Psst...Wanna Know Why Merck Pulled Back Lobbying for Mandatory Gardasil (pt. 2)? LAWSUITS BEGIN

Promoting ignorance and paranoia.

Fighting against corrupt Repubican politics. Fighting FOR freedom and choice. Fighting FOR fair and open government.

Anything else?

:hi:

:)

:popcorn: Butter, or no?

:beer: And this round's on me.

:)

You can easily opt out of the Gardasil debate.

Although you may not be so lucky if your a teenage girl from Texas.

.

Don't kid yourself or try wrapping misguided arguments up in the flag....

Accusing us of "fighting" for "suffering".

:eyes:

Every girl who gets HPV because their parents listened to paranoid rantings that we see on these threads is going to suffer needlessly.

Now stop smearing us.

No two ways about it. The anti-vaccine crowd in America promotes suffering.

:shrug: MKJ (a dubious pleasure)

of opt-in, free, and available to everyone is the way to go. Why does Texas have to mandate this thing, and why do people support this anti-democratic mandate?

because Americans are paranoid and ill informed.

Also, nothing particularly undemocratic about it. That issue was settled by the Supreme Court in 1905.

The bottom line is that the public health trumps libertarianism.

And why does Texas HAVE to mandate this thing??

NOBODY can answer this question and frankly I'm getting a bit pissed about it.

However, unlike Britain and Australia, anti-science attitudes are endemic in America- so girls will need to show proof of vaccination in order to attend school. Nothing controversial about that- we already do it with a host of other diseases.

All too many Americans will have to be dragged in kicking and screaming.

These folks would have their children suffer for their own ignorance, ideology or paranoia.

That's not the way it is in other countries that have a healthy respect for science.

kids are taught you can get pregnant by rubbing elbows. There is a 6 inch rule - you can never be closer than 6 inches to anyone of the opposite sex. Even in the church pew.

Ignorance, ideology, paranoia all spring from the same seed. And perpetuate the same disasters.

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

from people who would spread preventable diseases. And when you look at these threads- not to mention the hogwash on the fundie side of the aisle, it's clear to me that the only way to do that effectively in America is through mandates.

Personally, I'd like to see kids line up at school and get their vaccinations from the nurse, which is how it was done with many diseases when I was a kid.

Of course. Anyone puts anything into my child without my consent and I will put them onto a street corner! That's a Promise, not a threat!

because sooner or later, states are going to require proof of immunization whether you like it or not.

Note that we're not arguing about MMR or other mandatory vaccination schemes... just about this one vaccine, which happens to be the first STD vaccine.

What an amazing crock of a response! So, if parents don't acquiesce to the personal whim of the republican governor who took big campaign contributions in return for mandating this vaccination, they're just "paranoid" and want their kids to suffer?

You're fucking nuts.

.

If you're upset about this and want children to not get the vaccine, you want children to suffer, just like if you didn't want children to get vaccines for MMR.

is trying to make it mandatory?

It seems nobody can really answer that question.

Yeah, that's a good cause. :eyes:

There are such things as unethical scientists. And yes, there are conflicts between science and corporations. Science is not 100% pure, just as Religion is not 100% bad.
While I have always been on the side of science, I am not foolishly blinded by it. If I were, as some around here are, that would be just as bad as a Jerry Falwell who is blinded by his faith.

:kick:

I have no objection. You will NOT have my support for this vaccine until there is extensive research. Also, don't tell me about your stories of those who died from Cervical Cancer. It seems that those stories gain much sympathy around here but mine (regarding my brother who had a severe reaction to a vaccine) don't gain any sympathy at all.

You might at least admit that rather than spread unfounded fear.

and international testing has been going on since the 1990's.

The vaccine is safe and effective, which is why it's been approved and is being given to girls around the world.

What planet are you living on? Gardasil is a NEW VACCINE and as such it requires extensive testing - more than 2 years.

than 2 years. If memory serves correct, it usually takes 6-8 years to make it through the three phases of FDA testing which include testing on safety, tolerability, and efficacy. So it is a new vaccine, but as far as I am aware it is simply new to the market - not new to existence.

in regards to the FDA speeding up approval time on pharmaceuticals. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

in the cases where a drug is deemed "too effective" and that holding it back longer would pose an ethical infringement. A good friend of mine is taking an HIV drug that was fast-tracked like that.

which makes you dangerous.

Dr. Ian Frazier has been working on this for the better part of his career. He was honored as Australian of the Year for 2006 for his efforts.

(Australians still respect and honor their scientists).

and that he and other members of the repug party took money before ordering the vaccine. It does not add up. These are the same people who did not want a rape victim to get a pill to protect against pregnancy.


However, I think the vaccine is a great step forward in the fight to protect our young women and if it is safe they should get it.

Others are taking that same feeling and arguing that since he did it, it must be bad.

He also talks, which means that talking is bad and they should stop.

that where science lacks, religion can pick up the slack? So if the efficacy studies aren't fairly conclusive (which, from what I've read, have been pretty conclusive) then Jesus can tell us the rest?

I don't think anyone is ever "blinded" by science. People can make claims that evidence does not support, but they generally just need to be reminded that the evidence isn't there and they will back off - unlike religious fundamentalists who are immune (perhaps they received a vaccination) to logic.

People can be blinded by science. The only reason that there are so many around these parts who make the claim that "science cannot blind" is because there are extremists on this side, just as there are extremists on the right.

I never said that there are not problems with science - I do take issue with your characterization of people who think differently than yourself as scientific fundamentalists akin to Jerry Falwell.

They already had several trials on humans. You know what it showed? 100% efficacy against the tested strains of HPV. 100%. Oh, and no significant side effects. The base the vaccine is in is common and well tested.

Folks, nothing is perfect, but this vaccine is a HUGE health benefit for women. PLEASE don't tin foil it into obscurity. Sure, the drug company lobbied to have states require it. Is anyone HONESTLY surprised? A company would be derelict if it didn't seek such approval for a safe, effective, hugely important vaccine.

And ALL states that are considering or are already implementing a requirement have opt out forms for parents to sign. This isn't forcibly done, or coercive. Kids can still go to school, go on field trips, go to college, etc.

There is no pleasing some people.

If the government becomes aware of a step to improve the health of it's citizens then it is the only responsible course to take whatever steps are neccesary to bring this about...that is why the government is working so hard to ban the manufacture and sale of tobacco products!

like from puberty to post menopausal women? Who knows how this will affect women long term? There have just been too many occurrences through history where women have been subjected to chemicals that were supposed to be helpful, only to learn years later that were harmful either to women or their offspring. Remember that drug they gave women in the 50/60's for morning sickness that caused their offspring to be horribly deformed? I'm sure it was considered safe then too. I don't mind having the knowledge or the option to decide for myself or my female offspring (if I had any). But someone telling me or that I or my child must have this vaccine without any knowledge of what this could cause years down the road, is just wrong wrong wrong! Another question I have is why are females the ones that are concentrated on? Men get prostate cancer, where's the damn vaccine for that?

but you really do not understand the issues here. Your fear is totally misplaced.

perhaps it's because I dont let MEN talk me into sleeping around with them? Why the hell aren't we hitting this horrible disease at the source? Seems to me if it weren't for men and their animalistic tendencies to listen to their second (all right some people might argue that) brain, then women wouldn't have to worry about cervical cancer at all. Why don't we come up with a vaccine that will prevent men from passing cancer causing STD's to women in the first place? Somehow I don't think you'll have too many of them lining up to lobby congress to make it mandatory for them.


in edit: perhaps I don't understand, but what I have learned the past 48 years walking this earth is to be cynical, question every thing, and sit back and watch the folks jumping into the water for a while. It just might save me from being eaten by the shark.

but do you think that everyone that gets an STD is a slut oh, sorry, have "moral standards"?

You are putting words into my mouth.

And yes, 1970's liberalism cost the Democratic party dearly. And you know something, they deserved to lose then. If they do not take strong and rightious stands now, they deserve to lose again.

:puke: :puke:

Which I fully support.

HOWEVER, 1970's "liberalism" is that nonsense about morals not mattering and any show of strength made you a war-mongering SOB.

So I reject your argument that morals don't matter--they do. My morals, and many of Americans, OTOH, are not Christian and are considered to be immoral by a great majority of Christians.

And feminism was primarily a 70's movement. The movement had early development in the 60's, but I don't consider it its own movement til the 70's, particularly with the ERA push.

we should have none of them whatsoever!

I see understand you now.

I really, really don't like the subtext of some of these posts.

Reading some of them, I have to double-check to see that I'm not on some fundiewingnut site.

People who get HPV deserve what they get because they're either dumb or lack moral standards.

:puke:

Wow.

You know that humans are animals, right? You think men are the cause of all evil? Why is that?

They are now concluding testing of this vaccine on the male population. It is proving effective and they are recommending it be given to boys now.

The virus is transmitted in both directions, like hepatitis. To eliminate or minimize transmission of the virus you vaccinate both sexes. They started with females because the testing was completed and the correlation to cervical cancer was proven.

Your assumption that the virus is from men is based on nothing but supposition.

It's true.

I must have a helluva death wish. :evilgrin:

:spray: :toast: MKJ

Somebody passes it to somebody, and if our children were taught how to have sex safely (instead of being told not to have it) we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Historically, men have had to pay no price at all in regards to their reproductive systems. They're given atta boy's and pats on the back for their conquests. Millions of kids grow up in this country fatherless because they've been aloowed to walk away from their responsibilities. And I'm sorry, I am a mother of a 13 yr old boy, and those hormones are rampaging, I know what part of his body he is thinking with sometimes. No, he is not sexually active yet, for now he is content with masturbation and it is not something he is made to feel ashamed of at home, when he is in his room, he is given his privacy and I knock or call out to him before entering. But I also have to be practicle and know that someday he is not going to be able to resist exploring sexually with a female. But when he does, I hope that I have given him enough knowledge about his sexuality and have impressed upon him the huge responsibilities and consequences of having sex with another person. I will not demand that he not have sex at leave it at that. I will buy him the condoms and insist that he use them.

And at no time did I ever say men were evil, those were your words.

...have been fair. Men can't control their impulses and women have to be protected from them. Or else the women are loose.

Black and white reasoning. See it all the time.

I share your philosophy concerning sex and teens. However, as it concerns my daughter, she could keep herself as pure as the driven snow but meet someone who has not been as "pure" in his past. He may be a totally upstanding guy (by some definitions) when she meets him, but past actions do sometimes figure into the present. Ergo, that is why I am getting my daughter the vaccine. Better safe than sorry, better a pound of prevention, yadda, yadda...

What absolutely floors me in these discussions is that the point is missed that this is something that actually PREVENTS a cancer. It's been proven. Christ. Can't we at least acknowledge the significance of THAT? By the reactions of some here, you'd think this was a reincarnation of the Tuskegee syphilis experiments.

I find the difference in reaction amazing.

The Pill was seen as a liberating force for women. Why is Gardasil not viewed the same? Freeing women from the ravages of cervical cancer caused by a virus which is sexually transmitted should be seen as liberating.

We are sinking into the Dark Ages.

Clearly implying that the women who did contract HPV and then developed cervical cancer WERE weak and "let" those evil nasty men talk them into having sex.

The attitudes on these threads are right out of the Falwell/Robertson school of thought. Fucking disgusting.

that when it comes to sexual matters, and there is a victim (but only if that victim is female) there is an almost knee-jerk response to blame her for whatever ill has befallen her.

you're implying it. I'm asking why these "we must save us from ourselves" attitudes are usually directed at women. You may think that I have some resentment towards men (and maybe I do) but I suspect the donut is round here. Besides, even if I did think men were "evil"... women have been portrayed as evil since biblical times, what's wrong with someone placing the shoe on the other genders foot?

Is that really the mentality here? Can we get beyond playground ethics perhaps?

You are blaming the woman. By saying that you don't let men seduce you, you say that those women that have HPV *did* and therefore their weakness is to blame for their suffering.

Yeah, that's the kind of crap that's been pushed since biblical times. Women's weakness is the reason for the problem.

I'll ask you what I asked another poster on here - how about the woman who remains a virgin until her wedding night, and contracts HPV from her groom (who, hell, might as well throw this in here - was also a virgin and got HPV unknowingly from a blood transfusion)?

Who do you blame there?

And when do we get past blaming sick people and instead help them?

you've accused me of viewing men as evil by blaming them and you've accused me of blaming women by labeling them weak. So no one is to blame, agree? But once again what we have here is our leadership telling people that the water is safe and all will be purified by it except the males.. so we must all dive in. But you fellas.. you all just stay up on the shore because you contribute in no manner what so ever to the situation, totally blameless, no hidden agendas by our leaders, pure as the driven snow.

I hope that no one ever has to look back and say, I wish I had waited longer for testing.. or that I can never be a grandparent because of what I allowed the government to do to my daughter unquestioningly. I just no longer have the same trust or faith in our leaders as some.

I said in an earlier post, I don't have a problem with it being a CHOICE, but to be coerced into this, is wrong. So by all means, go get your little girls the vaccine and watch them grow the rest of their lives. Hopefully this will have no ill effects on them or their children in later years and that their futures are filled with nothing but joy. Me, I think I'll sit back and watch for a while.

Your posts have made it pretty clear that you think women should "just say no" when it comes to sex, and that men are animals who can't control their sexual urges. Excuse me if I pause and wonder exactly what fucking message board I'm posting on.

Men (boys) will soon be able to get the HPV vaccine too. Testing hasn't been completed yet - but health officials didn't want girls to miss the life-saving effects of this vaccine while the trials in boys were yet to be finished. You will see both sexes receiving the vaccine in the very near future, so there's no need to read into it this "you fellas" crap.

Since you have no answer for me regarding the wedding night scenario, I have to assume you realize just what kind of moral manure pile you sit upon.

Because you've decided that it is the end all cure all for women who may someday come down with a particular type of cervical cancer. I wasn't aware that women were dying in epidemic porportions of cervical cancer. My family is filled with women who have historically died of diabetes and stroke. However, no one is worried about a vaccine for those horrible diseases. You know what? Nobody gets out alive. We're all going to die. It may not be measles, mumps,chickenpox and now cervical cancer but the end will come to us somehow.

I've explained my reasoning behind hesitating to jump on this band wagon several times, but what you've decided to pick on me about is not the fact that females are going to be forced to subject themselves to another medical procedure (for the good of mankind), but to point out to me what you, in your superior self righteous tone, have determine how wrong I am and how right you are. And when that didn't work you began accusing me of posting statements in regards to morality that just wern't true. Like I said.. you can have this one, line your little girls up down at the clinic. I wont be seeing you there.

You apparently feel the need to bash my intelligence, and completely distort my position. You don't understand HPV's role in cervical cancer and how a vaccine can help with that, but not with diabetes or stroke. And your fatalist position is just sad. Further discussion is only going to make you angrier and lash out at me more, so perhaps it is a good time to quit.

Oh, there's someone taking a morally superior tone around here, but it sure isn't the vaccine proponents.

But the reason why 'no one is worried about a vaccine for those horrible diseases' is that these diseases are not in most cases due to infections. So that a vaccine wouldn't be the way to go to prevent them. Not that there isn't concern about these diseases, or research into them.

The very same people would be attacking the FDA for being sexist in not releasing the vaccine until it had been proven to help men.

"Men and their animalistic tendencies."

NO DRUG OR VACCINE is "proven" to 100% accuracy in the medical field. ALL scientists and researchers know this. Do your research and stop spreading misinformation.

The "tested strains" of HPV you are referring to are strains 16 and 18, known to cause 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. There are over 100 strains of HPV.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

This might be what is being referred to.

I do not believe in blind faith and I cannot believe that so many intelligent people are buying so quickly into Gardasil. Many times, the affects of chemicals can take Years to take their toll. Ask all of the people who are now suffering with cancer from asbestos.

Ingredients in Gardisal.

What are the ingredients in GARDASIL?
The main ingredients are purified inactive proteins that come from HPV Types 6, 11, 16, and 18.
It also contains amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate, sodium chloride, L-histidine, polysorbate
80, sodium borate, and water for injection.


http://www.frankmckinnon.com/aluminum.htm
ALUMINUM
CASRN: 7429-90-5
http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/f?./temp/~oMjxjA:1

Human Health Effects:

Toxicity Summary:

IDENTIFICATION: Aluminum is a silvery-white, ductile and malleable metal. It is released to the environment both by natural processes and from anthropogenic sources. It is highly concentrated in soil-derived dusts from such activities as mining and agriculture, and in particulate matter from coal combustion. Aluminum occurs ubiquitously in the environment in the form of silicates, oxides and hydroxides, combined with other elements such as sodium and fluorine and as complexes with organic matter. It is not found as a free metal because of its reactivity. Aluminum metal has a wide variety of uses, including structural materials in construction, automobiles and aircraft, and the production of metal alloys. Aluminum compounds and materials also have a wide variety of uses, including production of glass, ceramics, rubber, wood preservatives, pharmaceuticals and waterproofing textiles. Natural aluminum minerals, especially bentonite and zeolite, are used in water purification, sugar refining, brewing and paper industries. HUMAN EXPOSURE: Non-occupational human exposure to aluminum in the environment is primarily through ingestion of food and water. No acute pathogenic effects in the general population have been described after exposure to aluminum. Although it has been hypothesized that aluminum is a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease, present epidemiological evidence does not support a causal association between Alzheimer's disease and aluminum in drinking-water. Neurological syndromes including impairment of cognitive function, motor dysfunction and peripheral neuropathy have been reported in limited studies of workers exposed to aluminum fume. Iatrogenic exposure in patients with chronic renal failure, exposed to aluminum-containing dialysis fluids and pharmaceutical products, may cause encephalopathy, vitamin-D-resistant osteomalacia and microcytic anemia. Premature infants may develop increased tissue loading of aluminum, particularly in bone, when exposed to iatrogenic sources of aluminum. Although human exposure to aluminum is widespread, in only a few cases has hypersensitivity been reported following exposure to some aluminum compounds after dermal application or parenteral administration. There is insufficient information to allow for classification of the cancer risk from human exposures to aluminum and its compounds. Aluminum and its compounds appear to be poorly absorbed in humans. The mechanism of gastrointestinal absorption of aluminum has not yet been fully elucidated. The highest levels of aluminum may be found in the lungs, where it may be present as inhaled insoluble particles. The urine is the most important route of aluminum excretion. ANIMAL STUDIES: The acute toxicity of metallic aluminum and aluminum compounds is low. In short-term studies using rats, mice or dogs to various aluminum compounds in the diet or drinking-water, only minimal effects were observed at the highest administered doses. Adequate inhalation studies were not identified. Following intratracheal administration of aluminum oxide, particle-associated fibrosis was observed. No overt fetotoxicity was noted, nore were general reproductive parameters noted after gavage treatment of rats. There is no indication that aluminum is carcinogenic. It can form complexes with DNA and cross-link chromosomal proteins and DNA, but it has not been shown to be mutagenic in bacteria or induce mutation or transformation in mammalian cells in vitro. Chromosomal aberrations have been observed in bone marrow cells of exposed mice and rats. There is considerable evidence that aluminum is neurotoxic in experimental animals, although there is considerable variation among species. In susceptible species, toxicity following parenteral administration is characterized by progressive neurological impairment, resulting in death with status epilepticus. Osteomalacia, as it presents in man, is observed consistently in larger species (e.g. dogs and pigs) exposed to aluminum; a similar condition is observed in rodents. Absorption via the gastrointestinal tract is usually less than one percent. Aluminum is distributed in most organs within the body with accumulation occurring mainly in bone at high dose levels. To a limited extent, aluminum passes the blood-brain barrier and is also distributed to the fetus. Aluminum is eliminated effectively by urine.

Continued
http://www.frankmckinnon.com/aluminum.htm

Do you understand the difference between elemental chlorine, a deadly gas, and Sodium Chloride, a compound that contains 50% chlorine?

That is what mandatory means - you can't enter school (or a particular grade in school) without having received this vaccine. The opt out provisions I am aware of (including Texas) are not true opt out provisions because the only non-medical basis for opting out is for reasons of conscience, including religion. In most states, including Texas, if you opt out for that basis you must do so in a sworn affidavit. Most of us, other than right wing wackos, who have decided that (for the time being) that the vaccine is not appropriate for our children would not be opting out for that reason.

I certainly can't make that claim for my 16 year old daughter, so if a law like this comes to my state (or if my own state's current mandatory vaccination law were expanded to include this vaccination) I will have to either submit to the vaccination, educate my child in a non-public setting, or complete a false affidavit (which could cause me to lose two professional licenses). How is that not forcible or coercive?

I have seen lots of assertions that the mandate is not really mandatory because anyone can opt out, but no one yet has provided any support for that assertion. I have researched the Texas law. The opt out is a very limited opt out for the basis noted above. My experience with opt out provisions goes beyond the theoretical research I have done with respect to Texas law. Although my daughter is vaccinated for all of the illnesses for which long standing vaccinations are available (including mumps, measles, rubella,polio, and tetanus), we have faced this decision three times previously with recent additions to the mandate list which we determined were not appropriate for our daughter after discovery that her immune system is not normal and weighing the risks of artificially messing with that system against the risk of exposure/risks associated with the illness being prevented. So, I have reviewed not only the Texas law in the context of the current debate, but my own state's laws as well in connection with deciding how to respond to the documentation required for school entry.

With respect to the HPV vaccine, there is no public health basis for making the vaccine mandatory (as there is for easily communicable diseases). The disease is not be spread by casual contact at school, and even if it were the mandatory vaccination programs being discussed would not wipe out the disease (the basis for mandating widespread vaccination with polio and smallpox) because they only suggest vaccinating half of the population.

Mandate that insurance companies and public assistance programs provide the vaccine at free or nominal charge. I don't even particularly care if you mandate that there be required education (similar to the pre-abortion "education" in some states). Just don't mandate the vaccination without providing a true broad opt out provision that does not require me to choose between having my daughter vaccinated, educating my child privately, or making a false affidavit.

Not that it should matter, but my decision to delay vaccination is based on a combination of health concerns particular to my daughter's compromised immune system, the lack of studies about the long term side effects and efficacy of the vaccination, and the likelihood of voluntary or involuntary exposure to the virus in the near future. It is not a decision we have reached lightly, and is one that will be reviewed periodically as the relative risk factors in last two categories change over time. Bottom line, it is our right to make that decision (with our daughter and physician) - not the state's right, absent a situation in which failing to vaccinate our daughter would create a public (not personal) health hazard. Under the current proposals that would be very hard to establish since no one is even suggesting vaccinating the male half of the population of the population.

With unknown risks at a known high cost.

Read this article for the other side of the story:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_suzanne__060725_it_s_not_just_religi.htm

they're probably worried that their kids are going to have sex because of it. The question remains, who isn't having sex because of HPV?

And secondly, there are many different vaccines all across the country that have been mandated, why is this one getting so much attention?

Unlike mumps, polio or any of the other sometimes fatal (childhood) diseases, one doesn't get HPV from casual contact. That is why it is different than the other mandatory vaccines in this country.

The government requires children under 16 go to school. It would be wrong to require them to go to a place where their very presence puts their life in danger. The government does not require teenagers to have sex, which is the usual way one gets an STD.

personally if my daughters were in that age group , and I was satisfied that it had been extensively tested , I would have them vaccinated as soon as possible.

but anything that is "mandatory " worries me

In developed countries, cervical cancer accounts for a tiny fraction of of all cancer deaths. With routine screening and early detection, cervical cancer can be defeated.

In many school districts across our nation, our students are taught abstinence only. Gardisal won't protect against any of the other nasty, incurable or fatal STDs. It won't prevent pregnancy.

SO, some government officials are willing to spend money to help inncoulate girls against HPV. But, they won't spend money on comprehensive sex education programs or condoms. They won't make sure every woman has comprehensive health care so she can be screened for HPV and treated if necessary.

Wouldn't that make more sense than requiring girls to get this vaccine?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

even 5% of all cancer deaths, and have the means to do it, then why shouldn't we? I think it would mean a lot to that "tiny fraction" of women who die from it. I'm not saying we should, but I think that's a pretty silly argument.

I think spending money on comprehensive sex ed programs and condoms is where we need to go because evidence shows that abstinence only education just increases STD rates as well as unwanted pregnancies. But that still doesn't mean that the vaccine isn't a step in the right direction.

money is not an unlimited resource. We have a limited number of dollars. Is it better to spend it on Gardisal vaccines or condoms? Which will help a greater number of people? Furthermore, routine screening of women, can catch HPV before it becomes a problem. It can catch other diseases too, before they can be spread. If you only have so much money, isn't it better to spend it on something that will do the most good for the most people?

My logic only applies to developed countries. Around the world, cervical cancer is more prevelent and associated with higher mortality rates. In developing countries, it may be harder to distribute condoms and get women to use them regularly. It may also be harder for them to access the kind of routine screenings needed to catch HPV before it becomes cervical cancer.

It isn't an either / or proposition. We can easily afford both. If the HPV vaccine can catch cases that routine screening fails to or cases that condoms fail to prevent, then it is worthwhile. The most effective way of reducing the number of cases is not by choosing just one tool, but both.

THAT is a very slippery slope. To me, the argument isn't whether the vaccination is safe or was tested thoroughly and long enough, but rather the right of citizens to control their own bodies. Forcing someone to do something to their body they don't want verges on rape.

Jacobson lost, because the public health trumps your right to spread preventable diseases.

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/vaccines/Jacobson_v_Massachusetts_brief.htm

so if one gets inoculated all should. Why balance this on the females?

and we have limited public health funds and vaccine supply that needs to be targeted efficiently.

At some point down the line, all kids will be vaccinated.

it's been found to be effective both ways.

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

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

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

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

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

europe will be innoculating both boys and girls.

here's the other thing -- the anti-vaccine crowd always pick out merck -- merck PARTNERED in this vaccine with sanofi pateur -- a french company.

extensive testing and reviewing is and has been going on AROUND the globe.

taiwan, brasil and mexico will be innoculating there children as well.

this will save MILLIONS of both lives and dollars.

because I've been asking the same thing, and the only replies I have gotten is that that I think I am morally surperior because I don't sleep around and that I hate men. I've been accused of implying that women are sluts and weak because thy are the one that have to pay the price if they have multiple partners. I sincerely wish you better luck in getting your question answered.

You ignored that whole part of my post though so here it is again.


They are now concluding testing of this vaccine on the male population. It is proving effective and they are recommending it be given to boys now.

The virus is transmitted in both directions, like hepatitis. To eliminate or minimize transmission of the virus you vaccinate both sexes. They started with females because the testing was completed and the correlation to cervical cancer was proven.

With this language, the Court stated the basic bargain of civilization: an individual must give up some personal freedom in exchange for the benefits of being in a civilized society. Jacobson sought to enjoy the benefit of his neighbors being vaccinated for smallpox without personally accepting the risks inherent in vaccination. The Court rejected Jacobson's claim which it viewed as an attempt to be a free-rider on society.

You see this core selfish principle in a LOT of political stances, like libertarians who view taxes as "theft."

Condoms offer as much protection against it as GARDASIL and annual HPV screenings do as well.

I don't want some white republican male politician telling me that I can't have an abortion. And I don't want some white republican male politician who takes money from a drug company telling me that I have to subject my daughter to that drug company's vaccine. I DO have concerns as to whether or not the vaccine is safe at this point & don't want my child to be a guiney pig.

Another concern is this: There are hundreds of diseases out there. Are we going to force our children to take 30, 50, 100 vaccines in the future as the pharma industry comes up with them? Where do you draw the line?

It's this kind of uninformed sentiment that really bolsters the case for immunization mandates.

Odd how one doesn't hear things like this from Australia and Britain, where people are very enthusiastic about protecting their kids from HPV and cervical cancer.

I recall that the number one sleeping pill in Germany in the early 1960's was something called thalidomide. What makes you think that just because other countries do something, it is right? My aunt took the popular drug DES to prevent miscarriages when she was pregnant with my cousin. Because of this, my cousin was never able to have children. Testing has improved these days, I am sure, but I still lack trust in the pharma industry. I want to make sure things are truly safe. Until then, "guiney pig" is exactly the phrase I would use.

I'm not thrilled with the govt. telling me that flouride in my water is harmless, or that mercury in my dental work is harmless, either. But that's another story..

which is extensive AND now complete for women. The scientific results are in and they've proven that the vaccine is safe and effective.

So how exactly would you be a Guinea pig?

btw: Merck only has the license to distribute the vaccine- the work itself was done by independent scientists over the course of 25 years.

You and the others who are defending the mandatory use of it in Texas? If you think it's so effective, why not?

However, there's no doubt that were I a sixth grader, I'd get vaccinated.

btw: I'm not defending immunization mandates, I'm advocating them, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who's read these threads.

I'm also too old for Gardasil. I so wish it had been around when I was young.

My son's girlfriend just got it.

watching every move the Brits make. I love the show Prime Suspect and it was amazing how as the show progressed they kept showing how that technology was escalating.

They are also trying to get biometrics attached to National ID cards there.

I would not use the Brits as an example.

There ARE security cameras in London, but not everywhere and watching everything that we do. They are in places that are seen as vulnerable to crime or terrorism, but they are not there for the purpose of spying on everyday activities - you make it sound as though we're all being spied on in our own homes. There is potential for misuse; but it's not a 24-7 spying operation.

And the ID/ biometrics cards are being proposed by the Blair government, but strongly opposed by most people.

I think that you are equating 'the Brits' with 'the Blair government, since it got paranoid over terrorism'. We have had free vaccines for many diseases since LONG before the Blair government, and they have nothing to do with current proposals for surveillance. Britain is traditionally a minding-ones-business, my-home-is-my-castle country as regards people's private life, and this has been so under Tory and Socialist governments - Blair is an aberration. By the way, there are some anti-vaccine people here, and they are not forced to vaccinate.

mandated through Executive Order, one has to opt out as opposed to giving permission. Many lower income and non-English speaking people would have difficulty with the paper work involved and I find that prejudicial.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8659912/

He's right — cameras are cheaper and better than ever, with much more memory capacity — which means a camera, if not Big Brother, is likely watching you. In London, 500,000 surveillance cameras mean the average Londoner is caught on tape around 300 times a day.

Especially in cities that could, or think they could, be targeted by terrorists, or where crime rates are high.

Cameras are for the purpose of detecting crime, 'terrorism', and most controversially, speeding. There are always concerns that they could be used for more damaging surveillance purposes, but this has not happened as yet to any degree. (This is not to justify the cameras; but just that their *purpose* is not to enable the state to control people's private lives. Rather, their purpose is similar to that of the closed-circuit TV cameras that many private businesses and shops have used for many years in many countries.)

At any rate, it is not a specifically British phenomenon, and has nothing to do with the NHS or vaccines - which were in existence here long before security cameras and the current terror-scares.

How badly will it hurt Labour (since it is their Dog in the race who is supporting them).

of the NHS; etc.

At the moment, Labour are doing badly in polls, which is not good news as the Tories are worse. However, things may change under a new leader.

My gut feeling is that the bio-metric ID cards will NOT happen in the end; but that a lot of taxpayers' money will be wasted before the scheme is withdrawn. As with a number of crackpot schemes of this government.

That's what the lawsuit is about.

Perry issued an executive order -- it was a dictatorial mandate that did NOT go through the legislature.

That's what the lawsuit is about.

This decision should have come from long standing medical communities who would make recommendations on this.

The original post mentioned a lawsuit that was filed to block Perry's executive order, on the grounds that Perry had no authority to issue such an executive order.

So how many posts on this thread actually talk about the LAWSUIT and Perry's dictatorial executive order?