Texas governor Rick Perry's recent decision to mandate that all 6th grade girls in Texas be given the new HPV vaccine has a lot of people up in arms. What I just don't understand is why the absolute jackasses who are objecting to this are being treated as if they hold a legitimate point of view that is somehow worth debating. Yet that is exactly how this is being presented. I'm watching MSNBC, and various flaming jerks are being given equal time to advocate for their sick and twisted perspective. It really doesn't reflect well on our society that this could be considered to be a "debatable" topic.
Look, let's boil this down to the basics. The executive order in Texas mandates vaccination, but allows parents to opt-out if they have moral objections. The people - and I use that word loosely - who are fighting against this are not content to be allowed to place their daughters at an increased risk of contracting a particular disease. They are fighting to make it more difficult for other people's daughters to be protected from the disease, and they are fighting this fight because they don't like the idea of protecting kids from a disease that is sexually transmitted. That's sick. It's twisted. It's perverted. It sits squarely against everything that a civilized society should represent, and the self-righteous jackasses who are advocating against protection are being treated as if they have a legitimate perspective worthy of serious consideration.
What the hell have we come to as a nation?
- Log in to post comments
Given that the vaccine costs $360, I really hope that a state as large as Texas will be able to negotiate the price downwards.
I also believe that Perry's decision was substantially influenced by the amount of money that his friends at Merck would earn. Its a good decision (especially if cost questions can be ironed out), but I'm not willing to grant Perry sainthood for making it in spite of his "base".
Diesease is disease, and it should be prevented or treated whenever possible. People are free to make moral judgments if they want, but such judgments have no valid role in the formulation of medical policy.
Self-righteousness, in this case, can be a deadly sin.
I might understand if this were just a version of the paranoid fundamentalism that would choose polio over immunization for children. After all, as a friend of mine said once:
"When it's your kid, the incidence of bad reactions is always 100%."
But what do these people think the negative effect of this vaccine could be? And for god's sake what do they think gives them the right to argue against it in the name of other people's kids?
If we come up with an AIDS vaccine, will they oppose that too?
Metro asks: "If we come up with an AIDS vaccine, will they oppose that too?"
Yes. This has been another episode of simple answers to simple questions.
I never thought there were people who, when given a cure for cancer (okay, its just one kind of cancer), decide its "immoral." I would bet a large sum of money that before the year ends, I also meet someone who considers antibiotics a tool of Satan.
It really is stunning to see people argue that, essentially, they don't want people to prevent their children from horrible suffering.
I have a friend with a bad case of HPV, and she's not promiscuous in any way - she had bad luck with one boyfriend (who frankly surprised ME). Now she's had two surgeries and is having regular tests just in case she gets cancer.
And they want to NOT prevent this happening to thousands upon thousands of people.
It will save lives. Nuff'said. If they want to opt their kids, out fine - and when their precious daughters get HPV, their daughters can ask them why they didn't protect them.
And then, like me and my friend, they can spend the rest of their lives wondering if those tests every six months will tell them they have cancer. What a lovely way to show your daughtter how much you love them - but don't do it to other people's daughters.
They are being "treated as if they have a legitimate perspective worthy of serious consideration" because it's their religion.
NBC Evening News presented the issue as one of people being *forced* to have their children vaccinated. They presented it this way both when they "advertised" the segment, and when they introduced the segment. I was surprised at how casually misleading this was. Only in watching the segment could you learn, if you listened closely, that families can opt out of the program if they wish.
This is just plain old yellow journalism. I think many of us are used to the higher standards to which the networks used to adhere. But although there is still good television journalism, much of it is increasingly sensationalistic. For the sake of the ratings, of course: this is big business.
Nothing get ratings like 'crazy'.
The Facts About GARDASIL
1. GARDASIL is a vaccine for 4 strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV), two strains that are strongly associated (and probably cause) genital warts and two strains that are typically associated (and may cause) cervical cancer. About 90% of people with genital warts show exposure to one of the two HPV strains strongly suspected to cause genital warts. About 70% of women with cervical cancer show exposure to one of the other two HPV strains that the vaccine is designed to confer resistance to.
2. HPV is a sexually communicable (not an infectious) virus. When you consider all strains of HPV, over 70% of sexually active males and females have been exposed. A condom helps a lot (70% less likely to get it), but has not been shown to stop transmission in all cases (only one study of 82 college girls who self-reported about condom use has been done). For the vast majority of women, exposure to HPV strains (even the four "bad ones" protected for in GARDASIL) results in no known health complications of any kind.
3. Cervical cancer is not a deadly nor prevalent cancer in the US or any other first world nation. Cervical cancer rates have declined sharply over the last 30 years and are still declining. Cervical cancer accounts for less than 1% of of all female cancer cases and deaths in the US. Cervical cancer is typically very treatable and the prognosis for a healthy outcome is good. The typical exceptions to this case are old women, women who are already unhealthy and women who don't get pap smears until after the cancer has existed for many years.
4. Merck's clinical studies for GARDASIL were problematic in several ways. Only 20,541 women were used (half got the "placebo") and their health was followed up for only four years at maximum and typically 1-3 years only. More critically, only 1,121 of these subjects were less than 16. The younger subjects were only followed up for a maximum of 18 months. Furthermore, less than 10% of these subjects received true placebo injections. The others were given injections containing an aluminum salt adjuvant (vaccine enhancer) that is also a component of GARDASIL. This is scientifically preposterous, especially when you consider that similar alum adjuvants are suspected to be responsible for Gulf War disease and other possible vaccination related complications.
5. Both the "placebo" groups and the vaccination groups reported a myriad of short term and medium term health problems over the course of their evaluations. The majority of both groups reported minor health complications near the injection site or near the time of the injection. Among the vaccination group, reports of such complications were slightly higher. The small sample that was given a real placebo reported far fewer complications -- as in less than half. Furthermore, most if not all longer term complications were written off as not being potentially vaccine caused for all subjects.
6. Because the pool of test subjects was so small and the rates of cervical cancer are so low, NOT A SINGLE CONTROL SUBJECT ACTUALLY CONTRACTED CERVICAL CANCER IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM -- MUCH LESS DIED OF IT. Instead, this vaccine's supposed efficacy is based on the fact that the vaccinated group ended up with far fewer cases (5 vs. about 200) of genital warts and "precancerous lesions" (dysplasias) than the alum injected "control" subjects.
7. Because the tests included just four years of follow up at most, the long term effects and efficacy of this vaccine are completely unknown for anyone. All but the shortest term effects are completely unknown for little girls. Considering the tiny size of youngster study, the data about the shortest terms side effects for girls are also dubious.
8. GARDASIL is the most expensive vaccine ever marketed. It requires three vaccinations at $120 a pop for a total price tag of $360. It is expected to be Merck's biggest cash cow of this and the next decade.
These are simply the facts of the situation as presented by Merck and the FDA.
For a more complete discussion on GARDASIL, click on my name.
I'm not going to bother to nitpick all those items, but #6 stands out as technically incorrect. Cervical dysplasia is very clearly a precancerous condition. If there are few cases of dysplasia, there will be fewer cases of cancer.
By the way, it would be *highly* unethical to conduct the study in such a way as to allow cancer to develop in any of the people in the study.
Are you saying that you will not accept the results of the study unless we sit by idly while people die of cancer, just to prove that the death rate is actually different in the control vs. treatment group??? That seems to be the standard that you are proposing we use.
The Solution:
1) Inform the opponents of the opt-out fact. As hodge stated, the media typically leaves this fact out, the news is more sensational that way. Most I've talked to are simply unaware of this.
2) Challenge the notion that little Suzie isn't going to get laid any time soon. The concerns for a new vaccine that hasn't withstood the test of time is being weighed against not only the likelyhood of sexual activity of a 6th grader, but the assumption that that sex will lead to contracting the disease. Both are pretty unlikely in my opinion, though personally, I'd go with the vaccine.