Texans Still Opposed to Perry's HPV Plan

Update!

Here's an update on a previous post.

I saw this on ABC News:

Texans Still Opposed to Perry's HPV Plan

BY GINA SUNSERI
HOUSTON, March 13, 2007
When Texas Gov. Rick Perry decided to request state funding for the HPV vaccine, many were surprised. It seemed an unlikely move for the conservative governor.

The decision immediately became controversial, and now the Texas House of Representatives has voted 119-21 to pass legislation to overturn Perry's executive order requiring school age girls to get the HPV vaccine.

The uproar over Perry's decision was almost instantaneous.

Since cervical cancer is sexually transmitted, some feel requiring vaccination might lead to young girls becoming sexually active sooner. Others believe the vaccine is too new — not enough is known about it to make it mandatory. (Emphasis mine)

Rest of the article here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2948193&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312


My whole problem with My Perry's executive order is this:

1. Forcing any medical treatment, protocol, procedure, ET ALL on the people, for whatever reason is not right. Pure and simple. If there had been discussion and this was the popular vote I could accept it. But this was one man's decision. One man with his hand in the pocket book of the drug company that is about to make millions in his state alone!

2. This vaccine hasn't been tested enough, in my opinion, to promote it as widely as it is. Coinciding with the drug company's ads, the push by state government's to get this vaccine mandatory, is to me, suspicious at best. There are many who will vaccinate their girls. And that's their right. There are many who won't, and that should be their choice. After a few years, let's look at the data again. If there is NO doubt this vaccine is safe, fine, introduce legislation if you want. But let's get some more data first.

3. We are not in the middle of an epidemic of cervical cancer! Yes, it is a terrible disease, and yes, many women die of it every year. But we need to promote PAP smears and other tests to find it early! I'd rather see an education program promoting PAP testing, funding for free testing, and even home testing rather than funding a vaccine that hasn't been proven safe and effective in the long term.

4. HPV Does NOT cause ALL cervical cancers. It does seem to cause about 70% of the cases, but this vaccine does NOT protect against all strains, not even all that are believed to be a risk for cancer!

5. This has turned into a sexist issue. Men can be infected, and can spread HPV, sometimes without even knowing they are infected. So, shouldn't the boys be vaccinated also?

6. This is a personal issue. If you want your child to get this, fine. If you want your child to wait for whatever the reason, it should also be fine. The bill apparently allows parents to "opt out" of the vaccine, but they should, instead, have to "opt in". This, to me, is the most important reason that this bill needs to be overturned.


Here's some screen shots of the ads for Gardasil on Merck's home page.

Texas Governor orders Gardasil for all girls entering 6th grade.

Anti-cancer vaccine mandatory?

First, let's call this as it is. The vaccine is an anti HPV (Human pappilloma virus) vaccine. Some forms of HPV have been implicated in causing cervical cancer. But not all forms of cervical cancer are caused by HPV. About 70% of cancers are felt to be linked to HPV.

In the news lately are articles about how Texas Governor Rick Perry has bypassed the normal route, through Legislature, and ordered that all girls must receive Gardasil before entering the 6Th grade.

This is causing an uproar, mainly by religious groups that are afraid this will give the "green light" to girls considering sexual activity. Personally, I think that's absurd, but sure, I can see a few kids taking it that way.

From MS-NBC:

Required STD shots worry some parents
Texas governor orders cervical cancer vaccine for schoolgirls

AUSTIN, Texas - Some conservatives and parents’ rights groups worry that requiring girls to get vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer would condone premarital sex and interfere with the way they raise their children.

By using an executive order that bypassed the Legislature, Republican Gov. Rick Perry — himself a conservative — on Friday avoided such opposition, making Texas the first state to mandate that schoolgirls get vaccinated against the virus.

Beginning in September 2008, girls entering the sixth grade will have to receive Gardasil, Merck & Co.’s new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV.

Now, this article is about parents being afraid that their children will be "encouraged" to engage in sexual relations, but I have a different problem with this.

The federal government approved Gardasil in June, and a government advisory panel has recommended that all girls get the shots at 11 and 12, before they are likely to be sexually active.

Merck could generate billions in sales if Gardasil — at $360 for the three-shot regimen — were made mandatory across the country. Most insurance companies now cover the vaccine, which has been shown to have no serious side effects.

Yes, that's right, it's been less than a year since this was approved, so that means we have no long-term data available, except for the data from the studies done by the drug company. And yet, we want to require this for all children past the age of 11.

No serious side effects? This is what bothers me. according to RxList.com:

In the clinical studies, subjects were evaluated for new medical conditions that occurred over the course of up to 4 years of follow up. The number of subjects who received both GARDASIL and placebo and developed a new medical condition potentially indicative of a systemic immune disorder is shown in Table 10.

Table 10
Summary of Subjects Who Reported an Incident Condition Potentially Indicative of Systemic Autoimmune Disorder After Enrollment in Clinical Trials of GARDASIL

Potential Autoimmune Disorder	GARDASIL (N = 11,813)	Placebo (N = 9701)
Specific Terms	3 (0.025%)	1 (0.010%)
Juvenile arthritis	1	0
Rheumatoid arthritis	2	0
Systemic lupus erythematosus	0	1
Other Terms	6 (0.051%)	2 (0.021%)
Arthritis	5	2
Reactive Arthritis	1	0
N = Number of subjects enrolled

So, there really isn't a way of knowing if these children would have developed these conditions anyway, but maybe they were made more susceptible because of the vaccine? And maybe it's protective against those conditions.

I have a daughter, age 24. I have recommended that she not take the vaccine at this point. If, in a few years it proves safe, I might recommend it. But at this point, no I'd say hold off.

If I had a child that would be affected by this ruling I would be boiling mad, and maybe even risk legal action.

I have no problem immunising against childhood diseases, although I suspect today's vaccines cause more problems than anyone is willing to admit. Vaccines against influenza, measles, mumps, etc are a good thing because these diseases can be prevented or minimised. And that means fewer will die as a result of them. However, how many children die as a result of being vaccinated? And how many more are permanently damaged? Is the cost worth the benefit?

I did, and would again, allow my children to be immunised according to the recommendations for children in Massachusetts. They didn't get flu vaccines, but they were pretty low risk for getting complications (no asthma, etc). When the chicken pox vaccine was first approved, we were given a reasonable period of time to have a voluntary immunisation. Some (most?) states still don't require it.

But here we have a vaccine that hasn't been approved for even a year, and has followup for only 4 years, and we are making it mandatory?

So....what is going on here?

The New Jersey-based drug company is bankrolling efforts to pass state laws across the country mandating Gardasil for girls as young as 11 or 12. It doubled its lobbying budget in Texas and has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators around the country.

Perry has ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company’s three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, Perry’s former chief of staff. His current chief of staff’s mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director for Women in Government.

The governor also received $6,000 from Merck’s political action committee during his re-election campaign.

A top official from Merck’s vaccine division sits on Women in Government’s business council, and many of the bills around the country have been introduced by members of Women in Government.

Merck spokeswoman Janet Skidmore would not say how much the company is spending on lobbyists or how much it has donated to Women in Government. Susan Crosby, the group’s president, also declined to specify how much the drug company gave.

Oh!!!! Money is involved! Oh my! I'm shocked!

Greedy isn't he?