Texas HPV Immunization Requirement

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by KingYaba, Feb 5, 2007.

  1. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #1
    Been a while since I post in the Politics section... here we go! :)

    www.kfoxtv.com/news/10916595/detail.html

    I doubt Perry bypassed the legislature out of his "good-willed" intention for vaccinating the children of Texas. Rather its the $$$ from Merck he received during his re-election campaign. Sickens me.

    If there is one thing I hate more than needles, it's government WITH needles. This is bothering the hell out of me. Funny a lot of my conservative friends are bothered by Perry's move (whom they voted for), but for different reasons.

    My issues: At $360.00 a pop, this is an expensive undertaking. Schools are a place of education, not vaccination. I get the chills. I understand people are required to take tetanus, hepatitis, measles and other vaccines to be admitted in school... and that bothers me too. So I guess this is just one more to the list? What is next? Let us fall down the slippery slope...

    Some have said this drug "promotes promiscuity," but teenagers do not need encouragement. ;)

    I am not knockin' the drug. I am pleased to see we can prevent such things. But get the shot on your own.
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    i'd hope that anyone who believes that we function best as a democracy would be bothered by perry bypassing the legislature.
     
  3. KingYaba thread starter macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #3
    They have issues with their children having sex, not "bypassing legislature." I find that rather odd. In Perry we trust?

    This adds another √ in the why I hate Perry column.
     
  4. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #4
    This strikes me as a very good move.The reasons for it are pretty irrelevant I'm sure there are dodgy reasons for it (they are politicians after all) but the outcome is it will save lives.As for encouraging youngsters to have sex,what planet do these people live on?:rolleyes:
     
  5. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    It's called Planet Jesus- very similar to Planet Muhammed. Have you been? ;)
     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    Lol... ban HPV vaccinations, but by all means allow the Spring Break debauchery at Corpus Christi to continue.

    In other news, polio vaccines have been found to encourage people to engage in risky walking behavior...
     
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    Of course, because if you have sex, you should be punished terribly by the Almighty with a deadly pestilence, but Jesus loves you. :)
     
  8. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #8
    Here is the problem, Merck the only company that makes the drug is lobbing for every teen in the country to be forced to have the immunization. Do you see a conflict there?
     
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    Sure, but would you have made the same argument if Merck were the only company making a polio vaccine that every kid needs to have to get into school?

    I'd say your complaint is more of a patent issue than one about the actual health implications of this vaccine.
     
  10. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #10
    Do you for a minute believe that Merck even cares about the teens or just wants to fill its pockets.
     
  11. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #11
    Does the vaccine work? Can it prevent 70% of cervical cancer like it advertises?

    I would think those would be more important issues. Of course the company has a vested interest in promoting its own drug but that doesn't mean that it makes it less effective in preventing cancer like it says.
     
  12. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #12
    I would say they want to fill their pockets, but if a independent study can confirm their product then by all means then have all girls get this. My Wife had to go a operation just for cervical cancer. Good thing is they got it early but if she had had this vaccine available to her at say age 10-12 she would have never had to go a costly and painful surgery.
     
  13. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13
    Do you believe in answering one question with another question?
     
  14. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #14
    Im not sure that Merck has a right to say what drugs a person should have. That is up to a Doctor to decide not a drug company.

    I don't know how long this drug has been around or what the side effects are.

    Again I think this is just the drug company not doing this for the best interest of the teens, but more for themselves. If the government believes this is a good idea for every teenage girl I would hope they would be the ones to administer it and not the drug company.
     
  15. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #15
    The $360 is a good point, but it really needs to be balanced against the cost of treating preventable cases of cancer, STD symptoms, and so on. And also I hope that a vaccine for boys & men gets finished fairly soon....
     
  16. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    Sheesh, it's not Merck making the decision. It's the government. Merck recommends, government decides.

    Now, if you want to argue that the government shouldn't have a right to say what drugs a person should have - go ahead. Just realize you're arguing against decades of vaccination requirements for schools.

    Assuming this drug has passed all it's clinical trials, and the results are what the drug company says they are, why would you be against something that can prevent cervical cancers like this? Is it because you believe this will encourage girls to have sex? Or because you don't believe the government should be able to tell you what to do?

    If the latter, welcome to the public school system. Have you seen the list of vaccinations that are required before you are allowed to go to school?
     
  17. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #17
    This vaccine like all should not be mandatory but should be freely available,it's not a magic bullet but in spite of the loony rights attempt at muddying the waters is effective in a great many instances.


    In addition to cervical cancer, HPV is present in 80 percent of vaginal and vulvar cancers, added Paavonen, a researcher at the University of Helsinki. The virus also has been implicated in penile, anal, head and neck cancers, as well as genital warts. Merck currently is studying HPV vaccination in males.

    http://understandingrisk.cancer.gov/media/newspaper.cfm
     
  18. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #18
    That is the key, The governor should not be the one to mandate it knowing that he will likely get a kickback. Make the drug available to all but don't force it on them.
     
  19. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #19
    Just make it a prerequisite for attending a public school. Then it's voluntary, but nearly universal just like all the other vaccines.

    And think of the money spent on the procedure as insurance against future cancer patients claiming against Medicare / Medicaid. I'd guess you could treat a good 1000 girls for the cost of a single one using public funds to have cancer treatments.

    Besides, I don't think we've heard from enough women -- particularly ones who've had to deal with this issue. DHM's wife has dealt with this. Mine has as well. I'm sure there are other women on this forum here who have dealt with it. The infection rates are staggering.

    Controlling this would be a big deal.
     
  20. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #20
    Drugs are forced on you every time you take a bite of any food grown in America. Steroids, antibiotics, bovine growth hormones, etc, etc. The American food supply is one of the most drugged in the world. The difference between the food supply and the HPV vaccine is that research has been done to prove its effectiveness and the risks associated with it. The potential benefits from such a vaccine are huge!

    It goes without saying that Merck's profits will also be huge, but if it does what it says it does, then it's a bargain because cancer treatment is extremely expensive.
     
  21. janey macrumors 603

    janey

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Location:
    sunny los angeles
    #21
    sheesh, second thread in here about this, and it's a week old but who cares :p

    1. OPT OUT IF YOU HATE IT Your daughter may be sexually active before she gets a choice to decide whether or not she wants this vaccine, and although it's fine even in her 20s, that doesn't mean she can't get one of the strains of HPV covered by Gardasil the 1 or 1000 times she gets laid before she can get it. One less thing to lose out on.

    2. mandatory vaccination == lower cost and higher availability/knowledge == good for people who need it most, see #1 if you don't like the "mandatory" part

    3. i am starting the Gardasil series soon, and i don't give a **** what other people think, but not many who think similarly to me can afford $360 or have insurance that will cover this, see #2

    4. gardasil was fast-tracked by the FDA because of the potential this drug has (new drug for new market that can affect lots of people and money and things). Out of all the trials to date, nobody has died as a direct consequence of Gardasil, and the only adverse effect is a less than 1% increased chance of arthritis. Of course, that's only after a few years and a lot of people. Who knows what'll happen 20 years from now. But it's here, now, and I don't have 20 years to wait.

    For all other (and similar) thoughts: http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3360342&postcount=5 only because it's stupid copying and pasting the same reply on the same subject in different threads :rolleyes:

    Merck can make all the money they want off of me, but when study after study has shown upwards of 90% (one number most commonly thrown around is 100% against two strains) effectiveness in terms of the 4 (and possibly more, depending on which study you read) strains it vaccinates against, plus prevents cervical cancer at high rates...sign me up. Not only does insurance cover this (at no/significantly low cost to me), but it might potentially save me soooo much in so many ways that I feel it's worth it to get it. Lesser chance of both genital warts and cervical cancer? You'd have to be nuts to deny that except for a few good reasons - and thinking your daughter might think sex is okay after this is far from being one of them.

    I understand there ARE drawbacks to being an early adopter, but for me personally I find the benefits outweigh the current risks and unknowns. That will most certainly change depending on the parents/daughter/family/person of course, but..read above :p
     

Share This Page