February 23, 2007 1:09 PM
Gardasil - HPV vaccine - get the whole scoop
Let's fact it - in this country, you just have to question when anyone says you need a vaccination or a drug. There is just too much money being made by drug companies who profit from things like obesity and promiscuity. Think about it: everyone makes money - from those selling us super-size and super sex to those selling us the remedies.
And interestingly, anyone who tries to promote sexual health through teaching abstinence is gunned down by the left (more on this to come).
Anyway. Moms, be informed. With the governor of Texas recently being revealed as receiving a bribe from Merck - no, I haven't heard anyone else call it that, but what exactly is it when the same day he mandates Gardasil vaccination for all pre-teen public school girls, Merck makes a $5000 contribution to his campaign - you definitely need to look a little closer at this issue.
You can get the complete scoop at the National Vaccine Information Center, with loads of links and a 7-minute video with all the facts for audio/video learners.
Posted in Current Affairs | Permalink
Comments
$5000, that's it?! Governor Perry, who so many of just voted for, isn't too poplular down here right now. I cannot believe that all it took was $5000, that's pocket change to them and him!
Another good reason to homeschool, my 14 year is not going to have this vaccine. It makes me very, very sad for all those who feel that they don't have a choice.
Posted by: Yvonne | February 23, 2007 4:51 PM
The MSM certainly have kept it quiet that it's only good for about 5 years, there doesn't seem to be an effective booster, and you have to have the vaccine before you start having sex for it to be effective anyway.
Then they're calling to vaccinate 9-year-olds. Which means that they're assuming that most schoolgirls are little trollops before they even hit their teens.
Posted by: Christina | February 23, 2007 5:22 PM
Glad to read about this. I heard a bit a few weeks ago, can't recall where but have seen very little since. It seems so innocuous at first but then you get the back story - the contributions, how much Merck will be getting as a result of the mandatory vaccinations --well, follow the money!
And you're right - abstinence is heckled when it's the most logical, sensible, ethical line of defense.
When I first saw the commercials on TV for gardasil I turned to my husband and said, "don't they know HPV is an STD!" And there were young, young, girls on those commercials, advocating vaccination.
If I dwell on it for long I get SOOOO angry.
Posted by: Barb Moody | February 23, 2007 5:32 PM
I wrote an article on this very thing!
I have two girls, and we don't vax at all anyway, so of course I have followed the story pretty avidly.
Posted by: Marsha | February 23, 2007 6:09 PM
I must ask you to look at this vaccination issue objectively. I am a grandma and a nurse. I also am passionate about sexual purity, abstinence before marriage and faithfulness in marriage. Let me give you my perspective on this issue.
This is a health issue, not a moral or religious issue. Cervical cancer (most frequently caused by certain strains of HPV) is a killer. This vaccine does not protect against all strains of HPV, it does offer protection against strains most likely to cause cervical cancer.
The reason the vaccine is recommended for young females is that once the virus has attacked the body it is useless to vaccinate. This vaccination is not license to have sex. There are many women who were chaste before marriage and faithful in their marriage have contracted HPV--through no "fault" of their own.
We live in a "fallen" world where disease exists. Any measure to prevent disease and the associated burden of that disease is, in my opinion, a positive thing. Perhaps if you are not involved with healthcare, you do not see the devastating results of HPV.
I think it may be premature to mandate this vaccine. There is significant cost associated with the vaccine. But there is also very significant cost to treating the HPV and its complications (including cancer). I think ethical and epidemiologic analyses are essential to decisions about mandating the HPV vaccine.
Issues of religion and adolescent sexuality have dominated the discussion around the move to require HPV vaccination. There are other questions that I find important to address such as mandatory public health measures in general, the scope of parental autonomy, and the role of political advocacy (people who scream loudly in favor of their position) in determining how and which preventive health measures are implemented.
As for the parents that refuse to vaccinate their children at all (such as Marsha who posted above)--I say you had better do your homework (and I mean looking at scientifically rigorous studies) before you congratulate yourself and be ready to answer your children when they ask you why they are not protected against illnesses that were (and still can be) huge causes of morbidity (illness) and mortality (death)
Posted by: A Grandma | February 23, 2007 8:32 PM
I guess Gov. Perry has no further political aspirations. I never did like him. >:(
The fact is that the vast majority of the risk of HPV can be prevented by something much simpler, cheaper, and healthier than this vaccine.
Honestly, if we have to legislate something to prevent HPV, I'd rather it be abstinence. Purely from a tax-payer's point of view. If those on Medicaid chose to practice abstinence, they'd be better protected from numerous diseases and at no cost. If they chose to abstain and get the vaccine for just in case, they'd still be well protected and at minimum cost. But if they chose only the vaccine, not only do the taxpayers have to cover that cost, but also the cost of any other STD they pick up and the cost of unintended pregnancy.
Huh. Is it just me or does the highest profit to be made correlate directly with the least protection and that with the governor's agenda??
Posted by: Michelle | February 23, 2007 8:46 PM
My thoughts on this got to be pretty lengthy, so I posted on it at my blog. http://normalis.blogspot.com/2007/02/gardasil.html
Posted by: Vida | February 24, 2007 12:08 AM
I've been so bothered by this new drug and the way it's being marketed to our girls. The commercials are amazingly twisted and deceiving. Please keep spreading the word.
Posted by: julie carobini | February 24, 2007 2:35 AM
Vida has some excellent points on her post linked above. I encourage all to go there. This is a complex issue for our ever-growing complex world. We hope for the best and yet wrenches will be thrown at us and our daughters.
I hate this issue because it isn't black/white. I don't know where I stand. The money trail is sure stinky yet should that deter me from protecting my daughter's future (which only the Lord knows)?
Because of my quandry I would LOVE to hear more perspectives on this.
Posted by: Barb Moody | February 24, 2007 11:07 AM
Dear "A Grandma" commenter: I liked your post at the begining, because I agree that everyone should look for themselves at both sides of the issue before making a decision about what to do regarding any aspect of their lives, but I have to say, your last paragraph totally angered me. You seem to assume that any parent who refuses to vaccinate their children is simply doing it out of ignorance; I have big questions regarding vaccinations and I have spent countless hours doing my research; you seem to asume that because you work at a health care facility you know what's best, but I have to disagree. I have never had any vaccinations and I got all of the diseases one gets as a child; recently, for work related issues, I had to have tests done to see which things I am immune to, and it turns out I'm immune to all of the things that I was suppossed to be vaccinated against, which proves that the "hero" is not the vaccine, is the immune system God placed into action when He created us. The same way you suggest to us that we do our own research, I suggest you do your own; perhaps you will discover that a lot of this "scientifically rigorous studies' are nothing more than the pharmaceutical companies pouring out billions of dollars to make us believe whatever they want. So, thanks for your "objectivity" in this issue; too bad it was lost once you threw that guilt trip at the end. Thanks, but no, thanks.
Posted by: Lady Lovas | February 24, 2007 1:52 PM
Lady Lovas~
I certainly have no interest in becoming embroiled in an argument on Barbara's site. However, I am a nurse who is involved in scientific research--I also am in practice, so I'm not just stuck away in some lab somewhere or in some office. I will agree that pharmaceutical companies do sponsor some research, but much research (including my research) is funded by other sources (not "big business").
I probably should have defined "scientific rigor". Scientific rigor refers to a set of orderly, disciplined procedures used to acquire information. These procedures move in a systematic fashion from the definition of a problem and the selection of the aspects of the problem on which to focus, through the design of the study and collection of the information to the solution of the problem. By systematic I mean that the investigator progresses logically through a series of steps accordeing to a pre-specified plan of action.
The current study in which I am the principal investigator went through a three independent committees of multi-disciplinary people to ensure it was scientifically sound, ethically acceptable, and that rights of the human subjects were guarded at every phase of the study. I don't want to bore you with all the details.
I hope you believe me when I say that there are a great number of very honest, determined investigators who have the best interest of you and your family's health at heart when we undertake a study. Plus, I am a believer in Christ--so I take my work very seriously because I am not doing it for myself.
God has indeed blessed us with amazingly complex bodies. You correctly identified the immune system as one of the more complex systems of the body. And, you are correct when you said that your own body responded the the disease with building immunity. However, the main idea behind vaccinations was giving a teeny-tiny bit of the disease and in that way causing the same immune response. It is a win-win situation because the body builds immunity and the person will avoid the consequences of full-blown disease.
That's all I'm going to write about this subject. I apologize if the last paragraph of my previous post sounded like it was a put-down to all those who choose not to vaccinate--I did not intended that way.
Blessings to all!
Posted by: A Grandma | February 24, 2007 11:15 PM
Dear A Grandma: apology accepted. I have no interest in an argument either,its just that some words are expressed in a way that causes division instead of allowing everyone to come to the table with an open mind, get the facts and then make a decision. Topics like to work outside the home or not, to breastfeed or not, to vaccinate or not will always have a ripple effect, because all across the board we have mothers for or against it. I have two boys and one more on the way; I vaccinated the first two, until my second one got a very bad reaction to his chickenpox vaccine; that's when I started doing a lot of reading/researching for and against it. With only a few months to go before the little one arrives, I have a lot of work to do before making a decision.
Posted by: LadyLovas | February 25, 2007 3:03 PM
I think no matter where you fall on the vaccine issue (not gardisil, put the already required ones) you can at least see the government rationale. They believe that vaccines are the safest best way to get immunity, and they want those who are coming into a single locale and spending 8 hours a day 5 days a week with eachother to be healthy as possible and to not be passing around communicable diseases.
Here's the problem with Gardisil- HPV can't be spread to someone else during Algebra class. This isn't a health issue that the school system should be mandating. I'm not against the existence of such a vaccine, but it should be in the power of the patient to decide for themselves if they would like to take on that treatment. HPV is not being spread through school attendence. Period. So it should not be a requirement for school attendence. Period.
Posted by: Tiffany | February 26, 2007 1:04 PM
