Sounds like Gov. Perry is in Merck's pocket.  Let's not forget Cintra-Zachry...

  Anyway...

  What's sinister about this is that Merck is, for example, pushing Gardasil on the public before having any long term data on efficacy or side effects...

  If this vaccine ever gets put on the government mandated vaccination schedule for children, Merck could be relatively immune from lawsuits...

  For the time being, I don't like it, but I have to read more on it...

By the way, Cervarix could get FDA approval before 2008. If it does, I can't see how Perry can mandate girls only having the "choice" of Gardasil.

This vaccine is not a one-time deal. At $360 a pop, it is already the most expensive vaccine ever. It also does not cover every type of HPV.

$360 every 5 years from millions of women (or, in this case, the taxpayers)? Maybe I should buy stock in Merck...

My main concern is the direction we are headed when things like this Texas "executive order" go unchallenged or worse, are accepted. It leads down a path where eventually, anything the state deems good for you will become the order of the day, and damn your rights.

Freely available is a great thing, requirements are not. That all said, if I had a daughter in the age group, I'd probably get her to get the vaccine.


That is less often then people are told to take the Flu vacceine.  It is suggested that that one be taken every year.

So what happens if somebody invents an AIDS vacceine next year?  Myself, I would be one of the first to endorse everybody getting a shot (once it has been tested).

If there is one thing I am in favor of, it is protecting the "general welfare" of the population.  Anything like a shot that prevents illness and death, I am in favor of.  And you will always have people who oppose things like this.  However, mostly it is people like "Religious Conservatives" who do the protesting, since they claim that such a vacceine will only inspire more children to have sex.

As for the cost, this is easily explained by "Cost of Scale" figures.  At the moment, the HPV vacceine is rather expensive, because not many take advantage of it.  It is produced in fiarly small batches, and like any vacceine, it has a short shelf life.  As more people get it, production will ramp up, and this will reduce the cost.  When the Flu Vacceine first came out, I remember it was in the $300-400 range.  Now it is commonplace, and doses are normally in the $30-40 range (with many clinics giving it away for free).

I don't want cancer.  So, when I can, I'm getting the vaccine.  Why can't more people see it that way?

I oppose this not only because it is mandatory, but because I feel the accompanying information regarding STDs, pregnancy, etc. (IOW: sex ed) is not going to be taught to these young girls. The state of Texas, by mandating this particular vaccine, has also taken upon itself the burden to teach children the reasons why they need this vaccine. That is not going to happen, for the reason you gave:


However, mostly it is people like "Religious Conservatives" who do the protesting, since they claim that such a vacceine will only inspire more children to have sex.



I'm all for sex ed. Information is power. It's sad to see 13 year old girls who are about to become mothers, 14 years old with herpes, 15 year olds with HIV, etc.

IMHO, you can't really equate this vaccine to other mandatory ones. Flu shots are a good idea: so is covering your mouth when you cough and washing your hands. Schools teach this freely, and no one objects: I suspect that's because such precautions falls under "common sense". Schools, or health clinics where one gets the shots, are not going to freely teach sex ed, and therefore Perry has no business mandating that all 11-12 year old girls get an anti-cancer vaccine, a cancer that is linked to STDs.


So what happens if somebody invents an AIDS vacceine next year?  Myself, I would be one of the first to endorse everybody getting a shot (once it has been tested).


Endorsing is the not the same thing as requiring. I'd endorse it too, but I wouldn't require that everyone get it.

So far, aside from contraindications, and despite the short and possibly incomplete studies, I can't see a legitimate medical reason for girls to not get the vaccine. It shows great promise, and, like you said, costs are likely to come down substantially in the future. But, like your hypothetical AIDS vaccine, if the recipient is only given the information "Now you can't get AIDS", that person is perhaps more likely to get other STDs.

I also have a problem with him mandating by name Merck's product (which reeks of impropriety), when there is no *real* rush to meet a 2008 deadline: HPV is not an epidemic right now (it also isn't contagious in the way that rubella, mumps and measles are, which is why I don't object to those vaccines as a requirement for children to attend school) I feel he has done so because he has a financial stake in Merck's product. Again, Cervavix, and perhaps other HPV vaccines, will get FDA approval before 2008.

The figures show that an estimated 3700 women in America will die this year due to cervical cancer caused by HPV. They also show that roughly 100 times that many people (men and women) will die of lung cancer that is directly related to smoking. If Perry is so interested in saving lives and the public good, then why not use a similar executive order to ban tobacco products in Texas?

Cervical cancer is the second-most diagnosed cancer in women worldwide.  Most scientific studies have found that HPV infection is responsible for more than 90% of the cases of cervical cancer.

I don't want cancer.  So, when I can, I'm getting the vaccine.  Why can't more people see it that way?
i don't mean to make presumptions, but... i think you have to be a virgin for it to work? :-X

i don't mean to make presumptions, but... i think you have to be a virgin for it to work? :-X


No, you just have to be free of the virus, which they may or may not be. 

I believe vaccines, up to this, have been given for communicable diseases.  Since this is not communicable I think it should be a choice as opposed to mandatory.

No, you just have to be free of the virus, which they may or may not be. 

I believe vaccines, up to this, have been given for communicable diseases.  Since this is not communicable I think it should be a choice as opposed to mandatory.


Uhhh, this is a communicable disease.  The definition of a communicable disease is:

An infectious disease that is capable of being transmitted from one person or species to another.

There is no requirement that it have any specific form of transmission.  AIDS is most commonly passed by sexual contact, and it is definately considered to be a communicable disease.  And PHV certainly fits that description.  As does AIDS, Herpes, Hepatitus, Measels, and Ebola.

And there have been some studies done to test the ability of the vacceine to aleviate some of the effects in people who are already infected.  This is a new area of viral research, and has been getting increased attention.  Similar studies with HIV and Ebola have had mixed results.


i don't mean to make presumptions, but... i think you have to be a virgin for it to work? :-X


That is not even a guarantee.  People contract HPV from other forms of sexual contact.  Just as a "virgin" can get Herpes.  And it is possible that babies can even be born with the disease (such as babies born with HIV).  I have not been able to find any research about wether or not HPV is able to cross the placental barrier.

Uhhh, this is a communicable disease. 

Communicable, yes. Infectious, yes. Contagious, which is the word I believe Danoota&Me was looking for, no.

You don't get HIV or cancer simply by being around someone that has it. You can get rubella, mumps, measles, etc. by being around an infected person, which is why schools (at least here) require immunizations for those.

Let's suppose for a moment that the cure for cervical cancer wasn't a vaccine, but a treatment that consisted of very painful electroshock sessions and debilitating radiation therapy. Would everyone be so quick to say "That's for me", "I'd require it, too", and so on?

It's interesting that on Gardasil.com, the following appears:

"Only a doctor or healthcare professional can decide if GARDASIL is right for you or your daughter."

Communicable, yes. Infectious, yes. Contagious, which is the word I believe Danoota&Me was looking for, no.




Yes, that is it.

I think the vaccine is a good idea.  Requiring it?  I'm not sure.  If I had a daughter, I would want her to have the vaccine.  I would also encourage her to say no to sex until...hmmmm...I don't know...must be tough being a parent of a teen.
???
Of course kids in the 11-15 range should not be having sex, that goes for boys and girls both.  I think we'd all agree with that.  But sometimes kids make bad choices (as do adults).  What about cases of sexual assault?  You could hunt down the perp and string him up by his how-do-you-do, but that's not going to make a difference to HPV virus.

And as Mushroom points out, you can get some STDs without engaging in any kind of intercourse.  Kids get to that age with hormones working doubletime, you know, spin-th-bottle and stuff. 

We have people in this country so hung-up about sex they can't think straight.  The knee-jerk right-wing answer is "Well, young girls shouldn't be having sex!"  Yeah, we already said that.  However, "shouldn't" doesn't mean "won't."  I can sympathize a bit more with this attitude when it comes to handing out condoms to eighth graders, but the hysteria over this vaccine is ridiculous.
::)

"Only a doctor or healthcare professional can decide if GARDASIL is right for you or your daughter."


That is "ad speak" for saying that a doctor's prescription is required to get it.  That is because it is not available "Over The Counter".

The same words are spoken for any advertisement for a prescription medication, from Lipitor and Ostimel to Viagra.  It was even used for commercials for Zantac and Prilosec before OTC versions came out.

In fact, I have a permanent prescription for my Motrin.  That is because if you need 800mg doses, you must have a doctor prescription.


What about cases of sexual assault?  You could hunt down the perp and string him up by his how-do-you-do, but that's not going to make a difference to HPV virus.

And as Mushroom points out, you can get some STDs without engaging in any kind of intercourse.  Kids get to that age with hormones working doubletime, you know, spin-th-bottle and stuff. 


The assault is something I already mentioned, for good reason.  It is a sad commentary on our society, that the 2 women in my life I have had deep relationships with, both had been raped.  The "approved" statistics show that anywhere between 35-95% of women admit to have been either raped, or have had an attempted rape.  This is a frightening statistic to me.  I know that right before I left LA the Police were looking for a rapist.  They were worried because his latest victim had full blown AIDS, and they were worried that he might infect another woman with it if he was not caught.

And kids will be kids.  I am sure that most of us had at least some experience as teens.  Not to mention that almost everybody knows at least one kid who caught Mononucleosis while in school.  Mono and "cold sores" are probably the most common "Venereal Diseases" that kids catch.  But since actual intercourse is not required, most do not consider them in the same way they do things like HIV and the clap.

There's no way that this should be a definite requirement...they shouldn't make anyone get something against their will. And for the record....regarding vaccinations for children....most schools will tell you that you HAVE to have them before the child can enter school...but that's not entirely true. There is an exemption form that you can sign and state that it is against your personal beliefs to have your child vaccinated...and they have to let the child in school (my mom's a school nurse at one of the largest public schools in our area, she knows of this firsthand).

The assault is something I already mentioned, for good reason.  It is a sad commentary on our society, that the 2 women in my life I have had deep relationships with, both had been raped.  The "approved" statistics show that anywhere between 35-95% of women admit to have been either raped, or have had an attempted rape. 

Most women I've talked to about the issue have said they endured some form of sexual assault.  That's about as much as I'm willing to say on the issue, if you start parsing degree or causality, somebody always takes it the wrong way and gets mad at you!
::)

My opinion:

1.  Make the vaccine free for anybody who wants it.

2.  Do not make it mandatory.

This should NOT be a requirement for many reasons.  Like DanootaandMe said, the currently required vaccines are for infectious diseases that do not always require direct contact with an infected person.....HPV is not one of those diseases.  Also, this only protects you against 4 of the types of HPV (there are over 40 types of HPV), which cause 70% of cervical cancers....that does not mean that 30% of HPV cases do NOT cause cancer, the % of HPV cases that actually cause cancer (meaning the # of women with HPV that actually develop cervical cancer) is closer to 1% or less.

Also, prior to getting the vaccine, you must go through a pelvic exam and be tested to make sure you haven't been exposed to the virus already.  The women understand how "uncomfortable" a PAP test/pelvic exam is.....now imagine being 11-12 and getting one.  Let me tell you, it's traumatic.  Also, each time you get a "booster" (you need 3 shots total), you have to go through this testing to insure you haven't been infected in the meantime.

This also bothers me:

Merck is bankrolling efforts to pass state laws across the country mandating Gardasil 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.

Perry has ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company's three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, Perry's former chief of staff. His current chief of staff's mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director for Women in Government.

The governor also received $6,000 from Merck's political action committee during his re-election campaign.