Reply With Quote
this is ironic in a state that teaches absitinance only sex ed.
OFFICIAL
this is ironic in a state that teaches absitinance only sex ed.
Last edited by ObiwanGinobili; 02-07-2007 at 12:09 PM.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the application of the vaccine (one time shot, right?), but I'm wondering why everyone seems to be looking at this from the viewpoint of 6th graders being sexually active. As I understand it, this is a preventative for the future, which is why they are trying to vaccinate before they become sexually active. So, I'm understanding that this would potentially help girls that will eventually become sexually active (whether its in the 6th grade or at 20 or at 25 years old , etc.) Unless they are planning on becoming nuns, it's pretty much a given. Is there some sort of expiration on the effectiveness of the vaccine? In my mind, it doesn't really matter whether that child will only have one partner or 10 partners in the long run, the chances are pretty high they will come in contact with HPV (and may not even know it.)
Please feel free to correct me if I am misinformed.
3 shots over six months.Maybe I'm misunderstanding the application of the vaccine (one time shot, right?),
That's how I understand it too. They aren't doing it at 6th grade because they expect every 6th grader to have sex. They are doing it well in advance of the time they think most of them will be sexually active.
Even if they are teaching abstinence only to teenagers, those girls will eventually have sex at some point (even if they wait til they are in their 20's or until marriage) and need to be protected. I don't see any irony.
I found this..
http://overturnrp65.blogspot.com/
They have no idea at this point. The longest a test subject was monitored was 4 years.
The real data will start coming in 2009 and the most important data 2018.
http://www.centerwatch.com/patient/drugs/dru901.html# Merck commits to conduct a short-term safety surveillance study in a U.S. Managed Care Organization (MCO). The study will include approximately 44,000 vaccinated subjects who will be followed for 60 days for assessment of general short-term safety (i.e., emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and deaths). The subjects will also be followed for 6 months subsequent to vaccination for new autoimmune disorders, rheumatologic conditions, or thyroiditis. Also, a sufficient number of children 11-12 years of age will be studied to permit an analysis of safety outcomes.
Final Study Protocol Submission: December 31, 2006
Enrollment Completion: December 31, 2008
Study Completion: June 30, 2009
Final Study Report: September 30, 2009
# Merck commits to collaborate with the cancer registries in four countries in the Nordic Region (Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and Denmark) to assess long-term outcomes following administration of Gardasil. In this study, approximately 5,500 subjects enrolled in Protocol 015 (one half from the placebo group that will have been vaccinated shortly after approval) will be followed for a total of 14 years. Two major goals of this study are: 1) to assess the long-term effectiveness of Gardasil by evaluating biopsy specimens for presence of HPV 6/11/16/18-related incident breakthrough cases of CIN 2/3, AIS and cervical cancer, VIN 2/3 and vulvar cancer, and VaIN 2/3 and vaginal cancer; and 2) to assess whether administration of Gardasil will result in replacement of these diseases due to vaccine HPV types with diseases due to non-vaccine HPV types. This study is designed to accomplish these goals as discussed in the June 6, 2006, submission to Merck’s BLA.
Final Study Protocol Submission: December 8, 2006
Enrollment Completion: Completed
Study Completion: December 31, 2017
Final Study Report: December 31, 2018
I have no idea why you'd subject your daughters to this when the crucial data is unknown at this point.
Because the state will not pay for proper sex ed because in there eyes god forbid the thougth that people have sex and they may be underage and they may be not married and they dont; really need to know about sex OR std's at all, nope lets not tell them a darn thing.
But OTOH the state is like hey! lets give our girls this mandatory shot that helps prevent only 3 strands of HPV that cause 70% of cervical cancer with a "just enough" success rate. Protecting them from an std when in the states eyes noone is having sex anyway. ironic to me. maybe my definition of ironic is as wacked as Alanis's tho. Also without real informed consent of the patient.
It'd be nice if the state put some $$ into REAL sex ed in this state. But I guess there isn;t a sex ed company/lobby that does fund raising for the Govenor's campiagn's. Darn it.
"just enough" to you equals >99% success rate on those strands of HPV (according to the American Cancer Society). And I guess you missed the part where it's not mandatory. Parents just sign a waiver and their daughter doesn't get it.But OTOH the state is like hey! lets give our girls this mandatory shot that helps prevent only 3 strands of HPV that cause 70% of cervical cancer with a "just enough" success rate.
When GlaxoSmithKline's version of the shot gets approved in a couple months, I wonder if people will give up the campaign angle.It'd be nice if the state put some $$ into REAL sex ed in this state. But I guess there isn;t a sex ed company/lobby that does fund raising for the Govenor's campiagn's. Darn it.
You seem to be the only one arguing against the proper things.
If someone is arguing against the unknown safety of the drug, then I understand that. But the people that keep spouting off about how cervical cancer isn't rampant enough to have a vaccine, all vaccines are bad, it's Perry's agenda for being tied to Merck, etc. are ridiculous.
If it's a safe vaccine, then no one should have a problem with it being offered (it's not really being "mandated" because you don't have to get it).
Hopefully more information will come out before fall 2008 so that parents can make an informed decision about whether they want it for their daughters.
How could that information come out? What if the Norwegian study that will be completed in 2018 finds that the vaccine wears off in 6 years? That would put your daughters at ages 17-18 and at risk again. And no one would know any better.
Or what if they found that by treating 16 and 18, it made 52 and 53 stronger and carcinogenic?
Like I said earlier, there are a of a lot more questions than answers for a vaccine that only decreases your chances of getting a certain type of cancer.
Again, why the rush?
Don't you think?
Were the study and approval of this vaccine less thorough than the standard process? What are those standards... are there typically a greater number of test patients? Does it usually take longer to approve?
Just looking for some context.
"the standard process"
... run by the Repug-politicized FDA which is owned by Big Pharma and Big Food.
As to the person above... yes, the vaccine is to be administered before the female becomes sexually active- that is, before there is any chance she already has HPV.
Again, I just wonder. Why not all this uproar when other vaccines have been added- and you do know that many others have in recent years.
I'm still interested in hearing about standard testing.
This sounds reassuring, doesn't it?
Some good quotes in here:Don't be the first or the last in your community to use a new drug or vaccine, Dr. Jerome O. Klein advised at a meeting on clinical pediatrics sponsored by Boston Medical Center.
When a new drug comes on the market, it's typically based on 5,000-10,000 subjects who have received it because that's all you need for FDA approval, said Dr. Klein, director of pediatric infectious diseases at Boston Medical Center.
If there's an adverse event with an incidence of 1 in 20,000 associated with the drug or vaccine, it won't be detected right away. Unless the new drug or vaccine fills a critical void, Dr. Klein recommended staying away from it until the first 100,000 individuals have been treated. After that "you can feel a lot more comfortable that the adverse event profile is as it has been
described."
http://whale.to/vaccines/studies.html
This thread is waaay too long for me to go through, but I nominally agree with the AAP. If this vaccine has not gone through the full range normal rigorous safety and long-term effects testing, then it's too early for politicians to be making the decision to make it mandatory.
I do find it curious that, in line of his stances on other issues of sexual education, Rick Perry would choose to support this particular initiative.
It's interesting to see the reactions, both pro and con, to the acceptance of not-fully-proven vaccines, as opposed to the 30-some-odd years it took to finally get a proven idea like water fluoridation to come to San Antonio.
that's a whole other can of worms that'll make this thread even longer.
Yeah, I know, but the situations are definitely worth comparing.
Fluoridation was an intervention with a proven medical benefit, and yet many people in SA and other places kept it from happening for many years. Not coincidentally, I also don't think that fluoridation was going to result in anyone making a ton of money.
Mind you, I am not saying that the vaccine is bad or unsafe or that it doesn't work. If I had a daughter I would probably have her get it. I just don't think it's at the stage where it should be mandated by law.
. It's too late to get into this.
Here's a question.
By making this mandatory, insurance companies now have to cover the costs associated with the vaccine and those who can't afford it can get it either free or at greatly reduced prices, right?
Is there any other route (after a rescinding of the executive order) that can be taken where insurance companies could fit the bill and the costs could be reduced for those who can't afford it?
Perhaps, but it has made San Antonio's tap water taste horrible.
Perhaps, but it has made San Antonio's tap water taste horrible.
plus there is evidence that shows flourine calcifies a portion of the brain largely responsible for creativity
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
