BlogHer - The People vs. Perry: Fallout of the Texas Gardasil Decision - Comments

Pending results

hpvmagic — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 22:44:07 -0500

The study shows it is 100 pretection against the virus whcih is accociated with 70% cervical cancer and 90% genital warts.

Yea, the vaccine is too new to allow young girl/woman to test it. It is reported vaccine experiment is based on those young women as inital trial, who have not had sex activity and have not get HPV.

As a parents, they should be serious about thsi problem and talk to the doctor for furthur help. The virus is deadly and associated with cancer. Keep girls from HPV and educate them.

More information and source

Should we trust any drug company?

Marcia — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:16:43 -0600

In reply to mdargens post, a breakthrough is good in any sense of the word, but, these drug companies are making billions of dollars profit out of us, so what is more important to these guys, our daughters health or profits?
I do not want to be seen as cynical but I am sorry, there is something seriously wrong with the way they market their products, I for one will watch this with a very suspicious eye.
Marcia
http://www.dreambodynow.com

One Less

mdargen — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:37:25 -0600

Any break through for women's health is a step in the right direction. I have a one year old daughter and when she is old enough she will get the vaccine. Who cares if Merck is going to make money. If this vaccine can help my daughter I am all for it.

~Michelle
http://myyeartogetskinny.blogspot.com/

Amanda M

RavinPictureMaven — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 19:14:16 -0600

Go do a little reading about HPV. It is believed that 80% of the population has or has had it. There are about a hundred strains.

There is not 100% sure direct causation between HPV and cervical cancer. In fact many leading researchers (some VERY prominent ones in fact) say there is no causation period.

Many people have HPV but no warts or pre-cancer or cancer.

Many people have warts, pre-cancer or cancer but no HPV.

The bottom line is the vaccine shows excellent results in preventing or killing about 4 strains. it is NOT a guarantee that you will not get HPV though, and that it will prevent cervical cancer or genital warts caused by HPV.

Go read. Lots out there. I heven ave links on my blog at Think it's your body, your choice? Think again...

Merck has marketed brilliantly. The 100s of thousands they've allocated per lobbyist in each of the 18 states targeted for mandatory (Texas being one) and the huge TV ad campaign (unique in the advertising and medical world for vaccinations) was very well-spent, clearly.

But that's logical

RavinPictureMaven — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 19:09:08 -0600

not special interest. ;)

Texas in in thrall to the conservative special interest groups (read: Republican Religious Right).

Saying sex out loud means condoning having it. ;) (Sort of winky kidding. You know in that laugh or cry sort of way.)

FTR, the vaccine only potentially prevents 2-4 strains out of about 100 of HPV.

Think of a flu shot. The shot aims for the most likely strains and hope it hits the mark. But do you get the shot? You might be exposed to flu, or not. Odds are, you will. But will you contract it? And if so, is it potentially serious enough for you to get the shot?

Flu is an even greater health concern and that shot isn't mandatory.

Curious?

Me too.

Trials have had good results on the whole (about to begin phase III) and I'm not against the vaccine at all.

I simply believe it should be an individual choice.

And I am SO opposed to incredibly misleading ads and shocker soundbites on the news. Sadly, that's a main source of knowledge for many, and it's not completely accurate.

That shot misses the mark.

I think it is hugely out of

RavinPictureMaven — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 19:02:51 -0600

I think it is hugely out of line.

I wrote out my entire opinion at Think it's your body, your choice? Think again...

In short, I agree with your comment above, Amanda.

There is a remarkable amount of ignorance out there about both HPV and the vaccine, and what the risks and benefits of both are.

As I wrote in reply to a reddit commenter on my blog post:

Go read the facts.

If you believe in the vaccine as the best thing to do for your daughter, go for it. I'll support you and even tell you wise decision.

This isn't about "bucking a system" or "fighting the man." It's about ME being allowed to work with my doctor and between us make the BEST choice for my children's health, which MAY or MAY NOT be Gardasil.

Me making the choice.

Not some self-interested governor who got large campaign contributions from Merck and who was lobbyied hard by his former chief of staff and good friend on behalf of Merck, which stands to earn billions if the other 17 governors follow Perry's example.

And what about him bypassing the democratic governing system entirely? That's okey dokey?

There's no emergency. No pandemic. No need to go all martial law.

He should have followed appropriate democratic protocol.

not too old, just, ahem, "too active" :)

AmandaM — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 12:05:44 -0600

Hey Suzanne,

My understanding of the "too old" cutoff from my doctor was that after a certain age they assume that one has had enough partners to already have contracted some form of HPV. I was ready to argue it into the floor with my doc (as I've never had an abnormal pap) until she asked me how many partners I'd had...ahem....and she looked at me and said, essentially, sweetheart, hate to tell ya, but with those sorts of #s, you've already got it.

(Now I didn't push hard and say, well, prove it. Test me. I tried a little, but she said without an abnormal pap she couldn't/wouldn't order the tests. I didn't know enough about it to be able to argue further.)

So maybe "too old" is the wrong thing to be telling people...lol..."too active" might be more accurate. (And no, I am NOT naming #s...lol.)

Frankly, I think Merck should just come out and say it - women who've had more than x # of sexual partners are not a candidate for this vaccine, and not dance around with the age thing. Heck, I've had some friends who were more active from the time they were 13 -16 then I've been my entire life. Not quite sure what age really has to do with it. Just my two cents.

- Amanda M
Imagine Bright Futures

therein lies the problem...

Suzanne Reisman — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:59:07 -0600

I am a huge supporter of women's health, and this vaccine just is NOT about promoting women's health in any way, shape or form.

My friend, who is a doctor, finds it very odd that people are being told that they are "too old" for the vaccine. She said that age should not affect whether it works or not, and probably Merck is using rates of STD transmission to determine who to market to, i.e. - the older you are, in theory the more likely you are to be settled down and not have many partners. The whole marketing campaign is a scare tactic and a load of crap. Sure, it will protect some people. But it doesn't prevent all cervical cancer (as ads seem to lead people to believe) and quality sex ed would probably do much more to protect women's health in the long run.

Suzanne, BlogHer Contributing Editor - Feminsim & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

Hoo boy. You all touched on

Amanda Shaffer — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:17:46 -0600

Hoo boy. You all touched on some MAJOR issues that I have with the medical system here in America.

Perry is definitely doing this to line Merck's pockets. If he was really committed to women's health, he'd push for better sex education.

The vaccine shouldn't be mandatory for school attendance--it's not a highly contagious health issue for school-aged children like measles, chickenpox, and polio were. Plus, there is no evidence that Gardasil is safe in the long-term. It would be an incredible disaster if thousands of girls get injected with this, only to have issues twenty, thirty years down the road.

Drug companies shouldn't be publicly-traded companies. How much money is sunk into those marketing campaigns for items that the general public CANNOT even purchase directly? It's all about earning money for the shareholders.

Amanda Shaffer, Blogher Health and Wellness Contributing Editor

The Adventures of Cat Lady.

One thing...

Denise — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 08:39:14 -0600

Most insurance companies are now covering Gardasil - according to my doctor's office, all of their insurers are covering it - and according to my daughter's doctor in SC, no insurance coverage problems.

OK two things - the marketing of all drugs and treatments is troubling to me. Gardasil's marketing no more so than any other drug - and possibly less than some.

~Denise
Fast Times @ Homeschool High and Flamingo House Happenings

Another way to prevent HPV

Suzanne Reisman — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 07:52:45 -0600

I forgot to mention that if TX is really so concerned about preventing the spread of HPV, a sexually transmitted disease, they might consider offering comprehensive sex education. In fact, sex ed would also be an effective means of preventing the transmission of other STDs and lowering teen pregnancy rates, which is far more bang for the buck than a vaccine that prevents one STD that may lead to cervical cancer. But as that is not what the Gardasil decision is about, it won't happen.

Suzanne, BlogHer Contributing Editor - Feminsim & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

Hmmmm...

AmandaM — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 07:50:25 -0600

So Merck stands to make a lot of money. So what? I guess I don't have a problem with that. Bringing women's health issues to the forefront is a good thing IMHO. Having gone through a cervical cancer scare with a girlfriend, having the benefit of her learning curve about HPV a year or so ago, if there's something that can protect against at least a few strains of it, that's good.

My ob-gyn is passionately in support of the vaccine, but mostly because she bitterly hates cervical cancer. She also said that the vaccine protects against the strain that causes genital warts, which as a whole involve considerable cost for the healthcare industry to treat. (I don't know the stats, that's just what she said.)

That said, my niece is 8 1/2, nearing the minimum vaccination age of 9. My thought is to wait and see for a year or so, wait until it's not so new and see what the impacts are. But we have the luxury of doing that due to her age. If she were a little older I'd do a heck of a lot more research and seriously consider it.

Heck, I even asked about it for myself, but I was told that a) I'm too old, and b) after a certain # of partners, you most likely have some form of HPV, even if you have normal paps. Great. So I have a latent virus, just waiting for an opportunity to rear it's ugly head. Sigh....

The good news - if the vaccine works as it's supposed to, my niece won't have to deal with it. And that if will only be proven over time. For those who are advocating a toe in the water approach, a wait-and-see, I get that.

And it's a bummer it won't be available for my nephew. Seems like if you're going to go after a virus, go after it from all fronts, just my take on it. My ob gyn said something about male types of cancer, but I didn't really follow what she was saying (anyone know?)..

..and if there are negative impacts of the vaccine, is it fair for girls only to bear the brunt of it? Not at all. Again, a wait and see.

All in all the vaccine sounds really good to me, but we won't know until it's been out there for a while.

- Amanda M
Imagine Bright Futures

It's about profit

Suzanne Reisman — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 22:26:09 -0600

Amanda, I was just discussing this with a friend of mine. We both find it highly suspicious that Merck and Perry, whose chief of staff is on Merck's board, have the best interests of young women at heart rather than making their profits fat. The vaccine is too new, we have no real idea what long term effects are, and most insurance companies don't cover it. Even when it first came out, Denise, Mir from WCS, and I were concerned at how it was being promoted almost as a cure-all to cancer.

This very well may backfire on Merck, actually. Many conservative parent groups freaked out when Gardasil came out, assuming (correctly, it seems) that it would soon be a mandatory vaccine. They opposed it on religious grounds. This quick turnaround in Texas only confirms their worst fears, and it may become a nightmare as large scale protests are launched in other states.

Thanks for covering this!

Suzanne, BlogHer Contributing Editor - Feminsim & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

The People vs. Perry: Fallout of the Texas Gardasil Decision

Amanda Shaffer — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 22:02:54 -0600

On Saturday, February 3, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed an executive order to make the newly-released human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil mandatory for all young girls before entry into the sixth grade. Starting in the 2008-2009 school year, the new bill would allow parents to opt out of the vaccination if they provide documentation of religious or philosophical opposition. However, Perry (who has strong ties to Gardasil manufacturer Merck) hopes that most parents will see the vaccination as a necessary public health preventative measure, much like the polio vaccine when it was first introduced.

This decision has touched off a firestorm both online and off. BlogHers provide a guide to the controversy:

Writer, radio, television talk show host, and Texas mother of four Colleen Hammond provides information on safety concerns about Gardasil.

Feminist blog Evil Slutopia discusses 10 Facts About Gardasil.

Sara Anderson of F-Words: Feminism, Food, Fact and Fiction addresses the sociological implications of the vaccine.

Michelle, the author of Rosette Stone, questions whether Merck and Perry really have public health as their top priority.

What do you think about the newly-mandated vaccine?