Girl Rejects Gardasil, Loses Path to Citizenship

ABC News ^ | Sept. 11, 2009 | SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES

[nickcarraway]

Teen Asks Why She Should Take Vaccine If She is Not Having Sex, Worries About Dangers Born in Britain in 1992, Simone Davis got off to a rough start in life. Her biological mother abandoned her as a baby, and her father couldn't care for her.

At 3, Simone was adopted by her paternal grandmother, Jean Davis, who married an American in 2000 and moved them to Port St. Joe, Fla.

But because the adoption was not recognized in the United States, Davis embarked on a near-decade quest to get Simone U.S. citizenship.

Now 17 and an aspiring elementary school teacher and devout Christian, Simone has only one thing standing in the way of her goal -- the controversial vaccine Gardasil.

Immigration law mandates that Simone get the vaccine to protect against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus, which has been linked to cervical cancer.

But Simone, who has taken a virginity pledge and is not sexually active, doesn't see why she should have to take the vaccine, especially since it's been under fire recently regarding its safety .

And none of her American classmates is mandated by law to be vaccinated.

"I am only 17 years old and planning to go to college and not have sex anytime soon," said Simone. "There is no chance of getting cervical cancer, so there's no point in getting the shot."

Since 2008, the government has required that female immigrants between the ages of 11 through 26 applying for permanent resident or refugee status receive Gardasil, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2006.

Simone and her adoptive mother she still calls "Nanny" sought a waiver for moral and religious reasons and were recently rejected by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

[CharlesWayneCT]

There is no upside to Cervical Cancer, it really has no benefits that I am aware of.

But we are not talking about the choice between having CC, and not having CC. We are talking about the choice between getting a vaccination, or not.

If you don't get the vaccination, you have some small probability, say "X%" of getting cervical cancer. That probability is greatly affected by your lifestyle choice -- if you choose a celibate lifestyle, X is essentially 0% (rape is not going to change the equation enough to matter).

If you do get the vaccination, you still have a small probability of getting CC, (X-Y)%, where Y represents the protection given by the vaccine to a couple of the causes of CC.

But if you look at overall harm, your new equation is X-Y+Z %, where Z is the probability of harm caused by the vaccine.

Now, that harm is totally out of your control. But X wasn't. If you are celibate, X was 0%, while X-Y+Z is Z%, and since we KNOW that Z is non-zero, you are better off NOT taking the vaccine.

[VRWCmember]

You do understand the differences is transmissibility between Swine Flu and HPV, don’t you?

[Hodar]

If there were an HIV vaccination, even though I’m married, a proud Grandpa of 7 (and likely greater) grandkids - I’d roll my sleeve up to get the HIV shot.

I’d rather have 30 seconds of a inconvenience, than risk getting something that will slowly kill me, and potentially kill my wife - or be spread accidentally to those around me.

Laws exist to protect the innocent and helpless. How many lives will the HVP vaccine save? There’s really no way of knowing, until a couple decades pass and the data rolls in. How many lives will this cost? So far, none.

Would I legally mandate a HIV vaccine? In a heartbeat.

[SamuraiScot]

And preventing people from Cervical Cancer is somehow harmful?

False premise, which goes to the heart of the Gardasil problem. Gardasil doesn't prevent cancer per se. It treats a handful of strains of the many viruses that can act as precursors to cervical cancers.

To make an intelligent medical decision, you have to compare the risk of the treatment against the risk of getting the disease. Even for the sexually incontinent, cervical cancer is to a degree preventable and treatable. According this whistle-blowing researcher, unless Obama successfully destroys the U.S. medical industry's system of tests and treatments, the danger from getting HPV is outweighed by the risks of taking Gardasil.

The problem with political payoffs is that a politician's liking for a pharma company's contribution can exceed his concern for your daughter's welfare. This is why it's unwise to involve the government in our routine medical decisions.

[Hodar]

Yes, these two diseases have radically different transmission methods. One is fun, the other not so much.

Yet, would you prefer to catch either of these, or would you rather get a shot and not have to worry about them?

[Trailerpark Badass]

Forcing one to use a drug is not freedom.

And it is the obvious and predictable corollary to asking the government to prohibit drugs.

For the public good, of course.

[VRWCmember]

I’m trying to figure out when the congress voted to add the HPV vaccination to the requirements for citizenship. Wouldn’t we have noticed an immigration law being passed?

Or is this just a directive from the Obama administration? Or the Bush administration before him?”

Thank you Charles...THAT is my question. I want to see the statute.

Don't you understand? The reporter who wrote this story said that immigration law requires it, so that gives it the full force of federal law and anyone who believes in the rule of law should just simply roll over and accept it.

[VRWCmember]

Yet, would you prefer to catch either of these, or would you rather get a shot and not have to worry about them?

Another false premise (in a list that keeps getting longer) in your argument. Getting the shot does not mean you don't have to worry about getting the disease. Which is why the fine print in the Gardasil ads ALWAYS warns that you still need to get REGULAR screening - the same level of prevention that you would use without taking the "vaccine".

[stephenjohnbanker]

“Another thing....AIDS patients have managed to get restrictions against them on immigration lifted!
But this girl has to have a guardisil shot????”

The insanity continues.

[Hodar]

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services added the Gardasil vaccination requirement in July, and it went into effect on August 1. Under a 1996 immigration law, any vaccination recommended by the U.S. government for its citizens becomes a requirement for anyone seeking permanent residency in the U.S. The Centers for Disease Control recommended Gardasil for girls ages 11 through 26 shortly after it was approved in 2006.
link

Google is your friend. 2006 would put it in the Bush years.

[Pelham]

She needs to declare herself a Mexican illegal. Not only will she get in, so will her whole family. And they’ll get paid to come.

[cyphergirl]

I can’t show you a statute, but a quick google search pulls up this:

http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/law.htm
“Immigration immunization laws

Under new immigration laws passed in 1996 and in effect as of July 1, 1997, all individuals seeking permanent entry into the U.S. must prove that they have been inoculated against all vaccine-preventable diseases. This includes infants and children being brought into the country for international adoption.(12)”

http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/info/info_1331.html
“United States immigration law requires immigrant visa applicants to obtain certain vaccinations (listed below) prior to the issuance of an immigrant visa. Panel physicians who conduct medical examinations of immigrant visa applicants are required to verify that immigrant visa applicants have met the vaccination requirements, or that it is medically inappropriate for the visa applicant to receive one or more of the listed vaccinations:

— Acellular pertussis
— Hepatitis A
— Hepatitis B
— Human papillomavirus (HPV)
— Influenza
— Influenza type b (Hib)
— Measles
— Meningococcal
— Mumps
— Pneumococcal
— Pertussis
— Polio
— Rotovirus
— Tetanus and diphtheria toxoids
— Varicella
— Zoster”

My guess is that it may have happened in a process similar to this one:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dq/laws_regs/fed_reg/vaccine/vaccine_factsheet.htm

[Hodar]

Nice post, BTW

You said "Gardasil doesn't prevent cancer per se. It treats a handful of strains of the many viruses that can act as precursors to cervical cancers.

If you immunize against a handful of strains of virus's that are precurosrs to cervical cancer, have you not prevented some mystery number of cancers?

Now, I'm not saying that a girl who is given this vaccine is 100% protected, no one is ever 100% protected from a vaccine - however her odds are generally in the 80-90% range of immunity. Certainly, this is better than nothing.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Now, I'm not saying that a girl who is given this vaccine is 100% protected, no one is ever 100% protected from a vaccine - however her odds are generally in the 80-90% range of immunity. Certainly, this is better than nothing.

You make a somewhat compelling case for wanting to take the vaccine, if safe.

You have failed to make the case that it should be mandated by law.

[CharlesWayneCT]

OK, but what if the HIV vaccination had a 5% chance of killing you?

What if it had a 1% chance of killing you? 0.1%? 0.01%?

At what percent do you decide that the risk of the vaccine is less than the risk of HIV?

If a vaccine was completely safe, the only question would be whether it was worth spending money for it. And I’d probably take every vaccine there was.

But NO vaccine is 100% safe. And some are more risky than others.

[VRWCmember]

If there were an HIV vaccination, even though I’m married, a proud Grandpa of 7 (and likely greater) grandkids - I’d roll my sleeve up to get the HIV shot.

And a law that says you can't get the vaccination because you're so old that you would be doing the system a favor by getting sick and dying is just as wrong as a law that says you MUST get the vaccination regardless of the likelihood that you will be at risk of exposure.

[VRWCmember]

Now, I'm not saying that a girl who is given this vaccine is 100% protected, no one is ever 100% protected from a vaccine - however her odds are generally in the 80-90% range of immunity. Certainly, this is better than nothing.

Actually it is around the 70% range since the four strains it prevents are associated with 70% of the cases of cervical cancer. The actual percentage risk improvement could be much lower since by avoiding risk behaviors one can lower one's risk exposure drastically.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Actually, it was put in by rule in August of 2008. Still the Bush years, but not 2006.

This is a great example of unintendend consequences. They pushed the “recommendation” for Gardasil on the premise that many health insurance plans are required by law to cover vaccines, but only those which are “recommended”.

Now we find that, by adding it to the “recommended” list, it also forces the vaccine on those wishing to immigrate.

I bet that in 1996, those voting for this law had no idea there would be a vaccine that wasn’t necessary for the public good, but which would be “recommended”. Vaccines were for childhood diseases, not to make it easier to have sex without consequences.

[VRWCmember]

Google is your friend. 2006 would put it in the Bush years.

1996 puts it in the clinton years.

[Hodar]

Two points of contention. Point one is that I’m 48; so I have a few more miles left on the ol’ chassis.

Requiring you to get a vaccination not only saves your life (or reduces the odds of you getting ill); but also saves the lives of anyone around you, whom you may infect.

If I have HIV, and I have a car accident, I place at risk not only the passengers in my car, but the car I hit (depending upon how bloody things get). I also place at risk all emergency response personnel, doctors and nurses, ambulance workers - thus one shot could potentially save scores of lives, as each of these could potentially infect others. Just like the manditory diseases we already are required by law to vaccinate against.