Leave it to Texas...

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Don't get me wrong. I hope this vaccine works and saves millions of lives. But I think there is plenty of room for reasonable people to be quite skeptical.

I agree completely. Lets have some healthy skepticism and discussion on real data. Whoops...the problem is that the concern has little to do with the data.

- "Bad" pharmacy companies trying to pass off half-baked drugs to make money
- "Bad" legislature trying to big brother us into compliance
- Presumption that their kids will be in the minority that dont end up having teenage premarital sex
- Whiffing on the benefits, because its likely to be #1 and #2

Bear in mind that i'm the LAST guy on the planet that wants the government to tell me what I should and shouldnt do with my kids health because I'm already going to look at the data and do what looks to be the safest and best thing for him.

But in another analog, i'm glad the county requires rabies shots for all dogs, because 80% of my neighbors wouldnt do it otherwise. When people think with their hearts and wallets, somebody has to provide the brains on occasion.

 

[SecondCor521]

I've been avoiding this thread, but . . . I think Old MdD asked some legitimate questions. As a left-wing nut vs a right-wing nut I probably don't share all of the same motivations as him, but am I the only other person that questions the drug company research and motives? Based on recent history of pharmaceutical safety research, I am a little concerned that this is yet another vaccine that will turn out to have worse side effects than positive benefits. And don't tell me that there is no indication that this research is tainted. There never is any indication that the research is tainted until we have a trail of dead or incapacitated bodies.

And the Texas State Legislature is hardly the most trustworthy body I can think of as an endorsement partner. These are the same guys that hid for months in NM and then proceded to follow the lead of Tom DeLay to jerrymander the whole state.

So we have a huge profit motive for both a drug company and a corrupt state legislature. That just doesn't inspire confidence in me.

Don't get me wrong. I hope this vaccine works and saves millions of lives. But I think there is plenty of room for reasonable people to be quite skeptical.

I think it is reasonable to question the profit motivations of those involved. My thoughts and questions:

1. I think the profit motive can sway some who stand to more directly benefit and who are further away from the consequences of introducing bad drugs to the market. In my mind, this would include, potentially, Merck top executives. I would hope that the remainder of Merck employees are real, living, breathing human beings who wouldn't sell their neighbor's kids down the river for a pop in the stock price. But I can conceive how this could happen.

2. You wrote "yet another vaccine" - which other vaccines have been shown to have a greater negative effect than positive? I am not aware of any. I am aware that some recent other drugs have been approved by the FDA and then pulled. Does anyone know if the studies on this vaccine are more thorough or well done than Vioxx, etc.?

3. Even if they were involved, which someone else has posted that they are not, what profit motive is there for the legislature? Unless they are Merck shareholders without daughters of their own, they're not going to profit personally from this. And even if they did, I would expect their humanity and reason to win out over a few hundred or thousand dollar increase in their Merck holdings.

4. Finally, I would just point out that they do have elections from time to time, so the group of individuals that represents Texas currently is not the same group of people involved in the jerrymandering issue of several years ago. Although there is probably some significant overlap between the two groups of people.

2Cor521

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

I think it is reasonable to question the profit motivations of those involved. My thoughts and questions:

Good points. While not a blind fan of Merck, vaccines in general are the Rodney Dangerfield of medical progress. We spend zillions on high tech this and that, as we forget .... tetanus, polio, smallpox, measles, influenza, diphtheria, whooping cough, rubella-related birth defects, and others, with likelihood in the foreseeable future of cervical cancer virus, AIDS, and malaria being amenable to immunizations.

There's not much money to be made in vaccines by doctors or hospitals but from a societal perspective there represent serious benefits.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Lets consider the risk-reward of selling...what...20-30 million doses of a vaccine which generally arent big cash cows vs a lawsuit brought by the parents of 20-30 million 12 year olds who got sick from it because the drug company hid something or was deceptive, or even half-assed about the research.

Granted theres a huge margin of plausibility in half-assedness around these days... :

The reward simply isnt there for evil merck to take the chance.

Similarly, the politicos that put this in place must realize the risk they're taking. Not sure some campaign contributions or other evil intent possibilities outweigh the specter of never working in politics again because YOU ran through the laws that gave killer vaccines to everyones teenage daughters.

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

Suppose we had a new vaccine against, say, cancer and learned that cancer was contagious with 50% of exposures resulting in a new cancer somewhere down the road.

Suppose the vaccine was highly effective (95%) and had almost no other side effects but that it killed one recipient for every million doses.

Would you vote for mandatory vaccination?

How bout one vaccine death per 100,000,000, or one per 10,000? Suppose it cost $3000 per dose? How about $3 per dose. Free? Would you hold the manfacturer harmless for vaccine deaths, and pay up through a tax-supported fund?

I know how Merck would vote. It's more complicated for the rest of us, especially government leadership.

 

[bright eyed]

hello?! the governor's former chief of staff is now a lobbyist for merck

not sure the public health was on the top of the list and i refuse to use my daughters as a part of this "public" study...

remember when they used to spray ddt in the streets? or all the drugs that have been given to pregnant women that resulted in malformities? i'll wait 20 years or so to see what happens and then consider if it's a good idea for my grand daughters...in the mean time seems like the pap test and loads of quality sex ed will do for now.

 

[sgeeeee]

Lets consider the risk-reward of selling...what...20-30 million doses of a vaccine which generally arent big cash cows vs a lawsuit brought by the parents of 20-30 million 12 year olds who got sick from it because the drug company hid something or was deceptive, or even half-assed about the research.

Granted theres a huge margin of plausibility in half-assedness around these days... :

The reward simply isnt there for evil merck to take the chance.

Similarly, the politicos that put this in place must realize the risk they're taking. Not sure some campaign contributions or other evil intent possibilities outweigh the specter of never working in politics again because YOU ran through the laws that gave killer vaccines to everyones teenage daughters.

I don't think these arguments are really very compelling unless you can fill in the precise $ amounts that each VP and politico is going to get personally and the time constant before serious problems might show up.

Here's another question I have: Is Texas the only state where this is happening?

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

news in south florida last night is that this is now on the table here. but in fort lauderdale we won't be shooting up the gay kids because they won't be spreading it to all the cervixes (whatever that is?--and don't bother telling me; i really don't wanna know).

 

[Caroline]

news in south florida last night is that this is now on the table here. but in fort lauderdale we won't be shooting up the gay kids because they won't be spreading it to all the cervixes (whatever that is?--and don't bother telling me; i really don't wanna know).

Ok, if you don't wanna know, I won't tell you. ;-D

That said, (and maybe Rich can help us sort out what virus causes what and which vaccines treat what)-- I have read that some of these viruses also cause genital warts in both men and women, and in vary rare cases, anal and penile cancer in men.

Also, for those who want to know, they can in some cases complicate pregnancy and affect newborns.

I get this info from the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV-and-men.htm#cancer

Whatever the case, it's great to be having a reasoned discussion about this.

 

[farmerEd]

Whatever the case, it's great to be having a reasoned discussion about this.

Really? Based on this statement you made:

if you don't HAVE the affected organ, then why on earth would you care what vaccine was being given to whom? Lots of vaccines are required -- the only reason to mention this one is if you're in line for it or if you've got another agenda.

According to your quote, the only people having a reasonable discussion about this should be women...why the sudden change? Having a real hard time reconciling those statements...

 

[bright eyed]

i don't think the drug companies should be able to advertise the way they do these days either - whatever drugs you take should be between you and your doctor...based on your health etc...

i just keep thinking of how many drugs we have seen advertised the past decade that got pulled because of problems - like vioxx, or the weight loss one celebrex? or the "patch" female contraceptive - which some of my friends tried or used - that is also being pulled -

and i'm seriously concerned about hpv and hpv awareness - hpv i have a sister and close friends who have hpv and have had serious complications because of it - but none of that sways me to think it's a good idea to shoot up our young girls without reams and reams of more data - both women could have prevented the hpv with safer sex and regular paps btw.

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

i don't think the drug companies should be able to advertise the way they do these days either - whatever drugs you take should be between you and your doctor...based on your health etc...

If you only knew the time I have spent de-educating patients from the implied messages in the direct-to-consumer ads. I love well-informed patients, but not those whose primary source of knowledge is the latest ad in Newsweek.

 

[haha]

... with likelihood in the foreseeable future of cervical cancer virus, AIDS, and malaria being amenable to immunizations.

There's not much money to be made in vaccines by doctors or hospitals but from a societal perspective there represent serious benefits.

IMO, a malaria vaccine would transform the world. I once was a foot soldier (vampire) in a malaria survey in the southern Carribean. Seemed like every other person had plasmodium this or that. It ruined the whole society.

Ha

 

[sgeeeee]

The idea that profit is not a big motivator for vaccine policy seems to be questioned by a fairly large number of sources -- including statements from the pharmaceutical industry. There also is a pretty questionable past history with safety and effectiveness of many vaccines. Of course I can't vouch for all of these sources, but there is a lot of information and data out there about this topic.

Does anyone understand why the urgent push from Texas?

Glaxo signs US deal to boost vaccine profits
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article387135.ece
“Glaxo Smith Kline is spending $300m (£157m) to buy Corixa Corporation, an American vaccine-technology business, in a move that will greatly improve the prospective profitability of one of its most important pipeline products.
Corixa, based in Seattle, makes and supplies the British pharmaceutical giant with adjuvants — additives that encourage a better response to vaccines from the body’s immune system. The most important is the MPL adjuvant used in Cervarix, a vaccine for cervical cancer that Glaxo is counting on for future growth. . .”

Vaccine Industry Growing Amid Increased Funding, Higher Profits
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=61874“The Los Angeles Times on Sunday examined "a boom in vaccine discovery and development" prompted by advances in technology, "increased funding and higher profits." . . .”

Coverage & Access | Vaccine Industry Growing Amid Increased Funding, Higher Profits
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=42563

Vaccinating For Profit - From Cradle to Coffin
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/vaccine-profit.html

Profits, Not Science, Motivate Vaccine Mandates
http://www.wellbeingjournal.com/profits-vaccines.htm

Dispelling Vaccination Myths
http://www.mercola.com/2001/aug/18/vaccine_myths.htm

The US flu vaccine crisis: a debacle for profit-based medicine
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/flu1-o26.shtml

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

IMO, a malaria vaccine would transform the world. I once was a foot soldier (vampire) in a malaria survey in the southern Carribean. Seemed like every other person had plasmodium this or that. It ruined the whole society.

It's the modern day plague. We are haughty about it here, but worldwide it's hell.

 

[SecondCor521]

Really? Based on this statement you made:

According to your quote, the only people having a reasonable discussion about this should be women...why the sudden change? Having a real hard time reconciling those statements...

In Caroline's defense, in the same post you quoted she also wrote that this same disease can affect men as well, so perhaps that would change her mind.

Your selective reading and/or quoting strikes me as mean-spirited.

2Cor521

 

[farmerEd]

>>Your selective reading and/or quoting strikes me as mean-spirited.

I am the OP; I put the article out for discussion and was *promptly* informed that I had no right to have an opinion because I did not have a cervix, or to be more specific:

if you don't HAVE the affected organ, then why on earth would you care what vaccine was being given to whom? Lots of vaccines are required -- the only reason to mention this one is if you're in line for it or if you've got another agenda.

Read the thread from the beginning and then decide who became mean-spirited when.

Its only after about 5 pages of posts she suddenly decide that perhaps men, after all, do have a right to an opinion. Of course she never bothered to let us in on what my "secret agenda" was. I can only assume that she has mystical mind-reading powers that let her read other peoples thoughts thru the internet.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

...and then we all got over it and realized there was no solution to this issue through discussion, although there was probably a lot of good information put forward by accident during the process?

My local paper ran a reader poll on this yesterday

"Should other states follow the example of Texas and mandate girls be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted disease that can cause cervical cancer?

Date: 02-02-2007 - 02-05-2007

Yes, the HPV vaccine can target and prevent cervical cancer. 102 Votes(31%)
No, widespread vaccination programs could encourage premarital sex. 28 Votes(8%)
Vaccinations should be offered, but parents could opt out if they object because of religious beliefs. 204 Votes(61%)"

Of course, after reading an article on the code availability of the new fangled plastic water pipes (pex) that have a 25 year success story and are required by building code in high stress applications...25% voted that they would never consider them over copper in their home.

I'm still trying to work out the rationalization as to how something required by code when used in "problem situations" is somehow perceived to be inferior in everyday applications.

Funny people.

 

[laurence]

Copper = Mercedes

Plastic = Hyundai

Hyundai has a better service record, but many middle class perception of what luxury is...

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I suppose, yet the plastic stuff is superior in every way to copper, far cheaper and easier to install...and the only downside is that it releases PCB's when it burns.

My guess is that a pipe full of water under pressure isnt going to burn very well, or for a long time.

Heck, its could turn out to sort of be a nice ghetto internal sprinkler system...your plumbing catches fire, melts and puts the fire out!

 

[SecondCor521]

>>Your selective reading and/or quoting strikes me as mean-spirited.

I am the OP; I put the article out for discussion and was *promptly* informed that I had no right to have an opinion because I did not have a cervix, or to be more specific:

Read the thread from the beginning and then decide who became mean-spirited when.

Its only after about 5 pages of posts she suddenly decide that perhaps men, after all, do have a right to an opinion. Of course she never bothered to let us in on what my "secret agenda" was. I can only assume that she has mystical mind-reading powers that let her read other peoples thoughts thru the internet.

Ahh. I have this thing where I read what everyone writes but in general I don't pay attention to who says what, so knowing you're the OP and the one who Caroline pointed out as having an "agenda" helps me.

FWIW, I agree more with your position -- I think that men and women should have input on each other's health issues, especially in the context of marriage or parenting.

At any rate, I can see her "agenda" comment has you bent out of shape, so I'll just bow out now and let the two of you sort it out. I don't think my interjection helped the matter much.

2Cor521

 

[REWahoo]

An interesting item from the Dallas Morning News:

This just in from former [Texas] Democratic gubernatorial nominee Chris Bell, who wants women's health advocates to get loud in defense of Gov. Rick Perry's order for girls to receive a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer:

"For years, Rick Perry has earned our opposition," Mr. Bell says in a blast email. "Right now, with women's health at stake, he has earned our support, and without sacrificing the right to oppose him in the future, we must offer that support."

Last September, Mr. Bell vowed that if elected he would issue an executive order mandating that girls receive the human papillomavirus vaccine. In today's email, he said supporters of such a mandate have been "awfully quiet." He said if such folks don't defend Mr. Perry, "then we're the ones putting politics ahead of women's health."

 

[laurence]

Score one for Texas!

 

[sgeeeee]

Score one for Texas!

One what?

 

[LeatherneckPA]

OK, how on this forum, does one point out that we are circling a campfire that has long since burned out, will never reach agreement nor convert one another, and therefore should yell "Uncle"?