Leave it to Texas...

[johnlw]

Ah, nothing better than a spirited, emotional debate to get the blood flowing in the morning.

For me, the issue at stake is the government deciding what is best for us instead of allowing people to make their own decisions. In addition, this is not a disease that is transmitted during normal social interaction, which children are necessarily exposed to by attending public school. The public school system will be used as a hammer to enforce this ruling.

John

 

[REWahoo]

To repeat what has already been said, the state of TX allows any parent to opt out by simply providing a signed, notarized letter to the school that they do not want their child to have the vaccine.

Looks to me like that allows people to make their own decision.

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

Anyone remember Vioxx?

Uhh... polio is almost gone.

It's about competing risks, never black and white.

 

[Nords]

Thats about the stupidest comment I have ever read on this board.

I'm sensing a little ambivalence on this quantitative & balanced evaluation of the other poster's comments. What makes them less valid than yours?

I know what my 11 y/o daughter is doing at any moment of any day. She does not need to be protected against STD's.

Good luck with those statements, which I would also nominate for your award. Perhaps some war-story quality time with school counselors and health staff would impart their experience with contagious STDs in the less-traveled corners of our local educational institutions... let alone the popular kid's hangouts.

Our 14-year-old is getting the HPV vaccine as soon as it's available. She also has a standing parental offer for birth control whenever she musters up the courage to tell us she's ready. Personally I'm hoping that's when she's also old enough to drive herself to the doctor's office and buy it with her own money, but I'm not picky. Speaking as a charter member of the hormonally-challenged teen club, my sympathies are with whoever she chooses as her first partner.

Sex, drugs, and rock&roll: as a parent I'll feel blessed to declare victory in successfully mentoring our kid through just one of these categories. Two would be sensational. I know it's not happening with rock & roll.

Instead of getting our collective knickers in an uproar about HPV vaccines, what about vaccines for chicken pox, shingles, and anthrax? Now there's some hairballs!

 

[farmerEd]

>>Good luck with those statements, which I would also nominate for your award.

Well since I homschool all my children, and they are with me or my wife 100% of the time I don't need any luck at all with those statements. Its a simple statement of absolute fact.

>>What makes them less valid than yours?
Carolines statements wasn't even an opinion...it was stupid comment that implied somehow that since Caroline has a cervix she has more rights than I, to decide what is best for my daughters health...all because of my secret agenda.

>>Instead of getting our collective knickers in an uproar about HPV vaccines, what about vaccines for chicken pox, shingles, and anthrax?

Chicken pox, shingles and I assume anthrax can all be caught via casual contact with other students or at the store or local mall...not even close to the same category as STD's.

If one can argue that HPV vaccine should be given to 11-12 year old girls than its only a very small step to say that Birth control should be mandated for that same group of people. After all, its proven safe, and you just never know....

 

[Gone4Good]

i would imagine many women are tired of guys putting their laws on women's bodies.

I'm dizzy from the circular reasoning.

Normally people are upset because they don't want the government telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies.

Now in this case those same people are upset because they want the government to mandate what women have to inject into their bodies.

Talk about "hidden" agendas.

 

[dumpster56]

The reason the government seems to be in this IS because the Christian Right has made it clear that they do not want this vaccine made available PERIOD!

There has been much discussion in those religious quarters on HOW to stop this vaccine.

Religious freaks, all denominations ruin society!

 

[bosco]

I understand the public health concerns and the rationale for requiring certain mandatory immunizations. I think, however, that the burden should be on the government to show that they are preventing a devastating plague. In this case, I think they've fallen a good deal short.

I'll tell you the one that I don't understand: (I'm sure I'll get flamed for this). There are some who believe (in the naturopathic community) that the rubella vaccine compromises the human immune system long-term because it commits a vastly disproportionate percentage of the human immune capacity (which is not infinite). I don't know if this is true or not, and I have had a bad experience with naturopaths and don't trust them.... BUT

Rubella is basically a harmless disease unless you are pregnant woman in the first trimester. SO....why are males required to get it as a precondition to attend public school? I know....because they might give rubella to a pregnant woman. But wouldn't it make more sense to only require females to get the vaccination? If there is a potential downside, why require half the population that doesn't need it to get it as well?

just curious...

 

[dumpster56]

I understand the public health concerns and the rationale for requiring certain mandatory immunizations. I think, however, that the burden should be on the government to show that they are preventing a devastating plague. In this case, I think they've fallen a good deal short.

I'll tell you the one that I don't understand: (I'm sure I'll get flamed for this). There are some who believe (in the naturopathic community) that the rubella vaccine compromises the human immune system long-term because it commits a vastly disproportionate percentage of the human immune capacity (which is not infinite). I don't know if this is true or not, and I have had a bad experience with naturopaths and don't trust them.... BUT

Rubella is basically a harmless disease unless you are pregnant woman in the first trimester. SO....why are males required to get it as a precondition to attend public school? I know....because they might give rubella to a pregnant woman. But wouldn't it make more sense to only require females to get the vaccination? If there is a potential downside, why require half the population that doesn't need it to get it as well?

just curious...

I had the german measles as a child and my mom was pregnant at the time.

I think that is the reason males should get the vaccine.

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

Yes, I probably would eventually...certainly not at 11-12 year old, and certainly do not want to be forced into that decsion by the government....and especially not by a government that has been purchased by a corporation that stands to make literally *billions* of dollars by passing laws that force children to have the vaccine which hasn't even been on the market long enough to be proven safe or effective.

that is completely reasonable.

Speaking as a charter member of the hormonally-challenged teen club, my sympathies are with whoever she chooses as her first partner.

Sex, drugs, and rock&roll: as a parent I'll feel blessed to declare victory in successfully mentoring our kid through just one of these categories. Two would be sensational. I know it's not happening with rock & roll.

that is completely funny.

And being gay or black and all that 'stuff' is false argument IMO.. rubbish

Also, they had a 32 YO lady who has the cancer and is expected to be dead by April.. she was happy that they are making it a 'requirement'... she would have loved to have had the vaccine and be able to live... trump THAT..

that is completely arrogant.

by the way, i wasn't making a case at all for any argument either way, (though certainly, for your record, i do believe a daddy has say) rather i was expressing what i saw as the basis for caroline's sentiment which i believe lead to her remark. while feelings can be be based on misinformation, like it or not, it's less likely false about how someone feels, but more likely there is faulty about how someone thinks. thinking in arrogant terms will rarely help you understand any more clearly or empathize at all with how someone else feels.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Are you sure? Have you checked under the cushions in your couch. I find things there sometimes.

I'll ask my wife, she has the uterus tracking device installed.

As described above, we have a no-win discussion here about an emotional issue vs an intellectual one.

Not as bad as emotional vs emotional, but still no-win. The facts are what they are and the feelings are what they are. Nobody is going to change someones feelings with facts and vice versa.

Hairballs indeed.

 

[haha]

I thik there are several issue types.

How good and careful is the science establishing efficacy and risk for this vaccine? I don't know, but I think it is a very important point. How many women in the US would have to be vaccinated to prevent one case that progresses to full blown cancer? How may side effects, and of what severity, would this many vaccinations produce?

It is true that in a wealthy country like ours most cases of cervical cancer or the precursor dysplasia get caught and treated.

Another issue is public health vs. individual autonomy. It seems to me that many modern societies, and certainly the US, are toward laissez faire when it comes to treatment, reporting, etc. of diseases with a strong infectious or public health component. Is this something that might have to be looked at more closely? For example, should the authorities be able to quarantine those with bird flu? How about the issue of TB and immigration? Used to get you a return trip from Ellis Island; but who has heard of anyone being sent home lately?

This vaccination could perhaps save a lot of lives. It might also save a number of men and women from embarrassment and perhaps marriage strains.

I'd vote yeah based on that alone!

Ha

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

How good and careful is the science establishing efficacy and risk for this vaccine? I don't know, but I think it is a very important point. How many women in the US would have to be vaccinated to prevent one case that progresses to full blown cancer? How may side effects, and of what severity, would this many vaccinations produce?

I am not in my area of expertise, so did some quick reading. Here is what I found in trusted sources:

o 95%+ effective in preventing HPV infection when used as directed.
o Side effects thus far are extremely rare. Some studies include thousands of patients over nearly 5 years with no detectable adverse effects compared to unvaccinated controls.
o Cervical cancer in the USA: about 10,000 new cases a year, about 4000 deaths.
o It is over 95% effective in preventing early cervical cancer when used as directed, so far (5 years).
o Most scientists and researchers feel it is very, very safe and highly effective.

Meadbh is certainly a lot smarter than I am about this and perhaps she'll jump in.

At any rate, complex as the problem is, the safety and efficacy of the vaccine are not at issue, barring some conspiracy by Merck to hide scarey data or pay off scientists. At least in this situation, I don't feel there is any reason to think that has happened -- lots of public health oversight.

 

[LeatherneckPA]

.....I know what my 11 y/o daughter is doing at any moment of any day. She does not need to be protected against STD's.

Dude, unless you are 10 miles from town and home-schooling your children, and they NEVER leave home without you or your wife, you really can not make an unqualified statement like that. Kids are resourceful. And unfortunately, they often surprise you with what they will do in an ffort to be accepted by their peers.

 

[LeatherneckPA]

.....not one the govt and a for-profit drug company makes for me..and certainly not a drug company with a proven history of lying about the safety of its products.

OK, my previous post aside, I would like to add that I have agreed with pretty my OldMc has had to say. This is exactly the kind of governmental interference I was referring to in my "I'd be a Confederate" statement.

And Merck's record isn't exactly stellar. Also, with the recognized level of kickbacks and "fact-finding trips" to exotic locations I'm not sure that government and for-profit are mutually exclusive. Somebody's palm got greased to pass that bill. And I believe it is an infringement on OldMc's freedom of choice.

 

[LeatherneckPA]

.....And being gay or black and all that 'stuff' is false argument IMO.. rubbish.....

DING, DING, DING,,,,give THAT contestant the home versionof our game!!

Know why people "resent" Asian/Indian immigrants? Because they come here and adhere to old-fashioned ideals that built this country, not the new fangled "I deserve it" crap of the younger generations. They get out there and bust their humps to succeed, and when they do succeed our lazy folks all scream "unfair" and whimper for more government handouts. More power to them, and to all who WORK for what they want or want to achieve.

Sorry for the rant, not trying to kidnap the thread. Really.

 

[LeatherneckPA]

.....Cervical cancer in the USA: about 10,000 new cases a year, about 4000 deaths.....

Based upon your figures this vaccine has the potential to "help" a mere .0036% of the population of the US. And yet, Merck's TV commercials make it sound like it's critical for about 20-25% of the population. Maybe it's just me, but if they succeed in this "mandatory vaccine" crap they effectively increase their market, and thereby their profits by 5555.55%.

I say, wonderful, but leave it as an option to be discussed with your family doctor and your family.

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

Based upon your figures this vaccine has the potential to "help" a mere .0036% of the population of the US. And yet, Merck's TV commercials make it sound like it's critical for about 20-25% of the population. Maybe it's just me, but if they succeed in this "mandatory vaccine" crap they effectively increase their market, and thereby their profits by 5555.55%.

I'm no cheerleader for big pharmaceutical (esp Merck) business practices, but that is probably not a valid way to look at it, IHMO. You are taking numbers from the at-risk population and applying them to the general population.

Many preventive interventions work in small numbers and proportions, but over a long period of exposure. That's why risk of side effects is so important in this type of decision; even a small risk in a large population becomes huge when you consider that only a small fraction of that population would even benefit from the intervention. That small risk for 95% of the population can easily overwhelm the 5% who might benefit. Targeting the right population is critical. Complicated stuff.

As an example, statins reduce the risk of a first heart attack in the AT RISK population by roughly 0.3% per year. Not an impressive number. But over 10 years, its 1:33 prevented, over 20 its 1:16, etc. Most will not benefit in any case.

So far, from a scientific and public health perspective, this one seems to be passing the test. Time and postmarket surveillance (which includes numbers impossible to achieve during clinical trials) will tell.

 

[haha]

I am not in my area of expertise, so did some quick reading. Here is what I found in trusted sources:

o 95%+ effective in preventing HPV infection when used as directed.
o Side effects thus far are extremely rare. Some studies include thousands of patients over nearly 5 years with no detectable adverse effects compared to unvaccinated controls.
o Cervical cancer in the USA: about 10,000 new cases a year, about 4000 deaths.
o It is over 95% effective in preventing early cervical cancer when used as directed, so far (5 years).
o Most scientists and researchers feel it is very, very safe and highly effective.

Thanks Rich, I am sold.

On a personal note, I just spoke to my sister. She had just come from the funeral of a dear friend, a 45 y.o. woman who raised 4 kids on her own, cutting hair and giving perms. She never got far enough ahead to get health insurance, so when she discovered her cancer it wasn't in an early stage. Her long hard struggle ended a few days ago.

Plenty of people can fall through the cracks in our system. I know a 25 year old man with cervical cancer; he is getting a hysterectomy next week. How did this happen? He is FTM, and it seems that these guys are not fully comfortable with going to the local gyn to get their annual Pap smears. The gyn profession is not exactly reaching out to them either.

Ha

 

[LeatherneckPA]

.....even a small risk in a large population becomes huge when you consider that only a small fraction of that population would even benefit from the intervention. That small risk for 95% of the population can easily overwhelm the 5% who might benefit. Targeting the right population is critical.....

Far be it for me to argue with a doc, Rich, but that was sort of my whole point. Even if you applied your 10,000 number to only 20% of the US pop that's still only .0145% realizing benefits. If you accept the presumption of saving a completely different statistical set each year It takes 75 years to benefit a total of 1%.

What Merck did was play upon sensationalistic fears, grease a few palms, and guarantee themselves a HUGE return on a drug with limited applicability and market. Personally I'd much rather see them concentrate more on an AIDS vaccine or cure.

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

but that was sort of my whole point. Even if you applied your 10,000 number to only 20% of the US pop that's still only .0145% realizing benefits.

We're looking at the numbers from two different perspectives. I concur that the net beneift is small in absolute numbers. The trick is to a) identify the subgroups with much higher incidence of disease who will thus, as a group, get much more benefit, and b) monitor adverse effects, if any, with the same rigor which Merck spends on their marketing .

This no different from the decisions regarding polio, smallpox, measles (which can be a killer), tetanus, etc.

As a digression, I gotta wonder where all the heat is coming from on this issue when, as REW pointed out, the parents may opt out by signing a sheet of paper. No one is being forced to do anything; just the default state is changing -- kinda like everyone participates in the corporate 401K, unless they opt out. Oh, well.

If my daughter were still young, she'd be getting it.

 

[Caroline]

If one can argue that HPV vaccine should be given to 11-12 year old girls than its only a very small step to say that Birth control should be mandated for that same group of people. After all, its proven safe, and you just never know....

At long last! Into the light of day!

 

[Moemg]

[ 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.
".
[

I believe the standards for Pap tests are 21 years of age so I can see how a lot of teens and pre-teens will fall threw the cracks .Plus most young girls who are sexually active are probably not going to a gyn doctor .

 

[farmerEd]

At long last! Into the light of day!

Another well thought out comment I see....

 

[Moemg]

Oops I meant through !! Sorry !