Panel backs vaccination of 11-, 12-year-old girls against cervical cancer.

[Roon]

breaking on MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

[wakeme2008]

1. This is NOT a good day for *

:) :) :) :)

Please go to the MSNBC site and next to the story is a link to a vote on it

with 10,000+ 78% say they would have their daughter's given the vaccine.

[catabryna]

3. And, now I'm waiting for the studies...

due to be completed in 2008 to see if this is also viable for boys. HPV runs its own set of risks for men and if they can be successfully vaccinated as well, that would also be a huge breakthrough. And, I say this because it's not all about the girls. I contracted HPV from my boyfriend (later my husband) and he was my first and only for 15 years. I had to undergo biopsies and freezing for pre-cancerous cervical cells at the age of 21. It was a rather frightening experience for someone who had always been healthy. Fortunately, the procedure worked and I've been fine ever since.

Edited to add: I have a little boy and I'd certainly have him vaccinated for this!

[xenu]

8. yes, indeed

Boys need to be inoculated against venereal disease as well - verry important!

"Boys next?
The vaccine comes as a $360 series of three shots, and in tests has been highly effective against HPV. The vaccine is formulated to address the subtypes of HPV responsible for 70 percent of cervical cancer cases and 90 percent of genital warts.

Scientists say the vaccine is most effective when given to girls before they become sexually active, and some girls become active before their teens. About 7 percent of children have had sexual intercourse before age 13, and about a quarter of boys and girls have had sex by age 15, according to government surveys."

[E-Z-B]

4. We had a bad day yesterday

Now it's their turn.

[Heidi]

2. Direct link and

recommended. :thumbsup:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13612899/

[MrPrax]

5. Whoa...

"The vaccine comes as a $360 series of three shots, and in tests has been highly effective against HPV. The vaccine is formulated to address the subtypes of HPV responsible for 70 percent of cervical cancer cases and 90 percent of genital warts."

times

"Merck officials also said they can provide the more than 19 million doses that health officials expect would be used in the next year"
MSNBC


That's a lot of coin...or $6,840,000,000 ($6.8 billion in other words) for a drug that is 'preventive'?

Um...let's not get too crazy here in the support...

[bettyellen]

6. get real, that's less than two pap tests!

and you do know that women need pap tests every year because of HPV, right?

[Megahurtz]

39. Still,

It shouldn't be quite that expensive though.

Some people cannot even afford that.:(

[bettyellen]

43. separate issue completely... no reason at all not to support this and

insist it is covered by insurance. whether a woman would ever get HPV or not, this saves money over the current medical expenses incurred and she is likely to be healthier.
again, what's the downside?
there is none.
lot's of medical things are overpriced, so fight for socialized medicine!

[thinkingwoman]

48. uh, yes and no

HPV is not the only cause of cervical cancer, which is what pap smears test for. In fact, I'm unaware of definitive proof that HPV causes cervical cancer. Studies I've read about only speak of a correlation.

[wakeme2008]

7. While I voted I would have my daughter (if I had one)

given the drug,,,, The third option of wait and see also looked good....

[matcom]

9. "Um...let's not get too crazy here in the support..."

never a more rediculous statement has been uttered on this board.

[Recursion]

17. Well...

OK, I'm a heretic about vaccinations and infectious diseases, BUT...

A) we don't *know* that HPV causes cervical cancer
B) we don't *know* that the vaccine will stop HPV (and if we did, we don't *know* that would stop cervical cancer, see above)
C) we don't *know* what the long term effects of the vaccine will be.

And no, this isn't like creationists or global-warming denialists saying "we don't really 'know'". This is thousands of doctors and researchers who voice questions, but can't study those questions because NIH funding only goes to people looking for single-pathogen, pharmacological solutions to diseases. AIDS research is an even worse example (that's another rant), but HPV is getting to be as bad.

[matcom]

18. having nursed my wife back to health from stage 4 cervical cancer

i'll trust the panel that says this does what it says thank you. and if I had a daughter, she would be FIRST in line to get the shots. $360 is PENNIES for something as hugh as this.

walk in my and the Mrs shoes for a minute and tell me this shouldn't be a MANDATORY vaccine given at BIRTH if that is possible

[Recursion]

19. Umm..

tell me this shouldn't be a MANDATORY vaccine given at BIRTH

This shouldn't be a mandatory vaccine given at birth. That was easy.

Look, I agree cervical cancer is really bad. I disagree with your implicit assumption that pharmaceutical companies tell us the truth about the safety and efficacy of their products, or that "research" funded by pharma dollars is reliable.

And I definitely get creeped out by the notion of mandatory vaccinations.

Check out RFK Jr's stuff about vaccinations some time.

I'm not against vaccinations in principle, and I've had several, but we're way way WAY too quick to jump on the first solution pharma hands us, without actually studying things and weighing the data. The kids whose lives have been wrecked by mercury-stabilized vaccines are a sad example of that. And the big government research grants (and in some cases, the government permission that is required to even do a private study) only goes to researchers who are looking for single pathogens with a single pharmacological "fix".

I'll repeat our ignorances:

A) we don't know that HPV is a neccessary or sufficient cause for cervical cancer
B) we don't know if any vaccination will actually prevent HPV transmission
C) we don't know what the long-term effects of such a vaccine would be

Until we know those three things, saying a vaccination should be mandatory is way, way, way premature.

[Bridget Burke]

21. What do you mean by "we"?

As in "we don't know that HPV is a necessary or sufficient cause for cervical cancer."

There's plenty of scientific evidence that HPV can cause malignancies--including cervical cancer.

The jury is still out on the real effects of thimerosol. However, it has been removed from most vaccines, anyway.

[Recursion]

26. "We", I guess, is scientists who aren't in pharma's pocket?

I'm not a microbiologist, but I have written plenty of computer programs for them. I know several personally, and have read papers by others, who have gotten me much more interested in why modern diseases aren't responding to old methods of treatment like vaccinations.

"We" is, I guess, a bunch of researchers (if the guy who writes computer models for researchers can include himself in that "we") who think the data on a lot of diseases, like cervical cancer, point to environmental toxins in addition to "traditional" pathogens.

Sounds crazy, I'm sure, but then talking about rigged elections sounds crazy to a lot of people too.

[NickB79]

27. Any links from credible scientific journals to support your claims?

The general consensus in the scientific community is that HPV IS responsible for cervical cancer. Do you have a link to an article from JAMA, Science, or any oncology journals backing your position that HPV is NOT a causitive agent for cervical cancer? Conspiracy theories are getting old.

"who have gotten me much more interested in why modern diseases aren't responding to old methods of treatment like vaccinations."

Yeah, that's why we've seen such a resurgence of polio and smallpox in this country despite all those vaccinations we gave :sarcasm:

[Recursion]

31. Sure, I've seen a few in Lancet and in JAMA, and PNARMB

The most cogent was Duesberg & Schwartz in PNARMB (though of course Duesberg is something of a lightning rod, but he was right about retroviruses and cancer, and right about polypoloidy and cancer -- nobody answered his work on HPV because he had become such a pariah over his HIV research).

WE KNOW A LOT LESS THAN WE THINK WE DO. And we may well be hurting people by overmedication.

I can't stress that enough.

[NickB79]

32. Duesberg, of course

Say no more, I know more than I ever wished to know about Duesberg. Every virology, biochemistry and microbiology professor I had in college had nothing but scorn about him and his "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" claims.

[Recursion]

35. gotcha

Every virology, biochemistry and microbiology professor I had in college had nothing but scorn about him and his "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" claims.

Hmm... some of mine didn't have scorn. Different strokes, I guess.

Have you ever read his writings? Or did you give up on him based on what your profs said?

[kath]

56. Do you also have any links from CREDIBLE scientific journals that show

evidence supporting your statement about "the kids whose lives have been wrecked by mercury-stabilized vaccines".

Because so much of the stuff out there about that issue is utter crap.

[CatFelyne]

57. Still waiting to get those references ...

As a grad student in a science program, a person can claim anything they want...so all I will say is show us the peer reviewed journal references. Show us your correlations, show us your data, and I'll take a "claim" more seriously. Let us see who the "we" are, and if it stands up to review and results can be repeated, then you've got a legitimate claim there that holds some water.

For me, I've been following HPV research closely, for me it's too late, I've been battling it for almost 15 years. I've had more biopsies than I can remember, and treatment procedures have only become more aggressive and surgically invasive as the years have passed. I don't know if it's just a matter of time before something more happens... I'm hoping that research into therapeutic vaccines works out.


And the cost, well, that may be negligible. Merck has announced that it has instituted a vaccine patient assistance program, providing free vaccine to those who cannot afford it. So please spread the word about that, far and wide.

http://www.merck.com/newsroom/press_releases/product/2006_0608.html

[Bridget Burke]

28. You use the phrase "in addition to"--

Nobody says that any malignancy can have only one cause.

What do your pals say about this vaccine? By the way, vaccines against cancer are not exactly "old methods of treatment."

[Recursion]

30. exactly

By the way, vaccines against cancer are not exactly "old methods of treatment."

I meant vaccines are old methods of treatment.

Vaccines against cancer have been tried, unsuccessfully, since the '70s.

This one may well work, I'm not saying it won't. It would just surprise me.

[moc]

46. I've checked out RFKJrs' "stuff on vaccinations". It's crap.

'Nuf said.

(I've got a doctorate in public health, btw, so I know the science).

[earth mom]

53. "You" say it's crap, but LOTS of experts say it's not.

Make no mistake-kids HAVE been poisoned by greedy pharmaceutical companies and now have autism and other disabilities. :grr:

'Nuff said.

[moc]

60. No, there are no CREDIBLE experts that agree

that vaccines cause autism.

I personally know the chair of the IOM committee on vaccine safety and many of the other experts in the field. I have read the primary research articles and know them like the back of my hand.

Yes, it's crap. 'Nuff said.

[earth mom]

65. Don't make me laugh.

:rofl:

You mean so called "credible experts" that aren't being PAID to say what the pharma giants want them to say.

'Nuff said.

[moc]

67. I'm not trying to make you laugh.

I know these scientists. They are dedicated scholars. The members of the IOM committee contributed countless hours to their work without compensation, and many of them have endured numerous death threats from the anti-vaccine crowd in return.

Your willingness to buy into silly conspiracy theories and believe that thousands of scholars are being paid off demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge of the scientific process. It also impugns the integrity of countless scholars who donate their time (like I do) to the peer review process.

And, while we're at it, why do you assume that the only money is on the side of "pharma giants" as you call them? Do you honestly believe that monetary gain is not a motivation for some of those on the anti-vaccine side? How about the hundreds of thousands of dollars (and the dashed hopes) of parents spent on quack treatments like chelation therapy? How about the legal fees and "expert" testimony fees?

Laugh all you want, but you're living in a dream world.

[PaulaFarrell]

69. But vaccines can cripple children

I used to know a child who was perfectly healthy until she had a DPT (I think) and then she ended up in a wheelchair. It was apparently a 'bad batch'. Oh, she got comprensation, but what compensation is there really for becoming paralysed?

[alarimer]

73. Anecdotal evidence does not constitute proof

And no ever claimed that there weren't potential side effects from vaccines.

[alarimer]

72. Cite your claims

I want peer-reviewed articles from legitimate scientific journals (like say the Journal of the American Medical Association- or ar they tools of Big Pharma as well?).

There is no legimitate scientific evidence that vaccines cause autism. NONE whatsoever. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So the burden falls on you to prove it.

[Ramsey]

58. You're "ignorances" are incorrect

I am a gynecologic cancer specialist.

We do know that the vast majority of cervical cancers are related to HPV infection and we know how the virus interferes with the cellular signal transduction pathways to lead to tumorigenesis. It is actually one of the better understood molecular pathways in cancer development.

The vaccine trials studying the use of vaccine to prevent HPV infection in young girls have been highly effective. There have been several trials now with several years of follow-up. What is still under investigation is the use of vaccines to treat existing HPV infection.

As for long term effects, as a physician I would argue that it is irresponsible to withhold a highly effective prevention strategy that may nearly eradicate a potentially deadly disease using a simple and effective vaccination strategy that does not have any serious short term toxicities in order toa void what will almost certainly be rare long term toxicities (based on myriads of other vaccination studies over many decades). It certainly is responsible to continue to follow the trial participants to obtain data on the possibility of long term toxicity.

The incidence of cervix cancer in this country has been declining largely due to the increasingly widespread use of Pap tests. Unfortunately, some aggressive subtypes cancers appear quickly between screening visits. Also, health disparities in this country mean that there are still many women in poor urban and rural areas with poor access to health care and little opportunity for preventive care and cancer screening. The women we see today in the USA with advanced cervix cancer more often than not are those without insurance or those who live in rural areas with poor access to health care.

In addition, cervix cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in women worldwide and is rampant in third world countries. Needles to say, millions of women have no possibility of annual Pap screening. An inexpensive one time vaccine is the best hope for drastically reducing the incidence of cervix cancer world wide.

[alarimer]

71. I suppose you would prefer kids die of polio instead of being

vaccinated? Because that is what the anti-vaccine crowd would all but guarantee. Unlike smallpox, polio has not been eradicated.

The best thing to happen to modern medicince was, once, the germ theory of disease, which helped save a lot of people from infection by simply keeping things clean and two, vaccines, which have save millions of lives over the years.

[Tesha]

22. You may want to check your "facts" as at least 2-out-of-3 are wrong. (NT)

[Recursion]

24. I have, and they're right nt

[Tesha]

25. In your dreams, perhaps. Not here in reality. (NT)

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. a) we do know b) we do know c) it will save lives

(a) Studies have shown that 90% of cervical cancers are due to HPV infection
(b) The licensed vaccine has been found to be 100% effective in preventing cervical precancers caused by the targeted HPV types. It has also been found to be almost 100% effective in preventing precancers of the vulva and vagina, and genital warts that are caused by the targeted HPV types.
(c) see (a) and (b).

[Recursion]

40. I'll let you get the last word after this one, but...

Studies have shown that 90% of cervical cancers are due to HPV infection

Lowy (1992 PNAS -- your site shows him as "Lowry" and pnas.org has it as "Lowy" and I'm not sure which one is the typo) showed that 90% of cervical cancers contain DNA from HPV. He did not show whether HPV causes the cancer, or is an opportunistic infection after the cancer develops. Once again, we're WAY TOO EAGER to jump on a single bug as the cause.

The licensed vaccine has been found to be 100% effective in preventing cervical precancers caused by the targeted HPV types. It has also been found to be almost 100% effective in preventing precancers of the vulva and vagina, and genital warts that are caused by the targeted HPV types.

Since that CDC FAQ does not identify the source of that claim, there's not much I can say about it. I can say, however, that my search of PubMed and Google Scholar showed no studies claiming anything like that efficacy. The CDC page you linked itself says about 30% of cervical cancers are not stopped by this vaccine, which I guess means the claim is that the vaccine is nearly 100% effective against the 70% of the agents it's effective against.

And at any rate, if 90% of cervical cancer could be shown to be caused by (and not merely coincident with) HPV, and the HPV vaccine prevents 70% of cervical cancers, what is that 20% gap from? Or are these percentages measured differently?

And where are the studies on the long-term health effects of the vaccine?

Oh, that's right, it's fast-tracked. They weren't done.

[MrPrax]

33. You got a crystal ball

You trust Big Pharm enough to make sure all the clinical trials were done correctly, right? With a drug marketed to children? Prior to puberty? When the clinical trials for the other 'sex' haven't even been finished? And the approval was 'fast-tracked'? What about interactions? Merck has a lot on the line with this drug you know

I assume you read the posted story?

Ok--R U reacting out of common sense or are you reacting to the fact the story mentions that Fundies 'MIGHT' be against it for some unrelated reason? Strange way to start a news report, no? "Taking up a potentially explosive issue among religious conservatives..."

If you scroll down, you find the 'religious conservatives' didn't even petition the panel and are more concerned about it being part of an overall mandatory immunization program, than health risks of a drug by the makers of Vioxx.

Earlier this year, the Family Research Council, a conservative group, did not speak out against giving the HPV shot to young girls. The organization mainly opposes making it one of the vaccines required before youngsters can enroll in school, said the group’s policy analyst, Moira Gaul.

I caught that? You didn't? So I googled...I didn't find a huge number of hits on 'religious conservative' sites or a large number of objections? You would think there would be since virtually every news story mentions this as a possibility?

Is Merck running a campaign? Merck was concerned about this over a year ago and made that well known -- they even approached groups like Focus on the Family (since one of their former drones are on the 'immunization' committee, Dr. Finger)--who doesn't appear to be against it.

I did however find other objections...

Like the National Vaccine Information Center; their press release posted on PharmaLive
(yeah and they have a hidden agenda as well...they trust Big Pharm)

The Q&A from USAToday mentions a couple of 'caveats' as well and yes it is recommended that women still continue pap tests even if they have been immunized.


So 'looking, before leaping' is 'rediculous'(sp) advice? Come on...the only thing your going on is whatever Merck told you and so how dare you attack someone that might think their less than noble in their intentions.

[matcom]

45. READ THE FUCK DOWN A BIT

I AM REACTING TO THE FUCKING FACT THAT MY WIFE ALMOST DIED FROM CERVICAL CANCER. SHE SPENT 16 WEEKS OF FUCKING HELL BEATING THE THING. STAGE 4 PAL.

DAILY RADIATION, WEEKLY CHEMO AND 4 DAYS LOCKED BEHIND A FUCKING LEAD DOOR WITH RADIATION IMPLANTED IN HER FUCKING UTERUS :grr:

YOU WANT TO KNOW WHERE HOPES AND ALLEGIANCE LIE????

IT IS WITH FUCKING MERCK.

DO NOT FUCK WITH ME ON THIS ISSUE. OUR DOCTOR TOLD US IT IS HPV. (THE WORLD RENOWNED SPECIALIST RUNNING THE CANCER RESEARCH CENTER IN ALL OF BOSTON)

:grr:

[matcom]

47. thanks for your IM

why don't you post your 'score-card' and your triumphant "I got more cancer in my family than yours" response here for all to see like you did in your PM to me.

you win the "contest" :eyes:

idiot

[knight_of_the_star]

55. Dude, take that crap and shove it

I am involved right now in the clinical trials for males, there is nothing going on that is out of the ordinary, it is a double-blind study and the doctor that I'm doing my part of the research with isn't even directly employed by merck and has his own private practice and just does this on the side because he wants to a some extra money doesn't hurt, and I get paid well per visit for just sitting, having blood drawn, and being examined. Speaking from my personal experience being involved in this trial you sir don't know what you are talking about.

[catabryna]

11. I can assure you that...

it cost a lot more than $360.00 for the treatment required to take care of the problems I received from one of the bad HPV viruses. Had that turned into cervical cancer... well, I guess that's where the old adage "an ounce of protection is worth a pound of cure."

[Shallah Kali]

13. Compare that to the cost of cancer treatments for this disease

not to mention the repeated surgery and tests for those with pre-cancerous changes trying to prevent it from becoming full blown cervical cancer. The testing is going good on using it in men so add to that the costs of penile cancer. These same virus are liked to cancers in the throat and one article quoted a specalist saying he hoped this vaccine would slash the rates of those cancers as well.

That said I really hope medicaid and insurance companies get a better price for this medication the way they deal for other medications.

[alarimer]

74. And the cosrt may drop as the ramp up production

or develop more efficient ways to produce it.

[LostinVA]

15. "Um...let's not get too crazy here in the support..."???

Yeah, let's not get too crazy about a vaccine that actually stops a horrendous form of cancer. Be cayuse, supporting that, and saving untold women's lives, is just blame dumb...

At this point, who gives a damn that Merck will make millions off of this... it's eradicating CANCER through a VACCINE.

[Recursion]

23. I don't think that's what he meant

Yeah, let's not get too crazy about a vaccine that actually stops a horrendous form of cancer. Be cayuse, supporting that, and saving untold women's lives, is just blame dumb...

Well, no, I don't think that's what he meant.

This worries me because it sounds like the early days of AZT when AIDS patients were being overdosed on the stuff and any time somebody questioned whether it was doing more harm than good, people screamed "Life-saving drugs! You hate gay people!". The problem was, we didn't have the data to say whether or not they were life-saving, and it turned out those early high-dose regimens *were* doing more harm than good. But we wasted 3 or 4 years and thousands of lives because people went crazy whenever somebody questioned the efficacy.

This is a slightly more positive situation, in that we aren't as certain about the toxicity of an HPV vaccine (but boy, is *that* damning with faint praise). But people who question whether or not HPV by itself causes cervical cancer, or whether a vaccine is more dangerous than the disease itself, are accused of hating the people who have the disease.

We live in a world with enourmously complex, 21st-century diseases. We long for the 19th-century infectious disease days when we could identify a single pathogen, kill it, and move on. But those days are over. We are getting sick because we're dumping toxins into our environment and our bodies at an alarming rate. We find a pathogen which seems to bear some relationship to the disease (never mind the fact that these pathogens' pathogenicities are never *remotely* as clear as the "good old days" of cholera or typhus), try to kill it, and hope that will fix the problem for us, when we need to be cleaning up our environment and improving our nutrition and lifestyles.

Focusing on the single pathogen hasn't worked for AIDS, or bird flu, or SARS, or mad cow, and *I suspect* it won't work for cervical cancer either, because I think all of those diseases have a *huge* environmental and nutritional component in addition to the virus. But there's no need to accuse people who simply question the one-pathogen-one-drug solution for everything of hating the victims of disease.

[NickB79]

29. Um, focusing on a single pathogen HAS worked for AIDS

We focus on the HIV virus with retroviral drugs, and those drugs have managed to extend the lives of HIV-positive individuals from a few years like we saw in the early 80's to decades today. Due to it's incredibly high mutation rate (many times faster than the flu, for example), a true vaccine or cure has eluded us, however.

Similarly, they have identified the SINGLE pathogen responsible for mad cow, a malformed prion found in brain and nervous tissue. This is a fairly well-studied form of pathogen, with similar diseases observed in sheep for centuries and in humans in Papau New Guinea for decades. Tentative treatments are in development to combat human mad cow infection, but have not seen widescale testing yet.

[Recursion]

42. This is "success"?

We have about 0.3% of the population infected with HIV, and about 35% of those presenting symptoms of AIDS. Those percentages have been roughly constant since we found HIV 20 years ago. Mortality rates, interestingly, have never been studied in treated individuals vs. untreated individuals, though different types of treatment have been compared (and yes, our modern treatments do extend life past what the earlier treatment regimes did; the unresearched question is how those compare to no treatment at all -- remember, these ARV cocktails *are* toxic and have side-effects similar to AIDS-defining diseases, so we unfortunately simply don't have the data to say how much good they are doing).

All I have is anecdotal evidence from my friends, which is definitely unfriendly to the ARVs, but since it's anecdotal it's not very meaningful. What I would *love* to see is a study comparing life expectancy of HIV+ patients who take ARVs and HIV+ patients who take no drugs.

But I don't want to drag you any further OT, and just reiterate that pharmaceutical companies are evil, untrustworthy, far too quickly beleived by people, and far too corruptly funded and enabled in their shenanigans by the government.

[bettyellen]

66. fuck yeah it's success. aids was a death sentence, and is no longer one

if you can get treatment.
gosh i guess you didn't know any gay people in the eighties. otherwise you'd have anecdotal evidence that actually meant something.

[Occulus]

54. Yeah, see that's what destroys Big Pharma's arguments as far as I can see

They love to claim that there's all that research money invested.

I defy anyone here to demonstrate that this one drug cost Merck $6.8 BILLION DOLLARS to develop. Hell, I bet they used taxpayer dollars at some point in the chain- so cancel that out of their costs (because, after all, those weren't their costs, were they?).

I mean, wow. I want to start me up a drugco so I can make those kinda bucks!

:rofl:

Seriously, after hearing this, I don't see how they can get away with not making certain drugs free, considering how much they obviously make from everything else. No, don't even try to tell me they dump it into research and there's all those employees and corporate hogsofficers that need to be paid and as a result, gee golly gosh and shucks, there's nothing left to make drugs cheaper. There's a hell of a lot more than recouping of costs going on here!

Horseshit. Absolute horseshit, and that little piece of math up yonder proves it.

[PaulaFarrell]

70. Actually they do make one drug at least free

It's the drug to prevent river blindness. It has to be taken once a year for 20 years to be effective. Merck provides the drug free of charge to orgnaisations like Sight Savers. So they are not 100% evil.

[gollygee]

62. It isn't effective unless taken *BEFORE* a girl/woman contracts

HPV.

Since girls are becoming sexually active at 13, 14, 15, it makes sense to give this to girls at 11 or 12. And the cost of the shot is minimal compared to the risks associated with HPV, which include infertility as well as cervical cancer.

It is a lot of money but unless taken before a girl gets HPV it is useless. Which means it HAS to be used as preventative care.

[gully]

10. My guess is they'll start with "inner city" girls?

:eyes:

[pinto]

12. Good news. The Advisory Committee recommendation carries

a lot of weight, helps to provide insurance coverage and inclusion in federally funded programs (FamPACT). Kudos.

[noonwitch]

14. This is good news for women

I know women who have had to have abnormal cells removed from their cervix because of HPV, to prevent cancer. It can be painful, and requires follow-up for a few years, with paps every 6 months until the doctor is sure all those cells are gone.

On top of that, I had a client of mine a while back who died a very painful death from cervical cancer. Anything that can prevent that is good.

[Recursion]

16. Are the vaccines stabilized with mercury?

It's amazing what people will put in their bodies just because somebody in a lab coat tells them to.

[Bridget Burke]

20. No.

"...there is no thimerosal or mercury in the vaccine. This vaccine is made up of proteins from the outer coat of the virus (HPV). There is no infectious material in the vaccine."

www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV-vaccine.htm#mercury

Feel free to avoid the vaccine!

[Xithras]

34. Given the drug companies luck with deadly side effects lately...

...I think we'll wait a few years before allowing my daughter to get this. She's 12 and isn't sexually active yet, but she's been well indoctrinated in the neccesity of safe sex (including a visit to an AIDS ward) and has two condoms in her purse at all times. While an immunization would be nice, I never, ever trust any new drug right out of the gate. I'll give it a few years and a couple million people, and if nothing serious pops up we'll look into it.

[Recursion]

41. While that's smart...

...I'm really disturbed by the tendency to use the poor as unwitting guinea pigs in these early adoption rounds of drugs, rather than pharma spending the money to do real, verifiable, clinical research that would prevent these "oops we just killed several thousand people with that drug we had been giving them" moments. But "free" medicine is a hard offer to pass up when you don't have insurance, even if it ends up killing or crippling you.

And, once again, all this talk about making such a new vaccine mandatory is... well... scary.

[Mandate My Ass]

37. I truly can't believe what I'm reading on this thread

So virulently pathetic...:grr:

[WindRavenX]

52. it's disgusting

fucking, utterly, pathetic :puke:

[Ramsey]

59. Astonishing

Apparently some people would rather have their daughters die of cervix cancer than allow one dime to go to the "evil" pharmaceuticals. Pretty ass-backwards thinking for a progressive board.

[Ilsa]

38. I'm glad the panel backed it because that will give families some

insurance protection for covering the vax. I hope it will be easy for parents to opt out their daughters if they wish to, though. 11-12 might be younger than needed in all cases.

[rocktivity]

44. Isn't this the "teen sex cult" drug?

(direct link) Oh, yeah:

Some health officials had girded themselves for arguments from religious conservatives and others that vaccinating youngsters against the sexually transmitted virus might make them more likely to have sex. But the controversy never materialized in the panel’s public meetings.

Earlier this year, the Family Research Council, a conservative group, did not speak out against giving the HPV shot to young girls. The organization mainly opposes making it one of the vaccines required before youngsters can enroll in school...

A chance to wipe out cervical cancer in our lifetime, and they're playing God.

:eyes:
rocknation

[lolly]

75. Fast Forward 30 Years

Wonder how some of these Holy Folk will feel when they are helping their daughter through chemo treatments and dealing with the prospect of their granchildren being motherless. Will they tell their daughters "Y'know, I could've gotten you a vaccination that would have prevented this from ever happening, but I figured it would encourage you to have sex before you got married, so I refused."

:eyes:

[bedazzled]

49. sure i'll give my kid a merck drug. same folks who gave us vioxx

i trust them absolutely! trust the fda, too.

merck needs the money to pay off all of the vioxx claims

soon you'll have to give your kid the shot to have him or her enrolled in school. biggest group of test
subjects in history.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

50. Boy the wingnuts must be pissed off about this one

[pooja]

51. Ya'll are letting Repugs into your brain

This is something gynecologists have wanted approved for a couple of yrs now. Its a vaccine...its like getting a mumps shot.. Stop HPV.. why would anyone want it or want to spread it.. Most carriers don't even know they have it.

Say if this vaccine could potentially stop prostate cancer... men would be lined up for days at the clinic. Stop equating medicine and morality on the same page.

[depakid]

77. Stop making sense

You are interfering with peoples' paranoia.

[zann725]

61. There's something about this "vaccinating" 12-13 yr. old GIRLS/WOMEN

cervixes which truly bothers me. It is NOT what it seems, I truly believe (deeply on a gut level).

At best, it is yet another example of Rich White Old Men attempting to control ALL Women (and potential Women)'s reproductive systems and rights.

Like we use to proudly chant in the 70's, "OUR BODIES... OURSELVES!" Stay out of our Uterus!

Is there no country (or body) you (Male Power Establishing) that you do NOT wish to dominate?!

Sick! Sick!

[matcom]

63. my GAWD

you are truly insane

[gollygee]

64. What?

If men want to "control my cervix" by keeping it from getting cancer, more power to them.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

68. Hmm.

Sounds pretty damn sexist and insulting to all of the women scientists who worked on the project.

[phylny]

76. When I was thirteen (35 years ago) I recall my doctor explaining to

me that he was giving me the rubella vaccine to protect my babies when they were born.

I have three daughters and I'll discuss this vaccine with the doctor of the younger two and encourage my older daughter to discuss it with HER doctor.

[pitohui]

78. are you really a woman? sorry, i doubt it, or you are VERY young

EVERY woman past a certain age, EVERY woman, eventually gets infected w. these viruses, well, maybe nuns don't, but the rest do, if only by their husband

this is why they have to get pap smears every year

and this is why EVERY woman past a certain age has had at some point to have abnormal pre-cancerous cells removed from her cervix, i've had it done, every middle-aged or older woman i've known has had it done -- and MANY younger women have had it done as well, plus i've known two women who only in their twenties acquired cervical cancer ANYWAY

so if you are trying to keep men out of your cervix, then your only alternative is to never, EVER have sex w. a man since rubbers don't do anything much aga. this class of viruses

frankly i think the young girls should get the shot as early as possible if they can be spared what all women who came of age in the 70s and later go through

these regular pap smears and having to get the bad cells frozen off my cervix on occasion is far, far, FAR more invasive than a shot!

it is easy to be jealous and resentful that an invention came too late to help us, but it's pure-dee sour grapes you know

this is a great day and the scientists who invented this deserve every good reward in life