Posted on 01/31/2007 4:01:47 AM PST by XR7
A bill concerning the mandatory vaccination of US middle-aged schoolgirls against cervical cancer is considered controversial and some states even try to pull it back.
The vaccine is only produced by Merck Sharp & Dohme (Merck & Co) and is called Gardasil. This is the world’s first vaccine against cervical cancer and other diseases caused by certain types of the human papillomavirus (HPV).
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Gardasil for mass-prescription on June 8, 2006, after a lot of clinical tests. The tests also indicated that Gardasil’s administratin to girls should occur before they become sexually active.
According to statistics, 270,000 women died of cervical cancer worldwide in 2002, making this form of cancer one of the deadliest. In the US, cervical cancer killed around 3,700 women in 2002.
Some states (through their Senate representatives) are not convinced yet of the efficacy of the vaccine. Sen. Delores G. Kelley, a Baltimore County Democrat, said yesterday that she plans to pull a bill she herself sponsored that calls for all sixth-grade girls to be vaccinated by September 2008. She voiced the concern of some parents and educators that addressed her, after chickenpox and hepatitis B vaccinations failed to immunize students from grades six to nine.
The success of the vaccine in clinical tests and FDA’s approval has determined more than a dozen states to consider introducing the mandatory vaccination with Gardasil. Some medical experts and watchdog groups have questioned though Merck’s active lobbying, although the company’s involvement is not a surprise, since it is for the moment the only producer of the substance. The groups and the medical experts also imply that state mandates are premature.
Sen. Kelley said she was not aware of "those external politics."
"The timing is just not right," she said, adding that she will likely introduce the bill again next year. "I decided to do this at a time when things have settled down and we can approach this in a more deliberative manner."
Gardasil is given in 3 injections over 6 months, namely at enrollment, and 2 and 6 months later. Gardasil protects against four subtypes that together account for 70 per cent of all cervical cancers and 90 per cent of genital warts. It has been shown to be more than 95-per-cent effective.
Some conservatives and parental-rights groups say such a requirement would encourage premarital sex and interfere with the way they raise their children. Some fear the HPV vaccine’s protection would boost young girls’ appetite for an early sexual life.
For other critics, it is the notion that their youthful innocence could be violated, during the course of three shots over six months, by a medical practitioner's potential sex-education lecture.
But Merck said its lobbying efforts have been aboveboard.
Merck has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group of female state legislators.
An 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.
"Cervical cancer is of particular interest to our members because it represents the first opportunity that we have to actually eliminate a cancer," said Susan Crosby, president 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. Crosby also declined to specify how much the drug company gave.
But Skidmore said: "We disclosed the fact that we provide funding to this organization. We're not in any way trying to obscure that."
The New Jersey drug company, which is building a vaccine plant in Durham, 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.
The National Advisory Committee on Immunization says girls and women aged 14 to 26 should also be vaccinated against human papillomavirus (HPV) even if they are already sexually active, because they may not yet have been infected.
Rep. Debbie Clary, a Cleveland County Republican, has no doubt that a North Carolina legislator eventually will introduce a bill requiring HPV vaccination. "I don't know if it will be this year or the next, but I'm certain it will be discussed," she said. "It's obvious that Merck is pushing for mandates."
"I think it will be a tremendous debate, because you're treading on territory that is a parent's decision," Clary said.
On June 29, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended that Gardasil be placed on the childhood immunization schedule at the 11 to 12 year old visit. They also recommended that the vaccine be included in the federal Vaccines for Children Program, which would provide the vaccines free of charge to children under the age of 18 who are uninsured. Merck & Co., Inc. is a global research-driven pharmaceutical company. Established in 1891, Merck discovers, develops, manufactures and markets vaccines and medicines to address unmet medical needs.
How about mandatory bullet proof vests in California?
Boys transmit the virus to women.
The good news is, that A cancer can be prevented with a vaccine.
Suppose this virus, or any virus, came to be identified as the cause of prostate cancer?
Would you then be for male vaccination ?
Its a moot point since studies on males will need to be completed to test for results.
The vaccine may prevent genital warts which transmit the virus to females.
I wonder how unvaccinated females will feel when they grow up and find out that Mom or Dad wouldn't permit the vaccination when they were young.
Males like females can lie about their sexual history and transmit the disease to a chaste wife. Women do get raped, I hear.
Just something to think about.
"Significance" in this case is in the eye of the beholder - that's around 6 times the number killed in general aviation accidents in an average year, and roughly same number number killed in the WTC attacks.
That's it? and it's approved for mass distribution based on that?
This company is just begging for a law suit.
VIOX all over again.
Caption the pic :
"There you go sweetie! Now you don't have to worry about those pesky warts like I have"
I don't see anything on the graph that refers to "breast cancer caused by the pill."
Well you have to ask yourself how many women stop in think just before penetration "Oh no I'm no going to do this because I might get cervical cancer" I'd guess mighty few. So I'd say it isn't going to encourage disease. Frankly the concept of using the threat of disease to prevent immoral behavior is pretty immoral itself. Id rather see all of the diseases eliminated.
I think you misunderstand how the vaccine works, by preventing infection it prevents the formation of precancerous changes which can eventually lead to cancer.
Yes.
And look at those trusting eyes looking at the good doctor.
And, you can almost hear the doctor going, "Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck," like Curly.
Actually, Merck is giving the stuff away all over the country.
The cost of vaccine development is so high, that although they may make a huge profit they generally barely make back their investment. It is done by us Evil pharm researchers because it is the right thing to do.
Vaccine research is done on the backs of the profits from the drug industry. It also teaches us more about biologics than any average person can appreciate.
Now there's an important point!
Those specific HPV warts develop in women inside the uterus. They aren't the same as other genital warts. You need to get your information sorted out.
Even the arguments about FREEDOM? It's not the vaccination that sticks in my craw, but is the MANDATORY side of it.
You don't know what happens to boys as a result of carrying the disease. That research is going on now.
I forgot more about vaccine development than you will ever know.
I am responding to the question as to why not vaccinate men.
There are all kinds of avenues that such research takes us down.
Just like the search for an aids vaccine is bringing all kinds of new knowledge to the surface.
You are stuck on a single peace of info, you need to move on to the bigger picture.
Developing warts inside my uterus isn't something that I grew up yearning for.
Sorry, I think things are getting confused as a result of multiple posts and replies.
The evidence for significantly increased risk of breast cancer is related to HRT(Hormone Replacement Therapy), not birth control:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/genetics/breast-and-ovarian/healthprofessional#Section_340
The former is a real issue, the latter a dead horse.
About 40% of that 40,000 on that chart. Try looking it up, google is easy to use.
40% is a conservative number.
And just what do you think birth control pills mess with? it's hormone therapy. My wife is going through memopause. There was a time docs would use a low dose birth control pill to regulate estrogen, the won't do it these days.
Nothing in that article claims that the pill "causes" breast cancer.
In 1981, Pike et al [138], found that women who took OCPs before their first term pregnancy had a 2.4 fold increased risk of developing breast cancer before age 32. This startled the research world and led to additional studies, including a very large American trial called the CASH study (Cancer And Steroid Hormone study). In 1993, the CASH study showed that women under 44 years of age had a 40% increased risk in breast cancer, which was statistically significant in the 35-44 age group [6].
Later, in England, Chilvers et al [8] published the results of another large study called the United Kingdom National Study. She showed that young women under the age of 36 who had used oral contraceptives for at least 4 years before their first term pregnancy had at least a 44% increased risk in breast cancer. The last large study was performed in 1995 by Brinton et al [1]. It showed a 41% increased (raw relative) risk for women who used OCPs for more than 6 months prior to full term pregnancy.
This "vaccine" doesn't prevent or cervical cancer. It "protects" against certain forms of HPV (human papilloma virus) which causes genital warts and has been found to cause most cervical cancer.
This medication will not eliminate the disease of cervical cancer although it might be somewhat effective in preventing some future cases of HPV and cervical cancer. On the other hand, there has not been enough study to determine what the impact of this vaccine will be in terms of mutating virullent superstrains of the HPV virus and whether or not that will cause even more aggressive forms of both the virus and cancers that it spawns.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.