Gardasil and mandatory vaccination. My thoughts.

[Avalux]

Gardasil is a new vaccine developed by Merck that protects women from contracting Human Papilloma Virus (HPV or venereal warts) from unprotected sex. Certain strains of HPV have been known to cause cervical cancer; women can be infected internally and never know it if they do not get regular pap smears. This can lead to disease progression and death. We all want a vaccination that prevents cancer, right? I certainly would recommend any women who may be at risk to obtain this vaccination.

But recommending and requiring are two different things. I am not happy Gov. Perry has signed a law mandating all girls entering 6th grade in 2008 be vaccinated. He is talking about MY daughter and I have decided I will choose to opt out, and not because I think the vaccine will encourage her to have sex. My reservations stem from two different issues, but both essentially have to do with Merck and the profitability of the vaccine.

First, if states mandate the vaccine and it's required to be given to millions of young girls, Merck makes a lot of money off the government; and they really need the money right now (think Vioxx).

Second, Gardasil was developed and put on the market in less than two years. Clinical trials were done primarily on women, however the vaccination push will target girls as young as ten. Merck claims there are no significant side effects, but it's impossible to make that claim until the general population is exposed over a period of time. They also don't know how long coverage lasts or if a booster will be needed in a few years.

So for any other parents with a daughter being targeted for vaccination, I'd say educate yourself and your child and make your own decision. Talk about how HPV is transmitted and how to prevent it - discuss abstinence if you wish but also make sure your child is informed about sex and ALL STDs.

For now, I would prefer Gardasil be given to at-risk women and eventually, if the long-term data is good, then a vaccination program might be considered for young girls. Now is not the time. HPV is not an epidemic; it cannot be 'caught' easily - so I see no need for mass vaccination other than to give Merck a boost.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. If Merck has a vaccine that prevents cancer...

then for fuck's sake, they deserve to make a pretty penny.

[BOSSHOG]

5. No dog in the hunt here so to speak

We do not have a daughter, but the vaccine would be a helluva lot cheaper then treatment for cancer after the fact.

[Midlodemocrat]

11. And, as someone who lost someone dear to cervical cancer,

a lot less sad.

[KittyWampus]

27. This vaccine doesn't prevent cancer. It supposedly stops a virus that MAY cause cancer

It is not proven safe and there is no scientific evidence that it is.

[sharp_stick]

29. There is nothing supposed about it.

The virus DOES cause cancer and the vaccine prevents it.

[Justitia]

31. Jesus, I feel like I've dropped into a meeting of The Flat Earth Society. -eom

[AX10]

33. Extremists exist on both sides.

For every James Dobson, there is some unethical/moral relativist in the scientific community.

I say this a someone who is an ardent believer in Evolution and knows that "Creation" is one of the biggest crocks of #&%! ever!

It's a two way street.

[Justitia]

49. Does the concept of "moral relativism" even exist in the "scientific community"?

The mind boggles.

[AX10]

53. Yes it does.

[Justitia]

54. "Moral relativism".....exactly where in science? -eom

[AX10]

61. You edited you post to delete that part about "ethics".

I see where you are going now. There should be no ethics in science either(that sounds like your belief). I have met many ethically challenged people in the scientific community.

[Justitia]

63. I was trying to be clear about your use of "moral relativism" in science.

I am completely aware of the study of ethics in medicine. I have NEVER heard of the term "moral relativism" in the context of science and I am still waiting to hear where it is employed.

I eliminated "ethics" in the subject line because I suspect you aren't using "ethics" in the strictest sense when you say "ethically challenged scientific community".

Ethics is a real subject of study - like philosophy and rhetoric. And medical ethics.

"Moral relativism" has no place in science.

[AX10]

78. Your "suspect" is unproven.

I fully support you right to take this vaccine, so long as you support my right to reject it.

[Justitia]

86. I am more concerned about making it financially available to those who want it.

And that will not happen unless the vaccine is labeled as "mandatory" by the governor.

Which is what he has done - hallelujah and amen.

[AX10]

91. As MAdem has stated, we are for the "opt in" option.

Not the "opt out" option. I will remember your support of corporatewhore Rick Perry the next time a come out with a position that is not "left-freindly". I do have several. I am pro-Nafta, for example. I do not support all "free trade" agreements, but I support them on an individual basis.

[Justitia]

100. "Opt In" won't get the fucking thing paid for! You don't live in TX, I do!

Jesus! If it is not in the MANDATORY VACCINATION PROTOCOLS, set by the goddamn GOVERNOR - women will NOT GET THIS CANCER PREVENTING VACCINE!

So, that is where I draw the line at your navel-gazing, moralizing, blue-nosing bullshit!

As far as supporting Perry, I have done everything possible as a proud TEXAS DEMOCRAT to remove his worthless ass from office - but he is RIGHT ON THIS.

So, why don't you fucking move here, we are DEAD LAST in the country for number of people and women insured and recipients of healthcare, and throw in a helping hand with our goddamn health crisis since you are so full of good ideas???

Jesus H. Christ - do you have any clue about the state of our healthcare crisis in this state?????

[moc]

109. I live in Texas, too; I also have a 10yo daughter. I don't agree with this.

Those who disagree aren't just "navel-gazing, moralizing, blue-nosing" idiots.

[Justitia]

112. Great. So, opt out. YOUR fears of the vaccine shouldn't stop anyone else from preventing cancer.

And now, with this executive order, the ability to prevent cancer is a whole new opportunity for millions of Texas girls and women who would otherwise not be able to afford it.

[AX10]

119. Do you respect her right to refuse this vaccine?

It's a Yes or No question!

[Justitia]

124. Sure! Absolutely! Just don't get in the way of everyone else! -nt

[moc]

121. I plan to. My point is that accusing those of us who are opposed

to the mandate as naval gazing idiots is inappropriate. There are reasons to be concerned. For example, do you know what proportion, if any, of the clinical trials population included prepubertal girls? If and until they have demonstrated safety in girls who have not yet reached menarche, I think caution is prudent, not hysterical.

[Justitia]

125. Would you stop poor or uninsured girls & women from getting this vaccine? -nt

[moc]

126. No; but you don't have to mandate it to get it covered by MA or CHIP

That's required to force private insurers to cover it, but because Medicaid and CHIP are state funded and run, the state can decided to have MA/CHIP pay for it if they want to without making it mandatory for private insurers.

Interestingly, in the Austin-American Statesmen article, Perry is said to have directed medicaid to provide it to 19-21yo. No mention of 9-12yo girls on Medicaid. Interesting....

Uninsured girls could be covered by the state buying and providing health departments with free/low cost vaccine.

Neither requires mandate for private insurance carriers.

[Justitia]

129. Private insurance will not cover this vaccine if it is not mandatory.

My son is on Texas Medicaid - they only cover mandatory vaccines. He is too old to be part of CHiP, which is why Perry included the 19-21 yr old women. The 9 - 12 yr old girls should be covered under CHiP.

Perry did this to get ALL women & girls access to the vaccine.
His order says if women are insured, but their insurance STILL will not cover the vaccine (4% of policies), the state is to pay for it. This is all part of the "mandatory" language.

This covers all those who would fall thru the cracks because they are too old for CHiP, and make too much money for Medicaid.

[moc]

130. Would you feel differently if you knew that none of the women who

took part in the clinical trial were prepubertal?

Do you think it's appropriate to implement a vaccine off-label, in millions of girls, who differ in one very important characteristic from the sample from which we have safety data?

My dd is pre-menarche. From what I've heard, the clinical trial was with much older girls/women. I'm going to confirm this as soon as possible. Until someone can show me some data demonstrating safety in PREPUBERTAL girls, I'm opting out. Frankly, I think it's irresponsible to force on any prepubertal girls until those data are available, but my primary concern is MY daughter.

You missed my point entirely wrt mandatory coverage. The state can dictate that medicaid cover the vaccine whether they are mandatory or not. Those are the state's rules to make; they can change them anytime they want. Poor 9-12yo on Medicaid would not be covered by CHIP. CHIP is a different classification of insurance altogether for those who make too much money for medicaid. What's covered in one may be different than what's covered in the other.

[Justitia]

132. I'm comfortable w/the science. You can choose to withhold it from your daughter.

I am pleased that with the stroke of a pen, many millions of TX girls & women will have access to a vaccine which can prevent cancer, who otherwise would not.

If you are afraid of the vaccine, you can keep your daughter from getting it.
At least you have a choice. Without this executive order, millions of TX girls & women would have NO CHOICE.

I don't really know what else to say.

[moc]

134. I don't know what else to say either. If you don't see the difference

between testing safety in 18-24yo and implementing it in 9-12yo, many of whom haven't reached menarche, then it's hard for me to understand how you can be "comfortable with the science". That's your decision. :shrug:

eta: By the way, in science, we call that "external validity", i.e., the inability to generalize results to populations which differ substantially from the study population. But, if you're "comfortable with the science", I'm sure you know that already.

[Justitia]

136. Here's how. I happen to know one of the original virologists who developed this vaccine.

At the University of Rochester.

I thought it was pointless to add this to the debate because his role has nothing to do with the public policy part of this debate, but it is because I know this very dedicated man and a lot about his 20+ years of work on this very vaccine that I can be completely comfortable with the science behind it.

Now that, I cannot impart to you in a post on a public forum and my individual knowledge of the research process is really irrelevant anyway.

So, that is how I am personally comfortable with the science.

Now, back to public policy - I'm really glad that millions of TX women will have access to this vaccine who would otherwise have NO CHOICE.

[moc]

138. How are my concerns dissing your friend at U. Rochester?

I'm a scientist (in public health, fwiw). I respect science. However, regardless of the number of years he's worked on this vaccine, if it hasn't been tested for safety in 9-12yo, neither he nor you nor the FDA nor Merck can attest to the safety of the vaccine in that population. If your friend is a reputable scientist, which I'm sure he is, even he would say that you can't generalize findings from one study to a population that differs substantially from the original study population.

[Justitia]

142. Look, you are afraid of the vaccine & don't want it - fine, don't get it.

I am just very glad that those who accept the scientific validity of this vaccine will have the option to prevent cancer - regardless of their financial situation.

I can never, ever convince you of all of the science that stands behind it if you don't want to believe it. You can read the volumes of scientific data that took yrs to compile. I don't get the impression it would make a bit of difference. Talk to your own personal doctor or a doctor you trust.

Well, that's it for me. Happy for the girls and women of TX. Perry did the right thing (for once in his lousy career).

Good night.

[moc]

143. Nighty night to you too.

Since you can't address the external validity issue, it's probably best to end this discussion now.

:hi:

[Morgana LaFey]

150. I think you should've revealed your ties at the outset

You're hardly an unbiased or disinterested party, but you presented yourself as just another Texas mother.

[AX10]

159. What did Rosie say?

[Morgana LaFey]

174. Just that somethin' smelled about that

and she talked about the fact that Merck stands to make millions, and I think she called it corporate welfare. She was great.

[Justitia]

197. Excuse me? What "ties"?? How ridiculous, you make it sound like I have a financial interest.

I happen to casually know a scientist who has worked on this - Good Lord, it's not like anyone is making any money off it.

And yes, I am "just another Texas mother".

:crazy:

[iverglas]

208. yeah, and my cervical displasia / cone biopsy

disqualifies me from having an opinion on this matter worth considering.

I'm just an emotional female, and you're just a shill. Wanna go have a beer?

[windbreeze]

167. but didn't I read that it has to be given before sex ever happens

for the first time? So how many millions of women and girls fall into that category? and how many millions do not? I can't believe they wouldn't have any choice in the matter, if it weren't mandatory...it's one of those things, that IF safe beyond words...and a person hasn't had sex yet...why would anyone NOT be able to take the vaccine? Yes, I know the cost is prohibitive..but it's one of those investments in your future that you have the right to make if it's worth it to you..YOUR CHOICE in other words...I believe,(because I feel the same way) what people are rebelling against, is giving it to 9-10 yr olds before they have even become menstrual...how do the risks change for them versus a grown woman or say someone much more mature in body/mind, or say, even 6 years older...??? sorry...I don't agree with you...if I lived in Texas...and I had a daughter this age...there is no way in hell someone would give them an "experimental" vaccine like this BEFORE they knew for sure, it wouldn't cause them harm...and I agree, you can do whatever you please...that's just how I feel...and I feel pretty damned adamant about it, just like you do...not only that...it takes a sexual partner of the opposite sex, right??? So where is the vaccine to prevent the male from giving it?
windbreeze

[girl gone mad]

144. Some of the trial participants were prepubescent.

As of 2006, HPV vaccines have been tested on 25,000 people in 33 countries. The Merck trials involved 20,541 women 16 to 26 years of age, and 1121 girls between 9 and 15 years of age.1,2 Vaccine recipients were given 3 doses over a 6 month period. About half of the 16 to 26 year olds in the Merck studies received that manufacturer’s HPV vaccine (Gardasil, which targets HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18) and the other half was given placebo. Compared to those given placebo, study participants immunized with Gardasil had significantly fewer genital warts and Pap smear abnormalities.

http://www.nccc-online.org/college-states-position-on-hpv-vaccine.php

[moc]

146. Even if you assume an even distribution by age (m)

that's only about 550 girls between 9-12. If the age distribution wasn't stratified evenly, there could be even fewer in the prepubertal group. Basing safety claims for 9-12yo based on an N of 550 is patently ridiculous.

I'm going to see the specific data tomorrow. If it bears out what you've said, I'm even more skeptical of the wisdom of mandating the vaccine in this age group.

[Morgana LaFey]

148. And I think it's irresponsible to foist it on ANYone with less

than 2 years in the study.

How long, for example, was Thalidimide on the market before it was deemed unsafe?

I agree with you entirely, btw, in case it sounds like I'm disagreeing. I'm not. Stick to your guns!

And another thing: I'm sick of the need for corporate profits driving government policy. I happened to turn on The View this morning. (I find I LOVE this show which I used to hate now that Rosie is on it. It's a whole different ball of wax now.) ANyway, Rosie was pointing out that Merck's TX lobbyist is none other than Gov. Perry's former Chief of Staff, and made a pretty good stink about it. Good on her.

[AX10]

153. What did Rosie say?

How did the others react? Comments by them?

[mzmolly]

157. Sorry I missed it.

:(

[iverglas]

172. what on *earth* does puberty status have to do with this????

I simply cannot fathom this alleged objection to the vaccine.

The vaccine is against a VIRUS. It is not a hormone injection.

Vaccinations against viruses are given to infants. No one ever seems to complain that infants have not yet started menstruating.

The fact that this virus is transmitted by sexual contact and can cause cancer in a portion of the reproductive tract has absolutely nothing to do with the nature of the vaccine, or the virus.

I mean, not as far as I can tell.

What am I missing??

If it is discovered that a virus causes a common form of tooth decay, and a vaccine is developed against the virus, will there be wailing and moaning if it is proposed to give it to children who still have their baby teeth, which are just gonna fall out anyhow? Surely we will have to worry about how a vaccination against a virus might affect adult tooth development. Never mind that the very notion will be loony, and that for a child who already has the virus when his/her adult teeth come in it will be too late.

Oh well, at least most children aren't likely to die of dental abscesses in later life; those kids will just have to live with root canal, the way I and many thousands of women have lived with cone biopsies. We're still alive, we just don't have our cervixes, but we get along fine, eh?

Cripey. Passeth all understanding, it does.

[moc]

184. What are you missing, you ask? Quite a lot, apparently.

Let me spell it out for you. The point is that the safety studies have included an absurdly small number of prepubertal girls. The bodies of young girls are different in many many ways from those of full grown women. Therefore, it is quite possible that they could experience side effects that would not necessarily be apparent in a sample of 18-24yo women.

Let me give you a concrete example which I'm sure you can follow. You've heard of thalidomide, yes? If given to non-pregnant individuals, thalidomide is perfectly safe. Indeed, thalidomide is used today quite safely in non-pregnant populations. If you did a large scale clinical trial which did not include pregnant women, you would not identify any negative side effects of thalidomide. However, you cannot conclude based on the results of such a clinical trial that thalidomide is safe for pregnant women because they were not included in the original sample. Indeed, the effects of thalidomide are so specific, you would not identify negative side effects unless your clinical trial sample included pregnant women during those very specific weeks of pregnancy during which limb formation occurs.

Likewise, the safety data currently available regarding gardasil can only be generalized to populations that do not differ substantially from the population of the original sample. It appears that the original sample was predominantly 18-24yo with numbers of prepubertal girls so few (still awaiting specific data but it looks like no more than 500) as to make it impossible to know if side effects might differ in girls who have not undergone menarche. How do you know that the vaccine might not behave differently in the body of an individual undergoing the rapid hormonal changes associated with puberty? Answer, you don't. As the mother of a 10yo girl, I think I'll wait until there are sufficient data demonstrating efficacy in her age group.

Not so beyond understanding, is it?

[iverglas]

188. THIS IS NOT A DRUG

It is not Vioxx, it is not Thalidamide. IT IS NOT A DRUG.

It is a vaccine, consisting of standard, long-used vaccine components and viral components. Exactly what part of that is going to behave differently in the body of an individual undergoing the rapid hormonal changes associated with puberty??

Do you wonder the same thing about carrots, or soap?

How come YOU, and all the other smoke-blowers, can't offer a single solitary iota of a way in which the effect of this vaccine could imaginably be different depending on the puberty status of the recipient??

Maybe there are little nanobots living in adult women's bodies that pre-pubescent girls haven't yet grown, and because they lack the little critters the vaccine will chew away at their little ovaries and make them grow horns. I dunno. WHAT?

How do you know that the vaccine might not behave differently in the body of an individual undergoing the rapid hormonal changes associated with puberty? Answer, you don't.

I also don't know that there are no faeries at the bottom of my garden. Doesn't stop me from cutting the flowers.

Gobsmacked. Just gobsmacked.

[moc]

192. Alright then. How about a vaccine example?

Heard of the rotovirus vaccine? It was pulled because side effects not identified during the clinical trial were identified once it was implemented in the general population.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5334a3.htm

<snip>

The suspected association between RRV-TV and intussusception based on a review of VAERS data led CDC, in conjunction with state and local health departments, to implement a case-control study and case-series analysis (6) and a retrospective cohort study (4). These studies subsequently confirmed that intussusception was associated with RRV-TV in vaccine recipients. On the basis of evaluation of all available information, on February 21, 2002, ACIP reaffirmed its decision to withdraw the recommendation for use of RRV-TV in the United States (8).

<snip>

"Gobsmacked", indeed.

[iverglas]

206. All right then. How about it?

What did that have to do with the puberty status of the vaccine recipients?

There is a question on the floor.

[AikidoSoul]

267. There is in fact a great deal of controversy over giving small children

vaccines. Many parents are against it for good reasons -- and it you read the huge discourse on this topic you will even find doctors and scientists who dispute whether these vaccines are a good idea.

[iverglas]

269. how fascinating

And that has to do with this particular discussion and this particular hypothetical problem ... how?

Btw, nobody is planning to vaccinate infants or toddlers at present, you may not know.

But in any event, the particular hypothetical problem raised in this chat is that there may be some adverse consequence of the vaccine associated with the fact that the recipient has not yet reached puberty. Not just blah blah vaccines can hurt little children blah blah.

Will you be the one to answer? WHAT problem might there be with vaccinating an individual against A VIRUS that would be in any way associated with the fact that the recipient had not yet reached puberty??

[hlthe2b]

315. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG ABOUT THIS>>re: coverage

and your misinformation is damaging...

[Turn CO Blue]

137. I feel that you should

refuse the vaccine on behalf of your daughter if you are worried about it. Gardasil hasn't been tested that long.

On the other hand, I took an A&P class from the main researcher who wrote the original article in the JAMA that proved that HPV caused cervical cancer. I don't doubt at all that HPV is dangerous to women genetically predisposed to cancer.

So, as we've always said, sexually active women and men should insist on condoms and practice safe sex. And sorry to add to your worry, but in a few years your daughter will need to know to watch out for COOTIES! (Just kidding, sometimes I joke around that way. ) My own daughter is 17 so I naturally worry about both sides of the issue. And I have refused some vaccines for her in the past because she had acute asthma attacks when she was little -- as a parent all of these different angles weigh on a your mind. We don't live in Texas so we don't face your choice, accept voluntarily.

[moc]

139. I'm in public health academia, so I have no doubt about the

link between HPV and cervical cancer. My concern is whether or not the safety of the vaccine has been tested in prepubertal girls.

Thanks for your support. :hi:

[mzmolly]

155. I also wonder about the long term side effects?

And, of course the long term effectiveness has not been measured as of yet. As such "immunity" may not last more than a few years? My guess is that they'll recommend "boosters" when they find the vaccine wanes in effectiveness as has been the case in years past?

Thanks for your reasoned posts on this matter.

[Eurobabe]

201. EXACTLY, my fears too. Big Pharma likes to rush things

onto the market without proper control groups and time-tested results.

[AngryAmish]

215. There is a moral balance in "rushing things"

What if the help of the drug/vaccine will go unachieved if things are not tested to 1000% safety?

For example a certain percentage of people with the live polio vaccine got polio -the numbers were small, assume 1% since I do not have the real numbers. Now that 1% were given a disease that the shot was supposed to protect them from. However, if the rate of polio was 2% without the shot (and again I do not have the real numbers) then it would be morally foolish not to give the shot to everyone. Less people would get polio overall. However, if parents opted out in large numbers then there would be more polio the shot notwithstanding.

In medicine the saying "do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good" is a truism.

[Saphire]

272. my problem is the "opt out" of a mandated medical procedure. How

about letting me "opt in"????

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

70. "There should be no ethics in science either?"

wtf?

anyhow, I wish you'd answer the question. It'd be the ethical thing to do.

[AX10]

77. Stop playing the "game". I have already said that there should...

be ethics and morals involved in Science.

[AX10]

81. I editied the first post to clarify.

I do believe that there should be ethics in science.

[Warren DeMontague]

108. So it's "moral relatavism" to try to prevent deadly cervical cancer?

Meanwhile, denying women an effective vaccine because of church lady prudishness around sex is, conversely, "moral clarity".... eh?

[AX10]

116. Give it a break already. I am not doing anything to prevent you..

from getting this vaccine. All we are saying is that we should not rush into this just because it sounds good. There is nothing wrong with morality. I am morally opposed to the war in Iraq for example. What is with the hard left and their contempt for standards in society???

[Warren DeMontague]

127. What is it with some people and their strawman arguments?

How the fuck does arguing against the HPV vaccine have anything to do with Iraq-- or "morality", either?

Perhaps you can explain what your basis is for the statement about people "rushing into this" or how it "sounds good" (as opposed to actually being good)

...and how, precisely, does that relate to "standards" in "society"?

[AX10]

135. The infamous "strawman" nonsense comes up again.

First of all, I am ashamed that there is such a dismissal of morality on the left. Second, I fully support you right to get this vaccine, so long as you respect my right not to get it. Some around here will accept this, will you?

[Warren DeMontague]

193. I'm still waiting for an explanation of what being against the HPV vaccine has to do with

"morality"

[Warren DeMontague]

249. Never mind. I think I have my answer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2709611&mesg_id=2715962

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2709611&mesg_id=2716014


So, I suppose if Polio or Smallpox were spread by fucking or other sexual contact you don't personally approve of, it would be okay for government to bend over backwards to encourage people NOT to vaccinate their kids?

Yes, those vaccines are, or were, "mandatory" as well.

And that's what this is all about: No one is FORCED to vaccinate for anything, ever- but certain communicable diseases are "mandatory" vaccinations... for solid public health reasons.

As has been noted repeatedly, you can always opt out--- if some illusion of preventing teens from fucking is more important to you than their health.

[AX10]

255. I stand my prior responses.

I am sick to death of goddamn neo-liberals and leftist wackos.

[Warren DeMontague]

258. Yep. Only neo-liberal leftist wackos have sex before marriage.

Which means we're, like, 90% of the population.

Way to avoid answering the question, though.

[iverglas]

264. don't forget stupid irresponsible women who want to blame everyone else

for their problems.

That would be me. ;) Wasn't that a fun little conversation though??

A vaccine designed to protect stupid irresponsible women from the consequences of their stupid irresponsible actions. Why, it's obvious why any right-thinking person would object to it!

[Warren DeMontague]

310. Yes, that would be you...

...Satan!

[Morgana LaFey]

152. there's been nothing said in this thread even remotely close to

what you assert here. That isn't a strawman, that's a whole population. Get real.

[Warren DeMontague]

194. Eh. Get real? In the post directly above yours, the poster I was responding to

makes dubious noise about how opposition to the HPV vaccine equals "morality", specifically, a kind of morality we on "the left" are supposedly guilty of writing off.

So I ask again- what the fuck does opposing the HPV vaccine have to do with "morality"? Am I just supposed to understand automatically? Am I supposed to guess? How does fighting against it equate to some kind of higher ethical standard that we on "the left" just don't get?

Apparently, I can't get a clear answer. So I guess we're all such amoral slobs because we think stopping a now preventable deadly form of cancer IS "morality". :eyes:

[mzmolly]

145. The manufacturer doesn't even make such an outlandish claim.

GARDASIL may not fully protect everyone and does not prevent all types of cervical cancer, so it is important to continue regular cervical cancer screenings.

Anyone who is allergic to the ingredients of GARDASIL should not receive the vaccine. GARDASIL is not for women who are pregnant.

GARDASIL will not treat these diseases and will not protect against diseases caused by other types of HPV.

GARDASIL is given as 3 injections over 6 months and can cause pain, swelling, itching, and redness at the injection site, fever, nausea, and dizziness. Only a doctor or healthcare professional can decide if GARDASIL is right for you or your daughter.

[AX10]

160. And right there is the all the evidence I need to defend...

the position that this vaccine should only be given on a voluntary basis.

Thank you mzmolly

[mzmolly]

165. Heck, no problem. More info on Gardasil that you'll find of interest.

Seems a shame to recommend a questionable medical procedure for NINE year old girls, when we can't even guarantee it will be effective by the time she becomes sexually active? *There are no long term studies on the health impact or effectiveness.

I found this interesting from WIKI:

Long term impact

One unknown property of the vaccines now being researched is their longevity. Since the studies have been of short duration, it is unknown whether the vaccines will last just a few years or for much longer. Further study over time is required to answer this question.

270,000 women died of cervical cancer worldwide in 2002.<9> According to the American Cancer Society, 3,700 of those deaths occurred in the United States.

Seems absurd to mandate this vaccine at this time, under any circumstances.

Here is an excellent summary called "10 Things You Might Not Know About Gardasil"

I just stumbled across it myself. ;) http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com/2007/01/gardasil.html

“Cervical cancer has gone from being one of the top killers of American women to not even being on the top 10 list. This year cervical cancer will represent just 1 percent of the 679,510 new cancer cases and 1 percent of the 273,560 anticipated cancer deaths among American women. By contrast, some 40,970 women will die of breast cancer and 72,130 will die of lung cancer.

According to the American Cancer Society, "'Between 1955 and 1992, the number of cervical cancer deaths in the United States dropped by 74 percent.' Think about it: 74 percent.”<2>

It seems vaccines often are introduced when disease is declining, then the mfgrs. take responsibility and say "see it worked."

I also find this HIGHLY disturbing:

While we're on the subject of liability, lawsuits, and profits, there's another angle to consider. If Merck can get state governments to put Gardasil on their lists of vaccines that are required for school children, it can become a part of a federal vaccine liability program. Meaning that Merck will not be liable if Gardasil turns out to be harmful some time in the future.

And get this:

7. The studies done on Gardasil were not set up to investigate whether the vaccine itself has the potential to cause cancer. - “GARDASIL has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity.”<12>

Good grief.

[AX10]

168. Muy Bien!!!

"If Merck can get state governments to put Gardasil on their lists of vaccines that are required for school children, it can become a part of a federal vaccine liability program. Meaning that Merck will not be liable if Gardasil turns out to be harmful some time in the future"

Shame on those who are blindly taking Merck's side here.

[Midlodemocrat]

42. Cervical cancer is caused by HPV.

So, ergo, yes it will prevent cancer of this nature in women who get the series.

[seabeyond]

71. one strain of cervical cancer. it does NOT prevent all cervical cancer

by a long shot

[Katherine Brengle]

94. 70% of cervical cancer is caused by 2 strains of HPV. nt

[Eurobabe]

202. Gardasil contains recombinant DNA for HPV Types 6, 11, 16, 18

There are 7 most common types of HPV: 16, 18, 31, 33, 42, 52 and 58. Types 16 & 18 are the ones most responsible for causing cervical cancer from what I have read.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. Yeah, but then you're a creationist.

So I don't know why you expect to be taken seriously on anything scientific.

[Warren DeMontague]

107. I thought science was just another belief system, predicated on "atheistic materialism"

So since when does scientific evidence matter to you, either way???

[NashVegas]

35. They Are Being Given an Unfair Advantage Over Their Competitors

Glaxo Smith-Kline has been conducting clinical trials on Cerverix and is expected to go for FDA approval this spring.

This is why Merck is actively lobbying for mandatory vaccinations. Yes, they deserve to make a penny, but they do not deserve to be handed a government contract.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. Unfair?

Merck's vaccine has been approved, it's ready now. GSK doesn't. Do you suppose horny teens are going to wait around for GSK to get their vaccine on the market before having unprotected sex?

Have you got a cure for cancer just sitting around?

[NashVegas]

211. It's Really Simple

If the law's language makes Guardasil mandatory (as opposed to HPV vaccine in general), Merck gets a government-approved monopoly without having to compete for bids.

[Midlodemocrat]

2. I disagree.

First of all, there are some studies which will indicate that the vast majority of males carry HPV. Cervical Cancer comes from HPV.

Secondly, there is a window of opportunity here. Once a young lady has had sex with a male, the vaccine is no longer effective because there is a good chance that HPV has been introduced into her body.

The vaccine only works if there hasn't been the introduction of HPV.

I don't know if I support mandatory vaccines, but I think the good outweighs the bad in this case. The side effects appear to be minimal.

:hi: sparosnare. How are you doing?

[Avalux]

8. I can't help but be apprehensive -

I've read the clinical trial data, and because research is my thing, I do think it's too early to start vaccinating millions of young girls. The good may outweigh the bad and I might change my mind, but at this point, I'm thinking it's mostly about profit.

I'm doing fine - hope you are too! :hug:

[moc]

56. Question regarding the data, sparonsare...

What were the characteristics of the clinical trial population? Age distribution? Any links would be appreciated. (Research is also my thing; I'm in public health academia.)

Many thanks.

:hi:

[Avalux]

62. When I am in my office tomorrow, I will send you specifics.

I have the Phase II and III data. Esssentially, the majority of subjects were women between the ages of 18 and 24; although they did do some testing on younger girls, not much. It makes me uneasy since the majority of vaccine recipients will be young girls for which there's little safety data. Millions of girls.

[moc]

69. Many many thanks!

:hug: I'll PM you.

[mzmolly]

149. I ask most humbly - can you add me to your PM list on this matter too?

:blush:

[mzmolly]

147. And, as you note - LONG TERM STUDIES do not exist given the short

trial periods involved. Thanks again. :hi:

[Journeyman]

3. Well, a voice of measured reason in a somewhat kneejerk debate. . .

Sadly, most of what I've read in recent days about this issue seems to depend more on emotion than reason, with the pros and cons shrieking at each other instead of discussing the issue. Your's is a much needed response, thoughtful and cautious where needed, encouraging where required. Thanks.

[LynzM]

4. I don't totally disagree with you

But I do disagree with the statements that it is not an epidemic, and it cannot be caught easily. From the NIH:

There are over 100 HPV types. About 30 of these types are sexually transmitted and cause genital HPV.

Genital HPV is spread through skin-to-skin contact, not through an exchange of bodily fluid.

Genital HPV cannot be entirely prevented by condom use.

This virus is often asymptomatic -- people usually don't know they have it.

About 5.5 million new genital HPV cases occur each year -- this is about 1/3 of all new STD infections.

About 20 million people -- men and women -- are thought to have an active HPV infection at any given time.

Nearly three out of four Americans between the ages of 15 and 49 have been infected with genital HPV in their lifetime. HPV can be contracted from one partner, remain dormant, and then later be unknowingly transmitted to another sexual partner, including a spouse.

Though usually harmless, some types cause cervical cancer.

About 14,000 cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed in the United States each year.

Over 5,000 women each year die of cervical cancer in the United States.

The best way to screen for cervical cancer is a Pap test, which may be done alone or in combination with an HPV DNA test.

[Eurobabe]

17. So you can get this HPV from a toilet seat?

That's it, I am peeing standing up from now on. No seriously, this shit is a raging epidemic!

I have a daughter who HAS HPV now, and just had a class 2 pap. Last Monday I went with her for her colposcopy. She's only 25. The universe wouldn't be so cruel, would it? As we wait for the results -- finger tapping here --no news yet. But she is getting vaccinated I think, as is her sister who is 23.

Despite the above, I don't like the idea of anyone telling me I or my daughters have to get a vaccine. It's a real tough call. And why aren't men getting vaccinated for this?? They carry the virus too, why is it always the women who are the guinea pigs for birth control pills, vaccines, etc.

this shit just endlessly pisses me off.

[Midlodemocrat]

23. I was under the impression the vaccine wouldn't work if you had HPV.

I hope for your daughter's sake I'm wrong.

[sharp_stick]

32. It doesn't work if you already have the virus

that's the big reason for going for the 9 - 12 year olds. By the time our little girls have gotten into college they are likely not going to be able to make use of the vaccine and I say that as the father of a 3 year old.

[Midlodemocrat]

38. That's what I thought. The poster I was responding to indicated

her daughter already had HPV.

My daughters have received the first in the series. No side effects at all.

[Eurobabe]

41. Hmm, that's not what her GYNO told her

it would offer some protection against the other 3 strains. I'll have to look at the Gardasil site.

[Midlodemocrat]

45. I'm curious as to what you will find.

I lost my dearest cousin to this disease, so I have taken a very big interest in it. I was told that if you had HPV, it rendered the vaccine useless, so if you find something else, would you PM me with it?

I would appreciate it.

[Eurobabe]

50. According to Merck's website, it does afford some protection even if infected

From Merck's website

GARDASIL is for girls and women ages 9 to 26. GARDASIL works when given before you have any contact with HPV Types 6, 11, 16, and 18.

If you've already been infected with HPV, you may still benefit from GARDASIL because it is unlikely that you have been infected with all 4 types of the virus covered by the vaccine. Your doctor or healthcare professional can help you understand more.

http://www.gardasil.com/who-should-receive-gardasil.html

[sharp_stick]

60. That's good news

I did not know that. Thanks

[Eurobabe]

36. Depends on which strain it is, evidently the Gardasil works on 4 diff

viruses. We're just waiting to make sure that she doesn't have one of the aggressive ones that causes cervical cancer.

[laundry_queen]

82. 30 types of sexually transmitted HPV types

and the vaccine only protects against *4*???

I'll wait until more testing and information is in before I run out and get this for my daughters too.

[AX10]

83. Prepare to be assaulted and smeared.

However, I do believe that you are acting in the best interests of your children.

Your position is fair and reasonable.

:thumbsup:

[Katherine Brengle]

254. Yes, 2 of the 4 are the primary strains that cause cervical cancer.

So, not such a bad ratio.

[Katherine Brengle]

97. Exactly, HPV can be spread through "safe" sex - condoms have not been

proven to prevent transmission.

[Quakerfriend]

6. Did you see the thread earlier today re: side effects of

seizures, severe headaches and etc?

You are correct to be wary. But, do look at all of the angles before deciding.

[Avalux]

16. Always look at all the angles - it's very important.

But what I've seen time and time again - and it's happening more often - drug companies are desperate to make profits. The FDA is in big pharma's hip pocket, so drugs (and in this case a vaccine) are rushed through before sufficient safety studies are completed. We've seen it before.

[Morgana LaFey]

154. desperate to make profits --

as if they hve none??? Hardly!

I don't think you meant that, I just had to comment. You're entirely right, of course. Their greed overwhelms their humanity, frankly.

[mzmolly]

158. BRAVO!

:toast:

[Pithlet]

189. Look at all the angles. But Washington Times and NVIC aren't reliable.

The link the poster you're responding to is talking about is an article from The Washington Times, unless there is another thread I missed. The article cites National Vaccine Information Center, which is an extremely biased group against all vaccines. Besides, the APA wouldn't back this vaccine if it caused those horrible side effects. No one has presented any evidence that this vaccine was actually rushed through and approved before the studies were finished. Every argument I've seen so far against the vaccine has been based on broad mistrust of the industry in general, or of vaccines in general, or of new medical advances in general. Not on specific evidence that this vaccine is dangerous, or that proper procedures weren't followed to make sure it was safe before being introduced. I haven't seen a single argument that suggests that this shouldn't be used to vaccinate girls and young women excepting those choosing to opt out. There's got to be more than general fear and mistrust to block a medical advancement that stands to save lives.

[mzmolly]

237. The NVIC is not biased "against" vaccines, they are providing information

that isn't provided by vaccine sales people - IE doctors, corporate drug mfgrs. and the federal government. The founder of the NVIC had a son who was harmed via vaccination. Before her personal experience, she never questioned.

Also note that Robert Kennedy Jr. (a fine intelligent liberal) went into the vaccine issue prepared to defend the process, but he had an awakening instead: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7395411/deadly_immunity/

[Pithlet]

248. Providing misleading information

that isn't based on science and medicine. These are groups founded by people with anecdotal stories who are convinced there is a connection that isn't backed by any scientific evidence. Doctors? Yeah, who would to listen to them? The federal government? Again, sorry, but I'll trust them over anyone who starts any old advocacy group with no evidence to support their theories. It isn't perfect, but it still functions. I know a lot of people simply don't trust the federal government, and that is being applied to this situation, but until there is actual evidence of shenanigans, I'm not going to block medical advancements that will help people. Lastly, fine intelligent liberals can be wrong. All vaccines aren't evil. All doctors aren't evil. Pharmaceutical companies are big and are in it for profits, and need to be regulated heavily, and could be regulated even more. But that doesn't mean everything that comes down the pipeline is bad and doctors are in on the conspiracy to push them on us. Bottom line is the vaccine has been tested and approved, and is backed by groups like the APA. I need more than Government Bad, Vaccines Evil to prevent women and young girls from getting this much needed vaccine.

[mzmolly]

257. The NVIC does quote the science, but there is a concerted effort to discredit the organization.

Also if you want to learn about shenanigans, read the Rolling Stone article I posted. Further, I would agree that fine intelligent liberals can be wrong, this thread is full of evidence to that effect. ;) And, no one said "Government bad, vaccines are evil" but I realize that painting such a picture helps prevent discussion of the legitimate concerns about mandating this vaccine.

[Justitia]

7. You do understand it is "mandatory" so that insurance cos & Medicaid MUST pay for it?

If the vaccine is not included in vaccination protocols, insurance companies and Medicaid are not obligated to cover it.

The "mandatory" label makes it available to everyone who wants the vaccine.

This vaccine will be forced on NO ONE. Anyone can "opt out".

But, by being "mandatory", it will be available to ALL.

[mzmolly]

171. It also removes Merck from liability.

While we're on the subject of liability, lawsuits, and profits, there's another angle to consider. If Merck can get state governments to put Gardasil on their lists of vaccines that are required for schoolchildren, it can become a part of a federal vaccine liability program. Meaning that Merck will not be liable if Gardasil turns out to be harmful some time in the future. <5> <6> <7>

If I felt like being cynical again, I might think that this is one of the reasons why a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease is being marketed not just to young women who are having sex or are going to become sexually active soon, but also to girls as young as nine. There’s a hell of a lot more stability and profitability in a required childhood vaccine than there would be in an optional vaccine meant only for young women.

It's important to remember that no matter how many feel-good, we're all in this fight together and we're just doing this out of the goodness of our hearts ad campaigns they run, drug companies are not non-profit organizations. They are in this to make money and a lot of it, and while that doesn't mean that all prescription drugs are harmful and horrible or that all doctors are evil, it does mean that when it comes to our health, we probably shouldn't take anything at face value.

http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com/2007/01/gardasil.html

[KoKo]

9. It hasn't been tested long enough and Merk has already lied about two

other drugs they pushed out fast that killed hundreds of people and the lawsuits are rolling out. They are trying to make a profit off young girls and vulnerable women.

I think what Perry has done is so dreadful...it makes me sick and hope that Parents rebel and refuse to give this to their kids. Who knows what this could do to kids.

[seabeyond]

73. and isn't there now a law that pharmaceuticals cant be sued because of

vaccinations?

[KoKo]

84. I don't remember if Repugs got it through...but I know they did get through

lowering the judgments courts could award to those who go after the drug companies for drugs released too soon and I think they put some other things in that bill. Remember the Repugs hid so much in their bills that's just now coming to light...and without any REAL REPORTING ...we may never know.

I do know that Merck has lawsuits lined up and they are winning the least before they get to the Biggies and so Repugs must have failed it shutting it all down.

Merck is one of the WORST of the Drug Companies. I wouldn't take anything made by them if there was an alternative.

[Pastiche423]

187. "It hasn't been tested long enough"

Does anyone remeber DES (Diethylstilbestrol)? It was a drug given to women to prevent miscarriages. Of those women that took the drug, in addition to having no effect on miscarriage, it has resulted in health problems for the women who took the drug as well as their daughters and sons.

My ex m-i-l took the drug and it caused her daughter to be unable to conceive.

I believe more studies need to be done before giving it to our children and possibly causing them harm.

[AX10]

I agree. Make this vaccine available to be...

taken at one's own discretion. I am against Mandating it. 3000+ deaths a year is not good, but it is NOT an epidemic.

I do not understand this sudden blind trust in corporations....

I'll tell you this much, whenever I come out in favor of a certain trade agreement/deregulation/tax cut, I will never apologize again! Not, that I support all of the above, but certain ones I do.

[MasonJar]

10. There quite a number of vaccines that are required. This sounds

like an important one. I do not see a problem with requiring it, as long as people without the funds get it funded by the government.

[Mandate My Ass]

15. Exactly

Mandating makes it available to all who want it but can't afford it and yet allows those who don't to opt out.

I'm not against anybody making money on this if it saves women's lives. If I had a daughter I'd have her vaccinated after researching it to the hilt, of course.

[eallen]

12. A couple of comments about HPV.

It is more easily transmissible that most STDs. It doesn't require intercourse. When the virus is shedding, it is quite happy to take a ride on someone's hand. That also means condoms are not so efficacious as a prophylactic. This goes a long way to explaining why it is so prevalent, relative to other STDs.

[Vinca]

13. I'm suspicious of any drug that is "mandatory."

Somewhere someone is getting rich. Take the statin drugs. If Big Pharma had its way, every adult from 20 to the grave would be taking one of their pills at $3 a pop per day (despite the fact their literature says it doesn't prevent heart disease, stroke, etc.). People should be able to read the Gardasil information, form their own opinion and make their own decision.

[Justitia]

20. Anyone can OPT OUT. It's only "mandatory" so the vaccine is covered ($$$). -eom

[Horse with no Name]

14. About the mandatory part

This is a vaccine that can prevent certain strains of cervical cancer. A cancer of which 11,150 new cases will be diagnosed this year and a cancer of which 3,670 women will die from...this year alone.
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_1X_What_are_the_key_statistics_for_cervical_cancer_8.asp
This is a vaccine that is very costly.
If the vaccine is NOT mandatory, then insurance companies, health departments and Medicaid will not be required to cover it.
It then becomes an issue of classism because not being mandated will disenfranchise thousands of girls who simply do not have the money to pay for it.
Looking at the statistics of cervical cancer and relate them to the poverty levels of the affected women and understand what a travesty it would be NOT to mandate this vaccination.
Cervical cancer occurs most often in Hispanic women; the rate is over twice that in non-Hispanic white women. African-American women develop this cancer about 50% more often than non-Hispanic white women.
There is an opt-out on this vaccine--rightfully so.
If you don't want it, fine. Don't get it.
But don't block the path for the ones at the highest risk to NOT be able to get it.
No doubt Perry's motivations were not pure. I don't believe that for one minute.
But this is a rare instance where his evil can generate something good. And for that, I am thankful.

[Justitia]

18. Thank you! I feel like a broken record about this. People don't understand "mandatory" in this. -

[Katherine Brengle]

98. Excellent post, all should read! nt

[Lisa0825]

19. Not so long ago, people were shrieking about the fundies trying to prevent

people from getting this vaccine for their daughters. Now that the tables are turned, people don't want it?

I'm just sayin'.... be sure you are rejecting the vaccine for the right reasons, and not becuase of misplaced suspicion. If the vaccine is safe, I don't give a shit what comapny makes a profit, or if Perry gets a kickback, or whatever.

[Avalux]

21. I want to see more data before my daughter becomes vaccinated.

I will opt out for a couple of years until the vaccination is given to a large number in her age group and we see the possible side effects. If it still seems relatively safe, then I won't have a problem with it.

[Justitia]

22. This exact same freakout happened over the Hepatitis B vaccine too.

It was made mandatory despite the fact that the disease is primarily spread via sexual contact and needles.

The fundies ranted and raved over it, saying the vaccine was only needed for sluts and drug addicts.

Now, it's given at birth and is mandatory for school attendance in all but 3 states.

This is just like the HepB vaccine.

[depakid]

24. "HPV is not an epidemic; it cannot be 'caught' easily" Not true.

And you're putting your daughter at undue risk, something that if she gets HPV, she'll surely thank you for in later years.

Posts like this one that contain misinformation and misunderstanding of the viri and the science and the extensive testing process are PRECISELY why we need mandates.

Americans are too paranoid and can't be trusted to interpret science.

My British and Ozzie friends look at Americans sometimes and wonder what the hell went wrong in this society? People in those countries don't have a problem with the HPV vaccine- and rightfully so, because whatever minor risks may be associated with are far outweighed by the probability of infection.

[AX10]

28. Just as there are religious fundamentalists, there too can...

be fundie/nuts in the science community. It's a two way street.

[Warren DeMontague]

110. Bullshit.

How about providing an example of these scientific "fundie/nuts".

[KittyWampus]

37. The arrogance of this post leaves the mind reeling. Americans can't be trusted to interpret

SCIENCE.

Who the fuck are you to say such a thing?

The Science Fundies who happily lap up whatever drugs the pharmaceutical companies push are the ones who can't be trusted.

There hasn't been extensive testing done. What you posted is dead wrong.

[AX10]

40. You and I think alike.

[depakid]

66. I've seen this for years on DU and elsewhere

The lack of basic science education is appalling in America. People have asserted what are sometimes profoundly stupid things for years. Things that just make my jaw drop.

The fact that we see this from time to time from otherwise educated and progressive people on DU gives you some perspective. Imagine what freepers, fundies, hardcore libertarians and the people who are barely literate think?

Sorry to tell you, but testing has been going on both here and in Australia for a long time- and has been quite as extensive as for any other approved vaccine.

Don't trust PhArma and the FDA? (I don't) but I do trust the British MHRA, Health Canada, the EU and the Australian agencies when they come to the same conclusions.

It's not some global conspiracy, it's responsible public health practice.

[Morgana LaFey]

156. The lack of basic science education, or the lack of basic science

deification? Methinks you confuse the two.

WHAT about too short a period of study do you not understand? WHAT about insufficient numbers of the target group tested do you not understand? IF it's been studied "for a long time" in other places, THOSE studies aren't being offered up, are they?

[depakid]

175. Once again- my point gets illustrated....

The Australian scientist who discovered the fact that cervical cancer was caused by HPV and who with his team invented gardasil has been working on this since 1985. They discovered the vaccine in 1991.

The vaccine has been in human clinical trials in at least three countries that I am aware of (US, Canada and Australia) for in excess of 5 years. The success rate in the trials is nearly 100% for HPV (for four strains of HPV - two of which are the cause of 70% of cervical cancer).

CSL Limited is the patent holder of the vaccine and they have licenced Merck amongst other third party pharmaceutical companies for this vaccine. Merck was licensed in 1995 and has been testing and developing alongside CSL Limited since that time.

The scientist was awarded Australian of the Year has spent over 20 years of his life working at this and should be highly rewarded for his efforts.

(I reckon that's science "deification" at work)

No long term reactions have been found to date.

No deaths have been directly attributed to the vaccine ... actually of the US trials out of 21,464 subjects aged 9-26 years within 1-15 days post vaccination (at any one of the three stages) ... deaths were 1 pulmonary embolism, 1 sepsis and 1 arrhythmia in the vaccine group - almost death for death matched in the control group as well. The majority of the deaths reported were for motor vehicle accidents in both control and vaccine group.

However the reason the govts in a number of countries are touting for its mandatory inclusion in the vaccine regime of children is because by preventing up to 70% of cervical cancer they are a) saving lives and b ) saving money. The vaccine treatment even at the high cost is still cheaper than treating all those women who contract cervical cancer as a result of HPV. That's called a win/win- though Americans often have a hard time with that concept, particularly in their health care "system."

This IS NOT something that has been rushed in too or that we're being deceiving about- and people who think so are either a) being paranoid and/or b) lack an understanding of the process.

This vaccine will save 200 000 lives world wide each year. Not to mention hundreds and thousands of dollars it costs to treat these women with cervical cancer. So treating the 200 000 women who die each year (ignoring those who survive) you would save $3 000 000 000. To treat 200 000 women will cost approximately $100 000 000. That saves the worlds govts $2 900 000 000. That's a lot of money to save.

Of course saving 200 000 lives a year is also worthy

[mzmolly]

182. Hey depakid.

:hi:

Where to begin. First I'd like links to your data, as well as the science which shows long term efficacy on this vaccine.

This claim is also pure speculation:

This vaccine will save 200 000 lives world wide each year. Not to mention hundreds and thousands of dollars it costs to treat these women with cervical cancer. So treating the 200 000 women who die each year (ignoring those who survive) you would save $3 000 000 000. To treat 200 000 women will cost approximately $100 000 000. That saves the worlds govts $2 900 000 000. That's a lot of money to save.

And, might I add highly "questionable." ;)

From wiki

Long term impact

One unknown property of the vaccines now being researched is their longevity. Since the studies have been of short duration, it is unknown whether the vaccines will last just a few years or for much longer. Further study over time is required to answer this question.

One can not claim X will save lives when it is not known how long X will last.

[Lisa0825]

195. Great post!

Although arguing about this seems moot since most people have their minds made up pro or con already, so I don't know how many are actually open to the discussion.

[Bridget Burke]

230. Anyone using the phrase "science deification" is a lost cause.

Don't waste your time.

Texas parents who doesn't want their daughters protected can opt out of the program. If someone hasn't noticed that rather basic fact, scientific references won't convince them.

[sharp_stick]

25. My daughter will be getting the vaccine

As I said in another thread, this is way more important than Merck making money. IMO they deserve every cent they get for this, it is one of the biggest medical breakthroughs in the last decade. I applaud the scientists that worked on this drug and hope they continue their work.

When you speak of at risk women you speak of any woman, or girl that is sexually active. I don't presume to know the situation surrounding your daughter but that eventually includes almost every woman around.

The reason they want to target girls between 9 and 12 is they are likely not already sexually active and already have a well developed immune system. This makes them the perfect candidates for this vaccine.

[Lisa0825]

26. I wonder how heavy the guilt will weigh on some

10-20 years down the road, when some of these girls do get cervical cancer.

[KittyWampus]

34. What about the guilt of those whose daughters end up sterile from the vaccine?

and before anyone posts there is no evidence saying it might cause sterility or other problems- the onus is on the pharmaceutical company to prove their product is safe.

And appropriate testing hasn't been done yet.

[Justitia]

39. OMFG. YOU backup your own assertions. No one has to prove a negative.

Good Luck!

[Avalux]

64. Have you read this? It's what I'm saying -

we don't know enough about the vaccine to madate it for millions of young girls:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=128966&mesg_id=128966

[Justitia]

65. Did you read the follow ups to that post? The AAP is recommending the vaccine. -eom

[Justitia]

67. Also, did you see my earlier post about WHY the vaccine is labeled "mandatory"? -nt

[Avalux]

72. All of your points are taken.

I have a problem with safety data (what was presented to the FDA) being primarily from 18-24 year old women. They will not be the ones given this vaccine en mass. I also have a problem with the fact that after 5 years, they're not sure if the vaccine will remain effective. There just isn't enough data at this point to warrant a mandate. I understand the reasoning behind the mandate, but it still means the vaccine will be thrust out there before enough is known about it in the age group targeted.

[Horse with no Name]

76. That post has been soundly debunked

It comes down to ONE physician and HIS and only HIS opinion.

[KittyWampus]

216. Hello? It's up to Drug Co. to prove their vaccine is safe for 9 year olds. They haven't.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. The sterility is the good news.

This vaccine will produce an unstoppable race of living dead. Do you really want zombies reproducing?

:crazy:

[Justitia]

51. Now we are getting to the meat & potatoes! -eom

[Midlodemocrat]

48. There is no evidence to suggest that this is the case.

If it were, then any medication anyone takes for HPV would render them sterile.

[sharp_stick]

59. Do you know of any testing

that has not been properly carried out?

The drug companies and the FDA are not our enemies and they don't lie awake at night thinking of ways to fuck over the average person by killing their daughters.

AFAIC is completely unreasonable to expect any company to work through every potential issue. For example, could this cause testicular atrophy? That is a drug safety test they likely did not do because they don't plan to offer this drug to men.

These are medications, designed to interact closely with the human body, no medicine is truly safe

[KittyWampus]

218. I haven't heard of any EXTENSIVE testing on 9 year olds. It's up to the drug co. to prove

their vaccine is harmless. They haven't done enough testing over a long enough period of time and on enough people especially in the YOUNG RANGE OF YEARS OLD.

[Bridget Burke]

231. Which other vaccines cause sterility?

It would be interesting to find out.

[mzmolly]

185. Why would I feel guilty for letting my daughter make her own medical

decisions when she feels ready to engage in sexual activity?

[KittyWampus]

219. this thread is about mandatory vaccinations.

[mzmolly]

227. Yep, and I'm opposed. Thankfully, most states have waivers.

:hi:

[Bridget Burke]

232. I'm sure she'll tell you when she's ready.

Just as you were 100% forthcoming with your own parents about your sex life. Before it happened!

[mzmolly]

236. I'm sure she will also.

My mother signed a permission slip for me to get on the pill before I had sex. Though, if my child doesn't come out and tell me, I hope I'm in touch enough with her life to have an idea of when she's considering sexual activity? Though I guarantee you my child won't have sex at nine, yours? And, while were at it, how comfortable are you telling your child she's protected from cervical cancer with this shot, when no one knows how long will protection from the vaccine last?

[Bridget Burke]

238. Well, youre daughter's a "good" girl.

Only the "bad" girls should fear HPV, isn't that right? (I don't have kids.)

I'd never tell my hypothetical child the vaccine would protect her from cervical cancer, because it only protects against most types of the disease.

I noticed you've used the argument that cervical cancer is not as common as other types of cancer. Inflammatory breast cancer is a relatively rare form of breast cancer. So--I guess that Molly Ivins is unimportant, stastically speaking. And there's no other way of determining human worth.

Don't worry. You can opt out of the program.

[mzmolly]

240. WTF?

Uhm, I don't think it's "bad" for teens to have sex, thus she'd have no reason not to approach me when she's ready to engage with her partner.

I'd never tell my hypothetical child the vaccine would protect her from cervical cancer, because it only protects against most types of the disease.

You didn't answer the complete question. It is UNKNOWN how long protective properties are present after having the vaccine. I would prefer my daughter stick to PROVEN methods unless/until this vaccine is 'PROVEN.'

I noticed you've used the argument that cervical cancer is not as common as other types of cancer. Inflammatory breast cancer is a relatively rare form of breast cancer. So--I guess that Molly Ivins is unimportant, stastically speaking. And there's no other way of determining human worth.

Well, you've managed to twist my position as though I'm saying let's not worry about a vaccine for X because it's not as common as Y. That has never been my position. However, when common sense fails, spin bullshit huh?

Don't worry. You can opt out of the program.

I'm aware of that, and I shall.

[Bridget Burke]

244. I retract my comments.

After all, why should I care about what happens to your daughter.

[mzmolly]

245. Demonstrative of the sick bullshit that permeates the defense of corporate

drug companies. Pathetic. How bout just sticking to the actual subject and debating on the facts? That's not within your ability, apparently?

[Bridget Burke]

246. Why should I tell you what to do to your daughter?

She's your responsibility. And I'm sure that her welfare is more important to you than making points against "corporate drug companies."

[mzmolly]

247. Agreed.

You shouldn't tell me what to do. Especially when doing so involves suggesting we engage in an unproven medical procedure who's long term impact is yet unknown.

[Pithlet]

44. Exactly.

Pit the cost of weighing possible risks that aren't even knowing about and likely will never be an issue with known risks of not getting vaccinated, which is cancer, guess which one wins out for me? It's an easy choice, and I'm dismayed at some of these posts. I hope the fear isn't spread to other people who are considering this vaccine for their daughters. I also took issue with the "at risk" statement. All women are at risk. Wait to vaccinate until they're possibly sexually active, and it may be too late.

[Avalux]

68. It's not fear, it's caution.

The majority of safety data has been done on women, not young girls, but women won't be women who will be given the vaccine en mass. It's too soon to mandate this vaccine for millions of girls. We need more safety data.

[Pithlet]

80. If it were still in the preliminary stages of development, I'd agree.

If this weren't a deadly cancer we were talking about, I'd agree. It is a vaccine that has been successfully tested and developed and is no longer in the experimental stages, and like all other medical advances, it isn't 100% assured, but it has already compiled enough data to make the benefits of moving forward to vaccinating these girls outweigh the risks that come with all medical advancements. I just don't think we have to sit around and wait for the cautious parents to decide they're okay with it before we start saving lives and adding this vaccine to the list, making it much more accessible. If you want to withhold your own daughter, that's one thing. It's not the decision I would make by a long shot, but that's your right. From what I understand, you would be able to do so. It's the opposition to this measure that I take issue with. Those millions of girls will be saved from a risk that you and I and previous generations have faced. That is a good thing. You can't completely remove all risk, even if you wait years and years. For every year we wait, there are thousands of girls put at risk for this cancer, if not more.

My cousin just gave birth to her third child and now has to start treatment for cervical cancer, so at the moment this is a particularly hard issue for me. Two friends of mine have battled this cancer. With the successful development of this vaccine, we right now have the power to prevent that for current and future generations. It would be a shame to hold back on a tested vaccine on the slight chance it may pose problems in the future and opt instead for the future cancer cases that will result from holding back.

[KoKo]

89. And you would trust Merck to be working for you and your daughters best interests?

You really believe they wouldn't push a drug out too soon without enough testing and that their Lobbyists weren't working Bush 24/7 and Congress to make sure they had a market for this? They have so many legal bills they need to cover their asses.

[Pithlet]

30. I disagree.

I think this is a good move that will save lives. From what I understand, parents can opt out of it, which would be a shame, but it is their right. Because HPV is not communicable through general contact with others at school the way most other diseases vaccinated against are, I'm fine with the opt out. But, I applaud this measure, and honestly didn't expect the reaction some are having to it. It's already facing enough battles from the Religious Right who want to see it banned. This move will make it more accessible and mainstream. The more girls and young women who are vaccinated, the fewer who die from cervical cancer. It isn't communicable in the way some other diseases are, but the complications from HPV can lead to infertility and death, not to mention the cost and pain of cancer treatment. If I were in the age group targeted, I'd get it for myself.

ETA any possible side affects that may or may not come into play in the future, vs. a possible side affect that's already known if not vaccinated, cancer. Just something to think about. I hope your post hasn't convinced others to hold off on this much needed vaccine. We are all at risk as women.

[moc]

52. I agree with you completely.

I'm also in Texas. I work in public health. Although infectious disease isn't my area, I plan to query my colleagues closely about this. I have a 10yo daughter, and I plan to opt out for a few more years until there's more experience with this vaccine in the general population.

[LiberalEsto]

55. How much mercury is in the vaccine?

That's a key issue, in my opinion.

While I can't prove it, both my daughters got sick after getting their MMRs and HIB shots -- and ended up missing school for months for unexplained symptoms that resembled mono & chronic fatigue, although they tested negative for mono. I really think they got sick from the mercury preservatives in the vaccines.

[AX10]

57. The DPT vaccine also has caused brain damage.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

58. Zero.

They don't use thimerosol in this vaccine.

[seabeyond]

74. my oldest

at two and at four i watched behavior after his "shots" before i knew about any controversy that so resembled austism.... i think he has a mild form and after these two periods of shots i saw escalations of it. again, not that i am able to prove anything. i dont trust it. i dont think it effects all children. just the children that lean in certain directions. again... this was before i knew about any controversy

[seabeyond]

75. well said. n/t

[MedleyMisty]

79. Why only females?

I understand that it could be beneficial and all that.

But does anyone have a link to explain why it's only girls? Sure, guys can't get cervical cancer, but they do carry the virus.

[KoKo]

90. And...who in the Bush Administration really "loves females?" And, who in

the Bush Administration has spent every waking moment trying to do away with Female Reproductive Rights?

:eyes:

[Horse with no Name]

95. link

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/health/30virus.html

>>>>snip
The new vaccine against human papillomavirus, which became available last summer, could potentially prevent thousands of cases of cervical cancer. But doctors hope the vaccine will be able to prevent a less well-known, but potentially fatal, disease in gay men, anal cancer. The same strains of HPV cause both cancers.

>>>snip
Regulators in Australia and the European Union have approved the vaccine, called Gardasil and made by Merck, for boys ages 9 to 15. They cited data showing that it produced an immune response in boys, though its effectiveness in preventing infection in sexually active men has not been proved.

[VelmaD]

140. hang on, it isn't just gay men

If HPV can be transmitted through acts other than intercourse...everyone keeps talking about getting it from people's hands...then wouldn't straight men be at risk of getting anal cancer as well? At least the more adventurous straight men, anyway.

[Katherine Brengle]

103. I believe they are in the testing stage for males.

Obviously vaccinating both would be far more effective in the long run toward eradicating the disease altogether.

If it works for boys/men, or if a variation does, I would advocate mandatory vaccination for both sexes.

[bellasgrams]

85. Some vacines cause Autism

It's now being questioned whether the vacines given pre-schoolers have caused the epidemic of autism. I would be very cautious what is injected into my child's body.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

88. Sure, the same way bigfoot causes chemtrails.

Unfortunately, neither stands up to scientific rigor.

[AX10]

93. What utter B.S!

I HATE the fundie Scientists just as much as I hate the "Christian" Fundies!

Both of these extremes are just as dangerous as another.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

106. I know! Gosh!

Those fucking nazis, what with their double blind experiments and their peer-reviewed data.

Who do they think they are? The Spanish Inquisition?

[AX10]

113. Also, there are those guys who developed the Nuclear bomb.

Really "upstanding" citizens! :sarcasm: Just in case you couldn't tell the difference.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

115. And smallpox!

[AX10]

117. That's right, there are unethical scientists.

Good to see that you know that they do exist!

:hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

120. Sure thing.

I just wish they'd stop transmitting radio messages into my dental fillings.

:hi:

[AX10]

123. rofl

Good joke!

:hi:

[Pithlet]

101. There is a difference between being cautious, and being misinformed.

There is a difference between acting on uncertainty, and acting on baseless fears brought about by hysteria. The ingredient that was suspected, but not conclusively proven to be a link to autism isn't even in current vaccines, including the one being discussed in the OP. What is also lost in that battle is the deadly and serious diseases that can result from not being vaccinated. Thanks to vaccines, they were almost completely eradicated. They're beginning to show up in areas of the world where vaccines were stopped. No one is saying parents should blindly follow whatever advice they are given. But, it is vital to make informed decisions and not make knee jerk decisions based on things they've heard on the internet, or solely on information they heard from some advocacy group. My older son is autistic. I highly doubt any vaccine caused it, and I don't regret for a minute that he and his neurotypical brother were vaccinated against potentially deadly diseases. I still fully support mandatory vaccines for communicable diseases in the public schools.

[Morgana LaFey]

162. Welcome to DU -- have you seen this?

Be sure to watch the video.

Evidence of Harm from Toxic Mercury Proven by Canadians
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=10457

[Midlodemocrat]

209. Wrong.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

[AngryAmish]

221. That has been debunked

[VelmaD]

87. I want someone to explain to me...

why this vaccine is not being mandated for boys as well. If such a high percentage of men are carriers then vaccinate boys too. Why aren't they being used as guinea pigs too?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

92. A couple of reasons...

1. women are at greater harm from the disease, thus they have a greater need given a limited supply of the vaccine.

2. The extensive studies have been completed in women, they have not been finished with men.

And finally, to call the patients getting the vaccine as "guinea pigs" is a bit dishonest.

[KittyWampus]

220. Except this is being given to 9 year olds and extensive testing hasn't been done on them

So who is being 'dishonest'?

[Avalux]

96. Clinical trials have just begun on men and boys.

I agree with you; they should have been doing simultaneous trials for everyone. But since HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer in boys/men, the vaccine is much more profitable to target girls/women. I know some think I'm being unreasonable about this, but I also know GlaxoSmithKline has developed its own vaccine (Cervarix) - so it was a race between Merck and GSK to get to the finish line first.

[Horse with no Name]

102. It has been tested in other countries

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21108386-23289,00.html

>>>snip
VACCINATING boys against cervical cancer would significantly reduce the spread of the disease.
A study conducted by pharmaceutical giant Merck, which owns the manufacturing licence for the Gardasil vaccine, recommends its use in boys under the age of 12.

Researchers found more than 90 per cent of cases caused by the four most common strains of papilloma virus could be eliminated, instead of just over 75per cent if only girls were vaccinated.

The vaccine is approved for use in boys aged nine to 15 in Australia. However, the federal Government only funds the vaccination of girls.

Parents can purchase the vaccine for their sons for the full retail price of $460.

[Avalux]

105. Yes, but not yet here, not FDA approved yet.

I should have clarified that in my post. :hi:

[Horse with no Name]

99. It is in other countries Velma

Australia and the EU.
But because it is to prevent a cancer that is prevalent in gay men...you can expect "vigorous" debate.

[Eurobabe]

203. Read my post #17, I said the EXACT same thing, why always women as guinea pigs?

[politicat]

104. As one of very few women over 30 without HPV....

WARNING: medical discussion of sex below. You're warned.


Dammit, every girl needs this. HPV can be caught easily. It takes genital contact -- including oral sex, non-penatrative sexual contact and other "sensual alternatives" to heterosexual intercourse. It is an epidemic. 20 million people in the US are infected at any given time. 1-3% will develop an HPV related cancer, and the virus itself can cause other issues, including perinatal transmission and adult transmission, as well as respiratory illnesses. (Compare this to the HIV/AIDS Epidemic with about 900,000 active cases at any given time.) It affects women, primarily, but men can and do get cancerous HPV infections. Most anal cancers and most non-tobacco related oral and throat cancers are HPV related. And 80% of women will be infected with HPV by age 50. If that's not an epidemic, there ain't no sich creature. (Sources: CDC, NIH cited via wikipedia.)

Second, I don't have a dog in this race -- no kids -- but I do not have the right to deny protection from anyone, and a teenager is more vulnerable to this and all STDs than I am. This STD is much easier to catch than say HIV or syphilis; the protein shell of HPV is tougher than the protein shell of HIV or the spirochete, meaning that it can linger and survive outside the body for longer and in more adverse conditions. HPV can survive for a few hours on a doorknob, for instance, while HIV dies within minutes and the spirochete can't survive at all. Doorknob. Public restroom. (If you ever needed a reason to wash your hands both before and after you used the toilet, there you go.)

HPV transmission is not prevented by condoms or dental dams the same way that HIV transmission is. That's because HPV can flourish on places that the condom/dam doesn't cover and can be transmitted by touch. A girl does not have to be sexually active in terms of intercourse to get an HPV infection... a heavy make-out session can transmit HPV from one person to another, and non-heterosexuality is no insurance policy, either. HPV is much more like the common cold than HIV is. HPV is endemic, and can kill the same way that colds are endemic and can kill... when they turn into pneumonia or open a person to an opportunistic virus or bacterial infection. Thinking about an HPV vaccine in the same way as thinking about an HIV vaccine is erroneous. This is much more like the MMR, polio or variola or varicella vaccines -- it takes a common and sometimes deadly disease out of circulation the same way that the MMR took measles, mumps and rubella mostly out of circulation.

Merck is going to make a lot of money from this. I'm perfectly happy with this. It's a vaccine against CANCER. Where there's one, there will be another, if there is an incentive to do more research. That comes from people buying the vaccines. Eventually, there will be a generic version, and that will bring the costs down.

This vaccine is really not that different than the polio vaccine. The polio vaccine was not tested on children because that's neither legal nor ethical. It is not legal to test a vaccine on children. It has to go through adult testing first, then it can be administered to children. Polio went through the same process. So did the chicken pox vaccine.

I don't like Governor Goodhair, but on this one, he's doing the right thing, even if for the wrong motives. Yes, Merck's going to make money hand over fist. But Goodhair is going to take this one on the chin from his conservative supporters and no amount of Merck money is going to win that back for him. And incidentally, he's going to save about 88,000 women. (Women run a 1 in 117 lifetime chance of cervical cancer, which is about double the rate of ovarian cancer.)

As for your situation...(Personal generalized opinion to follow...) I don't think it is fair or right or loving for a parent to expose their child to disease through either negligence or will. It's not the parent's body. The parent is only responsible for it for 18 years, and if a parent fails to take care of it during that time, s/he/they are depriving the child of the right to make her own decisions in the other 60 years she is likely to have. I don't think it is ever right for a parent's views to *permanently* impact a child's life and body. (Thus, I do not believe that Jehovah's Witnesses or Christian Scientists have the right to deprive their children of appropriate medical care or Amish parents to deprive their children of education because they're forcing a religious decision on another person without that person's informed consent.) Our duty as adults to children is to protect them from what we can in the face of the best evidence we see. The best evidence is that women are at significant lifetime risk from this virus and are likely to be exposed to this virus despite their best efforts to not be exposed. The only time to prevent exposure is before any incidence of sexual behavior with another person. Women run a far higher risk of cervical cancer than they do an adverse reaction from a vaccine (one in 117 versus one in 10,000). I could not deny my daughter that basic level of protection.

[Pithlet]

114. "Women run a far higher risk of cervical cancer than they do an adverse reaction from a vaccine"

Thank you. I actually put the quote from you in the title because I think it's that important for people to see, if they're on the fence about this and aren't sure if they want to vaccinate their own daughters. I hope you don't mind. Your whole post is excellent. If and when they have one available for boys, I'll have mine vaccinated.

[Katherine Brengle]

118. This is the best post I have read so far on this topic, well done.

[laundry_queen]

128. Your numbers...

1 in 10,000 for a vaccine reaction is false, that's a 1 in 10,000 risk of DEATH, not simply reaction.
A 1 in 117 lifetime risk of cervical cancer, in which the 5 year survival rate for the invasive type (4 times LESS likely than in situ) is 92%. And that's over a lifetime. We still do not know for how long the vaccine's protection will last. 5 years? 20 years? Upthread it was mentioned there are over 30 types of sexually transmitted HPV. This vaccine is good for 4 of them. 4! How many women will go skipping their paps because of the false impression they are protected against cervical cancer, period?

I will wait a few years for more information and then I will decide for my child. I agree with you it's a difficult decision because whatever I do will permanently impact her. But then, as a parent, I make those type of decisions every day.

[Morgana LaFey]

163. Excellent post. Thanks

I'm deeply troubled by how short in duration the quoted test was.

[Eurobabe]

204. Ditto, and my 25 yr. old was dx'd with HPV last month

[mzmolly]

235. The entire post is/was based upon falsehoods.

:crazy:

Thanks for your reply.

[Lisa0825]

196. STANDING OVATION!

BRAVO! Great post! But I have the feeling we are tilting at windmills.

[mzmolly]

228. To bad it's riddled with inaccurate information.

:hi:

[mzmolly]

234. Since your post is riddled with error and getting attention, I feel I should respond.

Dammit, every girl needs this. HPV can be caught easily. It takes genital contact -- including oral sex, non-penatrative sexual contact and other "sensual alternatives" to heterosexual intercourse. It is an epidemic. 20 million people in the US are infected at any given time. 1-3% will develop an HPV related cancer, and the virus itself can cause other issues, including perinatal transmission and adult transmission, as well as respiratory illnesses. (Compare this to the HIV/AIDS Epidemic with about 900,000 active cases at any given time.) It affects women, primarily, but men can and do get cancerous HPV infections. Most anal cancers and most non-tobacco related oral and throat cancers are HPV related. And 80% of women will be infected with HPV by age 50. If that's not an epidemic, there ain't no sich creature. (Sources: CDC, NIH cited via wikipedia.)

Since your statement is about HPV and not cancer, let's look at actual statistics that pertain to strains related to cancer.

All types of HPV can cause mild Pap test abnormalities which do not have serious consequences. Approximately 10 of the 30 identified genital HPV types can lead, in rare cases, to development of cervical cancer. Research has shown that for most women (90 percent), cervical HPV infection becomes undetectable within two years. Although only a small proportion of women have persistent infection, persistent infection with "high-risk" types of HPV is the main risk factor for cervical cancer.

More about prevention/detection.

A Pap test can detect pre-cancerous and cancerous cells on the cervix. Regular Pap testing and careful medical follow-up, with treatment if necessary, can help ensure that pre-cancerous changes in the cervix caused by HPV infection do not develop into life threatening cervical cancer. The Pap test used in U.S. cervical cancer screening programs is responsible for greatly reducing deaths from cervical cancer. For 2004, the American Cancer Society estimates that about 10,520 women will develop invasive cervical cancer and about 3,900 women will die from this disease. Most women who develop invasive cervical cancer have not had regular cervical cancer screening.

Second, I don't have a dog in this race -- no kids -- but I do not have the right to deny protection from anyone,

You're assuming the vaccine will safely protect. That is where we differ. I don't think there is evidence to this effect.

You also state that we should fear doorknobs, among other absurdities - :shudder: WHICH ARE FALSE.

TRANSMISSION:

HPV is transmitted through skin-to-skin contact, usually during sexual intercourse. It can also be transmitted through oral sex. It can be passed even if there are no signs or symptoms of the virus. It cannot be spread by kissing, toilet seats, bedding, door knobs, swimming pools, hot tubs, shared clothing or eating utensils.

http://www.womens-clinic.org/human_papillomavirus.php

HPV transmission is not prevented by condoms or dental dams the same way that HIV transmission is. That's because HPV can flourish on places that the condom/dam doesn't cover and can be transmitted by touch. A girl does not have to be sexually active in terms of intercourse to get an HPV infection... a heavy make-out session can transmit HPV from one person to another, and non-heterosexuality is no insurance policy, either. HPV is much more like the common cold than HIV is. HPV is endemic, and can kill the same way that colds are endemic and can kill... when they turn into pneumonia or open a person to an opportunistic virus or bacterial infection. Thinking about an HPV vaccine in the same way as thinking about an HIV vaccine is erroneous. This is much more like the MMR, polio or variola or varicella vaccines -- it takes a common and sometimes deadly disease out of circulation the same way that the MMR took measles, mumps and rubella mostly out of circulation.

Once again, INCORRECT. Where did you come up with this stuff? Since I addressed the falsehood about "kissing and doorknobs" above. I'll stick to the condoms claim:

Condoms have long been known to offer protection from pregnancy and HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. The degree of protection from human papillomavirus (HPV) has been less clear — until now.

In a recent study, young women whose partners used condoms every time they had sex were 70 percent less likely to contract HPV — the virus that causes most genital warts and cervical cancers — than were women whose partners used condoms less than 5 percent of the time. Women whose partners used condoms more than half the time were 50 percent less likely to contract HPV.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hpv/WO00121

Merck is going to make a lot of money from this. I'm perfectly happy with this. It's a vaccine against CANCER. Where there's one, there will be another, if there is an incentive to do more research. That comes from people buying the vaccines. Eventually, there will be a generic version, and that will bring the costs down.

Generic versions of vaccines? Again, huh?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/10/13/MNG39F7MNG1.DTL&type=health

This vaccine is really not that different than the polio vaccine. The polio vaccine was not tested on children because that's neither legal nor ethical. It is not legal to test a vaccine on children. It has to go through adult testing first, then it can be administered to children. Polio went through the same process. So did the chicken pox vaccine.

The polio vaccine was tested , first in Africa and even on children.

What followed was massive testing of the vaccine in clinical trials in the United States and parts of Canada, begun in 1954. The scope of the trials was unprecedented in medical history. The results were dramatic. Cases of polio fell spectacularly in the vaccinated test groups. In 1955, the government quickly granted permission for the vaccine to be distributed to the children of our country.

But, there was a problem with the original Salk vaccine. The vaccine actually induced 260 cases of poliomyelitis, including 10 deaths. The problem was traced to incomplete inactivation of some virus particles, which was soon corrected.

http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/CC/polio.html

I don't like Governor Goodhair, but on this one, he's doing the right thing, even if for the wrong motives. Yes, Merck's going to make money hand over fist. But Goodhair is going to take this one on the chin from his conservative supporters and no amount of Merck money is going to win that back for him. And incidentally, he's going to save about 88,000 women. (Women run a 1 in 117 lifetime chance of cervical cancer, which is about double the rate of ovarian cancer.)

Actually, this is also factually incorrect. Ovarian cancer:

Incidence (annual) of Ovarian Cancer: 23,300 annual cases in USA (SEER 2002 estimate); about 1 in 57 women in the United States (NCI)
advertisement

Incidence Rate: approx 1 in 11,673 or 0.01% or 23,300 people in USA
Incidence extrapolations for USA for Ovarian Cancer: 23,300 per year, 1,941 per month, 448 per week, 63 per day, 2 per hour, 0 per minute, 0 per second.

Contrast to cervical cancer...

Incidence Rate: approx 1 in 20,923 or 0.00% or 13,000 people in USA
Incidence extrapolations for USA for Cervical Cancer: 13,000 per year, 1,083 per month, 250 per week, 35 per day, 1 per hour, 0 per minute, 0 per second.

Cervical cancer kills about 4000 women annually, ovarian cancer about 15,000 >>>

It is estimated that approximately 30,000 new cases of ovarian cancer will be diagnosed this year, with 15,000 women dying from this disease. Nearly 2% of women born in the United States are at risk of developing ovarian cancer in their lifetimes. Ovarian cancer most frequently appears in women who are older than 60 (about 50% of patients are over age 65), although it may occur in younger women who have a family history of the disease. Ovarian cancer is responsible for 5% of all cancer deaths among women

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/c/cervical_cancer/stats.htm

http://www.oncologychannel.com/ovariancancer/

As for your situation...(Personal generalized opinion to follow...) I don't think it is fair or right or loving for a parent to expose their child to disease through either negligence or will. It's not the parent's body. The parent is only responsible for it for 18 years, and if a parent fails to take care of it during that time, s/he/they are depriving the child of the right to make her own decisions in the other 60 years she is likely to have. I don't think it is ever right for a parent's views to *permanently* impact a child's life and body. (Thus, I do not believe that Jehovah's Witnesses or Christian Scientists have the right to deprive their children of appropriate medical care or Amish parents to deprive their children of education because they're forcing a religious decision on another person without that person's informed consent.) Our duty as adults to children is to protect them from what we can in the face of the best evidence we see. The best evidence is that women are at significant lifetime risk from this virus and are likely to be exposed to this virus despite their best efforts to not be exposed. The only time to prevent exposure is before any incidence of sexual behavior with another person. Women run a far higher risk of cervical cancer than they do an adverse reaction from a vaccine (one in 117 versus one in 10,000). I could not deny my daughter that basic level of protection.

Provided any of the info you posted was correct, you may have a point.

[williesgirl]

111. My daughter has cervical cancer. In fact, she had more removed today. Her doc wants her to get

this shot. Said it won't help with what she has, but it may keep her from getting different strains of the virus. He feels that a very high percentage of young men out there today is carrying the virus and that there are serious questions as to whether condoms are protecting against it.

The cost is $364. I'm going to check tomorrow to see if my insurance covers it.

[Katherine Brengle]

122. I'm so sorry to hear that --

I hope she comes through it alright.

:hug:

[Eurobabe]

205. We're waiting for the results of my 25 y/o's colposcopy

from last week. She was flagged for a class 2 smear, but we won't breath steady until it comes back normal. This stuff is f'ing scary. I never thought I would face such a thing, I am sure you didn't either. Hope everything turns out alright for your daughter...:hug:

[Taverner]

131. Well my argument is more about the FDA itself

It shouldn't be so buddy buddy with the pharma industry

But yes I think it should be mandatory - part of the social contract IMHO is a disease free community.

[alarimer]

133. Sorry I agree with Gov. Goodhair on this

Making it mandatory ensures that the insurance companies and Medicaid will pay for it. If every one is vaccinated, we can greatly reduce HPV and this very virulent form of cancer. That is a very good thing, no matter who is advocating it.

It is absolute BULLLSHIT that this vaccine encourages sexual activity. Utter bullshit. If kids are not vaccinated early enough (before ANY sexual activity) it is too late. They cannot wait until they are 18 and allowed to make their own medical decisions. And then they may get cancer and this one is highly likely to kill them. I hate to tell you Moms and Dads but your little angels will likely be engaging sexual activity long before age 18. No matter what they may tell you.

[mzmolly]

141. "a new vaccine developed by Merck that protects women from contracting Human Papilloma Virus"

This is the claim. Women and GIRLS are the Guinea pigs. Thanks for the well thought out position on this.

[Katherine Brengle]

161. *Someone* has to be the guinea pig...

I understand where you are coming from, but remember in order for anything to work, it has to be tried - this vaccine was designed for women/girls so we can avoid HPV related cervical cancer - something like that isn't going to be tested on men, it makes no sense.

[AX10]

164. Then how about you volunteer yourself.

That would make sense since you are a proponent.

[Lisa0825]

198. I have volunteered for at least a dozen clinical trials in my life....

I worked in medical research for 10 years, and was often solicited to volunteer. I investigated each study and made a decision about it. I would have volunteered for this on too, had I been asked. By the time a drug or vaccine is ready for clinical trials, a decade or more of research has generally put into it - theoretical and practical, studying all chemical precursors, variants, components, and breakdown products. This is why the majority of complaints about the FDA in the US have been about taking TOO LONG for new discoveries to come to market. Things usually move much more quickly in Europe and elsewhere. Can't win for losing, eh? Too fast, too slow, too careful, not careful enough....

[Katherine Brengle]

223. I will gladly take this vaccine.

[mzmolly]

169. Not my child.

3700 women die from cervical cancer each year in the US. Compare that to many other cancers that are a real threat.

It's easy to believe cancer is a major threat to women's health, but the kinds of cancer women are dying of might surprise you. According to the American Cancer Society (ACS), the most common cause of cancer death in U.S. women is lung cancer. It's estimated that more than 73,000 women in the United States will die of lung cancer in 2005, with 90 percent of these deaths linked to cigarette smoking.

Breast cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer death in U.S. women, and it's estimated that more than 211,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in 2005. The ACS estimates that about 40,000 women die each year of breast cancer.

The third-leading cause of cancer death for women in the United States is colorectal cancer. Like heart disease, colorectal cancer is often mistakenly thought of as a man's disease, but as many women die of colorectal cancer each year. Estimates suggest that it claims the lives of approximately 28,000 women in the United States annually.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/womens-health/WO00014

You also may find this to be of interest:

http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com/2007/01/gardasil.html

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

173. People were the guinea pigs.

It's gone all through the proper testing, phase I and II trials, healthy human volunteers.

The people who say it hasn't been properly tested are, frankly, full of shit.

[mzmolly]

177. People didn't die en masse during the two year trial period.

That, I'll give you.

Now, how long is the vaccine effective? And, what are the long term side effects? You can't answer those questions, and neither can Merck. Vioxx was also tested on humans, remember?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

178. People die en masse from cervical cancer.

The burden of proof's on you to show the vaccine's dangerous. You haven't got any evidence, other than wild conspiracy theories.

Frankly, I don't see much difference between you and the conservative prudes who are hung up on sexuality.

[mzmolly]

183. Actually, as a consumer I suggest the burden of proof is the other way around.

I'm not saying it's "dangerous" I'm saying we don't know if it's "dangerous" and/or "effective" in the long term.

As for you not seeing much difference between me and the "conservative prudes," I'll chalk one up for Merck and their phony feminist campaign. WOO HOO! :toast:

[AX10]

251. Right on!

[AX10]

252. Weak arguement on you half.

"Frankly, I don't see much difference between you and the conservative prudes who are hung up on sexuality."

That is a dumb arguement. Are just so desperate to compare us to the right wing extremists??? Yes!

If you would like to see REAL "en masse" death, you should take a trip to Africa where millions of children are dying of hunger.

[Iris]

151. While I agree with the parts about the experimental nature of this vaccine, I've known more than 1

woman who contracted an STD through a sexual assault that left them barren.

If the appropriate studies and testing could show this vaccine has no harmful side effects, why not make it part of the regular vaccine program for infants and toddlers? That way, the vaccination is given without having to get into a big discussion about it with a young girl who is just beginning to menstruate?

[iverglas]

166. cut off your nose to spite your face ...

No, make that cut out your daughter's cervix to spite Merck's face. I'm sure this will pain Merck greatly.

I've seldom seen such bizarre ideology-driven twaddle as I've seen in the threads here on this issue. I'm not going to read this one; enough.

For now, I would prefer Gardasil be given to at-risk women

If you're at risk, it's pretty much too fucking late. I don't believe this.

All girls and women are at risk. All. All girls and women.

HPV is not an epidemic; it cannot be 'caught' easily

No, it can only be caught by having sex with someone who is infected. Given the rate of infection in the population and the overwhelming likelihood that your daughter will have sex with someone sometime, well, cross your fingers tight, 'cause that sounds pretty "easily" to me.

Just one thought you might want to think. Girls and women are all vulnerable to sexual assault. Nice married women who were, and whose husbands were, virgins when they took the vows. Nuns. Nine-year-old girls. Your daughter. I'm sure you take precautions so that this doesn't happen to her. But I hope you're crossing your fingers tight too, because your daughter is no more immune to sexual assault that she will be to HPV if you follow this bizarre reasoning.



You know, only in the bloody USofA would someone even think of saying "being targeted for vaccination" in reference to a program to make protection against a horrific disease available at no cost to everyone in the population that is at risk of contracting it ...

[mzmolly]

170. Read this:

http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com/2007/01/gardasil.html

Let me know your thoughts.

Since there are no long term studies, it's not known who will be "protected" and for what duration. It is also not known if the vaccine can actually "instigate" cancer.

Also, cervical cancer is but a blip on the cancer radar screen today.

Even without the vaccine, the number of cervical cancer cases is trending downward and has been for years. (This is only true in the U.S.; worldwide it is one of the top cancer killers of women because women in many other countries have limited access to Pap tests and other health services.)

The Gardasil commercials refer to "thousands of women" being diagnosed with cervical cancer in the U.S. each year, which is true, but they don't put that number into context.

“Cervical cancer has gone from being one of the top killers of American women to not even being on the top 10 list. This year cervical cancer will represent just 1 percent of the 679,510 new cancer cases and 1 percent of the 273,560 anticipated cancer deaths among American women. By contrast, some 40,970 women will die of breast cancer and 72,130 will die of lung cancer.

According to the American Cancer Society, "'Between 1955 and 1992, the number of cervical cancer deaths in the United States dropped by 74 percent.' Think about it: 74 percent.”<2>

Sorry, but I don't think enough is known for ANYONE to draw a black and white conclusion on this issue.

[iverglas]

176. not interested, thanks

Cervical cancer has gone from being one of the top killers of American women to not even being on the top 10 list.

Just sick to death of the hand-flapping dismissal of the pain, suffering and worry that women who don't happen to die of cervical cancer, but lose chunks of their innards (small chunks, if they're lucky and it's caught at the dysplasia stage -- as in my case; big kinda important chunks if this extremely aggressive disease isn't caught so early) as just not worth thinking about.

The prevalence of HPV has risen since I apparently contracted it -- well before it was discovered. The number of women to whom this happens isn't likely going to decrease.

Pap smears identify disease ONCE IT IS PRESENT, and it then HAS TO BE TREATED. It's nice that more women are able to avail themselves of this *diagnostic* tool these days (although thousands and thousands of women in the US are not), but I would really have liked not to have had to undergo surgery under a general anaesthetic, lose a lot of blood, and spend three days in hospital (how fortunate that I live in the land of universal single public payer health care), thank you very much.

Why anyone thinks it is a good answer to a proposal to *prevent* a disease to say that thousands and thousands of women should just keep on getting their bodies hacked up to prevent them from dying once they have it, or as the only way of being sure they don't progress to it, I cannot fathom.

Sorry, but I don't think enough is known for ANYONE to draw a black and white conclusion on this issue.

Sorry, but I don't believe in black magic.

[mzmolly]

180. Your experience doesn't mean you have a measured opinion.

Who said anything about "black magic?" How bout pap smears? They are known to save lives. Further, the vax manufacturer recommends one continue to get a pap smear on a regular basis.

Also, where is the data that the cervical cancer is on the rise? The info I provided,(which you did not read) states the opposite.

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.

Cervical cancer tends to occur in midlife. Half of women diagnosed with this cancer are between the ages of 35 and 55. It rarely occurs in women younger than 20. Although cervical cancer does affect young women, many older women do not realize that the risk of developing cervical cancer is still present as they age. Slightly over 20% of women with cervical cancer are diagnosed when they are over 65. It is important for older women to continue having regular Pap tests at least until age 70, and possibly longer.

Sorry your treatment was so invasive, I had a friend who's daughter was just treated on an outpatient basis. She did have regular pap smears, which would appear key?

http://www.cancerwise.org/september_2003/display.cfm?id=da2419bd-f2c5-4937-99172dfb1c3d0df7&method=displayfull&color=green

How is HPV treated in women?

When doctors detect dysplasia (precancerous cells) through a pap test and confirm them by a colposcopy-directed biopsy, the HPV is treated with a procedure involving the removal of the outer portion of the cervix. This is an outpatient procedure with minimal risk. This procedure is called a Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure (LEEP).

Low-grade dysplasia may only need to be followed every few months, as it often goes away on its own. High-grade (moderate or severe dysplasia) is best managed by surgical removal, due to its tendency to progress to invasive disease.

http://imaginis.com/cervical-cancer/treatment.asp

The treatment of cervical cancer depends on the stage of the cancer and other prognostic factors. In many cases, physicians will also perform some type of treatment on patients with pre-cancerous conditions to prevent these conditions from developing into cervical cancer. For patients with invasive cervical cancer, the main types of treatment include surgery, radiation therapy, and/or chemotherapy. As with many other types of cancer, the earlier cervical cancer is detected, the greater the chances for successful treatment and survival.

Peace

[iverglas]

186. for the love of god, I am sick to fucking death of this

Your experience doesn't mean you have a measured opinion.

Want to tell me what it DOES mean, pal?

What it does mean is that I know what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about some fuzzy strangers I don't give a shit about. This happened to me, and my best friend not long after. It, and worse, has happened to a number of women who have posted on this subject in the many threads here at DU, and to their children and other family members. If anyone can point me to one of those people who plan to withhold the vaccine from any children for whom they make medical decisions, or who plan not to urge others to have it, let me know.

My opinion is based on knowledge. Knowledge of the effects of the disease that this vaccine is known to prevent women from contracting.

Vaccination is not going to help ME. I have no dog in this race, just as I have no cervix.

So what might you be getting at?

Sorry your treatment was so invasive, I had a friend who's daughter was just treated on an outpatient basis.

Bully for you. So was my friend's. She was treated by the LEEP procedure. It involves having the inside of your cervix frozen off under a local anaesthetic. My friend said it was agonizingly painful. Yup, the patient info stuff you quote doesn't mention that. It doesn't actually want to deter women from having a procedure that they may need in order not to die.

The location of the lesions found by the colposcopy I underwent, after the bad Pap, did not leave me that option. If other lesions were present, they would possibly have been out of reach of that procedure.

She did have regular pap smears, which would appear key?

To give a direct answer to what appears to be being insinuated -- how in the hell do you think my lesions were identified?

And -- key to WHAT? Not dying? Well duh. Not that they GUARANTEE that anyone won't die. This disease can be extremely aggressive. That's why I had the conization when I did. My doc had had a patient not long before with Pap results like mine and had taken the then standard wait-and-see approach -- and next year the woman had CANCER.

A Pap smear DOES NOT PREVENT DISEASE. It -- *if* you are lucky -- finds existing disease. So what has that accomplished?? It has told you that you have a disease condition that must now be TREATED if you want to be sure that it does not progress to a stage that costs you your uterus, and possibly your life, rather than just varying extents of your cervix. (In that last, "best" case, you may still be unable to carry a pregnancy to term, and you may have multiple recurrences of the disease requiring the excision of more chunks of your body, and you have no guarantee that you won't in fact die of it.)

One really doesn't just sail into the doctor's office once a year for a Pap smear and somehow acquire an invisible suit of armour against cervical cancer. One has to have treatment for any abnormality found.

Would you suggest that smokers get regular chest X-rays -- or QUIT SMOKING?

Would you suggest that people be urged to sign up as organ donors for hepatis patients, or that people get VACCINATED against the disease?

I'm not sure I want to know the answers.

[mzmolly]

190. Actually "pal" your personal experience does not make you qualified to answer

the two main questions surrounding this vaccine.

1. How long will immunity last?
2. What are the long term side effects?

Unless you can answer those questions, which you can't - your emotional personal experience has no bearing on my opinion.

As to your questions:

Would you suggest that smokers get regular chest X-rays -- or QUIT SMOKING?

This is a straw-man and is totally unrelated to the question at hand, thus there is no rational answer. However, I will take a stab at your question.

1. Smoking is a known carcinogen thus it's a personal "educated" choice to smoke.
2. Chest x-rays are not being mandated for school aged children who don't yet smoke, thankfully.
3. While were on the subject, remember when the tobacco companies said smoking was "safe?" ;)

Would you suggest that people be urged to sign up as organ donors for hepatis patients, or that people get VACCINATED against the disease?

Well, in spite of the fact that this question is also unrelated, once again, I'll attempt an answer. I suggest each individual make personal medical decisions based on existing scientific data.

In fact, I think I'll toss in a third question. 3. Why defend a company that claimed Vioxx was safe and effective? If you want to talk about personal stories, I can tell you about my beloved aunt who was a former vioxx user. Unfortunately, she's no longer here to share story.

More on vioxx: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6192603/

[iverglas]

207. "civil tone"???

There is nothing "civil" about this:

your emotional personal experience has no bearing on my opinion

That is nothing but a blatant effort to avoid addressing what your interlocutor said by attempting to discredit the interlocutor. We all know what that's called. And ad hominem argument has no place in civil discourse.

There is nothing "emotional" about my experience. My experience is a matter of fact -- the recounting of which you can certainly choose to believe or not, since I am not in a position to provide you with medical records; most people would want some basis for not believing an otherwise credible account, of course.

There is nothing any more emotional about my position on this issue than there is about anyone else's -- and there's a damned sight less, in many cases. The "emotional" content of my position is my desire to reduce harm suffered by others, particularly others who are vulnerable and unable to protect themselves against it. I''m just an hysteric, I guess.

the two main questions surrounding this vaccine.
1. How long will immunity last?
2. What are the long term side effects?

Drat ... here I'd been thinking the main question was how much money Merck was going to make ...

1. Who cares?
2. I give up; what are they?

In civil discourse, YOU and all the other smoke-blowers have an onus. YOU have the onus of showing that there is some shred of a reason to imagine that there ARE going to be "long term side effects" -- to suggest something that would cause them, to offer a hypothesis about some mechanism by which they would be caused, to relate them to something in the vaccine.

Yes, in public policy making, the initial onus is very certainly on the proposer of a measure that will necessarily infringe on the exercise of some right or freedom. And opponents can always argue that this onus has not been met. They can argue that is not sufficient that the measure in this case -- which we will call public funding of mass immunization of a certain population against HPV, since as we all know, no one is going to be compelled to receive it -- will in virtually all probability confer protection against a potentially fatal disease, for the right of children to security of their persons (what you might call privacy down there - the right not to have substances injected into their body, good or bad), or the freedom of parents to make choices for their children, to be interfered with in this way.

Fine. That could be a matter of disagreement between reasonable people of goodwill operating from the same fundamental values, even if there is universal agreement on the efficacy and safety of the measure.

But throwing around "questions" for which there is not a shred of evidentiary basis -- no reason to think that the immunity conferred is short term, no reason to think that there are long-term negative side effects -- is pure demagoguery.

We all know, from watching Law and Order, that in a courtroom you can't just stand up and say to a witness "did you kill the victim?" without having some basis for asking the question. There is a reason for this. The mere asking of the question is enough to make listeners think that there *is* some basis for asking it. Ditto all this "how many times will a woman have to be vaccinated in her lifetime??" and "what horrible side effects might be discovered 10 years down the line??"

Imagine if someone had been permitted to ask Bill Clinton, under oath, whether he molested little boys.

Your supposed responses to my question, Would you suggest that smokers get regular chest X-rays -- or QUIT SMOKING?, are completely non-responsive. I like this one, though:

Chest x-rays are not being mandated for school aged children who don't yet smoke, thankfully.

It does suggest that you are not yet grasping (or acknowledging) the distinction between prevention and detection.

Chest X-ray = Pap smear: detection

Most reasonable people would agree that prevention is a much better idea than detection, when it comes to potentially fatal diseases. Most people of goodwill will acknowledge that simple truth rather than dance around it.

Why defend a company that claimed Vioxx was safe and effective?

I give up. Why don't you ask someone who has defended this company?

Meanwhile, why don't you stop beating your dog?

[mzmolly]

225. Another over the top emotional response. I'm not surprised.

There is nothing "civil" about this:

your emotional personal experience has no bearing on my opinion

I think the statement I made is unemotional and to the point. I don't feel that because you had a procedure to remove cancer cells, you are qualified to make statements about the vaccine. Sorry if that offends you.

the two main questions surrounding this vaccine.
1. How long will immunity last?
2. What are the long term side effects?

Drat ... here I'd been thinking the main question was how much money Merck was going to make ...

1. Who cares?
2. I give up; what are they?

I thought so. You should tone down your passionate endorsement under the circumstances?

In civil discourse, YOU and all the other smoke-blowers have an onus. YOU have the onus of showing that there is some shred of a reason to imagine that there ARE going to be "long term side effects" -- to suggest something that would cause them, to offer a hypothesis about some mechanism by which they would be caused, to relate them to something in the vaccine.

You do know that the inactive flu vaccine (for example) can cause "mild flu symptoms?" Additionally, it can take ten years for cervical cancer to develop. Also, vaccines have caused serious side effects in the past. I think these are reasons for caution, personally.

Yes, in public policy making, the initial onus is very certainly on the proposer of a measure that will necessarily infringe on the exercise of some right or freedom. And opponents can always argue that this onus has not been met. They can argue that is not sufficient that the measure in this case -- which we will call public funding of mass immunization of a certain population against HPV, since as we all know, no one is going to be compelled to receive it -- will in virtually all probability confer protection against a potentially fatal disease, for the right of children to security of their persons (what you might call privacy down there - the right not to have substances injected into their body, good or bad), or the freedom of parents to make choices for their children, to be interfered with in this way.

I disagree with you that "this will virtually in all probability confer protection..." You can't answer how long any protective effects last, and neither can the manufacturer IN ALL PROBABILITY. So, this is an assumption on your part, and I don't share it.

Fine. That could be a matter of disagreement between reasonable people of goodwill operating from the same fundamental values, even if there is universal agreement on the efficacy and safety of the measure.

Ok.

But throwing around "questions" for which there is not a shred of evidentiary basis -- no reason to think that the immunity conferred is short term, no reason to think that there are long-term negative side effects -- is pure demagoguery.

There is plenty of reason to think that immunity is short term. Other vaccines have proven that possibility.

We all know, from watching Law and Order, that in a courtroom you can't just stand up and say to a witness "did you kill the victim?" without having some basis for asking the question. There is a reason for this. The mere asking of the question is enough to make listeners think that there *is* some basis for asking it. Ditto all this "how many times will a woman have to be vaccinated in her lifetime??" and "what horrible side effects might be discovered 10 years down the line??"

I don't watch Law and Order, but what I do know is that vaccines can and have caused serious side effects, including even, death. I'd say that's "evidence" enough to question the practice of mass vaccination of young girls in this case. We could go into all sorts of odd scenarios, no?

Imagine if someone had been permitted to ask Bill Clinton, under oath, whether he molested little boys.

What an odd defense of your position. You are going in several different directions to avoid the actual questions surrounding the vaccine.

Most reasonable people would agree that prevention is a much better idea than detection, when it comes to potentially fatal diseases. Most people of goodwill will acknowledge that simple truth rather than dance around it.

Who's arguing against prevention? I'm not, I'm saying you don't have the data to say how long this vaccine will be effective. So, if you want to "prevent" cc I'd go with PROVEN methods.

Why defend a company that claimed Vioxx was safe and effective?

I give up. Why don't you ask someone who has defended this company?

I did, you.

I'll be glad to debate this with you if you can avoid changing the subject. So far you've mentioned, smoking, Bill Clinton, molesting children, law and order, beating dogs - etc. In the future, I refuse to respond to anything unrelated to the vaccine itself.

[iverglas]

250. you wanna know what "offends" me?

I don't feel that because you had a procedure to remove cancer cells, you are qualified to make statements about the vaccine. Sorry if that offends you.

I have NEVER SAID that because I had a procedure to remove pre-cancerous lesions I am qualified to make statements about the vaccine. Reading the crap invented by someone who is so unconcerned about democratic discourse that s/he is this willing and eager to "win" a debate about a public policy by simply spewing invented crap in an attempt to portray an opponent as being stupid or evil; that offends me.

I have NEVER said what you insinuate I have said; I have never said that I am qualified to make statements about the vaccine FOR ANY REASON. So why would you tell me that you don't feel that because I did "X", I am qualified? You might as well tell me that you don't feel that because the sky is blue, George Bush is qualified to be president. NO ONE SAID that the sky being blue qualifies George Bush to be president. NO ONE SAID that because I had a cone biopsy I am qualified to make statements about the vaccine. I DID NOT SAY THAT. I did not suggest it, I did not imply it -- and I do not think it.

What I am qualified to make statements about is the effect on a woman of developing a condition that is a known outcome of contracting HPV. Those are the statements I made. Those are the facts that few of the smoke-blowers around here have any interest in acknowledging, or in taking into account in assessing the costs and benefits of vaccinating, either individuals or populations. There is much yammering about death rates, and no recognition whatsoever that death is not the only adverse outcome that might be worth giving a damn about.

I think the statement I made is unemotional and to the point.

Follow the breadcrumbs. You accused ME of arguing from emotion. There is nothing civil about THAT.

"Emotional personal experience", the phrase you used to characterize the facts I had recounted, doesn't even make sense, except as an attempt to insinuate that my positions on this issue are taken without regard to facts or argument and are solely an irrational response to a personal tragedy. And in fact, as I pointed out, that makes no sense either, since mass vaccination (or not) of young girls against this virus is going to have precisely zero effect on me. Except that one of my nieces, who are soon to be in the age group in question, might not have the experience I had, or worse, when I'm still living, which would make me weepy.

You are going in several different directions to avoid the actual questions surrounding the vaccine.

Good bleeding dog. My post to which you responded was in reply to an assertion that someone would not participate in a vaccination program because a drug company will make lots of money from it. I referred to:

- ideology-driven twaddle
- ignorance of when protection is needed
- how the virus is spread (including through non-consensual sex)

Your "response" was:

- no long term studies
- cervical cancer is a blip
- not enough is known for conclusions

Not a single thread connecting your "response" to anything I said.

Every discussion of this issue I have seen at this site has been the same. Say something about the studies done, the answer is "the governor of Texas is corrupt". Say something about the treatment that must be given to someone diagnosed with dysplasia, the answer is "Vioxx". Ask a question about how the age of a vaccine recipient could possibly affect its effects on her, the answer is "hardly anybody dies of cervical cancer anymore". I've seldom seen such frantic spinning in my life.

You said: What are the long term side effects?
I said: I give up; what are they?
You say: I thought so. You should tone down your passionate endorsement under the circumstances?

(Here's some friendly advice. If you want to make a statement or give an instruction, use a period. If you want to ask a question, use the verb forms commonly used for that purpose so that your sentence actually works as a question and not an assertion.)

Here, I think you'll love this one:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068327/quotes

(on the pronunciation of "phlegm")

Brian Roberts: P H is always pronounced as F, and, uh, you don't sound the G.
Natalia Landauer: Then why are they putting the G, please?
Brian Roberts: That's, that's a very good question, but rather difficult to explain.
Sally: Try, Brian.
Brian Roberts: Well, uh, it's just there.
Natalia Landauer: So, Mr. Professor, you do not know?
Brian Roberts: No.
Natalia Landauer: Then I am sorry. I cannot help you.

If you're too young to have seen Cabaret, go rent it. We all know what demagoguery led to in 1930s Europe.

I asked you what these hypothetical long-term effects are. You are the one asserting that there may be such things. You really just don't get to try to make me answer your baseless question and then say "then I am sorry, I cannot help you".

You said: Why defend a company that claimed Vioxx was safe and effective?
I said: I give up. Why don't you ask someone who has defended this company?
You say: I did, you.

And that's where you can go play in traffic. You know as well as I did that I have done no such thing, and you are reduced to spewing falsehoods. Falsehoods that HAVE NOTHING TO DO with any issue at hand in any event -- actual false ad hominem allegations, designed for no purpose but to attempt to discredit someone whose actual facts and arguments you are plainly unable/unwilling to respond to.


So far you've mentioned, smoking, Bill Clinton, molesting children, law and order, beating dogs - etc. In the future, I refuse to respond to anything unrelated to the vaccine itself.

If you are truly unable to follow reasoning by analogy, you have missed out on an important stage of intellectual development, which generally occurs in childhood. Attempting to discuss anything with someone that obviously handicapped in the art of argument would be a frustrating, tedious affair anyhow, so you feel free to go play with someone equally unschooled in / negligent of how issues of public concern are properly discussed among reasonable people of goodwill.

[mzmolly]

259. So now we're discussing, grammar, phlegm and Cabaret? Oh and blue skies.

:eyes:

If you are truly unable to follow reasoning by analogy, you have missed out on an important stage of intellectual development, which generally occurs in childhood. Attempting to discuss anything with someone that obviously handicapped in the art of argument would be a frustrating, tedious affair anyhow, so you feel free to go play with someone equally unschooled in / negligent of how issues of public concern are properly discussed among reasonable people of goodwill.

If analogy contains reason, I haven't an issue following such a discussion. However, when an analogy does not pertain to a discussion it becomes a straw-man. Your "analogies" of blue skies, films from the 1930's, smoking, Bill Clinton, molesting children, law and order, beating dogs, spelling, grammar etc. have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC AT HAND. Yet you take issue with an apt analogy - Vioxx. The Vioxx mention is actually relative to this discussion as Merck, the maker of the vaccine in question, produced, sold, distributed vioxx as a safe and effective medicine.

However, ONCE AGAIN I'm fine discussing Gardasil, you?

The manufacturer states that protection may not be lasting and that time will tell ... yet people are assuming here that lives will be saved? Further some are chastening others who don't jump on the Gardasil bandwagon by calling people "ideology-blinded moron / ignoramus's." I would say the apparent non-questioning worship of anything with the name vaccine attached to it, is blind and moronic, personally. Would you all defend Tamaflu with the same vigor? Or is there something magical about the term "vaccine" that deems the process above scrutiny?

Here's another analogy that is apt - Rota-shield.

http://www.brown.edu/Courses/Bio_160/Projects2004/rotavirus/Rotashield.htm

You can assume that this vaccine is safe and effective and will save lives, I choose to wait for more data before I make that assumption.

Lastly, you'll have to put up with my spelling and/or grammar as the substance of what I'm saying is what is relevant.

I always know when someone is desperate in a discussion because they change the subject, and grasp at errors in spelling and grammar.

[Name removed]

263. Deleted message

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

[mzmolly]

274. Well, lets see if I can find anything worth replying to in your windy convoluted rant.

I mentioned Vioxx because Merck said it was safe and effective. Your "vaccination" vs. "drug" point is why I mentioned Rota-shield, a VACCINE that was deemed "safe/effective" which was later pulled of the market after death and serious reaction. Get it? BOTH Vioxx and Rota-shield are related to this discussion. Bill Clinton and the numerous absurd analogies you toss about are not.

If you're actually interested in LEARNING something about how drugs/vaccines are approved today, take a peek at the testimony of David J. Graham, MD. My guess is you're not and you'll continue to close your eyes when you hear the word "vaccine." However, the testimony does contain an analogy so you may enjoy it?

http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/campaignprescriptionforchange/001651.html

The big picture. The problem you are confronting today is immense in scope. Vioxx is a terrible
tragedy and a profound regulatory failure. I would argue that the FDA, as currently configured, is
incapable of protecting America against another Vioxx. We are virtually defenseless.

It is important that this Committee and the American people understand that what has happened
with Vioxx is really a symptom of something far more dangerous to the safety of the American people.
Simply put, FDA and its Center for Drug Evaluation and Research are broken. Now, I’m sure you have
read the recent proposal to have the Institute of Medicine perform a review of CDER and its drug safety
program and make recommendations for fixing things up. Don’t expect anything meaningful or effective
from this exercise. Over the history of CDER’s drug safety program, a number of similar reviews have
been done. In the late 1970’s, I believe that a blue ribbon panel recommended that there be an entirely
separate drug safety operation in FDA with full regulatory authority. It wasn’t implemented. During the
1980’s and early 1990’s, CDER organized its own “program reviews” of drug safety. The basic premise
underlying each of these reviews was that the “problem” was with the drug safety group; it didn’t fit into
the Center. So, the charge given to the review panel members was always framed as “figure out what’s
wrong with drug safety, and tell us what to do to get it to fit in.” There was and is an implicit expectation
that the status quo will remain unaltered.

The organizational structure within CDER is entirely geared towards the review and approval of
new drugs. When a CDER new drug reviewing division approves a new drug, it is also saying the drug is
“safe and effective.” When a serious safety issue arises post-marketing, their immediate reaction is
almost always one of denial, rejection and heat. They approved the drug so there can’t possibly be
anything wrong with it. The same group that approved the drug is also responsible for taking regulatory
action against it post-marketing. This is an inherent conflict of interest.

Here's another article which touches on questions surrounding the drug approval process:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10088939/site/newsweek/

The FDA is being exposed as something much less than it’s supposed to be. It’s pretty much a captive of the industry it is supposed to be regulating, and it’s a captive to the right-wing ideology of the Bush administration.

[iverglas]

275. oh my oh my oh my

People hereabouts can accuse others of saying quite a number of things they never said, thus insinuating that said other people are, oh, shills for drug companies or amazingly stupid, and characterize them as being hysterical boobs disqualified from participating in rational discussion, and the posts remain.

People who like to dish out the false characterizations of other people and choose to say nothing responsive to anything can't take the heat, I guess.

But just like facts, the arguments don't disappear when the post does. And they await response.





I always know when someone is desperate in a discussion because they change the subject, and grasp at errors in spelling and grammar.

My suggestion about your punctuation had nothing to do with grammar. It was a suggestion that if you have an allegation to make, you have the guts to make it and not try to hide behind a question mark.

However, when an analogy does not pertain to a discussion it becomes a straw-man.

Actually, no. It becomes an apple being compared to an orange. Nothing whatsoever to do with a straw-person argument.

You think that you can discredit this vaccination program, and people who support it, by saying BUT WHAT ARE THE LONG-TERM EFFECTS?? Waah!

I said that someone could have tried to discredit Bill Clinton by asking him, under oath, Have you ever molested little boys?? Ewww!

If I don't have any reason to insinuate that Bill Clinton ever molested little boys, I don't get to ask the question.

If you don't have ANY REASON TO THINK that this vaccine has long-term adverse effects ... well, you can ask the question all you like, this not being a court and there being no one here whose function it is to ensure that the rules of civil discourse are followed. But anyone with a grain of sense knows what that's about, and anyone with a shred of integrity doesn't do it.

Yet you take issue with an apt analogy - Vioxx.

Vioxx is a drug. D-R-U-G. I can find you some definitions if you like.

Gardasil is a vaccine.

A company named Merck makes them both? Ah ....... so?

Maybe you could give us a complete list of the drugs that Merck makes, and let us know which of them you are taking a life-long oath never to use.

Here's something else Merck does:
http://www.merck.com/cr/enabling_access/developing_world/mectizan

The Power of Partnerships: The Merck MECTIZAN® Donation Program

One of the most significant initiatives undertaken by Merck to help improve access to medicines in developing countries is the Merck MECTIZAN Donation Program. Established nearly 20 years ago, the MECTIZAN Donation Program is the single largest, longest standing public/private partnership of its kind and is widely regarded as one of the most successful public-private health collaborations in the world.

In 1987, Merck announced that it would donate MECTIZAN® (ivermectin), our breakthrough medicine for the treatment of onchocerciasis, to all who needed it, for as long as needed. More commonly known as "river blindness," onchocerciasis is transmitted through the bite of black flies and can cause intense itching, disfiguring dermatitis, eye lesions and, over time, blindness. The disease is one of the leading causes of preventable blindness worldwide.

... To ensure the appropriate infrastructure, distribution and support for the donation initiative, Merck established a unique, multisectoral partnership, involving the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank and UNICEF, as well as ministries of health, non-governmental development organizations and local communities. Since the program's inception, Merck has donated more than 1.4 billion tablets of MECTIZAN through the partnership, with more than 450 million treatments administered since 1987. The program currently reaches more than 60 million people in Africa, Latin America and the Middle East (Yemen) each year.

Today, the delivery system for MECTIZAN also serves as an avenue through which other health and social services have been introduced, such as vitamin A distribution, cataract identification, immunization campaigns, training programs for community health workers and census-taking.

You'd probably better warn those millions of people that they should stop taking those drugs, because Merck made 'em!!!

And you can try framing what I just said as "defending Merck" if you please, or do anything else with it that you please. I don't give a shit. A fact is a fact, and if you want to spend your life getting pissy about facts, that's your choice.

Here's another analogy that is apt - Rota-shield.

Really? "Apt", why? What are the similarities between Gardisil and that vaccine? The fact that they're both vaccines? So ... are ALL vaccines to be rejected?

The manufacturer states that protection may not be lasting and that time will tell ... yet people are assuming here that lives will be saved?

Funny thing about facts. People can type them up and post them in discussion board threads over and over and over and over, and other people can still pretend they don't exist. About the known long-term protective effect, about the APA's support of the vaccination being routine for girls ... about the earth being spheroid ... and other people can just cover their ears and go WAH-WAH in post after post after post ...

[mzmolly]

277. It's good you back up your remarks when you decide not to follow the user rules.

See my previous reply.

[mzmolly]

191. PS, I'm out for the evening.

I'll check in tomorrow for a reply. I hope we can keep a civil tone while we discuss, however? I'll do my best to do so anyhow.

Once again, peace.

[AX10]

253. I'm sick of this too!!!!!!!

Get the god damn vaccine if you want, just allow those who don't want it to not have to get it! O.K!!!

[iverglas]

256. why are you still doing this?

You, beyond a scintilla of a shadow of a doubt, KNOW that no one will be compelled to receive this vaccine under programs like the one being implemented in Texas.

YOU KNOW THIS. It is a fact, and YOU KNOW IT.

So why are you still doing this? --

allow those who don't want it to not have to get it!

-- I mean, apart from the fact that it is not up to me, the person whom you are addressing, to allow anyone to do anything or prevent anyone from doing anything.

It may be my OPINION that only an ideology-blinded moron / ignoramus would deny his/her daughter this protection, but hey, that would be just my OPINION. And y'know, I'd get to publish it here.

But YOU KNOW THAT PARENTS WILL BE PERMITTED TO OPT THEIR CHILDREN OUT, just as is apparently the case for other vaccines in US states.

Why are you replying to my posts by spewing such crap?

[mzmolly]

260. Hear hear!

:rofl:

[depakid]

179. See post #175

For an explanation of the number of cervical cancer cases, the very slight nature of any risk and the number of lives (along with money) that will be saved worldwide.

It's about as black and white as it can be. For scientists at least.

[mzmolly]

181. Bullcrap, Merck is going to make loads.

They are a profit organization.

[Lisa0825]

200. I don't care.

I don't give a shit who makes money from this. What matters is that women will be spared surgery, chemo, etc, and possibly DEATH. Geeze.. I am flabbergasted. I wish Perry hadn't made it mandatory, but had stood up against it like a good fundie so liberals would feel like they could demand the vaccine without damaging their cred! :sarcasm:

[mzmolly]

226. You have no proof women will be spared anything.

How long does the vaccine last? Call and ask Merck. See if they have an answer for you.

Also, I would say a Fundi-liberal is one who has blind faith in corporations, just as long as they make money from a vaccine.

[Bridget Burke]

233. Is the evilslutopia blog your only source? n/t

[mzmolly]

241. No.

Perhaps you can read my posts, and look for various sources I've noted. However Evilslutopia did provide HER sources, and if you take issue with the assertions please provide contrary information.

Are Merck and those who duty it is promote vaccines your only source?

[Hippo_Tron]

199. I agree with your second point, but not the first

The fact that Merck stands to make a lot of money off of a vaccine doesn't inherently mean that their intent is bad. That's just the way capitalism works.

[TZ]

210. let me put a different spin on this...

I can see both sides of the argument. As someone who currently is in the industry of vaccine developments I see the good and bad of rushing something on the market before testing is entirely comeplete. HPV is easily transmissible. More people vaccinated makes it likely that it won't continue to spread ie perhaps lowering overall cervical cancer in the general population, protecting to some extent non-vaccinated individuals. I recently had an interview with a company that has an HIV vaccine about to enter stage 3 clinical trials (large scale human testing). Should an HIV vaccine come on the market soon (within 5-10 years I am hearing possibly) and its made mandatory for pre-adolescent children would you have the same objections? In my mind when you have a infectious disease and you develop a vaccine, for the good of the general population I would actually lean toward mandatory vaccination. Thats how smallpox was wiped out.
Just curious here. As I said this is my opinion here

[Avalux]

212. I would prefer this vaccine and an HIV vaccine be 'eased' into the general population.

I worked on a very large placebo-controlled Phase III HIV vaccine trial years ago (GP160). It was given to those already infected with HIV in the hopes it would halt viral replication - 2 and a half years and millions of dollars later, we found it did the opposite. Needless to say, GP160 didn't go any further; we halted the study immediately.

For the past 20 years I have been involved in Infectious Diseases research and I've seen a trend recently towards rushing products to market before sufficient safety studies are done - that's why I have apprehension about this vaccine. I just don't think it's ready to be given to millions of young girls. We don't even know if a 9 year old will need a booster when she's 14 - there's not enough data. The fact that GSK has their own competitive vaccine about ready to go to the FDA lends credence to my belief there was a rush in this case. First company to get their product established as 'mandatory' wins.

[TZ]

214. good points

There is a high up person at NIAID who before she got her current position, rushed the anthrax vaccineinto use on military personel before safety and efficacy studies were completed. Her thought was "we will deal with health issues as they arise". That seems to be the mindset very common these days. Ironically, this woman fired someone from a department postion in malaria vaccine testing who was pushing along the vaccine work (in as safe a manner as possible) very efficiently and effectively for someone who wanted to slow it down alot. Of course profit wasn't a motive here but since lots of private funding is available maybe that's the goal there consolidation of the power base. And I used to think science and politics had no relationship...:-(

[Pithlet]

217. But is there actually any proof they rushed this?

If there is concrete evidence that they skipped vital steps to put this out on the market before it was ready, I'll amend my position. But I've seen nothing to suggest this. The arguments seem to be based on general mistrust of the process rather then actual evidence this product isn't ready for mainstream use. They stand to make a lot of money so they probably rushed it isn't enough. There has to be more than that to risk lives by withholding this from general distribution. There has to be more than that to block this life saving vaccine from being added to the list of vaccines schoolchildren already receive. I don't have time to link, but so far everything I've found has said the opposite, that this vaccine has been tested and tested again, on various age groups. It was discovered back in 1991, if I recall correctly. The APA has approved it, and I don't think they'd knowingly approve a vaccine that wasn't properly tested, and without evidence they've done so it's just more of the typical mistrust of all things medical. It seems to me that the opposition to this vaccine is just more of the typical general fear and distrust of vaccines and new medical advances. Remember Thalidomide. Big Pharma. Guinea Pigs. Mercury. Autism. Those phrases pop up whenever a new medical advance is the news, especially if it's a new vaccine, or dealing with women's health. You could make a drinking game based on those phrases. There is nothing wrong with being cautious. But rational risk/benefit analysis based on actual evidence has to apply as well when establishing public policy, or lives are needlessly lost.

[Name removed]

222. Deleted message

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

[Avalux]

224. The onus is on Merck to prove the vaccine is safe.

I never said the vaccine wasn't efficacious; I never said women shouldn't receive it; I am not going off on some conspiracy theory tangent. Out of the 10K or so in combined phase III trials who received Gardasil, about 1000 of them were girls between the ages of 9-16. When we talk about giving this vaccine to millions in that age group, I simply think we need to have more safety data, more long term data. I prefer to introduce the vaccine into the general population gradually before it is mandated.

I have worked in Infectious Diseases research for almost 20 years, so I hardly think I am one to spread fear and distrust of vaccines and medical advances. What I have seen specific to Gardasil and its competitor Cervarix (GSK) is a drive by each company to get their respective vaccines approved by the FDA and established as the "gold standard" - if Merck can get the government to deem theirs mandatory, they win the pot of gold. This fact does come in to play when conducting clinical trials unfortunately and has nothing to do with efficacy of the product.

[Pithlet]

229. I don't think that it was your intent to spread fear.

My responses are as much to do with many of the posts in this thread. I still disagree with your premise, however that the Governer is wrong in his decision to implement a policy that will get the most girls and women protected as possible. Bottom line is, if the vaccine is efficacious, has been through the process of gaining approval without skipping any steps, is approved by the APA, then there is no reason to block what the Governor of Texas is trying to achieve. Who cares if Merck wins the pot of gold if the vaccine works and saves lives? I'm sure Merck is loving the decision. I don't doubt your assertions that there was a race between Merck and the makers of Cervarix. That doesn't mean they weren't forced to adhere to the same safety standards that all other vaccines, medicines and procedures have to adhere to. I still see nothing in your arguments but speculation and mistrust, whatever your experiences and knowledge may be. That's fine if you're making the decision as an individual for yourself and your own family. But it's not enough to stop the Governor of Texas, or any other official who wants this inserted into the vaccine schedule. If the vaccine is efficacious and and has been safe after all the testing and at the time of approval, then I think it's not only fine, but the right thing to do for the Governor to get this to as many young girls and women as possible, because failure to do so will result in lives lost. There has to be more to fighting him on this than mistrust. There has to be evidence that they rushed it, and skipped steps, and didn't test sufficiently.

[mzmolly]

242. I can't thank you enough for your measured opinion.

:hi:

[mzmolly]

261. Yes. "Rapid Approval Marks Major Advancement in Public Health."

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today announced the approval of Gardasil, the first vaccine developed to prevent cervical cancer, precancerous genital lesions and genital warts due to human papillomavirus (HPV) types 6, 11, 16 and 18. The vaccine is approved for use in females 9-26 years of age. Gardasil was evaluated and approved in six months under FDA's priority review process--a process for products with potential to provide significant health benefits.

Not only was it approved quickly, but mandated as well.

[Pithlet]

279. No. That's just the approval process. I'm talking about the entire process.

From start, when the vaccine was discovered, to approval, were any steps skipped that would normally be needed for approval? Was this approved before sufficient data were collected. Some people are howling that there is insufficient data, but no one has actually pointed to any evidence that this is the case. It's mostly general posts mistrustful or downright against either the FDA, Merck, pharmaceutical companies in general, doctors, vaccines, or a combination of all of them. I want to hear something more like "Step A was skipped in testing and development in order to approve Gardasil faster". Missing that, this is a tested and approved vaccine, one that inoculates against a virus that can cause cancer, and while some may see their own mistrust as ample evidence to withhold it from themselves and their daughters, there is no reason to stop this from being distributed to as many women as possible, and as long as those who are skeptical can opt out, I really don't know what the problem is.

[mzmolly]

281. We don't generally judge the approval process from the time of discovery.

You have to do more research Pithlet: The approval process should not be given such faith.

http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/campaignprescriptionforchange/001651.html

[Pithlet]

284. However you judge it, show me where a step was skipped

or that there is insufficient data. The approval process doesn't start when testing starts. That the approval process was fast tracked isn't evidence that the vaccine isn't researched enough. I want more than gut feelings and suspicions and links that tell me nothing about what I want to know. That is a link to one doctor's opinion, and he's talking about Vioxx. I'm not asserting that medicines have never made it through the process that have gone on to cause harm. I want evidence that *this* vaccine isn't safe due to insufficient testing and data. That gets me nowhere closer to any truth, if it exists, that this vaccine wasn't researched thoroughly enough. Bringing up past medicines and vaccines that have either failed or caused dangerous side effects doesn't get me any closer to knowing if *this* vaccine is safe.

[mzmolly]

286. You've been given info that shows you the process was sped up.

Don't you care about long term effects? Also, the link I provided was not "one doctors opinion" Dr. Graham had a high level position with the FDA.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_J._Graham

David J. Graham is Associate Director of the Office of Drug Safety at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Please read the testimony.

I want evidence that *this* vaccine isn't safe due to insufficient testing and data. As others have noted, we have an FDA for a reason. If the premise was "prove it's not safe" vs. the other way around, we might as well eliminate the approval process altogether.

[Pithlet]

288. Of course I care about long term effects.

And I'm not stating it should be "prove it's not safe" It absolutely should be "prove it's safe". I just haven't been shown where it isn't safe. And I haven't been given information that the entire process was sped up. I still haven't been given any information even suggesting that the vaccine hasn't been researched thoroughly enough. I've been given nothing but yet another link on a doctor's opinion about the approval of Vioxx. Which isn't a vaccine, let alone the vaccine we're talking about. I'm fully aware of Vioxx and the problems it caused and that it was subsequently pulled off the market.

There is no way to guarantee 100% that there won't be bad long term effects. There are people who are still suspicious of medications that have been out for decades, because they aren't convinced the long term effects are safe. No drug would ever become approved. If a drug or vaccine has gone through the testing, research, development and is ultimately approved by FDA, particularly if other medical groups, like the APA, give their approval as well, then until those long term effects, or any ill effects, show themselves if they ever do, for the purposes of discussing public policy, the drug or vaccine is safe. The what ifs will never be satisfied no matter how long we wait. Given there are people who are flat out against vaccinations, there will always be many opposed. There is a vaccine that has been approved that vaccinates against a virus that kills cancer. What are we waiting for? Get women and girls protected, now. The cautious can take a wait and see approach; I have no problem with that, and no one is stopping them.

[mzmolly]

289. Vaccines have an approval process which is similar to Vioxx.

Edited to add link about one vaccine in particular:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-gordon/embarrassing-lack-of-medi_b_2305.html

Happens all the time.

And as I said the testimony was from a high ranking member of the FDA.

These statements seem contrary? And I'm not stating it should be "prove it's not safe" - I just haven't been shown where it isn't safe.

On this we agree partly:

The cautious can take a wait and see approach; I have no problem with that, and no one is stopping them.

The problem with the "no one is stopping them" remark is that once vaccines are mandated many don't realize they have a choice. And in some states, the only exemption is a religious one. Also, as others have noted the "mandate" means that the government officially becomes responsible for liability.

Peace

[Pithlet]

297. Not contrary at all. I just wasn't very clear.

It should be up to the drug/vaccine maker to prove it is safe. I just meant that if a third party is going to convince me it isn't safe because Merck and/or the FDA dropped the ball, they'll have to actually show me that it is the case.

My "no one is stopping them" means that I don't think the fact there are some people who want to wait and see should have any bearing on decisions that affect public policy, unless those people present actual evidence that it should be delayed. That is the crux of my argument. There will always be people mistrustful of this vaccine no matter what. There are all kinds of anti-vaccine groups that would never consent to this or any vaccine, and they'd have all sorts of "evidence" to back up their claims. I'm only interested in actual medical proof. If there is any approved drug or vaccine out there that is actually harmful, or wasn't sufficiently tested, it shouldn't just not be made mandatory. It should be pulled.

We're talking about a specific incident of one Governer making it "mandatory". That term is misleading anyway because people can opt out, and I haven't seen where religious grounds are a requirement for this particular vaccine. I simply have no problem with that. It's an approved vaccine. If I find that it wasn't researched properly, then I'll change my mind.

[mzmolly]

299. That's your position, and I respect it.

:hi:

[mzmolly]

262. What is your thought on the potential for this vaccine to do the opposite of what

it is designed for?

I'm curious about that.

Thanks again for your measured, educated opinion. :hi:

[iverglas]

268. it beggars belief

One vaccine, administered to people ALREADY INFECTED with a virus in the hopes that it will stop replication of the virus, fails to do so and promotes replication.

The vaccine under discussion here is, like most vaccines, meant to prevent the virus from being contracted.

You ask what the potential is for the vaccine under discussion here to do the opposite of what it is designed for. What; give women cervical cancer?

Once again: you are pretending that an apple is an orange.

Two vaccines. Meant to do two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS.

Why would the fact that one did the opposite of what it was meant to do be in any way relevant to what the other will do??

Just because one thing that is a vaccine worked backwards, anything else that is a vaccine is going to work backwards? Even when that doesn't make a stitch of sense?

(Yes, yes, some vaccines have resulted in extremely rare cases of the disease they were meant to immunize against. Know of any cases of that happening during testing of the HPV vaccine?)

You said in another post:
I would say the apparent non-questioning worship of anything with the name vaccine attached to it, is blind and moronic, personally.

Well -- physician, heal thyself!

Hahahahaha!!

[mzmolly]

276. "What; give women cervical cancer?"

Yep, that's my question. Flu vaccines can produce flu like symptoms, and other vaccines can produce "mild" like symptoms of disease. And, given that it takes between 10 and 20 years for a cervical cancer to develop after HPV infection, it's a question worth asking. I mentioned Rota-shield previously, remember? That vaccine could be said to have "worked backwards."

(Yes, yes, some vaccines have resulted in extremely rare cases of the disease they were meant to immunize against. Know of any cases of that happening during testing of the HPV vaccine?)

As I've said all along, it's too soon to tell. Remember 10 to 20 years after exposure....

[iverglas]

290. addled, just addled

Flu vaccines can produce flu like symptoms, and other vaccines can produce "mild" like symptoms of disease. And, given that it takes between 10 and 20 years for a cervical cancer to develop after HPV infection ...

You just love those great big fruit baskets, doncha?

It may take 10 or 20 years after HPV infection takes place for cancer (or dysplasia, the pre-condition that requires treatment) to develop ... but how long do you suppose it would take for HPV INFECTION TO TAKE PLACE?

Maybe, like, virtually instantaneously? A little test maybe a couple of weeks later should show it?

Got any references to HPV infection occurring as a result of vaccination against HPV?

Ya think maybe it would have happened during the testing, if it were going to happen?

You did notice that the unintended adverse effect of the "vaccine" to slow HIV replication was observed DURING A VACCINE TRIAL?

Here's another apple for your oranges:

Rotavirus vaccine is a live-virus vaccine.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=10524

Gardasil contains neither live nor dead virus; it "is made up of proteins from the outer coat of the virus (HPV). There is no infectious material in this vaccine."
http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine.htm

Live HPV virus in the genital tract can lead to cancer in the genital tract. Intramuscular injections of non-infectious particles of HPV virus are likely to lead to cancer in the genital tract ... how??


Flu vaccines can produce flu like symptoms, and other vaccines can produce "mild" like symptoms of disease.

Yes ... and it's mighty cold up here tonight; how's the weather where you're at?

(Maybe you'll get this one without realizing it, too; what I just said was NOT RELEVANT TO ANYTHING. Just the kind of thing I tend to say in response to something that is NOT RELEVANT TO ANYTHING.)

[mzmolly]

298. Actually for once you made a point.

BRAVO! ONE point.

However, you refused to address many others.

Some say that HPV has periods of dormancy, I wonder if that's factual and how that would impact any test results?

Hey, good for you staying on topic and all though! :toast:

[Avalux]

273. Maybe not do the opposite, but trigger an unexpected result.

I posted about the HIV vaccination to illustrate that sometimes, in the human body, the way things are supposed to work sometimes don't. There have been serious questions raised in the scientific community about vaccination and autoimmune disorders which at this time cannot be answered; it is theorized as possible that genetic susceptibility to disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis can be triggered by some vaccinations. In Gardasil trials, the incidence of developing an autoimmune disorder was 3:1 (Gardasil vs. placebo).

Again, my concern is that this vaccine has been fast-tracked by the FDA (for whatever reasons) and will be given to millions before we have enough safety data.

[mzmolly]

278. Goodness.

3:1?

[iverglas]

294. yes indeedy!

Three to one.


http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf
See Table 10, "Summary of Subjects Who Reported an Incident Condition Potentially Indicative of Systemic Autoimmune Disorder After Enrollment in Clinical Trials of GARDASIL"

Juvenile arthritis:
- Gardasil 1
- Placebo 0

Rheumatoid arthritis:
- Gardasil 2
- Placebo 0

Systemic lupus erythematosus:
- Gardasil 0
- Placebo 1



Yes indeedy.

3:1 = 3:1


Oh ...

GARDASIL -- N = 11,813
Placebo -- N = 9701


Anybody got their statistical significance sliderule handy?

[mzmolly]

300. Well no worries, it's possible "sufferers" can still get their hands on some Vioxx?

And, we all know that Merck is totally upfront with their study data, so we can be assured it's still "safe and effective." Either way, what's a few cases of arthritis?

"Merck Study May Have Hidden Vioxx Data"
http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/12/08/merck-vioxx-study-1208markets14.html

"Medical journal says Vioxx data withheld"
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/drugs/2005-12-08-vioxx_x.htm

[NashVegas]

213. Well, A Nihilist Might Tell You

That the world is over-populated anyway, so if a portion of women lose their fertility to Cervix cancer, what's the big deal?

I'm really torn on this one. I don't like that Merck is lobbying to have itself handed a gov't approved monopoly. OTOH, if I had a daughter in the age range for this vaccine, I wouldn't think twice about signing her up for it.

[mzmolly]

243. Or that the world is overpopulated anyhow so if we lose a few to vaccine reactions

or a false sense of security, what's the big deal? ;)

[tigereye]

239. thanks for being very reasonable, civil and fact-based SS

in the face of a variety of somewhat hysterical and rude commentaries.

:thumbsup:

[AikidoSoul]

265. Texas governor and family have direct ties to Merck $$$$$

Let's call it what it is. Compulsory medication. Medication against your will. If you investigate and you decide that this is for you, then that's fine. But, ANyone who voluntarily, and without thought, submits to this then they are no different than the cattle in the stockyard.

The Medical dictatorship - forced vaccines

Forced vaccines by decree in Texas.....how it really works in America. Notice that this means $360 per teen female in Texas for Merck....and the governor and family have direct ties to Merck, who funds the campaign.

This may go nationwide, especially with other disease threats...the profits are enormous...and who knows what is in these vaccines. Maybe Merck will make back the money they lost on killing all those people with Vioxx.
__________________________________________________________
More on this topic here;

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/02/D8N1PVG80.html


Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls
Feb 02 3:31 PM US/Eastern

By LIZ AUSTIN PETERSON
Associated Press Writer

AUSTIN (AP) -- Gov. Rick Perry ordered Friday that schoolgirls in Texas must be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer, making Texas the first state to require the shots.

The girls will have to get Merck & Co.'s new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, that are responsible for most cases of cervical cancer.

Merck is bankrolling efforts to pass laws in state legislatures across the country mandating it Gardasil vaccine for girls as young as 11 or 12. It doubled its lobbying budget in Texas and has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators around the country.

Details of the order were not immediately available, but the governor's office confirmed to The Associated Press that he was signing the order and he would comment Friday afternoon.

<<<<<<SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>

EDITED DUE TO COPYRIGHT RULES

[mzmolly]

271. Good info. I'd like to add a few bits.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/03/10/what_ails_the_fda_payola/

"Why is the nation's most important regulatory agency appeasing the pharmaceutical industry instead of protecting the public? One answer is that it is on the industry's payroll. Literally.

Since 1992, by an act of Congress, drug companies pay the FDA ''user fees," which are earmarked almost entirely for speeding up drug approvals. ...

Even worse, the 18 standing advisory committees of outside experts who help the agency decide whether drugs should be approved include paid consultants to drug companies. They are supposed to recuse themselves from decisions that directly affect the companies they work for, but that rule is regularly waived on the dubious grounds that their expertise is uniquely valuable. (Imagine judges not recusing themselves from cases in which they have a financial stake on the grounds that their expertise is invaluable!) The advisory committee that originally recommended approval of Vioxx, for example, consisted of six people, four of whom had received waivers because of their ''potential for a conflict of interest."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10088939/site/newsweek/

The FDA is being exposed as something much less than it’s supposed to be. It’s pretty much a captive of the industry it is supposed to be regulating, and it’s a captive to the right-wing ideology of the Bush administration.

How is the FDA captive to the pharmaceutical industry?

The takeover by the pharmaceutical industry they are supposed to regulate began with PDUFA. The user fees, which is a terrible term because the public—not the drug industry—should be the users of the FDA, are contingent on the industry. They provide over half of the resources of the FDA’s Drug Evaluation Center. So this part of the agency is directly dependent on the drug industry it is regulating. We’re also seeing top-down enforcement of the industry, fierce posturing of the FDA officials and this leaning on the scales to further the agenda of the religious right. We started with corporate problems and now have all kinds of ideological problems in addition.

I'm posting this to share as well as have on the record in this discussion.

Thanks. :hi:

[AikidoSoul]

282. Long list of criminal activities by Chem / Pharm and its corrupt practices

Let's please mention up front that top FDA officials regularly go to work for Big Pharma, and are rewarded handsomely for decisions made while they "regulating" Pharma's products.

I don't call it BigPharma, but rather the Chem/ Pharm industry, because every pharma company I've researched also manufactures, or has subsidiaries that manufacture, highly toxic chemicals.

Chem/Pharm is extremely powerful -- and regularly destroys the reputations of scientists, doctors and researchers who attempt to bring chemical injury into the forefront of public discussion.

This industry has been extremely aggressive in corrupting science and the medical profession in general, so that at this point it is seen by many as a criminal enterprise.

See a long list of titles below that are a partial listing of the documentation of corruption in this industry -- with tentacles in every area of science, politics and medicine.

The links here are partial because I don't have time to click on each one and post the URL separately (mine are all hyperlinks). The titles of the articles and reports are highly searchable by title and can be found in major medical / science journals, the Wall St. Journal, Alliance for Human Research Protection, The Lancet, and others:


Conflict of Interest: Profits vs Safety Congressional Investigations -- http://www.ahrp.org/ethical/CongInvestigation.php

US Senators Pharmaceutical industry holdings, 2004: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/SenPharma.pdf


Oct 12: How Did the Vioxx Debacle Happen? USA Today / Lancet -- http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/10/12.php

Oct 4: Op Ed: Psychiatry on the Ropes--WP / Evidence-based Psychiatry -- http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/10/04.php

Oct 3: BBC PANORAMA TONIGHT - Taken on Trust - 13 years-Medical Deception -- http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/10/03.php

Sep 30: GSK Sales Reps told NOT to Divulge Paxil Data / Merck Withdraws Vioxx -- http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/09/30.php

Sep 28: SEC Focusing on Drug Makers Disclosure_ Continuing Medical Ed Changes

Sep 16: Black Box Warnings for Antidepressants - What's Next?

Sep 16: Tell the Truth About Antidepressants On Drug Labels & in Medical Journals

Sep 14: AHRP Press Briefing Re: Antidepressant Drug Risks

Sep 8: FDA Forced Wyeth to REMOVE Suicide Warning from Effexor Label

Sep 2: Antipsychotic Drug Use Doubled since 1996 in Tennessee Children - Why?

Aug 13: Time for a Drug Test Registry_Marcia Angell_Why NIH is Not Up to the Task

Aug 13: Bradshaw cancels appearance after SSRI-Citizen Press Release Announced Protest

Aug 5: Spitzer Expands drug Probe: Johnson & Johnson / New FDA analysis Confirms SSRI Risks to Kids - WSJ

Aug 4: FDA Approves Lilly's Cymbalta for Depression Despite Risk of Suicide

Aug 3: Drug safety Hearings-Sept-Congress/ FDA - Lilly Plans to Disclose Data

Jul 27: Bill Moyers: the Real Show...Congressional hearing was abruptly cancelled

Jul 26: Mosholder Suppressed Report Posted/ Bush Moves to Block Medical Suits - NYT

Jul 22: Concealed Drug Trial Results Mislead Doctors & Put Children's Lives at Risk - NYT

Jul 21: Cong Greenwood's version

Jul 21: Hearing on Antidepressants Canceled - Washington Post

Jul 20: Corruption of Cong by Pharma: Greenwood offered job / drops Pharma hearing

Jul 19: Clinical Trials Controversy Spotlights Flawed System - Psychiatric News

Jul 14: Statin-Cholesterol Guidelines--Industry influenced?

Jul 9: FDA Squelches an Article Raising Doubts on Safety Of Device to Repair Artery - WSJ

Jul 9: Paxil for Children: Safety, Efficacy Aren't Established - Letter WSJ

July 7: Pharma Influence: Penn Psychiatrist Files Whistleblower Lawsuit - Investigtion Confirms Medicare Chief Lied to Congress

Jul 6: FDA Failed to Enforce Law Requiring Drugmakers to Disclose Test Data - WashPost

June 30,2004: NYS AG Expands Pharmaceutical probe - Forest Labs

June 30, 2004: Response to Washington Post Editorial "Missing Drug Data"

Jun 28. 2004: Scientists Decode Secret of Getting NIH Grants - WSJ

Jun 27, 04: NIH Under Fire: Longtime Favorite of Congress - Wash Post / WSJ

Jun 26: Forest Labs Admits Concealment of data - Congressional Probe Expands

Jun 23: AHRP: Published NIMH Funded Prozac Trial Report Concealed Suicide Attempts by Teens

Jun 21: Antidepressants - USA Today Editorial / AHRP OpEd/ WSJ Editorial Bashes Spitzer

Jun 20: HMO physician applauds Spitzer's focus on information bias / NYT blind spot

Jun 7: Paxil induced suicides in US quantified - Glaxo Faces criminal action in UK over "suicide"
pills - Times

Jun 6, 2004: NY Times Editorial Gets it Right: When Drug Companies Hide Data

Jun 5: "Black Hole" of medical research--Negative Results Don't get Published - JAMA, WSJ

Jun 2, 2004: NYS Attorney General files suit against GlaxoSmithKline

Jun 2: NY Times Does it Again - Drug Advertisers Get Front Page Coverage to Boost SSRI Market

May 25, 2004: FDA role in suppressing damaging data - WSJ

May 24, 2004: More than 100 top regulatory officials represented industry as lobbyists, lawyers - Denver Post

May 18, 2004: Lawmakers accused leaders of the NIH of encouraging "the option of corruption."

May 17, 2004: Paxil Sales Plummet in UK (372K PDF)

May 16: Pfizer Admits Guilt in Promotion of Neurontin--Agrees to Pay $430 Million

May 7, 2004: NIH Panel Recommendations Fail to Resolve Conflicts of Interest

May 6, 2004: Interview with Shannon Brownlee (NPR)

Apr 13: Doctors Without Borders: Why you can't trust medical journals anymore

Mar 25: Antidepressant Controversy: Media Conflicts of Interest - New York Times

Mar 2, 2004: Ethics Policy Announced for NIH Officials - LAT

Jan 29, 2004: Antidepressant Makers Withhold Data on Children - Washington Post

Jan 25, 2004: ACNP Summary Report Criticized as "Junk Science"

Jan 21: ACNP - a pharmaceutical industry funded association of psychiatrists - claims SSRI Antidepressants don't increase suicidal behavior

Jan 7, 2004: FDA Sham Conflicts of Interest Policy

Dec 7, 2003: Stealth Merger: Drug Companies and Medical Research at NIH - LAT

Aug 15, 2003: Almost 1/2 of faculty on IRBs have ties to industry - Harvard Partners

Aug 3, 2003: Psychiatrist's Undisclosed Financial Ties Prompt Reproval - NYT

June 20, 2003: Time to put drug giants on trial - Scotsman (UK)

April 5, 2003: AHRP Comments: DHHS COI Guidance for Human Subject Protection

March 30, 2003: CNN: Drug Argument Embroils Psychiatrists, Pharma Companies

March 19, 2003: Conflicts of Interest Taint UK Gov panel investigating SSRI

November 22, 2002: Tonight PBS Is Science for Sale?

September 30: Ritalin Outrage: Congress_ Big Media Under the Influence of Big Drugs

August 25, 2002: Integrity in Scientific Research : Peer review ineffective - Institute of Medicine / Lancet / Science

August 1, 2002: Randomized Controlled Trials: Evidence Biased Psychiatry, an original article by David Healy MD, MRCPsych in which he challenges the scientific assumptions about the value of evidence obtained from randomized controlled clinical trials.
July 15, 2002: The Emperor's New Drugs: An Analysis of Antidepressant Medication Data Submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. By Irving Kirsch, Thomas J. Moore, and Alan Scoboria and Sarah S. Nicholls.

A meta-analysis of efficacy data submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval of the six most widely prescribed antidepressants approved between 1987 and 1999. They report that, although the difference in drug versus placebo response was statistically significant, approximately 80% of the medication response was duplicated in the placebo control. The accompanying expert commentaries reflect the broad range of reactions that such findings provoke. http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5/pre0050023a.html

Response to the commentaries Antidepressants and Placebos: Secrets, Revelations, and Unanswered Questions http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5/pre0050033r.html

July 15, 2002: Short Drug Tests, Fatal Flaws. Thomas J. Moore. Op Ed. Boston Globe

July 14, 2002: Corporate influence on medicine, budgets & investors

June 13, 2002: When Money Corrupts Medicine - Deaths Occur

June 13, 2002: In 1984 the NEJ M became the first of the major medical journals to require authors of original research articles to disclose any financial ties with companies that make products discussed in papers. In accordance with the NEJM policy, editorial reviewers could have no financial ties to the companies. In 2002, Dr. Jeffrey Drazen, the journal's new editor, abandoned the Journal's policy of containing conflicts of interest, claiming "it is becoming tough to find doctors to write such articles." The change, Drazen wrote in the June 13, 2002 issue of the Journal, is designed "to enhance the depth and breadth of the journal's content while ensuring that the articles we publish are not influenced by financial interests.'' The Boston Herald indicated that Drazen claimed: "We're strengthening the journal.'' But Dr. Jerome Kassirer, former editor of the NEJM, blasted the new policy.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_regional/nejm06132002.htm

June 8, 2002: Fraudulent Conduct that Takes Lives: Why Criminal Prosecution of Medical Researchers with Financial Conflicts, Who Fabricate Safety Data, has Become an Essential Component of Regaining the Integrity of Device and Drug Research in the United States
By James J. Neal, Copyright 2002

"Giant corporations are locked in a life and death struggle to provide one of a kind instrumentation with which a given operation 'must' be done." Editor, Michael Baggish M.D., Journal of Gynecologic Surgery.

"Rare is the disinterested researcher. It is a phenomenon found in every medical treatment using devices." "If you can't trust the studies, what happens to the profession and what happens to patients." John Wasson, M.D., Dartmouth, New York Times.

"We've lost our way. We've terribly, terribly lost our way. Science has been lost in the rush for money." Steven Nissen, M.D., Cleveland Clinic, New York Times.

"Organs punctured include bile ducts, bowel, small intestine, liver and arteries and veins. Data shows high morbidity." Pennsylvania Medical Society, comments on "hi tech" surgical devices.

Summary: In recent years, surgical instrument companies working through surgeons with concealed equity interests in devices, have created new procedures, to promote the sale of equipment. Corporations have created demand for new surgical procedures "through massive advertising campaigns to convince the public of necessity." Rutkow, IRA,

The Socioeconomic Tyranny of Surgical Technology. Archives of Surgery. Leading surgical researchers, with equity interests have fabricated surgical research to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of new procedures with device costs of $2,000-$5,000 per operation. One sales rep described his companies' philosophy as "dollars per procedure." Although the device industry has generated tens of billions of dollars in revenue using these tactics, serious surgical morbidity from many new device dependent operations has multiplied. Treating MD's and patients need law enforcement's assistance in deterring fabricated research data published by research surgeons with concealed equity interests in expensive medical devices, and new drugs. The question raised in this analysis is whether fraudulent medical research is taking lives, and if so, how many. For complete article go to:
http://www.redflagsweekly.com/new_frontiers/2002_june08.htm

June 5, 2002: APA Under the Influence of PhaRma

June 13, 2002: Vermont to Require Drug Makers to Disclose Payments to Doctors
By MELODY PETERSEN The New York Times. Vermont follows Minnesota in its efforts to contain the cost of medicine by requiring public disclosure of conflicts of interest. A law will require drug companies to disclose the gifts and cash payments they make to doctors. We have not heard of similar moves by states that have major medical centers such as: New York, Massachusetts, Maryland or California.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/13/business/13DRUG.htm

May 30, 2002: Bitter Medicine: Pills, Profit & the Public Health - ABC News

May 23, 2002: FDA -Conflicts of Interest to be expanded - Washington Post

May 21, 2002: Bitter Pill for David Healy: academia under pharma influence

May 6, 2002: "Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Trials", a presentation by Vera Hassner Sharav before the U.S. Army Medical Department and Henry M. Jackson Foundation for Advancement of Military Medicine on Conflicts of Interest in Medical Research.

September 24, 2001: The American Prospect.
Pharma Buys a Conscience By Carl Elliott, MD, PhD

The issue of corporate money has become something of an embarrassment within the bioethics community. Bioethicists have written for years about conflicts of interest in scientific research or patient care yet have paid little attention to the ones that might compromise bioethics itself. Arthur Caplan, the director of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics, counsels doctors against accepting gifts from the drug industry. "The more you yield to economics," Caplan said last January, "the more you're falling to a business model that undercuts arguments for professionalism." Yet Caplan himself consults for the drug and biotech industries, recently coauthored an article with scientists for Advanced Cell Technology, and heads a bioethics center supported by Monsanto, de Code Genetics, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Geron Corporation, Pfizer, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Human Genome Sciences, and the Schering-Plough Corporation.

By no means does Caplan's center stand alone in its coziness with industry. The University of Toronto houses the Sun Life Chair in Bioethics; the Stanford University Center for Biomedical Ethics has a program in genetics funded by a $1-million gift from SmithKline Beecham Corporation; the Merck Company Foundation has financed a string of international ethics centers in cities from Ankara, Turkey, to Pretoria, South Africa. Last year the Midwest Bioethics Center announced a new $587,870 initiative funded by the Aventis Pharmaceuticals Foundation. That endeavor is titled, apparently without irony, the Research Integrity Project.

Bioethics appears set to borrow a funding model popular in the realm of business ethics. This model embraces partnership and collaboration with corporate sponsors as long as outright conflicts of interest can be managed. It is the model that allows the nonprofit Ethics Resource Center in Washington, D.C., to sponsor ethics and leadership programs funded by such weapons manufacturers as General Dynamics, United Technologies Corporation, and Raytheon. It also permits the former president of Princeton University, Harold Shapiro, to draw an annual director's salary from Dow Chemical Company while serving as chair of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Dow, of course, has been the defendant in a highly publicized lawsuit over the Dow Corning silicone breast implants as well as in numerous legal actions involving disposal of hazardous waste.

Part of the problem is aesthetic. It is unseemly for ethicists to share in the profits of arms dealers, industrial polluters, or multinationals that exploit the developing world. But credibility also is an issue. How can bioethicists continue to be taken seriously if they are on the payroll of the very corporations whose practices they are expected to assess?

Read complete article (free): http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/17/elliott-c.html

May 18, 2000. The New England Journal of Medicine. Is Academic Medicine for Sale?

By Marcia Angell, MD - Vol. 342, No. 20

Finding an editorialist to write about the article presented another problem. Our conflict-of-interest policy for editorialists, established in 1990, ( ) is stricter than that for authors of original research papers. Since editorialists do not provide data, but instead selectively review the literature and offer their judgments, we require that they have no important financial ties to companies that make products related to the issues they discuss. We do not believe disclosure is enough to deal with the problem of possible bias. This policy is analogous to the requirement that judges recuse themselves from hearing cases if they have financial ties to a litigant. Just as a judge's disclosure would not be sufficiently reassuring to the other side in a court case, so we believe that a policy of caveat emptor is not enough for readers who depend on the opinion of editorialists.

In this editorial, Angell discusses the extent to which academic medicine has become intertwined with the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, and the benefits and risks of this state of affairs. Bodenheimer, in his Health Policy Report elsewhere in this issue of the Journal, provides a detailed view of an overlapping issue -- the relations between clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry.

The ties between clinical researchers and industry include not only grant support, but also a host of other financial arrangements. Researchers serve as consultants to companies whose products they are studying, join advisory boards and speakers' bureaus, enter into patent and royalty arrangements, agree to be the listed authors of articles ghostwritten by interested companies, promote drugs and devices at company-sponsored symposiums, and allow themselves to be plied with expensive gifts and trips to luxurious settings. Many also have equity interest in the companies.

Read complete article (for pay) : http://www.nejm.org/content/2000/0342/0020/1539.asp

May 18, 2000. The New England Journal of Medicine.
"Uneasy Alliance -- Clinical Investigators and the Pharmaceutical Industry"
By Thomas Bodenheimer, MD, MPH. Vol. 342, No. 20

How much influence does industry have over the work and products of the research community? Can practicing physicians trust the information they receive about the medications they are prescribing? Does the shift from the academic to the commercial research sector give industry too much control over clinical drug trials?

In this report, I discuss some of the problems raised by pharmaceutical-industry funding of drug trials, problems that may deepen as trials are increasingly conducted by commercial organizations. I interviewed 39 participants in the process: 6 pharmaceutical executives, 12 clinical investigators, 9 people from university research offices, 2 physicians with CROs, 8 people who have studied the process of clinical drug trials, and 2 professional medical writers. Each interview consisted of standard questions plus an opportunity for the interviewees to discuss the industry-investigator relationship in a general way. Several interviewees preferred not to allow the use of their names in the article.
Read complete article (for pay): http://www.nejm.org/content/2000/0342/0020/1539.asp

May 22, 1999: This smashing NY Times editorial (below) should awaken the public and its elected policy makers to the need for reform our Federal human subject protection regulations so that patients don't become unwitting commodities.

THE NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL May 22, 1999 Patients for Hire, Doctors for Sale
People go to doctors because they assume the doctor will tell them what they need to do to stay healthy or get well. But in articles published in The Times on Sunday and Monday, the reporters Kurt Eichenwald and Gina Kolata have opened the door on a practice of medicine that few of us knew existed - a warped world in which patients have become commodities, lured into research projects for the profit of their doctors.

In pushing to create a supermarket of new pills, the pharmaceutical industry has created a frantic competition for patients on whom new drugs must be tested before they can be approved. A bounty system has evolved in which doctors are paid by drug companies to enroll research subjects with certain kinds of problems: $1,200 from Bayer for a patient with vaginitis; $2,955 from Merck for one with hypertension; $4,410 from SmithKline Beecham for a willing diabetic.

The devil's bargain is that the doctor knows that enrolling the patient is worth money, but the patient does not. It is a recruiting system with the potential to corrupt either the drug companies, because they are forced to outbid each other for patients, or the doctors, because they are tempted to enroll patients who may not be medically appropriate.

The articles reveal a whole research universe slipping out of control. A review by The Times of more than 300 recent drug studies, and more than 200,000 government research request files, found hundreds of thousands of patients involved and indications that some doctors make $500,000 to $1 million a year in recruitment bounties.

One Southern California doctor now in prison forged his patients' medical records and test results on a massive scale to boost his income.

In the past, most clinical trials of drugs were conducted by doctors at medical research institutions. But that system proved too slow at recruiting patients, so the drug companies and their contractors turned to doctors in private practice, tripling their number since 1990.
Meanwhile, the monitoring systems to protect patient welfare, already under fire for past performance, have shown no interest in the ethical conflict of doctors being paid to recruit their own patients.

Dr. Nancy Dickey, president of the American Medical Association, says that the bounty system is unethical by A.M.A. standards and that the organization will work with Federal regulators to try to end the practice.

They need to act expeditiously. The patient search has now begun to tap the poor populations of South America, threatening to corrupt the practice of medicine even more widely. © The New York Times

[mzmolly]

302. Wow!

Thanks for all the info. Glad I bookmarked this thread. :hi:

[pinto]

293. FYI. re: copyright guidelines.

"Copyrights: Do not copy-and-paste entire articles onto this discussion forum. When referencing copyrighted work, post a short excerpt (not exceeding 4 paragraphs) with a link back to the original."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

[AikidoSoul]

303. In all due respect that was not copyrighted.

It was a compilation of separate items and links.

[AikidoSoul]

304. Ooops! I see your point. You were discussing another article

and thanks for the heads up.

I'm trying to stay out of trouble here, but thus far have managed a few boo boos.

[pinto]

308. Your welcome. No biggie.

[mzmolly]

266. Adding to the record in this discussion - Mercks political contributions:

http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/Raymond_Gilmartin.php

And big pharma also gives HEAVILLY to R's.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=H04

In election 2006 Merck gave 79% of total contributions to Republicans and 21% to Democrats.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=H04

I'm adding a few more topics as well, and bookmarking this thread for reference.

[iverglas]

270. no answer to this one?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=130276&mesg_id=141993

http://www.merck.com/cr/enabling_access/developing_world/mectizan

The Power of Partnerships: The Merck MECTIZAN® Donation Program

One of the most significant initiatives undertaken by Merck to help improve access to medicines in developing countries is the Merck MECTIZAN Donation Program. Established nearly 20 years ago, the MECTIZAN Donation Program is the single largest, longest standing public/private partnership of its kind and is widely regarded as one of the most successful public-private health collaborations in the world.

In 1987, Merck announced that it would donate MECTIZAN® (ivermectin), our breakthrough medicine for the treatment of onchocerciasis, to all who needed it, for as long as needed. More commonly known as "river blindness," onchocerciasis is transmitted through the bite of black flies and can cause intense itching, disfiguring dermatitis, eye lesions and, over time, blindness. The disease is one of the leading causes of preventable blindness worldwide.

... To ensure the appropriate infrastructure, distribution and support for the donation initiative, Merck established a unique, multisectoral partnership, involving the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank and UNICEF, as well as ministries of health, non-governmental development organizations and local communities. Since the program's inception, Merck has donated more than 1.4 billion tablets of MECTIZAN through the partnership, with more than 450 million treatments administered since 1987. The program currently reaches more than 60 million people in Africa, Latin America and the Middle East (Yemen) each year.

Today, the delivery system for MECTIZAN also serves as an avenue through which other health and social services have been introduced, such as vitamin A distribution, cataract identification, immunization campaigns, training programs for community health workers and census-taking.

?

[mzmolly]

280. Wow, that must mean that Gardsil is safe and effective and that Merck is ever

to be trusted?! On second thought, it's called PR. It didn't merit a reply the first time, but since you insist.

As I've said I don't think in black/white terms. Merck is a company with varied goals. The primary goal is to make money. This is done via the sales and production of drugs and vaccines.

[iverglas]

283. hahahahahaha!

Damn, I've got work I should be doing, but this is so much more fun!

Wow, that must mean that Gardsil is safe and effective and that Merck is ever to be trusted?!

Exactly! Absolutely!!!

Just the way that Gardasil is no good because Vioxx caused problems, and products made by Merck should be withheld from one's children because Merck is a big bad corporation!

Nice to see you get it occasionally.

Even if you don't know you did ...


Merck is a company with varied goals. The primary goal is to make money. This is done via the sales and production of drugs and vaccines.

Hmm. The primary goal of the two stores I bought groceries at this afternoon is to make money, via the sale of food. I think it's time I seriously reconsidered this "eating" concept.

Fortunately, I bank at a credit union, so I don't have to worry about whose pocket I might be lining when I cash my cheques and have to start thinking about alternative ways of paying for the groceries ...

[Avalux]

285. I have a request.

I respect your opinion on this subject and I'm enjoying the debate occurring in this thread. However, I do believe the debate can be carried on without snide remarks - thanks. And, I would appreciate it if you would read this article from the Lancet and then come back here with your take on it. Please pay particular attention to the section on new generation vaccines towards the end.

http://image.thelancet.com/extras/02art9340web.pdf

[iverglas]

291. I don't actually give a damn

If you want to object to anyone's remarks, I suggest that you apply your standards wherever they are applicable. There are quite a lot of posts in this thread just crying out for your comment. I wouldn't want to hog your attention. Particularly since I haven't spoken to you and didn't invite it.

Now, perhaps I could draw your attention to the fact that this discussion is not about "new generation vaccines", it is about GARDASIL.

Anyone who wants to object to vaccines in general, or new generation vaccines, or vaccines made by Merck, or anything else his/her little heart desires, is quite welcome to do so. If s/he wants to be seen as participating in this particular discussion, s/he might want to actually do so.

[Avalux]

292. I started this discussion, I am well aware what it's about.

And I regret I wasted a post replying to you.

[iverglas]

295. Aww

Maybe if we all close our eyes and click our heels together, we can get your wasted post deleted.


I responded to the post with which you started the thread. Sure did take you a long time to get around to wasting a post on me ...

[AikidoSoul]

301. I don't trust anything Chem/Pharm says. Iatrogenic deaths are extremely high in this country

with over 125,000 persons dying from prescription drugs alone -- while in hospital. That is widely believed to be under-reported, although several "mainstrem" medical societies like to publish lower numbers. There are no figures for those who die from drugs while not in hospital. Add to that the aggressive and well-financed denials from the chem/pharm industry for damage caused by many of its products.

The Review entitled, "Vaccination and autoimmune disease: what is the evidence?" mentions as if in passing, the fact that "environment" plays a role in autoimmune disease, but it only emphasizes infection, and does not even mention toxic chemicals.

They don't mention that toxicant triggers for autoimmune diseases are researched by others. More specifically by those who do not have direct links to chem/pharm industry.

If you note the Conflict of interest statement at the end of the article you will note the authors are connected to the chem/ pharm industry:

M Goldman has served as a consultant for Aventis-Pasteur, BruCells,

Glaxo SmithKline, and OM-Pharma. P-H Lambert has served as a

consultant for Aventis-Pasteur, Chiron, Glaxo SmithKline, and

OM-Pharma. D Wraith is a director of Apitope Technology (Bristol), and

has served as consultant for Glaxo SmithKline, Peptide Therapeutics, and

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries.

*******************

There was brief mention in the review of "adjuvants" in vaccines, but no mention of the fact that many of them are implicated in chronic illnesses. If one does a thorough search of the med/ sci and legal literature -- you will see that this industry plays an aggressive role in suppressing information about how its vaccines, including its preservatives and "adjuvants" -- are judged. Many drugs contain toxic chemicals and adjuvants. Woe to those who declare them unsafe, and/or highly suspect. Those who do so are usually researchers outside the industry, who then find their careers on the short end.

[Justitia]

307. Just curious: Are you against ALL drugs? Or just certain ones?

I'm getting the feeling from your posts that you are not in favor of western medicine in general. Is that correct?

[AikidoSoul]

309. I am not against all drugs. What I'm against is an industry that has become a criminal

enterprise... one that has injured millions of people -- and profits from those injuries, while it aggressively suppresses information about the damage it is causing.

I try not to ever take any drugs --except an occasional aspirin -- becaue I don't want to give one cent to these bastards.

[mzmolly]

287. I never claimed Gardasil was "no good." I said there wasn't sufficient data

to claim that it's safe and effective "in the long term."

As for work you should be doing. I hear ya! I have my husband hanging with my kiddo so I can have "fun." I'm also enjoying a nice glass of Cabernet while I'm at it.



The primary goal of the two stores I bought groceries at this afternoon is to make money, via the sale of food. I think it's time I seriously reconsidered this "eating" concept.

No need! I think food is proven safe for the most part? Then again, if you know of a store that refused to pull E.coli contaminated spinach and/or salmonella laced eggs, do avoid shopping there in the future.

[NotGivingUp]

311. some people just don't want to know the truth....meaning iverglas

they have their hands over their eyes and ears and no matter how many facts you provide, they won't even give them a 2nd thought.

[iverglas]

313. the truth is out there ...

Where are they when you need them?

[RB TexLa]

296. Another for the long list of things we childfree never have to worry about.

[AikidoSoul]

305. But we do have to worry about a nation of children who are being

poisoned by drugs and chemicals. The number of kids with learning disabilities alone in this country is huge. We're all paying for that -- whether it's my kids, or somebody elses.

Our country is going down the tubes from the ever increasing growth of corporate government. Now we are viewed as "consumers" instead of citizens. It's as if we're "marks" in a carnival -- to be fleeced.

Probably you didn't want to get all that serious about that:-) though. You probably meant the remark as comic relief.

[RB TexLa]

306. no comedy, it's something I never have to worry about

and that's nice.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

312. does this vaccine target HPVs that cause other cancers eg mouth, larynx etc

[valerief]

314. Shouldn't boys take the vaccine, too, if they're also HPV carriers? nt

[hlthe2b]

316. Merck is completing efficacy trials in Male adolescents NOW

It DOES protect against HPV 6 and 11 in males as well as preventing their spread of HPV 16 and 18 to females. The first two strains cause genital warts and are also associated with penile and other urogenital cancer in MALES.

SO, yes, eventually, you can expect the recommendations to be extended to BOYS. It is unfortunate that these studies were not complete, so that girls were singled out, leading to the RW fundies manipulation of the situation...

[valerief]

317. Thanks for the info. The most bizarre aspect of the Texas decision was the genderization

of the vaccine. The medical pros and cons of the vaccine s/b debated, not the social behavior ones.