Holy #&!#!! Rick Perry's Gardasil EXECUTIVE ORDER, + Merck's Plans for the ENTIRE COUNTRY

[The Cleaner]

Whoa. First, I want to make it clear that last Friday, Rick Perry signed an Executive Order to mandate Gardasil to young girls. We all have heard this. But what really strikes me is that the decision was rendered with no votes, no debates, which is rare for any state, particularly in a case like this. One man makes the decision and that is that.

But why? Why did Perry choose this way rather than through the Texas legislature?

Here's the reason:

Merck is bankrolling efforts to pass state laws requiring the Gardasil vaccine for girls across the country, funneling money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators nationwide. Perry has ties to both.

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 of Women in Government.

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=106&sid=1048427

Here's the deal. Perry is simply the first to implement Merck's plan to make this damn thing mandatory across the country. I figure it's a test run to gauge the public's reaction. But if public reaction is too negative, then Merck will have to pull back.

We need to fight this thing. Big pharma is now in the pockets of our State Governors, for pete's sake. And to sign an executive order with no debate - it's tyrinnical. It's FASCIST.

NOTE: I would like to frame this issue around 1) The Constitutionality of such an act and how it affects the democratic process; and 2) Merck's role in all of this, Rick Perry's obvious ties to Merck, and Merck's plans to buy influence in other states so they can do the same thing across the country. In other words, have big drug companies gone too far in reaching into the pockets of our elected representatives.

[shain from kane]

1. V for Vendetta.

[Jcrowley]

4. Yes

V: But on this most auspicious of nights, permit me then, in lieu of the more commonplace sobriquet, to suggest the character of this dramatis persona.
V: Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin van-guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition.

V: The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.

V: Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.
Evey Hammond: Are you like a crazy person?
V: I am quite sure they will say so.

[redqueen]

2. I disagree.

Seems to me he used the exec order option because he knew he'd lose it in the state lege. Also, making it mandatory enables low-income parents to get it covered by insurance / medicare.

People can opt out, you know. They won't be forcing anyone to take it.

[The Cleaner]

10. So you agree with fascism?

Sorry but that's what it sounds like. Any governor or Pres who issues an executive order in order to enrich a pharmeceutical company is employing fascist ideology. A democracy means votes, debate, the will of the people over the will of government or industry - or in this case both.

And why mandate something that people can opt out of? How do you know it's so easy to do so? What are their plans for that, or is it bait and switch?

And lastly, from the same article quoted in the OP:

They also balk at the $360 cost for the three-shot series and said Gardasil is too new to force on girls as young as 11 and 12.

[redqueen]

12. fascism doesn't feature opt-out clauses, does it?

"forced"?

[The Cleaner]

24. fascism can be defined in various ways, but generally speaking

it's the merging of corporations and the government.

Again, do we know anything about this "opt-out" clause? How easy will they make it? How hard will they make it? What exactly will it be based on? I suspect it will only be in certain circumstances, otherwise why would this call for an executive order mandating it.

I personally doubt you can just call them up on the phone and say "Sorry I don't feel like it," and that's that.

[redqueen]

26. Why not find out first? Before spreading paranoia? n/t

[The Cleaner]

38. Go look it up on Wikipedia. It can be defined in several ways.

And I don't think this is spreading paranoia. It think it's an important issue of our times. Again i am pretty shocked that some don't find anything wrong with this. It's drug companes in the pockets of our politicians, buying influence and power. It's collusion. It's anti-democratic when there's no votes or debate.

[redqueen]

42. It is... however...

in this case, it allowed low-income parents to get the vaccine which may prevent cancer in their daughters.

I'd say it's a net positive.

This isn't a black and white world.

[redqueen]

43. dupe

[redqueen]

44. double dupe!

[Morgana LaFey]

194. I agree with you and personally I find it absolutely terrifying

and that's WITHOUT anything approaching a discussion about the vaccine's merits or the value of the studies, etc.

Decisions to mandate vaccines for a vast segment of the population (half the humans in that age group) should be a public health POLICY decision, not driven by pharmaceutical lobbying. Period, end of discussion. And then bids should be let, etc. (Merck could be paid a sizeable fee for the government's acquisition of its patent so other companies could also be licensed to create the vaccine.)

NONE of this should be drive by or based on anyone's profit motive. Period.

[Justitia]

30. You will be able to opt out ONLINE. Kinda easy, no? -eom

[redqueen]

33. Thanks!

I didn't know that.

:hi:

[The Cleaner]

40. Where did you hear this? Source?

In any case, it's confusing then. "mandatory but optional." Hmph.

[Justitia]

47. If you live in TX, you should have heard this ALL OVER the media.

But, does that even matter in your freak out over this vaccine?

Texas has the 2nd highest rate of cervical cancer in the country.

If you (a male) don't want the vaccine, don't get it! But don't get in the way of the girls and women who can PREVENT CANCER with this vaccine.

[redqueen]

51. deleted

[The Cleaner]

52. Please provide a source for that, and then check out my NOTE I put in the OP.

n/t

[Justitia]

57. Do YOUR OWN freaking research, you just want to spread paranoia. I know THE FACTS. -eom

[PLF]

96. How long before that "opt out" clause is erased?

Yes let's all trust Rick Perry and the big pharma conglomerates after all they love us and care so much about our children. :crazy:

[redqueen]

105. How long before there's a draft?

Between those two things happening, I'd say the draft is much more likely, and as a parent who lives in Texas, trust me... I'm more worried about the draft!

[PLF]

112. Different subject, different thread

And as a parent that also lives in Texas and knows all about rick perry I will make my own determination as to what constitutes a threat to my children.

[redqueen]

116. They're both perceived threats...

and yes, it's up to you to decide which is worse:

- the possibility of being sent off to war

or

- the possibility of being vaccinated against a cancer-causing disease

[PLF]

Rick Perry teaming up with Merck with no vote or debate at all

to inject little girls with Merck's latest commodity gives me so much confidence.

What is wrong with not making it mandatory?

Why not just fund a program to let low income folks get the vac. if they want it?

The motivations of Merck and Perry are very clear here.

Given the track record of these crooks, I have no reason to believe that they would not make it absolutely mandatory with no opt out clause if they could get away with it, and once this first step is taken the next step will be as well.

This is all about creating a false economy for Merck.

[redqueen]

137. Not making it mandatory means uninsured won't get it.

I thought that was pretty clear already.

:shrug:

[PLF]

155. Let them get it if they want to, I've already addressed this

[redqueen]

157. By paying for it themselves?

:shrug:

[PLF]

162. as I said and as I know you have read, I already addressed this

in post number 135

[redqueen]

166. Yes, sorry... the funded program. n/t

[AikidoSoul]

122. Justia-- you have a really bad attitude and you continue to provoke

people about this issue with your badly documented raging, vacuum packed posts.

You've been asked to document. If you can't document... stop the screaming.

[Justitia]

128. You are well-documented as being ANTI-MEDICINE. You have no credibility here.

And I have a bad attitude towards provocateurs and trouble makers who have absolutely no stake in this but to stir up trouble for the girls and women of TEXAS because of their own bizarre theories of being poisoned by "Big Pharma".

[AikidoSoul]

196. I'm not anti-medicine. I'm anti-fascist medical industrial complex

but you probably will refuse to understand the difference

[diamidue]

209. Do you work for a pharmaceutical company

there in TX by any chance?

just askin'...

[Justitia]

212. Nope, who do you work for? And where do you live? You have no profile. -eom

[Katherine Brengle]

131. Right?

People are acting like this is a mandatory mark of the beast or something.

Mandatory gets paid for by insurance.

Nonmandatory doesn't.

Opt out if you choose, it's your right.

[Warpy]

31. No, we agree with protecting little girls against cancer

down the line, even if their babbling fundy parents have their panties in a twist over it and would rather have them die than fuck.

[flashlighter]

35. Exactly. Any good parent would get this for the daughter

and those that wouldn't shouldn't be able to allow their child to suffer for their own prejudices

[underpants]

11. Just because a Rep. proposed it everyone makes huge assumptions

here in Va. we are fighting the biblethumpers who think that this will CAUSE young girls to start giving it away. I think some of this is sick projection but that is just my opinion.

IN West Virginia all medical care for all children under 5 (I think at least under 2) is FREE!! everything, the state pays for it. WHY? because they are trying to break the cycle and get people to get their kids immunized and generally observed by actual health professionals not the hollers medicine man.

Seriously this is just an attempt to grab everyone into the 21st century but paranoia (of all kinds) whacked out fundamentalism (of all kinds) and stupid busy bodies are holding this up.

Oh and if you are wondering yes Sen.Byrd was/is one of the main reasons for this in WV.

[redqueen]

14. Agreed. n/t

[emcguffie]

15. I don't understand.

If it's mandatory, why would they let you opt out?

I don't want my daughter to have it. If I trusted this government it would be different. But I wouldn't trust any vaccine forced on so many people during such an administration.

[redqueen]

22. It's mandatory so that it can be covered by insurance. That is all.

This allows people from lower income levels to still qualify for vaccination, should they decide to go ahead and get it.

[WinkyDink]

18. And who judges the worthiness of a parent's "religious or philosophical" objection?

Good luck with that.

[redqueen]

25. No, it is mandatory, with an opt-out clause.

LOTS of disinformation spreading about this issue.

It's sad, really.

[redqueen]

32. Since you edited, I'll respond again.

Where are you getting that anyone judges an objection?

[AikidoSoul]

203. After this vaccine is administered, reports of Guillain-Barre syndrome

http://medadnewsconferences.com/News/index.cfm?articleid=411358&categoryid=10

Besides multiple other symptoms, there are also reports Guillain-Barre Syndrome after vaccinations
Guillain-Barre is debilitating and comes with a sequellae of other chronic health problems.

also:

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/gbs/gbs.htm

<<<<SNIP>>>>

What is Guillain-Barre Syndrome?

Guillain-Barré (ghee-yan bah-ray) syndrome is a disorder in which the body's immune system attacks part of the peripheral nervous system. The first symptoms of this disorder include varying degrees of weakness or tingling sensations in the legs. In many instances, the weakness and abnormal sensations spread to the arms and upper body. These symptoms can increase in intensity until the muscles cannot be used at all and the patient is almost totally paralyzed. In these cases, the disorder is life-threatening and is considered a medical emergency. The patient is often put on a respirator to assist with breathing. Most patients, however, recover from even the most severe cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, although some continue to have some degree of weakness. Guillain-Barré syndrome is rare. Usually Guillain-Barré occurs a few days or weeks after the patient has had symptoms of a respiratory or gastrointestinal viral infection. Occasionally, surgery or vaccinations will trigger the syndrome. The disorder can develop over the course of hours or days, or it may take up to 3 to 4 weeks. No one yet knows why Guillain-Barré strikes some people and not others or what sets the disease in motion. What scientists do know is that the body's immune system begins to attack the body itself, causing what is known as an autoimmune disease. Guillain-Barré is called a syndrome rather than a disease because it is not clear that a specific disease-causing agent is involved. Reflexes such as knee jerks are usually lost. Because the signals traveling along the nerve are slower, a nerve conduction velocity (NCV) test can give a doctor clues to aid the diagnosis. The cerebrospinal fluid that bathes the spinal cord and brain contains more protein than usual, so a physician may decide to perform a spinal tap.

<<<<SNIP>>>>

[redqueen]

204. Thanks...

It seems based on what other people are saying here, that it is a very low incidence... but still, parents should be told before allowing it.

What a mess...

[Justitia]

207. careful, you're being snookered. That claim comes from anti-vaccination folks. -eom

[redqueen]

208. Pharmalive is an anti-pharma advocacy group? n/t

[Justitia]

211. Here's where these guys get clever. That site links to the claims made by "NVIC" which is anti-vax.

If you read carefully, the actual claim is made by NVIC (and they have been discussed all over DU the last several days), but this site is now publishing their claims in an "article".

Then, the poster distracts from the source by linking you to a reputable source which talks about a real medical condition.

Notice that the reputable source (NIH) never makes such a claim, the link simply talks about a disease. But, now you've linked them in your mind.

This kind of disinformation is insidious.

[redqueen]

213. *sigh*

Well now I know!

Thanks to you!

It's not your job to educate me... but I appreciate you connecting the dots.

Sloppy journalism... how many headaches would we be spared without it?

[Justitia]

214. I never mind helping someone who is genuinely interested in finding real information.

And keeping up w/these folks is wearing me out.

I'm being worked over as a lobbyist for BigPharma, which actually tickles my funny bone.

I told them I work for the Evil Pop Tart lobby. }(

[redqueen]

215. hahahaha...

well it's good you keep a sense of humor about it. :hi:

[Lisa0825]

235. YOu've got more stamina than me!

I got tired of ruining in circles with the anti-vax folks. I gave up. I'm glad you're still out there point out the facts and fallacies.

[AikidoSoul]

224. The National Vaccine Information Center is respectable --pharmaceutical interests

may attempt to discredit it, but NVIC is considered to be a credible organization, with ties to reputable doctors, scientists and researchers. NVIC is quoted by major news outlets all over the country, and even by the pharmaceutical industry. The quote below is from a pharma publication.

This is a pharma publication:

http://medadnewsconferences.com/News/index.cfm?articleid=411358&categoryid=10

which says:

"GARDASIL safety appears to have been studied in fewer than 2,000 girls aged 9 to 15 years pre-licensure clinical trials and it is unclear how long they were followed up. VAERS is now receiving reports of loss of consciousness, seizures, arthritis and other neurological problems in young girls who have received the shot," said NVIC President Barbara Loe Fisher. "At the same time, parents who take their daughters to private pediatricians are going to be shocked to find that they will be paying two to three times the widely publicized $360 cost for the three-dose series. The cost is going to break the pocketbooks of parents and break the banks of both insurance companies and taxpayers, when the reality is that almost all cases of HPV- associated cervical cancer can be prevented with annual pap screening of girls who are sexually active."

Several of the same people from this thread are going to the other threads discussing this vaccine and attacking people for presenting other views on this issue. They are making ad hominem attacks -- and are I believe, purposefully trying to get these discussions shut down.

Don't let them do it.

[Justitia]

227. NVIC is a private website which is anti-vaccine. They are not attached to any govt or academic body

I know you are sincere in your beliefs, but given that this private endeavor exists to undermine ALL vaccines it cannot be considered a legitimate source.

Once again, I don't doubt your sincerity, it's just the integrity of that site does not adhere to mainstream medicine or public health policy.

[AikidoSoul]

232. big Pharma (chem/pharm) would never provide negative data voluntarily

So of course it's an independent source of info.

Please do not close you eyes and refuse to see how difficult it is to get honest data when this industry controls the direction of most information and research on its products. Even though our tax dollars pay for a lot of it, the design of the studies do NOT look for drug injury once the product has been approved. Even when injury does show up in Pharma's own studies, it is often guilty of suppressing the negative data.... and FDA has been found guilty of aiding this effort!

Also, there is gross under-reporting of adverse drug reaction incidents -- estimates vary from a mere 1% to 10% -- so after a drug is approved it can take decades before enough data is gathered and analyzed before dangerous products are re-assessed.

See Pulitzer Prize nominated investigative report from the LA Times on this very topic:

http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2001/investigative-reporting/works/willman6.html

Also, see this quote from this Washington Post article:

"After a drug is approved and marketed in the United States, the FDA accepts (but does not actively solicit) reports of side effects from doctors, patients and drug makers."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/13/AR2006031301317.html

So consider the fact that there is NO REQUIRED incident reporting mechanism for drug adverse reactions and injury. Since the data is not collected, we can assume that the FDA and chem/ pharm are not focused on pursuing it. That lack of interest, plus the denial of chem /pharm corps of responsibility, leaves those injured with the task of gathering the data. Many of these groups are doing excellent work. I know several that work closely with scientists, independent researchers, and physicians -- most often on a voluntary, UNPAID basis -- to solve the mysteries and help people cope.

That is the honest truth.

[SpiralHawk]

3. republicons = facism

they will force us all to pay for and then consume their Drug of Choice.

For republicons, it's all about Control by the State.

The republicons live in fear. They want Big Brother-Big Government to CONTROL freedom, and stomp it out.

They talk otherwise, but the talk is just republicon lies.

Why do republicons love Big Government/Big Brother?

[Holly_Hobby]

5. This will pay for

Merck's Vioxx judgements.

[elehhhhna]

8. Yep. Let's blindly trust the Vioxx people to drug our children!

Gosh, that's like putting GW in charge of National Security after 9/11.

[flashlighter]

13. Do you have any idea how well this drug has been tested?

This is NOT another designer pain/penis/cholesterol drug, it is a vaccination against cancer. I get it, Big Pharma is bad, blah blah blah, but guess what- no one's dying of polio or smallpox any more, because of pharmacuetical companies.

[WinkyDink]

19. But one governor did not the polio vaccine mandate make.

Anyway, your post makes me say: Famous last words.

[Robbien]

41. Yeah, not tested well at all. It is way too new and rushed fast through FDA.

I have seen many high gloss pricey PR pieces pushing it though.
I have also seen many politicians with pockets bulging with lobbyist money.
I have also seen BigPharm laughing all the way to the bank.

All the while the GOP politicians are writing laws saying people are being mandated to be injected with this stuff.

[Justitia]

48. Really? The clinical trials were TWICE as long as the Hep B vaccine.

And I gave that to my son.

Why do you think that this vaccine has been tested any less than any other vaccine we are giving our kids in Texas?

[redqueen]

56. Because other people are saying it, I imagine. n/t

[Justitia]

58. BINGO -eom

[Robbien]

64. Yes I hear that the meme is to say it has been tested twice and three times as much

as such and such vacine.

Have fun with your mandatory injections.

[Justitia]

66. The "meme"? Hey, I FUCKING LOOKED IT UP & read it for myself - why don't you??? -eom

[Robbien]

70. more screaming

shakes head.

Sure I looked up the memes and read them for myself.

Be a good little citizen and inject yourself with the lobbyist mandated drugs and stop all the screaming.

[Justitia]

72. More bullshit from someone who doesn't even live in Texas. Take it up w/your own state. -eom

[redqueen]

87. These are memes? These other countries using the drug...

that's all made up? Is that what you're saying?

[Xithras]

104. Clinical trials are ONLY the first part of testing. This is unprecedented.

The Chicken Pox vaccine, presented to the public in 1995, wasn't even discussed as a possible addition to the slate of standard vaccinations until 1999, until it had been in trouble free use for 4 years. The Hepatitis B vaccine, introduced in 1986, wasn't recommended for general vaccinations until 1991. The polio vaccine, invented by Jonas Salk in 1952, underwent two years of testing and was approved for use, but it was not REQUIRED for years. Those concerned with its dangers (and there WERE dangers, the original polio vaccination ended up killing 10 people and seriously injuring 260). The safer oral form of the vaccine was developed in 1957 and was tested for SIX YEARS before release. It would be another year before it replaced the injected vaccine on the required vaccinations lists.

Gardasil, in contrast, was only released eight months ago, and they're already demanding it be made mandatory! Why? Why is there such a rush over this vaccine, when other (arguably more important) vaccines were permitted to establish their safety before becoming mandated?

The answer, I believe, is called Cervarix. Merck has spent an incredible amount of money developing this vaccine, and they KNOW GlaxoSmithKline will be releasing a competitor in six months or so. They want Gardasil mandated NOW so they can be in a dominant position when Cervarix comes out. The push for immediate adoption for this vaccine has NOTHING to do with an immediate threat to public safety, and EVERYTHING to do with padding the pockets of Merck's shareholders.

All we are asking is that Gardasil be treated the same way previous vaccines have. Make it available to whomever wants it for a few years, let it establish a safety record among the general population, and THEN, if the situation still warrants it, we can discuss making it a requirement.

I am a college professor, own a small high tech company, and I'm NOT some kind of freaky fundie. I am also NOT going to allow my children to be injected with a vaccine with no proven track record among the general public. If this were to be mandated in California, my kids would be transferred into private school. I will NOT allow them to be injected with this stuff until it's been out a few years. This has nothing to do with moral or ethical objections, and everything to do with a fundamental lack of long term study of the potential impact of these drugs.

[redqueen]

107. Are you aware of its use in other countries? n/t

[Xithras]

124. I'm aware that it was TESTED in other countries. Not available. Big difference.

The Phase 3 trials, the source of the infamous "tested in 12,000 women claim", included women in Europe and all around the world.

For general use, however, Gardasil was only approved for use by the European Union in September 2006 and went on sale in October (sources: http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=16024. http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20625). I don't know where you got your information about it being available there longer, but it's incorrect.

[redqueen]

130. Yes, sorry, you're right...

It's only testing. It was my mistake, not the source's mistake.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=51156

[Justitia]

111. Good thing you are not in TX, so you can deny this cancer vaccine to your kids all you want.

But since we have the 2nd highest rate of cervical cancer in the country, why don't you get out of the way of the women in TX who have a chance to PREVENT CANCER?

It is mandatory so that our state will be compelled to cover it via TX Medicaid and private insurance.

Anyone can OPT OUT, online.

[Xithras]

149. Ah, of course, because forcing things on the poor and illiterate is always ok.

I call bullshit whenever any government representative claims that something "has to be mandatory" so the can pay for it. They write the rules, and they can change them. If they really wanted to subsidize this drug, they could.

You will never convince me that this isn't a profit drven move to appease Merck. This drug should be OPT-IN, not OPT-OUT.

And believe me, I'm as happy as you are that I don't live in Texas :eyes:

[Justitia]

154. This is not forced on anyone - why are you perpetuating that LIE? -eom

[Xithras]

179. Sorry, didn't realize they could also opt-out by paper.

Online-only opt-outs are discriminatory against immigrants, the poor, and the illiterate. I was under the impression that it was an online-only thing.

FWIW, I still oppose it, but am satisfied with the opt-out.

[Justitia]

184. Thanks, and that is a valid point. Trust me, it's being put thru the wringer here in TX. -eom

[redqueen]

148. Reading your post again...

with the knowledge that these other drugs were treated differently...

You make a very good case that this was rushed through in order to benefit those who will make money on the deal.

[KittyWampus]

132. Really? The clinical trials on 9 year olds was done for how long? On how many girls?

There is how much information on potential side effects YEARS down the line?

How long is the vaccine effective for?

[Justitia]

136. Why do you care? This doesn't affect you in NY one iota. Leave the women of TX alone. -eom

[KittyWampus]

182. Didn't you read the opening post of this thread that you are indeed screeching through?

Inform yourself.

Texas is the first step.

Additionally, what happens to my fellow citizens in any state effects me as well.

It would be slightly different if your Legislature voted on this. But it didn't.

And regardless, proper testing procedures were NOT DONE on this vaccine. To say differently is to spread falsehoods.

[Justitia]

189. So, take it up w/the government of NY. I have no jurisdiction there. -eom

[Xithras]

185. Just a point, but it does affect us all.

Texas is the second largest state in the nation, and Merck is pushing for the same type of adoption in 18 other states. Every state that adopts this type of "mandatory" vaccination makes it that much harder for the others to resist.

[Justitia]

190. In reality, this is a state thing. I WISH we had some of the great laws you have in CA, but we

don't. And just like I have no control over what happens in CA, this is a TX thing only.

It's up to the citizens of CA to influence their own state's dealing with this issue.

Maybe it will come up in your state eventually, but I don't have any influence or input on how it will go down over there - you do. If you really care about it, I suggest you start working on it now within your legislature.

We still have a year and a half to go before it goes into effect and I am praying that our weak governor doesn't totally cave on it.

[redqueen]

142. Nine year olds? How do 3rd graders fit into this?

:shrug:

[redqueen]

55. It's been used in other countries for a while now.

I can certainly understand the concern...

[KittyWampus]

126. It's a vaccinatin against a VIRUS. Not cancer stop spreading disinformation

[Justitia]

133. Here we go again. And what causes that cancer? The HPV virus. -eom

[KittyWampus]

186. HPV is not the sole cause of cervical cancer. And having HPV doesn't always cause cancer.

So you know this but continue to say otherwise.

Gardasil does not prevent cervical cancer.

Sorry but saying it does prevent cancer means you are willing to lie.

If you had a stronger argument for making this mandatory, you wouldn't have to lie.

[Justitia]

192. What are the other causes of cervical cancer?

This vaccine has been shown to be 100% effective against 70% of the strains of HPV that cause cancer.

Those are the facts and they are readily available on numerous sites like the CDC, the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, etc., etc.

You can easily look them up.

I am confident of the facts, I don't need to debate the published facts with someone who has no stake in this.

[The Cleaner]

195. Funny how you keep shouting about the "facts" but you outright REFUSE to provide them.

:shrug:

I am still awaiting your "facts" on the "easy online opt-out." As far as I can tell in my online research from numerous sources, you have to FILE AN AFFIDAVIT.

See http://www.statesman.com/news/content/gen/ap/Cervical_Cancer.html

Please back yourself up with ACTUAL SOURCES and FACTS. Thank you.

[Justitia]

197. Can you read? Why should I do your homework for you? It's published everywhere, including all the

legitimate sources I named. Are you saying those sources (the Nat'l Cancer Institute, the CDC, American Cancer Society, etc., etc) don't exist?

Use the Google, lazybones.

[Justitia]

201. Why'd you edit all that out? To make my reply look absurd?

About the online opt out. Today you can opt out in writing (snail mail, fax, fed-ex, hand delivered & more) of ANY VACCINE.

It has been reported in the local media that before the vaccine requirement goes into effect the governor's office will have a website created to opt out online. To address all the hysterical parents that can't find a post office. That should make it even easier than sticking a stamp on it, faxing it or walking it into the state office - THAT CAN ALL BE DONE TODAY, RIGHT NOW.

[The Cleaner]

205. I think everyone here would like to know: are you a paid lobbyist for Merck by any chance?

I mean you're all over this thread shouting and spreading disinformation, refusing to provide any manner of sourcing for what you claim, and are generally hostile to anybody who disagrees with you. This kind of obfuscation is a typical lobbyist tactic. Confuse the opposition and obfuscate the facts, at the same time refusing to back up words with facts.

Case in point, that opt-out you keep referring to which you still have not cited. An AFFIDAVIT is far more than just going online and saying "No I don't want to vaccinate my kid," which is how easy and fun you are making it sound. That kind of obfuscation without any legitimate support is typical of lobbyist activity.

Provide links; provide facts. Then maybe we'll listen.

[Justitia]

206. Oh brother. No, I don't work for Merck - ha, ha. Who do YOU work for?

The only disinformation is yours.

I referenced reputable sources for you, I just refuse to do the legwork for you and you're too lazy to look it up.

In fact, a lot more credibility is imparted to those who don't spam you to links to Moonie websites.

I'll give you a headstart since you gave me chuckle on the lobbyist job thing...check out the Health and Human Svcs division of Texas' State Govt website, it's all there (if you have the energy for the keystrokes).

I'm still laughing. And I'm hungry, so I'm going to have a fabulous lobbyist lunch of Pop-Tarts in my kitchen.

That's right, I work for the Pop Tart Lobby

[The Cleaner]

216. okaaay, so...

Lawyer: He's guilty of murder!
Defense: Prove it! My client committed no crime.
Lawyer: Me prove it? No YOU prove it! I have the facts, I know what happened.
Defense: That's YOUR JOB buddy. YOU have to come up with the proof. That's what you're paid for.
Lawyer: No dude, that's YOUR problem! YOU prove it! I know the facts, I know the facts, I know the facts!

and on, and on, and on...

:nopity:

Peace out

[Richard Steele]

210. Well, -I- think everyone would like to know if you're still addressing women as "honey".

Your history of mysogynistic ANTI-FEMALE comments here at DU
makes me question the true motivation of your CONCERN
over this issue.

[LynzM]

6. I also disagree.

If you read what Redqueen said, she's spot on. This is an expensive vaccine, almost $400. Making it mandatory means that it will be available to low-income kids. Anyone can opt out, mandatory doesn't mean they're going to tie you down and inject you with it.

[KittyWampus]

146. So Low Income Kids Can Be Guinea Pigs? Why No Vote?

[redqueen]

161. No vote because it would never pass...

and yeah... the uninsured and any others who get this will be 'guinea pigs' as you say.

*sigh*

[Catherine Vincent]

7. Any decision Perry makes on behalf of Texas is suspicious.

He's a republican.

[flashlighter]

9. Good. Cervical Cancer is bad.

I have absolutely no idea why anyone would want their daughter to get cancer, and that's what this boils down to.

[The Cleaner]

16. It's not about that at all.

It's about a state governor making the king-like decision to mandate one particular brand of vaccine which he conveniently happens to have ties to. It's about drug companies becoming so powerful as to literally buy out state governors.

Whatever happened to people wanting fair debate in this matter - you know, the Democratic way? Why is this one issue any different? Why does the voice of the people not matter in this case?

If you want fascism to take hold, fine - but we'll all suffer the consequences.

[redqueen]

17. Why do you insist on ignoring the *FACT* that people can opt out? n/t

[WinkyDink]

Why ignore the financial conflicts of interest? It's akin to Brother Bush's

computer learning packets, making him millions because of NCLB laws.

And trust a Texas Republican? Haven't we learned?

[redqueen]

39. Why allow hatred of Republicans get in tthe way of protecting kids?

This drug has been widely used, and has proven successful.

If people get rich off of it, and are using cyincal methods to do so... I sure don't think that preventing the success of their cunning and selfish plan is somehow more important than preventing diseases.

[The Cleaner]

28. I realize the opt-out clause, but again,

what do we know about it? Who can opt out? How easy will they make it? You don't know, nobody knows. It could be just a gigantic set up.

But on the whole, I'm surprised more people aren't enraged that Merck is planning this thing for the entire country. Isn't that big pharma run amock? I believe it is.

[redqueen]

49. News reports indicate all you have to do is file an affidavit.

That's it. No judges, no panels, no committees.

Big pharma ran amock long ago. This is one instance where their running amok just happens to help some people. I have no problem with that.

[Justitia]

50. I ALREADY TOLD YOU. ANYONE CAN OPT OUT ONLINE. -eom

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[Justitia]

I'm trying to shout over the blinding ignorance of the parroting of disinformation.

And I only give a crap because MY state - Texas - has the 2nd highest rate of cervical cancer in the nation, and ridiculous fear-mongering, anti-science Flat Earthers would rather girls and women get CANCER than allow this vaccine.

So, if you don't live here, I don't know why you would try to get between Texas girls and women and a way they can PREVENT CANCER.

Why don't you go pester your OWN governor to make absolutely sure that the women of YOUR state will never have a way to prevent cancer?

[Robbien]

74. My state has the drug and we can use it or not. You guys are mandated to do so.

Perry got big bucks and made it a law. You have no choice.

We here in my state have a choice. The drug is available worldwide. But you guys in Texas HAVE to take the drug because Perry has pockets full of lobbyist money.

BigPharma grinning and grinning.

[Justitia]

77. That is an absolute LIE. Anyone can OPT OUT. Why are you spreading this LIE? -eom

[Robbien]

81. you keep screaming opt out. And, why should anyone have to do so?

If someone wants it, then go get it.
No one should have to do extra work Not to get the drug.

The only reason it is made mandatory is so Perry could get all that nice green money.

Now everyone in Texas has been ordered to give bigPharma big money or try and figure out a way to opt out.

[Justitia]

82. Your ignorance of this subject is appalling. It is "mandatory" so it can be paid for by insurance &

Medicaid. Without the "mandatory" order, insurance and Medicaid are not required to cover it at all.

Anyone can Opt Out online.

But since you don't live here, you have no idea how the healthcare system works in our state.

So, why don't you keep your meddling limited to preventing the women of your own state from getting this vaccine?

[Robbien]

85. Ha. bigPharma couldn't get insurance companies to pay for the questionable drug

so they paid Perry to make it a law.

BigPharma gots to get the bucks.

You go get the drug. That's an order!

[Justitia]

88. So, let the girls & women of TX get cancer because you hate "Big Pharma"?

Thank God you don't live here.

[Robbien]

94. the girls of USA can get the drug, but the girls of Texas are ordered to do so.

Stop all the whining. That's an order (I hear you love orders)

[redqueen]

100. The girls of Texas can opt-out. n/t

[Justitia]

101. Why are you ignoring the fact that this is not forced on anyone?

And I'm really sick of your snarky shit when you have absolutely no stake in this, you just want to screw over the women and girls of TX who could benefit from this.

[Robbien]

115. If this is not forced on anyone, why is there a law?

You want it mandated.

I want it to be free choice.

We will never agree.

end of discussion.

[Justitia]

120. We have explained this to you OVER & OVER. You are ignoring the answers. -eom

[Robbien]

153. You want drugs mandated, I don't

I get it

[Justitia]

159. I want women who can't otherwise afford it to be able to get this cancer vaccine.

And I gather you don't care about them at all.

[PLF]

175. So fund a program that helps low income families.

and again with the chickenshit red herring "I gather you don't care about them at all."
How fucking pathetic. Oh, we must hate women and children if we don't believe in letting
Rick Perry inject our kids with the latest Merck product.

[Justitia]

177. Rick Perry, Merck, Rick Perry, Merck, Rick Perry, Merck, etc. etc.

broken record.

If you really do live in TX, then simply don't get the damn vaccine.

Why is that so hard?

[PLF]

187. funny

As I have said several times and as I have sure you have read, there is nothing wrong with funding a program for people with no insurance to get it if they deem it necessary. You obviously don't want to talk about that. I am at the point now where I think your motivations are questionable.

Are you saying I don't live in Texas? Are you saying I need to prove it to you? As far as I know you are a male tranvestite living in Guatamala. Nice little red herring there. You seem to be grasping at straws now.

[redqueen]

121. Insurance.

Have you really not read that yet? That making it mandatory makes it so that daguthers of uninusred parents can get the vaccine as well?

[PLF]

135. wrong, why not just fund a program for low income people

who can get it if they want to?

[redqueen]

139. Does that sound more plausible?

Seems to me that'd take years...

[PLF]

151. More plausabile than mandatory injections

:crazy:

and it would take no time at all.

Hell Rick Perry set up his little investment fund which gave away millions of dollars to businesses like Cabela's in no time at all. There was a big story about it in the Texas Observer.

[Justitia]

140. Do you live here? Do you know how healthcare laws work in our state? -eom

[PLF]

145. Yes, and I know all about Rick Perry's history of defunding social programs

so you ought to be asking yourself "why now"?

[PLF]

118. talk about snarky shit

"you just want to screw over the women and girls of TX who could benefit from this"

That is about as snarky and shitty as it gets. Just because someone doesn't believe that Rick Perry and his corporate cronies have the right to mandate injections into thier child doesn't mean they want to "screw over the women and girls of TX". That arguement is incredibly dishonest.

[Justitia]

123. Hey, I don't care what you think. I care about the girls & women of TX.

So, get lost.

[PLF]

129. Total bullshit

Kinda like how bush cares about "democracy" in Iraq.


Why not just fund a program that will allow low income people to get the vac if they want it?

hmmmm....

I already know the answer to that.

[Justitia]

144. I'm a woman in TX, are you? You don't have that on your new profile. -eom

[PLF]

165. Now you are trying to change the subject.

First you accuse anybody who doesn't have faith in proven crooks of hating women, then when that fails you try to change the subject. Lame.

[Justitia]

174. No, I just think it is pointless to debate this with someone I consider a provocateur.

You just keep railing against Rick Perry and pharmaceutical companies.

I don't care about them at all.

[PLF]

181. Only because your arguments are crappy.

As far as I am concerned if you are willing to let your children be injected without the slightest bit of skepticism, then you have cavalier attitude toward child rearing.

Have a nice day.

[PLF]

102. what a horseshit statement

Place the fate of your children in the hands of Rick Perry if you want but leave my kids out of it.

[redqueen]

108. You're in Texas too?

Howdy neighbor! :hi:

[Justitia]

113. So, you'd rather spite Rick Perry than prevent cervical cancer? -eom

[PLF]

143. again that is a false choice, and you know it

quit trying to frame this debate so dishonestly.

I would have no problem with a program funded for low income people to get it if they want to.

But no, you want to take the dishonest route and claim that anybody who doesn't trust corporate crooks and Rick Perry must hate their kids. How bullshitty of you.

[Justitia]

147. I am a woman in TX. What is YOUR stake in this debate? -eom

[PLF]

158. This affects my family, IN TEXAS

duh!

Nice try.

[Justitia]

163. So, don't get the damned vaccine! You don't have to, but leave the rest of us alone. -eom

[PLF]

170. That statement should be directed at you.

Because that is what I am saying. Leave my kids out of your bullshit schemes.
I have no faith in proven crooks but obviously you do.

[redqueen]

89. No, you can also get the opt-out.

Why are you ignoring that?

[PLF]

98. That little "opt out" clause will eventually be closed.

Go ahead and put your trust in rick perry and a bunch of crooks if you want but leave my children out of it.

[redqueen]

99. Hahahahah... well first of all... welcome to DU!

:hi:

Second of all... I'd be more worried about a draft than forced vaccinations!

[Justitia]

106. So says you? Welcome to your first day on DU! -eom

[Robbien]

109. Why should I have to opt-out of taking a drug which was put on the books by lobbyists?

I don't trust the drug and don't believe there should be a law ordering me to take it (yes even with an opt-out clause).

[redqueen]

110. Well... if we had universal health care... it wouldn't need to be mandatory.

But we don't... and as that is the case, making it 'mandatory' means daughters of low-income parents can still get the drug, IF they want to.

[Justitia]

114. YOU don't have to. YOU don't live here. Why is this about YOU? -eom

[AikidoSoul]

156. Justia--you didn't read the damned post. Merck wants this in ALL the states

and your gov has ties to Merck and the lobbyists that are pushing the vaccine.

Vaccine pushers -- what s your stake in this? You have been on other threads screaming about how wonderful the vaccine is and how great it is that its mandated for all girls...

How do you show up so quickly to start screaming about this?

[Justitia]

169. I care about the women & girls of TX, they are more important than Merck's bottom line to me.

And I read ALL your links in the last several days - you have made quite clear that you think ALL drugs are poison. You think there is a conspiracy by the pharmaceutical companies to poison America for money.

Sorry, I think you are a nut.

I'm not interested in debating TX policy with someone who has no stake in the outcome.

Go crap all over threads pertaining to your own state.

[redqueen]

178. Did you see post 104? I have changed my mind again.

I was at first against this because I thought it hadn't been tested enough / widely used.

Then I got the impression based on some articles in Medical News Today that it had been widely used in Europe and other countries. Based on that information, I decided this was a good thing.

However, that impression was mistaken... and in light of that realization, and the unprecedented way this has been green-lighted, I am now very much against the way this is being pushed on people.

If they would even go so far as to just inform people that it has not been tested the way other vaccines have been, and that therefore the risks are unknown, that would be one thing.

I need to read some more articles... but the fact that I have read plenty and didn't see that mentioned yet is alarming to me.

Peace.

[Justitia]

188. Well, there is a lot of info out there & the facts are available.

You have to decide for yourself, and consider it in the context of how all vaccines & medicines are developed, tested and marketed.

Then, weigh the risks and benefits regarding cervical cancer.
I think if you do that, you will support the use of this vaccine and what it can do.

But, you must decide that for yourself. I've done that and I am very comfortable with it.
I trust the science and medicine enough behind it that I feel very confident folks can decide for themselves.

My exasperation is with those folks who would deny this vaccine to those that want it and cannot get it otherwise.

Best wishes.

[redqueen]

191. Yes... parents have to make an informed decision.

Exactly.

I don't know... I don't like that it was rushed through... but if the side effects aren't so bad, it's a good thing, still.

I just wish I could trust that most parents would be well-informed. I guess it's their tough luck (or their daughters') *maybe* -- if the risks turn out to be high -- if they aren't. That's a lot of if's huh?

Ah crap... I'm on the fence! :P

[Justitia]

193. That's just fine. At least you are open-minded and education is key.

You are willing to explore the information that's available, so you'll do fine on your own.

All the best.

[redqueen]

199. And to you as well!

:hi:

[nonconformist]

233. I just have to ask... why does it even MATTER if someone is a woman and/or from Texas in this debate

I don't have a strong opinion on this issue either way, but I couldn't help but notice that you are attempting to shut everyone down with that tired line.

That's kind of like saying that non-Americans have no right to voice concerns about American government. Or that non-blacks have no right to voice concerns about racism. Or that straight people can't voice concerns over homophobia. Or that people against the death penalty have no say if they don't live in a state that allows the death penalty. :crazy:

Someone doesn't have to be from Texas, or even a woman/parent of a daughter to have valid opinions about this. It could also set a precedent, which means it could be affecting far more than Texas women and girls soon.

As far as this vaccine goes, I lean towards skeptical but supportive. I'm too old for it myself, and I have no daughters (yet), and I most certainly don't live in Texas... but that definitely doesn't mean it's none of my business. Not by a long shot.

Carry on.

[Justitia]

234. The OP was about a state order affecting TX health policy, here's why it's important

We need to stick to a narrow focus, as in who this order actually affects.

Our healthcare laws and Medicaid system are complex and individual to our state. If someone doesn't live here, I can't expect them to know the background and mechanisms of how the levers of public health policy work and how this will affect them as citizens of this state.

For example, I know absolutely nothing of Kentucky's healthcare system, what it encompasses, what programs you have, what is required by your schools, what the exceptions are, who is covered in your state funded health programs, how they interact with federal funds for Kentucky-provided healthcare, who the providers of state funded programs are, how the federal and state funds are disbursed, how your state legislature regulates the allowable private insurers in Kentucky and what the scope of their governance is, etc., etc.

BUT, I do know about how that works in TX quite well, and therefore I can judge this singular mandate based on deep background of that. I am aware of the pros and cons as they relate to Texas public health policy.

So, that is why we must focus on those for whom this law actually applies to.

[AikidoSoul]

138. You are entitled to your bias. Don't scream at the rest of us who

think this is a bad idea. And stop calling names.

You have no credibility. Incessant screeching does nothing to help a discussion.

If you don't intend to discuss this... but only to screech... please go away.

[Justitia]

152. You have declared yourself as anti-medicine, all medicine. Speaks volumes. -eom

[KittyWampus]

164. Anti-Guardisil is emphatically NOT anti-medicine. That you must resort to hyperbole

shows you cannot rebute the argument against this vaccine that has NOT been proven safe or even effective long term.

[Justitia]

180. Guess what? I wasn't talking to you. The poster I WAS talking to is anti-medicine.

I took the time to read ALL her links in the last several days - have you?

It's a great read - kinda like taking a trip through Middle Earth.

Check it out.

[AikidoSoul]

198. You lie, you distort, you slander -- I'm anti-fascist medical industrial complex

but you are willfully ignorant about the difference.

Your credibility is gone.

Stop polluting this topic with your twisted logic

[AikidoSoul]

200. vaccine problem reports:severe headaches, temp loss of vision, lost consciousness, possible seizures

Vaccine center issues warning


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

<<<SNIP>>>

"Negative side effects of Gardasil, a new Merck vaccine to prevent the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer, are being reported in the District of Columbia and 20 states, including Virginia. The reactions range from loss of consciousness to seizures.

"Young girls are experiencing severe headaches, dizziness, temporary loss of vision and some girls have lost consciousness during what appear to be seizures," said Vicky Debold, health policy analyst for the National Vaccine Information Center, a nonprofit watchdog organization that was created in the early 1980s to prevent vaccine injuries."

<<<<SNIP>>>>


"Following federal approval of the vaccine in July 2006, a storm of legislation was introduced across the nation that would make the vaccine mandatory in schools. The District and Virginia are part of a group of at least 17 states considering such legislation. A measure had been introduced in Maryland, but it was shelved last week over concerns about the mandatory language in the bill."

[Justitia]

202. Sorry, The Moonie Times is not a credible source. -eom

[conscious evolution]

76. What is stopping the gov from

taking that away?If he can make it mandatory bythe stroke of a pen he can also take away any opt out by a stroke of a pen.
Granted,a vaccine for cancer is a good thing.It's just that I don't trust anything that repukes and big corps do anymore.They have proven time and time again that they can't be trusted in matters of public policy.

[Justitia]

79. Know what? He can, at any moment, if he buckles under. That's why I'm fighting this disinformation

Perry has the spine of cooked spaghetti. This is the first good thing he has ever done. So many TX girls and women will be spared untold suffering because of this.

However, if enough political pressure comes to bear on him I am seriously afraid he will rescind the order and the women of my state will then be permanently screwed.

THAT is why I try so hard on here to counteract the multitude of sources of disinformation and malicious fear-mongering.

[redqueen]

83. If he did, there'd be riots...

and not just lefties.

This is a matter of protecting the health and welfare of women... I wonder if that's why the benefits are so easily tossed aside ...

[Justitia]

86. You know, there is so much pressure from the repubs on him about this, I'm really afraid he might

rescind this order and then our women will be totally screwed.

The religious right factions have been teaming up with the anti-vaccine, anti-pharmaceutical factions in the TX State House to really exert tremendous pressure on him to rescind this order. They have engaged the State Attorney General to explore legal ways to undo it.

This is the ONE good thing he has done in his career and I don't have much confidence in his ability to withstand the political pressure. We still have a year and a half to go before it goes in effect and I'm scared we will lose this.

I mean, just look at the disinformation and looney-ness on this thread - among Dems & "progressives"!

[redqueen]

90. It is disheartening to say the least!

All we can do is make calls to ensure they know that some of us get it... that we'd like the protection thanks, no matter who's making a buck off it.

[flashlighter]

23. He may have ties to the company, but they are the ones

who developed the drug!! There is NO OTHER brand to use!!

Let's wait 8 years for Merk to lose the exclusivity, and then we can give our children the generic version. If some women die/get cancer in between now and then, at least we won't have helped any company that would give money to a Republican...

:sarcasm:

It's a public health crisis. No different from keeping people with TB out of the general population.

<full disclosure- cancer survivor. Wish I could have had a vaccination>

[KittyWampus]

160. You are WRONG. A competitor is slated to have an alternative marketed in 6 months.

And regardless, there has NOT been the same testing for 9 year olds and women that any other vaccine would get.

[woodsprite]

34. I just had a total hyster for gyno cancer and I have a 13yo daughter

I do not want it mandated that I *HAVE* to get her vaccinated. IMO, they pushed it thru too fast. Long term effects are not known. I'm not big on the anti-vaccine bandwagon, but I'm just not comfortable with this AT THIS TIME. I don't trust the govt to be making this call, especially with Merck hands in their pockets. They are not in it for the good of the people - regardless of how devastating a disease this is. This is all about big Pharma's bottom line, political pay-offs and stock portfolios. That's all. BTW, Gardasil only protects against a few strains of HPV - not all and shouldn't be given to pre-adolescent girls. So while Gardasil lowers chances, it does not eliminate the possibility of HPV infection OR the development of cervical cancer.

And yes, I have friends who have cervical cancer, anal cancer, vaginal cancer and vulvar cancer as a result of HPV infection. Some of those friends now have colostomies and urostomies and they're only in their 30s because there is only so much they can treat with chemo and rads. Some have had vulvalectomies and vaginal reconstruction inorder to have relations with their significant others.

Society is turning into "The Giver" model - where absolutely everything is mandated, there is no free choice, we only know and do what we're told, except for a very few. No free choice, no independent decisions, etc.

[Justitia]

54. You're not in TX, so YOU won't be "mandated" to do anything. -eom

[redqueen]

59. You don't *HAVE* to... file an affidavit, and voila - exempt. n/t

[Caoimhe]

36. Agreed

God help the daughters of the idiot chicken littles who won't allow their daughters to get this life saving vaccine, as well as the fundie nuggets that won't allow their daughters to get it because they are afraid it will make them nymphomaniac heathens.

This vaccine has been through EXTENSIVE trials. It is a medical breakthrough that should be embraced! I just wish I was younger so it would be effective on me. I would have my daughters get it in a heart beat. They don't necessarily need to know what it is for.

I wouldn't want to wish cervical cancer on anyone, but people having a shitfit about this are tempting me to change my mind.

[KittyWampus]

167. "Idiot Chickens"? What the hell is wrong with you? It has NOT been extensively tested

you are either misinformed or lying.

It has NOT been extensively tested on 9 year olds.

It has NOT been extensively tested on the general population.

[Caoimhe]

222. ahem

The vaccine has been widely tested in 9-to-26 year-old girls/women. But research on the vaccine’s safety and efficacy has only recently begun with women older than 26 years of age. The FDA will consider licensing the vaccine for these women when there is research to show that it is safe and effective for them.

-Centers for Disease Control

http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine.htm

I'm not misinformed, and I'm certainly not lying. If you think the CDC is lying, take it up with them. I personally hope they get on with the testing of boys so we can eventually have this approved for use in young men. Medical breakthroughs are good. Eradicating viruses that cause cancer is good. How people can argue otherwise is beyond me.
8 out of 10 women will have HPV by the time they are 50. I'm all about changing those numbers, aren't you?

New Guidelines For Cervical Cancer Vaccine http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/20/health/webmd/main2380444.shtml

[AikidoSoul]

225. You are wrong... these were not extensive trials. If you can provide documentation

to these EXTENSIVE trials, you will be the first one. Others have shown that the testing was rushed. More importantly, in Texas, it's to be mandated on very young girls. The testing was NOT adequately conducted on pre-menarche females. This is one of the greatest concerns of scientists.

edit to correct spelling

[rman]

37. There's no reason to mandate it then is there. Rather there's reason to give it away for free.

[redqueen]

There is reason to mandate it...

so that insurance will cover it for low-income students.

You'd rather wait till they give it away for free? Are you serious? :rofl:

[KittyWampus]

171. So you want low income girls to be guinea pigs for a vaccine not properly tested

on 9 year olds?

There are other less coercive ways to make this available for those who want it and can't afford it.

And you know it.

[redqueen]

183. I was under the impression it had been widely used in Europe and other countries...

I was mistaken. There have been tests and trials, but it's only been in use since October, it seems.

Based on that information, I have once again reversed my position. (I was against it at first...)

[havocmom]

53. Questions: Will the shot prevent all cases of cervical cancer or just some

caused by two or three of the common viruses. Aren't there a whole lot more viruses which are possible causes?

One shot does not fix all. And in this current climate of corporate usurpation of power which used to belong to citizens, I would not EVER assume that any new wonder drug they wanted half the population to take is really as benevolent as they advertise.

Grant only the trust they have earned. And how do we know for sure what is in the shots? We have to trust they are giving us honest answers. Neither the GOP politicians they put in power nor the folks at Big Pharma have earned our unquestioning trust for many years now.

edited cuz my brain needs coffee

[Justitia]

60. Uh, it's CERVICAL cancer, not uterine. -eom

[havocmom]

71. Thank you. Teach me to post before coffee

Meant Cervical

[Justitia]

No problem, I figured you meant that - just clarifying for our readers. -eom

[qanda]

75. No, it won't even prevent all cervical cancer

Women will still need to have a yearly pap smear.

[Justitia]

80. Yeah, only 70%, so why bother at all, right? Oh brother. -eom

[qanda]

217. Good gracious

That's not what I said at all. Why the indignation? I'm just stating a fact that needs to be part of the education even if people receive this vaccine.

[redqueen]

91. Flu shots don't guarantee you won't get the flu, either.

But most people get them, so that they have a better chance of not getting the flu.

That makes sense to me.

[qanda]

218. I was just answering someone's question

I don't know why people are jumping on me for providing a fact about this vaccine. It would seem to me that it would be important to give girls the facts about what this vaccine prevents. It will still be necessary for them to get a pap smear and I hope receiving this vaccine won't give women a false sense of security.

Honestly, I think you all need to lighten up a little. Not everyone who has questions about this vaccine are absolutely against it. Sometimes we just want more facts before we give this drug to our most precious treasure.

[redqueen]

219. I didn't mean to sound harsh in my response...

I was only saying... for the sake of argument.

I'm solidly on the fence about this issue.

It was rushed through for greedy reasons, and that really bothers me... but it may save lives, so... it's a sticky situation.

I apologize if it seemed like I was jumping on you... that was not my intention.

Peace!

:hi:

[qanda]

220. Peace to you too

Tone is very hard to judge on-line, so I apologize for misreading your post.

[redqueen]

221. No apology necessary.

But thanks! :hi:

[havocmom]

93. And are insurance companies mandated to pay for costs for pap exams?

How about poor, working poor and other uninsured women?

It would be nice to think this was just about helping to diminish a serious health risk for females. Sadly, I have seen too much of how the system really works to believe those at the top really give a shit about health-care for anybody but those at the top.

And I have seen too much to believe anything a GOP executive orders without legislative consideration is guaranteed safe for citizens.

[Justitia]

97. Yes and Yes. State law now requires it. Before that, no. We have 2nd highest rate of cerv cancer.

[havocmom]

103. Glad to hear progress has been made on that in Texas

Health care for females has been so neglected. It has been too long coming.

[Justitia]

119. Yes, just barely. But this kind of stuff will reverse it in a heartbeat.

We have a spaghetti spined governor, and I am so afraid we will lose this opportunity before it goes into effect. We still have a year and a half to go.

[Norquist Nemesis]

20. The easy solution is to pull Merck's monopoly then

Personally, I don't have a problem with it being mandated. The reasoning from bible thumpers that it promotes sex has absolutely no merit. As far as the 'parents should decide' argument...well, IIRC here in Illinois MMR vaccine is mandatory with boosters. If a parent can prevent their child(ren) from getting them by finding a doctor that will write a note for the child's file declaring it's not necessary. VOILA!

As far as the Executive Order...the Bush Administration has signed several that have a much bigger impact of the future of our children's lives than this single EO of Perry.

[flashlighter]

27. You can't pull the monopoly

from a company that holds a patent.

These companies spend billions of dollars on research to come up with these drugs, and they would not do that without the promise of getting that back.

[Justitia]

45. Glaxo Smith Kline is also bringing out a vaccine. They bought the same tech license from Univ of

Rochester (who developed the vaccine). In other words, both drug makers bought the same vaccine technology (at about the same time), but Merck's came out first. The vaccine technology is one in the same.

I think Glaxo's comes out this summer.

[flashlighter]

46. I did not know that. Thank you.

Will those people who are anti- Merck get this vaccination you think?

My gyno said I'm too old for it to be effective (28) will this GSK drug have the same restrictions?

[Justitia]

63. I think there are people who will rail against this no matter WHO markets it.

They are beating up on Merck today, tomorrow it will be GSK.

About the age thing, I think the limitations will be the same (because it is exactly the same vaccine), but I think they are really more about the effectiveness rather than contraindication. In other words, by age 28 they might feel you are past the point of maximum effectiveness, but I have also read that if you wanted the vaccine, there isn't really any reason not to get it, but they are currently concentrating their efforts towards those who can benefit the most.

If I became single again (I've been married a long time and have had decades of clear Paps), I would absolutely get this vaccine.

[NashVegas]

61. Glaxo Is Supposedly Shooting for Approval This Spring

I just went to the Texas governor's website and looked at the press release and the official order.

http://www.governor.state.tx.us/

As worded, there is no specific mention of Gardasil.

The order takes effect for Sept. 8. Glaxo will have a chance to get in on the gravy train, provided Cervarix is approved.

[Justitia]

21. Oh Boy! Here We Go Again! Groundhog Day! -eom

[ProfessorGAC]

29. What Justitia Said!

GAC

[bleedingheart]

78. yup here we go again...

it is amazing to me that some people make it out of the house in the morning for all their fears...

[KittyWampus]

176. it's amazing some people are still alive considering their lack of discrimination

Ever hear of Vioxx?

There is a reason for testing procedures with vaccines and drugs.

Those procedures were NOT met with Gardasil.

[bedazzled]

62. some folks trust that the government & big pharma are altruistic

i don't. having worked at a pharma company for 10 years, and
hearing from my husband, who worked at merck for 2 years, i
wouldn't give their drugs to my dog.

if you trust that this government and merck have your best
interests at heart, go for it. don't force me to give it to my
son, because i won't.

merck needs the money, is the bottom line.

[Justitia]

65. No, I trust the decades of SCIENCE & MEDICINE behind this vaccine.

Merck is only the marketer. There are legions of researchers, physicians and scientists behind this vaccine - I trust them.

[AikidoSoul]

226. You DO work for Merck don't you?

Your tactics thus far are to scream incessantly, insult everyone who disagrees with you, to post continually, to be rude and mean -- the intent of which was to intimidate, disgust, and eventually wear everyone out. This tactic succeeds in getting the more serious DUers to leave so you can "win" by being left with the mild mannered folk who are more pliable.

Then, when someone agrees with you you suddenly calm down, become rational, and spout off a few sensible sentences.

During those brief periods you have at your fingertips all kinds of facts about Merck, the depth of its research, its infallibility, its unquestionable good intentions, news about the status of its competitors competing product, vaccine time schedules, information about threat to Merck due to the linking of groups and strategies in TX attempting to stop it from being mandated... etc.


Hmmmmmm

[Justitia]

228. You are paranoid. You have disclosed you are anti-medicine. You are an ideologue.

You subscribe to bizarre and out-of-the-mainstream ideas. I've read your links.

I am a woman in TX, which is clearly disclosed on my profile, so I have a vested interest in this subject.

I have no idea who you are or where you live, you choose to cloak that in mystery.

And just to humor you, I don't work for Merck, any pharmaceutical company, any lobby, etc.
In fact, just because I'm feeling generous I'll tell you that I don't work for anybody, I get no paycheck from anyone.

But why am I being so candid when your only purpose seems to be pushing bizarre anti-science theories of how America is trying to poison it's citizens with chemicals??

My favorite reading was about the fabric softener sheets - that is some great stuff. Trippy.

[Lurking Dem]

229. Kinda makes you wonder

who is being paid by whom, doesn't it?

[Justitia]

230. It's getting crazy around here! Pretty soon, we're ALL working for Merck. -eom

[AikidoSoul]

231. You don't have the will or desire to find out about how toxic many

everyday products are. You are very simply.... brainwashed.

"Idealogue" is a silly word for you to call me. "Informed" would be much more accurate. Afer my experiences and area of study, I know I'm on the right track.

Despite your incredible refusal to see any truth in what I'm saying, I think someday you will change your mind.

[ProfessorGAC]

69. Apple Meet Orange

Believing that vaccines may be in the public interest, and putting blind trust in big biz or the gov't are not the same thing.

To think otherwise is to be trapped in two dimensions of thought. Life is not "X therefore Y".
The Professor

[moondust]

67. Every monkey's dream.

"It is illegal not to use our product!"

[redqueen]

92. That is a gross mischaracterization, do you know that?

Any parent can opt-out for their children.

[malaise]

73. Madness

Absolute madness.

[Touchdown]

84. Hate to bring up the dreaded "C" word here,

but this is nothing new, just the gender changed. The US medical establishment has had a nearly universal advocacy to chop apart newborn male's genitals (circ'ing) for over a century, because it supposedly cures whatever disease du-jour they can convince people is important enough for this permanent body modification. The real reasons are it's because of puritanical "religious/moral" issues, it "looks prettier", and especially because infant foreskins bring in a high profit in the cosmetics industry.

Bottom line, is that adults think children aren't the owners of their own bodies, instead of parents just being the temporary stewards of those bodies.

[redqueen]

95. Intelligent people don't use tradition, but trust scientific research.

Research shows circumcision doesn't help much.

The opposite is true with this drug, though.

[ProfessorGAC]

117. Ah, But Therein Lies The Rub

While you and i completely agree on this whole vaccination issue and the potential for helping cervical cancer be less pernicious, you said something interesting.

"Research shows circumcision doesn't help much" you posted. What is "much"? I think the objection folks like you and i have against the anti-vaccine zealots, is that if it helps anybody, the cost/benefit issue is a red herring. If it saves lives, the number of lives it saves, and the money made by the pharma corps. isn't terribly relevant. IT SAVES LIVES.

If circumcision prevents problems for even a small percentage, why is that not enough? Where do we draw the line as to when the fraction helped is no longer high enough for us to bother?

To me the line is anything above zero.

And, btw, i've peer reviewed one of the circumcision studies back around 1999 or so. I found the conclusion (that it was marginally useful, but caused no harm) to be an essentially correct analysis of the data. (I was not hired to have a medical opinion, only an opinion on the validity of the analysis of the data. I'm not a doctor, but a different kind of scientist.)

So, to me, both are valid medical pursuits. To you, only one is. I'm wondering why.
The Professor

[redqueen]

125. It shouldn't matter why. We can opt out of either, should we choose to.

I think that's really the issue, not why one decides not to vaccinate their daughters, or why one chooses to have thier sons' foreskin removed.

[ProfessorGAC]

127. Then We Agree

And parents do opt out. And that's fine. While my wife and i were not able to have kids, i know i would have opted in for my son. Almost zero harm for SOME possible benefit seems like a good exchange.

Minimal risk due to aluminum uptake vs. saving lives seems like a fair swap too.

I'm all for this vaccine, and would encourage my wife to opt in. It's up to her of course, but i'd sure encourage it.
GAC

[redqueen]

134. I really like it when we agree...

cause I sure do value & respect your opinion!

:loveya:

[ProfessorGAC]

141. Grazie

I think we agree a very high percentage of the time. We gotta find something about which to disagree though. We don't want to be drones! I do not want to be assimilated.

Ciao
GAC

[redqueen]

150. We disagree about circumcision!

And... something else I'm sure.

Do you like techno? :P

[ProfessorGAC]

168. Well, That Was A "DUH" On My Part!

Ok, now i hate you, just a tiny, tiny bit.
GAC

[redqueen]

172. Have you read post 104? I have changed my position yet *again*.

This alarms me.

Knowing what's happened in the past with respect to Vioxx and other drugs which either weren't adequately tested or for which test results were manipulated (not sure but I think that is what happened in some case)... this does alarm me.

I am now concerned that uninsured parents will want this vaccine for their daughters, and will get it... and we may see similar reactions.

It's a risk/reward equation... and it's up to the individual... but while the risks are largely unknown...

*sigh*

[Hekate]

173. Read Matcom's thread--link here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x167184

Nothing like personal experience.

Hekate

[Caoimhe]

223. Thanks Hekate

I knew there was sanity on this issue SOMEWHERE on DU today. Odds were good.