Associated Press
It seems absurd in retrospect, but there was a brief moment in the race for the Republican presidential nomination in which Michele Bachmann appeared competitive. Soon after, for a variety of reasons, her candidacy imploded, but there was one issue in particular that proved problematic.
In early September 2011, as part of an effort to undermine Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Bachmann attacked giving the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine to girls. The right-wing lawmaker claimed that the HPV vaccine can lead to mental retardation -- a claim with no foundation in reality -- which led to a larger discussion of Bachmann's penchant for saying ridiculous things. Her campaign never recovered.
I mention this because the HPV vaccine is back in the news under politicized circumstances. Unfortunately, it appears South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) took note of last year's controversy, but learned the wrong lessons. Ed Kilgore reported yesterday:
...Haley abruptly vetoed an HPV vaccine bill passed by the GOP-controlled legislature. The bill included both an opt-out option for parents objecting to the vaccine, and a provision putting off its implementation if funding is not subsequently secured. But that didn’t keep Haley from attacking it as ““a precursor to another taxpayer-funded healthcare mandate.” What makes the incident especially interesting is that Haley was an early cosponsor of a similar bill in 2007. She admits she’s changed her mind on the subject, but doesn’t really explain why.
Could Haley’s palpable national political ambitions be a factor?
It's hard to see this story any other way.
For those who aren't familiar with the larger issue, the human papillomavirus increases a woman's chances of developing cervical cancer. For several years, there's been an FDA-approved vaccine available that immunizes against HPV infection. But as the Republican Party has become more radicalized, the vaccine has been caught up in a culture war.
In fact, the religious right strongly opposes access to the vaccine, arguing it encourages minors to have sex. (By that logic, fire extinguishers in schools encourages minors to play with matches.)
To his credit, in 2007, Rick Perry did the right thing and endorsed the vaccine for girls in Texas For his trouble, Bachmann used the issue to attack Perry last year. It was damaging enough to cause the Texas governor to apologize for the one sensible thing he's done in office.
This year in South Carolina, meanwhile, Republican policymakers approved the most watered-down bill possible -- unlike in Texas, where the vaccine was temporarily mandatory, the South Carolina bill made it easy for parents to opt their kids out.
Haley still vetoed the HPV vaccine bill.
Instead of looking at the 2011 fight and thinking, "Bachmann looked like a loon on the HPV story," the South Carolina governor seems to have concluded, "Perry was attacked over this, so I better kill the bill."
Haley's national ambitions 1, the health of girls in South Carolina 0.
Leave a Comment:
now, i'm no fan of Texas, but they're punishment is bad enough having Rick Perry as governor. Giving them Rick Scott is just plain cruel. Although if he has to divide his time across two states, it likely doubles the time it takes him to further screw up either one of them, which might be a plus for their residents.
(see typo in para. 2)
now, i'm no fan of Texas, but they're punishment is bad enough having Rick Perry as governor. Giving them Rick Scott is just plain cruel. Although if he has to divide his time across two states, it likely doubles the time it takes him to further screw up either one of them, which might be a plus for their residents.
(see typo in para. 2)
War on women ? Who us ?
Ideology that trumps common sense and decency.
She must be very proud , and I know the teatards are cheering her on for not denying their daughters their god given right to die a horrible death from a preventable disease.
Besides that there are a bunch of snake handlers in SC who I am sure would lay on hands and cure them.
Unfrigging believable.
Now now -- only the GOP knows that if women dare to have sex, they deserve cancer! Women can't have independent lives -- they only exist to serve GOP men! Read your Bible!
<sarcasm, if not clear, although this is what they think, deep down>
My maternal grandmother who I am named after died young of cervical cancer. Was she a promiscuous slut as right wing ideologues seem to think women who get cervical cancer are? No she wasn't. She was a good Catholic. OTOH my maternal grandfather was a womanizer. I suspect that she got from him. If this vaccine had existed when she was a girl she would have never died of this now preventable cancer.
What is really unbelievable is that these people don't seem to grasp that HPV, more commonly known as warts, is a sexually transmitted disease. I know a young woman who contracted HPV from her very first sexual partner twenty years ago, went through a painful process of having the warts burned out of her vagina, and still has to be checked twice yearly to make sure the disease has not returned. Her partner, by then her husband, went in, had a few warts removed from his penis and she overheard him telling the doctor he had gotten them from her!!!!! The other thing people aren't getting is that this vaccine is equally important for sexually active boys as it is for girls. Or that the girl being on birth control does not protect either partner from warts. When oh when will the ignorance stop!!!!!
@ beaz, not all forms of HPV cause warts. That form isn't linked to cervical cancer. (source: http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm)
The majority have no symptoms whatsoever. That's why it's so important to administer the vaccine before a woman has become sexually active. It is most often transmitted without either person knowing. The only way to be sure the patient isn't already infected is if they haven't been sexually active at all.
If Bachmann and Haley - or perhaps their mothers - have each received the HPV vaccination themselves, there is a strong case for the mental retardation they claim it causes.
Though these two GOP Nut-jobs are too old to have been in utero once the vaccine was developed and became available.
This vaccine could make a lot of people money.A vaccine of this magnitude should never be administered without thorough investigation as to it's potentially deadly side effects. What are the side effects, what are the warnings? Too many of the newer prescriptons are risking peoples' lives and are later being taken off the market and sued.If there is a cure for STD's it is going to be a more natural component .
Gardasil vaccine has horrendous safety record.
Between May 2009 and September 2010, 16 deaths occurred after Gardasil
vaccination, along with 789 reports of "serious" adverse reactions;
213 cases of permanent disability; and 25 cases of Guillain Barre Syndrome.
Between September 1, 2010 and September 15, 2011, yet another 26 deaths were
reported.
I am a mother of a young girl in Texas and I do not want my daughter to be
forced to take this vaccine as a school admission requirement. You cannot
transmit the infection to another student during regular course of school
activities.
It's a shame that your daughter will have to pay the price for your ignorance, but her transmitting the virus from the premarital sex that she will have if she has not already will certainly transmit the virus. You are the reason that we still have deaths from preventable disease in this country, and I really doubt your child thanks you for that.
Really big words “pay the price of your ignorance”…
I pride myself on being very knowledgeable about this vaccine’s pros and cons. It is well documented Gardasil is not safe. I will not risk my child having debilitating
neurological disorder, because: one) Rick Perry is trying to push his Big Pharma agenda on every school age girl in Texas and two) some people treat vaccine dubious science on faith basis.
But those are the choices we parents make for our kids. You go ahead and do what you think is best for your children.
@DylonCorp, I'm sorry for you - do you even understand the meaning of "side affects"? Sometime the treatment isn't worth the after affects and as a mother she has to weigh that against her daughter's health going into the future. And even if she's chosen not to have her daughter immunized, she didn't say that she's not talking to her daughter regarding her own sexual health - and hopefully that will be covered under a "safe sex" and condoms talk.
It's shameful that you're probably not listening to all the pharmaceutical advertising where that voice starts reeling off - may cause liver/kidney damage, may cause temporary swelling of the hands/feet, may cause heart palpitations, may cause heart attack or death, may cause.....ad nauseum - these medicines aren't being tested thoroughly enough and that's the frightening part - WE are the LAB RATS! It's too late to do something after you've suffered the side affects!
@Zora Renee
Thank you for the voice of reason. You are correct that parents should make the best decision for their children after careful study of all possible aspects and in my case risk-benefit analysis. I am all into science and as Hippocrates said “first, do no harm”…, so no, I will not take this vaccine on FAIHT, especially when there are not gold standard scientifical studies to support its safety. On the other hand there is tremendous record of horrific side effects.
Funny, when my daughter was diagnosed with febrile seizures the nurses in the
hospital took all the time in the world to explain to me how important the
proper dosage of Tylenol given to her was. They were very specific how this
simple medication can be extremely dangerous to a child if given in too big of
amount for her weight. Now… the vaccines (as a matter of “science” FAIHT) are
given to 7 lbs. newborns or 75 lbs. teenager in the same amount, no questions
asked… Sorry, I like to think for myself.
From CDC.gov:
Summary of HPV Adverse Event Reports Published in JAMA
Page last updated: February 7, 2011
The study's main findings include the following:
There was increased reporting of syncope and pulmonary emboli (blood clots of the lungs) compared with what has been found for other vaccines given to females of the same age. Of the people who had blood clots 90% had a known risk factor for blood clots, such as taking oral contraceptives (birth control pills). VAERS reports cannot prove the vaccine caused the adverse event in women with these risk factors. However, this finding needs further investigation.
Actions taken by CDC and FDA
“people [in FDA] who approve the drugs are also the ones who oversee the post marketing regulation of the drug, remain unchanged. The people who approve a drug when they see that there is a safety problem with it are very reluctant to do anything about it because it will reflect badly on them.”
Learn more from an Interview with Dr. David Graham, the Vioxx Whistleblower (FDA’s Associate Director for Science and Medicine in the Office of Drug Safety)
http://www.naturalnews.com/011401.html
One death is too many in my book. They oughta stick to condoms and early detection. Also hygiene is very important. The FDA needs to higher their standards not lower them, like they have been.
*Think* about this, please! It's a *vaccine*. By definition, it provides immunity to disease, thus preventing deaths. Yes, some of these vaccines have side effects. But if 100 people out of 100,000 get a deadly side-effect, and 5000 deaths are prevented from innoculation against HPV or other disease, then 4,900 lives are *saved*. We all die eventually. The question is, of every 100,000 people, do we want 5000 people to die from (early) cancer caused by HPV, or 100 people to die from a side effect of an HPV vaccine? Do the numbers. There is greater good to everybody by ensuring people get vaccinated.
Angie#77 - And we should outlaw driving, eating dinner (or any other meal), riding a bike, walking n the beach, ... Well, I think you get the message.
I just remember in Hitlers' time when he also came up with a vaccine intended for sterlization of the Jewish womens' populaton.We advocate womens' choice what about little girls' choices.Don't be naive about their choices of words. Vaccine is no cure all.
On this one, I agree with Gov. Haley. The vaccine has not been investigated nearly well enough and since it does not address a disease that is either lethal or spread by casual contact, making it mandatory is nothing more than a method for Merck etc. to make a huge profit. Yes, yes, I *KNOW* it purports to prevent cervical cancer, but that's not truly what it does — it prevents transmission of SOME of the viruses that cause cervical cancer, not all of them. And even then, there's no direct evidence that the vaccine is sufficiently long-lasting to be effective for the duration of women's lives. Aside from which, we already *have* a method to help prevent cervical cancer, and a cheaper one at that — it's called a condom. As far as treating and detecting HPV goes, we have annual Pap smears, which girls/women might forego if they think this vaccine protects them against it. So... I'm not a fan of the vaccine, and I applaud Governor Haley for resisting the pharmaceutical industry's effort to make this unnecessary vaccine part of the usual staple set of immunizations.
I grew up in a city where Merck was and the smell out of that factory was enough to make you sick, literally. My friends' brother used to get the pharmaceutical chickens from Merck. They were some crazy chickens, they flew in the trees and they would try and attack the cats, crazy chickens. That's where they started the chicken dance.
Gov. Haley is what we should be investigating. And what does the "Chicken Dance" have to do with anything? Look at how well abstinence and condoms has solved the problem, to the extent that drug companies spent a small fortune on developing a vaccine to protect people (boys and girls). Look at earlier posts that show what has been studied in relationship to administering the vaccine! It works and is "safe", get your head out of the sand and the "against everything that is progress"!
Angie#77 - Riiiight!
Mandating a vaccine for a communicable disease is one thing, mandating it or even making it necessary to "opt" out for something that is not contagious is something totally different.
HPV is *not* contagious?? Holy cow, you could not be more wrong.
@RabbitHouse
Pleeeaaaasssseeee
A contagious disease is a subset category of infectious diseases (or communicable diseases), which are easily transmitted by physical contact (hence the name-origin) with the person suffering the disease, or by their secretions or objects touched by them.
The non-contagious category of infectious/communicable diseases usually require a special mode of transmission between hosts. These include need for [...] sexual contact (examples are AIDS and hepatitis B).
Let’s skip all the political rhetoric and let’s talk about
facts.
Gardasil vaccine has horrendous safety record.
Between May 2009 and September 2010, 16 deaths occurred after Gardasil
vaccination, along with 789 reports of "serious" adverse reactions;
213 cases of permanent disability; and 25 cases of Guillain Barre Syndrome.
Between September 1, 2010 and September 15, 2011, yet another 26 deaths were
reported.
I am a mother of a young girl in Texas and I do not want my daughter to be
forced to take this vaccine as a school admission requirement. You cannot
transmit the infection to another student during regular course of school
activities.
In Texas we, concerned parents, were well aware of Perry’s connection to big
Pharma. That’s why there was a massive push back against his money motivated
decision to push this vaccine on every girl in Texas.
Rachel, on this issue you are wrong. I do hope you study the issue in depth and
adjust your opinion.
Well, Texas is the location with the largest population of stupid people, so your location is definitely unsurprising.
thank god I was removed from that fever swamp before I caught whatever it is down there that is "catching."
Diana,
You seem like you're really interested in the facts about Gardasil, and a little bit of skepticism is always healthy whenever politics are involved. And even "facts" are hard to come by, as vested interests do have the ability to shape what research gets done and what results get published.
Still, it might be worth taking a closer look at Gardasil's safety record. The CDC website provides both a summary of a study of adverse events as well as a link to the study itself:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/HPV/jama.html
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=184421
This study covers June 2006 to December 2008, though the results seem similar to what you've reported above. They find 772 reports of "serious adverse reaction" over a similar time period. However, they estimate that these 772 reports correspond to millions of patients who were at risk of reporting a reaction (23 million doses, 2.7 million patient years at risk in a 1.5 year study). So at the very least I'd want to compare the risk of a serious adverse reaction to Gardisil (think 772 out of 1.8 million) vs. the risk of getting cervical cancer without Gardisil.
It is also very hard to establish a causal link between a drug and an adverse reaction. This study found a similar level of GBS cases among the reports (42 cases). However, they conclude that only 8 of these cases were plausibly related to the patients receiving Gardasil (see the study itself for how they reach this conclusion).
I think it is fair and reasonable to be skeptical about this study and its conclusions. Big Pharma has a bad history of meddling with this kind of research to produce favorable reports. Still, if we are to use data to try and draw conclusions about policy choices, I think it makes sense to try to do so in light of what data we have, as best we can. Here, it seems like the data that are available make a far more compelling case for vaccination with Gardisil than they do for taking a chance with cervical cancer.
Should I be so blessed to have a daughter, I know what decision I will make.
Chris ; Thank you . II was hoping someone could quantify the claimed adverse reactions. People have adverse reactions to all manner of drugs and I am somewhat skeptical that anyone died as a direct result , because normally the FDA would recall such a drug.
@Chris in Newark.
Thank you for the informative input.
I have a teenage son with severe learning disability. The latest science on his condition states “we do not know what causes it”. I am very science oriented, logical person. If the official science tells me “we do not know”, then by extension of this logic, they cannot tell me: “but we know for sure it is not 49 rounds of vaccines that we require your child to take for every possible disease that we can think of he could possibly be exposed to…. On average cumulative exposure after 18 months of newborn’s life is around 4,925 mcg of aluminum – well known neurotoxic chemical used as adjuvant. As a matter of fact, by EPA's standards there is no SAFE amount of aluminum that person can be injected with.
So again we all have to study those things and make personal decisions best for our children. My children may be just in a group of chemically sensitive and do not tolerate the assault of neurotoxins on their brains… After spending thousands of dollars for therapy for my son, I will not take the risk.
Again … logical risk-benefit analysis.
So Chris from Newark, how long have you worked for a pharmaceutical company?
Angel#77,
For the record, I do not work for a pharma company. I am a social scientist, not a life scientist. I occasionally have taught quantitative research methods courses, and I use quantitative methods extensively in my own (non life-science) research. I only happened to be on this page because I'm a fan of TRMS and because I care about health care policy as a citizen if not as a researcher.
Like anyone else, I have my agendas, and I can't fault you for questioning mine--this is all part of the healthy skepticism that I mentioned before. One of my agendas is to encourage people to employ careful tools in thinking about data, which is what I tried to offer here. I also am worried about the spread of HPV, which I understand to be a communicable disease not easily manageable by widely-used forms of birth control:
http://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/communicable/human_papillomavirus/fact_sheet.htm
So, if you are concerned that my agenda are disproportionately influencing my analysis, I couldn't in the least object to you reading the data in a different way, finding more relevant/less-biased data, or providing a principled critique of this or any other study. I think more of this would be great and lead to better-informed voting/better policy outcomes.
For what it's worth, I'm not crazy about the idea of a government mandate that causes people to have to buy a lot of on-patent high-priced pharmaceuticals. Better solutions that work are hard to come by (these problems haven't really been solved with on-patent HIV medications in developing countries, for instance).
Some communicable diseases are treatable, some are not deadly. Taking Gardasil is like playing russian roulette, you just don't know which patient is going to die, and which one isn't. One life lost is not worth the risk. There are better, safer, and more reliable forms of treatment besides this potentially deadly drug.Wait a minute, was I just in a commercial advertising Gardasil? How tricky thou art.
Diana, In most of the cases of deaths following vaccination, there was no evidence that the vaccine was a contributing factor to the death.
Other studies, obviously skewed for "dramatic" purposes, claimed a number of deaths following vaccination, two of which were deaths in auto accidents where the young women were passengers. Other of those deaths claimed to be from vaccination were due to underlying disease including pneumonia, drug use and in one case a pulmonary embolism that was caused by a phlebitis in a leg that pre-dated the vaccination by some weeks.
One always has to remember this phrase "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" False Cause, Questionable Cause, Confusing Coincidental Relationships With Causes.
Just because an event occurs after another event, it does not mean that the first event caused the second.
Cervical cancer is a horrible disease that kills and if it does not kill, renders a young woman unable to bear children. The HPV virus has been known to be the base cause of nearly all cervical cancers for a very long time. The vaccine is also now recommended for boys and men because the virus also causes penile cancer, anal cancer.
Less well known is that the virus also causes cancer (although the incidence is lower) in other mucus membrane, including the mouth and throat.
In the states where the teaching of sex education is still sketchy at best and totally absent at worst, there is no way for young women or young men to learn that "alternative" sexual activity can be as problematic as intercourse. Parents want to think that their children are "pure" but if neither they or the schools teach their children, there can be devastating consequences. When they learn from each other "facts" that are erroneous, they take chances, often because of peer pressure or the need to feel wanted or loved and girls especially think that oral sex is "safe" when it is not, especially because of the HPV virus. I am acquainted with a young woman who had to have extensive throat surgery for cancer of the larynx attributable to the HPV virus. She can only speak with the aid of a mechanical device. The vaccine was not yet available when she was in her teens and she speaks to young people and parents about her experience. She recommends the vaccination. not surprising.
Andie, P you go first and then let us know.
My bestfriend from school died from cervical cancer that could have been prevented with the HPV vacine. She was not a sexual deviant and married her high school sweetheart and died still married to him 20 years later.
HPV saves lives but it does not turn you into a sex addict. Kid's who want sex when young will have sex when young no matter what. We've had condoms for centuries and it didn't create more sexually active teens it just made it safer for those who were going to do it anyway.
Where are the jobs Mr Bohner stop worrying about my body and try creating some jobs for a change.
There are more than 100 types of human papillomaviruses (HPVs) and Gardasil protects against only 4 types, but 90 percent of women naturally clear HPV from their bodies within two years, at which point cervical cells return to normal.
The cervical cancer death rate is very low in the United States (3 per 100,000), as this cancer is usually entirely curable when detected early enough through PAP screenings, which have reduced cervical cancer rates by 70 percent in the U.S. since PAP screens have become a routine part of women’s health care.
Let’s focus on affordable preventive care, so every woman can access nexpensive OBGYN services.
Why not use the older more traditional forms of a birth control pill. The newer versions have far too many risks.
Angie, birth control pills don't prevent HPV. It doesn't prevent any sexually transmitted diseases. It stops ovulation and alters the wall of the uterus so that an egg cannot implant. That's it. There are plenty of reasons to use hormonal birth control, but preventing HPV isn't one of them.
Joining the Navy 50 years ago was the first time I ran across southerners. 1/3 of the recruit company in boot camp was from South Carolina, 1/3 from Colorado and 1/3 from California. We Coloradans and Californians quickly agreed that the South Carolinians were the stupidest white people we had ever met. Nothing that has happened in the past 50 years, including visiting other locations in the South that are competitive for the title of Stupidest Place In The World, has ever changed my mind that South Carolina is the stupidest place on the entire planet.
Like the man said back in 1860: South Carolina is too small for a republic and too large for an insane asylum.
Is there something in the water down there?
"Rick Perry did the right thing and endorsed the vaccine"
He did it because one of his closest aides is a lobbyist for Merck.
"the one sensible thing he's done in office"
That would be allowing children of illegal immigrants to pay in state tuition at TX universities.
It's a biblical thing: If they make sex too safe how will God punish fornicators.
Why would God be against sex in the first place?
How should I know? Ask Him yourself.
Interesting. Rather than the normal half-literate rants, opponents of the vaccine are submitting alleged "facts" purportedly providing a rational basis to oppose the vaccination. It might be worth suggesting to Rachel that she do a response (she probably has already, but still).
I'd be willing to make a rather large bet that a) there's a very real difference here between deaths and adverse reactions that "occurred after" vaccinations and deaths and adverse reactions that were actually "caused by" the vaccinations; and b) that regardless of the number of HPV viruses, the vaccine is effective against those HPV viruses responsible for the majority of cases.
Those who are genuinely concerned about the adverse reactions "reported" after vaccination should take a close look at the disclosures that come packaged with every medication: even the most innocuous drugs come with a long list of "reported" side effects, some of which are real, but most of which are merely reported because they occurred after use, regardless of whether there's any real causation.
RobDon earlier made excellent point that “Mandating a vaccine for a communicable disease is one thing, mandating it or even making it necessary to "opt" out or something that is not contagious is something totally different.”
This is not philosophical conversation about vaccines at large. This particular vaccine is bad.
I feel for the person that had to move away from Texas "fever swamp" wherever it was. Here in Austin we build up immunity to BS and like our dishes served with a grain of science. Like possibly vaccine recommendations backed by multiple double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies.
Diana K-S
Up in #9.1 you made the comment:
"The cervical cancer death rate is very low in the United States (3 per 100,000), as this cancer is usually entirely curable when detected early enough through PAP screenings, which have reduced cervical cancer rates by 70 percent in the U.S. since PAP screens have become a routine part of women’s health care.
Let’s focus on affordable preventive care, so every woman can access [i]nexpensive OBGYN services."
I would like to point out that this is exactly the affordable preventive care that is being threatened by cut backs to facilities like Planned Parenthood. And this is exactly the kind of care that is covered with no co-pays by the ACA - ObamaCares.
@maphi
You are preaching to the choir:)
Health is not a privilege! Every human being in this country should have access
to preventive services and choices, choices, choices!
@Diana K-S
We are singing in the same choir, but not in unison (which would be boring) but in harmony.
I followed your link regarding Vioxx, and was reminded about that whole flap.
The link was to an interview with the date - Tuesday, August 30, 2005.
I've been poking around trying to find more recent information about whether the FDA made any changes. I found an article on MSNBC.com "FDA yet to improve safety after Vioxx scandal" from 12/9/2009 (an AP report).
Thinking optimistically, changes have been made since then.
Realistically (pessimistically) - probably not. If not, it is time to Squawk.
I am also wondering about the connection to the CDC and FDA.
Adverse reactions need to be reported - for instance using the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). Is that just to CDC or just FDA? The data should be available, whether or not the FDA recalls the drug.
Where did you get those fact and figures? Off of the CDC's website? Because for me I wouldn't be spouting of "stats" like that unless I got them off a reputable website.
I meant my last comment for Diana K-S.
@Sandy Mizel
The CDC data posted above states 12,424 reports of adverse events, 772 (6% of all reports) described serious adverse events, including 32 reports of deaths.
Now, those numbers are subject to revision by CDC. As stated by Dr. David Graham (FDA’s Associate Director for Science and Medicine in the Office of Drug Safety) “the people who approve a drug when they see that there is a safety problem with it are very reluctant to do anything about it”. There is major problem with conflict of interest within FDA when it comes to post marketing
regulation of any given drug.
So if any parent wants to make a decision about giving this vaccine to their daughter and feels assured by CDC’s “there was no common pattern to the deaths that would suggest they were caused by the vaccine” it’s their choice.
@Diana K-S
It essentially comes down to a question of who you trust. That is why there needs to be an opt-out provision.
Our discussion also should remind us about the importance of having regulations.
As you point out, we have to be careful to correct conflict of interest problems within the FDA (Can say the same thing about any agency).
But I don't want to even think about where we would be if we had only the "word" of the drug manufacturer to go on.
We need regulation - but it needs to be SMART regulation.
I know this has been long exchange that for most of you is just an exercise, since it does not impact you directly.
For those who are seriously interested in more detail about Gardasil, because of personal impact to your daughters, granddaughters or nieces I suggest studying a report titled: “Examining the FDA’s HPV Vaccine Records” prepared by Judicial Watch. (It’s a little dated, June 30, 2008, but the relevant info is up to date).
There a couple of things in the document that immediately raised the red flags for me:
Gardasil is the most expensive vaccine ever to be recommended by the FDA, after a fast-track six-month priority review process reserved for products with the potential to fill an unmet medical need. New cancer treatments or medications are often fast-tracked by the FDA, as well as treatments for AIDS, HIV, and other serious ailments. Most vaccines take at least ten months to review and process. While the FDA is not required to approve fast-tracked vaccines and medicines, it apparently did so in case of Gardasil. What was the rush?
During testing Merck used aluminum-containing placebo instead of neutral saline water. Aluminum can cause permanent cell damage and is a reactive placebo, unlike most standard saline placebos. This means that tests of Gardasil, as designed by Merck and approved by FDA, may not have given an accurate picture of safety levels and downright downplayed it by design. But FDA fast-track approved Gardasil anyway. Are you reassured yet?
As Chris in Newark said “a little bit of skepticism is always healthy”, so I urge you to not subscribe to any religion (be it right-wing anti-science religious freaks, or left-wing, FDA and CDC are always right and I have faith in them). Do educate yourself.
you do realize that citing to Judicial Watch just eliminated any credibility your arguments have, right? Judicial Watch is not a scientific or medical organization, it is a purely political entity founded and funded for performing right-wing hit jobs on any idea, person, or policy not in accordance with far right orthodoxy. its genesis was for the purpose of taking down President Clinton. truth is incidental and readily made collateral damage to their desired outcomes.
I know what Judicial Watch does.
When presented by them with a copy of Merck’s study with their aluminum-containing placebo instead of neutral saline water, will you change your mind on scientific impact of this placebo selection on the study results? There is no right-wing or left-wing science.
This particular document is one of hundreds that I took into consideration when it comes to Gardasil.
I was just appealing for through research and not left-wing blind faith that government is here to always protect us and they know the best for my children.
The division in vaccine safety science isn't right-wing left-wing. It's profits from vaccine sales, does not profit from vaccine sales. Vaccine makers simply pretend that the other research doesn't exist. WRONG! That's NOT science. And the science research on Gardisil is not nearly developed enough to FORCE it on other people.
If you and your child want to take the vaccine because you've made an informed decision that the benefits outweigh the risks, I take no issue. But, forcing it on people who have done the research and have made an informed decision that the benefit of NOT taking the vaccine outweighs the risk, no one else should take issue.
That's nothing more than imposing your values, and the facts of your specific health situation and family history, and imposing it on another. It's contrary to natural law to force a medical procedure on another person, regardless of the medical procedure.
@Jeff from Sac
If I understood you correctly, I agree with you. It all should be about informed consent and letting parents make educated decisions.
In my family my brother believes in every form of vaccine like it’s a bible… He and his children are vaccinated for everything you can imagine with obligatory doses of seasonal flu vaccine and all the other available out there, just in case. His young family suffers from Rheumatoid arthritis, numerous pneumonias, very frequent colds and flues (4-5 times a year), numerous food sensitivities and general allergies, ADHD, hormonal imbalances, ulcers, hypertension, and diabetes and in his case recently diagnosed liver disorder.
And it is all after carefully following the recommended vaccine schedule.
I make my individual choices, based on all available info and so far the general health of my kids is shockingly better than his….
I am not trying to convince anybody with my own personal anecdotal evidence… but I am confident that I am doing something right for my family.
Maybe Haley considered the reaction of parents in Texas after Rick Perry tried to mandate the HPV vaccine there via executive order and realized that parents should have the right to informed consent and choice rather than be forced to jump through bureaucratic hoops required to "opt out" of the vaccine in order to exercise their right to choice in medical risk taking. Opt out does not mean "no thank you." It is a laborious process.
Informed consent to medical risk taking is a human right. You have the right to be fully informed about the benefits and risks of pharmaceutical products – like vaccines - and be allowed to make a voluntary choice about whether or not to take the risk without being punished for it.
Let's also consider how necessary HPV vaccine is. It is supposed to prevent a sexually transmitted virus called HPV. Most people, who have been sexually active, have been exposed to HPV and clear the virus from their bodies within two years without any problems and are left with permanent, lifelong immunity to the HPV strains that caused infection.19,20,21 The small minority of women, who do not clear the HPV virus, can develop cervical cancer and die IF they do not get regular Pap test screening and immediate treatment of pre-cancerous cervical lesions.
After routine Pap tests became a standard part of health care for American women in the 1960’s, deaths from cervical cancer dropped by more than 70 percent. In fact, cervical cancer represents less than two percent of all cancers diagnosed in the U.S. every year and is not among the top ten causes of cancer deaths in American women today. About 11,000 American women are diagnosed with cervical cancer every year and about 4,000 women die.
Plus Merck, government officials and doctors do not know how long three shots of Gardasil will protect against HPV infection. The vaccine only contains several of the many HPV strains associated with cervical cancer and hasn’t been on the market long enough to know how well it works.
It is a vaccine that, by the summer of 2009, already caused more than 15,000 thousand reports of vaccine reactions, including more than 3,000 injuries and 48 deaths. 14 of the girls who died after getting Gardasil were under age 16.
For more on HPV Vaccine please visit National Vaccine Information Center - http://www.nvic.org/vaccines-and-diseases/HPV.aspx
National Vaccine information Center - Your Health, Your Family, Your Choice - www.nvic.org
Just another little tidbit to add to this story - Dr. Julie Gerberding, who headed the CDC from 2002 through 2009, landed a top job with Merck. Her job there? She's the president of the vaccine division.
I don’t see how critically thinking person cannot see the obvious.
So what you are saying is that Americans and their personal doctors aren't smart enough to know whether they need this vaccine or not. Therefore they must be forced to take the vaccine or go through some government bureaucracy to explain why. Are you familiar with Nazi ideals?
Thread Godwin'ed! Thread over. Time to wrap it up.
When my teenage daughter asked me about Gardasil, I asked her to read up on all the pros and cons of the vaccine. After she read through the material she decided no. We then discussed all the ways to prevent cervical cancer like not being promiscuous and using a condom when she did decide to engage in sex. The problem with the educated elite, bureaucrats and the scientists is that there is an acceptable level of adverse reactions. The end justifies the means. However, if it is your daughter it does not matter that she is only 1 of so many. Her whole world as well as yours has been turned on its head.
Half of the communists posting comments on this site don't even live in SC. How about you shutty and take care of your own issues. Matter of fact, quit worrying about what anyone else is doing, you're safe right? your vaccines work so well, what on earth do you have to worry about then? I seriously wish people would shut their blow holes, straighten up, and worry about their own business. You want to fill your kid full of toxins? I don't care go for it. Stop trying to tell me what to do I can promise you we are not listening to your opinions just like the mindless listen to ours.
Vaccines are actually largely reliant on herd immunity. When more people are vaccinated, the virus has fewer hosts and that means there is simply less of it around. That reduces everyone's exposure.
Additionally, viruses mutate as they travel person to person. The more it is transmitted, the further the mutations change it. The vaccine works best against the "original" version. It gets less and less effective the more the virus mutates.
So no. People can't be simply content to vaccinate themselves. They do have valid interest in seeing others get vaccinated because it has a direct impact on the effectiveness of their own vaccination.
I live across the river from South Carolina in Augusta, GA. Down here we joke about South Carolina's competitive desire to be more Alabama than Alabama. Granted, Georgia is not that much better, but we do pray they will secede again and the US will sell the whole state to Cuba.
Ah, this brings back memories of the Republican debates. Can we do reruns? I think I would pay to see some of that stuff again if were to be offered. Can't believe the dems aren't using the material for the Presidential campaign. They could avoid the expense of hiring ad agencies.
Diana K-S, I applaud your efforts to open the mind of these people who so entrust their lives, to the FDA, Big Pharma and CDC. These are the kind of people who are so willing to spout research trials performed by said institutions as absolute science. What they fail to realize is that the research is biased and distorted to provide a desired result. The FDA and the CDC hire people that have also worked with Big Pharma and vice versa. They have stock and incur financial gain when drugs are approved and mandated accordingly. Why some people so blindly offer up their children as human sacrifices to this corrupt institution is beyond me. Keep up the good work, Diana. I understand it's like banging your head against a brick wall, but everyone once in a while you may say something that might click in their brainwashed heads.
It is interesting to note that in other countries where the vaccines for HPV have been administered, there has been little or no hysterical opposition to the vaccination of young women and now boys before they become sexually active.
Many developing countries are clamoring for the vaccine because deaths resulting from cervical cancer are high because there is little chance for women to have regular cervical smears.
India stopped a program after some 20,000 girls were vaccinated because there was a claim that there was not enough cervical cancer to warrant it but that decision was a political ploy - there is virtually NO cervical cancer screening in the district in which the vaccine was administered and the WHO is still advocating it be reinstated because there are many deaths attributable to this aggressive cancer.
There is virtually no financial gain for the vaccine manufacturer to supply it to poor countries where it is subsidized by the WHO and other organizations.