http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_on_bi_ge/merck_cancer_vaccine

I was called anti-woman because I'm uncomfortable with the government requiring a vaccine that hasn't been adequately tested and, as I suspected, was being pushed by a drug company.

I'm not against vaccinating girls because it would make them "more promiscuous." I'm more concerned with making something like this mandatory without being sure it is safe.

Meanwhile, I talked to my daughter's pediatrician this past weekend (also a friend), and she wants to investigate this vaccine further, and is definitely against parents being compelled or coerced into having it administered to their daughters (especially at the present time).

they said i was against it just because a republican recommended it. while that in and of itself does not give me the warm fuzzies, i would have objected no matter who recommended it. since the swine flu debacle which injured so many, i don't trust my own government anymore. and if you're not part of the solution to the lack of trust, then you are part of the problem.

She is a Democrat.

There was NOTHING but scaremongering to recommend this mandatory approach, and everything -- EVERYTHING -- flashing warning signals: DANGER, DANGER, RIGHTWING nutjobs aren't ever interested in women's reproductive health except to clamp down on it (or, in this case, as lwfern put it, so insightfully: put a bounty on each and every vagina for their corporate friends)!

Since I don't have a child, it's all theory to me, but because I don't have a child yet, I am aware that vaccines have risks as well as benefits.

From what I've seen, no one will be coerced to get the vaccine.

Another one:



So the opposition to this seems to be based upon its mandatory nature instead of being "opt-in". Anyone who objected here on DU was metaphorically disemboweled by supporters. Perhaps they were being paid Merck or some other affiliated entity. Who knows.

PS - I can't fricking believe you're quoting Liberty University material.

work, all to ensure that their daughter will receive the free education she is entitled to.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=Texas+Gardasil+mandatory+%22executive+order%22&btnG=Search

The first one was from another, less specific string that had a lot of other items mixed in and required too much paging.

I suppose you'd have preferred that instead of grabbing the first few items as proof, that I'd spent all day selecting a site that was politically acceptable to you. Sorry, I thought you'd be interested in facts. My mistake.

Why are you fighting me with your words of contempt, instead of a republican authoritarian utilizing an Executive Order?

Yes, there is an 'opt-out' provision, but many poor and busy parents will either not be aware of it, or will find the opt-out procedure too mysterious and cumbersome. In my opinion, that amounts to coercion, for they will not doubt be discouraged from opting out by certain personnel.

My child's pediatrian has stated that she is taking a very wait-and-see approach to the vaccine, and is against making it mandatory, in view of the very little data that is available as to the side effects in young girls.

many poor and busy parents will either not be aware of it, or will find the opt-out procedure too mysterious and cumbersome.

Being a parent involves taking the responsibility to find the time and figure things out.

FYI - Regardless, I am pleased that Merck is backing off from its lobbying efforts. Huge conflict of interest there.

That right there makes me nervous....

My feeling is that I will opt out for my 12 year daughter until enough research comes back on this product... Right now I am not comfortable injecting anything that is pushed by this Gov into my child's body...

As a parent, you have the ability to decide that. For people who are comfortable with it, but can't afford to lay out $300 +, it's taken care of.

and it did not take... So they gave it to me again, and again it did not take, so they declared I was immune to the disease, which apparently in Florida was ok.... We moved to Texas and when Texas saw I did not have my small pox vaccine, they said I could not get into school without it...

I had two more additional vaccinations before it took and my arm became inflamed, the area where my small pox was was filled with pus, all around that was black, and then my entire upper arm was dark red, swollen and hot..... It took two weeks for this swelling and inflammation to go down.


I have my own personal reasons not to force vaccine into my child's body..

Yes, being a parent involves responsibility, but don't parents already have enough to deal with?

There were days when my goal was just keep them alive, must less do something productive with them or feed them healthy food. I remember feeling superior and how I would be this wonderful parent. That went out the window on a Thanksgiving morning trying to fix a turkey while being covered in pewk.

Now that I'm older I have learned that it is okay to say no to some of this stuff; but even though, there is a nagging thought in the back of my mind ... what if I don't do this? What if they get sick?

One thing a parent needs to come to terms with is doing their best while criticized by ideolists who get a good night sleep.

And a large part of the reason I'm not is because I had a single parent who didn't go far past that goal of keeping us alive. I'm happy for your family that you got beyond that.

where your comment came from. Fortunately I had two sister-in-laws who showed me a more positive way of parenting than I learned when I was little. And to get beyond that, it took a lot of work. You, like me, we're just doing our best and that is okay. :pals:

the time and figure things out."

Haven't been a social worker in Booosh's America, have you? I have, and so have family members. Lower-middle and poor parents do NOT have the time, more often than not, to address these issues. That doesn't mean that they should be coerced or victimized.

The fact is that there are ways in most states to make this vaccine available at a relatively lower cost, or free, without having to make it mandatory. There is no need to make it mandatory right now, other than to enhance Merk's coffers.

And, yes, we agree on something. I, too, am glad that Merk is backing off.

That's what's going on in Texas. And, sure, there are ways to get around getting the vaccine, but that could result in missed days.

an option if you are serious about not letting your child have this injection until you know for sure it is safe....

being forced to have a vaccine that is not guaranteed to be safe? Do you not see how crazy this is?

of that age and if it comes down to it... The choice will be home-schooling as opposed to injecting a drug into her that I am not sure about... It is nuts, I agree!!!!

Parents can opt out.

It's not so easy as you're making it sound.

First, it is true what Iris said about schools not accepting girls who are not vaccinated. All part of the fun of mandating Gardasil. But to opt out, you have to

1) Request an affadavit be mailed to your home
2) Fill out the affidavit for every child
3) Make an appointment with a notary public to have the document(s) signed and stamped
4) Send the form(s) back to the state for final approval and possible follow-up by phone.

So if you feel Gardasil is not safe - or it is making girls sick - or for philosophical or religions reasons - tough crap. You either MUST get the vaccine or go through the cumbersome opt-out process.

But here's the question I want you to answer. All other states are offering Gardasil as an opt-in, even FREE vaccine. No executive orders mandating it; no opting out. It's free and opt-in. It's pro-choice, pro-freedom, and without conflict of interest entanglements. South Dakota is a good example.

So...why do you feel Gardasil MUST be mandated when clearly other states are covering EVERYONE - rich, middle class, poor - everyone, for FREE?

Either unvaccinated girls whose families opted out will be allowed to attend, or they will not.

So...why do you feel Gardasil MUST be mandated when clearly other states are covering EVERYONE

I don't recall that argument being used in the threads the OP is referring to.

States like South Dakota are offering Gardasil as an opt-in, for FREE. If you want it, you can get it for free. If you don't want it, you don't get it. It's as simple as that, and nobody is left behind. It's free access to all.

So again. Why do you feel Gardasil MUST be made mandatory via executive order when clearly other states are offering it to EVERYONE, for FREE, without mandating it?

Is the one where people who claimed that girls whose families opt out of getting the shot, in a state where it's mandatory, will not be allowed to attend school, and whether or not that was false information.

"So I'm going to avoid your question altogether."

Good day to you Crisco...
:)

p.s. I would encourage you to research South Dakota's and Washington State's Gardasil programs - they are a perfect model (particularly South Dakota) for what is right and decent in battling the devastating disease of cervical cancer.

:shrug:

not have to apologize.

Of course, these fanatics will ignore this part:

"Even two of the prominent medical groups that supported broad use of the vaccine, the American Academy of Pediatricians and the American Academy of Family Practitioners, questioned Merck's timing"

The good news is that newer vaccines will be under more scrutiny than they have been in the past.

:sarcasm:

For too many on this board that's all we heard, irregardless of how non-partisan the source was.

I've seen many a dust up here and apologies are few and far between.

Weren't you just calling them "Merck lovers" in the LBN thread?

:hi:

To whom does anyone owe an apology?

The best thing Merck can do for this vaccine is stop lobbying - that way all the people more concerned with Big Pharma than cancer will get off it.

:shrug:

substance that has not been fully tested.

Mostly, though, they started out in support of requiring the vaccine for all girls and implying if you weren't for it, it was because you thought it would make girls "promiscuous".

That was the only one of those Gardasil discussions I saved. It seems like DU has been worked by corporatist agent provocateurs for some time. That's just my "gut" impression though.

If true, all the dissension and falseness they may deliberately spread is truly sad.

of Reductionist Science & Allopathic Medicine and blindly adher to whatever it dictates for the masses.

Some people get very upset when you approach or question their sacred cows.

To suggest there are other somewhat differing, yet valid viewpoints is anathema to some people.

Science and Medicine have been corrupted and coopted by corporate culture. To a large extent they're a cog in an industrial machine primarily concerned with protecting itself, it's power and it's profits.

Yes, there are benefits to Reductionist Science and Allopathic Medicine but those benefits are now beginning to have dimished returns and some serious blowback.

Science and Medicine have been corrupted and coopted by corporate culture. To a large extent they're a cog in an industrial machine primarily concerned with protecting itself, it's power and it's profits.

So true. In fact, EVERYTHING has now fallen into the industrial machinery - everything from religion to science to medicine to entertainment. Truly our society has become one gigantic power and profit machine, and that's really all that really matters in this country anymore. What that means for us citizens is that money is placed over and above what's good for us.

Thank God we still have SOME checks and balances left, particularly in the media and dedicated activists.

:eyes:

The only reason for my not supporting this is because in other states, say - South Dakota, Gardasil is offered as an opt-in, and FREE at that. Otherwise I fully support the optional, opt-in, and especially FREE distribution of Gardasil. Saving lives - the optional way via opt-in - the way it should be.

FURTHERMORE, I proposed on this board that Merck's working with Rick Perry of TX to make Gardasil mandatory was a TESTING GROUND - and if Texas worked, they'd do it all over the country. The report today specifically stated that Merck was working with TWENTY OTHER STATE GOVERNORS to make Gardasil mandatory.

Thank you for posting! :loveya:

The opt-in and free of charge program (to you) works for me.

Many of us ALREADY had that opinion, and we got it from
reading your posts here at DU.

I question what motivates your concern for this issue
because of your history here, not for any other reason.

liberty and justice, and a loathing for the Republican politics of corruption and collusion with corporate interests is what motivates me for starters...

As I've said before, the South Dakota model of approaching the HPV vaccine is the best in terms of what I've outlined above...opt-in, available to EVERYONE, and FREE. You really can't get much better than that in terms of battling the devastating disease of cervical cancer.

And yes, they ARE apparently working on an HPV vaccine for boys which I support - so long as it's not made mandatory via sketchy fast-tracked executive order.

I was slandered! I was called "anti-women" and a "religious nut".

Notice the pro-mandatistas are no where to be found. Extremist $%*#@!

:rofl:

That is a keeper!

:rofl: :rofl:

By inciting paranoia and conspiracy theories among the anti-vaccine, anti-science crowd, which is all too prevalent in America.

After reading many of the responses in these threads, I've become more convinced than EVER that mandates are required to get Americans to protect their (and all of our) kids from preventable diseases.

If people just have to be brought in kicking and screaming to get their kids admitted to school, so be it. That's the price Americans will have to pay to protect the public health.

(note: this isn't "controversial" in Australia and Britain).

The level of paranoia (on both sides of the aisle) is mind-boggling.

Words of advice to anti-immunizers: if you don't immunize your kids, keep them out of my fucking schools.

Or just those mandated?

and that are meant to protect the public health.

Also curious if you have had the adult recommended vaccines that are "meant to protect the public health?"

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/recs/adult-schedule-11x17-bw.pdf

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/296/20/2430

You paid for them all by yourself?

promote a lack of choic, have in vaccines?

Maybe not by myself, but someone who is too ignorant to pay regard to the public health has lost their interest in public services. If your kids are not immunized keep them out of MY schools.

Aren't your children protected? Also, some children can't be vaccinated for health reasons, should they be excluded from school too?

:shrug:

:shrug:

I've had my shots.

I must have gone to a school full of "disease vectors."

Also, are you still immune given most vaccines are said to wane in immunity?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGGL%2CGGGL%3A2006-26%2CGGGL%3Aen&q=vaccines+waning+immunity&btnG=Search

And, have you had the adult recommended shots?

Can't remember the others. Although I'll be happy to get any shots that are recommended by my doctor, or mandated by my school district.

:rofl:

Interesting as I was under the impression that anyone who is not immune to a disease, can transmit disease?
You'll also note by the adult vaccine schedule you may be due for more than just a tetanus booster. ;)

than you're a vector for that disease.

This is basic science.

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as you'd like to make it.

Many Vaccines wane in effectiveness and as such, immunity lasts for an undetermined period of time.
Outbreaks of disease have occurred in highly vaccinated populations.

I'm a vector for the diseases I haven't been vaccinated for.

What shots have you gotten? And why are you interested?

I think at the time 7 vaccines were recommended in total? DPT, Polio and MMR. I've also had a couple tetanus boosters as an adult.

And, I had an MMR shot as an adult as it was discovered I had no immunity while pregnant. I will spare you the details.

So I guess that means that I must be a vector for HPV, Hepatitis A and B, influenza, rubella?? possibly (as I don't develop immunity even after vaccination apparently) and any other disease that we don't have a recommended vaccine for yet.

I am also a vector for any of the diseases I was vaccinated against that may or may not have lasting immunity.

I'm off to plan the spreading of disease to local school children. Perhaps I'll volunteer for lunch room duty so I can cough on large groups or something? ;)

Have a good night.

Because it's been virtually wiped out in the United States... DUE TO VACCINATION.

So why fear choice? And, as I've said - I did not retain immunity to Rubella in spite of my complete vaccination status.

Further Pertussis is on a upward trend - IN SPITE OF VACCINATION. But, don't worry booster recommendations have been made for adults. Have you had yours? http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r051109.htm

I have no idea where they are getting the 600,000 infected adults number (noted in the press release above) as it doesn't jibe with their official US data ? Perhaps that's an international figure? I'll have to call and ask them that question later. I'll let people know what I find out.

Anyhow officially the US had about 2400 reported cases of pertussis in 1983 and about 25,000 cases reported in 2005 according to the CDC pink book. http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/appendices/G/cases&deaths.pdf

And hopefully with opt out HPV vaccinations, we can get rid of that killer too.

And they still are. So is the Tdap, have you had it?

in public services." Indeed, we're all still paying for them. But you are advocating denying access to public education to girls.

while you wrote MY schools?

Parents may opt out.

Secondly, my daughter not having a vaccine for a sexually-transmitted disease is not going to affect your kid, since cervical cancer is not passed by some child coughing on your kid.

Thirdly, if your child has been immunized, your child won't catch something, presumably, from someone who hasn't.

especially this:

"Secondly, my daughter not having a vaccine for a sexually-transmitted disease is not going to affect your kid, since cervical cancer is not passed by some child coughing on your kid."

Would that be too much to ask since you disapprove so much of any other parents coming to different GARDASIL risk vs. benefit medical conclusions than you?

public health.

Even two of the prominent medical groups that supported broad use of the vaccine, the American Academy of Pediatricians and the American Academy of Family Practitioners, questioned Merck's timing, Haupt said Tuesday.

"They, along with some other folks in the public health community, believe there needs to be more time," he said, to ensure government funding for the vaccine for uninsured girls is in place and that families and government officials have enough information about it."

don't have the best history with being brought in kicking and screaming and having medicine forced on them against their will.

If my husband smacks me around every time he's been drinking, then comes home drunk and says "come here" in a commanding voice, I don't care what he claims his intention are.

received a vaccine for a disease that is spread through an activity that is not engaged in at school? Unlike polio, measles, mumps, and rubella, this virus is not passed from person to person unless there is sexual contact. I don't know about you, but I never once, EVER had sex while at school.

with a vaccine being mandated for a disease that might or might not happen. That is ridiculous.

what I was thinking.

It's about taking a news item and reading into it complete and thorough validation of whatever a person believes about vaccines, "big pharma," or the DUers like us who are obviously under their spell or getting kickbacks (I wish). :eyes:

Do you realize what you are saying? Do you realize how horrific it is for you to force everyone to do something against their will? And how is that democratic? How does that square with the Constitution? The democratic process? Checks and balances? Fair and open government? Individual rights and freedoms? The right to choose?

This attitude is exactly what I've been trying to address...it is unconscionable and and attack on our very American way of life!
:scared:

And it's highly ironic how silent the opposition is on this thread - not a damn PEEP. Gee, wonder where they all went?

:shrug:

And I'll add another one. This isn't evidence that the vaccine isn't safe. Nothing has changed. They've just caved into pressure from the anti-vaccers and the conservatives who think this will give their daughters permission to sleep around. I can't speak for anyone else, but everything I said in those threads still stands. And to those in this thread who are demanding an apology I ask why? For disagreeing with you? It got heated on both side of the argument in those threads. And the article in this thread isn't an "I told you so" moment at all.

I still support a massive public educational campaign for vaccination against this now almost 100% preventable cancer.

Both GARDASIL and annual HPV screenings are expensive. However, there is a big difference between annual HPV screenings and GARDASIL and that is that annual HPV screenings have actually been DEMONSTRATED to reduce cervical cancer contraction and mortality rates. In contrast, medical cost vs. benefit models that consider GARDASIL plus biennial or triennial HPV screenings are based on a slew of currently unproven hopeful assumptions about GARDASIL.

So we are confronted with a dilemma:

1) If we cross our fingers about GARDASIL, rush to make GARDASIL vaccination mandatory and back off to biennial or triennial HPV screenings, we may be able to save a little on costs overall while reducing the already low US cervical cancer cancer contraction and death rates very slightly.

2) Alternatively, we can keep doing HPV screen tests annually for every US woman with a first class health plan and extend these tests to uninsured women as well, resulting in a definite further decrease in US cervical cancer rates. In this case, GARDASIL's cost per year of life gained (even with all assumptions tweaked to the best case for GARDASIL) becomes stratospherically high. Thus, we offer GARDASIL only to those who wish to pay for it then further study this population. When all the data are actually in on GARDASIL, we could then act appropriately in terms of backing off on HPV screenings among the population of women with proven cervical cancer protection from GARDASIL.

Now, which of these strategies would be most optimal in terms of Merck's projected profits? And which other strategy would be most circumspect in terms protecting US women's health?

The bottom line is that this vaccine is ridiculously overpriced unless it offers lifetime protection against HPV 16 and 18 (unproven), this actually translates to 70% protection against cervical cancer (unproven), it has no associated long term risks (unproven), and we back off to biennial or triennial HPV screening tests (proving we weren't actually serious about eliminating cervical cancer to begin with).

Sorry for the sarcasm, but why should girls be prevented from going to school for your convenience?

I'm not arguing because I put all the cut-and-pasters on ignore so obviously I cannot see their postings.
It seems odd that some can't extrapolate the facts regarding this move by Merck. They wanted to make it about the vaccine and not about them. It really is very simple. Nothing else has changed.

There was legitimate concern from the the American Academy of Pediatricians and the American Academy of Family Practitioners as well. The same concern was expressed by many DU-ers who were labeled "anti-vaccine."

From the article:

Even two of the prominent medical groups that supported broad use of the vaccine, the American Academy of Pediatricians and the American Academy of Family Practitioners, questioned Merck's timing, Haupt said Tuesday.

"They, along with some other folks in the public health community, believe there needs to be more time," he said, to ensure government funding for the vaccine for uninsured girls is in place and that families and government officials have enough information about it.

policy than to have Merck and their ilk involved.

XYZ. I simply resent when I'm told I must have XYZ or be the scorn of society. The atmosphere is like a frikken witch hunt.

I also find the matter of choice and sovereignty over our bodies to extend beyond abortion. It's my body and I'll inject what WTF I want, thanks!

And couple that with the push from the private big pharm. end - you're right. No way.

One of the reported side effects, apparently, is ... loss of consciousness ... in some.

I'll try and find that reference.

******Quote******
The National Vaccine Information Center yesterday warned state officials to investigate the safety of a breakthrough cancer vaccine as Texas became the first state to make the vaccine mandatory for school-age girls.
Negative side effects of Gardasil, a new Merck vaccine to prevent the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer, are being reported in the District of Columbia and 20 states, including Virginia. The reactions range from loss of consciousness to seizures.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/business/20070202-100152-9747r.htm

*****Endquote****

True, it is an article in a righwing newspaper; but, it certainly warrants further investigation.

Per the NVIC:
****Quote****
"GARDASIL safety appears to have been studied in fewer than 2,000 girls aged 9 to 15 years and it is unclear how long they were followed up. VAERS is now receiving reports of loss of consciousness, seizures, arthritis and other neurological problems in young girls who have received the shot," said NVIC President Barbara Loe Fisher. "
http://www.909shot.com/PressReleases/pr020107HPV.htm
***Endquote***

The following source reports the following possible side effects:
******Quote*****

All-cause Common Systemic Adverse Experiences

All-cause systemic adverse experiences for female subjects that were observed at a frequency of greater than or equal to 1% where the incidence in the vaccine group was greater than or equal to the incidence in the placebo group are shown in Table 7.

Table 7
All-cause Common Systemic Adverse Experiences
Adverse Experience
(1 to 15 Days Postvaccination)

GARDASIL
(N = 5088)
%

Placebo
(N = 3790)
%
Pyrexia

13.0

11.2
Nausea

6.7

6.6
Nasopharyngitis

6.4

6.4
Dizziness

4.0

3.7
Diarrhea

3.6

3.5
Vomiting

2.4

1.9
Myalgia

2.0

2.0
Cough

2.0

1.5
Toothache

1.5

1.4
Upper respiratory tract infection

1.5

1.5
Malaise

1.4

1.2
Arthralgia

1.2

0.9
Insomnia

1.2

0.9
Nasal congestion

1.1

0.9

http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic4/gardasil_ad.htm
****Endquote***

The reports suggest that further investigation is warranted.

Every side effect is listed whether or not there is evidence it was directly caused. That list alone isn't evidence that this wasn't tested thoroughly or that it is unsafe, and if they had to wait until no side effects were listed, no drug would ever be approved. But my whole point is this thread is being used by some as evidence their point of view that the vaccine is bad, or wasn't tested enough, is validated. I was pointing out that nothing about the status of the vaccine itself has changed.

This is the same bs that came about with the birth control that could be inserted in a woman's arm. People acted like all girls should be forced to have this implant even though the side effects for Norplant could be debilitating.

Shouldn't Merck have to supply proof that this vaccine is safe, effective against cervical cancer, thoroughly tested on its targeted pre-teen population and cost effective before lobbying to make it mandatory?

It's amusing that the anti-vaccine people think this is vindication for their point of view. It's not.

It's also equally amusing that they are complaining about the whole "promiscuous daughters" thing. While I didn't read all of the threads, I read a good portion of them, and I never once saw that claim from the pro-vaccine side.

And I've still no idea what you're on about.

I'm hoping it's the greatest vaccine ever. That said, I have seen the vaccine manufacturers make some big ass mistakes and wanted them to slow down on the lobbying campaign. I, too was attacked. But since I know that my position is completely defensible and has nothing to do with wishing that a single person get cancer, I just blew them off.

Some people called people on all sides bad things. I hope they still try to make the vaccine as affordable and accessible as possible.

"right wingers".

Some people are blinded by religion, others are blinded by science.
By that logic, the pro-manadate people deserves the names they were "called" too.

:hi:

:hi:

I agree that many people got called things unfairly and dishonestly.

however there is a difference between understanding the science and safety issues and being blinded by it. None of us that were called names ever said that everyone should have the vaccine end of discussion. Nor have we claimed that any or all vaccines including this one are 100% safe. What we have been doing is pointing out the real science so people can make an informed decision with the vaccine for themselves.

The science should speak for itself. And, as with all things scientific, sometimes that takes time.

will make money does not mean that the product is not good and safe. I think Merck made a bad mistake with pushing mandation of the vaccine. I think that educating the public (and hopefully with all info not just the "pro" info) is the best route to go. And not some of those ninny flowerly commercials they use for use for some of their meds. Sheesh.

by which money influences health care policy.

I find it hard to believe that actually THINKING about something would get such a reaction around here.

It's almost frightening to observe. :hi:

ah, well. . .

Isn't it ironic....

Even two of the prominent medical groups that supported broad use of the vaccine, the American Academy of Pediatricians and the American Academy of Family Practitioners, questioned Merck's timing, Haupt said Tuesday.

"They, along with some other folks in the public health community, believe there needs to be more time," he said, to ensure government funding for the vaccine for uninsured girls is in place and that families and government officials have enough information about it."

Sounds like what many of us were dismissed for saying?

I wonder about the assistance given the people w/o insurance that have to rely on drug company assistance as they could be considered disposable even here in the U.S. Yikes. They scare me and I don't scare easily.

True, it was LACK of treatment that was given, but still shows humans are not beyond getting caught up in what they are doing to the point that whole populations can be dismissed as so much scientific material.

have gone over the edge violent.

These are Special Forces guys, who by definition, do NOT GO NUTS.

And the old anti-malarial works. The US Govt. just decided to use the cream of the military crop to use as guinea pigs.

jeez.

;(

*sigh*

Everyone needs to keep in mind that ALL medications have a spectrum of side-effects that range from miniscule to transient to life threatening. Also keep in mind that what is a panacea to one is a poison to another.

People die from tylenol, penicillin, and a host of other drugs.

It doesn't mean they are bad drugs that should be pulled from the market.

No one is suggesting vaccines be "pulled from the market."

There is currently no malaria vaccine available. Various drugs some of which are becoming useless because of the ability of the parasite to adapt much like bacteria (drug resistance). Although I am not familiar with this drug however I do know that malaria is a big problem for the military and finding a good drug is harder and harder. For more info see my post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=14737&mesg_id=14737

the bottom line in the article appears to be the "bottom line."

I'm female and feel the same way. Actually, this current event was turned into a research project for my Investigations and Legal Writing course, and I'm learning a lot about legislation and parental rights in this state.

Right now, a person can chose to get Gardisil on their own and it is not mandatory but there has been discussion of making it so.

This is going to leave the cost of this vaccine so high as to be out of reach for the majority of girls and women. The inconvenience of 3 shots when parents can dismiss it because their daughters arent sexually active anyway, is another strike against this vaccine reaching the numbers of women to do any good. Just really sad. Maybe in 20 years, when the cancer rates don't go down, we'll finally get the mandate so we can save women's lives.

it was being rush in mandatory by a pharma i dont trust and a govt i dont trust

by the interests of big business.

It's MY body!!

Don't TELL me what I have to do with it!!!

Mandatory??? My ass! :grr:

More like Merck's test tube 'vessel' virgins,

via Bush's non-logical, non-intelligent, non-thinking shit-for-brains! :shrug:

Great post!! :woohoo: :woohoo:

Stop experimentation on unsuspecting women!!!!!!

why the vaccine isn't being given to boys. Why the wait of a year or two?

of Fire with Bobby Kennedy, Jr. He's a lawyer who has been fighting big pharma for years, and has no trust of how Merck is trying to strong arm the use of this vaccine. He also believes it hasn't been tested enough.

:hi:

Tough titties, Texas!!
I still don't think any Pharma has the right to experiment on little girls or anybody else!!

Apparently, Merck agree's with me!!

:rofl:

Flowers of the world, unite!

I'm not at all surprised to see that we're of similar minds about the Gaurdasil issue.

I stand solidly behind my support of mandatory vaccination with an option to opt out if you really distrust it that much.

It sets things up to make it easier for those who actually want to receive this vaccine to do so by forcing health departments and insurance companies to actually pay for it and all it costs to opt out is a few minutes of your time filling out a form.

Now about what I said. Being disagreed with, even strongly, is not "being attacked". We are here to discuss things and obviously people have strong feeling on both sides of this issue. I disagree completely with people who are deathly afraid of some bizarre consequences (like sterility) from this vaccine and if I defend my position or point out why I feel your fears are unfounded, you are not being attacked.

We are mostly adults here and can disagree without holding grudges or demanding apologies.

And on that subject, there is absolutely nothing about Merck backing away from their lobbying that warrants an admission of being wrong by the people who argue in favor of this vaccine. The vast bulk of the people who argued against it being mandatory did so on the vague premise of some harm coming from vaccine.

They didn't pull the vaccine from the market, they just changed their approach to getting/selling their vaccine to the public at large.

I still believe and until anyone provides solid evidence as how this vaccine is dangerous, that at best it will prevent chronic infection with HPV which can lead to cervical cancer and at worse, the vaccine's effects are transitory and limited, but hardly dangerous considering screening is still strongly encouraged regardless.

This feeling of "vindication" is hardly warranted except maybe for those who felt Merck was way too aggressive in marketing and were uncomfortable with that.

And it doesn't hurt my feelings in the least if you disagree.

who did not want Merck to work with state governors to run all over the Democratic Constitutional process by making fast-tracked executive orders mandating a vaccine.

The conflicts of interest between Merck and Rick Perry became clear, and obvious. The collusion between corporations and Republican politics is the same 'ol same 'ol we've seen for years - try Abramoff for one...

And yet nobody could see this. Why? I would LOVE to know.

On the opt-out, I have said many times here it is not easy. It involves being sent an AFFADAVIT in the mail, filling it out for each child, making an appointment with a notary public for signature witnessing and stamping, and then sending it back to the state for final approval. That is not so easy - it is time consuming and cumbersome.

South Dakota is offering Gardasil for FREE via opt-in basis. Why Texas couldn't do it this way would have been a mystery...except for the very close ties Rick Perry has to Merck and the allure of big money + Republican politics.

I've stayed out of these threads and I had no idea how much acrimony they've generated.

I guess to me the real issues are - how much do you trust Merck to provide a safe product, and how much do you trust the FDA, which is stacked with big pharma consultants, to honestly vet the products up for approval?

My sister took an FDA approved Merck product - Vioxx - for a bad knee. She died of heart failure at the age of 47. There's no question in my mind that Merck killed my big sister - and now we're supposed to trust them when they propose to use one of their products on millions of American children?

I don't have a child so I don't have a dog in this hunt. But I've seen firsthand the results of a compromised FDA and a greedy corporation and an industry that hard-sells their products directly to consumers. I don't blame the parents here for being concerned about the possible side effects of a Merck product, or for being wary of the FDA approval process. My family still grieves because of these factors.

My aunt and uncle were lamenting to me just this summer that they wished they had stockpiled Vioxx because it was the only drug that worked for the chronic pain from their arthritis.

I'll be the first to agree with disclosure and informed consent, but I heard the same kind of complaints from people who claim antivirals killed their friend, whereas I would be dead today without them.

Nice of you to reduce the death of a loved one to a 'complaint'.

Yes, informed consent would have been nice. I'm sure if she knew that one of Vioxx's side effects was heart failure she wouldn't have taken it. If your relatives want to continue to take a medication that's a silent killer then I guess you won't be able to 'complain' when they die in their sleep.

Complaint (via Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

1 : expression of grief, pain, or dissatisfaction
2 a : something that is the cause or subject of protest or outcry b : a bodily ailment or disease
3 : a formal allegation against a party

Is there something in that definition you find unsatisfactory or would you care to argue semantics?

I realize some people equate the word "complaint" with "mild whining", but certainly there is no insult implied or intended with the use of the word "complaint" so please don't presume to judge my compassion because you don't like the word I chose.

Yes, I'll 'presume' to judge your compassion - first, you dismissed the death of a loved one as a complaint - I don't give a damn about your definition, it was clearly offensive - and secondly you hastened to tell me that you have relatives who looooove Vioxx and wish they could still take it. Yeah, that's enough for me to 'presume' to judge your compassion.

I've done quite a bit of research into the FDA approval process since my sister's death and what I discovered horrified me. I've lobbied both of my Senators and my Representative to reform FDA to remove the many conflicts of interest that exist in the approval process. I'm trying to change the system so other families don't have holes ripped in their lives by needless deaths. Warning parents that the system is compromised and they need to proceed with caution is simply common sense. People can take it or leave it or, like you, dismiss it. Whatever.

And I will not apologize for using a word in the proper manner.

You are looking for an argument and I will not give you one. Don't make an appeal to emotion when trying to make a rational discussion with me, I can certainly relate to the death of a loved one considering I buried my father less than a week ago.

I offered an opposing viewpoint from my own experiences. It's what discussion is all about.

Be offended to your heart's content, but don't lay into me because you feel I didn't show proper deference to your viewpoint or emotions. Offense is very easy to find if one is looking for it.

I came hear for a discussion (which naturally involves differing viewpoints) and I won't be sidelined into a tangent on the proper word to use for your personal experiences.

I am so sorry to hear about your experience. I agree with every word.

"anti-woman, right-wing, religious fanatic, anti-vaccine, freeper, conspiracy nut, paranoid," and all manner of not-so-kind names.

All for questioning the safety of a vaccine and whether huge pharma companies such as Merck should be working directly with state governors - coercing them to sign fast-tracked executive orders-making THEIR vaccine mandatory.

With all of Merck's money, guess what that could mean? Because Merck has been majorly increasing its lobbying presence in the state of Texas, the money has been flowing directly into - you guessed it - Republican coffers (including one Rick Perry). Thus - in making this vaccine mandatory - it is highly possible they had in mind creating a permanent Republican majority in Texas.

And some here, unbelievably, on the DEMOCRATIC Underground, had not a care in the world about it.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/16739251.htm

>
>>
When Rick Perry assembled his senior staff after being sworn in as governor for the first time, he promised Texans that he would have the most stringent policy in history when it came to slowing down the so-called revolving door that enables top officials to trade the skills honed in government service for lucrative careers in lobbying.

But six years later, more than a dozen of Perry's former senior aides as both governor and lieutenant governor are now lobbying lawmakers and top statewide officials on some of the highest-profile issues awaiting the governor's and the Legislature's attention.

And added together, the lobbying contracts of those former aides are worth up to nearly $10 million, according to a Star-Telegram analysis of data maintained by the Texas Ethics Commission.

"It just goes to show you that Texas is still the Wild, Wild West when it comes to the revolving door that sends people from government service, to the lobby, back to government service and back to the lobby," said Andrew Wheat, a spokesman for Texans for Public Justice, a watchdog group.
>>

It is amazing, The Cleaner, isn't it -- that some people posting on DEMOCRATIC Underground had not a care in the world about it????????

but what else do we expect from Republicans? What else do we expect when a Republican Governor suddenly fast-tracks an executive order mandating a certain vaccine when he has direct ties with Merck? And has only INCREASED the revolving door thing? Typical, typical Republican hypocrisy and corruption!! And yes, so many here could not see this?

:shrug:

It's like Bush saying he's reducing the size of government, when in fact he vastly increased it. Or like Tom DeLay decrying partisan politics, when in fact HE was probably the absolute most partisan politician of our time.

that turned out to be absolutely true. Why? Because from the news reports, Merck was apparently working with TWENTY other State Governors to have them also sign executive orders making Gardasil mandatory. But now that the cat is out of the bag and the public is rightfully crying FOUL, Merck is backing off.

Making any drug or vaccine mandatory is very lucrative to drug companies. It locks their product into the marketplace indefinitely and stifles competition. It also results in a major conflict of interest between the State and corporate interests.

As I said before, too many people here IGNORED the fact that, at least in Texas, this is likely part of the effort to secure a permanent Republican majority in the Texas Legislature. How? Because Merck has stepped up its lobbying presence in Texas, more money is flowing into the coffers of the Republicans. Don't you think it's mighty convenient that directly after the elections, Rick Perry comes out with this? Doesn't that sound like a REWARD to Merck for helping him get re-elected?

You see...all along Rick Perry and the Repubs have totally fooled many Democrats, particularly here on DU who were for this thing. Now I don't ask for an apology - but I wouldn't mind seeing a simple acknowledgement that our position was not in any way right-wing, anti-woman, etc. It was to preserve democracy and fair government.

Here is what the article stated:
>
immediately suspending its lobbying campaign to persuade state legislatures
>

Merck can still lobby governors for executive orders.

I am not convinced Merck is backing off.

So either 1) Merck is screwing around with the public; or 2) The article's author assumes "state legislature" includes the Governor, which of course is not necessarily true since the governor is a separate branch of government.

I tend to believe the latter, because Merck never went to the legislature to begin with. They went directly to the governor. Unless I'm overlooking something...

There was too much adverse publicity. We need to find the actual press release from Merck.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aU9kKqclspgc&refer=us

>.
Merck & Co. will stop lobbying state officials to require that girls receive the company's Gardasil cervical cancer vaccine before they can attend school.
...
Merck will continue to lobby to get states to pay for the vaccine through programs for the uninsured and poor, he said.
>>

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-te.merck21feb21,0,5739576.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines

>>
Merck & Co., bowing to pressure from parents and medical groups, is immediately suspending its lobbying campaign to persuade state legislatures to mandate that adolescent girls get the company's new vaccine against cervical cancer as a requirement for school attendance.
>>

You tell me.

Does the "state legislature" include the governor here?

The Bloomberg article sounded like Merck is indeed backing off lobbying state governors to make Gardasil mandatory - since after all the Governor is a "state official."

This article said "legislature" but not the governor. Question is, is that a mistake by the author of the article, and did he/she mean to say "governor?" Is the author assuming "state legislature" includes the governor? Or is the author saying while Merck has lobbied the governor to make Gardasil mandatory, at the same time Merck lobbyists were petitioning the legislature to go along with it and not to fight it?

What to think? :shrug:

I am leaning toward the first paragraph being the correct view...also on the news last night while they were discussing this, they said Merck was also pressing 20 other state governors to sign executive orders making Gardasil mandatory, and now they're backing off.

But you raised a good point - let's keep an eye on this and not let it drop just because Merck made this announcement. Let's hold their feet to the fire.

One other point -- I believe there was a bill in the Texas legislature -- I think Farrar had a bill mandating vaccination. I don't know how that bill came about.

of new drugs whether they are vaccines or not. We have seen the death and devastation caused by drugs rushed into the market place. We have evidence that the drug companies, the government and even many doctor's do not have our best interests at heart. Doctors are pushed to see more and more patients in any given day, drug companies lobby and throw money around and the FDA has too many drug company advisers.

WE must be proactive in guarding our own health and well being. Mandating a vaccine so new to the market is in my opinion irresponsible. Will those damaged by the vaccine be able to sue the governor of TX?

Children, and in this case girls, should not be the drug companies' guinea pigs. Parents usually know their children best.....they know if their children are susceptible to adverse reactions to drugs. If there is a bad reaction to be had from a drug I usually will have it. My mother knows that about me and I am sure she would have opted out had this been mandatory when I was a child.

I have no problem with an opt-in kind of system. I still think the vaccine needs more scrutiny but if a parent disagrees and wants to opt in that's their decision.

our health care system. It's not always in the interest of the patient anymore. Sad...

And yes, the FDA is essentially a revolving door for big pharma these days.

This is flamebait.