Archive for Friday, January 26, 2007

Bill would require HPV shot for girls

January 26, 2007


Reader poll
Should the state require girls to get the HPV vaccine?

or See the results without voting


A bill introduced Thursday in Topeka would require all sixth-grade girls to be vaccinated for a sexually transmitted infection that can cause cervical cancer - a killer of 3,700 women nationwide each year.

The bipartisan group of Kansas House members who sponsored the bill have added Kansas to a list of states - including Virginia, New Jersey, California, Georgia, Texas, Kentucky and Michigan - where legislators are considering similar measures.

Rep. Delia Garcia, D-Wichita, is the lead sponsor of the bill that would add the vaccine for the human papillomavirus, known as HPV, to the list of inoculations required for sixth-grade girls attending Kansas public schools.

Nationally, proponents have cheered it as a way to help institute an important medical breakthrough in preventive medicine. In June, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the use of the HPV vaccine Gardasil, which is made by Merck & Co. Kansas University was a test site for the vaccine in 1999 and administered it to 60 students.

"It's one of the real significant developments in disease prevention that has occurred in decades," said Henry W. Buck, a Lawrence gynecologist who has retired from KU's Student Health Services.

Buck led the Gardasil testing at KU and serves on Merck's advisory board but is not employed by the drug company.

The vaccination has been controversial here and elsewhere because the drug was approved only nine months ago and some say it could lead teens toward more promiscuous lifestyles.

"I don't think it's promoting promiscuity," Garcia said. "It's taking a stand to eliminate cervical cancer."

About HPV

In 2005 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 20 million people in the U.S. had human papillomavirus. There are many types of HPV. Some cause no harm; others can cause diseases of the genital area. For most people, the virus goes away on its own. When the the virus does not go away, it can develop into cervical cancer, precancerous lesions or genital warts.

According to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, HPV is a sexually transmitted virus that is the leading cause of cervical cancer. KDHE said doctors currently think that more than 90 percent of cervical cancer is caused by HPV.

Issue of mandates

Sen. Jim Barnett, R-Emporia, chairman of the Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee, said the issue is whether the state should mandate that all sixth-grade girls be vaccinated.

"I think that question needs very careful thought, particularly from the standpoint of what is the role of the state versus parental involvement," said Barnett, who was the GOP's unsuccessful nominee for governor last year. "At this time, I think that decision is best made between the parent and the physician, along with, of course, the patient, even though it's a sixth-grade girl."

Barnett, a physician, called the vaccine "very important" and said he was concerned about sexually transmitted infections.

Bruce Passman, deputy superintendent of Lawrence public schools, said Thursday he would need to research the bill before commenting.

Lawrence parents seem to have a mixed reaction to the legislation.

"I think people just get really hung up because it's about sex and a sexual organ. It's really just a vaccination about kids that protects against cancer," said Colleen Lignell, who has a daughter in junior high school.

Judy Gilman, who also has a daughter in junior high, was not sold on the idea.

"I'd like to see a time frame elapse where there aren't any problems that show up before they start mandating it. It's too premature," she said.

Other states

In late 2006, Michigan was one of the first states to consider a mandatory HPV vaccine. After a bill passed the Michigan Senate, John Stahl, a Republican member of the House, led a group to defeat it.

"We don't want them using our children as guinea pigs," Stahl said Thursday, although legislation has been reintroduced there this session.

In Texas, a parental group has asked for the vaccine's efficacy, safety and cost to be examined.

Sen. Jim Barnett, R-Emporia, talks about a bill to require HPV vaccinations for sixth-grade girls


"What they are proposing is vaccinating a bunch of healthy girls that are responsible and that do come from good homes for the benefit of irresponsible people," said Dawn Richardson, a co-founder of Parents Requesting Open Vaccine Education.

Also opposed to mandatory vaccinations is the American College of Pediatricians, a conservative group of physicians. It has commended the research advancements but opposes legislation requiring HPV vaccinations to attend school.


Buck, the retired Lawrence gynecologist, said he would favor a mandatory vaccination based on several reasons, including the prevalence of 1 million new cases of genital warts per year. He said he was astounded at the 98 percent efficacy rate of the drug in the more than 40,000 people who participated the trial period worldwide.

"The more people that get vaccinated, the less risk there is of transmission," he said.

Buck also said it was reasonable to require the vaccine due to the risks of date rape. He also touted Gardasil's safety and dismissed concerns about side effects.

"If you are against the HPV vaccine, it's kind of like being against mom and apple pie," Buck said.

Garcia, the main sponsor of the Kansas bill, said it does contain an opt-out provision for "medical, moral or philosophical reasons."

Wichita lawmaker pushing for vaccination for young girls in Kansas

In hopes of preventing a sexually transmitted disease that causes cancer, one Wichita lawmaker is calling all young girls living in Kansas to receive a vaccination. Enlarge video

Gardasil costs $360 for three injections ($120 each) given over a six-month period. Merck says Gardasil will guard against four types of HPV - two that cause 70 percent of cervical cancer cases and two that cause 90 percent of genital warts cases.

Garcia said some community clinics in Kansas have it available if private insurance doesn't cover it. She also thinks federal dollars soon will be available to help defray the costs.

The vaccine would be costly to some families, said Charlene Bailey, public information officer for State Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger. Praeger, of Lawrence, has not seen the bill and was not ready to comment about whether insurance companies would pay for the vaccinations.


bluerose 11 years, 4 months ago

do i really trust my government enough to allow them to give my daughters "required" vaccinations related to their sexuality?

i think not.


sharron5rs 11 years, 4 months ago

"What they are proposing is vaccinating a bunch of healthy girls that are responsible and that do come from good homes for the benefit of irresponsible people," said Dawn Richardson, a co-founder of Parents Requesting Open Vaccine Education.

As someone that worked in the health field. I can tell you that comming from "healthy girls that are responsible and that do come from good homes ",dosen't make a differince at all.

This disease dosent care where you come from.

You can have it for years no matter how carefull you are. It only takes one time without protection.

Having this vaccine is such a great advance against a potential dangerous disease.

If they had had it when my girls were in Jr. High they WOULD have had it whether they "needed it or not."

I have seen women from the BEST homes have this diaese. I KNOW they would rather have had the shot than to go through what they had to go through.

If you read thourghly about the diaese ypu would know that it can lay dormant for YEARS , and when you think you havent had any bad pap tests for years. Your are problem free. Wham , you have a"High Risk" result. Guess what. It's back! And you have the greater chance of having cancer than you did before.

I say YES make it a part of the requirement for young girls !!! Help save them from having to go through the PAIN and embarasment from having this terrible disease.

secretresistance 11 years, 4 months ago

There are no long term studies on this (or any) vaccine. Beware of your legal right to exemptions! NO VACCINES ARE "REQUIRED."

mcarper 11 years, 4 months ago

I don't believe that the vaccine should be mandatory, but I would strongly suggest that parents and young adults alike should consider this potenially life saving development. The reason behind my statement:

When I attended graduate school at KU I dated a fabulous young woman who was so full of life it was amazing. She graduated in 2002 and moved to Chicago to begin work and her new life. She passed away in August 2006, 9 days before her 26th birthday from a 9 month battle with CERVICAL CANCER. She is now one of the 3,700 women who die each year from this disease.

So, you can gritch and maon all you want about lawmakers, bills, mandatory-this, and madatory-that, but just remember, when your daughters are just beginning their lives do you really want to see them stricken with this horrible disease, knowing da** good and well you could have prevented it earlier in their lives???? I THINK NOT. Do you want your daughter to be #3,701???? I THINK NOT.

Before you "go-off-the-deep-end" regarding this bill, ask yourself one question......., "Is it worth risking your daughter's life NOT to get the vaccine?" I THINK NOT. I wouldn't risk my daughter's life.

Adrienne Sanders 11 years, 4 months ago

If people have health insurance, would that cover part of the cost? Or does insurance just not cover this?

I'm all for this vaccine... and completely against the government telling anyone that they must have it.

planetwax 11 years, 4 months ago

I do NOT want the government mandating that I drug my daughter with ANYTHING! This is just another way for the drug companies to line their pockets.

Not only that, but vaccines HARM. Research the anti-vaccine literature for a truly scary outcome we see played out in our daily lives.

lori 11 years, 4 months ago

Sharon et al, I too work in the women's health care field, and I am against mandatory innoculation. Testing was performed on college age girls, not preteens. It only covers four of the high risk viral subtypes, not even close to all of them. The long-term efficacy (greater than 5 years) is unknown. Boys and men are the ones who actually spread the high risk strains, it causes complications in them, too (genital, anal and throat cancer), so why aren't they being innoculated?

Why not provide the funding for it, offer it cheap or free at all the clinics and offices that provide immunization, and let parents, docs and the girls make the decision? The mandatory dT booster is due around the same time, so just offer it then--it wouldn't be a convience issue involving another trip to the office, and the dT booster is required for school attendance anyhow, so all children would be offered it regardless of income or health care access.

I am not against the vaccine, and I will probably encourage my daughters to receive it. I'm glad HPV is getting more press, it is so underreported, yet virtually every sexually active person carries some strain of it at some point in their lives. I am against the mandatory vaccination, not to mention the funding part ($360 for a government mandated vaccine!?!). Encouraging it--yes. Funding the vaccine--yes. Mandating all girls receive it--no.

redneckwoman 11 years, 4 months ago

I'm all for the vaccine... I just hate it when someone try's telling me how to run my life and my childrens. The price needs to go down though. Especially if insurance won't cover it. Fortunately my 2 little girls have a few years for the "kinks" to be worked out. I would just hate myself if my girls became ill and/died because I didn't vaccinate. I would feel like I failed at protecting them.

don_burgess 11 years, 4 months ago

What about chicks who are doin it BEFORE 6th grade?

Bobbi Walls 11 years, 4 months ago

My 8, soon to be 9 year old will be get this vaccine.. In my opinion, this is a good thing, and I feel it is my duty as a parent to protect her.

oldgoof 11 years, 4 months ago

Lori's 9:07 post hits the nail on the head, in my view. In addition, as a medical professional, she considers the issue as a health issue, not a political one. .. Of course, there are political aspects to the issue, so flame away.

oldgoof 11 years, 4 months ago

And a thought or two to consider, just to stir things up:

**The costs of a single vaccine expended another way would prevent dozens of deaths from more common threats to human health by providing clean water.

**The costs to prosecute and imprison a single first-offending, non-violent, not-likely-to-reoffend person for using marijuana in the US could pay for hundreds of these new vaccinations for those who can not afford them.

Tim vonHolten 11 years, 4 months ago

this is outrageous and draconian (god, i've been dying to use that word). the very idea of putting my daughter in front of a bullet fired by the fda is unthinkable. i realize that i'm not going to be able to control her sexual activity, but giving her some magic shot that puts more doctors on cruises is not the answer. it's astounding that some people are so resistant to sex education and condom distribution because they think it promotes promiscuity, but a dose of some mystery cure-all is "prevention."

Confrontation 11 years, 4 months ago

Hey monkeywrench: Condoms do not protect you against HPV. Go ahead and educate, but it will do no good in this case. Unless every kid remains a virgin until marriage (including any genital touching), then HPV will be a factor for nearly everyone. Considering that very few people wait until marriage, the possibility of both partners being virgins is extremely low. Go ahead and have your kids use condoms, considering they help prevent HIV and such. However, the HPV and herpes pay no attention to your latex. Parents who choose not to use this HPV vaccine are truly showing neglect. You care more about your desire to prevent your child from ever having sex, than you do about their health.

Linda Endicott 11 years, 4 months ago

Does this vaccine run the risk of making girls (and parents) think that if they get it, they won't ever have to worry about cervical cancer?

It sure sounds like it when you see the ads on TV. Makes it sound like it's 100% effective for the rest of your life. At first. Then at the end of the ad, as required by the FDA, it states all the things that common sense should already tell you...there are possible side effects from the vaccine itself, it does not protect against all forms of HPV, it does not prevent all cervical cancer.

But by the time they get to all that information, parents have already made up their minds and are on the rah rah cheerleader bandwagon of promoting something they really know very little about.

This vaccine is for genital warts. All cervical cancer is not caused by genital warts. The vaccine does not protect against all types of genital warts. So it's nowhere near a magic solution to the problem.

And it's way too new to know all the possible problems with the vaccine.

There are tests available, now, for prostate cancer, tests that could save the lives of thousands of men each year, simply with early detection. Does the government require all men to get them?

There are tests available, now, for colon cancer, that could save thousands of lives each year, through early detection. Does the government require all adults to get them?

I don't like the idea of the government making health decisions for parents and their children, and requiring anything. And it's simply because they want to apply this to children that they think they can push it into law, and will probably succeed.

Remember the boy whose parents decided against chemo because they didn't think it would be effective, and would actually cause more harm than good? The boy was 17 and he made this decision himself, and his parents merely backed him up on that decision.

Yet the state took them to court to try and force them to make their son go through chemo, whether he wanted to or not. Glad to say, the state lost. The boy has done well with other treatments, and is in remission now.

So I guess the government, and even doctors, don't know everything.

Is this the direction you want this country to take? Forcing parents to have their children get vaccines and medical treatments, even if their doctor doesn't think it's the best course of action? Do you want parents to be arrested, and possibly jailed (thus burdening the foster care system even more) for refusing to do something that's "required"?

optimist 11 years, 4 months ago

Anytime the government involves itself in any issue it becomes political. Whether or not a child is vaccinated or not is a decision made by the parents in consultation with the child's physician. The government has no place involving itself.

This isn't a disease contracted through casual contact. Behavior is a significant reason for the disease being so widespread. That shouldn't be ignored.

The FDA has approved many drugs and vaccines that were later determined to be too dangerous. Just because the FDA rules it safe doesn't mean it is absolutely safe for all. There have been many examples recently such as VIOX and the anthrax vaccine given to our soldiers.

I'm not sure where I stand on this issue. My daughters have many years before I am faced with the decision. I do believe however that this is an issue because it relates to female sexuality much like abortion and birth control. I see this as an extension of the radical feminist agenda to indoctrinate our young girls forcing us to expose them to the issues relating to sex at an earlier age than otherwise necessary. When will we just allow children to simply be children?

I resent being forced to discuss this issue with my child at such an early age by an overreaching government provoked by people for reasons of political and social engineering more so than simple medical reasons. If it were just for medical reasons then individuals would be encourage to discuss it with their doctors and make the choice they determine is best for them rather than pushing legislation mandating it.

Hopefully we don't learn of any harmful side-effects causing damage to young girls in the mean time.

Tim vonHolten 11 years, 4 months ago

nowhere did i mention that i was living under the illusion that my daughter will never have sex. i believe i stated the contrary. but i would hardly say that education will do no good in this case. raising a child with high self-esteem and an education that discusses limiting sexual partners can't hurt, and might even help. i'm not fool enough to believe that abstinence is a reality in most cases, and the vaccination may be effective, but "neglect" is putting the raising of your children in the hands of a government that has anything but their best interests in mind.

Confrontation 11 years, 4 months ago

I am absolutely for sex ed. Limiting sex partners is a good thing, but the odds of having sex with someone who has HPV is extremely high. So, one partner or 100 partners, it doesn't do much in terms of HPV prevention. If your one partner had sex with 100 other partners, then there you have it. Yes, limiting sex partners can decrease the odds of getting other STDs. Living in fear of the government and their health agenda is just plain stupid. Why wouldn't the government want to prevent HPV? A simple series of shots will save lives and an incredible amount of money. Don't assume that you know more than the FDA on ANY topic. Living in some paranoid world might just allow your child to die from something you could have prevented. Perhaps the FDA should raise YOUR child.

secretresistance 11 years, 4 months ago

The following is all CDC-verifiable:

*HPV rarely causes invasive cervical cancer (there are only about 7,000 cases annually and 3,000 deaths), yet about SEVEN MILLION will get HPV annually.

*There are about 50 million women walking around with HPV right now.

*Smoking increases the risks

*Almost all women clear HPV from their bodies within two years and without any treatment

*The vaccine covers only two strains linked to cervical cancer

*Pap smears have reduced the incidence of cervical cancer by somewhere around 70% since the 50's.

*More than half of the cancer deaths occur in women who have never had a pap smear if their life.

Here are the VAERS reports for Gardasil so far. Keep in mind that the data contained in the VAERS database does not represent the true number of adverse reactions:

Here is the pdf product insert.

There was no clear evidence of protection caused by HPV types for which subjects were PCR and/or seropositive at baseline.

Here are the contraindications: The product is not to be used for treatment of active genital warts, cervical cancer, CIN, VIN or VaIN. It is also not to be used on pregnant women. It has not been evaluated for carcinogenicity or genotoxicity.

Sorry to be so mouthy on the subject, but this HPV vaccination craze is really scary once you're privy to the statistics.

person184 11 years, 4 months ago

Posted by plumberscrack (anonymous) on January 26, 2007 at 7:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There is more pressing work to be done than worry about this.......Vote these idiots out who don't seem to understand why they were voted in!!!!

Do you have a mom? a daughter? Do you care? A little callous I'd say, Crackboy.

ladyjhawk 11 years, 4 months ago

Just to throw a few stats into the mix. There are approx. 6.3 million new cases of HPV in the US each year. Over 20 million people are currently infected.

There are over 30 different types of sexually transmitted HPV viruses with the vaccine addressing just 4. In all there are over 100 HPV viruses.

Just looking at the stats seems to point in the direction of needing a mandated vaccine. If there were a vaccine to prevent any other non-sex related disease affecting 6.3 million people per year I"m sure it would be receiving nothing but praise on the boards today.Stats are from the national insitute of Allergies and Infections disease.

ladyjhawk 11 years, 4 months ago

Just for the record Gardasil, the vaccine currently available, covers 4 HPV viruses. Types 6 & 11 wich cause 90% of genital warts and types 16 & 18 which cause 70% of all cervical cancer.

rockchalk77 11 years, 4 months ago

"Here are the contraindications: The product is not to be used for treatment of active genital warts, cervical cancer, CIN, VIN or VaIN. It is also not to be used on pregnant women. It has not been evaluated for carcinogenicity or genotoxicity.

Of course it can't be used on an active outbreak - vaccines make your bodies generate antibodies so when you are exposed to something your own system can fight it off, it doesn't "cure" something you already have. Giving a Polio vaccine to someone with Polio won't do a bit of good - same with an MMR.

You don't want to use it on a pregnant woman because you'd be introducing a form of HPV into their system - you'd be creating the same risks that women with HPV have when getting pregnant.

My great grandfather didn't believe in vaccinations either - because of his paranoia my grandmother ended up having the German Measles, Mumps, and Tuberculosis. She fought through 3 major outbreaks of her TB and they had to take so many chest x-rays that it gave her breast cancer by the time she was in her 40's.

monkeyspunk 11 years, 4 months ago

"Garcia, the main sponsor of the Kansas bill, said it does contain an opt-out provision for "medical, moral or philosophical reasons.""

That is for all of you people who didn't read the article but still found it necessary to comment on the vaccination being "mandatory".

Sheesh, go back to your holes.

feeble 11 years, 4 months ago

  1. If the government or State is going to require it, they need to fully fund it, 100%.


"It is also possible that this high cost might mean that some socioeconomic groups in the United States will remain unvaccinated. Several health insurance companies have agreed that vaccination with Gardasil will be covered under preventive medicine health care plans, and the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has recommended that Gardasil be covered by the Vaccines for Children Program (which provides no-cost immunizations to children covered by Medicaid, Alaska Native and American Indian children, and some uninsured and underinsured children).

However, some girls do not qualify for the Vaccines for Children Program but come from families too poor to have health insurance or to pay for the vaccine themselves."

  1. No studies demonstrating efficacy past five years. So at sixth grade, we're talking the 11-12 age groups? The vaccine would cease to be effective just as these girls start approaching the age where sexual activity becomes more prevalent.

If long term boosters are not required, all this vaccine will do is shift the onset and susceptibility patterns of the disease to a later age group, who may, by virtue of having the vaccine, not realize that they are in fact still vulnerable to exposure.


  1. All the studies were funded by Merck. In the very recent past, there have been severe health concerns over the safety of FDA-approved Merck products (Vioxx, While the only strategy to deal with rising HPV infection is prevention, is it really in the best interest of the public to not require independent verification and replication of these studies, as well as long-term analysis?

kmat 11 years, 4 months ago

I have to address a few issues here.

One person (saying she worked in the medical field) said that men were just as likely to have complications from HPV. True - but not completely. The complications men would have are from active wart outbreaks. The strains that cause the most cancer deaths are strains that don't cause warts. Show me a case of a man passing from cancer from HPV? That's why this is only for females.

I've known one person pass from HPV caused cervical cancer and my sister recently passed from breast cancer. ANYTHING OUT THERE THAT WILL HELP OTHERS NOT GO THROUGH THE PAIN AND HEARTBREAK I HAVE BEEN THROUGH IS SOOOO WELCOME. Those who won't let their daughters get the vaccine, in my opinion, don't really have a fricking clue what they could be exposing their kids to. It's sad to say, but everyone needs to experience the horrific struggle of cancer, then you'll have a different opinion.

And no, the govt can't force your kids to get vaccinated, but they can refuse to let them attend public school. That's why you have to get your kids vaccinated to start kindergarten. And the ill effects from other vaccines that some talk of on this post are from the mercury used as a preservative. Get rid of the mercury and the autism cases go down.

This is coming from a special ed teacher that wishes she could force all parents to protect their kids. If you're against vaccines, then go back to the stone ages where you can die from every little bug that comes around. If you don't trust in some modern medicine, then you belong in the past.

It truely makes me ill that people want to fight this. I think the real fear many of you have is of your daughters screwing around, not of the vaccine.

Linda Endicott 11 years, 4 months ago

The main fear I have is that they really have no idea how effective this vaccine is, and how well protected women and girls would be. So it would foster a false sense of security.

And the government has no business making medical decisions for people. If they were going to go down that track, there are many, many things they could "require" adults to do.

But they don't.

Godot 11 years, 4 months ago

Why require only the girls to be vaccinated? True, they are the ones who could develop cervical cancer from the HPV, but the males are the ones who give them the disease. If you want to protect the girls, vaccinate the boys, too.

pause. pause.

Oh,right, we would not want to inconvenience the boys, and, besides, the drug is too new to know how it would affect males.

Godot 11 years, 4 months ago

"And no, the govt can't force your kids to get vaccinated, but they can refuse to let them attend public school."

That is because kids come into contact with each other when they are at school in ways that would expose them to disease. Let us hope that is not true of HPV.

This vaccination should be voluntary, at least until there is at least a generation of experience with the effects of the vaccine.

Tim vonHolten 11 years, 4 months ago

"Living in fear of the government and their health agenda is just plain stupid. Why wouldn't the government want to prevent HPV? A simple series of shots will save lives and an incredible amount of money. Don't assume that you know more than the FDA on ANY topic. Living in some paranoid world might just allow your child to die from something you could have prevented. Perhaps the FDA should raise YOUR child."

since "confrontation wants a pissing match:

1) someone who doesn't fear our government's health agenda calling me stupid? have you ever been to a doctor? have you ever filed an insurance claim? 2) you can assume what you want about what i know and don't know, but please don't comment on the virtues of the fda, an organization that can release a medication that kills people, and then ban the drug without accountability. 3) you know what else might kill my child? car wreck. mule kick. mountain dew. but do you know what i fear most? it's every tool like you that doesn't question the agenda of governement when it comes to public health. since we're supporting government policy without question, perhaps racial profiling could be prescribed in schools to prevent terrorism. 4) interesting notion about the fda as parent. i wonder how long a child would last while on ritalin, claritin, albuterol, and celebrex at the same time.

rockchalk77 11 years, 4 months ago

"Oh,right, we would not want to inconvenience the boys, and, besides, the drug is too new to know how it would affect males."

Females were the ones dying from cervical cancer, so wouldn't it make sense to start there? HPV's long term effects on men aren't as well understood as they are for women, and what they do know indicates it doesn't seem to be fatal. Can you imagine the outcry that would have happened if they developed it first for men and not for women?

There are many drugs out there that behave differently upon the different sexes. If it was a requirement that a drug or vaccine had to work equally on both sexes before it was released we would have far fewer available options than we do today.

lori 11 years, 4 months ago

Kmat says "One person (saying she worked in the medical field) said that men were just as likely to have complications from HPV. True - but not completely. The complications men would have are from active wart outbreaks. The strains that cause the most cancer deaths are strains that don't cause warts. Show me a case of a man passing from cancer from HPV? That's why this is only for females."

Well, that one person was probably me, I'm a nurse at a women's health clinic and the hospital, and yes, I could show you men who have died of cancer caused by HPV. Penile cancers, anal cancers, and throat cancer not associated with tobacco use are all cancers that men die of that are associated with HPV. Not at the numbers that women have died of cervical cancer. But it is at threat to them, particularly if they become immunocompromised by another disease--HIV, MS, lupus, another form of cancer, etc.

Remember Vioxx?

I'm sorry you would like to force me to "protect my kids". Protect them how? By blindly accepting an immunization that hasn't even been tested on prepubescent girls? With all studies funding by the only company that produces the vaccine, and which stands to make millions and millions if this vaccine is mandated by states? Oh, right, they are in it for the good of the people, not for their bottom line. Merck hasn't ever done anything like suppress poor outcomes in studies. Nope, never. Oh, wait....

I'm pretty happy with the parenting I do now, and I suspect that you and I and every single person on this forum have different ideas on what a better parent protecting her daughter would be. For me, on this issue, it is taking my knowledge of medication, disease processes and treatment options, of how the research and pharmaceutical industries work, and of my own daughter's health and wellbeing and making an educated decision.

Godot 11 years, 4 months ago

Well, rockchalk77, lets just consider the damage done to girls by boys' HPV to be the same as second-hand-smoke.

I knew someone would have that argument. Men have been using that argument for making women protect themselves against the things men do to them since the beginning of time.

Godot 11 years, 4 months ago

Will thimerosol be used in this vaccine?

llkrause 11 years, 4 months ago

I too am a Lori and a Registered nurse. I have researched this extensively since I was caught off guard when I took my then 11 yeard old daughter in for her school physical before she started 6th grade.

Someone posted that this vaccine was tested on over 40,000 women worldwide. That is WOMEN and WORLDWIDE. No where does it mention the exact number of children this was tested on and of course it showed such results because many women throughout the world DO NOT get routine pap smears which according to a doctor at the Center for Disease Control, CDC, Dr. Hershel Lawson says, "the greatest risk factor for cervical cancer in the United States is not being screened or being screened at intervals greater than 5 years." *One article I read said there may have been as few as 1533 American women in the study.

Also eluding to the safety of the vaccine is the reactive aluminum the FDA allowe Merck to use in the placebo instead of saline solution which is standard. A reactive placebo can artifically incease the appearance of safety. The Gardasil vaccine itself contains 225 micrograms of aluminum and the amount used in the placebo was not disclosed by Merck or the FDA. Animal and human studies have shown that aluminum can cause nerve cell death and is a known gene mutant.

According to the package insert "Gardasil has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenity or genotoxicity." It's also not know if the vaccine causes chromosomal damage. There were 5 participants in the clinical trial that got the vaccine near the time of conception and all 5 had babies with some sort of birth defect. Is Merck going to keep track of all these 11 year old girls over the years? People also should know that if this vaccine gets put on the list of required vaccines, it is then covered under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act which means Merck will not be liable if this turns out to be another Vioxx, which was also a Merck drug. Up until this both of my kids have been fully vaccinated. But I'm also thankful I don't have small children. The nurse in me sees the benefit of SOME vaccines that do have potiential devastating consequences. But the better informed mom in me has questions about the safety of all vaccines.

It's not that I don't trust modern medicine, but if you really reasearch when some of these diseases started to decline, it had nothing to do with the vaccines, but better sanitation and health practices. And I'm not worried about my daughter "screwing around" (such a lovely phrase from a teacher), I'm worried about the long term, unknown, effects of a poorly researched but HEAVILY marketed vaccine.

And as a nurse, I believe in patient eductation, (not from the pharmaceutical company), patient rights, (my right to refuse) and informed consent. Which means you don't have to agree with me, but it is my right to refuse on the basis of my research and information.

letsgetwise 11 years, 4 months ago

Why is there such an out-cry against parents that want to make this decision for themselves and their girls? Why do so many people assume that parents cannot make this decision? AND why do so many people make the assumption the ONLY reason parents are questioning this, is because it has something to do with sex? I for one, believe there is no reason for this to be mandatory. Let me study up on this and make a decision for myself. Let me decide if it's safe and/or if I'm ready to accept the responsibility if there is a side affect, because I'm the one who will have to live with this decision. I'm the one who will have to explain to my girls why I made the decision I did, whether I have them get the vaccine or not.

hhibp107 11 years, 4 months ago

Lori- dont be so stupid. Its not fair to say "men spread HPV." Careless people (men AND women), who have unprotected, unwed, sex with multiple partners spread HPV.

kansanbyheritage 11 years, 3 months ago

This is ridiculous. Get these bozo's out of office. I thought we were trying to reduce government interference, not increase it.

texas_father 11 years, 3 months ago

there seems to be a consistent view held by those who advocate mandatory vaccinations: parents are idiots.

llkrause's comments are very cogent and underscore my primary concern--the health of my daughter. i acknowledge the realities of sexual activity among minors. but, i have a strong desire to protect my daughter's health and well being. it is my duty to weigh the risks and benefits on medical procedures for my child.

you can argue that this recently introduced Merck product does protect my daughter and society at large, and that it's totally safe with no serious side effects. but i don't buy it; i remain skeptical and want more information or time to reveal the safety AND efficacy of this vaccine. i'm sure doctors and political figures funded by drug companies esposued the safety and benefits Thalidomide with equal condescension and arrogance back in the 50's and 60's.

i'll be damned if anyone is going to perfom medical experiments on my daughter. she can get it when she's 18 if she so chooses, but not while she is a child, or until her parents' concerns are allayed.

nagymom 11 years, 3 months ago

I'd love to see a prostate or testicular cancer vaccine then watch to see how many of these men, legislators and dads would line up to have an unproven vaccine that may or may not stop them from developing cancer all with unknown long term effects.

I listen to the bombardment of commercials pushing this idiotic cervical cancer vaccine and hear that it "may" help prevent cervical cancer and that it "WON'T" prevent all kinds. MAY is the biggest argument against this insanity and it's in their OWN commercial. I stand by my argument because this does nothing but benefit Merck who is spending millions promoting a vaccine that "MAY" help prevent SOME cancers. This is MY body and my daughter's and granddaughter's bodies. We do not belong to the government nor do we ask the government for anything regarding health care. They have NO right to force something like this on us against our will. If this thing passes in more states it's just a matter of time before we have to submit to anything and everything they mandate regarding OUR God given bodies. A yearly Pap is a smart thing to do but many women put it off. I used to do this myself. However I'd be incensed if the government mandated it. It's MY body, MY choice. Before my hysterectomy I had a very smart doctor who wouldn't refill my prescriptions unless I got my exam. That was between me and my doctor--I had the choice to find another. If the government got involved I'd have NO choices. I know no one personally (including a doctor friend whose daughter will NOT be receiving the vaccine due to the reasons I've stated) who believes in this vaccine. It hasn't been proven as said in their by their OWN commercials. This is just more proof of what lobbying money can get you--a governor and apparently state legislators in your back pocket.

This is a very bad law. It stinks of payoff's to high heaven and I shudder in disbelief.

I say again--I'd love to see a prostate or testicular cancer vaccine then watch to see how many of these men, legislators and dads would line up to have an unproven vaccine that may or may not stop them from developing cancer all with unknown long term effects......

Commenting has been disabled for this item.