January 28, 2007
As you may have heard, a bi-partisan group of Kansas legislators recently introduced a bill that would require all 6th grade girls in Kansas to receive a new vaccination that prevents certain strains of the HPV virus that cause cervical cancer. ([Read the full article][1])In my mind, there's no arguing that the new HPV vaccine is potentially useful. I am also pleased that HPV has been getting a lot of attention in the past few years. In all honesty, when I first heard about this new bill, I didn't have a strong reaction, and thought it seemed reasonable enough. Luckily, I have friends who wake me when I'm asleep at the wheel. Below you will find excerpts from a letter that Lori, a faithful lawrence.com commenter, wrote to her legistlator regarding this bill. For those of you who don't know Lori in real life, she is a nurse who has worked in the field of women's health for a number of years. She also has daughters in elementary school who would be affected by this bill. In other words, she's got a bit of street cred.I post these excerpts not because I agree with every point she makes 100 percent, but because I think it's worth taking note that there are many reasons one might oppose this bill besides the antiquated notion that it might increase promiscuity. Thank you Lori, for letting me share your ideas.Whatever you think about the issue, by all means, let [your legistlator][2] know how you feel. You can also tune into the [Journal World chat][3], with one of the sponsors of the bill this Wednesday.Now for the excerpts from Lori's letter to her legislator:_This vaccine not been long on the market, and it appears that the testing was performed exclusively on college age girls, not 11 year olds. I am concerned about the long-term effects and safety of this immunization for my young daughters...__...Mandatory vaccines for schools should be reserved for diseases that are immediately communicable and pose an immediate threat to public safety. A girl with HPV is not an immediate threat to her classmates!......According to the book "Abnormal Pap Smears," by Drs. Rushing and Jost, "...the majority of women with cervical cancer today are women who have either never had a Pap smear or haven't had one in the past five years. Most of these women are over forty years old and have had long-neglected HPV-related precancers..." The point is that HPV precancerous lesions are very treatable in the office. Most are simply monitored, as the body will fight the infection off independently. Fairly non-invasive treatment options are available in the office for HPV that is not overcome by the immune system. We should be encouraging women to receive routine health care, not offering them a one-time shot, whose efficacy past 5 years has not been established, and which doesn't even cover all the viral subtypes associated with HPV-associated cervical cancers......Who is going to pay for this? The vaccine costs $360. Has any thought been given to offering this as a free or low cost vaccine, if it is so important to the public safety? According to our local paper, there is not yet any provision to assist parents in the cost. Legislators are hoping some community clinics will be set up and that federal funding will become available. In the meantime, what is a parent to do? It seems to me that if this is so important, you should be allocating funds to cover it. One company manufactures this vaccine: Merck. They certainly stand to make money off of this bill, don't they?__...this bill smacks to me of sexism. The St. Thomas' Hopital study of 1971 established that women acquire their HPV infections almost exclusively from male partners. MEN harbor and spread the HPV virus; it is very, very rare to find HPV in women who have never had intercourse with a man. At the University of California at Irvine in 1986, researchers examined the male partners of women with high-grade HPV lesions and found corresponding lesions in over 70% of the men. If we make this mandatory, we need to make sure the boys are getting immunized, too; they are the ones that are spreading HPV!!!!...Finally, this is a decision that is best made by a physician, the young woman, and her parents. NOT by the government. I am not anti-vaccine; both my children have received all their mandated vaccines and a few non-mandated ones as well, and in reality I will probably vaccinate both of my daughters against HPV. But this decision will be made by my daughter's physician, myself, and MY DAUGHTER; not by a school district or a state legislature. I feel government mandation of this vaccine is inappropriate. As a parent, I should still have a degree of self-determination in making such parenting decisions.An optional vaccine, yes. Mandatory, no._ [1]: http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jan/26/bill_would_require_hpv_shot_girls/?kansas_legislature [2]: http://www.ipsr.ku.edu/ksdata/vote/"target="blank [3]: http://www2.ljworld.com/chats/2007/jan/31/delia_garcia/
Comments
lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
leslie (Leslie vonHolten) says...
This is an excellent letter. I was shocked when I saw the article in the paper Friday. I am skeptical about the motivation for making this vaccine mandatory. If legislators really cared about decreasing cancer deaths, they would make yearly Pap smears and prostate checks, regular colonoscopies, and mammograms required by law. Those tests have higher efficacy rates for cancer survival than this vaccine. And for that matter, they would make cigarettes illegal.
I am not opposed to the vaccine, but laws requiring it are unwarranted.
January 28, 2007 at 12:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hhibp107 (anonymous) says...
Yo! Who is the sexist? Why is she blaming men for the spread of HPV? Arent both sexes to blame? Women harbour this virus too, not just males. Of course most women contract HPV from males, its an STD! Guess what? Most men get it from females!!! What if I claimed that if it wasnt for women, I would have never gotten climitia? Well I know that some guy must have given it to her, and some girl given it to him...you get my point. And the reason 6th grade boys arent required to get immunized is becuase there is no vaccine for men yet. Not only is this lady ignorant and misinformed, so is the blog's author. Why are both of these women so quick to pull the sexism card? They were both too narrow minded at the time of the blog's publishment to know better. Consider yourself learned, biatches!!! A male just accepted his role in the game, now you should do the same.
January 28, 2007 at 4:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lori (anonymous) says...
I'd like to add a couple of things:
I'm not against an HPV vaccine. I'm not even against *this* particular vaccine. What I am against is making it mandatory for 11 year old girls. Yes, I know there is a waiver one can sign for philosophical, medical, or religious objections. My limited experience with refusing mandatory treatment is that getting this waiver signed, sealed, and honored is a pain in the ass and leads to nasty notes being left on your chart (anyone who works at the health department and pulls my youngest daughter's chart will see this first hand). This ability to refuse is also not always made clear or honored, depending upon who you are dealing with.
I want to see what happens with this vaccine. Does the virus mutate, making it obsolete? What are the long term effects of administering it to prepubescent girls? What research is developing--are more viral subtypes going to be covered soon? How soon?
Being employed by a small practice, I also have concerns about how readily available the vaccine will be to all healthcare providers. Many vaccines must be ordered in quantities that are prohibitive to smaller pharmacies and doctor's offices. Our office has stopped offering the hep B vaccine, and some years have trouble offering the flu vaccine due to this availability problem. Which means that patients have to go somewhere else for these, decreasing their likelihood of actually getting the immunization, as well as increasing their costs and the risks of administration.
January 28, 2007 at 5:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lori (anonymous) says...
Here is what would happen if I were queen of Kansas. This vaccine would be 100% funded by the state or federal government. It would remain optional, and would be offered at the same time that the diptheria/tetanus booster (which is mandatory) is offered, around age 12-14. At the time when it was offered, an easy to understand yet comprehensive handout would be given about HPV, other sexually transmitted diseases, and general healthcare--for example, the fact that this vaccine doesn't cover even close to all the viral subtypes that infect the genital area (there are over 40 that like the genital area), so regular paps are still very necessary. Research would continue, with an equivalent vaccine being offered to boys. Sex with a man initiates the spread, and HPV lesions can cause precancerous areas and genital warts for dudes, too. Gotta take care of both our girls and our boys.
While I am all for proactive health care, I HATE it when some legislators, who are getting a lot of love from an industry that has a very recent history of questionable studies and research, decide to make some laws telling me what is healthy for my child. My daughter's physician, her parents, and my daughter herself should be making this decision. Not the legislators, thank you very much.
Finally, I'd like to recommend some reading for anyone interested. Dunno if you can pick them up from the library or not, but they are readily available on line, through Borders, and I'll bet the Raven would order them for you.
"The Abnormal Pap Smear: what every woman should know" by Lynda Rushing, MD and Nancy Joste, MD
and my personal favorite:
"The V book: a doctor's guide to complete vulvovaginal health" by Elizabeth Stewart, MD and Paula Spencer.
The V book even has it's own website, www.thevbook.com
Crazy nurse lady will now stop her little rant about the politics of vulvovaginal health before she embarrasses her family and friends.
January 28, 2007 at 5:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
fletch (anonymous) says...
Connecticut is actually pushing through with concept of having the vaccine be covered for all women under the age of 18 at no cost. (They're also considering a bill making vaccination mandatory, but that doesn't seem to have much traction) Of course, Connecticut has some very progressive vaccination policies, ensuring that children are provided all the major vaccinations at no cost. Odd are KS will never be as progressive as that. At this point, I'm just crossing my fingers and hoping that the fundamentalists won't slide this into another debate about sex-ed and abstinence.
January 28, 2007 at 6:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lori (anonymous) says...
I've done a bit more research in the last couple of days on this and another HPV vaccine. I'm going to share even more of my opinion, because I can. It's the internet.
What I don't like about this bill:
Mandatory vaccination of a disease that is simply not a public health risk on the order of diptheria or polio.
I haven't read anything official about anybody funding it. Or how it is going to be distributed.
There will suddenly be a new standard of waiver. For all other mandated vaccines in the state of Kansas, you can only site medical or religious reasons for refusing, not moral ones. Why do they feel it is okay to morally refuse this one vaccine, but not others? Because this one addresses a sexually transmitted disease? Why can't I be morally opposed to mandatory Hep B immunization--that's an STD, too. Why can't I be morally opposed to any other mandated vaccinations?
January 28, 2007 at 9:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lori (anonymous) says...
What I don't like about this vaccine:
I found the actual study breakdowns, finally. There was one of the 4 (or 5?) trials that tested on girls under 16. 1100 girls were in the study; relatively a small number compared to the other studies. Not really enough for me to feel good about saying it's safe to give to prepubescent girls. Do other pediatric drugs intended for widespread useage get FDA approval with such small numbers? Makes me curious, but scared to look.
This vaccine is only approved for girls/women the ages of 9-26. Soooo, if you are 27 or over, you aren't able to get the protection from HPV?
There is previous and current research on the efficacy of this vaccine on men, but Merck is unsure they are going to actually push for approval for men, and the company working on a rival vaccine has already stated they will not--it's not cost effective. If there were a vaccine for HIV or chlamydia or any other STD, would it be reasonable to market it to one gender?
No study goes beyond 3.9 years after the first injection (it's a series of three injections over six months). The efficacy is completely up in the air. Long term side effects are unknown.
I wasn't as impressed in terms of the real world effects. Leep procedures were reduced in the study groups by approximately 25%, for example. Maybe time will improve these numbers, but if it is supposed to prevent lesions that cause up to, what, 80% of cervical cancers, why were there so many Leeps to remove large cervical areas due to high-grade lesions? Was it another subtype? Practitioners being overly cautious? If 80% of these lesions aren't supposed to happening, I would have expected invasive procedures like LEEPs to decrease by more than 25%.
What I like about this vaccine
It appears, from the research done (exclusively by Merck up to this point, anyhow) to be very safe, and very effective in the short term against the four viral subtypes.
There may be some cross-over immunity to similar (but less aggressive) viral subtypes.
While we have the luxury of relatively good health care and health care access, and thus have very low levels of deaths due to cervical cancers, this could be a much bigger deal to women in 3rd world countries, where cervical cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths. It remains to be seen who would fund massive immunization campaigns, though. Hello, Bill Gates?
January 28, 2007 at 9:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lori (anonymous) says...
hhipb107--
Did you really have to send me an email calling me a dumb bitch? Not making your case very nicely, dude. You can say "dumb bitch" on the forums here, no need to keep your feelings private. Thanks for learnin me, though. You sure did it reeeel guud.
January 28, 2007 at 9:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
godjilla (Jill Ensley) says...
Seriously, his chlamydia must have affected his brainmeats. I think he done tramped on over he-ya from the LJW forums.
January 29, 2007 at 2:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
liz (Liz Weslander) says...
Yeah, nothing impresses me and puts me in place me like a little virtual grandstanding peppered with some run-of-the mill name calling. This ain't our first rodeo hhipb107. Feel free to express your opinion, but the theatrics are really not neccesary.
January 29, 2007 at 6:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
billy (Billy Keefe) says...
Here are some good links to organizations that promote sexual freedom (including STD-related freedoms) as a basic human right:
Woodhulll Freedom Foundation
http://www.woodhullfoundation.org/
The Woodhull Freedom Foundation and Federation (WFF) work through research, advocacy, and public education to affirm sexual freedom as a fundamental human right. We address laws, government policies, and corporate practices that restrict sexual freedom and discriminate against people on the basis of their consensual sexual expression.
Ipas
http://www.ipas.org
Ipas has worked for three decades to increase women's ability to exercise their sexual and reproductive rights and to reduce deaths and injuries of women from unsafe abortion. Ipas's global and country programs include training, research, advocacy, distribution of equipment and supplies for reproductive-health care, and information dissemination.
Map of how your state ranks: http://www.ipas.org/mapping/final_map...
SisterSong
http://www.sistersong.net/
SisterSong lifts the voices of indigenous women and women of color to have an impact on Reproductive Justice issues that affect indigenous nations and communities of color.
January 29, 2007 at 11:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alm77 (anonymous) says...
Lori, your letter was both well written and your points are firm. What are the chances REALLY that this bill will pass? My daughter is 8 and I am very nervous about having her be one of the first to get this shot if mandated by law... I turned down the Rotosheild vaccine when she was about a year old and got the eye roll from the doctor. Six months later it was pulled from the market for making children sick. Glad *I* got to make that decision and not the powers that be. I bring that up anytime I turn down a new vaccine so I don't look like the crazy mom who is against inoculation.
January 29, 2007 at 4:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sparko (anonymous) says...
Do what you can to prevent cervical cancer in your family and the general population. A lot of "fears" are actually morality-laced spin. It is possible to contract HPV and be with only one man your entire life. If there is a way to prevent disease, it should be taken. A lot of people would prefer to ration one's access to medicine, human sexuality, and information. Don't be one of those people.
January 29, 2007 at 5:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
liz (Liz Weslander) says...
A lot of "fears" are actually morality-laced spin.
A lot of people would prefer to ration one's access to medicine, human sexuality, and information.
Sparko, can you clarify these statements a little bit? I'm not sure I'm tracking.
January 29, 2007 at 5:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cinnabon (anonymous) says...
"...According to the book "Abnormal Pap Smears," by Drs. Rushing and Jost, "...the majority of women with cervical cancer today are women who have either never had a Pap smear or haven't had one in the past five years. Most of these women are over forty years old and have had long-neglected HPV-related precancers..." The point is that HPV precancerous lesions are *very* treatable in the office. Most are simply monitored, as the body will fight the infection off independently. Fairly non-invasive treatment options are available in the office for HPV that is not overcome by the immune system. We should be encouraging women to receive routine health care, not offering them a one-time shot, whose efficacy past 5 years has not been established, and which doesn't even cover all the viral subtypes associated with HPV-associated cervical cancers..."
As a woman who has had HPV, I am very saddened to read the above statement because I don't feel it represents the true story of who has HPV. I was diagnosed at age 24 with precancerous HPV. I had annual paps done since the age of 17. Once diagnosed, it took over 3 years to fight the virus and get it out of my body. I had several closcopies and cryogenics treatments, which were supposed to help, but they did not. It was not "easily treatable", it was painful and a psychological nightmare. Now, as a woman attempting to get pregnant, I am having difficulties because my cervix has been compromised by the "easy treatments".
While I agree that getting this vaccine should be a personal decision, and not a government mandated decision, I strongly encourage mothers to think of the future health of their daughters. If I am able to get pregnant and have a daughter, I would have her immunized without a second thought.
I work in secondary education, and have already talked with female students who have been diagnosed with HPV. It saddens me to think of what they are going through at such a young age.
I am so thankful that Merck has developed a vaccine that can possibly keep other women from experiencing what I have experienced. I wish it would have come along sooner.
January 29, 2007 at 7:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lori (anonymous) says...
I'm sorry you felt it did not represent your situation. The statement wasn't intended to indicate who develops HPV--approx 85% of the sexually active population will develop it at one time or other. It represents statistically who is likely in this country to develop cervical cancer. I also wanted to point out that most precancerous lesions are treated in the office--yours were, too, probably. They are not inpatient procedures that require hospitalization. I've had a couple of colposcopies and biopsies myself; they aren't a cup of tea, for sure. But they weren't a complex, high risk procedure, from a health care stand-point. No anesthesia, minimal risk of blood loss, infection, that sort of thing. Not trying to minimize the emotional and physical discomfort--just trying to clarify. But read further than the inital blog--I think you'll see that we agree more than we disagree. And have you read that book? It really helped me understand cervical cancer, HPV, and all the treatment possibilites. If you are in the position to discuss HPV with teenage girls, I suggest you check the quoted book out--I think you would find it informative.
Alm, I will be surprised if it *doesn't* pass. When I corresponded with Paul Davis, he indicated that he was supportive of the bill, but was willing to listen to all sides of the issue. I refused the rotovirus vaccine for bean number 2 as well, and was glad later I did. It was a difficult decision at the time, since she was a bit of a premie and had a history of respiratory issues. I'm glad I had the choice to refuse it, and I appreciate that my daughter's doc was respectful of my decision.
Sparko--yeah, I'm a big religious right moralist. I work hard to deny people health care access. Yup. You figured me out. Dangit. But you bring up a point--I find that my opposition to mandating this vaccine is aligning me politically with a bunch of religious right freaks and libertarians, not my usually group of homies. I'm not opposed to the vaccine. But when the government *mandates* a certain type of health care treatment, that doesn't sit well with me. Particularly a brand-spanking *new* treatment. Particularly in regards to my kids.
January 29, 2007 at 8:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
beatle919 (Marcy McGuffie) says...
It just warms my heart that we have someone as intellectualigent as hhibp learning all the dumb biatches. ;)
Seriously, though...this is a timely topic and I'm glad to see it being discussed.
January 30, 2007 at 8:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
thetomdotdot (anonymous) says...
I'm confused.
Is it this
"This vaccine not been long on the market, and it appears that the testing was performed exclusively on *college age* girls, not 11 year olds."
or this?
"I found the actual study breakdowns, finally. There was one of the 4 (or 5?) trials that tested on girls under 16. 1100 girls were in the study; relatively a small number compared to the other studies."
Now, as a father of a daughter, I see 1100 little girls involved in a drug trial as, well, a lot. I am wondering how to compare to the other studies.
Can you post a link to these breakdowns?
My question is more than rhetorical. If you, as a health professional, had a hard time finding the studies and breakdowns, to what depth have our legislators researched this issue? Am I overly cynical when I assume that Big Drug provided a power point presentation (albeit accompanied by a human holding a pointer) and thats it?
Thanks to you and Liz for the heads up.
..
January 30, 2007 at 9:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lori (anonymous) says...
Thetom--I wrote the first letter based on articles regarding the testing of this vaccine in the US. This leads me to believe that the testing for this on the under 18 age set was done overseas, where consent laws are not as strict, which is really common for a lot of medications. I did some more digging after the first letter, because I couldn't believe that a vaccine would be approved for chidren that had never ever been tested on kids. The study states that approx 1400 girls were enrolled, but they only have stats on about 1100, so I don't know what happened to the other 300, but I assumed they dropped out of the study. While one could be suspicious of these 300 (why did they drop out? Because of complications, etc?), in reality I think it is probably very difficult to get people to follow up on any study that lasts more than a day. If they don't have a complete set of data on them, they can't include them in the results. For comparison, they tested about 4600 women 16 and above and have stats for around 4200.
As far as studies go, I haven't explored many drug studies. So I don't know what an acceptable number of subjects are for a drug approval study. My opinion this is a low number is because, based off of these 1100 children whose ethnicity, socioeconomic status, dietary status, and complete health status we know nothing about, all girls in the state of Kansas, and maybe eventually all over the US, will be
*mandated* to have this injection. So to me, the percentage of the number of girls in the study vs. the number of girls who will be mandated to receive the vaccine is very small.
Here is how to get the info (I can't directly link it, it won't allow me to do that):
Go to www.gardasil.com
Click on "Information about Gardasil for health care providers" in the blue box in the lower left hand corner of the page.
Then click "Yes, I am a health care provider."
Then click on "Prescribing information" near the bottom of the page.
THAT will pull up a pdf file of about 12 or so pages in length. Most of the tables for the studies are on pages 7-8, I think.
January 30, 2007 at 11:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lori (anonymous) says...
I should add that my initial opinion that it had only been tested on college aged girls came from the information our office received in the last couple of years, directly from the drug company and in articles about the fact that this vaccine was being developed. They always referred to the testing in some manner like "This promising vaccine is being tested on college campuses across the nation." The reason they gave for testing it on colleges is that, those girls are sexually active, the ones most often treated for HPV infection complications, and typically are there for several years, making follow up easier. So, when this first came out, I honestly thought it was going to be something that would be given at around age 16. Which is probably too old for some girls. I'm not opposed to giving the vaccine, I'll state for the billionth time; I opposed to the mandate that is MUST be given in order for 6th grade girls to attend public school.
January 30, 2007 at 11:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lori (anonymous) says...
Thetom, you are not overly cynical. Ask any nurse who works in a doctor's office, particularly the ones with a larger patient load. Who provides lunch and free samples and office products several times a week in exchange for you sitting through a presentation on a drug?
Merck stands to gain HUGE by making this a mandated vaccine. They are currently the only one who makes it. GlaxoSmithKline is developing one, too, which actually seems a bit more comprehensive in subviral type coverage, but from the article that I read, they are first going to go for approval in the EU, so we won't see it for a while.
So you bet a couple of cute Merck reps are there with lunch, free pens, and a powerpoint. I guarantee it. I've seen them myself. FWIW, though, the OvCon rep makes the BEST enchiladas. I like her, she always cooks us home made stuff. But since we aren't a big office, we only see her about once a year.
January 30, 2007 at 11:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
thetomdotdot (anonymous) says...
Lori,
I've always said nurses have the coolest pens.
Thanks for the link to gardasil info, and especially thanks for confirming my darkest suspicions. House bill 2227
http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-b...
contains provisions requiring parents be informed of the relationship between HPV and Cervical cancer.
My point is this: where you, as a health professional, have to got to the gardasil website to get information on the gardasil studies, I'm just betting that the information that will, by this law, be disseminated by the state, will likewise come from a pharmaceutical company.
Unfortunately this lends truth to more than half of what the wackos have been saying all along.
PS - Please save me some pens
..
January 30, 2007 at 1:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
thetomdotdot (anonymous) says...
Not to be overly picky, but if Gardasil was approved by the FDA on June 8, 2006, why isn't it listed as an approved drug on the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research database?
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts...
At best this is an indication that an organization tasked with the very health of my soon to be (well, 6 years from now, but what happens if I blink) 11 year old daughter can't commit a fundamental act of database management. And no Merck staff even noticed this? Those people must be very busy selling drugs. Heck, I've met crack dealers with more self respect.
Apologizing for the bitterness.
..
January 30, 2007 at 1:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
billy (Billy Keefe) says...
Here is an article about how Merck is leading the mandatory vaccination charge in Maryland:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/heal...
I don't know that it is necessarily bad that Merck is pushing for the vaccine, but I do think it IS up to the legislature to make an INFORMED decision and to allow people to opt out.
January 30, 2007 at 5:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lori (anonymous) says...
Here's more about Merck and state mandated vaccines:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070131/a...
January 31, 2007 at 1:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Joel (Joel Mathis) says...
FWIW, Delia Garcia just did an online chat over at LJWorld.com about this topic:
http://www2.ljworld.com/chats/2007/ja...
January 31, 2007 at 11:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
thetomdotdot (anonymous) says...
Billy and Lori:
Thanks for the link re: Merck and mandates. I forwarded them to my representative. I can't stop thinking about crack dealers on the playground.
January 31, 2007 at 1:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lori (anonymous) says...
Well, here's another interesting story; apparently my concerns over offices being able to afford to stock it were not unfounded. Also, it appears that insurance is NOT covering this in most cases.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070203/a...
February 2, 2007 at 7:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
thetomdotdot (anonymous) says...
As the wheels turn.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
February 21, 2007 at 7:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
thatgrrl (anonymous) says...
The reason there is talk of making the vaccine mandatory is because there is a very large percentage of parents (many of whom are very religious) who are ignoring the vaccine and telling themselves that their "children don't need it, because they aren't going to be promiscuous". Those girls shouldn't suffer when they get older because of their parents' bad decision making -- hpv is extremely rampant in our society and is the most common STD in the entire world. I personally think that the vaccination SHOULD be mandatory and should be paid for by the government if the girls are not covered by a parent's health insurance. Sure, someone is going to make a lot of money off of this, but I think protecting millions of girls from cervical cancer and genital warts is worth it. If US citizens weren't so conservative the vaccination wouldn't *need* to be mandatory and this wouldn't even be an issue.
November 16, 2007 at 6:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DOTDOT (anonymous) says...
"Sure, someone is going to make a lot of money off of this, but I think protecting millions of girls from cervical cancer and genital warts is worth it."
Like spaying dogs.
The reason there is (was) talk of making the vaccine mandatory was to pave the way for Merck to create windfall profits for itself. The campaign was a little too thinly veiled to actually work. STD's are a serious issue. Using this fact to peddle drugs to school children is worse than selling crack in the playground.
I smell PWOK. Naive PWOK.
December 12, 2007 at 11:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )