few points.... 1. we already mandate an STD vaccine... Hep B. yes you can also get hepatitis B in newborns if mom had it, or through needle sticks, but don't fool yourself. the only reason it is mandatory for school is because it is an STD 2. as far as using the vaccine for boys, there is some validity. while boys may not be at risk of cancer, they certainly are the carriers between the girls (most of the time). i actually think this would have gone over better if merck had pushed this as a general vaccine for kids. by only pushing for female testing it had the unintended implication that it was calling the girls sluts. 3. i think perry screwed up however. by bypassing the legislature on a hot topic - he looks like a dictator. and having ties to merck, really makes him look shady. even if he had good intentions this makes him look bad. 4. don't fool yourself about merck however - they are pushing very hard to get this "mandated" not because of some idealistic views on health - but to recoup their investment in R&D 5. numbers wise however - this vaccine probably isn't the number one priority vaccine to push. there are vaccines against pneumococcus (a version of strep that can cause pneumonia and meningitis in kids) that is available/recommended but not "required" by the state.. there is a new Rotavirus vaccine (number one cause of hospitalized stomach viruses in kids) - that is available/recommended but not "required". i think this vaccine is much more important because it causes more illnesses and are much more easily transmittable. i also wonder if the number of cervical cancer cases justifies the cost of the vaccine. not to minimize the severity of this disease, but could our health dollars be spent elsewhere that would make a better impact. (yes unfortunately everything is truly down to the mighty dollar) i speak as a both a pediatrician and a father of a 9y.o girl. funny thing is that there many pediatricians who are hesitant to make this vaccine a routine recommendation in their practice - not just because of the STD controversy, but because we poke the kids so much already - we are worried some parents will get fed up and refuse all vaccines.
Mandating a vaccination for a non-epidemic disease that is only communicable through sexual intercourse is r****ded. It should be a choice, not a requirement. The state can shove it up there arses for all I care. Of course, it is very easy to opt out of required vaccinations. A simple form citing reasons of conscience and you don't have to have it done. However, the choice should be the default, not the opt out. This is exactly why most politicians suck.
^ Interesting info bronxfan. I think this is a good result from a bad process. While I agree with Jo mama to an extent about the government intervening more into people's lives there is an opt out process which covers that. What I would've liked to see instead of a mandate though is making the vaccine available at lower costs with a lot more education on HPV to encourage people to take it. In the end though if it helps to reduce the amount of HPV even if Merck profits from it and Gov. Perry is looking heavy handed while lining his pockets a lot of good will have come from it.
Well, when I have kids and if I have a daughter, she'd be getting any kind of vaccine to prevent bad stuff there is. I can't believe people are actually arguing against a vaccine that can almost wipe out a form of cancer. (or at least greatly decrease it) What if there was an AIDS vaccine? Should it not be mandatory, or because its basically a STD, should we not mandate it? Heck, make it mandatory for all kids, boys and girls.
I'm pretty pissed. First off I'm not a big fan of vaccines in the first place. My wife and I made the decision a long time ago that we would only get a few of the "required" ones for our kids. The autism rates since vaccines have been increased is crazy. We have two autistic kids in our brood of nephews and nieces and sure enough they were the only kids in their families to get vaccines when they were younger. There's a very good buck on the subject here: http://www.enotalone.com/article/3675.html Second, in regards to this vaccine, I can see how the stop of the HPV is good. But this is a decision each family needs to make on their own. Personally, I don't think my daughter needs a vaccine at 10 years old that is for STD's and that gives her the idea that "You have the green light to have sex." What the balls?!? Seriously. Let me as a dad decide when and if I need to get that for my daughter.
Ideally, if any government makes a vaccine mandatory, then that vaccine should have a limitation put on its price - a small percentage above cost. For most families with school-age kids, $360 is a ton of money and, for many of those families it's probably not affordable. I'm conflicted about this - I think it's a great thing that HPV immunizations are available, but I think it's horrible that our state governments are so feverishly sucking Merck's dick. When your own government is helping a company to plunder your bank accounts, it's a good time to start asking when, if ever, it's going to stop. Our state government has been bribed.
i have one two autistic cousins as well. austism has gone up tremendously in the last decade. doesnt it correspond to the increased amount of mercury they are putting in the vaccines? http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-07-06-autism_x.htm "The argument over what is causing soaring rates of autism has reached a boiling point with furious parent groups and their famous allies accusing scientists and public health officials of hiding information to cover up their own mistakes." "At issue: whether the mercury-based preservative thimerosal, used in several infant vaccines up until five years ago and still in some vaccines that children get, is responsible for the developmental disorder." "U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla., a doctor, says that during the 1990s, a baby who received all the recommended shots could be exposed to mercury levels above those considered safe by the Environmental Protection Agency. 'The amount of mercury we were injecting into kids dwarfs all other exposures,' says Weldon, who is sponsoring legislation to ban thimerosal from children's vaccines. A dozen states have or are considering similar laws. Autism rates began to climb after two new thimerosal-containing vaccines, Hib (haemophilus influenzae type B) and hepatitis B, were added to the list of recommended shots for babies in the late '80s, Weldon says. 'Autism went from a disease I'd never seen to a disease you hear about everywhere,' he says."
key word being 'essentially', which legally doesnt mean anything. correct me if im wrong, but i dont believe there is any law which forces parents to get their kids immunized. again, correct me if im wrong, but while there are seat belt laws and laws against abuse, there is no law which requires parents to get theird kids immunized. i dont have any kids, but if i did you can bet that their ass would be mine till they were 18 and until then i would be deciding what i think is best for them.
this is key. merck spends millions lobbying our elected leaders and essentially writing the legislation themselves, which forces us to take their 'product'. if it is something that is so vitally important than why did they have to spend millions to convince politicians that we need it? yes, why push this particular vaccine on us? i think it all goes back to point #4. so as a physician, would you think that someone who is against this forced vaccination is irresponsible or illogical as other posters have asserted or is there a legitimate cause for concern?
I have never understood the bible belt thinking that teaching kids about safe-sex is somehow "condoning" their having sex. As far as this goes...the kids aren't gonna know what specific things they are vaccinated against. This only upsets some parents with the thought that their adorable little angels might not be virgins forever. Or at least til married to another virgin. Maybe that does still happen...if it happens for your kid thats great, if they somehow fall short of that do we really want Cancer to be the price.
I was going to make a post against this, because Governor Good Hair is so corrupt that it seemed the natural thing to do... oppose him. Then Cohen made his posts, which confused me, and then twhy came out against it, which made me think I should be for it. My daughter is 11, and entering the 6th grade this Fall, so it is a topic I'll want to know more about. Women get a lot of diseases men don't, and the reverse is true. Being able to vaccinate against some of them seems logical, but the "push" by Merck regarding this, and Perry typically slimming his way around the Lege, or any other accountability, worries me. You know, he could have mentioned this during the recent campaign for governor. After all, if it's so great for our kids, why not make it a campaign issue? Perry certainly knew he was going to do this back then. If anyone doesn't think so, there's a bridge I'm dying to sell them. I just don't know. How "proven" is this vaccine? Why haven't other states adopted this one? There's an odor around Good Hair that makes me concerned. From where I sit, the jury is still out. D&D. Good Hair? No Hair. (bummer!)
Sorry for the wordy response below..... i think forced vaccines are partly okay. if the disease is communicable then we need to protect society as a whole (we still have quarantines btw). if the disease is not communicable/severe then i'm less likely to push. its funny because when i hear the debate about helmets in motorcycle riders I always think to myself that insurance companies should have the right to increase the premiums of those riders who refuse to wear helmets since this increases their (and ultimately all those insured with a company) financial risk. with that said, I also think that those parents who refuse vaccines should have to pay higher medical insurance premiums since they are increasing the risk for the whole. not to get too sidetracked but i have even heard of insurance companies who require annual physicals or you have to pay increased premiums (i kinda like this idea) as far as "i'm the parent and i get to decide" - well what about seatbelts/car seats. overall we all know seatbelts greatly decrease the risk of an accident, but i'm old enough to remember the arguments that "i'd rather get thrown from the car". what if some parent argued that they don't want seatbelts/car seats for their kids because of the increased risk of being stuck in a burning car..... I always tell parents when they ask " is there any risk to these vaccines" - my reply is "absolutely, but your child was at a higher risk just driving up to my office then the vaccines we will give" this brings me to the concerns about autism.... well i've seen a lot more data then most of you on the "autism-vaccine" link and i'll be honest with you it doesn't fly... i agree autism is on the rise but there are a lot of factors... 1. semantics. in the past "mental r****dation" was a lot more prevalent. but because of physicians hating to say your child is "mentally r****ded" its more polite/accepted to say your child has "mild autism". 2. forced diagnoses. i remember when newborns "spit up". now they all have "reflux"... why do physicians give more labels? because insurance companies don't cover medications if necessary for spit up only for reflux. Physicians who in the past might say a child is a "little slow with interpersonal skills" now might say "asperger's syndrome" (kind of like mild autism). why? because the fancy name qualifies a child for speech therapy, etc... 3. more skilled physicians/teachers... a lot of mild forms of diseases are now picked up since we are trained better to look for signs at an earlier age. and if thimerisol (the cousin of mercury that was a preservative in some vaccines) was such a bad thing - how come the rate of autism is still the same in the last 5 years since thimerisol was abandoned.... However having said all that, do I think autism can be linked to vaccines - yes... but do I think the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risk of them - yes. and by the way if you think physicians financially benefit from more vaccines, think again. Many vaccines have a profit margin of a few dollars (some even cost us more than insurances reimburse at) which certainly doesn't pay for the nursing time, storage/transportation, paperwork. in fact the vast majority of pediatricians I know only continue to give them as a courtesy to the patients (to prevent them from having to trudge over to the health department).
There have been no scientific studies that have ever shown a link between the two. Specific studies with MMR shots and autism were done in multiple countires and found no correlation even during periods with high autism rates. Thimerosal has been used since the 30's in vaccines and was only removed in 1999 as a precautionary measure because it wasn't needed (so pretty much all of them now don't have it anyway).
Attack the Symptom not the Problem Not to mention the Government invasiveness Rocket River soon . . .what will the government NOT regulate .. other than big business or I guess I should say . . .what will Big Business not regulate through its puppet. . the Government
I'm not really sure what to think of this. I'm not opposed to mandatory vaccinations and I think the logic behind the government sanctioning or presumption of premarital sex is pretty silly. But the speed at which Perry introduced this and the ties to Merck make this troublesome. I'd at least wait for some more data and information on the effectiveness of this vaccine and the possible side effects. There was no reason to just rush into this. Bottom line, if we had more data on the effectiveness of this vaccine and the side effects, then I'd be more comfortable with this decision.
bronxfan, do the pharmaceutical reps give out samples of vaccines? I know doctors will sometimes give samples of medication to people too poor to afford the prescription. A bit off-topic; It's disturbing that people so casually accept the fact that our state government has been bribed to create a new law that forces a specific product from a specific company on us (apart from considerations over whether the product is good or not). We can expect Merck to behave as Merck will behave - it's a company and its entire purpose for existence is to make as much money as possible. But our elected officials? What's their purpose?
My two cents - kinda long, but a topic that is fresh to me since I just finished my OB/GYN rotation a couple of months ago. I don't like how the governor circumvented legislature and seems to have some heavy financial ties with Merck, but I do think it is a good idea. For those who believe this is labeling little girls as "sluts," as some have already pointed out you only need to have one sexual encounter with someone (who is not a virgin) to get HPV. Also as HPV is a slowly replicating virus, one might not show any symptoms of cervical cancer until many years after the first exposure. Hence, it might be too late to wait until someone is "old' enough (i.e., already sexually active and hence may have been exposed; vaccine doesn't protect you if you are already infected). Cervical cancer has a great screening tool, the Pap smear, which has led to early detection and a decrease in mortality and morbidity from cervical cancer in this country (in developing countries it is the number one cancer killer in women). Like all screening tools, this requires women to have regular gynecological checkups, which I am sure many women do not do for whatever reason. There are still 15000 cases diagnosed a year and about 5000 deaths a year (numbers from an OB/GYN text). A further point is that while there are "only" 5000 deaths, the treatment or standard of care once it becomes a carcinoma (cancer) is a hysterectomy. I am sure most women would rather not have that kind of operation if they can. Finally, if you have ever seen someone for whatever reason have advanced cervical cancer, it is very bad (5 year survival for advanced cancer is around 10-20%). Wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. Wouldn't a vaccine that can prevent many of these cases be worth it? I think so. Should it be mandatory like all the other vaccines? I tend to think so, but I can understand some of the concerns (although I don't buy the argument that this will make the children be more "promiscuous" - and there are a couple of research papers supporting the lack of connection between a STD vaccine and increase in promiscuity). The link between MMR vaccines and autism as far as I know is still being debated, but is something worthy of consideration. As far as cost issues, there is a tradeoff gained from the health care cost of screening and then treating cervical cancer versus preventing most types of cervical cancer and genital warts. I am sure there have been studies done on this, but I don't have the data with me. Finally, why is it not given to boys? This is something that was debated at the ob/gyn grand rounds at our medical school. First, I think all the trials were only on girls/women. Also, the thought is that while men might be carriers, men rarely have a disease from HPV that is life-threatening (some rare penile carcinomas and genital warts). Therefore, the cost of vaccinating the boys right now would be too high to have any significant health care benefit (Gardasil is the costliest vaccine so far). Ok sorry for the long post.
i've never known any drug reps who give vaccine samples.... however I don't think cost is really going to be an issue. this is because most states are putting this vaccine on a program called VFC (Vaccines for Children) - which means those people who are uninsured or "underinsured" can get it through the state free. most pediatric vaccines are covered like this... (the loophole however is those people with insurance that doesn't cover vaccines specifically often fall through the cracks and end up paying). i do agree that this double guessing of perry is a little overboard. i disagree with his methods much more than his result.
