American Academy of Pediatrics urges "go slow" on new HPV vaccine.

[pnwmom]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-te.md.cervical29jan29,0,2725203.story?coll=bal-mdpolitics-headlines

SNIP

Merck, which has been arming its lobbyists across the country with information on the vaccine, has been getting an assist from Women in Government, a nonpartisan organization of female legislators whose agenda includes cervical cancer prevention. The group, like breast-cancer activists before it, works through political channels. It also takes corporate donations from Merck.

But some medical experts say lawmakers are moving too fast in their efforts to vaccinate all school-age girls. The American Academy of Pediatrics, for instance, is urging a go-slow approach, with an initial focus on raising public awareness of HPV and more monitoring of the safety of the vaccine, which had minimal side effects in clinical trials but hasn't been observed in larger-scale rollouts.

"A lot of us are worried it's a little early to be pushing a mandated HPV vaccine," said Dr. Martin Myers, director of the National Network for Immunization Information. "It's not that I'm not wildly enthusiastic about this vaccine. I am. But many of us are concerned a mandate may be premature, and it's important for people to realize that this isn't as clear-cut as with some previous vaccines."

He added, "It's not the vaccine community pushing for this."

SNIP

[Kagemusha]

1. It's news to me the vaccine community isn't pushing for this.

But if that really is the case and I am simply misinformed, so be it...

[moc]

3. I think there is a difference between the pharmaceutical community

vis a vis vaccines and the medical/public health community with regards to vaccines. I think the latter has pushed the studies to find a vaccine for HPV, but I think it's the former that's pushing the mandate. At least that's how I read it.

[pnwmom]

4. It's Merck that's pushing the hardest for this.

They'll make a lot more money on their investment if this is mandatory. And the sooner, the better, from their perspective.

[Kagemusha]

9. I can hardly expect them not to push for this.

I tune them out. It's the "the vaccine community isn't really pushing for this" part that makes me go "what the heck!?" based on what I'd heard previously. But like I said, if I'm just misinformed (and I would not be the only one), too bad for me - the important thing is proper medicine.

[mhatrw]

127. Consider this post.

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

[moc]

2. Bingo. I'm in public health and I'm the mother of a 10yo girl in Texas.

I agree with Dr. Myers completely.

[pnwmom]

5. Me, too. I'm sure your 10 year old can wait a few years.

[Sapere aude]

6. Cervical cancer is not a communicable disease like polio was. There is no real need to force this

on girls. Seems to me that it is a boone for Merck and nothing else.

Suppose there is a danger and we don't find it out until we have given the shot to all girls. We will have a generation of women affected. The risk of cancer does not even come close for this kind of program.

[Mandate My Ass]

7. Some strains of HPV do cause cervical cancer

so yes, it is a communicable disease in some cases as HPV is a sexually transmitted disease. The vaccine only works preventatively, not as a cure once contracted.

[pnwmom]

14. I'm sure s/he meant it's not transmitted by casual contact

like polio or pertussis.

No one is going to catch HPV by sitting in school or going to the mall. It doesn't carry the same public health risk.

[mhatrw]

97. Not exactly.

While it is a widely accepted medical theory that HPV "causes" cervical cancer, it's not a proven fact. Although the vast majority do, many cases of cervical cancer don't show any association with HPV. It's a very good guess that certain strains of HPV are necessary co-factors for certain highly prevalent types of cervical cancer to emerge. The two really bad strains protected for in GARDASIL go hand in hand with 70% of CURRENT cervical cancer cases. My point is that there are 36 nasty strains of HPV screened for currently, and the human body is an ecology. We have no idea how protection against the two strains of HPV that are CURRENTLY most prevalently associated with cervical cancer (typically decades after initial exposure) will affect overall cervical cancer rates far in the future.

[sandnsea]

8. Parents can opt out

The mandate is making this vaccine available to poor girls who want it. It's that simple. If you don't want the vaccine, don't get it. Let people who can't afford $400 have the opportunity to prevent cervical cancer.

[pnwmom]

15. The major pediatrician's group says it's too soon to mandate the vaccine

because larger scale studies have not been done.

We're not in an emergency that would warrant making the vaccine mandatory for anyone. Pap smears have almost eliminated deaths from cervical cancer, and pap smears will still be necessary, even after an HPV vaccine is in common use.

[sandnsea]

16. They can afford to get the vaccine

if they want it for their daughters. Many daughters won't get it without the mandate. If you don't want it, don't get it. Stay out of the way of poor parents who won't even have the option without the mandate.

[pnwmom]

29. How about we all advocate for Congress to pass a law requiring

insurance companies and Medicaid to cover the vaccine for those who want it?

[sandnsea]

38. States control insurance requirements

Many states also control their own Medicaid programs, I know Oregon has a waiver and many other states do too. Many states would have a caniption if the federal passed a $400 vaccine mandate without their input. The key is... parents can opt out. Don't want vaccine, don't get it. Let states act quickly to make it available to the girls who do want it.

[pnwmom]

42. I think they need to conduct larger scale studies before

they release it into any part of the general public -- whether rich or poor.

[sandnsea]

70. It went through the FDA process

It's been studied. Just like every other medicine. It's been approved in Europe. If you don't want it, don't get it. Let everyone else make up their own mind.

[moc]

74. A clinical trial of 20,000 sounds large, but it's not relative to taking

a vaccine to scale.

When was it approved in Europe? How long has it been in the field? One of the reasons I wasn't concerned about the chickenpox vaccine was because it had a long track record in Japan before it came here. (My daughter was also in one of the early cohorts for that one.)

[sandnsea]

83. Last year, also approved for boys to prevent anal cancer

Maybe that's why some states are trying to get girls vaccinated as fast as possible. Once the whole gay cancer issue comes up, holy cow we'll be fighting over this for ten more years.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/31/healthscience/sncancer.php

[mhatrw]

102. How could it be approved for males? The tests are still ongoing!

Sorry, but you read the article wrong.

Dr. Eliav Barr, a director of clinical research at Merck, said he had heard that some men were receiving the vaccine, but added that the company was barred from promoting it for men unless the Food and Drug Administration approved it for that use.

That is unlikely for at least a couple of years. Merck is sponsoring a clinical trial of Gardasil in 4,000 men, including 500 gay men. The first results are expected toward the end of next year.

[sandnsea]

116. "Regulators...approved the vaccine..for boys.."

No I didn't read the article wrong, and you are quite hysterical over this vaccine.

"Regulators in Australia and the European Union have approved the vaccine, called Gardasil and made by Merck, for boys ages 9 to 15."

[mhatrw]

121. That's not the FDA. n/t

[mhatrw]

101. It's been tested on less than 600 girls under 16!

It needs to be opt in, not opt out until it is proven safe and effective for its targeted population.

[jberryhill]

109. So have lots of other drugs which were subsequently found unsafe

The FDA does not conduct its own studies, but relies on data supplied by the drug manufacturer. Such data has not always been found reliable.

If the proposition here is that I should trust the Bush Administration more than the American Academy of Pediatrics, that's not something you'll find a lot of takers for here.

The "it has to be mandatory or it won't be paid by Medicare or insurance" thing is a canard. Stroke of a pen - law of the land.

[Breeze54]

87. More studies are needed...I agree! MERK'S greed can wait!

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/10916544/detail.html?subid=10101601


Merck & Co. stands to make billions of dollars should other states follow
Texas' lead and require schoolgirls to receive its new anti-cancer vaccine.

Merck worked hard to make the Texas mandate a reality, doubling its lobbying
budget in the state and employing a former Perry chief of staff to make the
company's case to the governor and the Legislature.

It also funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up
of female state legislators around the country. The mother-in-law of Perry's
current chief of staff is a state director for the organization (cronyism!)

Merck officials have repeatedly declined to say how much the company has spent
on the lobbying blitz or how much it has given to Women in Government.

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

"He's (Perry) circumventing the will of the people," said Dawn Richardson,
president of Parents Requesting Open Vaccine Education, a citizens group that
has fought for the right to opt out of other vaccine requirements. "There are
bills filed. There's no emergency except in the boardrooms of Merck, where this
is failing to gain the support that they had expected."

New Jersey-based Merck could generate billions in sales if Gardasil -- at $360
for a three-shot regimen -- were made mandatory across the country. Most insurance
companies now cover the vaccine, which has been shown to have no serious side effects.

:wtf:

They do NOT know if it has any serious side effects as it's only been studied


----------------->>>>>> for SIX MONTHS!!!!!! :wtf:


FDA Licenses New Vaccine for Prevention of Cervical Cancer
June 8, 2006

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01385.html

Gardasil was evaluated and approved in six months under FDA's priority review process

Yes...let's have the neo-cons mandating and experimenting on little girls!! Way to go Perry!! :sarcasm:

Un-fucking-believable! :grr:

[mhatrw]

100. It's bullshit. Parents should be able to opt in, not out. Merck should offer

a sliding scale based on income. How can you mandate a new vaccine for a population it has barely been tested on?

[Maat]

125. The problem is that, if it is mandatory,

many poor parents will be bullied into the administration of the vaccine, and will not be aware of their "opt out" rights. Schools are rarely effective in making parents broadly aware of their rights, and frequently staff attempt to coerce parents into a certain course of action. I'm not comfortable with making it mandatory, and will fight any efforts to do so in California. I'm with Dr. Myers here.

[moc]

71. There are other ways of making it available to poor parents without a mandate.

You are right that w/o a mandate, insurers won't pay. However, poor parents either (1) don't have insurance or (2) are on Medicaid. You can make it available to poor parents by funding it as part of CHIP and Medicaid and making free/low cost vaccines available to the uninsured.

[sandnsea]

72. Parents can opt out

So what the hell is the friggin' difference?? Don't want it, don't get it.

[moc]

73. There's a big difference between opting in and opting out.

The waiver process for routine vaccines is cumbersome (at least in this state, Texas, which is relevant I think).

Mandating it for all smacks of trying to line Merck's pocket. Sorry, but I'm just a tad cynical regarding Governor Goodhair's commitment to public health. (Note from my above post that I work in public health, I live in Texas, AND I have a 10yo daughter, so this affects me very directly.) If you want to address access for poor children, you DON'T do it by forcing private insurers to cover a vaccine. That doesn't do a damn thing for poor children.

[sandnsea]

84. The state insurance commission makes the rules

Once the vaccine is mandated, then the state insurance commission changes the regulation which makes both insurance AND Medicaid have to provide coverage. That's just the way it works. I didn't invent the process.

[mhatrw]

103. So change the rules. The vaccine has not yet been proven safe for

the targeted population. If you mandate it for all pre-teens, you are pretending that it has.

[jberryhill]

108. I don't think you understand our government

The rules can be changed. THAT is the "way it works".

This should be opt-in *AND* private insurers and Medicaid should be required to provide coverage. It would take all of 15 minutes to draft that bill.

This is a democracy - WE make the rules. Allowing people to make informed choices is one thing. Forcing default consent is quite another.

I've actually changed my mind on this one. Congress gave the drug makers a liability exception for this stuff. In view of the lack of recourse, default opt-in is wrong.

[arikara]

77. It won't hurt to go slower

find out for sure if getting the vaccine is safer than not taking it. It makes me suspicious when I see a drug company pushing something the way they are with this.

The more I learn about vaccines, the less likely I am to "take advantage" of them. They are pumping enough mercury and aluminum into children's little bodies as it is and I sure don't want any more in my middle aged body either.

[sandnsea]

85. Then YOU go slower

Let other people make up their own mind. What's it to you if someone else gets a friggin' shot??

[arikara]

91. Whoa. I don't care what you do to yourself

I DO have a problem with pumping children ...who btw aren't allowed the luxury of making up their own minds...full of potentially toxic crap that's not properly tested, that may not do any good at all, or even do more harm over time.

This information came from another list and there were no links.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[sandnsea]

94. Let their parents decide

Millions of poor girls aren't going to get this protection because people are freaking out over the only system we have to bring medicine to the people in this country. Maybe you should commit to not using any newly released cure for the next ten years before you subject other people's daughters to your moral standards. You don't want the shot, don't get it. Leave other people alone.

[mhatrw]

105. See, it's not that simple. Opting out is not the same as opting in.

Maybe you'd like all kids to go back to having to opt out of getting their tonsils out as well? Or opt out of taking Vioxx? Opt out of mercury fillings?

Not big deal cause you can always opt out. Right?

[sandnsea]

115. Or opt for death

Let tonsilitis kill you. Let dental infections kill you. No big deal, right?

[mhatrw]

120. Less than 2.5 out of 100,000 die. Most are old, otherwise unhealthy

and/or didn't get a pap smear for years and years. The rate has been trending down for the last 30 years by more than 25% per decade. If current trends continue (you know, if US women don't start to blow off their annual pap smears with a false sense of security), that mortality rate will be reduced to about 1 in 100,000 (via more and better pap smear screening and more prompt treatment) by the time that GARDASIL could possibly have ANY effect on cervical cancer mortality rates! That's 1 out of 100,000 without GARDASIL. It would cost about $50 million (including doctors fees) to vaccinate that population -- ostensibly to protect them against this killer. Even if GARDASIL works as intended and reduces that rate by half, that's $100 million per life saved!

[sandnsea]

122. Some women can't afford pap smears

Clearly you don't get the plight of the poor at all. Deprive them of the vaccine to prevent disease without even considering they won't be able to treat it when they get it either. All for your personal political agenda.

[mhatrw]

126. Clearly, you don't understand my point.

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

[jberryhill]

111. Red Herring

Then pass a law funding voluntary decisions to get the vaccine.

Problem solved.

It's not about "moral standards" - I think the vaccine is a great development and I support making it available to any and all.

It's about government coercion.

[sandnsea]

114. It's about medicaid and insurance funding

And far too many DUers have absolutely no clue what it's like to be left out of life-saving medical care because there's no money to pay for it.

[jberryhill]

123. I understand it perfectly well

The argument is still a red herring. The state government can mandate that insurance companies pay for the vaccine and the state government can act to fund it for those without insurance.

Saying "we need to make it mandatory" to indirectly accomplish an objective that can be accomplished directly is nonsense.

You have absolutely no clue that we live with a participatory form of government that allows us to change the rules. If the government can make it mandatory, then that same government can also make it voluntary and STILL require insurers to pay for those who choose it for their children.

The "we need to make it mandatory" in order to have it paid for is a red herring.

[arikara]

117. What I'm getting here is

that if someone doesn't agree with you they aren't entitled to an opinion. Excuse me but I thought this was a forum for discussion. I have the right to say what I think about topics being discussed.

You might find some value in at least considering the information from both sides since it apparently is your own children you are concerned about. They deserve that at least since they have no say in the matter. And stop being so rude.

[mhatrw]

104. They might die while Merck robs the public coffers for killing them.

What's it to you if kids keep getting annual pap smears, screened for HPV and treated for HPV as always until this vaccine is proven safe and effective for its targeted population?

[jberryhill]

110. Hey, cool...

Thanks for that insight.

I now support:

A Military Draft - I'm 43, no problems to me there.

Dumping Radioactive Waste In Montana - Never been to Montana, probably never will.

The Iraq War - What's it to me if someone else's country is invaded.

Dang, this self-absorbed thing can go a long way toward getting me to quit worrying about a lot of things.

Using poor people as guinea pigs in an untried experiment is something to me. The way to make it available is to fund it as a voluntary option and to require insurers to pay for it.

That can be done as easily as any other mandate, and the argument that "it has to be mandatory or else" is a red herring.

[mhatrw]

99. If you mandate it, you are saying it is safe an effective on the population

you are mandating it for.

Only 1,121 of Merck's test subjects were less than 16, and these subjects were only followed up for a maximum of 18 months.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

95. well, I didn't die

but I did get cancer. It needs to be available to everyone.
How can we do that without an opt-out mandate? :shrug:

[mhatrw]

98. If Merck wants to make sure that women and parents

who want it and can't afford it can get it, they should offer it to low income individuals and families on a sliding scale rather than lobbying state and federal governments to pony up the billions.

[Maat]

124. Well, I'm a retired social worker, and my sister is an active one.

We both know that there are other ways of making this vaccine available (through various programs) rather than making it mandatory.

[mzmolly]

10. Some interesting info on the conflict of interest in Vaccine Policy:

http://www.healing-arts.org/children/vaccines/vaccines-conflict.htm#conflict

http://www.909shot.com/COFRpt.htm

[Horse with no Name]

11. I am not sure that you are being intentionally misleading

But the AAP has endorsed the vaccination.
http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jan07immsch.htm
The director of the National Network for Immunization Information might not have...but there is absolutely ZILCH info that the AAP says to "go slow".
They have issued their guidelines and there aren't any exceptions or addendums noted to "go slow".

[Kagemusha]

12. Well, if the AAP wants to take the characterization up with the reporter

it really ought to do so, if it feels its position has been misrepresented. Because this is not a small or slight issue here. (Edit: And I say the reporter because it is an accurate quote of the content of the Baltimore Sun article linked to above.)

[Horse with no Name]

13. Yet the reporter didn't bring it here and post it

and the OP has been all over this subject this morning against the vaccination.
So I will say it again...I'm not sure if she is deliberately attempting to mislead.

[Kagemusha]

17. I don't know either, but the reporter's the issue for the AAP itself

I will give the benefit of the doubt. The article isn't something she invented, and it's something the AAP really needs to slap down if it's a mischaracterization, because this is a well-coordinated effort to fight this vaccine and plant doubt in the public's mind about it... either the AAP has doubts or it doesn't... it needs to be clear, and make things clear.

[Horse with no Name]

20. The AAP IS clear--crystal clear in fact

It is the muddying of the water by poorly researched articles that are re-posted as fact, such as this one.
My purpose it to let people know that this article is pure crap.
The AAP doesn't have to come to this website and disprove it.
It is on their list of recommended vaccinations.
That doesn't leave much wiggle room for this thinly disguised Op-ed presented as fact.

[Kagemusha]

23. Ok, we're not really disagreeing here...

I don't want the AAP to come to THIS site. I want the AAP to slam the article in the MSM. Now that I've had a chance to think about it, I've specifically heard the AAP recommendation cited as demonstrating broad agreement in the safety and reliability of the vaccine in US and foreign media, which was vehemently disagreed with by 'morality' and 'family' groups. It was a rude shock to me to hear that the AAP itself had doubts, and apparently I was rudely shocked for the good reason that the AAP has not officially said anything of the sort...

So unless there's something else...

[pnwmom]

39. Why can't you see the difference between a recommended vaccination

and a mandatory vaccination? Just because the vaccine is on the recommended list doesn't mean that the American Academy of Pediatrics isn't also recommending that the government wait before making it mandatory.

Yes, I would like to know on what the Baltimore Sun reporter based his conclusion, but in the meantime, we're still left with the quoted opinion of the Director of the National Network of Immunization Information -- a member of the "immunization community." And, according to their website,

The National Network for Immunization Information (NNii) is an affiliation of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the University of Texas Medical Branch, the Society for Adolescent medicine and the American Medical Association.

[Horse with no Name]

44. I know exactly what the difference is

The question is...do you? Texas has taken the correct step. It is up to the other states now.

This is from your own NNii site:

http://www.immunizationinfo.org/assets/files/pdfs/5_HCV.pdf

>>>snip
How Vaccine Use Becomes Law

Committees of experts make recommendations on the use of vaccines in the United States but it is the responsibility of the individual states to determine which vaccines are required by law. It is up to the states to pass and enforce compulsory immunization statutes.

[mhatrw]

106. No, the AAP is pure crap.

Where do they get off rushing to recommend this vaccine as mandatory for little kids when it has been tested on less than 600 girls under 16 with no follow ups over 18 months?

[pnwmom]

36. Give me a break. I have no reason to get into this,

except what I have already made clear. My sister died of a vaccine reaction, to a supposedly safe vaccine, and I couldn't stand it if something like that happened to one of my own children -- or anybody else's. Especially if it was just so a drug company could make a quicker profit.

Annual pap smears have almost eliminated deaths from cervical cancer -- we're not facing an emergency.

Even the Director of a major organization in the "vaccine community" has concerns that this drug is being mandated prematurely. My concerns are well warranted.

[Midlodemocrat]

63. 4000 deaths a year is far from 'almost eliminated'.

[mhatrw]

107. How many deaths a year is that for women under 30 who get

annual pap smears? A handful at most. Plus, there is hard zero clinical evidence that this vaccine actually reduces cervical cancer contraction rates much less mortality rates.

[pnwmom]

19. And where in their guidelines do they recommend making the vaccine

MANDATORY?

There's a huge difference between recommending the vaccine (which they haven't done formally as of the date of your press release) and recommending that it be made mandatory.

I certainly wasn't trying to be "intentionally misleading," but you're right that the Baltimore Sun article should have given more details about the position of the Pediatric group. FYI, here's a piece of information about the National Network for Immunization Information, whose director, Dr. Myers, was quoted in the Sun article.

"A lot of us are worried it's a little early to be pushing a mandated HPV vaccine," said Dr. Martin Myers, director of the National Network for Immunization Information. "It's not that I'm not wildly enthusiastic about this vaccine. I am. But many of us are concerned a mandate may be premature, and it's important for people to realize that this isn't as clear-cut as with some previous vaccines."

He added, "It's not the vaccine community pushing for this."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-te.md.cervical29jan29,0,2725203.story?coll=bal-mdpolitics-headlines

http://www.immunizationinfo.org/about/index.cfm

The National Network for Immunization Information (NNii) is an affiliation of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the University of Texas Medical Branch, the Society for Adolescent medicine and the American Medical Association.

[Midlodemocrat]

22. If it isn't labeled as mandatory,

like other vaccines, insurance and Medicaid won't pay for it.

[pnwmom]

24. Then we should use our majorities in Congress to pass a law

requiring insurance and Medicaid to pay for it, instead of mandating the vaccine before large scale studies have been carried out.

[Midlodemocrat]

26. You know that you are incorrect about the AAP, right?

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=21294

They have recommended inclusion into the 2007 schedule of vaccines.

[pnwmom]

43. They haven't recommended MANDATING it. That's what Dr. Meyers says

they shouldn't do prematurely.

Including it in the recommended list is not the same as saying that it should be mandatory.

[Horse with no Name]

48. All they can do is recommend it. That is what THEY do.

It is then UP TO THE STATES to decide to make it mandatory.

[pnwmom]

51. Of course they could advocate for making it mandatory, but they're not.

Why don't you address Dr. Meyer's points? Is it because you can't?

[Horse with no Name]

56. Because as far as I know

He is a quack with a mission. I won't waste my time on that.
I will address a reputable organization--the AAP. And they recommend it.

[pnwmom]

68. He's the Director of an organization that is PRO-VACCINE.

He's not a quack.

[Horse with no Name]

69. Prove it. n/t

[pnwmom]

75. That's easy. Just look at their website.

http://www.immunizationinfo.org/

And read what Dr. Meyers said: again. He's "wildly enthusiastic about this vaccine." But he's worried that it's too early to mandate it.

"A lot of us are worried it's a little early to be pushing a mandated HPV vaccine," said Dr. Martin Myers, director of the National Network for Immunization Information. "It's not that I'm not wildly enthusiastic about this vaccine. I am. But many of us are concerned a mandate may be premature, and it's important for people to realize that this isn't as clear-cut as with some previous vaccines."

[Horse with no Name]

81. I'm sorry

I work with Doctors every day of the week and have for the better part of the last 20 years.
I have worked with some of the supposed best Doctors in the country.
They are not above having hidden agendas and there isn't ONE Doctor that I would take at 100%.
I am not impressed...I am underwhelmed.
However, for your ONE doctor, I am sure if I set about doing it, I could find TEN that were in love with the vaccine.
What good is that? He is one man. His opinion in the scheme of things...means absolutely squat to me.
You may exalt him for all I care. Just don't expect me to find the same reverence that you do in ONE man.

[Midlodemocrat]

52. No. but I think your OP might lead some to believe that

the AAP is considering not recommending it at all.

And, you stated that you lost a sibling to a vaccine. That must have been horrific and you have my deepest sympathies.

I would hope that vaccinations are perhaps a trifle safer now than before.

[Midlodemocrat]

28. That's not how it works.

There haven't been any new drugs which are automatically included on formularies for any health care insurance company.

[Horse with no Name]

25. Yet many of those organizations that you spout

have endorsed the vaccination.:shrug:
Whether is it MANDATORY or not is really a ridiculous point of order...if it is RECOMMENDED, then they obviously feel that the benefit far outweighs any risk.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/119/1/207
POLICY STATEMENT
Recommended Immunization Schedules for Children and Adolescents—United States, 2007
Committee on Infectious Diseases

The annual recommended immunization schedules for children and adolescents in the United States for 2007 were approved by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Academy of Family Physicians. These schedules reflect current recommendations for use of vaccines licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration. In view of the increasing complexity of the immunization schedule, the 2007 recommendations for children and adolescents have been divided into 2 separate schedules: one for children 0 to 6 years of age and one for those 7 to 18 years of age.

The 2007 schedules reflect the following major changes:

* The addition of oral live rotavirus vaccine for routine administration to all infants at ages 2, 4, and 6 months of age.1
* Routine administration of a second dose of varicella vaccine at 4 to 6 years of age.
* The addition of human papillomavirus vaccine for girls 11 to 12 years of age, with catch-up immunization of girls 13 to 18 years of age. This vaccine, administered intramuscularly in a 3-dose series at 0, 2, and 6 months is expected to prevent most cases of cervical cancer and genital warts.
* The age range for annual administration of influenza vaccine has been expanded to children 6 to 59 months old. Vaccine is also recommended for close contacts of children 0 to 59 months old.2

Clinically significant adverse events that follow immunization should be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Guidance about how to obtain and complete a VAERS form can be obtained on the Internet at www.vaers.hhs.gov or by calling 800-822-7967. Information on new vaccine releases, vaccine supplies, and statements on specific vaccines can be found at www.aap.org and www.cdc.gov/nip. Vaccine-related updates are available online at www.aapredbook.org.


So...how do you feel about the new vaccination for Rotavirus? Every year our hospitals are full of young children with Rota. This year, we haven't had one case of it hospitalized. It's a new vaccine too.
And it isn't mandatory, yet it is given at a pretty high rate with a good rate of success.
Do you object to that as well? Or do you just reserve your vaccination disdain because it is spread sexually?
Regardless of the answer, your post is dead wrong and when shown the literature that it is wrong...you continue to insist it is.

[pnwmom]

45. I don't think any drug or vaccine should be mandated in the first

few years of its release.

[Midlodemocrat]

21. Yes they did.

Here's another source.


http://www.news-medical.net/?id=21294

[pnwmom]

27. It's the same thing, on the same day. A recommendation, not a mandate.

[Midlodemocrat]

30. Except, and you might not have meant it this way, your posts are

misleading. Especially your OP about 'going slow'. It implies that the AAP isn't recommending giving the vaccine at all on any level.

[pnwmom]

46. I told you already that I hadn't noticed that the reporter didn't "back up"

that assertion. I wish he had.

But in the meantime, you haven't addressed the comments from Dr. Meyer's.

[depakid]

34. Unfortunately without a mandate

People will get drawn into the anti-vaccination crowd's bogus libertarian or "moral" arguments, some of which can be seen (repeatedly) on these and other threads.

And if its bad here, imagine what the Freepers and their ilk are saying....

Bottom line is that we have a serious and preventable disease that people no longer have to risk catching. That should be enough for anyone- but as we can see, it's not.

[pnwmom]

47. It's already preventable. Pap smears catch abnormal cells

before they turn into cancer cells -- and pap smears have almost eliminated deaths from cervical cancer.

This vaccine will not obviate the need for yearly pap smears, by the way. And Merck acknowledges not knowing how long the immunity will last.

[Midlodemocrat]

53. Actually, and I'm sorry if I am being such a know it all, but

that isn't true either.

The product that catches cervical dysplasia the most is a product similar to glow sticks called "Pap Sure". It allows your practitioner to visualize the dysplasia immediately, rather than relying on the lab.

When I was pregnant with my second child, I had an abnormal Pap. Turns out that the lab had had a significant screw up and a patient had died, so they were returning all Paps as abnormal in an effort to catch any pre-cancerous cells.

[pnwmom]

58. The point remains, doesn't it? We already have the means to

identify most cases of abnormal cervical cells before they turn into cancer. And we will continue to have to perform these checks even after we have a trustworthy HPV vaccine.

[Midlodemocrat]

59. I disagree. If the means were being utilized and the smears were

being read diligently, no one would die from Cervical cancer, because it wouldn't get to that stage.

[pnwmom]

64. We're not in an emergency. There's no reason we can't wait for

large scale studies to verify the safety of the vaccine before we push it onto the general public.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

65. Tell it to the 4000 that die every year...

and the millions that catch HPV every year.

[pnwmom]

78. We won't know how many might have serious side effects from

this vaccine until larger scale studies are done.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

82. How large do the studies have to be...

before you, I assume a fully qualified biomedical scientist, would approve of the vaccine's safety?

[depakid]

67. This assumes that women have access to basic reproductive care

and will regularly visit their gynecologists. I don't think that's a valid assumption.

[Horse with no Name]

55. Pap smears do NOT prevent cervical cancer...

they detect it. Almost 4,000 women will die, this year from cervical cancer.
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_1X_What_are_the_key_statistics_for_cervical_cancer_8.asp

>>>>snip
The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2007, about 11,150 cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States. Some researchers estimate that non-invasive cervical cancer (carcinoma in situ) is about 4 times more common than invasive cervical cancer.

About 3,670 women will die from cervical cancer in the United States during 2007. Cervical cancer was once one of the most common causes of cancer death for American women. Between 1955 and 1992, the number of cervical cancer deaths in the United States dropped by 74%. The main reason for this change is the increased use of the Pap test. This screening procedure can find changes in the cervix before cancer develops. It can also find early cancer in its most curable stage. The death rate from cervical cancer continues to decline by nearly 4% a year.

[pnwmom]

60. They don't just detect cancer. They can also prevent it, by identifying

abnormal (but non-cancerous) cells that can lead to cancer.

In a similar way , a colonoscopy prevents cases of colon cancer from ever developing, by identifying polyps that COULD turn into cancer.

[Midlodemocrat]

66. Here's the difference.

All colon cancer is caused by polyps. Not all polyps are cancerous.

Most, if not all, cervical cancer is caused by HPV. Cervical dysplasia, often undetected in pap smears, does not always cause cancer.

[pnwmom]

79. Only some types of polyps can lead to cancer.

Just as cervical dysplasia does not always lead to cancer.

I'm not seeing the difference. In both cases, removing the polyps or the dysplasia prevents many cases of cancer.

[Horse with no Name]

86. Tell me how having a Pap smear PREVENTS cervical cancer?

It detects changes in the cervical cells....but it does not PREVENT it. At all.
The vaccine is preventative medicine. The pap smear is diagnostic. Nothing more, nothing less.
A colonoscopy is also a diagnostic tool. It does not prevent anything...it it a tool to determine if cancerous conditions are present.
You are aware of what false-positives and false-negatives are when having these types of tests? You are aware of lab and human errors in the gathering and interpreting of these tests? How can you possibly say--when there is a margin of error in these tests--that they are in any way preventative?

[truedelphi]

18. I sufferred from Guillame Barre after the Swine Flu scare

Of the seventies.

Eventually my left arm recopvered (it was the only thing affected)

I have avoided vaccines ever since.

They have a huge failure rate.

Even having said this, I will admit that I vaccinated my own child. But only for the severest of diseaases - polio, etc

I insisted on single shots - no vaccine combos. And ONLY on days when he was healthy. (Although veterinarians are careful not to vaccinate sick pets, pediatrician offices will do this "for you convenience" Even the induistry blurb on vaccines says not to inject sick children)

In the case of Hep vaccines for infants, this vaccine severely damages and KILLS more children than hepatitis does (If your infant uses drugs and is wildly promiscuous - then go for it.) It's a hard one to avoid though - many hospitals "sneak" it in by gfiving it to every NEWBORN that is born at their facility.

[Midlodemocrat]

32. I'd like to see some statistics where the Hep vaccines have killed

as many children as you are indicating. This is news to me.

[truedelphi]

88. yes, you and me and many others wanted those stats

Unfortunately for the vaccine industry (ie the Big Pharmacy Industry) they exist, although the vaccine people has never wanted those stats.

But boy, do we now have the stats.

Specifically, sometime in the ninteen nineties, Michael Belkin, a leading statitician for Wall Street, took time off from work to bring his infant daughter in for her "healthy baby" shots.

I forget if she died in his arms - or several hours later.


He turned his grief to activism.

He ran the numbers Big Time- and you can read a lot of what he has said (He has taken the time to testify in front of Congress)

So google "Michael Belkin" + "stats" + "vaccines" and you will be amazed at the education you will get.

oh SIDEBAR here - originally, the hepatitis vaccine was supposedly planned for twelve year olds. A program wherein if your child wanted/needed to go on to High School, then they would have to undergo a mandatory vaccine for Hep.

But industry changed its mind.

Why? Well, because a twelve year old has an established history. You've got twelve years of family testimony, brithday videos, school athletic tournaments etc.

Your kid gets the shot and is paralyzed, Hey, you got proof and can take the Mother/Children&*#$*&s to court and win a huge settlement.

But what does a newborn baby offer in terms of its healthiness? If it is paralyzed within thirty-six horus of birth, well, maybe it was born that way. Same if it dies. You can hardly prove otherwise.

[Horse with no Name]

35. Very wise info there

I wouldn't let them use the combo vacs on my child or my grandchild and I would never let them vaccinate them while they were ill.
However, I will take issue with your other statement.

There isn't a hospital ANYWHERE that will "sneak it in". By federal regulations, any vaccination HAS to have a consent form signed and on file in the patient chart.
We give it to all newborns that have signed consents. The ones that don't have signed consents...don't get the immunization. No sneaking there. But if you have hard evidence of somewhere that this is happening, by all means, turn them into your state Department of Health.
I guarantee the doors to the facility will be shut post haste for breaking federal laws.

[truedelphi]

89. I have had so many friends who just had that

Paperwork there for them to be signed when
they signed into the hospital. Sometime after
the birth of their child, I'd be talking about
the dangers of Hepatitis vaccinations, and they
would say, no, we didn't have that done.

Then they would double check and find out that it did happen. They signed but didn't realize what they were signing.

[leftofthedial]

31. the problem here is the long-term bipartisan influence of pharmos on our government

and the long-term gutting of FDA oversight by both parties.

The pervasive capitalistic "free market" mentality now has us barraged from all sides by partisan groups. The public is caught in the middle of a PR war, one in which the pharmos have the overwhelming monetary advantage.

[Midlodemocrat]

33. A bigger problem is that the OP is extremely misleading.

See for yourself. The AAP recommends the vaccine.


http://www.news-medical.net/?id=21294

[Horse with no Name]

41. Exactly.

That is what I take exception to.
How ya doing Midlo?:hi:

[Midlodemocrat]

50. Good, good. Doing my darnest to stay warm.

Going down to 5 degrees here tonight and these VA houses aren't made for that.

Time for extra blankets and fleece pjs.

How are you? :pals:

[pnwmom]

54. The Director of the National Network for Immunization Information,

a pro-vaccine organization, is concerned that it may be premature to mandate the HPV vaccine, as Texas has done.

We don't know, unfortunately, what the Baltimore Sun reporter meant by saying that the American Academy of Pediatrics advocated a "go slow" approach. Perhaps the Academy referred him to Dr. Meyers.

[depakid]

37. That's a problem- yet if you look at the consensus

in other countries that aren't in the pockets of PhARMA, you'll see that in this particular instance, they might actually be doing some good.

[pnwmom]

49. All too true, leftofthedial. Thanks.

[Rainscents]

40. Anything PHARMA want... I am totally against!

[Midlodemocrat]

61. Me, too! Darn all those Rxs that are keeping my husband alive!

How dare they keep him alive and make money while doing so!


:sarcasm:

[REP]

93. It Would Have Totally Sucked NOT Having Cancer in My 20s!!

Thanks be the vaccine wasn't around earlier! It would have robbed me of my chance to go through all the tests, biopsies and surgery I had for my cerivcal cancer - and my lifetime risk of recurrence! I would have so missed out on that!

And damn Big Pharma for the drugs that control my diabetes and help keep my non-diabetic kidney disease from getting a lot worse! Motherfuckers!

[Pithlet]

119. OMG, me too!

I want a 45 year projected lifespan too, just to stick it to them! Show that Big Pharma, and all those doctors and researchers who are in on it, too! Cervical cancer, schmervical cancer. Rates are dropping, who cares? Gotta hurt Big Pharma.

[qanda]

57. "American Academy of Pediatrics"

Must be another fringe organization trying to push its agenda of abstinence on us. :sarcasm:

[Midlodemocrat]

62. Except that's not what they said.

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=21294

[IronLionZion]

76. Do we have a serious HPV problem in this country?

I don't know about these things. A nurse once told me that 80% of Americans carry HPV and most don't know it. I think that's bullshit but am not completely sure.

Either way, it should definitely be optional. Parents should have the choice. I agree with Dr. Myers.

[Midlodemocrat]

80. The nurse was being conservative. It's probably more.

And, since Cervical Cancer is caused by HPV and there is such a short window of time for inoculating against it, why not give it all the kids?

[lumpy]

90. kick

yes

[SaveElmer]

92. If there is a consensus medical reason to go slow fine...but mandatory should be the goal...

Too much at stake...too many parents seemingly more concerned about their kids sex life than their health...and too many studies that abstinence programs do not work leaving those kids even less prepared for sex than those who have been educated...

[mhatrw]

96. The Facts About GARDASIL

The Facts About GARDASIL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are simply the facts of the situation as presented by Merck and the FDA.

Sources --

Merck and the FDA: http://www.fda.gov/cber/label/hpvmer060806LB.htm

NY Times Op Ed: http://tinyurl.com/2cyzsj

News story on alum injections causing neural death in mice: http://www.straight.com/article/vaccines-show-sinister-side

Peer reviewed scientific journal article about alum injections causing neural death in mice: http://tinyurl.com/3xhtdz

[NotGivingUp]

112. QUESTION EVERYTHING...especially when there's a profit motive

and especially when it's coming from big pharma. It's bad enough when you don't question everything for yourself and your loved ones. It's criminal when you go along with making it the law for everyone else. This is why this country is in the state it's in. People are blindly going along with these corporate monsters. People, you must wake up. The corporations and our government are not looking out for our best interests.

[meldroc]

113. Does the new vaccine contain thimerosol?

Thimerosol is that mercury-based preservative used in vaccines that's been blamed for the huge number of cases of autism, Aspergers, ADHD, etc.

Just what we need, another opportunity to give our kids dain bramage...

:crazy:

[TZ]

118. Thimerosol has been removed from all vaccines n/t

[mhatrw]

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

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

[mhatrw]

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

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