was only licensed to distribute- though as you may know, there's a whole legal can of worms that we probably want to avoid getting into.

Here's something that I posted on another board in October, 2005:

Nobel discovery 'bloody obvious' says Australian

Dr. Marshall is a hero in the public health community for his persistence in presenting his evidence against overwhelming odds (the drug companies did everything they could to suppress his findings and protect their multi-billion dollar antacid market).

So it's really great to see him get his due. Three HUGE cheers!

From the BBC:

Robin Warren, who shares the prize with his colleague Barry Marshall, said he was "thrilled" to be recognised, but had always believed in their work.

The two scientists have described how they were initially shunned for insisting stomach ulcers were caused by a bacterium, not stress. Mr Marshall finally swallowed the bacterium himself to prove his point.

The pair, who no longer live in the same part of Australia, were actually having a rare dinner together when they received the call from the Nobel committee telling them they had won.

Mr Warren said he was a "little overcome" by the award. "It is nice to be officially recognised and it gives some sort of a stamp of approval, but we believed it within a few months because it was so bloody obvious," he told reporters.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4307826.stm

[uppityperson]

24. Thank you for this link and info.

[uppityperson]

9. Many times there is no long term safety studies done right away

IF there is an overwhelming result, either pos or neg, a study may also be stopped early.

Having worked in healthcare 30+ yrs, I distrust them, but I will not automatically dismiss everything because I distrust them.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine.htm#hpvvac3
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/85/2/07-020207/en/index.html

[fla nocount]

14. Anything MANDATED should be FREE.

Let's tax Merck to pay for it.

[Recursion]

15. Anything mandated...

...should not involve someone injecting a substance into my body.

And anyways the whole *point* of making it mandatory is to make Merck money. Do you think they actually care about women getting cancer?

[fla nocount]

19. No argument from me.

I'm a Luddite, I don't do the dripping sarcasm thingy, I expect it be assumed.

[kiahzero]

16. Yeah, the MMR vaccine is tyranny too!

:eyes:

I hate stupid Luddites.

[Odin2005]

20. you Anti-Science FUCKERS need to talk to my grandmother.

She had 5 siblings that died before they reached their first birthday because there weren't vaccines back then.

All you luddite morons can go to Hell.

[Recursion]

22. Relax, dude

They also had worse sanitation and nutrition back then. And no prenatal care. There are a metric assload of factors involved in the reduction of contagious diseases and vaccines are just one of them.

And, speaking only for myself, demanding a better firewall between research labs and the companies that want to profit from research results is not anti-science, it's the most pro-science move we can make.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. Uh, that comic stinks of religious right tripe. So- the HPV shot is a "Sex Vaccine"???

So, I take it you would be opposed to the "mandatory" polio and smallpox vaccinations that many of us grew up with, too?

As for "absolutely worthless as a medical treatment according to top docs in the alternative health field".. what the fuck does that mean? How does one determine which "docs" are "top" in the "alternative health field", anyway? Got any links to back that up? Obviously, there are some in the "alternative health field" that think vaccines in general are evil, just as there are some that think crystals will cure terminal lung cancer.

I think what you have here is, you've got the usual nutjob anti-science crowd teaming up with the religious right whack-a-moles who would rather their daughters get cervical cancer than accept the reality that they will MOST LIKELY have sex before they're married. :eyes:

[donco6]

28. Yeah, it's mandated - unless you don't want it.

Jeez - get a grip.

[Stuckinthebush]

29. Down with the polio vaccine too!

Damn it! And what's with that Rubella thing? Bunch of fascists!

[Posteritatis]

31. Smallpox for all! (nt)

[Stuckinthebush]

32. If it's good enough for the Director of the CDC's Immunization Services Center

Then I think it has some solid science behind it.

http://www.teenagerstoday.com/articles/4380.php

[Recursion]

33. Yeah, it's not like government agencies have been known...

...to put politics, money, or ideology before science.

[Stuckinthebush]

34. Screw 'em all

they must all be crooked!

No...these men and women take their jobs very very seriously. I trust the scientist more than I distrust them.

Listen, there is not a conspiracy around every corner. All scientists aren't in the back pockets of "big pharm". The crystal and herb guys have a reason to scare us all about the bad scientists. They make money when people begin to distrust science.

No, this vaccine is not evil, the scientists are not on the take, and the research from what I've read seems sound.

[Recursion]

36. Hmmm

Listen, there is not a conspiracy around every corner.

There you are right. There's not an active conspiracy.

All scientists aren't in the back pockets of "big pharm".

There you are wrong. There's literally no other way to get research money or tenure in medical and biotech fields. I say there's not an "active" conspiracy because there doesn't need to be. People are just very good at seeing things in a way that helps their bottom lines. Even scientists. That's why we need to completely overhaul how research gets funded, so that we can start getting actual research again. People see "100% success rate with drug X". Great, right? Now we can cure people with it. Except, they gave it to 20 people in the trial, 19 of whom died. The only 1 that lived was the only one who got a full course of treatment, which makes the full course 100% effective.

Nobody has time to look for this because they need to get their own stuff published. And the guy who did the test where 19 of the people died doesn't realize this is being used to tout the drug as safe and effective -- he just had a protocol to follow and did it. And the people managing the protocols don't have their heads in the weeds (and usually aren't scientists); they just hear "100% success rate" and pass that up the line.

The crystal and herb guys have a reason to scare us all about the bad scientists.

It interests me that people bring up the "herb and crystal" crowd any time I express skepticism about corporately-funded research.

Do you find the way we fund scientific research acceptable? You don't mind that companies are responsible for maintaining the integrity of studies that they have a financial interest in the outcome of? Are the multiple, flagrant times these companies have been caught lying before just aberrations, and all behind us now?

They make money when people begin to distrust science.

No, we make science when people begin to distrust science. Science is institutionalized and formalized distrust of one another and ourselves.

[Stuckinthebush]

37. Indeed

many researchers are funded by pharmaceutical companies. No question about that. Many are not. Just down the road from me, in fact, is a group of university based researchers who have a large government grant to develop HIV medications. They are not funded by the pharm companies at all. Now, you may say that there still is pharm money rolling around in their labs so there is inherent bias. This is entirely possible, and surely one of the pharms will buy the eventual patent rights. The reality is that most scientists are ethical people. They have been taught ethics from the time they entered their BS programs to post-doc positions. These men and women are true believers in the method...it is sacred to them.

Are there unscrupulous scientists? You bet. I've known some. Are they the exception or the rule? They are the exception. The IRB process is tighter than I've ever seen it, to a point where it is killing our social science research. It is important, however, to have such a high level of scrutiny. I trust my colleagues in research. I trust my colleagues at the CDC.

Look, we can say that science is totally corrupt due to the issues you present and that no research is reliable. We can lament that pharmaceuticals pump loads of money into research which drives up the cost of the end product and also has the unsettling effect of making some scientists feel they should subvert the method. We can throw up our hands and say that it all is a bunch of bull and that nothing is safe from the pharm labs or the universities. Or, we can acknowledge that there are flaws in the system and trust that our agencies will do what they can to insure public safety. Also, we can trust that the professionals in the field of research take their jobs very very seriously. We can take heart in the fact that no pharm company wants to have a defective product on the market because it will kill them financially.

As for the issue at hand, the HPV vaccine, I trust the CDC on this one. I have looked at some of the research - not all mind you, but some - and the methods seem sound. I will have my daughters vaccinated because it is a wonderful opportunity for them. I trust the scientific community enough that I feel this vaccine is safe and effective. And yes, I trust Merck enough to know that they won't gamble their shareholder's money on placing a flawed vaccine on the market. You make valid observations about financing research in general. We should continue to look at ways to make the process healthier. I think all scientists would agree with you on that.

As for the point about herb and crystal guys, the article you referenced discusses the alternative health docs. That's where that came from. Now there are some folks that scare me...but that is an entirely different thread.

[Recursion]

38. ...

Or, we can acknowledge that there are flaws in the system and trust that our agencies will do what they can to insure public safety.

No thanks. Have you been awake through the past 6 years?

We can take heart in the fact that no pharm company wants to have a defective product on the market because it will kill them financially.

Yeah, like how Merck went under after it killed people with Vioxx... oh, wait..

As for the point about herb and crystal guys, the article you referenced discusses the alternative health docs.

Not sure what you mean; I never posted a link. I'm just discouraged that talking about nutrition and environmental toxins labels something "alternative"....

[Freddie Stubbs]

35. Last year's Democratic nominee actually campaigned on requiring this vaccine

Why was there no uproar then? Because he had a 'D' next to his name?