Reply With Quote
Cherry pickers don't address facts, only cir stantial bull
Cancer is vicious, but HPV isn't a communicable disease like the measles or polio, unless, you engage in unprotected sex with multiple partners, and don't have regular pap smears or cervix exams. There's no joy in regular prostate or rectal exams for men, but if you don't get them over 40, your increasing the chance that you will be a victim of these diseases.
Cherry pickers don't address facts, only cir stantial bull
lol
im willing to bet most male posters in this very thread are carrying a potentially cancer causing agent in their body
Y da do you care?
This is hilarious. Let's pay for welfare and subsidized healthcare but screw cancer.
if by cancer you mean genital warts
It'll be interesting to see if the lege does anything more than ask Rick pretty please rescind the order.
Big problem.
First, cerivcal cancer has a 40% mortality rate. Reasons. One, not enough early detection. Two, very aggressive cancer. If not detected early it spreads to the bladder, intestines, and the rest of the body, where the patient is then considered terminally ill.
Cervical cancer claims 4,000 people a year and is diagnosed 10,000 times a year.
Heart disease claims 900,000 a year. Lung cancer grabs another 175,000 a year. When is the last time that taking aspirin or outlawing smoking came up?
There are roughly 2.2 million people that could be affected by the vaccine in Texas. Remember the 4,000 a year dead in the US? An average of 304 of those come from Texas.
A vaccine for 2.2 million young people for a cancer that kills 304 people a year.
79,000 die each year in Texas, 304 of those from cervical cancer.
1 in 259 people will die from cervical cancer in Texas.
WORLDWIDE
1 in 3.4 will die from heart disease.
1 in 5 will die from infectionous disease.
1 in 8 die from cancer.
1 in 10 die from stroke.
1 in 23 die from external injury.
1 in 33 from diarrhea.
1 in 50 from car accident.
1 in 66 from suicide.
1 in 102 from violence.
1 in 119 from breast cancer.
1 in 149 from drowning.
1 in 181 from fire.
1 in 218 die from falling.
1 in 238 from cervical cancer.
1 in 666 from drug abuse.
1 in 672 from accidental suffocation
1 in 1,313 from medical/surgical complications
1 in 1,829 from stabbing
1 in 5,051 from airplane crash
1 in 5,134 from accidental firearms discharge
1 in 8,988 from falling out of a tall building
1 in 79,746 from being hit by lightning
1 in 117,127 from a dog attack or bite
1 in 1,874,034 from venomous snakes
Is it worth it? Gut feeling says no, but the chances of the vaccine killing 1 in 259 is pretty low, so unless there are serious side effects, it is a statistical advantage for women to get the vaccine. Of course, it is a massive cost ($726 odd million to vaccinate 2.2 million young people) to save a potential 304 a year. The first people saved would be worth $2 million each.
Too much for too little. Imagine how many might be saved is the government put $726 million into cancer research, aids research, or even in incentive programs for organ donors. If the government gave $10,000 to a person for donating a kidney, you could have 72,600 more kidney transplants and save the lives of 72,600 people instead of 304 a year.
Whatever. It's all about the money sadly.
I wasn't going to share my story because of the highly personal nature; however, I've changed my mind because of this very post!
I am a survivor of HPV. I was involved with a man almost 20 years ago (after my divorce) that gave me HPV. I wasn't promiscuous and this was a long-term relationship. We weren't even aware he carried the disease until a woman with whom he'd had a previous relationship years before contacted him because she had the disease and it had developed into cancer.
I started having abnormal pap smears and different treatment options were discussed. However, the disease never seemed to get any worse, so the doctor said wait. I remarried 8 years later and never gave the disease a second thought. However, that pesky little virus was still there and I started having abnormal pap smears every year. This finally led to a hysterectomy in 1998 and we thought everything was taken care of. Again, we were wrong! Two years ago, I had another abnormal pap smear and was referred to an gynocological oncologist. I had to undergo treatment for pre-cancerous cells!
Believe me, all the treatments I had over the years added up to WAY more than the cost of the vaccine! So you see, Dan, you really don't know what you're talking about and, especially since you're a man, you shouldn't make judgments about something that doesn't affect you!
so if you had a young daughter you would take her to get the shot? great, but that really doesnt have much to do with giving every girl in texas a shot to prevent genital warts from now until the fall of society
Thanks for sharing Crooks. I know personal health issues are always difficult to post about. I didn't mean to imply anything about your or anyone else's permiscuity, or lack thereof: I really meant to point out that cancer is a sad fact of life, but it doesn't always have to be a death sentence, especially in today's medicine.
This vaccine, mandatory for all 16 year old girls, is made of protein antibodies which the body should be able to safely absorb, but I feel that not enough clinical tests have been done regarding the long and short term toxicity of the drug which TX is going to inject to 6-8 million girls. A 18 month study on less than 10000 participants just isn't enough for me to want to inject it into my or anyone else young daughter, even if in the long run it may save them from cancer.
What kinds of studies are standard for a vaccine like this?
I'll buy that it's inadequately tested, but I don't have any context and my Google searches have been fruitless.
I'll try and look those up, but I believe this vaccine was 'fast-tracked' on to the market quickly by new FDA standards, meanwhile, some things to think about...
1. There have been no safety studies for prepubescant recipients, but it's being proposed to be given to all girls at ages as young as 9.
2. It is being billed as a "cancer vaccine" when in fact it guards against a family of viruses that have been shown to have an association with a 1.5% increase in the risk of cervical cancer. The vast majority of women who get HPV never develop cervical cancer, and a large number of women who never carry HPV do develop cervical cancer. It is not known if the 1.5% increase in cancer risk represents cancer being caused by the virus or elevated common risk factors for both cancer and the virus. Furthermore, in no sense will this vaccination mean you should not continue to be on the watch for cancer.
3. In just the past few years we have seen the pharmaceutical community rush out several "neccessary" drugs for this or that dangerous condition, which turned out to be more dangerous than the condition itself (post-hysterectomy HRT, ant-statins, VIOXX, etc). In each case, legal proceedings have shown that the safety study infrastructure for pharmaceuticals is, to put it bluntly, broken industry-wide. These tragic stories should teach us all that if you simply trust corporate-funded science you take your life in your hands in the process.
4. This is a re-statement of number 2 because I think it really deserves emphasis: no-one has ever said HPV "causes" cervical cancer. Carrying some strains of HPV is associated with a 1.5%-higher risk of cervical cancer than the negative population. The majority of sexually active adults carry HPV, the vast majority of these will never develop cervical cancer. We do not know if HPV causes cervical cancer, or if it shares common risk factors with cervical cancer; in fact, we know of one common risk factor they both share (early sexual activity). So we know at least some portion of that 1.5% increase is not from HPV but from that one shared risk factor, and there may be (and probably are) others. To the extent that HPV and cervical cancer share risk factors, this vaccine will do nothing but prevent warts.
plus its unsafe if youre pregnant, and giving every 11-12 year old girl in texas 3 pregancy tests a year seems stupid
Not to mention that are serious concerns as to whether Perry's executive order was even legal...McCown, a retired state judge and executive director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities writes...
StatesmenUnder the state cons ution, the governor administers the law; the governor doesn't make the law. This principle is textbook civics. Making law is for the Legislature.
With this principle so clear, how can the governor possibly claim the authority to require vaccinations? Well, when the Legislature passes a law, it cannot think of every detail, particularly in our increasingly complex world. To deal with the details, the Legislature often authorizes a state agency to adopt rules. So, in his executive order, the governor hasn't actually required vaccinations; rather, he has ordered a state agency to write a rule requiring vaccinations.
Rules, however, must be consistent with state law and must implement, not expand, the law. To ensure that rules comply with the law, the Legislature requires a state agency to go through a careful process of evaluating its legal authority before adopting a rule. In addition, to ensure that a rule is wise, the Legislature requires a state agency to give the public notice of any proposed rule, give the public a chance to comment, consider the public's comments and provide a written justification for the final rule.
StatesmenBuck Wood, a lawyer whose career included time in Gov. John Connally's office in the 1960s, disagreed, saying: "This isn't even arguable. The governor doesn't have any power to dictate to any agency about what rules it makes."
Scott McCown, who served 14 years as a Democratic state district judge in Travis County, aired similar concerns. While state law permits governors to issue orders in emergencies, he said, Perry's desire to protect young women doesn't clear that hurdle.
"It's a judgment call," said McCown, who initially commented in a column in Wednesday's Austin American-Statesman. "But there is no way this is even close. There is no way this even qualifies" as an emergency.
News8 AustinTwenty-six senators from both parties even signed a letter asking Perry to withdraw the order.
Wow, the lege is really asserting its power.
A letter!
Signed!
Despite doubts by Chumpy, lawmakers continue to lay the political wood to Perry
RawstoryTexas Gov. Rick Perry (R) says that it's just a coincidence that he and eight other lawmakers received donations of $5,000 each from Merck lobbyists just a few days before mandating the drug giant's HPV cervical cancer vaccine for all females in Texas ages 12 and up.
"There's been a lot of pressure about the implications of vaccinating young girls against sexually-transmitted diseases," says CNN's Ali Velshi in the video below, "some people thinking that that encourages promiscuity at that age."
He reports though that "this thing is coming undone by word, rumor and report of connection between Rick Perry's office and Merck."
The main lobbyist for Merck previously worked as Chief of Staff for Gov. Rick Perry. Several other states are considering making the vaccine mandatory, thanks in part to Merck's aggressive lobbying.
Perry's approval rating has to be approaching Dubya range.
Yeah yeah people have that "it doesn't affect men" arguement.
I wouldn't be rushing to take a new vaccine for penile cancer. Nor would I ever do that to a child. There's probably a better chance of dying from complications of the vaccine than there is of getting HPV and getting cancer.
People sure forgot about Vioxx fast.
And this legal order to vaccinate wasn't even legal.
The truth is coming out but will it stop him?
Feb 22, 8:29 PM EST
Texas Governor Defends Vaccine Order
By JOE STINEBAKER and LIZ AUSTIN PETERSON
Associated Press Writers
HOUSTON (AP) -- Gov. Rick Perry on Thursday angrily defended his relationship with Merck & Co. and his executive order requiring that schoolgirls receive the drugmaker's vaccine against the sexually transmitted cervical-cancer virus.
The Associated Press reported Wednesday that Perry's chief of staff had met with key aides about the vaccine on Oct. 16, the same day Merck's political action committee donated $5,000 to the governor's campaign.
Perry, touring cancer centers around the state, said the contributions were just a small share of the $24 million he raised and had no effect on his decision.
"When a company comes to me and says we have a cure for cancer, for me not to say, 'Please come into my office and let's hear your story for the people of the state of Texas, for young ladies who are dying of cancer,' would be the height of irresponsibility," the Republican governor said. "Whether or not they contributed to my campaign, I would suggest to you, are some of those weeds that we are trying to cut our way through."
Pressed on when he decided to issue the Feb. 2 executive order requiring the vaccination for sixth-grade girls, Perry snapped: "I wish you all would quit splitting hairs, frankly, and get focused on 'Are we going to be working together to find the cure for cancers?' No, I can't tell you when."
In issuing the order, the governor made Texas the first state to require the vaccine Gardasil for all schoolgirls. But many lawmakers have complained about his bypassing the Legislature altogether. And the disclosure regarding the campaign contributions could add momentum to an attempt by legislators to repeal Perry's executive order.
The executive order has inflamed conservatives, who said it contradicts Texas' abstinence-only sexual education policies and intrudes into families' lives.
Some GOP lawmakers said they were uncomfortable with the timing of the contributions.
"It's really a question of integrity ... whether or not his decisions were based on the contribution," state Rep. Linda Harper Brown.
On Wednesday, before the campaign contributions became known, the state House public health committee voted 6-3 to override Perry's order and sent the bill - co-sponsored by nearly two-thirds of state representatives - to the full House.
The House is not expected to take up the measure until mid-March. A repeal has also been introduced in the Senate, with nearly half the chamber signing on.
Perry said he has not decided whether to veto the bill if it reaches his desk.
"I highly respect the legislative process that we have, and so I would respectfully tell you that we will let it play its way out," he said. "But do you think we would be having the debate today on HPV if I had said, 'Let's pass some legislation?'"
Critics have previously questioned Perry's ties to Merck. Mike Toomey, Perry's former chief of staff, now lobbies for the drug company. And the governor accepted a total of $6,000 from Merck during his re-election campaign.
Merck has waged a behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign to get state legislatures to require girls to get the three-dose vaccine to enroll in school. But on Tuesday the pharmaceutical company announced it was suspending the effort because of pressure from parents and medical groups.
The Kentucky House on Thurday passed a bill that would require the vaccination for middle school girls unless their parents sign a form opposing it. The state has the nation's second-highest death rate from cervical cancer, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the bill still needs Senate approval. Virginia lawmakers have also passed legislation requiring the vaccine, but the governor has not decided if he will sign it.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...TAM&SECTION=US
Vaccine Meeting, Merck Donation Coincide
By LIZ AUSTIN PETERSON
Associated Press Writer
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- Gov. Rick Perry's chief of staff met with key aides about a new vaccine to prevent cervical cancer on the same day its manufacturer donated money to his campaign, do ents obtained by The Associated Press show.
Texas became the first state to require the vaccine against human papillomavirus earlier this month when Perry issued an executive order requiring it for girls entering sixth grade. Lawmakers are considering overriding the measure.
A calendar for chief of staff Deirdre Delisi obtained under Texas' open records laws shows she met with the governor's budget director and three members of his office for an "HPV Vaccine for Children Briefing" on Oct. 16. That same day, Merck & Co.'s political action committee donated $5,000 to Perry and a total of $5,000 to eight state lawmakers.
Perry spokesman Robert Black said the timing of the meeting and the donation was a coincidence. "There was no discussion of any kind of mandates," Black said.
The do ents obtained Wednesday by The AP provide new detail about the relationship between the governor's office and Merck, which makes the only HPV vaccine on the market.
Perry's mandate has inflamed conservatives, who say it contradicts Texas' abstinence-only sexual education policies and intrudes too far into families' lives. Though there is a provision in state law that allows parents to opt out of the vaccine, opponents say the shots are too new and too costly to force on young girls.
Merck had waged a behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign to get state legislatures to require 11- and 12-year-old girls to get the three-dose vaccine against the virus that can cause cervical cancer as a requirement for school attendance. But it announced Tuesday it was suspending those efforts after its motives were questioned. The New Jersey company stands to make billions if Gardasil is required nationwide.
Critics had previously questioned Perry's ties to the company. Mike Toomey, Perry's former chief of staff and Delisi's predecessor, lobbies for Merck. And the governor accepted a total of $6,000 from Merck during his re-election campaign, including $1,000 in December 2005.
According to Delisi's calendar, she met with Toomey three times in the six months before the order was issued. One meeting happened in August, on the same day two other Perry staffers met with a different Merck lobbyist for a "Merck HPV Vaccine update." The other meetings came just after the November election and just before the legislative session began in January.
Black initially said he did not know what the two discussed, but later said the November and January meetings involved another company Toomey lobbies for. He also said the pair have been friends for years, and that Toomey has many clients other than Merck. He insisted that the governor did not decide to issue the mandate until well after the November election.
Late Wednesday, Black issued a statement: "The Associated Press has tried to create a conspiracy where none exists, and they have offered not one shred of evidence to their baseless accusations that the governor's office has done anything wrong."
Merck spokesman Ray Kerins, reached after business hours, said he could not immediately comment but would look into the matter. Calls seeking comment were made to a home number for Delisi and an office number for Toomey, but were not immediately returned.
Cathie Adams, president of the conservative Texas Eagle Forum, said Black's explanation of the timing of the campaign contribution didn't sound right.
"We have too many coincidences," she said. "I think that the voters of Texas would find that very hard to swallow."
Bills have been introduced in about 20 states to require the vaccine, but they have struggled. Some parents' groups and doctors particularly object because the vaccine protects against a sexually transmitted disease. Vaccines mandated for school attendance usually are for diseases easily spread through casual contact, such as measles and mumps.
A bill has passed the Virginia Legislature, but a spokesman for Gov. Timothy Kaine said he wants to review a provision that lets parents opt out before he says if he will sign it.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...02-21-22-56-30
I guess when only 37% of the folks vote for you you can say to with
it. I'm taking what I can get while I still have time.
BBC NEWS
Gay men seek 'female cancer' jab
By Mic e Roberts
BBC News health reporter
sexual men are requesting a controversial "sex disease" vaccine designed to prevent a female cancer.
Gardasil protects against the most common of sexually transmitted infections, human papillomavirus (HPV), which can cause cervical cancer.
But HPV also causes genital warts and anal and penile cancer, and men argue the jab would guard against these.
Many private clinics are offering it to men. One in London says it has immunised dozens in the last six weeks.
Controversy
Gardasil has been causing controversy since it was launched in the UK late last year, mainly because it is designed to be given to children before they become sexually active and can catch HPV.
The government is considering whether all girls, and possibly boys, aged 11 or 12 should get it routinely in schools, ultimately to cut cervical cancer rates.
Gardasil is licensed for boys and girls aged nine to 15 and women aged 16 to 26. But doctors can opt to give it to other people "off licence" if they wish.
Strong demand
Dr Sean mings at the Freedom Health clinic in Harley Street, where dozens of men have had the jab, said he was happy to recommend Gardasil to his adult men, at £450 for a three-dose course.
"We've had a strong demand for it. I had a man come in for the vaccine this morning. He was 24. Then I have one this afternoon who is 67 years old.
"The motivation is to protect themselves and to prevent spreading HPV to their partners."
Opponents say there is no point in immunising people who are already sexually active.
More proof
But Dr Paul Fox, a genito-urinary medicine expert at the Chelsea and Westminster and Ealing hospitals, believes it can be worthwhile.
He argues that it is unlikely a person will have encountered all of the four strains of HPV found in Gardasil, including the two linked to cancers, even if they are leading a very promiscuous sex life.
"We should not just be looking at vaccinating people in their pre-teen years. Other people would benefit as well."
Dr Jo Longstaff, of the Independent General Practice private clinic in Cardiff, which also offers the Gardasil vaccine, agrees.
"Our first enquiry about Gardasil was from a male patient. I think they should be considering it."
Dr Anne Szarewski, clinical consultant for Cancer Research UK who has been involved in evaluating both Merck's Gardasil and GSK's rival jab Cervarix, says there may be a case for immunising men.
"Men who have sex with men are at a much higher risk than average of anal cancer and genital warts, particularly if they are HIV-positive.
"Clearly it would be very important if the vaccine could protect. The problem is we do need proof."
Trials in men
Merck is currently testing the vaccine's efficacy in 4,000 men, including 500 men who have sex with men.
And the US National Ins ute of Health is also carrying out trials to see what benefits it could have for people with HIV.
Merck said its priority was to tackle cervical cancer, but has not ruled out giving the vaccine to other groups - including men who have sex with men.
Roger Peabody of the Terrence Higgins Trust said if the trials were successful, there would be a good case for vaccinating young boys, not only to stop the spread of HPV to women, but to protect men against HPV-related disease.
Dr Szarewski agreed, saying: "It is bad enough suggesting to people that their 12-year-old daughter might need a vaccine against a sexually transmitted infection.
"I would be interested to see the response of suggesting to parents that they should vaccinate their boys at 12 in case they become gay."
She said heterosexual men and women also risked anal cancer.
About 400 people are diagnosed with anal cancer each year in the UK. The disease is slightly more common in women than men.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...th/6342105.stm
Published: 2007/02/23 00:03:51 GMT
© BBC MMVII
According to former rumors which were disproved,
should have gotten this shot than ??
Texas Families Seek to Block Gov's Order
Friday Feb 23rd
By
JIM VERTUNO
AUSTIN, Texas - A group of families has sued in an attempt to block Gov. Rick Perry's executive order requiring schoolgirls to be vaccinated against the virus that causes cervical cancer.
The lawsuit challenges Perry's authority to issue the order and seeks to block any state money from being spent on the vaccine until that question is resolved, said Kenneth Chaiken, the attorney representing the families.
"The school-age girls of Texas are not guinea pigs who may be subjected to medial procedures at the apparent whim of Texas' governor," according to the lawsuit, which was filed Thursday in Travis County.
Perry, a Republican, wants to require the vaccine for girls entering sixth grade. It protects against strains of human papapillomavirus, or HPV, that cause most cases of cervical cancer and genital warts.
Supporters of the vaccine requirement say it will help fight a cancer that kills 3,700 American women each year.
But the order has inflamed conservatives who say it contradicts Texas' abstinence-only sexual education policies and intrudes into family lives. Chaiken said the lawsuit does not raise that moral objection.
Perry is confident he had the authority to issue the order, his spokeswoman Krista Moody said.
"He sees this vaccine as not only a fiscally responsible order but also one that has the potential to save the lives of thousands of women in Texas," Moody said.
The governor's order also upset many lawmakers in his own party, and a bill to override the measure is moving through the state
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/...der/index.html
mannyisAbsent?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
