BACHMANN: Well, of course, I don't know the thoughts and the intents of the governor's heart. I have no idea what they are, nor would I speculate."<<<.... SOURCE
Yes, even in the medical community you can find people that will tell you anything you want to hear.
Start asking a broad spectrum of people in this community what they are doing with their ten year old daughters, and I’ll bet you find a fairly large group that are playing wait and see, as well they should.
This is not a highly contagious communicable disease. As such ten year old girls should not have been forced to do something they had no control over.
Without the state’s and their own parent’s permission, they could not have opted out on their own. For a non-communicable disease, that is incredibly wrong.
Bachmann’s demagoguery of this issue last night was irresponsible. Language such as “forced government injection,” “innocent little girls”, and saying that a “woman came up to her crying” because this vaccination caused her daughter “mental retardation” is the type of inflammatory language and dishonest tactic I’d expect from a democrat not a conservative. If Bachmann wants to have an HONEST discussion about this issue then fine, but her dishonesty is out of line.
As responsible parents, we had both daughters receive the Gardasil vaccinations during their teen years. They both had zero side effects, and if they will have much better chance of resisting cervical cancer, all for the good. That cancer is very insidious and not worth the risk of any possible side effects from the vaccine. The percentage of girls with side effects is so small anyways. Has any one heard of children having adverse reactions to any of the commonly use medications? Like OTC cough syrup & aspirin? Yes, it happens, so should we stop taking all medications, since every medication has had some side effect to some one? Nothing in life is 100% guaranteed. So wise people should weigh the odds of failure versus benefits received.
So now that Bachmann has had an ass chewing by me and the many others that bothered...she’s going to try to back pedal...
Sorry, Michelle, TOO LATE, you were dishonest and won’t get a dime or words of support from this chick...
2008 article:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_20/b4084032485505.htm
Harvard’s DePinho is working with Merck on cancer drugs
Same guy
Obvious conflict of interest I found it in under 30 seconds.
I hope all this stuff goes away soon. Tempest in a little teapot.
I am so sick of this. There is a difference between “supporting” something, and making it a required vaccine for school attendance. The government, once again, has NO RIGHT to mandate a vaccine if a child can’t contract it sitting next to another in school. The opt-out provision isn’t the point. The point is that Perry obviously has no problem with using the power of the state for social engineering.
It might be “unethical” for parents to choose not to vaccinate their girls against HPV. But it is just as unethcial, if not more so, for someone to demand that government tell me how to raise my child.
New England Journal of Medicine Aug 21, 2008
Human Papillomavirus Vaccination — Reasons for Caution
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe0804638
“Although it was licensed for use in the United States in June 2006, the first phase 3 trials of the HPV vaccine with clinically relevant end points — cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 (CIN 2/3) — were not reported until May 2007, first in the Journal 2 and 1 month later in the Lancet.3,4 The vaccine was highly successful in reducing the incidence of precancerous cervical lesions caused by HPV-16 and HPV-18, but a number of critical questions remained unanswered.5,6 For instance, will the vaccine ultimately prevent not only cervical lesions, but also cervical cancer and death? How long will protection conferred by the vaccine last? Since most HPV infections are easily cleared by the immune system, how will vaccination affect natural immunity against HPV, and with what implications? How will the vaccine affect preadolescent girls, given that the only trials conducted in this cohort have been on the immune response? The studies with clinical end points (i.e., CIN 2/3) involved 16- to 24-year-old women. How will vaccination affect screening practices? Since the vaccines protect against only two of the oncogenic strains of HPV, women must continue to be screened for cervical lesions. Vaccinated women may feel protected from cervical cancer and may be less likely than unvaccinated women to pursue screening. How will the vaccine affect other oncogenic strains of HPV? If HPV-16 and HPV-18 are effectively suppressed, will there be selective pressure on the remaining strains of HPV? Other strains may emerge as significant oncogenic serotypes...
“With so many essential questions still unanswered, there is good reason to be cautious about introducing large-scale vaccination programs. Instead, we should concentrate on finding more solid answers through research rather than base consequential and costly decisions on yet unproven assumptions.”
Another article in the same issue attempts a cost analysis of vaccination. The best conclusion I can reach from it is that the cost analysis (if a valid method of determining whether to use it - I can think of comparing NNT and NNH as more relevant to the individual) depends on the length of protection provided, and the question of whether other, unprotected, forms of HPV are high risk factors in cervical cancer.
Delving more into the questions above relating to HPV infections being something that tend (in 90% of cases according to one source, below) to clear up on their own, and the question of whether it is the virus or lesions caused by the virus which do not clear up due to persistent or repeated infections - read promiscuity - over a period of years, one wonders whether giving children a vaccine with a limited lifespan which may wear off well before they become sexually active, perhaps promiscous, perhaps get an HPV infection, (perhaps from the particular kinds associated with the these vaccines) perhaps get it repeatedly, perhaps develop lesions which perhaps decades later become cancerous... is worth the risk of making this decision through politics rather than solid research.
another link of interest:
http://pop.org/content/merck-researcher-admits-gardasil-guards-against-almost-nothing-985
and a later NEJM article with good questions regarding mandating it:
HPV Vaccination Mandates — Lawmaking amid Political and Scientific Controversy (Aug 19, 2010)
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr1003547
I have not found out yet if they are based on Aborted Fetal Cell Lines, as Polio, MMR, Varicella, Hepatitus A, and Rabies vaccines are.
The only people with guaranteed benefit are the manufacturers.
The rest of us only have hopes of benefit, with a credibly high risk.
As usual, no clear information from either side. Yes. It’s a good, legitimate vaccine. But should every school girl in the State of Texas be singled out, whether they are at risk or not? Do we ignore the statistically improbable event of a side effect? To Dr. Pinho, I might reply (given enough time to think of the snappy comeback), and what do I tell the parents of the one in a million (example ratio) girls who dies due to a violent, severe allergic reaction to the vaccine?
What I do oppose, is any government entity mandating the use of said vaccine, especially when there appears to be some sort of financial conflict of interest.
I don't mind the government advocating its use. A mandate, however, even with the much touted "opt-out" is antithetical to personal freedom.
Google is a wonderful thing. Google is not an anti-Perry conspiracy.
I got the previous article on page one of results...since that article bothers the litle conversation kapo in the corner, I went to page two of results and found another article, same subject.
GARDASIL: THE TRUTH BEHIND THE VACCINE MANDATE
Controversy surrounds the HPV vaccine, but perhaps no place as strongly as Texas where it was at one time mandated for school girls. How safe is Gardasil and was it mandated merely for the governor’s own benefit?
It began with the commercials, those relentless television commercials portraying women who were surprised to learn of cancer caused by a virus. To be more specific, the women in the commercials were speaking about cervical cancer caused by the human papilloma virus (HPV). The commercials urged women to talk to their doctors about pap tests and spread the word about the virus. It was a clever marketing scheme to be sure. After the commercials had succeeded in terrifying the general public about cervical cancer low and behold, a vaccine was suddenly available to protect against the now dreaded HPV virus. Perhaps if it had stopped there, we could even forgive the vaccine makers, however, as it did not stop there, it is an issue that must be addressed.
In 2007, Governor Rick Perry ordered that all girls entering the sixth grade in Texas were to be vaccinated against HPV. In short, Governor Perry mandated the mass experimentation of a new drug on dozens of eleven and twelve year old girls. Let us take a closer look at this disease that Governor Perry felt so concerned about “protecting” Texas’ youth against.
Despite what the commercials would have people believe, cervical cancer rates are declining as they have been doing for the last several decades. In addition, cervical cancer is often a very treatable disease when it is diagnosed early. There are multiple strains of HPV, only a few of which cause cervical cancer and even those few often leave exposed women unaffected. HPV is not contagious like the flu (which kills far more people than cervical cancer today); it is transmitted through sexual activity. In fact, studies published in a 1999 Cochrane Review have found that women who use condoms, avoid sex when they are young, and have fewer sexual partners are at a much lower risk for developing cervical cancer. Perhaps instead of forcing an HPV vaccine on children, the cost of which is over $300 per three-shot series, the time should be taken to keep a better eye on our children.
In addition to the fact that cervical cancer is growing more rare, the HPV vaccine itself presents certain questions. Gardasil, the HPV vaccine, only protects against four strains of HPV. While the four strains it does protect against are the most likely to cause cervical cancer, the vaccine’s own website admits that it does not protect against all types of cervical cancer. Currently the common side effects of this drug can include pain, swelling, and itching at the injection sight; fever, nausea, dizziness, vomiting, and fainting, the later occurring most often among adolescents and young adults. There have also been some cases of severe allergic reactions to the ingredients in Gardasil, and even deaths associated with the vaccine that have been confirmed the FDA.
Gardasil has only been available since June 2006, as such, it is still a relatively new vaccine. The long-term effects of this drug are still unknown as subjects were only followed for five years. It is, however, known that Gardasil contains a high amount of aluminum, which in such doses, is found to cause neurological damage to animals. How many drugs have we seen approved over the years, only to have them later recalled? One in particular that comes to mind is Vioxx. In the fall of 2004, the Merck company announced the voluntary withdrawal of Vioxx worldwide. The withdrawal came after the drug was found to cause serious cardiovascular problems in patients taking Vioxx. It was published in an issue of British Medical Journal that Merck was accused of intentionally withholding data concerning the dangers of the drug and even designed studies using low-risk patients to conceal the drug’s threat. According to David J. Graham, MD, MPH, in the five years Vioxx was on the market, it is estimated that 100,000 deaths were due to the drug. Merck also happens to be the same company responsible for the Gardasil vaccine. Is it fair to forcefully subject children to an unproven vaccine that could possibly be found harmful to them in the future?
As there is a vaccine that protects against HPV, parents should indeed have the choice to decide whether they want their children vaccinated. Obviously some will be for the vaccine, some will be against it, but it should be the choice of the parents, not the state or the Governor. If a child is injured by the vaccine, who pays the price? Not the Governor or the state. No, if the vaccine causes adverse effects in a child, it is the parents and the child who must suffer the consequences. Part of parenting is deciding what is best for one’s children, and forcing the HPV virus on children against parents’ wishes is to take away the basic rights of parenthood.
Perhaps it is time to examine what might have prompted Governor Perry to allow the vaccine’s experimentation on so many young girls. At the time of Governor Perry’s decision, Merck had been lobbying for the mandate of the vaccine to all sixth grade girls in the United States, a move that would rake in huge profits for the company. Could it then be a coincidence that Mike Toomey, one of Merck’s Texas lobbyists, also happens to be Governor Perry’s former chief of staff? It certainly does make one wonder, especially when one takes into consideration a certain source of funding during Governor Perry’s re-election campaign. During that campaign, Governor Perry received several thousand dollars from Merck. It is possible that such ties to the company may have greatly influenced Governor’s Perry decision regarding the forced administration of the Gardasil vaccine. Perhaps it was not that Governor Perry sought to protect young girls from cervical cancer, but rather, he sought to protect and possibly further his relationship with the company responsible for the vaccine. What better way to do so, than to order the vaccine for all girls entering the sixth grade in Texas. In essence, he was using them as guinea pigs for his own person gain.
Merck profits from the sale of Gardasil and Governor Perry profits from Merck, and who will suffer for any consequences? The children and their parents. The vaccine mandate has since been overturned in Texas, but several other states have considered mandatory HPV; one can only hope they will not be as self-serving as Governor Perry. Parents do indeed deserve the choice to vaccinate their children against HPV, but it should remain exactly that; a choice.
Sources:
Cervical cancer risks and causes
http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=2755
Dr. Joseph Mercola
Testimony of David J. Graham, MD, MPH
http://www.mercola.com/2005/mar/2/david_graham_testimonial.htm
Gardasil
Gwendolyn V. Kelly, MD & Laura Spinelli, MD
Sex, Science and Vaccines: the Decline of Cervical Cancer
Martha Jefferson Hospital
http://www.marthajefferson.org/clinicalfront/website_spring_06/cervical.php
Harlan M Krumholz, Harold H Hines,Joseph S Ross, Amos H Presler, David S Egilman
What have we learnt from Vioxx
British Medical Journal 2007, January 20
HPV - Human Papillomavirus Vaccine
http://www.vaccineinfo.net/immunization/vaccine/hpv/index.shtml
Shepherd J, Weston R, Peersman G, Napuli IZ
Cochrane Review 1999, Issue 3
Texas governor orders anti-cancer vaccine for schoolgirls
USA Today; February 2, 2007
Read more: http://www.bukisa.com/articles/327446_gardasil-the-truth-behind-the-vaccine-mandate#ixzz1XtbhGyrO
I’ll visit a cancer patient when he visits my 27 year old nephew, who was severely damaged by a DPT shot. He functions at the level of a three year old, doesn’t speak, and has a terrible seizure disorder because of a vaccine.
Nobody decides what’s “ethical” for my family but me.