Tx. Gov. Rick Perry & HPV Immunization for Females 9-21 years?

What do you think about Texas Governor Rick Perry mandating this immunization for little girls and women? HPV is the Human Papilloma Virus, which causes vaginal warts & can sometimes lead to cervical cancer. Gov. Perry is the US' first governor to mandate this shot. The Texas Legislature cannot overthrow his decision. This is based on the presumption that girls absolutely will have unprotected, premarital sex. The shot has had very little safety testing on it. Personally, I believe it is one step away from forced sterilization, since the GOP is anti-abortion. There are news links on this at Yahoo. Please tell us what you think about this.

There are two sides to every discussion, of course. This vaccine does appear to confer some benefits. If I were a sexually active woman who disliked condoms and liked to have multiple sex partners who had not yet been exposed to any of the four strains of HPV that this vaccine protects against, I just might sign myself up.

But that's not the same thing as making this vaccine MANDATORY for a preteen population it was not rigorously tested on a scant 8 months after its initial rush job FDA approval.

Aside from all the known risks of all vaccines, the unknown risks of this three shot regimen for preteens along with their other vaccine load, and the unknown long term risks of this vaccine for all populations, we have to look at cost vs. benefit.

7861 of the placebo subjects contracted 83 cases of HPV 6-, 11-, 16-, 18-related dysplasias during the testing period compared compared to 4 cases among the 7858 subjects who were given GARDASIL. That's after counting out every subject with any prior exposure to these strains. This includes 42 of the less serious HPV 6-, 11- related low grade dysplasias.

Merck has published no data for how many non-HPV 6-, 11-, 16-, 18-related dysplasias were contracted by these subjects over these periods, but some practitioners have commented that they expect the vaccine to protect against 40%-50% of all dysplasias.

In terms of every possible kind of dysplasia for which this vaccine confers protection, Merck's own clinical evidence suggests that this vaccine saved about 10 patients out of each 1000 injected from the painful process of having these dysplasias treated (over the entire course of follow ups which ranged from 18 months to 4 years). Note that the populations for these studies were not preteens but women at the height of their sexual activity. Further note that since the vaccine uses virus-like particles (a new vaccine technology) and is only about five years in testing now, there is no guarantee that it has any long term efficacy.

Of course, the pre-teen population is so less sexually active (and when active, so much less likely to be active with a previously contaminated partner) that I think it would be conservative to estimate that preteens are 5 times less likely to contract HPV dysplasias than the 16 to 26 year olds who were tested by Merck. So instead of saving 10 women per 1000 from painful treatments for HPV dysplasias, this vaccine would save perhaps 2 girls per 1000 from these procedures among the much younger population that Merck and Merck's politicians are targeting for mandatory vaccination.

Do we really want to pursue a public policy that costs $360,000 to vaccinate every 1000 girls while exposing each and every one of these thousand girls to the known adverse short term and largely unknown long terms side effects of three injections of a new vaccine just to save two of the more sexually active of these kids from having to have their dysplasias treated conventionally? What kind of a risk and cost vs. benefit trade off is that?

Note that nowhere are we discussing actual incidences of cervical cancer because there is no clinical evidence whatsoever that GARDASIL reduces cervical cancer rates, and even if we place our hope in the the fact that it might, cervical cancer is simply not a meaningful health risk for any girl in the target vaccination population who is getting an annual pap smear.

This is based on the presumption that girls absolutely will have unprotected, premarital sex


^ That line is bullshit.

Anyway, forced vaccination like that is definitely wrong, I don't have much to say apart from that, except just try to force one on me or anyone I know. I can't believe things like this are actually still happening these days.

That decision presumes nothing whatsoever about any girl or woman. It is nothing more than a public health issue. And how can you or anyone else in their right minds possibly compare this to forced sterilization. It does nothing to prevent future pregnancies. It does a whole lot (not everything, but a whole lot) to prevent future cervical cancer.

Further, ultimately, the state (not Texas specifically but the state in general) is the ultimate guardian of every child residing in that state. As such, it is the ONLY RESPONSIBLE DECISION TO MAKE.

Get your facts straight. It's easy to do and it's far better than making a public fool of yourself, as you have here.

My children were given the required immunizations when young. Neither got the chicken pox vaccine because they both had caught the chicken pox before it came out.
As a woman I am proud that medical studies are being conducted and help is out there for young woman. That being said, I am against the requirement of this immunization. Not because I do not believe children this young are having sex, I teach middle school and see it every day. I am against it because it is too early in development to require all young women to get it.
I will never forget a college professor that I had for psychology class. He had previously worked for a pharmaceutical company. He told us that if we learned nothing else in that class that semester, we needed to know to never take a new medication until it had been on the market for 7 years minimum. Has this one even been on the market for 7 months?

First of all this has nothing to do with pregnancy.......if insurance or the state will cover it for the uninsured why not get it? Children are required to get immunized for Hepatitis, Chicken Pox, Measles and Mumps and a few others.....Now a days it is very likely that a child 12 or 13 will have sex, sexually abused or raped....this can protect them......most girls don't get pap smears until they are in their later teens and if they have been sexually active for a few years HPV can progress, if it is caught in time they will have to have their uterus scraped to remove....probably not fun.....there are always people who want to buck the system just for the sake of it...I mean really what can this harm???? I cannot fathom why anyone would refuse their children immunizations....never any problems with any of my kids getting all their shots.