I hope this is struck down in court.

[alanschu]

Second, 70% of cervical cancers are caused by this HPV virus. It is incredibly widespread. Simply having sex only with a condom for one's entire life, married and otherwise, may be a preventative (since a huge percentage of men carry this virus)... but of course, that means no children. That's seriously not an option for most women. They are not willing to go childless simply because their husbands in all probability carry the virus. Most people do. To suggest that the vaccine is unnecessary because women can avoid HPV by using condoms all of their lives, even if it means remaining childless, is like suggesting that women can avoid breast cancer by simply having their breasts removed.

 

 

For a virus that, when I read up on it at a variet of places, was suggested that is typically cured by the body on its own, why would it remain with their husbands (whom I shall assume are being faithful) indefnitely? In fact, the Center for Disease Control comments that "for those who choose to be sexually active, a long-term, mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner is the strategy most likely to prevent future genital HPV infections." (It also comments that the effectiveness of condom use is unknown, which means you were just talking on assumptions like the rest of us were).

 

Going a bit further, and seeing what Center of Disease Control had to say about HPV in men, it clearly states that "for most men, there would be no need to treat HPV, even if treatment were available

[LadyCrimson]

My reference to polio was mostly an effort to remark that a stance of absolute non-government involvement except when "too many" people might die, feels inconsistent to me - what I would call ethical convienence. Doesn't sit well with me personally, that's all - not only for healthcare, but for other issues as well.

 

I know that's a subjective belief system issue - which while possibly interesting and oft debated, imo isn't very helpful for analytical evaluation of logistical benefits vs. costs of topics like these - someone I know took me to friendly task for that recently - so sorry if I took things a bit off track.

[astr0creep]

I'm guessing the actual need for a vaccine in this case is very low.

Unless you're the head honcho of a pharmaceutical company.

 

It's like wearing a helmet when parachuting.

[alanschu]

My reference to polio was mostly an effort to remark that a stance of absolute non-government involvement except when "too many" people might die, feels inconsistent to me - what I would call ethical convienence. Doesn't sit well with me personally, that's all - not only for healthcare, but for other issues as well.

 

The issue I have is through the means by which the HPV disease is contracted.

 

An important part of getting kids early with a polio vaccine is that they could come from poor families that don't have access to clean food and water, and other basic needs that may not be met.

 

Given that executive powers were also used to skip over the entire legislative process, leads me to think that something fishy is going on here.

[LadyCrimson]

An important part of getting kids early with a polio vaccine is that they could come from poor families that don't have access to clean food and water, and other basic needs that may not be met.

On that issue - do the low-cost/planned parenthood type places offer these vaccines to people at a very low cost/free? If they do, that helps soothe my personal morality feeling a bit, as my worry is that there are still plenty of people in the United States who do not have the income or the job to aquire/maintain even basic health benefits. Those are the ones who likely couldn't afford or would be unwilling to pay for the cost of the vaccine w/out help and thus wouldn't get it because they're more worried about other costs. They may not be bad parents persay - it may simply be a matter of money. It's easy to say from above "well it's health, health comes before everything" but when you're in a situation where it's schoolbooks or clothes or rent or the fare to get to your crummy job vs. a 3-visit vaccine, it's not so easy or so obvious to them.

[Calax]

well in the ad I saw they seemed like they were trying to make the sale to early twenties and mothers of girls in the 15-18 range. Claiming that it was a vaccine for cancer. I'm guessing that because of the amount of money that would be made by the company, either the govner was being paid a massive amout of money, or he gets numerous kickbacks.

[alanschu]

On that issue - do the low-cost/planned parenthood type places offer these vaccines to people at a very low cost/free? If they do, that helps soothe my personal morality feeling a bit, as my worry is that there are still plenty of people in the United States who do not have the income or the job to aquire/maintain even basic health benefits. Those are the ones who likely couldn't afford or would be unwilling to pay for the cost of the vaccine w/out help and thus wouldn't get it because they're more worried about other costs.

 

The cost really isn't that much of an issue. It's the mandatory vaccination to be given to those that are (hopefully) still a few years away from such a vaccine even having a purpose, simply because they are at the lower bound of when they are available. The other issue is that the governor decided to sidestep the entire legislature to throw this in. Other issues involve the relationship the governor has with the creator of this drug. He has close ties with lobbyists involved with the drug company, and the drug company also donated money to his election campaign.

 

I'd be perfectly content if the government were to offer free innocuations to young women in the age group of the sample size given that sought to obtain the innocuation. My schools didn't have mandatory Hepatitis innocuations, but when I was planning on going to the Dominican Republic.

 

On the plus side, the current plan is allowing for those to opt out of optimizations for philosophical or religious differences. Hopefully the terms for doing so are less than complicated.

 

 

Again, I'd rather the funding be put towards a compound that has shown results against all types of cancer (which would therefore also include the ability to cure cervical cancer caused by HPV) at a fraction of the costs since the compound is not patented and can be manufacturered by whomever wanted to manufacture it. Unfortunately, there's no big money involved in it, so you'll get lobbyists from this very same company that wants to help all these 9 and 10 year old girls not get cervical cancer fighting against it since their client stands to lose billions of dollars. Talk about awesome.

 

Just to make sure things are clear, I have no problems with pharmaceutical companies making lots of money selling patented drugs that cure and vaccinate serious diseases. I understand that research on these cost gigantic amounts of money, and that if there were no patent protections, none of them would bother doing any of this research. But when governments start giving drug companies a whole heck of a lot of money, especially when said government was helped voted into power because of this drug company, it doesn't exactly give me warm fuzzy feelings. Double so when other, less profitable ventures have recently come on to the horizon that would cover not only the problem that the drug company will solve, but so much more. Unfortunately, lobbyists are very powerful, and elections are not cheap.

Edited February 8, 2007 by alanschu

[LadyCrimson]

I know the cost isn't the main issue - but if the government/state gets involved, the cost is (part) the issue - at least, that was my impression, since you and a couple others mentioned figures of how much it would cost the government to implement the program.

 

If the government stayed out of it, the drug company would continue to sell/market their vaccine, right? Hospitals and such would continue to offer it, health benefits would continue to cover it or eventually cover it. Thus I thought one of the anti-government-involvement arguments was that people could choose/volunteer to get the vaccine w/out government interference, making such unneccesary.

 

That was my point in asking how much it would cost to the citizen who had no health benefits.

[alanschu]

Also, by offering the vaccine to grade 6 students, you still leave a very viable market open to make billions more dollars on teenagers and young adults, that will still have to purchase the drug for themselves. It's more profitable (especially short term) to offer the drug for "free" (government subsidized) to those that won't need it for probably at least 5 years (unless times have really changed in the past decade), and longer for the majority. So that 18 year old teenager still has to fork over the money so they can make even more short term profits. Offering the vaccine to say, 15 year olds, would still cover an extreme majority of people that have not had sex yet (or at least limited sexual experience), but it would hurt Merck's bottom line. They wouldn't make as much money.

[alanschu]

That was my point in asking how much it would cost to the citizen who had no health benefits.

 

Unfortunately, it's going to cost the same amount as a Grade 7 student that probably still won't be having sex for a few years.

[LadyCrimson]

I guess in terms of economics and greed, we'll just have to hope that one day we'll be as enlightened as Starfleet and not use money as a motivator for anything.

[Nartwak]

Underlining done by me to confuse the hell out of Nartwak (Hagagagaga!).

[alanschu]

Underlining done by me to confuse the hell out of Nartwak (Hagagagaga!).

 

 

Suddenly I feel a whole lot less bad about the whole thing :D

[Nartwak]

I thought that would lift your spirits.

[alanschu]

I'm most intrigued how you knew I was going "Hagagagaga" while I typed that though.

[Walsingham]

I'm a wee bit confused, Gfted1. I apologise for missing the costings in the original link, but you yourself seem to be making a bit of a curveball argument. You say that arguing in favour of the vaccines is trying to cover for insufficient parenting skills. Whereas opponents seem to be arguing that without the threat of HPV induced cancer to wave at their kids then they can't keep them from making mit der rumpy pumpy.

 

My feeling in general is of course that having established that $360 per head is quite a lot. In fact I would argue that free barrier contraceptives would address not only this problem, but y'know things like HIV and other VD. I think it is aprticularly important to keep in context the fact that the US system has no NHS, and as such it's a bit incongruous to suddenly start behaving as if they do.

[Sand]

We need free medical for all.

[Walsingham]

We need free medical for all.

 

Cough linctus for everyone!

[Gfted1]

I'm a wee bit confused, Gfted1. I apologise for missing the costings in the original link, but you yourself seem to be making a bit of a curveball argument. You say that arguing in favour of the vaccines is trying to cover for insufficient parenting skills. Whereas opponents seem to be arguing that without the threat of HPV induced cancer to wave at their kids then they can't keep them from making mit der rumpy pumpy.

 

My feeling in general is of course that having established that $360 per head is quite a lot. In fact I would argue that free barrier contraceptives would address not only this problem, but y'know things like HIV and other VD. I think it is aprticularly important to keep in context the fact that the US system has no NHS, and as such it's a bit incongruous to suddenly start behaving as if they do.

 

No apology necessary. I suppose I sould clarify myself. Im not against cures for diseases or even so much for subsidizing the cost (although it does rankle me a little). Im against the government MANDATING anything medically that does not effect the wellbeing of the populous. I would also be against a MANDATED HIV vaccine. Not because its not a good thing, not because you would be an idiot not to get it, but because in those examples (non-communicable) they have no business in your body.

 

Now regarding parents who "just cant be arsed" to educate and provide a ride to the clinic, well tbh, thats their problem. We do not need a nanny government that attemts to MANDATE every aspect of our health. Money is one issue (see subsidizing) but just plain ole dont give a damn isnt an excuse for the government to step in.

[Walsingham]

I'm a wee bit confused, Gfted1. I apologise for missing the costings in the original link, but you yourself seem to be making a bit of a curveball argument. You say that arguing in favour of the vaccines is trying to cover for insufficient parenting skills. Whereas opponents seem to be arguing that without the threat of HPV induced cancer to wave at their kids then they can't keep them from making mit der rumpy pumpy.

 

My feeling in general is of course that having established that $360 per head is quite a lot. In fact I would argue that free barrier contraceptives would address not only this problem, but y'know things like HIV and other VD. I think it is aprticularly important to keep in context the fact that the US system has no NHS, and as such it's a bit incongruous to suddenly start behaving as if they do.

 

No apology necessary. I suppose I sould clarify myself. Im not against cures for diseases or even so much for subsidizing the cost (although it does rankle me a little). Im against the government MANDATING anything medically that does not effect the wellbeing of the populous. I would also be against a MANDATED HIV vaccine. Not because its not a good thing, not because you would be an idiot not to get it, but because in those examples (non-communicable) they have no business in your body.

 

Now regarding parents who "just cant be arsed" to educate and provide a ride to the clinic, well tbh, thats their problem. We do not need a nanny government that attemts to MANDATE every aspect of our health. Money is one issue (see subsidizing) but just plain ole dont give a damn isnt an excuse for the government to step in.

 

Thanks for accepting my apology and for clarifying your position. I can certainly understand you much better now.

 

I can't recall teh justification, but it's my understanding that for a vaccination program to be truly effective it needs to be mandated. The example which springs to mind is smallpox.A hideous disease, but which was actually annihilated thanks to a concerted global effort.

[Sand]

I still don't see why would any parent not want to have their children vaccinated against diseases or cancers. Sounds very much like poor parenting to put your child at risk like that, even if that risk is 10 to 20 years down the road.

[Calax]

I still don't see why would any parent not want to have their children vaccinated against diseases or cancers. Sounds very much like poor parenting to put your child at risk like that, even if that risk is 10 to 20 years down the road.

we don't even know the long term side effects of the drug.

[~Di]

I have to confess I'm a bit nonplussed by some of the comments in this thread. Cervical cancer is a terrible disease and a huge problem for women worldwide. I personally know of 5 women, 2 family members, who have been diagnosed with it. Nearly a half million women are diagnosed with it every year. This vaccine is a real breakthrough, and not just... as some of you seem to be implying... for women who run around having unprotected sex (and therefore deserve to get cancer? 'Cause that's honestly what some of the comments I read seem to imply). It's a huge breakthrough for cancer research and the future of other cancer vaccines.

 

To those who are against the vaccine even being available, may I ask why? Serious question. Is it because it's only for one kind of cancer? Is it because it's for a female-only kind of cancer? Is it because it costs too much? And if so, would it still cost too much if it was a prevention of 70% of prostate cancer cases? Is it because a government is mandating medical procedures, which is not the government's business? Or does anyone here honestly believe that a potential cancer-preventative, potential live-saving vaccine should be withheld from girls because it will encourage those girls to run out and have unprotected sex (since the even greater possibility of syphillis, gonorrea, HIV/AIDS and pregnancy certainly isn't as frightening to them as the possibility of cervical cancer twenty years from now)?

 

And the fact that most HPV infections go away on their own without causing cancer is no more an excuse to ignore the cancers that they do cause than it would be for me to state that most smokers do not get lung cancer, therefore we should ignore those that do, or that exposure to most known carcinogens do not cause cancer, therefore we should ignore the fact that some such exposures do. According to The CDC , over 20 million people are infected with HPV at any given time; over 6 million new infections in the USA alone each year. By age 50, 80% of all women will have contracted an HPV infection. To me, that's rather significant.

 

Now I expected a lot of protests about government sticking its nose into medical procedures, and even complaints about the cost, although we currently subsidize nearly all routine preventative medical procedures for those who cannot afford them otherwise... but I didn't expect the fact that this virus is sexually transmitted to be stressed as an objection. That almost... almost... gives the impression of a "if she's a tramp she deserves it" mentality, which I certainly do not believe anyone here actually holds. That's why I find myself so bewildered. Obviously I'm misunderstanding. So please, wise me up!

Edited February 8, 2007 by ~Di

[alanschu]

Nearly a half million women are diagnosed with it every year.

Fair enough. Just to make sure we're clear though, only 10,000 women in the United States are diagnosed with it each year. So the level of effectiveness of the Texas initiative declines immensely.

 

 

To those who are against the vaccine even being available, may I ask why?

 

Who said that they were against the vaccine being available?

 

Is it because it's for a female-only kind of cancer?

Don't play that card. I'd say the same thing if it was addressing a condition that may lead to prostate cancer.

 

 

According to The CDC , over 20 million people are infected with HPV at any given time; over 6 million new infections in the USA alone each year. By age 50, 80% of all women will have contracted an HPV infection. To me, that's rather significant.

 

There's one big problem with that number though. HPV has many, many different types. Only a few of which cause cancer. So no, those numbers in particularly are not as significant as you'd think. Given the vaccine only target 4 specific types, I doubt you'll see these numbers you posted change at all.

 

 

 

 

It's a huge breakthrough for cancer research and the future of other cancer vaccines.

 

To make things clear, the vaccine does not cure cancer, nor does it target cancer. It targets a disease believed to cause cancer. Furthermore, the trials done were only done to show a reduction in symptoms at precancerous stages. The trial did not go on long enough (as stated by the FDA) to see if it actually prevented the cancer (though I suspect it probably will. I'm not a biologist nor a Medical Doctor). There have been no studies done to see how it reacts to women that are unknowingly pregnant. I suppose that this is an advantage to giving it to 9 year old girls, since they likely will not be pregnant. At the same time, the only studies done with girls aged 9-15 included an injection of vaccine, and a comparison to the immune system.

 

Unless other cancers are caused by a virus similar to HPV, I wouldn't hold my breath that this is a huge breakthrough for the future of other cancer vaccines. It may be a breakthrough for fighting cancer because it prevents the causation of cancer by a particular disease, I don't know how helpful it will be for other cancer research or other cancer vaccinations.

Edited February 8, 2007 by alanschu

[Sand]

Cancer is caused by abnormal mitosis. Viruses use the cell's structure to replicate it, damaging RNA and DNA of the cell structure. Stresses of this nature may cause the abonrmal cell growth that leads to cancer. If we can nip the virus in the bud before it infects the host cell then by all means we should do it.